2015-05-29 Declaration of Rachal K Roberts With Supplemental Material

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
District Judge Thomas S. Zilly
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
10
11
CITIZENS OF THE EBEYS RESERVE

FOR A HEALTHY, SAFE & PEACEFUL
ENVIRONMENT,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
DECLARATION OF RACHEL K. ROBERTS
14
15
16
17
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY;

ADMIRAL PHIL DAVIDSON, in his
official capacity as the Commander, Fleet
Forces Command; and CAPTAIN MIKE
NORTIER, in his official capacity as
Commanding Officer Naval Air Station
Whidbey Island,
Defendants,
18
19
20
21
22
I, Rachel K. Roberts, declare as follows:

1.
I am an attorney for Defendants in the above-captioned case and am competent to
testify. The information in this declaration is based on my personal knowledge.
23
24
25
R. Roberts Declaration
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
-1-
U.S. Department of Justice

7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98115
2.
Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct tabulation of the annual number of
Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) operations flown at Outlying Field (OLF)
Coupeville every year from 1967 through 2014.
3.
Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of excerpts from Wyle Report WR
04-26, Aircraft Noise Study for Naval Air Station Whidbey Island and Outlying Field Coupeville
Washington, Wyle Laboratories, Oct. 2004.
4.
Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of excerpts from AICUZ Study
Update for Naval Air Station Whidbey Islands Ault Field and Outlying Field Coupeville,
Washington, The Onyx Group, March 2005.
10
5.
Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Finding of No Significant
11
Impact for the Replacement of EA-6B Aircraft with EA-18G Aircraft at Naval Air Station
12
Whidbey Island, Department of the Navy, July 19, 2005.
13
6.
Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a redacted version of an April
14
16, 2013 Department of the Navy Memorandum from the Director, Air Warfare, to the Director,
15
Energy and Environmental Readiness Division.
16
7.
Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Burden of Disease from
17
Environmental Noise, Quantification of Healthy Life Years Lost in Europe, World Health
18
Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2011.
19
20
21
22
8.
Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Environmental Noise, Sleep
and Health, Clinical Review, Alain Muzet, 11 Sleep Med. Rev. 135142 (2007).
9.
Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Night Noise Guidelines for
Europe, World Health Organization Europe, 2009.
23
24
25
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
-2-

Seattle, WA 98115
10.
Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of a series of emails between
myself and Mr. Mann, counsel for COER, dated between February 26, 2014, and March 13,
2014.
11.
Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of a print-out from the U.S. Naval
Observatory, Astronomical Applications Department, Sun and Moon Data for December 21,
2014, for Coupeville, Island County, Wash. Retrieved from
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/rstt/onedaytable on May 29, 2015.

12.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the Airport Environs Map
Island County, Island County Department of Planning and Community Development, April 9,
1992.
13.
Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the Island County- Population
Density map, Wash. Dept of Ecology, GIS Tech. Servs., September 7, 2012.
DATED May 29, 2015
JOHN C. CRUDEN
Assistant Attorney General
Environment and Natural Resources Division
14
15
16
s/ Rachel K. Roberts
RACHEL K. ROBERTS
Trial Attorney, Admitted to the Maryland Bar
United States Department of Justice
Natural Resources Section
Seattle WA 98115
(206) 526-6881 (tel); (206) 526-6665 (fax)
E-mail: rachel.roberts@usdoj.gov
17
18
19
20
BRIAN C. KIPNIS
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorneys Office
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
Seattle, Washington 98101-1271
Phone: (206) 553-7970
21
22
23
24
25
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
-3-

Seattle, WA 98115
Fax: (206) 553-4067

Brian.Kipnis@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Federal Defendants
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
-4-

Seattle, WA 98115
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 29, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
5
6
David S. Mann
Dated May 29, 2015
s/ Rachel K. Roberts
RACHEL K. ROBERTS
Trial Attorney, Admitted to the Maryland Bar
United States Department of Justice
Natural Resources Section
Seattle WA 98115
(206) 526-6881 (tel); (206) 526-6665 (fax)
E-mail: rachel.roberts@usdoj.gov
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
-5-

Seattle, WA 98115
Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A

AnnualNumberofFCLPsatOLFCoupeville
Year NumberofFCLPs
1,236
1967
27,130
1968
39,246
1969
37,218
1970
18,392
1971
13,572
1972
16,764
1973
21,180
1974
24,844
1975
17,810
1976
17,748
1977
24,378
1978
20,282
1979
12,190
1980
16,848
1981
14,472
1982
11,782
1983
12,726
1984
13,924
1985
22,232
1986
30,350
1987
30,442
1988
22,596
1989
32,080
1990
27,088
1991
25,844
1992
21,324
1993
21,628
1994
19,854
1995
13,066
1996
9,736
1997
6,808
1998
6,752
1999
6,378
2000
3,568
2001
4,100
2002
2003
7,684
2004
4,314
2005
3,529
2006
3,413
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
NumberofFCLPs
3,976
2,548
5,292
6,476
9,378
9,668
6,972
6,072
Source:Years19671991arefromArgentv.UnitedStates ,124F.3d1277,1279(Fed.Cir.1997);1976
2002areinAppendixA.4tothe2005EA;20032014arefrompersonalcommunicationwithNavy
officials
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit A to Roberts Declaration
U.S. Dept. of Justice

Seattle, WA 98115
Exhibit B
Prepared for:
The Onyx Group
1199 N. Fairfax Street
Suite 600
Alexandria, VA 22314
FINAL
Wyle Report
W R 0 4- 26
Aircraft Noise Study for

Naval Air Station
Whidbey Island and
Outlying Landing Field
Coupeville, Washington
Job No. 50832
October 2004
Prepared by:
Martin Schmidt-Bremer Jr.
J. Micah Downing
Geral Long
Timothy LeDoux
Vanessa Thompkins
W YLE L ABORATORIES, INC.
WYLE AVIATION SERVICES GROUP
2001 J EFFERSON D AVIS H IGHWAY
S UITE 701
A RLINGTON , VA 22202
T EL :: 703 415 4550
F AX : 703 415 4556
WWW . WYLELABS . COM
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit B to Roberts Declaration

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
Aircraft Noise Study for Naval Air Station Whidbey Island and
Outlying Landing Field Coupeville, Washington
FINAL
1.0 Introduction
Throughout the United States and overseas, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(NAVFACENGCOM) conducts aircraft noise surveys at various Naval and Marine Corps Air
Stations and associated facilities. The noise exposure contours developed during these studies are
integrated primarily into Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) studies or other
environmental documents, such as Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). These environmental
documents are employed by NAVFACENGCOM to promote the compatibility of Navy and
Marine Corps activities with neighboring land uses. This report presents the noise surveys
results for Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Islands Ault Field and Naval Outlying Landing
Field (OLF) Coupeville.
The reports purpose is to present the Existing aircraft noise exposure for aircraft operations at
NAS Whidbey Island for calendar year (CY) 03 and to present the Projected (CY13) aircraft noise
exposure resulting from the transition of all EA-6B to EA-18G aircraft.
Section 1.1 summarizes the noise metrics discussed throughout this report, Section 1.2 explains
the regulatory background pertaining to noise studies and Section 1.3 briefly describes the
computer noise analysis model used to compute noise exposure. Section 2 provides a description
of NAS Whidbey Island. Section 3 details flight and run-up operations, noise exposure, and
AICUZ-related information for Existing conditions (CY03). Section 4 presents these same
elements for the Projected (CY13) conditions, and Section 5 compares average annual day (AAD)
Existing, Projected and Local Communitys Approved DNL contours. Appendix A provides a
comprehensive discussion of how noise affects people and the environment. Appendix B
contains depictions and technical data of the aircraft modeled. Appendix C contains an
explanation of the abbreviations used.
1.1
Noise Metrics
Noise represents one of the most prominent environmental issues associated with aircraft
operations. Although many other sources of noise can be found in today's communities, aircraft
noise is readily identifiable. An assessment of aircraft noise requires a general understanding of
how sound is measured and how it affects people and the natural environment (See
Appendix A).
The noise environment around a military or civil airfield normally is described in terms of the
time-average sound level generated by the aircraft operating at that facility. These operations
consist of the flight activities conducted during an average annual day. Operations at military
airfields generally include fixed- and rotary-wing arrivals and departures, general vicinity flight
patterns and pre-flight and maintenance aircraft engine "run-ups."
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
U.S. Dept. of Justice 1-1

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
The federal noise measure used for assessing aircraft noise exposures in communities near air
installations is the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL, or Ldn ), described in terms of the
decibel (dB). DNL is an average sound level generated by all aviation-related operations during
an average 24-hour period. Acoustical daytime is defined as the period from 0700 to 2200
hours and acoustical nighttime is defined as the period from 2200 to 0700 hours the following
morning. Nighttime sound levels of noise events are emphasized by adding a 10-dB weighting.
The 10-dB weighting accounts for the generally lower background sound levels and greater
community sensitivity to noise during these hours. As explained in Appendix A, DNL has been
found to provide the best measure of long-term community reaction to transportation noises,
especially aircraft noise.
DNL employs A-weighted sound levels. A-weighted denotes the adjustment of the frequency
content of a noise event to represent the way in which the average human ear responds to that
sound energy.
1.2
Regulatory Background
This study was conducted under OPNAVInst 11010.36B for long range base planning under the
Navy AICUZ program. The Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN) was
formed in 1979 and it published Guidelines for Considering Noise In Land-Use Planning and
Control (FICUN, 1980). These guidelines complement federal agency criteria by providing for
the consideration of noise in all land-use planning and interagency/intergovernmental processes.
The FICUN established DNL as the most appropriate descriptor for all noise sources. In 1982,
EPA published Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis to provide all types of decision-makers with
analytic procedures to uniformly express and quantify noise impacts (U. S. EPA, 1982). The
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) endorsed DNL in 1990 as the acoustical measure
to be used in assessing compatibility between various land uses and outdoor noise environment
(ANSI, 1990). In 1992, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) reaffirmed the use
of DNL (or Ldn) as the principal aircraft noise descriptor in the document entitled Federal Agency
Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues (FICON, 1992).
1.3
Computerized Noise Exposure Model

Aircraft noise exposure and compatible land-use analyses around Department of the Navy
facilities generally use a computer program called NOISEMAP.
The latest NOISEMAP package of computer programs consists of BASEOPS Version 7.291,
OMEGA10, OMEGA11, NOISEMAP Version 7.2, NMPLOT Version 4.87, and the latest issue of
NOISEFILE. NOISEFILE is the Department of Defense aircraft noise database originating from
the noise measurements of controlled flyovers at prescribed power, speed, and drag
configurations for most military aircraft models. Runway coordinates, airfield information, flight
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
tracks, flight profiles (power and speed settings and altitudes) along each track by each aircraft,
numbers of flight operations, run-up coordinates, run-up profiles and run-up operations all can
be entered into the BASEOPS software. The OMEGA10 program extrapolates and interpolates the
Sound Exposure Levels (SELs) for flight operations for each aircraft model from the NOISEFILE
database. It takes into consideration the specified speeds, engine thrust settings and
environmental conditions appropriate to each type of flight operation. The OMEGA11 program
calculates maximum A-weighted sound levels from ground run-up operations for each aircraft
model. This program takes the engine thrust settings, and environmental conditions appropriate
to run-up operations into consideration. The core NOISEMAP program incorporates the number
of daytime and nighttime operations, flight paths, and aircraft profiles to calculate DNL values
over a regular grid of points in area of interest. The NMPLOT program draws equal DNL
contours for overlay onto land-use maps. For AICUZ studies, as a minimum, DNL contours of 65,
70, 75 and 80 dB are developed. NOISEMAP computer program results and noise impact
guidelines provide a relative measure of noise effects around air facilities. NOISEMAP also has
the flexibility of calculating sound levels at any specified point so that potential noise impacts at
noise sensitive locations around an airfield can be identified (United States Air Force, 1992).
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
3.0 Existing Aircraft Operations and Noise Exposure

3.1
Flight Operations
The number of flight operations (operations tempo) at NAS Whidbey Island has varied
dramatically over the 28 years of available data (1976-2003). Several variable factors interact with
each other differently to cause that variability. Some are relatively predictable factors (including,
but not limited to, the number of squadrons/aircraft/pilots-crews, minimum training
requirements, total annual flight hours available, etc.) and some are relatively unpredictable
factors (including, but not limited to, the number of deployments for higher headquarters
directed exercises, aircraft carrier deployment schedules, deployments directed by higher
authority in response to world events, etc.). The average (mean) operations tempo at NAS
Whidbey Island between 1976 and 2003 is 123,407 operations per year with a standard deviation
of 30,783 (NASWI CP&LO Oct 2004).
For 2003 the annual operations used for noise modeling were 81,959 for Ault Field and 7,682 for
Coupeville. Total operations figures for 2003 were reduced to account for general aviation
operations of aircraft that only transit the air space (aircraft that do not take off or land at Ault
Field) reported as total annual operations. According to NAS personnel, operations numbers in
2003 were even lower than in 2002 due to multiple deployments. Table 3-2 shows annual flight
operations for the Existing conditions at NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
Table 3-1. Modeled Flight Operations for NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville for CY 2003
Tenant
Name
Aircraft
Type
Operation
Type
Description
Departure
Departure
Interfacility - Whidbey Island to Coupeville
Total Departures
Overhead-Break
Interfacility - Coupeville to Whidbey Island
Arrival
CVWP
TACAN
IFR Full-Stop
EA-6B
Closed Pattern1
Departure
CPRW
Arrival
P-3
Closed Pattern1
TRANSPORT
C-9
STATION
C-12
TRANSIENT
CVWP
Departure
Arrival
Departure
Arrival
Transient
Departure
Arrival
2, 3
Closed Pattern1
at OLF
EA-6B
Total Arrivals
FCLP
Touch and Go
Depart and ReEnter
GCA Box
Total Closed Pattern Operations
CVWP TOTAL
LO-TACAN
IFR
Total Departures
VFR
LO-TACAN
IFR Full-Stop
Total Arrivals
Touch and Go
GCA Box
Total Closed Pattern Operations
CPRW TOTAL
Departure
Straight-In Arrival
Transport TOTAL
Departure
Straight-In Arrival
Station TOTAL
Departure
Straight-In Arrival
Transient TOTAL
AULT FIELD TOTAL
FCLP
OLF COUPEVILLE TOTAL
Total Number of Modeled Operations for 2003 (all aircraft)
CY03 Operations
0700-2200 2200-0700
3,935
241
531
109
4,466
350
1,860
136
531
109
411
25
1,643
101
4,445
371
18,983
3,967
9,160
433
238
17
2,032
1,832
30,413
6,249
39,324
6,970
4,289
81
3,668
145
7,957
226
4,290
81
1,834
72
1,834
72
7,958
225
12,867
244
4,661
175
17,528
419
33,443
870
211
114
211
114
422
227
65
35
65
35
129
70
164
88
164
88
328
176
73,646
8,313
6,390
1,292
6,390
1,292
80,036
9,605
Total
4,176
640
4,816
1,996
640
436
1,744
4,816
22,950
9,593
255
3,864
36,662
46,294
4,370
3,813
8,183
4,371
1,906
1,906
8,183
13,111
4,836
17,947
34,313
325
325
649
100
100
199
252
252
504
81,959
7,682
7,682
89,641
1 Counted as 2 operations
2 Operation Numbers derived from 2004 ATAC Draft Report - Day/Night Split Percentage (65% / 35%) from WR 94-13
3 Transient aircraft modeled as P-3
Source: Brown, 12 August 2004
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
3.2.4 Interfacility Tracks

Figure 3-9 illustrates the interfacility tracks from NAS Whidbey Island to OLF Coupeville and
Figure 3-10 illustrates the interfacility tracks from OLF Coupeville to NAS Whidbey Island. Each
of NAS Whidbey Islands runways has two tracks going to OLF Coupeville, one for each of OLF
Coupevilles runways. Similarly, each of OLF Coupevilles runways has four tracks returning to
NAS Whidbey Island, one for each of NAS Whidbey Islands runways. All interfacility tracks are
routed to minimize overflight of residential areas.
3.2.5 Pattern Tracks at NAS Whidbey Island

There are 40 pattern tracks depicted for NAS Whidbey Island. Pattern tracks are divided into 4
Depart and Re-Enter, 24 Tower Pattern (Touch and Go/FCLP) and 12 GCA box tracks.
The Depart and Re-Enter tracks are located north and west of NAS Whidbey Island for noise
mitigation purposes (Figures 3-11 and 3-12).
Pattern Tower (Touch and Go and FCLP) tracks are identical to each other and are thus not listed
separately (Figures 3-13 and 3-14). As described in Section 3.2.3, Runways 07, 13 and 25 have
three daytime and three nighttime tracks with abeam distances ranging from about 1 NM for
tight daytime tracks to about 1.9 NM for wide nighttime tracks. Of the six tracks per runway, the
wide daytime and tight nighttime tracks are identical. Just as with the overhead break arrival
tracks, Runway 25 also has a peculiar center daytime track, referred to as the pork-chop track
of the same description and for the same reason. Runway 31 is also different in that there are
only four distinct tracks. The center daytime and tight nighttime tracks and the wide daytime
and center nighttime tracks have identical abeam distances.
The GCA pattern tracks (Figures 3-15 and 3-16) are utilized from all four runways at NAS
Whidbey Island.
3.2.6 FCLP Tracks at OLF Coupeville

Figures 3-17 through 3-18 illustrate the 12 FCLP tracks used at the OLF. Each track on
Runway 14 is unique. Various distances, such as the abeam distance, increase starting with the
tight daytime track and ending with the wide nighttime track. The difference in length between
the downwind leg, and thus of the final leg of the wide daytime and tight nighttime tracks, is
about 0.7 NM, which results in a noticeably larger, tight nighttime track.
The tracks on Runway 32, on the other hand, follow the distances outlined in Sections 3.2.3
and 3.2.5. There are three daytime and three nighttime tracks with abeam distances ranging from
about 1 NM for tight daytime tracks to about 1.6 NM for wide nighttime tracks. Of the six tracks
per runway, the wide daytime and tight nighttime tracks are identical.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
3.3
Flight Profiles and Climatic Data

Aircraft profile data for based and transient aircraft came from several sources. Aircraft flight
profiles for the EA-6B were previously developed and approved by the US Navy for use in this
study (Papapietro, 2004). P-3 profiles were obtained through interviews with based pilots (Wyle
Laboratories Acoustics Group, 2004). Standard NOISEMAP profiles were used for the C-9 and
C-12. All profiles for the EA-6B and EA-18G are documented in Wyle Report 04-08, Revised
(Downing and Schmidt-Bremer Jr, 2004). Transient aircraft were modeled based on P-3 profiles.
Since weather is a factor in the propagation of noise, NOISEMAP requires the monthly average
temperatures and relative humidity values to determine the appropriate values to represent the
given year. The appropriate values for entry into NOISEMAP for CY03 for NAS Whidbey Island
and OLF Coupeville are 50F (10C) and 79% Relative Humidity (RH), as calculated based on the
data provided by the weather observer at Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography
Detachment Whidbey Island (Wyle Laboratories Acoustics Group, 2004). This data is presented
in chart-format in Charts 3-1 and 3-2.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
Calendar Month (2003)
Average Monthly Temperatures
Average Monthly Humidity
Chart 3-1. Temperature and Humidity Data for NAS Whidbey Island
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
Calendar Month (2003)
Average Monthly Temperatures
Average Monthly Humidity
Chart 3-2. Temperature and Humidity Data for OLF Coupeville
3.4
Pre-Flight and Maintenance Run-Up Operations

Pre-flight run-ups were modeled for the EA-6B aircraft with a power setting of approximately
95% RPM for a duration of one second prior to brake release.
In-frame and out-of-frame (test cell) maintenance run-up operations data for the EA-6B are
documented in WR 04-08, Revised (Downing and Schmidt-Bremer Jr., 2004). The data for the P-3
were collected by phone and email communication with maintenance personnel from Patrol
Reconnaissance Wing 10 (CPRW-10) (Dudley, 2004). Table 3-8 displays all modeled maintenance
operations data.
3.5
Noise Exposure
Using the data described in Sections 3.1 through 3.4, NOISEMAP 7.2 with topography was used
to calculate the 60 dB through 85 dB DNL contours for the AAD flight operations for CY03, and
the results are shown in Figure 3-19.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
Aside from covering large areas of Island County, Figure 3-19 shows that the Existing (CY03)
AAD 60 dB DNL contour extends northwest reaching San Juan County, north and east over
Skagit County. The 65 dB contour remains over Island County for the most part, except for small
parts of Skagit County where it reaches across Similk and Skagit Bays.
Table 3-9 shows the impacts of Existing aircraft operations at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville.
Listed are population numbers, housing units and area in acres within the 60 to 85+ dB DNL
contours at 5 dB increments. Ault Field and OLF Coupeville property and bodies of water are
not included in the population and housing impact calculations. For Ault Field, the Existing 65 to
less than 75 dB AAD DNL contour band contains 10,077 acres in off-station land area and an
estimated population of 9,327 (Table 3-9). An estimated 52 people would be exposed to a DNL
greater than 85 dB. An estimated 21 housing units are located within this contour band. For OLF
Coupeville approximately 7,426 acres, 1,983 people and 1,011 housing units were impacted by the
65 to less than 75 dB DNL contour band. An estimated three people were exposed to a DNL
greater than 85 dB.
The population data was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau 2000 census.
Census
block-groups surrounding the NAS and the OLF were extracted from the most recent
Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) files, while
demographic data were extracted from the Summary Tape File 1A (STF1A). The total area
outside the boundaries of both Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, and the number of residents and
houses within each contour band, were then calculated for comparison purposes. Populations
calculated with U.S. Census data are estimates and are most useful in determining relative
change in population impact between different noise contours.
Ault Field
60
65
70
75
80
85
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
Existing CY03 DNL Contours

Level (dB)
Population
Housing Units Area (acres)
to less than 65 dB
15720
7320
31228
to less than 70 dB
5715
2560
6085
to less than 75 dB
3612
1477
3992
to less than 80 dB
2674
1120
5354
to less than 85 dB
289
145
926
+
52
21
157
OLF Coupeville
Table 3-8. Impacts of Existing CY03 Operations at NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville
60
65
70
75
80
85
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
to
to
to
to
to
+
less
less
less
less
less
than
than
than
than
than
65
70
75
80
85
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
1372
1211
772
385
19
3
686
626
385
185
9
1
2441
4731
2695
1091
181
25
Notes: 2000 Census data utilized

All counts exclude NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville boundaries and
bodies of water
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
4.1
Pre-flight and Maintenance Run-up Operations

Preflight run-up operations are generally not accomplished for the based aircraft, thus none were
modeled.
Table 4-3 presents the modeled maintenance run-up operations for the Projected conditions for
the EA-18G and the P-3. All maintenance run-up operations for the P-3 remain unchanged from
Existing conditions.
4.2
Noise Exposure
Using the data described above and in Section 3, NOISEMAP 7.2 with topography was used to
calculate the 60 dB through 85 dB DNL contours for the AAD operations of the Projected
condition, and the results are shown in Figure 4-1.
Projected condition DNL contours are smaller than Existing condition contours, such that the
counties of San Juan and Snohomish County are no longer encompassed by the 60 dB DNL
contour. The 60 dB DNL contour does, however, penetrate the western border of Skagit County
and the 65 dB DNL contour extends into Skagit Bay. The 70 dB DNL and greater Projected
condition contours resemble the 70+ dB and greater Existing condition DNL contours, and they
cover large parts of Island County.
Table 4-4 shows the impacts of Projected aircraft operations from Ault Field and OLF Coupeville.
Listed are population numbers, housing units and area in acres within the 60 to 85+ dB DNL
contours at 5 dB increments. For Ault Field, the Projected 65 to less than 75 dB AAD DNL
contour band contains 6,807 acres in off-station land area and an estimated population of 5,636
(Table 4-4). An estimated 2,369 housing units are located within this contour band. There are 27
people estimated to be exposed to an AAD DNL greater than 85 dB. For OLF Coupeville,
approximately 7,432 acres, 1,785 people and 900 housing units are impacted by the 65 to less than
75 dB DNL contour band. There are no people estimated to be exposed to an AAD DNL greater
than 85 dB. The computed contour areas exclude bodies of water and the areas of Ault Field and
OLF Coupeville themselves.
The population data was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau 2000 census; while updated data
was requested from the local communities, it remains unavailable. Census block-groups
surrounding Ault Field and OLF Coupeville were extracted from the most recent
outside the boundaries of Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, and the number of residents and
housing units within each contour band, were then calculated for comparison purposes.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
Ault Field
60
65
70
75
80
85
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
Projected CY13 DNL Contours

Level (dB)
Population Housing Units Area (acres)
to less than 65 dB
3965
1659
4441
to less than 70 dB
2982
1271
2723
to less than 75 dB
2654
1098
4084
to less than 80 dB
2080
894
4505
to less than 85 dB
141
64
539
+
27
11
120
OLF Coupeville
Table 4-4. Impacts of Projected CY13 Operations at NAS Whidbey Island
60
65
70
75
80
85
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
to
to
to
to
to
+
less
less
less
less
less
than
than
than
than
than
65
70
75
80
85
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
480
1196
589
224
4
0
273
609
291
106
2
0
1545
4742
2690
497
38
1

All counts exclude NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville boundaries and
bodies of water
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
5.0 Noise Exposure Contour Comparisons

In this section, contours for the local communitys Approved conditions are introduced, and then
a comparison of three sets of contours is presented. First, a comparison is provided between the
Existing and Projected condition contours. Then the local communitys Approved contours are
compared against both Existing condition contours, as well as the Projected condition contours.
5.1
Local Communitys Approved Conditions Contours

Figure 5-1 shows the local communitys Approved 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB DNL contours for
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. The data used to plot these contours was provided by the
Onyx Group (Dorn, 2004).
Table 5-1 shows the impacts of the local communitys Approved noise contours around
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. Listed are population numbers, housing units and area in acres
within the 60 to 75+ dB contours at 5 dB increments. For Ault Field, the 65 to less than 75 dB
DNL contour band contains 7695 acres in off-station land area and an estimated population of
6,284. An estimated 2,629 housing units are located within this contour band. For OLF
Coupeville, the 65 to less than 75 dB DNL contour band contains 8,964 acres in off-station land
area and an estimated population of 2,801. Approximately 1,410 housing units are located within
this contour band.
The population data was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau 2000 census.
Census
block-groups surrounding the NAS and the OLF were extracted from the most recent
outside the boundaries of Ault Field and OLF Coupeville and the number of residents and
housing units within each contour band were then calculated for comparison purposes.
5.2
Comparison of Existing versus Projected Conditions Contours

Figure 5-2 shows a comparison of the Existing (CY03) and Projected (CY13) 65 through 75 dB
DNL contours for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. The figure shows clearly that the transition
from the EA-6B to the EA-18G would result in a reduction in noise impact around both Ault Field
and OLF Coupeville. This is further demonstrated in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 which show a reduction
in area, people and housing units impacted by as much as 86 percent in one particular attribute,
as a result of the replacement of the EA-6B with the EA-18G. This is primarily attributed to the
better performance of the EA-18G, e.g., its climb-out rate is much faster that that of the EA-6B.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
OLF
Coupeville
Ault Field
Table 5-1. Impacts of Community's Approved Contours at NAS Whidbey Island

Local Community's Approved DNL Contours
Level (dB)
Population Housing
60 dB to less than 65 dB
7682
4782
1502
75 dB +
3195
60
65
70
75
dB
dB
dB
dB
to less than 65 dB
to less than 70 dB
to less than 75 dB
+
1931
1425
1376
1201
Units Area (acres)

3457
7715
1972
4093
657
3602
1337
6693
906
702
708
601
3541
3963
5001
2981

All counts exclude NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville boundaries and bo
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
Table 5-2. Impacts of Existing versus Projected Conditions Contours Around Ault Field
EXISTING VERSUS PROJECTED CONDITIONS CONTOURS AROUND AULT FIELD
Population
DNL (dB)
CY2003
CY2013
Difference
60 to less than 65
15,720
3,965
65 to less than 70
5,715
2,982
-48%
70 to less than 75
3,612
2,654
-27%
75 +
3,015
2,248
-25%
Housing Units
DNL (dB)
CY2003
CY2013
-75%
Difference
60 to less than 65
7,320
1,659
-77%
65 to less than 70
2,650
1,271
-52%
70 to less than 75
1,477
1,098
-26%
75 +
1,286
969
-25%
Area (acres)
DNL (dB)
Difference
CY2003
CY2013
60 to less than 65
31,228
4,441
-86%
65 to less than 70
6,085
2,723
-55%
70 to less than 75
3,992
4,084
2%
75 +
6,437
5,164
-20%
Notes: Census Data: 2000

All counts exclude bodies of water
Negative percentages show decreases
Table 5-3. Impacts of Existing versus Projected Conditions Contours Around OLF Coupeville
EXISTING VERSUS PROJECTED CONDITIONS CONTOURS AROUND OLF COUPEVILLE
Population
DNL (dB)
Difference
CY2003
CY2013
60 to less than 65
1,372
480
-65%
65 to less than 70
1,211
1,196
-1%
70 to less than 75
772
589
-24%
75 +
407
228
-44%
Housing Units
DNL (dB)
Difference
CY2003
CY2013
60 to less than 65
686
273
-60%
65 to less than 70
626
609
-3%
70 to less than 75
385
291
-24%
75 +
195
108
-45%
Area (acres)
DNL (dB)
Difference
CY2003
CY2013
60 to less than 65
2,441
1,545
-37%
65 to less than 70
4,731
4,742
0%
70 to less than 75
2,695
2,690
0%
75 +
1,297
536
-59%
Notes: Census Data: 2000
All counts exclude bodies of water
Negative percentages show decreases
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
5.3
Comparison of Existing versus Local Communitys Approved

Conditions Contours
Figure 5-3 shows a comparison of the Existing (CY03) and local communitys Approved noise
contours for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. This comparison shows that the area impacted
under the local communitys Approved contours around Ault Field is actually smaller (for the
most part) than the one under Existing conditions. This does not hold true for OLF Coupeville,
however, where the local communitys Approved contours are larger than the Existing condition
contours. The reasons for the difference are unknown; however, noise propagation due to the
effects of topography and transmission of noise over water was probably not considered during
the modeling of the local communitys Approved condition contours as the technology did not
exist until recently.
5.4
Comparison of Projected versus Local Communitys Approved

Conditions Contours
Noise contours under the local communitys Approved conditions and under the Navys
Projected (CY13) conditions for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville are shown in Figure 5-4. The
noise impact in CY13 would be smaller, with the exception of the 65 dB DNL contour east of
Ault Field which protrudes slightly into Skagit County. The larger contours north and south of
Ault Field are over water and would thus not impact any population. The impact around the
OLF would largely decrease.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

October 2004
WR 04-26
DRAFT
References
American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI). 1990. Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of
Compatible Land Use. ANSI S12.40-1990 and ASA 88-1990.
ATAC Corporation. 2004. Draft Airfield and Airspace Baseline Development Study, 2 May 2004.
Brown, Cdr, Lt, 12 August 2004. Air Traffic Control, NAS Whidbey Island. Phone and email
communication with Martin Schmidt-Bremer Jr.
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA). 1977. Guidelines for Preparing
Environmental Impact Statements on Noise. The National Research Council, National Academy of
Sciences.
Dorn, Greg, 22 July 2004. The Onyx Group GIS/Planner. Email correspondence with Martin SchmidtBremer Jr.
Downing, Micah, and Schmidt-Bremer Jr, M. 2004. Operational Noise Comparison Between EA-6B and
EA-18G at NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville. Wyle Report 04-08 Revised, May 2004.
Dudley, Eric, ADC, 10 July 2004. Aircraft Maintenance, Patrol Reconnaissance Wing. NAS Whidbey
Island. Phone and email correspondence with Martin Schmidt-Bremer Jr.
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport
Noise Analysis Issues, August.
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN). 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in
Land-Use Planning and Control, August.
Melaas, Richard, August 2004. CP&L Officer, NAS Whidbey Island. Personal and email correspondence
with Martin Schmidt-Bremer Jr.
Noise Control Act of 1972. 1972. Retrieved 16 July 2002, from http://hydra.gsa.gov/pbs/pt/
call-in/nca.htm.
Papapietro, Antony F., CAPT, USN, 24 August 2004.
correspondence with Martin Schmidt-Bremer Jr.
CNAF Requirements Officer.
Email
United States Air Force. 1992. Air Force Procedure for Predicting Noise Around Airbases: Noise
Exposure Model (NOISEMAP) Technical Report. Report AL-TR-1992-0059.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1982.
Report 550/9-82-105 and #PB82-219205, April 1982.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis.
U.S. Dept. of Justice R-1

Seattle, WA 98115

October 2004
WR 04-26
DRAFT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1972. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety.
Report 550/9-74-004. March 1982.
Wyle Laboratories Acoustics Group, 2004. Site Visit to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, 15 to
19 March 2004 by Martin Schmidt-Bremer Jr and Micah Downing.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
U.S. Dept. of Justice R-2

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
APPENDIX A
DISCUSSION OF NOISE AND ITS EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
U.S. Dept. of Justice A-1

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
Appendix A
Discussion of Noise and Its Effect on The Environment
A.1
Basics of Sound
Noise is unwanted sound. Sound is all around us; sound becomes noise when it interferes with
normal activities, such as sleep or conversation.
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium,
such as air, and are sensed by the human ear. Whether that sound is interpreted as pleasant (e.g.,
music) or unpleasant (e.g., jackhammers) depends largely on the listeners current activity, past
experience, and attitude toward the source of that sound.
The measurement and human perception of sound involves three basic physical characteristics:
intensity, frequency, and duration. First, intensity is a measure of the acoustic energy of the
sound vibrations and is expressed in terms of sound pressure. The greater the sound pressure,
the more energy carried by the sound and the louder the perception of that sound. The second
important physical characteristic of sound is frequency, which is the number of times per second
the air vibrates or oscillates. Low-frequency sounds are characterized as rumbles or roars, while
high-frequency sounds are typified by sirens or screeches. The third important characteristic of
sound is duration or the length of time the sound can be detected.
The loudest sounds that can be detected comfortably by the human ear have intensities that are a
trillion times higher than those of sounds that can barely be detected. Because of this vast range,
using a linear scale to represent the intensity of sound becomes very unwieldy. As a result, a
logarithmic unit known as the decibel (abbreviated dB) is used to represent the intensity of a
sound. Such a representation is called a sound level. A sound level of 0 dB is approximately the
threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet listening conditions.
Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dB; sound levels above 120 dB begin to be
felt inside the human ear as discomfort. Sound levels between 130 to 140 dB are felt as pain
(Berglund and Lindvall 1995).
Because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be arithmetically added
or subtracted and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically. However, some simple
rules are useful in dealing with sound levels. First, if a sounds intensity is doubled, the sound
level increases by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound level. For example:
60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB, and
80 dB + 80 dB = 83 dB.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
Second, the total sound level produced by two sounds of different levels is usually only slightly
more than the higher of the two. For example:
60.0 dB + 70.0 dB = 70.4 dB.
Because the addition of sound levels is different than that of ordinary numbers, such addition is
often referred to as decibel addition or energy addition. The latter term arises from the fact
that what we are really doing when we add decibel values is first converting each decibel value
to its corresponding acoustic energy, then adding the energies using the normal rules of addition,
and finally converting the total energy back to its decibel equivalent.
The minimum change in the sound level of individual events that an average human ear can
detect is about 3 dB. On average, a person perceives a change in sound level of about 10 dB as a
doubling (or halving) of the sounds loudness, and this relation holds true for loud and quiet
sounds. A decrease in sound level of 10 dB actually represents a 90% decrease in sound intensity
but only a 50% decrease in perceived loudness because of the nonlinear response of the human
ear (similar to most human senses).
Sound frequency is measured in terms of cycles per second (cps), or hertz (Hz), which is the
standard unit for cps. The normal human ear can detect sounds that range in frequency from
about 20 Hz to about 15,000 Hz. All sounds in this wide range of frequencies, however, are not
heard equally by the human ear, which is most sensitive to frequencies in the 1,000 to 4,000 Hz
range. Weighting curves have been developed to correspond to the sensitivity and perception of
different types of sound. A-weighting and C-weighting are the two most common weightings.
A-weighting accounts for frequency dependence by adjusting the very high and very low
frequencies (below approximately 500 Hz and above approximately 10,000 Hz) to approximate
the human ears lower sensitivities to those frequencies. C-weighting is nearly flat throughout
the range of audible frequencies, hardly de-emphasizing the low frequency sound while
approximating the human ears sensitivity to higher intensity sounds. The two curves shown in
Figure A-1 are also the most adequate to quantify environmental noises.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
C-Weighted
A-Weighted
Relative Level (dB)
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
16000
Frequency (Hz)
Source: ANSI S1.4 -1983 Specification of Sound Level Meters
Figure A-1. Frequency Response Characteristics of A and C Weighting Networks
A-Weighted Sound Level
Sound levels that are measured using A-weighting, called A-weighted sound levels, are often
denoted by the unit dBA or dB(A) rather than dB. When the use of A-weighting is understood,
the adjective A-weighted is often omitted and the measurements are expressed as dB. In this
report (as in most environmental impact documents), dB units refer to A-weighted sound levels.
Noise potentially becomes an issue when its intensity exceeds the ambient or background sound
pressures. Ambient background noise in metropolitan, urbanized areas typically varies from 60
to 70 dB and can be as high as 80 dB or greater; quiet suburban neighborhoods experience
ambient noise levels of approximately 45-50 dB (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1978).
Figure A-2 is a chart of A-weighted sound levels from typical sounds. Some noise sources (air
conditioner, vacuum cleaner) are continuous sounds which levels are constant for some time.
Some (automobile, heavy truck) are the maximum sound during a vehicle pass-by. Some (urban
daytime, urban nighttime) are averages over extended periods. A variety of noise metrics have
been developed to describe noise over different time periods, as discussed below.
Aircraft noise consists of two major types of sound events: aircraft takeoffs and landings, and
engine maintenance operations. The former can be described as intermittent sounds and the
latter as continuous. Noise levels from flight operations exceeding background noise typically
occur beneath main approach and departure corridors, in local air traffic patterns around the
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
airfield, and in areas immediately adjacent to parking ramps and aircraft staging areas. As
aircraft in flight gain altitude, their noise contribution drops to lower levels, often becoming
indistinguishable from the background.
Common Sounds
Sound Level
(dBA)
Loudness
Compared to 70 dB
130
Air raid siren at 50 ft
(threshold of pain)
Uncomfortable
Maximum levels in
audience at rock concerts
110
On platform by passing
train
100
Typical airliner (B737)

3 miles from take-off
(directly under flight path)
90
On sidewalk by passing
bus
32 x as loud
120
16 x as loud
Very Loud
80
On sidewalk by passing
typical automobile
70
Busy office
60
Typical suburban area

background
50
4 x as loud
Moderate
Quiet
1/4 x as loud
40
Library
Bedroom at night
Isolated broadcast study
30
Leaves rustling
20
Just Audible
10
Threshold of Hearing
1/16 x as loud
Source: Handbook of Environmental Acoustics, James P. Cowan, 1994
Figure A-2. Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels of Common Sounds
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
C-weighted Sound Level
Sound levels measured using a C-weighting are most appropriately called C-weighted sound
levels (and noted dBC). C-weighting is nearly flat throughout the audible frequency range,
hardly de-emphasizing the low frequency. This weighting scale is generally used to describe
impulsive sounds. Sounds that are characterized as impulsive generally contain low frequencies.
Impulsive sounds may induce secondary effects, such as shaking of a structure, rattling of
windows, inducing vibrations. These secondary effects can cause additional annoyance and
complaints.
The following definitions in the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) Report S12.9, Part 4
provide general concepts helpful in understanding impulsive sounds (American National
Standards Institute 1996).
Impulsive Sound: Sound characterized by brief excursions of sound pressure (acoustic impulses)
that significantly exceeds the ambient environmental sound pressure. The duration of a single
impulsive sound is usually less than one second (American National Standards Institute 1996).
Highly Impulsive Sound: Sound from one of the following enumerated categories of sound
sources: small-arms gunfire, metal hammering, wood hammering, drop hammering, pile driving,
drop forging, pneumatic hammering, pavement breaking, metal impacts during rail-yard
shunting operation, and riveting.
High-energy Impulsive Sound: Sound from one of the following enumerated categories of sound
sources: quarry and mining explosions, sonic booms, demolition and industrial processes that
use high explosives, military ordnance (e.g., armor, artillery and mortar fire, and bombs),
explosive ignition of rockets and missiles, explosive industrial circuit breakers, and any other
explosive source where the equivalent mass of dynamite exceeds 25 grams.
A.2
Noise Metrics
As used in environmental noise analyses, a metric refers to the unit or quantity that
quantitatively measures the effect of noise on the environment. To quantify these effects, the
Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration use three noise-measuring
techniques, or metrics: first, a measure of the highest sound level occurring during an individual
aircraft overflight (single event); second, a combination of the maximum level of that single event
with its duration; and third, a description of the noise environment based on the cumulative
flight and engine maintenance activity. Single noise events can be described with Sound
Exposure Level or Maximum Sound Level. Another measure of instantaneous level is the Peak
Sound Pressure Level. The cumulative energy noise metric used is the Day/Night Average
Sound Level. Metrics related to DNL include the Onset-Rate Adjusted Day/Night Average
Sound Level, and the Equivalent Sound Level. In the state of California, it is mandated that
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
average noise be described in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (State of California
1990). CNEL represents the Day/Evening/Night average noise exposure, calculated over a
24-hour period. Metrics and their uses are described below.
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax)
The highest A-weighted integrated sound level measured during a single event in which the
sound level changes value with time (e.g., an aircraft overflight) is called the maximum
A-weighted sound level or maximum sound level.
During an aircraft overflight, the noise level starts at the ambient or background noise level, rises
to the maximum level as the aircraft flies closest to the observer, and returns to the background
level as the aircraft recedes into the distance. The maximum sound level indicates the maximum
sound level occurring for a fraction of a second. For aircraft noise, the "fraction of a second" over
which the maximum level is defined is generally 1/8 second, and is denoted as "fast" response
(American National Standards Institute 1988). Slowly varying or steady sounds are generally
measured over a period of one second, denoted "slow" response. The maximum sound level is
important in judging the interference caused by a noise event with conversation, TV or radio
listening, sleep, or other common activities. Although it provides some measure of the
intrusiveness of the event, it does not completely describe the total event, because it does not
include the period of time that the sound is heard.
Peak Sound Pressure Level (Lpk)
The peak sound pressure level, is the highest instantaneous level obtained by a sound level
measurement device. The peak sound pressure level is typically measured using a 20
microseconds or faster sampling rate, and is typically based on unweighted or linear response of
the meter.
Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
Sound exposure level is a composite metric that represents both the intensity of a sound and its
duration. Individual time-varying noise events (e.g., aircraft overflights) have two main
characteristics: a sound level that changes throughout the event and a period of time during
which the event is heard. SEL provides a measure of the net impact of the entire acoustic event,
but it does not directly represent the sound level heard at any given time. During an aircraft
flyover, SEL would include both the maximum noise level and the lower noise levels produced
during onset and recess periods of the overflight.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
SEL is a logarithmic measure of the total acoustic energy transmitted to the listener during the
event. Mathematically, it represents the sound level of a constant sound that would, in one
second, generate the same acoustic energy as the actual time-varying noise event. For sound
from aircraft overflights, which typically lasts more than one second, the SEL is usually greater
than the Lmax because an individual overflight takes seconds and the maximum sound level (Lmax)
occurs instantaneously. SEL represents the best metric to compare noise levels from overflights.
Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
Day-Night Average Sound Level and Community Noise Equivalent Level are composite metrics
that account for SEL of all noise events in a 24-hour period. In order to account for increased
human sensitivity to noise at night, a 10 dB penalty is applied to nighttime events (10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. time period). A variant of the DNL, the CNEL level includes a 5-decibel penalty on
noise during the 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. time period, and a 10-decibel penalty on noise during the
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. time period.
The above-described metrics are average quantities, mathematically representing the continuous
A-weighted or C-weighted sound level that would be present if all of the variations in sound
level that occur over a 24-hour period were smoothed out so as to contain the same total sound
energy. These composite metrics account for the maximum noise levels, the duration of the
events (sorties or operations), and the number of events that occur over a 24-hour period. Like
SEL, neither DNL nor CNEL represent the sound level heard at any particular time, but
quantifies the total sound energy received. While it is normalized as an average, it represents all
of the sound energy, and is therefore a cumulative measure.
The penalties added to both the DNL and CNEL metrics account for the added intrusiveness of
sounds that occur during normal sleeping hours, both because of the increased sensitivity to
noise during those hours and because ambient sound levels during nighttime are typically about
10 dB lower than during daytime hours.
The inclusion of daytime and nighttime periods in the computation of the DNL and CNEL
reflects their basic 24-hour definition. It can, however, be applied over periods of multiple days.
For application to civil airports, where operations are consistent from day to day, DNL and
CNEL are usually applied as an annual average. For some military airbases, where operations
are not necessarily consistent from day to day, a common practice is to compute a 24-hour DNL
or CNEL based on an average busy day, so that the calculated noise is not diluted by periods of
low activity.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
Although DNL and CNEL provide a single measure of overall noise impact, they do not provide
specific information on the number of noise events or the individual sound levels that occur
during the 24-hour day. For example, a daily average sound level of 65 dB could result from a
very few noisy events or a large number of quieter events.
Daily average sound levels are typically used for the evaluation of community noise effects (i.e.,
long-term annoyance), and particularly aircraft noise effects. In general, scientific studies and
social surveys have found a high correlation between the percentages of groups of people highly
annoyed and the level of average noise exposure measured in DNL (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1978 and Schultz 1978). The correlation from Schultz's original 1978 study is
shown in Figure A-3. It represents the results of a large number of social surveys relating
community responses to various types of noises, measured in day-night average sound level.
Figure A-3. Community Surveys of Noise Annoyance
A more recent study has reaffirmed this relationship (Fidell, et al. 1991). Figure A-4 (Federal
Interagency Committee On Noise 1992) shows an updated form of the curve fit (Finegold, et al.
1994) in comparison with the original. The updated fit, which does not differ substantially from
the original, is the current preferred form. In general, correlation coefficients of 0.85 to 0.95 are
found between the percentages of groups of people highly annoyed and the level of average
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
noise exposure. The correlation coefficients for the annoyance of individuals are relatively low,
however, on the order of 0.5 or less. This is not surprising, considering the varying personal
factors that influence the manner in which individuals react to noise. However, for the
evaluation of community noise impacts, the scientific community has endorsed the use of DNL
(American National Standards Institute 1980; American National Standards Institute 1988; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 1972; Federal Interagency Committee On Urban Noise 1980
and Federal Interagency Committee On Noise 1992).
The use of DNL (CNEL in California) has been criticized as not accurately representing
community annoyance and land-use compatibility with aircraft noise. Much of that criticism
stems from a lack of understanding of the basis for the measurement or calculation of DNL. One
frequent criticism is based on the inherent feeling that people react more to single noise events
and not as much to "meaningless" time-average sound levels.
Figure A-4. Response of Communities to Noise; Comparison of Original (Schultz, 1978) and
Current (Finegold, et al. 1994) Curve Fits
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
U.S. Dept. of JusticeA-10

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
In fact, a time-average noise metric, such as DNL and CNEL, takes into account both the noise
levels of all individual events that occur during a 24-hour period and the number of times those
events occur. The logarithmic nature of the decibel unit causes the noise levels of the loudest
events to control the 24-hour average.
As a simple example of this characteristic, consider a case in which only one aircraft overflight
occurs during the daytime over a 24-hour period, creating a sound level of 100 dB for 30 seconds.
During the remaining 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 30 seconds of the day, the ambient sound level is
50 dB. The day-night average sound level for this 24-hour period is 65.9 dB. Assume, as a second
example, that 10 such 30-second overflights occur during daytime hours during the next 24-hour
period, with the same ambient sound level of 50 dB during the remaining 23 hours and 55
minutes of the day. The day-night average sound level for this 24-hour period is 75.5 dB.
Clearly, the averaging of noise over a 24-hour period does not ignore the louder single events and
tends to emphasize both the sound levels and number of those events.
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq)
Another cumulative noise metric that is useful in describing noise is the equivalent sound level.
Leq is calculated to determine the steady-state noise level over a specified time period. The Leq
metric can provide a more accurate quantification of noise exposure for a specific period,
particularly for daytime periods when the nighttime penalty under the DNL metric is
inappropriate.
Just as SEL has proven to be a good measure of the noise impact of a single event, Leq has been
established to be a good measure of the impact of a series of events during a given time period.
Also, while Leq is defined as an average, it is effectively a sum over that time period and is, thus, a
measure of the cumulative impact of noise. For example, the sum of all noise-generating events
during the period of 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. could provide the relative impact of noise generating events
for a school day.
Onset-Rate Adjusted Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldnr)
Military aircraft flying on Military Training Routes (MTRs) and in Restricted Areas/Ranges
generate a noise environment that is somewhat different from that associated with airfield
operations. As opposed to patterned or continuous noise environments associated with airfields,
overflights along MTRs are highly sporadic, ranging from 10 per hour to less than one per week.
Individual military overflight events also differ from typical community noise events in that
noise from a low-altitude, high-airspeed flyover can have a rather sudden onset, exhibiting a rate
of increase in sound level (onset rate) of up to 150 dB per second.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
To represent these differences, the conventional DNL metric is adjusted to account for the
surprise effect of the sudden onset of aircraft noise events on humans with an adjustment
ranging up to 11 dB above the normal Sound Exposure Level (Stusnick, et al. 1992). Onset rates
between 15 to 150 dB per second require an adjustment of 0 to 11 dB, while onset rates below 15
dB per second require no adjustment. The adjusted DNL is designated as the onset-rate adjusted
day-night average sound level (Ldnr).
Because of the sporadic occurrences of aircraft overflights along MTRs and in Restricted
Areas/Ranges, the number of daily operations is determined from the number of flying days in
the calendar month with the highest number of operations in the affected airspace or MTR in
order to avoid seasonal periods of low activity. This monthly average is denoted Ldnmr. In the
state of California, a variant of the Ldnmr includes a penalty for evening operations (7 p.m. to 10
p.m) and is denoted CNELmr.
A.3
Noise Effects
A.3.1 Annoyance
The primary effect of aircraft noise on exposed communities is one of long-term annoyance.
Noise annoyance is defined by the EPA as any negative subjective reaction on the part of an
individual or group (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1972). As noted in the discussion of
DNL above, community annoyance is best measured by that metric.
The results of attitudinal surveys, conducted to find percentages of people who express various
degrees of annoyance when exposed to different levels of DNL, are very consistent. The most
useful metric for assessing peoples responses to noise impacts is the percentage of the exposed
population expected to be highly annoyed. A wide variety of responses have been used to
determine intrusiveness of noise and disturbances of speech, sleep, television or radio listening,
and outdoor living. The concept of percent highly annoyed has provided the most consistent
response of a community to a particular noise environment. The response is remarkably
complex, and when considered on an individual basis, widely varies for any given noise level
(Federal Interagency Committee On Noise 1992).
A number of nonacoustic factors have been identified that may influence the annoyance response
of an individual. Newman and Beattie (1985) divided these factors into emotional and physical
variables:
Emotional Variables
Feelings about the necessity or preventability of the noise;
Judgment of the importance and value of the activity that is producing the noise;
Activity at the time an individual hears the noise;
Attitude about the environment;
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
General sensitivity to noise;

Belief about the effect of noise on health; and
Feeling of fear associated with the noise.
Physical Variables
Type of neighborhood;
Time of day;
Season;
Predictability of noise;
Control over the noise source; and
Length of time an individual is exposed to a noise.
A.3.2 Speech Interference

Speech interference associated with aircraft noise is a primary cause of annoyance to individuals
on the ground. The disruption of routine activities such as radio or television listening, telephone
use, or family conversation gives rise to frustration and irritation. The quality of speech
communication is also important in classrooms, offices, and industrial settings and can cause
fatigue and vocal strain in those who attempt to communicate over the noise. Speech is an
acoustic signal characterized by rapid fluctuations in sound level and frequency pattern. It is
essential for optimum speech intelligibility to recognize these continually shifting sound patterns.
Not only does noise diminish the ability to perceive the auditory signal, but it also reduces a
listeners ability to follow the pattern of signal fluctuation. In general, interference with speech
communication occurs when intrusive noise exceeds about 60 dB (Federal Interagency
Committee On Noise 1992).
Indoor speech interference can be expressed as a percentage of sentence intelligibility among two
people speaking in relaxed conversation approximately 3 feet apart in a typical living room or
bedroom (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1972). The percentage of sentence intelligibility
is a non-linear function of the (steady) indoor background A-weighted sound level. Such a
curve-fit yields 100 percent sentence intelligibility for background levels below 57 dB and yields
less than 10 percent intelligibility for background levels above 73 dB. The function is especially
sensitive to changes in sound level between 65 dB and 75 dB. As an example of the sensitivity, a
1 dB increase in background sound level from 70 dB to 71 dB yields a 14 percent decrease in
sentence intelligibility. The sensitivity of speech interference to noise at 65 dB and above is
consistent with the criterion of DNL 65 dB generally taken from the Schultz curve. This is
consistent with the observation that speech interference is the primary cause of annoyance.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
A.3.3 Sleep Interference

Sleep interference is another source of annoyance and potential health concern associated with
aircraft noise. Because of the intermittent nature and content of aircraft noise, it is more
disturbing than continuous noise of equal energy. Given that quality sleep is requisite for good
health, repeated occurrences of sleep interference could have an effect on overall health.
Sleep interference may be measured in either of two ways. Arousal represents actual
awakening from sleep, while a change in sleep stage represents a shift from one of four sleep
stages to another stage of lighter sleep without actual awakening. In general, arousal requires a
somewhat higher noise level than does a change in sleep stage.
Sleep is not a continuous, uniform condition but a complex series of states through which the
brain progresses in a cyclical pattern. Arousal from sleep is a function of a number of factors that
include age, sex, sleep stage, noise level, frequency of noise occurrences, noise quality, and presleep activity. Because individuals differ in their physiology, behavior, habitation, and ability to
adapt to noise, few studies have attempted to establish noise criterion levels for sleep
disturbance.
Lukas (1978) concluded the following with regard to human sleep response to noise:
Children 5 to 8 years of 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 variation in the sensitivity of individuals to noise even within the same
age group.
Sleep arousal is directly proportional to the sound intensity of aircraft flyover. While
there have been several studies conducted to assess the effect of aircraft noise on sleep,
none have produced quantitative dose-response relationships in terms of noise exposure
level, DNL, and sleep disturbance. Noise-sleep disturbance relationships have been
developed based on single-event noise exposure.
An analysis sponsored by the U.S. Air Force summarized 21 published studies concerning the
effects of noise on sleep (Pearsons, et al. 1989). The analysis concluded that a lack of reliable
studies in homes, combined with large differences among the results from the various laboratory
studies, did not permit development of an acceptably accurate assessment procedure. The noise
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
events used in the laboratory studies and in contrived in-home studies were presented at much
higher rates of occurrence than would normally be experienced in the home. None of the
laboratory studies were of sufficiently long duration to determine any effects of habituation, such
as that which would occur under normal community conditions.
A study of the effects of nighttime noise exposure on the in-home sleep of residents near one
military airbase, near one civil airport, and in several households with negligible nighttime
aircraft noise exposure, revealed SEL as the best noise metric predicting noise-related
awakenings. It also determined that out of 930 subject nights, the average spontaneous (not
noise-related) awakenings per night was 2.07 compared to the average number of noise-related
awakenings per night of 0.24 (Fidell, et al. 1994). Additionally, a 1995 analysis of sleep
disturbance studies conducted both in the laboratory environment and in the field (in the
sleeping quarters of homes) showed that when measuring awakening to noise, a 10 dB increase in
SEL was associated with only an 8 percent increase in the probability of awakening in the
laboratory studies, but only a 1 percent increase in the field (Pearsons, et al. 1995). Pearsons, et al.
(1995), reported that even SEL values as high as 85 dB produced no awakenings or arousals in at
least one study. This observation suggests a strong influence of habituation on susceptibility to
noise-induced sleep disturbance. A 1984 study (Kryter 1984) indicates that an indoor SEL of 65
dB or lower should awaken less than 5 percent of exposed individuals.
Nevertheless, some guidance is available in judging sleep interference. The EPA identified an
indoor DNL of 45 dB as necessary to protect against sleep interference (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1978). Assuming a very conservative structural noise insulation of 20 dB for
typical dwelling units, this corresponds to an outdoor day-night average sound level of 65 dB to
minimize sleep interference.
In 1997, the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) adopted an interim
guideline for sleep awakening prediction. The new curve, based on studies in England
(Ollerhead, et al. 1992) and at two U.S. airports (Los Angeles International and Denver
International), concluded that the incidence of sleep awakening from aircraft noise was less than
identified in a 1992 study (Federal Interagency Committee On Noise 1992). Using indoor singleevent noise levels represented by SELs, potential sleep awakening can be predicted using the
curve presented in Figure A-5. Typically, homes in the United States provide 15 dB of sound
attenuation with windows open and 25 dB with windows closed and air conditioning operating.
Hence, the outdoor SEL of 107 dB would be 92 dB indoors with windows open and 82 dB indoors
with windows closed and air conditioning operating.
Using Figure A-5, the potential sleep awakening would be 15% with windows open and 10%
with windows closed in the above example.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
The new FICAN curve does not address habituation over time by sleeping subjects and is
applicable only to adult populations. Nevertheless, this curve provides a reasonable guideline
for assessing sleep awakening. It is conservative, representing the upper envelope of field study
results.
The FICAN curve shown in Figure A-5 represents awakenings from single events. To date, no
exact quantitative dose-response relationship exists for noise-related sleep interference from
multiple events; yet, based on studies conducted to date and the USEPA guideline of a 45 DNL to
protect sleep interference, useful ways to assess sleep interference have emerged. If homes are
conservatively estimated to have a 20-dB noise insulation, an average of 65 DNL would produce
an indoor level of 45 DNL and would form a reasonable guideline for evaluating sleep
interference. This also corresponds well to the general guideline for assessing speech
interference. Annoyance that may result from sleep disturbance is accounted for in the
calculation of DNL, which includes a 10-dB penalty for each sortie occurring after 10 pm or
before 7 am.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
Figure A-5. Recommended Sleep Disturbance Dose-Response Relationship
FINAL Appendix A
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
A.3.4 Hearing Loss

Considerable data on hearing loss have been collected and analyzed. It has been well established
that continuous exposure to high noise levels will damage human hearing (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1978). People are normally capable of hearing up to 120 dB over a wide
frequency range. Hearing loss is generally interpreted as the shifting of a higher sound level of
the ears sensitivity or acuity to perceive sound. This change can either 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 and 70 dB for a 24-hour exposure as the
average noise level standard requisite to protect 96% of the population from greater than a 5 dB
PTS (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1978). Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics (CHABA) identified 75 dB as the
minimum level at which hearing loss may occur (Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and
Biomechanics 1977). However, it is important to note that continuous, long-term (40 years)
exposure is assumed by both EPA and CHABA before hearing loss may occur.
Federal workplace standards for protection from hearing loss allow a time-average level of 90 dB
over an 8-hour work period or 85 dB over a 16-hour period. Even the most protective criterion
(no measurable hearing loss for the most sensitive portion of the population at the ears most
sensitive frequency, 4,000 Hz, after a 40-year exposure) is a time-average sound level of 70 dB
over a 24-hour period.
Studies on community hearing loss from exposure to aircraft flyovers near airports showed that
there is no danger, under normal circumstances, of hearing loss due to aircraft noise (Newman
and Beattie 1985).
A laboratory study measured changes in human hearing from noise representative of low-flying
aircraft on MTRs. (Nixon, et al. 1993). In this study, participants were first subjected to four
overflight noise exposures at A-weighted levels of 115 dB to 130 dB. One-half of the subjects
showed no change in hearing levels, one-fourth had a temporary 5-dB increase in sensitivity (the
people could hear a 5-dB wider range of sound than before exposure), and one-fourth had a
temporary 5-dB decrease in sensitivity (the people could hear a 5-dB narrower range of sound
than before exposure). In the next phase, participants were subjected to a single overflight at a
maximum level of 130 dB for eight successive exposures, separated by 90 seconds or until a
temporary shift in hearing was observed. The temporary hearing threshold shifts resulted in the
participants hearing a wider range of sound, but within 10 dB of their original range.
In another study of 115 test subjects between 18 and 50 years old, temporary threshold shifts
were measured after laboratory exposure to military low-altitude flight (MLAF) noise (Ising, et
al. 1999). According to the authors, the results indicate that repeated exposure to MLAF noise
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
with Lmax greater than 114 dB, especially if the noise level increases rapidly, may have the
potential to cause noise induced hearing loss in humans.
Because it is unlikely that airport neighbors will remain outside their homes 24 hours per day for
extended periods of time, there is little possibility of hearing loss below a day-night average
sound level of 75 dB, and this level is extremely conservative.
A.3.5 Nonauditory Health Effects
Studies have been conducted to determine whether correlations exist between noise exposure
and cardiovascular problems, birth weight, and mortality rates. The nonauditory effect of noise
on humans is not as easily substantiated as the effect on hearing. The results of studies
conducted in the United States, primarily concentrating on cardiovascular response to noise, have
been contradictory (Cantrell 1974). Cantrell (1974) concluded that the results of human and
animal experiments show that average or intrusive noise can act as a stress-provoking stimulus.
Prolonged stress is known to be a contributor to a number of health disorders. Kryter and Poza
(1980) state, It is more likely that noise-related general ill-health effects are due to the
psychological annoyance from the noise interfering with normal everyday behavior, than it is
from the noise eliciting, because of its intensity, reflexive response in the autonomic or other
physiological systems of the body. Psychological stresses may cause a physiological stress
reaction that could result in impaired health.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and EPA commissioned CHABA in
1981 to study whether established noise standards are adequate to protect against health
disorders other than hearing defects. CHABAs conclusion was that:
Evidence from available research reports is suggestive, but it does not provide definitive answers
to the question of health effects, other than to the auditory system, of long-term exposure to
noise. It seems prudent, therefore, in the absence of adequate knowledge as to whether or not
noise can produce effects upon health other than damage to auditory system, either directly or
mediated through stress, that insofar as feasible, an attempt should be made to obtain more
critical evidence.
Since the CHABA report, there have been more recent studies that suggest that noise exposure
may cause hypertension and other stress-related effects in adults. Near an airport in Stockholm,
Sweden, the prevalence of hypertension was reportedly greater among nearby residents who
were exposed to energy averaged noise levels exceeding 55 dB and maximum noise levels
exceeding 72 dB, particularly older subjects and those not reporting impaired hearing ability
(Rosenlund, et al. 2001). A study of elderly volunteers who were exposed to simulated military
low-altitude flight noise reported that blood pressure was raised by Lmax of 112 dB and high speed
level increase (Michalak, et al. 1990). Yet another study of subjects exposed to varying levels of
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
military aircraft or road noise found no significant relationship between noise level and blood
pressure (Pulles, et al. 1990).
The U.S. Department of the Navy prepared a programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) for
the continued use of non-explosive ordnance on the Vieques Inner Range. Following the
preparation of the EA, it was learned that research conducted by the University of Puerto Rico,
Ponce School of Medicine, suggested that Vieques fishermen and their families were experiencing
symptoms associated with vibroacoustic disease (VAD) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2002). The
study alleged that exposure to noise and sound waves of large pressure amplitudes within lower
frequency bands, associated with Navy training activities--specifically, air-to-ground bombing or
naval fire support--was related to a larger prevalence of heart anomalies within the Vieques
fishermen and their families. The Ponce School of Medicine study compared the Vieques group
with a group from Ponce Playa. A 1999 study conducted on Portuguese aircraft-manufacturing
workers from a single factory reported effects of jet aircraft noise exposure that involved a wide
range of symptoms and disorders, including the cardiac issues on which the Ponce School of
Medicine study focused. The 1999 study identified these effects as VAD.
Johns Hopkins University (JHU) conducted an independent review of the Ponce School of
Medicine study, as well as the Portuguese aircraft workers study and other relevant scientific
literature. Their findings concluded that VAD should not be accepted as a syndrome, given that
exhaustive research across a number of populations has not yet been conducted. JHU also
pointed out that the evidence supporting the existence of VAD comes largely from one group of
investigators and that similar results would have to be replicated by other investigators. In short,
JHU concluded that it had not been established that noise was the causal agent for the symptoms
reported and no inference can be made as to the role of noise from naval gunfire in producing
echocardiographic abnormalities (U.S. Department of the Navy 2002).
Most studies of nonauditory health effects of long-term noise exposure have found that noise
exposure levels established for hearing protection will also protect against any potential
nonauditory health effects, at least in workplace conditions. One of the best scientific summaries
of these findings is contained in the lead paper at the National Institutes of Health Conference on
Noise and Hearing Loss, held on 22 to 24 January 1990 in Washington, D.C.:
The nonauditory effects of chronic noise exposure, when noise is suspected to act as one
of the risk factors in the development of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and other
nervous disorders, have never been proven to occur as chronic manifestations at levels
below these criteria (an average of 75 dBA for complete protection against hearing loss for
an 8-hour day). At the recent (1988) International Congress on Noise as a Public Health
Problem, most studies attempting to clarify such health effects did not find them at levels
below the criteria protective of noise-induced hearing loss, and even above these criteria,
results regarding such health effects were ambiguous. Consequently, one comes to the
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
conclusion that establishing and enforcing exposure levels protecting against noiseinduced hearing loss would not only solve the noise-induced hearing loss problem, but
also any potential nonauditory health effects in the work place. (von Gierke 1990)
Although these findings were specifically directed at noise effects in the workplace, they are
equally applicable to aircraft noise effects in the community environment. Research studies
regarding the nonauditory health effects of aircraft noise are ambiguous, at best, and often
contradictory. Yet, even those studies that purport to find such health effects use time-average
noise levels of 75 dB and higher for their research.
For example, two UCLA researchers apparently found a relationship between aircraft noise levels
under the approach path to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and increased mortality
rates among the exposed residents by using an average noise exposure level greater than 75 dB
for the noise-exposed population (Meacham and Shaw 1979). Nevertheless, three other UCLA
professors analyzed those same data and found no relationship between noise exposure and
mortality rates (Frerichs, et al. 1980).
As a second example, two other UCLA researchers used this same population near LAX to show
a higher rate of birth defects for 1970 to 1972 when compared with a control group residing away
from the airport (Jones and Tauscher 1978). Based on this report, a separate group at the Center
for Disease Control performed a more thorough study of populations near Atlantas Hartsfield
International Airport (ATL) for 1970 to 1972 and found no relationship in their study of 17
identified categories of birth defects to aircraft noise levels above 65 dB (Edmonds, et al. 1979).
In summary, there is no scientific basis for a claim that potential health effects exist for aircraft
time-average sound levels below 75 dB.
The potential for noise to affect physiological health, such as the cardiovascular system, has been
speculated; however, no unequivocal evidence exists to support such claims (Harris 1997).
Conclusions drawn from a review of health effect studies involving military low-altitude flight
noise with its unusually high maximum levels and rapid rise in sound level have shown no
increase in cardiovascular disease (Schwartze and Thompson 1993). Additional claims that are
unsupported include flyover noise producing increased mortality rates and increases in
cardiovascular death, aggravation of post-traumatic stress syndrome, increased stress, increase in
admissions to mental hospitals, and adverse affects on pregnant women and the unborn fetus
(Harris 1997).
A.3.6 Performance Effects
The effect of noise on the performance of activities or tasks has been the subject of many studies.
Some of these studies have established links between continuous high noise levels and
performance loss. Noise-induced performance losses are most frequently reported in studies
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
The literature does suggest that common responses include the startle or fright response and,
ultimately, habituation. It has been reported that the intensities and durations of the startle
response decrease with the numbers and frequencies of exposures, suggesting no long-term
adverse effects. The majority of the literature suggests that domestic animal species (cows,
horses, chickens) and wildlife species exhibit adaptation, acclimation, and habituation after
repeated exposure to jet aircraft noise and sonic booms.
Animal responses to aircraft noise appear to be somewhat dependent on, or influenced by, the
size, shape, speed, proximity (vertical and horizontal), engine noise, color, and flight profile of
planes. Helicopters also appear to induce greater intensities and durations of disturbance
behavior as compared to fixed-wing aircraft. Some studies showed that animals that had been
previously exposed to jet aircraft noise exhibited greater degrees of alarm and disturbance to
other objects creating noise, such as boats, people, and objects blowing across the landscape.
Other factors influencing response to jet aircraft noise may include wind direction, speed, and
local air turbulence; landscape structures (i.e., amount and type of vegetative cover); and, in the
case of bird species, whether the animals are in the incubation/nesting phase.
A.3.9 Property Values
Property within a noise zone (or Accident Potential Zone) may be affected by the availability of
federally guaranteed loans. According to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and Veterans Administration (VA) guidance,
sites are acceptable for program assistance, subsidy, or insurance for housing in noise zones of
less than 65 DNL, and sites are conditionally acceptable with special approvals and noise
attenuation in the 65 to 75 DNL noise zone and the greater than 75 DNL noise zone. HUDs
position is that noise is not the only determining factor for site acceptability, and properties
should not be rejected only because of airport influences if there is evidence of acceptability
within the market and if use of the dwelling is expected to continue. Similar to the Navys Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone Program, HUD, FHA, and VA recommend sound attenuation
for housing in the higher noise zones and written disclosures to all prospective buyers or lessees
of property within a noise zone (or Accident Potential Zone).
Real property values are dynamic. They are determined by a combination of factors, including
market conditions, neighborhood characteristics, and individual real property characteristics
(e.g., the age of the property, its size, and amenities). The degree to which a particular factor may
affect property values is influenced by many other factors that fluctuate widely with time and
market conditions. Accordingly, the impact of aircraft noise on individual property cannot be
measured, given the many factors in the real estate market that influence property values. Given
the dynamic nature of the real estate market, and the varying degree to which any combination of
factors affect the value of a particular property, it is not possible to quantify whether an increase
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
in noise from military aircraft will negatively or positively affect property values. Any discussion
of changes in property values would, therefore, be too speculative for inclusion in this document.
A.3.10 Noise Effects on Structures
Normally, the most sensitive components of a structure to airborne noise are the windows and,
infrequently, the plastered walls and ceilings. An evaluation of the peak sound pressures
impinging on the structure is normally used to determine the possibility of damage. In general,
with peak sound levels above 130 dB, there is the possibility of the excitation of structural
component resonances. While certain frequencies (such as 30 hertz for window breakage) may
be of more concern than other frequencies, conservatively, only sounds lasting more than one
second above a sound level of 130 dB are potentially damaging to structural components
(Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics 1977).
Noise-induced structural vibration may also cause annoyance to dwelling occupants because of
induced secondary vibrations, or rattling of objects within the dwelling such as hanging pictures,
dishes, plaques, and bric-a-brac. Window panes may also vibrate noticeably when exposed to
high levels of airborne noise. In general, such noise-induced vibrations occur at peak sound
levels of 110 dB or greater. Thus, assessments of noise exposure levels for compatible land use
should also be protective of noise-induced secondary vibrations.
A.3.11 Noise Effects on Terrain
It has been suggested that noise levels associated with low-flying aircraft may affect the terrain
under the flight path by disturbing fragile soil or snow, especially in mountainous areas, causing
landslides or avalanches. There are no known instances of such effects, and it is considered
improbable that such effects would result from routine, subsonic aircraft operations.
A.3.12 Noise Effects on Historical and Archaeological Sites
Because of the potential for increased fragility of structural components of historical buildings
and other historical sites, aircraft noise may affect such sites more severely than newer, modern
structures. Particularly in older structures, seemingly insignificant surface cracks initiated by
vibrations from aircraft noise may lead to greater damage from natural forces (Hanson, et al.
1991). There are few scientific studies of such effects to provide guidance for their assessment.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
One study involved the measurements of sound levels and structural vibration levels in a
superbly restored plantation house, originally built in 1795, and now situated approximately
1,500 feet from the centerline at the departure end of Runway 19L at Washington Dulles
International Airport. These measurements were made in connection with the proposed
scheduled operation of the supersonic Concorde airplane at Dulles (Wesler 1977). There was
special concern for the buildings windows, since roughly half of the 324 panes were original. No
instances of structural damage were found. Interestingly, despite the high levels of noise during
Concorde takeoffs, the induced structural vibration levels were actually less than those induced
by touring groups and vacuum cleaning.
As noted above for the noise effects of noise-induced vibrations of conventional structures,
assessments of noise exposure levels for normally compatible land uses should also be protective
of historic and archaeological sites.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
A.4
References
Anderson, D.E., O.J. Rongstad, and W.R. Mytton. 1989. Responses of Nesting Red-tailed Hawks to
Helicopter Overflights. The Condor, Volume 91, pp. 296-299.
Andrus, W. S., M.E. Kerrigan, and K.T. Bird. 1975. Hearing in Para-Airport Children. Aviation, Space,
and Environmental Medicine, Volume 46, pp 740-742.
American National Standards Institute. 2002. Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements,
and Guidelines for Schools. ANSI S12.60-2002.
American National Standards Institute. 1996. Quantities and Procedures for Description and
Measurement of Environmental Sound. ANSI S12.9-1996.
American National Standards Institute. 1988. Quantities and Procedures for Description and
Measurement of Environmental Sound. ANSI S12.9-1988.
American National Standards Institute. 1980. Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of Compatible
Land Use. ANSI S3.23-1980.
Berger, E. H., W. D. Ward, J. C. Morrill, and L. H. Royster. 1995. Noise And Hearing Conservation
Manual, Fourth Edition. American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax, Virginia.
Berglund, B., and T. Lindvall. 1995. Community Noise. Institute of Environmental Medicine.
Beyer, D. 1983. Studies of the Effects of Low-Flying Aircraft on Endocrinological and Physiological
Parameters in Pregnant Cows. Veterinary College of Hannover, Mnchen, Germany.
Black, B., M. Collopy, H. Percivial, A. Tiller, and P. Bohall. 1984. Effects of Low-Altitude Military
Training Flights on Wading Bird Colonies in Florida. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit, Technical Report No. 7.
Bond, J., C.F. Winchester, L.E. Campbell, and J.C. Webb. 1963. The Effects of Loud Sounds on the
Physiology and Behavior of Swine. U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research
Service Technical Bulletin 1280.
Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of Wildlife to Noise. Pp.109-156 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, Eds,
Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research, Island Press,
Covelo, California.
Bowles, A.E., C. Book, and F. Bradley. 1990. Effects of Low-Altitude Aircraft Overflights on Domestic
Turkey Poults. USAF, AL/OEBN Noise Effects Branch.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
Bowles, A.E., B. Tabachnick, and S. Fidell. 1991. Review of the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Wildlife.
Volume II of III, Technical Report, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.
Bowles, A.E., P. K. Yochem, and F. T. Awbrey. 1990. The Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on
Domestic Animals: A Preliminary Model and a Synthesis of the Literature and Claims (NSBIT
Technical Operating Report Number 13). Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology, Advanced
Development Program Office, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
Bronzaft, Arline L. 1997. Beware: Noise is Hazardous to Our Childrens Development. Hearing
Rehabilitation Quarterly, Volume 22, Number 1.
Brown, A.L. 1990. Measuring the Effect of Aircraft Noise on Sea Birds. Environment International
Volume 16, pp. 587-592.
Bullock, T.H., D.P. Donning, and C.R. Best. 1980. Evoked Brain Potentials Demonstrate Hearing in a
Manatee (Trichechus inunguis). Journal of Mammals, Volume 61, Number 1, pp. 130-133.
Burger, J. 1986. The Effect of Human Activity on Shorebirds in Two Coastal Bays in Northeastern
United States. Environmental Conservation, Volume 13, Number 2, pp.123-130.
Burger, J. 1981. Behavioral Responses of Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) to Aircraft Noise.
Environmental Pollution (Series A), Volume 24, pp. 177-184.
Cantrell, R.W. 1974. Prolonged Exposure to Intermittent Noise: Audiometric, Biochemical, Motor,
Psychological, and Sleep Effects. Laryngoscope, Supplement I, Volume 84, Number 10, p. 2.
Casady, R.B., and R.P. Lehmann. 1967. Response of Farm Animals to Sonic Booms. Studies at Edwards
Air Force Base, June 6-30, 1966. Interim Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville,
Maryland, p. 8.
Chen, T. J., and S.S. Chen. 1993. Effects of Aircraft Noise on Hearing and Auditory Pathway Function of
School-Age Children. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health,
Volume 65, Number 2, pp. 107-111.
Chen, T., S. Chen, P. Hsieh, and H. Chian. 1997. Auditory Effects of Aircraft Noise on People Living
Near an Airport. Archives of Environmental Health, Volume 52, pp. 45-50.
Cohen, S., G. W. Evans, D. S. Krantz, and D. Stokols. 1980. Physiological, Motivational, and Cognitive
Effects of Aircraft Noise on Children: Moving from Laboratory to Field. American Psychologist,
Volume 35, pp. 231-243.
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics. 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental
Impact Statements on Noise. The National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
Conomy, J.T., J. A. Dubovsky, J. A. Collazo, and W. J. Fleming. 1998. Do Black Ducks and Wood Ducks
Habituate to Aircraft Disturbance? Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 62, Number 3,
pp.1,135-1,142.
Cottereau, P. 1978. The Effect of Sonic Boom from Aircraft on Wildlife and Animal Husbandry. Effects
of Noise on Wildlife, Academic Press, New York, New York, pp. 63-79.
Davis, R. W., W. E. Evans, and B. Wursig, Eds. 2000. Cetaceans, Sea Turtles, and Seabirds in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Associations, Volume II:
Technical Report, prepared by Texas A&M University at Galveston and the National Marine
Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-0006 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS
Region, New Orleans, Louisiana, OCS Study MMS 2000-003.
Dooling, R.J. 1978. Behavior and Psychophysics of Hearing in Birds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, Supplement 1, Volume 65, p. S4.
Dufour, P.A. 1980. Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals: Review of Research Since 1971. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Edmonds, L. D., P.M. Layde, and J.D. Erickson. 1979. The Airport Noise and Teratogenesis. Archives of
Environmental Health, Volume 34, Number 4, pp. 243-247.
Edwards, R.G., A.B. Broderson, R.W. Harbour, D.F. McCoy, and C.W. Johnson. 1979. Assessment of the
environmental compatibility of differing helicopter noise certification standards. U.S. Dept.
Transportation, Washington, DC. 58 pp
Ellis, D. H., C. H. Ellis, and D. P. Mindell. 1991. Raptor Responses to Low-Level Jet Aircraft and Sonic
Booms. Environmental Pollution, Volume 74, pp. 53-83.
Evans, G. W., and S. J. Lepore. 1993. Nonauditory Effects of Noise on Children: A Critical Review.
Childrens Environment, Volume 10, pp. 31-51.
Evans, G. W., and L. Maxwell. 1997. Chronic Noise Exposure and Reading Deficits: The Mediating
Effects of Language Acquisition. Environment and Behavior, Vol.ume 29, Number 5, pp. 638-655.
Evans, G. W., S. Hygge, and M. Bullinger. 1995. Chronic Noise and Psychological Stress. Psychological
Science, Volume 6, pp. 333-338.
Evans, G. W., M. Bullinger, and S. Hygge. 1998. Chronic Noise Exposure and Physiological Response: A
Prospective Study of Children Living under Environmental Stress. Psychological Science,
Volume 9, pp. 75-77.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise. 1997. Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from
Sleep. June.
Federal Interagency Committee On Noise. 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise
Analysis Issues. August 1992.
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise. 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land-Use
Planning and Control. U.S. Government Printing Office Report #1981-337-066/8071,
Washington, D.C.
Fidell, S., Barger, D.S., and Schultz, T.J. 1991. Updating a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the Prevalence
of Annoyance Due to General Transportation Noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89, 221-233. January.
Fidell, Sanford, K. Pearsons, R. Howe, B. Tabachnick, L. Silvati and D.S. Barber. 1994. Noise-Induced
Sleep Disturbance in Residential Settings. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: AL/OE-TR-1994-0131.
Finegold, L. S., Harris, C.S., and von Gierke, H.E. 1994. Community Annoyance and Sleep Disturbance:
Updated Criteria for Assessing the Impact of General Transportation Noise on People. Noise
Control Engineering Journal 42: 25-30.
Fisch, L. 1977. Research Into Effects of Aircraft Noise on Hearing of Children in Exposed Residential
Areas Around an Airport. Acoustics Letters, Vol. 1, pp. 42-43.
Fleischner, T.L., and S. Weisberg. 1986. Effects of jet aircraft activity on bald eagles in the vicinity of
Bellingham International Airport. Unpublished Report, DEVCO Aviation Consultants,
Bellingham, WA.
Fleming, W.J., J. Dubovsky, and J. Collazo. 1996. An Assessment of the Effects of Aircraft Activities on
Waterfowl at Piney Island, North Carolina. Final Report by the North Carolina Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit, North Carolina State University, prepared for the Marine Corps Air
Station, Cherry Point.
Fraser, J.D., L.D. Franzel, and J.G. Mathiesen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald
eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49: 585-592.
Frerichs, R.R., B.L. Beeman, and A.H. Coulson. 1980. Los Angeles Airport Noise and Mortality: Faulty
Analysis and Public Policy. Am. J. Public Health, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 357-362, April.
Gladwin, D.N., K.M. Manci, and R. Villella. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on
Domestic Animals and Wildlife. Bibliographic Abstracts. NERC-88/32. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
Green, Kendall B., B.S. Pasternack, R.E. Shore. 1982. Effects of Aircraft Noise on Reading Ability of
School-Age Children. Archives of Environmental Health, 37(1) 24 31.
Grubb, T.G., and R.M. King. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with
classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 55(3), 500-511.
Gunn, W.W.H., and J.A. Livingston. 1974. Disturbance to Birds by Gas Compressor Noise Simulators,
Aircraft, and Human Activity in the MacKenzie Valley and the North Slope. 1972, Chapters VIVIII, Arctic Gas Biological Report, Series Vol. 14.
Haines, M.M., S.A.Stansfeld, R.F. Job, B.Berglund, and J.Head. 2001a. A Follow-up Study of Effects of
Chronic Aircraft Noise Exposure on Child Stress Responses and Cognition. International Journal
of Epidemiology 30:839-845.
Haines, M.M, S.A. Stansfeld, R.F. Job, and B. Berglund. 1998. Chronic Aircraft Noise Exposure and
Child Cognitive Performance and Stress. In: Proceedings of Noise as a Public Health Problem,
Vol. 1, 2 (Carter N.L., R.F. Job, eds). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney, 329-335, 1998.
Haines, M. M., S.A. Stansfeld, S. Brentnall, J. Head, B. Berry, M. Jiggins, and S. Hygge. 2001c. The West
London Schools Study: the Effects of Chronic Aircraft Noise Exposure on Child Health.
Psychological Medicine, Nov, 31: 1385-96.
Haines, M. M, S.A. Stansfeld, R.F. Job, B. Berglund, B., and J. Head. 2001b. Chronic Aircraft Noise
Exposure, Stress Responses, Mental Health and Cognitive Performance in School Children.
Psychological Medicine, Feb, 31: 265-77.
Hanson, C. E., K.W. King, M.E. Eagan, and R.D. Horonjeff. 1991. Aircraft Noise Effects on Cultural
Resources: Review of Technical Literature. Report Number: HMMH-290940.04-1, available as
PB93-205300, sponsored by National Park Service, Denver CO.
Harris, C.S. 1997. The Effects of Noise on Health. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: AL/OE-TR-1997-0077.
Hygge, S. 1994. Classroom experiments on the effects of aircraft, road traffic, train and verbal noise
presented at 66 dBA Leq, and of aircraft and road traffic presented at 55 dBA Leq, on Long term
Recall and Recognition in children Aged 12-14 years. In: Vallet, M., ed., Noise as a Public Health
Problem, Proc 6th, Int. Congress, Vol., 2, Arcueil, France: INRETS, 531-538.
Hygge, S., G.W. Evans, and M. Bullinger. 2002. A Prospective Study of Some Effects of Aircraft Noise on
Cognitive Performance in Schoolchildren. Psychological Science 13:469-474, 2002.
Ising, H., Z. Joachims, W. Babisch, and E. Rebentisch. 1999. Effects of Military Low-Altitude Flight
Noise I Temporary Threshold Shift in Humans. Zeitschrift fur Audiologie (Germany) 38(4) 11827.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
Jehl, J.R., and Cooper, C.F., eds. 1980. Potential Effects of Space Shuttle Sonic Booms on the Biota and
Geology of the California Channel Islands. Research Reports, Center for Marine Studies, San
Diego State University, San Diego, CA Technical Report Number 80-1. 246 pp.
Jones, F.N., and J. Tauscher. 1978. Residence Under an Airport Landing Pattern as a Factor in Teratism.
Archives of Environmental Health, 10-12, January/ February.
Kovalcik, K., and J. Sottnik. 1971. Vplyv Hluku Na Mliekov zitkovost Krv [The Effect of Noise on
the Milk Efficiency of Cows]. Zivocisn Vyroba, Vol. 16, Nos. 10-11, pp. 795-804.
Kryter, K.D., and F. Poza. 1980. Effects of Noise on Some Autonomic System Activities. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 67, No. 6, pp. 2036-2044.
Kryter, K.D. 1984. Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise. NASA Reference
Publication 1115, 446, July.
Kushlan, J.A. 1978. Effects of Helicopter Censuses on Wading Bird Colonies. Journal of Wildlife
Management 43(3): 756-760.
LeBlanc, M.M., C. Lombard, S. Lieb, E. Klapstein, and R. Massey. 1991. Physiological Responses of
Horses to Simulated Aircraft Noise. U.S. Air Force, NSBIT Program for University of Florida.
Lukas, J. 1978. Noise and Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed Criteria for Assessing Effect. In:
Handbook of Noise Assessment, ed. Darly N. May, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: New
York, pp. 313-334.
Lynch, T.E., and D.W. Speake. 1978. Eastern Wild Turkey Behavioral Responses Induced by Sonic
Boom. Effects of Noise on Wildlife, pp. 47-61.
Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M.G Cavendish. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic
Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, Co. NERC-88/29. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. 88pp.
Meacham, W.C., and Shaw, N. 1979. Effects of Jet Noise on Mortality Rates. British Journal of
Audiology, 77-80. August.
Metro-Dade County. 1995. Dade County Manatee Protection Plan. DERM Technical Report 95-5.
Department of Environmental Resources Management, Miami, Florida.
Michalak, R.; Ising, H.; Rebentisch, E. 1990. Acute Circulatory Effects of Military Low-Altitude Flight
Noise, International. Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 62:5: 365-72.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 2000. The Effects of Noise from Weapons and Sonic Booms, and the
Impact on Humans, Wildlife, Domestic Animals and Structures. Final Report of the Working
Group Study Follow-up Program to the Pilot Study on Aircraft Noise. Report No. 241, June.
National Park Service. 1994. Report to Congress: Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the
National Park System. Prepared Pursuant to Public Law 100-91, The National Parks Overflights
Act of 1987. September 12.
Newman, J.S. and K.R. Beattie. 1985. Aviation Noise Effects. Federal Aviation Administration, USGPO,
Washington, DC.
Nixon, Charles W.; West, D.W.; Allen, N.K. 1993. Human Auditory Responses to Aircraft Flyover Noise.
Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Noise as a Public Problem, Nice, France
INRETS Volume 2.
Ollerhead, J.B., C.J. Jones, R.E. Cadoux, A. Woodley, et al. 1992. Report of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise
and Sleep Disturbance. London: Department of Safety, Environment and Engineering, Civil
Aviation Authority, December.
Parker, J.B., and N.D. Bayley. 1960. Investigations on effects of Aircraft Sound on Milk Production of
Dairy Cattle, 1957-58. U.S. Agricultural Research Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Technical Report Number ARS 44-60.
Pater, L.D, Delaney, D.K, Hayden T.J., Lohr, B., and Dooling R. 1999. Technical Report. U.S. Army,
Corps of Engineers, CERL, Champaign, IL, Report Number 99/51, ADA Number 367234.
Pearsons, K.S., Barber, D.S., and Tabachick, B.G. 1989. Analyses of the Predictability of Noise-Induced
Sleep Disturbance. USAF Report HSD-TR-89-029. October.
Pearsons, Karl S., D.S. Barber, B.G. Tabachick and S. Fidell. 1995. Predicting Noise-Induced Sleep
Disturbance. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 97, 331-338. January.
Pulles, M. P. J.; Biesiot, W.; Stewart, R. 1990. Adverse effects of environmental noise on health: An
interdisciplinary approach. Environment International, 16(4-5-6) 437-445.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Rosenlund, M.; Berglind, N.; Bluhm, G.; Jarup, L.; Pershagen, G. 2001. Increased prevalence of
hypertension in a population exposed to aircraft noise. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, December, 58(12) 769-773.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
Schultz, T.J. 1978. Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 64: pp. 377-405. August.
Schwartze, S. and S.J. Thompson. 1993. Research on Non-Auditory Physiological Effects of Noise Since
1988: Review and Perspectives. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Noise as a
Public Problem (INRETS). Nice, France. Volume 3.
Smith, D.G., D.H. Ellis, and T.H. Johnston. 1988. Raptors and Aircraft. In R.L Glinski, B. GronPendelton, M.B. Moss, M.N. LeFranc, Jr., B.A. Millsap, and S.W. Hoffman, eds. Proceedings of
the Southwest Raptor Management Symposium. Pp. 360-367. National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D.C.
State of California. 1990. Administrative Code Title 21.
Stusnick, E., D.A. Bradley, J.A. Molino, and G. DeMiranda. 1992. The Effect of Onset Rate on Aircraft
Noise Annoyance. Volume 2: Rented Own-Home Experiment. Wyle Laboratories Research
Report WR 92-3. March.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1997. Final Environmental Assessment Issuance of a Letter of Authorization for the
Incidental Take of Marine Mammals for Programmatic Operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
California. July.
Trimper, P.G., Standen, N.M., Lye, L.M., Lemon, D., Chubbs, T.E., and Humphries, G.W. 1998. Effects
of Low-level Jet Aircraft Noise On the Behavior of Nesting Osprey. Journal of Applied Ecology,
35, 122-130.
U.S. Air Force. 2000. Preliminary Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Homestead
Air Force Base Closure and Reuse. Prepared by SAIC. July 20.
U.S. Air Force. 1994a. Air Force Position Paper on the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Domestic Fowl.
Approved by HQ USAF/CEVP, 3 October.
U.S. Air Force. 1994b. Air Force Position Paper on the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Large Domestic
Stock. Approved by HQ USAF/CEVP, 3 October.
U.S. Air Force. 1993. The Impact of Low Altitude Flights on Livestock and Poultry. Air Force
Handbook. Volume 8, Environmental Protection, 28 January.
U.S. Department of the Navy. 2002. Supplement to Programmatic Environmental Assessment for
Continued Use with Non-Explosive Ordnance of the Vieques Inner Range, to Include Training
Operations Typical of Large Scale Exercises, Multiple Unit Level Training, and/or a Combination
of Large Scale Exercises and Multiple Unit Level Training. March.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

November 2004
WR 04-26
FINAL Appendix A
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite
to Protect the Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report 550/9-74-004. March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels. Office of Noise Abatement and
Control, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Consultation letter #2-22-98-I-224, explaining restrictions on
endangered species required for the proposed Force Structure and Foreign Military Sales Actions
at Cannon AFB, NM. To Alton Chavis HQ ACC/CEVP at Langley AFB from Jennifer FowlerPropst, USFWS Field Supervisor, Albuquerque, NM, 14 December.
U.S. Forest Service. 1992. Report to Congress: Potential Impacts of Aircraft Overflights of National
Forest System Wilderness. U.S. Government Printing Office 1992-0-685-234/61004. Washington,
D.C.
von Gierke, H.R. 1990. The Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Problem. NIH Consensus Development
Conference on Noise and Hearing Loss, Washington, D.C., 2224 January.
Ward, D. H., E.J. Taylor, M.A. Wotawa, R.A. Stehn, D.V. Derksen, and C.J. Lensink. 1986. Behavior of
Pacific Black Brant and other geese in response to aircraft overflights and other disturbances at
Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. 1986 Annual Report, pp.:68.
Ward, D. H. and R.A. Stehn. 1990. Response of Brant and Other Geese to Aircraft Disturbances at
Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. Final Report. Technical Report Number: MMS900046. Performing
Org.: Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center, Anchorage. Sponsoring Org.: Minerals
Management Service, Anchorage A. K. Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office.
Weisenberger, M. E., P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, D.W. De Young, and O.E. Maughan. 1996. Effects of
simulated jet aircraft noise on heart rate and behavior of desert ungulates. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 60(1) 52-61.
Wesler, J.E. 1977. Concorde Operations At Dulles International Airport. NOISEXPO 77, Chicago, IL,
March.
Wever, E.G., and J.A. Vernon. 1957. Auditory Responses in the Spectacled Caiman. Journal of Cellular
and Comparative Physiology 50:333-339.
World Health Organization. 2000. Guidelines for Community Noise.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115
Exhibit C
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit C to Roberts Declaration

Seattle, WA 98115
AICUZ Study Update for

Naval Air Station Whidbey Islands Ault Field and
Final Submission
March 2005
Prepared by:
The Onyx Group
for
NAVFAC Southwest
San Diego, California
AICUZ Study Update for NAS Whidbey Islands Ault Field and OLF Coupeville
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB................................................................................................................................................ Afterburner
AC........................................................................................................................................................... Acre
AGL .............................................................................................................................. Above Ground Level
AICUZ .............................................................................................Air Installations Compatible Use Zones
AIMD...................................................................................Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Detachment
ANSI .................................................................................................. American National Standards Institute
APZ.......................................................................................................................... Accident Potential Zone
ASUW........................................................................................................................... Anti-surface Warfare
ASW......................................................................................................................... Anti-submarine Warfare
ATCAA..............................................................................................Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace
ATC ..................................................................................................................................Air Traffic Control
AUW .................................................................................................................Advanced Undersea Weapon
BASH.................................................................................................................. Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard
BRAC............................................................................................................. Base Realignment and Closure
CFR................................................................................................................... Code of Federal Regulations
CNEL .................................................................................................... Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNO ...................................................................................................................... Chief of Naval Operations
CP&LO .............................................................................................. Community Plans and Liaison Officer
COMNAVAIRPAC .......................................................... Commander Naval Air Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet
CVWP or COMVAQINGPAC ........................................ Commander Electronic Attack Wing U.S. Pacific
CPRW or CPRW 10........................................................Commander Patrol and Reconnaissance Wing Ten
CY03 ............................................................................................................................... Calendar Year 2003
CY13 ............................................................................................................................... Calendar Year 2013
CZ ................................................................................................................................................. Clear Zone
C4SIR.........Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Surveillance, Intelligence, Reconnaissance
dB........................................................................................................................................................Decibel
dBA............................................................................................................................... A-weighted Decibels
DME..............................................................................................................Distance Measuring Equipment
DNL ............................................................................................................ Day-night Average Sound Level
DOD........................................................................................................................... Department of Defense
DU...........................................................................................................................................Dwelling Units
EA ........................................................................................................................Environmental Assessment
EIS ..............................................................................................................Environmental Impact Statement
EMI ...................................................................................................................Electromagnetic Interference
ESHP...................................................................................................................Effective Shaft Horsepower
FAA ............................................................................................................ Federal Aviation Administration
FAR...................................................................................................................................... Floor Area Ratio
FCLP...............................................................................................................Field Carrier Landing Practice
FL.................................................................................................................................................Flight Level
FLOLS .............................................................................................. Frensel Lens Optical Landing Systems
FM...............................................................................................................................Frequency Modulation
GCA ................................................................................................................ Ground Controlled Approach
HARM ....................................................................................................High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile
HF ......................................................................................................................................... High Frequency
HERO.............................................................................Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance
HIRL ........................................................................................................... High Intensity Runway Lighting
ICAP III ......................................................................................................................... Improved Capability
IFLOLS .............................................................................. Improved Frensel Lens Optical Landing System
IFR ............................................................................................................................ Instrument Flight Rules
Ldn ....................................................................... Day-night Average Sound Level (Mathematical Symbol)
AICUZ Study Update for NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (Concluded)
Lmax............................................................................................................................. Maximum Noise Level

LSO............................................................................................................................ Landing Signal Officer
MEDVAC ....................................................................................................................... Medical Evacuation
MF..................................................................................................................................... medium frequency
MHz ............................................................................................................................................... Megahertz
MIDS ................................................................................ Multifunctional Information Distribution System
MIL ................................................................................................... Maximum Thrust Without Afterburner
MILCON.......................................................................................................................Military Construction
MOA .......................................................................................................................Military Operating Areas
MOVLAS............................................................................ Manually Operated Visual Landing Aid System
MSL ...................................................................................................................................... Mean Sea Level
N/A..............................................................................................................................................not available
NAS .................................................................................................................................... Naval Air Station
NASWHIDBEYINST.................................................................................NAS Whidbey Island Instruction
NAVFAC ......................................................................................... Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NAVSAFCEN.................................................................................................................Naval Safety Center
NC .................................................................................................................................... Compressor Speed
NEPA ......................................................................................................National Environmental Policy Act
NLR ........................................................................................................................... Noise Level Reduction
NM ............................................................................................................................................ Nautical Mile
NOTAM.............................................................................................................................. Notice to Airmen
NS ............................................................................................................................................. Naval Station
N1................................................................................................................................................. Engine One
N2.................................................................................................................................................Engine Two
OBS..................................................................................................................................... On-board System
ODO......................................................................................................................... Operations Duty Officer
OLF........................................................................................................................... Outlying Landing Field
OPNAVINST .....................................................................................Chief of Naval Operations Instruction
PUD .....................................................................................................................Planned Unit Development
RAICUZ................................................................................Range Air Installations Compatible Use Zones
RCW ................................................................................................................ Revised Code of Washington
RPM ......................................................................................................................... Revolutions Per Minute
SAR................................................................................................................................... Search and Rescue
SEL ........................................................................................................................... Sound Exposure Levels
SLUCM...................................................................................................Standard Land Use Coding Manual
STC .......................................................................................................................Sound Transmission Class
SUA .............................................................................................................................. Special Use Airspace
TACAN..................................................................................................................... Tactical Air Navigation
TDZL .......................................................................................................................Touchdown Zone Lights
TERPS .........................................................................................................Terminal Instrument Procedures
TIGER...................................................Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing
TJS ......................................................................................................................... Tactical Jamming System
UGA................................................................................................................................ Urban Growth Area
UFC........................................................................................................................ Unified Facilities Criteria
UHF ................................................................................................................................ultra high frequency
VHF ................................................................................................................................ very high frequency
VFR.................................................................................................................................. Visual Flight Rules
VIP ..............................................................................................................................Very Important Person
VR.............................................................................................................................................. Visual Route
WX.....................................................................................................................................................Weather
vi
AICUZ Study Update for NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
All airports attract development. Housing is constructed for
airport employees who want to live near by, and businesses are
established to cater to the airport. As development encroaches
upon the airfield, more people experience the noise and
accident potential associated with aircraft operations.
Incompatible development, a form of encroachment, has
become commonplace on privately owned lands in the vicinity
of military air installations.
This Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Study
Update includes the Navys air installation in Island County,
WashingtonNaval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Islands Ault
Field and OLF Coupeville. The study examines various
airfield planning parameters related to aircraft operations,
noise, and safety, and it provides recommendations that can be
used to further promote compatible land use surrounding the
airfield.
An aviation structural mechanic signals the starting

of the number two engine to the pilot of a P-3 Orion
at (NAS) Whidbey Islands Ault Field. This AICUZ
Study Update includes the Navys air installations in
Island County, WashingtonNAS Whidbey Islands
Ault Field and Outlying Landing Field (OLF)
Coupeville.
An AICUZ study was originally prepared and approved for NAS Whidbey Islands Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville in 1977 and an update approved by the office of the Chief of Naval Operations in 1986.
Island County and the City of Oak Harbor subsequently evaluated the AICUZ recommendations and
enacted compatible land use provisions into their zoning ordinances.
Noise
As part of this AICUZ Study Update, a noise study was conducted. The noise study contains calendar
year 2003 (CY03) and calendar year 2013 (CY13) noise contours for aircraft operations associated with
the use of the two Navy airfields and the proposed transition from the EA-6B to the new EA-18G aircraft.
A comparison of these noise contours and those used in the 1986 AICUZ reveals that the areas impacted
by noise both on-station and off-station have generally seen modest changes.
Safety
Accident Potential Zones (APZs) are based on historical accident and operations data throughout the
Services and the application of margins of safety within these areas (which have been determined to be
probable impact areas) if an accident were to occur. This study updates the APZs associated with
operations at NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville and compares them with the APZs contained in
the 1986 study. Due to changes in operations and updated operator descriptions of flight tracks, changes
in APZs have occurred.
Land Use
The majority of non-Navy owned lands within the updated AICUZ footprint are included within existing
local community enacted AICUZ related land controls. This AICUZ protection includes compatible land
use zoning, sound reduction provisions in the building code, and noise fair disclosure provisions for rental
and purchase of real estate within the airfield environs that are commendable.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations
The following recommendations promote continued compatible development and prevent incompatible
development and potential encroachment resulting from changes in land use controls/zoning regulations.
1. Maintain a Community Plans and Liaison Officer (CP&LO) in the continued implementation of
the AICUZ program at NAS Whidbey Island.
2. Continue the extensive public awareness and intergovernmental coordination and cooperation in
AICUZ implementation with local, regional, and state government agencies.
3. Seek the update of current local planning and zoning ordinances to reflect compatible land use
related to APZs outlined in this study.
4. Support maintaining aircraft noise related compatible land use and zoning provisions, reflected in
current local government land use and zoning provisions and contours, as currently enacted by
Island County and the City of Oak Harbor.
5. Seek implementation of AICUZ land use compatibility recommendations with the Town of
Coupeville.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

NOISE
4.0
Noise
This section provides background discussion on sound; noise environmental sound descriptors; noise
metrics; noise analysis; and the noise associated with aircraft operations, including that generated by inflight operations and maintenance run-up operations at Ault Field and flight operations at OLF
Coupeville.
4.1
Aircraft Sound Sources
The main sources of sound at air installations are generally related to in-flight operations, pre-flight and
maintenance run-up operations. Computer models are used to develop noise contours for land use
planning purposes based on information about these operations, based upon the following factors:
Type of operation (e.g. arrival, departure, pattern)
Number of operations per day
Time of operation
Flight track
Aircraft power settings, speeds, and altitudes
Number and duration of maintenance run-ups
Environmental data (temperature and humidity)
Topographical features of the area
4.2
What Is Noise?
Noise is unwanted sound. Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel
through a medium, such as air, and are sensed by the ear. Whether that sound is interpreted as pleasant
(e.g., music) or unpleasant (e.g., jackhammers) depends largely on the listener's current activity, past
experience, and attitude toward the source of that sound.
Sound is all around us; sound becomes noise when it interferes with normal activities such as sleep and
conversation.
Aircraft noise is of concern to many in communities surrounding airports. The impact of aircraft noise is
also a factor in the planning of future land use near air facilities. Because the noise from these operations
impacts surrounding land use, the Navy has defined certain noise zones and provided associated
recommendations regarding compatible land use in the AICUZ Program.
4.3
Characteristics of Sound
The measurement and human perception of sound involves three basic physical characteristicsintensity,
frequency, and duration. Intensity is a measure of the acoustic energy of the sound vibrations and is
expressed in terms of sound pressure. The higher the sound pressure, the more energy carried by the
sound and the louder the perception of that sound. Frequency is the number of times per second the air
vibrates or oscillates. Low-frequency sounds are characterized as rumbles or roars, while sirens or
screeches typify high-frequency sounds. Duration is the length of time the sound can be detected.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
4-1

Seattle, WA 98115

NOISE
A logarithmic unit known as decibel (dB) is used to represent the intensity of sound. Such a
representation is called a sound level. A sound level of 10 dB is approximately the threshold of human
hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet conditions. Normal speech has a sound level of
approximately 60 dB. Sound levels above 120 dB begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and
above 140 dB as pain. See Figure 4-1.
Because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be arithmetically added or
subtracted. Therefore, the total sound level produced by two sounds of different levels is usually slightly
higher than the higher of the two. If two sounds of equal intensity are added, the sound level increases by
3 dB. For example
60.0 dB + 70.0 dB = 70.4 dB;
60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB.
A change of 3 dB is the smallest change detected by the average human ear. An increase of about 10 dB
is usually perceived as a doubling of loudness. This applies to sounds of all volumes. Figure 4-1
provides some examples of sound levels of typical noise sources and noise environments.
Figure 4-1 Sound Levels of Typical Sources and Environments
A small change in dB will not generally be noticeable. As the change in dB increases, the individual
perception is greater, as shown in Table 4-1.
4-2
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

NOISE
Table 4-1 Subjective Responses to Changes in A-weighted Decibels (dBA)
Change
1 dB
3 dB
5 dB
10 dB
20 dB
Change in Perceived Loudness

Requires close attention to notice
Barely perceptible
Quite noticeable
Dramatic, twice or half as loud
Striking, fourfold change
Source:
Wyle Laboratories, Wyle Report 04-26 Aircraft Noise Study for NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville, Washington, 2004.
4.3.1 Environmental Sound Descriptor

The sound environment around an air installation is typically described using a measure of cumulative
exposure that results from all aircraft operations. The DOD-specified metric used to account for this is
DNL. A more detailed description of DNL follows:
In general, DNL can be thought of as an accumulation of all of the sound produced by individual
events that occur throughout a 24-hour period. The sound of each event is accounted for by an
integration of the changing sound level over time. These integrated sound levels for individual
events are called SELs. The logarithmic accumulation of the SELs from all operations during a
24-hour period determines the DNL for the day at that location.
DNL also takes into account the time of day the events occur. The measure recognizes that
events during the nighttime hours may be more intrusive, and therefore more annoying, than the
same events during daytime hours, when background sound levels are higher. To account for this
additional annoyance, a penalty of 10 dB is added to each event that takes place during acoustic
nighttime hours, defined as 2200 to 0700 the next day.
DNL values around an air installation are presented not just for a single specific 24-hour period,
but rather for an annual average day.1
DNL averaging is done to obtain a stable representation of the noise environment free of variations in
day-to-day operations or between weekdays and weekends as well as from fluctuations in wind directions,
runway use, temperature, aircraft performance, and total airfield operations (any one of which can
significantly influence noise exposure levels from one day to the next).
4.3.2 Individual Response to Sound Levels

Individual response to sound levels is influenced by many factors, including the following:
Activity the individual is engaged in at the time of the event
General sensitivity to sound
Time of day
Length of time an individual is exposed to a sound
Predictability of sound
Average temperature/Inversions/Other weather phenomena
The average annual day takes the total number of operations per year and divides it by 365.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
4-3

Seattle, WA 98115

NOISE
Various scientific studies and social surveys have found a high correlation between the percentages of
groups of people in communities highly annoyed and the level of average sound exposure measured in
DNL. This correlation is depicted using a curve shown in Figure 4-2. Originally developed in the 1970s,
the curve has been updated over the past 10 years; it remains the best available method to estimate
community response to aircraft sound levels.
Figure 4-2 Influences of Sound Levels on Annoyance
Source:
Shultz 1978 as taken from Wyle Laboratories, Wyle Report 04-26 Aircraft Noise Study for NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville,
Washington, 2004.
For more information on sound and noise, see Appendix B.
4.4 Noise Complaints and Noise Abatement Procedures

4.4.1 Noise Complaints at NAS Whidbey Island
NAS Whidbey Island has implemented a policy for handling noise complaints and other flight-related
disturbances at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, as well as for those that may occur at the numerous
ranges and airspace used for training2. The policy is designed to enable air station personnel to log noise
complaints, analyze complaint locations and times, and identify the flights/operations that generated the
complaints.
Persons with noise complaints or who experience other flight-related disturbances call a complaint hotline
at (360) 257-2681. Once a call is received, it is taken by the Operations Duty Officer (ODO) gathers
information from the caller as outlined in a telephone complaint form. The ODO records pertinent
information such as the location, time, and description of the noise-generating event, as well as the
address and contact information for the caller.
After speaking with the caller, the ODO may follow up by contacting ATC, OLF Coupeville, Range
Scheduling, AIMD, or other activities/tenants as appropriate to compile information as to what may have
generated the noise complaint.
NAS Whidbey Island, NAS Whidbey Instruction (NASWHIDBEYINST) 3710.10A Handling of Noise Complaints and Other Flight-related
Disturbances, February 23, 2000.
4-4
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

NOISE
The ODO provides copies of any previous day's complaints to several persons, including the
Commanding Officer, Executive Officer, Operations Officer, and Community Plans and Liaison Officer
(CP&LO) the following day. These persons may, when necessary, initiate an informal inquiry into the
allegations of any complainant to determine the validity of those allegations. This inquiry may involve a
follow-up call to the complainant. The CP&LO maintains a file of noise complaints. Table 4-2 lists the
number of complaints on record from 1999 through 2003 at NAS Whidbey Island. See Figure 4-3 for a
representation of the location of recent noise complaints.
Table 4-2 Noise Complaints for NAS Whidbey Island
Year
Number of Complaints
per Year
1999
302
2000
244
2001
108
2002
85
2003
126
Source
NAS Whidbey Island, Noise Complaints Log, 2000-2004.
4.4.2 Noise Abatement at NAS Whidbey Island

Numerous noise abatement procedures are contained in the current air operations manual
(NASWHIDBEYINST 3710.7S, August 14, 2002 et seq.).
It is Commanding Officer, NAS Whidbey Island policy to conduct required training and
operational flights with a minimum impact on surrounding communities. All aircrew using Ault
Field, OLF Coupeville, Admiralty Bay Mining Range, Boardman Target and the myriad of
northwest instrument and visual military training routes (IR/VR), are responsible for the safe
conduct of their mission while complying with published course rules, noise abatement
procedures, and good common sense. Each aircrew must be familiar with the noise profiles of
their aircraft and must be committed to minimizing noise impacts without compromising
operational and safety requirements.
See NASWHIDBEYINST 3710.7S for noise abatements procedures.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
4-5

Seattle, WA 98115

NOISE
4.5
Noise Metrics
As used in environmental noise analyses, a metric refers to the unit or quantity that measures the effect of
noise on the environment. The metric for the noise environment on and in the vicinity of airbases is
normally described in terms of the time-average sound level generated by the aircraft operating at the
facility. The federal noise metric used for this purpose is the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL),
which is defined in units of dB. DNL has been determined to be a reliable measure of community
sensitivity to noise and has become the standard metric used in the United States to quantify noise in
aircraft noise studies and associated compatible land use and zoning analysis.
The average of sound over a 24-hour period does not ignore the louder single events. When sound levels
of two or more sources are added, the source with the lower sound level is dominated by the source with
the higher sound level. The combined sound level is usually only slightly higher than the sound level
produced by the louder source.
Aircraft noise is expressed in terms of A-weighted sound levels. A-weighting is a method of adjusting
the frequency content of a sound event to closely resemble the way the average human ear responds to
aircraft sound. The A-weighting scale is therefore considered to provide a good indication of the impact
of noise produced by aircraft operations.
Noise exposure is measured using the DNL. The symbol Ldn is generally used as the descriptor for daynight average sound level in mathematical equations, although the descriptors Ldn and DNL are often
used interchangeably. DNL is used throughout this report.
Noise levels of the loudest aircraft operations significantly influence the 24-hour average. For example, if
one daytime aircraft overflight measuring 100 dBA for 30 seconds occurs within a 24-hour period in a 50dBA noise environment, the DNL will be 65.5. If ten such 30-second aircraft overflights occur in
daytime hours in the 24-hour period, the DNL will be 75.4. Therefore, a few maximum sound events
occurring during a 24-hour period will have a strong influence on the 24-hour DNL even though lower
sound levels from other aircraft between these flights could account for the majority of the flight activity.
The accumulation of noise computed in this manner provides a quantitative tool for comparing overall
noise environments and use in developing compatible land use plans and zoning regulations in the
airfields environs. The DNLs are represented as contours connecting points of equal value, usually in 5dB increments from 60 or 65 dB up to 75 or 80 dB on the contour values.
However, individuals do not "hear" DNL. The DNL contours are intended for land use planning, not to
describe what someone hears when a single event occurs.
Individual or single noise events are described in terms of the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) in units of
dB. SEL takes into account the amplitude of a sound and the length of time during which each noise
event occurs. It thus provides a direct comparison of the relative intrusiveness among single noise events
of different intensities and durations of aircraft overflights.
Table 4-3 lists SEL values that indicate what a person on the ground would hear when an aircraft is flying
overhead at representative distances from an aircraft.
4-6
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

NOISE
Table 4-3 Representative SEL Values for Aircraft

Comparison of Representative SEL Values for Downwind Leg
Segment of FCLP Pattern
Aircraft
Altitude (feet AGL)
F/A-18 C/D
EA-18G
EA-6B
SEL (dBA)
600
111
800
109
1,000
108
600
117
800
115
1,000
113
600
121
800
119
1,000
117
Comparison of Representative SEL Values for Take-off and

Approach Referenced to 1,000 FT
Aircraft
F/A-18 C/D
EA-18G
EA-6 B
Operation Type
SEL (dBA)
Departure
117
Approach
109
Departure
117
Approach
114
Departure
114
Approach
107
Source:
Wyle Laboratories personal communication to the Onyx Group, January 2004.
Notes:
SEL generated for representative airspeed and power settings. Sound Exposure Level (SEL), above ground level (AGL), compressor speed (NC),
revolutions per minute (RPM)
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
4-7

Seattle, WA 98115

NOISE
4.6
Noise Contours at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville
At a minimum, DOD requires that contours be plotted for DNL values of 65, 70, 75, and 80 in AICUZ
studies. Recently, contours of 60 DNL are also depicted to account for potential noise impacts in areas of
low ambient noise levels. Three general noise exposure zones are defined in the AICUZ program: areas
with a DNL of less than 65; areas with a DNL between 65 and 75; and areas with a DNL of 75 or greater.
These three areas are defined as Noise Zones 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
4.6.1 Methodology
The Navy periodically conducts noise studies to assess the noise impacts of aircraft operations. As with
updates to AICUZ studies, the need to conduct a noise study is generally prompted by a change in aircraft
operationseither by the number of operations conducted at the airfield, the number and type of aircraft
using the airfield, or the flight paths used for airfield departure/arrival changes. A noise study is also
normally conducted as a part of an update of an AICUZ study.
The transition from the EA-6B to the EA-18G was the driver behind the latest noise study, Wyle Report
04-26 Aircraft Noise Study for NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville, Washington, 2004. The noise
contour data presented for CY03 and CY13 comes from this noise study.
The Navy uses NOISEMAP (Version 7.2), a widely accepted computer model that projects noise impacts
around military airfields, to generate noise contour data. NOISEMAP calculates DNL contours resulting
from aircraft operations using such variables as power settings, aircraft model and type, maximum sound
levels, and duration and flight profiles for a given airfield.
The flight tracks, as well as pre-flight and maintenance run-up operations, establish the shape of the noise
contours. In general, approaches and departures cause the narrow tapering of portions of the contours
aligned with the runways, while touch and go and FCLP operations determine the general contour size.
Noise from pre-flight and maintenance run-up operation locations, if not overshadowed by flight
operations, causes generally circular arcs.
4-8
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

AICUZ AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
6.0
AICUZ and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
The AICUZ boundary is generally defined as the areas contained within the noise zones and APZs of an
air installation. The AICUZ footprint is the minimum area where land use controls are recommended to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of those living on or near a military airfield.
Although control over land use and development in the vicinity of military facilities is the responsibility
of local governments, the Navy encourages localities to adopt programs, policies, and regulations that
promote compatible development within the AICUZ footprint. This section presents the AICUZ footprint
for NAS Whidbey Islands Ault Field and OLF Coupeville and the recommended land use compatibility
guidelines that local planning and zoning officials can use in their review of land use control and zoning
regulation updates.
6.1
AICUZ Footprints for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville
Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present the AICUZ footprints for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville based on CY13
operations.
The superimposed noise exposure levels and APZ boundaries conceptually create 12 potential subzones
within an AICUZ footprint. As shown in Table 6-1, these subzones contain various combinations of
noise and accident potential exposure. Note that the AICUZ footprints for Ault Field and OLF are not
composed of all 12 subzones. For example, subzone I-2 (APZ I and Noise Zone 2) does not exist at Ault
Field. Subzones that do not exist are indicated by N/A (not applicable) in the figure legends. The Noise
Zone 2 area extending over the Seaplane Base area of NAS Whidbey Island results from the straight-in
approach and GCA pattern for that runway, while the APZ in the same area results from the combined
departures from Runway 13.
Table 6-1 AICUZ Footprint Subzones
Noise Zones
1
Below 65 DNL (db)
65-75 DNL (db)
Above 75 DNL (db)
Clear Zone (including Primary Surface)
CZ
CZ
CZ
APZ I
I-1
I-2
I-3
APZ II
II-1
II-2
II-3
Outside APZs
Accident Potential Zone
Notes:
Accident Potential Zone (APZ), Clear Zone (CZ), Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL), decibels (dB).
Source:
OPNAVINST 11010.36B, 2002.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
6-1

Seattle, WA 98115

APZ I is beyond the Clear Zone and possesses a measurable potential for accidents relative to the Clear
Zone. These areas can exist in conjunction with Noise Zones 1, 2, or 3. The combinations of noise and
accident potential are shown as I-3 (APZ I-Noise Zone 3) for the highest combination of noise and
accident potential, I-2 (APZ I-Noise Zone 2) for areas of moderate noise exposure and measurable
accident potential, and I-1 (APZ I-Noise Zone 1) for areas of measurable accident potential and low noise
exposure.
APZ II is an area beyond APZ I that has a measurable potential for aircraft accidents relative to APZ I or
the Clear Zone. APZ II areas can exist in conjunction with Noise Zones 1, 2, or 3. These combinations
of noise and accident potential are shown as II-3 (APZ II-Noise Zone 3) for the areas of highest noise
exposure and measurable accident potential, II-2 (APZ II-Noise Zone 2) for areas of moderate noise
exposure and measurable accident potential, and II-1 (APZ II-Noise Zone 1) for areas of low noise
exposure and measurable accident potential. These areas have potential for accidents, and noise impacts
and land use controls are recommended.
Noise zones are shown as 1, 2, and 3 in Table 6-1. Noise Zone 1 (less than 65 DNL) is an area of low or
no impact (although some people in these areas may be annoyed by aircraft overflights), Noise Zone 2
(DNL 65-75) is an area of moderate impact where some land use controls are needed, and Noise Zone 3
(DNL 75 and above) is the most severely impacted area and requires the greatest degree of land use
controls for noise exposure.
6.2
Suggested Land Use Compatibility within AICUZ Footprint
Land use compatibility recommendations for noise and APZs zones, as shown in Tables 6-2 and 6-3.
Noise-sensitive uses including, but not limited to, housing, schools, hospitals, and churches are
recommended to be placed outside of high-noise areas. People-intensive uses including, but not limited
to, shopping malls, theaters, and activities that would draw concentrations of people to an area should be
placed outside APZs.
Certain land uses are considered incompatible in high noise zones and APZs. Other land uses are
considered compatible under certain conditions. For example, recreational uses, such as parks, are
considered compatible under APZ I, provided that the recreational use does not include a high density of
people (e.g., spectator sports). Agricultural uses are compatible above 75 DNL, but residential buildings
are not considered compatible. Compatibility is a relative term and should be considered along with
specific local land use development criteria by local governments in their decision making processes.
The guidelines for suggested land use listed in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 are also nationwide in scope. Since
many air installations are in urban areas, these guidelines assume an urban environment with higher levels
of ambient background noise than might exist in rural and suburban areas. These compatibility
guidelines are, therefore, sometimes modified at the local government level to address a specific local
noise environment.
6-2
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

II 1
Figure 6-2
Seaplane Base
Oak
Harbor
Strawberry
Point
Crescent
Harbor
Skagit
Bay
CY13 AICUZ Footprint

at OLF Coupeville
AICUZ Footprint Sub-zones
Primary
Surface/
Clear Zone APZ I
Oak
Harbor
PUGET
SOUND
ISLAND
COUNTY
Brown
Point
Forbes
Point
20
!
(
Noise Zone 1
(<65 Ldn)
Noise Zone 2
(65-75 Ldn)
Noise Zone 3
(>75 Ldn)
APZ II
Noise
Zone
Only
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CZ
N/A
N/A
CZ
N/A
N/A
Navy Property Boundary

CY13 AICUZ Footprint Extent
Penn Cove
Point
Partridge
60 dB
Coupeville
OLF Coupeville
Runway
Camano
Island
60 dB
14
65 dB
32
70 dB
OLF Coupeville
70 dB
CZ
80 dB
70 dB
70 dB
Port
Susan
a
tog
Sara
2
75 dB
sag
Pas
70 dB
Point
Wilson
65 dB
60 dB
Admiralty
Bay
Notes:
AICUZ Air Installations Compatible Use Zone
APZ Accident Potential Zone
CZ Clear Zone
Ldn Day-Night Average Sound Level
Port
Townsend
Lowell
Point
!
(
525
ORTH
Rocky
Point
GN
ETIC
N
Port
Townsend
TRUE NORTH
"
"
Marrowstone
Point
Magnetic Declination
19
AICUZ Study Update for NAS Whidbey Island's Ault Field and OLF Coupeville
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
MA
JEFFERSON
COUNTY
Sources:
The Onyx Group, 2004
NAS Whidbey Island GIS, 2004
ESRI, 2004
U.S. Census TIGER Files, 2004
Island County GIS, 2004
Wyle Laboratories, 2004
Miles
6-5
Seattle, WA 98115

Table 6-2 Suggested Land Use Compatibility in Noise Zones
Land Use
Suggested Land Use Compatibility
Noise Zone 1
(DNL or CNEL)
SLUCM
NO
11
11.11
11.12
11.13
11.21
11.22
11.31
11.32
12
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
LAND USE NAME

Residential
Household units
Single units: detached
Single units: semidetached
Single units: attached row
Two units: side-by-side
Two units: one above the other
Apartments: walk-up
Apartments: elevator
Group quarters
Residential hotels
Mobile home parks or courts
Transient lodgings
Other residential
Manufacturing
Food and kindred products;
manufacturing
Textile mill products;
manufacturing
Apparel and other finished
products; products made from
fabrics, leather, and similar
materials; manufacturing
Lumber and wood products
(except furniture); manufacturing
Furniture and fixtures;
manufacturing
Paper and allied products;
manufacturing
Printing, publishing, and allied
industries
Chemicals and allied products;
manufacturing
Petroleum refining and related
industries
Noise Zone 2
(DNL or CNEL)
Noise Zone 3
(DNL or CNEL)
< 55
5564
6569
7074
7579
8084
85+
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N1
N
N1
N1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y2
Y3
Y4
(Continued on next page)
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
6-7

Seattle, WA 98115

Table 6-2 Suggested Land Use Compatibility in Noise Zones (Continued)
Land Use

Noise Zone 1
(DNL or CNEL)
SLUCM
NO
30
31
32
33
34
35
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
LAND USE NAME

Manufacturing (continued)
Rubber and misc. plastic
products; manufacturing
Stone, clay, and glass products;
manufacturing
Primary metal products;
manufacturing
Fabricated metal products;
manufacturing
Professional, scientific, and
controlling instruments;
photographic and optical goods;
watches and clocks
Miscellaneous manufacturing
Noise Zone 3
(DNL or CNEL)
< 55
5564
6569
7074
7579
8084
85+
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y2
Y3
Y4
25
30
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y2
Y2
Y2
Y2
Y2
25 5
Y2
25 5
Y3
Y3
Y3
Y3
Y3
30 5
Y3
30 5
Y4
Y4
Y4
Y4
Y4
N
Y4
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y2
Y 2
Y3
Y3
Y4
Y4
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
25
25
30
30
N
N
N
N
Transportation, communication, and utilities

Railroad, rapid rail transit, and
Y
street railway transportation
Motor vehicle transportation
Y
Aircraft transportation
Y
Marine craft transportation
Y
Highway and street right-of-way
Y
Automobile parking
Y
Communication
Y
Utilities
Y
Other transportation,
Y
communication, and utilities
Trade
Wholesale trade
Retail tradebuilding materials,
hardware and farm equipment
Retail tradeshopping centers
Retail tradefood
Noise Zone 2
(DNL or CNEL)
6-8
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

Table 6-2 Suggested Land Use Compatibility in Noise Zones (Continued)
Land Use

Noise Zone 1
(DNL or CNEL)
SLUCM
NO
50
55
56
57
58
LAND USE NAME

Trade (Continued)
Retail tradeautomotive, marine
craft, aircraft and accessories
Retail tradeapparel and
accessories
Retail tradefurniture, home
furnishings and equipment
Retail tradeeating and drinking
establishments
59
Other retail trade
60
61
Services
Finance, insurance, and real estate
services
Personal services
Cemeteries
Business services
Warehousing and storage
Repair services
Professional services
Hospitals, other medical facilities
Nursing homes
Contract construction services
Government services
Educational services
Miscellaneous
62
62.4
63
63.7
64
65
65.1
65.16
66
67
68
69
70
71
71.2
72
72.1
72.11
72.2
73
74
75
76
79
Noise Zone 2
(DNL or CNEL)
Noise Zone 3
(DNL or CNEL)
< 55
5564
6569
7074
7579
8084
85+
25
30
25
30
25
30
25
30
25
30
25
30
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y1
Y
Y
Y1
Y1
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
25
N1
Y
Y1
25
Y
25
Y2
25
Y2
Y2
25
30
N1
25
25
30
25
30
Y3
30
Y3
Y3
30
N
N
30
30
N
30
N
Y 4,11
N
Y4
Y4
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y 6,11
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y
Y1
25
Y1
Y
25
N
30
N
N
30
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y7
Y7
Y
Y1
Y
Y1
Y
25
N
30
N
N
N
N
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Cultural, entertainment, and recreational

Cultural activities (churches)
Y
Nature exhibits
Y
Public assembly
Y
Auditoriums, concert halls
Y
Outdoor music shells,
Y
amphitheaters
Outdoor sports arenas, spectator
Y
sports
Amusements
Y
Recreational activities (golf
Y
courses, riding stables, water
recreation)
Resorts and group camps
Y
Parks
Y
Other cultural, entertainment, and
Y
recreation facilities
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
6-9

Seattle, WA 98115

Table 6-2 Suggested Land Use Compatibility in Noise Zones (Concluded)
Land Use

Noise Zone 1
(DNL or CNEL)
SLUCM
NO
80
81
81.5
81.7
82
83
84
85
89
Noise Zone 2
(DNL or CNEL)
Noise Zone 3
(DNL or CNEL)
LAND USE NAME
< 55
5564
6569
7074
7579
8084
85+
Resource production and extraction

Agriculture (except livestock)
Livestock farming
Animal breeding
Agriculture-related activities
Forestry activities
Fishing activities
Mining activities
Other resource production or
extraction
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y
Y
Y
Y9
Y9
Y9
Y9
Y9
Y
Y
Y
Y 10
N
N
Y 10
Y 10
Y
Y
Y
Y 10,11
N
N
Y 10,11
Y 10,11
Y
Y
Y
Y 10,11
N
N
Y 10,11
Y 10,11
Y
Y
Y
Key:
SLUCM
Standard Land Use Coding Manual, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Y (Yes)
Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions.
N (No)
Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.
Y* (Yes with Restrictions)
Land use and related structures are generally compatible. However, see note(s) indicated by the superscript.
N* (No with Exceptions)
Land use and related structures are generally incompatible. However, see notes indicated by the superscript.
NLR
Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction
of the structure.
25, 30, or 35
The numbers refer to NLR levels. Land use and related structures generally are compatible; however, measures to achieve
NLR of 25, 30, or 35 must be incorporated into design and construction of structures. Measures to achieve an overall noise reduction do not
necessarily solve noise difficulties outside the structure, and additional evaluation is warranted. Also, see notes indicated by superscripts where
they appear with one of these numbers.
DNL
Day Night Average Sound Level.
CNEL
Community Noise Equivalent Level (Normally within a very small decibel difference of DNL).
Ldn
Mathematical symbol for DNL.
Notes:
1.
a) Although local conditions regarding the need for housing may require residential use in these zones, residential use is discouraged in
DNL 6569 and strongly discouraged in DNL 7074. The absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and an
evaluation should be conducted locally prior to local approvals, indicating that a demonstrated community need for the residential use
would not be met if development were prohibited in these zones.
b) Where the community determines that these uses must be allowed, measures to achieve and outdoor to indoor NLR of at least 25 dB in
DNL 6569 and NLR of 30 dB in DNL 7074 should be incorporated into building codes and be in individual approvals; for transient
housing, an NLR of at least 35 dB should be incorporated in DNL 7579.
c) Normal permanent construction can be expected to provide an NLR of 20 dB; thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10,
or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation, upgraded Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings in
windows and doors and closed windows year-round. Additional consideration should be given to modifying NLR levels based on peak
noise levels or vibrations.
d) NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. However, building location and site planning, design, and use of berms and
barriers can help mitigate outdoor noise exposure, particularly from ground-level sources. Measures that reduce noise at a site should be
used wherever practical in preference to measures that protect only interior spaces.
6-10
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

Notes (Continued):
2. Measures to achieve NLR of 25 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is
received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.
5. If project or proposed development is noise sensitive, use indicated NLR; if not, land use is compatible without NLR.
6. No buildings.
7. Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.
8. Residential buildings require NLR of 25.
9. Residential buildings require NLR of 30.
10. Residential buildings not permitted.
11. Land use not recommended, but if community decides use is necessary, hearing protection devices should be worn.
Source:
OPNAVINST 11010.36B, 2002.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
6-11

Seattle, WA 98115

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS
7.0
Land Use Compatibility Analysis
This section presents information pertaining to Island County history; socioeconomics; land use planning
authorities, existing land use, zoning, and future land use.
In addition, this section examines the AICUZ recommendations as they apply to current and future land
use in the areas surrounding the airfields. Land use compatibility decisions are made by local government
authorities responsible for land use planning and zoning. Island County and the City of Oak Harbor have
taken positive steps to help in ensuring compatible future development by recognizing airfield noise
contours in local land use planning, zoning, and building code provisions. Further progress can be made
by also considering compatible land use provisions related to APZs in future updates. A comparison of
the noise contours contained in the current zoning regulations and those outlined in this AICUZ analysis
is provided in this section for ease of reference.
7.1
Island County
Rural character is one of Island Countys most valued assets,

providing the quality of life desired by most island residents
according to the Island County Comprehensive Plan, 1998.
Nestled in the Puget Sound basin between the Cascade
Mountains to the east and the Olympic Mountains to the west,
Island Countys name reflects the fact that it consists of just
two islandsWhidbey and Camano. The county covers a
land area of 208 square miles, or 133,120 acres. Included are
the countys three municipalities of Oak Harbor, Langley, and
Coupeville, which total 3,173 acres. The Town of Coupeville
serves as the county seat.
Above shows the Town of Coupevilles scenic

waterfront. The Town of Coupeville serves as the
Island County seat.
7.1.1 Island County History

Before the advent of white exploration and settlement, Native Americans moved throughout what is now
Island County. The principal tribes were the Snohomish, Skagit, and Kikialos. The mainstay of local
tribal economies was fishing1.
In 1792, an expeditionary party led by Captain George Vancouver of the British Navy discovered Puget
Sound, signaling the advent of white exploration in the region. In June of that year, Ship's Master Joseph
Whidbey of the HMS Discovery charted a recently discovered island, which Captain Vancouver later
named "Whidbey" in his honor. Through the early 1800s, other explorers, scouts, and trappers visited the
island.
American settlement of Island County began around 1850, primarily around the Oak Harbor and Penn's
Cove areas. Soon after, Island County was created out of Thurston County on January 6, 1853, by the
legislature of the Oregon Territory. Agriculture and logging/timbering began to flourish. By the turn of
the century, other businesses followed, and Oak Harbor and Coupeville became small centers for banking,
shipping, industry, and trading within the county.
Information in this section was obtained from the American Local History Network for Island County, Washington at
www.usgennet.org/usa/wa/county/island, 2004.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
7-1

Seattle, WA 98115

7.2
Existing Land Use in AICUZ Areas
The development pattern in Whidbey Island remains largely

rural in character, with much of the area wooded or covered
with small farms. The shoreline is often less than five miles
away from any interior point, and the land close to Ault Field
and OLF Coupeville offers vast areas of undeveloped
landscape where distant mountains and water are often visible.
The majority of development within the county occurs along
shoreline areas or in the municipalities of Oak Harbor,
Langley, and Coupeville. However, because of the natural
attractiveness of the countryside, there is an interest for
residential development in the rural areas outside of the
municipalities. The result is that much of the island, including
the areas around the airfields, is becoming developed with
low-density residential and rural agricultural uses
characterized by single-family homes located on large lots that
are often cultivated.
Whidbey Island has a distinct and picturesque rural

character. This rural character, when coupled with
the proximity to water, helps generate a continual
demand for single family housing on the island.
Many residents use their large lots for agricultural
purposes.
Land use surrounding the airfields is generally compatible with AICUZ recommendations. Limited
existing incompatibilities are attributable to residential development scattered inside the 65 and 75 and
above dB contours of the airfields that were constructed in the past, prior to current zoning revisions in
1994. The current local land use controls include requirements to incorporate noise level reduction
materials and disclosure above 60 DNL. Existing residential development densities in these noise areas
vary from one dwelling unit per 10 acres to dwelling units located on quarter-acre lots within previously
platted developments. The Island County Comprehensive Plan provides that housing should not be
constructed above 70 DNL.
Existing platted developments are in a general sense grandfathered, or somewhat exempt from some but
not all current land use regulations enacted by the county and municipalities. For example all new
construction within platted developments or on individual parcels, or major renovations to existing
structures are required to meet a variety of regulations related to density, type, and construction practices.
These regulations include noise level reduction for construction or major renovations occurring in higher
noise areas a well as disclosure. The regulations that the local jurisdictions have enacted that specifically
work toward land use compatibility in the Ault Field and OLF Coupeville noise and safety environs are
supportive of compatible land use in the areas covered.
7-4
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

7.3
Zoning and Land Use Controls
The privately owned parcels near Ault Field and OLF Coupeville are subject to the policies and
procedures of Island County, or the municipalities of the City of Oak Harbor and the Town of Coupeville.
Table 7-3 provides a summary of existing zoning and land use controls around NAS Whidbey Islands
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville by the county and local municipalities. Island County and the City of
Oak Harbor have developed ordinances that require noise level reduction/sound attenuation in noise areas
around the airfields. The county and local municipalities do not currently address accident
potential/APZs in their ordinances.
7.3.1 Island County Zoning and Land Use Controls

Island County has adopted a Zoning Ordinance; an Airport and
Aircraft Operations Noise Disclosure Ordinance for property
sold, rented, or leased around Ault Field and OLF Coupeville;
and a Noise Level Reduction Ordinance to specify minimum
standards for building construction within the noise zones
around Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. In addition, the county
has adopted a Cell Tower Ordinance and a Signs and Lighting
Ordinance. The latter is designed to help preserve the dark
skies and rural character of the county. Together, these
ordinances help to ensure the safety of aircraft operations and
protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens.
Island County has implemented a number of

regulations that promote compatibility between Ault
Field and OLF Coupeville operations and
surrounding development.
As for zoning, Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show that the majority of
parcels under county jurisdiction near the airfields are zoned
Rural (R) Zone or Rural Agriculture (RA) Zone. The figures
also show the 60dB and 70dB contours recognized in the current ordinances requiring noise level
reduction. The CY13 AICUZ footprint (combination of CY13 noise contours and CY13 APZs) has been
overlaid on the figures. As mentioned earlier, accident potential is not yet recognized in the local
ordinances.
The Rural (R) Zone generally limits development density to one unit per 5 acres. The ordinance states
that the limitations on density and uses are designed to provide for a variety of rural lifestyles and to
ensure compatible uses. Permitted uses include single-family residences, farms, and other types of
structure where few people congregate. Conditional uses where a larger number of people may
congregate include churches, schools, and inns. Approval for such conditional uses is often contingent on
a community meeting which allows the Navy a public forum for discussion and opinion.
The Rural Agriculture (RA) Zone generally limits development density to one lot per 10 acres. The
primary purpose of the Rural Agriculture (RA) zone is to protect and encourage the long term productive
use of Island Countys agricultural land resources of local importance. Permitted uses include singlefamily residences, farms, and other types of structure where few people congregate. Conditional uses
where a larger number of people may congregate include churches and inns.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
7-5

Seattle, WA 98115

The Navy recently purchased 18 avigation easements over 27 parcels scattered around OLF Coupeville.
Easements grant the Navy the right of passage in and through the airspace at various altitudes, depending
upon the location of the parcel(s). The easements also offer the Navy some flexibility, for they give the
Navy the right to cause in and through the airspace such noise as has been inherent in the operation of A3D, A-6E, EA-6B, or follow-on aircraft of lesser or comparable noise level; or no more than 10,000
flights through the individual parcel's airspace per calendar year, whichever is greater, caused by the
utilization of OLF Coupeville.
Table 7-3 Zoning and Land Use Controls in Impacted Areas
Zoning and Land
Use Control
Island County
City of Oak Harbor
Town of Coupeville
Majority of parcels near airfields zoned

for low-density development5- and 10acre minimum lot sizes.
Ordinance contains provisions for

Aviation Environs Overlay Zone that
requires development in any area of
above the 60dB DNL contour to sound
attenuate. A stated goal/policy objective
within the citys 2003 Comprehensive
Plan is to prohibit residential
development in any area above the 70dB
DNL contour.
Yes
Gives notice to prospective buyers,

renters, or lessees that the property of
interest is subject to aircraft noise for the
northern two-thirds of Island County.
Gives notice to prospective buyers,

renters, or lessees that the property of
interest is subject to aircraft noise. A
stated goal/policy objective within the
citys 2003 Comprehensive Plan is to also
ensure disclosure of accident potential
impacts.
No.
Noise Level
Reduction
Ordinance
Noise Level Reduction of 25 or 30 dB for

all new structures and alterations to
existing structures on parcels within
specified noise areas around Ault Field
and OLF Coupeville: 25 dB noise level
reduction within 6070 dB DNL
contours; and 30 dB noise level reduction
above 70 dB DNL.
Noise Level Reduction of 25 or 30 dB for

all new structures and alterations to
existing structures on parcels in noise
areas: 25 dB noise level reduction within
6065 dB DNL contours (Subdistrict A);
and 30 dB noise level reduction within
6575 dB DNL contours (Subdistrict B).
Signs and Lighting

Ordinance
This ordinance is designed to help

preserve dark skies and the rural character
of the county by requiring signs to be lit
from above/facing downward and any
other lighting to be shielded so as not to
produce glare into the night sky. The
ordinance that applies to both residential
and commercial entities thereby works to
minimize bright lights, either directed or
reflected, that can impair a pilots vision,
especially at night.
This commercial only ordinance allows

for limitations to be placed on the
reflective qualities of surface materials,
area and intensity of illumination,
location and angle of illumination, and
the hours of illumination. The ordinance
thereby works to minimize bright lights,
either directed or reflected, that can
impair a pilots vision, especially at night.
Requires that all communication towers

comply with state and local mechanical,
electrical and building codes, FCC
requirements, FAA requirements
(including FAR Part 77 Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace).
Towers, antennas, or other objects that

penetrate the 100:1 angle slope criteria
established in FAR Part 44 shall be
reviewed for compatibility with airport
operations. No tower, antenna, or other
object shall constitute a hazard to air
navigation, interfere with the safe
operation of aircraft or deny the existing
operational capability of Ault Field.
Adopted Zoning
Ordinance
Noise Disclosure
Ordinance
Cell Tower
Ordinance
7-6
No.
Yes.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

Figure 7-1
Anacortes
Zoning and CY13 AICUZ

Footprint at Ault Field
Padillo
Bay
Primary
Surface/
Clear Zone APZ I
20
!
(
SAN JUAN
COUNTY
Similk
Bay
SKAGIT
COUNTY
Noise Zone 1
(<65 Ldn)
Noise Zone 2
(65-75 Ldn)
Noise Zone 3
(>75 Ldn)
APZ II
Noise
Zone
Only
N/A
N/A
II-1
N/A
CZ
N/A
II-2
CZ
I-3
II-3

tion
Decep
Pass
Hoypus
Point
Island County Zoning and Noise Contours

Airport (AP)
Strait of
Juan de Fuca
Commercial Agriculture (CA)

65 dB
60 dB
La
Conner
II-3
Federal Land (FL)

Light Manufacturing
60 dB
I-3
75 dB
II-2
Park (PK)
Ault Field
70 dB
Municipality
Public Facilities (PF)
75 dB
II-3
CZ
I-3
II-3
I-3
Rural (R)
65 dB
70 dB
Rural Agriculture (RA)
Rural Center (RC)

Rural Forest (RF)
Rural Residential (RR)
2
I-3
II-3
Rural Service (RS)
II-3
Skagit
Bay
Rural Village (RV)

Special Review District (SR)
60 dB; Noise Zone 2
II-2
70 dB; Noise Zone 3
II-1
Sources:
ESRI, 2004
Crescent
Harbor
Oak
Harbor
Forbes
Point
TRUE NORTH
20
!
(
19
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
13
25
07
31
"
"
ISLAND
COUNTY
Brown
Point
Field Runways
ORTH
Oak
Harbor
Strawberry
Point
GN
ETIC
N
Seaplane Base
Notes:
CZ Clear Zone
Ault
MA
Miles
7-7
Seattle, WA 98115

II 1
Figure 7-2
Seaplane Base
Oak
Harbor
Strawberry
Point
Crescent
Harbor
Skagit
Bay
Zoning and CY13 AICUZ

Footprint at OLF Coupeville
Primary
Surface/
Clear Zone APZ I
Oak
Harbor
PUGET
SOUND
ISLAND
COUNTY
Brown
Point
Forbes
Point
20
!
(
Noise Zone 1
(<65 Ldn)
Noise Zone 2
(65-75 Ldn)
Noise Zone 3
(>75 Ldn)
APZ II
Noise
Zone
Only
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CZ
N/A
N/A
CZ
N/A
N/A

Island County Zoning and Noise Contours
Penn Cove
Point
Partridge
Airport (AP)
65 dB
Commercial Agriculture (CA)
60 dB
Federal Land (FL)
60 dB
Coupeville
Light Manufacturing
Municipality
Park (PK)
Camano
Island
65 dB
Public Facilities (PF)

Rural (R)
OLF Coupeville
CZ
75 dB
Rural Agriculture (RA)

Rural Center (RC)
Sara
Port
Susan
Rural Forest (RF)

Rural Residential (RR)
a
tog
P as
Rural Service (RS)
s ag
Rural Village (RV)
Special Review District (SR)

65 dB
Point
Wilson
60 dB; Noise Zone 2

70 dB; Noise Zone 3
Admiralty
Bay
Notes:
CZ Clear Zone
Port
Townsend
70 dB
60 dB
Lowell
Point
JEFFERSON
COUNTY
!
(
525
14
32
ORTH
GN
ETIC
N
TRUE NORTH
Rocky
Point
19
MA
Port
Townsend
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
OLF Coupeville
Runway
"
"
Marrowstone
Point
Sources:
ESRI, 2004
Miles
7-9
Seattle, WA 98115

7.3.2 Island County and City of Oak Harbor Noise Contours

Figure 7-3 shows the 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB DNL contours for Ault Field and OLF Coupeville as reflected
in Island Countys and the City of Oak Harbors current zoning ordinances.2 Table 7-4 shows the
population numbers, housing units, and area in acres within the 60 to 75+ dB DNL contours at 5 dB
increments.
Table 7-4 Island County and City of Oak Harbor Noise Exposure at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville
DNL (dB)
75 dB +
Totals
75 dB +
Totals
Population
Housing Units
Ault Field
7,682
4,782
1,502
3,195
17,161
OLF Coupeville
1,931
1,425
1,376
1,201
5,933
Area (Acres)
3,457
1,972
657
1,337
7,423
7,715
4,093
3,602
6,693
22,103
906
702
708
601
2,917
3,541
3,963
5,001
2,981
15,486
Notes:
Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL), decibels (dB).
Source:
Wyle Laboratories, Wyle Report 04-26 Aircraft Noise Study for NAS Whidbey Island and OLF Coupeville, Washington, 2004.
7.3.3 City of Oak Harbor Zoning and Land Use Controls

The City of Oak Harbor has adopted the same noise contours as Island County, to implement the Aviation
Environs Overlay Zone through the citys zoning ordinance and other elements of the municipal code.
The overlay applies additional standards to properties located within underlying zoning districts. These
standards include noise level reduction requirements ranging between 25 and 30 dB depending on
structure type and location within the noise zones and disclosure. The City of Oak Harbor has also
adopted a lighting and glare ordinance that helps to ensure the safety of aircraft operations by placing
limitations on lighting that can impair a pilots vision, especially at night.
Additionally, the City of Oak Harbors 2003 Comprehensive Plan promotes residential development to
occur to the southwest and away from Ault Field. The area closer to the airfield is designated as
commercial and light industrial. The plan also has stated goals/policy objectives that prohibit residential
development in any area above the 70 dB DNL contour and disclose accident potential. These
goals/policy objectives are not currently included within the citys zoning code.
As adopted with Ordinance C-59-02 [PLG-011-02] of the Island County code. The contours are also recognized in the City of Oak Harbor code.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
7-11

Seattle, WA 98115

7.3.4 Town of Coupeville Zoning and Land Use

Controls
The town has not adopted policies or goals designed
specifically to ensure development compatible with AICUZ
recommendations. However, the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and current zoning for the town foster
minimal development on the east, where aircraft noise from
OLF Coupeville has a greater impact. The plan also
recommends infill development in the central core of the town,
where aircraft noise has less of an impact.
7.4
Above shows North Main Street in the Town of

Coupeville.
The towns plan calls for infill
development within this central area.
Planning and Future Land Use in Impacted Areas
7.4.1 Island County Planning and Future Land Use

The Island County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998 in accordance with the Washington State
Growth Management Act. The plan was established to manage growth in the county through the year
2020. As mandated under RCW 36.70A.070, the elements addressed include Land Use, Rural, Housing,
Capital Facilities, Utilities, Transportation, and Shoreline Management. Several optional elements are
addressed in the plan as well, including Parks, Recreation and Open Space, Natural Lands, Historic
Preservation, and Water Resources (Board of Island County Commissioners et al., 1998).
The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the countys association with NAS Whidbey Island, as well as
the impacts associated with aircraft operations at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. The plan designates an
Airport and Aviation Safety Overlay, which recommends that future land use adjacent to Ault Field and
OLF Coupeville be maintained as Rural (R) and Rural Agricultural (RA) Zones. These areas are
designated R and RA to encourage low-density development within the air stations noise zones.
The plan also states the followingIsland County will discourage residential development in Aircraft
Accident Potential Zones (APZ). To protect the operational use of military airports, Island County will
ensure that future development in Accident Potential Zones (APZs) around Ault Field and Outlying Field
Coupeville is at the lowest possible density consistent with the underlying land use designation.
Additionally, the comprehensive plan addresses growth issues through 2020, with the most powerful tool
being the designation of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) in which urban growth shall be encouraged and
outside of which only nonurban growth may occur. Two UGAs exist near Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville, as shown in Figure 7-4, the Island County Future Land Use Map. One UGA is located
around the City of Oak Harbor and the second UGA is located around the Town of Coupeville. The
figure illustrates that the UGA around the City of Oak Harbor actually includes an additional area outside
the municipalitys limits, while the UGA for the Town of Coupeville is the municipalitys limits. The
larger UGA around the City of Oak Harbor works to provide an urban transition area where clustered
development, open space for future development, and greenbelts are envisioned. Since the Town of
Coupeville has a limited water supply and sewer availability, no UGA transition area has been included.
7-12
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

Anacortes
SAN JUAN
COUNTY
!
(
20
75 d
La
Conner
60 d B
SAKGIT
COUNTY
65 dB
70 dB
Ault Field
Skagit
Bay
Seaplane Base
Oak
Harbor
ISLAND
COUNTY
70 d
Stanwood
Coupeville
75
60 d B
65 d B
B
Strait de
Juan de Fuca
dB
Port
Susan
OLF Coupeville
ato
Sa r
ga
Pa
ssa
ge
Port
Townsend
Admiralty
Bay
!
(
JEFFERSON
COUNTY
525
"
"
TRUE NORTH
Sources:
ESRI, 2004
RTH
75 dB
NO
65 dB
Island County and City of Oak Harbor

Noise Contours
ETIC
70 dB
19
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
GN
60 dB
Figure 7-3
MA
DNL Noise Contours
Miles
7-13

Seattle, WA 98115
Exhibit D
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit D to Roberts Declaration

Seattle, WA 98115
DEPART\1ENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF EA-6B
AIRCRAFT WITH EA-18G AIRCRAFT AT NAVAL AIR STATION WHIDBEY ISLAND,
WASHINGTON
Pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as
amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508),
implementing procedural provisions of NEPA, the Department of Defense gives notice that an
EA has been prepared and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required for the
replacement of EA-6B aircraft with EA-18G aircraft at Naval Air Station (NAS), Whidbey
Island, Oak Harbor, Island County, Washington.
The Navy proposes to replace the EA-6B aircraft with the EA-18G aircraft at NAS Whidbey
Island and provide facilities and functions to support this replacement. Because the EA-18G
squadrons will perform the same Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) mission as the EA-6B
squadrons, many of the facilities and functions at NAS Whidbey Island that support the EA-6B
squadrons will continue to support the EA-18G squadrons.
The types of facilities needed to support the EA-18G aircraft include operational (e.g., hangars,
parking, runways), training (e.g., flight simulators, classrooms, airspace, ranges), maintenance,
support (e.g., warehouses), and personnel (e.g., medical and dental clinics, housing) facilities.
Functions to support the EA -18G aircraft squadrons comprise the combination of personnel,
airfield and airspace use, and established procedures to conduct the range of aircraft operations at
the air station and other training areas, including flight operations (e.g., Field Carrier Landing
Practice), to support the readiness of these squadrons. In general, the functions and facilities
needed to support the EA-18G aircraft are very similar to existing facilities and functions
supporting the EA-6B aircraft
The purpose and need for the proposed action is to maintain the Navy's AEA capability at NAS
Whidbey Island by replacing the EA-6B airframe, which is nearing the end of its service life,
with the EA-18G airframe and providing the facilities and functions to support the replacement
without negatively affecting the Navy's AEA mission readiness. The EA-6B aircraft has
remained operationally viable in the fleet for its more than 30-year history through systematic
upgrades to its airframe and electronic weapons systems. However, the airframe is rapidly
approaching the end of its service life. In Public Law I 08-87, the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2004, Congress recognized this fact and authorized the Department of the
Navy to proceed with the research and development aspects of replacing the EA-6B with the EA18G.
The Navy's AEA capability currently resides with the EA-6B aircraft squadrons. Although the
primary types of mission training and readiness requirements for the EA-18G will remain
virtually the same as those for the EA-6B currently stationed at NAS Whidbey Island, the
airframe, aircraft components, and performance of the EA-6B and EA-18G differ. Existing
facilities and functions at NAS Whidbey Island will require modification to accommodate the
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115
replacement airframe. In addition, the replacement will result in a decrease in the number of
aircraft, personnel, and flight operations at NAS Whidbey Island.
EA-6B replacement with the EA-18G will begin in 2008 and be completed by 2013. The
replacement process will result in an overall decrease in the number of Electronic Attack (V AQ)
aircraft and associated personnel stationed at NAS Whidbey Island. A total of 57 EA-18G
aircraft will replace the existing 72 EA-6B aircraft, resulting in a decrease of 15 VAQ aircraft
stationed at NAS Whidbey Island and a decrease of approximately 1,106 personnel associated
with the AEA aircraft squadrons.
Although the primary types of mission training and readiness requirements for the EA-18G
squadrons will remain virtually the same as those for the EA-6B squadrons currently stationed at
NAS Whidbey Island (with the exception of an additional air-to-air combat training requirement
not currently applicable to the EA-6B aircrews), the number of operations are projected to be
fewer in 20 13; the projected decrease is due to the disestablishment of the four EA-6B
expeditionary squadrons and the reduced number of operations required to meet the training
syllabus and readiness requirements. There will be no change in the training syllabus that
would cause changes to the types of flight operations flown by the EA-6B (arrivals, departures,
pattern operations), the locations of flight operations (flight tracks over land or water), or the
current ratio of daytime and nighttime flight operations. In addition, the number or type of flight
operations within national airspace, designated Special Use Airspace, and in the low-altitude
Military Training Routes will remain the same as those conducted by the EA-6B squadrons for
several decades.
The environmental consequences of the Navy's proposed action are associated with changes to
aircraft operation, personnel transitions, and new construction or renovation of structures at NAS
Whidbey Island. To adequately meet the requirements of the EA-18G transition, minor
modifications to the existing facilities at NAS Whidbey Island would be required. These consist
of internal facility modifications to accommodate aircraft simulators, engine test cell, Naval
Aviation Technical Training Unit (NATTU), and Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department
(AIMD). Minor changes to room configuration; electrical power routing; heating, ventilation, air
conditioning (HV AC); mountings for replacement equipment; etc. would be required. Navy also
analyzed an estimated 20,000-square-foot hangar addition adjacent to Hangar 10 to provide
improved flexibility in meeting aircraft storage and maintenance requirements. This
modification would be constructed consistent with existing on-station land use, land already
developed with tarmac and connected to existing service utilities.
EA-6B replacement with the EA-18G would have an overall positive impact on the noise
environment. The day-night average sound level (DNL) noise metric was used to evaluate the
change in the existing (calendar year [CY] 2003) and projected (CY 2013) noise environment,
with a greater than 65-dB DNL noise contour considered high noise exposure. Implementation
of the Proposed Action would result in a 36% reduction in the population exposed to aircraft
noise greater than 65 dB DNL around Ault Field (the primary airfield at NAS Whidbey Island),
and a 16% reduction in the population exposed to aircraft noise greater than 65 dB DNL around
Outlying Field (OLF) Coupeville. Similarly, implementation of the Proposed Action would
result in a 28% decrease in the land area and a 38% reduction in the number of housing units
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115
within the greater than 65-dB DNL noise contour around Ault Field. Implementation of the
Proposed Action would result in a 9% decrease in the land area and a 16% reduction in the
number of housing units within the greater than 65-dB DNL noise contour around OLF
Coupeville.
EA-6B replacement with the EA-18G would have no significant impact on regional air quality.
Annual mobile source emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO~). and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) are projected to increase with replacement of the EA-6B with the
EA-18G. Annual mobile source emissions of particulate matter (PM 10 ) and sulfur dioxide (S0 2)
are projected to decrease. Projected emission increases are not significant because they represent
less than 1% of the total annual mobile source emissions within the three-county Northwest Air
Pollution Authority (NW APA) region. The NW APA region is in attainment for all criteria
pollutants, and the increase would not cause the region to be in violation of any of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Because the region is in attainment, the Clean Air
Act General Conformity Rule does not apply, and a General Conformity Determination is not
required. Stationary source emissions of CO from the test cell are projected to increase while
emissions of VOCs, NOx, so~. and PM 10 are projected to decrease. The projected CO increase
is not significant because the projected increase is well below the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration threshold as defined under the Clean Air Act.
EA-6B replacement with the EA-18G would result in a reduction of 1,106 personnel. This
reduction would impact the on-station and regional population in Island County if personnel are
reassigned outside of the local area. However, as the reduction in personnel would occur over a
6-year period, the annual reduction in personnel would range from I% to 4% of the on-station
population in CY 2003. The total reduction in personnel would represent a loss of only 3% of
the Island County population in 2000. Considering that the reduction would occur over a 6-year
period, that the population of Island County is projected to continue its growth trend, that the
military personnel would be reassigned to other Naval installations, and that the number of
civilian personnel would not be reduced, neither the economy, population, schools, or housing
within Island County or its municipalities would be significantly affected.
Minor modifications to existing facilities would result in no significant impact on the natural or
socioeconomic environment. Possible construction of a hangar addition would result in no
significant impact on the natural or socioeconomic environment.
Implementation of any of the proposed projects in the Airfield Recapitalization Plan could have
cumulative impacts on existing air quality. However, the potentially cumulative increase in
emissions would be minor and limited to the duration of the construction period.
With respect to Executive Order 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, the direct and indirect effects of the
proposed action are not expected to cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects specific to any groups or individuals from minority or low-income
populations residing in the area. With respect to Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, children would not be disproportionately
exposed to environmental health risks or safety risks by the proposed action.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115
Based on the information gathered during the preparation of the EA for the replacement of EA6B aircraft with EA-180 aircraft at NAS Whidbey Island, Washington, the Navy finds that the
proposed action will not have significant adverse impacts or reasonably foreseeable significant
adverse cumulative impacts on the natural or man-made environment.
D. K. BULLARD
Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115
Exhibit E

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
2000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON , D .C. 20350-2000
IN REP LY REFER TO
3000
Ser N98 / l3Ul60044
16 Apr 2013
. MEMORANDUM
From:
To:
. S,ubj:
Ref:
Director, Air Warfare (N98)

Director, Energy and Environmental Readiness
Division (N45)
ADDITIONAL EA-18G EXPEDITIONARY SQUADRONS
(a) Resource Management Decision for the FY 2014
Budget Request dated 10 Apr 2013
1. Reference (a) directed the Navy to stand-up two additional

expeditionary EA-18G squadrons. The President's Budget for
Fiscal Year 2014 contains funding to procure 21 additional EA18Gs for this effort. Request a review of National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis requirements to base two additional
expeditionary EA-18G squadrons at NAS Whidbey Island, WA. Should
additional NEPA analysis be required, the desire is not to
interfere or cause undue delay to the ongoing P-8 NEPA analysis
being c.o nducted at Whidbey Island.
2.
Each of the additional expeditionary squadrons will have
five aircraft and the Fleet Replacement Squadron will increase
from 17 aircraft to 20 aircraft. The first Expeditionary
squadron is planned to stand-up by the end of FY16 with the
second squadron standing up by end of FY17.
2.
My .Point of contact is CAPT John Thompson,
Aft~
W. F. Moran
RADM, U.S. Navy
Copy to:
OPNAV N46
CNAF N8
CNAL N8
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit E to Roberts Declaration
Enclosure (1)
Seattle, WA 98115
Exhibit F
Buchdeckel:Layout 1 07.06.11 13:39 Seite 1
Burden of disease from environmental noise
Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise

The health impacts of environmental noise are a growing
concern among both the general public and policy-makers in Europe. This publication provides technical support
to policy-makers and their advisers in the quantitative risk
assessment of environmental noise, using evidence and
data available in Europe. It contains the summary of synthesized reviews of evidence on the relationship between
environmental noise and specific health effects, including
cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance, tinnitus, and annoyance. For each outcome, the
environmental burden of disease methodology, based on
exposureresponse relationship, exposure distribution,
background prevalence of disease and disability weights
of the outcome, is applied to calculate the burden of disease in terms of disability-adjusted life-years. The results
indicate that at least one million healthy life years are lost
every year from traffic-related noise in the western part
of Europe. Owing to a lack of exposure data in south-east
Europe and the newly independent states, it was not possible to estimate the disease burden in the whole of the
WHO European Region. The procedure of estimating burdens presented in this publication can be used by international, national and local authorities in prioritizing and
planning environmental and public health policies.
Burden of disease from

environmental noise
Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe
%%,-.%+/&%
%%
World Health Organization

Regional Office for Europe
Scherfigsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen , Denmark
Tel.: +45 39 17 17 17. Fax: +45 39 17 18 18. E-mail: contact@euro.who.int
Web site: www.euro.who.int
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit F to Roberts Declaration
WHO_Kim_Rokho_2011_15:Layout 1 26.05.11 09:11 Seite ii
The WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn Office, WHO Regional Office
for Europe coordinated the development of this publication.
Keywords
NOISE advErSE EffEctS
ENvIrONMENtaL EXPOSUrE
ENvIrONMENtaL HEaLtH
rISK aSSESSMENt
PUBLIc HEaLtH
HEaLtH StatUS
EUrOPE
ISBN: 978 92 890 0229 5
World Health Organization 2011

All rights reserved. The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of
its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate borderlines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended
by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable
for damages arising from its use. The views expressed by authors, editors, or expert groups do not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the World Health Organization or the European Commission.
Edited by Frank Theakston, layout by Dagmar Bengs, printed by www.warlich.de
This product was printed on paper from well-managed forests.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
WHO_Kim_Rokho_2011_14:Layout 1
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite vi
vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADL
AF
AR
CI
CLAMES
DALY
DW
EBD
EEA
EEG
EMG
END
EOG
ETC LUSI
EU
EUR-A
GBD
HA
HSD
ICD-9
ICD-10
LAeq,th or Leq,th
Lden
Ldn
Lnight
NIHL
NOISE
NYHA
OR
OSAS
PAR
PSG
REM
SWS
WHO
YLD
YLL
Activity of daily life

Attributable fraction
Attributable risk
Confidence interval
Classification and Measurement System of Functional Health
Disability-adjusted life year
Disability weight
Environmental burden of disease
European Environment Agency
Electroencephalogram
Electromyogram
Environmental noise directive (2002/49/EC)
Electrooculogram
European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information
European Union
WHO epidemiological subregion in Europe: Andorra, Austria,
Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
and the United Kingdom
Global burden of disease
Highly annoyed people
Highly sleep disturbed people
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related
Health Problems, ninth revision
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related
Health Problems, tenth revision
A-weighted equivalent sound pressure level over t hours
Day-evening-night equivalent sound level
Day-night equivalent sound level
Night equivalent sound level
Noise-induced hearing loss
Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe
New York Heart Association
Odds ratio
Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome
Population attributable risk
Polysomnography
Rapid eye movement
Slow wave sleep
World Health Organization
Years lost due to disability
Years of life lost
BURDEN OF DISEASE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 16
16
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
Summary of evidence linking noise and cardiovascular disease

Epidemiological studies on the relationship between transportation noise (particularly road traffic and aircraft noise) and cardiovascular effects have been carried out
on adults and on children, focusing on mean blood pressure, hypertension and ischaemic heart diseases as cardiovascular end-points. The evidence, in general, of a
positive association has increased during recent years (1820). While there is evidence that road traffic noise increases the risk of ischaemic heart disease, including
myocardial infarction, there is less evidence for such an association with aircraft
noise because of a lack of studies. However, there is increasing evidence that both
road traffic noise and aircraft noise increase the risk of hypertension. Very few studies on the cardiovascular effects of other environmental noise sources, including rail
traffic, are known. Numerical meta-analyses were carried out assessing exposure
response relationships in quantitative terms (21,22) and the issue has been addressed
in various WHO projects. The exposureresponse curves presented here refer to the
data collected for these projects, to illustrate the processes of a quantitative risk assessment.
Biological model of causation

Non-auditory health effects of noise have been studied in humans and animals for
several decades, using laboratory and empirical methods. Biological reaction models have been derived, based on the general stress concept (17,2330). Noise is a
nonspecific stressor that arouses the autonomous nervous system and the endocrine
system (9,1114,31,32) (C. Maschke & K. Hecht, unpublished data, 2005). A neuro-endocrinological definition of stress is that it is a state that threatens homeostatic or adaptable systems in the body (16,33,34). Increased allostatic load is associated with various diseases, including ischaemic heart disease (35). The epidemiological reasoning is based on three facts. First, experimental studies in the laboratory
have been carried out for a long time and revealed an increased vegetative and endocrine reactivity during periods of exposure (1,3670). However, the question regarding long-term effects of chronic noise exposure cannot be answered from shortterm experiments. Second, animal studies have shown manifest disorders in species
exposed to high levels of noise for a long time (7183). However, effects in humans
and animals cannot be directly compared, particularly because two pathways may
be relevant the direct effect due to nervous innervation and the indirect effect due
to the cognitive perception of the sound; the latter is certainly different in humans.
Furthermore, noise levels in animal studies were higher than in ambient situations.
Third, occupational studies have shown health disorders in workers chronically exposed to noise for many years (20,8498). However, noise levels were higher than
in the ambient environment. Epidemiological research has therefore been carried out
with respect to community noise levels to test the hypothesis and to quantify the
risk.
Among other non-auditory health end-points, short-term changes in circulation, including blood pressure, heart rate, cardiac output and vasoconstriction, as well as
stress hormones (epinephrine, norepinephrine and corticosteroids), have been studied in experimental settings for many years (32,99). Classical biological risk factors
have been shown to be elevated in subjects that were exposed to high levels of noise
(44,54,79,100111).
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 19
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
Meta-analysis road traffic noise and myocardial infarction

To determine the most up-to-date and accurate exposureresponse relationship between community noise and myocardial infarction, a meta-analysis was carried out
(21,121). By 2005, a total of 61 epidemiological studies had been recognized as
having either objectively or subjectively assessed the relationship between transportation noise and myocardial infarction. Nearly all of the studies referred to road
traffic noise or (commercial) aircraft noise, and a few to military aircraft noise.
Most of the studies were of the cross-sectional type (descriptive studies) but observational studies such as case-control and cohort studies (analytical studies) were also available. The study subjects were children and adults. Confounding factors
were not always adequately considered in some older studies. Not many studies
provided information on exposureresponse relationships, because only two exposure categories were considered.
All epidemiological noise studies were evaluated with respect to their feasibility for
inclusion in a meta-analysis. The following criteria for the inclusion in the analysis/synthesis process were applied: (a) peer-reviewed in the international literature;
(b) reasonable control of possible confounding (stratification, model adjustment,
matching); (c) objective assessment of exposure (sound level); (d) objective assessment of outcome (clinical assessment); (e) type of study (analytical or descriptive);
and (f) multi-level exposureresponse assessment (not only dichotomous exposure
categories).
Based on the above criteria, five analytical (prospective case-control and cohort)
and two descriptive (cross-sectional) studies were suitable for derivation of a common exposureresponse curve for the association between road traffic noise and the
risk of myocardial infarction. Two separate meta-analyses were undertaken by considering the analytical studies and descriptive studies separately. The analytical
studies comprised those that were carried out in Caerphilly and Speedwell with a
pooled analysis of 6 years follow-up data (122,123) and the three Berlin studies
(124,125). The descriptive studies comprised the cross-sectional analyses that were
carried out on the studies in Caerphilly and Speedwell (126). All studies referred to
the road traffic noise level during the day (Lday,16h) and the incidence (analytical
studies) or prevalence (descriptive studies) of myocardial infarction as the outcome.
The study subjects were men. In all analytical studies the orientation of rooms
(moderator of the exposure) was considered for the exposure assessment (at least
one bedroom or living room facing the street or not). In all descriptive studies the
traffic noise level referred to the nearest facades that were facing the street and did
not consider the orientation of rooms/windows (source of exposure misclassification). The individual effect estimates of each study were adjusted for the covariates
given in these studies. This means that different sets of covariates were considered
in each study. Nevertheless, this pragmatic approach accounts best for possible confounding in each study and provides the most reliable effect estimates derived from
each study.
The common set of covariates considered in the descriptive studies were age, sex
(males only) social class, body mass index, smoking, family history of ischaemic
heart disease, physical activity during leisure time and prevalence of pre-existing
diseases. The common set of covariates considered in the analytical studies were
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
19
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 34
34
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
1. Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH, eds. Guidelines for community noise. Geneva, World
Health Organization, 1999 (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf, accessed 22 July
2010).
2. Schwela DH. The World Health Organization guidelines for environmental health. Noise/News
International, 2000, 8:922.
3. Suter AH. Noise sources and effects a new look. Sound & Vibration, 1992, 25:1838.
4. Passchier-Vermeer W, Passchier WF. Noise exposure and public health. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 2000, 108(Suppl. 1):123131.
5. Stansfeld S, Haines M, Brown B. Noise and health in the urban environment. Reviews on Environmental Health, 2000, 15:4382.
6. The world health report 2002 reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2002.
7. Mathers CD et al. Global burden of disease in 2002: data sources, methods and results. Geneva,
World Health Organization, 2003 (Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy Discussion Paper No. 54) (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper54.pdf, accessed 28 August
2006).
8. Lopez AD et al., eds. Global burden of disease and risk factors. Washington, DC and New York,
The World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2006 (http://www.dcp2.org/pubs/GBD, accessed 22 July 2010).
9. Maschke C, Rupp T, Hecht K. The influence of stressors on biochemical reactions a review of
present scientific findings with noise. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental
Health, 2000, 203:4553.
10. Maschke C. Excretion of cortisol under nocturnal noise and differences due to analytic techniques. Noise & Health, 2002, 5(17):4752.
11. Maschke C, Hecht K. Stress and noise the psychological/physiological perspective and current
limitations. In: Luxon L, Prasher D, eds. Noise and its effects. Chichester, John Wiley &
Sons, 2007.
12. Spreng M. Central nervous system activation by noise. Noise & Health, 2000, 2(7):4957.
13. Spreng M. Possible health effects of noise induced cortisol increase. Noise & Health, 2000,
2(7):5963.
14. Spreng M. Noise induced nocturnal cortisol secretion and tolerable overhead flights. Noise &
Health, 2004, 6(22):3547.
15. Rylander R. Annoyance and stress. Journal of Aviation and Environmental Research, 2002,
7(Suppl.):46.
16. McEwen BS. Stress, adaption, and disease. Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 1998, 840:3344.
17. Sapolsky RM, McEwen BS. Induced modulation of endocrine history: a partial review. Stress,
1997, 2:112.
18. Babisch W. Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk: updated review and synthesis of epidemiological studies indicate that the evidence has increased. Noise & Health, 2006, 8:129.
19. Babisch W. Traffic noise and cardiovascular disease: epidemiological review and synthesis.
Noise & Health, 2000, 2(8):932.
20. van Kempen EEMM. et al. The association between noise exposure and blood pressure and ischaemic heart disease: a meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002, 110:307
317.
21. Babisch W. Road traffic noise and cardiovascular risk. Noise & Health, 2008, 10(38):2733.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 35
REFERENCES
22. van Kempen EEMM. Transportation noise exposure and childrens health and cognition [thesis].
Utrecht, University of Utrecht, 2008.
23. Henry JP, Stephens PM. Stress, health, and the social environment, a sociobiologic approach to
medicine. New York, Springer-Verlag, 1977.
24. Ising H et al. Health effects of traffic noise. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1980, 47:179190.
25. Lercher P. Environmental noise and health: an integrated research perspective. Environment International, 1996, 22:117128.
26. Babisch W. The noise/stress concept, risk assessment and research needs. Noise & Health, 2002,
4(16):111.
27. Sapolsky RM, Krey LC, McEwan BS. The neuroendocrinology of stress and aging: the glucocorticoid cascade hypothesis. Endocrine Reviews, 1986, 7:284306.
28. Sapolsky RM. Effects of stress and glucocorticoids on hippocampal neuronal survival. In: Brown
MR, Koob GF, Rivier C, eds. Stress. Neurobiology and Neuroendocrinology. New York,
Marcel Dekker, 1990:293322.
29. McEwen BS. Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England Journal of Medicine, 1998, 338:171179.
30. McEwen BS. et al. Characterization of brain adrenal steroid receptors and their involvement in
the stress response. In: Brown MR, Koob GF, Rivier C, eds. Stress. Neurobiology and neuroendocrinology. New York, Marcel Dekker, 1990:275292.
31. Wst S. et al. Genetic factors, perceived chronic stress, and the free cortisol response to awakening. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2000, 25:707720.
32. Babisch W. Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise. Noise & Health,
2003, 5(18):111.
33. Kirschbaum C, Hellhammer DH. Noise and stress salivary cortisol as a non-invasive measure
of allostatic load. Noise & Health, 1999, 4:5765.
34. Born J, Fehm HL. The neuroendocrine recovery function of sleep. Noise & Health, 2000, 7:25
37.
35. Sabbah W et al. Effects of allostatic load on the social gradient in ischaemic heart disease and periodontal disease: evidence from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2008, 62:415420.
36. Vera MN, Vila J, Godoy JF. Cardiovascular effects of traffic noise: the role of negative self-statements. Psychological Medicine, 1994, 24:817827.
37. Raggam RB et al. Personal noise ranking of road traffic: subjective estimation versus physiological parameters under laboratory conditions. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 2007, 210:97105.
38. Lusk SL et al. Acute effects of noise on blood pressure and heart rate. Archives of Environmental Health, 2004, 59:392399.
39. Maschke C et al. Stress hormone changes in persons exposed to simulated night noise. Noise &
Health, 2002, 5(17):3545.
40. Muzet A. Environmental noise, sleep and health. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 2007, 11:135142.
41. Levi L. A new stress tolerance test with simultaneous study of physiological and psychological
variables. Acta Endocrinologica, 1961, 37:3844.
42. Levi L. Sympatho-adrenomedullary responses to emotional stimuli: methodologic, physiologic
and pathologic considerations. In: Bajusz E, ed. An introduction to clinical neuroendocrinology. Basel, S. Karger, 1967.
43. Arguelles AE, Ibeas D, Ottone JP. Pituitary-adrenal stimulation by sound of different frequencies.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and Metabolism, 1962, 22:846851.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
35
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 36
36
REFERENCES
44. Arguelles AE et al. Endocrine and metabolic effects of noise in normal, hypertensive and psychotic subjects. In: Welch BL, Welch AS, eds. Physiological effects of noise. New York,
Plenum Press, 1970.
45. Glass D, Singer JE, Friedman LN. Psychic cost of adaption to an environmental stressor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12:200210.
46. Anticaglia JR, Cohen A. Extra-auditory effects of noise as a health hazard. American Industrial
Hygiene Association Journal, 1970, 31:277281.
47. Welch BL, Welch AS, eds. Physiological effects of noise. New York, Plenum Press, 1970.
48. Kryter KD. The effects of noise on man. New York, Academic Press, 1970.
49. Kryter KD. Non-auditory effects of environmental noise. American Journal of Public Health,
1972, 62:389398.
50. Kryter K, Poza F. Effects of noise on some autonomic system activities. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1980, 67:20362044.
51. Miyazaki M. Effect of undesirable sound (noise) on cerebral circulation. Japanese Circulation
Journal, 1971, 35:931936.
52. Semczuk B, Grny H. Studies on the effect of noise on cardiorespiratory efficiency. Polish Medical Journal, 1971, 10(3):594598.
53. Favino A et al. Radioimmunoassay measurements of serum cortisol, thyroxine, growth hormone
and luteinizing hormone with simultaneous electroencephalographic changes during continuous noise in man. Journal of Nuclear Biology and Medicine, 1973, 17:119122.
54. Verdun di Cantogno L et al. Urban traffic noise cardiocirculatory activity and coronary risk factors. Acta Oto-laryngologica, 1976, Suppl. 339:5563.
55. Griefahn B, Muzet A. Noise-induced sleep disturbances and their effects on health. Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 1978, 59:99106.
56. Mosskov JI, Ettema JH. Extra-auditory effects in short-term exposure to aircraft and traffic noise.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1977, 40:165173.
57. Mosskov JI, Ettema JH. Extra-auditory effects in short-term exposure to noise from a textile factory. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1977 40:174176.
58. Mosskov JI, Ettema JH. Extra-auditory effects in long-term exposure to aircraft and traffic noise.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1977, 40:177184.
59. Andrn L et al. Noise as a contributory factor in the development of elevated arterial pressure.
Acta Medica Scandinavica, 1980, 207:493498.
60. Andrn L. Cardiovascular effects of noise. Acta Medica Scandinavica, 1982 Suppl. 657:741.
61. Andrn L et al. Effect of noise on blood pressure and stress hormones. Clinical Science, 1982,
62:137141.
62. Andrn L et al. Circulatory effects of noise. Acta Medica Scandinavica, 1983, 213:3135.
63. Bach V et al. Cardiovascular responses and electroencephalogram disturbances to intermittent
noises: effects of nocturnal heat and daytime exposure. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 1991, 63:330337.
64. Carter N et al. Cardiovascular and autonomic response to environmental noise during sleep in
night shift workers. Sleep, 2002, 25:457464.
65. Chen CJ et al. Measurement of noise evoked blood pressure by means of averaging method: relation between blood pressure rise and SPL. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1991, 151:383
394.
66. Parrot J et al. Cardiovascular effects of impulse noise, road traffic noise, and intermittent pink
noise at LAeq = 75 dB, as a function of sex, age, and level of anxiety: a comparative study.
I. Heart rate data. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1992,
63:477484.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 37
REFERENCES
67. Slob A, Wink A, Radder JJ. The effect of acute noise exposure on the excretion of corticosteroids,
adrenalin and noradrenalin in man. Internationales Archiv fr Arbeitsmedizin, 1973, 31:225
235.
68. Chang T-Y et al. Effects of occupational noise exposure on 24-hour ambulatory vascular properties in male workers. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2007, 115:16601664.
69. Chang T-Y et al. Effects of occupational noise exposure on blood pressure. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2003, 45:12891296.
70. Fogari R et al. Transient but not sustained blood pressure increments by occupational noise. An
ambulatory blood pressure measurement study. Journal of Hypertension, 2001, 19:1021
1027.
71. Ising H, Nawroth H, Gnther T. Accelerated aging of rats by Mg deficiency and noise stress.
Magnesium-Bulletin, 1981, 3(2):142146.
72. Flynn AJ, Dengerink HA, Wright JW. Blood pressure in resting, anesthetized and noise-exposed
guinea pigs. Hearing Research, 1988, 34:201206.
73. Engeland WC, Miller P, Gann DS. Pituitary-adrenal and adrenomedullary responses to noise in
awake dogs. American Journal of Physiology, 1990, 285(Suppl. 2)(82):R672R677.
74. Armario A, Castellanos JM, Balasch J. Chronic noise stress and insulin secretion in male rats.
Physiology & Behavior, 1984, 34:359361.
75. Maass B, Jacobi E, Esser G. Platelet adhesiveness during exposure to noise. German Medicine,
1973, 3:111113.
76. Michaud DS et al. Differential impact of audiogenic stressors on Lewis and Fischer rats: behavioral, neurochemical, and endocrine variations. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2003, 28:1068
1081.
77. Peterson EA. Noise raises blood pressure without impairing auditory sensitivity. Science, 1981,
211:14501452.
78. Altura BM et al. Noise-induced hypertension and magnesium in rats : relationship to microcirculation and calcium. Journal of Applied Physiology, 1992, 72:194202.
79. Algers B, Ekesbo I, Strmberg S. The impact of continuous noise on animal health. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 1978, 67(Suppl.):126.
80. Ising H et al. Increase of collagen in the rat heart induced by noise. Environment International,
1979, 2:95105.
81. Morizono T et al. Hyperlipidemia and noise in the chinchilla. Acta Oto-laryngologica, 1985,
99:516524.
82. Gnther T et al. Magnesium intake and blood pressure of spontaneously hypertensive rats. Magnesium-Bulletin, 1984, 6(3):120126.
83. Andriukin AA. The influence of sound stimulation on the development of hypertension. Cor et
Vasa, 1961, 3:285293.
84. Deyanov C et al. Study on the level of blood pressure and prevalence of arterial hypertension depending on the duration of occupational exposure to industrial noise. Central European Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 1995, 1(2):109116.
85. Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP. Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health. British Medical
Bulletin, 2003, 68:243257.
86. Concha-Barrientos M, Campbell-Lendrum D, Steenland K. Occupational noise. Assessing the
burden of disease from work-related hearing impairment at national and local levels. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2004 (Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No. 9).
87. Babisch W. Epidemiological studies of the cardiovascular effects of occupational noise a critical appraisal. Noise & Health, 1998, 1(1):2439.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
37
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 38
38
REFERENCES
88. McNamee R et al. Occupational noise exposure and ischaemic heart disease mortality. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2006, 63:813819.
89. Davies HW et al. Occupational exposure to noise and mortality from acute myocardial infarction.
Epidemiology, 2005, 16:2532.
90. Zhao Y et al. A dose response relation for noise induced hypertension. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1991, 48:179184.
91. van Dijk FJH. Epidemiological research on non-auditory effects of occupational noise exposure.
Environment International, 1990, 16:405409.
92. Lang T, Fouriaud C, Jacquinet-Salord M-C. Length of occupational noise exposure and blood
pressure. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1992, 63:369
372.
93. Melamed S, Kristal-Boneh E, Froom P. Industrial noise exposure and risk factors for cardiovascular disease: findings from the CORDIS study. Noise & Health, 1999, 1(4):4956.
94. Melamed S, Fried Y, Froom P. The joint effect of noise exposure and job complexity on distress
and injury risk among men and women: The Cardiovascular Occupational Risk Factors Determination in Israel Study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2004,
46:10231032.
95. Powazka E et al. A cross-sectional study of occupational noise exposure and blood pressure in
steelworkers. Noise & Health, 2002, 5(17):1522.
96. Sbihi H, Davies H, Demers PA. Hypertensive disease in sawmill workers chronically exposed to
high noise levels. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2008, 65:643646.
97. Talbott EO et al. Evidence for a doseresponse relationship between occupational noise and
blood pressure. Archives of Environmental Health, 1999, 54:7178.
98. Virkkunen H, Kauppinen T, Tenkanen L. Long-term effect of occupational noise on the risk of
coronary heart disease. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 2005,
31:291299.
99. Berglund B, Lindvall T, eds. Community noise. Stockholm, Center for Sensory Research, 1995.
100. Manninen O, Aro S. Urinary catecholamines, blood pressure, serum cholesterol and blood glucose response to industrial noise exposure. Arhiv za Higijenu Rada i Toksikologiju, 1979,
30:713718.
101. Dugu B, Leppnen E, Grsbeck R. Preanalytical factors and standardized specimen collection:
the effects of industrial noise. Stress Medicine, 1994, 10:185189.
102. Marth E et al. Fluglrm: Vernderung biochemischer Parameter. Zentralblatt fr Bakteriologie,
Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene, 1988, 185:498508.
103. Rai RM et al. Biochemical effects of chronic exposure to noise in man. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health, 1981, 48:331337.
104. Schulte W, Otten H. Ergebnisse einer Tieffluglrmstudie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Extraaurale Langzeitwirkungen. In: Ising H, Kruppa B, eds. Lrm und Krankheit Noise and
Disease. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Berlin, 1991. Stuttgart, Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1993:322338.
105. Yoshida T et al. Effects of road traffic noise on inhabitants of Tokyo. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1997, 205:517522.
106. Knipschild P, Sall H. Road traffic noise and cardiovascular disease. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health, 1979, 44:5559.
107. von Eiff AW et al. Verkehrslrm und Hypertonie-Risiko. 2. Mitteilung: Hypothalamus-Theorie
der essentiellen Hypertonie. Mnchener medizinische Wochenschrift, 1981, 123:420424.
108. Goto K, Kaneko T. Distribution of blood pressure data from people living near an airport. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2002, 250:145149.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 39
REFERENCES
109. von Eiff AW et al. Der medizinische Untersuchungsteil. In: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
ed. Fluglarmwirkungen Eine interdisziplinare Untersuchung uber die Auswirkungen des
Fluglarms auf den Menschen. Boppard, Harald Boldt Verlag, 1974:349424.
110. Babisch W et al. Traffic noise, work noise and cardiovascular risk factors: The Caerphilly and
Speedwell Collaborative Heart Disease Studies. Environment International, 1990, 16: 425
435.
111. Lercher P, Kofler W. Adaptive behavior to road traffic noise blood pressure and cholesterol. In:
Vallet M, ed. Noise and Man93. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Noise as
a Public Health Problem, Nice, 1993. Arcueil Cedex, Institut National de Recherche sur les
Transports et leur Scurit, 1993:465468.
112. Griefahn B, Marks A, Robens S. Noise emitted from road, rail and air traffic and their effects on
sleep. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2006, 295:129140.
113. Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to
the assessment and management of environmental noise. Official Journal of the European
Communities, 2002, L 189:1225.
114. Bite M, Bite PZ. Zusammenhang zwischen den Straenverkehrslrmindizes LAeq(06-22) und
LAeq(22-06) sowie Lden. Zeitschrift fr Lrmbekmpfung, 2004, 51:2728.
115. Evans GW et al. Community noise exposure and stress in children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2001, 109:10231027.
116. Ullrich S. Lrmbelastung durch den Straenverkehr. Zeitschrift fr Lrmbekmpfung, 1998,
45:2226.
117. Utley WA. Descriptors for ambient noise. In: InterNoise 85. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Noise Control Engineering in Munich, 1985. Bremerhaven, Verlag fr neue
Wissenschaft GmbH, 1985:10691073.
118. Rylander R et al. Doseresponse relationships for traffic noise and annoyance. Archives of Environmental Health, 1986, 41:710.
119. Miedema HME, Oudshoorn CGM. Annoyance from transportation noise: relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2001, 109:409416.
120. Good practice guide for strategic noise mapping and the production of associated data on noise
exposure, version 2. Brussels, European Commission Working Group Assessment of Exposure to Noise, 2006 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/wg_aen.pdf, accessed 21 July 2010).
121. Babisch W. Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk. Review and synthesis of epidemiological
studies: doseeffect curve and risk estimation. Dessau, Umweltbundesamt, 2006 (WaBoLuHefte 01/06) (http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-medien/mysql_medien.php?anfrage=
Kennummer&Suchwort=2997, accessed April 2006).
122. Babisch W et al. Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk: The Caerphilly and Speedwell studies,
third phase 10 years follow-up. Archives of Environmental Health, 1999, 54:210216.
123. Babisch W, Ising H, Gallacher JEJ. Health status as a potential effect modifier of the relation between noise annoyance and incidence of ischaemic heart disease. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2003, 60:739745.
124. Babisch W et al. The incidence of myocardial infarction and its relation to road traffic noise the
Berlin case-control studies. Environment International, 1994, 20:469474.
125. Babisch W et al. Traffic noise and risk of myocardial infarction. Epidemiology, 2005, 16:3340.
126. Babisch W et al. Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk: the Caerphilly and Speedwell studies, second phase. Risk estimation, prevalence, and incidence of ischaemic heart disease. Archives
of Environmental Health, 1993, 48:406413.
127. Umweltbundesamt. Daten zur Umwelt. Der Zustand der Umwelt in Deutschland 2000. Berlin,
Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH, 2001:321332.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
39
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 40
40
REFERENCES
128. Jarup L et al. Hypertension and exposure to noise near airports the HYENA study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2008, 116:329333.
129. Bluhm GL et al. Road traffic noise and hypertension. Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
2007, 64:122126.
130. de Kluizenaar Y et al. Hypertension and road traffic noise exposure. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 2007, 49:484492.
131. Knipschild P. Medical effects of aircraft noise: community cardiovascular survey. International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1977, 40:185190.
132. Rosenlund M et al. Increased prevalence of hypertension in a population exposed to aircraft
noise. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2001, 58:769773.
133. Matsui T et al. The Okinawa study: effects of chronic aircraft noise on blood pressure and some
other physiological indices. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2004, 277:469470.
134. Matsui T et al. Association between blood pressure and aircraft noise exposure around Kadena
airfield in Okinawa. In: Boone R, ed. Internoise 2001. Proceedings of the 2001 International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, The Hague, 2001, Vol. 3. Maastricht, Nederlands Akoestisch Genootschap, 2001:15771582.
135. Eriksson C et al. Aircraft noise and incidence of hypertension. Epidemiology, 2007, 18:716721.
136. Babisch W, van Kamp I. Exposureresponse relationship of the association between aircraft noise
and the risk of hypertension. Noise & Health, 2009, 11(44):161168.
137. Stassen KR, Collier P, Torfs R. Environmental burden of disease due to transportation noise in
Flanders (Belgium). Transportation Research Part D, 2008, 13:355-358
138. Umweltbundesamt. Data on the environment. The state of the environment in Germany, 2005 ed.
Dessau, Federal Environmental Agency, 2005:8590.
139. Gesundheitsdaten online. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes [online database]. Berlin,
Statistisches Bundesamt and Robert Koch-Institut, 2005 (http://www.gbebund.de, accessed
20 June 2005).
140. Umweltatlas Berlin [online database]. Senatsverwaltung fr Stadtentwicklung, 2007
(http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/dinh_07.htm, accessed April
2008).
141. Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe (NOISE) [web site]. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency 2009 (http://noise.eionet.europa.eu/index.html, accessed 31 July
2010).)
142. Global burden of disease: 2004 update. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2008
(http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004update_full.pdf,
accessed 3 February 2011).
143. Yusuf S et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases. Part I: general considerations, the epidemiologic transition, risk factors, and impact of urbanization. Circulation, 2001, 104:2746
2753.
144. Herbold M, Hense H-W, Keil U. Effects of road traffic noise on prevalence of hypertension in
men: results of the Lbeck blood pressure study. Sozial- und Prventivmedizin, 1989, 34:19
23.
145. Belojevic G, Saric-Tanaskovic M. Prevalence of arterial hypertension and myocardial infarction
in relation to subjective ratings of traffic noise exposure. Noise & Health, 2002, 4(16):33
37.
146. Farley TMM et al. Combined oral contraceptives, smoking, and cardiovascular risk. Journal of
Epidemiology & Community Health, 1998, 52:775785.
147. Miedema HME, Vos H. Exposureresponse relationships for transportation noise. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 1998, 104:34323445.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 41
REFERENCES
148. Pope CA III et al. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA, 2002, 287:11321141.
149. Pope CA III et al. Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate air pollution.
Circulation, 2004:7177.
150. Anderson HR et al. Meta-analysis of time-series studies and panel studies of particulate matter
(PM) and ozone (O3). Report of a WHO task group. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for
Europe, 2004.
151. Rabl A. Analysis of air pollution mortality in terms of life expectancy changes: relation between
time series, intervention and cohort studies. Environmental Health, 2006, 5:119.
152. Dockery DW et al. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U. S. cities. New
England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 329:17531759.
153. Dockery, D.W., Epidemiologic evidence of cardiovascular effects of particulate air pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2001, 109(Suppl. 4):483486.
154. Brunekreef B, Holgate ST. Air pollution and health. Lancet, 2002, 360:12331242.
155. Brook RD et al. Air pollution and cardiovascular disease. Circulation, 2004, 109:26552671.
156. Schwela D, Kephaloupoulos S, Prasher D. Confounding or aggravating factors in noise-induced
health effects: air pollutants and other stressors. Noise & Health, 2005, 7(28):4150.
157. Naess O et al. Relation between concentration of air pollution and cause-specific mortality: fouryear exposures to nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter pollutants in 470 neighborhoods in
Oslo, Norway. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2006, 165:435443.
158. Public health impact of large airports. Report by a committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands. The Hague, Health Council of the Netherlands, 1999 (Publication No. 1999/14E).
159. Jarup L et al. Hypertension and exposure to noise near airports (HYENA): study design and noise
exposure assessment. Noise & Health, 2006, 8:5859.
160. Heimann D et al. Air pollution, traffic noise and related health effects in the Alpine space a
guide for authorities and consulters. ALPNAP comprehensive report. Trento, Universit
degli Studi di Trento, 2007.
161. Gehring U et al. Long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and cardiopulmonary mortality in
women. Epidemiology, 2006, 17:545551.
162. Hoek G et al. Association between mortality and indicators of traffic-related air pollution in the
Netherlands: a cohort study. Lancet, 2002, 360:12031209.
163. Hoffmann B et al. Residence close to high traffic and prevalence of coronary heart disease. European Heart Journal, 2006, 27:26962702.
164. Hoffmann B et al. Residential exposure to traffic is associated with coronary atherosclerosis. Circulation, 2007, 116:489496.
165. Tonne C et al. A case-control analysis of exposure to traffic and acute myocardial infarction. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2007, 115:5357.
166. Maschke C. Epidemiological research on stress caused by traffic noise and its effects on high
blood pressure and psychic disturbances. In: de Jong R et al., eds. ICBEN 2003. Proceedings
of the 8th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Rotterdam, 2003.
Schiedam, Foundation ICBEN, 2003:9395.
167. Greiser E, Greiser C, Janhsen K. Night-time aircraft noise increases prevalence of prescriptions
of anthypertensive and cardiovascular drugs irrespective of social class the CologneBonn
Airport study. Journal of Public Health, 2007, 15:16132238.
168. Rose G. Editorial: epidemiology and environmental risks. Sozial- und Prventivmedizin, 1992,
37:4144.
169. Scheuplein RJ. Uncertainty and the flavors of risk. EPA Journal, 1993, JanMar:1617.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
41
17.05.2011
13:43 Uhr
Seite 42
42
REFERENCES
170. Morrell S, Taylor R, Lyle D. A review of health effects of aircraft noise. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health, 1997, 21:221236.
171. Evaluation and use of epidemiological evidence for environmental health risk assessment. Guideline document. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2000 (http://www.
euro.who.int/document/e68940.pdf, accessed 21 July 2010).
172. Horton R. The new new public health of risk and radical engagement. Lancet, 1998, 352:251
252.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit G
IN 44-7
PRESS
Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZARTICLE
Document
Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 9
Sleep Medicine Reviews (2007) 11, 135142
www.elsevier.com/locate/smrv
CLINICAL REVIEW
Environmental noise, sleep and health

Alain Muzet
FORENAP, BP 27, Rouffach, France
KEYWORDS
Noise;
Sleep disturbance;
Subjective
evaluation;
Health effects;
Habituation;
Age
Summary Unlike other physical ambient factors (i.e. electromagnetic fields or air
pollutants), noise is perceived by a specific system (auditory system) in humans. It is
therefore a phenomenon that is sensed and evaluated by everybody, and this is why
exposure to noise is one of the most, if not the most, frequent complaints of
populations living in large cities. In these areas and their surroundings, the sources of
noise most frequently cited are traffic, followed by neighbourhood noises and
aircraft noises. Sleep is a physiological state that needs its integrity to allow the
living organism to recuperate normally. It seems to be sensitive to environmental
factors that can interrupt it or reduce its amount. Ambient noise, for example, is
external stimuli that are still processed by the sleeper sensory functions, despite a
non-conscious perception of their presence. Over the past 30 years, research into
environmental noise and sleep has focused on different situations and environments,
and therefore the findings are variable. However, it still seems necessary for some
fundamental questions to be answered on whether environmental noise has longterm detrimental effects on health and quality of life and, if so, what these effects
are for night-time, noise-exposed populations.
& 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sound and noise

Sound is produced by any mechanical movement
and is propagated as a motion wave through the air
or any other material. Therefore, sound is defined
by its mechanical energy and is measured in
energy-related units. Sound pressure proportional
to the square of sound intensity (W/m2) is
expressed in Pascal units (Pa), whereas sound
pressure level is expressed in decibel units (dB)
on a logarithmic scale, owing to the wide range
covered.
Tel.: +33 3 89787370; fax: +33 3 89787371.
E-mail address: alain.muzet@forenap.com.
Sound evokes physiological signals in the auditory

system constituted by the ear and the auditory
pathways. However, some sounds do not evoke
those signals as they are out of the auditory
perception range in humans, which theoretically
ranges from 20 to 20,000 Hz.
Noise is generally defined as an unwanted sound
or set of sounds. This definition means that it is not
possible to classify sounds as noise on the unique
basis of their physical characteristics. The general
agreement is that noise is an audible acoustic
phenomenon that adversely affects, or may affect,
people. The effects of noise can be appreciated
physiologically but also psychologically (annoyance
and disturbed well-being).
1087-0792/$ - see front matter & 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2006.09.001
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit G to Roberts Declaration

Seattle, WA 98115
PRESS
Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ ARTICLE
DocumentIN44-7
136
A. Muzet
Noise in the environment

Noise is a phenomenon that affects everybody. We
are constantly exposed to noise during our everyday life. Within our environment, there are
different sources of noise, but they generally
depend on our activity, location, and the time of
day.
Transportation noise represents a large majority
of external noise affecting people in large cities
and their surroundings. Road traffic noise is mostly
noise generated by the engine of the vehicle, but
noise produced by frictional contact between the
vehicle and the air, as between tyres and the road
surface, exceeds engine noise at speeds higher than
50 km/h for passenger cars and at speeds higher
than 80 km/h for lorries. Railway noise mainly
depends on the speed of the train and the quality
of the track. High-speed trains, for instance, might
produce high-frequency noise, which is fairly
similar to those generated by jet aircrafts. The
expected development of this high-speed freight
transport system in the next few years should be
regarded as potentially disturbing for people living
alongside the rail tracks, especially at night. Air
traffic noise has been given much research attention during the past 30 years. Noise from a single
aircraft, however, has considerably diminished
during this period, as the concept of engines and
flying machines has changed. However, increasing
volume of traffic, and specifically night-time
traffic, has often created conflict between populations living around large airports and the airport
authorities.
Industrial plants can also be a source of excessive
noise for the surroundings. This type of noice can
be complex in nature, owing to the wide variety of
sources. It can be spontaneous or more or less
continuous, with large variations in intensity. Lowfrequency noises are not so well attenuated by
surrounding structures, and they can be transmitted across large distances. Building construction
and ground work (e.g. hammering, crane, or heavy
trucks) can generate high noise emissions. Military
activities, although generally limited to specific
areas, may also cause large noise disturbances for
the surrounding populations.
Inside buildings, several different types of noises
can be found: mechanical devices (e.g. lift,
ventilation, pumps, water pipes) or domestic noises
(e.g. neighbours voices, Hi Fi, TV set, pets, and
musical instruments). Ventilation noise can be
quite disturbing in residential areas because of its
low-frequency characteristics, even at low Aweighted sound pressure levels.1 Domestic noises
are among the most frequently reported causes of
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
annoyance and the most difficult to characterize

and quantify.2 This is mainly due to the general
attitude of the exposed people towards the source
of noise and who is responsible for it. Neighbourhood noises (e.g. voices, music or footsteps) have
high information content, which may catch the
attention of the listener, independent of their
intensity. Thus, independent of the noise exposure
characteristics, the psychological dimension of the
expressed annoyance is highly related to the
specific relationship that exists between the noise
producer and the noise receiver (the bark of your
neighbours dog is much louder than the bark of
your dog). Therefore, in the domestic setting, the
physical characteristics of the noise are often less
important than the resultant attitude towards the
source of the noise.3
Noise from leisure activities is clearly increasing
with the invasion of more powered machines on the
ground as well as in air and water (e.g. off-road
vehicles, motorboats, and sporting airplanes). They
are often limited to more or less specific areas, but
they tend to increase at the periphery of large
cities. Outdoor shooting activities, as well as
outdoor concerts, have to be avoided in residential
areas, but less noisy activities are often programmed almost everywhere and are, in addition,
often accompanied by increased motor traffic.
The exposure to noise

As discussed previously, complaints about global
noise exposure are one of the most, if not the most,
frequent complaints among populations living in
large cities.4 Surveys show that frequency of
complaints from noise increases with the size of
cities, and that exposure to noise is inversely
related to family income, with those on lower
levels of income being the most exposed to
ambient noise.2 The most frequently cited sources
are traffic noises, followed by noises from the
neighbourhood and then aircraft noises.
Ten years ago in France, the number of people
living in a noisy environment was estimated to
be 10% of the total population or 6 million
individuals, comprising 2 million (including
450,000 children) exposed to high levels of noise
above 70 dB Leq 8h20h (Leq or equivalent noise
level: constant noise level having an equivalent
energy to the total energy of the actual noises
occurring between 08:00 and 20:00).5 Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that this
picture has much improved, and these days the
numbers are certainly higher. However, the extent
of the noise problem is large, and the case given

Seattle, WA 98115
IN 44-7
PRESS
Document
137
above can be applied to many more industrialized

countries. Thus, annoyance to community noise is
widespread among citizens in the European Union,
and the number of people exposed to moderately
high levels (5565 dB Leq) still increases in those
countries. This is mainly due to the increasing
sources of noise and their wider dispersion, along
with greater individual mobility and growing leisure
activities.
Sleep disturbance due to noise

Sleep disturbance is part of the extra-auditory
effects of noise (Fig. 1). The input to the auditory
area of the brain through the auditory pathways is
prolonged by inputs reaching both the brain
cortical area and the descending pathways of the
autonomic functions. Thus, the sleeping body still
responds to stimuli coming from the environment,
although the noise sensitivity of the sleeper
depends on several factors. Some of these factors
are noise dependent, such as the type of noise (e.g.
continuous, intermittent, impulsive), noise intensity, noise frequency, noise spectrum, noise interval
(e.g. duration, regularity, expected), noise signification and the difference between the background
noise level and the maximum amplitude of the
occurring noise stimulus. Other factors are related
to the sleeper, such as age, sex, personality
characteristics and self-estimated sensitivity to
noise.
The effects of noise on sleep can be immediate or

secondary to the noise exposure. The first category
corresponds to responses occurring simultaneously
or immediately after the noise emission, whereas
the latter corresponds to effects visible the next
day or after a few days.
Immediate effects: objective measures of

sleep disturbance
Sleep disturbance may be quantified by number
and duration of nocturnal awakenings, number of
sleep stage changes, and modifications in their
amount. Proper rhythms of particular sleep
stages (i.e. slow wave sleep [SWS] or stages 3 and
4, and rapid eye movement [REM] sleep [Fig. 2]),
also characterize sleep disturbance, together
with modifications in the autonomic functions
(heart rate, blood pressure, vasoconstriction and
respiratory rate).
Shortening of the sleep period

Total sleep time can be reduced by both longer time
to fall asleep and premature final awakening. It has
been reported that intermittent noises with peak
noise levels of 45 dB(A) and above, can increase the
time to fall asleep by a few minutes to 20 min.6 On
the other hand, sleep pressure is significantly
reduced after the first 5 h. Therefore, in the morning
hours, noise events can more easily awake and
prevent the sleeper of going back to sleep. The
main problem, however, is to determine whether
Auditory effects
Auditory fatigue,
temporary and
permanent deafness
Extra-auditory effects
Subjective effects
Annoyance, fatigue, lack

of concentration
Biological effects
Sleep disturbances
Autonomic functions
(cardiovascular, endocrine and
digestive systems)
Growth and immune
system
Behavioral effects
Medication intake
Psychiatric symptoms
Masking effects and
learning
Figure 1 Auditory and extra-auditory effects of noise.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115
PRESS
DocumentIN44-7
138
A. Muzet
W
REM
1
2
3
4
hours
W
REM
1
2
3
4
8 hours
Figure 2 Hypnograms of a young adult. Top: during non-disturbed sleep. Sleep onset occurs within 10 min after light out
time (0). Sleep begins by NREM sleep stages and the first REM episode occurs some 90 min after sleep onset. SWS (stages
3 and 4) occurs mainly during the first 3 h of the night. REM sleep episodes appear at very regular intervals. No
awakening is seen during the entire night. Bottom: during a noise-disturbed night. Sleep onset is slightly delayed. The
first episode of stage 4 is partly interrupted. A significant amount of SWS does occur during the fifth hour (possibly as a
compensatory mechanism of the disturbed first episode). REM sleep still shows clear rhythmic occurrence but some of
the episodes are fragmented. Significant awakenings occur throughout the sleep process. Sleep efficiency is reduced.
a significant part of sleep can be chronically reduced

with no detrimental effect in the long term.
Sleep awakenings
It seems obvious that noise occurring during sleep
may cause awakenings. The awakening threshold
observed with noise (the sleeper is asked to push a
button when awake) depends on several factors. In
the sleepers current stage of sleep, the threshold
is particularly high in deep slow wave sleep (stages
3 and 4), whereas it is much lower in shallower
sleep stages (stages 1 and 2).7 The awakening
threshold also depends on physical characteristics
of the noisy environment (intermittent or sharp
rising noise occurring above a low background noise
will be particularly disturbing), as well as noise
signification. Thus, whispering the sleepers name
can awake the person more easily than a much
louder but neutral acoustic stimulus.8 Similarly, and
with a similar intensity, the noise of an alarm will
awaken the sleeper more easily than a noise
without any particular signification.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Sleep stage modifications

If nocturnal awakenings can be provoked for peak
noise level of 55 dB(A) and above, disturbance of
normal sleep sequence can be observed for peak
noise levels between 45 and 55 dB(A). In order to
protect noise-sensitive people, The World Health
Organization recommended a maximal level (LAmax) inside the bedroom at night of 45 dB,
whereas, for the same period, the mean recommended level (integrated noise level over the 8
nocturnal hours: Lnight) was of 30 dB.9
SWS and REM sleep are both considered to be
important stages of sleep, which should be well
protected. SWS seems to be an energy restoration
state of the sleeping body, whereas REM sleep
seems to be more related to mental and memory
processes. Carter10 reported that SWS could be
reduced in young sleepers exposed to intermittent
noises. We previously reported that REM sleep
rhythmicity could also be affected by environmental noise exposure.11 It is a common observation in
all noise-disturbed sleep studies to see an increase
in sleep stage changes resulting in a reduced
amount of SWS and REM sleep to the benefit of

Seattle, WA 98115
IN 44-7
PRESS
Document
139
shallower sleep stages. This instability of the sleep

process might be detrimental if it becomes chronic.
Its picture is close to that observed in chronic
insomniacs, and exploring the long-term evolution
of such sleep disturbance could be important.
Autonomic responses
Awakenings and sleep-stage modifications are not
the only possible acute effects of noise on the sleep
process itself. The limit values given above do not
mean that for lower noise levels there are no more
effects on the sleeper. Autonomic responses, such
as heart rate changes and vasoconstrictions, can be
obtained for much lower peak noise intensities,
indicating that the sleeping body still perceives the
external stimuli even if there is no consciousness or
memory about these events the next day.7 Although
these effects are considered to be minimal, they
have been found not to habituate over long
exposure times compared with clear subjective
habituation
over
successive
noise-exposed
nights.12,13 These autonomic responses represent
reflex responses of the sleeping body to the
external stimuli, which can already be observed
at quite a low intensity. The health effects of longterm repetition of such responses should be
discussed, especially in the case of multi-exposure
(e.g. air and surface traffic). In this situation, there
could be a cumulative effect of these cardiovascular responses over a few thousands stimuli
per night.
Secondary effects of the sleep

disturbance due to noise
The secondary effects of night-time noise exposure
can be separated into subjective reports of sleep
disturbances and objective effects on daytime
functioning.
Subjective evaluation of sleep disturbance

Objective recordings of sleep disturbance data
are too costly and too difficult to use with large
samples of the population or when funding is
limited. Next-day subjective evaluation of sleep
quality is a much easier and less costly way of
collecting data, especially in the field. Sleep
disturbance per se can be assessed from complaints
about bad sleep quality, delayed sleep onset,
nocturnal awakenings, and early morning
waking up. These sleep disturbances are often
accompanied by impaired quality of the subsequent
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
daytime period with increased tiredness, daytime

sleepiness and need for compensatory resting
periods.2
However, the actual value of subjective
complaints might be quite different from assessments based on instrumental measures. In fact,
many factors influence peoples subjective
evaluations of their own sleep quality. Several
studies show that subjective self-reports on
sleep quality or on nocturnal awakenings do not
correlate well with more objective measures of
sleep disturbance.14 When the number of noise
events increases, the number of sleep modifications or awakenings also increases, although not
proportionally. As indicated by Porter et al.15
noise heard at night will be more intrusive
and noticeable than during the day. This is
caused by reduced outside and inside background
noises at night and to the circadian fluctuation of
biological rhythms. The night-time period may also
be a time of higher noise sensitivity, especially if
awakenings related to aircrafts flying over occur.
Therefore, use of self-reports of movement, awakenings, or other sleep-related effects, needs
serious reconsideration because of their questionable validity.
However, if the number of noise events is
important and the noise level is high, nocturnal
awakening can be excessively prolonged and
even constitute a premature final awakening of
the night. Sleep disturbance occurring during the
early part of the night and during the time just
preceding usual awakening seems to be most
annoying.6,16 In this case, sleep disturbances will
lead to excessive daytime fatigue, often accompanied by daytime sleepiness, with its specific
effects being low work capacity and increased
accident rate.
Fear of living under aircraft routes is often a
major reason of protesting against aircraft
noise even if the measured noise levels are
relatively low. This largely accounts for the
difficulty in trying to find a clear relationship
between subjective complaints and actual noise
exposure.
Other secondary effects

In addition to subjective evaluations of sleep
quality, after-effects of nocturnal noise exposure
can be measured the following morning by objective biochemical data (i.e. increase in levels of
stress hormones, including noradrenalin, adrenalin
and cortisol),10,17,18 or by cognitive performance
deterioration during the next day.19,20

Seattle, WA 98115
PRESS
DocumentIN44-7
140
A. Muzet
Physiological sensitivity to noise

The noise physiological sensitivity depends also on
the age of the sleeper. Although electroencephalogram (EEG) modifications and awakening thresholds
are, on average, 10 dB(A) higher in children than in
adults, their cardiovascular sensitivity to noise is
similar to, if not higher than, older people.21
Elderly people complain much more than younger
adults about environmental noise. However, their
spontaneous awakenings during sleep are also much
more numerous. Therefore, it is difficult to
conclude if elderly people are more sensitive to
noise or if they hear noise because they are often
awake during the night. This natural fragmentation
of their night sleep tends also to lengthen their
return to the sleeping state, and this accounts for a
significant part in their subjective complaints. The
main question about possible sensitive groups
remains almost entirely unanswered. Most of the
studies (in laboratories as well as in the home) have
been carried out on groups of normal people or,
at least, populations where some pathologies have
been systematically excluded.
The particular case of shift workers

The sleep of shift workers is often disturbed by
combined influences of ambient factors (noise is
one of them) and chronobiological factors (sleeping
at an unusual time of the day). Thus, noise was
considered as the first cause of sleep interruptions
in a group of female shift workers.22 It is also
considered a major cause of sleep shortening during
daytime.23 Some investigators comparing daytime
to night-time sleep disturbance due to noise in shift
workers, have found that the percentage of noiseinduced EEG effects was significantly higher during
the day than during the night-time REM sleep.24
These investigators also stated that the inversion of
the sleepwake cycle did not markedly influence
the average cardiovascular reactivity to noise, and
they concluded that daytime sleep disturbance by
noise was as important and harmful as night-time
disturbance. Carter et al.25 underlined the effects
of noise on the cardiovascular side and, particularly, the modifications in blood pressure due to
suddenly occurring noises.
Possible health effects of noise-disturbed

sleep
From a public health perspective, it is necessary
to be able to link sleep disturbance from noise
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
exposure with long-term health effects. Of course,

these effects depend on the magnitude and the
repetition of sleep disturbance. To be awakened
when engaged in a quiet and comfortable universe
full of sweet dreams is, per se, a real aggression
that only few sleepers may appreciate. However, it
is much more through the reduction of daytime
quality of life that sleep disturbance can be
evaluated. Chronic partial sleep deprivation induces marked tiredness, increases a low vigilance
state, and reduces both daytime performance and
the overall quality of life.26 Excessive daytime
fatigue accompanied by sleepiness, deterioration
of normal behaviour, expression of anger, lack of
concentration and reduced work ability are often
associated with chronic sleep deprivation. In this
case, the need for additional resting period during
the daytime is not always satisfied. In fact, the
subtle equilibrium between waking and sleeping
states is deteriorated to the detriment of the
quality of both states.
More generally, some health effects, such as
increased prescription of drugs around major airports27 or increased rate of psychiatric hospital
admission28 could also be related to night-time
noise exposure. However, many confounding factors cannot be eliminated in these epidemiological
studies and, therefore, it remains difficult to
confirm such results. The perception by the
exposed population of possible factors affecting
their health is often reported by the airport
services in charge of communication with the
public. Most of the complaints refer to sleep
disturbance, general fatigue and anxiety. Noise is
then clearly identified as a factor of stress and
stress may be considered as the possible mechanism through which mental and physical health can
be affected by noise.29
Of particular interest is the possible relationship
between noise and the stress responses it produces,
as they have the potential to be linked to hypertension, cardiovascular disease and other severe medical problems.3037 As mentioned previously, there is
also a need to protect sensitive groups and shift
workers who sleep during the day.25
Conclusion
Sleep is a physiological state that needs its integrity
to allow for normal recuperation of the living
organism. Its reduction or disruption is detrimental
in the long term, as chronic partial sleep deprivation induces marked tiredness, increases low
vigilance state and reduces daytime performance

Seattle, WA 98115
IN 44-7
PRESS
Document
141
and quality of life. Sleep seems to be fairly

sensitive to environmental factors, and, specifically, to ambient noise, as external stimuli are still
processed by the sleeper sensory functions, despite
a non-conscious perception of their presence.
The large amount of research developed in the
laboratory during the past 30 years has produced
variable results, and some of them seem quite
controversial. In fact, the effects of noise exposure
depend on several factors, and the absence of a
clear doseeffect relationship is certainly due to
the complex interactions of these factors, including
the noise characteristics, the individual sensitivity
and the context of the explored living environment.
However, the amplitude of the subjective complaints about sleep disturbance seems to have been
increasing during recent years. Unfortunately, only
a few epidemiological studies have considered the
possible effect of noise exposure (considered
globally), together with other environmental factors, on the health of exposed populations. To our
knowledge, no large-scale epidemiological study
focusing on the effect of night-time noise exposure
on health has yet been undertaken. Therefore, it is
necessary to answer some fundamental questions in
order to understand the detrimental effects on
health and quality of life in the long term, for nighttime, noise-exposed populations. Continuous highlevel exposure can lead to aggression in a hostile,
angry, and helpless population. It is often the
population with the least income that suffers the
most from noise in general. Also, annoyance due to
ambient noise may be often seen as the visible part
of a greater problem. Therefore, it should be an
everyday concern to protect these populations
against this major environmental aggression.
Practice points
Immediate and secondary effects of sleep
disturbance due to noise are as follows:
Immediate effects:

Delayed sleep onset, earlier final awakening

or nocturnal awakenings.
Sleep stage changes or sleep structure
changes.
Arousals and body movements.
Vegetative or hormonal responses to noise.
Secondary effects:

Subjective estimation of sleep quality.

Performance decrement.
Change in daytime behaviour.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Research agenda
Future research should focus on:

Long term effects of night-time noise

exposure of different populations.
The study of specific sub-groups that can be
considered to be at risk (e.g. children,
elderly people, self-estimated sensitive
people, insomniacs, sleep disorder patients,
night and shift workers).
Combined effects of noise exposure and
other physical agents or stressors during
sleep.
References
hrstro
1. O
m E, Skanberg A. Sleep disturbances from road
traffic and ventilation noise laboratory and field experiments. J Sound Vib 2004;271:27996.
2. Gualezzi JP. Le bruit dans la ville, Rapport au Conseil
Economique et Social, Les Editions des Journaux Officiels,
1998.
3. Moch A. La sourde oreille. Grandir dans le bruit, Collection
Epoque, Privat, Toulouse, 1985.
4. INSEE. Mesurer la qualite
de vie dans les grandes
agglomerations, INSEE Premie
`re, no 868, 2002.
5. Lambert J, Vallet M. Rapport pre
paratoire `a la Commission
Europe
enne sur le bruit de lenvironnement, INRETS-LEN
1994.
hrstro
6. O
m E, Research on noise since 1988: present state:
In: Vallet M, editor. Proceedings of Noise and Man, ICBEN,
Nice: INRETS 1993, p. 3318.
7. Muzet A. Reactivite
de lHomme endormi. In: Benoit O,
Fore
t J, editors. Le Sommeil humain. Bases expe
rimentales
physiologiques et physiopathologiques. Paris: Masson;
1992. p. 7783.
8. Oswald I, Taylor AM, Treisman M. Discriminative responses
to stimulation during human sleep. Brain 1960;83:44053.
*9. Noise and Health, WHO, Local authorities. Health and
Environment, number 36, 2000.
10. Carter NL. Transportation noise, sleep, and possible aftereffects. Environ Int 1996;22:10516.
11. Naitoh P, Muzet A, Lienhard JP. Effects of noise and
elevated temperature on sleep cycle. Sleep Res
1975;4:174.
12. Muzet A, Ehrhart J. Habituation of heart rate and finger
pulse responses to noise during sleep. In: Tobias JV, editor.
Noise as a public health problem. Rockville, MD: ASHA
report number 10; 1980. p. 4014.
13. Vallet M, Gagneux JM, Clairet JM, et al. Heart rate
reactivity to aircraft noise after a long term exposure. In:
Rossi G, editor. Noise as a public health problem. Milano:
Centro Ricerche E Studi Amplifon; 1983. p. 96571.
14. Passchier-Vermeer W. Night-time noise events and awakening. TNO report 2003-32, Delft, The Netherlands 2003.
The most important references are denoted by an asterisk.

Seattle, WA 98115
PRESS
DocumentIN44-7
142
A. Muzet
15. Porter ND, Kershaw AD, Ollerhead JB. Adverse effects of

night-time aircraft noise. Report number 9964, National Air
Traffic Services, 2000.
16. Fields JM. The relative effect of noise at different times of
the day. Report number CR-3965, NASA Langley Research
Center, 1986.
17. Maschke C. Noise-induced sleep disturbance, stress reactions and health effects: In: Prasher D, Luxon L, editors.
Protection against noise, volume I: Biological effects.
London: Whurr Publishers for the Institute of Laryngology
and Otology; 1998.
*18. Maschke C, Harder J, Ising H, et al. Stress hormone changes
in persons exposed to simulated night noise. Noise Health
2002;5:3545.
*19. Smith AP. Noise, performance efficiency and safety. Inter
Arch Occupat Environ Health 1990;62:15.
*20. Wilkinson RT, Campbel LKB. Effects of traffic noise on
quality of sleep: assessment by EEG, subjective report, or
performance next day. J Acoust Soc Am 1984;75:46875.
21. Muzet A, Ehrhart J, Eschenlauer R, et al. Habituation and
age differences of cardiovascular responses to noise during
sleep. In: Koella WP, editor. Sleep 1980. Basel: Karger;
1981. p. 2125.
22. Lee K. Self-reported sleep disturbances in employed
women. Sleep 1992;15:4938.
23. Knauth P, Rutenfranz J. The effects of noise on the sleep of
nightworkers. In: Colquhoun WP, Folkart S, Knauth P,
editors. Experimental studies of shiftwork. Oplanden:
Westdeutscher; 1975. p. 5765.
*24. Nicolas A, Bach V, Tassi P, et al. , Electroencephalogram
and cardiovascular responses to noise during daytime sleep
in shiftworkers. Eur J Appl Physiol 1993;66:7684.
25. Carter N, Henderson R, Lal S, et al. Cardiovascular and
autonomic response to environmental noise during sleep in
night shift workers. Sleep 2002;25:45764.
hrstro
26. O
m E, Griefahn B. Summary of team 5: Effects of
noise on sleep: In: Vallet M, editor. Noise and man 1993.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
27.
28.
*29.
*30.
31.
*32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
*37.
Noise as a public health problem. Nice, INRETS; 1993.

p. 393403.
Knipschild P, Oudshoorn N. Medical effects of aircraft noise:
drug survey. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1977;40:
197200.
Tarnopolsky A, Watkins G, Hand DJ. Aircraft noise and
mental health: I. Prevalence of individual symptoms.
Psychol Med 1980;10:68398.
Kryter KD. The effects of noise on man. Orlando: Academic
Press; 1985.
Carter NL, Ingham P, Tran K, et al. A field study of the
effects of traffic noise on heart rate and cardiac arrhythmia
during sleep. J Sound Vib 1994;169:2217.
Carter NL. Cardiovascular response to environmental noise
during sleep: In: Proceedings of seventh international
congress on noise as a public health problem. Sydney,
Australia. 1998. p. 43944.
Di Nisi J, Muzet A, Ehrhart J, et al. Comparison of
cardiovascular responses to noise during waking and
sleeping in humans. Sleep 1990;13:10820.
Griefahn B. Noise-induced extra aural effects. J Acoust Soc
Japan 2000;21:30717.
Griefahn B. Sleep disturbances related to environmental
noise. Noise Health 2002;4:5760.
Maschke C. Epidemiological research on stress caused by
traffic noise and its effects on high blood pressure
and psychic disturbances: In: de Jong R, editor. Proceedings
of ICBEN 2003: Eighth international congress on noise
as a public health problem, Rotterdam, the Netherlands,
2003.
Stansfeld SA, Lercher P. Non-auditory physiological effects
of noise: five year review and future directions: In: de Jong
R, editor. Proceedings of ICBEN 2003: Eighth International
Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Rotterdam,
the Netherlands, 2003.
Passchier-Vermeer W. Effects of noise and health. Noise/
News Int 1996:13750.

Seattle, WA 98115
Exhibit H
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit H to Roberts Declaration
U.S Department of Justice

Seattle WA 98115
Keywords
NOISE - ADVERSE EFFECTS - PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SLEEP DEPRIVATION - ETIOLOGY
SLEEP DISORDERS - PREVENTION AND CONTROL
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HEALTH POLICY- LEGISLATION
GUIDELINES
ISBN 978 92 890 4173 7
Address requests about publications of the WHO Regional Office for Europe to:
Publications
WHO Regional Office for Europe
Scherfigsvej 8 DK-2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark
Alternatively, complete an online request form for documentation, health information,
or for permission to quote or translate, on the Regional Office web site
(http://www.euro. who.int/pubrequest).
World Health Organization 2009
All rights reserved. The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization welcomes requests for
permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines
on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers' products does not imply that they are endorsed or
recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained
in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either
express or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event
shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use. The views expressed by authors,
editors, or expert groups do not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the
World Health Organization.
Edited by Charlotte Hurtley, Layout by Dagmar Bengs
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
EJ EFFECTS
ON HEALTH
for aircraft:
%HSD = 18.147- 0.956 *Lnighr + 0.01482'' (Lnighrl 2
[12]
%SD = 13. 714- 0.807"Lnighr + 0.01555* (Lnighrl 2
[13]
%LSD= 4.465-0.411 '' Lnighr + 0.01395 *(Lnighrl 2
[14]
and for railways:

%HSD = 11.3- 0.55 *Lnighr + 0.00759 *(Lnighrl 2
[15]
%SD = 12.5- 0.66 *Lnighr + 0.01121 *(Lnighrl 2
[16]
%LSD= 4. 7 - 0.3l"Lnight + 0.01125 '' (Lnighr) 2
[1 7].
The above relations represent the current best estimates of the influences of Lnight on
self-reported sleep disturbance for road traffic noise and for railway noise, when no
other factors are taken into account. Fig. 4.1 illustrates the relations [9] [12] and
[15] for persons highly disturbed by road, aircraft and rail noise.
25, -----------------,-------------------- --- Air traffic

Fig. 4 .1 a:l
High sleep disturbance by ~
noise at night 1ii
:a
20-
Road traffic
Rail traffic
15-
>.
:c
Source:
European Commission, 2004.
.. . .....
...
10 ~--------------------~~
,
- . . .- - ~~------------.
..... -
. .
............. . --
.. . ..
t
t I I I I I I I I
5 -t----0
..
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70
Lnight, outside, facade
With regard to the relations for aircraft noise it should be noted that the variance in
the responses is large compared to the variance found for rail and road traffic. This
means that the uncertainty regarding the responses for night-time aircraft noise is
large, and such responses can be considered as indicative only. Miedema (2003) suggests the following causes.
The time pattern of noise exposures around different airports varies considerably
due to specific night-time regulations.
The sleep disturbance questions for aircraft noise show a large variation.
The most recent studies show the highest self-reported sleep disturbance at the
same Lnight level. This suggests a time trend.
For industrial noise there is an almost complete lack of information, although there
are some indications (Vos, 2003) that impulse noise may cause considerable disturbance at night.
NIGHT NOISE GUIDELINES FOR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
AND
A simple measure is the orientation of noise-sensitive rooms on the quiet side of the
dwelling (this applies to road and rail traffic noise).
Zoning is an instrument that may assist planning authorities in keeping noise-sensitive land uses away from noisy areas. In the densely populated areas of the EU this
solution must often compete, however, with other planning requirements or a simple lack of suitable space.
Sleep is an essential part of healthy life and is recognized as a fundamental right under the
European Convention on Human Rights 1(European Court of Human Rights, 2003).
Based on the systematic review of evidence produced by epidemiological and experimental studies, the relationship between night noise exposure and health effects can be summarized as below. (Table 5.4)
Table 5.4
2
Effects of different levels of night noise on the population's health
Average night noise level
Health effects observed in the population
over a year Lnight, outside

Up to 30 dB
Although individual sensitiVIties and circumstances may

differ, it appears that up to this level no substantial biological effects are observed. Lnight,outside of 30 dB is equivalent to the NOEL for night noise.
30 to 40 dB
A number of effects on sleep are observed from this range:

body movements, awakening, self-reported sleep disturbance, arousals. The intensity of the effect depends on the
nature of the source and the number of events. Vulnerable
groups (for example children, the chronically ill and the
elderly) are more susceptible. However, even in the worst
cases the effects seem modest. Lnight, outside of 40 dB is
equivalent to the LOAEL for night noise.
40 to 55 dB
Adverse health effects are observed among the exposed

population. Many people have to adapt their lives to cope
with the noise at night. Vulnerable groups are more severely affected.
Above 55 dB
The situation is considered increasingly dangerous for

public health. Adverse health effects occur frequently, a
sizeable proportion of the population is highly annoyed
and sleep-disturbed. There is evidence that the risk of cardiovascular disease increases.
"Article 8:1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Although in the case against the United Kingdom the Court ruled that the United Kingdom Government was
not guilty of the charges, the right to undisturbed sleep was recognized (the Court's consideration 96).
2
Lmght,ouwde in Table 5.4 and 5.5 is the night-time noise indicator (Lmgh<) of Directive 2002/49/EC of 25 June
2002: the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2: 1987, determined over all the
night periods of a year; in which: the night is eight hours (usually 23.00- 07.00 local time), a year is a relevant
year as regards the emission of sound and an average year as regards the meteorological circumstances, the incident sound is considered, the assessment point is the same as for Lden See Official journal of the European
Communities, 18.7.2002, for more details.
NIGHT NOISE GIJitlELINE!i FOR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Abey Wickrama I et al. (1969}. Mental hospital admissions and aircraft noise. Lancet, 2
(7633}:1275-1277.
Adams S (1991}. Prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children and adolescents. British Medical
Journal, 302:217.
Ahlberg-Hulten GK, Theorell T, Sigala F (1995). Social support, job strain and musculoskeletal pain
among female health care personnel, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health,
21 (6}:435-439.
Akerstedt T (1987}. Sleep and stress. In: Peter JH, Podszus T and von Wichert P, eds. Sleep related
disorders and internal diseases. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 183-191.
Akerstedt T (1988}. Sleepiness as a consequence of shift work. Sleep, 11:17-34.
Akerstedt T (1990}. Sleep and performance- an introduction. In: Costa Get al., eds. Shift work:
health, sleep and performance. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 409-414.
Akerstedt T, Gillberg M (1981}. The circadian variation of experimentally displaced sleep. Sleep,
4:159-169.
Akerstedt T, Gillberg M (1986}. A dose-response study of sleep loss and spontaneous sleep termination. Psychophysiology, 23:293-297.
Akerstedt T, Nilsson PM (2003}. Sleep as restitution: an introduction. Journal of Internal Medicine,
254:6-12.
Akerstedt T, Kecklund G, Horte L-G (2001}. Night driving, season, and the risk of highway accidents. SleefJ, 24:401-406.
Akerstedt T, Kecklund G, Knutsson A (1991}. Spectral analysis of sleep electroencephalography in
rotating three-shift work. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health,
17:330-336.
Akerstedt T et al. (2002a}. A prospective study of fatal occupational accidents- relationship
sleeping difficulties and occupational factors. Journal of Sleep Research, 11:69-71.
to
Akerstedt T et al. (2002b}. Work load and work hours in relation to disturbed sleep and fatigue in
a large representative sample. Joumal of Psychosomatic Research, 53:585-588.
Akerstedt T et al. (2002c}. Sleep disturbances, work stress and work hours. A cross-sectional study.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53:741-748.
Algers B, Ekesbo I, Stromberg S (1978}. The impact of continuous noise on animal health. Acta
Veterinaria Scandinavica, 67 (suppl.):1-26.
Ali NJ, Pitson D, Stradling JR (1993}. Snoring, sleep disturbance and behaviour in 4-5 year-olds.
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 68:360-366.
Ali NJ, Pitson D, Stradling JR (1994}. Natural history of snoring and related behaviour problems
between the ages of 4 and 7 years. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 71:74-76.
Ali NJ, Pitson D, Stradling JR (1996}. Sleep disordered breathing: effects of adenotonsillectomy on
behaviour and psychological functioning. European Journal of Pediatrics, 155:56-62.
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environment Health (1997}. Noise: a hazard for
the fetus and newborn. Pediatrics, 100:724-727.
American Academy of Sleep Medicine (2005}. International Classification of Sleep Disorders.
Diagnostic and coding manual. 2nd edition, Westchestet; Illinois.
American Sleep Disorders Association (1992}. EEG arousals: scoring rules and examples. A preliminary report from the Sleep Disorders Atlas Task Force. Sleep, 15 (2}:174-184.
American Sleep Disorders Association (1997}. International Classification of Sleep Disorders.
Diagnostic and coding manual revised. Rochester, Minnesota.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Ancoli-Israel S, Roth T (1999). Characteristics of insomnia in the United States: Results of the 1991
National Sleep Foundation survey. Sleep, 22 (suppi.2):S347-S353.
Anderson CMB (1971). The measurement of attitude to noise and noises, National Physical
Laboratory Acoustics Report, AC 52, Teddington, Middlesex.
Angersbach D eta!. (1980). A retrospective cohort study comparing complaints and disease in day
and shift workers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health,
45:i27-i40.
Arguelles A eta!. (1970). Endocrine and metabolic effects of noise in normal, hypertensive and psychotic subjects. In: Welch BL and Welch AS, eds. Physiological effects of noise. Plenum Press,
New York.
Aristotle (350 B.C.E). On sleep and sleeplessness, Translated by J. I. Beare, http://classics.mit.edu/
Aristotle/sleep.html.
Arnetz Bet al. (1986). Lakares arbetsmiljo: psykosociala, fysikaliska saint fysiologiska data fran en
strukturerad djupintervju och biokemisk undersokning av allmanlakare och allmankirurger.
Stressforskningsrapport, IPM, No. 187.
Aronen ET et a!. (2000). Sleep and psychiatric symptoms in school-age children. Journal of the
American Academy of Childhood and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39:502-508.
ATS (American Thoracic Society) (1999) Cardiorespiratory sleep studies in children. Establishment
of normative data and polysomnographic predictors of morbidity. American Journal of
Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 160:1381-1387.
Axelsson G, Rylander R (1989). Outcome of pregnancy in relation to irregular and inconvenient
work schedules. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 46:306-312.
Axelsson G, Lutz C, Rylander R (1984). Exposure to solvents and outcome of pregnancy in university laboratory employees. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41:305-312.
Axelsson Jet a!. (2004). Tolerance to shift work- how does it relate to sleep and wakefulness?
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 77(2):121-9.
Ayas NT eta!. (2001). Effectiveness of CPAP treatment in daytime function in sleep apnea syndrome. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 164:608-613.
Babisch W (2000). Traffic noise and cardiovascular disease: epidemiological review and synthesis.
Noise & Health, 2 (8):9-32.
Babisch W (2002). The noise/stress concept, risk assessment and research needs. Noise & Health, 4
(16):1-11.
Babisch W (2003 ). Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise. Noise &
Health, 5 (18):1-11.
Babisch W (2004a). Health aspects of extra-aural noise research. Noise & Health, 6 (22):69-81.
Babisch W (2004b).The NaRoMI study: Executive summary- traffic noise. In: Umweltbundesamt,
ed. Chronic noise as a risk factor for myocardial infarction, The NaRoMI study (major technical report). WaBoLu-Hefte 02/04, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.
Babisch W (2004c), Die NaRoMI-Studie, Auswertung, Bewertung und vertiefende Analysen zum
Verkehrsliirm. In: Umweltbundesamt, ed. Chronischer Li:irm als Risikofaktor fiir den
Myokardinfarkt, Ergenbisse der "NaRoMI"-Studie. WaBoLu-Hefte 03/04, Umweltbundesamt,
Berlin.
Babisch W (2006). Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk. Review and synthesis of epidemiological studies, dose-effect curve and risk estimation
(http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationenlfpdf-l/2997.pdf, accessed 1 March 2007).
Babisch W, Gallacher JEJ (1990). Traffic noise, blood pressure and other risk factors: the Caerphilly
and Speedwell Collaborative Heart Disease Studies. In: Berglund B, Lindvall T, eds. New
advances in noise research, part I. Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Noise as a
Public Health Problem, Stockholm 1988, Stockholm, Swedish Council for Building Research.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Babisch W, Ising H, Gallacher JEJ (2003). Health status as a potential effect modifier of the relation
between noise and incidence of ischaemic heart disease. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 60:739-745.
Babisch Wet a!. (1988). Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk. The Caerphilly Study, first phase.
Outdoor noise levels and risk factors. Archives of Environmental Health, 43:407-414.
Babisch W et a!. (1990). Traffic noise, work noise and cardiovascular risk factors: the Caerphilly
and Speedwell Collaborative Heart Disease Studies. Environment International, 16:425-435.
Babisch Wet a!. (1992). Verkehrsliirm und Herzinfarkt, Ergebnisse zweier Fall-Kontroll-Studien in
Berlin. WaBoLu-Hefte 2/92, Institut fur Wasser-, Boden- und Lufthygiene, Umweltbundesamt,
Berlin.
Babisch Wet a!. (1993a). Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk: the Caerphilly and Speedwell studies, second phase. Risk estimation, prevalence, and incidence of ischemic heart disease. Archives
of Environmental Health, 48:406-413.
Babisch Wet al. (1993b). Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk: the Speedwell study, first phase.
Outdoor noise level and risk factors. Archives of Environmental Health, 48:401-405.
Babisch Wet a!. (1994). The incidence of myocardial infarction and its relation to road traffic noise
-the Berlin case-control studies. Envimnment International, 20:469-474.
Babisch Wet al. (1999). Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk: the Caerphilly and Speedwell studies,
third phase- 10 years follow-up. Archives of Environmental Health, 54:210-216.
Babisch Wet a!. (2003). Traffic noise and myocardial infarction. results from the NaRoMI study,
ICBEN Proceedings, Schiedam.
Babisch Wet al. (2005). Traffic noise and risk of myocardial infarction. Epidemiology, 16:33-40.
Barker SM, Tarnopolsky A (1978). Assessing bias in surveys of symptoms attributed
]oumal of Sound and Vibration, 59:349-354.
to
noise.
Basner M (2006). Markov state transition models for the prediction of changes in sleep structure
induced by aircraft noise, Forschungsbericht 2006-07. Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft und
Raumfahrt (DLR), Koln.
http://www.eid.dlr.de/me/Institut/Abteilungen/Flugphysiologie/Fluglaerm!Lit_Laermw_Reports
/FB_2006-07_markov. pdf, accessed 1 March 2007).
Basner Met a!. (2004). Effects of nocturnal aircraft noise. Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft und
Raumfahrt (DLR) Bericht 2004-07/E.
Baust W, Bohnert B (1969). The regulation of heart rate during sleep. Experimental Brain Research,
7:169-180.
Bellach Bet al. (1995). Gesundheidiche Auswirkungen von Liirmbelastung- Methodische
Betrachtungen zu den Ergebnissen dreier epidemiologischer Studien. Bundesgesundheitsblatt,
38:84-89.
Belojevic G, Jakovljevic B (1997). Subjective reactions to traffic noise with regard to some personality traits. Environment International, 23:221-226.
Belojevic G, Saric-Tanaskovic M (2002). Prevalence of arterial hypertension and myocardial infarction in relation to subjective ratings of traffic noise exposure. Noise & Health, 4 (16):33-37.
Benedict C et al. (2004 ). Intranasal insulin improves memory in humans.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29:1326-1334.
BennettE (1945). Some tests for the discrimination of neurotic from normal subjects, British
journal of Medical Psychology, 20:271-277.
Berglund B, Lindvall T (1995). Community noise. Document prepared for the World Health
Organization. Archives of the Center for Sensory Research 2 (1 ), Stockholm, Center for Sensory
Research.
Biesiot W, Pulles MPJ, Stewart RE (1989). Environmental noise and health. VROM, GA-DR-03-03,
Leidschendam.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Bistrup ML (2003). Prevention of adverse effects of noise on children. Noise & Health, 5:59-64.
Bistrup ML et al. (2001). Health effects of noise on children- and perception of risk of noise.
National Institute of Public Health, Copenhagen.
Bite M, Bite PZ (2004). Zusammenhang zwischen den Stra!lenverkehrsliirmindizes LAeq(06-22)
und LAeq(22-06) sowie Lden Zeitschrift fur Liirmbekiimpfzmg, 51:27-28.
Bixler EO, Kales A, Soldatos CR (1979). Sleep disorders encountered in medical practice: A national survey of physicians. Behavioral Medicine, 1-6.
Bjerner B, Holm A, Swensson A (1955). Diurnal variation of mental perfomance. A study of threeshift workers. British journal of Industrial Medicine, 12:103-110.
Blettner Metal. (1999). Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology.
International journal of Epidemiology, 28:1-9.
Bliwise Dl (1993). Sleep in normal aging and dementia. Sleep, 16:40-81.
Bluhm G, Nordling E, Berglind N (2001). Increased prevalence of hypertension in a population
exposed to road traffic noise. In Boone R, ed. Internoise 2001. Proceedings of the 2001
International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, The Hague, Vol. 3.
Nederlands Akoestisch Genootschap, Maastricht.
Bluhm G, Nordling E, Berglind N (2004). Road traffic noise and annoyance- an increasing environmental health problem. Noise & Health, 6 (24):43-49.
Bluhm Get a!. (2004 ). Aircraft noise exposure and cardiovascular risk among men- First results
from a study around Stockholm Arlanda airport. In: Czech Acoustoical Society, ed. Proceedings
of the 33rd International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, Prague, 31.
Blunden S, Lushington K, Kennedy D (2001). Cognitive and behavioural performance in children
with sleep-related obstructive breathing disorders. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 5:447-461.
Blunden Set a!. (2000). Behaviour and neurocognitive function in children aged 5-10 years who
snore compared to controls. journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
22:554-568.
Boggild H, Knutsson A (1999). Shift work, risk factors and cardiovascular disease. Scandinavian
journal of Work, Environment and Health, 25:85-99.
Boggild H eta!. (1999). Shift work, social class, and ischaemic heart disease in middle aged and elderly men: a 22-year follow-up in the Copenhagen Male Study. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 56:640-645.
Boman E, Enmarker I, Hygge S (2004). Strength of noise effects on memory as a function of noise
source and age. Noise & Health, 7:11.26.
Bonnet MH (1985). Effect of sleep disruption on sleep, performance, and mood. Sleep, 8:11-19.
Bonnet MH (1986a). Performance and sleepiness as a function of frequency and placement of sleep
disruption. Psychophysiology, 23:263-271.
Bonnet MH (1986b). Performance and sleepiness following moderate sleep disruption and slow
wave sleep deprivation. Physiology and Behavior, 37:915-918.
Borbely AA eta!. (1981). Sleep deprivation: effect on sleep stages and EEG power density in man.
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 51 (5):483-495.
Bormann C et al. (1990). Subjektive Morbiditiit. BGA Schriften 4/90, MMV Medizin Verlag,
Munich.
Born J, Wagner U (2004). Awareness in memory: being explicit about the role of sleep. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 8:242-244.
Boselli Met a!. (1998). Effects of age on EEG arousals in normal sleep. Sleep, 21 (4):351-357.
Bowlin SJ eta!. (1993). Validity of cardiovascular disease risk factors assessed by telephone survey:
the behavioral risk survey. journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46:561-571.
NIGHT NOISE GUIDELINES rOR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Bradford Hill AS (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the
Royal Society of Medicine, 58:295-300.
Breslau Net al. (1996). Sleep disturbance and psychiatric disorders: a longitudinal epidemiological
study of young adults. Biological Psychiatry, 39 (6):411--418.
Brink M, Muller CH, Schierz C (2006). Contact-free measurement of heart rate, respiration rate,
and body movements during sleep. Behavior Research Methods, 38 (3):511-521.
Brink M, Wirth K, Schierz C (2006). Effects of early morning aircraft overflights on sleep and
implications for policy making. Euronoise 2006, Tampere.
Broadbent DE (1953). Noise, paced performance and vigilance tasks. British Journal of Psychology,
44:295-303.
Broadbent DE (1972). Individual differences in annoyance by noise. Sound, 6:56-61.
Broadbent DE (1983). Recent advances in understanding performance in noise. In: Rossi G, ed.
Proceedings of 4th International Congress, Noise as a Public Health Problem. Centro Ricerche
e Studi Amplifon, Milan, pp. 719-738.
Brown RC (1949). The day and night performance of teleprinter switchboard operators. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 23:121-126.
Brown R (1992). Sleep deprivation and the immune response to pathogenic and non-pathogenic
antigens. In: Husband AJ, ed. Behaviour and immunity. CRC Press, Bocaton, Florida.
Bruni 0 et al. (2004). The sleep knowledge of pediatricians and child neuropsychiatrists. Sleep and
Hypnosis, 6 (3):130-138.
Bryden G, Holdstock TI (1973). Effects of night duty on sleep patterns of nurses. Psychophysiology,
10:36--42.
Busby K, Pivik R (1985). Auditory arousal threshold during sleep in hyperkinetic children. Sleep,
8:332-341.
Busby K, Mercier L, Pivik R (1994). Ontogenetic variations in auditory arousal threshold during
sleep. Psychophysiology, 31:182-188.
Caille EJ, Bassano JL (1977). Validation of a behavior analysis methodology: variation of vigilance
in night driving as a function of the rate of carboxyhemoglobin. In: Mackie RR, ed. Vigilance.
Plenum Press, New York, pp. 59-72.
Cairns Vet al. (1985). Oral contraceptive use and blood pressure in a German metropolitan population. International Journal of Epidemiology, 14:389-39 5.
Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2003). Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Hormesis demands a reappraisal of the way risks are assessed. Nature, 421:691-692.
CALM (2004). Research for a quieter Europe in 2020 (http://www.calm-network.com/index_stratpap.htm, accessed 11 November 2006)
Carskadon MA, Harvey K, Dement WC (1981a). Acute restriction of nocturnal sleep in children.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53:103-112.
Carskadon MA, Harvey K, Dement WC (1981b). Sleep loss in young adolescents. Sleep,
4:299-321.
Carter NL (1996). Transportation noise, sleep, and possible after-effects. Environment
International, 22:105-116.
Carter NL (1998). Cardiovascular response to environmental noise during sleep. In: 7th
International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Sydney, Australia, 2:439--444.
Carter NL et al. (1994). Environmental noise and sleep- a study of arousals, cardiac arrhythmia
and urinary catecholamines. Sleep, 17 (4 }:298-307.
Carter NL et al. (2002). Cardiovascular and autonomic response to environmental noise during
sleep in night shift workers. Sleep, 25:444--451.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Cartwright], Flindell I (2000). Research methodology- noise annoyance and health. In: Cassereau
D, ed. Internoise 2000. Proceedings of the 29th International Congress on Noise Control
Engineering, Nice. Societe Fran\=aise d'Acoustique (SFA), Nice.
Centre for Time Use Research (2006). (http://www.timeuse.org/access/, accessed 11 November
2006).
Chang PP et al. (1997). Insomnia in young men and subsequent depression. The Johns Hopkins
Precursors Study, American journal of Epidemiology, 146:105-114.
Chapman KR et al. (1988). Possible mechanisms of periodic breathing during sleep. journal of
Applied Physiology, 64:1000-1008.
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (1999). Environmental health report 1997/8.
Chervin RD et al. (1997). Symptoms of sleep disorders, inattention, and hyperactivity in children.
Sleep, 20:1185-1192.
Chowns RH (1970). Mental hospital admissions and aircraft noise. Lancet, 1:467-468.
Christoffel T, Teret SP (1991). Public health and law. Epidemiology and the law: courts and confidence intervals. American journal of Public Health, 81:1661-1666.
Cirelli C et al. (2005). Reduced sleep in Drosophila shaker mutants. Nature, 434:1087-1092.
Cohen S, Spacapan S (1978). The after-effects of stress: an attentional interpretation, Environmental
Psychology and Non-verbal Behaviour, 3:43-57.
Cohen S, Weinstein N (1981). Non-auditory effects of noise on behaviour and health. journal of
Social Issues, 37:36-70.
Cohen S, Kesslet; RC and Underwood Gordon L (1995). Strategies for measuring stress in studies of
psychiatric and physical disorders. In: Cohen S, Kessler RC and Underwood Gordon L, eds. A
guide for health and social scientists. Oxford University Press, New York.
Cohen Setal. (1980). Physiological, motivational, and cognitive effects of aircraft noise on children. American Psychologist, 35:231-243.
Cohen Setal. (1981). Aircraft noise and children: longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence on
adaptation to noise and the effectiveness of noise abatement. journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40:331-345.
Coleman RM and Dement WC (1986). Falling asleep at work: a problem for continuous operations. Sleep Research, 15:265.
Cooper R, ed. (1994). Sleep. Chapman and Hall Medical, London.
Crabtree VM et al. (2003 ). Periodic limb movement disorder of sleep in children. journal of Sleep
Research, 12:73-81.
Czeisler CA et al. (1980). Human sleep: its duration and organization depend on its circadian
phase. Science, 210:1264-1267.
Dahlgren K (1981a). Adjustment of circadian rhythms and EEG sleep functions to day and night
sleep among permanent night workers and rotating shift workers. Psychophysiology,
18:381-391.
Dahlgren K (1981b). Long-term adjustment of circadian rhythms to a rotating shiftwork schedule.
Scandinavian journal of Work, Environment and Health, 7:141-151.
Dawson D, Reid K (1997). Fatigue, alcohol and perfomance impairment. Nature, 388:235.
Dew MA et al. (2003 ). Healthy older adults' sleep predicts all-cause mortality at 4 to 19 years of
follow-up. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65:63-73.
Diaz Jet al. (2001). Traffic noise pollution. Similarities and differences between European regions.
A state-of-the-art-review. Technical University, Berlin.
Dickens. Gutenberg Electronic Library, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/580/580.txt.
NIGHT NOISE GUlDELINES FOR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Dijk D-J, Czeisler CA (1995). Contribution of the circadian pacemaker and the sleep homeostat to
sleep propensity, sleep structure, electroencephalographic slow waves, and sleep spindle activity
in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 15:3526-3538.
Dijk D-J, Duffy JF (1999). Circadian regulation of human sleep and age-related changes in its timing. Annals of Medicine, 31:130-140.
Dijk D-J, Beersma DGM and Bloem GM (1989). Sex differences in the sleep EEG of young adults:
Visual scoring and spectral analysis. SleefJ, 12:500-507.
Dijk D-J, Beersma DGM, van den Hofdakker RH (1989). All night spectral analysis of EEG sleep
in young adult and middle-aged male subjects. Neurobiology of Aging, 10:677-682.
Dijk D-J, Duffy JF, Czeisler CA (1992). Circadian and sleep-wake dependent aspects of subjective
alertness and cognitive performance. journal of Sleep Research, 1:112-117.
Dijk D-J et al. (1999). Ageing and the circadian and homeostatic regulation of human sleep during
forced desynchrony of rest, melatonin and temperature rhythms. Journal of Physiology,
516:611-627.
Dinges DF et al. (1997). Cumulative sleepiness, mood disturbance, and psychomotor vigilance performance decrements during a week of sleep restricted to 4-5 hours per night. Sleep,
20:267-277.
Di Nisi Jet al. (1990). Comparison of cardiovascular responses to noise during waking and sleeping
in humans. Sleep, 13:108-120.
Dongen JEF (van) et al. (1998) Dosis-effect relaties voor geluid van buren. TNO PG, Leiden,
Publication No. 98.002.
Dongen, JEF (van) et al. (2004). Hinder door milieufactoren en de beoordeling van de leefomgeving
in Nederland. RIVM, Bilthoven, TNO-INRO, Delft.
Drosopoulos S, Wagner U, Born, J (2005). Sleep enhances explicit recollection in recognition memory. Learning & Memory, 12:44-51.
Dryman A, Eaton WW (1991). Affective symptoms associated with the onset of major depression in
the community: findings from the US National Institute of Mental Health Epidemiologic
Catchment Area Program. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 84 (1):1-5.
Dugue B, Leppanen E, Griisbeck R (1994 ). Preanalytical factors and standardized specimen collection: the effects of industrial noise. Stress Medicine, 10:185-189.
Dumont M, Montplaisir J, Infante-Rivard C (1988). Insomnia symptoms in nurses with former permanent nightwork experience. In: Koella WP et al., eds. Sleep '86. Gustav Fischer Verlag,
Stuttgart, pp. 405-406.
Ebersole JS, Pedley TA, eds. (2003). Current practice of clinical electroencephalography. 3rd edition,
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia.
EEA (2004). Traffic noise: exposure and annoyance. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen.
Ehlers CL, Kupfer DJ (1997). Slow-wave sleep: Do young adult men and women age differently?
Sleep, 6:211-215.
Eiff AWV (1993). Selected aspects of cardiovascular responses to acute stress. In: Ising H, Kruppa
B, eds. Uirm und Krankheit- Noise and Disease. Proceedings of the International Symposium,
Berlin 1991. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.
Eiff AWV, Neus H (1980). Verkehrslarm und Hypertonie-Risiko. 1. Mitteilung: Verkehrslarm und
Hypertonie-Risiko. Munchener Medizinische Wochenschrift, 122:893-896.
Eiff AWV et al. (1974). Kapitel 7: Der medizinische Untersuchungsteil. In: Forschungsgemeinschaft
D, eds. Flugliirmwirkungen I, Hauptbericht. Harald Boldt Verlag KG, 32, Boppard.
Eiff AWV et al. (1981a). Verkehrslarm und Hypertonie-Risiko. 2. Mitteilung: HypothalamusTheorie der esscntiellen Hypertonic. Munchener Medizinische Wochenschrift, 123:420-424.
Eiff AWV et al. (1981b). Feststellung der erheblichen Beliistigung durch Verkehrsliirm mit Mitteln
NIGHT NOISE GUIDELINES FOI'l EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
der Stre{Sforschung (Bonner Verkehrslarmstudie). Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesminister

des Innem, Larmbekampfung, Forschungsbcrichts Nr. 81-10501303, Umweltbundesamt,
Berlin.
Ekstedt M, Akerstedt T, Soderstrom M (2004). Arousals during sleep are associated with increased
levels of lipids, cortisol and blood pressure. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66:925-931.
Engle-Friedman Metal. (2003). The effect of sleep loss on next day effort. journal of Sleep
Research, 12:113-124.
European Commission (2000). Position paper on EU noise indicators. Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
European Commission (2002a). Position paper on dose-response relationships between transportation noise and annoyance. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
European Commission (2002b). Directive 2002!49/EC relating to the assessment and management
of environmental noise. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
European Commission (2004). Position paper on dose-effect relationships for night time noise
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noisclhome.htm#1, accessed 11 November 2006).
European Commission (2006). Communication and Information Resource Centre Administrator
(CIRCA) (http:l!forum.europa.eu.int!Public/irc/env/d_2002_49/home, accessed 11 November
2006).
European Court of Human Rights (2003). Case of Hatton and others vs. the United Kingdom
(Application No. 36022197).
Evans AS (1976) .Causation and disease: the Henle-Koch postulates revised. Yale Journal of Biology
and Medicine, 49:175-195.
Evans A, Hygge S, Bullinger M (1995). Chronic noise exposure and physiological stress.
Psychological Science, 6:333-338.
Evans GW, Bullinger M, Hygge S (1998). Chronic noise exposure and psychological response: A
prospective study of children living under environmental stress. Psychological Science, 9:75-77.
Evans GW, Johnson D (2000). Stress and open-office noise. journal of Applied Psychology, 85
(5):779-783.
Evans GW, Lepore SJ (1993). Nonauditory effects of noise on children: a critical review. Children's
Environments, 10 (1):31-51.
Evans GW et al. (2001). Community noise exposure and stress in children. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 109:1023-1027.
Everson CA, Toth LA (2000). Systemic bacterial invasion induced by sleep deprivation. American
Journal of Physiology, Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 278:R905-R916.
Fabsitz RR, Sholinsky P, Goldberg J (1997). Correlates of sleep problems among men: the Vietnam
era twin registry. Journal of Sleep Research, 6:50-60.
Fallone Get al. (2001). Effects of acute sleep restriction on behavior, sustained attention, and
response inhibition in children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93:213-229.
Fallone G, Owens ]A, Deane J (2002). Sleepiness in children and adolescents: clinical implications.
Sleep Medicine, 6 (4):287-386.
Farley TMM eta!. (1998). Combined oral contraceptives, smoking, and cardiovascular risk.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 52:775-785.
Fidel! Setal. (1998). Field studies of habituation to change in night-time aircraft noise and of sleep
motility measurement methods. BBN Technologies, California, Report No. 8195.
Fidell S eta!. (2000). Effects on sleep disturbance of changes in aircraft noise near three airports.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107 (5:1):2535-2547.
NIGHT NOISE GUli:JELINES FOR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Fields JM (1993). Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential
areas. journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93 (5):2753-2763.
Finke HO et al. (1974). Effects of aircraft noise on man. Proceedings of the Symposium on Noise in
Transportation, Section III, paper 1. Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Southampton,
United Kingdom.
Flindell IH, Bullmore AJ, Robertson KA (2000). Aircraft noise and sleep. 1999 UK trial methodology study, Southampton, ISVR, Report 6131 ROl.
Folkard S, Akerstedt T (1991). A three process model of the regulation of alertness and sleepiness.
In: Ogilvie R, Broughton R, eds. Sleep, arousal and performance: problems and promises.
Birkhauser, Boston, pp. 11-26.
Ford DE, Kamerow DB (1989). Epidemiologic study of sleep disturbances and psychiatric disorders:
an opportunity for prevention. journal of the American Medical Association, 262:1479-1484.
Foret J, Benoit 0 (1974). Structure du sommeil chez des travailleurs a horaires alternants.
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 37:337-344.
Foret J, Benoit 0 (1978). Shiftwork: the level of adjustment to schedule reversal assessed by a sleep
study. Waking and Sleeping, 2:107-112.
Foret J, LantinG (1972). The sleep of train drivers: an example of the effects of irregular work
schedules on sleep. In: Coiqloun WP, ed. Aspects of human efficiency. Diurnal rhythm and loss
of sleep. The English Universities Press Ltd, London, pp. 273-281.
Franssen EA, Staatsen BAM, Lebret E (2002). Assessing health consequences in an environmental
impact assessment. The case of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 22:633-653.
Franssen EA et al. (2004 ). Aircraft noise around a large international airport and its impact on general health and medication use. journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61
(5):405-413.
Frerichs RR, Beeman BL, Coulson AH (1980). Los Angeles Airport noise and mortality- faulty
analysis and public policy. American journal of Public Health, 3 (70):357-362.
Friedman M, Rosenman RH (1975). Der A-Typ und der B-Typ. Rowohlt Verlag Gmbh, Reinbek
bei Hamburg.
Froberg Jet al. (1975). Circadian variations of catecholamine excretion, shooting range performance and self-ratings of fatigue during sleep deprivation. Biological Psychology, 2:175-188.
Gais S, Born J (2004 ). Declarative memory consolidation: mechanisms acting during human sleep.
Learning & Memory, 11:679-685.
Gattoni F, Tarnopolsky A (1973). Aircraft noise and psychiatric morbidity, Psychological Medicine,
3 (4):516-520.
Geroldi C et al. (1996). Principal lifetime occupation and sleep quality in the elderly. Gerontology,
42:163-169.
Gillberg M, Akerstedt T (1998). Sleep loss and performance. No "safe" duration of a monotonous
task. Physiology and Behavior, 64:599-604.
Gillman MW et al. (1992). Assessing the validity of childhood blood pressure screening: unbiased
estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Epidemiology, 3:40-46.
Glass DC, Singer JE (1972). Urban stress. Experiments on noise and social stressors. Academic
Press, New York.
Goldberg DP (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford University Press,
London.
Goldberg DP et al. (1970). A standardized psychiatric interview for use in community surveys.
British journal of Preventive and Social Medicine, 24 (1):18-23.
Goodman R (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note, Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 38 (5):581-586.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Goto K, Kaneko T (2002). Distribution of blood pressure data from people living near an airport.
journal of Sound and Vibration, 250:145-149.
Gottlieb DJ eta!. (2003). Symptoms of sleep-disordered breathing in 5-year-old children are associated with sleepiness and problem behaviors. Pediatrics, 112:870-877.
Gozal D (1998). Sleep-disordered breathing and school performance in children. Pediatrics,
102:616-620.
Gozal D, Pope DW (2001). Snoring during early childhood and academic performance at ages thirteen to fourteen years. Pediatrics, 107:1394-1399.
Grandjean E eta!. (1973). A survey of aircraft noise in Switzerland. United States Environmental
Protection Agency Publications, Washington, United States, 500:1973-008.
Griefahn B eta!. (2000). Physiological, subjective and behavioural responses during sleep to noise
from rail and road traffic, Noise & Health, 3 (9):59-71.
Griefahn B eta!. (2002). Fluglarmkriterien fUr ein Schutzkonzept bei wesentlichen Anderungen oder
Neuanlagen von Flughiifen/Flugpliitzen. Zeitschrift fiir Larmbekampftmg, 49:171-181.
Grimwood C (1993). Effects of environmental noise on people at home. BRE information paper.
Grossi Get a!. (2003 ). Physiological correlates of burnout among women. journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 55 (4):309-316.
Guazzi Met a!. (1968). Effects of cardiacdenervation on blood pressure and heart rate during natural sleep in the cat. Cardiovascular Research, 2:265-270.
Guilleminault C eta!. (1982a). Circadian rhythm disturbances and sleep disorders in shift workers
(EEG Suppl. No. 36). In: Buser PA, Cobb WA, Okuma T, eds. Kyoto Symposia, Elsevie1;
Amsterdam, pp. 709-714.
Guilleminault C eta!. (1982b). Children and nocturnal snoring. Evaluation of the effects of sleep
related respiratory resistive load and daytime functioning. Eumpean joumal of Pediatrics,
139:165-171.
Guilleminault C eta!. (1996). Recognition of sleep disordered breathing in children. Pediatrics,
98:871-882.
Haines MM eta!. (2001a). Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children. Psychological Medicine, 31:265-277.
Haines MM et al. (2001b). A follow-up study of the effects of chronic aircraft noise exposure on
child stress responses and cognition. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30:839-845.
Hall Met a!. (2000). Symptoms of stress and depression as correlates of sleep in primary insomnia.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 62:227-230.
Halpern D (1995). Mental health and the built environment. Taylor and Francis, London.
Hamelin P (1987). Lorry drivers' time habits in work and their involvement in traffic accidents.
Ergonomics, 30:1323-1333.
Hampton SM eta!. (1996). Postprandial hormone and metabolic responses in simulated shift work.
journal of Endocrinology, 151:259-267.
Hansen J (2001). Light at night, shiftwork, and breast cancer risk. journal of the National Cancer
Institute, 93 (20):1513-1515.
Harrington JM (1978). Shift work and health. A critical review of the literature. HMSO, London.
Harrington JM (1994). Shift work and health- a critical review of the literature on working hours.
Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 23:699-705.
Harris W (1977). Fatigue, circadian rhythm and truck accidents. In: Mackie RR, ed. Vigilance.
Plenum Press, New York, pp. 133-146.
Hartig T (2004). Restorative environments. In: Spielberger C, ed. Encyclopedia of applied psychology. Academic Press, London.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Hatfield J, Soames Job RF (2001). Optimism bias about environmental degradation: the role of the
range of impact of precautions. journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (1):17-30 (14).
Hatfield Jet al. (2001). The influence of psychological factors on self-reported physiological effects
of noise. Noise & Health, 3 (10):1-13.
Health Council of the Netherlands (1994). Noise and health. Report by a committee of the Health
Council of the Netherlands, The Hague.
Health Council of the Netherlands (1999). Public health impact of large airports. Report by a committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands, The Hague.
Health Council of the Netherlands (2003). Report of a workshop on sleep, health, and noise. Held
in connection with ICBEN on 2 ]uly 2003. Gezondheidsraad, The Hague.
Health Council of the Netherlands (2004). The influence of night-time noise on sleep and health.
The Hague, publication No. 2004/14E.
Hennekens CH, Buring JE (1987). Epidemiology in medicine. Little, Brown and Company,
Boston/Toronto.
Henry JP (1992). Biological basis of the stress response. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral
Science, 27:66-83.
Henry JP, Stephens PM (1977). Stress, health and the social environment, a sociobiologic approach
to medicine. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Hense H-W, Herbold M, Honig K (1989). Risikofaktor Liirm in Felderhebungen zu HerzKreislauferkrankungen. Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesministers fiir Umwelt, Naturschutz
und Reaktorsicherheit. Forschungsbericht Nr. 89-10501111, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.
Herbold M, Hense H-W, Keil U (1989). Effects of road traffic noise on prevalence of hypertension
in men: results of the Lubeck blood pressure study. Sozial- und Priiventivmedizin, 34:19-23.
Hildebrandt G, Rohmert W, Rutenfranz J (1974). 12- and 24-hour rhythms in error frequency of
locomotive drivers and the influence of tiredness. International journal of Chronobiology,
2:175-180.
Hiramatsu Ketal. (1997). A survey on health effects due to aircraft noise on residents living
around Kadena airport in the Ryukyus. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 205:451-460.
Hiramatsu K et al. (2000). An analysis of the general health questionnaire survey around airports in
terms of annoyance reaction. Internoise 2000, Inrets, Nice.
Horne J, ed. (1988). Why we sleep. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Horne et al. (1994). Sleep related vehicle accidents. British Medical ]oumal, 310:565-567.
Hume K, Morley H, Thomas C (2003). Using complaints as a measure of annoyance at airport
operations. Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester.
Hume KI, Van F, Watson A (1998). A field study of age and gender differences in habitual adult
sleep. Journal of Sleep Research, 7:85-94.
Hume KI, Van F, Watson A (2003). Effects of aircraft noise on sleep: EEG-Based measurements.
Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester.
Hygge S, Evans GW, Bullinger M (2002). A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on
cognitive performance in schoolchildren. Psychological Science, 13:469-474.
Hyyppa MT, Kronholm E (1989). Quality of sleep and chronic illness. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 42:633-638.
IEH (1997). Workshop on non-auditory health effects of noise. Report No. R10. Institute for
Environment and Health, Leicester.
Ingre M, Akerstedt T (2004). Effect of accumulated night work during the working lifetime, on
subjective health and sleep in monozygotic twins. Journal of Sleep Research, 13 (1):45-48.
Irwin M, Fortner M, Clark C (1995). Reduction of natural killer cell activity in primary insomnia
and in major depression. Sleep Research, 24:256.
NIGHT NOISE GUII:JEtlNES fOR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Ishihara K (1999). The effect of 2-h sleep reduction by a delayed bedtime on daytime sleepiness in
children. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 53:113-115.
Ishihara K, Miyke S (1998). A longitudinal study of the development of daytime sleepiness in children. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 52:178-181.
Ising H (1983). Stre(Sreaktionen und Gesundheitsrisiko bei Verkehrsliirmbelastung. Dietrich Reimer
Verlag, Berlin.
Ising H, Braun C (2000). Acute and chronic endocrine effects of noise: review of the research conducted at the Institute for Water, Soil and Air Hygiene. Noise & Health, 2 (7):7-24.
Ising H, Ising M (2002). Chronic cortisol increase in the first half of the night caused by road traffic
noise. Noise & Health, 4 (16):13-21.
Ising H, Kruppa B (2004 ). Health effects caused by noise. Evidence in the literature from the past
25 years. Noise & Health, 6:5-13.
Ising H eta!. (1980). Health effects of traffic noise. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 47:179-190.
Ising H et a!. (2004 ). Low frequency noise and stress: bronchitis and cortisol in children exposed
chronically to traffic noise and exhaust fumes. Noise & Health, 6 (23):23-30.
Ito A eta!. (1994 ). Health effects on the residents due to aircraft noise around Kadena US Air base
in the Ryukyus. Internoise 94, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 247-250.
Iwata 0 (1984). The relationship of noise sensitivity to health and personality. Japanese
Psychological Research, 26:75-81.
Jarup Let a!. (2003). Hypertension and exposure to noise near airports- the Hyena project.
Epidemiology, 14 (5):S78. 34.
Jasanoff S (1993). Relating risk assessment and risk management. Complete separation of the two
processes is a misconception. EPA Journal, JanlFeb/Mar 1993:35-37.
Jelinkova A (1988). Coping with noise in noise sensitive subjects. In: Berglund B, ed. Noise as a
public health problem. Noise 88, Vol. 3, Stockholm, Swedish Council for Building Research,
pp. 27-30.
Jenkins L, Tarnopolsky A, Hand D (1981). Psychiatric admissions and aircraft noise from London
Airport: four-year, three-hospitals study. Psychological Medicine, 11 (4 ):765-782.
Jenkins LM et al. (1979). Comparison of three studies of aircraft noise and psychiatric hospital
admissions conducted in the same area. Psychological Medicine, 9 (4 ):681-693.
Jones DM, Chapman AJ, Auburn TC (1981). Noise the environment: a social perspective. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 1:43-59.
Jurriens AA eta!. (1983). An essay in European research collaboration: common results from the
project on traffic noise and sleep in the home. Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on
Noise as a Public Health Problem, Turin, pp. 929-937.
Juvenal DJ (around AD 160) This is an excerpt from Reading About the World, Volume 1, edited
by Paul Brians, Mary Gallwey, Douglas Hughes, Azfar Hussain, Richard Law, Michael Myers,
Michael Neville, Roger Schlesinger, Alice Spitzer, and Susan Swan and published by Harcourt
Brace Custom Books. Satire No. 3 (... magnis opibus dormitur in urbe ... ).
Kageyama T eta!. (1997). A population study on risk factors for insomnia among adult Japanese
women: a possible effect of road traffic volume. Sleep, 20 (11):963-971.
Kahn A eta!. (1989). Sleep problems in healthy preadolescents. Pediatrics, 84:542-546.
Kalogjera-Sackellares D, Cartwright RD (1997). Comparison of MMPI profiles in medically and
psychologically based insomnias. Psychiatry Research, 70 (1):49-56.
Kamp I (van) (1990). Coping with noise and its health consequences. Styx and PP Publications,
Groningen.
NiGHT NOISE GU!DEUNES FOR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Karacan I et al. (1976). Prevalence of sleep disturbances in a primarily urban Florida county. Social
Science and Medicine, 10:239-244.
Karagodina IL et al. (1969). Effect of aircraft noise on the population near airport. Hygiene and
Sanitation, 34:182-187.
Karsdorf G, Klappach H (1968). Einfliisse des Verkehrsliirms auf Gesundheit und Leistung bei
Oberschiilern einer Groflstadt. Zeitschrift fiir die gesamte Hygiene, 14:52-54.
Kawachi I et al. (1995). Prospective study of shift work and risk of coronary heart disease in
women. Circulation, 92:3178-3182.
Kecklund Q (1996). Sleep and alertness: effects of shift worh, early rising, and the sleep environment (dissertation). Statens Institute for Psykosocial Miljomedicin (IPM), 252:1-94.
Kecklund G, Akerstedt T (1993). Sleepiness in long distance truck driving: an ambulatory EEG
study of night driving. Ergonomics, 36:1007-1017.
Kecklund G, Akerstedt T (1997). Objective components of individual differences in subjective sleep
quality. ]oumal of Sleep Research, 6, 217-220.
Keefe FB, Johnson LC, Hunter EJ (1971). EEG and autonomic response pattern during waking and
sleep stages. Psychophysiology, 8:198-212.
Keipert JA (1985). The harmful effects of noise in a children's ward. Australian Paediatric Journal,
21:101-103.
Keith SW et al. (2006). Putative contributors to the secular increase in obesity: exploring the roads
less traveled. Intemational journal of Obesity, 30:1585-1594.
Kempen EEMM (van) et al. (2002). The association between noise exposure and blood pressure
and ischaemic heart disease: a meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110:307-317.
Kim K et al. (2000). An epidemiological study of insomnia among the Japanese general population.
Sleep, 23 (1):41-47.
Klein DE, Bruner H, Holtman H (1970). Circadian rhythm of pilot's efficiency, and effects of multiple time zone travel. Aerospace Medicine, 41:125-132.
Knipschild, P. (1977a). V. Medical effects of aircraft noise: community cardiovascular survey.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 40:185-190.
Knipschild P (1977b). VI. Medical effects of aircraft noise: general practice survey. Intemational
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 40:191-196.
Knipschild P, Oudshoorn N (1977). VII. Medical effects of aircraft noise: drug survey. International
Knipschild P, Salle H (1979). Road traffic noise and cardiovascular disease. International Archives
of Occupational and Environmental Health, 44:55-59.
Knipschild P, Meijer H, Salle H (1984). Wegverkeerslawaai, psychische problematiek en bloeddruk.
Tijdschr Soc Gezondheidszorg, 62:758-765.
Knol AB, Staatsen BAM (2005). Trends in the environmental burden of disease in the Netherlands
1980-2020, RIVM report S00029001!200S. Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Knutsson A (1989a). Relationships between serum triglycerides and g-Glutamyltransferase among
shift and day workers. Journal of Internal Medicine, 226:337-339.
Knutsson A (1989b). Shift work and coronary heart disease. Scandinavian Journal of Social
Medicine, 544:1-36.
Knutsson A, Akerstedt T, Jonsson B (1988). Prevalence of risk factors for coronary artery disease
among day and shift workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health,
14:317-321.
Knutsson A et al. (1986). Increased risk of ischemic heart disease in shift workers. Lancet, 12
(2):89-92.
NIGHT NOISE GUIDEL!NES FOR
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
EUROP~

Seattle WA 98115
Kogi K, Ohta T (1975). Incidence of near accidental drowsing in locomotive driving during a period of rotation. Journal of Human Ergology, 4:65-76.
Kokokusha D (1973). Report of investigation of living environment around Osaka International
Airport. Aircraft Nuisance Prevention Association.
Koller M (1983). Health risks related to shift work. International Archives of Occupational and
Koller M, Kundi M, Cervinka R (1978). Field studies of shift work at an Austrian oil refinery.
Health and psychosocial wellbeing of workers who drop out of shift work. Ergonomics,
21:835-847.
Kopferschmitt Jet a!. (1992). Sleep disorders and use of psychotropic drugs in 6-year-old children.
Revue d'Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique, 40:467-4 71.
Kraenz S et a!. (2004) Prevalence and stress factors of sleep disorders in children starting school.
Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 53, 1:3-18.
Kranendonk F, Gerretsen E, Luxemburg LCJ (van) (1993). Akoestische kwaliteit van woningen versus de beleving van burengeluid. TNO-BOUW, TUE-Bouwkunde; 93-CBO-R3185.
Kripke DF, Cook B, Lewis OF (1971). Sleep of night workers: EEG recordings. Psychophysiology,
7:377-384.
Kripke DF et al. (1979). Short and long sleep and sleeping pills. Is increased mortality associated?
Archives of General Psychiatry, 36:103-116.
Kripke DF et al. (2002). Mortality associated with sleep duration and insomnia. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 99:131-136.
Kristensen TS (1989). Cardiovascular diseases and the work environment. Scandinavian journal of
Work, Environment, and Health, 15:165-179.
Kryter KD (1990). Aircraft noise and social factors in psychiatric hospital admission rates: a reexamination of some data, Psychological Medicine, 20 (2):395-411.
Kryter K, Poza F (1980). Effects of noise on some autonomic system activities. journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 2036-2044.
Kupperman Met a!. (1995). Sleep problems and their correlates in a working population. journal
of Genera/Internal Medicine, 10:25-32.
Kushnir T, Melamed S (1992). The Gulf War and its impact on burnout and well-being of working
civilians. Psychological Medicine, 22:987-995.
Lambert J, Plouhinec M (1985). Day and night annoyance: a comparison. Proceedings of Internoise
85, pp. 941-944.
Lambert J, Vallet M (1994 ). Study related to the preparation of a communication on a future EC
noise policy. LEN Report No.9420, Brussels.
Langdon FJ, Buller IB (1977). Road traffic noise and disturbance to sleep. journal of Sound and
Vibration, 50:13-28.
Langdon FJ, Buller IB, Scholes WE (1981). Noise from neighbours and the sound insulation of
party walls in houses. journal of Sound and Vibration, 79:205-288.
Lauber JK, Kayten PJ (1988). Sleepiness, circadian dysrhythmia, and fatigue in transportation system accidents. Sleep, 11:503-512.
La vie P, Pillar G, Malhotra A (2002). Sleep disorders: diagnosis, management and treatment. A
handbook for clinicians. Martin Dunitz, London.
Ledoux S, Choquet M, Manfredi R (1994). Self-reported use of drugs for sleep or distress among
French adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 15:495-502.
Leger D et a!. (2000). Prevalence of insomnia in a survey of 12 778 adults in France. Journal of
Sleep Research, 9:35-42.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Leger D et al. (2002). Medical and socio-professional impact of insomnia, Sleep, 25 (6):625-629.
Leidclmeijer K, Marsman G (1997). Geluid van buren. Horen, hinder en sociale nonnen. RIGO,
Amsterdam, 97/65.
Leineweber C et a!. (2003). Poor sleep increases the prospective risk for recurrent events in middleaged women with coronary disease. The Stockholm Female Coronary Risk Study. journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 54:121-127.
Lennernas M, Akerstedt T, Hambraeus L (1994). Nocturnal eating and serum cholesterol of threeshift workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 20:401---406.
Lercher P (1992). Auswirkungen des Straflenved<.ehrs auf Lebensqualiti:it und Gesundheit.
Transitverkehrs-Studie, Teil I, Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung, Landesbaudirektion,
Landessanitiitsabteilung, lnnsbruck.
Lercher, P (1996). Environmental noise and health: an integrated research perspective. Environment
International, 22:117-128.
Lercher P, Kofler WW (1993). Adaptive behaviour to road traffic noise, blood pressure and cholesterol. In: Vallet M, ed. Noise and Man '93. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on
Noise as a Public Health Problem, Nice 1993. Arcueil Cedex, Institut National de Recherche
sur les Transport et leur Securite.
Lercher P, Kofler WW (1996). Behavioral and health responses associated with road traffic noise
exposure along alpine through-traffic routes. The Science of the Total Environment,
189/190:85-89.
Lercher P et al. (2002). Ambient neighbourhood noise and children's mental health. Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, 59 (6):380-386.
Lindstrom B (1992). Quality of life: a model for evaluating health for all. Conceptual considerations and policy implications. Sozial- und Pri:iventivmedizin, 37:301-306.
Lipworth Let al. (2001). Comparison of surrogate with self-respondents regarding medical history
and prior medication use. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30:303-308.
Loeb M (1986). Noise and human efficiency. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Lukas JS (1972a). Awakening effects of simulated sonic booms and aircraft on men and women.
journal of Sound and Vibration, 20:457--466.
Lukas JS (1972b). Effects of aircraft noise on human sleep. American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal, 33:298-303.
Lundberg U (1999). Coping with stress: neuroendocrine reactions and implications for health.
Noise & Health, 4:67-74.
Lundberg 0, Manderbacka K (1996). Assessing reliability of a measure of self-rated health.
Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, 24:218-224.
Macey PM et al. (2002). Brain morphology associated with obstructive sleep apnea. American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 15 (166):1382-1387.
Malmstrom M, Sundquist J, Johansson S-E (1999). Neighborhood environment and self-reported
health status: a multilevel analysis. American ]oumal of Public Health, 89:1181-1186.
Manninen 0, Aro S (1979). Urinary catecholamines, blood pressure, serum cholesterol and blood
glucose response to industrial noise exposure. Arhiv za Higijenu Rada i Toksikologiju,
30:713-718.
Marcus CL (2001). Sleep-disordered breathing in children. American journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine, 164:16-30.
Marcus CL, Greene MG, Carroll JL (1998). Blood pressure in children with obstructive sleep
apnea. American journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 157:1098-1103.
Marcus CL et al. (1994). Determinants of growth in children with the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Journal of Pediatrics, 125:556-562.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
MarthE et al. (1988). Flugliirm: Veranderung biochemischer Parameter. Zentralblatt fiir

Bakteriologie, Mikrobiologie und Hygiene, 185:498-508.
Maschke C (2003). Epidemiological research on stress caused by traffic noise and its effects on high
blood pressure and psychic disturbances. In: Jong RD et al., eds. ICBEN 2003. Proceedings of
the 8th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Rotterdam. ISBN 90807990-1-7. Foundation ICBEN, Schiedam.
Maschke C, Rupp T, Hecht K (2000). The influence of stressors on biochemical reactions- a
review of present scientific findings with noise. International Journal of Hygiene and
Maschke C, Wolf U, Leitmann T (2003 ). Epidemiological examinations of the influence of noise
stress on the immune system and the emergence of arteriosclerosis. Report 298 62 515 (in
German, executive summary in English), Wabolu-hefte 01/03, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.
Mathers CD eta! (2003). Global burden of disease in 2002- data sources, methods and results.
WHO Discussion Paper No 54.
(http://www3.who.int/whosis/discussion_papers/discussion_papers.cfm?path=evidence,discussio
n_papers&language=english, accessed 11 November 2006).
Mathur R, Douglas NJ (1995). Frequency of EEG arousals from nocturnal sleep in normal subjects.
Sleep, 18:330-333.
Matschat K, Miiller EA (1984). Vergleich nationaler und internationaler
Fluglarmbewertungsverfahren. Aufstellung von Nahenmgsbeziehzmgen zwischen den
Bewertzmgsma(Sen. Umweltforschungsplan des Bundsministers des Innern, Forschungsbericht
Nr. 81-105 01 307, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.
Matsui T et al. (2001). Association between blood pressure and aircraft noise exposure around
Kadena airfield in Okinawa. In: Boone R, ed. Internoise 2001. Proceedings of the 2001
International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, The Hague, Vol. 3.
Nederlands Akoestisch Genootschap, Maastricht.
Matsui T et al. (2004). The Okinawa study: effects of chronic aircraft noise on blood pressure and
some other physiological indices. journal of Sound and Vibration, 277:469-470.
Matsumoto K (1978). Sleep patterns in hospital nurses due to shift work: an EEG study. Waking
and Sleeping, 2:169-173.
Meecham WC, Smith HG (1977). Effects of jet aircraft noise on mental hospital admissions. British
Journal of Audiology, 11 (3):81-85.
Meier-Ewert HK eta!. (2004). Effect of sleep loss on C-reactive protein, an inflammatory marker of
cardiovascular risk. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 43:678-683.
Melamed S, Kushnir T, ShiromA (1992). Burnout and risk factors for cardiovascular diseases.
Behavioral Medicine, 18:53-60.
Melamed Setal. (1999). Chronic burnout, somatic arousal and elevated salivary cortisol levels.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46:591-598.
Mellinger GD, Balter MB, Uhlenhuth EH (1985). Insomnia and its treatment. Prevalence and correlates. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42 (3 ):225-232.
Miedema HME (2003). Self-reported sleep disturbance caused by aircraft noise. TNO Inro, Delft,
2004-15.
Miedema HME (2004). Self-reported sleep disturbance caused by aircraft noise. TNO lnro, Delft,
2005-15.
Miedema HME, Vos H (1998). Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise. ]oumal of
the Acoustical Society of America, 104:3432-3445.
Miedema HME, Passchier-Vermecr W, Vos H (2003). Elements for a position paper on night-time
transportation noise and sleep disturbance. TNO Inro, Delft, 2002-59.
Ministerie Verkeer en Waterstaat (2005). Evaluatie Schipholbeleid Schiphol beleefd door omwonenden, The Hague, ISBN 90 369 18 537.
NiGHT NOi5E GUIDELINES I"OR I::UROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Mirier MM et al. (1988). Catastrophes, sleep and public policy: consensus report. Sleep,
11:100-109.
Mitler MM eta!. (1997). The sleep of long-haul truck drivers. The New England Journal of
Medicine, 337:755-761.
Miyakita et al. (1998). Is residential sound-proofing an effective measure in reducing the effects of
aircraft noise? Intemoise 1998, Noise Control Foundation.
Moline ML eta!. (2003). Sleep in women across the life cycle from adulthood through menopause.
Sleep Medicine Reviews, 7:155-177.
Morabia A (1991). On the origin of Hill's causal criteria. Epidemiology, 2:367-369.
Morin CM, RodrigueS, Ivers H (2003). Role of stress, arousal, and coping skills in primary insomnia. American Psychosomatic Society, 65:259-267.
Morrell S, Taylor R, Lyle D (1997). A review of health effects of aircraft noise. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health, 21:221-236.
Morrell Setal. (1998). Cross-sectional relationship between blood pressure of school children and
aircraft noise. In: Carter N, Job RFS, eds. Noise effects '98. Proceedings of the 7th
International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Sydney 1998.
Morrell S et al. (2000). Cross-sectional and longitudinal results of a follow-up examination of child
blood pressure and aircraft noise. The inner Sydney child blood pressure study. Internoise 2000,
29th International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, Nice.
Mosso A (1886). Periodische Athmung und Luxusathmung. Arch. Physiol. Suppl, 37:116.
Miiller-Wenk R (2002). Attribution to road traffic of the impact of noise on health. Environmental
Series No 339, BUWAL, Berne (http://www.buwalshop.ch, accessed 11 November 2006).
Murray CHR et al. (1996). The global burden of disease. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Muzet A, Ehrhart J (1978). Amplitude des modifications cardiovasculaires provoquees par le bruit
au cours du sommeil. Coeur et medecine interne, 17:49-56.
Muzet A, Ehrhart J (1980). Habituation of heart rate and finger pulse resonses to noise during
sleep. In: Tobias JV, ed. Noise as a public health problem. ASHA report No.10, Rockville,
Maryland, pp. 401-404.
Muzet A et al. (1973). Relationship between subjective and physiological assessments of noise-disturbed sleep. Proceedings of the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem,
US Envimnmental Agency, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, pp. 575-586.
Nagaya T ct a!. (2002). Markers of insulin resistance in day and shift workers aged 20-59 years.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 75:562-568.
Naitoh P, Muzet A, Lienhard JP (1975). Effects of noise and elevated temperature on sleepcycle.
Sleep Research, 4:174.
NCSDR (2003). National Center on Sleep Disorders Research
(http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/prof/sleep/res_plan/index.html, accessed 3 March 2007).
Neus H, Boikat U (2000). Evaluation of traffic noise-related cardiovascular risk. Noise & Health, 2
(7):65-77.
Neus H eta!. (1980). On the reaction of finger pulse amplitude to noise. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health, 47:9-19.
Neus H et al. (1983). Traffic noise and hypertension. The Bonn traffic noise study. In: Rossi G (ed.).
Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Turin
1983. Edizioni Tecniche a cura del Centro Ricerche e Studi Amplifon, Milan.
Niemann H, Maschke C (2004). Noise effects and morbidity, WHO LARES final report. Berlin,
Interdisciplinary Research Network "Noise and Health"
(http://www.euro.who.int/documcnt/NOHIWHO_Lares.pdf, accessed 18 November 2004).
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Nieminen P eta!. (2002). Growth and biochemical markers of growth in children with snoring and
obstructive sleep apnea. Pediatrics, 109:c55.
Nijland HA et a!. (2003 ). Costs and benefits of noise abatement measures. Transport Policy,
10:131-140.
Nilsson Pet a!. (2001). Sleep disturbances in association with elevated pulse rate for the prediction
of mortality- consequences of mental strain? Journal of Internal Medicine, 250:521-529.
Nilsson P et al. (2002). Incidence of diabetes in middle-aged men is related to resting heart rate and
difficulties to fall asleep (abstract). 7th International Congress of Behavioural Medicine.
North FM et al. (1996). Psychosocial work environment and sickness absence among British civil
servants: the Whitehall II study. American Journal of Public Health, 86:332-340.
NTSB (1995). Factors that affect fatigue in heavy truck accidents. National Transportation Safety
Board, NTSB/SS-95/0 L.
Nurminen T (1989). Shift work, fetal development and course of pregnancy. Scandinavian Journal
of Work, Environment, and Health, 15:395-403.
O'Brien LM, Gozal D (2002). Behavioral and neurocognitive implications of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea in children: facts and theory. Pediatric Respiratory Reviews, 3:3-9.
Ohayon MM, Roth T (2003). Place of chronic insomnia in the course of depressive and anxiety disorders. Joumal of Psychiatric Research, 37 (1):9-15.
Ohrstri:im E (1989). Sleep disturbance, psychosocial and medical symptoms- a pilot survey among
persons exposed to high levels of road traffic noise. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
133:117-128.
Ohrstri:im E (1993). Long-term effects in terms of psychosocial wellbeing, annoyance and sleep disturbance in areas exposed to high levels of road traffic noise. Health Council of the
Netherlands, The Hague, A93/02E.
Ohrstri:im E, Bjorkman M, Rylander R (1988). Noise annoyance with regard to neurophysiological
sensitivity, subjective noise sensitivity and personality variables. Psychological Medicine, 18
(3 ):605-613.
Olkin I (1995). Meta-analysis: reconciling the results of independent studies. Statistics in Medicine,
14:457-472.
Ollerhead JB (1994). Report of a field study of aircraft noise and sleep disturbance. A study commissioned by the Department of Transport from the Civil Aviation Authority, HMSO, London.
Ollerhead et al. (1992). Report on a field study of aircraft noise and sleep disturbance. Department
of Transport, London.
Ortscheid J, Wende H (2000). Flugliirmwirkungen. Forschungsbericht (in German),
Umwe!tbundesamt, Berlin.
Ounsted MK, Hendrick AM (1977). The first-born child: patterns of development. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 19:446-453.
Owens JA, Rosen CL and Mindel! JA (2003). Medication use in the treatment of pediatric insomnia: results of a survey of community-based pediatricians. Pediatrics, 111:628-635.
Owens-Stively Jet al. (1997). Neuro-psychological and behavioral correlates of obstructive sleep
apnea in children. Sleep Research, 26 (suppl. 1):452.
Parish JM, Shepard JW (1990). Cardiovascular effects of sleep disorders. Chest, 97:1220-1226.
Partinen M, Eskelinen L, Tuomi K (1984). Complaints of insomnia in different occupations.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 10:467-469.
Passchier-Vermeer W (1993). Noise and health. Health Council of the Netherlands, The Hague.
Passchier-Vermeer W (2000). Noise and health of children. TNO report PGNGZ/2000.042,
Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, Netherlands.
r~IGHT
NOISE GUIDELINES FOR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Passchier-Vermeer W (2001). Effects of noise. In: Bistrup ML, ed. Health effects of noise on children and perception of the risk of noise. National Institute of Public Health, Denmark, pp.
47-68.
Passchier-Vermeer W (2003a). Night-time noise events and awakening. TNO Inro report 2003-32,
TNO Institute for Traffic and Transport, Delft.
Passchier-Vermeer W (2003b). Relationship between environmental noise and health. Journal of
Aviation Environmental Research, 7 (suppl.):35-44.
Passchier-Vermeer Wand Passchier WF (2000). Noise exposure and public health. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 108 (suppl. 1):123-131.
Passchier-Vermeer Wet a!. (2002). Sleep disturbance and aircraft noise exposure. TNO-PG, Leiden,
Report No. 2002.027.
Passchier-Vermeer Wet a!. (2004). Motility and road and rail traffic noise. TNO-Inro, Delft, TNO
report No. 2004.
Patel SR et al. (2004). A prospective study of sleep duration and mortality risk in women. Sleep,
27:440-444.
Patois E, Valatz JL, Alperovitch A (1993). Prevalence of sleep and wakefulness disorders in high
school students at the Academy of Lyon. Revue d'Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique,
41:383-388.
Patton GC eta!. (2000). Adolescent depressive disorder: a population-based study of ICD-10 symptoms. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34 (5):741-747.
Pearsons K, Bennett R, Fidell S (1973). Effects of cessation of late-night landings on behavioral
awakening. BNN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Canoga Park, Report No. 2439.
Peigneux P et a!. (2001 ). Sleeping brain, learning brain. The role of sleep for memory systems.
NeuroReport 2001:12:A111-A124.
Peiyoong L, Hiscock H, Wake M (2003). Outcomes of infant sleep problems: a longitudinal study
of sleep, behavior, and maternal well-being. Pediatrics, 111:203-207.
Porter ND, Flindell IH, Berry BF (1998). Health effect-based noise assessment methods: a review
and feasibility study. National Physical Laboratory, Teddington.
Poustka F, Eckermann P, Schmeck K (1992). Effect of aircraft noise and psychosocial stressors on
mental disturbances of children and adolescents: an epidemiological study in Westphalia. In:
Remschmidt H, Schmidt MH, eds. Developmental psycho[Jathology, Hogrefe and Huber
Publishers, Gottingen.
Prokop 0, Prokop L (1955). Ermiidung und Einschlafen am Steuer. Zent1alblatt fur
Verkehrsmedizin, Verkehrspsychologie und angrenzende Gebiete, 1:19-30.
Pulles T, Biesiot W, Stewart R (1988). Adverse effects of environmental noise on health: an interdisciplinary approach. Environmental International, 16:437-445.
Rai RM eta!. (1981). Biochemical effects of chronic exposure to noise in man. International
Raw GJ, Oseland NA (1991) Subjective response to noise through party floors in conversion flats.
Applied Acoustics, 32:215-231.
Rechtschaffen A, Bergmann BM (1965). Sleep deprivation in the rat by the disk-over-water method.
Behavioural Brain Research, 69:55-63.
Rechtschaffen A, Kales A, eds. (1968). A manual of standardized terminology, techniques and scoring system for sleep stages of human subjects. Brain Information Service/Brain Research
Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles.
Rechtschaffen A, Hauri P, Zeitlin M (1966). Auditory awakening thresholds in REM and NREM
sleep stages. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 22:927-942.
Reyner LA (1995). Sleep disturbance and daytime sleepiness in normal subjects. Loughborough
University of Technology, Loughborough.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Reyner et al. (1995). Patterns of spontaneous and evoked body movements during sleep. Sleep, 18
(3):209-211.
RFV (2003). Lan-tidssjukskrivna- egenskaper vid 2003 ars RFV-LS-undersokning.
Rhodes SK et al. (1995). Neurocognitive deficits in morbidly obese children with obstructive sleep
apnea. Journal of Pediatrics, 127:741-744.
Ribet C, Derriennic F (1999). Age, working conditions, and sleep disorders: a longitudinal analysis
in the French cohort. Enquete Sante, Travail et Vieillissement (ESTEV), 22:491-504.
Richards W, Ferdman RM. (2000). Prolonged morbidity due to delays in the diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea in children. Clinical Pediatrics, 39:103-108.
Riemann D, Berger M, Voderholzer U (2001). Sleep and depression- results from psychobiological
studies: an overview, Biological Psychology, 57 (1-3):67-103.
Roberts E, Roberts CR, Chen IG. (2002). Impact of insomnia on future functioning of adolescents.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53 (1):561- 569.
Rockhill B (2005). Commentary. The message is rarely simple: the j-curve and beyond.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 34:44-45.
Ramon M, Nuttens MC, Fievet C (1992). Increased triglyceride levels in shift workers. American
Journal of Medicine, 93 (3):259-262.
Rose G (2005). Incubation period of coronary heart disease. International Journal of Epidemiology,
34:242-244.
Rose GA, Blackburn H (1968). Cardiovascular survey methods. 1st edition, World Health
Organization, Geneva.
Rosenlund Met a!. (2001 ).Increased prevalence of hypertension in a population exposed to aircraft
noise. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58:769-773.
Roth T, Ancoli-Israel S (1999). Daytime consequences and correlates of insomnia in the United
States: results of the 1991 National Sleep Foundation Survey, II. Sleep, 22 (suppl.
2):S354-S358.
Sadeh A, Gruber R, Raviv A (2000). Sleep patterns and sleep disruptions in school-age children.
Developmental Psychology, 36:291-301.
Sadeh A, Gruber R, Raviv A (2002). Sleep, neurobehavioral functioning, and behavior problems in
school-age children. Child Development, 73:405-417.
Sadeh A, Gruber R, Raviv A (2003). The effects of sleep restriction and extension on school-age
children: what a difference an hour makes. Child Development, 74:444-455.
Sadeh A et al. (1995). Sleep and psychological characteristics of children on a psychiatric inpatient
unit. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34 (6):813-819.
Sateia Met a!. (2000). Evaluation of chronic insomnia. Sleep, 23 (2):243-263.
Scharnberg T et al. (1982). Beeintrachtigzmg des Nachtschlafs durch Liirm. Eine interdisziplini:ire
Feldstudie der Technischen Universitiit Berlin und der Physikalisch-Technischen Bundesanstalt
Braunschweig, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin, Forschungsbericht Nr. 82-1050-1207.
Schernhammer ES eta!. (2003). Night-shift work and risk of colorectal cancer in the nurses' health
study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95:825-828.
Schlesselman JJ (1987). "Proof" of cause and effect in epidemiologic studies: criteria for judgment.
Preventive Medicine, 16:195-210.
Schreckenberg D et a!. (1999). An interdisciplinary study on railway and road traffic noise: annoyance differences. 137th ASA Meeting and 25th DAGA Conference. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 105 (2):1219.
Schulte W, Otten H (1993). Ergebnisse einer Tieffluglarmstudie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland:
Extraaurale Langzeitwirkungen [Results of a low-altitude flight noise study in Germany: longterm extra-aural effects]. In: Ising H, Kruppa B, eds. Li:irm und Krankheit- Noise and disease.
NIGHT NOISE GUIDELINES I'"OR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Proceedings of the International Symposium, Berlin 1991. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.
Schulze Bet al. (1983). Verkchrsliirm und kardiovaskuliires Risiko- einc cpidemiologischc Studie.
Das Deutsche Gesundheitswesen, 38:596-600.
Schwela DH (2000). The World Health Organization guidelines for environmental health.
Noise/News International, March, 9-22.
Segawa Ketal. (1987). Peptic ulcer is prevalent among shift workers. Digestive Diseases and
Sciences, 32:449-453.
Selye H (1956). The stress of life. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Sforza E, Jouny C, Ibanez V. (2000). Cardiac activation during arousal in humans: further evidence
for hierarchy in the arousal response. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111:1611-1619.
Smith A (2003). The concept of noise sensitivity: implications for noise control, Noise & Health, 5
(18):57-59.
Smith AP, Broadbent DE (1981). Noise and levels of processing, Acta Psychologica, 47:129.
Smith AP, Broadbent DE (1992). Non-auditory effects of noise at work: a review of the literature.
HSE Contract Research Report No 30. HMSO, London.
Smith L, Folkard S, Poole CJM (1994). Increased injuries on night shift. Lancet, 344:1137-39.
Smith MJ, Colligan MJ, Tasto DL (1982). Health and safety consequnces of shift work in the foodprocessing industry. Ergonomics, 25:133-144.
Spiegel K, Leproult R, van Cauter E (1999). Impact of sleep debt on metabolic and endocrine function. Lancet, 354:1435-1439.
Spreng M (2000). Central nervous system activation by noise. Noise & Health, 2 (7):49-57.
Spreng M (2004 ). Noise induced nocturnal cortisol secretion and tolerable overhead flights. Noise
& Health, 6 (22):35-47.
Stansfeld SA (1992). Noise, noise sensitivity and psychiatric disorder: epidemiological and psychophysiological studies. Psychological Medicine Monograph Supplement 22, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Stansfeld S, Haines M, Brown B (2000). Noise and health in the urban environment. Reviews on
Environmental Health, 15 (1-2):43-82.
Stansfeld SA et al. (1985). Sensitivity to noise in a community sample: I. Measurement of psychiatric disorder and personality, Psychological Medicine, 15 (2):243-254.
Stansfeld SA et al. (1993). Road traffic noise, noise sensitivity and psychological disorder.
Psychological Medicine, 23 (4):977-985.
Stansfeld Setal. (1996). Road traffic noise and psychiatric disorder: prospective findings from the
Caerphilly Study. British Medical Journal, 313 (7052):266-267.
Stansfeld SA et al. (2002). Longitudinal effects of noise, noise sensitivity and psychosocial factors on
men's psychological distress. Epidemiology, 13 (4):S90.
Stansfeld SA et al. (2005). Aircraft and road traffic noise and children's cognition and health: exposure-effect relationships. Lancet, 365:1942-1949.
Stein MA et al.(2001). Sleep and behavior problems in school-aged children. Pediatrics, 107:766 (e).
Stouthard Metal. (1997). Disability weights for diseases in the Netherlands, Department of Public
Health, Netherlands.
Stradling JR et al. (1990). Effect of adenotonsillectomy on nocturnal hypoxaemia, sleep disturbance
and symptoms in snoring children. Lancet, 335:249-253.
Suda M, Saito M (1979). Coordinative regulation of feeding behavior and metabolism by a circadian timing system. In: Suda M, Hayaishi 0, Nakagawa H, eds. Biological rhythms and their
central mechanism. Elsevier/North-Hollan Biomedical, New York, pp. 263-271.
NiGHT NOISE GUIDELINES FOR !EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Suter AH (1992). Noise sources and effects- a new look. Sound and Vibration, 25th anniversary
issue:18-38.
Tamakoshi A, Ohno Y (2004). Self-reported sleep duration as a predictor of all-cause mortality:
Results from the JACC study, Japan. Sleep, 27:51-54.
Tarnopolsky A, Morton-Williams J, Barker SM (1980). Aircraft noise and prevalence of psychiatric
disorders. Research report. Social and Community Planning Research.
Tarnopolsky A, Watkins G, Hand DJ (1980). Aircraft noise and mental health: I. Prevalence of individual symptoms. Psychological Medicine, 10 (4}:683-698.
Tarnopolsky A eta!. (1978). The effect of aircraft noise on the mental health of a community sample: a pilot study. Psychological Medicine, 8 (2):219-233.
Tate RB eta!. (1995). Tracking of blood pressure over a 40-year period in the University of
Manitoba follow-up study, 1948-1988. American journal of Epidemiology, 142:946-954.
Taylor PJ, Pocock SJ (1972). Mortality of shift and day workers 1956-68. British Journal of
Industrial Medicine, 29:201-207.
Tenkanen Let al. (1997). Shift work occupation and coronary heart disease over 6 years of followup in the Helsinki Heart Study. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health,
23:257-265.
Tepas DIet a!. (1981). Polysomnographic correlates of shift worker performance in the laboratory.
In: Rein berg A, Vieux N, Andlauer P, eds. Night and shift work: biological and social aspects.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 179-186.
Terzano MG eta!. (1990). Modifications of sleep structure induced by increasing levels of acoustic
perturbation in normal subjects. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology,
76:29-38.
Terzano MG eta!. (1993). Assessment of noise-induced sleep fragility in two age ranges by means
of polysomnographic microstructure. journal of Sound and Vibration, 162:345-359.
The01ell T et al. (1998). Decision latitude, job strain, and myocardial infarction: A study of working men in Stockholm. American Journal of Public Health, 88:382-388.
Thiessen GJ (1988). Effect of traffic noise on the cyclical nature of sleep. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 84:1741-1743.
Thiis-Evensen E (1958). Shift work and health. Industrial Medicine and Surgery, 27:493-497.
Thomas DA eta!. (1996). The effect of sleep deprivation on sleep states, breathing events, peripheral chemosensiveness and arousal propensity in healthy 3-month old infants. European
Respiratory Journal, 9:932-938.
Thomas JR, Jones DM (1982). Individual differences in noise annoyance and the uncomfortable
loudness level, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 82:289-304.
Thompson SJ (1997). Cardiocascular and fetal effects of noise. In: IEH, ed. Workshop on non-auditory health effects of noise. Report No. Rl 0. Institute for Environment and Health, Leicester.
Thunstriim M (2002). Severe sleep problems in infancy associated with subsequent development of
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder at 5.5 years of age. Acta Paediatrica, 31:584-592.
Tilley AJ, Wilkinson RT, Drud M (1981). Night and day shifts compared in terms of the quality
and quantity of sleep recorded in the home and performance measured at work: a pilot study.
In: Reinberg A, Vieux N, Andlauer P, eds. Night and shift work. Biological and social aspects.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 187-196.
Tilley AJ eta!. (1982). The sleep and performance of shift workers. Human Factors, 24:624-641.
Torsvall L, Akerstedt T (1987). Sleepiness on the job: continuously measured EEG changes in train
drivers. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 66:502-511.
Torsvall L, Akerstcdt T (1988). Disturbed sleep while being on call. An EEG study of apprehension
in ships' engineers. Sleep, 11:35-38.
NIGHT NOISE GU!!lELINES FOR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Torsvall Let a!. (1989). Sleep on the night shift: 24-hour EEG monitoring of spontaneous
sleep/wake behavior. Psychophysiology, 26:352-358.
Trott GE eta!. (1995). Self-assessment of prescribing behavior of psychotropic drugs for children
and adolescents. Results of a survey of established physicians. Psychiatrische Praxis, 22
(6):235-239.
Ti.ichsen F (1993). Working hours and ischaemic heart disease in Danish men. A 4-year cohort
study of hospitalization. International Joumal of Epidemiology, 22:215-221.
Ullrich S (1998). Liirmbelastung durch den Strallenverkehr. Zeitschrift fur Liirmbekiimpfung,
45:22-26.
Urponen H eta!. (1988). Self-evaluations of factors promoting and disturbing sleep: an epidemiological survey in Finland. Social Science and Medicine, 26:443-450.
Utley WA (1985). Descriptors for ambient noise. In: Bundesanstalt fi.ir Arbeitsschutz, ed. Intemoise
85. Proceedings of the International Conference on Noise Control Engineering in Munich
1985. Wirtschaftsverlag NW, Verlag fur neue Wissenschaft GmbH, Bremerhaven.
Valent F, Brusaferro S, Barbone F (2001). A case-crossover study of sleep and childhood injury.
Pediatrics, 107: 23.
Vallet Met a!. (1983). Heart rate reactivity to aircraft noise after a long term exposure. In: Rossi G
(ed.). Noise as a public health problem. Centro Ricerche E Studi Amplifon, Milan, pp.
965-971.
Verdun Di Cantogno Let a!. (1976). Urban traffic noise cardiocirculatory activity and coronary risk
factors. Acta Otolaryngologica, (suppl.) 339:55-63.
Vernet M (1979). Effect of train noise on sleep for people living in houses bordering the railway
line. Joumal of Sound and Vibration, 66 (3):483-492.
Vgontzas AN et al. (2000). Sleep apnea and daytime sleepiness and fatigue: relation to visceral obesity, insulin resistance, and hypercytokinemia. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and
Metabolism, 85:1151-1158
Vgontzas AN et al. (2001). Chronic insomnia is associated with nyctohemeral activation of the
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis: clinical implication. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and
Metabolism, 86:3787-3794.
Vollrath M, Wicki W, Angst J (1989). The Zurich study. VIII. Insomnia: association with depression, anxiety, somatic syndromes, and course of insomnia. European Archives of Psychiatry and
Neurological Sciences, 239 (2):113-124.
Vos J (2003). On the relevance of shooting-noise-induced sleep disturbance to noise zoning,
ICBEN-proceedings 2003, Schiedam.
Wagner U, Gais S, Born J (2001). Emotional memory formation is enhanced across sleep intervals
with high amounts of rapid eye movement sleep. Learning and Memory, 8:112-119.
Walter SD (1998). Attributable risk in practice. American Journal of Epidemiology, 148:411-413.
Ware JE, Sherbourne DC (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36)- Conceptual
framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30:473-483.
Wassmer E et al. (1999). The acceptability of sleep-deprived electroencephalograms. Seizure,
8:434-435.
Watkins G, Tarnopolsky A, Jenkins LM (1981). Aircraft noise and mental health: II. Use of medicines and health care services, Psychological Medicine, 11 (1):155-168.
Waye KP eta!. (2003). Effects of night-time low frequency noise on the cortisol response to awakening and subjective sleep quality. Life Sciences, 72:863-875.
Weber A, Jaekel-Reinhard A (2000). Burnout syndrome: a disease of modern societies?
Occupational Medicine, 50, 512-517.
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Weed DL (2000). Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference
methods are related. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29:387-390.
Weed DL, Hursting SD (1998). Biologic plausibility in causal inference: current method and practice. American journal of Epidemiology, 147:415-425.
Weinstein ND (1978). Individual differences in reactions to noise: a longitudinal study in a college
dormitory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (4 ):458-466.
Weinstein ND (1980). Individual differences in critical tendencies and noise annoyance. journal of
Sound and Vibration, 68:241-248.
Weissbluth Metal. (1983). Signs of airway obstruction during sleep and behavioral, developmental
and academic problems. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 4:119-121.
WHO Guidelines for community noise. World Health Organization, Geneva. 1999
(http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html, accessed March 2007)
WHO-ISH Guidelines Subcommittee (1999). World Health Organization, International Society of
Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension. Journal of Hypertension,
17:151-183.
WHO Regional Office for Europe (2000). Noise and health. WHO Regional Office for Europe,
Copenhagen.
Wilkinson Ret al. (1989). Alertness of night nurses: two shift systems compared, Ergonomics,
32:281-292.
Williams RL, Karacan L, Hursch C] (1974). EEG of human sleep. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Willner P, Neiva J (1986). Brief exposure to uncontrollable but not to controllable noise biases the
retrieval of information from memory. British journal of Clinical Psychology, 25 (Pt 2):93-100.
Wing JK, Cooper JE, Sartorius N (1974 ). The measurement and classification of psychiatric symptoms. Cambridge University Press, London.
Winkleby MA, Ragland DR, Syme SL (1988). Self-reported stressors and hypertension: evidence of
an inverse association. American journal of Epidemiology, 127:124-133.
Wolke Get al. (1990). Verkehrslarm und kardiovaskulares Risiko. Forum Stadte-Hygiene,
41:306-308.
Wubben F, Busink J (2004). Night restrictions at Amsterdam Schiphol. A comparison with other
European mainports. To70 Aviation & Environment, The Hague, Netherlands.
Yang L-C et al. (1993). Longitudinal study of blood pressure. Changes and determinants from adolescence to middle age. The Dormont High School follow-up study, 1957/1963 to 1989/1990.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 138:973-983.
Yoshida T et al. (1997). Effects of road traffic noise on inhabitants of Tokyo. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 205:517-522.
Zamir Get al. (1998). Sleep fragmentation in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. journal of
Rheumatology, 25:1191-1197.
Zepelin H, McDonald CS, Zammit GK (1984 ). Effects of age on auditory awakening thresholds.
journal of Gerontology, 39 (3):294-300.
Zorick FJ, Walsh JK (2000). Evaluation and management of insomnia: an overview. In: Kryger
MH, Roth T, Dement WC, eds. Principles and practice of sleep medicine. W.B.Saunders,
Philadelphia, pp. 615-623.
Zuckerman B, Stevenson], Bailey V (1987). Sleep problems in early childhood: continuities, predictive factors, and behavioural correlates. Pediatrics 80:664-671.
NIGHT NOISE GUIDELINES rOR EUROPE
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle WA 98115
Exhibit I

Roberts, Rachel (ENRD)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
David S. Mann <mann@gendlermann.com>

Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:19 PM
Roberts, Rachel (ENRD)
Re: CER v. Dep't of the Navy,
Notiftheyaren'tflying.Iftheystartbackupwehaveournoisemonitorsandpublichealthexpertsonstandbyto
monitorandwillfilethemotion.
I'msorryyoucannotplanyourschedule.Butthenmyclientscan'tplantheirseither.Theyareatthemercyofyour
client.Theyneverknowwhentheyaregoingtobeliterallyshakenoutoftheirsleep.
DavidS.Mann
>OnMar13,2014,at5:45PM,"Roberts,Rachel(ENRD)"<Rachel.Roberts@usdoj.gov>wrote:
>
>Butyouaren'tfilingonerightaway?Sodoweneedtoworkoutaschedule?
>
>OriginalMessage
>From:DavidS.Mann[mailto:mann@gendlermann.com]
>Sent:Thursday,March13,20148:38PM
>To:Roberts,Rachel(ENRD)
>Subject:Re:CERv.Dep'toftheNavy,
>
>Yes,iftheystartflying.
>
>DavidS.Mann
>
>
>
>>OnMar13,2014,at4:59PM,"Roberts,Rachel(ENRD)"<Rachel.Roberts@usdoj.gov>wrote:
>>
>>David,
>>
>>Iamabitconfusedbyyoursecondsentence.Areyoustillplanningonfilingforapreliminaryinjunction?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Rachel
>>
>>OriginalMessage
>>From:DavidS.Mann[mailto:mann@gendlermann.com]
>>Sent:Thursday,March13,20147:47PM
>>To:Roberts,Rachel(ENRD)
>>Subject:RE:CERv.Dep'toftheNavy,
>>
1
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit I to Roberts Declaration

Seattle, WA 98115

>>I'msorry,I'mincourtalldaytomorrow.Perhapsnextweek?Itisacrazyweekforme,butIshouldbeabletofind
time.
>>
>>Sincetheyarenotreallyflying,wehaveseennoneedtorequestinjunctiverelief.
>>
>>David
>>
>>
>>DavidS.Mann
>>GENDLER&MANN,LLP
>>936N.34thSt.,Suite400
>>Seattle,WA98103
>>206.621.8868Main
>>206.621.8869Direct
>>
>>mann@gendlermann.com
>>www.gendlermann.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>OriginalMessage
>>From:Roberts,Rachel(ENRD)[mailto:Rachel.Roberts@usdoj.gov]
>>To:DavidS.Mann
>>
>>Mr.Mann,
>>
>>I'mreallysorrytobotheryou,butmyexistingbriefingschedulesarealreadystartingtofillupthisspring/summer.I
wouldreallyliketofigureoutourscheduleforbriefingyourmotionassoonaspossible,beforeIsetanymoreschedules
inothercases.Areyouavailabletomorrowtodiscussaschedule?
>>
>>Thankyou,
>>
>>Rachel(Bowen)Roberts
>>TrialAttorney
>>U.S.DepartmentofJustice
>>EnvironmentandNaturalResourcesDivisionNaturalResourcesSection
>>Tel:2062204199
>>Fax:2062204077
>>Rachel.Roberts@usdoj.gov
>>
>>
>>
>>OriginalMessage
>>
>>Rachel:ItwillprobablybenextweekbeforeIcangetbacktoyou.Sorry.
2
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

>>
>>David
>>
>>
>>
>>OriginalMessage
>>Sent:Wednesday,March05,201411:03AM
>>To:DavidS.Mann
>>
>>Mr.Mann,
>>
>>Justwantedtotouchbasewithyouafteryou'vehadachancetotalktoyourclients.Doyoustillwanttohavea
schedulingcall?I'mprettyfreefortherestofthisweekafterabout1pmtoday.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Rachel
>>
>>OriginalMessage
>>Sent:Friday,February28,201412:49PM
>>
>>Rachel:Canwebumptonextweeksometime.I'mmeetingwithmyclientsthisweekendtodiscussandIwantto
talkwiththemfirst,beforewejumpintobriefing.
>>
>>David
>>
>>
>>
>>OriginalMessage
>>Sent:Thursday,February27,201411:01AM
>>To:DavidS.Mann
>>
>>David,
>>
>>I'mprettyavailabletomorrow.Doyouwanttotalkat11amtomorrowtodiscussscheduling?Icancallyou.
>>
>>Rachel
>>
>>OriginalMessage
>>Sent:Thursday,February27,20141:58PM
>>Subject:Re:CERv.Dep'toftheNavy,
>>
>>I'mincourttoday.I'mhappytotalkfirst.Ihavenotstartedamotionyet.
3
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115

>>
>>DavidS.Mann
>>
>>
>>
>>>OnFeb27,2014,at9:06AM,"Roberts,Rachel(ENRD)"<Rachel.Roberts@usdoj.gov>wrote:
>>>
>>>Mr.Mann,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Iassumethatthismeansthatyouwillfileamotionforapreliminaryinjunction.Wouldyouliketohaveacall
betweenthetwoofustodiscussbriefingyourmotionbeforewegetonthephonewiththecourt?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>Rachel(Bowen)Roberts
>>>TrialAttorney
>>>U.S.DepartmentofJustice
>>>EnvironmentandNaturalResourcesDivisionNaturalResourcesSection
>>>Tel:2062204199
>>>Fax:2062204077
>>>Rachel.Roberts@usdoj.gov
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>OriginalMessage
>>>From:DavidS.Mann[mailto:mann@gendlermann.com]
>>>Sent:Wednesday,February26,201412:30PM
>>>To:Roberts,Rachel(ENRD)
>>>Subject:RE:CERv.Dep'toftheNavy,
>>>
>>>Ms.Roberts:
>>>
>>>MyclientshaveaskedmetoprepareamotionforpreliminaryinjunctionconcerningflightoperationsatOLF
CoupevillependingcompletionoftheEIS.Asagreedtoinour"stay",Iwillcoordinateabriefingschedulewithyou.
>>>
>>>
>>>Pleaseletmeknowatyourearliestconvenience.
>>>
>>>Thankyouforyourconsideration.
>>>
>>>
>>>DavidS.Mann
>>>GENDLER&MANN,LLP
>>>936N.34thSt.,Suite400
>>>Seattle,WA98103
4
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115
Exhibit J
Sun and Moon Data for One Day

Page 1 of 2
U.S. Naval Observatory

Astronomical Applications Department
Sun and Moon Data for One Day
Coupeville, Island County, WA (Longitude W122 40', Latitude N48 13')
December 21, 2014
Pacific Standard Time
Sun
Begin civil twilight
7:22 a.m.
Sunrise
7:59 a.m.
Sun transit
12:09 p.m.
Sunset
4:19 p.m.
End civil twilight
4:56 p.m.
Moon
Moonrise
7:14 a.m.
Moon transit
11:56 a.m.
Moonset
4:37 p.m.
Phase of the Moon on December 21, 2014: New Moon at 5:36 p.m. (local standard time)
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Exhibit J to Roberts Declaration

Seattle, WA 98115
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/rstt/onedaytable?form=1&ID=AA&year=2014&month=12&day=2... 5/29/2015
Exhibit K
.~
Do.k Ha.rbor
Ai r- Per~
Co.upre"vill2 DlF
Notse ZOr"e- 2
No1s ~
Zot~t!'
!
I
A'i rport Environs Mo.p
Islo.nd
Coun -~y
Inpo.ci::ed Areo.s
Exhibit K to Roberts Declaration

No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ

Seattle, WA 98115
Burlington
Mount Vernon
Similk Bay
.08 - 1
1-5
5-1
10 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 500
Deception Pass
ham
> 1000
g it R
e nte
rC
La Conner
SAN JUAN
I S LA N D
ka
R
agit
Sk
kS
534
U
V
F o rk
20
Naval Air Station
N F or
Dugualla Bay
Ca rp
Whidbey Island
E.
Cr
s
n P as
c e ptio
De
500 - 1000
ps
e
Sw in o m i sh C ha nn l
population/sq.mi.
Island County - Population Density
N o ok a
Joseph Whidbey
Whidbey
er C
Fish
Oak Harbor
c h Cr
Crescent Harbor
Utsalady
Ebeys Landing
Ft Casey
Camano
20
Admiralty Bay
Cama Beach
Port Townsend
ve
Po rt Town
Ch imacum Cr
JEFFERSON
South Whidbey
Oak Bay
Tarboo C r
Little Quil
104
V
U
Port Gardner
525
V
U
Clinton
Useless Bay
19
ISL
KIT AND
SAP
Sno
101
Langley
Mutiny Bay
Mats Mats Bay
`
_
Island
Freeland
w Cr
Everett
Skunk Bay
Port Ludlow
Mukilteo
525
U
V
ne
ce
o
Th
Miles
10
k
ree
Exhibit L to Roberts Declaration
Lynnwood
Edmonds
U.S. Dept. of Justice popden15
Woodway
Bothel
Seattle, WA 98115
524
V
U
th C
99
No r
SO
R
E
P
FF SA
E
T
J KI
Port Gamble
rndike C r
No. 2:13-cv-1232-TSZ
Swa m p C r
Quilc
Wa. Dept. of Ecology,

Quilcene Bay GIS Technical Services, 9/7/12
Mill Cre
Squamish Harbor
CLALLAM
Holmes Harbor
116
U
V
lm on Cr
Greenbank
arbor
ry
B
Ba
Kilisut H
co
is
nd
Goodwin, Lake
Camano Island
p Cr
lali
Tu
20
Glen Cove
se
till agua m is h River
Crockett Lake
LA
N
ER D
SO
N
Livingston Bay
Missio n C
FF
Camano Isl
532
U
V
ISLAND
IS
Stanwood
ur
S NO HOM I S
Coupeville
Ft Elbey
JE
532
U
V
Penn Cove
Ch

2015-05-29 Declaration of Rachal K Roberts With Supplemental Material

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015-05-29 Declaration of Rachal K Roberts With Supplemental Material

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

CITIZENS OF THE EBEYS RESERVE

DECLARATION OF RACHEL K. ROBERTS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY;

I, Rachel K. Roberts, declare as follows:

I am an attorney for Defendants in the above-captioned case and am competent to

testify. The information in this declaration is based on my personal knowledge.

U.S. Department of Justice

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 5

Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct tabulation of the annual number of

Coupeville every year from 1967 through 2014.

Washington, Wyle Laboratories, Oct. 2004.

Washington, The Onyx Group, March 2005.

Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Finding of No Significant

Whidbey Island, Department of the Navy, July 19, 2005.

Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a redacted version of an April

Energy and Environmental Readiness Division.

Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Burden of Disease from

Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2011.

Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Environmental Noise, Sleep

Europe, World Health Organization Europe, 2009.

U.S. Department of Justice

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 5

Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of a series of emails between

2014, for Coupeville, Island County, Wash. Retrieved from

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/rstt/onedaytable on May 29, 2015.

U.S. Department of Justice

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 5

Fax: (206) 553-4067

U.S. Department of Justice

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 5

U.S. Department of Justice

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit A to Roberts Declaration

U.S. Dept. of Justice

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-2 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 62

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-2 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 62

Aircraft Noise Study for

Exhibit B to Roberts Declaration

U.S. Dept. of Justice

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-2 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 62

Exhibit B to Roberts Declaration

U.S. Dept. of Justice 1-1

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-2 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 62

Computerized Noise Exposure Model

Exhibit B to Roberts Declaration

U.S. Dept. of Justice 1-2

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-2 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 62

Exhibit B to Roberts Declaration

U.S. Dept. of Justice 1-3

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-2 Filed 05/29/15 Page 6 of 62

3.0 Existing Aircraft Operations and Noise Exposure

Exhibit B to Roberts Declaration

U.S. Dept. of Justice 3-1

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-2 Filed 05/29/15 Page 7 of 62

Interfacility - Whidbey Island to Coupeville

Total Number of Modeled Operations for 2003 (all aircraft)

Source: Brown, 12 August 2004

Exhibit B to Roberts Declaration

U.S. Dept. of Justice 3-2

Case 2:13-cv-01232-TSZ Document 44-2 Filed 05/29/15 Page 8 of 62