CONSULTATION APPENDIX

Transcription

1 CONSULTATION APPENDIX Study Input Committee Members List Study Input Committee Meetings Materials Public Meeting Materials Written Comments Received Up To Start of Official Comment Period/Workshops Comments

2 Study Input Committee Members List

3 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Study Input Committee Members NAME AFFILIATION CONTACT (Where Applicable) Merle Akers Turnagain Community Council (Alternate) Bob Auth Spenard Community Council Bryan Bailey FedEx Ward Blair Member of the Public Voytek Bogdziewics Airline Support, Inc. Don Brugman Desert Air Transport, Inc Mark Brys FAA Anchorage ARTCC Dan Burgess Sand Lake Community Council NAME Robert Campbell AMATS - Municpality of Anchorage rob.campbell@alaska.gov Judy Chapman Member of the Public judychapman@alaska.gov David Chilson FAA david.chilson@faa.gov Rebecca Cronkhite ADOT&PF, Statewide Aviation rebecca.cronkhite@alaska.com Bruce Greenwood FAA Alaska Region, Airport Division bruce.greenwood@faa.gov Gretchen Guess Anchorage School Board Scott Habberstad Alaska Airlines Inc David Hall Signature Flight Support Susan Hoshaw Alaska Aircarriers Association (Primary) Duffy Jensen Peninsula Airways, Inc. John Johansen Anchorage International Airport john.johansen@alaska.gov Jack Jones Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities jack.jones@alaska.gov C. Joy Journeary Alaska Aircarriers Association (Alternate) Mary A. Lee Member of the Public Teri Lindseth Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities teri.lindseth@alaska.gov Scott Lytle Anchorage International Airport scott.lytle@alaska.gov Blythe Marston Member of the Public Laura Noland Member of the Public John Parrott Anchorage International Airport john.parrott@alaska.gov Kent Peterson FAA Anchorage HUB, Anchorage International Airport kent.d.peterson@faa.gov Bill Popp Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (Alternate) John Rodda Municipality of Anchorage, Parks and Recreation roddajh@muni.org Timo Saarinem Northern Air Cargo James Seeley LHD Pilot Association seeley@gci.net Patricia Sullivan FAA Alaska Region, Airport Division patricia.sullivan@faa.gov Thede Tobish Municipality of Anchorage, Community Development tobishtg@muni.org Breck Tostevin Turnagain Community Council (Alternate) keegan@gci.net Jerry Weaver Municipality of Anchorage, Community Development weaverjt@muni.org Bill Wortman Turnagain Community Council (Primary) Unknown Representative Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson Unknown Representative Alaska Airmen's Association Contact information is available only for those members who are willing to provide as public information or work for public agencies. THE Barnard Dunkelberg Company TEAM Thank You!

4 Study Input Committee Meetings Materials

5 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Study Input Committee Summary Notes February 29, :30 p.m. Airfield Maintenance Facility NAME Staff and Consultants Present John Parrott John Johansen Scott Lytle Teri Lindseth Ryk Dunkelberg Kate Andrus Vince Mestre Wende Wilber Eva Welch AFFILIATION ANC ANC ANC ANC Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Landrum and Brown CRW Engineering Group AECOM Committee Members Present Merle Akers (alternate) Don Brugman Judy Chapman David Chilson Rebecca Cronkhite Amy Culhane Mary Lee Blythe Marston Jim Seeley Patricia Sullivan Thede Tobish Breck Tostevin (alternate) Jerry Weaver Bill Wortman (primary) Turnagain Community Council Desert Air Transport Citizen Representative FAA ADOT&PF, Statewide Aviation Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (rep. Bill Popp) Citizen Representative Citizen Representative LHD Pilot Association FAA Airports Division Municipality of Anchorage, Community Development Turnagain Community Council Municipality of Anchorage, Community Development Turnagain Community Council Hand Outs: Meeting Agenda and Project Notebooks Page 1 of 12

6 Page 2 of 12 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Summary Notes Mr. Dunkelberg began the first meeting of the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Input Committee by presenting the meeting agenda as follows: Introductions o Airport Staff o Study Team o Committee Members Role and Function of the Committee o Committee Role o Proposed Meeting Protocol Explanation of FAR Part 150 and this Study o What is a Part 150 Study? o Why Update Study? o Relationship to FAR Part 161 o Study Process Description of Noise Metrics DNL, SEL, Ldn, Time Above, etc. Potential Noise Monitoring Sites Public Meeting Invitation Questions/Comments o Study Committee Members o Members of the Public Introductions John Parrott welcomed Committee members to the first meeting of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. He thanked members of the Part 150 Study Input Committee (SIC) for agreeing to participate in this important study. He then introduced Ryk Dunkelberg of Barnard Dunkelberg & Company, who is the prime consultant of the Study. Mr. Dunkelberg introduced the Part 150 Study team and gave a brief overview of all the other entities involved in the noise study. Committee Role and Meeting Protocol Mr. Dunkelberg stated that the Study Input Committee (SIC) is expected to act as a major resource for the Airport staff and Consultant team in developing alternatives for the Part 150 Noise Study. The group will attempt to reach consensus on issues, but will not vote on issues, as all views, not just the majority will be considered. The decision making body is the Airport, who by law is the only entity that can submit an action for inclusion in a Part 150 Noise Compatibility

7 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Study. Members of the public who attend Study Input Committee meetings will be allowed to speak at the close of Committee business. Study Details Mr. Dunkelberg stated that the purpose of the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update is to identify existing noise exposure surrounding the Airport, identify potential future noise exposure, evaluate various alternatives to reduce the number of people affected by noise, and to make recommendations as to viable abatement/mitigation measures to reduce the number of people affected by noise living near the Airport. The noise study generally has a five year planning horizon and identifies and evaluates both current and future aircraft noise and land use. There are two distinct parts of a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study; Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) and a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). After a complete analysis of noise and land use conditions at the Airport, both the NEMs and the NCP will be submitted for approval or disapproval by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If approved, the measures and recommendations contained in the NCP are eligible for implementation and federal funding. Background Mr. Dunkelberg discussed the background on the previous Part 150 Study. The NEMs were accepted and the NCP was approved in The NCP allowed the Airport to receive federal funding to implement a Residential Sound Insulation Program and other measures. The Airport also conducted a Ground Noise Study to respond to comments. Airport Sponsor Constraints/Opportunities Mr. Dunkelberg discussed the constraints of the Airport with respect to its limited ability to implement noise controls. An Airport can t control aircraft in flight, it has limited control over what federal noise mitigation funds can be used for, it can t control the noise emissions at the source, and it is significantly limited in the potential use of noise restrictions. A public use airport cannot discriminate against any user, but can pass reasonable noise rules/regulations that do NOT affect access to the Airport. FAR Part 161 sets the limits on this authority. Why Update Study? Mr. Dunkelberg explained the primary reasons the Airport is updating the existing Part 150 Study. For the Airport to continue to receive federal funding for noise mitigation it must have current noise exposure maps and the current NEMs are over 10 years old. Additionally there have been changes in aircraft fleet mix, aircraft noise levels, change in aircraft activity levels, changes in airfield development, and the release of an updated Integrated Noise Model (INM). Page 3 of 12

8 Part 150 Elements P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Mr. Dunkelberg discussed the elements and process of a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. The Part 150 Study process is as follows: Conduct an Inventory of Existing Conditions at the Airport Conduct Noise Monitoring at Various Locations Generate Existing and Future Noise Contours Analyze Noise and Land Use Effects to Develop Feasible Alternatives Combine and Narrow Feasible Alternatives Recommend Alternatives for Implementation Prioritize Recommendations Develop Noise Exposure Maps Develop Noise Compatibility Study Program Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt Recommendations Submit Noise Compatibility Program to Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Administration Accepts Noise Exposure Maps Federal Aviation Administration Approves Noise Compatibility Study Program Unique Elements Mr. Dunkelberg discussed the unique elements included in this Part 150 Study. These include the use of supplementary metrics (other than the required Day-Night Noise Level (DNL)), evaluation of ground run up noise, summer and winter noise measurements, and extensive community involvement. Mr. Dunkelberg discussed the purpose of identifying Noise Monitoring Sites in the community to measure aircraft noise levels to compare with the outputs in the Integrated Noise Model to ensure that the model matches the conditions. Mr. Dunkelberg explained the methodology and purpose of noise measurement. He stated that measurements are taken of the actual noise levels an aircraft makes at a particular airport under particular conditions to compare them to predicted noise levels from the FAA INM using the exact same conditions. Although not required for a Part 150 Noise Study, these actual measurements increase confidence in the Study results and account for special conditions at particular airports. Noise measurements will be taken during two seasons, summer and winter, for several weeks each. At the public meeting people can sign up to have a noise monitor at their homes. Noise Metrics Mr. Dunkelberg described the various noise metrics that will be used for evaluation and analysis purposes throughout the Part 150 Noise Study. Page 4 of 12

9 Page 5 of 12 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level represents noise as it occurs over a 24 hour period that accounts for the number of events per day, the time of day in which they occur, and the loudness of the event. Noise events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. incur a 10 db penalty. This means that one nighttime sound event is equivalent to ten daytime events of the same level. The DNL is the accepted metric to measure changes in noise for federal noise studies and is used to create noise contours depicted on the Noise Exposure Maps. SEL - Sound Exposure Level provides a comprehensive way to describe noise events for use in modeling and comparing noise environments. Computer noise models base their computations on SEL values. Single Event Metrics include the Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) that identifies the maximum sound level produced by one event such as an aircraft operation, and the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) that measures all of the sound energy from the duration of an aircraft operation to produce the sound level that a person is exposed to from that event. A DNL Noise Contour is created by inputting a year s worth of aircraft operations into an Integrated Noise Model (INM) computer program to generate the noise contour. This model must be used per Federal Aviation Administration requirements. The INM is periodically updated by the Federal Aviation Administration to reflect changes to aircraft, quieter engines, new flight management technology, and quieter airframes, and in an effort to improve model outputs such as noise metrics and audibility. Public Involvement and Comments. Mr. Dunkelberg explained that the public involvement process will include more than just the public hearing required under Part 150. There will be several public workshops throughout the process and members of the public may sign up to be on the informational mailing list either at meetings (providing a legible /address) or through the website. Additionally, public comments can be submitted at any time during the Study, either at the meetings or on the website. These comments will be considered during the process and included in the draft document, but not responded to. Any comments received during the official public comment period (when the draft NCP is made available for public review and comment) will be included in the Study and any substantive comments will be responded to in the document. He also invited members of the SIC to attend the first Part 150 Noise Study Public Information Meeting to be held tonight at 6:00 p.m. Questions and Comments Question: Will you be using parks in addition to homes for monitoring? Answer: If you have a park that you are interested in having monitored, please add it to the list of potential noise monitoring sites.

10 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Question: Will minutes be taken of these meetings? Answer: Notes will be taken, not minutes and these will be distributed to the committee for review. We can make any changes based on your comments. Question: Will the FAA representatives on this committee be out of Anchorage/Who will they be? Answer: Yes. One representative is Patricia Sullivan from the Airports Division. Question: Do regulations script how this study is completed? Answer: Yes. The Study must follow Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150. Question: If this study is voluntary, why do the recommendations fall under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? Answer: Any time there is a federal action, an environmental documentation must be completed. The implementation of various alternatives therefore could trigger NEPA. Question: Does the Study take into account non-aircraft operations (e.g. snow plows, etc.)? Answer: The Study includes aircraft in the air, on the ground and aircraft-related point sources such as auxiliary power units (APUs) and ground-power units (GPUs). It does not include sources such as airfield equipment, cars or other non-aviation related noise sources. Question: What are the other measures that were completed as part of the previously approved Noise Compatibility Program (NCP)? Answer: We are not sure yet, because the Study is starting and an inventory of the existing conditions and background has not yet been completed. Question: In terms of flight areas over Cook Inlet, does the FAA establish those flight areas and how does the FAA establish that. Answer: Yes, the FAA establishes those flight tracks. The FAA would have to describe how exactly they are developed. (FAA briefly described that a NEPA document of some kind needs to be completed and change in noise is looked at if there are any substantial changes in flight tracks). Question: Are you going to be able to make recommendations on departure/arrival procedures? And when do the recommendations get implemented? Answer: Yes, flight tracks will be examined as part of the Study. However it is important to note that the Study may find that there are no feasible changes to the flight tracks. This Study s purpose is to reduce the number of people affected by noise and not to take noise from one area and impact another noise sensitive area. Additionally, although the Study might make recommendations on flight tracks, only the FAA can choose whether or not to implement them based on a number of factors, including safety. Page 6 of 12

11 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Question: The Airport has access to funding that is not federally sourced. Is their own, nonfederal money limited for use in noise mitigation? Answer: Yes, they have limited options with non-federal funds they receive. This is due to grant assurances and other limitations since ANC is a public airport. Question: Are you sure there are no Stage 2 aircraft here? Answer: Alaska is one of the states that have a waiver for allowing Stage 2 aircraft to fly, and that waiver does not expire. However, based on cursory knowledge, no known operators are using that waiver. The aircraft fleet mix will be examined during the Study process. The older Stage 2 aircraft require a lot of fuel to run, so the incentive to get them out of the operational aircraft fleet is large. (Additional discussion indicated that the Airport occasionally gets requests from Soviet carriers, and that this issue will be looked at in more detail in determining the fleet mix for the Study). Question: Could you please clarify the limits on restricting aircraft? Is it correct that no new access restrictions were allowed after 2000? Answer: Yes, only those restrictions that were approved prior to 2000 are grandfathered. So far, the only new restrictions were passed in Naples, Florida, subsequent to the FAA accepting their Part 161 Study. Question: Who is completing the forecasts? What is it based on? Answer: The forecasts used in this Study are being developed by the ongoing Alaska International Airport Systems Plan. Their data and process will be outlined in subsequent meetings after further discussion with the forecasters. Question: Why is the existing condition map labeled as 2009? Answer: For the purposes of the Study, existing conditions need to look at the last full year that the Airport was operating normally. For the past few years, due to projects and maintenance, the Airport has been operating with different runway utilization, etc. Therefore, the data from 2009 will be important to create a baseline for how the Airport is operated under existing conditions. Question: What does the monitoring do? Noise is definitely different in the winter versus the summer. Answer: The monitoring measures how loud individual aircraft are at certain points. This is then compared to the prediction based on the model and helps to determine if any adjustments need to be made to the model to accurately portray the noise environment. Seasonal changes can affect noise and therefore there will be two periods of monitoring (one the summer and one in the winter), each for several weeks. Page 7 of 12

12 Page 8 of 12 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Question: Two periods of time is not enough, there needs to be monitoring done for at least a full year. Answer: The monitoring measures how loud individual aircraft are at certain points. This is then compared to the prediction based on the model and helps to determine if any adjustments need to be made to the model to accurately portray the noise environment. Generally the modeling and the measurements are very close. Additionally, since monitoring is outside of the required parts of the Study, it is not financially feasible to collect data for an entire year as part of this Study. Question: Does what gets submitted to the FAA change as a result of the monitoring? Answer: If the monitoring shows that the aircraft noise profiles are different than those predicted in the model, then the model will be adjusted to account for those differences. Question: What if the forecasts over-predict or under-predict operations? Answer: If the operations change by 15 percent (+/-) from those predicted, then the operations would be reevaluated and the noise contours would need to be re-run. Question: There has been decreasing activity, is 2009 the correct year to use? Answer: Yes, at most airports across the nation, operations have generally been declining. Additionally, engine technology has improved over time and the engines have generally become quieter. Over time, older, louder aircraft are being phased out of the fleet mix. Therefore, it is possible to have a smaller 65 DNL noise contour than occurred in the previous Study is the correct year to use for a baseline conditions because it was the last full year that the Airport was operating normally without significant maintenance or construction projects that could affect important aspects such as runway utilization, etc. It is important to note that 2009 is the base case, but the 2020 contour will be contour that determines any eligibility for federal funding. So 2009 is the base case for existing operations, but the recommendations will be compared to the 2020 contour to determine any potential reduction in noise. Question: Is tonight a public hearing? Answer: Tonight s meeting is a public meeting, not a public hearing. A public hearing refers to a specific regulatory requirement and will occur after the full Draft Study is released and will be associated with an official public comment period. Question: Will there be minutes at the official public hearing? Answer: Yes, the public hearing will have a court reporter to take verbatim comments for inclusion in the document. The Study will include any substantive comments given at the public hearing or during the official public comment period with a response. Question: Will members of the committee have access to the comments? Answer: The comments will either be placed on the website or given to the committee via another format so that they can review all comments received.

13 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Question: How is the public notified if a flight procedure is changed? Answer: Any time a flight procedure is substantially changed, it must undergo an environmental document. However, most of the time, it is done through a Categorical Exclusion, which does not require much public notice. If the changes are major and have the potential to result in significant impacts based on NEPA, then it might require an Environmental Assessment which has more opportunity for public involvement. Question: There is a 500 acre state park where changes in flight tracks can affect it. How are impacts to parks examined? Answer: Only those noise sensitive areas within the 65 DNL and greater contours are considered to be non-compatible with aircraft noise at that level. Generally, while a park is considered a noise sensitive area, if the change in flight tracks doesn t result in a change to the area in the park affected by the 65 DNL, then there are no non-compatibility issues associated with that change. There are some additional park considerations and this will be examined in the document. Question: Do you look at neighborhoods at higher elevations? Answer: Yes, higher elevations will be considered, but the 65 DNL threshold still applies. Question: What about military aircraft Answer: Military aircraft are exempt from the regulatory mechanism. However, it is considered in the fleet mix if the aircraft are based at the airport. But if noise is related to aircraft doing flyovers, these are not accounted for in the modeling. Question: What can happen in the Part 150 Study relative to ground run-ups and what can the Airport do outside of the federal funding? Answer: Land use compatibility planning and ground run-ups are two areas where the Airport has some opportunity to do something without FAA funding. If ground run-ups are a big issue, the construction of a Ground Run-Up Enclosure (GRE) could be one of the recommendations of the study. The Study could recommend where a GRE could be located but the Airport cannot regulate when (time of day) that ground run-ups occur. Additionally, land use compatibility measures (that are generally under the jurisdiction of the local governments) could be recommendations that are included in the Study but not necessarily linked directly to the FAA. Question: Who pays for a GRE? Answer: If a GRE is a recommendation of the Study, it will be eligible for federal funding. Once it is a recommendation, generally a GRE site selection study is completed to find the best locations operationally and an environmental document would have to be completed as well to satisfy NEPA requirements. Page 9 of 12

14 Page 10 of 12 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Question: It seems like the in the past study, the recommendations were just sound proofing/offairport residential units. Can the study recommend operation of aircraft on the airport? Answer: The Study will look at changes to flight tracks, use of reverse thrust, or other operational alternatives that could help reduce noise. However, the Airport cannot restrict flights, time of day of flights, etc. For flight tracks, it can make recommendations, but cannot mandate that the FAA change them. Question: So on the ground, there are some things that can be done, but in the air it is very limited, is that correct? Answer: Yes. Question: What is involved in volunteering a house for noise monitoring? Answer: For noise monitoring locations, we need a secure location, and a location of interest/concern. Question: If we have a noise app on our phone, saying what the noise event is, can we submit that data? Answer: No. Those are not accurate enough, they are not calibrated properly, and the microphones are not sensitive enough to provide good data. Question: It would be important to look at the flight pattern at Lyn Ary Park. The Public will be good at identifying important noise areas. Are the locations of your monitors going to be the same as those out there already? Answer: Noted. We will add Lyn Ary Park to the list of potential noise monitoring locations. The locations of the monitors will not necessarily be the same as previous studies. The locations will depend a lot on who volunteers their homes for monitoring, but generally people who are most interested do tend to fall within a certain area around the flight tracks. Question: Is this meeting representative of the size of the Study Input Committee Group? Answer: No. More were invited and we will likely do additional outreach to ensure we have stakeholders from a wide range of interests. Question: Do you have any idea how often the group will meet and the next time it will meet? Answer: The group will likely meet every couple of months, with a greater concentration of meetings when we are working through alternatives. The next meeting will likely be around June and then the following meeting would be in early fall. Question: Temperature plays a role in the noise, as does the weather. By taking it now, you may not get it as accurate. The Study should go a full year for monitoring. Answer: While it would be ideal to get a full year of data, the Study can t get funding for collection of a full year of noise monitoring data. Therefore, we will have to take two

15 Page 11 of 12 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska representative samples (on in the winter and one in the summer) and supplement it with historical information for a larger period for weather, snow cover, etc. The DNL metric is logarithmically based, which means that it greatly favors the highest value. Question: More GA flight occurring around the Iditarod. Answer: Noted. Question: Are you calculating noise for ground equipment, like snow plows? If not, can you take it up with the Airport? Answer: No. That is not allowed under the Part 150 regulations. However, we can create a list of other issues that may be examined outside of the Study, but we need to focus on those aspects that can be addressed in the Study. Question: Past studies have included a type of Good Neighbor policy recommendation. Will this be included? Answer: Yes. Almost all the Studies we have done include a type of Fly Quiet Program which helps identify those voluntary actions that a pilot can do to voluntarily help reduce noise around the Airport. This type of educational/informational program has been quiet successful at many airports. Question: With the extension of the east/west runway, why wouldn t you take that into account? Answer: It will not be taken into account for the existing base case contours (2009) because we would have to wait an entire year to collect data to model that as the base case (the base case uses a full year of existing data). However, we will use that configuration to model the future year, so that extension will be included in the future contours. Anything else that is on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that has environmental approval will be included in the future year. Question: How will you know the impact of the extension without data collection? Answer: We will allocate aircraft operations to that runway based on the way the Airport plans to use that runway in the future. This information will go into the model to help develop the future contours. This can be modeled and will be included in the future contours. Question: Does the model for 2020 take into account the increased activity? Answer: Yes. Additionally, if operations increase or decrease by 15 percent compared to the 2020 forecast numbers, the contours would have to be updated. Question: Is the new runway going to be included in the future year contours? Answer: No. The new runway s environmental approval has not been initiated or approved. We can only include those projects that are included in the CIP and have environmental approval, because those are the projects that are considered to be reasonably foreseeable.

16 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Clarification: To clarify, the noise monitoring does not create the contours. They are spot checks to make sure that the assumptions in the modeling are correct. Question: Is tonight s meeting the only time to volunteer for noise monitoring? How do people know of the monitoring sign-up? Answer: No, you can sign up now, at the meeting tonight, and you can also forward us your information for another two weeks. We will be announcing the sign-up at the public meeting. Question: There is a drug treatment center over on the north side of the Airport that might be good for monitoring. Answer: Noted. Question: What were the previous recommendations and were they successful? Answer: In gathering background information, we will look at the previous record of approval and look to see what recommendations were implemented, how successful they were and if they were not implemented, why they were not implemented. This will help us better identify a range of potential alternatives and see if there are any barriers to recommendations. Question: Can we introduce ourselves? Answer: Yes. Introductions were completed. A list of the committee members (once finalized) will be sent out to the committee. We will discuss whether or not to include contact information on this list. Page 12 of 12

17

18

19 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Study Input Committee Meeting for Part 150 Study Update Date: February 29, 2012 Time: 1:30 p.m. Location: Airfield Maintenance Facility DeHavilland Avenue STUDY INPUT COMMITTEE MEETING #1 AGENDA Introductions Airport Staff Study Team Committee Members Role and Function of the Committee Committee Role Proposed Meeting Protocol Explanation of FAR Part 150 and this Study What is a Part 150 Study? Why Update Study? Relationship to FAR Part 161 Study Process Description of Noise Metrics DNL, SEL, Ldn, Time Above, etc. Potential Noise Monitoring Sites Public Meeting Invitation Questions/Comments Study Committee Members Members of the Public For additional information please visit:

20 FEBRUARY 29, 2012 STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING Proposed Meeting Protocol. The Study Input Committee (SIC) is expected to act as a major resource for the Airport Staff and Consultants in developing alternatives for the study and ultimately recommendations for action. As a body, the SIC will be consulted throughout the study, and member s views will be carefully considered. Agenda. Introduction Study Team Committee Role Brief Explanation of FAR Part 150 and the Study What is a Part 150 Study Why Update Study Relationship to FAR Part 161 Scopes of Services Summary Noise Metrics DNL, SEL, Ldn, Time Above, etc. Potential Noise Monitoring Sites Public Meeting Questions/Comments Public Questions/Comments Proposed Meeting Protocol. CONTINUED Wherever possible the SIC will attempt to reach consensus. The group will not vote on issues, as all views, not just the majority, will be respectfully considered. Where there are differences of position, minority position(s) will be fully recognized. The decision making body is the Airport, who by law is the only organization that can submit an action for inclusion in a Part 150 Noise Study.

21 Proposed Meeting Protocol. CONTINUED Members will recognize the legitimacy, interests, and opinions of others, taking time to listen to and understand comments from all participants. When making public statements, members will not speak for the committee or for any other member. Study Input Committee citizen representatives must reside in the community they were appointed to represent during their term on the committee. Introduction Barnard Dunkelberg & Company TULSA, OKLAHOMA AND DENVER, COLORADO Landrum & Brown LAGUNA NIGUEL, CALIFORNIA Synergy Consultants SEATTLE, WASHINGTON AECOM ANCHORAGE, ALASKA CRW Engineering Group ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Weber Air Cargo OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS Proposed Meeting Protocol. CONTINUED Members of the general public attending Study Input Committee meetings will be able to speak at the close of Committee business. Time will be allotted for that purpose as necessary, but will be limited to a reasonable amount of time (3-5 minutes). Who is Involved? Airport Management FAA Aircraft Operators Airlines Study Input Committee Airport Tenants Surrounding Neighborhoods Surrounding Jurisdictions Airport Users Other Interested Parties Consultant Team

22 Study Details. Voluntary noise exposure and land use compatibility study. Identify existing noise exposure, identify potential future noise exposure, evaluate various alternatives to reduce the number of people affected by noise, and make recommendations as to viable noise abatement/mitigation measures to reduce the number of people affected by noise. It has a five-year planning horizon, generally. Study Details. CONTINUED The Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) is either approved or disapproved by the FAA. Approved measures contained in the Noise Compatibility Program are eligible for Federal funding. Study Details. CONTINUED The Study identifies and evaluates two components: Aircraft noise and land use, both existing and future. The Study consists of two distinct, but complementary elements: Noise Exposure Maps and a Noise Compatibility Program. The Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) are accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration. Background. Background on Previous Part 150 Study NEMs Accepted in 2000 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) approved in 2000 NCP allowed ANC to receive federal funding to implement a Residential Sound Insulation Program and other measures ANC conducted a Ground Noise Study to respond to comments

23 Airport Sponsor Constraints/Opportunities. The Federal Government, through the Federal Aviation Administration, has limited the Sponsor s ability to implement noise controls. Can t control aircraft in flight Limited control of funding for noise mitigation funds Can t control over noise emissions at the source Significantly limits airport Sponsor s implementation of noise restrictions Why Update Study? Airport Must Have Current Noise Exposure Maps to Receive Federal Funding for Noise Mitigation Existing Maps 10 years old. Change in Aircraft Fleet Mix Aircraft Noise Levels Reduced Change in Aircraft Activity Levels Updated Noise Model Changes in Airfield Development Airport Sponsor Constraints/Opportunities. CONTINUED Airport Sponsor must provide access to all airport users and cannot discriminate against any user, but can pass reasonable noise rules/regulations that do not affect access to the airport. FAR Part 161 sets limits on this authority. FAR Part 150 Elements. Study Mobilization Future Land Use Alternatives Inventory of Existing Conditions Forecasts of Aviation Activity Existing Noise Exposure Contour Noise Exposure Maps Noise Compatibility Program FAA Approval Future Baseline Noise Contour Existing and Predicted Future Baseline Noise Intrusions Future Noise Compatibility Alternatives

24 Study Process. Unique Elements. Use of Supplementary Metrics Sound Exposure Level (SEL) Time Above Analysis Number of Events Above 65 dba Flow Contours Unique Fleet Mix Evaluation of Ground Run-up Noise Summer and Winter Measurements Community Involvement Noise Metrics. Public Involvement and Comments. DNL Day-Night Noise Level Existing Noise Contour 2009 Short-Term Contour 2020 Long-Term Contour 2030 for planning purposes SEL Sound Exposure Level LdN Same as DNL (LdN is the old terminology) Sign Up for Notices on the Study At Meetings (by providing an on sign in sheets) On the Website ( Public Comments (Submitted at Meetings or on the website) All comments received during the Study will be reviewed/considered during the steps of the process, and included in the final document for official review. All comments received during the official public comment period and at the public hearing (at the end of the Study) will be included and responded to in the document.

25 Comments and Additional Information. Mr. Ryk Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK Phone Number FAX Number Project Website: COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS THANK YOU! PUBLIC COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS

26 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Study Input Committee Summary Notes May 10, :30 p.m. Airfield Maintenance Facility NAME Staff and Consultants Present John Parrott John Johansen Scott Lytle Teri Lindseth Ryk Dunkelberg Brad Rolf Kate Andrus Christian Valdes Wende Wilber Eva Welch AFFILIATION ANC ANC ANC ANC Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Landrum & Brown CRW Engineering Group AECOM Committee Members Present Merle Akers (alternate) Robert Auth Don Brugman Mark Brys Judy Chapman David Chilson Susan Hoshaw Mary Lee Blythe Marston Jim Seeley Patricia Sullivan Thede Tobish Breck Tostevin (alternate) Turnagain Community Council Spenard Community Council Desert Air Transport FAA Citizen Representative FAA Alaska Air Carriers Association Citizen Representative Citizen Representative LHD Pilot Association FAA Airports Division Municipality of Anchorage, Community Development Turnagain Community Council Non-Committee Individuals Present Cathy Gleason Hand Outs: Updated Land Use and Zoning Maps, list of invited Study Input Committee members Page 1 of 8

27 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Summary Notes Introductions John Parrott welcomed Committee members to the second meeting of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. He thanked members of the Part 150 Study Input Committee (SIC) again for participating in the committee. He then introduced Ryk Dunkelberg of Barnard Dunkelberg & Company. Mr. Dunkelberg introduced the Part 150 Study team and gave a brief overview of all the other entities involved in the noise study. Mr. Dunkelberg began the second meeting of the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Input Committee by presenting the PowerPoint presentation as follows: Introductions o Study Team o Committee Members Summary of Working Paper One o Airport Layout/Facilities o Historical Operations o Airspace Configuration o Noise and Management Program o Airport Environs Winter Noise Monitoring Next Steps Questions/Comments o Study Committee Members o Members of the Public Summarized Questions and Comments Question: Is an air carrier both cargo and passengers? Answer: It is passengers or combination passenger/cargo only. Question: What does no published approach mean? Answer: It means that a runway has no specific landing procedure. Question: What is an operation? Answer: An operation is defined as either a take-off or a landing. Page 2 of 8

28 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Question: What is Elmendorf Air Force Base Classified as? Answer: A separate Class D airspace. Question: Is the close in departure used on the North/South Runway? Departures to the north are a concern for the Turnagain Community. Answer: The thrust cutback procedure is used on departures for Runway 7 and 15. So the procedure is used to departures to the South and East, but not to the North. Understanding that this is a concern for the Turnagain Community, we can look at departures to the north in the Study to see if there are any alternatives that could reduce noise in this area. Question: How will all this be completed in two more meetings? Answer: Currently, we are only scoped through Phase I of the project. Phase I brings us through the running of existing and future noise contours. Phase II will include alternatives analysis and development of recommendations. So while Phase I is limited to a total of four Study Input Committee meetings, another set of committee meetings will be scoped for Phase II (approximately another eight meetings). Question: Do any of the operational procedures apply to General Aviation operations at Lake Hood and how are they enforced? Answer: Yes. There is a cutback procedure for water landings and preferential runway use. All of the operational procedures are voluntary and are therefore not enforced. The Airport cannot put any restrictions on how/when aircraft fly. However, the Airport publishes these preferred procedures through Jeppesen chart notes, and pilot brochures, and many pilots use them when able. Question: Is there any data being kept on voluntary compliance of procedures? If not, is there a way that we can ensure/increase compliance. Answer: Currently there is no method to track this. Some of these items (such as preferential runway use) can be monitored with a flight tracking system, which will be examined in this study. However, many of the other voluntary procedures are not easily tracked because the pilots are the only ones who can accurately depict whether certain engine-related procedures are being used. Methods to increase voluntary compliance can be examined as part of the Study. Question: How does a Monitoring System mitigate noise? If the permanent monitoring system is not working, does that mean we will not have that data? Answer: It does not actively mitigate noise. It does help to identify whether other measures are working. The permanent noise monitoring system is currently not active. We are attempting to recover some of the data, but it is unclear at this point how much data we will be able to recover. Page 3 of 8

29 Page 4 of 8 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Comment: It appears that many measures have been completed (noise website, etc.) that people don t know about. The Airport might want to look into ways of more actively advertising these measures. Answer: Noted. Comment: Can you explain when the noise hotline switched over to the web-based version, and why the call line was stopped. The noise complaint phone line should be reinstituted and/or the Airport should make an announcement about the change so that the public can weigh in on the changes. Answer: Noted. The call line went through February and then switched to the web-based version. The noise complaint phone line recently switched to a web-based system in order to better track the complaints and obtain enough information to better address the comments in a timely and efficient manner. Question: Is there ground power available to reduce ground noise? There should be some way to give an incentive to use GPUs. Answer: Most sites have ground power. No sites have pre-conditioned air. Additionally, where able, GPU are used when available. The use of ground power can be examined more closely as part of the Study. Generally, ground power plug-ins are highly used already because the site fee includes this hook up (whether they choose to use it or not), and using it reduces fuel burn, thus saving money. Comment: There are concerns over the location of ground run-ups being located on the east side, rather than the west side. Also, how do aircraft get permission to do ground run-ups. Answer: There is a ground run-up location used on the west side of the airport (Taxiway J), but this location cannot be used all the time based on wind direction and other constraints. An additional ground run-up location is located on the east side of the north end of the north-south runway at Taxiway Q. Additional ground run-up reduction alternatives may be examined as part of the Part 150 Update. Currently, aircraft must get permission by the Airport to do nighttime run-ups. Comment: Sometimes the ground run-ups occur during the day, especially on the weekends and holidays, such as Easter. Answer: The Airport cannot restrict ground run-ups that could restrict aircraft departure, because this would violate Part 161. However, the Airport can recommend run-up locations as long as they are safe and appropriate based on wind direction. Question: Will the evaluation of the two recommended noise barriers (from the Ground Noise Study) be examined in this Study to determine if they are still a high priority? Answer: Yes.

30 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Comment: The increase in noise complaints during the summer is likely both from people having their windows open and the fact that there is an increase in operations during the summer months. Answer: Noted. Question: Why is the land use on the Airport not depicted? Answer: The goal of the Part 150 Study is to reduce noise on noise sensitive land uses (residents, schools, etc.). Because the Airport itself is not considered to be a noise sensitive use, the actual land use on the Airport itself is considered transportation and is considered already compatible with the levels of aircraft noise. Question: Why is the existing condition map labeled as 2009? Answer: For the purposes of the Study, existing conditions need to look at the last full year that the Airport was operating normally. For the past few years, due to projects and maintenance, the Airport has been operating with different runway utilization, etc. Therefore, the data from 2009 will be important to create a baseline for how the Airport is operated under existing conditions; however, the future Noise Exposure Map (the map that will determine any eligibility boundaries for federally funded noise mitigation programs), will be based off of the number of operations forecast for the future conditions (2020). Comment: Please add sources to all figures, a date for materials, and add a revision title to any revised material to more easily highlight which versions are the most recent. Answer: The sources are located on the figures, and we will continue to include the sources for the Study graphics. Comment: The land use map appears to potentially have some differences with the WADP and should be noted that the map is not yet approved. Answer: Noted. We will work with MOA to ensure we use the correct maps. Question: Many general aviation aircraft are retrofitted and may not sound the same as a factory model of an aircraft type. How does the model account for this? Answer: The monitoring measures how loud individual aircraft are at certain points. This is then compared to the prediction based on the model and helps to determine if any adjustments need to be made to the model to accurately portray those aircraft types within the Anchorage environment. So for example, if a certain type of aircraft is measured at a higher average level than the model predicts, the noise engineer can make adjustments in the model to account for this difference. Question: How are flight track/aircraft types determined for the GA side? Page 5 of 8

31 Page 6 of 8 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Answer: Flight tracks are generally available from the FAA, and when not available, the noise engineers make visual confirmations. The noise engineers can match aircraft with noise events from the monitoring and radar data. Question: Why did monitoring occur during a period of low activity? Will this affect the contours? Why was monitoring not conducted during the Iditarod? Answer: The monitoring measures how loud individual aircraft are at certain points, also referred to as single-event noise. This is then compared to the prediction based on the model and helps to determine if any adjustments need to be made to the model to accurately portray the noise environment. Therefore, because the monitoring focuses on single events, the number of aircraft does not affect the results of the monitoring. During the time period monitoring was completed, a sufficient number and types of aircraft were monitored to determine the accuracy of the model. The model is then used along with number of operations (existing and forecast future) to develop the contours. Additionally, seasonal changes can affect noise and therefore there will be a second period of monitoring during the summer. Question: Is ANC different in that there are large peaks and valleys in terms of number of operations? Answer: Because the model is based on an annual-average noise metric, the peaks and valleys get averaged out. The Day-Night Noise Level (DNL) is the metric required by the FAA. However, as part of the Study, we will also be looking at other metrics such as Single-Event Levels (SEL). Question: How does the Study take into account Alaska s different definitions of night/day? Answer: The Study is required to use the Part 150 definition of night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) and is not related to the amount of daylight, but is intended to capture the noise-sensitivity of people when they are generally trying to sleep. The operations during this time period are weighted by 10 db penalty (an effective doubling of the noise), to account for the noise sensitivity during this time. This definition is outlined in Part 150 guidelines and another definition cannot be substituted. This means however, that during the summer time, when there are more operations late at night (but potentially still day-light for Alaska), the operations still are weighted as louder during the period of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Question: Can you provide copies of the Part 150 guidelines? Answer: A link to the guidelines will be sent out to the committee list and posted on the Study website ( Question: Two periods of time is not enough, there needs to be monitoring done for at least a full year. How can you know every time of every aircraft and every aircraft type? Answer: The monitoring measures how loud individual aircraft are at certain points. This is then compared to the prediction based on the model and helps to determine if any adjustments need to

32 Page 7 of 8 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska be made to the model to accurately portray the noise environment. Generally the modeling and the measurements are very close. Additionally, since monitoring is outside of the required parts of the Study, it is not financially feasible to collect data for an entire year as part of this Study, but it is providing additional (not federally required) information to ensure the accuracy of the model. While it is not feasible (both physically and financially) to record every operation, the monitoring validates the model and the model then provides the most reasonable representation. Question: Can you provide a copy of the winter noise monitoring sites? Answer: Because there is still an additional period of noise monitoring that will occur this summer, we will not release a public copy of the noise monitoring sites until after the second set of monitoring has been completed. At that time, we will send a copy of the sites to the Study Input Committee and post it on the website. Question: Appendix A of Part 150 states that it provides for the use of the Integrated Noise Model (INM) or an FAA approved equivalent. Does this mean we can use a different model? Answer: In practice, this does not mean you can use a totally separate model, but it does mean that there is an opportunity to make adjustments to the INM by going through a formal process with the FAA to get approval. There are two reasons to do this. First, not every single aircraft is currently in the model. This means, that if an aircraft is not in the model, the noise engineer must make a substitution. The model recommends substitutions, but if there are no equivalent substitutions in the model, then a request to FAA Headquarters must be made to determine the substitutions. The second option is to make adjustments in the model to account for airports that may have significantly longer stage lengths and weight adjustments. The heavier the aircraft (generally related to added fuel from a longer stage-length) can affect the departure noise profile of the aircraft. Again, this adjustment needs to be coordinated with the FAA. Question: Will the Study Input Committee get a chance to review the forecasts? Can we request one? Answer: It is our intention to try to set up a meeting with the forecasters and the Study Input Committee. This would likely occur sometime in September. Question: Some of the information in the Inventory seems to not pertain to the Study. Additionally, we need some additional time to discuss. Answer: Noted. Question: Can you remind us where the contours go? Answer: The 65 DNL, 70 DNL and 75 DNL contours will be located on the site. Some local jurisdictions request looking at land use measures that examine lower noise level contours (such as the 60 DNL or 55 DNL contours) for local land use compatibility thresholds. However, it is important to note that only those noise sensitive uses within the 65 DNL and greater contours are

33 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska eligible for federal funding for mitigation measures (such as acquisition or insulation). This 65 DNL threshold does not imply that noise does not occur outside this line; however, it is the federally defined threshold for noise sensitive uses that relates to eligibility for federal funding. The last 150 Study showed the 60 DNL for informational purposes for local or future residents and for local land use planning future construction recommendations (e.g. new construction sound insulation). The Study will also look at Single Event Levels, which do not take into account number of events, but does equate more closely to what individuals hear for a single operation. Clarification: The West Anchorage Development Plan is looking at the 60 DNL for land planning purposes. Question: When is the next meeting? Answer: The timing of the next meeting will depend on when the forecasts are completed, but it is estimated that the next meeting will occur sometime during the fall. Page 8 of 8

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Study Input Committee Summary Notes November 7, :30 p.m. Airfield Maintenance Facility NAME AFFILIATION PRESENT Staff and Consultants John Parrott John Johansen Trudy Wassel Ryk Dunkelberg Kate Andrus Vince Mestre Mary Vigilante Wende Wilber Eva Welch ANC ANC ANC Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Landrum and Brown Synergy Consultants CRW Engineering Group AECOM Committee Members Merle Akers Bob Auth Judy Chapman Bruce Greenwood Mary Lee Jim Seeley Patricia Sullivan Thede Tobish Breck Tostevin Turnagain Community Council Spenard Community Council Citizen Representative FAA Citizen Representative LHD Pilot Association FAA Airports Division Municipality of Anchorage, Community Development Turnagain Community Council

42 Summary Notes Mr. Dunkelberg began the third meeting of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Input Committee by presenting the meeting agenda as follows: Introductions Airport Staff Study Team Committee Members Meeting Protocol Brief Refresher on Part 150 Study What is a Part 150 Study? Why Update Study? Study Process Description of Noise Metrics Noise Monitoring Background Results Forecasts Draft Contours Previous Part 150 Approved Contours (1999) Draft 2009 Contours Draft 2020 Contours Comparison of 1999 versus 2020 contours Questions/Comments Study Committee Members Members of the Public Introductions Mr. Dunkelberg introduced the Part 150 Study team and gave a brief overview of all the other entities involved in the noise study. Committee Role and Meeting Protocol Mr. Dunkelberg stated that the Study Input Committee is expected to act as a major resource for the Airport staff and Consultant team in developing alternatives for the Part 150 Noise Study. He asked that all questions wait until the technical portion of the presentation is completed.

43 Then, questions will be taken from each member in turn, so that all committee members get a chance to ask questions and pose comments. Members of the public who attend Study Input Committee meetings will be allowed to speak at the close of committee business. Study Details Mr. Dunkelberg reviewed that the purpose of the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study is to identify existing noise exposure surrounding the Airport, identify potential future noise exposure, evaluate various alternatives to reduce the number of people affected by noise, and to make recommendations as to viable abatement/mitigation measures to reduce the number of people affected by noise living near the Airport. The noise study generally has a five year planning horizon and identifies and evaluates both current and future aircraft noise and land use. There are two distinct parts of a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study; Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) and a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). After a complete analysis of noise and land use conditions at the Airport, both the NEMs and the NCP will be submitted for approval or disapproval by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If approved, the measures and recommendations contained in the NCP are eligible for implementation and federal funding. Why Update Study? Mr. Dunkelberg went over the primary reasons the Airport is updating the existing Part 150 Study. For the Airport to continue to receive federal funding for noise mitigation it must have current noise exposure maps and the current NEMs are over 10 years old. Additionally there have been changes in aircraft fleet mix, aircraft noise levels, change in aircraft activity levels, changes in airfield development and the release of an updated Integrated Noise Model (INM). Noise Metrics Mr. Dunkelberg introduced Vince Mestre to discuss the results of the noise monitoring conducted during two periods, one during the winter and one during the summer. Mr. Mestre first described various noise metrics examined including the Day-Night Noise Level, the LEQ (one hour equivalent noise level), L10 (sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time), L50 (sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time), and L90 (sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time). Noise Monitoring Background Mr. Mestre discussed purpose of noise measurement. These measurements are used to validate the FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM). He stated that measurements are taken of the actual noise levels an aircraft makes at a particular airport under particular conditions to compare them to predicted noise levels from the FAA INM using the exact same conditions. Although not required for a Part 150 Noise Study, these actual measurements increase confidence in the Study results and account for special conditions at particular airports. Noise measurements were taken during two seasons, summer and winter at 30 different sites. Noise data from the Airport s permanent noise monitors were taken for the base case year of Noise Measurements

44 Mr. Mestre thanked the volunteers who allowed noise monitors to be placed at their homes and then described the generalized results of the noise monitoring periods. Generally, the ambient noise levels (the noise without any aircraft) were much lower than other built environments. Looking at the various sites, generally the noise of single events was similar in the summer as in the winter, but in the summer there were generally more noise events, particularly by those sites near the Lake Hood Seaplane Base. Flight track data from both the noise monitoring periods, as well as 2009 flight track data indicated that jet flight tracks generally show departures to the north, and arrivals from the west (directing most of the jet operations over the water rather than non-compatible land uses). This preferential runway use was sometimes used prior to the last Part 150 Study, but as a recommendation of the previous Part 150 Study its use has increased. For prop flight tracks, there was a considerable difference between the flight tracks in the summer and the winter, with summer operations being much higher due to the operations at Lake Hood Seaplane Base. Overall, the ambient levels were much lower than most urban/suburban environments, and the aircraft noise levels were typical of a medium hub airport. Draft Noise Contours. Mr. Mestre presented the draft noise contours for 2009 and 2020 based on the Alaska International Airport System (AIAS) forecasts. Both the 2009 and 2020 contours are smaller than those produced in 1999 as part of the previous noise study. While there were changes in the operations and fleet mix, the biggest difference in the contour is likely explained by more aircraft using the preferential runway use directing jet operations over the water rather than to the south and east over non-compatible land uses. He reminded the committee that these are draft contours and changes might occur. Next Steps and Public Involvement. Mr. Dunkelberg explained the next steps, including refinement of the contours, land use analysis (how many people and non-compatible land uses are within the contours), and that next year the committee will start alternatives development. The draft noise measurement report will be distributed to the committee in the next month. He also invited members of the committee to attend the second Part 150 Noise Study Public Information Meeting to be held tonight at 5:30 p.m. Questions and Comments Question: Some people previously provided comments on the draft working papers. Will we see how those comments were addressed? Answer: We will consider all comments and make changes as necessary. You will see the changes when we release the Draft Study, which will have all necessary changes incorporated. Question: How do you create the contours? Answer: The FAA requires the use of the Integrated Noise Model (INM) which is a complex computer model that takes into account fleet mix, operations, flight tracks and time of day.

45 Question: In the graphic comparing the 1999/2020 contours, can you explain the difference on the east side of the Airport? If a large jet departed that way, you would not be able to hear talking, yet you mentioned that decibels is the range of the human voice. Answer: So the contours are based on the Day-Night Noise Level which is an annual average of the noise. This means that there are single event noise levels much louder than 65 decibels, but that the average is less than 65 DNL. The contour is so small on that side because there are so few operations that occur over the non-compatible land uses to the east. There are not enough operations on that side to bubble out the contour to the extent that it was in 1999 when a smaller percentage of aircraft were using preferential runway use (compared to today) and a good portion of the operations occurred over the non-compatible land uses on the east of the Airport. DNL is often criticized because it is an average and does not represent what people actually hear (single event level). But DNL is the required metric. It is important to note that just because DNL might be below 65 DNL, single event noise levels will occur that are much louder than 65 decibels. Question: For the winter/summer noise monitoring, does it include ground noise? Answer: Yes. The noise monitors did pick up some ground noise. Ground noise will be examined more closely in the next phase. Question: The contours shrank since 1999, were there other reasons for this other than the change in flight tracks? Answer: Yes, in addition to the flight track change there was also a change in the fleet mix, with some of the louder aircraft being phased out because they are at the end of their maximum usable life. So there are fewer of the noisier aircraft in the fleet mix for Question: When aircraft run for a long period of time at night, will those types of things be analyzed in the Study? Answer: Yes, those are called ground run-ups and will be examined in the next phase of the Study. Question: Are some of the newer planes (like a 777 or Dreamliner) quieter? Answer: Yes, they are generally much quieter than the planes they replace. Question: Do aircraft manufacturers give you noise levels prior to production? Answer: Aircraft manufactures typically supply general noise of new aircraft; however, these need to be approved by the FAA prior to having it put as a new aircraft type in the INM. In the meantime, the model uses a surrogate aircraft in place to estimate the noise impacts. The surrogate is typically very conservative and represents a louder noise level than the actual noise levels of a new aircraft. Question: Do the 2020 contours have weather trends factored in? Answer: The average annual temperature is included in the model. However meteorological changes have a complex relationship with the propagation of sound. Patterns such as a temperature inversion can allow sound to propagate very differently. Generally, this effect increases the further you are from the source. So within the 65 DNL contour, it has little effect, and you would not see a large change in the contours. But you can have a much larger effect the further away from the Airport you get.

46 Question: You mentioned that there were semi-permanent sites and permanent sites. What is the difference? Answer: We collected data from two types of sites during the monitoring periods in summer and winter. Sites 1-10 are considered semi-permanent and collected between hours of data. Sites are considered short-term and data was collected for approximately one day at each of these sites per season. Then, we also took data from the Airport s permanent noise monitoring system for the entire 2009 year. These noise monitors are currently not operational, but we were able to get the data it collected for the entire year of Question: What happens between now and 2020? Why is this not based on now/2020? Answer: The 2009 contour is required to create a base case scenario for the last full year of operations with the Airport operating with no closures or other operational variations will be the contour used to determine non-compatibility within the 65 DNL. Generally, this is in favor of the residents since operations generally increase over time and therefore the 65 DNL contour would be larger, making the 65 DNL contour in the future a more conservative estimation of the land use impacts. Additionally, the Study will take several years to complete and become approved before any recommendations are approved for implementation. Applying for funding, securing funding, accomplishing the necessary environmental reviews and implementing the recommendations takes time, which means that 2020 is close to the potential timeframe when recommendations might be approved for implementation based on the Part 150 schedule. Question: Why have not all the previous Part 150 Study recommendations been implemented? Answer: The needs of noise programs generally exceed the funding and available resources to complete everything recommended in the Part 150 Study. Generally, the FAA puts a higher priority on mitigating noise for those within the highest areas of noise. Therefore, sound insulation in the areas of 65 DNL and higher are generally considered of higher priority. The Airport and FAA have placed a considerable amount of effort in the Residential Sound Insulation Program. Since the Study is now being updated, the previous measures will be evaluated and considered for future recommendations. Question: Would you expect the monitoring done for this study to confirm the model? Answer: Yes, it is very close. There might be some slight changes based on the data we collected around Lake Hood. Question: It seems like this committee is gaining a lot of knowledge about noise. Is it possible to have this committee continued after the Study is complete to assist in implementation? Answer: Yes, absolutely. A continuation of the Study Input Committee is regularly part of our recommendations in Part 150 Studies. The actual continuation will be up to the Airport to determine based on staff time available and utility of group. Question: Will all old homes within the previous 1999 contours be insulated by 2014 (prior to the new Study being released)? Answer: The funding for the last area of homes within the previous eligibility boundaries has been granted and those homes that applied for coverage are planned in fiscal year ANC plans to complete construction the summer of 2013 with post construction testing and financial

47 close out extending into fiscal year Those homeowners that do not wish to apply may not be covered in the future. Airport has notified all homeowners in the RSIP boundary area about deadline. Question: Will the contour maps show the 60 DNL? Answer: Yes, it will show the 60 DNL, but the 65 DNL is the threshold used by the FAA for non-compatibility with residential units. Question: Can you give us an idea of when our next meeting might be? Answer: Yes, we are likely looking at a meeting sometime in February. Question: Will alternatives take into account SEL? Answer: SELs will be completed for some of the alternatives to help describe the noise environment. However, it is important to note that the 65 DNL contour is what the FAA uses to measure effects. FAA approval is based on the DNL analysis.

48

49 November 7, 2012 STUDY INPUT COMMITTEE Protocol. November 7, 2012 Only one primary committee member is allowed for each representative area If you are an alternate and your primary member is at the meeting, we ask that your primary representative pose questions/comments After the presentation, questions/comments will be solicited by each primary representative, allowing each person to speak in turn. Each committee member will be given a chance to speak prior to taking a second round of comments from other members Questions from the public will be taken after all questions/comments are taken from the committee members Agenda. Introduction Brief Refresher on the Part 150 Study What is a Part 150 Study Why Update Study Summary of Noise Monitoring Work Forecast Summary Draft Existing and Future Noise Contours Questions/Comments November 7, 2012 November 7, 2012 Purpose of Study. Voluntary noise exposure and land use compatibility study. Identify existing noise exposure, identify potential future noise exposure, evaluate various alternatives to reduce the number of people affected by noise, and to make recommendations regarding viable noise abatement/mitigation measures to reduce the number of people affected by noise. It has a five-year planning horizon, generally.

50 November 7, 2012 Purpose of Study. CONTINUED The Study identifies and evaluates two components: Aircraft noise and land use, both existing and future. The Study consists of two distinct, but complementary elements: Noise Exposure Maps and a Noise Compatibility Program. The Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) are accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration. November 7, 2012 Study Process. November 7, 2012 Why Update Study? Airport Must Have Current Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) to Receive Federal Funding for Noise Mitigation - Existing maps are 10 years old. Change in Aircraft Fleet Mix Aircraft Noise Levels Reduced Change in Aircraft Activity Levels Updated Noise Model Changes in Airfield Development November 7, 2012 Noise Metrics. DNL Day-Night Noise Level Existing Noise Contour 2009 Future Contour 2020 LEQ One hour equivalent noise level L10 Sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time L50 Sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time L90 Sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time SEL Sound Exposure Level

51 Noise Metrics November 7, 2012 November 7, 2012 Noise Monitoring Background Noise Monitoring Completed in Winter and Summer Sites monitored in both Winter and Summer Sites 1-9 (semi-permanent) monitored for between hours each Site 10 (semi-permanent) monitored for two weeks (321 hours winter and 247 hours summer) Sites monitored between 2-8 hours each Permanent Noise Monitor Data used as well Noise Monitoring Sites Semi -permanent: hours of monitoring at each site per season Short -term: 2-8 hours of monitoring at each site per season November 7, 2012 Site L 10 (db) L 50 (db) L 90 (db) November 7, 2012 Winter: Ambient Noise Levels by Site

52 Site L 10 (db) L 50 (db) L 90 (db) November 7, 2012 Summer: Ambient Noise Levels by Site November 7, 2012 Winter and Summer Monitoring (DNL) 2012 Winter 2012 Summer Site Total DNL Event DNL Non-Event Total DNL Site DNL Event DNL Non-Event DNL Site 2 Hourly Winter November 7, 2012 Site 2 Hourly Summer November 7, 2012

53 Site 2 Single Event Counts November 7, 2012 Site 7 Hourly Winter November 7, 2012 Site 7 Hourly Summer November 7, 2012 Site 7 Single Event Counts November 7, 2012

54 Site 10 Hourly Winter November 7, 2012 Site 10 Hourly Summer November 7, 2012 Site 10 Single Event Counts Winter Jet Flight Tracks November 7, 2012 November 7, 2012 Flight Tracks Figure depicts one day of representative flight tracks during the Winter Monitoring (3/25-4/9)

55 Winter Prop Flight Tracks Flight Tracks Figure depicts one day of representative flight tracks during the Winter Monitoring (3/25-4/9) Summer Prop Flight Tracks Flight Tracks Figure depicts one day of representative flight tracks during the Summer Monitoring (8/5-8/19) November 7, 2012 November 7, 2012 Summer Jet Flight Tracks November 7, 2012 Flight Tracks Figure depicts one day of representative flight tracks during the Summer Monitoring (8/5-8/19) November 7, 2012 Noise Monitoring Results Summary Ambient noise levels (no aircraft) are very low for a built environment Ambient noise levels lower than typical urban or suburban residential areas Aircraft noise levels typical of a Medium Hub Airport

56 Forecasts November 7, 2012 Previous FAA Approved Contours Existing Noise Contours (2009) November 7, 2012 Year Passenger Cargo 2009 Air Taxi and Other General Aviation Military Total ANC 91,092 65,014 2,280 35,685 4, ,456 LHD ,291 45,885-58,176 Combined 91,092 65,014 14,571 81,570 4, , ANC 101,540 95,812 2,793 39,863 2, ,275 LHD ,793 49,667-65,460 Combined 101,540 95,812 18,586 89,530 2, , Draft Noise Contours 2020 Draft Noise Contours November 7, 2012 November 7, 2012 Existing Noise Contours (2009) Future Noise Contours (2020)

57 2020 versus 1999 Approved Contours November 7, 2012 November 7, 2012 Future Noise Contours (2020) Next Steps Refine contours Land Use Analysis Alternatives Development with Committee Alternatives Analysis with Committee Public Input on Alternatives Comments and Additional Information. Mr. Ryk Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK Phone Number FAX Number November 7, 2012 COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS

58 THANK YOU!

59 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Study Input Committee Summary Notes February 12, :30 p.m. Airfield Maintenance Facility NAME AFFILIATION PRESENT Staff and Consultants John Parrott John Johansen Trudy Wassel Ryk Dunkelberg Kate Andrus Jen Wolchansky Vince Mestre Mary Vigilante Wende Wilber Eva Welch ANC ANC ANC Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Landrum and Brown Synergy Consultants CRW Engineering Group AECOM Committee Members Merle Akers Bob Auth Judy Chapman Bruce Greenwood Mary Lee Jim Seeley Patricia Sullivan Breck Tostevin Katie Gage Scott Lytle Daniel Burgess David Chilson Turnagain Community Council Spenard Community Council Citizen Representative FAA Citizen Representative LHD Pilot Association FAA Airports Division Turnagain Community Council ANC ANC Citizen Representative FAA Other Brienna Demeris Pete Fitzgerald Cathy Hammond Mike Lee Jim Montgomery Pat Oien Evan Pfahler Jane A. Smyth Tonia Winken

60 Summary Notes Mr. Dunkelberg began the fourth meeting of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Input Committee by presenting the meeting agenda as follows: Introductions Mr. Mestre will discuss Background on Noise, Noise Metrics and Forecasts Ms. Andrus will discuss Land Use Analysis Review of Forecasts Meeting Protocol Brief Refresher on Part 150 Study What is the purpose of a Part 150 Study? What are Noise Metrics? Description of Supplemental Noise Metrics Single Event Metrics Cumulative Noise Metrics Graphical Descriptions of Part 150 Study components Flight Tracks Flight Tracks for East and West Flows Time Above Noise Levels Existing (2009), 2020, and 2030 Noise Contours Discussion of Land Use and Population Analysis Next Steps Alternatives Development Alternatives Analysis Public Input on Alternatives Development of Recommendations Questions/Comments Study Committee Members Members of the Public

61 Introductions Mr. Dunkelberg introduced the Part 150 Study team and gave a brief overview of the agenda for this meeting. Committee Role and Meeting Protocol Mr. Dunkelberg stated that the Study Input Committee is expected to act as a major resource for the Airport staff and Consultant team in developing alternatives for the Part 150 Noise Study. He asked that all questions wait until the technical portion of the presentation is completed. Then, questions will be taken from each member in turn, so that all committee members get a chance to ask questions and pose comments. Members of the public who attend Study Input Committee meetings will be allowed to speak at the close of committee business. Study Details Mr. Dunkelberg reviewed that the purpose of the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study is to identify existing noise exposure surrounding the Airport, identify potential future noise exposure, evaluate various alternatives to reduce the number of people affected by noise, and to make recommendations as to viable abatement/mitigation measures to reduce the number of people affected by noise living near the Airport. He discussed the two distinct parts of a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study: Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) and a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). After a complete analysis of noise and land use conditions at the Airport, both the NEMs and the NCP will be submitted for approval or disapproval by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If approved, the measures and recommendations contained in the NCP are eligible for implementation and federal funding. Why Update Study? Mr. Dunkelberg explained that for the Airport to continue receiving federal funding for noise mitigation it must have current noise exposure maps (and the current NEMs are over 10 years old). Additionally, there have been changes in aircraft fleet mix, aircraft noise levels, change in aircraft activity levels, changes in airfield development and the release of an updated Integrated Noise Model (INM). Noise Metrics Mr. Dunkelberg introduced Vince Mestre, who discussed noise metrics, specifically single event and cumulative noise metrics. Mr. Mestre described various supplemental noise metrics including the Lmax, SEL, Flow DNL, Time Above, and Number Above metrics. He explained that while these supplemental metrics are not required for an FAR Part 150 Noise Study, they explain a lot of information that is not evident in the DNL metrics.

62 Graphical Representation of Flight Tracks and Noise Metrics Mr. Mestre reviewed a number of graphics that showed typical east and west flow flight tracks, supplemental noise metrics, including LEQ, SEL, Time Above, Number Above, Flow DNL, and Lmax. These graphics helped to show activity and noise levels at the airport in the context of various noise metrics. Additionally, Mr. Mestre reviewed the updated contours which included the addition of ground run-ups. Land Use Metrics Kate Andrus reviewed land use data within the airport surroundings. She explained existing (2009) land use, as well as 2020 and 2030 forecasts for land use. Ms. Andrus showed that there are very few people that would fall within the 65 DNL contour for noise impacts in the 2020 forecast, which is the contour that the FAA uses to base land use compatibility. The 2030 noise contours were presented for informational use only. Next Steps and Homework Mr. Dunkelberg explained the next steps and distributed a handout detailing the alternatives development process. He asked that participants read the information and draft any questions and/or comments that they have on the process. The next Study Input Committee Meeting will likely be in May, and topics discussed will include alternatives development and alternatives analysis. Questions and Comments Question: Why did we choose the Beaver aircraft? Answer: This type of aircraft was chosen because the Single Event Level (SEL) is one of the larger SELs (because it is a slow moving plane that results in a long duration of noise). The Beaver is just one representative aircraft modeled for SELs along with the 737 and the 747. There are approximately 250,000 operations per year at ANC, therefore it was not possible to provide the SELs (or show the tracks) for each type of aircraft. DNL takes into account all of the tracks, and for the SELs we are just showing examples of different types of aircraft that we found to be most representative of the fleet. The purpose of the supplemental metrics (i.e., SEL) is to show those noise levels that a person hears when an aircraft flies over versus the DNL which is an annual average. Question: Why are there only two run-up areas on the map? Answer: We used an annual operations log to identify run up locations and operations. These two areas (Taxiway Q and Taxiway J) are the only areas identified by the Airport for aircraft to use for full-power run-ups. These are the only permitted areas for full-power run-ups. We are not sure what was authorized in the past, but full power run-ups are allowed only at these places currently. It does not mean run-ups do not happen outside of these areas, but if they do happen elsewhere, they probably are not authorized.

63 Comment: It was brought to attention that in addition to the preferential runway use in place, a change in the fleet mix (to quieter aircraft) also accounts for some of the reduction in the noise contours. Additionally, it was noted that a good example of an administrative measure that is currently included in ANC s Noise Compatibility program is how the airport has implemented the preferential runway use program this was an effective administration measure. Question: When the aircraft are departing north from the runway, do they always turn and go south? Answer: Most of the time the aircraft will depart heading north and will take a left to turn south. Question: Does the analysis take into effect future changes in land use? Answer: We will consider adopted land use plans, but if the plans or changes are in the process of being adopted, we do not. But we do consider existing and (officially) planned land use. Question: Is there anything in the materials that quantifies noise at Lake Hood separately from the main airport? Answer: We have not broken out Lake Hood from ANC. We have combined them into one noise contour. If you look at the contours, you can generally see the influences from Lake Hood, but we have not run separate contours (except for single events). Question: On the noise contour maps, there are estimates of residences/acres affected, but the maps do not seem like they are drawn lot by lot they are more generalized. Answer: We used 2010 Census track/block information and overlaid them in GIS to determine the number of residences/people in those contours. If sound insulation of homes within the 65 DNL and greater contours is a recommendation of the Part 150 Study, we will look at an aerial to determine the number of homes and each individual address to determine the eligibility boundary. The eligibility boundary may extend to a physical boundary (to include a full block for example), but this will be determined during the development of the Noise Compatibility Plan (NCP). Question: There is a Site #8 that is not listed in the table, and there are no noise monitoring sites north of this. How can we account for noise up there? Is there a monitoring site in Northern Lights? Answer: FAR Part 150 does not actually require the study to include these types of measurements. However, we use these measurements as a reality check on the model - to ensure the model is accurately predicting the noise of an aircraft. These measurements are taken over a short period of time and are also useful for telling us information that we cannot necessarily glean from the model (ambient noise, etc.). What we measured helps confirm the model and give us additional information about ambient noise and flight tracks. The sites were chosen based on the noise engineers judgment and people who volunteered their houses, and represent of areas near the airport (primarily those under flight tracks).

64 There are two different types of sites. The first set of sites is the airport s permanent sites. The second set of sites is those we used for noise monitoring as part of this Study. Site 8 of the Part 150 Study sites was determined to be too close to Site 10 to provide separate data from the Part 150 Study monitoring. The monitor was therefore left at Site 10 for an extended period of time. The site mentioned in the meeting on page C.32 is Site 8 of the permanent noise monitoring sites. No. There is no monitoring site north of Northern Lights. However, as stated above, the noise monitoring helps confirm the model, but is not required as part of the Part 150 Study. Therefore, a site north of Northern Lights is not necessary to ensure that the noise predicted in the model around those areas is correct. Question: One member mentioned that he hasn t received an answer to his questions that he submitted in writing. Answer: Comments and questions posed in meetings and in other forums are included in the meeting notes and the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that are posted online. Question: One member questioned the contours based on the SELs shown for the Beaver, stating that if the Beaver was used as one of the noisier aircraft, then the assumptions in the model might not be correct. Cessna 185 aircraft are extremely loud. To be using aircraft other than these aircraft isn t representative and doesn t account for noise. At Lake Hood, the departing airplanes do not necessarily gain elevation as quickly. They are lower over the whole area. The member also noted that flights departing Lake Hood turn to the north so the flight track shown for the Beaver may not be representative of Lake Hood departures. They want an example of how we got the readouts. Regarding helicopters, the committee member says that one helicopter path along Raspberry Road is not included in the analysis. Answer: The SELs that we showed are only examples as to what aircraft noise levels can be (for several representative aircraft). They were not meant to represent all aircraft. The Beaver was chosen because it is generally an aircraft that produces noise complaints across the country. It is just representative of single event levels. The DNL contours include all operations based on type and time of day. For example there are 15 different models of propeller planes used in the fleet mix at ANC. For single event data, we showed only two specific examples, but all the other types of aircraft are included in the DNL. Additionally, noise power distance curves, thrust, tip speed, and performance data are included in the model we do not adjust those. Many aircraft types are included in the model, but not every aircraft type is in the model (this is especially true for seaplanes). However, the aircraft included in the model are representative of most aircraft. When a specific aircraft is not in the model, there is a substitute aircraft to use. These substitutions are conservative, meaning that the substitute aircraft is generally noisier. The flight tracks mentioned will be examined to see if any need to be added. Question: The model doesn t seem representative of seaplanes (where the noise of the tip speed of the propeller is louder).

65 Answer: As stated above, many aircraft types are included in the model, but not every aircraft type is in the model (this is especially true for seaplanes). However, the aircraft included in the model are representative of most aircraft. When a specific aircraft is not in the model, there is a substitute aircraft to use. These substitutions are conservative, meaning that the substitute aircraft is generally noisier. There are two seaplanes included in the model. We used those to represent our seaplane fleet. The INM model is not perfect, but it is a reasonable representation as to how the aircraft operate. Question: It was mentioned that the 787 wasn t listed in the types of aircraft is that comparable to the MD11? Answer: Because FAA has not published the level or noise data of the 787, we use the triple sevens to represent this model. Also, we cannot model newer planes (that have not been measured) in the 2020 and 2030 maps. We assume they will be quieter, but they have not been measured to know exactly how much quieter they will be. Therefore, we can only use existing fleet, but because the existing fleet tends to be louder than the newer aircraft, using the existing fleet is a conservative assumption. Question: What happens if they move 20 F16s here? Answer: It will be included as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Air Force s proposed move of the F-16 s to Joint Base Elmendorf and Richardson. It will be the equivalent of five large aircraft in the morning, and five in the afternoon. They will be measurable and incremental, but would not provide drastic change. Part 150 regulations say that if you have a significant change in operation numbers or aircraft types, you must look at the effects of this action. First, through qualitative analysis you must look at the environmental document and analyze the change. Secondly, if you think this will have an effect on the contour (1.5 DNL increase or 15% change) you must do the maps over again. However, this applies to aircraft operating at the Airport and the F16s would likely not operate at ANC. Comment: There is some confusion on the flight tracks (daily radar data) and INM flight tracks could you explain? Answer: The flight tracks in the report and in the presentation are actually INM tracks (the tracks put into the model) which are a little different from flight tracks for a single day (that were in the noise monitoring report). They are developed based on the regular flight tracks taken from radar data/monitoring. ESRI s ArcView Geographic Information System software was utilized for the detailed analysis of the radar data for the development of noise modeling tracks. The data was separated first by operation type (i.e., arrival, departure) and then by aircraft category (i.e., jet, propeller) and runway. Once the radar tracks were separated, INM primary tracks were developed to simulate the location of actual aircraft flight paths.

66 The INM sub-tracks were developed by creating 2 dispersed tracks to either side of a primary track. The result of the process was a series of INM model tracks that closely match the current radar data at ANC. But that does mean they are different (and look different) from the daily flight tracks we have shown folks earlier because they represent the primary and sub tracks that best match the majority of the flight tracks that were taken from radar data/monitoring. These INM tracks are the tracks that are actually input into the model.

67

68

69 February 12, 2013 STUDY INPUT COMMITTEE MEETING Purpose of Study. The Study identifies and evaluates two components: Aircraft noise and land use, both existing and future. The Study consists of two distinct, but complementary elements: Noise Exposure Maps and a Noise Compatibility Program. The Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) are accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Compatibility Program is approved by FAA. Agenda. Introduction Background on Noise (Chapter C) Summary of AIAS Forecasts (Chapter B) Supplemental Metrics Summary (Chapter D) Draft Existing and Future Noise Contours (Chapter D) Land Use/Population Analysis (Chapter E) Questions/Comments Study Process.

70 Forecasts Year Passenger Cargo 2009 Air Taxi and Other General Aviation Military Total ANC 91,092 65,014 2,280 35,685 4, ,456 LHD ,291 45,885-58,176 Combined 91,092 65,014 14,571 81,570 4, , ANC 101,540 95,812 2,793 39,863 2, ,275 LHD ,793 49,667-65,460 Combined 101,540 95,812 18,586 89,530 2, , ANC 111, ,714 2,036 47,713 2, ,942 LHD ,902 59,446-78,348 Combined 111, ,714 20, ,159 2, ,290 Single Event Metrics Lmax Highest noise event level reached during a noise event Aircraft noise rises above ambient noise, then decreases until sound levels settle to ambient levels SEL Good method to describe single noise events SEL combines Lmax and duration and is calculated when the sound is within 10 db of the maximum, and then normalized to a sound level that would have the same energy but with a duration of 1 second. Noise Metrics. Single Event Metrics Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) Sound Exposure Level (SEL) Cumulative Noise Metrics LEQ Noise Level LEQ is generally a 1 hour equivalent, but may be other such as 15 minute or 24 hour Cumulative Daily Noise Metrics DNL Noise Level Built from SEL and LEQ noise Single Event Metrics Flow DNL The 24 hour weighted average noise level on a day when flow is in one specific direction. It is a one day DNL, i.e., the DNL on a day with that flow direction. Time Above Minutes per day that noise level exceeds stated noise level (annual average). Number Above The number of times per day that the maximum noise level of a flyover exceeds a stated noise level, usually 70 dba (annual average).

71 Noise Metrics Cumulative Metrics LEQ Equivalent Noise Level Energy average taken from the sum of all sound that occurs during a certain period of time (generally one hour) Day Night Noise Level (DNL) Average noise experienced in a 24 hour day Nighttime operations (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) weighted by 10 db Metric used by FAA to identify land use compatibility DNL East Flow DNL West Flow

72 SEL 747/ 737 East Comparison Note: Percentages are the percent of time that aircraft are in that direction flow. Figure represent takeoff SEL and approach SEL and are shown together here for simplicity; technically 2 events are shown. SEL 747/737 South Comparison Note: Percentages are the percent of time that aircraft are in that direction flow. Figure represent takeoff SEL and approach SEL and are shown together here for simplicity; technically 2 events are shown. SEL 747/737 West Comparison Note: Percentages are the percent of time that aircraft are in that direction flow. Figure represent takeoff SEL and approach SEL and are shown together here for simplicity; technically 2 events are shown. SEL Beaver East Note: Percentages are the percent of time that aircraft are in that direction flow. Figure represent takeoff SEL and approach SEL and are shown together here for simplicity; technically 2 events are shown.

73 Time Above 65 dba in Minutes Number Above 70 dba Ground Run Up Lmax Supplemental Metrics Summary The existing preferential use program is most effective noise control program used currently at ANC When winds, airfield maintenance, or traffic require that non-preferential runway flow is used, noise levels in the community are increased significantly compared to normal use Summer Lake Hood operations increase number of flyover events and noise levels compared to winter operations and annual averages

74 INM Fixed Wing Departure ANC INM Fixed Wing Arrival ANC INM Fixed Wing Departure LHD INM Fixed Wing Arrival LHD

75 INM Helicopter (Departure/Arrival) 2009 Draft Noise Contours 2020 Draft Noise Contours 2030 Draft Noise Contours

76 Existing Land Use Land Use 60 DNL 65 DNL 70 DNL 75 DNL Residential Acres Persons Housing Units Schools Religious Facilities Historic Properties Vacant Commercial Industrial Institutional Open Space/Park On Airport Off Airport Transportation 2, , , Other/ROW 6, , Total Land Use Acres 10, , , Land Use (For Info Only) Land Use 60 DNL 65 DNL 70 DNL 75 DNL Residential Acres Persons 1, Housing Units Schools Religious Facilities Historic Properties Vacant Commercial Industrial Institutional Open Space/Park On Airport Off Airport Transportation 3, , , Other/ROW 11, , Total Land Use Acres 15, , , ,063.1 Future Land Use Land Use 60 DNL 65 DNL 70 DNL 75 DNL Residential Acres Persons Housing Units Schools Religious Facilities Historic Properties Vacant Commercial Industrial Institutional Open Space/Park On Airport Off Airport Transportation , , Other/ROW 8, , Total Land Use Acres 12, , , Next Steps Alternatives Development Alternatives Analysis Public Input on Alternatives Development of Recommendations

77 Comments and Additional Information. Mr. Ryk Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK Phone Number FAX Number COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS THANK YOU!

78 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Study Input Committee Summary Notes June 4, :30 p.m. Airfield Maintenance Facility NAME AFFILIATION PRESENT Staff and Consultants John Parrott John Johansen Scott Lytle Katie Gage Teri Lindseth Tonia Winkler Mike Lee Ryk Dunkelberg Kate Andrus Vince Mestre Mike Webber Eva Welch ANC ANC ANC ANC ANC ANC ANC Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Landrum and Brown Webber Air Cargo AECOM Committee Members Merle Akers Bob Auth Mary Lee Jim Seeley Patricia Sullivan Breck Tostevin Thede Tobish Susan Hoshaw Turnagain Community Council Spenard Community Council Citizen Representative LHD Pilot Association FAA Airports Division Turnagain Community Council MOA Representative Other Evan Pfahler Katherine Wood Pat Oien

79 Summary Notes Mr. Dunkelberg began the fifth meeting of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Input Committee by presenting the meeting agenda as follows: Introduction Updates to Draft Contours based on comments Updated Draft Land Use based on new contours Background to Measures Analysis of Measures - Policies Brainstorming Session on Measures Questions/Comments Introductions Mr. Dunkelberg welcomed the committee back and gave a brief overview of the agenda for this meeting. He then updated the committee on the steps of the Part 150 Study process. Updates to Draft Contours Mr. Dunkelberg then turned the presentation over to Mr. Mestre to explain the changes to the noise contours. The noise contours were updated based on comments received from committee members on flight tracks and some of the types of unique aircraft that operate at Lake Hood Seaplane Base. Updates to Land Use Compatibility Calculations Mr. Dunkelberg then described the changes in the land use calculations associated with the updated noise contours. As a result of the changes in the noise contours, there was an increase in the number of residences and people within the 65 DNL contour (the threshold for noncompatibility with that level of noise without sound attenuation). Background to Noise Measures Mr. Dunkelberg then gave a background on the goals and types of measures that need to be examined in a Part 150 Study, as well as any inherent limitations to these measures. Part 150 requires the airport evaluate alternatives that: Reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent or reduce the probability of the establishment of additional non-compatible uses;

80 Do not impose undue burden on interstate and foreign commerce; Provide for revision in accordance with the regulation. Are not unjustly discriminatory. Do not derogate safety or adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace. To the extent practicable, meet both local needs and needs of the national air transportation system, considering tradeoffs between economic benefits derived from the airport and the noise impact. Can be implemented in a manner consistent with all of the powers and duties of the Administrator of FAA. He then highlighted some questions for the committee to consider when thinking about potential measures. Questions to consider include: Does the measure shift noise without meaningful overall noise reduction? Does the measure affect safety? Does the measure reduce airport capacity? Can the FAA approve? Can the measure be implemented? Does the measure violate any existing statutes, rules or regulations? How effectively does the measure reduce noise impacts? Mr. Dunkelberg then described the types of measures that a Part 150 Study will look at. These include: Acquisition of Land and Interests (air rights, easements, and development rights) Noise Barriers and Acoustical Shielding Preferential Runway System Flight Procedures (Modifications of flight tracks) Use Restrictions Dueling Regulations Discussion Other actions based on FAA/Public Input He also described the importance of how alternatives will be examined and compared. The FAR Part 150 specifies the use of the 65 DNL noise contour as the threshold contour for land use compatibility. This means that residential land uses within the 65 DNL or greater noise contours are not compatible unless the residence has sound attenuation features. Each of the noise abatement alternatives will be evaluated by comparing land use impacts. The alternatives must improve the overall noise environment, not shift noise from one area to another and the programs that benefit a community without unduly adversely affecting another community and reducing the highest noise levels will be given highest priority. Additionally, the measures must be non-

81 discriminatory. Any alternatives that would require a Part 161 Study will not be recommendations because based on regulation, all other alternatives must be examined first. Brainstorming Session Mr. Dunkelberg then went around the room to each committee member and requested ideas for potential measures to examine in the Study or potential concerns with types of noise that could facilitate additional ideas for measures to reduce noise. The following list was generated during this discussion. Operational and Facility Measures - Airport infrastructure or airport facilities o Noise Barriers (sp. North Air Park), Previous ground use study looked at East Air Park Reserved area for potential berm Noise Barrier by dirt strip? o Generic planning on Airport (Hangar door placement etc.) - Airport and airspace use o Continue Pref. Runway Use o Flight tracks/turning point to the north o Flight tracks south over unpopulated areas away from Eagle River o Fanning/Dispersion? esp. LHD - Aircraft operations o Engine Run Up Reduction high priority for Turnagain o Reverse thrust Cutback issue for Sand Lake o APU use: Look at what we did in last study, and see if there are any alternatives for reduction - Noise program management o Look at voluntary enforcement/education o Complaint Management System o Pilot Education/Fly Quiet Program o LHD Specific pilot program/handout (currently everyone with a tie-down gets a pamphlet) Upkeep/enhancement of current program - Other o Examine existing measures, success, implementation or non-implementation of each measure in the previous NCP. Note that Breck Tostevin from Turnagain also submitted a list of alternatives. An additional meeting will be conducted on land use measures. Next Steps Mr. Dunkelberg explained the next steps, which include narrowing a group of alternatives to model. The next Study Input Committee Meeting will likely be in September, and topics discussed will include alternatives analysis.

82 The following questions and comments occurred during the meeting: Questions and Comments Question: There are several types of blades used for the 206 and all at LHD are three bladed. Additionally, almost all float planes use full power to get up. Answer: There are many different types of aircraft. We are somewhat limited in terms of the types of seaplane aircraft that are in the Integrated Noise Model (INM). However, because in general, the 206 tends to be a louder aircraft under many operating conditions compared to the other aircraft types modeled before, we believe that the changes we made to the fleet mix represent a conservative approach for the noise for these types of aircraft. Question: Why is the contour not extending to the north if you added flight tracks to the north? Answer: It is important to remember that the contours are based on the Integrated Noise Model, which calculated an annual average noise (DNL) based on many different inputs, including flight tracks, operations, time of day, fleet mix etc. Because it is an annual average, there is a difference between the sound you hear (a single event level i.e. when an aircraft flies over) and the annual average contours. Therefore, a change in some flight tracks for a portion of aircraft might not have a substantial change in the contour. In this case, you can see a change in the DNL in the 60 DNL contour where the aircraft turn to the north off of Lake Hood, there is a slight bubble in the contour. Comment: On Memorial Day weekend, it was way higher than 65. Answer: While the sound you hear may be higher than 65 dba, that corresponds to a single event level. The DNL contours are an annual average. So while you will hear levels higher than 65 dba, the 65 DNL (annual average) is the contour which defines the threshold of noncompatibility for Part 150 Noise Studies. Comment: There are more flights heading north than to the east? Questioned the methods used for creating the contours. Answer: Radar data was examined for the flight tracks and was further examined after comments were received that there were additional flight tracks turning north. Adjustments have been made based on these comments and additional research. While the data will never be perfect due to a multitude of variables, the data we have supports the latest contours and is a reasonable representation of the noise following the methods for modeling in the Integrated Noise Model (as required for use in this Part 150 Noise Study). Question: Why did we not monitor for noise? You can t know what the noise is unless you have monitors out there.

83 Answer: Noise measurements were taken for a period of time during both winter and summer. These measurements are used to validate the FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM). Measurements are taken of the actual noise levels an aircraft makes at a particular airport under particular conditions to compare them to predicted noise levels from the FAA INM using the exact same conditions. Although not required for a Part 150 Noise Study, these actual measurements increase confidence in the Study results and account for special conditions at particular airports. Noise measurements were taken during two seasons, summer and winter at 30 different sites. Noise data from the Airport s permanent noise monitors were taken for the base case year of The data from these monitors support the contours as they stand now. Question: What are the 2030 numbers based off of? Answer: The forecast operation numbers for both 2020 and 2030 were based off of the Alaska International Airport System Forecasts. Question: Will we get these updated land use tables? Answer: Yes, we just completed the updated analysis. A draft replacement land use chapter will be handed out at the next meeting. Question: Why is the Preferential Runway Use allowed? Answer: The Preferential Runway Use is allowed through an agreement between the Airport and the tower. Ultimately, it is a voluntary measure, which is implemented by the tower as long as the safe and efficient use of the Airport is not compromised. Question: The Airport Master Plan is looking at getting rid of the Preferential Runway Use System? How can that be providing compatible land use? Answer: This is where the regulatory provisions come into play. While measures in a Part 150 should not increase non-compatible land uses, measures also cannot affect capacity at the Airport. So while the Preferential Runway Use system does not affect capacity, it can be implemented to the extent possible. However, the Master Plan is looking at ways to meet capacity in the future and balance the runway use with the capacity, and one of these ways might include the reduced use of the Preferential Runway Use System during daylight hours. Question: So the residents would pay all the costs of this trade off? Answer: Yes. Because the Preferential Runway Use is technically voluntary and contingent upon the safe and efficient operation of the Airport, if capacity is affected, there could be a reduction in the Preferential Runway Use. Question: Can a noise management/monitoring program have an enforcement part?

84 Answer: These types of measures are voluntary, since most use restrictions generally cannot be put into place. Therefore, it is difficult to have a method to enforce it because you cannot put any official restriction on it (and cannot punish those who do not meet a voluntary program, because it is voluntary). Question: How will ground noise be accounted for? Answer: Ground noise (ground run-ups will be examined in terms of Lmax (single event noise). Specifically in terms of ground run-ups, since they are stationary sources when a noise event occurs, a single event level can be more descriptive than a DNL. It is important to remember that other ground noise on the Airport (such as snow removal trucks etc.) will not be considered in this study, because the study is specific to aircraft operations. Question: Do all these potential mitigation measures apply to LHD? Answer: All these measures can be considered for LHD. Depending on specific conditions, not all measures might be applicable due to various reasons, but they are all available for consideration. Question: In terms of cost benefit analysis though, some of these measures might not be as applicable to LHD because GA would not meet a cost benefit analysis? Answer: Measures involving a Part 161 Study that looks at cost benefits relative to restrictions will not be part of this study because all other measures need to be considered first. Because of this, there is no cost-benefit analysis relative to this study. The only real economic portion of this study includes a generalized cost estimate for noise reduction measures. All the measures can be considered for LHD (not requiring a Part 161 Study). These measures could be eligible for federal funding and would not need to meet a cost/benefit analysis to be eligible, but would need to meet other Part 150 requirements (decreasing noise, not being unjustly discriminatory, etc.). Question: So you cannot restrict operations at Lake Hood even though they are mostly recreational? Answer: Correct. It is a public use airport so even a recreational user has a right to use the Airport, and restricting that use would be unjustly discriminatory. Additionally, LHD (and all public use airports that receive FAA funding) are operating under certain Grant Assurances, which means that they must follow certain rules of public use airports because they have accepted grants from the FAA. One of these rules involves being available for public use. In that way, ANC and LHD are no different. Question: What is the general cost of a Ground Run-Up Enclosure? Answer: It depends on several factors, including where it is sited and if additional pavement (taxiways or other) is required for its construction. Generally, for the size required for a 747 aircraft, it could cost between $3-6 Million.

85 Question: Does the siting of the Ground Run-Up Enclosure need to be coordinated with the Master Plan? There is not currently a site on the Master Plan for a GRE. Answer: We are coordinating with the Master Plan team on this. They are currently doing a layout for all the primary facilities, and a GRE would be considered a secondary facility. If a GRE ends up being a recommendation of the Part 150 Study, we would work with the Master Plan to coordinate potential locations. Prior to building a GRE, a full site selection study would likely be needed to determine the best location in terms of noise, operations, and airspace issues. Question: Who covers the cost of the GRE? Answer: Recommendations approved in the Noise Compatibility Study are eligible for federal funding. Question: Is it a given that a GRE would be a recommendation? Answer: No. Currently, we are in the first phase of looking at alternatives. The final recommendations will be based on coordination ad comments in the next several months. All recommendation in the Noise Compatibility Program will also have to be approved by the FAA prior to them being eligible for federal funding. Question: Is it typical for an airport to have just one? Answer: Yes. Even airports that are larger than ANC have just one GRE. Comment: It would be helpful to go over the list of recommendations from the last Part 150 to see what was done last time, what was implemented, what has not been implemented, etc. Answer: Noted. This list is included in the updated Inventory chapter, but can be updated with more detailed information and the most current information and sent out to everyone. Question: Are noise barriers an option? Answer: Yes, they are an option, but generally, they are not very effective because they either need to be very close to the source, or very close to the receiver, and it can be difficult for folks to agree to location. Question: Can land be set aside on the Airport as a buffer? Answer: Not really. The airport property is set aside for aviation uses, and barring setting land aside for other noise mitigation uses (such as a GRE or other type of noise barrier), it is not generally feasible.

86 Comment: Even though certain measures may not provide a big difference in noise, several measures together can create a cumulative effect.

87

88

89

90 Industrial Institutional Open Space/Park On Airport Off Airport Transportation Other/ROW Total Land Use Acres Industrial Institutional Open Space/Park On Airport Off Airport Transportation Other/ROW Total Land Use Acres 75 DNL , , , DNL , , , ,067.1 Industrial Institutional Open Space/Park On Airport Off Airport Transportation Other/ROW Total Land Use Acres 75 DNL , , ,

91

92

93

94

95 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Study Input Committee Summary Notes August 20, :30 p.m. Airfield Maintenance Facility NAME AFFILIATION PRESENT Staff and Consultants John Parrott John Johansen Scott Lytle Katie Gage Teri Lindseth Ryk Dunkelberg Kate Andrus Rachel Jones Vince Mestre ANC ANC ANC ANC ANC Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Landrum and Brown Committee Members Merle Akers Bob Auth Mary Lee Jim Seeley Patricia Sullivan Brenda Brown Breck Tostevin Thede Tobish Susan Hoshaw Cathy Hammond David Chilson Turnagain Community Council Spenard Community Council Citizen Representative LHD Pilot Association FAA Airports Division FAA Turnagain Community Council MOA Representative Citizen Representative FAA Other Katherine Wood Jerry Shin Cathy Gleason

96 Summary Notes Mr. Dunkelberg began the sixth meeting of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Input Committee by presenting the meeting agenda as follows: Introduction Committee Discussion of Potential Alternatives for Part 150 Study Update Introduction Mr. Dunkelberg welcomed the committee back and gave a brief overview of the agenda for this meeting. He then identified the next steps for the Part 150 Study Update process. This meeting was discussion-oriented and evaluated a list of proposed alternatives that was received verbally and in writing from committee members during and subsequent to the previous meeting. Next Steps Mr. Dunkelberg explained the next steps, which include narrowing a group of alternatives to model. The next Study Input Committee Meeting will likely be in the fall, and it will include a presentation of preliminary alternatives modeling. The following questions and comments occurred during the meeting: Questions and Comments on Potential Alternatives Question: What is ground noise and what is its role in the Part 150? Answer: Ground noise is a distinct type of noise that is separate from noise generated from aircraft overflight during takeoff and landing. Ground noise is generated from aircraft maintenance run-up procedures and other operation of aircraft taking place on the ground such as taxiing or use of Auxiliary Power Units (APUs). This study will consider and analyze ground noise, but with a focus on noise situations that can be modeled, such as the Ground Run-Up Enclosure. Remember, ground noise from aircraft is separate from noise generated by nonaircraft sources such as snow removal equipment. These non-aircraft sources will not be analyzed in the Part 150 Study Update. --- Question: Can ground noise and the effects of placement of noise barriers, berms, and acoustical shielding be modeled?

97 Answer: Yes, it can. We can look at what sites could be evaluated that may provide some noise benefit. Comment: Other sites in addition to the gravel strip location should be considered, for example, North Airpark, South Airpark, and the development of the Air National Guard. Noise barriers placed very close to residences behind their backyards are not something that Turnagain desires for aesthetic and quality of life reasons. Rather, Turnagain would prefer that barriers are placed close to the noise source. Comment: Wide-bodied aircraft with engines that are placed high on the aircraft (i.e., the aircraft type with the highest-located engines in the fleet mix) should be used for modeling purposes because any noise barriers need to be tall enough to block the noise from their engines. Question: What other factors affect ground noise modeling and barrier specifications? Answer: Topography of the land between the noise source and the impact location of interest can have an impact on how tall noise barriers need to be. Comment: The land between Turnagain neighborhood and the sources of ground noise at the airport is very flat, so this topography does not provide any added benefit or serious detriment for noise reduction purposes that might allow for a lower barrier. --- Comment: For maintenance run-up noise, a Ground Run-Up Enclosure (GRE) is likely the ideal noise-reduction choice because it would likely provide the most benefit to the most people. --- Comment: A brief discussion of hangar-related noise. Most noise generated in and around hangars will occur outside of the hangars, so insulation of hangars for noise and placement of hangars has limited benefits. Comment: Placement of hangars with regards to noise reduction is already considered by the airport during planning of new facilities. --- Comment: There is some dispute over the assertion that the presence of natural vegetation has little noise reduction impact. The cumulative noise-reducing impact of several smaller measures is still important. Response: Natural vegetation does very little to reduce noise exposure and noise reduction alternatives are not approved for funding by the FAA based on their cumulative effect in combination with other measures, but on their individual merit.

98 Comment: Even measures that are not approved or funded by the FAA can have a positive impact on noise reduction. Preservation of existing vegetation and planting of new vegetation would both be desirable. Comment: The Ground Run-Up Enclosure (GRE) only solves the problem of noise generated by run-up procedures. It is an effective solution for that reason and also because construction of GREs receives federal funding. --- Comment: Placement of hangar doors and orientation of hangars is a somewhat complex issue. Tenants often have specific preferences for this due to the effects of wind and snow accumulation in front of the doors. It is not possible to require tenants to follow rules on door placement and orientation because that constitutes discrimination against them. Other extenuating circumstances such as permitting and coordination with the orientation of adjacent hangars determine hangar door placement and orientation, as well. So while the Airport can make recommendations, they cannot require that the tenants orient the hangars in a specific way. --- Comment: The changed preferential runway use that may result from potential Master Plan recommendations will be modeled for this study. Question: Will preferential runway use for Lake Hood Seaplane Base be modeled? Answer: It is important to note that for the Part 150 Study, recommendations resulting in the shifting of noise from one place to another will not be considered because that is inconsistent with the goal of the study, which is to reduce the number of people who are affected by noise. We will look at whether a preferential runway use for Lake Hood Seaplane Base might have some noise benefit. Comment: Modeling the reduction in the use of reduced thrust (voluntary) could potentially reduce ground noise near the south residential areas. Comment: Reduction of Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) use might be helpful for noise reduction. Response: The Airport already has 400 Hz on cargo and all jet bridges on Concourse C (as an implemented recommendation of the Ground Noise Study). It is used fairly frequently. The only thing they don t have is preconditioned air, which during certain temperature ranges might require the use of the APU for heating/cooling. Comment: Recommend the continuation of measures implemented in the ground noise study to continue after this Part 150 Update. ---

99 Question: Although DNL noise is not being studied with regards to the Eagle River area because Eagle River is outside the 65 DNL noise contour, will Single Event Level (SEL) noise still be studied for Eagle River? Answer: No. The 65 DNL contour is what the FAA uses to measure effects. Approval is based on the DNL analysis. The Single Event Levels produced for this study are considered for informational purposes only. Question: Will temperature and elevation be considered in noise modeling? These could be causing flyover noise at Eagle River to be higher than might otherwise be calculated. Answer: Temperature and elevation are both taken into consideration already in the noise model. These are inputs into the model. Separately, the noise monitoring stations record the actual sound level, just as a human ear would. The sound level that is recorded is based on the existing temperature and elevation conditions and are used to validate the model. We have found that the model very closely matches what we recorded during noise monitoring. Another factor that may cause noise events in Eagle River to seem louder than they actually are is the quietness and rural nature of the area. Question: Does FAA distinguish between noise generated in urban areas and noise generated in rural areas? Answer: No. Question: Is duration of noise events accounted for in the model? Answer: Yes. Comment: Assertion that the model/policy is not properly addressing the noise issues that residents of Eagle River are experiencing. Some readings of aircraft flyovers have been taken by residents of Eagle River that are very high, and should justify consideration in this study. Answer: The metric used by the FAA for the Part 150 Study is a matter of policy, and changes in that policy are really outside the scope of this project. Question: Could the noise situation in Eagle River be included as an Appendix in the Part 150 Study? Answer: No. Because Eagle River is outside of the 65 DNL contour, the noise there is an air traffic/air space issue rather than an airport issue. The Part 150 Study Update will focus on those alternatives that would reduce the total number of people who are affected by noise. ---

100 Comment: The modeling of close-in departures was requested. --- Question: What is the definition of a non-compatible land use? Answer: A non-compatible land use is defined by the federal government based on certain kinds of noise-sensitive land uses that are present within the 65 DNL or greater noise contour. The Part 150 Noise Study uses the 65 DNL and greater contour to represent non-compatible land uses and determine eligibility for federal funds for noise mitigation. Any noise sensitive uses (such as residences, transient lodgings, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, auditoriums, concert halls, and outdoor music shells and amphitheaters) within the 65 Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) and greater contour are considered to be non-compatible with aircraft noise. Therefore, noise sensitive uses within this contour could be eligible for federal funding for noise mitigation measures. These measures and potential eligibility will be analyzed in the Part 150 Study Update. --- Question: Does the Airport keep track of the time of day of the run-up operations? Answer: Yes, but only between the hours of 10 PM and 6 AM, when approval must be granted for operations taking place during that time frame. Generally, run-ups during that time frame are approved for aircraft with early morning flight times. Comment: It seems as though these overnight run-ups are always approved even if the run-ups could reasonably be done after 6 AM. Response: That is the case. As with other types of aircraft operations, an Airport cannot restrict a ground-run up because it would be discriminatory. Additionally, it is important to note that most run-ups do take place at night because that is generally the only time when the aircraft is not needed for revenue generation. --- Comment: Historical data on which measures recommended in previous studies have been implemented is important and should not be discounted. Continuing effort should be made to track implementation and success of those measures. Response: It is often difficult to track success of implemented measures, but implementation of previous measures will be included in the Part 150 Study where information is available. Question: What can be done regarding consideration of alternatives to the construction of a Ground Run-Up Enclosure (GRE)?

101 Response: Preferred placement location(s) for a ground run-up pad can be examined. Run-up pads can be strategically located so as to reduce noise, and can be recommended in the Part 150 Study. Comment: Please recommend two alternative locations for a ground run-up pad because for certain reasons, one of the locations may not be usable at a given time. Response: The recommendations made in the Ground Noise Study already caused the run-up pad to be thoughtfully-placed. Comment: The GRE could be located nearer to noise-sensitive land uses because it is meant to contain noise; however, the two run-up pad locations would need to be located farther away because they do not contain the noise. --- Comment: There is a lack of operational rules for plane and helicopter traffic patterns at Lake Hood Sea Plane Base. Response: The ceiling dictates that the Air Traffic holds responsibility for establishing the patterns, therefore a change in the pattern ceiling would not affect the 65 DNL in any substantial way and would not be considered as a recommendation for the Part 150 Study Update. Comment: From a pilot s perspective, most planes leaving Lake Hood climb as high as quickly as possible, so even if you changed something on the pattern altitude, it probably would not change the noise much. Comment: Helicopter traffic patterns are currently being studied at Lake Hood Sea Plane Base. --- Comment: Pilot education is one of the best ways to create change. A committee process for pilot education involving various stakeholders would be ideal. Comments: Widespread agreement on the creation of a committee process for pilot education. --- Question: Why is evaluation of grants and other funding sources outside the scope of this project? Isn t that a crucial element?

102 Answer: The evaluation of funding is not a part of this Part 150 Study Update. Question: Could funding sources be recommended by the consultants based on their expertise? Answer: The identification of any grants and other funding sources that the consultants are aware of based on their expertise can be included in the Part 150 Study Update. But none are known of as of this time. --- Comment: FAA has never said in writing that restricting aircraft based on noise is in violation of grant assurances. I would bet that the airport has nothing in writing from FAA that says this. Response: Weight restrictions for aircraft cannot be used if noise reduction is the justification for the restriction because it is considered discriminatory toward aircraft operators. Aircraft weight, can, however, be restricted based on pavement strength, but this is a safety issue, not a noise issue.

103

104

105 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport FAR Part 150 Study Alternatives for Discussion Introduction: During the last Study Input Committee meeting, we discussed potential alternatives that could be examined as part of the Part 150 Study. We compiled all suggestions submitted during and subsequent to that meeting into the following list. We compiled the list into a discussion outline, pairing each suggested alternatives with some talking points about the considerations for each alternative based on the existing noise conditions/environment at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport and Lake Hood Seaplane Base. Please review the following. We would like to discuss each of these at our next meeting and get the Study Input Committee s input on these alternatives. Airport infrastructure or airport facilities o o o Proposed Alternative: Evaluate placement of noise barriers, berms and acoustical shielding (jet blast barriers, deflectors) at run-up locations, on the east side of North Airpark development, and East Airpark at end of E-W International Runway. Evaluate use of landscaping and berms that act as noise barriers as suggested by the National Business Aviation Association. Background Information/Talking Points: Generally noise walls/berms are only beneficial if they are very close to the source, or very close to the residences. Looking at the areas that might fit these criteria, the only place that might have a noise reduction benefit would involve evaluating a noise wall on the east side of the gravel strip where residences are close to the noise source. Additionally, large hangars could be a barrier (as noted in a separate proposed alternative below). However, again, hangars must be very close to the runway or close to the houses to reduce noise impact. Any potential berms, shields or hangars would only be effective for ground noise mitigation, not to lessen airborne aircraft noise over neighborhoods. Proposed Alternative: Construct Ground Run Up Enclosure. Background Information/Talking Points: A GRE can potentially reduce noise exposure where there is a lot of run-up noise. This can be evaluated (preliminary alternative has already been shown for changes in Lmax). However, cost for a GRE is relatively high ($3-4 million). Proposed Alternative: Evaluate compliance with existing onsite mitigation operations (measures already in place to help reduce noise) to determine whether other alternatives need to be looked at including building sound barriers and sound proof hangars. Background Information/Talking Points: Sound proofing hangars does not do much to mitigate neighborhood noise since operations are primarily conducted outside. However, the Airport planning staff currently examines building placement in terms of location and orientation with respect to potential noise concerns. 1

106 o Proposed Alternative: Preservation of natural vegetation and land contours (Turnagain Bog uplands, Connors Bog, DeLong Lake area lands, treed areas near /at northern end of North Airpark) as noise barriers and noise mitigation (an aviation/aeronautical use). Background Information/Talking Points: Natural vegetation does very little to reduce noise exposure. The Airport needs to be able to operate safely and efficiently as their primary objective, but where grading is required for development of aviation uses, structures should be used where feasible to serve as noise barriers. o Proposed Alternative: Generic planning on Airport (Hangar door placement etc.) Background Information/Talking Points: In hangar placement, the Airport planning staff examine hangar location and orientation. A Part 150 Study can recommend that placement of facilities can be examined with respect to noise. Airport and airspace use - Aircraft operations o o Proposed Alternative: Continue Pref. Runway Use (Master Plan Considerations) Background Information/Talking Points: The Preferential Runway Use provides a large noise benefit. Because the Master Plan is examining potential capacity issues at the Airport, one alternative that they are examining for the future is the reduction in the use of the Preferential Runway Use system for certain hours during the day. Since the future noise contours need to take into account any future airfield changes, this reduction in the use of the preferential runway use system needs to be modeled to make sure the 150 Study looks at the future alternative scenarios. If the alternative is chosen as preferred in the Master Plan for the future, then it would need to be included in the 2020 base case contour and be used to evaluate the effectiveness of all noise mitigation alternatives examined in this Part 150 Study. It will likely be modeled as part of this Study in the interim to help with planning efforts. Proposed Alternative: ANC and LHD Flight tracks/turning point to the north (i.e. the turning point of aircraft heading north should examined to see if any noise reduction can be realized) Background Information/Talking Points: The flight tracks at Lake Hood Seaplane Base generally already fan out and disperse over the residential areas to the north. The turning points tend to also fan out, and disperse the noise. Since the turning areas to the north are all over residential areas, it would not work to change the turning point without affecting another residential area. Moving the noise (or concentrating noise) to another non-compatible area would not meet the purpose of this Study. The flight tracks for ANC are already concentrated over the primary compatible land use within the area (i.e. the water), as dictated by the ATCT. The turning point of aircraft is generally at higher elevations, and is over compatible land uses and would therefore not alter the 65 DNL contour. 2

107 o o o o Proposed Alternative: Flight tracks currently headed over Eagle River should turn south over unpopulated areas away from Eagle River Background Information/Talking Points: The flight tracks currently heading over Eagle River are at a high elevation and changes at this elevation would not affect the 65 DNL. Proposed Alternative: Fanning/Dispersion of flight tracks esp. LHD Background Information/Talking Points: LHD operations already fan fairly widely, dispersing the noise over the non-compatible land uses. The summer flight track maps depict what we call a Bowl of Spaghetti. Therefore, dispersal at LHD is already occurring and would not be an effective noise alternative. Proposed Alternative: Evaluate close in departure (a departure developed to benefit noisesensitive areas close to the Airport, involving reducing power after initial takeoff at 500 ft. until reaching 1,000 ft.) as an option to mitigate noise for the TSAIA N/S Runway. Departure procedures taking off to the North at TSAIA should be evaluated to limit noise to Turnagain neighborhoods. Departure thrust cutback and departure climb profiles in conjunction with flight tracks should be evaluated for take offs to the north. Background Information/Talking Points: There could be a small benefit from either a close in or distant procedure, but it would need to be examined further to know if any benefit could be realized for Anchorage, and which one would be more advantageous to model. It is also important to know that this is a voluntary action. Proposed Alternative: Study the feasibility of implementing and monitoring Airport Noise Abatement Flight Corridors (a corridor that concentrates flights over compatible land uses) Background Information/Talking Points: A noise abatement flight corridor is a defined flight track where pilots are requested to fly to contain noise. The purpose of the measure is to concentrate flight tracks over areas of compatible land uses. This is already achieved by the existing Preferential Runway Use System at the Airport. Additionally, monitoring systems and maintenance of such systems to track the use of such flight corridors can be expensive and time consuming, and do not actually help reduce the noise around the Airport. Because the Preferential Runway Use System already concentrates the noise over compatible land uses, this would not be a viable alternative. 3

108 o o o o Proposed Alternative: Study the feasibility of implementing Area Navigation (RNAV)/Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures; Study the feasibility of implementing Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) or Optimized Descent Profile (ODP) procedures Background Information/Talking Points: There is currently a study between air traffic and airlines to evaluate RNAV, RNP, and CDA as part of the national program for NextGen. If there are recommended procedures from that Study, then they could be incorporated into the noise modeling. However, based on their current schedule, we are unsure as to whether anything would be recommended during the timeframe of this study. The Part 150 Team is coordinating with the RNP Study Team (which is an FAA funded Study) to determine if any procedures should be modeled within the Part 150 Study. Proposed Alternative: Ongoing TSAIA Monitoring and Approval of Aircraft Ground Run-up Operations. Background Information/Talking Points: The airport currently has operation recommendations and approval of ground run ups (between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am). We can discuss the possibility of continuing the existing program and look at ways to improve the existing, such as recommending a more detailed log of run ups during the day. Discuss what could help improve the existing system. Proposed Alternative: Establish Run-up locations and TSAIA enforcement mechanisms. Moving run ups to west end of International s east/west runway. Evaluate taxiway run-ups and taxiway noise mitigation measures. Evaluate additional aircraft ground operations noise mitigation measures (such as APU use). Background Information/Talking Points: Reverse thrust and APU use could affect nearby residences, particularly in the Sand Lake area. These types of alternatives would also need to be examined from a safety standpoint; nothing would be implemented that could affect safety. Use of reverse thrust and any measures related to APU use would be voluntary measures. Proposed Alternative: Review Ground Noise mitigation measures considered in 2001 Ground Noise Study. Provide a table showing what 2001 Ground Noise Mitigations have been implemented and when. If mitigations have been implemented and then cancelled, the table should identify that as well and a date when cancelled and indicate whether compliance had the desired outcome or other information on why the mitigation measure was discontinued. Is there before and after data to indicate that the noise mitigation measure has reduced noise impacts and, if so, by how much? If measures have not been implemented, provide information as to why not. Evaluate for inclusion in this Part 150 Noise Study Update. 4

109 Background Information/Talking Points: The Ground Noise mitigation measures, and other Part 150 Study measures are included in the Inventory Chapter. The history of each individual alternative and why it was or was not implemented is unavailable due to the many factors involved including changing funding sources, changes in staff, etc. The available information on previous measures will be included in the inventory of the Study. Rather than focusing extensive time on the history of previous measures, since the Study is now being updated, the best possible alternatives will be evaluated within the context of current conditions and the focus of the Study will be placed on the best available future recommendations. o Proposed Alternative: Evaluate Lake Hood Sea plane base (LHD) water/ice lanes and Lake Hood Strip (Z41) traffic patterns. a. For the Lake Hood Sea Plane Base (LHD) establish and publish traffic boundaries and minimum pattern altitudes heights for fixed wing aircraft and helicopters flying a standard runway water/ice lane traffic pattern. Recommend the traffic patterns altitudes be similar to those at Merrill Field (MRI): for aircraft operating at 105 knots or less: 900 feet MSL; for aircraft operating at 105 knots or greater: 1200 feet MSL. For the Lake Hood Gravel Strip (Z41) establish, and publish traffic pattern boundaries and raise the minimum traffic pattern altitude heights for fixed wing aircraft and helicopters flying a standard runway traffic pattern, from its current unspecified measuring point of 600 feet to like those found at Merrill Field: for aircraft operating at 105 knots or less: 900 feet MSL; for aircraft operating at 105 knots or greater: 1200 feet MSL. For helicopters not flying the runway, water lanes/ Ski lane patterns for either Lake Hood Sea Plan Base (LHD) or the Lake Hood Grave Strip (Z41) publish helicopter ingress and egress routes and altitudes for operations in the LHD and Z41 controlled airspace. It is believed that the establishing of traffic pattern boundaries and setting the minimum altitude which aircraft in the traffic pattern operate at will lessen the noise impact on the private property adjoining the airport providing the Airport Staff and FAA Staff aggressively enforce the traffic pattern proposed changes. Evaluate Lake Hood traffic patterns and its impact on Lake Hood Strip pattern and noise impacts of those traffic patterns on neighborhoods in the traffic patterns. Stipulate a pattern altitude like Merrill Field. Background Information/Talking Points: Because many of these items cannot be regulated or enforced, the Part 150 Study can look at a recommendation to produce a pilot education brochure for the pilots at LHD. The pattern altitude is not something that the Airport can set and the 65 DNL contour is primarily affected by noise during take offs and landings. It is important to note that anything developed subsequent to the Study will be voluntary, not required. 5

110 Noise program management o o Proposed Alternative: Look at various forms of pilot education including: voluntary enforcement/education, Pilot Education/Fly Quiet Program, including an LHD specific pilot program, upkeep of current programs such as the continuation of the program of pilot handouts for people with tie downs at LHD, monitoring/promoting compliance for both air carriers and GA with an airport noise abatement procedure incentive program. Background Information/Talking Points: This type of alternative generally looks at types of Pilot education systems or Fly/Quiet Programs. It is important to recognize that compliance with the following programs is voluntary. Proposed Alternative: Public outreach about how to communicate with TSAIA re noise incidents. The public s expectation is that airport staff will be willing to work on noise issues and take seriously the community s desire for aggressive enforce of noise abatement measures. The airport staff has to be willing to identify pilots who continue to disregard fly friendly suggestion, talk to those so identified and, when appropriate, take away the offending pilot s parking space or lease. The airport staff should request that the FAA controllers not clear aircraft for takeoff that would cause the departing aircraft to fly over residential neighborhoods solely because a pilot requests to depart on a certain runway, or it is not convenient to assign a runway or water lane for takeoff because it would require issuance of an update to the airport s Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS). Background Information/Talking Points: The Airport currently has a noise complaint program. This alternative could include additional development of pilot education/flyquiet programs or other outreach programs to the public. However, while having an outreach program can help pilots to fly friendly, these programs are voluntary and the Airport has no power to restrict aircraft from operating at the Airport without being in violation of their Grant Assurances. Limiting aircraft (or penalizing them through parking or other measures) is discriminatory and not enforceable. o Proposed Alternative: Establish an Airport Noise Abatement Office/ Hire Qualified Noise Abatement Staff Background Information/Talking Points: The Airport currently has staff who respond to noise issues. A full time noise staff member can be expensive, and it is an alternative that does not actually help reduce the noise around the Airport. Therefore, for this alternative, as well as all management alternatives below, we would like to discuss the goals of the stakeholders with respect to these type of management alternatives to see how best to achieve those goals, to see how to best meet it, if possible. It is important to understand that there is a limited amount of funding. Alternatives that actually reduce noise, specifically those affected by the 65 DNL and louder contours, are generally given priority. A priorities discussion with stakeholders could help the Airport better understand the goals and priorities leading to better alternatives. 6

111 o Proposed Alternative: Develop a more responsive Airport Noise Complaint Management System/Hotline and or Maintain an Airport Noise Program Web Portal for Public Access to Airport Noise Information Background Information/Talking Points: The Airport currently has a noise complaint system and a noise information website. There are many different types of systems out there, some very intensive and expensive. Additionally, as with other management alternatives, it is an alternative that does not actually help reduce the noise around the Airport. Therefore, we would like to discuss the goals of the stakeholders with respect to these type of management alternatives to see how best to achieve those goals, to see how to best meet it, if possible. o o Proposed Alternative: Install an Aircraft Flight Tracking System/Airport Noise Monitoring System Background Information/Talking Points: The flight tracking system can be expensive, time consuming and difficult to maintain. There are many different types of systems out there, some very intensive and expensive. Additionally, as with other management alternatives, it is an alternative that does not actually help reduce the noise around the Airport. Therefore, we would like to discuss the goals of the stakeholders with respect to these type of management alternatives to see how best to achieve those goals, to see how to best meet it, if possible. Proposed Alternative: Establish/Fund/Support an Airport Noise Abatement Committee/Roundtable (includes all stakeholders) Background Information/Talking Points: This type of alternative can be done as a separate committee, or integrated within existing committees to keep people informed. Airport is currently active in reaching out to community councils surrounding and/or adjacent to the Airport and welcomes comments regarding all aspects of Airport Operations during those meetings. As with other management alternatives, it is an alternative that does not actually help reduce the noise around the Airport. Therefore, we would like to discuss the goals of the stakeholders with respect to these type of management alternatives to see how best to achieve those goals, to see how to best meet it, if possible. o Proposed Alternative: Report Airport Noise Exposure Information to the public (data, contour maps, complaint information, etc.) Background Information/Talking Points: The Airport currently has a noise information page on its website. As with other management alternatives, it is an alternative that does not actually help reduce the noise around the Airport. Therefore, we would like to discuss the goals of the stakeholders with respect to these type of management alternatives to see how best to achieve those goals, to see how to best meet it, if possible. 7

112 o o Proposed Alternative: Implement Stakeholder Outreach and Education/Publish an Airport Noise Abatement Newsletter. Background Information/Talking Points: The Airport currently has a noise information website and a method to provide complaints. As with other management alternatives, it is an alternative that does not actually help reduce the noise around the Airport. Therefore, we would like to discuss the goals of the stakeholders with respect to these type of management alternatives to see how best to achieve those goals, to see how to best meet it, if possible. Proposed Alternative: Define/Explain Airport Noise Exposure With Alternative Noise Metrics Background Information/Talking Points: While this Study uses alternative metrics to illustrate noise within the community, it is important to note that the Day Night Noise Level (DNL) is the FAA approved noise metric. It is this metric that the FAA must use to determine non-compatible land uses and potential eligibility for federal funding of noise mitigation alternatives. In order for the metrics to change, federal regulations must change, and would need to be done on the legislative level. Additionally, as with other management alternatives, it is an alternative that does not actually help reduce the noise around the Airport. Therefore, we would like to discuss the goals of the stakeholders with respect to these type of management alternatives to see how best to achieve those goals, to see how to best meet it, if possible. Other o o Proposed Alternative: Evaluate grants or other funding sources to which TSAIA could apply and would reduce noise. Background Information/Talking Points: Evaluating grants or other funding sources that the Airport could apply for is outside the scope of this project. Proposed Alternative: Examine existing measures, success, implementation or nonimplementation of each measure in the previous NCP. Noise Mitigation measures considered in the prior 1999 Part 150 Noise Study. In addition, please provide a table showing what 1999 Noise Mitigations have been implemented and when. If mitigations have been implemented and then cancelled, the table should identify that as well and a date when cancelled and indicate whether compliance had the desired outcome or other information on why the mitigation measure was discontinued. Is there before and after data to indicate that the noise mitigation measure has reduced noise impacts and, if so, by how much? If measures have not been implemented, provide information as to why not. Evaluate for inclusion in this Part 150 Noise Study Update. 8

113 Background Information/Talking Points: The previously approved Part 150 Study measures are included in the Inventory Chapter. The history of each individual alternative and why it was or was not implemented is unavailable due to the many factors involved including changing funding sources, changes in staff, etc. The available information on previous measures will be included in the inventory of the Study. Rather than focusing extensive time on the history of previous measures, since the Study is now being updated, the best possible alternatives will be evaluated within the context of current conditions and the focus of the Study will be placed on the best available future recommendations. o o Proposed Alternative: The weight restrictions for aircraft allowed to use the Lake Hood Strip (Z41) is published in the FAA Flight Information Publication Supplement for Alaska as being simply 9,000 lbs. In order to enforce this proviso would require installing a scale similar that used by the highways to measure truck weights. As no such scale exists at Z41, this provision, as written, is non-enforceable. The proper way to establish a weight restriction for a runway is to refer to an aircraft certified gross takeoff weight. In this case if the weight limitation should state, use of the runway is limited to 3 aircraft whose certified gross takeoff weight does not exceed 9000 lbs. The FAA requires the aircraft manufacturers to publish an aircraft s certified gross takeoff weight. Therefore, airport personnel can, by identifying the make and type of aircraft, determine from FAA publications the aircraft s certified gross takeoff weight. Background Information/Talking Points: The Airport has no power to restrict aircraft from operating at the Airport based on noise without being in violation of their Grant Assurances. Limiting aircraft based on noise is discriminatory and not enforceable. An Airport can limit aircraft if that operation can be shown to damage the airport infrastructure or be unsafe; however, enforcement of a weight restriction is an operational issue and is not within the parameters of a Part 150 Study. Proposed Alternative: As part of this process we would like to work to prioritize the mitigation measure in terms of timing and importance to the community so that financially feasible noise measures can be implemented in a mutually agreed upon timeframe (i.e. 1-3 years, 4-6 years, 7-10 years). We need to have further discussion before we can do that. Background Information/Talking Points: Once the list of recommended alternatives is set, the committee is free to voice preferences and prioritizations for alternatives. However, it is important to remember that these alternatives still must be approved by the FAA. Once approved, they are only eligible for federal funding, and there is no guarantee of funding or implementation. Not all alternatives necessarily can be implemented because it will be based on the availability of funding, as well as other factors. Priority of alternatives will be noted through the comments on the Study (from the Study Input Committee meetings and public comments/meetings), and to the extent possible will be taken into account as the Airport implements any of the alternatives in the final Noise Compatibility Program recommendations. 9

114 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Study Input Committee Summary Notes November 19, :30 p.m. Airfield Maintenance Facility NAME AFFILIATION PRESENT Staff and Consultants Trudy Wassel John Johansen Scott Lytle Katie Gage Teri Lindseth Mike Lee Ryk Dunkelberg Kate Andrus Rachel Jones Mary Vigilante Christian Valdes ANC ANC ANC ANC ANC ANC Barnard Dunkelberg & Company (Mead & Hunt) Barnard Dunkelberg & Company (Mead & Hunt) Barnard Dunkelberg & Company (Mead & Hunt) Synergy Consultants Landrum & Brown Committee Members Merle Akers Mary Lee Jim Seeley Bruce Greenwood Breck Tostevin Thede Tobish Cathy Hammond David Chilson Turnagain Community Council Citizen Representative LHD Pilot Association FAA Airports Division Turnagain Community Council MOA Citizen Representative FAA Other Cathy Gleason

115 Summary Notes Mr. Dunkelberg began the seventh meeting of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Input Committee by presenting the meeting agenda as follows: Introduction Presentation and Discussion of Potential Noise Abatement Alternatives for Part 150 Study Update Introduction Mr. Dunkelberg welcomed the committee back and gave a brief overview of the agenda for this meeting. He then identified the next steps for the Part 150 Study Update process. This meeting presented preliminary noise contours as well as a list of proposed recommended noise abatement alternatives developed based upon previous discussions and comments received from committee members. Presentation of Alternatives Analysis The Part 150 Team presented the results of the operational alternatives that were analyzed based on previous input from the committee. These alternatives included: Close In-Departure Procedure, Distant Departure Procedure, Noise Barriers, Ground Run-Up Enclosure, and Reduced Use of Reverse Thrust. Mr. Dunkelberg presented the Close-In and Distant Departure Procedures and Reduced Use of Reverse Thrust, Christian Valdes presented the Noise Barrier alternatives, and Kate Andrus presented the Ground Run-Up Enclosure alternative. Mr. Dunkelberg then addressed the results of two additional contour runs that were examined as part of separate ongoing studies, the Master Plan Update and a Study by the FAA looking at Required Navigational Performance (RNP) Procedures. The conditions examined under these two studies have a potential to change the noise exposure around the Airport, therefore, they were modeled in the Part 150 Study to determine their potential impact. Next Steps Mr. Dunkelberg explained the next steps, which include further refining the operational alternatives, as necessary, and starting on the analysis of potential land use alternatives, and facility change alternatives, and administrative alternatives. The next Study Input Committee Meeting will likely be in early 2014, and it will include a presentation of land use and administrative alternatives. The following questions and comments occurred during the meeting:

116 Questions and Comments on Noise Abatement Alternatives Close-In and Distant Departure Procedures Question: If these procedures look at changes outside of the 65 DNL, why are these included in the Study when you mentioned that the Study generally looks at the alternatives that only affect the 65 DNL (i.e., if these alternatives can be included in the Study, why can t other alternatives that affect areas outside the 65 DNL (such as the Eagle River area). Answer: These alternatives show the changes in the 60 DNL for informational purposes only. Because neither of these alternatives result in a substantial change in noise level within the 65 DNL noise contour, they would not be recommended as part of the Noise Compatibility Program. The 65 DNL is still the contour which the FAA looks at to determine whether an alternative would reduce noise, as the 65 DNL contour is the contour which is the federal threshold in a Part 150 Study for non-compatible land uses. Because Eagle River is well outside the 65 DNL, the alternatives that could reduce noise in those areas are under tower jurisdiction and would not be included as a recommendation in the Part 150 because it would not reduce noise within the federally defined threshold for non-compatible land uses. Question: Where would this alternative produce an increase/decrease in noise? It seems like it could increase noise over certain communities. Answer: The close-in and distant departure procedures have provided noise reduction at other airports. However, they would not provide as clear a benefit at ANC. This would be primarily due to the heterogeneous nature of the fleet mix at ANC, which causes the noise contours to not show the typical benefits from the procedures that are seen at other airports with more homogenous fleet mixes. This is why you see no substantial change in the number of houses within the 65 DNL in either alternative, but you are correct that you see a slight increase in the number of homes within the 60 DNL. Because there is no potential reduction in noise under either alternative, this alternative would not be recommended. Noise Barriers Question: Is the Sand Lake Berm the same as the potential South Airpark noise barrier location? Was a noise barrier parallel to Raspberry Road considered for these alternatives? Answer: The existing berm in Sand Lake is in a different location than the South Airpark location that is being considered in the draft Noise Abatement Alternatives chapter. The Sand Lake Berm was intended to be a visual barrier and is not designed to reduce noise. The potential noise barrier in South Airpark would indeed be located parallel to Raspberry Road. ---

117 Question: Was the Eco parking lot considered for placement of a noise barrier? Answer: No, because idling taking place in that parking lot would not be a major source of general aviation aircraft noise. --- Comment: Regarding potential placement of a barrier very close to the homes near the Gravel Airstrip barrier location, those homeowners may not be in favor of such a barrier. Comment: Those homes may have changed ownership in recent years, and so therefore we cannot say whether or not those homeowners would tend to be in favor of a barrier close to their homes. Question: Would placement of a barrier close to the runway for the Gravel Airstrip location be considered acceptable in relation to aircraft operations taking place on that airstrip? Answer: If the Gravel Airstrip barrier location were to be recommended to act as an obstruction near the noise source, it would need to be constructed so as to comply with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 so that it would not impede or endanger aircraft operations on the airstrip. Comment: Airborne noise from aircraft using the Gravel Airstrip would not be reduced by a barrier. I know from personal experience that the noise from the Gravel Airstrip can be extremely loud in my neighborhood (Turnagain), especially when one is outdoors. --- Question: What is the process for community input, approval, and funding for a barrier? At what stage would the length of the barrier be determined? Answer: If the construction of a barrier is a recommendation of the Part 150 Study, a Site Selection Study would then be performed in order to determine the best location and specifications for the barrier, including barrier length. Community input would be received on the Site Selection Study. Finally, funding would be acquired for barrier construction. Ground Run-Up Enclosure (GRE) Question: Why were Runways 25L or 25R not assessed for these GRE location alternatives? Answer: The GRE locations that are examined in the alternatives were provided by the Airport. Two of the locations, at the ends of Taxiways Quebec and Juliet, are locations where maintenance run-ups currently take place. The other two potential GRE locations were thought

118 to be good options for a new GRE site that would be both convenient for taxiing aircraft and have a beneficial placement for noise reduction in the community. --- Question: Where would the GRE be placed and how would the GRE be oriented? How could this affect noise to the community? It seems like locating the GRE furthest away from the communities would result in the greatest reduction. Answer: GREs are placed facing into the wind. The analysis suggests that in all four proposed locations, the use of a GRE would reduce the number of people in the 60 Lmax by 100%. This does not mean that there will be no noise from run-ups, but rather, people at the higher noise levels will be exposed to greatly reduced noise levels. It is true that a location further away from the communities would likely result in a greater noise reduction; however, taxi time and operational factors, as well as Part 77 considerations must be taken into account as well. Question: Does concentrating run-ups at a single GRE at an airport have a negative noise impact due to taxiing noise from aircraft travelling to and from that GRE? Answer: The positive noise-reducing impact of the GRE outweighs any ground noise created from aircraft taxiing to the GRE, resulting in a noticeable reduction in noise for the communities surrounding the Airport. --- Question: What is meant by the statement that all four potential GRE locations would result in a 100% reduction in population and housing units affected by the 60 Lmax? Answer: It means that no homes or people would any longer be within the 60 Lmax (Maximum Noise Level, or the highest noise level reached during a noise event) contour created by the GRE. These people would still be exposed to noise, but it would be greatly reduced. --- Question: What would the process be for choosing a GRE location and having it approved? Answer: If the construction of a GRE is a recommendation of the Part 150 Study, a Site Selection Study would then be performed in order to determine the best location for the GRE. The GRE would need to comply with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 regulations and would need to be placed and constructed so as not to impede the ability of the Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower to see aircraft movement taking place inside the GRE. Additionally, operational considerations, such as taxi time, as well as the access to utilities need to be taken into consideration.

119 Reduced Use of Reverse Thrust Question: Would the measure for reduced use of reverse thrust provide a noise reduction benefit to Eagle River, since Eagle River is outside of the 65 DNL noise contour? Answer: Because Eagle River is outside of the 65 DNL noise contour, noise issues experienced there would be beyond the scope of the Part 150 Study, and should be addressed to the FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC). However, the issues identified in the Part 150 Study might help facilitate discussions between the Eagle River neighborhood and the ATC. EXAMINATION OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES Master Plan Update: Modified Preferential Runway Use Question: Why is the 65 DNL noise contour for the Modified Preferential Runway Use to the east not larger? The increase in aircraft operations on Runway 7L that would occur under the Modified Preferential Runway Use alternative seems as though it would be high enough to expand the contour significantly in that direction. Answer: The contours to the east of Runway 7L would not be made significantly larger because there would not be a large enough change in operations to the east during nighttime hours, which are weighted more heavily in the noise model. The DNL is annualized to reflect noise generated by aircraft operations for an entire year. While the contour is larger, there would need to be a much larger change in operations to create a contour as big as the 65 DNL noise contour from the previous Part 150 Study that occurred prior to any preferential runway use system being in place. --- Comment: Can you please give some clarification on the numbers of additional operations not matching up under the Master Plan side? Answer: The Modified Preferential Runway Use would not increase the number of operations at the Airport, but rather change the number of operations on the runways. In the slide, it indicated the primary changes in the runway use system, which is primarily an addition in departures on Runway 7L, and a decrease in departures on Runway 33. The numbers for those two runways were included in the presentation slide, but we realize this was confusing, as the numbers diverted from Runway 33 do not exactly equal those added to Runway 7L. The additional operations from these changes in runway use were diverted to the other runways based on how the tower would generally adjust the flow of operations due to the primary changes on Runway 7L and Runway 33.

120 --- Question: What is the time frame for examination of the Modified Preferential Runway Use alternative? Would the runway use percentages used to create the 2020 noise contours for this alternative be phased in over time? Answer: The Modified Preferential Runway Use alternative will be discussed in detail at the Master Plan Public Open House on Wednesday, December 11, The 2020 contours show the different runway use percentages as they would be if they were fully implemented in However, these use percentages could be phased over time. More information about this alternative will be available at the December 11, 2013 Master Plan Public Open House. Question: Why is the reduction in operations on 33 needed to add additional operations on 7L? Answer: According to the Tower, there are jet blast issues when operating off of Runways 33 and 7L concurrently. Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Procedure Question: Is there currently a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved approach procedure on Runway 33? Answer: No. This procedure would be brand new. There are no current instrument approaches to Runway 33. This procedure would be used only during poor weather conditions. --- Question: Could the number of arrivals coming in from the south onto Runway 33 potentially be very high on a given day if there were poor weather conditions, thereby affecting neighborhoods south of the Airport? Answer: Yes, this procedure would occur during poor weather conditions, so there could be certain days where the number of operations would be concentrated on Runway 33 due to their need to use the RNP approach in in-climate weather. There will be a Sand Lake Community Council meeting on December 2, 2013 to discuss the RNP procedure because Sand Lake would be the area primarily impacted by this procedure. General Questions Question: What should the Study Input Committee (SIC) members focus on in order to prepare for the next meeting? Answer: The next SIC meeting will focus on land use and administrative alternatives.

121 --- Question: Why is the list of noise abatement alternatives so short, in comparison with other airports? Answer: Noise is not nearly as much of an issue at ANC as at many other airports, primarily due to the success of the preferential runway use system. The preferential runway system that is currently in place, which directs aircraft operations over water whenever possible, has greatly reduced the number of homes within the 65 DNL noise contour. Many other airports that do not have a preferential runway system have a much greater noise impact on surrounding neighborhoods for that reason, and therefore have more alternatives that could make a difference in the noise exposure. --- Question: Why were operational measures for general aviation aircraft not assessed in detail in this study? Will voluntary measures be examined for general aviation aircraft? There is a wide range in noise levels created by different general aviation aircraft. Answer: Measures to reduce noise from general aviation aircraft would be mainly of a voluntary nature, such as Fly Quiet and Pilot Awareness programs. These programs can be recommended within the Part 150 Study but the actual implementation/product (such as brochures, outreach, etc.) would be developed outside of this Part 150 Study. --- Comment: Certain issues addressed in reports such as this Study or identified during discussions are not sufficiently addressed or enforced. These issues include the fact that Fly Quiet program implementation responsibility rests with the pilots and is not enforced, as well as high turnover of staff working in the Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower. Answer: Implementation is an important element that occurs subsequent to the Part 150 Study. Development and continuation of the implementation program is important and will take participation of stakeholders. It is important to note that many of these recommendations are voluntary based on legal requirements and therefore the Airport does not have authority to enforce many of these elements. Therefore implementation and success of Fly Quiet Programs is primarily based on outreach/education in the community.

122

123

124 November 19, 2013 COMMITTEE MEETING Agenda. Introduction/Purpose of the Study Forecast Summary; Draft Existing and Future Noise Contours Draft Operational Alternatives Evaluation Distant Departure Procedure Close-In Departure Procedure Noise Barriers Ground Run-Up Enclosure Reduced Use of Reverse Thrust Consideration of Additional Studies Master Plan Update - Modified Runway Use Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Procedure Provide Comments! Study Process. Forecasts of Aircraft Operations Year Passenger Cargo Air Taxi and Other General Aviation Military Total 2009 ANC 91,092 65,014 2,280 35,685 4, ,456 LHD ,291 45,885-58,176 Combined 91,092 65,014 14,571 81,570 4, , ANC 101,540 95,812 2,793 39,863 2, ,275 LHD ,793 49,667-65,460 Combined 101,540 95,812 18,586 89,530 2, ,735

125 2009 Draft Noise Contours Existing Noise Contours (2009) Departure Climb Procedures Examines the effect of a change in departure climb procedure by changing the timing of where power is applied by an aircraft Close-In Departure Distant Departure 2020 Draft Noise Contours Future Noise Contours (2020) Distant Departure Future Noise Contours (2020)

126 Distant Departure Procedure Results No change in population or housing units within the 65 DNL, but slight increase in 60 DNL Increases noise within 2-3 miles of the Airport Baseline (2020)/No Action Distant Departure Procedure Population Housing Population Housing 75 DNL DNL & Greater 95 35* 95 35* 60 DNL & Greater* 1, , Source: 2010 US Census Numbers rounded * Of these homes, approximately 11 were sound insulated under the previous Residential Sound Insulation Program, and approximately 25 have not been previously insulated. Residential sound insulation will be examined as a potential alternative under the subsequent land use alternatives chapter. Close-In Departure Procedure Results No change in population or housing units within the 65 DNL, but slight increase in 60 DNL Generally decreases noise closer (under 2 miles), but due to heterogeneous fleet mix, that decrease is small and does not change the number of housing units affected Baseline (2020)/No Action Close-In Departure Procedure Population Housing Population Housing 75 DNL DNL & Greater 95 35* 95 35* 60 DNL & Greater* 1, , Source: 2010 US Census Numbers rounded * Of these homes, approximately 11 were sound insulated under the previous Residential Sound Insulation Program, and approximately 25 have not been previously insulated. Residential sound insulation will be examined as a potential alternative under the subsequent land use alternatives chapter. Close-In Departure Future Noise Contours (2020) Noise Barriers

127 Noise Barriers Raspberry Road Sand Lake Road Noise Barriers Future Noise Contours (2020) Noise Barriers Future Noise Contours (2020) Noise Barriers Noise barriers are most effective close to the source or close to the receiver Would not result in a measureable change to the DNL Effects only occur when aircraft are on ground Examined potential at three locations: North Airpark relative topography limits the effective implementation of a noise barrier South Airpark relative topography limits effective implementation of a noise barrier LHD Strip noise barrier of over 16 ft. next to residences could reduce ground noise only

128 Ground Run-Up Enclosure Ground Run-Up Enclosure (GRE) to reduce ground run-up noise when aircraft run-up for maintenance Effects only are mitigated when aircraft are on ground; deflect noise up No measureable DNL reduction, so alternatives compare Lmax (Maximum Noise Level) Four different locations examined for potential GRE locations Lmax without GRE (Existing) Max Power Future Noise Contours (2020) Lmax with GRE (4 alt. locations) Max Power Ground Run-Up Enclosure Results Future Noise Contours (2020) 100% reduction in the number of homes/people within the 60 Lmax (Maximum Noise Level) Run-Up Assumes Max Power (100%) Noise Exposure 60 Lmax 70 Lmax Housing Units Population Housing Units Population Existing - NO GRE Taxiway J 1, Taxiway Q 3,140 1, With GRE Taxiway J Location Taxiway Q Location Postmark Drive Location # Postmark Drive Location # Source: L& B and Mead & Hunt, Inc., US Census Numbers; all numbers are estimates

129 Reduced use of Reverse Thrust Voluntary reduction of use of reverse thrust by pilots on landing Ability to reduce the use of reverse thrust depends on landing conditions, safety as well as taxiway location Can only be a recommended measure, not required. Because it is voluntary, there is no method to measure noise reduction potential Qualitative analysis indicates that when used, it would reduce noise levels from those events Master Plan Update: Modified Preferential Runway Use Master Plan is examining ways to meet future aviation demand; Modification of the preferential runway use system is one alternative therefore, examined to determine its effect on noise Change in runway use would occur over time, as demand requires Primary Changes affecting noise: Increase in up to approximately 55 departures on Runway 7L during daytime hours No planned change to nighttime operations (10 pm to 7 am) or to Lake Hood Seaplane Base operations Additional Studies Two additional Studies are occurring concurrent with the Part 150 Study and were examined during the Part 150 Process because of their potential to change noise: Master Plan Update Modification to Preferential Runway Use Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Procedure These two studies are examining changes to the operations at the Airport that could change noise exposure They are NOT noise abatement alternatives Master Plan Update Modified Preferential Runway Use

130 Comparison Graphic Master Plan Results Results are based on the full implementation of the modified preferential runway use program Increase of approximately 55 homes from the 2020 baseline within the 65 DNL contour that have not been previously insulated through the Residential Sound Insulation Program Baseline (2020)/No Action Master Plan Alt Population Housing Units Non-Insulated Housing Units Population Housing Units Non-Insulated Housing Units 75 DNL DNL & Greater * 60 DNL & Greater* 1, NA 7,390 3,090 NA Source: 2010 US Census Numbers rounded. *This number was calculated using land use parcel data Note: All numbers are estimates; no residential uses are located in the 75 DNL and greater contours. NA Not applicable. Residences within the 60 DNL noise contour are not eligible for insulation. Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Procedure RNP Procedure RNP Procedure is being examined under a separate FAA study Because of its potential to change noise it is analyzed in this Study RNP Procedure is meant to increase safety for approaches to Runway 33 Would slightly increase the number of aircraft arriving on Runway 33 Increase would only occur during poor weather conditions

131 RNP Results No change in number of homes within the 65 DNL; Slight increase in number of homes within the 60 DNL Baseline (2020)/No Action RNP Procedure Population Housing Population Housing 75 DNL DNL & Greater DNL & Greater* 1, , We want your input! Mr. Ryk Dunkelberg Mead & Hunt Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK Phone Number FAX Number Next Steps Examine Land Use Alternatives Narrow and Combine Alternatives Based on Results and Comments from Public Involvement Recommendations and Develop Noise Compatibility Program COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS

132 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Study Input Committee Summary Notes March 6, :30 p.m. Airfield Maintenance Facility NAME AFFILIATION PRESENT Staff and Consultants John Parrott John Johansen Scott Lytle Katie Gage Teri Lindseth Mike Lee Ryk Dunkelberg Kate Andrus Rachel Jones Christian Valdes Eva Welch ANC ANC ANC ANC ANC ANC Barnard Dunkelberg & Company (Mead & Hunt) Barnard Dunkelberg & Company (Mead & Hunt) Barnard Dunkelberg & Company (Mead & Hunt) Landrum and Brown AECOM Committee Members Breck Tostevin Cathy Hammond Mary Lee Jim Seeley Thede Tobish Bob Auth Turnagain Community Council Citizen Representative Citizen Representative LHD Pilot Association MOA Sand Lake Community Other Cathy Gleason

133 Summary Notes Mr. Dunkelberg began the eighth meeting of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Input Committee by presenting the meeting agenda as follows: Introduction Presentation and Discussion of Potential Land Use, Administrative and Facility Options for Part 150 Study Update Introduction Mr. Dunkelberg welcomed the committee back and gave a brief overview of the agenda for this meeting. He then identified the next steps for the Part 150 Study Update process. This meeting presented a list of proposed land use, administrative and facility options. Presentation of Land Use Options The Part 150 Team presented the proposed list of land use, administrative, and facility options. These options included: eight (8) land use options, seven (7) administrative options, and one (1) facilities option. Land use options are either remedial or preventive in nature, and are generally within the jurisdiction of local and state governments. Administrative options are generally within the jurisdiction of the Airport. Next Steps Mr. Dunkelberg explained the next steps, which include further refining the land use alternatives, as necessary, and starting to combine and narrow noise abatement and land use alternatives into the finalized set of Noise Compatibility Program recommendations. The next Study Input Committee Meeting will likely be in spring 2014, and it will include the draft Noise Exposure Map for the future case, as well as a presentation of proposed recommended land use, administrative, and facility alternatives. The following questions and comments occurred during the meeting: Questions and Comments on Land Use Options Comment: In addition to addressing off-airport land uses impacted by noise from the airport, we should also be considering ways in which on-airport land could be used in ways that help protect off-airport uses from noise impacts. Answer: Off-airport land uses are the focus of this Part 150 Study. Non-compatible uses are by definition off-airport, and are created by on-airport land uses. It is not possible to have a non-

134 compatible use that is on the airport property; therefore, for this Study, we are examining compatibility only for land uses that are off of the airport. --- Question: If a land use within the noise contours that is considered compatible is changed to a non-compatible use, and is remodeled to fit the needs of the new use, how would the acquisition of a building permit work in such a situation? Answer: At the point of the remodel, a building permit would be acquired. Under Land Use Option 6: Building Code Requirements Sound Attenuation Required for New Development, the remodeling for a new non-compatible use would need to receive approval for a building permit, at which point the structure would have to meet the requirements for sound attenuation of new structures under the amended building code, contingent upon approval for the permit. --- Question: As a reminder, what does the acronym RNP refer to? Answer: RNP stands for Required Navigation Performance, which refers to on-board electronic navigation performance monitoring and alerting systems. These systems would help to further guide aircraft during their approach and take-off along a very specific flight track. --- Question: Under Land Use Option 2: Acquisition of Non-Compatible Land Uses or Undeveloped Land Zoned for Residential Use, could this acquisition by the Airport also be involuntary? Answer: That is dependent upon local laws and regulations. The Airport does have the ability to acquire land uses, but only for airport use. If the land is not to be used for airport use, the Airport must have a conversion plan in which to divest/resell the land in a manner that will cause the use to become compatible, such as requiring the granting of an avigation easement, or sound insulation, as contingencies upon resale. Question: What is land banking? Please explain how Land Use Option 2: Acquisition of Non- Compatible Land Uses or Undeveloped Land Zoned for Residential Use does or does not relate to land banking (a measure recommended in the previous Part 150 Study). Answer: Land banking was a recommended measure in the previous Part 150 Study, and was defined as public acquisition of noise impacted property for future public use. The term land banking is used as reference to the previous Part 150 measure, but was changed in this Part 150 to more accurately depict what actually happens when land is acquired as a result of a Part 150 Study. Land Use Option 2: Acquisition of Non-Compatible Land Uses or Undeveloped Land Zoned for Residential Use, would NOT constitute land banking, but is better expressed as land

135 holding because the Airport would resell/divest the land rather than hold it indefinitely. The land would also not necessarily be converted to public use, but could be kept as a residential use, albeit made into a compatible residential use through the acquisition of an easement or requiring sound insulation. This could be done to preserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods by counteracting a checkerboard effect within neighborhoods that might occur if acquired land uses were simply held and kept as vacant. For any property that it acquires, if the property cannot be used for aviation purposes, the Airport develops a conversion plan for what actions to take with the land, and works with local land use authorities to make these decisions. --- Question: Why is Land Use Option 4: Voluntary Sales Assistance (Assurance Program) not available for all properties within the 65 DNL noise contour, including those that have already been sound-insulated? What if the seller of a home near the Airport that has been insulated is still not able to sell for fair market value due to the potential stigma of being near an Airport? Answer: Insulating a home for sound is a process that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars. A home that has been insulated would therefore have an increased value based on the improvements that were done during the insulation process. The home can be expected to receive fair market value because the sound insulation has mitigated the deficiency the house would otherwise have by being located near an airport. Sales assistance is only available for homes that have NOT been insulated. In addition, the FAA funding available for sound insulation cannot be used to mitigate a sound issue that has already been mitigated through insulation of the structure, i.e., the funding cannot be used to pay for sound insulation twice, because an insulated home is considered a compatible land use. The only exception would be if a home is determined to be within a higher noise contour than it was when it got insulated, based on changes in the designated noise contours. In such a case, the home could potentially receive additional insulation or sales assistance due to the additional noise levels experienced. Question: Is there a limit on the amount of sales assistance that can be received on a home? Answer: There is not a limit per se; however, if the cost of sales assistance is high enough, the Airport could simply purchase the property outright through their land acquisition program. Question: Could you elaborate on the 45-dB interior noise level requirement? Answer: The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook interprets Part 150 regulations to require that in order to be eligible for FAA funding for noise insulation, the interior noise level of structures must be measured at 45 db or greater. ---

136 Question: How has flight tracking at the Airport worked in the past? Answer: In the past, the Airport has had flight tracking and monitoring systems in place. The flight tracking proved to be more useful to the needs of the Airport and stakeholders than did the noise monitoring. The FAA collects flight tracking information using radar tracking devices on aircraft. Airport flight tracking systems acquire this FAA data and link it to the flight number and aircraft type. The end result is a path showing the flight path of the aircraft, along with date, time, aircraft type, and other information. Question: Does the Airport currently have historical noise monitoring information? Answer: No. The noise monitors in place are collecting data, but are not currently transmitting the data they receive. They can only hold 7 days worth of data at a time, so the most information that the Airport would have is from the previous 7 days because the data is not currently being downloaded from the monitors. Question: What would be the cost of re-instituting the noise monitoring system? Why would the Airport pay to duplicate information the FAA already collects? Answer: An updated quote would need to be done to find out how much it would cost. The last time it was investigated, it cost around $100,000 to get the system updated and fully operational. Through its previous experience operating a noise monitoring system, the Airport found that the monitoring did not help to address the noise complaints received, and in fact, tended to create arguments. Even though the monitoring system might report that a noise recipient filing a complaint was outside of the 65 DNL contour, for example, the actual noise level attributed by the monitoring system does not change the fact that the person is upset and affected by the noise they are experiencing. The actual noise level numbers were irrelevant for solving noise issues with upset citizens, and did not help the Airport to better handle noise complaints. However, the Airport has found the flight tracking system to be effective in helping identify noise issues, so this might be a more cost effective way to keep the most beneficial elements of the previous system. Question: Please review the relationship of ground noise to flight tracking/noise monitoring. Answer: Ground noise is not considered or measured in flight tracking systems. Ground noise is also not specifically gathered in noise monitoring systems. A noise monitor will not transmit noise data it receives unless it is associated with the occurrence of an aircraft flyover. Essentially, ground noise is filtered out of the noise monitoring, as is general ambient noise. A ground-run up enclosure will do a lot to mitigate ground run-up noise. --- Question: At what point will the Part 150 Team assist with facilitation of discussions between Eagle River residents and the FAA?

137 Answer: Interested Eagle River representatives may contact persons from the Air Traffic Control Tower directly to discuss remaining concerns about noise that they may have. --- Comment: Some of the land use, administrative, and facility options presented in this working paper chapter are good, especially the administrative options. However, the discussion of the options needs additional detail and to go beyond the status quo to investigate larger-scale changes that can be made. For example, the pilot education report card needs additional description because it is unclear what is meant by report card. Incentive programs that would aid in the success of voluntary Fly Quiet measures should also be considered in this Study. Answer: Flight Quiet programs can take time to develop, typically one to two years, and the details of the program would be developed subsequent to this Part 150 Study, should Fly Quiet measures be recommended. It is important to be careful when developing Fly Quiet measures such as report cards and incentive programs that all pilots/airlines are treated equally in the process so as not to violate Part 150 regulation by being unjustly discriminatory. The details are further flushed out once the measure is approved to ensure that it is flexible with future conditions. --- Question: How will the final recommendations of the Part 150 Study be chosen? Answer: The main considerations in deciding which alternatives will be recommended include cost and whether the alternatives achieve the goal of reducing the number of people affected by noise. The Part 150 Team will work with the Airport to choose the final recommendations, while considering the input received from this Study Input Committee. --- Comment: Many of the land use recommendations that involve the Municipality of Anchorage and the West Anchorage District Plan have been very controversial in the past and may experience difficulty in acceptance and implementation due to unpopularity. Answer: There is certainly a highly political element to these alternatives that needs to be taken into account and considered. The Part 150 Study can make recommendations based on noise elements, but the implementation decisions still lie within the governing authority. --- Comment: A traffic pattern and preferential runway use system at Lake Hood Seaplane Base (LHD) is needed.

138 Answer: LHD currently has a voluntary preferential runway use plan in place, and it is recommended to be used whenever conditions allow. For the most part, pilots at LHD abide by this system. A Fly Quiet Program could help increase awareness of this preferential runway use system, but in general the Tower tells pilots to follow the plan when able. Question: Regarding the Residential Sound Insulation Program (RSIP) requirement that housing must have been constructed prior to October 1, 1998 to be eligible for insulation, what can be done if the noise issue arose after that date, i.e., after the house was built? Answer: If the house was built after October 1998, and was not within a published Noise Exposure Map 65 DNL contour at the time of construction, at some point in the future, if this home is within a 65 DNL and greater contour, then it could be eligible for insulation. Question: Please describe Land Use Option 8: Zoning Code Changes/Noise Overlay Zone in greater detail, and the ramifications it might have. The noise overlay zone proved extremely controversial when considered in the past. Answer: A noise overlay zone would contain as many or as few requirements as the local land use authority would give it. Noise overlay zones are different at each airport that has such zones, depending upon the needs of stakeholders and the local political climate. An overlay zone would be over top of (additional to) existing standard zoning, and would not change the underlying districts or codes, but would modify them and/or add additional requirements in the areas where the overlay districts occur. Examples of the types of requirements included in noise overlay zones include: height and obstruction restrictions for structures, trees, roads, etc.; restrictions on the development of new non-compatible uses; or sound insulation or special building code requirements. Although the noise overlay zone proved extremely unpopular when it was previously considered in the West Anchorage District Plan, any noise overlay zone that might be created in the future may not necessarily be extremely confining or restrictive depending upon what is actually included in the overlay zoning code. Question: Please elaborate on the Land Use Option 5: Disclosure Statements/Buyer Notification. Answer: Many states have buyer disclosure requirements, but some do not allow local municipalities to develop their own specified disclosure statements. The State of Alaska currently has a residential disclosure form in which the seller is required to acknowledge any known aircraft noise experienced on the property. However, there is not currently a requirement that the buyer acknowledge that the property may be subject to airport noise either for the State of Alaska or for the Municipality of Anchorage. Additionally, the plats for some newer developments to the south of the Airport did disclose that the properties could be subject to airport noise, but disclosure of noise levels on plats is not a borough- or state-wide requirement at the present time.

139 Question: I have been dissatisfied with the lack of direct action resulting from noise complaints I have made in the past. Answer: The Airport previously utilized a voic recording system for receiving of noise complaints, but has since moved to an electronic submittal of noise complaints online, which is available on the Airport website in the same location as submittal of all other types of complaints about the Airport. The current system is a great improvement over the former because it is much easier to keep track of complaints and ensure that a response is given, and direct the complaints to the Airport staff member having the most relevant knowledge on the specific issue. Persons submitting complaints may choose on the form how they would like to be contacted by the Airport in response ( , phone, etc.). Overall, the new complaint system aids functionality of staff and response to complaints to avoid the accidental deletion or overlooking of a complaint. Combining of noise complaints with all other complaints in a single integrated electronic system has also streamlined the Airport s ability to respond. Regarding response times and direct action, the Airport works hard to address noise complaints in a timely manner; however, as a public use airport under Grant Assurances, the Airport is nonetheless very restricted in the actions that it can actually take to address a noise complaint in order not be unjustly discriminatory towards airport operators. Comment: We should carefully consider the pros and cons of continuing this committee in some format, as discussed under Administrative Option 1: Continuation of Study Input Committee. Answer: That will certainly be a major consideration, and if continued in some format, would likely meet only several times per year at the most. It may be more ideal to integrate noise discussions into meetings and committees that are already taking place related to Airport activities. Comment: We should also find better ways to better disseminate information on voluntary noise reduction measures. Answer: Although a worthwhile goal, it is important to keep in mind that such mailings or other methods require a certain amount of funding and staffing. Additionally, it is difficult for the Airport to keep track of all of its users because many pilots are transient, and it is difficult to obtain and maintain current contact information for all of the users.

140

141

142 COMMITTEE MEETING Study Process. (Winter 2014) (Spring 2014) (Spring 2014) (Summer 2014) (Summer 2014) (Fall 2014) (Summer 2014) (Dec 14) Agenda. Land Use Compatibility.

143 Categories of Noise Abatement Actions. Land Use Options Remedial Land Use Options Remedial Land Use Options Remedial

144 Land Use Options Remedial Land Use Options Preventive Land Use Options Preventive Land Use Options Preventive

145 Land Use Options Preventive Administrative Options Administrative Options Administrative Options

146 Administrative Options Administrative Options Administrative Options Administrative Options

147 Facility Options We want your input! Next Steps COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS

148 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Study Input Committee Summary Notes July 9, :30 p.m. Airfield Maintenance Facility NAME AFFILIATION PRESENT Staff and Consultants John Parrott Scott Lytle Katie Gage Teri Lindseth Leslie Grey Ryk Dunkelberg Kate Andrus Rachel Jones Christian Valdes Eva Welch Mary Vigilante ANC ANC ANC ANC FAA Barnard Dunkelberg & Company (Mead & Hunt) Barnard Dunkelberg & Company (Mead & Hunt) Barnard Dunkelberg & Company (Mead & Hunt) Landrum and Brown AECOM Synergy Consultants Committee Members and Members of the Public Breck Tostevin Turnagain Community Council Merle Akers Turnagain Community Council Mary Lee Citizen Representative Jim Seeley LHD Pilot Association Thede Tobish MOA Bob Auth Sand Lake Community Other Susan Olsen Cathy Gleason Member of the public

149 Summary Notes Mr. Dunkelberg began the ninth meeting of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Input Committee by presenting the meeting agenda as follows: Introduction Presentation of Future (2020) Noise Exposure Map Presentation and Discussion of Draft Noise Compatibility Program Recommendations Next Steps Introduction Mr. Dunkelberg welcomed the committee back and gave a brief overview of the agenda for this meeting. He then identified the next steps for the Part 150 Study Update process. This meeting presented the Future Noise Exposure Map, as well as the draft noise abatement, land use, administrative, and facility recommendations. Presentation of Future (2020) Noise Exposure Map The Part 150 Team presented the Future Noise Exposure Map, which includes two operational considerations that are reasonably foreseeable as baseline conditions: Master Plan Phase 2 Modification of Preferential Runway Use System Required Navigation Procedure (RNP) to Runway 33 The Future NEM can be considered effectively the same as the Future Combined Recommendation NEM because none of the noise abatement recommendations would affect the DNL noise contours once implemented. Several noise abatement recommendations are recommended for implementation; the noise abatement recommendations would not alter the size or location of the DNL noise exposure contours, but may reduce single event noise or help prevent additional noise issues in the future. The Future NEM 65 DNL contour was used to create a Preliminary Sound Insulation Eligibility Boundary, which, when finalized, will become the boundary defining potential eligibility for sound insulation. Presentation of Draft Noise Compatibility Program Recommendations The team then proposed a set of draft Noise Compatibility Program recommendations, which are comprised of noise abatement, land use, administrative, and facility recommendations. Options were examined previously under these categories, and recommendations were chosen based upon whether they met the overall goal of the Study to reduce the number of people affected by noise, as well as public and Study Input Committee comments, feasibility, suitability, and cost.

150 Next Steps Mr. Dunkelberg explained the next steps, which include further refining the recommendations to formulate the final recommendations, and finalizing the complete Noise Compatibility Program, including preparation of a summary chapter. A public open-house meeting will be held, likely in September 2014, to present the draft Part 150 Study to the public. Subsequent to this meeting, a notice for an official public hearing will be released. The public hearing will be held on the final Part 150 Study, at which the final recommendations will be presented and the public will have an opportunity to submit additional comments that will become a part of the official public record. The public can also submit comments electronically or by mail during the 30 day comment period surrounding the public hearing. The public hearing will likely occur in October Responses to these official comments will be included in an appendix of the Study. The Final Part 150 Study will then be submitted to FAA. The submission will consist of two distinct components: 1) the Noise Exposure Map (NEM), and 2) the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). Each recommendation in the NCP will be either approved or disapproved individually. The following questions and comments occurred during the meeting: Comment: The Turnagain Community Council is opposed to a noise barrier project because it would constitute a high concrete wall located very close to the homes near the Lake Hood gravel strip, and would create issues with aesthetics and drainage, and would necessitate tree removal. It would also benefit only those homes in the area that would be closest to the barrier. --- Question: When determining the siting of the ground run-up enclosure (GRE), would noise escaping the opening of the GRE be considered? If the opening was pointing toward neighborhoods, would there be a great deal of noise resulting from that? Answer: The direction of the open end of the GRE must be based upon wind considerations. There would not be very much noise escaping from the open end or bouncing around within the GRE. The analysis shows that based on preliminary orientation, the GRE would provide large reductions in ground run-up noise for people living near the airport. --- Question: Were the close-in and distant departure procedures the only option examined in this Study related to in-flight procedures? Why were not the close-in and distant noise abatement options not recommended, and what effect would they have on noise levels? Answer: Yes, they were the only in-flight options examined. They were not recommended because although both options would reduce noise in certain locations either close to or farther from the airport, they would not affect the 65 DNL noise contour. However, it is important to

151 keep in mind that the preferential runway use system in place at the Airport does a great deal to reduce noise levels by directing aircraft operations over water when possible. --- Question: Why is the Future 65 DNL noise contour concentrated/bulging toward the east? Answer: The bulge in the contour is created by general aviation operations at Lake Hood Seaplane Base (LHD). Although the Airport cannot control the number of operations at LHD, a Fly Quiet Program could be developed that could help to reduce noise on a voluntary basis, and such a program is a recommendation in this NCP. Question: It has been my observation that many aircraft taking off from LHD make a turn over Spenard Beach Park that takes them over Turnagain neighborhood. Why are these flight tracks/operations seemingly not represented in the 65 DNL noise contour? Answer: These operations were included in the model. However, they do not bulge out the 65 DNL contour following that exact curve because there was not a sufficient amount of traffic and/or tracks to generate such display in the cumulative contour modeling. Although these types of operations would certainly be experienced as potentially disruptive Single Event Noise Level (SEL) events, the 65 DNL contour is nonetheless the standard threshold used in relation to measuring noise for federally-funded noise reduction measures. --- Question: Is the measure for voluntary reduced use of reverse thrust a new measure? How well would pilots respond to and follow this measure? Answer: Yes, it is a new measure for this Part 150 Study Update. It is not really possible to predict how often pilots would use this measure due to its voluntary nature. Some would likely reduce their use of reverse thrust, whereas others may not choose to do so for a variety of reasons. It is important to note that the Airport cannot monitor nor enforce this measure. Question: Have other airports implemented the voluntary reduced use of reverse thrust, and how effective has it been for them? Answer: Yes, this type of recommendation has been implemented quite often, primarily at medium to large commercial service airports. As mentioned above, its effectiveness varies greatly. It would not be possible to measure progress or the frequency of pilots using reduced reverse thrust because it is not monitored or tracked. --- Comment: It has been my observation that the majority of aircraft taking off at LHD do so to the southeast, overtop of neighborhoods. I feel that this trend of operations to the southeast is not

152 properly represented in the noise contours. In addition, I also feel that the contours are not accurate due to the fact that noise monitoring in the Lake Hood area took place during the winter, when there would presumably be fewer operations taking place than times of the year when the lake is not frozen. Answer: Noted. Both summer and winter noise monitoring took place. The monitoring was used to help validate the INM results and the results tracked very well with the results from the noise monitoring. --- Question: Why is the 65 DNL contour the threshold for sound insulation, but the noise notification area would possibly be based on the 60 DNL contour? Answer: Decisions that are based on federal funding must utilize the 65 DNL noise contour as threshold by law. However, local land use decisions that are not based on federal funding may use other noise criteria. The 60 DNL is often used as the basis for the noise notification area because a large proportion of noise complaints often come from within the DNL noise contour band. People living outside of the 65 DNL will experience noise, and so expansion of the notification area out to the 60 DNL contour is usually advised to ensure that potential residents within the 60, as well as 65 DNL, are also notified about the potential to experience aircraft noise at the location. Question: Regarding potential future disclosure requirements for the 65 DNL contour, should we not now be informing these residents that they are within the Future 65 DNL contour in case such a recommendation would be implemented? Answer: Implementation of disclosure statements and/or buyer notification is up to the local jurisdiction having land use authority, and the actual process through which it would be adopted and implemented could vary. If such a measure were adopted, property owners within the notification area would certainly be notified during that process. Question: What data goes into the future contours? How common is a buyer notification overlay? Answer: Operations forecasts generated through the recent Master Plan process. It is a fairly common regulation, implemented perhaps about 50% of the time, and is highly dependent upon the local political climate and tendencies toward progressiveness/stringency of the local jurisdiction. Question: Could the notification requirements take place at the state level instead of the local level? In my opinion, it would be far easier politically to take such action at the state level due to elevating its implementation above local politics. Note that the State of Alaska currently has a disclosure form requiring that the seller disclose noise related issues.

153 --- Question: How common are the building code requirements tied to a certain overlay zone? Answer: Such code requirements are more common in jurisdictions having airports that are fairly constrained by surrounding noise-sensitive land uses. The overlay zone is even based on the 55 DNL in a few cases. Note that the West Anchorage District Plan recommended creation of a noise overlay zone with various restrictions suggested for the zone, including the limiting of certain types of structures in residential areas. --- Question: Would the noise overlay zone be based on the existing or future noise contours? What would be the rationale for basing it on future contours when operations forecasts are never exactly accurate, and may not actually come to pass? Please note that the creation of a noise overlay zone could have a negative impact on property values. Also please note that the Turnagain Community Council would likely take an opposing stance to this. Answer: The noise overlay zone would most likely be based on future contours because it would be in keeping with the long-range comprehensive planning conducted at local planning departments that tends to have a 20-year planning horizon. Utilization of the future contours would constitute mid-range future planning information that would is sufficiently long-range to allow the formation of policy, but is sufficiently short-range to be a fairly accurate prediction. The noise contours can be updated at a later point if needed, and policy adjusted accordingly. Question: What is an avigation easement and how would it be granted in a noise overlay zone situation? Answer: An avigation easement grants the right to fly over a property, and would be noted on the plat for the property. In a situation of a noise overlay zone requirement, the property owner would be required to grant an avigation easement as a condition of discretionary land use approvals such as new subdivisions and rezoning. The easement would run with the property. --- Comment: Please note that LHD currently does have some Fly Quiet/Pilot Awareness type measures in place, but the effectiveness is nonetheless still a matter of the degree to which the pilots are able to safely follow them during a given operation. Comment: Effectiveness of Fly Quiet measures for Lake Hood operations would also be a matter of how to enforce or justify asking pilots to follow the Fly Quiet measures for areas not within the 65 DNL contour. In my opinion, although a Fly Quiet program seems like a good idea, these issues cause such a program to be impractical and unenforceable because it is not possible.

154 Question: Do you have a sense of how well the Fly Quiet program at LHD is working currently? Answer: ANC currently coordinates and discusses Fly Quiet procedures and noise issues with several pilot organizations at LHD to disseminate information. However, for those pilots outside of the organizations, it is not practicable to attempt to reach out to them on an individual basis. The program is broad-based, versus being focused on individual confrontations dealing with correction of individual pilot generation of noise. Question: To what degree can any ANC policy deal with individual pilot noise issues on a oneon-one basis? Answer: There are no policies or authority allowing ANC to attempt to enforce Fly Quiet programs. It is also very difficult to identify the individual pilots whose flights are causing noise issues. Comment: Some pilots simply do not value placing noise they may be creating above other concerns. Comment: Some aircraft actually are recommended not to back off on their prop power for safety reasons and/or to protect the mechanical workings of the plane. Therefore, flying more quietly may not be safe due to the proximity of homes in the flight track and the need to reach a high enough altitude to avoid the homes in the event of engine failure or other operational problems. Question: What are the typical contents of a Fly Quiet brochure? Answer: Fly Quiet brochures typically remind pilots of noise sensitive areas in the area, promote noise awareness, and request their consideration of the Fly Quiet procedures. Comment: At the LHD gravel strip, takeoff to the southeast is used frequently, even in good weather, and despite a verbal agreement with the airport in the past that if wind speed was greater than 10 knots out of the southeast, a west departure would be used instead. There should be greater agency involvement to control departures to the southeast. I believe that the contours do not accurately depict takeoffs to the southeast, and that a Fly Quiet program at LHD would not help the matter. I think it is less a matter of resources for controlling this on the part of ANC and the state, than a matter of willpower. --- Comment: For the online comment submission form, please create a separate form for submission of noise comments that asks for specific pertinent information for noise comments, including date, time, and address/location of the noise event. Response: The Airport agrees, and would like to eventually add these additional fields to the form.

155 Comment: I believe that the average person would prefer to have a specific staff person and hotline to which they can direct their noise comments, rather than to have the response to noise comments be done primarily online, and have the responsibility for reading and responding to the comments spread among several staff persons. Response: We also get noise comments by phone call in addition to the online form. We cannot justify having a single staff person who has sole responsibility for noise comments. The Airport does not believe that switching from a single staff person to the current system has impacted people s ability or willingness to submit their complaints. Question: How do other airports handle their noise comments? Answer: Other airports primarily use either a web-based noise comment system or a telephone number, and it varies by type of airport and funding available. Recently, due to lack of funding experienced by many airports in recent years, dedicated noise staff and offices have been eliminated in many cases. Comment: When I submit a noise comment to ANC, I dislike the fact that they often do not state how the specific issue will be resolved. There should be more cross-sharing of information between the Airport, Airport Traffic Control Tower, and FAA on flight tracking and noise issues to help respond better to noise comments. Response: The Airport has no authority to dictate when or where an aircraft flies. --- Comment: Flight tracking is now available through cell phone apps and is very inexpensive. Flight tracking will not help noise issues at LHD because the aircraft using LHD do not have transponders and are not tracked like the aircraft at ANC. Response: Although the flight tracks available through apps and the internet are not totally accurate, they are a great resource for real-time information. For the acquisition of a flight tracking system for ANC, the system would be used to help tie into comments that are made and provide more information on specific flights to commenters. Question: Would flight tracking also track ground movement? Answer: Some of the more expensive flight tracking programs do, but certainly the web-based and transponder-based tracking does not track ground movement. --- Question: Would significant new noise-sensitive land use changes cause the Airport to have to update the Part 150 Study?

156 Answer: The Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) would likely need to be regenerated, and potentially an update to the entire Part 150 Study, including the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). Each NEM has a certification block stating the number of people and acres within the 65 DNL or greater contour. It is important to note that new homes built within the published 65 DNL contour would not be eligible for insulation, as only homes constructed prior to October 1, 1998 are eligible for insulation. Also, note that the inclusion of a provision for revision of the Part 150 Study is a regulatory requirement. Question: Regarding the guideline for revision of the Part 150 Study based upon a percentage difference between forecast operations and actual operations, would the introduction a 15% percent increase in helicopters at an airport also trigger a revision? Answer: The policy does not specifically refer to the increased in percentage of a single aircraft types for requirements for the revision of Noise Exposure Maps, rather, it is based on the percentage of the operations entirely. In such a case, it would be up to the airport themselves to initiate a revision based on their knowledge that they have experienced a significant change in aircraft type operating at the airport. --- Comment: For the facility recommendation on gate electrification, you should be more descriptive in the use of the term gates, as some people may not understand what is meant by it. Response: We agree that the wording should be more specific. The term gate as used in the document refers to the passenger aircraft docking gates where the planes load and unload passengers and baggage, and could potentially hook into a Ground Power Unit (GPU) ground source on the terminal building itself, rather than use the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) on the plane. Question: For the facility recommendation on gate electrification and preconditioned air, what is the difference between cargo areas and passenger gates? Answer: The passenger gates have jet bridges connecting them to aircraft, whereas the cargo areas are located out away from the terminal on the aprons because they are only loading/unloading cargo rather than passengers. Both the passenger gates and cargo areas have electrification, but due to their different physical infrastructure, they pose different challenges for installation of electrification and preconditioned air. Question: How could the use of the electrification and preconditioned air at the passenger gates, rather than using the APU power on the aircraft, be incentivized? It would seem that doing so would provide multiple benefits to the airport and its surroundings, including reduced emissions, reduced noise, and cost savings to the airline.

157 Answer: The Airport cannot force the airlines to use it. The Airport does not control nor monitor its use. One challenge is that many airlines/pilots prefer to use their on-board APU power because many of the newer aircraft are very sensitive electronically to voltage and amperage changes, and the electricity levels must be finely controlled to avoid damage to the aircraft systems. --- Question: Will the Part 150 Study document address the process for determining priorities and implementation? Answer: No, it will not, because the unpredictability of funding makes it difficult to set strict priorities and implementation schedules. The priorities will remain as implementation of those recommendations first that would reduce the most noise for the most number of people. Comment: I suggest that during the next Part 150 Study Update, more time is spent on education and input on how the noise contours are formed through the modeling process and what data is used. That would make the process smoother and more understandable for participants and would prevent confusion later in the process.

158

159 COMMITTEE MEETING Study Process. (Winter 2014) (Summer 2014) (Summer 2014) (Summer 2014) (Summer 2014) (Fall 2014) (Summer 2014) (Dec 14) Agenda. Future 2020 Noise Exposure Map (NEM)

160 Future 2020 Noise Exposure Map (NEM) Draft Recommended Measures. Noise Abatement Recommendations Noise Abatement Recommendations

161 Noise Abatement Recommendations Noise Abatement GRE Lmax Noise Exposure Land Use Management Recommendations

162 Land Use Management Preliminary Sound Insulation Eligibility Boundary Preliminary Sound Insulation Eligibility Boundary Land Use Management Recommendations

163 Notification Area (60 DNL Noise Contour) Land Use Management Recommendations Land Use Management Recommendations Land Use Management Recommendations

164 Administrative Recommendations Administrative Recommendations Administrative Recommendations Administrative Recommendations

165 Administrative Recommendations Administrative Recommendations Administrative Recommendations Facility Recommendations

166 Next Steps. COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS We want your input!

167 Public Meeting Materials

168

169

170

171

172

173

174 FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Initial Public Information Meeting Wednesday, February 29, 6:00 p.m. Spenard Community Recreation Center Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, February 29, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. at the Spenard Community Recreation Center in the Multi-Purpose Room to kick-off the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. The goal of the Study is to update the Noise Compatibility Program to reduce the number of people affected by aircraft noise. The purpose of the meeting is to inform interested parties about the purpose of the Study and to outline the general Study process. Airport staff and the consultant team will be available to listen to citizen comments and answer questions about the Study. For more information, to submit comments or questions, or to sign up for future notifications, please go to:

175 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska NEWS RELEASE February 1, 2012 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Announces Kick-Off Meeting for Part 150 Study Update Anchorage, AK February 1, 2012 The Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport will hold a public information meeting on February 29, 2012 to kick-off the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. The meeting is open to the public and will be held at 6:00 p.m. at the Spenard Community Recreation Center in the Multi-Purpose Room located at 2020 W. 48 th Avenue, Anchorage, AK The purpose of this meeting is to inform interested parties about the purpose of the Part 150 Study Update and to outline the general Study process. Airport staff and the consultant team will be available to listen to citizen comments and answer questions about the Study. Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport has begun the voluntary process of preparing an Update to the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study to examine the current and future noise effects caused by aircraft operations at the Airport. The goal of this Study is to work with surrounding communities, aviation experts, and stakeholders to establish a balanced, cost-effective and comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program to reduce the number of people affected by aircraft noise. This is the first of several public meetings that will be held throughout the course of the study. Public and stakeholder coordination is an important portion of the Study, and the Airport is interested to hear the public s opinions and concerns on these important issues. For additional information please visit: [Path] 11/17/14 Providing for the movement of people and goods and the delivery of state services

176 P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Initial Public Meeting for Part 150 Study Update Date: February 29, 2012 Time: 6:00 p.m. Location: Spenard Community Recreation Center Multi-Purpose Room PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA Introductions Study Team Who is Involved? Brief Explanation of FAR Part 150 and the Study What is a Part 150 Study? Background on the Previous Part 150 Study Why Update Study? Relationship to FAR Part 161 Study Process Description of Noise Metrics DNL, SEL, Ldn, Time Above, etc. Discussion on Potential Noise Monitoring Sites Questions/Comments For additional information please visit:

177 FEBRUARY 29, 2012 PUBLIC MEETING Introduction Barnard Dunkelberg & Company TULSA, OKLAHOMA AND DENVER, COLORADO Landrum & Brown LAGUNA NIGUEL, CALIFORNIA Synergy Consultants SEATTLE, WASHINGTON AECOM ANCHORAGE, ALASKA CRW Engineering Group ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Weber Air Cargo OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS Agenda. Introduction Study Team Brief Explanation of FAR Part 150 and the Study What is a Part 150 Study Why Update Study Relationship to FAR Part 161 Scopes of Services Summary Noise Metrics DNL, SEL, Ldn, Time Above, etc. Potential Noise Monitoring Sites Questions/Comments Who is Involved? Airport Management FAA Aircraft Operators Airlines Study Input Committee Airport Tenants Surrounding Neighborhoods Surrounding Jurisdictions Airport Users Other Interested Parties Consultant Team

178 Study Details. Voluntary noise exposure and land use compatibility study. Identify existing noise exposure, identify potential future noise exposure, evaluate various alternatives to reduce the number of people affected by noise, and make recommendations as to viable noise abatement/mitigation measures to reduce the number of people affected by noise. It has a five-year planning horizon, generally. Study Details. CONTINUED The Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) is either approved or disapproved by the FAA. Approved measures contained in the Noise Compatibility Program are eligible for Federal funding. Study Details. CONTINUED The Study identifies and evaluates two components: Aircraft noise and land use, both existing and future. The Study consists of two distinct, but complementary elements: Noise Exposure Maps and a Noise Compatibility Program. The Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) are accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration. Background. Background on Previous Part 150 Study NEMs Accepted in 2000 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) approved in 2000 NCP allowed ANC to receive federal funding to implement a Residential Sound Insulation Program and other measures ANC conducted a Ground Noise Study to respond to comments

179 Airport Sponsor Constraints/Opportunities. The Federal Government, through the Federal Aviation Administration, has limited the Sponsor s ability to implement noise controls. Can t control of aircraft in flight Limited control of funding for noise mitigation funds Can t control over noise emissions at the source Significantly limits airport Sponsor s implementation of noise restrictions Why Update Study? Airport Must Have Current Noise Exposure Maps to Receive Federal Funding for Noise Mitigation Existing Maps 10 years old. Change in Aircraft Fleet Mix Aircraft Noise Levels Reduced Change in Aircraft Activity Levels Updated Noise Model Changes in Airfield Development Airport Sponsor Constraints/Opportunities. CONTINUED Airport Sponsor must provide access to all airport users and cannot discriminate against any user, but can pass reasonable noise rules/regulations that do not affect access to the airport. FAR Part 161 sets limits on this authority. FAR Part 150 Elements. Study Mobilization Future Land Use Alternatives Inventory of Existing Conditions Forecasts of Aviation Activity Existing Noise Exposure Contour Noise Exposure Maps Noise Compatibility Program FAA Approval Future Baseline Noise Contour Existing and Predicted Future Baseline Noise Intrusions Future Noise Compatibility Alternatives

180 Study Process. Unique Elements. Use of Supplementary Metrics Sound Exposure Level (SEL) Time Above Analysis Number of Events Above 65 dba Flow Contours Unique Fleet Mix Evaluation of Ground Run-up Noise Summer and Winter Measurements Community Involvement Noise Metrics. Public Involvement and Comments. DNL Day-Night Noise Level Existing Noise Contour 2009 Short-Term Contour 2020 Long-Term Contour 2030 for planning purposes SEL Sound Exposure Level LdN Same as DNL (LdN is the old terminology) Sign Up for Notices on the Study At Meetings (by providing an on sign in sheets) On the Website ( Public Comments (Submitted at Meetings or on the website) All comments received during the Study will be reviewed/considered during the steps of the process, and included in the final document for official review. All comments received during the official public comment period and at the public hearing (at the end of the Study) will be included and responded to in the document.

181 Comments and Additional Information. Mr. Ryk Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK Phone Number FAX Number Project Website: COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS THANK YOU!

182

183

184

185

186

187 Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Frequently Asked Questions Noise Measurement and Draft Contour Edition What is the purpose of taking noise measurements? These measurements are used to validate the FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM). Measurements are taken of the actual noise levels an aircraft makes at a particular airport under particular conditions to compare them to predicted noise levels from the FAA INM using the exact same conditions. Although not required for a Part 150 Noise Study, these actual measurements increase confidence in the Study results and account for special conditions at particular airports. Noise measurements were taken during two seasons, summer and winter at 30 different sites. Noise data from the Airport s permanent noise monitors were taken for the base case year of There were semi-permanent sites and permanent sites on the noise monitoring map. What is the difference? We collected data from two types of sites during the monitoring periods in summer and winter. Sites 1-10 are considered semi-permanent and collected between hours of data. Sites are considered short-term and data was collected for approximately one day at each of these sites per season. Then, we also took data from the Airport s permanent noise monitoring system for the entire 2009 year. These noise monitors are currently not operational, but we were able to get the data it collected for the entire year of What were the generalized results of the noise measurements? Generally, the ambient noise levels (the noise without any aircraft) were much lower than other built environments. Looking at the various sites, generally the noise of single events was similar in the summer as in the winter, but in the summer there were generally more noise events, particularly by those sites near the Lake Hood Seaplane Base. Flight track data from both the noise monitoring periods, as well as 2009 flight track data indicated that jet flight tracks generally show departures to the north, and arrivals from the west (directing most of the jet operations over the water rather than non-compatible land uses). This preferential runway use (concentrating operations over the water instead of over land) was a result of the last Part 150 Study. For prop flight tracks, there was a considerable difference between the flight tracks in the summer and the winter, with summer operations being much higher due to the operations at Lake Hood Seaplane Base. Overall, the ambient levels were much lower than most urban/suburban environments, and the aircraft noise levels were typical of a medium hub airport. For the winter/summer noise monitoring, does it include ground noise?

188 Yes. The noise monitors did pick up some ground noise. Ground noise will be examined more closely in the next phase. Are some of the newer planes (like a 777 or Dreamliner) quieter? Yes, they are generally much quieter than the planes they replace. Would you expect the monitoring done for this study to confirm the model? Yes, it is very close. There might be some slight changes based on the data we collected around Lake Hood. How do you create the contours? The FAA requires the use of the Integrated Noise Model which is a complex computer model that takes into account fleet mix, operations, flight tracks and time of day. Why do the contours look different than the last noise contours? The draft noise contours for 2009 and 2020 are based on the Alaska International Airport System (AIAS) forecasts. Both the 2009 and 2020 contours are smaller than those produced in 1999 as part of the previous noise study for several reasons. There were changes in the operations and fleet mix; however, the biggest difference in the contour is likely explained by the preferential runway use directing jet operations over the water rather than to the south and east over noncompatible land uses. It is important to note that these are currently draft contours and might change slightly. In the graphic comparing the 1999/2020 contours, can you explain the difference on the east side of the Airport? If a large jet departed that way, you would not be able to hear talking, yet you mentioned that decibels is the range of the human voice. So the contours are based on the Day-Night Noise Level which is an annual average of the noise. This means that there are single event noise levels much louder than 65 decibels, but that the average is less than 65 DNL. The contour is so small on that side because there are so few operations that occur over the non-compatible land uses to the east. There are not enough operations on that side to bubble out the contour to the extent that it was in 1999 when the preferential runway use was not in effect and a good portion of the operations occurred over the non-compatible land uses on the east of the Airport. DNL is often criticized because it is an average and does not represent what people actually hear (single event level). But DNL is the required metric. It is important to note that just because DNL might be below 65 DNL, single event noise levels will occur that are much louder than 65 decibels. The contours shrank since 1999, were there other reasons for this other than the change in flight tracks?

189 Yes, in addition to the flight track change there was also a change in the fleet mix, with some of the louder aircraft being phased out because they are at the end of their maximum usable life. So there are fewer of the noisier aircraft in the fleet mix for However the primary difference in the contours on the east side of the Airport relate to the preferential runway use, which concentrates flights over the water instead of over land. Do the 2020 contours have weather trends factored in? The average annual temperature is included in the model. However meteorological changes have a complex relationship with the propagation of sound. Patterns such as a temperature inversion can allow sound to propagate very differently. Generally, this effect increases the further you are from the source. So within the 65 DNL contour, it has little effect, and you would not see a large change in the contours. But you can have a much larger effect the further away from the Airport you get. What happens between now and 2020? Why is this not based on now/2020? The 2009 contour is required to create a base case scenario for the last full year of operations with the Airport operating with no closures or other operational variations will be the contour used to determine non-compatibility within the 65 DNL, and will be used to determine funding eligibility. Generally, this is in favor of the residents since operations generally increase over time and therefore the 65 DNL contour would be larger, making the 65 DNL contour in the future a more conservative estimation of the land use impacts. Additionally, the Study will take several years to complete and become approved before any recommendations are eligible for funding. Applying for funding, securing funding, accomplishing the necessary environmental reviews and implementing the recommendations takes time, which means that 2020 is close to the potential timeframe when recommendations might be eligible for funding based on the Part 150 schedule. Why have not all the previous Part 150 Study recommendations been implemented? The needs of noise programs generally exceed the funding and available resources to complete everything recommended in the Part 150 Study. Generally, the FAA puts a higher priority on mitigating noise for those within the highest areas of noise. Therefore, sound insulation in the areas of 65 DNL and higher are generally considered of higher priority. The Airport and FAA have placed a considerable amount of effort in the Residential Sound Insulation Program. Since the Study is now being updated, the previous measures will be evaluated and considered for future recommendations. Will all old homes within the previous 1999 contours be insulated by 2014 (prior to the new Study being released)? Will there be any new homes in the new contours? The funding for the last area of homes within the previous eligibility boundaries has been granted and those homes will be insulated by The contours for the Part 150 Study Update are still in draft form, so eligibility boundaries are not yet known for this Update. However, in general the draft contours appear to be smaller than the 1999 contours.

190 Will the contour maps show the 60 DNL? Yes, it will show the 60 DNL, but the 65 DNL is the threshold used by the FAA for noncompatibility with residential units. When aircraft run for a long period of time at night, will those types of things be analyzed in the Study? Yes, those are called ground run-ups and will be examined in the next phase of the Study. Will alternatives take into account Single Event Level (SEL)? SELs will be completed for some of the alternatives to help describe the noise environment. However, it is important to note that the 65 DNL contour is what the FAA uses to measure effects. Approval is based on the DNL analysis. What are the next steps? The next steps including refinement of the contours, land use analysis (how many people and non-compatible land uses are within the contours), and development of more single event level contours. Next year the committee will start alternatives development. The draft noise measurement report will be uploaded to the website as well.

191 November 7, 2012 PUBLIC MEETING November 7, 2012 Purpose of Study. Voluntary noise exposure and land use compatibility study. Identify existing noise exposure, identify potential future noise exposure, evaluate various alternatives to reduce the number of people affected by noise, and to make recommendations regarding viable noise abatement/mitigation measures to reduce the number of people affected by noise. It has a five-year planning horizon, generally. Agenda. Introduction Brief Refresher on the Part 150 Study What is a Part 150 Study Why Update Study Summary of Noise Monitoring Work Forecast Summary Draft Existing and Future Noise Contours Questions/Comments November 7, 2012 November 7, 2012 Purpose of Study. CONTINUED The Study identifies and evaluates two components: Aircraft noise and land use, both existing and future. The Study consists of two distinct, but complementary elements: Noise Exposure Maps and a Noise Compatibility Program. The Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) are accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration.

192 November 7, 2012 Why Update Study? Airport Must Have Current Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) to Receive Federal Funding for Noise Mitigation - Existing maps are 10 years old. Change in Aircraft Fleet Mix Aircraft Noise Levels Reduced Change in Aircraft Activity Levels Updated Noise Model Changes in Airfield Development November 7, 2012 Noise Metrics. DNL Day-Night Noise Level Existing Noise Contour 2009 Future Contour 2020 LEQ One hour equivalent noise level L10 Sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time L50 Sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time L90 Sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time SEL Sound Exposure Level Study Process. Noise Metrics November 7, 2012 November 7, 2012

193 November 7, 2012 Noise Monitoring Background Noise Monitoring Completed in Winter and Summer Sites monitored in both Winter and Summer Sites 1-9 (semi-permanent) monitored for between hours each Site 10 (semi-permanent) monitored for two weeks (321 hours winter and 247 hours summer) Sites monitored between 2-8 hours each Permanent Noise Monitor Data used as well Site L 10 (db) L 50 (db) L 90 (db) November 7, 2012 Winter: Ambient Noise Levels by Site Noise Monitoring Sites Semi -permanent: hours of monitoring at each site per season Short -term: 2-8 hours of monitoring at each site per season November 7, 2012 Site L 10 (db) L 50 (db) L 90 (db) November 7, 2012 Summer: Ambient Noise Levels by Site

194 November 7, 2012 Winter and Summer Monitoring (DNL) Site 2 Hourly Winter November 7, Winter 2012 Summer Site Total DNL Event DNL Non-Event Total DNL Site DNL Event DNL Non-Event DNL Site 2 Hourly Summer November 7, 2012 Site 2 Single Event Counts November 7, 2012

195 Site 7 Hourly Winter November 7, 2012 Site 7 Hourly Summer November 7, 2012 Site 7 Single Event Counts November 7, 2012 Site 10 Hourly Winter November 7, 2012

196 Site 10 Hourly Summer November 7, 2012 Site 10 Single Event Counts November 7, 2012 Winter Jet Flight Tracks November 7, 2012 Winter Prop Flight Tracks November 7, 2012 Flight Tracks Flight Tracks Figure depicts one day of representative flight tracks during the Winter Monitoring (3/25-4/9) Figure depicts one day of representative flight tracks during the Winter Monitoring (3/25-4/9)

197 Summer Jet Flight Tracks November 7, 2012 Flight Tracks Figure depicts one day of representative flight tracks during the Summer Monitoring (8/5-8/19) November 7, 2012 Noise Monitoring Results Summary Ambient noise levels (no aircraft) are very low for a built environment Ambient noise levels lower than typical urban or suburban residential areas Aircraft noise levels typical of a Medium Hub Airport Summer Prop Flight Tracks November 7, 2012 Flight Tracks Figure depicts one day of representative flight tracks during the Summer Monitoring (8/5-8/19) November 7, 2012 Forecasts Year Passenger Cargo 2009 Air Taxi and Other General Aviation Military Total ANC 91,092 65,014 2,280 35,685 4, ,456 LHD ,291 45,885-58,176 Combined 91,092 65,014 14,571 81,570 4, , ANC 101,540 95,812 2,793 39,863 2, ,275 LHD ,793 49,667-65,460 Combined 101,540 95,812 18,586 89,530 2, ,735

198 Previous FAA Approved 2009 Draft Noise Contours Contours November 7, 2012 November 7, 2012 Existing Noise Contours (2009) Existing Noise Contours (2009) 2020 Draft Noise Contours November 7, 2012 November 7, 2012 Future Noise Contours (2020) 2020 versus 1999 Approved Contours Future Noise Contours (2020)

199 November 7, 2012 Next Steps Refine contours Land Use Analysis Alternatives Development with Committee Alternatives Analysis with Committee Public Input on Alternatives COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS Comments and Additional Information. Mr. Ryk Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK Phone Number FAX Number THANK YOU! November 7, 2012

200

201 Anchorage Daily News Sunday, November 3, 2013 E-5 Science EMPEROR GOOSE This small marine goose breeds around the Bering Sea coasts of Alaskan and Russia, and winters along the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula. Its small global population is vulnerable to oil spills, and loss of eelgrass beds, its winter habitat. Audubon Alaska, Alaskans vitamin D production slows with the season NED ROZELL ALASKA SCIENCE Interested people are needed to participate in a one-year study to assess the effects of long, dark winters on the vitamin D and calcium levels of Fairbanks residents. So began a recruitment poster Meredith Tallas created more than 25 years ago. Now living in California, Tallas was in 1983 a University of Alaska Fairbanks student who wanted to study how levels of a vitamin related to sun exposure fluctuated in people living so far from the equator. The most obvious vitamin to study in Alaska is vitamin D, because of the low light in winter, Tallas said over the phone from her office in Berkeley. Forty-seven people responded to Tallas 1983 request, and her master s project was under way. By looking at the blood work of those Fairbanks residents every month and analyzing their diets, she charted their levels of vitamin D, which our skin produces after exposure to a certain amount of sunshine. We also get vitamin D from foods such as enriched milk, margarine and fish (especially salmon). Vitamin D is important for the prevention of bone diseases, diabetes and other maladies. If you live at a latitude farther north than about 42 degrees (Boston, Detroit, or Eugene, Oregon), the sun is too low on the horizon from November through February for your skin to produce vitamin D, according to the National Institutes of Health. Tallas also saw another potential Alaska limitation on the natural pathway to vitamin D production. Fairbanks low angle of light in early winter. When someone had gone to Hawaii, we could see, very exactly, a significant spike in their vitamin D levels, Tallas said. The only surprise was how it came a month or two after. Most outdoor activity requires covering all but the face and hands approximately seven months of the year, she wrote in her thesis. During the summer months, residents keep Meredith Tallas much of their bodies clothed (due to) the persistent and annoying mosquitoes and biting flies and because of this, an Alaskan summer suntan becomes one of the face and hands. Photo by NED ROZELL But even overbundled Alaskans show signs of enhanced vitamin D production from the sun. Tallas found the highest levels of vitamin D in the Fairbanks volunteers blood in July, and the lowest levels in March. Tallas attributed the July high, occurring about a month after summer solstice, to the time needed for the body to process sunlight and convert it to vitamin D. In Tallas study, volunteers showed low levels of vitamin D in winter months, but most got sufficient doses of vitamin D from sources other than the sun. Tallas also found that males had an average of 16 percent more vitamin D in their blood throughout the study, which she attributed in part to men being outside more. In charting an average for people s time outside (you can t convert sunlight to vitamin D through windows), she found December was the low point of sunlight exposure, when sun struck the skin of her volunteers for less than 20 minutes per day. People spent an average of more than two hours exposed to Alaska sunlight in June and July. They seemed to hunker down in October, when time outside in the sun dropped to about half an hour. That was after almost two hours of daily sun exposure in September. Vitamin D levels in the volunteers blood dropped in August, September, October, November, December, January, February, and March, but Tallas saw an occasional leap in midwinter. When someone had gone to Hawaii, we could see, very exactly, a significant spike in their vitamin D levels, Tallas said. The only surprise was how it came a month or two after. In her thesis, Tallas wrote that a midwinter trip to somewhere close to the equator would be a good thing for boosting Alaskans vitamin D levels. Presuming that an individual s lowest circulating vitamin D level is found in March or April, such trips could potentially have a very significant effect in improving late-winter vitamin D status, she wrote in her thesis. An easy alternative for Alaskans not traveling southward during the winter is to eat foods rich in vitamin D or take vitamin D supplements, Tallas said. Since the late 1970s, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute has provided this column free in cooperation with the UAF research community. Ned Rozell is a science writer for the Geophysical Institute. A version of this column ran in READING THE NORTH: NEW BOOKS OF INTEREST TO ALASKANS Coming Into the City Elise Sereni Patkotak (Precious Cargo Ltd., $16.95) The blurb: After spending 28 years living in a small Inupiat Eskimo village, Elise Patkotak decided it was time to return to the big city. Since New York City, the place she d left so long ago, seemed a bit scary after living in a state with a population smaller than Brooklyn s, she chose to move to Anchorage and gently get back into life amid coffee stands, malls, fresh produce and highways. The transition was not always easy. Excerpt: Generally speaking, Alaskans are a mixed bag of somewhat odd characters who have more or less come together to form a loosely cohesive, if slightly bizarre, society. One thing is for sure: If you are an Alaskan of the tried-and-true duct tape, Carhartts, blue tarp variety, no one will ever mistake you for someone from New York City. Or Portland, Oregon. Or Podunk, Iowa. My sister brought that home to me on her last visit when she said that she knows she s getting close to Alaska when the composition of the people on the plane starts to change. I think it has something to do with the fact that they tend to dress more like me than her. She does not necessarily view that as a good thing. What Alaskans call dressed up is apparently viewed in some parts of the world as barely a step above barefoot-picnic-at-the-lake attire. The Shadows of Owls John Keeble (University of Washington Press, $28.95) The blurb: When a marine biologist crosses an international petroleum conglomerate set on building a pipeline in the Chukchi Sea, her husband and son are called on to rescue her in a literary thriller about science and power. Excerpt: Jack stepped into the kitchen. His eyes went to the top of the refrigerator, where he d left his pistol. He couldn t see it, though a loaf of bread still sat there. He moved around the cooking island. Pans were strewn across the floor, and dishes, apparently swept out of the overhead cupboards and allowed to shatter on the counter. Jack s boots crunched on glass as he walked. Carefully, he picked his way to the refrigerator and stood up on his tiptoes. The pistol wasn t there. He saw that a piece of the telephone line still sprouted from the jack above the counter, near the sink. The line had indeed been clipped. Then he spotted the telephone near the bottom of a heap on the floor...what had been emptied there from the drawers: knives and forks, screwdrivers, electrical tape, bundles of wire, a bottle of nails, hammer, poaching cups, spare batteries, broken-down flashlights, old canning lids, cooking tongs, crayons, a card of thumbtacks, photographs, a chisel, a garlic press, a pizza cutter... things that had been allowed to gather in the drawers over the years, a mixed collection of still-used things and items that had assumed the quality of family artifacts together with the telephone. Jack felt a wave of outrage, and then, suddenly spooked by an absence, he glanced over at the entryway. Travis wasn t there. He wheeled around, the debris at his feet clattering, and he called: Travis? Alpaca Relaxation Guide By Gypsy and Canela with help from Nina Faust (Self-published, $9.95) The blurb: This little book, chock-full of wonderful color photos, is inspired by Faust s alpacas, Gypsy, Canela and Indigo. Let them advise you on the fine art of relaxation, meditation and chilling out. Excerpt: Gypsy Prince: We are Alpaca Relaxation Consultants, specializing in Type-A personalities who need to learn to relax. Our owner, Nina Faust, was one of those, so we have been perfecting our techniques with her. Canela (Golden Boy, aka Mr. Lala ): We started by teaching her to hang out in the barn with us to learn how to chill out alpaca-style. You can do this in your own home on a big rug instead of hay! Gypsy: Occasionally dress up, but nothing too fancy. It can make you uptight. Canela: I prefer au naturel, total comfort! Gypsy and Canela: Play with your toys! You are never too old for toys. They keep you young, engage your mind and make you smile. Indigo ( ): Love your friends and family. You never know what the future holds. Compiled by Kathleen Macknicki, Anchorage Daily News. Here are the best-sellers for the week that ended Sunday, Oct. 27, compiled from data from independent and chain bookstores, book wholesalers and independent distributors nationwide, powered by Nielsen BookScan (c)2013, The Nielsen Co. (Reprinted from Publishers Weekly, published by PWxyz LLC. (c) 2013, PWxyz LLC.) HARDCOVER FICTION 1. Sycamore Row. John Grisham. Doubleday ($28.95) 2. The Goldfinch. Donna Tartt. Little, Brown ($30) 3. Doctor Sleep. Stephen King. Scribner ($30) 4. The Longest Ride. Nicholas Sparks. Grand Central ($27) 5. We Are Water. Wally Lamb. Harper ($29.99) 6. Gone. Patterson/Ledwidge. Little, Brown ($28) 7. Identical. Scott Turow. Grand Central ($28) 8. Storm Front. John Sandford. NATIONWIDE BEST-SELLING BOOKS Putnam ($27.95) 9. Starry Night. Debbie Macomber. Ballantine ($18) 10. Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy. Helen Fielding. Knopf ($26.95) HARDCOVER NONFICTION 1. Killing Jesus. O Reilly/Dugard. Henry Holt ($28) 2. David and Goliath. Malcolm Gladwell. Little, Brown ($29) 3. I Am Malala. Malala Yousafzai. Little, Brown ($26) 4. Things That Matter. Charles Krauthammer. Crown Forum ($28) 5. Si-Cology. 1 Si Robertson. Howard Books ($22.99) 6. Forty Chances. Howard G. Buffett. Simon & Schuster. ($26) 7. My Story. Elizabeth Smart. St. Martin s ($25.99) 8. Guinness World Records Guinness World Records ($28.95) 9. The Duck Commander Devotional. Alan Robertson. Howard Books ($16.99) 10. Driven. Donald Driver. Crown Archetype ($25) Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service CREATIVE OPPORTUNITIES POTPOURRI CALL FOR WRITERS, ARTISTS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS: Alaska Women Speak is looking for poetry, prose and articles (1,200 words or less) for its upcoming issue. The theme for Winter 2013 is Survival Skills. The deadline for submissions is Nov. 15. Submissions may be sent to alaskawomensp eak@yahoo.com. Cover art or creative photography may be submitted as jpeg images. (alaskawomenspeak.org) ENDER S GAME (PG-13) 1:10 4:05 7:05 9:55 FREE BIRDS REALD 3D (PG) 12:30 3:00 5:20 7:40 10:00 FREE BIRDS (PG) 11:25AM 1:45 4:20 6:50 9:15 LAST VEGAS (PG-13) 11:40AM 2:15 4:50 7:25 10:10 JACKASS PRESENTS: BAD GRANDPA (R) 11:30AM 12:20 1:55 2:50 4:30 5:25 6:55 7:55 9:25 10:20 GRAVITY REALD 3D (PG-13) 11:35AM 2:10 3:05 4:40 7:00 8:05 9:35 10:35 GRAVITY (PG-13) 12:35 5:30 CAPTAIN PHILLIPS (PG-13) 11:45AM 2:55 6:15 7:10 9:20 ENDERS GAME XD 11:20AM 2:10 5:00 7:50 10:40 ($13.25/$9.75 CHILD/SENIOR) CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS 2 (3D) (PG) 1:55 7:15 CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS 2 (PG) 11:30AM 4:35 9:40 THE COUNSELOR (R) 11:20AM 2:05 4:55 7:40 10:25 CARRIE (R) 11:50AM 2:20 4:55 7:45 10:30 ESCAPE PLAN (R) 1:35 4:25 7:20 10:05 ENOUGH SAID (PG-13) 11:25AM 1:50 4:45 7:30 9:50 INSIDIOUS CHAPTER 2 (PG-13) 10:15 DIRTY HARRY (1971) (R) 2:00 STAY CONNECTED 6*,1.<.!4255;!":# *)$!/.!-&$!/. :=77.:!:=77.:!":# (%$!/.!- $!/. +*00*0.!,5*26!"90%&(# %%$!/.!+%$!/. :2--2,4!":# ($$!/.!-($!/. 68:<*5!27;<:=6.7<;!"90%&(# %&()!(%$!+$)!%$$$ 95*7.;!"90# %&($! )$!*%$!, $?.D:.!<1.!6255.:;!":# % $!(&$!+$$!-)$ ;6=:/;!!"90# %$$!/.! $!/. :.-!!"90%&(# %&$!/.!*()!/. 0:8?7!=9;!!"90%&(# *($!/.!-%)!/. -.;92,*+5.!6.!!"90# %& $! ()!*$$!,($ 687;<.:;!=72>.:;2<A!"0# %&)$!/.! ()!/. =KMGR!WOQ!**(), X!+)*, adn.com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facebook.com/ anchoragedailynews % -,2MR I=[ *HBN: "HEJ2RB5BDBRY.RU9Y 0J92R: twitter.com/ adndotcom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

202 PUBLIC WORKSHOP Purpose of Study. Agenda. Purpose of Study. CONTINUED

203 Why Update Study? DNL versus What You Hear Study Process. Noise Metrics

204 Forecasts of Aircraft Operations Year Passenger Cargo Air Taxi and Other General Aviation Military Total 2009 ANC 91,092 65,014 2,280 35,685 4, ,456 LHD ,291 45,885-58,176 Combined 91,092 65,014 14,571 81,570 4, , ANC 101,540 95,812 2,793 39,863 2, ,275 LHD ,793 49,667-65,460 Combined 101,540 95,812 18,586 89,530 2, , Draft Noise Contours Future Noise Contours (2020) 2009 Draft Noise Contours Existing Noise Contours (2009) Departure Climb Procedures

205 Distant Departure Future Noise Contours (2020) Close-In Departure Future Noise Contours (2020) Distant Departure Procedure Results Source: 2010 US Census Numbers rounded * Of these homes, approximately 11 were sound insulated under the previous Residential Sound Insulation Program, and approximately 25 have not been previously insulated. Residential sound insulation will be examined as a potential alternative under the subsequent land use alternatives chapter. Close-In Departure Procedure Results Source: 2010 US Census Numbers rounded * Of these homes, approximately 11 were sound insulated under the previous Residential Sound Insulation Program, and approximately 25 have not been previously insulated. Residential sound insulation will be examined as a potential alternative under the subsequent land use alternatives chapter.

206 Noise Barriers Noise Barriers Sand Lake Road Noise Barriers Noise Barriers Future Noise Contours (2020) Raspberry Road

207 Noise Barriers Future Noise Contours (2020) Lmax without GRE (Existing) Max Power Future Noise Contours (2020) Ground Run-Up Enclosure Lmax with GRE (4 alt. locations) Max Power Future Noise Contours (2020)

208 Ground Run-Up Enclosure Results Source: L& B and Mead & Hunt, Inc., US Census Numbers; all numbers are estimates Additional Studies Reduced use of Reverse Thrust Master Plan Update: Modified Preferential Runway Use

209 Master Plan Update Modified Preferential Runway Use Master Plan Results Source: 2010 US Census Numbers rounded. *This number was calculated using land use parcel data Note: All numbers are estimates; no residential uses are located in the 75 DNL and greater contours. NA Not applicable. Residences within the 60 DNL noise contour are not eligible for insulation. Comparison Graphic Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Procedure

210 RNP Procedure RNP Results Next Steps We want your input!

211 COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS

212

213

214

215 Page 1 of 1 4/23/2014 Print: 11"x17" Legal Letter Advertiser: AECOM ENVIRONMENT Advertiser ID: Ad Number: Size: 2x5.00 Publication: Anchorage Daily News Section: :00:00 Zone: State Publication Date: 04/23/2014 Page: 3 DISCLAIMER Enter the appropriate disclaimer text here

216

217 PUBLIC MEETING Land Use Compatibility. Study Process. (Winter 2014) (Spring 2014) (Spring 2014) Categories of Noise Abatement Actions. (Summer 2014) (Summer 2014) (Fall 2014) (Summer 2014) (Dec 14)

218 Land Use Options Remedial Land Use Options Remedial Land Use Options Remedial Land Use Options Remedial

219 Land Use Options Preventive Land Use Options Preventive Land Use Options Preventive Land Use Options Preventive

220 Administrative Options Administrative Options Administrative Options Administrative Options

221 Administrative Options Administrative Options Administrative Options Facility Options

222 Master Plan Revised Preferential Runway Use Contours Master Plan Results Source: 2010 US Census Numbers rounded. *This number was calculated using land use parcel data Note: All numbers are estimates; no residential uses are located in the 75 DNL and greater contours. NA Not applicable. Residences within the 60 DNL noise contour are not eligible for insulation. Master Plan Revised Preferential Runway Use Contours: New Non-Compatible Uses Next Steps

223 We want your input! Comments

224

225 Alaska Dispatch News WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 Nation / orld Pennsylvania police name survivalist as gunman who killed trooper By BEN FINLEY The Philadelphia Inquirer BLOOMING GROVE, Pa. Investigators in Pennsylvania on Tuesday named a survivalist with anti-government leanings as the gunman who killed one state police officer and injured a second in an ambush outside a state police barracks here last week. At an afternoon news conference, police said they were looking for Eric Matthew Frein, 31, in the Friday night attack that killed Cpl. Bryon K. Dickson and critically wounded trooper Alex Douglass. Frein, who had lived with his parents in Canadensis, Monroe County, is still at large and considered extremely dangerous, possessing a highpowered rifle that looks like an AK-47, police said. State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan said Frein was most likely targeting law enforcement in general and not just the troopers he shot. He made statements about wanting to kill law enforcement officers and to commit mass acts of murder, Noonan said. Investigators zeroed in on Frein on Monday after a man came across a jeep two miles from the barracks in Pike County, apparently stuck in a holding pond in a deeply wooded area. Inside were Frein s Social Security card, gaming permit and other items including face paint and spent cartridges, according to an affidavit filed in the case. Frein s father, E. Michael Frein, is a retired U.S. Army major who had 28 years of service, the affidavit said. He allegedly told investigators that said he had trained his son in shooting skills and that the younger Frein was a member of his high school POINT THOMSON: State says no loopholes in deal Continued from A-1 the case, ruling that the settlement was not an administrative action subject to the administrative appeal Walker had filed, said Cori Mills, an assistant attorney general. Instead, the court instructed Walker to file the case as an original action. Instead of doing so, he appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, said Mills. For the merits to be argued, the Supreme Court must decide the case was properly filed and remand it back to Superior Court, said Mills. Meanwhile, Parnell is blasting Walker, accusing him of stalling development. In a recent fundraising the one that mistakenly reached state employees earlier this month Parnell said the state under his governorship has made historic progress on the natural gas pipeline and that Point Thomson is finally being developed more than 30 years after discovery. Bill Walker has his own plan for a gas line which would set aside the historic progress we ve made and cause another delay in the project, Parnell said. Bill and his law firm are still fighting the state in court to stop the Pt. Thomson project, where over 700 people were working this summer. Alaskans cannot afford the job loss and lost economic momentum a Walker-Mallott ticket will bring. The Point Thomson field, with 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, contains a quarter of the North Slope s known natural gas reserves. It s considered pivotal to the $45 billion to more than $65 billion Alaska LNG project that is moving forward but won t receive a final investment decision until at least At Point Thomson, however, Exxon recently completed construction of a 22-mile pipeline as part of a $4 billion gascycling effort. Exxon would pull condensate oil from the natural gas and put it in the trans-alaska pipeline. The gas must be pumped back into the ground because there s currently no gas line to carry it to market. Ten thousand barrels a day of condensate oil is expected to flow beginning in early 2016, in what s known as the initial production system. The flow could increase to up to 70,000 barrels of liquid condensate daily, depending on what Exxon learns from the initial production. Walker said he did not sue to stop the development. In fact, he said, he played an instrumental role in the events that led up to the initial production system, including filing an agency demand in 2005 calling on the Department of Natural Resources to terminate the Point Thomson unit. The demand, filed on behalf of the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, laid out the arguments on why Exxon and its partners were in default on the project after decades of refusing to develop the field. The demand called on the department to make gas from the field available to the port authority s natural gas pipeline project. I m not taking credit, but when people say I m trying to stop Point Thomson, that s pretty hard for me to swallow, Walker said. I elevated the issue with the agency demand, a public hearing on the topic and even a lawsuit at the time that focused on concerns over the public being excluded from a potential deal, he said. MICHAEL J. MULLEN / Scranton Times & Tribune via Associated Press Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan speaks during a news conference Tuesday in Blooming Grove, Pa. In 2006, the state terminated the unit, leading to legal action and a 2009 commitment from Exxon under former Gov. Sarah Palin to complete two wells and launch the gas-cycling project, in exchange for keeping two leases, he said. The state settled the case over the remaining leases in 2012, but work related to the 2009 commitment has led to the progress seen at Point Thomson today, he said. It was a repackaging of the deal reached in 2009, Walker said of the settlement. Responding to a request for a follow-up interview with Parnell, Parnell campaign spokesman Luke Miller sent an saying Parnell stands by his original statement and Walker is actively working to stop the project. Any action undertaken by Bill Walker s law firm will cost Alaskans thousands of jobs, the statement said. Walker s legal partner and his lawyer in the case, Craig Richards, said a victory for Walker s case would not delay development at Point Thomson. It would simply ensure that the Department of Natural Resources has control of future development steps at Point Thomson, allowing for public input, an authority the settlement removed. He said the settlement allows disputes to be resolved by arbitration rather than through the legally required means of administrative decisions or the courts. This has never been about shooting team. According to his father, Frein doesn t miss, the affidavit said. Police also said the shooting was not a surprise to others who knew Frein. This was not something he kept quiet, Noonan said, without elaborating. Police said Frein stands about 6-foot-1, with blue eyes and weighs about 165 pounds. Earlier Tuesday, a district justice in East Stroudsburg issued a search warrant in connection with the case, but the judge s office declined to release details of the warrant. Dickson, 38, served at the Philadelphia state police barracks for a year before transferring in June to Blooming Grove, in rural Pike County. He had grown up in northeast Pennsylvania and lived with his wife and two children in nearby Dunmore. The gunman fired at the two troopers from a wooded area across the barracks as Dickson was leaving his shift and Douglass was beginning his. The winding road cuts mostly through state forest and is minutes from Interstate 84, which cuts through northeastern Pennsylvania to New York. Douglass was critically wounded and remained hospitalized. throwing out the project or going back to court cases and reopening those. It s solely been about DNR retaining its legally mandated authorized role in terms of overseeing project development now and in the future, he said. Joe Balash, the current DNR commissioner, said changing a key part of the settlement could undermine it. Like most deals, if you take out a key part, then what s left? Do you still have a deal? The plan lays out a path to development that allows Exxon to earn back the entire field, he said. If the company and its partners including BP and ConocoPhillips complete the initial production system, they can keep the heart of the reservoir but not all the acreage associated with the unit, he said. For Exxon to secure all the acreage, by 2019 it would have to commit to increasing the gas-cycling effort to up to 30,000 barrels daily, or sanction a major gas sale, or send gas 60 miles west to Prudhoe Bay to produce more oil there while also making significant amounts of gas available from Prudhoe Bay for instate use. That last alternative would require the installation of a gas line from Point Thomson to Prudhoe Bay and a gas sale. If none of those three options is achieved, the remaining acreage returns to the state. Balash said that when Walker and Richards say they /74-4? +<<9 <5 0>43 (<<9>$ &% 8::8<; 0>43 2;3 (2=628; (<<9># )*># 2;3 *1*>! 18;@: +."> BUY SELL TRADE &()% 2$ 09:<64:8 /756<;!843: 1-." *+#, +( SOUTH KOREA US man detained in waters near border SEOUL South Korean border guards arrested an American man who they believe was attempting to swim across the border into North Korea, a South Korean defense official said Wednesday. The man was arrested Tuesday night at a river near the Korean Demilitarized Zone, part of a restricted military area, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to office policy. He said investigators are questioning the man about the purpose of his apparent attempt to enter North Korea but gave no further details. Yonhap news agency, citing an unidentified government source, reported the man was in his late 20s or early 30s and told investigators that he tried to go to North Korea to meet leader Kim Jong Un. He was caught by South Korean marines while lying on the shore of the river after swimming north, the report said. Last year, South Korean soldiers shot and killed a man with a South Korean passport who officials said ignored warnings to return the South. WORLD NEWS A-7 FIJI Polls to open after 8 years of military rule WELLINGTON, New Zealand Thousands of Fijians got their first chance to vote in eight years Wednesday in an election that promises to finally restore democracy to the South Pacific nation of 900,000. Yet as polls opened Wednesday morning, plenty of questions remain about how far military ruler Voreqe Bainimarama has tilted the outcome in his favor. Bainimarama is running as a candidate, and polls indicate his party is by far the most popular of the seven contesting the election. The question appears to be not whether his Fiji First party will receive the most votes, but whether it will gain an outright majority of Parliament s 50 seats under Fiji s new proportional system. Anything less could force Bainimarama to share power, not something he s familiar with after years of ruling by decree. If the election is deemed fair by international observers, it will likely wash away the last remaining barriers put up by Western countries after Bainimarama first seized power in a 2006 coup. Dispatch News wire reports just want to return the decision-making to DNR, it seems to me they re trying to use some weaselly words to suggest they re not trying to undo the deal, he said. They re trying to say, no, you can t make a commitment to (Exxon and its partners) that if they do all this work, they can keep the land. They re saying no, no, that deal s off, DNR has to be free to change its mind. Balash said public comment related to future steps will be available because the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission must approve whatever 2019 development options the field s working interest owners choose. He said extensive comment in hearings and litigation since 2005 has also been taken into consideration in creating the settlement. That settlement is essentially a plan of development, and such plans even in non-settlement circumstances cannot be commented upon unless disputes arise, he said. Richards said once Exxon completes the initial production system, the settlement contains loopholes that permit Exxon to merely complete paperwork and fake studies to keep the field until the 2030s, without suffering meaningful consequences from the state, he said. We might get a hit by a satellite, too, said Balash. I don t know where he s coming up with that quite honestly. We have pretty tight language about the commitment in 2019 to one of those three options. Balash said the settlement provides the means to more fully develop the field beyond the initial production system. It prevents Exxon from stalling on the project and using the initial production system as a lever against the state. Without a settlement, they could say, You know, we re not sure there s a good enough fiscal deal with the state, so we ll not move forward on an LNG project at this time, so we ll just continue to produce from Point Thomson under the IPS. What would the state do? We could certainly try to take action on Point Thomson but they would argue well, these other parts of the fields are contributing to production... and because they re in production we d be in a legal quagmire that would take years to either prevail in court, or try to make another settlement. Contact Alex DeMarban at alex@alaskadispatch.com. "&! " %!#$ #63/ 3,908,5/ :82.,3.;8805:9 &68 961: :299;0 7,25 & :680 /04659:8,:265 *05:,39,<,23, : /0/! &$" "))*(+%$!$)& "-(, # $+*$%.!&% $#( "*))( Lake Otis Pkwy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

226 September 30, 2014 PUBLIC MEETING Forecasts of Aircraft Operations Year Passenger Cargo Air Taxi and Other General Aviation Military Total 2009 ANC 91,092 65,014 2,280 35,685 4, ,456 LHD ,291 45,885-58,176 Combined 91,092 65,014 14,571 81,570 4, , ANC 101,540 95,812 2,793 39,863 2, ,275 LHD ,793 49,667-65,460 Combined 101,540 95,812 18,586 89,530 2, ,735 Study Process. (Summer 2014) (Summer 2014) (Fall 2014) (Winter 2014) (Summer 2014) (Summer 2014) Existing 2009 Noise Exposure Map (Summer 2014) (Dec 14)

227 Future 2020 Noise Exposure Map Includes two operational considerations that are reasonably foreseeable as baseline conditions: Master Plan Phase 2 Modification of Preferential Runway Use System Required Navigation Procedure to Runway 33 All Recommendations are based off of the Future NEM Existing/Future NEM Comparison Future 2020 Noise Exposure Map Draft Recommended Measures For this Part 150 Study, we have examined options in the following categories: Noise Abatement Options Land Use, Administrative, and Facility Options The options were then narrowed into a set of recommended measures. Measures are recommended based on: Whether they meet the overall goal of the Study to reduce the number of people affected by noise Community input Feasibility, suitability, and cost

228 Noise Abatement Recommendations Recommendation 1: Noise Barrier Recommendation 2: Ground Run-Up Enclosure (GRE) Recommendation 3: Voluntary Reduced Use of Reverse Thrust Noise Barrier Elevation Profile Noise Abatement Recommendations Recommendation 1: Noise Barrier Design and construction of noise barrier/wall along the eastern boundary of the Airport near LHD gravel strip (the only area found to be effective for a barrier). Benefits for homes within close distance of the barrier. Could be initiated immediately upon approval of Part 150 Study. It would take approximately 2 to 3 years to plan and construct, depending on location and availability of funding. Est. Cost: $100,000-$1 Million, highly dependent on design. Noise Abatement Recommendations Recommendation 2: Ground Run-Up Enclosure (GRE) A siting study would determine the best location. Could be initiated immediately upon approval of Part 150 Study, but not prior to an air space review of the location to ensure compliance with Part 77 regulations, compliance with NEPA regulations, and receipt of funding. Est. Cost: $3-$5 Million dependent on size.

229 GRE Lmax Noise Exposure Land Use Management Recommendations Recommendation 1: Voluntary Sound Insulation of Noise Sensitive Structures within the 65 DNL Noise Contour Recommendation 2: Disclosure Statements/Buyer Notification Recommendation 3: Building Code Requirements Sound Attenuation Required for New Development Recommendation 4: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Recommendation 5: Zoning Code Changes/Noise Overlay Zone Noise Abatement Recommendation 3: Voluntary Reduced Use of Reverse Thrust Note: this is a voluntary landing procedure. The Airport has no control over who follows this procedure or when it is used. Airlines responsible for implementing when conditions are favorable. Cannot be monitored or enforced. Could be initiated immediately upon approval of Part 150 Study, coordination with ATCT, and notification of operators. Land Use Management Recommendation 1: Voluntary Sound Insulation of Noise Sensitive Structures within the 65 DNL Noise Contour Approximately 45 homes are within the eligibility boundary (that were not eligible under the previous insulation program) and may be eligible for sound insulation. Must meet requirements including: constructed prior to Oct. 1, 1998, be up to code and show interior noise levels of 45 db or higher. Full implementation is dependent upon several steps, including meeting noise monitoring requirements and availability of funding and could take several years to a decade. Est. Cost: $2.25 Million

230 Preliminary Sound Insulation Eligibility Boundary Land Use Management Recommendations Recommendation 2: Disclosure Statements/Buyer Notification Implementation would be up to the local jurisdiction which would have the authority to require such disclosure/notification. Most effective if linked to 60 DNL noise contour. Due to political issues and processes at the local and state levels, implementation could take several years, or may not be not achieved during the Study time frame. Preliminary Sound Insulation Eligibility Boundary Notification Area (60 DNL Noise Contour)

231 Land Use Management Recommendations Recommendation 3: Building Code Requirements Sound Attenuation Required for New Development Would be based on a definable boundary, usually DNL noise contours. Local jurisdictions would be responsible for implementing this measure by adopting changes to the building code, and/or zoning ordinance. Due to political issues and processes at the local level, implementation is not definite. Land Use Management Recommendations Recommendation 5: Zoning Code Changes/Noise Overlay Zone Would involve changes to Municipality of Anchorage Title 21 Land Use Code. Standards could include sound attenuation, granting of an avigation easement, disclosure notification, or other related standards. Local jurisdiction would be responsible for implementation. Due to political issues at the local level, implementation is not definite. Land Use Management Recommendations Recommendation 4: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Would utilize land use planning and development policy processes to achieve long-term land use compatibility of the jurisdictions with aircraft noise exposure. Local jurisdiction would be responsible for implementation. Due to political issues and processes at the local level related to comprehensive planning, implementation is not definite. Administrative Recommendations Recommendation 1: Development of Fly Quiet Report Card and Pilot Awareness Program Recommendation 2: Continuation of Public Information Program and Noise Information Page on the Website Recommendation 3: Public Comment Submittal Form Recommendation 4: Addressing of Noise Comments Recommendation 5: Flight Tracking Recommendation 6: Review and Update Part 150 Study As Needed

232 Administrative Recommendations Recommendation 1: Development of Fly Quiet Report Card and Pilot Awareness Program Create/update a Fly Quiet Program for Lake Hood Seaplane Base. There is currently an unofficial Fly Quiet Program at LHD, and this would be updated to provide education through brochures, meetings, etc. Full implementation timeframe would be approximately 1-2 years. Est. Initial Cost: $40,000. Administrative Recommendations Recommendation 3: Public Comment Submittal Form The current comment submittal form allows the Airport to track where and when comments are received. Comments are reviewed by airport staff and responses are provided when requested. The Airport would be responsible for regularly reviewing comments or complaints and responding when requested. Administrative Recommendations Recommendation 2: Continuation of Public Information Program and Noise Information Page on the Website Continued measure from previous Part 150 Study. The Airport has implemented this measure on their website and through periodic meetings with user groups and community councils. Airport would continue to update noise information on its website as necessary, and continue its public information program briefings. Administrative Recommendations Recommendation 4: Addressing of Noise Comments Includes covering the responsibilities of the former Noise Program Manager position, but incorporates the flexibility of balancing work load within Airport staff to accommodate these tasks across several positions. Tied to Administrative Recommendation 3.

233 Administrative Recommendations Recommendation 5: Flight Tracking Acquire flight tracking system. In the past, the flight tracking portion of the previous system was found to be most beneficial in answering questions from the public. Not associated with noise reduction. Completion of this recommendation would take approximately 1-2 years. Est. Cost: $34,000 and $50,000/yr to operate. Facility Recommendations Recommendation 1: Install Electrification and Preconditioned Air at All Jet Bridges and Cargo Areas Install electrification and preconditioned air at all jet bridges and cargo areas that do not currently have these features. Airport would identify feasible jet bridges/gates where this recommendation could be implemented, in collaboration with the airlines. Could be initiated if funding is available. Could be eligible for a VALE grant. Est. Cost: Study ($50,000); $ Million Administrative Recommendations Recommendation 6: Review and Update Part 150 Study As Needed Ensures that the Noise Compatibility Program is adjusted as conditions in Airport environs change over time. The Airport would continue its ongoing review of operational and aircraft type information. Based on that information, the Airport would consider a Part 150 Study Update as necessary according to FAR Part 150 regulations. Next Steps. Finalize Recommendations Coordinate with FAA to finalize Recommendations Public Hearing: November 12th, Day Official Comment Period dates to be announced Submit official comments by postal mail, , or through the project website during the Comment Period and at the Public Hearing

234 We want your input! Submit your comments by: Written comment form at the meetings Comment form on the website at: By Letter to: Mead & Hunt Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK 74120

235 Written Comments Received Up to Start of Official Comment Period/Workshop Comments

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256