AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTERPLAN

MASTERPLAN REPORT NO. 13365 VERSION A MARCH 2014 PREPARED FOR RCP 6 FOX STREET, PARNELL AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND

MASTERPLAN DOCUMENT CONTROL Version Status Date Prepared By Reviewed By A Final 4 April 2013 Brian Clarke Rob Bullen Note All materials specified by Wilkinson Murray Pty Limited have been selected solely on the basis of acoustic performance. Any other properties of these materials, such as fire rating, chemical properties etc. should be checked with the suppliers or other specialised bodies for fitness for a given purpose. The information contained in this document produced by Wilkinson Murray is solely for the use of the client identified on the front page of this report. Our client becomes the owner of this document upon full payment of our Tax Invoice for its provision. This document must not be used for any purposes other than those of the document s owner. Wilkinson Murray undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. Quality Assurance We are committed to and have implemented AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management Systems Requirements. This management system has been externally certified and Licence No. QEC 13457 has been issued. AAAC This firm is a member firm of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants and the work here reported has been carried out in accordance with the terms of that membership. Celebrating 50 Years in 2012 Wilkinson Murray is an independent firm established in 1962, originally as Carr & Wilkinson. In 1976 Barry Murray joined founding partner Roger Wilkinson and the firm adopted the name which remains today. From a successful operation in Australia, Wilkinson Murray expanded its reach into Asia by opening a Hong Kong office early in 2006. 2010 saw the introduction of our Queensland office and 2011 the introduction of our Orange office to service a growing client base in these regions. From these offices, Wilkinson Murray services the entire Asia-Pacific region.

MASTERPLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 2 BRIEF FOR PEER REVIEW 3 3 INFORMATION PROVIDED 4 4 REVIEW 6 4.1 INM Setup 6 4.2 Runway End Points and Thresholds 6 4.3 Track locations 6 4.4 Track allocations 7 4.4.1 Sub Tracks 7 4.4.2 Ground Operations 7 4.5 Schedule 7 4.6 Stage lengths and Calibration 7 4.7 Calculations 9 4.8 FAA Aircraft Substitution 9 4.9 Contours 9 4.10 Outer Envelope Concept 9 5 CONCLUSION 11 APPENDIX A AIA SCENARIO 28 AND 29 NOISE CONTOURS

MASTERPLAN PAGE 1 1 INTRODUCTION Wilkinson Murray (WM) has been engaged to review the inputs to the Integrated Noise Model (INM) for the Auckland International Airport (AIA) Masterplan. The INM was prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) incorporating information from various sources. The intention of this review is to assess whether or not the input data for the INM is consistent with the data and methodology as advised by Marshall Day in their contract instructions and supporting documents and data files supplied for Peer Review. The review process consisted of a review and consultation with MDA on initial noise modelling and assumptions. As a result of this consultation the calibration process was modified and the modelling inputs updated to produce the contours that have been submitted to the relevant authorities. This report reflects the current noise modelling supplied for Auckland International Airport. Wilkinson Murray considers that the approach taken to prepare noise contours is a thorough and appropriate methodology. 1.1 Background Auckland Council is currently undertaking a review of the District Plan. A draft version of the proposed plan has been released and Auckland Council is receiving submissions till 28 February 2014 on the proposed plan. Auckland Airport wishes to provide a submission relating to the current noise rules governing the airport, part of which will include updating the District Plan noise contours to allow for future growth. New Zealand Standard NZS 6805:1992 Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning (NZS 6805) provides a recommended approach for territorial authorities dealing with airports and land affected by airport noise. The process aims to manage the adverse effects of airport noise by controlling the use of land around airports, and by ensuring that noise from the airport does not exceed the future noise contours used for planning process. The Standard has two major aims: (i) to establish compatible land use planning around an airport and (ii) to set noise limits for the management of aircraft noise at airports. These objectives are achieved by delivering future noise contours that are adopted in the District Plan. The contours are used to control land use activities and are used as a noise control on the airport. When establishing the location of noise boundaries, an allowance for the expected growth of the airport is made, and NZS 6805 recommends a minimum 10 year projection of future aircraft operations. Some New Zealand Airports have used ultimate capacity as the future growth scenario. In this case the future year on which the noise contours are based is 2044. Auckland Airport currently operates a single runway to the south of the terminal building. The airport anticipates that in the future (2028 at the latest) a second runway would be required to enable the airport to expand its operations. The proposed location of the second runway is to the north of the current runway. ARUP have proposed three northern runway configurations in

MASTERPLAN PAGE 2 this location. The runway configuration used for the noise modelling considered in this report is the Ultimate Base Case configuration. Inputs for the INM have come from various sources and have been compiled by Marshall Day Acoustics using Microsoft Access to create the ops_flt file. The synthetic schedule and runway end locations have been provided by ARUP. Flight track locations and allocations have been provided by Airways Corporation. The objective of this peer review is to determine the consistency of the INM inputs and contours with those reported and provided by ARUP and Airways, and to review the concepts & assumptions used in the modelling.

MASTERPLAN PAGE 3 2 BRIEF FOR PEER REVIEW The brief for this review, provided by Marshall Day, was to scrutinise and check the following items: 1. Confirm Runway endpoints and displaced thresholds in the INM 2. Runway allocations: Check that the runway allocation in the model is consistent with that reported. 3. Track locations: Compare the location of tracks in the INM with the location of tracks approved by Airways 4. Track allocations: Compare the modelled track splits provided to us by airways with those modelled 5. Schedule: Confirm that the operating schedule input to the INM is consistent with the schedule provided by ARUP, given required adjustments. 6. Stage lengths: Check that the modelled stage lengths are consistent with those reported. 7. Calculations: Check steps in calculating the ops_flt file for input to the INM, and confirm that the INM input is accurate, given these inputs. 8. Contours: Check that the calculated contours are consistent with the reported ones. 9. Comment on the Outer Envelope concept the consultant team is proposing for the implementation of the contours into the Auckland Council Unitary Plan in accordance with New Zealand Standard NZS 6805. 10. Comment on calibration of the INM using measurement results The format of this report follows the outline of the review brief. It is noted that the numerical processing of measured aircraft noise levels used to adjust noise from aircraft types has not been reviewed. Rather WM has relied on the data supplied by MDA and has checked for consistency in modelling and methodology.

MASTERPLAN PAGE 4 3 INFORMATION PROVIDED The following information was provided in electronic format to Wilkinson Murray for the purpose of the review. Table 3.1: List of Information Supplied Description Organisation File Type File Name Ci 001 2013310A lrm (Contract Instruction - Wilkinson Contract Instruction MDA PDF PDF murray Ci 002 2013310A lrm (Contract Instruction - Wilkinson Murray) r02 Modelling Scenario Table MDA XLSX Modelling Scenario Table r02 Proposed runway locations ARUP DWG PDF ACAD-sk101_3D Design Model - Plan Layout final Northern Runway Location Options 130714 Track allocation (1 for each of the 2 RMOs) Airways XLSX XLSX 131223 Airways Tracks - 2044 RMO 3 for Access 131223 Airways Tracks - 2044 RMO 4 for Access Runway End Point Change ARUP Email +DWG (attached to email) Checking of Coordinates for Noise Modelling / sk303-1 - AKL - East Extension with Perimeter Road Plot East Track locations Airways Email + PDFs Re: Fwd: Re: Arrival Track Spread mark up Movement of 2 aircraft to the southern runway ARUP Email FW AKL Northern Runway Query Aircraft movement schedules ARUP XLSX XLSX SC28_RMO3_LBC_6805_C_NewTrk_70 30 SC29_RMO4_LBC_6805_C_NewTrk_70 30 Access databases Raw data (#5) ops_flt MDA ACCDB ACCBD SC28_RMO3_LBC_6805_C_NewTrk_70 30 post peer review SC29_RMO4_LBC_6805_C_NewTrk_70 30 post peer review Aircraft substitution spreadsheet MDA XLSX INM Calibration Summary r02 INM noise model MDA INM Contour drawings MDA PDF AIA Masterplan New Tracks (Point) LBC With Terrain Final Scenario 28: RMO3b, Curfew 10-7, Agreed RW Scenario 29: RMO4, Inherent Curfew, Agreed Runway

MASTERPLAN PAGE 5 Meteorological Data MDA XLSX 2011 Met Data Two final scenarios were reviewed being: Scenario 28: RMO3b, Curfew 10-7, Agreed RW Scenario 29: RMO4, Inherent Curfew, Agreed Runway

MASTERPLAN PAGE 6 4 REVIEW The following items of the model were reviewed: 4.1 INM Setup The model setup is consistent with data supplied by MD. This includes the Airport Reference Point (APR) and meteorological conditions. The calculation of average annual meteorological conditions in the 2011 Met Data excel file was found to be correct and was consistent with the INM input. 4.2 Runway End Points and Thresholds The runway end points in the INM where checked against provided CAD drawing using Land Information New Zealand - Online Conversions page to convert from NZTM projection. It was determined that these have been entered correctly and are consistent. In addition runway offsets are consistent with advised offsets. Figure 4.1 shows the model runway overlaid on an aerial photograph of the airport. Figure 4.1 INM Runways Plotted on a Site Aerial 4.3 Track locations WM has reviewed the supplied track figures and determined that these are consistent with the tracks used in the INM model. All of the tracks in INM and the figures were visually reviewed. INM tracks were plotted and checked against the track drawings.

MASTERPLAN PAGE 7 4.4 Track allocations In order to verify that the INM input is consistent with the schedule provided by Arup and the specified adjustments, WM reviewed the schedule as provided, and as described in the contract instruction, and compared this with the INM ops_calc.dbf file. Track / runway allocations in the INM are correct given the allocation process/methodology as explained in correspondence. It is noted that fixed wing aircraft are modelled; no GA or Helicopters are included in the model. 4.4.1 Sub Tracks Subtracks have been modelled with percentage allocations as detailed in supplied documentation. 4.4.2 Ground Operations Ground operations have been modelled using three aircraft types. It is noted that ground operations are not typically modelled in Australian airport operations. Nonetheless, upon review the modelling approach and allocations are considered to be reasonable and appropriate. 4.5 Schedule Total movements in the synthetic schedules were checked to ensure they are equal to total movements in the INM. In addition track allocations were checked in the INM model against the schedule, taking into account necessary adjustments. It was determined that the schedules match the ops_flt files in the various INM scenarios. 4.6 Stage lengths and Calibration Model calibration is based on an analysis of noise monitoring at three locations to the west of Auckland Airport and has been applied by application of changed stage lengths. The results of noise monitoring were compared with INM noise modelling under local metrological conditions. It is our understanding that based on this information various similar aircraft and stage lengths were selected to better fit actual noise measurements at three monitoring locations. We have not been supplied with raw measurement data for analysis and therefore have not conducted a review of this information. We do note that the Contract Instruction indicates that the initial SEL s were calculated with departure length of 1 for domestic operations, 3 for short haul international and 7 for long haul international. The procedure adopted by MD is reproduced as follows In order to calibrate the model MD have taken the following steps: 1. Collate SEL results for jet aircraft from the monitoring system at all three permanent monitors for the 2011 calendar year (no known issues with the system or results for this year). 2. Calculate the average SEL (10Log(average of antilogs)) for each operation and aircraft

MASTERPLAN PAGE 8 type at each monitor. 3. Using the INM calculate the corresponding SEL s using standard settings (default met. conditions, STANDARD profiles, departure stage lengths of stage 1 domestic, stage 3 short haul and stage 7 long haul). 4. Recalculate the SEL s in INM multiple times using a number of variable parameters including actual met. data (2011 average), various available profiles (ICAO A/B), longer departure stage lengths, similar aircraft types. 5. MD determined that using actual met. data and selecting the Adjust NPD Curves option is most accurate. Therefore based on actual met. results, determine for each aircraft the most appropriate INM aircraft type and profiles to use to best match the measured SEL s for both arrivals and departures. This is a balance to select the single best modelling option to suit both operations at all three monitoring locations. Wilkinson Murray consider that the approach detailed above is reasonable, and have reviewed the processed data which has been supplied and determined that the stage lengths that have been adopted in the current model, as detailed below, are consistent. Table 4.1 Calibrated Route Dependent Departure Profiles ARUP Aircraft INM Equivalent Route Profile ID_1 Profile ID_2 (stage length) 320 A321-232 SHORT HAUL ICAOA 5 343 A340-211 LONG HAUL STANDARD 7 359 7878R LONG HAUL STANDARD 7 388 A380-841 LONG HAUL ICAOA 8 733 737800 DOMESTIC STANDARD 5 734 737400 SHORT HAUL STANDARD M 738 737800 SHORT HAUL STANDARD 6 778 7773ER LONG HAUL STANDARD 7 77W 7773ER LONG HAUL STANDARD 7 787 7878R LONG HAUL STANDARD 9 7878R SHORT HAUL STANDARD 5 7878R DOMESTIC STANDARD 3 737 737700 SHORT HAUL STANDARD 4 737700 DOMESTIC STANDARD 2 744 747400 LONG HAUL STANDARD 9 747400 SHORT HAUL STANDARD 5 772 772USER (777300) LONG HAUL ICAO_A 7 772USER (777300) SHORT HAUL ICAO_A 3 772USER (777300) DOMESTIC ICAO_A 1 773 777300 LONG HAUL ICAO_A 7 777300 SHORT HAUL ICAO_A 3

MASTERPLAN PAGE 9 ARUP Aircraft INM Equivalent Route Profile ID_1 Profile ID_2 (stage length) 332 A330-301 LONG HAUL STANDARD 7 A330-301 SHORT HAUL STANDARD 3 4.7 Calculations It has been confirmed that the grid setup and run option files in the INM model have been entered correctly and a review of the error log files showed no errors that would affect outputs of the modelling are present. 4.8 FAA Aircraft Substitution MDA received information from the FAA, via WM, about a preferred substitute for the A350-900 as follows: WM confirms that this advice has been included by MDA in the noise model. 4.9 Contours Outputs of noise modelling for the two scenarios have been reviewed with the graphics (see Appendix A) and these are consistent. It is noted that terrain has been included in the model. The terrain data used in the model is considered suitable for modelling purposes. 4.10 Outer Envelope Concept Where the future arrangement of infrastructure at an airport has not been determined, it is common practice in Australia to calculate noise exposure contours for two or more alternative future scenarios, and to base land use planning controls on the outer envelope of those contours. This ensures that planning decisions are not taken that would effectively close off certain development options for the Airport. Wilkinson Murray considers that this practice is sensible, provided that the options considered

MASTERPLAN PAGE 10 represent realistic, feasible possibilities for future airport infrastructure, and that the implications of each alternative for movement numbers, flight tracks, etc have been rigorously examined. Once a decision is made between the alternatives, noise exposure contours should be updated to reflect only the chosen alternative.

MASTERPLAN PAGE 11 5 CONCLUSION WM has reviewed the INM inputs to the AIA noise model and conclude that within the bounds of the prescribed brief, the noise contours have been calculated in accordance with the assumptions and methodologies described in the MDA contract instructions and the supplied data.

APPENDIX A AIA SCENARIO 28 AND 29 NOISE CONTOURS

MASTERPLAN APPENDIX A-1

Auckland International Airport Masterplan Noise Contour Peer Review Report No. 13365 Version Wilkinson Murray (Sydney) Pty LimitedA Appendix A-2