Source: http://anc150study.com/faq/
Timestamp: 2018-12-14 21:20:33
Document Index: 360064390

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150', 'art 150']

Ted Stevens Anchorage Int'l Airport | FAQ’s
Background to FAR Part 150 Studies
Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) establishes a voluntary, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) administered program that includes procedures to be followed by airports to assess aircraft noise and land use compatibility. It establishes a single system for the measurement of aircraft (and background) noise, a single system for determining the exposure of individuals to aircraft noise, and a standardized airport noise compatibility planning program. The planning program includes: (1) provisions for the development and submission to the FAA of a Noise Exposure Map and Noise Compatibility Program by airport operators; (2) standard noise units, methods, and analytical techniques for use in airport assessments; (3) identification of land uses which are normally considered compatible (or non-compatible) with various levels of noise around airports based on federal thresholds; and (4) procedures and criteria for FAA approval and disapproval of noise compatibility programs. The Noise Compatibility Program will contain recommendations for noise abatement and mitigation addressing both land use and aircraft operational issues.
The Part 150 Compatibility Study Update that is currently underway will update the existing noise exposure maps by looking at current noise and land use conditions and develop a forecast of future conditions (2020).
The objective of this Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update is to update the Noise Exposure Maps based on current and forecast future conditions and find reasonable solutions to the problems associated with noise generated by aircraft, and to present solutions that can be implemented. The goal of the overall program is for the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, in consultation with the state/local planners, local aviation groups, and interested citizens, to develop a balanced and cost-effective program to minimize and/or mitigate aircraft noise effects on the local communities.
Work on the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update started in January 2012. Completion is anticipated in early 2016. The Schedule page on this website will have additional information on the generalized schedule process and the Welcome page will include updates as available. Once the Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) are accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), it will take up to an additional six months for FAA approval.
The Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport is updating their previous Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that the Airport have current Noise Exposure Maps to receive federal funding for noise mitigation measures. The existing Noise Exposure Maps are 10 years old. Additionally, over the past 10 years there have been changes to aircraft fleet mix, change in aircraft activity levels, updates to the noise model used for analysis, and changes in the airfield development which will all be considered during the Study Update.
What are Noise Contours (Noise Exposure Maps – NEMs) and how are they used
The Part 150 Noise Study uses the 65 DNL contour to represent non-compatible land uses and determine eligibility for federal funds for noise mitigation. Any noise sensitive uses (such as residences, schools, churches, etc.) within the 65 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 that will be analyzed in the Part 150 Study Update.
A variety of information is gathered during the Study to create an accurate noise contour including: the number of flights, flight paths, type of aircraft, type of aircraft engines, time of day, weather conditions, and runway use. Actual on-site noise measurements specific to aircraft operating at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport are used to verify predicted individual aircraft noise levels contained in the computer model.
These data are used to generate noise contours that are overlaid onto base maps to create a Noise Exposure Map (NEM), which is used to identify where specific levels of aircraft noise occur. The Noise Exposure Maps developed for Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport will be used in several ways:
Why can’t another noise metric be used?
Sometimes the Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric used in Part 150 Studies is criticized because it averages noise over a 24-hour period for an entire year, which can seem to downplay noise events that can have large impacts on residential populations and does not accurately portray what people actually hear on a day to day basis. It is true that because the Integrated Noise Model represents noise in an annual average, it does not represent what people hear when an aircraft flies over. This Study will present data with single event metrics, which helps to illustrate what people hear with a flyover. These single event metrics are being conducted as part of this Study primarily for informational purposes because based on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation, the DNL metric is required to be used in the Part 150 analysis. The noise mitigation measures within this Study are approved or disapproved based on this metric. In order for another metric to be used, the Part 150 regulations would have to be changed at the federal level.
What future projects will be included in the future noise contours? (I.e., will the extension of the runway or the new proposed runway be taken into account?)
The future noise contours will include all projects that are either completed or in the Capital Improvements Program to be completed by 2020 and have environmental approvals. Therefore, the extension of runway 7R (completed) will be included as an existing condition in the future contours. However, a potential new runway is not planned in the near term or environmentally approved, and is not considered to be reasonably foreseeable; therefore, it will not be included in the modeling for the future contours.
The Study includes aircraft in the air that operate from Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport and Lake Hood Seaplane Base, aircraft on the ground and aircraft-related point sources, such as auxiliary power units (APUs) and ground power units (GPUs). The Study must follow federal regulations and therefore, it does not include sources such as ground support equipment, airfield equipment (such as snow plows), cars, or other non-aviation related noise sources.
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, not to take noise from one area and impact another noise sensitive area. Additionally, while the Study may make recommendations on flight track changes, only the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) can decide whether or not to implement them based on a number of factors, including safety.
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. Not all recommendations will necessarily be implemented due to a limited amount of funding and other considerations, and so recommendations must be prioritized. Generally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) places a higher priority on mitigating noise for those within the highest areas of noise exposure. The Airport and FAA have placed a considerable amount of effort into the Residential Sound Insulation Program for Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. The history of each individual alternative and why it was or was not implemented is not applicable to this study due to the many factors involved including changing funding sources, changes in staff, etc. What information is available 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.
Monitoring and Supplemental Noise Metrics
The purpose of noise monitoring is to provide a method to confirm the outputs in the Integrated Noise Model from different aircraft types. The monitoring measures how loud individual aircraft are at certain points. This is then compared to the prediction based on the model and helps determine if any adjustments need to be made to the model inputs to accurately portray the unique noise environment at Ted Stevens Anchorage International and Lake Hood Airports. Said another way, these measurements are used to validate the Federal Aviation Administration (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 specific conditions at particular airports.
Seasonal changes can also affect noise, especially for a location such as Anchorage with higher summer operations at Lake Hood Seaplane Base. Therefore, for this project there were two periods of monitoring (one in the summer and one in the winter), each for several weeks. Noise measurements were taken during two seasons, summer and winter, at 30 different sites. Additionally, noise data from the Airport’s permanent noise monitors were taken for the base case year of 2009. The data from this monitoring has been compared to the modeled contours and the monitoring data support the contours. It is important to remember that while the public may hear frequent isolated single events with loud noise levels, the resulting DNL contour is based on the annualized noise exposure to reflect noise generated by aircraft operations for an entire year to follow FAA regulations and does not represent what people hear for single events.
There were semi-permanent sites and permanent sites on the noise monitoring map. What is the difference?
Semi-permanent sites and short-term sites are monitors installed by the Part 150 consultants in 2012 specifically for this noise study on a temporary basis; hence they are both referred to as temporary sites. Sites 1-10 are referred to as semi-permanent and data was collected for approximately seven to thirteen days at each of these sites during each of the winter and summer monitoring periods. Sites 11-30 are referred to as short-term and data was collected for approximately one day at each of these sites per monitoring period. Permanent sites are monitors installed by the Airport many years ago that have since become inoperable; however, they were operable for the entire year of 2009 and we used that data in the study.
Site 8 at Lyn Ary Park was inoperable for the noise monitoring study and in a poor location. Why was this not made operable?
Site 8 at Lyn Ary Park (and other permanent sites) are currently inoperable, but they were operable in 2009, which was the existing conditions year for this Study. Because of this, we were able to get the data they collected for the entire year of 2009. In addition to these permanent sites, 29 temporary sites were monitored during two periods (winter and summer of 2012) and gave good coverage of the area to the northeast and around the rest of the airport.
It is important to remember that monitoring is used to validate the model. The noise modeling is not directly dependent on any of the noise measurements. The FAA has enough field documentation that the computer generated integrated noise model (INM) fairly accurately predicts noise levels, based on known or projected aircraft operations, so that actual field measurements are not necessary, nor are they a requirement of FAA as part of a Part 150 Study. ANC decided early in the planning process to go the extra step and collect noise data to double check the INM. The monitoring at these sites validated the noise contours produced by the INM.
What specific FAA tower information did the Team use to model the flight tracks for use in the INM?
FAA Radar flight tracks from the noise monitoring system for 2009 were used in the model. One week of flight tracks for each of the four seasons was taken from the 2009 monitors to get a good representation of flight tracks throughout the year.
Did the team try to determine the type of aircraft flying without transponders or without transponders that identified aircraft type?
No. That information is not available from any source including exterior observations of the parked aircraft.
If the radar data is not capturing all of the aircraft flights off Lake Hood that fly to Point MacKenzie is there a way to adjust the inputs to the INM to account for this data gap?
Yes, the number of radar operations was extrapolated to the yearly operational count.
Does the INM noise inputs for different aircraft types make a distinction of whether the aircraft is taking off or landing?
Yes, INM uses distinct arrival and departure noise profiles.
What is the difference between flight tracks you took from monitoring/radar data and flight tracks in the INM?
There are two types of flight tracks that have been shown in presentations and working papers; these represent two different types of flight tracks. Radar flight tracks show every aircraft recorded by radar data within a certain period of time (such as those shown in the Noise Measurement Report on this website). The second type of flight tracks are Integrated Noise Model (INM) tracks, as seen in the Study Input Committee Meeting #4 Presentation. These are the actual flight tracks put into the Integrated Noise Model. They are a little different from flight tracks for a single day (that were in the noise monitoring report) because they are developed based on the regular flight tracks taken from radar data/monitoring as a “representation” of the daily flight tracks.
ESRI’s ArcView Geographic Information System software was utilized to analyze the radar data for the development of noise modeling tracks. The radar tracks were 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, using INM standard procedures, INM tracks were developed to simulate the location of actual aircraft flight paths. The result of the process was a series of INM model tracks that closely match the current radar data at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. It does mean they are different (and look different) from the daily flight tracks from the monitoring because they represent the majority of the year-round flight tracks that were taken from radar data/monitoring, whereas the monitoring data shows each individual track for a small period of time. These INM tracks are the tracks that are actually input into the model.
With respect to the flight paths of the aircraft taking off to the east off the Lake Hood float plane waterways, can you provide an explanation of the flight prongs and percentage of flights that were modeled with respect to flights that turn north and fly over Wisconsin Street/Turnagain St area to fly north to Point MacKenzie?
INM flight tracks were created by duplicating radar flight track general locations. The percentage of operations allocated to the departure flight tracks that turn north was calculated by counting the radar flight tracks that turn north divided by all LHD departures.
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 over 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 sound 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?
Yes. The noise monitors did pick up some ground noise. Ground noise will be examined more closely in the next phase. But it is important to remember that this Study will only examine ground noise related to aircraft and it does not include other sources such as snow removal equipment or other potential ground noise sources.
Will alternatives take into account Single Event Level (SEL)?
SELs were completed for some of the alternatives to help describe the noise environment. Additionally, ground run-up noise was examined using the Lmax (a single event metric) that more clearly shows the impacts of ground run-up noise. As stated in the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) Report of 1992, the committee determined that there are no new descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to substitute for the present Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) cumulative noise exposure metric. FICON determined that the DNL method contains appropriate dose-response relationships (expected community reaction for a given noise level) to properly determine the noise impacts at both civil and military airports. The report does support agency discretion in the use of supplemental noise analysis, to facilitate/ enhance public understanding of the DNL and supplemental methodologies, as well as aircraft noise impacts. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has supported the use of supplemental metrics for informational use in this Study. However, it is important to note that the 65 DNL contour is what the FAA uses to measure effects. Approval is generally based on the DNL analysis. The single event levels produced for this Study are considered for informational purposes only.
The discussion of ground engine run up is inaccurate. The direction of ground run ups is incorrect.
The information contained within the Study represents the best available information. Modeling is imperfect and not all variables can be accounted for. The direction of ground run ups is based on the information from the Airport and the normal practices as dictated by the ground run up guidance, which states that aircraft should run up with engines pointing away from residential uses when able. However, it is important to note that aircraft generally need to conduct run ups relative to the wind direction, so based on the winds, there are times when aircraft cannot follow the guidance.
Questions on Updated Contours
How do you create the contours?
The Federal Aviation Administration (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. The inputs are described in Chapter D of the Part 150 Study. Operations were taken from actual Airport data for 2009, and forecasts of aviation operation were taken from the Alaska International Airport System Forecasts. As described above, radar data was used to develop the INM flight track inputs by following the standard INM procedure, and the time of day/night and associated fleet mix was extrapolated out from existing 2009 data for the future years.
Why is 2009 being used as the base year?
For the purposes of the Study, existing conditions need to look at the last full year that the Airport was operating under a typical runway use configuration. For the past few years, due to projects and maintenance, the Airport has been operating with different runway utilizations. Therefore, the data from 2009 will be important to create existing contours based on how the Airport is operated under existing conditions. However, the alternatives will be based on the future number of operations predicted for 2020 (approximately five years from the date of submittal to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)), so that the future contours take into account future aircraft operations and aircraft fleet mix.
Why do the contours look different than the last noise contours?
The draft noise contours for 2009 are based off actual airport data and the 2020 are based on the Alaska International Airport System (AIAS) forecasts (operational numbers and fleet-mix), as well as flight tracks and time of day. Both the 2009 and 2020 contours are smaller than those produced in 1999 as part of the previous noise study for several reasons. First off, there were changes in the operations and fleet mix; many of the aircraft in the fleet are getting quieter over time. Some of the louder aircraft are 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 2020. However, the biggest difference in the contour is explained by a high percentage of aircraft using the preferential runway use directing jet operations over the water rather than to the south and east over non-compatible land uses. The modeling shows that this preferential runway use has made substantial decreases in the noise over the east because it generally directs flights over the water.
The contours are based on the Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 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 to the east of the airport 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 may occur that are much louder than 65 decibels. There are also days that may result in operations that are not in accordance with the preferential use runway policy. The changes in operations are usually due to weather, maintenance and construction related issues.
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 Day Night Average Sound Level (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 instead of 2009/2020?
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. 2020 will be the contour used to determine non-compatible land uses within the 65 Day Night Average Sound Level (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 be 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 ready for implementation based on the Part 150 schedule.
Where did the operational numbers come from? Did it take into account that the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport continues to have takeoffs and landings from old noisy aircraft?
Operations were taken from actual Airport data for 2009, and forecasts of aviation operation (the future 2020 year and the informational 2030 year) were taken from the Alaska International Airport System Forecasts. These forecasts included a fleet mix that estimates types of aircraft that will be operating at the Airport in 2020 and 2030. The fleet mix is described generally in the Study Input Committee Meeting Presentation #4, as well as detailed in Chapter D of the Study Input Committee Working Paper. All other questions on the development of the forecasts should be directed to the Alaska International Airport System Forecast team, since it was developed separately from this study.
Can you explain what Stage types refer to and how that affects the types of aircraft contained within the fleet mix?
In 1990, Congress passed the ANCA (The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 [ANCA], PL 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388), which established two broad directives for the FAA. The first directive established a method to review aircraft noise and airport use or access restrictions imposed by airport proprietors, and the second was to institute a program of phase-out of Stage 2 (louder) aircraft over 75,000 pounds by December 31, 1999. Aircraft may be certificated as Stage 1, Stage 2, or Stage 3 (also called Chapter number outside the U.S.) aircraft based on their noise level, weight, number of engines and, in some cases, number of passengers. In early 2000, the International Civil Aviation Organization established the Stage 4 (quieter) requirements that require newly manufactured aircraft engines to meet Stage 4 levels by December 31, 2006. There are a few exceptions but the vast majority of the fleet has achieved Stage 3, and this has been taken into account in the fleet mix. Congress has recently amended ANCA to require the phase-out of all Stage 2 jet aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds to be achieved by December 31, 2015.
Alaska and Hawaii are exempt from the Stage 3 requirement. However, if an operator of a non-Stage 3 aircraft changes ownership, then the exemption disappears. The old B737-200 that were operated by Alaska Airlines and Aloha Airlines are the more significant Stage 2 aircraft still in the U.S. fleet; Alaska Airlines and Aloha Airlines no longer operate these aircraft, but they are operated by other cargo airlines. For that reason, these aircraft were retrofitted with hush kits, making them technically Stage 3 (but are still very loud for a Stage 3 aircraft). These aircraft are included in the 2009 and 2020 fleet mix that was input into the model but were replaced in the 2030 case because the aircraft will be at the end of its usable life at that point.
What does newly certificated mean with reference to Stage 4?
As stated above, aircraft may be certificated as Stage 1, Stage 2, or Stage 3 (also called Chapter number outside the U.S.) aircraft based on their noise level, weight, number of engines and, in some cases, number of passengers. Each Stage is progressively quieter, with Stage 1 aircraft being the noisiest and Stage 4 aircraft being the quietest. Newly certificated Stage 4 aircraft means that new aircraft must be built to meet Stage 4 requirements in order to pass the certification.
Can you explain the fleet mix used for Lake Hood Seaplane Base?
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, based on comments received, the Study used a high proportion of the louder seaplane aircraft types in the INM to be conservative on the estimates of the noise at Lake Hood. We believe that the changes we made to the fleet mix represent a conservative approach for the noise for these types of aircraft.
Please provide the written analysis with respect to substituting 206 Cessna Aircraft for the 180 Cessna Aircraft standardized inputs for the Integrated Noise Model. Can you explain how this substitution overcompensates as opposed to undercompensates for loader Cessna 185 floatplanes or wheel/ski planes with long props?
The INM substitute for the Cessna 180 and 185 is the Cessna 206. We’ve substituted the Cessna 206 floatplane for both the C182 and the C185 to overcompensate for long propellers (the 206 is louder than the C182 and the same as the C185 with a standard prop and probably quieter than the C185 with large prop and over revved, hence a probable net overestimation of noise level). See the following INM graph.
Are you going to adjust the alternative metrics and SELs using the 206 Cessna Aircraft noise inputs?
The Cessna 206 will be used in SEL analysis instead of the Cessna 182 float plane.
What will happen if the Air Force decides to move F-16s to Anchorage (since the forecasts predicted a large reduction in military aircraft)?
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 states that if there is a greater than 15% change in operations (or a large change in fleet mix) as compared to the forecasts used in the Study, the Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) should be updated. However, this only applies to aircraft operations at Ted Stevens International Airport and Lake Hood complex. The percent change does not include overflights or aircraft arriving or departing from other airports or landing strips in the Anchorage area.
Why did certain homes receive sound insulation, while others did not?
The noise mitigation and sound insulation programs currently underway are the result of the previous Part 150 Study that was completed in 2000. The approved current Residential Sound Insulation Program is expected to be finished before this Study is completed. This Study is separate from the Residential Sound Insulation Program, and therefore has no ability to address the previously approved eligibility boundary and the insulation program itself. For information on the previously completed Part 150 Study and the Residential Sound Insulation Program, please contact the Airport or learn more at www.dot.state.ak.us/anc/business/noise.
This Study will update those Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs), and produce new noise contours. Additionally, if appropriate, this Study may propose new potential residential sound insulation eligibility boundaries; however, those boundaries would be based on the noise contours developed as part of this Study and have no relation to the previous program.
What Are the Requirements in Order to Receive Sound Insulation?
In order to receive insulation there are several requirements that homes must meet including:
Be located within the 65 DNL noise contour and the official eligibility boundary outlined in the Final Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update (see boundary below).
Experience interior noise levels higher than 45 dB
Be built prior to October 1, 1998
Meet all local building codes
Will need to provide the Airport an avigation easement
The Study Input Committee is comprised of a wide variety of stakeholders including members of the public, agencies, tenants, airlines and the community.
The Airport, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), stakeholders, and the public all have the opportunity to be involved in the Part 150 Study Update process. A Study Input Committee (SIC) was formed to work closely with airport staff and the consultant team of Barnard Dunkelberg & Company. The Study Input Committee includes members representing aviation, business, and citizen interests. The role of the Committee is to review information, provide feedback, discuss noise abatement alternatives, and advise the Airport on the adoption of a noise abatement program at the airport. Additionally, Public Information Meetings/Workshops will be held at key points throughout the Study. These meetings will be announced on this website and will be advertised in the local newspaper.
Public Information Meetings/Workshops will be held at key times during the Study process. These meetings will be a mix of presentations and “open house” style of the meetings that will allow you to view maps showing the level of noise exposure at various locations, flight tracks of aircraft, and other aircraft activity at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. Various alternatives will be presented and draft recommendations will be available for review. You will have the opportunity to ask questions and express your concerns and comments. Meeting dates will be advertised in local papers and posted on this website.
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 that applied for coverage are planned in fiscal year 2013. Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport plans to complete construction with post construction testing and financial close out extending into fiscal year 2014. 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 the deadline, which was December 2012. The noise contours indicate that approximately 45 homes are included in the new future noise contour that have not been insulated or previously eligible for insulation under the previous residential sound insulation program. These homes may be eligible for insulation if the FAA approved the recommendation to insulate homes within the 65 DNL and greater contours and if the homes meet certain other criteria. See Chapter I for more information.