The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA E98-0030 - KING COUNTY - INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLANKING COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS BOEING FIELD E98-0030 Hi Barbara-, Moira brought this file to me. It doesn't have the Records Center sticker on it....but my book shows that it belongs in box 0304. I don't have it marked as a missing file...but it doesn't really look like it was ever at the RC. It almost looks like it's been hiding on Moira's desk for 12 years. But maybe it's just missing the sticker? Anyway, I guess she is finished with it. Thanks, Teri ok,ok.Qopt o bo X `1-1—(0 Master Plan, King County Intetonal Airport King County Home News. Services Comments Search Department of �.., /#� .. Transportation King. C�ou:nty` International Airport- _ KCIA HOME Noise Abatement 4- Airport Operations +Airport Planning 4 Master Plan / EIS + Community Outreach + History ,ROAOWAYS� ^ALT3ERNATIVfS�pHAPGENIM6S:� SITE MA -- Home >Transportation > Airport > Airpot Planning > Master Plan Master Plan King County International Airport is nearing completion of a Master Plan to guide development of the airport over the next twenty years. It is anticipated that the Draft Master Plan and the related Environmental Impact Statement, and Environmental Assessment will be completed and available for public review in early 2002. KCIA is..currently one of the nation's busiest general aviation airports, and operations are expected to increase by 50% over the next two decades to meet growing demand. The Master Plan's focus will be on ways to best satisfy the growing aviation demands, within KCIA's existing boundaries, and while meeting the strictest aviation safety standards. Conceptual development plan The Conceptual Development Plan represents the preferred future configuration of facilities at KCIA in consideration of the forecast of aviation activity and the resulting on -airport land use recommendations. It best achieves the Airport's mission by supporting the broadest mix of aviation uses, allowing flexibility in responding to changing needs among the -diverse general aviation markets, and efficiently using scarce airport property. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) As part of its environmental review for the proposed Master Plan, King County International Airport is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act. The EIS identifies any impacts the airport might have on its immediate environment, in Tight of the development guidelines laid out in the Draft Master Plan. KCIA Economic Impact Study Read our report from an Economic Impact Study conducted in 1998 to document the economic impacts of King County International Airport on the local economy. Word version .doc (1 MB) Page 1 of 2 http://www.metrokc.gov/airport/plan/masterplan.htm 12/12/2002 Master Plan, King County Inter- conal Airport Economic Impact Report Acrobat version .pdf (1 MB) Economic Impact Report Updated: January 1, 2002 • King County International Airport 1 Maps & Directions 1 Current Operations 1 Noise Programs 1 Education 1 History 1 Master Plan 1 Community Outreach DOT Home 1 Metro 1 Planning 1 Roadways 1 Alternatives 1 Hap eP nings 1 Airport 1 Site Map King County 1 News 1 Services 1 Comments 1 Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. Page 2 of 2 http://www.metrokc.gov/airport/plan/masterplan.htm 12/12/2002 11111 Ilk CITY OF TUKWILA Id: ACTP140 Keyword: UACT User: 1672 01/04/99 Activity Maintenance - People Processing STATE ENVIR PROTECT ACT Permit No: E98-0030 Applicant: CYNTHIA STEWART, MANAGER Status: PENDING Location: King County International Airport, (B Line Name 1 CYNTHIA STEWART, MANAGER 2 KING COUNTY Enter Option: C Relationship License No. Date APPLICANT 11/18/98 OWNER 11/18/98 Change a Person Relationship: APPLICANT Name: CYNTHIA STEWART, MANAGER Address: 7233 Perimeter Rd Seattle, WA Zip: 98108 Phone: 296-7380 Notation: Press F7=Update Person ESC=Cancel Option Date: 11/18/98 King County International Airport Department of Construction & Facilities Management P.O. Box 80245 Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 296-7380 (206) 296-0100 TDD (206) 296-0190 FAX December 14, 1998 Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd — Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster: RECEIVED DEC 16 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thank you for submitting scoping comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the King County International Airport Master Plan. We received several comment letters concerning the EIS scope. In summary, comment letters addressed issues including: • The format and outline of the EIS, and procedures for its preparation • Master Plan'improvements and their justification • Suggested technical analyses, including detailed noise and vibration studies • Consideration of various alternatives, including the Community Alternative • Socio-economic impacts and environmental justice issues • Noise, air quality, water quality, and other environmental, land use, safety, and health impacts associated with the proposed Master Plan improvements • Impacts on the Steam Plant and its workers and visitors We expect the Draft EIS to be available for public and agency review in the late spring of 1999. The Draft EIS will summarize scoping comments and address applicable questions and issues raised in the scoping process. Unless you request otherwise, we will send you notices concerning the Master Plan EIS. Thank you again for your comments and interest. Sincerely, Cynthia Stewart Airport Manager g�� e_a f. i��.✓V j )J/22'2g 4112 -Pie 664-4,-S 5-zo'Y:5 /$. r City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 25, 1998 Ms. Cynthia Stewart Airport Manager King County International Airport P.O. Box 80245 Seattle WA 98108 Subject: Scope of the EIS for the Master Plan for KCIA Dear Ms. Stewart: Thank you for the notice of scoping for your EIS. We are interested in the results of your envirnomental review and would like to continue to receive any additional notices of action with regard to the environmental process. Substantively we think that air transportation impacts are environmental consequences that should be added to your evaluation in the EIS. For example, how will the proposed action and the alternatives potentially change or displace airport use both at Boeing Field but also at other airports in the region? If you have questions or need to talk with a staff member, please call Moira Bradshaw at 206 431-3651. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster Director C:\mcb\kcia\SCOPELTR.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 \A,\ 1r6 -- = D--ooC 3 30 MEMORANDUM October 23, 1998 TO: Interested Agencies FROM: Cynthia Stewart, Manager a296 -7.3vo King County International Airport CI;'� OCT 2.8 19 r 98 Mq y S of w�C FjC4 RE: Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Master Plan Improvements at King County International Airport/Boeing Field King County, the owner and operator of King County International Airport (KCIA, also known as Boeing Field) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to examine probable significant environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures (that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts) from implementation of the proposed Master Plan improvements at the airport. King County is the lead agency for purposes of the EIS. Prior to initiating the technical analysis required for the EIS, King County is seeking comments, through the scoping process, from the public, agencies, and affected tribes concerning "areas to be addressed in the EIS, including the elements of the environment that will be impacted, possible alternatives, and mitigation measures." Scoping comments must be submitted to King County by November 30, 1998 by sending comments to the responsible SEPA official: Ms. Cynthia Stewart, Airport Manager, King County International Airport, P.O. Box 80245, Seattle, Washington 98108. Specifically for representatives of Federal, State and Local agencies, King County will host a scoping meeting on November 10, 1998 at King County International Airport from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. in the Terminal conference room at the airport. In addition, a public scoping meeting will be conducted from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. on November 10, 1998 in the Arrivals Hall of the Terminal Building at King County International Airport at 7233 Perimeter Road, Seattle. The scoping information meeting will be conducted as an open house with staff from the County and the County's consultant team available to discuss the project. No formal presentations will be made at the scoping meeting. A scoping document has been prepared and is attached to this memorandum. Additional copies may be obtained by contacting me at King County International Airport, P.O. Box 80245, Seattle, Washington 98108. Alternative formats may be requested. All scoping comments must be submitted in writing no later than November 30, 1998. Scoping Document King County Internationale Air; e,�ert SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Airport Master Plan Improvements November 10, 1998 Meeting Written comments until November 30, 1998 The purpose of scoping is to "identify the areas to be addressed in the EIS, including the elements of the environment which will be impacted, possible alternatives and mitigation measures." The EIS will be prepared in compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (WAC 197-11) and King County Code (Chapter 20.44). This scoping document addresses the following: I. INTRODUCTION II. MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS III. SCOPING PROCESS IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS V. CONTENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VI. ALTERNATIVES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE EIS 2 • In 1995, King County initiated a Master Plan for King County International Airport (KCIA and known locally as Boeing Field). The purpose of the Master Plan is to develop a guide for development at the airport over the next 20 years in a way that enables efficient use of limited airport land and meets FAA regulations. • KCIA was the region's primary passenger airport until Sea -Tac Airport was opened in 1947. KCIA serves corporate, cargo, charter, helicopter, rescue, and flight training activities. It is also designated by the FAA as a reliever airport to Sea -Tac. • In 1997, KCIA accommodated nearly 370,000 annual aircraft operations. The Master Plan found that demand could increase aircraft operations to about 502,000 annual operations. Approximately 85 percent of annual operations are single or twin -engine propeller aircraft. The remaining 15 percent are jet operations. • The Master Plan initially focused on the landside facilities, and identifying alternative ways of satisfying the aviation market demand. However, the existing runway safety areas (on the airside) do not meet the FAA standards enacted in the late 1980s, requiring the evaluation of ways to address that issue. • • II. Master Plan Recommendations • To address the Runway Safety Area compliance requirements: The current length of 10,000 feet must be maintained, primarily to enable certain tenants and operators to continue aircraft testing and maintenance programs; The usable portion of Runway 13U31 R must be shifted to the north by 800 feet, by adding 800 feet of new pavement; The shift in runway usable area will only change the location of departures to the south and landings to the north and will not affect the number of aircraft operating at the airport In south flow (landings from the north, departures to the south), landings will occur at their current location but departures may use the new portion of the runway, if necessary; In north flow (landings from the south), landings will occur 800 feet further down the runway and departures will begin at their current location; 4 Recommendations (continued) - Runway Shift King County International Airport Use Configurations fori; Runway 13R/31L with Proposed Safety Area Improvements. and Declared Distances End of Pavement Declared - 500' Available for Takeoff to South Beginning of Pavement Declared Available for Start of Takeoff Run to the South New Pavement Takeoff to South End of Pavement Declared 500' Available for Landing to South NO 110,000' Runway Length Declared Available. • 1,000' Runway Safety Area Landing to South 1,000' Beginning of Pavement Declared Available for Landing to the South New Pavement 9,200' Runway Length Declared Available. 1,000' • i Recommendations (continued) - King County International Airport Use Configurations for Runway 13R/31L with Proposed Safety Area Improvements and Declared Distances Beginning of Pavement Declared Available for 500' Start of Takeoff Run to the North End of Pavement Declared Available for Takeoff to North New Pavement ------+-1,000' Runway Safety Area Takeoff to North 11 10,000' Runway Length Declared Available. Beginning of Pavement Declared Available - 500' for Landing to the North 1,000' End of Pavement Declared Available for Landing to North New Pavement Landing to North Runway Safety Area 1,000' 9,200' Runway Length Declared Available. 6 II. Master Plan Recommendations( continu • Master Plan Alternatives considered: - 1 Status Quo - 2 Air Cargo Emphasis — 3 Corporate Emphasis — 4 Balanced Program 5 Noise Reduction Emphasis, by increasing leases to non -aviation uses 6 Reduced Operations, by buying out current aviation -use leases and limiting new ones - Alternatives dismissed: expand airport boundaries, close airport, major passenger service. • Preferred Plan , Generally maintains current mix of uses of leaseholds — Continues access to historic steam plant -- uNteti t t'.* hS Uses remaining lards in a balanced fashion among competing markets Addresses safetyarea issue while maintaining 10,000 foot runway departure length 7 III. Scoping Pia • To enable interested agencies, affected tribes, and groups and individuals an opportunity to participate in developing a scope of work for the EIS, scoping is being conducted. All comments are to be submitted in writing by November 30, 1998. • King County is acting as the lead agency under SEPA. • Written comments to: Ms. Cynthia Stewart, Airport Manager, King County International Airport, P.O. Box 80245, Seattle, Washington 98108. • A scoping meeting is being conducted from 5 p.m. until 8 p.m. in the Arrivals Area at Boeing Field Terminal Building on November 10, 1998. The scoping information meeting will be conducted as an open house/workshop with staff from the County and County's consultant team available to discuss the project. No formal presentations will be made at the scoping meeting. • All comments are to be submitted in writing. 9 IV. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Pr • The illustration below shows the general process of preparing and coordinating an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). • It is anticipated that the Draft EIS (DEIS) will be completed and available for public/agency review in early 1999. 10 V. Contents of the Environmental ImpactSta • The EIS shall consist of the following elements: — Purpose and Need for the Proposed Master Plan Improvements — Alternatives — Affected Environment Environmental Consequences — Mitigation Measures • Environmental consequences to be evaluated are: Noise Land Use Compatibility Air Quality Environmental Health Surface Transportation Wetlands/Floodplains Plants and Animals - AestheticsNisual Impacts ylw▪ "Yi(r • Key environmental issues are expected preservation and construction Social Impacts - Induced Socio -Economic Impacts Water Quality - Land and Shoreline Use - Public Services and Utilities Historic, Architectural and Cultural Resources, including Section 106 consultation Construction Energy and Natural Resources to be: Noise, land use, air quality, water quality, historic 11 • • VI. Alternatives to be Addressed • Alternatives to be considered are: ▪ Use of Alternative Modes of Transportation ▪ Use of Other Area Airports ▪ Alternatives at King County Airport ▪ Do -Nothing • A community alternative has been submitted for consideration by King County. This alternative will be reviewed and addressed in the EIS. If it meets the projeot objectives it will be addressed at the same level of detail as other alternatives. 12 • Frequently Asked Questions 1. What is the purpose of these frequently asked questions? Over the last year, a number of questions have been raised by the public about the recommend-ations of the Master Plan, as well as concerns with existing airport operations. Many of these questions were re -stated at the February 18, 1998 public meeting. This fact sheet responds to many of these questions. 2. Why is King County leading the issues at Boeing Field? King County is the owner and operator of Boeing Field, which is officially known as King County International Airport (KCIA). The County owns the property and is responsible for the availability and location of facilities at the airport. Because of that responsibility, the County began a Master Plan in 1995 for KCIA to examine what is happening at the airport today and to develop a plan for the future. 3. What is King County proposing to do to the primary runway at Boeing Field? In 1987, the FAA enacted new safety standards for land at the end of runways. For runways like 31L -13R at Boeing Field, which is 10,000 feet long, the new standards require 500 feet on both sides of the center of the runway for a distance of 1,000 feet past each end of the runway to be free and clear of objects. This area is called a Runway Safety Area (RSA). An RSA is "A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway". While this standard is currently met on the north end of the runway, the location of 1-5, Airport Way, and railroad line currently prevent this standard from being met for more than 200 feet on the south. These requirements are established in Federal Aviation Regulation 139.309. Therefore, to bring the runway into compliance with the safety standard, two options exist: • Shorten the runway 800 feet to provide more safety area on the south end • Shift the usable runway length 800 feet to the north to at least maintain the required departure length and add 800 feet of safety area at the south end Shortening the runway will prevent some of KCIA's current tenants and operators from having sufficient length on departure to continue certain aircraft testing or maintenance programs for aircraft and could limit take -offs for some large aircraft in poor weather. Shifting the usable portion of the runway by adding 800 feet of new pavement to the north end will preserve the existing runway departure length and allow the aircraft testing and maintenance operations to continue. 4. Will new pavement be added to lengthen the runway? The runway will not be lengthened — the runway is 10,000 feet long today and it would be the same length after the runway shift. To maintain the existing departure length and to provide the required safety area, the plan is to reduce the runway length by 800 feet on the south end, which actually shortens the length for aircraft landing both to the north and south, and add 800 feet to the north end of the runway. This addition of pavement enables the runway to be "shifted" to the north. 5. How will the "Runway Shift" affect takeoffs and landings to the north? Departures to the north will occur at their current location. Arrivals will land about 800 feet farther down the runway with the shift than they do today. Aircraft will be higher (by about 40 feet) on landing to the north. 6. How will the "Runway Shift" affect takeoffs and landings to the south? Landings in this direction will occur at their present location — thus, aircraft on landing will be no lower than they are today. When necessary, departures would occur about 800 feet further north when they begin their roll. To residents south of the airport, King County International Airport Frequently Asked Questions - 1 - 10/25/98 aircraft will be higher (about 100 to 150 feet) above ground. 7. Will the runway shift cause an increase in the number of flights? Will it allow bigger planes? No. Shifting the runway will maintain the existing departure length of the runway and actually shortens the landing length. This shift will not enable a greater number of flights nor will it enable or encourage bigger planes. The Master Plan does predict, however, that the demand for air travel regionwide will result in a continued increase in aircraft operations at KCIA. The forecast of demand indicates that activity could increase from 422,800 operations in 1994, which was the forecast year, to 502,000 operations by 2020. However, this projected increase in demand is not related to the runway shift. 8. Will the runway shift be safe? How will it affect operations at Sea -Tac? Yes — the shift in the runway is being done to achieve current safety standards. It will not affect the operations at Sea -Tac Airport. 9. What alternatives were considered during development of proposed conceptual development plan? A series of altematives were initially considered for future use of the airport. These alternatives differ from one another as to how airport facilities are allocated among users: • Alternative 1 — The status quo • Alternative 2 — Emphasized air cargo activity and users • Alternative 3 — Emphasized corporate users; • Alternative 4 — Balanced Program, allocating remaining properties in proportion to current uses; • Alternative 5 — Noise Reduction Emphasis, by granting new leases to low -aviation uses • Alternative 6 — Reduced Operations, which would buy out or eliminate leases to certain current high -aviation tenants Alternatives 5 and 6 were not given detailed consideration because they would interfere with interstate commerce or discriminate among classes of users, which is not acceptable policy under FAA regulations. 10. Which alternative is preferred? King County initially used the Balanced Program — Alternative 4 as a basis for forming the final recommendations, but when the safety area issue emerged, a new proposal was developed by the consultants. The final recommendation from the consultant, which is called the Conceptual Development Plan, does not propose any redevelopment of non -aviation land. It essentially maintains the current mix of uses. 11. What does the Conceptual Development Plan include? The proposed conceptual development plan identifies two primary objectives — achieving runway safety area and runway protection zone compliance with FAA regulations; and accommodating the aviation activity as market demand continues to exceed available capacity at KCIA. The recommendations to meet these objectives include: (a) Runway Safety Area and Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Compliance: • Shift Runway 13R/31 L 800 feet to the north; • Construct screen wall and plantings on north end; • Establish 800 ft. displaced threshold on the south end of Runway 31 R; • Relocate the fuel farm currently located at the Airport's north end; • Relocate Airport Shop from the north end RPZ; • Designate future public access road for the Steam Plant. (b) Accommodating Growth Needs: • Consolidate cargo use on parcels immediately to the south of the Terminal and Arrivals Buildings (east side); • Consolidate small GA use of the far ends of the east side and adjacent to the Museum of Flight; • Construct an engine testing enclosure ("hush house"). • On the east side, use the area between the small GA and cargo for corporate GA. 12. What are the costs of these improvements? Who will pay for them? As part of finishing the Master Plan, the consultant will identify costs for facility improvements along with a program to pay for these improvements. It is King County International Airport Frequently Asked Questions - 2 - 10/25/98 • expected that all costs will be paid by the users of the airport, primarily through lease costs, fuel flowage fees or landing fees, along with Federal grant money from the Aviation Trust Fund. 13. Why is the County conducting an Environmental Impact Statement for the Master Plan? To meet the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), King County is required to evaluate the likely environmental impact of the Master Plan. Based on public comment, the County has decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), rather than completing a SEPA checklist to see if it indicates a need for an EIS. This EIS will evaluate impacts at a project - specific level for the runway shift, and evaluate impacts at a programmatic level for the other recommendations of the Master Plan. 14. What alternatives to meet the Airport's objectives will be considered in the EIS? The SEPA EIS is expected to consider the following alternatives: • Use of other modes of transportation • Use of other airports • Alternatives at Boeing Field: such as those identified in previous Master Plan documents • Use of Technology • Do-Nothing/No Build In addition, a community -sponsored alternative has been submitted for consideration. This alternative will be reviewed and addressed in the EIS appendix. If alternatives meet the project objectives, they will be addressed at the same level of detail as the preferred alternative. 15. What environmental issues will be addressed in the EIS? SEPA requires consideration of the following issues: • Noise • Social Impacts • Land Use Compatibility • Induced Socio -Economic Impacts • Air Quality • Water Quality • Environmental Health • • Land and Shoreline Use • Surface Transportation • Public Services and Utilities • Wetlands/Floodplains • Historic, Architectural and Cultural Resources • Plants and Animals • Construction • AestheticsNisual Impacts • Energy and Natural Resources Key environmental issues for this project are: Aircraft noise, air quality, water quality and construction. 16. Will the Runway Shift require the Steam Plant to be relocated? No, relocation of the Steam Plant will not be required. Today, two roads provide access to the Steam Plant. One from the west, off Ellis Ave (at Warsaw), and the other from the north, off Hardy Street (at 13th Ave S). The primary way to access the Steam Plant is from the west. Access from the north can only occur under escort, because of how close the roadway is to the end of the runway. To enable the runways to be in compliance with the safety standards, FAA may require that this roadway not be used. King County will be working with Seattle City Light (owner of the building) as well as the museum foundation that operates the historic site, to ensure that the runway shift does not adversely affect access to the property. 17. What is the County doing to reduce noise from aircraft operations? King County has been working with airport tenants to reduce aircraft noise, especially as airport activity continues to be busy. In response to recent recommendations from the public and the airport's permanent advisory committee, the Airport Roundtable, the County has agreed to undertake a federal noise study, called a Part 150 Study, to look at current and future noise impacts and identify ways of reducing those impacts. 18. What is a Part 150 Study? The full name of this study is FAR Part 150 (after Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150) Noise Compatibility Study. This study will consider and evaluate ways to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on neighborhoods surrounding the airport. The study will identify existing and future noise levels, evaluate King County International Airport Frequently Asked Questions - 3 - 10/25/98 noise abatement and land use alternatives and then recommend those which realistically can be expected to reduce the number of people affected by noise. The Part 150 study, which will take up to 24 months to complete, is being conducted on a separate schedule from the EIS; the discussion of noise impacts in the EIS, as mandated by SEPA, will be limited to those effects associated with the runway shift and the Master Plan alternatives. 19. Will your noise study consider noise in my neighborhood? The Part 150 Noise Study for Boeing Field will primarily focus on noise impacts within the 65 Day - Night Average Sound Level (DNL). This area encom-passes portions of King County from South of Spokane Street to 1-5 at Martin Luther King Blvd. Because of concerns expressed by residents of other communities under the KCIA flight path, especially regarding nighttime cargo flights, noise within Single Event Sound Exposure Level (SEL) contours, which will likely include those neighborhoods and others, will also be examined. 20. Who is responsible for where planes fly (flight patterns or tracks)? Have flight patterns changed recently? The FAA is responsible for directing the paths that aircraft fly on approach or departure from any airport. Under some types of circumstances, aircraft may be allowed to fly in a way that deviates from the standard flight path. Since the major airspace revision (known as the Four Post Plan) occurred in 1990, King County is not aware of any other changes to flight paths. 21. How come noisy flights can be prevented from using Sea -Tac at night but can use Boeing Field? Sea-Tac's Noise Mediation Agreement was enacted in 1990. Since that agreement, the U.S. Congress passed the National Airport Noise Policy that resulted in FAR Part 161. Because Sea-Tac's noise reduction plan was in place before the national legislation was passed, their regulations stand. KCIA did not have restrictions in place as Sea -Tac did. The Federal Aviation Regulation, while not specifically preventing airports from enacting a operational curfew or restriction, makes it so difficult to enact them that no airport has successfully shown the need and generated the requisite information. Despite the inability of other airports' efforts to meet the Federal requirements, King County may undertake a Part 161 evaluation as part of the upcoming Part 150 study. 22. Does noise cause physical damage to my property or is it reducing my property values? Noise levels from aircraft operations are not high enough to cause physical damage to residential buildings. Studies have found that significant vibration from aircraft overflight is typically concentrated in areas exposed to 80 DNL or greater. As only airport properties are affected by this sound level, no significant adverse effect would be expected to residential areas. While specific studies have not been conducted concerning the residential areas in the vicinity of KCIA, it is difficult to pinpoint conclusive evidence that property values are significantly impacted by the effects of aircraft noise. Based on the FAA's review of historical studies (Aviation Noise Effects), the FAA concluded that property values, as a general rule, might be reduced by approximately 1% per decibel above 65 DNL. Some studies have shown larger decreases in value per unit of noise increase, while other studies note that proximity to an airport increases values. 23. What happens with the information that I give when I make a noise complaint? In 1996, King County established a noise abatement office at KCIA. Residents are encouraged to call 205-5242 to voice complaints about noise levels from aircraft operations from Boeing Field. When a complaint is received, the County staff enters the information into a database and matches it to a known KCIA operation whenever possible. To notify a caller that their complaint has been received, a postcard is sent out. At the end of each month, the caller receives a letter which identifies the complaint and the operator, if known. The information in the call is analyzed, as well as all other calls that have been received. The operators also are notified that a complaint has been received. This information is essential to understand the conditions that are most annoying and to develop ways to reduce these impacts. King County International Airport Frequently Asked Questions - 4 - 10/25/98 24. How can I participate in either the EIS or the upcoming.Part 150 Noise Study? For the EIS, you can attend a public open house/ workshop to be held on November 10, 1998. This open house meeting is the official "scoping" meeting for the EIS, as required by the SEPA regulation. At that meeting the County will be seeking input from the public and agencies conceming the alternatives and key environmental issues to be considered. Written comments can be submitted until November 30, 1998 to the responsible SEPA official: Ms. Cynthia Stewart, Airport Manager, King County International Airport, P.O. Box 80245, Seattle, Washington 98108. The Draft EIS will be prepared and released for public review and comment in mid -1999. King County will also hold a public hearing to receive comments within 30 days of releasing the EIS. The County will then prepare the Final EIS, which will respond to comments received. For the Part 150 Study, King County will form a study committee and also hold public information workshops. Widespread notification about these meetings will be provided, and all interested parties are encouraged to attend. 25. Is the air quality around Boeing Field unhealthy? The County is embarking on an air quality assessment of activities at KCIA. This study will be conducted with the assistance of agencies that regulate or are concerned about air quality in the region, and will be coordinated with the SEPA EIS as much as possible. 26. Previous publications have referenced Part 139 — what does this mean? FAR Part 139 "Certification and operations: land airports serving certain air carriers" governs the certification and operation of airports which serve any scheduled or unscheduled passenger operatior that is conducted with an aircraft having a seating capacity of more than 30 passengers. This rule establishes the requirements of the Runway Safety Area for KCIA. 27. What is the "Roundtable" and who are its members? King County formed a group called the Airport Roundtable in September 1997 to advise the County on airport issues, including those associated with the Master Plan and noise impacts. The group consists of 16 official members. Groups represented include: 1) Georgetown, 2) West Seattle, 3) Unincorporated King County, 4) Magnolia/North Seattle, 5) Tukwila, 6) Renton/Kent/South King County, 7) Beacon Hill/Rainier Valley, 8) Community at Targe, 9) Business Indirect Users, 10) Pilots Association, 11) Corporate Operators, 12) Cargo Operators, 13) Small General Aviation, 14) Boeing, 15) Labor, 16) Labor Representatives from the FAA serve as ex officio members and the Roundtable is supported by Airport staff. King County International Airport Frequently Asked Questions - 5 - 10125198 DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS DNL — Day -Night Average Level. The manner required by the FAA to quantify aircraft noise. Measured in decibels, DNL represents an average annual noise energy, incorporating a penalty for nighttime sounds. DNS — Determination of Non -Significance DS — Determination of Significance EIS — Environmental Impact Statement FAA — Federal Aviation Administration FAR — Federal Aviation Regulation GA — General Aviation. Small GA refers to the smaller aircraft that are typically flown for recreational purposes. Corporate GA refers to the operators that provide flight services to businesses. KCIA — King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field. Master Plan — a vision for the long-range future of an airport, which is used to guide future development and land use. Part 150 — the regulatory name (referring to Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150) for the• study that King County is about to initiate to consider and evaluate ways to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on neighborhoods surrounding the airport. RSA — Runway Safety Area RPZ — Runway Protection Zone SEL — Single Event Noise Exposure Level - a way of measuring noise based on magnitude and duration of the sound. SEL describes the noise energy during a noise event as if all of the energy occurred during a 1 -second interval. SEPA — State Environmental Policy Act (as guided by WAC 197-11) King County International Airport Frequently Asked Questions - 6 - 10/25/98 MEMORANDUM October 23, 1998 TO: Interested Parties FROM: Cynthia Stewart, Manager King County International Airport ®C/ RE: Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Master Plan Improvements at King County International Airport/Boeing Field King County, the owner and operator of King County International Airport (KCIA, also known as Boeing Field) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to examine probable significant environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures (that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts) from implementation of the proposed Master Plan improvements at the airport. King County is the lead agency for purposes of the EIS. Prior to initiating the technical analysis required for the EIS, King County is seeking comments, .through the scoping process, from the public, agencies, and affected tribes concerning "areas to be addressed in the EIS, including the elements of the environment that will be impacted, possible alternatives, and mitigation measures." Scoping comments must be submitted to King County by November 30, 1998 by sending comments to the responsible SEPA official: Ms. Cynthia Stewart, Airport Manager, King County International Airport, P.O. Box 80245, Seattle, Washington 98108. In addition, a public scoping meeting will be conducted from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. on November 10, 1998 in the Arrivals Hall of the Terminal Building at King County International Airport at 7233 Perimeter Road, Seattle. The scoping information meeting will be conducted as an open house with staff from the County and the County's consultant team available to discuss the project. No formal presentations will be made at the scoping meeting. A scoping document has been prepared and is attached to this memorandum. Additional copies may be obtained by contacting me at King County International Airport, P.O. Box 80245, Seattle, Washington 98108. Alternative formats may be requested. All scoping comments must be submitted in writing no later than November 30, 1998. )j Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Fair: Reduction Not a Shift of Noise. Fair: Accounts People who may be Personally Hurt. Considers Economic Impacts. ere N Responsible to Those Already on KCIA Maintains Jobs at KCIA Recovers lobs at KCIA Considers Environmental Impacts Maintains or Improves Regional Airspace Capacity Maintains or Improves Potential Airfield Capacity c d d d E E e, d 2 N 2 M O Z Treats all Types of Users Equitably Contributes to Economic Viability of the Region. Reduces Noise. Pioneers Community -Friendly Technologies. Maintains American Competitiveness. Forward Looking. Pursue Restrictions of Stage 2 Aircraft Under 75,000 pounds. Study Cap Accepted Level Noise Impacts. a on of — Allow True Stage 3 Only—No Hush Kits. — Restrict Certain Types of Aircraft. Pursue Nighttime Curfews. — Pursue Restriction Flight Before After Certain Times. on or Maintain Nighttime Engine Run-up Curfew. Limiting daytime Maintenance and Run -Ups To Certain Time. Building Noise Containment Facility. a Building a Noise Wall on North End and Others as Appropriate. — Prohibit Ground Testing Night. at Develop an FAA -Approved Home Insulation Program. Examine a Non -Standard Home Insulation Program. Look Home Buyout is — at a Program That Sufficiently Funded and Keeps People Whole. Develop Combined KCIA/SEATAC Noise Contours. Install Noise/Vibration Monitoring System. Locate Monitors to Identify C -Weighted Monitoring Noise. Impacts and Flight Tracks. Monitoring Compliance with Program. Pursuing Flight Paths to Reduce Noise in Residential Areas. — Minimize Flights Over Populated Areas. Alter The Angle of Climb and Descent. Promote Fly Over Quiet Residential Areas. Study Whether Aircraft Taking — Off Low And Slow or Highand Fast Would Reduce Noise. Integrating Flight Paths with Sea -Tac. Use of Charted Visual Approach. Use GPS for Elliot Bay Approach. of or similar Keep Nighttime flights from Residential away Areas. — Increase the Minimum Altitude Over West Seattle. — Move the Vashon Departure Ten Blocks North. — Different Flight Paths In Out KCIA. and of Narrow Flight — Paths or Over Water. — Minimize Flights Over Populated Areas. — Develop Flight Management Systems. Delay Point — of Lowering Flaps and Landing Gear to Reduce Noise. ' - - .- Policies Promoting Flying Non-Residentails Over Areas. Using Ground Leases , . to Influence Types of Operations. Using Financial Incentives to Achieve Noise Reduction Steps. — Offer Incentive to Pilots Who Fly Promote Bay Visual To Pilots. I Quietly Decision Criteria/Alternatives Comparison m Positive m Negative m Neutral INTKin' Qounty IRT/Boeing Field FAR Part 150 Study _ Foe_ 1.144 ruk s2L( e e (Insert Behind Tab Seven) Abatement Alternatives Evaluation Introduction The various alternatives potentially available for noise abatement presented earlier were analyzed in terms of applicability for reducing existing and future noise intrusion. In addition, comments and suggestions presented by the public in community meetings, Open Houses and personal communication, along with the alternatives directed for evaluation in the County Work Plan were measured against the alternatives presented in the previous chapter. Those have been categorized and are arranged according to the type of alternative it represents. The following alternatives were preliminarily determined to be applicable for noise abatement purposes and it is recommended that they be evaluated for the contribution each would make for noise abatement: (1) Alternative A.1 Access Restriction on Stage 2 Jets. (2) Alternative A.4 Complete or Partial Curfew. (3) Alternative A.5 Noise Barriers/Ground Run-up Enclosure (4) Alternative A.7 Acquisition of Land or Interest Therein. (5) Alternative A.12 Noise and Compliance Monitoring Program. (6) Alternative A.13 Noise Complaint/Citizen Liaison Program and Other Administrative Actions. (7) Alternative B.1 Land Use Controls. (8) Alternative C.1 Departure Thrust Cutback. (9) Alternative C.2 Noise Abatement Procedures. (10) New Alternative Other Administrative Actions. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.1 • These Alternatives were renumbered for easier identification and to be consistent with additional evaluation. They are not listed in terms of priority. The new identification numbers appear in the parenthesis above. In addition, not all • alternatives are subject to computer modeling, as some are not operational or facility changes that would affect the size or placement of the noise contours. These are to be considered as initial feasible alternatives that will be further refined and combined, which will result in final recommendations. There are several Alternatives presented below which are still being evaluated. The analysis will be presented in a subsequent Working Paper. The various suggestions for noise abatement recommended by citizens and the directions contained in the County Work Plan are arranged under the appropriate broad Alternatives presented. It is anticipated and encouraged, that additional Alternatives be recommended by the Committee for evaluation. Noise Analysis Methodology In order to evaluate the different noise abatement alternatives, various noise metrics are presented. These metrics include the traditional DNL, as well as supplemental noise metrics to better understand the character of the noise and how that noise may change with each alternative. The following are the different acoustical measures that will be presented in this analysis. All of the data is based upon year 2006 future conditions. Noise Contour Analysis. Noise contours for each of the alternatives have been developed. These contours present areas representative of each noise level. This illustrates how the noise may change by the change in size of the contour and the shifting of the contour from one area to another. DNL Noise Contours. The DNL noise contours are presented in terms of the 55, 60, 65 and 70 DNL noise value. These contours are the average annual DNL noise level. Time Above Noise Contours. Noise contours presenting the Time Above noise level are also developed. These contours present the number of minutes per day that the noise is greater than 65 dBA. The contours presented are 5, 15, 30 and 60 minutes per day contour. Representative Receptor Analysis. To illustrate the change in noise levels in the different communities around the airport, the noise levels at representative locations around the airport have been determined. The location of these representative locations are shown in Figure G5c. A number of different noise metrics have been calculated at each of these receptor locations. Generalized levels of significance are shown for each metric. These include; King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.2 • • DNL Noise Level. Nighttime LEQ Time Above 65 dBA Maximum Noise Level Noise Event Count The DNL noise levels are presented in Table G2. Significance=1.5 dB change. The nighttime LEQ noise levels are presented in Table G3. Nighttime is from 10 pm to 7 am. Significance=1.5 dB change. The Time Above noise levels are presented in Table G4. These are in terms of minutes per day above 65 dBA. Significance=10-20% change. The maximum noise level is presented in Table G5. This is the maximum or peak noise level reached by the worst-case (loudest) flight at each location. It is independent of the number of flights. Significance=5 dB change. The number of noise events at each location above a specified level is presented in Table G6. This table presents the number of events that are above 75 SEL, 80 SEL, 85 SEL, 90 SEL and 95 SEL. Significance=10-20% change. Alternative 1 -Access Restriction Based on Part 36 Standards. This Alternative would entail the modeling of a restriction on all Stage 2 aircraft at the airport. It would assume that all Stage 2 aircraft, except those exempt such as military, emergency flights and state and Federal government aircraft, would be prohibited from using the airport. Since January 2000, all Stage 2 aircraft over 75,000 pounds in the civilian fleet have been prohibited from operating in the United States. Therefore, only those civilian Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 pounds are still operating. These generally comprise the business jet fleet. At the present time there is no phase out requirement for these aircraft. To implement such a restriction, an FAR Part 161 Study would have to be prepared. This is an expensive cost/benefit and land use study that must evaluate the cost of the restriction on the user against the benefit to the community. The cost/benefit methodology must be acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration, the noise and land use analysis must be consistent with FAR Part 150 and there must be proper notice given prior to actual implementation of the restriction, but the FAA does not have to approve the restriction. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.3 This Alternative (Ala) was modeled and the DNL contours are shown in Figure Gla, entitled ALTERNATIVE ONE A, TOTAL RESTRICTION OF STAGE 2 OPERATIONS, DNL CONTOURS and the Time Above contours are shown in Figure Glb, entitled ALTERNATIVE ONE A, TOTAL RESTRICTION OF STAGE 2 OPERATIONS, TA CONTOURS. The represented receptor analysis is presented in Tables G2 through G6. The results show a reduction in noise levels. However, the existing Stage 2 aircraft at the airport, Stage 2 corporate jets, are not large in number nor are they significantly louder than other aircraft at the airport. This type of restriction is consistent with FAR Part 161 requirements concerning Stage 2 restrictions that will require FAA agreement on the cost/benefit methodology and will not require FAA approval of the restriction. The alternative assumes that these aircraft are replaced by Stage 3 corporate jets or hush kitted corporate jet aircraft. There are roughly 10 operations per day that are affected by this alternative. A variation of this Alternative is a ban on all non -manufactured Stage 3 (in other words, no hush kitted Stage 2) aircraft or a restriction of aircraft types. These types of restrictions may not be acceptable to the FAA since they are discriminatory. The FAA has identified specific noise levels that qualify an aircraft to be certified as Stage 3. It does not matter whether the noise levels are achieved through the use of hush kits, new engines or manufactured to meet Stage 3 requirements. In other words, a Stage 3 aircraft is a Stage 3 aircraft, regardless of how an aircraft achieves Stage 3 compliance. To restrict certain types of Stage 3 aircraft would raise issues of discrimination, and would trigger the more restrictive Stage 3 requirements of FAR Part 161, including the requirement of FAA approval of the proposed restriction. Restricting aircraft by type has been litigated and has been found to be discriminatory. Because of these uncertainties and very real legal implications, these types should be carefully considered. This variation was modeled in two ways; the first was a ban on hush kitted Stage 2 or louder aircraft at night and the second was a total ban on Stage 2 or louder aircraft at all hours. This Alternative (Alb) was modeled and the DNL contours are shown in Figure Glc, entitled ALTERNATIVE ONE B, NO HUSH KITTEDOR LOUDER AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, DNL CONTOURS and the Time Above contours are shown in Figure Gld, entitled ALTERNATIVE ONE B, NO HUSH KITTED OR LOUDER AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, TA CONTOURS. The represented receptor analysis is presented in Tables G2 through G6. The results show a reduction in noise levels. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.4 Another recommended restriction is to cap the cumulative noise levels at some acceptable and agreed upon level. With this alternative, a maximum cumulative impact (such as the total area within the existing DNL 65, 70 or 75 contour) is established as the baseline cumulative impact and then the airport's operations are adjusted or limited so as not to exceed that maximum in the future. This is accomplished through "capacity limitations", whereas either the aircraft types, based upon their "noisiness", or the numbers and mix of aircraft, are limited or adjusted so as not to exceed the identified noise impact. This has been accomplished at other airports (Sea -Tac, Jackson Hole) through the use of a "Noise Budget" or similar device where the total identified noise is allocated to different carriers and the carriers must adjust their schedule and aircraft types so as not to exceed their noise allocation, which in turn will not exceed the total allowable noise cap. This is only feasible with scheduled passenger service, due to the schedule and control that an airport could have over such carriers. It is not feasible at an airport without significant scheduled passenger service. Since King County International Airport/Boeing Field has only minimal scheduled passenger service, this Alternative should be considered carefully before implementation. Alternative 2- Complete or Partial Curfew. This Alternative is a derivative of the previous Alternative. Instead of a total ban on Stage 2 aircraft, this Alternative would be to impose a nighttime restriction on Stage 2 operations. This Alternative pertains to the nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am, or some variation thereof) and would restrict the use of the airport during this time period to Stage 3 aircraft only. For reasons stated above, the restriction would apply only to Stage 2 aircraft, and not Stage 2 aircraft with hush kits to meet Stage 3 criteria. The restriction would be written to include only those aircraft less than 75,000 pounds and would also require the preparation of an FAR Part 161 Study. As stated in the previous section, the implementation and enforcement of such an ordinance, known as an access restriction, would require the preparation of a cost/benefit study known as an FAR Part 161 Study. Such a study identifies the costs and benefits that would result from the implementation of such a restriction. The cost/benefit methodology must be acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration, the noise and land use analysis must be consistent with FAR Part 150 and there must be proper notice given prior to actual implementation of the restriction, but the FAA does not have to approve the restriction. This is a very costly and time consuming study, which is only eligible for FAA funding participation if it is included as a recommendation in an FAR Part 150 Study. However, since it is just a partial curfew, it maybe easier to implement. A partial curfew may not generate the same conflicts as a total ban on Stage 2 aircraft and may result in a better cost/benefit analysis. The alternative assumes that these aircraft are replaced by Stage 3 corporate jets or hush kitted corporate jet aircraft. There are 1.3 nighttime Stage 2 corporate jet operations per day that are affected by this alternative. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.9 • This Alternative (A2a) has been modeled and the DNL contours are shown in Figure G2a, entitled ALTERNATIVE TWO A, NIGHTTIME RESTRICTION OF STAGE 2 OPERATIONS, DNL CONTOURS and the Time Above contours are shown in Figure G2b, entitled ALTERNATIVE TWO A, NIGHTTIME RESTRICTION OF STAGE 2 OPERATIONS, TA CONTOURS. The represented receptor analysis is presented in Tables G2 through G6. ilTiheresults show a rte-_duc ion inn the nightt�iMnoise andN uverdl noise lev'";M. This reduction is less than shown for Alternative One. Another variation of this Alternative is to ban only hush kitted Stage 2 aircraft at night. This Alternative (A2b) was modeled and the DNL contours are shown in Figure G2c, entitled ALTERNATIVE TWO B, NO HUSH KI7TED OR LOUDER OPERATIONS AT NIGHT, DNL CONTOURS and the Time Above contours are shown in Figure G2d, entitled ALTERNATIVE ONE B, NO HUSH KITTED OR LOUDER OPERATIONS, TA CONTOURS. The represented receptor analysis is presented in Tables G2 through G6. A third variation of this Alternative is a total ban of all aircraft at night. This Alternative (A2c) was modeled and the DNL contours are shown in Figure G2e, entitled ALTERNATIVE TWO C, TOTAL RESTRICTION OF NIGHT OPERATIONS, DNL CONTOURS and the Time Above contours are shown in Figure G2f, entitled ALTERNATIVE TWO C, TOTAL RESTRICTION OF NIGHT OPERATIONS, TA CONTOURS. The represented receptor analysis is presented in Tables G2 through G6. 'Well res lits show a r lti ion iln rouse le' uelggHowever, the existing Stage 2 aircraft at theaiiport, Stage 2 corporate jets, are not large in number nor are they significantly louder than other aircraft at the airport. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.10 Alternative 3 -Noise Barrier/Ground Run-up Enclosure. This Alternative is to evaluate the need and placement of a Ground Run-up Enclosure at the airport. Such a facility would be used for maintenance and testing of engines so that they would take place in a facility designed to reduce noise levels associated with such operations. The sizing, placement and direction of such a facility is very important, as they are very site and aircraft specific. In addition, the use of barriers along the perimeter of the airport will be evaluated and recommended, as necessary, for implementation. Background on Aircraft Run-up Noise Introduction. Noise associated with jet aircraft maintenance run -ups is a major issue of concern to the citizens living near King County International Airport. Engine run -ups that occur during the daytime and evening can result in significant noise levels and complaints from citizens in communities near the airport. The extent of the noise problem from run -ups is difficult to quantify because of the random nature of maintenance run -ups and the large variability in the noise levels that are generated by these run -ups. Sources of Run -ups. There are three basic sources of run -ups that occur at the airport. These are all from jet aircraft. Run -ups from other types of aircraft occur less often and generate lower noise levels than occur with jet aircraft. Each of the general categories of sources aircraft run -ups are listed below: • Airline (cargo) Maintenance • Boeing Aircraft Corporation Maintenance • General Aviation Maintenance Airline (cargo) Maintenance. Cargo carriers must occasionally complete maintenance repair on aircraft. For certain types of maintenance, the aircraft must conduct an engine run-up in order to demonstrate that the aircraft's in-flight systems are working properly. The only type of airline maintenance work at KCIA is unscheduled special repairs associated with cargo aircraft. The unscheduled special repair is a maintenance repair on aircraft that are in service and require preflight repair. Of the aircraft that require some type of service, 10% are estimated to require maintenance that will include an engine run-up. Most of these run -ups are conducted at less than full power. An estimated 20% of all maintenance run -ups require a full power run-up. All cargo carriers operating at KCIA will occasionally need this type of maintenance. Because of the small number of cargo only carriers that at operate at KCIA and because there are no maintenance facilities at the airport for these airlines, very little maintenance work is done at this airport. Boeing Aircraft Corporation Maintenance. As part of the overall procedure on aircraft being prepared for delivery, Boeing conducts run-up tests on the engines. However, these runs are typically done at the airport where the aircraft is King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.17 • • • assembled, not KCIA. The run -ups that occur at KCIA are related to special projects that can be summarized as follows; • Run -ups for aircraft returning to service from storage • Normal cycle run -ups after repairs for evaluation • Fan balancing run -ups Run -ups are normally required after aircraft have been in storage for some period and returned to service in order to ensure all engine systems are functioning properly. Run-up operations can take several minutes to complete to allow a thorough inspection of all mechanical and electrical systems. Normal cycle run - ups that are completed after special repairs are conducted as evaluation tests on aircraft. Fan Balancing run -ups are runs to test and ensure that an engine fan is balanced properly. General Aviation Maintenance at KCIA. General Aviation aircraft must also occasionally complete maintenance repair on aircraft. The types of general aviation maintenance work at KCIA are scheduled and unscheduled special repairs. Most of these run -ups are conducted at less than full power. The maintenance work will be completed by one of the local FBOs. This will include a wide variety of aircraft including corporate jets, turbo props and piston aircraft. The aircraft with the greatest potential for generating noise off - airport are the corporate jet aircraft. There are also a wide variety of corporate jet aircraft types that may conduct run -ups at KCIA. King County International Airport Regulations. King County has regulations concerning the time of aircraft run -ups. All run -ups must be conducted during the hours of 7 am to 10 pm. No run-up can occur during the nighttime hours. Run-up Locations: The run-up locations are not specifically delineated. However, there are two primary locations where the run -ups occur. The commercial aircraft run-up operations take place on the Boeing Company apron (Apron 1) located west of the north end of Runway 13R -31L. General Aviation and cargo run -ups take place toward the north end of Taxiway B on the west side of Runway 13R -31L. Locations are presented in Figure G3a. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.18 • • Run-up Procedures. A typical run-up at KCIA starts with the maintenance personnel notifying the tower of the run-up and in the case of general aviation or airlines, then contacting the Tower for permission to taxi to the run-up location. Once the aircraft has reached this position, the brakes are set and the maintenance personnel start the engine run. The type of run-up varies widely depending upon the type of repairs that have been completed. Each airline has manuals that describe the specific procedure for the run-up that must be followed as part of the test. Most maintenance runs last less than 20 minutes at power levels ranging from idle to below 80%. A number of maintenance repairs require a run-up at full power. Full power runs usually last five minutes or less. Some procedures require several full power runs conducted intermittently over a long period of time. Occasionally, a specific test does require a run-up at full power that lasts longer than 10 minutes. Details of Run -ups. The number of run -ups, aircraft types, power levels and durations that occur at KCIA has been estimated based upon conversations with Boeing Aircraft Corporation and operators at the airport. These operations are summarized below: The normal cycle operations include operating the engines at idle power. These operations are conducted by the B-737, B-747, and B-757 series of aircraft and typically last from fifteen (15) to thirty (30) minutes. Currently Boeing conducts about eight (8) normal cycle run -ups per month that are thirty minutes in duration, half of which involve B-737 aircraft and the other half involve B-757 aircraft. Boeing also conducts an estimated four (4) normal cycle run -ups per month that are fifteen minutes in duration and these involve the B-737, B-747, and B- 757 aircraft. In the past the number of these run -ups was higher. The run-up operations at King County International Airport would be conducted by any of the several types of commercial aircraft being prepared for delivery, including the B-737, B-747, and B-757 series of aircraft. The Boeing fan balancing run-up operations consist of cycling the engines from idle power up to full power and back to idle power. These types of operations can last up to about seventy-five (75) minutes and during these types of run -ups, the engine will be at full power for approximately 20% of the time with a number of cycles to full power. An estimated two (2) fan balancing run -ups occur per month. These run -ups have the greatest potential for impacting the nearby communities. Corporate jet aircraft also must complete engine maintenance run -ups as with any other commercial jet aircraft. These run -ups may involve scheduled or unscheduled maintenance on the aircraft. Heavy maintenance is not done at KCIA. The majority of these run -ups would be at idle power, however about 20% may be at full power. For this type of operation, the engines are brought King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.20 • • up to full power while all of the required systems are checked for proper operation. These types of run -ups will last about five to 20 minutes. There are an estimated three (3) run -ups per month. Run -ups by airlines such as the cargo operators are rare. There are no maintenance facilities for these airlines at KCIA. It would only be necessary for an unscheduled repair that had to be completed prior to putting an aircraft back into service. The majority of these run -ups would be at idle power. The exact number of these run -ups is not know, but is believed to be less than 1 per every 3 months. Time of Day of Run -ups. There are no exact data as to the time of day that run - ups occur at KCIA. The regulations restrict these run -ups to daytime hours (7 am to 10 pm). The majority of the run -ups are thought to occur from 7 am to 4 pm. Noise Complaints from Run -ups. Noise complaints from run -ups do occur. Although not specifically categorized, airport staff reports that the complaints from run -ups are lower today than in the past. Some forms of run-up noise are very difficult to distinguish from other sources of aircraft noise on the airport. Many complaints from run -ups may be as a result of other sources of aircraft noise. Noise Characteristics of Run -ups Overview. Noise from aircraft engine run -ups has varying characteristics depending upon the type of run-up procedure, the power level, the engine type and the orientation of the plane. Full power run -ups present the greatest potential for noise impacts. The characteristics of engine run-up noise are summarized below: • Varying duration noise events that can last many minutes. • Quick onset and drop-off of the noise. • Dominate low -frequency characteristics that attenuate slowly. • Magnitude of the noise is similar to departure ground roll. • Some run -ups include a number of cycles of full power. • Greatest potential for impact is sideline to the airport and near the Boeing plant. Direction and Frequency Characteristics of Run-up Noise. Two important factors to be considered in the evaluation of aircraft run-up noise are the direction and frequency characteristics of the engine run-up noise. These factors influence the location of the noise impact and the potential for mitigation. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.21 • Noise generated from engine run -ups is not equally distributed in all directions. The noise levels increase with power. The noise levels under full power are significantly greater than under lower power levels. Under idle and 80% power, the noise levels are approximately equal in all directions. At full power, the noise levels are significantly greater toward the rear of the aircraft at angles of approximately 150 and 210 degrees back from the front of the plane. A second important aspect of the impacts from run-up noise is that the frequency characteristics of the noise are not equal in all directions. There are frequency differences between the front of the aircraft and the rear of the aircraft. The noise from the front of the aircraft is dominated by high -frequency fan and compressor noise. The noise from the rear part of the aircraft is dominated by low -frequency combustor noise and turbulence mixing. Run-up Contours. Of all the commercial aircraft types the loudest would probably be the B747-400. Noise contour plots were calculated for the B747-400. There are several types of corporate jets that utilize King County International Airport. One of the loudest corporate jets would be the Gulfstream II, which is one of the older general aviation jets that uses the lower bypass ratio engines. As a worst case, this type of aircraft was used to show the loudest levels generated by corporate jet run-up operations. BridgeNet International has developed custom software specifically for calculating the noise levels generated by stationary aircraft operating under various power settings. The software is also designed to calculate the effect of a noise barrier, or a run-up enclosure. Noise contours from this noise model will be used to assess the potential impact to the adjacent noise sensitive land uses. The B-747 aircraft was modeled as if it was located at the north end of the Boeing company apron (Apron 1), with a heading of 180 degrees, which is consistent with the primary wind conditions at the airport. The engines were modeled as one engine operating at take -off power and a second engine at a balancing power of 80%. The corporate jet was modeled as if located on Taxiway B with a heading of 130 degrees, and the engines were modeled as operating at take -off power. The unmitigated noise levels generated by the B747-400 were calculated and the results are shown in Figure G3b as contours of equal loudness. The exhibit shows the location of the unmitigated 65 dB, 70 dB, 75 dB, 80 dB, and 85 dBA maximum noise level contours for the proposed run-up operations. These contours do not take into account the existing buildings or hangars located at this end of the airport. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.22 • The unmitigated noise levels generated by the GII were calculated and the results are shown in Figure G3c as contours of equal loudness. The exhibit shows the location of the unmitigated 65 dB, 70 dB, 75 dB, 80 dB, and 85 dBA maximum noise level contours for the proposed run-up operations. These contours do not take into account the existing buildings or hangars located at this end of the airport. The unmitigated noise levels generated from both the B-747 and the G II at full power are significant. The greatest amount of noise coming from a jet engine is produced by the turbulence between the high velocity exhaust gases exiting the engine and the low velocity static air surrounding the engine. This turbulence is most significant at a location normally between 30 and 45 degrees off the rear centerline of the aircraft. Run-up noise that is predominately daytime usually does not alter the DNL noise contour level. DNL is more dominated by aircraft overflight noise. Because run - ups are less frequent than overflights so they do not have as great of an affect on the DNL contour. Mitigating run-up noise is more design to reduce single event disturbance, and not DNL. Airports with GREs, generally require that the facility be used for all run -ups as much as possible. The only limitation on that requirement is that the wind conditions must be suitable for use of a GRE (because of aerodynamics, GREs can not be used under all conditions). When there are the need for more than one aircraft run-up at a time, then that is accommodated on a first come first serve basis. Usually there is a time limit as well, such as 1 hour. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.24 • Run -Up Noise Summary The following summary presents some of the findings concerning noise impacts from run-up noise from jet aircraft at KCIA. • Aircraft run -ups can generate a wide range of noise levels. Important factors affecting noise levels are the type of aircraft, the level of power of the run-up, and the meteorological conditions. • Low -frequency noise from the aft portion of the aircraft is the greatest impact from run-up noise. This is critical because low -frequency noise: (1) is the most difficult to mitigate with a barrier, (2) has the lowest atmospheric absorption rate, and (3) more easily penetrates the interior of building structures. • The potential of impacts from aircraft run -ups are greatest for the full (takeoff) power runs. Run -ups at lower power levels generate significantly less noise. • Long duration run -ups may often include a number of high power cycles that increase the annoyance and impact from the run -ups. • A significant portion of the run -ups at KCIA are by Boeing Corporation aircraft. The number of run -ups per year varies widely depending upon special projects that may occur at the airport. Currently the number of run -ups are lower averaging an estimated 15 per month. Run-up Noise Attenuation. The most effective method of reducing the noise from stationary aircraft is with the use of either a barrier or an enclosure. The effectiveness of a complete enclosure is dependent upon several factors such as location and orientation. The location must be such that the aircraft can be either taxied or towed easily in and out of the structure. The enclosure must also be properly oriented in order to allow proper airflow into the engines and to be most effective in reducing noise sensitive land uses most heavily impacted by the noise. The run-up enclosure was modeled as if located at the north end of the Boeing company apron (Apron 1) with the back of the enclosure parallel to the north property line. The proximity to the apron where the aircraft are serviced would allow fairly easy access into and out of the enclosure. This location also allows for the enclosure to be opened to the south that will allow unrestricted airflow into the aircraft engines for the predominant wind direction of the airport. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.26 • • The ground run-up enclosure was modeled to be 300 feet wide, which is sufficient to accommodate the wingspan of a B747-400 aircraft. The sidewalls were estimated to be 180 feet long, which is sufficient to provide mitigation from engine noise while allowing access around the front of the enclosure. The height of all three sides of the enclosure was modeled as 45 feet high. The aircraft was modeled backed into the structure with the tail located about 20 feet from the rear wall. The mitigated noise levels generated by the B747-400 were calculated and the results are shown in Figure G3d as contours of equal loudness. The exhibit shows the location of the mitigated 65 dB, 70 dB, 75 dB, 80 dB, and 85 dBA maximum noise level contours for the proposed run-up operations. These contours take into account the mitigation effects of the run-up enclosure only, but do not take into account the effect of any existing buildings or hangars located at this end of the airport. The figure shows that under these conditions, the noise level reduction of a three - sided enclosure will provide about 15 dB of noise reduction. This level of reduction is based only upon the shielding characteristics of the perimeter walls. In addition, no airfield evaluation was conducted as to the actual availability of the modeled site for accommodation of such an enclosure. Additional information concerning Ground Run-up Enclosures in contained in the Appendix. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.27 • • • Alternative 4 -Acquisition of Land or An Interest Therein. This Alternative will evaluate the feasibility of sound attenuation for noise sensitive uses within both the 65 and 60 DNL noise contours. Noise sensitive uses (residences, schools, religious facilities, hospitals) within the 65 and greater DNL noise contours are eligible for Federal funding participation for sound attenuation to reduce inside noise levels. However, the County has determined that this Study should go beyond the Federal guidelines and eligibility requirements, by evaluating the feasibility of sound attenuating residential uses within the 60 DNL noise contour. Thus this Alternative will evaluate and consider the sound attenuation of residences within both 60 DNL contour as well as the 65 DNL and greater contours. This will be evaluated based on the number of residences within those contours and generalized costs of sound attenuation. As a requirement for sound attenuation, the County would receive an avigation easement as consideration. In addition, land acquisition will be evaluated as to the feasibility for noise mitigation purposes. As stated above, the County wishes to evaluate the feasibility of sound attenuating noise sensitive structures within the 60 and 65 DNL noise contours. There are approximately 4,918 housing units within the existing 60 DNL noise contour. This number most likely will be reduced by various noise abatement actions, however, it is a good number to start the evaluation. Based on the average cost to sound attenuate houses within the 65 DNL contour associated with Sea -Tac (approximately $18,000 per home), the cost to sound attenuate all of the homes within the 60 DNL contour at King County International Airport would be approximately 88.5 million dollars. Based on the same information, the approximate cost to sound attenuate the homes within the 65 DNL only (1,327 homes) would be approximately 23.8 million dollars. For information purposes, King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.29 • the approximate cost to sound attenuate the homes within the 70 DNL (158 homes) would be approximately 2.8 million dollars. This even becomes more costly when using the Base Case future noise contours to identify residences. There are approximately 6,827 homes within the 60 DNL noise contour in the future. The cost to sound attenuate this many homes would be approximately 122.9 million dollars. The approximate cost to sound attenuate the homes within the future Base Case 65 DNL contour (approximately 1,955) would be 35.2 million dollars. The approximate cost to sound attenuate the homes inside the 70 DNL contour would be about 6.3 million dollars. The actual number of housing units and other noise sensitive uses within the 60 and greater DNL noise contours will depend upon the noise abatement/mitigation programs adopted as part of the Noise Compatibility Program. It is quite possible that the final noise contour to be used as the basis for the Noise Compatibility Program will be smaller than either the existing or future contours. However, the foregoing comparison can be used to identify magnitude of costs when considering sound attenuation programs. Alternative 5 -Noise and Compliance Monitoring Program. This Alternative is concerned with on-going activities at the airport including measuring noise levels on and around the airport and monitoring compliance with the noise abatement programs implemented as a result of this FAR 150 study. There are two purposes to this alternative: one is to measure changes in noise exposure over time, and the second is to monitor compliance with specific operational programs. A pre- requisite to this alternative is a noise monitoring system (which may be supplemented from time to time with portable monitors) to keep track of noise levels at specific points around the airport. Fly Quiet Using the data produced by a noise monitoring system, the airport will be able to produce reports covering a variety of topics. These monitoring activities and reports, as a group, are called a "Fly Quiet" program, because they provide incentives for airlines and pilots to operate at quietly as is physically possible. The key to Fly Quiet is the availability of information both to the operators and to the public. This information is gathered from noise monitors, quantified and then prepared into reports providing comparative data for each quarter at KCIA. Continuous Feedback/Continuous Training Distribution and publication of Fly Quiet reports provides continuous feedback to aircraft operators about how well they are complying with noise abatement regulations and procedures. And, these reports allow the interested public around KCIA access to information about which operators are achieving the highest level of compliance with noise abatement procedures and which need improvement. Fly Quiet reports will be publicized and distributed in a variety of ways including: King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.32 • • • Posted in the public areas at KCIA and in the FBO waiting areas • Published in KCIA newsletters • Distributed to local libraries • Press releases sent to local papers • Distributed to Roundtable members, public and elected officials in the County. Using this information, KCIA staff will be able to meet with airlines, pilots and FBOs to work through problems and improve compliance. In addition to encouraging pilots to score well compared to similar operators, KCIA can choose to offer specific incentives to high achievers. Awards, prizes, publicity and similar ideas may be used to encourage the best possible noise abatement techniques. A Voluntary Program Avoids Time Consuming Regulations Because Fly Quiet is a voluntary program, it has the advantage of reinforcing desirable flight procedures without going through the time consuming regulatory requirement of FAR Part 161 filing process, or it can be used in conjunction with a Part 161 analysis. In addition, the program would build a database for future updates of the FAR Part 150 Study. A Fly Quiet Program has the potential of reducing single event noise levels and encouraging greater compliance with preferential flight corridors and procedures, and could potentially result in continued overall reductions in cumulative noise levels for areas around the airport. Fly Quiet Components A Fly Quiet Program can have several components. At KCIA it would likely include monitoring: • Compliance with noise abatement flight tracks • Adherence to noise abatement departure climb profiles • Monitoring late night departure procedures • Analysis of noisiest single event flights/aircraft • Quantifying runway use • Monitoring run-up regulations Monitoring Elliott Bay Procedures Examples of how these Fly Quiet components would be analyzed and treated include: • Measured single event operations producing the highest, lowest, mean, and average levels. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.33 • • Measured distance from ideal flight path, identifying operations in or out of compliance with a procedure and rating the quality of the flight in meeting that procedure. • Measured flight profile identifying operations producing the highest, lowest, mean, and average altitudes at different points along a flight path • Categorize operations by time of day (day or. night) • Categorize operations under different weather conditions Tailoring Fly Quiet to KCIA Many of these Fly Quiet Program elements will be refined as the Noise Compatibility Program is finalized. Special attention will need to be devoted to the question of applying Fly Quiet to a primarily general aviation airport rather than a scheduled air carrier airport where operators are easily identified. Defining the specifics of this program as well as the nature of the reports generated will be one of the challenges facing the airport and the Part 150 committee. As an example of how the Fly Quiet program would work, a contour combining two Alternatives is presented below. Both alternatives involve flight paths directed toward Elliott Bay: the charted visual approaches and the departure procedures. The Fly Quiet program would be designed to specifically measure adherence to those procedures to maximize compliance and effectiveness. Fly Quiet would be designed to measure not only how often each procedure is followed, but also how well it is followed. The Fly Quiet Alternative (A5) DNL contours are shown on Figure G5a, entitled ALTERNATIVE FIVE, FLY QUIET PROGRAM, DNL CONTOURS, and the Time Above contours are shown on Figure G5b, entitled ALTERNATIVE FIVE, FLY QUIET PROGRAM, TA CONTOURS. The represented receptor analysis is presented in Table G2 through G6, and the receptor sites are shown on Figure G5c. The results show reduction in noise in the Magnolia and Queen Anne areas when the noise abatement flight track is flown properly. By analyzing a quantity of data such as all Elliott Bay flight tracks for each quarter, it will be possible to determine which aircraft habitually follow the noise abatement procedures correctly and which deviate from the ideal flight track. KCIA staff would then follow up with a two-pronged approach. The best operators would receive praise, good publicity and perhaps an award or other incentive, and poor performers would receive further instruction on how to fly the procedure properly. At the end of the year, the best operator would be determined, using a full year's worth of flight track data. A specific award or incentive, such as operator or FBO of the year, would be granted, preferably by the Airport Director or another high-ranking King County official in a public ceremony. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.34 • • • Alternative 6 -Noise Complaint/Citizen Liaison Program and Other Administrative Actions. This Alternative involves the continuation of the existing Noise Complaint Hotline system in place at the airport. The objective of this system is to record all noise concerns received from citizens. This will assure that personnel can explain the nature of the concern and, in most instances, what caused the concern. This will assist in the annual review of the FAR Part 150 Study to determine the effectiveness of the noise abatement recommendations. In addition, this Action should continue independently of what ever other operational modifications are recommended as part of this planning effort, and is not contingent upon the implementation of any other action. This is especially important in relationship to the noise monitoring program. This current system will be reviewed and evaluated during the course of the Study, and recommendations may be made at the conclusion to improve the system. Additional analysis will be presented in a subsequent Working Paper. Alternative 7 -Land Use Controls/Planning. Some residents living within the environs of the airport have expressed significant concern with aircraft over- flights and the noise intrusion associated with them. This is true even though many are outside the 65 DNL noise contour, as they are experiencing noise intrusion associated with single event operations. The communities should be cognizant of this fact and take aircraft noise levels, and over flight patterns, into consideration in the land use planning and development actions taken by these entities. It is evident from historical data that many residents are annoyed beyond the 65 DNL noise contour, thus it may be advantageous to use a large contour for land use planning purposes. In addition, it may be wise for future noise sensitive uses, such as schools, hospitals, rest homes, religious facilities, etc. to be avoided within the approach and departure paths of the runways for a distance of approximately two miles. It is much easier to avoid problems in the future than to solve them once they have occurred. One of the unique problems facing the airport is the reality of inter -jurisdictional issues. In other words, the airport is surrounded by jurisdictions that have land use control but are not the Sponsor of the airport and the airport has not land use control authority. In addition, the requirement for sound attenuation in new structures would be appropriate for new or in -fill development in those communities that do not presently have such requirements. It is recognized that most of the area surrounding the airport is presently developed, and that it is the intent of both the County and the Airport to help preserve those areas of existing residential development. Therefore, sound attenuation programs for existing structures may be an important element of the Study, as described in Alternative 4. Specific land use recommendations will be made subsequent to the identification of the Future Noise Exposure Map, taking into consideration the adopted Future Land Use plans of the various communities. Additional analysis will be presented in a subsequent Working Paper. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.38 • • • Alternative 8 -Departure Thrust Cutback. Many citizens have complained about departure noise levels. The Federal Aviation Administration has developed specific departure procedures for aircraft and have directed the Airlines to develop specific procedures for the specific aircraft types they operate. These procedures are known as the "close in" and "distant" procedures. The business jet manufacturers and operator organizations have developed specific "fly quiet" procedures for many aircraft. Cut Back Departure Climb Gradient Resume Normal Climb Reduce Power — — Distant — Normal --- Close -In Runway A departure thrust cutback is a procedure where the aircraft's thrust or power setting is reduced soon after departure in an effort to reduce noise levels on the ground. Although use of a power cutback procedure can reduce noise at certain locations, it can also shift noise from close in to further away from the Airport or vice -versa. Since all Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADPs) involve a power cutback, this analysis explores the impact of alternative altitudes where this cutback could occur in the Seattle region. The FAA has worked to develop and standardize aircraft noise abatement departure profiles called Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADPs). FAA Advisory Circular 91-53A (FAA AC 91-53A) establishes standards and operational guidelines for implementation of these procedures. Key features of AC 91-53A are: • Each aircraft operator may develop a maximum of two NADPs for each airplane type. These are designated as either a "Close -in community NADP" or a "Distant community NADP". The terms "Close -in" and "Distant" refer to the physical distance from the Airport runway to the conununity. A "Close -in community NADP" is designed to reduce noise at locations close to the Airport. A "Distant community NADP" is designed to reduce noise at locations distant from the Airport. These terms are relative, and allow each operator to develop procedures that provide the greatest noise benefit to their individual destinations. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.39 • For each NADP the operator should specify the altitude above field elevation (AFE) at which takeoff thrust or airplane configuration change, excluding landing gear retraction, is initiated. The absolute minimum altitude at which throttle reduction may be initiated is 800 feet AFE. • The minimum thrust setting for each aircraft type is to be determined based upon the minimum engine out- climb gradients. • The thrust reduction will be maintained to an altitude of 3,000 feet AFE or until the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en route configuration (whichever occurs first), then transition to normal en route climb procedures may be initiated. • Airports may request airlines to use the appropriate NADP to reduce noise for either a close -in or a distant community. Although NADPs are defined in terms of community location, the actual point of thrust reduction is determined by aircraft altitude. This is a key safety consideration as aircraft climb performance varies by aircraft type and weight. The designation of altitude to determine the location at which the reduction in thrust takes place ensures that departing aircraft are at a safe altitude prior to reducing power. At King County International Airport, the NADP is determined by each airline. Currently the cutback is in between the close -in and distant procedure. Data indicates that at BFI, a power cutback occurs at about 1,200 feet (versus the 800 feet for the close -in or 1,500 feet for the distant procedures). In response to the requirements of AC 91-53A major airlines have developed NADPs. These standardized procedures recommend that thrust reductions commence at 800 feet above field elevation (AFE) for the close -in and 1,500 feet AFE for the distant community NADP. Although the actual location on the ground of thrust reduction varies from flight to flight, as a practical matter, thrust reductions typically occur in the vicinity of one nautical mile (nm) from brake release for the close -in procedure and at approximately three nautical miles (nm) from brake release for the distant procedure. The departure thrust cutback significantly decreases aircraft noise emissions in the vicinity of the cutback, but the decrease in noise levels is accompanied by a corresponding decrease in aircraft climb performance. Changes in climb performance result in lower flyover altitudes compared to a typical or normal departure procedure. The amount of decrease in altitude can be assessed through computer simulation. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.40 • • • Noise levels at any given receptor are primarily a function of the loudness of the noise source, and the distance from the noise source to the receiver. Thus, noise levels increase as the distance between the source and the receptor decreases, and reducing departure thrust also reduces aircraft altitude. Therefore, departure thrust cutback reduces noise on the ground when the reduction in noise at the source (power cutback) is greater than the detrimental effect caused by the decrease in distance between the noise source and the receptor (reduced altitude). AC 91-53A specifies that normal climb power will be re-applied at an altitude of 3,000 feet AFE, or when the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en route configuration, whichever occurs first. At King County International Airport, the re-application of normal climb thrust would occur in the vicinity of three to six nautical miles (nm) from the beginning of takeoff. Locations where normal climb thrust is re-applied may experience an increase in noise above what would be experienced during a typical departure due to lower aircraft altitude and the re-application of normal climb thrust. To assess the cumulative effect of alternative NADPs, single event noise levels were determined along the departure path for three departure procedures: • A typical departure with no noise abatement power cutback, • The close -in noise abatement departure procedure and • The distant noise abatement departure procedure. Alternative 8a. The Integrated Noise Model (INM), validated to conditions at King County International Airport by means of field noise measurement data, was used to predict and compare noise levels from these procedures. The results of this analysis (Alternative 8a) for the DC9 Hush Kit aircraft are shown in the Figures G8a through G8d. As shown in these figures, single event departure noise levels would be reduced at locations near the Airport if a close -in noise abatement departure procedure were implemented at King County International Airport; however, noise levels in the 'more distant communities would increase. Implementation of a distant noise abatement departure procedure would increase the noise levels closer to the Airport, while reducing them further away. Alternative 8b. A similar Alternative is to evaluate the noise reduction associated with delaying the deployment of flaps until residential areas are avoided. This was modeled for a southern approach where flap deployment was delayed until passing Magnolia, at which time flaps are set to normal. SEL contours depicting normal and delayed flap deployment are shown on Figure G8e, entitled ALTERNATIVE 8B, NORMAL FLAP DEPLOYMENT,B757 SEL CONTOURS and Figure G8f, entitled ALTERNATIVE 8B, DELAYED FLAP DEPLOYMENT,B757 SEL CONTOURS. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.41 *Barnard Dunkelberg & Company it run.p -�f ' fin,° 4- m- =iiu'�UUII� In �ut=!l!,1tl{I if IMP i% I_u, I i ' `1 i^rf i 1 1 ,fin},� OH ii;° _ i 1111 rIBEE-ip um inn _off rugi, n_ b1, n tura° �i n ��1, uunnnuur 1 .nn i Illnni n ..,a u .0 . , 77-11. _ CI,GII ma r1, IIIFigure G8a Alternative 8A Distant and Normal Departure SEL Contours Scale I"=12,000' SEL Noise Contour I oE INTERNAM W IRPORT/Boeing Field FAR Part Insemdy Lirnard DunkeGberg & Com — r . • • • 1 o c 1 jhland-Park-Way S I 1• L - / \ Scale I "=1,000' Figure G8b Alternative 8A Distant and Normal Departure SEL Contours - Detail View SEL Noise Contour D u C. INTERNATIO A IRPORT/Boeing Field FAR Part 150 Steady Barnard Dunkelberg & Company IIIFigure G8c Alternative 8A Close In and Normal Departure SEL Contours eScale 1°=I2,000' N SEL Noise Contour INTERNATIONAi dIRPORT/Boeing Field FAR Pegg 150 MT* mord Minkel be ny vI Dawson /I Highland_P_ark-.Way S Scale I",=2,000' Figure G8d Alternative 8A Close In and Normal Departure SEL Contours - Detail View SEL Noise Contour „ CO INTERNAM Ai IRPORT/Boeing Field MR Part 150 Mangy v Barnard Dunkelberg & Company o Scale 1"-12,000' Figure G8e Alternative 8B Normal Flap Deployment B757 SEL Contours ^/ SEL Noise Contour KO INTERNAM s'IRPORT/Boeing Field FAR Park 2.50 Study Barnard Dunkelberg & Company An 1 _Kai icnil="—unP ;e -J1 - 11 Y 1,Ant 1 ' o.:: 1'11 Il�tt�u��;�.,mwe1a • rl1pq L lei!�, �� 1 r yl� r�lr esole !.=!z•oon Figure G8f Alternative 88 Delayed Flap Deployment 8757 SEL Contours N SEL Noise Contour INTERNAM NAF-O.IRPORT/Boeing Field FAR GDM ISOMangy • • • Alternative 9 -Noise Abatement Procedure (Flight Track Changes). The Federal Aviation Administration has direct control over each aircraft as it leaves the ground and proceeds to its destination. The direction and orientation that an aircraft takes as it departs or arrives at an airport, as projected on the ground, is referred to as the aircraft flight track. This Alternative intends to evaluate the implementation of several new flight tracks for the Airport. These will include the Bay Visual Approach, use of Flight Management Systems (FMS) for departure, West Seattle flight tracks for small planes, southern departure variations, minimal population tracks and possible altitude evaluation. Any such flight track change will require the preparation of environmental documentation and evaluation prior to implementation. This process can normally take several years. These Alternatives would be modeled in various forms. Alternative 9a. The first Alternative in this series involves the use of the Charted Visual approach for operations to Runway 13R for all hours during both the day and night. This alternative affectively shifts the flight path from a long straight -in approach to arriving through Elliot Bay. This is labeled as Alternative 9a and a description of this procedure is shown in Figure G9a. Because of weather, this procedure cannot be utilized all the time. There may also be times when, due to capacity constraints, this procedure may be difficult to implement. The analysis assumes that this procedure could be used about 50% of the time. Thus, 50% of the operations on the straight -in approach are shifted to this procedure. The Alternative 9a DNL contours are illustrated in Figure G9b, entitled ALTERNATIVE 9A, CHARTED VISUAL ALL HOURS, DNL CONTOURS, and the Alternative 9a Time Above contours are illustrated in Figure G9c, entitled ALTERNATIVE 9A, CHARTED VISUAL ALL HOURS, TA CONTOURS. The results show some reduction in noise in the Magnolia and Queen Anne area. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.42 • • • Alternative 9b. The second Alternative in this series involves the use of the Charted Visual approach for operations to Runway 13R during the nighttime hours only. This is the same as Alternative 9a, except that it is used only during the nighttime hours when airport operations are lower. This Alternative affectively shifts the flight path from a long straight -in approach to arriving through Elliott Bay. Because of weather, it is assumed that only 50% of the operations are shifted from the straight -in procedure to this procedure. The Alternative 9b DNL contours are shown in Figure G9d, entitled ALTERNATIVE 9B, CHARTED VISUAL NIGHTTIME ONLY, DNL CONTOURS, and the Alternative 9b Time Above contours are shown in Figure G9c, entitled ALTERNATIVE 9B, CHARTED VISUAL NIGHTTIME ONLY, TA CONTOURS. The represented receptor analysis is presented in Tables G2 through G6 and show some reductions in noise in the Magnolia and Queen Anne area, although it is less than Alternative 9a. Alternative 9c. The third Alternative in this series involves directing north flow departures through Elliott Bay for all hours of the day and night. Currently many aircraft already utilize this procedure and turn through Elliott Bay. This alternative would more formally establish a procedure to better define that path and direct the aircraft toward the center of the Bay. It would also be designed to monitor and maintain the traffic so that it does not shift too far south over West Seattle. This Alternative is called Alternative 9c, and a description of this procedure is shown in Figure G9d. This figure shows the relative location of the Elliott Bay departure path. The Alternative 9c DNL contours are shown on Figure G9e, entitled ALTERNATIVE 9C NORTH FLOW ELLIOTT BAY DEPARTURES, ALL HOURS, DNL CONTOURS, and the Alternative 9c Time Above contours are shown on Figure G9f, entitled ALTERNATIVE 9C NORTH FLOW ELLIOTT BAY DEPARTURES, ALL HOURS, TA CONTOURS. The represented receptor analysis is presented in Tables G2 through G6. The results show some reduction in noise in the Magnolia and Queen Anne area. Alternative 9d. The fourth Alternative in this series involves directing north flow departures through Elliott Bay during the nighttime hours only. Currently many aircraft do turn toward Elliott Bay. This alternative would more formally establish a procedure to better define that path and direct the aircraft toward the center of the Bay. It would also be designed to monitor and maintain the traffic so that it does not shift too far south over West Seattle. This is essentially the same as Alternative 9c, except that it would occur only during the nighttime hours when activity is less. The Alternative 9d DNL contours are shown on Figure G9g, entitled ALTERNATIVE 9D NORTH FLOW ELLIOTT BAY DEPARTURES, NIGHT ONLY, DNL CONTOURS, and the Alternative 9d Time Above contours are shown on Figure G9h, entitled ALTERNATIVE 9D NORTH FLOW ELLIOTT BAY DEPARTURES, NIGHT ONLY, TA CONTOURS. The represented receptor analysis is presented in Table G2 through G6 and the results show some reduction in noise to the Magnolia and Queen Anne area. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.46 r • • Alternative 9e. The fifth Alternative in this series involves establishing a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS)/Flight Management System (FMS) departure procedure for north flow operations. These procedures would be established to direct the departure operations through the center of Elliott Bay. The Alternative assumes that approximately ninety percent of the departures could comply with this procedure and ten percent would continue with a straight-out departure. As with all departure procedures, this would require close coordination by FAA with the Sea -Tac departures. The Alternative 9e DNL contours are shown on Figure G9i, entitled ALTERNATIVE 9E NORTH FLOW ELLIOTT BAY GPS/FMS DEPARTURES, DNL CONTOURS, and the Alternative 9e Time Above contours are shown of Figure G9j, entitled ALTERNATIVE 9E NORTH FLOW ELLIOTT BAY GPS/FMS DEPARTURES, TA CONTOURS. The represented receptor analysis is presented in Table G2 through G6. Alternative 10 -Administrative Actions. This Alternative includes several Administrative actions other than those described above. These could include a Fly Quiet Program, use of ground leases to encourage use of quiet aircraft, as well as other educational efforts and the continuation of the Advisory Committee. The Fly Quiet Program has several components, with the aim being to encourage operators to use quiet aircraft, fly in a responsible manner, recognize operators who operate consistently in a responsible manner and monitor compliance with both voluntary and regulatory noise abatement procedures. There is a possibility that leases could be used to encourage use of quieter aircraft. This is a very complicated issue due to Federal grant assurances, regulations and statutes, but it is recommended for evaluation in this Study and will be addressed in a subsequent Working Paper. Various pilot and operational educational programs, through the FBO's, pilots groups, and national organizations can be used to inform pilots of noise sensitive uses, preferred operating procedures and the Fly Quiet Program. This can be accomplished through various means including noise abatement brochures, Jeppesen Manual chart inserts, publication in national manuals, video programs and corporate discussions. An additional administrative action is recommended for consideration. Some variation of the Study Advisory Committee should remain in place subsequent to the completion of this study and meet on a regular basis to discuss noise abatement issues at the airport. This is especially true concerning the community planning representatives and their role in keeping the airport, citizens, communities and others informed on land use issues that concern the airport environs as well as Air Traffic Control tower personnel in discussing aircraft procedures. This on-going committee structure has been successful elsewhere in the form of a "Planners Forum" that involves both citizens and staff representatives. This is especially important due to the inter jurisdictional issues involved. Considerable time and effort will be expended, by both the airport and the Committee, in the development of this Study, especially in the "learning curve" effort, that is too valuable a tool for communication to risk loosing at the end of this process. Naturally, this Alternative will not be computer modeled. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.54 w Barnard Dunkelberg & Company IDFigure G9i Alternative 9E North Flow Elliot Bay GPS/FMS Departure DNL Contour N Noise Contour eScale 1"-12,000' �L- �I DdufCo INTERNATIO IRPORT/Boeing Field MG? V Barnard Dunkelberg & Company nI m nq; Wil xue m I r,p711 i ' �I n� n , tilketw —Lr eIDScale 1'=12,000' Figure G9j Alternative 9E North Flow Elliot Bay GPS/FMS Departure TA Contours A/60 minutes N30 minutes N15 minutes N5 minutes T INTERNAM AV' IRPORT/Boe ng Field FPart ISO Study • • • Contour Evaluation Each modeled alternative has been evaluated and compared not only to each other, but to the Base Case Future noise contours. The DNL evaluation will compare the number of residents and acres of residential land uses within the 55 and greater noise contours, other noise sensitive uses within those contours and overall size of the contours. The DNL contour comparison is shown in Table G1, and the Representative Receptor comparisons are shown in Tables G2 thought G6 which address the supplemental noise metrics described earlier. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/December 2000 G.57 • Table G1 CONTOUR COMPARISON FOR EACH MODELED ALTERNATIVE King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study Land Use Existing Base Case Ala A2a A5 A9a A9b A9c A9d A9e A2c A2b Alb DNL 55 Residences 16,568 21,818 19,015 19,698 20,096 20,055 20054 20,305 20,433' 20,233 ' 8,768 16,359 15,674 People 40,592 53,454 47,214 48,873 49,983 49,920 49,923 50,429 50,682 50,225 21,261 41,135 39,566 Schools NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Acres 13,883 17,291 16,010 16,505 17,144 17,177 17,180 17,150 17,166 17,139 8,519 13,910 13,244 DNL 60 Residences 4,918 6,827 5,631 5,952 6,430 6,437 6,437 6,429 6,428 6,420 2,588 4,368 3.907, People 12,049 16,726 13,518 14,299 15,442 15,454 15,451 15,440 15,420 15,432 6,104 10,572 9,535 Schools NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Acres • 5,436 6,890 6,241 6,493 6,852 6,839 6,845 6,882 6,876 6,875 3,531 5,237. 4,905 DNL 65 Residential 290 464 361 400 463 461 460 463 460 533 126 240 200 Residences 1,327 1,955 1,511 1,638 1,852 1,844 1,844 1,853 1,842 1,844 586 995 843 People 3,251 4,790 3,310 3,623 4,166 4,152 4,151 4,163 4,141 4,155 1,263 2,168 1,865 Schools 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Com/Retail 145 190 164 172 189 188 188 189 188 267 116 166 149 Manufacture 655 864 773 810 860 861 861 864 865 1,224 596 857 810 Other 1,176 1,354 1,268 1,304 1,354 1,354 1,356 1,354 1,355 844 639 779 716 Total Acres 2,266 2,872 2,566 2,686 2,866 2,864 2,865 2,870 2,868 2,868 1,477 2,042 1,875 Ala Ban Stage 2 Aircraft A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night A5 Example Fly Quiet Program A9a Chartered Visual Approach, All Hours A9b Chartered Visual Approach, Nighttime Only A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Nighttime Only A9e North Flow Elliott Bay GPS/FMS Departure A2c No Night Flights A2b No Night Hush Kitted or Louder Alb No Hush Kitted or Louder, All Hours. • Table G 1 Continued CONTOUR COMPARISON FOR EACH MODELED ALTERNATIVE King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study Land Use Existing Base Case Ala A2a A5 A9a A9b A9c A9d A9e A2c A2b Alb DNL 70 Residential 40 70 47 54 68 65 65 67 65 73 10 29 23 Residences 158 351 238 267 326 326 326 324 325 334 18 112 80 People 387 868 466 538 678 670 669 668 663 693 46 234 170 Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 '• 0 0 0 0 Com/Retail 55 84 70 76 84 84 84 84 - 84. 81 8 42 31 Manufacture 210 307 ' 248 274 .308 311 310 306 310 : , 363 163 221. 206 • Other 570 689 '618 643 684 686 686 686 686 616 423 495 483 Total Acres 875 1,150 983 1,047 1,144 1,146 1,145 1,143 1,145 1,133 604 787 743 DNL 75 Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Residences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 People 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Com/Retail 0 0 0 0 11 9 7 10 9 0 0 0 0 Manufacture 49 78 50 60 79 74 74 78 74 59 41 41 38 Other 363 407 367 380 405 403 403 405 403 409 308 336 332 Total Acres 412 485 417 440 484 477 477 483 477 472 334 377 370 Ala Ban Stage 2 Aircraft A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night A5 Example Fly Quiet Program A9a Chartered Visual Approach, All Hours A9b Chartered Visual Approach, Nighttime Only A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Nighttime Only A9e North Flow Elliott Bay GPS/FMS Departure A2c No Night Flights A2b No Night Hush Kitted or Louder Alb No Hush Kitted or Louder, All Hours. Contour totals do not include rights-of-way or bodies of water. • • • The following tables, G2 through G6 show changes in noise levels for the representative receptor locations for the following metrics; DNL, nighttime Leq, Time Above, Lmax and SEL. The significant changes, as presented on page G.2, are shown in red type in each of the tables. King County International Airport FAR Part 150 Study/October 2000 ... G.60 0 0 • Table G2 Representative Receptor Analysis (DNL) Site Description Al Magnolia A2 West Seattle A3 Magnolia A4 Tukwila A5 Skyway A6 Seattle A7 Georgetown A8 Skyway A9 Foster S01 Tukwila S03 Tukwila SO4 Georgetown S06 Tukwila S07 Magnolia S08 Beacon Hill S09 West Seattle S 10 Tukwila S 11 Tukwila S13 Beacon Hill S14 West Seattle S I5 West Seattle S16 Magnolia S17 Beacon Hill 50.5 50.0 Al Magnolia A2 West Seattle A3 Magnolia A4 Tukwila A5 Skyway A6 Seattle A7 Georgetown A8 Skyway A9 Foster S01 Tukwila S03 Tukwila SO4 Georgetown S06 Tukwila S07 Magnolia S08 Beacon Hill S09 West Seattle S10 Tukwila S l l Tukwila S13 Beacon Hill S14 West Seattle S15 West Seattle S16 Magnolia S17 Beacon Hill Ala Ban Stage 2 Aircraft, A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night, A5 Fly Quiet Example, A9a Charted Visual, All Hours A9b Charted Visual Approach, Nighttime Only, A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours, A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Night A9e GPS/FMS Departure A2c No Night Flights, A2b No Night Hush Kitted or louder, Alb No Hush Kitted or louder, All Hours DNL Noise Level Ex 1999 Base 2006 Ala 2006 A2a 2006 A5 2006 A9a 2006 A9b 2006 A9c 2006 A9d 2006 A9e 2006 A2c 2006 A2b 2006 Alb 2006 52.0 53.5 53.3 53.4 51.2 52.0 52.4 53.1 52.9 53.0 49.0 53.0 52.9 51.3 52.6 52.0 52.2 52.6 52.6 52.6 52.6 52.6 52.6 48.7 50.5 50.0 54.2 55.7 55.5 55.6 53.5 54.3 54.6 55.4 55.2 55.2 51.2 55.1 55.0 62.1 63.3 62.7 62.9 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 59.5 61.0 60.3 45.7 47.1 46.5 46.8 47.8 47.4 47.4 47.4 47.5 47.7 43.4 45.8 45.5 69.1 70.6 69.6 70.0 70.6 70.6 70.6 70.6 70.6 70.6 67.1 68.4 68.1 66.4 67.7 66.9 67.2 67.9 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.9 64.5 65.6 65.2 58.6 59.8 59.1 59.4 59.8 59.8 59.8 59.8 59.8 59.8 56.1 57.7 57.1 63.8 65.0 64.5 64.7 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 60.9 63.2 62.7 61.1 62.3 61.7 62.0 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 58.4 59.9 59.1 58.6 60.0 59.3 59.6 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 56.2 58.2 57.8 70.0 71.4 70.9 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.3 71.4 71.3 71.3 67.3 69.9 69.6 66.9 68.2 67.5 67.8 68.2 68.2 68.2 68.2 68.2 68.2 64.3 65.6 64.8 47.4 48.7 48.6 48.7 48.3 48.5 48.6 48.6 48.5 48.4 44.9 48.5 48.5 60.4 61.7 61.2 61.4 61.7 61.7 61.7 61.7 61.7 61.7 58.2 60.8 60.6 51.2 52.6 51.9 52.2 53.0 52.7 52.7 52.8 52.9 53.0 48.9 50.9 50.6 48.6 50.0 49.3 49.6 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 46.4 48.3 48.0 57.2 58.6 57.9 58.2 58.6 58.6 58.6 58.6 58.6 58.6 54.8 56.9 56.5 59.5 60.9 60.3 60.5 60.7 60.9 60.9 60.8 60.7 60.6 57.1 59.0 58.5 49.1 50.6 49.9 50.2 51.2 50.9 50.8 50.8 50.9 51.1 46.8 49.0 48.8 40.2 41.5 41.3 41.3 41.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 37.7 40.6 40.3 53.4 54.9 54.7 54.8 53.0 53.6 54.0 54.6 54.4 54.4 50.6 54.4 54.3 55.8 57.2 56.9 57.0 57.2 57.2 57.2 57.2 57.2 57.2 53.6 56.5 56.4 Change in Noise Relative to Base Case 2006 -- -- -0.2 -0.1 -2.3 -1.5 -1.1 -0.4 -0.6 -0.5 -4.5 -0.5 -0.6 -- -- -0.6 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.9 -2.1 -2.6 -- -- -0.2 -0.1 -2.2 -1.4 -1.1 -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -4.5 -0.6 -0.7 -- -- -0.6 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.8 -2.3 -3.0 -- -- -0.6 -0.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 -3.7 -1.3 -1.6 -- -- -1.0 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.5 -2.2 -2.5 -- -- -0.8 -0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 -3.2 -2.1 -2.5 -- -- -0.7 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.7 -2.1 -2.7 -- -- -0.5 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.1 -1.8 -2.3 -- -- -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.9 -2.4 -3.2 -- -- -0.7 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.8 -1.8 -2.2 -- -- -0.5 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -4.1 -1.5 -1.8 -- -- -0.7 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.9 -2.6 -3.4 -- -- -0.1 0.0 -0.4 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -3.8 -0.2 -0.2 -- -- -0.5 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.5 -0.9 -1.1 -- -- -0.7 -0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -3.7 -1.7 -2.0 -- -- -0.7 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.6 -1.7 -2.0 -- -- -0.7 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.8 -1.7 -2.1 -- -- -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -3.8 -1.9 -2.4 -- -- -0.7 -0.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 -3.8 -1.6 -1.8 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.8 -0.9 -1.2 -- -- -0.2 -0.1 -1.9 -1.3 -0.9 -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -4.3 -0.5 -0.6 -- -- -0.3 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.6 -0.7 -0.8 Ala Ban Stage 2 Aircraft, A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night, A5 Fly Quiet Example, A9a Charted Visual, All Hours A9b Charted Visual Approach, Nighttime Only, A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours, A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Night A9e GPS/FMS Departure A2c No Night Flights, A2b No Night Hush Kitted or louder, Alb No Hush Kitted or louder, All Hours 0 0 • Table G3 Representative Receptor Analysis (Nighttime LEQ) Site Description Al Magnolia A2 West Seattle A3 Magnolia A4 Tukwila A5 Skyway A6 Seattle A7 Georgetown A8 Skyway A9 Foster SO1 Tukwila S03 Tukwila SO4 Georgetown S06 Tukwila S07 Magnolia SO8 Beacon Hill S09 West Seattle SIO Tukwila S 11 Tukwila S13 Beacon Hill S14 West Seattle S15 West Seattle S16 Magnolia S17 Beacon Hill 44.4 44.4 Al Magnolia A2 West Seattle A3 Magnolia A4 Tukwila A5 Skyway A6 Seattle A7 Georgetown A8 Skyway A9 Foster SO1 Tukwila S03 Tukwila SO4 Georgetown S06 Tukwila S07 Magnolia S08 Beacon Hill S09 West Seattle S l O Tukwila S 11 Tukwila S13 Beacon Hill S14 West Seattle S15 West Seattle S I6 Magnolia S 17 Beacon Hill AlaBan Stage 2 Aircraft, A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night, A5 Fly Quiet Example, A9a Charted Visual, All Hours A9b Charted Visual Approach, Nighttime Only, A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours, A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Night A9e GPS/FMS Departures A2c No Night Flights, A2b No Night Hush Kitted or louder, Alb No Hush Kitted or louder, All Hours Nighttime LEQ Noise Levels (10 pm to 7 am) Ex Base Ala A2a A5 A9a A9b A9c A9d A9e A2c A2b Alb 1999 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 44.6 46.3 46.1 46.1 43.9 44.7 44.7 45.8 45.8 45.8 0.0 45.6 45.6 43.7 45.0 44.4 44.4 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 0.0 42.1 42.2 46.9 48.5 48.3 48.3 46.3 46.9 46.9 48.0 48.0 48.0 0.0 47.7 47.7 54.5 55.7 55.1 55.1 55.7 55.7 55.7 55.7 55.7 55.7 0.0 52.2 52.3 37.9 39.4 38.9 38.9 40.2 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 40.0 0.0 37.7 37.7 61.2 62.6 61.7 61.7 62.6 62.6 62.6 62.6 62.6 62.6 0.0 59.7 59.8 58.3 59.6 58.8 58.8 59.8 59.7 59.7 59.8 59.8 59.8 0.0 56.4 56.5 50.9 52.1 51.4 51.4 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 0.0 49.0 49.1 56.3 57.5 57.1 57.1 57.5 57.5 57.5 57.5 57.5 57.6 0.0 55.0 55.0 53.5 54.8 54.2 54.2 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.8 0.0 51.2 51.3 51.0 52.3 51.7 51.7 52.3 52.3 52.3 52.3 52.3 52.3 0.0 49.9 50.0 62.5 64.0 63.5 63.5 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.9 63.9 63.9 0.0 61.9 61.9 59.3 60.6 59.9 59.9 60.6 60.6 60.6 60.6 60.6 60.6 0.0 56.7 56.8 39.8 41.1 41.0 41.0 40.6 40.9 40.9 40.9 40.9 40.7 0.0 40.8 40.8 52.5 53.8 53.3 53.3 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.8 0.0 52.6 52.6 43.5 44.9 44.2 44.2 45.3 45.0 45.0 45.2 45.2 45.3 0.0 42.6 42.6 40.8 42.2 41.5 41.5 42.2 42.2 42.2 42.2 42.2 42.2 0.0 39.9 40.0 49.5 50.9 50.3 50.3 50.9 50.9 50.9 50.9 50.9 50.9 0.0 48.6 48.6 51.9 53.2 52.7 52.7 53.1 53.3 53.3 53.1 53.1 53.0 0.0 50.6 50.6 41.3 42.9 42.2 42.2 43.5 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.4 0.0 40.9 40.9 32.4 33.8 33.6 33.6 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.9 0.0 32.5 32.5 46.1 47.6 47.5 47.5 45.7 46.2 46.2 47.2 47.2 47.2 0.0 47.0 47.0 48.0 49.4 49.1 49.1 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4 0.0 48.5 48.5 Change in Noise Relative to Base Case 2006 -- -- -0.2 -0.2 -2.4 -1.6 -1.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -46.3 -0.7 -0.7 -- -- -0.6 -0.6 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -45.0 -2.9 -2.8 -- -- -0.2 -0.2 -2.2 -1.6 -1.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -48.5 -0.8 -0.8 -- -- -0.6 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -55.7 -3.5 -3.4 -- -- -0.5 -0.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 -39.4 -1.7 -1.7 -- -- -0.9 -0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -62.6 -2.9 -2.8 -0.8 -0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 -59.6 -3.2 -3.1 -- -- -0.7 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -52.1 -3.1 -3.0 -- -- -0.4 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -57.5 -2.5 -2.5 -- -- -0.6 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -54.8 -3.6 -3.5 -- -- -0.6 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -52.3 -2.4 -2.3 -- -- -0.5 -0.5 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -64.0 -2.1 -2.1 -- -- -0.7 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -60.6 -3.9 -3.8 -- -- -0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 -41.1 -0.3 -0.3 -- -- -0-5 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -53.8 -1.2 -1.2 -- -- -0.7 -0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 -44.9 -2.3 -2.3 -- -- -0.7 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -42.2 -2.3 -2.2 -- -0.6 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -50.9 -2.3 -2.3 -- -- -0.5 -0.5 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -53.2 -2.6 -2.6 -- -- -0.7 -0.7 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 -42.9 -2.0 -2.0 -- -- -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -33.8 -1.3 -1.3 -- -- -0.1 -0.1 -1.9 -1.4 -1.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -47.6 -0.6 -0.6 -- -- -0.3 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -49.4 -0.9 -0.9 AlaBan Stage 2 Aircraft, A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night, A5 Fly Quiet Example, A9a Charted Visual, All Hours A9b Charted Visual Approach, Nighttime Only, A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours, A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Night A9e GPS/FMS Departures A2c No Night Flights, A2b No Night Hush Kitted or louder, Alb No Hush Kitted or louder, All Hours O • Table G4 Representative Receptor Analysis (Time Above 65 dBA) Site Description Al Magnolia A2 West Seattle A3 Magnolia A4 Tukwila A5 Skyway A6 Seattle A7 Georgetown A8 Skyway A9 . Foster SO1 Tukwila S03 Tukwila SO4 Georgetown S06 Tukwila S07 Magnolia S08 Beacon Hill S09 West Seattle S10 Tukwila S 11 Tukwila 513 Beacon Hill S14 West Seattle S15 West Seattle S16 Magnolia S17 Beacon Hill 3.3 4.6 Al Magnolia A2 West Seattle A3 Magnolia A4 Tukwila A5 Skyway A6 Seattle A7 Georgetown A8 Skyway A9 Foster SOl Tukwila S03 Tukwila SO4 Georgetown S06 Tukwila S07 Magnolia SO8 Beacon Hill S09 West Seattle SIO Tukwila S 11 Tukwila S13 Beacon Hill S14 West Seattle S15 West Seattle S16 Magnolia S17 Beacon Hill AlaBan Stage 2 Aircraft, A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night, A5 Fly Quiet Example, A9a Charted Visual, All Hours A9b Charted Visual Approach, Nighttime Only, A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours, A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Night A9e GPS/FMS Departure A2c No Night Flights, A2b No Night Hush Kitted or louder, Alb No Hush Kitted or louder, All Hours Time Above 65 dBA (Minutes per Day) Ex Base Ala A2a A5 A9a A9b A9c A9d A9e A2c A2b Alb 1999 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.4 1.2 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.0 2.5 1.9 1.7 3.3 4.6 3.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 3.2 2.1 6.5 9.4 8.8 9.3 5.0 5.6 8.3 9.3 8.8 8.9 9.4 8.7 8.3 23.9 32.5 31.1 32.3 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 30.6 29.7 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.0 0.6 81.8 108.9 106.9 108.7 108.9 108.9 108.9 108.9 108.9 109.0 108.9 105.9 104.8 59.4 72.3 70.7 72.1 73.3 73.2 72.5 72.4 72.5 72.6 72.3 70.4 69.4 9.2 13.0 11.9 12.8 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 11.3 10.5 41.5 54.6 53.3 54.5 54.6 54.6 54.6 54.6 54.6 54.6 54.6 52.8 51.9 13.7 19.2 18.1 19.0 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 17.4 16.3 12.4 17.7 16.4 17.5 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 16.0 15.1 100.7 126.5 125.2 126.3 125.3 125.5 126.3 126.5 126.3 126.2 126.5 124.9 124.4 43.5 57.4 56.2 57.2 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.3 55.5 54.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 29.5 38.8 37.0 38.6 38.9 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.9 38.8 38.8 35.9 35.0 2.2 3.1 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.1 2.4 2.0 2.3 3.2 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.1 1.4 9.0 12.9 11.6 12.7 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 11.2 10.4 10.7 14.8 14.1 14.7 15.4 15.6 15.0 14.7 14.6 14.4 14.8 13.7 13.0 1.6 2.3 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.3 1.6 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.9 5.6 5.1 5.5 3.1 3.6 4.9 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.6 4.9 4.6 5.1 7.2 5.9 7.0 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 5.2 4.0 Change in Noise Relative to Base Case 2006 -- -- -0.4 -0.1 -1.3 -0.7 -0.3 -0.1 -0.6 -0.5 0.0 -0.6 -0.8 -- -- -1.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.4 -2.5 -- -- -0.6 -0.1 -4.4 -3.8 -1.1 -0.1 -0.6 -0.5 0.0 -0.7 -1.1 -- -- -1.4 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.9 -2.8 -- -- -0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.8 -- -- -2.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -3.0 -4.1 -- -- -1.6 -0.2 1.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 -1.9 -2.9 -- -- -1.1 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.7 -2.5 -- -- -1.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.8 -2.7 -- -- -1.1 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.8 -2.9 -- -1.3 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.7 -2.6 -- -- -1.3 -0.2 -1.2 -1.0 -0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 0.0 -1.6 -2.1 -- -- -1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -1.9 -3.2 -- -- -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -- -- -1.8 -0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 -2.9 -3.8 -- -- -0.5 -0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.7 -1.1 -- -- -0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.1 -1.8 -- -1.3 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.7 -2.5 -- -- -0.7 -0.1 0.6 0.8 0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 0.0 -1.1 -1.8 -- -- -0.5 -0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.7 -1.0 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- -- -0.5 -0.1 -2.5 -2.0 -0.7 -0.1 -0.6 -0.6 0.0 -0.7 -1.0 -- -- -1.3 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.0 -3.2 AlaBan Stage 2 Aircraft, A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night, A5 Fly Quiet Example, A9a Charted Visual, All Hours A9b Charted Visual Approach, Nighttime Only, A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours, A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Night A9e GPS/FMS Departure A2c No Night Flights, A2b No Night Hush Kitted or louder, Alb No Hush Kitted or louder, All Hours 0 0 • Table G5 Representative Receptor Analysis (Lmax) Site Description Al Magnolia A2 West Seattle A3 Magnolia A4 Tukwila A5 Skyway A6 Seattle A7 Georgetown A8 Skyway A9 Foster SO1 Tukwila S03 Tukwila SO4 Georgetown S06 Tukwila S07 Magnolia S08 Beacon Hill S09 West Seattle Sl0 Tukwila SII Tukwila S13 Beacon Hill S14 West Seattle S15 West Seattle S16 Magnolia S17 Beacon Hill 82.5 82.5 Al Magnolia A2 West Seattle A3 Magnolia A4 Tukwila A5 Skyway A6 Seattle A7 Georgetown A8 Skyway A9 Foster SO1 Tukwila S03 Tukwila SO4 Georgetown S06 Tukwila S07 Magnolia S08 Beacon Hill S09 West Seattle S10 Tukwila S l l Tukwila S13 Beacon Hill S14 West Seattle S15 West Seattle S16 Magnolia S17 Beacon Hill AlaBan Stage 2 Aircraft, A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night, A5 Fly Quiet Example, A9a Charted Visual, All Hours A9b Charted Visual Approach, Nighttime Only, A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours, A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Night A9e GPS/FMS Departures A2c No Night Flights, A2b No Night Hush Kitted or louder, A lb No Hush Kitted or louder, All Hours Maximum Noise Level (dBA) Ex Base Ala A2a A5 A9a A9b A9c A9d A9e A2c A2b Alb 1999 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 81.4 81.4 81.4 81.4 74.5 81.4 81.4 81.4 74.5 74.5 81.4 81.4 80.1 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.4 82.5 82.5 77.9 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 77.4 83.1 83.1 83.1 77.4 77.4 83.1 83.1 82.0 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.6 100.7 100.7 94.6 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 101.4 108.4 108.4 108.4 108.4 108.3 108.4 108.4 108.4 108.3 108.3 108.4 108.4 102.5 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.6 97.7 97.7 92.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 94.5 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.3 97.4 97.4 91.7 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 89.8 108.6 108.6 108.6 108.6 108.6 108.6 108.6 108.6 108.6 108.6 108.6 108.6 102.8 104.1 104.1 104.1 104.1 104.1 104.1 104.1 104.1 104.1 104.1 104.1 104.1 98.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.1 71.4 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 85.1 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 76.2 89.2 89.2 89.2 89.2 89.2 89.2 89.2 89.2 89.2 89.2 89.2 89.2 88.8 97.6 97.6 97.6 97.6 97.6 97.6 97.6 97.6 97.6 97.6 97.6 97.6 93.2 81.4 81.4 81.4 81.4 81.3 81.4 81.4 81.4 81.3 81.3 81.4 81.4 81.4 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 79.1 82.5 82.5 82.5 79.1 79.1 82.5 82.5 81.4 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 Change in Noise Relative to Base Case 2006 -- -- 0.0 0.0 -6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -6.9 -6.9 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -4.6 -- -- 0.0 0.0 -5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.7 -5.7 0.0 0.0 -1.1 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -6.1 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.2 -- -- 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -5.9 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -5.7 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.2 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -5.7 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.8 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.8 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -6.0 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.7 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.9 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.7 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.4 -- -- 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- -- 0.0 0.0 -3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.4 -3.4 0.0 0.0 -1.1 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AlaBan Stage 2 Aircraft, A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night, A5 Fly Quiet Example, A9a Charted Visual, All Hours A9b Charted Visual Approach, Nighttime Only, A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours, A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Night A9e GPS/FMS Departures A2c No Night Flights, A2b No Night Hush Kitted or louder, A lb No Hush Kitted or louder, All Hours O 0 • Table G6 Noise Event Counts (Number of Events Above SEL Noise Level) Site Description Al Magnolia A2 West Seattle A3 Magnolia A4 Tukwila A5 Skyway A6 Seattle A7 Georgetown A8 Skyway A9 Foster SO1 Tukwila S03 Tukwila SO4 Georgetown S06 Tukwila S07 Magnolia S08 Beacon Hill S09 West Seattle S 10 Tukwila S 1 l Tukwila S13 Beacon Hill S14 West Seattle S15 West Seattle S16 Magnolia S17 Beacon Hill 12 12 Al Magnolia A2 West Seattle A3 Magnolia A4 Tukwila A5 Skyway A6 Seattle A7 Georgetown A8 Skyway A9 Foster SO1 Tukwila S03 Tukwila SO4 Georgetown S06 Tukwila S07 Magnolia S08 Beacon Hill S09 West Seattle S10 Tukwila S 11 Tukwila S13 Beacon Hill S14 West Seattle S15 West Seattle S16 Magnolia S17 Beacon Hill AlaBan Stage 2 Aircraft, A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night, A5 Fly Quiet Example, A9a Charted Visual, All Hours A9b Charted Visual Approach, Nighttime Only, A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours, A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Night A9e GPS/FMS Departures A2c No Night Flights, A2b No Night Hush Kitted or louder, A lb No Hush Kitted or louder, All Hours Average Daily Noise Events (>75 SEL) Base Ala A2a A5 A9a A9b A9c A9d A9e A2c A2b Alb 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 47 44 46 26 24 41 46 45 43 48 46 46 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 11 11 67 63 67 42 38 61 67 63 64 67 65 63 200 199 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 201 201 200 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 3 450 449 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 477 476 476 220 217 219 221 221 220 220 220 220 221 220 219 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 110 281 281 281 281 281 281 281 281 281 281 281 281 118 117 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 137 136 135 134 133 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 135 134 134 538 537 538 527 527 537 538 538 538 538 536 534 284 284 284 284 284 284 284 284 284 286 285 284 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 328 327 328 328 328 328 328 328 328 328 327 327 19 18 19 19 21 19 19 20 19 19 18 18 9 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 5 119 118 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 121 120 120 126 122 126 123 121 125 126 124 126 129 125 122 9 9 9 10 11 9 9 10 9 9 9 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 66 62 66 4l 38 59 66 64 63 66 63 62 144 143 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 145 142 143 Average Daily Noise Events (>80 SEL) 6 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 3 9 8 9 6 6 8 9 8 8 9 7 7 39 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 38 38 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 259 258 259 259 259 259 259 259 259 259 258 258 141 137 141 143 143 142 141 140 140 141 137 137 19 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 17 17 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 29 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 41 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 39 38 415 414 415 410 409 414 415 414 414 415 414 414 124 123 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 123 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 111 113 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 3 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 2 21 19 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 19 19 24 23 24 24 23 24 24 24 24 24 21 20 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 5 4 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 8 8 AlaBan Stage 2 Aircraft, A2a Ban Stage 2 Aircraft at Night, A5 Fly Quiet Example, A9a Charted Visual, All Hours A9b Charted Visual Approach, Nighttime Only, A9c Elliot Bay Departure, All Hours, A9d Elliot Bay Departures, Night A9e GPS/FMS Departures A2c No Night Flights, A2b No Night Hush Kitted or louder, A lb No Hush Kitted or louder, All Hours PART 150 As part of its ongoing public involvement pro- gram to create public awareness of the Part 150 Noise Study and its purpose, KCIA staff has arranged to participate on the agendas of several community council meetiffffand is hosting two additional meetings in the Mag- nolia and Georgetown communities. KCIA will be presenting evaluations of operational, fa- cility, and land use alternatives to mitigate and abate aircraft noise. At these meetings, the alternatives being discussed are not all-inclusive. Additional meetings will be scheduled when the • consultants have completed the analysis in the February thru March timeframe. Please :I check our website for changes to the schedule: www.metrokc.gov/airport/events or call Pat Olds at (206) 205-8358. South Beacon Hill Community Council December 6, 2000 7:00 PM St. Mark's Lutheran Church 6020 Beacon Ave. S Seattle North Highline Unincorporated Council December 7, 2000 7:00 PM North Highline Fire Station 1243 SW 112th St. Seattle 9VOl 'ON 11011:13d VM '3111`d3S aivd 3OV1SOd 'S -fl GIS 1HSHd North Beacon Hill Community Council December 12, 2000. 7:00 PM Jefferson Community Center 3801 Beacon Ave. S. Seattle North Highline Unincorporated Council December 7, 2000 7:00 PM North Highline Fire Station 1243 SW 112th St. Seattle. West Seattle Admiral & Alki Joint Meeting December 14, 2000 7:00 PM Hiawatha Community Center 2700 California Ave. S.W. West Seattle Georgetown Community (KCIA hosted) January 10, 2001 7:00 PM Coliman's Restaurant 6932 Carlton Ave. S. Seattle Duwamish Neighborhood Improvement Foster Point Community Council TBD Jan./Feb., 2001 7:00 PM Location: TBD (please call Pat Olds for information) tr4SE-3318-6- w-'nT�lSift 1 QA18 S31N33H1f1OS 00E9 331±30 S,1OAMW 'tflifl)ifil JO A1I3 S31%10313(12 SI1V 30H OV 3SION AS'S38 VQNOHS 111'"infistr111sr1:1ti1ii1r19'1" Iss 1111ilrt1''1ui1'11 Questions or Comments? Randy Payne, Noise Analyst King County International Airport Boeing Field 7233 Perimeter Road P.O. Box 80245 Seattle, WA 98108-0245 (206) 296-7458 (206) 296-0190 Fax Email: randy.payne@metrokc.gov www.metrokc.gov/airport rocaw.,ao 2'.9"+ a King County International Airport is owned by King County and is managed by: King County Department of Construction and Facilities Management Airport Division Ron Sims King County Executive, State of Washington Cheryl B. Fambles Director, Department of Construction and Facilities Management Cynthia Stewart Manager, KCIA, Boeing Field Alternative FormatAvailable King County is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act #. oontm.ei King County International Airport Boeing Field MI= IM C C . I: Facts about "sound" pelsenbea eelnJes wnleld 80186 VM 0I14EaS 9 t SW 'S4Z08 x09 'O'd plaid 6ulaog/liodaly leuogeuJalul Aluno3$ulN ate 40,0ER Ptah ,\/ y. ACING 1' NOVEMBER 2000 Sound is produced by energy transmitted through the air in waves and is made up of tiny quick oscillations of pressure above and below the pressure of the atmosphere. Sound pressure is measured in decibels (dB). Humans can hear sounds nearly as quiet as zero dB and as loud as120 dB without pain. To capture the large range of sound humans can hear, the decibel measuring scale is logarithmic, rather than arithmetic. A sound level of 70 dB has 10 times as much acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB. However, human perception of noise is very different. A sound 6-10 dB higher than another is usually judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher four times as loud. • Everyday sounds in the environment normally range from 30-100 dB. • Normal conversation at three feet is about 60-65 dB. • Noise three feet from a food blender or a propeller aircraft at 1,000 feet is the same loudness - about 88 dB. • Adding sounds of unequal loudness together makes a combined sound as loud as the loudest one. The quieter sound is masked. • Adding two sounds of equal loudness will produce a 3 dB change, barely detectable to the ear.' i Sound is filtered through numerical scales to make it correlate with the way people hear. The scale most closely matching human hearing is the A -weighted scale and it is the standard noise measuring scale used by the Federal Aviation Administration. KCIA also uses the A -weighted — scale to measure noise. While a 3 dB change in loudness for a single sound event is considered barely detectable to the human ear, when measuring average day -night noise levels over a long period of time, a 3 dB change becomes a significant noise impact. North Quadrant Discovery Park, Magnolia Briar Cliff School, Magnolia Smith Cove Park, Magnolia Ruby Chow Park, Georgetown (fixed site) NMS 21 NMS7 NMS 16 NMS4 West Quadrant (West Seattle) Terminal 5 Park NMS 14 Providence/Mt.Saint Vincent NMS 12 Myrtle Street Reservoir NMS 15 West Seattle Reservoir (fixed site) NMS 1 East Quadrant NMS 13 NMS 19 NMS 3 NMS 17 �— NMS 26 NMS 6 / ,—NMS 23 NMS 27 /0 �NMS24 Existing Monitoring Locations Maple Elementary School, Beacon Hill Cleveland High School, Beacon Hill Van Assett Elementary School, Beacon Hill (foxed site) Wing Luke Elementary School, Beacon Hill St. Paul Parrish, Rainier Valley Mona Keya Apartments, Skyway 5.121st St. Road End, Skyway Campbell Hill Elementary, Skyway King County Fire District #20, Skyway South Quadrant (Tukwila) NMS 25 NMS8 NMS 11 NMS 20 NMS 10 NMS 18 NMS 5 NMS2 5.133rd St. Mini -Park Hazelnut Park Tukwila Elementary School Showalter Middle School Thorndyke Elementary School Foster High School Tukwila Community Center Duwamish Park (fixed site) 2 KCIA NoiseUpdate-November 2000 KCIA reports noise data to local communities, elected officials, Airport tenants, and other interested parties on a quarterly basis:_ Additional information can be provided upon request. Please contact Randy Payne (206) 296-7458. • ' Reporting Periods 1st Quarter: January = March f2nd Quarter: April= June 3rd Quarter: July- September-'. - 4th Quarter: October - December Active Monitoring Sites July August September 2000 Site NMS1 NMS2 NMS3 NMS4 NMS5 NMS6 NMS8 NMS13 NMS14 NMS16 NMS19 NMS20 NMS23 NMS24 NMS25 NM526 NMS27 Days 67 92 92 92 18 2 33 9 92 92 51 87 5 33 36 40 30 LDN-A 50.5 63.6 61..9 69.9 61.3 61.9 57.2 66.3 52.3 55.5 67.3 54.3 56.4 47.8 61.5 51.6 52.3 Noise monitors at sites 1-4 are fixed in place. All other sites are monitored on an intermittent basis. LDN-A=the average daily noise level for aircraft. In order to collect meaningful data, monitoring sites must meet certain cri- teria. Sites should be located in areas: 1) impacted by over -flights from air-. craft operating from Boeing Field; 2) that avoid close proximity to.busy streets or highways and have little background noise; 3) devoid of large buildings, trees or heavy vegetation; and 4) that provide long-term site availability so that the effectiveness of noise abatement efforts can be monitored and analyzed over an extended period of time. Deployment Schedule: Six portable monitors are deployed in neighbor- hoods impacted by operations at KCIA. One portable monitor rotates with- in each of the quadrants (north, south, east, and west) surrounding the air- port, one within the Tukwila School District, and one within the Seattle School District. Monitors are typically rotated every30 days, unless there are specific noise patterns for which neighborhoods wish to gather addi- tional data. Portable monitors are scheduled for deployment to the follow- ing sites during October, November, and December. Schedules may vary. Portable Noise Monitor Rotation Schedule (Fourth Quarter) Quadrant Location Current Location New Location North South NMS 16 NMS 5 NMS 7 NMS 25 East NMS 6 NMS 23 West NMS 14 NMS 12 Tukwila School District NNIS 20 NMS 11 North School District NMS 19. NMS 13 Monitoring News -School Construction - KCIA temporarily discontinues monitoring at sites where school construction disrupts data gathering. Construction during the 2000 school year prevented monitoring at Tukwila (NMS 10) and Thorndyke (NMS 11) elementary schools. As a substitute, KCIA gathered data at nearby Hazelnut Park (NMS 8). Monitoring resumes at Tukwila and Thorndyke in late October. Construction may disrupt monitoring activities at Campbell Hill Elementary (NMS 27) during the 2001 school year. Monitoring at 121st Street/Road End (NMS 23) and King County Fire District #20 (NMS 24) will serve as substitutes during this period. Noise Measurements Noise measurements have been created to cap- ture different aspects of noise, including loudness and duration. Basic noise measurements include: Maximum Sound Level (L -Max) - Lmax is the high- est noise level reached during a noise event. For example, as an aircraft approaches, the sound of the aircraft begins to rise above background noise levels. -The closeran aircraft gets, the louder it is until the aircraft is at its closest point directly over- head. Sound Exposure Level (SEL) -- SEL is the total noise energy of an event from the time it rose above background noise to when it receded below. Gen- erally this measure results in a higher number than L -Max. Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) - DNL is the average of the total noise during a 24-hour period. Noise occurring between 10 p.m.and 7 a.m. is pe- nalized by 10 dB to account for the higher sensi- tivity to noise in the nighttime and the expected further decrease in background noise levels. The following charts on page 3 depict an average number of sound exposure levels during a 30 -day period from July to September. A noise must be at least 5-10 seconds (but not exceed 10-180 sec- onds) in duration, depending on the monitoring site's background noise conditions, for an event to register on KCIA's monitors as an aircraft sound. For sound exposure levels at night, the decibel reading is adjusted upward by 10 as a way to ac- count for in the greater disruption that noise events cause during otherwise quiet periods. Monitors stationed at a site for less than 30 days during the quarter are not included. KCIA NoiseUpdate-November 2000 3 Noise EventsTukwila and Renton 9000 • Noise Events Georgetown & Beacon Hill • 8000 v w 1 '-'1Dav o r., E Zq 7000 10000 OE., W -a • 8000 9000 8000 oa z T o 5000 7000 8 M 4000 a 6000 E z 3000 60.65 2000 85000• c. " 4000 1000 F' .. 0 y.: 1_. ti= -'-4]--13 Il. IIN • 0 6045 65.70 70-75 7540 8045 85.90 99.95 95.100 100.105 105-110 110-115 115-120 -•- NMSf2 0 0 2079 3982 2608 843 328 85 27 8 -' 1 - 0 811•954$ 0 1219 3576 2667 1073 235 72 33 4 1 64 t 1-1110620 0 0 4536 5116 2613 319 236 5566 1 0 .- 0. '0 . -16- HMS824 .0 459 1365 895 556 556 162 25 8 3 2 - '•,0;. $- HMS825 0 0 828 2477 1593 579 191 52 8 4 - 2 . '•'-0 . y HM8827 0 340 1056 833 374 127 23 7 3 . 1 0 0 - Noise Levels (Sel-dB) The number of single event exposures at NMS Z a permanent site, reflects a slight decrease (10% or less) in most categories from last quarter. SELs in the 100-105 dB range fell 36% from last quarter at NMS 2. Data collected from monitors clustered around the south end of the runway, NMS 8,20 and 25, show noise patterns closer to aircraft flight paths, which are typically louder than that of data collected at NMS 24 and 27, where monitors cap- ture aircraft noise at an angle.___ The number of single event exposures at NMS 3 and 4, both perma- nent sites, demonstrate increases in events in the louder categories. While 60-65 dB measured at NMS 3 fell by 38%, events in the 100-105 dB category grew from 1 to 27 events, and from 1 to 9 in the 105-110 dB cat- egory. The sharp increase in these categories from the second to third quarters likely reflects the impact of Blue Angel flights at KCIA in August. NMS 19 shows a substantial increase in the number of events in the 80- 85 dB category as compared to the previous quarter. Farther to the south, NMS 26 registers more than half of its events at 70 dB or lower. 1'I�IrI�y'l111*7'I'1414PI4• • Noise Events Georgetown & Beacon Hill • Number of Noise Events 30 Day Period v w 1 '-'1Dav o r., E Zq 10000 9000 8000 \ 7000 %/ - a 6000 70-75 60.65 . . 85000• c. " 4000 �. 3000 %.. , -- -- 2000 1_. 1000 • 0 •d -tiwi-_. - - O O 5235 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100.105105-110110-115115-120 2 0.4 04 - -104583 0 0 1965 5172 4362 1288 176 31 9 3 0.3 0 -- 58MSi4 0 0 728 7158 8596 4822 2144 385 64 31 5 -e-NMS$19 0 0 0 1384 9354 5566 1560 147 32 2 0 0 -111-NMSO26 2309 5193 3788 1657 455 78 12 0 1 1 0 0 Noise Levels (Sel-dB) The number of single event exposures at NMS 3 and 4, both perma- nent sites, demonstrate increases in events in the louder categories. While 60-65 dB measured at NMS 3 fell by 38%, events in the 100-105 dB category grew from 1 to 27 events, and from 1 to 9 in the 105-110 dB cat- egory. The sharp increase in these categories from the second to third quarters likely reflects the impact of Blue Angel flights at KCIA in August. NMS 19 shows a substantial increase in the number of events in the 80- 85 dB category as compared to the previous quarter. Farther to the south, NMS 26 registers more than half of its events at 70 dB or lower. 1'I�IrI�y'l111*7'I'1414PI4• .nrmn• Number of Noise Events 30 Day Period \ --.- 60.65 65-70 70-75 60.65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90.95 95-100 100.105105-110 0 110-115115-120 247 5235 -t-NM941 - 0 1142. 2609 2111 1103 87 16 -- 2 ' 2 0.4 04 0 ---.--^-NMS#14 0 , . • 652 ' 187E 1446 648: 202 ^ - 64 21 �. 3 1 0 0 Noise Levels (Sel-dB) The number of single event exposures at NMS 1, a permanent site, in- creased in nearly every decibel category since the previous quarter. The biggest increase came in the number of events between 65-70 dB, which grew by approximately 5.5 times. The increase in recreational pilots who use the Vashon flyroute during summer months may account for this increase in single noise events. Data collected at NMS 14 depicts a decrease from last quarter, which fell as much as 33% in the 65-70 dB. 10000 9000 8000 7000 w -a 6000 0 5000 vm " 4000 2 3000 2000 1000 0 NMS#16 Noise Events Magnolia Noise Levels (Sel-dB) The number of noise events measured in Magnolia at NMS 16 have remained relatively stable since last quarter, decreasing only slightly in most noise categories. \ --.- 60.65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100- 105 105- 110 110. 115 115- 120 0 0 247 5235 2260 377 49 3 1 0.3 0 0 Noise Levels (Sel-dB) The number of noise events measured in Magnolia at NMS 16 have remained relatively stable since last quarter, decreasing only slightly in most noise categories. KCIA's "Noise Hotline" Data Sheet KC1A NoiseUpdate-November 2000 KCIA's Noise Report Hotline (206) 205-KCIA While most people understand that airports generate noise, there are times when operations are particularly intrusive. KCIA's "Noise Hotline" is available for those times when noise becomes especially bothersome or an unusual occurrence is observed. Each call received is recorded and investigated. When one individual establishes a pattern of multiple complaints, KCIA no longer investigates each one. Response letters are mailed approximately monthly, depending on the volume of complaints, to each caller reporting on the results of each investigatio ircraft operators are also notified when their operations become the subject of multiple citizen calls. 03" ) eiR(P 4.ztf 11, Wei04$ Wei 05(4 \oft' Quarterly Noise Report Summary Daytime Complaints Nighttime Complaints Total Cargo Corporate/GA Boeing SeaTac Unknown Other Total Uninvestigated complaints generated by 2 callers Quarterly Calls by Community July -00 Aug -00 Sep -00 Qtr.Total Yr. to Date 80 91 150 321 1,253 102 117 180 399 1,146 182 208 330 720 2,399 79 86 132 297 951 11,a 19 36 55 110 310 17.4 5 4 9 18 72 3.4?' 20 32 29 81 1424 23 17 51 91 495 36 33 54 123 429 182 208 330 720 2,399 466 792 293 1,551 4,905 otimouni 6.g Georgetown/Beacon Hill Tukwila Magnolia Renton West Seattle Other Total Number of Complaints (Number of Callers per period) July August September Qtr.Total Yr. to Date 12 (4) 54 (10) 74 (10) 140 (20)* 280 (34)* 36 (9) 26 (11) 71 (15) 133 (22)* 366 (43)* 97 (15) 111 (21) 128 (24) 336 (37)* 950 (62)* 6 (2) 2 (2) 27 (2) 35 (5)* 315 (18)* 12 (6) 4 (4) 8 (5) 24 (15)* 130 (40)* 19 (14) 11 (8) 22 (17) 52 (38)* 358 (109)* 182 (50) 208 (56) 330 (73) 720 (137)* 2,399 (306)* *Individual callers counted only once for Quarter and Year How to Use the Noise Hotline If you are calling for the first time, please clearly state your name , address, and zip code in your message. When making your call, be as specific as possible about the date and time of the event you are reporting and the nature of your concern, such as low flying aircraft or unusually loud aircraft. KCIA Operations -Weather and Noise Wind direction helps determine from which direction an aircraft will takeoff and land, and influences noise patterns at KCIA. For safety and stability, aircraft are required to take off and land into the wind. Because aircraft generate the greatest amount of noise during takeoff, when the wind changes direction, so does the flow of air traffic and the noise associated with it. At KCIA, the dominant wind direction is from the south. Takeoffs to the south make up about 69% of total takeoffs and the remaining 31% of takeoffs are to the north. KCIA NoiseUpdate-Noise Hotline Data Sheet, November 2000-cont'd Comparitive Noise Levels at Permanent Monitoring Locations 80 70 m 60 v v) 50 w a', 40 J 0 30 z 20 10 0 West Seattle Reservoir Duwamish Park Van Asselt School Ruby Chow Park [] 3rd Qtr -1999 57.1 66.5 62.4 71.1 is 3rd Qtr -2000 50.5 63.6 61.9 69.9 How Do Noise Levels Compare to Last Year? Average daily noise levels measured at KCIA's four fixed monitors during the 3rd quarter shows a slight decrease in noise levels from 1999 to 2000. While noise levels have declined during this period, the number of 3rd quarter operations increased from 106,595 in 1999 to 111,863 in 2000. Number of Operations 120000 Quarterly Operations vs Noise Complaints 100000 -- 80000 80000 60000 =- 40000 -' 20000 — 0 30-97 40-97 10-98 20-98 30-98 40-98 10-99 20-99 30-99 40-99 10-00 20-00 —�— Ops 107036 79940 77201 95806 105709 66404 60590 86072 106595 72490 80465 94810 + Complaints 1319 1012 2212 2265 2026 1999 1564 3819 4139 4206 2786 2247 4500 - 4000 3500 - 3000 — 2500 — 2000 — 1500 — 1000 — 500 0 30-00 111863 2267 N 0 v 0 d Trends in KCIA Operations and Noise Complaints The above chart demonstrates the lack of correlation between number of operations at KCIA and complaints about noise received. Complaints about noise typically stem from single noise events that are unusually disruptive or may stem from particular individuals or neighborhoods interested in developing data about the patterns that affect them; not total operations at KCIA. During the third quarter, operations increased while noise complaints remained relatively steady. A PROGRAM RELOCATION OF FUEL FARM AS ELEMENT OF AN EAST SIDE PARCEL REDEVELOPMENT 800' OF NEW PAVEMENT C DECLARED DISTANCES ) ram ,A _,. m, MR Y AMpi �, ,0.00" 000' �.� , . , , .�-z , . , ��GM C IWO'