FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANC RUNWAY 15/33 REHABILITATION

Transcription

1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANC RUNWAY 15/33 REHABILITATION Project No AUGUST 2017 Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 4111 Aviation Avenue Anchorage, AK 99519

2 United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Final Environmental Assessment for Runway 15/ 33 at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport in DOT&PF Project No Overview The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) proposed project at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC) would rehabilitate Runway (RW) 15/33 (the main north/south runway) and widen RW and Taxiway (TW) geometry to meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards. In addition, the project would separate RW 15/33 and RW 7L/25R Runway Safety Areas (RSA) which will improve safety and efficiency. DOT&PF, in cooperation with the FAA, Alaskan Region Airports Division, plans to combine the runway improvements proposed in the FAA approved ANC Airport Layout Plan (ALP), dated February 14, 2017 with the pavement rehabilitation project. Refer to project components identified below in the Proposed Action. The project would not change the existing fleet mix or aircraft approach or departure patterns as ANC has been operating under a modification to standards (MOS) for Airplane Design Group (ADG) VI aircraft since Additionally, the 200 foot RW33 threshold shift would not cause a change to the recently modeled Part 150 Noise Study. The proposed project would occur entirely on airport property and replace existing infrastructure in the same footprint. New ground disturbance is minimal and most improvements would be on already disturbed ground. To complete this work, RW 15/33, the north/south runway would need to be closed to operations for six months each year during one or possibly two construction seasons (April through October). During construction, air traffic would be shifted to RW 7R/25L and RW 7L/25R, the east-west runways. Most arrivals would land from the west, and most departures would take off to the east, creating a temporary increase in air traffic and noise over areas east of the airport during construction. Airport operations would return to normal once construction is complete and in-between construction seasons. The project is anticipated to occur during construction seasons 2018 and possibly Assumptions in the Environmental Assessment (EA) allow for construction in 2020 in the event the project is delayed. Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to rehabilitate RW 15/33, widen the RW to meet standards for ADG VI aircraft operations, and separate the RW 15/33 RSA and the RW 7L/25R RSA including replacement and/or reinstallation of supporting infrastructure (RW lighting, TW lighting, signs, pavement sensors, drainage facilities) and relocation of FAA navigational Aid Systems (NAVAIDS) and pavement marking. Pavement rehabilitation is required when the pavement condition rating indicators trigger the need to rehabilitate or reconstruct. The need to rehabilitate the pavement is the appropriate point at which to bring the RW up to FAA design standards for ADG VI aircraft operations. Separation of the RW 15/33 RSA and RW 7L/25R RSA would increase safety and efficiency. 1

3 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Requested Federal Action The Federal action requested by the DOT&PF is FAA approval of the Airport Layout Plan of the proposed projects identified and analyzed in the associated Final EA and participation in funding of the proposed improvements using Airport Improvements Program grant funding. Proposed Action The proposed project, which DOT&PF anticipates would be constructed during two construction seasons in 2018 and 2019, would: Rehabilitate RW 15/33 pavement. Widen RW 15/33 from 150 ft to 200 ft to meet the required FAA design standards for ADG VI aircraft, which already operate at the ANC. Adjust TW intersections geometry to accommodate the widened RW and to meet updated FAA TW geometry standards for ADG VI and Taxiway Design Group (TDG) 7 aircraft. Shift the RW 33 threshold approximately 200 feet to the north to separate RW 15/33 and RW 7L/25R RSAs. This will be a permanent change in threshold location and noise modeling in the EA indicates the new threshold location would not result in a significant change to existing noise contours. Relocate the RW 15 landing threshold approximately 100 feet to the north, remove the RW 15 displaced threshold, and re-align TW Q to the north to intersect the revised RW 15 threshold location. This would include excavation of a hill adjacent to TW Q and TW R, relocation of fencing at the top of the hill, and tree clearing. This would be a permanent change in threshold location and noise modeling in the EA indicates that the new threshold location would not result in a significant change to existing noise contours. Revise declared distances and approach procedures to reflect proposed threshold changes. Replace RW and TW lighting. Remove existing RW 15 ODALS approach lighting system and upgrade to Medium-Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers or MALSF approach lighting system. Upgrade would include tree clearing, new fence installation, and installation of new power and communication connections Replace drainage infrastructure and install new pavement marking Reasonable Alternatives A Proposed-Action Alternative and a No-Action Alternative were evaluated in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA). The No Action Alternative would maintain the current RW 15/33 threshold configuration and width. RW 15/33 would continue to operate under the FAA approved temporary MOS for non-standard RW width for ADG VI aircraft. The RW 15/33 pavement would not be rehabilitated and would continue to deteriorate, eventually requiring total RW reconstruction or closure. Drainage infrastructure in need of replacement 2

4 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT would not be replaced, and approach and RW lighting systems would not be replaced. In addition, the overlapping RSAs for RW 15/33 and RW 7L/25R would remain as current. The Proposed-Action Alternative would rehabilitate RW 15/33 pavement and would bring the RW up to FAA design standards for ADG VI aircraft operations. The drainage infrastructure would be replaced, and approach and RW lighting systems would also be replaced. In addition, the overlapping RSAs for RW 15/33 and RW 7L/25R would be separated. Environmental Consequences Non-Issue Environmental Impact Categories Neither The No Action nor the Proposed Action Alternatives would affect the following resources listed in FAA Order F, Chapter 4: Air Quality, Biological Resources (including fish, wildlife, and plants), Climate, Coastal Resources, Farmlands, Hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention, Land use and Transportation Plans, Light Emissions and Visual Effects, Natural resources and energy supply and Water resources. Justification for classifying the above environmental impact categories as non-issues is in Appendix E of the Final EA. The following impact categories were analyzed in the EA: Department of Transportation Act, Section4(f), Historic, Architectural, Archeological, & Cultural Resources, Noise & Noise-Compatible Land Use, Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks. None of these impact categories would result in impacts except for Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use impact category. Summary of Noise and Noise-Compatible Potential impacts: The following potential temporary and permanent construction environmental noise impacts on and off ANC for the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives were analyzed in the EA: Land uses off ANC would experience noise impacts from construction activities during the RW reconstruction period Land uses on and off ANC would experience noise impacts due to the temporary change of aircraft operations from RW 15/33 to ANC RWs 7L/25R and 7R/25L during the RW 15/33 construction period Land uses on and off ANC would experience noise impacts from the Proposed Action after construction is complete and the ANC returns to normal aircraft operations Land uses off ANC would not experience impacts from construction activities and the operation of construction equipment during the RW reconstruction period. This is based on the distance between construction activities and the nearest noise sensitive area as described in the EA. Noise modeling was performed for two primary scenarios: A temporary 180 day closure for construction during which all RW 15/33 aircraft operations would be moved to RWs 7R/25L and 7L/25R. 3

5 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Upon completion of the RW rehabilitation, the RW would be operated with the existing RW 15 landing threshold relocated approximately 100 feet north with removal of the displaced threshold and relocation of the RW 33 displaced threshold approximately 200 feet north of its current location. Temporary construction noise impacts from the Proposed Action Alternative in year 2020 with a 180-day closure of RW 15/33 would result in an increase of 2,674 individuals, 1,187 residences and one school within the 65 db or greater noise contour for the 180-day closure in year 2020 compared to the No Action alternative in the same year. The completed project in 2022 after a full year of operation compared to the No action alternative 65 db or greater noise contour, results in no increases for individuals, residences, churches, school or hospitals. The proposed action after construction is complete would create no long-term noise impacts. Mitigation and Environmental Commitments The environmental commitments below would be implemented to minimize impacts during and after constructing the proposed project. The terms, conditions, and stipulations of all environmental permits and clearances would also be met. All commitments will be part of the construction contract specifications. Air Quality Measures to control fugitive dust, such as pre-watering sites prior to excavation, covering or stabilizing material stockpiles, covering truckloads, removing particulate matter from wheels prior to leaving the construction site, and removing particulate matter deposited on public roads, would be implemented during construction. No vehicles, trucks, or heavy equipment would be allowed to idle unnecessarily. All motorized construction equipment would be routinely maintained and serviced. Noise DOT&PF has, in extensive coordination and research with ANC operations, air traffic control and the air carriers researched all possible mitigation measures to reduce temporary increased noise from aircraft departing to the east when RW 15/33 is shut down for approximately six months for construction during construction season one and possibly construction season two. The only feasible option resulting from coordination and research to mitigate this increased aircraft noise (as predicted by noise modeling) is DOT&PF would issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). The NOTAM would request air carriers to follow noise abatement procedures to reduce noise impacts over the noise sensitive areas east of the Airport which would experience a significant increase in noise during the RW 15/33 construction shut down. Air carriers can choose to adopt or not adopt the NOTAM recommendations. The public would be notified in advance of construction activities via the project list and project web site. The public would have access to the project web site and ANC contact information for construction updates and inquiries. Measures to control construction equipment noise, e.g. ensuring construction equipment engines have adequate mufflers, would be implemented during construction. The contractor would be required to comply with local noise ordinances. The public would be notified in advance of construction activities via the project list and project web site. 4

6 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Construction Advance notice of construction and detours will be provided to Airport users. Haul routes will be planned to avoid and minimize impacts to Airport users and local residents. Soil stabilization materials, top soils, and seed mixes that are free from noxious weeds will be used. If these materials are not available, locally produced products will be used to minimize potential importation of new weed propagules from outside Alaska. Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste The construction contractor would be required to prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Control Plan (HMCP) in accordance with DEC requirements and DOT&PF contract specifications. The HMCP would address storage and handling of hazardous materials, including fuel and lubricants, and spill response. All construction waste would be managed and disposed of in accordance with all local, State and federal solid-waste-management laws and regulations. In the event that contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during construction, the contractor would notify the DOT&PF Project Engineer. All work would stop until coordination with the DEC in accordance with 18 Alaska Administrative Code has been completed. All contamination would be handled and disposed of in accordance with a DEC-approved corrective action plan. Prior to beginning construction activities, DOT&PF would require the contractor to obtain Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Excavation Dewatering General Permit because construction excavation would likely encounter groundwater within 1500 feet from a listed DEC active contaminated site or a contaminated site with DEC-imposed institutional controls. Historic, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources The construction contract will contain the following provision, If unanticipated historic, cultural, or archeological resources are discovered during construction, all work that may impact these resources shall stop immediately, and the contractor shall notify the DOT&PF Project Engineer, who may then contact the Environmental Division. Work will not resume at these sites until a Section 106 consultation is conducted with the FAA and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Water Quality All construction activities would be conducted according to the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) Construction General Permit (CGP). DOT&PF would prepare and provide the contractor with an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). The contractor would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and HMCP and submit them to DOT&PF for approval prior to construction. The SWPPP would identify all receiving waters and specify the structural and procedural best management practices (BMPs) to be utilized during construction to prevent erosion and to prevent untreated runoff from reaching nearby waterbodies. All vehicles, trucks, and heavy equipment would be kept within construction limits and operated in a manner that limits unnecessary ground disturbance. Equipment would be routinely inspected and serviced to prevent leaks and accidental spills. The SWPPP would also include a HMCP which includes established procedures for responding to accidental spills. If leaks or spills should occur, all contaminated material and 5

7 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT soils would be contained and disposed of in accordance with all local, State and federal solid-wastemanagement laws and regulations. All construction activities would be conducted according to the APDES CGP. An HMCP for prevention of pollution that stems from the storage, use, containment, cleanup, and disposal of hazardous material, including oil products related to construction activities and equipment, will be developed for the project. Setbacks from water channels and standing water will be maintained for refueling and vehicle maintenance activities to avoid impacts to the waterbodies from an accidental spill. Invasive Species DOT&PF would comply with all federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding invasive species when constructing the proposed project to minimize introducing or spreading invasive species. Soil stabilization materials, top soils, and seed mixes that are free from noxious weeds would be used. If these materials are not available, locally produced products would be used to minimize potential importation of new weed propagules from outside Alaska. Any erosion-control materials made from straw or hay (e.g., wattles, bales of hay, etc.) would be made from certified weed-free straw or hay. If certified materials are not available, locally produced products would be used to minimize potential importation of new weed propagules from outside Alaska. All disturbed areas would be reseeded with certified weed-free seed and vegetated with native species according to the Alaska Plant Materials Alaska Coastal Revegetation & Erosion Control Guide. Summary of Permits and Approvals Permits and/or clearances listed below would be obtained prior to construction to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations. The Proposed Action would require the following permits or clearances: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Excavation Dewatering General Permit DEC APDES Construction General Permit DOT&PF has already obtained Section 106 clearance and approvals from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), tribal organizations and the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Summary of Agency and Public Coordination Throughout the environmental process, DOT&PF consulted with federal, State, and local regulatory agencies, local governments, and the public. Public involvement included the five neighborhood community councils bordering ANC to identify concerns or questions regarding the proposed project s environmental effects and design. Coordination efforts included a Notice of Intent to Begin Environmental and Engineering Studies (May 7, 2017) and an agency scoping letter (April 2, 2017). Since 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not required Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation for projects within the MOA. Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, DOT&PF and FAA consulted with the SHPO, the local tribes and native corporations and the MOA. On March 10, 2014, SHPO concurred with the finding that no historic properties would be affected by the proposed project. 6

8 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DOT&PF made the Draft EA available for public and agency review on July 12, DOT&PF provided a link to the online Draft EA for both the public and agency Notices of Availability. DOT&PF placed a Draft EA copy at the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS) in Anchorage. The Draft EA comment period ended August 10, On June 22, 2017, DOT&PF held a public meeting to present and discuss the Draft EA and the proposed project with the public. The meeting gave the public an opportunity to ask questions about the Draft EA, the Proposed Action, and the modeled noise impacts from the proposed RW 15/33 construction shutdown (see Appendix D for additional information regarding public involvement efforts). Summary of public comments and responses by category group 1. Impacts to users of Point Woronzof and the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail Concerns about the possible use of LED lights and the intensity of LED lights to recreation users. o An upgraded navigational aid system will be installed and the type of lighting will be incandescent Concerns about possible perimeter fence location change at RW 15 end to recreational users. o The upgraded NAVAIDS will be installed outside the existing perimeter fence. New fencing will be installed to enclose the NAVAIDS around the upgraded navigational aid system and changes to the fencing will be minor and will not be visible to the public Concerns about how much tree and vegetation clearing will occur at RW end 15 and it needs to be cleared o Some tree clearing will occur due to the threshold move and the shift of the runway protection zone, along a short stretch of the Coastal Trail. Concerns about the RW threshold change causing aircraft to fly lower over the trail. o The shift in the RW threshold will be approximately 100 feet to the north when the project is complete. The aircraft will be approximately five feet lower vertically as aircraft land over Point Woronzof Road and the Coastal Trail. The threshold shift was modeled for change in permanent noise impacts and there was no change in the noise contour as a result of the threshold shift. 2. Construction Impacts Construction project timeline, where the truck haul routes will be and where the debris will be disposed. o Construction is scheduled for the summer construction season of 2018 and Construction schedules will be posted on the project website with regular updates o The contractor is required to have an approved plan for construction debris disposal Concerns about the construction effects on air quality o Air quality impacts from construction will be negligible. Best management practices will be used to prevent or mitigate dust with sweeping and watering regularly along with other best management practices 3. RW 15/33 construction shutdown and the noise from air traffic moving to RW 7/25 impacting more residential areas all summer: What will the construction traffic pattern be for aircraft? o All air traffic will be rerouting to RW 7/25 during while RW 15/33 is closed down for construction 7

9 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Concern, questions, and suggestions regarding mitigate noise impacts to residential neighborhoods o ADOT reviewed all possible ways to mitigate the temporary construction noise impacts of air traffic rerouting, however, all various measures had additional impacts to time, schedule and/or budget. Other than various operational methods to reduce construction noise impacts, the FAA does not provide funding for temporary noise impacts. Sound insulation mitigation is a separate FAA program for permanent noise impacts and this is through the Part 150 program. What temporary noise is defined as and what mitigation is available for these temporary noise impacts? o FAA has defined temporary noise construction impacts to be less than six months. 4. Potential long-term effects of the Proposed Action on Pt. Woronzof coastal bluff erosion The concern is that jet blast, wake turbulence, and vibrations from aircraft are expediting erosion of the unstable slope along the bluff, and that moving the runway threshold closer to the bluff may increase erosion. Stakeholders requested an analysis be included in the Final EA to determine if the proposed project would cause additional erosion at Point Woronzof o Erosion at Pt. Woronzof has been examined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Point Woronzof Section 103 Storm Damage Reduction: Preliminary CAP Fact Sheet, Aug 26, 2015). The study says the erosion is due to wave action, creating unstable slopes. The study does not indicate that aircraft arrivals and departures are causing or accelerating the erosion. o To further research this issue, the DOT&PF design engineer examined similar slopes on the south side of Point Woronzof Road and did not see any evidence of erosion. The team also looked at a slope 600 feet from the RW 7R runway end and did not see any evidence of erosion as a result of aircraft activities. Runway 7R is the primary landing runway at ANC and accounts 75% of the landings according to the 2014 ANC Airport Master Plan. If slopes near the primary landing runway are not eroding, aircraft operations are not a likely contributor to the ongoing Pt. Woronzof coastal bluff erosion. o In addition, the DOT&PF design engineer researched jet blast velocities. According to a Jet Engine Exhaust Velocity Contour publication from Boeing for a aircraft (747-8 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning, jet blast velocities during Takeoff Thrust produce the highest wind speeds. However, aircraft would be using less thrust during landings. Takeoff Thrust velocities for the exceed wake turbulence wind are based on FAA publication AC 90-23G.5.a. Jet blast velocities drop below 35 miles per hour less than 100 feet above and below the aircraft. Aircraft approach at least 165 feet above the bluff so aircraft generated wind should be negligible. The Boeing aircraft is the largest aircraft operating at ANC on a schedule basis. o Vibrations are caused by energy waves emitted from both aircraft engines and the physical airframe of the aircraft as they pass through the air. However, there is no required federal threshold related to aircraft vibrations as a result of a proposed project, and there is no approved method to analyze vibrations. The closest requirement to vibration analysis is the analysis of noise as quantified in the noise modeling included in Appendix C. Noise is quantified in terms of Day and night Noise Level or DNL. Current DNL readings in the area of concern range between 74 and 77. The noise model projects increases between 0.01 and 0.09 in this area as a result of the 100 foot shift to the north end of the runway. The noise increase as a result of this proposed project is negligible. 8

10 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT o o While the runway end for aircraft landing to the south will be relocated 100 feet to the north, the runway end for aircraft departing to the north will be relocated 100 feet to the south. Aircraft departing to the north will either be at the same elevation or higher when they fly over the Point Woronzof area. For these reasons, the proposed project would have no impact on bluff erosion and is not a connected action under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the Proposed Action. DOT&PF responses to public comments on the Draft EA are summarized in Section 5.2 of the Final EA and documented in Appendix D of the Final EA. 9

11

12 This page left intentionally blank

13

14 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Project Background and Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Overview Existing Conditions RW and Intersecting Taxiway Pavement Conditions RW Design Standards Purpose and Need Statement RW Safety Area Rehabilitate RW 15/33 and adjacent interconnecting Taxiways Relocate/Replace Supporting Systems as Necessary Alternatives (including the Proposed Action) Proposed Action Alternative Permits and Approvals No Action Alternative Alternatives Evaluation Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Non-Issue Environmental Impact Categories Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) Background, Regulatory Context, and Thresholds of Significance Methodology Existing Conditions Environmental Consequences Historic, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources Background, Regulatory Context, and Thresholds of Significance Area of Potential Effect Identification Efforts Consultation Efforts Finding of Effect Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use Background, Regulatory Context, and Thresholds of Significance Background Regulatory Context AEDT Information Threshold of Significance Methodology Model Parameters Model Outputs Existing Conditions i

15 Environmental Consequences Construction Noise Operational Noise No Action Alternative year 2020 compared to the Proposed Action 180-day closure year 2020 (Figure 6, Tables 5 and 6) No Action Alternative year 2022 compared to the Completed Project year 2022 (Figures 7 through 9, Tables 7 and 8) Mitigation Mitigation measures evaluated to potentially reduce temporary noise impacts during construction Other potential mitigation measures Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks Study Area Area of Potential Ground Disturbance Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks Background, Regulatory Context, and Thresholds of Significance Methodology Environmental Consequences Socioeconomics Environmental Justice Considerations Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risk Summary Summary of Environmental Commitments Air Quality Noise Construction Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste Historic, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources Water Quality Invasive Species Comments and Coordination Agency Scoping Public Involvement List of Preparers ii

16 FIGURES FIGURE 1. LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP... 2 FIGURE 2. AREA OF POTENTIAL GROUND DISTURBANCE... 6 FIGURE 3. STUDY AREA... 8 FIGURE 4. MOA PARKS AND TRAILS MAP FIGURE 5. ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FIGURE DAY RW 15/33 CLOSURE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON FIGURE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE WITH PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON FIGURE 8. ANC PART 150 STUDY_FUTURE-NOISE-EXPOSURE-MAP FIGURE 9. ANC PART 150 STUDY_FUTURE-NOISE-EXPOSURE-MAP FIGURE 10. SAND LAKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL BOUNDARY FIGURE 11. SPENARD COMMUNITY COUNCIL BOUNDARY TABLES TABLE TABLE 2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY* WITH YEARLY DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS TABLE TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS TABLE NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT ANC AND LHD FOR 2016 THROUGH TABLE NOISE CONTOURS AND POPULATION AFFECTED NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IN TABLE NOISE CONTOURS AND POPULATION AFFECTED 180-DAY PROJECT CLOSURE IN TABLE NOISE CONTOURS AND POPULATION AFFECTED NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IN TABLE NOISE CONTOURS AND POPULATION AFFECTED WITH PROJECT COMPLETED IN TABLE 9. MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 5-YEAR ESTIMATES APPENDICES Appendix A - Section 106 Appendix B Agency Coordination Appendix C Referenced Documents Appendix D Public Involvement Appendix E - Non-Issue Environmental Impact Categories iii

17 LIST OF ACRONYMS AAIA Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 AC Advisory Circular ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ACWR Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADG Airplane Design Group AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool AHPA Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey AIAS Alaska International Aviation System Plan AIP Airport Improvement Project AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 ANC Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport APDES Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System APE Area of Potential Effect ASDA accelerate-stop distance available ASNA Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 ATC ANC Air Traffic Control ATO Air Traffic Operations CAT Category CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGP Construction General Permit DNL day-night sound level DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment EDMS Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System EJ Environmental Justice EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FOD foreign object debris FONSI Finding of No Significant Effect ft foot INM Integrated Noise Model MALSF Medium-Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers MOA Municipality of Anchorage MOS Modification to Standards NAVAIDS Navigational Aid Systems NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOTAM Notice to Airmen NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places iv

18 ODALS OHA PAPIs PCI REIL RSA RW SHPO TAF TCPs TODA TORA TW U.S.C. LIST OF ACRONYMS continued Omnidirectional Approach Lighting Systems Office of History and Archeology Precision Approach Path Indicators Pavement Condition Index Runway End Identification Lights Runway Safety Area Runway State Historic Preservation Officer Terminal Area Forecast Traditional Cultural Properties takeoff distance available takeoff run available Taxiway United States Code v

19 This page left intentionally blank

20 1.0 Project Background and Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) proposes to rehabilitate the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC) Runway (RW) 15/33, widen the RW to meet standards for Airplane Design Group (ADG) VI aircraft operations, relocate the RW 33 displaced threshold to separate the RW 15/33 RW Safety Area (RSA) and RW 7L-25R RSA overlap, relocate the RW 15 threshold to maintain a minimum landing distance of 10,0000 feet, and extend Taxiway (TW) R to the relocated RW 15 threshold. This work would require rehabilitation of intersecting TWs, realignment of TW Q to intersect with the relocated RW 15 threshold, replacement and/or reinstallation of supporting infrastructure (RW lighting, TW lighting, signs, pavement sensors, drainage facilities) and relocation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Navigational Aid Systems (NAVAIDS) including replacement of the existing RW 15 Omnidirectional Approach Lighting System (ODALS) with a Medium-Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (MALSF) approach lighting system. The proposed action is intended to ensure safe aircraft operations, and preserve existing ANC infrastructure. This chapter describes the importance of these factors in explaining the purpose and need for the proposed action. 1.1 Overview ANC is owned by the State of Alaska and operated by DOT&PF. ANC construction began in 1951, and the airport now occupies approximately 4,210 acres, located three miles southwest of the Anchorage central business district. 1 ANC is the primary air transportation facility in Alaska serving local, regional, state, national, and international aviation needs. ANC has three runways and serves as the gateway to other Alaska cities and rural Alaska. Regularly scheduled flights link passengers and cargo operations directly to other states and international destinations. ANC is a high value stop for air cargo carriers. ANC is currently among the top six in the world for cargo throughput and 2nd largest airport in the United States for landed weight of cargo aircraft. ANC serves nearly 500 wide-body landings per week. Once here, aircraft can take advantage of the 24 hours-7 days a week-365 days per year services that are offered here. 2 The Knik Arm of Cook Inlet and Earthquake Park form the northern boundary of the airport while the northeast boundary abuts the residential neighborhoods of Turnagain and Spenard. The Sand Lake neighborhood and Kincaid Park abut the southern and southwestern airport boundaries, respectively, and the remaining western boundary is adjacent to either Municipal lands or the coastline, including the state lands of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. ANC has three RWs (Table 1 and Figure 1) and supporting TWs). Runways are typically named by their compass orientation, and each RW can be used in either direction. Thus RW 15/33 can be considered two RWs, one oriented to the south (RW 15, or bearing 150 ), and one oriented to the north (bearing 330 ). Parallel RWs are designated Right (R) and Left (L). Effectively, ANC has six useable RWs. 1 TSAIA Master Plan Update, December

21 Figure 1. Location and Vicinity Map 2

22 TABLE 1. ANC RUNWAYS ANC Runways RW 7R/25L (east-west) Length (ft) Width (ft) 12, RW 7L/25R (east-west) 10, RW 15/33 (northsouth) 10, Source: TSAIA 2014 Master Plan Update The two parallel east-west RWs, RW 7R/25L and RW 7L/25R, are separated by 700 feet (ft). The single north-south RW, RW 15/33, is located to the north of the east-west RWs Existing Conditions The following sections describe the conditions at ANC that have generated the need for the proposed improvements to maintain the safe and efficient operation of ANC RW and Intersecting Taxiway Pavement Conditions The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) supports rehabilitating RW 15/33 and intersecting TWs. The average RW PCI is 52 and average TW PCI is 62. The method is based on a visual survey of the number and types of distresses in a pavement. The result of the analysis is a numerical value between 0 and 100, with 100 representing the best possible condition and 0 representing the worst possible condition RW Design Standards The largest and most demanding aircraft that is routinely operating on RW 15/33 is the The ADG for this aircraft is ADG VI. The ADG is function of aircraft wingspan and tail height which corresponds to FAA minimum standards for RW width. The current width of RW 15/33 is 150 feet (ft). The FAA standard for ADG VI RW width is 200 ft [FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/ A-Change 1 (2/26/2014)]. ANC has been operating ADG VI aircraft on RW 15/33 under an approved FAA Modification to Standards (MOS) since MOS are temporary in nature and must be revisited each time an opportunity to correct the non-standard condition arises. The need to rehabilitate the RW 15/33 pavement affords an opportunity to bring the RW width up to required FAA standards Purpose and Need Statement The purpose of the proposed project is to rehabilitate RW 15/33, widen the RW to meet standards for ADG VI aircraft operations, and separate the RW 15/33 RSA and the RW 7L/25R RSA, including replacement and/or reinstallation of supporting infrastructure (RW lighting, TW lighting, signs, pavement sensors, drainage facilities) and relocation of FAA navigational Aid Systems (NAVAIDS) and pavement marking.. Pavement rehabilitation is required when the pavement condition rating indicators trigger the need to rehabilitate or reconstruct. The need to rehabilitate the pavement is the appropriate point at which to bring the RW up to FAA design standards for ADG VI aircraft operations RW Safety Area 3

23 The current RW 15/33 RSA meets the standard dimensions for ADG VI. However, the RW 15/33 RSA currently overlaps the RW 7L/25R RSA. RSAs should not overlap where possible [FAA AC 150/ A- Change 1 (2/26/2014)]. The proposed project would separate the RW 15/33 and RW 7L/25R RSAs which would improve operational efficiency. (Some RW use configurations are limited with overlapping RSAs). In addition, current snow removal activities in the overlapping RSAs close both RWs 15/33 and 7L/25R Rehabilitate RW 15/33 and adjacent interconnecting Taxiways RW 15/33 and connecting TWs have PCI values that require rehabilitation to safely support airfield operations. Failing RW/TW pavement can present foreign object debris (FOD) danger to aircraft. Pavement debris ingested by a jet engine can severely damage or destroy the engine, and FOD driven by jet exhausts can also damage the engines and airframes of nearby aircraft Relocate/Replace Supporting Systems as Necessary Widening, relocation of runway thresholds, and reconstructing airfield pavements, would require relocating or replacing navigation aids, visual aids and other airfield infrastructure including: RW 15 Glide Slope antenna RW 15 and RW 33 Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) RW 33 Runway End Identification Lights (REIL) Replacing RW 15 ODALS with MALSF RW and TW lighting, signs, and pavement sensor systems Drainage infrastructure Pavement markings. The proposed rehabilitation must replace and/or reinstall the supporting infrastructure to maintain safe and efficient operation of the airport. This effort must be integrated in the airfield reconstruction process and coordinated with ongoing airport activities to avoid compromising airfield safety and efficiency. 2.0 Alternatives (including the Proposed Action) This section describes the Proposed Action s development, operational characteristics and the consideration and evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action. 2.1 Proposed Action Alternative DOT&PF is proposing to rehabilitate RW 15/33 and interconnecting TW pavement and upgrade to meet FAA standards. The Proposed Action Alternative would (see Figure 2): Rehabilitate of RW 15/33 pavement. Widen RW 15/33 from 150 ft to 200 ft to meet the required FAA design standards for ADG VI aircraft, which already operate at the ANC. Adjust TW intersections geometry to accommodate the widened RW and to meet updated FAA taxiway geometry standards for ADG VI and Taxiway Design Group (TDG) 7 aircraft. Shift the RW 33 threshold approximately 200 feet to the north to separate RW 15/33 and RW 7L/25R RSAs. This will be a permanent change in threshold location and noise modeling in the EA indicates the new threshold location would not result in a significant change to existing noise contours. 4

24 Relocate the RW 15 landing threshold approximately 100 feet to the north, remove the RW 15 displaced threshold, and re-align TW Q to the north to intersect the revised RW 15 threshold location. This would include excavation of a hill adjacent to TW Q and TW R, relocation of fencing at the top of the hill, and tree clearing. This would be a permanent change in threshold location and noise modeling in the EA indicates that the new threshold location would not result in a significant change to existing noise contours. Revise declared distances and approach procedures to reflect proposed threshold changes. Replace RW and TW lighting. Remove existing RW 15 ODALS approach lighting system and upgrade to MALSF approach lighting system. Upgrade would include tree clearing, new fence installation, and installation of new power and communication connections Replace drainage infrastructure and new pavement marking 5

25 Figure 2. Area of Potential Ground Disturbance 6

26 2.2 Permits and Approvals The Proposed Action would require the following permits and approvals: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) General Permit for Excavation Dewatering ADEC Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) 2.3 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would maintain the current RW 15/33 threshold configuration and width. RW 15/33 would continue to operate the FAA approved temporary MOS for non-standard RW width for Group VI aircraft. The RW 15/33 pavement would not be rehabilitated and continue to deteriorate and would eventually require total RW reconstruction or closure. RW Reconstruction would extend the duration of the construction closure, prolonging noise increases to the east of the airport. Closure of RW 15/33 would result in year round increase in noise to the east of the airport. Drainage infrastructure in need of replacement would not be replaced, and approach and RW lighting systems would not be replaced. In addition, the overlapping RSAs for RW 15/33 and RW 7L/25R would remain as current. 2.4 Alternatives Evaluation The Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives were the only two alternatives considered for this Environmental Assessment (EA). Design constraints, FAA regulations and needs for the proposed project allowed for only consideration of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives. 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Non-Issue Environmental Impact Categories Neither the No-Action nor the Proposed-Action Alternatives would affect the following resources listed in FAA Order F, Chapter 4: Air Quality, Biological Resources (including fish, wildlife, and plants), Climate, Coastal Resources, Farmlands, Hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention, Land use and Transportation Plans, Light Emissions and Visual Effects, Natural resources and energy supply and Water resources. Justification for classifying the above environmental impact categories as non-issues is in Appendix E. 3.2 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) This section describes the resources in the ANC Study Area (Figure 3) that are protected by 49 United State Code (U.S.C.), Section 303(c) (commonly known as Section 4(f)) and the effects the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives would have on those resources. 7

27 Figure 3. Study Area 8

28 3.2.1 Background, Regulatory Context, and Thresholds of Significance Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act, which is codified and renumbered as 49 USC Section 303(c), provides that the Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires the use of any publicly-owned park, recreational area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance or land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program, and the project includes all possible panning to minimize harm resulting from the use. For Section 4(f) purposes, a Proposed Action Alternative would use a property protected under Section 4(f) in one of two ways. Physical use. The action physically occupies and directly uses the Section 4(f) resource. The action s occupancy or direct control (via purchase) causes a change in the use of the Section 4(f) resources. For example, building a RW safety area across a fairway of a publicly-owned golf course is a physical taking because the transportation facility physically used the course by eliminating the fairway. Constructive use. Constructive use of Section 4(f) property is only possible in the absence of a permanent incorporation of land or a temporary occupancy of the type that constitutes a Section 4(f) use. Constructive use occurs when the proximity impacts of a project on an adjacent or near-by Section 4(f) property, after incorporation of impact mitigation, are so severe that the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. Substantial impairment occurs when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4(f) property are substantially diminished. As a general matter this means that the value of the resource, in terms of its Section 4(f) purpose and significance will be meaningfully reduced or lost. In addition to FAA Order F, Chapter 5 of the F Desk Reference provides guidance specific to airport projects to determine project use of a Section 4(f) resource. That guidance is consistent with the requirements of the laws and regulations noted above. Also, methods used to determine land use compatibility under 14 CFR Part 150 (Noise Compatibility Planning) are helpful in determining if aircraft noise would cause a constructive use of Section 4(f) land. FAA Order F, Chapter 4, states a significant impact to a property protected by Section 4(f) would occur pursuant to NEPA when a Proposed Action Alternative either involves more than a minimal physical use of a Section 4(f) property or is deemed a "constructive use" substantially impairing the 4(f) property, and mitigation measures do not eliminate or reduce the effects of the use below the threshold of significance Methodology The analyses contained in this EA follows the requirements of the regulations protecting Section 4(f) properties cited above and FAA Order F, Appendix A, Section 6. The ANC Study Area was reviewed for any publicly-owned park, recreational area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site. An analysis of whether any components of any of the Proposed Action Alternative would have a physical or constructive use of the Section 4(f) was conducted. 9

29 3.2.3 Existing Conditions There are no Section 4(f) resources located in the Area of Potential Ground Disturbance (Figure 2). There are numerous parks and recreational areas within the ANC Study Area that qualify as Section 4(f) resources since they are Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) designated parks or park resources (see Figure 4) 3. These resources include the following MOA Section 4(f) resources starting from Point Woronzof and going clockwise: 3 Source: 10

30 Point Woronzof Park Tony Knowles Coastal Trail (classified by the MOA as a park resource, therefore a property protected under Section 4(f) Earthquake Park Clay Park Telequana Park Lyn Ary Park Lloyd Steel Park Balto Seppalo Park Spenard Beach Park Northwood Park Little Park Margaret Egan Sullivan Park Valley of the Moon Park Springer Park Pop Carr Park Spenard Recreation Center Bentzen Lake Park Javier De La Vega Park Conners Lake Park Linden Park Wolverine Park Stanley Park Shady Birch Park Sand Lake Park Kincaid Park Unnamed Open Space areas within the ANC Study Area classified by MOA as parks The Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR) extends from Point Woronzof to the south end of Potter Marsh. The Study Area includes the ACWR to Kincaid Park s south boundary (see Figure 5) 4. 4 Source: f 11

31 Figure 4. MOA Parks and Trails Map 12

32 Figure 5. Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Environmental Consequences This section describes the potential for Section 4(f) impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternatives. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in physical construction activities, or changes to the existing ANC environment. In addition, the No Action Alternative would not result in any changes to aircraft operations at the ANC. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not result in a physical or constructive use of any Section 4(f) resource within the ANC Study Area. Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative (Proposed Action) would not directly use any Section 4(f) property. The Proposed Action would result in a temporary change in ANC operations that would increase the 65 daynight sound level (DNL) noise contour noise currently experienced east from the ANC and to the east of Lake Spenard and Lake Hood. MOA Parks included in the 65 DNL noise contour resulting from the temporary 180-day construction closure of RW 15/33 are: Conners Lake Park Northwood Park Bentzen Park Spenard Recreational Center Lake Spenard Beach Park 13

33 Parks on the north end of RW 15/33 that would be in a reduced 65 DNL during the temporary180-day construction closure of RW 15/33 are the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail (Trail) and Point Woronzof Park. No constructive use of these MOA Parks Section 4(f) resources would occur during the temporary180- day construction closure of RW 15/33. As a general matter this means that the value of the resources, in terms of its Section 4(f) purpose and significance would not be meaningfully reduced or lost since the noise impacts are temporary construction noise impacts. The proposed RW 15/33 permanent threshold shift to the north would cause large aircraft making an approach from the north to RW 15/33 to be approximately 5 feet lower over the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail than at present. Currently, large aircraft approaching RW 15/33 from the north pass over the Trail at approximately 165 feet above the Trail pavement. The resulting DNL increase from the lower approach would not be easily distinguishable to users on the Trail. This change would not result in a constructive use since the value of the Tony Knowles Trail, in terms of its Section 4(f) purpose and significance, would not be meaningfully reduced or lost. Also, utility work (trenching), brush clearing and new fencing would occur to install the new proposed lighting tower at RW 15/33 s north end. This work would occur off the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail. New fencing would replace the existing fencing surrounding the existing lighting tower. Vegetation removal would be the minimum required to install the new lighting tower. The new tower, new fencing and vegetation removal would not result in a constructive use of the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail since the trail s purpose and significance would not be meaningfully reduced or lost as a result of these changes in landscape adjacent to the trail. Since the Proposed Action would not result in a use of a Section 4(f) property, either directly or constructively, and noise impacts resulting from the Proposed Action would only be temporary, the Proposed Action would not result in a use of a Section 4(f) property. 3.3 Historic, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources This section describes the historic, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources of national importance that occur in the ANC Study Area and the laws and regulations protecting those resources. The section also discloses how the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives would affect those resources Background, Regulatory Context, and Thresholds of Significance The NHPA of as amended establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The ACHP oversees Federal agency compliance with the NHPA. The NHPA also established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which the National Park Service (NPS) oversees. Other applicable statues include: The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA) 6 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) 7 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites. 8 5 U.S.C. Section 470 et.seq U.S.C Section U.S.C. Section Vol. 61 Federal Register, page 26771, May

34 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 9 For purposes of this EA, historic, archaeological, and cultural resources are districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects, landscapes, and Native American Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that are on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Such NRHP properties are nationally important due to their significant and respective roles in American history, prehistory, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture. Regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800 et.seq. provide detailed instructions to Federal agencies on how to assess and address effects on those historically significant properties Area of Potential Effect The direct Area of Potential Effect (APE) (see Figure 2) consists of the proposed project construction area with an additional 30- foot (ft) construction equipment work buffer area around the entire construction area. This area includes five potential contractor disposal areas, six potential contractor staging areas, a contractor stock area and pre-existing haul routes. These elements encompass all the areas of direct potential effects from the proposed project. The reason for multiple staging and disposal areas is the proposed project along RW 15/33 is over 10,000 ft long. Having multiple staging and disposal areas makes constructing the proposed project greatly more efficient, however the contractor may choose to only use some of the proposed areas. The proposed staging and disposal areas are already established from other previous and ongoing ANC construction projects. Existing local and airport roads would be used for haul roads. Material sources(s) would be used from existing, commercially permitted sources near Anchorage There would be no indirect APE as no indirect effects are anticipated from the Proposed Action Alternative. Rehabilitating RW and TW pavement, RW widening, revised TW geometry, replacing RW and TW lighting, and upgrading drainage and storm drains would result in these elements having a similar appearance once work was complete as they do now. No additional noise, traffic, vibration or lighting impacts are anticipated Identification Efforts On June 25, 2017 DOT&PF searched the online Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Office of History and Archeology (OHA) Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) Locator Module and found no AHRS sites within or adjacent to the proposed project direct APE as described above. In addition DOT&PF reviewed internal files in regards to construction, upgrade and maintenance projects on the airport property for previously reviewed properties and managed effects Consultation Efforts DOT&PF consulted with the SHPO on May 28, 2002 for the ANC Capacity and Safety Upgrades project, finding no historic properties affected; SHPO concurred on May 31, 2002 (see enclosed finding letter). That project included widening and rehabilitating TW T (see Appendix A. Since 2002, no AHRS sites have been added within or adjacent to the APE on the OHA Locator online map. For the April, 2010 ANC RW 7R/25L Expansion EA and Finding of No Significant Effect (FONSI), FAA conducted extensive government to government consultation with Native Village of Eklutna, Native Village of Tyonek, and the Knik Tribal Council. The Knik Tribal Council responded in consultation that the airport site is very important to us, as we have a 1,000 year history in this area A cultural resource survey and report found the proposed expansion area for the 7R/25L extension had been 9 Vol. 36 Federal Register, page 8921, May

35 extensively disturbed and determined it unlikely that undisturbed archaeological resources exist in the project area. The 7R/25L FONSI states while the [proposed project] would not impact any known historic or prehistoric site, that the airport and the proposed project would occupy lands formerly used by the Dena'ina people and as such recognition of Dena'ina use of the area is appropriate. An interpretive display describing the traditional use of the project area by Dena'ina will be developed in consultation with the local Tribes and installed at the airport Finding of Effect No historic properties are located within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project APE areas as discussed above. No indirect effects are anticipated as the project is replacing pavement in kind and underground utilities. Therefore, FAA made a finding no historic properties would be affected by the Proposed Action Alternative. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred on June 13, The MOA responded they agreed with the SHPO concurrence. The other consulting parties did not respond. See Section 106 correspondence in Appendix A 3.4 Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use This section describes the existing noise conditions for the ANC Study Area, the laws and regulations pertaining to ANC noise, the effects the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative would have on noise levels in the ANC Study Area, and measures to mitigate the potential adverse effects associated with implementing these alternatives Background, Regulatory Context, and Thresholds of Significance This section describes the background, regulatory context, Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) information, and the threshold of significance associated with noise Background DOT&PF analyzed the potential for temporary and permanent construction environmental noise impacts on and off ANC for the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. The EA addresses the noise changes for: Land uses off ANC would experience from construction activities and the operation of construction equipment during the RW reconstruction period Land uses on and off ANC would experience due to the temporary change of aircraft operations from RW 15/33 to other RWs on the ANC runways 7L/25R and 7R/25L during the RW reconstruction period Land uses on and off ANC would experience from the Proposed Action after construction is complete and the ANC returns to normal aircraft operations When analyzing airport development, FAA has found noise impacts are often the most highly controversial effects. This is because noise affects resources on and off airport. For example, noise modeling data are used to determine: noise effects on noise sensitive land uses to determine which uses are or are not compatible with project-related ANC operations noise effects Section 4(f) properties including parklands, recreation areas, and historic properties settings 16

36 The U.S. Congress has determined that aviation noise effects fall under FAA s purview. Three of the most important Federal laws addressing these effects are: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 10 Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA) 11 Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA) 12 NEPA: NEPA requires the analysis of project-related effects on the human environment. In meeting this requirement, FAA examines project-related noise effects resulting from proposed aviation projects and actions. ASNA: This law requires the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to issue regulations establishing a system to measure and assess airport related noise effects. The law also required the Secretary to identify land uses that are normally compatible with airport operations and the noise levels those operations cause. FAA, as the U.S. Department of Transportation agency responsible for maintaining safe and efficient air traffic in the United States, met these requirements on the Secretary s behalf. Regulations at 14 CFR Part 150 address the ASNA requirements AAIA: Even though airports and airport improvements are needed to maintain the nation s aviation system, reducing noise from those improvements on land uses near airports is also critical. This law required the Secretary to set a national policy to reduce current and projected airport related noise effects on communities Regulatory Context The FAA s basis for compliance with NEPA is FAA Order F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The EA addresses regulations at 40 CFR 1500 et. seq. (i.e., regulations implementing NEPA) to describe and disclose RW 15/33 rehabilitation noise effects. The EA also discusses regulations specifically addressing anticipated aviation and construction noise impacts as a result of the Proposed Action including the proposed permanent RW 15/33 threshold changes. The guidelines in 14 CFR Part 150 serve as guidance in determining the severity and intensity of noise effects (e.g., Threshold of Significance) under NEPA. FAA s Threshold of Significance for Noise, discussed below, uses the day-night sound level metric (DNL). In 1981, FAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined the DNL metric is the metric FAA would use to assess cumulative, aviation related noise impacts on humans to meet the ASNA requirements. In 1992, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) verified that determination. FICON did so after finding the DNL metric accurately predicts those noise levels that cause community annoyance to noise. FAA s and FICON s findings support Schultz s widely-accepted 1978 research. 13 That research indicated the level of transportation noise to which a community is exposed is directly related to the community s health, welfare, and annoyance. Schultz s work, and FICON s reassessment of that work, showed cumulative noise levels above DNL 65 decibels (db) cause community annoyance levels that U.S.C. Sections U.S.C. Sections U.S.C. Section Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, No. 64, pgs

37 make noise sensitive land uses (i.e., residences, schools, churches, hospitals and certain businesses) incompatible with airport operations. According to FAA Order F Desk Reference, Chapter 11, for aviation noise analyses, the FAA has determined the cumulative noise energy exposure of individuals to noise resulting from aviation activities must be established in terms of yearly DNL, the FAA s primary noise metric AEDT Information AEDT is a software system that dynamically models aircraft performance in space and time to estimate noise impacts. AEDT is a comprehensive tool that provides information to FAA stakeholders on environmental impacts. AEDT facilitates environmental review activities required under NEPA. AEDT 2c will be used and replaces AEDT 2b, Integrated Noise Model (INM), and Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). AEDT is an average-value-model and is designed to estimate long-term average effects using average annual input conditions. AEDT analysis results provide a relative measure of noise levels around airfield facilities. AEDT compares before and after noise effects resulting from forecast changes, changes in airport operations, or alternative noise control actions. The model allows noise levels to be predicted for projects without implementing the changes or monitoring the noise. To model a specific airport s noise effects in DNL, AEDT incorporates: the airport s number of average annual daily daytime and nighttime flight operations flight paths and flight profiles of aircraft using that airport an extensive internal database of aircraft noise and performance information The AEDT calculates the DNL at many points on the ground on and around an airport. From a grid of points, the AEDT contouring program typically draws DNL 60, 65, 70, and 75 db contours and superimposes the contours onto aerial photography or land use maps. For this EA, DNL contours of 60, 65, 70, and 75 db were developed following guidance in the FAA Order F Desk Reference, Chapter 11, Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use Threshold of Significance FAA Order F, Exhibit 4-1 provides the FAA s significant threshold for noise: The action would increase noise by DNL 1.5 db or more for a noise sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 db noise exposure level, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65 db level due to a 1.5 db or greater increase, when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe Methodology All FAA actions requiring noise, fuel burn, or emissions modeling and for which the environmental analysis process has begun on or after September 12 th, 2016 are required to use Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) 2c FAA Order F Desk Reference, Chapter 11, Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use at FAA Memorandum, Guidance on Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) version determination for project use, September 9,

38 A change in aviation noise at an airport results from altering any one of the following specific airport operational factors: airport geometry, aircraft fleet mix, RW use, flight tracks, approach and departure profiles, and day/evening/night arrivals and departures. For this EA, AEDT input differences between the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative to provide a comparison of DNL contours over various land uses to show how the temporary closure of RW 15/33 would cause noise impacts, if any, during the rehabilitation period as well as airfield operations after construction is complete with the permanent threshold changes Model Parameters Modeling was performed for two primary scenarios: A temporary 180 day closure for construction during which all RW 15/33 operations would be moved to RWs 7R/25L and 7L/25R. Upon completion of the RW rehabilitation, the RW would be operated with the existing RW 15 landing threshold relocated 100 feet north with removal of the displaced threshold and relocation of the RW 33 displaced threshold 196 feet north of its current location. AEDT model runs used the Alaska International Aviation System Plan (AIAS) forecast. FAA approved using the AIAS forecast instead of the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) (see Forecast Memo, Appendix C). Model runs use year 2020 for year of construction and year 2022 for the completed project. DOT&PF anticipates the proposed project would be constructed in summer of Modeling for the year 2020 is conservative in the event the proposed project is delayed and construction occurs in 2019 or DOT&PF, in coordination with ANC Air Traffic Control (ATC), FAA, and ANC air carriers, produced a breakdown of the AIAS data by aircraft type, time of day, and forecast changes in fleet mix. The fleet mix was based on the same percentage of aircraft types based on the future (2020) aircraft forecasts from the final Part 150 Study Update. A breakdown of operations by aircraft type, time of day, and forecast changes in fleet mix was developed for the first year of operation (2022) based on future (2020) information from the Part 150 Study Update and growth assumptions from the AIAS forecast. DOT&PF and FAA coordinated with ATC to confirm existing and future RW utilizations for the No Action, temporary construction, and 1st year operations after the Proposed Action Alternative is constructed, and particularly the preferential RW use assumptions that were used in modeling Model Outputs For the purpose of assessing potential noise impacts during construction and once construction is completed and RW 15/33 is back in operation, the model was run to produce the following outputs (see Figures 4 and 5): No Action Alternative noise exposure contours - year 2020 Proposed Action Alternative during construction noise exposure contours - year 2020 assumes a 180-day construction period per year during which RW 15/33 would be closed to operations Cumulative noise modeled for the 180-day construction period in terms of yearly DNL No Action Alternative noise exposure contours - year 2022 Proposed Action Alternative during the first full year of operation noise exposure contours year 2022 The noise contour for the Proposed Action during construction for year 2020 was compared to the No Action noise contour (2020) [Figure 6] to determine if the proposed action would increase noise by DNL 19

39 1.5 db or more for a noise sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above DNL 65 db noise exposure level, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65 db level to a DNL 1.5 db or greater increase, when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe. For three outputs described above, land use tables were produced following land use compatibility guidelines outlined in 14 CFR, Part 150, Appendix A, Land Use Compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels (see Table 2 below). The land use tables for each output include applicable land uses categories, acreage for each land use, and homes and population numbers within each contour. The existing land use maps contained within the Part 150 Study were used for this analysis. TABLE 2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY* WITH YEARLY DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS Existing Conditions According to the AIAS, the ANC experienced approximately 291,664 operations in 2016 (the most recent year of complete annual operational data at the ANC). Those operations and those projected through 2022 show how the noise levels will change annually due to the No Action (see Table 4 below). 20

40 Environmental Consequences To meet NEPA requirements, this section discloses noise impacts associated with the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives for temporary construction noise impacts and the first full year of operation for the rehabilitated RW 15/33 (assumed to be year 2022) Construction Noise Constructing the Proposed Action would result in construction noise that would fluctuate with construction intensity and distance from a given receptor. Table 3 presents types of equipment associated with proposed construction activities. The table notes typical construction equipment likely to be used or that could be used and the corresponding noise levels experienced at a hypothetical receptor located at a given distance from the construction activity. The residential land use closest to construction-related activities is about 4,300 feet away at the Raspberry Road and Tanaina Drive intersection. Based on data in Table 3 and the distance from the closest residence to construction equipment and activities, the Proposed Action would not cause any significant construction-related effects on any noise sensitive land uses. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TABLE 3 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS16 NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL (dba, Leq (dba, Leq AT AT 50 FT) 75 FT) NOISE LEVEL NOISE (dba, Leq AT 100 FT) LEVEL (dba, Leq AT 150 FT) NOISE LEVEL (dba, Leq AT 450 FT) Dump Truck Portable Air Compressor Concrete Mixer (Truck) Scraper Jack Hammer Dozer Paver Generator Front Loader Scraper Grader Backhoe Source: Cuniff, 1977 and USEPA, 1972 NOISE LEVEL (dba, Leq AT 1,200 FT) 16 A standard 6 dba (A-weighted Decibel) attenuation (for each doubling of the reference distance in this case 50 feet) is applied to the published decibel levels of the noise equipment in the first column. 21

41 TABLE 4 NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT ANC and LHD FOR 2016 THROUGH 2022 Year Airport International Aviation System Forecast Percent Change in Operations (Compared to 2016) ,664 N/A , % , % , % , % , % , % Note: Since the AIAS forecast and the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) are within the allowable limits of 10%, DOT&PF decided to use the AIAS forecast for noise modeling the RW 15/33 rehabilitation project. AIAS forecasts are higher than the TAF which is a conservative approach. See Appendix C, Ted Stevens Anchorage International ANC RW 15/33 Rehabilitation Project Forecast Memo, May 4, Operational Noise According to the AIAS forecast (Table 4), in 2022 the ANC is projected to experience a 3.5% increase in the number of operations when compared to 2020 operational levels. Table 5 presents operational noise-related information regarding the anticipated operational environment under the No Action Alternative in No Action Alternative year 2020 compared to the Proposed Action 180-day closure year 2020 (Figure 6, Tables 5 and 6) For the No Action Alternative in year 2020, 48 individuals and 16 residences are within the 65 db or greater noise contours with only approximately 0.6 residential acres affected. No churches, schools or hospitals are within the 65 db or greater noise contour for the No Action Alternative in year For the Proposed Action Alternative in year 2020 with a 180-day closure of RW 15/33, 2,722 individuals and 1,203 residences are within the 65 db or greater noise contour with approximately 183 acres residential acres affected. One school and no churches or hospitals are within the 65 db dnl noise contour (see Table 1-4). There would be an increase of 2,674 individuals, 1,187 residences and one school within the 65 db or greater noise contour for the 180-day closure in year 2020 compared to the No Action alternative in the same year. These increases are a result from modeling the anticipated main RW usage scenarios for arrival and departures. Appendix C. RW usage scenarios show 7R arrivals and 7L departures comprise 89% of daytime RW usage and 97% night time usage. The large percentage of total departures from 7L to the east qualitatively explains the anticipated noise impacts to noise sensitive land uses as a result of the 180-day RW closure. 22

42 TABLE 5 NOISE CONTOURS AND POPULATION AFFECTED NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IN 2020 DNL NOISE CONTOUR TOTAL AREA AFFECTED/a/ ACRES RESIDENTIAL AREA AFFECTED ACRES INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED 15,140 5,313 2, , RESIDENCES CHURCHES SCHOOLS HOSPITALS

43 TABLE 6 NOISE CONTOURS AND POPULATION AFFECTED 180-DAY PROJECT CLOSURE IN 2020 DNL NOISE CONTOUR TOTAL AREA AFFECTED/a/ ACRES RESIDENTIAL AREA AFFECTED ACRES INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED ,316 5,518 2, ,181 2, RESIDENCES 9,609 1, CHURCHES SCHOOLS HOSPITALS

44 Figure day RW 15/33 Closure No Action Alternative Comparison 25

45 No Action Alternative year 2022 compared to the Completed Project year 2022 (Figures 7 through 9, Tables 7 and 8) For the 65 db or greater noise contour, the No Action Alternative year 2022 compared to the first full year of operation for year 2022 shows no increases for individuals, residences, churches, school or hospitals. Therefore, the proposed action after construction is complete would create no long-term noise impacts. Note the noise contour lines for the 2022 No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative align almost exactly so the dashed line is not visible. This close alignment means noise impacts do not change with the permanent change to RW 15/33 threshold. Figures 6 and 7 from the ANC Part 150 Study show noise contours for 2009 and projected for 2020 for reference to Figure 5. TABLE 7 NOISE CONTOURS AND POPULATION AFFECTED NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IN 2022 DNL NOISE CONTOUR TOTAL AREA AFFECTED/a/ ACRES RESIDENTIAL AREA AFFECTED ACRES INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED ,637 5,496 2, , RESIDENCES CHURCHES SCHOOLS HOSPITALS

46 TABLE 8 NOISE CONTOURS AND POPULATION AFFECTED WITH PROJECT COMPLETED IN 2022 DNL NOISE CONTOUR TOTAL AREA AFFECTED/a/ ACRES RESIDENTIAL AREA AFFECTED ACRES INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED ,666 5,500 2, , RESIDENCES CHURCHES SCHOOLS HOSPITALS

47 Figure No Action Alternative with Proposed Action Alternative Comparison 28

48 Figure 8. ANC Part 150 Study_Future-Noise-Exposure-Map

49 Figure 9. ANC Part 150 Study_Future-Noise-Exposure-Map

50 3.4.5 Mitigation Mitigation measures evaluated to potentially reduce temporary noise impacts during construction DOT&PF conducted extensive coordination with FAA, ANC Operations, and air carriers to develop and analyze RW usage scenarios that could for potentially mitigate the anticipated construction noise impacts to noise sensitive land use surrounding the ANC during the180- day RW 15/33 closure scenarios. These mitigation measures and feasibility of implementing them is presented in the table below. 1. Shift RW 25R departures from TW A to TW B. This would shift noise contours to the west and reduce noise impacts to sensitive areas south of the RW 25R threshold and northeast of Delong Lake. This reduces the takeoff run available (TORA)/takeoff distance available (TODA)/acceleratestop distance available (ASDA) to approximately 8,700. This mitigation measure was ruled out due to the significant weight restrictions that would be placed on the air cargo carriers. Smaller aircraft may be able to utilize this reduced departure length, however it would not result in significant noise reduction. RW 25R departures will not be common due to prevailing winds, further reducing the potential noise reduction.. 2. Shift RW 25L departures from TW C to TW D/E. This would shift noise contours to the west and reduce noise impacts to residential areas west of Delong Lake. This reduces TORA/TODA to approximately 10,300 and ASDA to approximately 9,900. This mitigation measure was ruled out due to the significant weight restrictions that would be placed on the air cargo carriers. Smaller aircraft may be able to utilize this reduced departure length, however it would not result in significant noise reduction. RW 25R departures will not be common due to prevailing winds, further reducing the potential noise reduction. 3. Switch arrivals from 7R to 7L and departures from 7L to 7R. This could reduce departure noise to the east and southeast of the airport since aircraft would be at a higher elevation when they reach noise sensitive areas. This mitigation measure was ruled out due to the significant reduction in airport efficiency. The arrival rate would be significantly reduced due to the increased time for aircraft arriving 7L to slow down and make 90 degree turns off the RW resulting larger gaps for approaching aircraft. This measure would also result in longer taxi time/distance to access to RW 7R for departures and results in the loss of the 7R Category (CAT) III 17 approach. 4. Adjust construction phasing to allow aircraft departures on the northern portion of RW 33. This would allow departures by smaller aircraft on a shortened RW 33 during construction and may be implemented in the two east/west RWs, Construction Safety and Phasing Plan (CSPP). Draft CSPPs prepared to date allow departures to the north for a short duration which would not result in significant noise reduction. The CSPP requires FAA approval and departures on a shortened RW 33 may not be approved. The CSPP is provided to the contractor but the contractor has the ability to revise the CSPP during construction. We cannot guarantee this mitigation will be implemented. 17 A Category III approach is a precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height or a decision height lower than 100ft (30m) and a RW visual range not less than 700ft (200m). 31

51 5. The ANC / Air Traffic Operations (ATO) could impose Noise Abatement Procedures (NAP) for air carriers during construction. This option could be implemented by issuing a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) requiring pilots follow NAPs. NAPs are different for each air carrier and would be followed at the pilot s discretion. NAPs could result in a noise reduction. This option would also be at the air carrier s discretion. Therefore, DOT&PF cannot guarantee this mitigation measure would be implemented. 6. Using TW Y for departures to the north as a temporary RW. This would shift some smaller aircraft departure operations from the two east/west RWs and reduce noise during construction. FAA Order B (March 3, 1981) concerns designating TWs and temporary RW but use of this order only applies to benefitting traffic and congestion issues. FAA Order B (March 3, 1981) concerns designating taxiways and temporary RW but use of this order only applies to benefitting traffic and congestion issues. The two east/west runways are capable of maintaining current aircraft traffic during the RW 15/33 closure. Use of a taxiway as a RW for noise abatement purposes is not permitted by FAA Order B. Converting TW Y for use as a RW during construction would require the contractor install paint markings and runway lighting. Additional efforts added to the contractor s scope of work could require a second season of construction, increasing the duration of temporary noise impacts. Preliminary analysis indicated that TW Y could be converted to a 7000 x 82 RW for departures only. RW 7L/25R and 7R/25L departure lengths are all over 10,000. Air carrier operational procedures typically require pilots to use the longest RW available. Air carriers would not use TW Y as a runway because of the short RW length available. Also, existing terrain and navigation aid towers are penetrations to Part 77 surfaces which are potential hazards to aircraft operations Other potential mitigation measures FAA policy and funding for noise mitigation measures does not extend to temporary construction noise impacts (6 months or less). Previously, FAA offered funded noise abatement measures for noise impacted residences surrounding the ANC (within the modified 65 DNL) under a Residential Sound Insulation Program (RSIP). Between 2002 and 2014 the RSIP provided noise abatement to residential units through 17 construction contracts. Since the last noise study, the ANC s noise impacts have not appreciably changed or expanded. A preliminary eligibility determination indicated no new likely qualifying residential units, therefore the program was not renewed for (See in Appendix C that describes the current status of the ANC noise abatement program). The program will be reevaluated after the next ANC FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. Constructing noise barriers to mitigate temporary construction impacts is not feasible since as soon as a jet crosses over the barrier it would create noise impacts. Therefore, as of the date of this EA, there are no practical noise mitigation measures than can be employed to reduce temporary construction noise impacts to sensitive land uses as a result of the Proposed Action. 32

52 3.5. Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks Study Area The Study Area (Figure 3) describes the areas in which data were collected to assess potential impacts to specific resources. For the Proposed Action, the areas assessed were potential ground disturbance, potential socioeconomic effects for the immediate surroundings, environmental justice, risks to children s health and safety, noise compatibility, and use of Section 4(f) protected resources. The ANC Study Area encompasses an area of approximately 13,800 acres. DOT&PF conducted environmental research to determine the Proposed Action s potential environmental resource impacts to the ANC and surrounding area. The large size of the ANC Study Area is primarily attributable to an increase in the 65 DNL noise contour as a result of the proposed 180-day construction closure of RW 15/33 and the resulting temporary construction noise impacts to the communities surrounding the ANC Area of Potential Ground Disturbance The Area of Potential ground disturbance is illustrated on Figure 2 and encompasses about 357 acres located entirely on ANC property. The surrounding terrain is generally flat and consists of paved runways and TWs with grass infield areas between the two. Air hangars, aircraft gates, the airport terminal, air cargo carrier and other buildings surround the proposed project area Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks This section describes the environmental consequences associated with socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice, and children s health and safety risks resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives Background, Regulatory Context, and Thresholds of Significance Section 101(a) of NEPA notes it is the policy of the Federal government to create and maintain conditions that fulfill the social needs of present and future American generations. To help describe environmental justice, this EA relies on the guidance in FAA Order F and the F Desk Reference. Both are consistent with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order , Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, requires Federal agencies to make child protection a high priority because children may be more susceptible to environmental effects than adults. This EA considers the potential of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives to cause disproportionate and/or adverse effects on the environmental health and safety of children within ANC Study Area. Federal regulations and significance thresholds for socioeconomic, environmental justice, children s health and safety risks are listed in the F Desk Reference, Chapter

53 Methodology Socioeconomic Impacts. The factors listed under the Socioeconomics section in the Desk Reference, Chapter 12 were considered to determine if the Proposed Action Alternative would have the potential to cause socioeconomic impacts. Environmental Justice (EJ). Data from the American Community Survey, 18 years 2011 through 2015, were analyzed to determine the number of minority and low-income individuals within the ANC Study Area and is presented in Table 9 below. Data for specific communities were interpolated using 2010 U.S. Census tract data. This information was used to determine if the Proposed Action Alternative would result in disproportionate effects to low-income and minority populations when compared to the No Action Alternative. Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks. Identification and assessment of environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children follows guidance in the F Desk Reference, Chapter TABLE 9. Minority and Low-Income Populations, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Community Estimated Total Population % Minority % Below Poverty Level Median Household Income % Speak a Language other than English Alaska 733, $72, MOA 299, $78, Midtown 4, $47, Sand Lake 27, $94, Spenard 10, $56, Taku/Campbell 10, $78, Turnagain 11, $84, Source: American Community Survey; Data for specific communities were interpolated using US census tract data Environmental Consequences This section describes the potential for the Proposed Action Alternative to result in adverse socioeconomic effects, disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations living near the ANC, and risks to children s health and safety Socioeconomics No Action Alternative No construction activities or changes to aircraft operations would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative. Therefore no changes in economic activity, operational noise environment, or traffic conditions would occur under the No Action Alternative. Consequently, no socioeconomic impacts would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative

54 Proposed Action Residential and Business Acquisitions and Relocations The Proposed Action Alternative would occur entirely on airport property. The Proposed Action Alternative would not involve acquisition of any land and would not require the relocation of any residences or businesses. Disruption of established communities and orderly planned development would not occur as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. Disruption of Local Transportation Patterns The Proposed Action Alternative would result in a temporary increase in construction-related vehicles using local roadways but this increase would only be temporary. The Proposed Action once constructed would not cause changes to existing local transportation patterns. The ANC fleet mix would not change as a result of the Proposed Action being constructed and there are no other factors that would cause disruption to local transportation patterns Environmental Justice Considerations No Action Alternative No construction activities or changes to aircraft operations would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative. Therefore no changes to existing environmental justice considerations would occur under the No Action Alternative. Consequently, no socioeconomic impacts would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would not cause disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations living near the ANC. Proposed Action Noise modeling results (see Noise section) show changes to aircraft operations during the 180-day construction closure of RW 15/33 would cause temporary, but no permanent, construction noise impacts to the east and southeast of RW 7L/25 R ( See Figures 3 through 5). The 65 DNL noise contour caused by the 180-day construction shutdown lies within the Sand Lake Community Council and Spenard Community Council geographic boundaries (see Figures 10 and 11). The EPA EJ Screen 19 defines Percent Minority as: The percent of individuals in a block group who list their racial status as a race other than white alone and/or list their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino. That is, all people other than non-hispanic white-alone individuals. The word "alone" in this case indicates that the person is of a single race, not multiracial. A disproportionately high and adverse effect on a minority population and or low-income population means an adverse effect that: 1. Is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; or 2. Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population Source: order/desk_ref/media/12-socioecon-enviro.pdf, Exhibit

55 Table 9 above compiled from 2011 through 2015 American Community Survey data shows the percent minority populations in the Sand Lake and Spenard Community Councils geographic areas are 29% and 38%, respectively. Based on these percentages, the minority populations within the Sand Lake Community Council and Spenard Community Council boundaries would not experience disproportionately high and adverse effects from being within the temporary 65 DNL noise contour caused by the Proposed Action s RW 15/ day construction shutdown. Similarly, since the low income populations within the Spenard and Sand Lake Community Councils boundaries comprise approximately only 7% and 10%, respectively, of the total populations in these two communities, these low income populations would not experience disproportionately high and adverse effects from being within the temporary 65 DNL noise contour caused by the Proposed Action s RW 15/ day construction shutdown Figure 10. Sand Lake Community Council Boundary 36

56 Figure 11. Spenard Community Council Boundary Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risk No Action Alternative No construction activity impacts or changes to aircraft operations would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative. Therefore no changes to existing children s environmental health and safety risk factors would occur under the No Action Alternative. Consequently, no impacts to children s environmental health and safety risk factors would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative. Proposed Action The Proposed Action Alternative would not result in the acquisition or relocation of any residences, schools, child care centers, or similar facilities. The ANC fleet mix is not anticipated to change as a result of the Proposed Action. Emissions resulting from the Proposed Action Alternative would be temporary and would only occur over the duration of construction activities. Consequently, the Proposed Action Alternative would not increase environmental health and safety risks or exposure of environmental contaminants to children in the surrounding community Summary No significant socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice impacts, or risks to the health and safety of children would occur as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. Therefore, no mitigation is required. However, best management practices for the reduction of construction-related traffic are recommended to reduce the adverse effect of additional traffic on the roadway system around the ANC. The ANC has an agreement with Municipality of Anchorage that certain roads within the Municipality will not be used for ANC-related construction hauling. This agreement would be included as a provision in the construction contract. 37