Call-In Phone Number: pin# Meeting Objective: Scope Reassessment #1 and Level 2 Screening Process.

Transcription

1 Boston Logan Airport Noise Study BOS/TAC Meeting Agenda Subject: Phase 2 Work Efforts Time: 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Date: October 22, 2009 Location: Volpe Room 120 Call-In Phone Number: pin# 5671 Meeting Objective: Scope Reassessment #1 and Level 2 Screening Process. Reference Material: 2005 Aircraft Noise Analysis Report (dated October 5, 2009) Boston Logan Operations Modeling Calibration Report (dated October 2, 2009) 2005 Baseline Boston Logan Operations Modeling Analysis Report (dated October 2, 2009) Final Level 1 Screening Results Report (dated October 5, 2009) - all posted to BLANS site October 9, 2009 BLANS Scope Reassessment #1 Version 1 (dated October 13, 2009; posted to BLANS FORUM site October 14, 2009) Time Topic 5:00 p.m. 5:05 p.m. Opening Remarks 5:05 p.m. 5:30 p.m. Phase 2 Status Report Project Schedule Status PC Website updates PC Outreach Efforts 2005 BOS Aircraft Noise completed 2007 BOS Aircraft Noise in process 2005 Operational Modeling - completed 5:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m. Scope Reassessment #1 Review 6:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m. Break 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria 8:00 p.m. 8:30 p.m. Phase 1 Implementation Update 8:30 p.m. 9:00 p.m. Next Steps/BOS/TAC Meeting Schedule BOS/TAC Agenda Page 1 of 1 October 22, 2009

2 Final BOS/TAC Meeting Minutes A. Reed 12/17/09 Boston Logan Airport Noise Study (BLANS) BOS/TAC Meeting MEETING SUMMARY 5:00-9:00 PM October 22, 2009 ATTENDANCE: Boston Technical Advisory Committee (BOS/TAC) Members: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-Terry English, Joseph Davies, Debbie James, Richard Doucette, Jon Harris Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport)-Betty Desrosiers, Flavio Leo Community Advisory Committee (CAC)-Sandra Kunz (Braintree), Dick Morrison (Chelsea), Ralph Dormitzer (Cohasset), Wig Zamore (Somerville), Jerry Falbo (Winthrop), Robert Driscoll (Winthrop), Leo White (Beverly), Darryl Pomicter (Beacon Hill), Buddy Borgioli (Swampscott), Maura Zlody (City of Boston) VIA TELEPHONE: BOS/TAC Members: CAC-Bernice Mader (Quincy) CAC-Ron Hardaway (East Boston) OBSERVERS: FAA-Brian Brunelle, Kristi Ashley, Ed Kelleher, Alan Reed-Recorder Massport-Frank Iacovino CONSULTANTS: Project Consultant (PC)-Stephen Smith (Ricondo & Associates, Inc.), Clint Morrow (Wyle Associates) Independent Consultant (IC) Team-Jon Woodward (Landrum & Brown, Inc.), Stan Matthews (Crown Consulting), Stan Eshleman Attachments: 1. Agenda 2. BLANS-BOS/TAC Meeting #6 (October 22, 2009 MS Power Point Presentation) OPENING REMARKS Attendance S Smith confirmed phone participants and noted those present at the Volpe Center, for the record. PHASE 2 STATUS REPORT Project Update 1

3 Final BOS/TAC Meeting Minutes A. Reed 12/17/09 S Smith projected a Power Point presentation and described accomplishments and key milestones of the BLANS project (slide 3), highlighting: 2005 Noise Analysis-Complete 2007 Noise Analysis-pending projected November 2009 completion Reported upcoming milestones. Revised projected Phase 2 completion date to December 2011, which is coincident with end of the project budget. Schedule is updated to reflect current milestone timeframes. Website Update S Smith gave an update on the improved website (slide 5): Website is more organized/user friendly All notes and documents are available for viewing and download Explained how to adjust font sizes for visually impaired D Pomicter commented the website is more user friendly now. Outreach Efforts T English explained that the BLANS SOW requires media releases and public outreach at the start of Phase 2 and at three key milestones after that. In addition, 2 elected officials meetings are required at the beginning and end of the Phase 2. She summarized that to date there has been one elected representative meeting (May 2008) and two mass mailings to elected officials (August 2007 and February 2008). She explained that the current mass mailing and media update release constitutes the 2 nd major milestone in the BLANS (end of Level 1 screening). Project update letters are expected to be mailed from Atlanta, October th. Mark Ward to sign letters and B Travers-Wright is identified as the point of contact for elected official inquiries on the BLANS. (slide 6): Five letters to be sent out. S Smith elaborated on theseo Introduction letter will be sent to supplemental outreach community leaders (1 st letter) and their respective state and federal representatives (2 nd letter) o Update letter will be sent to communities in the study area, including current CAC member communities (3 rd letter) and their respective state and federal representatives (4 th letter) o Introduction letter will be sent to representatives of the air industry (5 th letter) A supplemental community outreach teleconference is scheduled for October 27, S Smith noted that the Supplemental Outreach communities were identified based on maps depicting Measures F-GG and F-DD and their projected flight tracks (corridors), and were selected if they are not currently in the study area and either F-GG or F-DD conceptual corridors are shown over the community. He pointed out the note on each graphic, which provides the reasons why the study area has not yet been adjusted. Further analysis is required before the FAA can say for sure that these proposed measures 2

4 Final BOS/TAC Meeting Minutes A. Reed 12/17/09 will proceed forward to Level 3. If so, FAA will recommend that the study area be changed to include the Supplemental Outreach communities. T English went on to discuss the contents of each letter, as it addresses the respective recipients. D Pomicter requested that addresses of the elected representatives (representatives referenced in the letters) be added to the contacts spreadsheet for use by the CAC. T English said that could be possible and will refer the request through B Travers-Wright. S Smith depicted the Supplemental Outreach Communities maps (slide 7) and respective outreach letters (slides 8, 9) on the projector screen. M Zlody remarked that as a representative of the City of Boston, several officials for the City of Boston should get notification of supplemental outreach efforts. S Smith offered to share an up-close look at the pending letter and the draft mailing list during the dinner break. Aircraft Noise/Modeling (Ref slides 10, 11) D Pomicter queried about the completion of the 2007 Noise Analysis, and commented that the 2005 data tables should include a note that states that the DNL levels are modeled and do not include helicopters or non-boston Airport aircraft. C. Morrow indicated that the report does clearly state that those operations were not modeled, but agreed that an updated version will be provided that includes the note for all DNL result tables. D Pomicter also questioned why noise contour maps depicted did not include the North End, Chinatown, or the Leather District -the specific downtown neighborhoods shown and reported within the DNL contours, most affected by noise from Logan. He believed these communities deserve recognition and (their inclusion on the map) could help gain their representation on the CAC and participation in the study process. He stated that these neighborhoods are recognized within Boston and generally included with the published description of Central under City of Boston. Although not commonly used or recognized, it includes a substantially larger area (most of which is less affected) and will not be clearly understood by the public. Also noting the difficulty in singling them out from the given graphics, he requested an additional map graphic, zooming in on the area within the noise contours, with a larger scale and better titles to clearly identify all communities within the noise contours. J Falbo echoed these concerns. S Smith noted that the boundaries referenced are not available in a geo-referenced file issued by any public agency. The boundaries used by PC are the neighborhood boundaries provided by the Boston Water and Sewer Commission. If there is an agency resource that provides the specific neighborhood boundaries referenced by D. Pomicter, PC would use them. J. Falbo asked why PC cannot create them. S. Smith noted concerns about defining neighborhood boundaries that were not necessarily created by a governmental or public agency due to concerns of accuracy related to multiple sources. Otherwise, the scope specifies the use of MassGIS as the official source of all georeferenced data, which has no neighborhood boundaries. 3

5 Final BOS/TAC Meeting Minutes A. Reed 12/17/09 D Pomicter suggested that the Boston Redevelopment Authority worked with these neighborhoods and descriptions and should be able to provide boundaries (perhaps with assistance for Maura Zlody, representing the City of Boston on the CAC). D Pomicter also advised that J Woodward had determined appropriate boundaries, which could be used. SCOPE REASSESSMENT #1 REVIEW S Smith confirmed that with the scope change a reassessment of the budget is required and he detailed changes (slide 12): Near term action-the reassessment must be approved as soon as possible, with a target to finalize in two weeks. and a contract extension is needed (budget is only through December 2011) Long term actions-project Management/Public Coordination o FAA/CAC Coordination funded through 2011 and includes meetings such as this. o PC and FAA worked together to free up funds for the study o FAA assumes air traffic procedure development (taken from PC team member and not at the cost of the project) o FAA assumes Public Outreach o FAA assumes custodianship of administrative file o FAA assumes all meeting administration. S Smith remarked that we now have 22 measures; and noted that Massport and CAC must formalize the future of Preferential Runway Advisory System (PRAS). Language pertaining to this action is contained in the Scope of Services-Phase 3, as he referenced the document on the website. J Woodward noted that this topic was discussed at the recent CAC meeting with the conclusion that it would be taken up again at the end of Phase 2 (3 rd quarter of 2011). D Pomicter questioned the current effectiveness of PRAS under the direction of the tower, stating what he believes is a common opinion that: it has never worked in practice and that it is not used in practice. He reasoned that another system could supersede its goals with agreement between the CAC, Massport, and the FAA (including operations personnel). S Smith reminded the group that PRAS by definition is cited in the ROD and judgment of whether it stays or not will affect future evaluations pertaining to Phase 1 runway use measures. B Mader commented that if PRAS always takes second place to current or future capacity for any given day, what s the point of it? While her question would be on record for discussion, S Smith requested that she hold it until Massport and CAC can discuss it further in a separate meeting specifically focused on PRAS. To conclude the PRAS discussion, he pointed out that if PRAS is to continue, the specific runway use measures carried over from Phase 1 will not be evaluated. If not, the Phase 1 runway use measures would be evaluated in detail during Phase 3. Moving on to Technical Analysis and Support (slide 13), S Smith highlighted the completion of Tasks 6.1, 6.2 (L1 Screening), and the refined language of Task 6.3 (L2 4

6 Final BOS/TAC Meeting Minutes A. Reed 12/17/09 Screening) with regard to CAC Goals and Objectives. He went on to discuss the planned activity flight schedule: Will come up with a flight schedule and forecast Originally was going to use one by another company (based on 2002 operation levels) Doesn t make sense to use old data Will focus on planned activity level operations (equivalent to 2015 forecasted levels based on the FAA 2009 Terminal Area Forecast whine finalized), just to get ideas. J Woodward supported S Smith s explanation of the planned activity level forecast and its primary purpose to screen changes for planning purposes. While D Pomicter questioned the process established to gather the number of operations, F Leo stressed that the terminal area forecast (TAF) would be appropriate to look at broad impacts, especially since BOS is unlikely to have a substantial change in forecasted aircraft operations. S Smith further explained that the NEPA process will specify a specific year corresponding to when the Phase 2 measures are expected to be implemented. S Smith went on to describe the No Project/No Action analysis. The changes in both noise and operational efficiency are two critical elements needed to make a decision. For this project, the change needs to be based on two different baselines. First, one that assumes that none of the noise abatement measures proposed for the entire project is implemented. In the SOW, this is referred to as the No Project scenario. The No Project is compared to the noise and operational efficiency results of the Preferred Alternative scenario, which includes all of the recommended noise abatement measures (Phase 1 and Phase 2). The level of change calculated provides the decision-maker information related the cumulative impact of the entire project. The second baseline is called the No Action scenario, which includes those noise abatement measures already approved in Phase 1. The comparison between this baseline and the Preferred Alternative provides a level of change caused only by implementing recommended measures from Phase 2. This provides an indication of the additional change after Phase 1 is implemented. He also discussed the application of FAA s mission and goals as they relate to Level 2 analysis, and the importance in capturing the system performance changes caused by the measures based on a scenario that assumes the BLANS measures are implemented and another that accounts for system performance if none of the BONS or BLANS measures are implemented, which provides a cumulative impact assessment needed for FAA to assess total impact to efficiency. This is required for the FAA to make sound decisions related to total impact. As S Smith continued detailing the No Project application of Runway procedures, D Pomicter recommended redefining the terms (No Project, No Phase 2/Phase 2 Action)). While T. English and S. Smith described the terms as recognized by FAA under NEPA, he remarked that the terms are confusing and hard to understand in the context of Phase 1 and 2 project references. M. Zlody and S. Kunz concurred. D. Morrison recommended 5

7 Final BOS/TAC Meeting Minutes A. Reed 12/17/09 to T. English to reference to these baseline terms as the sliding feature of this project. B. Desrosiers and B. Mader made similar comments about the terminology confusion. T. English suggested that the terms could be clarified with the project management team (PMT). M. Zlody requested a progress report on capacity and efficiency definitions by FAA. S. Smith reported that although FAA as an agency lacks a precise definition on this, they plan to discuss it in more detail at the next BOS/TAC meeting. J. Davies remarked that FAA has clearly demonstrated that there is no zero threshold based on the measures implemented for Phase 1, but needs to make further determinations based on the cumulative change in system performance. Continuing on (with slide 13), S Smith noted that while the CAC has requested postimplementation noise monitoring, PC will only review IC findings and recommendations and provide feedback as it relates to consistency with the October 2007 Phase 1 ROD federal action. This amounts to comparing post-implementation representative radar tracks from a sample set of days with Phase 1 predicted routes, and will not involve measured single-event noise levels. S. Smith noted that the levels used to forecast noise level changes, represents an average annual day of operations and a cumulative day-night noise metric. Single-event noise event samples will not equate to average annual noise levels. While D Pomicter clarified this process to J. Falbo s understanding related to S. Smith s comment-that short-term measurements varying from modeled could be disconcerting, but were not necessarily more accurate than the model and did not void the legality of decisions based on the model-r Dormitzer read Task 3.2 to the group from the SOW. S. Smith acknowledged that the current Phase 2 SOW contains the words R Dormizter read. Steve also noted the specific activities listed and the PC and ICs understanding of the type of work scoped: to review radar track data and assist in developing an effective means to report actual flight patterns compared to what was described in the CatEx ROD. J. Woodward agreed with S. Smith s statement. J. Woodward reminded the group that CAC had requested the post implementation process recently that includes noise measurements, an addition to the original scope. S. Kunz was concerned about recourse action if noise levels didn t improve as modeled for Phase 1. T. English confirmed referral to the ROD for that consideration, specifically, the definition of the measures as it relates to the flight procedure. D. Pomicter reiterated his concern about noise levels he perceived to be doubled or tripled, questioning the 55 DNL reference point and that it does not include helicopter overflights over the downtown area. He noted that his home is Grid Measurement Point G-05. The IC s actual field measurements, noted observations, and later analysis and review indicate that about half of the actual aircraft incidents were helicopters, the helicopter incidents were more than twice as loud as the airplane incidents, and the helicopter incidents lasted longer. However, the reported information for noise levels, events, and time is modeled and the model does not include helicopters. It seems that actual total aircraft noise is more than double the modeled and reported noise levels, events, and time. S Smith said the note in the table would be adjusted to reflect the 6

8 Final BOS/TAC Meeting Minutes A. Reed 12/17/09 assumption. S. Smith went further to explain that this project does not include a task to develop helicopter operations, especially all operations that do not operate to/from Boston International Airport. All members should reserve concerns related to assessing the downtown traffic measures until Measures F-T and F-U are investigated further in Level 2; and if the measure proceeds to Level 3, determine the most effective means to qualify or quantify benefits outside of the existing INM analysis. D Pomicter suggested that if a model doesn t exist and is beyond the scope of this project, the noise should be professionally estimated as a matter of record to document the present clearly and accurately and to take next steps to enable future improvement. The late addition of notes regarding downtown, inner city Boston in Phase 1 (not directly included the analysis) more clearly and accurately documents Phase 1 and enables more thorough consideration in Phase 2. The group took a dinner break at 6:35 PM. LEVEL 2 SCREENING PROCESS AND CRITERIA S Smith provided an overview and the need to modify the L2 screening criteria in the SOW scope to account for the CAC objectives and criteria, reported IC concurrence on changes, and opened the discussion with a slide (14) depicting the Level 2 process. This process will be the vetting mechanism for screening through the FAA with a Yes or No as to whether a measure significantly compromises FAA mission and goals. A positive result will advance the measure to the noise screening step. If the measure is found to provide potential benefit, it would be passed to Level 3 screening. Moving on (slide 15) through the screening process to the air traffic system, S Smith explained the overall domino effect of how measures could significantly compromise the national airspace system and the local (Boston Center) system, including the gate-togate process. Including (slide 16) tower operations through air route traffic control centers (ARTCCs), FAA has a limited amount of airspace to work in these measures. S. Smith also provided an overview of specific documents published by the FAA that describe goals, objectives and milestones related to enhancing the current air traffic system (slide 17), and examples of FAA performance measures available to the FAA for use in this study. S. Smith noted that the FAA will be working to identify criteria that will apply to this study and used to determine if a measure significantly compromises the FAA s mission and goals. More detailed information will be covered at the next BOS/TAC meeting. S. Smith provided an overview of the noise screening process, which was designed based on the CAC criteria. He reported that IC concurred with the process. Using slide 18 as a narrative to 19-20, S Smith went through the flow chart and summarized how the CAC looks at each step and ultimately decides if the measure may provide benefit and should proceed to Level 3. S Smith clarified that this flow chart was not applicable to the helicopters and non-logan small planes measures. J. Falbo asked about those measures that may not necessarily show a decrease in DNL. S. Smith clarified that he is 7

9 Final BOS/TAC Meeting Minutes A. Reed 12/17/09 referencing ground noise measures. S. Smith stated that the process does allow for CAC to continue a measure through the process if there was no substantial decrease in DNL. Ultimately, the measure can be assessed based on the single-event criteria outlined by the CAC. Ground noise measures will likely go to supplemental single-event screening analysis. Referring to slide 22, he took each part of the flowchart and showed key points where CAC may decide that a measure should proceed to Level 3 or be eliminated from further consideration. S. Smith stated that decisions may also be based on subjective or qualitative information. S Smith and J Woodward noted that 5 DNL (borderline) increases could be a cause for concern for NEPA considerations and would prompt a PC/IC decision to look at supplemental metrics. B Mader described an interesting scenario, questioning whether averages of increases would be considered or whether increases would be based on single events. J Woodward stated that single event discussions will take place at a later date. B Mader proceeded to describe the density of disturbance she gets at her residence and wondered how this would be addressed. F Leo recalled a Phase 1 discussion with the CAC and J Woodward reiterated that this is a perception issue, and it is extremely difficult to quantify subjectivity. D Morrison commented that the chart (screening process) was helpful and clear, while M Zlody noted some date discrepancies of the scope reassessment document. S. Smith noted the discrepancies, and will update the reassessed scope. T English stated that although the FAA acknowledges the use of supplemental metrics in FAA Order E and in this case for consideration in the BLANS, FAA will base its final decisions on DNL. S Smith reiterated recognition of DNL as the FAA s official metric for decision-making in terms of identifying adverse noise impacts and weighing the cost of losing efficiency versus the noise benefit for the BLANS measures. Cumulative changes related to these measures will also be assessed in accordance with NEPA requirements. J Falbo wished to go on record saying that without specific examples (which do not exist at this time for the BLANS), he is unclear about how this process works. Steve noted that we will identify examples of these instances as we go through the screening and NEPA process. W Zamore commented that legacy measures (Phase 1 Carry Over Measures) are in the scope, but no description of the 22 measures. S Smith noted that as of the date of the measures, language was created to describe the 22 measures, and would be added to the introduction of the reassessed scope of work. PHASE 1 IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE Referring to slide 24, S Smith noted the Phase 1 procedures that had been implemented to date: 8

10 Final BOS/TAC Meeting Minutes A. Reed 12/17/09 Conventional departure procedures (Alternative 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 15) implemented February 14, 2008 Alternative 11 is in operation Alternative 6 was recently implemented on October 1, 2009 S Smith noted that a primary benefit of Alternative 6 is that it allows the opportunity for more frequent unimpeded climbs from Runway 22L/R, which helps raise altitudes over the shoreline. J Davies provided an update on implementation of the Phase 1 RNAV procedures (slide 25). Today, RNAV procedures were published that will involve phased-in approaches to implementation as follows: January operational training for Runway 9 procedure February 1, implementation of RWY 9 procedures (subject to a 90-day familiarization break-in period) May 3, 2010 Runway 4 RNAV procedures (Alternative 1, 14, 15) pending success with break-in period (above) Due to safety/separation issues, Runway 15 (Alternative 3/14/15) and Runway 22 (Alternative 5/14/15) procedures must be modified before implementation. First available publication date is 11/18/10. J Davies briefly explained that the Runway 15 and 22 safety/separation issues occur for south and westbound RNAV procedures when one RNAV follows another such as; SSOXS following BRUWN, PATSS following BRUWN or SSOXS following the PATSS. These issues were identified during A90 s operational implementation analysis for runway configurations w/multiple departures, which occurred after the procedure was submitted for publication. In addition, J Davies explained that RNAV procedures will only be used for the primary runway starting w/runway 9 which accounts for 30% of departures at Logan. In summary, by November 18, 2010, all BONS conventional and RNAV procedures are expected to be implemented. R Dormitzer questioned the confidence level that the amended procedures will work. J Harris assured the group that current efforts are on track. J Davies added that shoreline crossing points are the same. S Smith stated that PC will pass to IC, graphics of the RNAV adjusted routes (including LAT/LONG) for the amended procedures once FAA provides them to the PC. PC will be looking for IC s professional opinion on whether or not the amended procedures meet the intent of the Phase 1 alternative. R. Dormitzer asked about the current aircraft capability of using RNAV, and referenced the percentages surveyed for Phase 1. J Davies further commented that currently there is no problem with NextGen and new technology-conventional and RNAV-working together. S Smith went on to explain how airlines are investing in RNAV technology 9

11 Final BOS/TAC Meeting Minutes A. Reed 12/17/09 now, using Southwest as an example, which leads one to reasonably conclude that the capability of aircraft has increased since the last survey conducted in Phase 1. NEXT STEPS/BOS/TAC MEETING SCHEDULE D Morrison requested daytime hours for the next BOSTAC meeting. S Smith stated that if CAC was OK with daytime hours, that would be preferred over nighttime. S. Kunz stated that daytime meetings would be feasible based on the feedback she received from CAC in response to an she sent. B Mader discussed putting an out to vote; S. Kunz stated that a vote was not necessary based on the feedback she received. Next BOSTAC meeting will be January 2010 and will be scheduled to start in the afternoon (to accommodate CAC-BOS/TAC member schedules). Meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM. References: BLANS CY 2005 Noise Modeling Analysis (October 2009) BLANS TAAM Model Calibration (September 2009, Rev 1) BLANS Baseline TAAM Simulation (September 2009, Rev 1) BLANS Level 1 Screening Analysis (October 2009) BLANS Phase 2 Draft Reassessed Scope of Services (October 22, 2009) 10

12 BOS/TAC Meeting #6 October 22, 2009

13 Agenda Overview 5:00 p.m. 5:05 p.m. 5:05 p.m. 5:30 p.m. Opening Remarks Phase 2 Status Report Project Schedule Status Website updates Outreach Update 2005/2007 Noise Analysis Status 2005 Operations Modeling Status 5:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 8:30 p.m. 8:30 p.m. 9:00 p.m. Scope Reassessment #1 Review Dinner Break Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria Phase 1 Implementation Update Next Steps/BOS/TAC Meeting Schedule 2

14 BLANS Schedule as of September

15 BLANS Process Overview CAC Basic Project Goal: Safely reduce the aircraft flight and ground noise exposure from BOS-related operations on as many residents of communities in the Boston area as practicable. 4

16 Website Update 5

17 Public Outreach Update BLANS Outreach Letters and FAA Media Release target date October 28-30, 2009 BLANS Update Letters to: Local Officials in Study Area State/Federal Representatives BLANS Introduction Letters to: Aviation Industry Representatives Supplemental Outreach Communities Note: Teleconference Call with Supplemental Outreach Communities October 27,

18 Public Outreach Update Supplemental Outreach Communities 7

19 Public Supplemental Community Outreach Letter Sample 8

20 Public Outreach Update Letter Sample 9

21 2005/2007 Noise Analysis Update 10

22 2005 Operations Modeling Update 11

23 Scope Reassessment #1 Review Contract Extension to December 2011 Project Management FAA and CAC Coordination Meetings (PMT and BOS/TAC) Efforts Transferred from PC to FAA Air Traffic Procedure Design and Evaluation Public Outreach and Meetings Administrative File PRAS and Runway Use Measures PRAS is defined as the program that was implemented in 1982 Runway Use Measures are those proposed in Phase 1 Process: Massport and CAC to formally decide if PRAS continues If to continue: Phase 1 measures would not be evaluated If to be discontinued: Phase 1 measures to be evaluated in Phase 3 12

24 Scope Reassessment #1 Review Technical Analysis and Support Phase 1 Implementation Support Extension November Aircraft Noise Update Analysis in process Planned Activity Level Flight Schedule for Future Level Operation Analysis PAL No Project Analysis for Aircraft Noise and Operation Modeling (Task 6.4) No Action includes Phase 1 implemented alternatives; Runway 14/32 procedures; Centerfield Taxiway operations; and BOS Airside Improvement taxiway realignments. No Project includes only Runway 14/32 procedures; Centerfield Taxiway operations; and BOS Airside Improvement taxiway realignments. Required to quantify cumulative impacts (NEPA concern). Phase 1 Post-Implementation Noise Measurements (Task 3.2) Adjustments/Clarifications for Level 2 Analysis 13

25 Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria Flow Diagram of Level 2 Process Further Definition of Measures Significantly Compromise FAA Mission and Goals Yes No Eliminated from Further Consideration Go to Noise Screening 1/ 1/ Noise modeling screening available only for fixed-wing aircraft operations to/from Boston Logan International Airport 14

26 Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria Air Traffic System National Airspace System (NAS) Local System 15

27 Aviation System Airside Components Airfield TRACON Routes or Standard Instrument Departures (SIDS) High-Altitude Routes TRACON Routes or Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) Airfield 14,000 ft 3,000 ft Taxi Out Takeoff Departure Climb Out En Route Descent Approach Landing Taxi In Not to Scale Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) Terminal Radar Control (TRACON) Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) 5 nm 25 nm 25 nm Terminal Radar Control (TRACON) Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 16

28 Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria FAA Flight Plan Goals ATO Business Plan Airspace System Management Handbook (v2.2) System Performance Categories/Goals: Safety Delay (Flight Time) and Flexibility Predictability Access Productivity Capacity 17

29 Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria Aircraft Noise Screening CAC (DNL Metric) 1. Reduce the number of persons who are exposed to aircraft noise in excess of 60 decibels of DNL (60 Ldn). 2. Enact air traffic measures that will reduce or minimize increasing the noise level on people currently exposed to aircraft noise above 55 decibels of DNL (55 Ldn). An increase of more than 1 ½ DNL on people within the 55 DNL will be considered to be of substantial concern to the CAC. 3. Enact air traffic procedures that will minimize the introduction of aircraft noise above 55 decibels of DNL (55 Ldn) onto people not currently exposed to noise of that level, unless necessary to reduce noise on people exposed to 60 Ldn or more. Further, a change of 3 DNL or more within 50 Ldn will be considered to be of substantial concern to the CAC; a change of 5 DNL or more within 45 Ldn will be considered to be of substantial concern to the CAC. 4. Reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, the existing total number of persons exposed to cumulative daily aircraft noise in excess of 55 decibels of DNL (55 Ldn). 18

30 Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria Noise Screening Ldn Change Results of Measures That Passed FAA Operational Analysis 1. Decrease # People Exposed to 60 Ldn? Yes No 2. Increase in Ldn for People Exposed to 55 Ldn? 1. Increase Existing Number of People Exposed to Cumulative Ldn Levels at or higher than 60 Ldn? Yes No No Yes 2. Is Increase in Ldn more than 1.5 db? 3. Add new population exposed to 55 Ldn? 4. Reduce Existing Number of People Exposed to Cumulative Ldn Levels at or higher than 55 Ldn? Yes No Yes No Yes No CAC Concern 3. Add new population exposed to 55 Ldn? CAC Concern Go to Supplemental Metric Analysis 3. Go to 50 Ldn Analysis Yes No Go to Supplemental Metric Analysis 19

31 Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria Noise Screening Ldn Change Increase in Population Exposed to 50 Ldn 3. Increase # People Exposed to 50 Ldn? Yes No 3. Is Increase More than 3.0 Ldn? 3. Increase in # of People Exposed to 45 Ldn? Yes No Yes No CAC Concern 3. Is Increase More than 5.0 Ldn? Yes No CAC Concern Go to Supplemental Metric Analysis Go to Level 3 20

32 Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria Aircraft Noise Screening CAC (Supplemental Metrics) 5. Reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, the existing total number of persons exposed to cumulative daily aircraft noise in excess of nighttime exposure of more than 55 decibels of Leq(n). 6. Reduce, at each grid assessment point, to the greatest extent practicable, the number of single-event flight operations with maximum noise levels in excess of 60 decibels (60 dba Lmax), using the NEA60 metric, 7. Reduce, at each grid assessment point, to the greatest extent practicable, from the existing total daily duration, the amount of time (TA60 as modeled in minutes per average annual day) of aircraft in flight, and separately on taxiways, at the gate, at maintenance facilities, or elsewhere during a ground operation at BOS, above 60 decibels. 21

33 Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria Noise Screening Supplemental Metric Analysis 5. Decrease # Existing People Exposed to 55 Leq(n)? 6. Decrease in Number of Operations that Exceed 60 Lmax? 7. Decrease Duration of Cumulative Noise Levels Above 60 db? Yes No Yes No Yes No 7. Decrease Duration of Flight Noise Levels Above 60 db? 7. Decrease Duration of Ground Noise Levels Above 60 db? Yes No Yes No Pass to Level 3 Eliminated 22

34 Level 2 Screening Process and Criteria FAA NEPA Criteria (DNL Metric) Reduce the number of persons who are exposed to aircraft noise in excess of 65 decibels of DNL (65 Ldn). Enact air traffic measures that will not increase the noise level on people currently exposed to aircraft noise above 65 decibels of DNL (65 Ldn). An increase of more than 1.5 DNL on people within the alternative 65 DNL area will be considered to be a significant (or adverse) impact. Enact air traffic measures that will not increase the noise level on people currently exposed to aircraft noise above 60 decibels of DNL (60 Ldn) and below 65 decibels of DNL (65 Ldn). An increase of more than 3 DNL on people within the alternative 60 DNL to 65 DNL area is generally considered to be a slight to moderate affect. Enact air traffic measures that will not increase the noise level on people currently exposed to aircraft noise above 45 decibels of DNL (45 Ldn) and below 60 decibels of DNL (60 Ldn). An increase of more than 5 DNL on people between the alternative 45 DNL to 60 DNL area is generally considered to be a slight to moderate affect. 23

35 Phase 1 Implementation Update Implemented to Date Conventional Departure Procedures (Alternative 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14 and 15) implemented February 14, 2008 LIGHT Visual Approach to Runway 33L (Alternative 11) May 7, 2009 Turbojet Arrivals to Runway 22L from the South (Alternative 6) was implemented on 10/1/09. 24

36 Phase 1 Implementation Update RNAV Departure Procedures Update RNAV Departure Procedures to be published on 10/22/09. Phased implementation: Operational training to be conducted in January 2010 for Runway 09 procedures (Alternative 2/14/15). Runway 09 departures to be assigned RNAV beginning 2/1/ day break-in/familiarization/unintended consequences evaluation period. Runway 04 departures (Alternative 1/14/15) to be assigned RNAV beginning 5/3/10 (assuming 90-day trial period goes well). Due to safety/separation issues, Runway 15 (Alternative 3/14/15) and Runway 22 (Alternative 5/14/15) procedures must be modified before implementation. First available publication date is 11/18/10. Expect implementation for Runway 15 and Runway 22 on 11/18/10. Only primary departure Runway will be assigned an RNAV - secondary will be assigned LOGAN SID (Phase 1 Conventional procedures) to ensure separation. 25