Boston Logan. Airport Noise Study

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Boston Logan. Airport Noise Study"

Transcription

1 Boston Logan International Airport Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis December 2012 Prepared by Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Prepared for Federal Aviation Administration in collaboration with Logan Airport Community Advisory Committee and Massachusetts Port Authority Background is for graphic Representation and are not actual corridors.

2 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 Level 3 Screening Analysis Executive Summary The Boston Logan Airport Noise Study (BLANS) is being conducted in fulfillment of the requirements of the Record of Decision on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Airside Improvements Planning Project at Boston Logan International Airport, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on August 2, During Phase 2 of the BLANS, noise abatement measures carried forward from Phase 1 or newly recommended by the Logan Airport Community Advisory Committee (CAC) at the beginning of Phase 2, were subject to three levels of screening. In Level 1, measures that would diminish safety or otherwise present substantial operational hurdles were eliminated. Level 2 included more detailed definitions of the remaining measures and those that would not meet operational criteria were eliminated. Those measures that passed through the Level 2 screening analysis and that were, therefore, found to be operationally feasible were carried forward to the Level 3 screening analysis. With the operational merits of each measure assessed in the Level 1 and Level 2 screening analyses, the Level 3 screening analysis was based on aircraft noise exposure, and the results of the analysis were used by the CAC to evaluate each measure and to determine which measures to recommend to the FAA and to the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) for implementation. The CAC evaluated each measure based on an established set of noise criteria that defined the CAC's objectives for meeting the overall goal of the BLANS to safely reduce noise exposure from aircraft operations and ground movements at the Airport on as many residents of communities in the Boston area as practicable. The FAA reviewed each measure recommended by the CAC to determine whether it would be consistent with FAA policy in terms of noise exposure and noise abatement and whether further analysis and documentation would be required for implementation. The FAA and Massport jointly issued findings regarding the measures recommended by the CAC for implementation. The Level 3 Screening Analysis Report presents descriptions of the measures analyzed in Level 3, results of the analysis, the CAC s recommendations regarding the measures, and the FAA s and Massport s findings on the measures recommended by the CAC. Ten measures passed the Level 2 screening analysis and were initially evaluated in the Level 3 screening analysis. Two measures related to ground movements and eight measures related to flight procedures. The results of the initial Level 3 analysis were presented to the CAC, the FAA, and Massport and discussed during a Boston Technical Advisory Committee (BOS/TAC) meeting on October 21, The Independent Consultant conducted a peer review of the analysis on behalf of the CAC prior to distribution of the results. After an initial review of the results, the analysis was refined to account for anomalies in the population impact results. Also, two measures related to flight movements were modified in an attempt to alleviate the adverse noise effects associated with those measures. The noise analysis Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report Executive Summary [E-1]

3 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 refinements and modifications to the two measures are described in the report. A total of 12 measures 2 related to ground movements and 10 related to flight procedures were evaluated in the Level 3 screening analysis. Of the 12 measures evaluated, 8 were recommended for implementation by the CAC and 4 were rejected. Both measures related to ground movements and 6 of the 10 measures related to flight procedures were recommended for implementation. The FAA and Massport reviewed the CAC recommendations to determine which measures would meet their criteria and would, therefore, be implemented under BLANS. The FAA and Massport determined that both measures related to ground movements would meet their criteria for implementation; however, FAA determined that none of the six measures related to flight procedures would meet their criteria for noise abatement under the BLANS. The results of the CAC evaluations and the findings of the FAA and Massport are summarized in Table E-1. As no measures related to flight procedures were recommended for implementation under the BLANS, no further analysis or environmental processing under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is required for those measures. Massport has already moved toward implementing the measures related to ground movements and any further NEPA processing for implementation will be conducted as necessary. During Phase 2, the CAC voted to abandon the Preferential Runway Advisory System (PRAS) because it had not achieved the intended noise abatement. The final steps of the BLANS will include an assessment of five runway use measures that were identified during Phase 1 of the BLANS. It was agreed to defer assessment of the runway use measures until the analysis of and decisions regarding measures related to flight procedures were completed. A Post Phase 2 scope of work is being developed to address the runway use measures and other tasks following the completion of Phase 2. Massport has also agreed with the CAC to establish a noise abatement committee that will monitor ongoing noise abatement and other concerns related to aircraft operations at the Airport. While the framework of that committee will be established during completion of the BLANS, its activities will continue after completion of the BLANS. Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report Executive Summary [E-2]

4 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 Table E-1 (1 of 2) Results of CAC Vote on Level 3 Alternatives MEASURE DESIGNATOR DESCRIPTION RESULTS OF CAC VOTE FAA/MASSPORT RESPONSE NOTES 1/ G-I(v2) Preferred Location for Runups away from Communities Recommended Move to Implement Massport has already tested this measure and identified a new location at the end of Runway 32 to be used when operationally feasible. G-J(v2) Holding Area for Delayed Departures Recommended Move to Implement Massport is prepared to commit to working with the FAA to seek approval and funding (subject to FAA operations/safety approval, environmental review, Massport capital budget process, availability of FAA funds) for construction of a hold pad to allow for short term staging of aircraft at or near the midpoint of the airfield. F-G F-H F-GG(v2) F-K(v2) Runway 32/33L RNAV/Visual Approach North of Hull (Nighttime) Runway 32 Visual Approach (Similar to RNAV Approach) Cross at DRUNK with Aircraft Crossing at 8,000 feet above MSL Extend Runway 27 RNAV Departure Gate 1 nm Southwest of Existing WYLYY Waypoint Recommended Will Not Implement There are no DNL decreases in noise. The costs to implement and maintain procedures in the national airspace system are in the thousands of dollars. This would be an additional procedure at Boston Logan. Recommended Will Not Implement There are no DNL decreases in noise. The costs to implement and maintain procedures in the national airspace system are in the thousands of dollars. This would be an additional procedure at Boston Logan. Recommended Will Not Implement There are no DNL decreases in noise. Although FAA will not implement Measure F-GGv2 under the umbrella of the BLANS, FAA will (and currently does) have aircraft crossing DRUNK at 8,000 feet to Runways 27 and 22L. Recommended Will Not Implement There are no DNL decreases in noise, but slight increases in noise to populations exposed to DNL 55 and higher. This is inconsistent with the overall purpose and goals of the BLANS. Although FAA will not implement Measure F- Kv2 under the umbrella of the BLANS, FAA plans to modify the RNAV procedure for Runway 27 in the near future as part of FAA s NextGen program. This action will be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will undergo the usual FAA environmental review process which provides CAC an opportunity for input/comment. Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report Executive Summary [E-3]

5 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 Table E-1 (2 of 2) Results of CAC Vote on Level 3 Alternatives MEASURE DESIGNATOR DESCRIPTION RESULTS OF CAC VOTE FAA/MASSPORT RESPONSE NOTES 1/ F-M Runway 14 Departures Stay North of Hull and Raise Altitude over Shoreline F-R Runway 4R Departure Shift prior Alternative 1 Waypoint East F-R(v2) Runway 4R Departure Shift prior Alternative 1 Waypoint East F-HH(v3) F-HH(v4) F-V(v2) Runway 33L Departures Stay North of Admiral s Hill and Follow Compatible Land Use to the Maximum Extent Practical up to 5 DME or 5,000 Feet above MSL before Departure Fix Transition Turn Runway 33L Departures Stay North of Admiral s Hill and Follow Compatible Land Use to the Maximum Extent Practical up to 5 DME or 5,000 Feet before Departure Fix Transition Turn Use 260 degree Course Heading from Runway 22R in Lieu of 290 degrees for Props/Turboprops Heading North, Northwest, or West until 2,000 Feet above MSL Recommended Will Not Implement There are no DNL decreases in noise. The costs to implement and maintain procedures in the national airspace system are in the thousands of dollars. This would be an additional procedure at Boston Logan. Rejected Will Not Implement -- 2/ Rejected Will Not Implement -- 2/ Rejected Will Not Implement -- 2/ Recommended Will Not Implement Overall, this measure showed substantial DNL population increases in noise and lesser decreases, CAC voted to implement this for reasons stated [by the CAC]. This is inconsistent with the overall purpose and goals of the BLANS. Although FAA will not implement Measure F-HHv4 under the umbrella of the BLANS, FAA plans to establish an RNAV procedure for Runway 33 in the near future as part of FAA s NextGen program. This action will be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will undergo the usual FAA environmental review process which provides CAC an opportunity for input/comment. Rejected Will Not Implement -- 2/ NOTES: 1/ With the exception of Measures G-I(v2) and G-J(v2), the information provided in this column reflects FAA s responses regarding those measures recommended by the CAC. Information presented in quotations is quoted directly from the jointly signed letter from the FAA and Massport as cited below, except as required for reference as noted in brackets. 2/ FAA and Massport would not move to implement any measure that was not recommended by the CAC. For additional information, see the jointly signed letter from the FAA and Massport to Sandra Kunz, President, Logan Airport Community Advisory Committee, dated August 3, This letter is found in Appendix E of the Level 3 Screening Analysis Report. SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May 2012, based on Community Advisory Committee findings document presented at the April 3, 2012, CAC meeting and the jointly signed letter from the FAA and Massport to Sandra Kunz, President, Logan Airport Community Advisory Committee, dated August 3, PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report Executive Summary [E-4]

6 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 Table of Contents Executive Summary... E-1 1. Background Measures Carried Forward from the Level 2 Screening Analysis Community Advisory Committee Evaluation Criteria Federal Aviation Administration Evaluation Criteria Analytical Process Results Initial Results Centroid Analysis Revisions to Measures Final Results CAC Evaluation and FAA/Massport Action Next Steps Appendix A Independent Consultant Review of Noise Evaluations for Level 3 Alternatives Appendix B Centroid Investigations and Findings Appendix C Measures Considered in Final Level 3 Analysis Appendix D Results of Community Advisory Committee Vote on Level 3 Measures Appendix E Letter from Federal Aviation Administration and Massachusetts Port Authority Regarding Community Advisory Committee Recommendations Appendix F Letter from Community Advisory Committee to Massachusetts Port Authority Regarding the Preferential Runway Advisory System Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [i]

7 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 List of Tables Table E-1 Results of CAC Vote on Level 3 Alternatives... E-3 Table 1-1 Measures Carried Forward for Level 3 Screening Analysis Table 2-1 Population Centroids Selected for Further Analysis Table 3-1 Results of CAC Vote on Level 3 Measures Table 3-2 FAA/Massport Responses to Measures Recommended by the CAC List of Exhibits Exhibit 2-1 Level 3 Screening Analysis, Initial Results, CAC Evaluation Criteria Exhibit 2-2 Level 3 Screening Analysis, Initial Results, FAA Evaluation Criteria Exhibit 2-3 Level 3 Screening Analysis, Final Results, CAC Evaluation Criteria Exhibit 2-4 Level 3 Screening Analysis, Final Results, FAA Evaluation Criteria Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [ii]

8 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER Background This report provides information related to the Level 3 screening analysis conducted as part of Phase 2 of the Boston Logan Airport Noise Study (BLANS). The Level 3 analysis was conducted for measures that passed the Level 2 screening analysis (refer to Boston Logan Airport Noise Study, Level 2 Screening Analysis, November ). The intent of the Level 3 screening analysis was to quantitatively examine the ability of each measure to meet the objectives of the BLANS, namely (1) to reduce noise impacts on noise-sensitive facilities and residential areas within communities surrounding Boston-Logan International Airport (the Airport, or BOS) without adversely affecting other communities and (2) to be safe and efficient. The Level 3 screening analysis is described in Section 6.4 of the BLANS Phase 2 Reassessed Scope of Services, dated October The operational merits of each measure were assessed in the Level 2 screening analysis. Therefore, the Level 3 screening analysis was based on aircraft noise exposure analyses and the results were used by the Logan Airport Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to evaluate each measure and to determine which measures to recommend to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and to the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) for implementation. The CAC s stated goal is to safely reduce the aircraft flight and ground noise exposure from BOS-related operations 2 on as many residents of communities in the Boston area as practicable. 3 The CAC evaluation was based on a set of noise criteria that defined its objectives for meeting the overall goal of the BLANS. The FAA followed its established criteria for reviewing the recommendations of the CAC to determine: (1) whether the recommended measures would be consistent with FAA policy in terms of aircraft noise exposure, and (2) the type of environmental document that would need to be prepared prior to implementation of any measures to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 1.1 Measures Carried Forward from the Level 2 Screening Analysis Ten measures were carried forward from the Level 2 screening analysis for further evaluation in Level 3. By passing the Level 2 screening analysis, the 10 measures were found to be operationally feasible by the FAA Ricondo & Associates, Inc., et al., Boston Logan Airport Noise Study, Level 2 Screening Analysis, November BOS-related operations are those which takeoff, land at Boston Logan Airport, or are controlled by air traffic controllers located at the Boston Logan Air Traffic Control Tower. (Taken from the presentation referenced in the following footnote.) Presentation by Landrum & Brown, Inc., CAC Goals and Objectives Update, May 28, Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [1-1]

9 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 and also presumed to have the potential to meet the goals and objectives established by the CAC. In addition, Massport also made feasibility determinations on the measures that required infrastructure changes on or around the airfield or that were deemed as encouraged or voluntary measures under Massport s authority. The noise analysis conducted for the Level 3 screening analysis was, therefore, intended to provide information related to potential decreases or increases in aircraft noise and the extent and locations of those increases or decreases to enable the CAC to fully evaluate the measures against the established goals and objectives. The noise analysis was also intended to provide information related to the FAA s criteria for determining the consistency of each measure with established FAA policy and to provide information to the FAA and Massport on the overall noise reduction potential of each measure. The CAC and FAA evaluation criteria are presented in Sections 1.2 and 1.3, respectively, of this report. Table 1-1 summarizes the 10 measures that were carried forward from the Level 2 screening analysis 4. The measures include two related to ground movements and eight related to flight procedures. Table 1-1 Measures Carried Forward for Level 3 Screening Analysis TYPE Ground Concepts Flight Procedure Concepts: Approach Flight Procedure Concepts: Departure Flight Procedure Concepts: Local Traffic MEASURE DESIGNATOR G-I(v2) G-J(v2) F-G F-H F-GG(v2) F-K(v2) F-M F-R F-HH(v3) DESCRIPTION Preferred Location for Runups away from Communities Holding Area for Delayed Departures Runway 32/33L RNAV/Visual Approach North of Hull (Nighttime) Runway 32 Visual Approach (Similar to RNAV Approach) Cross at DRUNK with Aircraft Crossing at 8,000 Feet above MSL Extend Runway 27 RNAV Departure Gate 1 nm Southwest of Existing WYLYY Waypoint Runway 14 Departures Stay North of Hull and Raise Altitude over Shoreline Runway 4R Departure Shift prior Alternative 1 Waypoint East Runway 33L Departures Stay North of Admiral s Hill and Follow Compatible Land Use to the Maximum Extent Practical up to 5 DME or 5,000 Feet above MSL before Departure Fix Transition Turn F-V(v2) Use 260 degree Course Heading from Runway 22R in Lieu of 290 degrees for Props/Turboprops Heading North, Northwest, or West until 2,000 Feet above MSL above MSL NOTES: DME = Distance Measuring Equipment MSL = Mean Sea Level RNAV = Area Navigation SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May 2012, based on Ricondo & Associates, Inc., et al., Boston Logan Airport Noise Study, Level 2 Screening Analysis, November Full descriptions, including depictions of the measures evaluated in the Level 2 screening analysis and specific results of and comments regarding the analysis are provided in the final report, Ricondo & Associates, Inc., et al., Boston Logan International Airport, Level 2 Screening Analysis, November Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [1-2]

10 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June Community Advisory Committee Evaluation Criteria The CAC established specific goals and objectives for the BLANS process. Specific noise criteria were then established to reflect the CAC s objectives toward meeting the overall goal of the BLANS. The criteria, as stated by the CAC are listed below 5 : 1. Reduce the number of persons who are exposed to aircraft noise in excess of 60 decibels of DNL 6 (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 1½ 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). 5. 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. 6. 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). 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. As noted, in addition to the use of the day-night average sound level (DNL or Ldn) metric for evaluating the various measures, the CAC used supplemental metrics to assist in a better understanding of the specific noise effects associated with each measure. The noise analysis conducted for the Level 3 screening analysis produced aircraft noise metrics to enable the CAC to review the effects of each measure against the criteria and formed the basis for identifying those measures that the CAC would recommend for implementation. 5 6 Ricondo & Associates, Inc., Boston Logan Airport Noise Study, Level 2 Screening Analysis, November DNL or Ldn = Day-night average sound level. DNL and Ldn are used interchangeably. Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [1-3]

11 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER Federal Aviation Administration Evaluation Criteria FAA policy requires the use of DNL and certain changes in DNL as the basis for evaluating and reporting aircraft noise exposure and the effects of changes in aircraft procedures. For the purposes of the Level 3 screening analysis, the FAA used the following criteria: The number of people exposed to DNL 65 and higher and whether an increase or decrease would occur with implementation of a specific measure. DNL 65 and higher is considered by FAA to be significant aircraft noise exposure. The number of people exposed to DNL 65 and higher that would experience an increase or decrease of DNL 1.5 or greater as a result of implementation of a specific measure. A change of DNL 1.5 or greater within an area exposed to DNL 65 and higher is considered by FAA to be a significant change. The number of people exposed to DNL 60 to DNL 64.9 that would experience an increase or decrease of DNL 3.0 or greater as a result of implementation of a specific measure. As required by FAA Order E 7, changes of DNL 3.0 or greater on noise-sensitive land uses within the DNL 60 to DNL 64.9 noise exposure range are to be reported for changes in air traffic procedures. The number of people exposed to DNL 45 to DNL 59.9 that would experience an increase or decrease of DNL 5.0 or greater as a result of implementation of a specific measure. As required by FAA Order E, changes of DNL 5.0 or greater on noise-sensitive land uses within the DNL 45 to DNL 59.9 noise exposure range are to be reported for changes in air traffic procedures. The noise analysis conducted for the Level 3 screening analysis produced aircraft noise metrics to enable the FAA to compare measures that would be recommended by the CAC to determine whether they would meet not only the overall goal of the BLANS and the objectives of the CAC, but would also be consistent with FAA policy. 1.4 Analytical Process The Level 3 screening analysis was conducted to provide the necessary information for the CAC, the FAA, and Massport to determine overall noise reductions and to compare the effects of the measures against the evaluation criteria presented in Sections 1.2 and 1.3. The FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM), version 7.0a, was used to model a future Baseline, reflecting forecast aircraft activity on the average annual day (AAD) at the Airport in 2015, and incorporating the measures accepted for implementation during Phase 1 of the BLANS (then referred to as the Boston Overflight Noise Study) and the results of the centerfield taxiway study. The 2015 Baseline forecast was developed based on the FAA s 2009 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for the 7 Federal Aviation Administration, Order E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, March 20, Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [1-4]

12 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 Airport and available aircraft fleet mix data, including known aircraft orders by airlines and other aircraft operators and anticipated industry trends. Each measure carried forward from the Level 2 screening analysis and listed in Table 1-1, with the exception of measures G-J(v2) 8 and F-M 9, was modeled independently to compare with the 2015 Baseline forecast to assess the independent effects of each measure. The analysis results for each measure were compared with the Baseline analysis results to determine if the measure would alleviate or increase noise exposure within the study area. Noise impacts were calculated using noise exposure contours, the resulting population exposed to various levels of aircraft noise, and changes in aircraft noise exposure, as well as grid-point analyses and alternative noise metrics identified in the noise protocol established for the BLANS. Population was estimated using population centroids and associated demographic data that were obtained from the Massachusetts Geographic Information System (MassGIS) 10 for each census tract within the study area. All of the population within a census tract was assigned to the census tract centroid. The various noise exposure contours were overlaid onto a GIS layer containing the centroids to determine which centroids were within the contours. The entire population in each centroid and within each noise contour was included in the overall population count. Changes in noise levels for each of the population centroids were also calculated, as necessary, to determine whether or not significant or other reported changes in noise levels (as defined in Sections 1.2 and 1.3) would occur and the population exposed to those changes in noise levels. The Project Consultant (PC) prepared all INM inputs, which were closely reviewed and confirmed by the Independent Consultant (IC) to ensure strict adherence with the noise modeling protocol prepared and adopted for the BLANS Measure G-J(v2) was not modeled, as it applies to conditions when aircraft are held due to a traffic management initiative at the Airport or within the National Airspace System. Therefore, it was not possible to predict such occurrences on the average annual day. Measure F-M was not modeled, as Runway 14 has historically been used for less than 1.0 percent of all departures, and no departures were modeled on Runway 14 under the No Action alternative. Census tract data were obtained from the Massachusetts Geographic Information System in 2007 and represented 2000 Census data. Ricondo & Associates, Inc., et al., Boston Logan International Airport, Draft Noise Analysis Protocol Version 6.0, December Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [1-5]

13 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER Results This section summarizes the results of the Level 3 screening analysis. The initial results, adjustments to the initial results to reflect anomalies associated with the locations of several centroids, adjustments to two of the measures, and the final Level 3 screening analysis results are discussed. 2.1 Initial Results The initial noise analysis was completed and the results were distributed to the CAC, the FAA, and Massport for their review and evaluation against the stated criteria. The results were discussed during a Boston Technical Advisory Committee (BOS/TAC) meeting on October 21, For each measure that was modeled, the following data were provided to address the CAC s evaluation criteria: Population exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 60 and higher with and without the measure, and the associated change in population Population exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 55 and higher that would experience an increase or decrease of DNL 1.5 or greater with the measure Population that would be newly exposed or no longer exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 55 and higher with the measure Population exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 50 to DNL 54.9 that would experience either an increase or decrease of DNL 3.0 or greater with the measure Population exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 45 to DNL 49.9 that would experience either an increase or decrease of DNL 5.0 or greater with the measure Population exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 55 and higher with and without the measure, and the associated change in population Population exposed to nighttime aircraft noise of 55 Leq(n) or higher with and without the measure, and the associated change in population The following data were provided to address the FAA s evaluation criteria: Population exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher with and without the measure, and the associated change in population Population exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher that would experience an increase or decrease of DNL 1.5 or greater with the measure Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [2-1]

14 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 Population exposed to aircraft noise of between DNL 60 and DNL 64.9 that would experience an increase or decrease of DNL 3.0 or greater with the measure Population exposed to aircraft noise of between DNL 45 and DNL 59.9 that would experience an increase or decrease of DNL 5.0 or greater with the measure The initial noise analysis results related to the CAC criteria and the FAA criteria are presented on Exhibit 2-1 and Exhibit 2-2, respectively. Prior to distributing the initial noise analysis results to the CAC, the FAA, and Massport, the IC reviewed the noise analysis and provided additional information related to supplemental metrics to assist the CAC in its evaluation of the metrics. The IC s report is provided in Appendix A. 2.2 Centroid Analysis After a review of the initial population impact results, questions were raised regarding the calculated changes in population counts that occurred between the Baseline results and the results with implementation of one or more of the measures. The FAA asked the PC to review the results, and to specifically review changes at each centroid to determine whether all centroids should be considered by the CAC when making decisions regarding the measures to recommend for implementation and by the FAA and Massport when reviewing the CAC s recommendations. A discussion of the review process and the results prepared by the PC are provided in Appendix B. As described in Section 1.4, noise contours were overlaid onto a GIS layer of population quantified using census tract centroids. The total population within each census tract was associated with each centroid. Therefore, if a centroid were determined to lie within a specific contour, the entire population of the related census tract was included in the population count for that contour. Following a review of the locations of centroids relative to the operational changes and the results of the noise analysis at each centroid, 11 centroids were identified as questionable and were subject to a more extensive review in relation to one or more measure(s). The noise level changes at most of those 11 centroids were very small and the centroids were in locations that were not in the vicinity of the locations where operational changes would occur under one or more measure(s). Table 2-1 provides a summary of the population centroids selected for further analysis, along with the populations of the centroids, the measure(s) and noise metric for which the results could be affected by the centroid, and the difference in noise levels for the centroid with and without the measure. Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [2-2]

15 Boston Logan INtERNAtional Airport December 2012 CAC Criterion 1 CAC Criterion 2 CAC Criterion 3 CAC Criterion 4 CAC Criterion 5 Population Exposed to DNL 60 and Higher Population Exposed to DNL 55 and Higher DNL 1.5 or greater Population Exposed to DNL 55 and Higher Population Exposed to DNL 50 to 54.9 DNL 3.0 or greater Population Exposed to DNL 45 to 49.9 DNL 5.0 or greater Population Exposed to DNL 55 and Higher Population Exposed to 55 Leq(n) or Higher Measure Baseline w/measure Change INCREASE DECREASE Newly No LongER INCREASE DECREASE INCREASE DECREASE BASELINE w/measure Change BASELINE w/measure Change G-I (v2) G-J (v2) F-G F-H F-GG (v2) F-K (v2) F-M F-R F-HH (v3) F-V (v2) Preferred Location for Runups away from Communities Holding Area for Delayed Departures Runway 32/33L RNAV/Visual Approach North of Hull (Nighttime) Runway 32 Visual Approach (Similar to RNAV Approach) Cross at DRUNK with Aircraft Crossing at 8,000 Feet above MSL Extend Runway 27 RNAV Departure Gate 1 nm Southwest of Existing WYLyy Waypoint Runway 14 Departures Stay North of Hull and Raise Altitude over Shoreline Runway 4R Departure - Shift Waypoint East Runway 33L Departures Stay North of Admiral s Hill and Follow Compatible Land Use to the Maximum Extent Practical up to 5 DME or 5,000 Feet above MSL before Departure Fix Transition Turn Use 260 Degree Course Heading from Runway 22R in lieu of 290 degrees for Props/Turboprops Heading North, Northwest, or West until 2,000 Feet 43,055 43, , , ,239 12,239 0 not modeled 36,748 36,549 (199) ,980 98,908 (72) 12,239 12,215 (24) 36,748 36, ,980 98, ,239 12, ,748 36, ,980 98, ,239 12, ,748 36, ,980 98,921 (59) 12,239 12,239 0 not modeled 36,748 36,128 (620) ,980 98,035 (945) 12,239 12,234 (5) 36,748 37, ,767 1,422 15,459 1,303 55, ,008 16,045 98, ,136 14,156 12,239 10,377 (1,862) 36,748 36,549 (199) ,980 99, ,239 12,239 0 Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May 2012, based on Integrated Noise Model analysis by Wyle Laboratories, 2011 and 2012, and GIS analysis by Ricondo & Associates, Inc., 2011 and 2012 (population figures). prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May Exhibit 2-1 Z:\BOS\OVERFLIGHT NOISE STUDY\Phase 2\Graphics\Level 3 Matrix\BLANS Level 3 Screening Analysis Report DEC2012.indd Level 3 Screening Analysis, Initial Results CAC Evaluation Criteria Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report

16 Boston Logan IntERNAtional Airport December 2012 FAA Criterion 1 FAA Criterion 2 FAA Criterion 3 FAA Criterion 4 Population Exposed to DNL 65 and Higher Population Exposed to DNL 65 and Higher DNL 1.5 or greater Population Exposed to DNL 60 to 64.9 DNL 3.0 or greater Population Exposed to DNL 45 to 59.9 DNL 5.0 or greater Measure Baseline w/measure Change INCREASE DECREASE INCREASE DECREASE INCREASE DECREASE G-I (v2) G-J (v2) F-G F-H F-GG (v2) F-K (v2) F-M F-R F-HH (v3) F-V (v2) Preferred Location for Runups away from Communities Holding Area for Delayed Departures Runway 32/33L RNAV/Visual Approach North of Hull (Nighttime) Runway 32 Visual Approach (Similar to RNAV Approach) Cross at DRUNK with Aircraft Crossing at 8,000 Feet above MSL Extend Runway 27 RNAV Departure Gate 1 nm Southwest of Existing WYLYY Waypoint Runway 14 Departures Stay North of Hull and Raise Altitude over Shoreline Runway 4R Departure - Shift Waypoint East Runway 33L Departures Stay North of Admiral s Hill and Follow Compatible Land Use to the Maximum Extent Practical up to 5 DME or 5,000 Feet above MSL before Departure Fix Transition Turn Use 260 Degree Course Heading from Runway 22R in lieu of 290 degrees for Props/Turboprops Heading North, Northwest, or West until 2,000 Feet 3,023 3, not modeled 2,343 2,324 (19) ,343 2, ,343 2,324 (19) ,343 2, not modeled 2,343 2,086 (257) ,343 2, ,370 16,045 2,343 2, Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May 2012, based on Integrated Noise Model analysis by Wyle Laboratories, 2011 and 2012, and GIS analysis by Ricondo & Associates, Inc., 2011 and 2012 (population figures). prepared BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May Exhibit 2-2 Z:\BOS\OVERFLIGHT NOISE STUDY\Phase 2\Graphics\Level 3 Matrix\BLANS Level 3 Screening Analysis Report DEC2012.indd Level 3 Screening Analysis, Initial Results FAA Evaluation Criteria Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report

17 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 Table 2-1 Population Centroids Selected for Further Analysis CENTROID ID POPULATION MEASURE DESIGNATOR NOISE METRIC THRESHOLD DIFFERENCE C F-V F-HH(V3) F-V(V2) DNL 60 DNL 60 DNL 60 Less than 0.1 dba Less than 0.1 dba Less than 0.1 dba C02 44 F-G F-K(v2) DNL 55 DNL 55 Less than 0.1 dba Less than 0.1 dba C03 24 F-G Leq(n) 55 Less than 0.1 dba C04 19 F-G F-GG(v2) DNL 65 DNL 65 Less than 0.1 dba Less than 0.1 dba C05 28 F-G F-K(v2) F-HH(v3) DNL 55 DNL 55 DNL 55 Less than 0.1 dba Less than 0.1 dba Less than 0.1 dba C06 13 F-K(v2) DNL 55 (Newly Exposed) 0.2 dba C F-HH(v3) F-V(v2) DNL 55 (Newly Exposed) DNL 55 (Newly Exposed) Less than 0.1 dba Less than 0.1 dba C08 0 /1 F-HH(v3) DNL 55 Less than 0.1 dba C09 0 /1 F-HH(v3) DNL 55 Less than 0.1 dba C10 0 /1 F-R DNL 55 Less than 0.1 dba C F-R DNL 55 Less than 0.1 dba NOTE: 1/ Population centroids with zero population were not removed prior to the supplemental noise modeling analysis. Those centroids with zero population should not be considered. SOURCE: Wyle Laboratories, January PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June The PC concluded that those centroids with a change of less than DNL 0.1 dba involved a change in the contour location of less than 100 feet. Those centroids were very close to any of the contours under Baseline conditions and moved to the other side of the contour line under one or more of the measures, although the actual noise level change was very small. The PC recommended that questionable centroids with a change of less than DNL 0.1 dba be assumed to show no change when considering the measures. As a result, the only centroid with a change, as presented in Table 2-1, that should be considered is C06 for Measure F-K(v2). None of the other centroids listed in Table 2-1 should be considered. The PC coordinated with the IC, who concurred with the recommendation as documented in two separate memoranda from the IC to the PC, dated January 13, 2012, and January 18, The results presented on Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2 were adjusted accordingly to remove the changes associated with the centroids, with the exception of C06 for Measure F-K(v2). Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [2-5]

18 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER Revisions to Measures Following review of the noise results, Measure F-R and Measure F-HH(v3) were modified in an attempt to alleviate the adverse noise effects associated with those measures. The CAC requested these modifications at the October 21, 2011, BOS/TAC meeting. Although Measure F-R would result in an overall decrease in noise, it would also result in newly exposed populations in Winthrop. Some individuals at the BOS/TAC meeting also expressed a concern about shifting flights farther east, closer to Nahant. As a result, Measure F-R(v2) was developed with CAC consensus on the final design. Measure F-R(v2) was subsequently modeled and the CAC considered both Measure F-R and Measure F-R(v2) in its decision-making. Measure F-HH(v3) would result in increases in noise that were of concern to the CAC. As a result, the CAC requested that the FAA consider modifications to the design to address those concerns. The IC submitted a modified design for FAA consideration that moved the Measure F-HH(v3) Area Navigation (RNAV) flight track farther to the southwest over more compatible land use. The initial design did not meet FAA operational criteria; therefore, the design was modified further, with the final consensus of the CAC. Measure F-HH(v4) was subsequently modeled and the CAC considered both Measure F-HH(v3) and Measure F-HH(v4) in its decision-making. 2.4 Final Results Descriptions and graphic depictions of the 12 measures evaluated in the final Level 3 screening analysis are presented in Appendix C. The results of the analysis that were considered by the CAC in its determination of which measures to recommend for implementation are presented on Exhibit 2-3. As described, revised Measures F-R(v2) and F-HH(v4) were added and several measures (including Measures F-R[v2] and F-HH[v4]) from the centroid analysis were adjusted, as described in Section 2.2. The revised results considering the FAA s evaluation criteria are presented on Exhibit 2-4. Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [2-6]

19 Boston Logan INtERNAtional Airport December 2012 CAC Criterion 1 CAC Criterion 2 CAC Criterion 3 CAC Criterion 4 CAC Criterion 5 Population Exposed to DNL 60 and Higher Population Exposed to DNL 55 and Higher DNL 1.5 or greater Population Exposed to DNL 55 and Higher Population Exposed to DNL 50 to 54.9 DNL 3.0 or greater Population Exposed to DNL 45 to 49.9 DNL 5.0 or greater Population Exposed to DNL 55 and Higher Population Exposed to 55 Leq(n) or Higher Measure Baseline w/measure Change INCREASE DECREASE Newly No LongER INCREASE DECREASE INCREASE DECREASE BASELINE w/measure Change BASELINE w/measure Change G-I (v2) G-J (v2) F-G F-H F-GG (v2) F-K (v2) F-M F-R F-R (v2) F-HH (v3) F-HH (v4) F-V (v2) Preferred Location for Runups away from Communities Holding Area for Delayed Departures Runway 32/33L RNAV/Visual Approach North of Hull (Nighttime) Runway 32 Visual Approach (Similar to RNAV Approach) Cross at DRUNK with Aircraft Crossing at 8,000 Feet above MSL Extend Runway 27 RNAV Departure Gate 1 nm Southwest of Existing WYLyy Waypoint Runway 14 Departures Stay North of Hull and Raise Altitude over Shoreline Runway 4R Departure - Shift Waypoint East Runway 33L Departures Stay North of Admiral s Hill and Follow Compatible Land Use to the Maximum Extent Practical up to 5 DME or 5,000 Feet above MSL before Departure Fix Transition Turn Use 260 Degree Course Heading from Runway 22R in lieu of 290 degrees for Props/Turboprops Heading North, Northwest, or West until 2,000 Feet 43,055 43, , , ,239 12,239 0 not modeled 36,748 36, ,980 98, ,239 12, ,748 36, ,980 98, ,239 12, ,748 36, ,980 98, ,239 12, ,748 36, ,980 98, ,239 12,239 0 not modeled 36,748 36,128 (620) ,980 98,187 (793) 12,239 12,234 (5) 36,748 36, ,980 98, ,239 12, ,748 37,847 1,099 24,767 1,422 15,345 1,275 55, ,008 16,045 98, ,050 14,070 12,239 10,377 (1,862) 36,748 36, , ,705 1,150 51, ,699 8,461 98, ,479 12,499 12,239 10,580 (1,659) 36,748 36, ,980 99, ,239 12,239 0 Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May 2012, based on Integrated Noise Model analysis by Wyle Laboratories, 2011 and 2012, and GIS analysis by Ricondo & Associates, Inc., 2011 and 2012 (population figures). prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May Exhibit 2-3 Z:\BOS\OVERFLIGHT NOISE STUDY\Phase 2\Graphics\Level 3 Matrix\BLANS Level 3 Screening Analysis Report DEC2012.indd Level 3 Screening Analysis, Final Results CAC Evaluation Criteria Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report

20 Boston Logan IntERNAtional Airport December 2012 FAA Criterion 1 FAA Criterion 2 FAA Criterion 3 FAA Criterion 4 Population Exposed to DNL 65 and Higher Population Exposed to DNL 65 and Higher DNL 1.5 or greater Population Exposed to DNL 60 to 64.9 DNL 3.0 or greater Population Exposed to DNL 45 to 59.9 DNL 5.0 or greater Measure Baseline w/measure Change INCREASE DECREASE INCREASE DECREASE INCREASE DECREASE G-I (v2) G-J (v2) F-G F-H F-GG (v2) F-K (v2) F-M F-R F-R (v2) F-HH (v3) F-HH (v4) F-V (v2) Preferred Location for Runups away from Communities Holding Area for Delayed Departures Runway 32/33L RNAV/Visual Approach North of Hull (Nighttime) Runway 32 Visual Approach (Similar to RNAV Approach) Cross at DRUNK with Aircraft Crossing at 8,000 Feet above MSL Extend Runway 27 RNAV Departure Gate 1 nm Southwest of Existing WYLYY Waypoint Runway 14 Departures Stay North of Hull and Raise Altitude over Shoreline Runway 4R Departure - Shift Waypoint East Runway 33L Departures Stay North of Admiral s Hill and Follow Compatible Land Use to the Maximum Extent Practical up to 5 DME or 5,000 Feet above MSL before Departure Fix Transition Turn Use 260 Degree Course Heading from Runway 22R in lieu of 290 degrees for Props/Turboprops Heading North, Northwest, or West until 2,000 Feet 3,023 3, not modeled 2,343 2, ,343 2, ,343 2, ,343 2, not modeled 2,343 2,086 (257) ,343 2, ,343 2, ,370 16,045 2,343 2, ,958 8,461 2,343 2, Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May 2012, based on Integrated Noise Model analysis by Wyle Laboratories, 2011 and 2012, and GIS analysis by Ricondo & Associates, Inc., 2011 and 2012 (population figures). prepared BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May Exhibit 2-4 Z:\BOS\OVERFLIGHT NOISE STUDY\Phase 2\Graphics\Level 3 Matrix\BLANS Level 3 Screening Analysis Report DEC2012.indd Level 3 Screening Analysis, Final Results FAA Evaluation Criteria Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report

21 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER CAC Evaluation and FAA/Massport Action The CAC reviewed the noise analysis results summarized in Exhibit 2-3 and worked with the IC to evaluate each alternative against the CAC goals and objectives. The CAC then voted on the measures to recommend for implementation at its meeting on April 3, The results of the vote, along with explanations for each measure being recommended or rejected were subsequently provided to the FAA. The information provided by the CAC is included in Appendix D. Table 3-1 summarizes the results of the CAC vote. Table 3-1 Results of CAC Vote on Level 3 Measures MEASURE DESIGNATOR DESCRIPTION RESULTS OF CAC VOTE G-I(v2) Preferred Location for Runups away from Communities Recommended G-J(v2) Holding Area for Delayed Departures Recommended F-G Runway 32/33L RNAV/Visual Approach North of Hull (Nighttime) Recommended F-H Runway 32 Visual Approach (Similar to RNAV Approach) Recommended F-GG(v2) Cross at DRUNK with Aircraft Crossing at 8,000 feet above MSL Recommended F-K(v2) F-M Extend Runway 27 RNAV Departure Gate 1 nm Southwest of Existing WYLYY Waypoint Runway 14 Departures Stay North of Hull and Raise Altitude over Shoreline Recommended Recommended F-R Runway 4R Departure Shift prior Alternative 1 Waypoint East Rejected F-R(v2) Runway 4R Departure Shift prior Alternative 1 Waypoint East Rejected F-HH(v3) F-HH(v4) F-V(v2) Runway 33L Departures Stay North of Admiral s Hill and Follow Compatible Land Use to the Maximum Extent Practical up to 5 DME or 5,000 Feet above MSL before Departure Fix Transition Turn Runway 33L Departures Stay North of Admiral s Hill and Follow Compatible Land Use to the Maximum Extent Practical up to 5 DME or 5,000 Feet before Departure Fix Transition Turn Use 260 degree Course Heading from Runway 22R in Lieu of 290 degrees for Props/Turboprops Heading North, Northwest, or West until 2,000 Feet above MSL Rejected Recommended Rejected SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May 2012, based on CAC findings document presented at the April 3, 2012, CAC meeting. PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [3-1]

22 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 The results of the CAC vote were presented to the FAA and Massport for consideration. The FAA and Massport reviewed the measures recommended by the CAC against the overall purpose of the BLANS and specific noise exposure impact criteria based on the DNL metric and identified those measures that they could recommend for implementation. The FAA s and Massport s responses are documented in a letter dated August 3, 2012, a copy of which is provided in Appendix E. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the responses to each measure recommended for implementation by the CAC. Table 3-2 FAA/Massport Responses to Measures Recommended by the CAC MEASURE DESIGNATOR FAA/MASSPORT RESPONSE NOTES 1/ G-I(v2) G-J(v2) F-G F-H F-GG(v2) F-K(v2) F-M F-HH(v4) Move to Implement Move to Implement Will Not Implement Will Not Implement Will Not Implement Will Not Implement Will Not Implement Will Not Implement Massport has already tested this measure and identified a new location at the end of Runway 32 to be used when operationally feasible. Massport is prepared to commit to working with the FAA to seek approval and funding (subject to FAA operations/safety approval, environmental review, Massport capital budget process, availability of FAA funds) for construction of a hold pad to allow for short term staging of aircraft at or near the midpoint of the airfield. There are no DNL decreases in noise. The costs to implement and maintain procedures in the national airspace system are in the thousands of dollars. This would be an additional procedure at Boston Logan. There are no decreases in noise. The costs to implement and maintain procedures in the national airspace system are in the thousands of dollars. This would be an additional procedure at Boston Logan. There are no DNL decreases in noise. Although FAA will not implement Measure F-GGv2 under the umbrella of the BLANS, FAA will (and currently does) have aircraft crossing DRUNK at 8,000 feet to Runways 27 and 22L. There are no DNL decreases in noise, but slight increases in noise to populations exposed to DNL 55 and higher. This is inconsistent with the overall purpose and goals of the BLANS. Although FAA will not implement Measure F-Kv2 under the umbrella of the BLANS, FAA plans to modify the RNAV procedure for Runway 27 in the near future as part of FAA s NextGen program. This action will be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will undergo the usual FAA environmental review process which provides CAC an opportunity for input/comment. There are no DNL decreases in noise. The costs to implement and maintain procedures in the national airspace system are in the thousands of dollars. This would be an additional procedure at Boston Logan. Overall, this measure showed substantial DNL population increases in noise and lesser decreases, CAC voted to implement this for reasons stated [in the information provided in Appendix D]. This is inconsistent with the overall purpose and goals of the BLANS. Although FAA will not implement Measure F-HHv4 under the umbrella of the BLANS, FAA plans to establish an RNAV procedure for Runway 33 in the near future as part of FAA s NextGen program. This action will be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will undergo the usual FAA environmental review process which provides CAC an opportunity for input/comment. NOTES: 1/ With the exception of Measures G-I(v2) and G-J(v2), the information provided in this column reflects FAA s responses regarding those measures recommended by the CAC. Information presented in quotations is quoted directly from the jointly signed letter from the FAA and Massport as cited below, except as required for reference as noted in brackets. SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., October 2012, based on jointly signed letter from the FAA and Massport to Sandra Kunz, President, Logan Airport Community Advisory Committee, dated, August 3, PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [3-2]

23 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 As noted in Table 3-2, the FAA and Massport elected to implement the two measures related to ground operations recommended by the CAC (Measures G-I(v2) and G-J(v2)). Some movement toward implementation has been initiated by Massport, pending FAA approvals and funding. The FAA did not agree to implement any of the measures related to aircraft arrivals and departures that were recommended by the CAC, as none met the stated goals and objectives of the BLANS and, as noted in the August 3, 2012, letter from the FAA and Massport to Ms. Sandra Kunz, did not meet the FAA s statutory obligations regarding the approval and implementation of noise abatement measures. In its recommendations to FAA and Massport following the April 3, 2012 meeting, the CAC also requested that six supplemental programmatic measures that had been verbally agreed to by either FAA or Massport be memorialized as part of the BLANS. Those measures are described in the materials presented in Appendix D and included, with the responsible party in parentheses: Establishing an on-going airport/community noise advisory group that would meet on a regular basis (Massport) Encouraging airlines to use single-engine taxiing and limit the use of reverse thrust when safe to do so and consistent with airline operational procedures (Massport) Assessing the feasibility of developing a hold pad at or near the midpoint of the airfield for short term staging of aircraft (Massport) Establishing and maintaining regular communications with helicopter operators to increase usage of established helicopter routings within and through the downtown area when safe to do so (FAA) Establishing and maintaining regular communications with helicopter and propeller aircraft operators to maintain altitudes of 2,000 feet over the downtown area when safe to do so (FAA) In response, a letter from Massport to the CAC Co-Chairs dated December 13, 2011, was included as an attachment to the August 3, 2012, letter. The December 13, 2011 letter provided Massport s commitment to facilitate and attend meetings with a community noise advisory committee, as well as its commitments regarding the ground measures, as requested by the CAC. This letter is included in Appendix E. The noise abatement committee will continue to monitor the implementation of the measures from Phase 1 of the BLANS and review reports to determine the performance of aircraft in following the implemented procedures. The committee will monitor the implementation of the two ground measures identified in Phase 2 and consider additional noise abatement measures for the Airport. Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [3-3]

24 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER Next Steps The FAA and Massport met with the BLANS Project Management Team on October 9, 2012, to discuss FAA s and Massport s findings on the CAC recommendations and next steps to conclude the BLANS project. Several steps remain following completion of the Level 3 screening report. The FAA and Massport will prepare a Phase 2 closeout letter that will summarize the process and results, and a scope of work for the next phases of work will be completed and initiated. It had originally been intended to conduct Phase 3 of the BLANS to complete any required NEPA processing to implement overflight measures that would result from the Phase 2 review and analysis. With no overflight measures to be implemented, it was agreed during the October 9 meeting that follow-on work tasks would be covered in a final scope of work referred to as Post Phase 2 to be jointly developed by the FAA, Massport, and CAC. The primary technical work will address runway use. Five runway use measures were identified in Phase 1. During Phase 1, it had been agreed to wait until the arrival and departure procedure measures were evaluated and agreed upon through Phase 1 and Phase 2 before evaluating the runway use measures. During Phase 2, the CAC voted to abandon the Preferential Runway Advisory System (PRAS), as documented in a letter from Ms. Sandra Kunz on behalf of the CAC dated June 4, A copy of that letter is provided in Appendix F. In the letter, CAC noted that the PRAS had failed to provide the noise abatement that it had intended and that CAC intends to take the opportunity to assess other measures including, but not limited to runway use to reduce noise. With the PRAS abandoned, the runway use measures identified in Phase 1 need to be evaluated for their ability to meet the goals and objectives of the BLANS. The runway use measures, as initially identified in Phase 1 and as directly stated in the 2009 Phase 2 Reassessed Scope of Services include: Runway 27 Departures: establish balanced use of Runways 27 and 33L for departures. The intent of this measure is to minimize noise to close-in communities. (Measure 19) Runway 4L Departures and 22R Arrivals: remove noise emission restriction to achieve more utilization of this runway. The intent of this measure is to develop a more equitable distribution of noise impacts. (Measure 20) Runways 4R/L and 22R: develop runway use procedure to more reasonably distribute operations between these runways in meteorological conditions with small tailwind components. The intent of this measure is to provide more equitable distribution of noise impacts from Runways 4R/L and 22R. (Measure 22) Runway 27 Arrivals and Runway 15 Departures: arrive on Runway 29 and depart on Runway 15 during late night hours. The intent of this measure is to minimize noise impacts on South Shore/Hull. (Measure 23) Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [4-1]

25 BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 Runway 15R Departures: implement a preferential runway use procedure during operational (FAA) nighttime hours (midnight to 6 a.m.) that places all departures on Runway 15R, unless tailwinds exceed 11 knots or departure exceed 60 per hour. The intent of this measure is to reduce aircraft noise exposure during nighttime hours for communities in the departure area of Runway 27. (Measure 24) The next steps will be to identify the specifics of the various runway use measures, develop the protocol and assumptions for assessing the runway use measures, and model the measures in a manner similar to the Level 3 screening analysis process. A meeting with elected officials to brief them on the progress and outcome of the BLANS had also been included in the 2009 Phase 2 Reassessed Scope of Services. The meeting has not yet occurred and will be scheduled as part of the Post Phase 2 scope of work. Massport has also agreed to continue to work with a noise advisory committee that will monitor implementation of the various measures approved in Phase 1, the two ground operations measures to be implemented from Phase 2, and ongoing noise concerns in the communities affected by Airport operations. This is described in more detail in the August 3, 2012 letter. In addition, the supplemental programmatic measures described in Section 3 will be addressed and monitored by the noise advisory committee. Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Level 3 Screening Analysis Report [4-2]

26 Appendix A IC Review of Noise Evaluations for Level 3 Alternatives

27 To: MEMBERS OF THE BOSTON LOGAN COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE From: Jon Woodward, Independent Consultant Project Manager Cc: Terri English, Gail Lattrell, Flavio Leo, Steve Smith, Stan Matthews Date: October 5, 2011 Re: Independent Consultant Review of Noise Evaluations for Level 3 Alternatives In accordance with its responsibilities to the Boston Logan Community Advisory Committee (CAC), the Independent Consultant for the Boston Logan Airport Noise Study (BLANS) provides herein its review of the noise modeling results for those alternatives passed to Level 3 for further assessment. One ground and seven flight alternatives were carried forward to Level 3 analysis for noise level computation using the Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 7.0B. These alternatives are indicated on Table 1 below. Table 1 Measures Advanced to Level 3 Noise Modeling Measure Description F-G Relocate Visual/RNAV Approach to Runway 32/33L North of Hull (Nighttime) F-GGv2 Raise Crossing Altitude at DRUNK to 8000 MSL on Approach to Runways 22R/L and 27 F-H Visual Approach to Runway 32 Approximately 4000 feet West of Runway 33L Approach As Shown by EIS F-Kv2 Extend Jet Departures from Runway 27 Farther to the South Along WYLLY RNAV route F-R Shift Phase 1 RNAV Departure Course from Runway 4R Away From Revere and to Mid-Point of Channel Between Revere and Nahant F-Vv2 Establish Additional Prop and Turboprop Departure Track at 260 Degrees from Runway 22R/L F-HHv3 RNAV to Relocate and Extend Initial Departure Path from Runway 33L G-Iv2 Relocate Ground Run-ups To Near South End of Runway 14/32 memo Landrum & Brown 9900 W. 109 th Street, Suite 130 Overland Park, KS fax Page 1 of 8

28 NOISE MODELING PROCESS The noise modeling effort called for the Project Consultant (PC) (Ricondo & Associates, with its contractor Wyle Labs) to prepare INM input files to model projected 2015 Baseline noise levels, outputting both area-wide contours and single point results for 131 selected locations throughout the area (see Exhibit 1). Each alternative measure was modeled independently to project the effect on 2015 baseline noise levels of the implementation of that measure. During both input and output phases, the data prepared by the PC was subjected to intensive IC peer review to assure compliance with the adopted noise modeling protocol and with current best practices for the effort. After several iterative analyses and consultations between the two consulting teams, agreement was reached on the best approach to dealing with the projection of future noise levels for both baseline and alternative cases. The Project Consultant will report on the results of the noise contour and grid point analysis, using established FAA criteria for determining the significance of the changes occasioned by the several alternatives. This Independent Consultant report presents the results of the grid point analyses using criteria of importance selected by the CAC membership for noise mitigation in developing their Goals and Objectives during Level 1 evaluations. These noise mitigation objectives are: 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). a. An increase of more than 1 ½ DNL on people within the 55 DNL contour 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. a. Further, an increase of 3 DNL or more within 50 Ldn contour will be considered to be of substantial concern to the CAC; b. An increase of 5 DNL or more within 45 Ldn contour 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), and to nighttime exposure of more than 55 decibels of Ldn. 5. 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), and to nighttime exposure of more than 55 decibels of Leq. (n) memo Landrum & Brown 9900 W. 109 th Street, Suite 130 Overland Park, KS fax Page 2 of 8

29 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. The numbers of persons falling within different noise contour levels or subject to degrees of change within various contours were assessed by the PC and are reported in its Level 3 Screening Report and incorporated here. This report focuses on the changes occasioned by each alternative relative to the 2015 baseline noise levels for each grid point. Changes in DNL, Nighttime LEQ, Numbers of Events above 60 dba Lmax, and duration in minutes above 60 dba (TA) are reported here in a series of results tables. NOISE MODELING OUTPUT Table 2 (Baseline to Flight Alternative DNL Changes), presents the changes in average annual day DNL occasioned by each flight alternative from the projected 2015 baseline level at each of the 131 separate grid point locations selected throughout the area. Those locations projected to be exposed, for 2015 baseline conditions, to DNL noise levels above 45 dba are highlighted for each range of interest expressed by the CAC criteria (45-50 DNL, DNL, DNL, and in excess of 60 DNL). At each location, the change resulting from the projected implementation of each separate alternative is reported. Supplemental noise assessments were conduct to provide the CAC with a more indepth analysis of the effects of each of the alternatives than can be given by considering the DNL alone. The evaluation of Equivalent Noise Level (Leq (n) ) for nighttime operations allows consideration of potential awakenings. Shifts in the number of events having maximum noise levels exceeding 60 dba allow consideration of the change in the events that are likely to noticeably disturb speech or television viewing. Change in the duration of exposure to noise above 60 dba allows consideration of the intrusiveness and constancy of noise. None of these supplemental metrics have been adopted by the FAA as meaningful in determining the environmental significance of noise occasioned by any proposed alternative at any airport in the United States. Table 3 presents the changes from 2015 baseline levels as measured by nighttime Equivalent Noise Levels (Leq (n) ). Although the actual noise levels for Leq (n) are generally about eight decibels less than the DNL level, the degree of change occasioned by each of the alternatives is comparable to that associated with the DNL shift. memo Landrum & Brown 9900 W. 109 th Street, Suite 130 Overland Park, KS fax Page 3 of 8

30 Table 4 presents information about the change in numbers of events and the change in duration of exposure, in both cases to noise levels in excess of 60 dba. The 2015 baseline levels and alternative levels are indicated, as well as the amount of change in both units and percentage for all grid points where any change of one or more is present. Further, to remain consistent with the evaluations conducted under Phase 1 of the project, the locations where the number of events or the number of minutes exceeding the CAC s criteria change by more than ten units (events or minutes) have been stressed in the table. Table 5 presents population information computed by the PC for the baseline and each alternative, as well as the application of CAC criteria 1 through 5 to each alternative. ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENTS Alternative F-G (Move Visual/RNAV Approach to Runways 32/33L North) This alternative would be used during low traffic periods when little traffic is present and when landings are made on Runways 32 or 33L. Consequently, the contour pattern associated with the measure is little changed from the 2015 baseline condition. Alternative F-G does not generate changes in either number of events or duration in minutes above 60 decibels at any grid point in the study area. The measure results in a minor reduction of the population exposed to noise of 55 DNL (-72 persons) and of 55 Leq (n) (-24 persons). Alternatives F-GGv2 (Raise Crossing Altitude at Drunk to 8,000 Feet) This measure would affect all approaches to Runways 22L and 27 by aircraft arriving from the south. It has been implemented independently of this project as part of the Boston STARS project and is included here for consistency through the study process. Consequently, it appears as an element of the baseline condition and results here in no change from baseline modeled conditions for either contours, number of events or time above 60 dba. Correspondingly, the population levels of the alternative are unchanged from baseline conditions. Alternative F-H (Nighttime Visual Approach to Runway 32) This alternative is a nighttime measure that would move visual approaches westward along a course that parallels the 33L approach, but lies west of the Hull Peninsula. There is no substantive change in the DNL or Leq (n) at any grid point. Alternative F-H results in a reduction of one event per day (from 176) above 60 dba in Hull, but no change in duration. No other grid points are so affected. There is no change in population that breaches the CAC s noise mitigation criteria. memo Landrum & Brown 9900 W. 109 th Street, Suite 130 Overland Park, KS fax Page 4 of 8

31 Alternative F-Kv2 (Runway 27 Departure Route Extension) Alternative F- Kv2 results in shifts of noise from several areas to others. Communities located south of the WYLLY intersection will receive slightly increased DNL levels as aircraft extend their departure paths southward before turning to the outbound fixes leading east, south, west (and north). In total, 19 grid points are exposed increases of up to 1.6 DNL, while 22 points experience reductions of up to 2.4 DNL, although none of the changes are within the criteria of concern established by the CAC. All but four of the shifts in DNL level occur at locations exposed to 50 decibels of Ldn or less. Alternative F-Kv2 drives changes in both the number of events or exposure times above 60 dba at 23 locations south, southwest and west of the airport. While the percentage change may be substantial at some locations, the number of events or change in minutes is small. No location is exposed to a shift of more than 6 events per average day, nor to more than 2 minutes of exposure. The alternative will result in minor changes in the population exposed to noise levels above 55 DNL. There would be 13 persons newly exposed to noise of that level, while there would be a total of 59 fewer persons within the 55 DNL contour. Alternative F-R (Runway 4R Departure Route Shift) Flight alternative F-R also results in changes to projected DNL levels only in a narrow corridor along the RNAV departure route from Runway 4R between Revere and Nahant. DNL noise levels decrease by up to 1 decibel in Revere and East Boston and increase by up to 0.7 decibel in Nahant and Winthrop. While present, the degree of change is not considered to be perceptible to the average human ear, nor does it fall within the degrees of change at any DNL level considered by the CAC noise mitigation objectives to be of concern. At nine grid points, this alternative would result in changes of small numbers of events away from Revere and East Boston slightly to the east over Winthrop and Nahant, in nearly all cases representing an insignificant percentage of the total events or time of exposure at each site. In no case is the shift greater than 6 events or 3 minutes per day. The measure would result in a decrease of 620 persons exposed to 60 DNL or more and 945 fewer persons exposed to noise above 55 DNL. Conversely, there are 216 persons who would experience increases in noise level bringing them within the 55 DNL contour: if recommended for implementation, this would be a classic case of the application of CAC criteria Number 3. The number of persons exposed to 55 Leq (n) is reduced by 12. memo Landrum & Brown 9900 W. 109 th Street, Suite 130 Overland Park, KS fax Page 5 of 8

32 Alternative F-Vv2 (Runway 22R/L Propeller/Turboprop Departure) Alternative F-Vv2 adds a flight path along a 260 degree heading to be used by propeller and turboprop aircraft departing Runways 22R/L. Because these aircraft do not generate the noise levels equivalent to those of jet aircraft at the same distance, the changes to the overall DNL levels occasioned by the alternative do not vary significantly from the baseline condition. DNL noise levels would increase at nine grid points by as much as 0.4 decibels, while decreasing at four points by less than 0.2 decibels. At no point is the change within the level of concern established by the CAC noise mitigation criteria. Implementation of Alternative F-Vv2 would result in a change of noise at 23 grid points southwest of the airport as small airplanes are routed to higher altitudes before turning north or west when departing Runways 22R/L. Generally, close-in locations in the downtown area would benefit from a reduction of the number of events exceeding 60 dba, while locations southwest of downtown would experience increases in the number of events. While the percentage of change may be large, the change in numbers of events remains less than ten at all points except Massport permanent measurement site 1, located in the South End where the measure would increase the number of events exceeding 60 dba from 32 to 43 on the average annual day. At no location does the measure add or subtract more than 4 minutes per day to the time of exposure above 60 dba. The measure would result in the inclusion of 538 persons more persons within the 55 DNL contour, while no one would be removed from within its extents by the measure. Alternative F-HHv3 (Runway 33L RNAV Departure Route) Alternative F-HHv3 calls for the establishment of a RNAV departure course along a new flight track from Runway 33L, extending west of Wellington Station and relocated along the Mystic River to the northwest of the airport. Courses to enroute fixes beyond the initial departure waypoint are relocated to new flight tracks from existing use. The proposed alternative would shift noise to the north along the flight path and to the west from baseline conditions. In all, DNL levels would decrease at 68 grid points, while increasing at 24 grid points. The changes in noise level do not trigger significance under FAA evaluation criteria (an increase of 1.5 DNL or more within 65 DNL) the CAC noise mitigation criteria are surpassed as several points. Noise levels will increase by more than the CAC criteria of concern at two locations: by 3.2 decibels from 52.5 DNL baseline at Massport permanent measurement site 21 and by 4.3 decibels from 50.4 DNL at grid point G32 (Everett High School). Conversely, noise levels will decrease by more than the CAC criteria levels at five grid points: site G01 at Mt. St. Joseph Academy in Allston by 5.3 decibels from 45.5 DNL, site memo Landrum & Brown 9900 W. 109 th Street, Suite 130 Overland Park, KS fax Page 6 of 8

33 G13 at Fayerweather St. School in Cambridge by 6.0 decibels from 47.9 DNL, site G14 at Harvard University in Cambridge by 5.2 decibels from 48.4 DNL, site G51 at Columbus Elementary School in Medford by 3.2 decibels from 52.3 DNL, and at site G83 at Watertown High School in Watertown by 7.0 decibels from 46.2 DNL. As is true of the DNL analysis, Alternative F-HHv3 would result in changes of both number of events and durations in minutes above 60 dba at numerous grid points located north, northwest, west and south of the airport. At 13 sites the number of events would increase, while decreasing at 44 grid points. Similarly the duration above 60 dba would increase at 10 locations and decrease at 27 sites. More importantly are the changes of more than ten units that occur with alternative F-HHv3. At sites in Arlington, Everett (two locations), Lexington, Malden, Winchester and Medford the number of events above 60 dba would increase by between 14 and 34 per day in each case accounting for large percentage increases as well. At sites in Allston, Cambridge (two locations), Charleston, Medford (two locations), Somerville, and Watertown the number of events would decrease by between 13 and 30 per day. Durations would decrease by more than ten minutes daily at sites in Charleston and Medford, while increasing by more than ten minutes daily at two sites in Everett and another in Medford. This alternative has extensive effects on the population exposed to various noise levels and to the degree of change within those DNL levels. Because the measure shifts a major departure route over the heavily populated area northwest of the airport, there are changes that meet or exceed all CAC criteria. Within the 60 DNL contour, 900 persons would be added, and 14,156 would be added to the total within 55 DNL. This is the only alternative where the FAA s criteria of adding people to the 65 DNL contour is exceeded with 145 more persons included within that contour. Because the area of exposure is shifted northward and westward, there are 15,459 persons who would be newly exposed within the 55 DNL contour. Furthermore, the numbers of persons exposed to increases of concern to the CAC are 24,767 exposed to increases of 1.5 DNL or more within the 55 contour, 55,172 exposed to increases of 3 DNL within the 50 contour, and 29,008 exposed to increases of 5 DNL or more within the 45 contour. Interestingly, the number of persons exposed to 55 Leq (n) is reduced by 1,862. Alternative G-Iv2 The relocation of the ground run-up location to the south end of Runway 32 would not result in any change of the overall DNL levels in areas beyond the immediate on-airport vicinity of the run-up pad. Changes in ground noise DNL levels would be less than 0.2 dba at one grid point in South Boston, two points in Winthrop, and one grid point in Quincy. Ground noise energy (excluding aircraft on the runway) memo Landrum & Brown 9900 W. 109 th Street, Suite 130 Overland Park, KS fax Page 7 of 8

34 accounts for about 1/10 th of the overall noise energy at grid points adjacent to the airport and decreases to virtually zero at locations more distant. Ground noise alternative G-Iv2 would result in changes of one event above 60 dba per average day at a number of sites near the airport, and similarly of one minute above 60 dba. These small shifts are from Winthrop and East Boston and toward the south and west. The relocation of the run-ups would have no effects on the number of persons exposed to noise at any of the CAC s criteria levels. NEXT STEPS Provided as an attachment at the end of this document is the decision tree developed by the PC approximately a year ago to process through the information provided for each alternative to assist the CAC in coming to a conclusion as to whether to proceed or abandon a measure. While the IC does not propose to make these decisions for the membership, it is the IC s intent to use the decision tree to help work through each alternative during the CAC s meeting for consideration of the noise analysis results. At the CAC meeting scheduled for October 20, the Independent Consultant will step through the results of the alternative analyses, as prepared by the Project Consultant, to assist the membership to better understand the results. The IC believes the PC will furnish maps of each alternative prior to the meeting and it is important that the members examine these maps in conjunction with the results information presented here. If reasonable, this will be the decision point at which the membership will need to come to a recommendation as to which measures to include in the composite noise modeling analysis for Phase 2. Note that there are several measures (such as ground operating procedures) that cannot be modeled, but can still be included in the CAC s recommendations for measures to advance for environmental evaluation in Phase 3 and eventual implementation under this study. At the BOSTAC scheduled for October 21, the Project Consultant will present the results of the noise modeling process and the results in greater detail, and lead the discussions between the CAC, FAA and Massport regarding the continuation or rejection of measures into the final elements of the Phase 2 study. The project is scheduled to run out of funding on December 31 of this year. memo Landrum & Brown 9900 W. 109 th Street, Suite 130 Overland Park, KS fax Page 8 of 8

35 P29 P28 P27 P26 P25 P24 P23 P22 P21 P20 P19 P18 P17 G99 G98 G97 G94 G93 G92 G91 G90 G89 G88 G87 G86 G85 G84 G83 G82 G81 G80 G79 G76 G75 G74 G73 G72 G71 G70 G69 G68 G67 G66 G65 G64 G63 G62 G61 G60 G59 G57 G56 G55 G54 G53 G52 G51 G50 G48 G47 G46 G45 G44 G43 G42 G41 G40 G39 G38 G37 G36 G35 G34 G33 G32 G30 G28 G27 G26 G25 G24 G23 G22 G21 G20 G16 G15 G14 G13 G12 G11 G10 G09 G08 G07 G06 G03 G02 G01 G101 G P30 P27 P16 P15 P14 P13 P12 P11 P10 P09 P08 P07 P06 P05 P04 P03 P02 P01 G96 G95 G78 G77 G71 G58 G49 G33 G31 G29 G27 G19 G18 G17 G05 G04 Legend Grid Point Locations Interstate Highway Major Road Town Boundaries Miles Grid Point Locations Exhibit 1

36 Table 2 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY BASELINE TO FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE DNL CHANGES Location ID Community 2015 Total Noise Average Annual Day (24 Hours) Alternative F- Alternative Alternative F- GGv2 F-H G variation variation variation Deviation from Baseline Noise Level Alternative F-Kv2 variation Alternative F-R variation Alternative F-Vv2 variation Alternative F-HHv3 variation DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) G01 Allston/Brighton G02 Arlington G03 Auburndale G04 Back Bay G05 Beacon Hill/West End (T4) G06 Belmont G07 Beverly G08 Braintree (T1) G09 Brookline G10 Brookline G11 Burlington G12 Cambridge G13 Cambridge G14 Cambridge G15 Canton G16 Canton G17 Charleston G18 Chelsea G19 Chinatown/Leather District G20 Cohasset G21 Cohasset G22 Cohasset (T5) G23 Danvers G24 Dedham G25 Dorchester G26 Dorchester G27 Dorchester G28 Dover G29 Downtown/Central G30 Duxbury G31 East Boston G32 Everett G33 Fenway/Kenmore G34 Hingham Comparative DNL Page 1 of 5 October 3, 2011

37 Table 2 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY BASELINE TO FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE DNL CHANGES Location ID Community 2015 Total Noise Average Annual Day (24 Hours) Alternative F- Alternative Alternative F- GGv2 F-H G variation variation variation Deviation from Baseline Noise Level Alternative F-Kv2 variation Alternative F-R variation Alternative F-Vv2 variation Alternative F-HHv3 variation DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) G35 Hull G36 Hull (T2) G37 Hyde Park G38 Jamaica Plain G39 Lexington G40 Lynn G41 Lynnfield G42 Malden G43 Marblehead G44 Marshfield G45 Marshfield G46 Marshfield G47 Mattapan G48 Medfield G49 East Boston G50 Medford G51 Medford G52 Melrose (T6) G53 Milton G54 Mission Hill G55 Nahant G56 Needham G57 Newton G58 North End G59 Norwell G60 Norwood G61 Peabody G62 Pembroke G63 Quincy G64 Quincy G65 Quincy G66 Randolph G67 Reading G68 Revere Comparative DNL Page 2 of 5 October 3, 2011

38 Table 2 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY BASELINE TO FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE DNL CHANGES Location ID Community 2015 Total Noise Average Annual Day (24 Hours) Alternative F- Alternative Alternative F- GGv2 F-H G variation variation variation Deviation from Baseline Noise Level Alternative F-Kv2 variation Alternative F-R variation Alternative F-Vv2 variation Alternative F-HHv3 variation DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) G69 Revere G70 Roslindale G71 Roxbury G72 Salem G73 Saugus G74 Scituate G75 Scituate (T3) G76 Somerville G77 South Boston G78 South End/Bay Village G79 Stoneham G80 Stoughton G81 Wakefield G82 Waltham G83 Watertown G84 Wellesley G85 West Roxbury G86 West Roxbury G87 West Roxbury G88 Weston G89 Weston G90 Westwood G91 Westwood G92 Weymouth G93 Weymouth G94 Winchester G95 Winthrop G96 Winthrop G97 Woburn G98 Woburn G99 Plymouth G100 Plymouth G101 Plymouth P01 South End - Massport Site Comparative DNL Page 3 of 5 October 3, 2011

39 Table 2 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY BASELINE TO FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE DNL CHANGES Location ID Community 2015 Total Noise Average Annual Day (24 Hours) Alternative F- Alternative Alternative F- GGv2 F-H G variation variation variation Deviation from Baseline Noise Level Alternative F-Kv2 variation Alternative F-R variation Alternative F-Vv2 variation Alternative F-HHv3 variation DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) DNL (db) P02 South Boston - Massport Site P03 South Boston - Massport Site P04 Winthrop - Massport Site P05 Winthrop - Massport Site P06 Winthrop - Massport Site P07 Winthrop - Massport Site P08 Winthrop - Massport Site P09 East Boston - Massport Site P10 East Boston - Massport Site P11 East Boston - Massport Site P12 East Boston - Massport Site P13 East Boston - Massport Site P14 East Boston - Massport Site P15 Chelsea - Massport Site P16 Revere - Massport Site P17 Revere - Massport Site P18 Nahant - Massport Site P19 Swampscott - Massport Site P20 Lynn - Massport Site P21 Everett - Massport Site P22 Medford - Massport Site P23 Dorchester - Massport Site P24 Milton - Massport Site P25 Quincy - Massport Site P26 Hull - Massport Site P27 Roxbury - Massport Site P28 Jamaica Plain - Massport Site P29 Mattapan - Massport Site P30 East Boston - Massport Site DNL Increase exceeds CAC criteria DNL Increase does not exceed CAC criteria DNL Decrease exceeds CAC criteria 60 DNL or more Decrease does not exceed CAC criteria Comparative DNL Page 4 of 5 October 3, 2011

40 Table 3 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY BASELINE TO ALTERNATIVE NIGHTTIME NOISE COMPARISON Location ID Community 2015 Total Noise Night Hours Only (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) Alternative F- G variation Alternative F-GGv2 variation Deviation from Baseline Noise Level Alternative F-H variation Alternative F-Kv2 variation Nighttime Leq decreases with alternative Nighttime Leq increases with alternative Alternative F-R variation Alternative F-Vv2 variation Alternative F-HHv3 variation Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) G01 Allston/Brighton G02 Arlington G03 Auburndale G04 Back Bay G05 Beacon Hill/West End (T4) G06 Belmont G07 Beverly G08 Braintree (T1) G09 Brookline G10 Brookline G11 Burlington G12 Cambridge G13 Cambridge G14 Cambridge G15 Canton G16 Canton G17 Charleston G18 Chelsea G19 Chinatown/Leather District G20 Cohasset G21 Cohasset G22 Cohasset (T5) G23 Danvers G24 Dedham G25 Dorchester G26 Dorchester G27 Dorchester G28 Dover G29 Downtown/Central G30 Duxbury G31 East Boston G32 Everett G33 Fenway/Kenmore G34 Hingham Comparative Leq Page 1 of 4 October 3, 2011

41 Table 3 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY BASELINE TO ALTERNATIVE NIGHTTIME NOISE COMPARISON Location ID Community 2015 Total Noise Night Hours Only (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) Alternative F- G variation Alternative F-GGv2 variation Deviation from Baseline Noise Level Alternative F-H variation Alternative F-Kv2 variation Nighttime Leq decreases with alternative Nighttime Leq increases with alternative Alternative F-R variation Alternative F-Vv2 variation Alternative F-HHv3 variation Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) G35 Hull G36 Hull (T2) G37 Hyde Park G38 Jamaica Plain G39 Lexington G40 Lynn G41 Lynnfield G42 Malden G43 Marblehead G44 Marshfield G45 Marshfield G46 Marshfield G47 Mattapan G48 Medfield G49 East Boston G50 Medford G51 Medford G52 Melrose (T6) G53 Milton G54 Mission Hill G55 Nahant G56 Needham G57 Newton G58 North End G59 Norwell G60 Norwood G61 Peabody G62 Pembroke G63 Quincy G64 Quincy G65 Quincy G66 Randolph G67 Reading G68 Revere Comparative Leq Page 2 of 4 October 3, 2011

42 Table 3 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY BASELINE TO ALTERNATIVE NIGHTTIME NOISE COMPARISON Location ID Community 2015 Total Noise Night Hours Only (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) Alternative F- G variation Alternative F-GGv2 variation Deviation from Baseline Noise Level Alternative F-H variation Alternative F-Kv2 variation Nighttime Leq decreases with alternative Nighttime Leq increases with alternative Alternative F-R variation Alternative F-Vv2 variation Alternative F-HHv3 variation Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) G69 Revere G70 Roslindale G71 Roxbury G72 Salem G73 Saugus G74 Scituate G75 Scituate (T3) G76 Somerville G77 South Boston G78 South End/Bay Village G79 Stoneham G80 Stoughton G81 Wakefield G82 Waltham G83 Watertown G84 Wellesley G85 West Roxbury G86 West Roxbury G87 West Roxbury G88 Weston G89 Weston G90 Westwood G91 Westwood G92 Weymouth G93 Weymouth G94 Winchester G95 Winthrop G96 Winthrop G97 Woburn G98 Woburn G99 Plymouth G100 Plymouth G101 Plymouth P01 South End - Massport Site Comparative Leq Page 3 of 4 October 3, 2011

43 Table 3 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY BASELINE TO ALTERNATIVE NIGHTTIME NOISE COMPARISON Location ID Community 2015 Total Noise Night Hours Only (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) Alternative F- G variation Alternative F-GGv2 variation Deviation from Baseline Noise Level Alternative F-H variation Alternative F-Kv2 variation Nighttime Leq decreases with alternative Nighttime Leq increases with alternative Alternative F-R variation Alternative F-Vv2 variation Alternative F-HHv3 variation Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) Leq(N) (db) P02 South Boston - Massport Site P03 South Boston - Massport Site P04 Winthrop - Massport Site P05 Winthrop - Massport Site P06 Winthrop - Massport Site P07 Winthrop - Massport Site P08 Winthrop - Massport Site P09 East Boston - Massport Site P10 East Boston - Massport Site P11 East Boston - Massport Site P12 East Boston - Massport Site P13 East Boston - Massport Site P14 East Boston - Massport Site P15 Chelsea - Massport Site P16 Revere - Massport Site P17 Revere - Massport Site P18 Nahant - Massport Site P19 Swampscott - Massport Site P20 Lynn - Massport Site P21 Everett - Massport Site P22 Medford - Massport Site P23 Dorchester - Massport Site P24 Milton - Massport Site P25 Quincy - Massport Site P26 Hull - Massport Site P27 Roxbury - Massport Site P28 Jamaica Plain - Massport Site P29 Mattapan - Massport Site P30 East Boston - Massport Site Comparative Leq Page 4 of 4 October 3, 2011

44 Table 4 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY Supplemental Metrics - Summary of Alternative Effects Location ID Community 2015 Total Events >60dBA Average Annual Day 2015 Total Minutes >60dba Flight Average Annual Day Alternative Total Events >60dBA Average Annual Day Alternative Total Minutes >60dba Flight Average Annual Day Alternative Change Events >60dBA Average Annual Day Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative Alternative Change Minutes >60dba Average Annual Day Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative NEA60 TA60 NEA60 TA60 NEA60 NEA60 TA60 TA60 Alt F G Relocate Visual/RNAV Approach to Runway 32/33L North of Hull (Nighttime) No effect within CAC Criteria Alt F GGv2 Raise Crossing Altitude at DRUNK to 8000 MSL on Approach to Runways 22R/L and 27 No effect within CAC Criteria Alt F H Visual Approach to Runway 32 Approximately 4000 feet West of Runway 33L Approach As Shown by EIS P26 Hull - Massport Site (1) 0% (0) 0% Alt F Kv2 Extend Jet Departures from Runway 27 Farther to the South Along WYLLY RNAV route G10 Brookline (2) 17% (0) -22% G25 Dorchester (1) 6% (0) -6% G26 Dorchester (2) 8% (1) -12% G27 Dorchester (1) 0% (0) 0% G28 Dover (1) 53% (0) -63% G29 Downtown/Central % (0) 0% G33 Fenway/Kenmore (1) 14% (0) -17% G38 Jamaica Plain % 0 3% G47 Mattapan (4) 31% (1) -37% G53 Milton (2) 23% (1) -22% G54 Mission Hill (2) 14% (1) -17% G56 Needham % 0 49% G70 Roslindale % 1 28% G71 Roxbury % 1 5% G84 Wellesley % 0 75% G85 West Roxbury % 0 15% G86 West Roxbury % 1 43% G87 West Roxbury % 0 25% G91 Westwood % 0 100% P24 Milton - Massport Site (1) 1% (0) -1% P27 Roxbury - Massport Site % 1 10% P28 Jamaica Plain - Massport Site % 2 29% P29 Mattapan - Massport Site (3) 15% (1) -25% BLANS Supplemental Metrics Summary Page 1 of 5 October 3, 2011

45 Table 4 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY Supplemental Metrics - Summary of Alternative Effects Location ID Community 2015 Total Events >60dBA Average Annual Day 2015 Total Minutes >60dba Flight Average Annual Day Alternative Total Events >60dBA Average Annual Day Alternative Total Minutes >60dba Flight Average Annual Day Alternative Change Events >60dBA Average Annual Day Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative Alternative Change Minutes >60dba Average Annual Day Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative NEA60 TA60 NEA60 TA60 NEA60 NEA60 TA60 TA60 Alt F R Shift Phase 1 RNAV Departure Course from Runway 4R Away From Revere and to Mid Point of Channel Between Revere and Nahant G69 Revere (6) 14% (3) -24% G95 Winthrop % 1 1% G96 Winthrop % 2 10% P06 Winthrop - Massport Site % 1 0% P10 East Boston - Massport Site % (1) -1% P11 East Boston - Massport Site (1) 1% (1) -2% P12 East Boston - Massport Site % (1) 0% P17 Revere - Massport Site (2) 2% (2) -5% P18 Nahant - Massport Site % 1 33% Alt F Vv2 Establish Additional Prop and Turboprop Departure Track at 260 Degrees from Runway 22R/L G04 Back Bay % 2 55% G05 Beacon Hill/West End (T4) (4) 16% (1) -22% G12 Cambridge % 1 32% G17 Charleston (3) 6% (1) -4% G19 Chinatown/Leather District % 2 17% G29 Downtown/Central (9) 17% (3) -25% G31 East Boston (0) 0% (1) -1% G33 Fenway/Kenmore % 1 64% G58 North End (9) 18% (3) -25% G71 Roxbury % 0 1% G76 Somerville (2) 7% (1) -7% G77 South Boston (0) 0% 1 2% G78 South End/Bay Village % 2 37% G98 Woburn (1) 10% (0) -6% P01 South End - Massport Site % 3 22% P02 South Boston - Massport Site % 4 17% P03 South Boston - Massport Site % 0 0% P14 East Boston - Massport Site (1) 0% (2) -1% P30 East Boston - Massport Site (0) 0% (2) -1% BLANS Supplemental Metrics Summary Page 2 of 5 October 3, 2011

46 Table 4 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY Supplemental Metrics - Summary of Alternative Effects Location ID Community 2015 Total Events >60dBA Average Annual Day 2015 Total Minutes >60dba Flight Average Annual Day Alternative Total Events >60dBA Average Annual Day Alternative Total Minutes >60dba Flight Average Annual Day Alternative Change Events >60dBA Average Annual Day Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative Alternative Change Minutes >60dba Average Annual Day Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative NEA60 TA60 NEA60 TA60 NEA60 NEA60 TA60 TA60 Alt HHv3 RNAV to Relocate and Extend Initial Departure Path from Runway 33L G01 Allston/Brighton (13) 89% (3) -93% G02 Arlington % 4 163% G03 Auburndale (6) 79% (1) -88% G04 Back Bay (1) 5% (0) -4% G05 Beacon Hill/West End (T4) (1) 6% (0) -5% G06 Belmont (2) 25% (0) -21% G09 Brookline (7) 82% (2) -87% G10 Brookline (4) 46% (1) -44% G12 Cambridge (3) 33% (1) -33% G13 Cambridge (29) 85% (8) -87% G14 Cambridge (20) 71% (6) -73% G17 Charleston (24) 39% (11) -53% G18 Chelsea % 1 2% G25 Dorchester (1) 4% (0) -2% G26 Dorchester (2) 6% (0) -4% G31 East Boston (0) 0% (4) -4% G32 Everett % % G33 Fenway/Kenmore (2) 28% (0) -40% G38 Jamaica Plain (3) 15% (1) -12% G39 Lexington % % G40 Lynn (1) 17% (0) -19% G42 Malden % 7 378% G49 East Boston (2) 1% (6) -9% G50 Medford (25) 47% (7) -50% G51 Medford (30) 45% (12) -57% G52 Melrose (T6) (2) 25% (1) -29% G54 Mission Hill (2) 16% (1) -17% G57 Newton (5) 73% (1) -74% G58 North End (9) 18% (3) -23% G68 Revere (1) 6% (1) -18% G69 Revere (1) 2% (0) -3% G71 Roxbury (1) 3% (0) -1% BLANS Supplemental Metrics Summary Page 3 of 5 October 3, 2011

47 Table 4 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY Supplemental Metrics - Summary of Alternative Effects Location ID Community 2015 Total Events >60dBA Average Annual Day 2015 Total Minutes >60dba Flight Average Annual Day Alternative Total Events >60dBA Average Annual Day Alternative Total Minutes >60dba Flight Average Annual Day Alternative Change Events >60dBA Average Annual Day Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative Alternative Change Minutes >60dba Average Annual Day Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative NEA60 TA60 NEA60 TA60 NEA60 NEA60 TA60 TA60 G73 Saugus (2) 25% (1) -30% G76 Somerville (23) 69% (8) -76% G79 Stoneham (2) 43% (1) -54% G81 Wakefield (1) 17% (0) -18% G82 Waltham (1) 13% (0) -10% G83 Watertown (18) 93% (5) -94% G85 West Roxbury (1) 11% (0) -8% G88 Weston (2) 43% (1) -51% G89 Weston % 1 582% G94 Winchester % 5 201% G97 Woburn % 0 35% G98 Woburn % 2 169% P06 Winthrop - Massport Site (6) 2% (0) 0% P07 Winthrop - Massport Site (3) 1% (1) 0% P09 East Boston - Massport Site (2) 0% (1) -1% P10 East Boston - Massport Site (1) 0% (0) 0% P11 East Boston - Massport Site (1) 1% 0 0% P12 East Boston - Massport Site % 1 0% P13 East Boston - Massport Site % (1) -1% P15 Chelsea - Massport Site % 3 6% P20 Lynn - Massport Site (1) 1% (0) -1% P21 Everett - Massport Site % 16 72% P22 Medford - Massport Site % 11 79% P23 Dorchester - Massport Site (1) 1% (0) 0% P27 Roxbury - Massport Site (2) 6% (0) -4% P28 Jamaica Plain - Massport Site (2) 8% (0) -4% P29 Mattapan - Massport Site (1) 7% (0) -2% P30 East Boston - Massport Site % (1) -1% BLANS Supplemental Metrics Summary Page 4 of 5 October 3, 2011

48 Table 4 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY Supplemental Metrics - Summary of Alternative Effects Location ID Community 2015 Total Events >60dBA Average Annual Day 2015 Total Minutes >60dba Flight Average Annual Day Alternative Total Events >60dBA Average Annual Day Alternative Total Minutes >60dba Flight Average Annual Day Alternative Change Events >60dBA Average Annual Day Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative Alternative Change Minutes >60dba Average Annual Day Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative NEA60 TA60 NEA60 TA60 NEA60 NEA60 TA60 TA60 Alt G Iv2 Relocate Ground Run ups To Near South End of Runway 14/32 Location ID Community 2015 Total Ground Time >50dba Average Annual Day 2015 Total Ground Time >60dba Average Annual Day Alt F-Iv2 Total Ground Time >50dba Average Annual Day Alt F-Iv2 Total Ground Time >60dba Average Annual Day Alt F-Iv2 Change Ground Time >50dba Average Annual Day by Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative Alt F-Iv2 Change Ground Time >60dba Average Annual Day by Percentage of Change Generated by Alternative Run-ups Run-ups TA50 TA60 TA50 TA60 TA50 TA50 TA60 TA60 G19 Chinatown/Leather District % 0 0% G27 Dorchester % 0 0% G29 Downtown/Central % 0 0% G58 North End % G77 South Boston % (0) -2% G95 Winthrop (0) 0% (1) -4% P02 South Boston - Massport Site % 0 0% P03 South Boston - Massport Site % 1 53% P04 Winthrop - Massport Site (1) -1% (1) -31% P05 Winthrop - Massport Site (1) -2% (0) -10% P06 Winthrop - Massport Site (0) 0% (1) -4% P07 Winthrop - Massport Site (0) 0% (1) -1% P08 Winthrop - Massport Site (1) -1% 0 0% P09 East Boston - Massport Site (1) 0% 0 0% P10 East Boston - Massport Site (1) 0% 0 0% P30 East Boston - Massport Site % (0) -1% BLANS Supplemental Metrics Summary Page 5 of 5 October 3, 2011

49 Table 5 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY Summary of Population Effects 2015 Alternative Metric Baseline F-G F-GG F-H F-Kv2 F-R F-Vv2 F-HHv3 G-Iv2 Total Population 1,084,523 1,083,735 1,083,735 1,084,418 1,087,806 1,083,271 1,093, ,988 N/A DNL 720, , , , , , , ,829 N/A DNL 264, , , , , , , ,023 N/A DNL 62,232 62,160 62,160 62,232 62,173 61,907 62,770 75,488 N/A DNL 34,405 34,405 34,405 34,405 34,405 34,042 34,405 35,160 N/A 65+ DNL 2,343 2,343 2,343 2,343 2,343 2,086 2,343 2,488 N/A CAC Population Change Criteria (1) Change 60+ DNL N/A (620) (4) Change 55+ DNL N/A (72) - - (59) (945) ,156 - (2) +1.5 within 55 DNL N/A ,767 - (3) +3 within 50 DNL N/A ,172 - (3) +5 within 45 DNL N/A ,008 - (3) Newly exposed 55+ DNL N/A ,459 - (5) Change 55+ Leq(n) N/A (24) (5) - (1,862) - FAA Population Change Criteria Change 65+ N/A (257) within 65 DNL N/A within 60 DNL N/A within 45 DNL N/A

50 Level 3 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). 1

51 Level 3 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. Any 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 2

52 Level 3 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 CAC Determination 3

53 Level 3 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. 4

54 Level 3 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 CAC Determination 5

55 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. 6

56 Appendix B Centroid Investigations and Findings

57 MEMORANDUM VIA Date: January 20, 2012 To: Terry English FAA From: Stephen Smith Subject: Boston Logan Airport Noise Study (BLANS): Measure Noise Analysis: Centroid Investigation and Findings FAA requested the Project Consultant (PC) to evaluate in more detail the Population Centroids ( Centroids ) that were questionable related to the expectations that would result from the operational changes of a specific measure. There were 11 Centroids identified. This memorandum provides a summary of the intent, methodology, results and recommendations. Based on our evaluation, PC recommends, 10 of the 11 should not be considered in the decision-making process. The following provides a summary of the process, results and conclusions. More detail is provided in Attachment A. I. Intent of Analysis and Centroids Assessed The intent of the analysis was to determine if the Centroids in question should be considered by the Logan Community Advisory Committee (CAC) when deciding which Measures are to be incorporated into their preferred alternative. Most of the selected Centroids indicate very small changes which by location, are not in the vicinity of where the operational changes occur. Table 1 depicts the Centroids evaluated; the population; the associated measure; the noise metric threshold of which indicated the change; and the difference between the Measure and Baseline. Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the 11 Centroids. II. Methodology PC plotted the Baseline and Measure noise exposure contours in order to estimate the distance the Measure contour line moved compared to the Baseline. Using the Level 3 Measure analysis Integrated Noise Model (INM) study files, PC used the detailed grid function for the selected Centroids to acquire detailed flight operations which contributed to the total DNL. These results were used to determine if the top 20 aircraft contributors changed. If the rankings did not change, perhaps the related noise level changed. The top 20 contributors helps better understand the cause for the total DNL change, and is used to support professional judgment related to its change association with a measure PALOMAR OAKS WAY, SUITE 350, CARLSBAD, CA TEL (760) FAX (760)

58 Terry English FAA January 20, 2012 Page 2 Table 1 Population Centroids Selected for Further Analysis Population Centroid ID Population Measure Noise Metric Threshold Difference C F G DNL 60 dba Less than 0.1 dba F HH(v3) DNL 60 dba Less than 0.1 dba F V(v2) DNL 60 dba Less than 0.1 dba C02 44 F G DNL 55 dba Less than 0.1 dba F K(v2) DNL 55 dba Less than 0.1 dba C03 24 F G LEQN 55 dba Less than 0.1 dba C04 19 F G DNL 65 dba Less than 0.1 dba F GG(v2) DNL 65 dba Less than 0.1 dba C05 28 F G DNL 55 dba Less than 0.1 dba F K(v2) DNL 55 dba Less than 0.1 dba F HH(v3) DNL 55 dba Less than 0.1 dba C06 13 F K(v2) DNL 55 dba (Newly Exposed) 0.2 dba C F HH(v3) DNL 55 dba (Newly Exposed) Less than 0.1 dba F V(v2) DNL 55 dba (Newly Exposed) Less than 0.1 dba C08 0 /1 F HH(v3) DNL 55 dba Less than 0.1 dba C09 0 /1 F HH(v3) DNL 55 dba Less than 0.1 dba C10 0 /1 F R DNL 55 dba Less than 0.1 dba C F R DNL 55 dba Less than 0.1 dba Notes: 1/ Population Centroids with zero population were not removed prior to this supplemental noise modeling analysis. As such, those centroids with zero population should not be considered. Source: Wyle Laboratories, January Prepared By: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., January 2012

59 Terry English FAA January 20, 2012 Page 3 Exhibit 1 Population Centroids Locations Source: Wyle Laboratories, January (primary sources depicted on lower right corner of map) Prepared By: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., January 2012 III. Findings Details of the results are provided in Attachment A. PC findings are summarized as follows: Range of total DNL differences between Baselinee and Measure is less than DNL 0.1 dba (e.g. DNL 0.09 dba change) for 10 Centroids, and DNL 0.2 dba for Centroid C06; Range of the contour gaps between Baseline andd Measure att the Centroids is between 1 ft. (Centroid C04) and 170 ft. (Centroid C06); and

60 Terry English FAA January 20, 2012 Page 4 Top 20 noise contributor rankings are identical between Baseline and Measure at 8 Centroids, and are different at 3 Centroids (C02 and C04 of F-G, C02 and C06 of F-Kv2). In summary, PC concluded that those Centroids with a change less than DNL 0.1 dba involved a slight change in the contour location (less than 100 ft.). In these cases, the Centroid was very close to the Baseline contour, and due to its location, moved to just the other side for the Measure contour. The difference in the operation-specific noise level contribution was minimal, and not enough to increase the noise level over DNL 0.1 dba. IV. Recommendations Based on PC s findings, we recommend Centroids with a change in cumulative DNL less than 0.1 dba be assumed as 0 dba change ( no change ) when considering the related measures. This leaves Centroid C06 for Measure F-K(v2) as the only Centroid included in this analysis that should be considered during the CAC decision-making process. Table 2 depicts PC s recommendation for each Centroid. The shaded row indicates the Centroid that should be considered during CAC s decisionmaking process. Table 1 Population Centroids Selected for Further Analysis Population Centroid ID Population Measure Recommendation C F G F HH(v3) Should NOT be Considered Should NOT be Considered F V(v2) Should NOT be Considered C02 44 F G Should NOT be Considered F K(v2) Should NOT be Considered C03 24 F G Should NOT be Considered C04 19 F G Should NOT be Considered C05 28 F G Should NOT be Considered F K(v2) Should NOT be Considered F HH(v3) Should NOT be Considered C06 13 F K(v2) SHOULD be Considered C F HH(v3) Should NOT be Considered F V(v2) Should NOT be Considered

61 Terry English FAA January 20, 2012 Page 5 Population Centroid ID Population Measure Recommendation C08 0 /1 F HH(v3) Should NOT be Considered C09 0 /1 F HH(v3) Should NOT be Considered C10 0 /1 F R Should NOT be Considered C F R Should NOT be Considered F GG(v2) Should NOT be Considered Notes: 1/ Population Centroids with zero population were not removed prior to this supplemental noise modeling analysis. As such, those centroids with zero population should not be considered. Source: Wyle Laboratories, January Prepared By: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., January 2012 cc: Sandra Kunz (CAC President) Jon Woodward (Independent Consultant) Flavio Leo (Massport) Wyle Laboratories, Inc. Read File

62 Appendix A

63 Level 3 Measure Noise Level Results: Detailed Analysis of Population Centroids of Interest Jan 19, 2012

64 Population Centroids of Interest 2

65 Summary of Analysis and Recommendation 11 Centroids of Interest Findings Range of overall DNL differences between Baseline and Measure is less than 0.1 db for 10 Centroids, and 0.2 db for Centroid C06 Range of the contour gaps between Baseline and Measure at the centroids is between 1 ft (Centroid C04) and 170 ft (Centroid C06) Top 20 noise contributor rankings are identical between Baseline and Measure at 8 Centroids, and are different at 3 Centroids (C02 and C04 of F-G, C02 and C06 of F-Kv2) Recommendation: Based on the findings above, Centroids with change in cumulative DNL less than 0.1 db should be assumed as 0 db change when considering those measures. This leaves centroid C06 for Measure F-Kv2 as the only centroid that should be considered during the decision-making process. 3

66 Findings and Recommendation for Each Centroid The following table presents a summary of the results of the analysis and PC s recommendations Centroid ID Population Measure Metric and Contour Total DNL Difference between Baseline and Measure at Centroid Approximate Distance between Baseline and Measure at Centroid Recommendation* C F G DNL 60 db Less than 0.1 db 2 ft Should NOT be Considered C F HH(v3) DNL 60 db Less than 0.1 db 2 ft Should NOT be Considered C F V(v2) DNL 60 db Less than 0.1 db 2 ft Should NOT be Considered C02 44 F G DNL 55 db Less than 0.1 db 6 ft Should NOT be Considered C02 44 F K(v2) DNL 55 db Less than 0.1 db 26 ft Should NOT be Considered C03 24 F G LEQN 55 db Less than 0.1 db 5 ft Should NOT be Considered C04 19 F G DNL 65 db Less than 0.1 db 1 ft Should NOT be Considered C04 19 F GG(v2) DNL 65 db Less than 0.1 db 1 ft Should NOT be Considered C05 28 F G DNL 55 db Less than 0.1 db 12 ft Should NOT be Considered C05 28 F K(v2) DNL 55 db Less than 0.1 db 49 ft Should NOT be Considered C05 28 F HH(v3) DNL 55 db Less than 0.1 db 84 ft Should NOT be Considered C06 13 F K(v2) DNL 55 db (Newly Exposed) 0.2 db 170 ft SHOULD be Considered C F HH(v3) DNL 55 db (Newly Exposed) Less than 0.1 db 14 ft Should NOT be Considered C F V(v2) DNL 55 db (Newly Exposed) Less than 0.1 db 29 ft Should NOT be Considered C08 0 F HH(v3) DNL 55 db Less than 0.1 db 28 ft Should NOT be Considered C09 0 F HH(v3) DNL 55 db Less than 0.1 db 20 ft Should NOT be Considered C10 0 F R DNL 55 db Less than 0.1 db 28 ft Should NOT be Considered C F R DNL 55 db Less than 0.1 db 39 ft Should NOT be Considered * A difference of greater than 0.1 db is the threshold for determining if a centroid should be considered during the decision-making process 4

67 Adjusted Population Impact Tables Presented at October 21, 2011 BOS/TAC Meeting 5

68 Measure F-G - Runway 32 Visual North of Hull (Late Night) - Noise CAC Criteria Baseline Measure Change 36,549 #1 DNL 60 or Higher 36,748 36, Substantial Increase (DNL 1.5 or Higher) #2 DNL 55 or Higher 0 Newly Exposed #3 DNL 55 or Higher 0 Substantial Increase (DNL 3.0 or Higher) DNL 50 to Substantial Increase (DNL 5.0 or Higher) DNL 45 to Initially affected by centroids C01 (DNL 60 db), C02 (DNL 55 db), C03 (LEQN 55 db), C04 (DNL 65 db), and C05 (DNL 55 db). Upon close examination, there is no difference between the properties impacted by Baseline and Measure F-G at these five centroid locations. Baseline Measure Change 98,908 #4 DNL 55 or Higher 98,980 98, Baseline Measure Change 12,215 #5 55 Leq(n) or Higher 12,239 12,

69 Measure F-G - Runway 32 Visual North of Hull (Late Night) - Noise FAA Criteria Baseline Measure Change 2,324 #1 DNL 65 or Higher 2,343 2, Significant Increase (DNL 1.5 or Higher) #2 DNL 65 or Higher 0 #3 Moderate Increase (DNL 3.0 or Higher) DNL 60 to #4 Moderate Increase (DNL 5.0 or Higher) DNL 45 to Initially affected by centroids C01 (DNL 60 db), C02 (DNL 55 db), C03 (LEQN 55 db), C04 (DNL 65 db), and C05 (DNL 55 db). Upon close examination, there is no difference between the properties impacted by Baseline and Measure F-G at these five centroid locations. 7

70 Measure F-K(v2) - Extend Runway 27 RNAV Gate 1 nmi Southwest of WYLYY waypoint - Noise CAC Criteria Baseline Measure Change #1 DNL 60 or Higher 36,748 36,748 0 Substantial Increase (DNL 1.5 or Higher) #2 DNL 55 or Higher 0 Newly Exposed #3 DNL 55 or Higher 13 Substantial Increase (DNL 3.0 or Higher) DNL 50 to Substantial Increase (DNL 5.0 or Higher) DNL 45 to Initially affected by centroids C02, C05 and C06 (all DNL 55 db). Centroid C06 remains a newly exposed centroid. Upon close examination, there is no difference between the properties impacted by Baseline and Measure F-K(v2) at centroids C02 and C05. Baseline Measure Change 98,921 #4 DNL 55 or Higher 98,980 98, Baseline Measure Change #5 55 Leq(n) or Higher 12,239 12,

71 Measure F-HH(v3) - Runway 33L jet departures north of Admiral s Hill thence northwest to 5 DME or 5K ft MSL before departure fix transition turn - Noise CAC Criteria Baseline Measure Change 37,648 #1 DNL 60 or Higher 36,748 37, ,099 Substantial Increase Substantial Decrease (DNL 1.5 or Higher) (DNL 1.5 or Higher) #2 DNL 55 or Higher 24,767 1,422 #3 DNL 55 or Higher Newly Exposed No Longer Exposed 15,459 1,303 15,345 1,275 Substantial Increase Substantial Decrease (DNL 3.0 or Higher) (DNL 3.0 or Higher) DNL 50 to , Substantial Increase (DNL 5.0 or Higher) Substantial Decrease (DNL 5.0 or Higher) DNL 45 to ,008 16,045 Initially affected by centroids C01 (DNL 60 db), C05 (DNL 55 db), C07 (DNL 55 db), C08 (DNL 55 db) and C09 (DNL 55 db). Upon close examination, there is no difference between the properties impacted by Baseline and Measure F-HH(v3) at these five centroid locations. Baseline Measure Change #4 DNL 55 or Higher 98, , ,050 14,156 14,070 Baseline Measure Change #5 55 Leq(n) or Higher 12,239 10,377-1,862 9

72 Measure F-V(v2) - Utilize 260 course heading from 22R in lieu of 290 for props/turboprops heading north, northwest or west until 2,000 ft MSL - Noise CAC Criteria Baseline Measure Change 36,549 #1 DNL 60 or Higher 36,748 36, Substantial Increase (DNL 1.5 or Higher) #2 DNL 55 or Higher 0 Newly Exposed #3 DNL 55 or Higher Substantial Increase (DNL 3.0 or Higher) DNL 50 to Substantial Increase (DNL 5.0 or Higher) DNL 45 to Initially affected by centroids C01 (DNL 60 db) and C07 (DNL 55 db). Upon close examination, there is no difference between the properties impacted by Baseline and Measure F-V(v2) at these two centroid locations. Baseline Measure Change 99,518 #4 DNL 55 or Higher 98,980 99, Baseline Measure Change #5 55 Leq(n) or Higher 12,239 12,

73 Measure F-R - Shift Runway 4R RNAV departure waypoint east - Noise CAC Criteria Baseline Measure Change #1 DNL 60 or Higher 36,748 36, Substantial Increase (DNL 1.5 or Higher) #2 DNL 55 or Higher 0 Initially affected by centroids C10 and C11 (both are DNL 55 db). Newly Exposed #3 DNL 55 or Higher Substantial Increase (DNL 3.0 or Higher) DNL 50 to Substantial Increase (DNL 5.0 or Higher) DNL 45 to Upon close examination, there is no difference between the properties impacted by Baseline and Measure F-R at these two centroid locations. Baseline Measure Change 98,035 #4 DNL 55 or Higher 98,980 98, Baseline Measure Change #5 55 Leq(n) or Higher 12,239 12,

74 Measure F-GG(v2) - BOS jet arrivals from south to Runway 22L or 27 cross DRUNK at or above 8, 000 ft MSL - Noise FAA Criteria Baseline Measure Change 2,324 #1 DNL 65 or Higher 2,343 2, Significant Increase (DNL 1.5 or Higher) #2 DNL 65 or Higher 0 Initially affected by Centroid C04 (DNL 65 db). #3 Moderate Increase (DNL 3.0 or Higher) DNL 60 to #4 Moderate Increase (DNL 5.0 or Higher) DNL 45 to Upon close examination, there is no difference between the properties impacted by Baseline and Measure F-GG(v2) at this centroid location. 12

75 Supplemental Material Analysis Steps Detailed results for each centroid of interest 13

76 Methodology and Results of Centroid Analysis Utilized the Integrated Noise Model (INM) to obtain detailed DNL results at 11 Population Centroid Locations of Interest for the Baseline noise study and the Measure studies F-G, F-K(v2), F-HH(v3), F-V(v2), F-R, and F- GG(v2) Presented in this Analysis for each measure includes: Measure descriptions and assumptions DNL comparison between Baseline and Measure at the Centroid of Interest: the criteria for dropping a centroid in the decision making process is primarily whether the total change between Baseline and Measure is less than 0.1 db. The distance between contours and Top 20 DNL contributors are supplemental information at each centroid to confirm the threshold applies. Zoomed in representation of where the centroid is located between the Baseline and Measure contour, including distances between the centroid and the contours: used to determine the geographic change in noise exposure Top 20 DNL aircraft noise contributors at the Centroid of Interest (unique operations that contributed the most to the DNL metric result): used to determine the effect operation assumptions had for each measure to identify the reasons for the change in DNL. 14

77 Top 20 Contributors to Noise: Terms and Codes Op Type: Operation Type. Can be A for Arrival or D for Departure Slant Distance: The line-of-sight distance (in feet) between two points not at the same elevation. This is the 3D distance between the aircraft and the Centroid as the aircraft is at its loudest in relation to the Centroid Elevation: The height above the ground (in feet) of the aircraft at the point where the aircraft is at its loudest in relation to the Centroid. Operation Mode: The mode that the aircraft is operating when it is at its loudest in relation to the Centroid. Can be In Flight Arrival, In Flight Departure, or Start of Takeoff Roll. Config.: The Runway Operating Configuration that the aircraft was utilizing. C1 stands for Configuration 1, C2 stands for Configuration 2, C3 stands for Configuration 3/4, C5 stands for Configuration 5, C6 stands for Configuration 6, C7 stands for Configuration 7, and CN stands for the Late Night Configuration. Weighted DNL: The total weighted DNL of the aircraft contributor. This DNL factors in the number of operations of the aircraft and the weighting of the Runway Operating Configuration. 15

78 Analysis Results for Each Measure 16

79 Detailed Analysis of Measure F-G: Runway 32 Visual North of Hull (Late Night) Measure F-G: Adds ops to new Runway 32 arrivals for Nighttime Configuration ONLY. All other arrival runways for Nighttime Configuration have a reduction in utilization. Results in a slight decrease of ops on all other runways. This results in a slightly smaller F-G contour than the baseline in all areas except for close to Runway 32. Measure F-G contains Centroids of Interest C01 through C05 17

80 Centroid C01 associated with Measure F-G 18

81 Population Centroid C01 Analysis (F-G) DNL 60 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (199 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F G DNL C01 Late Night (CN) 100% C01 Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db 19

82 Population Centroid C01 Analysis - zoomed in (F-G) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-G) and the centroid location: ~2 ft Centroid is located approximately 1 ft inside the Baseline DNL 60 contour and approx 1 ft outside of the Measure F-G DNL 60 contour C01 Airport ~1 ft ~1 ft 20

83 Population Centroid C01 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-G) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-G Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Slant Distance Aircraft Op Type Rwy Ranking (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* D 04R 2,524 1,316 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,429 1,328 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,614 1,303 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,585 1,434 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C DC1030 D 04R 2,637 1,524 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,490 1,440 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,676 1,427 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,635 1,522 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C DC1030 D 04R 2,661 1,565 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 2, Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,524 1,316 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 21

84 Centroid C02 associated with Measure F-G 22

85 Population Centroid C02 Analysis (F-G) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (44 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F G DNL C02 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db C02 23

86 Population Centroid C02 Analysis - zoomed in (F-G) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-G) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approx 2 ft inside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 4 ft outside of the Measure F-G DNL 55 contour Airport ~4 ft ~2 ft ~6 ft C02 24

87 Population Centroid C02 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-G) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-G Top 20 DNL Contributors Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Basesline Config Baseline Weighted DNL* Measure F G Config Measure F G Weighted DNL* D 27 2,231 1,576 Departure In Flight C C D 27 2,250 1,543 Departure In Flight C C D 27 1,828 1,564 Departure In Flight C C D 27 1,865 1,536 Departure In Flight C C D 27 2,283 1,811 Departure In Flight C C D 27 3,384 3,015 Departure In Flight C C D 27 1,602 1,527 Departure In Flight C C D 27 2,231 1,576 Departure In Flight C C D 27 2,787 2,323 Departure In Flight C C D 27 2,149 1,707 Departure In Flight C C D 27 2,799 2,417 Departure In Flight C C D 27 2,250 1,543 Departure In Flight C C D 27 2,772 2,345 Departure In Flight CN 29.8 F G_CN PA31 D 22R 1,646 1,585 Departure In Flight CN 29.6 F G_CN BEC58P D 22R 1,944 1,892 Departure In Flight CN 29.6 F G_CN D 27 2,584 2,327 Departure In Flight CN 29.5 F G_CN A D 27 1,709 1,297 Departure In Flight C C D 27 1,828 1,564 Departure In Flight C C D 27 2,435 2,308 Departure In Flight CN 28.7 F G_CN D 22R 7,736 1,676 Departure In Flight C C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting Contributors in yellow have a Weighted DNL that is different between the Baseline and Measure F G 25

88 Centroid C03 associated with Measure F-G 26

89 Population Centroid C03 Analysis (F-G) LEQN 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (24 persons) C03 Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline LEQN Measure F G LEQN C03 Late Night (CN) 100% Total LEQN at C Total change is less than 0.1 db 27

90 Population Centroid C03 Analysis - zoomed in (F-G) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-G) and the centroid location: ~3 ft ~5 ft Centroid is located approx 3 ft inside the Baseline LAEQN 55 contour and approx 2 ft outside of the Measure F-G LAEQN 55 contour C03 ~2 ft Airport 28

91 Population Centroid C03 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-G) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-G Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* D 22R 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 33L 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 33L 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 3,087 1,215 Departure In Flight C D 22R 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 3,153 1,371 Departure In Flight C D 33L 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 33L 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 33L 2,817 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 33L 3,113 1,198 Departure In Flight C D 33L 3,176 1,352 Departure In Flight C D 22R 3,052 1,231 Departure In Flight C D 33L 3,118 1,390 Departure In Flight C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 29

92 Centroid C04 associated with Measure F-G 30

93 Population Centroid C04 Analysis (F-G) DNL 65 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (19 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F G DNL C04 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C C04 Total change is less than 0.1 db 31

94 Population Centroid C04 Analysis - zoomed in (F-G) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-G) and the centroid location: Airport Centroid is located approx 0.5 ft inside the Baseline DNL 65 contour and approx 0.5 ft outside of the Measure F-G DNL 65 contour ~1 ft C04 32

95 Population Centroid C04 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-G) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-G Top 20 DNL Contributors Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Basesline Config Baseline Weighted DNL* Measure F G Config Measure F G Weighted DNL* D 09 2,309 1,482 Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,155 1,243 Departure In Flight C C D 09 1, Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,141 1,484 Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,144 1,215 Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,245 1,396 Departure In Flight C C D 09 1, Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,033 1,250 Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,203 1,316 Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,485 1,480 Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,309 1,482 Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,140 1,215 Departure In Flight CN 41.8 F G_CN D 09 2,144 1,215 Departure In Flight CN 41.5 F G_CN D 09 1, Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,199 1,309 Departure In Flight CN 40.6 F G_CN D 09 2,141 1,484 Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,007 1,223 Departure In Flight CN 40.5 F G_CN D 09 2,155 1,243 Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,144 1,215 Departure In Flight C C D 09 2,012 1,223 Departure In Flight CN 40.2 F G_CN 40.1 * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting Contributors in yellow have a Weighted DNL that is different between the Baseline and Measure F G 33

96 Centroid C05 associated with Measure F-G 34

97 Population Centroid C05 Analysis (F-G) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (28 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F G DNL C05 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db C05 35

98 Population Centroid C05 Analysis - zoomed in (F-G) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-G) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approx 4 ft inside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 8 ft outside of the Measure F-G DNL 55 contour ~12 ft ~8 ft Airport ~4 ft C05 36

99 Population Centroid C05 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-G) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-G Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* A 04R 1,953 1,935 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,029 1,932 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,230 1,932 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 1,953 1,935 Arrival In Flight CN A319131_7377 A 04R 1,978 1,934 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,092 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,092 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 2,585 1,931 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,937 1,934 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,585 1,931 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,078 1,934 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,015 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A320232_7377 A 04R 2,029 1,932 Arrival In Flight CN MD11GE A 04R 2,004 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,230 1,932 Arrival In Flight CN A 04R 1,942 1,935 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,004 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,199 2,048 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,942 1,935 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,072 1,933 Arrival In Flight C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 37

100 Detailed Analysis of Measure F-K(v2): Extend Runway 27 RNAV Gate 1 nmi Southwest of WYLYY waypoint Measure F-K(v2): Modifies Runway 27 Departure tracks for Configurations C5, C7, and the late-night configuration (CN) Most of the change occurs in the southwest region of the contours where expected. However, ANY change to flight tracks will result in very slight changes in the contours far away from where the track changes occur Measure F-K(v2) contains Centroids of Interest C02, C05, and C06 38

101 Centroid C06 associated with Measure F-K(v2) 39

102 Population Centroid C06 Analysis (F-Kv2) DNL 55 or Higher Population Newly Exposed (13 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F Kv2 DNL C06 C5 6.5% C06 C06 C7 16.7% C06 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is +0.2 db 40

103 Population Centroid C06 and C02 Analysis - zoomed in (F-Kv2) Zooming in on the 55 DNL contours (Baseline and Measure F- Kv2) and the centroid locations: Airport C06 C02 Baseline 55 DNL Contour Measure F-K(v2) 55 DNL Contour 41

104 Population Centroid C06 Analysis - zoomed in (F-Kv2) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-Kv2) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approx 40 ft outside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 130 ft inside of the Measure F-K(v2) DNL 55 contour Airport C06 ~170 ft ~40 ft ~130 ft 42

105 Population Centroid C06 Top 20 Contributors (Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-K(v2)) Contributor Slant Distance Weighted Measure F Kv2 Aircraft Op Type Rwy Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Ranking (ft) DNL* Ranking D 27 1,637 1,629 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,655 1,629 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,637 1,629 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 1,827 1,646 Departure In Flight C A D 27 1,320 1,295 Departure In Flight C A D 27 1,448 1,303 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,717 1,604 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,655 1,629 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 1,651 1,605 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,761 1,747 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,976 1,957 Departure In Flight C Not in Top A D 27 1,341 1,339 Departure In Flight C D 27 3,104 3,088 Departure In Flight C Not in Top A D 27 1,295 1,287 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,827 1,815 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,753 1,739 Departure In Flight C D 27 2,366 2,315 Departure In Flight C A D 27 1,426 1,402 Departure In Flight C A D 27 1,546 1,411 Departure In Flight C Not in Top A D 27 1,385 1,330 Departure In Flight C Contributor Slant Distance Weighted Baseline Aircraft Op Type Rwy Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Ranking (ft) DNL* Ranking D 27 1,637 1,629 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C A D 27 1,342 1,294 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 1,654 1,630 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 1,642 1,616 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C A D 27 1,290 1,289 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 1,702 1,641 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 1,624 1,617 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 1,738 1,642 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C Not in Top 20 9 A D 27 1,470 1,299 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 2,366 2,315 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C A D 27 1,335 1,331 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 1,761 1,747 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C A D 27 1,446 1,401 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 2,342 2,303 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C Not in Top D 27 2,410 2,326 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C Not in Top A D 27 1,398 1,396 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C Not in Top D 27 1,750 1,739 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C A D 27 1,348 1,335 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 1,827 1,815 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C A D 27 1,377 1,326 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C Not in Top 20 * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 2015 Baseline Top 20 DNL 2015 F- K(v2) Top 20 DNL 43

106 Centroid C02 associated with Measure F-K(v2) 44

107 Population Centroid C02 Analysis (F-Kv2) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (44 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F Kv2 DNL C02 C5 6.5% C02 C7 16.7% C02 Late Night (CN) 100% C02 Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db 45

108 Population Centroid C02 Analysis - zoomed in (F-Kv2) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-Kv2) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approx 2 ft inside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 24 ft outside of the Measure F-K(v2) DNL 55 contour Airport ~24 ft ~26 ft ~2 ft C02 46

109 Population Centroid C02 Top 20 Contributors (Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-K(v2)) Contributor Slant Distance Weighted Measure F Kv2 Aircraft Op Type Rwy Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Ranking (ft) DNL* Ranking D 27 2,231 1,576 Departure In Flight C D 27 2,250 1,543 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,828 1,564 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,865 1,536 Departure In Flight C D 27 2,283 1,811 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 3,384 3,015 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 1,602 1,527 Departure In Flight C D 27 2,231 1,576 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 2,788 2,323 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 2,149 1,707 Departure In Flight C D 27 2,799 2,418 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 2,250 1,543 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 2,773 2,345 Departure In Flight CN A D 27 2,023 1,494 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 2,400 1,712 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 3,057 2,680 Departure In Flight C Not in Top D 27 2,784 2,188 Departure In Flight C PA31 D 22R 1,646 1,585 Departure In Flight CN BEC58P D 22R 1,944 1,892 Departure In Flight CN D 27 2,584 2,327 Departure In Flight CN Contributor Slant Distance Weighted Baseline Aircraft Op Type Rwy Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Ranking (ft) DNL* Ranking D 27 2,005 1,566 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 2,231 1,576 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C Not in Top D 27 2,047 1,540 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 2,250 1,543 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C Not in Top D 27 2,784 2,188 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 1,811 1,556 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 2,662 2,184 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 2,587 2,326 Departure In Flight F Kv2_CN 29.9 Not in Top D 27 2,773 2,345 Departure In Flight F Kv2_CN 29.9 Not in Top D 27 2,808 2,359 Departure In Flight F Kv2_CN 29.8 Not in Top D 27 2,633 2,346 Departure In Flight F Kv2_CN D 27 2,158 1,705 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C PA31 D 22R 1,646 1,585 Departure In Flight F Kv2_CN 29.6 Not in Top BEC58P D 22R 1,944 1,892 Departure In Flight F Kv2_CN 29.6 Not in Top D 27 1,866 1,536 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 2,482 1,585 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C A D 27 1,683 1,288 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 2,400 1,712 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C D 27 2,914 2,192 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C Not in Top D 27 2,215 1,776 Departure In Flight F Kv2_C Not in Top 20 * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 2015 Baseline Top 20 DNL 2015 F- K(v2) Top 20 DNL 47

110 Centroid C05 associated with Measure F-K(v2) 48

111 Population Centroid C05 Analysis (F-Kv2) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (28 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F Kv2 DNL C05 C5 6.5% C05 C7 16.7% C05 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C C05 Total change is less than 0.1 db 49

112 Population Centroid C05 Analysis - zoomed in (F-Kv2) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-Kv2) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approx 4 ft inside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 45 ft outside of the Measure F-K(v2) DNL 55 contour Airport ~49 ft ~45 ft ~4 ft C05 50

113 Population Centroid C05 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-K(v2)) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-K(v2) Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* A 04R 1,953 1,935 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,029 1,932 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,230 1,932 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,953 1,935 Arrival In Flight CN A 04R 1,978 1,934 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 2,092 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,092 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 2,585 1,931 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,937 1,934 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,585 1,931 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,078 1,934 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,015 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,029 1,932 Arrival In Flight CN A319131_7377 A 04R 2,004 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,230 1,932 Arrival In Flight CN A319131_7377 A 04R 1,942 1,935 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,004 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,199 2,048 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,942 1,935 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 2,072 1,933 Arrival In Flight C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 51

114 Detailed Analysis of Measure F-HH(v3): Runway 33L jet departures north of Admiral s Hill thence northwest to 5 DME or 5K ft MSL before departure fix transition turn Measure F-HH(v3): Creates new Runway 33L departure tracks for Configurations C5, C7, and the latenight configuration (CN) Most of the change occurs northwest of the airport However, ANY change to flight tracks will result in very slight changes in the contours far away from where the track changes occur Measure F-HH(v3) contains Centroids of Interest C01, C05, C07, C08, and C09 52

115 Centroid C01 associated with Measure F-HH(v3) 53

116 Population Centroid C01 Analysis (F-HHv3) DNL 60 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (199 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F HHv3 DNL C01 C5 6.5% C01 C01 C7 16.7% C01 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db 54

117 Population Centroid C01 Analysis - zoomed in (F-HHv3) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-HHv3) and the centroid location: ~2 ft Centroid is located approximately 1 ft inside the Baseline DNL 60 contour and approx 1 ft outside of the Measure F-HHv3 DNL 60 contour C01 ~1 ft ~1 ft Airport 55

118 Population Centroid C01 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-HH(v3)) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-HH(v3) Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* D 04R 2,524 1,316 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,429 1,328 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,614 1,303 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,585 1,434 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C DC1030 D 04R 2,637 1,524 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,490 1,440 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,676 1,427 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,635 1,522 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C DC1030 D 04R 2,661 1,565 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 2, Departure In Flight C MD11GE D 04R 2,530 1,328 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,524 1,316 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 2,402 1,036 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 2,544 1,531 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 56

119 Centroid C05 associated with Measure F-HH(v3) 57

120 Population Centroid C05 Analysis (F-HHv3) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (28 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F HHv3 DNL C05 C5 6.5% C05 C7 16.7% C05 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db C05 58

121 Population Centroid C05 Analysis - zoomed in (F-HHv3) Zooming in on the 2 contours (Baseline and Measure F-HHv3) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approx 4 ft inside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 80 ft outside of the Measure F- HHv3) DNL 55 contour ~84 ft ~80 ft ~4 ft C05 Airport 59

122 Population Centroid C05 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-HH(v3)) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-HH(v3) Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* A 04R 1,953 1,935 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,029 1,932 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,230 1,932 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,953 1,935 Arrival In Flight CN A 04R 1,978 1,934 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 2,092 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,092 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 2,585 1,931 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,937 1,934 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,585 1,931 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,078 1,934 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,015 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,029 1,932 Arrival In Flight CN A319131_7377 A 04R 2,004 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,230 1,932 Arrival In Flight CN A319131_7377 A 04R 1,942 1,935 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,004 1,933 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,199 2,048 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,942 1,935 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 2,072 1,933 Arrival In Flight C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 60

123 Centroid C07 associated with Measure F-HH(v3) 61

124 Population Centroid C07 Analysis (F-HHv3) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (114 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F HHv3 DNL C07 C5 6.5% C07 G09 C07 C7 16.7% C07 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db 62

125 Population Centroid C07 Analysis - zoomed in (F-HHv3) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-HHv3) and the centroid location: ~5 ft Centroid is located approximately 9 ft outside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 5 ft inside of the Measure F-HHv3 DNL 55 contour ~9 ft C07 ~14 ft Airport 63

126 Population Centroid C07 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-HH(v3)) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-HH(v3) Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* D 04R 3,386 1,492 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,421 1,572 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,101 1,501 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,140 1,580 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,694 2,064 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,588 1,878 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,461 1,657 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 3,221 1,073 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 3,251 1,160 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,333 1,907 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,451 2,096 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,669 1,483 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,183 1,665 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 2,974 1,080 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,702 1,562 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,286 1,214 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 3,007 1,168 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,457 1,621 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,941 2,030 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,843 1,845 Departure In Flight C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 64

127 Centroid C08 associated with Measure F-HH(v3) 65

128 Population Centroid C08 Analysis (F-HHv3) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (0 persons 1/ ) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F HHv3 DNL C08 C5 6.5% G09 C08 C7 16.7% C08 C08 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db 1/ Population Centroids with 0 population were not removed prior to this supplemental noise modeling analysis. As such, those centroids with zero population should not be considered. 66

129 Population Centroid C08 Analysis - zoomed in (F-HHv3) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-HHv3) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approximately 10 ft outside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 18 ft inside of the Measure F-HHv3 DNL 55 contour Airport ~10 ft ~18 ft ~28 ft C08 67

130 Population Centroid C08 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-HH(v3)) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-HH(v3) Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* D 27 1,769 1,624 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,842 1,622 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,609 1,604 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,626 1,602 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,769 1,624 Departure In Flight C D 27 2,046 1,936 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,842 1,622 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,918 1,741 Departure In Flight C A D 27 1,546 1,290 Departure In Flight C D 27 3,167 3,077 Departure In Flight C D 27 2,147 1,636 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,781 1,734 Departure In Flight C A D 27 1,481 1,333 Departure In Flight C A D 27 1,369 1,283 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,979 1,808 Departure In Flight C A D 27 1,343 1,324 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,625 1,581 Departure In Flight C D 27 2,488 2,303 Departure In Flight C A D 27 1,789 1,299 Departure In Flight C D 27 1,847 1,802 Departure In Flight C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 68

131 Centroid C09 associated with Measure F-HH(v3) 69

132 Population Centroid C09 Analysis (F-HHv3) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (0 persons 1/ ) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F HHv3 DNL C09 C5 6.5% G09 C09 C7 16.7% C09 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C C09 Total change is less than 0.1 db 1/ Population Centroids with 0 population were not removed prior to this supplemental noise modeling analysis. As such, those centroids with zero population should not be considered. 70

133 Population Centroid C09 Analysis - zoomed in (F-HHv3) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-HHv3) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approximately 15 ft inside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 5 ft outside of the Measure F-HHv3 DNL 55 contour ~15 ft ~20 ft ~5 ft Airport C09 71

134 Population Centroid C09 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-HH(v3)) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-HH(v3) Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* 1 A319131_7377 A 04R 1,899 1,268 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,899 1,268 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 1,488 1,271 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,932 1,260 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,488 1,271 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04L 1,357 1,309 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 2,414 1,265 Arrival In Flight C A 04L 1,357 1,309 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,414 1,266 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 2,701 1,263 Arrival In Flight C A320232_7377 A 04R 1,899 1,268 Arrival In Flight C _7377 A 04R 1,899 1,268 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 3,168 1,258 Arrival In Flight C A 04R 1,949 1,341 Arrival In Flight C A320232_7377 A 04R 1,488 1,271 Arrival In Flight C _7377 A 04R 1,488 1,271 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04L 1,872 1,304 Arrival In Flight C A319131_7377 A 04R 2,977 1,264 Arrival In Flight C A320232_7377 A 04L 1,357 1,309 Arrival In Flight C _7377 A 04L 1,357 1,309 Arrival In Flight C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 72

135 Detailed Analysis of Measure F-V(v2): Utilize 260 course heading from 22R in lieu of 290 for props/turboprops heading north, northwest or west until 2,000 ft MSL Measure F-V(v2): All Baseline propeller tracks heading west or north were modified for Configurations C3, C6, and the late-night configuration (CN) Most of the change occurs directly west of the airport However, ANY change to flight tracks will result in very slight changes in the contours far away from where the track changes occur Measure F-V(v2) contains Centroids of Interest C01 and C07 73

136 Centroid C01 associated with Measure F-V(v2) 74

137 Population Centroid C01 Analysis (F-Vv2) DNL 60 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (199 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F Vv2 DNL C01 C3 8% C01 C01 C6 29% C01 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db 75

138 Population Centroid C01 Analysis - zoomed in (F-Vv2) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-Vv2) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approximately 1 ft inside the Baseline DNL 60 contour and approx 1 ft outside of the Measure F-Vv2 DNL 60 contour Airport C01 ~1 ft ~1 ft ~2 ft 76

139 Population Centroid C01 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-V(v2))) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-V(v2) Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* D 04R 2,524 1,316 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,429 1,328 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,614 1,303 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,585 1,434 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C DC1030 D 04R 2,637 1,524 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,490 1,440 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,676 1,427 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,635 1,522 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C DC1030 D 04R 2,661 1,565 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 2, Departure In Flight C MD11GE D 04R 2,530 1,328 Departure In Flight C D 04R 2,524 1,316 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 2,402 1,036 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 2,544 1,531 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,297 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 77

140 Centroid C07 associated with Measure F-V(v2) 78

141 Population Centroid C07 Analysis (F-Vv2) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (114 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F Vv2 DNL C07 C3 8% C07 C07 C6 29% C07 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db 79

142 Population Centroid C07 Analysis - zoomed in (F-Vv2) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-Vv2) and the centroid location: ~20 ft ~9 ft Centroid is located approximately 9 ft outside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 20 ft inside of the Measure F-Vv2 DNL 55 contour C07 ~29 ft Airport 80

143 Population Centroid C07 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-V(v2)) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-V(v2) Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* D 04R 3,386 1,492 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,421 1,572 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,101 1,501 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,140 1,580 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,694 2,064 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,588 1,878 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,461 1,657 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 3,221 1,073 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 3,251 1,160 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,333 1,907 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,451 2,096 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,669 1,483 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,183 1,665 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 2,974 1,080 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,702 1,562 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,286 1,214 Departure In Flight C A D 04R 3,007 1,168 Departure In Flight C D 04R 3,457 1,621 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,941 2,030 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 04R 3,843 1,845 Departure In Flight C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 81

144 Detailed Analysis of Measure F-R: Shift Runway 4R RNAV departure waypoint to the east Measure F-R: All RNAV departure tracks from Runway 04R were modified for Configurations C1, C2, and the latenight configuration (CN) Most of the change occurs directly northeast of the airport However, ANY change to flight tracks will result in very slight changes in the contours far away from where the track changes occur Measure F-R contains Centroids of Interest C10 and C11 82

145 Centroid C10 associated with Measure F-R 83

146 Population Centroid C10 Analysis (F-R) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (0 persons 1/ ) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F RDNL C10 C10 C1 29.4% C10 C2 10.4% C10 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db 1/ Population Centroids with 0 population were not removed prior to this supplemental noise modeling analysis. As such, those centroids with zero population should not be considered. 84

147 Population Centroid C10 Analysis - zoomed in (F-R) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-R) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approximately 12 ft inside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 16 ft outside of the Measure F-R DNL 55 contour C10 ~12 ft ~16 ft ~28 ft Airport 85

148 Population Centroid C10 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-R) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-R Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* 1 BEC58P D 33L 1,878 1,691 Departure In Flight C D 33L 4,476 1,190 Departure In Flight C D 33L 4,236 1,643 Departure In Flight C D 22R 7,813 0 Start of Takeoff Roll C D 33L 4,592 1,493 Departure In Flight C D 33L 4,283 1,203 Departure In Flight C D 33L 4,619 1,572 Departure In Flight C D 33L 4,666 1,175 Departure In Flight C D 33L 4,670 1,636 Departure In Flight C D 33L 4,453 1,639 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 33L 4,819 2,053 Departure In Flight C D 33L 4,478 1,765 Departure In Flight C MU3001 D 33L 1,848 1,803 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 33L 4,738 1,866 Departure In Flight C D 33L 4,490 1,586 Departure In Flight CN D 33L 3,806 1,653 Departure In Flight C BEC58P D 33L 2,263 1,692 Departure In Flight C D 33L 4,489 1,609 Departure In Flight CN D 33L 4,318 1,623 Departure In Flight CN MU3001 D 33L 1,975 1,800 Departure In Flight C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 86

149 Centroid C11 associated with Measure F-R 87

150 Population Centroid C11 Analysis (F-R) DNL 55 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (152 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F RDNL C11 C1 29.4% C11 C2 10.4% C11 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C C11 Total change is less than 0.1 db 88

151 Population Centroid C11 Analysis - zoomed in (F-R) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-R) and the centroid location: ~26 ft Airport Centroid is located approximately 26 ft outside the Baseline DNL 55 contour and approx 13 ft inside of the Measure F-R DNL 55 contour ~13 ft ~39 ft C11 89

152 Population Centroid C11 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-R) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-R Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* D 22R 4,155 1,731 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,859 1,686 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,075 1,559 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,805 1,525 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,107 1,641 Departure In Flight C D 22R 4,832 1,606 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 22R 4,462 2,354 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 22R 4,352 2,150 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 22R 5,088 2,223 Departure In Flight C DC1030 D 22R 5,000 2,027 Departure In Flight C A D 22R 3,929 1,128 Departure In Flight C D 22R 5,489 2,192 Departure In Flight C D 22R 6,252 1,949 Departure In Flight C A D 22R 4,687 1,099 Departure In Flight C DC870 D 22R 4,224 2,237 Departure In Flight C D 22R 6,123 1,540 Departure In Flight C D 22R 5,175 1,207 Departure In Flight C D 22R 5,287 1,623 Departure In Flight C D 22R 3,487 1,821 Departure In Flight C D 22R 6,034 1,145 Departure In Flight C * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 90

153 Detailed Analysis of Measure F-GG(v2): BOS jet arrivals from south to Runway 22L or 27 cross DRUNK waypoint at or above 8,000 ft MSL Measure F-GG(v2): Profiles were modified of aicraft on conventional tracks passing DRUNK going to Runways 22L or 27 this included Configurations C3, C6, C7, and the late-night configuration (CN) Most of the change occurs in the vicinity of the DRUNK waypoint However, ANY change to aircraft profiles will result in very slight changes in the contours far away from where the profile changes occur Measure F-GGv2 contains Centroid of Interest C04 91

154 Centroid C04 associated with Measure F-GG(v2) 92

155 Population Centroid C04 Analysis (F-GGv2) DNL 65 or Higher No Change in Noise Exposure on Centroid Population (19 persons) Centroid ID Runway Operating Configuration Annual Use Baseline DNL Measure F GGv2 DNL C04 C3 8% C04 C6 29% C04 C04 C7 16.7% C04 Late Night (CN) 100% Total DNL at C Total change is less than 0.1 db 93

156 Population Centroid C04 Analysis - zoomed in (F-GGv2) Zooming in on the two contours (Baseline and Measure F-GGv2) and the centroid location: Centroid is located approx 0.5 ft inside the Baseline DNL 65 contour and approx 0.5 ft outside of the Measure F-GGv2 DNL 65 contour Airport ~1 ft C04 94

157 Population Centroid C04 Top 20 Contributors (No Change in Rankings between Baseline and F-GG(v2)) 2015 Baseline and Measure F-GGv2 Top 20 DNL Contributors (no difference in Top 20 contributors) Contributor Ranking Aircraft Op Type Rwy Slant Distance (ft) Altitude (ft) Operation Mode Config Weighted DNL* D 09 2,309 1,482 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,155 1,243 Departure In Flight C D 09 1, Departure In Flight C D 09 2,141 1,484 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,144 1,215 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,245 1,396 Departure In Flight C D 09 1, Departure In Flight C D 09 2,033 1,250 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,203 1,316 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,485 1,480 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,012 1,223 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,273 1,428 Departure In Flight C A D 09 2,186 1,291 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,071 1,086 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,126 1,400 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,278 1,235 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,073 1,323 Departure In Flight C D 09 2, Departure In Flight C D 09 2,277 1,207 Departure In Flight C D 09 2,140 1,215 Departure In Flight CN 41.8 * Weighted DNL takes into account the number of operations of the event and the configuration weighting 95

158 Appendix C Measures Considered in Final Level 3 Analysis

159 Ground Concepts

160 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: G-I(v2) (Recommended by Massport as enhancement of CAC Measure G-I) Measure Description: Move run-up operations to less noise sensitive area of airport. Modified By: Massport (October 28, 2010) Intent: The intent of this measure was to move run-up operations from the north end to the south end of the airfield thereby reducing the noise associated with aircraft run-ups and taking advantage of the Shipping Channel and Conley Terminal/Industrial park as a buffer for communities to the south of the airport. Source: Google Earth Pro 2010; MassGIS, 2010; TerraMetrics 2010; Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [2]

161 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: Measure Description: G-J(v2) Modified By: FAA (October 28, 2010) Preferred holding area, when operationally feasible, for departures assigned to Runways 22L/R and Runway 27 that are delayed due to traffic management initiatives. Intent: When operationally feasible, reduce the number of delayed aircraft holding on Runway 15R due to traffic management initiatives as they wait to be cleared to the departure queue for Runways 22L/R and keep aircraft moving along Taxiway M. Source: Google Earth Pro 2010; TerraMetrics 2010; FAA BOS ATCT, 2010 (Taxi Routes); Massport 2010 (Holding Pads); Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [3]

162 Flight Procedure Concepts: Approach

163 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: F-G Measure Description: Establish an over water visual or RNAV arrival to Runways 33L/32 over harbor mouth during night hours to increase distance north from Point Allerton. Proposed By: CAC (March 12, 2008) Intent: Increase the distance between an aircraft (noise source) and receiver (resident located on Point Allerton), thereby reducing noise levels during more sensitive hours. Source: Landrum & Brown, Inc., February Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [5]

164 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: Measure Description: F-H When Runway 32 is used for arrivals in conjunction with Runway 27 arrivals, (if an over harbor approach is not used per Concept F-F or F-G) leave Runway 32 arrivals where they are indicated by the Runway 14/32 EIS (approximately 4,000 ft west of the Runway 33L approach course) when used in conjunction with Runway 33L arrivals. Proposed By: CAC (March 12, 2008) Intent: The intent of this measure is to maintain an offset approach to Runway 32 west of Hull at all times, instead of a straight in approach to Runway 32). CAC provided FAA further clarification related to the intent of this measure: in conjunction with Runway 33L arrivals, leave Runway 32 arrivals where they are indicated in the BOS Airside EIS (or maintained as defined for the current Runway 32 RNAV approach). Source: Landrum & Brown, Inc., February Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [6]

165 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: Measure Description: F-GG(v2) Modified By: FAA (May 20, 2010) Intent: Maintains the DRUNK intersection for arrivals from the PVD fix to Runways 22R/L and 27, but establishes a minimum crossing altitude of 8,000 ft MSL instead of 6,000 ft. This applies to conventional based procedures only. The intent is to raise the altitude of arrivals to Runway 22L and Runway 27 over land while the aircraft are descending to the proposed fix. Source: Google Earth Pro 2010; TerraMetrics 2010; FAA, Systems Operation Group, November 2009 (Video Map); Ricondo & Associates, Inc. April, Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [7]

166 Flight Procedure Concept: Departure

167 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: F-K(v2) Measure Description: Extend Runway 27 jet departure tracks farther south along the same course of the existing track to the maximum extent practicable to avoid significant compromises to FAA organizational goals and stated mission. Modified By: FAA (May 20, 2010) Intent: The intent of the design is to get all jet departures assigned to the RNAV departure procedure to initiate the turn to assigned transition at about one (1) nautical mile southwest of WYLYY. Source: MassGIS, USGS, 2008 (Ortho Imagery); FAA, System Operations Group, FAA Offload Archive Flight Track Data, 9/7/09, 9/18/09, 9/24/09, 10/8/09 (Flight Track Data and Video Map): FAA System Operations, Performance Based NavigationRNAV/RNP Group, September 2010 (Procedures, Flyability Models); Ricondo and Associates, Inc (Corridors) Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [9]

168 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: F-M (Runway 14 Departures Stay North of Hull and Raise Altitude Over Shoreline) Measure Number: 4 Measure Description: Proposed By: CAC (March 12, 2008) Intent: Phase 1 Carry Over Measure 4 - Runway 14 Departures: develop departure procedures to increase altitudes of aircraft over land by establishing course guidance to route traffic north of Hull, when used in conjunction with Runway 27 arrivals. Increase distance between an aircraft (noise source) and residents (receiver) on the ground by staying north of Hull and increase altitude when crossing back over the shoreline. By increasing distance, noise levels detected on the ground could be reduced. Source: Landrum & Brown, Inc., February Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [10]

169 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: F-R Measure Description: Shift Runway 4R Phase 1 Alternative 1 RNAV initial fix to east to move the course away from Revere Beach, while avoiding noise increases to Nahant. Proposed By: CAC (March 12, 2008) Intent: The intent is to increase the distance between an aircraft (noise source) and receiver (resident located along Revere), thereby reducing noise levels. Measure F-R is intended to assure that any modification of the course of the Phase 1 RNAV departure course from Runway 4R does not result in increased noise impacts in the Nahant area. It is understood that the final definition of the RNAV course may already accomplish the desired objective for the Runway 4R departure course. Source: Landrum & Brown, Inc., February Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [11]

170 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: F-R(v2) Measure Description: Shift Runway 4R Phase 1 Alternative 1 RNAV initial fix to east to move the course away from Revere Beach, while avoiding noise increases to Nahant. Modified By: CAC/FAA (as requested by CAC October 21, 2011) Intent: The intent is to increase the distance between an aircraft (noise source) and receiver (resident located along Revere), thereby reducing noise levels. Measure F-R is intended to assure that any modification of the course of the Phase 1 RNAV departure course from Runway 4R does not result in increased noise impacts in the Nahant area. It is understood that the final definition of the RNAV course may already accomplish the desired objective for the Runway 4R departure course. F-R, as originally modeled, was presented to the CAC at its meeting on October 21, 2011, and resulted in an overall decrease in noise. However, the measure also resulted in newly exposed populations in Winthrop and individuals at the meetings expressed concerns about shifting flights to the east, moving them closer to Nahant. F-R(v2) was developed with CAC consensus in response to those concerns. Source: Good Earth Pro 2010 USGS 2011 (Aerial Imagery); FAA, System Operations, Performance Based Navigation RNAV/RNP, December 2011 (Procedures). Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [12]

171 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: Measure Description: F-HH(v3) Modified By: CAC/FAA (January 26, 2011) Establish an RNAV standard instrument departure procedure from Runway 33L that turns to the northwest at a location that avoids Admirals Hill then follows compatible land use as traffic proceeds northwest from Admiral s Hill, and follows compatible land use to the maximum extent practical up to the BOS VOR 5 DME or at 5,000 ft. Intent: This measure consolidates Measures F-P and F-FF to describe a proposed departure procedure for jet aircraft using Runway 33L. Reduce frequency of overflight noise events over noise-sensitive areas, including Admiral s Hill by increasing overflights over less sensitive areas (e.g., industrial, commercial). Source: MassGIS, USGS, 2008 (Ortho Imagery); FAA, System Operations Group, FAA Offload Archive Flight Track Data, 9/7/09, 9/18/09, 9/24/09, 10/8/09 (Flight Track Data and Video Map): FAA System Operations, Performance Based Navigation RNAV/RNP Group, September 2010 (Procedures, Flyability Models); Ricondo and Associates, Inc (Corridors) Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [13]

172 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: F-HH(v4) Measure Description: Establish an RNAV standard instrument departure procedure from Runway 33L that turns to the northwest at a location that avoids Admirals Hill then follows compatible land use as traffic proceeds northwest from Admiral s Hill, and follows compatible land use to the maximum extent practical up to the BOS VOR 5 DME or at 5,000 ft. Modified By: CAC/FAA (as requested by CAC October 21, 2011) Intent: This measure consolidates Measures F-P and F-FF to describe a proposed departure procedure for jet aircraft using Runway 33L. Reduce frequency of overflight noise events over noise-sensitive areas, including Admiral s Hill by increasing overflights over less sensitive areas (e.g., industrial, commercial). F-HH(v3), as originally modeled, was presented to the CAC at its meeting on October 21, 2011, and resulted in increases in noise that were of concern. The IC submitted a modified design that shifted the RNAV flight track to the southwest over more compatible land use areas. FAA reviewed the design and after modifications needed to meet FAA design criteria, the revised measure was modeled as F-HH(v4). Source: Google Earth Pro 2010, USGS, Terrametrics 2011 (Aerial Imagery); FAA, System Operations Group, FAA, Systems Operations, Performance Based NavigationRNAV/RNP Group, Februarly 2011 (HHv3 Procedures, Flyability Models), December 2011 (HH[v4] Procedures). Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [14]

173 Flight Procedure Concepts: Local Traffic

174 BOSTON LOGAN AIRPORT NOISE STUDY JUNE 2012 Measure ID: Measure Description: F-V(v2) Modified By: FAA (May 20, 2010) Intent: Proposes an initial Runway 22L/R departure track heading of 260 degrees for turboprop and propeller aircraft heading northwest or west to 2,000 ft or 4.5 DME (whichever occurs first), before initiating turns over populated areas. To reduce the frequency of low altitude propeller departures and associated noise levels (below 2,000 ft Mean Sea Level) over populated areas. Sources: Google Earth Pro, 2011;TerraMetrics 2010; Federal Aviation Administration, System Operations Group, November 2009 (FAA Offload Archive Flight Track Data, Rwy 22: 10/01/09, 10/03/09, 10/07/09 and Video Map); US Census Bureau, 2000 (Census Blocks); Wyle Laboratories, 2007 (Noise Contours); Ricondo & Associates, 2011 (Route, Corridors, Safety Buffers). Level 2 FAA, Massport and CAC Determinations [16]

175 Appendix D Results of CAC Vote on Level 3 Measures

176 At its April 3, 2012 meeting, the Logan Community Advisory Committee (CAC) reviewed each measure passed by the FAA and/or Massport to Level 3 Screening in terms of the CAC s adopted goal and objectives for noise abatement. Votes were taken on the measures individually and as groups. The results of these actions are indicated in the following paragraphs. 1. Approach Measures: Approach procedure measures F-G, F-GGv2, and F-H were found to meet the goals and objectives for noise abatement. They are endorsed and the CAC recommends to the FAA and Massport that they be implemented. Reasoning: Each measure would result in better defined approach course, and maintains consistency with the findings and implemented measures from the Phase 1 part of the study. 2. Runway 27 Departure Measure: RNAV departure measure F-Kv2 was found to be consistent with the overall goal of reducing noise on Boston communities. The CAC endorses the measure and recommends that it be implemented by the FAA and Massport. Reasoning: The measure was found to have mixed benefits and disbenefits to the underlying communities, but within the 55 DNL contour these are inconsequential. Upon full reflection, the measure is believed by the committee to result in fewer impacts on communities at low noise levels. 3. Runway 14 Conventional Departure Measure: Departure measure F-M was found to be in accordance with the defining objectives as adopted by the CAC. It does not negatively impact any of the established CAC goals and objectives for noise abatement and consequentially is endorsed and recommended for implementation. Reasoning: The measure is believed to maintain consistency with implemented departure measures for Runway 15R from Phase 1 and is endorsed. 4. Runway 4R Departure Measures: The CAC supports continuation of the existing RNAV departure from Runway 4R and rejects both measure F-R and F-Rv2 because neither resulted in positive improvements under the CAC s goals and objectives for noise abatement. CAC voted to drop further consideration of both measures. Reasoning: Measures F-R and F-Rv2 were considered jointly with the No- Action RNAV procedure resulting from implementation of Phase 1 actions. The committee believed the increase of impacted population in Winthrop within the 60 DNL and the shifts of population in Winthrop and Nahant at lesser noise levels warranted rejection of Measure F-R. The committee CAC Level 3 Decisions 4/11/2012 Boston Logan Aircraft Noise Study Page 1 of 3

177 considered Measure F-Rv2 to be so like the RNAV procedure that it was not considered worthwhile to recommend approval. 5. Runway 22R/L Departure Measure: The CAC voted to reject Measure F-Vv2 owing to its potential to increase the population within the 55 DNL contour and its increase of single event impacts over the west side of the downtown area. Reasoning: The measure increased population within an area sensitive under the CAC goals and objectives, and also routed small piston and turboprop aircraft over areas that are currently over-flown by jets departing Runway Runway 33L Departure Measures: The CAC voted to reject measure F-HHv3 and to endorse measure F-HHv4 for departure from Runway 33L. While both measures adversely change the numbers of persons impacted by the measure, the long-term overall impacts of each are less than those of the No-Action alternative. Reasoning: Understanding that the FAA is under direction to establish an RNAV jet departure procedure from Runway 33L, the CAC considered the comparative impacts of Measures HHv3 and HHv4 against the baseline condition. The baseline was clearly found to be less preferable than either alternative, based on the greater total number of persons exposed to noise above 45 DNL. Assuming the FAA will implement an RNAV that is similar to the two proposed alternatives if the CAC does not recommend approval of one of them, the committee rejected HHv3 as having greater impacts than HHv4 and recommends implementation of the latter. 7. Ground Run-Up Measure: The CAC voted to endorse and recommend implementation of Measure G-Iv2 to relocate ground run-ups to the south end of Runway when that runway is not in use for flight operations. Reasoning: Relocation will have inconsequential negative or beneficial effects under the CAC s goals and objectives, but the measure is the only measure that has survived that addresses the very real perceived issues of ground noise at the airport. Consequently, the CAC unanimously recommended that this action be taken. 8. Supplemental Programmatic Measures: Through the course of the Boston Logan Airport Noise Study, a number of verbal commitments have been made relative to actions that will be taken by either Massport or the FAA. The CAC believes these commitments must be memorialized and unanimously endorses the following programmatic measures be undertaken by Massport and/or FAA, as appropriate, to continue and monitor noise abatement efforts. The CAC unanimously recommend to the FAA and Massport the implementation of the following programmatic measures: CAC Level 3 Decisions 4/11/2012 Boston Logan Aircraft Noise Study Page 2 of 3

178 Recommend that Massport establish and support an airport/community noise advisory group that meets on a regular basis to consider the noise conditions at the airport, anticipated changes to that condition, and potential modifications of the noise levels based on the continuing development of technology that may not be currently supported. Recommend that Massport proactively communicate with the user airlines on a regular basis to encourage the voluntary use of single engine taxiing, including using the engine away from the nearest communities, for any arriving aircraft and for all departing aircraft for which the anticipated taxi time exceeds five minutes that may safely do so. Recommend that Massport proactively communicate with the user airlines on a regular basis to encourage the voluntary use of reduced reverse thrust for any arriving aircraft that may safely do so. Recommend that Massport proactively consider the development of a mid-field apron area to stage aircraft that are delayed more than 20 minutes prior to departure release. Recommend that the FAA establish and maintain a continuing communications effort directed at greater usage of the established helicopter routings within and through the downtown area that may safely do so. Recommend that the FAA establish and maintain a continuing communications effort with helicopter and propeller aircraft operators to maintain 2000 feet altitude over the downtown area that may safely do so. CAC Level 3 Decisions 4/11/2012 Boston Logan Aircraft Noise Study Page 3 of 3

179 Appendix E Letter from Federal Aviation Administration and Massachusetts Port Authority Regarding Community Advisory Committee Recommendations

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

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

Call-In Phone Number: pin# Meeting Objective: Scope Reassessment #1 and Level 2 Screening Process. 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: 1-781-238-7745 pin#

More information

Project Consultant (PC) Alternative 5 Runway 22R/L RNAV Departures

Project Consultant (PC) Alternative 5 Runway 22R/L RNAV Departures VIA E-MAIL Date: To: From: Subject: Boston Technical Advisory Committee (BOS/TAC) Project Consultant (PC) Alternative 5 Runway 22R/L RNAV Departures At the February 17, 2006 BOS/TAC meeting several issues

More information

Overview of Boston Logan Operations and Noise from Overflights. Presentation to Massport Board March 19, 2015

Overview of Boston Logan Operations and Noise from Overflights. Presentation to Massport Board March 19, 2015 Overview of Boston Logan Operations and Noise from Overflights Presentation to Massport Board March 19, 2015 Contents How the Airport Operates Massport s Noise Abatement Program for Logan Recent Trends

More information

Phase 1 PROJECT CONSULTANT SCOPE OF SERVICES AMENDMENT #1 FOR BOS/TAC REVIEW

Phase 1 PROJECT CONSULTANT SCOPE OF SERVICES AMENDMENT #1 FOR BOS/TAC REVIEW Phase 1 PROJECT CONSULTANT SCOPE OF SERVICES AMENDMENT #1 FOR BOS/TAC REVIEW September 30, 2005 Project Consultant Amendment #1 DRAFT FOR BOS/TAC REVIEW 9/30/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 STUDY DESIGN... 3

More information

Massport Study Team Evaluation of CAC Noise Study Alternatives. October 2010

Massport Study Team Evaluation of CAC Noise Study Alternatives. October 2010 Massport Study Team Evaluation of CAC Noise Study Alternatives October 2010 Massport s Evaluation Team Aviation Planning Capital Programs Aviation Operations Environmental Permitting Consultation with

More information

PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOP #4 / PUBLIC HEARING November 8 / 9, 2006

PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOP #4 / PUBLIC HEARING November 8 / 9, 2006 PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOP #4 / PUBLIC HEARING November 8 / 9, 2006 A Noise Compatibility Study, prepared under Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), is a voluntary program aimed at balancing

More information

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Aircraft Noise Contour Map Update

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Aircraft Noise Contour Map Update Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Aircraft Noise Contour Map Update Ultimate ASV, Runway Use and Flight Tracks 4th Working Group Briefing 8/13/18 Meeting Purpose Discuss Public Workshop input

More information

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005 Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005 Section 3 - Refinement of the Ultimate Airfield Concept Using the Base Concept identified in Section 2, IDOT re-examined

More information

LAX Community Noise Roundtable. Aircraft Noise 101. November 12, 2014

LAX Community Noise Roundtable. Aircraft Noise 101. November 12, 2014 LAX Community Noise Roundtable Aircraft Noise 101 November 12, 2014 Overview Roles and Responsibilities for Aircraft Noise Relevant Federal Regulations Relevant California Regulations Aircraft Noise Metrics

More information

Massport and FAA RNAV Pilot Study Overview Briefing to Massport CAC. December 8, 2016

Massport and FAA RNAV Pilot Study Overview Briefing to Massport CAC. December 8, 2016 Massport and FAA RNAV Pilot Study Overview Briefing to Massport CAC December 8, 2016 Contents FAA/Massport RNAV MOU Context Boston Logan Context FAA RNAV MOU, Overview Q&A 12/8/2016 2 FAA/Massport RNAV

More information

Appendix A. Meeting Coordination. Appendix A

Appendix A. Meeting Coordination. Appendix A Appendix A Meeting Coordination Appendix A Philadelphia International Airport Noise Compatibility Program Update FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program Update Report Prepared by: DMJM Aviation AECOM

More information

DCA Airport Noise. MWAA WG Dec 15, 2016

DCA Airport Noise. MWAA WG Dec 15, 2016 DCA Airport Noise MWAA WG Dec 15, 2016 BACKGROUND FAA Next Gen noise Analyzed on macro level Data below 3K Ft under estimated community level impacts Primary focus has been on departure procedures 1 part

More information

WELCOME! FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STUDY

WELCOME! FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STUDY WELCOME! FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STUDY Public Information Workshop November 2017 1 14 CFR Part 150 Overview Establishes the methodology

More information

STAFF REPORT. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Review: Santa Barbara Airport Master Plan. MEETING DATE: November 19, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: 7D

STAFF REPORT. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Review: Santa Barbara Airport Master Plan. MEETING DATE: November 19, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: 7D STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Review: Santa Barbara Airport Master Plan MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: 7D STAFF CONTACT: Peter Imhof, Andrew Orfila RECOMMENDATION: Adopt findings

More information

Boston Logan. Airport Noise Study

Boston Logan. Airport Noise Study Boston Logan International Airport Boston Logan Airport Noise Study Final Report March 2017 Prepared by Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Prepared for Federal Aviation Administration with participation from Logan

More information

MEETING SUMMARY January 12, 2005

MEETING SUMMARY January 12, 2005 Boston Overflight Noise Study BOS/TAC Meeting MEETING SUMMARY January 12, 2005 Attendance: BOS/TAC Members: Gail Lattrell (FAA Airports), Joe Davies (FAA Air Traffic), Toni Dusseault (FAA Air Traffic),

More information

Partnership for Quieter Skies Report

Partnership for Quieter Skies Report Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport Prepared by: Broward County Aviation Department March 2008 Partnership for Quieter Skies Report The Partnership for Quieter Skies Report provides an overview

More information

NextGen: New Technology for Improved Noise Mitigation Efforts: DFW RNAV Departure Procedures

NextGen: New Technology for Improved Noise Mitigation Efforts: DFW RNAV Departure Procedures NextGen: New Technology for Improved Noise Mitigation Efforts: DFW RNAV Departure Procedures DFW International Airport Sandy Lancaster, Manager Noise Compatibility October 13, 2008 OUTLINE About DFW Airport

More information

Appendix B Ultimate Airport Capacity and Delay Simulation Modeling Analysis

Appendix B Ultimate Airport Capacity and Delay Simulation Modeling Analysis Appendix B ULTIMATE AIRPORT CAPACITY & DELAY SIMULATION MODELING ANALYSIS B TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBITS TABLES B.1 Introduction... 1 B.2 Simulation Modeling Assumption and Methodology... 4 B.2.1 Runway

More information

Partnership for Quieter Skies Report

Partnership for Quieter Skies Report Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport Prepared by: March 2008 Partnership for Quieter Skies Report The Partnership for Quieter Skies Report provides an overview of progress of efforts to reduce

More information

APPENDIX H 2022 BASELINE NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

APPENDIX H 2022 BASELINE NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR APPENDIX H 2022 BASELINE NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR This appendix sets forth the detailed input data that was used to prepare noise exposure contours for 2022 Baseline conditions. H.1 DATA SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS

More information

Portable Noise Monitor Report

Portable Noise Monitor Report Portable Noise Monitor Report Chicago O Hare International Airport Site 241 61 Grange Road, Elk Grove Village October 3, 215 through October 19, 215 USH8-ILH55-ILS28 Visit the O Hare Noise webpage on the

More information

Portable Noise Monitor Report

Portable Noise Monitor Report Portable Noise Monitor Report Chicago O Hare International Airport Site 2117 5843 N. Christiana Avenue, Chicago July 14, 217 through August 2, 217 USH5-ILH15-ILS8-CHI39 Visit the O Hare Noise webpage on

More information

Partnership for Quieter Skies Report

Partnership for Quieter Skies Report Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport Prepared by: Broward County Aviation Department July 2008 Partnership for Quieter Skies Report The Partnership for Quieter Skies Report provides an overview

More information

6.C.1 AIRPORT NOISE. Noise Analysis and Land Use Impact Assessment FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

6.C.1 AIRPORT NOISE. Noise Analysis and Land Use Impact Assessment FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6.C.1 AIRPORT NOISE The existing land uses are described in Chapter Five, Affected Environment. The methodologies used to develop the Geographic Information System (GIS) land use database, the estimated

More information

Master Plan & Noise Compatibility Study Update

Master Plan & Noise Compatibility Study Update Working Document-Subject to Change, March 2010 Master Plan & Noise Compatibility Study Update (14 CFR Part 150) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 24, 2010 Working Document-Subject to Change, March 2010

More information

Portable Noise Monitor Report

Portable Noise Monitor Report Portable Noise Monitor Report Chicago O Hare International Airport Site 2198 5N67 Rochefort Lane, Wayne May 9, 218 through June 3, 218 USH6-ILH49-ILS25 Visit the O Hare Noise webpage on the Internet at

More information

Memorandum. Federal Aviation Administration. Date: June 19, Richard Doucette, Environmental Protection Specialist. From: To:

Memorandum. Federal Aviation Administration. Date: June 19, Richard Doucette, Environmental Protection Specialist. From: To: Federal Aviation Administration Memorandum Date: June 19, 2008 From: To: Subject: Richard Doucette, Environmental Protection Specialist LaVerne Reid, Airports Division Manager John Donnelly, Regional Counsel

More information

POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW

POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW RNAV STAR updates and RNP AR approaches at Halifax Stanfield International Airport NAV CANADA 77 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5L6 November 2017 The information

More information

CHAPTER 6 NOISE EXPOSURE

CHAPTER 6 NOISE EXPOSURE CHAPTER 6 NOISE EXPOSURE FAA requires that the NEM submitted for review represent the aircraft noise exposure for the year of submittal (in this case 2008) and for a future year (2013 for OSUA). However,

More information

Portable Noise Monitor Report

Portable Noise Monitor Report Portable Noise Monitor Report Chicago O Hare International Airport Site 299 93 Wilshire Avenue, Elk Grove Village June 27, 217 through July 1, 217 USH8-ILH55-ILS28 Visit the O Hare Noise webpage on the

More information

Massport CAC Meeting December 07, 2017

Massport CAC Meeting December 07, 2017 Massport CAC Meeting December 07, 2017 12/07/2017 Massport CAC 1 Agenda 1. Welcome and Introduction of New Members [5 minutes] 2. Public Comment [10 minutes] 3. Approval of the Minutes of the October 12,

More information

Portable Noise Monitor Report

Portable Noise Monitor Report Portable Noise Monitor Report Chicago O Hare International Airport Site 213 475 W. Hutchinson Street, Chicago April 8, 217 through May 3, 217 USH5-ILH19-ILS1-CHI45 Visit the O Hare Noise webpage on the

More information

JOSLIN FIELD, MAGIC VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012

JOSLIN FIELD, MAGIC VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 1. Introduction The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that airport master plans be updated every 5 years or as necessary to keep them current. The Master Plan for Joslin Field, Magic Valley

More information

Part 150 and Part 161: Purpose, Elements, and Process

Part 150 and Part 161: Purpose, Elements, and Process Part 150 and Part 161: Purpose, Elements, and Process Presentation to: Noise Compatibility Committee January 29, 2015 Ted Baldwin Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning FAA created in response

More information

STUDY OVERVIEW MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

STUDY OVERVIEW MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES INTRODUCTION An Airport Master Plan provides an evalua on of the airport s avia on demand and an overview of the systema c airport development that will best meet those demands. The Master Plan establishes

More information

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NEW ENGLAND REGION AUGUST 2, 2002

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NEW ENGLAND REGION AUGUST 2, 2002 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NEW ENGLAND REGION AUGUST 2, 2002 RECORD OF DECISION AIRSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PLANNING PROJECT LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

More information

Part 150 Update Status and Recommendation

Part 150 Update Status and Recommendation Part 150 Update Status and Recommendation Presentation to: Noise Compatibility Committee October 26, 2010 Ted Baldwin 2 Topics Part 150 background Project status Noise Exposure Map Noise Compatibility

More information

Airports and UAS: Integrating UAS into Airport Infrastructure and Planning

Airports and UAS: Integrating UAS into Airport Infrastructure and Planning ACRP Problem Statement 17-03-09 Recommended Allocation: $500,000 Airports and UAS: Integrating UAS into Airport Infrastructure and Planning ACRP Staff Comments This is one of four UAS-themed problem statements

More information

Portable Noise Monitor Report

Portable Noise Monitor Report Portable Noise Monitor Report Chicago O Hare International Airport Site 2114 5516 N. Neenah Avenue, Chicago July 12, 217 through August 9, 217 USH5-ILH19-ILS1-CHI45 Visit the O Hare Noise webpage on the

More information

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP)

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) 2 nd Quarter 2016 Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Public Input Meeting Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise Program Office April 27, 2016 PUBLIC INPUT MEETING Meeting Goals To hear the

More information

Massport and FAA RNAV Pilot Study Overview Public Briefing. February 22, 2017 State Transportation Bld. Boston, MA

Massport and FAA RNAV Pilot Study Overview Public Briefing. February 22, 2017 State Transportation Bld. Boston, MA Massport and FAA RNAV Pilot Study Overview Public Briefing February 22, 2017 State Transportation Bld. Boston, MA As of 02/10/2017 Agenda Welcoming Remarks Tom Glynn (Massport CEO) David Carlon (Massport

More information

RTIA Runway Utilization Discussion Paper

RTIA Runway Utilization Discussion Paper RTIA Runway Utilization Discussion Paper December 2003 1.0 Introduction The Airport Noise Advisory Panel (ANAP) is a voluntary committee formed by the Airport Authority of Washoe County (AAWC) Board of

More information

UPDATE ON THE 6 IDEAS (1-4) NAV CANADA

UPDATE ON THE 6 IDEAS (1-4) NAV CANADA UPDATE ON THE 6 IDEAS (1-4) THE 6 INITIATIVES 1. New approaches for night-time operations - Implemented 2. New departure procedures for night-time operations - Implemented 3. Increased downwind arrival

More information

LAX Community Noise Roundtable Work Program A1 Review of SoCal Metroplex Proposed Procedures and Suggestions for Comment Letter.

LAX Community Noise Roundtable Work Program A1 Review of SoCal Metroplex Proposed Procedures and Suggestions for Comment Letter. LAX Community Noise Roundtable Work Program A1 Review of SoCal Metroplex Proposed Procedures and Suggestions for Comment Letter July 8, 2015 Southern California Metroplex Environmental Assessment Presentation

More information

Table of Contents. Appendix A Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives. Appendix B Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

Table of Contents. Appendix A Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives. Appendix B Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives Table of Contents I. Introduction and Summary...I-1 1.1 Introduction... I-1 1.2 Airport Setting... I-1 1.3 Existing Airfield... I-1 1.4 Planned Airfield Facilities... I-4 1.5 Summary of Aviation Demand

More information

Quieter Skies Report. Partnership for. Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. Prepared by: Broward County Aviation Department

Quieter Skies Report. Partnership for. Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. Prepared by: Broward County Aviation Department Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport Prepared by: February 2016 Partnership for Quieter Skies Report The Report provides an overview of progress of efforts to reduce the noise impacts of Fort

More information

DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2016 IGA NOISE RELEASE STUDY. June 22, 2016

DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2016 IGA NOISE RELEASE STUDY. June 22, 2016 DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2016 IGA NOISE RELEASE STUDY June 22, 2016 INTRODUCTION This Noise Release Study was prepared pursuant to Section 4.5.3 Noise Studies of the Intergovernmental Agreement dated

More information

Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Public Meeting March 16, 2015

Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Public Meeting March 16, 2015 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Public Meeting March 16, 2015 What is an Airport Master Plan? a comprehensive study of an airport [that] usually describes the short, medium, and long term development plans

More information

Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works/Airport Director

Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works/Airport Director Information Item Date: September 3, 2015 To: From: Subject: Mayor and City Council Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works/Airport Director City s Response and Airport Commission s Recommendations to

More information

MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 5

MEETING MINUTES   Page 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5 50178.000 May 26, 2009 PROJECT PROJECT NO. MEETING DATE ISSUE DATE Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting MEETING LOCATION MEETING PURPOSE Amy Eckland ISSUED BY SIGNATURE PARTICIPANT See attached

More information

Watertown Airplane Noise Meeting

Watertown Airplane Noise Meeting Watertown Airplane Noise Meeting July 25, 2017 Myron Kassaraba Town of Belmont Rep, Massport CAC 1 Topics June Stats & Construction Update 33L RNAV SID & RNAV Study Runway Selection Overnight Procedure

More information

APPENDIX C NOISE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C NOISE ANALYSIS APPENDIX C NOISE ANALYSIS KBE Final - 10/11/16 Existing Noise The extent of existing noise resulting from aircraft operations at Central Colorado Regional Airport (AEJ) was determined using the FAA-approved

More information

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TOPICAL QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TOPICAL RESPONSES

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TOPICAL QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TOPICAL RESPONSES MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TOPICAL QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TOPICAL RESPONSES Recurring topics emerged in some of the comments and questions raised by members of the

More information

Forecast of Aviation Activity

Forecast of Aviation Activity DETROIT METROPOLITAN WAYNE COUNTY AIRPORT FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY STUDY UPDATE CHAPTER B FORECAST OF AVIATION ACTIVITY Forecast of Aviation Activity Introduction This chapter summarizes past aviation

More information

Community Noise Consortium Meeting (CNC)

Community Noise Consortium Meeting (CNC) Community Noise Consortium Meeting (CNC) November 8, 2018 Meeting Title or Type / Month Day, Year Safety Restrooms: Outside the door you entered on the left. Emergency Exit: Door through which you entered

More information

TORONTO PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE MANAGEMENT

TORONTO PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE MANAGEMENT TORONTO PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE MANAGEMENT Noise and the GTAA The GTAA is sensitive to the issue of aircraft noise and how it affects our neighbours. Since assuming responsibility for Toronto

More information

MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 3 RD QUARTER 2016 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (MSP)

MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 3 RD QUARTER 2016 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (MSP) 3 RD QUARTER 2016 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (MSP) PUBLIC INPUT MEETING Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise Program Office July 27, 2016 PUBLIC INPUT MEETING Meeting Goals To hear the

More information

Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan

Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan City Council Briefing October 20, 2015 What is an Airport Master Plan? a comprehensive study of an airport [that] usually describes the short, medium, and long term development

More information

St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP)

St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP) Reliever Airports: NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP) 1 INTRODUCTION The noise abatement plan for the St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP) was prepared in recognition of the need to make the

More information

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005 Section 10 Preferred Inaugural Airport Concept 10.0 Introduction The Preferred Inaugural Airport Concept for SSA was developed by adding the preferred support/ancillary facilities selected in Section 9

More information

Executive Summary. MASTER PLAN UPDATE Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport

Executive Summary. MASTER PLAN UPDATE Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport Executive Summary MASTER PLAN UPDATE Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport As a general aviation and commercial service airport, Fort Collins- Loveland Municipal Airport serves as an important niche

More information

Runway Length Analysis Prescott Municipal Airport

Runway Length Analysis Prescott Municipal Airport APPENDIX 2 Runway Length Analysis Prescott Municipal Airport May 11, 2009 Version 2 (draft) Table of Contents Introduction... 1-1 Section 1 Purpose & Need... 1-2 Section 2 Design Standards...1-3 Section

More information

CHAPTER FOUR RECOMMENDED NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM MEASURES

CHAPTER FOUR RECOMMENDED NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM MEASURES CHAPTER FOUR RECOMMENDED NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM MEASURES This chapter provides the detailed descriptions of the recommended Part 150 noise abatement, land use management, and program management measures

More information

Boston Logan International Airport Operational Overview

Boston Logan International Airport Operational Overview Boston Logan International Airport Operational Overview Presentation to the Massport Community Advisory Committee June 8, 2017 Updated 12/07/17 Content Overview of Logan Runway Designations Runway Configurations

More information

Environmental Assessment Las Vegas Area Airspace Optimization Project

Environmental Assessment Las Vegas Area Airspace Optimization Project Environmental Assessment Las Vegas Area Airspace Optimization Project John Williams, Senior Vice President, Ricondo & Associates, Inc. ACI-NA Environmental Affairs Committee Conference May 16, 2013 Halifax,

More information

Partnership for Quieter Skies Report

Partnership for Quieter Skies Report Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport Prepared by: Broward County Aviation Department August 2007 Partnership for Quieter Skies Report The Partnership for Quieter Skies Report provides an overview

More information

POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW

POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW RNAV STAR updates and RNP AR approaches at Edmonton International Airport NAV CANADA 77 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5L6 January 2018 The information

More information

Permanent Noise Monitoring Act Quarterly Operations Report

Permanent Noise Monitoring Act Quarterly Operations Report Permanent Noise Monitoring Act 1st Quarter 2006 Prepared by: Noise Mitigation Programs Office Rhode Island Airport Corporation For further information, please contact: Helena S. Reid, 737-4000 ext. 297

More information

Noise Compatibility Year End, 2012

Noise Compatibility Year End, 2012 Year End, 2012 April 5, 2013 Noise Highlights of 2012 Airport operations for Year 2012 were down 3.97%, compared to Year 2011. The FAA issued a Record of Approval (ROA) for the new Program (NCP) Update

More information

14 CFR PART 150 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STUDY. Technical Committee Meeting #2 August 23, 2017

14 CFR PART 150 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STUDY. Technical Committee Meeting #2 August 23, 2017 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STUDY Technical Committee Meeting #2 August 23, 2017 1 Agenda Introductions Review of the Role of the TC Meeting Facilitator Review of TC Meeting No.1 Data

More information

THE BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT AUTHORITY S UPDATE REGARDING ITS NOISE IMPACT AREA REDUCTION PLAN AND ITS PART 161 STUDY SECOND QUARTER 2015

THE BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT AUTHORITY S UPDATE REGARDING ITS NOISE IMPACT AREA REDUCTION PLAN AND ITS PART 161 STUDY SECOND QUARTER 2015 THE BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT AUTHORITY S UPDATE REGARDING ITS NOISE IMPACT AREA REDUCTION PLAN AND ITS PART 161 STUDY SECOND QUARTER 2015 Pursuant to the California Department of Transportation

More information

Noise Abatement 101. July 13, Regular Board Meeting / August 7, 2014 Hillsborough County Aviation Authority

Noise Abatement 101. July 13, Regular Board Meeting / August 7, 2014 Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Noise Abatement 101 July 13, 2017 1 Objectives Provide context and a better understanding for how and why flights may operate at Tampa International Airport the way they do. Provide an overview of laws,

More information

Helicopter Noise Analysis

Helicopter Noise Analysis Clark County Department of Aviation Appendix D. Helicopter Noise Analysis D.1 General Characteristics of Helicopter Noise Helicopter noise originates from three components of the helicopter: the rotors,

More information

Portable Noise Monitor Report

Portable Noise Monitor Report Portable Noise Monitor Report Chicago O Hare International Airport Site 221 5716 N. Virginia Avenue, Chicago July 23, 214 through August 11, 214 Visit the O Hare Noise Management Webpage on the Internet

More information

Perth Noise Abatement Procedures - Change to Preferred Runways

Perth Noise Abatement Procedures - Change to Preferred Runways Environmental Analysis Summary Preferred Runways Perth Perth Airport Perth Noise Abatement Procedures - Change to Preferred Runways Environmental Analysis Summary April 2016 1 of 10 Environment Analysis

More information

Van Nuys Airport December 2011 Updated 14 C.F.R. Part 150 Noise Exposure Maps page 1

Van Nuys Airport December 2011 Updated 14 C.F.R. Part 150 Noise Exposure Maps page 1 Updated 14 C.F.R. Part 150 Noise Exposure Maps page 1 1 INTRODUCTION The federal Airport Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 1 ( ASNA ), as amended, defines procedures under which the federal government,

More information

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005 Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005 Section 1 - Introduction This report describes the development and analysis of concept alternatives that would accommodate

More information

Measuring, Managing and Mitigating Aircraft Related Noise

Measuring, Managing and Mitigating Aircraft Related Noise Measuring, Managing and Mitigating Aircraft Related Noise Airport noise is, understandably, a significant issue for some of our neighbouring communities. Achieving the most appropriate balance between

More information

2015 ANNUAL NOISE REPORT

2015 ANNUAL NOISE REPORT 2015 ANNUAL NOISE REPORT MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY L.G. HANSCOM FIELD BEDFORD, MA 01730 PREPARED BY AMBER GOODSPEED SUBMITTED TO HANSCOM FIELD ADVISORY COMMISSION July 2016 Connecting with our communities

More information

Federal Aviation Administration DCA. By: Terry Biggio, Vice President Air Traffic Services Date: June 18, Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Aviation Administration DCA. By: Terry Biggio, Vice President Air Traffic Services Date: June 18, Federal Aviation Administration DCA Presented to: Arlington County By: Terry Biggio, Vice President Air Traffic Services Date: June 18, 2015 Air Traffic Roles and Responsibilities As aviation technology advances, the FAA is putting in

More information

FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFT

FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFT D.3 RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS Appendix D Purpose and Need THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix D Purpose and Need APPENDIX D.3 AIRFIELD GEOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS This information provided in this appendix

More information

Chapter 1 Introduction and Project Overview

Chapter 1 Introduction and Project Overview Chapter 1 Introduction and Project Overview Kittitas County in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is updating the Airport Master Plan for Bowers Field Airport (FAA airport identifier

More information

APPENDIX H NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES

APPENDIX H NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES CHICAGO MIDWAY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY STUDY UPDATE DRAFT APPENDIX H NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES This appendix discusses the consideration and evaluation of

More information

Supplemental Proposals to Revising the

Supplemental Proposals to Revising the Presentation Summary of the Supplemental Proposals to Revising the Northern California Metroplex For Alameda County/Contra Costa County NEXTGEN SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE OAKLAND AIRPORT/COMMUNITY NOISE FORUM

More information

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. Boston-Logan Runway 4 Left Area Navigation (RNAV) Visual Flight Procedure Test

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. Boston-Logan Runway 4 Left Area Navigation (RNAV) Visual Flight Procedure Test INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Boston-Logan Runway 4 Left Area Navigation (RNAV) Visual Flight Procedure Test FAA Order 7400.2 Appendix 5 (Modified) ======================================================================

More information

Recommendations for Northbound Aircraft Departure Concerns over South Minneapolis

Recommendations for Northbound Aircraft Departure Concerns over South Minneapolis Recommendations for Northbound Aircraft Departure Concerns over South Minneapolis March 21, 2012 Noise Oversight Committee Agenda Item #4 Minneapolis Council Member John Quincy Background Summer of 2011

More information

Permanent Noise Monitoring Act Quarterly Operations Report

Permanent Noise Monitoring Act Quarterly Operations Report Permanent Noise Monitoring Act Quarterly Operations Report 1st Quarter 2010 Prepared by: Noise Mitigation Programs Office Rhode Island Airport Corporation For further information, please contact: Helena

More information

Thursday, November 8, :15 p.m. 2:30 p.m. David Chetcuti Community Room Millbrae City Hall 450 Poplar Avenue Millbrae, CA 94030

Thursday, November 8, :15 p.m. 2:30 p.m. David Chetcuti Community Room Millbrae City Hall 450 Poplar Avenue Millbrae, CA 94030 Meeting Announcement Technical Working Group Thursday, November 8, 2018 12:15 p.m. 2:30 p.m. David Chetcuti Community Room Millbrae City Hall 450 Poplar Avenue Millbrae, CA 94030 Note: To arrange an accommodation

More information

Mercer Island should continue to press Renton for public input on noise and other environmental effects of the options then under consideration.

Mercer Island should continue to press Renton for public input on noise and other environmental effects of the options then under consideration. Renton was required by the Federal Aviation Administration to complete work on its Airport Master Plan in a timely manner, the MOU adds that the noise study must be completed at the earliest time possible.

More information

POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW

POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW RNAV STAR updates and RNP AR approaches at Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport NAV CANADA 77 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5L6 November

More information

STAFF REPORT. Airport Land Use Consistency Determination Betteravia Plaza. MEETING DATE: January 21, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: 8D

STAFF REPORT. Airport Land Use Consistency Determination Betteravia Plaza. MEETING DATE: January 21, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: 8D STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Airport Land Use Consistency Determination Betteravia Plaza MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: 8D STAFF CONTACT: Andrew Orfila RECOMMENDATION: Adopt findings for the Betteravia Plaza project

More information

Restricted Hours Operating Policy

Restricted Hours Operating Policy Restricted Hours Operating Policy Airside Systems & Programs Creation Date: [February 19, 2018] Version: [4.0] Table of Contents 1 Introduction... 1 1.1 General Information... 1 1.2 Noise Operating Restrictions

More information

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport FAR Part 150 Study Update Glossary of Common Acoustic and Air Traffic Control Terms

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport FAR Part 150 Study Update Glossary of Common Acoustic and Air Traffic Control Terms Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport FAR Part 150 Study Update Glossary of Common Acoustic and Air Traffic Control Terms ADOT&PF (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities): The

More information

msp macnoise.com MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) November 17, 2010

msp macnoise.com MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) November 17, 2010 MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) November 17, 2010 Operations Update Technical Advisor s Report Summary MSP Complaints September October 2010 3,025 3,567 2009 6,350 6,001 Total Operations September

More information

THE BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT AUTHORITY S UPDATE REGARDING ITS NOISE IMPACT AREA REDUCTION PLAN AND ITS PART 161 STUDY FIRST QUARTER 2015

THE BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT AUTHORITY S UPDATE REGARDING ITS NOISE IMPACT AREA REDUCTION PLAN AND ITS PART 161 STUDY FIRST QUARTER 2015 THE BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT AUTHORITY S UPDATE REGARDING ITS NOISE IMPACT AREA REDUCTION PLAN AND ITS PART 161 STUDY FIRST QUARTER 2015 Pursuant to the California Department of Transportation

More information

Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport Master Plan Update

Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport Master Plan Update Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport Master Plan Update City of Yakima Work Session July 9, 2013 Meeting Goals Summarize the master plan recommendations. Discuss the decision-making process used

More information

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Purpose and Scope The information presented in this report represents the study findings for the 2016 Ronan Airport Master Plan prepared for the City of Ronan and Lake County, the

More information

Chapter Six ALP Drawings. Tacoma Narrows Airport. Master Plan Update

Chapter Six ALP Drawings. Tacoma Narrows Airport. Master Plan Update Chapter Six ALP Drawings Master Plan Update The master planning process for the (Airport) has evolved through efforts in the previous chapters to analyze future aviation demand, establish airside and landside

More information

Martin County Airport / Witham Field Noise Abatement Departure Profile (NADP) Demonstration Technical Report March 2010

Martin County Airport / Witham Field Noise Abatement Departure Profile (NADP) Demonstration Technical Report March 2010 Martin County Airport / Witham Field Noise Abatement Departure Profile (NADP) Demonstration Technical Report March 2010 Prepared for: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Orlando Airport District Office

More information