Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012 Hanscom ESPR.rpt
G le, 1! / m��� » ," l�l,,,� L" /� ,f%r 1 ✓ �'J t �" �`� � � , ;" i ,� j , r r 1 �r/r/, Y ��,, �ij,.�' �r � i/ �,, r�.r i� ,,r � �j� (I'q q ��L"y � �G r l' j %'i� /r r' / /� �i� i. e � 9 /® f� r � / r° ���,� �1 �� � 11 � .;., � " ��f!( II It /�/ �i II ; i I, � I Y ����J��II���//�//r�iYjr�ii//%/////�i II��'/���11�f/� Vi" ���%/j%���»� r/� ��P�� /fr�rr,err�F� ,�'rt%�ry��� �°�; _� ill l� %�ri ri � 1 wl���i iJ// J � i��iy" � ,a:, -I' Q ," � �������/�ii fib�a a�) �➢iou � �'��� ; ��/ � ©in �� ! ��/ v� � /� /�„ � �� ���/i�Olo�� r � r � ��j � ply r� ,� r; 1 j r{ �% rr l �r,�, ��I � � er y �/ ` if � r�, � 1��� �� h1� j r u� �, U' �i�a��� //f! �t II %'F +r I j ���� / 1 � ��� 1� fr', // (/ �i. "4 r, f� �,, F �/ /�W , .,����� � �, 4 /' .. � ,/ ii,` N� S � ��10 INNBI�I �I�I �I� lllum� l�u II�� � N^I� ��� � � �i�@I ����� u���� i����� ������ u���� ����� ��ouuuuuu IIII IIII 'IIII �I ���� � � .,,� i i uuuo; �, i�i.d ,rn� �� � aw�o ,mw� � 119� V i�. n� � III ml 4� � II A �� �iiiiiiiiii� uuuuu� ;� ati� � �a� +gin � �.�I � ;� ,��� �u Mossachusel,ts Port Authority One Harborside Drive,Suite 200S East Boston,MA 02128-2909 Telephone(617)568-5000 www.masspollzom ....... ..................... December 31,2013 Secretary Richard K. Sul I ivan, Jr. Executive Office of Energy and Environinerival Affairs Attn: MEPA Office, EEA 5484/8696 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Re: 2012 L.G. I-lanscorn Field Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR) Dear Secretary Sullivan and Director Buckley: The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) is pleased tca subunit for your review this 2012 LU Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report(2012 E,57)R) (F,EA #5484/8696). The 20121;'STR is being submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Massactrusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA), (,M Chapter 30, Sections 62-621-1 and its iinplernenting regulations, 301 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 'I 1.00. J`he 2012.I-,,,SPR responds to your May 18, 2012, Certificate on the Proposed Scope for the 2012 ESU-'R. Massport is requesting an extension of the public cornment,period to approximately 60 days with [lie close of pub]�ic conurients on March 11, 2014. The MEPA consultation session is tentatively scheduled for March 3, 2014 at 5prn in the Civil Air Ter (first floor)at I lanscom Field. Massport will also be presenting the 2012 ESPR at the monthly meeting of the Hansco.nrl Area Town Selectmen (HXFS)meeting on February 27, 2014 at 7pm at the Tedford ,rown Hall. Three additional technical meetings are scheduled for 6:00pin on January 29, February 5, and February 11, 2014 in the Civil Aii-Terrninal (first floor) at I'lanscorn 'Field. Mernbers of Massport staff are available to discuss the attached document with you at your earliest convenience. Please contact 'I'homas Ennis at 617-568,-3546 or tern] nass iort,cotai with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Massachusetts Port A,#tho>tity 41r Stewart Dalzell, Depult Environniental Planning and P&r6itting Enclosures Operating Boston Logan Gntomstion-M Airport-Port of Boston generatl cargo and FM bier terminals-Hanscom Field-Boston F Pier- � Como onweeIth Pier(sHe of World Trade Center Boston)-WoroeMer Regional Airpod Environmental Sta"his and Planning Repart EEA NUMBER: 5484/8696 December 2013 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Contents Cantents 1 Introduction / Executive Summary ..............................................................................................1-1 1.1 Environmental Status and Planning Report.....................................................................................1-1 1.2 Hanscom Field.................................................................................................................................1-3 1.3 Hanscom Field Environmental Review Process..............................................................................1-7 1.3.1 Role of the ESPR as an Airport-wide Review...............................................................................1-7 1.3.2 Project-Specific Review................................................................................................................1-7 1.4 Development of the 2012 ESPR......................................................................................................1-8 1.4.1 Technical Analysis and Data Gathering for the 2012 ESPR.........................................................1-9 1.4.2 Outreach for Preparation of the 2012 ESPR ................................................................................1-9 1.4.3 Environmental Review Schedule................................................................................................1-10 1.5 Primary Findings of the 2012 ESPR..............................................................................................1-10 1.6 MEPA Documentation ...................................................................................................................1-30 1.7 Organization of the 2012 ESPR ....................................................................................................1-30 2 Airport Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Key Findings Since 2005.................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Airport Facilities ...............................................................................................................................2-2 2.2.1 Runways .......................................................................................................................................2-2 2.2.2 Taxiways .......................................................................................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Air Traffic Control Facilities and Navigational Aids.......................................................................2-3 2.2.4 Buildings and Hangars..................................................................................................................2-3 2.2.5 Flight Schools..............................................................................................................................2-11 2.2.6 Technical School Facilities..........................................................................................................2-11 2.2.7 Commuter Services.....................................................................................................................2-11 2.2.8 Other Aviation-related and Ancillary Businesses........................................................................2-11 2.2.9 Civil Air Terminal.........................................................................................................................2-11 2.2.10Aircraft Parking Areas.................................................................................................................2-11 2.2.11 Fire Fighting and Police ..............................................................................................................2-12 2.2.12Miscellaneous Terminal Support Facilities..................................................................................2-12 2.3 Infrastructure..................................................................................................................................2-12 2.3.1 Surface Access Roadways .........................................................................................................2-12 2.3.2 Automobile Parking.....................................................................................................................2-13 2.3.3 Water Supply and Demand.........................................................................................................2-15 2.3.4 Sanitary Sewer System...............................................................................................................2-17 2.3.5 Stormwater Management and Drainage System........................................................................2-20 2.3.6 Hazardous Material Management...............................................................................................2-24 2.3.7 Floodplain....................................................................................................................................2-24 2.3.8 Wellhead Protection Areas .........................................................................................................2-25 2.3.9 Electrical Distribution System .....................................................................................................2-25 2.3.10 Natural Gas.................................................................................................................................2-25 2.3.11 Telephone/Communications .......................................................................................................2-25 2.3.12Tank Management Program .......................................................................................................2-25 3 Airport Activity Levels...................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Key Findings Since 2005.................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 2012 Activity Levels at Hanscom.....................................................................................................3-3 3.2.1 Comparison of 2005 ESPR forecast to actual 2012 activity.........................................................3-4 3.3 Long-term Activity Trends................................................................................................................3-6 3.3.1 Total aircraft operations ................................................................................................................3-6 3.3.2 General aviation aircraft operations..............................................................................................3-6 3.3.3 Military operations.........................................................................................................................3-9 3.3.4 Based aircraft................................................................................................................................3-9 3.3.5 Commercial airline activity ..........................................................................................................3-11 Contents 3.3.6 Nighttime activity.........................................................................................................................3-12 3.4 Aviation Activity Forecasts.............................................................................................................3-13 3.4.1 General aviation aircraft operations............................................................................................3-13 3.4.2 Based aircraft..............................................................................................................................3-15 3.4.3 Military operations.......................................................................................................................3-15 3.4.4 Commercial airline activity ..........................................................................................................3-15 3.4.5 Nighttime activity.........................................................................................................................3-17 4 Airport Planning.............................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Key Findings Since 2005.................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Airport Planning Context..................................................................................................................4-2 4.2.1 Airport Land Plans and Regulations .............................................................................................4-2 4.2.2 Environmental Planning ................................................................................................................4-3 4.2.3 Municipal Partners ........................................................................................................................4-5 4.2.4 Key Stakeholders........................................................................................................................4-10 4.2.5 Metropolitan Area Planning Council Regional Plan....................................................................4-20 4.3 Description of Planning Areas .......................................................................................................4-23 4.3.1 Terminal Area..............................................................................................................................4-23 4.3.2 Air Traffic Control Tower Apron ..................................................................................................4-23 4.3.3 East Ramp ..................................................................................................................................4-27 4.3.4 North Airfield ...............................................................................................................................4-27 4.3.5 Pine Hill.......................................................................................................................................4-28 4.3.6 West Airfield................................................................................................................................4-28 4.4 Current Planning Initiatives and Projects.......................................................................................4-28 4.4.1 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program ...................................................................................4-29 4.4.2 Third-Party Development............................................................................................................4-30 4.4.3 Security Policies and Projects.....................................................................................................4-31 4.5 Master Planning.............................................................................................................................4-31 4.5.1 2020 Scenario.............................................................................................................................4-36 4.5.2 2030 Scenario.............................................................................................................................4-49 4.6 Analysis of Future Utilities .............................................................................................................4-50 4.6.1 Water Supply and Demand.........................................................................................................4-51 4.6.2 Stormwater Management and Drainage System........................................................................4-52 4.6.3 Electrical Distribution System .....................................................................................................4-52 4.6.4 Natural Gas.................................................................................................................................4-53 4.6.5 Telephone and Communications ................................................................................................4-53 4.7 Consistency of 2012 ESPR with Plans and Regulations...............................................................4-53 4.7.1 Federal and State Regulations ...................................................................................................4-54 4.7.2 Consistency with the 1978 Master Plan and Massport's 1980 Regulations...............................4-54 4.7.3 Consistency with Local Plans .....................................................................................................4-54 4.7.4 Consistency with Regional Plans................................................................................................4-54 5 Regional Transportation Context.................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Key Findings Since 2005.................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 The Role of Hanscom Field and Logan Airport in the Regional Airport Network............................5-3 5.2.1 Role of Hanscom Field..................................................................................................................5-3 5.2.2 Role of Logan Airport....................................................................................................................5-3 5.2.3 Massport's efforts to support a regional airport network...............................................................5-3 5.2.4 Expected Future Role of Hanscom Field ......................................................................................5-5 5.3 Regional General Aviation Activity Trends......................................................................................5-5 5.4 Regional Commercial Service Trends.............................................................................................5-6 5.4.1 Commercial airline trends .............................................................................................................5-7 5.4.2 Commercial airline passengers.....................................................................................................5-7 5.4.3 Commercial airline operations ......................................................................................................5-8 5.5 Regional Airport Improvement Plans and Projects..........................................................................5-9 5.5.1 Hanscom Field, Bedford, MA........................................................................................................5-9 5.5.2 T.F. Green/Providence, Warwick, RI ..........................................................................................5-10 Mal,d, Contents 5.5.3 Manchester-Boston Airport, Manchester, NH .............................................................................5-11 5.5.4 Bradley International Airport, Hartford, CT..................................................................................5-12 5.5.5 Worcester Regional Airport, Worcester, MA...............................................................................5-12 5.6 Long-Range Regional Transportation Planning ............................................................................5-13 5.6.1 Regional Aviation Economic Impact Study.................................................................................5-14 5.6.2 Massachusetts Statewide Airport System Plan (MSASP)..........................................................5-14 5.6.3 Boston Region Long-term Transportation Vision........................................................................5-14 5.6.4 Statewide Long-term Transportation Vision................................................................................5-15 5.7.5 New England Regional Airport System Plan (NERASP)..............................................................5-15 5.6.5 Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers.................................5-16 5.7 Regional Rail Transportation .........................................................................................................5-16 5.7.1 Amtrak Northeast Corridor High-Speed Rail...............................................................................5-16 5.7.2 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan and Next-Generation High Speed Rail Plan......5-17 5.7.3 Boston-South Station Expansion ................................................................................................5-18 5.7.4 Amtrak Downeaster Rail Service ................................................................................................5-18 5.7.5 Pilgrim Partnership Commuter Rail Services..............................................................................5-19 5.8 Airport Ground Access Improvements...........................................................................................5-19 5.8.1 T.F. Green InterLink Facility........................................................................................................5-19 5.8.2 Long-term Worcester Roadway Improvements ..........................................................................5-19 5.8.3 Near-term Worcester Directional Signage Improvement Program.............................................5-19 6 Ground Transportation .................................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Key Findings Since 2005.................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Regional Ground Transportation System........................................................................................6-3 6.2.1 Regional highway system .............................................................................................................6-3 6.2.2 Regional rail and transit................................................................................................................6-7 6.2.3 Regional bicycle network ..............................................................................................................6-8 6.2.4 Transportation Demand Management..........................................................................................6-8 6.3 Regional Transportation Planning Context....................................................................................6-10 6.3.1 Metropolitan Planning Organization............................................................................................6-10 6.3.2 Transportation planning documents............................................................................................6-10 6.4 Year 2012 Traffic Conditions.........................................................................................................6-15 6.4.1 Hanscom Field trip characteristics..............................................................................................6-16 6.4.2 Study area roadways ..................................................................................................................6-18 6.4.3 Study area intersections..............................................................................................................6-24 6.4.4 Intersection screening process ...................................................................................................6-30 6.4.5 Analysis of intersection operations .............................................................................................6-31 6.4.6 Traffic Safety...............................................................................................................................6-32 6.5 Analysis of Future Scenarios.........................................................................................................6-34 6.5.1 Future background growth..........................................................................................................6-34 6.5.2 Hanscom Field traffic projections................................................................................................6-36 6.5.3 Planned roadway improvements.................................................................................................6-47 6.5.4 Future intersection analysis ........................................................................................................6-52 6.6 Potential Environmentally Beneficial Measures ............................................................................6-55 6.6.1 Traffic management approaches ................................................................................................6-55 6.6.2 Transportation Demand Management........................................................................................6-56 7 Noise .........................................................................................................................................7-1 7.1 Key Findings Since 2005.................................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Noise Terminology...........................................................................................................................7-3 7.2.1 The Decibel (dB)...........................................................................................................................7-3 7.2.2 A-weighted Sound Level (dBA).....................................................................................................7-3 7.2.3 Sound Exposure Level (SEL)........................................................................................................7-4 7.2.4 Equivalent Sound Level (Leq)........................................................................................................7-6 7.2.5 The Day-Night Sound Level (DNL)...............................................................................................7-7 7.2.6 Total Noise Exposure (EXP).........................................................................................................7-8 7.2.7 Time Above a Threshold (TA).......................................................................................................7-9 Contents 7.3 Year 2012 Noise Prediction Methodology.......................................................................................7-9 7.3.1 Physical Input................................................................................................................................7-9 7.3.2 Operational Input.........................................................................................................................7-16 7.3.3 Noise Model Differences.............................................................................................................7-18 7.4 Year 2012 Noise Levels.................................................................................................................7-20 7.4.1 Comparison of Year 2012 Contours with 2005 Contours...........................................................7-20 7.4.2 Measured vs. Modeled Noise Levels..........................................................................................7-23 7.5 Residential Land Use Impacts.......................................................................................................7-25 7.5.1 Land Use Compatibility Standards..............................................................................................7-25 7.5.2 DNL at Noise Analysis Locations................................................................................................7-26 7.5.3 Time Above.................................................................................................................................7-33 7.5.4 Total Noise Exposure (EXP).......................................................................................................7-36 7.5.5 SEL Contours..............................................................................................................................7-37 7.5.6 Aircraft Overflights of Minute Man National Historical Park........................................................7-40 7.6 Analysis of Future Scenarios.........................................................................................................7-44 7.6.1 DNL Contours .............................................................................................................................7-45 7.6.2 Residential Land Use Impacts....................................................................................................7-51 7.6.3 DNL for Existing and Forecasts Years at Noise Analysis Locations by Town............................7-51 7.6.4 Time Above (TA).........................................................................................................................7-56 7.6.5 Total Noise Exposure (EXP).......................................................................................................7-61 7.6.6 Distribution of Noise Events........................................................................................................7-62 7.6.7 DNL for Existing and Forecast Years at Noise Analysis Locations in Minute Man National HistoricalPark.............................................................................................................................7-63 7.7 Status of Hanscom Field Noise Workgroup Recommendations ...................................................7-67 7.8 Existing Environmentally Beneficial Measures..............................................................................7-67 7.8.1 Run-up Procedures.....................................................................................................................7-71 7.8.2 Auxiliary Power Units and Ground Power Units .........................................................................7-71 7.8.3 Field Use Fee..............................................................................................................................7-71 7.8.4 Noise and Operations Monitoring System ..................................................................................7-72 7.8.5 Fly Friendly Program...................................................................................................................7-72 7.8.6 Sound Initiative............................................................................................................................7-73 8 Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................8-1 8.1 Key Findings Since 2005.................................................................................................................8-1 8.2 Air Quality Terminology ...................................................................................................................8-1 8.2.1 Air Pollutants.................................................................................................................................8-2 8.2.2 Air Quality Standards....................................................................................................................8-3 8.3 Year 2012 Conditions......................................................................................................................8-5 8.3.1 Climate..........................................................................................................................................8-5 8.3.2 Historical Air Quality Monitoring Data ...........................................................................................8-6 8.3.3 DEP Monitoring Data ....................................................................................................................8-6 8.3.4 Location of Monitoring Stations.....................................................................................................8-7 8.3.5 Existing Air Quality Concentrations...............................................................................................8-8 8.4 Effect of Federal and Massachusetts Regulations........................................................................8-14 8.4.1 Vehicle Standards and Regulations............................................................................................8-14 8.4.2 Massachusetts Vehicle Emission Regulations ...........................................................................8-14 8.4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................................8-15 8.4.4 Reformulated Gasoline and Vapor Recovery Systems ..............................................................8-16 8.4.5 Diesel Engines ............................................................................................................................8-16 8.4.6 Stationary Source Emissions......................................................................................................8-16 8.4.7 Year 2012 Aircraft Emissions......................................................................................................8-16 8.4.8 Year 2012 Motor Vehicle Emissions...........................................................................................8-19 8.4.9 Total Year 2012 Emissions.........................................................................................................8-20 8.4.10Analysis of Future Scenarios ......................................................................................................8-20 8.4.11 Future Aircraft Emissions............................................................................................................8-22 8.4.12 Future Vehicular Emissions ........................................................................................................8-23 8.4.13Total Future Emissions and Air Quality Concentrations .............................................................8-24 W I� F.Mal, Contents 8.5 Potential Environmentally Beneficial Measures ............................................................................8-27 8.5.1 Fuel Handling Emission Controls................................................................................................8-27 8.5.2 Fuel Conversion of Ground Service Equipment and Massport Groundside Vehicles................8-27 8.5.3 Building Heating and Cooling......................................................................................................8-29 8.5.4 Other Aviation Support Emission Reductions.............................................................................8-29 8.5.5 Clean Fuel Vehicle Program.......................................................................................................8-29 8.5.6 Lead Emissions...........................................................................................................................8-30 8.5.7 Ultrafine Particulate (UFP) Matter...............................................................................................8-33 9 Wetiands/Wildlife/Water Resources ............................................................................................9-1 9.1 Changes Since 2005 .......................................................................................................................9-1 9.2 Year 2012 Conditions......................................................................................................................9-2 9.3 Geographic and Geologic Characteristics.......................................................................................9-2 9.4 Wetlands..........................................................................................................................................9-2 9.5 Vernal Pools ..................................................................................................................................9-10 9.6 Perennial Streams.........................................................................................................................9-10 9.7 Vegetation and Wildlife..................................................................................................................9-10 9.7.1 Rare and Endangered Species...................................................................................................9-11 9.7.2 Other Species of Concern...........................................................................................................9-13 9.7.3 Wildlife Hazards to Aircraft..........................................................................................................9-14 9.8 Status of Vegetation Management Plan........................................................................................9-15 9.9 Grassland Management Plan........................................................................................................9-16 9.10 Water Resources...........................................................................................................................9-17 9.11 Regulated Remediation Sites........................................................................................................9-21 9.11.1 Hanscom Field ............................................................................................................................9-21 9.11.2 Hanscom Air Force Base............................................................................................................9-23 9.12 Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................................................................9-25 9.13 Stormwater ....................................................................................................................................9-25 9.13.1 Stormwater Modeling ..................................................................................................................9-25 9.13.2National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit............................................................9-25 9.13.3Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)........................................................................9-31 9.13.4NPDES Visual Inspection Program.............................................................................................9-32 9.13.5Stormwater Monitoring Program.................................................................................................9-32 9.13.6Impaired Waters Monitoring........................................................................................................9-33 9.13.7Stormwater Mitigation .................................................................................................................9-33 9.13.8Spill Prevention Efforts................................................................................................................9-33 9.14 Environmental Audits.....................................................................................................................9-34 9.15 Deicing Activities............................................................................................................................9-34 9.15.12003 Deicing Study.....................................................................................................................9-35 9.15.2Stormwater and In-stream Monitoring Program..........................................................................9-35 9.16 Analysis of Future Scenarios.........................................................................................................9-36 9.16.1 Wetlands .....................................................................................................................................9-37 9.16.2Vernal Pools................................................................................................................................9-38 9.16.3Rare and Endangered Species...................................................................................................9-38 9.16.4 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................9-39 10 Cultural and Historical Resources.............................................................................................10-1 10.1 Key Findings Since 2005...............................................................................................................10-2 10.2 Year 2012 Conditions....................................................................................................................10-4 10.3 Designation Process......................................................................................................................10-8 10.4 Historical Resources......................................................................................................................10-8 10.4.1 National and State Register Resources......................................................................................10-9 10.4.2 Existing Noise Conditions ...........................................................................................................10-9 10.4.3 Existing Traffic Conditions.........................................................................................................10-16 10.4.4MHC Inventory..........................................................................................................................10-16 10.4.5 Existing Noise Conditions .........................................................................................................10-19 10.4.6 Existing Traffic Conditions.........................................................................................................10-20 Contents 10.4.7Local Historic Commissions......................................................................................................10-20 10.5 Reconnaissance Survey Update .................................................................................................10-21 10.5.1 Methodology..............................................................................................................................10-21 10.5.2Archaeological Resources ........................................................................................................10-22 10.5.3 National and State Registers ....................................................................................................10-22 10.5.4 Reconnaissance Survey ...........................................................................................................10-24 10.5.5Proximity of Sites to Traffic Study Intersections .......................................................................10-25 10.6 Minute Man National Historical Park ...........................................................................................10-25 10.6.1 Visitation Levels........................................................................................................................10-25 10.6.2Overview of Park.......................................................................................................................10-26 10.7 Battle Road Unit...........................................................................................................................10-27 10.8 The Wayside Unit ........................................................................................................................10-27 10.9 North Bridge Unit.........................................................................................................................10-27 10.10 Barrett Farm Unit.........................................................................................................................10-30 10.11 Park Environs and Landscape Features .....................................................................................10-30 10.12 Historic and Archaeological Resources in Minute Man National Historical Park ........................10-30 10.13 General Management Plan..........................................................................................................10-31 10.13.1 Soundscape Goals for the Minute Man National Historical Park ...........................................10-35 10.13.2 Interagency Working Group ...................................................................................................10-35 10.13.3 Current Status and Future Concerns .....................................................................................10-35 10.13.4 Environmental Effects in Minute Man National Historical Park..............................................10-36 10.13.5 Battle Road (Interpretative) Trail............................................................................................10-37 10.14 Recreational and Conservation Lands ........................................................................................10-39 10.14.1 Bedford ...................................................................................................................................10-39 10.14.2 Concord..................................................................................................................................10-43 10.14.3 Lexington................................................................................................................................10-44 10.14.4 Lincoln ....................................................................................................................................10-45 10.14.5 Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge...............................................................................10-46 10.14.6 Concord River.........................................................................................................................10-47 10.14.7 Minuteman Commuter Bikeway .............................................................................................10-47 10.14.8 Narrow Gauge Rail-Trail.........................................................................................................10-47 10.14.9 Agricultural Resources ...........................................................................................................10-48 10.15 Analysis of Future Scenarios.......................................................................................................10-50 10.15.1 Historical Resources...............................................................................................................10-51 10.15.2 State Register Resources ......................................................................................................10-51 10.15.3 2020 Scenario ........................................................................................................................10-55 10.15.4 2020 Scenarios.......................................................................................................................10-56 10.16 MHC Inventory and Information from Historic Commissions.......................................................10-56 10.16.1 2020 Scenario ........................................................................................................................10-56 10.16.2 2030 Scenario ........................................................................................................................10-57 10.17 Archaeological Resources...........................................................................................................10-57 10.17.1 2020 Scenario ........................................................................................................................10-57 10.17.2 2030 Scenario ........................................................................................................................10-57 10.18 Minute Man National Historical Park ...........................................................................................10-58 10.18.1 2020 Scenario ........................................................................................................................10-58 10.18.2 2030 Scenario ........................................................................................................................10-61 10.18.3 Recreational and Conservation Lands ...................................................................................10-62 10.19 Environmentally Beneficial Measures..........................................................................................10-63 10.19.1 Historical Resources...............................................................................................................10-63 10.19.2 Archaeological Resources......................................................................................................10-63 11 Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS).........................11-1 11.1 Key Findings Since 2005...............................................................................................................11-1 11.2 Concept of Sustainability...............................................................................................................11-2 11.2.1 Defining Sustainability.................................................................................................................11-2 11.2.2State of Practice in Airport Sustainability....................................................................................11-3 11.2.3Guiding Principles .......................................................................................................................11-4 V IV I{I F.Mal,d, Contents 11.2.4State-Level Guidelines, Initiatives, and Programs......................................................................11-4 11.2.5Massport's Environmental Management Policy..........................................................................11-6 11.2.6Environmental Management Systems........................................................................................11-7 11.2.7LEED Certification.......................................................................................................................11-7 11.3 Sustainable Development at Hanscom Field.................................................................................11-8 11.3.1 Environmental Management System..........................................................................................11-8 11.3.2Environmental Sustainability Initiatives.......................................................................................11-8 11.3.3Sustainable Planning, Design, and Construction........................................................................11-9 11.3.4Sustainable Construction..........................................................................................................11-10 11.3.5Sustainable Operations and Maintenance................................................................................11-10 11.3.6Monitoring of Environmental Performance................................................................................11-12 11.4 Social Sustainability Initiatives.....................................................................................................11-13 11.5 Future Sustainability Efforts.........................................................................................................11-14 12 Environmentally Beneficial Measures.......................................................................................12-1 12.1 Current Massport Programs and Procedures................................................................................12-3 12.1.1 Environmental Programs.............................................................................................................12-3 12.1.2Ground Transportation................................................................................................................12-4 12.1.3 Noise Abatement.........................................................................................................................12-4 12.1.4Air Quality....................................................................................................................................12-7 12.1.5Project Development and Review...............................................................................................12-8 12.2 Additional Environmentally Beneficial Measures...........................................................................12-9 12.2.1 Ground Transportation................................................................................................................12-9 12.2.2 Noise.........................................................................................................................................12-10 12.2.3Air Quality..................................................................................................................................12-10 12.2.4 Water Quality and Stormwater..................................................................................................12-10 Appendix A Draft Scope, MEPA Certificate, and Responses to Comments................................A-1 AppendixB Airport Layout Plan....................................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C Ground Transportation.................................................................................................C-1 AppendixD Noise .............................................................................................................................. D-1 AppendixE Air Quality.......................................................................................................................E-1 Appendix F Wetlands and Rare Species..........................................................................................F-1 Appendix G Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................G-1 Figures Figure1-1 Locus Map................................................................................................................................1-2 Figure1-2 Site Location Map.....................................................................................................................1-5 Figure 1-3 Summary of Planning Areas...................................................................................................1-13 Figure 1-4 Hanscom Field Peak Hour Traffic Volumes as a Percent of Route 2A (East of Hanscom Drive) Traffic Volumes for Existing and Future Conditions ...........................................................................1-17 Figure 1-5 2005 and 2012 DNL Noise Contour Comparison...................................................................1-19 Figure 1-6 Historic Resources within the 2005, 2012, 2020 and 2030 DNL Noise Contours..................1-25 Figure2-1 Airport Facilities........................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-2 Standard T-Hangar Layout.....................................................................................................2-10 Figure 2-3 Existing Water System ...........................................................................................................2-16 Figure 2-4 Existing Sanitary Sewer System.............................................................................................2-19 Figure 2-5 Drainage Area, Outfall Locations, and Floodplain Boundary .................................................2-22 Figure 3-1 Hanscom Field Aircraft Operations by Type and Aircraft Category .........................................3-4 Figure 3-2 Historic Trend in General Aviation Operations at Hanscom Field and U.S. Towered Airports 3-7 Figure 3-3 Hanscom Field Based Aircraft by Type, 2012........................................................................3-10 Figure 3-4 Hanscom Field Based Aircraft by Type, 2000-2012...............................................................3-10 ' ° X Contents Figure 4-1 ATCT Areas of Potential Visibility (Photograph Set#1).........................................................4-13 Figure 4-2 Potential ATCT Visibility Areas (Photograph Set#2).............................................................4-15 Figure 4-3 Potential ATCT Visibility Areas (Photograph Set#3).............................................................4-17 Figure4-4 Planning Areas .......................................................................................................................4-25 Figure 4-5 Summary of Planning Areas...................................................................................................4-33 Figure4-6 Terminal Area.........................................................................................................................4-37 Figure4-7 ATCT Apron............................................................................................................................4-41 Figure4-8 East Ramp..............................................................................................................................4-45 Figure 4-9 North Airfield...........................................................................................................................4-47 Figure 5-1 General Aviation Reliever and Commercial Airports Accommodating General Aviation Activity in the Greater Boston Metro Area.........................................................................................................5-2 Figure 5-2 T.F. Green and Manchester Share of Boston Area Airport Passengers..................................5-4 Figure 5-1 New England Commercial Service Airports .............................................................................5-7 Figure 6-1 Percent of Hanscom Field Traffic on Route 2A East of Hanscom Drive..................................6-2 Figure 6-2 Hanscom Field Regional Transportation Network....................................................................6-5 Figure 6-3 Battle Road Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan.........................................................6-13 Figure 6-4 Peaking characteristics of Hanscom Field vehicle traffic study area .....................................6-18 Figure 6-5 Traffic Study Area Count Locations........................................................................................6-21 Figure 6-6 2012 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes...............................................................................6-22 Figure 6-7 Comparison of 2002, 2005, and 2012 average weekday traffic volumes*.............................6-23 Figure 6-8 2012 Minuteman National Historical Park monthly visitations................................................6-24 Figure 6-9 2012 Morning Peak Hours Traffic Volumes............................................................................6-26 Figure 6-10 2012 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.........................................................................6-27 Figure 6-11 2012 Morning Peak Hour Trip Distribution ...........................................................................6-28 Figure 6-12 2012 Afternoon Peak Hour Trip Distribution.........................................................................6-29 Figure 6-13 2012 Peak hour traffic on Hanscom Drive............................................................................6-30 Figure 6-14 2020 Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Hanscom Field Only) .......................................6-39 Figure 6-15 2020 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Hanscom Field Only).....................................6-40 Figure 6-16 2030 Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Hanscom Field Only) .......................................6-41 Figure 6-17 2030 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Hanscom Field Only).....................................6-42 Figure 6-18 2020 Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...........................................................................6-43 Figure 6-19 2020 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.........................................................................6-44 Figure 6-20 2030 Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...........................................................................6-45 Figure 6-21 2030 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.........................................................................6-46 Figure 6-22 Ongoing Projects in Adjacent Jurisdictions..........................................................................6-49 Figure 6-23 Hanscom Field 2020 and 2030 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes as a Percent of Hanscom Drive TrafficVolumes...................................................................................................................................6-51 Figure 6-24 Hanscom Field 2020 and 2030 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes as a Percent of Route 2A (East of Hanscom Drive) Traffic Volumes........................................................................................................6-52 Figure 6-25 Hanscom Field Badge Holders: Resident Count by Zip Code .............................................6-59 Figure 6-26 Bikeshare Suitability Map .....................................................................................................6-63 Figure 7-1 Common A-weighted Sound Levels.........................................................................................7-5 Figure 7-2 Illustration of Sound Exposure Level........................................................................................7-6 Figure 7-3 Illustration of Equivalent Sound Level ......................................................................................7-6 Figure 7-4 Turbojet Radar Density Plots -Arrivals ..................................................................................7-11 Figure 7-5 Turbojet Radar Density Plots - Departures ............................................................................7-12 Figure 7-6 Propeller Aircraft Radar Track Density Plot-Arrivals ............................................................7-13 Figure 7-7 Propeller Aircraft Radar Track Density Plot- Departures.......................................................7-14 Figure 7-8 Propeller Aircraft Radar Track Density Plot- Touch and Go .................................................7-15 Figure 7-9 2005 and 2012 DNL Noise Contour Comparison...................................................................7-21 Figure 7-10 Noise Monitoring Locations..................................................................................................7-24 Figure 7-11 Noise Analysis Locations......................................................................................................7-27 Figure 7-12 2012 Time Above 65 dBA Contour.......................................................................................7-34 Figure 7-13 2012 Time Above 55 dBA Contour.......................................................................................7-35 Figure 7-14 SEL Contours for Common General Aviation Jet Aircraft....................................................7-38 Figure 7-15 SEL Contours for Common Propeller Aircraft ......................................................................7-39 Figure 7-16 Historical Distribution of Daily Departure SELs (Excluding Single Engine Prop).................7-40 Figure 7-17 2020 Forecast DNL Contour.................................................................................................7-47 Figure 7-18 2030 Forecast DNL Contour.................................................................................................7-49 Contents Figure 7-19 2020 Forecast Time Above 65 dBA Contour........................................................................7-57 Figure 7-20 2030 Forecast Time Above 65 dBA Contour........................................................................7-58 Figure 7-21 2020 Forecast Time Above 55 dBA Contour........................................................................7-59 Figure 7-22 2030 Forecast Time Above 55 dBA Contour........................................................................7-60 Figure 7-23 Existing and Forecast Distribution of Daily Departure SELs (Excluding Single Engine Prop)7-63 Figure 8-1 8-Hour CO Concentrations Measured at MassDEP Greater Boston Monitors — Kenmore Square and Other Measurement Locations..........................................................................................8-8 Figure 8-2 Annual NO2 Concentrations Measured at MassDEP Greater Boston Monitors — Kenmore Square and Other Measurement Locations..........................................................................................8-9 Figure 8-3 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations Measured at MassDEP Greater Boston Monitors — Kenmore Square and Other Measurement Locations..........................................................................................8-9 Figure 8-4 Annual PM10 Concentrations Measured at MassDEP Greater Boston Monitors — Kenmore Square and Other Measurement Locations........................................................................................8-10 Figure 8-5 Annual PM2.5 Concentrations Measured at MassDEP Greater Boston Monitors— Stow/Kenmore Square and Other Measurement Locations...............................................................8-10 Figure 8-6 Calendar Quarter Lead Concentrations Measured at MassDEP Monitoring Station in Kenmore Square and Harrison Avenue, Boston ................................................................................................8-11 Figure 8-7 1-Hour Ozone Concentrations Measured at MassDEP Greater Boston Monitors — Sudbury/Stow/Chelmsford..................................................................................................................8-11 Figure 8-8 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations Measured at MassDEP Greater Boston Monitors — Sudbury/Stow/Chelmsford..................................................................................................................8-12 Figure 8-9 Number of Exceedances of 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations Measured at MassDEP Greater Boston Monitors—Sudbury/Stow and Other Measurement Locations...............................................8-12 Figure 9-1 Wetlands Location Map............................................................................................................9-7 Figure 9-2 Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Priority Habitat at HanscomField....................................................................................................................................9-12 Figure 9-3 Location of Public Water Supplies in Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln ..................9-19 Figure 9-4 Zone II Wellhead Protection Areas.........................................................................................9-22 Figure 9-5 Installation Restoration Program Sites/Operable Units..........................................................9-27 Figure 9-6 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Site Plan ....................................................................9-29 Figure 10-1 Historic Resources Included as Noise Analysis Locations...................................................10-5 Figure 10-2 Historic Resources within the 2005 and 2012 DNL Noise Contour....................................10-11 Figure 10-3 Historic Resources Near Traffic Study Intersections..........................................................10-17 Figure 10-4 Historic Resources MMNHP Battle Road Unit ...................................................................10-28 Figure 10-5 Historic Resources MMNHP North Bridge and Barrett Farm.............................................10-29 Figure 10-6 2012 DNL at Minute Man National Historic Park Battle Road Unit Location......................10-38 Figure 10-7 2012 Time Above 65 dBA at Minute Man National Historic Park Battle Road Unit Locations10-38 Figure 10-8 2012 Time Above 55 dBA at Minute Man National Historic Park Battle Road Unit Locations10-39 Figure 10-9 Recreational and Conservation Lands ...............................................................................10-41 Figure 10-10 Agricultural Resources .....................................................................................................10-49 Figure 10-11 Historic Resources within the 2020, 2030 and 2005 DNL Noise Contours......................10-53 Figure 10-12 DNL at Minute Man National Historic Park Battle Road Unit Locations...........................10-60 Figure 10-13 Time Above 65 dBA at Minute Man National Historic Park Battle Road Unit Location....10-60 Figure 10-14 Time Above 55 dBA at Minute Man National Historic Park Battle Road Unit Locations..10-61 Tables Table 1-1 2012 ESPR Outreach Meetings...............................................................................................1-10 Table 1-2 Summary of Actual and Forecast Activity Levels at Hanscom Field .......................................1-12 Table 1-3 Potential Planning Concepts under the 2020 and 2030 Scenarios.........................................1-15 Table 1-4 GA Operations at Airports in the Boston Metropolitan Area....................................................1-16 Table 1-5 Hanscom Field Peak Hour Trip Generation.............................................................................1-17 Table 1-6 Summary of U.S. Census Population Counts within DNL Contours .......................................1-18 Table 1-7 Total Air Emissions at Hanscom Field (1,OOOs of kg/yr)..........................................................1-21 Table 1-8 Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern Species at Hanscom Field.............................1-22 Table 1-9 Summary of Noise Effects on Cultural and Historic Resources ..............................................1-27 Table 1-10 Summary of Existing and Possible Future Environmentally Beneficial Measures ................1-29 Table 2-1 Hanscom Field Buildings & Hangar Facilities............................................................................2-7 Table 2-2 Summary of Vehicular Parking Spaces...................................................................................2-13 Contents Table 2-3 History of Water Usage from 1988 to 2012 .............................................................................2-15 Table 2-4 Existing System Fire Flow Modeling........................................................................................2-18 Table 2-5 Average Daily Wastewater Flow..............................................................................................2-18 Table 2-6 Hanscom Field Runoff Summary.............................................................................................2-23 Table 2-7 Hanscom Field List of Hazardous Materials............................................................................2-24 Table 2-8 ASTs Less Than 10,000 Gallons at Hanscom Field................................................................2-26 Table 2-9 Active ASTs Greater Than 10,000 gallons at Hanscom Field.................................................2-27 Table 2-10 Active USTs at Hanscom Field..............................................................................................2-27 Table 3-1 Summary of Actual and Forecast Activity at Hanscom Field.....................................................3-2 Table 3-2 2005 ESPR Forecast and Actual 2012 Activity at Hanscom Field ............................................3-5 Table 3-3 Summary of Hanscom Field Aircraft Operations, 2000 to 2012................................................3-6 Table 3-4 Hanscom Field General Aviation Aircraft Operations, 2000 to 2012.........................................3-7 Table 3-5 Scheduled Commercial Airline Services and Passengers at Hanscom Field, 2000 to 2012..3-11 Table 3-6 Scheduled Commercial Passenger Airline Activity at Hanscom Field, 2000 to 2012 .............3-12 Table 3-7 Nighttime Operations (11:00 pm to 7:00 am)at Hanscom Field, 2000 to 2012......................3-13 Table 3-8 Forecast Hanscom Field General Aviation Aircraft Operations, 2020 and 2030.....................3-14 Table 3-9 Summary of Forecast Commercial Passenger Service Assumptions, 2020 and 2030...........3-16 Table 3-10 Forecast Commercial Passenger Airline Activity at Hanscom Field, 2020 and 2030 ...........3-16 Table 3-11 Forecast Nighttime Operations (11:00 pm to 7:00 am) at Hanscom Field ............................3-17 Table 4-1 Population Trends in Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln ..............................................4-5 Table 4-2 Population Projections for Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln ......................................4-6 Table 4-3 Employment Trends and Projections for Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln................4-6 Table 4-4 MAPC Smart Growth Principles...............................................................................................4-22 Table 4-5. Current Hanscom Field Planning Initiative Projects ...............................................................4-29 Table 4-6 Summary of Actual and Forecast Activity at Hanscom Field...................................................4-35 Table 4-7 2020 and 2030 Hanscom Field Planning Concepts ................................................................4-36 Table 4-8 Potential Water Usage and Wastewater Generation of 2010 and 2020 Scenarios 6 ..............4-51 Table 4-9 Potential Change in Impervious Surface (Acres)in 2020 and 2030 Scenarios ......................4-52 Table 5-1 General Aviation Operations at General Aviation Reliever and Commercial Service Airports in the Boston Metropolitan Area ...............................................................................................................5-6 Table 5-2 Passenger Activity at Logan Airport, Hanscom Field, and Other New England Commercial ServiceAirports.....................................................................................................................................5-8 Table 5-3 Commercial Aircraft Operations at Logan Airport, Hanscom Field, and Other New England Commercial Service Airports ................................................................................................................5-9 Table 6-1 Hanscom Field Vehicular Trip Generation.................................................................................6-2 Table 6-2 Hanscom Field mode choice ...................................................................................................6-16 Table 6-3 Hanscom Field peak hour trip generation 1996, 2002, 2005, and 2012 .................................6-17 Table 6-4 Study area roadways...............................................................................................................6-19 Table 6-5 Intersections exceeding ten-percent threshold: 1996-2012....................................................6-30 Table 6-6 Intersection level of service criteria..........................................................................................6-31 Table 6-7 (SYNCHRO)at screened intersections: morning peak hour...................................................6-32 Table 6-8 (SYNCHRO)at screened intersections: afternoon peak hour.................................................6-32 Table 6-9 Crash summary: 2005—2010 .................................................................................................6-33 Table 6-10 Planned development projects ..............................................................................................6-35 Table 6-11 Hanscom Field Trip Generation for 2020 and 2030 Scenarios .............................................6-37 Table 6-12 Planned Transportation Capital Improvement Projects.........................................................6-47 Table 6-13 Intersections exceeding ten-percent threshold......................................................................6-52 Table 6-14 Level of Service for 2020 Forecast: Morning Peak Hour.......................................................6-53 Table 6-15 Level of Service for 2020 Forecast: Afternoon Peak Hour....................................................6-53 Table 6-16 Level of Service for 2030 Forecast: Morning Peak Hour.......................................................6-54 Table 6-17 Level of Service for 2030 Forecast: Afternoon Peak Hour....................................................6-55 Table 7-1 Summary of U.S. Census Population Counts within DNL Contours .........................................7-2 Table 7-2 Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Departure Runway Utilization ...........................................7-16 Table 7-3 Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Departure Runway Utilization .........................................7-16 Table 7-4 Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)Arrival Runway Utilization .................................................7-17 Table 7-5 Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)Arrival Runway Utilization...............................................7-17 Table 7-6 Touch-and-Go Runway Utilization...........................................................................................7-17 Table 7-7 Year 2012 Average Daily Operations Summary by Group......................................................7-17 Table 7-8 Differences between Versions of the Integrated Noise Model ................................................7-18 il F.Mal,M, Contents Table 7-9 Area within Year 2012 DNL Contours .....................................................................................7-20 Table 7-10 Measured and Modeled DNL Values (in dB)at Permanent Monitoring Locations................7-23 Table 7-11 Estimated Population within Hanscom Field 2012 DNL Contours ........................................7-26 Table 7-12 2012 DNL at Noise Analysis Locations in Bedford (in dB)....................................................7-29 Table 7-13 2012 DNL at Noise Analysis Locations in Concord (in dB) ...................................................7-30 Table 7-14 2012 DNL at Noise Analysis Locations in Lexington (in dB) .................................................7-31 Table 7-15 2012 DNL at Noise Analysis Locations in Lincoln (in dB) .....................................................7-32 Table 7-16 2012 Area within Time Above 65 and 55 dBA Contours.......................................................7-36 Table 7-17 2012 Population within Time Above 65 and 55 dBA Contours..............................................7-36 Table 7-18 Year 2012 Total Noise Exposure (EXP) (in dB) ....................................................................7-36 Table 7-19 Historic Trends in EXP...........................................................................................................7-37 Table 7-20 2012 DNL at Noise Analysis Locations in the Minute Man National Historical Park (in dB) .7-42 Table 7-21 2012 Time-Above 65 dBA at Noise Analysis Locations in the Minute Man National Historical Park ................................................................................................................................................7-43 Table 7-22 2012 Time-Above 55 dBA at Noise Analysis Locations in the Minute Man National Historical Park ................................................................................................................................................7-44 Table 7-23 Forecast Average Daily Operations.......................................................................................7-45 Table 7-24 Forecast Area within DNL Contours......................................................................................7-45 Table 7-25 U.S. Census Population Counts within Current and Forecast DNL Contours.......................7-51 Table 7-26 Existing and Forecast DNL at Noise Analysis Locations in Bedford (in dB) .........................7-53 Table 7-27 Existing and Forecast DNL at Noise Analysis Locations in Concord (in dB) ........................7-54 Table 7-28 Existing and Forecast DNL at Noise Analysis Locations in Lexington (in dB) ......................7-55 Table 7-29 Existing and Forecast DNL at Noise Analysis Locations in Lincoln (in dB)...........................7-56 Table 7-30 Areas within Time Above 65 and 55 dBA Contours for Existing and Forecast Operations...7-61 Table 7-31 Population within Time Above 65 and 55 dBA Contours for Existing and Forecast Operations7-61 Table 7-32 Year 2012 Total Noise Exposure (EXP)for Existing and Forecast Operations (in dB).........7-62 Table 7-33 DNL at Noise Analysis Locations in the Minute Man National Historical Park for Existing and Forecast Operations (in dB)................................................................................................................7-64 Table 7-34 Time-Above 65 dBA at Noise Analysis Locations in the Minute Man National Historical Park for Existing and Forecast Operations (in minutes) .............................................................................7-65 Table 7-35 Time-Above 55 dBA at Noise Analysis Locations in the Minute Man National Historical Park for Existing and Forecast Operations (in minutes) .............................................................................7-66 Table 7-36 Hanscom Noise Workgroup Metrics Recommendations.......................................................7-68 Table 7-37 Status of the Hanscom Noise Workgroup Noise Abatement Recommendations .................7-69 Table 8-1 Annual Frequency of Wind Speed, Wind Direction and Atmospheric Stability Observed at HanscomField......................................................................................................................................8-4 Table 8-2 Massachusetts and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)....................................8-5 Table 8-3 Background Air Quality Levels (ug/m3).....................................................................................8-7 Table 8-4 Aircraft Operations at Hanscom Field......................................................................................8-17 Table 8-5 Emissions from Aircraft Operations at Hanscom Field (1,OOOs of kg/yr).................................8-18 Table 8-6 2011 Emissions from All Sources in Middlesex County, Massachusetts (1,OOOs of kg/yr).....8-19 Table 8-7 Emissions from Hanscom Field Vehicular Traffic (1,OOOs of kg/yr).........................................8-20 Table 8-8 Total Air Emissions at Hanscom Field (1,OOOs of kg/yr)..........................................................8-21 Table 8-9 Aircraft Operations at Hanscom Field for 2012 and Forecast Scenarios................................8-22 Table 8-10 Emissions from Aircraft Operations at Hanscom Field for 2012 and Forecast Scenarios (1,OOOs of kg/yr)..................................................................................................................................8-22 Table 8-11 Emissions from Hanscom Field Vehicular Traffic for 2012 and Forecast Scenarios (1,OOOs of kg/yr) ................................................................................................................................................8-23 Table 8-12 Total Air Emissions at Hanscom Field for 2012 and Forecast Scenarios (1,OOOs of kg/yr)..8-24 Table 8-13 Percent Change in Total Air Pollution Emissions per Passenger at Hanscom Field for Forecast Scenarios Compared to 2012 Baseline ..............................................................................................8-25 Table 8-14 Predicted Maximum Air Concentrations in 2020 at Ten Community Receptors (tag/m3)......8-26 Table 8-15 Ground Service Equipment and Fleet Vehicles by Fuel Type at Hanscom Field..................8-28 Table 9-1 Description of Wetland Resources ............................................................................................9-3 Table 9-2 Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern Species at Hanscom Field.............................9-13 Table 9-3 Bird Species Inhabiting Shrub Stands at Hanscom Field........................................................9-13 Table 9-4 Species Reported in the National Wildlife Strike Database at Hanscom Field (1990-2013)...9-14 Table 9-5 Public Water Supply in Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln.........................................9-17 Contents Table 9-6 2005-2012 MassDEP Reported Releases at Hanscom Field that Reached Response Action Outcome (RAO)Status.......................................................................................................................9-23 Table 9-7 Massport Tenants Covered under the Hanscom Field NPDES Permit...................................9-25 Table 9-8 Best Management Practices for Stormwater Protection at Hanscom Field.............................9-31 Table 9-9 Potential Work near Wetlands in 2020 and 2030 Scenarios...................................................9-37 Table 10-1 Summary of Noise Effects on Cultural and Historic Resources............................................10-7 Table 10-2 Historic Architectural Resources Listed in the National and State Registers of Historic Places inBedford..........................................................................................................................................10-13 Table 10-3 Historic Architectural Resources Listed in the National and State Registers of Historic Places inConcord.........................................................................................................................................10-13 Table 10-3 Historic Architectural Resources Listed in the National and State Registers of Historic Places inConcord (continued)......................................................................................................................10-14 Table 10-4 Historic Architectural Resources Listed in the National and State Registers of Historic Places inLexington.......................................................................................................................................10-15 Table 10-5 Historic Architectural Resources Listed in the National and State Registers of Historic Places inLincoln...........................................................................................................................................10-16 Table 10-6 Comparing MHC Inventory and MACRIS Historic Resources within the 65 dBA and 55 dBA DNL Contours for 2005 and 2012.....................................................................................................10-19 Table 10-7 Historic Architectural Resources in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS near 2012 Intersections10-20 Table 10-8 Pre-Contact Archaeological Sites in the MHC Inventory of the Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth in Bedford near Hanscom Field..............................................................................10-23 Table 10-9 Pre-Contact Archaeological Sites in the MHC Inventory of the Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth in Concord near Hanscom Field .............................................................................10-23 Table 10-10 Pre-Contact Archaeological Sites in the MHC Inventory of the Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth in Lexington near Hanscom Field ...........................................................................10-24 Table 10-11 Pre-Contact Archaeological Sites in the MHC Inventory of the Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth in Lincoln near Hanscom Field ...............................................................................10-24 Table 10-12 Archaeological Resources at Traffic Study Intersections..................................................10-26 Table 10-13 Key Resources in the Minute Man National Historical Park..............................................10-31 Table 10-13 Key Resources in the Minute Man National Historical Park (continued)...........................10-32 Table 10-13 Key Resources in the Minute Man National Historical Park (continued)...........................10-33 Table 10-13 Key Resources in the Minute Man National Historical Park (continued)...........................10-34 Table 10-14 DNL Values for Historic Architectural Resources Listed in the National and State Registers of HistoricPlaces ..................................................................................................................................10-51 Table 10-15 Area of National and State Registers Historic Districts within the 55 dBA DNL Contour..10-55 Table 10-16 Historic Resources in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS within the 65 dBA and 55 dBA DNL Contours for the 2020 and 2030 Scenarios......................................................................................10-56 Table 10-17 DNL Values of Sites in the Minute Man National Historical Park (in dB)...........................10-59 Table 10-18 Noise Effects on Recreational and Conservation Resources............................................10-63 Table 12-1 Summary of Existing and Possible Future Environmentally Beneficial Measures ................12-2 Table 12-2 Hanscom Noise Workgroup Metrics Recommendations.......................................................12-5 Table 12-3 Status of the Hanscom Noise Workgroup Noise Abatement Recommendations .................12-5 Table A-1 Response to Comments..........................................................................................................A-30 Table A-2 Comment Letters with Response Identifiers ...........................................................................A-40 XN F.Mal, Introduction/Executive Summary Introduction / 1 Ii m Suryunary i 'Ll Einviroi imental Status and PlaininingReport The Massachusetts Port Authority(Massport)has filed this Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR) for calendar year 2012,in compliance with Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA),to provide a status report on activity levels and environmental conditions at Laurence G. Hanscom Field (Hanscom). The Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs(EEA) defined the scope for the 2012 ESPR in a Certificate issued May 18, 2012. This ESPR reports on current conditions at Hanscom Field and compares them to historical data from the 2000 and 2005 ESPRs and other available sources as described in each chapter. The 2012 ESPR informs future planning by presenting and evaluating the potential cumulative environmental effects of future scenarios for the planning years of 2020 and 2030 based on forecasts of airport activity levels. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios represent estimates of what could occur(not what will occur)in the future using certain planning assumptions,but are not necessarily recommended outcomes. The future scenarios are consistent with Massport's 1978 Master Plan and 1980 Regulations for Hanscom Field,which prohibit scheduled commercial passenger services with aircraft having more than 60 seats. The retrospective and prospective information presented in this ESPR provide a planning tool for assessing and reviewing changes at Hanscom Field and its environs over time. The aviation activity forecasts in the 2012 ESPR account for a realistic level of aviation growth based on local and national aviation trends and forecasts from the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)New England Regional Aviation System Plan (NERASP). Additionally, the 2012 ESPR provides a database and regional planning tool for the Towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln, as well as State agencies and other interested parties. Figure 1-1 shows the location of Hanscom on the USGS map. EEA 95484/8696 Submitted by: Massachusetts Port Authority Logan Office Center One Harborside Drive, Suite 200 South, Second Floor East Boston, MA 02128 Stewart Dalzell, Deputy Director Economic Planning and Development Department (617) 568-3524 Tom Ennis, Senior Project Manager/Senior Planner Economic Planning and Development Department (617) 568-3546 jen-nu r s's roq,-con E ii�,..X.: I'll 44, t, u oa 1f '" rlrrl fl m n i1,., ,f f *'''"-�%1im "'"` ro<• i. ) '" "„h)t ��j� 1 GYs' l� ii r 't'" I r filly i o., i!✓U C %a „/ / r>7 /�i Ei ifalNll ( y i � � r �, M„ / J IIa f fB E,1D"'F,- D y (,) 4m' a1V: 00000 4 w JJ '� 0„ Y r 1 C O N C O R�D ° T ., YN � tlf✓'gyp � •, J )jJ ref oll + a r a( 011 � nprke�Ut r ( r Gr R y mg i f� V .. .+A." /6✓ mrmm a k r t e716u a ✓ { �V ff/ M d if i �4 d rk A- r'/^ 21, 11V A C a ( �5a t a h' 3✓ i �"'� "/ "/ (m tf, �r, } n" o„asp,' f ,,,I, my �/ I! / i Ilfp�. f m fir� /,1 +, ��'r�✓'`N�"'ri I ,1'm+ ^>t" rn, r o» /y my y F" v y Iff a M V➢ ;. / f�f�� J�'�1 tIN �" �� l�)✓� �� " I� �rG I /r at'^(a sd-., td a r u „/iYa�f 1d„„u�„,'r/ � r f y �J ) �, ,' r ,ti f ���,� fi� Q 's f!H 4 / s✓ fl�l a alp rw 4 rv"5 Pt t eyk bl+ r' l y pay I N.F ED Hanscom Field Property Boundary Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Hanscom AFB Property Boundary q e Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts Municipal Boundary Locus Map Data Sources:ESRI(USGS Topographic Maps),March 4,2013,MassGIS(Community Boundaries),March 5,2013 Figure 1-1 Introduction/Executive Summary This introduction 0o the 20/2/SJ,8 provides background information on Hanscom Field, describes the environmental review process,identifies the analytical framework for the ESPR, and summarizes the primary obongoo since 2005, and provides the organization for the report. 12 Hainsca00 Field Hanscom Field ioNew England's premier, fudl'oondoo gononU aviation({]A) airport and oorvoo as o{]A reliever for Boston Logan International Airport with limited commercial passenger service. Diolocated approximately 20 miles northwest ofBoston, comprising approximately 1,300 ooroo of land, in close proximity to Minute Man National Historical Park(MMNHP) and Great Meadows National Wildlife 8ufuco ({]MNWR). Hanscom lies just outside Rbo10 128/1'95, and is convenient to most of metropolitan Boston. Rbo10 2A oorvoo as opdnnory commuter route and the primary 000000 route to the airport, Hanscom Air Force Base (AFE|), and MMNH9. Figure |'2 provides the site location of Hanscom Field in relation hu these roads and its boundaries with MMNH9 and {]MNW8. Hanscom Field io located bn parts of four different municipalities: Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. To the south, h abuts the MMNH9,which comprises ovor900 ooroo. The 800'ooro 1{on000nn AFE| adjoins Hanscom to the south. {]MNW8,which includes 3,600 acres along the Concord and Sudbury Rivers,io located to the west of Hanscom Field. These large land holdings provide obuffer between Hanscom Field and residential areas. Despite its proximity to these many public recreational areas and adjacent communities, the airport is visible from few locations due to its position in a low, flat area in the landscape. The FAA identifies Hanscom Field as a reliever airport. As such,its primary role in the regional aviation system io to accommodate regional {]A needs,while providing supplemental commercial and cargo service to meet small-scale,niche demands. This allows larger nearby airports to concentrate on large- scale commercial and cargo activity. M000pod0000mod ownership of Hanscom Field in 1974 and prepared o Master Plan for the airport in 1978,which included 000mprobonoivo public outreach process. In 1980, after additional stakeholder engagement, Massport adopted the Hanscom Field Noise Rules (740 CMR 25.00),which were an important outgrowth of the Master Plan. The Master Plan and the 1980Noioo Rules remain the 6romovrodk for airport planning and operations today. The variety of aviation activities at Hanscom Field include private and corporate aviation, recreational flights,pilotbaining, air charter, cargo, commuter service, and limited military use. The Master Plan and 1980Noioo Rules contemplated and provided for commercial airline service opooiGoollv allowing for commercial passenger aircraft with 60 seats or fewer. Commercial airlines have operated periodically at Hanscom Field since the nnid'|970o. Pan Annwas the most recent airline to provide commercial passenger services and Streamline Air provided scheduled charter service until September 2012. In 1970, four years before Massport assumed operation of Hanscom Field, airport activity peaked at slightly more than 300,000 total annual aircraft operations. E|y2000, operations o1 Hanscom Field had decreased to 212,400,with {]A representing 96 percent oftotal activity, oobodolod commercial passenger service accounting for three percent, and military at less than one percent. Hanscom's total aircraft operations have declined by 2 percent annually since 2000, down from approximately 2|8,000 operations in2000to |66,000 operations in20|2. The number ofscheduled commercial air passengers decreased from o historic high of|62,|00in2000to8,609in20|2. 1-� � ������ . Introduction/Executive Summary (This page intentionally left blank) 1 r a^Yr m 9 / LE w LUo ea l 1 ,r ` r � r ' In "," ✓vY Y r v O e r J co Al e r O i�omg d N "a�a �46 r �/// � �✓ J ,� m w4�d�a'Il y�r ��� � � 4�0� �� � z / �i;id f p G 1�� � d� � rY � �;� � �J � „-� i �9r�ir �, ®,'� �'r' r r'• i h rAi�I�y Y�'N("%� rY �'y^"' •J d'aliC � % �,y� r I � �i 1� � / r u .� �ti�i i✓ui�y ��lsl �, ��NI d/lr c%} Y'�t J; r.( / ✓�' r�,N"PWuih iJ � �� Jv i r 1 1 i7 � f 1��1 �YI>y f of r^ '�f �Vw (�/ '�` -, u � s�,�i � a d�d i� i� � " a �' I yp �� � r Y � '"— �P rY° da J�?�✓Jin 1ti i�ha�91" � l �,GyV ',i� t 0o a x W 0 0 ti 0 a ��,r Introduction/Executive Summary Likewise, scheduled commercial aircraft operations have decreased from 6,600 in 2000 to 635 in 2012. GA now accounts for 99 percent of all operations. The overall decrease in activity at Hanscom mirrors long-term national trends in aviation use and fleet mix change Despite these trends, Hanscom Field continues to play an important role as a regional transportation asset that is linked to the economic health of the region. This is reflected in the expanding market for corporate aviation. Business jet operations at Hanscom have increased 27 percent from 2000-2012 possibly indicating sustained growth in that sector. Since 1985, the Massachusetts Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)has requested that Massport prepare an ESPR every five years,in order to evaluate the cumulative effect of growth and change at Hanscom Field and provide data and analyses on noise, ground transportation, air quality, and water quality. The original 1985 GEIR(Generic Environmental Impact Report),the 1995 GEIR Update, the 2000 ESPR, the 2005 ESPR, and now the 2012 ESPR provide a retrospective analysis of the environmental effects of Hanscom Field while including analyses for future conditions.With the EEA Secretary's approval,the current ESPR was deferred until analysis year 2012 due to the economic recession of 2008-09 and respective decline in the number of aviation operations, which have remained well below the 2005 and future analysis years (see Appendix A). The role of the ESPR and relationship to project-specific environmental review is described below. 13.11 !Ro1e of the I iSP[R as art Aliivallpoirt° wld IlReVi w Environmental review of Hanscom Field activities is undertaken at the state level through the ESPR process,which provides a public forum to assess the cumulative environmental effects of airport operations and informs Massport and the community regarding the implications of those environmental effects. The ESPR presents an overview of the operational environment and planning status of Hanscom Field and long-range projections of environmental conditions against which the effects of future individual projects can be compared. It allows the reader to see past and current environmental information, and a forecast of potential future environmental effects at Hanscom Field based on realistic changes in activity levels. The ESPR is an important tool in early public engagement for future development activities. It provides a list and description of capital projects that may be undertaken or supported by Massport within the timeframes of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Additionally, the ESPRs are a comprehensive source of technical data and planning information for use by the towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln, State agencies and other interested parties. The ESPR does not replace the requirement for filing an Environmental Notification Form(ENF) for a specific project that meets or exceeds a MEPA regulation threshold. 13.2 I iiµ,c�,j c,t SIli clii liic IlReVi w While the ESPRs are an important part of the regulatory process, environmental review must also be undertaken on a project-specific basis, as indicated in the EEA Certificate for the 2012 ESPR: The ESPR does not replace the MEPA review of specific projects at Hanscom that meet or exceed regulatory thresholds, with the exception of routine maintenance and replacement projects. For each project-specific review, Massport would be required to perform an individual analysis of impacts and mitigation(for those projects that require a stand-alone FIR and Section 61 Findings). '" FI 7 Introduction/Executive Summary The ESPR serves as a vehicle for ensuring that the long-term, broad-scope planning informs the review and implementation of individual actions at Hanscom Field. In cases where the state environmental review thresholds are triggered, Massport or the project proponent will prepare the appropriate environmental filing,including an ENF or, for projects of significant scale requiring more extensive MEPA review, an Environmental Impact Report(EIR). Where National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) environmental review thresholds are triggered at the federal level, projects typically are also reviewed under the NEPA environmental review process with the FAA acting as the lead federal agency responsible for NEPA compliance. Both MEPA and NEPA review processes include opportunities for public comment. For example, the Runway 5/23 Safety Area Improvements project required subsequent review under MEPA and NEPA,with a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Certificate issued on March 15,2007. Massport also meets monthly with the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission (HFAC) to review activities at Hanscom Field. HFAC was established by an act of the state legislature in 1980 and includes 16 members appointed by constituent groups and approved by the selectmen from the four host municipalities. HFAC includes representatives from the towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln; local citizens groups; other area towns affected by Hanscom Field; businesses basing aircraft at Hanscom Field; aviation or aviation-related businesses at Hanscom Field; and business aviation and/or general aviation organizations. The HFAC process provides an opportunity to review projects that are not subject to formal MEPA review. IA Development of ttie 2012 ESPR Massport filed the 2005 ESPR in November 2006 and the Secretary issued the MEPA Certificate on March 29, 2007,which determined that the 2005 ESPR"adequately and properly complies with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act." The Secretary's Certificate requires that the major areas of analyses for the next ESPR include,but are not limited to, aviation planning, landside planning, ground access,noise, air quality,water quality, cultural and historical resources, sustainability and airport mitigation. Using the 2007 Certificate as a starting point, Massport filed a proposed scope for the 2012 ESPR with MEPA on February 28, 2012 and MEPA published notice of the proposed scope in the March 7,2012 edition of the "Environmental Monitor."After an extended public comment period which included scoping meetings at the Lexington Town Hall on March 20'h and Bedford Town Hall on April 4 h, the Secretary issued the scope for the 2012 ESPR in its Certificate on May 18, 2012. The 2012 ESPR follows the general outline of the 2005 ESPR. The 2005 ESPR was initially filed as a Draft ESPR in accordance with the MEPA Scope. Since there were limited comments on the 2005 Draft ESPR, the document was re-noticed as the Final ESPR. Based on this experience, Massport proposed and EEA agreed that a single ESPR is now appropriate given that Massport also prepares and circulates the "Annual Noise Report" and the "State of Hanscom" every year to the public. A single ESPR volume is consistent with the ESPR process for Boston Logan International Airport(EEA 93247). Detailed ESPR technical studies are summarized in a readable format to illustrate clearly the implications of recent trends, existing conditions and potential future scenarios. The ESPR builds on the base information developed for the 2005 ESPR,presenting policy considerations and an overview of the airport's current and potential future role within the regional planning context,including a status report on Massport's proposed planning initiatives and projects. The 2012 ESPR technical studies include analysis F3 u_1-171d,In Introduction/Executive Summary of airport activity levels, ground access,noise, air quality,water quality,natural resources, cultural and historical resources, and sustainability. This section outlines the enhancements to the technical analysis since the 2005 ESPR, describes the outreach program for the development of the 2012 ESPR, and provides a schedule for the 2012 ESPR public review and comment. 11.4.11 'TectirticaII Ana1yslls and Data III I SR' R Massport has responded to the Secretary's Certificate and prepared a detailed study of existing and projected future conditions at Hanscom. The 2012 ESPR includes a comprehensive analysis of information collected over the past three ESPRs to show important trends in Hanscom and regional activities and the associated trends in environmental conditions over that time. The preparation of single forecast scenarios for the two planning years (2020 and 2030)based on realistic development assumptions provides apractical and effective way to evaluate potential future environmental effects and avoids confusion with the previously reviewed high and moderate growth conditions. The 2012 ESPR updates several of the comprehensive studies undertaken in 2005,including the reconnaissance level survey of historic and archeological resources, detailed field measurements of traffic conditions, and quantification of acreage and linear miles of cultural,historical and recreational resources within the 65 and 55 dBA Day-Night Sound Level(DNL) contours. Commuter surveys and parking lot occupancy assessments were also repeated providing for comparisons over time. Issues that are addressed in the 2012 ESPR include airport facilities and infrastructure; aviation activity levels; airport planning;regional transportation context; ground transportation;noise; air quality; wetlands,wildlife, and water resources;historical and cultural resources; sustainability; and summary of potential beneficial measures. Technical appendices are provided with responses to comments on the proposed 2012 ESPR Scope and supportive material for the technical studies. 11.4.2 Guivaeacti far I "uaµ llpairatie°n of the 0,1 IESRI R In addition to the MEPA scoping process,Massport engaged with state,regional and local agencies and commissions in the preparation of the 2012 ESPR Massport met with a variety of groups to review the scope and methodologies, solicit information for inclusion, and identify the need for additional studies. Many others were contacted by phone. Massport sent letters to each of the local Historic Commissions and then made a presentation at one of their regularly scheduled public meetings where the 2012 ESPR planning effort was described and input solicited. Specifically, each commission was asked to discuss any updates to historic resources since 2005 that should be included in the 2012 ESPR. This information has been incorporated into Chapter 10 Cultural and Historical Resources. Massport also sent letters to each of the Town Planners informing them of the 2012 ESPR and requesting information about planned development and infrastructure projects,the status of their long-range comprehensive plans and changes in conservation and recreational land. Follow-up calls were made to each of the planning offices to discuss the material and ensure a comprehensive amount of input. This information has been incorporated in Chapter 4 Airport Planning, Chapter 6 Ground Transportation, and Chapter 10 Cultural and Historical Resources. MMNHP staff reviewed existing material about the Park and provided updates. Staff from the Hanscom AFB cooperated on efforts to minimize single occupancy automobile travel. Table 1-1 provides a list of 1.7;I 1119 Introduction/Executive Summary all outreach meetings conducted by Massport for the 2012 ESPR. Tai)Ille 1-1 2012 E&PI11 0�.jtireacli IMeetiings Federal Agencies National Park Service May 23,2013 State Agencies MassDOT, MassRides October 10,2013 Town Planning Departments Letters and Telephone correspondence March-June 2013 Historic Commissions Bedford Historic Preservation Commission January 7,2013 Concord Historic Commission December 13,2012 Lexington Historic Commission January 10,2013 Lincoln Historic Commission February 5,2013 Others Hanscom Field Tenants December 18,2012 Hanscom AFB September 19,2013 11.4.3 IEr,ivliiii�,c�,r,iirrier,i,taIII IVReVlew, SctledUle The environmental review schedule provides several opportunities beyond those required by the MEPA process for the public to learn about activities at Hanscom both today and in the future. The public comment schedule for this 2012 ESPR is as follows: IN Massport filed the 2012 ESPR with the EEA,MEPA Office on December 31, 2013. Notice was published in the Environmental Monitor on January 8, 2014. IN Massport has requested an extension of the required 30-day public comment period to 60 days, with the comment period ending on March 10, 2014. The Secretary's Certificate is anticipated to be issued approximately one week later. IN A MEPA consultation meeting will be scheduled specifically for MEPA to solicit public comments on the ESPR. IN The ESPR will be presented at the monthly Hanscom Area Town Selectmen (HATS)meeting in January during the MEPA comment period. IN In addition, three public presentations will be scheduled prior to the close of comments to provide greater detail on each of the technical topic areas addressed in the 2012 ESPR. 1.5 Priurn r IIFIii dings of ttie 1 IE&FIR The following section provides a summary of the key 2012 ESPR findings, corresponding with the subject matter of each chapter. Ahr Irt Facilities and Since the 2005 ESPR, Massport has made key improvements to fundamental airport infrastructure at Hanscom Field and third-party developers have upgraded corporate aviation facilities. The following is a list of significant projects and activities completed since 2005: IN Runway Safety Area(RSA) improvements at Runway Ends 5 and 23 including grading of the RSA and wetland replication to meet federally-mandated airfield safety standards (2008) IN RSA improvements at the end of Runway 11 by relocating portions of the perimeter road(2012) IN Reconstruction of the western end of Taxiway E, Taxiway G, and Taxiway M (2009) IN Redevelopment of the Hangar 24 site for a Fixed Base Operator(FBO) facility by Rectrix Aviation, a project which is nearing completion at this time Removal of fuel storage tanks at Hangar 10 (2011) Introduction/Executive Summary IN Implementation of enhanced access control system and replacement of a portion of the perimeter fence (2012) IN Relocation of portions of the perimeter road at the approach to Runway 29 (2012) IN Ongoing airfield maintenance IN Ongoing vegetation removal and maintenance Due to a decrease in airport activity levels,most of the projects undertaken were primarily associated with updating and maintaining existing infrastructure. The ongoing redevelopment of hangar/FBO space by Rectrix Aviation is representative of the persistent demand for business aviation use of the airfield. Since the 2005 ESPR, there has been no increase in impervious surface. Additionally, there have been no significant changes in the utility systems or in the parking spaces inventoried in the 2005 ESPR. Ahr r t i v liu° ILevels In 2012, Hanscom Field accommodated approximately 166,000 aircraft operations,with GA accounting for 99 percent and commercial and military operations accounting for the remainder. Nearly three- quarters (73 percent) of the operations performed at Hanscom in 2012 were in single-engine piston (SEP) aircraft, consisting primarily of training operations and recreational(or personal) flying. Training at two flight schools at Hanscom is the prevailing type of aircraft operation at Hanscom Field. Hanscom also serves the needs of business aviation users, including corporations that own their own aircraft and businesses that charter private flights. Business aviation operations conducted in jets, turboprops, and multi-engine piston aircraft accounted for 22 percent of Hanscom's activity. Streamline Air offered regularly scheduled commercial passenger services at Hanscom from April 2011 to September 2012 primarily serving business travelers. No scheduled commercial flights have operated at Hanscom Field since September 13, 2012. Hanscom's total aircraft operations have declined by 2.0 percent annually since 2000, from approximately 218,000 operations in 2000 to 166,000 operations in 2012. The drop in operations at Hanscom mirrors a long-term decline in GA activity in the U.S, due rising fuel prices and the economic recession of 2008-09. Nationally, the GA industry has yet to recover from the downturn. GA operations at U.S. airports with air traffic control towers were down by nearly 7 percent in 2012 compared to 2009. However, GA at Hanscom Field has recovered with operations increasing by approximately 11 percent over the same period. Business aviation has been the fastest growing segment of activity at Hanscom Field, increasing at a long-term average annual rate of 2 percent from 2000 to 2012. After a sharp decline in business aviation following the economic recession of 2008-09,business operations have been slow to recover due to the sluggish pace of economic growth and fiscal uncertainty. Yet, investment commitments from the FBOs suggest a strong future market for business aviation at Hanscom. Total aircraft operations are forecast at 168,300 in 2020 and 193,100 in 2030. Long-term growth in overall aircraft operations is expected to be modest at 0.8 percent per year from 2012 to 2030. Consistent with a positive outlook for business aviation nationally, total business-related operations are expected to increase by 2.9 percent per year reaching nearly 60,000 operations in 2030. The subset of business jet operations are forecast to grow by 3.4 percent per year to nearly 46,800 in 2030. Table 1-2 presents actual 2005 and 2012 aviation activity levels (7:00 am to 11:00 pm)by aircraft type to illustrate recent trends and then activity levels forecasted for the planning years of 2020 and 2030. E1.7;I In 1 11 11 Introduction/Executive Summary Tat)�le 1-2 &.jirnirnairy of Ach.4 aind 1-oirecast AcCV4y IL.evellls at 11ainscoirn 1-iV�d �11�11W Aircraft Operations(7:00 am to 11:00 pm) General Aviation Local(SEP) 58,535 70,196 62,605 65,164 Personal Flying(SEP) 57,894 51,477 50,661 58,285 Business Non-Jet(MEP+Turbo) 9,646 10,178 10,861 12,985 Business Jet 32,345 25,638 35,043 46,782 Helicopter 7,00 4 7,345 7,345 7,345 1 Subtotal GA 165,424 164,834 166,515 190,561 Military 904 745 745 745 Commercial Scheduled Airline' 3,627 635 1,040 1,820 Total Operations 169,955 166,214 168,300 193,126 Based Aircraft 387 340 360 416 Commercial Airline Passengers 17,457 8,609 20,280 40,600 Notes: 1.Aircraft operations are tracked by the FAA daily between 7:00 am and 11:00 pm,which are the hours that the air traffic control tower is open. Source:Massport and FAA Tower Counts Ahr Irt PIII arvri Ilea g The airport planning section of the 2012 ESPR includes an assessment of the adequacy of existing facilities to support safe aviation activity and an evaluation of improvements necessary to support anticipated future aircraft activity levels. It also considers Hanscom's future role in the regional transportation network, recent and expected near-future trends in the industry, and other conditions that will support a sustainable aviation business. Planning for Hanscom Field is based on the airport activity levels that have been forecast for the 2020 and 2030 planning scenarios. The planning concepts take into account the 1978 Master Plan and Massport's 1980 Regulations,which establish the general planning framework for Hanscom Field. Detailed environmental analysis would occur for projects that move from conceptual screening to the proposal stage when those projects exceed MEPA or NEPA review thresholds. This ESPR assesses current planning initiatives and projects at Hanscom Field, and compatible development consistent with activity forecasts for the 2020 and 2030 planning scenarios. If fully implemented, the plans included in the 2020 scenarios would create approximately 9 acres of new impervious surface as compared to 2012 (2 acres at the Terminal Area and 7 acres in the North Airfield). By comparison, if fully implemented, the 2030 scenarios would create approximately 19 acres of new impervious surface as compared to 2012 (10 acres at the Terminal Area and 9 acres in the North Airfield). Where new construction is proposed, Massport will consider opportunities to remove existing pavement to achieve its goal of no net gain in impervious surfaces. These impervious surface estimates are for planning purposes only and measures would be taken to minimize or offset any potential increases in impervious surfaces. Figure 1-3 depicts the possible location of planning initiatives and concepts in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Table 1-3 summarizes the current planning initiatives and projects at Hanscom Field, I-12 01-1711 In LE CL / r / ii o Q Ir' r yf: E Y o I N o CO - i�! rr' a i �YU mm. lr i x W 0 0 ti 0 a .�:�. Introduction/Executive Summary supporting Hanscom Field's rolepremieruyu fud|'oondoo ]A airport. M000podboo identified appropriate environmental management approaches to achieve consistency with the local and regional plans. Tat)Ue 1-3 PoteinC4UPU4nirflin0Coincepts, uindeir the 2020 aind 2030 Sceinair�bs Terminal Area 0 Replacement hangars with associated 0 Second phase of Air&Space Museum support facilities and a new access road e GA hangars with associated support 0 Replacement of salt facilities storage/maintenance facility 0 Hotel 0 First phase of Air&Space Museum for 0 Civil Air Terminal enhancements the Massachusetts Aviation Historical 0 New and replacement structured public Society parking spaces as needed 0 Civil Air Terminal enhancements Air Traffic Control Tower 0 Addition to the airport maintenance 0 Addition to the airport maintenance (ATCT)Apron facility facility 0 Relocation option for US customs facility e GA hangar development 0 Alternative landside access East Ramp 0 GA hangars with associated support 0 GA facilities and replacement of existing facilities GA hangars 0 Alternative landside access 0 Alternative landside access 0 Relocation option for US customs facility North Airfield 0 GA hangars with associated support 0 GA facilities on existing Massport facilities on existing Massport property property as well as on land expected to as well as on land expected to be be obtained from the Navy obtained from the Navy The Pine Hill and West Airfield areas are referenced in this ESPR for consistency with past ESPRs. No new development has been evaluated for the 2012 ESPR. The 2005 planning concepts can be considered current. 1.2020 includes potential activities in 2013 through 2020. 2.2030 includes potential activities in 2021 through 2030 and planning concepts from the 2020 scenarios. Reg-anal Cantext Massport advocates omulti-modal regional transportationoolicy to improve the efficient use ofthe ro ion'o transportationinfrastructure bv appropriateexpanded use of regional airports and olternodvo transportation modes. For more than o decade, Massmnhas formed partnerships with federal, state, and regional ogonoioo to expand and improve in1or'oi[ybovol options for the New England region bv supporting on integrated,mold'nnodol, regional transportation network. Within this context, Massport is committed to maintaining Hanscom Field as a vital transportation resource within the regional airport system. E|000000 of its proximity toBoston and Route 128 area booin00000 that rely on corporate aviation, Hanscom Field handles about 166,000 ounool{]A operations, more GA activity than any other GA or commercial oomioo airport inthe region. Hanscom Field will continue to function within the regional airport network primarily as a GA reliever for Logan Airport with o limited role as 000nnnnoroiol air service airport. 1-15 Introduction/Executive Summary Tat)Ue 1-4, GAOpeirat�oinsot Xirpoirts �in the BostoinMetmmpdU�4ain Area Portsmouth International General Aviation 32,586 38,132 2.3% 67.7% 117 Boston Logan International Commercial Service 32,652 28,144 -2.1% 0.0% - Massachusetts Port Authority; Federal Aviation Administration,ATADS;and FAA,Terminal Area Forecast, December 2012. 1 Includes air taxi operations except for Manchester-Boston Airport,where air taxi operations counts are comingled with regional commuter airline operations. 2 Hanscom Field based aircraft are from Massport records. All other based aircraft from FAA,Terminal Area Forecast. 3 Presents statistics for 2012. Ao shown in Table |~4, {]A operations o1 airportsinUhogroaterE|ootonoroo[eDbv32poroontporyoor between 2005 and 20|2, consistent with national trends. {]A operations o1 all U.S. towered airports declined bv3.6 percent per year from 2005to20|2.' High fuel prices, o weak economy, and o decline in the number of student pilots over the past decade have depressed the overall demand for GA. An even sharper drop in GA occurred following the economic recession of 2008-09 and a reduction in the use of corporate air transportation bv many businesses. Over o two-year period from 2007to2009, {]A operations in the U.S. fell by 15.5 poroonLz GA activity levels at Hanscom Field have remained relatively stable in recent years. Between 2007and 2012, GA and military operations at Hanscom declined slightly by an average 0.1 percent per year. While Hanscom's current GA operations are still substantially lower than previous peak levels (over 204,000 in 2000 and over 300,000 in the 1970s), the airport has continued to accommodate a very strong level of GA demand and has performed well relative to other{]A reliever airports in the region. With its proximity to Boston, as well as the growing metro-west suburbs and Route 128/1-495 area businesses, Hanscom is expected to continue to be the principal airport for the region's corporate and business aviation needs. Ground Consistent with conditions reported in the 2005 ESPR, Hanscom Field is not a significant contributor to traffic volumes on the roadways that surround the airport. Commercial and residential developments, coupled with reliance on single occupancy vehicles, remain the most significant source of traffic volume on area roadways. As Figure |'4 indicates, Hanscom Field traffic comprises four percent ofboDfioon Route 2A during the morning peak hour and afternoon peak hours in20|2, comparable hu2005levels. The contribution of Hanscom Field boffio to Route 2Avolomoo could inor0000 to 5 percent inthe 2020 planning scenario and 7 percent in the 2030 planning scenario. '[/\/\.Aerospace Forecast,[Y2013—[Y2O33 2|hid. 1-16 Introduction Executive Summary 1 1111111111 Morning Peak Hour 0.9 0.8 1111111111 Afternoon Peak Hour 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 4-OA 3%------------5%---4% 7% 7% 0 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliilllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI I I MEN= Existing 2020 Forecast 2030 Forecast 1-ig�.jire 1-4 11ainscoirn 1-iV�d III'3eak 11mir"Frafft Vd .jirnes as a l3eirceint of 11mite 2A (East ofIlainscoirn Diriiive) 'Tirafft Vd .jirnes for IlExiiistiiiing aind 1-1iftire Coiruttbins The lack of effect on area roadways by Hanscom Field is historical and long-standing. Traffic arrivals and departures by Hanscom Field employees and passengers are scheduled to avoid peak hour congestion. As Table 1-5 indicates, the amount of peak hour traffic generated in 2012 by Hanscom Field has not changed significantly since 2005. The average daily traffic volumes entering and exiting Hanscom Field have decreased from 2,600 in 2005 to 2,200 vehicles in 2012, consistent with the reduction in commercial air passenger and GA activity at the airport. Because of the refinements to the aviation activity forecasts, the 2020 and 2030 ground traffic volume estimates are significantly less than the 2005 ESPR estimates. Tat)Ille 1-5 11ainscoirn 1-iV d III' ea k Illlmjir'Tiriiip Geineiratbin Mill ��I i i milli i i 2005 Actual 157 154 2012 Actual 165 121 2020 Forecast 220 166 2030 Forecast 384 336 The assessment of traffic operations at morning and afternoon peak for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios indicate that most intersections would operate at the same level of service or with slight increases in delay regardless of the level of Hanscom Field-related traffic growth. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and operational approaches would be expected to minimize any slight increases in delay associated with the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Noise In general,noise levels at Hanscom Field have decreased over the last several years, due primarily to decreases in operations, technological and development of quieter and better performing aircraft. In addition, Massport instituted changes in the Fly Friendly Program in 2009 to minimize flights over the MMNHP and nearby residential areas. Overall noise levels are projected to increase in the 2020 and 2030 planning scenarios, driven by forecast increases in Stage 3 GA jet activity. Using radar data, Massport staff monitors the number of touch-and-go operations over the MMNHP. This data is a critical part of ongoing quarterly meetings between Massport, FAA air traffic control tower, El.UP 1 15 1 '17 Introduction/Executive Summary and flight school staff to review touch-and-go flight paths. Since the initiation of this program, flights over MMNHP have been reduced by an average of 21%. Comparison of year 2012 Day-Night Sound Levels (DNL)'noise contours to 2005 contours shows that overall noise levels decreased, largely due to lower activity levels by jets and Stage 2 GA aircraft, as well as decreased nighttime operations. The total population exposed to sound levels greater than DNL 65 dB has decreased from 17 people in 2005 to 0 people in 2012. The total population in the four towns exposed to DNL values of 55 dB or greater in 2012 is estimated to be 1,041, down from 2,953 in 2005. [DNL 65 dBA is a threshold at which the FAA defines a significant impact; DNL 55 dBA is the level for analysis requested by MEPA J Table 1-6 presents the population estimates within the 65 and 55 DNL contours existing,past and future forecast scenarios. Even with the projected growth in operations for 2020 and 2030,no residents near Hanscom Field are expected to be located within the 65 dB contour and populations exposed to both the 65 dB and 55 dB contour will remain below 2005 actual levels. Figure 1- 5 provides a visual comparison of the 2005 and 2012 DNL noise contours. 7aIt)IIIe 1- &.jirnimnairy o1 U S euns� .js IIPop.jIIIatliioin Cmvints wiiitllhidiiun ID111IIL. Cointmirs 2000 26 2,848 2005 17 2,953 2012 0 1,041 2020 0 1,176 2030 0 1,859 Notes: 1. Based on the most recent U.S. Census information available 2.These population estimates fall within the 65 and 70 DNL contours. 3.These population estimates include population within the 55,60,65 and 70 DNL contours. The analysis of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios suggest that the greatest noise exposures would occur in the 2030 scenario since it has the highest projected activity levels. Even with activity increases over current levels,no noise analysis locations (including historic sites)would experience a DNL value greater than 60 dB under any future scenario. The Deacon John Wheeler/Capt. Jonas Minot Farmhouse and the Wheeler- Meriam House are the only historic sites that would experience noise levels between 55 and 60 dBA in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. No portion of the MMNHP is located in the 55 DNL contour in 2012. For the 2020 scenario, the MMNHP will remain outside of the 55 DNL contour and only a small portion of the MMNHP (0.4 acres) will be in the 55 DNL contour in 2030. Air, Q Lj III liu° Aircraft emissions for all pollutants decreased between 2005 and 2012. These changes are a result of the changes in the mix of aircraft operating at Hanscom Field as well as a reduction in the number of operations. Roadway emissions for all pollutants declined between 2005 and 2012 due to the effects of more stringent federal emission controls on motor vehicles. Table 1-7 presents changes in total air emissions at Hanscom Field between 1985 and 2012 and shows the overall improvements in air quality over the past two decades. 3 DNL: Average annual daily sound level,in decibels,computed on the basis of a 24-hour period. / o LE i Z z LU o N 0 o LO E o o ✓ % �IF ARC 1� r.",r �,.' �� M7y dr�u,�U�� 8n ,q id ¢ �nrr rG���/�%/G!���✓//,✓i� ��'� ,J � �/ �W i r' fn� o- n � m*i �!il i ii° I! / /IiI i—.-�".."' � y 191➢ l� fir' — p A i i ID� �/ � - •a, � ��f� (� r i,, � fl r„t, �l i �f�G//r/./"%%/��`y �' r2��1'�% / r / i N no n46 6/ly® F d A P>dIW1 rll A(l ' l ! °o a i // t��� s li�l ✓p o Fora r W � � r i��d1rNY�; r ill ✓ial [oi rr i" r o y d qya y � 4 1 B / r ,✓�� pA'� "f U rF � / r � ylry," f Fdd � k !�f/ �/���� ,�w' d�[�d '�` U � l N(J � ti�� W � �/�� t ✓ O m x W 0 0 ti 0 a Introduction/Executive Summary Tat)Ue 1-7 'To4U Xir Emmkss�bins at 11ainscomm 1-16Ukl (1"000s, of��k0yyir) CO NOx VOC 1. Data to calculate the ground vehicle CO2 emissions for 1985 and 1995 were not were available;therefore,total CO2 emissions for these years are not available for comparison with later years 2. Percent total based on EDMS 5.1.4.1 to estimate aircraft emissions for 2005 and 2012. All current and predicted year 2020 and 2030air pollutant concentrations are safely in compliance with state and federal health-based air quality standards. Calculations of annual ondooiono from aircraft operations and motor vehicles accessing the airport demonstrate that Hanscom Field emissions are a very small fraction of regional emissions. Resources In 2008, Massport updated its Vegetation Management Plan(VMP) to address the goals of aviation safety and natural resource management. ln accordance with the\/M9, M000pon removed vegetative obstructions hu Runway 23. This project oloorosudtodindhoronovrolofbailoonnoodonobobwoon Bedford and Concord conservation lands. Additional wetland areas around the Terminal Area have also been delineated oo part of proposed redevelopment projects inolodingonovrbongorprop000dbvJot Aviation. An updated composite wetlands plan showing newly identified wetland areas is provided in dhioES98. Table 1-8 presents the current state-listed Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern Species o1 Hanscom Field.Future development contemplated to support increased aircraft activity levels io not currently proposed inany areas currently identified oo habitat for state-listed species. Most new development io also located outside of wetlands and buffer zones. Activities proposed in areas subject hu review under the M00000b000Uo Vyo0ondo Protection Act(MAW9A) are oobioot to review bvthe municipal conservation commission and M000pod will make the n000000ry filings. Introduction/Executive Summary Tat)Ue 1-8 Eindain0emed" T[imeaUeined" oir Spe64U Coincemm Spedes, ot 11ainscomm 1-iVUd Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Endangered Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Threatened Wood Turtle Glyptemys insulpta Special Concern Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program,January 13, 2013 letter 1. In accordance with the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act(M.G.L. Ch. 131A)and regulations Massport has been working cooperatively with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(M000DB9), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to improve the flow characteristics and profile ofohurmxro1ordischarges into the Sbmwoboon8ivor. M000podoondn000 to ovoloo10 pavement removal to door0000 impermeable or000 on the airfield and has incorporated water quality and quantity improvements into ongoing projects using Low Impact Development(lNO) technologies. M000pod has also taken measures to control otoonxro1or discharges into the river directly. In 2008, Massport had silt and sand removed from portions of three storm drainpipes just upstream from the Sbmwoboon8ivor. In 2009, M000podoomplotod soil permeability testing related to the potential installation of additional stormwater structures designed to increase groundwater recharge and decrease runoff. Massport continues to comply with its Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCQ Plan. The ^^Btu1u ofHanscom" oto1oo that there has been one reported spill at Hanscom Field since 2005. The spill was reported to M000DE9 and appropriate nn0000roo were taken to protect the environment. During 2003 and 2004,Massport conducted a deicing study and monitoring at Hanscom Field. The study showed that neither current nor future scenario deicing at Hanscom Field would adversely affect the water supply for Bedford, Burlington or any other community. M000podoondn000 to utilize the results of this study in evaluating impacts of deicing materials at Hanscom. Any projects implemented under the 2020 and 2030 scenarios will meet requirements of the Stormxro1or Regulations under the MAWPA and its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) poonh. Cultural and H-star-caN Resources The M00000b000Uo Historical Comodooion(MH[1 maintains the State Register of Histor o 9l0000, MHC Inventory, and the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS). These resources provided baseline in{bonodon for Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln,which was supplemented through research ofthe M1{C Inventory and the MACR]S files, discussions with the historic commissions for each of the four towns and research of their files, and discussions with the National Park Service (N9S). The inventory of existing cultural and historical resources included the identification of historic buildings and landscapes inMMNH9. The 2012 ESPR describes the potential environmental effects of traffic, air quality, and noise on cultural and historical r0000r000. lmnooto from roadway improvements are unlikely given Hunyoonu`y comparatively small contribution to traffic and Masopon`y preference for T0M and other baffio management strategies that do not require physical modification to intersections. There are no expected Introduction/Executive Summary adverse effects attributable to air quality in 2012 or under the 2020 and 2030 scenarios for any cultural and historic resources. Table 1-9 lists noise exposure for 2005 and 2012 to demonstrate recent trends and for the forecasted 2020 and 2030 scenarios for State Register properties,the MMNHP, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (GMNWR), and key conservation and recreational facilities. The results show that noise exposure has decreased significantly from 2005 to 2012 for all of the cultural and recreational areas listed. For future scenarios,noise exposure levels at State Register historic properties would increase from DNL 0.5 to 1.5 dBA above 2012 levels in the 2020 planning scenario to DNL 1.5 to 2.0 dBA above 2012 levels in the 2030 scenario. Figure 1-6 illustrates the location of historic resources relative to the recent noise levels (2005 and 2012) and projected noise levels (2020 and 2030 scenarios). Analysis shows that no buildings or historic districts have exposure above 65 dB DNL in 2012 or would have exposure above DNL 65 dBA in any of the 2020 or 2030 scenarios. For the Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan Conservation Area, approximately 0.1 acres would be exposed to the DNL 65 dBA contour in 2012, a decrease from 1.4 acres in 2005. No historic districts including the MMNHP exist within the DNL 55 dBA contour in 2012. Two individual National and State Registers properties have DNL values greater than DNL 55 dBA in 2012,which are 1.7 to 2.0 dB lower than in 2005,respectively: N The Deacon John Wheeler/Capt. Jonas Minot Farmhouse (aka Thoreau Birthplace), 341 Virginia Road in Concord at DNL 58.4 dBA N The Wheeler-Meriam House, 477 Virginia Road in Concord at DNL 58.1 dBA Additionally, the Simonds Tavern(331 Bedford Street, Lexington),which was included in this group in 2005,has a value lower than DNL 55 dBA (53)in 2012. Areas within the 55 DNL contour in the MMNHP have decreased since 2005 but are projected to increase marginally under the year 2030 scenario. In 2012,no area of the MMNHP is within the 55 DNL contour dropping from 1.7 acres in 2005. Assuming increases in aircraft activity levels for the planning scenarios, the 55 DNL contour area within MMNHP is expected to remain at 0 acres in 2020 and increase to 0.4 acres in 2030. Massport encourages new development in areas with existing impervious surfaces that take advantage of existing infrastructure. Any physical changes proposed near archaeological sites located in undisturbed portions of the airport have the potential to affect archaeological resources.Using the detailed archaeological reconnaissance survey conducted within the Hanscom Field property boundaries for the 2005 ESPR,which was reassessed in 2012,potential effects of future development on archaeological resources can be evaluated. Introduction/Executive Summary (This page intentionally left blank) F 24 �a y ® K ✓® Z 0 �) zz 'fY� 04 ..owe-�� �. � F•r c o d/ //rr�I� � CN ` 'o i5 ._. w „"�" �' R. fA i v N O II - .r„�° / Z J II mg 0 � _ _ r,< z z z z.z z z i x m 2 cvo Z ...,,,m' o c o z z z z z �111I1f@J m.' W ,e✓ ppW ti r /rr, Y �C _ �; o f� ? i'/ z P 4 25 oo r/ 00' " ���/ ,o ZO O / Z r /r�/6 og m x�i//rrr�rr v x min m �r/�% - m o o m m o z z /1 �� o U v m m 11% �. sz II ��' � __ �° IIIIIIIII b z N,11 9 z (} N 6 r! — ° tD u mr' O u 0 LC R61 z — N a m x W �'� JI �" v'�� J� zuj J o w M c f m zzi�� Uo u e� � o `� � Wig� "'hhh z z LL 1 l a J x IIIjo u N All r z z II i f O� Z� Z z z z yz z >" -o d o - r z z z U U z IIN : z z II 1 z IIU R uj e w z ��� > faM� p z Q, ozZ.o zzz y IM - n �z II 14..uj .- m x f C w net U If, I O �jj/� d O IN II _ �/ %i o � M _ Z. c - u O z ���G z ®mlll m U E�l rO z 1 ® r t x W 0 0 ti 0 a Introduction/Executive Summary Tat)Ue 1-9 &.jmmmmairy of Ndise Effects, oin Q. UftjmaU aind 1+istoir�ic Ilesmirces, National and State Register Individual Proi 39 properties 0 properties operties 0 properties 0 properties National and State Register Historic Distri CtS5 1,646.2 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Minute Man National Historical Park 975.4 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Battle Road Interpretive Trail 4.0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Minuteman Commuter Bikeway 10.1 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Narrow Gauge Rail-Trail 3.0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Hartwell Town Forest/ 165.9 acres 1.4 acres 0.1 acres 0.1 acres 0.9 acres Jordan Conservation Area Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 3,409 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Concord 1 6.5 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles National and State Register Individual Proi 39 properties 3 properties 3 properties 3 properties 3 properties National and State Register Historic Distri CtS5 1,646.2 acres 2.4 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Minute Man National Historical Park 975.4 acres 1.7 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0.4 acres Battle Road Interpretive Trail 4.0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Minuteman Commuter Bikeway 10.1 miles 1.3 miles 0.3 miles 0.4 miles 0.5 miles Narrow Gauge Rail-Trail 3.0 miles 1.3 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Hartwell Town Forest/ 165.9 acres 118 acres 26.4 acres 66.4 acres 72.1 acres Jordan Conservation Area Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 3,409 acres 210 acres 26.4 acres 43.1 acres 94.4 acres Concord River 6 6.5 miles 0.5 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0.1 miles 1. See Tables 10-19 and 10-20 for more detail on National and State Register individual properties and historic districts. 2.All surveyed historic properties;total acreage of surveyed historic districts, Minute Man National Historical Park, Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan Conservation Area,and Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge;and,total length of trails and Concord River. 3.This is the exposure level that the FAA identifies as a guideline for determining potential land use incompatibilities. 4. Does not include Minute Man National Historical Park sites. In this table,the noise effects are quantified through the estimation of park acreage within a given contour. 5. Includes Bedford Depot Park Historic Dist., Bedford Historic Dist.,and Old Bedford Center Historic Dist. in Bedford; American Mile Historic Dist.,Barrett Farm Historic Dist., Concord Monument Square-Lexington Road Historic Dist., Hubbard-French Historic Dist., Hubbardville Historic Dist., Main Street Historic Dist.,and North Bridge-Monument Square Historic Dist.in Concord; Battle Green Historic Dist., East Village Historic Dist., Hancock-Clarke Historic Dist., Lexington Green Historic Dist.and Munroe Tavern Historic Dist. in Lexington;and,Lincoln Historic Dist. in Lincoln.Areas of overlap in districts are counted once. 6. Concord River is approximately 6.5 miles in length from State Route 2(South of Airport)to State Route 225(North of I Airport) Development o1 Hanscom contemplated 0000ppod2020ond2030 activity levels io considered for four planning areas: Terminal Area, Air TmffioControl Tower(ATC7) Apron, East Ramp, and North Airfield. Any proposals considered for the ATCT Apron and East Ramp would bo directed to existing impervious areas which have low sensitivity for archaeological resources. Some or000 evaluated for future development on the North Airfield are pervious,but previously disturbed, and therefore have low Introduction/Executive Summary archaeological sensitivity. Development considered in the Terminal Area includes both pervious and impervious areas adjacent to existing facilities. The areas that are presently vegetated have been identified as having a high sensitivity for archaeological resources. Any proposed future activities under the 2020 and 2030 scenarios that involve ground disturbance in areas of archaeological sensitivity or near known archaeological sites will require more detailed investigation as part of the individual permitting of the project. No physical modifications are proposed to improve traffic intersections, and therefore there are no adverse effects to these resources in 2012 or under the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. � � System ���� liull��uIII� VII� III� II��u° ManagementIl��u I� II��° Massport is a leader among Massachusetts agencies and airport operators nationally in the promotion and implementation of sustainable design and operations. This is reflected in two relevant examples: (1) Boston Logan Terminal A was the first terminal in the world to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification 4; and (2) Hanscom was the first US airport to achieve ISO 14001 certification. Logan's new Rental Car Center and the recently completed Green Bus Depot are also anticipated to achieve LEED Silver certification. Since the 2005 ESPR,Massport has established a number of policies and implemented projects to advance sustainability at all of its facilities including Hanscom. Massport requires that new development,including that conducted at Hanscom,meet performance standards established by the LEED program for Silver certification. LEED certification is achieved through the incorporation of sustainability commitments in building design and operation including energy efficiency,use of environmentally-friendly products,reuse and recycling, and renewable energy. At Hanscom, as an example, the new Liberty Mutual Hangar includes a range of environmentally-friendly elements to reduce energy utilization and environmental management. Rectrix Aviation is constructing a new state-of-the-art FBO facility which is designed to achieve LEED Silver certification to replace Hangar 24. In addition to LEED,Massport has developed Sustainable Design Standards and Guidelines which are used to plan, design, and construct all new development projects on Massport properties. Massport has constructed solar photovoltaic(PV)panels on the Hanscom Terminal Building to provide ofsite renewable energy and reduce its demand for power from offsite electricity sources. It has also used warm-mix asphalt, a lower energy intensity pavement,in several areas at Hanscom. Massport will continue to encourage future development of Hanscom Field facilities to be performed in a sustainable manner. I III V Iiu II�W II��u I Il��u° III IIIBeneficial Measures Environmentally beneficial measures are those actions identified in each of the technical chapters of the ESPR that could be implemented to minimize potential effects of existing activities at Hanscom. Massport recognizes the importance of operating and developing Hanscom Field in a manner that maximizes its contribution to the regional transportation system while minimizing potential impacts on local communities and stakeholders. A number of actions have been implemented since the 2005 ESPR and others are proposed in the future to achieve that goal. 4 The U.S.Green Building Council developed the LEED Green Building Rating Systems to rate the sustainability of different building types. Introduction/Executive Summary In accordance with the EEASupe for the 2005 ESPR, Table |'|0 presents the responsible parties, implementation and schedule of beneficial measures that are presented inUho20/2/SJ,8. Tat)Ue 1-10 &.jmmmmairy of Ekistiin0 aind l3oss�it)Ue 1-�.jftjire ��Eiiriv���iroiirimmeiiritaUUy Beinefld4U �Meas�.jires GROUND TRANSPORTATION Transportation information on Massport website Massport Ongoing Transit information in Civil Air Terminal Massport Ongoing Participation as a partner in Massi Transportation Management Initiative Massport Ongoing program Information about transit and non-auto travel options in prominent locations Massport 2014 throughout Hanscom Field Bus shelter with transit information Massport 2014 Exploration of working with local communities and stakeholders on a bikeshare Multiple parties Ongoing network including Massport NOISE Modifications to the Fly Friendly Program using the flight tracking software to direct Massport Ongoing pilots conducting touch-and-go procedures to fly more over the airport than neighboring lands Continued implementation of the Fly Friendly program Massport Ongoing Run-up procedures for use of the East Ramp Massport Ongoing Relocation of noise monitors based on input from ongoing community coordination Massport 2014 process and implementation of updates to the Noise and Operations Monitoring System Creation of the"Airport Activity Monitor"which allows the public to research a noise Massport Ongoing event or flight, log a noise disturbance,and track correspondence related to a noise disturbance. AIR QUALITY Continued encouragement of tenants to consider the purchase of alternatively Massport Ongoing fueled ground service equipment,where appropriate Encouragement of Fixed Base Operators to minimize Auxiliary Power Unit/Ground Massport Ongoing Power Unit use Use of Ultra Low Sulfur Fuel in Massport fleet vehicles Massport Ongoing Evaluation of the installation of a paved aircraft holding area at the head of Massport 2014-2016 Runway 23 to reduce minor aircraft delays I Continued consideration of Alternative Fuel Vehicles for any new Massport vehicle Massport Ongoing purchase WATER QUALITY Support for Shawsheen Watershed Initiative to improve water quality and quantity M asspo rt wo rki ng Ongoing flow in the Shawsheen River and its tributaries with the MassDEP, USEPA,and Hanscom AFB Stormwater improvements to construct detention areas around Hanscom in Massport through 2014-2016 conjunction with the USAF MassDEP grant Continuation of MassDEP Best Management Practices Massport Ongoing WILDLIFE Manage airfield in a manner that does not disrupt breeding season for grassland Massport Ongoing birds of which two species are listed under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Implementation and maintenance of EMS procedures to control environmental Massport Ongoing effects While site-specific noise abatement is not proposed,the advancement of Massport's noise abatement program is described. It is important to note that no noise-analysis locations experienced a DNL value greater than 60dBin20|2 (i.u., DNl. 5 dBA quieter than FAA's threshold of significance)nor would any site be expected to experience a DNL value greater than 60 d13 under the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. 1-�Q ����� . �^ Introduction/Executive Summary Massport typically submits the ESPR on a five-year cycle. As described above,with the EEA Secretary's consent,preparation of this ESPR was deferred given the local and national decreases in aviation activity and the corresponding declines at Hanscom. The 2012 ESPR is posted on Massport's web site ( w u�nt^^�:�ir��u �, ���u�x) and is available in CD-ROM to all commenters. Hard copies of the report are available upon request. All four town libraries,Planning Departments, and Conservation Commissions have received both a CD-ROM and hard copy of the 2012 ESPR. In addition to the ESPR process, Massport publishes two annual reports for public review: the "State of Hanscom" and the "Annual Noise Report."Both documents are distributed to the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission (HFAC) and are available on Massport's website. The "State of Hanscom" describes Massport's financial performance, economic benefits and accomplishments, as well as its plans for the near future. The report also includes information on aircraft activity from the past year. Massport will continue to use this process to distribute information about Hanscom Field. The first noise report for Hanscom Field was prepared in 1982, and it compared data for 1978 and 1981. Annual updates were started in 1984 (based on the previous year's data),making 2012 the 31"'Hanscom noise report. 1.7 Organization of ttie 2012 ESPR The 2012 ESPR contains planning information, technical analyses, and supportive data,including the Secretary's May 18, 2012 Certificate, comment letters on the Draft Scope for the 2012 ESPR,responses to the Certificate and the comment letters, a list of reviewers and technical appendices. The Introduction/ Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the content and key findings of each chapter. The technical appendices provide detailed analytical data and methodological documentation for the various environmental analyses conducted for this 2012 ESPR. IleaIlpter 11 a Executive Summary IN Provides background of Hanscom Field IN Discusses the environmental and regulatory context IN Identifies the analytical framework for the ESPR IN Summarizes the primary changes since 2005 IN Presents an overview of the outreach program and public engagement process IN Provides the organization for the report Ilea Ilpter a Ahr partFacilities lieu IN Describes the airfield and its supporting infrastructure,including parking and the utility system serving the airport IN Describes Massport's tenant audit program IN Provides information about the tank management program and spill prevention efforts at Hanscom Field IleaIlpter 3: Ahr rttivliu° ILevels IN Presents an analysis of different descriptors to characterize future scenarios IN Describes the aircraft operations,including nighttime operations, and passenger activity levels for 2012 and compares the 2012 data to historic trends and forecasts from the 2005 ESPR Describes the forecast coordination with the Logan ESPR and the FAA's NERASP study Introduction/Executive Summary W Presents 2020 and 2030 aircraft operation and air passenger forecasts for the future planning scenarios W Describes the procedures for new airline entrants at Hanscom Field GhaIpter 4: Ahr rt PIII lieu lieu"lieu g IN Describes the status of planning initiatives and projects for the terminal area, airside area and landside area IN Evaluates the potential effects of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios on the airport infrastructure IN Presents the relationship between the 2012 ESPR and Executive Orders 385 and 438 IN Describes projects in the five-year capital program and identifies which projects may require individual MEPA review IN Describes new Transportation Security Administration or Massport security policies IN Updates any new planning and development initiatives at the MMNHP, Hanscom AFB, and the four contiguous towns IN Addresses the consistency of planning strategies with the following: W Local comprehensive plans W Four Town Planning Study W MAPC's regional policy plan W Hanscom Area Towns (HATS) Master Plan GhaIpter 5: IRegi lieu aIII Cantext IN Provides a summary of the regional transportation system IN Describes the role of Hanscom Field in the region's transportation system IN Describes activities at other regional airports IN Describes the long-term advantages and disadvantages of Hanscom Field as a commercial reliever airport IN Discusses Hanscom Field's role as a GA reliever airport GhaIpter 6: Ground IN Reports on current conditions and potential conditions in the 2020 and 2030 analysis years for traffic, roadway and access,including intersection operations and Average Daily Traffic volumes IN Provides mode share data including tenant survey results IN Describes the review process with local towns;presents information on Transportation Demand Management IN Reviews, summarizes and analyzes existing metropolitan planning documents IN Discusses the status of existing and future parking needs at Hanscom Field Gha�pter, 'T: Noise W Updates the status of the noise environment around Hanscom Field for 2012 conditions and for the 2020 and 2030 analysis years, including the following: W Total Noise Exposure (EXP) calculations DNL, Time-Above (TA) and Single Event contours Single Event Level(SEL) Distribution metrics Ranked tabulation of take-off noise levels W Reports past trends and the projections for the forecast activity levels and years and adjustments for such changes in the Integrated Noise Model(INM) Introduction/Executive Summary N Addresses the issue of engine run-ups and the operation of Auxiliary Power Units and Ground Power Units N Addresses potential measures to reduce noise impacts from airport operations IIh Ilpter : Air, Quality IN Reports on 2012 conditions and conditions in the 2020 and 2030 analysis years including the following: IN Carbon monoxide IN Oxides of nitrogen IN Volatile organic compounds IN Particulate matter IN Monitoring results for ozone precursors and nitrogen dioxide IN Summary of national lead emission standards Presents a review of environmentally beneficial measures including the following: N Airside operational improvements N Ground service and landside conversion to alternative fuels N Aviation support emissions reductions Discusses the clean vehicle program at Hanscom Field IIh Ilpter : Resources IN Describes the natural environment at Hanscom Field including the following: N Wetlands delineations N Vernal pools N Wildlife habitats IN Reports on the surface stormwater management system IN Provides an update on the Vegetation Management Plan(VMP) IN Presents information about Massport's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit IN Provides figures that illustrate the current wetlands resources at Hanscom Field and the location of local water supplies IN Identifies current and proposed use of de-icing chemicals Ilea Ilpter 11 a Cultural and H lius tariu c III Resources N Reviews the existing data on historical and archeological resources located at and near Hanscom Field N Presents information about the MMNHP and historical properties in the park N Evaluates the potential effects future planning scenarios for the 2020 and 2030 analysis years Ilea Ilpter 1111 a Sustaitiable Develqpmervtlieu Management System N Discusses reduction in the use of toxic materials at Hanscom Field N Reports on Massport's sustainable design program at Hanscom Field IN Provides information on the sustainable design approaches for new and existing facilities �� Provides information on the EMS Program Introduction/Executive Summary Ile a Ilpter 1I a Beneficial Measures �IN Summarizes environmentally beneficial measures that are identified in previous chapters �IN Identifies,in general terms,parties responsible, costs and schedule for implementation III Ilpen liu es u IN A Glossary of Terms that defines key terms used in the 2012 ESPR and an Abbreviations and Acronyms directory IN List of Reviewers IN Appendix A that provides the Secretary's Certificate on the 2012 ESPR Scope and a Response to Comments section IN Appendix B that provides the 2011 Airport Layout Plan Appendix C through Appendix G are technical appendices that provide detailed analytical data and methodological documentation for the various environmental analyses conducted for the 2012 ESPR. r `r " In,.. 1n ( ,V Introduction/Executive Summary (This page intentionally left blank) lr - A Airport Facilities and Infrastructure 2 Airport 1""acilities and Infrastructure Hanscom Field is a Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) certified airport (per 14 CFR Part 139). It is one of three airports owned and operated by the Massachusetts Port Authority(Massport). Located about 20 miles northwest of Boston, Hanscom Field plays an important role as a corporate and General Aviation (GA)reliever to Boston Logan International Airport.Massport operates Hanscom as a class 1 airport facility which serves all types of scheduled operations of air carrier aircraft designed for at least 31 passenger seats),whose major users are a mix of corporate aviation,private pilots, flight schools, commuter/commercial air services, as well as some charter and light cargo. This chapter provides updated information about Hanscom's airport facilities and infrastructure since the publication of the previous Environmental Status and Planning Report(ESPR)in 2006. The description of airside and landside facilities includes runways, taxiways, aprons,hangars, general aviation facilities, roadways,parking, and utility systems. The chapter also discusses the status of programs designed to prevent,reduce, and mitigate the occurrence of environmental impacts related to the use and storage and handling of fuel. Efforts undertaken toward improving and updating airport facilities and infrastructure at Hanscom since the 2005 ESPR are represented by the following projects: IN Runway Safety Area(RSA)improvements at Runway Ends 5 and 23 including grading of the RSA and wetland replication to meet federally-mandated airfield safety standards (2008) IN RSA improvements on Runway End 11 by relocating portions of the perimeter road(2012) IN Reconstruction of the western end of Taxiway E, Taxiway G, and Taxiway M(2009) IN Redevelopment of the Hangar 24 site for a Fixed Base Operator(FBO) facility by Rectrix Aviation, a project which is nearing completion at this time IN Removal of fuel storage tanks at Hangar 10 (2011) IN Implementation of enhanced access control system and replacement of a portion of the perimeter fence (2012) IN Relocation of portions of the perimeter road at approach to Runway 29 (2012) IN Ongoing airfield maintenance IN Ongoing vegetation removal and maintenance Improvements in airport facilities and infrastructure since 2005 have not increased impervious surfaces. Additionally, there have been no significant changes in the utility systems or in the parking spaces since the 2005 ESPR inventory. While parking spaces located on property formerly leased by Massport to the United States Air Force (USAF) are now available to Hanscom, the inclusion of these parking spaces does not represent an increase as they were located on Hanscom Property prior to 2005. Ea J..d n 1 2 Airport Facilities and Infrastructure 22 Airport Facilities Hanscom Field has two intersecting asphalt-paved runways and additional supporting infrastructure. Runway 11-29 is oriented in an east/west configuration and Runway 5-23 is oriented in a northeast/southwest configuration. Supporting infrastructure includes taxiways, a FAA-owned and operated air traffic control tower(ATCT),navigational aids (NAVAIDs), aircraft aprons,hangars, passenger terminal buildings, US Customs and Border Protection(CBP), and other aviation support facilities. These facilities are described in more detail below. 2.2.11 @Rtjnways Two intersecting runways at Hanscom provide aircraft with four approach options.Runway 11-29 is the primary runway. The runway thresholds and runway ends are located at the extremity of the pavement, which is 150 feet wide, and allows 7,011 feet for landings and departures in both directions. This runway is a precision instrument runway because each end of the runway is equipped with an Instrument Landing System (ILS)with Distance Measuring Equipment(DME). The runway is equipped with a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System and Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) and High Intensity Runway Lighting System (HIRLS). Both runway ends have paved runway safety areas beyond the runway end that are 200 feet wide and 1,000 feet long. Both runway ends are equipped with a four- light Precision Approach Path Indicator(PAPI). Runway 5-23 is the secondary, crosswind runway. The runway thresholds and runway ends are located at the extremity of the pavement,which is 150 feet wide, allowing 5,107 feet for landings and departures in both directions. This runway is a non-precision instrument runway. The runway is equipped with a Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL) system and runway end identifier lights. Beyond both runway ends are graded RSAs. At the approach end of Runway 23,the paved safety area is 200 feet wide and 890 feet long.At the approach end of Runway 5,the paved safety area is 200 feet wide and 682 feet long at the centerline.Both runway ends are equipped with a Visual Approach Slope Indicator(VASI). 2.2.2 Taxllways A system of taxiways provides access between the two runways and aircraft parking aprons. Taxiway widths at Hanscom Field range from 50 to 75 feet. According to FAA criteria, a taxiway width of 50 feet can accommodate aircraft with a wingspan no greater than 118 feet and a wheelbase no greater than 60 feet. Similarly, a 75-foot wide taxiway can accommodate aircraft with a wingspan no greater than 214 feet(Group V). The extremities of all four runway ends are connected by taxiways that allow aircraft to utilize the full available runway length without the need to backtrack. On the south side of the runway, the full-length parallel Taxiway E supports Runway 11-29. In addition, Taxiways F and G provide mid- point access to the runway. Taxiway G crosses Runway 11-29 and provides direct access to the extremity of Runway 23. Taxiway R provides connection on the north side of the airfield between the extremities of Runway 23 and Runway 11,while Taxiway N provides mid-point access to Runway 11-29. Finally, Taxiway S is a partial parallel to Runway 5-23. In addition to the taxiways that provide direct access to the runways, Hanscom has a series of taxiways that provides connectivity between these taxiways and the aircraft parking aprons. Taxiways A, B, and C provide connection to the East Ramp that is in front of the USAF and Civilian hangars, and the CBP building. 22 Airport Facilities and Infrastructure 2.2.3 Alir "1`ua°affi Condkoa°o4I @"a6111tile and V4 vlilgatilor,16II Alds The FAA,who manages Hanscom's airspace,provides air traffic control at Hanscom Field.' FAA rules and regulations govern the movement of air traffic at Hanscom. The FAA's Consolidated Terminal Radar Approach Control(TRACON), located at Merrimack New Hampshire,has authority and responsibility for Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) arrivals, departures, and low-altitude (above 2,500 feet) over-flights in the controlled airspace surrounding Hanscom. By means of remote communication air/ground facilities, direct communication is maintained between TRACON controllers and individual pilots. The communication system is further augmented by radar coverage that enables TRACON controllers to monitor the location and movement of each aircraft. The ATCT is located on the south side of the airfield by Taxiway J. The FAA owns the ATCT, operating it daily between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. The tower staff directs the operations of aircraft within a five- mile radius of the airport. Air traffic controllers are responsible for controlling Hanscom's airspace. Close coordination is maintained between the ATCT and the FAA's Consolidated TRACON. FAA-owned and maintained, electronic NAVAIDs serving Hanscom are located on and near the airport and are used to support instrument approach procedures. Runways 11 and 29 are both equipped with a Category I ILS. The ILS provides pilots with electronic guidance for aircraft alignment(horizontal), descent gradient(vertical), and aircraft position until visual contact is made with the runway. Runway 11 is also supported with a runway visual range (RVR) system consisting of a projector and receiver. The RVR provides a measurement of horizontal visibility. A Very-High-Frequency Omni-Directional Range (VOR) station, located near Lawrence Massachusetts,provides a non-precision instrument approach to Runways 5 and 23 at Hanscom Field.6 The primary existing facilities at Hanscom are considered to be in good condition. Some of the older buildings lack amenities. Table 2-1 provides a summary of existing building size and condition(i.e., excellent, good, fair, or poor). Figure 2-1 serves as a reference guide to the facilities listed in Table 2-1 and illustrates the location of leased properties. One parcel of land in the North Airfield Area, consisting of area above and below Hartwell Road,was returned to Massport control in 2011. The available vehicle parking for these facilities is presented in this chapter in Table 2-2. 'Massport and Federal Aviation Administration(FAA),Runway 5-23 Safety Area Improvements Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Environmental Impact Report, July 2006. 6 Airport IQ 5O10:Airport Master Records and Reports. bttiv_//vvvvwYa_u _a akin/ -V-�Y -l / iuvg�ut_a, n P .� Airport Facilities and Infrastructure (This page intentionally left blank) 24 - A CV i � N u � L.L 60 0 0 0 ¢- o >> y W c N O U a O � a _ = m Q i E a a E E Y/ E� >.E I ;m /fil O SSSu m SSSSSSU U SSA m 0 u A �1 d z i 1 _ o i N g g g j o zo 0 ;� LL O Q Q N ti 0 N 5 Airport Facilities and Infrastructure TatAe 2-1 IIHaunscoimn FiVkl IIBu.jlii�kiiings & Haingair Fadlht�es 1 Hangar Signature Flight 28,376 1955 Fair Fixed Base Operator Support 2 Hangar Signature Flight 36,000 1955 Fair Fixed Base Operator Support 3 Hangar Signature Flight 36,000 1955 Fair Fixed Base Operator Support Field 7 Maintenance Massport 11,300 1984 Good Airfield Maintenance Building Air Traffic FAA-owned 8 Control property n/a 2002 Excellent FAA Control Tower Tower 9 Storage FAA-owned n/a n/a n/a Storage Building property Sand 9A Storage Massport 2,500 2005 Excellent Airfield Sand Storage Building 10 Hangar10 Signature Flight 20,300 1950s Good Fixed Base Operator Support 11 Hangarll NorthStar 15,608 1969 Good Corporate/Conventional Facilities GA Hangar 11A Hangar11A Stream 26,250 2001 Excellent Corporate/Conventional Enterprises GA Hangar 12 Hangar12 Nagle Aircraft 14,300 2002 Excellent Aircraft Maintenance Facility 12A Hangar12A National Aviation 23,763 1963 Good Technical School (aircraft Academy mechanics) 13 Hangar13 Signature Flight 38,000 2001 Excellent Fixed Base Operator Support 14 FBO Facility Signature Flight 5,000 1988 Excellent Fixed Base Operator Support Civil Air Passenger Terminal and 15 Terminal Massport 13,475 1953 Good Aviation Support Building 16 Hangar16 Liberty Mutual 37,800 June Excellent Corporate/Conventional 2005 GA Hangar 17 Hangar17 Jet Aviation 21,315 1954 Poor Fixed Base Operator 18 Classroom National Aviation 5,850 1983 Demolished Academy in 2012 19 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unused Building ID 20 Maintenance Massport 2,500 1954 Fair Building Maintenance Building 21 Hangar2l Jet Aviation 40,000,000 1985 Excellent Fixed Base Operator 34 2000 FBO Garage 22 and Fuel Jet Aviation 4,500 1985 Excellent Fixed Base Operator Farm 23 Draper Lab Draper Lab n/a n/a n/a Leased from Massport by the USAF Rectrix 2013- Ongoing New building and tenant 24 Hangar24 Aerodrome 89,714 (under construction on parcel scheduled for Centers development completion in 2013. ,77 In 27 Airport Facilities and Infrastructure 25 Draper Lab Draper Lab 27,000 1948 n/a Leased from Massport by the USAF 26 FAA Lo alizer n/a n/a n/a n/a 27 FAA Glide n/a n/a n/a n/a Slope 28 FAA Glide n/a n/a n/a n/a Slope 29 FAA Lo alizer n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 Customs U.S.Customs 4,000 n/a n/a Trailer 31 T-Hangar Massport 15,360 1972 Fair New roof in 2005 Row A 32 T-Hangar Massport 16,128 1973 Fair New roof in 2005 Row B 33 T-Hangar Massport 16,128 1973 Fair New roof in 2005 Row C 34 T-Hangar Massport 16,051 1982 Fair Installed roof coating in Row D 2005 35 T-Hangar Massport 16,051 1982 Fair Installed roof coating in Row E 2005 36 T-Hangar Massport 16,051 1982 Fair Installed roof coating in Row F 2005 37 T-Hangar Massport 18,236 1987 Fair Installed roof coating in Row G 2011 38 T-Hangar Massport 15,744 1987 Fair Installed roof coating in Row H 2O11 39 T-Hangar Massport 23,616 1987 Fair Installed roof coating in Row J 2011 40 Electrical Massport 4,000 n/a Fair Vault 41 Residence Massport n/a n/a n/a Demolished in 2010 42 Residence Massport n/a n/a n/a Demolished in 2010 43 Residence Massport n/a n/a n/a Demolished in 2010 44 Residence Massport n/a n/a n/a Demolished in 2010 45 FBO Fuel Signature Flight 3,996 1976 Good Fixed Base Operator Farm Support A USAF Parcel Massport n/a n/a n/a Leased from Massport by A the USAF B U.S. Navy USAF n/a n/a n/a Massport actively seeking Parcel B to acquire Notes: 1. L.G. Hanscom Field 2013 General Location Plan(GLP). Does not include USAF or U.S. Navy facilities,except properties leased from Massport. 2. Not applicable(n/a)applies to unused Building ID or facilities where information was not available 3. Property condition determined from HNTB 2012 Massport Facilities Annual Report of Conditions. Since the 2005 ESPR,Massport submitted a Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)prepared in accordance with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA)in 2007 for improvements to the Runway Safety Area and two wetland replication projects, one at the end of Runway 23 and a second west of Runway 23 and north of Runway 11. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued a certificate showing the FEIR complied with the MEAP scope. Construction of the RSA project began in August of 2� P �,�, . m.. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure 2008 and completed in 2009. The project included the re-grading Runway 05 and 23 ends so that the width of the Safety Area complied with FAA criteria, reconstructing the FAA access road that was being used by trucks hauling soil,relocating airfield fencing to improve visibility and security, and replicating wetlands impacted by the RSA improvements. 2 2 4 t II1'-1j. llll-seirviite III'-nixed IILBase Operator IIll`a :.iiillliiitiiies A full-service Fixed Base Operator(FBO)is a company that handles a range of needs for based and transient aircraft, their operators, and their passengers. Services may include cleaning,maintaining, fueling and parking,hangaring aircraft, flight planning services for the pilots, and arranging for the specific needs of passengers and flight crews, such as ground transportation or overnight accommodations. Although the majority of FBO activity involves servicing corporate GA aircraft activity, the FBOs also serve some charter activity. Typically, the corporate and charter flights that use Hanscom Field carry two to eight passengers per flight and have a flight crew of two pilots, and occasionally one flight attendant.FBO activity is heavily influenced by the business day. The majority of flights departs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and returns the same day between 3:00 and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. Saturday is typically the lightest day of the week. Occasionally, activity resumes Sunday afternoon with departures in support of the following workweek. Hanscom currently has two full-service FBOs,which are Jet Aviation and Signature Flight Support. These FBOs are open from 6:00 or 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and are staffed in two shifts.In the mid-1980s, Jet Aviation constructed a 40,000 square-foot(sf) FBO facility adjacent to the T-hangars located at the southwest corner of the Terminal Area. Jet Aviation added 34,000 sf of hangar space to this facility in 2001. In the same vicinity, Jet Aviation operates a fuel farm and leases Hangar 17,which is 21,315 sf. In addition to supplying corporate flights with these services, Jet Aviation also provides services for Linear Air. Linear offers on-demand air taxi service and shared charter services (purchase seats) limited to four roundtrips per week. Office staff for Linear Air is located on the third floor of the Civil Air Terminal and at Signature. Linear Air is serviced by on-airport FBO facilities. The Signature 38,000 sf hangar is located next to the Civil Air Terminal. The hangar was constructed by the Mercury Air Group in 2001. In addition to its primary hangar, Signature leases Hangar 10 which is approximately 20,000 sf in size. Signature also leases three hangars on the East Ramp: Hangar 1 at 28,376 sf and Hangars 2 and 3 at 36,000 sf each. The buildings are primarily used for aircraft maintenance and storage with some area available for general office activities. Signature also has a fuel farm on the East Ramp. In January 2012,the Massport Board approved a developer, Rectrix, for FBO facilities at Hanscom Field and the Worcester Regional Airport. The Rectrix Aerodrome Center at Hanscom is currently under development,which will include a 60,000 sf hangar, 7,000 sf tenant office space, and 22,000 sf, two-story FBO. It is expected that the construction will be completed in the first quarter of 2014. Rectrix' new Worcester FBO facility is also under construction in 2013 and is expected to be completed in 2014. 2 2 4 2 Aiiiirciraft I aiiiinteunaunce IIll`adiillliiitiiies An aircraft maintenance facility provides service and repairs to aircraft including engines, flight instruments,interiors, and structural components. These services are provided on both a scheduled and as- needed basis to locally-based and transient aircraft. Both of the above-mentioned FBOs at Hanscom provide aircraft maintenance, as does Nagle Aircraft Services. E' r"r r d Airport Facilities and Infrastructure In 2002,Nagle Aircraft Services completed construction of a 14,300 sf hangar, Hangar 12, on the east side of the Terminal Area. This hangar replaced an 8,100 sf Nagle hangar that was removed in order to accommodate the new FBO hangar constructed by Mercury Air Group in 2001,which is now occupied by Signature. Since the 2005 ESPR was completed, Hangar 24,located in the Pine Hill area,was redeveloped by Rectrix Aviation and will become the airports third FBO. Completion is expected in early 2014. Additionally, Massport removed the above-ground storage tanks (AST)that were located at Hangar 10. 2 2 4 3 oirllpoiratel ouriveuritiiiouria 11 II11aingairs, Corporate and conventional hangars are generally large, open span hangars for storage of one or multiple aircraft. Corporate hangars at Hanscom Field are designed to accommodate larger turbo prop or small jet aircraft that are used for business or commercial operations. There are three active corporate and conventional hangars at Hanscom. The three active hangars include a 15,608 sf Hangar 1 land a 26,250 sf Hangar 11A both located on the east side of the Terminal Area, and a 37,800 sf Hangar 16 on the west side of the Terminal Area. Construction of Hangar 16 was completed in 2005. It replaced a 6,225 sf hangar on this site previously occupied by Executive Flyers Aviation(a flight school), and a vacant 18,000 sf hangar. These hangars are used by corporate entities to support their flight departments or businesses. Most corporate hangars include office or storage space to accommodate the needs of those entities that are using the hangar. 2 2 4 4 '7-1111aungairs T-hangars are smaller than corporate and conventional hangars and offer private storage for GA aircraft. The name refers to the shape of each unit,which affords the most efficient space storage for small, individual aircraft(see Figure 2-2). Six T-hangar buildings with 12 individual T-hangar units each are located in the southwest portion of the Terminal Area. These are commonly referred to as the "Old Ts." Each individual hangar unit contains approximately 1,344 sf of space and can accommodate one small aircraft. Since 2005, funding has been allocated for roof and pavement repairs on the Old T-Hangars and the Pine Hill T Hangars, and repairs to the Pine Hill T-hangar roofs were completed. Corporate and conventional hangars may also include office or storage space. On the southwest side of the airfield in the Pine Hill Area,there are three T-hangar buildings commonly referred to as the "Pine Hill Ts." These were constructed in 1986. One building has 18 units and the second has 12 units. Each unit in these buildings is 1,312 sf and can accommodate single-engine aircraft. The third building has eight 1,886 sf units. The larger units can accommodate light to medium twin- engine aircraft. office ice NO,'I NO.3 1'-'hill re 2-2 Staindaird '7-1111aungair IIL aymit Fzr I Airport Facilities and Infrastructure w w @`11li19I11l SC[10,6IIS Flight schools provide flight training to individuals learning to fly aircraft. Training is provided in classroom facilities as well as in an aircraft with a certified instructor.Many flight schools also offer aircraft rentals to current, qualified pilots. Currently, two flight schools at Hanscom operate out of the Civil Air Terminal: East Coast Aero Club and Executive Flyers Aviation. Both flight schools use the tie- down facilities (areas on an airport specifically designed for the outdoor storage of aircraft) on the East and West Ramps for aircraft storage. .2.6 Tectirtica1 Sctic,6II IV-°a&11illii s National Aviation Academy(NAA) operates a technical school at Hanscom that provides aircraft maintenance training. The program includes FAA-approved courses that combine classroom and hands- on training in aircraft systems. Currently, there are approximately 200 students actively enrolled at the NAA,which is located in Hangar 12A. The Hanscom campus specializes in aeronautical maintenance technology. 2.2.7 Oe°mirnuteir Seirvlilce Commuter service is not currently offered from Hanscom Field. The previous operator, Streamline Air, which commenced operations on April 4, 2011, suspended service in September 2012. Linear Air, an air- taxi operator,initiated on-demand air taxi and shared charter service at Hanscom Field in January 2005, as described in the full-service FBO Facilities section in this chapter. 2.2.8 Otheir Avlilation it 1ated and An&111airy Btjslin , In addition to the services referenced above, there are varieties of mostly aviation-related businesses that operate out of offices located in the Civil Air Terminal or the FBOs. These range from Boston MedFlight to aviation insurance to a variety of ancillary services such as car rental agencies and food services. .2.9 Oliivliilll AliIir "Teinr6ina1 The three-story Civil Air Terminal building has a total gross floor area of approximately 36,000 sf, consisting of space for passenger holding areas,public seating, security checkpoint improvements, general office space, flight schools,rental agencies, food service, and Massport administrative offices. In 2011, Massport completed the installation of a new Access Control System at the Civil Air Terminal and various airfield gates. The new system enhances security by incorporating physical controls and electronic surveillance. The transition to the new system included issuing new security badges to over 1,700 badge holders. As described in Section 2.3, Infrastructure, the Civil Air Terminal is served by a one-way frontage road with drop-off and pick-up lanes, sidewalks, and pedestrian crossing to the general parking lot. 2.2.110 AliIirciraft I Pa irking Airea Aircraft that are not kept inside hangars are parked on apron areas. Aprons are open,paved spaces that provide no shelter from the elements. Small aircraft are tied down with anchors provided for securing aircraft. Spaces for aircraft parking are located at the East Ramp, and the West Ramp. The West Ramp includes areas to the east,west, and north of the Civil Air Terminal. The East Ramp abuts the Hanscom AFB. This ramp is comprised of approximately two million sf of gross apron space. Approximately 850,000 sf are p� ,I ,I 1 7 1.d A,,,,. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure used for aircraft tie-downs. The remainder is currently used for taxiway access and other transient aircraft parking for civilian and military aircraft. In 2006, Massport completed an East Ramp Overlay project that rehabilitated a section of pavement on the ramp as part of the ongoing East Ramp rehabilitation program. 2.2.11,11 @`]Iire @- Igtvtlng and IP61llce Massport contracts with the Hanscom AFB Fire Department to meet FAA Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)requirements. The emergency responder facilities are located at the airport on the East Ramp. The Massachusetts State Police is located inside the Civil Air Terminal and provides policing and law enforcement services for the civil side of Hanscom. 2w w1I IlWlsc6l1a urn eous Teirirnl441 @-°a611lltles Additional terminal and general airport support facilities exist at Hanscom, including fuel storage and airfield maintenance facilities. The two FBOs store and dispense fuel for civil and military aircraft.4 Hangar 16 has fuel storage facilities. The ASTs at Hangar 10 have been removed. Massport stores its maintenance vehicles, including trucks, snowplows, construction equipment, and other general maintenance equipment outside or in an 11,300 sf Airfield Maintenance Building located adjacent to the FAA ATCT. A fuel farm used for Massport vehicles is also located at the facility. The Rectrix fuel farm is under development and will be located southwest of the existing Jet Aviation fuel farm facility. Massport also has a 2,500 sf Maintenance Building with carpentry shop space located at the south end of the Civil Air Terminal parking area. 23 hnfrastructure Hanscom is served by an infrastructure system of transportation and utility facilities. Roadway conditions are described generally below,with more detail provided in Chapter 6, Ground Transportation. In the 2005 ESPR, a detailed inventory of parking areas was conducted to describe the number and location of spaces.Updates provided by site personnel have been used to prepare the 2012 ESPR. Information regarding the water distribution system's supply and demand and the wastewater system serving Hanscom is based upon information in the 1995 GEIR, the 2000 ESPR,plus updates provided by Massport. Information regarding the stormwater management and drainage system is based on the 1995 GEIR, 2000 ESPR, 2005 ESPR,the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) and updates supplied by Massport. 2.3.11 Surface Access �Roadways Hanscom Drive provides the primary access to the Massport facilities on Hanscom Field. Hanscom Drive intersects with Route 2A,which in turn provides connections to Route 128/1-95. These designated state and federal highways form the main surface transportation connections to points north, east, and south of the airport. Route 2A also provides connections to Route 2 origins and destinations to the west. Old Bedford Road,which intersects with Hanscom Drive at the entrance to Hanscom Field and Virginia Road, provides connection to Routes 4,225, and 62. Hanscom Drive is a paved, four-lane divided roadway from Route 2A that provides access to Hanscom Field and the Hanscom AFB. After crossing Old Bedford Road,Hanscom Drive becomes an undivided two-lane roadway providing access to the Civil Air Terminal, the main parking lot, and other facilities in the Terminal Area of the airport. 212 Fzr MI.. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure Hanscom Drive feeds into a two-lane roadway around the perimeter of the main lot. The roadway is one- way in front of the Civil Air Terminal with designated areas for passenger drop-off and pick-up, taxis, and bus stops. In general, this roadway is in good condition, and the capacity of the roadway is adequate to meet its internal circulation needs. 23.2 AtjIoir oIlh)liillle I "airkliing Hanscom has adequate parking facilities for its current level of activities. The number of parking spaces available at Hanscom,including marked and unmarked spaces in the lot south of the Civil Air Terminal and at other locations around the airport,now numbers 1,667. Massport manages the parking inventory at Hanscom and from time to time relocates and reassigns the use and location of parking spaces. Table 2-2 summarizes available parking by facility. The 2012 ESPR inventory represents an approximate three percent increase over the results that were reported in the 2005 ESPR. The increase includes the introduction of 18 lined spaces at the Storage Building, the addition of 28 spaces at Rectrix, and the addition of 10 spaces at T Hangar J. Ten spaces were also removed from Hanscom from various locations between 2005 and 2012. Parking is also available on property that the USAF formerly leased from Massport in the North Airfield Area. There are 410 spaces in USAF Parcel B. This includes 278 spots next to the former U.S.Navy hangar and 132 spots for 66 of the former residential trailers. TaIt)Ille 2-2 u.jirnimnairy of Velidb.flair IIf3airllkkl ing Spaces, 1 Hangar 1 Signature Flight Support 37 37 37 2 Hangar 2 Signature Flight Support 20 20 20 3 Hangar 3 Signature Flight Support 22 22 20 7 Field Maintenance Massport 18 18 18 Building 8 Air Traffic Control FAA 93 107 107 Tower 9 Storage Building FAA n/a n/a 18 striped spaces 9A Sand Storage Building Massport n/a 0 0 2,500 sf constructed in 2005 10 Hangar 10 Signature Flight Support 64 64 64 11 Hangar 11 NorthStar Facilities 34 34 34 11A Hangar 11A Stream Enterprises 25 25 25 12 Hangar 12 Nagle Aircraft 12 12 12 12A Hangar 12A National Aviation 57 57 57 Academy 13 Hangar 13 Signature Flight Support 12 15 15 14 FBO Facility Signature Flight Support 10 10 10 15 Civil Air Terminal Massport 701 667 667 Restriping of parking lot Building 16 Hangar 16 Liberty Mutual 11 45 45 2000 includes only Hangar 3 spaces 17 Hangar 17 Jet Aviation 25 25 25 18 Classroom National Aviation 0 0 n/a Building demolished 2012 Academy Airport Facilities and Infrastructure 19 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 Maintenance Building Massport 23 23 23 21 Hangar 21 Jet Aviation 142 142 142 22 FBO Garage and Fuel Jet Aviation 0 0 0 Farm 23 Draper Lab Draper Lab n/a 17 17 Small lot not assessed in 2000 Rectrix Aerodrome New building and tenant 24 Hangar 24 Centers 42 42 70 on parcel scheduled for completion in 2014 25 Draper Lab Draper Lab 26 26 26 26 FAA Localizer n/a n/a n/a n/a 27 FAA Glide Slope n/a n/a n/a n/a 28 FAA Glide Slope n/a n/a n/a n/a 29 FAA Localizer n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 Customs Trailer U.S. Customs 0 5 5 31 T-Hangar Row A Massport 12 12 12 32 T-Hangar Row B Massport 12 12 12 33 T-Hangar Row C Massport 12 12 12 34 T-Hangar Row D Massport 12 12 12 35 T-Hangar Row E Massport 12 12 12 36 T-Hangar Row F Massport 12 12 12 37 T-Hangar Row G Massport 8 8 8 38 T-Hangar Row H Massport 12 12 12 39 T-Hangar Row J Massport 18 18 18 40 Electric Vault Massport 0 0 41 Residence Massport n/a n/a n/a 42 Residence Massport n/a n/a n/a 43 Residence Massport n/a n/a n/a 44 Residence Massport n/a n/a n/a 45 FBO Fuel Farm Signature Flight Support 0 0 0 Total 1,484 1,523 1,557 Adjustments based upon 2005 ESPR 3: Hangar16 32 - Draper Labs/Pine Hill T-Hangar Lot 17 - Customs Trailer 5 - USAF Parcel B (formerly leased property)4 410 Total with Adjustments 1,538 1,523 1,967 Notes: 1. L.G. Hanscom Field 2005 General Location Plan(GLP).The parking inventory in this table includes facilities owned by the USAF or U.S. Navy or properties formerly leased from Massport by the USAF. 2. Not applicable(n/a)applies to unused Building ID or facilities where information was not available. 3.These adjustments were verified during the development of the 2012 ESPR by Hanscom Field and Massport personnel. 4.While these parking spaces are new to Hanscom,they were pre-existing spaces utilized by the USAF. d" FI rlr Fzr m.. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure 233 Wateir Stjjpllp1y, and 1Deirriand Information regarding the water supply and demand is based upon the 1995 GEIR and 2000 ESPR and the "Water System Improvements Study: Hanscom Field"(Metcalf&Eddy, 1992),water meter readings from 1996 through 2005, and further input from Massport. A history of water usage from 1988 to 2012 is provided in Table 2-3. Figure 2-3 shows the Massport water distribution system. aItAe 2-3 Ill+istoiry o1 Water Usage liroimn 1988 to 2012 1988 11,250 1989 10,000 1990 13,100 1991 n/a 1992 n/a 1993 n/a 1994 13,600 1995 10,700 1996 10,000 1997 7,100 1998 9,900 1999 8,930 2000 15,790 2001 14,470 2002 23,940 2003 30,820 2004 25,340 2005 34,800 2006 11,813(includes only USAF Main) 2007 11,907 2008 14,979 2009 12,920 2010 10,818 2011 13,997 2012 16,180 El �''rr 2 (5 L ONE Q) w c N cn W r N p� N Q w Nco N } p T N75 r it M r o ............. li?mvR�'i., i �i ll prom"I N a ro lr j 2 �O W N �. x ,or °� 4 E z mums U oo o f x u �i'I fl� +�I+�I �I I � I rl r��rpr PA, r II � f I 1 +�f w .. ril. �I�I I� m� l� f li l� I a u LL µ� N ON FD zz r l q r Il c r (p C pp C H p N i jjjjjj p y o � 4 d, I d C ti cu 3 > CDW O 0 �I» N O �O X T 0- H2 UJ zO w J O Airport Facilities and Infrastructure Massport's water supply is provided primarily by the adjacent Hanscom AFB water distribution system. The USAF purchases its water from the Town of Lexington,which in turn is supplied by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority(MWRA).Massport's needs are met through the Hanscom AFB connection, except for a line from the Town of Concord for the Pine Hill Area. The USAF has an agreement with the Town of Lexington to purchase up to two million gallons of potable water per day. According to USAF personnel, the combined Hanscom Field and Hanscom AFB daily demand rarely exceeds one million gallons per day. The Town of Lexington has available capacity in its lines and the allocation for the Hanscom AFB from the town remains intact. The supply from the Town of Lexington is via a 10-inch main located along Wood Street. Depending upon demand,water flows directly into the Hanscom AFB distribution system. The water line provided by the Town of Concord runs from a water main located along Virginia Road to the Pine Hill Area facilities. The Massport water mains vary in size (6, 8, or 12 inches in diameter) and composition(cast iron, ductile iron, asbestos cement, and polyvinyl chloride). Massport conducted extensive water distribution system testing in 1991. The test results revealed the water system pipes and other components to be in good condition,passing pipe leak testing and hydrant flow tests at maximum daily flows. The existing Hanscom Field water system is estimated to support a total average daily demand of 65,500 gallons per day(gpd). The Massport water distribution system primarily serves the Terminal Area,Pine Hill Area, and the East Ramp Area. The Hanscom AFB system can provide a maximum flow rate of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch(psi) at the master meter that supplies the Terminal Area. The East Ramp has a separate connection to the Hanscom AFB system. The Hanscom AFB system includes approximately 22 hydrants for firefighting purposes. Twenty of these hydrants are fed from the USAF water distribution system and two are fed from the Town of Concord. These hydrants are all located strategically near the major buildings and hangars. The fire flow assessment for each area is described in Table 2-4. Table 2-5 provides average daily wastewater flows at Hanscom Field. Figure 2-4 shows Massport's existing sewer system, the location of the septic system serving Lincoln North,which is sited on Massport land west of the Terminal Area, and the septic system used in the Pine Hill Area. 1 7 1.d A,,,,. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure TatAe 2-4 Ekistiing System 1-iire 1-low, IMod6hiing Terminal Area Civil Air Terminal 1,410 Hangarll 1,160 Hangars 1 &3 1,230 Hangar1O 1,020 Hangar 12A 1,230 Hangar 1,150 Old T-Hangars 990 MPA Maintenance Buildings 1,460 Pine Hill Area 1,500 East Ramp Area 2,000 Hangars 1,2,and 3 2,000 FAA Storage Facility Not Available Source:Massport TatAe 2- eirage IIDaiii y Wastew,ateir 1-low, 1988 7,900 1989 7,000 1990 9,200 1992 n/a 1993 n/a 1994 n/a 1995 7,500 1996 7,000 1997 4,970 1998 6,930 1999 6,250 2000 11,050 2001 10,130 2002 16,760 2003 21,570 2004 17,740 2005 24,360 2006 8,269 2007 8,335 2008 10,485 2009 9,044 2010 7,573 2011 9,798 2012 11,326 1. Flows south to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority System.Wastewater leaving the site is estimated to be 70 percent of water usage(see Table 2-4).This reflects some on-site septics stems that do not tie into the MWRA a tz E MIT N C C �a C� r;l N v U) W O N JEP Ca N N a--� J E Co c a U) r, I� , z m W I � _a �IJ g M aw, w x o iq ..�..,.�.,,. cnI �{ C w � co h E 8.E 4 yI _ O Z � cL 0 a o Ana - o� LL M y J.0 O N O U) N mr v U O C J Z h �+ o s 4 a J U) m rn a� .S O a N ° o .x 0- H W 2 r 0 z0 Airport Facilities and Infrastructure Massport's wastewater system discharges into the Hanscom AFB wastewater system,which in turn discharges into the MWRA wastewater system through the Town of Lexington. The USAF has two pump stations on base: the lower station at Building 1539 and the upper station at Building 1306. The lower pump station,upgraded in 1983 with three 40-horsepower(HP)pumps,has a capacity of 1,000 gpm and serves Massport's Hanscom facilities and Hanscom AFB housing. The upper station receives flow from the lower pump station as well as the Officers Club, Lincoln Laboratory, and MITRE. The upper station was upgraded in 1987 and is equipped with two 800 gpm (40 HP)pumps, one 1,500 gpm (125 HP)pump, and two wet wells with a combined storage capacity of 250,000 gallons. The flow from the upper station is pumped to a 10-inch force main that discharges wastewater to a force main along Hartwell Avenue. This main connects to a 20-inch force main from the Town of Bedford near the intersection of Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street. The capacity of the force main leaving the Hanscom AFB is 1,725 gpm but use is limited to 1,500 gpm in keeping with the USAF's agreement with the Town of Bedford and the MWRA. Massport's wastewater system was initially constructed in the 1950s. The system underwent expansion in the 1970s and 1980s to service new facilities. It was upgraded in 1994 in the Terminal Area. The upgraded pipe network, along with upgrades to the manholes in the same area, eliminated a problem of infiltration and inflow. According to the "Water System Improvements Study,"the on-site 6-inch and fl- inch vitrified clay pipes have capacities of 230,000 gpd and 500,000 gpd respectively.Neither is currently near full capacity. Additionally, the Supplement to Site Development Plan and Design Guidelines by Greiner Engineering Services, Inc. (1987) states,prior to the lower pumping station on the Hanscom AFB, the system expands from an 8-inch to a 12-inch line with a capacity of 1,045,000 gpd. Hanscom Field is located in the Shawsheen River Basin. Runoff from Massport property and the USAF property is conveyed by open channels and a closed storm drainage system. The system discharges directly and indirectly into the Shawsheen River to the east, Elm Brook(a tributary to the Shawsheen)to the west, and wetlands to the north of the site. Most of the soil types on Hanscom Field are classified as Hydrologic Soils Group C. This soil type is characterized by a slow rate of infiltration after the soils have become saturated during long duration storm events and high groundwater levels. Hanscom Field employs an extensive drainage system that was designed and constructed in the early 1950s when the USAF enlarged and improved the airfield. The system was expanded and modified over the ensuing years to serve the additional development. The storm drainage system consists of a series of catch basins placed along most of the edges of the runways, taxiways, and apron areas. The stormwater system's original design, containing pervious bottom catch basins and perforated/open jointed pipes,was intended to drain groundwater as well as convey surface water away from the airfield's paved surface and infield areas. The collection system conveys stormwater and groundwater to eight outfall locations and two overland flow areas that in turn discharge directly or indirectly into the Shawsheen River. Massport has been working cooperatively with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MassDEP), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), and the USAF to improve the flow characteristics and profile of stormwater discharges into the Shawsheen River. Massport has removed pavement to decrease impermeable areas on the airfield and has incorporated water quality and water quantity improvements into ongoing projects using Low Impact Development(LID) technologies. Massport has also taken measures to control stormwater discharges into the river directly. For example, 2 2 0 F. � d, Airport Facilities and Infrastructure overflow weirs for temporarily storing water were installed in three large drainage pipes leading to the Shawsheen River in 2006. The weirs were designed to reduce the peak discharge of stormwater and increase base flow by releasing the stored water over time. In 2007, Massport prepared a computer model to evaluate potential stormwater improvement projects at Hanscom Field or on Hanscom AFB. An important goal of the work was to develop a system for determining which stormwater improvements would be of the greatest benefit to the Shawsheen River. In 2008, Massport had silt and sand removed from portions of three storm drainpipes just upstream from the Shawsheen River, and an additional weir was installed in a large collection chamber to reduce peak flow during a storm event. A new structure was also constructed in an infield area to reduce the amount of flow entering a culvert. In 2009, Massport completed soil permeability testing related to the potential installation of additional stormwater structures designed to increase groundwater recharge and decrease runoff. In 2010, in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit, Massport updated its SWPPP to include best management practices for stormwater management and snow removal. All programs and audits were implemented during 2010. Massport and the USAF continued joint discussions with MassDEP regarding the Shawsheen Watershed Initiative. In 2011, Massport received internal approval to proceed with a plan for future improvements to the Shawsheen River headwaters, to be completed jointly by Massport and the USAF. With approval from MassDEP, Massport and the USAF are jointly developing a new,more comprehensive computer model to assess how various stormwater recharge structures and best management practices could improve base flow. This model will be used to guide the future implementation of stormwater best management practices at both Hanscom Field and Hanscom AFB. Hanscom Field is divided into ten separate drainage areas encompassing on and off-site tributaries totaling approximately 1,216 acres. Table 2-6 lists the volume of stormwater that is projected to occur during specific storm events under existing conditions for the ten drainage areas that are illustrated in Figure 2-5. En N LO N cCo LL N brow w 0 m g N O > T p C m ® O N J L 5 a Q Q .U'� ! �♦ r � N M V .� 7,i r s I O U) 1� 00 N V a yg OMN OM O- ON N a c 'r7 h �W e i 11 i � m. Iif O J r p(I 1 I� i � � � 6 °o I J O N h 7 MI "� �All n f' 1j i o w,w Y II w o 0 21- � � o c� f Q > Q m o o c o N N O O Q O A N 7 6 N + o d H 0 2 0 0 0 r z Airport Facilities and Infrastructure Tat)IIIe 2- II11ainscoirn 1-iV�d 11u.jinof1&.1irnirnairy 1 312.9 62 139.5 195.8 246.4 304.8 400.4 2 37.3 99 38.1 47.9 56.4 66.2 81.9 3 2.2 45 4.1 5.9 7.6 9.5 12.6 4 53.3 36 6.3 13.2 19.2 26.6 39.5 5 33.1 36 10.4 18.1 25.6 34.9 50.9 6 75.4 36 6.8 13.2 19.9 28.5 43.8 1111131ME7,71-2-264MOM 7 242.0 0 19.4 40.2 62.8 92.3 146.3 8 51.9 42 21.7 33.6 44.7 58.0 80.4 9 1 237.8 1 24 1 26.8 1 45.1 63.0 1 11�11�11�PEE1 M12 10 170.7 21 38.6 62.4 85.5 113.5 6 Drainage Area No.1 includes 38.9 acres of USAF property. Source:Massport Drainage Area 1: Drainage Area I drains to three 72-inch (1A, B, and Q and two 54-inch (ID and 1E) circular storm drains that discharge to the Shawsheen River. These drains have been identified as Outfalls IA to 1E on Figure 2-5. The five pipes collect runoff from an area of approximately 312 acres that includes land areas occupied by Massport, Signature,Jet Aviation, Sabrina Fisheries,Nagle Aircraft, Liberty Mutual,National Aviation Academy, and a portion of USAF property.Jet Aviation's fuel farm is also included in the drainage area for Outfalls lA-1E. Drainage Area 2: The contributing drainage area to Outfalls 2A-2C consists of approximately 37 acres from Hanscom Field,which drains into three 72-inch circular storm drains (Outfalls 2A-2Q that discharge to the Shawsheen River. These 72-inch drains also collect runoff from USAF Property (upstream of Hanscom Field),which is not included in the SWPPP. The area contributing to these outfalls includes the land occupied by the Signature hangars and its fuel farm. Drainage Area 3: This drainage area collects runoff from a small mostly vegetated area of approximately 2.2 acres and discharges to the Shawsheen River through an 18-inch pipe (Outfall 3). Drainage Area 4: This 53-acre tributary area drains to Outfalls 4A and 4B and includes runway and infield area that discharges through two 24-inch pipes to the Shawsheen River. Drainage Area 5: Drainage Area 5 includes runway and infield area of approximately 33 acres that contributes runoff via an overland flow to the Shawsheen River. Drainage Area 6: Drainage Area 6 includes runway and infield area of approximately 75 acres that contributes runoff via drainage swale to the Shawsheen River. Drainage Area 7. This is an undeveloped vegetated area of approximately 242 acres that contributes runoff to Elm Brook via overland flow. Drainage Area 8: This drainage area collects runoff from approximately 52 acres of runway and infield area and discharges through a 36-inch pipe (Outfall 8). The discharge flows via drainage swale (approximately 900 feet) to Elm Brook. Drainage Area 9: This area is a 238-acre basin that contributes runoff to Outfall 9. A large portion of this area(Area B) is comprised of a runway with associated grassed infield. This area includes approximately El.T;I In 2-23 Airport Facilities and Infrastructure 5.6 acres of U.S.Navy property. Rectrix and Draper Laboratory are located in this drainage area. It discharges through a 54-inch reinforced concrete pipe at a location approximately 500 feet from Elm Brook. Drainage Area 10: Outfall 10 receives runoff from 170 acres of land that consist of runway and infield areas and includes approximately 11.4 acres owned by the U.S.Navy. This area discharges through a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe to the wetland area north of the airport. 3. �iazairdcnjs M teua°ii41Il anageirrient Drainage areas I and 2 contain facilities that are reported to store and use hazardous materials,including fuel oils and chemicals. Massport has developed a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan that covers general Massport operations. Tenants that store a total of more than 42,000 gallons of oil in underground storage tanks (USTs) and/or more than 1,320 gallons of oil in ASTs or containers are required to have a SPCC Plan as required under 40 CFR 112 (Oil Pollution Prevention). Table 2-7 lists the hazardous materials that are likely to be present at Hanscom. 7dbI e 2-7 11ain�:coimn II1'-'Biel d IIL.IiM of Il11azairdmis, I ateirli4lls Jet Fuel A Cooking oil grease Waste mix oils Hydraulic Fluid Low Lead 100 Fuel Ethylene Glycol Battery Acid Transmission Fluid Gasoline Propylene Glycol Waste Jet Fuel Brake Fluid Kerosene Paint Number 2 Heating Ureas Oil Motor Oil Calcium Chloride Turbine Oil Sodium Formate Gasoline Cleaners/Detergents Parts Cleaners Asbestos Source:Massport Spills of hazardous materials on site must be immediately reported to the Hanscom AFB Fire Department. Notification to the National Response Center and the MassDEP is also required if the amount exceeds the Reportable Quantity threshold or enters a catch basin or drain. All spills shall be documented in writing to Massport's Operations and Environmental Departments. Spills exceeding the reportable quantity limits established in Table 302.4 -List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities of 40 CFR 302 and Table I -Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Materials List 310 CMR 40.1600, Subpart P,must be reported to the National Response Center, and the MassDEP, respectively. The limits established by these regulations for the most common materials handled at Hanscom are provided in the SWPPP, Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Bedford,Massachusetts (January, 2009; Last Updated: June 2013), along with the spill reporting contact list. .3.7 @-`IIIoc#Ip14!n Figure 2-5 depicts the 100-year floodplain boundary for the area surrounding Hanscom according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for the Town of Bedford,Panel No. 255209-005 and 006 C, effective July 4, 1988. There is no FEMA mapping done for the Hanscom Field area located within Towns of Lincoln and Concord. a 24 Airport Facilities and Infrastructure 23.8 W611[mad I "ua°oIm clliie°n Airea As discussed in Chapter 9,Wetlands Wildlife and Water Resources,portions of Hanscom Field are located within the Wellhead Protection Area for three wells in Bedford (see Figure 9-4). There are no Surface Water Supply Protection Areas (Zone A, B, C)in Hanscom Field. 3.9 iJllectir°lc mlll System Hanscom Field electrical power is provided primarily by NSTAR Electric and Gas.Electrical services for facilities located in Concord are provided by Concord Municipal Power and Light(CMPL).For the most part, the civilian and Hanscom AFB electrical distribution systems are separate. The few exceptions are power supplies to some navigational aids. The overall capacity of the electrical system is approximately 800kVA. In 1987, average annual power consumption was estimated at 600kVA (Greiner, 1987), 75 percent of total capacity. The existing system has sufficient capacity for some additional power demands by existing tenants and buildings. To meet future demands, additional electrical capacity may be required. The 5kV supply from NSTAR is small, considering the demand placed by the airfield and buildings. In 1987, the utility company considered the installation of a 13.8kV feeder to the airfield. If this occurs, the primary electrical distribution system would need to be redesigned and significantly upgraded but would provide the benefit of adequate power for long-term electrical needs. Electricity generation is also conducted at one location at Hanscom. A solar photovoltaic array was constructed on the roof of the Civil Air Terminal in 2011. The facility has a rated capacity of 51 kW and is predicted to produce over 57,233 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year, or 21 percent of the total building electricity requirement. For any periods when it is producing more electricity than the building requires, the electricity will flow back to the on-site distribution system for consumption by other facilities. 23.110 V4attjira1 Gas Natural gas is supplied by National Grid through a 4-inch high pressure main that comes onto airport property from Route 2A along Hanscom Drive. Gas is used for heating purposes with demand peaking during the winter months. This gas service was increased from a 2-inch high pressure main in order to supply the new hangars and conversion of the Civil Air Terminal building to gas heat, and construction by the USAF of a new Commissary facility. This four-inch line can accommodate future development. 3w1I1I "1`mIIIII�'ml�me°+mmm � e°+i�mirmmmmmliimmlliie°�+mm Verizon Communications provides telephone service to Hanscom. Telephone service lines enter along Hanscom Drive on overhead poles to the Terminal Area. The lines then run in underground conduits, which are routed to each of the facilities at Hanscom. Telephone conduit capacities are adequate for current demands although routine service upgrades may be required to provide a sufficient number of lines for future conditions. 2.3.112 1`a n k Il mm m a g e irm e n't I "ua°og ira irmm Beginning in 1993, Massport instituted a tank management program designed to track the age and physical characteristics of all Massport-owned and fuel storage tanks at Hanscom Field. The purpose of pd 25 Airport Facilities and Infrastructure this program is to maintain current tank information and ensure that tanks comply with the current AST and UST regulatory requirements. In 1995, the Massport Environmental Management Unit established a database of all Massport- and tenant-owned tanks identified at Hanscom. This regularly updated database tracks more than 50 tanks that are currently in use,have been removed, or have been replaced.Information on tenant tanks is obtained from tank permits filed with the Massport Fire Department. Massport records show that its existing tanks are currently in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. Massport will continue to monitor the condition of all active tanks to ensure proper functioning and regulatory compliance. Since 2005, the ASTs at Hangar 10 were removed. In 2010, Massachusetts State Tank Regulations were revised, and regulatory jurisdictions are now assigned by tank size and position(above or below the ground). Storage tanks on Massport property are now regulated by various jurisdictions—ASTs of less than 10,000-gallon capacity by the Massport Fire Department, ASTs of greater than 10,000-gallon capacity by the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services, and USTs by the MassDEP. As of 2010, ASTs must be renewed annually;however,UST permits no longer expire. Active smaller ASTs,larger ASTs, and USTs at Hanscom Field are listed in Tables 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10,respectively. aIt)Ille 2-8 ASTs, IIL.e�:s ' llhiain 10,000 tea: loins at II11aun�:coimn II1'-'liield 111111111111110 uu v HANAM-0042 Massport Field lighting vault 500 D HANAM-0073 Massport Building 37 275 D HANAM-0074 Massport Building 31 110 D HANAT-0050 Jet Aviation 380 Hanscom Drive 3,000 G HANAT-0054 Stream Enterprises 140 Hanscom Drive 1,065 D HANAT-0061 Signature Flight Support East ramp 6,000 G HANAT-0062 Signature Flight Support East ramp 6,000 D HANAT-0064 Signature Flight Support NW corner of Building 13 275 D HANAT-0071 Signature Flight Support Hangar 1 275 HO HANAT-0072 Signature Flight Support Han ar 1 275 D HANAT-0076 Liberty Mutual 230 Hanscom Drive, Building#16 200 D HANAT-0079 Boston Medfli ht Hangar 2 in front,airside 400 HO HANAT-1004 Jet Aviation Building#17,Jet Aviation 350 D HANAT-1005 Jet Aviation Building#17,Jet Aviation 300 WO Tank list updated May 20,2013 Tanks inspected annually Permit expires 1/15/2014 for all tanks D=diesel HO=heating oil G=gasoline WO=waste oil Source:Massport P Airport Facilities and Infrastructure Tai)Ue 2-9 Act�ve AS'Ts, GmeaUeir"Fliain 10"000 0aUUoins at 11ainscomm 1-iVUd HANAT-0059 Signature Flight Support East Ramp 15,000 JA 1/15/2014 HANAT-0060 Signature Flight Support East Ramp 10,000 AG 1/15/2014 HANAT-0063 Signature Flight Support East Ramp 15,000 JA 1/15/2014 HANAT-0066 Signature Flight Support East Ramp 15,000 JA 1/15/2014 Tank list updated 1/28/13 Tanks inspected annually Permit expires 1/15/2014 for all tanks AG =AvGas soun°:wmanort Tai)Ue 2-10 Act�ve �S'Ts, at 11ainscomm 1-16Ud HANBM-0026 Massport Building m,'7aintenance 7shop 1,000 HO HANBT-0067 Liberty Mutual 230 Hanscom Drive 25,000 JA Tank list updated May 2013. All underground storage tanks on Massport property are permitted by Massport Fire and no longer expire. ATCT=Air Traffic Control Tower G=gasoline FAA= Federal Aviation Administration D= =diesel aoun°:wu""nort Lnfhnnudonuhou1Muyypo/i`yTununtAuddProgrumundMuyy0EP'liotoddiop000loh00011{on000nnFiold is provided in Chapter 9,Wetlands Wildlife and Water Resources. Site remediation was completed in 2005 for the only M000DE9'liotod disposal site that was open. M000pon submitted documents to M000DE9 and the iT.S. EPA on May 22, 2006to bring this site to regulatory closure. A search ofthe MassDEP's Online 21E Site File Review database returned data indicating that there are three 21E-cases associated with Hanscom Field with notification do1oo in 2000, 1994, and 1993 and response action oo1oonno (8AO) status. 8AO otobuo indboo1oo that response actions were oo[Goiont to oobiovo olovol of no significant risk oro1 least ensure that all substantial hazards were eliminated. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure (This page intentionally left blank) 2-28 Airport Activity Levels 3 Airpaft ActivityIII m m Its This chapter reports on aviation activity levels and trends at Hanscom Field from 2000 to 2012. Aviation activity levels form the basis of the evaluations of ground transportation,noise and air quality impacts associated with the airport. This 2012 ESPR also provides an opportunity to re-assess the prior forecasts presented in the 2005 ESPR and update the forecasts to reflect current conditions and industry trends. Base year(2012)traffic is compared to forecast activity from the 2005 ESPR, and new forecasts for the mid(2020) and long-term(2030)planning horizons are presented and described. The actual operations for 2012 can also be compared with actual operations in past years to reveal activity trends. The updated forecasts are subsequently used to assess potential future ground traffic,noise and air quality impacts associated with the airport under certain planning scenarios. Hanscom Field accommodates all segments of the general aviation (GA) industry including business and corporate aviation, air taxi/private charter services,recreational and personal flying and pilot training activities. In addition to GA, from time to time commercial passenger services have been available at Hanscom Field. The most recent such service was provided by Streamline Air from April 2011 to September 2012. This chapter reports on all aviation activities at Hanscom Field and the following traffic measures: M Aircraft operations by type and aircraft category M Based aircraft M Commercial air passengers Table 3-1 presents the 2005 and 2012 actual operations by aircraft type from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm along with forecasts prepared for the planning years 2020 and 2030. IN Hanscom Field functions as a premier full-service GA airport and corporate reliever for Boston Logan Airport with limited commercial passenger service. IN There were 166,000 aircraft take-offs and landings performed at Hanscom Field in 2012. GA accounted for 99 percent of the operations. IN Nearly three-quarters of the aircraft operations are conducted with single-engine piston aircraft, including 70,200 local pilot training operations and 51,500 itinerant operations for personal or recreational purposes. IN Hanscom also serves the needs of business aviation users,including corporations that own their own aircraft and businesses that charter private flights. Business aviation operations conducted in jets, turboprops and multi-engines piston aircraft accounted for 22 percent of Hanscom's activity, or 35,800 operations. Streamline Air offered regularly scheduled public charter services at Hanscom from April 2011 to September 2012. Streamline's services were geared towards business travelers. Two daily roundtrips were flown from Hanscom to Trenton,New Jersey with 30-seat turboprop aircraft. CFI rr C Airport Activity Levels There have been no scheduled passenger services at Hanscom since Streamline Air discontinued services in 2012. IN Hanscom's total aircraft operations have declined by 2.0 percent annually from approximately 218,000 operations in 2000 to 166,000 operations in 2012. The drop in aircraft operations at Hanscom mirrors a long-term decline in general aviation activity nationally. GA suffered steep declines as a result of rising fuel prices and the economic recession in 2008 and 2009. Nationally, the GA industry has yet to recover from the downturn. GA operations at U.S. airports with air traffic control towers were down by nearly 7 percent in 2012 compared to 2009. However, GA at Hanscom Field has recovered with operations increasing by approximately 11 percent over the same period. IN Business aviation has been the fastest growing segment of activity at Hanscom Field,increasing at a long-term average annual rate of 2 percent from 2000 to 2012. After a sharp decline in business aviation following the economic and financial collapse in 2008/09,business operations have been slow to recover due to the slow pace of economic growth and economic uncertainty. Forecasts of aviation activity at Hanscom Field were prepared for the near-term(2020) and long- term(2030)planning periods. A key assumption underlying the forecasts is that Hanscom continues to function as a GA reliever for Logan Airport and the premier business aviation airport in the Greater Boston area with limited military and commercial airline operations. 7aIi)IIIe 3-1 1 lxrnimm airy o1 Actl.4II airid III'-'oirµecast Actliivli4y at IIIlairiscoimn III'-iiiellld Aircraft Operations(7:00 am to 11:00 pm) General Aviation Local(SEP) 58,535 70,196 62,605 65,164 Personal Flying(SEP) 57,894 51,477 50,661 58,285 Business Non-Jet(MEP+Turbo) 9,646 10,178 10,861 12,985 Business Jet 32,345 25,638 35,043 46,782 Helicopter 7,004 1 7,345 7,345 7,345 Subtotal GA 165,424 164,834 166,515 190,561 Military 904 745 745 745 Commercial Scheduled Airline' 3,627 635 1,040 1,820 Total Operations 169,955 166,214 168,300 193,126 Based Aircraft 387 340 360 416 Commercial Airline Passengers 17,457 8,609 20,280 40,600 1. Aircraft operations are tracked by the FAA daily between 7:00 am and 11:00 pm,which are the hours that the air traffic control tower is open. Source:Massport,FAA Tower Counts,and 2005 ESPR. Total aircraft operations are forecast at 168,300 in 2020 and 193,100 in 2030. Long-term growth in overall aircraft operations (2012 to 2030)is expected to be modest at 0.8 percent per year. Consistent with a positive outlook for business aviation nationally,business operations are expected to increase by 2.9 percent per year reaching nearly 60,000 operations in 2030. Business jet operations are forecast to grow by 3.4 percent per year to nearly 46,800 in 2030. Although there is no commercial airline services offered at Hanscom today,the activity forecasts include a commercial passenger airline scenario. The forecast scenario assumes services by a small regional airline or public charter provider, similar to the recent Streamline Air operation at P Airport Activity Levels Hanscom. The assumed services would target business passengers and would be operated with 30-seat turboprop aircraft. Under these assumptions, scheduled commercial airline passenger traffic at Hanscom Field is forecast at 20,300 by 2020 and 40,600 in 2030. Annual commercial airline operations are forecast at 1,040 in 2020 and 2,080 in 2030. 12 2012 Activity I-evels at Hanscom In 2012, there were approximately 166,000 aircraft landings and take-offs at Hanscom Field 7. GA accounted for nearly all of the activity at Hanscom Field,with military and commercial airline activity representing less than 1 percent of the airport's operations. Commercial services provided by Streamline Airlines were discontinued in September 2012. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of the operations performed at Hanscom in 2012 were in single-engine piston (SEP) aircraft(see Figure 3-1). At Hanscom, single-engine piston activity consists of training operations and recreational(or personal) flying. Training operations associated with the two flight schools are the prevailing type of aircraft operation at Hanscom Field. In 2012,more than 70,000 training operations occurred at Hanscom. Training operations are also referred to as "local"operations by the FAA because these operations are conducted in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the airport tower or are known to be departing for, or arriving from, local practice areas located within a 20-mile radius of the airport. All other operations have an arrival or departure outside the local traffic pattern and are considered "itinerant." Operations that are itinerant may be performed by aircraft that are based at Hanscom or based at other airports. Recreational flying in single engine piston aircraft is the second most prevalent type of aircraft activity at Hanscom. In 2012, there were approximately 51,500 recreational operations conducted by single engine piston aircraft. Hanscom Field also serves the needs of business aviation users,which include corporations that own and operate their own aircraft. These users may have aircraft that are based at Hanscom or their aircraft may be based at other airports, either in the region or across the globe. Business aviation users also include on-demand air taxi and charter operators that provide private air transportation services for hire or fractional aircraft operators whose customers own a share of an aircraft and are guaranteed a certain number of air transportation hours per year. In 2012,Hanscom accommodated approximately 35,800 business aviation operations,which represents 22 percent of total operations. Business aviation activity includes operations in jet and non jet aircraft, such as multi-engine pistons (MEP) and turboprops (TP). Helicopters based at Hanscom Field provide medical and other emergency transportation services and private charter operations. In 2012,helicopters performed 7,300 operations,which represent approximately 4 percent of Hanscom's total operations. Military operations account for less than one half percent of Hanscom's aircraft activity. In 2012,there were 745 operations in military aircraft. Massport's official aircraft operation counts are based on the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower(ATCT)counts from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm when the tower is operational. In 2012,there were 1,631 additional aircraft operations during the late night/early morning hours when the tower is closed.The nighttime operations presented in the 2012 ESPR differ slightly from those published in the Hanscom Field Annual Noise Report. This discrepancy is due to the difference in the timing of the preparation for the two reports. Each report used the best available data at the time of the analysis for that report. The difference of approximately 0.3 daily nighttime operations or 0.07%of all daily operations would change computed noise levels by less than 0.1 dB,which is imperceptible and would not change the analysis presented. l771 d 3, Airport Activity Levels In 2012, Streamline Air offered regularly scheduled public charter services between Hanscom Field and Trenton Mercer Airport in New Jersey with 30-seat Embraer Brasilia turboprops. Services were geared toward the business traveler and were operated on weekdays with up to two departures per day. Streamline Air which began serving the Hanscom market in April 2011, discontinued services in September 2012. From January through September, Streamline conducted 635 operations and had 8,600 passengers (enplaned plus deplaned) at Hanscom Field. Commercial Airline IIII 0.4% Military 0.4% � U� Helicopter 4.4% Business Jet 15.4% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII aiiJfllll%r�rlll�l�ll'`",�� .; Business Non-Jet (MEP & TP) 6% I'-'iiillu.uire 3-1 Illlairi�:corn III'-'liield Aiiiirciraft Il�miratiiiouris Iby 7yll�w airid Aiiiirciraft Category Source:Massport w w1l e irni l�)airlii e°n of 2005 ice' lP foire ast 1o, actual 20,112 activity All long-term aviation forecasts are subject to uncertainty. A variety of unforeseen external factors can positively or negatively impact airport traffic levels and lead to discrepancies between forecast and actual activity levels. There have been a number of such unpredictable external shocks over the past several years that have affected aviation both locally and nationally. Table 3-2 compares actual 2012 activity levels at Hanscom to predicted 2012 levels based on the 2005 ESPR forecasts. Predicted 2012 activity levels were interpolated based on the 2010 and 2020 forecasts presented in the 2005 ESPR. Hanscom's actual aircraft operations for 2012 were lower than the activity levels based on the 2005 ESPR forecasts by 32,000 to 47,000 for the Moderate and High scenarios, respectively(see Table 3-2). The largest discrepancies are in the personal flying and business jet categories. Compared to the 2005 projections, there were 8,000 to 20,000 fewer itinerant operations in single-engine piston aircraft and 25,000 to 34,000 fewer operations in business jet aircraft. Both of these activity segments were negatively impacted by higher fuel prices,which have more than doubled since 2005, as well as the 2008/2009 economic recession and slow pace of economic recovery,which depressed demand for private air transportation. 34 Airport Activity Levels In addition, the global financial collapse had a negative impact on the per-seat on-demand air taxi model that was predicated on the use of new, low-cost very light jets like the Eclipse. When the 2005 ESPR forecasts were being developed, there were several new entrant air taxi operators like DayJet and Pogo, which were forecast to transform the industry and lead to higher growth in business jet activity. However, these companies were unable to obtain needed financing to launch their operations and they ultimately collapsed. Nationally, actual growth in business jet activity between 2005 and 2012 was much lower than predicted by industry analysts and the FAA. 7aIt)Ille 3-2 2005 III: III'3III1 II1'-oirecast airid Actual 2012 AcCV4Y at II11airi�:coimn II1'-'liield ..M6 � .. v .. .. v .. Aircraft Operations General Aviation Local(SEP) 58,535 70,196 64,178 52,360 6,018 17,836 9.4% 34.1% Personal Flying(SEP) 57,894 51,477 59,274 71,158 (7,797) (19,681) -13.2% -27.7% Business Non-Jet(MEP 9,646 +Turbo) 10,178 10,138 10,496 40 (318) 0.4% -3.0% Business(Jet) 32,345 25,638 50,751 1 59,388 (25,113) (33,750) -49.5% -56.8% Helicopter 7,004 7,345 7,000 7,000 345 345 4.9% 4.9% Subtotal GA 165,424 164,834 191,341 200,402 (26,507) (35,568) -13.9% -17.7% Military 904 745 900 1,028 (155) (283) -17.2% -27.5% Commercial Scheduled Airline Passenger 3,627 635 5,949 11,085 (5,314) (10,450) -89.3% -94.3% Cargo - - - 1,128 (1,128) - -100.0% Subtotal Commercial Airline 3,627 635 5,949 12,213 (5,314) (11,578) -89.3% -94.8% Total Operations 169,955 166,214 198,190 213,644 (31,976) (47,430) -16.1% -22.2% Based Aircraft 387 340 384 400 (44) (60) -11.5% -15.0% Commercial Airline Passengers 17,457 8,609 82,238 325,012 (73,629) (316,403) -89.5% -97.4% Note:2012 projections from the 2005 ESPR are interpolated based on the 2010 and 2020 forecast years. Operations are for the period 7:00 am to 11:00 pm. Source:Massport and FAA Tower Counts. The 2005 ESPR forecasts also projected 5,900 to 11,100 commercial airline operations and 82,000 to 325,000 passengers in 2012. Actual commercial airline activity fell significantly short of the projections at 635 operations and 8,600 passengers in 2012. The commercial airline industry was also greatly affected by the combination of high fuel prices and weak demand. The airline industry,which has seen fuel prices more than triple since 2000,has consolidated and airlines have radically altered their business models by cutting capacity and withdrawing services from small, secondary regional airports. In the New England region,the secondary Boston area airports, T.F. Green/Providence and Manchester-Boston Regional, experienced passenger declines of 36 and 43 percent,respectively,between 2005 and 2012. While several segments underperformed relative to the forecasts, training operations were higher than the predicted levels in both the Moderate and the High scenarios. The 2005 ESPR forecast predicted 52,300 to 64,200 training operations compared to 70,200 actual operations in 2012. 7`!'X n I I,)' Airport Activity Levels II "1`cIaI alli cira 1 qIpeira 11iie°n Hanscom's total aircraft operations, as shown in Table 3-3,have declined at an average annual rate of 2.0 percent from 212,400 in 2000 to 166,200 in 2012. Over the period shown, aircraft operations reached a high of 218,200 in 2003 before falling to a low of 150,000 in 2009,when the economy was at its weakest. All major activity segments (i.e. general aviation, commercial airline and military) experienced declines in activity from 2000 to 2012. 7aIi)Ille 3-3 13uxrnirn�iry 01 IlIlairi�:coimn III'-'liield Xirciraft Opeiratbiris, 2000 to 2012 , m 2000 204,512 6,572 1,287 212,371 - 2001 197,770 6,414 1,252 205,436 -3.3% 2002 210,221 6,603 1,424 218,248 6.2% 2003 190,789 2,956 1,142 194,887 -10.7% 2004 175,301 4,308 1,195 180,804 -7.2% 2005 165,424 3,627 904 169,955 -6.0% 2006 167,808 3,057 1,592 172,457 1.5% 2007 160,992 3,477 1,438 165,907 -3.8% 2008 164,195 104 1,590 165,889 0.0% 2009 148,604 - 1,307 149,911 -9.6% 2010 161,942 - 1,795 163,737 9.2% 2011 160,830 750 1,419 162,999 -0.5% 2012 164,834 635 745 166,214 2.0% Average Annual Growth 2000-2005 -4.2% -11.2% -6.8% -4.4% 2005-2012 -0.1% -22.0% -2.7% -0.3% 2000-2012 -1.8% -17.7% -4.5% -2.0% Source:Massport and FAA Tower Counts. 3.2 GeneiraII avila life°n alli cira 1 qIpeira11iie°n General aviation (GA)includes all aviation operations except for scheduled commercial airline and military operations. GA includes flying by businesses that provide on-demand passenger or cargo charter services; corporate flight departments; owner-flown aircraft; air ambulance providers; law enforcement, firefighting and public safety agencies; companies that provide aerial services such as photography; and flight schools that train pilots. The GA fleet includes a diverse range of aircraft types from light sport aircraft to sophisticated, long-range business jets,but the predominant general aviation aircraft is the single-engine piston. Since 2000, GA operations at Hanscom Field have declined from more than 204,000 to 166,200 in 2012. The overall decline at Hanscom mirrors a long-term decline in GA nationally. As shown in Figure 3-2, GA operations at Hanscom fell by 1.8 percent annually from 2000 to 2012 compared to a national decline of 3.5 percent per year. Since the recent recession, GA activity has continued to decline nationwide, falling by 6.7 percent from 2009 to 2012. In contrast, GA activity at Hanscom has returned to growth, increasing by 10.9 percent over the same period. The recovery observed at Hanscom reflects a different mix of GA activities compared to the overall U.S.industry. Business jets, the growth segment of the GA industry, accounts for approximately 5 percent of national GA activity compared to 15 percent GA operations at Hanscom. Hanscom's growth trends in each of the major general aviation segments are summarized in Table 3-4 and described in the following sections. 6 . I.. Airport Activity Levels 250,000 50,000 Hanscom US (000) 200,000 40,000 " o o a 150,000 w , ++ �yh, 30,000 CL Q E v100,000 AveagerAuurnwe c,uawu,l,� 20,000 H 2000 201:2' Q c>s = Hanscom -1.8% (n 50,000 10,000 =i U.S. -3.5% Y .... ....� .... ..L. I .... I I.... I .... 1.... 0 f f �� �� �� �O �� �� rp rp rp 1'-'iiigu.0 ire 3-2 Ill+istoirµlit'Tireirid liiuri Geiriei4 Avliiafiiiioiri Opeirafioiris, at Il11airil�:coimnl II1-'liiel d airid U S. Toweired X irpoir s Note:Includes local and itinerant operations. U.S.operations include operations at towered airports only. Source:Massport and FAA,Aerospace Forecasts,various years. aItAe 3-4 Il11airul�:coimnl III'-'iiield Geirulei4 Aviiiatiiiourul Aiiiirµciraft Opeiratbiris, 2000 to 2,012 2000 75,676 90,323 5,099 6,274 20,226 31,599 6,914 204,512 2001 72,605 84,803 4,858 7,166 22,839 34,863 5,499 197,770 2002 76,849 82,282 5,295 7,995 30,788 44,078 7,012 210,221 2003 71,696 70,912 4,750 6,101 30,352 41,203 6,978 190,789 2004 60,794 63,713 4,818 5,849 33,061 43,728 7,066 175,301 2005 58,535 57,898 4,265 5,381 32,341 41,987 7,004 165,424 2006 59,222 58,198 4,352 5,771 33,251 43,374 7,014 167,808 2007 56,731 51,776 4,196 6,878 34,522 45,596 6,889 160,992 2008 65,906 50,069 3,977 6,778 30,661 41,416 6,804 164,195 2009 1 60,263 46,478 3,963 5,588 25,482 35,033 1 6,830 148,604 2010 66,038 52,631 3,451 5,704 27,293 36,448 6,825 161,942 2011 60,268 56,059 3,542 6,136 27,838 37,516 6,987 160,830 2012 70,196 51,477 3,763 6,415 25,638 35,816 7,345 164,834 Average Annual Growth 2000-2005 -5.0% -8.5% -3.5% -3.0% 9.8% 0.3% -4.2% 2005-2012 2.6% -1.7% -1.8% 2.5% -3.3% 0.7% -0.1% 2000-2012 -0.6% -4.6% -2.5% 0.2% 2.0% 0.5% -1.8% Source:Massport and FAA Tower Counts. i4a oral a oral g olpeirµafiiioiris, The flight schools located at Hanscom Field provide flight instruction to student pilots and advanced skills training to existing pilots. Student pilots accompanied by a flight instructor often practice take-offs 7 Airport Activity Levels and landings at Hanscom Field. These activities are called"touch-and-go"operations and are typically conducted in single-engine piston aircraft. A touch-and-go operation occurs when an aircraft lands and then takes-off without stopping or exiting the runway. In 2012, there were 70,200 training (i.e. local) operations at Hanscom Field, an increase of 16.5 percent over the prior year. Although training operations have fluctuated from year to year, the long-term trend has been a decline in training operations at Hanscom. Nationally, local operations at towered airports have decreased at a rate of 3.1 percent per year from 2000 to 2012'. However, training operations at Hanscom have declined less sharply, falling at a rate of 0.6 percent per year over the same period. 3 3 2 2 III'3ersoir4 flllyiiiurig olperatiiioirls, Personal, or recreational, operations at Hanscom are conducted with small, single-engine piston aircraft that are often pilot owned. These flights may be for personal travel to leisure or business destinations or for the pleasure of flying. There were nearly 51,500 personal flying operations conducted at Hanscom in 2012, a decrease of 8.2 percent over the prior year. This has been one of the fastest declining segments of activity at Hanscom Field. From 2000 to 2012,personal flying operations have fallen at an average annual rate of 4.6 percent. This segment of GA flying has also declined nationally but at a more moderate rate. According to the FAA, flying hours in single-engine piston aircraft have fallen by 0.8 percent per year over the same time period.9 Personal flying is a price sensitive segment of the general aviation market and is negatively affected by the rising costs of aircraft ownership and fuel prices, as well a weak economic climate. The long-term decline seen in this segment also reflects changing demographics and a declining pool of private pilots. The number of private pilots in the U.S.has declined by 2.4 percent per year from 2000 to 2012. 3 3 2 3 IIBu.js:iiuries�:/coirlpoirate aviiiatiiioiri olpeiratiiioirls, Business operations may be conducted in a variety of aircraft including multi-engine pistons, turboprops and jet aircraft. These operations may involve aircraft owned by corporations,individuals or fractional owners, or aircraft that is leased or chartered through an air-taxi or aircraft charter provider. Companies and organizations of all sizes derive benefits from the flexibility that business aviation provides including: (1) the ability to reach destinations on a more convenient timetable than commercial airline schedules, often eliminating the need for long layover flights; (2)the ability to access multiple locations in a single day; (3) access to locations not easily reached with commercial airline services; (4) eliminates the time spent on airport check-in and security allowing employees from top executive to mid-level manager to be more productive and(4) allows small to large businesses to be more responsive to customer needs. At Hanscom Field, there were approximately 35,816 business aviation operations in multi-engine piston, turboprop and jet aircraft. Business activity has been the fastest growing segment of operations at Hanscom,increasing at a long-term average rate of 1.0 percent per year from 2000 to 2012. Growth was significantly faster in early part of the period,with operations climbing from less than 32,000 in 2000 to a peak of 45,600. This rapid growth was largely driven by increased interest in private business transportation sparked by growth in fractional ownership programs,increased security screening at commercial airports which made commercial short-haul flights unattractive, and the introduction of new 8 FAA,Aerospace Forecasts—FY 2013-2033,March 2013. 91bid. 8 . I.. Airport Activity Levels business aircraft models. However,business aviation dropped off sharply following the economic and financial collapse in 2008/09. At Hanscom,business operations fell by 23 percent over the two-year period from 2007 to 2009. Business operations have not yet recovered at Hanscom, as businesses continue to proceed cautiously in an uncertain economic environment. The long-term increase in business operations at Hanscom has been driven by growth in jet operations, which have grown at a rate of 2.0 percent per year. In comparison,the turboprop segment increased only slightly at 0.2 percent annually and multi-engine piston operations actually declined by 2.5 percent per year due to an aging fleet. In 2012 jets accounted for 72 percent of the business aviation operations at Hanscom. 3 3 2 4 Il116llliicolpteir olpeiratloiris Helicopter activity at Hanscom Field has been fairly stable over the historic period at approximately 7,000 annual operations. Over the long-term historical period (2000-2012)helicopter operations have increased slightly at an average rate of 0.5 percent per year. 3 Il li11l ilairy opeiratiie°n Hanscom AFB is central to the Air Force's development and acquisition of command and control systems. It serves as part of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center(LCMC),which is responsible for the total life cycle management of Air Force weapon systems. The host unit at Hanscom AFB is the 66th Air Base Group,which supports military personnel and civilians at Hanscom AFB and retired military personnel and dependents in the New England and New York state region. In 2011, some Air Force research labs located at Hanscom were moved to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, and Kirtland Air Force Base,N.M. The former Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom was deactivated in 2012 as part of a major Air Force realignment and was consolidated into the new (LCMC),headquartered at Wright- Patterson AFB resulting in a reduction of personnel at the AFB. Despite the realignment, Hanscom AFB remains an integral part of the evolving electronics technology community in the Boston area, consisting of educational institutions,private industry and military research and development installations. Today, the base continues its leadership role in the development and acquisition of Air Force command and control systems.10 Since the core functions of the Hanscom AFB do not involve a flying mission, the military operations at Hanscom Field are infrequent and most often involve the transport of military and civilian personnel in business aviation type aircraft. In 2012, there were 745 military operations at Hanscom which represents less than one-half percent of the airport's total aircraft operations. As a result of the Air Force realignment and downsizing at Hanscom,military operations fell by 48 percent in 2012. Over the long- term,military operations at Hanscom have declined at an average annual rate of 4.5 percent(see Table 3- 3). 3.4 I la ed alli cira l In 2012, there were 340 aircraft based at Hanscom Field. Approximately 64 percent of the aircraft housed at Hanscom are single-engine pistons. Jets are the next most prevalent type accounting for 23.2 percent of based aircraft. The distribution of based aircraft by type is provided in Figure 3-3. 10 The Official Web Site of Hanscom Air Force Base r'i El3 Airport Activity Levels SEP 64% Helicopter 4% Jet MEP + TP 23% 9% 1-'hill re 3-3 11airiscoirn 1-16kl IIL ased Xirciraft by 'Type, 2012 Source: Massport. The number of aircraft based at Hanscom fluctuates from year-to-year as shown in Figure 3-4. Over the historical period (2000 to 2012),based aircraft reached a high of 411 in 2006 and a low of 290 in 2010. Over the long term, total based aircraft have declined by 14 percent. 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 MSEP Iml Jet M MEP + TP mHelicoptar 50 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1-ig re 3-4 11airiscoirn 1-16kl IIL ased Xirciraft by 'Tyl�w, 2000-2012 Source: Massport. 310 Airport Activity Levels The SEP and MEP/TP categories have been in decline, falling by 34 and 26 percent,respectively. While jets based at the airport have more than tripled and helicopters have more than doubled,they accounted for less than 30 percent of Hanscom's based aircraft, combined, in 2012. 33.5 Oe irnirreneiI,6411 alIiIlllilne activlilt Hanscom Field has periodically received limited regional commuter airline services. In the 1980s, services were provided by small regional commuter airlines that linked Hanscom to markets in the Northeast, largely other small airport markets in upstate New York. Traffic in years when services were provided varied from 200 to just under 10,000 passengers. Throughout most of the 1990s there were no scheduled commercial airline services at Hanscom Field. Table 3-5 summarizes scheduled commercial airline services and passenger traffic at Hanscom Field since 2000. Shuttle America,which entered the Hanscom market in 1999,provided nonstop services to various Northeast markets with small turboprop aircraft. Shuttle America's passenger traffic at Hanscom peaked at 162,000 in 2000. The airline entered bankruptcy in 2002 and eventually became a US Airways feeder carrier, operating under the US Airways Express brand at Hanscom. Shuttle America's Hanscom services were eventually discontinued in 2004 so that aircraft could be redeployed to US Airways' Pittsburgh hub. 7dbIe 3-5 13cIIhiedl.flled Coimnimneirµdidll Aliiirlll irie 13eirrvliices airid III'3a�:seurigeirµs at Il11airi�:coimn III'='liielll�ly 2000 to 2012 2000 Shuttle America Buffalo, Greensboro, New York La 162,147 Guardia,Trenton,Wilmington 2001 Shuttle America Buffalo, New York La Guardia, 134,337 Philadelphia,Trenton 2002 Shuttle America Philadelphia,Trenton 67,513 Boston-Maine Airways Newark, Portsmouth 175 Total 67,688 2003 Shuttle America Trenton 36,073 Boston-Maine Airways Manchester, Nantucket 26 Total 36,099 2004 Shuttle America Trenton 9,972 Boston-Maine Airways Portsmouth,Trenton 12,106 Total 22,078 2005 Boston-Maine Airways Portsmouth,Trenton 17,457 2006 Boston-Maine Airways Portsmouth,Trenton 17,680 2007 Boston-Maine Airways Elmira, Portsmouth,Trenton 17,398 2008 Boston-Maine Airways Trenton 325 2009 None 0 2010 None 0 2011 Streamline Air Trenton 6,519 2012 Streamline Air Trenton 8,609 Note: Includes scheduled commercial passenger airline services operating under FAA Part 121 certificates and public charters operated by air taxi operators governed by FAA Part 135 regulations. Excludes private charters conducted by FAA Part 135 operators. Source:Massport and Official Airline Guide Boston-Maine Airways,headquartered in Portsmouth,NH, operated scheduled commuter services at Hanscom from 2002 to 2008. Trenton was the airline's primary market from Hanscom and services were provided with 19-seat Jetstream 31 turboprop aircraft. The airline's traffic at Hanscom peaked at approximately 17,700 passengers in 2006. Services ended abruptly in February 2008 when the U.S. DOT revoked the airline's operating certificate. Airport Activity Levels From February 2008 through March 2011, there were no scheduled airline services operating at Hanscom Field. In April 2011, Streamline Air commenced scheduled public charter services from Hanscom Field to Trenton-Mercer Airport in New Jersey. Streamline operated two daily flights on weekdays only with 30-seat Embraer 120 turboprops targeting business passengers. After nearly 18-months of operation, the services were discontinued in September 2012. More than 8,600 passengers flew on the Streamline services in 2012. Since September 2012,there have been no scheduled passenger airline services operating at Hanscom Field. Table 3-6 summarizes scheduled passenger airline activity at Hanscom Field from 2000 to 2012. Passenger traffic peaked at 162,000 at the beginning of the period. Aircraft operations peaked at approximately 6,600 in 2000 and 2003. The average passengers per flight varied from nearly 25,when Shuttle America served the market with 50-seat turboprops to a low of 3-5 when Boston-Maine Airways operated 19-seat turboprops at Hanscom. 7aIi)Ille 3-6 t3r:.11iedu.u'IIled Coirnirneird4l III'3a�:seurilleir Aliiirlllliiurie Actliivliity at Il11airi�:coimm III'='liielll�ly 2000 to 2012 R 00 2000 162,147 6,572 24.7 2001 134,337 6,414 20.9 2002 67,688 6,603 10.3 2003 1 36,099 2,956 12.2 2004 18,123 4,308 4.2 2005 17,457 3,627 4.8 2006 17,680 3,057 5.8 2007 17,398 3,477 5.0 2008 325 104 3.1 2009 2010 2011 6,519 750 8.7 2012 8,609 635 13.6 Source:Massport 3.6 Rii g littlil im e aa�tlii liit The nighttime period at Hanscom Field is defined as 11:00 pm to 7:00 am, the period when the FAA Tower is closed and when Massport's nighttime field use fee is in effect. In 2012, there were 1,631 nighttime operations, representing approximately one percent of Hanscom's total aircraft operations (see Table 3-7). The majority of nighttime operations are conducted by jet aircraft,which accounted for 72 percent of the nighttime activity in 2012. Total nighttime operations have fluctuated from year-to-year as overall activity has fluctuated. From 2000 to 2012,nighttime operations decreased by 15 percent while total aircraft operations (including nighttime activity) fell by 22 percent. There has been reduced nighttime activity in all but one aircraft category. Jet operations during the nighttime have grown by 24 percent over the long-term historical period, consistent with the overall growth of jet operations at the airport (+27 percent). { . I.. Airport Activity Levels Tat)�le 3-7Ill glitt�irne Opeiratbiris, (11:00 pirn to '7:00 airni) at Ilairiscoirn I-i6kl, 2000 to 2012 2000 944 353 194 427 n/a 1,918 2001 808 273 161 432 n/a 1,674 2002 1,079 377 142 572 n/a 2,170 2003 1,035 153 130 425 n/a 1,743 2004 1,100 164 136 606 n/a 2,006 2005 1,131 131 112 520 n/a 1,894 2006 1,148 148 298 730 n/a 2,324 2007 1,350 211 175 547 n/a 2,283 2008 1,244 148 81 437 n/a 1,910 2009 1,075 136 106 418 n/a 1,735 2010 1,199 174 74 385 n/a 1,832 2011 1,230 179 143 276 n/a 1,828 2012 1,173 251 63 141 3 1,631 Percent Change 24.3% -28.9% -67.5% -67.0% n/a -15.0% (2000-2012) 1 The nighttime operations presented in the 2012 ESPR differ slightly from those published in the Hanscom Field Annual Noise Report. This discrepancy is due to the difference in the timing of the preparation for the two reports. Each report used the best available data at the time of the analysis for that report. The difference of approximately 0.3 daily nighttime operations or 0.07%of all daily operations would change computed noise levels by less than 0.1 dB,which is imperceptible and would not change the analysis presented. Source:Massport 3A Aviation Activity Forecasts The forecasts of aviation activity at Hanscom Field include projections of aircraft operations, scheduled airline passengers and based aircraft for near-term(2020) and long-term(2030)planning periods. The forecasts assume that Hanscom Field continues to function as a general aviation reliever for Logan Airport and the premier business aviation airport in the Greater Boston area with limited military and commercial airline operations. The GA forecasts are based on historical trends at Hanscom,national historical trends and industry projections for general aviation, the economy and fuel prices. The forecast of commercial airline activity is based on a scenario of the potential types of services that Hanscom could accommodate given current and projected trends in the overall airline industry. All forecast assumptions are consistent with Massport's 1980 regulations limiting scheduled commercial passenger services to aircraft with 60 or fewer seats. Forecasts for each of the distinct segments of aviation activity are described in the following sections. 3.4.11 GeneiraI aVlatlon allirciraft qpeiratlons GA activity at Hanscom Field is forecast to increase from approximately 164,800 operations in the base year to 190,600 operations in 2030. Separate forecasts were developed for each of the sub-segments of GA activity: 1)pilot training; 2)personal flying; 3)business/corporate flying and 4)helicopter operations. Forecasts for each of these sub segments is summarized in Table 3-8 and described in the following sections. E1.7;I In Airport Activity Levels Tat)�le 3-8 1-oirecast 11airiscoirn 1-iV�d Geiriei4 Avliatioiri Nirciraft Opeiratioiris, 2020 airid 2030 i , ! : , I M Training(SEP) 58,535 70,196 62,605 65,164 -1.4% 0.4% -0.4% Personal Flying(SEP) 57,894 51,477 50,661 58,285 -0.2% 1.4% 0.7% Business Non-Jet(MEP) 4,265 3,763 3,837 4,321 0.2% 1.2% 0.8% Business Non-Jet(Turbo) 5,381 6,415 7,024 8,664 1.1% 2.1% 1.7% Business(Jet) 32,345 25,638 35,043 46,782 4.0% 2.9% 3.4% Helicopter 7,004 7,345 7,345 7,345 0.0% 00% 0.0% Total General Aviation 165,424 164,8341 166,515 190,561 0.1% 1.4% 0.8% Source: Massport 3 4 1 1 T14iiri�iirig opeiratioiris, Pilot training operations, or local SEP operations, are forecast to decline over the forecast period from 70,200 operations in 2012 to 65,164 operations in 2030. The forecast rate of decline is 0.4 percent per year and is similar to the rate of decline over the historical period, 0.6 percent from 2000 to 2010. Projected trends that will influence pilot training activity include a decline in student pilots. Nationally, the FAA forecasts the student pilot base to decline by 0.1 percent per year through 203 0. 3 4 1 2 I3eirsoir4 flllyiiiiirig opeiratioiris, The level of personal flying operations, or itinerant operations in single-engine piston aircraft, is sensitive to the state of the economy and the costs of private flying, especially fuel prices. Over the forecast period, economic growth is expected to be moderate and fuel prices are projected to increase further. In its national projections, the FAA assumes that U.S. Gross Domestic Product, adjusted for inflation, increases at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent through 2030. The FAA also assumes that the cost of fuel, as measured by the cost of crude oil, continues to increase over the long term, rising at an average rate of 0.9 percent per year.12 At Hanscom Field,personal flying operations are forecast to increase from nearly 51,500 in 2012 to approximately 58,300 in 2030. Activity is forecast to grow at a slower pace than the economy, increasing by 0.7 percent per year over the planning horizon. 3 4 1 3 Bus�i iiriess/co rpo irate aviiatioiri opeiratioirls, The long-term outlook for business aviation remains strong, though not as optimistic as projections from the mid-2000s. The FAA assumes that nationally business aviation will continue to recover from the 2008/09 economic downturn as the economy improves and corporate profits rise. Over the long term, business aviation is expected to be an attractive option over commercial aviation due to the increased flexibility that it provides and continued concerns over safety, security and commercial airline flight delays. The FAA forecasts total flight hours in turboprop and jet aircraft in the U.S. to grow by 2.1 and 4.3 percent, respectively, through 2030. Business aviation at Hanscom Field is forecast to be consistent with the national outlook and is predicted to increase by 2.9 percent per year. Total business aviation operations are forecast to reach 59,800 in 2030,up from 35,800 in 2012. Jet operations are forecast to continue to grow the fastest and are 11 FAA,Aerospace Forecasts-FY 2013-2033,March 2013. 12 Ibid. 314 Airport Activity Levels predicted to increase by 3.4 percent per year to nearly 46,800 in 2030. Non jet operations are forecast to grow at a slower pace of 1.4 percent growing to nearly 13,000 operations by 2030. 3 4 1 4 Il116llliicgpteir gpeiratloiris Helicopter activity at Hanscom has remained relatively stable over the historical period at around 7,000 annual operations. Consistent with the historic trend,helicopter operations are forecast to remain constant at the 2012 level(7,345 annual operations). 14. 11a ed alli cira 1 Aircraft based at Hanscom Field are forecast to increase over the planning period from 340 aircraft in the base year to 416 aircraft in 2030. Business jet aircraft based at the airfield are projected to grow from 79 in 2012 to 120 in 2030. Similar to past trends,jets will account for an increasing share of based aircraft at Hanscom Field. Jets represented 6 percent of based aircraft in 2000 and 23 percent of based aircraft in 2010. Over the forecast period,the jet share of based aircraft is projected to rise further to 29 percent. At more than 240 based aircraft, single-engine pistons will continue to be the predominant aircraft type housed at Hanscom. However, the single-engine piston share will drop from 64 percent in 2012 to 58 percent in 2030. Forecasts of based aircraft were developed based on historical ratios of operations per based aircraft for each aircraft category. .43 liIIl hairy cgpeiratiie°n Since the military's function at Hanscom AFB does not involve an active flying mission,annual military operations are less than one percent of the total aircraft operations at the airfield. The forecast assumes that the air force base remains active over the forecast period and continues to focus on research, development and management functions. Consistent with this assumptions, future military operations are projected to hold constant at the 2012 level(745 operations). AA Oe irnirreneua° li41 alli°IllIne actIMiil There have been no scheduled commercial airline passenger services at Hanscom Field since Streamline Air discontinued its services in September 2012. Therefore, the forecast of commercial airline services is based on a scenario of the type of services and the type of airline that may initiate operations at Hanscom and is not a continuation of past trends. The commercial airline scenario for Hanscom considers the current and projected operating environment for U.S. air carriers. Faced with sustained,high fuel prices, the airline industry has consolidated and U.S. airlines have drastically altered their business models. Through consolidation and restructuring, airlines have shed many unprofitable routes and have withdrawn from or scaled back services at many smaller, secondary markets. Since 2007, airlines have reduced scheduled weekly departures from non-hub airports by 19 percent and more than three dozen non-hub airports have lost all commercial services.13 Airlines have also renewed their aircraft fleets eliminating fuel inefficient and uneconomical models including regional jets with 50 or fewer seats. The commercial airline forecast scenario assumes that the types of service that may be implemented at Hanscom would be similar to the service most recently provided. This includes a small regional airline or public charter provider operating small turboprop or regional jet aircraft to short haul business markets. "Based on scheduled weekly departures at non-hub airports in the continental U.S. as reported in the Official Airline Guides for August(2007 to 2013). l771 X (5 Airport Activity Levels The forecast services would comply with Massport's 1980 Regulations for Hanscom Field,which prohibit scheduled commercial passenger services in aircraft with more than 60 seats. The Hanscom forecast specifically assumes weekday service operated with a 30-seat turboprop aircraft(Embraer Brasilia) serving one to two destinations in the Northeast. The forecast scenario details are summarized in Table 3-9. 7u:i)i)le 3-9 Suirnirnairy o1 III'-'oirer:.ast oimnimneirr:;li4 III'3a�:seuriller SeirVice �:su irnlptbiris, 2020 airid 2030 Small turboprop with 30 seats,e.g., Embraer 120 One in 2020 Two in 2030 .,. Business destinations in the northeast,e.g.,Trenton ®�. Two roundtrips per market, five days a week 65% Source:Massport As shown in Table 3-10, Hanscom Field is projected to accommodate 20,300 commercial airline passengers by 2020 and 40,600 in 2030. With weekday only services provided to one destination in 2020, annual commercial airline operations are forecast at 1,040. In 2030,under the assumption of weekday services to two destinations, annual operations increase to 2,080. Since the scenario assumes that services would be targeted to the business traveler,the 2030 forecast assumes that one daily departure would occur in the early morning before 7:00 am. Thus,in the 2030 forecast,there are 1,820 commercial airline operations that would occur between 7:00 am and 11:00 pm, and 260 commercial airline flights that would be operated during the 11:00 pm to 7:00 am period. 7u:i)i)le 3-10 III'-'oirer:.ast oimnimnerr:.li4 III'3a�:seuriller Xirlll irie ActVfty at Illlairi�:coimn III'-'liielll�ly 2020 airid 2030 Aircraft Operations 3,627 635 1,040 2,080 Passengers 17,457 8,609 20,280 40,560 Passengers per Operation 4.8 13.6 19.5 19.5 Source:Massport 3 4 4 1 II I'3irocedu.u'res for uriew-eururtiraiirurt a rlllirles An airline proposing to commence scheduled service at Hanscom Field must comply with established FAA and Massport requirements for new entrant airlines. At the federal level, a new entrant to Hanscom must have its Operations Specifications ("OpSpecs") amended by the FAA to permit services to Hanscom Field with a specified type of aircraft. OpSpecs must be amended each time an airline adds a new destination from any airport or uses a new type of aircraft at an airport. Once an amendment is granted for a specific market and aircraft type, additional amendments or approvals are not needed to increase the frequency of service. New commercial service at Hanscom Field proposed by new airline entrants must be consistent with the Master Plan and 1980 Massport Regulations. The Master Plan provides that the economic,noise and ground access impacts of new passenger or air cargo service proposals will be reviewed with the `f 6 Airport Activity Levels Hanscom Field Advisory Commission. Massport Regulations prohibit commercial passenger services at Hanscom with aircraft that have more than 60 seats. As a prerequisite to entering into an operating agreement with Massport, an airline must submit to Massport all valid and current certifications, authorizations, and approvals from all state, federal and other governmental bodies applicable to the proposed aircraft type and operations. Specifically, an airline must submit its FAA-approved OpSpecs authorizing the proposed service at Hanscom Field,in accordance with applicable provisions of federal law. Thus,no new carrier may begin service until all necessary approvals have been secured. 14. Mii g Ilm 111ii im e act lii 1 Total nighttime aircraft operations (11:00 pm to 7:00 am),including general aviation, commercial airline and military activity, are forecast to increase from 1,631 in the base year to 2,766 in 2030. Forecasts of nighttime operations for GA activity are based on the forecasts of annual activity by market segment described above and the historical share of annual activity that occurs in the nighttime period. As shown in Table 3-11, approximately 4 percent of j et aircraft operations and 2 percent of general aviation turboprop operations occur during the nighttime hours. Less than one percent of itinerant operations in single-engine or multi-engine piston aircraft occur during the nighttime period. In addition to nighttime operations by GA users, the forecast assumes that a commercial airline serving business destinations may operate an early morning (e.g., 6:00 am to 7:00 am) departure. In 2030,jet aircraft are forecast to account for approximately 2,000 nighttime operations representing more than 70 percent of total predicted nighttime activity. Turboprop aircraft are forecast to account for approximately 600 nighttime operations in 2030. These include approximately 340 operations by GA users and 260 operations by a commercial passenger airline. The forecast includes less than 300 nighttime operations by piston aircraft(SEP and MEP) and nighttime activity by helicopter and military aircraft is projected to hold constant at the 2012 levels. 7aIt)Ille 3-11 II1'-'oirµecast Ill liil11littlirne Opeirafloirls, (11:00 Ipirn to ' :00 airn) at Il11airi�:coimn II1'-'liield Actual 2005 1,131 131 112 520 n/a 0 1,894 2012 1,173 251 63 141 3 0 1,631 Forecast 2020 1,515 192 92 141 3 0 1,944 2030 2,023 233 106 141 3 260 2,766 1 The nighttime operations presented in the 2012 ESPR differ slightly from those published in the Hanscom Field Annual Noise Report. This discrepancy is due to the difference in the timing of the preparation for the two reports. Each report used the best available data at the time of the analysis for that report. The difference of approximately 0.3 daily nighttime operations or 0.07%of all daily operations would change computed noise levels by less than 0.1 dB,which is imperceptible and would not change the analysis presented. Source:Massport Airport Activity Levels (This page intentionally left blank) 3-18 E.,Fr M.. Airport Planning � � ~������� U" N�����~���� ~ Airport m—`~~ � ~ ~—~~ ~~ ~~~ ~�� Planning is critical to putting on airport bno position to address fundamental needs tomeet future operating conditions and respond 0onew opportunitiesinocost-effective and environmentally sensitive way. The Environmental Status and Planning 8upod(ES9R)plays on important role in Massport`y planning process and addresses potential future activities in the context of environmental review and stakeholder engagement. This chapter is focused on the development planning framework for Laurence G. Hanscom Field(Hanscom) and how h aligns with local and regional planning oodvidoo. In this context, M000ponpr000nto potential nhvoiool and operational conditions consistent with the 2020 and 2030 ood`d[y forecast scenarios described in Cboptor3,Airport Activity Levels, and baseline conditions and needs d000dbod in Cboptor2, Facilities and lnEroobookno. Muyyport`y primary responsibility at Hanscom Field is to maintain ooafe, 0000ro, and efficient regional airport while minimizing the environmental impact of its operations. It maintains Hanscom as a first- class, fudl'oondoo airport. M000podoonoiotondv couples improvements and maintenance at the airport with o variety of environmental initiatives,programs, and policies. For0000io and planning 0000mpdono presented in this ES98oro founded on the 1978 1{on000nn Field Master Plan and Environmental lmnoot Statement(Master Plan)and Mayypo/i`y 1980 regulations,which establish the general planning framework for Hanscom Field. For context, this chapter describes the key aspects of the 1978 Master Plan and Massport's 1980 regulations as well as other planning criteria, such as Executive Orders 385 and 438 that affect airport planning statewide,regional planning studies such as those conducted bvthe Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MA9C) and local planning from the boot municipalities. The forecasts are projections ofxho1000ld0000r(notxho1vrill000uhindhofubur000ing certain planning assumptions and are not necessarily recommended outcomes. This ESPR also evaluates current M000podplouning bnidodvoo,projects and the 2020 and 2030 planning concepts for their consistency with local and regional planning. 41 �Key Rindings Since 2005 The 2005 ESPR evaluated potential master planning development scenarios in the years 20 10 and 2020 using several different growth forecasts. Given the downturn in the national economy that resulted inon overall contraction in aviation growth, only o onnoll amount of construction occurred. The following is o list ofprojects,which have been completed: IN 8ouxruy Safety Area(8SA) improvements o1 Runway Ends 5 ond23 including grading of the RSA and wetland replication IN RSA improvements on Runway || bv relocating portions of the perimeter road IN Reconstruction of the western end of Taxiway E, Tzxivruy{], and Taxiway M IN Redevelopment of the Hangar 24 site for a Fixed Base Operator(FBO) facility by Rectrix Aviation, oproject which io nearing completion o1 this time � Removal of fuel storage tanks o1 Hangar |0 M-1 Airport Planning Nlmnlonnontod b nn onofonbouood00000000nolo�o�ooudrenlz onnontof000dionofUhopodmotor fence IN Relocation of portions of the perimeter road at approach to 29 INnn Ongoing airfield maintenance IN Ongoing vogotodonronnovoland nnointononoo M000pod spent opproxinnatelv $34nnilliononimprovonnontoin20|2. In this ES98, ��000podboo reassessed the pdnnoryplanning areas considered inthe 2005/SJ,8. It has updated planning to reflect changes inoirorof\nnix and related infrastructure issues oovroll000nupdated viovrofoviodon growth oxpootodonoborne out of the oodvi[ylevel forecasts presented in Chapter 3, AirpodAodvityLevels. 42 Airport Plainining Context M000pod has developed the planning concepts evaluated in this 20/2/SJ,8vrifbin the 6romovrodkofthe 1978 ��aster Plan and Muyypoo`y 1980 Regulations. Jointly,the Master Plan and the Regulations provide the planning framework for 1{on000nnField.M000ponoloo considers the following: � Federal, oto1o, and local environmental regulatory ro requirements and roviovrprocesses; � Ex000dvoOrder 385,which io the [kovrdhMonogonnontPolicy for M00000b000Uo; � Executive Ordor438,which initiated the new State Sootoinobili[y9rogrom; � Regional planning framework; � Local comprehensive and growth nnonogonnontplans; and � Long-range plans for the Minute Man Nodonol1{iohudoolPark(MT\4NH9) and 1{on000nnAir Force E|000 (AFE|). This approach provides o planning context for potondolimprovonnontoo1 the oirpod. The 000nonniodownturn and events of September ||, 200|,has had o significant impact onoirpod planning in the United States. Hon000nni000ndnoollvodopdng and a600dng tonon/M000podand TrouopododonS000d[yAdminiobodon (TSA) issued 0000d[ydiroodvoo. Furthermore,logiolodvo nnondo1ooare offeodngoirpodonear- and long-term oporod �operations Han scom be oobioot to many of these mandates and will comply as requiredbvlmw. Examples of0000d[y'ddvon projects nniubtinoludoreconfiguring terminal space or parking {aoilidoo, rol000d d relocating nn functions non-secure to secure l000dono, and implonnondngairfield access rooUiodono. M000podooknovrlodgoo the importance of managing 1{on000nnField inon environmentally sensitive nnounorthat recognizes the significance ofNEV4NH9,1{on000nnAFE|, and the towns ofE|odford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. The following 000donod000dbolocal and regional planning inidodvoo,including ovorvion/oof the comprehensive plans of the four towns and in{bonodongathered through discussions vridhlocal oIGoioloand the NodonolPark Service (N9S) oopodof the process to prepare the 20/2/SJ,8. 4.2.11 A�Iir�poirt L-and RUans and URegt1Uatlons 4.2.1.1 11airifscom � 8�m ��U� asteir �3 � � U U� � � ���0� at ��� s In 1978, ��000pod issued the "Hanscom Field Master Plan and Environznontollmnoo�Statement."ln response t000nnmoni[y concerns that developed when M000pod took over oporodonof1{on000nn Field in |974, M000podoodinudu number of policies in the Master Plan that ydUguides Muyypo/i`ynuunu�unuunt of and planning for 1{on000nnField. The odopdonof the M000pod8ogolodono and Noise Rule in |980 Airport Planning was an outgrowth of the Master Plan. The Master Plan and the 1980 Noise Rules limit commercial airline service to passenger aircraft with 60 seats or less and also applies a nighttime field use fee to help discourage activity between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. In 1978, the Master Plan foresaw aviation-related development on lands dedicated to aviation-related uses or on U.S. Air Force (USAF) land that would later be ceded to Massport. Other land uses, according to the Master Plan,would be developed in a manner compatible with existing, adjacent land uses and airport operations. These policies and regulations have guided Massport's development of the 2012 ESPR,which reaffirms the role of Hanscom Field as a premier regional GA airport 4 2 1 2 Il11airifscoimn Xirlpoirt IIL.ayou.u't III'3Il4orl The Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) defines the Airport Layout Plan(ALP) as a set of scaled drawings depicting existing and future airport facilities and property. This section provides a description of the eight drawings contained in the Hanscom Field ALP set. Appendix B presents the 2011 ALP for Hanscom Field,which reflects the planning conducted since the FAA approved the previous ALP in 1981. The 2011 ALP reflects planning improvements discussed in the 2005 ESPR. The ALP set described here offers a graphic depiction of Hanscom's existing scenario, potential development projects, "imaginary surfaces"that protect the airfield, and the existing land use in and around Hanscom. The ALP set is prepared in compliance with FAA standards. The ALP indicates areas that might be suitable for future aviation-related or compatible aviation land uses, as well as buildings that might be suitable for future aviation-related facilities. Specifically, areas shown as potential locations for future aviation-related use include the south and southeast of the Civil Air Terminal, East Ramp,North Airfield by the U.S.Navy Hangar,west of Runway 5-23 near Taxiway M, and east of Runway 5-23 near the Parcel B land that the USAF previously managed. The only proposed new taxiway in the ultimate configuration is east of the current Civil Air Terminal. A new parallel taxiway to existing parallel Taxiway S would serve aircraft landing or departing on Runway 5-23. According to the Existing Land Use sheet in the ALP, the majority of land use at Hanscom is designated Transportation. A small percentage of land within the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs)is designated as Open Land, Wetlands, Agriculture, and Forest. 4 2 1 3 III'3iroru.odu.u'ros 1oit 1111ow,Aliiirlllliiino Ili:intiraintfs Commercial air travel is a small component of Hanscom's future forecasted aviation activity. An airline must follow Massport and FAA procedures to commence scheduled services at Hanscom. The specific process for a new airline entrant is discussed in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels, and is incorporated into the airport planning process. 4.2.2 I it vliiii°,c�,r irrei r taIII I IIlaru Bing Massport has developed the 2012 ESPR for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). However, the document is utilized in a broader context. For example, the FAA has used the environmental analyses contained in prior MEPA documents (Generic Environmental Impact Reports [GEIRs] and ESPRs) to assist with its evaluation of potential impacts of proposed actions at Hanscom Field. Depending upon the nature of the proposed action, the FAA could determine that the Airport Planning documentation of potential impacts discussed in the 2012 ESPR meet the FAA's responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)review. Likewise, the FAA could determine that additional analysis is required and that an Environmental Assessment(EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)would have to be prepared depending on the nature and anticipated impacts of the proposed action(s). In addition to the role that the FAA plays in the environmental review process for airport projects,it also requires air service operators to meet specific environmental and operational requirements. Massport requires that carriers obtain all FAA approvals as well as all applicable state and local approvals prior to entering into an operating agreement with Massport. Thus, Massport does not allow any new carrier to begin service until it has secured all necessary environmental approvals. FAA Orders 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (FAA 2006) and 5050.413,National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects (FAA 2006)provide instructions and guidelines for preparing and processing NEPA documents for airport development proposals and other airport actions as required by law. In accordance with FAA regulations, some projects are "categorically excluded" from environmental review due to the low potential for adverse environmental impact(referred to as a CATEX). Examples include acquiring security equipment required by rule or regulation for the safety of security personnel and property on the airport and safety equipment required by rule or regulation for certification of an airport. The specific action being requested will determine the type of environmental processing required by the FAA. In the event that aproject is not categorically excluded from environmental review, the potential environmental consequences associated with a proposed action would be assessed as determined by the FAA. Such environmental review, as specified in FAA Orders 1050.1E(Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, June 8, 2004) and 5050.413 (NEPA, April 28,2006),includes an analysis of the following impacts: 11 Air Quality IN Coastal Resources IN Compatible Land Use Construction Impacts Department of Transportation Act: Section 4(f) Farmlands Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Floodplains Hazardous Materials,Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources Light Emissions and Visual Impacts Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design Noise Secondary(Induced) Impacts Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks Water Quality Wetlands Wild and Scenic Rivers 44 Airport Planning Some of these categories, such as impacts to coastal zone management and coastal barriers,would not apply to an action at Hanscom Field. There is potential that some projects included in this ESPR could require development proximate to wetland areas,particularly those within the Terminal Area and North Airfield.Massport is committed to minimizing environmental impacts and would avoid these impacts to the extent possible, and fully mitigate any unavoidable impacts.None of the projects contemplated would require filling of wetlands. Permits for fill in wetlands would be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires demonstration of efforts to first avoid wetland impacts, and then minimize wetland impacts, and mitigate any impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. Wetlands at Hanscom are described in detail in Chapter 9,Wetlands Wildlife and Water Resources. 4.23 tjnii iiillpai I airtneirs Hanscom Field is located within the towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln,which are suburban communities of metropolitan Boston with strong economic ties to the high-tech and service economies that anchor Route 128/I-95. These suburbs are moderate-density residential communities with a lessening amount of developable property. More than half of the housing units are single-family homes that are owner-occupied.14 As Table 4-1 indicates,the four towns have undergone significant changes since 1970,when Hanscom Field activity peaked at more than 300,000 operations.Between the years of 1970 and 2000,the population of Bedford and Lexington showed a slight decrease,while Concord and Lincoln increased. Overall,the decline in population was under 2 percent. This is compared to a general population increase of all four communities combined of almost two percent from 2005 to 2010. 7dbIIIo 4 1 iin Bedford, Coincoird, II L.oxliiungtoin, aind II L.liiuncolllin Bedford 13,513 12,595 -6.80% 12,595 12,462 -1.10% 12,462 13,320 6.88% Concord 16,148 16,993 5.20% 16,993 16,833 -0.90% 16,833 17,668 4.96% Lexington 31,886 30,355 -4.80% 30,355 30,266 -0.30% 30,266 31,394 3.73% Lincoln 7,567 8,056 6.50% 8,056 7,931 -1.60% 7,931 6,362 -19.78% TOTAL 69,114 67,999 -1.60% 67,999 67,492 -0.7% 67,492 68,744 1.86% Source:U.S.Census Data 1970,2000,2005,and 2010. As shown in Table 4-2, the MAPC forecasts for 2020 and 2030 indicate that the populations of the four towns will increase 6.5 percent by 2020 and 8.1 percent by 2030 from 2010. Average household size may decrease from 2.6 to 2.4 people per household, and the region may experience a decline in school-aged children and an increase in the over-55 population.ls 14 Metropolitan Area Planning Council,MetroFuture:Regional Plan, 2008. is Metropolitan Area Planning Council,MetroFuture:Regional Plan, 2008. l771 r 4 5 Airport Planning Tai)Ue 4-2 Pqp�. Uotbin Pirojectbins for Bedford" Coincoird" Lek�in0toin" aind L,JincdUin 1.2020 and 2030 reflects MAPC estimates after input from municipalities. J Source:u.a.Census Data(2o1o)and wApc(2ouo and uoo ) As shown in Table 4-3, available employment data indicate that the overall number of jobs in the four towns decreased bv approximately 6 percent from 56,000 in 2000 to almost 53,000in20|0. Contributing factors include the effects ofSeptember ||, 200|, and the closing of Raytheon's Hartwell Road facility just north of Hanscom Field. Projections suggest that the four towns will 000 on almost 19poroont increase by 2020 and over a 22 percent increase by 2030. In the Boston region,half of the net new jobs are expected to be in Professional and Business Services and Education and Health Services. Mouofbobudng jobs are expected to decline, with an estimated reduction of approximately 46,000 jobs, a decrease of|6 percent.w With some minor variations, the population and job trends in this region over the last 35 years are consistent with the general growth patterns in the metropolitan area. As Tables 4-2 and 4-3 indicate, future projections bvMA9Cindioo1odho1p000lodononddhoomploymontbondoindho {bortonmon/ill increase over the next 20years. The number of jobs and projected p000lodoninor00000indho four towns illustrate the importance of these communities oo employment centers. MA9C employment projections in Table 4'3 indicate that future growth is anticipated in each town,with the highest levels expected to occur in Bedford(over 26 percent). Tai)Ue 4-3 ��Emm�Uoymmeiirit'Tireiiri��lfs aind Pirojectbins for Bedford, Coincoird" Lek�in0toin" aind LJinc6Un 1.2020 and 2030 reflects MAPC estimates after input from municipalities. Source:U.S.Census Data(u000.uoo4.uo1o)and wApc(2ouo and u000). Absent obongoo in travel behavior and land use development patterns, the oodnno1od inor00000 in population and employment will result in continued growth in traffic demand on area roadways, particularly for suburb-to-suburb trips, entirely unrelated to operations or developments at Hanscom Field. Massport has participated in transportation demand management(TDM)programs, and these measures are described in Chapter 6, Ground Transportation. Other measures include "growth m Metropolitan Area Planning Council,MetroF'mrx.-Regional Plan, 2OO8 4-6 Airport Planning management"initiatives to reduce sprawl hv improving land use management practices. Concentrating development o1 Hanscom Field and the AFB supports onod urox4b principles and minimizes sprawl in adjoining land areas. 4.2.3.1 Bedford Bedford produced o comprehensive plan in2002.'r The plan includes nine olonnonto: land use,housing, economic development,natural and cultural resources, open space and recreation, services and facilities, circulation and implementation.At this time, Bedford is updating its comprehensive plan to include responses to i00000 and needs for the next 10 yoom and beyond, and the following 000dono will be reflected: land use, economic development, transportation and housing,natural resourcesondoponop000; cultural and biohudo r0000r000; services, facilities and recreation; and oopooto of energy. M000pod has worked through the Bedford Conservation Commission to secure environmental approvals for several projects inolodingdho\/ogotodonMonogonnont9lon(JM9), dho8SApr joot, onddho perimeter service road relocation. A high priority for Hanscom is to maintain compliance with FAA oodjGoodon and safety requirements. The intention of the VMP is to identify obstructions for removal in the approach and departure surfaces for all four runway ends. Since the preparation of the 2000/SJ,8, M000pod implemented Phase lofthe \/M9 (2004'2008) in accordance with Bedford's Order of Conditions. Then in2007, Muyypooperformed an aerial photogrammetric mapping of the approach and departure surfaces for all four runway ends to develop the second\/M9. M000pod found that: IN the first implementation of the\/M9 minimized the need for additional vegetation removal in or000 cut in2004. IN vegetation removal was required inor000dho1vroronotpodofdhoGmt5_yoor\/M9. IN there were obstructions in Bedford's Jordan Conservation Area(JCA). IN there were no obstructions in the Bedford Hartwell Town Forest. In 2008, Massport submitted the second VMP to the Conservation Commissions of the four towns, along with Notices of Intent(NOD for the required vogotodonronnovolinvro0ondor000. E|yourlv2009, Massport received Orders of Conditions for vegetation removal in wetland areas from all four towns and vegetation removal began mostly on Massport property. Chapter 9,Wetlands Wildlife and Water Resources,includes additional information about the VMP and effects on wetland resources. M000podoloo identified for removal seven obsolete light poles that were at the 8ouwuy 23 end both on and off M000pod property. Ofthe |0 original light poles,M000pod left in place the three furthest from the airport,but h removed all equipment 6ronndhonn. Tbodhrooronnoinbngligbtpolooarenotobobuodonoto the approach and departure surfaces. In February 2013, all obstructions identified in the 2007 Hanscom Airspace Analysis had been removed. The 2012 ESPR did not identify additional potential uses in the West Airfield Area and facilities identified in the 2005 ESPR are currently not being considered." Massport would consider proposed uses in the West Airfield Area that are compatible with the natural resources found there and that incorporate prudent resource management. n Town o[Bedford,Bedford Comprehensive Plan,2OO2 "The 1995 GEIR explored non-aviation development in the West Airfield area,including office parks and a golf course. Airport Planning The 2002Bedford Comprehensive Plan indicates the importanceof alleviating traffic congestion along Great Road. Hanscom-related traffic is considered a minimal contributor to traffic volumes on Bedford roadways comprising approximately 4 percent ofmorning and afternoon peak traffic. ln2005, M000pod expanded the boDfiostudy area to provide additional information to Bedford officials exploring options to address the Great Road traffic conditions. Chapter 6, Ground Transportation provides more information on the londoido roadways around Hanscom. 4.2.3.2 Coincoird The Town of Concord adopted its comprehensive long-range plan, A Vision for 2020'9 in 2005. This is the first time Concord had completely updated its town plan since 1973'74. The 13 000dono in the Concord comprehensive plan are Vision for 2020,land use,housing, economic development, cultural and historic resources,natural resources, open space, recreation, facilities and services, transportation and circulation, fiscal resources, governance, and implementation. Concord wants to ensure that undeveloped Massport lands are preserved and used for agricultural purposes. There has been no demand for this type of use on Massport property; however, Massport will continue to entertain proposals for agricultural uses o1 appropriate locations o1 Hanscom Field that donot conflict with FAA recommendations for aviation safety and security, such as avoiding land uses in the vicinity of the runway that attract bird or other wildlife. Masopod has made available |.8 acres of land in Concord to Gaining Ground, a non-profit organic fanning organization, for agricultural use. Concord is also concerned about stormwater runoff in the Old Bedford Road area.M000podiocommitted to limiting the effect of stormwater runoff from new development on Hanscom Field through best management practices (BMPs). Between the 2000 and 2005 ESPR's, Massport eliminated approximately 44 ooroo of impervious oorfa000 at Hanscom Field bv removing unused oimidopovonnonL Since the 2005 /SJ,8,no further removal has occurred. Concord has also expressed an interest in exploring opportunities to expand the regional network of trails and bicycle paths in the town. Chapter 6, Ground Transportation identifies the current location of paths and trails near Hanscom Field, and illustrates a potential opportunity for future connections. As described in Chapter |2, Environmentally Beneficial Measures, M000pod will work with the Town of Concord to evaluate this opportunity. M000pod has identified and marked o trail across Hanscom land connecting Gaining Ground in Concord with Bedford Conservation Areas. This work was agreed to oo part ofthe Bedford Conservation Commission's approval of vegetation management activities in the Jordan Conservation Area to remove airspace obstructions. ln Concord, M000pod has worked through the appropriate l000lpr0000000huoddr0000nvironmontoli00000 related to the airport, such oo the\/M9. Since adoption of the\/M9in2004, M000pon has implemented h in accordance with Concord's Order of Conditions. Chapter 9,Wetlands Wildlife and Water Resources, includes additional information about the VMP and conservation and recreation lands in Concord. In January 2011,Massport received an Order of Conditions from the Concord Natural Resources Commission for vegetation removal allowing M000podto remove vegetation obstructions onproperties owned bv the Concord Land Trust and o1on adjacent office park inFebruary. m Town o[Concord, Comprehensive Long Range Plan:A Ks/onfor2028 Mmzh2OO5 48 Airport Planning Concord'sprimary goal outlined in its comprehensive plan iyprotecting its scenic quality and historical significance, as well as the rural character of its roads, such as Virginia Road. Chapter |0of the 20/2 ESPR provides a review of cultural and historical resources and potential effects on them from Hanscom. 4^2^3^3 L.ex��in0toin Given its proximity to Hanscom Field and the AFB relative to Metropolitan Boston, the Town of Lexington is focused on potential transportation impacts of Hanscom and works with Massport to attempt to mitigate impacts from proposed development and air travel, and improve vehicle bo[Go safety at intersections that are high-accident locations. Lexington finalized the transportation component of its comprehensive plan in 2003.20 Four elements had previously been completed and were adopted by the Lexington Planning Board on January 30, 2002: land use,housing, economic development, and natural and cultural resources.z' In 2010, Lexington revised its zoning on Hartwell Avenue to allow greater density for commercial development. The Hartwell Avenue Transportation Management Overlay District(TMOD) provides for increased development density within its boundaries to spur redevelopment of existing commercial properties. The goal of the TMODio to inor0000 the assessed value and tax revenues associated with commercial properties along 1{onxroD Avenue. Massport has worked through the appropriate local processes in Lexington to address environmental issues, such as the VMP. Chapter 9,Wetlands Wildlife and Water Resource, includes additional in{bonodon about the\/M9 and conservation and recreation lands in Lexington. The oddool community priority for Lexington iopreserving the quality of life for town residents bv protecting and promoting the community's character and beauty. Another area of concern for Lexington is the decline inhousing diversity,which io largely inresponse to rising home prices and the growth of large, expensive new homes. The town hopes to increase diversity by broadening the opportunities to produce good housing through o variety of planning measures 000boonnixod'000dovolopmontondboUor public transportation infrastructure. The Town adopted a TDM policy on September 16, 1998 that seeks to rod000 the use of single-occupancy vehicles. 4.2.3.4, L.��incdUin Lincoln io the smallest of the four towns in terms of population and economic base. The Town of Lincoln Comprehensive Long-range Plan was accepted at a special town meeting on October 17,200922 The plan presents issues, goals, and recommendations pertaining to the following sections: land use and zoning, natural resources, cultural and historic resour oo, dhoboiltonvronmont, oponop000,b000ing, 000nonnio development, transportation and circulation, community services and facilities, and governance. The Town Vision Statement of Lincoln states, "Lincoln is a town that cherishes its rural, agricultural character, its small town heritage, dyopcnypuou,unddyhistorcal|uguoy." Hanscom AFE| and Hanscom Field make up approximately 8 percent of Lincoln's land area, u1 approximately 544 and ||7 acres, respectively. Any changes in the status of the AF8orbaffioat Hanscom would have on impact ondhotoxn.Agoolofdhoploniot000ndnootonnonihurdhootobuoof m Town o[Lexington, The Lexington We Want: Transportation Element,2003 2'Town o[Lexington, The Lexington We Want: The First Four Elements, 2OO2 o Town o[Lincoln, Comprehensive Plan, September 22200l 49 Airport Planning Hanscom AFB with respect to military housing, through base closure or privatization of existing housing that may place new demands on Lincoln's municipal and school services. Massport supports the continued use of agricultural land for agricultural purposes;however, Massport has not seen adequate demand for this type of use on its property. Massport will continue to entertain proposals for agricultural uses at appropriate locations on Hanscom Field property. Through the ESPR process,Massport identifies appropriate TDM and traffic management measures that do not require physical changes to the roadway network and that will preserve the scenic and rural nature of Lincoln's roads including Route 2A. In Lincoln, Massport has worked through the appropriate local processes to address environmental issues, such as the Order of Conditions on the VMP. Chapter 9, Wetlands Wildlife and Water Resource, includes additional information about the VMP and conservation and recreation lands in Lincoln. 4 2 3 5 IIATS It astair Pll4ori The Hanscom Area Towns Master Plan(HATS Master Plan)23 was prepared in July 1997, soon after the completion of the 1995 GEIR. The plan was a collaborative effort of the four towns and addressed land use and development policies; land conservation, open space, and recreation policies; MMNHP goals and current initiatives; cultural and historical issues; transportation policies;public transportation and private sector initiatives; and economic parity and fiscal policies, and zoning policies. The purpose of the HATS Committee is to coordinate policies and activities of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln in their relationships with the major organizations that operate at Hanscom. The 2012 ESPR is responsive to the HATS Master Plan insofar as it applies to Hanscom Field. As described in this 2012 ESPR, Massport takes a comprehensive approach to managing airfield operations at Hanscom Field and protecting natural resources. Massport has implemented many recommendations of the Hanscom Noise Workgroup and is pursuing TDM approaches as a MassRIDES partner. Massport has periodically met with NPS to discuss issues of concern and to identify historic resources as described in Chapter 10, Cultural Resources. In 2001, Massport initiated a"Fly Friendly"Program to reduce noise over the MMNHP. In 2009, a new flight pattern was implemented that keeps aircraft closer to the airfield rather than over sensitive park areas.Prior to this initiative,most touch-and-go operations on Runways 11-29 and 5-23 circled to the south of the airport, over areas of the Battle Road Trail that are used for outdoor programs and interpretive talks. In a partnership involving coordination with the MMNHP,the FAA, the flight schools, and the pilots at Hanscom,it was determined that small aircraft would reduce the flight pattern in a touch- and-go operation that would provide a larger buffer between training operations and the MMNHP. Similar to the 2005 ESPR,the future scenarios in the 2012 ESPR describe potential additional aviation and aviation-related uses on the airport and retain many areas in their current,natural state.Non-aviation uses,including the Aviation Museum and a hotel, are also identified. These types of uses are anticipated to include environmentally friendly designs that would be compatible with the HATS Master Plan. .2. y StaleeItic,Illdeua:s In addition to the associated municipalities, Hanscom also has two key stakeholders who are central partners to airport planning. Both the MMNHP and Hanscom AFB are direct abutters of Hanscom Field. 23 Hanscom Area Towns Committee,Hanscom Area Towns(HATS)Master Plan,July 1997. 4 10 Airport Planning Activities proposed on the airfield and on their properties has a direct impact on the others. As a result, Massport engages with the NPS and the USAF periodically to discuss mutually beneficial projects to improve the mission of each organization. 4 2 4 1 1K irnjte 1Main IINafloir4l 1+stoirliica IlPaidk The NEVINEP, created in 1959 and operated by the NPS, consists of three discontinuous units—Battle Road, Wayside, and North Bridge. This park covers approximately 967 acres spread out along Route 2A in Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. The MMNHP is nationally significant as the site of the Battle of Concord - one of the first battles of the Revolutionary War, for its association with prominent literary figures of the 19th and 20th centuries, and as one of the earliest places in the nation to be commemorated. The NPS reports that an estimated one million people visit the MMNHP annually, and it anticipates that annual visitations will continue at current levels. While the park is open year round, its main season is the 7-month period between April and October.Major attractions are the North Bridge area in Concord and Battle Road in Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. Two parking lots at the North Bridge unit and one at the Visitor Center in the Battle Road unit accommodate automobile and bus parking; six other parking lots are located in the park. Chapter 10, Cultural Resources provides additional information about the MMNHP. The congressionally approved boundaries of the MMNHP abut the southern boundary of Hanscom Field and include approximately 48.5 acres of Massport property in the Runway 5 Approach Area. To assess the visibility of Hanscom on the MMNHP Battle Road Interpretative Trail, a photographic inventory was conducted for the 2005 ESPR and repeated for the 2012 ESPR to identify areas of potential visibility particularly related to the Air Traffic Control Tower(ATCT),which is the tallest structure at Hanscom. The inventory was conducted from the Battle Road Interpretive Trail on April 20 before foliage appeared on trees, and on September 20 with tree foliage. Despite the close proximity of the park to the airport,Hanscom Field is not visible from most of the Battle Road Interpretive Trail(see Figures 4-1 to 4-3). The FAA ATCT can be seen through the vegetation from scattered locations along the trail and in areas near Meriam's Comer when there is no foliage. A small portion of the airport is visible from an area near Hanscom Drive. However this view is obscured when there is foliage on the trees. E1.7;I In Airport Planning (This page intentionally left blank) h 12'^ E.,Fr... �1Al tl �� 1F/� J t id � o—03 E Io LD > Cn LU 0 0 44 i r Z < n, Q � e , I L a r � � 0 , yff M il v' f v / l (�1%/JJ � =0 o a r 0 n Q ti O m 5 .�;y. ,,,,'�, Al 4 f, jji %1 lliq 01 Ir 0 -2 y d - i, l�r1iJ ft; o ca r o u) co r > CA r " Xlj � p W r / � w, m , z / a t„ t i a A- X P f � o MIN a o� Vill .'�,� ^r"' .:. °,,r, d u �,. IJ1fll'-ni•n'GY� r®. .... a,� � � ar. G Al , s a g e r v m� I(7ffff1111 y E fn �f a rc,�Ja IIIIOlaf, rJi a r 0 n Q ti O m 5 ,,,,'�, Al d d iuZ q/ i /%1 ��fffff H 0 uwuJ gyp' U U fn 3 m > co el Z ,, .l / r i LU its 0 0 0 0 r,. 1' m m i 0 Rini �a 8 o t e I I 0I J E , ��F r a dp a 9 � M of a sa mo fi a r 0 n Q ti O m 5 �,Y';r ,,,,'�, Airport Planning The preservation of Battle Road,which makes up 80 percent of the Park,is of particular importance to the NPS. The potential impacts of transportation activity from Hanscom and Route 2A are important issues for managing the Park. Massport has continued a dialogue about potentially feasible environmentally beneficial measures that would help address potential concerns. In accordance with this effort, Massport met with the NPS on May 23, 2013 to discuss the 2012 ESPR and necessary updates. Of notable significance,the NPS acquired the Barrett's Farm and 3.4 acres of land and added it to the North Bridge Unit of the MMNHP since the 2005 ESPR. The MMNHP staff also reviewed the proposed historical and interpretative locations for the 2012 ESPR's noise assessment. Aircraft noise is a concern for many Hanscom area residents and the MMNHP. Massport recognizes the importance of proactively addressing this issue and is committed to continuing its current noise-related programs while exploring appropriate new initiatives. In response to the residential community's aircraft noise and operational concerns,Massport adopted regulations (Part F of the General Rules and Regulations for Laurence G. Hanscom Field)in 1980.Most of these programs could not be duplicated or changed under current federal law. They include the following: A nighttime field use fee to help discourage activity between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. A restriction on scheduled commercial air carrier service to aircraft with no more than 60 seats Restrictions on touch-and-go activity(aircraft operations conducted to repeatedly and consecutively practice landing and departing techniques)by weight of aircraft and time of day. Touch-and-go operations are not permitted between the hours of 11:00 pm and 7:00 am. A phase out of most Stage 1 aircraft(some of the noisiest aircraft in the U.S. fleet) at Hanscom Limitations on auxiliary and ground power unit use including a 30-minute operation limitation. Massport periodically meets with NPS to discuss issues of concern and to identify historic resources as described in Chapter 10, Cultural Resources. In 2001,Massport initiated a"Fly Friendly"Program to reduce noise over the MMNHP. In 2009, a new flight pattern was implemented specifically to keep the aircraft closer to the airfield rather than over sensitive park areas. Prior to this initiative,most touch-and- go operations on Runways 11-29 and 5-23 circled to the south of the airport, over areas of the Battle Road Trail that are used for outdoor programs and interpretive talks. In a partnership involving coordination with the MMNHP, the FAA, the flight schools, and the pilots at Hanscom,it was determined that small aircraft would reduce the flight pattern in a touch-and-go operation that would provide a larger buffer between training operations and the MMNHP. 4 2 4 2 Il11airifscoimn Xir III'-oirco IILBa e Hanscom AFB,which directly abuts Hanscom Field on the southern side of the airfield, occupies approximately 846 acres of land. Hanscom AFB and the firms that do business at the Base are important employers in the region. More than 3,000 active duty,Reserve, and National Guard military personnel and Department of Defense civilians work and live at Hanscom AFB. According to information published by the Hanscom AFB, as of May 2013, the total estimated Economic Impact is approximately $6.2 billion.Primary Hanscom jobs are over 5,500 and secondary jobs created are over 14,500.24 Hanscom AFB operates as a research and development office park with approximately 732 residential units. The 66th Air Base Group is headquartered at Hanscom AFB,which is part of the USAF Life Cycle 24 buttm v 11 rv_r_v ry bu_rn_a;a n n_i0_ �nn1/1iI) _ry/0_la t lnc c t_/0�a t buc c_t_�_�v_JcP /193 � � �.d /r 1 Airport Planning Management Center. The Life Cycle Management Center is responsible for total life cycle management of USAF weapon systems. On November 5, 2012,the Massachusetts National Guard Joint Force Headquarters became operational at Hanscom. This group serves as an administrative complex to support state and federal missions of the State's National Guard. In addition, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposed a research facility at Hanscom AFB to design small electronic components for use in emerging aerospace, communications, and missile technologies. In 2012, the Pentagon approved the plan. Because the Hanscom AFB directly abuts Hanscom Field,Massport has placed greater importance of working with the USAF on areas of common concern and benefit. This relationship has focused on TDM actions,including relocating a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority bus stop shelter from the Hanscom AFB to Massport property to accommodate Hanscom AFB transit patrons and establishing shuttle services to Concord Center commuter rail station. In 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission reviewed Hanscom AFB for closure as part of BRAC process. Massport worked closely with State and local officials to advocate for keeping the Base open. Opportunities to add new research and development, office space, and residential units on the Base and to create the opportunity for the USAF to expand the mission of the Base were identified. As part of this effort,MassHighway identified transportation improvements to the Hartwell Avenue corridor that would improve access to Hanscom AFB. The BRAC Commission decided to maintain Hanscom AFB as a military facility. In the development of the 2012 ESPR, Massport reviewed the landside roadways that provide access to the main AFB gate and security checkpoint,including a new location for the Vandenberg Gate under consideration by Hanscom AFB,in consultation with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT),MassDevelopment, and Massport.The new roadway and gate structure would replace the one at the intersection of Old Bedford Road,Vandenberg Drive, and Hanscom Drive with a roundabout. Along with the improvements to the roadways, a bicycle lane would be included in the design to increase the safety of cyclists. w w5 Airea IIlaru Bing Ooun6i11 !Regilor,4II I lan The MAPC is the regional planning agency for metropolitan Boston,representing 101 cities and towns. MAPC encourages sustainable development practices. The primary areas of focus are land use, transportation, economic development,housing, environment,public safety, and municipal administration. The most recent plans drafted by the MAPC are the MetroPlan 200025, MetroFuture in 2002, and the MetroFuture in 2009.26 The MetroPlan 2000 "encourages efficient development by promoting compact development patterns and discouraging sprawl."MetroPlan provides guidance to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of sprawl and to protect natural resources. The plan identifies three development areas that are distinguished by different land use densities and sewer services. Hanscom Field,which is connected to sewer service,is located within a"Multi-Service Area"as defined in MetroPlan. In addition to the MetroPlan,the MAPC initiated MetroFuture: Making a Greater Boston Region in 2002. 25 Metropolitan Area Planning Council,MetroPlan 2000:A Plan for Future Growth, 1990. 26 Metropolitan Area Planning Council,MetroFuture:Regional Plan, 2008. 4 2 0,l Airport Planning In concert with these two plans,the MAPC's 15 Smart Growth principles provide a framework for guiding changes in the Greater Boston Region. Per the plans, "smart growth will refocus a larger share of regional growth within central cities,urbanized areas,near transportation nodes, and in communities already served by infrastructure."Hanscom Field is an existing resource that is served by existing infrastructure. The future scenarios that are described in the 2012 ESPR make efficient use of these existing resources to satisfy a demand that is generated by nearby residential and commercial activities. The current and future use of Hanscom Field is consistent with Smart Growth principles. Table 4-4 presents MAPC's 15 Smart Growth principles and their relationship to Hanscom Field. MAPC most recently released MetroFuture, a 30-year plan that serves as a guide for the work in all areas of the agency. The MetroFuture plan supports a vision of smart growth and regional collaboration through the promotion of efficient transportation systems, conservation of land and natural resources, improvement of the health and education of residents, and an increase in equitable economic development opportunities for prosperity. MetroFuture identified 65 "Goal Statements"that are specific to Metropolitan Boston, and not specifically applicable to Hanscom.Noteworthy goal statements as they may pertain to future planning at Hanscom include: 1. Population and job growth will be concentrated in municipalities already well served by infrastructure,with slower growth in less developed areas where infrastructure is more limited. 5. Most new homes and jobs will be near train stops and bus routes, and new growth will be designed to promote transit use. 9. The region's landscape will retain its distinctive green spaces and working farms. 23. All neighborhoods will have access to safe and well-maintained parks, community gardens, and appropriate play spaces for children and youth. 36. Businesses will grow expeditiously thanks to consistent and predictable economic development policies set by an informed public sector. 37. A strong supply of educated and skilled workers—of all ages—will encourage businesses to locate and expand here. 44. An expanded transit system will provide better service to both urban and suburban areas,linking more homes and jobs. 46. Commuters will have more options to avoid congestion. 47. Most people will choose to walk or bike for short trips. 49. Outlying areas will see little increase in traffic congestion. 51. Regional transportation planning will be linked with sustainable land use planning. 52. The transportation system will be reliably funded and transportation agencies will demonstrate accountability to the public. 55. The region's businesses will access the global marketplace through an efficient freight transportation network. PF Airport Planning TaItAe 444 IIit AllPC Sirnairt Growth IIPirliiundipIlles #1 Encourage community and stakeholder Massport is engaged in on-going meetings and discussions with the collaboration in development decisions. four towns through the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission. #2 Integrate people and place. Not Applicable.This principle is oriented toward development within communities. The presence of air travel at Hanscom Field offers a service for #3 Promote regional equity and reduce local and people in the surrounding region who would otherwise be traveling regional disparities. greater distances to use a facility elsewhere,and it reduces air traffic at other regional facilities. Massport is engaged in on-going community discussions through the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission(HFAC)process. Massport #4 Strengthen regional cooperation. continues to work cooperatively with the EEA and the Shawsheen Watershed partners to improve the Shawsheen River water quality and to reach out to Hanscom AFB and the NPS on issues of common concern. The ESPR provides a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative #5 Promote distinctive,attractive communities with environmental effects of Hanscom Field and a retrospective analysis a strong sense of place. of changes at the airport.The ESPR process provides a framework to identify and plan for potential environmental effects at the airport and in the surrounding communities. Massport manages the environmental resources at Hanscom Field #6 Preserve open space,farmland,and critical to address issues related to wetlands,watersheds,and drinking environmental resources. water supplies. Locations for potential agricultural use have been identified if demand warrants. #7 Encourage development in currently developed Hanscom Field is an existing resource that is well served by existing areas to take advantage of existing community infrastructure. assets. #8 Mix land uses. Hanscom Field incorporates a mix of land use consistent with airport use. #9 Take advantage of compact development Massport seeks to make effective use of existing impervious design and create walkable neighborhoods. surface, utility systems and built areas at Hanscom Field. Hanscom Field supports air travel needs of existing businesses along Route 128 and provides jobs for area residents. National Aviation Academy, one of Massport's tenants at Hanscom Field, #10 Promote economic development in ways that provides training for technical jobs in the aviation industry. Massport produce jobs,strengthen low and moderate-income is a responsible manager of environmental resources at Hanscom communities,and protect the natural environment. Field. Massport requires third-party development as well as its own development at Hanscom Field to achieve the US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) Certification. #11 Create a range of housing opportunities and Not Applicable. choices in cities and towns throughout the region. Hanscom Field satisfies a regional demand for air travel for people #12 Promote more transportation choices through in the surrounding region who would otherwise be traveling greater the appropriate development of land. distances to use a facility elsewhere. Massport has also been working with the AFB to enhance the TDM programs available to employees. #13 Develop predictable,fair,and cost effective regulatory approvals for smart growth oriented Not Applicable developments. #14 Encourage fiscal policies that support smart Not Applicable growth. #15 Enable smart growth by reforming existing Not Applicable zoning. Source:MAPC,Smart Growth Principles for the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission,February 2003 a_ Airport Planning 43 Description of Plainining Areas For purposes of the 2012 ESPR, Hanscom Field has been divided into six planning areas based on geographic considerations to facilitate the discussion of planning for future aviation-related facilities at Hanscom and the evaluation of the conceptual development scenarios (see Figure 4-4). The planning areas are referred to as: Terminal Area ATCT Apron East Ramp North Airfield Pine Hill West Airfield The Pine Hill and West Airfield areas are provided for consistency with past ESPRs. No new development is foreseen in these three planning areas at this time. Any new development would be consistent with what was presented in the 2005 ESPR. The ATCT Apron is a new planning area identified in this ESPR. Each area is divided between airport function referred to as landside and airside. The landside area at Hanscom Field is the area that is located outside the Secure Identification Display Area(SIDA) that is generally accessible to the public. Examples of landside facilities include the roadway system, the parking lot in front of the Civil Air Terminal. Airside includes areas within the SIDA,which are located in a secure environment with controlled access. Examples of airside facilities include runways, taxiways, and aircraft parking areas. Some structures like the Civil Air Terminal and hangars commonly have both landside and airside components, distinctly segregated. Third-party developers undertake the majority of development at Hanscom Field. In preparing the ESPR and looking at locations for future development, Massport must take into account a range of aviation development types. This requires Massport to have a variety of sites and different locations available in order to accommodate future development opportunities. To do this, Massport looks to areas at Hanscom Field that can be developed with the fewest environmental impacts. The development areas that are shown in the ESPR will provide market-driven development opportunity to third-party developers. 43.11 Teirir6lr,41 Airea The Terminal Area includes a mix of terminal, airside, and landside functional areas. Specific facilities include the Civil Air Terminal and supporting facilities, such as public parking, FBOs, flight schools, airport maintenance facilities, fuel farms, and several privately operated facilities. The Terminal Area is bounded to the southwest by Virginia Road and the Runway 5 Approach,to the west by Runway 5-23 and Pine Hill, to the north by Runway 11-29, to the northeast by the East Ramp, to the east by the Hanscom AFB, and to the south by Old Bedford Road and the Town of Lincoln. Access to the Terminal Area is provided by Hanscom Drive and Old Bedford Road. 4.3.2 Xlir Traffic Con'tro4l Toweir Alpiron The Air Traffic Control Tower(ATCT) Apron area is confined to a small parcel of land that surrounds the FAA's ATCT. It includes the ATCT and associated parking lot,which is FAA property,the aircraft maintenance building, and adjacent apron area. It is between the Terminal and the East Ramp and abuts E1.7;I In 423 Airport Planning (This page intentionally left blank) 4-24 ti �o a W� O U C q / , �j ft / i / k // IIIIIUIIII �� l � /�,rr /� 1 �� %��/ul�Il„rr���f • 'I III tl ��r a/ �U r r Y Oz a r 0 n Q ti O m 5 C`i'I Airport Planning the airfield to the north and west, and the Hanscom AFB to the south and east. The entire ATCT and Apron is contained within secure areas. Current physical access is from the Terminal. 433 East @Barn p The East Ramp area includes a large developed area for aircraft maneuvering,parking, servicing, fueling, and tie-downs. Common land uses in the East Ramp Area include hangars,ramp parking, and support activities associated with the Hanscom AFB. Five existing hangars form the southern boundary of the East Ramp, two of which are located on Massport property and occupied by an FBO and three of which are within the AFB property boundary. All hangars have direct airside access to the East Ramp, along with dedicated apron frontage. Additionally,the USAF Fire Department, an FBO fuel farm, and Massport's fueling facility are located in this area. Other facilities include Massport's maintenance garage and sand storage building, FAA equipment storage,navigational aids, and a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trailer. Massport does not have direct vehicle landside access to the East Ramp. Currently the USAF controls access through the AFB to the East Ramp. The East Ramp is bounded on the west by Runways 5-23 and the Terminal and Pine Hill Areas; to the north by Runway 11-29, the North Airfield, and a residential neighborhood; to the east by properties located along and off Hartwell Avenue in the Towns of Lexington and Bedford; and to the south by the Hanscom AFB. Any non-military tenants wanting access to the East Ramp must enter the AFB through the main gate. In 2008, Massport completed a utility study of the East Ramp to identify utility needs for future hangar development on the existing East Ramp. Massport analyzed potential noise and air quality conditions based on hangar development scenarios in this area. These analyses were included with a Massport letter to the FAA requesting a categorical exclusion under NEPA for new hangars on the East Ramp. The FAA considered the cumulative impacts of East Ramp development along with Hangar 24 (Rectrix FBO) redevelopment and ultimately determined that hangar development on the East Ramp is a categorically excluded project. The evaluation in the 2005 ESPR of alternative access routes to the East Ramp including a new road from Hartwell Avenue. Access options through the AFB are unchanged since 2005. 43.4 V' ourth AliIir li!61d The North Airfield includes property located north of Runway 11-29 and both east and west of Runway 5-23. It is bounded on the far west by the West Airfield and to the north by the Town of Bedford. Other than runways and taxiways and their supporting infrastructure, airport-related facilities in the North Airfield are limited to two buildings housing the runway glide slope indicators and one building occupied by the runway localizer. Massport had previously leased a large portion of this area to the USAF,but this area has reverted to Massport control. The land was occupied by a trailer park,which provided supplemental housing for the AFB. In 2008, the USAF decided to close the trailer park. In 2009, all structures were removed and by 2010, the USAF had removed all utility poles and ensured that the site was environmentally acceptable for return to Massport in 2011. Another part of the North Airfield is owned by the U.S.Navy,but was operated by Raytheon until 2000. It includes a hangar, apron, and has direct access to the airfield. Massport has been working with the P 1.7;I d 4 7 Airport Planning Government Services Administration (GSA) to obtain control of the Navy Hangar site and filed an application for formal transfer of the property in 2012. It expects to receive the land in 2014. In 2012, Edge Sports leased of portion of the North Airfield site north of Hartwell Road owned by Massport and constructed two turf athletic fields adjacent to their existing facility. These fields were completed in 2013. 43.5 Rine KiiIIIIII The Pine Hill primarily consists of an arside secured area with limited landside access to several facilities. It includes the facilities previously occupied by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and now being developed by the FBO Rectrix Aviation(previously known as Hangar 24), three T-hangar facilities adjacent and parallel to Taxiway M, and the Draper Labs. The Pine Hill is bounded to the southwest and west by Virginia Road and the Runway 5 Approach,to the northwest by the West Airfield, to the north by Runway 11-29 and the North Airfield, and to the east and southeast by Runway 5-23, the East Ramp, and Terminal Area. Access to the Pine Hill is provided by Virginia Road. Massport explored future development opportunities in the Pine Hill in the 2005 ESPR. No updates to that work are provided in this ESPR. 43.6. rt ii urf! 1 d The West Airfield extends west from the approach end of Runway 11. It is bounded to the south,west, and north by the Towns of Concord and Bedford, and to the east by Pine Hill and North Airfield. This area is largely undeveloped and contains a significant amount of wooded area,wetlands,wetland buffers, and vernal pools, and is traversed by Elm Brook. There is a conservation easement over a portion of this area held by the Town of Concord,which constrains future development. This area has more variable terrain than most other portions of the airport. In addition, Massport marked a number of trails in the West Airfield that connect to the Town of Bedford conservation land trails as well as to Gaining Ground in Concord. This work was conducted in accordance with an agreement with Bedford to remove vegetation obstructions in the Jordan Conservation Area. Massport explored future development opportunities in the West Airfield in the 2005 ESPR.No updates to that work are provided in this ESPR. 4.4 Current Plainining Ihnit1iati es and Projects Massport has implemented programs to promote environmental quality at Hanscom Field. The ISO 14001 Certification of Hanscom Field recognizes Massport's progressive environmental programs and policies, including BMPs. Massport voluntarily subscribes to the guidelines of Executive Orders 385 and 438 as described below and supports the more efficient use of Hanscom Field within the broader context of growth management and sustainability. Massport is a leader among Massachusetts agencies in promoting and implementing sustainable designs. New hangar facilities at Hanscom Field must achieve the US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver Certification. Logan Airport's Terminal A was the first terminal in the world to achieve LEED Certification. Massport will continue to require future development of airport facilities at Hanscom Field, such as any future hangar development in the North 42�"� . m.. Airport Planning Airfield and the East Ramp to achieve LEED Silver certification. Rectrix is constructing its new facility as a LEED Silver certified hangar. Massport meets monthly with the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission(HFAC)to review activities at Hanscom Field. HFAC is an advisory commission that was established by the state legislature in 1980. HFAC includes 16 members appointed by different constituencies and approved by the selectmen of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. HFAC includes representatives from the Towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln; local citizens groups; other area towns affected by Hanscom Field; businesses basing aircraft at Hanscom Field; aviation or aviation-related businesses at Hanscom Field; and business-aviation general aviation organizations. The HFAC process affords the opportunity for review of projects that are not subject to formal MEPA review. As summarized in this section, Massport has initiated a number of projects since the 2005 ESPR including third-party redevelopment of the Hangar 24 site,rehabilitation of existing apron pavement,increased security measures around the airfield, and continued maintenance activities at Hanscom. This section summarizes current planning initiatives and projects within Hanscom's airside and landside areas, elements of Massport's 5-year capital program at Hanscom Field, and FAA and Massport security policies and projects that could have environmental effects. These planning initiatives and projects are listed in Table 4-5 along with an indication of the expected need for MEPA review. Massport will continue to use the ESPR process to describe planned and potential projects and review the potential applicability of MEPA review. 7aIt)IIIe 45 Cu.u'irµireint II Ilaunscoimn III'-'iii6kl IIPII4nirfliing �irfltiiiatiiNe Projects Terminal Area Salt Storage Salt Storage Enclosure None anticipated Pine Hill T-Hangar Apron Rehabilitation None anticipated Terminal Apron Rehabilitate old T-hangar pavement None anticipated. Roadways Rehab Landside Roadways None anticipated Terminal Replace windows and HVAC units None anticipated Enhancement First Floor of CAT East Ramp East Ramp Joint Repair None anticipated Taxiway J Rehabilitate Taxiway J None anticipated Maintenance North Airfield Perimeter Road Relocated portions of perimeter Possible MEPA road filing Pine Hill Pavement Rehab T-hangar pavements None anticipated Maintenance Other Taxiway G upgrade Taxiway G upgrade Possible MEPA filing IMassport, The State of Hanscom,March 2013.FY13-FY17 Capital Projects 4.4.11 V-°lii eYeair CaIp�iIaI IIirnnlpiro eirrenervt Program gra Massport's 5-year capital program spanning from FY13 to FY17 includes various projects such as perimeter road enhancements, taxiway and apron pavement rehabilitations, terminal enhancements, and new equipment and storage for materials. Airport Planning Between 2005 and 2012, one project required MEPA and Conservation Commission review: the Runway 5-23 Safety Area Improvements.' The RSA project involved regrading turf at the Runway 5 and 23 ends, some of which was in wetland areas. This project did not expand the runway and did not require any additional pavement. On October 18, 2006, MEPA issued a certificate on the Draft EIR for the RSA project and found that the project adequately and properly complied with MEPA. Massport completed the Final EIR for this project and filed it in early 2007. The project was also reviewed by the MassDEP which issued a variance. The project included replication of wetland areas disturbed adjacent to the Runway 23 RSA. The replication areas were located west of Runway 23 and north of Runway 11. Massport will file an EIR for the projects in the 5-year capital program at Hanscom Field requiring MEPA review. See Table 4-5 for more information specific to each project. Possible improvements to the Civil Air Terminal will address existing needs of the building tenants. Additional maintenance and repairs for the first floor of the Civil Air Terminal are under consideration. 4.4. Th�lirdPairty 1D v d11qpirnervt Third parties undertake the majority of development at Hanscom Field. Third-party development that occurs at Hanscom Field is subject to appropriate local, state, and federal review as well as Massport policies.New facilities would be required to meet the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MassDEP) Stormwater Management Standards for water quality and quantity. Massport's policy is to maintain or reduce (not to increase) existing rates of stormwater runoff from Hanscom Field. Massport also requires future development of airport facilities at Hanscom Field to achieve LEED Silver certification. The Rectrix Aviation hangar has been designed to achieve LEED Silver certification. In preparing the ESPR and looking at locations for future development, Massport takes into account a range of aviation-compatible development types in areas that would result in the fewest environmental impacts. The development areas presented in the ESPR will provide market driven development opportunity to third-party developers. The most recent third-party development ventures are summarized in this section. In 2011, Jet Aviation submitted a proposal to replace Hangar 17 with a modern hangar and ramp to accommodate the future business jet fleet.Jet Aviation is an FBO currently located at Hanscom that handles a range of needs for based and transient aircraft, operators, and passengers. Services offered include cleaning,maintaining, fueling,parking and hangaring of aircraft,providing pilot flight planning services, and arranging for specific needs of those flying. The existing 21,315 square foot hangar was constructed in 1945 and is inefficient and undersized for the newer fleet. In 2012, Massport approved Jet Aviation's proposal to include the 40,000 sf replacement hangar with associated office/shop space, a 12,000 square foot FBO facility, approximately 94,000 square feet of apron area, a landside access road, and replacement automobile parking. The new hangar will be connected to the existing ramp via new ramp space. Although the project was not subject to MEPA, Jet Aviation prepared an Environmental Assessment(EA) under NEPA to disclose the potential human and environmental effects of this proposed action. Jet 27 Massport in conjunction with FAA,Runway 5-23 Safety Area Improvements Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Environmental Impact Report,July 2006. 4 30 Fzr m.. Airport Planning Aviation will begin the process of seeking individual construction permits in 2014. In accordance with Massport policy, Jet Aviation is designing the facility to achieve LEED Silver certification standards. In 2012, the Massport Board also approved Rectrix Aviation as the developer for FBO facilities at the Hangar 24 site.Following extensive public review,Rectrix obtained its permits and finished with the demolition of Hangar 24 in September 2012. Rectrix anticipates completion of the project in early 2014. 4.43 Sectji°lt I "6l1li161 and IPirojects As TSA and Massport security policies are formulated and specific projects identified,regulatory approvals might be required. All relevant projects will go through the appropriate environmental process. Massport has installed new security fencing at Hanscom and an enhanced access control system. Massport will add pedestrian gates near the vehicle trap gates and bollards may replace Jersey barriers in front of the Civil Air Terminal.Massport will continue to review all security measures while making appropriate adjustments, as warranted. Massport does not anticipate that these projects would require MEPA review. This section describes the characteristics of the potential future planning concepts for the 2020 and the 2030 scenarios. Figure 4-5 illustrates the potential development opportunity areas at Hanscom Field. The general approach applied in the future scenarios is as follows: IN Enhancing aviation-related facilities on the East Ramp,which includes maximizing the use of the existing apron area, IN Infill development in the Terminal Area,which has existing infrastructure to support new GA facilities, and IN Reusing developed areas in the North Airfield Area that utilize the northern edge of the airport. The planning concepts shown provide flexibility to respond to the anticipated variability of future demand in a coordinated fashion. The proposed concept layouts are shown for illustrative purposes only and are expected to evolve over time. Detailed environmental analyses would be required for projects that move from conceptual screening to the proposal stage whenever MEPA or other regulatory thresholds are triggered. However,because third-party developers complete most new development at Hanscom Field, Massport's planning must be programmed to be flexible and able to respond to changing conditions and regional demands. The future airport planning concepts presented here are based on: M The planning context described in this Chapter, M Infrastructure conditions discussed in Chapter 2, Facilities and Infrastructure, M Potential market forces that shape and change demand for airport facilities and infrastructure, and, M The forecasts of aviation activity levels discussed in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. F Airport Planning (This page intentionally left blank) 4-32 b I a Q )� r 11 lJJ o P d k d p (B E CO Y / dd O O � � r l �✓. / / I� I I ../� 0 I �I l/l qfk' tj O O a z r a r 0 n Q ti O m 5 .�;�. 4°5 „,.,�, Airport Planning The Master Planning concepts are matched with activity level forecasts for the planning years 2020 and 2030. Table 4-6 summarizes Forecast Aviation Activity Levels described in Chapter 3. It should be noted that: Forecast long-term(2030) aircraft operations are 37,000 to 56,000 below the 2005 ESPR long- term forecasts. Forecast long-term(2030)passenger levels are significantly lower than the 2005 ESPR forecast. Based aircraft forecast is lower than the 2005 ESPR forecasts by approximately 27 to 60 aircraft. 7aIt)IIIo 4 6 u.jrniimmiairy of Ach.4 aind II1'-'oirocast ActiiViity at Il11ain�:coimn II1'-1i6kl Aircraft Operations(7:00 am to 11:"70,196 General Aviation Local(SEP) 62,605 65,164 Personal Flying(SEP) 51,477 50,661 58,285 Business Non-Jet(MEP+Turbo) 10,178 10,861 12,985 Business Jet 25,638 35,043 46,782 Helicopter 7,345 1 7,345 7,345 Subtotal GA 164,834 166,515 190,561 Military 745 745 745 Commercial Scheduled Airline" 635 1,040 1,820 Total Operations 166,214 168,300 193,126 Based Aircraft 340 360 416 Commercial Airline Passengers 8,609 20,280 40,600 1. Total commercial airline operations in 2030 are forecast at 2,080, including 260 operations before 7:00 am. 2. The operations presented in the 2012 ESPR differ slightly from those published in the Hanscom Annual Noise Report. This discrepancy is due to the difference in the timing of the preparation for the two reports. Each report used the best available data at the time of the analysis for that report. The difference of approximately 0.3 daily nighttime operations or 0.07%of all daily operations would change computed noise levels by less than 0.1 dB. Source:Massport and FAA Tower Counts. As discussed in Chapter 3, Activity Levels, a comparison of the GA activity in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios suggests that GA activity could grow modestly between 2013 and 2030.Much of this growth would be attributable to business jets,which would increase the demand for GA hangars and associated facilities. GA hangars are an interface between landside and airside and will be discussed in the landside section. Forecasts of activity presented in Chapter 3 indicate that single-engine aircraft operations would comprise an increasingly smaller percentage of the general aviation operations than previously forecast. Similarly,business jet activity would constitute an increasingly greater percentage of the general aviation operations over the forecast period. Actual numbers of total based aircraft have declined approximately 14 percent from 2000 to 2012, from 397 to 340. Most of the decrease is attributable to reductions in single-engine and multiengine piston aircraft.However, the number of based jets has increased from 24 to 79 in the same period, or an approximate increase of 229 percent. Helicopters have also increased approximately 114 percent. Airport Planning Total based single-engine and multiengine piston aircraft are forecast to remain relatively constant across the scenarios through 2020, suggesting that the demand for hangar space would remain constant through this same time period._However,based jet aircraft are forecast to grow from 79 in 2012 to 90 in 2020 and to 120 in 2030, therefore increasing the need for GA/corporate hangar and FBO space over the forecast period. The following discussion of 2020 and 2030 scenarios presents a general context for the future planning of potential GA facility development. The array of GA facilities,which exceeds the GA facility requirements for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios,represents a range of development options that could be pursued in response to changing market forces. The concepts for the Hanscom Field planning areas provide a basis to evaluate the cumulative environmental effects of these options under the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Table 4-7 summarizes potential planning concepts for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios for each of the Planning Areas. 7aIt)IIIo 47 2020 aind 2030 IlIlain�:coimn III'-'liiold II I')Il4oniniing Coincepts, Terminal GA facilities with new parking spaces Second phase of Air&Space Museum Salt storage/maintenance facility New GA hangars Jet Aviation to replace Hangar 17 Hotel New access way to Jet's replacement hangar Civil Air Terminal enhancements First phase of Air&Space Museum for the New and replacement structured public Massachusetts Aviation Historical Society parking spaces as needed Civil Air Terminal enhancements ATCT Apron Relocation option for customs facility Further expansion of the airport maintenance Expansion of the airport maintenance facility facility Alternative landside access GA hangar development East Ramp Relocation option for customs facility Expansion of GA facilities and upgrading or GA facilities with new parking spaces replacement of existing GA hangars Alternative landside access Alternative landside access North Airfield GA facilities with parking in area with existing Additional GA facilities at the Navy hangar parking spaces site GA facilities at Navy hangar site once the parcel turns over to Massport Note:The Pine Hill and West Airfield areas are provided in this ESPR for consistency with past ESPRs. No new development has been evaluated for the 2012 ESPR. 12020 includes potential activities in 2013 through 2020. 22030 includes potential activities in 2021 through 2030 and planning concepts from the 2020 scenarios. The 2020 planning scenario includes a range of planned and potential airfield facilities, as described below. Future considerations in the Pine Hill and West Airfield are unchanged since the 2005 ESPR. In addition, there have been no changes to the East Ramp access alternatives evaluated in 2005. 4 5 1 1 '7'oirim6 ir4 Area GA facilities could be added or replaced in the Terminal Area to support personal,business and/or corporate, and flight training activity in the 2020 scenario, as shown in Figure 4-6. Landside: �IN Landside improvements for the Terminal Area considered in the 2020 scenario include improved access to the Terminal and to existing and new GA facilities.New and replacement surface parking spaces for the public and new GA facilities were anticipated. 4 %( /r t LE CL E is 0 c^ U1r Yl /l'�0/ � r Daum I LL ggg CO II n cu / ,/� IIIIII IIIIIII VIW • IIIIMIIIIII • j 0 >Q /o/////// IT�� N mill • �� IIIIII IIIIIII III • / � � � //����/ /� uuuu uuuul • N IIIIIIII / ��1 It %/�j /� ,//i, /////% % /�r� �,•' IIIIIIII(IIIIIIII IIIIII Tm "' y, OYvi 11 I Y I v 1 / ✓ P 1r ( III [ i > f I 0 I e a r 0 n Q ti O m 5 �,Y';r 4"t „,,-�, Airport Planning IN Other improvements could include the first phase of the Air& Space Museum for the Massachusetts Aviation Historical Society. IN Civil Air Terminal maintenance and needed repairs and a relocated salt storage enclosure facility could be added within this timeframe. IN A new roadway connection and replacement parking would be made from Hanscom Drive to the GA facilities as part of the ongoing Jet Aviation Hangar Replacement Project. Airside: Within the 2020 scenario,Jet Aviation's replacement of Hangar 17 is projected to be completed and under operation. As Figure 4-6 illustrates, a 40,000 sf GA hangar could be accommodated in this area. Apron and ramp improvements would be constructed in connection with the Jet Aviation replacement of Hangar 17. 4 5 1 2 A'7 '7 Alpiroin Existing facilities around the ATCT include aircraft tie-downs, Massport's airfield maintenance shed, and a restricted-access parking lot. Any improvements proposed in this area must not affect the lines of sight from the ATCT. Figure 4-7 illustrates the potential changes and improvements. Landside: Alternative landside access could be developed through the USAF property within the 2020 scenario. This would require planning and coordination with the USAF. The airport maintenance facility is proposed to be expanded within this timeframe. Airside: As described earlier, Hanscom's Customs and Border Protection(CBP)facility is located in a trailer along with an adjacent Aircraft Design Group(ADG)V parking position on the East Ramp. The area is suitable for future GA hangar development. One option for relocation of the CBP trailer is to a new facility located at the west end of the East Ramp near the ATCT. w;7`,X Airport Planning (This page intentionally left blank) 4-40 E.,Fr M.. I 1 m / %yS// �f ����'�%' f / i %///i �% mill milli�u • �� �/ ' �, IIII IIIIIII y� � /�� ���! ill uUtl !/%���/ � ,� f �����N����� • OG i MIIIIIII III • Mum uo uuuu N IIIIIIII IIIIIIII(IIIIIIII m jzz / a r 0 n Q ti O m 5 �;.e.1; „,,-�, Airport Planning 4 5 1 3 IIEast 11airrip Figure 4-8 illustrates the planning concepts for the East Ramp. The East Ramp concept includes expanded and new GA and corporate hangar facilities with full vehicle landside access and one or two potential taxiway connections. Landside: On the north side of the East Ramp, the plan identifies a new hangar development area.New hangars could be built in phases, likely starting on the west side and moving east,with roadway access on the north side.Utilities would need to be expanded into the East Ramp upon development of the first hangar on the north side of the East Ramp. This development could occur on existing impervious surfaces. In 2020, it is assumed that access to the East Ramp would occur by badging and escorting individuals. Massport does not anticipate that this type of development on the East Ramp would trigger MEPA review. Airside: In the 2020 planning scenario, the potential for new hangar development on the north side of the East Ramp is calculated as approximately 200,000 sf. The amount of hangar development is determined by market demand from third-party developers. In this development scenario, existing Taxiways B and C, which connect the East Ramp to Taxiway E,may need to be reviewed for possible closure. Two taxiway ingress and egress points (Taxiways A and G) to the new hangars on the north side of the East Ramp would remain. Taxiway A could remain for at least the first phase of development. On the south side of the ramp, the three (36,000 sf, 36,000 sf, and 28,800 sf) existing hangars on the Massport property could be extended by enlarging towards the ramp onto their apron areas. The existing Hangars 2 and 3 could also be rebuilt as a single, expanded hangar of up to 137,000 sf. The height of any hangar development would be restricted to maintain the ATCT line of sight to the airfield movement area and within the tolerances of the FAR Part 77 surfaces from the runways. On the East Ramp, it appears that the ATCT line of sight is more restrictive than the FAR Part 77 surface. Access to the CBP office needs to be maintained in a manner so that ADG V aircraft can be inspected. As noted above, full development of the East Ramp Area might eventually require relocating the CBP office, and a location closer to the west side of the East Ramp has been identified for this potential relocation. 4 5 1 4 Ill oirtli Xirflellld Two parcels of land north of Runway 5-23 in Bedford abut the airfield and have been vacated. The other parcel is owned by Massport,which until 2011 was leased by the USAF,but has since been cleared of structures and returned to Massport. One of these parcels is currently owned by the U.S.Navy,but was used by Raytheon until 2000. Massport expects to acquire the property in 2014. Aviation improvements in the North Airfield evaluated as part of the 2020 scenario include GA facilities, and aircraft and vehicle parking spaces on the formerly leased USAF parcel, as shown in Figure 4-9. Massport has received some interest from third-party developers to use this property. Multiple corporate hangars could be accommodated in this area without affecting wetlands. The area would require leveling in some areas before any hangars could be constructed. This concept will require NEPA review and may trigger MEPA review depending on the extent of the development. En 443 Airport Planning Landside: Corporate and GA facilities could be constructed with associated parking in the area of existing parking spaces and previous development. Airside: Corporate and GA facilities could be constructed with a total program of up to 165,000 sf, together with new ramps and taxi lanes for the GA facilities are proposed in this scenario. The amount of hangar development is contingent upon market forces driving third-party development of GA facilities. 444 � �� �, ��� �����"Aqq"gq��gqqqqq��"��ggAqqqqqAqqqAqqAqqqAqqqq���qqAqqqAqqAAAqqqqAqqqqAqqqAqqAqqqqAqqAq r ��" / LE CL o r� a / ( lu II II IIIIII Y J� j r I / III O Q LL ® E _ 0 pp IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII / � to H E in �VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV r �ir/ ,4LU LL a ... IIIIIIIIIIIVVquuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum r �� ,/� W� / aFl t 1p ri N / c LL C4 Oc c LL i/ p 2 l TMo g � �,��,I,I,J i//�f// /�// ��� mill milli u� • mill milli Imii • / � r/F�a� ,�/ "/��/���% uuuu uuuui mIm • Tm o a III u a/ d a a r 0 n Q ti O m 5 „,,-�, / d /i �jY i r III ;,% lul l� ��„ uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu -° -° cc MM / ' r� C4 � !' � ��°�� II��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��������',',I � �„' r/i � �l �� ' V VV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV uuuuuuul,�;�', l ll/ l W p I llllllnnll IIIIIIIII / IIIIIIII"IIIIIIII IIIIIIII u IIIIIIIII m Vuul III III)Im�� III u�I����n rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr iiiililllll / II i // mz II l � (, uuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulll Mrr MG�MG � 1i�'�tiylll II j m OV a r 0 n Q ti O m 5 t;N,;t .�;�. .�;y. Airport Planning 4.5.2 2030 Scenario In the 2030 scenario, additional development beyond what was evaluated for 2020 could occur in the Terminal Area, East Ramp, and North Airfield. There are no updates to the Pine Hill and West Airfield and future considerations in these areas are unchanged since the 2005 ESPR. In addition, there are no updates to the East Ramp access alternatives evaluated in 2005. 4 5 2 1 7eirir6iir41 The 2030 scenarios include the possible GA facilities,which are described for the 2020 scenarios. The Terminal Area also has the potential for additional GA hangars through the redevelopment of existing T hangar area and new GA hangars to the south of Jet Aviation, as shown in Figure 4-6. Landside: The 2030 growth scenario includes a second phase of the proposed Air and Space Museum. A moderate- sized hotel could be located west near the intersection of Hanscom Drive and Old Bedford Road. For analysis purposes, the hotel is anticipated to accommodate between 100 and 200 rooms with basic hotel amenities, such as a restaurant and a limited amount of meeting space. Access to the site could be from either Hanscom Drive and/or Old Bedford Road. This type of development was also evaluated in the 1995 GEIR and the 2000 and 2005 ESPRs. The hotel would be expected to serve demand generated by Hanscom Field and the general metropolitan Boston market and address specific local needs, such as those generated by visitors to the MMNHP and the future Air and Space Museum. The possible location of the potential hotel site development parcel is illustrated as a development site in Figure 4-6. A hotel project would require NEPA review and may also trigger MEPA depending on the extent of the development. Additional vehicle parking might be required for the 2030 Scenario based on future operations and passenger levels. An allowance for optional structured parking over or adjacent to the existing Civil Air Terminal parking area is provided in the 2030 Scenario. Airside: Figure 4-6 illustrates an aviation development area that could accommodate approximately 60-80,000 sf of GA facilities with associated ramp space and taxi lanes in addition to the development that could occur in the 2020 scenario. 4 5 2 2 Xir'Tirafflc Cointird 'Toweir Apiroin The 2030 scenario analysis assumes the addition of a small GA hangar. Figure 4-7 illustrates the scenario for the ATCT Apron. Landside: Access to a new GA hangar would be part of this scenario. Airside: In the 2030 scenario, the addition of a smaller GA hangar with approximately 15,000 sf is considered that maintains line of sight to the airfield movement area and is within the tolerances of the FAA Part 77 surfaces. 7 -E1. ; I 449 Airport Planning 4 5 2 3 IIEast Ilairrip Additional GA facilities beyond those described in the 2020 scenario could be developed in the East Ramp. This development could occur on existing impervious surfaces within the aviation development area that is shown in Figure 4-8. Landside: The East Ramp currently has restricted access through the primary entrance to the Hanscom AFB at the Vandenberg Gate. Access to the East Ramp is handled under an agreement that is in place with the Base. With the development of the East Ramp, the number of tenants on the East Ramp could increase. In this event, Massport would like to improve the access to the East Ramp. Two options were considered. The first was to develop a secondary access from Hartwell Road to handle the additional flow of traffic. A secondary access that does not require transitioning through the Base would improve the commute time to the East Ramp. The second option was to maintain access via the Vandenberg Gate and add connections from Marrett Street within the Base. Airside: In general, airside facilities could consist of a series of GA and/or corporate hangars that expand from the 2020 Scenario increasing hangar space by up to an additional 160,000 sf. 4 5 2 4 Ill oirtli XiffV d Of the two parcels of land north of Runway 5-23 in Bedford that abut the airfield, the potential aviation improvements in the North Airfield Area as part of the 2030 scenario include additional hangars in the areas formerly leased to the USAF, and hangars and aircraft and vehicle parking spaces on the U.S.Navy parcel. This work assumes that Massport will acquire the Navy parcel. Landside: Landside access would be from Hartwell Road. Airside: Figure 4-9 illustrates an aviation development area that could accommodate up to 150,000 sf, as GA hangar space with associated ramp and parking. These hangars could be located in the area to the north of Taxiway R and would require access to this taxiway. 4.6 Analysis of IIFuture Utilities This section presents the potential changes in utility demands that would be needed to serve the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. In general, any improvements and new facilities specified in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios would require new connections and upgrades to the existing utility system. In the 2006 State of Hanscom report,Massport identified potential capital projects to upgrade its water, stormwater, and electrical utility systems and to provide utility service to the East Ramp. Massport would work with the appropriate public and private utility companies to implement these projects or other potential system upgrades that would be needed to accommodate the demands of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. As part of the 2020 scenario, Massport will continue to explore third-party development opportunities on the East Ramp. Massport is considering the feasibility of expanding its electric utility system to parts of Hanscom not currently served by that system. 450 Fzr MI.. Airport Planning 4.6.11 Wateir Stjjpllp1y and 1Deirn nd In the 2005 ESPR,water demands were estimated for the 2010 and 2020 scenarios. These demands are shown in Table 4-8. This potential future demand is compared with 2005 existing conditions at Hanscom Field. The development scenarios evaluated in the 2012 ESPR are of a similar nature and size as the proposed improvements in the 2005 ESPR. at)t)lo 48 IPotountli4 atolr tlsage aind Wastewater Geinolratlibin of 2010 aind 2020 ScounairlibS 6 1 1 f,,�.. v �... � 11 1 1 f,,�.. v �... � 11• 11� ii WATER USE Total Average Daily Demand 34,800 44,100 48,000 59,200 66,900 Total Maximum Daily Demand' 69,600 88,200 96,000 118,400 133,800 WASTEWATER GENERATION Total Average Daily FIow2 27,800 35,300 38,400 47,400 53,500 Total Off-site Average Daily 24,400 30,900 33,600 41,400 46,800 FIow3 Off-site Peak FloW 54,900 69,500 75,600 93,200 105,300 Increase over 2000 Peak Flows° 29,900 44,500 50,600 68,200 80,300 1. Based on a ratio of maximum day to average day demand of 2.0 in accordance with Metcalf&Eddy report(1992). 2.A wastewater ratio of 0.8 was utilized to develop total wastewater generation (average daily flow). 3.Wastewater flows Wastewater leaving the site is estimated to be 70 percent of water usage(off-site average daily flow). This reflects some on-site septic systems that do not tie into the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority system. 4. Based on Peak to Average flow ratio of 2.25 as utilized in the 2000 ESPR and Metcalf&Eddy report(1992), considering on-site equalization storage. 5.2000 Peak Flow equals 25,000 gallons per minute as provide in the 2000 ESPR. 6.The potential water usage and wastewater generation are estimates of activity based on planned future developments. The actual water usage and wastewater generation might differ depending on the actual development implemented. Source:Metcalf&Eddy,Water System Improvements Study for L.G.Hanscom Field,1992 Based on existing water uses and available system flow capacity from the Hanscom AFB of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch to the site, the existing systems are sized to supply the potable water flows required for each of the future growth scenarios while maintaining adequate pressures. Future fire suppression requirements might necessitate increased water pressure, standby water storage (fire pumps or alternative standby supply tank), or additional supply and pressure from the Hanscom AFB water system that currently supplies the Massport water distribution system. Massport will either incorporate a campus-wide fire protection plan or require each developer to construct a deluge and fire protection system within the individual site. The potential water usage and wastewater generation are estimates of activity based on planned future developments. The actual water usage and wastewater generation might differ depending on the actual development implemented. 4 8 1 1 Saun tairy Sew,eir Systolmn The potential future wastewater generation was estimated in the 2005 ESPR for the 2010 and 2020 scenarios. The planned improvements in the 2012 ESPR are of a similar nature and size as the proposed improvements in the 2005 ESPR. These results are shown on Table 4-8 and are broken down by stage. Potential new facilities in the West Airfield Area would tie into the existing sewer line in South Road. For the other areas,wastewater flows would continue to be discharged to the Hanscom AFB system as described in Chapter 2, Facilities and Infrastructure. The existing on-site wastewater system is expected to have the capacity to handle the foreseeable future growth scenarios. Off-site systems via the Hanscom AFB appear to have capacity for the 2020 scenario. Airport Planning For the 2030 scenario, a detailed wastewater study likely be required to determine if there is available capacity off site. If additional capacity is necessary, options could include obtaining additional capacity to discharge to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority system,mitigating increases through on-site measures such that the peak pumping rate does not exceed the force main capacity, and/or constructing on-site septic systems meeting Title 5 requirements. 4.6.2 SIoinai ateir II anageirre ent and Dirainage System As projects are developed that increase impervious surfaces, areas of paving could be removed as part of the development project or as a separate project to ensure that there is no gain in impervious surfaces. Between the 2000 and 2005 ESPR's,Massport eliminated approximately 4.4 acres of impervious surfaces at Hanscom Field by removing unused airside pavement. Since the 2005 ESPR,no further removal of impervious surface has occurred. Within the 2012 ESPR, as indicated in Table 4-9, some of the potential new GA facilities would add new impervious surfaces. It is estimated that the 2020 scenario could add approximately 9.1 acres of new impervious surface. If all development options proceeded, the 2030 scenario could add an additional 16.6 acres of impervious surface. These areas would be offset to the maximum extent practicable. Tat)t)lo 4 9 IPotountli4ll Cliainge liiin �irnpeirvliiou.us Surface (Acres) liiin 2020 aind 2030 Sceinairlbs Terminal Area 2.1 acres 7.2 acres ATCT Area Runway 5 Approach Area - - Pine Hill Area - - West Airfield Area - - North Airfield Area 7.0 acres 9.4 acres East Ramp Area - - Total Potential Increase/(Decrease) 9.1 acres 16.6 acres 1.2020 includes potential activities in 2013 through 2020. 2.2030 includes potential activities in 2021 through 2030 and planning concepts from the 2020 scenario. Any new facilities in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios would be required to meet the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards for water quality and quantity. This would be achieved through the implementation of various stormwater BMPs to mitigate peak runoff rates so that post-development peak runoff rates do not exceed existing conditions. The site's stormwater runoff ultimately outfalls to the Shawsheen River, Elm Brook(both Class B watercourses according to 314 CMR 4.06 Surface Water Quality regulations), and to on-site wetland resource areas. The stormwater runoff would be treated for water quality to achieve a total suspended solids removal rate of 80 percent prior to discharging into these resource areas in accordance with the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards. 4.63 Electiricai System The on-site distribution system delivers electricity to all of Hanscom Field. According to the evaluation in the 2005 ESPR, additional capacity and an expanded distribution system would be necessary to serve the 2010 and 2020 Moderate and High Growth scenarios. Massport has identified potential upgrades to the electrical utility system as part of the 5-year capital program. This additional electrical supply might come from sources other than NSTAR Electric and Gas or CMPL Trading Company. The additional capacity has not been implemented and would still be required if the 2020 and 2030 scenarios were implemented. However,because the level of development considered in the 2010 and 2020 growth scenarios has not yet 4 i u P zr .. Airport Planning materialized due to the economic downturn,improvements are not an issue for operations today but will need to be accomplished to support certain levels of future development. 4w w4 V4attjirdll Gas According to the 2005 ESPR, the natural gas distribution system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the 2010 and 2020 Moderate and High-growth scenarios because potential additional future demand was considered when the existing 4-inch high-pressure main line was sized. This condition remains unchanged for the 2012 ESPR Massport is currently working with the USAF on a gas line extension that will connect Hangars 1, 2, and 3 to natural gas service. It is anticipated that this extension will be completed in 2014. 4.6.5 Tdlqptione and Comimunications According to the 2005 ESPR,upgrades to telephone and other communications service capacities would be needed to accommodate the 2010 and 2020 Moderate and High Growth scenarios. The upgrades have been ongoing with improvements made in 2012 and 2013. 4.7 Consistencyof 2012 ESPR itti IPlains and Regulations ions Massport is a state authority that owns and operates public-use transportation facilities that include Boston-Logan International Airport, Worcester Regional Airport, Hanscom Field,marine terminals within the Port of Boston, and a range of real-estate properties in the Boston area.Massport's goals and objectives are consistent with local plans of the towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln and regional plans such as MAPC's MetroPlan 2000 and MetroFuture. Massport supports many of the principles described in these plans,including the creation and operation of environmentally friendly facilities, sustainability,promoting regional equity, economic development opportunities, and the efficient use of existing resources.Massport seeks to achieve these results within the context of managing public- use facilities. Hanscom Field has existed as an airport in its present location since 1941. After providing primarily military service from 1941-54, Hanscom became a GA airport and control of the airfield's general operations and maintenance was transferred to Massport in 1974. Much of the infrastructure and impervious surfaces of the airfield has remained largely unchanged under Massport's tenure. However, the predominately rural, agricultural character of the area surrounding Hanscom Field continues to be transformed by increasing residential and commercial development independent of and unrelated to Hanscom Field. Activities at Hanscom Field are consistent with local,regional, and other plans, to the extent that these plans or policies apply to Hanscom Field. The future scenarios described in the 2012 ESPR are consistent with those that were evaluated in the 2000 and 2005 ESPRs, but with lower commercial air passenger forecasts. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios describe potential additional aviation and aviation-related uses on the airport and retain many areas in their current,natural state. A hotel use,which is included in the 2030 scenario,is compatible with land uses in the adjacent communities, MMNHP, and Hanscom AFB. Massport has also implemented many of the recommendations of the Hanscom Noise Workgroup. Hanscom Field continues to have a minimal effect on local traffic, air quality,water quality, and wetland resources. However, Hanscom Field remains an airfield facility and,therefore,has the accompanying effects implicit to aircraft operations,including aircraft noise.Noise analysis and mitigation are discussed in detail in Chapter 7,Noise. Airport Planning Massport's plans are currently limited to those investments described above in the Five-Year Capital program. These plans support Hanscom Field's role as a premier full-service GA airport with limited commercial passenger service. The future scenarios that were evaluated in this document present estimates of what could happen at Hanscom Field using certain assumptions,not necessarily what will happen. In this context, Massport has identified environmental management approaches to help achieve consistency with the local and regional plans. This ESPR identifies potential projects that could occur based on the aviation forecasts described in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. Massport will follow appropriate local, state, and federal review for any future project that triggers such reviews. For example,the 2030 scenario identifies parking demand that could be met by increased surface or structured parking,which may require MEPA and NEPA review. Before proposing changes such as to the parking supply,Massport would review MEPA and NEPA regulations to determine if it needed to file with MEPA and NEPA and,if appropriate,make the necessary environmental filing for the project. .7.2 Cons� l t n ,wilththe 11978 asteir I lan and IIM ass Ilpoirt's 11980 RegUlatie°n Massport's 1978 Master Plan and 1980 regulations for Hanscom have guided Massport's development of the 2012 ESPR. The 2012 ESPR reaffirms the role of Hanscom Field as a premier regional GA airport with limited commercial service. The Master Plan anticipated cargo operations at the airport and commercial air passenger services. The 2012 ESPR evaluates future scenarios that include scheduled commercial passenger service utilizing aircraft of no more than 60 seats,but did not consider cargo services given current market conditions. The number of operations for each future year scenario, including the 2030 scenario,is well below the Master Plan's estimated practical capacity of 320,000 operations per year. In general,the visions articulated by Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln and their planning documents speak to a desire to preserve the historical character and natural resources of the towns,while balancing the demands of changing social and economic conditions. Economic development,which has occurred throughout the four towns and the larger suburban area,has resulted in the associated traffic and environmental impacts experienced in the area. The basic use of Hanscom Field for aviation purposes takes place within a local planning and zoning context that only describes non-aviation related uses. The towns' plans do not provide for aviation related land uses. The Commonwealth's policy is to maintain Hanscom Field as a key aviation resource.While Massport considers local planning and zoning,it is not subject to local regulations unless specified by state law. The efficient use of Hanscom Field as an existing part of the region's transportation infrastructure is consistent with"Smart Growth"policies,including those outlined in MAPC's MetroPlan 2000 and MetroFuture. In addition,through the ESPR process,Massport has identified and clearly described potential environmental effects of future scenarios to provide a comprehensive evaluation of potential conditions that would be associated with forecasted aviation activity levels. 45 Regional Transportation Context Regianal "Franspartation Cantext This chapter reviews the role of Hanscom Field in the region's broader airport and long-distance transportation system. It describes Massport's efforts to work with other state and regional transportation agencies in a cooperative planning context to strengthen the regional transportation network. The chapter also focuses on the regional transportation planning initiatives that Massport is undertaking relative to Hanscom, Worcester, and Logan. Highlights of the chapter include: IN Hanscom's role in the regional airport system; IN The role of Logan Airport in the regional airport system; IN An update on the integration of New England regional airports as a regional system; IN Massport's efforts to promote commercial airline services at Worcester Regional Airport; IN Passenger and aircraft operations at the regional airports in 2012 and trends in aviation activity levels at the regional airports since 2005; IN The status of current improvement plans and projects at the regional airports; IN Long-range cooperative regional transportation planning; IN An update on long-distance rail services including Amtrak's Acela and Northeast Regional services along the Northeast Corridor; and IN Airport ground access improvements. Hanscom Field is the busiest general aviation airport in the Massachusetts and New England region. Hanscom has historically accommodated a wide variety of general aviation(GA) activities,including business/corporate aviation, light cargo and limited commercial passenger service, air taxi/private charter services,recreational and personal flying, and pilot flight training. In addition to general aviation, Hanscom accommodates some commercial airline services and limited military flights associated with Hanscom AFB. Because of its close proximity to Boston and the Route 128/195 and Route 495 high-tech corridors, Hanscom accommodates more GA activity than any other GA or commercial service airport in the region(Figure 5-1). Hanscom handles over five times as many general aviation operations as Boston- Logan International Airport and provides substantial airside relief to Logan. While Hanscom has supported limited commercial airline services,its primary roles within the regional airport network are to function as a general aviation reliever for Logan Airport and serve as a premier general aviation facility for the region. F 1.7;I d 5 Regional Transportation Context Manchester f / Commercial Service A.c'5ne' Pease y G:A Reliever Nashua( r Hat'Aa'r"com Worcester"1k, Logan Norwood � a i 4'a P o Yde n you e j }. Hartford M 1 " 1 I'='iiillu.awre 5-1 Geinei4 viiiatiibin Il1°16ll eveirµ aind Coimninnerdi4 iiirlpoirts Accoirnirnodatiing Geinei4 viiiatiibin ActVfty iiiin the Greater IIBostoin 151etiro Area Hanscom also provides limited commercial passenger service General aviation operations in the greater Boston area fell by 3.2 percent per year between 2005 and 2012 as a result of high fuel prices, a weak economy and declining number of student pilots, consistent with the national trend. By comparison, general aviation activity at Hanscom was more stable, falling by only 0.1 percent per year over the same period. Passenger levels at the regional airports have declined steeply in recent years, similar to trends at other small regional airports across the nation. From 2005 to 2012, the combined passenger traffic at the regional commercial airports in New England dropped by 29 percent, or 4.7 percent per year. Hanscom lost its only commercial airline service in September 2012 when Streamline Air ceased operations. The passenger declines are a result of reduced airline capacity at the smaller regional airports as airlines cut services on thinner, less profitable routes to deal with high fuel costs and weak passenger demand resulting from the 2008/09 economic crisis and subsequent sluggish economic growth. In 2012, Logan's passenger traffic reached a new peak of 29.3 million,which represents 66 percent of the region's commercial air passengers. JetBlue's aggressive expansion and the entry of other low-cost carriers have been the primary drivers of passenger growth at Logan Airport. Massport's successful efforts to increase regional airport utilization have led to an increased role for the region's secondary airports in serving air passenger demand. Despite recent declines in passenger traffic at the T.F. Green and Manchester airports, their combined share of the Logan/T.F. Green/Manchester market area has increased from 11 percent in 1995 to 17 percent in 2012. Since 2005, commercial operations at Logan and the regional airports have declined by 2.0 percent per year and 6.2 percent per year,respectively. The downward trend in commercial aircraft operations reflects airline reductions in scheduled services, especially at the smaller airports, as well as an industry-wide shift away from small aircraft and tighter capacity control on the part of a P Regional Transportation Context airlines. Airlines have retired large numbers of the small regional jets (RJs)with 30 to 50 seats, which have proven to be cost-ineffective in the current high fuel price environment,while increasing the use of large RJs or turboprops with 60 to 90 seats. Commercial operations at Hanscom Field have historically represented less than one percent of the region's total commercial operations. IN Massport,in conjunction with the city of Worcester, has been active in promoting the reintroduction of scheduled airline service at Worcester Regional Airport. JetBlue commenced new services from Worcester to Orlando International and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood airports on November 7, 2013. 52 tie IRole of IHainscoirn Field and 1-ogain Airport in ttie Regional Airport Network w w1l @ ol1 of �iansc °ur @`1161d Hanscom Field currently serves as a premier full-service general aviation facility for the Massachusetts and New England regions with limited commercial passenger service. The airport accommodates a variety of corporate and private general aviation activities, as well as air taxi/charter, and public service operations that might otherwise use Boston-Logan International Airport. This role for Hanscom Field as a general aviation reliever with limited commercial service was established in the airport's 1978 Master Plan and clarified in Massport's 1980 Regulations. Hanscom Field does not currently play a significant role in meeting the region's scheduled commercial air travel needs. Shuttle America and Boston-Maine Airways provided limited commercial services from Hanscom in the past,but discontinued services in 2004 and 2008,respectively. Streamline Air initiated regularly scheduled service at Hanscom in April 2011,but suspended operations in September 2012. The ability of Hanscom Field to provide more significant air passenger services is affected by its proximity to several larger commercial service airports (e.g., Logan,Providence/T.F. Green and Manchester-Boston). The airport is also subject to Massport's 1980 Regulations for Hanscom Field, which restrict scheduled commercial passenger services to aircraft with 60 seats or less. 5.2.2 @Ro1e of IL_e°ugan lir1pe in By virtue of its location relative to New England's population and commercial center, Logan Airport is the region's dominant airport for scheduled commercial airline services. Logan Airport, the primary commercial airport for the core Boston metropolitan area, serves the long-haul domestic and international air travel needs of the New England region. Logan Airport also provides more than 50 daily departures to small and/or remote communities including the Cape &Islands and markets in northern New England and upstate New York, connecting these communities to the national air transportation network. 5.23 Masspoirtse1'1' u°ts to suII II oirt a reg�lor,41 a~ lillpoirt netwe°irk Massport advocates a multi-modal regional transportation policy to improve the efficient use of the region's transportation infrastructure by the appropriate expanded use of regional airports and alternative transportation modes. In response to growing congestion and delays at Logan Airport in the 1990s, Massport adopted a policy to promote increased usage and development of New England's regional airports and to support the region's inter-city rail projects. For nearly two decades,Massport has formed partnerships with federal, state and regional agencies to support an integrated regional transportation plan Regional Transportation Context that expands and improves inter-city travel options for New England through an integrated,multi-modal regional transportation network. Massport's efforts to increase regional airport utilization have led to an increased role for the region's secondary airports in serving air passenger demand. The regional airports that are closest to the Boston area and have the greatest influence on passenger traffic and aircraft activity at Logan are Providence/T.F. Green Airport in Warwick RI, Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in Manchester NH, and Worcester Regional Airport. In the late 1990s,Massport's cooperative marketing efforts with the regional airports led airlines,including Southwest Airlines, to initiate new services at T.F. Green and Manchester-Boston airports viewing them as attractive alternatives to Logan,which suffered from airside delays as well as roadway access congestion. An increase in scheduled services and the introduction of competitive airfares at the regional airports resulted in the secondary airports accommodating a higher share of the region's commercial air passengers. As shown in Figure 5-2, T.F. Green and Manchester airports have increased their share of passengers in the combined Logan/T.F. Green/Manchester market area from 11 percent in 1995 to 17 percent in 2012. 401.0% 35.0% 30.0% 27% 28°i� 28°r0 2TJ7, 27°f 24 ���,��lJd� �,,,,,:��,,,rrl�,r��n�,.,, 25% 241, 250% 25.0% 23?0 23% % 191% 20.0% . 170% ��� �.. �.. �.. �.. �.. 17% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 01.0% N N T � (f, r�l 1'-'iiigl.jre 5-2 'T III'-' Greenn aind I auncliesteirµ Sliaire of IIL ostoin Area Xirpoirt IIPa�:seingers, Note:Percent represents T.F.Green and Manchester-Boston passengers as a percent of total T.F.Green,Manchester-Boston and Logan Airport passengers. Source:Individual airport traffic reports. The T.F. Green and Manchester market share peaked at 28 percent in 2003 as the major elements of the Central Artery/Tunnel projects in Boston were nearing completion. Their market share began to decline with the introduction of low-fare JetBlue services at Logan beginning in 2004. More recently, the regional airports have been negatively affected by airline service cuts stemming from high fuel prices and weak passenger demand following the economic recession and slow recovery. Logan Airport, on the other hand,has benefitted from JetBlue's aggressive expansion at Logan,which is now a key focus city in the JetBlue network with over 100 daily departures. As shown in Figure 5-2, the T.F. Green and Manchester market share declined to approximately 17 percent in 2012.Nevertheless, the airports accommodate a greater share of the region's passengers than they did in the mid-1990s. Massport continues to support regional initiatives and efforts to promote air services at regional airports,including Worcester Regional 54 . m.. Regional Transportation Context Airport. Because of limited capacity at Logan Airport,it is expected that airlines will continue to serve the New England air travel market by offering air services from Logan as well as the outlying regional airports. Massport has also been active in promoting air service activity at Worcester Regional Airport in Worcester MA. Massport began collaborating with the City of Worcester in 1995 to identify opportunities for increasing Worcester's utilization to accommodate some of the regional demand that would otherwise use Logan Airport. Massport assumed operation of Worcester Regional Airport in 2000 and acquired the airport from the City of Worcester in June 2010. While Worcester has a long history of commercial airline services,it was served only sporadically by Allegiant Airlines and Direct Air, after 2003 when US Airways discontinued services. In April 2012, after a concerted effort by Massport and the local Worcester community to recruit air carriers to the airport,JetBlue announced new services from Worcester to Orlando International and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood airports.JetBlue began operating one daily roundtrip to each Florida destination November 7, 2013. As part of its regional approach,Massport is committed to maintaining Hanscom Field as a vital transportation resource within the regional airport system. Hanscom Field will continue to function within the regional airport network primarily as a general aviation reliever for Logan Airport and as the region's premier, full service general aviation and business aviation airport with limited commercial passenger service. Table 5-1 compares general aviation operations for Hanscom Field to other general aviation reliever and commercial service airports in the greater Boston metropolitan area. In 2012, Hanscom handled nearly 165,000 general aviation operations, approximately 32 percent of total general aviation operations in the region. Hanscom remains the busiest general aviation facility in the region and the primary general aviation reliever for Boston-Logan International Airport. Hanscom handled almost six times as many general aviation operations as Boston-Logan International Airport in 2012.Norwood Municipal,the next busiest general aviation airport in the Greater Boston area,handled approximately 68,000 annual general aviation operations, about 59 percent fewer operations than Hanscom. Overall, general aviation operations in the greater Boston area fell by 3.2 percent per year between 2005 and 2012, consistent with the national trend. General aviation operations at all U.S.towered airports declined by 3.6 percent per year from 2005 to 2012.28 High fuel prices, a weak economy and a decline in the number of student pilots over the past decade have depressed the overall demand for general aviation. An even sharper drop in general aviation operations occurred following the global credit crisis,the 2008/09 economic recession in the U.S. and a reduction in the use of corporate air transportation by many businesses. Over a two-year period from 2007 to 2009,general aviation operations in the U.S. fell by 15.5 percent.29 28 FAA. Aerospace Forecast,FY2013-FY2033 29 Ibid. Regional Transportation Context Tai)Ue 5-1 GeinemaU AV�otbin Opeiratbins, at GeinemaU AV�otbin 116U�eveir aind Commmmeird4U SeirV�ce Xirpoirts �in the Bostoin MetmmpdU�4ain Area Portsmouth International General Aviation 32,586 38,132 2.3% 67.7% 117 Boston Logan International Commercial Service 32,652 28,144 -2.1% 0.0% - 1. Includes air taxi operations except for Manchester-Boston Airport,where air taxi operations counts are comingled with regional commuter airline operations. 2. Hanscom Field based aircraft are from Massport records. All other based aircraft from FAA, Terminal Area Forecast. Sources:Massa hu"etmport Authority;Federal Aviation Administration,ATADS;and FAA,Terminal Area Forecast,December 2012. General aviation activity levels at Hanscom Field have remained relatively stable in recent years. Between 2007 and 2012, general aviation and military operations at Hanscom declined slightly by an average 0.1 percent per year.While Hanscom's current general aviation operations are still substantially lower than previous peak levels (over 204,000 general aviation operations in 2000), the airport has continued to accommodate a very strong level of general aviation demand and has performed well relative to other general aviation reliever airports in the region.With its proximity to Boston, as well as the growing metro-west suburbs and Route 128/1-495-area businesses, Hanscom is expected to continue to be the principal airport for meeting the region's corporate and business aviation needs. 5A Regional Ca0000ercial Service Treinds The region's air passengers are primarily served by a network of commercial service airports throughout the oix'oto10 region. Figure 5'2 depicts the airports that are included in the FAA's New England Regional Airport System Plan. Boston-Logan International Airport,the largest of New England's oonnnnoroiol oondoo airports, oorvod29.3 million passengers or about 68 percent ofthe rogion'o air passengers in20|2. The other commercial airports range in size from the Bradley International Airport in Hartford, Connecticut,which served 5.4 million commercial passengers in 2012, to Pease International Tradeport in Portsmouth,New Hampshire,which oorvod26,820 commercial passengers in20|2. In addition to its role as ogononU aviation facility, Hanscom Field has also accommodated limited commercial airline services in the past. Throughout the |980o, Hanscom received small regional airline services to small commuter markets in New England and up-state New York. After a hiatus during most of the 1990o, commercial airline service was reintroduced o1 Hanscom in September 1999,xhon SboUlo America began scheduled services at the airport. Hanscom supported limited regional airline services operated by Shuttle America and Boston-Maine Airways through the beginning of 2008,when scheduled services ceased. In April 2011, Streamline Air launched regularly scheduled flights between Hanscom and Trenton,New Jersey.1{ovrovor, Streamline suspended all services in Soptombor20|2 and there is currently no oobodolod commercial oondoo at the airport. 56 Regional Transportation Context ano r e,4 Sud n t ra artimi r �4r�rri i u rIrrr HMford- Provwanco- q �arMl ,_ ra v I''='iiig.jire 5-1 Il ew IlEungII4ond Coirnirneir64I Seirviiice Xirpoirts .4w1I Oe°irnirreneua° li4II alli°Ill Ine tirend The larger regional commercial service airports attracted new low-fare services and experienced strong passenger growth from the late 1990s through 2005. Southwest Airlines expanded into the New England market through the region's secondary airports rather than Logan Airport, introducing service first at T.F. Green(1996) and then at Manchester-Boston (1998) and Hartford-Bradley(1999). As regional airports gained more nonstop service to both origin-destination(O&D)markets and airline connecting hubs, the region became less reliant on Logan Airport for scheduled commercial airline services. Logan Airport experienced a rapid increase in low cost carrier(LCC) services starting in 2004 when JetBlue entered the Boston market. Since then,JetBlue has grown to be the largest carrier at Logan, accounting for 21 percent of aircraft operations and 25 percent of total passengers in 2012. Other LCC entrants such as Southwest Airlines and Virgin America have also contributed to recent passenger growth at Logan. The expansion of JetBlue and other low-fare services at Logan has contributed to Logan's increased share of regional air passengers. The challenging airline operating environment has also affected smaller communities disproportionately in recent years.Unprecedented increases in fuel prices over the past decade resulted in steep increases in airline operating costs. Airlines have been forced to eliminate less profitable routes, cut frequencies in smaller markets and reduce flying with small regional jets which are uneconomical to operate at when fuel prices are high. The global economic downturn in 2008 and 2009 further reduced passenger demand and resulted in widespread airline capacity reductions,particularly at the smaller regional airports. While the majority of the service cuts were completed by 2010, airlines have remained conservative with growth plans and have not increased overall capacity significantly at regional airports across the U.S. 5.4.2 Oe°irnirreneircl 1 alli°Ill Ine passengeirs Table 5-2 presents the change in commercial airline passenger levels at Hanscom, Logan Airport and other New England commercial airports between 2005 and 2012. Over this period, combined passenger !T I d I) 7 Regional Transportation Context boDfioo1 the smaller regional airports declined o1on average rate of47 percent per year compared 0o Logan,where passenger boDfioincreased bv |.| percent per year. Passenger levels o1 Hanscom fluctuated oo carriers exited and entered the market. 1{on000nn`y commercial passenger buffioin20|2,when Streamline Air ceased services,was more than 50 percent lower than the passenger traffic accommodated in2005. l.ogun`y passenger traffic fell between 2007und20|0duutowoukuningpuyyungurdunuunddudngdho economic recession and airline consolidation,but has since recovered and reached a new peak in 2012. Passenger growth at Logan was driven primarily by the aggressive expansion of JetBlue and other LCCs u1 the airport. Ln20|2, l.ogun`y passenger todfioreached o new peak of29.3 million and represented 66 percent ofthe rugion`y air passengers. Passenger levels o1 the regional airports have declined steeply inrecent years, similar to trends o1other onnoll regional airports oor000 the nation. From 2005 to 2012,the combined passenger traffic o1T.F. Green and Manchester-Boston airports fell by 39 percent. Total passenger traffic o1 the regional airports in New England dropped by 29 percent, or 4.7 percent per year. The passenger declines are a result of reduced airline oopooi[y at the smaller regional airports as airlines cut services on thinner, less profitable routes to deal with high fuel costs and weak passenger demand. Tai)Ue 5-2 �3assein0eir AcCV4y at L.o0ain Xirpoirt" 11ainscomm ���U�" aind Otlier��New, Ein0U4nd Commmmeird4U SeiiV�ce Xirpoirts 11MI 1411 11111 !M11111111 mmil Regional Airports Sources:Massachusetts Port Authority and individual airport data 5.43 Co0000eiI,641 a�IiIU�lne qpeiratlons Commercial airline aircraft operations for Hanscom, Logan and the regional airports for 2005 and 2012 are shown in Table 5'3. Logan Airport,the busiest airport inthe region for commercial airline service, handled over 326,700 commercial airline operations or55 percent of the rugion`y commercial operations in20|2. The regional airports combined accounted for approximately 263,400 commercial operations in 20|2, representing 45 percent of commercial operations in the region. Commercial operations declined at both Logan Airport and the regional airports between 2005 and 2012. This bond roDooto reductions in oobodolod services, oopooiollv at the smaller airports, as well as on 5-F3 Regional Transportation Context industry-wide shift away from small aircraft and tighter capacity control on the part of airlines. Airlines have retired large numbers of the small regional jets (RJs)with 30 to 50 seats,which have proven to be cost-ineffective in the current high fuel price environment,while increasing the use of large RJs or turboprops with 60 to 90 seats. This ongoing emphasis on restrained capacity growth and larger,more fuel-efficient aircraft has led to increased passenger load factors and a drop in commercial operations across the industry. Since 2005, commercial operations at Logan and the regional airports have declined by 2.0 percent per year and 6.2 percent per year,respectively.Nationwide, commercial airline operations (including regional commuter carriers) declined by 2.8 percent annually over the same period. Commercial operations at Hanscom Field have historically represented less than one percent of the region's total commercial operations. In 2005, Boston Maine Airways conducted approximately 3,600 aircraft operations at Hanscom. In 2012, Streamline Air performed 635 aircraft operations before suspending services in September 2012. TaIt)Ille 5-3 Coimnimneirdi4ll Xircira t Crlpeiratliioins, at IIL.ot1ain Xirpoirt, Il11ain�:coimn II1'-1iekl, aind Otlier IlNew, IlEunt1II4ond Coimnimnieirdi4II ei lite Xirlpoirts In .� O v go i - - Logan Airport 376,414 326,755 -2.0% 55.4% Regional Airports Bradley International, CT 119,048 79,503 -5.6% 13.5% T.F. Green, RI 89,489 50,301 -7.9% 8.5% Manchester-Boston, NH 76,115 45,379 -7.1% 7.7% Portland International Jetport, ME 42,661 33,118 -3.6% 5.6% Burlington International,VT 43,987 27,067 -6.7% 4.6% Bangor International, ME 25,924 16,128 -6.6% 2.7% Portsmouth International, NH 2,303 5,722 13.9% 1.0% Tweed New Haven, CT 6,137 3,936 -6.1% 0.7% Worcester Regional, MA 2,727 1,639 -7.0% 0.3% Hanscom Field, MA 3,627 635 -22.0% 0.1% Subtotal Regional Airports 412,018 263,428 -6.2% 44.6% Total New England Airports 788,432 590,183 -4.1% 100.0% Notes: 1. May include some air taxi operations at airports other than Logan, Hanscom and Worcester. Sources:Massachusetts Port Authority;Federal Aviation Administration,ATADS and Terminal Area Forecasts 5.5 Regional Airport IIIIun"tt proveirneint IPlains and (Project The following section describes airport improvement projects being planned or underway at the regional airports. w w1l denscoir @`116l1d 1Bedloird IIY A Massport continues to invest in Hanscom Field to improve and upgrade facilities and maintain a safe, secure and efficient airport. Past and future capital investments ensure that Hanscom can continue to serve its role as a general aviation reliever to Logan with limited commercial passenger service and premiere business aviation facility for the region. In FY 2012, Massport invested $3.4 million in airfield, terminal, equipment and other facility improvements at Hanscom. These airport improvement projects l.0 1X Regional Transportation Context are summarized here and described in more detail in Chapter 4, Airport Planning, as well as in the annual report on The State of Hanscom. Massport's FY 2012 capital investment projects at Hanscom included: IN Relocating portions of the perimeter road at the approach to Runway 11 to comply with FAA Runway Safety Area mandates. IN Maintenance of vegetation removal areas and the trail system that connects two Massport-owned parcels with portions of conservation land and open spaces in the towns of Bedford and Concord. In addition, Massport performed aerial photogrammetric mapping as part of its five-year Vegetation Management Plan update. IN Implementation of an enhanced Access Control System in conjunction with the replacement of a portion of the perimeter fence which had reached the end of its useful life. IN Signage and landscape improvements along the airport entrance. Planned projects for FY 2013 and beyond include: �IN Relocation of portions of the perimeter road at the approach to Runway 29 to comply with FAA Runway Safety Area mandates. �IN Rehabilitation of pavement areas along the entry roadway. �IN Airfield pavement replacement will continue to bean ongoing project incoming years. In addition to Massport's investments,the Authority solicits third-party development of facilities that support and enhance Hanscom's role in the regional transportation system. Many of the hangars at Hanscom are owned or leased by tenants who are responsible for maintaining them. On-going third-party projects at Hanscom include the following: IN In 2012, Rectrix Aviation was selected by Massport to develop FBO facilities at the former Hangar 24 site at Hanscom Field and also at the Worcester Regional Airport. Demolition of the Hangar 24 was completed in September 2012 and Rectrix began construction of the new hangar and FBO facilities at both airports in 2013.Project completion for the new FBO facilities at both airports is expected by early 2014. IN The Massport Board approved a proposal by Jet Aviation, a current FBO operator at Hanscom, to replace Hangar 17 with a more modern facility. In 2012, Jet Aviation initiated the planning and design process and permitting is underway as of the date of this document. w w T]". ;qua° r iI iia,c�,vliid r c airwilck Rli In September 2011, the FAA issued a favorable Record of Decision(ROD) approving the Preferred Alternative for the T.F. Green Airfield Improvement Program,which will allow an extension to the airport's main runway to allow for nonstop flights to the West Coast. In January 2013,the FAA issued a final Written Reevaluation of the ROD, as project design and construction phasing has changed since the ROD was issued. Construction of project elements of the T.F. Green Airfield Improvement Program began in July 2013 and is expected to continue through December 2017. The Airfield Improvement Program includes the following projects: IN Phase 1 of the Runway 16 End Safety Area Improvements project will be completed by the end of 2013.Phase 1 involves preparation of the site of the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), airfield electrical improvements on the Runway 16 end and reconfiguration of the taxi lane from the northeast ramp to the Runway 16 end. 1() . I.. Regional Transportation Context IN Phase 2 of the Runway 16 End Safety Area Improvements project,which involves installation of the EMAS,will begin in May 2014 and is expected to be completed in June 2014. IN The demolition of Hanger 1 will also be completed by the end of 2013. In addition to the hangar removal, this project involves the construction of an aircraft parking apron in a portion of the former hanger's footprint. IN Construction of a Deicer Management System,which will collect and treat the glycol used to de- ice aircraft at T.F. Green,will begin in the spring of 2013. The system is expected to be operational by the end of 2015. IN The Runway 34 End Safety Area Improvements project will commence in May 2014. Major elements of the project include the reconstruction of 1,600 feet of Runway 16-34, EMAS construction at the Runway 34 end,partial reconstruction of Taxiway C,installation of new edge lights on taxiway C, and construction of the associated airport service road. IN FAA System Upgrades,which will proceed concurrently with the Runway 34 Safety Area Improvement project,will include improvements to the approach lighting system and Glide Slope Antenna. IN The Runway 5 End Extension project is expected to begin in 2016 and be completed by the end of 2017. This project involves extension of the Runway from its current length of 7,166 feet to 8,700 feet,which will allow T.F. Green to handle aircraft capable of long haul flights to West Coast destinations. The project also involves an extension of the parallel Taxiway M and construction of an EMAS at the Runway 5 end. 5 I a r Ism rl ua° 11e°,s,do,r, Aliiva°Ilpoirt II ancti :steir M Since the early 1990s, over$500 million was invested in Manchester-Boston Airport to improve and develop landside and airside facilities and infrastructure.Projects included a 158,000 square foot passenger terminal and two subsequent 75,000 square foot terminal additions, a 4,800 space parking garage with an elevated pedestrian walkway connection to the terminal,roadway improvements and extensive runway reconstruction and lengthening. Recent customer service enhancement initiatives have included the construction of a new cell phone lot in 2007 for motorists waiting to pick up passengers and various concessions improvements through 2008 and 2009. Manchester-Boston Regional Airport completed an Airport Master Plan Update in 2011. The master plan update provides a blueprint for development and improvement of airport facilities and infrastructure through 2030. Recent and on-going improvement projects at the airport include: IN The Terminal Ramp Replacement Project to rehabilitate the concrete apron areas adjacent to the terminal building began in 2012 and is anticipated to be completed in 2013. IN Demolition of structures in the runway protection zone (RPZ) of Runway 06 involves the removal of buildings with usages deemed non-compatible with RPZs as defined by the FAA. Elements of the project include the demolition of the Highlander Inn and Conference Center and associated buildings. IN Upgrades to the terminal building HVAC systems will address certain deficiencies in the terminal cooling system and will provide significant improvements to customer comfort levels within areas of the terminal building. Other potential projects over the coming years include: �� Roadway and parking improvements; Regional Transportation Context IN Curbside enhancements; IN Refurbishing and expansion of baggage claim equipment; IN Construction of a glycol collection/treatment facility; and IN Construction of a snow removal equipment storage building. 5.4 Biractley Iintei riatiior,4II Aliiva`Ilpoirt, �iairtioird C'T A $200 million airport modernization project at Bradley International Airport was completed in 2010. Originally launched in 2000, the modernization project introduced a refurbished and expanded Terminal A with an additional 260,000 square feet of new concourse, ticket counters and waiting areas, major gate renovations, and a state-of-the-art security and communications system. A 28,000 square feet International Arrivals Building was also completed. In 2011, the Connecticut Airport Authority(CAA)was established to oversee the operation and development of Bradley International Airport. The CAA, a quasi-public agency consisting of an 11-member board,will manage day-to-day operations at Bradley International Airport, as well as at five GA airports in Connecticut. The goal of the CAA is to transform Bradley International Airport and the state's five GA airports (Danielson, Groton/New London,Hartford Brainard,Waterbury-Oxford, and Windham airports)into economic drivers for the state. Bradley International Airport was previously run by a board under the Connecticut Department of Transportation. A three-year renovation project for the airport hotel, the Sheraton Bradley Airport Hotel,was completed in 2011, featuring newly outfitted guest rooms, a redesigned lobby, and an expanded fitness center and pool. The 2010-2013 Bradley International Airport Strategic Plan highlights several airport improvement projects between 2012 and 2013. These projects include: IN A sound insulation program; IN The rehabilitation of Taxiway C North; IN The rehabilitation of Taxiway C South; IN Utility relocation and obstruction removal; IN The demolition of old Murphy Terminals and design of new Terminal B; and IN Construct roadway realignment. The airport's $280 million capital improvement program for FY 2014—FY 2018 includes the following projects: IN A consolidated rental car facility; IN Demolition of the Murphy Terminal; IN Roadway demolition and re-alignment; IN Utility relocation; and IN Airfield improvements. 5.5 We°ircesteir @Regilor,4II Alii11]I)0111, Woircesteir,, IIY A The Worcester Regional Airport Master Plan Update, completed in 2008,was funded by the FAA and the former Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC). The Worcester Master Plan provides a strategic guide to airport development through 2020.Near-term projects were focused on maintaining essential operations, safety and security functions and included runway pavement reconstruction, runway safety area upgrades, and a vegetation removal and maintenance plan. Long-term initiatives include upgraded corporate/GA facilities including a FBO facility and hangars, a new Airport Rescue and Firefighting 512 . I.. Regional Transportation Context Facility(ARFF) and ongoing runway and taxiway pavement rehabilitation.Various demand driven projects including terminal enhancements and additional parking facilities were also identified; however, these projects depend on the level and type of future aviation activity realized at Worcester Regional Airport. Massport is currently pursuing enhancements to Worcester's all-weather capability including upgrading the Runway 11 Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) from a Category I to a Category III system, and its associated required infrastructure and navigation aids along with a partial parallel taxiway. This project is a safety and operational priority for the Airport. The following near-term projects identified in the Worcester Master Plan were completed as of 2011: �IN Installed engineered materials arresting system (EMAS) on the Runway 29 End; �IN Resurfaced 3,000 feet of Runway 11; �IN Installed EMAS on the Runway 11 End; and �IN Resurfaced 4,000 feet of Runway 29 and reconstructed Taxiway Delta. In January 2012,Massport approved a proposal by Rectrix Aviation to develop an aircraft hangar and office space at Worcester Regional Airport as part of as joint solicitation for new FBO facilities at Worcester and Hanscom. Construction started on the $6.7 million project in August 2013. The Rectrix project includes 27,000-square-feet of hangar and office space that will house large corporate jets and a regional aircraft maintenance facility. Rectrix will offer private jet charters and FBO services,including transient aircraft parking and fueling services from the new hangar facility. Massport has committed to invest in the following additional airside and landside improvement projects over the next few years: IN Installation of a new terminal roof and HVAC system; IN Airside and landside pavement rehabilitation; IN Rehabilitation of the existing ARFF station; IN Security improvements; IN Obstruction removal; and IN Category III ILS upgrade and related taxiway improvements. . 1-oing-Rainge IRegional Tra ins Iportation PII i i Iin This section reports on state and regional planning efforts to achieve a balanced regional intermodal transportation network to reduce reliance on Logan Airport and provide travelers with a greater range of long-distance,intercity transportation options. The unified MassDOT brought together many Commonwealth entities which plan,build, own, operate and maintain all modes of transportation,under a five-member board of directors. (Massport remains an independent authority focused on airport and seaport needs with its own board of directors,including the Secretary of MassDOT.) The creation of MassDOT was intended to help integrate, coordinate and prioritize multimodal transportation policy and investment in Massachusetts,resulting in a more effective, efficient, equitable,rational and innovative transportation system. In 2012, MassDOT continued to make strides in improving the existing transportation infrastructure by addressing structurally deficient infrastructure with innovative construction techniques, developing a comprehensive environmental responsibility and sustainability initiative and continuing to invest in the Boston metropolitan area's rapid transit. E' 7 1.dn 5 13 Regional Transportation Context As a fundamental part of the transportation framework in the Boston metropolitan area, and for all of New England, Massport supports an integrated multimodal transportation policy to improve the efficient use of transportation infrastructure on both o metropolitan and o regional scale. 5.6.11 �Reg�lor,41Av�latlon Econo00!cK00�pact Study The Aeronautics Division of MassDOT completed a wide-ranging economic impact study of the statewide airports system's (the 39 public use airports including Logan Airport)contribution to the economy ofMassachusetts. The analysis found that Massachusetts public use airports generated $||9 billion in total economic activity,including $49 billion in total annual payroll resulting from 124,369 jobs that can be traced to the aviation industry. In particular, Massport's three airports are noted to make significant contributions to the regional economy generating approximately $|0.3 billion or87 percent of the overall economic benefits generated by the Massachusetts airport system. Specifically, Logan Airport supported over 94,000 jobs in Massachusetts and the total economic impact is now estimated at approximately $8.87 billion per year and Worcester Regional Airport supported 418 jobs with a total economic impact of$51.5 million. Hanscom Field is particularly important for its function as the airfield for Hanscom Air Force E|000, on oodvo military facility,which is aided bv its proximity hu E|ooton'oroo technology and research industry. Hanscom Field alone supports 1,551 jobs and generates 249 million in economic activity,but combined with Hanscom AFE| they together support ||,765 jobs and have ototal economic impact ofS|4 billion. For every $|00 spent bv aviation-related businesses, onadditional multiplier impact of$56io created within Massachusetts according to the study. While the economic impact of the region's airports was the focus of the study, it also noted qualitative benefits of the state's airports including: IN Facilitating emergency medical transport; IN Providing police support; IN Supporting aerial surveying, photography, and inspection operations; IN Conducting oomnb'ond'r000uooperations; IN Supporting the U.S.military and other government operations; and IN Providing youth outreach activities. 5.6.2 Massactiusetts Statew'ilde A�Iir�poirt System RUan flMSASP) The MassDOT Aeronautics Division(formerly the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission or MAC) completed the M00000b000Uo Sto1ovrido Airport System Plan (MSAS9) in20|0. The MSAS9provides d � ��policy �� � du | � development f� Commonwealth's d t It guidance nu m r long nno umrpo o�oonn� documents the status of the current airport system; provides olong term vision for the system; identifies system goals and related improvements; establishes priorities for system and airport funding; and provides supporting data and materials. 5.63 Boston UReg�lon L-ong-teir00 Vls�lon Massport is a member of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Boston MPO developed a long-range vision for the region and its transportation network out to the year 2035. The vision described by the Boston MPO identifies the Boston metropolitan region as continuing to be an economic, educational and cultural hub that will continue to contribute too high quality of life. The high quality of life will be supported by a well-maintained transportation system consisting of safe,healthy, efficient and varied options. The variety of transportation options will allow people to find jobs and Regional Transportation Context services within easy reach of affordable housing, and will reduce environmental impacts thereby improving air and environmental quality. This vision is possible through attentive maintenance, cost- effective management and strategic investment in the region's transportation system. The Long Range Transportation Plan recognizes that Hanscom support air transport of light cargo. 5.6.4 Stat wliid IL-ong-t iri "I`ua° Its e°qua°I Iliie°� is life°n MassDOT is currently undertaking the Commonwealth's first statewide strategic multi-modal transportation plan known as weMove Massachusetts. weMove Massachusetts'purpose is to inform MassDOT's choices as to how to invest the agency's limited resources. The goals of weMove Massachusetts is to engage stakeholders through a bottom-up approach as well as internal agency stakeholders in a discussion about the present and future needs of the transportation system, to build action-oriented policies based on stakeholder feedback that can serve as a bridge between MassDOT's values and investments, and to develop a forward thinking, data-driven, decision-making methodology to assist MassDOT in implementing its priorities transparently and measurably. Massport was an active participant in the development of the MassDOT's Rail Plan and Freight Plan. The Massachusetts State Rail Plan is the Commonwealth's 20-year plan for the state's rail system (through 2030) and describes a set of strategies and initiatives aimed at enhancing rail transportation so that it can effectively fulfill its critical role in the state's multimodal transportation network. MassDOT's vision for passenger and freight service is to"develop an efficient intercity passenger and freight rail system that is the logical mode of choice for travelers and shippers, connects travelers and businesses to the national and global transportation network, encourages sustainable economic growth throughout the state, and enables Massachusetts to compete in the rapidly changing global economy." The plan describes recent improvements to extend the MBTA to T.F. Green Airport, the opportunity of high speed rail service in reducing air traffic congestion, and need for connecting rail to Worcester Regional Airport. The Freight Plan describes the important role that Logan and Worcester play is the air transport of freight and important connections with highway and railway networks. Massport has a representative on the weMove Massachusetts Stakeholder Advisory Group. 5.7.5 V4ew, I inglland @Regilor,4II AliIirlpe°in System I lan (KEI SP) In fall of 2006,the FAA New England Region,in concert with the New England Airport Directors and New England State Aviation Directors, completed the NERASP. The results of this study describe the foundation of a regional strategy for the air carrier airport system to support the needs of air passengers through 2020. To date, the development of that strategy has been instrumental in facilitating the investment and development of the primary commercial airport system in New England. The New England state aviation officials,in partnership with the FAA, are currently conducting a study of the GA airport system in New England,including primary commercial service airports that service a GA component. During preparation of the 2006 NERASP study which analyzed the primary commercial airports in New England, the group recognized that a similar evaluation of GA would also prove useful. It would provide state aviation officials with a greater understanding of airport roles and infrastructure investment. Faced with the current struggling economy, rising airport and aircraft operational costs, declining operational activity, an aging infrastructure and with limited state and federal funds to address improvements, the importance of developing both a short-range and long-range perspective on the future performance of the New England GA airport system is clear. Regional Transportation Context This assessment of the New England GA airport system will provide state aviation officials with a common understanding of their state airport system in relation to the New England region as a whole. Assisted by this information, the FAA will be better positioned to make decisions regarding priority capital investments. Moreover, the NERASP study proved that the geographic boundary of the New England region, as well as its cultural identity,makes an overall study of New England an effective planning approach. Information on the NERASP GA study can be found at 1n p- 5.6.5 Conference of V4ew, I inglland Goveirnoirs and Eastern Canacllan I ireirrenlei:s The Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP)is a formally established body which coordinates regional policy programs in the areas of economic development, transportation, environment, energy and health, among others. The NEG/ECP focuses on aviation and intercity passenger rail,particularly in the northeastern coastal mega-region, as part of a larger transportation system that needs modal balance. Efficient use of this multi-state network affects the overall viability of the highway, aviation, freight and commuter rail transportation networks that serve the region and the nation. Improved planning coordination between airports and intercity passenger rail services and related ground transportation offers the potential to achieve complementary investments in airport and rail capacity and services. MassDOT has a representative on the NEG/ECP Transportation and Air Quality Committee which covers regional transportation issues and infrastructure development,use, and efficiency. The NEG/ECP and other policy decision makers throughout the region have been able to utilize strategies and information developed in the NERASP,which provides a framework for integrated regional aviation policy and planning. This organization serves an important function to help achieve a greater balance between air,rail and auto trips, and ultimately help to increase overall transportation capacity without overburdening Logan Airport and the New England aviation system. In 2011, the NEG/ECP passed a resolution on transportation which provided direction on enhancing alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure in the region,increasing multi-modal transportation options, and improving freight and passenger rail networks. In August 2012,the New England Governors' Conference, Inc. was absorbed into the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG). The CONEG recognizes the unique characteristics of the Northeast's transportation system and focuses its priority transportation initiatives on the region's intercity and commuter passenger rail systems and surface transportation network. 5.7 Regional Rail Trainsportation This section reports on recent developments and current long-distance rail service originating in Boston, the status of air-rail linkages in the Northeast Corridor, and the expanding Pilgrim Partnership which provides commuter rail between Massachusetts and Rhode Island. .7.11 Airrentira k V4oirttieast Ooirirliide°it Kilgty-S�pee 1 Rai11 Amtrak's Northeast Corridor(NEC)is an intercity rail line that operates between Boston-South Station and Washington, DC via New York City. Other major destinations served by the route include Providence, RI;New Haven, CT;Philadelphia,PA; and Baltimore, MD. Logan Airport passengers can connect directly to Boston-South Station via Silver Line bus rapid transit(BRT) service or via taxi. Amtrak operates two services between Boston and Washington, DC: the Acela Express (high-speed, limited-stop service) and the Northeast Regional(lower-speed service that makes local stops along the 5 (6 . m.. Regional Transportation Context route). Travel times on the Acela Express range from 3.5 hours from Boston to New York to just over 6.5 hours from Boston to Washington, DC. Travel times on the Northeast Regional range from about 4.25 hours from Boston to New York to approximately 7.75 hours from Boston to Washington, DC. A total of 19 daily departures are offered from Boston-South Station to Penn Station in New York, of which about half are Acela Express. Most trains continue south to Washington, DC, and a smaller number of Northeast Regional trains continue further south to Newport News,VA. System-wide Amtrak ridership was 31.2 million one-way trips in Fiscal Year 2012. The NEC represented 37 percent of total system-wide Amtrak ridership. In Fiscal Year 2012, the NEC carried 11.4 million passengers, an increase of 4.8 percent over FY 2011.Acela Express accounted for nearly 3.4 million passengers,while the Northeast Regional accounted for 8.0 million passengers. Overall NEC ridership reached a new record in 2012, surpassing the previous 2011 peak of 10.9 million passengers. Amtrak's share of the Northeast total passenger market has increased substantially since the introduction of Acela service in 2000. Amtrak captures approximately 54 percent of the total air/rail market between Boston and New York,up from 20 percent in 2000,before the introduction of Acela. Several developments and trends have contributed to Amtrak's ridership growth including the introduction of passenger conveniences such as Wi-Fi and eTicketing,high gas prices, overall growth in business travel in the NEC, the growing appeal and acceptance of rail travel, and traveler frustration with increasing highway congestion and the hassles of airline travel. 5.7.2 V' oua°thea t Ooiririiide°it 1 1ua° iva° i ua° IIMasteir IPlan and V' i-Genei°ailiie°n Kilgti S�pee 1 Rai11 Plan The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan, a new regional rail planning study,was released in May 2010. The Master Plan documents NEC growth needs through 2030,including expanded capacity and improvements in Boston-New York and New York-Washington intercity travel times. A 76 percent increase in rail ridership from 13 million to 23 million, a 36 percent increase in train movements from 154 to 210 average weekday, and the need for$52 billion in additional capital investment is expected over the next 20 years. Following up on the release of the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan,Amtrak also unveiled a Next-Generation High-Speed Rail proposal in September 2010 titled A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor. The proposal outlines a brand-new 426-mile two-track corridor running from Boston to Washington, offering high-speed rail service with sustained maximum speeds of 220 mph. The route would allow for an 84 minute trip time between Boston and New York and a three-hour trip time between Boston and Washington.Under this Next-Generation high speed rail plan, the New York City— Boston market would see a further shift from auto and air to rail due to the dramatic improvements in rail travel times, and projects the air market between the two city-pairs to be nearly eliminated by 2050. This plan states that the traveler shift to high speed rail would reduce delays on competing modes (air and auto) and the shift away from shorter and smaller intraregional flights would free up air transport capacity for higher-value transcontinental and international flights. An update to the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan and A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor was released in July 2012. Since these two documents were released,the two programs have been integrated into a single, coherent service and investment program, called the Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Program. The Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Program would advance the near-term projects outlined in the Master Plan to benefit the NEC while incrementally phasing improvements to the Acela high-speed service to support the next-generation high-speed rail Regional Transportation Context proposed. The near-term NEC improvements are identified to occur between 2012 and 2025 and the long-term Next-Generation High-Speed Rail improvements are identified to occur between 2025 and 2040. The publication of the 2012 update is the first step in"improving the NEC for all users in order to sustainably support the population and economic growth facing the Northeast over the next 30 years"but considerable more planning work is required by all stakeholders. In 2011, the U.S. DOT awarded Amtrak and the New York State DOT $745 million for two high-speed rail projects on the Northeast Corridor. A major upgrade to tracks and overhead wires will be conducted along a 24-mile stretch in New Jersey, allowing for an improvement in Acela express train speeds from 135 mph today to 160 mph.Improvements to the Harold railroad interlocking in Queens,NY will also be completed, eliminating delays and reducing commuting time for Amtrak riders. 5.73 Boston-South Station I i llpan life°n In support of the Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Program, MassDOT is designing and planning the expansion of the Boston-South Station to meet the infrastructure and capacity needs of the NEC. At present, South Station operates above its design capacity for efficient train operations and orderly passenger queuing. Operating with only 13 tracks, the current South Station constrains the current and future rail mobility within Massachusetts and through New England and the NEC. The proposed expansion of South Station will result in the following benefits to rail mobility: IN Improve the performance of existing and future high-speed and intercity passenger rail service to and from Boston. Today's NEC on-time performance is approximately 85 percent for Acela Express and 75 percent for Northeast Regional trains. The 2030 target for on-time performance is 95 percent for Acela Express and 90 percent for Northeast Regional. Without expanding South Station and its support facilities,not only will these targets be missed,but on-time performance will deteriorate even further in the future. IN Enable growth in high-speed and other intercity passenger rail service in the northeastern U.S., at a time when both the roadway and aviation networks are at or over capacity. IN Support sustainable economic growth and improved quality of life in NEC metropolitan areas, including Boston. IN Support a more attractive and increased MBTA Commuter Rail service,with associated benefits such as increased statewide transportation access, environmental sustainability, and improved personal mobility. In order for the South Station expansion to move forward,the U.S.Postal Service Distribution Facility located adjacent to South Station must be relocated. Massport is working with MassDOT in evaluating suitable locations,including Massport-owned property, for a relocation site in South Boston. .7.4 Airrentirak Downeast it @Ra11 Seirvllce The Downeaster is a regional passenger rail service that is managed by the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority and operated by Amtrak. The service links Boston's North Station to Brunswick, Maine with 10 intermediate stops. Five daily roundtrips are operated between Boston and Portland,Maine and three trains continue on to Brunswick. In FY 2012, ridership on the Downeaster set a new record increasing by 4.3 percent over the prior year to more than 541,000 passengers. 5 (8 Regional Transportation Context .7. I IiiIllgir°iirren I airtneirsItil!ilp Ooirnim teir Rai11 Seirvllces The Pilgrim Partnership is an arrangement between the MBTA and the Rhode Island Department of Transportation(RIDOT),under which RIDOT allocates some of its federal funding to the MBTA in return for commuter rail service between Boston from Rhode Island. Eighteen daily round-trips are provided between Boston and Providence. Expanded commuter rail service to T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, RI was introduced in 2010. Travel time between Boston and Warwick is approximately 1.25 hours, and 10 of the 18 daily Boston-Providence departures currently continue on to Warwick. Expanded service to Wickford Junction Station in Kingstown, RI commenced in 2012. The extended commuter rail enhances ground access options from the Boston metro area to T.F. Green Airport. Based on the NERASP Study, the passenger catchment areas of T.F. Green and Logan Airport overlap, and this new commuter rail service has the potential to attract passengers in the overlapping catchment area living along the Providence/Stoughton MBTA commuter rail line to T.F. Green Airport. 5.8 Airport (137round Access himproveirneints w wll "I`]". Gireen Iirvtei°IL lilnk F'a611HIt , The new InterLink, an intermodal transportation hub near T.F. Green Airport, opened on October 27, 2010. The InterLink serves multiple transportation functions,including: Rhode Island Public Transit Authority(RIPTA)bus service; Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority(MBTA) commuter train service between Warwick,Providence, and Boston; a consolidated car rental facility, and parking (for commuter rail service only); and a direct pedestrian link to the airport terminal. The rail platform is integrated with a consolidated rental car facility that houses airport rental car operations. w w IL-ong-t iri e°ircestei° Roadway adw y Iiirrenllpirov irre ervt In 2008, the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission(CMRPC)initiated the Worcester Regional Mobility Study that was envisioned as a transportation plan with the goal of improving the movement of people and goods through the Greater Worcester Region. The final Study was released in May 2011. One of the Study's objectives was to improve ground transportation access between the regional roadways and Worcester Regional Airport within the context of an"economic development corridor"that could benefit other local businesses. Several alternative routes were identified and recommended for further study including a new interchange off the Interstate 90 in the vicinity of Route 56. The Study also assessed a range of alternatives to address regional mobility concerns and recommended thirteen roadway infrastructure improvement intended to reduce congestion, enhance regional mobility and address existing interchange/intersection constraints. The study presented the recommended phasing and packaging of recommended alternatives into short-term (0 to five years),mid- term(five to ten years) and long-term actions (over ten years). 5.83 Near-teirirre Woircesteir 1Dilireatilor,4II S' Ignag Iiirrenllpurov irre ervt I "urogirar CMRPC also supported Massport's goal to identify immediate actions for improving roadway access to Worcester through a signage improvement program. In collaboration with the MassDOT and the City of Worcester,Massport identified six primary routes now used by travelers to access Worcester. The team also developed a sign design and placement plan. The goal was to improve directional signage on these roads between Worcester and the Massachusetts Turnpike Pike and Interstate 290 by achieving the following objectives: Regional Transportation Context IN To ensure that key decision points would be adequately signed; IN To reduce sign "clutter"by removing old and unnecessary signs; and IN To design and install new airport trailblazer signs consistent with Logan Airport and MassDOT way-finding standards. MassDOT has installed the desired signs that were produced by the Massport Sign Shop. By 2013, 89 signs had been installed including several signs on Auburn roads approved by the Town of Auburn in March 2011. In 2013,in anticipation of JetBlue starting service in November, four existing best route signs on I-90 were upgraded of which two were upgraded to larger signs and two were supplemented with "x miles"marker tabs. E.. m.. Ground Transportation u Ground Franspartation Chapter 6 describes the ground transportation system serving Hanscom Field and the relationship between the airport and that system. This chapter(1) compares year 2012 traffic data with data from the 2005 ESPR, (2)makes a retrospective comparison of existing conditions with forecasts from the 2005 ESPR, (3)provides a prospective assessment of the 2020 and 2030 future airport activity scenarios and(4) includes potentially beneficial environmental measures. Hanscom Field is an off-peak generator,meaning that peak traffic for Hanscom Field does not coincide with more general peak traffic in the area. Additionally, Hanscom-related traffic is only a small percentage of the total traffic along the nearby roadways and intersections studied. In fact, Hanscom traffic only contributed three to four percent of total traffic along Route 2A in 2012. Additionally, Hanscom traffic contributes 10% or more of the total traffic at only three of the sixteen nearby intersections studied. These trends are consistent with previous ESPRs and remain so in the 2020 and 2030 forecasted scenarios,which suggests that future ESPRs could study fewer intersections and direct effort to other issues. This chapter details the minimal traffic impacts from Hanscom Field-related traffic on nearby roadways and intersections. Land use patterns,limited transit service and incomplete pedestrian and bicycle networks contribute to the relatively high percentage of single occupancy vehicle traffic in the area. This chapter explores the current Transportation Demand Management activities in proximity to Hanscom Field, describes current efforts to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips to Hanscom and discusses opportunities for expanding on existing mitigation efforts. The 2012 ESPR future scenarios are used to evaluate the potential cumulative environmental effects that could occur if Hanscom Field reaches the airport activity levels that are described in Chapter 3,Airport Activity Levels. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios represent estimates of what could occur related to airport ground transportation (not what will occur)in the future using certain planning assumptions and are not necessarily recommended outcomes. The traffic forecasts include vehicle trips from Hanscom Field, future background traffic growth, and specific planned developments in the area. Information about recently completed and planned development projects was provided by the town planners from Bedford, Concord, Lexington and Lincoln. The critical finding of this updated traffic analysis is reconfirmation that Hanscom Field is not a significant contributor to traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways. Commercial and residential developments, coupled with the local reliance on single occupancy vehicles,remain the most significant sources of existing and future traffic volumes on area roadways. 0� &I Ground Transportation 100.00% 90.00% 11111111111 Morning Peak Hour 11111111111 Aft e irin o o in Peak Hour 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 4.3% 4.2% 3.9"/o 3.3% 0.00% 2005 2012 I-ig�.jire 6-1 IIPolrceint of Ilainscoirn I-iV�d Traffic oin 11mite 2A IlEast of Ilainscoirn IIDirliive As Figure 6-1 indicates, Hanscom Field traffic makes up approximately four percent of the traffic on Route 2A during the morning peak hour and approximately three percent during the afternoon peak hour in 2012,which is similar to 2005. Both the Hanscom Field and Route 2A traffic decreased between 2005 and 2012. Furthermore, traffic arrivals and departures by Hanscom Field employees and passengers generally avoid peak hour congestion. The average daily traffic volumes on Hanscom Drive, the primary access road to Hanscom Field from the surrounding roadways, decreased from 2,600 vehicles in 2005 to 2,200 in 2012,primarily as a result of a reduction in commercial air passenger activity and a reduced class schedule at the flight school (i.e. WyoTech, the predecessor to National Aviation Academy,had a part-time evening program in 2005). Additionally, the amount of peak hour traffic generated in 2012 by Hanscom did not change significantly from the 2005 ESPR as indicated in Table 6-1. The increased amount of peak hour traffic in the 2012 ESPR for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios is attributable to the increased aviation activity that is described in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels and other airport-related land uses such as a hotel and museum. Tat)Ille 6-1 Ilainscoirn I-iV d Veliidb.jl4r'Tiriip Geineiratioin 2005 Actual 157 154 2012 Actual 165 121 2020 Forecast 220 166 2030 Forecast 384 336 As a result of the refinements to the aviation activity forecasts, these traffic volume estimates are generally less than the increases forecast in the 2005 ESPR. Hanscom traffic patterns and their effect on local roadways are similar in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Hanscom traffic increases would represent a small percentage of Route 2A traffic volumes, and a small portion of the total increase in intersection traffic as compared to 2005 volumes. In addition,intersection analysis with SYNCHRO 7.0 software indicates that most intersections operate at the same level of service (LOS) regardless of the forecast Hanscom Field-related traffic growth. & Fzr MI.. Ground Transportation The results of an employee commute survey indicate that 87 percent of respondents drove alone to Hanscom Field. Despite this large percentage of lone commuters, there are opportunities to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles commuting each day given that 28% of survey respondents expressed interest in learning about programs and incentives encouraging alternate modes of transportation. Respondents expressed greatest interest in replacing vehicle trips with transit, followed by carpooling/vanpooling,bicycling, and walking. Environmentally beneficial measures that emphasize Transportation Demand Management(TDM) are detailed at the end of this chapter. Recommended TDM strategies include promoting transit services, exploring partnerships with Hanscom Air Force Base,MassRIDES and the 128 Business Council; supporting carpools and vanpools and increasing the viability of active transportation. The intersection of Route 2A and Hanscom Drive may benefit from the use of additional traffic management approaches, especially if volumes reach the forecasted levels for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. While the use of a traffic control officer or a traffic signal at Route 2A and Hanscom Drive would improve the operation of the intersection during peak hours, Hanscom Field-related traffic is only a small contributor to the total traffic at the intersection and the remainder is regional traffic and traffic from planned and anticipated projects in the study area. 62 Regional (137round Tra ins portation System This section describes the regional ground transportation system surrounding Hanscom Field including (1) regional highway system, (2) transit(commuter rail and local service), (3) regional bicycle network, and (4) existing TDM programs. 6.2.11 iReg�lor'41 Itigliway systeirn A roadway network of major expressways, including Route 128/1-95, Route 2, Route 3, and the Massachusetts Turnpike (1-90) surrounds Hanscom Field, as Figure 6-2 illustrates. Route 128/1-95 Exit 30 (Route 2A)is the closest highway exit for Hanscom Field, although Exit 31 (at Route 4-225) also provides access to Hanscom. Route 2A,which is designated as the Battle Road Scenic Byway,provides primary east/west access to and from Hanscom with direct access to Hanscom Field provided via Hanscom Drive. Traffic to and from the north may approach Hanscom Field from Route 4-225 and Route 62 or from Route 128/1-95 while traffic to and from the south will primarily use Route 128/1-95. In the vicinity of Hanscom Field,most intersections are unsignalized,with the exception of Massachusetts Avenue. A left-turn lane is provided in the eastbound direction at Hanscom Drive. Traffic flows follow general commuting patterns of the area,with heavier eastbound flows toward Route 128 and Boston during the morning peak hour and heavier westbound traffic flows during the afternoon peak hour. 0 1.R 63 Ground Transportation (This page intentionally left blank) 64 p�l II w ii 0 M CON W O N y Q II � LD L.Lr., 0 0 RT U c a „ ca a) I a�� o N re r ul v f � My i e i � { III III i IIVI "a 1 IIIIII N Go �, a� U al I1e21 a6pnJ N,o��eN rn 0 W � a m �-21 m 011111 gg 11 � © N a Ilull O N F L _ O � _ 0 x N o_ d �o �i z' 6 � I I �111� N g C H 3= F _ zO o O L' 41 A F B O N ti 0 N 5 Cf',7 Cf',7 Ground Transportation 6.2.2 @Regilor,4II ura 1lll and tiro sllt Public transportation around Hanscom Field is relatively limited. Hanscom Field itself is served by MBTA Bus Route 76. The nearest commuter rail station to Hanscom Field is located at Concord Center. The area is also served by other bus services such as Lexington's LEXPRESS, as well as point-to-point shuttle services (described in more detail below). 6 2 2 1 Coimnimm.itor irdiilll The Fitchburg Line Commuter Rail station in Concord, located at 90 Thoreau Street,provides the nearest rail access to Hanscom Field. Service at the Concord Station operates from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. The station is served by 16 inbound and 16 outbound trains daily. Five inbound trains stop in Concord during the morning peak periods and four outbound trains stop during afternoon peak. The station has 86 parking spaces and 10 spaces for bicycles. Crosby's Market,located across from the Concord Center commuter rail station has designated a small supplemental parking area for motorists using the commuter rail. The Town of Concord Parking Study (2013)indicated that the commuter parking near Concord Station is nearly 100%utilized. Additionally, field observations indicate that the existing bicycle parking is highly utilized. The Town of Concord Parking Study includes several recommendations to improve management of the Town's parking lots at the Concord commuter rail station such as expanding the existing resident commuter rail parking permit program at the Concord Center commuter rail stop; requiring permits at Crosby's Market lot, on Cottage Lane, and in the Love Lane lot; adding daily pay spaces at the Depot lot; and providing covered, secured bicycle parking to replace existing bicycle parking. This commuter rail station is located about five miles from Hanscom Field and is not served by local bus routes. 2 2 2 KBTA fsu.jirf ce Iini Hanscom Field is served by MBTA Route 76,which runs between Alewife Station and the Civil Air Terminal. Route 76 operates between 6:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. on weekdays with 40 minute headways during morning commute hours,half-hour headways during the evening commute hours and hourly service midday and late evenings. The Route 76 bus combines with MBTA Route 62 for Saturday service between Alewife Station and Bedford V.A. Hospital with a stop at the Civil Air Terminal. Saturday service operates from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.with approximately one-hour headways.No MBTA service is provided for these routes on Sundays. 2 2 3 t tllhioir Illor:.dll inis, seirvliice Other bus services in this area include the Alewife Shuttle (sponsored by the South Lexington Management Association), a shuttle service between Cambridge and MIT Lincoln Labs, and a neighborhood bus system called LEXPRESS,which is subsidized by the Town of Lexington and the MBTA, and operated by M&L Transit Systems. LEXPRESS buses start at Depot Square in Lexington and operate on six fixed routes, each with one hour headway, running from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays. LEXPRESS routes operate almost entirely within Lexington town limits. Several of the LEXPRESS routes cross the MBTA Route 76,which services Hanscom Field. The LEXPRESS routes closest to Hanscom Field are route 94 and route 92,which are approximately two to three miles from Route 2A &Hanscom Drive. 0R. 6 Ground Transportation 2 2 4 IIL.IiI)eirt IIIZde Iinu's tours The Liberty Ride offers bus tours to historical sites in Lexington and Concord along the Battle Road Trail weekends in April and May and daily from May 28 through October 28. The buses depart from the Lexington Visitors Center at 1875 Massachusetts Avenue at 10:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. The bus is accessible by the MBTA Red Line and MBTA bus routes 62 and 76 from Alewife Station. 6.23 @Reg itor,4II Ilh lcy&ll network Hanscom Field is near the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway, an 11 mile paved trail that extends from Alewife Station in Cambridge to Depot Park in Bedford. It is open from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.year round. The towns of Arlington, Lexington and Bedford recently partnered to undertake a project called "Navigating the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway."The project developed recommendations for enhancing this popular trail including a new wayfinding system to better connect the trail to the adjacent communities. There are two other unpaved bike trails that act as extensions to the Minuteman Bikeway,both starting from near the end of the Bikeway in Bedford. The Bedford Narrow Gauge Rail-Trail extends three miles to North Billerica,while the Reformatory Branch Rail-Trail ends near the Old North Bridge in Concord. While the Reformatory Branch is currently unpaved, the town of Bedford has expressed interest in paving the sections of trail within the town of Bedford to make the trail accessible to more types of users. The six miles of Battle Road Trail in the Minute Man National Historical Park are also a resource for bicycle riders offering cycling,pedestrian and wheelchair access to the National Park Service's historic and natural resources. However, these trails are not paved or directly linked to the other regional trails. The Town of Concord has expressed interest in providing links between these paths. As illustrated in Figure 6-2, connecting existing paths would strengthen the overall network of bicycle and pedestrian paths serving the towns, Minute Man Historical Park and Hanscom Field. In addition to off-street trails, towns around Hanscom Field have been making bicycle improvements to their street networks. Lexington has recently installed shared lane markings on town streets and Bedford is working to have bicycle lanes installed on Hartwell Road. w w4 I`ua° III' °qua°t tliie°� Demand II anageirre ent The purpose of TDM is to make better use of existing transportation facilities with the objective of reducing the peak hour demand for automobile trips. TDM is a cost-effective alternative to increasing roadway capacity to accommodate increasing peak demand. Examples of TDM measures include augmented transit service, carpool/vanpool programs, employee rideshare programs,bike/walk incentive programs, and staggered work hours. Often it is possible to combine TDM programs with other near-by businesses. Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) organize participants to share the costs of TDM programs and maximize the potential benefits. There are several organizations involved with TDM programs in the Hanscom Field area. These include MassRIDES, the 128 Business Council, MAGIC, and Hanscom AFB,which are described below. 6 2 4 1 I ass�IUDE Since January 2004, MassRIDES has provided free TDM planning assistance for commuters and employers statewide. MassRIDES, administered by MassDOT, currently offers a comprehensive package 6 8 . I.. Ground Transportation of transportation information and an array of incentives designed to encourage commuters to travel to work together. MassRIDES has administered the Transportation Management Initiative (TMI) on behalf of MassDOT since January 2006. This program funds a MassRIDES staff coordinator to plan and administer TDM actions with members. Benefits are provided based on the level of participation in TDM with employees of partner companies. One of the key incentives is eligibility for the MassRIDES Emergency Ride Home program to provide frequent alternative mode users with dedicated transportation for unexpected occurrences like sickness or child care schedule changes. MassRIDES services include a ridesharing program (through NuRide), employer outreach, assessment of travel options at large worksites,the Emergency Ride Home Program, training and guidance, and coordination of over 40 vanpools.In addition to these features, employers may choose to provide additional incentives for ridesharing, such as parking cash out(which is when an employee is reimbursed for the cost of a parking space he/she does not use);preferential parking for registered carpools and vanpools; bicycle racks; employee lockers and showers; commuter tax benefits, or other financial incentives. NuRide,partnered with MassDOT,is a commuter-side rewards program for individuals who choose greener forms of transportation including walking,bicycling, carpooling,vanpooling,public transportation, and telecommuting. The free service is supported by sponsors who provide commuters with special offers for taking trips that reduce environmental impacts and traffic congestion.NuRide provides trip planning, ride-matching with other"NuRiders,"and information about transportation options. 6 2 4 2 'Tllhio 128 IIBu.jsiine�:s Cou.jun6i The 128 Business Council(12813C)is a TMA that offers a variety of alternative transportation services in the towns of Lexington, Waltham,Needham,Newton, Weston, Woburn and Burlington. The 41-member organization provides transportation planning services, shuttle services, corporate assistance, commuter planning, alternative commuting programs, and ridesharing coordination for organizations with a large number of employees. Their current programs include shuttle services from Lexington and Waltham to Alewife, Bentley College shuttle services in Waltham, two local Waltham shuttles, a Needham shuttle from the Green Line, and the MetroNorth shuttle service from Woburn, Burlington, and Lexington to the Anderson Regional Transportation Center(ARTC). The Council recently added a new shuttle called "The Rev"to service businesses along Hartwell Avenue. 6 2 4 3 1 1irnjtoimnain Mlvliisoiry Girou.jlp on �intoirllloca Cooirnlliiunatlibin The Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination(MAGIC)is a sub-group of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council(MAPC). MAGIC addresses community planning issues that are of interest to its member communities. This group meets monthly, and as necessary, assists with TDM for thirteen towns in the MAGIC sub-region,including Lexington, Lincoln, Bedford and Concord. MAGIC supports the development of alternative solutions to single occupancy vehicles, as well as education about and promotion of their programs. 6 2 4 4 Il11ain�:wimp Xir III'='oirce IILBa e TDM measures have been used at Hanscom AFB as part of its efforts to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles commuting to the Base. The Base has partnered with vRides to promote vanpooling among employees. There is currently a vanpool coming from Nashua,NH that provides four trips per day 0 &+ �Pi 9 Ground Transportation and officials at the AFB are looking into starting new vanpools to accommodate the influx of new employees associated with the recent National Guard relocation to the Base. MIT Lincoln Labs has a mini-bus from Alewife station that is available to all employees at the Base. MIT also has a very active bicycle commuting population and provide services including covered bike parking and a self-service bike repair station. The Base currently offers a Transportation Incentive Program that reimburses employees who use transit or carpool. There are discussions about installing a bike share on Base for people to use when going to meetings at other buildings. In addition, the Base held a bike challenge during the month of June 2013 to encourage more employees to commute on their bike. The relatively high level of single occupant vehicle commuting has influenced the transportation planning context for the area around Hanscom Field. The lack of residential and commercial density limits the effectiveness of mass transportation, other than trips into and out of Boston, and challenges the development of effective regional TDM approaches. However, the regional transportation planning process has fostered the creation of regional bike paths and the emergence of shuttle services to make more effective use of existing resources. More recently, efforts have begun to focus on transit-oriented development approaches that encourage the types of densities and mixes of uses that support transit use, walking and bicycling. Regional transportation planning is conducted through the Boston MPO,which was established to oversee federally funded transportation plans and programs. This section describes the structure of the MPO planning process and the key planning documents affecting ground transportation access at Hanscom Field. w w1I Iua°qlpc,I1I1'tan I IIlannliing Oirg rtizatie°n The Boston MPO region encompasses 101 cities and towns,including Bedford, Concord,Lexington and Lincoln. The MPO has 19 voting members which include: IN State agencies: MassDOT, MBTA and Massport; IN Regional organizations: Metropolitan Area Planning Council, and the Regional Transportation Advisory Council; IN Six cities: Boston, Beverly, Everett,Newton, Somerville, and Woburn; IN Seven towns: Arlington, Bedford, Braintree, Framingham, Lexington, Medway,Norwood; IN Two ex-officio members: Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, working jointly with the MBTA Advisory Board, administer the municipal nomination and election process. 3. 1`ua° III' °qua°I Iliie°� IIpI1anrting docur ent Federal surface transportation legislation sets forth the requirements for the metropolitan planning process that is overseen by the MPO agencies. The MPO receives input from the Regional Transportation Advisory Council(RTAC),which ensures citizen participation, and the Central Transportation Planning Staff(CTPS),which provides technical and policy analysis to the MPO. The following are metropolitan planning documents that affect access to Hanscom Field. 6 10 . ��.. Ground Transportation 6 3 2 1 2012-2035 IIL.oing IIl'laiirige 'Tiraiiris�: 1poirtatliioiiri Ilf3ll4uri Paths to a Sustainable Region is the regional long-range transportation plan(LRTP) that identifies transportation facilities,programs and major investments to support and expand the region's multimodal transportation system. The plan includes both a financial plan to demonstrate how the measures included in the plan can be implemented as well as an air quality analysis to demonstrate conformity with federal standards. The plan was adopted by the MPO in September 2011, and was updated most recently in June 2012. The LRTP is used by the MPO to set transportation priorities among various roadway and transit projects and to consider improvements to the region's multimodal transportation system in broad terms. The LRTP does not prioritize any projects in close proximity to Hanscom. 6 3 2 2 III'3irogirairn for IMass 'Tirains 4 The Program for Mass Transit(PMT)is a long-range transit plan that evaluates and recommends transit projects to preserve, enhance and expand the MBTA system. The PMT describes the MBTA's fiscally- unconstrained capital investment plan. Any transit project eligible for federal funds must be included in the PMT. The PMT was last revised in January 2004. There are no projects within the PMT that would affect access to Hanscom Field. 6 3 2 3 Tirainspoirtat�oin �irnpiroveirneints Ilf3ll4url The MPO programs federally fund roadway and transit projects through the Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP). The TIP is a five-year plan that is updated annually by the MPO. The most recent TIP was updated by the MPO on June 28, 2012. The TIP includes funding for Limited Access Highway Improvements at Route 2 &2A between Crosby's Comer and Bedford Road,which is currently under construction. Improvements include construction of new neighborhood service roads parallel to Route 2 and a new bridge on Route 2. The TIP also includes funding to replace a bridge at Route 2A and 1-95 in Lexington. The proposed bridge will maintain the current alignment and facilities,including four 11.5 foot travel lanes, two 11.5 foot speed change lanes, a 6 foot median and a 6 foot northerly sidewalk. This interchange was included in the list of top 25 crash locations in the Boston region between 2006 and 2008 and is approximately three miles from Hanscom. 6 3 2 4 151o1bliillllity liiin the IIBostoin llegl�oin: the 2004, Coingest�oin Mainageirneint Systeirn llepoirt The Congestion Management System (CMS) report identified mobility concerns for each subregion in the MPO region including the MAGIC subregion. The report recommended further study of Route 2A from Lincoln to Route 3/3A in Arlington with an emphasis on traffic signal control and pedestrian and bicycle movement. The report listed three specific recommendations for the MAGIC subregion: 1. Continue to investigate improvements along Route 2 between the Concord Rotary and the Piper/Taylor Road intersection in Acton. 2. Proceed with production of the environmental documents and design for the grade separation at the Concord Rotary, following the completion of the CTPS study entitled Route 2 Iirprovementsftom Route III in Acton to Baker Avenue in Concord.-A Feasibility Study. 3. Complete the final design and construct a grade separated interchange at Crosby's Comer at Route 2 at Cambridge Turnpike-Concord Turnpike, following the recommendations of the MassHighway Environmental Impact Report for Crosby's Comer. (Note: this project is currently under construction.) Ground Transportation 6.3.2.5 MAUC &.jbme0�bir4UAmea Sh.idy: �31iaseU Ilepoirt The MAGIC subregionincludes the towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Lincoln and nine other adjacent communities. The Phase 11 Report made specific suggestions based on the economic and transportation data presented in the Phase l Report. The principaltask of the Phase O report was to invoodgo10 the potential for remote or satellite parking near existing MAGIC-area commuter rail stations. The report found that Concord,with its relatively dense town center, is ogood candidate for o small bus or van connection between Concord Center and Concord Commuter Rail Station. 6.3.2.6 MAUC &.jinjid)ain Mdb�U�fty Sh.1dy The MAGIC Suburban Mobility Study completed in 2011 incorporates the MAGIC Subregional Area Study Phase 11 Report and makes recommendations for transit improvements in the subregion. Tbo |28 E|ooin000 Council, one of two TMAo in the region expressed interest in expanding their services past Lexington to nearby communities onthe |28 corridor,which could include Hanscom Field. The report recommends individual municipalities reach out to the 128BC to initiate coordination of services. 6.3.2.7 Tlie Batfle 11oad Sceirflc ��Byw,ay Coirir��doirMaina0emmeint �3U4rl MAPC, along with the MassDOT, the Minute Man National Historic Park, and four towns (Arlington, Lexington, Lincoln, and Concord)have collaborated on The Battle Road Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. The plan proposes strategies to highlight the historical, cultural, recreational, scenic, and natural resources along the route through transportation and land use management and tourism. Figure 6'3 illustrates the r000nnnnondodono and issues from the plan. Among the p|un`y transportation recommendations,the working group proposed: IN Extending the Battle Road Scenic Byway three miles,including 0.8nni to the eastern end that would reach Alewife Brook 9kxry(outside the extents ofFigure 6'3) in Cambridge, ond22nni in Concord from Liberty Road to Barrett's Mill Road (see "A"on Figure 6-3); if extended, the cohesive byway would connect Cambridge to West Concord; IN Creating two loops: a"southern loop" (see "B"on Figure 6-3) that connects Concord Center to Hanscom Drive in Lincoln, and u"northern loop" (see ^^C"on Figure 6'3) that connects Hanscom Drive to 2A at North Great Road; and Expanding the network of shared-use paths paralleling the Byway to inor0000 bicycle and pedestrian boDfiowhere feasible. The northern loop would begin o1 the western edge of Hanscom Field. The report suggests highlighting several landmarks near Hanscom, including Lincoln Laboratories, and the AFE|. If realized, the 000nio loops would potentially increase boDfioo1 Hanscom Field. The report details transit accessibility and ridership trends along the byway, including MBTA bus routes 62, 67, 76, 77, 79, and 350; the lEX98BSS boo; and private oboU]oo operated by Hanscom AFB, MIT, and the 128 E|ooin000 Council.Both the lES98BSS and 128E|C oboUloo saw increasing ridership between 2005 and 2009 (serving 70,000 and 90,000 annual riders roopoodvol ), and the Hanscom AFE| shuttles saw o66% inor0000 over the oozno period (in 2009 providing 30,000 rides). i ` M Y..k' CY. la.l % dr'p o O O N fV..k a r!. U (V I L.a y A C) 0 Ll 76 d '� P � Q ao i`--' d e- Q K / N Up v� "..� r �� 1 d U _� E D O EL03 N E o V o as ,o N f m/ Q •.:f .�U �� ry. «�� _ a����eeu✓ay�°� �"� 1l_ � - � � bm 77 1 e Y UPNE ^^ 4 v c a a` �y E a E � 0 J, s w w �yo E �c r N2 n C' C) ri �ro a m 1X v o M i ' lr o � U E 0 x €O O L' 41 A F B O N ti 0 N 5 nid� ad',7 Ground Transportation The report also names fourteen"areas of traffic concern,"or sections and intersections where there is a need to address and modify the design and conditions. Three locations are at entries/exits to Hanscom Field: Airport Road and Marrett Street(see "I"on Figure 6-3);North Great Road(Route 2A) and Hanscom Drive (see "2"on Figure 6-3); and North Great Road and Bypass Road(see "3"on Figure 6-3). Recommended modifications are not specific,but may include updating signal timing, creating lower- stress crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists, and improving sight lines. Each of the locations is in Lincoln, and would require collaboration with the Town of Lincoln and MassDOT as primary stakeholders. The plan's transportation recommendations focus on cultivating comfortable bicycle and pedestrian facilities to promote enjoyment of the scenic route (including separated and on-road bicycle facilities, and traffic calming measures);maintaining high quality pavement; creating a Scenic Byway signage program; considering a reconfiguration of Hanscom Drive to eliminate slip lanes and slow turning vehicles; and improving continuous transit access to all parts of the Byway. 6 3 2 8 Statewide GireeinIID T �uniitliiatt vo The MassDOT launched the GreenDOT Initiative in June 2010, a comprehensive sustainability initiative that explicitly aims to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips in Massachusetts 25%by 2020, and triple the rates of bicycling,walking, and transit use by 2030. GreenDOT is driven by three goals: W Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; W Promote the healthy transportation options of walking,bicycling, and public transit; and W Support smart growth development. The initiative was designed in response to several major state legislative requirements,including the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008, and the Healthy Transportation Compact in 2009. The Global Warming Solutions Act sets forth targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide 25% from 1990 levels between 2010 and 2020. The Healthy Transportation Compact requires inter-agency cooperation in transportation projects to decrease greenhouse gas emissions;increase pedestrian and bicycle trips;increase access for travelers with mobility impairments;work with an advisory board to ensure projects meet complete streets criteria;implement health impact assessments on transportation systems; and increase public-private partnerships that support healthy transportation decisions. GreenDOT is meant to assist MassDOT in satisfying these requirements. GreenDOT sets forth sixteen goals in seven categories that aim to embed sustainability into MassDOT's core business practice, and together will turn the focus of transportation planning and design statewide to include all potential transportation modes while increasing project effectiveness and reducing negative environmental impact. 6A Year 2012 Traffic Conditions Different factors influence 2012 ground transportation conditions at Hanscom Field and within the surrounding study area roadway network. This section describes the (1)vehicular trip generating characteristics of Hanscom Field, (2)traffic volumes for study area roadways, (3)traffic volumes for study intersections, and (4)intersection operating level of service. Supporting data is provided in Appendix C. Ground Transportation w w1I �ianscoir @-°lii id tirillp cliairacteiristics There are a variety of activities at Hanscom Field that generate automobile traffic and create ground transportation needs,including general aviation, commercial aviation, employment, students programs at National Aviation Academy and the flight schools and other business activities that support Hanscom Field operations. Employers include Massport, FAA, Linear Air,Jet Aviation, Signature Flight Support, East Coast Aero Club, Executive Flyers Aviation, and Corporate Limousine, among others. 6 4 1 1 Tiravolll imriodes, Automobile use is the primary ground mode of travel to and from the Hanscom Field.Massport conducted a survey of employees and students in July 2013 as a part of the 2012 ESPR to understand the general travel patterns. Table 6-2 provides a comparison of survey results between a similar survey conducted for the 2005 ESPR and the 2012 survey. The results of the survey,which are reported in Appendix C,indicate that 87 percent of respondents drove alone to Hanscom Field. The remainder took public transportation or bicycled.None of the employees said they carpooled or were dropped off. These results are consistent with the 2005 survey of employees and students in that the majority drive personal vehicles. The percentage of employees and students who took public transportation or rode a bicycle to work increased since the 2005 survey. The 2005 survey found that some respondents carpooled or were dropped off,while the 2012 found that no respondents did. The high level of auto use is consistent with general travel patterns in the area. Additional details on the results of the summary can be found in Appendix C. TaIt)Illo -2 IlIlain�:coimn III'-'liiold imriode cIlhlolito Drove alone 87% 86% Dropped off 1% 0% Car pool 10% 0% Public Transportation 2% 12% Bicycle 0% 2% Total 1 100% 1 100% Source:Massport,Hanscom Field 2005 Draft Environmental Status and Planning Report,(2006)and 2012 ESPR Travel Survey. 6 4 1 2 Velldide occl.jpauncy �:lxrvoy Vehicle occupancy data was also collected on Monday, December 17 and Wednesday, December 19, 2012 to quantify the number of persons per vehicle entering and exiting Hanscom Field. Additional information is provided in Appendix C. The number of persons and vehicles entering and exiting Hanscom Field were counted from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Monday, December 17 and Wednesday, December 19, 2012 to estimate the Vehicle Occupancy Rate (VOR) for the airport. This study indicates that the airport had a total VOR of 1.11 passengers (MBTA buses ridership was not included). The VOR in the morning peak period was 1.06 (1.11 entering and 1.02 exiting) compared to 1.15 in the 2005 ESPR. The VOR was 1.12 (1.09 entering and 1.13 exiting)in the afternoon peak period compared to 1.13 in the 2005 ESPR. This reduction in vehicle occupancy may be a result in fewer people carpooling or being dropped off. 6 4 1 3 IIPairlllkliiung �:lirvoy A parking demand survey was conducted from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 22, 2013. Vehicles were counted at the parking lots located at Hanscom Field and are described in Chapter 2, 646 . I.. Ground Transportation Facilities and Infrastructure. The parking demand survey assessed 1,369 of the 1,567 spaces at Hanscom Field. The remaining parking spaces include 110 spaces inside T-hangars, 70 spaces associated with the Hangar 24 site that is currently under construction and 18 spaces associated with storage building used by FAA. The parking demand survey indicated that forty-one percent of the 1,369 assessed spaces were occupied. Thirty-five percent of the 667-space Civil Air Terminal Lot was occupied during the survey period. This lot is a shared parking facility that serves the Civil Air Terminal and various tenants throughout the airport. The results of this parking survey indicate that there is currently surplus of parking at Hanscom Field. 6 4 1 4 Il11ain�:coimn II1'-'liiold tirliilp 11ourleiratlibin The number of trips generated by Hanscom during the peak hour is needed to determine the traffic impacts of Hanscom-related traffic to intersections in the study area. The peak hours for the analysis represent the time of day when traffic volumes along the adjacent roadways are highest. The morning and afternoon peak hour vehicular trip generation for Hanscom Field is presented in Table 6-3. This data indicates that the number of morning and afternoon peak hour vehicle trips to and from Hanscom Field in 2012 is comparable to the 2005 vehicle trips. During the morning peak hour, entering traffic accounts for 82 percent of the peak hour volumes. The afternoon peak hour showed a similar split favoring the exiting vehicles with 69 percent and 31 percent entering. Table 6-3 also includes the 2005 ESPR projections for the 2010 Moderate and High Growth scenarios. Comparison of actual year 2012 traffic data with year 2010 projections from the 2005 ESPR show that actual 2012 traffic volumes are below the 2005 ESPR projections for the morning and afternoon peak hours. This difference can be attributed to the fact that the actual total aircraft operations at Hanscom Field in 2012 were 13 to 18 percent below the forecast ranges presented in the 2005 ESPR. Specifically, the two 2010 scenarios from the 2005 ESPR included a significant amount of commercial air passengers (190,548 and 234,440)when commercial air travel was very low and eventually discontinued in September 2012. Commercial air passengers dropped from 17,457 in 2005 to 8,609 in 2012. Further, general aviation operations in 2012 were 70 to 85% of the forecasts for year 2010 projections in the 2005 ESPR. TaIt)Illo 6-3 Il11ain�:coimn III'-'liiol d pea k Iliou.iir tirliilp geinoirµatlibin 1996, 2002, 2005, aind 2012 ® I' it a a a 1996 61 33 94 43 70 113 2002 109 52 161 47 112 159 2005 115 42 157 75 79 154 2012 136 29 165 37 84 121 2005 ESPR Scenarios 2010 Moderate Growth 143 63 206 65 113 178 2010 High Growth 196 111 307 100 165 265 Source:Massport,Hanscom Field 2005 Draft Environmental Status and Planning Report,EOEA#5484/8696(2006). 4 1 5 II11ainscoimn tirliilp irn4lklii g by Clirno o1 day Hanscom Field is an off-peak traffic generator,meaning that the peak traffic for many Hanscom activities occurs at a different time from the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic. The scheduling of businesses and schools at Hanscom avoid peak commuting hours. As shown in Figure 6-4, the peak hours of overall traffic on Route 2A occur from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:45 to 5:45 p.m. While Hanscom Field experiences a relatively steady flow of traffic throughout the day, the morning peak for Hanscom Field 0R. 6 1 Ground Transportation occurs from 6:45 to 7:45 a.m. and the afternoon peak occurs from 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. One reason for this trip-making pattern at Hanscom Field is the traffic generated by the National Aviation Academy that has classes that run from 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 450 4°^^^^Route 2A Traffic 400 ^^^II11111llll Hanscom Field!Tr2ffjc 350 c a £y 300 u C 250 C � LA 200 `m CL v 150 's 100 So 6 � oLnoLnoL LoLnoLnoL L LnmLio � oLnoLnmL © L CJ N. e-fl e� M ro t L1i to fD h CG c) o) O rn ro * Li 4o 4o r- PA m a) o c4 Time I'-iiit . I clhiair�:ctelrµliistlii�:s of IlIlair���:colmn� Ilf-liiellld vellhi�lii�:;llle tlrailliic sti.jd area u�lre ,m� e�:� ulur��r 6.4.2 Sturfy, airea roadways The study area for ground transportation surrounding Hanscom is bordered in the northwest by Route 62 (Concord Road/Bedford St),in the northeast by Route 4-225 (Great Road/Bedford Street),in the east by Route 128/I-95 and in the south by Route 2A (Lexington Road/North Great Road). The roadways that are part of the study area are Route 62, Route 4-225, Route 2A, Massachusetts Avenue, Old Massachusetts Avenue, Airport Road, Hanscom Drive, Old Bedford Road,Virginia Road, Bedford Road, Hartwell Avenue, Lexington Road, South Road and Wood Street. This study area was used to analyze the effects of current and potential future traffic generated by Hanscom Field. Table 6-4 summarizes the study area roadway characteristics and functional classifications. The general characteristics of each roadway type, as described by the MassDOT Highway Design Manual, are as follows. IN Arterial roadway—This class of roadway provides a high level of mobility and access control. Arterial roadways provide the highest level of service at the greatest vehicle speed for the longest uninterrupted distance. 618 , I.. Ground Transportation aIiAe 6-4 Stl.jdy area roadways, (See Figure 6-5 for locations) c,.:;. Arterial -Primarily Route 2A open space (Minute East/West One in each 40 mph Eastbound left turn lane at (Lexington/Lincoln) Man National Historic direction Hanscom Drive. Pa rk) Route 62 Arterial -Commercial/ Northeast/ One in each 30-40 mph Connection between Bedford (Concord/Bedford) Residential Southwest direction and Concord centers. Turning lanes at some Route 4-225 Arterial -Commercial/ Northwest/ One in each signalized intersections. (Bedford) Residential Southeast direction 30-40 mph Connection between Bedford and Lexington centers. 30 mph Main access for Hanscom Field inbound;20 and secondary access for the Two in each mph USAF Base(Vandenberg Hanscom Drive Collector-Open North/South direction with outbound Gate).Access to Old Bedford (Lincoln) Space wide median (North of Old Road in Lincoln,which Bedford connects with Virginia Road. Road) Speed limit not posted south of Old Bedford Road. Alternative access route to Virginia Road Local -Residential/ One in each Hanscom Field without using (Concord/Lincoln) Office/Research East/West direction 25-30 mph Route 2A. Pavement is in poor condition and road is narrow and winding. Bedford Road Collector- North/South One in each 35 mph Connections to Route 2 and 2A. (Lincoln) Residential direction Lexington Arterial -Open Space Road/Route 2A (Minute Man National East/West One in each 30 mph WB; Route 62 connection west of (Concord) Historic direction 40 mph EB Hanscom Field in Concord. Park)/Residential Old Bedford Road Collector- North/South One in each 30 mph Connection between Route 62 (Concord) Residential direction and Routh Road. Hartwell Avenue Collector- One in each Connection between Route 62 (Bedford) Residential East/West direction 25-30 mph and South Road. /Office/Research South Road Collector- One in each Connections to Hartwell Road (Bedford) Residential North/South direction 30 mph in Bedford, Hartwell Avenue in Lexington,and Route 4-225. Connection between Route 4- Hartwell Avenue Collector-Primarily One in each 225 and Wood Street.Access (Lexington) Office/Research and North/South direction 40 mph to USAF Base. Functions as Industrial two lanes in each direction in some segments. Connection between Hartwell Wood Street Collector- One in each Avenue and Massachusetts (Lexington) Residential North/South direction 30 mph Avenue(to Route 2A). Provides access to USAF Base. Massachusetts Collector- East/West One in each 35 mph Connection between Lexington Avenue(Lexington) Residential direction Center and Route 2A. Local -Open Space Old Massachusetts (Minute Man National East/West One in each 35 mph Connection between Wood Ave. (Lexington) Historic direction Street and Route 2A. Park)/Residential Airport Road Collector- North/South One in each 30 mph Former entrance to USAF (Lincoln/Lexington) Residential direction Base. Speed limit not posted. Collector roadway—Collectors provide a less highly developed service at a lower speed for shorter distances. Compared to arterials, collector roads provide both mobility and land access. Vehicles traveling on local roadways meet, and traffic funnels onto collector roads. R 6 1«; Ground Transportation Local roadway—Local roads provide access to abutting land with little or no through movement. This classification includes all roads not classified as either arterial or collector. Local roadways provide little mobility and a great deal of land access and local circulation at low speeds. Traffic counts were collected on roadways in the study area during a 7-day period from Tuesday, November 13, 2012 through Monday,November 19, 2012 by automated traffic recorders (ATRs). These counts provide a better understanding of the current traffic patterns in certain areas surrounding Hanscom Field. The locations were chosen based on previous report counts and to confirm traffic volumes at intersections. The year 2012 ATR count locations are shown in Figure 6-5 and include: IN Location A: Route 2A, east of Airport Road(Lexington) Due to an error in the recording device at this location, an additional 72-hour ATR count was taken from Tuesday, February 26, 2013 through Monday, March 4, 2013 and included in the 2012 network. IN Location B: Bedford Road, south of Route 2A (Lincoln) IN Location C: Cambridge Turnpike Cutoff, southwest of Lexington Road (Lincoln,near Concord line) IN Location D: Old Bedford Road,north of Virginia Road(Concord) IN Location E: Route 62,west of Old Bedford Road(Concord) IN Location F: Hanscom Drive,north of Old Bedford Road(Lincoln) 6 4 2 1 IIDalii y tiraffliir:,v6 .:imnes Year 2012 daily traffic volumes are presented in Figure 6-6, and compared with daily traffic volumes from the 2005 ESPR for 2002 and 2005 in Figure 6-7. Average daily traffic volumes on Hanscom Drive are approximately 2,200 vehicles per day, 15 percent less than the 2005 volumes. This decrease may be attributable to the discontinuation of commercial air travel and a reduced class schedule (i.e. WyoTech, the predecessor to NAA,had a part-time evening program in 2005). Route 2A, Bedford Road and Cambridge Turnpike Cut-off all experienced a small decrease (approximately 1-2%per year)between 2005 and 2012,which is consistent with other recent counts available from MassDOT. The former Raytheon facility on Hartwell Road was taken over and occupied by Instrumentation Labs which likely resulted in increased traffic volumes along both Route 62 and Old Bedford Road. & 0 Study Intersections: Daily Count Locations: 1. Route 4/225&Hartwell Avenue(signalized),Lexington A. Route 2A,east of Airport Road(Lexington) 2. Massachusetts Avenue&Route 2A,Lexington B. Bedford Road,south of Route 2A(Lincoln) 3. Old Massachusetts Avenue&Route 2A,Lexington C. Cambridge Turnpike Cutoff,southwest of Lexington Road(Lincoln,near Concord line) 4. Airport Road&Route 2A,Lexington D. Old Bedford Road,north of Virginia Road(Concord) 5. Hanscom Drive&Old Bedford Road(main Hanscom Field entrance),Lexington E. Route 62,west of Old Bedford Road(Concord) 6. Hanscom Drive&Route 2A,Lincoln F. Hanscom Drive(Main Entrance of Hanscom Field),north of Old Bedford Road(Lincoln) 7. Bedford Road&Route 2A,Lincoln 8. Cambridge Turnpike Cut-Off,Brooks Road,Lexington Road&Route 2A, Lincoln/Concord 9. Old Bedford Road&Lexington Road(Route 2A),Concord 10. Old Bedford Road&Virginia Road,Concord 11. Old Bedford Road&Route 62,Concord I 12. Hartwell Road&Route 62,Bedford 13. South Road &Hartwell Road,Bedford \ / 14. Route 4/225&Route 62,Bedford 15. Great Road(Routes 4-225),Springs Road&South Road,Bedford 16. South Road,Loomis Street &Railroad Avenue,Bedford 15 St_ tea. Voom�s ��r Rai/road ;. pp++ 1 l3 4 25 12 13 �a 62 g 11 �a Q 1 peat°a t ,1 s P a �r and Exi Hanscom Field ��� 31t p �,a 1 HAFB HAFB Gate 4 4 Gate 1 HaMwe1 2s vandenburg Gate 28 Lexingto �„ ofd 0edford Rd' cote HAFB Gate 3 2a HAFB Lincoln oln Labs 9 5 = Gate 2 (closed) a a sf K Gd ofi b B \ 6 4 Oio2i a ill ' a Gambfogo 3 s qq sgLe Mass Ave. 2 Exit 30 Hanscom Field Intersection Turning Movement Count Locations EM 24 Hour Count Locations ® Gates to Hanscom AFB Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Node DNOT TO SCALE 01B9 Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts Traffic Study Area Count Locations Figure 6-5 a Ra;/road Voo aAve. Caw �o°y Vo 4 225 �d 62 0 1a m 0 81 00 A n td St. �od�o 5300 i a m aa. p Rol. Hanscom Field age Exit � 31 �a HAFB 4 HAFB Gate 4 Gate 1 Hartwell 25 Vandenburg Gate 128 old 13edf0rd Rd' Gate HAFB Gate 3 2A HAFB MIT 2200 Gate 2 Lincoln Labs v (closed) v_ 97D0 a s f o, t o� a e�PV Gu a 4700 165D0 �asSALe Gampt\d9 0 �od�d. Mass Ave. ca fed Exit 30 Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE OR Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2012 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Figure 6-6 Ground Transportation 25000 20000 15000 10000 2002 1111111111112 5000 005 1111112012 A) Route 2A, East 13) Bedford Road, C)Carnbiridge D)Old Bedford E) Route 62, F) Hainscorn of Airport Road Soutlh of Route Turnpike Cut-Off, Road, North of West of Old Dirive, North of (Lexiingtoin) 2A(Lincolin) Southwest of Virginia Road Bedford Road Old Bedford Route 2A (Coincoird) (Coincoird) Road(Lincolin) (Lincolin) f-ig xre 6-7 Coirnpairiiisoin of 2002, 2005, aind 2012 avers to we6kday traffic vd .Jirnes* Source:Massport,Hanscom Field 2005 Draft Environmental Status and Planning Report,EOEA#5484/8696(2006)and new traffic data collected for 2012 ESPR.Refer to Figure 6-5 for locations map. 6 4 2 2 Seasoir4 traffic vairiiiafioins The adequacy of the 2012 November traffic data was confirmed through comparisons with MassDOT counts and information from studies of Minute Man National Historical Park. MassDOT data for the most recent year indicate that traffic volumes along Route 2A Oust west of Route 2, Cambridge Turnpike) in November are typically one percent lower than the average month. As indicated in Figure 6-8, visitations to the Minute Man National Historic Park vary by month.Visitation trends relate to weather conditions, length of daylight and availability of facilities. The North Bridge Visitor Center is open year- round; the Minute Man Visitors Center from April through December, the Hartwell Tavern Memorial Day through October and The Wayside is currently closed for renovations. Based on 2012 Recreational Visitor data obtained from the National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics database,visitation levels in November represent 77% of the 2012 monthly average. The "Minute Man National Park: Route 2A traffic analysis and Its Impact on the Park's Visitor Experience" (2002)indicates that the Minute Man National Historical Park contributes 1.4% of daily traffic on Route 2A. Using the information described above, the 2012 traffic volumes were increased by a factor of 1.014, or 1.4% to account for seasonal variation from MassDOT data and the Minute Man National Historic Park. Ground Transportation 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I-iglxre 6-8 2012 Kiirnjteirnain Illyatliiour4ll I+stoirita III3aidk irnointllhidlly viiis: Iatbins Source:National Park Service,Annual Recreation Visits Report:Minuteman National Historical Park,2013. http://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park Specific Reports/All Recreation?Park=M I MA. 6.4.3 Study airea In'teirsections Detailed analyses of peak hour intersection operations and traffic conditions were conducted for the roadway network illustrated in Figure 6-5 (see Figure 6-5 for intersection locations). 6 4 3 1 �inteirsectbin Illocatiiiouns Manual turning movement counts were collected for 16 study intersections on Wednesday,November 9 and Tuesday,November 13, 2012 from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. This data was used with the automatic traffic count data to determine the morning and afternoon peak hours for the study area. Peak period traffic volumes were collected at the following intersections (see Figure 6-5 for locations) to create the 2012 morning and afternoon peak hour traffic networks that are a basis for this analysis: I. Route 4-225 &Hartwell Avenue, Lexington 2. Massachusetts Avenue &Route 2A, Lexington 3. Old Massachusetts Avenue &Route 2A, Lexington 4. Airport Road &Route 2A,Lexington 5. Hanscom Drive & Old Bedford Road(main Hanscom Field entrance), Lincoln 6. Hanscom Drive &Route 2A, Lincoln 7. Bedford Road&Route 2A,Lincoln 8. Cambridge Turnpike Cut-Off, Brooks Road Lexington Road&Route 2A, Lincoln/Concord 9. Old Bedford Road &Lexington Road, Concord I o. Old Bedford Road&Virginia Road, Concord? it. Old Bedford Road&Route 62, Concord & 4 Fzr MI.. Ground Transportation 12. Hartwell Road&Route 62,Bedford 13. South Road &Hartwell Road, Bedford 14. Route 4-225 &Route 62, Bedford 15. Great Road(Routes 4-225), Springs Road& South Road, Bedford 16. South Road, Loomis Street&Railroad Avenue, Bedford 6 4 3 2 IlPoak limjir tirafft ur etwoirks, Figures 6.9 and 6.10 present the 2012 morning and afternoon peak hour volumes for the study intersections. In the morning, most of the traffic on Routes 2A, 62 and 4-225 travels eastbound to Route 128/1- 95. In the afternoon,most traffic on these corridors is traveling westbound from Route 128/1-95. This primarily reflects commuting patterns from the towns to regional employment centers along and within Route 128/1-95. Traffic flows to employment centers west of Route 128/1-95 such as Hartwell Avenue and Hanscom AFB are another consideration. Specifically, the directional split along Route 2A is more balanced east of Hanscom Drive compared to west of Hanscom Drive. For example, during the morning peak hour, traffic volumes on Route 2A east of Hanscom Drive are split 55 percent in the eastbound direction and 45 percent in the westbound direction,while west of Hanscom Drive volumes are split 70 percent in the eastbound direction and 30 percent in the westbound direction. The higher percentage of traffic traveling in a westbound direction on Route 2A near the interchange reflects the effects of employees commuting home from the area around Hanscom Field. 6 4 3 3 II11ainscoimn 1-16kl tirafft dlMirlInjtbin Figures 6.11 and 6.12 present the 2012 peak hour trip distribution and traffic volumes for Hanscom Field- related traffic for morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The existing trip distribution of Hanscom Field traffic was determined based on Hanscom main entrance directional peak hour traffic volumes and modeling of the distribution of peak hour traffic volumes at intersections within the study area. N N f4 \ \ 1 1 6\.6)5 � \Q72 JO 2 4 _ t Mp 25 a. Rai/road m> ¢9 Vp° C Ave. 62 ro a 1 wr o0 1� UpC 15j/• �D� �p1 n 4 hh e 225 r bIL 0 O 62e� yyh �a o ✓ 9°j�y (pdsr 7 r 0ed a a m ao Rd Hanscom Field age Exit p� 31 HAFB 4 HAFB Gate 4 Gate 1 Hartwell 25 n` Vandenburg Gate 128 43aJ L ttss Old 13edford Rd Gate HAFB 43s HAFB Gate 3 2AMIT -�137 Gate 2 Lincoln Labs 2 67 (closed) v_ �376 qst k p� ago` 11 183 S �.. L 3B8 \ .� L t 41 e GPM_ a `,y�r 278 _ 0 73s %,^ ss 9Le Oampt\d9 0 �pa�a' ti 827 937 80\ 6J, ^d° Mass Ave. ca o lea '?6 ✓f ,yM 6Jy V �So I ? y1 1 Gam' Exit 30 w —20 l l —19 rtt4 116Z 34-1 11 219-�- o- f 1 �2�Js Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE A Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2012 Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 6-9 o� Ay J o o n > 1 4 z6 Si 019 25 �a. Rai/road o r1'05 Voo Ave. , l G^P 62 tiro° 40� 4 225 ,2 se 62e� k61 �a o ✓ �6�A ✓1k1 'r �� 2 Q tdSt. C \ 0e&10d R amo eso a w m VrAll Rol. Hanscom Field P Exit f m� 31 NN � �o HAFB HAFB 4 Gate 1 Gate 4 N Vandenburg HGa eell 25 Jry' �odford Rd. Gate 128 Llss HAFB 78, ' 2ss �d 98 Gate 2A HAFB MIT Lincoln Labs 73 a2J = Gate 20 Sls m (closed) o ' \ 0 o 0 3 a ooa �e27 Sr J16 [\3B7 p o G t o{ 3 3 a L 2 9�. 0�ly as SPk U ~ais , —sss ,%e'� dSsA� ompt\d0e aQ 327 5570 e o dyo 52a` 803 ego-^ mass Ave. m6g 72j ✓f�,y� � °4, v Exit 30 w 2 —224 1, —222 -456 124--\ 5 j N-1 24—�— 21— �° o^ o ee '.ro � f Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE A Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2012 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 6-10 ENTER%(EXIT%)-XX%(XX%) M�, ENTER(EXIT)-XX(XX) 4 ♦� 1 /a 225 �sS 62 Rai/fpad Vpo A ve. C d 4 225 �4 6p 62 �a 0 S A r &0 St' ry r �e a o s m J f�2, �rg;nfaRa Hanscom Field it 31 HAFB 4 HAFB Gate 4 Gate 1 Hartwell 25 v Vandenburg Gate 128 Lexington Rd. godfptJ Rd Gate Soy 20, �(3) Ota o% HAFB (15%� 20_ Gate 3 2A �p%1 HAFB MIT Gate 2 Lincoln Labs 2p� (7� (closed) 3 a o rok k GU L54 --54 y�'�S pmpt\age'(P ' � as_r (ii�, f2) ✓�` sgLe G o apt fed v ss (,Hass Ave. 0 s f2q�� Exit r 30 N i- 1 L0 _0 34— t 102 02 N Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE OR Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2012 Morning Peak Hour Trip Distribution Figure 6-11 ENTER%(EXIT%)-XX%(XX%) ^�J ENTER(EXIT)-XX(XX) 1 4 / 225 °o�tsst_ 62 �a. Rai/road <„ Ave, t p v° o� U 4 25 �y r 62e�� 0 5 3 � a Oed�Otdst r a a Re: m P Hanscom Field �e Exit 31 L HAFB HAFB 4 Gate 1 Hai 4 225 Vandenberg Gate Gate 128 Lexington Rd. HAFB ed{Otd a♦ a ('3) Old B% Gate 3 (ts%) MIT 2A �o�l HAFB l Lincoln Labs 3 r(3 Gate 2 7e_ (t�� (closed) o r—i g Oio. Gamgt�d0%SP' � o�d tt_r (az>, 16 asS9Le Mass Ave. co0 rep ✓' 4:�-40� r� rye;�► Exit 30 L L2 ^2 5— O ~J O Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE A Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2012 Afternoon Peak Hour Trip Distribution Figure 6-12 Ground Transportation 6 4 3 4 11ainscoirn IIDirliive tirafft v6l.1irries, Figure 6-13 illustrates the different traffic contributors on Hanscom Drive in 2012 during the morning and afternoon peak hours using data from the turning movement counts. Hanscom Field-related traffic accounts for 14 percent during the morning peak hour and 13 percent during the afternoon in 2012, as compared to 15 percent in both the morning and the afternoon peak hours for the 2005 peak periods. The drop in Hanscom's contribution reflects a decrease in traffic traveling to and from Hanscom Field due to reduced commercial air travel and reduced flight class schedule (i.e. the discontinuance of the part-time evening program since 2005). Hanscom AFB traffic is the largest component on Hanscom Drive in 2012 at 59 percent in the morning peak hour and 62 percent in the afternoon peak hour, as compared to 50 and 49%in 2005. A factor in this increase is the recent relocation of the Massachusetts National Guard to the Base. 2012 Morning Peak Hour Traffic 2012 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic on Hanscom Drive on Hanscom Drive 11111111111 Hanscom Field 11111111111 Hanscom Field / / 11111 Hanscom AFB 11111 Hanscom AFB "lliq 11111111111 Other MINIM, WK, 11111111111 Other 1-iglxre 6-13 2012 IlPoak liol.jr tirafft oin 11ainscoirn IIDirliive 6.4.4 inteirsection scireening pirocess MEPA has established a threshold for identifying intersections with significant impacts related to Hanscom Field. Hanscom Field traffic is considered to impact an intersection if one or more of the intersection's individual peak hour traffic movement(s) consists of ten or more percent Hanscom Field- related traffic. The traffic volumes at each of the 16 study intersections were assessed to determine which intersections had individual turning movements that met or exceeded the ten percent MEPA threshold. Table 6-5 lists the intersections that have exceeded the ten percent threshold for the four analysis years. Intersection operations were calculated for year 2012 conditions for intersections that exceeded the threshold. Tat)�le 6-5 [inteirsectbins, exceed� hing tein-peirceint tliireslid[d: 1996--2012 I #5 Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road (Lincoln) Morning Afternoon #6 Hanscom Drive/Route 2A(Lincoln) Morning Afternoon #10 Old Bedford RoadNirginia Road(Concord) Morning Afternoon #11 Old Bedford Road/Route 62(Concord) Morning Afternoon Source:Massport,Hanscom Field 2005 Draft Environmental Status and Planning Report,EOEA#5484/8696(2006),see Figure 6-5 for location map. Prior ESPRs indicate that Hanscom Field traffic accounted for more than ten percent of the traffic volume for individual movements at only three or four of the 16 intersections studied. Given this trend, it may be 630 Ground Transportation feasible to study fewer intersections in future ESPRs. As shown in Table 6-5, Hanscom Field-related traffic accounted for more than ten percent of individual traffic movements at the same three intersections in 1996, 2002,2005 and 2012. Additionally, the afternoon peak hour Hanscom Field traffic volumes in 2005 accounted for more than ten percent of traffic movements on the left-turn from Route 62 to Old Bedford Road in the intersection of Old Bedford Road and Route 62. 6.4.5 AnaIysl ii of liInt irse ticin ciIpeia°atliie°n This section provides level of service calculations,volume-to-capacity ratios and seconds delay at the screened intersections. Appendix C provides the level of service calculation sheets. 6 4 5 1 IIL.ovolll of seirVice The performance of the study intersections was analyzed in SYNCHRO 7.0 and measured using Levels of Service (LOS),which is determined based on the process specified in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Levels of Service range from `A'to `F' where LOS `A' represents optimal conditions with fewer than 10 seconds of delay,while `F' represents failing conditions where delay exceeds 50 seconds at unsignalized intersections or 80 seconds at signalized intersections. Table 6-6 shows the delay thresholds for LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections based on the 2000 HCM. TdbI e - [intoir�:ectlibin Illovolll of seirVice cirliitoirliia . :,. All :,. A <10.0 <10.0 B 10.1to20.0 10.1to15.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 F >80.0 >50.0 LOS for signalized intersections is based on the average delay experienced by motorists traveling through the intersection. Delay is based on capacity analysis and other variables such as quality of signal progression, cycle length, and ratio of green time. LOS for two-way stop-controlled intersections is based on delay as a function of capacity of the approach and degree of saturation. LOS is determined for motorists entering from the minor road or turning left from the major road,movements in which motorists must use judgment to select an adequate gap in conflicting traffic. The performance of the study intersections was also measured by 95th percentile queue length; that is the queue length in feet with only a 5%probability of being exceeded during the time period,particularly at locations where queues from one intersection could impact another nearby intersection. 6 4 5 2 IlExliistliiing �intoir�:ectlibin Opeirafloins, The procedures described above were used to determine existing weekday peak hour operating LOS at the study intersections where Hanscom Field traffic represented more than ten percent of any traffic movement. Tables 6.7 and 6.8 summarize the 2012 peak hour traffic operations for these intersections. Detailed traffic capacity analysis reports are included in Appendix C. At the intersection of Hanscom Drive and Route 2A, the analysis indicates that southbound Hanscom Drive experiences significant delays during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. However,it appears that the analysis is not accurately representing actual operating conditions. Based on observations at the intersection,there are several unique behaviors occurring at this intersection requiring . 6 „; 1 Ground Transportation additional interpretation. First,motorists are offering other motorists "courtesy gaps". For example, motorists on Route 2A were observed stopping to allow motorist to turn left from Hanscom Drive onto Route 2A. Additionally,westbound motorists on Route 2A were observed stopping to allow motorists on Route 2A to turn left onto to Hanscom Drive. Second,motorists in both the left turn lane and right turn lane were doing "rolling stops", or not stopping fully before going through the intersection. Both these factors result in Synchro over estimating the delay and queues at this intersection. Furthermore, due to the wait that sometimes occurs for left-turning vehicles on Hanscom Drive, a few vehicles were observed taking "risky"turns, or turns during a gap in vehicles that is smaller than considered safe. At the current volumes, this intersection meets the peak-hour threshold for a traffic signal according to Figure 4C-4 of the 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. ali)lllo -' ( y"III CIII4If°1 ) at�:ciroouruled liiintoirsoru.tliiourus: imnoirinlliiing peak Iliou.uir Refer to Figure 6-5 for locations map. #5 Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road Hanscom Dr NB LT A 4.3 0.1 Hanscom Dr SB LT A 0.6 0 Old Bedford Rd EB LT C 19.1 3.5 Old Bedford Rd EB T C 20.1 4.0 Old Bedford Rd WB LT B 14.2 0.05 Old Bedford Rd EB T B 13.2 0.03 #6 Hanscom Drive/Road 2A Rt.2A EB L A 9.6 0.29 Hanscom Dr. SB L F >200 3.69 Hanscom Dr. SB R C 16.7 0.34 ali)lllo 6-8 (SYN III4II1 ) at�:ciroouruled liiintoirsec liiourus: aftoirinooin peak I[Iou.uir Refer to Figure 6-5 for locations map. �v c I - #5 Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road Hanscom Dr NB LT A 1.7 0.02 Hanscom Dr SB LT A 0.3 0 Old Bedford Rd EB LT B 13.7 0.04 Old Bedford Rd EB T B 11 0.0 Old Bedford Rd WB LT B 13.6 0.32 Old Bedford Rd EB T B 11.9 0.16 #6 Hanscom Drive/Road 2A Rt.2A EB L B 10.3 0.13 Hanscom Dr. SB L F >200 2.68 Hanscom Dr. SB R F >200 1.41 #10 Old Bedford Road/Virginia Road Virginia Road WB LR D 27.3 0.78 Old Bedford Road SB LT A 1.1 0.02 The crash history of the three screened study intersections,which are located in MassDOT District 4, were evaluated to identify safety deficiencies and determine if any location experiences a higher than average annual crash rate. The crash data was obtained from MassDOT's Highway Division for the five 6 Ground Transportation most recent years available (2006-2010) and is contained in Appendix C. The safety data are summarized in Table 6-9. The MassDOT Crash Rate Worksheet was used to determine whether the crash frequencies at the three screened study intersections were higher than other intersections. The MassDOT Crash Rate Worksheet calculates a crash rate expressed in crashes per million entering vehicles. The calculated rate is then compared to the average crash rates for signalized and unsignalized intersections statewide and within the MassDOT District. The statewide rates are 0.60 for unsignalized intersection and 0.80 for signalized intersections. The MassDOT District 4 crash rates are 0.58 crashes per million entering vehicles for unsignalized intersections and 0.77 crashes per million entering vehicles for signalized intersections. The MassDOT Crash Rate Worksheets for each study intersection are provided in Appendix C. Twenty-one crashes were reported at the three screened unsignalized intersections from 2006 to 2010. Approximately 33% of the crashes involved personal injury.No fatalities were reported at the screened intersections during the time period evaluated. Angled crashes,rear-end crashes and single vehicle crashes each were approximately 30% of the crashes at the intersections. The 17 crashes at Hanscom Drive/Route 2A (Lincoln)ranked highest among the three screened intersections, or an average of 3.4 crashes per year,which is lower than an average 6.4 crashes per year as reported in the 2005 ESPR. The crash rate at this intersection was lower than the statewide and district-wide averages for unsignalized intersections. The most common type of crash at his intersection was a rear-end collision(41 percent). A crash at the intersection of Old Bedford RoadNirginia Road(Concord)involved a bicyclist. 7aIt)IIIo -9 Grastri siuxrnimniairy: 200 --2010 milliuuu Traffic Control: Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized 2006 0 1 0 2007 0 5 1 2008 0 3 0 2009 2 6 0 2010 0 2 1 Total 2 17 2 w. Angle 2 5 1 Rear-End 0 7 0 Head-on 0 0 1 Sideswipe 0 1 0 Single Vehicle 0 4 0 Total 2 17 2 Property Damage Only 1 12 1 Personal Injury 1 5 1 Fatality 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Total 2 17 2 Clear 1 13 2 Cloudy 1 2 0 Rain 0 2 0 Snow 0 0 0 Y a,'Y Ground Transportation uuu Unknown/Other 0 0 0 Total 2 17 2 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m. 0 1 0 9:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. 2 6 1 4:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m. 0 8 0 6:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. 0 2 1 Total 2 17 2 State Wide Rate 0.60 0.60 0.60 District Wide Rate 0.58 0.58 0.58 Intersection Rate 0.09 0.45 0.14 Source:Massachusetts Department of Transportation,MassHighway Crash Data Worksheet. 6.5 Analysis of Future Scenarios This section describes the background assumptions and methodology used to evaluate future roadway and volume conditions within the study area for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. The 2012 ESPR future scenarios are used to evaluate the potential cumulative environmental effects that could occur if Hanscom Field reaches the airport activity levels that that are described in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios represent estimates of what could occur(not what will occur)in the future using certain planning assumptions and are not necessarily recommended outcomes. Future increases in weekday peak hour vehicular traffic were estimated for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios and were added to the study area roadway network to evaluate their effects. The potential vehicular traffic volume increases include vehicle trips generated by assumed future background growth, specific planned non-Hanscom developments in the area reported by the towns, as well as forecast growth at Hanscom Field. In addition to the components of future traffic growth,this section describes planned roadway improvements in the area and their expected effects on the transportation network. The analysis identified traffic increases on key roadways such as Route 2A and conducted LOS analysis for study area intersections where Hanscom Field traffic represents ten percent or more for any traffic movement, as required by MEPA. Future growth in traffic volumes occurs because of regional background growth and the traffic associated with specific plans/developments in the individual towns. This section describes background growth trends and planned developments within the towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. 6 5 1 1 III'°legl lirou.jind 1lirow°tlli In order to determine a background growth rate for traffic volumes in the study area, the following sources were consulted: IN When comparing 2005 ATR counts with 2012 ATR counts, the traffic volumes along Route 2A, Bedford Road and Cambridge Turnpike Cutoff have decreased(approximately 1-2%per year). Traffic volumes along Route 62 and Old Bedford Road increased; however,the majority of this increase can be attributed to the former Raytheon facility on Hartwell Road being taken over and 634 . I.. Ground Transportation occupied by Instrumentation Labs which likely resulted in increased traffic volumes along both Route 62 and Old Bedford Road. IN MAPC produced population and employment projections to support the development of Paths to a Sustainable Region, the Boston MPO's long range transportation plan. The projections estimate that population and employment will have limited growth(less than 0.5%per year) through 2030. IN A MassDOT traffic count on Route 2A west of Cambridge Turnpike showed a modest increase (less than 0.5%per year)in traffic volume between 2011 and 2012. Based on these three sources, a growth rate of 0.5%per year, compounded annually,was used to account for background growth in traffic volume for both the 2020 and 2030 forecast years. 6 5 1 2 II I'3II4onuned aind Ipotountli4 1u.u'tu.uiro devolllollpirneints Planning officials from Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln were contacted to identify specific proposed or planned development projects within those towns that could potentially impact traffic volumes in the vicinity of Hanscom Field. These projects include planned projects as well as potential projects that might be built in the future. Table 6-10 lists the specific background developments that are included in the analysis of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Estimated traffic volumes generated by specific proposed projects in Table 6-10 were added to the study intersections. aIiAe 6-10 III'3II4onuned devolllollpirneint Ipirojects, .. uuu 1 v Town of Bedford Cafe at the Red Barn Restaurant in Depot Park On hold Mixed-use development(19 condos and 2,860 54 Loomis St. sq.ft. retail) Approved ti ti Mixed-use development(7 condos and 26,000 Blake Block sq.ft.retail) Under Construction ti ti Town of Concord 506 Old Bedford Road 8-unit Planned Residential Development Under Construction ti ti Monsen Road 8-lot subdivision Under Construction ti ti Town of Lexington 113 Hartwell Avenue Medical Marijuana Treatment Center Proposed ti ti In the Town of Bedford, the Cafe at the Red Barn is currently on hold so this development was not included in future forecasts. 54 Loomis Street and Blake Block are two mixed-used developments in the Town of Bedford included in both the 2020 and 2030 forecast years. Given the size of the proposed development at 54 Loomis Street, this development was assumed to be captured in the background growth. For the Blake Block project that is currently under construction, specific trips were generated and assigned to the study intersections. The Town of Concord has two small residential developments under construction(i.e. 506 Old Bedford Road and Monsen Road),which were assumed to be captured in the background growth. The Town of Lexington has a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center proposed at 113 Hartwell. Specific trips were generated and assigned for this development to the study intersections, which were included in both the 2020 and 2030 forecast years. Ground Transportation 6 5 1 3 Sped4 geineiratoirs, Additional special generators were considered that include Hanscom AFB and the Minute Man National Historical Park. The additional vehicle trips associated with these special generators were included in the future background growth as described below. The Hanscom AFB borders the southeast side of Hanscom Field. Between the 2005 ESPR and the 2012 ESPR,the Massachusetts National Guard Joint Force Headquarters opened at the Base and the Air Force Research Laboratory left the Base,resulting in a considerable area of vacant property. There are plans for MIT Lincoln Labs to take over and occupy up to 300,000 square feet of the space vacated by the Air Force Research Laboratory. Specific trips were generated and assigned for this development to the study intersections,which were included in both the 2020 and 2030 forecast years. Hanscom AFB has three operating gated entrances (see Figure 6-5). The Vandenberg Gate (Gate 1) is located at Vandenberg Drive east of the intersection of Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road,which serves traffic to and from Route 2A. Gate 2 is no longer being used. Gate 3 located on Wood Street provides direct access to the Lincoln Laboratory via Route 4-225 or Route 2A. Gate 4 is located at Barksdale Street/Hartwell Avenue and serves traffic to and from Routes 4-225 via Hartwell Avenue. The trip distribution for the MIT Lincoln Labs expansion assumed that approximately half of motorists would access the Hanscom AFB via the Vandenberg Gate (Gate 1) and the other half would travel to/from the Base via either Gate 3 or Gate 4. Much of the Minute Man National Historical Park runs parallel to Route 2A (Battle Road) south of Hanscom Field. The Minute Man National Historical Park attracts about one million visitors per year. The April 2005 Minute Man Alternative Transportation Evaluation indicates that few visitations occur during the peak commuting times. Additionally, the records of recreation visitors from the National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics database indicate that the number of yearly visitors has been consistent the last five years. Therefore,the analysis in the 2012 ESPR does not include any specific trips for the park and assumes that the future peak hour traffic growth from Minute Man National Historical Park is accounted for in the background growth rate of 0.5 percent per year. 65.2 �ianscorn V`1161dtira'fflc pirojections To assess the future traffic impacts of Hanscom Field, trips generated by possible future activity at Hanscom Field for the 2020 and 2030 forecasts were estimated. Vehicular traffic at Hanscom Field is generated by both general and commercial aviation activities, and other airport-related land uses. General aviation(GA) includes flights for training,personal use, and business/corporate use. In 2012, GA accounted for most(99%) of the civilian operations with the remaining being commercial air passenger services. In 2005, civilian operations were 97% GA and 3% commercial. Future growth estimates for airside operations (GA, commercial aviation, and light cargo operations)were based on aviation forecasts presented in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. Future growth based on these forecasts was applied to existing peak hour activity levels at Hanscom Field to estimate the number of new weekday morning and afternoon vehicular trips generated by aviation activities under each of the two future scenarios. Ground- side trip generation for other land uses at Hanscom Field was estimated based on standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates. Table 6-11 shows vehicle trip generation for 2012 and the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. In general,the 2012 ESPR Hanscom Field trip generation is similar to the 2010 and 2020 Moderate Growth scenario from the 636 Fzr MI.. Ground Transportation 2005 ESPR and lower than the 2010 and 2020 High Growth scenarios. These differences reflect reduced forecasts for GA and commercial activity and increases in airport-related land uses. Trip generation characteristics of GA, commercial aviation,based cargo operations, and other airport-related land uses are described below. Detailed trip generation summaries are provided in Appendix C. Tat)�le 6-11 Ilainscoirn I-i6kl 'Tiriiip Geineiratbin for 2020 aind 2030 Sceirlairibs III I'll J 2012 136 29 165 37 84 121 2020 Forecast 178 42 220 46 120 166 2030 Forecast 291 99 390 122 223 345 6 5 2 1 Geinei4 viiiatbin GA includes single engine local flights for training; single engine piston itinerant for personal flying; single, twin,turbo and jet operations for business and corporate use; and helicopters for personal and business uses.Vehicle trips associated with GA were estimated using information from the "Hanscom Trip Generation Model"developed in the 2005 ESPR and future growth in GA operations as presented in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. There are modest increases in GA operations anticipated(i.e. 1% growth between 2012 and 2020 and 14% growth between 2020 and 2030). The results of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios indicate that future GA operations could results in up to nine new morning peak hour vehicular trips and up 11 new afternoon peak hour vehicular trips. 6 5 2 2 Coirnirneird4 opeiratbins, Commercial aviation at Hanscom Field includes all commercial passenger flights. For each future scenario, the forecasted number of commercial passengers from Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels was used to estimate the number of vehicle trips during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Since there was no commercial activity at the time of the 2012 intersection turning movement counts, 2005 peak hour trips and the number of commercial passengers in 2005 were used to estimate the number of peak hour trips for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. The results of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios indicate that future commercial operations could result in 12 to 22 new morning peak hour vehicular trips and six to 11 new afternoon peak hour vehicular trips. These trip estimates are lower than the forecast trips from the 2005 ESPR given the reductions in forecasts for potential commercial activity. 6 5 2 3 Cargo opeiratbin There are no traditional cargo operations included in the 2020 or 2030 Forecasts. 6 5 2 4 Xirpoirt-ir6lated II4ond u.jse Other airport-related traffic generators at Hanscom Field include the National Aviation Academy(NAA), a potential hotel and the proposed Massachusetts Air and Space Museum. Based on conversations with staff from the NAA, there are currently no specific plans for expanding the student body. Current daytime classes begin at 7:30 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. so students typically arrive and depart outside the peak hours at the study intersections. NAA has held nighttime classes in the past and staff is interested in offering those classes if there is interest from students.Nighttime students arrive before the afternoon peak hour and depart after the afternoon peak hour. Therefore,no additional vehicle trips were assumed for the NAA. 637 Ground Transportation IN The trip generation for a potential hotel is based on the Hotel land use (LU 9310) from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition.It assumes that the 200- room hotel will be operational by 2030 and that 5% of all trips to the hotel are internal trips from Hanscom Air Field(i.e. 5%would arrive/depart by plane). IN The Massachusetts Air and Space Museum representatives continue to work on fundraising efforts for a future museum at Hanscom Field. The museum trip generation assumes that half of the museum's 161,000 square feet will open by 2020 and the remaining half will open by 2030. The ITE Trip Generation Manual only provides data for one museum of 45,000 square feet in Tennessee, so the trip generation rates from this site were averaged with those from a 2008 study of a California museum of 69,500 square feet. (Source: "Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Museum of Tolerance Project") 5 2 5 II11ainscoimn III'-'liiold tirliip dlii�irliIn tbirl Anticipated vehicular traffic volume increases due to future background growth, specific proposed or planned developments in the area, and future changes at Hanscom Field were added to the existing peak hour traffic volume to estimate future peak hour traffic volumes for the 2020 and 2030 forecast scenarios. Trips to and from Hanscom Field were distributed based on existing trip distribution patterns. The following entrance locations were also considered: IN On the south side of the site, the existing main entrance to the terminal area on Hanscom Drive would continue to be used under all future scenarios as the primary access. IN Virginia Road will be used to access the new Rectrix hangar. IN Access to the north side of Hanscom Field(North Airfield and the Navy Parcel)is assumed to occur from South Road and Hartwell Road. These entrances would be available for access to potential GA hangars,buildings and T-hangars identified in the growth scenarios for the north area of the site. The number of vehicle trips to/from Rectrix,North Airfield Area and the Navy Parcel will be minimal during the morning and afternoon peak hours. As such, all vehicle trips are assumed to travel to/from Hanscom Field via the main entrance on Hanscom Drive. Figures 6.14 through 6.17 present the 2020 and 2030 forecast volumes for Hanscom Field Traffic Only. Figures 6.18 through 6.21 present the 2020 and 2030 forecast volumes including background growth,proposed or planned developments and Hanscom Field traffic. �a o/ r O f S \O 0 O\ ) / 1 .--�\O O p O� 4 VO Sgt. f 1 I 25 y Railroad o 0 0 ''o �.0°� G� 62 ^° �� A ve. o � o� 4 $ 25 Sao � 0 oo/ O �a. 62 °o .�°19 �� � '✓i fp f a > r 7] O a egd`°t O� a a m a° Hanscom Field P Exit o @ fT Rq ' 31 \ m HAFB 4 HAFB Gate 4 Gate 1 Hartwell 25 Vandenburg Gate 12 exington Rd.j Lt, O'd Bedford Rd. Gate HAFB 0 zs� 'ems zs HAFB Gaye 3 2A IT 'ems Gate 2 Lincoln Labs os` moo m (closed) - o o tiar o00 �15 a, sf O n 50` r`3 o o 1-0 0 63 GaMgt d o papa ` \so o Mass Ave. o lea 3 ✓f o 'o v o �o'� o I/� 0 Exit 30 wis L0 ^0 L ^0 r0 0—\ 45--J 0- 0 0 r wt f Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE elm Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2020 Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Hanscom Field Only) Figure 6-14 a,o /o J ° S �00 7 -\\° O ° f 4 v° tsst. f l 25 �y Rai/road o 0 0 .i o Loom 62 h° ova Ave. r l 4 f° °off '\o0 25 62e� f f o o \o a w All. m ov° Vrgnand P Exit f Hanscom Field eke 31 1 HAFB HAFB 4 Gate 1 Gate 4 Hartwell 25 Vandenburg xin n Gate 12 Gate egto Rd.-�� Lo HAFB 0, —79 old 6od{etd Rd. a` Gate 3 2A HAFB MIT Lincoln Labs —79 Gate 2 v o n 2a ? (closed) % o m o o } � 001Y �27 r-24 d96(PK' a °or 14� 0_`2a ✓� Ss 9Le mbn Cr d� o, 46 Go m ayot sJ` ?o s Mass Ave e ✓ /o ° 0 Exit 30 o> L2 ^0 1 ^0 r0 0--\ 6__r '�± 4—`- 0— �° to f \ ° 3) 0 0 � S Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE A Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts '1` 2020 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Hanscom Field Only) Figure 6-15 �o 0 J ` ° �t° �°° 7 ° °oJr -\\° O ° f 25 �y Rai/road o 0 0 .i o Lo°m 62 h° ova Ave. r l 4 9 °� '\o0 25 62 sett 1a n 'At \o a w All. m ov a Vrgnand P Exit f Hanscom Field eke 31 0 HAFB HAFB 4 Gate 1 Gate 4 Hartwell 25 Vandenburg Gate 12 Gate exingtonRd-7E Lo Bedf°tdFtd HAFB 43, —ro old 43 Gate 3 2A HAFB MIT Lincoln Labs —,o Gate 2 a n 24 ? (closed) o m o o o�\ � ` 3 a ooa o 1� o 7 a Sf o� } �� —n4 Oi d96(PK' a °or oo_ o `tt4_r ✓� Ss yLe Cr Gamp(\ aQ o, 37 2 \o Ca �eayo 30` s�2 ✓1 Mass Ave 0 o o> °>J "04 0 Exit 30 �S �o —o ro o--\ 72-1 tie t°— o— \ o �R ° � t Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE A Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2030 Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Hanscom Field Only) Figure 6-16 6,o 0 e l ��0 J O� �00 °lr -�\0 0 0 f 4 e v 0 OR1s / 1 25 �a. Rai/road o o r V0 1� oa ve. 62 ,1 '° �dr �C, l 4 0 25 r o o \ 0 \ o0 r 1 0 62 a ° 41 00 �o 0 d{O o °ar a w P p fo ��gi�%aRa Hanscom Field ��' 31t t� 0 HAFB HAFB 4 Gate 1 Gate 4 V Hartwell 25 andenburg Gate 12 Gate exin tonRd.J LO HAFB 0, —3s old Bedford Rd. 9— Gate 3 2A HAFB MIT 35 = Gate 2 v Lincoln Labs e as y (clo 0 'ad) :0�p 00, 16 O 0�� a o 25�, OtAf{ ��" L fi0 , L0 O/1Y 305,`0 () ✓�o aSsALP am ti d 8 3 , o G Yo° ga�o ;19` so '/a° Mass Ave. o 11040 ° J Exit 30 o ^6 Nm L6 0� 16__j 0- 0 s No 0 t Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE elm Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2030 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Hanscom Field Only) Figure 6-17 op 1 ✓/'h^O �, JJS� ,r�RSOR _h my b� 2 v � 4 < v9e 1s`'_ ^^M 25 m a. Rai/road �'`� J'j"�'°o Gam, f hI/ a Ave. C° 59 l 1°5 n 4 25 a° s �b� lily' 62sibgl b� 1 ry91 �g a a D m Jg p VrBiniand Hanscom Field e Exit 31 HAFB 4 HAFB Gate 4 Gate 1 Hartwell 25 Vandenburg Gate 12 exington Rd J L L Bedford Rd' Gate 473 `125 oid HAFB 45 9 HAFB G 1ate 3 2A Gate 2 Lincoln Labs @�,� �3g8 m (closed) a3 � o 0 72 15@ h G tO{t yob �,r 4 O/a L413 L soa ✓ mass o1P' a b° 3oa� o_ Gmprfd9 ak ti asa_ loos 13' a ad, v `'s b° Mass Ave ✓ 5 bo m b` Exit 30 —0 —21 1. —21 -153 121 Z 45—J '�� 230—�- 225— �1�B f 1 6 t Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE A Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2020 Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 6-18 ^ %02 4 St. f 1 l 25 �J' Rai/road o w . "'q L00m A ve. 62 ` CJ »6l �o 4 °9n ' 25 62e� ti 491 �a p ✓ bhp f A p9 f edtotd/ h / 95 a w All m O f3e Vr9�n/aRo, Hanscom Field e e Exit 31 �w HAFB HAFB 4 Gate 1 Gate 4 N^ Vandenburg Hell 25 artw Nh Gate 12 exin ton Rd.J t-- d Bedfo HAFB r 2 R 328 old Gate 3 5 MIT 2A HAFB Lincoln Labs was Gate 2 600 (closed) 0 v o 18 } —944 33 �382 a0� G t o� a a0 y \ L 192 4 L 2 95�—851 --1023✓ry06 �d rS9L Gampnd9e Cr ae� a 341 706_ 6 q2 f a e �eayo °` eso ✓1abati Mass Ave m \ 46 1 J Exit 30 1-4 —235 l 1, —231 r628 129Z 6—j ti, 26—�— 22— 0R 0 ON f j N bNRI J Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE A Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2020 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 6-19 199 2ss�8 / ^Ar 4 St. v5 n \s f1l 25 �J' Rai/road o o m .i1�a� LO°m G„ ve. 62 c° CJO 40 l ,a 110 n 4 ,sit 25 g9 62e� totdl 6gd .y/" s a w All m P o Vr9,niand Hanscom Field eke 3it �w HAFB HAFB 4 Gate 1 Gate 4 V Hartwell 25 andenburg Gate 12 Gate Lexir ton Rd. _/ Lss BedA?" HAFB 5j'�' ae old Gate 3 499 MIT 2A HAFB Lincoln Labs -,s Gate 2 sss n 32� (closed) Ta 4 ' 7;1 O O 45, .s p S'f 95 wlog 200 530 434 990 0 ✓��' dss"9Le Gampfl Cr Qd ti 898 1076 9? e�p ✓1� a Mass Ave ca qs J 5 Exit 30 o- �o —22 l l —22 r159 127 Z 75-J ti2 246-�- 236— 0 h 6 f j �\R J4R Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE A Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2030 Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 6-20 s, a° o � 1 4 3 0 25 a� Rai/road �$° f���5 Vo R`1 ve. 0 62 �0 of�a� 14 4 r533 3 ass \9 25 �7320 62e\\ ti a w P V�All Rol. Hanscom Field a��0 31t t� N HAFB HAFB Gate 4 4 Gate 1 Hartwell 25 N� Vandenburg Gate 12 Gate exington Rd.J L HAFB 11 59, —3ep Ota gedf0rd R Gate 3 2A HAFB MIT Lincoln Labs �49 Gate 2 �`S9 (closed) o 79 �0 p 0 102, ss a sf 375` �419 e. pO t—23 2 0 0/1Y a9e1Pk' a Qa�.bo 12o�—e9s �1110 ✓�6� aSsALP amb(l 359 772 otd 45 ^� 0 Yo° 0eat 73a` 932 ee Mass Ave. 4 03 639\ 9/> °8? 10 ,0 Exit 30 o L a —252 l l —243 r652 136 16__j ^N 31—/-- 23 9 bh ^ f j 0�ry �2\°fir °lf Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR Nodh DNOT TO SCALE elm Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 2030 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 6-21 Ground Transportation 653 RUanned roadway l00�pirove00ervts The future roadway networks for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios include planned and proposed roadway improvements as described below. Planning o[Goiolo from Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln were contacted to identify specific roadway improvements that are planned or are under construction within the vicinity of Hanscom Field. Table 6-12 summarizes the roadway improvement projectsdho1 were identified (000 Figure 6'22 for corresponding l000dono). None of these projects are anticipated to have osignificant impact on traffic operations and circulation in the study area during the morning or afternoon peak hours. Tai)Ue 6-12 �Uaiiriiirie��I 'Tiraiirifs��poirtat���oiiri Cap�IaU [mmpirovemmeint �3irojects Town of Bedford Along The Great Road and North Road between Veterans Memorial Park to the intersection with 1 The Great Road Carlisle Road. Improvements to pedestrian and Planning Master Plan bicycle access;streetscape improvements; Conceptual Design access management; possible traffic signals at Fletcher Road and Mudge Way 2 Minuteman Pave existing Reformatory Branch railroad Preliminary Design Enhancement Project corridor from Depot Park to Concord Road 3 Sidewalk construction Feasibility of constructing sidewalks on Hemlock Planning Lane, Concord Road, North Road Town of Concord Bruce Freeman Rail Phase 2 of the trail through West Concord along Planning 1 Trail 25-mile shared-use path between Lowell and Preliminary Design Framingham The Natural Resource Commission plans to blaze a trail through land owned by the non-profit Concord Land Trust to organization Gaining Ground to connect the trail 2 Gaining Ground Trail system at Massport and then to Reformatory Planning Connection Branch Trail to the Minuteman National Historic Park and Battle Road Trail and eventually connect to Concord and Bedford's larger trail Sidewalk/ADA Install new ADA compliant ramps on Old Bedford 3 Compliance Program Road and Bedford Street from the Bedford Town Under Construction Line to Monument Square Town of Lexington Reconstruct and widen for four travel lanes, Hartwell Avenue center left-turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks. 1 between Bedford Signalize the Hartwell Avenue & Maguire Design Street and Maguire intersection. Update signal at Minuteman Bikeway crossing. Source:Personal Communications with staff from the towns of Bedford,Concord,Lexington,and Lincoln A project ounundyunduroonybuodoniyd/uCnoyhy`yCornurp uoLonQoutu2o1dhoConoord/linooln town line to allow uninterrupted through movements for eastbound and westbound boDfioon Route 2ond improve safety. The project vriDprovidoolinnhod'000000roodxruyvrifbogrod000porotodoonnoodonond service roads. Ao described in the 2005/SJ,8,the potential impacts of the Croobv'o Comer project vroro evaluated through the CTPS transportation demand mode,which indicated that the proposed grade separation at Crosby's Comer would have minor impacts on Route 2A demand because Routes 2 and 2A are not generally used as parallel and oobodb4oblo routes. The model ooggooto that after the project io completed, Route 2A may experience minor reductions in peak hour traffic volumes. These adjustments were not included in the 2012 ESPR analysis to provide a conservative analysis. Ground Transportation (This page intentionally left blank) 648 .gym. N pp' m to I L.& m N >L C13 L.L � l�7 o' W � C i c r V Q d o2 � , s P55e. 0 N `r w ` ��cins>: /I�I� ��b�b.,. </m � ��� •.:f�s bob ... J � y N N Op Y URNE 4p go p� Rpm `� p jam` �s Nb , V �i �d ra. � N .� J U• �� O� o N 40, �y�e2i�a6,en�,Mo°YleN oamo, a OD / v. lb �� `O 9tlptl(It1Gi03y � s d m 4 • r L, C \�N �y1.0ENSTREE� L.t.& .?..'. a „ S / N 86 po 0 o O n a U � g 0 x €O O L' 41 A F B O N ti 0 N 5 Y,,, f 4"Y Cf',7 Ground Transportation 6.5.3.1 Air4Uys��s of futumetiraffiic vdU�.Jmmes Analysis of the anticipatedboDfiobnor00000 indicates that most ofthe bnor00000 from yeor20|2 levels occur 000 result of regional bockcroondboffiourox4bondboDfiofromnlounodoudanticipated projects near Hanscom Field. 1{on000nn Fiold'rolo1odboffio ropr000nio approximately 7 to 22 percent oftraffic volumes o1 study area intersections closest to Hanscom Field and less o1 locations further from the study area in the forecast scenarios. 6.5.3.2 Ilainscomm ��Dir���ve tirafft vd�.Jmmes Figure 6'23 illustrates the percent of Hanscom Field-related peak hour boDfiovolumes on Hanscom Drive for the Existing (20|2) and the 2020 and 2030 forecast scenarios. ln the existing and 2020forecast 000nodoo, 1{on000nn Field-related traffic makes up between 12 and 14% of traffic and it increases to 22% of traffic in the 2030 Dor0000t 000nodo. The inor0000 in percentage of Hanscom Field-related traffic in the 2030 Dor0000t 000nodo is oUdbotoblo to the trips associated with the full-build out ofthe m0000m and hotel. 90% 1111111111 Morning Peak Hour IIIII Afternoon Peak 70% Hour I-i0�xre 6-23 Ilainscomm I-iVUd 2020 aind 2030 Pea�k 11mir"Frafft Vd�xmmes as a Peirceint of Ilainscomm Dir��ve 'Tiraffic Vd�xmmes 6.5.3.3 11mite 2Atiraffic vdU�xmmes Figure 6'24 illustrates the percent of Hanscom Field-related peak hour boDfiovolumes on Route 2Afor Existing (20|2) and the 2020 and 2030 forecast scenarios. ln the existing and 2020 forecast scenarios, Hanscom Field-related traffic makes up between 3% and 5% ofboDfio and increases to7% ofboDfioin the 2030 forecast 000nmdo. The inor0000 in percentage of Hanscom Fiold'rolo1odbo[Go in the 2030 forecast 000nodo is oUdbotoblo to the Uipo associated with the full-build out ofthe m0000m and hotel. 651 Ground Transportation 100% 1111111111 Morning Peak Hour 80% 1111111111 Afternoon Peak Hour Existing 2020 Forecast 2030 Forecast 1-i0lxme 6-24, 11ainscomm 1-iVUd 2020 alind 2030 Pea�k 11ol.jrTraffiic VdUl.jmmes, as a l3eirceint of Rol.ite 2A (East of 11ainscommDir�Ive) 'Tmaffic VdUl.jmmes 6.5.4 �"tl Inteirsection anaUys�ls Future intersection operations were evaluated for study intersections with movementsthat exceed the ten percent threshold under the 2020 ond2030 Dor0000to. Table 6'13 obovro the intersections that could have one or more boDfiomovements with ten or more percent Hanscom Field-related traffic volumes under future scenarios. The procedures described earlier in this chapter were used to determine future weekday peak hour intersection operations. To identify effects related to Hanscom Field and those that would be regional in nature, an analysis was also conducted for 2020 and 2030 scenarios assuming no growth in Hanscom Field boDfiovolumes. These "background growth only" scenarios were compared with the forecast scenarios for each future analysis year. Detailed traffic capacity analysis reports are included in AppondixC. Tai)Ue 6-13 [inteirsectIoins, exceed�Iin0 tein-pleirceint flhreslidd Refer m Figure a's for locations map. it Hil'i"i 11 1 MI .I 1. 1 #2 Massachusetts Avenue& Route 2A(Lexington) Morning Afternoon #3 Old Massachusetts Avenue& Route 2A Morning (Lexington) Afternoon #4 Airport Road&Route 2A(Lexington) Morning Afternoon #5 Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road (Lincoln) Morning Afternoon #6 Hanscom Drive/Route 2A(Lincoln) Morning Afternoon #9 Old Bedford Road/Lexington Road (Concord) Morning Afternoon #10 Old Bedford RoadNirginia Road(Concord) Morning Afternoon 6.5.4.1 2020 forecast sceinair�Ios Tables 6-14 and 6-15 present the comparison of traffic operations for the 2020 forecast scenarios with and without potential increases in Hon000nn Field traffic inor00000 for the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. These results indicate that most intersections would operate at the same LOS or with only slight increases in delay regardless of the amount of Hanscom Field-related traffic growth. At the Ground Transportation intersection of Route 2A and Hanscom Drive, the analysis indicates that the southbound movements are operating with delay during the morning and afternoon peak hours. However, as described in Section 6.3.5.2 Existing Intersection Operations,the analysis is not accurately representing actual operating conditions based on observations of several unique behaviors at this intersection. However, the additional Hanscom Field-related traffic only contributes 3 to 4% of traffic to these movements. As such,these operational deficiencies are likely a result of regional background traffic growth and traffic from planned and anticipated projects near Hanscom Field,not Hanscom-field related traffic. 7aIt)IIIo 6-14 IIL.ovolll o1 SeirVte for 2020 II1'-'oirocast: 1 lour liiing Peak Il11ou.iir Refer to Figure 6-5 for locations map. #5 Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road Hanscom Dr NB LT A 4.3 0.11 A 3.9 0.11 Hanscom Dr SB LT A 0.6 0.00 A 0.8 0.00 Old Bedford Rd EB LT C 20.2 0.39 C 24.9 0.49 Old Bedford Rd EB T C 22.2 0.48 D 25.5 0.53 Old Bedford Rd WB LT B 14.6 0.06 C 15.6 0.07 Old Bedford Rd EB T B 14.3 0.03 C 15.3 0.03 #6 Hanscom Drive/Route 2A Rt.2A EB L A 9.8 0.31 A 9.9 0.32 Hanscom Dr.SB L F >200 >1.20 F >200 >1.20 Hanscom Dr.SB R C 21.1 0.46 C 22.0 0.49 #10 Old Bedford Road/Virginia Road Virginia Road WB LR C 21.0 0.26 C 21.5 0.27 Old Bedford Road SB LT A 5.0 0.17 A 5.1 0.18 7aIt)IIIo 6-15 IIL.ovolll o1 SeirVte for 2020 III'-'oirocast: Afteirinooin IIPodlk Il11ou.Jir Refer to Figure 6-5 for locations map. #5 Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road Hanscom Dr NB LT A 5.9 0.07 A 5.6 0.08 Hanscom Dr SB LT A 0.3 0.00 A 0.3 0.00 Old Bedford Rd EB LT C 16.5 0.05 C 18.6 0.06 Old Bedford Rd EB T B 12.1 0.03 B 12.6 0.03 Old Bedford Rd WB LT C 16.1 0.39 C 17.4 0.41 Old Bedford Rd EB T B 13.3 0.20 B 14.0 0.21 #6 Hanscom Drive/Route 2A Rt.2A EB L B 10.5 0.14 B 10.5 0.14 Hanscom Dr.SB L F >200 >1.20 F >200 >1.20 Hanscom Dr.SB R F >200 >1.20 F >200 >1.20 #10 Old Bedford Road/Virginia Road Virginia Road WB LR D 32.8 0.83 D 33.2 0.83 Old Bedford Road SB LT A 1.2 0.02 A 1.2 0.02 6 5 4 2 2030 forecast scounairlibs Tables 6.16 and 6.17 present the comparison of traffic operations for the 2030 forecast scenarios with and without potential increases in Hanscom Field traffic for the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. These results indicate that most intersections would operate at the same LOS or with only slight increases in delay with Hanscom Field-related traffic growth compared to with background only. There are several intersections that would operate with one or more movements at LOS F during one or Ground Transportation more peak hours. All movements that operate at LOS F in the build scenario also operate at LOS F in the no build scenario. Furthermore, Hanscom Field-related traffic has no or a minimal contribution to these movements, as described below. As such,these operational deficiencies are likely a result of regional background traffic growth and traffic from planned and anticipated projects near Hanscom Field,not Hanscom-field related traffic. IN Mass Avenue/Route 2A - Several movements (Route 2A eastbound left, Route 2A westbound through and Mass Avenue southbound left) operate at LOS F both with background traffic only and with Hanscom Field traffic. The additional Hanscom Field-related traffic only contributes from 0 to 7% on each of these movements. IN Old Mass Avenue/Route 2A - The southbound approach operates at LOS F for the morning and afternoon peak hour with background traffic only and with Hanscom Field traffic. The additional Hanscom Field-related traffic only contributes 3 to 8% of traffic to this movement. IN Airport Road/Route 2A - The southbound approach operates at LOS F for the morning peak hour in both the 2030 With Background Only and 2030 Forecast scenarios. However, the gate to Hanscom AFB on Airport Road was closed in 2011 and this road does not provide access to other properties. Therefore,there is only one vehicle turning left from Airport Road during the morning peak hour and no cars during the afternoon peak hour. The additional Hanscom Field-related traffic does not contribute any traffic to this movement. IN Hanscom Drive/Route 2A - The analysis indicates that the southbound movements are operating with significant delay during the morning and afternoon peak hours. However, as described in section 6.3.5.2 Existing Intersection Operations, the analysis is not accurately representing actual operating conditions based on observations of several unique behaviors at this intersection. The additional Hanscom Field-related traffic only contributes 12 to 16% of traffic to these movements. At Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road,the eastbound approach operates at LOS B or C with Background Only and LOS E or F with Hanscom Field Traffic. While Hanscom Field would not contribute a large percentage of traffic to these eastbound movements, Hanscom Field traffic would contribute to the northbound and southbound movements,which conflict with the eastbound movements. As such, the changes in LOS may be attributed to forecasted Hanscom Field traffic volume increases. The plans for redesign of the Vandenburg Gate include in the construction of a roundabout at this intersection,which would result in improved LOS. TaIt)Illo 6-16 IIL.ovolll of SeirVte for 2030 II1'-'oirocr:st: I lour liiing Peak Il11ol.Jir Refer to Figure 6-5 for locations map. MCI #2 Mass Avenue/Route 2A Rt.2A EB L F 173.4 1.20 F 190.2 >1.20 Rt.2A EB TR B 16.3 0.73 B 16.9 0.74 Rt.2A WB L C 23.8 0.65 C 27.3 0.69 Rt.2A WB TR F 121.9 1.19 F 141.6 >1.20 Mass Ave NB LTR B 29.6 0.13 C 29.6 0.13 Mass Ave SB L F 143.5 1.17 F 143.5 1.17 Mass Ave SB TR B 31.4 0.30 C 31.5 0.32 #3 Old Mass Avenue/Route 2A Rt.2A EB LT A 7.3 0.23 A 8.1 0.24 Old Mass Ave SB LR F 86.1 0.86 F 114.6 0.96 #4 Airport Road/Route 2A Airport Rd SB LR F 85.7 0.02 F 98.5 0.03 &b,54 zr Ground Transportation #5 Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road Hanscom Dr NB LT A 4.7 0.11 A 3.7 0.12 Hanscom Dr SB LT A 0.7 0.00 A 0.8 0.01 Old Bedford Rd EB LT C 20.7 0.41 F 61.0 0.83 Old Bedford Rd EB T C 22.5 0.49 E 39.3 0.67 Old Bedford Rd WB LT B 14.6 0.06 C 18.4 0.08 Old Bedford Rd EB T B 13.6 0.03 C 16.7 0.04 #6 Hanscom Drive/Route 2A Rt.2A EB L B 10.0 0.33 B 10.5 0.38 Hanscom Dr. SB L F >200 >1.20 F >200 >1.20 Hanscom Dr. SB R C 23.2 0.51 D 29.7 0.63 #10 Old Bedford RoadNirginia Road Virginia Road WB LR C 23.1 0.30 D 26.3 0.36 Old Bedford Road SB LT A 5.2 0.19 A 5.6 0.21 TaItAe 647 L.ov6 of SeirVte for 2030 III'-'oirocast: Afteirinooin IIPeak III1ou.1ir Refer to Figure 6-5 for locations map. #2 Mass Avenue/Route 2A Rt.2A EB L F >200 >1.20 F >200 >1.20 Rt.2A EB TR C 25.0 0.67 C 26.5 0.71 Rt.2A WB L C 22.8 0.24 C 23.5 0.27 Rt.2A WB TR F 162.2 >1.20 F 177.0 >1.20 Mass Ave NB LTR C 34.6 0.37 C 34.6 0.37 Mass Ave SB L F >200 >1.20 F >200 >1.20 Mass Ave SB TR C 33.1 0.27 C 33.2 0.28 #3 Old Mass Avenue/Route 2A Rt.2A EB LT A 2.1 0.08 A 2.2 0.08 Old Mass Ave SB LR F >200 >1.20 F >200 >1.20 #4 Airport Road/Route 2A Airport Rd SB LR - - - - - - #5 Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road Hanscom Dr NB LT A 6.2 0.09 A 4.4 0.09 Hanscom Dr SB LT A 0.1 0.00 A 0.3 0.01 Old Bedford Rd EB LT C 24.6 0.08 F 59.3 0.34 Old Bedford Rd EB T B 13.9 0.04 C 15.1 0.05 Old Bedford Rd WB LT C 22.0 0.51 D 26.8 0.57 Old Bedford Rd EB T C 16.1 0.26 C 17.7 0.30 #6 Hanscom Drive/Route 2A Rt.2A EB L B 10.6 0.15 B 10.8 0.18 Hanscom Dr. SB L F >200 >1.20 F >200 >1.20 Hanscom Dr. SB R F >200 >1.20 F >200 >1.20 #10 Old Bedford RoadNirginia Road Virginia Road WB LR D 27.1 0.75 D 29.0 0.77 Old Bedford Road SB LT A 1.1 0.02 A 1.8 0.03 6.6 Potential Einviroinimentally Beneficial Measures w w1I Traffic irre anag irre ent aIp�lpire°acts The intersection of Route 2A and Hanscom Drive may benefit from the use of additional traffic management approaches, especially if volumes reach the forecasted levels for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. However, as described previously, Hanscom Field-related traffic is only a small contributor to Ground Transportation the total traffic at the intersection with the remainder resulting from regionalbaffioandbaffio8om planned and anticipated projectsin the study area. The use ofo traffic control officer o1 Hanscom Drive and Route 2A during the morning peak hour and afternoon would improve dhooporodonoffbo intersection. Additionally, oboDio signal would improve operations at the bntomoodon and the current traffic volumes meet peak-hour thresholds warranting a traffic signal according to Figure 4C'4ofthe 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The intersection of Hanscom Drive and Old Bedford Road may benefit from additional traffic management approaches if the volumes reach the forecasted levels for the 2030 scenarios. The use ofa traffic control officer or the installation of an all-way stop control may be considered at this intersection. Additionally, the plans for redesign of the Vandenburg Gate include a roundabout at the intersection, which would result in improved level ofservice. 6.6.2 Demand Manage00en't The goal of Transportation Demand Management(TDM)is to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles to increase the capacity of the transportation network and to reduce traffic congestion, traffic delay, and vehicle nniloo travelled during peak travel times. As part of the development of this report,the potential for expansion of TDM programs was explored at a regularly scheduled tenant meeting held at the Civil Air Terminal. Staff continues to di00000 TDMstrategies o1 these meetings to onooro that as programs are implemented they continue to meet the needs of students and employees at Hanscom and are effective in reducing single occupant vehicle use. Furthermore, Massport is planning TDM strategies for Hanscom Field including promoting transit service,initiating collaborations with Hanscom AFB, developing partnerships with MassRIDES, encouraging car pools, supporting vehicle sharing, increasing the viability of active transportation and additional strategies,which are described below. Additional information on how these recommendations will be implemented is provided in the sections below. 6.6.2.1 Tirav6U s�xrvey fiiruf�in0s In obovol oonroy administered in July 20|3 to employees and o0udon10 o1 Hanscom Field, M000pod sought to identify opportunities for environmentally beneficial measures that could reduce single- occupancy vobioloUipotoondEmnndhoobudvoroo. Ofdho65roopondonto, 86% ddvoolonofordhoir commute,while |2%use transit hu reach the campus and 2%bicycle. 90% of respondents were employees,while 10%were students. Of the transit riders who responded,nearly all use the MBTA's 76 boo for o1 least the final leg of their trip. Even though a large share of employees and students at Hanscom Field drive alone, there are opportunities to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicles commuting each day. 28% ofsurvey respondents expressed interest in learning about programs and incentives encouraging alternate modes of transportation. Respondents expressed greatest interest in replacing vehicle trips with transit, followed by oorpooling/voupooling,bicycling, and walking. The most significant barrier to commuters using transit is the perception of convenience. 63% of respondents stated that lack of direct transit service between their homes and Hanscom Field was a deciding factor. 43% report not having obus stop within convenient distance of their homes. 39%n/oro dissuaded by irregular or infrequent service. On the flipside, those who drive alone overwhelmingly cite their commute time and convenience as their primary reasons for driving. Weighted for preference, these two factors were valued almost twice as much as irregular work schedules and needing a car for personal errands, the next two highest responses. Those who drive alone also enjoy 6r000ndoonvoniontpoddngo1 Ground Transportation Hanscom Field(87%park in unrestricted lots). While respondents reported that they drive alone for the convenience and time savings, there is still an opportunity to replace trips and encourage alternate modes of transportation. The average one-way commute time reported was approximately 49 minutes. Given this duration, the additional time required to detour to pick up additional passenger is relatively small and the combination of the high cost of fuel and the relatively high average length of commutes suggest a potential to promote ridesharing as a way to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips. The majority(57%) of commuters rarely or never leave Hanscom Field during the day. These responses further suggest that if commuters who drive alone found a transit route or rideshare that was competitive in duration and at a suitable time, they could be motivated to replace at least some of their vehicle trips. 35% of respondents expressed they may be interested in carpooling if the schedule was accommodating. When visitors currently take alternative modes,most often they report either being dropped off or carpooling. Respondents reported that most motivating would be either financial incentives or finding suitable carpool partners to meet their scheduling demands. Also,having a program like Guaranteed Ride Home was listed as a valued motivator, as employees and students may be worried about not having the same flexibility to come and go that comes with a vehicle. The responses suggest that benefits associated with TMA membership might be prime motivators to reducing single occupancy vehicle trips. Finally, 30% of respondents expressed interest in bicycling to commute—among those interested, they reported that incentives like shower and locker facilities, and low-stress bike paths would be the most likely to encourage them to bike. 23% expressed interest in combining biking and walking with transit; 75% of respondents feel they live too far to bicycle to work,but providing amenities like route planning services and transit stop bike parking might create multi-modal trips to replace vehicle trips. 6 6 2 2 I3iroirnotiing tirains ft seirVice at 11ainscoirn 1-iV�d Primary transit service to Hanscom Field is provided by the MBTA route 76 bus,which makes stops at the Civil Air Terminal and the intersection of Hanscom Field Drive and Old Bedford Road. However, several transit opportunities also occur in the area. The LEXPRESS Bus,which serves routes in the Town of Lexington between Lexington Center and Depot Square, operates a route that comes within a mile of the study area. To promote use of transit, schedules for the MBTA buses that serve Civil Air Terminal are posted at the main entrance to the terminal building. In addition, information about using the MBTA bus to access the terminal is available on Massport's "Get U There"on-line application. Massport will continue to seek additional strategies and disseminate information about nearby transit access, such as transit hubs in Lexington Center(MBTA bus, LEXPRESS bus), Concord Center(MBTA bus and commuter rail), and Depot Square (LEXPRESS bus), so that commuters can plan to park-and-ride,bike, or walk parts of their commutes. Strategies to increase transit ridership will continue current efforts to post information for employees, including on-line, at transit stops, and at regular Transportation Fairs (see Section 6.6.2.3 TDM Partnerships with Hanscom Air Force Base). Additionally, employees and students who completed the travel survey named one of the primary barriers to using transit was the lack of suitable service at times when they needed service. Massport will explore with municipal and regional partners the feasibility of expanding bus frequency throughout the day to make transit viable for more visitors to the study area. Massport will also participate in discussions with neighboring towns, Chambers of Commerce, the 128 Business Council, and the MBTA to review current bus service and amenities, and opportunities to M_M.1� 657 Ground Transportation expand service to Hanscom Field. Massport will initiate this discussion through its participation in the Hanscom Field Advisory Committee (HFAOato regularly scheduled meeting. 6.6.2.3 TDM pairtinemali�ps witli 11ainscomm XI-B Hanscom AFE|has over 8,000 employees o1 the Base itself, and 2,000hu3,000 additional employees o1 MIT Lincoln Labs (located on Hanscom AFB and operated by MIT). The Base has research and development space,residences,retail and commercial space, a medical facility, and childcare facilities. Ao part of its environmental permitting, the Base io required todovolopondoobmhonounoolddooboro report and identify potential strategies to reduce drive alone commute trips. The Base currently deploys a wide range ofTDMmeasures and recently has 000n on increased interest and participation in carpooling and vanpools. For vanpooling, the Base has partnered with the private company vRides. vRides operates by certifying individuals to drive company-owned vans home and pick up other members along predetermined routes. The E|000 maintains oddo'nno1obing do1ob000 of interested employees,who can be matched with other employees based on their location and commute time. Massport has begun to collaborate with ground transportation coordinators at the AFB to provide information about TDM programs to employees and students working at Hanscom Field. Beginning in the winter of20|4, M000podond the AFE|,in partnership with M0008lDES,will co-host oTronoponodon Fair on 1{on000nn Field to promote carpools,voupoolo and available reward programs. 1{on000nn AFE|, in ponuombi with MassRIDES and vRides,began hosting regular Transportation Fairs for its employees and visitors in 2013. The fairs serve to promote transportation alternatives and provide people with information about transit options,trip planning, and incentives to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips. As part of the event, MassRIDES provides information about existing and potential carpools and voupoolo with maps showing the originating zip codes of people commuting to the Base. At fairs held during warmer months, there is increased focus on walking and bicycling including route planning 000iotouoo. M000pon and AFE| staff should continue to communicate regularly to identify additional ponuombi opportunities such oo bicycle sharing (see bolon/). 6.6.2.4, Pairtineirsli�p witli Mass�IUDES Massport is also pursuing opportunities to work with MassRIDES to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles traveling to and from Hanscom Field. M000pod has become on official program partner with MassRIDES which will allow employees on Hanscom Field to access commute options programs such as ride matching for carpools and vanpools,NuRide rewards for green commuters and an emergency ride home service. To promote the partnership,Massport will work with MassRIDES to deliver an email communication to all employees outlining the services offered. In addition, Massport has invited M000R]DESto attend and present o10 monthly tenant meeting to educate tenants onavailable programs and services.M000podio also planning to partner with M000R]DESto host o table during the transportation fair at the Hanscom Civilian Terminal during an upcoming Transportation Fair in conjunction with Hanscom AFB. Figure 6-25 illustrates the home zip codes of badge holders at Hanscom Field,which shows the potential for carpooling and voupooling. t Hanscom Field State Boundary 1� Interstate Highway #of Resident Badge Holders 1-2 ` - t 3-4 \ 5-6 7 9 10-12 0 13-15 / z% 16-19 rr 20-23 �. J 24-29 30-36 ----- -.- x F � vie, .- .._. % A-, 1fy<x ukr o f/m f� 4 . it t .... .............. Hanscom Field 2012 ESPR NO ............ „ T , ° a � ,,,, Bedford, Concord,Lexington,Lincoln,Massachusetts 0 20 Miles Hanscom Field Badge Holders: Resident Count by Zip Code Data Sources:ESRI(US ZIP Codes)Sept.2013,National Atlas State Boundaries and Roads,Sept.2013,Hanscom Field Badge Holder Survey,2013 Figure 6-25 Ground Transportation 6.6.2.5 �3airfidpotbin �in TMA Masopodwill also continue to consider opportunities to work with the |2813C,which iothe Transportation Management Association(TMA) that serves Burlington,Lexington,Noodbom,Noxrton, Vyoldhozn, VyoDooloy, Weston, and Woburn. 128E|C offers member services such as oboU]o service 000000; guaranteed Ride 1{onno; commuter survey, analysis, and incentive programs; individual route planning 000iotouoo; oorpooDvoupoolnno1obing;bike'to'vrodk/wolk'to'vrodkplanning and supportive oond000 (including bike repair discounts o1MvBiko); and many other services to help rod000 single occupancy vehicle trips. The provision of shuttle service is provided to member businesses based on an assessment by the 128BC for the potential viability of new oondoo at on additional cost to the employer and individual shuttle user. Due to logistical oboDongoo, hio not likely[eoodblo to extend one of the existing oboUloo to serve Hanscom Field. 6^6^2^6 Stirate0���es to �incirease cairpod��in0 The most viable alternative mode, given the spatial diffusion of commuters to the base and requiredup- front cost to add transit service, is carpooling and vanpooling expansion.While partnering with Hanscom AFB, MassRIDES or 128BC would assist employees at Hanscom Field in locating carpool options, M000podio also exploring opportunities to promote carpooling including: IN Collaborating with the ME|TA,neighboring towns, |28E|C, MIT, and Hanscom AFE| toimprove transit access and pork'ond'ddoconnections IN Offering parking incentives to carpool participants IN Promoting No8ido tools to provide ride-matching services IN Encouraging employees to log non-single occupancy vehicle trips through NuRide IN Creating parking op000 {broor'oboro vehicles. Massport is investigating opportunities to incentivize vanpools and carpools. In addition to encouraging rewards, the agency is considering designating priority parking spaces in front of the Civil Terminal and other locations for vehicles used for vanpools and carpools. While there are currently no parking fees at Hanscom Field, in2005M000pod installed infrastructure necessary to collect parking fees. lf parking o1 Hanscom Field does transition to a fee-based structure,vanpools and carpools could still be allowed to park free ofcharge. M000podoon also connect commuters with the No8ido online tool.No8ido can assist commuters with ride-matching, and also provides a portal for logging non-single occupancy vehicle trips and mileage. As commuters begin logging miles of alternative modes of transportation, Massport can both encourage mode-shift(commuters will receive incentives for meeting benchmarks, and take pride in reducing their carbon footprint), and track the reduction of single occupancy vehicle trips and associated impacts on pollution across Hanscom Field. 6.6.2.7 Veli�de sliair��in0 Massport sees opportunities to work with car-sharing providers to provide parking spaces for short-term car rentals. While the majority ofomploy000donotloovo1{on000nnFiolddorbngdhoduy,nnouyohoddho desire of having a vehicle available for when they need to run personal and work-related errands as reason for driving alone to work. Having oor'oboro vobioloo ovoiloNo provides on alternative that removes the barrier of not having a car when needed, and will help encourage mode-shift. Ground Transportation 6.6.2.8 Act�ve tmainspoirtafloin ln addition 0o promoting transit and other vehicle-based alternatives hu single 0000ponoyvobioloo, Masopodio working to increase the viability of bicycling and walking. Ricy6Ue �4etwoirk Ex�pans�lon The Mhnotonnon Commuter Bikeway connects Alewife Station in Cambridge with Bedford Depot, and is easily accessible inArlington Center, Lexington Center, and along the M00000b000Uo Ave corridor. D terminates at the Bedford Depot,where it connects to two unpaved rail trails: the Reformatory Branch Trail,which oondn000 around the northern boundary of Hanscom Field to Concord Center; and the Bedford Narrow Gauge Trail,which continues to Billerica. The communities along the trail have also been expanding bicycle facilities which have helped increase access to and from the trail. Paving the Reformatory Branch Trail, currently in development,would increase the comfort-level for all types of cyclists to travel on the trail. In 2011,to help expand the regional trail system, Massport partnered with the towns of Bedford and Concord to help create an expanded network of hiking trails that connects trails in Bedford to Gaining Ground inConcord. Other improvements to roadways around Hanscom Field would further support bicycling as a viable form of transportation and recreation. Route 2A (North Great Road) currently provides unique east-west access south of Hanscom Field. Between Massachusetts Avenue in Lexington and Lexington Road in Concord, North Great Road (Route 2A)has u pavement width of24`, divided into two ||` travel lanes and |` marked shoulder. The ROW is typically 40' in this section and the speed limit is 40 mph.Where feasible, additional shoulder width should be considered to improveconditions for bicycling. Providing 3 additional feet on either side of the roadway would permit the creation of 4' wide bike lanes. If sufficient width is not available to mark as an exclusive bike lane, a wider lane can be established to improve conditions for bicycling. Providing wider shoulders would also help reduce the lifecycle costs associated with roadway maintenance as the edge of the roadway would bo subject to l000 load and risk of deterioration. Additional shoulder width should be provided where feasible if physical constrains make it practical to achieve throughout the entire corridors. These changes will also improve connections between the Minute Man National Historical Park and the Minuteman Bike Trail. Hanscom Drive will bo reconstructed oo part oproject to improve the Hanscom Visitor Control Center o1 the Vandenberg Gate to Hanscom AFB. While Hanscom Drive currently has no dedicated bicycle or podooUion facilities, the proposed plans for the redesign of the Vandenberg {]o10 include the provision of wide shoulders for bicycle access as well as pedestrian accommodations. To support walking and bicycling between Hanscom Field, Old Bedford Road and Route 2A, dedicated facilities should be provided oo part of this project. Aoondoipo1odpodooUionvoluznooarerolodvolvlmw, 000mbinodobared use facility ooporo10 from the roadway may bo appropriate. Crossing boobnonto should also be provided to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to cross ramps, 000000 roads and the roundabout. Finally,while some bicycle parking is currently available, these facilities should be improved and expanded to better serve employees and visitors to Hanscom Field. There are currently two bicycle racks visibly located in the parking lot immediately adjacent to the Civil Air Terminal; M000pon will look at replacing the existing racks with units that comply with the guidelines in the AASHTO Guido for the Development of Bicycle Facilities to provide proper two points of support for the bicycle frame and support easy locking. To further encourage bicycling, consideration is also being given to providing cover to the racks. 661 Ground Transportation Massport is also exploring opportunities to provide indoor parking for employees to place their bicycles in a secure location for protection from weather and elements. In addition to any existing opportunities, this will also be considered as a part of any future development projects. In addition to bicycle parking, Massport is considering other facilities and amenities to encourage bicycling. Other potential facilities may include the self-service repair station similar to what is provided at MIT Lincoln Labs. Massport will also work with other tenants at Hanscom to promote the use of facilities to encourage and support bicycling. Another important amenity to encourage bicycling that was identified in the Travel Survey is the availability of lockers and showers. Showers are currently available for Massport employees and Hanscom Field tenants at the Civil Terminal and should be better promoted to staff. Ricy6le Stiaia°liing Massport sees the potential to promote bicycle sharing as a means to encourage bicycling at Hanscom Field as well as in surrounding areas. In meetings with transportation coordinators from the AFB,initial discussions have been held to explore the potential benefits of such a program for Hanscom Field and the Base as well as to surrounding areas. Compared to traditional bicycle rental, the primary benefit of bicycle sharing is the ability for the user to make one-way trips and lower the cost of shorter term uses. As bicycle share provides an additional mobility option for`last mile' connections to and from transit, existing programs have reported an increase in the overall number of transit users. For example the Concord MBTA commuter rail station is an approximately 25 minute bicycle ride from the Civil Air Terminal. While there are no exclusive facilities along this route, the existing network includes streets with wide curb lanes and relatively low traffic volumes. Bicycle sharing could also be used in conjunction with MBTA commuter rail for visitors to use bicycles to visit historic properties such as the Wayside and sites along the Battle Road and Minuteman National Historical Park. Figure 6-26 illustrates many of the destinations that a bicycle system could potentially be accessed in the area surrounding Hanscom Field. In considering the potential for bicycle share, Massport sees two primary options 1)a `campus' program approach focused on Hanscom Field and the AFB; and 2) a regional program with neighboring towns and other agencies. There are two basic bicycle share system types: either station-based on fixed location docking stations or stationless systems. The "Hubway" system used in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and Brookline relies on bicycle availability at docking stations.Users can rent bicycles using two different methods: 1)register on-line for annual or monthly membership and receive a key which unlocks bicycles at any station, or 2) pay at a station for a 1 day or 3 day pass and receive a code which will unlock a bike at any station during that period.Rates are structured to promote a short trip and high levels of circulation. By contrast, stationless systems require users to register on-line to receive a code that will unlock an individual bicycle. Bicycles in stationless systems typically feature GPS so that users and managers can locate individual bikes. Stationless systems also require that ample bicycle parking be made available in the service area. Bicycle sharing stations locations should be both convenient to potential users and placed in visible locations. Potential locations surrounding Hanscom Field include: Arlington,Bedford, Concord(i.e. West Concord and Monument Square), Lexington and Lincoln town centers; commuter rail train stations in Concord and Lincoln; and Minute Man National Historical Park(i.e.North Bridge Visitor Center and Minute Man Visitor Center). On Hanscom Field,potential locations include the Civil Air Terminal and the National Aviation Academy. For Hanscom Air Force Base,potential locations include the Minuteman Commons, Fitness and Sports Center, Lincoln Labs and other residential, office and commercial locations that generate relatively significant trips on the base. & 62 � I.. to 0 0 0 0 Cb4 6Y LA LP LU cc A om, IJ2 E sit MAU oil To -01 OA4— lor as linZ 00 0 0 00 0 lie -.No•yieN CPO o p r "o) c1l o N, 00,-0-00 MA n Cy. 0 IKO a ON' d� O L' 41 A F B O N ti 0 N 5 nid� Cf',7 Cf',7 Ground Transportation A key consideration that would need to be explored involves structures for a regional agreement regarding the program's operational model. A further feasibility study for the program will also need to consider how such a program could be funded, the potential for a relationship with the existing Hubway network,maintenance, and a more in depth analysis of the potential demand for bicycle sharing in the area given the relative low density. One strategy that has been used in other suburban programs is to provide longer usage periods to reflect the greater distances traveled compared to urban environment. 2 9 Mhttbir4 tirateglies to Ipiroimnoto TIIM at Illlaun�:wimp III'-'liiold Administrative staff at Hanscom Field is developing a community and airport user outreach program. As part of this effort, staff is creating a stand-alone web site for Hanscom Field,in addition to developing a social media presence for the airport. One goal of the effort is to improve Massport's online and social media presence. As one of the key strategies of TDM efforts is the creative use of communication tools to promote alternatives, staff will be considering how best to integrate information and resources about alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.Potential improvements include links to existing carpools and vanpools that are accepting new riders and providing information and support on using bicycles to access the Hanscom Field. Ere Ere 2 10 Coindu.jsbin Massport is committed to seeking opportunities to reduce single occupancy vehicle travel to Hanscom Field. Travel surveys indicate that there is the potential to increase ridesharing as an alternative for some trips. However,the combination of suburban land use patterns, limited transit service and long average distances traveled limit the ability to promote transit and bicycling and walking as alternatives for a significant number of trips. Ground Transportation (This page intentionally left blank) Noise Noise This chapter presents the noise conditions at Hanscom Field for 2000, 2005 and 2012 to illustrate recent trends in noise up to present conditions, and for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios to predict future noise for the airport activity levels forecasted. A broad array of metrics is used to describe noise conditions including Day-Night Sound Level(DNL), Time Above a decibel threshold(TA), Total Noise Exposure (EXP) and Distribution of Sound Exposure Levels (SEL).Noise levels for each of the metrics are evaluated at noise sensitive receptors including hospitals schools,religious sites,public facilities, and National Register of Historic Places and/or State Register of Historic Places presented in the chapter by municipality. Massport's noise abatement program is also described,including how Massport is working with local stakeholders to assess noise and mitigate impacts. The 2012 ESPR future scenarios are used to evaluate the potential cumulative environmental effects that could occur if Hanscom Field reaches the airport activity levels that are described in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios are estimates of what could occur(not what will occur)in the future using certain planning assumptions and are not necessarily recommended outcomes. The future service scenarios are fully consistent with Massport's 1980 Regulations for Hanscom Field,which prohibit scheduled commercial passenger services with aircraft having more than 60 seats. In general,noise levels at Hanscom Field decreased over the last several years, due primarily to quieter and better performing aircraft and decreases in operations. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios,with the increases in general aviation (GA)jet activity to about 190,000 operations drive aprojected increase in overall noise levels in the future though remaining below historical peak operations and reaching levels last experienced nearly a decade ago. Massport has also made operational changes that have minimized noise impacts. In 2009, Massport began a new initiative to reduce noise over the Minute Man National Historical Park(MMNHP). Most touch-and-go operations circled to the south of the airport often taking the aircraft over areas of the Battle Road Trail that are used by the Park for outdoor programs and interpretive talks. A partnership of Massport,National Park Service (NPS), the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA), the flight schools and Hanscom pilots determined that small aircraft could increase the use of a tight touch-and-go pattern that keeps the aircraft over the airfield rather than over sensitive park areas. Using radar data, Massport staff monitors the number of touch-and-go operations over the MMNHP. This data is a critical part of ongoing quarterly meetings between Massport, FAA air traffic control tower, and flight school staff to review touch-and-go flight paths. Since the initiation of this program, flights over MMNHP have been reduced by an average of 21%. Comparison of year 2012 DNL noise contours to 2005 contours shows that overall noise levels decreased. Modeled noise values for 2000 are also included in this section and demonstrate longer-term trends of decreasing noise. This is largely due to overall lower activity levels, lower activity levels by jets,much 0�� 7,1 Noise lower activity by Stage 2 GA jets, and a decrease in nighttime operations. FAA land use compatibility guidelines, assume that individuals exposed to greater than 65 dB DNL are considered significantly affected by noise.None of the Hanscom Field noise analysis location sites is currently exposed to a DNL value above the FAA land use compatibility criterion of 65 dB. Overall,noise levels have decreased from 2000 to 2005 and again in the base year 2012. With the forecasted level of aircraft operations,noise is anticipated to increase in 2020 over 2012 and then again in 2030. However, 2020 noise will remain lower than what was experienced in 2005, and 2030 noise will be comparable to 2005. The following statistics illustrate the decrease in noise: Total population exposed to DNL greater than 65 dB was reduced to zero in 2012 from 17 in 2005 (all in Bedford) and 26 in 2000. The total population in the four towns exposed to DNL values of 55 dB or greater decreased from 2,953 residents in 2005 (up slightly from 2,848 in 2000)to 1,041 in 2012 (see Table 7-1). While the 2030 scenario generates the highest noise levels of this analysis, in all future scenarios,there are no residents exposed to noise levels exceeding 65 dB or greater. Forecast noise levels for the 2030 scenario show increases in DNL up to 2 dB at some noise analysis locations. Table 7-1 presents the population estimates within the 65 and 55 DNL contours for 2000, 2005, 2012, and the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. TaIi)IIIe -1 Suimniimniairy o1 U S Ceirisus III' oIIpu.u'IIIatiioiri Couirits wiiitIliliiuri ILAINIL.. Coiritouirs, 2000 26 2,848 2005 17 2,953 2012 0 1,041 2020 0 1,176 2030 0 1,859 Notes: 1. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census except for 2005 which was computed for the 2005 ESPR using the 2000 U.S. Census 2.These population estimates fall within the 65 and 70 DNL contours. 3.These population estimates include population within the 55,60,65 and 70 DNL contours. The few historic sites within the 60 DNL contour for the 2005 ESPR today have lower noise levels and there are no historic sites within the 65 DNL contour. There are only two historic sites that have DNL values greater than 55 dB in 2012: Deacon John Wheeler/Capt.Jonas Minot Farmhouse (NC-18)in Concord at 58.4 dBA,which had a DNL value of 60.4 dBA in 2005; and Wheeler- Meriam House (NC-19)in Concord at 58.1 dBA,which had a DNL value of 59.9 dBA in 2005. No noise analysis locations would experience a DNL value greater than 60 dB under any scenario. Three historic sites would experience noise levels between 55 and 60 dB: the Deacon John Wheeler/Capt.Jonas Minot Farmhouse in Concord would range from 58.7 dBA in the 2020 scenario to 59.8 dBA in the 2030 scenario; the Wheeler-Meriam House in Concord would range from 58.4 dBA in the 2020 scenario to 59.4 dBA in the 2030 scenario; and the Ripley School(SC- 7)in Concord is forecast at 55.0 dBA in the 2030 scenario.None of the sites in the MMNHP would experience a DNL value greater than 55 dB for 2012 or any future scenario. No portion of the MMNHP is located in the 65 DNL contour in 2012 or in the 2020 and 2030 planning scenarios. Furthermore,no portion of the MMNHP is in the 55 DNL contour in 2012, down from 1.7 acres in 2005. MMNHP is not forecast to include any 55 DNL area in the 2020 planning scenario and 0.4 acres in the 2030 scenario. 7-2 . I. Noise 72 Noise Teriminology Noise, often defined oo unwanted 000nd, kaon environmental issue associated with aircraft operations. Aircraft are not the only 000r000 of noise in an urban or suburban environment where interstate and local roadway traffic, rail, industrial, and neighborhood sources also intrude on the everyday quality of life. Nevertheless, aircraft are readily identified by their noise and are typically singled out for special attention and criticism. Consequently, aircraft noise often dominates analyses of environmental impacts. To help understand and interpret these impacts, hioimportant tobo familiar with the various metrics that are used to d000dbo the noise from on aircraft and from the collection ofnoise events that comprise on airport noise environment. This introductory 000don d000dboo those commonly used noise nnoUioo, in increasing complexity. They include the: IN Decibel(dB) IN A+woigbtod decibel, or sound level(dE|A) IN Sound Exposure Level(SEl) IN Equivalent Sound Level(L,q) IN Day-Night Sound Level([Nl) IN Total Noise Exposure (EX],) IN Time Above (TA) The 2012 ESPR reports noise levels at Hanscom Field in terms of these metrics, including SELs for typical individual events, and Time Above contours and DNL contours for typical 24-hour exposure periods. All three of these metrics utilize A-weighted sound levels as their basic unit of measurement. The 2012 ESPR uses the highlighted metrics (i.e., SEL, EXP, and TA)to supplement DNL contours and DNL values at noise analysis locations. A discussion of the effects of aircraft noise on people is provided in AppondixD. 7.2.11 The De&lb6U (dB) Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air, and are sensed bv the human ear. Whether that sound io interpreted as pleasant(e.g.,music) or unpleasant(e.g.,jackhammer) depends largely on the listener's current activity, experience, and attitude toward the source of that sound. It is often true that one person's music is another person's noise. The loudest sounds the human ear can comfortably hear have one trillion(1,000,000,000,000)times the acoustic energy of sounds the ear can barely detect. Because of this vast range, any attempt to represent the intensity of sound using a linear scale becomes unwieldy. As a result, a logarithmic unit called the decibel is used to represent the intensity of sound. This representation is called a sound pressure level. A sound pressure level of less than 10 dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely quietoondidono.Normal conversational speech has o sound pressure level of approximately 60to65 dB. Sound pressure levels above |20dE| begin tobo felt inside the human ear oo discomfort and eventually pain o1 still higher levels. 7.2.2 A-w6iglited Sound L-eveU (dBA) Additionally,not all sound pressures are heard equally well by the human ear. Some tones are easier to detect than others and are perceived as being louder or noisier. Thus, in measuring community noise, frequency dependence is taken into account by adjusting the very high and very low frequencies to Noise approximate the human ear's reduced sensitivity to those frequencies. This adjustment is called "A- weighting" and is commonly used in measurements of environmental noise. Figure 7-1 shows A-weighted sound levels for some common sounds. In this document, all sound pressure levels are A-weighted and, as is customary, are referred to simply as "sound levels," where the adjective "A-weighted" has been omitted. Sound levels are designated in terms of A-weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA. With A-weighting, a noise source having a higher sound level than another is generally perceived as louder. Also, the minimum change in sound level that people can detect outside of a laboratory environment is on the order of 3 dB. A change in sound level of 10 dB is usually perceived by the average person as a doubling (or halving) of the sound's loudness, and this relationship remains so for loud sounds as well as for quieter sounds. 7.2.3 Sound I i llpos tjir IL- III (& -) A further complexity in judging the impact of a sound is how long it lasts. Long duration noises are more annoying than short ones. The period over which a noise is heard is accounted for in noise measurements and analyses by integrating sound pressures over time. In the case of an individual aircraft flyover, this can be thought of as accounting for the increasing noise of the airplane as it approaches, reaches a maximum, and then falls away to blend into the background(see Figure 7-2). The total noise dose, or exposure,resulting from the time-varying sound is normalized to a one-second duration so that exposures of different durations can be compared on an equal basis. This time-integrated level is known as the Sound Exposure Level,measured in A-weighted decibels. Because aircraft noise events last longer than one second, the time-integrated SEL always has a value greater in magnitude than the maximum sound level of the event—usually about 7 to 10 dB higher for most airport environments. SELs are used in this study as a means of comparing the noise of several significant aircraft types; they are also highly correlated with sleep disturbance, an impact that is discussed in Appendix D. The remaining noise metrics discussed in this section refer to the accumulation of exposure caused by multiple noise events over time. While such metrics are often viewed as downplaying the importance of individual aircraft operations, they are extremely good indicators of community annoyance with complex noise environments, and they have become widely accepted as the most appropriate means of evaluating land use planning decisions. 74 . I.. Noise Common Outdoor Noise Level Common Indoor Sound Leveles dB(A) Sound Levels 110 Rock Band Commercial Jet Flyover at 1000 Feet 100 Gas Lawn Mover at 3 Feet Inside Subway Train(New York) Diesel Truck at 50 Feet 90 Food Blender at 3 Feet Concrete Mixer at 50 Feet so Garbage Disposal at 3 Feet Air Compressor at 50 Feet Shouting at 3 Feet 70 Vacu u m cleaner at 10 Feet Lawn TlIler at 50 Feet Normal Speech at 3 Feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Small Theater,Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library 30 Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night 20 Concert Hall(Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 ME ll-iig�.jire '7-1 Coirnirnoin A-w6igtite�l Sou.jin l IIL.ev6ls Noise SEL �►f, 4 Noise Dose 70 - � 1 �,q a 401 1 e vr?1 1 Minu 1'-'hill.ji e -2 flllllu.jsti atbiri of Smjirid IlExlpos: .Ji e IIL.evelll .2.4 I iqUlva1ervt Sound IL-evelll The most basic measure of cumulative exposure is the Equivalent Sound Level. It is a measure of exposure resulting from the accumulation of A-weighted sound levels over a particular period (as opposed to an event) of interest such as an hour, an eight-hour school day,nighttime, a single 24-hour period, or an average 24-hour period. Because the length of the period can differ, the applicable period should always be identified or clearly understood when discussing the metric. Such durations are often identified through a subscript, for example Leq(8) or Leq(24). Conceptually, the Leq may be thought of as the constant sound level occurring over the designated period of interest and having as much sound energy as that created by the actual rising and falling sound pressures from multiple noise sources as they become more or less pronounced. This is illustrated in Figure 7-3 for the same representative one-minute of exposure shown earlier in Figure 7-2. Both the dark and light gray shaded areas have a one-minute Leq value of 76 dBA. It is important to recognize,however, that the two representations of exposure (the constant one and the time-varying one)would sound very different from each other were they to occur in real life. Leq 7 /�ilii/// �' ," r/rrl�r f(jr/�� r/rt l/r/iii„ 40 1 .cord 1 MinAP I'-'hill.ji e '7-3 flllllu.jsti atbiri of IIEq.jliivdlleirit Smjirid IIL.evelll Often the Leq is referred to misleadingly as an "average" sound level. This is not accurate in the traditional sense of the term average. Because decibels are logarithmic quantities, loud events dominate the 76 . : m�, Noise calculation of the Leq. For example,if an aircraft produced a constant sound level of 85 dBA for 30 seconds of a minute then immediately disappeared, leaving only ambient noise sources to produce a level of 45 dBA for the remaining 30 seconds,the Leq for the full minute would be 82 dBA—just 3 dBA below the maximum caused by the aircraft,not the 65 dBA suggested by normal averaging. More typical timeframes of interest are daytime,nighttime, and annual average 24-hour exposure levels, but all of these same principles of combining sound levels apply to those periods as well. Loud noise events occurring during any timeframe are going to have the greatest influence on the overall exposure for the period. 7.2.5 The Day- liigIlml Sound IL- v I (MC-) The most widely used cumulative noise metric is a variant of the 24-hour Leq known as the Day-Night Sound Level, or DNL, a measure of noise exposure that is highly correlated with community annoyance. The long-term(yearly) average DNL is also associated with a variety of FAA land use guidelines that suggest where incompatibilities are expected to exist between the noise environment and various human activities. Because of these strengths,the metric is required to be used on airport noise studies funded by the FAA. In simple terms, DNL is the equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period,modified so that noises occurring at night(defined specifically as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) are artificially increased by 10 dB. This "penalty" reflects the added intrusiveness of nighttime noise events as community activity subsides and ambient noise levels get quieter. The penalty is mathematically equivalent to multiplying the number of nighttime noise events by a factor of ten. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)identified DNL as the most appropriate means of evaluating airport noise based on its criteria, as follows:3o IN The measure should be applicable to the evaluation of pervasive long-term noise in various defined areas and under various conditions over long periods of time. IN The measure should correlate well with known effects of the noise environment and on individuals and the public. IN The measure should be simple,practical and accurate. In principal,it should be useful for planning as well as for enforcement or monitoring purposes. IN The required measurement equipment,with standard characteristics, should be commercially available. IN The measure should be closely related to existing methods currently in use. IN The single measure of noise at a given location should be predictable,within an acceptable tolerance, from knowledge of the physical events producing the noise. IN The measure should lend itself to small, simple monitors,which can be left unattended in public areas for long periods of time. Despite these origins,the lay public often criticizes the use of DNL as not accurately representing community annoyance and land use compatibility with aircraft noise.Much of that criticism stems from a lack of understanding of the measurement or calculation of DNL. One frequent criticism is based on the feeling that people react more to single noise events than to "meaningless" time-average sound levels. In soEnvironmental Protection Agency,Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety,U.S EPA Report No. 55019-74-004, September 1974. 0R., 7,7 Noise fact, DNL takes into account both the noise levels of all individual events occurring during a 24-hour period and the number of times those events occur. The logarithmic nature of the decibel causes noise levels of the loudest events to control the 24-hour average,just as they were shown to do in the previous discussion of shorter-term Legs. Most federal agencies dealing with noise have formally adopted DNL, though they also encourage the use of supplemental noise metrics to aid the public in understanding the complex noise environment of an airport. For example, Massport frequently uses the Sound Exposure Level,maximum sound level, or times above threshold sound levels to help describe the environments around Hanscom Field and Logan International Airport. Even so, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), comprising of member agencies such as the FAA, Department of Defense (DoD),U.S. EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the Department of Veterans Affairs,reaffirmed the appropriateness of DNL in 1992. The FICON summary report stated, "There are no new descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to substitute for the present DNL cumulative noise exposure metric".31 The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN)recently supported the use of supplemental metrics in its statement that"supplemental metrics provide valuable information that is not easily captured by DNL".32 DNL can be measured or estimated.Measurements are practical only for obtaining DNL values for a relatively limited number of points, and, except in the case of a permanently installed noise monitoring system, only for relatively short time periods. Most airport noise studies are based on computer-generated DNL estimates, depicted in terms of equal-exposure noise contours,much as topographic maps have contours of equal elevation. 7.2.6 "1`ota1 W�,Ise i llpos tjir (EXP) The EXP metric was developed in 1982 as a screening tool for Massport to assess changes in the fleet mix of aircraft operating at Hanscom Field over time. Although EXP does not show how noise levels change in specific communities,it does indicate changes in total noise exposure and expected resultant changes in DNL,without the need to prepare noise contours. The 2012 EXP uses the FAA aircraft noise database from the most recent version of the INM,version 7.0c. This is an upgrade over INM 6.1 which has been used to compute EXP since the 2005 ESPR. This supplemental metric is calculated by logarithmically summing the representative SELs for each departure of an airplane assuming it flies over a single point on the ground. Similar aircraft types are grouped together in the calculations, creating a"partial EXP" for the group.Partial EXP values for each group are then summed to obtain a single number estimate of departure noise exposure at that reference location. Similar calculations are performed for arrival operations. Separate computations are performed for civil and military operations. Massport maintains a comprehensive database of operations conducted by aircraft heavier than single engine piston aircraft. EXP uses the same summation formula as DNL: logarithmic summation of all 31Federal Interagency Committee on Noise,Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, August 1992. 32Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise,The Use of Supplemental Noise Metrics in Aircraft Noise Analyses,February 2002. 43', Noise noise events over a 24-hour day,with a 10 dB penalty applied to events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 7.2.7 11irne Above a 1`Ihirestio1d ("TA) Because analyses of decibels are complex and often unfamiliar to the public, the FAA has developed a supplemental noise metric that is non-logarithmic: the amount of time (in minutes or seconds)that the noise source of interest exceeds a given A-weighted sound level threshold. Every time a noise event goes above a given threshold, the number of seconds is accumulated and added to any previous periods that the noise exceeded the threshold. These time-above-thresholds, or Time Above, are usually reported for a 24- hour period. Note that Time Above does not tell the loudness of the various noise events. Just as a single value of the A-weighted sound level ignores the dimension of time, so the Time Above ignores the dimension of loudness.Nevertheless, Time Above can be helpful in better understanding a noise environment. 73 Year 2012 Noise Prediction Mettiodology This section documents the noise prediction methodology for preparing DNL and Time Above calculations for 2012 and discusses changes in the FAA's Integrated Noise Model(INM). The INM is a complex computer program that calculates aircraft noise levels around an airport from user input data and an extensive internal database of aircraft noise and performance statistics. Outputs can include DNL contours and other metrics such as Time Above and DNL values at specific points. The FAA developed the INM as the primary tool for analyzing and evaluating noise impacts from aircraft operations. Its use is prescribed for all FAA-sponsored projects requiring environmental evaluation. The INM contains a set of noise and profile databases,which can be altered by the analyst to enable input of data for new aircraft and engine types, and account for specific changes in flight procedures. The FAA requires that any changes to these databases be approved prior to use on any FAA-related project. The preparation of airport noise exposure contours requires compilation of several categories of information about the operation of an airport: IN Airfield Geometry—Location, length, orientation, elevation, and thresholds of all runways IN Flight Tracks—Paths followed by aircraft departing from, or arriving to, each runway IN Runway Use—Percentage of operations by each type of aircraft that occur on each runway IN Flight Track Usage—Percentage of operations by each aircraft type that use each flight track IN Operations Numbers—Numbers of departures, arrivals, and pattern operations by each type of aircraft during the year IN Aircraft Noise and Performance — Specific noise and performance data must be entered for each aircraft. The INM interprets this input and computes the noise exposure around an airport as a grid of values for many different metrics including the DNL. The grid information is the input for a contouring program. This study used the most recent version of the INM at the time of analysis,Version 7.Oc(INM 7.0c). 7.3.11 I Rhys�lca1 inIput The first two categories of INM input, airport layout and flight tracks, are categorized as the physical input. They determine the paths on the runways and in the air where the aircraft travel in the noise model. 0 1.R 79 Noise 7.�.1.I Airfleld G cooctry The layout ofon airfield is on important modeling input. A000roto runway information places modeled flights in the correct locations. Elevation data allow the INM to calculate runway gradients,which influence modeled take-off roll and landing distances. The runway end locations, elevations, displaced thresholds and the location and elevation of the airport reference point were taken from the FAA's Form 50 10 airport data system. The Form 50 10 data do not contain a helipad nor does Hanscom have a designated helipad, though helicopters operate at Hanscom Field. The location of a representative helipad was chosen through the examination of helicopter radar tracks, aerial photographs, and the FAA airport diagram. This is discussed in the 000don on Runway Use. 7.3.1.2 FUi�hl Tnachm Flight tracks represent the ground projectionof paths flown bv aircraft o1onairport. ln previous ES98o, the very broad range of operations and conditions actually occurring at Hanscom were represented using a set of average or model tracks. For the 2012 ESPR,every individual flight track from Massport's NOMS was used. 1{MM1{prepared the 20|2, 2020, and 2030 contours using onONMpro'pr000000r,named 8ualComtoumo«. 8uolConhumo converts aircraft flight track data into FAA's ONM input data, runs the ONM, and provides the ONM results based on the modeling of each individual flight track. 8uolContoom prepares each available aircraft flight track during the 000mo of the year for input into ONM. Flight tracks were provided from Mayypo/i`yN()MB. In summary, 71,363 individual flight tracks were directly used for the preparation of the 20|2 contours and the operations were scaled to the |67,845 operations total. The difference between the number of flight tracks modeled and the total operations counts are expected and can occur because 800lConhuor filters data to make sure hio suitable for modeling. Each flight track must meet several criteria, including having a runway assignment,valid aircraft type designator and enough suitable flight track points. The most important of these factors at Hanscom is the presence of a valid aircraft type designator. Operations by piston aircraft are often unidentified in the radar data. Over 70,000 local and over 50,000 itinerant operations were conducted by piston aircraft at Hanscom in 2012. The over 40,000 valid radar tracks modeled in the ESPR for these aircraft represent an excellent sample showing the distribution of flight paths off of all runway ends. D should be emphasized that the ONM is used for all noise ooloolodono. 800lCon1ooroprovidoo on organizational obooburo to model individual flight tracks inONM. Figure 7'4 and Figure 7'5 present density plots for jet arrivals and departures in and out ofHanscom Field. Figure 7-6 and Figure 7-7 are arrival and departure density plots for propeller aircraft, including piston propeller aircraft, burbo'propolloroiroraD, and helicopters. Figure 7'8 obon/o the booko for the touch-and-go activity by light propeller aircraft.Areas of red represent the highest density of flight paths. Areas of blue show the lowest density. Appendix D provides additional flight track graphics, showing samples of the individual flight paths forjot aircraft arrivals and departures,propolloroirorof\ordvoloond departures, and touch-and-go tracks bv propeller aircraft. i J1 � -2 0 h LM I- r if LL C9 � C/) Cl P, N co W U "' '% Z J cn W c> a 11I 2m � Q r J�il aw i r`1 m m o o ♦ wti 1 z ildb N NW N N N awLLI 1 �® Qw1 2E 0 O O O in W m V co o 5 3 PH e 1 m co r 1 / o z�w O` 1 �459 , J z d 7 ' 0 1 co1 � � ¢ m U U 75 g 1 1 � a 2E Imm 0 CD O g g � V O gez O O N O s Ea E o 5f p �Um osz ® I 'I? Z 4— 1-- o o co LM LL c ®�D co co Z c g N Cl � U Z N -' Ca W c L co ® N G L ~ N aXi � J 11 a U) W U a O Ca viCl � Q aw aw o� s 0 o co m — o cg w z aw 5 a a a ildb aw LL ; � aw� � c7 0 0 o in W co U co — Z5_ _ 14 ' 11I1� J x x LO LO co ® !,/ tr I s m r/ 0 1 o W co Q m i E E co LL o O / o g O s � V CD CD CN O CD / // 1 0 co I- L a�P co co LU tY C, o, U) cn a to L_ r � _ f,M1 i'r o� �64 O -O U U N m ildb} / lNffd / �1f1! / aw� C7 O O O O co Ir z5 s co SO I g " Ll h s ICD f O w %//// O 4CD s y o CDCD soz p N f (,. O s E o osz Z � O co ol" LM -mac U LL ( ® c Z ...y} m Cn 7 g L Q) J co d c m O Z LU N ' Q m ® O N m Cl ~ N aXi U J L f� Z da QC) •— o 0 ° I k � U _ 1I W y a a) N u a 0O N 2 0p o— Cl %// I n;, aw area aas / // ,All J m 10 ' e „ a r I � r m a m aW fjl,. a a a LL 2E C7 O O O in e m LU d. mco r )s 11 co ✓//�/ /�� 1 f /f/j%f/i �co E E co s U � osz ® o0 O coa' ° / 4- U LL m co c L 6 Co rt LU co C, I- ����ov N U Q _0 �CC O L EL C 0 U 00 11 Cl cw I J 4%, a 0) i' ? z a o p N N mCO m o o aw LL �® 1 ,/�� / C'41 2E 00 0 o in 0 ` iir ! Wco co m m %ria f� 1 Ygiw o m 1 %f a o 1` co co 0 ¢ m % rr co g g g U i LL o Q O I g U W_7 O _g V O s O O CN r ems �.. O s E o O O o s osz Noise 73.2 Qpeiratlor'41 InIput The remaining INM input falls under the category of operational input and includes runway use, operations, and aircraft noise and performance data. These data determine the number, type, flight time, and other characteristics of the aircraft traveling on the paths defined in the physical input. 7.'3.2.111 at nN�,aay 1.1 se The operational runway use of the airport is a critical component in the computer modeling of aircraft noise. As described in section 7.3.1.2,all valid individual flight tracks from Massport's NOMS for the entire year of 2012 were used in the noise modeling. This large sample of over 70,000 flight tracks provides an excellent estimate of runway use for 2012 at Hanscom. For reporting purposes, each flight track was assigned to a category based on the type of propulsion and size of the aircraft. Once in these categories, the data were used to calculate runway use percentages. Table 7-2 through Table 7-6 show the calculated runway use by operation and aircraft group. Helicopter runway use is not included in Table 7-through Table 7-6. Table 7-6 Touch-and-Go Runway Utilization is not differentiated by aircraft group as all pattern activity was modeled by using piston aircraft. Many of the helicopters in the radar sample followed runway headings on arrival and dispersed quickly off of the runway centerline after departure, similar to light propeller aircraft. However,with their maneuverability,helicopters often hover along taxiways and depart or land from ramp areas as well as runway ends, and no hard data on arrival and departure locations on the airfield are maintained,by Massport or the FAA. To simplify the modeling of these conditions,helicopter operations were assumed to originate or terminate at a single point just north of the control tower. The remainder of the modeled flight path was fully defined by the radar flight track. 7ai)Ille '7-2 Dayt�irne (7:00 a irn to 10:00 Ilp irn Depairtlxre Ill.jilriway tftilll zatbiri 05 4.5% 4.4% 1.8% 9.7% 7.5% 11 18.2% 22.9% 23.9% 22.6% 14.7% 23 0.0% 4.5% 2.8% 6.9% 12.9% 29 77.4% 68.3% 71.5% 60.8% Source:Massport Noise and Operations Monitoring System flight tracks 7ai)IIIe '7-3 Illyliitlllittli4ne (10:00 IIp irn to '7:00 a irn Depairtlxre Ill.jilriway tftilll zatbiri 05 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 9.2% 32.3% 11 0.0% 21.2% 29.4% 20.9% 19.3% 23 0.0% 1.1% 1.5% 0.0% 7.0% 29 100.0% 71.3% 69.0% 69.9% 41.4% Source:Massport Noise and Operations Monitoring System flight tracks 7-16 E.,Fr MI.. Noise Tat)Ille '7-4, IIDayCiiimne (7:00 a irni to 10:00 IIp irn Aiririiival IIRil.jilriway LftillllizaCioiri R I Z'l 11 jjj� 1�1111 I I M.11,11 i 1 1.1= I III 111 1111 ,1. 05 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 1.1% 3.9% 11 17.0% 28.7% 28.7% 25.5% 20.2% 23 1 5.5% 1 8.5% 4.7% 13.7% 1 13.4% 29 77.5% 1 61.7% 66.2% 59.6% 62.5% Source:Massport Noise and Operations Monitoring System flight tracks TaIt)Ille 7- IlVii111litCiiirne (10:00 IIp irni to 7:00 a irni Aiririiival IlRil.jilriway Lftillllizafloiri 05 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 2.4% 4.5% 11 33.3% 54.1% 49.8% 38.7% 36.8% 23 0.0% 2.5% 0.2% 10.0% 10.8% 29 66.7% 43.1% 50.0% 4 .9% 47.9% Source:Massport Noise and Operations Monitoring System flight tracks TaI� Ille '7-6 'Tou.ichii-aiiri��l-Go Ril.jilriway LftillllizaCioiri 05 3.3% 0.0% 11 13.1% 27.6% 23 12.0% 14.9% 29 71.6% 57.4% Note: 1.Touch-and-go operations are not allowed from 11:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. 2. Aircraft other than single engine pistons are not allowed to perform touch-and-go operations. Source:Massport Noise and Operations Monitoring System flight tracks 7.'3.2.2 Operations Massport's database of operations at Hanscom Field described in the EXP section provided the information necessary for the calculation of the average daily operations by aircraft type for 2012. Table 7-7 presents a summary of the 2012 operations modeled for the noise analysis. Appendix D provides a refined breakdown of the activity by individual aircraft types with their corresponding noise model representation. Tat)Ille '7-7 Year 2012 Average IIDaiiillly OpeiraCioiris Sl.j irni irni airy Iby Girol.jll�'� Stage 2 Jets 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 Stage 3 Jets 31.7 1.6 30.8 2.6 66.7 Turboprops 4.4 0.1 4.4 0.1 9.1 Piston 177.5 0.5 177.2 0.8 356.1 Military 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 Helicopters 10.0 0.2 9.9 0.2 20.4 All Groups 224.1 2.5 222.9 3.7 453.2 Source:Massport,HMMH 11 -17 Noise 7.3.2.3A,irenal"t Noise�and Parl"orrna nee Iffimta Specific noise and performance data are n000000ry for each aircraft type to be modeled.Noise data are included in the form ofSEloo10 range of distances (from 200feet to25,000 feet) from oparticular aircraft with engines at o opooiGo thrust level. 9orfoononoo data include thrust, speed, and altitude profiles for takeoff and landing operations. The O~&\4 do1ob000 contains standard noise and performance data for 274 different fixed wing aircraft types,most of which are civil aircraft. The ONM also has 271 substitutions for aircraft that are not specifically defined in the INM database. The program ootonnodoollv 00000000 the applicable noise and performance data for departure and approach operations by those aircraft. For aircraft not included in the database, aircraft with incomplete information in the database, or aircraft using non-standard flight profiles, the data must be manually entered into the model. Due to the addition of new data for many aircraft in the INM database since the last study, there were no such non-standard aircraft included inthis study. 733 W�,�Ise ModeU Differences All noise calculations in the 2012 ESPR were prepared with INM 7.0c,which was the most current version available at the time of the analysis. The 2005 ESPR calculations used INM 6.1. The prior onol '000 ofEX],were prepared with previous versions: Version 39 was used from 1987 through 1996, and Version 5.| was used from 1996dhroogb |999. Table 7'8 summarizes some of the major dbDeron000 between the different versions of the ONM. Tai)Ue '7-8 Dffeireirices betweeiri Veirs�biris of the [rite0irated m6seMod6U Noise 6.Oa May 2000 E Noise and performance data for the Airbus 340 and Massport continued to use INM Embraer 120 5.1 for consistency with prior calculations of EXP. 6.Ob January Noise and performance data for the Airbus 330, Boeing Massport continued to use INM 2001 737-700,the Cessna Citation 550 Bravo and several 5.1 for consistency with prior Cessna piston engine aircraft calculations of EXP. 6.Oc September Noise and performance data for the A319-121 and A320- Massport upgraded to this version 2001 232;the Boeing 717-200, 777-300,and 767-400;the for noise calculations in the 2000 Cessna Citation X;and the Gulfstream GII, GIII, GIV,and ESPR and for new calculations of GV EXP. 6.1 March New lateral attenuation algorithms that increase the Massport upgraded to this version 2003 sideline noise levels of aircraft with wing mounted engines for noise calculations in the 2005 110 Updated noise data for 114 of 115 military aircraft and ESPR and for new calculations of added new profiles for 84 military aircraft EXP. Noise and performance data for 15 commercial aircraft 6.2 May 2006 E Updated noise and performance data for the Boeing 757- Massport continued to use INM 200(PW and RR), 737-700, 777-200,and 747-400 6.1 for consistency with prior E Noise and performance data for the Piper PA28-161 calculations of EXP. Warrior, PA30 Twin Comanche, and PA31 Navajo, Raytheon Beech 1900D, Maule M-7-235, Eurocopter EC- 130,and Robinson R-22 6.2a November Updated noise and/or profile information for nine Airbus Massport continued to use INM 2006 aircraft,three MD80 series aircraft,and three Boeing 737 6.1 for consistency with prior aircraft calculations of EXP. 7.0 May 2007 Complete integration of helicopters Massport continued to use INM New algorithms to compute lateral attenuation,determine 6.1 for consistency with prior noise due to thrust reverse,and account for aircraft bank calculations of EXP. angle 7.Oa October Updates to noise/performance data for commercial aircraft Massport continued to use INM 2008 6.1 for consistency with prior Updates to substitutions,including several Piper aircraft calculations of EXP. 110 Noise and performance data for the first Very Light Jet (VLJ)to be added to the INM database:the Cessna Mustang Model 510 7.Ob September Noise and performance data for fourteen new aircraft Massport continued to use INM 2009 including the Airbus A-380,two CRJ models,the Eclipse 6.1 for consistency with prior 500 VLJ,and three helicopters calculations of EXP. Updated aircraft performance data 7.Oc January Updated noise data for nineteen aircraft Massport upgraded to version 2012 7.Oc for noise calculations in the Updated substitutions for sixty-eight aircraft 2012 ESPR and for new 110 revised profiles for twenty-one aircraft calculations of EXP 110 Noise and performance data for eleven new aircraft, including five Cessna jets,four Bell helicopters,and two single engine floatplanes The EXP for 2012 was computed in both INM 6.1 and INM 7.Oc to aid in comparing current and future calculations of EXP to past values. Civil Departure EXP,used to track trends in total noise exposure at Hanscom,was 108.4dB INM 6.1 and 107.4 dB for INM 7.0c. This difference reflects improvements in the INM's database of general aviation jets. Thirty-four of the EXP aircraft groups had changes to their SELs plus or minus 1.0 dB or less. Four aircraft groups had changes ranging from minus 7.9 dB to plus 6.5 dB due to changing the INM aircraft which represents the group. These changes were primarily due to recent updates in the FAA recommended substitutions. The two helicopters,the civil SA365N and the military 570, changed by minus 4.1 dB and plus 7.7 dB, respectively, due to changes in the INM's noise and performance database. Additionally, five new EXP groups, all Cessna j ets,were added due to the addition of these types to the . 7 1«; Noise INM. These five aircraft represent thirteen percent of the non-single engine piston civil operations in 2012 and have been previously been assigned to other aircraft groups using FAA recommended substitutions. TA Year 2012 Noise I-evels Noise exposure levels resulting from 2012 operations at Hanscom Field are depicted in terms of DNL contours in Figure 7-9. The figure shows contour values from 55 to 70 dB in 5 dB increments. DNL contours are a graphical representation of how the noise from Hanscom Field's aircraft operations is distributed over the surrounding area on an average day of a given year. The 2005 ESPR DNL contours are included in Figure 7-9 for comparison. Table 7-9 presents the acreage within each contour for 2005 and 2012 and indicates a general reduction in the size of the 2012 contours as compared with the 2000 and 2005 contours. 7'ai)Ille7-9 Airea witlidiiri Year 2012 IDII L. Coiritmirs, uuu 70 334 acres 311 acres 181 acres 65 688 acres 635 acres 391 acres 60 1,550 acres 1,437 acres 856 acres 55 3,480 acres 3,291 acres 2,045 acres Note: 1.Area within contour includes all greater DNL values. 7.4.11 CornIpailllson of Yeair 20,112 Con'touirs With 2005 Contours The differences between the Year 2012 contours and the Year 2005 contours are influenced by a number of factors, as discussed below: IN The number of total operations decreased in the past five years. The average number of daily operations dropped from 471 in 2005 to 457 in 2012. Daily jet operations decreased from 92 operations per day in 2005 to 73 in 2012 IN The percentage of Stage 2 jets decreased from three percent of civil jet operations in 2005 to less than one percent in 2012. IN The number of daily operations between 10 pm and 7 am decreased by 35 percent from 2005 to 2012. 720 E.,Fr MI.. " / (lll�l/11� J LOU Pl N O � .2 U RT Q (( O y i r uJ .,/ O job J N ;mdoos w „ ........ r LL a G ww� i r a 0 1� uJ y o � �I sky o � y � m o O � c O N /l iFj��/ r�j�f%J., �ii ..airy � �•�—f� g u ^m IM, ilk i o,i 0 Z ti 0 a �r^wp, �r^wp, Noise 7,4.2 Measuired vs. ModeUed �461se LeveUs Hanscom Field has o system of six permanent noise monitors (see Figure 7'|0). Table 7'|0 presents the odnbnom, the nnoon and the maximum[Nl values measured at each of these locations in20|2, as well as the modeled value o1 each point. TaiAe '7-10Meas�.jired airdMod6Ued DML.VaU�.jes (�iri dB) at PermmairieiritMoirfltoir��iri0Locatbiris, I MIRE TIT, [1211611 Illidl [7dI=MIZM= Miam Source:wu""nort.HwwH Table 7-10 shows that the modeled values are in closest agreement with the measured mean values for the sites closest to Hanscom Field, sites 3| and 32. However, the agreement between measured and modeled vol000 door00000 as the points got farther from the airfield with the measured values being higher than the corresponding modeled values. This is normal and expected. The reason for these differences is that all noise events are added into the measured[Nlregardless of source. Near the airport,where aircraft noise dominates, agreement with the modeled values is best. Farther from Hanscom Field,where community noise is o significant contributor to the totol[Nl, agreement io not oo good because the measured value includes all noise sources and the modeled value only includes aircraft- relatednoioo. M000podio in the process of working with the community to relocate one of the noise monitors. M000podboo already agreed that Site 36 in Concord would bo moved. The first noise monitor that was moved was in Bedford and has been relocated. This site has the lowest correlation between measured and modeled noise because of local noise from a wastewater treatment facility. The new location will upgrade the 0000rooy,usefulness, and reliability ofthe data. O r c N jf / - s� NILL co J 1� / co /// IJJf g r% sir N —! J ari "01 ( Z %%I rl1111 W z C, 2 �� r7 l LL � 0 k to Ile cc En 000, w61 r II m o .. 0111111111 A. ✓ tl ,<a` r6" Z d m m i cw Miff fia�yifyiiyii j ��li�.;a, �� � F r ' fa} '/ aw 0 0 0 o in i r 1 fj,, ir f J JJ U ° % % % U — y Ir d/o11� m m III m a 0 III o o. coo E LT a- o G [o o o v' E a d N N m U U 1311, ILL CD N N f< � I m it• ��� VpiW � ... o 7yY�/l / CD CD CD CD N M 3 0 0 0 N !! O $o 0 0 O c N c � o h m r s a Noise 7.5 Residential Land Use himpacts The following sections describe the assessment of land use impacts around Hanscom Field using techniques and criteria based on scientific research, federal law, and FAA recommended guidelines. ' w w 11 IL-and 11 s Sta nda ird Based on the relationships between noise and the collective response of people to their environment, DNL values have become accepted as a standard for evaluating community noise exposure and as an aid in decision-making regarding the compatibility of alternative land uses by most federal agencies in the U.S. In their application to airport noise in particular, DNL projections have two principle functions: �IN To provide a means for comparing existing noise conditions with those that may result from the implementation of noise abatement procedures and/or from forecast changes in airport activity �IN To provide a quantitative basis for identifying and judging potential effects of aviation noise on people. Both of these functions suggest the need for objective criteria. Government agencies dealing with environmental noise have devoted significant attention to this issue, and thus have developed noise/land use compatibility guidelines to help federal, state, and local officials with this evaluation process. To help address land use planning issues, the FAA has determined that DNL is the official cumulative noise exposure metric for use in airport noise analyses, as prescribed by FAR Part 150. FAR Part 150 includes FAA's recommended guidelines for noise/land use compatibility evaluation,based on a compilation of extensive scientific research into noise-related activity interference and attitudinal response. These guidelines suggest that DNL values of 65 dBA and lower are compatible with residential land use. TSAA llese arch by the U.S 1111A. Pursuant to the Noise Control Act of 1972,the U.S. EPA initiated this effort by publishing scientific data on the effects of noise on people under various levels of exposure. The Agency's preliminary findings were followed in 1974 by a technical report entitled Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, otherwise known as the "Levels Document."This document is still widely cited for its applicability to environmental assessments, and many of its original findings,while refined in more recent years,remain pertinent to understanding how people respond to noise. EPA is careful to point out that the Levels Document in no way constitutes a regulation or standard. The report,which is the first report to identify a DNL value of 55 dB as a relevant noise level, offers no guidelines for determining land use compatibility. The Levels Document is informational only, and makes no attempt to account for economic or technological feasibility or for peoples' attitudes regarding the desirability of undertaking a project that produces impacts caused by noise. Appendix D discusses additional implications of various DNL levels and their effects on people. 7„.1.21,dand Use An allywiis Methodology The number of people residing in the DNL contours for 2012 was estimated from existing land use data and 2010 census data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. A detailed discussion of this methodology is provided in Appendix D. Table 7-11 presents the population by town exposed to DNL ranges of 65 dB 0., ," Noise and above (the FAA's compatibility guideline),and also within lower DNL ranges of 60 to 65 dB, and 55 to 60 dB. The information generated for Year 2012 is compared to past analyses for 2000 and 2005. 7'ai)Ille7-11 Est�irnated I3qpuIllatbiri witlidiiri 11airiscoirn 1-iVld 2012 IDII IIL. Coiritouirs, an a C, pi 2000 Bedford 0 26 270 881 1,177 Concord 0 0 313 839 1,152 Lexington 0 0 0 519 519 Lincoln 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 26 583 2,239 2,848 2005 Bedford 0 17 256 872 1,145 Concord 0 0 209 1,075 1,284 Lexington 0 0 0 524 524 Lincoln 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 17 465 2,471 2,953 2012 Bedford 0 0 87 369 456 Concord 0 0 0 542 542 Lexington 0 0 0 43 43 Lincoln 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 87 954 1,041 Total population exposed to DNL greater than 65 dB decreased from 26 residents in 2000, 17 residents in 2005, to zero in 2012. The total population in the four towns exposed to DNL values of 55 dB or greater decreased from 2,953 in 2005 (up slightly from 2000) to 1,401 in 2012, reflecting decreases in all four towns, except Lincoln which had no population within the 55 dB DNL contour in 2005. 7.5.2 MQ_ at V461se Ana1ys�ls L-ocations Figure 7-11 shows the locations of noise analysis locations within the vicinity of Hanscom Field. Table 7- 12 through 7-15 present the INM-modeled DNL at these locations for 2012 organized by town and includes data previously reported for 2000 and 2005 for comparison. The 2005 ESPR labels are provided in these tables for reference purposes. Information from the 2005 ESPR was reviewed and updated to confirm use and address location and identify new facilities. Further input was solicited from the Town Planners and Historic Commissions of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln and the National Park Service. The labeling format of the noise analysis locations indicates their use. Consistent with the 2005 ESPR,this format also delineates the location of the site by town. None of these sites is currently exposed to a DNL value above the FAA land use compatibility criterion of 65 dB and none is within the 60 dB DNL contour. In fact,predicted 2020 and 2030 aircraft noise levels at many of the locations are likely to be below ambient(non-aircraft) levels. One site, the Wheeler-Meriam House in Concord,was modeled at 62.6 dB in 2000 but that has dropped in both 2005 and 2012. It is one of two sites (both in Concord) that have DNL values greater than 55 dB in 2012. R Deacon John Wheeler/Capt. Jonas Minot Farmhouse in Concord at 58.4 dBA R Wheeler-Meriam House in Concord at 58.1 dBA 726 E.,Fr MI.. ij LT II XX J Zr/r `/ W2 II �OG/ J J xx ,� __ � r ,/�" II X IIX LL mg AV LD m J J J J � � � , o o, ��" z z m m z z( j � � p x m Z li J y m m X X III �' ����� /� 16 _ �;z z irtrrl@�l'� 1 v X/zlZ/ J J "' n v M JyJl I�/. X X IC ///mayflJlll,//, II n0 � II z II V � 0 z m m ' II z /ii rya �✓ z II mm �� J IIIIIIIII m Z z m m 4 m m m 7 ml Z II l� s Z aI ^errs Z x I i z n' IT z �� �4 O elm- W a m a z z 'o u � m �a �o � Ju o ao ,n 0 0 E. U � �5 vo,aa 0�`�� u � f Z z zZZIU CUU "'� zzz�zmz� c) m m z i uj M J � L) � M - M m. z z m II _ � � II Q > a> zz �m u E rzdIxz z r. ' g a 4f9� �� K z z Viiiyi L' a p c s III OR5t u Z Izl p z w z 0 z o �. 0 Z ti 0 a e;�.X �i'„wil Noise TatAe '7-12 2012 IIDINIL. at IN6se Air4 ysliis ILocaCbins liiin Bedford (in dB) 1 NINO: uuu lml EMIR HB-1 HB-11 Veterans Administration Medical 200 Springs Rd, Bedford 44.9 43.1 41.8 Center* NB-1 NB-1 Bedford Historic District Great Rd., Bedford 47.3 44.3 44.6 NB-2 NB-2 Old Bedford Center Historic District Great Rd., Bedford 47.3 46.0 45.4 NB-3 NB-3 Old Burying Ground 7 Springs Rd., Bedford - 47.0 45.7 NB-4 NB-4 Old Town Hall 16 South Rd., Bedford - 47.5 46.1 NB-5 NB-5 Bedford Depot Park Historic District 80 Loomis St./120 South Rd., - 53.7 49.8 Bedford NB-6 NB-6 Nathaniel Page House 89 Page Rd., Bedford 49.1 50.7 45.9 NB-7 NB-7 Christopher Page House 50 Old Billerica Rd., Bedford 46.8 48.9 44.2 NB-8 NB-8 Bacon-Gleason-Blodgett Homestead 118 Wilson Rd., Bedford 43.7 44.2 41.5 NB-9 NB-9 Historic Wilson Mill-Old Burlington Old Burlington and Wilson Rds., - 44.1 41.3 Road Historic Dist. Bedford NB-10 OB-2 Shawsheen Cemetery Shawsheen Rd., Bedford - 46.4 45.2 NB-11 - David Lane House 137 North Rd., Bedford - - 42.1 OB-1 OB-1 Old Billerica Road Area Old Billerica Rd, Bedford - 48.0 44.0 (NR nomination form in process) PB-1 PB-1 Town Hall 10 Mudge Way, Bedford 47.3 45.9 45.5 PB-2 PB-2 Library** 7 Mudge Way,Bedford 47.3 44.7 45.0 PB-3 PB-3 Bedford School District 11 Mudge Way, Bedford 47.3 45.9 45.6 PB-4 PB-4 Department of Public Works 314 Great Rd., Bedford - 47.8 45.4 RB-1 RB-1 The Lutheran Church of the Savior 426 Davis Rd., Bedford 52.0 50.4 48.6 RB-2 RB-2 First Baptist Church of Bedford 155 Concord Rd., Bedford 46.5 44.8 46.0 RB-3 RB-3 St. Michael's Church 90 Concord Rd., Bedford 46.0 43.7 44.9 RB-4 RB-4 Boston Buddha Vararam Temple 125 North Rd., Bedford - 41.7 42.2 The First Church of Christ RB-5 RB-5 Congregational/United Church of 25 Great Rd., Bedford 47.3 45.2 45.1 Christ* RB-6 RB-6 The First Parish in Bedford Unitarian 75 Great Rd., Bedford 47.3 47.1 46.0 Universalist* RB-7 RB-7 St. Paul's Episcopal Church 100 Pine Hill Rd., Bedford 44.9 41.6 41.8 RB-8 RB-8 March for Jesus 54 Summer St., Bedford 55.7 54.7 52.2 Immanuel Baptist Church/Zion Korean RB-9 RB-9 Alliance Church 4 400 Great Rd., Bedford 46.9 47.1 45.8 SB-1 SB-1 Davis School Davis Rd., Bedford 49.0 42.5 43.1 SB-2 SB-2 Bedford High School 9 Mudge Way, Bedford 47.2 44.6 45.1 SB-3 SB-3 John Glenn Middle School 99 McMahon Rd., Bedford 48.5 45.9 46.7 Notes: 1.The first letter of the label indicates the nature of each site: H for hospital, N for sites in the National Register of Historic Places and/or State Register of Historic Places, 0 for other, P for public facilities, R for religious sites, S for schools. Other is the category for sites that town representatives specifically requested be added to the noise analysis location list, but do not fit into the other four categories.The second letter indicates the town where the site is located: B for Bedford,C for Concord, LX for Lexington, LN for Lincoln. 2.The labels have been updated for the 2012 ESPR.The 2005 ESPR labels are provided for reference purposes. Blanks indicate new locations that have been added to the 2012 ESPR list of noise analysis locations. 3. Historic districts and cemeteries are evaluated at a central location within the district or cemetery. Sites that are not designated as"N"sites are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and two asterisks(**)if they are listed in the State Inventory/MACRIS. Sites are marked with a(t)if they are only listed in the State Register of Historic Places. Sites marked with a(tt)contribute to the Old Bedford Center Historic District. 4.The Immanuel Baptist Church and Zion Korean Alliance Church are at the same address. 5.The boundary of the Old Bedford Center Historic District has slightly expanded,the Old Bedford Center Historic District Boundary Extension,since the last study in 2005. 0R.1� 729 Noise TatAe '7-13 2012 IDINL. at Illy6se Air4 ysliis IL.ocaCbins liiin Coincoird (�in dB) I N Nil I I=I I I= 1=1 111 :11 11 1� Iml I NC-1 NC-1 Barrett Farm Historic Districtt Barrett's Mill Rd., Concord 49.9 46.6 43.5 NC-2 NC-2 Jonathan Hildreth House 8 Barrett's Mill Rd., Concord 49.9 50.3 47.4 NC-3 NC-3 Joseph Hosmer House 572 Main St., Concord 45.7 45.0 44.3 NC-4 NC-4 Thoreau-Alcott House 255 Main St., Concord 48.6 47.9 46.1 NC-5 NC-5 Hubbardville Historic Districtt 324-374 Sudbury Rd., Concord 48.6 49.2 46.5 NC-6 NC-6 Hubbard-French Historic District 324-374 Sudbury Rd., Concord 48.6 49.2 46.5 NC-7 NC-7 Deacon Thomas Hubbard/Judge Henry 342 Sudbury Rd., Concord - 49.0 46.4 French House NC-8 NC-8 Pest House 158 Fairhaven Rd., Concord 48.3 49.9 46.3 NC-9 NC-9 Main Street Historic Districtt Main St. between Monument Sq.and 48.8 50.8 48.0 Wood St., Concord NC-10 NC-10 North Bridge-Monument Square Monument St., Liberty St.and Lowell 50.6 50.5 48.2 Historic Districtt St., Concord I NC-1 1 NC-1 1 Wright Tavern Lexington Rd.& Main St., Concord 50.9 51.0 48.2 NC-12 NC-12 Sleepy Hollow Cemetery 24 Court Ln., Concord - 52.2 49.0 NC-13 NC-13 American Mile Historic Districtt Lexington Rd.,Concord 50.9 51.7 48.5 NC-14 NC-14 Concord Monument Square-Lexington Monument Sq.and Lexington Rd., 50.9 50.9 48.1 Road Historic District Concord NC-15 NC-15 Ralph Waldo Emerson House 28 Cambridge Turnpike, Concord 51.3 52.9 49.1 NC-16 NC-16 Walden Pond 4 MA Rte 126(Main Beach), Concord 45.1 45.8 43.4 NC-17 NC-17 Orchard House 399 Lexington Rd., Concord 52.6 53.8 50.2 NC-18 NC-18 Deacon John Wheeler/Capt.Jonas 341 Virginia Rd., Concord - 60.4 58.4 Minot Farmhouse NC-19 NC-19 Wheeler-Meriam House 477 Virginia Rd., Concord 62.6 59.9 58.1 NC-20 - Concord Armory-Concord Veteran's 51 Walden St., Concord - - 48.1 Building NC-21 - Concord School of Philosophy 391 Lexington Rd., Concord - 50.3 NC-22 - Hosmer Homestead 138 Baker Ave.,Concord - - 41.6 PC-1 PC-1 Library** 129 Main St., Concord 49.6 49.4 47.1 PC-2 PC-2 Town Hall tt 22 Monument Sq.,Concord 50.9 50.8 48.1 PC-3 PC-3 Middlesex County Court House 305 Walden St., Concord 49.9 52.4 48.4 RC-1 RC-1 Trinity Episcopal Church** 81 Elm St., Concord 47.4 46.0 45.0 RC-2 RC-2 Redeemer Presbyterian Church 191 Sudbury Rd., Concord 49.1 49.0 46.7 RC-3 RC-3 New Life Community Church (meeting 40 Stow St., Concord 50.9 50.0 47.4 at the Emerson School Building**) RC-4 RC-4 Trinitarian Congregational Church 54 Walden St., Concord 50.9 50.9 48.0 RC-5 RC-5 First Church of Christ Scientisttt 7 Lowell Rd., Concord 50.9 50.2 47.7 RC-6 RC-6 St. Bernard's Parishtt 70 Monument Square, Concord 50.9 50.5 47.9 RC-7 RC-7 Christian Science Reading Room 20 Main St., Concord 49.0 50.7 47.9 RC-8 RC-8 First Parish in Concord tt 20 Lexington Rd., Concord 50.9 51.2 48.2 SC-1 SC-1 Nashoba/Brooks School 200 Strawberry Hill Rd., Concord 45.0 49.3 46.5 SC-2 SC-2 Middlesex School- 1400 Lowell Rd., Concord 46.8 41.3 40.4 SC-3 SC-3 Fenn School** 498-516 Monument St., Concord 54.1 53.7 50.9 SC-4 SC-4 Concord Academy 166 Main St., Concord 49.6 48.6 46.6 SC-5 SC-5 Alcott School 91 Laurel Rd., Concord 50.1 51.8 48.1 SC-6 SC-6 Concord/Carlisle High School 500 Walden Rd.,Concord 48.5 50.8 46.8 SC-7 SC-7 Ripley School 120 Meriam Rd., Concord 55.7 56.4 53.6 Notes: 1.The first letter of the label indicates the nature of each site: H for hospital, N for sites in the National Register of Historic Places and/or State Register of Historic Places, 0 for other, P for public facilities, R for religious sites, S for schools. Other is the category for sites that town representatives specifically requested be added to the noise analysis location list, but do not fit into the other four categories.The second letter indicates the town where the site is located: B for Bedford, C for Concord, LX for Lexington, LN for Lincoln. 2.The labels have been updated for the 2012ESPR.The 2005 ESPR labels are provided for reference purposes. Blanks indicate new locations that have been added to the 2012 ESPR list of noise analysis locations.The Old Manse and the Wayside (Samuel Whitney House)are included in the Minute Man National Historical Park list of noise analysis locations. 74',3,0 Noise ji 3. Historic districts and cemeteries are evaluated at a central location within the district or cemetery. Sites that are not designated as"N"sites are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and two asterisks(**)if they are listed in the State Inventory/MACRIS. Sites are marked with a (t)if they are only listed in the State Register of Historic Places. Sites marked with a(tt)contribute to the Concord Monument Square-Lexington Road Historic District. 4.The Walden Pond State Reservation is located in Concord and Lincoln.This site is located at the main beach in Concord. aItAe '7-14 2,012 II14L. at Illy liise Aur4 ysliis IL C.atii ins, liiin ILe liiur gtoin (in dB) NLX-1 NLX-1 Simonds Tavern 331 Bedford St., Lexington 55.7 55.5 53.0 NLX-2 NLX-2 Hancock-Clarke Historic Districtt Hancock St., Lexington 43.5 47.0 42.8 NLX-3 NLX-3 Hancock-Clarke House 35 Hancock St., Lexington 43.5 46.6 42.6 NLX-4 NLX-4 Garrity House 9 Hancock St.,Lexington - 47.1 42.7 NLX-5 NLX-5 Lexington Green Historic District Mass.Ave., Harrington Rd.and 44.5 47.4 42.9 Bedford St., Lexington NLX-6 NLX-6 Lexington Green Mass.Ave., Harrington Rd.and 44.5 47.2 42.7 Bedford St., Lexington NLX-7 NLX-7 Buckman Tavern 1 Bedford St., Lexington 44.5 46.9 42.5 NLX-8 NLX-8 General Samuel Chandler House 8 Goodwin Rd.,Lexington 44.5 46.8 42.5 NLX-9 NLX-9 Hancock School 33 Forest St., Lexington 44.1 47.3 42.6 NLX-10 NLX-10 U.S. Post Office Building 1661 Mass.Ave., Lexington 41.0 44.9 40.8 NLX-11 NLX-11 Warren E. Shelburne House 11 Percy Rd., Lexington 37.4 42.0 38.4 NLX-12 NLX-12 Munroe Tavern Historic Districtt Mass.Ave., Lexington 35.4 39.5 36.6 NLX-13 NLX-13 Sanderson House-Munroe Tavern 1314& 1332 Mass.Ave., Lexington 35.4 40.7 37.4 NLX-14 NLX-14 John Mason House 1303 Mass.Ave., Lexington 35.4 41.0 37.7 NLX-15 NLX-15 East Village Historical Districtt Mass Ave., Lexington 32.6 37.7 35.3 NLX-16 - M.H. Merriam and Company 7-9 Oakland Ave.,Lexington - - 41.6 Worthen Rd.,Woburn St., Hastings OLX-1 OLX-1 Battle Green Historic District** Rd., Mass.Ave.and B&M Railroad, 44.5 47.2 42.8 Lexington OLX-2 OLX-2 National Heritage Museum 33 Marrett Rd., Lexington - 39.2 36.2 PLX-1 PLX-1 Library** 1874 Mass.Ave., Lexington 44.5 47.7 43.1 PLX-2 PLX-2 Town Hall** 1625 Mass.Ave., Lexington 38.1 42.9 39.3 PLX-3 PLX-3 Lexington School District 1557 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington 40.0 43.9 40.0 Administration** Lexington United Methodist Church/ RLX-1 RLX-1 St.John's Korean United Methodist 2600 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington 46.9 48.1 45.9 Church RLX-2 RLX-2 Temple Isaiah 55 Lincoln St., Lexington 46.6 48.5 44.2 RLX-3 RLX-3 Grace Chapel of Lexington 59 Worthen Rd.,Lexington 46.2 49.3 44.6 RLX-4 RLX-4 St. Brigid's Parish* 2001 Mass.Ave., Lexington 44.5 48.7 44.0 RLX-5 RLX-5 First Parish-Unitarian Churchtt 7 Harrington Rd., Lexington 44.5 47.8 43.2 RLX-6 RLX-6 Hancock United Church of Christ tt 1912 Mass.Ave., Lexington 44.5 47.5 43.0 RLX-7 RLX-7 Church of Our Redeemer 6 Meriam St., Lexington 44.5 46.7 42.3 RLX-8 RLX-8 Christian Science Reading Room 10 Muzzy St.#12, Lexington 42.8 46.3 41.8 RLX-9 RLX-9 Greek Orthodox Church of St. 17 Meriam St., Lexington 44.5 46.1 42.0 Nichols** RLX-10 RLX-10 Chabad Center- 9 Burlington St., Lexington - 52.0 49.9 RLX-11 RLX-11 Pilgrim Congregational Church 55 Coolidge Ave., Lexington 46.3 48.0 44.9 RLX-12 RLX-12 First Baptist Church of Lexington** 1580 Mass.Ave., Lexington 38.1 44.0 40.1 RLX-13 RLX-13 Jehovah's Witnesses 196 Woburn St., Lexington 35.1 38.1 36.7 RLX-14 RLX-14 Follen Church Society-Unitarian 755 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington - 35.6 34.0 Universalists* RLX-15 RLX-15 Countryside Bible Chapel 480 Lowell St., Lexington 37.3 39.2 37.3 RLX-16 RLX-16 St. Paul Evangelical Church 451 Lowell St., Lexington 36.2 37.4 36.2 SLX-1 SLX-1 Minuteman Regional Vocational High 758 Marrett Rd.,Lexington 43.9 45.9 44.8 Noise HI MI 1 1111111 EMEMEM School SLX-2 SLX-2 Maria Hastings School 2618 Mass.Ave., Lexington 46.9 47.8 45.4 SLX-3 SLX-3 Methodist Weekday School 2600 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington 46.9 48.1 46.0 SLX-4 SLX-4 Community Nursery School 2325 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington 47.3 48.9 45.8 SLX-5 SLX-5 Bridge Elementary School" 55 Middleby Rd., Lexington 45.1 47.1 42.2 SLX-6 SLX-6 Lexington High School 251 Waltham St., Lexington 43.8 46.7 41.7 SLX-7 SLX-7 Jonas Clarke Middle School 17 Stedman Rd., Lexington 40.3 43.5 37.6 SLX-8 SLX-8 Estabrook School" 117 Grove St., Lexington 49.9 48.6 44.5 SLX-9 SLX-9 Diamond Middle School 99 Hancock St., Lexington 51.3 51.5 50.1 SLX-10 SLX-10 Fiske Elementary School 146 Maple St., Lexington 42.9 44.8 42.4 SLX-11 SLX-11 Armenian Sisters Academy 20 Pelham Rd., Lexington 35.8 40.7 37.2 SLX-12 SLX-12 Harrington Elementary School 148 Maple St., Lexington 31.9 34.4 33.5 Notes: 1.The first letter of the label indicates the nature of each site: H for hospital, N for sites in the National Register of Historic Places and/or State Register of Historic Places, O for other, P for public facilities, R for religious sites, S for schools. Other is the category for sites that town representatives specifically requested be added to the noise analysis location list, but do not fit into the other four categories,or historic districts that are not on the National Register of Historic Places.The second letter indicates the town where the site is located: B for Bedford, C for Concord, LX for Lexington, LN for Lincoln. 2.The labels have been updated for the 2012 ESPR.The 2005 ESPR labels are provided for reference purposes. Blanks indicate new locations that have been added to the 2012 ESPR list of noise analysis locations. 3. Historic districts and cemeteries are evaluated at a central location within the district or cemetery. Sites that are not designated as"N"sites are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and two asterisks(**)if they are listed in the State Inventory/MACRIS. Sites are marked with a (t)if they are only listed in the State Register of Historic Places.Sites marked with a(tt)contribute to the Lexington Green Historic District. 4.The Lexington United Methodist Church and St.John's Korean United Methodist Church are at the same address. TaIiAe '7-15 2012 IIINIIL. at Il olse Aur4IIysls IIL.ocatbiris liiuri IILJiric6iri (iri dB) N. .. uu 00 NLN-1 NLN-1 Walden Pond Rte. 126,Walden St., Concord Rd., - 45.9 42.6 Lincoln NLN-2 NLN-2 Henry Higginson House 44 Baker Farm Rd., Lincoln - 45.1 42.5 NLN-3 NLN-3 Daniel Brooks House Brooks Rd., Lincoln 51.0 49.5 48.4 Bedford Rd. Lincoln Rd., Old Lexington NLN-4 NLN-4 Lincoln Center Historic District Rd. Sandy Pond Rd.Trapelo Rd. 40.4 41.0 41.0 Weston Rd., Lincoln NLN-5 NLN-5 Hoar Tavern 268 Cambridge Tpke., Lincoln 41.9 43.0 41.8 SLN-1 SLN-1 Carroll School 25 Baker Bridge Rd., Lincoln 49.3 41.7 40.8 SLN-2 SLN-2 Hanscom Middle School Hanscom AFB, Lincoln 50.1 49.1 50.2 Notes: 1.The first letter of the label indicates the nature of each site: H for hospital, N for sites in the National Register of Historic Places and/or State Register of Historic Places, O for other, P for public facilities, R for religious sites, S for schools. Other is the category for sites that town representatives specifically requested be added to the noise analysis location list, but do not fit into the other four categories.The second letter indicates the town where the site is located: B for Bedford, C for Concord, LX for Lexington, LN for Lincoln. 2.The labels have been updated for the 2012 ESPR.The 2005 ESPR labels are provided for reference purposes. Blanks indicate new locations that have been added to the 2012 ESPR list of noise analysis locations. 3. Historic districts and cemeteries are evaluated at a central location within the district or cemetery. Sites that are not designated as"N"sites are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and two asterisks(**)if they are listed in the State Inventory/MACRIS. 4.The Walden Pond State Reservation is located in Concord and Lincoln. This site is in Heywood's Meadow. The DNL generally decreased between 2005 and 2012 for the noise analysis locations common to the 2005 ESPR and the 2012 ESPR. The average decrease in DNL across all sites was 2.5 dBA,with sites in Bedford recording an average of decrease of 1.2 dBA,minus 2.7 dBA in Concord,minus 3.5 dBA in Lexington, and minus 0.9 in Lincoln. Noise The largest individual DNL increases were an increase of 1.2 dBA from 44.8 dBA to 46.0 dBA at the First Baptist Church of Bedford(RB-2) and an increase of 1.2 dBA from 43.7 dBA to 44.9 dBA at St. Michael's Church(RB-3),both on Concord Rd in Bedford. The largest individual DNL decreases were a decrease of 5.9 dBA from 43.5 dBA to 37.6 dBA at the Jonas Clarke Middle School(SLX-7)in Lexington and a decrease of 5.0 dBA from 46.7 dBA to 41.7 dBA at the Lexington High School(SLX-6). Areas with lower noise levels are more susceptible to larger changes due to normal shifts in runway and flight corridor utilization. The largest changes for sites with a 2005 or 2012 ESPR DNL of 50 dBA or more was a decrease of 4.8 dBA from 50.7 dBA to 45.9 dBA at the Nathaniel Page House (NB-6)in Bedford and an increase of 1.1 dBA from 49.1 dBA to 50.2 dBA at the Hanscom Middle School(SLN-2) on the Hanscom AFB in Lincoln. 753 "11 irn Above A Time Above threshold level of 65 dBA is considered useful by acousticians when considering speech interference.People can generally carry on acceptable outdoor conversations in a normal voice at typical communication distances of three to four feet as long as the background noise (in this case, aircraft) remains less than 65 dBA.Also,in a house with open windows, a 65 dBA sound level outdoors produces an indoor sound level that is low enough to permit relaxed conversation at communication distances up to about six feet. In the 2012 ESPR, like the 2000 and 2005 ESPRs, Massport has also provided information on times above a lower threshold of 55 dBA. Outdoor conversations at a normal voice effort in the presence of these lower levels are typically acceptable to distances of ten to 15 feet, and indoors with windows open conversations would be acceptable using a normal voice effort at distances of 15 feet or more (see Appendix D). The 2012 ESPR reports the results in the form of contours showing areas where aircraft noise exceeds the two threshold sound levels of 65 and 55 dBA for periods of 30, 60, and 90 minutes per day.33 Figure 7-12 presents TA 65 dBA contours and Figure 7-13 presents the TA 55 dBA contours. The cumulative areas within the TA contours for 2000, 2005 and 2012 are presented in Table 7-16. The data is divided between Massport property, Hanscom AFB, and off property(meaning outside Hanscom Field and Hanscom AFB). The sizes of the TA 55 dBA and TA 65 dBA contours generally decreased in 2012 relative to 2005 for the 30 minute contours and increased for the 60 minute and 90 minute contours. 33Note that nighttime noise sources are not assessed an additional penalty in the Time Above metric. ,. „, E2 N co J III u � uu.IIII � Z � uollu =3 0 p uu ass ,' � a--� rJ /OIL � IL co f� f g cn cn " rmr / LO 00 j p / r a'Z W J O N woo11 oei � k fl���I/r � o •— IIIIII O c� W () a N JAJS % oIt CIS CD y m,aoivr / r" m N /0 lum00 ' �w Dam000 lies 61 Ik r�rl r •�Oo�o-gQ�t� c a � ,� ��/ �I�I� pVVVuI�II �" t o 0 m aw 0 0 0 o in imv;� I U V o C g m m pllllllllllll 7.;G O �, �O/ � m - - U pl a. �If" lJ/Jr J 0% III / 10 1 z a m(9 o o m c° co a � 4S9 l ��F Apr > d 'm d -moo �� o— m 1. r n1 ✓ ����� � C IIIi� d o G m e� a 0 e m p _ Jr�r IIIII, N i �cg i Im �E LL CD o m riCDg O CD CD j j IIIIIIam � !rei������ V cJ �� r ✓� .. ���J ��/ gags CD r a N m a= N !! O _ r o 0 e a N v ., :✓ t o`ohm _ r s a o" gg r ® �/ p' IIIIIII M J III u � r up.IIII � Z � � Illlllll � co � a--� >_ ILL co jil co Q alllf� cn " �;r m i% l LU N LO CC,, ,c O ///'llf' N N ° f�I IIII IIII IIIIIIII 0 c(i - N ppI o rO CIS 00 N Q�J��„� ��ri9�f�/ III y��jlr ,,�r .. � I„v, .:.� ,'�,a�l� IV,,... �"wAllWiwu•' LU 61 d Illllllllllu„ aW u r r •��� s na/ j j � � pl y. wade o 0 1,00� a err cw 00 0 o in �al/���/� �4� f �i,�� �� w, /l /lP a aal� Show IIIIIIII co O Ir c° � a� I g J /I ~ „ � 11 r / fl�;� / li III r f � Lu r 9CIO a rn (��� w IIh� Ipllllll i ¢ m co I �l IV r p o c4 a Z, �/ � � � IIII '� _ > � �m �III - o o o a.o ¢ m o _a p I L: / ® D ILL CD CD riiw do O j�� IIIIII damAN R OCD s s UCD N ro 3 0 a CD 0 g / Ro 0 0 O c N c � o h m r s a Noise 7ai)Ille '7-16 2012 Airea witlidiiri "Firne kbove 65 airid 55 dBA Coiritmirs, TA 65 dBA Contour 90 169 158 11 0 281 279 0 2 289 275 0 14 minutes 60 468 436 22 10 498 468 8 22 526 489 12 25 minutes 30 1,120 883 75 162 1,326 956 78 292 1,238 933 89 216 minutes TA 55 dBA Contour 90 1,619 1,073 139 407 1,828 1,060 166 602 2,362 1247 336 779 minutes 60 3,171 1,299 468 1404 3,551 1,254 447 1850 4,006 1301 640 2065 minutes 30 6,798 1,302 744 4752 8,405 1,302 761 6342 7,542 1,302 782 5458 minutes Table 7-17 presents the population between the contour levels for the TA 65 and 55 dBA metrics for 2005 and 2012.Appendix D describes the methodology used to compute these population counts based on the contour geometry,US Census data, and land use polygons. Tai)Ille 747 2012 IlPgpl �.flafioiri witlidiiri Tirne kbove 65 airid 55 dBA Coiritmirs, 21 !P1 M TA 65 dBA Contour 90 minutes or greater 0 0 0 60 to 90 minutes 1 50 52 30 to 60 minutes 353 470 349 Total 30 Minutes or Greater 354 520 401 TA 55 dBA Contour 90 minutes 641 937 1,139 60 minutes 1,234 1,301 2,610 30 minutes 7,107 9,112 6,234 Total 30 Minutes or Greater 8,982 11,350 9,983 75.4 TcIaI N61se IExlpostjire (EXP) Table 7-18 presents the EXP for 2012 at Hanscom Field. Appendix D presents detailed results of the 2012 EXP calculation. The total EXP for civil departures was 107.4 dB using INM Version 7.Oc presents a historic comparison of EXP values from 1987 to 2012 using increasingly updated versions of the INM as discussed earlier in this chapter. 7ai)Ille '7-18 Year 2012 '7o4l Ill 6se Expos�.jire (EXP) (iiri dB) 1110 1111 All civil aircraft except single piston 106.2 106.6 109.5 All civil aircraft 107.4 108.0 110.7 All military aircraft 91.3 87.8 92.9 All civil and military aircraft except single piston 106.3 106.6 109.5 All civil and military aircraft 107.5 108.0 110.8 7-'',3,6 Fzr MI.. Noise TaIi)IIIe '7-19 III"1lstoirµliic'Ti eurids liiuri III: III' �uuu 1987 112.0 INM Version 3.9 1988 112.4 1989 111.6 1990 110.8 1991 110.7 1992 111.4 1993 110.6 1994 111.4 1995 111.6 1996 112.0 INM Version 5.1 1997 112.3 1998 113.1 1999 113.0 2000 112.3 INM Version 6.Oc 2001 111.6 2002 112.4 2003 111.9 2004 111.9 2005 111.4 INM Version 6.1 2006 111.0 2007 111.3 2008 110.2 2009 109.2 2010 109.2 2011 109.1 2012 107.4 INM Version 7.Oc Source:Massport Figure 7-14 and Figure 7-15 depict contours for comparison of single-event noise levels for some common aircraft types at Hanscom Field. Figure 7-14 presents SEL contours for departure and arrival of four typical general aviation jets: the Lear 25, the Lear 35, the Gulfstream 1V, and the Canadair Regional Jet. The Lear 25 is a typical Stage 2 Corporate Jet,whereas the Lear 35 (the most common jet operating at Hanscom Field), the Gulfstream 1V, and the Canadair Regional Jet are Stage 3 Corporate Jets.34 The Canadair Regional Jet is a modified business jet that is often used in commuter operations. Figure 7-14 shows that at any given location, SELs for Stage 2 aircraft are typically 10 to 15 dB higher than the Stage 3 aircraft.Keeping in mind the logarithmic nature of decibels, a single operation by one of the Stage 2 jets will have 10 times the influence on the total noise level(DNL or EXP) as a Stage 3 jet. Figure 7-15 shows the departure single-event noise contours for the most common propeller aircraft at 34As a result of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990,the only Stage 2 jets that are allowed to fly in the U.S. since December 1999 are those weighing less than 75,000 pounds. This includes most general aviation jets.In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act,which included the phase out of all non-stage 3 aircraft by December 31,2015. M., 7 Noise ------------ =�. ��,,���,�,,,i ✓��is%� Lear 25 10, Lear 3'S Gulfstream IV -. --------------- ----------------- Canadair Regional Jet North airy» ira, �-��� � SEL 85 SEL 80 SEL 75 Scale in Statute Miles(9 mi=5,280 ft) PWWW -_.,rrr. 0 1 5 10 miles Fiiigu.u'ire -14 IIEL. Cointouirs, for Coirnirnoin Geinei4II Aviiiatbin Jet Xirciraft r MI.. Noise ------------- --- - ` -� De 1-lavilland DHC-6, Twin Turbo Propeller ---- - Beechcraft Baron 58, Twin Engine Piston Propeller s- ti ------------------- Single Engine Piston Propeller North __ _ ___. SEt 85 SEL 80 SEL 75..... Scale in Statute Miles(1 mi=5,280 ft) 0 q 5 10 miles I'-'iiigu.ui e -15 SEL. Coiritouirs, for Coirnirnioiiri Pirqp6leir Xirciraft Hanscom Field: a de Havilland DHC-6 twin turbo propeller, a Beechcraft Baron 58 twin-engine piston propeller, and a single engine piston propeller. A recommendation of the Hanscom Noise Workgroup was to evaluate the distribution of"noise events" at Hanscom Field. For this purpose, the INM-computed SEL for each aircraft departing the airport(the same metric used in the computation of EXP)was grouped into a 5-decibel increment with all other aircraft producing similar noise levels, and the number of daily occurrences was tallied for each future scenario in the 2012 ESPR. Figure 7-16 presents a plot of the distribution of the SEL values for historical data: 1987, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2012. Data were derived from Massport's Annual Noise Reports for 1987 and 1990, the 1995 GEIR for 1995, and the ESPRs for 2000 and 2005. Single engine piston propeller aircraft were 0� , Noise excluded from the presentation so that differences between the numbers of operations by louder aircraft for the various scenarios would be clear. Inclusion of these departures (172 per day in 2012)would have compressed the y-axis to the point that these differences would have been unreadable. The figure shows that operations by the noisiest aircraft types (SEL greater than 95 dBA) decreased over time,while operations by relatively quieter aircraft types increased during that same period. Distribution of Daily Departure SELs 35 (Excluding Single Engine Prop) ❑ 30 1987 ®1990 25 1995 2 a 2000 Q. ■2005 020 d2012 15 n a� 0 a10 0 5 0 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100-105 105+ Departure SEL(dBA) Fiiigu.uire 7-1 re II1+iistoi iiica IIDiistiri iilinjtiioiri of IICDaliillly Depairtuire SEL.s (Exdlu d� iiirig iiirigle Il:urigiiurie Ilf3i olp) 75.6 Aliiirciraft Oveirfliglits of IlMinute II an V tliional Ki 'iloirii al lPairk In 1991, Congress directed the National Park Service to conduct research on the impacts of aircraft overflying the National Park System in Public Law 100-91, the National Parks Overflights Act. The National Park Service issued Director's Order 47 (D047) "Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management" in December 2000. The purpose of the order is to "articulate National Park Service operational policies that will require, to the fullest extent practicable, the protection,maintenance, or restoration of the natural soundscape resource in a condition unimpaired by inappropriate or excessive noise sources." D047 directs park managers to develop soundscape preservation and noise management plans that are consistent with the individual objectives for the park set forth in the Park General Management Plan. The individual park superintendent is tasked with identifying appropriate noise levels and criteria, as well as a plan for noise management and soundscape preservation. Massport met with National Park Service staff to discuss their soundscape preservation and noise management plans at Minute Man National Historical Park. At this time, the soundscape management plan for Minute Man National Historical Park has not been completed, though the National Park Service has begun its soundscape management planning process and collected noise measurements at several locations. In order to address noise levels at various locations in Minute Man National Historical Park, thirty-one locations were included in the list of noise analysis locations. The sites that were included in the 2005 Noise ESPR were reviewed and updated with input from the National Park Service. These locations are illustrated on Figure 7-11. Table 7-20 presents the computed DNL at these sites for 2012. As shown in Table 7-20 and Figure 7-9, none of these thirty-one locations fell within either the 65 dB DNL or 55 dB DNL contours.No portion of the park fell within the 65 dB DNL contour or the 55 dB DNL contour.None of Historic Battle Road Interpretive Trail fell within either the 65 dB DNL or 55 dB DNL contours. As discussed earlier, Time Above computations with thresholds of 65 dBA and 55 dBA estimate the length of time during an average day in which people could experience outdoor speech interference at distances of three to four and ten to 15 feet,respectively. This is relevant to activities such as outdoor interpretive programs within Minute Man National Historical Park. Table 7-21 and Table 7-22 present the time above 65 dBA and 55 dBA values for thirty-one points within Minute Man National Historical Park. Sites within the park experienced one to eight minutes per day with noise levels over 65 dBA. At the lower threshold of 55 dBA, the total time per day ranged from 12 to 84 minutes. The highest times above 55 dBA were in the range of 51 to 84 minutes per day and occurred in an area stretching from the western end of the Battle Road Unit at sites near Menam's Corner to the Sgt. Samuel Hartwell House Site, directly south of the intersection of Runways 11/29 and 5/23. These are the closest sites in the Park to Hanscom Field's runways, and receive noise from several types of aircraft operations including departures turning south off of Runway 29, aircraft departing Runway 23, and pattern operations on Runway 11/29. The establishment of revised Touch-and-Go routes that limit flights over the MMNHP has contributed to a decrease in Time Above results. Massport first developed a fly friendly program in 2001. This program encourages pilots to use the quietest flying techniques that are safe and practical. Inserts for pilot manuals continue to be made available for pilots of all aircraft(including commercial aircraft), outlining the Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association's and National Business Aircraft Association's quiet flying recommendations. Framed posters describing noise abatement procedures are hanging in the flight school offices and FBOs. Massport also periodically reminds these offices to encourage the pilots to use quiet flying techniques including through quarterly meetings. Additionally,videos that discuss the concepts are incorporated into the training required to get a Hanscom security badge. As a result,pilots based at Hanscom are being exposed and re-exposed to the program, increasing awareness and an understanding of the quiet flying techniques. Security badges were instituted after September 11, 2001. There is a continued effort to implement multiple reminders to pilots to establish and maintain a culture of quiet flying. In 2009, Massport began a new initiative to reduce noise over the Minute Man National Historical Park. Most touch-and-go operations circle to the south of the airport,potentially taking the aircraft over areas of the Battle Road Trail that are used by the Park for outdoor programs and interpretive talks. In a partnership with the Park, the FAA, the flight schools and Hanscom pilots,it was determined that small aircraft could increase the use of a tight touch-and-go pattern that keeps the aircraft over the airfield rather than over sensitive park areas. Using radar data, Massport staff monitor the number of touch-and-go operations over the park. This data is a critical part of ongoing quarterly meeting between Massport, FAA air traffic control tower, and flight school staff to review touch and go flight paths. Since the initiation of this program, overflights over the park have been reduced by an average of 21%. 0R., 7 41 Noise TatAe '7-20 2012 IDIML. at Illy6se Air4 ysliis ILocaCbins liiin Che IWinute IMain Illy:Cbir4� 1+stoihica IIPairk (liin dB) EMMA F.91473.I M MM-1 M 0-1 Major John Buttrick House North Bridge Unit/Concord 51.9 151.2 48.7 NPS Headquarters and Visitor Center MM-2 MM-2 at 174 Liberty St. (Stedman Buttrick North Bridge Unit/Concord - 50.5 48.3 Residence ) MM-3 MM-3 North Bridge Comfort Station North Bridge Unit/Concord 51.4 50.3 48.2 MM-4 MM-4 The Minuteman(Statue) North Bridge Unit/Concord 50.8 49.7 47.9 MM-5 MM-5 North Bridge North Bridge Unit/Concord 50.9 49.9 48.0 MM-6 MM-6 Old Manse` North Bridge Unit/Concord 51.4 50.2 48.1 MM-7 MM-7 The Wayside (Samuel Whitney Wayside Unit/Concord 52.6 53.6 50.3 House)` MM-8 MM-8 Meriam's Corner Monument Battle Road Unit/Concord 52.2 51.9 50.3 MM-9 MM-9 Meriam House Battle Road Unit/Concord 52.7 52.1 50.6 MM-10 MM-10 Historic Farming Fields Battle Road Unit/Concord 53.4 51.4 50.7 MM-11 MM-11 Olive Stow House/Farwell Jones Battle Road Unit/Concord 50.5 50.5 49.2 House/Carty Barn MM-12 MM-12 Samuel Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Concord 53.1 52.5 50.8 MM-13 MM-13 Noah Brooks Tavern (and Carriage Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 54.2 53.4 51.4 House) MM-14 MM-14 Job Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 54.5 53.0 51.5 MM-15 MM-15 Joshua Brooks,Jr. House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 54.0 51.7 50.7 MM-16 MM-16 Bloody Angle Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 51.4 50.1 50.9 MM-17 MM-17 Ephraim Hartwell Tavern Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 48.3 47.8 49.2 MM-18 MM-18 Sgt. Samuel Hartwell House Site Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 47.7 47.1 48.5 MM-19 MM-19 Captain William Smith House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 45.6 45.8 47.0 MM-20 MM-20 Paul Revere Capture Site and Marker Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 45.5 45.2 45.8 MM-21 MM-21 Mile Three Location (Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln - 44.5 45.5 MM-22 MM-22 John Nelson House and Barn Battle Road Unit/Lincoln - 45.9 46.0 MM-23 MM-23 Josiah Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 46.8 47.2 47.0 MM-24 MM-24 Thomas Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 46.9 47.5 47.1 MM-25 MM-25 Parkers Revenge Battle Road Unit/Lexington 46.6 47.6 47.0 MM-26 MM-26 Minute Man Visitor Center Battle Road Unit/Lexington 45.3 46.9 46.1 MM-27 MM-27 Jacob Whittemore House Battle Road Unit/Lexington - 47.6 46.4 MM-28 MM-28 The Bluff and Monument Battle Road Unit/Lexington 44.9 47.7 45.9 MM-29 MM-29 Mile Four Location (Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lexington - 47.7 46.2 MM-30 MM-30 Ebenezer Fiske House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lexington 46.4 48.4 46.2 MM-31 - Col.James Barrett Farm* Barrett Farm Unit/Concord - - 43.5 Notes: 1.The Minute Man National Historical Park is a national historic landmark district.All sites are in the National Register of Historic Places. 2.The 2005 ESPR labels are provided for reference purposes. Blanks indicate new locations that have been added to the 2012 ESPR list of noise analysis locations. 3. Sites within Minute Man National Historical Park are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Sites in the Battle Road Unit are located on the Battle Road Interpretive Trail. MM-21 and MM-29 do not refer to specific historic resources,but provide additional coverage of sites along the Trail. MM-21 is approximately three miles east of Meriam's Corner and MM-29 is approximately four miles east of Meriam's Corner. 7-42 Fzr MI.. Noise TatAe '7-21 2012T�irne-Xbove 65 dBA at Illy6se Air4 ysliis ILocaCbins liiin Che IWinute IMain Illy:Cbir4� 1+stoih�caIII Pa irk MM!" MM-1 MM-1 Major John Buttrick House North Bridge Unit/Concord 5.6 5.9 3.1 MM-2 MM-2 NPS Headquarters and Visitor Center at 174 North Bridge Unit/Concord - 5.1 2.8 Liberty St. (Stedman Buttrick Residence ) MM-3 I MM-3 North Bridge Comfort Station North Bridge Unit/Concord 5.2 4.9 1 2.7 MM-4 I MM-4 The Minuteman(Statue) North Bridge Unit/Concord 4.3 4.5 2.5 MM-5 MM-5 North Bridge North Bridge Unit/Concord 4.4 4.7 2.7 MM-6 MM-6 Old Manse` North Bridge Unit/Concord 4.7 5.1 2.9 MM-7 MM-7 The Wayside (Samuel Whitney House) Wayside Unit/Concord 5.1 8.8 5.7 MM-8 MM-8 Meriam's Corner Monument Battle Road Unit/Concord 6.5 8.4 5.7 MM-9 MM-9 Meriam House Battle Road Unit/Concord 7.2 8.8 6.2 MM-10 MM-10 Historic Farming Fields Battle Road Unit/Concord 11.8 8.0 7.0 MM-11 MM-11 Olive Stow House/Farwell Jones House/Carty Battle Road Unit/Concord 6.2 4.9 4.7 Barn MM-12 MM-12 Samuel Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Concord 7.2 4.2 6.6 MM-13 MM-13 Noah Brooks Tavern (and Carriage House) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 7.5 4.1 7.3 MM-14 MM-14 Job Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 7.7 4.4 8.0 MM-15 MM-15 Joshua Brooks,Jr. House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 7.1 4.0 7.1 MM-16 MM-16 Bloody Angle Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 7.1 4.2 7.3 MM-17 MM-17 Ephraim Hartwell Tavern Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 3.3 2.8 4.1 MM-18 MM-18 Sgt. Samuel Hartwell House Site Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 2.5 2.1 2.9 MM-19 MM-19 Captain William Smith House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 1.0 1.2 1.5 MM-20 MM-20 Paul Revere Capture Site and Marker Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 1.4 1.1 1.1 MM-21 MM-21 Mile Three Location (Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln - 0.8 1.0 MM-22 MM-22 John Nelson House and Barn Battle Road Unit/Lincoln - 1.4 1.3 MM-23 MM-23 Josiah Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 2.3 2.2 1.8 MM-24 MM-24 Thomas Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 2.3 2.6 1.9 MM-25 MM-25 Parkers Revenge Battle Road Unit/Lexington 2.3 2.5 1.9 MM-26 MM-26 Minute Man Visitor Center Battle Road Unit/Lexington 1.6 2.2 1.4 MM-27 MM-27 Jacob Whittemore House Battle Road Unit/Lexington - 2.8 1.6 MM-28 MM-28 The Bluff and Monument Battle Road Unit/Lexington 1.4 2.9 1.5 MM-29 MM-29 Mile Four Location(Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lexington - 2.8 1.6 MM-30 MM-30 Ebenezer Fiske House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lexington 1.7 3.6 2.0 MM-31 - Col.James Barrett Farm* Barrett Farm Unit/Concord - - 0.7 Notes: 1.The Minute Man National Historical Park is a national historic landmark district.All sites are in the National Register of Historic Places. 2.The 2005 ESPR labels are provided for reference purposes. Blanks indicate new locations that have been added to the 2012 ESPR list of noise analysis locations. 3. Sites within Minute Man National Historical Park are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Sites in the Battle Road Unit are located on the Battle Road Interpretive Trail. MM-21 and MM-29 do not refer to specific historic resources, but provide additional coverage of sites along the Trail. MM-21 is approximately three miles east of Meriam's Corner and MM-29 is approximately four miles east of Meriam's Corner. Noise Tat)�le '7-22 2012 "Firne-Xbove 55 dBA at Ill 6se Air4 ysliis ILocatbiris liiiiri the IWunite IMaiiri Ill aCbir4� 1+stoirliicaIII Paidk Lo MM-1 MM-1 Major John Buttrick House North Bridge Unit/Concord 26.4 38.5 26.6 MM-2 MM-2 NPS Headquarters and Visitor Center at 174 North Bridge Unit/Concord - 35.5 26.1 Liberty St. (Stedman Buttrick Residence) MM-3 MM-3 North Bridge Comfort Station North Bridge Unit/Concord 24.8 34.5 25.8 MM-4 MM-4 The Minuteman(Statue) North Bridge Unit/Concord 21.3 30.1 25.1 MM-5 MM-5 North Bridge North Bridge Unit/Concord 21.5 31.0 25.8 MM-6 MM-6 Old Manse` North Bridge Unit/Concord 22.0 30.6 26.3 MM-7 MM-7 The Wayside(Samuel Whitney House) Wayside Unit/Concord 29.9 43.8 34.4 MM-8 MM-8 Meriam's Corner Monument Battle Road Unit/Concord 44.9 53.8 47.0 MM-9 MM-9 Meriam House Battle Road Unit/Concord 49.4 55.6 51.0 MM-10 MM-10 Historic Farming Fields Battle Road Unit/Concord 75.3 70.8 77.2 MM-1 1 MM-1 1 Olive Stow House/Farwell Jones House/Carty Battle Road Unit/Concord 53.2 53.2 57.1 Barn MM-12 MM-12 Samuel Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Concord 46.8 38.9 52.3 MM-1 3 MM-1 3 Noah Brooks Tavern(and Carriage House) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 44.3 34.8 51.1 MM-14 MM-14 Job Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 47.1 37.0 57.2 MM-15 MM-15 Joshua Brooks,Jr. House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 43.9 32.9 53.2 MM-16 MM-16 Bloody Angle Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 64.9 46.9 84.4 MM-17 MM-17 Ephraim Hartwell Tavern Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 47.0 42.9 72.5 MM-18 MM-18 Sgt. Samuel Hartwell House Site Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 41.9 39.4 63.5 MM-19 MM-19 Captain William Smith House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 28.9 28.7 45.7 MM-20 MM-20 Paul Revere Capture Site and Marker Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 15.9 21.0 31.0 MM-21 MM-21 Mile Three Location(Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln - 17.7 25.9 MM-22 MM-22 John Nelson House and Barn Battle Road Unit/Lincoln - 26.5 32.7 MM-23 MM-23 Josiah Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 31.8 36.6 42.6 MM-24 MM-24 Thomas Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 32.0 38.4 43.1 MM-25 MM-25 Parkers Revenge Battle Road Unit/Lexington 29.9 38.2 41.1 MM-26 MM-26 Minute Man Visitor Center Battle Road Unit/Lexington 18.9 31.6 31.3 MM-27 MM-27 Jacob Whittemore House Battle Road Unit/Lexington - 35.3 32.5 MM-28 MM-28 The Bluff and Monument Battle Road Unit/Lexington 14.5 29.5 24.4 MM-29 MM-29 Mile Four Location (Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lexington - 34.1 29.7 MM-30 MM-30 Ebenezer Fiske House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lexington 10.4 30.7 19.8 MM-31 - Col.James Barrett Farm* Barrett Farm Unit/Concord - - 11.9 Notes: 1.The Minute Man National Historical Park is a national historic landmark district.All sites are in the National Register of Historic Places. 2.The 2005 ESPR labels are provided for reference purposes. Blanks indicate new locations that have been added to the 2012 ESPR list of noise analysis locations. 3. Sites within Minute Man National Historical Park are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Sites in the Battle Road Unit are located on the Battle Road Interpretive Trail. MM-21 and MM-29 do not refer to specific historic resources,but provide additional coverage of sites along the Trail. MM-21 is approximately three miles east of Meriam's Corner and MM-29 is approximately four miles east of Meriam's Corner. 7.6 Analysis Of Future Scenarios All aspects of model input required for the 2012 calculations were also necessary for analysis of future impacts.No changes were made to the airfield layout, flight tracks, runway use, or aircraft noise and performance data for the future cases. Only the operations data,which consist of the types of aircraft and number of operations,were changed. 7-44 Noise The 2012 ESPR future scenarios are used to evaluate the potential cumulative environmental effects that could occur if Hanscom Field reaches the airport activity levels that are described in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios represent estimates of what could occur(not what will occur)in the future using certain planning assumptions and are not necessarily recommended outcomes. The future service scenarios are consistent with Massport's 1980 Regulations for Hanscom Field,which prohibit scheduled commercial passenger services with aircraft having more than 60 seats. Table 7-23 summarizes the average daily operations for the two forecast scenarios. A more detailed breakdown of operations by individual aircraft types is included for each scenario in Appendix D. TaIi)Ille '7-23 III'-'oi ecast Average IIDaiiillly Opeiratbiris, o ui 2020 Stage 2 Jets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stage 3 Jets 44.1 2.5 42.7 3.8 93.1 Turbo Prop 5.0 0.1 5.0 0.2 10.4 Piston 165.7 0.5 165.4 0.8 332.4 Military 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Helicopters 10.0 0.2 10.0 0.2 20.5 All Groups 225.9 3.3 224.2 5.0 458.4 2030 Stage 2 Jets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stage 3 Jets 58.8 3.3 57.0 5.1 124.3 Turbo Prop 6.5 0.9 6.4 0.2 14.0 Piston 182.1 0.6 181.8 0.9 365.4 Military 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Helicopters 10.0 0.2 10.0 0.2 20.5 All Groups 258.5 5.0 256.2 6.5 526.2 w w 1I 1D WL- on'tou ua: Figure 7-17 and Figure 7-18 depict the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dB DNL contours for the two future scenarios. In each figure the 2005 and 2012 contours are also shown for comparison. In both figures, the area within each contour level increases in the future scenarios,but remains confined within the 2005 contour. The growth in the contours occurs fairly evenly. Another notable feature is the growth in the contour despite phase out of operations by the older,noisier Stage 2 aircraft such as the Lear 25. The overall increase in operations offsets any reductions resulting from fleet mix changes. The area within each contour interval is presented in Table 7-24 for 2005 and 2012 for comparison to the forecast years of 2020 and 2030. The data show that DNL contours for 2020 is only increase marginally above 2012 and contours for 2030 will affect less area than in 2005. TaIi)Ille '7-24 III'-'oi ecast Area wliitllhidiiuri IDII IIL. Coiritouirs, M ��• 70 311 190 195 222 65 635 391 400 457 60 1,437 857 890 1,043 55 3,291 2,045 2,159 2,585 Noise (This page intentionally left blank) 7-46 Ma M, O J Ad o 20 JLL %01' �\, 1 y O °� o O� -O C y IIWd '1� z LL 'O N a // _ C M � Q i y Aj Lo E idd NUZ jf lle i g $ IIT lu In III/ 0 1 r l a„ � I r IIIIIIIII uj SL (,, III III er Vill w ` l p J o �dill 41 r a m m ,. ��il�^ � i �i m m a 0 l fAe jjj el its � ^y;�y�� rY��Ytp��� 1 ,n ar wn 0 0 9 o s j 11 f d, _ M / l/rr o � Egg �yy, y n o�z 0 Z ti 0 a e,?:X d� / lUr do01 LL CD �.. ��� .,y G .• y o N -O C iiir. M" 0 8 co Q / a) II / / wi mIiI�IIIII / m N U WN Nk r �i/ le ..".'m........ ,,,� a y 0 A UD o 0 f, y 0. U, Aj 141 S. kill ell / Po ® o z o E. E ® � d l 1 ' M 9 jN s d Z ,l m.......... . � r 2b /r 0 011 VIE. . ........ 0 Z ti 0 a r. uY Noise 7.6.2 Res�ldent!4U L-and L)seK00�pacts Population estimates were prepared for the forecast cases using year 20|0U.S. Census data and the same Geographic Information Systems (GIS)techniques described previously for the 2012 operating conditions. Table 7-25 presents the population within the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dB DNL contoursfor the forecast 00000 in2020 ond2030. The vol000 ooloolo1od Dor2005 and 2012 are included for comparison. The or000 of future growth inthe contours relative to20|2 shown inFigure 7'17 and Figure 7'18 are reflected in Table 7'25. In the future, the population between the 55 dB and 60 dB[Nl contours is projected to increase in Bedford, Concord, and Lexington and the population between the 60 dB and 65 dB [Nl contours ioprojected to inor00000 in Bedford and Concord relative to 2012. In both forecast years the population within the 65 dB DNL contour remains zero in all four towns.No population in Lincoln is exposed to a DNL of 55 dB or higher in either of the future scenarios. Population affected by specific contour intervals in 2012 was smaller than occurred in 2005 and will continue to be smaller in both 2020 and 2030 than occurred in2005. TaiAe '7-25 L,).S. Census �3opuUatbiri Couirits witli�� Curreirit airid 1-oirecast DWL. Coiritouirs, 2005 2012 2020 2030 7.6.3 DWL- foir Ekisting and �"oirecasts Yeal's at �461se AnaUys�ls L-ocations by Town Table 7'26 through Table 7'29 present the ONM'oompotod[Nlvalues at the noise analysis locations in the vicinity of Hanscom Field for the two Dor0000t 000nodoo. The values ooloolo1od Dor20|2 are included for comparison. The tables show consistent results with the DNL contours and population assessments. The 2030 forecast scenario would yield the highest[Nlvalues. Noise While all future contour areas,population counts, and noise levels at noise analysis locations are predicted to increase relative to the year 2012,the importance of any differences from one scenario to the next depends both on the absolute value of the projected DNL as well as on the magnitude of the change. Noise impact criteria are used to determine areas for further analysis and possible mitigation when completing environmental documentation for a specific project at an airport. Though the 2012 ESPR is not an environmental permitting document for a specific project,the use of these criteria help to highlight notable changes in the noise environment at Hanscom Field. FAA Order 1050.1E CHG1, "Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedure s"35,identifies a change of 1.5 dB or more at a"noise-sensitive areai36 as a threshold for further analysis. FICON clarifies the FAA position by recommending a tiered approach be used to screen noise impacts. The 1.5 dB threshold of significance for noise-sensitive areas within the 65 dBA DNL contour is used for initial screening,but if such changes are found to occur, additional analysis of noise analysis locations is to be conducted between DNL values of 60 and 65 dBA to determine whether those noise analysis locations would experience changes of three or more dB. Such sites,if they are found to exist, are eligible for federal agency mitigation options.37 No noise analysis locations are exposed to a DNL of 60 dBA or above. From two to three sites would be exposed to DNL values between 55 and 60 dBA depending upon the scenario. The higher number of locations is associated with the 2030 scenario. 35U.S. Department of Transportation,Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,FAA Order 1050.1E CHG1,Washington,DC. 36Using FAA guidelines, "noise-sensitive areas" are generally assumed to be residential areas within the DNL 65 dB contour. 37Federal Interagency Committee on Noise,Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, August 1992. FICON did not address noise levels below DNL 60 dBA because it considered noise predictions below that level to be less reliable. /`' Noise TatAe '7-26 EkisCiing aind Foirecast IDIINIL. at IN6se Air4 ysliis IL.ocaCbins liiin Bedford (in dB) 1132 11AME,M7.3 ME= P.T.22 I I HB-1 Veterans Administration Medical Center* 200 Springs Rd, Bedford 41.8 42.2 43.2 NB-1 Bedford Historic District Great Rd., Bedford 44.6 44.8 45.7 NB-2 Old Bedford Center Historic District Great Rd., Bedford 45.4 45.7 46.7 NB-3 Old Burying Ground 7 Springs Rd., Bedford 45.7 46.1 47.1 NB-4 Old Town Hall 16 South Rd., Bedford 46.1 46.5 47.4 NB-5 Bedford Depot Park Historic District 80 Loomis St./120 South Rd., Bedford 49.8 50.3 51.3 NB-6 Nathaniel Page House 89 Page Rd., Bedford 45.9 46.5 47.5 NB-7 Christopher Page House 50 Old Billerica Rd., Bedford 44.2 44.8 45.8 NB-8 Bacon-Gleason-Blodgett Homestead 118 Wilson Rd., Bedford 41.5 42.0 43.0 NB Historic Wilson Mill-Old Burlington Road Old Burlington and Wilson Rds., 41.3 41.8 42.8 Historic Dist. Bedford NB-10 Shawsheen Cemetery Shawsheen Rd., Bedford 45.2 45.4 46.7 NB-1 1 David Lane House 137 North Rd., Bedford 42.1 42.5 43.4 OB-1 Old Billerica Road Area**(NR nomination Old Billerica Rd, Bedford 44.0 44.7 45.7 form in process) PB-1 Town Hall 10 Mudge Way, Bedford 45.5 45.8 46.7 PB-2 Library** 7 Mudge Way, Bedford 45.0 45.2 46.1 PB-3 Bedford School District 11 Mudge Way, Bedford 45.6 45.8 46.7 PB-4 Department of Public Works 314 Great Rd., Bedford 45.4 45.6 46.9 RB-1 The Lutheran Church of the Savior 426 Davis Rd., Bedford 48.6 48.8 49.8 RB-2 First Baptist Church of Bedford 155 Concord Rd., Bedford 46.0 46.0 46.8 RB-3 St. Michael's Church 90 Concord Rd., Bedford 44.9 45.0 45.7 RB-4 Boston Buddha Vararam Temple 125 North Rd., Bedford 42.2 42.6 43.5 RB-5 The First Church of Christ Congregational/ 25 Great Rd., Bedford 45.1 45.4 46.3 United Church of Christ* RB-6 The First Parish in Bedford Unitarian 75 Great Rd., Bedford 46.0 46.3 47.3 Universalist* RB-7 St. Paul's Episcopal Church 100 Pine Hill Rd., Bedford 41.8 42.2 43.1 RB-8 March for Jesus 54 Summer St., Bedford 52.2 52.5 53.4 Immanuel Baptist Church/Zion Korean RB-9 Alliance Church 3 400 Great Rd., Bedford 45.8 46.1 47.3 SB-1 Davis School Davis Rd., Bedford 43.1 43.2 44.0 SB-2 Bedford High School 9 Mudge Way,Bedford 45.1 45.3 46.1 SB-3 John Glenn Middle School 99 McMahon Rd., Bedford 46.7 46.7 47.5 Notes: 1.The first letter of the label indicates the nature of each site: H for hospital, N for sites in the National Register of Historic Places and/or State Register of Historic Places, 0 for other, P for public facilities, R for religious sites, S for schools. Other is the category for sites that town representatives specifically requested be added to the noise analysis location list, but do not fit into the other four categories.The second letter indicates the town where the site is located: B for Bedford, C for Concord, LX for Lexington, LN for Lincoln. 2. Historic districts and cemeteries are evaluated at a central location within the district or cemetery. Sites that are not designated as"N"sites are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and two asterisks(**)if they are listed in the State Inventory/MACRIS. Sites are marked with a(t)if they are only listed in the State Register of Historic Places. Sites marked with a(tt)contribute to the Old Bedford Center Historic District. 3.The Immanuel Baptist Church and Zion Korean Alliance Church are at the same address. 4.The boundary of the Old Bedford Center Historic District has slightly expanded,the Old Bedford Center Historic District Boundary Extension,since the last study in 2005. Noise TatAe '7-27 EkisCiing aind I-oirecast IDINL. at Illy6se Air4 ysliis IL.ocaCbins liiin Coincoird (in dB) 1132 liz IIAT.,-=11 j ME MIMINININ=11111111 Ema IP. .4 M.O Emo NC-1 Barrett Farm Historic Districtt Barrett's Mill Rd., Concord 43.5 43.9 44.9 NC-2 Jonathan Hildreth House 8 Barrett's Mill Rd., Concord 47.4 48.2 49.1 NC-3 Joseph Hosmer House 572 Main St., Concord 44.3 43.9 45.1 NC-4 Thoreau-Alcott House 255 Main St., Concord 46.1 46.1 47.4 NC-5 Hubbardville Historic Districtt 324-374 Sudbury Rd., Concord 46.5 46.6 47.9 NC-6 Hubbard-French Historic District 324-374 Sudbury Rd., Concord 46.5 46.6 47.9 NC-7 Deacon Thomas Hubbard/Judge Henry 342 Sudbury Rd., Concord 46.4 46.5 47.8 French House NC-8 Pest House 158 Fairhaven Rd., Concord 46.3 46.5 47.8 NC-9 Main Street Historic Districtt Main St. between Monument Sq.and 48.0 48.1 49.4 Wood St., Concord NC-10 North Bridge-Monument Square Historic Monument St., Liberty St.and Lowell St., 48.2 48.2 49.4 Districtt Concord NC-1 1 Wright Tavern Lexington Rd.& Main St., Concord 48.2 48.3 49.5 NC-12 Sleepy Hollow Cemetery 24 Court Ln., Concord 49.0 49.2 50.4 NC-13 American Mile Historic Districtt Lexington Rd.,Concord 48.5 48.7 49.9 NC-14 Concord Monument Square-Lexington Road Monument Sq.and Lexington Rd., 48.1 48.2 49.4 Historic District Concord NC-15 Ralph Waldo Emerson House 28 Cambridge Turnpike, Concord 49.1 49.3 50.5 NC-16 Walden Pond 3 MA Rte 126(Main Beach), Concord 43.4 43.8 44.9 NC-17 Orchard House 399 Lexington Rd., Concord 50.2 50.4 51.6 NC-18 Deacon John Wheeler/Capt.Jonas Minot 341 Virginia Rd., Concord 58.4 58.7 59.8 Farmhouse NC-19 Wheeler-Meriam House 477 Virginia Rd., Concord 58.1 58.4 59.4 NC-20 Concord Armory-Concord Veteran's Building 51 Walden St., Concord 48.1 48.2 49.5 NC-21 Concord School of Philosophy 391 Lexington Rd., Concord 50.3 50.6 51.8 NC-22 Hosmer Homestead 138 Baker Ave., Concord 41.6 41.3 42.3 PC-1 Library** 129 Main St., Concord 47.1 47.2 48.4 PC-2 Town Hall tt 22 Monument Sq.,Concord 48.1 48.2 49.4 PC-3 Middlesex County Court House 305 Walden St., Concord 48.4 48.6 49.9 RC-1 Trinity Episcopal Church** 81 Elm St., Concord 45.0 44.8 46.0 RC-2 Redeemer Presbyterian Church 191 Sudbury Rd., Concord 46.7 46.8 48.0 RC-3 New Life Community Church (meeting at the 40 Stow St., Concord 47.4 47.5 48.7 Emerson School Building**) RC-4 Trinitarian Congregational Church 54 Walden St., Concord 48.0 48.1 49.3 RC-5 First Church of Christ Scientisttt 7 Lowell Rd., Concord 47.7 47.8 49.0 RC-6 St. Bernard's Parishtt 70 Monument Square, Concord 47.9 48.0 49.2 RC-7 Christian Science Reading Room 20 Main St., Concord 47.9 48.0 49.3 RC-8 First Parish in Concord tt 20 Lexington Rd., Concord 48.2 48.3 49.6 SC-1 Nashoba/Brooks School 200 Strawberry Hill Rd., Concord 46.5 47.3 48.3 SC-2 Middlesex School- 1400 Lowell Rd., Concord 40.4 40.9 41.7 SC-3 Fenn School** 498-516 Monument St., Concord 50.9 51.6 52.5 SC-4 Concord Academy 166 Main St., Concord 46.6 46.6 47.8 SC-5 Alcott School 91 Laurel Rd., Concord 48.1 48.3 49.6 SC-6 Concord/Carlisle High School 500 Walden Rd.,Concord 46.8 47.0 48.3 SC-7 Ripley School 120 Meriam Rd., Concord 53.6 53.8 55.0 Notes: 1.The first letter of the label indicates the nature of each site: H for hospital, N for sites in the National Register of Historic Places and/or State Register of Historic Places, 0 for other, P for public facilities, R for religious sites, S for schools. Other is the category for sites that town representatives specifically requested be added to the noise analysis location list, but do not fit into the other four categories.The second letter indicates the town where the site is located: B for Bedford, C for Concord, LX for Lexington, LN for Lincoln. 2. Historic districts and cemeteries are evaluated at a central location within the district or cemetery. Sites that are not designated as"N"sites are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and two asterisks(**)if they are listed in the State Inventory/MACRIS. Sites are marked with a (t)if they are only listed in the State 7,/`,'i, Noise 1132 11111Z ETIE-4111 Register of Historic Places.Sites marked with a (tt)contribute to the Concord Monument Square-Lexington Road Historic District. 3.The Walden Pond State Reservation is located in Concord and Lincoln.This site is at the main beach in Concord. TatAe '7-28 Ekistiing aind I-oirecast IIDINL. at Illy6se Air4 ysliis ILocatbins liiin ILekiingtoin (�in dB) 1131 111 IINT-1,7127.3 IP.M.43�P. .4 M.O P.M.00 NLX-1 Simonds Tavern 331 Bedford St., Lexington 53.0 53.6 54.7 NLX-2 Hancock-Clarke Historic Districtt Hancock St., Lexington 42.8 43.1 44.3 NLX-3 Hancock-Clarke House 35 Hancock St., Lexington 42.6 42.9 44.1 NLX-4 Garrity House 9 Hancock St.,Lexington 42.7 43.0 44.3 NLX-5 Lexington Green Historic District Mass.Ave., Harrington Rd.and Bedford 42.9 43.2 44.5 St., Lexington NLX-6 Lexington Green Mass.Ave., Harrington Rd.and Bedford 42.7 43.1 44.3 St., Lexington NLX-7 Buckman Tavern 1 Bedford St., Lexington 42.5 42.8 44.1 NLX-8 General Samuel Chandler House 8 Goodwin Rd.,Lexington 42.5 42.8 44.1 NLX-9 Hancock School 33 Forest St., Lexington 42.6 43.0 44.3 NLX-10 U.S. Post Office Building 1661 Mass.Ave., Lexington 40.8 41.1 42.5 NLX-1 1 Warren E. Shelburne House 11 Percy Rd., Lexington 38.4 38.8 40.3 NLX-12 Munroe Tavern Historic Districtt Mass.Ave., Lexington 36.6 36.9 38.6 NLX-13 Sanderson House-Munroe Tavern 1314& 1332 Mass.Ave., Lexington 37.4 37.8 39.3 NLX-14 John Mason House 1303 Mass.Ave., Lexington 37.7 38.0 39.6 NLX-15 East Village Historical Districtt Mass Ave., Lexington 35.3 35.6 37.3 NLX-16 M.H. Merriam and Company 7-9 Oakland Ave.,Lexington 41.6 41.9 43.2 OLX-1 Battle Green Historic District- Worthen Rd.,Woburn St., Hastings Rd., 42.8 43.1 44.4 Mass.Ave.and B&M Railroad, Lexington OLX-2 National Heritage Museum 33 Marrett Rd., Lexington 36.2 36.5 38.2 PLX-1 Library** 1874 Mass.Ave., Lexington 43.1 43.5 44.7 PLX-2 Town Hall 1625 Mass.Ave., Lexington 39.3 39.6 41.0 PLX-3 Lexington School District Administration 1557 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington 40.0 40.3 41.7 RLX-1 Lexington United Methodist Church/St.3 2600 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington 45.9 46.5 47.7 John's Korean United Methodist Church RLX-2 Temple Isaiah 55 Lincoln St., Lexington 44.2 44.7 45.9 RLX-3 Grace Chapel of Lexington 59 Worthen Rd.,Lexington 44.6 44.9 46.1 RLX-4 St. Brigid's Parish* 2001 Mass.Ave., Lexington 44.0 44.3 45.5 RLX-5 First Parish-Unitarian Churchtt 7 Harrington Rd., Lexington 43.2 43.6 44.8 RLX-6 Hancock United Church of Christ tt 1912 Mass.Ave., Lexington 43.0 43.3 44.6 RLX-7 Church of Our Redeemer 6 Meriam St., Lexington 42.3 42.7 43.9 RLX-8 Christian Science Reading Room 10 Muzzy St.#12, Lexington 41.8 42.2 43.5 RLX-9 Greek Orthodox Church of St. Nichols 17 Meriam St., Lexington 42.0 42.3 43.5 RLX-10 Chabad Center- 9 Burlington St., Lexington 49.9 50.3 51.4 RLX-1 1 Pilgrim Congregational Church 55 Coolidge Ave., Lexington 44.9 45.1 46.2 RLX-12 First Baptist Church of Lexington 1580 Mass.Ave., Lexington 40.1 40.4 41.8 RLX-13 Jehovah's Witnesses 196 Woburn St., Lexington 36.7 36.8 38.2 RLX-14 Follen Church Society-Unitarian 755 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington 34.0 34.2 35.9 Universalists* RLX-15 Countryside Bible Chapel 480 Lowell St., Lexington 37.3 37.4 38.5 RLX-16 St. Paul Evangelical Church 451 Lowell St., Lexington 36.2 36.3 37.5 SLX-1 Minuteman Regional Vocational High School 758 Marrett Rd.,Lexington 44.8 45.1 46.0 SLX-2 Maria Hastings School 2618 Mass.Ave., Lexington 45.4 46.0 47.2 SLX-3 Methodist Weekday School 2600 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington 46.0 46.6 47.7 SLX-4 Community Nursery School 2325 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington 45.8 46.3 47.4 SLX-5 Bridge Elementary School- 55 Middleby Rd., Lexington 42.2 42.8 44.2 SLX-6 Lexington High School 251 Waltham St., Lexington 41.7 42.3 43.6 Noise SLX-7 Jonas Clarke Middle School 17 Stedman Rd., Lexington 37.6 38.1 39.7 SLX-8 Estabrook School" 117 Grove St., Lexington 44.5 45.1 46.4 SLX-9 Diamond Middle School 99 Hancock St., Lexington 50.1 50.5 51.6 SLX-10 Fiske Elementary School 146 Maple St., Lexington 42.4 42.5 43.6 SLX-11 Armenian Sisters Academy 20 Pelham Rd., Lexington 37.2 37.6 39.2 SLX-12 j Harrington Elementary School 148 Maple St., Lexington 33.5 F 33.7 1 35.3 Notes: 1.The first letter of the label indicates the nature of each site: H for hospital, N for sites in the National Register of Historic Places and/or State Register of Historic Places, O for other, P for public facilities, R for religious sites, S for schools. Other is the category for sites that town representatives specifically requested be added to the noise analysis location list, but do not fit into the other four categories,or historic districts that are not on the National Register of Historic Places.The second letter indicates the town where the site is located: B for Bedford, C for Concord, LX for Lexington, LN for Lincoln. 2. Historic districts and cemeteries are evaluated at a central location within the district or cemetery. Sites that are not designated as"N"sites are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and two asterisks(**)if they are listed in the State Inventory/MACRIS. Sites are marked with a(t)if they are only listed in the State Register of Historic Places. Sites marked with a(tt)contribute to the Lexington Green Historic District. 3.The Lexington United Methodist Church and St.John's Korean United Methodist Church are at the same address. 7aIi)Ille -29 IlExliistl frig air d II1'-'oi ecast IIDIINIL. at INoliise Air4 ysliis IL.ocatbiris liiuri IILJiric6 iri (irm dB) v Mt P.T.H. Mt t NLN-1 Walden Pond3 Rte. 126,Walden St., Concord Rd., Lincoln 42.6 43.0 44.1 NLN-2 Henry Higginson House 44 Baker Farm Rd., Lincoln 42.5 43.0 44.1 NLN-3 Daniel Brooks House Brooks Rd., Lincoln 48.4 49.1 50.0 Bedford Rd. Lincoln Rd., Old Lexington Rd. NLN-4 Lincoln Center Historic District Sandy Pond Rd.Trapelo Rd.Weston Rd., 41.0 41.2 42.0 Lincoln NLN-5 Hoar Tavern 268 Cambridge Tpke., Lincoln 41.8 42.2 43.3 SLN-1 Carroll School 25 Baker Bridge Rd., Lincoln 40.8 41.2 42.2 SLN-2 Hanscom Middle School Hanscom AFB, Lincoln 150.2 150.1 50.7 Notes: 1.The first letter of the label indicates the nature of each site: H for hospital, N for sites in the National Register of Historic Places and/or State Register of Historic Places, O for other, P for public facilities, R for religious sites, S for schools. Other is the category for sites that town representatives specifically requested be added to the noise analysis location list, but do not fit into the other four categories.The second letter indicates the town where the site is located: B for Bedford, C for Concord, LX for Lexington, LN for Lincoln. 2. Historic districts and cemeteries are evaluated at a central location within the district or cemetery. Sites that are not designated as"N"sites are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and two asterisks(**)if they are listed in the State Inventory/MACRIS. 3.The Walden Pond State Reservation is located in Concord and Lincoln.This site at the main beach in Concord. ' w w "I`i"lime Above (1-A) The amount of time that aircraft noise is projected to be above the 65 and 55 dBA thresholds was also computed for the two forecast scenarios using the INM. Figure 7-19 through Figure 7-22 display the contours for areas where aircraft noise exceeds each threshold of 65 and 55 dBA for 30, 60, and 90 minutes per day for each future scenario. Each figure also includes the 2012 contours for comparison. The cumulative area within each contour interval is presented for each forecast scenario in Table 7-30,with 2012 values for comparison. TA increases in area coverage for both the 65 and 55 dBA thresholds overtime which is expected with increasing activity levels. The table shows existing and future levels as well as those for 2005 for comparison. This shows that 2020 levels will be similar to 2005 (above for 60 and 90 minute threshold but below for 30 minute) and then will uniformly increase for 2030. Table 7-31 presents the population estimates for the forecast cases using the same techniques described earlier for the DNL contours. The impacts of TA thresholds on population will be similar to area, that is 2020 will be similar to what was experienced in 2005 and then will increase from 2005 levels in 2030. Appendix D provides additional detail on the methodology. ,"1,6 rn h i LL a-- co 0 co u, , 11U� "III G 11 i p ✓, N W m 'Op / 4!% ( Z %%IIlIlIlll111 o LL 1 ���iZ�� J jlll�fr,, o N > N p N E W w a CV 11111111110 JAJ/lCIS C) CN N/1 v�. awlum icn �� wA aw ggi 41�/ lll�i. VVVVuI�I �'= 6,1 VIA a co LL wtia aw 00 O O � u .r�,z� t W .u � � �W Ir Ir y r "' 11 J 1r' /,a V II /r yj �Illi, W"IllulV m m m z m ® .... �, / w > > co G G o L� o 1p flu. IIII, o ¢ Lo s �w fl - e r e m �= o a 2 o .g o $ � Veil�� IS .... vp s; II i% d m- O pol d �d U� ILL o ZIR Adam OCD s P, CD N ro 3 0 ao N !! O $o 0 0 e c � o h m r s a O V� h N jf - LM r/ ILL � O CQ %r w e L En o '/ % c .c CD `V -j O O rrarrr>. N J j lll'fr,, o N > N c� ca Q p CVJAM N W w a CIS IN awlum i 00 61 wA Ildb aw ����i. o- �� ��•pa '��// /� IIIIIIII +�- i a f„ aw ' ' ev, o 0 m /9rOr �uti 4p J �` _ E %r CC"',4 I I�Assail „v z � Q Q Q 100) Lu 3� z5 !' Oj � o 0 s G i /:� / r /� r � III s l a �j II '01j11111 0 05 90 0 0 CIO m , o m (( f�j1/ a.o ¢ CIO j o a o o 0 4 w. - IJ�('( M N N p� ' // IIIIIII�� 1 I � .... 0 IIIIIIII In'41 m U� �0 dILL CD CD /� o j g g g a, r CD CD - a CD N m a= N !! O s- sz2 _ O o N N _ r s a o" gg co j ® LM - ILL C L co U ►L a � � liipl N 0 ' uI�I 2i a� IIII � U V U i' r j W c Q) Q rmo � / N J / Y W e O En l 111 N f/ ( LL % CI ,c O LO r /III jr` N CN O `O Am ��. o CV m O CIS %% wZ m N F U rea Lu u� l 6Zu w z a la • j �� � I m ��� r � � fp�yifYiiyq �..� 10 j aw 2E c7 0 0 0AN in Ship m 0LL � Q a. P. ;W uaro, A o a / o 0 wwo i� plplll ¢ ¢ WD o o m a_ 0 r — 4� z3 E z3 E y E m I�" ICI �"� III r, M o " ILL • m��� �� IIJ�/�llll���� O s �s 00 Olaf aw O y h pCD s h o CD n0 - N ao CD U O =�hm r � o m N f uu , Illllillllllllll q I � � co co ch LM i ILL � pam '0011111111110 /%/l / W c ........ r Ii"O � N J C� /f zo z v O O CN cu F 1/001� 63 En ' Iu WA I► !��uE Wa ,m '4 .. k 61 111111NA, V °II 1 o z f % 01 m m pi � ®�Pit�/ jai" J co Ir r Ir m " Z A/d/d/11 I z r® p�� /G✓ i/ o om m a r ///// l% j/' Q Q E � o Q// a, co 0 CD O s OCD _E CD O _m m �~ r m N ro 3 0 CD / R $c o 0 O v c � o r s a Noise No federal or other criteria exist for judging the relevance of these reported numbers. Both the acreage and the selected TA contour levels serve primarily as a secondary means of helping to judge the change in noise environment that is expected under the forecast scenarios. Tai)�le '7-30 Aireas witlidiiri Tirne Ai)ove 65 airid 55 dBA Coiritmirs, for Exiiistirig airid I-oirecast Opeiratbiris, Time Above 65 dBA 90 minutes 281 289 325 408 60 minutes 498 526 555 692 30 minutes 1,326 1,238 1,302 1,529 Time Above 55 dBA 90 minutes 1,828 2,362 2,449 3,055 60 minutes 3,551 4,006 4,159 4,940 30 minutes 8,405 7,542 8,175 9,794 Tai)�Ie 7-31 Pqp' .flatbiri witlidiiri T4ne Ai)ove 65 airid 55 dBA Coiritmirs, for IlExiiisfliiurig airid I-oirecast Opeiratbiris, Igo �1101111111 ill 1 11 Time Above 65 dBA 90 Minutes or Greater 0 0 0 21 60 to 90 Minutes 50 52 74 119 30 to 60 Minutes 470 349 366 440 Total 30 Minutes or Greater 520 401 440 580 Time Above 55 dBA 90 Minutes or Greater 937 1,139 1,216 1,965 60 to 90 Minutes 1,301 2,610 2,691 3,016 30 to 60 Minutes 9,112 6,234 7,208 9,064 Total 30 Minutes or Greater 11,350 9,983 11,115 14,045 7.6.5 TcIaI V461se IExlpostjire (EXP) The operations forecasts were also analyzed to compute EXP values. Table 7-32 summarizes the results. The primary means of tracking the metric is through civil air departures,highlighted in bold in the table. As expected, the EXP computations show the same trends as the DNL forecasts. Compared to 2012, the component attributable to civil departures is projected to increase for both the 2020 and 2030 forecasts from 107.4 dB in 2012 and to 107.6 in 2020 and 108.7 dB in 2030, respectively. These are broadly indicative of the change in DNL values among the various scenarios, consistent with the original reason for developing EXP in the first place. 0 R.I 7-61 Noise Tai) e '7-32 Year 2012 'To4 6se Exposu.jire (EXP) for Ek�st�irig airid I-oirecast Opeiratbirls, (liiiirl dB) 2012 All civil aircraft except single piston 106.2 106.6 109.5 All civil aircraft' 107.4 108.0 110.7 All military aircraft 91.3 87.8 92.9 All civil and military aircraft except single piston 106.3 106.6 109.5 All civil and military aircraft 107.5 108.0 110.8 2020 All civil aircraft except single piston 106.5 107.4 110.0 All civil aircraft' 107.6 108.6 111.1 All military aircraft 93.9 90.7 95.6 All civil and military aircraft except single piston 106.7 107.5 110.1 All civil and military aircraft 107.8 108.6 111.2 2030 All civil aircraft except single piston 107.8 108.5 111.2 All civil aircraft' 108.7 109.5 112.1 All military aircraft 93.9 90.7 95.6 All civil and military aircraft except single piston 108.0 108.6 111.3 All civil and military aircraft 108.8 109.6 112.2 Note: 1. Civil air departures,which are the primary means of tracking EXP,are highlighted in bold. Source:HMMH 7.6.6 of Nc,Ise IEvents Figure 7-23 shows the forecasted distribution of daily departure SELs for each of the two future scenarios with the values for 2012 shown for comparison. As with the historical data, single engine piston operations are excluded for the clarity of the figure. The figure illustrates the changes in fleet mix over time: the greatest growth is forecasted for operations in the 80 to 85 dBA categories while operations in the noisiest groups (greater than 95 dB) are generally very small in number and are expected to remain small or decrease over time. The noise increases are the result of increased operations overall but particularly for GA aircraft. 7-62 Noise Distribution of Daily Departure SELs 45 (Excluding Single Engine Prop) 40 Ei 2012 35 m 2020 m 30 m 2030 rL 0 25 ro 20 CL W 0 15 21 CO 10 5 0 111AL 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100-105 105+ Departure SEL(dBA) 1-iguire '7-23 IlExiiistiiiurig airid 1-oirecast DistiriInjtbiri of IIDaiiillly IIDepairtuire SEL.s (Exdudliiirig &irigIIIe IIEiirigliiiirie I3irop) 7.6.7 DKL- foir IExisting and @"oirecast eairs at V461se Analysis L-oc tliie°n liIn IlMinute IIan V4ational Kistoirical IPairk Table 7-33 presents computed DNL at locations within the Minute Man National Historical Park for the two future scenarios with 2012 included for comparison. In the future scenarios all locations within the Park are exposed to levels below 55 dB DNL. No part of the 4.9-mile Battle Road Interpretive Trail is located within the 65 dB DNL contour for year 2012 or either of the forecast scenarios.None of the Battle Road Interpretive Trail is in the 55 dB DNL contour in year 2012 or either of the forecast scenarios. Table 7-34 and Table 7-35 present the results of the Time Above 65 dBA and Time Above 55 dBA computations for sites within Minute Man National Historical Park. Current TA 65 values at the Minute Man National Historical Park are at most eight minutes per day at all sites. These are times when aircraft noise may cause speech disruption or require use of a raised voice. These sites are expected to experience TA 65 for the future scenarios, ranging from one to eight minutes for the 2020 scenario and one to ten minutes per day for the 2030 scenario. The highest times above 65 dBA were in the range of eight to ten minutes per day and occurred at the Wayside Unit and in the western end of the Battle Road Unit at sites near Meriam's Comer and in Lincoln near the Brooks Tavern and houses. These are among the closest sites in the Park to Hanscom Field's runways, and receive noise from several types of aircraft operations including departures turning south off of Runway 29, aircraft departing Runway 23, and pattern operations on Runway 11/29. Available research data suggest that noticeability of aircraft occurs at the point at which aircraft noise equals or exceeds the ambient levels. Given that daytime ambient levels in many areas in the Minute Man National Historical Park range from high-30s to mid-40s dBA, the Time Above 55 data suggest that these are times when park visitors could notice aircraft. The highest times above 55 dBA were in the range of 0, 7-6'',3, Noise 63 to 84 minutes per day and occurred at the Historic Farming Fields (NM-10) in Concord and in the area stretching from Bloody Angle to the Sgt. Samuel Hartwell House Site (MM-18). Tai)�le '7-33 IDII L. at Ill 6se Air4 ysiiis IL.ocatiiouris liiiiri the IWunite IMaiiri Nafioir4 Il1+stoiriiica IIPairk for Ekistirig air d 1-oirecast Opeiratbiris, (liiiiri dB) 1111w w11111F MM-1 Major John Buttrick House North Bridge Unit/Concord 48.7 49.1 50.0 MM-2 NPS Headquarters and Visitor Center at 174 North Bridge Unit/Concord 48.3 48.5 49.4 Liberty St. (Stedman Buttrick Residence ) MM-3 North Bridge Comfort Station North Bridge Unit/Concord 48.2 48.3 49.2 MM-4 The Minuteman(Statue) North Bridge Unit/Concord 47.9 47.8 48.8 MM-5 North Bridge North Bridge Unit/Concord 48.0 48.0 49.0 MM-6 Old Manse North Bridge Unit/Concord 48.1 48.1 49.2 MM-7 The Wayside (Samuel Whitney House) Wayside Unit/Concord 50.3 50.6 51.8 MM-8 Meriam's Corner Monument Battle Road Unit/Concord 50.3 50.7 51.8 MM-9 Meriam House Battle Road Unit/Concord 50.6 51.1 52.2 MM-10 Historic Farming Fields Battle Road Unit/Concord 50.7 51.0 52.0 MM-11 Olive Stow House/Farwell Jones House/Carty Barn Battle Road Unit/Concord 49.2 49.4 50.3 MM-12 Samuel Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Concord 50.8 51.3 52.1 MM-13 Noah Brooks Tavern (and Carriage House) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 51.4 52.0 52.8 MM-14 Job Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 51.5 52.0 52.8 MM-15 Joshua Brooks,Jr. House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 50.7 51.2 52.0 MM-16 Bloody Angle Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 50.9 51.0 51.6 MM-17 Ephraim Hartwell Tavern Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 49.2 49.1 49.6 MM-18 Sgt. Samuel Hartwell House Site Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 48.5 48.3 48.8 MM-19 Captain William Smith House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 47.0 46.8 47.4 MM-20 Paul Revere Capture Site and Marker Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 45.8 45.8 46.4 MM-21 Mile Three Location (Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 45.5 45.4 46.0 MM-22 John Nelson House and Barn Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 46.0 46.0 46.7 MM-23 Josiah Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 47.0 47.0 47.7 MM-24 Thomas Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 47.1 47.1 47.9 MM-25 Parkers Revenge Battle Road Unit/Lexington 47.0 47.1 47.8 MM-26 Minute Man Visitor Center Battle Road Unit/Lexington 46.1 46.2 47.0 MM-27 Jacob Whittemore House Battle Road Unit/Lexington 46.4 46.5 47.4 MM-28 The Bluff and Monument Battle Road Unit/Lexington 45.9 46.2 47.1 MM-29 Mile Four Location(Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lexington 46.2 46.4 47.3 MM-30 Ebenezer Fiske House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lexington 46.2 46.7 47.8 MM-31 Col.James Barrett Farm* Barrett Farm Unit/Concord 43.5 43.9 44.9 Notes: 1.The Minute Man National Historical Park is a national historic landmark district.All sites are in the National Register of Historic Places. 2. Sites within Minute Man National Historical Park are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 3. Sites in the Battle Road Unit are located on the Battle Road Interpretive Trail. MM-21 and MM-29 do not refer to specific historic resources, but provide additional coverage of sites along the Trail. MM-21 is approximately three miles east of Meriam's Corner and MM-29 is approximately four miles east of Meriam's Corner. 7-64 Fzr MI.. Noise Tal� llle '7-34, 'Tliiirne-Ali e 65 dBA at Illy6se Air4 ysliis IL.ocaCbins liiin Che IWinute IMain Nu:Cbir4 II1+stoih�ca�� Pa irk for EkisCiing aind 1-oirecast OpeiraCbins (in irnJinutes) 11111 1111ww w11111F MM-1 Major John Buttric k House North Bridge Unit/Concord 3.1 3.9 5.0 MM-2 NPS Headquarters and Visitor Center at 174 North Bridge Unit/Concord 2.8 3.5 4.5 Liberty St. (Stedman Buttrick Residence ) MM-3 North Bridge Comfort Station North Bridge Unit/Concord 2.7 3.4 4.4 MM-4 The Minuteman(Statue) North Bridge Unit/Concord 2.5 3.2 4.2 MM-5 North Bridge North Bridge Unit/Concord 2.7 3.4 4.4 MM-6 Old Manse* North Bridge Unit/Concord 2.9 3.7 4.8 MM-7 The Wayside (Samuel Whitney House) Wayside Unit/Concord 5.7 7.1 9.3 MM-8 Meriam's Corner Monument Battle Road Unit/Concord 5.7 6.8 8.8 MM-9 Meriam House Battle Road Unit/Concord 6.2 7.4 9.5 MM-10 Historic Farming Fields Battle Road Unit/Concord 7.0 7.9 9.5 MM-11 Olive Stow House/Farwell Jones House/Carty Battle Road Unit/Concord 4.7 5.0 5.8 Barn MM-12 Samuel Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Concord 6.6 6.7 7.6 MM-13 Noah Brooks Tavern (and Carriage House) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 7.3 7.3 8.4 MM-14 Job Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 8.0 8.0 9.0 MM-15 Joshua Brooks,Jr. House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 7.1 7.1 8.1 MM-16 Bloody Angle Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 7.3 7.2 8.1 MM-17 Ephraim Hartwell Tavern Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 4.1 4.0 4.3 MM-18 Sgt. Samuel Hartwell House Site Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 2.9 2.8 3.0 MM-19 Captain William Smith House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 1.5 1.5 1.6 MM-20 Paul Revere Capture Site and Marker Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 1.1 1.1 1.2 MM-21 Mile Three Location (Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 1.0 1.0 1.1 MM-22 John Nelson House and Barn Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 1.3 1.3 1.4 MM-23 Josiah Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 1.8 1.8 2.0 MM-24 Thomas Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 1.9 1.9 2.1 MM-25 Parkers Revenge Battle Road Unit/Lexington 1.9 1.9 2.2 MM-26 Minute Man Visitor Center Battle Road Unit/Lexington 1.4 1.5 1.7 MM-27 Jacob Whittemore House Battle Road Unit/Lexington 1.6 1.7 2.0 MM-28 The Bluff and Monument Battle Road Unit/Lexington 1.5 1.7 2.1 MM-29 Mile Four Location(Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lexington 1.6 1.7 2.0 MM-30 Ebenezer Fiske House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lexington 2.0 2.4 3.1 MM-31 Col.James Barrett Farm* Barrett Farm Unit/Concord 0.7 0.9 1.2 Notes: 1.The Minute Man National Historical Park is a national historic landmark district.All sites are in the National Register of Historic Places. 2. Sites within Minute Man National Historical Park are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 3. Sites in the Battle Road Unit are located on the Battle Road Interpretive Trail. MM-21 and MM-29 do not refer to specific historic resources, but provide additional coverage of sites along the Trail. MM-21 is approximately three miles east of Meriam's Corner and MM-29 is approximately four miles east of Meriam's Corner. 0,R.1� Noise Tal� llle '7-35 'Tliiirne-Ali e 55 dBA at Illy6se Air4 ysliis IL.ocaCbins liiin Che IWinute IMain Nu:Cbir4 II1+stoih�ca�� Pa irk for EkisCiing aind 1-oirecast OpeiraCbins (in irnJinutes) MM-1 Major John Buttrick House North Bridge Unit/Concord 26.6 31.5 39.8 MM-2 NPS Headquarters and Visitor Center at 174 North Bridge Unit/Concord 26.1 31.0 39.0 Liberty St. (Stedman Buttrick Residence ) MM-3 North Bridge Comfort Station North Bridge Unit/Concord 25.8 30.6 38.6 MM-4 The Minuteman(Statue) North Bridge Unit/Concord 25.1 29.7 37.4 MM-5 North Bridge North Bridge Unit/Concord 25.8 30.5 38.4 MM-6 Old Manse* North Bridge Unit/Concord 26.3 31.0 39.0 MM-7 The Wayside(Samuel Whitney House) Wayside Unit/Concord 34.4 39.6 49.2 MM-8 Meriam's Corner Monument Battle Road Unit/Concord 47.0 52.0 63.1 MM-9 Meriam House Battle Road Unit/Concord 51.0 56.0 67.8 MM-10 Historic Farming Fields Battle Road Unit/Concord 77.2 80.6 94.5 MM-11 Olive Stow House/Farwell Jones House/Carty Battle Road Unit/Concord 57.1 59.6 69.9 Barn MM-12 Samuel Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Concord 52.3 52.7 60.3 MM-13 Noah Brooks Tavern (and Carriage House) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 51.1 50.8 57.4 MM-14 Job Brooks House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 57.2 56.5 63.5 MM-15 Joshua Brooks,Jr. House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 53.2 52.3 58.6 MM-16 Bloody Angle Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 84.4 80.7 88.7 MM-17 Ephraim Hartwell Tavern Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 72.5 67.9 73.6 MM-18 Sgt. Samuel Hartwell House Site Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 63.5 59.2 64.0 MM-19 Captain William Smith House Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 45.7 42.7 46.1 MM-20 Paul Revere Capture Site and Marker Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 31.0 29.6 32.7 MM-21 Mile Three Location (Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 25.9 24.6 27.0 MM-22 John Nelson House and Barn Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 32.7 31.7 35.6 MM-23 Josiah Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 42.6 41.4 46.3 MM-24 Thomas Nelson,Jr. House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lincoln 43.1 42.0 47.0 MM-25 Parkers Revenge Battle Road Unit/Lexington 41.1 40.2 45.2 MM-26 Minute Man Visitor Center Battle Road Unit/Lexington 31.3 30.9 35.0 MM-27 Jacob Whittemore House Battle Road Unit/Lexington 32.5 32.2 36.6 MM-28 The Bluff and Monument Battle Road Unit/Lexington 24.4 24.8 28.5 MM-29 Mile Four Location(Approximate) Battle Road Unit/Lexington 29.7 29.7 33.8 MM-30 Ebenezer Fiske House Foundation Battle Road Unit/Lexington 19.8 20.6 24.3 MM-31 Col.James Barrett Farm* Barrett Farm Unit/Concord 11.9 14.0 17.4 Notes: 1.The Minute Man National Historical Park is a national historic landmark district.All sites are in the National Register of Historic Places. 2. Sites within Minute Man National Historical Park are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 3. Sites in the Battle Road Unit are located on the Battle Road Interpretive Trail. MM-21 and MM-29 do not refer to specific historic resources, but provide additional coverage of sites along the Trail. MM-21 is approximately three miles east of Meriam's Corner and MM-29 is approximately four miles east of Meriam's Corner. 7-66 Fzr MI.. Noise 7.7 Status of Hainscoim Field Noise Workgroup Recoim me in datio ins Following the filing of the 1995 GEIR in 1997, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs asked Massport to organize and meet with a community and aviation-based workgroup for six months. The committee, known as the Hanscom Field Noise Workgroup,met for a period of two years, and published its findings in a report entitled 'Report of the Hanscom Field Noise Workgroup," dated September 22, 1999. Its report summarizes the series of meetings by the committee and its two task groups, one devoted to abatement and mitigation,the other to metrics and modeling. Together, the two task groups developed a comprehensive list of recommendations that are presented in Table 7-36 and Table 7-37. Massport has responded to all of the metric recommendations as indicated in Table 7-36.Nearly ninety percent of the recommendations have been implemented or are in the process of implementation. Eight of the fourteen measures were included in the 2005 ESPR and updated in the 2012 ESPR. Four other recommendations related to noise monitoring and the correlation of complaints with noise events are being addressed through updates to the Noise and Operations Monitoring System. Table 7-37 includes a list of recommended noise abatement actions; Massport was primarily responsible for implementing a number of these recommendations. Table 7-37 presents the entire list from the Hanscom Field Noise Work Group report(using the same numbering methodology). All of the recommendations for which Massport was responsible for implementing have been addressed. 7.8 Existing Einviroinimentally Beneficial Measures In addition to the measures included in Table 7-36 and 7-37, Massport has a long history of noise abatement at Hanscom Field, dating back to at least 1978,when it introduced measures to minimize noise. These measures were officially adopted as a Massport regulations in 198038 and included restrictions on operations on touch-and-go training activity; and nighttime field use surcharge to discourage operations between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. More recently, Massport has implemented measures to monitor and reduce noise in the communities near Hanscom Field. These include guidelines for run-ups and the use of Auxiliary and Ground Power Units, a Noise and Operations Monitoring system, a Fly Friendly program, and membership in Sound Initiative. In 2009, Massport made some adjustments to the touch-and-go flight tracks which reduced the amount of direct flights over the MMNHP and nearby residences. A brochure describing the changes was jointly released by Massport and the NPS and is distributed to pilots and the public directly and through Massport's website. 38 Part F of the General Rules and Regulations for Laurence G. Hanscom Field Effective July 31, 1980. 0R.� 7 6 Noise TatAe '7-36 Hainscoirn Ill liise Workgroup IMetihts IIl'lecoirnirnieiiri��latliiouric :uu! q ii 1!1 i 1!1!1��I 1p�mu�=Jjmjjm mi The workgroup should continue in existence and make The Noise Workgroup contributed substantially to the additional suggestions for changes to the ESPR. formulation of the scope of work that formed the basis for the ongoing Hanscom Field ESPR analyses. M2 The ESPR should include Time-Above (TA)contours Included. Figure 7-12, Figure 7-13 and Figure 7-19 to and their areas. Figure 7-22 illustrate the contours and Table 7-16 and Table 7-30 present the estimated areas within the contours. M3 The ESPR should show Single Event Level Included as Figure 7-16 and Figure 7-23. Distributions. M4 The next GEIR[ESPR]should include a linear Not included. No such metric is used regularly in the dimensionless metric to show exposure to noise energy. evaluation of aircraft or other environmental noise. M5 Future GEIRs(ESPRs)should include discussion of Included. impacts with reference to the EPA level of 55 dB DNL and avoid the implication that DNL less than 65(the Federal Aviation Administration mitigation threshold) has no impact. M6 Future GEIRs(ESPRs)should include three Community Included. Figure 7-16 and Figure 7-23 present SEL Summary Metrics-Loud Event Count,Area of 55 dB distributions;Table 7-9 and Table 7-24 present the DNL contour,and Area of the 30-minute TA 55 dBA estimated areas within the DNL contours;Table 7-11 contour. and Table 7-25 present the population estimates within the current and forecasted 55 dB DNL contour; Figure 7-13, Figure 7-21 and Figure 7-22 present the area of the 30-minute TA 55 dBA contour M7 Documentation should include a detailed list of Included. assumptions and model parameters used in the noise modeling. M8 The ESPR should include a section discussing the Not included.The noise analyses in the ESPR are estimated variation in Integrated Noise Model (INM) intended to evaluate the range of noise exposure due results due to different modeling assumptions,and to existing and forecast fleet and airport development Massport should adopt the standard practice of assumptions. Measured noise values are compared reporting"error bands."The ESPR should also include a to modeled noise values for the six permanent noise comparison of measured and modeled results and an monitors. explanation of the differences. M9 Future ESPRs should explain expected short-term Included. variations in noise from long-term averages. M10 The ESPR should document how changes in the I NM Included. data[base]affect predicted noise exposure. M11 and Three of the six permanent noise monitoring sites Following an incident in 2009 in which a vehicle struck M12 should be relocated and more sites should be added to the Site 34 noise monitor on DeAngelo Drive in the system. Bedford, Massport relocated the monitor nearby and further off of the road. Massport is evaluating the feasibility of relocating Site 36. M13 and A procedure or system should be developed to correlate Recent updates to the Noise and Operations M14 noise events with flight data and complaints,and the Monitoring System are described in Section 7.8.4. noise data should be stored in a publicly accessed location such as a web site. 76�3', Fzr MI.. Noise 7'atAe7-37 Status of the Hainscoirn Ill liise Workgroup Ill liise Nbateirneint IIl'lecoirnirnieiiri��latl uric Al Voluntary Noise Massport will formalize, publish,distribute Massport distributed handouts and posters Abatement and post existing noise abatement describing noise abatement procedures to Procedures procedures drafted by Massport, HART,and all tenants,fixed base operators,and flight HPA. training schools. Massport mailed AOPA Fly Friendly videos to all hangar and tie- down tenants.Additionally, Massport installed AOPA and NBAA noise abatement procedures in its badge training program.All based pilots are required to watch the AOPA or NBAA video when getting or renewing a security badge. The program has been in place for about 6 years. A2 Distribution to Massport will duplicate and deliver to flights Massport distributes handouts and posters Renters schools voluntary noise abatement describing noise abatement procedures to procedures in sufficient quantity for schools all tenants,fixed based operators,and to distribute to all aircraft renters. flight training schools. A3 Informative Page Massport will print and distribute informative Massport distributes flight manual inserts Markers page markers for noise abatement describing noise abatement procedures to information in Jeppesen and Flight guide all tenants,fixed base operators,and flight handbooks to local and transient pilots. training schools. A4 Flight School Hanscom flight schools will display and Massport discusses noise abatement with Briefings distribute local noise abatement procedures the flight schools and makes the AOPA Fly to their pilots, brief all flight instructors at Friendly video available. Handouts are least annually on local noise abatement replenished. procedures and AOPA Fly Friendly program, Flight school pilots and student pilots watch and require all students to view the AOPA Fly the AOPA video when getting or renewing Friendly video. a security badge. A5 Flight Training The Hanscom AFB Flight Training Center will Massport provided the Hanscom AFB Center Briefings display in its flight planning room,and Flight Training Center with posters,flight distribute to its members local noise manual inserts,and AOPA Fly Friendly abatement procedures brief the AOPA Fly videos. Flight manual inserts continue to be Friendly program and local noise abatement made available. procedures at its safety meetings at least annually,and require new club members to view the AOPA Fly Friendly video. A6 FBO Guest Follow- Each FBO at Hanscom will institute a guest Massport works with FBOs to implement up sign-in sheet and send each transient pilot a this measure. Massport makes inserts follow-up letter describing the voluntary noise available which the FBOs display in their abatement procedures at Hanscom. flight preparation rooms. A7 Massport Website Massport will include the voluntary noise Massport's website includes the voluntary abatement procedures for Hanscom on its noise abatement procedures for Hanscom public access website with mutual links to the Field. The"Activity Monitor"has also been USAF and other web-based pre-flight added to the website which allows the planning resources. public to research a noise event or flight, log a noise disturbance,and track correspondence related to a noise disturbance. A8 ATIS Broadcast The Automatic Terminal Information System Massport is not the primary entity (ATIS)broadcast will include a reminder that responsible for implementing this measure. voluntary noise abatement procedures are in The ATIS is managed by the FAA. effect and whenever workload permits the Tower, Ground,and Clearance Delivery will follow with reminders. A9 Hanscom AFB Hanscom AFB representatives to the Massport is not the primary entity Leader Briefings Hanscom Noise Workgroup will brief responsible for implementing this measure. Electronic Systems Center and 66th Air Base However, Massport will provide Hanscom Wing leaders on local noise abatement AFB with information as needed to support procedures,sensitivities,and issues. this measure. A10 Military Flight Hanscom AFB Transient Alert will display Massport is not the primary entity Crews and distribute local noise abatement responsible for implementing this measure. procedures and information to military flight Massport distributed handouts and posters crews utilizing their facility. describing noise abatement procedures and continues to make handouts available. 769 Noise All ESC Web page The Hanscom AFB Electronic Systems Massport is not the primary entity Center will create a web page dealing with responsible for implementing this measure. noise abatement issues at Massport for both However, Massport will provide Hanscom military and civilian pilots. AFB with information as needed to support this measure. Al2 ESC Press The Hanscom AFB Electronic Systems Massport is not the primary entity Releases Center Office of Public Affairs will send area responsible for implementing this measure. newspapers regular(biweekly or monthly) However, Massport will provide Hanscom news releases updating area residents on Air AFB with information as needed to support Force flight operations,subject to security this measure. considerations. A13 ESC Website The Hanscom AFB Electronic Systems Massport is not the primary entity News Releases Center Office of Public Affairs will add responsible for implementing this measure. information about Air Force flight operations However, Massport will provide Hanscom to the public access section of the Hanscom AFB with information as needed to support AFB web site,subject to security this measure. considerations. A14 AOPA Video Massport will purchase and distribute the Massport distributed the video to all Distribution AOPA Fly Friendly video to all Hanscom tenants,fixed based operators,and flight pilots. training schools. Pilots are required to watch the AOPA or NBAA video when getting or renewing a security badge. This program has been in place for the past six years. A15 Hanscom User Massport will provide support to ensure that Massport is supportive of aviation user Group a representative user group be available to groups and encourages aviation all users, pilots,and businesses. participation at HFAC. A16 Selectmen and HNWG will brief Town Selectmen on the Massport is not the primary entity Town Briefings group's findings. responsible for implementing this measure. However, Massport will provide the HNWG with information as needed to support this measure. A17 Part 150 Study A group representing local pilots, business Massport is not the primary entity interests,surrounding communities and responsible for implementing this measure. Massport will be formed to investigate the Massport does not believe a Part 150 study possibility and implications of re-opening the is warranted or advisable. However, it will Part 150 Study at Hanscom Field. provide information to the group as needed to support the responsible evaluation of this measure. A18 Model Quiet A group representing local pilots, business Massport is not the primary entity Airport Study interests,surrounding communities and responsible for implementing this measure. Massport will be formed to define the scope However, it will provide information to the and purpose of a Model Quiet Airport Study group as needed to support the responsible at Hanscom Field. evaluation of this measure. A19 Non-Profit A group representing local pilots, business Massport is not the primary entity Organization interests,surrounding communities and responsible for implementing this measure. Massport will be formed to explore the idea However, it will provide information to the of establishing a non-profit organization to group as needed to support the responsible raise funds to support various noise evaluation of this measure. reduction awareness programs. A20 Noise Abatement A group representing local pilots, business Massport has a Noise Abatement Officer interests,surrounding communities and Coordinator who ensures continued Massport will be formed to explore the idea distribution of noise abatement materials, of establishing a Noise Abatement Officer talks to pilots,and responds to comments position at Hanscom Field. concerning noise. In addition, Massport's Office of Noise Abatement(at Logan) supports Hanscom's noise monitoring system. A21 Noise Overlay A group including representatives of the Massport is not the primary entity Zones Planning Boards of the towns of Lincoln, responsible for implementing this measure. Lexington, Bedford,and Concord will be However, it will provide information to the formed to study the issues associated with group as needed to support the responsible the creation of Noise Overlay Zoning evaluation of this measure. Districts. There are a number of recommendations for which Massport is not the primary entity responsible. 7 70 . m.. Noise w w1I @Rtjn uIIp IPiroceduires Massport has a well-defined aircraft engine maintenance run-up procedure for Hanscom Field. Aircraft are directed to the "Run-up Pad" located due south of Runway 11-29,west of the intersection with Runway 05-23. At the Run-up Pad, aircraft are directed to maintain a west heading when conducting run- ups; there is a short "blast fence" on the east side of the pad which deflects jet exhaust,prop wash, and debris. Furthermore, Massport discourages operators from conducting nighttime run-ups. After Shuttle America began performing regular aircraft maintenance at Hanscom Field, there were times when nighttime run-ups occurred for maintenance purposes. After receiving multiple complaints,mostly from residents in newly constructed homes along Virginia Road, Massport re-located those nighttime run- ups to the east end of the East Ramp, away from this residential community. Shuttle America has since discontinued service to Hanscom Field, and subsequently there have been no regular nighttime maintenance run-ups at Hanscom. Massport will continue to direct operators to the run-up pad during the day and to the East Ramp at night should extenuating circumstances require such activities. The optimal orientation for run-ups at the East Ramp is a magnetic heading of approximately 230 degrees, aligned with Runway 05-23,whenever feasible based on wind conditions. This heading will minimize sound levels at homes north of the approach end of Runway 11-29,while providing a substantial reduction in sound levels at the newly constructed homes along Virginia Road,relative to levels during run-ups conducted at the run-up pad. This heading is desirable for use regardless of aircraft type, though jet aircraft are likely to be more sensitive to crosswind conditions and may not be able to use the preferred heading as often as propeller aircraft can. 7.8.2 Atjxi1lllair I "ow it Wi�lts and Gua°ound I "ow it 11ulllt Massport has additional ground noise procedures in effect minimizing the use of on-board Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) and Ground Power Units (GPUs).APUs and GPUs provide electricity,heat and air conditioning to an aircraft when its engines are off. At Hanscom Field, APU and GPU use is prohibited outside of hangars between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. unless part of takeoff procedures or necessary maintenance procedures. Between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., the use of APUs is limited to 30 minutes. When operationally feasible, the use of GPUs is preferred over APUs. Although the noise levels produced by GPUs are not insignificant(they are similar to an idling diesel truck), they are considerably lower than the noise levels produced by a typical APU. In addition, GPUs generally are more fuel efficient than APUs and less expensive to run from a maintenance standpoint. Reduction of APU use may also have the benefit of reducing emissions. It should be noted that it is not feasible to completely eliminate APU use because APUs may be needed to start the aircraft main engines, and maintenance requiring operation of the APU may sometimes need to be performed at locations where alternative power is not readily available. .8 @`11 1 d 1.1 @-'°ee Although the FAA control tower is closed from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Hanscom Field is a public facility and is open for use 24 hours a day. In the summer of 1980, an 11:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. "nighttime field use fee"was a surcharge instituted to discourage the use of the field between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The fee is based on aircraft weight and doubles for aircraft that conduct more than five night _ 7 1 Noise operations in a calendar year. In 1980 the surcharge were $20 for aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or fewer and 5150 for aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds. In 1989, the Massport Board voted to increase the surcharge to reflect the Consumer Price Index(CPI) increase between 1980 and 1989 and to institute an annual CPI increase, effective each July 1. This schedule coincides with Massport's Fiscal Years,which run from July 1st to June 30th annually. As a result, the surcharges were $55 and $401 for the first six months of 2012 and $56 and $412 for the second half of 2012. Some operations are exempted from the fee. The overwhelming majority of exemptions are medical flights,which are dominated by the medical evacuation service based at Hanscom. Exemptions also included military, FAA, and Civil Air Patrol operations, as well as Hanscom based aircraft that used the airport between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. due to unavoidable circumstances, such as weather,mechanical, or FAA delays. w w4 V4o�lse and Qpeia°a Iliions IIY ortltoir°ing System Massport's current Noise and Operations Monitoring System(NOMS)was installed in 1989. It includes six permanent noise monitors near Hanscom Field. In 2004, Massport selected Rannoch Corporation,now ITT Exelis Corporation,to replace the system's microphones and software. The replacement NOMS incorporates state-of-the-art capabilities that have improved the accuracy, efficiency,usefulness, reliability, and user-friendliness of the system. Hanscom staff members began experiencing the benefits of the new system in 2007 and have been able to provide callers with more information about disturbing flights than had been available in the past. An interactive website has been developed for public use39. This website includes: M Complaint entry M Near-real-time40 and historical aircraft flight tracks M Customized reports for any time period for DNL,hourly Leq, and noise events at the permanent noise monitors In April of 2009, the Site 34 monitor on DeAngelo Drive in Bedford was hit by a vehicle,which caused substantial damage. Because a tree that had grown near the site could potentially contaminate data and because there had been similar incidents in prior years, Massport determined that a new location needed to be identified for installing a replacement. This led to a review of possible locations,which included discussions with Bedford representatives and taking noise measurements and analyzing flight tracks at numerous alternative sites. It was determined that DeAngelo Drive was the best acoustical location, which led to selecting a site that was close to the old site but away from trees and set back from the road. This work was completed in 2010. w w l"Illy !-°irllenctly "ua°ogirairren Massport first developed a fly friendly program in 2001. This program encourages pilots to use the quietest flying techniques that are safe and practical. Inserts for pilot manuals continue to be made available for pilots of all aircraft(including commercial aircraft), outlining the Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association's and National Business Aircraft Association's quiet flying recommendations. Framed 391utt12 llyv_rv_ rv_ n_ iva ut_a_aL _n/bu n_a_a tnOx_ ,/()V u��x�:Irv_// xtmL_abut_Activit�!_l��fot6lor/ 40 Flight track data is delayed by ten minutes for security purposes. 7 Noise posters describing noise abatement procedures are hanging in the flight school offices and FBOo. M000pod also periodically reminds these offices 0o encourage the pilots0ouse quietflying techniques including through quarterly meetings. More details on the Fly Friendly Program are provided inSection 7.5.6. 7.8.6 Sound Knitlative M000pod was on active participant inSoondbddodvo, 0000hdonUhotooppododfbo [edoodnb00000tof Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds. Stage 2 aircraft were manufactured before today's stringent noise standards were adopted for new airplanes. The use of Stage 2 aircraft weighing over 75,000 pounds was phased out nationally hy2000,but most ofHunyoonu`y jets weigh less than 75,000 pounds. In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act,which included the phase out of all non-stage 3 aircraft by December 31, 2015. Section 506 of the Act prohibits the operation,within the 48 contiguous states, of jets weighing 75,000 pounds or less that do not comply with Stage 3 noise levels. Military aircraft are exempt from the Stage 3 Rule. Noise (This page intentionally left blank) 7-74 E.,Fr M.. Air Quality Air Quality This chapter of the 2012 ESPR describes year 2012 and projected future air quality and air emissions in the study area. The 2012 ESPR future scenarios are used to evaluate the potential cumulative environmental effects that could occur if Hanscom Field reaches the airport activity levels that are described in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. The 2020 and 2030 growth scenarios represent estimates of what could occur(not what will occur)in the future using certain planning assumptions and are not necessarily recommended outcomes. 8,1 �Key Findings Since 2005 Up to 25 years of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MassDEP) air monitoring data for the Greater Boston area were used to evaluate air quality trends for years up to and including the year 2012. These data reveal that: IN Air quality in the Greater Boston area,including the Hanscom communities,has improved substantially over the past 25 years and has improved since the 2005 ESPR was published. IN The Greater Boston area,including the Hanscom Field communities,is currently in attainment with all Massachusetts and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) except for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS which was designated as moderate non-attainment by the EPA. IN Ozone levels for the Boston area,including the Hanscom Field community were designated as attainment/unclassifiable with the new 2008 eight-hour ozone standard by U.S. EPA.41 Annual emissions from aircraft operations and motor vehicles accessing the airport were calculated for the year 2012. These emissions were compared to emissions for 1985, 1995,2000 and 2005 which were previously presented in the 2005 ESPR. These emission calculations demonstrate that emissions associated with Hanscom Field activity are a very small fraction of regional emissions. Aircraft emissions for all pollutants decreased between 2005 and 2012; these changes are a result of the changes in the mix of aircraft operating at Hanscom Field as well as a reduction in the number of operations. Roadway emissions for all pollutants declined between 2005 and 2012 due to the effects of more stringent emission controls on motor vehicles. The emission levels for the future scenarios are not predicted to result in adverse air quality effects near or away from the airport. For all scenarios, air quality concentrations in Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Lincoln,Minute Man National Historical Park and Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge will be in compliance with the Massachusetts and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 82 Air Quality "Teriminology The Clean Air Act(CAA) contains timeframes and milestones for states to meet and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. EPA sets NAAQS at levels to protect 41EPA recently implemented the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS where EPA designated Middlesex County as attainment/unclassifiable in April of 2012. EFT m ,,'�f Air Quality public health and the environment. MassDEP is the state agency responsible for monitoring outdoor air quality in Massachusetts and developing plans and regulatory programs to reduce emissions of pollutants that adversely affect public health,welfare, and the environment. w wll AliIir I "o,11 utant Certain pollutants (known as "criteria"pollutants) are subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The criteria pollutants monitored are: IN sulfur dioxide (S02): S02 combines with water vapor to form acidic aerosols harmful to the respiratory tract, aggravating symptoms associated with lung diseases such as asthma and bronchitis. S02 is a primary contributor to acid deposition. Impacts of acid deposition include: acidification of lakes and streams, damage to vegetation, damage to materials, and diminution of visibility. S02 is a product of fuel combustion(e.g., the burning of coal and oil that contains sulfur). Sources include power plants, and business and residential sources burning heating oil. ozone (03): Ground-level, or Tropospheric 03 and Stratospheric 03 in the upper atmosphere are the same chemical compound,just found at different places in the atmosphere. Stratospheric 03 found at greater than 30,000 feet above the surface of the earth is beneficial to all life because it filters out the sun's harmful UV radiation before it reaches the earth's surface. Ground-Level 03 on the other hand is a health and environmental problem. This report pertains exclusively to ground-level 03. 03 is a respiratory irritant and can reduce lung function and cause asthma attacks,nasal congestion, and throat irritation, and reduce resistance to infection. It can inflame and damage (possibly permanently) cells that line the lungs, and aggravate chronic lung diseases. In addition, a number of studies have found a strong link between increases in ground-level 03 and increased risk of premature death. 03 is toxic to vegetation,inhibiting growth and causing leaf damage. 03 deteriorates materials such as rubber and fabrics. Ground-level 03 is unique in that it is formed by the reactions that occur between certain pollutants in the presence of intense,high-energy sunlight during the hot summer months. The complexity of the reactions and the amount of time needed to complete these reactions can result in the buildup of ground-level ozone concentrations far downwind from the original source of the precursors. Sources of ground-level 03 precursors,i.e., nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons,include motor vehicles, lawn and garden equipment,power plants and other industrial sources. carbon monoxide (CO): CO binds with hemoglobin in the blood,reducing the amount of oxygen carried to organs and tissues. Symptoms of high CO exposure include shortness of breath, chest pain,headaches, confusion, and loss of coordination. The health threat is most severe for those with cardiovascular disease. Motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of CO,which is produced from incomplete combustion of carbon in fuels. Industrial processes and non- transportation fuel combustion (e.g.,boilers, lawn and garden equipment) also are sources of CO. nitrogen dioxide (NOA NO2 lowers resistance to respiratory infections and aggravates symptoms associated with asthma and bronchitis.NO2 contributes to acid deposition. Impacts of acid deposition include: acidification of lakes and streams, damage to vegetation, damage to materials, and diminution of visibility.NO2 and NO contribute to the formation of ozone.NO2 is formed from the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO). Major sources of NO are fuel combustion, space heating, power plants and motor vehicles. lead(Pb): Lead is an elemental metal that is found in nature. Exposure to lead can occur by inhalation or ingestion with food,water, soil or dust particles. Children,infants, and fetuses are the most susceptible to the effects of lead exposure. Lead causes mental retardation,brain damage, ,, Air Quality and liver disease. It may be a factor in high blood pressure and damages the nervous system. Lead enters the atmosphere from the incineration of lead containing materials and from the manufacture and processing of lead containing products or materials like storage batteries, smelting and removal of paint that contained lead. particulate matter<I0 microns (PMIO) and<2.5 microns (PM2.5): Particulate matter is tiny airborne particles or aerosols,which include dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Fine particulate matter(mostly below 2.5 microns in size) are not only the result of direct emissions,but can be formed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions involving gaseous pollutants. The numbers 2.5 and 10 refer to the particle size,measured in microns, collected by the monitors. For example, several thousand PM2.5 particles could fit on the period at the end of this sentence. The small size of these particles allows easy entry into the human respiratory system. Long-term exposure causes the particles to accumulate in the lungs and affects breathing and produces respiratory symptoms. The small particles can migrate through the lungs and into the circulatory system and potentially produce cardio-vascular symptoms, as well as impacts from toxic components contained in the particulate matter.Particulate matter causes soiling and corrosion of materials.Particulate matter contributes to atmospheric haze that degrades visibility. Sources of particulates include industrial process emissions,motor vehicles,incinerators,power plants, and other fuel combustion sources. Non-criteria pollutants do not have National Ambient Air Quality Standards,but can contribute to the formation of ozone and particulate matter and/or be toxic. The non-criteria pollutants monitored by MassDEP include: total suspended particulates (TSP), and air toxics which include certain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a precursor to ozone, and toxic metals. Five principal air pollutants are emitted by aircraft: carbon monoxide (CO),volatile organic compounds (VOC),nitrogen oxides (NOX),particulate matter(PM10), and fine particulate matter(PM2.5). Massachusetts and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) exist for CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), PMio,PM2.5,lead, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), one of the NOX compounds. There are no standards for VOC,which is regulated as a precursor to ozone (03), for which an air quality standard has been established. Aircraft also emit carbon dioxide (CO2),which is not classified by EPA as an air pollutant under the NAAQS,however EPA asserts that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases from both stationary and mobile sources pose a threat to human health. The EPA also found that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. Fzr MI.. „; Air Quality Tat)Ue 8-1 Airurn4U 1-meq�.jeiricy of Wirid Speed" Wirid D�irectbiri airid Atirnosplieir�t Stat)�U�4y Gbseirved at 11airiscomm 1-iVUd 1.Approximate speed ranges.Actual categories are based on knots, not mmn°: wussospAsnwoo Surface Meteorological Files,Station#14rou.Hanscom Field,Bedford,wass,(2oos-2oo ). The iT.S. EPA has established air quality standards for outdoor(oznbien1) air 0o protect the public's health and welfare with omorgin for safety. The NAA0S are summarized in Table 8'2. Concentration onho for the NAA0SobonminToblo 8'2are given in parts per million(ppm) and micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter of air(pgdn»). The one-hour value for NOziooM000DE9 policy guideline (not oregulatory standard) that is only applicable to major stationary sources emitting over 250 tons per year of NO2. Although it is not applicable to Hanscom Field in orogolo1ory oonoo (since airports are not stationary sources), Massport has used the guideline value in the past in other airport air quality assessments, and so its use io continued in the 20/2/SJ,8. lt should bo noted the new federal |-hour NOzNAA0Sio applicable to Hanscom and was included in the compliance of modeling concentrations with standards in Section 82.|3. Since 2005, the EPA has established new standards as well as strengthened existing standards. The 24' boor9Mz.5otondordvr000bongdhonodinSoptombor2006Emnn65uc/m» to35uc/m» onddhoounool9Mz.5 standard was strengthened to 12 pg/m' along with the 3-month lead standard which was strengthened to 0.15pgdn» EPA has established a new eight-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm, a new one-hour NO2 standard of|00nnb, and anew one-hour SOz standard of75nnb. The primary annual and 24'boorSOz standards were revoked in June of 20 10 along with the annual PM10 standard in October of 2006. Air quality in Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln iovery good and is in compliance with all existing NAAQS as classified by the EPA 42 except the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. While ozone levels remain in compliance with the new oiubt'boorotondord, o few ox000don000 of the eight-hour NAA0S bovo boonnn0000rod o1dho Stow and Chelmsford monitors. Ozone oonoonbodono in Eastern Massachusetts are greatly affected by air pollution transport from the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut metropolitan area, and these changes are likely influenced by conditions to the west. 4240C[Q81322 Air Quality Tai)Ue 8-2Massacli�.jsetts airid Mot�oir4UAmmi)��eirit Xir Q.4U�Iy Stairidairds, flMAAQS) Lead Rolling 3-Month 0.15 ug/m3 Same as Primary 1.5 ug/m3 Average Ozone 8-Hour6(2008 0.075 ppm Same as Primary None 8-Hour(1997 0.08 ppm Same as Primary None 1. Not to be exceeded more than once a year. 2. MassDEP NO2 Policy Guideline level not to be exceeded more than one day per year. 3.The annual PM10 standard was revoked nationwide in 2006. 4.Three-year average of annual PM2.5 arithmetic needs. 5.Three-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. 6.Three-year average of annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration. 7.The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked for most areas nationwide in 2005. mmn°:40crn50.310cwn6.0 83 Year 2012 Conditions The sections that follow provideolbnatedoto, db000000znbiontoirnuali[yotondordoondpr000ntoirnuoli[y data for Hanscom Field. Emission inventories for the year 2012 have been developed for both aircraft operations and vehicular boDfio. 83.11 GU�I00ate The olinno10 for Hanscom Field is determined in part bv its proximity to the A0oudo Ocean. Lying 16 miles inland and at an elevation of approximately 130 feet above mean sea level,wind patterns at Hanscom Field are different from those in Boston, including a greater occurrence of calm winds,which are characteristic of inland locations. On a large scale, Hanscom Field is subject to the rapidvrooUhor changes typical to southern New England. The largest storms move up the east coast from the Carolinas and in most cases pass to the south and east of the area,resulting in northeast and east winds with rain, snow, and fog. Annual winds are predominantly from the west,with winter winds from the northwest and summer winds from the southwest. Determinant factors include: IN Wind direction - determines where emissions will travel oo they are diluted and dispersed inthe obnoonboro. IN Wind speed -dotooninoo the dilution rate,with higher speeds resulting in greater dilution and lower air pollutant concentrations. IN Atmospheric stability- determines the rate at which pollutants released near the ground are mixed and dispersed in the atmosphere,with a neutral to unstable atmosphere providing rapid dispersion and a stable atmosphere providing slower dispersion. Stable conditions occur,by ��� Air Quality definition, only at night when there is no solar heating of the ground to produce thermal air turbulence. The annual frequency of wind speed and direction at Hanscom Field are summarized in Table 8-1. These data are based on a five-year climatological average of hourly measurements taken at Hanscom Field from 2005 to 2009. 3. [+Isrdkoir°lca1 Aliiir tja1Ii1I IIftrtiloira inn Data MassDEP monitoring data were used to conservatively estimate existing background air quality levels in the Hanscom Field communities. Historical records from these same stations were used to provide a perspective on how air quality in the region today compares with that in the recent past. For the purposes of the 2012 ESPR, MassDEP monitoring data were used to estimate existing background air quality concentrations and then form total concentrations (Hanscom Field effects plus background levels) for comparison with air quality standards.Following EPA guidance,43 background concentrations were determined using monitoring data from regional state monitoring sites that have collected over a year of continuous measurements Site-specific monitoring to establish background air quality levels is generally not done for air quality impact studies and was not done for this 2012 ESPR. Instead, MassDEP monitoring stations were selected to ensure that the monitoring data are conservative for this purpose,i.e. the levels are higher than existing concentrations in the Hanscom Field communities. This approach was approved by both the MassDEP and the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs as part of the scoping process for this 2012 ESPR. Conservative monitoring data from state monitoring stations in the project region(e.g., Kenmore Square) are normally used to establish existing background air quality. Since the background data are chosen to be conservatively elevated, their use in forming total predicted concentrations,which are then compared to air quality standards, serves to protect public health with an added margin of safety. 8.3.3 DE IIftrtiiloir°ing Data As required by MEPA, the appropriateness of MassDEP's monitoring data from the Greater Boston area for use as background levels in the ESPR air quality analysis was confirmed. A review of MassDEP monitoring records showed a more than ample selection of available monitoring data from the region that could conservatively represent air quality background levels. The MassDEP Division of Air Quality Control was contacted when the 1995 GEIR was being prepared and the selected monitoring data were reviewed with MassDEP staff to ensure that they were conservative for the Hanscom Field communities; MassDEP replied that the selected monitoring data were both conservative and acceptable for use in the 1995 GEIR.44The Hanscom Field community consultants for the 1995 GEIR also independently contacted MassDEP and confirmed that MassDEP had approved the use of monitoring data from their stations for background conditions in air quality studies at Hanscom Field, and that MassDEP considered the data selected to be conservative.45 The sophisticated monitoring equipment used by MassDEP coupled with rigorous quality assurance and quality control procedures,including EPA audits, ensure that the collected data are consistently accurate. 43U.S. EPA, Guideline on Air Quality Models(Revised),40 CFR 51,Appendix W,November 9. 2005. 44 Personal communication,Mr. Charles Memos,MassDEP Division of Air Quality Control,Boston,July 9 and 30, 1996. 45Personal communication,Ms. Elizabeth Racca,Dames&Moore,Boston,August 19, 1996. -fir, . I.. Air Quality Site-specific monitoring for NO2 was performed for the 1995 GEIR to test the accuracy of the analysis for the 1995 GEIR. This monitoring was not performed to establish background levels in the Hanscom Field communities. Its purpose was to test and confirm the assumption that MassDEP's monitoring data from Boston represented conservative estimates of local Hanscom Field community air quality. The monitoring data demonstrated that NO2 concentrations close to the airport were safely in compliance with the air quality standard and well below those measured by MassDEP at Kenmore Square. Thus,the Kenmore Square data were proven to be conservative, and the MassDEP did not recommend additional air quality monitoring be performed for the 2000 ESPR.46 The air quality analysis for the 2012 ESPR is consistent with this approach approved by MassDEP for the 2000 and 2005 ESPR. 83.4 Location n of IIY onIiiloir°ing Stations There are no MassDEP monitoring stations in the four Hanscom Field communities. The MassDEP stations selected to represent the Hanscom Field communities are those in the Greater Boston area that have historically had the highest pollution levels and the longest historical records. Monitoring data are presented in this section for the pollutants CO,NO2, S02,PMto,PM2.5, lead, and ozone.No monitoring data for VOC are presented; MassDEP does not perform VOC monitoring on a regular basis because there is no state or national air quality standard for VOC. While some special VOC monitoring programs have been undertaken by MassDEP in the past,these were limited in their scope and duration and are not applicable to the Hanscom Field communities.No monitoring is performed for CO2, as it is not a regulated air pollutant under the NAAQS.Year 2012 emission inventories of VOC emissions from Hanscom Field aircraft operations and motor vehicular traffic are,however,presented in this chapter. Tat)t)le -3 IIL ad11kgirmirid Xir Q.4 Ity IIL.ovollls (u.jg/irn3) IM IN CO 8-Hour 1,035 1,380 1,495 1,495 1-Hour 2,070 1,725 1,035 2,070 NO2 Annual 36 38 36 38 1-Hour 96.8 99.4 92.1 99.4 PM10 Annual 16 17 16 17 24-Hour 37 38 28 38 PM2.5 Annual 9.3 9.4 9.0 9.2 24-Hour 20.7 21.2 22.1 21.3 Note: 1. Data for all pollutants are from Kenmore Square, Boston. Concentrations for 1-hour, 8-hour,and 24-houraverages are annual second-highest values,except for 1-hour NO2 and 24-hour average PM2.5 which are 98th percentile values. Selected PM2.5 background values are the three-year averages. For all other pollutants the selected background values are the highest of the value measured in the three year period. Source:Massachusetts DEP Air Monitoring Reports(http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/air/quality/air-monitoring-reports-and-studies.html) The data for CO,NO2,PMto, and PM2.5, are from the Kenmore Square monitoring station in Boston.47Data for ozone are from the Chelmsford and Stow48monitors. For all pollutants except ozone, the selected monitor is in the City of Boston where emission densities are higher than in the Hanscom Field 46 Memorandum. From: Christine Kirby,MassDEP,To: EOEA Secretary Durand, Subject:EOEA NO. 548418696 Review of the Draft Scope for the 2000 Hanscom Field ESPR,November 27,2001. 47Source: Massachusetts DEP Air Monitoring Reports(bnttty//vvvv,vv in_i__, any/�_d_/ �Y_rna �_/inn __ iv/situ/ uu1t�/,Tstm 48These are the closest ozone monitoring stations to Hanscom Field. The Massachusetts DEP discontinued ozone monitoring at the Sudbury location after 1998, and commenced monitoring at the Stow location in 1998 which was discontinued in 2011. Monitoring commenced in 2012 at the EPA Chelmsford location. Fzr I.. Air Quality communities. Ozone is not directly emitted from any source, and tends to have higher concentrations downwind of large urban areas. An air quality monitoring station near Hanscom Field, operated by the EPA at their Lexington laboratory from 1991 to 1993,measured ozone and recorded levels approximately 10 percent below those in Sudbury/Stow,where MassDEP discontinued conducting ozone monitoring in 2011 and began monitoring at the EPA site in Chelmsford. No violations of the ozone standard were ever recorded at the Lexington monitoring site near Hanscom Field. 83. I Exllstlng AlIir QtjaIlIty Concentrations Background air quality for CO,NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 was determined using measurements from Kenmore Square for the most recent three-year period(2010-2012). These four pollutants are the principal ones emitted by aircraft engines for which air quality standards have been set. The background levels presented in Table 8-3 represent all of the existing air pollution sources (natural and man-made). Historical records for CO,NO2, S02, PM10, PM2.5, lead, and ozone from the most representative MassDEP monitoring stations are summarized in Figures 8-1 through 8-9. These figures show that large reductions in pollutant emissions and in the levels of air pollution have occurred over the past 25 years. The aggressive efforts undertaken since 1970 by government and industry to reduce air pollution have resulted in cleaner air today for most of the Greater Boston area(defined as the six counties mainly within 1-495). 12,0 100 8D CL 6,0 4O 2D 00 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 913 94 95 96 97 98 99 010 0102 03 04 0,5 06 7 l88 019 10, 11 12 LO�WEILL —6—LYNN 805TON(Kiert4i' iorle Sq) —**—�BOSTON(Sumn r) BOSTON(Bremen St) BOSTO,N(Post Office e Sq) ---805TON(Harrison Av,e) I-'hillxre 8-1 8-11ol.jir CO Coiriceiritiratbiris I Measlxred at IMassIDE 3 Gireateir IIBostoiiri IMoirfltoirs -- IlKeiirlirnioire Sql.jaire airid Otlier I Measlxreirneirit IIL.ocatbiris Source:MassDEP 2012 Annual Air Quality Report EFT MI.. Air Quality 5100.100 40.109 — o- r�io,m 310.0 �I H� 210.0 1100.109 ✓i 10.10 95 REi 87 88 89 919 91 97 95 94 95 96 97 98 99 1010 101 102 1053 104 105 106 107 108 1099 1109 11 12 BOSTON(grermien St) 130STON(HarrisDn Ave) ROSTL N(Kenrm,ore Sq) SOSTON(L.ang 151and) --,*—EHELSEA MIIL.TON(ISlue Hill) c r H A VIER HIILL L.AWREY'CE LYN NEW BURY NEWISURYP0RT Fiiigl re -2 Auninl.4 II Q2, Coinceintratiiimmuns I a�sil.vired at I alsslDlEP Greater IIBostoin I oirfliitoirs einimimmre Sql.jaire alind Other I a�sil.vireirneint II L.mmcatiiimmuns Source:MassDEP 2012 Annual Air Quality Report 175 1510] 125 10 y �r 1101OL I:L75 .. tI kl r , i� n "' - ii+h U 510 IIIIIN Ilq� � 11",Ill M!!Hl 25 15 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....M .".. .. 95 86 S7 59 99 919 91 97 95 94 95 96 97 99 99 ID 10 1001 1007 ID 3 194 105 195 197 199 199 119 11 17 n'Warmester MM MMMMrWare S p r ingffieId Sostrn(H arrison Ave) Soston(K e n mio r e Sq) Full River. I'-'iiigl.jire 8-3 1-IIHol.jir S 02 Coin ceintratiiimmiins I a�sil.vired at I alsslDlEP Greater IIBostoin I oirfltoirs -.Il einimimmre gl.jare alind Other I a�sil.vireirneint II L.mmcatiiimmuns Source:MassDEP 2012 Annual Air Quality Report EFT .. 4 Air Quality �5 ------------------------m -------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------- 41D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- --- --- ---- -------------------------------- 1D ------------ �---•------ ----------------------- - - - ----- TO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D - BADS N(C qr SgIII BGS N(Colu mbusAide;) BGS 73N(Ken wore,Sq) B 3S w O N(SiDuthhar pti n,St.,'� .....m B aS w O N(Hamaon Aoe,'� Fiiigl re -4 AHrNinl.4ll IlPM 10 Coinceintratiii urNs 1 1aa�:lxred at 1 1assIDIEP Greater IIBost in 1 1 Hrflt rs Keinirn re Sgl.jare aind Other 1 1aa�:lxreirneint IL. catiii urNs Source:MassDEP 2012 Annual Air Quality Report 20 15 � r�r6: ' y �'��'f�`✓^^ray /Itl'T/,/1T"°'"" , ,. ° i/���pfr/l0a(r�lraurWlfGGrwii �„ 10 5 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 —,40 Pittsfield Fall River n°°.....lu^^^^.^Lynn Haverhill �������ViOip......^^^Lawrence mom.....@°m Chicopee SPGFD(Liberty) .^^^^^^^^^^^^^°SPGFD(1860 Main) Brockton °Boston(Kenmore) Yifftlp^^^^Boston(Charlestown) ^Boston(Harrison Ave) Boston(174 North St) ����r�����Worcester(WashingtonSt) "Worcester(SummerSt) Fiiigl re 8-5 AHrNinl.4ll IlPW 5 Coinceintra lii urNs 1 1aa�:lxred at 1 1assIDIEP Greater IIBost in 1 1 Hrflt rs -- StowhKeinirnoire Sgl.jare aind Other 1 1aa�:lxreirneint IL. catiii urNs Source:MassDEP 2012 Annual Air Quality Report ,,10 . I.. Air Quality 0.100 0.090 0.080 0.070 E 0.060 I- bb 0.050 m 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 Ln LO r, 00 0) 0 r-1 r1j m -tt Ln LO r, 00 0) 0 r-1 r1j ro -tt Ln kD r, 00 0) 0 r-1 r1j m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-1 r-1 r-1 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-j rj C-4 C-4 C-4 rj rj rj rj rj -4B—Lead (ug/m3) Figlxre 8-6 Callleindair Ql.jairteir Il.ead Coinceintiratbins Measlxred at IMasslDlEP Moirfltoihiing Statbin liiiirl Keinimoire Sql.jaire :mind IlHarrliisoin Aveirnie, IIBostoin Source:MassDEP Annual Air Quality Reports(1998-2012) 0.140 0.120 0.100 0.080 0.060 C 0 0 0.040 0.020 0.000 Ln kD r, 00 0) 0 r-1 r1j ro -tt Ln lD r, 00 m 0 r-1 r-j m -tt J1 LO r, 00 0) 0 r-1 N m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-1 r-1 r-1 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 -q -1 -1 -q rj rj r-j rj rj r-4 N N r-4 N N r-4 N —0—Ozone 1-hr(PPM) Figlxre 8-7 1-11ol.jir Ozoine Coinceintirafloins M easlxred at IMasslDlEP Greater IIBostoin Moirfltoirs Su.j��lI[)u.jiry/Stow,/CIlhiieIIIirnfsfoire�I Source:MADEP Annual Air Quality Reports(1997-2012) EFT M.. Air Quality 0.140 0.120 0.100 0.080 00 0.060 0 N 0 0.040 0.020 0.000 00 00 00 00 DO 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) MMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 r-4 r-4 r-4 r-4 r-4 ..............11111111111...............Ozoine 8-hir(PPM) Figlxre 8-8 8-11ol.ir Ozoiirie Coiriceiritirafloiris I Measlxred at IMassIDEI3 Gireateir IIBostoiiri IMoirfltoirs Su.j��lI[)u.jiry/Stow,/CIlhiie III irnfsfoir��I Source:MADEP Annual Air Quality Reports(1998-2012) 150 20 10 ................................. ...................................................... . ......... ....."I 35 35 37 35 39 70 92 92 93 94 95 95 97 93 99 00 l02 02 03 04 105 D5 07 05 09 20 21 12 -16—BOSTON(LDng ls) --*—BOSTON(Harnswi Ave) ......6—MlLTON(Blue H"l) -1-00—LYN N -II EWBURY ... NEWBURYP'ORT 50 40 30 V 20 A ............10 yo/ .. .................r .................... ........ ............... 95 8,6 87 88 83 90 92 92 93 94 95 96 97' 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 1-14--,HAVERHILL ,*CHELMSFORD �.........LAWRENCE ---STOW -,),,-WAL7HAM Figlxre 8-9 %jrWbeir of IlExceodairices of 8-11ol.ir Ozoiirie Coiriceiritiratbiris I Measlxred at IMassIDEI3 Gireateir IIBostoiiri IMoirfltoirs --Sl.idinjiry/Stow,airid Otlier I Measlxreirneirlt IL.ocatiiiourls Source:MADEP 2012 Annual Air Quality Report EPA has established NAAQS for seven major air pollutants to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. These standards have been periodically reviewed and updated, as necessary, ,1 Fzr MI.. Air Quality over time. The Greater Boston area has had "clean air" (i.e.,no violations of the air quality standards for these pollutants) for six of the seven major air pollutants: IN PMio,NO2, SO2 and lead for over 25 years IN CO for over 20 years IN PM2.5 since 1999 when monitoring for this pollutant commenced For the seventh pollutant, ozone, Massachusetts was designated as a non-attainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Measurement data now shows that all monitors meet the 1997 standard statewide. In addition, EPA tightened the eight-hour ozone standard in 2008 to 0.075 ppm and designated all of Massachusetts except Dukes County as unclassifiable/attainment with the new standard. A few exceedances of the new eight-hour ozone standard have been measured at various locations in Eastern Massachusetts in recent years,however there have been no violations of the standard in the region since compliance is based on a 3-year average. It should be noted that cleaner air has been achieved since 1996,with regard to the old I-hour NAAQS (EPA revoked the I-hour standard in 2005), for all locations in the Greater Boston area,including the Hanscom Field communities. Using actual air quality measurements collected throughout the region by the MassDEP over the last 25 years, the following progress has been documented: IN CO levels in the Greater Boston area have steadily declined since their peak in the 1970s. The last violation of the CO air quality standard occurred in 1986 in Boston over 25 years ago (see Figure 8-1). The entire state has been considered in attainment with the standard since April 2002. IN NO2 levels in the Greater Boston area have declined since their peak in the late 1970s (see Figure 8-2). In January of 2010, EPA established a new I-hour NO2 standard of 100 ppb. In January of 2012, EPA designated all of Massachusetts as attainment/unclassifiable with the new standard. IN SO2 levels in the Greater Boston area have also steadily declined since their peak in the early 1970s. The last violation of the SO2 air quality standard occurred in 1972 in Boston. In June of 2010, EPA established a new I-hour standard of 75 ppb along with new monitoring requirements that just began in January of 2013. All six monitors in the Commonwealth show levels that meet the new 1-hour standard (See Figure 8-3). IN PMio levels in the Greater Boston area have declined since the mid-1980s. In 2006, the EPA revoked the annual PMio standard. There have been no violations of the PMio air quality standard recorded in the Hanscom area(See Figure 8-4). IN PM2.5 levels in the Greater Boston area have declined since monitoring of this pollutant began in 1999. The daily standard was tightened in 2006 from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3. In December of 2012, the EPA tightened the annual standard from 15 ug/m3 to 12 ug/m3. No violations of the PM2.5 air quality standard have been recorded in the Hanscom area(see Figure 8-5). IN Lead levels in the air have declined 98 percent since the early 1980s mostly due to the removal of lead in gasoline. In October of 2008, the EPA tightened the lead standard from 1.5 µg/m3 to 0.15 µg/m3 averaged over a 3-month period. In February of 2012, EPA required lead monitoring for one year at the Nantucket Memorial Airport as part of their effort to improve the existing lead monitoring network at airports and industrial facilities. The highest daily value recorded at the airport in 2012 was 0.04 µg/m3,well below the new standard of 0.15 µg/m3. No violations of the lead air quality standard have ever been recorded in the Greater Boston area(see Figure 8-6). IN Ozone levels in the Greater Boston area have declined since their peak in the 1970s (see Figures 8- 7 and 8-8). In 1997, EPA promulgated a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. In 2008, EPA tightened the 8-hour standard to 0.075 ppm. Exceedances of the new 8-hour ozone standard have Air Quality been monitored at various locations in the Greater Boston area over recent years (see Figure 8-9), however no violations of the new standard have occurred in the Middlesex County area. The area is considered non-attainment with the 1997 standard and unclassifiable/attainment with the new 2008 standard. It should be noted that ozone monitoring show that Massachusetts meets the 1997 standard. .4 Effect of Federal and IMassactiusetts Regulations °ions Additional reductions in air pollution levels, specifically ozone, are assured over the next 20 years due to the following regulations that are already or will be in place: .4w11 Vetillc1e Standards and RegUlatliie°n EPA has enacted various vehicle and emission fuel standards to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks. EPA recently proposed draft rules on low-sulfur gasoline for 2017 which will reduce the fuel sulfur content down to 10 ppm along with stricter limits on tailpipe exhaust. This proposal known as the Tier 3 Vehicle Emission and Fuel standards will reduce the sulfur content in gasoline by 60 percent compared to the existing Tier 2 sulfur gasoline standard of 30 ppm. Based on EPA estimates,the proposed rule would decrease nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds by 80% and particulate matter by 70%. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy(CAFE) standards enacted in 1975 and regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) and EPA is intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks and encourage consumers to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. The recent agreement in 2011 with the government and thirteen automakers will increase fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. These new standards will reduce mobile source emissions through more efficient and cleaner vehicles and reduced fuel usage. In addition to regulations and standards,the increase of cleaner burning vehicles such as hybrid, electric, and alternative fuel vehicles in the fleet mix will further reduce mobile source emissions. These types of vehicles are more efficient with emissions much lower compared to conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles. Furthermore,with the implementation of electric,hybrid, and newer more efficient vehicles, future emissions will be lower when compared to today with the removal of older less efficient vehicles. 8.4.2 Massactiu tt Itmlii 111 IEirn lssllon RegUlatliie°n Massachusetts has implemented an enhanced motor vehicle Inspection &Maintenance (FM)program. The program includes an expansion to include diesel cars, trucks, and buses. It consists of an on-board diagnostic test(OBD)which checks the vehicles on-board computer, downloads the data and checks for any systems malfunctions. There is also an opacity test for medium and heavy-duty vehicles not equipped with OBD systems. Under the enhanced FM program, testing is conducted annually and is designed to ensure vehicles are operating efficiently and identify and fix high polluting vehicles. Massachusetts has also adopted the California Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV)program that imposes emission limits more stringent than the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)in 1995 and newer motor passenger cars and light-duty trucks. Massachusetts' law requires the Commonwealth to adopt the stricter of the federal or California emission standards for motor vehicles. Massachusetts has adopted the California zero emissions vehicle (ZEV)program, effective in 2007. This program requires percentages of new vehicles (passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles), sold in -14 . I.. Air Quality Massachusetts starting in 2007, and must be certified to meet certain emissions limits. The MassDEP revised the ZEV program in 2009,where automobile manufacturers were required to comply with fleet average greenhouse gas emissions levels in Massachusetts. The amendments in 2009 provide additional flexibility and incentives to automobile manufacturers to meet the mandate. Climate change refers to shifts in weather patterns resulting from an increase in the average global temperature. These changes have both natural and man-made causes, and the latter are thought to be the result of increasing atmospheric concentrations of COz,methane (CH4),NOz and other heat-trapping gases, commonly referred to as greenhouse gases (GHG). Human activities that produce these gases include energy production and transportation activities. The Commonwealth has acknowledged climate change as an important environmental and economic issue and has developed an initial plan to begin to address greenhouse gas emissions. Massport was one of 15 state agencies and authorities that participated in development of the action plan,with specific attention to transportation system planning and transportation technology and operations. The first Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan was published in 2004 by the Office for Commonwealth Development.49The Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan is the state's initial step towards reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and improving energy efficiency. It proposes near-term actions aimed at protecting the climate,reducing pollution,reducing energy demand, and stimulating job growth through the development of sustainable energy resources and advanced technologies. Massport is participating on two of the Action Plan Teams associated with the plan, (i.e., Transportation System Planning and Transportation Technologies and Operations)with a focus on emissions reduction associated with airport operations. In 2008, the Governor signed the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act which sets targets for reducing GHG levels by 25 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. To aid in implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act, the MassDEP issued rules in December of 2008 for mandatory GHG reporting requirements on a wide array of sources. The rule required certain facilities register with the MassDEP by April of 2009 and report, certify, and verify emissions annually starting in April of 2010. In addition to the above programs, Massachusetts participates in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)which commenced in September of 2008. The purpose of RGGI is to reduce GHG emissions from power plants through a cap and trade program. Massachusetts is one of nine northeastern states that participate in the program. Massachusetts also adopted the Green Communities Act in 2008 which provided legislation to increase energy efficiency, encourage investment in renewable energy, encourage green building design, and mandates that 15 percent of the electricity supplied by 2020 must be from renewable energy sources. In addition,the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs revised the "MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Protocol"effective May of 2010. The revised policy requires certain projects under MEPA review,not specific to this 2012 ESPR, to quantify potential annual GHG emissions for the baseline and preferred alternative and identify and conduct an alternatives analysis to evaluate mitigation measures to minimize or mitigate potential GHG emissions from the preferred alternative. 49The complete Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan is available on-line at butte 11 rv_ry rv_, n ___.as /_a a Q/Qa a / v0 / n_a: x n_t_ vu,_a t _a txa rnvn.mi_v0. Air Quality Massachusetts has adopted the federal regulations for reformulated gasoline. Reformulated gasoline (RFG)is designed to produce lower emissions of toxic substances from evaporation and to burn cleaner than conventional gasoline.Phase II of the reformulated gasoline program,with more stringent standards, began in the year 2000. In 2006, Massachusetts phased out the use of methyl tert-butyl ether(MTBE) which was a gasoline additive designed to boost the octane level. MTBE was being found in the groundwater due to leaky underground tanks and legislation was introduced to substitute MTBE with ethanol. Currently,RFG is being blended with ethanol in Massachusetts. Massachusetts recently required that Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems be decommissioned at gasoline dispensing stations based on the EPA rule that Stage II vapor recovery was no longer cost effective. Massachusetts has proposed Stage I regulatory revisions that certain gas dispensing facilities install a Stage I system that meets the California Air Resource Board requirements for Stage I Enhanced Vapor Recovery(CARB EVR) as well as monitoring system for vapor leaks. 8.4.5 Diles6l I ingglne In 2004, the EPA implemented a non-road diesel rule that requires more stringent controls on non-road diesel engines. These standards followed the Tier 3 emissions standards for nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons for non-road vehicles that were introduced in 1998 and are to be phased into use between 2006 and 2008. The new Tier 4 exhaust emission standards,which are being phased-in between 2008 and 2014,will cut air pollution emissions from non-road diesel engines by over 90 percent. As part of these regulations,ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel(15 ppm sulfur content) for on-road diesel vehicles was phased-in from 2006 to 2010 and is expected to reduce exhaust emissions by 90 percent. 8.4.6 Stationary Source I irnre ii s life°n Massachusetts has adopted regulations that will reduce stationary source (e.g.,industrial sources and power plants) emissions of NO, a prime component of ground-level ozone (smog). These regulations included Reasonably Available Control Technology(RACT), Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), included in the Ozone Transport Region,NOX Cap and Allowance trading program, and the U.S. EPA's Ozone Transport NO2 State Implementation Plan(SIP). 8.4.7 Year 20,112 Aliiir it ft Eir6lssllons This section and the next provide estimates of total annual air emissions generated by activities associated with Hanscom Field for the year 2012. The primary air pollutant sources at Hanscom Field are aircraft operations and groundside roadway traffic. Other sources include space heating emissions and fugitive emissions from fuel storage, fuel spillage, and aircraft refueling activities.Prior studies have shown that emissions from these latter sources are very small compared to the aircraft and groundside roadway traffic, and thus consistent with previous ESPRs are excluded with little effect on the results.50 Annual aircraft emissions were calculated for the year 2012 at Hanscom Field.Pollutants associated with aircraft engines are CO,NO,PM10,PM2.5, CO2, and VOC. The methodology for calculating the aircraft emissions is outlined below. 50Speas Associates,with Bolt,Berenek&Newman, "Alternative Futures for Hanscom Field Policy Planning," 1977. 1 . I.. Air Quality According to the EPA,51 an airport emissions inventory should concentrate on the emission characteristics of aircraft relative to the vertical column of air that ultimately affects ground level pollutant concentrations. This portion of the atmosphere,which begins at the earth's surface and is simulated in air quality models,is often referred to as the mixing zone. The aircraft operations of interest within this layer are defined as the landing and takeoff(LTO) cycle. The cycle begins when the aircraft approaches the airport on its descent from cruising altitude, lands, and taxis to the gate. It continues as the aircraft taxis back out to the runway for subsequent takeoff and climb out as it heads back up to cruising altitude. Thus, the five specific operating modes in an LTO are: IN Approach from 3,000 feet IN Taxi/idle-in IN Taxi/idle-out IN Takeoff IN Climb out to 3,000 feet Actual numbers of aircraft operations at Hanscom Field for the years 1990, 1995,2000, 2005 and 2012 are described in Chapter 3,Airport Activity Levels and shown in Table 8-4. The data in Table 8-4 show that the number of aircraft operations at Hanscom Field in 2012 decreased by 1.6 percent compared to the 2005. The annual aircraft operations data provided for the air quality analysis were consistent with the operations presented in the noise analysis (See Chapter 7,Noise). To convert the aircraft operations for use in EDMS, the INM type for each aircraft from the noise analysis was assigned an aircraft and engine type using the databases provided within EDMS. Annual emissions were calculated by multiplying the number of operations for each noise classification by the emission factor for that classification for each mode of the LTO cycle. 7aIt)IIIo 8-4 Xirciraft Qlpeiratl oiris at Il11airifscoimn II1'-'IiioI d �.. , �.. 1990 232,700 1995 190,300 2000 212,400 2005 169,955 2012 167,845 Percent Change: 1990 to 2005 -27% Percent Change: 1995 to 2005 -11% Percent Change:2000 to 2005 -20% Percent Change 2005 to 2012 -1.6% Source:Massport The aircraft emission factors for CO,NO,PMio,PM2.5, CO2, and VOC used to calculate the annual aircraft emissions at Hanscom Field in the 2012 ESPR were taken primarily from the FAA Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS)model(Version 5.1.4.1).52 An earlier version of EDMS (4.3)was used for the previous ESPR's and has been updated ten times since the 2005 ESPR. The differences in aircraft emission rates between these versions of EDMS are significant, especially for smaller general 51U.S. EPA,Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation,Volume IV: Mobile Sources, Office of Air and Radiation,EPA-450/4-81-026d(Revised), 1992. 52FAA,Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System(EDMS)Reference Manual,Prepared for the FAA by CSSI, Washington,D.C.,June,2013. Fzr I.. 1 Air Quality aviation(GA) aircraft. When EDMS converted to Version 5.0 in January of 2007,the upgrade represented a significant improvement in capabilities and functionality over previous versions. Among the many updates to the model included two significant changes from the previous versions: 1)new, dynamic emissions module computes aircraft LTO emissions based on performance parameters and weather conditions, and 2) Boeing Fuel Flow Method 2 is used to scale emissions for a contiguous range of weather conditions,rather than just standard atmospheric conditions. The Version 5 update changed the methodology for calculating fuel flow and time in mode for each of the modes of the LTO cycle. This is especially apparent for the smaller GA aircraft like the Cessna 150 which comprise approximately 75 percent of the total operations at Hanscom in 2012. Because of the numerous updates to EDMS over the past years, the 2005 operations where updated with the newer version of EDMS which results in aircraft emissions that are significantly higher for the same fleet and level of operations compared to emissions calculated using the older EDMS Version 4.3. This will allow for a more accurate comparison of 2005 and 2012 aircraft emissions. The emissions shown in Table 8-5 for 2005 (Version 5.1.4.1) are the recalculated results. It should also be noted that in 2005, emission factors for CO2,PMio and PM2.5 were not available for all types of aircraft, and therefore emissions were calculated separately with spreadsheets. However,with the improvements to EDMS, emissions for these pollutants were calculated for each of the aircraft operations for 2005 and 2012 and are presented in Table 8-5. 7aIt)IIIo 8-5 IlEirnliissbiris tiroimn Xirciraft Qpoiratbiris, at Il11airi�:coimn II1'-'liiold (1,000s, of IIktl/yir) 1111111111MSMW 19852 698.8 14.2 38.3 2.6 2.6 7,280.6 19952 409.2 14.9 27.9 2.3 2.3 6,727.8 20002 591.2 25.4 39.4 2.3 2.3 10,108.1 2005(EDMS Version 4.3) 483.6 28.0 58.1 3.0 3.0 11,806.6 2005(EDMS Version 5.1.4.1)3 1,670 34.1 112.7 13.5 13.5 19,233.1 2012 1,123 31.9 80.4 9.9 9.9 16,356.0 Percent Change: 1985 to 2005 -31% +97% +52% +15% +15% +62% Percent Change: 1995 to 2005 +18% +88% +108% +30% +30% +75% Percent Change:2000 to 2005 -18% +10% +47% +30% +30% +17% Percent Change:2005 to 20124 -33% -7% -29% -27% -27% -15% Notes: 1. PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions for some aircraft and CO2 emissions for all aircraft were calculated separately with a spreadsheet.The EDMS does not contain PM emission rates for some aircraft and does not include CO2 emission for any aircraft. 2. Emissions for 1985, 1995,and 2000 were revised from the 2000 ESPR using the EDMS Version 4.3. 3. Emissions for 2005 were revised from the 2005 ESPR using EDMS Version 5.1.4.1. 4. Percent Change is based on 2005 and 2012 EDMS Version 5.1.4.1. Aircraft engine emission factors in mass per time (e.g.grams per second or kilograms per hour)were based on the EDMS default factors for each aircraft and engine type for idle, takeoff, climb out, and approach movements which are a function of the engine's power setting and resultant fuel flow. EDMS default time-in-mode (TIM) data were also used for each of the phases of the LTO cycle. Aircraft emissions for each of the modes of the LTO were calculated for each type of aircraft by multiplying the number of operations by the emission factor for each operation phase and the TIM. These calculations were performed by EDMS. Table 8-5 shows the estimates of the total emissions of CO,NO,,VOC,PMio,PM2.5, and CO2 at Hanscom Field for 1985, 1995, 2000,2005, and 2012. The data in Table 8-5 reveal that emissions for all six pollutants decreased between 2005 and 2012 based on revising the 2005 inventory for the current EDMS version model. The percentage changes in the aircraft emissions between the different years shown in Table 8-5 do not correlate with the percent changes in the number of aircraft operations shown Air Quality in Table 8-4 because the mix of the aircraft types is different in each of the five years and the aircraft emissions for 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 were developed using an older version of the EDMS model as well as external emission factors for PM10 and CO2. The changes in the emissions of the six air pollutants between 2005 and 2012 shown in Table 8-5 are the result of differences in the number of operations of different types of aircraft. The emission rates for each type of aircraft do not change with time,rather the relative amount of each type of aircraft in the mix using Hanscom Field changes for each of the different years. The operations in 2012 included a different mix of aircraft from 2005, and the emissions depend on the aircraft type, the time spent in each mode of the LTO cycle at the airport(a characteristic that varies by aircraft type), and the passenger-carrying capacity of the aircraft. Similarly, for comparisons between 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005,the changes in the aircraft emissions are the result of differences in the number of operations of different type aircraft which varies for each year,including the time spent in each mode of the LTO cycle at the airport. To provide some perspective on the relative contribution of Hanscom Field aircraft emissions to regional air quality and to demonstrate that the increases that have occurred are small, Table 8-6 shows the total air emissions for Middlesex County. The emissions data for Middlesex County were obtained from the U.S. EPA National Emission Inventory( 111 r // y _ 1p _y S�r/fin c 1n e➢/n ,1/2 fib➢ ➢urnv ern I-o ry, L�_) for the most recent available year 2011. The 2012 aircraft emission totals in Table 8-5 as a percent of the Middlesex County emissions in Table 8-6 are as follows: IN CO =0.80 percent IN NOX =0.14 percent IN VOC=0.30 percent IN PMio =0.06percent IN PM2.5=0.21 percent IN CO2 =0.26 percent aIt)Illo 8-8 2011 IlEir6iifsfslibins liroimn Allllll Smirces liiin 1 11ii�hfl1esex County, IMassaclll .Jfsetts (1,000s of 11kg/yir) Point 9,380 5,457 15,321 15,151 3,642 655,608 Mobile 132,931 17,887 11,296 1,311 1,014 5,566,911 Total 142,311 23,352 26,617 16,462 4,657 6,222,519 8.4.8 Year 20,112 Y oIe°it Vettldle irnre ills it °n A mesoscale air quality analysis was conducted for the motor vehicle traffic associated with activities at Hanscom Field. A mesoscale analysis calculates emissions over a larger area compared to a microscale analysis which calculates impacts from a much smaller area(e.g.roadway intersections). Consistent with MassDEP guidance for performing a mesoscale analysis53 (DEP, 1991),total annual emissions of CO, NO,PMio,PM2.5, CO2, and VOC were calculated using the most recent version of U.S. EPA's MOBILE emission model, MOBILE6.2. The mesoscale air quality study area is the same as the traffic study area analyzed for the 2005 and 2012 ESPRs. The vehicle miles traveled(VMT) for each roadway segment in the study area was calculated by multiplying the length of each segment by the average weekday daily Hanscom Field traffic volume on 53Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Guidelines for Performing Mesoscale Analysis oflndirect Sources,Division of Air Quality Control,May 1991. Air Quality the segment. These calculations were performed in an excel spreadsheet using emission rates predicted by the MOBILE6.2 model with Massachusetts specific inputs. Average 24-hour traffic volumes were based on peak AM and PM volumes assuming the peak volumes represents 10 percent of the daily traffic. The average weekday daily traffic volumes,which are typically greater than the average daily volumes for an entire week including weekends,were multiplied by 365 to conservatively estimate the annual emissions for the study area. The air pollutant emissions for each roadway segment were calculated by multiplying the VMT on each segment by the MOBILE6.2 predicted pollutant specific emission factor in grams per mile. The MOBILE6.2 model was run using inputs that were provided by the MassDEP. These emission factors were calculated for the time of year of concern for each pollutant(winter-CO and PMio/PM2.5, summer- VOC,NOX, CO2)using an average daily speed for each roadway link of 25 to 40 mph. For this analysis, PMio and PM2.5 emissions are composed of organics, sulfates, and lead salts from tailpipe,brake wear, and tire wear. The results of the mesoscale analysis are presented in Table 8-7 and show that emissions from Hanscom Field traffic for 2012 declined significantly for all pollutants, compared to 1985, 1995, 2000, and 2005 except emissions of CO2which are higher than those calculated for 2005. The general decline in motor vehicle emissions with time is a result of the upgrading of the fleet mix through the replacement of older vehicles with new cleaner vehicles that must meet more-strict emission standards. The traffic generated by Hanscom Field increased between 2005 and 2012. Generally the reduction in motor vehicle emission rates more than compensates for the increase in traffic,resulting in net emission decreases.For CO2, the MOBILE6.2 reductions in emission rates are smaller and do not fully offset the higher traffic volumes, resulting in a slight emissions increase compared to 2005. 7aIt)IIIo 8-7 IlEirnliissbiris Iiroimn IlIlairi�:coimn III'-'liiold ollhidib.jll4r'7iratllit (1,000s, of 11kkg/yr) 1985' 49.2 5.1 5.0 0.4 0.4 - 1995' 30.3 3.9 2.9 0.6 0.6 - 20002 60.8 6.9 3.0 0.21 0.16 1,495.5 2005 36.1 4.1 1.6 0.14 0.10 1,312.3 2012 19.05 2.18 0.86 0.10 0.06 1,555.4 Percent Change: 1985 to 2005 -27% -20% -68% -65% -75% - Percent Change: 1995 to 2005 +19% +5% -45% -77% -83% - Percent Change:2000 to 2005 -41% -41% -47% -33% -38% -12% Percent Change:2012 to 2005 -47.2% -46.8% -46.3% -28.6% -40.0 +18.5% Notes: 1. Data were not available to update the 1985 and 1995 emissions to MOBILE6.2 or to calculate CO2 emissions for those years. 2.The 2000 Emissions were revised from the 2000 ESPR using the MOBILE6.2 model with MassDEP model inputs. 8.4.9 ""I`c IaII Year 20,112 1p irnre ills it ° n The combined pollutant emissions from both aircraft operations and groundside motor vehicle travel at Hanscom Field are shown in Table 8-8 for each of the six pollutants in 1985, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2012. Table 8-8 shows that the sum of emissions for aircraft operations and motor vehicle traffic for NOx, CO, VOC,PMio,PM2.5 and CO2 have decreased between 2005 and 2012. 8.4.110 AnaIly lil of @"tjttjire Scenaia°liio�s As discussed earlier in this chapter,the future air quality effects of Hanscom Field are predicted based on an emissions burden analysis of airside operations and groundside motor vehicle traffic for the 2020 and i-2 0 Air Quality 2030 future planning scenarios. The 2012 ESPR planning scenarios are used to evaluate the potential cumulative environmental effects that could occur if Hanscom Field reaches the airport activity levels that are described in Chapter 3,Airport Activity Levels. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios represent estimates of what could occur(not what will occur)in the future using certain planning assumptions and are not necessarily recommended outcomes. The future service scenarios are consistent with Massport's 1980 Regulations for Hanscom Field,which prohibit scheduled commercial passenger services with aircraft having more than 60 seats. at)t)lo 8-8 ' o4 it IlEirndiissbiris at III"1airi�:coimn II1'-'liiold (1,000s, of IIkkg/yir) co Aircraft 698.8 409.2 591.2 483.6 1,670 1,123 Ground Vehicles 49.2 30.3 60.8 36.1 36.1 19.05 Total 748.0 439.5 652.0 519.7 1,706.1 1,142.1 -31% +18% -20% -33.1% NOx Aircraft 14.2 14.9 25.4 28.0 34.1 31.9 Ground Vehicles 5.1 3.9 6.9 4.1 4.1 2.18 Total 19.3 18.8 32.3 32.1 38.2 34.1 +66% +71% -1% -10.7% VOC Aircraft 38.3 27.9 39.4 58.1 112.7 80.4 Ground Vehicles 5.0 2.9 3.0 1.6 1.6 0.86 Total 43.3 30.8 42.4 59.7 114.3 81.3 +38% +94% +41% -28.9% PM10 Aircraft 2.6 2.3 2.3 3.0 13.5 9.9 Ground Vehicles 0.4 0.6 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.10 Total 3.0 2.9 2.51 3.14 13.6 10.0 +5% +8% +25% -26.5% PM2.5 Aircraft 2.6 2.3 2.3 3.0 13.5 9.9 Ground Vehicles 0.4 0.6 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.06 Total 3.0 2.9 2.46 3.10 13.6 9.96 +3% +7% +26% -27% CO2 Aircraft 7,280.6 6,727.8 10,108.1 11,806.6 19,233 16,356 Ground Vehicles - - 1,495.6 1,312.3 1,312.3 1,555.4 Total - - 11,603.6 13,118.9 20,545 17,911 - - +13% -12.8% Note: 1. Data to calculate the ground vehicle CO2 emissions for 1985 and 1995 were not were available;therefore,total CO2 emissions for these years are not available for comparison with later years 2. Percent total based on EDMS 5.1.4.1 to estimate aircraft emissions for 2005 and 2012. Since all future scenarios assume more aircraft operations,increases from current emission levels for the airport are expected. However,it should be noted that there are limitations in predicting future emissions beyond 20 years from the baseline for aircraft operations using EDMS. The EDMS model is constantly reviewed and updated to include new aircraft and engine types along with the latest emission factors from the International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) engine exhaust emission data bank. It does not incorporate future year technology changes such as the use of alternative fuels,more efficient engines or future regulatory emissions standards. Therefore, the predicted 2020 and 2030 year emission levels represent a conservative estimate of the future conditions. Estimated emission level increases and their associated impacts on air quality under the future scenarios are described below. Fzr m ,, '�f Air Quality 8w ."I"I @"tjttjire Aliiircira ft Eirnllssllons The estimation of future aircraft emissions followed the methodology outlined earlier in this chapter. For comparative purposes, Table 8-9 shows the annual number of operations and passengers for 2012 and the future planning scenarios. Tables containing the aircraft data used for the emissions calculations can be found in Appendix E. at)t)lo 8-9 Xirciraft Olpeiratbiris at IlHairi�:coimn II1'-1i6kl for 2012 airid II1'-'oirocast Sceiriairlbs 2005 169,955 17,457 2012 167,845 8,609 2020 170,244 20,280 2030 195,892 35,490 Percent Change: 2012 to 2020 +1.7% +135% 2020 to 2030 +15.0% +75% 1.The nighttime operations presented in the 2012 ESPR differ slightly from those published in the Hanscom Field Annual Noise Report. This discrepancy is due to the difference in the timing of the preparation for the two reports. Each report used the best available data at the time of the analysis for that report. The difference of approximately 0.3 daily nighttime operations or 0.07%of all daily operations would change computed noise levels by less than 0.1 dB,which is imperceptible and would not change the analysis presented. Table 8-10 summarizes the annual aircraft emissions for CO,NO,PMio,PM2.5, CO2, and VOC, for the 2020 and 2030 future planning scenarios, and compares these emissions to year 2012. In general, aircraft emissions forecasted for each of the future scenarios would be higher than those for the year 2012 based on a predicted growth in operations. The exception is emissions of CO for 2020 which show a slight decrease compared to 2012. The largest increases in aircraft emissions are predicted for NO,VOC and CO2,with the smallest increases predicted for CO,PMio and PM2.5. As expected, emissions of all six pollutants, except 2020 CO emissions, for the two future planning scenarios would be higher than the emissions calculated for the year 2012. These emission changes would occur for two reasons: (1)increase in the total number of aircraft operations and the number of passengers carried, and(2) changes in the aircraft fleet mix. The air pollutant emission rates for each aircraft/engine combination are assumed not to change with time. The percent decrease in CO for 2020 is approximately 2.2 percent while the percent increase in 2030 is approximately 13.2 percent. The percent increase in emissions from 2020 to 2030 is similar to the percent increase in the number of operations during the same time. The emissions changes for all pollutants would result from changes in the mix of the aircraft for each scenario. The emissions of each pollutant would vary with the type of aircraft and by the mode and time of operation of the aircraft during the LTO cycle. Tat)to 8-10 IlEirndlkssbiris tiroimn Xirciraft Olpeiratbiris at IlHairi�:coimn III'-1i6kl for 2012 airid III'-'oirocast Sceiriairlbs (1,000s, of IIktl/yir) 2005 1,670 34.1 112.7 13.5 13.5 19,233 2012 1,123 31.9 80.4 9.9 9.9 16,356 2020 1,096 41.1 105.4 10.1 10.1 20,666 2030 1,262 53.2 134.3 11.8 11.8 26,519 Note:All calculations generated using EDMS v5.1.4.1. 12 Air Quality Even under the highest emissions scenario (2030 future year), the total Hanscom Field aircraft emissions would still be a very small percentage of total Middlesex County emissions(as a percent of Massachusetts emissions for CO2) (see Table 8-6) and lower than historic levels. IN CO =0.89 percent IN NOX =0.23 percent IN VOC =0.50 percent IN PMio =0.07 percent IN PM2.5=0.25 percent IN CO2 =0.43 percent 8.4w1I @"utuire VettictIlair IEirn lssllons A mesoscale air quality emissions analysis was done for Hanscom Field motor vehicle traffic for the same future planning scenarios used to estimate aircraft emissions. The study area and methodology for calculating groundside vehicular emissions is the same as described earlier for 2012. Table 8-11 summarizes the annual emissions from groundside vehicular traffic for CO,NO,PMio,PM2.5, CO2, and VOC for the future growth scenarios. Tables showing the data used to calculate the motor vehicle emissions are included in Appendix E. Emissions for 2020 are estimated to decrease for all pollutants when compared to 2012 except CO and CO2 which are estimated to increase. The predicted increases in motor vehicle emissions reflect projected increases in Hanscom Field-related traffic associated with the higher number of aircraft passengers for the future scenarios listed in Table 8-9. The motor vehicle emission rates predicted with the MOBILE6.2 model for all pollutants except CO2 are predicted to decrease between 2012 and 2030 with the largest decrease predicted for NOX emissions. A slight increase in motor vehicle CO2 emission rates is predicted over this period. Even though vehicle emission rates are predicted to decrease, the additional traffic volumes predicted in 2020 and 2030 is greater than the lower emissions generated by MOBILE6.2 for each year and pollutant which is attributing to the predicted increases. The smallest percent increase in motor vehicle emissions would occur for CO, and the largest percent increase would occur for CO2. The percent increases in VOC,PMio, and PM2.5 emissions from motor vehicles are predicted to be between those for CO and CO2. 7aIt)IIIo 8-11 IlEirndiksfs: iiouris tiroimn IlIlairi�:coimn III'-'liiollkl Velidt.jl4r'Tiraffic for 2012 airid III'-'oirocast Sceiriairibs (1 y1100s of 11k 11yir) 2005 36.1 4.1 1.6 0.14 0.10 1,312,3 2012 19.05 2.18 0.86 0.10 0.06 1,555.0 2020 20.12 0.92 0.69 0.10 0.05 1,984.7 2030 34.29 0.98 1.05 0.16 0.07 3,335.7 As Hanscom Field generated traffic is only a small percent of the total traffic in the nine square mile traffic study area(e.g., approximately three percent of the total traffic in the year 2012),the increase in total area wide emissions associated with any future Hanscom Field scenario is quite small. For example, although Table 8-11 suggests CO emissions from Hanscom Field traffic could double over an 18-year period for the 2030 growth scenario, total CO emissions within the local traffic study area would increase only about three percent for this future scenario and still remain below historic levels. Air Quality 8.4.113 "1`e°IaII @"uttjire irnre ilssllons and iIir QtjaIlIty Concentrations The combined emissions from both aircraft operations and motor vehicle traffic at Hanscom Field are shown in Table 8-12 for the six parameters. Table 8-13 summarizes the predicted changes in total emissions per passenger between the two future scenarios and the year 2012. These data are the sum of the emissions calculated in the previous two sections. Table 8-12 shows that with the exception of CO in the 2020 scenario,total emissions will increase each year compared to 2012 emissions. Aircraft operations dominate the emission totals, and as one would expect, the highest emissions for both future planning years would occur for the 2030 scenario. The predicted increases in pollutant emissions and slight decreases in CO in total emissions for 2020 and 2030 are a result of the assumed changes in the fleet mix, the assumed increase in aircraft operations and passengers carried, and the assumed increase in associated motor vehicle traffic. Table 8-13 shows that the emissions per passenger for each air pollutant would decrease significantly for each of the two future planning scenarios compared to 2012. Emissions per passenger for each scenario were calculated by dividing the total emissions for each pollutant by the projected number of passengers carried for each future planning scenario. The largest decrease in emissions per passenger would occur for CO. Even under the highest emissions scenario (2030),the total future Hanscom Field aircraft and motor vehicle emissions would still be less than one percent of the total emissions for Middlesex County: IN CO =0.91 percent �IN NOx= 0.23 percent IN VOC= 0.51 percent at)t)le 8-12 ' o4 it IlEirndikssiiiouris at IlIlairi�:coimn III'-iii6kl for 2012 airid III'-'oirocast 1 ceiriairiibs (1,000s, of 11kg1yir) a CO Aircraft 1,123 1,096 1,262 Ground Vehicles 19.05 20.1 34.3 Total 1,142.1 1,116.1 1,296.3 NOX Aircraft 31.9 41.1 53.2 Ground Vehicles 2.18 0.92 0.98 Total 34.1 42.0 54.2 VOC Aircraft 80.4 105.4 134.3 Ground Vehicles 0.86 0.69 1.05 Total 81.3 106.1 135.4 PM10 Aircraft 9.9 10.1 11.8 Ground Vehicles 0.10 0.10 0.16 Total 10.0 10.2 12.0 PM2.5 Aircraft 9.9 10.1 11.8 Ground Vehicles 0.06 0.05 0.07 Total 9.96 10.2 11.9 CO2 Aircraft 16,356 20,666 26,519 Ground Vehicles 1,555.0 1,984.7 3,355.7 Total 17,911 22,650.1 29,874.7 12 4 . I.. Air Quality Tat)IIIe 8-13 l3eirceirit Cliairige liiiiri To4l Xir l)61 .Abiri IlEim6iifsfsbiris IIpeir l3asseirigeirat Ilairiscoirn I-iV�d for I-oirecast Sceiriairlbs Coirnpaired to 2012 IIL as6lirle 2020 -59% -48% -45% -57% -57% -46% 2030 -72% -61% -60% -71% -71% -60% IN PM10 =0.07 percent IN PM2.5 =0.25 percent IN CO2 =0.48 percent Maximum air quality concentrations in 2030 for CO,NO2, PMIO, and PM2.5 were estimated at the same ten community receptors surrounding the airport that were assessed in the 2005 ESPR: 1. Concord: closest residential area 2. Bedford: closest residential area 3. Lexington: closest residential area 4. Lincoln: closest residential area 5. Minute Man National Historical Park 6. Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 7. Concord Center 8. Bedford Center 9. Lexington Center I o. Lincoln Center The first six receptors were located at the closest downwind distance from the center of the airfield to residential or conservation land outside the Massport boundary in the respective towns. Since air pollutant concentrations due to Hanscom Field operations decrease with distance from the airfield, concentrations at any other sensitive receptor in one of the four adjoining towns will be less than those predicted for receptors one through four. The maximum concentrations calculated for the ten community locations for the year 2005 presented in the 2005 ESPR 54 were scaled with the emissions calculated for the 2012 ESPR to obtain year 2012 results. Scaling is appropriate given that modeling parameters (i.e. source and receptor locations)have not changed from the 2005 ESPR and only the emission rate for each pollutant is changing. The scaling was achieved by multiplying the maximum predicted concentration for each air pollutant and averaging the period for the year 2005 in the 2005 ESPR by a scaling ratio. The total emissions predicted in this 2012 ESPR for the scenario with the largest total emissions (i.e., the 2030 Growth scenario)was divided by the 2005 total emissions presented in the 2005 ESPR to create the scaling ratio. After adding in revised background concentrations (see Table 8-3), the maximum predicted concentration for each air pollutant for the 2030 growth scenario was obtained(see Table 8-14). The concentration levels given in Table 8-14 are conservative since they are derived from the SCREEN3 dispersion modeling originally presented in the 1995 GEIR that assumes all airborne emissions up to 3,000 feet are simulated as being released at ground level(see 1995 GEIR,p. 2-152). Actual air concentrations from Hanscom Field operations will be less than these estimates.Note that the majority of the total predicted concentrations in Table 8-14 come from the conservative background levels assumed 14 Massachusetts Port Authority, 2000L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report,EOEA 5484/8696,July 2002. EFT MI.. 2 5 Air Quality in the analysis (see Table 8'3),not Hanscom Field operations. Tboo maximum concentrations for the 2030 planning scenario will be less than those listed in Table 8'14if activity levels reach those of the future scenarios. Tat)Ue 8-14, Pmed�tted Mat�mmxmm Xir Coiriceiritmatbiris, �iiri 2020 atTeiri Commmmxrflty Ileceptoirs, (p0/mm3) from Hanscom - Guideline (pg/,3) 1.Air concentrations are derived from the SCREEN3 dispersion modeling from Hanscom Field operations that assumes all airborne emissions up to 3,000 feet are simulated as being released at ground level.Actual air concentrations will be less than these estimates because emissions above ground level will have a significantly reduced impact on ground-level 2. Background levels measured at conservative urban location (Kenmore Square, Boston),see Table 8-3 3.The 188 ug/m3 represents the EPA 1-hour NAAQS,while the 320 ug/m3 represents the MassIDEP 1-hour NO2 Policy The estimated maximum concentrations predicted for 2030 would be in compliance with the NAAQS and the MassDEP I-hour NO2Policy Guideline. Concentration levels for the 2020 future growth scenario would be lower because emissions for this case are lower. Thus, it can be concluded that the air pollutant emissions shown in this 2012 ESPR for aircraft and motor vehicles at Hanscom Field for all future planning scenarios would not have on odvomo impact on local air quality in Bedford, Lexington, Concord, and Lincoln. Aircraft emissions currently comprise less than one percent of regional air emissions from all sources within Middlesex County and that will remain so in the future operating 000nodoo. Residents in Bedford near Runway 29 have expressed concerns about particulate deposition.Visible ponioloo that settle from the air onto surfaces like outdoor lawn furniture or cars originate from many other sources aside from Hanscom operations in the vicinity of Hanscom Field. These sources include motor vehicles on Route 128/1-95 and local roads, aircraft, and fuel oil combustion used to heat homes and businesses. Emissions from motor vehicles on Route 128/1-95, especially diesel trucks, are the largest nearby source of airborne particulate matter and are significantly greater than particulate emissions from 1{on000nn. �-2 6 Air Quality Air Quality monitoring performed on four sides of Hanscom Field in 1996 did not reveal any effect on local air quality from the airfield's operations,but did suggest that local air quality is affected by traffic on nearby Route 128/I-95 (see 1995 GEIR,p.2-151). Conservative air concentration estimates of 24-hour PM10 levels at the homes near the end of Runway 29 reveal relatively low levels of particulate matter from aircraft operations equal to only one to five percent of the NAAQS for the 2030 planning scenario. 8.5 Potential Einviroinimentally Beneficial Measures Maximum air quality concentrations for all future planning scenarios will comply with the NAAQS. Still, Massport intends to continue implementing beneficial measures to reduce on-site emissions from all sources. These are discussed below for fuel handling, ground service equipment,building heating/cooling, aviation support, airside operations, and the clean fuel vehicle program. w w1I @"ueII �iandIllliIng I irnre ilssil °n OonIoa°oIIIs Massport does not own or operate fuel distribution facilities at Hanscom Field,but does fuel its vehicles on-site. A survey of fixed based operators(FBOs) at Hanscom Field found that vapor recovery is being used on all fuel storage tanks subject to MassDEP regulation and that Stage II vapor controls are used at all gasoline-dispensing facilities. Massachusetts has recently proposed an upgrade to Stage I vapor recovery systems that meets the California Air Resource Board requirements for Stage I Enhanced Vapor Recovery(CARB EVR) as well as systems for monitoring vapor leaks. Hanscom will adhere to the future MassDEP regulations in fuel handling emissions when promulgated. 5. @-°ueII Oe nveia;sliie°n of Ground SeiaVlce iqUillpirre ervt and II as Ilea°in Gua°ound lild Itil!&lIe An inventory of current ground service equipment(GSE) and Massport groundside fleet vehicles at Hanscom Field is provided in Table 8-15. At present, eight percent of the GSE and fleet vehicles at Hanscom Field are alternatively fueled, either by electricity or propane,which is a slight decrease compared to 2005 ESPR of eleven percent,but an increase from the three percent level reported in the 2000 ESPR. Air Quality Tat)IIIe 8-15 Girmvirid Seirvte IIEq.jliilpirnourit airid I-leet Velidides Iby I-Ij6 'Tyl�m at IIIlairiscoimn I-iV�d F 11 q Ini,1111 :11 h Massport Fleet CarsNans/SUVs/Pick-up Trucks 8 3 Golf Carts 4 Massport Ground Service Equipment Snowplow Trucks/Snowblowers/Sweepers 1 16 Large Field Tractors 2 2 Front-end Loaders 3 Forklifts 1 Small Tractors/Mowers/Bobcat 1 FBO: Signature Cars/Vans/Pickup Trucks 12 Snowplows/Deicing Trucks 3 Fuel Tanker Trucks 7 Belt Loader/Tugs/Air Stairs 5 5 2 Golf Carts 2 Ground Power Units 3 FBO: Jet Aviation Cars/Vans/Pickup Trucks 5 Tugs/Belt Loaders/Air Stairs 8 3 6 Deicing Trucks 2 1 Fuel Tanker Trucks 6 Golf Carts Ground Power Units 2 6 Forklifts 1 Small TenantS2 CarsNans/SUVs 36 2 Tugs 1 6 Heavy Equipment-Trucks/Loaders/Ambulances 1 26 Forklifts 1 Tota13 84 93 2 14 Notes: 1.As part of EPA regulations, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel for on-road diesel vehicles was phased-in starting in 2006. 2.Tenant vehicles not specifically addressed as part of the Jet Aviation or Signature Flight support fleet. 3.Electric and propane represent 8.3 percent of total Ground Service Equipment and fleet vehicles(16 of 192). Source:Massport. Ground service and landside conversions to alternative fuels were considered and discussed in the 2005 ESPR. Due to the limited amount of GSE in operation at Hanscom Field, this category is not a significant source of air pollution. The majority of GSE operations with Massport-owned equipment involve airport maintenance (e.g. snow plowing, snow blowing and runway sweeping)with large vehicles that, given their power needs, are not presently candidates for conversion to alternate fuels.Fleet vehicles are more likely candidates for the use of alternative fuels as discussed in Section 8.5.5 below along with electric ground support equipment(GSE) and gate electrification. Alternative fuels include electric,hybrid, biodiesel,propane, and natural gas. As cited above, Massport has made progress in this area and will consider additional Alternative Fueled Vehicles (AFVs),including electric and hybrid for new vehicle purchases in the future. There are no electric recharging stations at Hanscom;however, tenants have electric-only vehicles in their fleet that require I I 0/220v wall plug connections. GSE operations by the tenants involve a mix of large and small equipment, some of which are electric-powered. While power needs for some of this equipment(e.g. the snow plows, tanker fuel trucks)preclude their use of alternative fuels, Massport will encourage tenants to consider alternatively fueled GSE,where appropriate,when making purchases of new equipment. -2 8 Fzr MI.. Air Quality w w 1BUiiIlldliing �ieating and Ooc,IllliIng Massport does not operate a central energy plant for facilities at Hanscom Field. Buildings that use natural gas for space heating are the Civil Air Terminal(15), Hangars 10, 11, 11A, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 21. Buildings that use propane for space heating are Hangars 1 (Floor heat), 2, 3,the Customs Trailer (30) and the Sand Storage Building (9A). The offices of Hangar 1,the two Maintenance Garages (7 and 20) and Hangar 12A use 92 oil for space heating. Hangar 24 is currently under redevelopment by Rectrix Aviation as a LEED Silver facility,which will utilize clean burning natural gas. Building 22, the Jet Aviation vehicle maintenance shop,uses a recycled oil-fired burner for space heating. The office portions of Massport buildings use electricity for air conditioning. In summary, Massport buildings at Hanscom Field only use clean fuels for heating,namely natural gas,propane, and 92 oil. Building heating and cooling emissions are already minimized through the exclusive use of clean fuels. A small amount of waste oil is used in the winter months at the vehicle maintenance shop space heater. The burning of recycled waste oil is conducted consistent with the MassDEP policy for"Safe Handling of Waste Oil in Space Heaters"ss In October of 2011, Hanscom installed 222 PV solar panels mounted on the roof and side of the Civil Air Terminal building. The panels are located on the south facing side of the building roof including a series of wall mounted panels on the facade of the building. The system is expected to produce over 52,000 kWh of electricity per year or roughly 10 percent of the buildings annual electricity consumption. 5.4 Otheir A lilatie°n Stjj pIIpe°in I irnre ills it °n @Redtj tie°n On-board Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) and Ground Power Units (GPUs)provide power for avionics electricity,heat and air conditioning to an aircraft when its engines are off.Pilots of small jets run their APU(or a GPU)to heat or cool the aircraft while they wait for passengers. These aircraft operate primarily through the two FBOs at Hanscom Field: Signature and Jet Aviation. A third FBO, Rectrix is scheduled to commence operation in early 2014. APUs and GPUs produce relatively small amounts of air pollutant emissions in comparison to aircraft engines. While Massport neither owns nor directly controls the operation of these small power units,the Authority recognizes the air quality benefit of minimizing APU/GPU operations. In the 2000 and 2005 ESPR, Massport examined airside operations and concluded that Hanscom Field already operates without any appreciable taxiway delays that could produce excess emissions and this situation would not change even for a future planning scenario. Emissions from aircraft are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and aircraft operations are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of FAA controllers. One area where a few aircraft are briefly delayed on some summer days is Golf North Taxiway at Runway 23. In the 2005 ESPR, Massport identified a potential project to install a paved aircraft holding area at the approach end of Runway 23 to reduce these minor delays. This project has not commenced construction; however, Massport is still planning to include this in a future construction project. 85.5 Qlean @"u dll Vetilldle "ua°ogirairren Massport has made progress in bringing AFVs into its fleet at Hanscom Field. At present,Massport owns fifteen fleet vehicles at Hanscom Field, four of which are electric.Massport will continue to consider AFVs for any new vehicle purchase in the future. Also, since Massachusetts has adopted the California ssbutt v llyv_W rv_Irn_ a) /g v/a aTy�!a 11 rv__l m v a .tutu.tvQ O. EFT I.. ��,,2 Air Quality Low Emission Vehicle program, any new conventional-fueled vehicle added to the Hanscom fleet in the future will have very low emissions and will automatically comply with the low emission goals of the federal Clean Fuel Fleet Program(40 CFR Part 88). 85.6 IL ad I irnre it s liio ns With the strengthening of the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard(NAAQS)by EPA in October of 2008,many communities living near general aviation (GA) airports have become concerned about lead and emissions from GA aircraft using aviation gasoline (avgas). Typical avgas grade fuel used at Hanscom is of the 100 low lead(100 LL)type. MOLL is the only fuel in the US that continues to contain lead. Unlike automobiles,many older GA aircraft cannot operate using lead-free fuel and the US GA fleet contains many such aircraft. Many of the GA airports, like Hanscom Field,use leaded aviation gasoline with limited amount of jet fuel service operations compared to larger commercial airports. Aviation gasoline is primarily used in GA aircraft with piston engines used for instructional flying, air taxi activities, and personal transportation. Lead is not used in commercial fuel such as jet fuel, the fuel utilized by most commercial aircraft. A fuel additive, tetraethyl lead(TEL)is added to piston engine aircraft to help boost avgas fuel octane,prevent knocks, and prevent valve seat recession. The resultant engine emissions from burning fuel with TEL include lead. Based on 2013 operations at Hanscom(as of October 2013), there are a total 246 reciprocating (piston) engines requiring 100 LL fuel or 69 percent of the current based aircraft count56. It is expected for future year operations this percentage to gradually increase,however lead emissions from the airport are expected to decline once the FAA introduces engine standards and an alternative fuel replacement. 5„6.1 StIa us mad ]Lechat I AAQ EPA strengthened the lead NAAQS in 2008 from 1.5 ug/m3 to 0.15 ug/m3 (measured over a rolling 3- month average), finding that serious health effects occur at much lower levels in the blood stream than previously identified. Lead emissions from GA aircraft are primarily emitted into the air through aviation exhaust using avgas 100 LL, the most commonly used aviation fuel, and can enter the body through inhalation or ingested via plants,water or soil. Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of lead and it can affect their IQ, learning,memory and behavior. In March of 2012, the environmental group Friends of the Earth(FOE) filed a lawsuit against the EPA stating that EPA has unreasonably delayed its response to FOE's 2006 petition asking the agency to make an endangerment finding and propose standards for lead emissions of aircraft. Since the FOE 2006 petition, the EPA has promulgated new lead standards (see above) and has also mandated lead monitoring at 15 selected airports. Although initially considered by the EPA, Hanscom Field was not included in the list.57 Nantucket Memorial Airport is the closest airport to Hanscom on the EPA list with an estimated lead emission level of 0.76 tons per year based on the 2008 National Emissions Inventory. For comparison,lead emissions at Hanscom were estimated at 0.47 tons per year(a reduction of 38 percent compared to Nantucket)based on the 2008 emission inventory. As discussed earlier,EPA and MassDEP commenced a year-long lead monitoring program at Nantucket in February of 2012. To date,the highest 56 Information provided by Massport. 571 t,12//yv_Irv_ rv_a_iv_ _Y_a2��/apt_ a'__/rna r;nua� Q/-tax atxa�rn/ na na�__w,;la__ xui:_va_ ut_ na�rn.,_tQ �!_ v�:.0;. 8i 30 Air Quality reported 3-month lead concentration is 0.0209 ug/m3 and the highest 24-hour concentration is 0.04 ug/m3 well below the new standard of 0.15 ug/m3. The EPA has summarized and made available the partial results of the monitoring data from 17 airports58. It is anticipated that a full year of data should be available from all airports by May of 2014. Massport will update this section in the next ESPR to include the final results of the study. As a result of the partial findings, the FAA on June 19, 2013 issued interim guidance on mitigating public risks from lead emissions associated with avgas59. The guidance is provided for FAA identified airports of concern based on a review of the EPA partial monitoring results and for any operator concerned about lead emissions. Based on the guidance, the FAA is working with airport operators to reduce lead emissions in the short-term by: IN Promoting the use of currently available reduced lead and unleaded fuel formulations; IN Identifying and considering operational changes at the airport that could mitigate lead exposure; IN Consider implementation of vapor controls for fuel storage and dispensing stations; IN Shifting orientation of run up activities for areas where the public could be exposed to propeller wash. Move these operations to non-public locations where emissions can be better contained or minimize public exposure; IN Minimize the public outdoor exposure to lead emissions by moving fences to increase the distance from run-up areas and public observation area, and/or post signs to discourage loitering near areas where potential to exposure to lead from piston engine emissions could occur. Hanscom is not identified as an airport of concern based on the FAA preliminary monitoring studies. In the long-term, the FAA is working with the aviation industry and EPA to develop an unleaded fuel replacement by 2018 as part of the transition from leaded avgas60 5.6 1111A, sand FAA Net Steps In addition to FAA's efforts toward developing an alternative fuel replacement by 2018,the EPA is conducting an analysis,including modeling and monitoring to evaluate whether lead emissions from avgas could cause or contribute to air pollution which could endanger the public health and welfare. Any endangerment finding would be subject to public notice and comment, and final determination is not expected until 2015. If EPA makes an endangerment finding, the agency would establish standards for lead emissions from piston engine aircraft. FAA ultimately would develop regulations to ensure compliance with the standards and would be required to establish fuel standards to control lead emissions. Massport will provide an update in the next ESPR. „t'ro, t ylda dam as a°ttw AiraaJbiemat ]Lechat Co nee ntratiion There are no ambient lead monitors at or near Hanscom Field;however,MassDEP does operate monitors that measure lead in Boston and Nantucket Airport. A review of lead monitoring data from the Harrison Avenue monitor in Boston shows maximum value of 0.014 ug/m3 which is well below the new lead standard. In addition, maximum quarterly measured values of 0.02 ug/m3 at Nantucket are also well 511utt v//W rv_ a'__/rna r;nu a Q/ x atxa r_n/ -YO_G_ -Y vQ O s91 tt v//W_rv_ V/ xum_va u,t % rn xqa rnt n r_nt j/ v_a) xa:Ty�! txa rn�-f tn,a ICuurn -YG_ 601 tt 2v//Ww Y 0 taa-rn__ a� ate__/tuu - tn_ csrntY/a_a� na nttt-d_ uuttn rnt_/tnt;di t/Au a__ 11'�� 11']I'_ _, /_G _ v_df. Air Quality below the lead standard of 0.15 ug/m3. As discussed earlier, the 2008 National Emissions Inventory showed that lead emissions at Hanscom were 37 percent lower than Nantucket and was not identified by EPA as an airport that required mandatory lead monitoring. Future lead emissions may rise with increased operations at Hanscom but will eventually decline once the FAA introduces engine standards and an alternative fuel replacement. EPA and FAA are still reviewing the results of the airport monitoring study and Massport will provide an update in the next ESPR. ,,5.6A"auirniranirvgut ]Leaa Studies The EPA and the California South Coast Air Quality Management District(SQAQMD)have conducted lead studies at Santa Monica and Van Nuys airports. These studies were reviewed and summarized to document the state of investigations and findings of public health. The first study was conducted by EPA in 2010 near the Santa Monica airport entitled"Development and Evaluation of an Air Quality Modeling Approach for Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft Operating on Leaded Aviation Gasoline ,61. This study included both monitoring and modeling of lead emissions and showed that off property receptor(i.e.beyond the fence line) concentrations were below the lead NAAQS. The SCAQMD conducted a study entitled"General Aviation Airport Air Monitoring Study',62 for the Santa Monica and Van Nuys airports. The results of the study show that lead concentrations were also below the NAAQS at sites beyond the fence line at both airports. As stated earlier, as part of the Proposed Revision to the Lead Ambient Monitoring Requirements, EPA is conducting lead measurements at 17 selected airports including Nantucket. The EPA has summarized and made available the partial results of the monitoring data from the 17 airports and a full year of data should be available from all airports by May of 2014 and will be reported in the next ESPR. �,.6,5 S aatus of]Lei ad Fraga°ANI: as in the U As stated earlier, FAA is committed to developing a replacement fuel for leaded aviation gasoline by 2018. On June 10, 2013, FAA issued a request for candidate fuel producers to submit alternative fuel formulations to be evaluated as potential replacement to 100LL. This announcement is a formal request by FAA to sample candidate fuels for testing to evaluate potential fuel alternatives in order to select the best unleaded fuel with the least impact on the GA fleet. Currently there is no unleaded fuel replacement that meets the needs of the entire GA fleet. There has been some progress in developing alternatives to 100 LL,however, the alternative fuels developed to date are either still being tested or only available for specific engine types. Examples of some of the new unleaded fuel grades currently being reviewed are: IN 93UL-Airworthy AutoGas, LLC has developed an ethanol free, 93 octane premium unleaded fuel. It has been tested on the Piper Archer 180 hp Lycoming engine airplane. The 93UL is not designed to replace 100LL,but rather an alternative to certain engines that do not require 100 LL. IN 94UL is the removal of the tetraethyl lead additive completely from 100 UL which results in 94 octane fuel or 94UL. Continental Motors is modifying their engines to run on 94 UL,however, not all engine manufacturers are on board with 94UL as a viable alternative fuel. Skeptics are concerned with performance and retrofit cost and prefer continued development of 100 octane replacement fuels. 61�utt v llyv_rv_ rv_a v _Ya y/rna rnu a aQ/_ x txa rn/ :-Yu G QQQ/_Lv_Q�_V' 6z1utt v llrv_w rv_ �(ir d_Yov/1,.jo/ �D ]I' ova ut_/�U 11' m va ut_t_vQ O, i ,r Air Quality IN 100SF Swift Fuels, LLC along with Purdue University is developing an alternative to MOLL by fermenting cellulose into acetone to make fuel. The product is still in the development phase; however, the fuel is designed to replace MOLL for use in both high compression and low compression engines with only minor modifications. The product is currently being tested at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University. IN G100UL General Aviation Modification Inc. (GAMI)is developing an unleaded fuel replacement to known as G100 UL(unleaded)by blending existing refinery products with an additive to recover the octane level of low lead avgas. The product is currently being tested at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. The company goal is to have G100 UL be a drop in fuel replacement for 100LL. Two alternative fuels which have showed some promise in Europe are UL91 and 91/96UL. UL 91 is gaining some support in Europe,but its use is limited to engines approved to operate on automotive specific fuels. UL91 is not a replacement to 100LL,but is an alternative to automotive gasoline and is available in the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland. Wider support has centered around Swedish oil refiner, Hjelmco Oil. Hjelmco has developed avgas 91/96UL avgas which contains no lead and was approved for use by the European Aviation Safety Agency(EASA) in 2010 where the engine manufacturer has approved the use of the fuel. The company's website claims that 90 % of the entire piston powered General Aviation fleet of the world is certified to use Hjelmco AVGAS 91/96 UL63 Applications in the U.S. could be difficult since there is a large number of high performance aircraft that utilize the majority of MOLL avgas and could not operate on 91/96 UL without modifications. Canada is also looking into 100 LL avgas alternatives. On June 17, 2013,the National Research Council Canada(NRC) commenced efforts to assist in the development of and test potential 100 LL alternatives. Currently two lower lead octane certified fuels are available for use in Canada,however, they are not a viable alternative to 100 LL. 85.7 Ultiraflne airtlii Ulu t (tfl P) IIM tt it Ultrafine particles (UFP) are defined as particle sizes less than 0.1 microns in diameter. To date, there are no EPA or MassDEP air quality regulations that exist for UFP due to limited health studies to substantiate an air quality standard. For perspective, EPA and MassDEP currently have ambient standards for inhalable coarse particles and fine particles. Inhalable course particles are defined as particles smaller than 10 micron and larger than 2.5 microns in diameter(PM10) and are found near roadways and dusty industries64. Fine particles are particles that are 2.5 microns in diameter and smaller(PM2.5) and are directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries, and automobiles react in air.6s The primary sources of UFP are from the combustion process,manufacturing process, secondary atmospheric transformation, or occur naturally in the environment. For perspective, aircraft emissions are one of many potential sources of UFP sources in the region around Hanscom along with vehicle traffic energy generation, and manufacturing processes. However,in urban areas,particularly in proximity to major roads,motor vehicle exhaust is often identified as the major contributor to UFP concentrations. 63 buttm v llwvwrvwry bump 1 ;na a� a a� ;n/ v 1 _ 1_- xd°'M 13 3 95 64EPA butt v��//w vvvv_�� v / u/v u,t utia-rn/ 65EPAbuttv��//wvwvvv_�; v �Yg��/ u/vsuta �°. ut/a-rn/ Air Quality Diesel vehicles have been found to contribute substantially, sometimes in disproportion to their numbers in the vehicle fleet.66 There are relatively few reports published on the health effects of UFPs,however,it is generally understood that smaller particles which are inhaled into the lungs pose a greater health risk impact compared to larger particles. Therefore, there is growing need to gather more information on UFPs and their potential health effects. The Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA)recently released an Air Quality and Source Apportionment Study(June 18, 2013)which measured pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of LAX to assess potential airport-related contribution of emissions on the ambient air quality around the airport. Included in the study was measurement of number concentrations,used to estimate UFP emissions, to examine the chemical nature in jet exhaust and source contributions of UFP in the communities east of LAX. The study found higher concentrations east of the airport when compared to other locations in the South Coast air basin. In addition,the study found that small UFP particles were mainly attributed to sulfuric acid aerosol from jet exhaust,while the larger UFP particles appeared to be related to vehicle exhaust from local traffic. Future health impact studies from airport related sources will need to consider the UFP sizes and effects from jet and vehicle exhaust. In addition to the LAWA study, the Transportation Research Board under the Airports Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)has conducted or is in the process of conducting research in the UFP and particulate matter area. Relevant studies pertaining to particulate matter and aviation are ACRP Report 6 "Research Needs Associated with Particulates at Airports"and Report 9 "Summarizing and Interpreting Aircraft Gaseous and Particulate Emissions Data". Ongoing studies include Project 02-42 "Understanding Air Quality and Public Health Studies Related to Airports". The next ESPR will provide an update on these ongoing studies. 66 Understanding the Health Effects of Ambient Ultrafine Particles,Health Effects Institute,2013. tt u,//i_vuull� by tbu_00; a t .a u;fY/Y tOx v`t ) I.. Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources This chapter provides information about wetlands,wildlife and water resources. The information establishes year 2012 conditions by reporting data from various sources that include the 1998 Hanscom Field Wetlands Delineation Location Map and updates, the 2004-2008 and 2009-2013 Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan (VMP), the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program's (NHESP)current inventory of rare species, and reports to the National Wildlife Strikes Database. This section reports on the status of the VMP, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the Shawsheen River water quality monitoring program and the 2009 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit that includes nine Hanscom Field tenants. 9.1 Ctiainges Since 2005 Wetlands,wildlife and water resource areas at Hanscom Field are fundamentally unchanged from the 2005 ESPR. New wetland resource areas have been delineated in areas where new development projects have been planned and implemented. The NHESP has indicated that four species listed under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act have been found on Hanscom property including Blanding's and Wood Turtle,which have been identified since 2005. In 2004, Massport implemented the VMP to address the goals of aviation safety and natural resource management,which required some vegetation removal to remove obstructions to airspace. Since then, the VMP was updated in 2008 to maintain the goals of the first Five Year VMP. Massport is currently revising the VMP which is not required until 2016 due to the enactment of the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act of 2010. The concept plans for potential future development in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios presented in Chapter 4, Airport Planning,have the potential to affect wetland resources but not protected species habitat or vernal pools. Specifically,wetlands recently delineated in the Terminal Area as part of the Jet Aviation Hangar Project would be adjacent to a new access road between the Terminal access road and the West Ramp. Also,potential development projects (the Air and Space Museum, and a hotel) on either side of the Terminal Access road would be sited near wetlands. In addition, an access road from Hartwell Avenue to the East Ramp which was part of the 2005 ESPR and remains an option would likely intersect with the Riverfront Area associated with the Shawsheen River. In all cases, future development proposals would need to be reviewed for compliance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and its implementing regulations including compliance with the stormwater management regulations. Massport continues to implement its Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)Plan and maintains contracts with emergency response cleanup contractors to respond to Massport or tenant spill events. The "State of Hanscom"reports indicate that there has been one spill at Hanscom Field since 2005;however, Massport was not responsible for this spill. The spill was reported to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MassDEP) and appropriate measures were taken to protect the environment. During 2003 and 2004, Massport conducted a deicing study and monitoring effort at Hanscom Field. That study showed that neither current nor future scenario deicing efforts at Hanscom Fzr I.. 9,1 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources will adversely affect the water supply for Bedford, Burlington or any other nearby communities.Hanscom does not use more than 100,000 gallons of deicing fluid on an average annual basis, and is therefore not subject to benchmark monitoring that is typically required as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit(see Runway Deicing section for more details). Since future scenario deicing efforts are not expected to change, the conclusion of no adverse outcomes remains. 92 Year 2012 Conditions The following sections describe the existing Hanscom Field environment in terms of geographic and geologic characteristics,wetlands and surface water features,wildlife habitat,rare and endangered species, and groundwater. It also describes Massport's efforts to maintain and improve the quality of stormwater runoff from the site. In addition, an update on the environmental auditing programs, MassDEP-listed sites, and the Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB) environmental restoration program is provided. 3 (137eograptflc and " TMoIlogi Itiaract TMr°Ilstics A general discussion of the geographic and geologic characteristics is provided below. 9 3 1 1 Geogiraplliy airid ' olpogiraplliy Hanscom Field is situated in the Eastern Plateau Physiographic Region, a low-lying and well-dissected region of eastern Massachusetts.Primary drainage for this region is provided by the Merrimack,Parker, Rowley, Ipswich, Concord, Sudbury, Assabet, Charles and Neponset Rivers. The United States Geological Survey(USGS)maps the elevation of Hanscom Field ranging from a high of about 250 feet above mean sea level(AMSL)just west of the airfield to a low of approximately 118 feet AMSL east of the runways,with the majority of the study area below 150 feet AMSL. 9 3 1 2 Geolllogy airid 136illls Hanscom Field is underlain by a complex assortment of Pleistocene Epoch glacial and recent deposits that overlay Silurian and Ordovician Period igneous and metamorphic bedrock. Repeated advances and retreats of continental glaciers removed the pre-glacial deposits, shaped the bedrock, and deposited unconsolidated material in the form of glacial till and outwash deposits. Following retreat of the last glacier approximately 13,000 years ago,peat was deposited in wetland areas, and fill material was added during the development of the airfield in the last century. Native soils within the perimeters of Hanscom Field have been disrupted by construction and associated earth-moving activities. The Soil Conservation Service has classified most of the soils on the airfield as "made land". The existing soils are generally a mixture of native soils, and their physical and chemical properties resemble the undisturbed soils. A Wetlands The following section describes the current status of the state and federally-protected wetland resource areas at Hanscom Field in the towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. Descriptions of wetland resource types and the criteria for their identification follow. Descriptions of the individual Hanscom Field wetland area's vegetation, soils, and hydrology are presented in Table 9-1. Wetland areas 92 . :m� Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources are depicted in Figure 9-1. This information was derived from a review of existing documents including the 2005 ESPR, wetland delineations performed for the 2004-2008 Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan, and wetland delineations performed in 2010 and 2012 in association with onsite activities. aIiAe 9-1 IIDe�:cirliilptbiri of Weflairid IlResou.1irµces, 2002-2006 Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan,2013 Jet Aviation Draft Environmental Assessment IIVo b,��•I � ar This wetland complex is comprised of forested and BVW, Bank, PFO1, PSS, scrub/shrub wetland types with several channelized 1-1 LUWB, R3 Saco drainage swales. Dominant species include red maple, Riverfront trembling aspen,glossy buckthorn, highbush blueberry,silky dogwood,speckled alder,and cinnamon fern. This wetland complex is primarily a red maple swamp with PFO1, PSS1, Scarboro, scrub/shrub and emergent portions. Dominant vegetation 1-2 BVW, Bank R4, PEM Freetown includes red maple, highbush blueberry,glossy buckthorn, tussock sedge,soft rush,and Sphagnum. Beaver activity has flooded a portion of this wetland. This scrub/shrub wetland wraps around the end of Runway 1-3 Non- PSS1 Udorthents- 23. It is disturbed, isolated,and presumed to be non- Jurisdictional Sandy jurisdictional under the Massachusetts WPA.The dominant shrubs in the wetland are speckled alder and elderberry. PFO1, PSS1, Scarboro, Wetland 1-4 is a detention basin that borders on a larger red 1-4 BVW, Bank PEM1 Udorthents- maple swamp. Sandy 1-5 Non- PSS1 Udorthents- This wetland is a relatively small isolated depression within Jurisdictional Sandy a mowed area. It is not a state jurisdictional area. Freetown, This wetland complex is associated with Elm Brook. It BVW, Bank, PFO1, PSS1, contains forested,scrub/shrub and emergent wetland types. 2-1 LUWB, PEM1, R3, Wareham, Dominant species include red maple, highbush blueberry, Riverfront R4, Sca glossy buckthorn, northern arrowwood,woolgrass,tussock Swansea sedge,soft rush,and Sphagnum. 2 2 Non- PSS1, PEM1 Udorthents- Not a state-jurisdictional wetland area. Jurisdictional Sandy This is an isolated non-jurisdictional wetland area with 2 3 Non- PUB3 Deerfield limited wetland vegetation.This area was previously Jurisdictional identified in the 1995 GEIR and 2000 ESPR as a possible vernal pool. This wetland area is composed of several isolated wetlands apparently formed within depressions created by past earth Certified PSS1, PUB Windsor, moving activities.They are scrub/shrub and emergent 2-4 Vernal Pools PEM1 Deerfield wetlands dominated by willow,silky dogwood, purple Ioosestrife,and sensitive fern.According the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas 13th edition,this area contains two certified vernal pools. This isolated wetland area is also apparently formed in a 2 5 Certified PSS1 Deerfield man-made depression and contains purple Ioosestrife and Vernal Pool Sphagnum.According the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas,this area has been certified as a vernal pool. This isolated wetland has possibly formed in a manmade Non- depression in a disturbed area. It is a forested and 2-6 Jurisdictional PSS1 Deerfield scrub/shrub wetland type dominated by red maple, American elm,glossy buckthorn,silky dogwood,arrowwood, and multiflora rose. This isolated wetland has possibly formed in a manmade Non- depression in a disturbed area. It is a forested and 2-7 Jurisdictional PFO1 Scarboro scrub/shrub wetland type dominated by red maple, American elm,glossy buckthorn,silky dogwood,arrowwood, and multiflora rose. OF T Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources PF01, PSS1, This wetland is a red maple swamp that also contains 2-8 BVW PEM1, Scarboro portions of scrub/shrub wetland and emergent wetland. It receives road drainage from Old Bedford Road. 2-9 Bank R4 Udorthents- This area is an open drainage ditch that outlets to Elm Loamy Brook. 3-1 ILSF possible PF01 Canton Non- With the exception of wetland areas 3-5,areas 3-1 through 3-2 Jurisdictional PF01 Canton 3-7 all appear to be man-made either inadvertently or for Non- stormwater management purposes.Wetland 3-5 appears to 3-3 Jurisdictional PEM1 Canton be relatively undisturbed forested wetland dominated by red maple,trembling aspen,and winterberry.Wetlands 3-1,3- Non- PSS1, 2,3-4,and 3-6 are forested and scrub/shrub wetlands with 3-4 Jurisdictional PEM1, PUB Canton small emergent areas. Dominant species in the forested and Non- scrub/shrub areas include red maple,glossy buckthorn,gray 3-5 Jurisdictional PF01 Canton birch,trembling aspen,speckled alder,and cinnamon fern. Wetlands 3-3 and 3-7 are vegetated swales dominated by 3-6 BVW, Bank PF01 Canton emergent species such as cattail and purple loosestrife. 3-7 BVW PEM1, PSS1 Canton This relatively large and undisturbed wetland complex Freetown, consists of forested,scrub/shrub,and emergent BVW, Bank, PF01, PSS1, Wareham, communities. It is also within the Elm Brook floodplain. 3-8 BLSF PEM1, R4 Deerfield, Forested red maple swamp with a glossy buckthorn Birdsall understory is the dominant type of wetland in this complex. Portions of the complex also include purple Ioosestrife dominated marsh and farmed areas. This wetland consists of an emergent plant community,with Wetland BVW PEM1 Canton a large number of soft rush present. Hydric soils are present No. 1 with abundantly mottled and saturated at the surface,with some standing water. This wetland contains forested,scrub/shrub and emergent wetlands. It is located south of Wetland 3-9 but is not connected to it.The most abundant canopy species includes red maple and cottonwood.The most common Wetland BVW PSS1, understory species includes alder, pussy willow,oriental No.2 PEM1, PF01 Canton bittersweet,jewel weed,and cattail. Within a portion of this wetland,the characteristics of a certified vernal pool have been observed. To date the pool has not been certified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. This wetland is primarily forested and drains in a westerly direction to the drainage channel adjacent to the existing T hangars. Dominant canopy species include red maple and Wetland yellow birch,while understory species consist of arrowwood, No.3 BVW PFO 1 Canton spicebush,skunk cabbage,and sensitive fern. Within a portion of this wetland,the characteristics of a certified vernal pool have been observed. To date the pool has not been certified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. This wetland is primarily scrub/shrub and emergent wetland. Wetland PSS 1 Dominant species include pussy willow, blue vervain,woll No.4 BVW PEM 1 Canton grass,and tussock sedge. Groundwater and surface runoff flow in the direction of the drainage channel adjacent to the existing T-hangars. 94 zr .. Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources Notes: 1. Massachusetts WPA Resource Areas(310 CMR 10.00): RA 200 Foot Riverfront Area BVW Bordering Vegetated Wetland Bank Bank(Land which abuts and confines a water body) LUWB Land Under Water Bodies Waterways ILSF Isolated Land Subject to Flooding Isolated Wetland is hydrologically isolated (Not a Massachusetts WPA Resource Area) 2. Wetland Type(Cowardin et al, 1977) PFO 1 Palustrine Forested/Broad-Leaved Deciduous PFO 4 Palustrine Forested/Needle-Leaved Evergreen PSS 1 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub/Broad-Leaved Deciduous PEM 1 Palustrine Emergent/Persistent PUB Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom(unvegetated wetland) R3 Riverine(perennial) R4 Riverine(intermittent) B Beaver influence 3. Soil series Mapped by USDA SCS(Middlesex Conservation District, 1986) The wetland resources at Hanscom Field were delineated and described in the 1998 Hanscom Field Wetlands Delineation Location Map ('1998 Wetlands Map")that was presented in the 2005 ESPR. This delineation effort included all of the Hanscom Field property except land within runway and taxiway areas. The wetlands within the vegetation management areas were delineated in August of 2001 for the 2004-2008 Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan (VMP). The delineated wetland boundaries within the vegetation management areas were certified by the conservation commissions of the respective towns in December 2001 through the MassDEP's Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD)process. Three wetland delineation surveys have been completed and documented as part of the VMP. The revised boundaries are shown in Figure 9-1 along with labels for the original wetland ID given for the VMP. Except where noted, the descriptions provided in Table 9-1 remain applicable to the updated wetlands. For the most recent wetland survey completed in October 2012,updated information is provided in Table 9-1. The jurisdictional determination for four newly delineated bordering vegetated wetlands (wetlands No. 1 through No. 4)were approved by the Lincoln Conservation Commission through an ANRAD. Previously delineated wetlands (3-4 and 3-5)in proximity to these four wetlands were considered non- jurisdictional and should be revisited if any development or other activity is proposed within their boundaries. The boundaries and regulatory status of the wetlands beyond the vegetation management areas would be subject to review and approval by the applicable conservation commission(s)through the submission of appropriate applications under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(WPA) for any future proposed work within a jurisdictional area. Since the VMP delineations,three additional areas have undergone this process as indicated in Figure 9-1. Any wetland permits issued between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2012 receive an automatic four year extension under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act passed by the State legislature to mitigate for the effects of the economic recession. Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources (This page intentionally left blank) 4 , j U R' N Q U N N O rc a s J O rwa-, q LL o N O O N � F )N Z m � Z IIII O I „ H F m 4 r• 41 �) H¢ III� ff�4 r U x f o � wr V � a z i N N rn � a w tlY o s `O o N ti 0 a e;�.X t,'„Y4 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources The wetland resource areas at Hanscom Field include wetlands subject to regulation by both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The regulations of the Massachusetts WPA (310 CMR 10.00 et seq.) define five freshwater wetland resource areas subject to protection: Banks, Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, Land Under Waterbodies/Waterways, Bordering/Isolated Land Subject to Flooding, and Riverfront Area. Each of these resource area types is defined as follows: IN Banks are land areas that normally abut and confine a water body. Banks occur between a waterbody and a vegetated wetland or adjacent floodplain, or between a waterbody and an upland. IN Bordering Vegetated Wetlands(BVW)include those vegetated freshwater wetlands that border on water bodies and waterways. The technical criteria and methodology utilized to identify and delineate BVW is set forth in Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(DEP, 1995). Criteria for identifying and delineating this resource area include the presence of a plant community dominated by wetland indicator species, and signs of hydrology. The presence of hydric soils within the wetland is considered an indicator of hydrology. IN Land Under Water Bodies/Waterways (LUWB) is the land area under any creek, river, stream, pond, or lake and is a resource area subject to protection under the Massachusetts WPA. IN Bordering Land Subject to Flooding(BLSF)is an area with low, flat topography adjacent to and inundated by flood waters rising from creeks, rivers, streams,ponds or lakes. BLSF extends from the banks of these waterways and water bodies; where a bordering vegetated wetland occurs,it extends from said wetland. BLSF boundaries are the maximum lateral extent of floodwater,which will theoretically result from the statistical 100-year storm. The extent of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding is typically derived from examining FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. IN Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (ILSF) are isolated depressions or closed basins without an inlet or outlet. It is an area which, at least once per year, confines standing water to a volume of at least one-quarter acre-feet and an average depth of at least six inches. IN Riverfront Area is land between a perennial river's mean annual high-water line and a parallel line located 200 feet away,measured horizontally outward from the river's mean annual high- water line. The perennial status of a waterway is generally determined by examination of the USGS topographic map. A 100-foot buffer zone is associated with regulated Bank and Bordering Vegetated Wetland. The USACE regulations that accompany the Federal Clean Water Act[33 CFR Parts 321-330 (November 12, 1986)] define waters of the United States as aquatic habitats that include open water areas and wetlands. Wetlands are further defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,marshes,bogs, and similar areas [33 CFR 328.3(b)]. This definition emphasizes a wetland's attributes of hydrophytic vegetation,hydric soils, and hydrology.Pursuant to the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory, 1987) (the Manual), the mandatory technical criteria that characterize these parameters are outlined as follows: Hydrophytic Vegetation: The predominant vegetation consists of macrophytes,which typically grow in soils that are periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)publication, "National List of Plant Species that Occur in Oc mom, 4 9 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources Wetlands: Northeast(Region 1)" (Reed, 1988) and its 1995 supplement,were used to classify plant species according to their frequency of occurrence in wetlands. IN Hydric Soils: These are soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions (typified by thick organic surface layers, gleying, or mottles)within a depth of 18 inches. IN Hydrology: This addresses areas that are saturated to the surface or inundated at some time during the growing season of the prevalent vegetation. Typical indicators include surface-scoured areas and water-stained leaves. Based on a review of the existing site and relevant information, the current status of the wetland resource areas at Hanscom Field is relatively unchanged from those identified in the 2005 ESPR. A description of the vegetation, soils,hydrology, and presumed values of these areas is provided in Table 9-1 (Large wetland complexes are described as single wetlands on the figure and in the table.). 9.5 Vernal Pools Three vernal pools have been certified at Hanscom Field by the NHESP. These three vernal pools (within Wetlands 2-4 and 2-5), all of which are located within the town of Concord to the west of Runway 11-29, are shown on Figure 9-1. A fourth area with potential vernal pool characteristics occurs within Wetland 2- 3 in the same vicinity as the three certified vernal pools in Concord. During 2012 wetland delineations, characteristics of certified vernal pools were identified in wetlands No. 3 and No.4. However, to date these areas have not been certified by the NHESP. A plan to protect the certified vernal pools during vegetation management operations was developed as part of the current Hanscom Field VMP. Two perennial waterways exist at Hanscom Field: the Shawsheen River in Bedford and Elm Brook in Bedford, Concord, and Lincoln. The USGS topographic map(Maynard Quadrangle, 1987)indicates that both the Shawsheen River and Elm Brook are perennial waterways. Elm brook is tributary of the Shawsheen River meaning it flow into the Shawsheen. Additionally, the Massachusetts WPA specifically states that the entire length of the Shawsheen River, a major river,has an associated Riverfront Area. As such,both the Shawsheen River and Elm Brook have a 200-foot wide Riverfront Area extending landward from each Bank within which work is subject to regulation under the Massachusetts WPA. 9.7 Vegetation and Wildlife Native vegetation in the vicinity of Hanscom Field is composed of a mixture of hardwood-forested uplands and wetlands with scattered softwoods,upland and wetland shrub stands, and mowed grasslands. Wetlands including forested swamps, shrub swamps, emergent marshes, and streams are situated around much of the perimeter of Hanscom Field. The airport infield areas are grasslands mowed to maintain visibility for operational safety. The variety of vegetative cover types,presence of wetlands and waterways, and undeveloped parcels on and in the vicinity of Hanscom Field provide potential habitat for wildlife species capable of coexisting with human activities and development. Wildlife that may be expected to inhabit the area includes larger mammals such as whitetail deer and red fox, and smaller mammals such as gray squirrel and various species of mice,voles, and shrews. Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources Bird species that would typically populate such habitat include various insectivorous and seed-eating passerines, ground-oriented species such as woodcock, and predators such as hawks.Various reptiles and amphibians may be expected to occupy portions of the property as well.Perennial streams (Elm Brook, Shawsheen River) around the periphery of Hanscom Field are Class B surface waters according to Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards(314 CMR 4.06), suitable as "habitat for fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife, and for primary and secondary contact recreation" [314 CMR 4.05 (3)(b)]. Portions of Hanscom Field are situated within an area identified in the NHESP as a Priority Habitat of Rare Species and are shown on Figure 9-2.Pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (M.G.L. Ch. 131A) and implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.05), all state agencies are required to "review, evaluate, and determine the impact to endangered,threatened, or special concern species or their habitats for all works,project, or activities conducted by them." Work within mapped Estimated Habitat of Rare Species (a subset of Priority Habitat within the jurisdiction of the WPA) or certified vernal pools would need to be reviewed by the NHESP through the submission of a copy of a Notice of Intent prepared as part of the WPA filing process for work in or near wetlands. The implementing regulations for the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act define three categories of species [321 CMR 10.03(6)]: IN Endangered: "any species of plant or animal in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and species of plants or animals in danger of extirpation as documented by biological research and inventory." IN Threatened: "any species of plant or animal likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and any species declining or rare as determined by biological research and inventory and likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future." IN Special Concern: "any species of plant or animal which has been documented by biological research and inventory to have suffered a decline that could threaten the species if allowed to continue unchecked or that occurs in such small numbers or with such a restricted distribution or specialized habitat requirements that it could easily become threatened within Massachusetts." The NHESP was contacted to obtain updated information on known occurrences of rare or endangered species of wildlife at Hanscom Field. Known occurrences of two birds (Upland Sandpiper and Grasshopper Sparrow)have remained the same since the 2000 ESPR. Since the 2005 ESPR, two additional species (Blanding's Turtle and Wood Turtle)have been observed at Hanscom Field. As listed in Table 9-2, these four species identified as endangered or threatened,have been observed at Hanscom by the NHESP or others (Appendix F). a- CV d) Cll L Z>- o O V LL I ; N J Cll 1 a J N Cll CoCa coCa Co U) -Co Z Lu co J J �J � / ( N P^ U N f'' C ldr, a rN�J a ; d o c 4 c6 C� N y Q a E N N 0 U (6 cu o cN d cm z o a > > 6 o `m ' o a� o � w a c m 0- H Z Q 2 r o J � O VVotlandn8Nld|ife8NaterRonoumo Tat)Ue 9-2 Eiridairi0emed" T[imeaUeiried" oir Spe64U Coiricemm Spedes, at 11airiscomm 1-iVUd Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Threatened Wood Turtle Glyptemys insulpta Special Concern 1. In accordance with the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act(M.G.L.Ch. 131A)and regulations Source:Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program,January o1.uo1oletter The upland sandpiper and grasshopper sparrow have previously been observed within several areas of maintained grassland vegetation between runways and taxiways at Hanscom Field. The specific locations of nesting pairs of these species have varied somewhat over the years based on previous Massachusetts Audubon Society observations o1 Hanscom Field. Fact sheets for all four species obtained from dhoNHES9 are included in Appendix F. As the fact sheets note,both bird opooioo require grassland habitat(e.g.buyGoldo and pastures), such as those {bond adjacent touidfiu|dy. The B|unding`y Turtle requires uvudutyofwodundundtunustdu]huhdu1, inolodbngnnoroboo, scrub-shrub wetlands, and open uplands. The Wood Turtle requires dpmdonor000, 000b000booznboUonno and banks. During the spring and summer, Wood Turtles will spend time in mixed or deciduous forests, fields, and wet meadows. During the 2005 ESPR planning, the NHESP also confirmed that three species of Special Concern occupy habitat near,but not on, Hanscom Field. Ao part ofits commitment to help protect the Upland Sandpiper and other listed grassland opooioo, Massport completed a Grassland Management Program in 2004 that also minimizes doko associated with wildlife species that can create hazards when they are on the airfield. M000pod continues to follow the guidelines of the Grassland Management Program,which ioincluded in AppondixF. Figure 9'1, depicts the approximate grassland management areas at Hanscom Field. 9.7.2 Otheir S�pe&les of Concern In the past, there have been observations of other grassland bird species of interest at Hanscom Field including American kestrel,bobolink, and eastern meadowlark. The shrub stands at Hanscom Field provide habitat for five bird species with declining populations, presented in Table 9-3. While Massport understands the value of habitat protection under federal law,the airport's primary responsibility is to maintain aviation safety. When habitat management can be implemented in compliance with[edonU safety standards, M000ponvriD continue to oUivo to oobiovo balance between those objectives. Tat)Ue 9-3 &ird S��mdes [riliat)��C�iri0Slin.it) Stairids at 11airiscomm1-iVUd Field Sparrow Spizella usill Brown Thrasher Toxostorna rufurn Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Source:Massachusetts Audubon Society,u000sapn Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources 9. w i1IIIclIIIlilfe � az irds tc, Alilircira fl Massport must balance the maintenance of wildlife habitat with protection of public safety. In response to increasing concern about the risk posed to aircraft from certain of wildlife species, the FAA issued an Advisory Circular on Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports (AC 150/5200-3313) to provide guidance on land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife. [A revision "33C" is currently in draft form.] The FAA also maintains a wildlife strikes database and provides guidance to pilots on reporting strikes to gather more information about the number of strikes and species that pose the greatest risk to life and property. The National Wildlife Strike Database is also a source of information for wildlife that occurs at particular airports. Table 9-4 provides a list of wildlife strikes that have been reported at Hanscom Field between September 1990 and June 2013. 154 strikes have been recorded during that time though not all strikes include a confirmed wildlife species. TaIi)Ille 9-4 f31pedies, Repoirted liiuri the II Nafliioir4ll lil :llllfe Stirliillke IIDatalimse at Ilh1airi�:coimn II1'-'liield (1990-2013) ro� v � American Crow Corvus brach rh nchos Bird 1 American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica Bird 1 American kestrel Falco sparverius Bird 14 Bank swallow Ri aria ri aria Bird 1 Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Bird 10 Big brown bat E tesicus fuscus Bat 1 Black-bellied plover Pluvialis s uatarola Bird 1 Black poll warbler Dendroica striata Bird 1 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bird 2 Canada goose Branta canadensis Bird 3 Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Bird 1 Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica Bird 3 Coyote Canis latrans Mammal 1 Crows Corvus Bird 2 Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Bird 1 Ducks Anatidae(Family) Bird 5 Eastern meadowlark Sturnella ma na Bird 3 European starling Sturnus vulgaris Bird 10 Geese Anatidae(family) Bird 1 Great horned-owl Bubo virginianus Bird 2 Gulls Laridae(family) Bird 8 Laridae/Sternidae Bird 1 Gulls/terns/kittiwakes /Laridae(family) Hawks Buteo sp.,Accipitersp. Bird 3 Horned lark Eremophilia aplestris Bird 1 Killdeer Charadrius vociferous Bird 2 Mallard duck Anas platyrhynchos Bird 1 Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Bird 5 Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Bird 1 Red tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Bird 3 Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Bird 1 Sandpipers Scolo acidae (family) Bird 1 Passerculus Bird 1 Savannahs arrow sandwichensis Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Bird 2 Sparrows Passeridae (family) Bird 2 Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Mammal 1 Swainsons thrush Catharus ustulatus Bird 1 Swallows Hirundinidae(family) I Bird 3 Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Bird 8 Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Bird 1 9.1 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources 141611 Unknown bird or bat -- 7Bird 3 Unknown bird-large -- 2 Unknown bird-medium -- 12 Unknown bird-small -- 27 Source:National Wildlife Strike Database,2013 9.8 Status of Vegetation Mainageirneint Plain Massport developed a comprehensive VMP in 2004,which was updated in 2008,in order to comply with FAA regulations and Massachusetts General Laws regarding protected airspace. The next update is subject to the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act and therefore is not required until 2016. The 2008 update will serve as a guide for current and future vegetation removal projects conducted at the airport through 2016.Notices of Intent(NOIs)were submitted to the Conservation Commissions of Bedford, Concord, Lexington and Lincoln under the limited project provisions of the Massachusetts WPA for airport vegetation removal [310 CMR 10.53(n)]. The NOIs were for Phase 1 of the 2004 and the 2009 VMP updates. They clearly described the elements of the VMP and proposed mitigation. Massport received Orders of Conditions from the Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln Conservation Commissions. The initial phase of the VMP was completed in 2004. In accordance with the environmental permits,most of the work was completed while the ground was frozen;work in remaining areas was completed in the spring and fall. Massport performed a new obstruction analysis for the airport in 2007 as part of its five year VMP update. The 2007 aerial photogrammetric mapping of all four runways concluded the following: IN The first Five Year VMP had minimized the need for additional vegetation removal in the areas that had removal in 2004; IN Vegetation removal was required in areas that were not part of the first five year VMP; and IN Using the FAA-approved 20:1 approach surfaces for Runway 23, there were obstructions in Bedford's Jordan Conservation Area(JCA),but no obstructions in the Bedford Hartwell Town Forest. Work associated with the VMP within or adjacent to the three certified vernal pools in Concord was reviewed by the NHESP through the submission of a copy of the NOIs prepared under the Massachusetts WPA for work in or near wetlands. A plan to protect the certified vernal pools during vegetation management operations is incorporated in the VMP. A 34:1 approach surface analysis was initially prepared for the Runway 23 end, as required by the FAA. In response to Massport and community concerns regarding the extent of vegetation removal needed to maintain a 34:1 surface off-airport in the Bedford Town Forest and the JCA,Massport worked with the FAA and prepared a 20:1 approach surface analysis. Based on this 20:1 approach surface analysis, FAA agreed that required safety margins could be maintained while reducing impact on the JCA and eliminating all impacts on the Hartwell Town Forest. These conclusions were used to develop the second Five Year VMP (2009-2013),which was submitted to the four towns' Conservation Commission along with NOIs for the required vegetation removal in wetland areas on Massport property.Vegetation removal began in 2009 following the receipt of Orders of Conditions from the town Conservations Commissions. The Orders of Conditions required that wetland work be conducted in frozen or dry ground conditions. Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources Shortly after the 2009-2013 VMP update received its Order of Conditions, Massport worked with the Town of Bedford to develop an agreement to remove obstructions from the JCA. As part of this agreement, Massport made available trails across its property to make trail connections between Bedford and Concord conservation lands. The planned vegetation removal was completed in 2011, and also included the removal of several obsolete obstruction light poles at the end of Runway 23. By February of 2011, all obstructions identified in the 2007 airspace analysis had been removed. Throughout 2012, Massport continued with maintenance of vegetation removal areas and the trail system,which was opened in September 2011. In 2012, Massport also performed aerial photogrammetric mapping of the airport for the next VMP update. As described above, significant areas of Hanscom Field are mapped as Priority Habitat under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. Many of these areas require regular mowing as required by the FAA to meet aviation safety standards. Massport has developed a plan to meet both goals of aviation safety and habitat management. In 1996, a series of grassland management recommendations were implemented at Hanscom with a limited haying operation. The management strategies were noted to result in an increase in grassland birds, and the program was suspended in 1999 due to an increase in bird strikes (notably barn swallows) at Hanscom Field. In 2004, Massport developed the Grassland Management Plan. The goal of the Grassland Management Plan is to provide safe operating conditions at Hanscom Field while protecting listed grassland bird species. The plan was finalized with input from the U.S. Department of Agri culture/Wildlife Services (USDA), FAA, and the NHESP. The Grassland Management Plan is included in Appendix F. The Grassland Management Plan includes the following guidelines for maintenance of portions of the grass infield areas between runways and taxiways at Hanscom Field as well as selected grassed approach areas. 1. Conduct annual pre-breeding season review of grassland management procedures and protected grasslands identification with operations staff. 2. Develop an annual mowing schedule that would maintain managed grassland areas at a height of four to 14 inches. 3. Develop a plan of the managed areas. 4. Mow runway and taxiway areas prior to May 1,when feasible, to avoid conflicts with breeding season. . Maintain mowed strips along runways (250 feet from runway centerlines) and taxiways (85 feet from taxiway centerline)throughout the breeding season to discourage birds from nesting in these areas. . Restrict mowing during the breeding (nesting and brood-rearing) season(May 1 to July 31) on designated portions of airfield not directly adjacent to runways and taxiways. 7. Conduct pre-mowing field reconnaissance to observe and mark locations of nesting birds in"critical areas"along runways and taxiways. . Inspect grassland management areas for young prior to mowing. 9. Avoid, as practical, activities on grassland portions of airfield and approach area not directly adjacent to runways and taxiways during breeding season(May 1 to July 31). 91 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources If, after implementation of these recommendations, there is a documented increase in wildlife hazards, bird strikes, or other safety issues,the plan will be modified immediately.NHESP would be notified of any modifications of the plan and the process will involve timely notification of the Conservation Commissions in Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. 9,10 Water Resources The locations of public water supplies within Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln are shown on Figure 9-3. Table 9-5 presents the name, location, type (well or surface water), and community served by each public water supply facility, as well as the approximate distance from the water supply to Hanscom Field. As shown in the table, the municipal water supplies vary in distance from Hanscom Field from 0.9 to 7.3 miles. There have been changes in the public water resources since the 2005 ESPR. 7aIi)IIIe 9-5 IIP.jbIlllc Water u.jppIIIy liiuri Bedford, Coiricoird, IIL.exliiurigtouri, airid IILJiric6iri Bedford 3023000-11G Well#11 (Hartwell Rd. G.P.Well#11) Groundwater 0.9 miles 3023000-10G Well#10(Hartwell Rd.Well#10) Groundwater 0.9 miles 3023000-12G Well#12(Hartwell Rd. G.P.Well#12) Groundwater 1.0 miles 3023000-09G Well#5(Shawsheen G.D.Well#5) Groundwater 2.2 miles 3023000-08G Well#4 (Shawsheen G.D.Well#4) Groundwater 2.2 miles 3023000-02G Well#2(Shawsheen Rd. G.P.Well) Groundwater 2.3 miles 3023000-01G Well#1 (Page School G.P.Well) Groundwater 2.3 miles 3023000-03G Well#3(MITRE/Rte.62 G.P.Well) Groundwater 3.5 miles 3023000-05G Well#7(Turnpike G.P.Well#7) Groundwater 4.0 miles 3023000-07G Well#9(Turnpike G.P.Well#9) Groundwater 4.0 miles 3023000-06G Well#8(Turnpike G.P.Well#8) Groundwater 4.2 miles Concord 3067000-02G Hugh Cargill G.P.Well Groundwater 3.1 miles 3067000-07G Hugh Cargill Wellfield(Replacement) Groundwater 3.2 miles 3067000-06G Robinson G.P.Well Groundwater 4.3 miles 3067000-03G Deaconess GP Well Groundwater 4.7 miles 3067000-01 G Jennie Dugan Well Groundwater 5.9 miles 3067000-04G White Pond Well Groundwater 6.0 miles 3067000-08G White Pond Satellite#1 GP Well Groundwater 6.0 miles 3067000-09G White Pond Satellite#2 GP Well Groundwater 6.0 miles 3067000-05G Second Division GP Well Groundwater 6.8 miles 3067015-01G Valley Sports Inc. Transient Non- 7.3 miles Lincoln 3157000-02G Farrar Pond GP Well Groundwater 3.1 miles 3157000-01S Flints Pond Surface Water 3.1 miles 3049000-04S Hobbs Brook Res. Upper Surface Water 3.5 miles 3157000-01G Tower Rd. GP Well Groundwater 5.3 miles Notes: 1. Lexington is served by the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority and has no municipal water supply resources 2. Approximate distances measured from Hanscom Field runway intersection Source:MassGIS,2012 IN Bedford is served in part by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority(MWRA), and in part by eleven public water supply sources. Since the 2005 ESPR, one groundwater well, 3023000- 04G, is no longer used. IN Concord is served by ten public water supply sources. Since the 2005 ESPR,two of these wells (3067003-0IG and 3067016-0IG) are no longer used.However, two additional groundwater wells (306700-08G and 3067000-9G),which are co-located next to 30600-04G,have been developed. IN Lexington is served by the MWRA and has no municipal water supply sources. IN Lincoln is served by four public water supply sources. OFT m., 9 1 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources (This page intentionally left blank) 9.1 m�, i� a � � �,, �k/yp of d 3� c y,r, � r�'/ �l�nA✓ /rA1�/1, —O' M i LL t i a �r�ra1�,� S� irj �7r ri) �P J3q JV� a� fir 41 O c CCa u (B 0 f 0 0 0 �a im JU r GJ� a u - rr. J w � r /h r ��' � uulll�lll � o �q 1 o J � N N T 0 Z a _ m LL � u' r "�J I J _ o ,�.: . " n( sir � ✓i rNu�K� i�" v 4 „J R o ti 0 a r,,, ,:�,, �.�, Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources Wellhead Protection Areas,which are also known as Zone 11 areas, are approved under the MassDEP's Drinking Water Program to protect the recharge area around public water supply ground water sources. The Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations require that public water suppliers delineate Zone Its and restrict certain land uses and activities in Zone Its which may result in the contamination of a groundwater drinking supply. Figure 9-4 shows the approved Zone 11 Wellhead Protection Area that overlaps Hanscom Field. The Zone 11 area is associated with three Hartwell Road wells in Bedford: Well 910, Well 911, and Well 912. There are no Surface Water Supply Protection Areas(Zone A, B, C) in Hanscom Field. Rectrix is developing a new above-ground fuel storage facility which will be completed in early 2014 adjacent to the existing Jet Aviation current fuel farm. All fuel storage facilities are subject to the regulatory requirements of 527 CMR 9.00, "Board of Fire Prevention Regulations: Tanks and Containers."Massport's Fire Chief required that the new Rectrix fuel farm meet regulatory standards of the MassDEP at 310 CMR 22.21(2)(b)5, applicable to fuel storage. These measures, as well as elements of Massport's spill prevention program, are designed to protect the recharge area of the Bedford public wells. 9,11 Regulated Reirnediation Sites 9.11,11.11 �ianscorn �`1161d Currently, there are no active MassDEP-listed disposal sites that Massport is responsible for bringing to regulatory closure under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). As reported in 2005, there had been only one site, Release Tracking Number(RTN) 3-13953, that was active during the time of the 2005 ESPR. As of 2006,this site has been brought to regulatory closure. For this study, an online search was conducted for sites where a release of oil or hazardous material was reported to the MassDEP. Table 9-6 shows a listing of the MassDEP-listed disposal sites for locations at Hanscom Field for which releases are either still open or were reported since the beginning of 2005. The table indicates which sites are reported as Massport sites and which sites are Massport tenants' sites. There have been several sites at Hanscom Field listed with the MassDEP since the year 2005; however, none of those sites remains open. E.,Fr MI.. 921 N Q) q:T Q a in N - W co N a � o " JJDi,1 o E CU r I` o J N1� ! U a� a m° E o o � M h ry I� IOOi N C� v �J U CJ ) o U s 0 0 J � 7 � O W z O p J 0 � Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources Tat)�le 9-6 2005-2012 MassIDEI3 llepoirted 116leases at 11airiscoirn 1-'Biel d that Ileaclied llesllhwirlse Acfloiri OlAcoirne flIIAO) Staftis, 11,111111 all I BE 3-13953 2 200 Hanscom Drive, Civil Air Terminal Bedford 6/28/1996 RAO X Maintenance Garage 3-24535 380 Hanscom Drive-HAFB Bedford 1/2/2005 RAO X 3-24594 Hanscom AFB, Building 1201 Heating Lexington 1/27/2005 RAO X Plant 3-24856 230 Hanscom Drive, Liberty Mutual Lincoln 5/11/2005 RAO X Hangar 3-26380 150 Hanscom Drive, Building#11 West Bedford 11/11/2006 RAO X Ramp 3-26954 LG Hanscom Field at 180 Hanscom Dr Bedford 7/18/2007 RAO X 3-26720 145 Randolph Road Lexington 4/2/2007 RAO 3-27770 180 Hanscom Drive,terminal ramp in Bedford 6/16/2008 RAO X front of Building#13 3-27792 Grenier at Barksdale Street Bedford 6/24/2008 RAO X 3-27839 Hanscom Drive, North of RW1 1 Safety Bedford 7/7/2008 RAO X Area 3-28281 Eglin and Chenault Bedford 1/19/2009 RAO X 3-28933 54 Dow Street, Building 1827 Bedford 12/3/2009 RAO X 3-29126 104 Barksdale Street Building 1520 Bedford 3/15/2010 RAO X 3-29203 Eglin Street Bedford 4/13/2010 RAO X 3-29456 70 Chennault Street Building 1642 Bedford 8/19/2010 RAO X 3-30410 180 Hanscom Drive,Signature Flight Bedford 10/27/2011 RAO X Support Services Term 3-31035 180 Hanscom Drive Bedford 8/10/2012 RAO X Notes: 1. Release Tracking Number. Includes those releases reported since the year 2005. 2.This release is included as it was still active during the time of the 2005 ESPR. Source:Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection None of the spills since 2005 were at Massport occupied locations. All of the releases occurred on tenant- occupied locations (Table 9-6). Class A-I or A-2 RAOs have been submitted to the MassDEP documenting that the eleven release conditions have reached regulatory closure with the permanent solution as defined in the MCP. 9.11,11.2 �ianscorn Allir @"oirce IBase Hanscom AF13 maintained and operated Hanscom's airfield until 1974 and retains responsibility for any required clean-up that stems from this time as well as for any sites on Hanscom AF13 property. Hanscom AF13 is conducting environmental restoration efforts under the U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP), a federal Comprehensive Environmental Liability Act(CERCLA)-based program. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan(NCP)is the primary IRP response process for releases identified under this program. However,because petroleum releases are excluded from the CERCLA program, the MCP is the primary IRP response process at the sites where a release of petroleum has occurred. The U.S. EPA is the lead agency for the NCP sites and the MassDEP is the regulatory agency for the MCP sites. The objectives of the Hanscom AF13 IRP program are generally summarized as the following: protect human health and the environment; characterize risks associated with the release sites; commence Fzr MI.. 923 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources restoration as soon as practicable;initiate removal actions as necessary; develop remedial actions as necessary; conduct long term operation and maintenance of remedial systems implemented for cleanup; and comply with all deadlines, commitments, and regulations applicable to the program. As part of the IRP,initial field investigations commenced in the summer of 1982. The preliminary assessment/site investigation phase of the IRP resulted in the identification of 22 specific sites as areas with the potential for environmental contamination from past waste management practices. Of the 22 sites, eight are located on Massport property. Investigations and appropriate response actions have been completed at 16 IRP Sites and one IRP Area of Concern, and they have been closed out within the applicable regulatory framework(includes four IRP Sites on Hanscom Field). In addition,investigations have been completed and long-term remedies are in place at the six remaining IRP Sites. There have been no additional sites added to the IRP list since the 2005 ESPR. Figure 9- 5 illustrates the location of the IRP sites/Operable Units (OUs). All of the waste sites identified through the IRP studies have been investigated and,where deemed necessary,have been or are currently being remediated. Five-Year Reviews of ongoing remedial actions will be conducted as long as any hazardous pollutants or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited and unrestricted exposure as required by CERCLA. The most recent(third) "Five-Year Review for the Hanscom Field/Hanscom AFB Superfund Site"was completed in August 2007. Hanscom AFB Records of Decision (RODS), other Decision Documents,including an MCP Licensed Site Professional(LSP) Opinions/Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statements, and Five-Year Review Reports issued for IRP actions are all subject to concurrence from the U.S. EPA and/or MassDEP. Site Close-Out designation indicates that all required actions are complete and the USAF has received concurrence from the regulatory agencies to that effect, as applicable. An Interim Record of Decision (IROD)was issued for NPL OU-1 (NPL OU-1 includes IRP Sites 1, 2, and 3)in January 2001 by the USAF,which set forth the requirements for the continued operation of the existing groundwater treatment system, the implementation of institutional controls, and the monitoring of the groundwater and surface water at Hanscom Field/Hanscom AFB. Groundwater beneath OU-1 is contaminated with dissolved-phase chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as a result of airfield maintenance and training activities, and the remedy includes a vacuum-enhanced recovery(VER) system and groundwater treatment. Current data indicate that the OU-1 remedial action has been and continues to be effective, and that as of December 31, 2006, the system had treated over 1.6 billion gallons of water. In August 2002, a ROD was issued selecting the final remedy for NPL OU-3/IRP 21 (former aviation fuel receiving, storage and dispensing site on Hanscom AFB) and,in 2003, the remedial design and construction of the selected remedy was completed. The remedy includes interceptor trenches, a groundwater and petroleum recovery and treatment system with active and passive recovery wells,long- term monitoring, and institutional controls In November 2000, a ROD was issued for NPL OU3/IRP Site 6 (former filter bed/landfill site on Hanscom AFB) and in 2001, the remedial design and construction of the selected remedy was completed. The remedy included the containment(pervious caps) of three landfill areas,removal of contaminated sediments and landfill debris and placing this material within the capped landfill area,long-term monitoring,institutional controls, and a groundwater compliance boundary. The assessment of the 2002 five-year review found that the remedy at NPL OU-2/IRP Site 4, a former USAF landfill in the Runway 5 Approach Area that has been capped, continues to be protective of human health and the environment. Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources 9,12 (137roundwater Monitoring Currently, groundwater monitoring is only conducted in association with MCP site cleanup activities. There are no active MCP sites at Hanscom Field and no effects resulting from soil contamination have been observed in the groundwater. Massport's spill prevention program includes development, and implementation of an SPCC Plan,maintenance of contracts with emergency response contractors, and implementation of annual environmental health and safety training that includes spill prevention training. 9.13 Storiamater, Massport encourages new development within areas of existing impervious surfaces that takes advantage of existing infrastructure to enhance groundwater recharge and minimize runoff. Chapter 2, Facilities and Infrastructure presents information about impervious surfaces at Hanscom Field. The following sections describe the stormwater management program for Hanscom Field, including stormwater modeling, stormwater-related permitting and monitoring programs undertaken by Massport. 9.113.11 Stoil'irnwateir IIY od&lllng Massport has undertaken a comprehensive stormwater modeling study,which is being coordinated with the MassDEP for the Shawsheen River watershed. The purpose of the modeling effort is to assess current peak and base flows within the river and to evaluate potential Best Management Practices (BMPs) and stormwater controls to reduce the peak flows and increase base flows. 9.113.2 V4atlor'41 IP611tition 1Discliairge IElllirnllnatlon System IPeirirnmlt Airports in the United States, including Hanscom Field, are required to apply for coverage under a Stormwater Multi-sector General Permit(MSGP) in accordance with the NPDES permit program, a part of the federal Clean Water Act(33 USC 1251 et seq.).Under this permit program administered by the U.S. EPA, owners and/or operators of airports must satisfy specific requirements for operations conducted at the facility that may affect stormwater quality. Massport applied for coverage under the current MSGP in 2009. Tenants who lease property on Hanscom Field and engage in activities covered under the permit program(see Table 9-7). Tai)Ille 9- IMasspoirt 'Teiriailits, Covered lxrideir the 11ailiscoirn 1-iV�d III III'3IDES I3eirir64 Stream Enterprises 140 Hanscom Drive, Bedford East Coast Aero Club 200 Hanscom Drive, Bedford Executive Flyers Aviation 200 Hanscom Drive, Bedford Jet Aviation of America,Inc. 380 Hanscom Drive, Bedford Liberty Mutual Insurance 230 Hanscom Drive, Bedford Signature Flight Support 180 Hanscom Drive, Bedford Nagle Aircraft 145 Hanscom Drive, Bedford National Aviation Academy 150 Hanscom Drive, Bedford North Star Aviation 130 Hanscom Drive, Bedford Source:Hanscom Field NPDES Permit MAR05C14 The current NPDES Permit Tracking Number is MAR05CY 14; the permit effective date was February 4, 2009, and it remains valid for five years. Hanscom Field still operates under this multi-sector general permit. Fzr MI.. 925 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources (This page intentionally left blank) " 6"Pi m�� U) CO �? Q u) m E m o,E _U - m_U o m m m m m °� a`� � a`�- m- m�, m m E m? L.L 6 o u) n o UW �o� = m�,aY om oU) .o m a� =� R� �- m.� m--Rmm� mv~i a.0 o O C7°� OU ii �. U m�m m�m c� cU .�� m m U o� = — .. aUU U o_� c9 Z` �E Uo�o'U°�U W~ c o oR E E-o �° �m mn, �,m~ c� c� c� �~ Qa� " W o O O ` OU O 00 00 cU) > >. N 0 Q?VJ M �, Ll QO] �� -O� �U �(n?Um � - w ii ii ach ch a U) U) U) U) U) U) U) N U U 0 U U U U U U U U U o L6 c m Q V c0 �2 (O O N N y 2 `` Ln FL O �rn U� rch � � O m O a. 1/l S ll M(2 N f] Gren�e �� a 11 FL CLO FL 100 FL N V O N L I N I \ I I I LL I � ♦ I o ♦ I O O N � N Q Q N O N o c Q U 'R O L.L Q Q N O E IQ U H H fl'LL c Q Q U O tL E Q D x O o N O I Z j o N a y y 0 0 Q I a o ti 0 a e;�.X �i'„wil a''.7a $ = 9 s rc 7 a ffi ffi g J Z _� ^.�. w"- <Z W3 I � F Y o V) a o a It e � m e < Y ""'Oo o < J u IY \ ???"'nnn333 Y14 a 5 a �C,� d� o � I a e E a 1 LL LL �a o 3 O a O O Q M _ t" < O O gi �oyQ�m 4, tltl � E E w J I z J � W CJ azzx� o IM wh s, Q N p I m aE� x c 0 0 p w E , II j null 26 All, o XI < 101 IZS 0 W aM Vn Fa M I _ L PIP 4 Y � M � " v 0 9121 w� m x a r � o o ti 0 a r. �MY �.�, Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources 9.113. SIal'irre wateir I "o,IIII1titiie°n I ire enIliie°n I lan ( I I ) Massport updated and revised the Hanscom Field SWPPP in June 2013 in compliance with the Stormwater Multi-sector General Permit for Airports program under NPDES. The SWPPP is included in Appendix F. To achieve this goal,the responsibilities of Massport and the tenants include the following: IN Implementing the policies and procedures presented in the SWPPP for the facilities and operations; IN Conducting periodic reviews of policies and procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of the current SWPPP; IN Updating the SWPPP and related information whenever there is a significant physical change at the facility and/or a significant change in the operational procedures of a facility that could result in the discharge of toxic or hazardous pollutants to stormwater or an increased risk of such discharge; and �IN Maintaining records of required inspections, operations,materials use, etc. as required in the SWPPP. The Hanscom Field SWPPP also identifies the following: IN Site drainage areas and stormwater outfall locations (shown on Figure 9-6); IN Activities occurring at the airport and inventory of materials having the potential to affect stormwater quality; IN Recorded significant leaks and spills; IN Observations of dry-weather flow conditions ("non-stormwater discharges") from the storm drainage system; IN Descriptions of potential pollutant sources and risks; and IN Best Management Practices Plan. Best Management Practices (BMPs)identified in the SWPPP are divided into two sections: Baseline BMPs and Activity-specific BMPs. Baseline BMPs include general procedures to reduce stormwater pollution regardless of the type of operation at Hanscom Field. These BMPs are to be implemented by all tenants covered by the SWPPP. Activity-specific BMPs address particular features or operations at a facility, and are to be applied to a tenant's specific operational situation. The two types of BMPs are identified in Table 9-8. ai)i)le 9-8 IIL est I aiiriageimneurit III'3iractliices for Storrnwateir Ilf3irotectliiouri at Il11airi�:coimn II1'-'liield Ni 11111 • Good Housekeeping Emergency Spill Cleanup Plans • Preventative Maintenance Elimination of non-stormwater discharges to storm drains • Materials Compatibility and Inventory System Aircraft,vehicle and equipment maintenance • Spill prevention and Response Plan Aircraft,vehicle and equipment fueling • Employee Training Aircraft,vehicle and equipment washing • Aircraft deicing • Outdoor handling of material • Outdoor material storage • Waste handling and disposal • Building and grounds maintenance • Annual stormwater pollution prevention education EFT m + ,y,'Y� Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources • Lavatory service operations • Equipment cleaning/degreasing • Runway maintenance • Oil/water separators • Maintenance of existing drainage systems Source:Hanscom Field Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,January 2009(last update 5/12). 9.11 3 4 V' 1 1D ice' Vistia1 IinsI ectl °n IPircigirarn Massport has a visual inspection program, as required under the NPDES Multi-sector General Permit for Hanscom Field, for monitoring the quality of stormwater discharges. The NPDES Multi-sector General Permit for Hanscom Field does not require laboratory water quality monitoring. The visual inspections are conducted on a quarterly basis (January, April,July, and October). The inspection procedures consist of collecting samples at stormwater outfall locations at Hanscom Field and visually inspecting the samples for color, odor, clarity, floating solids, settled solids, suspended solids, foam, oil sheen, and other indications of storm water pollution. A visual assessment is performed on samples from the following outfall locations: 1, 2, 4, and 10. Because Outfalls 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are from similar drainage areas, only a sample from Outfall 10 is required. A data form is then completed for each observation(see SWPPP for blank data form). If contaminants are observed during the inspections, follow-up investigations are to be performed to determine the probable source of contamination. The results of such investigations are also to be recorded and appropriate actions taken to address the situation. 9.111 SIal'irre wateir IIY onIiiloua°iiing I "ua°ogirar Massport conducted a surface water quality monitoring program at stormwater outfalls from Hanscom Field to the Shawsheen River and Elm Brook from 1998 to 2001. Six rounds of surface water samples from three specified locations were collected over the four-year period and submitted for laboratory analysis. The samples were analyzed for the following parameters: IN Temperature IN pH IN Dissolved oxygen IN Five-day biochemical oxygen demand IN Ammonia nitrogen IN Nitrate nitrogen IN Total phosphate IN Priority pollutant 3 metals IN Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) IN Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Samples were collected during each round from three locations: directly from Elm Brook near the Hanscom Field property boundary; a composite sample from two stormwater outfalls discharging to Elm Brook; and a composite sample from the four Massport outfalls discharging to the Shawsheen River at the Hanscom Field boundary. This monitoring plan was reviewed and approved by the MassDEP. Surface Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources water sampling was conducted on the following dates: October 7, 1998; February 17, 1999; October 12, 1999; June 28, 2000; April 4, 2001; and August 30, 2001. The report and the tabular summary of the sampling program are included in Appendix F.Water quality parameters observed in the sampling program are shown in the report along with several benchmark monitoring values. There are no applicable standards that apply to Hanscom Field. The benchmark values are included solely for comparison purposes. The benchmark values are examples of typical concentrations that may be found in inland surface waters and stormwater. Metal concentrations were below benchmark values for nearly all sample dates and locations. Fecal coliform exceeded thresholds at the Shawsheen River outfalls twice and at the Elm Brook outfalls once, but did not do so at the upstream Elm Brook location on any of the sampling dates. TPH levels were lower at the Hanscom Field stormwater outfalls than in the Elm Brook samples taken from upstream of Hanscom Field stormwater outfalls.Nitrates slightly exceeded benchmarks for some dates at the Shawsheen River and Elm Brook outfalls, and at the upstream Elm Brook location once. Biochemical and chemical oxygen demand at the upstream Elm Brook location exceeded benchmarks on several sampling dates but rarely did so at the Hanscom Field outfalls. Also, dissolved oxygen was lower than benchmarks at the upstream Elm Brook sampling location for several dates but less frequently at the Hanscom Field outfalls. Overall, samples from the Elm Brook location upstream from Hanscom Field outfalls exceeded benchmarks more frequently, and for more contaminants, than did those from either Hanscom Field's Elm Brook or Shawsheen River outfalls. 9.113.6 Iiirnnlpa lired Wateirs III onIiiloir°ing Elm Brook is considered a waterbody requiring a total maximum daily loads (TMDL)in Massachusetts and is listed on the "Massachusetts Year 2008 Integrated List of Waters."Annual monitoring for Total Suspended Solids (TSS)is required from either outfall 8 or 9. In April 2010, a sample was collected from Outfall 9 for impaired waters monitoring per the SWPPP. The sample was analyzed for TSS, and had a result of<5.0 micrograms per liter.Because this result was below natural background levels, further impaired waters monitoring is not required and EPA was notified that sampling was terminated. 9.1117 SIaorirn ateir II%illiigatie°n Massport requires all Hanscom Field site development,including that performed by tenants, to conform to the MassDEP Stormwater Management Guidelines when feasible or applicable. Improved stormwater runoff control has been achieved through the requirement that compensatory storage for stormwater be provided for any projects resulting in increases in impervious surfaces,in order to not increase peak runoff rates. 9.113.8 SIlp 111 I it v ntie°n Ilpif°fart Massport has maintained a SPCC Plan for Hanscom Field since the 1995 GEIR. The SPCC,which was updated in 2012,is a plan outlining the steps to be taken in the event of an accidental petroleum release. Massport tenants are responsible for maintaining their own individual SPCC plans specific to their operations, as needed. The SPCC plan identifies potential discharge or spill activities that may result in a release, as well as spill prevention measures, control methods and an action plan in the event of a release including notification procedures,key personnel, a listing of available response equipment, tank and fuel delivery checklists, ."1. 9 ryp Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources and contact numbers in case of an emergency. The plan includes a listing of all active oil storage tanks owned and operated by Massport as well as a general listing of other types of smaller volume (55-gallon drum) storage of petroleum-based products including motor oil,waste oil, and hydraulic fluid. Massport maintains contracts with emergency response cleanup contractors that will respond to Massport or Massport tenant spill events at Hanscom Field.In addition,the Hanscom AFB Fire Department is responsible for responding to emergency situations,including hazardous material spills, at Hanscom Field. The Fire Department maintains detailed spill reports for all reported spills at Hanscom. The "State of Hanscom"reports indicate that there was one spill at Hanscom Field since 2005. Massport was not responsible for this spill,which occurred in 2008. A tenant reported to Massport and MassDEP that an aircraft had vented fuel,resulting in about one gallon entering the storm drain. As indicated in the 2009 "State of Hanscom,"the storm drain was cleaned, and booms were installed downstream from the storm drain as a safety measure. All MassDEP regulations were followed for cleanup and closure of the incident. Massport also requires annual environmental health and safety training for its employees at Hanscom Field. The training is designed to review hazardous materials used at the facilities,hazardous waste management, stormwater pollution prevention and SPCC requirements, first responder procedures and general environmental health and safety information.In addition, Massport has developed an Environmental Management Policy and has implemented an Environmental Management System(EMS) at Hanscom Field,which provides the framework for tracking, managing and improving environmental performance. As part of the EMS, spill prevention and emergency preparedness and response procedures were reviewed. A more detailed discussion of the EMS is included in Chapter 11, Sustainable Development and Environmental Management Systems. Beginning in the late 1980s, Massport has conducted environmental audits for all tenants located at Hanscom Field. The purpose of this program is to ensure that Massport's tenants are operating their businesses in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Massport works closely with each tenant to ensure that regulatory compliance is achieved and maintained. Any issues raised during the audits are followed up with the tenant until all compliance issues have been resolved. The tenant audits focus on hazardous waste management,water management, storage tank programs, record keeping practices,training requirements and spill response procedures. Additionally, tenants receive information on BMPs that focus on pollution prevention. Massport tenant facilities have been audited annually since 2001 and biannually for Massport operations at Hanscom Field to ensure compliance as part of Hanscom's EMS. No significant events relative to tenant noncompliance have been reported since the 2005 ESPR. 9.15 Deicing Activities Chemical deicers (i.e., sodium formate) are periodically used on Hanscom runways or taxiways to supplement mechanical equipment such as plows and blowers to enhance safety during inclement winter weather. Sand is applied to increase traction. Sodium formate has shown its effectiveness in snow and ice removal, and has been found to have significantly fewer environmental effects compared with traditional glycol-based deicers. P m + Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources Aircraft deicing and anti-icing activities at Hanscom Field are currently conducted by Jet Aviation and Signature Flight Support. These entities use products that are a dilute solution of propylene glycol. Most aircraft deicing is conducted near the Civil Air Terminal or the hangars. Massport employs BMPs both as a part of its sustainability efforts to manage stormwater runoff quality at Hanscom Field, and as a component of its NPDES permit. Aircraft deicing is listed as an Activity- Specific component of Hanscom Field's Best Management Practices. Aircraft deicing is done during snow and ice events by commercial and business aircraft operators,using propylene glycol,which is included in the NPDES permit. 9.115.11 2003 D6161ng Study In April 2003,Massport conducted a computer modeling study of proposed airfield and existing aircraft deicing at Hanscom Field.67 The purpose of the study was to summarize existing aircraft deicing practices, evaluate potential airfield deicing alternatives and assess current and potential effects on receiving waters from deicing activities.Neither the EPA nor the MassDEP has identified an "unsafe" concentration of deicing fluid. The study found that the deicing compounds that were used or were under consideration for use at Hanscom Field at the time of the study exhibited little to no human toxicity and that none was considered harmful by ingestion or has known long-term health effects. The study showed that neither current nor future scenario deicing activities at Hanscom Field would adversely affect the water supply for Bedford, Burlington or any other nearby communities. 9.115.2 SIoinai ateir and In-strearn IIY onitoir°ing I "ua°ogirar After public review and comment on the modeling study, Massport conducted a stormwater and in-stream monitoring program between November 2003 and March 2004 to assess any actual impacts from deicing activities and to confirm the results of the modeling study.No additional sampling has occurred since then. The sampling program consisted of seven sampling events for nine parameters. One event determined background concentrations while five events targeted stormwater and in-stream water quality during storm events when sodium formate and propylene glycol were being applied at the airport. One event quantified sodium concentrations in stormwater discharged to the Shawsheen River from road salt (sodium chloride) applications. During each event, several rounds of samples were collected from up to ten locations (three in-stream locations, five outfall locations, one manhole location, and one culvert location). Samples were analyzed for propylene glycol concentration, sodium concentration, dissolved oxygen, chemical oxygen demand, carbonaceous biological oxygen demand, salinity, conductivity, temperature, and pH. Sodium measurements were used to calculate the sodium formate concentration in the aqueous samples. Dissolved oxygen, chemical oxygen demand and carbonaceous biological oxygen demand were used to determine the potential environmental effects of the use of the deicers. Salinity, conductivity, temperature and pH were used to monitor changes in the general characteristics of the stormwater and surface water bodies. Data from the monitoring program are presented in Appendix F. The data collected during the monitoring program indicate that the concentrations of sodium formate and propylene glycol in the Shawsheen River and Elm Brook do not exceed aquatic toxicity levels. The data 67 Massachusetts Port Authority, "Hanscom Field Deicing Study," CDM,April 15,2003 OFT m Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources also demonstrate that water quality parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, are not affected by the discharge of the sodium formate and propylene glycol to the surrounding aqueous environments. The sodium concentrations measured in stormwater flow from the airfield ranged between 2.2 milligrams per liter and 92 milligrams per liter. When the highest sodium concentration of 92 milligrams per liter is converted to a sodium formate equivalent,the corresponding sodium formate concentration is 272 milligrams per liter,which is well below the established aquatic toxicity level of 1,000 milligrams per liter. Propylene glycol was found to be discharged primarily at one outfall located at the headwaters of the Shawsheen River. The in-stream propylene glycol concentrations found in the Shawsheen River ranged between not detected(with a detection limit of 2 milligrams per liter) and 270 milligrams per liter. The highest in-stream propylene glycol concentration found in the Shawsheen River, 270 milligrams per liter, is well below the reported aquatic toxicity level of 3,200 milligrams per liter.Propylene glycol was not detected in the Elm Brook. Decreases in dissolved oxygen in the Shawsheen River due to propylene glycol discharge were not observed. The lowest dissolved oxygen measurement at the in-stream location of the Shawsheen River on Hanscom AFB during the study was 7.1 milligrams per liter,which is comparable to the background concentration of 7.3 milligrams per liter and above the state minimum standard of 5.0 milligrams per liter. Levels of chemical oxygen demand and carbonaceous biological oxygen demand above background concentrations at this location were observed to be directly correlated to propylene glycol discharge. The dissolved oxygen data suggests that this aquatic system is able to buffer the oxygen demand imposed by discharges of propylene glycol. Based on the data collected during the Hanscom Field deicing study,it was determined that the concentrations of both sodium formate and propylene glycol in the Shawsheen River and Elm Brook do not exceed established levels for aquatic toxicity and do not adversely affect other aquatic parameters (e.g. dissolved oxygen). Therefore, the use of these deicing/anti-icing agents does not result in adverse effects on the receiving waters. 9,16 Analysis of Future Scenarios The 2012 ESPR future scenarios are used to evaluate the potential cumulative environmental effects that could occur if Hanscom Field reaches the airport activity levels that that are described in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios are estimates of what could occur(not what will occur)in the future using certain planning assumptions and are not necessarily recommended outcomes. The 2020 and 2030 master planning scenarios are presented in Chapter 4,Airport Planning. Massport encourages that new development be focused within areas with existing impervious surfaces that take advantage of available infrastructure and minimize impacts on habitat and water quality. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios would not be expected to result in impacts on vernal pools,rare or endangered species, or water quality. Each of the planning concepts assumed to occur over these time periods would be situated more than one-half mile from any of the certified vernal pools at Hanscom which are located in the western portion of the airport.None of the facilities described in these scenarios would occupy nesting areas of the rare species of grassland birds in the infields of the airport runways or aquatic areas and adjacent uplands utilized by Blanding's and Wood Turtles. Indirect impacts from projects in the vicinity of these nesting areas would not be expected to disrupt these populations since these species currently occupy an active airport environment.Potential water quality impacts would be Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources avoided through the continued implementation of the SWPPP and conformance with applicable standards for stormwater management required for site development or redevelopment by the MassDEP. Some of the planning areas in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios contain wetland resources or are located near wetlands. Massport would make every effort to avoid,minimize, and mitigate potential wetland impacts for future Massport or tenant projects.Projects involving work within wetland resource areas or their buffer zones would require applications to the appropriate conservation commissions for permitting under jurisdiction of the WPA. Potential effects of the planning scenarios on wetlands,wildlife and water resources are described below. 9w1I w'1I Wetlands The assessment of potential wetland impacts is a worst-case analysis assuming all the facilities described in the Planning Year Scenarios were constructed for each study year. Table 9-9 shows the facilities and the potential wetlands affected. aIt)Ille 9-9 Ilf3oteiritli4ll Woidk urwair Weflairids liiuri 2020 airid 2030 SceiiriairlIIos Terminal Area GA facilities with new parking spaces Wetlands 3-1 Wetland 3-1 Salt storage/maintenance facility Wetlands 3-2 Wetland 3-2 Jet Aviation to replace Hangar 17 with Wetland 1 Wetland 3-3 associated ramp and parking Wetland 4 Wetland 3-5 Civil Air Terminal enhancements Air& Wetland 1 Space Museum Wetland 2 Hotel Wetland 3 Parking Wetland 4 ATCT Apron Relocation option for customs facility None None Expansion of the airport maintenance facility Alternative landside access GA hangar development East Ramp Area GA/corporate hangars Cargo hangar/facility Riverfront Area adjacent Riverfront Area adjacent T-hangars to Shawsheen River to Shawsheen River Access Road from Hartwell Avenue Wetland 1-1 buffer zone Wetland 1-1 buffer zone Relocation option for customs facility North Airfield Area GA/corporate hangars(Hartwell Road site) Wetland 2-9 Wetland 2-9 Wetlands 1-3 Projects undertaken at Hanscom Field that involve work within wetland resource areas (including Riverfront Area) or buffer zones would require review and approval by the applicable conservation commission(s)through the submission of appropriate applications (NOI, Requests for Determination of Applicability, etc.)under the WPA. Approval of work within a resource area generally requires conformance with WPA performance standards identified in 310 CMR 10.54 through 10.58 for each resource area category, and an Order of Conditions issued by the conservation commission(s). Impacts to wetlands regulated under the Federal Clean Water Act,but not by the WPA, or impacts exceeding the area thresholds established in the WPA performance standards, could also require a Section 404 Individual Permit from the USACE, and/or Water Quality Certification from the MassDEP under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act.Massport would work to refine plans to avoid or minimize potential wetlands impacts. EFT I.. 9, P 7 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources 9 16 1 1 2020 Sceiriairlb Work may occur near wetlands in three of the four planning areas in the 2020 scenario. In the Terminal Area,plans to expand hangars and work on the first phase of the Air and Space Museum could affect wetlands in the south part of the area. While all work considered for the East Ramp would be on impervious area, the access road from Hartwell Avenue could occur in the Riverfront Area. In the North Airfield,work could be located in the buffer zone of drainage wetlands located in the infield. 9 16 1 2 2030 Sceiriairlb For the 2030 scenario, conditions are the same as described above for both the East Ramp and the North Airfield. As for the Terminal, additional work in the undeveloped area west of the Terminal access road could result in wetlands and buffer zone impacts. 9.116.2 Veirr'41 IPoo1s Any future projects proposed within or adjacent to the certified vernal pools would need to be reviewed by the NHESP through the submission of a copy of a NOI prepared under the WPA. None of the proposed projects contemplated in either the 2020 or 2030 scenarios is located near the three vernal pools and therefore no impacts will occur. The certified vernal pools are located near the end of Runway 11 where vegetation management operations may occur. As with the current VMP,which details vegetation management at Hanscom Field, future vegetation removal projects developed for the period from 2012 through 2020 will be based on the VMP and will incorporate plans to protect vernal pools. These future projects,which are within the guidelines established in the VMP,would also undergo review by the appropriate conservation commissions and the NHESP. A plan to protect the certified vernal pools during vegetation management operations has been incorporated in the Hanscom Field VMP,which was approved by the four conservation commissions. 9 16 2 1 2020 Sceiriairlb No impacts to three certified vernal pools near the western end of Runway 11-29, or their wildlife habitat value,would result from the potential locations for new facilities in the 2020 scenario. The potential location of a facility nearest to the vernal pools would be GA hangar development in the North Airfield Area, situated approximately 3,400 feet to the east. 9 16 2 2 2030 Sceiriairlb No impacts on wetlands will occur from development in the 2030 scenario. Development areas are the same as the 2020 scenario Oust augmented) and therefore risk of impact is the also the same. 9.116.3 @Raire and IEndangeired S' pe&les No potential action considered under the 2020 or 2030 scenarios would impact habitat of rare and endangered species. As noted in the Rare and Endangered Species section above, two rare species of grassland birds have been observed at Hanscom Field: upland sandpiper(endangered) and grasshopper sparrow(threatened). Each of these species nests within runway infield areas that are periodically mowed to maintain grassland vegetation for safe aircraft operation. In addition,two turtle species have also been identified. These amphibians inhabit aquatic areas and the adjacent uplands. Any project proposed in the buffer zone of a 9-'"134311 Fzr MI.. Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources wetland or in the Riverfront Area associated with a perennial stream must file a NOI with the conservation commission. Should any work be proposed in areas previously utilized by Blanding's or Wood Turtles,the project will also be reviewed by the NHESP.No development is contemplated near the brooks and streams where they occur. it 16 3 1 2020 Sceiriairlb Proposed development considered in the 2020 scenario is not proposed in areas mapped as Priority Habitat for Rare Species. Grassland bird species are located in the grassy airfields areas which are not included in the 2020 planning scenarios. One site, the GA/Corporate hangar development in the North Airfield Area,would be situated across a taxiway from an infield where grasshopper sparrows have been observed in the past. Since the nesting activity has occurred under the existing and higher historic activity levels at the airport, the GA hangar development in this location would be expected to have no effect on the continued usage of the infield as a nesting site. Similarly, the anticipated increases in aircraft landings and takeoffs through 2020 would not be expected to affect usage of the runway infields as nesting sites by these rare bird species. Turtle species are located in brooks and streams and occur in adjacent uplands. These species are primarily associated with Elm Brook and the Shawsheen River on Hanscom which occur on the western and northern part of the airport and flow north. No work in the 2020 scenario is proposed across or adjacent to either of these waterways. The closest area is again the North Airfield which is approximately 1,000 feet from Elm Brook at its closest point. 9 16 3 2 2030 Sceiriairlb No impacts to rare and endangered species will occur from development in the 2030 scenario. Development areas are the same as the 2020 scenario Oust augmented) and therefore risk of impact is the also the same. 9.116.4 WateirQtjaI�Ity Since all components under the 2020 or 2030 scenarios would be required to meet requirements of the NPDES Permit and applicable MassDEP standards for stormwater management, the potential for water quality impacts under the planning year scenarios are expected to be similar to each other. In addition, most of the development contemplated in the Master Planning areas will occur in areas of existing impervious development and will minimize water quality and quantity impacts. 9 16 4 1 2020 Sceiriairlb Massport will continue to follow, and will require tenants at Hanscom Field to follow, the development and facility operational requirements under the then-current NPDES Permit. All potential new facilities in the 2020 scenarios would also continue to be required to meet applicable MassDEP standards for stormwater management,when feasible. Therefore, the 2020 scenario is not anticipated to result in any impacts to water quality, and the continued Best Management Practice efforts would be expected to result in improvements to water quality over time. Ongoing groundwater remediation efforts noted in the Groundwater Conditions and Water Quality portion of this chapter would also be expected to improve water quality on and off site. In addition,the majority of any new development would be located in existing impervious areas. Areas where impervious surfaces could increase include the Terminal(2.1 acres) and the North Airfield(7.0 acres). Massport will review areas where existing pavement can be removed to achieve no net increase in impervious surface if these projects are to move forward. E.,Fr MI.. 9_'"1319 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources The potential GA/corporate hangar sites in the North Airfield are located in the Zone II Wellhead Protection Area for the Bedford wells. Massport would work with potential developers of the GA/corporate hangar sites in the North Airfield to ensure that any potential facilities are designed to protect the recharge area of the Bedford public wells. These measures, as well as elements of Massport's spill prevention program, are designed to protect the recharge area of the Bedford public wells. it 16 4 2 2030 Sceiriairlb Conditions for the 2030 scenario will be similar to those described for 2020. Impervious surface will potentially increase should additional areas contemplated for development become developed. The incremental increase in impervious surface from the 2020 scenario would be 5.1 acres in the Terminal and 2.4 acres in the North Airfield.Massport will review areas where existing pavement can be removed to achieve no net increase in impervious surface if these projects are to move forward. Cultural and Historical Resources 10 Cultural and 11-fistarical Resources This chapter provides information about existing cultural and historical resources, as well as recreational, conservation, and agricultural resources, at Hanscom Field and in areas adjacent to Hanscom Field. The documentation of historical and archaeological resources in Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln includes resources currently listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places (State and National Registers), the Inventory of the Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth (Inventory), and the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System(MACRIS) that are maintained by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). This review was based on the detailed analysis in the 2005 ESPR,updated with current information and supplemented through discussions with the historic commissions for each of the four towns and the incorporation of any information they provided. The inventory update of existing cultural and historical resources included a review of the status of historic buildings and landscapes in Minute Man National Historical Park (MMNHP). The National Park Service (NPS) also provided updates on the status of its activities including soundscape goals, management plans, and interagency workgroup that was formed to review impacts on the MMNHP. Conservation and recreational resources were identified through a review of available MassGIS data, research of town plans, and follow-up discussions with Town Planners in Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. This updated information is used as a basis for the evaluation of the cumulative environmental effects of Hanscom Field in 2012. The 2012 ESPR describes the potential cumulative environmental effects that could occur if Hanscom Field reaches the airport activity levels that are described in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios represent estimates of what could occur(not what will occur)in the future using certain planning assumptions and are not necessarily recommended outcomes. The future commercial service scenarios are consistent with Massport's 1980 Regulations for Hanscom Field,which prohibit scheduled commercial passenger services with aircraft having more than 60 seats. The EEA Scope Certificate of May 18, 2012 for the 2012 ESPR, directed Massport review the existing data on historic and archaeological resources at Hanscom Field,including the most current version of the State Register, the files of the MHC, and consultation with the towns. In addition, the Certificate stated that the 2012 ESPR should describe Massport's efforts to address concerns raised by NPS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). It should address NPS concerns about the potential impacts of noise on the waterfowl, shore birds,marsh birds, and turtles that use the Concord River basin. The ESPR should report on the status and any published recommendations of the Federal Interagency Working Group that was formed to review impacts on the MMMNHP and on the NPS's soundscape goals and plans for the Park. The ESPR should also identify how it will work with the four communities and the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) to protect Massport-owned agricultural land from conversion to non-agricultural uses. Cultural and Historical Resources '10.1 KeyFindingsSince2005 Based in input from the four host towns and independent research of state files and in the field, there have been a few additions to the cultural and historic resources inventory for the area. The analysis of potential impacts on cultural and historical resources demonstrates that impacts have decreased since 2005 as a result of a decline in aircraft operations, advances in aircraft technology, and operational measures that have been implemented including the Fly Friendly Program in 2009. Based upon the recent update of the status of historic resources within and around Hanscom Field, there are currently a total of 61 historic properties (i.e., 39 individual resources and 22 districts (with the MMNHP counted as one district)), that are included in or determined eligible for the National and State Registers in the 6,000-acre general study area for the 2012 ESPR 61. The resources range from individual houses to large historic districts with structures and associated landscape settings, including 12 National Historic Landmarks. The NPS has identified 106 resources that contribute to the historic significance of the MMNHP. The 2012 ESPR also updates the 2005 ESPR reconnaissance survey of resources that are 50 years or older and the noise analysis for historic properties within the area with the maximum forecasted noise values for each of the ESPRs.In 2005, the reconnaissance survey area was defined as the area inside the 2020 high growth 55 dB DNL noise contour line, and in 2012 it is the area within the 2030 planning year 55 dB DNL noise contour line. The 2005 reconnaissance survey and the 2012 update also encompassed the areas within a 200-foot radius of the 16 Traffic Study Areas located at various road intersections outside of the Hanscom Field boundary. Since the projected 2030 noise contour in the 2012 ESPR covers a smaller area than the forecasted 2020 high growth noise contour in the 2005 ESPR,the numbers of historic properties are significantly reduced.Within the defined area, the reconnaissance survey encompassed properties listed or eligible for inclusion in the National and State Registers, and resources included in the MHC's Inventory and MACRIS. It also provided a preliminary identification of resources that are 50 years old or older which have not been previously surveyed. The analyses included properties on Hanscom Field and Hanscom AFB. The 2012 survey update for the area inside the 2030 55 dB DNL noise contour line identified three individual historic properties (Deacon John Wheeler/Capt.Jonas Minot Farmhouse (aka Thoreau Birthplace), 341 Virginia Road in Concord; Wheeler-Meriam House, 477 Virginia Road in Concord; and Simonds Tavern, 331 Bedford Street in Lexington) and a small section of MMNHP that are listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National and State Registers (versus 32 individual properties and 20 districts in 2005). All four towns have extensive entries of historical resources in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS. The 2012 update of the 2005 ESPR reconnaissance survey found that there are currently 54 individual historic properties and 7 districts that are included in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS (versus 359 individual properties and 51 areas in 2005). The reconnaissance survey of properties that are 50 years or older completed for the 2005 ESPR had identified an additional 336 individual properties and 11 locations within that survey area that had not been previously documented. The 2012 reconnaissance survey update confirmed the findings of the earlier reconnaissance survey for the new defined area; consisting of approximately five individual properties and portions of three survey areas.69 68The general study area consists of the portions of the towns of Bedford,Concord,Lexington, and Lincoln that are shown as a rectangular area in the map figures in this chapter 69Adams et al. (PAL),Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Information in Support of 2005 Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report, Bedford, Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington, Massachusetts,2006. 10-2 Cultural and Historical Resources The survey update for the 2012 ESPR included a review of State Register, MHC site files Inventory, and MACRIS to amend the identification of recorded archeological sites within Hanscom Field or near the sixteen traffic study intersections that are described in Chapter 6, Ground Transportation. The review completed for the 2005 ESPR identified one recorded site outside Massport property that is near the intersection of Hanscom Drive and Old Bedford Road.An additional 39 sites that have not been evaluated for eligibility on the State and National Register were identified in Bedford, Concord, Lexington and Lincoln. This included six sites completely or partially within the property line of Hanscom Field.A 2005 archaeological overview and assessment of MMNHP reported that there were more than 100 prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites identified within the Park.70 The reconnaissance archaeological survey conducted for the 2005 ESPR found that most of Hanscom Field,however,has been previously disturbed by construction. The reconnaissance survey was conducted within the 2005 55 dB DNL noise contour line that included Hanscom Field, Hanscom AFB, and sections of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. Areas of high pre-contact archaeological sensitivity in the project area include previously undisturbed, dry, level areas located adjacent to the natural brooks and wetlands in the peripheral portions of the Hanscom Field. The extreme southern section of Hanscom Field and the intersections along Route 2A have moderate to high archaeological sensitivity for post-contact resources associated with the April 19, 1775 engagement along Battle Road,now part of the MMNHP. The update for the 2012 ESPR determined that existing conditions within the Hanscom area have remained largely unchanged since the 2005 ESPR and that no new archaeological sites have been identified within project study area. The 2012 ESPR describes the environmental effect of traffic and air quality on cultural and historic resources. The findings show that the environmental effects of traffic and air quality on cultural and historic resources have decreased since 2005. In 2012, Hanscom Field represented approximately four percent of peak hour traffic on Route 2A. In 2012, Hanscom Field traffic exceeded the ten percent MEPA threshold at one intersection on Route 2A in the MMNHP: 96) Hanscom Drive/Route 2A in Lincoln. As described in Chapter 8, Air Quality, there were no adverse effects attributable to air quality in 2012. Chapter 7,Noise reports noise levels at Hanscom Field in terms of DNL contours for 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA exposure. Table 10-1 summarizes noise exposure on National and State Register properties,the MMNHP, and key conservation and recreational facilities by identifying those resources within the 65 dBA DNL and 55 dBA DNL contours. Of these resources, approximately 0.1 acres of the Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan Conservation Area fell within the 65 dBA DNL contour in 2012 as compared to 1.4 in 2005. Locations within the 55 dBA DNL contour align with runway ends and air traffic patterns to the south and west[e.g.,portions of the Concord River and the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (GMNWR)] or within close proximity to Hanscom Field (e.g.,historic sites on Virginia Road). Massport and the NPS have been cooperating on the implementation of the Fly Friendly program instituted in 2009 with a noise abatement program and voluntary measures to minimize noise impacts on the MMNHP and residential areas. The DNL noise exposure levels at National and State Registers historic properties in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios decrease from 1.5 to 2.0 decibels below 2005 ESPR levels in the 2020 scenario to 0.5 to 1.0 70Herbster(PAL),Archeological Overview and Assessment, Minute Man National Historical Park, Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington, Massachusetts,2005. Banister and Herbster(PAL),Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Hanscom Field:2005 Environmental Status&Planning Report, Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln, Massachusetts,2006. Cultural and Historical Resources decibels below 2005 levels in the 2030 scenario. When compared to 2012 noise levels (which decreased from 2005),noise levels increase by 0.5 dB in 2020 and by 1.5 dB in 2030. As Table 10-1 indicates, only the Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan Conservation Area fell within the 65 dBA DNL contour,with the area impacted ranging from 0.1 acres in the 2020 scenario to 0.9 acres in the 2030 scenario. That increases to 66.4 and 72.1 acres of land in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios respectively for area exposed to the 55 dBA DNL contour. The GMNWR,which had the highest acreage within the 55 dBA DNL contour in 2005, dropped below Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan Conservation Area in 2012 and the forecast years. In the 2020 and 2030 scenarios, Hanscom Field represents four and seven percent respectively of peak hour traffic on Route 2A. Hanscom Field traffic exceeds ten percent of a single traffic movement at one Route 2A intersection in the 2020 scenarios and four Route 2A intersections in the 2030 scenarios. As described in Chapter 8, Air Quality, there are no adverse effects attributable to air quality in 2012 or the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Massport supports Transportation Demand Management(TDM) strategies to reduce its contribution to traffic on area roadways, as well as potential traffic management strategies that do not require physical modification to intersections.No physical modifications are proposed to intersections and, therefore, there are no adverse effects to the identified historic and archeological resources in 2012 or the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Some of the potential airport facilities in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios would be located within areas assessed as having a high archaeological sensitivity. Additional archaeological investigation within these areas would be recommended if these concepts moved forward to planning and design and if below ground impacts were proposed. The 2006 reconnaissance survey, as updated in 2013,will guide such efforts. Massport will continue to work with the MDAR to determine appropriate measures to protect Massport- owned agricultural lands from conversion to non-agricultural uses.Massport will inform the towns about actions related to agricultural lands as part of its briefings at HFAC meetings. This section presents conditions in 2012 for cultural and historical resources within Hanscom Field and in the reconnaissance survey area that is illustrated in Figure 10-1. The noise analysis location labels in this figure are tied to information that is presented in Tables 10-2 through 10-5 and Table 10-13 for the MMNHP. The description of 2012 resources focuses first on historical resources,then archaeological resources, and concludes with MMNHP. This discussion is followed by a survey of recreation and conservation lands in each of the four towns, as well as the GMNWR. The chapter concludes with a review of agricultural resources.Noise and traffic are then assessed. The analysis presented in Chapter 8, Air Quality indicates that there are no adverse effects attributable to air quality in 2012. The noise analysis evaluates the 65 dB DNL noise contour and the 55 dB DNL noise contour. The 65 dB DNL noise contour was used as a guideline for determining potential land use incompatibilities,in accordance with FAA guidelines. The EEA Scope for the 2012 ESPR identified the 55 dB DNL noise contour for inclusion in the noise analysis. 10-4 ° I.. / c r ��/' O��JlJp � u uG `w� ♦ Z ^� ��/10y� ` m fo °' cu LT tm>,a U :�c — coo W _ gym i�", � N X to lLmg o .�! z z �I / � x m 2 Z o co u IIII �,uuuuuuuuu Z Zll) do o� M PO/r �I el 'OK a, , roy z dz 4 pz /�/ yr r a a U o n o �' p' o c �/ i Z 0 0 �p� .""•`�! "�,4 4 - IIIBIfy", o c� 0 0 � Nd w �� m p O Z Z Y, �� iv rtli(tl � Z IFY- m m 1� ppi� I u IIII Z O 2 a 1 SIS IN z Ih�V� '"--m:z z , � iy"rigs 14, ♦ �Ij U III r+ N II w O Z.. Z m 2 Y PPP ..V I' Ij ro x z „._ m > U U uj FE o z z r' IW� y y U m z O x II Z p A m q � '2�Z'2 p M I.III ILA ILIA J E II U U 4 6HV ._. O�cV1 Q z z G1{jfl�� z z z zo W O w yp W, (' o- ax �x z III r=z p II _ '� °° E - _ �� ran- _ - v' R e e� � Ia M� y / mro C14•_ .0 0 m 2 � , � II�r � �� 1re. o.T$ ol z x s 0 >0 R, Z Iq i0� 9 o o U J b ti cS O a Iul a R .L U V 2 2 2 2�JJ JJ��1 5 z u ,�J, c o c O Z Z ,WIII a � m m Q fly" m I�i1 y c o 0 U ti O m 5 Cf',7 Y;"1 Cultural and Historical Resources Historic and archaeological resources are identified for areas within 200 feet of the sixteen traffic study intersections to provide baseline data to assess potential traffic effects on these resources. Traffic concerns are related to overall traffic volumes on roadways,particularly Route 2A through the MMNHP, and the operation of intersections with consideration of intersection modifications to improve capacity. Although Hanscom Field traffic made up only four percent of the traffic on Route 2A during the morning peak hour and afternoon peak hour in 2012,Massport is committed to Transportation Demand Management and traffic management approaches that do not involve physical changes to intersections,if potential improvements are warranted to address identified needs. Appendix G summarizes historic resources near the sixteen intersections. aIt)IIIe 10-1 u.jirnirnlairy o1 INolse 11Effects, oin Q.flftj14 aind III"1liistoirlit IIIlesmiirces ..ji w @V ew an "°' co cr anro National and State Registers Individual Properties 39 properties 0 properties 0 properties 0 properties 0 properties National and State Register Historic Districts5 1646. acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Minute Man National Historical 975.4 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Pa rk Battle Road Interpretive Trail 4.0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Minuteman Commuter 10.1 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Bikeway Narrow Gauge Rail-Trail 3.0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan 165.9 acres 1.4 acres 0.1 acres 0.1 acres 0.9 acres Conservation Area Great Meadows National 3409.0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Wildlife Refuge Concord River6 6.5 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 S i ffl cr an ro IN National and State Register Individual Properties4 39 properties 3 properties 3 properties 3 properties 3 properties National and State Register Historic Districts5 1646.2 acres 2.4 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Minute Man National Historical 975.4 acres 1.7 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0.4 acres Pa rk Battle Road Interpretive Trail 4.0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Minuteman Commuter 10.1 miles 1.3 miles 0.3 miles 0.4 miles 0.5 miles Bikeway Narrow Gauge Rail-Trail 3.0 miles 1.3 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan 165.9 acres 118 acres 26.4 acres 66.4 acres 72.1 acres Conservation Area Great Meadows National 3409.0 acres 210 acres 26.4 acres 43.1 acres 94.4 acres Wildlife Refuge Concord River6 6.5 miles 0.5 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0.1 miles Notes: 1. See Tables 10-19 and 10-20 for more detail on National and State Registers individual properties and historic districts. 2.All surveyed historic properties;total acreage of surveyed historic districts, Minute Man National Historical Park, Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan Conservation Area,and Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge;and,total length of trails and Concord River. 3.This is the exposure level that the FAA identifies as a guideline for determining potential land use incompatibilities. 4. Does not include Minute Man National Historical Park sites. In this table,the noise effects are quantified through the estimation of park acreage within a given contour. 5. Includes Bedford Depot Park Historic Dist., Bedford Historic Dist.,and Old Bedford Center Historic Dist.in Bedford; American Mile Historic Dist.,Barrett Farm Historic Dist., Concord Monument Square-Lexington Road Historic Dist., OFT m.. 10 Cultural and Historical Resources Hubbard-French Historic Dist., Hubbardville Historic Dist., Main Street Historic Dist.,and North Bridge-Monument Square Historic Dist.in Concord; Battle Green Historic Dist., East Village Historic Dist., Hancock-Clarke Historic Dist., Lexington Green Historic Dist.and Munroe Tavern Historic Dist. in Lexington;and,Lincoln Historic Dist. in Lincoln.Areas of overlap in districts are counted once. 6. Concord River is approximately 6.5 miles in length from State Route 2(South of Airport)to State Route 225(North of Airport) Information on historic and archaeological resources in the 2012 ESPR is based on updating data that was collected in a series of planning steps for the 2005 ESPR. This consisted of reviewing the 2005 survey results,updating baseline research, and conducting a drive over/walkover field survey to verify the current conditions. This results in an updated reconnaissance-level preliminary list of known resources and sensitive areas. In the future, an intensive-level survey may be conducted that examines the history, context, and physical characteristics of all or selected historic resources in more detail, culminating in MHC Inventory forms, entry in MACRIS, and evaluation of eligibility for listing in the National and State Registers of Historic Places. Individual properties and historic districts eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places must meet criteria established by the NPS,possess historic integrity, and be significant in local, state, or national history.Properties are nominated through the MHC. The National Register is the nation's official list of historic properties deemed worthy of protection and is overseen by the NPS. The State Register of Historic Places,maintained by the MHC,is an umbrella compilation of historic properties and districts that have been designated as historically significant in one or more different programs at the local, state, and national level. The State Register consists of inventoried historical resources that have been evaluated and formally designated as historically significant due to meeting the criteria for listing in one of the following categories:National Historic Landmark designated by the U.S. Congress; listed or formally determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; Massachusetts Archaeological or Historic Landmark designated by MHC; Local Landmark or Local Historic District determined by a community; Regional Historic District established by State legislature; or subject to a Preservation Restriction managed by the MHC. MHC updates the State Register regularly, and the January 2013 edition was consulted for current information included in the 2012 ESPR. Information from the National and State Registers is presented in the section below. '10A Historical Resources This section updates the status of historical resources within Hanscom Field, Hanscom AFB, and an area of approximately 45 square-miles that is depicted in Figure 10-1 and defined as the general study area. Data collection methodologies included review of documents,reports, agency files and databases, archival materials, and historic maps. Interviews and information sharing meetings were conducted with National Park Service representatives from the MMNHP, and the local historical commissions of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. Available planning studies conducted within or adjacent to Hanscom Field were also consulted. The results informed the list of noise analysis locations that were the basis of the Chapter 7 noise analysis. Information was also integrated into the reconnaissance historic and archaeological resources survey updates completed in 2013 for the 2012 ESPR. Cultural and Historical Resources 10.4.11 V'UIlilor'4II and State @RegIlsteir @Rescltjirces The existing conditions for National and State Registers-listed historic resources were assessed for the area shown in Figure 10-1. Both the 1988 and 1995 GEIRs identified 32 (national, state, and local) historic architectural building resources and districts in the general study area. The 2000 ESPR identified a total of 43 historic buildings and/or districts included in the State Register. The 2005 ESPR identified a total of 52 historic resources, or 32 historic buildings and 20 districts (with the MMNHP counted as one district),included in the State Register within the general study area for the 2005 ESPR. An updated review was completed of the National and State Registers, the MHC Inventory, and MACRIS that are all maintained by the MHC for inclusion in the 2012 ESPR. Based upon the recent investigations, a total of 61 historic resources, or 39 individual historic properties and 22 districts (with the MMNHP counted as one district), are currently included in, or determined eligible for inclusion in,the National and State Registers within the general study area for the 2012 ESPR. These resources are listed in Tables 10-2 through 10-5 and shown in Figure 10-1. The resources range from individual houses to large historic districts with structures and associated landscape settings, and are distributed as follows in the four towns. IN Bedford contains five historic districts and seven individual properties IN Concord contains eight historic districts (including a portion of the MMNHP) and eighteen individual properties,including six individual National Historic Landmarks IN Lexington contains nine historic districts (including a portion of the MMNHP) and ten individual properties. IN Lincoln contains two historic districts (including a portion of the MMNHP) and four individual properties. The largest single historic resource is the MMNHP, a National Historic Landmark district with four separate units in Concord,Lexington, and Lincoln that contains numerous historic buildings and places, including individual National Historic Landmarks. The MMNHP is discussed in Section 10.6. 10.4.2 Exi l rdk l ng V461se Oon&i llii e°n All 39 individual properties and 22 historic districts (including MMNHP)listed in the National and State Registers were evaluated in Chapter 7,Noise. The relationship of these properties to 2005 and 2012 noise levels is shown in Figure 10-2.None of the individual properties or historic districts is within the 65 dB DNL contour in 2005 or 2012,which the FAA views as significant noise exposure. There are no historic districts within the 55 dB DNL contour in 2012 including the MMNHP, discussed below. Two individual National and State Registers properties have DNL values greater than 55 dBA in 2012. These values are 1.7 to 2.0 dB lower than in 2005: N The Deacon John Wheeler/Capt.Jonas Minot Farmhouse (aka Thoreau Birthplace), 341 Virginia Road in Concord at 58.4 dBA N The Wheeler-Meriam House, 477 Virginia Road in Concord at 58.1 dBA One additional property, the Simonds Tavern, 331 Bedford Street in Lexington that was included in this group in 2005 has a value lower than 55 dBA (53)in 2012. . 1 0 9 Cultural and Historical Resources (This page intentionally left blank) o ��® O ♦ R' `® Z CN LT � o +r o1111 m O z O �,r °a a S to Z • ao o %� mg c u N i zzzzzzz uN 2 m 2 ca ljj IUIW'rW'w� o a X X X rn— a. �� o X I 0 _ 1/r 2 2 z z z Z Z r(f�ff�Il� r. 1/�Il i� uuuuuuwlpp0u � �r 11J ��`f o II jR i/< zlll u II z II II 25 / : n $ x$ m= it z r Ym s a a m U ' ' ( m m II,H14fq' _ U a ' a o z z1���, �, �� I�'�I,rtl�n t, % —�'z � II II �_ m= "" IIIIIIIII II � II !� u z m ao m �i�ig. rtW.. z � «z z z � a j ( III h� I u 0 Q., �; p....V 011111 m z � m . o� O iv,Ii�„ is � �.�' fl s � � � `v ��� 1 �� z ..u z � u fa o U U zca z z �a ry m... ill, ljjjjj♦ 14� u z♦```, u E. E. �� 0 II ..II � �_� u L) L, I� a CJ CJ ILLI r ��^ U f � z ? �o�•J � a Al 6AV w R91 UUUIUU ao G1{jfl0� z z ,fir ::. �� U � rn U � R' w w Wlit x z � u ru z U z z m 1 W E E z �� „> U, I v p z M� Ca h z.z z y O mz O _ v a II uj 0 m 2 I b gR 0 IBM, rtW m�' M 0o z z w 7 $ n U o o ET/ z oz j ��� a - z ® �UrmIII U' r 0 o 0 U ti O m 5 �r^wp, r�,. Cultural and Historical Resources The highest DNL noise exposure at a historic National and State Registers noise analysis location in 2012 is 58.4 dBA. This level was calculated at the Deacon John Wheeler/Capt.Jonas Minot Farmhouse (aka Thoreau Birthplace). The 2012 value is 2.0 dBA lower than the 2005 value (60.4 dBA), also the highest DNL exposure level for a historic resource in 2005. aItAe 10-2 III~11iistorlit Airclidftecftji4l IIIlei:mirces, IIL.Iiisted liiin the IlNatbir4ll aind State IIIlerlliMers of III~11iistoirlit F)II aces liiin Bedford .ffllr BED.V NB-5 Bedford Depot Park 80 Loomis St.and 120 Eclectic National Register of Historic District South Rd. 1874-1877 Historic Places BED.A NB-1 Bedford Historic District Great Road Various Local Historic District ca. 1730-1850 BED.0 NB-2 Old Bedford Center Great Road Various National Register of Historic District ca. 1730-1860 Historic Places BED.K NB-9 Old Burlington Road- Old Burlington, Various National Register of Wilson Mill Area Burlington,and Wilson 1676-1924 Historic Places Roads BED.D HB-1 Veterans Springs Road Georgian Colonial National Register Administration Medical ca. 1920 Determination of Eligibility Center BED.21 NB-8 Bacon-Gleason- 118 Wilson Road Georgian National Register of Blodgett Homestead ca. 1750 Historic Places BED.23 NB-4 Bedford Old Town Hall 16 South Road 1856 Local Historic District National Register of Historic Places BED.37 NB-7 Christopher Page 50 Old Billerica Road Federal National Register of House ca. 1730 Historic Places BED.17 NB-6 Nathaniel Page House 89 Page Road First Period National Register of 1687 Historic Places BED.800 NB-3 Old Burying Ground 7 Springs Road 1729 Local Historic District National Register of Historic Places Notes: 1.2012 Noise Analysis Location label. aItAe "i0-3 III~11iistoirlit Airclidftecftji4l IIIlei:mirces, IIL.Iiisted liiin the IlNatbir4ll aind State IIIlerlliMers of III~11iistoirlit F)II aces liiin Coincoird 11�!Sa M., 11 11 1� li�M�111, CON.DS NC-13 American Mile Historic Lexington Road Various Local Historic District District ca. 1650-1950 CON.DT NC-1 Barrett Farm Historic Barrett's Mill and Lowell Various Local Historic District District Roads, Liberty Street ca. 1700-1940 CON.A NC-14 Concord Monument Monument Square and Various National Register of Square-Lexington Rd Lexington Road ca. 1720-1890 Historic Places Historic District CON.EA NC-6 Hubbard-French 324-374 Sudbury Road Georgian National Register of Historic District 1787-1950 Historic Places CON.DZ NC-5 Hubbardville Historic 324-374 Sudbury Road Georgian Local Historic District District 1787-1950 CON.DU NC-9 Main Street Historic Main St. bet. Monument Various Local Historic District District Sq.and Wood St. 1757-1976 Notes: 1.2012 Noise Analysis Location label. 2. See Table 10-13 for historic resources in MMNHP in Concord, Lexington,and Lincoln. 3. Old Manse and The Wayside are individually listed National Historic Landmarks in MMNHP. 4.Walden Pond State Reservation is located in Concord and Lincoln. Cultural and Historical Resources TatAe 10-3 I+stoiht Airdhdlecftji4 IIResmimes, IIL.Iiisted liiin the IlNatbir4 aind State lleglMeirs ofl+stoiht PIllaces liiin Coincoird (cointiim.jed) 11�!Sa M., 11 �11 1�11�1�mll� III CON.0 Multiple Minute Man National Lexington and North Various National Historic Landmark CON.DW Historical Park Great Rds., ca. 1655-1959 National Register of CON.EC Massachusetts Ave. Historic Places CON.DV NC-10 North Bridge- Monument Sq., Various Local Historic District Monument Square Monument St., Lowell 1635-1979 Historic District Rd. CON.177 NC-18 Deacon John Wheeler- 341 Virginia Rd. Colonial National Register of Captain Jonas Minot ca. 1730 Historic Places Farmhouse(Henry David Thoreau Birthplace) CON.405 NC-7 Deacon Thomas 342 Sudbury Rd. Georgian Local Historic District Hubbard-Judge Henry ca. 1787 National Register of French House Historic Places CON.241 NC-2 Jonathan Hildreth 8 Barrett's Mill Rd. Georgian Local Historic District House ca. 1750 National Register of Historic Places CON.269 NC-3 Joseph Hosmer House 572 Main St. Colonial Local Historic District 1672 National Register of Historic Places CON.347 MM-6 Old Manse 3 269 Monument St. Georgian Local Historic District CON.EE 1769 National Register of Historic Places National Historic Landmark CON.170 NC-17 Orchard House 399 Lexington Rd. Georgian Local Historic District ca. 1750 National Register of Historic Places National Historic Landmark CON.414 NC-8 Pest House 158 Fairhaven Rd. Vernacular National Register of ca. 1750 Historic Places CON.317 NC-15 Ralph Waldo Emerson 28 Cambridge Turnpike Greek Revival Local Historic District House 1828 National Register of Historic Places National Historic Landmark CON.802 NC-12 Sleepy Hollow 24 Court Ln. Burial Ground National Register of (CON.DY) Cemetery 1823 Historic Places CON.56 NC-4 Thoreau-Alcott House 255 Main St. Greek Revival Local Historic District 1820 National Register of Historic Places CON.936 NC-16 Walden Pond 4 MA Rte. 126 Pond National Register of 1845 Historic Places National Historic Landmark CON.71 MM-7 The Wayside—Samuel 455 Lexington Rd. Colonial Local Historic District CON.EF Whitney House 3 ca. 1714 National Register of Historic Places National Historic Landmark CON.178 NC-19 Wheeler-Meriam House 477 Virginia Rd. Colonial National Register of 1690 Historic Places CON.329 NC-1 1 Wright Tavern 1-8 Lexington Rd. Georgian Local Historic District 1747 National Register of Historic Places National Historic Landmark Notes: 1.2012 Noise Analysis Location label. 2. See Table 10-13 for historic resources in MMNHP in Concord, Lexington,and Lincoln. 3. Old Manse and The Wayside are individually listed National Historic Landmarks in MMNHP. 4.Walden Pond State Reservation is located in Concord and Lincoln. 10-14 Fzr MI.. Cultural and Historical Resources TatAe 10-4, 1+stoiht Airdhdlecftji4 IIResmimes, IIL.Iiisted liiin the IlNatbir4 aind State lleglMeirs ofl+stoiht PIllaces liiin IL.ekiingtoin 11�!Sjj M., 11 �11 1�11�1�mlll I III LEX.AQ Multiple Minute Man National Lexington and North Various National Register of Historical Park 2 Great Rds., Mass.Ave. ca. 1655-1959 Historic Places National Historic Landmark LEX.B OLX-1 Battle Green Historic Worthen Rd.,Woburn Various Local Historic District District St.., Hastings Rd., 1713-1960 Mass.Ave.,and B&M Railroad LEKE NLX-15 East Village Historic Massachusetts Ave. Various Local Historic District District ca. 1750-1950 LEXC NLX-2 Hancock-Clarke Historic 12-41 Hancock St., 3-13 Various Local Historic District District Hancock Ave.,8 1698-1900 Goodwin Rd. LEKAG NLX-6 Lexington Green Massachusetts Ave., Town Common Local Historic District Harrington Rd., Bedford 1711 National Register of St. Historic Places National Historic Landmark LEXAC NLX-5 Lexington Green Massachusetts Ave., Various Local Historic District Historic District Bedford St., Harrington 1713-1960 National Register of Rd. Historic Places LEX.D NLX-12 Munroe Tavern Historic Massachusetts Ave. Various Local Historic District District 1700-1900 LEX.51 NLX-7 Buckman Tavern 1 Bedford St. Georgian Local Historic District LEXAH ca. 1690 National Register of Historic Places National Historic Landmark LEX.52 NLX-4 Garrity-Col.John 9 Hancock St. Federal/Greek Local Historic District Parkhurst Meriam Revival National Register of House ca. 1830 Historic Places National Historic Landmark LEX.101 NLX-8 General Samuel 8 Goodwin Rd. Italianate Local Historic District Chandler House 1846 National Register of Historic Places LEX.1 19 NLX-3 Hancock-Clarke House 35 Hancock St. Colonial Local Historic District 1698 National Register of Historic Places National Historic Landmark LEX.440 NLX-9 Hancock School 33 Forest St. Victorian National Register of 1890 Historic Places LEX.129 NLX-14 John Mason House 1303 Massachusetts Federal Local Historic District Ave. ca. 1715 National Register of Historic Places LEX.127 NLX-13 Sanderson House- 1314-1332 Colonial Local Historic District LEX.128 Munroe Tavern Massachusetts Ave. ca. 1720 National Register of Historic Places LEX.413 NLX-1 Simonds Tavern 331 Bedford Street Georgian National Register of 1795-1810 Historic Places LEX.16 NLX-10 United States Post 1661 Massachusetts Colonial Revival National Register of Office Ave. 1938 Historic Places LEX.134 NLX-1 1 Warren E. Sherburne 11 Percy Rd. Eclectic Local Historic District House 1893 National Register of Historic Places Notes: 1.2012 Noise Analysis Location label. 2. See Table 10-13 for historic resources in MMNHP in Concord, Lexington,and Lincoln. OF T"1.R 1 0_1 5 Cultural and Historical Resources Tat)Ille 10-5 III~11iistorlit Airclidftecftji4l Ilesmirces, IIL.Iiisted liiin the IlNatliiour4ll aind State lleglMeirs &1+stoirlt l)IIIaces liiin IIL.Iiiincdlin 11�!Sa M., 11 �11 1�11�1�mll� 111 LIN.A NLN-4 Lincoln Center Historic Bedford, Lincoln, Old Various Local Historic District LIN.D District Lexington, Sandy Pond, ca. 1850 National Register of Trapelo,and Weston Historic Places Rds. LIN.F Multiple Minute Man National Lexington and North Various National Historic Landmark LING Historical Park 1 Great Rds., ca. 1655-1959 National Register of Massachusetts Ave. Historic Places LIN.63 NLN-3 Daniel Brooks House Brooks Rd. Colonial National Register of 1695 Historic Places LIN.182 NLN-2 Henry Higginson House 44 Baker Farm Rd. Tudor Revival National Register of 1905 Historic Places LIN.60 NLN-5 Hoar Tavern 268 Cambridge Colonial National Register of Turnpike ca. 1713 Historic Places LIN.917 NLN-1 Walden Pond 3 MA Rte. 126 Pond National Register of 1845 Historic Places National Historic Landmark Notes: 1.2012 Noise Analysis Location label. 2. See Table 10-13 for historic resources in MMNHP in Concord, Lexington,and Lincoln. 3.Walden Pond State Reservation is located in Concord and Lincoln. Time Above (TA) is a separate metric that calculates the time during a 24-hour period that aircraft noise exceeds either a threshold level of 65 dBA (TA65) or 55 dBA (TA55). Time Above 65 dBA generally indicates periods when speech interference is possible unless the speaker uses a raised voice. Further detail on Time Above analysis is presented in Chapter 7,Noise. TA values decreased in 2012 when compared to 2005. TA65 values in 2012 range from 0.1 minute a day at the East Village Historic District in Lexington to approximately 32/2minutes a day at the Wheeler- Meriam House on Virginia Road in Concord(compared to 0.3 and 33.4 in 2005). TA55 values in 2012 range from one-half a minute per day at the East Village Historic District to 113 minutes per day at the Wheeler-Meriam House (compared to 2.9 and 141.7 in 2005). 10.4. I Exllstlng Traffic Conctitions The relationship of National and State Registers properties and the 16 traffic study intersections is shown in Figure 10-3. In accordance with MEPA certificate, traffic associated with Hanscom Field is considered to have a significant impact on an intersection if one or more of the intersection's individual traffic movements consist of ten percent or more of Hanscom Field-related traffic. For the 2012 ESPR traffic analysis of 2012 conditions, four intersections triggered this threshold: 95) Hanscom Drive/Old Bedford Road, Lincoln; 96) Hanscom Drive/Route 2A, Lincoln; 910) Old Bedford Road/Virginia Road, Concord; and, 911) Route 62/Old Bedford Road, Concord.National and State Registers-listed historic properties are located near 96) Hanscom Drive/Route 2A, Lincoln,which is next to the MMNHP. Mitigation measures will seek to minimize Hanscom's contribution though no physical modifications are proposed for these intersections. 10.4.4 IIW" C inventary The MHC Inventory is a compilation of inventory forms for historical resources that are typically 50 years old or older. It serves as a basic planning tool for communities and for state and federal agencies in the recording, evaluating, and protecting of historical resources. Resources in the MHC Inventory may not have been formally evaluated and designated as historically significant according to specific 1016 Fzr MI.. / ,� �/ iia'�i� c`a o r 7357,, �..� 'ti O""..: ®® U' >" �//v��rr�J'�����rir a U o e C?c al � J//� - S �. v iEFE fir, = m 2 s� zzzzzzz i c n'id m II u u �� U O «< I _ X I N 0 /�f x x z Z Z Z JJZ I�fII„IlI, > ` Y. ��� N o W x IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� �, � I all/r f ( n , � Z , z' II �C �, II II ` o 00 Z / „ m rl/fry m Ir/ 'gI%` %> II my z /�rv/ ' na . rrr po � I z a O C Z Z IN a BB c m m a o lf,r,; Z Z m= II IIIIIIIII Oo r II �� ............................................ . ""ICI f % ��• ®® 6p71 ""� ® �� L I mm Iq Z m '"" «z z z II Z � m 011111 Muni °` .,� �� m x Z m J u G%, x WUri c N ca r � �c F � " � u� � Z R 1 l II °Y I1 RI d N a E a Z J f c em 0� U U UNU v f Z Z 4 --IIAN 9 / w z z z z z I " 2 w y M M Im W f„' 'y,`r — z u yp o- ¢x �x III r z z p 12 - _ /gin- _ - U R ecle � > la M� y oz .2 rcu zzz uj mlt � s d c E II _ '% o a� Z Il o R Z, U O z Z u III z Q � r o 0 U ti O m 5 e,?:X C„ Cultural and Historical Resources regulatory criteria,but are properties that may be eligible for inclusion in the National and State Registers. The MACRIS is a computerized database listing of the MHC Inventory that is linked to MassGIS. Within the general study area comprised of more than 6,000 acres that includes Hanscom Field and adjacent properties, there are extensive entries of historical resources in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS. Appendix G includes the full set of historic resources that was updated for the 2012 ESPR." Twenty-one of the survey areas and 39 of the surveyed individual properties are also included,wholly or partially,in the State Register. These include the following resources in each town. IN Bedford contains 59 individual historic resources and six survey areas. A National Register nomination is in process for one of these areas: the Old Billerica Road Area in Bedford. IN Concord contains 218 individual historic resources and 38 survey areas. Two of the Concord survey areas are sections of MMNHP. IN Lexington contains 63 individual historic resources and one survey area. IN Lincoln contains no individual historic resources and no survey areas 10.4.5 Existing 46i1s e Conditions Table 10-6 summarizes by town the number of historic resources in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS that were in the 2012 65 dB DNL and 55 dB DNL contour.None of the historic resources in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS are within the 65 dB DNL contour in 2012,which is consistent with the findings of the 2005 ESPR. Similarly, for both 2005 and 2012, 13 of the 45 survey areas and 99 of the 340 individual properties are within the 55 dB DNL contour. TaIt)Ille 10-6 Coirnpairiiiing I I11 [inveintoiry aind IMAG11M I~1iiistoriit IIIlei:mirces, wiiitllhidiiun the 65 dBA aind 55 dBA DNIIL. Cointmirs, for 2005 aind 2012 11�In'01' liimlil -I AREAS Bedford 6 - 5 6 - 5 Concord 38 - 7 38 - 7 Lexington 1 - 1 1 - 1 Lincoln - - - - - 0 Total 45 0 13 45 0 13 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES Bedford 59 - 19 59 - 19 Concord 218 - 47 218 - 47 Lexington 63 - 33 63 - 33 Lincoln - - 0 - - 0 Total 340 0 99 340 0 99 Notes: 1. Based on research for 2012 ESPR. 2.Appendix G lists these historic resources. 3.The numbers of areas listed are fully or partially within the 55 dBA DNL contour. ''The full baseline data set covers more than 6,000 acres defined as the general survey area.Appendix G includes Inventory resources that are noise analysis locations in Chapter 7,but were not in the full baseline data set. OFT .. 1 0_14'f Cultural and Historical Resources 10.4.6 i lii rlliing "Traffic Oonctitliie°n Table 10-7 identifies the historic resources listed in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS at the four intersections that were studied for 2012 conditions. As indicated previously,no physical modifications are proposed for these intersections. 10.4.7 IL_e°cal KistaIlic Cornirnilssilons In addition to consulting MHC files and online databases, Massport met with the local historical commissions in Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln and with representatives of the MMNHP to explain the purpose and process of the ESPR and to collect updated data on any additional notable historical resources. Each historic commission provided information about historic districts and individual historic resources that are listed or may be eligible for listing in the National and State Registers for consideration as noise analysis locations for the 2012 ESPR noise analysis. 7'dbI e 10-7 III"11iistorlit Airclidftecftjirdl III'le�:mirces, liiin the I I11 [inveintoirWy aind IMAG11M near 2012 �inteirsectliiDire #5)Hanscom Dr./Old Bedford Rd.(Lincoln) None None None #6)Route 2A/Hanscom Dr.(Lincoln) Multiple Minute Man National Historical Park NHL, NR LIN.157 Giurleo House MMNHP LIN.158 Giurleo House Garage MMNHP #10)Old Bedford Rd./Virginia Rd. (Concord) CON-BL Lower Old Bedford Rd./Virginia Rd.Area MACRIS CON.1069 Patrick Dalton House CON-BL #11)Old Bedford Rd./Route 62(Concord) CON-BN Old Bedford Road Area II MACRIS CON-BO Bedford Street Area II MACRIS CON.1090 759 Bedford Street House CON-BO Notes: 1. Based on MEPA Scope Certificate for the 2012 ESPR, Hanscom Field traffic is considered to impact an intersection if one or more of the intersection's individual traffic movement(s)consists of ten or more percent Hanscom Field-related traffic. 2. NHL—National Historic Landmark; NR—National Registers of Historic Places; MMNHP—Minute Man National Historical Park; CON-BL/CON-BO—survey areas in Concord; MACRIS—Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System. Becllaord KiisrdkoiI liica1 Coirnir6lssllon Bedford noted that two properties that are used as receptors in the noise modeling analysis are now listed in the National and State Registers and that an extension is being proposed for the National Register-listed Old Bedford Historic District. Oo n co ird Kii 1e°iI iii a a1 Coirnirnllssllon Concord provided information about a number of town interests and initiatives. These included interest in the Caesar Robbins House and the initiation of a town-wide archaeological reconnaissance archaeological survey. L-e liingte°n Kl toil lilca1 Cornirnllssllon Lexington described the town's concerns about noise and traffic, and the potential effects to the historic character and the visitor's experience. The town has sponsored several new National Register nomination listings. 1 0- . I.. Cultural and Historical Resources LJiin oI1n Kiisrdkoir°l a1 Cornirn lssllon Lincoln indicated there are a few mid-twentieth-century modern houses of interest. However, these were already included previously when the 2005 inventory list was prepared. The 2012 ESPR provides an update on the reconnaissance-level historic survey that was conducted in March 2006 for the 2005 ESPR, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior and MHC standards, to provide preliminary data about historic resources that are eligible to be included in the National and State Registers and/or MHC Inventory. These resources are buildings and neighborhoods that were present in about 1950,but have not previously been surveyed. The reconnaissance survey was conducted within the 2005 55 dB DNL noise contour line that included Hanscom Field, Hanscom AFB, and sections of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. The reconnaissance survey update within the smaller 55 dB DNL noise contour line in 2012 identified a total of 54 individual properties and 7 survey areas with historic resources that are 50 years or older.No previously undocumented historic resources were identified at the study intersections during the reconnaissance survey or the update. The survey and update verified that all historic resources at these intersections were already included in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS or the National and State Registers. if 0. .11 IIMethod6logy The historic resources reconnaissance survey update methodology used background data collection including a review of the Massachusetts state inventory files, online Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS), and the National and State Register files. The most up-to-date information from the towns included updated material on individual properties and one historic district. The NPS provided information on the expansion of the MMNHP by the addition of the new Barrett Farm Unit in Concord. A drive-by/walkover of the 2012 ESPR general study area was completed to identify any changes in historic resources conditions within Hanscom Field and the surrounding communities since the reconnaissance survey in 2006. The field review was conducted within Hanscom Field, the area inside the new 2030 forecast scenario 55 dB DNL noise contour line, and within 200 feet around the 16 traffic study intersections to verify the current status of identified historic resources. In addition, all National and State Register-listed properties outside these defined areas but within the general study area were also field- verified. Information on properties that have been listed in the National or State Register or have reached 50 years of age since 2006, as well as major demolitions,new construction or alterations were recorded in written notes, digital photographs, and on a base map. The survey update used current Geographic Information System (GIS)mapping,including indicating the boundary of the general study area and reconnaissance study boundary. The locations of National Register properties and historic resources in the MHC Inventory were mapped using the GIS mapping function of the MACRIS online database. The high level of accuracy in current GIS mapping resulted in a few minor corrections to the 2006 survey information. This information is summarized in Appendix G. Cultural and Historical Resources �iansco00 �116Ud The reconnaissance survey update completedfor the 2012ESPR identified o total ofnine buildingswithin Hanscom Field proper that are 50 years old or older. The reconnaissance survey update of Hanscom Field proper identified 10 historic r0000r000 that are 50yoom old orolder. Since the 2005/SJ,8, one historic resource, Hangar 24,has been demolished following an extensive review and approval process, and one building, Hangar |2A,has now reached 50 years ofage. �iansco00 A�Iir �-�oirce �Base Portions of Hanscom AFB and Massport property leased by the U.S. Air Force are located within the 2012 55 dB [Nl contour,including the north one-quarter of the main base. One resource inthe general study area,but outside the r000nnoi000noo study boundary, the Air Force Cambridge 80000rob Laboratories Historic District,has been determined eligible for National Register since the 2005 ESPR (determined eligible 2012). The Bedford Trailer Park(East Section) area off Hartwell Road in Bedford has been demolished bv the USAF. Bedfoird, Concoird, L_ex�lngton and LJincoUn The r000nnoi000noo survey update identified six survey areas with approximately five individual properties and portions of three survey areas. 10.5.2 Airctiaec,1c,41ca1 �Rescuirces In 2006, an archaeological reconnaissance survey of the Hanscom Field projectorooindhotoxnoof Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln was completed as part of the update for the 2005 ESPR. The reconnaissance survey was conducted within the Hanscom Field property boundaries and within a 200- footrodi000fdho 16 traffic study intersections that are described in Chapter 6, Ground Transportation. The primary objectives of the reconnaissance survey were to identify the locations of documented archaeological ohoo and archaeologically oonoidvo areas within Hanscom Field and near the boDfio study intersections. The survey included archival research, informant interviews, and o field walkover survey that allowed for the collection of information about known and potential archaeological resource areas. This information was then used to compile environmental and cultural pre-contact and post-contact contexts for the 2085 ESPR study area in the periods before and after initial European contact with New England, about AD 1500, and to develop sensitivity models for undocumented archaeological sites. In 2012, a site file review and field walkover were conducted to update recorded archeological sites within Hanscom Field and near 16 traffic study intersections to assess any environmental changes that have occurred since the 2006survey 10.5.3 �4atlor'41and StateUReg�lsteirs A review of the 2013 National and State Registers, site files of the MHC Inventory, and MACRIS maintained bvthe MHCvroo completed for the 20/2/SJ,8 to identify recorded archaeological ohoo 10-22 Cultural and Historical Resources within and in proximity to Hanscom Field. The review consulted previously conducted cultural resource management studies conducted within or adjacent to Hanscom Field.'°73,74 One State Register archaeological site was noted in the 1995 GEIR,the 2000 ESPR, and in the updated information for the 2005 ESPR (see Table 10-12). It is a prehistoric period(late Archaic) site in the Town of Lincoln near the intersection of Hanscom Drive and Old Bedford Road. This site is not within the Hanscom Field property. The 2012 site file review concluded that no new pre- or post-contact archaeological sites have been recorded within the survey area or the traffic study areas since the 2005 ESPR. There were also no new recorded survey reports listed. Tables 10-8 through 10-11 list the archeological sites that have been identified in Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. Other than 19-MD-587,none of these sites has been evaluated for eligibility on the State and National Registers. A total of six archaeological sites have been documented either completely or partially within the Hanscom Field boundaries. These include three pre-contact period sites (Pine Hill [19-MD-474), Fox House [19-MD-1028], and Hartwell Farm [19-MD-119) and three post- contact period sites (Wheeler Mill, Yellow Ochre Mine, and South School). To date,no below-ground archaeological investigations have been conducted for any of these sites and their eligibility for listing in the National Register has not been determined. Tat)t)le 10-8 IlPire-Cointact Aire;llhiaeolllolllita &ites Iiiin the I I11C [inveintoiry of the Aire;llhiaeolllolllita �:sets of the CoimnimnoinweaIIItIli liiin Bedford unear Il11aunscoimn III'-1i6kl =Ef 111 19-MD-77 M-23-54 Paleolndian Campsite 19-MD-78 M-23-116 Unknown Campsite 19-MD-889 Wamesit Crossing Unknown Find Spot 19-MD-994 Turf Meadow Unknown Lithic Scatter 19-MD-1013 Patriot Place Unknown Find Spot 19-MD-1022 I Hanscom School Findspot Middle Archaic Find Spot 19-MD-1023 Fitch Farm Native American Site Early Archaic—Late Campsite Woodland Tat)t)le 10-9 IlPire- ointact Aire;llhiaeolllotllita &ites Iiiin the I I11C �inveintoiry of the Aire;llhiaeolllotllita �:sets of the CoimnirnoinweaIlltlli liiin Councoird unear 1111aun�:coimn II1-1i6kl 19-MD-79 Munson Farm Late Archaic Campsite 19-M D-80 19-MD-111 Meriam's Corner(MMNHP) Middle—Late Archaic Campsite 19-MD-180 Revolutionary Ridge (MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-472 Pine Hill (Elm Brook Farm) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-687 Ox Pasture (MMNHP) Unknown Camp 19-MD-946 Fox House Middle—Late Archaic Campsite 19-MD-948 Kaveski Farm Unknown Find Spot 19-MD-1008 Joshua Brooks Unknown Lithic Workshop 19-MD-1010 Vossberg Unknown Find Spot 19-MD-1028 Fox House Site Early—Late Archaic Listed as"Cultivated field"; likely campsite 72King,Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Hanscom Air Force Base, 1992 73Ritchie et al,Archaeological Investigations of Minute Man National Historical Park, 1990. 74Herbster,Archeological Overview and Assessment,Minute Man National Historical Park, Concord,Lincoln, and Lexington,Massachusetts,2005. OFT" 1 0,2 Cultural and Historical Resources JIV%lmmm�l�l�l�l�l�l�l�l�l�ll�l�l�l�l�l�l�lI=Ef 111 Job Brooks Number 1 (MMNHP) Unknown Activity Area/Camp Job Brooks Number 2(MMNHP) Unknown Activity Area/Camp Job Brooks Number 3(MMNHP) Unknown Activity Area/Camp Note: 1. MMNHP—Minute Man National Historical Park Tat)Ille 10-10 l3ire-Coin tact Aircliaedoglta Bites liiin the IM11C [inveintoiry of the Aircliaedoglta ssets of the Coirnirnoinwealftlii liiin IL.exliiingtoin unear 11ainscoirn 1-iV�d 11247 M11kf 19-MD-685 Thomas Nelson Jr. Farm P1 (MMNHP) UnknownActivity Area P) !!!M!7 19-MD-688 Jacob Whittemore Farm P11 (MMNHP) Middle Archaic Campsite/workshop Note: 1. MMNHP—Minute Man National Historical Park Tat)Ille 10-11 l3ire-Coin tact Aircliaedoglta Bites liiin the I II11C [inveintoiry of the Aircliaedoglta ssets of the CoirnirnoinweaIftlii liiin IIL,Jincdin unear Ilh1aunscoimn 1-iV�d 1111=M ZE M. &A i 11111111 MIM"='.ME 111 19-MD-119 Hartwell Farm Woodland Campsite 19-MD-587 Black Rabbit2 Late/Transitional Archaic Campsite(fall/winter) , u 19-MD-588 Black Walnut Unknown Campsite 19-MD-589 Perk Site Unknown Chipping Station 19-MD-676 William Smith Farm P2 (MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-677 Joshua Brooks Farm P1 (MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-678 Ephraim Hartwell Farm P4(MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-679 Ephraim Hartwell Farm P3(MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-680 William Smith Farm P1 (MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-681 Aaron Brooks Farm P1 (MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-682 Ephraim Hartwell Farm P2(MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-683 Ephraim Hartwell Farm P1 (MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-684 Thomas Nelson Jr. Farm P2(MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-686 Holt Pasture (MMNHP) Unknown Campsite 19-MD-995 Block 2 Unknown Find Spot 19-MD-996 Captain W. Smith House Findspot 1 Unknown Find Spot (MMNHP) 19-MD-997 Rogers Property(MMNHP) Middle—Late Archaic Flake Scatter 19-MD-1006 Joseph Mason Site(MMNHP) Unknown (possibly Campsite Woodland) Notes: 1. MMNHP—Minute Man National Historical Park 2. The Black Rabbit Site has a State Preservation Restriction. 10.5.4 @Reconr'41ssance Survey The 2006 reconnaissance archaeological survey found that a few relatively undisturbed portions of Hanscom Field exist,including tracts of woodland peripheral to the runways,terminal, and supporting facilities. These areas generally contain secondary growth woodlands with both deciduous and coniferous species of trees. Interspersed are wetland areas and some drainage improvements/alterations to the existing waterways. Most of Hanscom Field,however,has been previously disturbed by construction.Disturbance activities include landfilling, installation of utilities, and construction of buildings,parking lots, roadways, and runways. Areas of high pre-contact archaeological sensitivity in the project area include previously undisturbed, dry, level areas located adjacent to the natural brooks and wetlands in the peripheral portions of the project area. The extreme southern portion of Hanscom Field and the intersections along Route 2A 10-24 Fzr MI.. Cultural and Historical Resources have moderate to high archaeological sensitivity for post-contact resources associated with the April 19, 1775 engagement along Battle Road,now part of the MMNHP. The 2012 field walkover noted one area where new development has occurred since the 2006 reconnaissance survey. The Edge Sports Center opened in 2007 and two outdoor turf fields are now located in the previous trailer park on the north side of Hartwell Road. There are currently two full size outdoor turf fields that are utilized for soccer,lacrosse and field hockey. During the 2006 survey, this portion of the North Airfield Area contained an existing trailer park campground facility adjacent to Hartwell Road. This portion of the project area was assigned high archaeological sensitivity for pre- contact period resources and moderate archaeological sensitivity for post-contact period resources,based on the presence of a wooded area immediately west of the trailer park. More detailed information collected as part of the 2012 ESPR update determined that the wooded area is located outside of the project area and that the portion of the Edge Sports Center located within the project area was constructed in the previously developed/disturbed trailer park. As a result of this updated information,this portion of the North Airfield was re-designated as a low sensitivity area for both pre and post-contact archaeological resources. No other portions of the Hanscom Field study area or any areas managed by the Transportation Security Agency(TSA) (e.g. airside secure areas)have undergone new development since the 2006 reconnaissance survey and the sensitivity for these areas remains the same. 110.5.5 "ua°e°x� lirrenliit of&iIte tc, Trafflic Study Intersections As presented in Table 10-12, a total of 27 archaeological sites have been documented within a 200 foot- radius at nine of the 16 traffic study intersections. This total includes 15 pre-contact and 12 post-contact period sites. Twenty of the twenty-seven recorded sites are located within the boundaries of the MMNHP. Thirteen of the intersections were determined to have areas that are undisturbed, defined as no obvious signs of previous ground disturbance, except for the immediate intersection right-of-way. The condition of three intersection areas was assessed as unknown due to intersection improvements. '10.6 Minute I air I National Historical IPark MMNHP is operated by the NPS. Since 1959,when MMNHP was created within the towns of Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln, the Park and Hanscom have been neighbors. As two regionally and nationally significant land uses, MMNHP and Hanscom Field encounter both shared investment in the improvement of the region and the need for visitor access.Massport met with the NPS on May 23, 2013 to solicit input on the 2012 ESPR and communicate periodically to discuss Hanscom Field and its relationship to MMNHP. 1I w w1I Vlslltatlon IL_ v I More than one million people visit the facilities and attend the programs of MMNHP annually. The park is recognized as an important asset to the region and the nation. The park sits in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area with modern,vibrant and expanding residential,industrial and commercial sectors. While the park is open year-round,its main season is the seven-month period between April and October. Major attractions are the North Bridge area in Concord and the Visitor Center off North Great Road in the Battle Road Park unit in Lincoln. Two parking lots at the North Bridge unit and one at the Visitor Center accommodate auto and bus parking; six other parking lots are located in the Park. The early spring, Cultural and Historical Resources starting with Patriot's Day in Massachusetts, represents the first major influx of park visitors. Fall foliage season is the other very popular period. The park is open daily from sun-up to sundown,but buildings are generally open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 10.6.2 Oveiry life w, of IPairk MMNHP is the largest National and State Registers resource in the vicinity of Hanscom Field. It consists of four discontinuous sections referred to as the Battle Road, Wayside,North Bridge and Barrett Farm Units,which are illustrated in Figures 10-4 and 10-5. The Col. Barrett Farm Unit in Concord,which is individually listed in the National Register as the Col.James Barrett House,is an addition to the MMNHP since the 2005 ESPR. It was authorized in 2009 and completed in 2012. The park covers approximately 967 acres along Route 2A in Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln and off Monument Street in Concord,plus an additional 3.4 acres in the new Barrett Farm Unit. When Congress created MMNHP in 1959, Hanscom Field had already been operating for 18 years, having been established by the Commonwealth in 1941. A portion of the Congressional boundaries of the park, comprising 50 acres in Lincoln,is within Massport land at the southwest area of Hanscom Field. There are no buildings or structures on this wooded parcel. TatAe 10-12 Aircliaedogita IIIlesmirces, at"Fraffic Sh.idy [inteirsectbins, #1)Route 4-225/Hartwell Ave. (Lexington) None documented Unknown/intersection improvements #2)Mass.Ave./Rte 2A(Lexington) None documented Unknown/intersection improvements— #3)Old Mass.Ave./Rte.2A(Lexington) 19-MD-688(MMNHP) Undisturbed LEX-HA-13(MMNHP) LEX-HA-15(MMNHP) #4)Airport Rd./Rte.2A(Lexington) 19-MD-684(MMNHP) Undisturbed 19-MD-685(MMNHP) 19-MD-688(MMNHP) LEX-HA-12(MMNHP) LEX-HA-13(MMNHP) #5)Hanscom Dr./Old Bedford Rd.(Lincoln) 19-MD-587 Unknown/intersection improvements #6)Hanscom Dr./Rte.2A(Lincoln) 19-MD-678(MMNHP) North Side =disturbed(recent 19-MD-679(MMNHP) construction for pedestrian 19-MD-682(MMNHP) underpass); South Side= 19-MD-683(MMNHP) Undisturbed #7)Bedford Rd./Rte.2A(Lincoln) 19-MD-681 (MMNHP) Undisturbed 19-MD-996(MMNHP) LIN-HA-54 (MMNHP) #8)Cambridge Tpke. Cut-Off/Brooks Rd./ 19-MD-997(MMNHP) Undisturbed Rte.2A(Concord/Lincoln) Samuel Brooks House Site (MMNHP) Brooks Hill Fight Sight(MMNHP) #9)Old Bedford Rd./Lexington Rd. 19-MD-111 (MMNHP) Undisturbed (Concord) 19-MD-180(MMNHP) CON-HA-26 #10)Old Bedford Rd.Nirginia Rd. None documented Undisturbed; possible house (Concord) lot/landscaping disturbance #11)Old Bedford Rd./Rte.62 (Concord) None documented Mostly Undisturbed Possible House Lot/Landscaping Disturbance West=Recently Disturbed #12)Hartwell Rd./Rte.62(Bedford) None documented Undisturbed; possible house lot/landscaping disturbance #13)South Rd./Hartwell Rd. (Bedford) None documented Undisturbed; possible house lot/landscaping disturbance #14)Rte.4-225/Rte.62(Bedford) None documented Undisturbed; possible house lot/landscaping disturbance #15)Rte.4-225/Springs Rd./South Rd. 19-MD-1013 West Side= Undisturbed; possible (Bedford) BED-HA-05 house lot/landscaping disturbance; 10-26 E.,Fr MI.. Cultural and Historical Resources BED-HA-09 East Side= Disturbed/modern BED-HA-10 period construction Old Bedford Center NRDIS Bedford Local Historic District #16)South Rd./Loomis St./Railroad Ave. BED-HA-21 Some disturbance/intersection (Bedford) Bedford Depot Park NRDIS improvements/parking lots Notes: 1. MMNHP—Minute Man National Historical Park; NRDIS—National Register Historic District. 2. Undisturbed(no obvious signs of previous disturbance)except for immediate intersection right-of-way. MMNHP itself and a number of individual historic properties within the Park are historic resources of national significance that are designated National Historic Landmarks. The Park is nationally significant as the site of the Battle of Concord, one of the two battles that marked the beginning of the Revolutionary War; for its association with prominent literary figures of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; and as one of the earliest places in the nation to be commemorated. The Park was created to " . . .provide . . . for the preservation and interpretation of historic sites, structures, and properties lying along the entire route of battle" in April 1775. 10.7 Battle Road Unit The Battle Road Unit,the largest unit, covers approximately 849 acres and stretches five miles along present-day Route 2A, consisting of Lexington Road (Concord),North Great Road(Lincoln), and Massachusetts Avenue (Lexington).At the time of the battle, as today, the road was a much traveled regional route that linked the town of Concord with Cambridge, Boston, and the sea. Some sections of the Battle Road have been restored to their unpaved appearance,while others form parts of the paved automobile road (Route 2A). The original route is readily discernible and is lined almost continuously with stone walls in the central and eastern parts of the park unit. Hanscom Field, Hanscom AFB, and its associated military housing abut the northern boundary of the eastern half of the Battle Road Unit. Modern residential developments line much of the southern boundary, and the interstate highway and commercial/office developments mark the east terminus at Route 128/I-95. Six of the 16 traffic study intersections are located within the Battle Road Unit of the MMNHP. All of the areas around the intersections encompass historic farming and/or wooded landscapes, and five contain historic buildings. 10.8 "Ttle Wayside Unit The Wayside Unit is the smallest section, containing approximately six acres on the north side of Route 2A in Concord. This unit centers around The Wayside, the home of three notable American authors: Louisa May Alcott,Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Margaret Sidney. 10.9 North Bridge Unit The North Bridge Unit contains approximately 112 acres in Concord and is crossed by the Concord River. It contains the North Bridge where, on April 19, 1775, Colonial militia men fired the famous "shot heard 'round the world." The surrounding tranquil, commemorative landscape includes Daniel Chester French's Minute Man Statue. OF r". 1 0. 7 p y N u 0 m/J/0, co O 1G 7 U� O O R C �iN E N N N z o a' f 8 0 co 11 co R d N y N , -0 d E ` OLo m G II O N C a auuuuuuuuww o ZD ///� ire„ awn � LL W G 2p �� co i w f/� IJJJj N O z a N LL CN O m �; i q) ^�° »< � % ��� 4• w M N aXi O IA (2) /m 61 ' �Nlo N c O ZZ A. 3CU a TN_ CG LLJ &® U J R ca im N -p _ 'b IIIII�IIIIIIIII III s '- f C p R p C C z N i m s m (Yf fin. ® N q ®m 440 m �p r Q "'D av�Ni�u � awl 5 Ir i � � ' o co co m x cc N o m ME ME III " II m f f // 00 p 2 0 = m N 2 U . V E (� III � o m m r s m r 0, LL �.J'- ��IIIVIIII '0 d N m d co LL O O Li d.O G m 2E w E r w E m N II�� O °' ' y N codl O` `>°M0 o m ` y �I m� N d O 7 cT N Y R m N U p " � Ililpi o . o N 2 O O _ E E E m U C L N R a`� o a`� °'� Illhi IIIipW�� i R m Ll CDbpi IilPlll O CD x O CD CD 1/11ow % ✓ O III ®® /rr O =E U 11111f fff L"? c r � r/„ / IIIIII pplll��l�lplla//))JJ cCIOm �, / / c, ILLI'(�l � i;r 'i'llllllll��l .r� r / /lJ c I Co � Ippppl� I iI N d co a /iillii' c N U m 1111� 2 CO a� 0 13— LL z> z oI �m Co 11 of II t~ w Uo�RS, y o O Nco CIS cn cn _ g� I i/ / 0 w .xar 0@RPoP&r d �O n IIRu / a 0) (�Dp m tY.1 M R 1 II�����N Z d i, IIII/IIIII f U U CO N I�IKR k t6 t6 t6 ig Z U - IM P IIIIIIIIIIII d plliip � // V �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIV // IIIlllllllJ� uuatllf(�� I ��J�'""'��/ Z f I Oell IIIIppVVV of ' 0 \\ 10 -��� o / I f 1 Z U IIIIII�IIIII�/ i �3 ���� O I O CO cr i I Q (6 ,,. v O/Gm t d �� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII / IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 00// 1 Jill O 4Z J/l/i va 0, IIII P R `O m „ 1 j jjjj , E LL i ILL O N O �OCN v U R lglnl I ,I lllp(' /g io III 9� %//in,. GG 1 / %//// CDg CDgQ CD CD � puVWUV I I f � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII , � IIII I I 4 - ,w z osa Cultural and Historical Resources 10.10 Barrett Farim Unit The Barrett's Farm Unit contains the Col.James Barrett Farm and 3.4 acres of land at 448 Barrett's Mill Road in Concord. Built in 1705,it was the house of James Barrett, a Colonel of the Concord, Massachusetts Militia during the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, and a site where colonial militia munitions were stored. 10.11 Park (Environs and Landscape e IIFeatures The MMNHP landscapes and habitats are dominated by forests that cover approximately 500 acres, including about 200 acres of forested wetlands.Non-forested wetlands,including several ponds, constitute approximately 180 acres within the park. Open meadows and fields cover an additional 250 acres,including approximately 100 acres that are farmed under the park's agricultural leasing program. Shrublands characterize the interface of fields and forests. The remainder of the park contains developed areas,including roads,parking lots, and buildings. The park today is generally characterized by low-density residential development set in a landscape of open pastures,interspersed with woodland and marshes. However, as noted in the updated National Register nomination dated 2001, areas within the present-day park underwent significant change between 1775 and 1959. The area remained agricultural well into the nineteenth century,but intensive residential development occurred as the area became part of Boston's commuting community during the early and mid-twentieth century. The improvement of existing roads, such as Route 2 and Route 2A for the automobile in the 1920s and 1930s and also the creation of Route 128/I-95 regional highway in the 1950s, supported local growth. This suburbanization trend continues today around the park. Within the park, as part of its mission to preserve and interpret individual resources that contribute to understanding the site's historical events, the NPS removed approximately 200 structures and nearly 100 percent of commercial development. These reclaimed open spaces provide a backdrop for the remaining historical resources. 10.12 Historic id Arcti TMoIlogical I Resources in bout TM I air National Historical Par Included in the MMNHP boundaries are numerous historic buildings, structures, sites, and landscapes. Many of the key historic resources and areas within the park are shown on Figures 10-4 and 10-5 and are summarized in Table 10-13. The NPS completed a comprehensive inventory of all resources in MMNHP as part of an updated National Register nomination.'s The NPS inventory identified a total of 105 resources that contribute to the historic significance of the park, as well as 24 resources that do not contribute,primarily due to their recent age. The Col.James Barrett Farm has been added to this list as part of the 2012 ESPR update. The complete NPS inventory for the park is included in Appendix G. Extant historic farming fields in the park are dominantly clustered at the west end of the Battle Road Unit between the Farwell Jones and the Olive Stow houses and Meriam's Corner in Concord. Smaller fields also remain at the Trainor field and Fiske Hill fields in Lexington, and at fields near Bloody Angle and the Hartwell Tavern in Lincoln. 75Harrington et al. (PAL),Minute Man National Historical Park National Register of Historic Places Nomination, 2001 Cultural and Historical Resources An archaeological overview and assessment of MMNHP,with emphasis on the Battle Road Unit,was completed in 2005.76 This study reports that MMNHP contains documented archaeological resources that date from approximately 9,000 years before present to the early twentieth century. More than 100 prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites have been identified within the park, and there is a high probability of additional sites being present in most areas. The 2000 ESPR reported that the 1989 General Management Plan(GMP) for MMNHP had largely been implemented. These facilities include new parking areas to better control traffic and accommodate visitors, and improvements by the Massachusetts Highway Department to the appearance of the paved sections of the Battle Road on Lexington Road and Route 2A, as well as installation by NPS of appropriate, limited signage, landscaping and rebuilt stonewalls that enhance the visual experience of the park. at)t)le 10-13 Il ey III'lesmirces, liiin the I unite 1Main INatbir4 Il1~11iistoirlita IIPairk IM BATTLE ROAD UNIT Concord, NA 2 Multiple Along and off Battle Road 18th-20th Contributing Lexington, Massachusetts centuries Lincoln Avenue and Lexington Road Concord, NA Multiple Off Massachusetts Battle Road Trail 1996-2001 Non- Lexington, Avenue and Contributing Lincoln Lexington Road Concord NA MM-10 Off Route 2A Historic Farming Fields 18th-20th Contributing centuries Concord CON.9015 MM-8 Old Bedford Road Meriam's Corner 1885 Contributing Monument Concord CON.350 MM-9 34 Old Bedford Meriam House ca. 1705, Contributing Road ca. 1725 Concord CON.357 MM-11 965 Lexington Olive Stow Colonial- Contributing Road House/Farwell Jones ca. 1760 House/Carty Barn Concord CON.358 MM-12 1175 Lexington Samuel Brooks House ca. 1692- Contributing Road 1728 Lexington LEX.929 MM-28 Old Massachusetts Bluff Monument 1885 Contributing Avenue and Wood Street Lexington NA MM-30 Old Massachusetts Ebenezer Fiske House ca. 1729- Contributing Avenue and Wood Foundation late 19th Street century Lexington NA MM-29 Off Route 2A Historic Farming Fields 18th-20th Contributing centuries Lexington LEX.618 MM-27 21 Marrett Street Jacob Whittemore Georgian- Contributing LEX.1536 House/John Muzzey 1745 House and (Barn-1850) Hargrove/Whittemore Barn Lexington NA MM-26 Massachusetts Minute Man Visitors Modern- Non- Avenue Center 1976 Contributing Lexington NA MM-25 Off Massachusetts Parkers Revenge 1775 Contributing Avenue, Fiske Hill 76Herbster(PAL),Archeological Overview and Assessment,Minute Man National Historical Park, Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington,Massachusetts,2005 Cultural and Historical Resources a!Concord HillLincoln NA MM-16 Oon Road Bloody Angle 1775 Contributing Lincoln LIN.70 MM-19 Virginia Road Captain William Smith Colonial— Contributing House ca. 1750 Lincoln LIN.66 MM-17 Virginia Road Ephraim Hartwell Colonial-1733 Contributing Tavern Lincoln NA MM-21 Off Route 2A Historic Farming Fields 18th-20th Contributing centuries Lincoln NA MM-14 North Great Road Job Brooks House Colonial-1740 Contributing Lincoln LIN.170 MM-22 200 Massachusetts John Nelson House and Federal-1808, Contributing LIN.171 Avenue Barn 1810 Lincoln LIN.65 MM-15 37 North Great Joshua Brooks,Jr. Federal-1780 Contributing Road House Lincoln LIN.929 MM-23 Nelson Road Josiah Nelson,Jr. ca. 1775 Contributing House Foundation Notes: 1. NR—National Register of Historic Places; SR—State Register of Historic Places 2. N/A—Not Applicable 3. Old Manse and The Wayside are individually listed National Historic Landmarks that are also located within M MNHP aItAe 10-13 Il ey Res mimes, liiin the I liiim.jte IMain IlNatbir4 Ilh+ist irlita III'airllk (cointliiim.jed) BATTLE ROAD UNIT(continued) Lincoln LIN.64 MM-13 33 North Great Noah Brooks Tavern Federal- Contributing Road (and Carriage House) ca. 1798 Lincoln LIN.940 MM-20 Massachusetts Paul Revere Capture pre 1902 Contributing Avenue Site and Marker Lincoln LIN.69 MM-18 Virginia Road Sgt. Samuel Hartwell 1693-1716; Contributing House Site burned 1968; shelter 1986 Lincoln LIN.941 MM-24 Nelson Road Thomas Nelson,Jr. 1700-1750 Contributing House Foundation NORTH BRIDGE UNIT Concord CON.343 MM-1 231 Liberty Street Major John Buttrick ca. 1715; 19th Contributing House century alterations Concord CON.941 MM-4 Liberty Street The Minuteman(Statue) 1875 Contributing Concord CON.940 MM-5 Monument Street North Bridge 1956 Contributing Concord NA MM-3 Monument Street North Bridge Comfort No Style-1984 Non- Station Contributing Concord CON.347 MM-6 269 Monument Old Manse 3 Colonial-1769- Contributing Street 1770 Concord CON.344 MM-2 174 Liberty Street Steadman Buttrick Colonial Contributing House (NPS Revival- 1911 Headquarters and Visitor Center) WAYSIDE UNIT Concord CON.171 MM-7 455 Lexington The Wayside 3(Samuel Colonial/ Contributing Road Whitney House) Victorian Eclectic-1716- 17;altered mid-1840s; 1860/70 BARRETT FARM UNIT Concord CON.256 -- 448 Barrett's Mill Col.James Barrett Colonial-1705 Contributing Road Farm Notes: 1 0 „,'Y MI.. Cultural and Historical Resources 1. NR—National Register of Historic Places; SR—State Register of Historic Places 2. N/A—Not Applicable 3. Old Manse and The Wayside are individually listed National Historic Landmarks that are also located within MMNHP aItAe 10-13 Il ey Res mimes, liiin the I liiim.jte IMain Illy:tbir4 Ilh+ist irlita III'airllk (cointliiim.jed) BATTLE ROAD UNIT Concord, NA 2 Multiple Along and off Battle Road 18th-20th Contributing Lexington, Massachusetts centuries Lincoln Avenue and Lexington Road Concord, NA Multiple Off Massachusetts Battle Road Trail 1996-2001 Non- Lexington, Avenue and Contributing Lincoln Lexington Road Concord NA MM-10 Off Route 2A Historic Farming Fields 18th-20th Contributing centuries Concord CON.9015 MM-8 Old Bedford Road Meriam's Corner 1885 Contributing Monument Concord CON.350 MM-9 34 Old Bedford Meriam House ca. 1705,ca. Contributing Road 1725 Concord CON.357 MM-11 965 Lexington Olive Stow Colonial-ca. Contributing Road House/Farwell Jones 1760 House/Carty Barn Concord CON.358 MM-12 1175 Lexington Samuel Brooks House ca. 1692- Contributing Road 1728 Lexington LEX.929 MM-28 Old Massachusetts Bluff Monument 1885 Contributing Avenue and Wood Street Lexington NA MM-30 Old Massachusetts Ebenezer Fiske House ca. 1729- Contributing Avenue and Wood Foundation late 19th Street century Lexington NA MM-29 Off Route 2A Historic Farming Fields 18th-20th Contributing centuries Lexington LEX.618 MM-27 21 Marrett Street Jacob Whittemore Georgian- Contributing LEX.1536 House/John Muzzey 1745 House and (Barn-1850) Hargrove/Whittemore Barn Lexington NA MM-26 Massachusetts Minute Man Visitors Modern- Non- Avenue Center 1976 Contributing Lexington NA MM-25 Off Massachusetts Parkers Revenge 1775 Contributing Avenue, Fiske Hill and Concord Hill Lincoln NA MM-16 Off Lexington Road Bloody Angle 1775 Contributing Lincoln LIN.70 MM-19 Virginia Road Captain William Smith Colonial— Contributing House ca. 1750 Lincoln LIN.66 MM-17 Virginia Road Ephraim Hartwell Colonial-1733 Contributing Tavern Lincoln NA MM-21 Off Route 2A Historic Farming Fields 18th-20th Contributing centuries Lincoln NA MM-14 North Great Road Job Brooks House Colonial-1740 Contributing Lincoln LIN.170 MM-22 200 Massachusetts John Nelson House and Federal-1808, Contributing LIN.171 Avenue Barn 1810 Lincoln LIN.65 MM-15 37 North Great Joshua Brooks,Jr. Federal-1780 Contributing Road House Lincoln LIN.929 MM-23 Nelson Road Josiah Nelson,Jr. ca. 1775 Contributing House Foundation Notes: 1. NR—National Register of Historic Places; SR—State Register of Historic Places Cultural and Historical Resources 2. N/A—Not Applicable 3. Old Manse and The Wayside are individually listed National Historic Landmarks that are also located within MMNHP TatAe 10-13 ��Key Resmirces, �in the Wirnite Main Notbir4U1+stoir�#mU �3airk (coinflirnjed) BATTLE ROAD UNIT(continued) Lincoln LIN.64 MM-13 33 North Great Noah Brooks Tavern Federal- Contributing Road (and Carriage House) ca. 1798 Lincoln LIN.940 MM-20 Massachusetts Paul Revere Capture pre 1902 Contributing Avenue Site and Marker Lincoln LIN.69 MM-18 Virginia Road Sgt. Samuel Hartwell 1693-1716; Contributing House Site burned 1968; shelter 1986 LIN.941 MM-24 Nelson Road Thomas Nelson,Jr. 1700-1750 Contributing House Foundation NORTH BRIDGE UNIT Concord CON.343 MM-1 231 Liberty Street Major John Buttrick ca. 1715; 19th Contributing House century alterations Concord CON.941 MM-4 Liberty Street The Minuteman(Statue) 1875 Contributing Concord CON.940 MM-5 Monument Street North Bridge 1956 Contributing Concord NA MM-3 Monument Street North Bridge Comfort No Style-1984 Non- Station Contributing Concord CON.347 MM-6 269 Monument Old Manse 3 Colonial-1769- Contributing Street 1770 Concord CON.344 MM-2 174 Liberty Street Steadman Buttrick Colonial Contributing House (NPS Revival- 1911 Headquarters and Visitor Center) WAYSIDE UNIT Concord CON.171 MM-7 455 Lexington The Wayside 3(Samuel Colonial/ Contributing Road Whitney House) Victorian 17;altered 1860/70 BARRETT FARM UNIT Concord CON.256 448 Barrett's Mill Col.James Barrett Colonial-1705 Contributing Road Farm 1. NR—National Register of Historic Places; SR—State Register of Historic Places 2. N/A—Not Applicable 3. Old Manse and The Wayside are individually listed National Historic Landmarks that are also located within MMNHP TboN9S has indicated to M000pod that annual visitations o1MMNH9 are currently stabilized at levels of about one million, and that little,if any, expansion of park boundaries or buildings is planned. Individual programs at various sites within the park continue to be advertised to attract audiences,but gononU promotions to encourage large increases in total attendance are not part of the current or future management plans. In 2005, the NPS had begun to develop the preliminary scope for a new General Management Plan. This planning process ioongoing. The scope of the plan and ongoing work in the park focuses on several areas. The preservation, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of historic structures addresses cyclical and deferred maintenance needs and should improve the visitor experience.Landscape enhancements include supporting active agricultural uses and incorporating interpretive opportunities through clearing of historic fanning fields and leasing them for cultivation. Cultural and Historical Resources The NPS was also completing review of archaeological resources and conducting mammal and vegetative studies.An important focus of the plan is transportation, safety, and access for visitors and employees in the Battle Road Unit,which comprises 80 percent of the park. The NPS anticipates that there will be more uses, special events, and access needs at MMNHP facilities in future years that may exceed existing capacity. The NPS will be evaluating pedestrian crossing needs on Route 2A to connect existing town paths and pedestrian patterns with the MMNHP trail system in the safest possible locations. Several projects being planned in the park have been completed since the 2005 ESPR: the rehabilitation of the Jacob Whitmore House and Barn as an educational center, continuing efforts to restore historic fields and vistas, and restoration of the stream feeding Elm Brook near the Noah Brooks Tavern. Restoration of the cultural landscape at the Wayside Tavern is nearly complete. 10.113.11 SoundscaIpe Gc4II ie°it the %Inute Man V4atior4II Ki rtoira ica1 I "airk At the time of the 2000 ESPR, the NPS headquarters was initiating preparation of a generic model document that would provide a nationwide approach to identifying desired noise criteria in national parks. Park Managers would use the guidance in developing their own Soundscape Management Plans, each tailored to the unique activities, land uses and environmental needs of their individual parks.A Draft Manual for Conducting Acoustics and Soundscape Studies in National Parks was released in August 2005. In addition,nationally, the NPS explored the issue of aircraft overflights in the 1994 Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System,which recommended the continuation of the federal interagency working group that is described in the next section. The NPS issued Director's Order 47 (DO47) "Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management"in December 2000. The NPS has completed an internal draft soundscape plan for MMNHP in 2010,including noise monitoring with professional and volunteer staff. Sound monitoring was conducted in 2008-09 at MMNHP by the NPS Natural Sounds Division and is included in the internal draft plan. The scope for the soundscape plan at MMNHP incorporates aspects of approaches that have been used at other NPS properties. 10.113.2 I r ua°ag r c o,iiuµklir g iia-c�,tiII� The federal Interagency Working Group was established by the U.S. Department of Transportation,the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. A local Regional Working Group includes participation by the FAA, Federal Highway Administration and the National Park Service. Massport is not a member of the group. The Volpe Transportation Systems Center facilitates meetings of the Regional Working Group. The group meets locally on an as needed basis to maintain relationships among the member federal agencies. The NPS has indicated that the group is ongoing. At the May 2013 coordination meeting between Massport and the NPS,the MMNHP Superintendent indicated ongoing concerns regarding how noise from aircraft affects park programming. Massport and the NPS discussed the Fly Friendly program instituted since the 2005 ESPR with a noise abatement program and voluntary measures. The NPS noted the trend at Hanscom Field for continued business air travel in leased or company owned jet aircraft. Business jets are general aviation traffic and part of Hanscom Field's role as a reliever for Cultural and Historical Resources Logan Airport.Noise from these and other aircraft taking off and landing, especially to the west and southwest from Hanscom Field, affects the North Bridge Unit,which lies nearly in line with Hanscom Field's east-west runway(Runway 11-29). Aircraft leaving or approaching Hanscom Field in this area can affect the intended park experience. Single engine piston aircraft operations,representing proportionately more take-offs and landings,have less effect because these aircraft generally make less noise over this area. The analysis of noise exposure levels created by aircraft flying over the MMNHP includes: 65 and 55 dB DNL contours; Time Above 65 dBA and Time Above 55 dBA contours; and DNL, TA65, and TA55 calculations at 30 noise analysis locations in the park. The FAA considers 65 dBA as the onset of significant impact. In 2012,none of the noise analysis locations exceeded 55 dB DNL. The NPS is also concerned about safety and safe access for employees and visitors along Route 2A. Their goal of protecting and restoring Battle Road includes confining adjacent Route 2A traffic to two lanes and establishing an appropriate visual environment for the visitor that is compatible with the ambiance of the park. Reducing congestion is important to the NPS as well. Among the concerns identified in their GMP regarding Route 2A traffic is the potential for traffic in excess of what the road is designed to handle. Redistributing parking facilities within the park has been effective, as have measures to keep the Battle Road portion of Route 2A at two lanes except at major intersections. Studies conducted for the NPS considered the appropriate level of traffic volumes on Route 2A that would be acceptable from the perspective of a visitor's experience at the MMNHP77 and alternative transportation options.78 These studies reviewed approaches that would have a beneficial effect on the visitor experience by encouraging access rather than mobility. More recently, MAPC has coordinated the formation of a working group to develop a corridor management plan and possible designation of Route 2A as a Scenic Byway. The NPS also updated information on the status of individual buildings and landscapes within the park,including the addition of the Barrett Farm Unit. Other projects completed since 2005 include rehabilitation of the North Bridge and surrounding landscape,rehabilitation of the Jacob Whitmore House and installation of interactive educational exhibits,restoration of the John Nelson House and Barn,installation of new exhibits and video program in the North Bridge Visitor Center, rehabilitation of the historic Buttrick Gardens overlooking the North Bridge,restoration of 58 acres of historic fields and vistas in the Battle Road unit, and "daylighting"restoration of the formerly buried stream at Sunnyside Lane that feeds Elm Brook. 10.113.4 I it liiii°,c�,r irrei r IaIII I Effects In %Inute Man V4 tilor,4II Kiisrdkoir°l a1 I airk The noise analysis for the 2012 ESPR has been refined since the 2005 ESPR. Thirty-one locations within MMNHP were evaluated as noise analysis locations. The analysis of 2012 conditions indicates that noise exposure levels created by aircraft flying over MMNHP ranged from 45 dB to 52 dB. The highest level (51.4 dB) occurred at the Noah Brooks Tavern(and Carriage House) (MM-13).No areas of the MMNHP were within the 65 dB DNL contour in 2005 or 2012.No areas of the MMNHP were within the 55 dB DNL contour in 2012 as compared to 1.7 acres in 2005. TA65 values ranged from one to nine minutes at the thirty noise analysis locations,with the highest levels occurring at The Wayside-Samuel Whitney 77John A.Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,Minute Man National Park: Ric 2A Traffic Analysis and Its Impact on the Park's Visitor Experience,June 2002 71John A.Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,Minute Man Alternative Transportation Evaluation,April 2005 Cultural and Historical Resources House (MM-7) and the Meriam House (MM-9). TA55 values ranged from 18 to 71 minutes,with the highest levels occurring at the Historic Farming Fields (MM-10)in the Bedford Levels. In 2012, Hanscom Field traffic represented approximately four percent of the peak hour traffic on Route 2A. Only at one of the six traffic study intersections in the MMNHP (Hanscom Drive/Route 2A) did traffic associated with Hanscom Field represent more than ten percent of traffic movements. As described in Chapter 8,Air Quality, all air pollutant concentrations are safely in compliance with health-based air quality standards. Therefore, this analysis concluded that no adverse air quality effects to historic resources including MMNHP are anticipated now or in future analysis years from activities at Hanscom Field. 10.113.5 Battle @ e°ad "1`ira illl The Battle Road Trail is an interpretive,multi-use trail that provides cycling,walking, and wheelchair access to the MMNHP's historical and natural resource areas. The route of the Battle Road Trail is shown on Figure 10-4. The stone-dust trail extends five and one-half miles from Fiske Hill in Lexington,through Lincoln,to Meriam's Corner in Concord. The trail contains 25-foot wide portions of the historic Battle Road from April 19, 1775 that are restored and linked together by seven-foot wide sections of trail that traverse landscapes that evoke the past. Other portions of the historic Battle Road Trail follow the route of today's Route 2A. The DNL, TA65 and TA55 values at noise analysis locations along the Battle Road Trail were plotted in Figures 10-6 through 10-8.None of the five and one-half mile trail was within the 65 dB DNL contour in 2000 or 2005.None of the trail was within the 55 dB DNL contour in 2005 as compared to 0.1 miles in 2000. Figures 10-6 through 10-8 indicate that DNL and Time Above values are highest to the west of the Hartwell Tavern,reflecting the proximity of this area to runways at Hanscom Field. It should be noted that a visitor to the Battle Road portion of the park is also affected by the background noise of road traffic from Route 128/I-95 and Route 2A throughout most of the day, and that Hanscom Field-related vehicular traffic contributes approximately four percent to the traffic volumes on Route 2A. As presented in Chapter 4,Airport Planning, Hanscom field is not visible from the Battle Road Trail with a few exceptions where the Air Traffic Control Tower may be seen. Figure 4-1 through 4-4 provide a visibility analysis at specific points along the trail in both a leaf-on and leaf-off condition. Cultural and Historical Resources Meriam House Historic Farming Bloody Angle Fields ........................................................ Noah Brooks ............................................................................I HartweIll Tavern ............................................................................................................- 55 Tavern .............................................................................................................................................................. ............................... ......................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 M z 45 k 40 E 4 3 2 1 0 Distance along Battle Road from the Eastern Park Border(miles) Fig re 10-6 2012 IDII L. at IWim.jte IMain IIMafiiioir4l I+stoiht IlPairlk IIBattllle Road thrflt IIL.ocatbirl Noah Brooks 9 Meriam Howse ii::: Tavern Historic Farming Bloody Angle 8 Historic Hartwell Tavern 7 6 5 In 2 11 4 ao 2 ...................................-----------------------------------------------------------------------..............................................................................................................................................------------------------------------------------------------------------........................................................................ 0 5 4 3 2 0 Distance along Battle Road from,the Eastern Park Border(miles) Fig re 10-7 2012 Tiirne Xbove 65 dBA at IWim.jte IMain Ill atbir4l I+stoiht IlPairlk IIBattllle Road thrflt Locatbins, 10-38 Fzr M.. Cultural and Historical Resources Nleriam House Noah Brooks Bloody Angle Tavern 90 Mstoric Farming Hartwell Tavern Fields 80 70 60 rn a 50 . a m a BYO � a sa 30 E i= ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 10 0 S 4 3 2 1 0 Distance along Battle Road from the Eastern Park Bauder('miles) 1'-'iiigu.uire 10-8 2012 'Tlirne Xbove 88 dBA at 1 11iiurnu'te 1Main IlNatliiour4ll Ill+istoiriiic III'3aidk IIBattllle IIIload tturflit L.ocatliioins 10,14 Recreational and Conservation Lands A review of the four towns' most recent Open Space and Recreation plans was undertaken to gain an understanding of the goals and objectives of the plans and any recommendations for acquiring additional lands and expanding recreational opportunities. Changes in recreational and conservation land since the 2005 ESPR were identified through discussions with Town Planners and review of MassGIS database. Specific information on the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge is presented below, following the sections about the four towns. Recreational and conservation lands, and the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, are shown in Figure 10-9. Additional information about the plans of the four towns is presented in Chapter 4, Airport Planning. 10 w'1I4 w'1I IBecll,a rd The Town of Bedford,which abuts Hanscom Field along its northern boundary,includes 1,870 acres of public and private conservation lands,which represent 21percent of the town's total land area. 870 acres are owned and managed by the Town through its Conservation Commission with assistance from a volunteer group of residents referred to as the Bedford Land Stewards, 672 acres are part of Great Meadows Wildlife Management Area, and the remainder comprises privately owned conservation lands. The town's open space plan was most recently updated in 2004. The document emphasizes the importance of providing good linkages between historic,recreation and conservation resources throughout the town, and identifies athletic fields as a resource in need of greater consideration. It also includes a population analysis for recreational land use. The Open Space Goals identified in 2004 are listed below: Goal 1: Preserve the small town New England character of Bedford. Fzr I.. 1 -3 Cultural and Historical Resources Goal 2: Protect valuable water resources, aquifer recharge areas and unique wildlife habitat areas. Goal 3: Enhance the potential of the Town's existing open space and conservation resources. Goal 4: Preserve and protect historic and cultural properties and sites. Goal 5: Preserve large tracts of undeveloped lands. Goal 6: Develop and improve a network of trails, sidewalks and bikepaths between neighborhoods,public facilities, conservation and recreation lands and commercial areas. Goal 7: Enhance the quality and variety of recreational opportunities,both passive and active, for all age groups and abilities in the Town of Bedford. Three sites that currently abut Hanscom Field to the north include the Elm Brook Conservation Area, Hartwell Forest and the Jordan Conservation Area. The Town of Bedford purchased the Elm Brook Conservation Area(19 acres)in 1978 to protect valuable wetland resources, establish nature trails and provide a vegetative buffer for area neighborhoods. This site offers a potential trail link between the Minute Man Bikeway,which terminates in Bedford, and the existing east-west railroad bed. The Hartwell Town Forest is Bedford's largest conservation area with over 118 acres of mature forest, open fields and wetland resources. Hartwell Town Forest is located between the Hartwell Road residential neighborhood and Hanscom Field's northern boundary. This was the first piece of town property to be dedicated for conservation purposes back in 1940.Key natural features include Hartwell Brook,wetlands, mature white pine forest, and open fields. In addition to its natural attributes, Hartwell is used for hiking and cross-country skiing along its extensive trail system. The forest,which includes two camping and picnic areas,is used for overnight camping by scout troops. The Jordan Conservation Area(37 acres)is located adjacent to and west of Hartwell Town Forest. This site provides outdoor recreational opportunities including a nature trail system for local residents. The trail system extends through the Jordan Conservation Area from the Hartwell Forest and connects to the Air Force family campground on the north side of Hanscom Field. This site also includes several areas of diverse wildlife habitat. Approximately 0.1 acres of the Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan Conservation Area fell within the 65 dBA DNL contour in 2012 as compared to 4.8 in 2005. Massport's Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) described vegetation obstructions including areas of the Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan Conservation Area. In the context of the VMP, Massport determined the extent of tree cutting required to remove obstructions in accordance with the FAA's airspace safety standards. In 2010, delineated wetlands in the area where work was required. In strict compliance with conditions issued by the Town's Conservation Commission, Massport hired an experienced forestry company to remove the obstructions with minimal impact on wetland resources. As part of the mitigation,Massport created new recreational trails across the northern part of Massport property to improve trail connections between Bedford and Concord Conservation Lands. Other properties located near Hanscom include the Mary Putnam Webber Wildlife Preserve, the Vanderhoof Conservation Area, and the Dellovo Conservation area. These parcels abut the western edge of Hanscom Field and the Narrow-Gauge Rail-Trail in Bedford. The Open Space Plan notes that additional land acquisitions are planned in this area to provide for conservation land buffers along the Hanscom Field boundary. 1 - . I.. al m ,,,! � y MC f Z m IIIIIIIa� 11 .� O� � a � I W C (B 2 Zp p `a0 o R a) o ZD 110 1 a � �..., ..��1.. �ul'ul•g f� ry �,,.. IPypIIII 'lu �uuluuuuuuuuuull,lll'�"" w Y ` Va 4 ry a II � iwov,Iwmm� m Ze Iry �o }} QQ a IIIIII �� _ � g . � III !�1�01 N,I I� IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . Ilgl 9 � o w y i 1k pm 2 p lll� E E m I B e � f IV ��... P � F �n Z �m,I,p 1 M x IIII ,.f d6p Vr,, „I01' iil1111lllo� �� n w M o S 11q�������r �, .w o � � o o 0 U ti O m 5 �r^wp, d�p r"�� Cultural and Historical Resources 10.114.2 Ooin oird In 2004, the Town of Concord completed the Open Spaces and Recreation Plan.79 The plan preceded the completion of the much larger Comprehensive Long Range Plan: A Vision for 2020.8OThe town established a committee to update the Open Space Plan which has convened meetings in 2013. The focus of both documents is on the continued preservation of Concord's historic and scenic character. The Open Spaces and Recreation Plan identifies 15 primary planning goals: t. Incorporate the Open Spaces and Recreation Plan in Town and community decision-making. 2. Think regionally and work collaboratively with towns in Concord's region. 3. Protect Concord's large natural areas. 4. Protect Concord's large agricultural areas and farming. . Protect major wildlife and water-protection corridors. 6. Strengthen neighborhoods in Town. 7. Manage water-related issues to protect the Town's groundwater and surface water. . Protect and monitor Concord's streams, rivers,ponds and wetlands. 9. Monitor wildlife and biodiversity and protect key habitats. t w Reduce the major impacts of Route 2. it. Meet intensive-use recreational needs consistent with Concord's open space frame work. 12. Solidify the local/regional trail network for transportation and nature-based recreation. 13. Provide handicap access to open space resources. 14. Manage all land in Town consistent with open space objectives. 15. Secure funding and partner with other entities for open-space land protection. According to the Open Space Plan, there is 5,803 acres of protected open space in Concord,which represented 37 percent of the town's total land area. The town manages 1,320 acres of that land and the private non-profit Concord Land Conservation Trust owns 850 acres. The Open Spaces and Recreation Plan identifies seven large natural areas that are particularly important open space resources for the Town of Concord. In addition, the Town of Concord and Massport agreed in 1990 to place a conservation restriction on a Massport-owned parcel of land that is approximately 50 acres in size near the west end of the airfield. In 1996, the Town of Concord obtained additional parcels of land as part of the Concord Farms Limited partnership. These parcels abut Massport's southern property line. Estabrook Woods Area is the largest natural area in Concord consisting of 1,475 acres.Nine hundred of those acres,most of which are owned by Harvard University for educational and research purposes,have been set aside since 1992. The Estabrook Woods Area also includes Middlesex school land, Bateman's pond,Punkatasset town conservation land, and areas north to Carlisle. Estabrook Woods is a significant 79Natural Resources Commission,Town of Concord, Open Space and Recreation Plan 2004, Concord, Massachusetts, October 2004. 80Comprehensive Long Range Plan Committee,Town of Concord, Comprehensive Long Range Plan: A Vision for 2020,Concord,Massachusetts,March 2005. I..X 1 43 Cultural and Historical Resources open space resource for wildlife, geological and archeological sites,hiking, cross country skiing and horseback riding. As well,the Massachusetts Division of Fish and Game has identified the Estabrook Woods as a"significant wildlife area due to habitat diversity and area size."Preserving its unique natural character is a special priority for the Town of Concord. The Great Meadows/Ball's Hill area includes Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and continuous vegetation to the north and west of the Concord River. It consists of 738 acres of land in Concord. This natural area around the "wild and scenic" Concord River is a resource for wildlife,particularly migratory birds. The scenic beauty found at this natural area makes it a desirable place for hiking, canoeing and photography. Walden Woods/Town Forest area is made up of approximately 1,180 acres and includes Fairyland Pond, the Town Forest, Brister's Hill,Walden Pond State Reservation(202 acres)and Fairhaven Hill. The setting for Henry David Thoreau's Walden,the area is a National Historic Landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places.Walden Woods allows for a great diversity of recreational activities including swimming,year round fishing, and hiking. The Open Spaces and Recreation Plan identifies four major threats to Walden Woods: 1) The use of the former landfill area; 2)housing developments; 3)heavy recreation use; and 4) the effects of Route 2 and Route 126. Virginia Road Woods is located primarily on Massport property and is made up of Bedford Levels, Elm Brook,Pine Hill, and areas north to the Bedford line. The area is managed as an airport buffer and therefore occasionally experiences vegetation management by Massport. The Town of Concord wishes to continue to work with Massport to ensure the area continues to function as a"large natural area"for species benefiting from the lack of public access. Annursnac Hill/Strawberry Hill Road natural area consists of the Annursnac Town Conservation Land to the south and the woodland north of Strawberry Hill Road (118 acres). In the long term, the Town of Concord is interested in further evaluation of better wildlife connectivity between the two sections. Of the conservation areas in Concord that are described, only Great Meadows is subject to the 55 DNL noise contour. In 2012,the 55 DNL occupied 26.4 acres of Great Meadows which was a decrease from 197.6 acres in 2005. The Jennie Dugan Kames area includes the brook, golf course and woods within Concord Country Club, and extends eastward across the Sudbury River towards the Concord Land Conservation Trust's Soutter Land. It is the only large natural area located in the center of town and serves as a valuable bridge between various other conversation areas. The Jennie Dugan Kames area contains many wetland resources,including a large vernal pool, and habitat and species diversity is high. 10.14. IL-ex it ngte°n The Town of Lexington has an estimated 2,842 acres of public and privately owned open space,which represents approximately 27 percent of the town's total land area. The town owns and manages 1,840 acres of that land for passive and active recreation purposes. Several conservation and recreation areas are located near Hanscom Field. Lexington produced an updated Open Space Plan in 2009. The goals of the plan are: 1. Establish and implement a land management program that will assure optimal maintenance and use of conservation lands. . Protect Lexington's natural environment,both within and beyond the borders of open space and recreational properties. 10-44 . I.. Cultural and Historical Resources 3. Promote public use ofrecreational facilities and open space among o wide variety of user types. 4. Provide u balance of recreational activities for all of Lexington's citizens. 5. Preserve and enhance the scenic and historical value ofLexington. 6. Enhance connectivity between open space and recreation areas. 7. Acquire parcels that are important from an environmental, recreational, or historical perspective. 0. Protect and maintain Lexington's brooks. 9. Preserve,protect, and improve Lexington's recreational infrastructure. When considering the acquisition of additional parcels inthe community, the Conservation Commission has placed a strong emphasis on the establishment of wildlife corridors. Tophet Swamp and Kiln Brook, totaling 60 ooroo, are located between Hartwell Avenue and Rbo10 128/1'95. Tb000 conservation or000 are considered significant ecological areas and serve oo wildlife corridors. From orooroodon standpoint, the Town of Lexington has two or000 near Hanscom Field: the Pine Meadows Country Club(90 acres) and Katandin Woods. The Pine Meadows Golf Course, situated near Rbo10 95 and approximately one mile 000Uh000t of Hanscom Field,was purchased bvthe Town of Lexington in 1990 and is the largest recreational land holding owned by the town. Katandin Woods, located adjacent to Kiln Brook, is o38'ooro conservation area that offers passive recreation inthe Doon of hiking and nature viewing. The central portion of the Minute Man Commuter Bikeway is located in Lexington. It provides access to many recreational areas, including the Adams School playground. The town would like to promote additional linkages to this highly acclaimed bikeway to provide additional recreational opportunities for its residents. No or000 conservation areas in Lexington will bo subject to the 55 DNlnoioo contour. 10.14.4 LJincoUn The Town of Lincoln has preserved 2,859 acres of land, representing approximately 31 percent of the toxn'o total land area.When including oto10 and federal land associated with Walden Pond, {]roo1 Meadows, and MMNHP,the amount of protected land is 3,282 acres or 35% of land in town. The two conservation properties that are near Hanscom Field are the Tanners Brook and Ricci properties. Tanners Brook, located south of Hanscom Field across Route 2A, is a I I 0-acre tract of land consisting of woodlands,n/o0ondo and the headwater ofElm Brook. This parcel contains 000doo of winding hiking trails that are available to the public. The Ricci property consists of 94 acres of agricultural fields,woods and wetlands. Hobbs Brook runs through the southern portion of the property. The Lincoln Conservation Commission has had responsibility for acquiring ondnnonoging environmentally oonoidvo lands throughout the community since 1958. The Commission currently has several additional large parcels under review for purchase as well as a few smaller properties that would provide trail linkages. In addition to the Commission's efforts,the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust was formed in 1957 for the purpose of maintaining open op000 in the community through holding certain lands in trust. Over time, the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust has contributed to the protection of over 1,000 acres of land in Lincoln. The Trust currently protects and maintains oIproxinno1olv 375 ooroo of land and over 60miles of trails located on existing conservation lands and traversing private properties. Lincoln is the first town in the Commonwealth to establish o land conservation trust. Cultural and Historical Resources In January 2010,the Lincoln Conservation Commission established a seven-year action plan. The plan establishes the following goals: t. Preserve Lincoln's agricultural,recreational and natural resource values 2. Promote active stewardship of existing agriculture and conservation land 3. Maximize recreational opportunities on recreational and conservation land 4. Foster a sense of coordination, education and outreach regionally and locally Each goal includes action items and responsible parties for achieving the goal. 10.14.5 Gireat IIMeadows V4atlor,4II Wl11ctlllfe IV fug The Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge is located approximately 20 miles west of Boston within the corporate boundaries of Concord, Sudbury, Billerica, Bedford, Carlisle, Lincoln, and Framingham (see Figure 10-9). The Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge is situated due west of Hanscom Field, approximately 1.5 miles from the approach end of Runway 11. The Great Meadows Wildlife Refuge was established in 1944 as a migratory bird sanctuary with additional purposes of natural resource protection, fish and wildlife recreational development and protection of rare and endangered species. The Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge consists of 3,863 acres of freshwater wetland resources and wildlife habitat along the Concord and Sudbury Rivers from the Route 4 Bridge in Billerica to the Framingham/Wayland Line. The Concord River emanates at the confluence of the Sudbury and Assabet Rivers located in the Town of Concord. It flows to the north where it eventually merges with the Merrimack River in Lowell. According to the USFWS, the Refuge preserves historic landscapes used by Native Americans and early settlers and inspired the thoughts of writers and environmental philosophers including Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, over 500,000 people visit the area on an annual basis. Numerous outdoor educational programs are available at the refuge site for school children and the public at large. In 2005, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.81 The plan developed five goals to support the mission of the Refuge System and Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Priorities: t. Protect and enhance habitats that support self-sustaining populations of federal trust species and wildlife diversity 2. Recover threatened and endangered species of the complex 3. Build a public that understands, appreciates and supports refuge goals for wildlife 4. Adequately protect cultural resources that occur in the complex . Maintain a well-trained, diverse staff working productively toward a shared refuge vision Riverine habitat(i.e.,habitat associated with the river) and floodplains comprise approximately 80 percent of the refuge land with eight percent consisting of forested wetlands. The remaining 20 percent can be characterized as upland resources,including forested areas and open fields. Most of this land was formerly in agriculture that has since converted to overgrown fields and white pine forests. The Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge is divided into two divisions,including the Concord Division(1,542 acres),which is land drained by the Concord River, and the Sudbury Division(2,321 "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan,January 2005 1 - . I.. Cultural and Historical Resources acres),which is land drained by the Sudbury River, and associated tributaries as established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Several pond impoundments are located along the river corridor in Concord, as well as the Strand and Headquarters Ponds in Sudbury. Over 220 species of reptiles, amphibians and mammals have been documented within the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge corridor. Many species of migratory birds use the refuge as a stopover during the fall and spring migration periods,including peregrine falcons and bald eagles.No federally protected endangered or threatened species are known to reside in the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge on a permanent basis. None of the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was within the 65 dB DNL contour in 2005 or 2012. Approximately 26 acres of Refuge land are located within the 55 dB DNL contour in 2012 as compared to 197 acres in 2005. 10.14.6 Con card Riv it Chapter 9,Wetlands Wildlife and Water Resources discusses the Concord River,which is a designated Wild and Scenic River. The Concord River, located northwest of Hanscom Field,is a component of the Sudbury-Assabet-Concord (SuAsCo) Wild and Scenic River System, and flows roughly southwest to northeast. As illustrated in Figure 10-9, the segment of the Concord River nearest to Hanscom Field is approximately one-half mile northwest from Hanscom Field, and slightly more than one mile from the nearest Hanscom Field runway(11-29).None of the Concord River was within the 65 dB DNL contour in 2005 or 2012.No segment of the Concord River is in the 2012 55 dB DNL contour as compared to 0.5 miles in 2005. 10.14." Il liinuteirre an Oamirn teir 1Rik way The Minuteman Commuter Bikeway is a ten-mile paved bikeway that connects Bedford at the Bedford Depot Park with Lexington, Arlington and Cambridge, terminating at the MBTA Alewife Red Line station where connections can be made to the Red Line Linear Bikepath through Cambridge and Somerville. The bikeway was constructed by the Massachusetts Highway Department and is maintained by the four towns of Arlington, Bedford, Cambridge and Lexington. The bikeway opened in 1993 and was extended from East Lexington to Alewife Station in 1998. The bikeway is twelve-feet wide and is open year-round from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. None of the ten mile Minuteman Commuter Bikeway was within the 65 dB DNL contour in 2005 or 2012. Approximately 1.3 miles of the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway was within the 55 dB DNL contour in 2005 and that decreased to 0.3 miles in 2012. It should be noted that users in some sections of the Minuteman Commuter bikeway are affected by the background noise of road traffic from Route 128/I-95 and other roadways that cross or parallel the bikeway. Hanscom Field-related traffic contributes only a small percentage to this traffic. 10.14.8 Vftoa°ua°c w Gauge @ lii III1`ua°a lii III The Narrow-Gauge Rail-Trail is a three-mile trail that runs from a point near the Bedford Depot at Loomis Street to the Billerica town line. The trail is paved asphalt between Loomis Street and the Great Road and is a stone-dust trail in the other section. The entire Narrow-Gauge Rail-Trail is located outside the 65 dB DNL and the 55 dB DNL contour. Cultural and Historical Resources 10.14.9 Agir°icUIIItjura1 lResc it The location of agricultural resources is shown in Figure 10-10. Hanscom Field contains soils identified on mapping prepared by the U.S.Natural Resources Conservation Service as having varying levels of agricultural potential.82 Such soils are described as either Prime Farmland soils or Farmland Soils of Local/State Importance, defined as follows: 1. Prime Farmland—land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses. 2. Locally Important Farmland—farmland that fails to meet the requirements of prime farmland,but is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber or forage crops. Figure 10-10 shows Areas of Prime Farmland and Farmland Soils of Local Importance at Hanscom Field. Limited agricultural activity currently occurs at Hanscom Field. Mowing of runway infield areas is performed to maintain low grassland vegetation for safe sight distances for aircraft operation and to provide grassland habitat for protected avian species. Agricultural operations within an airport setting must be restricted for reasons of safety for both aircraft operations and for farm workers located in proximity to operating aircraft. There is agricultural activity in outlying areas. 12Middlesex County,Massachusetts Interim Soil Survey Report-July 1995, and draft maps 10-48 . I.. co :3 fff LM LL co co ... .......... jjjjjjF U) Lu a 0 C14 . .. ...... . ............... ................ C14 .I......... .......... o cu m e Luof" ........... ..................... x"fffffff IM- fff"I..........I LL ffffffffff I"N I- .1"s- ............... LLJ ca ............ co I r � 3 z 04 ..............# E 0 N' 0 E",s 1�) A? Z E co ff a r»»llJJl a/f / E E 0 0 a_ Ir w ir............................................ ............ ............. .......... way Uo 10 co m U) co 0 pp/ 2 E E 75 0 0 0 E SOON2i a my 1% POW U U .2 4), LL CD CD Fo CD g, CD CD ............. ............. ........... CD ............... ........... .... �,A ,„� � e „si � � Z O o�s .......... Cultural and Historical Resources Prior to the 2005 ESPR, Massport met with Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MADAR)representatives to discuss envisioned uses of known agricultural soils at Hanscom Field. There have been no changes to use and management of agricultural lands at Hanscom since the filing of the 2005 ESPR with one exception. In 2009, Massport has made available 1.8 acres of land in Concord to Gaining Ground, a non-profit organic farming organization, for agricultural use. Massport continues to work with MADAR to determine appropriate measures to protect Massport-owned agricultural lands from conversion to non-agricultural uses. Massport will inform the towns about actions related to agricultural lands as part of its briefings at HFAC meetings. 10.15 Analysis of Future Scenarios This section analyzes the potential effects of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios on historical, cultural, recreational, and conservation resources within and in the vicinity of Hanscom Field. The environmental analysis focuses on traffic and noise effects of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. The air quality assessment, discussed in Chapter 8, Air Quality concludes that even maximum air concentrations for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios comply with all health-based air quality standards and therefore will result in no adverse air quality effects to historic resources including MMNHP. The analyses of historical and cultural resources use information on future aviation operations activity levels presented in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels, and potential new facilities described in Chapter 4, Airport Planning. Data is also derived from the evaluation of traffic volumes and intersection operations that are described in Chapter 6, Ground Transportation; and noise analyses for DNL and TA measurements that are presented in Chapter 7,Noise. Any future project at Hanscom Field will undergo a proj ect-specific environmental review process in the event that MEPA or other applicable environmental review thresholds are met. The historic resources and archaeological reconnaissance surveys,which are included in Appendix G,will provide baseline data for these assessments. Additional cultural and historical properties may be identified through more detailed intensive-level surveys in that process and will be addressed at that time. The potential effects on specific recreational and conservation resources would also be evaluated at that time. As described in Chapter 6, Ground Transportation, the 2012 ESPR reflects Massport's commitment to TDM and traffic management approaches to address future Hanscom Field-related traffic volumes,rather than physical modifications to intersections to add capacity. The traffic analysis focuses on predicted traffic volume changes on Route 2A in the MMNHP. As stated in Chapter 7,Noise, any significant changes in noise exposure are assessed based on both the absolute value of the projected DNL, as well as the magnitude of the change.Noise analysis considers as significant changes in DNL on the order of 1.5 dB or more for areas within the 65 dB DNL noise contour and changes of 3.0 or more decibels between 60 and 65 dB DNL83 Noise impact criteria are used to determine areas for further analysis and possible mitigation when completing environmental documentation for a specific project at an airport. Though the 2012 ESPR is not an environmental permitting document for a project, the use of these criteria help to highlight notable changes in the noise environment at Hanscom Field. 83U.S. Department of Transportation,Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,FAA Order 1050.1E CHG1,Washington,DC. Cultural and Historical Resources Chapter 7,Noise,presents 2020 and 2030 noise exposure levels at noise analysis locations including those that are cultural and historic resources. The 65 dB DNL noise contour was used as a guideline for determining potential land use incompatibilities,in accordance with FAA guidelines. The Secretary directed Massport to evaluate the extent of the 55 dB DNL noise contour in the 2012 ESPR. 10.115.11 Klsrdkoir°lcaIII VResotjirces This section assesses potential effects to historical resources that could result from the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Assessment of future noise effects to historical resources primarily focuses on the National and State Registers-listed, MHC Inventory and MACRIS-listed resources. Information about the environmental effects to MMNHP is contained in a separate section below. 10.115.2 State @ eglii leir @ e e°njir es Figure 10-11 illustrates the location of historic resources relative to the noise contours for the 2020 and 2030 growth scenarios. The figure includes the contours for 2005 and 2012 as well for comparing future noise with that experienced in recent years. Table 10-14 presents DNL values for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios at the ten locations with the highest DNL values in 2012.No historical resources fall within the 65 dB DNL noise contour or experience increased exposure of 3.0 dB or more at DNL levels between 60 and 65 dB. As compared to the 2005 DNL values,the increases in DNL values for most sites are less than one decibel and have DNL values below 55 dB in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. 7aIt)Ille 10-14 DNL. alu.jes for III~11iistoirlit Airclid4ecftji4l IIIlesmirces, IIL.Iiisted liiin the IlNatbir4ll aind State IlerlliMeirs 01 III~11iistoirlit III')Illaces .. .. CON.177 Deacon John 341 Virginia Rd. Concord NC-18 Wheeler-Captain Jonas Minot Farmhouse(aka 60.4 58.4 58.7 59.8 Thoreau Birthplace) CON.178 Wheeler-Meriam 477 Virginia Rd. Concord NC-19 59.9 58.1 58.4 59.4 House LEX.413 Simonds Tavern 331 Bedford Street Lexington NLX-1 55.5 53 53.6 54.7 CON.170 Orchard House 399 Lexington Rd. Concord NC-17 53.8 50.2 50.4 51.6 BED.V Bedford Depot 80 Loomis St.and Bedford NB-5 Park Historic 120 South Rd. 53.7 49.8 50.3 51.3 District CON.317 Ralph Waldo 28 Cambridge Concord NC-15 52.9 49.1 49.3 50.5 Emerson House Turnpike CON.802 Sleepy Hollow 24 Court Ln. Concord NC-12 ( 52.2 49 49.2 50.4 CON.DY) Cemetery CON.DS American Mile Lexington Road Concord NC-13 51.7 48.5 48.7 49.9 Historic District CON.329 Wright Tavern Lexington Rd.& Concord NC-11 51.0 48.2 48.3 49.5 Main St. CON.A Concord Monument Sq.and Concord NC-14 Monument Square- Lexington Rd. 50.9 48.1 48.2 49.4 Lexington Road Historic District Note: 1. The historic districts and properties with the ten highest DNL values in 200512 are listed in order of their 2012 DNL value. MMNHP sites are included in Table 10-17. E ar r r 1 5 1 Cultural and Historical Resources (This page intentionally left blank) 1 0-ir,; m�, �a y z n/ Irr/p1%%/JIID r 41 y o JE o r,.r��ll p%, r�/ry • )p�,a �..m.9..o..••,��*.;®, .U.�"J/ ® c!) ? 'mr�rr/�1 II z �� �x `t ) 1 W �S co cc R oa e r • �= O N � rG U J " i w m to O II L � _aa, J II LT O U N U I ' ® o ao l c0i O lf) 9lir K m Mrq � / ,r z z z z z z z i m 2C40. Z w U C z z z z z �Jff1I11 > 0 f . Wag ii4u . 1 Y � / , ( u ��� __,� II p (;o o rfr% II N �N E. y/ - m , m aZ c mm r y II �_ �vr o � �� o z z — 00 v m m a 5 f f a � w o SZ o 4 .,»��'"""'� I��� zz ' m= u z IIIIIIIII MM �ti II II z ra rta.. zr — io„ .(, lYr� ���N,11 .....0 i� � 8 g jj M U es� h "j III III 0 �1111 �r�c' z — _ O z / N z IIII all VuJ 5 z: �o u l t° z �z r� � yi O .. - m E. $S m I u x = II I% 1111111 d i� z z II i f a r ii�M Z -' In 0 V z z z yz z r c o z II _ 6.2� r N.uj �lit, u II � z z IIII - amM> II ` `r = U �� z 1 uj E w /' -7, uj fvM II D II y & R61 o z Z.2 � IC�..V Ca l zzz y IM i 'IBM C o - ¢N M _r _ a. Z- �j U x xc — u " ���G z ®mlll m ® r t N 0 U ti O m 5 d� it a"Y Y;"1 Cultural and Historical Resources Two historic properties in Concord that are located on Virginia Road next to Hanscom Field would have DNL values between 55 and 60 dB DNL in the 2020 scenarios: t. The Deacon John Wheeler/Capt. Joseph Minot Farmhouse is forecast at 58.7 dBA in the 2020 scenario (compared to 58.4 dBA in 2012) 2. The Wheeler-Meriam House is forecast at 58.4 dBA in the 2020 scenario (compared to 58.1 dBA in 2012) The next highest predicted level for a historical resource, Simonds Tavern in Lexington,would have a DNL value under 55 dB DNL,with a DNL value of 53.6 dBA in the 2020 scenario (compared to 53 dBA in 2012). All other sites would have a DNL value below 55 dBA in both the 2020 scenario. The highest predicted TA65 level occurs at the Deacon John Wheeler/Capt. Joseph Minot Farmhouse for the 2020 scenario,which increases from 34.5 minutes a day in 2012 to 42.0 minutes a day minutes a day in the 2020 scenario. The highest 2020 TA55 level occurs at Wheeler-Meriam House,which increases from 141.7 minutes a day in 2012 to 166.2 minutes a day in the 2020 scenario. Each of the 17 historic districts listed in Table 10-15 is outside the 65 dBA DNL contour for the 2012, 2020, and 2030 scenarios. TaIt)Ille 10-15 Area 01 IlNatliiour4ll aind State IIIlerliiMers III~1iiistoriit IIIistirlitts wiiitllhidiiun the 55 dBA DII IIL. Cointmir BEDFORD BED.V Bedford Depot Park Historic District 6.8 acres - 0 acres 0 acres BED.A Bedford Historic District 42 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres BED.0 Old Bedford Center Historic District 79 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres BED.K Old Burlington Road-Wilson Mill Area 2.7 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres CONCORD CON.DS American Mile Historic District 133 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres CON.DT Barrett Farm Historic District 221 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres CON.A Concord Monument Sq.-Lexington Rd 42 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Historic District CON.EA Hubbard-French Historic District 2.6 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres CON.DZ Hubbardville Historic District 6.6 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres CON.DU Main Street Historic District 74 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres CON.DV North Bridge-Monument Square Historic 89 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres District LEXINGTON LEX.B Battle Green Historic District 110 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres LEX.E East Village Historic District 56 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres LEX.0 Hancock-Clarke Historic District 34 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres LEX.AC Lexington Green Historic District 17 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres LEX.D Munroe Tavern Historic District 70 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres LINCOLN LIN.A LIN.D Lincoln Center Historic District 187 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Note: 1.All districts are outside the 65 dBA DNL contours for 2012 and the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. MMNHP is discussed separately. r agar r 1 55 Cultural and Historical Resources 10.115.4 2020 S enairliio�s No historic sites would be exposed to DNL values greater than 65 dB in the 2030 scenario. Increases are projected to be between 0.5 dB and 1.5 dB. Two properties are expected to have noise levels between 55 and 65 dB; which represent a reduction in levels from 2005 conditions: Deacon John Wheeler/Capt. Jonas Minot Farmhouse (NC-18)in Concord forecast at 59.8 dBA in the 2030 scenario (compared to 58.4 dBA in 2012) Wheeler-Meriam House (NC-19)in Concord forecast at 59.4 dBA in the 2030 scenario (compared to 58.1 in 2012) None of the other resources would experience noise levels that exceed 55 dBA. The highest predicted TA65 level would occur at the Deacon John Wheeler/Capt. Joseph Minot Farmhouse in the 2030 scenario; the TA65 would increase from 34.5 minutes a day in 2012 to 60.1 minutes a day in 2030. The highest predicted TA55 level would occur at Wheeler-Meriam House in the 2030 scenario; the TA65 would increase from 141.7 minutes a day in 2012 to 223.8 minutes a day. TaItAe 10-15 Il1~1liistoirlit IIResmirces, liiin the I I11 �inveintoiry aind I III'°S wliitllhidiiun the 55 dBA aind 55 dBA DNL. Cointmirs, for the 2020 aind 2030 Sceunairiibs AREAS Bedford 6 - 5 - 6 - 6 Concord 38 - 7 - 15 - 24 Lexington 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 Lincoln - - 0 - 0 - 0 Total 45 0 13 0 22 0 31 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES Bedford 59 - 19 - 29 - 44 Concord 218 - 47 - 58 - 106 Lexington 63 - 33 - 39 - 47 Lincoln - - 0 - 0 - 0 Total 340 0 99 0 126 0 197 Notes: 1. Based on research for 2012 ESPR. 2. Appendix G lists these historic resources. 3. The number of areas listed is fully or partially within the 55 dBA DNL contour. 10.16 W IIIIinTMintorand IIin°forurntion °fraurn Historic aurnumissions None of the historic resources in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS would be within the 65 dB DNL contour for the 2020 or 2030 scenarios. Table 10-16 summarizes by town the number of historic resources in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS that would be within the 55 dB DNL contour for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. 10.116.11 2020 S enairlilo In the 2020 growth scenario, 13 individual and 99 survey areas listed in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS would be within the 55 dB DNL contour. Cultural and Historical Resources 10.116.2 2030 Scenairllo In the 2030 growth scenario, 226 individual and 36 area historic resources listed in the MHC Inventory and MACRIS would be within the 55 dB DNL contour. 10.1"7 Arctiaeological Resources Massport encourages new development in areas with existing impervious surfaces that take advantage of existing infrastructure. Any physical changes proposed near the archaeological sites,which are located in undisturbed portions of the airport,have the potential to affect archaeological resources. These areas would be studied, as appropriate, if a project were proposed that affected a relevant area. Ground disturbance is not contemplated near traffic study intersections, since no physical modifications are proposed for these locations. The following is an assessment of the potential impacts to archaeological resources from the Master Planning areas reviewed for development in 2020 and 2030 and described in Chapter 4, Airport Planning. The four planning areas are Terminal, ATCT Apron, East Ramp, and North Airfield. 10.117.11 2020 Scenair�lo Development in the 2020 scenario is evaluated for each of the four planning areas described in Chapter 4, Airport Planning. All development evaluated for the East Ramp and ATCT Apron areas will occur on existing impervious ramp and apron and are entirely within areas assessed as having a low archaeological sensitivity. These potential development sites are unlikely to affect potentially significant archaeological resources. Of the new development concepts being evaluated for the 2020 scenario in the Terminal area, some would be sited on existing impervious and previously disturbed areas while other could be in areas that are presently vegetated and pervious. One new parking area was considered adjacent to the existing surface parking lot and Hanscom Drive. Also, the initial phase of the new Air and Space Museum is contemplated to be completed in the 2020 scenario in a wooded area at the intersection of Hanscom Drive and Old Bedford Road. These projects could affect areas assessed as having a high archaeological sensitivity. Additional archaeological investigation within these areas would be appropriate if these concepts moved forward to planning and design and belowground impacts were proposed. New development is also evaluated for some areas of the North Airfield planning area, some of which would be in presently pervious land. This work would primarily be located on Massport property previously leased to the Air Force for the trailer park which includes pockets of impervious area where the trailer pads were constructed. The development concepts in the 2020 scenario considered a new apron with access to Taxiways N and R and associated hangars. The sites in the North Airfield area are entirely within areas assessed as having a low archaeological sensitivity, and they are unlikely to affect potentially significant archaeological resources. 10.117.2 2030 Scenair�lo The development concepts considered for the 2030 scenario augment those discussed above in the 2020 scenario and the potential effects on archaeological sensitive areas would be similar. Construction activity in the East Ramp and ATCT Apron areas would continue to be confined to existing impervious areas previously disturbed with low archaeological sensitivity. EM, 1 57 Cultural and Historical Resources Additional development concepts in the Terminal area could include an additional surface parking area, a second phase for the Air and Space Museum, and a placeholder for a hotel along a new road connecting Hanscom Drive with the West Ramp. These projects areas are presently vegetated and considered to have high archaeological sensitivity due to their undisturbed state. Additional archaeological investigation would be recommended if these concepts moved forward to planning and design and belowground impacts were proposed. In the North Airfield area,most of the augmented development is contemplated for the area around the existing Navy hangar which is presently impervious buildings and apron. There could be some minor increases in impervious area but much would be adjacent to the existing development in areas considered to be of low archaeological sensitivity. 10.18 Minute I air I National Historical (Par This section assesses potential noise and traffic effects of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios on the MMNHP. Specific areas of focus include the NPS's goals of physical protection and restoration of Battle Road; road traffic,public safety, and access to park facilities,particularly regarding speed and traffic congestion; management of air traffic to protect the visitor's experience in the park; and the future of Hanscom AFB. Noise level analyses identified DNL and TA values at contributing resources within the park and estimates of acreage of park within the 55 dB DNL contour for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Table 10-18 presents the sites with the ten highest DNL values in the Park. The evaluation of traffic identifies potential changes in Route 2A traffic volumes that are attributable to Hanscom Field. Chapter 6, Ground Transportation describes Massport's support for Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce its contribution to traffic on area roadways and potential traffic management strategies that do not require physical modification to intersections.As described in Chapter 8, Air Quality, there are no adverse effects attributable to air quality in 2012 or the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. The environmental effects of traffic and noise on MMNHP from Hanscom planning concepts in the 2020 scenario are presented below. 10 18 1 1Il olse In the 2020 scenario,none of the MMNHP would be within the 65 dB or the 55 dB DNL contour. The DNL values at MMNHP sites would range from 43.9 dB to 54.5 dB. The highest level(54.5 dB)would occur at The Wayside-Samuel Whitney House (MM-7). None of the 4.9 mile Battle Road Trail would be within the 65 dB DNL or 55 DNL contour in the 2020 scenario. It should be noted that a visitor to the Battle Road portion of the park is affected by the background noise of road traffic from Route 128/I-95 and Route 2A throughout most of the day. MI.. Cultural and Historical Resources Tat)Ille 1047 IDNIIL.Valu.jes of Ies, liiin the IMliiirnjte IMain IlNatbir4 III+stoirlta III' airk (in dB) 11111 1111111111 1111111111 OM 1111111 MM-7 The Wayside (Samuel Wayside Unit/Concord 53.6 50.3 54.5 55.3 Whitney House)* MM-13 Noah Brooks Tavern (and Battle Road Unit/ 53.4 51.4 54.1 54.6 Carriage House) Lincoln MM-14 Job Brooks House Battle Road Unit/ 53.0 51.5 53.6 54.1 Lincoln MM-12 Samuel Brooks House Battle Road Unit/ 52.5 50.8 53.1 53.7 Concord MM-9 Meriam House Battle Road Unit/ 52.1 50.6 52.9 53.9 Concord MM-8 Meriam's Corner Monument Battle Road Unit/ 51.9 50.3 52.6 53.6 Concord MM-15 Joshua Brooks,Jr. House Battle Road Unit/ 51.7 50.7 52.2 52.8 Lincoln MM-10 Historic Farming Fields Battle Road Unit/ 51.4 50.7 52.1 53.0 Concord MM-1 Major John Buttrick House North Bridge Unit/ 51.2 48.7 52.1 53.2 Concord MM-2 NPS Headquarters and North Bridge Unit/ 50.5 48.3 51.4 52.5 Visitor Center at 174 Liberty Concord St. (Stedman Buttrick Residence ) MM-11 Olive Stow House/Farwell Battle Road Unit/ 50.5 49.2 51.3 52.0 Jones House/Carty Barn Concord MM-31 Col.James Barrett Farm Barrett Farm n/a 43.5 43.9 44.9 Unit/Concord Notes: 1. The MMNHP is a national historic landmark district.All sites are in the National Register of Historic Places.The sites with the ten highest DNL values in 2012 are listed in order of their 2012 DNL value. 2. Sites within MMNHP are marked with an asterisk(*)if they are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Co.James Barrett Farm has been added to the MMNHP since the 2005 ESPR. 3. Sites in the Battle Road Unit are located on the Battle Road Interpretive Trail. The DNL, TA65 and TA55 values at noise analysis locations along the Battle Road Trail were plotted in Figures 10-12 through 10-14 from the Fiske House Foundation(Mile 0)to Meriam's Comer Monument (Mile 5.5). Figures 10-12 through 10-14 indicate that predicted DNL and Time Above values along the trail are highest west of the Hartwell Tavern, reflecting the proximity of these sites to runways at Hanscom Field. TA65 values ranged from one to thirteen minutes at the thirty noise analysis locations with the highest levels occurring at The Wayside-Samuel Whitney House (MM-7) in the 2030 scenario. TA55 values ranged from 19 to 90 minutes with the highest levels occurring at the Historic Farming Fields (MM-10) in the Bedford Levels in the 2030 Scenario. M I In 1 5 9 Cultural and Historical Resources Meriam House Historic Bloody Angle Farming Fields Hartwell 2 M 0 Noah Brooks Tavern ..................................................................................... Tavern ................................................................................................................................................ 2020 55 —2012 ----------------------------- z CS 40 5 4 Distance along Battle Road from the Eastern Park Border(miles) Fig re 10-12 IDII L. at IWim.jte IMain Ill abbir4l I+stoihtIII'' airk IIBattllle IIRoad thrflt Locabbins, Historic I-Farming-Fields-] Noah Brooks MeriarnHouse .......................\.................... Tavern ............................................................................................ Bloody Angle 10 ................................................. . .................... ... ............................ .............. 2030 Hartwell ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- ", 2020 8 Tavern -------------------------------- ---------------- --- -------------- -------------------------- ------------------- —,-2012 7 ............................... ............................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .1 1 .1 .1 .1 1 01 5 4 3 2 1 0 Distance along Battle Road from the Eastern Park Border(miles) Fig re 10-13Tiirne Xbove 65 dBA at IWim.jte IMain Ill abbir4l I+stoiht Pairk IIBattllle IIRoad thinit Locabbin Cultural and Historical Resources Historic y Angle Farming Fields Noa�h Brools _�_loo�d .......................................................................... ..................................................F ................................................................................................................................. 100 T err, avern 1�� Hartwell 2030 Meriam House ...... Tavern I...... ,, 90 -,---2020, ----------------- -- ----------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- --------------------- ------------------ ---- 80 -20$2 ------ ------------ 70 ....... .......... .................................................................... 60 50............................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... > 0 40 30 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 0 0: Distan"along Battle Road from the Eastern Park Bordersmiles) 1-ig.lire 10-14 "Flirrie Xbove 55 dBA at IMllirnjte IMain IlMatiiioir4ll 1+lstoirilcIII'' airk IIBattllle 11oad Uirflt L.ocatloins 10 18 1 2'Tirafflc Hanscom Field traffic remains a very small percentage of the overall volumes on the roadway in the 2020 scenarios. In 2012, Hanscom Field represented four percent of peak hour traffic on Route 2A. Hanscom Field traffic would represent five percent of peak hour volumes in the 2020 scenario and seven percent of peak hour volumes in the 2030 scenario. Hanscom AFB and other local and regional traffic sources account for the rest of the traffic volumes. In the 2020 scenarios,Hanscom Field traffic would exceed ten percent of a single traffic movement at only one intersection on Route 2A in the NEVINEP 96)Hanscom Drive/Route 2A in Lincoln. 10.118.2 2030 Scenaillic, The environmental effects of traffic and noise on MMNHP from Hanscom planning concepts in the 2030 scenario are presented below. 10 18 2 1 Ill 6se In the 2030 scenario,none of the MMNHP would be within the 65 dB DNL contour. The predicted DNL values at MMNHP sites would range from 44.9 dB to 55.3dB. The highest predicted level(55.3 dB) would occur at The Wayside-Samuel Whitney House (MM-7). In the 2030 scenario, 0.4 acres of the MMNHP would be within the 55 dB DNL contour up from 0 acres in the 2020 scenario. None of the 4.9 mile Battle Road Trail would lie within the 55 or 65 dB DNL contour in the 2030 scenario. E I In 1()61 Cultural and Historical Resources TA65 values would range from one to 20 minutes at the thirty noise analysis locations,with the highest levels occurring at The Wayside-Samuel Whitney House (MM-7)in the 2030 scenario. TA55 values would range from 21 to 127 minutes,with the highest predicted levels occurring at the Historic Farming Fields (MM-10)in the Bedford Levels. Similar to the 2020 scenario, DNL and Time Above values, along the trail would be highest west of the Hartwell Tavern. 10 18 2 2'7iratlliir:; Even in the 2030 planning scenarios, Hanscom Field traffic remains a relatively small percentage of the overall roadway volumes. In 2012, Hanscom Field represented four percent of peak hour traffic on Route 2A. Hanscom Field traffic would represent seven percent of peak hour volumes in the 2030 scenario Hanscom AFB and other local and regional traffic sources account for the rest of the traffic volumes. In the 2030 scenarios,Hanscom Field traffic would exceed ten percent of a single traffic movement at four intersections on Route 2A in the MMNHP: 92) Route 2A/Massachusetts Avenue; 93) Route 2A/Old Massachusetts Avenue; 94) Route 2A/Airport Road; and 96) Hanscom Drive/Route 2A;.Delays would increase on the Hanscom Drive approach to the Hanscom Drive/Route 2A intersection and a traffic control officer could be considered for morning peak hour in the 2030 scenario. Average delay on the northbound Bedford Road left-turn at Route 2A would also increase by ten to 20 seconds due to Hanscom Field traffic volumes. 10.118.3 V ireatilor'4II and Conservation IL-and The 2020 and 2030 scenarios would not result in alterations to recreational and conservation lands. However, there would be incremental noise increases from operating aircraft. Table 10-19 summarizes the predicted changes in noise exposure for the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway,Narrow Gauge Rail- Trail, Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan Conservation Area, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, and the Concord River. Impacts within the 65 dB threshold which the FAA uses as a standard to assess significance are limited to a small area of less than an acre of the Hartwell Forest. None of the other noted areas would be with the 65 dB contour. Impacts within the 55 dB threshold are identifiable for most of the noted areas with the exception being the narrow gauge trail which has no impact. The largest predicted increases are at the Hartwell Forest given its close proximity to Runway 23 end. Impacts within the 55 dB contour also occur in the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. Aircraft fly directly over the Concord Impoundments on a regular basis. The Concord Impoundments are a popular location for bird watching and visits by school groups. To the extent that noise levels can be reduced in the Refuge,it will also benefit nearby residents of Concord along Bedford Street. However, except for implementation of noise abatement takeoff procedures (which many pilots already use),mitigation strategies aimed at protecting open space areas would necessarily redirect aircraft over other populated areas around Hanscom and are not likely to be desirable solutions for most residents. 10,6 m�, Cultural and Historical Resources Tat)Ue 10-18 46se ��Effects on llecmeotbir4U aind Coinseirvotbin Ilesmirces, Within 65 DNL Contour' Minuteman Commuter Bilkeway 10.1 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Narrow Gauge Rail-Trail 3.0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan 165.9 acres 1.4 acres 0.1 acres 0.1 acres 0.9 acres Conservation Area Great Meadows National Wildlife 3,409 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Refuge Concord River2 6.5 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Within 55 DNL Contour Minuteman Commuter Bilkeway 10.1 miles 1.3 miles 0.3 miles 0.4 miles 0.5 miles Narrow Gauge Rail-Trail 3.0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Hartwell Town Forest/Jordan 165.9 acres 118 acres 66.4 72.1 95.8 Conservation Area acres acres acres Great Meadows National Wildlife 3,409 acres 210 acres 26.4 43.1 94.4 Refuge acres acres acres Concord River�� 6.5 miles 0.5 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0.1 miles 1. This is the exposure level that the Federal Aviation Administration identifies as a guideline for determining potential land use incompatibilities. 2. Concord River is approximately 6.5 miles in length from State Route 2 (South of Airport)to State Route 225(North of Airport). '10,19 Einviroin00entally Beneficial Measures This section presents o summary of possible environmentally beneficial measures that have been identified to address the predicted oDeoto of Hanscom Field on historical and cultural resources in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. The development and implementation of these improvements would occur in the future inresponse to actual conditions and ondoipo1od environmental effects.More discussion of potential obo1ogioo io presented in Chapter 12, Environmentally Beneficial Measures. 10.119.11 Klstoir�lcaU �Rescuirces The inclusion of several tiered categories of information about historic resources in the 2012 ESPR provides a comprehensive basis for future analyses in the event that a specific projectiodovolopodfor implementation. Tb000 include the up-to-date compilation of National and State 8ugiotoro'liotodbiohudo r0000r000, the data on current M1{C Inventory and MACR]S r0000r000; and the results of the 2006 historic resources reconnaissance survey and 2012 update to capture other historic resources that are 50 years old orolder. Traffic measures in Chapter 12, Environmentally Beneficial Measures focus onTDM and operational improvements that do not require nhvoioolobongootodhoroodxruyo. 9000iblonoioo mitigation measures could include operational measures of a voluntary nature such as those reported in Chapter 12, Environmentally Beneficial Measures. 10.119.2 Airctiae6Uog�lca1 �Resouirces Any proposed future activities under the 2020 and 2030 scenarios that involve ground disturbance in or000 of archaeological sensitivity or near known archaeological sites have the potential to impact known archaeological resources. The 2006 reconnaissance survey and 2012 update will guidefuture studies to identify and ovoloo10 dh000 or000 in the event that o specific project io contemplated. Possible nn0000roo, if they are needed,may include project design oppr000boo to ovoid on archaeological site or sensitive area, site protection during construction, or data recovery excavations if a site cannot be avoided. 1 6 3 Cultural and Historical Resources 10.19.2.1WirniteMain Notbir4UI+stoir�#mU �3aidk TDM approaches can reduce traffic volumes o10 regional level and o1 Hanscom Field. AboDfiocontrol officer could bo used during morning peak hours o1 the Hanscom Drive/Route 2A intersection ifvolumes r000b 2020 and 2030 forecast levels. 9000dblo noise mitigation obotogioo to rod000 oDeoio on historical sites could include continued operational measures of a voluntary nature such as those reported in Chapter 12, Environmentally Beneficial M0000roo. The federal interagency working group that was Doonod to review impacts onMMNH9 may provide specific recommendations in the future that should be considered. Future noise recommendations may also be derived from the NPS soundscape plan for MMNH9. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) 11 Sustainable I)evelopryient and Manage Managernent Systern Sustainability is good for the environment and also makes good business sense. Massport recognizes the importance of sustainability and seeks to incorporate and encourage sustainable practices as an integral part of the agency's general operating and development philosophy. Massport's mission is "to promote economic growth and vitality throughout Massachusetts and New England by operating many of the region's largest transportation facilities safely, securely, and efficiently while being mindful of the environment and our neighboring communities."In addition,Massport is committed to its pursuit of improving overall sustainability performance of the agency's operations and projects. In keeping with this mission, Massport manages Hanscom Field and its operations in a responsible fashion that considers the operational needs of the airport within the broader context of its environment. Massport is a leader among Massachusetts agencies in the promotion and implementation of sustainable design and operations. This is reflected in two relevant examples: Logan Terminal A, the first terminal in the world to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification 84; and Hanscom Field being the first airport in the U.S. to achieve ISO 14001 certification. The new Rental Car Facility and the recently completed Green Bus Depot at Logan are also anticipated to achieve LEED Silver certification. Massport requires that all new development, including that conducted at Hanscom,meet performance standards established by LEED for Silver certification. LEED certification is achieved through the incorporation of sustainability commitments in building design and operation including energy efficiency, use of environmentally-friendly products,reuse and recycling, and renewable energy. At Hanscom, as an example, the new Liberty Mutual Hangar,while not a LEED certified facility includes a range of environmentally friendly elements to reduce energy utilization and environmental management. Rectrix Aviation is constructing a new state-of-the-art fixed-base operator(FBO) facility to replace Hangar 24 and is expected to achieve LEED Silver certification.Massport has constructed solar photovoltaic(PV) panels on the Hanscom Civil Air Terminal Building to provide onsite renewable energy and reduce its demand for power from offsite electricity sources. Massport will continue to encourage future operation and development of Hanscom Field facilities to be performed in a sustainable manner. 84 The U.S.Green Building Council developed the LEED Green Building Rating Systems to rate the sustainability of different building types. ��~�� Gu�aina� �oDovo|opmontandE� mnmo�a| Management Gyn�m (EMG) Conce pt ncept of ��us�|inability Soot�nobildyiooporopoodvo that b�ogrotooeconomic duvolopo�ontand onvironznontolotoxrordnhip while nnoodngsocietal needs. ln planning, design, oonobuodon, and opor�iono,the oonvondonolnnodhod ofproblonn'oobd sh ort-term oonoidorodonronnoin000nb� an alysis, issues are oddoolfor nnooduglong-term 000nonnioand 000iokUgoals. lnponioolor, o sustainable approach to planning, design, oonoU�odon, and opor�ion000noidomoDthree olonnonto: 000nonny, onvrono�ont, and society. Also called the ^T�n|u bottom line"(TBl.),this approach to sustainable solutions is characterizedbvonoppro � optimal toonio�plioodono. Tbolong'toonporopoodvoioof\onoordodoo1dhrouchli{e'oyol000000ndngor000nodo planning and can uncover hidden Tf�l costs, such oopotondol regulatory changes,increases in the cost of fuel, io�pootoofo�nno10 obongo onoirpodoporodono, and fub�opublic donnondo. lngeneral, sustainable oolodonododvod6mnnTBl approaches can bo expected tobonnoro durable, oDeodvo, and 000nonnioollv viable. The broad doGnidonof000tdnobili[y,which ooknon/lodgoothe bntor'rolodonobipoamong 000nonnio, onvirono�ontol, and societal needs, io presented and discussed bolovr. ��.2.� K�efln�ng1�usta�44��U�ty ln keeping n/idhthe 000toinobili[y concepts d000dbodabove, 000tdnobili[yioopmcdooin which the use of renewable r0000r000 is balanced against their oonen1 and future availability, as well as the individual and commercial needs for those r0000r000. It is based on the principle that consumption of resources should not lead to their oxb000donortopoononontdoznogo. Sustainable dovolopo�ontvroodoGnodbv the VyoddCoo�nniooiononEnvirono�ont and Dovolopo�ontin |987oo "dovolopo�ont that nnootothe needs of the present vriLboo1000�pronnioingthe obi�[yoffub�o gonorodonotonnoot their oxn�noodo."»� This doGnidoniovridolv accepted because the use ofnob�� r0000r000 includes not only their direct oon000�pdoninprocesses but also onor000bo�ontupon nob�o through dovolopo�ontand land use. Di0000�o�onto use the toono ^^yuy�inuhU ``und^^yuy�inuh|u duvu|opmunt``in1orobongoob�. To be successful, 000tobnobili[yo�ootbo initiated at all levels of0000�o�onib�--6roo�the individual citizens to large public and private organizations. To date, 000toinobi�[yboo achieved its greatest success through vo�utoryprogron�o,wherein citizens, organizations, and businesses {bonolo10 plans that balance the needs of000noo�ioproopod[yvridhonvirono�ontol health. For oxoo�plo, the 000kdnobili[yropodbng nnovonnontbegan omond2000 and ionon/considered o�ndmdpmcdooamong pdvo1oand public oorporodono. ln the last decade,nnouyo�onioipolorgonizodonosuch 000dlidoo, oidoo, and oirpodohave begun this prood0000vroll.\�bilo guidance for 000toinobili[yropodbngiovroD codified bv the Global 8upodjnglnidodvo, hioodllovo�utoryondonokingbv public and pdvo1oorgonizodonoin the United States. ln the green building arena,the lEED green building rodngoyotonnhas been adopted ooponofnnouy local and oto10 building codes. For example,many cities novr require new dovolopo�ont projects above o specified footpdntarea to achieve lEED Silver oodiGoodon. Looking ahead, greenhouse gas ({]8�O) m mEnvironment v�, co���oo�o"o" mao«oupmc"/(v�cco). /oor.Our Common xxm^:m � m the Report Co mmission, »"xuou,uxrozm, m� �o"�vx � poo �� � Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) inventorying and reporting—already required for specific industry sectors—is an area in which future regulations can be expected. Already,voluntary GHG mitigation programs have been established by many states and local jurisdictions. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, sustainability has been codified in several ways since the 2005 Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR),including Executive Order 484 (Leading by Example: Clean Energy and Efficient Buildings) and the Global Warming Solutions Act(to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate change). 11,11.2.2 State of IPiractice In AliIir°lpe°in Sustalindb111l Since 2005,numerous advances in aviation sustainability have taken place and many airports have developed sustainability management plans,instituted practices, educated staff, communicated with stakeholders, and begun to track sustainability performance. Massport continues to stay abreast of these advancements and is participating in some of them, such as the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) Sustainable Master Plan Pilot Program.86 For agencies managing airports, some of the recent sustainability advances and resources now available include the following: IN Global Reporting Initiative's (GRI) Airport Operators Sector Supplement,providing guidance for sustainability reporting. IN Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance (SAGA) Database,providing a comprehensive list of sustainability strategies,practices, and technologies at airports. IN Airport initiatives: Sustainable airport manuals,master plans, and projects at multiple airports, such as Portland International(PDX), Sky Harbor(PHX), and Denver International(DIA). The Airports Council International North America(ACI-NA) environmental steering committee, of which Massport is a member,published environmental goals for North American airports in 2009. The goals covered environmental policies and management systems, air quality, climate, energy,noise,waste management, and water quality.87 Multiple research efforts conducted under the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), including: IN ACRP Synthesis 10: Airport Sustainability Practices IN ACRP Project 02-28: Sustainability for Airports: Best Practices, Success Metrics, and Beyond IN ACRP Project 02-30: Enhancing the Airport-Industry Database of Sustainable Practices IN ACRP Report 42: Sustainable Airport Construction Practices IN ACRP Project 02-40: Climate Change Adaptation Planning: Risk Assessment for Airports IN ACRP Project 09-06: Sustainable Practices for Airport Maintenance and Operations In addition, the FAA has been active in sustainable aviation through the following efforts: N Existing and new noise compatibility programs (see Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150) N Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE)Program N Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar Technologies at Airports (The Solar Guide) 86 FAA website,Sustainability page,accessible at h 1p: �� � _€Y Y gm4r�_ xs 4rri__4 i.-774riYrn4�iwtal n isirita}rrlriY!. 87 ACI(February 2009),ACI-NA Environmental Goals.Accessible at f1��T. �"�"�" IIY f417� 44171 k4.47441N 4174;�. 411 N�41N� q�416117 Y`N41":N� .�&4, llm NA board-eiwiro 4,-oal feb6 Jj' a ,XI 1 3 Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) �IN Provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012 for recycling and energy management Most notably, the FAA initiated a Sustainable Master Plan Pilot Program in May 2010, to promote industry-wide learning about effective sustainability practices in master planning and operational management. Logan Airport, owned and operated by Massport,is one of the pilot locations for this program.Under a federal grant, Logan Airport is developing a Sustainability Management Plan. Massport is also undertaking a long-term strategic plan and a climate adaptation plan. Massport expects that practices and lessons learned at Logan will be applied as practicable to Hanscom Field and other Massport facilities. 11,11.2.3 GUi14i ng I "ua°iii n&!i 1pII s As described above, the state of aviation practice has evolved considerably in the last several years; however, the fundamental guiding principles for airport sustainability have remained unchanged. At the highest level, as articulated by The Natural Step,88 a global non-profit sustainability education and training organization, these guiding principles include the following: IN Reduce reliance upon non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels,metals, and minerals. IN Reduce consumption of chemicals and other synthetic compounds that are not easily assimilated by biological systems. IN Reduce or reverse the progressive degradation of natural systems resulting from development and other human activities. IN Help people meet their hierarchy of economic and social needs in fair and efficient ways. Translated into terms applicable to airports, these general sustainability guiding principles address the following airport action areas as reported in ACRP Synthesis 10, Airport Sustainability Practices: IN Promote environmental sustainability through protecting water and air quality, adapting to climate change,reducing GHG emissions, stewarding land resources,preserving biodiversity, selecting environmentally preferable materials,minimizing and eliminating waste,recycling, abating noise, reducing energy consumption and efficiency,building green buildings, and implementing efficient transportation systems. IN Promote social sustainability by promoting aesthetics, communicating via public relations and stakeholder engagement, following fair and beneficial employee practices and procedures, promoting transportation mobility and accessibility solutions, celebrating local culture and heritage, safeguarding health/safety/indoor environmental quality, and promoting employee and passenger well-being. IN Promote economic sustainability through local hiring and purchasing,making contributions to the community, quantifying the economic metrics of sustainable solutions, contributing to research and development,participating in local economic development, and monetarily incentivizing sustainable behavior(for example, though lease terms with tenants). 1111 w w State,4-eveI GtIldeIlInes,, Irtltlatives,, and IPirogirarns Massport voluntarily ascribes to and supports various sustainability guidelines,initiatives, and programs that are promulgated and promoted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These are described in the following subsections. 88 The Natural Step,Four System Conditions and Principles of Sustainability,accessible at'hii�r. ���v�n iw ii nrail�,t��n Orr€ i kxa y,i�rn,_a 4riw6�rir4r�t>_. 11°° : I.. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) 11 2 4 1 Execl.ANe Order 385 I3I4nirfling for Girowtll (1996) Massport voluntarily follows to the guidelines of Executive Order 385 Planning for Growth.89 Key features of Executive Order 385 include the following: IN Massachusetts supports economic development that does not result in preventable adverse environmental effects. IN Massachusetts promotes development that is designed to minimize environmental impacts. IN The preferred method of achieving sustainability is through voluntary actions of involved parties. IN All Commonwealth agencies are to analyze the effect of their operations on their ability, and the ability of others, to implement sustainability and,when necessary,practical, and feasible,make changes to prevent any hindrances to achieving sustainability. IN All agencies shall try to work within the local or regional growth management plans. IN Reuse and rehabilitation of existing facilities and infrastructure are preferred over new facilities and infrastructure,where practicable and consistent with other plans. IN Regional transportation planning shall be coordinated among all involved agencies. 11 2 4 2 IlExecl.ltliNe Order 438 State SlJstaliiinat)li lll4y Ilf3irogirairn (2002) In 2002, Massport began participating in the new State Sustainability Program (Executive Order 438)90 developed by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. This program was an expansion of the Clean State Program, in which Massport had actively participated for many years. The State Sustainability Program was designed to encourage state agencies to promote environmentally sustainable practices—including green buildings—to reduce environmental impacts from operations and to increase energy efficiency. Green building is the design, construction, and/or renovation of buildings that achieve energy efficiency and environmental sustainability. Massport has taken a leadership role in ensuring that its facilities meet LEED Silver criteria, including requiring third-party developers to meet the same standard. 11 2 4 3 Execl.ANe Order 484 L.ewt�ing Iby Exairnp e---Gleain IlEineirtly aind IlEffldeint Bl.jIiiII�1ings (2007) Executive Order 48491 was signed by Governor Deval Patrick in 2007. It requires that state agencies lead by example to promote clean energy and efficient buildings. The Executive Order states that because buildings are significant users of energy,water, and natural resources, and because the Commonwealth manages millions of square feet of buildings, state agencies must prioritize energy conservation practices and programs that will reduce consumption of fossil fuels and measure progress towards clean energy and environmental goals. The Executive Order also requires that long-term programs, such as the Lead by Example Program,be established to identify and implement cost-effective initiatives that will result in environmental improvement and offer educational and training efforts in order to carry out the mandate of Executive Order 484. 89 Governor William F.Weld,Executive Order No.385 Planning for Growth,April 23, 1996.Accessible at http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/eo/eotext/E0385.txt 90 Governor Jane M.Swift,Executive Order No.438 State Sustainability Program.Accessible at http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/eo/eotext/E0438.txt 91 Governor Deval L.Patrick,Executive Order 484,Leading by Example:Clean Energy and Efficient Buildings.Accessible at -orders leadil�':I -exa 2P )L� --------------------- ----------------------�m LY----fl _�LL�.j EM, Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMG) 11.2.4.4, Go14UWairir6�in0Sd�.Abins Act(2008) The Global Wanning Solutions Act(GWSA)was signedbntolonrin August 2008,thereby establishing comprehensive regulatory program for the Commonwealth to address climate change. The {]WSA required the setting of000nomy'vrido {]H{]emission reductions toreduce emissions between 10poroon1 and 25 percent below statewide |990 levels bv2020, and 80 percent below |990 levels bv2050. Massport's Energy Efficiency Initiative implements the goals of this act through energy efficiency and ronon/oblo energy installations. 11.2.4.5 8Mass��DO"T"sGmeeiiri��DO"T ��Piirogiiramm (2010) In June 2010, the Massachusetts Department ofTransportation (M000DOT)launched the [koonDOT program to work toward three primary goals: rod000 {]H{]emissions; promote the healthy transportation options of walking,bicycling, and public transit; and support smart growth development. Gr onDOT calls for M000DOTto incorporate 000kdnobili[yin10 all of its oodvidoo from strategic planning to project design and construction to oyotonn operation. The initiative includes {]H{]reduction targets mandated under the GWSA. The implementation plan centers around 16 000toinobili[y goals under Air, Energy, Land, Materials, 9olim/Plmming, Waste, and Water. Masopod was already aligning with these 000kdnobili[ygoolo even before the Doonol implementation plan, and many of these oodoidoo are described below. 11,11.2.5 KMasspoirt's ��Eiiriv��iiir,oiiriiirrieiiri'taU KMainageirneint P61H!cy ln November 2000, the M000podE|oord approved the Environmental Management Policy that states: Massachusetts Port Authority(M000pon) is committed to operate all its facilities in an environmentally sound and responsible manner. M000pon will strive to minimize the impact ofits operations on the environment through the continuous improvement of its environmental por{bononoo and the implementation of pollution prevention measures,both to the extent feasible and practicable in o manner that io consistent with M000pon'o mission and goals. To 0000000fudly implement this policy, Massport will develop and maintain management systems that will: IN Ensure that the environmental management policy io available to otoff,tenants, 000tonnoro and the general public. IN Ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. IN Ensure that environmental considerations are included in the business, financial, operational, and programmatic decisions, including feasible and practicable options for potentially exceeding compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. IN Define and apply sustainable design principles in the planning, design, operation and decommissioning of its facilities. IN Define and establish environmental objectives, targets, and best management practices and monitor performance. IN Provide training to and communication with staff and affected tenants regarding environmental goals, objectives, and targets and their respective roles and responsibilities in fulfilling them. IN Incorporate monitoring ofM000podand M000podtononto' environmental oodvidoo. IN Include the preparation of an annual environmental perforniance report,which will be made available to otoff, tenants, 000tonnoro and the general public. 116 Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) 11,11.2.6 I it liiii°,c�,r irrei r taIII II anageirre ent Systems The ISO 14000 series of international standards addresses environmental issues associated with the activities,products, or services provided by an organization. The standards are designed to be incorporated into organizations of any type and size. The voluntary program involves creating an Environmental Management System(EMS), a proactive environmental program promoting pollution prevention, sustainable development, and continuous improvement. An International Standards Organization(ISO)-certified EMS must include a corporate environmental policy, environmental performance evaluation, and comprehensive system auditing. This process allows for continual evaluation and improvement in environmental performance. ISO 14001 environmental management systems are being adopted around the world under the Aviation Environmental Management System(AEMS). Hanscom was the first U.S. airport to obtain ISO 14001 certification in 2001. Since then, other airports have followed suit,including Logan, Dallas/Ft.Worth, Denver, and Westchester County. A number of European airports,including Dublin, Cannes Mandelieu, Torp Sandefjord(Norway), Brussels, Hamburg, and Heathrow, as well as Toronto Pearson Airport, Vancouver International, and Aeroports de Montreal in Canada, are ISO 14001 certified or compliant. 11,11.2.7 ILJI iED Certification The U.S. Green Building Council(USGBC) established the LEED Green Building Rating System in 2000. LEED is a third-party certification program and nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings. LEED certification is available for various building types including new construction and major renovation; existing buildings; commercial interiors; core and shell; schools and homes. LEED systems for neighborhood development,retail and healthcare are currently pilot testing. To date, there are over 4.5 billion square feet of construction space involved with the LEED system."According to the USGBC and substantiated by many case studies, buildings benefit from LEED certification by: IN Costing less to operate and maintain. IN Generating higher energy- and water-efficiencies. IN Demonstrating higher lease-up rates than conventional buildings in their markets. IN Providing a healthier and safer indoor environment for occupants. IN Embodying the environmental or sustainability values of the organizations that build, own, and occupy them. The USGBC has a defined process to grant LEED certification. Building designs are registered with USGBC for review,which includes third-party validation. Buildings are certified based on whether they achieve a minimum number of points that are based on the number of"green"design elements that are in the design. One innovation in the LEED system since 2005 is that the rating system now includes regional credits. Projects can earn up to four"bonus"credits for implementing green building strategies that address the important environmental issues facing their region.92 A rating system is used to determine four levels of LEED certification(Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum). The USGBC also provides training and accreditation for design professionals. 92 U.S.Green Building Council.Fact Sheet. Available at ils._/iwe��_�i_gm a Orr „__jt(, d f_i I €ile q;ocs:;;_?0. jf°. � , 7 Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMG) V .3 Sustainable Development at Hainsca00Reld There are many strategies and practices available that support sustainable development. Since the 2085 8PR, Massport has developed and implemented sus{ainabilityinitiatives appropriate to an airport environment, as well as to the particular location and role of Hanscom Field. Akoyotono of its overall program, M000pod requires lEEDSilvoroodjGoodon{brollnon/dovolopmonLTb0000donpro`ddoo details ofMuyypo/i`y current and planned yuytainuhU practices u1 Hanscom Field. 11,11.3.11 �Er,iv��imc�,r,i00er,i,taUManage00en't System In Muy200|, Hanscom Field became the first airport in the U.S. to receive ISO 14001 oodiGoodon through the development and implementation ofon Environmental Management System (EMS). This achievement is a cornerstone for Massport in defining and achieving its sustainability goals and set a course for other M000podfacilities. A key feature of the EMS is a focus on continuous improvement by setting objectives and targets that are achieved and updated at regular intervals. Hanscom's focus areas for the EMS are related to vehicle emissions, energy use, solid waste recycling, storrawater management,hazardous materials, and tenant training. In addition, employees are regularly trained to onooro onroron000 of risks to the environment associated vridhdhoirjobo, to support continued ISO 14001 oodiGoodon, and to maintain continuous improvement. Training topics include compliance requirements such oo the management of hazardous materials and waste, otoonwo1or pollution prevention, and spill provondonondrooponoo. Muyyport`y lB0 14001 certification requires bmdng oddrd'pony audit the system to ensure that it demonstrates continued improvement. These audits are perfonned by an internal auditor and then by a dhird'ponyoodhor, typically every three years. Hanscom Field io continuously improving the EMS itself bvworking toward greater staff engagement, improving in{bonodon flows, and maintaining better documentation. In this regard,management review ioo key element to the EMS at Hanscom Field. Senior managers regularly review the EMS, ensure adequate resources are available, and determine next steps. A management review meeting is held regularly to review the results of periodic oodho and todetermine if changes to the oyotonn are required. 11,11.3.2 ��v��iii�,c�,r,i00er,i,taUSusta�44N!U�1,tyKn�ltlatives M000podio committed tominimizing the impact ofits operations on both the natural and human environments through owide array ofinitiatives and programs, in addition to those included in the EMS. lnidodvoo to promote 000toinobili[yinoludo: IN Sustainable Planning and Design IN Sustainable Construction IN Sustainable Operations and Maintenance IN Monitoring of Environmental 9odoononoo The beneficial effects to the environment of these initiatives extend across o variety of media, including air,vro1or,noise,vrooto, and energy. The following 000dono, organized bvthe four initiatives listed above, highlight activities since 2005 and describe current program elements. 11 118 Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) 1I 1I w w Sustale ilnabllle I IIlannliing, 1De lilgn and Construction Massport follows a formal sustainable planning, design, and construction program,which is applied at Hanscom Field. In addition to requiring LEED Silver certification, the program established specific criteria for designer selection and design review, design guidelines, and requirements for use of green technologies that foster the efficient use of resources such as energy,water, and air. These technologies include natural day-lighting,passive solar gain,natural cooling, energy-efficient HVAC equipment, environmentally beneficial building materials, and renewable energy and energy use monitoring. To support this program, Massport adopted a comprehensive set of standards and guidelines for sustainable design in 2009, followed by Version 2 in 2011. The Sustainable Design Standards and Guidelines (SDSG) document currently applies to Massport projects in the capital program. Tenants and third-party developers are encouraged to follow the SDSG,which covers the following areas: IN General standards relating to project management, documentation,public involvement, commissioning, operational programs and infrastructure, and other topics IN Project site design IN Project materials IN Energy management and efficiency IN Air emissions IN Water management quality and efficiency IN Indoor air quality and occupant comfort 11 3 3 t L.IIEIED Ceirbflcatbin Under the LEED certification program, Massport requires building projects (new or rehab projects) greater than 20,000 square feet in size to meet sustainable design elements and achieve a minimum LEED Silver certification. Designers are encouraged to achieve higher levels of LEED certification through the incorporation of appropriate sustainable design and operational elements. The Rectrix Hangar, to be completed in 2013,is anticipated to be LEED Silver certified upon completion. The key green features for these facilities include day-lighting, energy-efficient systems, and environmentally sustainable materials. 11 3 3 2 IlEineirtly IlEf liir:.liieuncy aind II I'°�einewalt)llle IlEurleirtly Energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements are often stipulated in the environmental permitting documents and commitments as well as lease agreements. In addition to following the SDSG and supporting the LEED credits for energy in new or rehabilitated buildings, Hanscom Field has invested a significant effort into post-construction energy-efficiency projects. The new roofing system for the Civil Air Terminal includes a 51 kilowatt solar PV facility comprised of 222 solar panels. Testing and commissioning of the system was completed in 2011. The total system was modeled to produce over 57,233 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year, or 10 percent of the total building electricity requirement. To date, this installation has produced more than 156,000 kWh of electricity. As part of the roof replacement project, Massport included increased insulation that is anticipated to decrease heating and cooling demands for the building by an estimated 20 percent as a result of lower heating and cooling demands. It installed new energy-efficient HVAC units in the Civil Air Terminal in August 2012. A dedicated building electricity meter was also installed to provide detailed monitoring of ; a�,X Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMG) total building electricity demands and io used to track and verify whole building energy efficiency improvements. 11.3.3.3 Water Eff�deincy aind Wastewater lled�.Jctbirl In addition to using the sustainable design guidelinesinthe SDS{]and supporting the lEED orodho for water efficiency and wastewater reduction in new or rehabilitated buildings, Hon000nn Field 000ko opportunities to nnonogo water resources more 000kdnoblv. 11,11.3.4 Susta�lnabUe Construction Masopod has established requirements foroonobuodonoonbootorothatore aimed atminimizing environmental impacts. Ao part of its project opprovolpr00000,M000podrequires oonboohum to odboro to construction guidelines relating to: IN Construction debris and demolition waste recycling IN Selection of high-efficiency space heating/cooling systems IN Soil treatment and reuse on site (Soil Management Plan) IN Construction worker vehicle trip limitation IN Clean Construction Initiative,which requires contractors to retrofit their heavy equipment vridh advanced pollution control devices during construction of all M000podprojects ln addition to enforcing the use of the construction guidelines,M000pod seeks opportunities huemploy more environmentally-friendly technologies. For example,warm-mix asphalt was pioneered at Logan Airport to take advantage of the benefits h offers: less energy required forboodng, rodooingoironniooiono, and healthier conditions for workers. At Hanscom Field,wann-mix asphalt was used in the rehabilitation of Taxiway ES-EW and in the resurfacing of the general aircraft parking lot. 11,11.3.5 Susta�lnabUe Qpeiratlons and Ma�lrvtenance M000podboo several programs in place that contribute to the 000tdnoblo operation and maintenance of the airport and its facilities. Tb000 programs are described below. 11^3^5^1 Eineir0y Eff�deincy In addition topromoting energy efficiency inplanning, design, and construction, M000podobivoo for continuous improvement in operational energy oIGoionoy. At Hanscom Field, digital energy meters were installed to obtain more accurate energy consumption data. 11.3.5.2 GUeain ��.j6U Veli�de �iro0iramm As part of the Clean Fuel Vehicle Program, Massport has made progress in bringing alternative fuel vobioloo (AF\/o) into its Doot at Hanscom Field. At present, M000ponoxno Gf\oon fleet vehicles at Hanscom Field, four of which are electric. ln addition, several tenants have switched to electric tugs for moving aircraft,resulting in reduced onniooiono at the airport. Jet Aviation 0000 six olooUio tugs and Signature uses electric two tugs and two electric golf carts. The primary alternative fuel ioolbo'lovr'oolfur diesel fuel. M000pod will continue to consider AF\/ofor any new vehicle purchase in the future. Any new conventional-fueled vehicle added to the Hanscom fleet in the future will have very low emissions and will automatically comply with the low emission goals of the federal Clean Fuel Fleet Program (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 88). As part of these regulations,ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel for on-road diesel vehicles was phased in starting in 2005. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) 11 3 5 3 '7oxlit III'°lemftjctliiouns Hanscom Field is a Very Small Quantity generator(<220 lb/month) of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)regulated hazardous waste and a Small Quantity generator(<2,200 lb/month) of Massachusetts regulated hazardous waste. Massport is committed to reducing the potential for the discharge and release of toxic materials, and pollution prevention is part of Massport's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). Less toxic and non-toxic alternatives are evaluated and implemented where applicable. Through Hanscom's EMS,Massport periodically looks for ways to reduce the use of toxic materials including evaluation of products for replacements with non-toxic alternatives. For example, solid-form sodium formate was selected for deicing at Hanscom after a careful evaluation of other options that were both FAA-approved and that met Clean Water Act receiving water standards. An inventory of chemicals being used at Hanscom Field is underway to identify other opportunities to reduce toxic compounds. Reduction of toxic materials means that less hazardous waste is produced,thereby minimizing impacts to the environment and saving dollars on waste disposal. In keeping with this goal,potential sources of spills or contamination are also carefully managed. For instance, the aboveground storage tanks at Hangar 10 were removed in August 2011. Massport also works with its tenants to identify ways to reduce the amount and toxicity of certain products used at Hanscom Field. Massport involves the tenants in achieving environmental compliance and pollution prevention. Massport provides ongoing technical assistance to tenants regarding new regulations and means for compliance through an inspection program conducted by the Environmental Management Unit. In addition, educational materials are distributed on pollution prevention, stormwater best management practices, spill prevention and response procedures, and other topics. Massport periodically sends tenants reminder notices of upcoming regulatory requirements. Since 2005, these notices covered topics such as recycling, tank management, spill prevention and reporting, stormwater, and universal waste management. 11 3 5 4 Illecydlliiing Since the 2005 ESPR,Massport has converted to single-stream recycling,which recycles a wider range of materials than the previous system. Hanscom and tenant facilities are provided with recycling dumpsters. Overall,Massport's recycling rates have steadily risen to approximately 11 to 12 percent for the entire Authority. Under a new Massport recycling contract, the containers will be changed to a style that can be weighed at the time of service. Hanscom will be outfitted with larger-capacity containers,which will be wirelessly monitored,reducing unnecessary services. These units are available with solar panels as the primary power source,with traditional electrical backup. Massport's goal is to reduce the cost of waste and recycling at Hanscom by 40 percent,while increasing the recycling rate to 30 to 40 percent during the 2014-2017 timeframe, and eventually to zero waste by 2020. Lastly, the trucks used to collect trash and recycling will be converted to compressed natural gas (CNG) during 2014. 11 3 5 5 Stoirimmwateir 151aunageimneint Massport and its tenants have implemented a number of programs and management practices to reduce the potential for pollutants to be released into the storm drainage system. Many of the ongoing practices ' ed�a I N �� �� Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) are focused on control of pollutants at their source through education and implementation of source reduction techniques and better administration and handling practices. Examples of ongoing practices include: IN Annual spill, stormwater, and hazardous waste management training for Massport employees IN Spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan implementation by Massport and its tenants IN Inspection of stormwater discharges IN Placement of floating booms at outfalls IN Monitoring outfall conditions IN Implementation of a tank management program Massport has also conducted design reviews to ensure that new facilities improve the quality and character of the airport while minimizing environmental impacts. Improved stormwater runoff control has been achieved through the requirement that compensatory storage for stormwater be provided for any projects resulting in increases in impervious surfaces,in order to not increase peak runoff rates. In addition, Massport strives to take advantage of existing stormwater infrastructure and directs new development to areas with existing impervious surfaces. Massport also identifies and removes existing impervious surfaces where feasible. Since the 2005 ESPR, Massport has eliminated approximately 4.4 acres of impervious surfaces at Hanscom Field by removing unused airside pavement. 113 5 6 Gll4nate Adaptatbin Adaptation to the anticipated impacts of climate change, such as increased frequency and intensity of storms, flooding, and sea level rise,may require adaptive actions at Hanscom Field and potential investments in infrastructure improvements. Hanscom has undertaken several initiatives in this area to become informed and begin securing the assets of the airport. For example: IN Massport managers participated in a statewide climate adaptation dialogue,which resulted in the development of short-,mid-, and long-range goals for addressing climate change within each state agency. IN Massport is evaluating disaster vulnerability, and the resulting report will become the basis for disaster planning. IN Massport has also initiated a long-range strategic planning effort Massport-wide,which includes an element addressing climate adaptation. IN In addition,the results of Logan Airport's climate adaptation work, in association with the development of its Sustainable Management Plan(currently underway),will be translated to Hanscom Field and other Massport facilities through the EMS framework. 11,11.3.6 IIftrtiiloir°ing of "eua°Ioua°ir anc Massport has in place a number of environmental monitoring and audit programs at Hanscom Field that are required under regulatory programs such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Oil Pollution Prevention regulations, and the Clean Air Act. In addition,Massport has in place several proactive policies,procedures, and programs that it has voluntarily adopted to assist in monitoring environmental performance and to identify opportunities to improve Massport's environmental programs. 11-12 . I.. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMG) 11.3.6.1 Ainim.4U Ilepoirbin0 Ao part of the EMS, on annual podbononoo report io compiled,wbiobb000moodmbmsioforoolooii new objectives and targets for continuous improvement. Tbioroponovoluateoonvironznontolporfoonon000no number of parameters, including energy efficiency and watershed protection. At the beginning of each year, Massport prepares The State ofHanscom,which is presented to the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission(8FAC), ologiolodvolv created body comprised of representatives from the surrounding residential areas, area-wide organizations, and members of the aviation community. The presentation to the HFAC provides a wide range of interested parties with an opportunity to openly discuss the role of Hanscom Field in the regional transportation system and Massport's objectives for the airport, including environmental and sustainability activities. In this report,it is noted that Massport meets its environmental commitments using 000doo of programs that include monitoring and auditing ood`ddoo o1 Hanscom to ensure compliance with environmental regulations and the use of pollution prevention prood000. Ongoing practices include: IN Using the EMS to book,nnonogo, and improve environmental compliance ondporfoononoo; updating targets as target do1oo are r000bod or when opportunities odoo for improving the EMS framework. IN Participating in the M00000b000Uo State Sootoinobili[y9rogrom (Executive Ordor438)to promote environmentally sustainable practices and in the Massachusetts Leading E|yExample—Clean Energy and Efficient Buildings program(Executive Order 484). IN Inspecting M000pod and tenant facilities to ensure environmental compliance. IN Reviewing and updating the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCQ Plan,which outlines steps tobo taken bvM000pod employees inthe event ofo spill of fuel or other hazardous nno1odolo. IN Conducting monthly inspections of materials inthe Field Maintenance garage that are used to control spills of fuel or other hazardous materials. IN lmnlonnondng and encouraging tenants to utilize boot nnonogonnont prood000 (E|M9o). IN Conducting periodic water quality inspections at Massport's stonnwater outfall locations. IN Participating in an aggressive mixed paper and cardboard recycling program for tenant and M000pod offices,which expanded to single-stream recycling in2009. IN Identifying opportunities during M000pon capital progrompr jootdooigndovolopmont to reduce otoonxro1or runoff and peak flows. IN Identifying opportunities for development projects to control otormxro1ornonoO[ VIA Social Sustainability hnitiatives In recognition of the triple bottom line, Massport undertakes a number of partnerships and joint efforts with and for external stakeholders. For Hanscom Field, social 000toinobili[y omnhooizoo good community relations,productive stakeholder engagement, charitable contributions, support for education and youth programs, and environmental efforts that create community benefits. Since the 2005/SJ,8was prepared, Hanscom Field's social yuytainuhU initiatives have included the following: IN For 20||, in celebration of Earth Day, Hanscom conducted obozord000vroot000llodionovon1for tenants. The event was a success with over 8,000 pounds of hazardous materials collected. � M000pod has made contributions hu various charities and scholarships.Muyypo/i`yChurduh|u Contribution, Scholarship, and Community Summer Jobs programs benefit organizations located In 1 1-13 Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) in communities that host its facilities. The organizations serve a diverse constituency and a variety of worthwhile purposes. IN In 2012, Massport contributed $7,000 to educational, scholarship, and youth programs in the Hanscom area. Additionally, Massport provided approximately $12,000 to sponsor summer internship positions at various municipal departments in the four Hanscom towns and $24,000 for the salaries of local college students that worked directly for Massport. IN Completing a noise outreach program in conjunction with the National Parks Service. IN Implementing a vegetative management plan with the conservation commissions of the four towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln so that the vegetation that grows into Hanscom airspace is managed in an environmentally sensitive manner. IN Opening a 40-acre conservation area with a trail network to the public,which allows users to enjoy the natural surroundings and understand the importance of conservation efforts by Massport. 11.5 Future Sustainability Efforts Massport's future environmental sustainability efforts at Hanscom Field are expected to include the following: IN Integration with Logan Airport Sustainable Management Plan—Results, findings, and lessons learned from Logan's Sustainable Management Plan can be scaled up and across other Massport facilities,including Hanscom.Any resulting new efforts will be integrated with Hanscom's ongoing environmental management under the EMS and other existing sustainability initiatives. IN Environmental Management System—Hanscom's EMS recertification audit was conducted successfully in March 2013 and resulted in recertification through May 2016. IN Sustainable Design and Construction—Future design and construction efforts will maintain the sustainable design and construction initiatives and identify opportunities to expand the scope to achieve additional benefits. This includes a continued commitment to the initiatives described above. IN LEED Certification—Massport will continue to utilize and require that sustainable design guidelines and LEED certification be met by Massport, tenants, and third-party developers. This effort includes asking third-party developers to adopt good commissioning practices to ensure that facilities operate as designed. IN Energy Efficiency—Hanscom operations staff will investigate opportunities to re-lamp facilities, airfields, and street lights with LED systems. In addition, automatic,power-saver light switches will also be evaluated for installation. IN Renewable Energy—All future development projects will be evaluated for opportunities to incorporate renewable energy installations, such as solar power,wind,passive solar,biomass, or other viable technologies that may become available. IN Water Efficiency and Wastewater Reduction—All future development projects will be evaluated for opportunities to improve water efficiency and wastewater reduction, such as rainwater harvesting; gray water reuse for flushing,irrigation, or vehicle washing; and other technologies that may become available. IN Sustainable Construction—Individual projects will be required to implement BMPs to address Massport's policy regarding stormwater runoff,which requires that projects resulting in increases in impervious surfaces do not increase peak runoff rates. 11-14 . I.. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) IN Clean Fuel—The existing programs for fuel efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles will be continued under the EMS program. IN Toxic Reductions—The existing program for toxic materials reduction and pollution prevention will be continued under the EMS program. IN Recycling—Massport's innovative waste management approach,which seeks to create revenue from this former cost center,will begin implementation in late fall 2013.Initial implementation will focus on waste streams controlled by Massport; over time,tenants' waste streams will be incorporated. Massport will also investigate the practicality of composting. IN Stormwater Management—Massport will continue to improve the management of stormwater runoff at Hanscom Field. This will include the potential elimination of unused paved surfaces (without affecting airport operations) and avoiding any increases in areas of impervious surfaces. IN Climate Adaptation—Massport is reviewing this issue authority-wide through studies that will develop recommendations for its facilities. IN Monitoring of Environmental Performance —The existing EMS program will continue to monitor environmental performance in its focus areas of vehicle emissions, energy efficiency, stormwater management,hazardous materials management, and employee/tenant training. E ii�,..X.: �� 15 Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) (This page intentionally left blank) Environmentally Beneficial Measures The previous sections assessed the environmental effects of Hanscom Field associated with year 2012 as a baseline, analyzed historic environmental trends using information from past reports, and considered the potential future effects of operations and development scenarios in the planning years 2020 and 2030. The 2012 ESPR future scenarios are used to evaluate the potential cumulative environmental effects that could occur if Hanscom Field reaches the airport activity levels that that are described in Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels. The aviation activity forecasts that are described in Chapter 3 provide for a realistic and practical level of growth based on local and national aviation trends including forecasts from the New England Regional Aviation System Plan. The 2020 and 2030 scenarios represent estimates of what could occur(not what will occur)in the future using certain planning assumptions and are not necessarily recommended outcomes. This chapter summarizes the environmentally beneficial actions described in previous chapters that are in place at Hanscom Field as well as those additional measures that could be implemented to avoid or minimize potential environmental effects associated with the future scenarios. Massport's existing programmed activities encompass stewardship of environmental resources at and near Hanscom Field. Hanscom was the first airport in the nation to be ISO-certified and Massport implements an Environmental Management System (EMS)which includes continually reviewing and expanding the program to meet future environmental effects. Massport is also a leader among Massachusetts agencies in the promotion and implementation of sustainable designs through its Sustainable Design Standards and Guidelines and requirement that all new building development meet LEED Silver Certification.New hangars at Hanscom being developed by Rectrix Aviation and proposed by Jet Aviation are planned to meet this design requirement. Massport has a long history of noise abatement commitments at Hanscom Field which are based on the 1978 Master Plan and 1980 regulations. These regulations prohibit 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. touch-and-go activity;prohibit touch-and-go activity by aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds; and prohibit activity by Stage I Aircraft over 12,500 pounds. Massport's 1980 Regulations also prohibit scheduled commercial passenger services with aircraft having more than 60 seats. Massport has also worked cooperatively with the local community, aviation groups and the Minute Man National Historical Park(MMNHP)to implement a comprehensive noise abatement program known as "Fly Friendly" guided by the National Business Aircraft Association's (NBAA)published noise abatement guidelines and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association(AOPA)noise reduction recommendations. Pilots are encouraged to adhere to safe and quiet flying techniques and to remain aware of noise issues at the airfield. Additionally, Massport developed recommended helicopter procedures and voluntary touch- and-go procedures that help reduce noise over the MMNHP. Within this context, the ESPR process provides a comprehensive evaluation of existing conditions,recent trends and the environmental effects of 2020 and 2030 scenarios. The 2012 ESPR provides baseline information for the planning and design of new facilities and serves as a useful resource for the towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington and Lincoln, Metropolitan Area Planning Council(MAPC),National Park ' a�r r 2 Environmentally Beneficial Measures Service (NPS), Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB), and other interested parties. The existing programs and ongoing efforts to enhance these programs provide the foundation to address the types of conditions that could occur if activity levels are comparable to the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. In accordance with the EEA Scope Certificate, Table 12-1 presents the responsible parties, implementation schedule, and the estimated cost of environmentally beneficial measures that are presented in the previous chapters. The identified ground transportation measures and others will be assessed through Massport's participation in the MassRIDES Transportation Management Initiative (TMI)program and discussed in Chapter 6, Ground Transportation. Site-specific noise abatement is not proposed since no noise analysis location experiences a DNL value greater than 60 dB in 2012 nor would any site be expected to experience a DNL value greater than 60 dB under the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Tat)t)le 12-1 u.jrniimniairy of IlEkiistiiiing aind Il3o�:s�iilt)llle II1'-'u.jhxre Ili iirivliiirouriirniieuritaI lily IIL einetiiidi4ll It eas�.jres GROUND TRANSPORTATION Transportation information on Massport website Massport Ongoing Transit information in Civil Air Terminal Massport Ongoing Participation as a partner in MassRIDES Transportation Management Initiative Massport Ongoing program Information about transit and non-auto travel options in prominent locations Massport 2014 throughout Hanscom Field Bus shelter with transit information Massport 2014 Exploration of working with local communities and stakeholders on a bikeshare Multiple parties Ongoing network including Massport NOISE Modifications to the Fly Friendly Program using the flight tracking software to direct Massport Ongoing pilots conducting touch-and-go procedures to fly more over the airport than neighboring lands Continued implementation of the Fly Friendly program Massport Ongoing Run-up procedures for use of the East Ramp Massport Ongoing Relocation of noise monitors based on input from ongoing community coordination Massport 2014 process and implementation of updates to the Noise and Operations Monitoring System Creation of the"Airport Activity Monitor"which allows the public to research a noise Massport Ongoing event or flight, log a noise disturbance,and track correspondence related to a noise disturbance. AIR QUALITY Continued encouragement of tenants to consider the purchase of alternatively Massport Ongoing fueled ground service equipment,where appropriate Encouragement of Fixed Base Operators to minimize Auxiliary Power Unit/Ground Massport Ongoing Power Unit use Use of Ultra Low Sulfur Fuel in Massport fleet vehicles Massport Ongoing Evaluation of the installation of a paved aircraft holding area at the head of Massport 2014-2016 Runway 23 to reduce minor aircraft delays Continued consideration of Alternative Fuel Vehicles for any new Massport vehicle Massport Ongoing purchase WATER QUALITY Support for Shawsheen Watershed Initiative to improve water quality and quantity Massport working Ongoing flow in the Shawsheen River and its tributaries with the MassDEP, USEPA,and Hanscom AFB Stormwater improvements to construct detention areas around Hanscom in Massport through 2014-2016 conjunction with the USAF MassDEP grant Continuation of MassDEP Best Management Practices Massport Ongoing WILDLIFE Manage airfield in a manner that does not disrupt breeding season for grassland Massport Ongoing birds of which two species are listed under the Massachusetts Endangered 1 ,, MI.. Environmentally Beneficial Measures Species Act SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Implementation and maintenance of EMS procedures to control environmental Massport Ongoing effects 12.1 Current IMassport IPro r urns and Procedures The 2012 ESPR describes the ongoing Massport programs and provides a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative environmental effects of Hanscom Field. Massport has a number of programs in place to manage environmental issues at Hanscom Field. The environmentally beneficial measures for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios were identified within the context of these ongoing Massport programs and policies and are appropriate for the level of environmental effect that was identified in the technical analysis. if .11.11 Pirogirarns Massport has addressed many of the environmental issues that were identified in the 2005 ESPR, including working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MassDEP), and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to take actions to reduce impacts of Hanscom area activities on the Shawsheen River Watershed. Cooperatively, the agencies have assessed current impacts of stormwater through modeling of discharges in the drainage area,installing weirs to reduce peak flows, and removing impervious area and increasing infiltration. Massport has also implemented the following measures and monitoring programs to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to the environment at Hanscom Field: IN Tracking the progress of the Installation Restoration Program (for environmental cleanup) and the USAF's progress toward site closure as described in Chapter 9,Wetlands,Wildlife and Water Resources. IN Employing Best Management Practices through its EMS to reduce potential impacts on the environment. IN Performing regular visual inspections of water quality at Hanscom Field stormwater outfalls in accordance with its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit. IN Enforcing Massport's policy that stormwater runoff for new projects does not increase peak runoff rates. IN Ongoing implementation of Hanscom Field's Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan to ensure that all of Massport's hazardous material storage tanks are in compliance with current regulations and to monitor the age, condition, and regulatory compliance status of these tanks on an ongoing basis through the Tank Management Program IN Employing pollution prevention measures as they apply to site drainage,material storage,material transfer, truck unloading operations, and site security as part of the SPCC Plan. Continuing efforts to minimize and prevent the future releases of hazardous materials through careful operation and maintenance of equipment and site activities; the availability of spill response equipment;periodic employee training, and monitoring and review of ongoing environmental/spill prevention programs; and an compliance with the regulatory requirements governing spill reporting and response actions. Ensuring that new development is designed to meet LEED Silver certification and Massport's Sustainable Design Standards and Guidelines. 12-3 Environmentally Beneficial Measures 112.11.2 Giround Hanscom Field contributes a small percentage of traffic (four percent)to Route 2A traffic volumes. The 2012 peak hour volumes represent a slight decrease compared to the 2005 volumes reported in the 2005 ESPR. Massport is a MassRIDES partner. Massport is working with MassRIDES to develop an outreach program to make its employees and tenants aware of various MassRIDES programs such as the Emergency(Guaranteed) Ride Home Program for carpool and transit users.MassRIDES provided input to the employee and student survey that was discussed in Chapter 6, Ground Transportation. Massport will continue to work with MassRIDES to review other potential TDM measures that would be appropriate for Hanscom Field. These would include measures (previously discussed in the 2005 ESPR) such as updates to Massport's website and other mechanisms to distribute information. 112.11.3 V461se Abatement Massport implements an aggressive noise abatement program at Hanscom Field. Massport restricts touch- and-go operations between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., the most noise-sensitive time of day, and imposes a fee on other operations to discourage nighttime operations. The fee doubles for aircraft that conduct more than five night operations in a calendar year. This nighttime field use charge applies to all aircraft including commercial flights. Massport added enhancements to implement the Fly Friendly Program, which includes encouraging operators to use noise abatement procedures. Tables 12-2 and 12-3 present metric and recommendations respectively prepared by the Hanscom Field Noise Workgroup report (using the same numbering methodology) which has guided the Noise Abatement.Nearly ninety percent of the recommendations have been implemented or are in the process of implementation.Eight of the fourteen measures were included in the 2005 ESPR and updated in the 2012 ESPR. Four other recommendations related to noise monitoring and the correlation of complaints with noise events are being addressed through updates to the Noise and Operations Monitoring System. Massport continues to enhance its nighttime run-up noise abatement procedures.Massport directs operators to the run-up pad located due south of Runway 11-29 and west of the intersection with Runway 05-23 during the day. There is a short "blast fence" on the east side of the pad which deflects jet exhaust, prop wash, and debris. During nighttime hours,Massport directs operators to the east end of the East Ramp away from residential areas. Massport has as no plans to provide additional attenuation at these run-up areas. Massport also encourages Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) to minimize the use of auxiliary power units (APUs) and ground power units (GPUs) to minimize noise. 12-4 E.,Fr MI.. Environmentally Beneficial Measures TatAe 12-2 Hainscoirn Ill liise Woirkgirou.jp Metihts IIl'lecoirnirnieiiri��latliioiiris ii 1!1 1�pliq�11 11!F11 M 1 The workgroup should continue in existence and make The Noise Workgroup contributed substantially to additional suggestions for changes to the ESPR. the formulation of the scope of work that formed the basis for the ongoing Hanscom Field ESPR analyses. M2 The ESPR should include Time-Above (TA)contours Included. Figure 7-12, Figure 7-13 and Figure 7-19 and their areas. to Figure 7-22 illustrate the contours and Table 7-16 and Table 7-30 present the estimated areas within the contours. M3 The ESPR should show Single Event Level Included as Figure 7-16 and Figure 7-23. Distributions. M4 The next GEIR[ESPR]should include a linear Not included. No such metric is used regularly in the dimensionless metric to show exposure to noise energy. evaluation of aircraft or other environmental noise. M5 Future GEIRs(ESPRs)should include discussion of Included in Chapter 7, Noise. impacts with reference to the EPA level of 55 dB DNL and avoid the implication that DNL less than 65(the Federal Aviation Administration mitigation threshold)has no impact. M6 Future GEIRs(ESPRs)should include three Community Included. Figure 7-16 and Figure 7-23 present SEL Summary Metrics-Loud Event Count,Area of 55 dB distributions;Table 7-9and Table 7-24present the DNL contour,and Area of the 30-minute TA 55 dBA estimated areas within the DNL contours;Table 7- contour. 11 and Table 7-25 present the population estimates within the current and forecasted 55 dB DNL contour; Figure 7-13,Figure 7-21 and Figure 7-22 present the area of the 30-minute TA 55 dBA contour M7 Documentation should include a detailed list of Included in Chapter 7, Noise. assumptions and model parameters used in the noise modeling. M8 The ESPR should include a section discussing the Not included.There is no current FAA guidance or estimated variation in Integrated Noise Model (INM) industry best practices guidelines for such an results due to different modeling assumptions,and analysis. However,the noise analyses in the ESPR Massport should adopt the standard practice of reporting are intended to evaluate the range of noise "error bands."The ESPR should also include a exposure due to existing and forecast fleet and comparison of measured and modeled results and an airport development assumptions. Measured noise explanation of the differences. values are compared to modeled noise values for the six permanent noise monitors. M9 Future ESPRs should explain expected short-term Included in Chapter 7, Noise. variations in noise from long-term averages. M10 The ESPR should document how changes in the I NM Included in Chapter 7, Noise. data[base]affect predicted noise exposure. M11 and Three of the six permanent noise monitoring sites In process. Massport is working with the M12 should be relocated and more sites should be added to communities to relocate two of the six permanent the system. noise monitoring sites. M13 and A procedure or system should be developed to correlate Recent updates to the Noise and Operations M14 noise events with flight data and complaints,and the Monitoring System are described in Section 7.8.4. noise data should be stored in a publicly accessed location such as a web site. TatAe 12-3 Staftis, of the Hainscoirn Ill liise Woirkgirou.jp Ill liise Nbateirneint IIl'lecoirnirnieiiri��latliioiiris 11611=1011Muo v1111 Al Voluntary Noise Massport will formalize, publish,distribute and Massport distributes handouts and posters Abatement post existing noise abatement procedures describing noise abatement procedures to Procedures drafted by Massport, HART,and HPA. all tenants,fixed base operators,and flight training schools. Massport mailed AOPA Fly Friendly videos to all hangar and tie-down tenants.Additionally, Massport installed AOPA and NBAA noise abatement procedures in its badge training program. All based pilots are asked to watch the AOPA or NBAA video when getting or renewing a security badge. A2 Distribution to Massport will duplicate and deliver to flights Massport distributes handouts and posters Elal;1 15 125 Environmentally Beneficial Measures Renters schools voluntary noise abatement procedures describing noise abatement procedures to in sufficient quantity for schools to distribute to all tenants,fixed based operators,and flight all aircraft renters. training schools. A3 Informative Page Massport will print and distribute informative Massport distributes flight manual inserts Markers page markers for noise abatement information describing noise abatement procedures to in Jeppesen and Flight guide handbooks to all tenants,fixed base operators,and flight local and transient pilots. training schools. A4 Flight School Hanscom flight schools will display and Massport discusses noise abatement with Briefings distribute local noise abatement procedures to the flight schools and makes the AOPA Fly their pilots,brief all flight instructors at least Friendly video available. Handouts are annually on local noise abatement procedures replenished. and AOPA Fly Friendly program,and require Flight school pilots and student pilots watch all students to view the AOPA Fly Friendly the AOPA video when getting or renewing a video. security badge. A5 Flight Training The Hanscom AFB Flight Training Center will Massport provided the Hanscom AFB Flight Center Briefings display in its flight planning room,and Training Center with posters,flight manual distribute to its members local noise inserts,and AOPA Fly Friendly videos. abatement procedures brief the AOPA Fly Flight manual inserts continue to be made Friendly program and local noise abatement available. procedures at its safety meetings at least annually,and require new club members to view the AOPA Fly Friendly video. A6 FBO Guest Each FBO at Hanscom will institute a guest Massport works with FBOs to implement Follow-up sign-in sheet and send each transient pilot a this measure. Massport makes inserts follow-up letter describing the voluntary noise available which the FBOs display in their abatement procedures at Hanscom. flight preparation rooms. A7 Massport Massport will include the voluntary noise Massport's website includes the voluntary Website abatement procedures for Hanscom on its noise abatement procedures for Hanscom public access website with mutual links to the Field. USAF and other web-based pre-flight planning resources. A8 ATIS Broadcast The ATIS broadcast will include a reminder FAA is the primary entity responsible for that voluntary noise abatement procedures are implementing this measure. in effect and whenever workload permits the Tower, Ground,and Clearance Delivery will follow with reminders. A9 Hanscom AFB Hanscom AFB representatives to the Hanscom Massport is not the primary entity Leader Briefings Noise Workgroup will brief Electronic Systems responsible for implementing this measure. Center and 66th Air Base Wing leaders on local noise abatement procedures, sensitivities,and issues. A10 Military Flight Hanscom AFB Transient Alert will display and Massport is not the primary entity Crews distribute local noise abatement procedures responsible for implementing this measure. and information to military flight crews utilizing Massport distributed handouts and posters their facility. describing noise abatement procedures and continues to make handouts available. Al ESC Web page The Hanscom AFB Electronic Systems Center Massport is not the primary entity will create a web page dealing with noise responsible for implementing this measure. abatement issues at Massport for both military and civilian pilots. Al2 ESC Press The Hanscom AFB Electronic Systems Center Massport is not the primary entity Releases Office of Public Affairs will send area responsible for implementing this measure. newspapers regular(biweekly or monthly) news releases updating area residents on Air Force flight operations,subject to security considerations. A13 ESC Website The Hanscom AFB Electronic Systems Center Massport is not the primary entity News Releases Office of Public Affairs will add information responsible for implementing this measure. about Air Force flight operations to the public access section of the Hanscom AFB web site, subject to security considerations. A14 AOPA Video Massport will purchase and distribute the Massport distributed the video to all Distribution AOPA Fly Friendly video to all Hanscom pilots. tenants,fixed based operators,and flight training schools. Pilots are encouraged to watch the AOPA or NBAA video when getting or renewing a security badge. 1 - . I.. Environmentally Beneficial Measures uo v v uuo v A15 Hanscom User Massport will provide support to ensure that a Massport is supportive of aviation user Group representative user group be available to all groups and encourages aviation users, pilots,and businesses. participation at HFAC. A16 Selectmen and HNWG will brief Town Selectmen on the Massport is not the primary entity Town Briefings group's findings. responsible for implementing this measure. A17 Part 150 Study A group representing local pilots, business Massport is not the primary entity interests,surrounding communities and responsible for implementing this measure. Massport will be formed to investigate the possibility and implications of re-opening the Part 150 Study at Hanscom Field. A18 Model Quiet A group representing local pilots, business Massport is not the primary entity Airport Study interests,surrounding communities and responsible for implementing this measure. Massport will be formed to define the scope and purpose of a Model Quiet Airport Study at Hanscom Field. A19 Non-Profit A group representing local pilots, business Massport is not the primary entity Organization interests,surrounding communities and responsible for implementing this measure. Massport will be formed to explore the idea of establishing a non-profit organization to raise funds to support various noise reduction awareness programs. A20 Noise A group representing local pilots, business Massport has a Noise Abatement Abatement interests,surrounding communities and Coordinator who ensures continued Officer Massport will be formed to explore the idea of distribution of noise abatement materials, establishing a Noise Abatement Officer talks to pilots,and responds to comments position at Hanscom Field. concerning noise. In addition, Massport's Office of Noise Abatement(at Logan) supports Hanscom's noise monitoring system. A21 Noise Overlay A group including representatives of the Massport is not the primary entity Zones Planning Boards of the towns of Lincoln, responsible for implementing this measure. Lexington, Bedford,and Concord will be formed to study the issues associated with the creation of Noise Overlay Zoning Districts. There are a number of recommendations for which Massport is not the primary entity responsible. Massport distributes handouts and posters describing noise abatement procedures to all tenants, FBOs, and flight training schools.Massport mailed AOPA Fly Friendly videos to all hangar and tie-down tenants. Additionally, Massport installs AOPA and NBAA noise abatement procedures in its badge training program.All based pilots are asked to watch the AOPA or NBAA video when getting or renewing a security badge. Massport was an active participant in Sound Initiative, a coalition that successfully supported the federal phase out of Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds. Stage 2 aircraft were manufactured before today's stringent noise standards were adopted for new airplanes. The use of Stage 2 aircraft weighing over 75,000 pounds was phased out nationally by 2000,but most of Hanscom's jets weigh less than 75,000 pounds. In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act,which included the phase out of all non-stage 3 aircraft by December 31, 2015. Section 506 of the Act prohibits the operation,within the 48 contiguous states, of jets weighing 75,000 pounds or less that do not comply with Stage 3 noise levels. Military aircraft are exempt from the Stage 3 Rule. Massport has also launched the "Airport Activity Monitor"which allows the public to research a noise event or flight, log a noise disturbance, and track correspondence related to a noise disturbance. 12.11.4 AliIir Q ua1l it Massport has also made progress in bringing alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs)into the fleet at Hanscom Field. Massport will continue to consider AFVs for any new vehicle purchase in the future. Also, since l.0 1 d 1 2 7 Environmentally Beneficial Measures Massachusetts has adopted the California LEV program,which requires that any new conventionally- fueled vehicle added to the Hanscom fleet in the future will have very low emissions and will automatically comply with the low emission goals of the federal Clean Fuel Fleet Program (40 CFR Part 88). As part of these regulations,ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel for on-road diesel vehicles was phased in starting in 2005. Massport also encourages FBOs to minimize the use of APUs and GPUs to address air quality considerations. 12.11.5 "ua°oje t IDe edllqlpirnervt and @ e Blew Massport will continue to provide regular updates on its activities at Hanscom Field through monthly HFAC meetings and the annual State of Hanscom reports. These public outreach and information mechanisms provide information to Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Lincoln, Hanscom AFB and the National Park Service on airport and project status. The 2012 ESPR provides a comprehensive review of the cumulative environmental effects of Hanscom Field,but does not replace the requirement for an environmental filing for a specific project if that project meets or exceeds a MEPA regulatory threshold. 12 1 5 1 State aind IIL.ocal III'°levliiew Where state environmental review thresholds are exceeded,proposed projects are subject to a project- specific environmental review process with opportunities for public comment. In cases where the state environmental thresholds are triggered, Massport or the project proponent must prepare the appropriate environmental filing. Massport is not subject to local zoning;however projects involving work within wetland resource areas or their buffer zones will involve applications to the appropriate conservation commissions for permitting as required under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Massport will make every effort to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential wetland impacts for future Massport or tenant projects. 12 1 5 2 thse of IlE&lf3l11 IILSaselllliiine IICData Within this context, the 2012 ESPR provides baseline conditions to inform the planning and review of future activities and projects at Hanscom Field including: IN A comprehensive database of historic and cultural resources including archeological sensitive locations located on Massport property IN Summary information and illustrations of the location of public water supplies and Zone II Wellhead Protection Areas IN Summary information and illustrations of wetlands resources, rare and endangered species, and agricultural resources at Hanscom Field IN Traffic volume data on area roadways and intersections 12 1 5 3 IMasspoirt G.jlklaunce Massport guides the location of new facilities at Hanscom Field to developed areas where feasible to minimize impacts to undeveloped,natural areas. The continued implementation of the EMS at Hanscom Field also encourages the use of sustainable principles in future projects. Massport encourages the following specific measures for the development of new facilities: R Achieving LEED Silver certification R Use of Massport's Sustainable Design Guidelines 1 8 ' I.. Environmentally Beneficial Measures IN If feasible,locating new water, sewer and stormwater drainage systems within already developed areas IN Implementing soil erosion and sediment control measures during construction IN Designing facilities that require septic systems in accordance with Title 5 regulations IN Using BMPs to ensure that relevant stormwater runoff rates are not increased both during construction and in future operating conditions The construction of anew FBO facility by Rectrix Aviation is an example of aproject designed and implemented using Massport's environmental and sustainable guidance. Since the facility is located in a Zone II Wellhead Protection Area that protects the recharge area around three public wells in Bedford,the new fueling facility is an above-ground fuel storage facility designed in accordance with the regulatory requirements of 527 CMR 9.00, "Board of Fire Prevention Regulations: Tanks and Containers" overseen by Massport's Fire Chief. The new facility was moved outside of the Zone II Wellhead Protection Area and adjacent to the existing fuel farm. The 2012 ESPR identifies the potential environmental effects of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. The continued implementation and planned enhancement of the existing programs and measures, such as continually expanding the EMS program,is expected to address many of the potential environmental effects of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Other environmentally beneficial measures would likely be developed if and as concepts move forward to become specific projects. 12.2 dditIional Einviroinimentally Beneficial I Measures 1 2.2.11 G ua°o a nd "1`ua° Its e°qua°t tlii e°� Measures to address ground transportation considerations in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios focus on traffic management and TDM approaches, as well as planning efforts to facilitate the development of non-auto modes in the area. 12 2 1 1 Trainspoirtatbin IIDeimnaind I aunageimneint TDM measures will provide appropriate environmentally beneficial measures if airport activity levels approach the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. Massport is a MassRIDES partner and has already begun efforts to develop TDM measures through the TMI program that MassRIDES administers for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation(MassDOT). Massport is also coordinating with the Hanscom AFB on TDM Programs and will be conducting a joint transportation fair at Hanscom to provide information and encourage registration with MassRIDES. Massport interviewed its tenants in December 2012 and conducted a travel survey of airport employees and the National Aviation Academy(NAA) in August 2013. Based on discussions with MassRIDES and the information from the interviews, surveys and future outreach meetings with tenants,Massport will enhance its TDM program at Hanscom Field. This could include the distribution of travel information and evaluation of alternative modes. 12 2 1 2 IIL Iiicydle II ll`adilllltliies As indicated in Chapter 6, Ground Transportation, Hanscom Field and its environs benefit from a network of regional bicycle facilities. However, some of the trails are not directly linked to the other regional trails. The Town of Concord has expressed interest in providing links between a rail-to-trail that the Town 1 7 1.d (A,,,,. Environmentally Beneficial Measures of Bedford is considering and the existing network of paths in the MMNHP.Massport will work with the towns and the National Park Service to explore this option. Massport is also evaluating the development of a bikeshare network that would provide bike facilities and rental bikes for use between Hanscom Field, the AFB, the town centers, and the MBTA commuter rail. 112.2.2 V4c,liI Massport will continue to support its Fly Friendly program and coordination with aircraft pilots and local stakeholders. Massport has been actively discussing changes to the noise monitoring system including possible relocation of noise monitors and upgrades to the operating system that will facilitate addressing additional recommendations identified by the Hanscom Noise Workgroup. In all future scenarios, the total population exposed to high noise levels at Hanscom Field remains low and well below historic levels. In the 2020 and 2030 scenarios,none of the locations evaluated,including historical resources, are exposed to a DNL value over 60 dBA, 5 dBA below the federal standard for noise compatibility. Aircraft noise mitigation is being addressed by FAA's ongoing efforts to make aircraft quieter. Therefore, Massport does not propose site specific noise abatement to address conditions that are projected in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios,but instead plans to focus on implementation of its noise abatement regulations,procedures, and programs. The air quality analysis in Chapter 8 indicates that the emission levels forecasted for the 2020 and 2030 scenarios will not result in any significant adverse air quality effects and will be below historic levels. However, Massport will continue its efforts to help to reduce emissions including TDM measures, encouraging FBOs to minimize the operation of APUs and GPUs, and efforts to bring AFVs into the fleet at Hanscom Field.Massport will also investigate the creation of an aircraft holding area at the head of Runway 23 that would allow piston aircraft to pull off Taxiway G and complete their pre-flight checkout, freeing other aircraft that are behind to takeoff. 112.2.4 Wateir QuaIIIty and Sdkaorirnwateir Massport will encourage new facilities at Hanscom to be located in developed areas where feasible. The continued implementation of the EMS at Hanscom Field will also encourage the use of sustainable principles in future projects. All potential components of the 2020 and 2030 scenarios would be required to meet requirements of the NPDES Permit and applicable standards for stormwater management required by the MassDEP. The 2012 ESPR identifies other potential development sites in the North Airfield area that fall within the Zone II Wellhead Protection Areas for the Bedford Town Wells. As specific projects are developed, including corporate GA hangars in the North Airfield,Massport will review the designs to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect the recharge area of the Bedford public wells. 12-10 .,Fr Acronyms and Glossarym r Acronyms and Ab breviatio ins This section provides a list of acronyms and BGR Bangor, ME airport code abbreviations that are found in the 2012 ESPR. BLSF* Bordering Land Subject to Flooding The Glossary of Terms provides definitions for BMP* Best Management Practice acronyms and abbreviations that have an asterisk BOS (Logan) Boston, MA airport code BRAC*Base Realignment and Closure µg/m3 micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter BVT Burlington,VT airport code BVW* Bordering Vegetated Wetlands ABW Air Base Wing BX Base Exchange ADD* Average Daily Demand ADF* Average Daily Flow CEQ Council on Environmental Quality AFB* (Hanscom) Air Force Base CERCLA* Comprehensive Environmental AFDSI Air Force Director of Staff Information Response, Compensation, and Liability Act AFV* Alternative Fuel Vehicle CMPL Concord Municipal Power and Light ALP* Airport Layout Plan CMR Commonwealth of Massachusetts ALS* Approach Lighting System Regulation AMSL Above mean sea level CMS* Congestion Management System ANRAD* Abbreviated Notice of Resource CO* Carbon monoxide Area Delineation CPI Consumer Price Index APA American Planning Association CTPS Central Transportation Planning Staff APU* Auxiliary Power Unit CXC Chandra X-ray Center ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting ARP* Airport Reference Point ARTC Anderson Regional Transportation dB* Decibel Center dBA* A-weighted decibel ARTS* Automated Radar Terminal System DCE* dichloroethylene ASR* Airport Surveillance Radar DEP Department of Environmental Protection ATC* Air route traffic control center DERP* Defense Environmental Restoration ATCT*Airport traffic control tower Program ATR Automatic Traffic Recorder DNL* Day-Night Sound Level DoD Department of Defense DOT (U.S.) Department of Transportation BDL Bradley International, CT airport code BED Hanscom Field, MA airport code " m �E FY Fiscal Year EA* Environmental Assessment G EB Eastbound GA General Aviation EDMS* Emissions and Dispersion GARA* General Aviation Revitalization Modeling System Act EIR* Environmental Impact Report GEIR* Generic Environmental Impact Report EIS* Environmental Impact Study GIS Geographic Information Systems EMS* Environmental Management System GMP* General Management Plan ENF* Environmental Notification Form EOEA Executive Office of Environmental gpd gallons per day Affairs gpm gallons per minute EOT Executive Office of Transportation GPU* Ground Power Unit EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency GS* Glide Slope ESC Electronic Systems Center GSE* Ground Service Equipment ESPR* Environmental Status and Planning �H Report HANAM Hanscom Aboveground Tank— EXP* Total Noise Exposure Massport F HANAT Hanscom Aboveground Tank— Tenant FAA Federal Aviation Administration HANBM Hanscom Underground Tank— FAEED* FAA Aircraft Engine Emissions Database Massport FAF* Final Approach Fix HANBT Hanscom Underground Tank— Tenant FAP* Final Approach Point HATS*Hanscom Area Towns FAR Federal Aviation Regulation HCM* Highway Capacity Manual FBO* Fixed Base Operator HCS* Highway Capacity Software FEMA Federal Emergency Management HFAC*Hanscom Field Advisory Commission Agency HIRLS* High Intensity Runway Lighting FHWA Federal Highway Administration System Program HNM* Heliport Noise Model FICAN Federal Interagency Committee on HNWG* Hanscom Noise Workgroup Aviation Noise FICON Federal Interagency Committee on HOV* High Occupancy Vehicle Noise HP* Horsepower FIR Field Investigations Region HUD Department of Housing and Urban FIRM* Flood Insurance Rate Map Development FMVCP* Federal Motor Vehicle Control HVN Tweed New Haven, CT airport code FONSI* Finding of No Significant Hz* Hertz Impact Fzr MI.. III MassHighway Massachusetts Highway FM Inspection &Maintenance Department IFR* Instrument Flight Rule MassPike Massachusetts Turnpike Authority ILS* Instrument Landing System Massport Massachusetts Port Authority ILSF* Isolated Land Subject to Flooding MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation INM* Integrated Noise Model Authority IROD* Interim Record of Decision MCP* Massachusetts Contingency Plan IRP* Installation Restoration Program MDAR Massachusetts Department Agricultural ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers Resources MEPA* Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act kV* Kilovolt MESA* Massachusetts Endangered kVA* Kilovolt ampere Species Act MHC* Massachusetts Historic Commission MHT Manchester-Boston,NH airport code LDA* Localizer Directional Aid; Landing MIRLS* Medium Intensity Runway Directional Aid Lighting System LEED* Leadership in Energy and MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology Environmental Design MLS* Microwave Landing System Leq* Equivalent Sound Level MMNHP* Minute Man National Historical LEV* Low Emissions Vehicle Park LOC* Localizer antenna mph miles per hour LOS* Level of service MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization LSP* Licensed Site Professional MWRA Massachusetts Water Resources LTO* Landing and takeoff Authority LUWB* Land under Water MWRC Merrimack River Watershed Council Bodies/Waterways NAAQS* National Ambient Air Quality M.G.L. Massachusetts General Law Standards MAC Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission NASA National Aeronautics and Space MACRIS* Massachusetts Cultural Administration Resources Information System NAVAID* Navigational Aid MAGIC Minuteman Advisory Group on NB Northbound Interlocal Coordination NCP* National Oil and Hazardous Substances MALSR* Medium Intensity Approach Pollution Contingency Plan Lighting System and Runway Alignment NDB* Non-Directional Beacon Indicator Lights MAPC Metropolitan Area Planning Council z NEPA*National Environmental Policy Act of PWM Portland,ME airport code 1969 NERASP* New England Regional Aviation �R System Plan RACT*Reasonably Available Control NET National Emission Trends Technology NHESP* Natural Heritage and RAIL* Runway Alignment Indicator Lights Endangered Species Program RAO* Response Action Outcome NO2* Nitrogen dioxide RDA* Request for Determination of NOI* Notices of Intent Applicability NOMS* Noise and Operations REIL* Runway end identifier light Monitoring System RIAC Rhode Island Airport Corporation NOx* Nitrogen oxides ROD* Record of Decision NPC* Notice of Project Change RPZ* Runway Protection Zone NPDES* National Pollutant Discharge RSA* Runway Safety Area Elimination System RTAC Regional Transportation Advisory NPL* National Priority List Council NPS National Park Service RTCC Regional Transportation Coordinating NR* National Register(of Historic Places) Council RTN Release Tracking Number RVR* Runway visual range 03* Ozone OFA* Object Free Area OFZ* Object Free Zone SB Southbound Opspecs Operations specifications SDF* Simplified Direction Finding ORH Worcester,MA airport code SE* Single engine ORW* Outstanding Resource Water SEL* Single Event Level OU* Operable Unit SIP* State Implementation Plan SO2* Sulfur dioxide SPCCP* Spill Prevention Control and PAPI* Precision Approach Path Indicators Countermeasure Plan PAR* Precision Approach Radar SR* State Register(of Historic Places) PCB* Polychlorinated biphenyl SRS Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron PM* Particulate matter(e.g.,PM10,PM2.5) SSALR* Simplified Short Approach PMT* Program for Mass Transit Light System (SSALR) ppm parts per million SuAsCo Sudbury-Assabet-Concord psi pounds per square inch (Wild and Scenic River System) PSM Portsmouth International,NH airport SWPPP* Stormwater Pollution code Prevention Plan PVD T.F. Green, RI airport code SX Assistant Secretary .,� m.. T TA* Time Above (a decibel threshold) VASI* Visual Approach Slope Indicators TACAN* Tactical Air Navigation VER* Vacuum-enhanced recovery TCE* Trichloroethylene VFR* Visual Flight Rules TDM* Transportation Demand Management VMP* Vegetation Management Plan TERPS* Terminal Instrument Procedures VMT* Vehicle miles traveled TIM* Time-in-mode VOC* Volatile organic compounds TIP* Transportation Improvements Plan VOR* Very-High-Frequency Omnidirectional TL* Taxilane Range (aviation);Vehicle Occupancy Rate TMA* Transportation Management Association (ground transportation) TMI* Transportation Management Initiative MY TPH* Total petroleum hydrocarbon WB Westbound TRACON* Terminal Radar Approach WPA* Wetlands Protection Act Control TRB Transportation Research Board TSA* Transportation Security Administration: ZEV* Zero emissions vehicle Taxiway Safety Area TSS* Total suspended solids TW* Taxiway t USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey z of Terims certify that the project design meets all of the eligibility criteria in Section D of the A-Weighted Sound Level(dBA) —An ANRAD adjustment to the very high and very low frequencies to approximate the human ear's If an ANRAD is filed for a BVW delineation, reduced sensitivity to those frequencies. This confirmation of other resource areas may also be requested provided the other resource area adjustment is used to account for frequency dependence in measuring community noise. boundaries are identified on the plans which Customarily referred to simply as "sound accompany the BVW boundary delineation. To levels," where the adjective "A-weighted" has determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act, an applicants may file a Request been omitted. With A-weighting, a noise source having a higher sound level than another is for Determination of Applicability(RDA), a generally perceived as louder. Also, the Notice of Intent(NOI) or an Abbreviated Notice minimum change in sound level that people can of Intent. Any work within an area subject to the detect outside of a laboratory environment is on jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may the order of three decibels (dB). A change in not proceed until either a Negative sound level often dB is usually perceived by the Determination of Applicability or a final Order average person as a doubling (or halving) of the of Conditions has been issued by the Conservation Commission or DEP. sound's loudness, and this relationship holds true for loud sounds as well as for quieter sounds. Air Route Traffic Control Center(ATC) —A Average Daily Demand(ADD)— The facility established to provide air traffic control calculated average of the sum of water meter service to aircraft operating on Instrument Flight readings for a facility or facilities. Rules (IFR) flight plans within controlled airspace and principally during the enroute Average Daily Flow (ADF) —A measure of phase of flight. When equipment capabilities and wastewater flows that is typically described in controller workload permit, certain gallons per day. Wastewater average daily flow advisory/assistance services may be provided to is a calculation of the average wastewater flow Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft. generated from a facility based on 80 percent of the average daily potable water demand. Air Taxi—An aircraft operator who conducts operations for hire or compensation in Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Delineation (ANRAD)—The Abbreviated (FAR)Part 135 in an aircraft with 30 or fewer Notice of Resource Area Delineation, WPA passenger seats and a payload capacity of 7,500 Form 4A,is a filing to Conservation lbs. or less. An air taxi operates on an on- Commission of a local jurisdiction or the demand or charter basis and cannot operate Massachusetts Department of Environmental "scheduled" services with the same frequency as Protection(DEP)that serves two purposes under regional or commuter airlines. Air taxi operators the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: are limited to no more than four scheduled v A procedure for an applicant to confirm the roundtrip flights per route per week using delineation of a Bordering Vegetated turboprop aircraft. Wetland(BVW). Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) —The 2. The application for Simplified Review for air traffic control unit responsible for controlling projects in the Buffer Zone,which must movements around an airport as well as the zr I.. name of the building in which the unit operates. 4. Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)— The height of permanent ATCT structures gives Two synchronized flashing lights, one on air traffic controllers visual contact with aircraft each side of the runway threshold,which on the ground and in the air around an airport. provide rapid and positive identification of The ATCT facility, operated by appropriate the approach end of a particular runway. authority at an airport,promotes the safe, orderly v Visual Approach Slope Indicator(VASI) and expeditious flow of air traffic within the —An airport lighting facility providing airport traffic area. vertical visual approach slope guidance to Airport Elevation—The highest point of an aircraft during approach to landing by airport's usable runway expressed in feet above radiating a directional pattern of high mean sea level(AMSL). intensity red and white focused light beams which indicate to the pilot that he is "on Airport Layout Plan (ALP)—A scaled path"if he sees red/white, "above path"if drawing of existing and proposed land and white/white,and"below path"if red/red. facilities necessary for the operation and Some airports serving large aircraft have development of the airport. three-bar VASIs which provide two visual Airport Lighting—Various lighting aids that glide paths to the same runway. may be installed on an airport. Types of airport Airport Marking Aids—Markings used on lighting include: runway and taxiway surfaces to identify a v Approach Light System (ALS)—An specific runway, a runway threshold, a airport lighting facility which provides centerline, a hold line, etc. A runway should be visual guidance to landing aircraft by marked in accordance with its present usage radiating light beams in a directional pattern such as: by which the pilot aligns the aircraft with the Visual extended centerline of the runway on his Nonprecision instrument final approach for landing. Condenser- Precision instrument Discharge Sequential Flashing Lights/Sequenced Flashing Lights may be Airport Reference Point(ARP)—The latitude installed in conjunction with the ALS at and longitude of the approximate center of the ai some airports. Types of ALS at the Airport °rt" are Simplified Short Approach Light System Airport Rotating Beacon—A visual NAVAID (SSALR)with Runway Alignment Indicator operated at many airports. At civil airports, Lights (RAIL). alternating white and green flashed indicate the v Runway Lights/Runway Edge Lights— location of the airport. At military airports, the Lights having a prescribed angle of emission beacons flash alternatively white and green,but used to define the lateral limits of a runway. are differentiated from civil beacons by Runway lights are uniformly spaced at dualpeaked(two quick)white flashes between intervals of approximately 200 feet, and the the green flashes. intensity may be controlled or preset. Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR)—Approach 3. Runway Centerline Lighting—Flush control radar used to detect and display an centerline lights spaced at 50-foot intervals aircraft's position in the terminal area. ASR beginning 75 feet of the opposite end of the provides range and azimuth information but runway. does not provide elevation data. Coverage of the `' m ASR can extend up to 60 miles,presenting air improve efficiency and reduce cost. BRAC traffic controllers with the location of all aircraft processes have occurred in 1989, 1991, 1993, within the range of the antenna. 1995 and 2005. Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV)—Vehicles that Below Minimums—Weather conditions below are powered by fuels that reduce the air the minimums prescribed by regulation for the pollution, solid waste, and hazardous waste that particular action involved; e.g., landing result from their use, service, and maintenance. minimums, takeoff minimums. Alternative fuels may include compressed Best Management Practice (BMP) — natural gas,biodiesel, ethanol, electric and Approaches to address the management of hybrid electric,propane, liquefied natural gas, environmental resources in a proactive and and hydrogen fuel cells. practical fashion. Examples of BMPs include Approach Control Facility—A terminal Air preventative maintenance, elimination of non- Route Traffic Control Center facility that stormwater discharges to storm drains, spill provides approach control service in a terminal response and the use of oil/water separators. area. Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF) Approach Light System (ALS) — See Airport — The maximum lateral extent of floodwater, Lighting. which will theoretically result from the Apron—A defined area on an airport or heliport statistical 100-year storm. The extent of intended to accommodate aircraft for purposes Bordering Land Subject to Flooding is typically of loading or unloading passengers or cargo, derived from examining FEMA Flood Insurance refueling,parking, or maintenance. With regard Rate Maps. to seaplanes, a ramp is used for access to the Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW)— apron from the water. Vegetated areas that border on water bodies and Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS) Waterways including vegetated freshwater —A range of systems that display for the wetlands. The technical criteria and terminal controller aircraft identification, flight methodology utilized to identify and delineate plan data, other flight associated information BVW is set forth in Delineating Bordering such as altitude, speed, and aircraft position. Vegetated Wetlands under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(DEP, 1995). Criteria Auxiliary Power Unit(APU) — Self-contained for identifying and delineating this resource area generator on an aircraft that provides electricity, include the presence of a plant community heat and air conditioning to an aircraft when its dominated by wetland indicator species, and engines are off. signs of hydrology. The presence of hydric soils within the wetland is considered an indicator of hydrology. Banks—Land areas that normally abut and confine a water body. Banks occur between a waterbody and a vegetated wetland or adjacent Congestion Management System (CMS) —A floodplain, or between a waterbody and an federally mandated multimodal transportation upland. plan for metropolitan areas. The findings of the Base Realignment and Closure(BRAG)—A CMS must be considered in the development of process used by the U.S. Department of Defense the Regional Transportation Plan and the to close military bases and realign assets to Transportation Improvement Plan. Any .,� m.. expansion of roadway capacity must be approximately the threshold of human hearing developed in the context of the CMS in and is barely audible under extremely quiet transportation management areas that have not conditions.Normal conversational speech has a attained federal air quality standards. The sound pressure level of approximately 60 to 65 Central Transportation Planning Staff prepares dB. Sound pressure levels above 120 dB begin and updates the CMS for the Boston to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and metropolitan area. eventually pain at still higher levels. Carbon Monoxide(CO)—A regulated air Decision Height—With respect to the operation pollutant created from the combustion of fossil of aircraft,means the height at which a decision fuel. must be made during an Instrument Landing Ceiling—The heights above the earth's surface System or instrument approach to either of the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring continue the approach or to execute a missed phenomena that is reported as "broken," approach. "overcast,"or"obscuration,"and not classified Departure Control—A function of an approach as "thin"or"partial." control facility providing air traffic control Comprehensive Environmental Liability Act service for departing IFR and,under certain (CERCLA)—A federal law enacted by conditions,Visual Flight Rules aircraft. Congress on December 11, 1980 vehicle that Defense Environmental Restoration Program provides federal authority to respond to releases (DERP)—A program established by the or threatened releases of hazardous substances Department of Defense to address hazardous that may endanger public health or the substances,pollutants, contaminants, and environment. CERCLA established prohibitions military munitions remaining from past activities and requirements concerning closed and at military installations and formerly used abandoned hazardous waste sites;provided for defense sites. liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and, established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System responsible party could be identified. The trust (EDMS)— Computer program established by the fund is funded by taxes on the chemical and Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)to petroleum industries. calculate emissions and dispersion of aircraft Controlled Airspace—Airspace designated as a operations at an airport. The latest version is 4.3. control zone, airport radar service area, terminal Enroute Air Traffic Control Services—Air control area,transition area, control area, traffic control service provided aircraft on continental control area, and positive control Instrument Flight Rules flight plans, generally area within which some or all aircraft may be by centers,when these aircraft are operating subject to air traffic control. between departure and destination terminal areas. When equipment, capabilities, and controller work load permit, certain Decibel (dB)—A logarithmic unit that is used to advisory/assistance services may be provided to represent the intensity of sound. This VFR aircraft. representation is called a sound pressure level. A Environmental Assessment(EA)—An sound pressure level of less than 10 dB is environmental document filed in accordance z with the National Environmental Policy Act of inclusive, to begin the MEPA review process. A 1969 that documents the environmental impacts proponent begins the ENF process if a project is of a proposed action in support of a Finding of subject to MEPA jurisdiction and either it meets No Significant Impact(FONSI) or the or exceeds one or more review thresholds or the facilitation of the preparation of an Secretary of Environmental Affairs requires fail- Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). An EA safe review. The ENF process includes public and its FONSI document NEPA compliance. review and comment on its scope and filing, The EA process includes public review and which are noticed in the Environmental Monitor, comment on its scope and filing. and a MEPA Consultation session. At the close Environmental Impact Report(EIR)—An of the review period for an ENF, the Secretary environmental document filed in accordance issues an Adequacy Determination that may with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy require an EIR or allow the proponent to take Act, M.G.L. c. 30, sections 61 through 62H, action on the project. inclusive, to study the environmental Environmental Status and Planning Report consequences of aproject. Typically,the (ESPR) —An environmental filing made by proponent files a draft and final EIR,but the Massport to the Executive Office of Secretary of Environmental Affairs may allow a Environmental Affairs. An ESPR provides a single EIR. The EIR process includes public retrospective analysis of past trends in the review and comment on its scope and filings, environmental effects of the airport while which are noticed in the Environmental Monitor. including analyses for future conditions under At the close of the EIR review period,the various scenarios. Massport prepares ESPRs for Secretary decides whether the EIR is adequate Hanscom Field and Logan Airport. The and issues an Adequacy determination that Hanscom Field ESPR is filed every five years. includes enforceable mitigation commitments. Equivalent Sound Level(Leq)—A measure of Environmental Impact Study(EIS)—An exposure resulting from the accumulation of A- environmental document filed in accordance weighted sound levels over a particular period with the National Environmental Policy Act of (as opposed to an event) of interest such as an 1969 that documents the environmental impacts hour, an eight-hour school day,nighttime, a of a proposed action that has significant single 24-hour period, or an average 24-hour environmental impacts. An EIS describes a period. Because the length of the period can proposed action,its purpose and need, differ, the applicable period should always be alternatives to the proposed action, the affected identified or clearly understood when discussing environment, and an environmental analysis of the metric. Such durations are often identified each alternative. The EIS process includes through a subscript, for example Leq(8) or Leq public review and comment on its scope and (24). Conceptually, the Leq may be thought of filing. as the constant sound level occurring over the Environmental Management System (EMS)— designated period of interest and having as much A system instituted by Massport to help evaluate sound energy as that created by the actual rising and mitigate the environmental impacts from and falling sound pressures from multiple noise airport operations and planning. sources as they become more or less pronounced. Environmental Notification Form (ENF)—An environmental document filed in accordance with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, M.G.L. c. 30, sections 61 through 62H, .,� m.. F identifies the beginning of the final approach FAA Aircraft Engine Emissions Database segment. (FREED)—A computerized emissions Fixed Base Operator (FBO)—A full-service inventory calculation procedure that contains air FBO is a company that handles a range of needs pollution emissions information for various for based and transient aircraft,their operators, aircraft engines and data correlating engines to and their passengers. These include cleaning, specific aircraft. The emissions data from maintaining, fueling and parking/hangaring FAEED have been incorporated into the EDMS. aircraft,providing flight planning services for Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program the pilots, and arranging for the specific needs of (FMVCP)—Air pollution emission standards those flying such as ground transportation or for new motor vehicles that have been overnight accommodations. Although the established by the U. S. EPA. These standards majority of FBO activity involves servicing have mandated increasing strict air pollution corporate general aviation activity, the FBOs emission factors for motor vehicles. also provide some charter activity. Final Approach—That part of an instrument Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) —A map approach procedure which commences at the that are published by the Federal Emergency specified final approach fix or point, or where Management Agency to determine flood such a fix or point is not specified, insurance requirements and to assist communities in regulating new development. v at the end of the last procedure turn,base Flood Insurance Rate Maps show areas that have turn or inbound turn of a racetrack a one percent chance of flooding (the 100-year procedure,if specified; or floodplain) and a 0.2 percent chance of flooding 2. at the point of interception of the last track in any given year(the 500-year floodplain). specified in the approach procedure; and These areas are determined to be the areas of ends at a point in the vicinity of an highest risk when a stream overflows its banks aerodrome form which: a) a landing can be or when coastal waters experience tidal surges made; or b) a missed approach procedure is from tropical storms or hurricanes. initiated. Final Approach Fix(FAF)—The fix from G which the final approach(IFR) to an airport is General Aviation (GA) —That portion of civil executed and which identifies the beginning of aviation which encompasses all facets of the final approach segment. When ATC directs a aviation except air carriers holding a certificate lower-than-published Glide Slope/path Intercept of public convenience and necessity from the Altitude,it is the resultant actual point of the Civil Aeronautics Board and large aircraft glide slope/path intercept. commercial operators. Final Approach Point(FAP)—The point, General Aviation Revitalization Act(GARA) applicable only to a nonprecision approach with —Legislation that amends the Federal Aviation on depicted Final Approach Fix such as on- Act of 1958 to establish time limitations on airport Very-High-Frequency OmniRange certain civil actions against aircraft (VOR),where the aircraft is established inbound manufacturers. on the final approach course from the procedure General Management Plan (GMP) —Broad turn and where the final approach descent may and comprehensive, long-term planning be commenced. The FAP serves as the FAF and z documents prepared by National Park Service and Lincoln. HFAC includes representatives for each National Park,which typically from the Town of Bedford, Concord, Lexington encompasses preservation of natural and cultural and Lincoln; local citizens groups; other area resources,visitor use and interpretation, roads, towns affected by Hanscom Field;businesses and facilities. basing aircraft at Hanscom Field; aviation or Generic Environmental Impact Report aviation-related businesses at Hanscom Field; (GEIR)—An environmental filing to the and business-aviation general aviation Executive Office of Environmental Affairs that organizations. HFAC and Massport meet assesses the environmental effects of policies or monthly to provide continued communication. plans as opposed to site-specific projects. Hanscom Noise Workgroup (HNWG) —A Glide Slope (GS)—Provides vertical guidance group of community- and aviation-based for aircraft during approach and landing. The members that was organized by Massport at the glide scope/glidepath is based on the following: request of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs after the filing of the 1995 GEIR in 110 Electronic components emitting signals 1997. The HNWG met for a period of two years which provide vertical guidance by and published its findings in a report entitled reference to airborne instruments during "Report of the Hanscom Field Noise instrument approaches such as Workgroup," dated September 22, 1999. Their Instrument Landing System/, or report summarizes the series of meetings by the Visual ground aids which provide vertical committee and its two task groups, one devoted guidance for Visual Flight Rules to abatement and mitigation, the other to metrics approach or for the visual portion of an and modeling. instrument approach and landing. Hertz (Hz)—International System of Units Ground Power Unit(APU)— Generator on the measure for the number of times that a repeated ground that provides electricity,heat and air event occurs during a specified unit of time conditioning to an aircraft when its engines are Heliport Noise Model(HNM) —A computer off. program that is intended to serve as an aid in �H assessing the impact of helicopter noise in the vicinity of terminal operations. HNM Version Hanscom Air Force Base(AFB) —396-acre 2.2 is based upon Version 4 of the Federal United States Air Force Base in Bedford, Aviation Administration's Integrated Noise Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln that supports Model(INM).Utilized in the 2005 ESPR as a the Electronic Systems Center of the Air Force data source for helicopter flight profiles Material Command. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) —A vehicle Hanscom Area Towns (HATS)— The Growth carrying two or more passengers. and Development Policy Committee established under M.G.L. Chapter 40 Section 41 to address High Intensity Runway Lighting System intergovernmental and planning issues in (HIRILS)—A system of high intensity lights that Bedford, Concord, Lexington and Lincoln. outline edges of runways during periods of darkness or restricted visibility conditions. Hanscom Field Advisory Commission (HFAC)—An advisory commission that was Horsepower (HP)—A measure of power. The established by act of the State legislature in electrical industry defines the horsepower of 1980. HFAC includes 16 members appointed by electric motors to be 746 watts at 100-percent the selectmen of Bedford, Concord, Lexington efficiency. Fzr MI.. N than the minima specified for visual �Uoondhiono� Uoi� meteorological g' instrument approach procedure charts that UowtrumueotKkuovvoy-Anonxruyequipped with identify the beginning of the initial approach electronic and visual navigation aids for which o oognnonto. precision ornonprooioion approach having ob��b�'inlondbn�nninio�oo�obooboon Installation KkeutorotiooProgromu (���)-A ` 'program within the DER9that focuses on approved. rol00000 of hazardous substances,pollutants, or Integrated Noise ModeU(UNM) -A complex contaminants that pose environmental health and computer program that calculates aircraft noise safety risks. levels around on airport from user input data and onox1onoivoin�ornoldo1ob0000foirorof\noioo Instrument Approach^ and performance otododoo� Oobpot can include prodo�ooninodnnonouvomf�rdhoordo�v - ~ [D�loon�ooroondofbornnoUi00000booTlnno bouo��rofonoirorof\under instrument Diub� � AbovoondD�lv�u0001opooiGopoin�o� Tbo conditions Emnnthe beginning of the initial FAA developed the ON�400the primary tool for oppr000b�oolondin� or�oopoin�6mnnx��iobo ' � analyzing and ov�uodngnoise io�pooto from londin�m��bomodo�oo� ~�� l�iopr000dbod —�� oiroro�oporodono� l�0000iopr000dbodf�roll and approved for o specific oirpodbv000�po�on� ~ FAA-sponsored p �oo�oro requiring authority. -� `-' environmental evaluation. Instrument Flight Rules (U��A -8uloo ` ' Interim Record of Decision (UKk��]�)-An governing the procedures {broondoodng ` ' interim document in the progression of instrument flight.� ~ assessment and cleanup ofo site, and iointended controllers to indicate type of flight plan. to provide the public with oconsolidated 000roo Instrument Landing System (IK~S)-A of information about the site biotory, precision instrument approach system which characteristics, risks posed, and orationale normally consists of the following electronic behind the selected remedy. components and visual aids: Inventory of the Historic and Archaeological 110 l000bzor AwwetwoftheComumuoovveoUth-lnvontoryof 110 Glide slope historic properties and archaeological sites 110 Outer Marker maintained bvthe M00000b000Uo Historical 110 Middle Marker Commission. 110 Approach Lights Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (U|LSF)- Instrument Landing System (U|LS) Cotegory- loolo1od depressions or closed basins without on An Instrument Landing System approach inlet or outlet. ltioon area which, o1 least once procedure which provides for approach too per year, confines standing water too volume of height above touchdown of not less dhon200 o1 least one-quarter acre-feet and on average feet and with runway visual range of not less depth ofo1 least six inches. than 1,800 [eoL Instrument Meteorological Cooditioow- - - Motoorologiooloondbdonooxpr0000dintoonoof Kilovolt(kV) -A unit of measure equal to visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling l000 1,000 volts that is commonly used to d000dbo the potential power of an electrical distribution certification with Platinum being the highest system. level. Kilovolt ampere (kVA)—A unit of measure Level of Service (LOS) —Level of service is a equal to 1,000 volt amperes that is commonly term used to describe the quality of the traffic used to describe the capacity of an electrical flow on a roadway facility at a particular point in transformer. time. It is an aggregate measure of travel delay, travel speed, congestion, driver discomfort, , convenience, and safety based on a comparison L.G.Hanscom Field(Hanscom Field)— of roadway system capacity to roadway system Approximately 1,300-acre civilian airport in travel demand. Operating level of service is Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln and reported on a scale of A to F,with A operated by the Massachusetts Port Authority. representing the best operating conditions and F representing the worst operating conditions. Landing Minimums—The minimum visibility LOS A represents uncongested conditions with prescribed for landing a civil aircraft while using little or no delay to motorists,while LOS F an instrument approach procedure. Descent represents a forced-flow condition with delays below the established or Decision Height is not and traffic demands that have been identified as authorized during an approach unless the aircraft exceeding roadway capacity. Roadway operating is in a position from which a normal approach to levels of service are calculated following the runway of intended landing can be made and procedures defined in the 2000 Highway adequate visual reference to required visual cues Capacity Manual(HCM),published by the is maintained. Transportation Research Board(TRB) for Land Under Water Bodies/Waterways signalized and unsignalized intersections (LUWB)—The land area under any creek, river, Licensed Site Professional(LSP)—The stream,pond or lake is a resource area subject to Massachusetts (DEP has developed a licensing protection under the Massachusetts Wetlands procedure for consultants working in the context Protection Act. of the MCP, consisting of testing and training Landing-Takeoff Cycle (LTO) —Aircraft requirements to assure a base level of operations performed at airports. The Landing- competency. Those consultants meeting DEP Takeoff Cycle includes: approach from a level requirements become LSPs and provide of 3,000 feet above ground level, landing, taxi- assistance to disposal site owners to assure the in, taxi-out, takeoff, and climbout to a height of site is cleaned up following the MCP process. 3,000 feet above ground level. The LSP minimizes DEP involvement in site Large Airplane—An airplane of more than activities by overseeing actions conducted at the 12,500 pounds (5,700 kg)maximum certificated site. takeoff weight. Localizer (LOC) —The component of an ILS Leadership in Energy and Environmental that provides course guidance to the runway, Design (LEED)—The U.S. Green Building emitting a signal used to establish and maintain Council established the LEED Green Building an aircraft's horizontal position until visual Rating System°as a"voluntary, consensus- contact confirms the runway alignment and based national standard for developing high- location. performance, sustainable buildings."A rating Localizer Type Directional Aid (LDA) —A system is used to determine four levels of LEED navigational aid used for nonprecision instrument approaches with utility and accuracy m.. comparable to a localizer but which is not a part implement fees, and specify time lines for the of a complete ILS and is not aligned with the regulatory review process. runway.) Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV)—Motor (MEPA) —The Massachusetts Environmental vehicles that meet air pollution emission Policy Act, M.G.L. c. 30, sections 61 through standards that are more-strict(lower) than those 62H,inclusive. The Massachusetts that are required for vehicles under the FMVCP. Environmental Policy Act requires that state agencies study the environmental consequences of their actions,including permitting and Massachusetts and National Ambient Air financial assistance. It also requires them to take Quality Standards (NAAQS) —Air pollutant all feasible measures to avoid,minimize, and concentrations for defined periods of time (1- mitigate damage to the environment. MEPA hour, 24-hours, annual, etc.) established to further requires that state agencies "use all protect the public's health and welfare in practicable means and measures to minimize ambient(outdoor) air. damage to the environment," by studying alternatives to the proposed project, and Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP)—A developing enforceable mitigation regulatory framework for cleaning up hazardous commitments,which will become permit waste sites in Massachusetts. The MCP outlines conditions for the project if and when it is the schedule and procedures to be followed at permitted. disposal sites to undertake necessary and appropriate response actions to provide Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act protection of health, safety,public welfare and (MEPA) Office—The MEPA Office is the staff the environment. The MCP regulatory citation is of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs 310 CMR 40.0000. responsible for daily implementation and administration of the MEPA review process. The Massachusetts Cultural Resources staff,headed by the Assistant Secretary for Information System (MACRIS) —A Environmental Impact Review(also known as computerized database listing of the Inventory the MEPA Director), consists of environmental of the Historic and Archaeological Assets of the analysts and administrative support persons. The Commonwealth that can be linked to MassGIS. MEPA Office reviews ENF, EIR,Notice of MACRIS is maintained by the Massachusetts Project Change (NPC), and ESPR filings; makes Historical Commission(MHC). recommendations to the Secretary regarding the The Massachusetts Endangered Species Act adequacy of these filings and the need for (MESA)—The Massachusetts Endangered additional filings; assists project proponents, Species Act that was enacted in December 1990 agencies, and the public with questions; to protect plant and animal species in danger of interprets the MEPA regulations;publishes the extinction.Implementing regulations were Environmental Monitor and review schedule. promulgated in 1992 and recently revised and Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) implemented as of July 1, 2005. The regulation —Established in 1983 to encourage preservation requires habitat alteration permits for projects of the rich cultural heritage of the that may alter a significant portion of habitat. Commonwealth's cities and towns. The MHC is The recent revisions clarify filing requirements, the State Historic Preservation Office. z�d Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System acres along Route 2A in Concord, Lexington, with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights and Lincoln and off Monument Street in (MALSR)—A configuration of medium- Concord. Minute Man National Historical Park intensity lights with Runway Alignment itself and a number of individual historic Indicator Lights positioned symmetrically along properties within the park are historic resources the extended runway centerline to provide visual of national significance that are designated lighting guidance for landing aircraft. A National Historic Landmarks. The park is MALSR supports Category I precision nationally significant as the site of the Battle of approaches. Concord, one of the two battles that marked the Medium Intensity Runway Lighting System beginning of the Revolutionary War; for its (MIRLS)—A system of medium intensity lights association with prominent literary figures of the that define the lateral limits of runways during nineteenth and twentieth centuries; and as one of periods of darkness or restricted visibility the earliest places in the nation to be conditions. commemorated. The park was created to " . . . provide . . . for the preservation and Microwave Landing System (MLS)—A interpretation of historic sites, structures, and precision instrument approach system operating properties lying along the entire route of battle" in the microwave spectrum that provides the in April 1775. pilot of a properly equipped aircraft with electronic guidance to control the aircraft's MOBILE6.2—U. S. Environmental Protection alignment and descent until visual contact is Agency model to predict fleet-average emissions made with the runway environment. of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds from motor Middle Marker—A marker beacon that defines vehicles. a point along the glide slope of an Instrument Landing System normally space located at or Movement Area—The runways, taxiways, and near the point of decision height(Instrument other areas of an airport/heliport which are Landing System Category I). It is keyed to utilized for taxiing hover taxiing, air taxiing, transmit alternate dots and dashes,with the takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of alternate dots and dashes keyed at the rate of 95 loading ramps and parking areas. At those dot/dash combinations per minute on a 1300 Hz airports/heliports with a tower, specific approval tone,which is received aurally and visually by for entry onto the movement area must be obtained from Air Route Traffic Control Center. compatible airbourne equipment. Minimums—Weather condition requirements established for a particular operation or type of operation; e.g., IFR takeoff or landing, alternate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—Air pollution concentrations in airport for Instrument Flight Rules flight plans, outdoor air that have been established by the Visual Flight Rules flight, etc. EPA to protect the public's health and welfare. Minute Man National Historical Park NAAQS are air pollution concentrations that (MMNHP)—The National Park Service may not be exceeded. operates the Minute Man National Historical Park,which was created in 1959. The park National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) of 1969—An Act that established the national consists of three discontinuous sections referred policy for the environment and created the to as the Battle Road,Wayside, and North Council on Environmental Quality.NEPA Bridge Units and covers approximately 967 requires that an environmental impact statement zr I.. or EIS be prepared on every "major federal administered by U.S. EPA or delegated to action" undertaken or permitted. A Finding of individual states to administer. General and No Significant Impact(FONSI)is issued if it is Individual NPDES permits are typically five determined that the project will not have a years in length and have provisions for significant effect on the environment. An EIS automatic extensions if the permit is not reissued must consider alternatives and mitigation prior to expiration. measures that would lessen the project's impacts. National Priority List(NPL) —List of The EIS must be made available in draft form hazardous waste sites eligible for long-term for public comment and the agency must remedial action financed under the federal respond to those comments received in the Final Superfund program. EIS. National Register of Historic Places (NR) — Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Includes properties of local, state, and national Program (NHESP)—Part of the Massachusetts significance designated by the Department of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife that is Interior through the State Historic Preservation responsible for the conservation and protection Officer. of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the Navigational Aid(NAVAID)—Any visual or state. The highest priority of NHESP is electronic device airborne or on the surface protecting the approximately 190 species of which provides point-to-point guidance vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 258 information or position data to aircraft in flight. species of native plants that are officially listed New England Regional Aviation System Plan as Endangered, Threatened or of Special (NERASP)—A joint effort by the FAA, Concern in Massachusetts. A primary Massport and the Massachusetts Aeronautics responsibility of the NHESP is the regulatory Commission with the involvement of major protection of rare species and their habitats as commercial service airports throughout the six- codified under the MESA (M.G.L. c.131A) and state region. The NERASP developed forecasts Wetlands Protection Act(M.G.L c.131 s.40). from a regional perspective rather than from the National Oil and Hazardous Substances perspective of an individual airport or a state Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)—The NCP system of airports. Each airport's potential to establishes an organizational structure and accommodate scheduled commercial passenger procedures for preparing for and responding to was based not only on the demand generated by discharges of oil and releases of hazardous the airport's catchment area,but also considered substances,pollutants, and contaminants. the attractiveness of nearby airports that Development of the NCP was required under the passengers may also utilize Comprehensive Environmental Liability Act Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) —One of the Oxides of (CERCLA), also known as the Superfund Act, Nitrogen(NOx) compounds. The U. S. EPA has and by the U.S. Clean Water Act. established regulations,including a NAAQS, for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination nitrogen dioxide (NO2). System (NPDES)—A program authorized under Noise and Operations Monitoring System the U.S. Clean Water Act to control water (NOMS)—A system of six permanent noise pollution by regulating point sources (e.g.,pipes, monitors near Hanscom Field and the software ditches, conduits) that discharge pollutants into that is used to monitor their operation. The waters of the United States.NPDES permits are z�d system was installed in 1989 and is in the a change in the Project,provided that the new process of being upgraded by Massport. proponent adopts all mitigation measures to Noise Sensitive Receptor— Site-specific which the previous Proponent committed. The location where noise exposure may be a NPC shall specify in detail any change in the concern. The ESPR calculates DNL and Time information provided in any previous review Above values at the following types of noise document. In determining whether a change in a sensitive receptors: hospitals, sites on the project or the lapse of time might significantly National Register of Historic Places,public increase environmental consequences, the facilities,religious sites, and schools. Secretary shall consider the following factors: Nondirectional Beacon (NDB)—A a) Expansion of the Project. A change in a Low/Medium Frequency or Ultra High project is ordinarily insignificant if it results Frequency radio beacon transmitting solely in an increase in square footage, linear nondirectional signals whereby the pilot of an footage,height, depth or other relevant measures aircraft equipped with direction finding of the physical dimensions of the project of less equipment can determine his bearing to or from than ten percent over estimates previously the radio beacon and "home"on or track to or reviewed,provided the increase does not meet or from the station. When the radio beacon is exceed any review thresholds. installed in conjunction with the Instrument b) Generation of further impacts,including an Landing System marker,it is normally called a increase in release or emission of pollutants or Compass Locator. contaminants during or after completion of the Nonmovement Area—Taxiways and apron project. A change in aproject is ordinarily (ramp) areas not under the control of air traffic. insignificant if it results solely in an increase in impacts of less than twenty-five percent of the Nonprecision Approach Procedure—A level specified in any review threshold,provided standard instrument approach procedure in that cumulative impacts of the project do not which no electronic glidescope is provided; e.g., meet or exceed any review thresholds that were VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR), Tactical not previously met or exceeded. Aircraft Control and Navigation(TACAN), NDB, LOC, ASR, LDA, or Simplified Direction c) Change in expected date for commencement Finding (SDF) approaches. of the project, commencement of construction, completion date for the project, or schedule of Notice of Intent(NOI) —A filing with the work on the project. Conservation Commission of a local jurisdiction that uses WPA Form 3 or,in limited d) Change of the project site. circumstances WPA Form 4 (Abbreviated e) New application for a permit or new request Notice of Intent),to seek confirmation of for financial assistance or a land transfer. delineated wetland resource area boundaries fj For a project with net benefits to Notice of Project Change (NPC) —An environmental quality and resources or public environmental document filed in accordance health, any change that prevents or materially with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy delays realization of such benefits. Act, M.G.L. c. 30, sections 61 through 62H g) For a project involving a lapse of time, inclusive,if there is any material change in a changes in the ambient environment or project prior to the taking of all Agency Actions information concerning the ambient for the project. The continuation of the project environment. by a new proponent shall not by itself constitute .,� m.. 110 Runway Safety Area (RSA) —A defined Object—Includes,but is not limited to, above surface surrounding the runway ground structures,NAVAIDs,people, prepared or suitable for reducing the risk equipment vehicles,natural growth, terrain, and of damage to airplanes in the event of an parked aircraft. undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway; Object Free Area (OFA)—An area on the 110 Shoulder—An area adjacent to the edge ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or of paved runways, taxiways or aprons taxilane centerline provided to enhance the providing a transition between the safety of aircraft operations by having the area pavement and the adjacent surface; free of objects, except for objects that need to be support for aircraft running off the located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast ground maneuvering purposes. protection; Obstacle—An existing object, object of natural " Taxilane (TL)—The portion of the growth, or terrain at a fixed geographical aircraft parking area used for access location or which may be expected at a fixed between taxiways and aircraft parking location within a prescribed area with reference positions; to which vertical clearance is or must be " Taxiway(TW)—A defined path provided during flight operations. established for the taxiing of aircraft from one part of an airport to another; Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) —The OFZ is the 110 Taxiway Safety Area (TSA)—A defined airspace below 150 feet(45 m) above the surface alongside the taxiway prepared established airport elevation and along the or suitable for reducing the risk of runway and extended runway centerline that is damage to an airplane unintentionally required to be clear of all objects, except for departing the taxiway; frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be Visual Runway—A runway without an located in the OFZ because of their function,in existing or planned straight-in order to provide clearance protection for aircraft instrument approach procedure. landing or taking off from the runway, and for missed approaches. The OFZ is subdivided as The OFZ is a three dimensional volume of follows: airspace which protects for the transition of aircraft to and from the runway. The OFZ 110 Runway OFZ—The airspace above a clearing standard precludes taxiing and parked surface centered on the runway airplanes and object penetrations, expect for centerline; frangible NAVAID locations that are fixed by 110 Precision Approach Category I(CAT I) function. Additionally,vehicles, equipment, and Runway—A runway with an instrument personnel may be authorized by air traffic approach procedure which provides for control to enter the area using the provisions of approaches to a decision height(DH) of Order 7110.656, Air Traffic Control,paragraph not less than 200 feet(60m); 3-5. The runway OFZ and,when applicable, the 110 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)—An inner-approach OFZ and the inner-transitional area off the runway end to enhance the OFZ, comprise the OFZ. protection of people and property on the ground; Operable Unit(OU) —A discreet portion of a site that is investigated and cleaned up z separately from other portions of the site. pr000noo of sunlight,primarily during summer Dividing o site into two or more operable onho months. Also generally known oosmog. allows separate investigations and cleanups 0o ~~���� proceed o1 their own pace. Common examples " are investigating soil and groundwater Particulate Matter(PM2,5)—Regulated fine contamination separately, and cleaning upand particle matter inthe air with o diameter of2.5 redeveloping small portions ofo larger site. micron or less. One micron io one-millionth ofo Outer Marker—A marker beacon o1or near the meter. glide slope intercept altitude ofonNLS approach. Particulate Motter(PM10) —Regulated coarse Dio keyed to transmit two dashes per second on particle matter in the air with o diameter of|0 o400 1{z tone,x��iobio received aurally and�� micron or less. One micron io one-millionth ofo visually by compatible airborne equipment. The meter. OMio normally located four to seven miles from the runway threshold on the extended oon1odino PART5—iT. S. EPA model to predict fleet- of dho non«ruy. average onniooiono of particulate matter from motor vehicles. This function of the 9A8T5 Outstanding Resource Woter (ORW)—A model has been replaced with the MO8[LE6 water or o wetland bordering o water that has model. been designated bv the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 000n Polychlorinated biphenyl(PCB)—Mixtures of Outstanding Resource Vyater(O8W). O8Wo opto209 individual synthetic chlorinated include public water supplies, certified vernal compounds. PCBs have been used as coolants pools, and other waters that constitute on and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and outstanding resource oo determined bvtheir other electrical equipment b000000fboydon't outstanding 000io'000nonnio, recreational, bum easily and are good insulators. The ecological and/or aesthetic values. manufacture of PCBs was stopped inthe U.S.in |977 because of evidence that they build upin Overhead Maneuver—A series of the environment and can cause harmful health predetermined maneuvers prescribed for aircraft effects. Products made before |977 that may (often information) for entry into the\/F8traffic contain PCBs include old fluorescent lighting pattern and to proceed too landing. Anoverhead fixtures and electrical devices containing PCB maneuver io not onlF8 approach procedure. capacitors, and hydraulic oils. There are no These aircraft shall bo considered\/F8 and the known natural sources of PCBs. PCBs are either lF8Dich�cJoni000noolodx��ondhooiror�D "� ' oily liquids or solids that are oolod000 to light or00000 the landing dnoobold on the initial yellow, and have no known onnoll or taste. approach portion of the maneuver. Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPU) — Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) —Regulated air A visual aid consisting ofo system oflights pollutants representing different combinations of installed on the side of the runway that provide oxygen and nitrogen. The U. S. EPA has visual descent guidance information during established regulations,including oNAA0S, for approach too runway to provide for the aircraft nitrogen dioxide (NO2). crossing the runway threshold o1onappropriate Ozone (03)—A regulated air pollutant formed height. A9A9lio intended primarily for use from reactions between Volatile Organic during\/F8 weather conditions. Compounds (JOC) and oxides of nitrogen inthe Precision Approach Procedure—Aotondord instrument approach procedure in which on electronic glide slope/glidepath is provided; e.g., MCP. The goal of assessment and mitigation ILS/MLS and Precision Approach Radar(PAR). activities under the MCP is to achieve conditions Precision Approach Radar (PAR)—Radar of No Significant Risk, so attainment of a equipment in some Air Traffic Control facilities Response Action Outcome (RAO)is considered operated by the FAA and/or the military services a significant milestone in the progression at joint-use civil/military locations and separate through MCP activities, and in many(but not military installations to detect and display all) cases serves as an endpoint to those azimuth, elevations, and range of aircraft on the activities. final approach course to a runway.PAR Record of Decision (ROD)—In the provides both horizontal and vertical guidance to Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a document approaching pilots. issued by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs Program for Mass Transit(PMT)—A long- on a project where a waiver of a MEPA range transit plan that evaluates and threshold or other MEPA requirement has been recommends transit projects to preserve, requested. At the federal level, a decision on an enhance and expand the MBTA system. The EIS filing. PMT describes the MBTA's fiscally- Runway—A defined rectangular area on land unconstrained capital investment plan. Any airport prepared for the landing and takeoff run transit project eligible for federal funds must be of the aircraft along its length. Runways are included in the PMT. The PMT was last revised normally numbered in relation to their magnetic in January 2004. direction rounded off to the nearest 10 degrees; Propylene glycol—An organic compound that e.g., Runway 01, Runway 25. is used as ingredient in aircraft deicing solutions. Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (RAIL) —A visual lighting system that provides information on the approach end of the runway Reasonably Available Control Technology Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)— See (RACT)—Requires the use of reasonably Airport Lighting. available control requirements to reduce or limit air emissions from sources in areas that do no Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)— See meet national ambient air quality standards (i.e., Obstacle Free Zone. non-attainment areas). Runway Safety Area (RSA)— See Obstacle Request for Determination of Applicability Free Zone. (RDA)—A filing with the Conservation Runway Visual Range (RVR)— See Visibility. Commission of a local jurisdiction or the Massachusetts DEP that uses WPA Form I to determine whether the Wetlands Protection Act Simplified Directional Facility(SDF) —A applies to a particular area of land or to specific navigational aid used for nonprecision work planned on a particular area of land. instrument approaches that provides lateral Response Action Outcome (RAO)—A guidance from a final approach fix when the designation applied to a disposal site, as defined lateral course alignment is offset from the under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan extended runway centerline by more than 3 (MCP), 310 CMR 40.0000), at which there is degrees but less than 30 degrees. No Significant Risk, also as defined by the z Simplified Short Approach Light System with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (NAAQS). (SSALR)—A high intensity approach lighting State Register of Historic Places (SR)— system that provides a visual lighting path for Established by MGL Ch. 9, ss. 26-27C, as landing aircraft. The SSALR has up to eight amended by Chapter 152 of the Acts of 1982 sequenced flashing lights and is used as part of a and Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988. dual-mode ALS (ALSF-2/SSALR)when Regulations promulgated on August 4, 1989 Category I conditions exist on Category II (950 CMR 71.00). The State Register includes runways. properties that meet one of the following Single Event Level (SEL)—The total noise criteria:National Historic Landmark; listed or dose, or exposure,resulting from a time-varying formally determined eligible for inclusion in the sound that is normalized to a one second National Register of Historic Places; duration so that exposures of different durations Massachusetts Archaeological/Historic can be compared on an equal basis. Because Landmark; Local Landmark; Local Historic aircraft noise events last longer than one second, District; Regional Historic District; and subject the time-integrated SEL always has a value to a Preservation Restriction managed by the greater in magnitude than the maximum sound Massachusetts Historical Commission. The State level of the event—usually about seven to ten Register is updated weekly. dB higher for most airport environments. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Small Airplane—An airplane of 12,500 pounds (SWPPP)—A plan developed in accordance (5,700 kg) or less maximum certificated takeoff with the requirements of a General or Individual weight; NPDES permit issued pursuant to the U.S. Clean Spill Prevention Control and Water Act. The SWPPP sets forth the activities Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP)—The to be initiated at a site to minimize or prevent cornerstone of the EPA's strategy to prevent oil pollution of waters of the U.S. A SWPPP may spills from reaching the nation's waters. be necessary for existing industries or planned Requirements for maintaining SPCC Plans are construction projects. The development of the dependent on facility operations and on site SWPPP includes site characterization and the storage practices, as regulated under 40 CFR implementation of specific BMPs to address 112. SPCC Plans have prescribed elements for activities at the site. The U.S. EPA is the management and inspection of facilities' storage permitting authority in Massachusetts. The and handling operations, and are designed to Massachusetts DEP has review and approval of ensure that such facilities put into place the SWPPP if the site discharges to an ORW. containment and other countermeasures that Sulfur dioxide(SO2)—A regulated air pollutant would prevent oil spills from reaching navigable created by the combustion of materials waters. containing sulfur. The U. S.EPA has established State Implementation Plan (SIP)—A detailed regulations,including a NAAQS, for SOz. plan prepared by the states to show how they T A will comply and maintain compliance with national air quality rules. States prepare SIPS Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) —A and submit them to the U.S. EPA for approval to navigational aid that provides suitably equipped meet specific requirements of the Clean Air Act, aircraft a continuous indication of bearing and including the requirement to attain and maintain distance to the TACAN station. .'Y I.. Taxi— The movement of an airplane under its time, so the TA ignores the dimension of own power on the surface of an airport(Part loudness. 13 5.100—Note). Also,it describes the surface Time-In-Mode (TIM)—The time an aircraft movement of helicopters equipped with wheels. spend in each mode of the LTO cycle. Taxilane (TL)— See Obstacle Free Zone. Total Noise Exposure (EXP)—The EXP metric Taxiway(TW)— See Obstacle Free Zone. was developed in 1982 as a screening tool for Taxiway Safety Area (TSA)— See Obstacle Massport to assess changes in the fleet mix of Free Zone. aircraft operating at Hanscom Field overtime. Terminal Instrument Procedures—TERPS EXP indicates changes in total noise exposure establishes criteria that are used to formulate and and expected resultant changes in DNL,without publish procedures for instrument approach and the need to prepare noise contours. The metric is departure of aircraft to and from civil and calculated by logarithmically summing the military airports. representative SELs for each departure of an airplane assuming it flies over a single point on Terminal Radar Approach Control the ground. Similar aircraft types are grouped (TRACON)—Controls aircraft in the vicinity of together in the calculations at creating a"partial a large airport,between the departure or arrival EXP" for the group.Partial EXP values for each airport and the Air Route Traffic Control Center. group are then summed to obtain a single Terminal-Very High Frequency number estimate of departure noise exposure at Omnidirectional Range Station —A very high that reference location. Similar calculations are frequency terminal omnidirectional range station performed for arrival operations. Separate located on or near an airport and used as an computations are performed for civil and approach aid. military operations. Massport maintains a Threshold—The beginning of that portion of comprehensive database of operations conducted by aircraft heavier than single engine piston the runway usable for landing. aircraft.EXP uses the same summation formula Time Above a decibel threshold(TA) — as DNL: logarithmic summation of all noise Because analyses of decibels are complex and events over a 24-hour day,with a 10 dB penalty often unfamiliar to the public,the FAA has applied to events occurring between 10:00 p.m. developed a supplemental noise metric that is and 7:00 a.m. non-logarithmic: the amount of time (in minutes Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)—A term or seconds)that the noise source of interest used to describe a large family of several exceeds a given A-weighted sound level hundred chemical compounds that originally threshold. Every time a noise event goes above a come from crude oil,which is refined to given threshold,the number of seconds is common petroleum products such as gasoline, accumulated and added to any previous periods motor oil, and jet fuel. Because there are so that the noise exceeded the threshold. These many different chemicals in petroleum products, time-above-thresholds, or Time Above, are it is not practical to measure each of them usually reported for a 24-hour period.Note that individually, so TPH testing in the environment TA does not tell the loudness of the various is often used as a measure of evidence of release noise events.Just as a single value of the A- of such products to soils, groundwater, or weighted sound level ignores the dimension of surface water. z�d Total suspended solids (TSS) — Solids in water runway centerline. The final approach that can be trapped by a filter(the combination normally extends from the base leg to of TSS and total dissolved solids together the runway. An aircraft making a comprise Total Solids). TSS can include a wide straight-in approach VFR is also variety of material, such as silt, decaying plant considered to be on final approach. and animal matter,industrial wastes, and Transmissometer—An apparatus used to sewage. High levels of TSS can pose risk to the determine visibility by measuring the aquatic life and natural stream processes. transmission of light through the atmosphere. It Touch-And-Go—An operation by an aircraft is the measurement source for determining that lands and departs on a runway without runway visual range (RVR) and runway stopping or exiting the runway. visibility value (RVV). Tower—A terminal facility that uses air/ground Transportation Demand Management(TDM) communications,visual signaling, and other —Measures that make better use of existing devices to provide ATC services to aircraft transportation facilities by reducing the peak operating in the vicinity or an airport or on the hour demand for automobile trips, as opposed to movement area. Authorizes aircraft to land or increasing roadway capacity. Examples of TDM takeoff at the airport controlled by the tower or measures include increased or expanded transit to transit the airport traffic area regardless of service, carpool/vanpool programs, employee flight plan or weather conditions (IFR or VFR). rideshare programs, and staggered work hours. A tower may also provide approach control Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP) —A services (radar or nonradar). five-year plan that programs federally fund Traffic Pattern—The traffic flow that is roadway and transit projects. Metropolitan prescribed for aircraft landing at, taxiing on, or Planning Organization updates the TIP on an taking off from an airport. The components of a annual basis. typical traffic pattern are upwind leg, crosswind Transportation Management Association leg, downwind leg,base leg and final approach. (TMA) —A structured organization typically 110 Upwind Leg—A Flight path parallel to comprised of employers interested in the landing runway in the direction of collectively improving transportation access to landing. an area through the implementation of cost- 110 Crosswind Leg—A flight path at right sharing approaches such as Transportation angles to the landing runway off its Demand Management(TDM)measures,public upwind end. advocacy and marketing and information 110 Downwind Leg—A flight path parallel to campaigns. The transportation access measures, the landing runway in the direction as well as the dues and organizational structure, opposite to landing. The downwind leg are tailored to the specific needs of the TMA normally extends between the crosswind membership. leg and the base leg. Transportation Management Initiative (TMI) 110 Base Leg—A flight path at right angles to —A program that is administered by the landing runway off its approach end. MassRIDES on behalf of the Executive Office The base leg normally extends from the of Transportation. The program funds a downwind leg to the intersection of the MassRIDES staff coordinator to plan and extended runway centerline. administer TDM actions with members. 110 Final Approach—A flight path in the Membership in the program is free. Benefits are direction of landing along the extended OF m provided based on the level of participation in Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) —A TDM,with employees of partner companies program of actions by Massport at Hanscom eligible to use MassRIDES's guaranteed ride Field to comply with FAA regulations and home program. Massachusetts General Laws regarding Transportation Security Administration protected airspace. The VMP includes (TSA)—Federal agency created as part of the vegetation removal project addresses Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed obstructions. Massport implemented the VMP in by the U.S. Congress and signed into law on 2004. Since then, the VMP has moved into a November 19, 2001 and in response to the maintenance phase. September 11,2001 attacks on the World Trade Very-High-Frequency Omnidirection Range Center and The Pentagon. The agency is charged (VOR) —A ground-based electronic navigation with developing policies to ensure the safety of aid transmitting very high frequency navigation U.S. air traffic and other forms of transportation. signals, 360 degrees in azimuth, oriented from Trichloroethylene(TCE)—A synthetic volatile magnetic north.Used as the basis for navigation organic compound that is often used as a solvent in the National Airspace System. The VOR for resins, oils, and paints, and also as a periodically identifies itself by Morse Code and degreaser,particularly for mechanical parts. It is many have an additional voice identification a colorless liquid with a chloroform like odor, feature.Voice features may be used by Air and is considered carcinogenic. Route Traffic Control Center or for transmitting instructions/information to pilots. Trip (vehicle)—A trip represents one vehicle entering or leaving a facility. A vehicle entering Visibility—The ability, as determined by and leaving a facility represents two vehicular atmospheric conditions and expressed in units of trips. distance, to see and identify prominent unlighted objects by day and prominent lighted objects by night. Visibility is reported as statute miles, hundreds of feet or meters. Vacuum-enhanced recovery(VER)—A system of recovery of groundwater or total fluids " Flight Visibility—The average forward from a groundwater well,in which the radius of horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an the capture zone of a groundwater pumping aircraft in flight, at which prominent system is increased through the application of a unlighted objects may be seen and identified high negative pressure differential to the by day and prominent lighted objects may be recovery well.VER is typically used when low seen and identified by night. transmissivity conditions are encountered in a " Ground Visibility—Prevailing horizontal contaminated subsurface formation, and in visibility near the earth's surface as reported which capture zones and fluid recoveries are by the United States National Weather very low under normal pumping conditions. Service or an accredited observer. 110 Runway Visual Range (RVR)—An Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT)—The product instrumentally derived value,based on of the number of vehicles on a given roadway by standard calibrations, that represents the the length of the roadway. The units are vehicle horizontal distance a pilot will see down the miles per year. runway from the approach end. It is based on Vehicle Occupancy Rate (VOR)—Number of the sighting of either high intensity runway persons per vehicle. lights or on the visual contrast of other z�d targets,whichever yields the greater visual visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling equal range. RVR,in contrast to prevailing or to or better than specified minima. runway visibility,is based on what a pilot in Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)— a moving aircraft should see looking down Hydrocarbons associated with motor fuels that the runway. RVR is horizontal visual range, are highly reactive and may help form ozone. not slant visual range. It is based on the measurement of a transmissometer made near VORTAC -A navigation aid providing VOR the touchdown point of the instrument azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and TACAN runway and is reported in hundreds of feet. distance measuring equipment(DME) at one RVR is used in lieu of RVV and/or site. prevailing visibility in determining minimums for a particular runway. �� IN Touchdown RVR—The RVR Wetlands Protection Act(WPA) —An Act visibility readout values obtained from (MGL Chapter 131 Section 40) that protects RVR equipment serving the runway Massachusetts wetlands resources and ensures touchdown zone. that the beneficial functions of these resources IN Mid-RVR—The RVR readout values are maintained.Projects that affect wetlands are obtained from RVR equipment located required to avoid impacts where possible, midfield of the runway. minimize unavoidable impacts, and mitigate for IN Rollout RVR— The RVR readout unavoidable impacts.Proponents of projects in values obtained from RVR equipment wetlands or in the buffer zone around them must located nearest the rollout end of the apply for an Order of Conditions from the runway. municipal Conservation Commission. Visual Approach—An approach wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan, operating in VFR conditions under the control of an air traffic Zero emissions vehicle (ZEV)—A vehicle that facility and having an air traffic control has no air pollution emissions directly associated authorization,may proceed to the airport of with it(e.g.vehicles powered with electricity or destination in VFR conditions. hydrogen fuel cells). Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI)— See Airport Lighting Visual Flight Rules (VFR)—Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual conditions. The "VFR"is also used in the United States to indicate weather conditions that are equal to or greater than minimum VFR requirements. In addition,it is used by pilots and controllers to indicate type of flight plan. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Conditions— Weather conditions equal to or better than the minimum for flight under visual flight rules. Visual Meteorological Conditions— Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of OF Tm , I1'"' Milli IIIi III.J Iist List of Reviewers MafsfsIl�wi IIL oard of D�irectoirs I-edei4� Secretary Richard Davey, Chairman Senator Elizabeth Warren Massachusetts Port Authority 2400 JFK Federal Building One Harborside Drive 15 New Sudbury Street East Boston, MA 02128-2909 Boston, MA 02203 Michael Angelini, Board Member Senator Edward Markey Massachusetts Port Authority 10 Causeway Street, Suite 559 One Harborside Drive Boston, MA 02222 East Boston, MA 02128-2909 Representative Niki Tsongas Douglas Husid, Board Member 11 Kearney Square, 4th floor Massachusetts Port Authority Lowell, MA 01852-1940 One Harborside Drive Representative John Tierney East Boston, MA 02128-2909 17 Peabody Square Kathryn West, Board Member Peabody, MA 01960 Massachusetts Port Authority Representative Katherine Clarke One Harborside Drive 2108 Rayburn House Office Bldg East Boston, MA 02128-2909 Washington, DC 20515 L. Duane Jackson, Board Member Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Massachusetts Port Authority Old Post Office Building One Harborside Drive 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 803 East Boston, MA 02128-2909 Washington, DC 20004 Sean M. O'Brien, Board Member Amy Corbett,New England Regional Massachusetts Port Authority Administrator One Harborside Drive FAA New England Region East Boston, MA 02128-2909 12 New England Executive Park, Box 510 Kurt N. Schwartz, Board Member Burlington, MA 01803 Massachusetts Port Authority Ralph Nicosia-Rusin One Harborside Drive Airport Capacity Program Manager East Boston, MA 02128-2909 FAA New England Region 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 0180 Richard Doucette Manager Environmental Program FAA New England Region 12 New England Executive Park, Box 510 Burlington, MA 01803 El 7z�In Dimitros Merageas State FAA Control Tower 4th Fl Tower Building/Hanscom Field The Honorable Kathleen O'Connor Ives Bedford, MA 01730 State Senate State House, Room 519 EPA/Council on Environmental Quality Boston, MA 02133 722 Jackson Place NW Washington, DC 20503 The Honorable Michael Barrett MA State Senate Nancy Nelson, Superintendent State House, Room 313A National Park Service Boston, MA 02133 Minute Man National Historical Park 174 Liberty Street The Honorable Kenneth J.Donnelly Concord, MA 01742-1705 MA State Senate State House, Room 413-D Dennis Reidenbach, Regional Director Boston, MA 02133 National Park Service U.S. Custom House, 200 Chestnut Street The Honorable Cory Atkins Philadelphia,PA 19106 MA House of Representatives State House, Room 195 Chris Perkins,Base Civil Engineer Boston, MA 02133 Hanscom Air Force Base 120 Grenier Street The Honorable Jay R. Kaufman Hanscom Air Force Base,MA 01730 MA House of Representatives State House, Room 34 Colonel Charles P. Samaris, Division Engineer Boston, MA 02133 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The Honorable Ken Gordon New England District, 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742-2751 MA House of Representatives State House, Room 39 H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administration Boston, MA 02133 U.S. EPA New England Region O Senator Thomas McGee One Congress Street MA State House Boston, MA 02114 State House, Room 109C New England Field Office Boston, MA 02133 U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service Department of the Interior The Honorable Thomas P. Conroy 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 MA House of Representatives Concord,NH 03301-5087 State House, Room 236 Boston, MA 02133 Libby Herland, Refuge Complex Manager Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex The Honorable Thomas M. Stanley MA House of Representatives 73 Weir Hill Road Sudbury, MA 01776 State House, Room 167 Boston, MA 02133 Representative William Strauss Clinton Bench, Deputy Secretary for MA House of Representatives Transportation Planning State House, Room 134 Massachusetts Department of Transportation Boston, MA 02133 10 Park Plaza, Room 4150 Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Boston, MA 02116 Affairs Attn: Environmental Reviewer Barbara Kates-Garnick,Undersecretary for Massachusetts Department of Transportation Policy 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02116 Boston, MA 02114 Leeroy Wagner Kenneth L. Kimmell, Commissioner MassRIDES Massachusetts Department of Environmental 10 Park Plaza, Suite 2180 Protection Boston, MA 02116 One Winter Street Massachusetts Department of Transportation Boston, MA 02108-4746 Public/Private Development Unit Deirdre Buckley, Director 10 Park Plaza MEPA Office Boston, MA 02116 Executive Office of Energy Environmental Massachusetts Department of Transportation Affairs Highway Division -MHD—District 94 100 Cambridge St, 9th Floor Attn: MEPA Coordinator Boston, MA 02114 519 Appleton Street William Gage, Environmental Analyst Arlington, MA 02174 MEPA Office Christopher Willenborg, Administrator Division Executive Office of Energy Environmental Massachusetts Department of Transportation Affairs Aeronautics Division 100 Cambridge St, 9th Floor 10 Park Plaza, Room 6620 Boston, MA 02114 Boston, MA 02116 John D.Viola, Assistant Regional Director Katie Servis Massachusetts Department of Environmental Massachusetts Department of Transportation Protection/Northeast Regional Office Aeronautics Division 205-B Lowell Street Attn: MEPA Coordinator Wilmington, MA 01887 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 David Shakespeare, MEPA Coordinator Boston, MA 02116-3966 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Massachusetts Historical Commission Protection/Northeast Regional Office The Massachusetts Archives Building 205-B Lowell Street 220 Morrissey Boulevard Wilmington, MA 01887 Boston, MA 02125 DCR Division of Water Supply Protection Attn: Environmental Reviewer 251 Causeway Street Boston, MA 02114 z Massachusetts Department Agricultural Amy A. Cotter, Regional Transportation Resources Planning Staff Attn: MEPA Coordinator Metropolitan Area Planning Council 16 West Experiment Station 10 Park Plaza, Room 2150 University of Massachusetts Boston, MA 02116 Amherst MA 01003 Julie Conroy Thomas W. French,Ph.D.,Assistant Director Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Coordination Program c/o MAPC Massachusetts Division of Fish&Wildlife 60 Temple Place One Rabbit Hill Road Boston, MA 02111 Westborough, MA 01581 Bedford Massachusetts Department of Public Health Bedford Public Library Director of Environmental Health 7 Mudge Way 250 Washington Street Bedford, MA 01730-2168 Boston, MA 02108-4619 Richard T. Reed Town Manager Massachusetts Water Resource Authority Town of Bedford Attn: MEPA Coordinator 10 Mudge Way Charlestown Navy Yard, 100 First Avenue Bedford, MA 01730 Boston, MA 02129 Bedford Board of Health Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Mudge Way Attn: MEPA Coordinator Bedford, MA 01730 10 Park Plaza, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02216-3966 Doreen Trembaly, Town Clerk 10 Mudge Way llegibir4 Bedford, MA 01730 Joel Barrera, Deputy Director Elizabeth Bagdonas,Administrator Bedford Metropolitan Area Planning Council Conservation Commission 60 Temple Place, 6th Floor 10 Mudge Way Boston, MA 02111 Bedford, MA 01730 Marc Draisen Alethea Yates, Chair Metropolitan Area Planning Council Bedford Historic Preservation Commission 60 Temple Place, 6th Floor 10 Mudge Way Boston, MA 02111 Bedford, MA 01730 Martin Pillsbury, Environmental Division Lisa Mustapich, Chair Manager Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place, 6th Floor Bedford Planning Board Boston, MA 02111 10 Mudge Way Bedford, MA 01730 Glenn Garber,Planning Director Carlisle Town of Bedford George Mansfield, Planning Administrator 10 Mudge Way Town of Carlisle Bedford, MA 01730 108 Main Street,P.O. Box 67 William Moonan, Chair Carlisle,MA 01741 Board of Selectmen Concord Town of Bedford 10 Mudge Way Concord Public Library Bedford, MA 01730 129 Main Street Michael A. Rosenberg, Board of Selectmen Concord, MA 01742 Town of Bedford Chris Whalen, Town Manager 10 Mudge Way Town of Concord Bedford, MA 01730 22 Monument Square,P.O.Box 535 Mark Siegenthaler, Board of Selectmen Concord, MA 01742 Town of Bedford Anita S. Tekle, Town Clerk 10 Mudge Way 22 Monument Square,P.O.Box 535 Bedford, MA 01730 Concord, MA 01742 Caroline Fedele, Board of Selectmen Delia Kaye, Administrator Town of Bedford Concord Natural Resources Commission 10 Mudge Way 141 Keyes Road Bedford, MA 01730 Concord, MA 01742 Margot R. Fleischman, Clerk Elissa J. Brown, Chair Board of Selectmen Concord Historical Commission Town of Bedford 141 Keyes Road,P.O. Box 535 10 Mudge Way Concord, MA 01742 Bedford, MA 01730 Marcia Rasmussen, Director Boston Concord Department of Planning &Land Management Nancy Girard, Director Road Boston Environment Department Concord,141 Keyes R MA 01742 One City Hall Plaza, Room 803 Boston, MA 02201 Elise Woodward Board of Selectmen Maura Zlody 22 Monument Square,P.O.Box 535 Boston Environment Department Concord, MA 01742 One City Hall Plaza, Room 803 Boston, MA 02201 Carmin C. Reiss Board of Selectmen Thomas Tinlin, Commissioner 22 Monument Square P.O. Box 535 Boston Transportation Department Concord, MA 01742 One City Hall Plaza, Room 721 Boston, MA 02201 z Jeffrey S. Wieland, Chair Paul B. Ash,Ph.D., Superintendent Board of Selectmen Lexington Public Schools 22 Monument Square P.O. Box 535 1557 Mass Avenue Concord, MA 01742 Lexington,MA 02420 Steven Ng, Clerk Lincoln Board of Selectmen Chris Reilly, Director of Planning and Land Use 22 Monument Square P.O. Box 535 Town Office Building Concord, MA 01742 16 Lincoln Road, 2nd Floor Lexington Lincoln,MA 01773 Carey Memorial Library Noah Eckhouse, Hanscom Area Town 1874 Mass Ave. at Carey Hall Selectmen Lexington,MA 02420-5385 Town of Lincoln Carl F.Valente, Town Manager 7 Conant Road Town of Lexington Lincoln,MA 02173 1625 Mass. Avenue Peter Braun, Chair Lexington,MA 02420 Town of Lincoln Donna Hooper, Town Clerk Hanscom Area Town Selectmen, 7 Conant Road Town of Lexington Lincoln,MA 02173 Town Offices, 1625 Mass Avenue Gregory A. Woods Lexington,MA 02420 Lincoln Water Department Karen Mullins, Administrator 16 LincolnRoad Conservation Commission Lincoln,MA 01773 Town Offices, 1625 Mass Avenue Renel Fredriksen, Hanscom Area Town Lexington,MA 02420 Selectmen Gerard Cody, Health Division Town of Lincoln Town of Lexington 7 Conant Road Town Offices, 1625 Mass Avenue Lincoln,MA 02173 Lexington,MA 02420 Oirgairflzatbiris David Kelland, Chair Mark Baker,President Historical Commission Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association Town Offices, 1625 Mass Avenue 421 Aviation Way Lexington,MA 02420 Frederick, MD 21701-4798 Charles Hornig, Chair Pam Howell,Vice President Lexington Planning Board Annursnac Hill Association 1625 Mass Avenue 29 Isaac Davis Road Lexington,MA 02420 Concord, MA 01742 Maryann McCall-Taylor, Director Lexington Planning Department 1625 Mass Avenue Lexington, MA 02420 Sheila Spellman Robert K.Lemons, Managing Partner Battle Road Farm Finard& Company, LLC 5D South Commons One Burlington Woods Drive Lincoln,MA 01773 Burlington, MA 01803 Eileen Entin,President Paul Guzzi,President and CEO Citizen's for Lexington Conservation Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 292 One Beacon Street Lexington,MA 02420-0003 Boston, MA 02108-3114 Lisa Litchfield, Administrator Jim Phelps Concord Field Station Signature Flight Support 100 Old Causeway Road 180 Hanscom Drive Bedford, MA 01730 Bedford, MA 01730 Mary Jo Bohart, Executive Director Jeanne Krieger, Chair HFAC Lexington Chamber of Commerce Lexington Town Hall 1875 Massachusetts Avenue 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington,MA 02420 Lexington,MA 02173 John M. Steven, Chair Frank Diglio Concord Land Conservation Trust Jet Aviation of America, Inc. P.O. Box 141 380 Hanscom Drive, Hanscom Field Concord, MA 01742-0141 Bedford, MA 01730-2630 Margaret Burke, Executive Director Dee Ortner, HFAC Member Concord Museum The League of Women Voters of 200 Lexington Road,P.O.Box 146 Concord/Carlisle Concord, MA 01742-0146 P.O. Box 34 Stephanie Spillman,Executive Director Concord, MA 01742 Concord Chamber of Commerce John J. Clarke, Director of Public Policy& 15 Walden Street, Suite 7 Government Relations Concord, MA 01742 Mass Audubon John Kassel,President 208 South Great Road Conservation Law Foundation Lincoln,MA 01773 62 Summer Street Ford Van Weise Boston, MA 02116 Hanscom Aircraft Owners and Pilots Gerard J. G.Ward, Headmaster Association Fenn School 380 Hanscom Drive 516 Monument Street Bedford, MA 01730 Concord, MA 01742 E. Heidi Roddis, Environmental Policy Mary Wren-vanderWilden, Chair Specialist Fenn School Board of Trustees Massachusetts Audubon Society 516 Monument Street 208 South Great Road Concord, MA 01742 Lincoln,MA 01773 z Dave Richter,President John Coleman Massachusetts Business Aviation Association Thomas H. Lee Company 60 Thoreau Street, Suite 208 Hanscom Drive Concord, MA 01742 Bedford, MA 01730 Gregory P. Bialecki, Chair Deborah Kreiser-Francis, Historic Site Manager MassDevelopment The Old Manse 160 Federal Street The Trustees of Reservations Boston, MA 02110 P.O. Box 572, 269 Monument Street Christopher R. Anderson,President Concord, MA 01742-1837 Massachusetts High Technology Council John H. Adams, Executive Director Reservoir Place The Walden Woods Project 1601 Trapelo Road, Suite 336 44 Baker Farm Waltham MA 02451-7333 Lincoln,MA 01773-3004 Charles C. Ames, Chair Individuals Massachusetts Historical Society The 2012 Hanscom Environmental Status and 1154 Boylston Street Planning Report is available on the Massport Boston, MA 02215-3695 website at www,urn- b ------------ Kathleen C. Giles, Head of School Middlesex School 1400 Lowell Road Concord, MA 01742-9122 Danielle Heard, Head of School Nashoba Brooks School 200 Strawberry Hill Road Concord, MA 01742-5404 James T. Brett, Secretary New England Council 98 North Washington Street, Suite 201 Boston, MA 02199 Maureen A. Rogers,President North Suburban Chamber of Commerce 76R Winn Street, Suite 3D Woburn, MA 01801 Jan Turnquist, Executive Director (Alcott) Orchard House 399 Lexington Road,P.O.Box 343 Concord, MA 01742 Appendix A Draft Scope, MEPA Certificate, and Responses to Comments Appendix m Ii llraft Scope, Il.. I" m ii lift m, and IlResponses to Cornments Appendix A Responses to Comments (This page intentionally left blank) A-2 E.,Fr . 1 hanscotiifield on, "N � tl �Y nd r a r , o � / f F„ u f g i J/11111, Ii, /i VON v30 A Environmental Permitting Services Related to the Preparation of the 2012 L.G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report Bedford, Massachusetts EOEEA Number: 5484/8696 Massachusetts Port Authority March 1,2012 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) For Environmental Permitting and Planning Services Related to the Preparation of the 2012 Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report The MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY (Massport) is soliciting proposals from qualified aviation planning and environmental permitting consultants to assist the Authority with preparing and filing the Hanscom Field 2012 Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR). Background Information Hanscom Field is owned and operated by the Authority and is Massachusetts's premier general aviation airport. Hanscom's role is as a general aviation reliever to Logan International Airport. The Massachusetts Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Secretary) currently requires that the Authority prepare an ESPR every five years to evaluate the cumulative effect of growth and change at Hanscom Field and provide data and analyses on noise, ground transportation, air quality, and water quality. The last ESPR was completed in 2005. The ESPR was deferred until analysis year 2012 due to the economic downturn and the number of aviation operations, which have remained below the 2005 and future analysis years. In 1985, Massport initiated a series of environmental studies at Hanscom that started with the Generic Environmental Impact Report (GEIR) and was followed by the 1995 GEIR, the 2000 ESPR, and the 2005 ESPR. The ESPR includes a retrospective analysis of Hanscom Field impacts and analyses for future operating and environmental conditions. The ESPR has become an effective planning tool from which the Authority's policy and program developments are derived. The ESPR also provides long-range projections of cumulative environmental conditions against which the effects of individual projects can be compared. The ESPR allows the reader to see historical environmental information, current information, and future analysis of environmental effects and planning scenarios while providing a foundation for future project planning and analyses at Hanscom Field. The ESPR will also describe Massport's vision for the coordinated use of its three airports: Logan, Hanscom, and Worcester. The Authority filed its 2005 ESPR with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (formerly the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs) in November 2006. That comprehensive document contains, among other things, an extensive discussion on aircraft and ground transportation, and detailed information on such technical issues as noise abatement, air quality improvement, ground access, and water quality management. The Certificate issued by the Secretary on March 29, 2007, determined that the 2005 ESPR filing "adequately and properly complies with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act." Massport filed the Proposed Scope for the 2012 Hanscom Field ESPR with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs on February 29, 2012. A copy of The Proposed 2012 Hanscom ESPR Scope. In advance of the Secretary's Certificate the proposed scope for the 2012 Hanscom ESPR Scope is enclosed. The Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs will establish the Scope for the 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report. This contract will also include airside and landside planning services. Massport will develop a refined work order for preparation of the 2012 ESPR and associated planning (to be completed under this contract; the project budget is approximately $650,000) upon receipt of the Secretary's Certificate. The Secretary's Certificate requires that the major areas of analyses for the 2012 ESPR include, but are not limited to, aviation planning, landside planning, ground access, noise, air quality, water quality, cultural and historical resources, sustainability and airport mitigation. Specific supplemental studies may also be required including both airside and landside planning for Hanscom Field scenarios for 2020 and 2030 (aviation forecasts for these scenarios have been completed). Consultant Services Massport expects this work to be done through a prime consultant with subconsultants (Consultant or Team). The Consultant will be expected to do all work necessary to produce the 2012 Hanscom Field ESPR. Reporting Format The reporting format for the 2012 ESPR will be similar to that used in the 2005 ESPR (please see the Massport website for a copy of the 2005 Hanscom ESPR). Going forward, the Authority wishes to explore ways to create a more streamlined, user friendly reporting format. The objectives of the new formats are several: (1) to reach a wider audience that is interested in the environmental issues at L. G. Hanscom Field but that is not necessarily trained to understand and interpret technical details; (2) highlight Massport's environmental initiatives and achievements at L. G. Hanscom Field; and (3) to compare and make available the technical details and analyses presented in prior environmental reports. Project Schedule Massport anticipates the filing of the 2012 ESPR in mid 2013. Since the Notice to Proceed is planned for April/May 2012, the response to the RFQ and any contract awarded to the successful team will confirm the Consultant's commitment to meet the filing dates. Submittal Requirements The submittal shall include: 1. Detailed discussion of the Team's proposed approach to preparing the ESPR in accordance with the Proposed Scope (or the Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs establishing the Scope if available) for the 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field ESPR and any additional tasks that the Team deems necessary in order to receive a Certificate of Adequacy from MEPA on the document; 2. Overview of the project managers and Team's relevant qualifications and experience; 3. Resumes for key staff to be assigned to the project and availability of the project manager for this effort. 4. Organizational chart and staffing plan description of specific project responsibilities and availability of key staff, including subs consultants; 5. Overall project schedule,highlighting specific milestones and assumptions and ability to meet the filing deadline for the ESPR and budget, as estimated by the Authority. 6. The Consultant shall indicate the level of effort for each of the proposed tasks in the scope. It is expected that the contract for the ESPR with the successful Consultant will be based on a not-to-exceed fee. 7. Anticipated MBE/WBE participation (including proof of certification) and Affirmative Action efforts. MBE/WBE Certification shall be current at the time of submittal and a copy of the MBE/WBE certification letter from the State Office of Minority and Women Business Assistance (SOMWBA), or other agency which utilizes criteria similar to those found in Title 49 CFR, Part 26 should be provided in the submittal. Submissions are limited to a maximum of 30 double sided sheets (60 printed pages), not including resumes, firm brochures, and no acetate covers. Fifteen copies of the Proposals should be submitted to Thomas W. Ennis, Senior Project Manager, Economic Planning & Development, Massachusetts Port Authority, Logan Office Center, One Harborside Drive, East Boston, MA 02128. All submissions must be received by the Economic Planning and Development Department, Logan Office Center, second floor, room 2055 no later than April 5, 2012 at 12:00 Noon. Late submittals will not be accepted. Pre-Proposal Briefing Session A pre-proposal briefing session will be held at 10:00 am on Weds. March 14, 2012 at the Logan Office Center (second floor EP&D Conference Room), One Harborside Drive, East Boston, MA. All questions shall be submitted by e-mail to Tom Ennis at tennis gmas sport.com no later then 5:00 pm on March 16, 2012. Questions and Massport response will be distributed to briefing session attendees by March 23, 2012. The session shall consist of a staff presentation followed by questions and answers. Selection Criteria Each Consultant will be evaluated on the basis of information provided by the prime Consultant and each of the subconsultants in its proposal concerning: 1. Relevant and demonstrated project experience of each member of the Team particularly in relation to aviation, environmental reviews, cumulative impacts, airport planning and development, land planning, transportation planning (regional and ground access), air quality assessment, noise monitoring and analysis, water quality analysis, cultural and historical resources, sustainable development, environmental permitting regulations, and preparation of similar environmental documents. 2. Project manager and individual project Team member qualifications and experience; 3. Quality, creativity, and time required for the proposed approach; 4. Familiarity with Massachusetts environmental regulations as they apply to L. G. Hanscom Field; knowledge and demonstrated sound judgment regarding relevant state and federal environmental regulations and technical analyses; 5. Project organization, document control and sub consultant management; 6. Ability to provide the required services and meet the filing deadline in the most timely and cost effect manner. 7. The Consultant's fee shall be negotiated. The budget to complete the 2012 ESPR is estimated to be approximately $650,000. 8. MBE/WBE composition of the team. 9. Other criteria that Massport deems appropriate. Please note that the criteria listing above are not set forth in an order of priority. The Authority's analysis of the proposals received will weigh each of the criteria, as it deems appropriate. The Authority expects that it will develop a list of qualified Consultants from the submitted proposals. Proposals that do not meet the requisite submittal requirements or demonstrate the specified experience will, at the sole discretion of the Authority, be eliminated. In the interest of maintaining a fair selection process, consultants are respectfully requested to refrain from contacting the Authority staff or environmental regulators with regard to this project prior to the submittal deadline. Any questions with respect to the requirements of the RFP should be submitted in writing to Tom Ennis by email at tennis gmas sport.com. Questions and responses will be available for review by contacting Mr. Ennis. The 2005 Hanscom Field ESPR is available for review at Massport's website. The Authority is soliciting competitive proposals pursuant to a determination that such a process best serves the interests of the Authority and the general public, and not because of any legal requirement to do so. The Authority reserves the right to accept one or more of the proposals, to reject proposals, to modify or amend with the consent of the proposer any proposal prior to acceptance, to terminate this RFP process, and to effect any agreement otherwise, all as the Authority in its sole judgement may deem to be in its best interest. By responding to this solicitation, consultants agree to accept the terms and conditions of the Authority's standard work order agreement, a copy of the agreement can be found on the Authority's web page at www.massport.com. The exception to this standard agreement is the insurance requirement of$1,000,000 of automobile liability insurance. The Consultant selected by the Authority will be required to execute a standard Authority/Consultant contract with such changes as the Authority deems appropriate to this engagement. Massachusetts Port Authority �� 11\\II�gO ` �ryV. tom^ u���` ������` � � � � � ����au"����!u R�iw � 1amN��114,�1 � \ 101w������������ � µi ����u ��'�'n�r„ N����I � ������\�� �� � ar a I� � � VI � � ��„iio �V„q �VI �e�J �r��� (�?� � y � �� ��� I i����j W Y ��ii � �. ���>i � d ,,i�/ �%''' � � � �' r,� r"� � � � �; ��� r: ,� � I� � �„,!� 1� F� �� ,.�, g �" ra , h k�� �, � r� r .r , y f �� �, � � � W „ . � � rA � ll � � �, � � , ,�. �au� � u ,.,,, .., �, � �, I,� i � a u � � � �.,,� �� � .�, ,� ,,� Hr v � ,, d r r, i � ,, n � � � � r � ,, i � y � l� ���� � m � a �� �� u ,� � x, , ,� �� �� , �, 1 ��� � s � ��, , 1 �r� s �� � x r ,� r ,, y�i , , �� �>+,, ��` � N,� � �� � ����� m' �'r�u'!, ,.,1 a,d!d � .'.k�� . . i �, �� � � �; � �. H�,. , �x;, ,� �� �,,. '�, � �! u�s �� I „ Lei. �� �:� r 1, `�,i, � r, ��du'> � i� ,� Y1, ��.1.d�� �� !� r� r � iN , � i/, „� 1�, ¢. � V" ., � F {� - , ,, k J� � � ��, , � � � �, uu, im�r - ��l�-; �1��,� ��Gur r� �,,, � , a �, ,r�, �s „!d ,,,, Ilid,� v'�il �Y� p,/// ,, + ,r,r �p�rr, 1�a � I(„ ,ll�� u� ,,,,l�� i/���� �d i ,u, �V ,, �P e ,L �u t�l� i/ ,,,,, ,i,, �� �� � ,� .�� , ,r�.ar wd ���,, ,,� ,�, ai, ,,r,, l` id R�' ,, � �,i,, �.� ;, r � �,�� ,R , � � �//i/r cr < , �, � �>a r � � ,� ,. �� � ,..� ��,� ��m, �i, r W ,� ,/ � , r��.ur.. (� 7 s ��",,�,�fi I, ,iv)�,�..��yl fiM.�,:. M� ��� � /%%. ,i W9. , � �N,... . ���' J il����N'fi"yY d�r`'.� fb`Il�. .gYm,��/�r���X II��IY" ..� �,,. ;. ���1��,��f +,'I!'ll" .!,�-;; �r<�r�,�0�l'�r�!�Jf �{ii� Ai�Jrfl�l._ �,�, ��s'"'`.".`����%f� �,J�` f;....��,��y� ��,v��'0��''.J�"`7rj��,�r��,J,��� II111�nIl1� �., ;.... � ,. ,� .:�, ',y��NYri�"'�IJ ' ��',�r��r��J�� ur �,��� �� i; vy�gr����� iom�1���`� r ����Nryl� ������� 1� i' � ��' � ���� quo � � �� ,, � �„�� !�od��`� , , �. %% /1 �,� � �� ���' ', ��%�, i li �.. -, 11111Y(/ � " rt, � y i � �� ��� � ri, ., N, �_ �,,,, ,� � � � ,�� ° ,I�,� ���Mii�iui�i'��MG� ���� �� MN �� ui �i�i� � li ��,i � � µ i � w � � � �� � , � � �� � �, � � �� �,� ,. ���rv� ' � ���. �a � '"Rm✓nirrr✓YiY�;°�ro�lyyww�rmviRr�t�,�wrir��.�. Yvr�lw.....lr �I, q � I `' f` Q m�u�uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuu I ,,I ������� I�� ����.�� u�r �Ir9 P � III �. aw `lllllll011rl1411,I 4 J` Massachusetts Port Authority One Harborside Drive,Suite 200S East Boston,MA 02128-2909 Telephone(617)428-2800 www.masspoa.com February 29,2012 Secretary Richard K. Sullivan,Jr. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston,MA 02114 Re: Proposed Scope 2012 L. G.Hanscom Field Environmental Status&Planning Report Bedford,MA EOEA Number: 5484/8696 j s Dear Secretary Sullivan and Director Vallely-Bartlett: The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) is pleased to submit for your review this Proposed Scope for the 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status &Planning Report(ESPR),the next filing in an ongoing review and evaluation of current and potential future operating and environmental conditions at Hanscom Field. The Proposed Scope is being submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA), G.L. Chapter 30, Sections 62-62H and its regulations, 301 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 11.00. The Proposed Scope responds to the Secretary's March 29,2007 Certificate on the 2005 ESPR. A copy of the reviewers list is also attached. Massport is requesting an extended 45-day comment period to accommodate community review and as requested by the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission(HFAC),with the close of comments on April 20, 2012. In addition to the MEPA Scoping Session, Massport will also hold an additional public meeting in mid-April and has offered to participate in additional community meetings within the 45 day review period to discuss the scope, as needed. Tom Ennis, Senior Project Manager/Senior Planner will again be serving as the ESPR Project Manager. Tom and members of Massport's staff are available to discuss the ESPR and attached documents with you or your staff if needed. Please contact Tom at 617-568-3546 or me at 617-568-3524 with any questions or comments. Sin e , .Ag� Stewart Dalzell,Depu hector Environmental Planning and Permitting Massachusetts Port Authority Attachments Cc: T. Ennis/Massport B. Desrosiers/Massport Operating Boston Logan International Airport•Port of Boston general cargo and passenger terminals•Tobin Memorial Bridge•Hanscom Field Boston Fish Pier•Commonwealth Pier(site of the World Trade Center Boston)•Worcester Regional Airport RECYCLED"PAPER Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report February 2012 PROJECT NAME: 2012 Hanscom Field Environmental Status&Planning Report PROJECT LOCATION: Bedford,Massachusetts EOEA NUMBER: 5484/8696 PROJECT PROPONENT: Massachusetts Port Authority (The Authority) The Authority is committed to a multi-modal, multi-airport, multi-state regional transportation program that will satisfy future regional aviation demand. A key component of that transportation program is the use of regional airports to complement Boston-Logan International Airport (Logan). L.G. Hanscom Field, which is located in the four towns of Bedford, Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington, is New England's premier general aviation(GA) airport. Minute Man National Historical Park is located just south and west of the airport in Lincoln and Concord. As a reliever to Logan,Hanscom Field provides airside relief by annually serving approximately 170,000 GA operations.Hanscom Field handles over six times more GA operations than occur at Logan. The airport has supported niche commercial service. This role for Hanscom Field was established in the Master Plan for the airport in 1978, clarified in the 1980 Noise Rules,restated in the 1995 Generic Environmental Impact Report (GEIR), the 2000 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status &Planning Report (ESPR), the 2005 ESPR, and continues to be the program for the future. Hanscom Field's Master Plan and Noise Rules The Authority assumed ownership of Hanscom Field in 1974. The airport is located approximately 20 miles northwest of Boston just outside Route 128/I-95 and is convenient to most of metropolitan Boston. The Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)identifies Hanscom Field as a reliever airport. As such, its primary role in the regional aviation system is to accommodate regional GA needs, which has included some commercial and cargo service. This allows larger nearby airports to concentrate on large-scale commercial and cargo activity. In 1978, the Authority prepared a Master Plan for the airport. The preparation of the Master Plan included a lengthy and comprehensive public process. In 1980, after additional public process, Massport adopted the Hanscom Field Noise Rules, which were an outgrowth of the Master Plan.The Master Plan and the 1980 Noise Rules remain the framework for airport planning and operations today. The variety of aviation activities at Hanscom Field include private corporate aviation, recreational flying, pilot training, air charter, cargo, commuter service and limited military flights. The Master Plan and the 1980 Noise Rules contemplate and provide for commercial airline service. In fact, the 1980 Noise Rules specifically allow for passenger aircraft with up to 60 seats. Commercial airlines have operated periodically at Hanscom Field since the mid-1970s. Pan Am is the most recent airline to provide commercial passenger services and Streamline currently provides scheduled charter service. History and Purpose of Environmental Status and Planning Report The Massachusetts Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy& Environmental Affairs (Secretary)has, since 1985, requested that the Authority prepare an Environmental Status and Planning Report(ESPR)every five years to evaluate the cumulative effect of growth and change at Hanscom Field and provide data and analyses on noise, ground transportation, air quality, 1 and water quality. The original GEIR, the 1995 GEIR Update, the 2000 ESPR, the 2005 ESPR, and now the 2012 ESPR provide a retrospective analysis of the environmental effects of Hanscom Field while including analyses for future conditions. The ESPR was deferred until analysis year 2012 due to the economic downturn and the number of aviation operations, which have remained well below the 2005 and future analysis years. As a result, these documents remain an effective planning tool from which the Authority's policy and program developments are derived. The 2012 ESPR will present an overview of the operational environment and planning status of Hanscom Field and will provide long-range projections of environmental conditions against which the effects of future individual projects can be compared. The ESPR will allow the reader to see historical environmental information, current information, and a forecast of future environmental effects at Hanscom Field. The ESPR does not replace the requirement for filing an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for a specific project if that project meets or exceeds a MEPA regulation threshold. The Authority filed its 2005 Draft ESPR with the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) in November 2006, the Draft ESPR received its Certificate on February 15, 2007 where the Draft ESPR was accepted as a Final ESPR(FESPR) and was noticed in the Monitor on February 20,2007. The Secretary issued the MEPA Certificate for the FESPR on March 29, 2007. The ESPR contains, among other things, an extensive discussion on air and ground transportation, cultural and historical resources, and detailed information on such technical issues as noise abatement, air quality, ground access, and water quality management. The MEPA Certificate issued by the Secretary on March 29,2007 determined that the 2005 ESPR "adequately and properly complies with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act." The Secretary's Certificate requires that the major areas of analyses for the next ESPR include,but are not limited to, aviation planning,landside planning, ground access,noise, air quality,water quality, cultural and historical resources, sustainability and airport mitigation. Public Review and Participation In developing this proposed Scope, the Authority reviewed the Final MEPA Certificate for the 2005 ESPR. Per the proposed schedule, the Authority will convene the following: • Hold a public meeting to discuss the proposed MEPA scope which will be in addition to the MEPA scoping session • Convene up to four technical workshops during the public review process for the ESPR which will be in addition to the MEPA hearing for the ESPR. Format of the 2012 ESPR The 2012 ESPR will follow the general format of the 2005 ESPR. Massport proposes to prepare a single ESPR, similar to what is done at Logan. The 2005 Hanscom ESPR ended up being a single document because EOEEA accepted the 2005 ESPR Draft as the Final ESPR. In addition, Massport provides the Yearly Noise Report and the State of Hanscom every year to the public. Detailed ESPR technical studies will be summarized in a readable format to illustrate clearly the implications of recent trends, existing conditions and potential future scenarios.The ESPR will build on the base information developed for the 2005 ESPR, presenting policy considerations and an overview of the airport's current and potential future role within the regional planning context, including a status report on the Authority's proposed planning initiatives and projects. The 2012 ESPR technical studies will include analysis of airport activity levels,noise, ground access, air quality,water quality,natural resources, cultural and historical resources, and sustainability. The chapters on ground transportation management,noise, air quality, and water quality will include the following sections: • Discussion of analysis methodologies and assumptions 2 • Report of 2012 conditions in comparison to previous years • Prediction of 2020 and 2030 conditions Forecasted activity levels for the future years may occur earlier or later than the forecast,but the analysis years of 2020 and 2030 will provide useful parameters for the analytical framework. CD-ROM versions and limited printed copies of the ESPR will be available for public review. The ESPR will be posted on the Authority's web page. Supporting technical appendices will be provided as necessary. The following describes the proposed ESPR sections. I. Introduction This section will generally introduce the ESPR and place it in its environmental and regulatory context. This section will: • Summarize the evolution of the Hanscom Field environmental review process. • Describe the analysis framework for the environmental reporting and technical studies to be conducted. • Describe the organization of the 2012 Hanscom Field ESPR. • Summarize the major sections of the ESPR, with supporting graphics and data tables. II. Facilities and Infrastructure This section will update information presented in the 2005 ESPR regarding the airfield and its supporting infrastructure and utility system,including: • The use and storage of hazardous materials at Hanscom Field, including jet fuel use and spill prevention efforts • The status of the Authority's tenant audit program • The current status of the 21E sites at Hanscom Field III. Airport Activity Levels This chapter will report on airport activity levels for 2005 to 2012 and describe the new forecasts of aviation activity for 2020 and 2030. This is based on aviation forecasts done for all three Massport airports;Logan, Hanscom, and Worcester. The ESPR will use forecasts to assist in developing fleet projections for each future analysis year. The 2012 ESPR will describe historic airport activity levels. The ESPR uses specific analysis years to integrate airport activity levels with other areas of analysis, such as traffic projections. The ESPR will provide an update of activity levels at Hanscom Field according to the following: • Report on aircraft fleet mix and on activity levels of GA, commuter and military operations from 2005 to 2012. • Compare 2005-2012 activity levels to historic trends. • Compare actual 2012 activity levels to forecasted 2010 activity levels from the 2005 ESPR. • Report on current and future trends within the airline industry. The ESPR will utilize forecasts developed for aviation activity for 2020 and 2030 based on recent trends at Hanscom Field and with consideration of the role that the airport plays in the regional airport system. The ESPR will report actual changes in fleet mix and aircraft operations at Hanscom Field—both increases and decreases—and compare these data to the 3 range of future activity levels and fleet mix defined by the moderate growth scenarios of the 2005 ESPR. Differences between actual and previously forecast activity levels will be explained and will be reflected in the underlying assumptions for the 2020 and 2030 forecasts. The forecasts will also include coordination with forecasting for the Logan ESPR. • Prepare a 2020 growth scenario for activity levels and passenger forecasts. • Prepare growth scenario for activity levels that will vary the fleet mix and passenger forecasts for the year 2030, which is consistent with the Logan ESPR and other regional planning efforts. The fleet mix of the growth scenarios will include GA, military, commuter service and some cargo activity consistent with the 1978 Master Plan and 1980 Noise Rules.The scenarios will be based on recent trends at the airport as well as regional and national aviation trends. IV. Airport Planning The Authority continues to assess planning strategies for operating an efficient airport in an environmentally sensitive manner. As owner and operator of Hanscom Field, the Authority also must accommodate and guide airport tenant development. This section will describe the status of planning initiatives and projects for the: • Terminal Area • Airside Area • Landside Area This chapter will also report planning and development initiatives by the Minute Man National Historical Park,the Hanscom Air Force Base and the four contiguous towns that affect Hanscom Field and are affected by Hanscom Field. V. Regional Transportation Context Hanscom Field is the premier GA facility serving Massachusetts and the New England region. The ESPR will describe the role of Hanscom Field in the region's transportation system, and will report on the Authority's efforts to strengthen the regional transportation system and on its cooperative efforts with other transportation agencies to promote an efficient regional aviation system with improved public/private transportation access. The ESPR will also describe Massport's system of three airports and efforts to better utilize these facilities. This chapter will update the information provided in the 2005 ESPR with the most current information provided in the Logan EDRs and ESPR in relation to Hanscom Field and will include the following: • For 2012, a report on regional airport operations,passenger activity levels, and the status of plans and new improvements as provided by regional airport authorities and a report on recent rail service initiatives by others that could affect air passenger travel including the North-South Station Rail Link, Acela Service, and bus service. • A discussion of the role that Logan International Airport plays in intercity travel choices. • Diversion opportunities to alternative modes and to New England airports. • A report on the integration of New England regional airport facilities as a regional system • A report on Hanscom Field's role in the GA airport network. • A report on the current status of the ground access improvements at the four New England regional airports (Logan International Airport, T. F. Green Airport, Manchester Airport and Worcester Regional Airport)by state transportation agencies, including projected dates for completion of studies and/or construction 4 and an analysis to quantify the effects of these measures upon projected passenger levels at each of the airports. In addition,the ESPR will report on the Authority's efforts to promote service at Worcester and other airports, as well as other Authority involvement to promote the regional transportation system. A report on relevant regional and local highway studies and transit projects will be included. VI. Ground Transportation The ESPR will report on Ground Transportation conditions using the following indicators: • Traffic,roadway and access analysis results • Mode share data • Alternative transportation modes; availability and use. • Parking demand and management information Background growth in traffic within the Study Area attributed to Hanscom Field as compared to other area sources will be evaluated. The Study Area for the traffic analysis in the 2005 ESPR was bounded by Route 2A, Old Bedford Road, Route 62,Routes 4/225 and Route 128/I-95. The 2012 ESPR will include the fourteen intersections that were counted for the 2005 ESPR within this Study Area. The 2012 ESPR will identify and evaluate those Study Area intersections that Hanscom Field traffic contributes 10-percent or more to the existing traffic volumes on each intersection approach. The 2012 ESPR will also use this approach to evaluate the Study Area intersections for the forecast activity levels and years. Analyses conducted in support of the 2005 ESPR and other available information indicate that Hanscom Field currently does not have a sufficient commuting population to support a Transportation Management Association (TMA). The potential for developing partnerships with abutters and area businesses to facilitate a regional Transportation Demand Management(TDM) approach will be discussed in the ESPR. Other special topics will address recent studies, and issues raised in previous ESPR Certificates,reviewers' comments, and will: • Report available information from the Authority's survey of Hanscom Field employees. • Describe TDM strategies including potential for participation in a TMA. • Review, summarize and analyze, as necessary,existing metropolitan transportation documents and report as to how they relate to Hanscom Field access. VII. Noise The Noise chapter of the ESPR will report current conditions for the year 2012 and projections for the forecast activity levels and years using the following indicators: • EXP as calculated in accordance with FAA prescribed standards for the Integrated Noise Model (INM) and past practice at Hanscom Field • Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) contours. • Time-Above (TA) contours for a Given Threshold All noise contour levels will be computed using the INM. The DNL levels depicted will be based on accepted EPA and FAA guidelines. Impacts assessment for both DNL and TA will be based on data from the 2010 U.S. Census. The ESPR will present the noise data from the 5 six permanent monitoring stations at Hanscom Field including minimum, maximum and average daily DNL values. Special topics will address recent studies, and issues raised in previous ESPR Certificates,reviewers' comments, and will include, in consultation with the Authority: • A report on the Fly Friendly program at Hanscom Field and recommended touch and go procedures over the MMNHP. • An analysis and review for areas that are affected by noise from aircraft upon start- up and take-off roll. • Update on the incorporated recommendations from the 1999 Report of the Hanscom Field Noise Workgroup. • Update on new noise monitoring system. VIII. Air Quality The Air Quality chapter of the 2012 ESPR will report current conditions for the year 2012, industry update on airport-related greenhouse gasses (GHG's), and projections for the forecast activity levels and years using the following indicators: • Emissions Inventory for: - Carbon Monoxide (CO) - Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) - Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) - Particulate matter (PM10) and (PM2.5) - Green House Gases (GHG) • Available monitoring results for: - Ozone Precursors - Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) IX. Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources The ESPR will include the most recent, wetlands delineation, and the identified vernal pools. The ESPR will report wildlife habitat mapping using available information from Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). The ESPR will provide an update of the Authority's vegetation management program at Hanscom Field. The ESPR will report on any incremental changes to the Hanscom Field storm water management system and to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The ESPR will report on the water quality monitoring program at the Shawsheen River. The ESPR will provide any available public information on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and the SWPPP. Reporting indicators for water quality improvement will include NPDES Permit monitoring results. The ESPR will also report on the deicing monitoring program. The 2012 ESPR will also report on the Vegetation Management Plan, the Hanscom Field Grassland Management Program and all associated monitoring and maintenance. X. Cultural and Historical Resources The 2012 ESPR will review and update the extensive data on historic and archeological resources completed as part of the 2005 Hanscom Field ESPR. The most current version of the State Register of Historic Places and the files of the Massachusetts Historical Commission will be reviewed, as will previous available planning studies conducted within or adjacent to Hanscom Field. This information will be compared to the 2005 ESPR and updated where appropriate in the 2012 ESPR. 6 XI. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System The Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) chapter of the ESPR will report on the development of the Authority's Sustainable Development Program and the EMS Program at Hanscom. The Authority received an ISO 14001 Certification for Hanscom Field in 2001, making it the first airport in the nation to qualify. The Certification establishes objectives and targets, monitoring procedures and roles and responsibilities to track and manage the environmental performance of Hanscom Field. This chapter will include a discussion of the following: • Summary of existing sustainable practices currently being undertaken by the Authority at Hanscom Field • Report on recycling policy and efforts • Report on toxic reduction at the airport • Report on the EMS Program at Hanscom Field, including the ISO 14001 Certification • Opportunities for sustainable development practices XII.MEPA Documentation This section will include a copy of the Secretary's 2007 Certificate on the 2005 Hanscom Field ESPR, a copy of the Secretary's Certificate on the scope for the 2012 ESPR, a reviewers list and a glossary of terms. Supporting Technical appendices will be included in the report as necessary. The ESPR will respond to comments on the Proposed Scope in a topical format. 7 Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report List of Reviewers Massport Board of Directors Federal Secretary Richard Davey, Chairman Senator Scott Brown Massachusetts Port Authority 15 New Sudbury Street One Harborside Drive Boston,MA 02203 East Boston,MA 02128-2909 Senator John F. Kerry Michael Angelini,Board Member One Bowdoin Square, 10 Floor Massachusetts Port Authority Boston,MA 02114 One Harborside Drive East Boston,MA 02128-2909 Representative Edward J. Markey 5 High Street, Suite 101 Douglas Husid,Board Member Medford,MA 02155 Massachusetts Port Authority Representative Niki Tsongas One Harborside Drive East Boston,MA 02128-2909 492 Main Street Acton,MA 01720 Kathryn West,Board Member Massachusetts Port Authority Representative John Tierney One Harborside Drive 17 Peabody Square East Boston,MA 02128-2909 Peabody,MA 01960 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Paul J. McNally,Board Member Massachusetts Port Authority Old Post Office Building One Harborside Drive 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Suite 803 East Boston,MA 02128-2909 Washington,DC 20004 L. Duane Jackson,Board Member Amy Corbett,New England Regional Administrator Massachusetts Port Authority FAA New England Region One Harborside Drive 12 New England Executive Park,Box 510 Burlington, East Boston,MA 02128-2909 MA 01803 Mary T. Walsh Fred Mulligan,Board Member Manager Airports Division Massachusetts Port Authority FAA New England Region,Airports Division One Harborside Drive 12 New England Executive Park,Box 510 East Boston,MA 02128-2909 Burlington,MA 01803 1 Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report Richard Doucette NE Field Office Manager Environmental Program U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service FAA New England Region Department of the Interior 12 New England Executive Park,Box 510 Burlington, 70 Commercial St., Suite 300 MA 01803 Concord,NH 03301-5087 Dimitros Merageas Libby Herland,Project Leader FAA Control Tower Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex 4th Fl Tower Building/Hanscom Field 73 Weir Hill Road Bedford,MA 01730 Sudbury,MA 01776 EPA/Council on Environmental Quality State 722 Jackson Place,N.W. Washington,DC 20503 Senator Steven Baddour Nancy Nelson, Superintendent MA State Senate National Park Service Minute Man National State House, Room 208 Historical Park Boston,MA 02133 174 Liberty Street Concord,MA 01742-1705 The Honorable Susan C. Fargo MA State Senate Dennis Reidenbach, Regional Director State House, Room 504 National Park Service Boston,MA 02133 U.S. Custom House 200 Chestnut Street The Honorable Kenneth J. Donnelly Philadelphia,PA 19106 MA State Senate State House, Room 413-D Chris Perkins,Base Civil Engineer Boston,MA 02133 Hanscom Air Force Base 120 Grenier Street The Honorable Jennifer Flanagan Hanscom Air Force Base,MA 01730 MA State Senate State House, Room 410 Colonel Charles P. Samaris,Division Engineer Boston,MA 02133 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers New England District The Honorable Cory Atkins 696 Virginia Road MA House of Representatives Concord,MA 01742-2751 State House, Room 166 Boston,MA 02133 H. Curtis Spalding,Regional Administration U.S.EPA New England Region The Honorable Jay R. Kaufman MA House of Representatives One Congress Street Boston,MA 02114 State House, Room 34 Boston,MA 02133 The Honorable Charles Murphy MA House of Representatives State House, Room 446 Boston,MA 02133 2 Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report The Honorable Thomas P. Conroy David Shakespeare,MEPA Coordinator MA House of Representatives Massachusetts Department of Environmental State House, Room 236 Protection/Northeast Regional Office Boston,MA 02133 205-B Lowell Street Wilmington,MA 01887 The Honorable Thomas M. Stanley MA House of Representatives DCR Division of Water Supply Protection State House, Room 167 Attn: Environmental Reviewer Boston,MA 02133 251 Causeway Street Boston,MA 02114 Representative Joseph C. Wagner MA House of Representatives Clinton Bench State House, Room 42 Deputy Secretary for Transportation Planning Boston,MA 02133 The Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza,Room 4150 Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Boston,MA 02116 Affairs David Cash,Undersecretary for Policy The Massachusetts Department of Transportation 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Attn: Environmental Reviewer Boston,MA 02114 10 Park Plaza,Room 3510 Boston,MA 02116 Kenneth L. Kimmell, Commissioner Massachusetts Department of Environmental Leeroy Wagner Protection MassRIDES One Winter Street 10 Park Plaza, Suite 2180 Boston,MA 02108-4746 Boston,MA 02116 The Massachusetts Department of Transportation Maeve Vallely-Bartlett,Director Public/Private Development Unit MEPA Office 10 Park Plaza Executive Office of Energy Environmental Affairs Boston,MA 02116 100 Cambridge St,9th Floor Boston,MA 02114 The Massachusetts Department of Transportation Highway Division William Gage, Environmental Analyst MHD—District#4 MEPA Office Attn: MEPA Coordinator Executive Office of Energy Environmental Affairs 519 Appleton Street 100 Cambridge St,9th Floor Arlington,MA 02174 Boston,MA 02114 Christopher Willenborg,Administrator Division John D.Viola,Assistant Regional Director The Massachusetts Department of Transportation Massachusetts Department of Environmental Aeronautics Division Protection/Northeast Regional Office 10 Park Plaza,Room 6620 205-B Lowell Street Boston,MA 02116 Wilmington,MA 01887 3 Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report Katie Servis Regional The Massachusetts Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division Joel Barrera,Deputy Director Attn: MEPA Coordinator Metropolitan Area Planning Council 10 Park Plaza,Room 3510 60 Temple Placel6th Floor Boston,MA 02116-3966 Boston,MA 02111 Massachusetts Historical Commission Marc Draisen The Massachusetts Archives Building Metropolitan Area Planning Council 220 Morrissey Boulevard 60 Temple Placel6th Floor Boston,MA 02125 Boston,MA 02111 Massachusetts Department Agricultural Resources Martin Pillsbury,Environmental Division Manager Attn: MEPA Coordinator Metropolitan Area Planning Council 16 West Experiment Station 60 Temple Placel6th Floor University of Massachusetts Boston,MA 02111 Amherst MA 01003 Amy A. Cotter Thomas W. French,Ph.D.,Assistant Director Regional Transportation Planning Staff Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Metropolitan Area Planning Council Massachusetts Division of Fish&Wildlife 10 Park Plaza,Room 2150 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Boston,MA 02116 One Rabbit Hill Road Westborough,MA 01581 Julie Conroy Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Massachusetts Department of Public Health Coordination Director of Environmental Health c/o MAPC 250 Washington Street 60 Temple Place Boston,MA 02108-4619 Boston,MA 02111 Massachusetts Water Resource Authority Local Attn: MEPA Coordinator Charlestown Navy Yard Bedford 100 First Avenue Boston,MA 02129 Bedford Public Library Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 7 Mudge Way Attn: MEPA Coordinator Bedford,MA 01730-2168 10 Park Plaza, 6tn Floor Boston,MA 02216-3966 Richard T. Reed Town Manager 10 Mudge Way State Transportation Library Bedford,MA 01730 Public Review 10 Park Plaza Bedford Board of Health Boston,MA 02116-3973 10 Mudge Bedford,MA 01730 4 Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report Town Clerk Catherine B. Cordes, Clerk Town Hall Board of Selectmen 10 Mudge Way Town of Bedford Bedford,MA 01730 10 Mudge Way Bedford,MA 01730 Elizabeth Bagdonas,Administrator Bedford Conservation Commission Boston Town Hall 10 Mudge Way Bedford,MA 01730 Bryan Glascock,Director Boston Environment Department Alethea Yates, Chair One City Hall Plaza,Room 803 Bedford Historic Preservation Commission Boston,MA 02201 Town Hall 10 Mudge Way Maura Zlody Bedford,MA 01730 Boston Environment Department One City Hall Plaza,Room 803 Lisa Mustapich, Chair Boston,MA 02201 Bedford Planning Board 10 Mudge Way Thomas Tinlin, Commissioner Bedford,MA 01730 Boston Transportation Department One City Hall Plaza,Room 721 Glenn Garber,Planning Director Boston,MA 02201 Town of Bedford 10 Mudge Way Carlisle Bedford,MA 01730 Walter J. St. Onge III,Chair Planning Director Board of Selectmen Town of Carlisle Town of Bedford 108 Main Street P.O. Box 67 10 Mudge Way Carlisle,MA 01741 Bedford,MA 01730 Concord Michael A. Rosenber Board of Selectmen Town of Bedford Concord Public Library 10 Mudge Way 129 Main Street Bedford,MA 01730 Concord,MA 01742 Mark Siegenthaler Chris Whalen,Town Manager Board of Selectmen 22 Monument Square Town of Bedford P.O. Box 535 10 Mudge Way Concord,MA 01742 Bedford,MA 01730 5 Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report Anita S.Tekle Lexington Town Clerk Town Offices 22 Monument Square Carey Memorial Library P.O. Box 535 1874 Mass Ave. at Carey Hall Concord,MA 01742 Lexington,MA 02420-5385 Delia Kaye,Administrator Carl F.Valente Concord Natural Resources Commission Town Manager 141 Keyes Road 1625 Mass.Avenue Concord,MA 01742 Lexington,MA 02420 Holly Larner, Chair Town Clerk Concord Historical Commission Town Offices Town Offices 1625 Mass Avenue 22 Monument Square Lexington,MA 02420 P.O. Box 535 Karen Mullins,Administrator Concord,MA 01742 Conservation Commission Town Offices Marcia Rasmussen,Director 1625 Mass Avenue Concord Historical Commission Lexington,MA 02420 Town Offices 22 Monument Square Health Division P.O. Box 535 Town Offices Concord,MA 01742 1625 Mass Avenue Lexington,MA 02420 Marcia Rasmussen,Director Concord Department of Planning &Land David Kelland, Chair Management Historical Commission 141 Keyes Road Town Offices Concord,MA 01742 1625 Mass Avenue Lexington,MA 02420 Elise Woodward, Chair Board of Selectmen Wendy Manz, Chair 22 Monument Square Lexington Planning Board P.O. Box 535 1625 Mass Avenue Concord,MA 01742 Lexington,MA 02420 Carmin C. Reiss, Clerk Maryann McCall-Taylor,Director Board of Selectmen Lexington Planning Department 22 Monument Square 1625 Mass Avenue P.O. Box 535 Lexington,MA 02420 Concord,MA 01742 Paul B.Ash,Ph.D., Superintendent Lexington Public Schools 1557 Mass Avenue Lexington,MA 02420 6 Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report Hank Manz, Chair James Craig, Chair Board of Selectmen Lincoln Planning Board 1625 Massachusetts Ave Town Office Building Lexington,MA 02420 16 Lincoln Road,2nd Floor Deborah N. Manger Lincoln,MA 01773 Board of Selectmen Chris Reilly,Director of Planning and Land Use 1625 Massachusetts Ave Town Office Building Lexington,MA 02420 16 Lincoln Road,2nd Floor Lincoln,MA 01773 Lincoln Sara Mattes Selectmen,Town of Lincoln Lincoln Public Library Hanscom Area Town Selectmen Reference Department 7 Conant Road 3 Bedford Road Lincoln,MA 02173 Lincoln,MA 01773 Timothy S. Higgins Town Administrator Peter Braun Lincoln Town Hall Selectmen,Town of Lincoln 16 Lincoln Road Hanscom Area Town Selectmen Lincoln,MA 01773 7 Conant Road Lincoln,MA 02173 Town Clerk Town Office Building Gregory A. Woods 16 Lincoln Road, 1st Floor Lincoln Water Department P .O. Box 6353 Lincoln,MA 01773 Lincoln,MA 01773 Frederick L. Mansfield, Chair Board of Health Organizations Town Office Building 16 Lincoln Road,2nd Floor Lincoln,MA 01773 Craig Fuller,President Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association Jim Meadors,Director 421 Aviation Way Conservation Commission Frederick,MD 21701-4798 Town Office Building 16 Lincoln Road,2nd Floor Pam Howell,Vice President Lincoln,MA 01773 Annursnac Hill Association 668 Annursnac Hill Road Ruth Wales, Chair Concord,MA 01742 Lincoln Historical Commission Box 6294 Sheila Spellman Lincoln,MA 01773 Farm Board of Trustees 5D South Commons Lincoln,MA 01773 7 Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report Eileen Entin,President Robert K. Lemons,Managing Partner Citizen's for Lexington Conservation Finard&Company, LLC P.O. Box 292 One Burlington Woods Drive Lexington,MA 02420-0003 Burlington,MA 01803 Lisa Litchfield,Administrator Paul Guzzi,President and CEO Concord Field Station Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce 100 Old Causeway Rd. One Beacon St. Bedford,MA 01730 Boston,MA 02108-3114 Lexington Chamber of Commerce Jim Phelps Mary Jo Bohart,Executive Director Signature Flight Support 1875 Massachusetts Avenue 180 Hanscom Drive Lexington,MA 02420 Bedford,MA 01730 John M. Steven, Chair Jeanne Krieger, Chair Concord Land Conservation Trust HFAC P.O. Box 141 Lexington Town Hall Concord,MA 01742-0141 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington,MA 02173 Desiree Caldwell,Executive Director Concord Museum Frank Diglio 200 Lexington Road Jet Aviation of America,Inc. P.O. Box 146 380 Hanscom Drive Concord,MA 01742-0146 Hanscom Field Bedford,MA 01730-2630 Marilyn Fowler, Chief Operations Officer Concord Chamber of Commerce Dee Ortner,HFAC Member 15 Walden Street, Suite 7 The League of Women Voters of Concord/Carlisle Concord,MA 01742 P.O. Box 34 Concord,MA 01742 Richard Kennelly, Jr. Conservation Law Foundation John J. Clarke 62 Summer Street Director of Public Policy&Government Relations Boston,MA 02116 Mass Audubon 208 South Great Road Gerard J. G. Ward,Headmaster Lincoln,MA 01773 Fenn School 516 Monument Street Ford Van Weise Concord,MA 01742 Hanscom Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 380 Hanscom Drive Jennifer L. Craig, Chair Bedford,MA 01730 Fenn School Board of Trustees E. Heidi Roddis 516 Monument Street Environmental Policy Specialist Concord,MA 01742 Massachusetts Audubon Society 208 South Great Road Lincoln,MA 01773 8 Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report John Williams,President Ken Heider Massachusetts Business Aviation Association Reebok Aviation Hangar 60 Thoreau Street, Suite 208 1724 Hanscom Field Concord,Massachusetts 01742 Bedford,MA 01730 Gregory P. Bialecki, Chair Neil Rasmussen MassDevelopment Save Our Heritage 160 Federal Street 57 Main Street Boston,MA 02110 Concord,MA 01742 Christopher R. Anderson,President Margaret Coppe,President Massachusetts High Technology Council Safeguarding the Historic Hanscom Reservoir Place Area's Irreplaceable Resources 1601 Trapelo Road, Suite 336 P.O. Box 441 Waltham MA 02451-7333 Concord,MA 01742 William C. Clendaniel, Chair Arthur P. Kreiger/ Massachusetts Historical Society Douglas H. Wilkins,Esq. 1154 Boylston Street Anderson&Kreiger LLP Boston,MA 02215-3695 47 Thorndike Street Kathleen C. Giles,Head of School Cambridge,MA 02141 Middlesex School Bedford Chamber of Commerce 1400 Lowell Road Maureen Sullivan,Executive Director Concord,MA 01742-9122 12 Mudge Way (2-2) Bedford,MA 01730 E. Kay Cowan,Head of School Nashoba Brooks School Middlesex West Chamber of Commerce 200 Strawberry Hill Road 77 Great Road, Suite 214 Concord,MA 01742-5404 Alton,MA 01720 James T. Brett, Secretary Concord Chamber of Commerce New England Council Stephanie Stillman,Executive Director 98 North Washington Street, Suite 201 15 Walden Street, Suite 7 Boston,MA 02199 Concord,MA 01742 Maureen A. Rogers,President Rick Blaze, General Manager North Suburban Chamber of Commerce Signature Flight Support 76R Winn Street, Suite 3D Hanscom Field Woburn,MA 01801 Bedford,MA 01730-2698 Jan Turnquist,Executive Director John Drobinski, Chair (Alcott) Orchard House Sudbury,Assabet and Concord Wild&Scenic River 399 Lexington Road Stewardship Council P.O. Box 343 15 State Street Concord,MA 01742 Boston,MA 02109 9 Proposed Scope 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status & Planning Report John Coleman Thomas H. Lee Company Hanscom Drive Bedford,MA 01730 Deborah Kreiser-Francis,Historic Site Manager The Old Manse The Trustees of Reservations P.O. Box 572 269 Monument Street Concord,MA 01742-1837 John H.Adams,Executive Director The Walden Woods Project 44 Baker Farm Lincoln,MA 01773-3004 Individuals The 2005 Hanscom Environmental Status and Planning Report is available on the Massport website at www.massport.com 10 Appendix A Responses to Comments The following is a list of summarized comments submitted to the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) during the MEPA public comment period when MEPA issued a draft scope for the 2012 Hanscom ESPR. For each comment, a formal response from Massport is provided. The reader may also be referred to a specific section of the 2012 ESPR where a more detailed answer to the comment can be found. at)t)le -1 IlReslpounse to Coirnitneints �.. EEA Secretary's Certificate, May 18,2012 Facilities and Infrastructure EEA-1 Describe use and storage of hazardous materials Massport has developed a Spill Prevention Control including jet and leaded fuel,and spill prevention and Countermeasures(SPCC)Plan that covers measures general Massport operations.Tenants that store a total of more than 42,000 gallons of oil in underground storage tanks(USTs)and/or more than 1,320 gallons of oil in ASTs or containers are required to have a SPCC Plan as required under 40 CFR 112 (Oil Pollution Prevention). For more information,see Section 2.4.6. EEA-2 Describe deficiencies in the water and wastewater No deficiencies have been identified in Hanscom's distribution systems water and wastewater systems. These facilities are described in Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 respectively. EEA-3 Compare changes in water demand and wastewater The history of water use from 1988 to 2012 is between 2005 and 2012,and projections for 2020 and presented in Table 2-3. Projections for future water 2030 usage have been generated based on the expected increase in airport operations. See Section 2.4.3. EEA-4 Identify Massport's water conservation measures at Water conservation measures are directed by Hanscom Massport's Sustainable Design Guidelines applicable aspects of LEED. See Section 11.3.3. EEA-5 Identify infiltration/inflow removal process for the MWRA A summary of the MWRA's annual infiltration/inflow wastewater system reduction report for Lexington is provided in Section 2.4.4. A variety of projects are being studied and implemented in the Town of Lexington, but none are located at Hanscom. EEA-6 Status of Massport's tenant audit program Massport continues to work cooperatively with tenants to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. The Environmental Audit Program is summarized in Section 9.15. EEA-7 Status of 21 E sites Site remediation was completed in 2005 for the only MassDEP-listed disposal site that was open. Massport submitted documents to MassDEP and the U.S. EPA on May 22,2006 to bring this site to regulatory closure. See Section 2.4.12. EEA-8 Size and use of all existing structures and parking areas A current inventory of parking areas and occupancy was conducted as part of the 2012 ESPR. See Section 2.4.2 and Table 2-2. Airport Activity Levels EEA-9 Report on activity levels from 2005 to 2012 and historic Hanscom's total aircraft operations have declined by trends 2.0 percent annually from approximately 218,000 operations in 2000 to 166,000 operations in 2012. These levels are considerably lower than peak operations of more than 300,000 in 1970. However, GA at Hanscom Field has recovered with an increase in operations of approximately 11 percent since 2009. See Section 3.4. EEA-10 Forecasts for 2020 and 2030 including fleet projections GA activity at Hanscom Field is forecast to increase including comparison to previous forecasts from approximately 164,800 operations in 2012 to 166,515 operations in 2020 and 190,600 operations in 2030. See Section 3.5. EEA-11 Explain process a commercial airline must follow to Procedures for new commercial service provider initiate service at Hanscom entrants are described in Section 3.4.5.1. EEA-12 Consider the effects of federal military base closings The forecasts assume that military operations will continue but remain low in future years. See Section A „,'Y MI.. Appendix A Draft Scope, MEPA Certificate, and Responses to Comments 3.5. Airport Planning EEA-13 Status of planning initiatives for terminal area,airside, Planning initiatives are described in Chapter 4 and and landside listed in Table 4-5. EEA-14 List projects in 5-year capital improvement program and Massport's 5-year capital improvement program is potential applicability of MEPA review described in Section 4.4.1. EEA-15 Describe new FAA or Massport security requirements Security projects are described in Section 4.4.3. that could affect the environment Security fencing has been replaced due to it reaching its useful life. Besides fencing, no security projects are expected to affect the environment. EEA-16 Planning initiatives undertaken by the Hanscom AFB, Planning activities at MMNHP are described in MMNHP,and four host towns that have an affect or are Section 4.2.4.1,at Hanscom AFB in Section 4.2.4.2, affected by Hanscom Field and the fours towns in Section 4.2.3. EEA-17 Discuss status of Federal Interagency Group The federal interagency workgroup is described in discussions Section 10.13.2. The group has not formally convened in recent years. Regional Transportation Context EEA-18 Hanscom's role in regional transportation and efforts by Hanscom's central role as New England's premier GA Massport to coordinate with other agencies airport is described in Section 5.3. EEA-19 2012 status report on regional transportation system A status report on the regional transportation system is discussed in Chapter 5 which covers aviation in Sections 5.4 and 5.5, Rail in Section 5.8,and Ground Access Improvements in Section 5.9. EEA-20 Report on recent rail initiatives and potential effects on Recent rail initiatives are discussed in Section 5.8. Hanscom passenger travel EEA-21 Role of Logan The role of Logan is described in Section 5.3.2. EEA-22 Diversion opportunities to other airports and other Diversion opportunities to other airports are described modes in Section 5.4 and 5.5,and other modes in 5.8(Rail). EEA-23 Report on integration of the New England Regional Integration of the New England Regional transportation Transportation Plan is described among the various long range planning efforts in Section 5.7. EEA-24 Status of ground access improvement at New England The status of ground access improvements at New airports England Airports is described in Section 5.9. EEA-25 Update on Massport's efforts to promote service at Efforts to promote service at Worcester and other Worcester and other airports airports are covered in Section 5.9.2 and 5.9.3. EEA-26 Report on relevant regional and local highway and Regional and local highway and transit projects are transit projects described in Section 6.2. Ground Transportation EEA-27 Report on 2012 ground transportation conditions Hanscom Field is an off-peak generator, meaning that including contribution of Hanscom Field to baseline peak traffic for Hanscom Field does not coincide with more general peak traffic in the area. Hanscom- related traffic contributed only four percent of total traffic along Route 2A in 2012. See Section 6.4. EEA-28 Show how Massport is working with the Hanscom AFB Massport has begun to collaborate with ground and other abutters on TDM transportation coordinators at the AFB to provide information about TDM programs to employees and students working at Hanscom Field. Beginning in the winter of 2014, Massport and the AFB, in partnership with MassRIDES,will co-host a Transportation Fair on Hanscom Field to promote carpools,vanpools and available reward programs. See Section 6.6.2. EEA-29 Update on Hanscom employee survey A commuter survey of Hanscom employees was conducted in 2013 and is summarized in Section 6.4.1.1 with data provided in Appendix C. EEA-30 Describe TMA opportunities Massport has been exploring various TMA opportunities which are described in Section 6.6.2.5. EEA-31 Summarize existing metropolitan transportation Transportation planning is detailed in Section 6.3. documents EEA-32 Assess potential affects from considered non-aviation The potential affects from non-aviation development development(such as the Air and Space Museum) was programmed into future traffic forecasts as presented in Section 6.5. Noise EEA-33 Present 2012 conditions and report historic trends Noise levels at Hanscom Field decreased over the E' ��1.d /'""r, ,I Appendix A Responses to Comments last several years,due primarily to quieter and better performing aircraft and decreases in operations. In addition,operational changes to the Fly Friendly Program which has reduced the number of touch-and- go flights over the MMNHP and nearby residences has also had a positive impact. See Section 7.6. EEA-34 Report projected levels for future planning years based Noise levels for the planning years of 2020 and 2030 on activity forecasts are presented in Section 7.8. 2020 levels will increase from 2012 levels, but are calculated to be lower than 2005 with 2030 levels being slightly lower than 2005. EEA-35 Report any recent changes in INM Massport upgraded to version 7.Oc for noise calculations in the 2012 ESPR and for new calculations of EXP. See Section 7.5.3. EEA-36 Address engine run-ups and APUs/CPUs Massport has well-defined procedures for aircraft engine maintenance run-up and use of APUs/CPUs for Hanscom Field to minimize noise impacts. See Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2., respectively. EEA-37 Consider ground monitoring of noise"hot spots"where The existing monitoring and modeling program complaints are common provides an accurate representation of noise conditions at Hanscom. Elevated levels as would be expected are experienced near the runway ends. Massport will continue to work with stakeholder to minimize impacts of noise in accordance with the Hanscom Master Plan and Regulations. EEA-38 Present data from six permanent monitoring locations Data is presented in Appendix C. including minimum,maximum,and average daily DNL EEA-39 Compare actual and predicted noise levels Measured versus modeled noise is presented in Section 7.6.2. EEA-40 Describe Noise Workgroup abatement measures that The status of noise workgroup abatement measures is have been implemented and their effectiveness described in Section 7.3 and listed in Tables 7-2 and 7-3. EEA-41 Include an acoustical treatment to reduce noise impacts An acoustical treatment to reduce noise impacts in the in engine run-up areas engine run-up area is not feasible. Potential impacts from run-ups have been minimized by relocating a portion of them to the East Ramp. EEA-42 Report on Fly Friendly Program In 2009, Massport instituted changes in the Fly Friendly Program to minimize flights over the MMNHP and nearby residential areas. See section 7.8.5. EEA-43 Status of noise mitigation recommended on 2005 Noise mitigation has been achieved through Certificate at Wheeler-Meriam House,and proposal for implementation of changes to the Fly Friendly other sites Program. EEA-44 Impacts of aircraft noise on wildlife and visitors at Noise levels at MMNHP and Great Meadows National MMNHP and GMNWR Wildlife Refuge(GMNWR)are reported for 2005 and 2012 levels. They show a decrease in noise impacts since 2005. See Table 10-1. EEA-45 Describe the MMNHP Soundscape Plan The NPS continues to draft the Soundscape Plan. Data collected by the NIPS Natural Sound office was collected in 2008-09 and draft results have been provided for information purposes. Air Quality EEA-46 2012 levels and forecast for future years Emissions for 2012 are reported in Section 8.3.9 and Table 8-8. Future emissions are presented in Section 8.3.13. These emission calculations demonstrate that emissions associated with Hanscom Field activity are a very small fraction of regional emissions. For all scenarios,air quality concentrations will be in compliance with the Massachusetts and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EEA-47 Goals and projections for reducing GHG Goals for the reduction in GHG emissions are described in Section 8.3.3. EEA-48 Measures to reduce emissions from all on-site sources Measures to reduce on-site emissions are described in Section 8.4. EEA-49 Report on efforts to get FBOs to purchase alternative A discussion of Massport's work with FBO's is fuels presented in Section 8.4.1. A „,'Y MI.. Appendix A Draft Scope, MEPA Certificate, and Responses to Comments EEA-50 Federal standards for lead emissions from single piston A description of federal standards for lead emissions aircraft and related public health information is provided in Section 8.4.6. EEA-51 Report percentage of current and future fleet using Based on 2013 operations at Hanscom(as of October 100LL Avgas 2013),there are a total 246 reciprocating(piston) engines requiring 100 LL fuel or 69 percent of the current aircraft count. See Section 8.4.6.1. EEA-52 Overview of Ultrafine Particulate Matter issues and Ultrafine Particulate Matter is summarized in Section status of MassDOT's evaluation as outlined in the 2009 8.4.7. Transportation Act Wetlands,Wildlife,Water Resources EEA-53 Status of wetland resources including vernal pools and Existing wetland resource areas are described in perennial streams Section 9.4 and shown on Figure 9-1. EEA-54 Update rare species,Vegetation Management Plan,and Rare species are discussed in Section 9.7.1. There Grassland Management Plan are four listed species known to occur at Hanscom. The Vegetation Management Plan is discussed in Section 9.8. The Grassland Management Plan is discussed in Section 9.9. EEA-55 Show GMNWR on all figures GMNWR is shown and labeled on relevant figures. EEA-56 Update on stormwater, NPDES,and the SWPPP An update on stormwater including NPDES and the SWPPP is provided in Section 9.14. EEA-57 Update on the Shawsheen River restoration work Status of restoration work on the Shawsheen Basin is described in Section 2.4.5. EEA-58 Update on water quality monitoring including that for An update on water quality monitoring is provided in deicing Section 9.16.2. EEA-59 Report on changes in impervious area from 2005 to There has been no change in impervious surface 2012 and for future projections cover since 2005. Estimates for changes in impervious surface for planning years 2020 and 2030 are reported in Table 4-9. Cultural and Historical Resources EEA-60 Update on historical and archaeological resources An update on historical and archeological resources is provided in Section 10.1. EEA-61 Respond to USFWS concerns about noise impacts on Noise impacts on the GMNWR have decreased since birds and turtles in the Concord Basin 2005. Massport will continue to work with stakeholders to minimize potential impacts of Hanscom. EEA-62 Consult with Towns to collect up to date information Massport met with each of the four town historical commissions to collect up-to-date information. See section 10.4. EEA-63 Report on activities of the interagency group Activities of the interagency group are reported in Section 10.13.2. EEA-64 Describe NPS Soundscape goals and plans Soundscape goals and plans are described in Section 10.13.1. EEA-65 Describe how Massport will work with the Massport's coordination with MADAR is discussed in Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources Section 10.14.9. (MADAR)and four communities to protect Massport agricultural land from conversion Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System EEA-66 Describe Massport's Program Massport's Sustainable Development Program is described in Section 11.2. EEA-67 Existing practices at Hanscom Existing sustainability practices are described in Section 11.3. EEA-68 Recycling Since the 2005 ESPR, Massport has converted to single-stream recycling,which recycles a wider range of materials than the previous system. Hanscom will be outfitted with larger-capacity containers,which will be wirelessly monitored, reducing unnecessary services. See Section 11.3.5.4. EEA-69 Toxic reduction Hanscom Field is a Very Small Quantity generator(< 220 lb/month)of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)-regulated hazardous waste and a Small Quantity generator(<2,200 lb/month)of Massachusetts regulated hazardous waste. See Section 11.3.5.3. EEA-70 EMS In May 2001, Hanscom Field became the first airport /"111i 33 Appendix A Responses to Comments in the U.S.to receive ISO 14001 certification through the development and implementation of an EMS. An update on the implementation of the EMS is provided in Section 11.3.1. EEA-71 Sustainable design associated with future development Future sustainability efforts are described in Section 11.5. EEA-72 Conformance to GreenDOT directives and guidelines The GreenDOT Program and Massport's conformance is described in Section 11.2.4.5. Environmentally-Beneficial Measures EEA-73 List measures with responsible parties and estimated See Table 12-1. cost EEA-74 Whether Massport will institute night-time landing Massport already institutes landing fees and a surcharge as a penalty for both GA and commercial nighttime field-use surcharge for night-time flights operations. EEA-75 Program to institute higher surcharges for noisier This is not a legally feasible program to implement. aircraft EEA-76 Efforts to extend Fly Friendly to commercial flights Massport will consider a variety of practical measures to minimize noise impacts. Because commercial flights historically represent a very small percentage of overall flights,this is not a measure that is expected to minimize noise, but would be implemented as needed. EEA-77 Noise attenuation at run-up areas Noise from run-ups is mitigated by directing a portion of run-ups to the East Ramp and away from sensitive noise receptors. Office of Niki Tsongas, U.S. House of Representatives, May 11, 2012 TSO-1 Concerned about Massport's proposed plans to expand Massport works with local communities and private jet infrastructure at Hanscom given its proximity stakeholders to minimize impacts on environmental to historic and natural resources and the recent and cultural resources. The impacts of noise from designation of the area as one of the"11 Most aircraft activity have decreased over time. Changes in Endangered Historic Places in America"by the National noise from forecasted aircraft activity levels have also Trust for Historic Preservation. been assessed as presented in in Chapter 7. TSO-2 Given the interest of promoting economic development Massport has evaluated changes in noise associated while preserving these resources,the ESPR should with planning years of 2020 and 2030. The detailed analyze proposed plans for expansion based on analysis is provided in Chapter 7, Noise and Chapter potential noise impacts to historic landscape. 10, Cultural and Historical Resources. No portion of MMNHP is located in the 65 dB contour in 2012 or the planning years of 2020 and 2030. No portion of MMNHP is located in the 55 dB contour in 2012 and 2020 and only 0.4 acres occurs in 2030. TSO-3 Reiterates the recommendation to use 2010 actual The 2012 Base Year includes data beyond conditions as baseline. actual/existing conditions that is useful in generating more accurate forecast conditions, including recent activity from 2011/2012,as well as other historical activity for several aircraft types dating back to 1990. National Park Service, Minute Man National Historical Park,April 20,2012 NPS-1 Requests more focus on potential impacts to MMNHP Massport has assessed the potential impacts on and related non-federal, natural, cultural and MMNHP and cultural resources for 2012 and planning archeological resources. years of 2020 and 2030. This detailed analysis is presented in Chapter 7, Noise and Chapter 10, Cultural and Historical Resources. NPS-2 States the need to address impacts of increased air Massport prepared a noise impact assessment traffic noise over the park and ground traffic along the associated with air traffic over historic Battle Road and historic Battle Road and other key locations,which other key locations. Ground traffic impacts are result in adverse effects on historical and natural analyzed in Chapter 6. Noise from aircraft is resources and ability of visitors to enjoy park. assessed in Chapter 7 and Chapter 10. Noise has decreased since 2005 due primarily to technological trends toward quieter and better performing aircraft and decreases in operations as well as changes to touch-and-go patterns adopted in 2009. NPS-3 Suggests using the changes in aviation activity from The 2012 Base Year includes data beyond 2005 to 2010 ESPR and their environmental impacts as actual/existing conditions that is useful in generating the baseline case,and recommends holding new plans more accurate forecast conditions, including recent to at or below 2010 impact levels. activity from 2011/2012,as well as other historical activity for several aircraft types dating back to 1990. Future development activities will be reviewed by „,'Y . m.. Appendix A Draft Scope, MEPA Certificate, and Responses to Comments �.. Federal, State,and local agencies for compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. See Chapters 7 and 10. NPS-4 Draws attention to Massport"L.G. Hanscom Field 2010 The reference to MMNHP noise levels of 56.1 dBA is Annual Noise Report,"which indicates that MMNHP a DNL measure which is averaged over the time noise levels(at 56.1 dBA)are above EPA speech period. The speech interference level of 52 dBA interference threshold (52 dBA). refers to a level when an impact may occur. Because one is an average and the other is an impact threshold,the two numbers cannot be compared to each other. Noise is addressed in further detail in Chapters 7 and 10. NPS-5 Urges Massport to develop Hanscom within context of a Massport agrees with the importance of planning regional transportation plan future development at Hanscom consistent with regional transportation. See Chapters 4 and 5 for information on consistency of development plans with regional planning efforts and the regional transportation network. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex FWS-1 Requests better acknowledgement of Great Meadows Massport has included Great Meadows National National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)including marking on Wildlife Refuge(GMNWR)on project figures and maps,a listing in the Glossary of Terms, mention in the addressed specific comments in Chapter 10 including local and regional context section,and a description of Section 10.14.5. the significance of Great Meadows in Chapter 10 when discussing Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson. FWS-2 Concern is expressed regarding noise and lead Chapter 7 presents an analysis of potential noise for pollution impacts on wildlife and visitors, particularly at planning years of 2020 and 2030. ESPR Chapter 8, the Concord Impoundment. Air Quality explains new Federal standards related to use of lead-based fuel.As shown in Figure 7-9, noise over the Concord impoundment has decreased significantly between 2005 and 2012. The future scenarios suggest that noise would increase in 2020 and2030 but remain below 2005 levels including over the Concord impoundment(see Figures 7-17 and 7- 18). FWS-3 Concern is expressed that the ESPR does not address Noise impacts and mitigation are discussed in noise reduction and provides specific recommendations Chapter 7. for revising noise analysis. FWS-4 Expresses concern regarding lead emissions based on Massport discusses the potential impacts of lead in "2008 EPA Report on Lead Emissions from the Use of Chapter 8,Air Quality. Leaded Aviation Gasoline in the United States"and requests further testing. Office of Jay Kaufman, Massachusetts House of Representatives, Lexington District, 5/14/12(Massport's responses provided in writing) KAU-1 Requests clarification regarding use of single or multiple As directed in the MEPA scope,a single"moderate scenarios for forecast conditions and recommendation growth scenario" has been used for forecasting future for use of one"realistic"scenario. aviation activity. A single forecast has been generated for both 2020 and 2030. KAU-2 Expresses concern regarding use of different base The ESPR is a planning document, not a permit years for each ESPR,for the reason that it reduces application. The ESPR has been prepared to include ability to measure cumulative impact. noise contours for the 2012 Base Year,and the 2020 and 2030 Forecast Conditions. These results are compared with historical contours from 2000,and 2005. KAU-3 Asks whether Massport would perform lead monitoring ESPR Chapter 8,Air Quality describes the new studies at Hanscom due to community concerns and Federal standards and includes a table illustrating anticipated Federal standards. current and future fleet use of lead-based fuel. Federal guidance targets study at other airports where it considers lead risks to be greater,therefore site specific studies at Hanscom are not warranted at this time. KAU-4 Air Quality: Asks whether Massport would perform ESPR Chapter 8,Air Quality describes ultra-fine ultra-fine particulate matter monitoring studies at particulates as well as requirements of the Hanscom due to community concerns and Federal Transportation Reform Act of 2009. standards. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural Heritage& Endangered Species Program, May 15,2012 Appendix A Responses to Comments ESP-1 Requested that proposed scope for ESPR include Priority habitat of state listed species is included in mapping of Natural Heritage &Endangered Species Chapter 9. Program(NHESP)as"Priority Habitat for state-listed grassland bird species. Metropolitan Area Planning Council,April 20,2012 MPC-1 Requests that Massport address concerns related to Massport included a discussion of potential impacts of lead emissions as reported in the EPA's 2008 report on lead emissions from aviation gasoline in Chapter 8, lead emissions for aviation gasoline in the ESPR. Air Quality. Save Our Heritage,April 19,2012 SOH-1 Notes designation of historic and natural resources Massport recognizes the importance of the surrounding Hanscom as"Last Chance Landscape" environmental and cultural resources in the area (Scenic America)and"11 Most Endangered Historic surrounding Hanscom and supports the use of the Places in America"(National Trust for Historic ESPR in presenting existing conditions and Preservation).These issues are unresolved and the minimizing impacts. See Chapter 10, Cultural and ESPR is an opportunity to address them. Historical Resources. SOH-2 Lists historic and natural resources in the region and Historic and natural areas are evaluated as part of the describes their importance. ESPR in Chapter 10. SOH-3 Reminds Massport to"honor the 1978 Master Plan that Massport's Master Plan and Noise Rules permit stipulates a 30 seat limit for commuter aircraft and scheduled commercial passenger services with excludes certificated passenger service." aircraft having not more than 60 seats,the current definitional size limit of commuter aircraft. SOH-4 States that 1980 noise rules do not supersede 1978 See response to SOH-3. Master Plan so Massport must comply with both by complying with the lower number of seats(30 rather than 60). SOH-5 Encourages a single scenario scope that holds impacts The 2012 Base Year includes data beyond at 2010 levels, implements an innovative plan to further actual/existing conditions that is useful in generating mitigate all fleet-mix impacts,and complies with the more accurate forecast conditions, including recent Minute Man Park Soundscape Plan and the activity from 2011/2012,as well as other historical recommendations of the Federal Interagency Working activity for several aircraft types. Massport will Group charged with the mission to develop long-term continue to work with stakeholders in minimizing protection goals for the Park and environs. impacts and ensuring compliance with Federal,state and local environmental laws and regulations. See Chapter 3,Activity Levels. SOH-6 Airport Activity Levels-2012 Hanscom ESPR should Cargo is not included in the forecasted scenario at this exclude study of additional commercial and cargo time. A modest level of commercial operations operations because Massport can facilitate these consistent with Massport Policy is included for the "limitations"via a multi-airport sponsorship;additionally, planning years 2020 and 2030. ESPR documents are Massport should simultaneously prepare an ESPR for prepared for both Boston Logan and Hanscom. Worcester airport. Regional concerns, including issues related Worcester Airport,are summarized in Chapter 5, Regional Transportation. SOH-7 Airport Planning-Emphasizes holding impacts to 2010 To ensure that the ESPR is as current as possible,the levels; recommends adherence to Minute Man National 2012 year is presented as a baseline. Aircraft activity Historical Park Soundscape Plan; recommends levels are forecast for planning years of 2020 and investigating/implementing take-off and landing 2030 based on a reasonable assessment of market procedures at higher altitudes to reduce local noise demand. Massport will work with the local impacts. communities and stakeholders to minimize impacts of operations and associated airfield improvements including discussions about the MMNHP Soundscape Plan once it is produced. Massport will continue to follow take-off and landing procedures governed by criteria set by the FAA to ensure aviation safety and minimize potential impacts on the ground. SOH-8 Landside Planning-Recommends establishing a Massport's activities are confined to the property "permanent boundary footprint"for Hanscom to ensure boundary at Hanscom and any required modifications preservation of boundaries with adjacent resources. to adjacent properties to protect aviation safety in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration. SOH-9 Traffic Impacts of Non-Active Aviation Development- Potential traffic impacts of the proposed Air and Recommends evaluation of proposed Air and Space Space Museum are presented in Chapter 6, Ground Museum for adverse traffic impacts to surrounding area, Transportation. as well as flight operations due to air shows and performances. SOH-10 Regional Transportation Context—the Hanscom Hanscom is an important component of the regional expansion contradicts multi-airport transportation transportation network as evidence by program,"as evidenced by the MAC study of "Massachusetts Statewide Airport Economic Impact Appendix A Draft Scope, MEPA Certificate, and Responses to Comments Massachusetts GA Airports." Study"prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division. It states that Hanscom's contributes$249 million to the state economy. See Chapters 3,Activity Levels,and 5, Regional Transportation Context. SOH-11 Ground Transportation—development scenarios Hanscom currently contributes 4%of traffic levels on proposed in the ESPR should not increase traffic on Battle Road. That could rise to 5%in 2020 and 7% in Historic Battlefield Road. 2030 assuming the increase in airport activity forecasted. Much of the traffic impact is associated with regional economic development and commuter patterns. See Table 1-4 and Chapter 6, Ground Transportation for more information. SOH-12 Noise-the primary noise metric should be"Time Above A number of supplemental noise metrics are (TA)"metric;additionally,suggests that MEPA require presented for consideration. Only the 65 DNL has a Massport to conduct a noise health assessment study of regulatory implication. A historic review of noise residents living under flight paths. impacts shows that noise has decreased overtime. See Chapter 7. SOH-13 Air Quality-the 2012 ESPR must include lead in its air Lead is addressed in Chapter 8,Air Quality. quality assessment. SOH-14 Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources-States that lead Lead is addressed in Chapter 8,Air Quality. measurements should be done by independent source. SOH-15 Cultural and Historic Resources-Reminds Massport of Massport recognizes the cultural and historic Federal Interagency MOU to coordinate long-term importance of the Hanscom area and will continue to preservation of area surrounding Hanscom due to its work with the local communities and regional unique proximity to historical resources,as well as stakeholders in the planning and operation of "Hanscom at Crossroads"document requesting Hanscom. See Chapter 10, Cultural and Historical moratorium on all new development until establishment Resources. of regional multi-modal transportation plan. SOH-16 Sustainability-Reminds Massport that"sustainability" Massport has conducted a number of sustainability refers to environment and not just finances. programs that reduce environmental impact and provide long-term cost savings. See Chapter 11. Hanscom Area Towns Committee, Environmental Subcommittee 4/4/12(Massport's responses provided in writing) HAT-1 Asks about parallel ESPR process for Worcester airport ESPR documents are prepared for both Boston Logan and incorporation of three airport regional system into and Hanscom. Regional concerns, including issues ESPR scenario development and evaluation. related Worcester Airport,are summarized in Chapter 5, Regional Transportation. HAT-2 Asks about rational basis for use of 2012 as Base Year The 2012 Base Year includes data beyond versus 2010 Actual Conditions(preferred by HATS). actual/existing conditions that is useful in generating more accurate forecast conditions, including recent activity from 2011/2012,as well as other historical activity for several aircraft types dating back to 1990. See Chapter 3,Airport Activity Levels. HAT-3 Asks about whether Base Year will account for See response to HATS-2 above. Massport will also actualization of 2005 forecast operations,as well as consider any recommendations from the Workgroup, recommendations from Inter-agency Workgroup for however,at the time of writing, it was no longer active. protection of Minute Man Historical Park. HAT-4 Reiterates recommendation for using 2010 actual See response to HATS-2 above. conditions as baseline,asking for agreement. HAT-5 Asks about conformance to MassDOT GreenDOT Massport is implementing a number of GreenDOT directives. sustainability directives at Hanscom that mirrors GreenDOT goals,as well as Smart Growth regional planning considerations. See Chapter 11, Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System. HAT-6 Asks about ESPR commitments related to monitoring A summary of the status of the proposed Federal lead and reducing lead emissions. emission reduction program is presented in Chapter 8, Air Quality. HAT-7 Asks whether ESPR would account for particulate Air quality reporting includes PM10 and PM2.5 matter in response to Transportation Health Act of 2009 particulate matter. See Chapter 8,Air Quality. and whether it would fund or study health effects. HAT-8 Asks about sufficient noise contour analysis to Noise contours for a number of planning scenarios are accurately assess annoyance and disturbance levels. included in Chapter 7, Noise. ShhAir,April 3,2012 Shh-1 Commits to active participation in the scoping process I Massport appreciates the participation tl 7'" Appendix A Responses to Comments for the Hanscom ESPR. Shh-2 Explains the strong community opposition to Hanscom Massport recognizes the important environmental and expansion efforts in the past, reflecting stewardship of cultural resources and the importance of the ESPR in the area as unique in American history,as well as for minimizing impacts. environmental integrity. Shh-3 Requests"good faith"collaboration between Massport Massport recognizes the importance of working with and HATS ES in developing the ESPR scope. local communities and stakeholder organizations in the development of the ESPR. Neighborhood Liaison for Concord Homes, May 7,2012 NLC-1 Provides detailed description of impact from Hanscom Massport appreciates public comments on local aircraft operations on daily life,due to noise and air effects of Hanscom operations.See Chapter 3,Airport quality disturbances,stated within the context of Activity Levels, Chapter 7, Noise,and Chapter 10, working to develop a"full,thorough,and open" ESPR. Cultural and Historical Resources. NLC-2 Chief concern: emission of fumes,especially from Massport has assessed potential effects from lead in aircraft using lead-based fuel,with particular impact on Chapter 8,Air Quality. children. NLC-3 Secondary concern: noise impact on families;states Noise impacts are assessed in Chapter 7. A variety of disagreement with FAA FONSI for plans to expand supplemental metrics are provided to understand hangar capacity for storage and service of private jet potential effects. aircraft; believes DNL 65 dB standard for incompatibility with residential land use is impractical;states that FAA/Massport have not performed noise testing on actual residential properties. NLC-4 Current and future scenarios for Hanscom Field should The 2012 Base Year includes data beyond not exceed the 2010 baseline and impacts should be actual/existing conditions that is useful in generating mitigated more accurate forecast conditions, including recent from 2010 levels down. activity from 2011/2012,as well as other historical activity for several aircraft types dating back to 1990. NLC-5 A permanent boundary footprint should be established Massport appreciates the comments from the public. to limit incremental expansion at Hanscom Field (such as Massport's recent bid to purchase new airside Naval property). NLC-6 Massport should use the 30-seat limit for passenger See response to SOH-3 above aircraft noted in the Master Plan, not the 60-seat limit noted in the Noise Regulations. NLC-7 No new commercial or cargo service should be studied Cargo is not included in future forecasts at this time. in current or future scenarios. A modest increase is commercial operations consistent with Massport Policy is forecasted in the planning years based on expected demand. Belinda Gower,April 4,2012 Bel-1 Expresses frustration with continued increase in air Massport appreciates comments from the public. traffic and pollution generated by Hanscom,with Information on aircraft activity shows that operations particular concern for three young children. have decreased in recent years. See Chapter 3, Airport Activity Levels, Chapter 7, Noise,and Chapter 8,Air Quality. Bel-2 Explains discomfort and stresses of living under flight Massport appreciates the comments from the public. path, including reports of neighbors moving away and health impacts like cardiovascular disease (e.g., hypertension,stroke). Bel-3 Requests that MEPA"take this environmental scoping Massport is complying with MEPA's requirements as process very seriously and request stringent directed in its scope for the 2012 ESPR. measurements of lead, particulates, CO2 equivalent, and noise contours"and that"all unhealthy impacts be mitigated thoroughly and appropriately." Walden Woods Project, May 8,2012 WAL-1 Explains that the primary impact from Hanscom on Massport has included an assessment of noise Walden Woods is interruption to outdoor education impacts in Chapter 7. programs due to the inability of students and teachers to adequately hear presenters,degrading the 18th and 19th century experience. WAL-2 States concern that proposed scope of ESPR is too Massport works with the local communities and open-ended,with ability for Massport to make decisions stakeholders to assess current impacts of future based on market demands. development in a manner that is consistent with Massport's mission to provide air transportation. WAL-3 Explains that previous expansions in operations have A historical perspective on aircraft activity levels is A „3' 8 Fzr MI.. Appendix A Draft Scope, MEPA Certificate, and Responses to Comments resulted in increased noise,degrading Walden Woods presented in Chapter 3,Airport Activity Levels and it experience;thus,further increases of up to twice current shows that operations have decreased in recent capacity would further degrade the recreational and years. educational benefits. WAL-4 Current and future scenarios for Hanscom Field should See responses to HATS comments. not exceed the 2010 baseline and impacts should be mitigated from 2010 levels down. WAL-5 A permanent boundary footprint should be established See responses to HATS comments. to limit incremental expansion at Hanscom Field(such as Massport's recent bid to purchase new airside Naval property). WAL-6 Massport should use the 30'seat limit for passenger See responses to HATS comments. aircraft noted in the Master Plan, not the 60-seat limit noted in the Noise Regulations. WAL-7 No new commercial or cargo service should be studied See responses to HATS comments. in current or future scenarios. Concord Museum, May 9,2012 MUS-1 Explains that the primary impact from Hanscom on the Massport has included an assessment of noise Concord Museum is interruption to outdoor education impacts in Chapter 7. programs due to the inability of students and teachers to adequately hear presenters,degrading the 18th and 19th century experience. MUS-2 States concern that proposed scope of ESPR is too Massport works with the local communities and open-ended,with ability for Massport to make decisions stakeholders to assess current impacts and plan based on market demands. future development in a manner that is consistent with Massport's mission to provide air transportation. MUS-3 Explains that previous expansions in operations have A historical perspective on aircraft activity levels is resulted in increased noise,degrading Walden Woods presented in Chapter 3,Activity Levels and it shows experience;thus,further increases of up to twice current that operations have decreased in recent years. capacity would further degrade the recreational and Projected levels would be below historical peaks. educational benefits. MUS-4 Current and future scenarios for Hanscom Field should See responses to HATS comments. not exceed the 2010 baseline and impacts should be mitigated from 2010 levels down. MUS-5 A permanent boundary footprint should be established See responses to HATS comments. to limit incremental expansion at Hanscom Field(such as Massport's recent bid to purchase new airside Naval property). MUS-6 Massport should use the 30 seat limit for passenger See responses to HATS comments. aircraft noted in the Master Plan, not the 60-seat limit noted in the Noise Regulations. MUS-7 No new commercial or cargo service should be studied See responses to HATS comments. in current or future scenarios. 39 Table A-2 Comment Letters with Response Identifiers L.G. Hanscom Field — 2012 Environmental Planning and Status Report Comment Received Commenter Date of Contact Information Massport Letter/Email Comment Response Identifiers 1. Richard Sullivan, 5/18/2012 Richard K. Sullivan,Jr. EEA-1— Secretary of Energy and Office of Energy and Environmental EEA-77 Environmental Affairs, Affairs Commonwealth of 100 Cambridge St, Suite 900 Massachusetts Boston, MA 02114 1. Niki Tsongas, Member of 5/11/2012 Niki Tsongas, Member of Congress TSO-1— Congress John F. Kerry, United States Senator TSO-3 John F. Kerry, United Congress of the United States States Senator Washington, DC 20515 2. U. S. Department of the 4/20/2012 Lou Sideris NPS-1— Interior, National Park Chief of Planning and Communications NPS-5 Service, Lou Sideris, Chief Minute Man National Historical Park of Planning and 174 Liberty Street Communications Concord, MA 01742 3. U. S. Department of the 4/20/2012 Elizabeth A. Herland FWS-1— Interior, Fish and Wildlife Project Leader FWS-4 Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish Elizabeth A. Herland, and Wildlife Service Eastern Project Leader Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 73 Weir Hill Road Sudbury, MA 01776 4. Jay Kaufman, 05/14/12 Representative Jay Kaufman KAU-1— Commonwealth of (to District Lexington KAU-4 Massachusetts, House of Massport) State House, Room 34 Representatives Boston, MA 02133 Phone: 617-722-2320 Email:Jay.Kaufman@mahouse.gov 5. Jay Kaufman, 05/15/12 Representative Jay Kaufman KAU-1— Commonwealth of (to MEPA) District Lexington KAU-4 Massachusetts, House of State House, Room 34 Representatives Boston, MA 02133 Phone: 617-722-2320 Email:Jay.Kaufman@mahouse.gov 6. Natural Heritage & 4/20/2012 Everose Schluter, PhD ESP-1 Endangered Species Endangered Species Review Biologist Program Natural Heritage & Endangered Massachusetts Division Species Program Massachusetts of Fisheries and Wildlife, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Everose Schluter, PhD Rabbit Hill Road Westborough, MA 01581 Voice: (508) 389-6346 Fax: (508) 389-7891 7. Metropolitan Area 4/20/2012 Marc Draisen MPC-1 Planning Council (MAPC), Executive Director 60 Temple Place Marc Draisen, Executive Boston, MA 02111 Director 617-451-2770 8. Save Our Heritage, Anna 4/19/2012 Anna West Winter, Executive Director SOH-1— West Winter, Executive Save Our Heritage 57 Main Street SOH-16 Director Concord, MA 01742 978-369-6662 Fax 978-369-6712 anna@saveourheritage.com 9. Hanscom Area Towns 4/4/2012 Richard Canale HAT-1— Committee Hanscom Area Towns Committee HAT-9 Environmental Environmental Subcommittee (FIATS Subcommittee (HATS ES), ES) Richard Canale Town Offices Town of Lexington Lexington, MA 02421 r.canale@rcn.com 781-861-0287 10. ShhAir, Margaret Coppe, 4/3/2012 Margaret Coppe Shh-1— President, ShhAir Board President, ShhAir Board Shh-3 12 Barrymeade Drive Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-2637 11. Neighborhood Liaison for 5/7/2012 Lynn Vanacore Bloom NLC-1— Concord Homes Neighborhood Liaison for Concord NLC-7 Lynn Vanacore Bloom Homes 25 Fuller Lane Concord, MA 01742 Ibloom1978@aol.com 12. Belinda Gower 4/4/2012 Belinda Gower Bel-1- 63 Cedar Way Bel-3 Concord, MA 01742 978-254-5915 bgower@mac.com 13 The Walden Woods 5/8/2012 Kathi Anderson WAL-1— Project Executive Director WAL-7 44 Baker Farm Lincoln, MA 01773-3004 14 Concord Museum 5/9/2012 Peggy Burke MUS-1— Executive Director MUS-7 200 Lexington Road PO Box 146 Concord, MA 01742-0146 axe Commonweafth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy andEnvironmentaf ffairs 100 Cam bridge Street, Suite 940 (Boston, -%fA 021.14 Deval L.Patrick GOVERNOR Timothy P.Murray Tel:(617)626-1000 LIEUTENANT Fax:(617)626-1181 GOVERNOR http Ilwww mass.govlenvir Richard K.Sullivan,Jr. SECRETARY May 18, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ESTABLISHING THE SCOPE FOR THE 2012 L. G. HANSCOM FIELD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND PLANNING REPORT PROJECT NAME : 2012 Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Bedford, Concord, Lexington,and Lincoln PROJECT WATERSHED : Shawsheen River EEA NUMBER : 5484/8696 PROJECT PROPONENT : Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : March 7, 2012 As Secretary of Environmental Affairs, I hereby establish the scope for analysis to be presented in the 2012 Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report(ESPR). In accordance with the provisions of 301 CMR 11.00 and 11.09 governing Special Review Procedures,this ESPR process was established by the proponent and this office to replace the 1995 Update to the Generic Environmental Impact Report(GE1R). Project Description Hanscom Field comprises approximately 1,300 acres of land, located approximately 20 miles northwest of Boston,within the municipalities of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln. Since 1974, when Massport assumed ownership of the field, it has primarily accommodated private general aviation(GA) activity, commercial, and cargo service. The Federal Aviation.Administration (FAA) identifies Hanscom Field as a reliever airport to Logan Airport,whereby Hanscom Field provides substantial airside relief by annually serving approximately 164,000 GA operations. Hanscom Field also has supported limited commercial air service. EEA #5484/8696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 18,2012 The ESPR inventories Hanscom's facilities and infrastructure, summarizes Massport's tenant audit program, identifies airport activity levels, describes ground transportation, explains Massport's Environmental Management system, and provides information on Hanscom's planned role in the future regional transportation system and its 5-year projected improvement program. It also examines noise and air quality levels under existing and a future scenario, and identifies cultural, historic, conservation and recreational resources. History and Purpose of ESPR Since the 2000 ESPR,Massport has provided in both ESPRs(2005 ESPR) a retrospective analysis of past trends in the environmental impacts of Hanscom Field and analyses for future conditions. As a result, these documents remain an effective planning tool from which the Massport's policy and program developments are derived. The 2012 ESPR should present an overview of the operational environment and planning status of Hanscom Field and should provide long-range projections of environmental conditions against which the effects of future individual projects can be compared. The ESPR should allow for the review of historical environmental information, current information, and the forecast of the future environmental effects at Hanscom Field. The ESPR does not replace the MEPA review of specific projects at Hanscom that meet or exceed regulatory thresholds,with the exception of routine maintenance and replacement projects. For each project-specific review, Massport would be required to perform an individual analysis of impacts and mitigation (for those projects that require a stand-alone EIR and Section 61 Findings). The ESPR serves as a vehicle for ensuring that long-term, broad-scope planning informs the review and implementation of individual actions at Hanscom Field. The Proposed Scope for the 2012 ESPR was submitted by Massport. While I have used that scope as a framework for this Certificate, I have modified it based on the 2005 ESPR Scope, in response to the comments received, and internal EEA review. Therefore, this scoping certificate is the governing document for the contents of the 2012 ESPR. 2012 ESPR Outline The 2012 ESPR should follow the general format of the 2005 ESPR. Detailed technical studies should be summarized in a readable format to illustrate clearly the implications of recent trends,existing conditions and potential future scenarios. The 2012 ESPR should use the base information developed for the 2005 ESPR, present policy considerations and an overview of the airport's current and potential future role within the regional planning context, and include a status report on the Massport's proposed planning initiatives and projects. The 2012 ESPR's technical studies should include an analysis of airport activity levels, noise, ground access, air quality,water quality, and sustainability. 2 EEA #5484/8696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 18, 2012 The chapters on ground transportation management, noise, air quality, and wetlands/ water resources should include the following sections: • Discussion of analysis methodologies and assumptions. • Report on 2012 conditions in comparison to trends from previous years, at least since 2000 (historical trends are most valuable when traced back 10 or 15 years, where the data is available). + Prediction of 2020 and 2030 conditions, based upon the growth scenario described in Section III below. SCOPE Executive Summary The Executive Summary should provide a summary of the major chapters of the ESPR, with supporting graphics and data tables. It should be made available as a separate document to facilitate wider distribution, including publication on Massport's web site. I. Introduction This chapter should introduce the 2012 ESPR and place it in its environmental and regulatory context. This section should: • Summarize the evolution of the Hanscom Field environmental review process. • Describe the analytical framework for the environmental reporting and technical studies to be conducted. ■ Describe the organization of the 2012 Hanscom Field ESPR. II. Facilities and Infrastructure This chapter should update the information that was presented in the 2005 ESPR regarding the airfield and its supporting infrastructure and utility systems, including: ■ The use and storage of hazardous materials at Hanscom ng jet and leaded fuel storage and spill prevention efforts. ■ Report on any deficiencies in the water and wastewater distribution system r anscom facilities, which connect to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority(MWRA) system at the Air Force Base. EEA-3 • Identify changes in water demand and wastewater generation at Hanscom facilities fo 2005 to 2012, and projections for water use and wastewater flow for 2020 and 2030. + Identify Massport's water conservation measures for equipment,plumbing, and landscape irrigation at Hanscom • Identify Infiltration/Inflow removal proposed for the MWRA wastewater system d report it in section XII. + The status of Massport's tenant audit program 3 ���-s EEA#5484/8696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 18, 2012 • The current status of 21 E sites--I -2-ansc-z 'd- This section should also contain information on the size and use of all existing st � and parking area er c5f spaces). E EA-9 111. Airport Activity Levels E EA-10 The 2012 ESPR should report on airport activity levels for 2005 and describ EEA-10 new growth forecasts of aviation activity for 2020 and 2030. s section is based o 'riion growth forecasts done for all three Massport airports; Logan, Hanscom, and cester. EEA-11 ESPR should use these forecasts to assist in developing fleet projection or eac re analysis year. Historic airport activity levels should be described. The ESPR sh explain the process a commercial airline must follow to commence service at Hanscom. t should provide an update of activity levels at Hanscom Field according to the following: • Report on aircraft fleet mix and on activity levels of GA, commuter, and military operations from 2005 to 2012. ■ Compare 2005-2012 activity levels to historic trends. • Compare actual 2012 activity levels to forecasted 2010 activity levels from the 2005 ESPR. • Report on current and future trends within the airline industry. The ESPR should utilize growth forecasts developed for aviation activity for 2020 and 2030 based on recent trends at Hanscom Field and with consideration of the role that the airport plays in the regional airport system. The ESPR should report actual changes in fleet mix and aircraft operations at Hanscom Field—both increases and decreases—and compare this data to the range of future activity levels and fleet mix defined by the moderate growth scenarios of the 2005 ESPR. The new growth forecasts should incorporate lower annual growth assumptions compared with those used in the 2005 ESPR forecasts. Differences between actual and previously forecast activity levels should be explained and should be reflected in the underlying assumptions for the 2020 and 2030 forecasts. The forecasts should also include coordination with forecasting for the Logan ESPR and the development of forecasts for the New England regional aviation system. Each forecast year should use a moderate growth scenario that will vary the fleet mix. The fleet mix of the moderate growth scenario should be comparable to the existing conditions, which include GA, military, and commuter service consistent with the 1978 Master Plan and the 1980 Noise Rules. This scenario should be based on recent trends at the airport as well as regional and national aviation trends. The ESPR should provide future aviation forecasts according to the following: • Prepare a 2020 growth scenario for activity levels and passenger forecasts. ■ Prepare a growth scenario for activity levels that vary the fleet mix and passenger forecasts for the year 2030, which is consistent with the Logan ESPR and other regional planning efforts. 4 EEA#5484/8696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 18, 2012 The 2012 ESPR should consider the effects of federal military base closing iI.tary activity levels at Hanscom Field. IV. Airport Planning The 2012 ESPR should assess Massport's planning strategies for operating an efficient airport in an environmentally sensitive manner. As owner and operator of Hanscom Field, Massport must accommodate and guide airport tenant development. The ESPR should describe the status of planning initiatives and projects for the: • Terminal Area • Airside Area ■ Landside Are EEC-13 The ESPR should identify and describe each project contained in Massport's five-year capital improvements program, and identify which, if an of individual MEPA review.*The-ESP _snuutu ucscribe any new FAA or Massport security policies that would affect environmental impacts.' y sieal fft lit-ies-ar OiFfielde 9. �� This section should also report on planning and development initiatives by the Minute Man National Historical Park (MMNHP),the Hanscom Air Force Base, and the four contiguous towns that affect Hanscom Field and are affected by Hanscom Field. discuss the Federal Interagency Group, and its deliberation EEC-17 V. Regional Transportation Context The 2012 ESPR should describe the role of Hanscom Field in the region's transportation system, and report on Massport's efforts to strengthen the regional transportation system and its cooperative efforts with other transportation agen6esAe�e eii effiei<ePA ®' regional aviation system with improved public/private transportation access. It should draw upon and update information provided in the most recent Logan ESPR Update in relation to Hanscom Field and include the following: • Hanscom Field's role in the GA airport network. • For 2012, a report on regional airport operations,passenger activity levels, and the status of plans and new improvements as provided by regional airport authoritie on recent rail service initiatives by others that could affect air passenger travel Acela(rail) Service and bus service. • The role that Logan International Airport choices. EEC 21 ■ Diversion opportunities to alternative modes and to other New England airports.Z:::::1• A report on the integration of New England regional airport facilities as a regional ���-22 systems ESA-23 • The current status of the ground access improvements at the four New England regional airports.(egaA lote-g-R-at-ie;�i-Aifp ft, T. F. GFeen AiTei4, � ��ttne�esT.er:4i� .4, and �� -�e: Worcester Regional Airport) by state transportation agencies, including projected dates 5 EEA #5484/8696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 18, 2012 for completion of studies and/or construction and an analysis to quantify the effects of these measures upon projected passenger levels at each of the airports. • A report on the Massport's efforts to promote service at Worcester and other airports. � • A report on relevant regional and local highway studies and transit projects. EEC-26 VI. Ground Transportation The 2012 ESPR should report on Ground Transportation condition � indicators: • Traffic,roadway and access analysis results. • Mode share data. • High occupancy vehicle (HOV)ridership alternatives. • Alternative transportation modes; availability and use. • Parking inventory, demand and management information. The traffic analysis should be done in accordance with the EEAIMassDOT Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment. Background growth in traffic within the study area attributed to Hanscom Field as compared to other area sources will be evaluated. The study area for the traffic analysis in the 2005 ESPR was bounded by Route 2A, Old Bedford Road, Route 62, Routes 4/225 and Route 128/I-95. It should be maintained in the 2012 ESPR. The 2012 ESPR should include the fourteen intersections that were counted for the 2005 ESPR within this study area. The ESPR should identify and evaluate those study area intersections at which Hanscom Field traffic contributes 10-percent or more to the existing traffic volumes. The 2012 ESPR should also use this approach to evaluate the study area intersections for the forecast activity levels and years. The ESPR should show how Massport is developing partnerships with the U.S. Air Force and other abutters and area businesses to facilitate an effective set of regional Transportation Demand Management(TDM)measures: topies hattid rAdress-reeem sittdies, � issues raised in the 2005 ESPR Certificates,reviewers' comments, and: EEC-29 • Report available information from Massport's survey of Hanscom Field employees. ■ Describe the full range of TDM strategies, including potential for participation in a TMA ���-30 ■ Review, summarize and analyze, as necessary, existing metropolitan transportation documents aindreport a s to how 4hoy rvlatG to ssea}Tierd assyvss EEC-31 The ESPR should also identify the traffic impacts from non-active aviation development, such as an aviation museum*t1344 i;4ay i9 EEC-32 V11. Noise The 2012 ESPR should report current conditions for the year 201 6 EEA 45484/8696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 18, 2012 forecast activity levels and yearso Ticino the following indir sore• �� • Noise Exposure (EXP) as calculated in accordance with FAA prescribed standards for the Integrated Noise Model (INM) and past practice at Hanscom Field. • Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)contours (for 55, 60, 65, and 70 decibels(dBA)) and noise locations for approximately 150 sites in the four towns. • Time-Above (TA) contours(showing 30, 60, and 90 minutes of exposure)for 55 and 65 dBA • Single Event Level Distribution(SELID) metrics, as already incorporated into the annual Noise Report. • A ranked tabulation of take-off noise levels for different classes of aircraft(used as the basis for SELID), and the numbers of operations for each class(on an average daily basis). All noise contour levels should be computed with the Integrated Noise Model (INM): the DNL levels depicted should be based on accepted EPA and FAA guidelines. Impact assessment for both DNL and TA will be based on data from the 2010 U.S. Census. The basic structure for the TA analysis should follow the protocols developed for the Logan ESPR. The 2012 ESPR should identify any past or current changes in the INM upon data, and ensure that reporting of past trends is adjusted for such changes. The ESPR should contain an analysis and review for areas that are affected by noise from aircraft upon start-up and take-off roll. The ESPR should address the issue of engine run-ups and the operation of Auxiliary Power Units(APU) and Ground Power Units(GPU).J_4 shei-ilr-Ee4sidQ; g g—d monitoring of noise"hot spots"where complaints are commo EEC-37 The ESPR should present the noise data from the six permanent monitoring stations at Hanscom Field, including minimum, maximum and average daily DNL values.+The ESPR should address the reliability of certain monitoring locations, particularly with respect to background noise levels, and it should compare predicted with actual noise measurements.* EEC-39 Special topics should address recent studies, and issues raised in the previous 2005 ESPR Certificate. In the Beneficial Measures section, the 2012 ESPR should describe the Hanscom Field Noise Workgroup noise abatement measures that have been implemented, and discuss their effectiveness. a note im acts in L!L-40 engine run-up areas. ort on the Fly Friendly program,,kt Hanscom and the recommended "touch and go"procedures over 5 FESPR Certificate, the former Secretary recommended noise mitigation be proposed and implem to or EEA-41 Merriam House in Concord because it was located within the 55dBA DNL co ur. Massport should propose noise mitigation measures at other noise sensitive sites that fall wi ' the established noise contours as they change over time. e National Park Service stated t aircraft noise potentially impacts wildlife and visitors to the eadows National Wild > EEC 42 7 E EA-43 EEA#5484/8696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 18,2012 Refuge and the Minuteman National Historical Park!+he ESPR should-des re sualrdscape Plan of the Minuteman National Historical Park,eand hovv aircraft ol2ciations at Hanscom affect it. VIII. Air Quality The 2012 ESPR should report on current conditions for the year 2012,which includes: airport-related greenhouse gases(GHGs), and projections for the forecast activity levels and years using the following indicators:• O Emissions Inventory for: Carbon Monoxide (CO) - Oxides of Nitrogen(NOx) - Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs) - Particulate matter(PM10 and PM2,5) - Greenhouse Gases(GHG)—COZ,NZO, and CH4 O Available monitoring results for: - Ozone Precursors - Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2) Massport should set goals and projections in the ESPR for reducing GHG emissions,__4� the ESPR should identify the base level of GHG emissions for the airport. The 2012 ESPR should report on measures to reduce on-site emissions from all sources,,inr.ludinng f el bar g- ground service equipment, and building heating and cooling (see also Section XII). It should report on Massport's efforts to encourage fixed base operators to consider purchasing alternatively fueled vehicles. The 2012 ESPR should discuss the issue of lead emissions and the establishment of federal standards to control lead emissions from piston engine aircraft hould discuss the state- EEA-50 of the investigations and findings on the public health aspects of leaded aviation fuel. The ESPR should report on the status of the EPA's progress towards rulemaking. It should provide for the percentage of current and future aircraft fleets operating on aviation gasoline fuel (10OLL),a—L FEA-51 Hanscom. The 2012 ESPR should provide an overview of ultraf ne particulate matter(UFP) issues in ongoing air quality studies. It will report on the status of MassDOT's evaluation of UFP, as outlined in the Transportation Reform Act of 2009., EEA-52 IX. Wetlands[Wildlife[Water Resources The ESPR should discuss the most recent wetlands delineation, the identified vernal pools, and the perennial status of Elm Brook.*14 should reptto an wild4ehabitat i, EEC-53 8 EEA#5484/8696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 18, 2012 available information from the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Pro�the ram (NHESP). The ESPR should include an update of Massport's Vegetation Ma�thetoc�ation and the Hanscom Field Grassland Management Program. ig light Great Meadow National Wildlife Refuge on ESPR figures. The ESPR should report on any incremental changes to the Hanscom Field stormw EEA-56 management system and to its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(S WPPP) ould identify the Best Management Practices that Massport will undertake as part of SWPP ���®55 should describe the water quality monitoring program at the Shawsheen River surface waters, and groundwater monitoring. The ESPR should provide inf ion on the al Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit. porting indicators for water qua ���-57 improvement should include NPDES Permit monitoring results and the results from its limited monitoring program when it uses runway-deicing chemicals. The ESPR should identify changes to the amount of impervious areas at Hanscom Field for 2005 to 2012, and that future changes to the amount of impervious area should be estimated for the 2020 and 2030 growth scenarios-- ��a_s� X. Cultural and Historical Resources The 2012 ESPR should review the existing data on historic and archeological resource ���-50 Hanscom Field.The most current version of the State Register of Historic Places and the files of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) should be reviewed. The ESPR should EEA-61 describe Massport's efforts to address concerns raised by the Minute Man National 141 Park(MMNHP) and the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refu e iona Park Service is ���_s2 concerned with the potential impacts of noise on t w , shorebirds�CTOwns , turtles that use the Concord River basin. assport should a to obtain the latest historicallarchaeologicaI information. ncy working group o review impacts on the MMNHP. It should identify and describe the National Park Service's soundscape goals and plans for the MMNHP The ESPR should identify how it will work with the four communities and the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural resources to protect Massport-owned agricultural land from conversion to non-agricultural uses* EEA-65 If the Federal Interagency Group is reconvened and if it publishes recommendations regarding Hanscom Field's operations,Massport should consider these recommendations and address this issue in the ESPR. Xl. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System (EMS) The ESPR should report on the development of Massport's Sustainable Development Progra 9 EEA 45494/9696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 19,2012 procedures and roles and responsibilities to track and manage the environmental performance of Hanscom Field. This chapter should include a discussion of the following: • Summary of existing sustainable practices currently being undertaken by Massport at Hanscom Field. • Recycling arts. • Toxic reduction it ort. • EM at l�anscom Fie • Opportunities for sus ent practices. EEA ss The ESPR should include information on Massport's sustainable design program EEA-70 should include information on recycling and toxics reduction at the airport. The ESPR shoo also discuss the potential for incorporating other sustainable design elements into airport ���-71 operations and/or the ongoing rehabilitation and expansion of existing airport facilities, including but not limited to the following: • Optimization of natural day lighting,passive solar gain, and natural cooling; • Use of energy efficient HVAC and lighting systems, appliances and other equipment, and use of solar preheating of makeup air; ■ Favoring building supplies and materials that are non-toxic, made from recycled materials, and made with low embodied energy; and • Provision of easily accessible and user-fricndly recycling system infrastructure into building design; and development of an annual audit program far energy consumption, waste streams, and use of renewable resources. Massport already incorporates some of these elements into its operation of the airport. The ESPR should summarize what steps Massport already takes, and how additional steps might increase environmental benefits. It should explain if Massport will conform to the MassDOT GreenDOT E E�-72 directives and guidelines. , identify the sustainable measures that it requires of future tenants. XII. Beneficial Measures EEA-73 The 2012 ESPR should include a separate chapter on beneficial measures, whi summarizes the actions described in the previous chapters (such as TDof , atement, and sustainability measures). "1is chapter should include the identif` n the parties responsi EEC-74 a schedule for implementation, and the estimated costs. The ESPR should report whet c will institute night-time (11:00 pm to 7:00 EEA-75 am) landing fees for commercial flights that charge a penalty over da operation . ould report on Massport's effort to develop landing fee n noise- generated by type of aircraft, with higher fees for noisier aircraft. e ESPR should ident' EEC-76 Massport's effort to extend the "Fly Friendly"program to commercial flights. ou d report on Massport's plan to provide additional noise attenuation around engine run-up areas." EEC-77 10 EEA 45484/8696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 18, 2012 XI1I. MEPA Documentation The 2012 ESPR should include a copy of this Certificate, copies of all comments received,and a glossary of terms. It should include all Supporting Technical Appendices or report how reviewers can obtain a copy. The ESPR should identify when Massport will submit any interim review documents, such as Annual Reports. The documents should be made available in print and/or CD-ROM format. A cornerstone of MEPA review is making good information on environmental impacts readily available to the public. The internet offers an excellent medium through which information can be made accessible, and updated periodically. Therefore, I ask that Massport make available on its website the executive summary information for the 2012 ESPR. Along with reliable information, ongoing public involvement will be key to a successful ESPR process. As part of its public information efforts, Massport has proposed to: • Convene an additional public meeting for the 2012 ESPR, which will be in addition to the MEPA consultation session for the ESPR. • Participate in additional community meetings within the 45-day review period to discuss the ESPR as needed. At a minimum, Massport should circulate the 2012 ESPR to those parties who commented on this Certificate, and it should send a Notice of Availability of the 2012 ESPR to Massport's mailing list for Hanscom. Copies should also be placed in the public libraries of each of the four Towns. The ESPR should respond to comments received on this Certificate. I recommend a responses to comments format si o t e o ed for 2005 ESPR. May 18, 2012 Date ichar ullivan r. Comments received: HATS Environmental Subcommittee, 4/5/12 ShhAir, 4/5/12 Belinda Gower, 4/5/12 Massport,4/18/12 U.S. Department of the Interior/Fish and Wildlife Service, 4/19/12 Save Our Heritage, 4/19/12 National Park Service/Minute Man National Historical Park, 4/20/12 MassWildlife/Natural Heritage & Endangered Spceics Program, 4/20/12 Metropolitan Area Planning Council, 4/23/12 Il EEA #5484/8696 2012 ESPR Scope Certificate May 18, 2012 Massachusetts Port Authority, 514112 Neighborhood Liaison for Concord Homes (LV Bloom), 518112 Concord Museum, 5/11/12 The Walden Woods Project, 5/11/12 Congress of the United States/Nicki Tsongas &John F. Kerry, 5/11/12 Massachusetts Port Authority, 5/11/12 Representative Jay R. Kaufman, 5/14/12 Representative Jay R. Kaufman, 5/15/12 Massachusetts Port Authority, 5/15/12 Massachusetts Port Authority, 5/15/12 8696esprscope2012.doc RKS/WTG 12 Cbllgqrrs5f� of Our VNIniteb ao�txtrs 31b,L t-n 05,V, May It,2012 Richard K. Sullivari, Jr., Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) MEPA Office 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900 (9th floor) Boston MA, O 114 Attn: Bill Gage RE: Project EEA#5484 /EEA#8696 Proposed Scope for Hanscom Field Environmental Planning and Status Report(ESPR) Dear Secretary Sullivan, We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments regarding the Proposed Scope for the 2012 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status &Planning Report. We hear from our constituents frequently about concerns with future expansion efforts at Hanscom Field and the potential impact on neighboring national treasures. As Masspoit continues to review and evaluate the current and potential future operating and environinental conditions at Hanscom Field, we appreciate your solicitation of input from the many stakeholders in the communities surrounding the Field. As you know, Hanscom Field abuts Minute Man National Historical Park, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Walden Pond and Walden Woods,three designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, Freedom's Way National Heritage Area, 8,000 acres of protected public open space, and many other historic and natural resources that are important to our national heritage and the tourist economy of Massachusetts. Any plans to significantly increase the private jet infrastructure at the airport, as Massport has proposed, represent a direct threat to the historically and environmentally significant areas adjacent to the airport from increased jet aviation and the resulting noise and air pollution. Due to the severity of this threat,the National Trust for Historic Preservation has designated the surrounding area as one of the"I I Most Endangered Historic Places in America.'* - Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge is one of eight national wildlife refuges in eastern Massachusetts protecting land in seven historically significant towns. The Refuge provides important habitat for a diversity of native fish and wildlife and provides visitors with many wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities. Nearby, the Minute Man National Historical Park is visited by more than one million people each year and preserves for hiture generations the important sites associated with the opening battle of the American Revolution, which led to the founding of our country. Visitors are able to experience the sights,sounds and spirit of the landscape on which the revolutionary militiamen first bougbt for our nation's independence. Preserving the soundscapes of the Park is critical to achieving this goal, We understand and value the role that economic development plays in the health of our economy. Historic preservation also plays an important role in spurring sustainable growth and maintaining the appeal of these historic areas. We believe that vibrant economic growth does not need to come at the expense of the unique historical character and enviromnent of our communities. That is why we believe it is critical that the 2012 ESPR process appropriately analyzes any proposed expansion, particularly as it pertains to the unique soundscape of this region, and how it might potentially impact such a historic landscape. - --E] We share the view of Minute Man National Historical Park that 2010 should be used as a baseline to assess if the planned outcomes and environmental impacts were realized from the last ESPR. And,that ideally,the new plan would be devised to hold impacts at or below 2010 levels.44kewise,Minate tan National Historical Park, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, and community groups including the HATS Environmental Subcommittee and Save Our Heritage have also submitted comments outlining their concerns regarding the impact proposed expansion could have on the region. We believe the concerns of these valuable corntnunity stakeholders deserve your attention and consideration and that their concerns are addressed in the ESPR. Thank you again for the opportunity to share these comments,and we look forward to continuing to work with you to advance our shared goals. Sincerely, Je Niki Tsongas, ./h..I,. Derry Member of Congress United States Senator National Park Service Minute Man NATIONAL U.S.Department of the Interior National Historical Park PART( 174 Liberty Street SERVICE Concord,MA 01742 WWW.nps.govlmima April 20,2012 To: Richard K.Sullivan Jr.,Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs MEPA Office ioo Cambridge Street,Suite goo Boston,MA '02114 i i I Attn: Bill Gage . RE: Project EEA#54841 EEA#8696 Proposed Scope for Hanscom Field Environmental Planning and Status Report (ESPR) Dear Mr. Sullivan, Minute Man National Historical Park (MMNHP)is submitting these comments regarding the subject report. Since the national park directly borders Hanscom Field and is greatly affected by operations there,we request that,as much as possible,the ESPR address specific impacts to the national park. As the starting place of the American Revolution which created our nation,MMNHP is one of the premier national parks in the U. S. Over one million visitors visit the national park each year seeking to have a contemplative experience in a historic atmosphere,in order to reflect on the origins and meaning of our nation. We are pleased to see that there will be an analysis of the noise effects in the area and a report on the Fly Friendly program and recommended touch and go procedures over the MMNHP. However,the section on the Fly Friendly program is one of the few mentions of MMNHP in the report(besides being listed at the'end as a reviewer) and we request more focus on many more potential impacts to the park and scores of related non-federal natural,cultural and archeological resources. VA44- ei-aiT&A effraftsiaiftp ®1 would likely result in an increase of air traffic noise over the park and ground traffic EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA— - The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage. along the historic Battle Road and other key locations. The plan's focus on growth projections will likely reveal additional adverse effects to the Parle's historical and natural resources and the ability of park visitors to enjoy their experience. P -2 The last ESPR was completed in 2005 and described planning through 20zo. Therefore, we suggest that 20l o be used as a baseline so that we can assess if the planned outcomes and environmental impacts were realized. Ideally,the new plan would be devised to hold impacts at or below aozo levels. NPS- According to Massport's L.G.Hanscom Field aozo Annual Noise Report,monitoring of noise levels in the national park show that levels are above 55 dBA,averaging 56.1 dBA. According to the National Park Service's Soundscape Indicators,ranger-conducted programs are presented in a"raised voice"with approximately zo meters between the speakers and the furthest participants. Based on 95 percent speech intelligibility and _ raised voice communications at zo meters,the EPA's speech interference threshold for this type of conversation is 52 dBA. -� We commend you for including in the scope that the ESPR will report on Massport's efforts to promote service at Worcester and other airports. We urge Massport to develop a preservation solution that would place controls on development of the INPS- civilian airport within the context of a regional transportation plan: Sincerely, Lou Sideri Chief of Planning and Communications EXPERIENCE YOUR AmERICATM The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage. VOI OF FjL4tj& fWAVk'F United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 4gCH 3. Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 73 Weir Hill Road Sudbury, MA 01776 April 20, 2012 Secretary Richard K. Sullivan,Jr. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 EOEA 45484/8696 Attn: Bill Gage Dear Secretary Sullivan: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the scope for the 2012 L.G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report(ESPR). These comments reflect issues concerning visitors and wildlife at the Concord Unit of the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)that we believe need more discussion in the 2012 ESPR. The Great Meadows NWR is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is part of the U.S. Department.of the Interior, as is the National Park Service. Great Meadows NWR was established in 1944 as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds, for the conservation of wetlands,to provide wildlife-oriented recreation,protect natural resources, and conserve endangered and threatened species. It is one of 556.refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System, whose mission is"to manage a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish,wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans," Great Meadows is visited by over 350,000 people each year. Most of these visits are at the impoundments located in Concord. These impoundments are one of the most important inland-birding locations in the Commonwealth, and we manage them for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds. We also managed them for Blanding's turtle, a State-listed species which is also a species of regional concern due to its population status in the northeast. Additionally,the extensive wetlands along the Concord River support many migratory bird species. The Concord River itself, including the lands within the Great Meadows NWR, is part of the National Wild and Scenic River System. It received this designation for its ecological, recreational, historical, scenic, and literary values. In general, we request the 2012 ESPR better acknowledge the presence of the Great Meadows NWR. We request that maps that show the location of Minuteman National Historical Park next to the Hanscom Field also highlight the location of the Great Meadows NWR. The Glossary of Terms should include the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. The local and regional context section of the ESPR should include a description of Great Meadows NWR and its use by visitors and wildlife. Currently most references to Great Meadows NWR are in Chapter 10 of the ESPR, which is the cultural and historical resources chapter. Interestingly enough,the historical significance of what is now the Great Meadows NWR to Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson is absent from this chapter. The birthplace of the environmental movement in America is Concord,Massachusetts,and the Great Meadows themselves were heavily visited by Henry David Thoreau and others and played a significant role in the development of this environmental awareness The Concord Impoundments are located just west of runway 11-29, which is the primary runway at Hanscom Field. Our concerns are focused on noise and its impact on wildlife and visitors, and lead pollution in the sediments at the Concord Impoundments. We are concerned that the potential impacts of noise on the waterfowl, shorebirds, marshbirds, and turtles that use the Concord Impoundment either year round or during important stages of their lifecycle has not been adequately addressed. Figures 7-5 and 7- 7 in the 2005 draft ESPR showed numerous arrival flight tracks which come together just west of the Concord Impoundments on the way to Hanscom Field. According to the 2005 ESPR, Great Meadows NWR had by far the largest amount of conservation and historical land within the 55 Day Night Average Sound Level contour which is based on departures from Hanscom Field. Any growth models in the 2012 ESPR will likely show that this area will remain the same or will experience higher DNL contours, including up to or even above 65 DNL.4 The impact of noise on wildlife has received increasing attention in the last few decades. Most researchers agree that noise can affect an animal's physiology and/or behavior. We recognize that there have been efforts to reduce the impact of noise on residents and Minuteman National Historical Park, but there is no recognition in the 2005 ESPR about the need to reduce noise to protect refuge wildlife. Aircraft noise does potentially impact wildlife, and it definitely impacts visitors who come to the refuge to observe and photograph wildlife or spend time in the solitude of nature. We request that Chapter 7 (Noise) address noise reduction at Great Meadows NWR or explain why this is not necessary at Great Meadows NWR. We also would be willing to discuss hosting a noise monitoring site at the Concord Impoundments so that more detailed information about noise levels could be obtained. We also request that an independent lead test be conducted as part of the 2012 ESPR in the areas around Hanscom Field, including at the Concord Impoundments at Great Meadows NWR. We are concerned about the level of lead emissions from aircraft using Hanscom Field as shown in the 2008 EPA Report on Lead Emissions from the Use of Leaded Aviation Gasoline in the United States.-,SA.Zo.v-,ondue-A-A-4 --Sed-ime-R*safniglittg in 2014 ift the FWS-4 Concord Impoundments,and upon learning of this report,we re-evaluated our results and discovered that we had dry weight lead values ranging from 10.8 to 74.5 ppm. This is higher than we expected, and while we don't have an explanation of these higher lead levek, further testing of lead in the sediments around Hanscom Field, including at Great Meadows NWR,could provide valuable information. Research has shown that in freshwater ecosystems,the lowest effect level for lead is 31 and the probable effect level —the concentration above which adverse effects are expected to occur frequently—is 91.3. See MacDonald, D.D., et al, Alch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39, 20-31 (2000). We will be testing the blood of several blanding's turtles this spring to determine lead levels, and will be happy to share this information with.Massport. Lastly, please amend my address in the List of Reviewers to include U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after my name. Thank you for considering these comments. We look forward to working with Massport in the development of the 2012 ESPR. If there are questions about these comments, feel free to contact me at libby herland,(4)fws. lov or at 978-443-4661 ext 11. Sincerely, $.A erland Project Leader THE GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE, BOSTON 02133-1053 May 14, 2012 I i Mr. Thomas W. Ennis i Massachusetts Port Authority One Harborside Drive, Suite 200S East Boston,MA 02128-2909 Dear Mr. Ennis: I want to thank you and Massport for the recent engagement with and responsiveness to the members of the Hanscom communities. After years of tension between Massport and the communities,I am hopeful that we have turned a page and that this more positive relationship will continue as we address the 2012 Hanscom Environmental Status and Planning Report(ESPR)and potential changes to Hanscom Field in the years ahead. It is in the context of that hope that I was most disappointed by your May 1 letter in response to the requests from the HATS Environmental Subcommittee with regard to the scope of the forthcoming ESPR. Many of the Hanscom-area residents and officials who may wish to be involved in the ESPR process read your letter to suggest that we are clearly not on a new page. None of their concerns were addressed and none of their priority requests granted.Among the concerns are: Scenarios' During Massl2ort's community meeting in I eyinpAnn, uze were told fhat,uulikc FaRt ESPRs,this one would only look at a single scenario as multiple scenarios only complicated matters and muddied the waters. Our experience,in turn, of ESPRs.with multiple scenarios was that Massport proceeded to argue that,having anticipated virtually any possible development in one or another of the scenarios,it was impossible for the communities to plan and Massport was in a position to claim a"blank check" for any new activity. In the course of the recent public meeting, it seemed that Massport and the communities had a shared interest in and commitment to a single- scenario ESPR this time. However, in your letter,there are references to"scenarios."I expect Massport to develop one realistic scenario grounded by Massport's clearly stated goals for Hanscom Field as part of Massport's multi-modal transportation strategy. Does Massport intend to submit one scenario as originally stated,or have you decided to pursue multiple scenarios, and, if so,why? • Base Line: -2 against which to measure environmental impacts. Moving the base with every ESPR dramatically reduces the ability, indeed makes it impossible,to measure and account for cumulative impacts. • Lead Study: -3 monitoring of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft at Hanscom in response to community concerns and the anticipated publication of new federal lead limits? • Air OualitY: Again ycnir defter notwitlhctanding and cyan thnngh not rnrrrPntly rPrl„irf-.d would F -4 Massport be willing to perform studies or monitoring of fine and ultrafine particulate matter{CTFP)at Hanscom,in anticipation of future federal limits and in response to community concerns? I would very much appreciate infonnation and clarification on the communities' issues at your earliest convenience. Please contact me with any further questions, and thank you again for your cooperation and prompt assistance in this important process. Warmly, Jay R Kaufman cc: Maeve Valtely-Bartlett,MEPA David Mackey,Massport HATS Selectmen THE GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS -: STATE HOUSE, BOSTON 02133-1053 M ' May 15, 2012 Ms. Maeve Vallely-Bartlett,Director MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston,MA 02114 Dear Ms.Vallely-Bartlett: I am writing regarding the draft scope of the 2012 Hanscom Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR). Hanscom-area residents,including members of the HATS Environmental Subcommittee,would like to ensure that Massport follows all environmental laws,regulations and rules pursuant to the ESPR. On behalf of these residents,I would like to request MEPA's assistance and action on the following issues,which were noted in my recent letter to Massport officials: • Scenarios: a ®1 a ,una epast ESPRs, this one would only look at a single scenario as multiple scenarios only complicated matters and muddied the waters. Our experience,in turn,of ESPRs with multiple scenarios was that Massport proceeded to argue that,having anticipated virtually any possible development in one or another of the scenarios,it was impossible for the communities to plan and Massport was in a position to claim a"blank check"for any new activity. In the course of the recent public meeting, it seemed that Massport and the communities had a shared interest in and commitment to a single- scenario ESPR this time.However,in Massport's recent letter, there are references to"scenarios." Can MEPA limit the ESPR to a single scenario,or otherwise focus Massport's work on realistic projections? • Base Line tric year ®2 against which to measure environmental impacts.Moving the base with every ESPR dramatically reduces the ability,indeed makes it impossible,to measure and account for cumulative impacts. Can MEPA take any action with Massport in establishing a baseline year that transcends ESPRs? • Lead Study: emissions from piston-engine aircraft at Hanscom in response to community concerns and the anticipated publication of new federal lead limits?What would trigger action from WPA in the event new federal rules or regulations are promulgated during the course of this five-year ESPR? • Air Quality -� and ultrafine particulate matter(UFP)at Hanscom, in anticipation of future federal limits and in response to couununity concerns?What would trigger action from MEPA in the event new federal rules or regulations are promulgated during the course of this five-year ESPR? I would very much appreciate information and clarification on the communities' issues at your earliest convenience. Please contact me with any further questions;and thank you again for your cooperation and prompt assistance in this important process. f W arnl r`y,..__ _ P 3 p ifo K, a-afman' i cc: David Mackey,Massport ! Thomas Ennis,Massport HATS Selectmen Ennis, Tom From: Gage, Bill (ENV) [bill.gage@state.ma.us] Sent: Friday,April 20, 2012 3:51 PM To: Ennis, Tom Subject: FW: Proposed scope for Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report(ESPR); EoEA#8696 (NHESP#01-9192) From: Schluter, Eve (FINE) Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 1:05 PM To: Gage, Bill (EEA) Cc: Coman,Amy(FWE) Subject: Proposed scope for Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report(ESPR); EOEA # 8696 (NHESP # 01-9192) Dear Bill, The Natural Heritage& Endangered Species Program (NHESP)of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries&Wildlife has reviewed the proposed scope for the Hanscom Field ESPR.The site is mapped Priority Habitat for state-listed grassland bird species.The NHESP looks forward to reviewing the ESPR pursuant to the MESA, including any newly proposed development initiatives and on-going vegetation management plans. Please let me know if you require any additional comments. E8P®1 Thanks, Eve ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everose Schluter,PhD Endangered Species Review Biologist Natural Heritage&Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Road Westborough,MA 01581 Voice:(508)389-6346 Fax: (508)389-7891 1 MAPC L COUNCIL April 20,2012 Richard K. Sullivan,Jr.,Secretary Executive Office of Energy&Environmental Affairs Attention:MEPA Office William Gage,MEPA#8696 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston,MA 02114 RE:Proposed Scope—2012 L.G.Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report(ESPR),MEPA 98696 Dear Secretary Sullivan: The Metropolitan Area Planning Council(MAPC)regularly reviews proposals deemed to have regional impacts. The Council reviews projects for consistency with AfetroFuture,the regional policy plan for the Boston metropolitan area,MAPC's Smart Growth Principles,and the Commonwealth's Sustainable Development Principles,as well as for their impacts upon the environment. Massport prepares an Environmental Status and Planning Report(ESPR)every five years to evaluate the cumulative impacts of growth and change at Hanscom Field and provide data and analyses on noise,transportation,air quality, and water quality. The 2012 ESPR will present an overview of the operational environment and planning status of Hanscom Field and will provide long-range projections of environmental conditions. The ESPR will contain historical environmental information,current information,and a forecast of future environmental effects at Hanscom Field. At the March 20,2012 ESPR scoping meeting,the issue of levels of lead emissions from aviation gasoline was raised and a U.S.EPA report,,`Lead Emissions from the Use of Leaded Aviation Gasoline in the United States' (2008)was referenced. According to this report,Hanscom Field releases an estimated 533 kilograms or 0.6 tons of lead by piston-engine aircraft during the landing and take-off cycle. Hanscom Field ranks 33rd of 3,414 airport facilities nationwide identified in this report. The potential of environmental impacts resulting from the current level of emissions,and the possibility of additional emissions if growth is projected for the airport,were raised at this meeting. MAPC respectfully requests that Massport address this concern in the ESPR. FC-11 MAPC looks forward to reviewing the draft ESPR. Sincerely, X",DOVI_� Marc D.Draisen Executive Director cc: Walter J.St.Onge III,Town of Bedford K.C.Winslow,Town of Concord Richard Canale,City of Lexington Christopher Reilly,Town of Lincoln Keith Bergman,MAGIC Tom Ennis,Massport 60—temple Place, Boston, MA 02111 617-451-2770 Fax 617-482-7185 wvu,mapc.org ivisory Board thi Anderson.Executive Director.Walden rods Project&'rhoreau Institute Save Our Heritage rresentativc Cory Atkins(honorary) Begley,Jr.,Actor.Environmentalist Protecting the birthplace- of the American Revolution, uglas Brinkley,Author.Professor Of History, the cradle of the American Environmental Movement. lane University :hard D.Brown,Profess-,of History. and the home of the American Literary Renaissance. riversity of Connecticut :n Burns.Director.Producer, storical Documentarian ward Countryman.Professor of History. ,uthern Methodist University ibbie Cox.Former President.National Sierra April 19, 2012 an Cusack,Actress ichacl S.Dukakis.Professor. UCLA& Richard K. Sullivan,Jr., Secretary orthcastcrn University. Former Governor of Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) assachusetts nator Susan Fargo(honorary) MEPA Office is Foner.Professor of History. 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900 (9t" floor) olumbia University Boston MA, 02114 oris Kearns Goodwin,Historian.Author Attn: Bill Gage on Henley.Recording Artist.Founder,Walden 'oods Projcct mcs O.Horton.Professor of History.George RE: Project EEA #5484/EEA #8696 'ashington university Proposed Scope for Hanscom Field Environmental Planning and Status Tura Johnson.President, Report ESPR lassachusetts.Audubon Society Re p ( ) _presentative Jay Kaufman(honorary) lichacl Kellett.Executive Director,Thoreau Dear Mr. Sullivan, '.ountry Conservation Alliance b RESTORE: he North Woods tarty Meehan.Chancellor.U.Mass.Lowell In 1974 Massport acquired ownership and operational control of L.G. :ongressman Edward J.Markey(honorary) Hanscom Field. Since that time, the abutting historic landscapes and tavid McCullough.Historian.Author natural resources -- along with the host historic communities --have been rhn Hanson Mitchell.Author. ditor of sanctuary Magazine designated a Last Chance Landscape by Scenic America and one of the ichard Moe.Former President, 11 Most Endangered Historic Places in America by The National Trust 'at tonal Trust for Historic Preservation for Historic Preservation. These designations are a result of Massport's Pcsley T.Mott,Editor,Emerson Society Papers, 'rofessor Worcester Polytechnic Institute aviation impacts; they still stand, and they have yet to be resolved. We are epresentativc Charles Murphy(honorary) hopeful that the 2012 ESPR process will usher in a unique yet critical :ongressman John F.Tierney(honorary) opportunityplan for a sensitively mitigated and environmentally :ongresswoman Nicola S.Tsongas(honorary) responsible and sustainable future for Hanscom Airport. -1 sdward O.Wilson.Naturalist. 'rofessor Emeritus.Harvard University oanne Woodward.Actress,Humanitarian Given the clear and highly unfortunate power disparity between Massport, 1lfred F.Young.Professor Emeritus of History a state authority committed to development(subject to no local zoning, ,4orthcrn Illinors University noise ordinances, or taxes) and the four historic suburban towns Stewards of Sites committed to preservation (governed by town meeting vote) it is no Vancy Nelson.Superintendent. wonder that decades of conflict, legal battles, and resentment have ensued. \4inute Man National Historical Park Libby Hcriand.Project Leader. Existing within atwo-mile radius of the Airport are thousands of ;neat Meadows National Wildlife Refuge,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service nationally and internationally recognized landmarks of significant (an Turnquist,Executive Director.Orchard House historic and environmental importance. These Sites draw millions of Executive Director visitors annually and are a major contributor to the state's economy and, most importantly, to its nationally recognized identity. Anna West Winter 57 Main Street Concord MA 01712 phone:978-369-6662 fax: 978-369-6712 e-mail: kati@saveourheritage.com web: www.saveounccritagc.com Sites directly abutting -- or within a 2 mile radius of the airport include: • Minute Man National Historical Park(recently expanded-H.R. 146, an America's Great Outdoors public/private initiative, and honored by Congressional Resolution in 2009); • Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge • Thoreau's Walden Pond and Walden Woods • Three Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers • The Estabrook Woods • Freedom's Way National Heritage Area • The homes of Emerson, Thoreau,Hawthorne, and Alcott • Over 1,000 National Register eligible sites • 8,000 acres of protected public open space (the largest tract of open space in the suburban Boston area). There are over 14,000 airports iu the United States. There is only�one Birthplace of the American Revolution, only one Home of the American Literary Renaissance, and only one Cradle of the American Environmental Movement. The 2012 ESPR should reflect a genuine commitment to preserve the sanctity of these national treasures.- The following comments align with the named sections of the February 2012 Proposed Scope document Comments on Introduction The communities remain hopeful that Massport will prove to act in accordance with the statement that prefaces their proposed scope: "the authority is committed to a multi-modal, multi-airport, multi-state regional transportation system that will satisfy future regional aviation demand." We ask that Massport be directed to respect the need for the establishment of a fair and balanced regional NE transportation system and encourage multi-modal services such as the Acela service to NY and DC. As a result, the ESPR should not study scenarios involving any additional ticketed commercial service out of Hanscom. In 2000-2003,when Massport was actively courting airlines, and subsidizing a lease to Shuttle America, the noise impacts of 220,000 operations over the residential communities proved intolerable (as evidenced by multiple citizen protests) and public enjoyment of the natural and historic resources was severely diminished. After decades of costly and failed attempts to establish viable commercial service at Hanscom, we look to Massport to honor the 1978 Master Plan that stipulates a 30 seat limit for commuter aircraft and excludes certificated passenger service.- 57 Main Street Concord MA 01742 phone:978-369-6662 fax: 978-371-7550 e-mail: katI@savcourhcritage.com web: www.savcourheritagc.com Hanscom Field's Master Plan and Noise Rules Nowhere is it written that the 1980 noise rules supersede the 1978 Master Plan. Massport states they will study scenarios compatible with both. But the Master Plan limits commuters to 30 seats and the noise rules limit commuters to 60 seats. Inexplicably, Massport takes the position that the limit number is 60, but the Master Plan stipulates 30. The noise rules don't supersede the Master Plan; they are just other parallel rules. So, for Massport to comply with both -- and honor the sensitive environment they already seriously impact--they must comply with the lower number. • History and Purpose of Environmental Status and Planning Report As a result of previous GEIR/ESPR scenario growth studies, the communities have witnessed ESPR scope hypotheticals become quickly sought-after Massport objectives: i.e. ticketed commercial airline service, the introduction of heavy commercial cargo, and the doubling of hangar infrastructure. Despite Massport's attempts to encourage unprecedented expansion, the communities were heartened when the majority of Massport-solicited airlines and the FEDEX Corporation proved to value the sanctity of the historic resources over potential for corporate gain and ceased to pursue operating out of Hanscom. At the present -- yet still evolving state of environmental regulations --there are very few legal statues that exist to protect unique and invaluable natural and historic resources from aviation impacts. Only a unified commitment to common sense and sensibility on the part of all stakeholders can chart a shared course toward a responsible and sustainable balance between this airport and its host communities. We look forward to MEPA's encouragement of a single scenario scope that holds impacts at 2010 levels; implements an innovative plan to further mitigate all fleet-mix impacts; and complies with the Minute Man Park Soundscape Plan and the recommendations of the Federal Interagency Working Group charged with the mission to develop long-term protection goals for the Park and environs. so 5 Public Review and Participation As stewards of the cradle of the American Environmental Movement, the citizens of these communities take very seriously environmental stewardship and protection. They have been both hopeful and diligent as they have invested countless volunteer hours and financial resources in past ESPR processes. Unfortunately, after their research was ignored and their input and concerns summarily dismissed, the host towns viewed future participation as a futile proposition. In 2005, the communities and the National Park Service boycotted the process. Massport has asked the communities, the sites stewards, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife, to return to the table and work with them.on the 2012 ESPR. The communities 57 Main Street Concord MA 01742 phone:978-369-6662 fax: 978-371-7550 e-mail: kati@saveourheritage_com web: www.savcourheritage.com would like nothing more than to find a commonality of purpose and direction, and will -- once again --remain hopeful that Massport will seize the opportunity to engage in a sensitive and appropriate scoping process and an honest environmental assessment—limiting the growth scenarios studied and inclusive of new and innovative mitigation measures to be applied to current and future impacts. Comments on proposed ESPR sections Ill. Airport Activity Levels- SOH-6 The 2012 ESPR should exclude study of additional commercial and cargo operations; Massport, now owning and operating three Massachusetts Airports, can facilitate these limitations via a multi-airport sponsorship. In addition, Massport should simultaneously prepare an ESPR for Worcester Airport. The relationship between Hanscom and Worcester is of great significance. As Massport works to encourage commercial carriers to service central and western MA via Worcester, the growth of FBOs for large GA traffic may also present economic opportunity for the Worcester facility while serving to reduce the imbalance and monopoly of jet activity at Hanscom. IV. Airport Planning In order to hold impacts to 2010 levels, parameters, limitations, and mitigation methods need to be defined for the proposed current build-out of facilities (please see attached chart). Massport's plans to double Hanscom hangar infrastructure to house some of the largest luxury private jets manufactured (Gulfstream 650s) has recently been given the green light to proceed by virtue of a Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI). Once again, we are reminded that in order for the FAA and Massport to find a"significant"noise impact relative to any of their aviation practices, levels within the park and communities would need to reach a threshold deemed -- in FAA terms -- "incompatible with residential land use" (65 db DNL). Until the day dawns when the cradle of the American Environmental Movement is officially regarded as humanly uninhabitable, this internationally beloved landscape is succumbing, via"insignificant" incremental assault,to a fate of death by a thousand cuts. Unlike a condominium complex -- Walden Country, Minute Man Park, The Estabrook Woods, and Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge can't be soundproofed with acoustic insulation panels. Proposed aviation activity should be compatible with the Soundscape Plan of Minute Man National Historical Park. In the EA for Hangar 24 (including East Ramp build-out) Massport states that all new aircraft encouraged by the infrastructure expansion will most likely be large jet aircraft and that they will not impact Minute Man Park because they will be using the long runway, However..the North Bridge and Barrett's Farm Units of the National Park are impacted by the long runway. In addition,the "long runway"—the Concord-Lexington runway (11/29)— 57 Main Street Concord MA 01712 phone:978-369-6662 fax: 978-371-7550 e-mail: katl@saveourheritage.com web: www.savcourhcritage.com facilitates approx. 80%of operations and significantly impacts the historic downtown areas of Concord and Lexington as well as protected public open space areas which include Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and The Estabrook Woods. Study of operations on this runway should begin with mitigation of current disproportionate impacts. Higher elevations employed in take-off and landing procedures should be investigated and implemented. Unlike Logan --with an ocean to fly over as a means to reduce local impacts -- utilization of Rt. 2 and Rt. 128 corridors for flight patterns should be examined. Landside Planning SOH-8 A permanent boundary footprint should be established for Hanscom Field. This is a key component in the establishment of an environmentally sustainable airport that abuts sensitive historic national landmarks. The threshold of reasonable soundscape preservation of these historic and natural resources of centuries past will never be increased,therefore,the environmental impact of this facility cannot continue to increase or these resources will be lost to future generations. Traffic impacts of non-active aviation development' SOH-9 The communities supported a museum commemorating local aviation accomplishments to be housed in the historic Hangar 24 (18,000 sq. ft.). The size and content of such a museum was considered an appropriate addition to the community and of comparable scale with other local museums and historic sites. However,the proposed non-locally focused "Air and Space Museum" is slated to be a large structure(150,000 sq. ft.) built on 17 acres of tax exempt land and leased from Massport for a dollar a year. This tax-free facility will offer air-side facilities for individuals to house their private collections of aircraft and needs to be evaluated for the potential to generate significant additional traffic on Battle Road (already considered failed at the intersections). In addition, any air-show aviation traffic it generates during the spring, summer, and fall seasons -- when children, families, and tourists venture out to enjoy the National Park, historic sites and open space --would be viewed as detrimental and unwanted by the communities and site stewards. Additional activity of these antique and "show" planes should be studied and added to the proposed fleet mix. V. Regional Transportation Context 'O -10 As evidenced by the MAC study of Massachusetts GA Airports, any further Hanscom expansion plan threatens the "multi-airport" transportation program because it places a state agency in direct competition for aviation traffic with local smaller underutilized airports (and the related small businesses) that are seeking economic opportunities. In addition,the continued amassing of infrastructure, in order to monopolize operations, disproportionally concentrates environmental impacts on the Hanscom communities (The number of Hanscom operations is 2nd only to Logan International Airport within the New England Regional Aviation System). 57 Main Street Concord MA 01712 phone:978-369-6662 fax: 978-371-7550 e-mail: kati@saveourheritage.com web: www.saveounccritage.com 1. Ground Transportation" The scenario studied should not increase ground traffic on the Historic Battle Road. We ask that Massport be directed to comply with the mission and plans of the National Park Service and honor the integrity of Freedom's Way National Heritage Area. Expanded intersections and additional traffic lights are antithetical to the congressional vision of the centerpiece of Minute Man National Historical Park. VIL Noise o -12 The primary noise impact metric for this ESPR should be the Time Above (TA) metric, which is the best metric for establishing duration of noise-impacted time, and has consistently been the measure of interest of the public and to the historic sites. The more common DNL metric should be reported for trending,but has been repeatedly shown to be primarily a measure of a small number of loud events and, because it is insensitive to the impacts of frequent smaller aircraft, it is unsuitable for describing the impacts of the diversity of aircraft at Hanscom Field. The TA standard metric was first reported by Massport in the 2000 ESPR. For comparison, trending, and scenario analysis, the following TA contours should be generated, in addition to the tabular TA data for sensitive receptor sites: Contours for TA55dba: 15, 30, 60 and 90 minutes Contours for TA65dba: 15, 30, 60, and 90 minutes The Impact ofA[viation Noise on Human Health: Given the low ambient baseline sound levels that exist in the neighborhoods and within the protected public open space under the Hanscom flight paths, the negative impacts of aviation noise are often more substantial than in a city where ambient levels are higher and jet noise is less perceptible. Multiple studies have confirmed that airplane noise is not simply a "disturbance" -- it is injurious to human health (Study:Airport Noise Increases Risk ofStrokes—Tristen Moore/Berlin 2009). It is now linked to cardiovascular disease,hypertension, depression, and stroke. In a study conducted by Germany's Federal Environmental Agency, men exposed to jet noise had a 69%higher risk of being hospitalized for cardiovascular disease and woman had a 93%higher risk than those not exposed. In addition, the study found women who are exposed to about 60 decibels of jet noise during the day are 172%more likely to suffer a stroke. Eberhard Greiser,professor of epidemiology at Bremen University, explains why aviation noise is hazardous to human health, "Jet noise is more dangerous than any other kind of road-traffic noise because it is especially acute and sharp and induces stress hormones."His study concluded that females subjected to aviation noise had a significantly higher incidence of depressive disorders in addition to hypertension. Once again,it becomes clear that an FAA metric defining the impacts of aviation noise as a one- 57 Main Street Concord MA 01712 phone:978-369-6662 fax: 978-371-7550 e-mail: kati@saveourheritage.com web: www.saveourheritage.com t metric-fits-all-and—every-landscape is profoundly flawed and needs proper assessment by our environmental protection agency. MEPA should recommend that Massport conduct a health assessment study of those residents living under the flight paths in the four towns. V111. Air Quality The 2012 ESPR air quality assessment must include Lead. The EPA issued a 2008 report "Lead Emissions from the use of Leaded Aviation Gasoline in the United States" listing Hanscom in the top 1% of lead emitters of over 3000 airports. The atmospheric lead limits have recently been reduced by the EPA. In the U.S., piston planes still burn leaded fuel. A CA airport, with emissions near Hansom levels, was tested and found by the EPA to be outside of the Federal lead limits. Given that Hanscom generates over 100,000 piston plane operations per year,there is a legitimate concern that Hanscom may exceed federal lead limits. Proper abatement could involve switching planes over to unleaded fuel, reducing the number of piston plane operations, and/or ceasing to allow the piston planes to circle the towns. In addition, emission particulates and CO2 equivalent should be measured and reported. IX. Wetlands/Wildlife/Water Resources ®1� Lead measurements should be conducted by an independent source. Samples should be taken from still bodies of water in areas under the flight paths and in close proximity to the airport. Special attention should be given to investigating possible pollution and contamination of water resources within Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge where the turtle populations have been steadily declining. Lead tests should be done during the spring and fall seasons when recreational fling is at peak levels. X. Cultural and Historic Resources SOH-1 L.G. Hanscom Field is the only airport in the country that abuts a living history National Historical Park of the 18t century, a National Wildlife Refuge and the internationally recognized Birthplace of the American Conservation Movement. For these reasons, a one-size-fits-all approach to measuring and evaluating environmental impacts is both insufficient and inappropriate within a landscape that has been painstakingly protected and still offers preserved open space with low ambient natural sound (L90 of 35 -40 dbA). In 2001 (after Massport -- in contravention of the 1978 Master Plan -- changed the certification of the airport to allow for operations of 60 seat ticketed commercial aircraft) President Clinton and FAA Administrator Jane Garvey established a Federal Interagency MOU between the National Park Service, the FAA,DOI, DOT,Federal Highway, and The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to work towards long-term preservation goals for the historic area. In 57 Main Street Concord MA 01742 phone:978-369-6662 fax: 978-371-7550 e-mail: kati@saveourheritage.com web: www.savcourheritage.corn 2002—the document,Hanscom at the Crossroads was submitted to Massport and the Governor- calling for an immediate moratorium on additional aviation, infrastructure improvements and new development until a regional multi-modal transportation plan is established and enacted --recognizing the need to preserve the historic environs of the National Park,the natural resources, and the four host towns. Signatories included: Congressmen Ed Markey, John Tierney, and Marty Meehan, Massachusetts State Senators and Representatives, and nine surrounding towns. X1. Sustainability - In public meetings Massport commonly uses the term "sustainability"to mean financial sustainability rather than the more common use of environmental sustainability. Charging appropriate fees for landing,parking, and leases will provide L.G. Hanscom Field Civilian Airport with the financial resources to reach and retain financial sustainability without the need to expand beyond the current footprint or increase impacts beyond 2010 levels. Massport should not be allowed to use its financial "sustainability" goals as a justification for facility or operations growth. In closing, we remain optimistic that the host towns of Concord, Lexington, Lincoln, and Bedford, the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the site stewards will be successful in partnering with Massport in developing a responsible and economically sustainable plan for the future of L.G. Hanscom Field Airport. The only plan that will achieve the much-needed balance between this facility and its irreplaceable historic and natural resources will be a creative and innovative plan designed outside the box of monopolies.,power, and profit. It must begin by the commencement of an honest study of legitimate environmental sustainability. The HATS Environmental Subcommittee has requested that the year 2010 be considered the baseline of impacts not to be exceeded. If we can all agree on this very reasonable starting point,then let's roll up our sleeves and get to work. Sincerely, 4, - Anna West Winter Executive Director, Save Our Heritage Inc. 57 Main Street Concord MA 01712 phone:978-369-6662 fax: 978-371-7550 e-mail: katl@saveourheritage.com web: www.savcourhcritage.com Massport Expansion of Infrastructure at Hanscom Field (4.2.12) Project Square Feet Timeline Comments Purpose New FBO*at Hangar 24 site 96,000 Next 2 years . 60,000 sq ft new hangar,plus To attract,service and house new& 36,000 sq ft of office space larger aircraft(Gulfstream 650s),as • Hangar 24:18,500 sq ft well as other aircraft • Rectrix to invest$15 million here&$5 million at Worcester • This will be the 3 rd FBO at Hanscom Field. New Jet Aviation hangar 44-000 This year This will replace an existing 22,000 To attract,service and house new& sq.ft hangar to accommodate& larger aircraft(Gulfstream 650s) attract larger Gulfstream transatlantic jets.Jet Aviation is 1 of 2 existing FBOs at Hanscom. Navy surplus property 32,000 Near future Massport submitted a bid for this n/a airside property on 1/17/12. This, together with the FBO at the Hangar 24 site,would create two NEW active airside spaces at Hanscom East Ramp,6—10 new 400,000 Pending This is equivalent to 8 football fields. To attract and house new aircraft, hangars and house existing ones. Mass.Air&Space Museum 150,000 2015 The museum would be an additional 'The mission of the Mass.Air& (MASM) source of increased air and ground Space Museum is to preserve, traffic. The MASM brochure states, display,educate,and motivate future MA generations to continue this "The museum must be at an important tradition[aeronautical airport with aircraft ramp access, research and development]." in an easily accessible location at or near the population center of the —MASM brochure state with good visitor traffic and accessibility. There must be adequate acreage to support an initial museum structure and provide expansion space for future growth. —TOTAL 722,00-0 sq ft TOTAL NEW INFRASTUCTURE Cumulative impact on traffic?On noise?On pollution?On Minute Man Total existing infrastructure: Park,Great Meadows,and the 230,000 sq ft 1 000s of other historic&natural resources in our towns? *Fixed Base Operator,service facility for private luxury jets and other aircraft HATS Environmental Subcommittee comments to MEPA on Massport Proposed ESPR Scope April4,2012 1'S [Environmental Subcommittee c/o Town Office Building, Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA 02420 April 4,2012 Secretary Richard K.Sullivan Jr. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Ms. Maeve Vallely-Bartlett Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) 100 Cambridge St.,Suite 900(9th Floor) Attn: MEPA Office Boston MA, 02114 Dear Secretary Sullivan and Ms.Vallely-Bartlett, As the Chairman of the Hanscom Area Towns Committee's Environmental Subcommittee(HATS ES),I am submitting these remarks on Massport's February 2012 Proposed Scope for the 2012 Environmental Planning and Status Report. The Hanscom Area Towns Committee (HATS) is the Growth and Development Policy Committee established under M.G.L. 40§41 with Bedford, Concord, Lexington,and Lincoln as member municipalities. Massport indicates that its proposed scope responds to the Secretary's March 29, 2007 Certificate on the 2005 ESPR. However,significant events have occurred that should require Massport to modify its scope. AT-1 Massport has now acquired Worcester Airport making Hanscom Field now part of a three- airport system. Massport has begun a 2011 update process to its Logan ESPR, but it has not yet planned for an ESPR for Worcester Airport. Because of inter-related activities between Worcester and Bedford airports(e.g.the recent January announcement by Massport— "Massport Approves General Aviation Development at Worcester Regional Airport and L.G. Hanscom Field")it seems that there needs to be better planning as to how the activities at Worcester and Hanscom inter-relate. I believe the Secretary should require Massport to ensure that this scope will accomplish that by doing a concurrent ESPR or by other means. Because of the potential magnitude of this event,the scope should not be approved until there is better clarity on how the ESPR can address this issue. - �� 2 The four communities did not participate in the review of the 2005 ESPR because the HATS communities regarded the ESPR process as an ineffective means of avoiding environmental Page 1 of 5 HATS Environmental Subcommittee comments to MEPA on Massport Proposed ESPR Scope April 4,2012 damage to the sensitive area surrounding Hanscom Civilian Airport. Among the concerns are that there is no articulated basis for the ESPR process within the MEPA Regulations, and that there are no longer any meaningful review thresholds that are applicable to addressing the environmental impacts caused by expansion at Hanscom Civilian Airport. The communities are hopeful that this ESPR process can be a productive process.We do seek your advice on how we can work with your Office to develop meaningful provisions that will effectively limit harmful environmental degradation as a result of Massport's articulated civilian airport expansion. In any event, the following are my initial comments on what Massport has submitted. I have sent a number of questions to Massport on Monday, and obviously,they are still formulating responses. I have attached the list of questions. The HATS ES will have additional comments when Massport responds to these questions. We expect to meet with Massport sometime next week. Master Plan and Noise Rules On page 2 of 5 "in 1978,the Authority prepared a Master Plan for the airport.The preparation of the Master Plan included a lengthy and comprehensive public process. In 1980, after additional public process, Massport adopted the Hanscom Field Noise Rules,which were an outgrowth of the Master Plan.The Master Plan and the 1980 Noise Rules remain the framework for airport planning and operations today" Note,there is nowhere that it says the noise rules supersede the Master Plan, Massport states they will study scenarios compatible with both. But,the Master Plan limits commuters to 30 seats and the noise rules limit to 60 seats. Massport is taking the position that the limit number is 60,but the Master Plan says 30. Note the master plan also prohibits certificated passenger service,which is of course what Shuttle America operated. The noise rules do not supersede the master plan;they are just other parallel rules. Compliance requires the lower number be used. You should rule that the chosen scenario not include flights with more than 30 seats. History and Purpose of ESPR In addition to the comments above, I urge you to require Massport to document how this Report series has historically been an effective planning tool. It will be helpful if Massport is required to show how they will actively plan for a constrained future buildout, rather than expanding whenever any entity asks for expansion of facilities or operations. Market demand for air travel could allow for unlimited growth and should not be permitted to be the ultimate determining factor in the ESPR analysis. Public Review and Participation Community volunteers who have participated in the past have become discouraged by the perfunctory character of the previous ESPRs and their failure to protect in a meaningful way our surrounding historical sites and the US Minute Man Historical National Park(MMNHP)from environmental damage to the Environment. I hope that your office will ensure that this 2012 process will be meaningful. Page 2 of 5 HATS Environmental Subcommittee comments to MEPA on Massport Proposed ESPR Scope April4,2012 Format of the 2012 ESPR We believe the format and process of the 2000 and 2005 ESPR was flawed. I have attached the HATS ES prior analysis of those flaws. The 2005 ESPR was based upon 2005 data and forecast 2010 potential scenarios. The base year for this ESPR should be based upon 2010 actual conditions so that we can have a clear evaluation of 2010 forecasts vs. actual operations and environmental conditions. There is no rational basis to use 2012 as the base year as proposed. AT-3 future planning and project analysis of environmental impacts so that the cumulative effects of incremental impacts don't get lost, provided that there is a retrospective look back to the real base line of 1985, the year of the first GEIR. Planning constraints for operations need to be put in place to ensure that environmental impacts are based on 2010 impact levels or lower. AT-4 You should require Massport to develop a metric that equates types of operation with types of environmental impacts. Massport uses numbers of operations as if it represented a fixed impact irrespective of whether it is a single engine plane operation or a commercial cargo plane operation. The single scenario that is chosen for analysis should be required to be realistic and based upon factors such as how well the 2005 scenarios for 2010 were actualized,as well as taking into account additional factors such as:planned activities of Hanscom in the context of now being in a three airport system and the recommendations that come out of the Inter-agency Workgroup on protection of the Minute Man National Historical Park and Environs. A quantified limit to the scenario chosen should be defined up front and included in the Scope document and should be required to only include any scenario that falls within the parameters of the Master Plan. AT-5 Based on Massport's recent assertions,the fleet mix in the scenario should not include any commercial cargo operations and no expansion of the incidental cargo as currently operationalized today. The fleet mix should not include commercial passenger service in planes having more than 30 seats. Leaded fuel based operations should be limited as described in the Air Quality section. Airport Planning&Regional Transportation Context My comments at the top of this letter are crucial to setting a New England regional transportation context. A multi-modal regional transportation policy coherence should be required to set the basis for future development planning at Hanscom. Ground Transportation No specific comments at this time. Noise Time Above (TA) metrics should be integrated into the ESPR at a level as recommended by the Hanscom Workgroup and as stated previously by your predecessor. The TA contours are much more important than the DNL contours for assessment of noise impacts. The analysis needs to include a sufficient number of TA noise contours at agreed upon spaced noise level Page 3 of 5 HATS Environmental Subcommittee comments to MEPA on Massport Proposed ESPR Scope April4,2012 amounts above ambient in order to demonstrate more clearly the amounts of annoyance and disturbance to residents than the usual assortment of DNL type measurements AT®g Air Quality&WetlandsLWildlifeLWater Resources ESPR should be required to conform to all the MassDOT Green DOT directives.4;6,ce,,EX)f st:ts a pal of,eul Ming-green nouse gas IHAT- i emissions over 2 million tons by 2020,a reduction of about 7.3 percent below 1990 transportation sector emission levels. Massport should set goals and projections in this ESPR, and report on what base level it will use going forward along with quantitative measures of current direct and indirect sources of GHGs at Hanscom. The ESPR should take into account particulate matter including fine and ultra-fine matter in conformance with the Transportation Reform Act of 2009 and report on how it will fund/study health effects in a parallel way as the Logan Health Study. AT®7 ESPR needs to report on its commitment to monitoring/measuring lead emissions from aircraft and measure lead levels in nearby ground,water,and air, and include any lead based emissions from other sources that could add to the already high level of airplane lead emissions at Hanscom. HAT®$ lead migration into nearby ground,water,and air resources. The EPA issued a 2008 report "Lead Emissions from the use of Leaded Aviation Gasoline in the United States"saying Hanscom is in the top 1%of lead emitters of over 3000 airports. In addition,the EPA has recently reduced the atmospheric lead limits. Piston planes still burn leaded fuel. Another airport with emissions estimated to be near Hansom levels(located in California)was tested and found by the EPA to be outside of the Federal lead limits. There is a legitimate concern that Hanscom may exceed federal lead limits. According to the EPA report, Hanscom's lead emissions are 533 kg/year, or 1175 lbs./year, because of the large percentage of piston engine aircraft at Hanscom (71%)which still use leaded aviation fuel. Jets and commercial aircraft no longer use leaded fuel. Much of Europe has phased out leaded aviation fuel altogether, but lobbyists in the US have successfully fought its continued use. The ESPR needs to address how measured levels may affect fleet mix and operations of leaded fuel based planes. As part of the ESPR process, Massport should fund an independent study on the air,ground and standing water around Hanscom Field. Cultural and Historical Resources No additional comments at this time. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management System No additional comments at this time. MEPA Documentation The communities hope that your office will include additional instructions that allow the 2012 ESPR to be a worthwhile process and for it to become a meaningful planning document. Page 4 of 5 . ................... HATS Environmental Subcommittee comments to MEPA on Massport Proposed ESPR Scope April4,2012 Please let me or the HATS Chair, Ms. Deborah Mauger, know if you have questions or wish further discussion. Sincerely, � d (signed) Richard Canale, HATS ES Chair Copies: I William Gage, MEPA Analyst HATS Selectmen. HATS ES members Jeanne Krieger, HFAC Chair Nancy Nelson, Superintendent, Minute Man National Historical Park Tom Ennis, Massport Dorothy Steele, Massport Page 5 of 5 HATS Environmental Subcommittee c/o Town Office Building,Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington,MA 02420 February 15, 2005 To: The HATS Committee RE: L. G. Hanscom Field Airport Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR) In the past, the HATS Environmental Subcommittee (ES) has spent long hours in analyzing Massport documents, participating in meetings with Massport and other folks, and helping frame Community concerns through the ESPR/GEIR process. At this time Massport wishes to begin to plan for a new 2000 ESPR and requests to meet with the HATS ES. We are aware that, for some time, the HATS Committee has questioned the efficiency and effectiveness of the ESPR process as it has unfolded. Accordingly, we have canvassed the members of the ES Committee and conclude that HATS ES members are reluctant to participate in a 2005 ESPR process on behalf of the communities for the following reasons: - During the 2000 ESPR process, we found that Massport was not sufficiently responsive to community questions or comments. We believe that the we and our consultants carefully reviewed Massport documents and asked pertinent questions in writing and verbally on presented issues, but did not receive complete answers. Nonetheless, our comments were based on solid analysis, and were well documented. Many of our comments still have not yet been addressed. - MASSPORT unilaterally presented Hanscom growth scenarios without collaborating on how they aligned/misaligned with local and regional plans. - Massport did not fully implement a number of the recommendations in the Certificate issued by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) after the 2000 ESPR. HATS wrote to Massport about several MEPA Certificate recommendations that didn't seem to be addressed yet by Massport. Massport responded by letter to HATS but did not fully address the HATS concerns. - The current MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), as revised in 1998, were streamlined and the few review thresholds that might be triggered by Hanscom development were largely eliminated. The Secretary of the EOEA and the MEPA Office have Tittle oversight of environmental degradation that occurs as a result of Hanscom development. In any event, the workload of MEPA staff is not sufficient to allow more than a cursory review of an ESPIR document. - Community volunteers who have participated in the past have become discouraged by the perfunctory character of the previous ESPRs and their failure to protect in a meaningful way our surrounding historical sites and the US Minute Man Historical National Park (MMNHP) from environmental damage to the Environment. The HATS ES requests that HATS seek more effective and efficient review processes. The HATS ES stands ready to work with you on this. TOWN OF LINCOLN yip J U N 0 9 2005 LINCOLN TOWN WILL 16 LINCOLN ROAD/PO BOX 6353 LINCOLK MA 01773 781259-2600 FAX T81Q59-1677 BOARD ofSELECTMEN C Sarah Cannon Hdtlrn,Chair Sara A.Mattes COPY Gary A.Taylor April 19,2005 Secretary Ellen Roy Hertzfekier Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street Boston,MA 02114 RE:ESPR,EQEA#548418696,for LG.Hanscom Field Dear Secretary Hertttelder: The Hanscom Area Towns(HATS)are keenly interested in preserving the historic environment and resources of our communities and acting as responsible stewards of these resources for future generations. However, the Hanscom Field Airport Environmental Status and Planning Report(ESPR)has not proved to be a viable toot for assisting in that stewardship. It has not proven to be useful in managing the impacts of air traffic at the airport. Although the ESPR review process and report has had some use as a draft plan far Massport t expansion of the field and has provided Masspod7s consultants view of environmental Impact,it has not resulted in any meaningful and tangible controls. The regulatory body,the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,which oversees the ESPR process, Q apparently has neither the resources nor the mandate to effectively control the environmental degradation that occurs as a result of ever increasing civilian air traffic at Hanscom Field. Our experience has indicated that EOEA is apparently reluctant to referee the process and its result During the 2000 ESPR process it was not responsive to the concems that the ESC,(the Environmental Subcommittee Of HATS),the volunteer citizen group that hired consultants and experts of national reputation,raised. The `4 ESC also found That Massport was not sufficiently responsive to community issues and comments.0 estions , c� and concerns,supported by welt-grounded analysis,still rentairt unanswered. The growth scenarios presented la) by Messport were deemed Inconsistent with local and regional plans,as was their commitment to stewardship of national resources. Recommendations outlined in the Cerfifrgte issued by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs(EOF.A)after the 2000 ESPR have not been fully addressed by Massport. Massport has characterized the draft scope of the 2005 ESPR as simply a replication of the same work of Vte 2000 ESPR.Current MEPA reguiations(301 CMR I 00)are judged to lack the teeth to adequately protect the environment. Meaningful threshold limits,measuring the impacts of proposed development,have been largely eliminated.Changes in the law are called for to restore adequate protection and appropriate enforcement tools. Af-23 Eppont ix ri.-1 r 5 aNans on Fa'� "lassportt:. ? riper!W.Pects the lease date byrea.rr:tr:h.November A::isory Ccmmission meeting as Cacber 14 2CC wlasstm rep,esenr is yesl. Thus.the2l)M I:SPR raI dtaii aiIl I;e comp----3 after the censtractioc of the-_rossp ant racility is nrisl:_d. 1 his rr4uns: t tnerc;will be no meaningful environmental rewev;--:a site:1 at is a delineated Zone(I by-Massachusetts QD r,P. -rite it^.ae Liaus su6ce proposed iviil increase cr maticaily!*y this development(atipears to 6e ceari, I Gti°v:er<rage•sn sehea atie dr::`r±s)and a rxl Jam:=i'.l be cstab'-L-` ;on:his sitz:....r i:iL>c lartc enough to drive do::•.i the cost or Fuel at Hanscer-Ctrli.:n Airfield. Silo believe t:rzt the cu Mu s uct nc or L7assport';);SpR prec:+•e is inadcgt„-uc rur tht masons sm t=-:_ T.ZL SS'i s "•'lie.zoutntitted to pa-Iii4ating in a viable pla-m::7b a ::YOM of-re anti J:e Govcmor•s office;o propnic a rrmc:: :r : rra newor c. Sera Mattes, Page 2 of 2 LNt::n_k'f•'){47i BULL t'Ct 3'A)X 635, LSNCUt N.MA dt?.; aU.tRU(iF':F L'cCritEti Sarah t'amtun HO.I.n.Chair $era A."Ian's Gan A.TuyMr ^_7 October j0015 Scummy Stephen R.Pritchard Executive Officc o Environmental Atlai:s Attention:MF1'A Office 1 Oo Camh dgc Str:cL Suit--909 Liounn.MA 02114 Rr:: (..G.Ilanscom field-2005 ESPR Revi!wd Scope Request hoEA No.5a 8 t/3696 ttEPA AnalyA:Bill Gage.let.(,1?-626-i0?= Preponenr:klass::chuseus Pcrt Authority Nmacspen) riled 9P-6/1-005 near Secretary Pritzhard: The IIA IS C'ommittce wrote to you earlier this-:car to let you know that we did not plan to paricipate in the 2005 EMIR.'A,*c have dntelminLtL after reviewing cur past e-Veriencc with;he 2000 rSPR,the cost to the communities in tune and effort far outweigh any;targinal value gained either through the discussion or the final doct.mcnt. The request for modifications to the scope propcsed by birec:or Kinton not only adds m4himt of value'n the ESPR;it actually givez additional:,jppon to our original de,:ision to net participate in the 20005 ESM The scope includes na articulated"State traisporration network"that{could incluce air travel.'11cre is no articulated"regional aviationne�ynrk:' hevetopinalmulti-stakcaoldcr(mcludin,;public involvement l mttlri-stataro,multi-modal,ions mngc:nu.sportation,-flan nods to he a priority item for the Stare and t tassrin. Without sonic meartianful parameters:unit limits on activities at i#anscr-m Airpon,Massport cannot achieve itc goal of returning I tanscoat front its present classification its a"Jyonhub Primary f'otmnercisl Service Airport to a"Genera!Aviation Rclievcr Airprim" we suggest tc you that the structure of the ESPR is flawed without a clear sctting of these limits. 11XI'S eoace as are compounded by FOFV M fEPA's a_rp.'uent failure to hold Massport accountable for numcompliarc=with prior recommendations by E.OFA. Mascport has_, smcmatically been allowed to ignore scope require-nercs,even nose dozammued by tvIF.P k Now.Masspon seems to he able to allow up to 660,000 schcdalcd aviation passenger s.sche&sled cargo operation accessed by a vagixly referenced road. and t, evenfold ir."ease in jet operaticn,wi6iour attendant mitigation or regard too cavironmcnlal impact. Addili_mai!v.the proposed revised storm dc«s not provide arty mechanism for a recent proposal-the r-T-) tsosspoirt proposal-to be subjected to any review. I Se dcvc:upmcnt proposed by Crasspoint was nwvcr anticipated and studied in the ESPR 2000 process. Cresspoint promises-lie construction on this development within 18 montl:s of the signed lease date(:Wted in proposal document,by Crosspoint in the posstssion of C Fain:I n1 Secretary EOen Roy Hertzfeider -2- Apnt 19,2005 The four communities would be better served by devoting theirefforts to describing environmentally J responsible limits for air"rate at Hanscom cnrihan auport The expertise of the HATS Environmental subcommittee and the resources of the four HATS communities would be better spent promoting improved regulation rather than perpelue"whet the 14ATS comunimities have experienced as a meaningless exerme, As a result.both HATS and the ESC Will Choose to remain essentially moot from the 2005 ESPR process However.HATS would wekame the opportunitY to work with Massport to fully implement the directives set $ forth by MEPA in response to the 2000 ESPR,and to develop a better mechanism to use pubhc resources to find a balance between the needs of the Hanscom Civilian Airport and the historic erhvirounenl in which it resides Sincerely. e"/S.— HanscomArea Towns(HATS) Cc Senator Susan Fargo Senator Robert Havern Representative Cosy,Atkins Representative Jay Kaufman Representative Charles Murphy Representative Susan Pope p(eptesentative Tom Stanley ,(Tom Ennis.Massport Barbara Patzner.Hanscom Civilian Airport 41 :> ShbLAir Box 441 Concord, MA 01742 Citizens working to Safeguard the Historic Hanscom Area's Irreplaceable Re-sources www.ShhAinorg April 3, 2012 Maeve Vallely-Bartlett,Director Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs(EEA) Attn: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900(9th floor) Boston MA, 02114 Re: Hanscom Field Environmental Planning and Status Report Dear Ms.Vallely-Bartlett: ShhAir(Safeguarding the Historic Hanscom Area Irreplaceable Resources) is a grassroots,citizens' organization that has been active in the four towns of Bedford, Concord,Lexington and Lincoln for 20 years,with the mission of protecting the historic resources of our area from undue negative impacts of Hanscom Field. Over the years we have participated in a number of environmental reviews conducted at Hanscom, and will actively participate in the current scoping process being established for the upcoming ESPR.- Our experience has demonstrated the profound importance of this issue, and this process,to the citizens of the towns surrounding Hanscom. Over the years,through Town Meeting resolutions,statements and actions from Boards of Selectmen,public demonstrations and legal challenges,the citizens of our towns have challenged expansion at Hanscom Field. These actions have reflected the great importance that citizens place, not only on the environmental integrity of our communities,but also on our role as the Shh-2 stewards of our historic area's unique role in American history. *Bom of tFe-se core values are severely threatened by the further expansion of activities at Hanscom. We ask that Massport work together in good faith with the HATS (Hanscom Area Towns)Environmental Subcommittee to develop the kind of scope that will define a planning process that will result in real protection for the important natural and historical environment of the Hanscom area. Margaret coppe President, ShhAir Board 12 Barrymeade Drive Lexington MA 02421 781-862-2637 May 7,2012 Richard K. Sullivan,Jr.,Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street Suite 900 Boston MA, 02114 Attn:Bill Gage RE: Project EEA #5484 /EEA#8696 Proposed Scope for 2012 Hanscom Field Environmental Planning and Status Report(ESPR) Dear Mr. Sullivan: As the representative of nineteen families living in the Concord Homes development,which stands some 250 feet from Hanscom Field, I v,7rite to cc==nent on Massport's February 2012 Proposed Scope for the 2012 Environmental Planning and Status Report. Few citizens of the Commonwealth have greater first-hand experience of the activities of aircraft at Hanscom Field and even fewer will be impacted as we will be by currently proposed or future growth at Hanscom Field. On any given morning,we already find our conversations at the family table interrupted by aircraft noise, and on any given afternoon,we can find ourselves driven inside by fumes created by aircraft. In light of proposed expansion,our particular concern for the health and safety of the families who live near Hanscom Field is heightened,and we seek your help in assuring a full,thorough,and open assessment of the environmental impact of activities at Hanscom Field both on the ground and in the air. Our chief concern is the emission of fumes,especially those by aircraft using lead-based fuel. The ll r impact of lead on children in particular is well established. - -- gasoline for vehicles traveling our roadways,we are unaware of any study conducted by Massport, the FAA,or any other government agency to measure the levels of lead being emitted through ground activity or activity in the air by aircraft on neighborhoods near Hanscom Field. The need for such a study is certainly warranted by the 2008 report of the EPA,which listed Hanscom Field in the top 1%of airport lead emitters nationwide at 33 of 3,414 airports facilities. Anecdotally,our air quality worsens greatly whenever planes stand idling beside their hangars,whenever de-icing is required,and whenever nearby runways are in use. We urge your vigilance in requiring Massport to reduce these emissions. Our secondary concern lies with the impact of noise on families living adjacent to Hanscom Field_ We continue to be troubled by the Finding of No Significant Impact by the FAA with regard to plans to double the hangar capacity at Hanscom in order to garage and service large private jets. We understand that this conclusion was drawn based on an impractical standard,defining 65 db DNL as "incompatible with residential land use." At no point has Massport or the FAA measured noise 1 http://www.epa.gov/oms/aviation.htm levels on our properties even though noise levels from airports have been shown to have a negative impact on the ability of children to learn and on the likelihood of adults to experience stroke.'- We would like to join the four Hanscom-area towns in requesting the following for the 2012 ESPR: that current and future scenarios for Hanscom Field not exceed the 2010 baseline and that impacts be mitigated from 2010 levels down,O that a permanent boundary footprint be established to limit 'incremental expansion at Hanscom Field,- that Massport honor a 30-seat limit for passenger aircraft noted in Massport's own Master mi Plan rather than a 60-seat linift noted in the noise regulations,*ttel that no commercial or cargo service be permitted in current or future scenarios._ NLC-7 kv,)re would like to add our own request for your office to require Massport to complete a comprehensive study of the noise levels and air quality caused by fuel emissions on the ground and Mi the air in the neighborhoods adjacent to Hanscom Field. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Vanacore Bloom Neighborhood Liaison for Concord Homes 25 Fuller Lane Concord,MA 01742 2 Gary Evans and Lorraine Maxwell. httl2://,%-,T.,w,chchearing.org/nolse-center- home/chfldren-and-noise/noise-cliAdrens-health-learning-and-behavior Tristan Moore. Study: Airport Noise Increases Risk of Strokes. htip://-,v-w-w.time.com/time/si2ecials/"packages/""`article/""`0,28804,1929071 1929070 1947782,00.html Belinda Gower 63 Cedar Way Concord,MA o 17+9 Phone-(978)254-5915 0 E-Mail:bgower@mac.corn April 4,2012 Maeve Vallely-Bartlett,Director Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs(EEA) Attn:MEPA Office I oo Cambridge St., Suite 900(9"'floor) Boston MA, 02114 Re:Hanscom Field Environmental Planning and Status Report Dear Ms.Vallely-Bartlett, As a community member,I wish to express my frustration with the continued increase in air traffic and pollution generated by Hanscom Airport I live,with my husband and 3 young children,on four acres of meadowlands in Concord.Our property includes protected wetlands and abuts the Minuteman National Historic Park. It is a surreally peaceful setting that is compromised by the thundering sound of jets landing too low and too frequently in our neighborhood.Over the past year,neighbors and I have noticed a significant amplification of noise and jet traffic. After living abroad with my husband and children for nearly 8 years,we were eager to move back home. We both grew up in Massachusetts and couldn't think of a better place to raise our children than Concord—steeped in history,natural beauty and a strong sense of community rooted in the past—yet devoted to a sustainable and healthy future. We understood that Hanscom was a few miles from our house but because of its historic setting—abutting the Old North Bridge and the Estabrook Woods— we felt this area was protected,sacred almost We were very wrong in that assumption. We wake and go to bed to the sounds of jet engines.My young children are startled awake in the middle of the night. Neighbors have moved away as a result of having suffered stress reactions to the onslaught of the pounding jets. They have acquired the many well-documented illnesses that are now inarguably linked with living under a flight path which include cardiovascular disease,hypertension,and stroke.I am aware that Massport is intending to expand its infrastructure for large jets by 672,000 sq fL and that, according to Massport's own admission,the new large luxury jets will be using the long runway— which already impacts Great Meadows,The Estabrook Woods,numerous schools,the National Park, and historic Concord and Lexington with 80%of the total operations that fly in and out of Hanscom. These resources and communities can't tolerate any increase in impacts. Be1-2 We look to MEPA to take this environmental scoping process very seriously and request stringent measurements of lead,particulates,Cot equivalent,and noise contours.We ask that all unhealthy impacts be mitigated thoroughly and appropriately.This historic cowzmnaity that has fe44ght for-"d --E] Page 4 protected for centuries—the natural public open space that is essential to the health and well-being of all citizens.We owe it to the children and to the next generations to protect this historic landscape from any additional pollution and degradation. Sincerely, r1ZI Belinda Gower I i �a ----- - ----May-g-,-20-1-2--._--- ----- --- ------- -- ------ -- ,I R Richard K. Sullivan, Jr., Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) r MEPA Office �y ,_ 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900 (9th floor)_ _ Boston MA, 02114 Attn: Bill Gage RE: Project EEA#5484/EEA#8696 ® ® o Proposed Scope for Hanscom Field Environmental Planning and Status Report(ESP-) 44 Baker Farm Lincoln,MA 01773-3004 Dear Mr. Sullivan, phone: 781.259.4700 fax: 781.259.4710 As a steward of nationally and internationally significant historic sites e-mail: wNNTroject@waiden.org and tourist destinations in Concord, located within a two mile radius of website: www.walden.org Hanscom Field, the Walden Woods Project wishes to submit the following comments regarding Massport's February 2012 Proposed. Scope for the.2012 Environmental Planning and Status Report(ESPR). Don Henley Founder and President To date,the greatest threat posed to the Concord historic corridor by Kathi Anderson Hanscom Field is the noise generated by aircraft activity. Due to the Executive Director proximity of Walden Pond and Walden Woods to the airport,the thousands of visitors who seek out these sites annually already, experience negative impacts from Hanscom's current levels and types of operations. These impacts include interruptions to our outdoor education programs due to the inability of students and teachers to adequately hear presenters. Aircraft noise from Hanscom causes a degradation of the 18"' and 19'h century experience that people travel from all over the country, and the world, to experience. wit-1 We understand that Massport's Proposed Scope for its ESPR, as approved by MEPA, will create a framework for potential future plans for Hanscom Field through 2030. We are concerned that the Proposed Scope is unacceptably open-ended and would give Massport the leeway to move ahead with nearly any plan based on "the demands of the market". E2 be that it cannot exceed 320,000 operations'per year-its maximum capacity according to the Master Plan. Given that the historic Walden Pond/Woods area is already adversely impacted by the current 163,000 ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -- Richard K-Sullivan, Jr.,-Secretaxy ------ - May-8-2012--- ----- — Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Page Two operations,a doubling of operations would be unacceptably injurious to the visitor's experience. From 1999- 2001, when commercial passenger service was operating out of Hanscom Field (bringing total operations up to 220,000/year),the impacts to Walden Woods were significantly, worse. This involved an increase of 60,000 operations. Bringing Hanscom Field to maximum capacity would mean an increase of 160,000 additional operations. To allow Massport to rely on"maximum capacity"and"demands of the market" as the key factors.for guiding its plans for Hanscom Field will undermine the invaluable educational and recreational experiences these historic sites offer the public.• Therefore,the Walden Woods Project supports the recommendations of the Hanscom-area towns, via the HATS Environmental Subcommittee's comments submitted to MEPA, which we believe will provide more definition to the 2012 ESPR Scope, and a more acceptable future for the historic sites that we are responsible for preserving. Specifically, we concur with these recommendations from the HATS Environmental Subcommittee: ® Current and future scenarios for Hanscom Field should not exceed the 2010 baseline, and impacts should be mitigated from 2010 levels down. WAL-4 M A permanent boundary footprint should be established to limit incremental expansion at Hanscom Field(such as Massport's recent bid to purchase new airside Naval property). ��®5 Massport-should use the 30-seat limit for passenger aircraft noted in the Master Plan,not the 60-seat limit noted in the Noise Regulations. ® No new commercial or cargo service should be studied in current or future scenarios. EE We respectfully request that you direct Massport to implement the HATS Environmental Subcommittee's recommendations in the finalized Scope for the 2012 ESPR. Only by doing so, will it be possible to begin to work towards achieving a better'balance*between Massport's plans and the needs of the historic and the natural resources preservation community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Since ely, i Ka R. Anderson Ex cutive Director alden Woods Project i CONCORD Y I1Zola i MUSEUM Iv1ay 9, 2012 200 LEXINGTON ROAD POST OFFICE BOX 146 Richard K. Sullivan, Jr., Secretary CONCORD, MA Executive.Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) MEPA Office 01742.0146 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900 (9ti,floor) Boston MA, 02114 TELEPHONE: 978.369.9763 Attn: Bill Gage PAX: 978.369.9660 www.concordmuseum.org RE: Project EEA#5484/EEA#8696 Proposed Scope for Hanscom Field Environmental Plamiing and Status Report (ESPR) Dear Mr. Sullivan, As stewards of nationally and internationally significant historic sites and tourist destinations in Concord, located within a two mile radius of Hanscom Field, the CoiicordMuseum aibrnits the following remarks onMassport's February 2012 Proposed Scope for the 2012 Environmental Planning and Status Report (ESPR). To date, the greatest threat posed to the Concord historic corridor by Hanscom Field - - is the noise generated by aircraft-activity.-Due-to proximity of these historic landmarks to the airport, the thousands of visitors who seek out the sites annually already experience negative impacts from Hanscom's current levels and types of operations. For some of us, these impacts include interruptions on our tours and the inability of our visitors to hear interpreters; for all of us,they cause a degradation of the 10' and 19"' century experience that people travel from all over the country, and the world, to experience. -1 The Concord Museum understands that Massport's Proposed Scope for its ESPR, as approved by MEPA, will create a framework for potential fi.>ture plans for Hanscom Field through 2030. The Museum is concerned that the Proposed Scope is unacceptably open-ended and would give Massport the leeway to move ahead with nearly any plan based on "the demands of the market." -2 Hanscom Field appears to be that it cannot exceed 320,000 operations per year--its maximum capacity according to the Master Plan. Given that the historic area is already adversely impacted by the current 163,000 operations, a doubling of operations would be unacceptably injurious to the visitor's experience and to the sanctity of the sites. X1;Ia T�/1�— .,�P,,,� speaks 4-GI41 1 ;L3-Qr� 1999- 2Q91 r;"G;4 certificated commercial passenger service was operating out of Hanscom Field i I (bringing total operations up to 220,000/year), the impacts on the sites and visitor experience_were_sigiuficantly_worse=this, with"only_" an_increase of 60,000 operations. Bringing Hanscom Field to maximum capacity would mean an increase of 160,000 additional operations. To allow Massport to rely on"maximum capacity" and "demands of the market" as the key factors for guiding its plans for Hanscom Field will lead to the irreversible undermining of the invaluable experiences these historic sites offer the public. Therefore, the Museum.whole-heartedly supports the recommendations of the Hanscom-area towns, via the HATS Environmental Subcommittee's continents submitted to MEPA, which the Museum believes will provide more definition to the 2012 ESPR Scope, and a more acceptable future for the historic sites that we are responsible for preseiving. - Specifically, the Museum concurs with:these reedmrnendations from the HATS Environmental Subcommittee: ® Current and future scenarios for Hanscom Field should not exceed the ®� baseline and impacts should be mitigated from 2010 levels down. ® A permanent boundary footprint be established to limit incremental expansion at Hanscom Field (such as Massport's recent n MUD-5 airside Naval property). ® Massport should use the 30-seat limit for passenger aircraft noted in th -� Master Plan, not the 60-seat limit noted in the Noise Regulations. • No new commercial or cargo service should be studied in current J IInn'�J scenarios. '— The Museum respectfrally requests that you direct Massport to implement the HATS Enviromnental Subcommittee's recommendations in the finalized Scope for the 2012 ESPR. Only by doing so, will it be possible to begin to work towards achieving a better balance between Massport's plans and the needs of the historic and the natural resources preservation community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Peggy urke Executive Director Appendix B Airport Layout Plan Appendix Airport I-ayout 1"4an E,7z�In Appendix B Airport Layout Plan (This page intentionally left blank) r',2 HARRIS MILLER MILLER&HANdISONdI INC. A v � N' a! s a a E e E u - - 0. E a s Q o C a �q wa a o o`m 0 �/� im LCi E o Wtm J LL m y s 8 � � a � o I a a £ems z rc CV CO 7 V)CO r—aD 12 .92 E a CL CL o F E m m s C Co CO 0 FL FL 12 O O cc E3 E -r N J = �w���aaw I I 1011, � I p� w� pw o= r i d p Q 1 t `, A � H`�.,�ro 1 `e✓ Via+ "� ,�-y-Cl _ �&§S➢i�E �!- E ,oa m i V moo P¢n r z` rc m � o i ¢ ¢ °b i m o < 7 l g c f f a NAb�� _ o F— a �r y � � 3 $ ou 'o) F- LU w w� wo J t. \ I I Mom IN C r , I K ,l' — ——————— — Fie - s hr ao I � a �e k �s y IF�t & L f a� Q� s � r a 1111 }_ o ap �o r • Y r N . • / r y II w. o-a• I _ it 3: x a m, W s< • a i O F ra ------------------ /❑ . r ��� "gip I.:. w. �F al LL4 • w a M I S w r G :• z • , z Kli � m • o i a i a i a^I I' � e x� o � o m = R• z sF e wz m a � o � o a r ---__ _ __ - 7 y OOb a 1 e . z —CD) s O • e a • w � a L _ ww. a . a o aap wo�3a �� 0 Lk =g=og= Q O 00 CD Qa00 . w O . � a { 1 ,0018 o0 u EL o • r / o , yv i V-`♦7 . : `y cv y _ e o000000000o m so � w = w o oN a o a m . n + w s o0 rci o a h � � s � o o: yw d - r o o N i � � f f r O o J H � w a z w Q w o o c- �.no z p s )4 - �� S"> a zaa 143 .v ao.s�a H3 osu �2` aaz i e f w 8 M i JOEY Our A M a 4 Drr' �r, P Y�MUM U i } 4 a i 1 r d Ul �^ u a 00 Z O ELEA OR '�f}I .4 rs a �v @�1 yjJyP{ ark L 6 S t t rf M' / t ° l ii't ,t (L vpq ,.�':, ,f ✓ '� yS f, t „' / d ;too i�iJ r a'FS1s s a - > t ti f t i c ra ( low Eck IN" V, a �Y t��qua? � !✓ ' � � � � 1 � `v � f t 4 k i r r 110 ,i t� , �.1 yI I I i ,f r /VIA f/ AS My y l a{ � '�4 .9f+l t / m f lot iit i i tP,++,!�h�� t: s i" E \ t ;h<r1gr1�U d �f eon i' •d' 1 hip NU ; YYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYY YYYYYYYY YYYYY ............... ........ oa . .............. .............. . . ............... YYY VV ONE .......... Appendix C Ground Transportation Appendix Ii " Ground Franspartation l7 ,d „m Appendix C Ground Transporta on Appendix D Noise Appendix I) Noise El 7z�In Appendix DNoise Appendix E Air Quality ................. Appendix Air Quality E,7z�In Appendix E Air Quality ...............1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1- Nut HARRIS MILLER MILLER&HANSON INC. Appendix F Wetlands and Rare Species Appendix I"" Wetlands and Rare Species E mid F Appendix F Wetlands and Rare Species Appendix G Cultural Resources Appendix G Cultural IR msources G E,7z�In -I Appendix G Cultural Resources G, N u1 HARRIS MILLER MILLER&HANSON INC. Wy �,, Nj%�� it � '�� � r?r� ��r�%% J� �'.� ���� y �� ,�. � JlU �l /`: ,, r� ��- ,�, ��� % � �l �, ``i i i ��' ` ,�. ���� � , �, l �' � 1 ,; ���� � � � r � �i � �� �� 'l/d i / '/ �- �, i ,�,, � � � ( � %, J �� o �-� tr �' �; �.��, k� �l � �.� �, fir;, � i �i. ,��� � t� � � i �� ° '' �r� �,: � +, ���� �,. ,,� o, ,, , ,on r � �m �1�' � f���f�� /�� ��� � �%�VFf 9 a, I/l�! ,�� r('� i//' � Ili',,; r � �/r,. ���� �: ,� � �r �{' i� i �, V1 ° , ���� � ,, �; �u 7,��a �, � � "��,' I�� � �/�� I� �11111 U ��� , �� � .� i� �� IIIIII „� �r�, ., i. �� iu .� � a � �� ���I��II if �" ��� rl f ., ., � ,,, .� �, ��.� i� ��I��� l�/ ll 1 l f � � � � l