COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CAEP) BEST PRACTICE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TASK (Presented by TG3)

Transcription

1 International Civil Aviation Organization WORKING PAPER CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/4 27/May/2014 English only COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CAEP) AIRPORTS AND OPERATIONS WORKING GROUP (WG2) Fourth Meeting San Francisco, California, USA 2 to 5 June 2014 San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Terminal 2 San Francisco, CA BEST PRACTICE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TASK (Presented by TG3) SUMMARY The paper summarises the discussions on Task O.03 that have taken place since the WG2/2 meeting in Berlin. These discussions helped clarify the scope of Task O.03 and relaunched some productive debates on the Guidance on Environmental Assessment of Proposed Air Traffic Management Operational Changes document, Doc So far, five examples of best practice environmental impact assessments have been submitted by TG3 members and described using the feedback template provided in Appendix E to Doc A CAEP Memo has been drafted asking for more examples to be provided by CAEP members. Next steps and potential future work for this task group are provided. Action by WG2 is in paragraph 7.1. Appendixes: Appendix 1: TG3 members; Appendix 2: CAEP Memo; Appendix 3: Filled-in best practice templates collected so far.

2 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ INTRODUCTION 1.1 CAEP/9 agreed to the creation of the CAEP/10 WG2 Task O.03 - BEST PRACTICE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Develop a compendium of illustrated best practice environmental assessment case studies that demonstrate the application of "GUIDANCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OPERATIONAL CHANGES. To consider O.02 and O In the CAEP/10 WG2 Work Programme, the deliverable is described as a Report to the CAEP/10 meeting in February 2016, with a note that the task be done ensuring synergies with the ASBU task. 1.3 The purpose of the Guidance document (Doc 10031) is to provide States, airport operators, air navigation service providers (ANSPs), aircraft operators, and other stakeholders with environmental assessment guidance to support sound and informed decision making when analysing proposed air traffic management (ATM) operational changes. 1.4 The Guidance document already included an appendix of assessment examples at the local, non-local, and intercontinental levels. The case study information was collected and drafted based on input from WG2 members. At CAEP/9, however, it was decided that further assessment cases should be collated in order to present a greater variety of examples that the target audience could learn from, and the task was added to the WG2 CAEP/10 work programme. 1.5 CAEP/9 agreed to expand the range of case studies and WG2/1 was requested to discuss how to scope this task, to identify the needed expertise, and to agree on the timing of this task within the CAEP/10 work cycle. 2. DISCUSSIONS AT WG2/1 2.1 It was agreed that WG2 members would consider submitting additional assessment examples and confirm at the second WG2 meeting whether they would be likely to submit prior to spring WG2/1 also explored how the task membership could evolve based on the case studies submitted, and agreed that the leadership of this task would be reassessed at the second WG2 meeting. 3. DISCUSSIONS AT WG2/2 3.1 CAEP/10-WG2/2-WP/08 summarised the discussions on Task O.03 at WG2/1 and confirmed that the CAEP/9 WG2 environmental assessment guidance document would not be published until mid It was noted that it may be difficult to collect examples of such assessments because the CAEP/9 guidance manual had not yet been finalized and made publicly available.

3 - 3 - CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 3.2 It was agreed that Mr. Deransy (EU) would lead the task and that individuals who offered to submit case studies would be added to the TG membership list. 3.3 At WG2/2 meeting, WG2 members were asked to indicate whether they would be likely to submit assessment examples prior to spring Proposals were made of case studies related to the ASBU work, new RNP tracks in Australia, and other examples from Sweden, France and SESAR-related environmental assessment matters.: 3.4 It was noted that the environmental assessment guidance does not prescribe how to prioritize environmental impacts if there are trade-offs to be made. Prioritization of environmental impacts is considered to be case and State-specific, depending in part on any State-specific direction (such as in France). As such, case studies could illustrate how trade-offs are managed in specific cases to inform readers of the environmental assessment guidance. 3.5 The WG2 members were asked to use the template provided in the environmental assessment guidance for submitting case studies and to provide feedback on the usability of the template. 4. DISCUSSIONS AT WG2/3 4.1 TG3 has organised 3 online meetings to better understand the scope of the task and linkages with Task O.02 Interdependencies and Task O.05 ASBU analysis. It was confirmed that the main purpose of Task O.03 was to identify a set of best practice environmental impact assessments and to report using the template provided in the guidance document. 4.2 The TG3 lead had reviewed the guidance document and provided mostly editorial comments to the ICAO Secretariat. There was some discussion about the diagram on page A-14 of the guidance document that shows the overall assessment process shown below. There were suggestions to make the diagram clearer but this would constitute a major change. It was agreed that all proposed changes would be recorded and parked for the next revision of the guidance document if it were not possible to implement them immediately.

4 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/4-4 - Figure 1: Environmental review process (from the guidance document) 4.3 It was noted that the link between Task O.03 and Task O.02 could be derived from Chapter 4.3, Interdependencies and Trade-Offs in the guidance document. It was suggested that it would be useful to have clear definitions of Interdependencies and Trade-Offs as part of the future ICAO web page that would be dedicated to this subject. It was agreed that there would be further discussion on expanding the definitions of these terms and to add them to the Glossary Section of the guidance document. 4.4 A joint TG2/TG3 drafted working paper, CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP10, provided initial ideas for the definitions for interdependency and trade-off. A subsequent TG2/TG3 working session reached a consensus around the following definition: The term interdependency refers to a situation where a change in factor A results in a change to factor B (and vice versa), whereas the term trade-off is used to describe interdependency where an improvement in factor A results in a detrimental change to factor B. Following, this agreement the text of paragraph of Doc was revised. 4.5 With regards to the link with the ASBU tasks, it was agreed that Task O.03 was not going to review the rules-of-thumb sheets but that best practice examples of the outcomes of the ASBU Blocks analysis and other examples to support Task O.05 could be incorporated. 4.6 At the Melbourne meeting, 5 examples of best practice environmental impact assessments were submitted: 2 examples of different levels of complexity from France, 1 from the UK, 1

5 - 5 - CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 from Australia and 1 from Sweden. These examples are given in Appendix 2 of this document. They concern: ILS Interception altitude increase in the Paris area (France) New GNSS procedure QFU 30 at Nevers airport (France) Point Merge concept in the London TMA (UK) Changes to the RNP approach and departure procedures for Canberra Airport (Australia) VINGA Validation and implementation of next generation airspace at Göteborg Landvetter Airport, Sweden, from the approach, landing, and surface phase until parking on the gate (Sweden). 4.7 Thanks to the application of the feedback template to these 5 examples and the discussions that took place at WG2/3 meeting, the following comments were received: The feedback template was easy to use; The main purpose of the template is to illustrate the process. For example, to explain why the ICAO approach to assessment was chosen or not; how the methodology applied differed from the ICAO approach and to learn from those differences. The template should contain the results of the assessments and that they should be reported in the box originally titled Describe the final report and how this was communicated to its audiences as explained in italics. It was noted that it might be better to rename this box Describe the results and how these were communicated to its audience. In particular, it was noted that capturing quantitative results could inform the ASBU task. 4.8 Furthermore, to respond to the original requirements of the tasks and foster synergies with other ICAO actions, it was recommended to: Illustrate, if possible, the assessment itself e.g. by using schematics; Highlight the Interdependencies and Trade-Offs observed/made during the assessment; Identify which ASBU Block each assessment is contributing to; Identify which State Action Plan each assessment is contributing to.

6 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ Finally, it was noted that parts of the template language should be revised and the abovementioned elements integrated Complementary to this, the TG3 lead presented an overview of the SESAR Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology (CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP11) which has been aligned to the emerging ICAO guidance. He presented an example of the assessment of the concept of Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) within an initial 4D environment in the TMA environment. This case study was presented using the SESAR feedback template but can be easily transposed into the ICAO feedback template The meeting agreed that TG3 should develop a CAEP Memo to be issued requesting more examples to be provided by CAEP members using a refined version of the Doc feedback template. 5. WORK DONE SINCE WG2/3 5.1 In parallel with the WG2/3 meeting: The feedback template of Doc was amended according to the experience gained by using it; incorporating all the comments made before and during the meeting and sent back to ICAO Secretariat for editorial review. The commented version of Doc received from ICAO was revised. 5.2 Since WG2/3 meeting, four WebEx were organised mainly dedicated to the remaining questions about the task and the drafting of the CAEP Memo. 5.3 It was decided not to pre-determine the number of examples for the final report but to: Ask CAEP members and observers to submit examples of environmental assessments and designate a focal point for each example submitted. Look for a variety of examples, e.g. local, regional, intercontinental, global, en-route, airport-related, noise, emissions, and community-engagement related, among others. Likewise, look for non-positively-conclusive environmental assessments that could be also considered as good/best practice examples, provided that they followed a logical approach to assessment. 5.4 It was decided that each environmental assessment submitted will be reviewed by Task O.03 members and considered for inclusion in the compendium of best practices. 5.5 All the above mentioned decisions were captured in the CAEP Memo (see Appendix 2). 5.6 Finally, TG3 members were asked to revise and re-submit their good practice examples using the revised feedback template and in the spirit of illustrating the process and capturing lessons learned. The revised good practice examples are provided in Appendix 3.

7 - 7 - CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 5.7 Since mid-may, the Doc is officially published and accessible on the ICAONET. The CAEP Memo has also been sent to CAEP members and observers (CAEP-Memo/97). The template can also be completed online on the ICAONET. 6. FUTURE WORK and POTENTIAL FOLLOW-ON TASK 6.1 In the period after WG2/4, TG3 needs to: Determine the appropriate level of details required to fill the template; Determine how complementary documents will be attached/linked to the template; Review each environmental impact assessment case study and consider its inclusion in the compendium of best practices; Determine the content of the final report. 6.1 Due to the late publication of Doc 10031, it is unlikely that many of theenvironmental impact assessment case studies would have been able to apply the process and guidance provided in Doc and be submitted on time for inclusion in the final report of this task. 6.2 In the period after this CAEP cycle, it is suggested to keep this task alive as a continuous activity of WG2 for the following benefits: To capture future examples of good practice environmental impact assessments in a systematic way. To provide additional inputs to the elements used by Task O.05 ASBU in its analysis of current and future ASBU blocks. 6.3 In order to foster the submission of additional case study examples; TG3 suggests that ICAO creates an annual award for the best in class of environmental impact assessments submitted in different categories. 7. ACTION BY WG2 7.1 WG2 is invited to: a) Take note of the progress made by TG3 on collecting best practice environmental impact assessments; b) Take note of the content of the CAEP Memo in Appendix 2; c) Inform the meeting whether any organisation is likely to submit other assessment examples by Spring 2015, and to indicate what the content is likely to be;

8 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/4-8 - d) Accept the cases presented as good candidates for best practice examples; e) Take note of some initial potential follow-on tasks.

9 - 9 - CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 APPENDIXES: Appendix 1 TG3 Members and attendance to WebEx TG3 is sad to say goodbye to Ms. Thèrese Sjöberg, who is leaving us to be involved in new tasks, but is glad to welcome her colleague Ms. Jenny Blomberg. TG3 would like to thank Ms. Sjöberg for her contribution to this task. Nominated by Contact Name WebEx WebEx WebEx WebEx WebEx WebEx #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 ICAO Ferrier, Blandine Australia McMahon, Paula Australia Rosengren, Shona France Bourgin, Alain France Chapeau, Laurent Italy Japan Di Lallo, Teresa Ishii, Hirokazu Sweden Sjöberg, Therese Sweden Blomberg, Jenny United Kingdom Jopson, Ian United States Dorbian, Christopher United States Marks, Julie United States Scata, Donald UAE ACI Kohler, Bettina Marx, Peter EU Brain, David EU EU Deransy, Robin (Task lead) Watt, Andrew IATA Causby, Stephen IATA Morse, Glenn ICCAIA Morris, Kevin IFALPA IFALPA Brons, Robert Hurst, Kathi WebEx #7

10 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ Appendix 2 CAEP Memo A scan of the CAEP Memo sent by ICAO Secretary to member states is on the next two pages.

11 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4

12 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/4-12 -

13 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 France Example 1 Appendix 3 Best practice templates collected so far ICAO Template for good practice examples of environmental assessment (Draft V1.0) Note: The italicized text is for guidance only and merely indicates the kind of information that is likely to be of value for users of the ICAO assessment guidance. You do not need to cover all points if some are not applicable to your case study. Organisation/Company: (The name of the body that undertook or sponsored this assessment) Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (French Air Navigation Service Provider) Project Title: (The title of the project being assessed) ILS interception altitude Increase in Paris Area Date of Assessment: ASBU Module Code(s) 1 : APTA Airport Accessibility State s Action Plan 2 : XX Project Description: (Briefly describe the project or proposed operational change to be assessed for its environmental implications; Please when possible, use schematics for illustration.) For environmental reasons, the aim of this project was to increase the ILS interception altitude in order for aircrafts arriving at one of the three main airports in the Paris area (Charles-de-Gaulle, Orly and Le Bourget) to be higher when intercepting the ILS 1 APTA-Approach procedures including vertical guidance; WAKE-Wake vortex; RSEQ-AMAN / DMAN; SURF-A-SMGCS, ASDE-X; ACDM-Airport CDM; FICE-Increased efficiency through ground - ground integration; DAIM-Digital AIM; AMET-Meteorological information supporting enhanced operational efficiency; FRTO-En route Flexible Use of Airspace and Flexible routes; NOPS-Air Traffic Flow Management; ASUR-ADS-B satellite based and ground based surveillance; ASEP-Air Traffic Situational awareness; OPFL-In-Trail procedures (ADS-B); ACAS-ACAS improvements; SNET-Ground based safety nets; CDO-Continuous Descent Operations, PBN STARs; TBO-Data link en-route; CCO-Continuous Climb Operations 2

14 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ Therefore, some interception altitudes were to be changed: From 2000 ft to 3000 ft at Le Bourget airport, From 3000 ft to 4000 ft at Orly airport in East configuration and for some runways of Charles-de-Gaulle, From 4000 ft to 5000 ft for other runways of Charles-de-Gaulle Reason for the environmental assessment: (Explain why the environmental assessment was undertaken and, if applicable, include any specific regulation, policy, or rule that requires the assessment to be undertaken) The French regulation asks the ANSP to undertake an environmental assessment prior to modifying any AIS publication to any ATC departure or arrival procedure (Arrêté du 16 mars 2012 relatif à la conception et à l établissement des procédures de vol aux instruments). The French ANSP (DSNA) has defined an internal process in order to make such environmental assessments, from a single basic assessment to a complete study with different noise charts and analysis. It was expected that, due to these operational changes, noise pollution would be reduced for some population but aircraft trajectories would impact new population. The aim of the assessment was to demonstrate the global improvement in terms of noise pollution. Client or competent Authority: (Explain which body the assessment will be submitted to for their approval or decision making. Was the assessment internal or public? What audiences is it intended to inform?) DSNA produces the assessment which is presented to local communities and representatives prior to its finalisation. The assessment is then proposed to the National Supervisory Authorities (DSAC) for approval. Assessment Approach: (This section asks for a brief description of your application of the ICAO guidance for each main assessment step. If a step was not undertaken, give a brief explanation of why the step was omitted or is not applicable to this assessment example. Please complete each section individually. In this box you can explain why the ICAO approach to assessment was chosen. If you did not apply the ICAO methodology, please explain how your methodology differed from the ICAO approach.) This change being undertaken below 2000 meters, it was decided, in accordance with the ANSP policy on environmental matters, to focus only on noise impact and the density of population flown over. The assessment didn t take into account the impact in terms of gaseous emissions. Once the change had been defined (as explained in the Project description part of this form), the assessment was mainly focusing on the following: Density of population flown over by at least 30 airplanes per day: The comparison is done between the situation before the implementation of the change (based on real traffic) and after the implementation (based on simulations). NA 65dB/25 events Area: The assessment aimed at identifying the areas where at least 25 events above 65 db are encountered per day. The comparison is done between the situation before the implementation of the change (based on real traffic) and after the implementation (based on simulations). Considering these two indicators and based on the statistic population distribution, the aim was to identify the environmental benefit of implementing these changes.

15 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 Preparatory Work: (Briefly explain the relevant background activities that have been undertaken to prepare for the assessment. This may include decisions or processes such as, deciding that an environmental assessment is required, identifying the assessment client, gathering base data, deciding on years to be assessed, deciding on assessment methods or standards to be applied. There is no need to cover all possible information, simply provide a sufficient explanation of the reasons why the assessment steps and approach were selected. How did you establish which rules, regulations, or standards applied to the assessment?) The assessment was made in compliance with the applicable regulation, which requires an environmental assessment to be made by the ANSP prior to any change on arrival and/or departure air navigation procedures. The indicators to be used by the ANSP are yet to be decided on a case-by-case basis. For the changes described in this form, it was considered as appropriate to use the two indicators previously described: By considering the area with a high density of flights over and the area where the noise is often above a pre-defined level, the ANSP considered the two aspects of the environmental consequences of air traffic. Describe the proposed [operational] change, its purpose and alternatives: (Explain what will change as a result of the proposal to be assessed this may repeat the information in the earlier project description. Explain why this project is required and what purpose it serves, and what alternatives have been considered. Information on why these alternatives were rejected is useful but not essential) These changes were decided at a political level to improve the global situation in terms of noise impact of aircrafts approaching the three main airports in France, despite possible negative impact on fuel burning. As the changes require the flight paths to be longer, new population would be flown over, but the global impact was supposed to be reduced. The aim of the environmental assessments was to predict these impacts. Describe the scope and extent of the assessment: (How was it decided that this assessment was needed screening. Describe the impacts to be assessed, for example, aircraft noise, CO 2 or NOx emissions, climate impacts or air quality impacts. Explain the decision making process that determined this scope and the level of detail to be used in the assessment scoping. Also describe any formal processes to consult upon or agree on the scope, for example, via a nominated competent authority if applicable. Explain, for example, if the scope was set using expert judgement or a pre-assessment checks or information gathering. Also describe how the decision to undertake a more detailed assessment, or not, was taken. How were the base-case and proposed case(s) determined, why were particular years chosen?) The changes were planned on approaching procedures under 2000 meters: In conformity with the ANSP environmental policy, only aircraft noise was considered in the environmental assessments. Describe the assessment itself: (Describe any standards or mandatory requirements for the assessment to be undertaken together with the methodology, monitoring or model used to determine the extent of the environmental impacts for the proposal. Give an indication of the extent or time-horizons that were chosen (if not already described earlier). Was quality management applied? For example, was there a process to ensure that the input data for the environmental assessment was consistent with other parallel assessments? Were interdependencies encountered and how did you address any trade-off issues? Was the expertise for this assessment available from internal resources or procured externally?) For each of the following wind configuration, an assessment in terms of density of flights over and NA65dB/25 events has been made between the situation observed in 2008 (for Paris-Orly) or 2010 (for Paris-Le Bourget and Paris-Charles de Gaulle) and the planned post-implementation of the change situation: Paris-Orly East configuration Paris-Le Bourget East and West configurations Paris-Charles de Gaulle East and West configurations

16 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ Describe the results and how they were communicated: (Explain in general terms what the results of the assessment were, how this was used, for example to what extent it informed decision making or approval for the project. Was it produced as a draft for consultation or simply as a final report? Were the results validated or verified in any way for example were the assessment processes or quality management processes independently audited? Did the results feed into a wider process, for example, a business case assessment?) The results are described in annexes to this form: Annex 1 Assessment on the population density at Orly Airport (East configuration) Annex 2 Assessment on NA65dB/25 events at Orly Airport (East configuration) Annex 3 Assessments on the population density at Le Bourget Airport (both configurations) Annex 4 Assessments on NA65dB/25 events at Le Bourget Airport (both configurations) Annex 5 Assessments on the population density at Charles de Gaulle Airport (both configurations) Annex 6 Assessments on NA65dB/25 events at Charles de Gaulle Airport (both configurations) In each map, the observed pre-implementation situation is represented in pink and blue and the planned postimplementation situation is represented in green. For each indicator, the fluctuation in terms of population affected is established: Paris-Orly: o Density: persons o NA65dB/25: persons Paris-Le Bourget: o Density: persons (West configuration) and persons (East configuration) o NA65dB/25: persons (West configuration) and persons (East configuration) Paris-Charles de Gaulle: o Density: persons (West configuration) and persons (East configuration) o NA65dB/25: persons (West configuration) and persons (East configuration) These results were publicly distributed in 2009 and 2011 and, based on the results of the public enquiries, the changes were implemented on 11 th November Lessons learned: (Explain here what worked well, what could be improved, what you would do differently next time If applicable please explain if you think the ICAO assessment guidance could be improved and in what way. If you did not use the ICAO methodology can you identify aspects of your methodology that could provide benefits to future iterations of the ICAO guidance? What aspects of the ICAO guidance would you apply to your own methodology for future assessments?) Indicator 95% of the trajectories area As there is a regulation in France requiring public enquiries based on the area where you have 95% of the trajectories under 2000 meters, this indicator was also used at first in the environmental assessments. This indicator appeared not to be appropriate when presenting the assessments to the population. It was therefore decided not to continue using this indicator for further assessments and to use the two remaining indicators density and NA65dB/25 events instead. Limitations of the simulations The predicted trajectories are based on simulations made prior to the implementation of the change. These simulations give a correct prediction of the future situation but still have some limitations such as: - The simulations are only realised on traffic "peak hours", not on a complete day of traffic. The results are nevertheless compared to a complete day of pre-implementation of the change traffic - The simulations are realised by controllers who are, by definition, not familiar with the new procedure. Because of these limitations, DSNA is now trying to predict the future trajectories by using computer tools to "twist" the current trajectories into predicted ones.

17 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 Comments: (Optional - Offer here any other advice or hints that may be of value to others using ICAO environmental assessment guidance.) None

18 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ France Example 1: Annex 1 Assessment on the population density at Orly Airport (East configuration

19 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 France Example 1: Annex 2 Assessment on NA65dB/25 events at Orly Airport (East configuration)

20 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ France Example 1: Annex 3 Assessments on the population density at Le Bourget Airport (both configurations

21 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4

22 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ France Example 1: Annex 4 Assessments on NA65dB/25 events at Le Bourget Airport (both configurations)

23 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4

24 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ France Example 1: Annex 5 Assessments on the population density at Charles de Gaulle Airport (both configurations)

25 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4

26 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ France Example 1: Annex 6 Assessments on NA65dB/25 events at Charles de Gaulle Airport (both configurations)

27 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4

28 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ France Example 2 ICAO Template for good practice examples of environmental assessment (Draft V1.0) Note: The italicized text is for guidance only and merely indicates the kind of information that is likely to be of value for users of the ICAO assessment guidance. You do not need to cover all points if some are not applicable to your case study. Organisation/Company: (The name of the body that undertook or sponsored this assessment) Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (French Air Navigation Service Provider) Project Title: (The title of the project being assessed) New GNSS procedure QFU 30 at Nevers airport (France) Date of Assessment: ASBU Module Code(s) 3 : APTA Airport Accessibility State s Action Plan 4 : XX Project Description: (Briefly describe the project or proposed operational change to be assessed for its environmental implications; Please when possible, use schematics for illustration.) DSNA wanted to implement a new procedure using RNAV GNSS criteria at Nevers airport on runway 30, replacing old conventional procedures. This new procedure was to be based on EGNOS signal. Reason for the environmental assessment: (Explain why the environmental assessment was undertaken and, if applicable, include any specific regulation, policy, or rule that requires the assessment to be undertaken) The French regulation asks the ANSP to undertake an environmental assessment prior to any AIS publication of a change to any ATC departure or arrival procedure (Arrêté du 16 mars 2012 relatif à la conception et à l établissement des procédures de vol aux instruments). DSNA has defined an internal process in order to make such environmental assessments, from a single basic assessment to a complete study with different noise charts and analysis. The aim of the assessment is to give all the keys in order to decide to implement or not the expected new or modified procedure. 3 APTA-Approach procedures including vertical guidance; WAKE-Wake vortex; RSEQ-AMAN / DMAN; SURF-A-SMGCS, ASDE-X; ACDM-Airport CDM; FICE-Increased efficiency through ground - ground integration; DAIM-Digital AIM; AMET-Meteorological information supporting enhanced operational efficiency; FRTO-En route Flexible Use of Airspace and Flexible routes; NOPS-Air Traffic Flow Management; ASUR-ADS-B satellite based and ground based surveillance; ASEP-Air Traffic Situational awareness; OPFL-In-Trail procedures (ADS-B); ACAS-ACAS improvements; SNET-Ground based safety nets; CDO-Continuous Descent Operations, PBN STARs; TBO-Data link en-route; CCO-Continuous Climb Operations 4

29 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 Client or competent Authority: (Explain which body the assessment will be submitted to for their approval or decision making. Was the assessment internal or public? What audiences is it intended to inform?) DSNA produces the assessment which is presented to local communities and elected representatives prior to its finalisation. The assessment is then proposed to the National Supervisory Authorities (DSAC) for approval. Assessment Approach: (This section asks for a brief description of your application of the ICAO guidance for each main assessment step. If a step was not undertaken, give a brief explanation of why the step was omitted or is not applicable to this assessment example. Please complete each section individually. In this box you can explain why the ICAO approach to assessment was chosen. If you did not apply the ICAO methodology, please explain how your methodology differed from the ICAO approach.) Considering the fact that the change is to be undertaken below 2000 meters and considering the low-level of traffic in this airport, it was decided, in accordance with the ANSP policy on environmental matters, to focus only on the effect on noise. The assessment didn t take into account the impact in terms of gaseous emissions. Once the change had been defined (as explained in the Project description part of this form), the assessment was mainly focused on the following: LAmax 65 db: The aim of this indicator is to define the area where maximum noise level is above 65 db. The comparison is done between the number of inhabitants affected before the implementation of the change (based on real traffic) and after the implementation (based on noise simulations). The noise simulations are obtained by considering the noisiest aircraft commonly met on this airport (CRJ 100 aircraft in this case). Preparatory Work: (Briefly explain the relevant background activities that have been undertaken to prepare for the assessment. This may include decisions or processes such as, deciding that an environmental assessment is required, identifying the assessment client, gathering base data, deciding on years to be assessed, deciding on assessment methods or standards to be applied. There is no need to cover all possible information, simply provide a sufficient explanation of the reasons why the assessment steps and approach were selected. How did you establish which rules, regulations, or standards applied to the assessment?) This new GNSS procedure was in line with the DSNA program on deployment of EGNOS procedures in France. The assessment was made in compliance with the applicable regulation, which requires an environmental assessment to be made by the ANSP prior to any change on arrival and/or departure air navigation procedures. The DSNA procedure on environmental assessments explains the process to be followed for such assessment. For the change described in this form, it was considered as appropriate to only use the indicator previously described. Describe the proposed [operational] change, its purpose and alternatives: (Explain what will change as a result of the proposal to be assessed this may repeat the information in the earlier project description. Explain why this project is required and what purpose it serves, and what alternatives have been considered. Information on why these alternatives were rejected is useful but not essential) For some years, DSNA has been planning to implement EGNOS procedures on minor airports in France. This change was then decided with respect to this plan.

30 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ This GNSS RWY 30 is based on two RNAV points QG406 (new IAF) and QG408 (new FAF). Aircrafts coming from the South, the East and the North are all converging to these points before landing on runway 30. Describe the scope and extent of the assessment: (How was it decided that this assessment was needed screening. Describe the impacts to be assessed, for example, aircraft noise, CO 2 or NOx emissions, climate impacts or air quality impacts. Explain the decision making process that determined this scope and the level of detail to be used in the assessment scoping. Also describe any formal processes to consult upon or agree on the scope, for example, via a nominated competent authority if applicable. Explain, for example, if the scope was set using expert judgement or a pre-assessment checks or information gathering. Also describe how the decision to undertake a more detailed assessment, or not, was taken. How were the base-case and proposed case(s) determined, why were particular years chosen?) The change was planned on approaching procedures under 2000 meters: In conformity with the ANSP environmental policy, only aircraft noise was considered in the environmental assessment. Describe the assessment itself: (Describe any standards or mandatory requirements for the assessment to be undertaken together with the methodology, monitoring or model used to determine the extent of the environmental impacts for the proposal. Give an indication of the extent or time-horizons that were chosen (if not already described earlier). Was quality management applied? For example, was there a process to ensure that the input data for the environmental assessment was consistent with other parallel assessments? Were interdependencies encountered and how did you address any trade-off issues? Was the expertise for this assessment available from internal resources or procured externally?) This change was not decided for environmental reasons but in conformity with the ANSP plan to implement GNSS in order to improve safety. Nevertheless, an environmental assessment has been undertaken and conclusions of this assessment were to be presented to the local stakeholders. Describe the results and how they were communicated: (Explain in general terms what the results of the assessment were, how this was used, for example to what extent it informed decision making or approval for the project. Was it produced as a draft for consultation or simply as a final report? Were the results validated or verified in any way for example were the assessment processes or quality management processes independently audited? Did the results feed into a wider process, for example, a business case assessment?) The results are described in annexes to this form: Annex 1 Comparison on LAmax 65 db from aircraft coming from the South Annex 2 Comparison on LAmax 65 db from aircraft coming from the East Annex 3 Comparison on LAmax 65 db from aircraft coming from the North Annex 4 Population affected by LAmax 65 db In each map, the observed pre-implementation situation is represented in blue and the planned post-implementation situation is represented in green. By using the new EGNOS procedure, all aircraft landing to runway 30 of Nevers airport follow the same track. In the previous situation, aircraft used different tracks, depending on their arriving. The environmental assessment showed that more population would be affected by noise above 65dB after the implementation of the GNSS procedure ( inhabitants in comparison with to inhabitants). Yet, the study showed that, on average, only one aircraft per day would use this procedure and make as much noise as the aircraft used for this study (CRJ 100).

31 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 These results have been presented to the local stakeholders and the GNSS procedure has been implemented mainly for safety reasons, despite a slight increase of the environmental impact. Lessons learned: (Explain here what worked well, what could be improved, what you would do differently next time If applicable please explain if you think the ICAO assessment guidance could be improved and in what way. If you did not use the ICAO methodology can you identify aspects of your methodology that could provide benefits to future iterations of the ICAO guidance? What aspects of the ICAO guidance would you apply to your own methodology for future assessments?) It was considered as successful to use only one indicator for this simple study. The local stakeholders appreciated the fact that the environmental assessment had been seriously conducted, even if the results were not as good as they could have wished. Comments: (Optional - Offer here any other advice or hints that may be of value to others using ICAO environmental assessment guidance.) This example shows that an environmental assessment has always to be undertaken, even if it is not the only criteria to take into account for the final decision to implement or not the new procedure. In this case, the GNSS procedure has been implemented for safety reasons, despite a slight increase of the environmental impact, this impact remaining acceptable.

32 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ France Example 2: Annex 1 Comparison on LAmax 65 db from aircraft coming from the South

33 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 France Example 2: Annex 2 Comparison on LAmax 65 db from aircraft coming from the East

34 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ France Example 2: Annex 3 Comparison on LAmax 65 db from aircraft coming from the North

35 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 France Example 2: Annex 4 Population affected by LAmax 65 db

36 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ UK example ICAO Template for good practice examples of environmental assessment (Draft V1.0) Note: The italicized text is for guidance only and merely indicates the kind of information that is likely to be of value for users of the ICAO assessment guidance. You do not need to cover all points if some are not applicable to your case study. Organisation/Company: (The name of the body that undertook or sponsored this assessment) NATS (UK Air Navigation Service Provider) Project Title: (The title of the project being assessed) SESAR Operational Focus Area: Full Implementation of P- RNAV in TMA - Point Merge in the London TMA Date of Assessment: February 2012 ASBU Module Code(s) 5 : State s Action Plan 6 : Project Description: (Briefly describe the project or proposed operational change to be assessed for its environmental implications; Please when possible, use schematics for illustration.) Optimisation of airspace use and traffic management for complex TMAs through the use of Point Merge techniques coupled with P-RNAV navigation capability. P-RNAV CDAs in high density traffic. Continuous Climb Departures enabled by the enhanced horizontal performance of P-RNAV. Impact on preferential noise routes upon transition from conventional to P-RNAV procedures, due to the turning performance linked to each respectively. Reason for the environmental assessment: (Explain why the environmental assessment was undertaken and, if applicable, include any specific regulation, policy, or rule that requires the assessment to be undertaken) SESAR has environmental targets at the ECAC level and therefore SESAR concepts are required to carry out environmental assessments in line with the SESAR Environmental Reference Material to show the concept s contribution to the ECAC level environmental targets. In addition, at the National level, the UK Civil Aviation Authority requires that airspace changes covered by its airspace change guidance (CAP725) conduct an environmental assessment 5 APTA-Approach procedures including vertical guidance; WAKE-Wake vortex; RSEQ-AMAN / DMAN; SURF-A-SMGCS, ASDE-X; ACDM-Airport CDM; FICE-Increased efficiency through ground - ground integration; DAIM-Digital AIM; AMET-Meteorological information supporting enhanced operational efficiency; FRTO-En route Flexible Use of Airspace and Flexible routes; NOPS-Air Traffic Flow Management; ASUR-ADS-B satellite based and ground based surveillance; ASEP-Air Traffic Situational awareness; OPFL-In-Trail procedures (ADS-B); ACAS-ACAS improvements; SNET-Ground based safety nets; CDO-Continuous Descent Operations, PBN STARs; TBO-Data link en-route; CCO-Continuous Climb Operations 6

37 CAEP/10-WG2/3-WP/4 Client or competent Authority: (Explain which body the assessment will be submitted to for their approval or decision making. Was the assessment internal or public? What audiences is it intended to inform?) The environmental assessment will be submitted to the SESAR Joint Undertaking as part of the validation report for the Point Merge validation activities. Should the Point Merge concept be implemented as part of an airspace change in the UK, NATS would submit details of the environmental assessment as part of the airspace change documentation required by the UK Civil Aviation Authority set out in its airspace change guidance (CAP725). Assessment Approach: (This section asks for a brief description of your application of the ICAO guidance for each main assessment step. If a step was not undertaken, give a brief explanation of why the step was omitted or is not applicable to this assessment example. Please complete each section individually. In this box you can explain why the ICAO approach to assessment was chosen. If you did not apply the ICAO methodology, please explain how your methodology differed from the ICAO approach.) The environmental assessment approach for this concept followed the SESAR environmental front office (Project ) guidance material for environmental assessment (SESAR s Environmental Reference Material) which embodies the ICAO guidance, specifically tailored for SESAR operational concepts Preparatory Work: (Briefly explain the relevant background activities that have been undertaken to prepare for the assessment. This may include decisions or processes such as, deciding that an environmental assessment is required, identifying the assessment client, gathering base data, deciding on years to be assessed, deciding on assessment methods or standards to be applied. There is no need to cover all possible information, simply provide a sufficient explanation of the reasons why the assessment steps and approach were selected. How did you establish which rules, regulations, or standards applied to the assessment?) The SESAR environmental front office team carried out an initial screening of all SESAR projects to identify those where an environmental impact might be expected. Once the projects with potential environmental impacts were identified, each project was assigned an environmental focal point from the SESAR environmental front office team. That focal point was charged with making contact with the project to encourage them to make the necessary provisions for conducting an environmental assessment as part of their validation exercise plans Describe the proposed [operational] change, its purpose and alternatives: (Explain what will change as a result of the proposal to be assessed this may repeat the information in the earlier project description. Explain why this project is required and what purpose it serves, and what alternatives have been considered. Information on why these alternatives were rejected is useful but not essential) Optimisation of airspace use and traffic management for complex TMAs through the use of Point Merge techniques coupled with P-RNAV navigation capability. P-RNAV CDAs in high density traffic. Continuous Climb Departures enabled by the enhanced horizontal performance of P-RNAV. Impact on preferential noise routes upon transition from conventional to P-RNAV procedures, due to the turning performance linked to each respectively The project is required to generate benefits of the concept in terms of fuel efficiency, through the increased provision of Continuous Descent Approaches and Continuous Climb Departures. CDAs will be directly designed into the P-RNAV approach routes. The P-RNAV approach routes should also be designed so as to enable design of efficient CCDs. Use P-RNAV routes with CDAs can enable vertical stack holds to be moved higher and further away from the runway, which

38 CAEP/10-WG2/4-WP/ frees up altitudes/levels for CCDs to be designed. CDAs will improve the fuel efficiency for TMA arrivals and CCDs will improve the fuel efficiency for TMA departures. The alternatives that CCDs and CDAs will replace are stepped climbs and descents Describe the scope and extent of the assessment: (How was it decided that this assessment was needed screening. Describe the impacts to be assessed, for example, aircraft noise, CO 2 or NOx emissions, climate impacts or air quality impacts. Explain the decision making process that determined this scope and the level of detail to be used in the assessment scoping. Also describe any formal processes to consult upon or agree on the scope, for example, via a nominated competent authority if applicable. Explain, for example, if the scope was set using expert judgement or a pre-assessment checks or information gathering. Also describe how the decision to undertake a more detailed assessment, or not, was taken. How were the base-case and proposed case(s) determined, why were particular years chosen?) The SESAR environmental front office team carried out an initial screening of all SESAR projects to identify those where an environmental impact might be expected. This initial screening was based on high level guidance on the potential for a concept to have environmental imapcts contained in the SESAR environmental reference material. From this initial screening the project was asked to describe in some detail their concepts and as a result of that discussion it was decided that the implementation of point merge in a complex TMA would have the potential to impact noise and emissions performance. This was then the basis for the scope of the analysis (noise and emissions). The project set the scope, baseline and extent of the assessment in accordance with the following validation scenario grid: Traffic scaled up to 2015 levels Variable Arrival Management efficiency Northabout Atlantic Operations Easterly Runway Ops Southabout Atlantic Operations Westerly Runway Ops Northabout Atlantic Operations Southabout Atlantic Operations Current Day Operations Nominal scenarios only Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Point Merge centric PRNAV TMA route structure Concept #1 Design Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Concept #2 Design Run 9 Run 10 Run 11 Run 12 Describe the assessment itself: (Describe any standards or mandatory requirements for the assessment to be undertaken together with the methodology, monitoring or model used to determine the extent of the environmental impacts for the proposal. Give an indication of the extent or time-horizons that were chosen (if not already described earlier). Was quality management applied? For example, was there a process to ensure that the input data for the environmental assessment was consistent with other parallel assessments? Were interdependencies encountered and how did you address any trade-off issues? Was the expertise for this assessment available from internal resources or procured externally?)