Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

F-1 The following work plan was developed by the project team to offer a detailed description of the work and associated level of effort would be needed for Phases III and IV to continue development of the Airport Sustainability Rating System. Potential Phase III Overview The third phase of the ACRP Project 02-28 Airport Sustainability Prototype Rating System would take the airport sus- tainability rating system from a proof-of-concept prototype to a complete draft Airport Sustainability Rating System. This phase would fully detail the full set of sustainability activities, their related performance metrics and actions, and produce an airport User Guide. This phase would also include the recruiting of volunteer airports to participate in a pilot study program that would guide them through the rating system to test and learn about useful functions and to identify improvement areas. Assuming the pilot study finds that the format, functionality, and likely use of the rating system is determined viable, an implementation roadmap would be developed to guide the fourth and final phase of the rating system project. Phase III would require approximately 24 months. The preliminary cost estimate for Phase III is $725,000 (Table F-1). More detailed descriptions of the Phase III tasks are provided below. Phase III could also be divided into three sub-phases A, B and C, as shown in the table below. To provide a sense of the overall magnitude of the effort, this document also provides a preliminary discussion of tasks and a fee estimate for a potential Phase IV of the work, which would consist of finalizing the User Guide based on feedback from pilot study participants, developing launch materials, and finalizing an implementation/launch plan (Figure F-1). The preliminary estimate for Phase IV is provided to help inform discussions regarding the full effort associated with finalizing and releasing the rating system. Potential Phase III Work Plan by Task Phase III—Part A, User Guidance Airports need to have a full set of rating system materials before the system can be piloted. Within Part A of Phase III, the draft rating system documentation and support materials would be completed. The activities will be fully detailed as the first task. External experts would contribute their input to establish rating thresholds and points associated for implementing each action or reaching a designated level of performance. Based on the content for the completed airport sustainability activities list and the selected point scoring, a User Guide would be drafted. The Part A associated tasks are: Task 1—Finalizing sustainability activities Task 2—Establishing points and performance thresholds Task 3—Developing User Guide to support airport pilots A P P E N D I X F Potential Work Plan for Phases III and IV

F-2 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options Table F-1. Summary of potential Phase III tasks. Task Sub-phase Task Description Fee Estimate Phase III Estimate Part A, Complete User Guidance Task 1 Prepare Draft User Guide Finalize the sustainability activities—including performance metrics and actions. $121,750 Task 2 Prepare Draft User Guide Establish points, thresholds and rating levels for sustainability activities $210,000 Task 3 Prepare Draft User Guide Prepare a draft Rating System User Guide $130,250 Subtotal Part A: $462,000 Part B, Pilot Rating System Task 4 Pilot Study Draft Rating System Develop approach for piloting draft rating system $15,700 Task 5 Pilot Study Draft Rating System Develop pilot study resources and materials $56,375 Task 6 Pilot Study Draft Rating System Conduct pilot study and evaluate results $105,300 Subtotal Part B: $177,375 Part C, Develop Roadmap Task 7 Develop Roadmap Develop plan for system launch $72,625 Task 8 Develop Roadmap Prepare Phase IV Work Plan $13,000 Subtotal Part C: $85,625 Total Phase III $725,000 Preliminary Phase IV Estimate Task 1 Finalize User Guide/Rating System $150,000 Task 2 Prepare Launch Materials $100,000 Task 3 Finalize Implementation Plan $100,000 Total Phase IV $350,000 Total Phase III and Phase IV $1,075,000 Note: The final Phase IV Cost Estimate may vary depending on the level of comments from the pilot study and decisions regarding launch plan materials. Task 1: Finalize the Sustainability Activities—Including Performance Metrics and Actions Purpose: Identify performance measures for all Rating System sustainability activities. Under this task, the final performance metrics and actions for each of the Sustain- ability Activities identified in the prototype Rating System would be prepared. Draft per- formance metrics and samples of actions were prepared under Phase II of ACRP 02 28 and would be used as a starting point for actions and metrics prepared under this task. 1.1 Update Draft Set of Performance Metrics and Actions. This task would begin by reviewing the draft set of performance metrics and actions for each activity to: 1. Identify performance metrics and actions that can be improved or replaced due to advancements in the sustainability field. The sustainability field is constantly advancing and new metrics/actions may become available that were not available when the draft set was prepared. Example Performance Metrics and Actions Performance Metric Example: Waste Diversion: Percent reduction of solid waste production from a baseline intensity. Performance Action Examples: Climate Change Adaptation: • Inventory infrastructure and identify critical assets that may be vulnerable to climate change stressors • Develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan

Potential Work Plan for Phases III and IV F-3 2. Identify activities whose list of actions should be supplemented, revised, or replaced. Under Phase II of ACRP Project 02-28 the research team identified example actions for several activities. These may need to be updated to ensure that the actions adequately address sustainability performance for that activity. The targeted updates would then be made to the ‘Evaluation Matrix’—which was prepared under Phase II of ACRP Proj- ect 02-28 and includes the entire set of draft metrics and actions developed to date—to add new metrics and actions from sources such as other rating systems (e.g., Green Globes, Envision, LEED v4), ACRP reports, and sustainability literature. 1.2 Screen New Performance Metrics and Actions. The new metrics and actions would be screened for use in the Draft Rating System using the same primary and secondary evaluation criteria used under Phase II of ACRP Project 02-28, as follows: Primary Evaluation Criteria: • Supports airport-wide applicability across infrastructure, operations, and management. • Accommodates airports of varying type, size, and location. • Considers performance that would be within the direct control of the airport. • Provides flexibility so that airports can choose how best to pursue sustainability. • Supports existing airport activities. • Recognizes performance to date. • Facilitates documentation. Secondary Evaluation Criteria: • Brand-neutral and technology-agnostic. • Provides a broad indication of performance across EONS. • Clearly links sustainability activities, performance metrics, and overall sustainability performance. • Supports reasonable data management expectations. • Requires a reasonable level of effort to implement. Figure F-1. Airport sustainability rating system development phases. Source: ICF 2013

F-4 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options These evaluation criteria would be used to ensure that the metrics and actions align with the Rating System design speci- fications (e.g., support airport-wide sustainability across infrastructure, operations, and management; allow for flexibility in achieving performance across airports of varying sizes, types, and locations; or demonstrate benefits across EONS). For example, evaluating performance based on achieving a targeted level of gallons of water per enplanement is preferred over evaluating performance over a set of actions such as the number of water-conserving fixtures installed. 1.3 Review and Refine List of Performance Metrics and Actions. A full list of metrics and actions for each Sustainability Activity would be prepared, based on the screening in Task 1.2. This list would then be provided to a specially established Review Board (described under Phase III Task 2) who would be responsible for reviewing and commenting on the metric and actions and signing off on the draft Rating System that would form the basis of the pilot study. The performance metrics and actions would then be revised based on the Review Board’s feedback and recommendations, and a final set of performance metrics and actions would be prepared for the pilot study. Once approved, the final set of performance metrics and actions would be included in the User Guide. 1.4 Document Methodology. A brief memorandum that describes how the performance metrics and actions were deter- mined would be prepared. Task 1 Deliverables: • Draft and Final performance metrics and actions for all sustainability activities. • Brief memorandum describing the development process. Task 2: Establish Points, Thresholds and Rating Levels for Sustainability Activities Purpose: Establish the number of points available for performance within and across sustainability activities to support establishing a sustainability rating. 2.1 Identify Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs). Under this task, teams of 3 to 5 subject matter experts (SMEs) would be identified for each sustainability category (groups of sustainability activities). The SMEs would form Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) that would review and approve rating-level points and thresholds by activity. The TAGs and a Review Board would final- ize the points and thresholds to include in the pilot study. The TAGs would assist in the development of the draft Rating System by (1) reviewing and suggesting improvements to the performance metrics developed under Task 1 and (2) reviewing and suggesting improvements to the points and thresholds called for under this task. The TAGs would review the draft set of points and thresholds for all activities within a category. The ground rules for participating in the TAGs would be established, and a series of conversations among the TAGs would be facilitated to receive comments on the points and thresholds, make revisions, and determine the set of thresholds and point totals for the pilot study. Differences of opinion within the TAGs would be resolved to ensure equitable allocations across all activities within a category. Under this approach, the TAGs would need to consider how to comprehensively evaluate sustainability work across an airport. This is a difficult task to accomplish, as the SMEs would need to consider which sustainability activities, within their category, warrant more weight than others. For example, would Energy Use be weighted more heavily than Labor Relations in the Rating System? These challenges are likely to result in differences of opinion among the SMEs—both within the sustainability category they represent as well as across all categories. 2.2 Convene a Review Board. This approach to use TAGs to refine performance metrics and thresholds also supports the need for a “board-level” group of SMEs or airport industry stakeholders that would review the set of thresholds and points for the pilot study and revise to ensure equitable points distribution across categories. This Review Board could be a separate entity that would make final determinations regarding the total number of points available within any one sustainability category as well as for the system overall. The Review Board can also perform the critical role of selecting the award level naming convention and individual levels. In Phase II the research team created the following place holder levels for performance, “Take-Off,” “Ascend,” “Cruise,” and “Soar.”

Potential Work Plan for Phases III and IV F-5 A Review Board would be convened, consisting of approximately five members. The TAGs would be asked to identify a rep- resentative from their groups that can participate in conversations with the Review Board to represent their TAG’s perspective. The initial set of points and thresholds would be compiled based on the recommendations from the TAGs; particular attention would be given to areas of potential inequity or areas where activities may be under or over represented. A summary report and briefing slides would be submitted to Review Board and TAG representatives, and approximately three meetings would be convened to reconcile any differences and to prepare a final set of points and thresholds. Ultimately the Review Board would be responsible for resolving any differences of opinion and making determinations on the final set of points and thresholds for the pilot study. Moving forward (once the Rating System is fully launched following Phase IV) the Review Board may become a formalized body that serves to guide and advise on long-term Rating System use and maintenance. The Review Board would resolve questions related to the scoring framework under this task. As an example, the number of points available for ‘innovation’ under each category would need to be determined. Final revisions to the scoring framework provided under ACRP Project 02-28 would be made to accommodate the draft set of thresholds and points as well as to accom- modate any final changes made to its structure. 2.3 Prepare Preliminary Points and Thresholds. As Table F-2 indicates, performance thresholds are dividing limits be- tween performance levels (e.g., reduce greenhouse gases by 10%, 20%, etc.), while points indicate the value earned by achieving a given performance level. More points are awarded for greater performance. A finite number of points are available for each activity and points are summed across activities to rate performance for a sustainability category as well as for performance across all categories. In Figure F-2, four points are available across the performance levels. Each threshold represents an increas- ing diversion rate, or the percent of annual solid airport waste diverted from the landfill or incinerator. Prior to engaging the TAGs, preliminary points and thresholds would be prepared for each Sustainability Activity using sub- ject matter expertise and ground rules and parameters for establishing the rating level thresholds and points. The ground rules would include parameters such as upper and lower bounds for the number of points that can be earned for any one activity, as well as the number of points that can be earned for each threshold (i.e., Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4). These ground rules and parameters would be rolled up into a qualitative guidance document that would also be provided to the TAGs to inform their review of the rating level thresholds and points. The guidance document would also help the TAGs understand other consider- ations that come into play when determining points and thresholds. For example, TAGs would need to consider the estimated magnitude of sustainability performance benefit as well as the associated cost and labor requirements needed to implement actions while assigning points. *Naming convention for Performance Levels (e.g., Take-Off, Ascend) to be determined by TAGs and Review Board. Performance Level Take-Off* Ascend* Cruise* Soar* Threshold 30% 45% 60% 75% Points 1 2 3 4 SAMPLE Table F-2. Example points performance threshold for a sustainability activity. Prepare Preliminary Points and Thresholds Submit to TAGs for Review and Approval Prepare Draft Pilot Set of Points and Thresholds with TAGs Submit Draft Pilot Set to Review Board Finalize Pilot Set with Review Board Figure F-2. Steps to establish set of points and thresholds for the pilot study.

F-6 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options The prototype Rating System contains eight sustainability categories; thus, eight TAGs would be needed—indicating that between 24 and 40 SMEs would need to be identified throughout the airport industry. SMEs can be identified to participate in the TAGs by referencing the stakeholder groups that participated in the Phase I and II components of the project, and from air- port industry groups such as the Airports Council International–North America (ACI–NA) Environmental Affairs Committee, American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) environmental related conferences, Airport Consultants Council, and the ACRP Aviation Environmental Impacts Committee (AV030). TAG representatives could also provide useful guidance to ensure the Rating System is useful for airports. The TAG groups could help identify how the airport sustainability rating system could complement other existing ratings systems, and which gaps might exist with programs like the US Green Building Council’s LEED products and Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure’s Envision approach. Part of this task will also include coordinating with airport stakeholder associations to align with industry related initiatives. 2.4 Prepare Checklist for Piloting of Rating System. The set of thresholds and points would be compiled for the pilot study, and a series of checklists prepared that could be used by pilot study airports to determine a sustainability rating at the activity, category and system-wide level. The draft thresholds and points established under this task would be included in the pilot study under Task 7. Feedback received would be summarized and recommendations made for finalizing the thresholds and points, prior to the launch of the pilot study. Task 2 Deliverables: • Preliminary set of thresholds and points for TAG review. • Guidance for establishing thresholds and points. • List of TAG members. • List of review board members. • Meeting notes for facilitated conversations with TAGs and review board. • Draft set of thresholds and points for review board review (compiled based on TAG recommendations). • Memorandum and slide deck identifying potential issues with initial threshold and point allocation. • Set of draft points and thresholds by sustainability activity for pilot study. • Checklists containing points and thresholds for use by pilot study airports. Task 3: Prepare a Draft Rating System User Guide Purpose: Complete the remaining Rating System activities and User Guide for Rating System participants. Task 3 would consist of preparing a draft Rating System User Guide. To do so, each chapter contained in the User Guide Anno- tated Outline prepared under Phase II would be expanded. These chapters are as follows: • Introduction—addresses items such as the Rating System Purpose, EONS and Sustainability, and the Benefits of Pursuing Sustainability. • Rating System Structure—provides the reader with an introduction and overview of the system by describing the Rating System components, their purpose, and how they relate to each other to form a functional rating system. • Rating System Use—provides the user with instructions for using the Rating System—including detailed overviews of each Sustainability Activity, instructions for how to establish a rating, and how and when to reevaluate sustainability progress and update the rating. • Appendices—provides additional information that is applicable, but not necessary for the body of the User Guide. In addition to the overview material included in the Introduction and Rating System Structure chapters, the Rating System Use chapter would include extensive descriptions for each Sustainability Activity (see Figure F-3). Five examples of these—termed “User Guide Excerpts”—were prepared under Phase II. An additional 45 activity descriptions would be prepared under this task. The descriptions would present information such as the Sustainability Activity’s purpose, definition, performance metrics and actions, and recommended activities for improving performance. The “Activity Definitions” prepared under Phase II and the performance metrics, points and thresholds prepared under Tasks 2 and 3 would provide much of the draft content needed to prepare this information.

Potential Work Plan for Phases III and IV F-7 Figure F-3. Example User Guide excerpt.

F-8 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options The activity descriptions would also include instructions for documenting the steps airports should take to pursue the Sus- tainability Activity in a manner that is sufficient to support certification and verification as well as recommend relevant financial considerations and necessary resources. Calculations/algorithms needed to determine the performance metric would also be added where appropriate. As an example, airports would need uniform methodologies for estimating water conservation or greenhouse gases. The User Guide would provide these methodologies where reasonable and would point to broader guidance documents and tools where appropriate. For example, ACI’s Airport Carbon and Emissions Reporting Tool (ACERT) could be used or the team may recommend using a model based on guidance from ACRP Guidebook on Preparing Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (Report 11). The draft performance metrics and actions prepared under Task 1 as well as the draft thresholds and points developed under Task 2 would be included in the User Guide, together with guidance on how to use the Rating System to establish a rating. 3.1 Prepare Draft User Guide. A formatted draft User Guide would be prepared and sent to the pilot study participants under Task 7. The draft User Guide is likely to be a 150 to 200 page document (excluding appendices). 3.2 Prepare Final User Guide. The User Guide would be revised based on feedback received and a draft Final User Guide provided for airports that participate in the pilot study effort. 3.3 Prepare Interim Report. The work to date would be summarized in an interim report for review prior to initiating the pilot study. Task 3 Deliverables: • Draft User Guide for review. • Draft Final User Guide. • Interim Report of progress to date. Phase III—Part B, Pilot Rating System Piloting the draft rating system is essential to test it at actual airports and learn what works and what needs to be improved. During the Phase III Part B the research team will identify the ideal representation among airports, develop supporting materials for use during the pilot, and remotely facilitate the actual pilot process with participating sites. After the pilots have been con- ducted the lessons learned will be summarized in a report. The Part B associated tasks are: • Task 4—Develop an approach to pilot the rating system. • Task 5—Develop pilot support resources and materials. • Task 6—Conduct the pilots and evaluate results. Task 4: Develop Approach for Piloting Draft Rating System Purpose: Produce a method to identify and recruit representative group of airports. 4.1 Establish Recruitment Criteria for Pilot Study Airport. Prior to piloting the draft Rating System, defining airport characteristics would be defined to establish recruitment criteria for pilot study airports. The criteria are necessary to ensure coverage across a broad range of airports. These criteria would include size, region, and operation parameters to promote diver- sity within the pilot. 4.2 Select Pilot Study Airport Participants. A broad set of criteria would be identified for airport characteristics to include in the pilot airport candidates based on the parameters established in Task 4.1, in addition to a proposed method for recruiting them. Airport candidates may be identified and recruited based on existing sustainability progress, engagement with environ- mental affairs committees, conference participation, or receipt of sustainable grants, among others. Interest would be solicited among the airport community by reaching out to the list of stakeholders that were contacted in Phase 1 of ACRP Project 02-28. Interested airports will then be screened according to the established criteria.

Potential Work Plan for Phases III and IV F-9 During this phase, the pilot study airports would determine the scope of the rating they would prepare (e.g., preparing a rating for select sustainability activities, a full category, or a full rating for the entire airport). Pilot study participants would try to ensure that, collectively, the airports test a majority of the activities within the rating system. A proposed participant list (5–10 airports) and proposed evaluation process would be provided prior to executing the Pilot under Task 7. 4.3 Prepare a Pilot Study Implementation Approach. An implementation approach would be prepared that presents a timeline for completing the pilot study—including kickoff, training schedule, support call schedule, milestones for submitting draft ratings and associated materials, and deadline for airports to complete ratings. Task 4 Deliverables: • Pilot study participant list. • Implementation approach. Task 5: Develop Pilot Study Resources and Materials Purpose: Produce the supporting materials for airport pilot study participants. Under this task, the resources and materials needed to execute the pilot study would be prepared. Supporting materials would include: • Webinar training materials (e.g., slide deck). • A quick start guide that provides brief instructions for using the Rating System (a.k.a., User Guide lite). • A User Guide (developed under Task 3). • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). • A brief instructional video for using the Rating System. • Rating System checklists (developed under Task 2). • A Rating System website that provides general information regarding the Rating System to raise awareness among pilot study participants and other interested parties. • A promotional brochure to raise awareness about the Rating System. Materials would be prepared and released to the pilot study participants. Task 5 Deliverables: • Webinar slide deck. • Quick Start Guide. • FAQs. • Instructional video. • Rating System checklist. • Rating System website. • Promotional brochure. Task 6: Conduct Pilot Study and Evaluate Results Purpose: Receive feedback from airports on Rating System effectiveness. This task involves conducting a pilot study of the Rating System at the participant airports identified under Task 5. The pilot task would last for 6 months to allow for sufficient time to implement at the selected airport participant sites. Airport pilot teams would hold web meetings, regularly scheduled phone meetings, and a final survey/phone-debrief upon completion of the pilot. 6.1 Provide Materials and Information to Support Pilot Study Airports. At the beginning of the pilot study, relevant resources and materials developed under Task 6 would be provided to the pilot study airports and remote kickoff meetings would be held. Individual kickoff meetings would be held with pilot airports (remotely) and a an overview of the Rating System provided. The kick-off meetings with participating airports would cover the pilot study materials, the timeline and milestones of the pilot study, and the process for collecting feedback.

F-10 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options 6.2 Conduct Training Sessions and Ongoing Support to Pilot Study Airports. Additionally, approximately three training sessions would be held to train pilot study participants on the use of the Rating System. The training sessions would be recorded to serve as a reference for pilot study participants. Weekly to monthly support calls would be held to assist pilot study airports and an email address provided for receiving and responding to questions from pilot airports. 6.3 Collect Rating System Feedback from Pilot Study Airports. A brief survey would be prepared and interviews con- ducted at the end of the pilot study to collect feedback and determine the associated challenges with the new system, as well as the successes. A report would be prepared to summarize the feedback received from the participant airports as well as other findings and that makes recommendations for revising the Rating system before general release. Task 6 Deliverables: • Training materials. • Pilot study summary report. Phase III—Part C, Develop Roadmap A well-conceived plan is critical to a successful launch. Phase III, Part C is focused on developing the road map for the system launch and detailing the work plan of Phase IV. The research team will complete the preparation for transition to a fully opera- tional rating system after Phase III. The Part C associated tasks are: • Task 7—Develop plan for system launch. • Task 8—Prepare Phase IV work plan for launch. Task 7: Develop Plan for System Launch Purpose: Prepare for broad airport sustainability rating system launch. A launch plan would be developed for the Rating System to function as a fully operational system. The plan would include an implementation road map that discusses both the internal, administrative components and the external, promotion priorities. The roadmap would be preliminary as it would be limited to the anticipated needs in the first two years of operation, and focus on how to ramp up to a “stable” operational scale that shifts from raising awareness and encouraging use to maintaining the system. The roadmap would include a timeline of tasks to accomplish within the first two years of implementation. Tasks would include a long-term staffing strategy, a detailed budget, funding strategies, a communication approach, rating system update administrative and functional requirements, and a capabilities assessment, among other items. The assessment would detail the requirements for an organization that has oversight duties of the rating system, including necessary functions and responsibili- ties. The assessment will identify the level of effort and personnel recommendations, including possible volunteer contributions, associated with the oversight organization (maintaining official volunteer advisory groups will help to leverage valuable SME knowledge and provide contributions on an on-going basis). The implementation roadmap would include: • A launch schedule with priority startup tasks. • A recommended process for reevaluating and updating metrics and actions at regular intervals as necessary and as the state of the sustainability field changes. • A communication strategy that identifies target audiences, engagement approaches (e.g., using social media), communication materials, and a timeline for attending conferences and other forums to raise awareness of the Rating System. • A recommended training strategy that describes training content and approach. • A detailed description of necessary resources and materials needed to launch the Rating System such as the final User Guide, website, checklists and an On-line Rating Tool. • A potential rewards and recognition program that recognizes Rating System use and sustainability performance. • A methodology for receiving and responding to feedback.

Potential Work Plan for Phases III and IV F-11 The draft implementation roadmap (approximately 25 to 50 pages) would be provided as part of a Final Report and would respond to one round of comments prior to delivering a Final Report. Task 7 Deliverables: • Draft implementation roadmap. • Final implementation roadmap. • Final Report. Task 8: Prepare Phase IV Work Plan In this task a detailed work plan would be prepared for Phase IV of the work. Presently Phase III is proposed to conclude with receiving feedback from the pilot study participants and compiling the information into recommendations for finalizing the rating system. Additionally, Task 7 under Phase III would prepare a launch plan for rolling the rating system out for wider use by the airport community. The proposed Phase IV would consist of making any revisions to the rating system to prepare it for launch and finalizing the game plan or roadmap for launching the rating system by developing launch materials, identifying a host organization, etc. Based on the above information, Phase IV is likely to include the following steps: • Finalize the User Guide based on feedback from the pilot study. • Develop the launch materials proposed under Task 7. • Revise and finalize the implementation roadmap prepared under Task 7. Although it is premature to predict the costs of a potential Phase IV (which are likely to vary based on the amount/detail of feedback received during the pilot study and associated revisions), a preliminary estimate of costs for Phase IV as described in this document would be approximately $350,000. This estimate includes development of an on-line rating system that airports could use to determine a rating. The on-line rating system could take different forms, such as: Option (1) At a minimum, the On-Line Rating System tool would replace the checklists provided under the pilot study and would have locations for the user to enter their performance level within each activity. The tool would sum points earned across all activities to provide a rating at the category and system levels. Option (2) A more robust On-Line Rating System would accept data inputs from the airports that could be used to calculate values for performance metrics within each sustainability activity. As an example, airports could enter total terminal building energy consumption as well as total terminal building square footage to calculate their terminal building energy intensity for a current and base year. The On-Line Rating System would use these data to calculate energy intensity performance relative to the base year, which would be used to establish a rating level for the Terminal Building Energy Use sustainability activity. The preliminary cost estimates given for Phase IV assume that the on-line rating system would follow option 1. Revised cost estimates would be prepared as part of the Phase IV work plan (prepared under the proposed Phase III, Task 8) and based on the outcome of Phase III. Task 8 Deliverables: • Phase IV work plan. Potential Phase III Schedule and Fee The estimated fees (Table F-3) and schedule (Figure F-4) on the following pages are provided for rough planning purposes only. The schedule includes two panel review periods and an aggressive, 8-month airport pilot study duration. Estimated labor hours are approximate.

F-12 Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options Table F-3. Potential Phase III fee estimate. Task Sub-phase Task Description Fee Estimate Phase III Estimate Part A, Complete User Guidance Task 1 Prepare Draft User Guide Finalize the sustainability activities—including performance metrics and actions. $121,750 Task 2 Prepare Draft User Guide Establish points, thresholds and rating levels for sustainability activities $210,000 Task 3 Prepare Draft User Guide Prepare a draft Rating System User Guide $130,250 Subtotal Part A: $462,000 Part B, Pilot Rating System Task 4 Pilot Study Draft Rating System Develop approach for piloting draft rating system $15,700 Task 5 Pilot Study Draft Rating System Develop pilot study resources and materials $56,375 Task 6 Pilot Study Draft Rating System Conduct pilot study and evaluate results $105,300 Subtotal Part B: $177,375 Part C, Develop Roadmap Task 7 Develop Roadmap Develop plan for system launch $72,625 Task 8 Develop Roadmap Prepare Phase IV Work Plan $13,000 Subtotal Part C: 85,625 Total Phase III $725,000 Preliminary Phase IV Estimate Task 1 Finalize User Guide/Rating System $150,000 Task 2 Prepare Launch Materials $100,000 Task 3 Finalize Implementation Plan $100,000 Total Phase IV $350,000 Total Phase III and Phase IV $1,075,000 Note: The final Phase IV cost estimate could vary depending on the level of comments received from the pilot study and decisions regarding launch plan materials.

Figure F-4. Potential Phase III work schedule.