Part 161 Supplemental Analysis

Transcription

1 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Supplemental Analysis HMMH Report No August 2001 Prepared for: City of Naples Airport Authority 160 Aviation Drive North Naples, FL Prepared by: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 15 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA in association with Montgomery Consulting Group Senzig Engineering Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc.

2 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Appendices...iii List of Figures...iii List of Tables... iv 1. Introduction and Executive Summary Background Executive Summary Define Airport Noise Study Area Airport Noise Study Area Background to Part 150 Guidelines Definition of Reasonable Circumstances Assessment of the NAA s Potential Liability Outside of the DNL Further Documentation of Reasonable Circumstances Legislative History of City, County, and NAA Policies Development and Documentation of Legislative History Typical City and County Land Development Policy Update Processes Summary of City Land Development Policy History within the Noise Zone Summary of County Land Development Policy History within the Noise Zone City and County Development Application Processes NAA Legislative History Treatment of Development Requests Since Adoption of City and County Policies Beau Mer Condos Case Study Mariner s Cove Condominiums Case Study Bayfront Marketplace Case Study Buquebus Case Study Naples Bay Yacht Storage Case Study Airport SW Property Development Case Study Boat Barn Case Study Waterfront Condos Airport Plaza Case Study Grey Oaks Development Case Study Properties bound by Airport-Pulling Road and Estey Avenue Case Study Local Conditions Supporting 60 db DNL Compatibilit y Threshold Outdoor Lifestyles and Activities Residential Use of Outdoor Space Low Ambient Noise Levels Document Consideration of Non-Restrictive Alternatives Land Acquisition Sound Insulation Estimated Sound Insulation Program Costs Local Conditions Affecting Effectiveness of Sound Insulation Noise Abatement Airport Operating Procedures Status of Airport Operating Procedures in Existing Noise Compatibility Program Non-Compatible Land Uses to Consider Consideration of Preferential Runway Alternatives Consideration of Preferential Flight Path Alternatives Noise Abatement Aircraft Operating Procedures Pilot Survey Development of Non-Standard NADP Modeling Inputs Assumptions Regarding Compliance with NADPs... 60

3 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page iii 3.5 Voluntary Restraint of Stage 2 Operations Compliance with the Current Voluntary Curfew Survey of Stage 2 Operators Requesting Waivers Forecast of Jet Operations with a Voluntary 24-Hour Stage 2 Restriction Benefits of a Voluntary Stage 2 Ban Costs of a Voluntary Stage 2 Ban Process Supplement APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. APPENDIX E. APPENDIX F. APPENDIX G. APPENDIX H. LIST OF APPENDICES FAA Letters Commenting on Part 161 Compliance Scope of Work for Supplemental Analysis FAA Correspondence on Supplemental Analysis Scope and Notification Chronologies of City, County, and NAA Policies Related to 60 db DNL Land Use Compatibility Threshold Real Estate Value Analyses: (1) Relationship of Real Property Market Value to Assessed Value, and (2) Availability of Similar Residential Properties within Collier County Population Estimation Methodologies followed in Preparing November 2000 NEM Update and in Supplemental Analysis Survey Form Used to Collect Information on Departure Procedures Used by Stage 2 Operators and Potential Compliance with a 24-Hour Voluntary Restriction of Stage 2 Operations Correspondence and Back-Up Documentation Related to Analysis and Approval of Non-Standard NADP Modeling Inputs LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Benefit-Cost Comparison of All Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Alternatives...4 Figure 2.1 Case Studies Related to City and County 60 db DNL Compatibility Standard Figure 2.2 Integration of Interior and Exterior Living Spaces Figure 2.3 Outdoor Living Spaces Townhouses Figure 2.4 Outdoor Living Spaces Condominiums / Apartments Figure 2.5 Outdoor Living Spaces Single Family Homes Figure 2.6 Outdoor Living Spaces Trailers / Mobile Homes Figure 2.7 NAA Recurring Measurement Locations and Results Fourth Quarter Figure DNL Contours with Existing NCP, from November 2000 NEM Figure 3.2 Generalized Land Uses in APF Environs Figure DNL Contours with 1996 NEM Base Case Runway Use Figure DNL Contours with 1998 NEM Base Case Runway Use Figure 3.5 Existing and Potential Departure Flight Tracks Figure DNL Contours with Maximized Jet Use of Bay Departure, with No Change in Propeller Departure Track Use Figure DNL Contours with Maximized Jet Use of Bay Departure, and Increased Turbo- Propeller Use of Gulf Departure Figure DNL Contours Assuming 100% of All Stage 2 Jet Departures are Conducted using Noise Abatement Departure Profiles Figure DNL Contours Assuming 75 Percent Daytime Compliance with a Voluntary 24- Hour Restriction Figure DNL Contours Assuming 60 Percent Daytime Compliance with a Voluntary 24- Hour Restriction Figure 3.11 Areas within a 30-Minute Drive of Neighboring Airports... 71

4 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Comparison of Benefits and Costs of Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Alternatives...3 Table 2.1 ANSI S Non-Transient Residential Land Use Compatibility...8 Table 2.2 Residential Activity Level Protection Identified in EPA Levels Document...8 Table 2.3 Case Studies Related to City and County 60 db DNL Compatibility Standard Table 3.1 Dwelling Units within Airport Noise Study Area Table 3.2 Estimated Ranges of Sound Insulation Program Costs within ANSA Table 3.3 Airport Operational Noise Abatement Elements Considered for APF NCP Table and 2005 NEM Runway Utilization with Existing NCP Table Base Case NEM Runway Utilization Table Base Case NEM Runway Utilization Table 3.7 Estimated Residential Population within Preferential Runway Alternative Contours, Compared to 2005 Base Case NEM and to Mandatory 24-Hour Restriction Table Base Case NEM Departure Flight Track Use Table 3.9 Revised Runway 23 Departure Flight Track Use Assumed in Two Preferential Flight Path Alternatives Table 3.10 Estimated Residential Population within Runway 5 Departure Flight Track Alternative Contours, Compared to 2005 Base Case NEM and to Mandatory 24- Hour Restriction Table 3.11 Responses to NADP Survey Table 3.12 Estimated 2005 Residential Population within Noise Abatement Departure Profile Contours, Compared to Base Case and Mandatory 24-Hour Restriction Table 3.13 Recent Jet Operations during the Hours of the Existing Voluntary Restriction on Nighttime (10 p.m.- 7 a.m.) Operations Table 3.14 Potential Responses to Voluntary 24 Hour Ban of Stage 2 Aircraft Table 3.15 Forecast Jet Operations 75 Percent Daytime Compliance with Voluntary 24-Hour Restriction Table 3.16 Forecast of Jet Operations - 60 Percent Daytime Compliance with a Voluntary 24-Hour Stage 2 Restriction Table 3.17 Estimated 2005 Residential Population within Voluntary Restrictions Contours, Compared to Base Case and Mandatory 24-Hour Restriction Table 3.18 Responses to Mandatory and Voluntary Stage 2 Bans Table 3.19 Comparison of Costs of Voluntary and Mandatory Stage 2 Bans... 70

5 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Background On June 30, 2000, the Naples Airport Authority (NAA) released a Part Study 2 and provided a copy to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in support of a Notice of Proposed Restriction of Stage 2 operations at Naples Municipal Airport (APF). Appendix A includes copies of three FAA letters that provided the NAA with written comments regarding compliance with Part 161: Ms. Woodie Woodward, Acting Associate Administrator for Airports, to Ms. Lisa LeBlanc- Hutchings, Director of Operations, NAA, (August 21, 2000) Ms. Woodward to Mr. Theodore D. Soliday, Executive Director, NAA, (December 27, 2000) Mr. Paul L. Galis, Deputy Associate Administrator for Airports, to Mr. Theodore D. Soliday (January 30, 2001) In addition to this written correspondence, three FAA staff 3 met with the NAA at its meeting on January 18, 2001, to discuss the agency s comments in person. In its letters and at that meeting, the FAA staff offered to work with the NAA in an informal process to resolve any concerns that the agency had about the manner in which the NAA had documented its study in support of the proposed ban on Stage 2 operations at APF. In response, the NAA directed staff to reach agreement with the FAA on the preparation of a Supplemental Analysis ( SA ) to address FAA s concerns. NAA staff and consultants met with FAA staff on February 20, 2001 and subsequently developed a scope of work that was agreed to by the agency. Appendix B presents a copy of the final scope that incorporates all comments that the FAA provided to the NAA on the draft scope. Appendix C presents a copy of those comments. 4 At the FAA s request, this SA provides supplemental documentation in two areas: 1. Definition of the Airport Noise Study Area (ANSA) 1.1 Further documentation of reasonable circumstances 1.2 Provide evidence of liability concerns 2. Documentation of the NAA s consideration of non-restrictive alternatives 2.1 Land acquisition 2.2 Sound insulation 2.3 Noise abatement airport operating procedures 2.4 Voluntary restraint of Stage 2 operations Sections 2 and 3 address those items to present this information to interested parties. 1 Federal Aviation Regulation ( FAR ) Part 161 (14 CFR Part 161), Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 2 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study, prepared by Harris Miller Miler & Hanson Inc., in association with Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. and Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc., June 30, Mr. Paul L. Galis (Deputy Associate Administrator for Airports), Ms. Lynne Pickard (Manager, Community and Environmental Needs Division), and Mr. David L. Bennett (Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards) 4 Written comments from Ms. Pickard to Ted Baldwin, HMMH, March 2, 2001, and March 14, 2001 letter from Mr. Galis to Mr. Soliday.

6 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Executive Summary The purpose of this Supplemental Analysis is to provide improved (and more concise) documentation on the NAA s consideration of noise mitigation and abatement measures that led to the adoption of the ban on Stage 2 operations. After extensive discussions with FAA officials, it became clear that it would aid in the public s understanding of the NAA s action to provide, in a single document, supplemental documentation in two principal areas: the NAA s consideration of alternatives to the Stage 2 ban and the NAA s basis for defining the Airport Noise Study Area. While both areas were discussed in many of the technical and historical documents that accompanied or led to the Part 161 Study, the NAA desired to be responsive to the FAA s criticism that the data was not available in the most reader-friendly format and that the nature of the prior analysis made direct comparison difficult. Accordingly, this document is an amalgam of prior work and contains supplemental information to simplify the comparison of alternatives. The FAA provided the NAA with the following written suggestions regarding the format of the this Supplemental Analysis: 5 : With respect to format, the supplemental analysis need not be combined with the NAA s original Part 161 cost-benefit analysis of June 2000 in a single document. Neither the Airport Noise and Capacity Act nor Part 161 prescribes a format for the required comparison of the costs and benefits of alternative measures to those of a proposed restriction. Whatever format is used should facilitate a comparative review of the costs and benefits of the Stage 2 ban and all the alternatives. In this regard, we suggest that, in addition to the detailed analysis of nonrestrictive alternatives, incorporating and referencing material from the original Part 161 study where appropriate. The original and supplemental documents together would comprise the full cost-benefit analysis required by Part 161. First, and most importantly, the Supplemental Analysis is intended to simplify the public s ability to compare the range of alternatives that the NAA considered prior to adoption of the Stage 2 ban. Table 1.1 presents a comparative summary of the costs and benefits of the Stage 2 ban and alternatives that the NAA has considered. Figure 1.1 presents a graphical comparison of this same information. 5 March 14, 2001 letter from Mr. Galis to Mr. Soliday, included in Appendix C.

7 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 3 Table 1.1 Comparison of Benefits and Costs of Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Alternatives Alternative Population Effects Population within db DNL 6 Increase (Decrease) from 2005 Baseline Incremental Cost over 2005 Baseline (in thousands) No New Restrictions (2005 baseline) 1, Hour Restriction of Stage 2 Jet Operations 370 (936) $781 - $1,600 Night Restriction of Stage 2 Jet Operations 1,282 (24) $479 - $770 Full Night Restriction 1,104 (202) $16,615 - $26,747 Land Acquisition 1,306 (1,306) $67,500 - $100,913 Sound Insulation Offered to All Residents of Permanent Dwelling Units Sound Insulation with Acquisition of Rock Creek Campground 144 (1,162) $13,988 - $18,044 0 (1,306) $15,558 - $19,614 Revised Preferential Runway Use 2,046 2, ,068 Not estimated. Revised Preferential Flight Tracks 1,036 (270) Not estimated. 100% Use of Noise Abatement Departure Profiles 1,290 (16) Not estimated. 75% Compliance with Voluntary Restriction 1,178 (128) $906 - $1,285 60% Compliance with Voluntary Restriction 1,194 (112) $724 - $1,032 6 The FAA assumes that sound insulation makes dwelling units compatible; i.e., that it effectively removes the residents from the impacted area. As discussed in Section 3.2, the NAA believes that this assumption overstates the benefits of sound insulation, because sound insulation does not address outdoor activities or indoor activities with open windows. However, this table and Figure 1.1 accept the FAA s premise.

8 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 4 Figure 1.1 Benefit-Cost Comparison of All Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Alternatives

9 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 5 As Figure 1.1 and Table 1.1 clearly show, the recommended 24-Hour Restriction of Stage 2 Operations has considerably less cost and substantially greater population reduction than any of the other restrictive and non-restrictive alternatives. Most alternatives are both more expensive and result in less reduction in population within the airport noise study area (i.e., the 60 decibel (db) Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) contour). The airport and aircraft operational alternatives (i.e., preferential runway use, noise abatement departure profiles, and noise abatement flight tracks) produce little population benefit; the preferential runway alternatives actually increase the population exposed to unacceptable levels of noise. The land use mitigation alternatives (land acquisition and sound insulation) can potentially provide benefit to the entire population within the airport noise study area. However, these alternatives are significantly more expensive to implement. In addition, these alternatives provide absolutely no benefit outside the airport noise study area, whereas the recommended Stage 2 restriction provides noise reduction benefits not only within the airport noise study area but also to every individual who hears those operations today. In addition, sound insulation provides only a partial benefit, in that it addresses only interior spaces and requires residents to keep their windows and doors shut; this is inconsistent with the outdoors-oriented lifestyle interests of Naples residents which substantially reduces or eliminates any benefit. The land acquisition alternative also would involve significant community disruption, as residents would be required to move from their homes, and neighborhoods would be reduced in size or eliminated outright. Even the sound insulation alternative would require relocation of a high percentage (or perhaps all) of the Rock Creek Campground residents. The voluntary restriction of Stage 2 operations would provide significantly less benefit than the mandatory approach, even assuming relatively high levels of compliance (60-75%, based on operator survey results), which may be unrealistic to expect in practice. In its efforts to assist in reviewing the alternatives in this supplement, the data has been based upon relatively conservative assumptions, i.e., assumptions that are designed to favor the non-restrictive alternatives. These assumptions have tended to minimize the potential cost and maximize the potential benefit of the non-restrictive alternatives. Notwithstanding these favorable assumptions, the data shows that the non-restrictive alternatives have benefit-cost relationships that are nowhere near as favorable as the recommended 24-hour Stage 2 restriction that was adopted by the NAA in 2000.

10 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 6 2. DEFINE AIRPORT NOISE STUDY AREA Section 1.2 of the APF Part 161 Study defined the NAA s land use compatibility goal in the following manner: Part 150 requires airports to use the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric to define areas of non-compatible land. A 1998 City of Naples ordinance established 60 db DNL as the limit for land use compatibility within municipal limits. Within 60 db DNL, the City Council must provide general development site plan ( GDSP ) approval. In addition, Collier County has notified the NAA of its intention to adopt 60 db DNL as the limit for noise-land use compatibility and recently amended the County Land Development Code to require noise notices within that contour. In compliance with the FAA Part 150 guidance that airport proprietors must defer to local authorities in determining land use compatibility, the NAA is respecting the City of Naples and Collier County 60 db DNL land use compatibility criterion and considers residential land within the 60 db DNL contour to be incompatible with aircraft noise. Accordingly, the NAA has established the goal of minimizing residential land within the 60 db DNL contour to the maximum feasible extent. The FAA requested that the NAA provide supplemental information about reasonable circumstances that justify the use of the 60 db DNL contour, in two areas: assessment of the NAA s potential noise-based liability outside of the 65 db DNL contour information about local conditions that define the specific noise problem the NAA is trying to address and how those local conditions justify use of the 60 db DNL contour to define the Airport Noise Study Area ( ANSA ). 2.1 Airport Noise Study Area Part defines the ANSA as that area surrounding the airport within the noise contour selected by the applicant for study and must include the noise contours required to be developed for noise exposure maps specified in 14 CFR part 150. (emphasis added) Part requires that Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) include the 65, 70, and 75 db DNL contours. However, Part 150 does not limit NEMs, nor does Part 161 limit the ANSA, to these contours. 8 Table 1 of Part 150 Appendix A presents land use compatibility guidelines as a function of DNL values. Those guidelines suggest that all land uses are compatible outside of 65 db DNL. However, the table includes a footnote that states the following: 7 A (e)(3) 8 56 Fed. Reg. 48,661, 48,673 (1991) ( Further, the airport noise study area is intended for organizing information regarding noise exposure with and without proposed restrictions. Anticipated change in noise exposure as a result of proposed restrictions on aircraft operations is only one factor to be considered in determining the justification of proposed restrictions. Other factors, such as relative effectiveness, cost, or burden of the restrictions, must also be considered. Thus, there is no need to limit the boundaries of the airport study area so long as the area encompasses the noise contours required to be developed for noise exposure maps as specified in 14 CFR part 150. For these reasons, the applicant may select the airport noise study area. However, that area must include the lowest noise contour required for noise exposure maps as specified in 14 CFR part 150 ).

11 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 7 The designations contained in this table do not constitute a Federal determination that any use of land covered by the program is acceptable or unacceptable under Federal, State, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local land use authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. The NAA submitted updated Noise Exposure Maps documentation for APF to the FAA in November The FAA found that submission in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150 on December 7, The updated Noise Exposure Map graphics include the 60, 65, 70, and 75 db DNL contours. For both the existing conditions (2000) and five-year forecast (2005) cases, the 60, 65, and 70 db contours extend outside of airport property into areas under the land use control of the City of Naples and Collier County. As documented in greater detail in Section 2.3 of this Supplement, both the City and the County have formally modified their land use compatibility criteria to protect residential use within the 60 to 65 db DNL contour interval. In compliance with the FAA direction in Part 150 that airport proprietors must defer to local authorities in determining land use compatibility, the NAA s Noise Exposure Map submission respected the City of Naples and Collier County 60 db DNL land use compatibility criterion, and considered residential land within the 60 db DNL contour to be incompatible with airport noise. In accordance with Part 150 guidelines, Table 7 of the November 2000 Noise Exposure Map documentation presents a revised version of Table 1 from Part 150 Appendix A, which reflects these revised land use compatibility criteria. In reviewing these issues, it should be recognized that the NAA is independent of the City and County, and has no control over zoning or development in the airport environs Background to Part 150 Guidelines A review of the basis for the guidelines that the FAA offers in Part 150 Appendix A, Table 1, assists in applying these guidelines to the Naples environment. The FAA documented the original source material for the Part 150 guidelines in a 1984 report. 9 The first source that the FAA cites in that report is the American National Standard, Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of Compatible Land Use (ANSI S ). The FAA report stated that the Part 150 table presents nearly the same recommendations 10 as the ANSI standard. However, the ANSI standard considers three distinct categories of non-transient residential land use that take into account the amount of outdoor use (Single Family, Extensive Outdoor Use; Multiple Family, Moderate Outdoor Use; and Multi Story, Limited Outdoor Use). The standard also considers three levels of compatibility ( compatible, marginally compatible, and compatible with insulation ): 9 Land Use Compatibility Study: Aircraft Noise and Land Use, Richard L. Harris, Norman W. Arnold, and George J. Shepherd, Peer Consultants, Inc., for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy, June Ibid., page 2-1.

12 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 8 Table 2.1 ANSI S Non-Transient Residential Land Use Compatibility Land Use Single Family, Extensive Outdoor Use Multiple Family, Moderate Outdoor Use Multi Story, Limited Outdoor Use Compatibility Level (DNL, in db) Marginally Compatible with Compatible Compatible Insulation Below N.A. Below N.A. Below The ANSI standard recognizes the importance of the degree of outdoor land use. It also presents compatibility in bands rather than discrete cut-off levels. With extensive outdoor land use, which is the norm in Naples, the ANSI Standard only considers single family land uses compatible below 55 db DNL, five decibels lower than the City and County s 60 db threshold. Even with only moderate or limited outdoor use, the Standard sets the compatibility threshold at 60 db DNL. This major source for the Part 150 guidelines is more stringent than the ANSA definition at APF. Another source that the FAA report cites is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publication commonly called the Levels Document 11 The EPA prepared the Levels Document in response Congress s directive in the Noise Control Act of 1972, to develop and publish criteria with respect to noise and then publish information on the levels of environmental noise the attainment and maintenance of which in defined areas under various conditions are requisite to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. 12 The Levels Document presents the following protective levels for residential uses: 13 Table 2.2 Residential Activity Level Protection Identified in EPA Levels Document Yearly DNL Re quisite to Protect from Noise-Related Activity Interference with an Adequate Margin of Safety (in db) Land Use Indoor Outdoor Residential with Outdoor Space and Farm Residences Residential with No Outdoor Space 45 N.A. The Levels Document identifies 55 db DNL as the level that protects against outdoor activity interference with an adequate margin of safety. Once again, this level is five decibels lower (more stringent) than the compatibility threshold that the City and County adopted to protect the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Naples and Collier County, and that the NAA adopted as the ANSA. The Levels Document identifies an indoor protective level of 45 db DNL. The Levels Document states that the typical exterior-to-interior sound level reduction provided by housing in warm climate 11 Information on Levels of Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Report No. 550/ , March Ibid., Foreword, page Ibid., Table 4, page 29.

13 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 9 areas of the U.S. is 12 db with windows open and 24 db with windows closed. With the 12 db of sound level reduction, the 45 db interior protective level translates to an exterior level of 57 db, again, lower than the City and County compatibility standard and the ANSA. During the peak season (November to May), the climate in Naples allows residents to leave their windows open for natural ventilation and to spend considerable amounts of time outdoors; homes are designed to integrate indoor and outdoor living spaces. As discussed later in this section, the mild Winter climate is one of the most significant (perhaps the most significant) factor behind Naples desirability as a residential area. This open-windows, outdoors-oriented lifestyle increases exposure to noise; a criterion based on national average conditions (i.e., 65 db DNL) assumes a more indoor-oriented focus than applies at Naples. A five decibel adjustment is a conservative correction for the effective reduction in interior-to-exterior noise level reduction. During the Winter season, residential population grows approximately 71% 14 and Stage 2 jet operations are approximately 300% 15 higher than in the off-peak. The increased activity comes at the same time as residents open their windows and spend time outdoors. The fact that the population and aircraft operations peak during the months when the open-window, outdoor-focused lifestyle is most desirable, increases the justification for this local correction Definition of Reasonable Circumstances Part states that land use compatibility must be identified in accordance with the criteria prescribed under Appendix A of 14 CFR part 150. To understand this requirement, it is important to review the FAA s intent. In drafting Part 161, the FAA considered and initially proposed to prescribe 65 db DNL as the lower limit for the ANSA to reflect federal land use compatibility guidelines. 16 The FAA later rejected this approach and drafted the final Part 161 regulation to refer only to the standards and guidelines identified in FAR Part The stated purpose for this change was to incorporate the flexibility inherent in 14 CFR part This flexibility includes the recognition that local needs or values may dictate further delineation [beyond the 65 db DNL contour] based on local requirements or determinations. 19 The FAA s reference to reasonable circumstances in communications with the NAA concerning the Part 161 Study relates to a passage in its announcement of the final rule that part 150 permits, for reasonable circumstances, a degree of flexibility in determining a study area and the compatibility of land use to noise. 20 Neither Part 161, the FAA s explanation of those regulations, nor any subsequent FAA pronouncements regarding Part 161 or the NAA situation define with any greater specificity what is meant by reasonable circumstances The reasonable circumstances that give rise to the NAA s decision to define the ANSA to include the 60 db DNL contour arise from the totality of the history of noise mitigation and abatement efforts at the Airport. These reasonable circumstances are reflected in the following documents and 14 The City of Naples Visitor s Information web page states that the off-season population of approximately 21,000 grows to over 36,000 in November to May. 15 As summarized in Appendix C of the original Part 161 Study document, total daily aircraft operations in March 1999 were nearly twice the number in September 1998 (approximately 434 versus 222); Stage 2 jet operations in March were nearly four times the number in September (approximately four versus one per day). 16 See 56 Fed. Reg. at page 48, See Ibid. 18 Ibid. at 48,670 (emphasis added). 19 Ibid. at 48, Ibid.

14 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 10 statements: (1) formal policy pronouncements by applicable local governments; (2) formally promulgated local ordinances; (3) informal statements by local government officials; (4) comments received and considered at formal and informal public hearings and meetings concerning noise issues; and (5) the professional judgment of the management of the Airport as informed by technical analysis of the noise environment in the vicinity of the Airport and management s understanding of the unique nature of the noise-affected community. These factors are reflected throughout the record that accompanied the NAA s decision to consider, study and adopt the Stage 2 Ban in November The particular statements and decisions that reflect these reasonable circumstances are described in greater detail in Section 2.3. It is particularly noteworthy that the City of Naples and Collier County have taken steps that establish 60 db DNL as the level above which residential land use has been deemed not to be compatible with airport and aircraft operations. Consistent with the federal directive that the airport proprietor should defer to decisions made by local jurisdictions on land use compatibility criteria, the NAA had established the goal of minimizing residential land within 60 db DNL to the maximum extent feasible. 21 The NAA continues to believe (1) that the 1997 Noise Compatibility Program, which recommended that local governments select 60 db DNL as the land use compatibility threshold, was appropriate in light of the information revealed in the Part 150 study; (2) that the local governments, in revising land use standards concerning residential property in the 60 db DNL contour, did in fact determine that residential land use in this area is not compatible with operations at APF; and (3) that federal law compels the NAA to respect the decisions of the local government and take action consistent with such decisions. 2.2 Assessment of the NAA s Potential Liability Outside of the DNL 65 In commenting on the proposed Stage 2 Ban in September 2000, the FAA requested additional information on any court-ordered action or estimated liability concerns. 22 Although the agency did not state explicitly the purpose for this request, the letter provides, While local airport restrictions are generally preempted, the courts have defined a limited exception to this preemption for local airport proprietors, based on their legitimate interest in avoiding liability for excessive noise generated by the airports they own. 23 Special counsel for the NAA stated in a reply letter that (1) the NAA s understanding of noise-related disputes at other airports indicates that liability exposure exists for areas subject to noise below 65 db DNL, and (2) the NAA does not consider the scope of its rights under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) and the Proprietor Exception to be limited solely to reducing noise-related liability exposure. 24 In providing the NAA notice of its initiating the informal dispute resolution process under Part 161, the FAA did not identify the failure to detail noise-related liability issues in the Part 161 Study as a deficiency. 25 In a presentation to the NAA on January 18, 2001, however, the FAA stated that the Part 161 Study was deficient for failing to detail noise-related liability issues in the identification of 21 Part 161 Study Letter from David Bennett, Director of the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards to Lisa LeBlanc- Hutchings, City of Naples Airport Authority, page 3 (Sept. 18, 2000). 23 Ibid., pages Letter from Peter J. Kirsch, Cutler & Stanfield, L.L.P. to David Bennett, Director of the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards pages 6-7 (Oct. 24, 2000). 25 Letter from Woodie Woodward, FAA Acting Associated Administrator for Airports to Theodore Soliday, NAA Executive Director (Dec. 27, 2000).

15 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 11 the airport noise study area. 26 In a subsequent letter, the FAA provided additional detail on the information it believed necessary concerning noise-related liability. The FAA stated (1) the NAA must identify the reasonable circumstances warranting identification of the airport noise study area to include land subject to noise below 65 db DNL, (2) this information must be included in the analysis of the proposed restrictions made available to the public pursuant to Part 161, and (3) the showing of reasonable circumstances should include evidence of liability and other reasons for deviating from federal guidelines. 27 The FAA stated that these requirements could be met simply by providing the information that supports the statement... that the NAA s selection of the 60 db DNL contour was based on a reasonable assessment of potential liability. 28 The FAA has suggested that the NAA s decision to consider the effects of the Stage 2 Ban and its alternatives on residential land use in the 60 db DNL contour must be predicated upon noise liability exposure to property owners in that contour. The FAA has neither identified a source of authority for its suggestion nor identified the specific information that it believes necessary to establish that the NAA acted on this basis. It appears that sufficient evidence could include the following: (1) a judicial determination of liability specific to the Airport, (2) a pending lawsuit against the NAA, (3) the threat of suit, or (4) the risk of liability based upon judicial decis ions concerning other airports. There is no judicial determination of noise-related liability against the NAA. That absence is testament to the NAA s success in promoting land use compatibility, considering and adopting both remedial and preventive noise abatement and mitigation measures, and attempting to address specific concerns about noise rather than allow tensions to escalate to the point of a lawsuit. The NAA has long taken the position that avoiding liability is an important objective. While there have been no judicial determinations of noise-related liability against the NAA and there are no pending lawsuits, the NAA s action nevertheless was based upon identifiable and credible threats of suit that cannot be discounted, in light of settlements and judgments regarding other airports around the country. Before describing the information in support of these findings, the NAA s conclusions on the general issue of noise-related liability should be made clear. First, this issue was not discussed in the Part 161 Study for a number of reasons. The NAA, like most government agencies, does not commonly disclose threats of litigation, discuss publicly litigation-avoidance strategies or explain its legal options in the event of litigation. It would be imprudent for the NAA to effectively invite litigation and to prejudice its own defense of any lawsuit filed by discussing potential causes of action against it NAA Meeting Transcript (comments of Lynne Pickard) ( We ask airports that do deviate from federal guidelines to specify in their Part 161 analysis the reasonable circumstances that caused them to do that. Part of their reasonable circumstances should include an explanation of your noise liability concerns because it is in the airport s exposure to liability for excessive aircraft noise that is the genesis of the airport proprietor s ability to impose noise restrictions in the first place. Most of the field of placing any restrictions on aircraft are federally preempted and are totally within the authority of the federal government. There is an exception to that preemption for airport proprietors to impose noise restrictions under certain prescribed circumstances based on their legitimate interest in avoiding liability for noise ). 27 Letter from Paul Galis, FAA Deputy Associate Administrator for Airports to Theodore Soliday, NAA Executive Director pages 1-2 (Jan. 30, 2001). 28 Ibid. at page In most states, including Florida, consideration of such legal strategies is protected from public disclosure by law.

16 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 12 Furthermore, the NAA is not aware of any requirement under state or federal law or regulation, which mandates disclosure of threats of litigation. No such requirement has ever been articulated by the FAA prior to the agency s statements concerning the NAA Stage 2 Ban. No such requirement appears in ANCA, Part 161, the preamble cited by the FAA as evidence of the reasonable circumstances standard, or any guidance documents concerning Part 161 available on the FAA web site ( Part 161 does require that an application for restrictions affecting Stage 3 aircraft operations must include [a] detailed description of the problem precipitating the proposed restriction with relevant background information on factors contributing to the proposal and any court-ordered action of estimated liability concerns. 30 Although Part 161 states that this and related information may be useful elements of an adequate analysis of a noise or access restriction on Stage 2 aircraft operations, 31 Part 161 also is clear that such information is not mandatory. 32 Further, this information was not included in the Part 161 Study because to do so would have been a gross oversimplification of the bases upon which the NAA believes itself authorized to impose a noise or access restriction such as the Stage 2 Ban. The NAA is authorized by ANCA to enact a noise or access restriction affecting Stage 2 aircraft subject to the notice and analysis requirements of the statute and Part The relationship between this authority and the Proprietor Exception which the FAA cites as the authority by which the NAA can adopt such a restriction is complex, and no court has yet to define its scope. 34 Moreover, should the limits associated with the Proprietor Exception apply, the NAA has concluded (1) that its authority under the Proprietor Exception is not limited solely to addressing noise-related liability exposure, 35 and (2) that it is not required to prove actual or threatened suits to establish exposure. As stated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in considering the scope of the Proprietor Exception, an airport proprietor should be allowed to define the threshold of its liability, and to enact noise ordinances under the municipal proprietor exemption if it has a rational belief that the ordinance will reduce the possibility of liability or enhance the quality of the city s human environment C.F.R (e)(2)(i)(A)(1). 31 Ibid (c). 32 Ibid ( Nothing in this section is intended to add a requirement for the issuance of restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft to those of subpart C of this part ). 33 See 49 U.S.C (b); 14 C.F.R. Part 161, subpart C; 56 Fed. Reg. at 48,680 ( The Secretary has determined, in response to the discretion granted in [49 U.S.C ] that airports may impose restriction on the operations of Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds subject only to the requirements of [subpart C] ). 34 See City and County of San Francisco v. Federal Aviation Administration, 942 F.2d 1391, 1395 n.2 (9 th Cir. 1991) ( Neither the FAA nor this Court has considered whether the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, [49 U.S.C ], alters this division of responsibility since the Act was passed after the administrative proceedings were completed ). Although there have been a few cases considering the scope of the Proprietor Exception with respect to restrictions adopted after ANCA s passage, the courts in those cases apparently did not consider the restrictions to be subject to ANCA. See e.g. National Helicopter Corp. of America v. City of New York, 137 F.3d 81 (2 nd Cir. 1998); Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority v. Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., 956 F.2d 587 (Colo. 1997). 35 See e.g. Western Air Lines v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 658 F. Supp. 952, 957 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), aff d. 817 F.2d 222 (2nd Cir. 1987) ( [A]lthough questions of permissible noise regulation predominate in the courts, other proprietor-imposed regulations are presently accepted as valid exercises of proprietary powers. A proprietor s interest in regulating ground congestion at its airports would appear to be at the core of the proprietor s function as airport manager, perhaps even more so than the regulation of noise; and the ability of a proprietor such as the Port Authority to allocate air traffic in its three airport system is important to the advancement of this interest ). 36 Santa Monica Airport Ass n. v. City of Santa Monica, 659 F.2d 100, 104 n.5 (9th Cir. 1981).

17 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 13 Notwithstanding its position that the NAA is not required to disclose threats and that to do so could prejudice its legal position and have a chilling effect on its noise abatement and mitigation programs the NAA has agreed to disclose information about identifiable and credible concerns about noiserelated liability from property owners within the 60 db DNL contour. The NAA has received oral and written threats of litigation claiming damages for inverse condemnation from the owner of Rock Creek Campground, an area that lies within the 60 db DNL contour. Recently, counsel for the property owners escalated this dispute to the point of requesting that the NAA toll the applicable statute of limitations to provide an opportunity to negotiate with the NAA regarding their noiserelated concerns while preserving their right to sue. The NAA also has received numerous informal complaints from other property owners located in areas exposed to noise at levels below 65 db DNL concerning noise associated with the airport. Considering the multitude of lawsuits throughout the country involving noise-related claims for inverse condemnation (takings), nuisance, and trespass, the NAA believes it is possible that it may be sued by the Rock Creek Campground property owner and/or other property owners dissatisfied with noise from the Airport and aircraft overflights. 37 Moreover, the NAA s understanding of the relevant legal standards indicates that any such threats cannot be dismissed as frivolous. The standard announced in the 1940s by the United States Supreme Court provides that aircraft overflights will be deemed a taking of private property in violation of the U.S. Constitution when such flights are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land. 38 Most of the federal cases concerning inverse condemnation in the ensuing decades have focused on the altitude of overflights in relation to the public domain airspace. Specifically, many courts hold that there can be no taking of private property in violation of the U.S. Constitution when aircraft overflights are conducted within the public domain airspace, now set by regulation at 500 feet above ground level. 39 At least one federal court in recent years has rejected a rigid application of this rule and concluded that each case must be evaluated on its own facts. 40 NAA is not aware of a single inverse condemnation case successful or unsuccessful in which the cumulative noise level experienced by plaintiff(s), as measured by the DNL metric, was the basis, or even a factor, in the court s decision. The NAA has concluded from this that it cannot base decisions concerning noise-related liability solely upon the location of potential plaintiffs with respect to the Airport s modeled DNL contours and, more specifically, that it cannot ignore potential claims from homeowners simply because a property may be located outside the 65 db DNL contour. Although it is conceivable that there exists an indirect correlation between the noise contours and the public domain airspace such that property owners whose property lies within the 60 db DNL contour could not maintain a claim for inverse condemnation, the NAA has no basis upon which to make such a determination and does not believe it prudent to act or fail to act upon such an assumption. The NAA recognizes that Congress attempted to address noise-related liability in the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 by purporting to limit recovery of damages for noise by [a] person acquiring an interest in property after February 18, 1980, in an area surrounding an airport for which a noise exposure map has been submitted None of the cases surveyed considered the 37 For a general discussion of inverse condemnation, see Jay Zitter, Ann. Airport Operations of Flight of Aircraft as Constituting Taking or Damaging of Property, 22 ALR 4 th 863. For a general discussion of nuisance, see Jack Litwin, Ann. Airport Operations or Flight of Aircraft as Nuisance, 79 ALR 3d Causby v. United States, 328 U.S. 256, 266 (1946). 39 See e.g. Griggs v. Allegheny Co., 369 U.S. 84 (1962); Batten v. United States, 306 F.2d 580 (10 th Cir. 1962); Stephens v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 352 (Ct. Cl. 1986). 40 Argent v. United States, 124 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 1997) U.S.C

18 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 14 effect of this provision in determining whether private property had been taken in violation of the U.S. Constitution by aircraft overflights. Moreover, this provision contains numerous limitations making it imprudent for the NAA to rely upon its prior submission of an NEM as providing blanket protection, including the following: (1) its application only to parties acquiring property after February 1980, (2) the requirement that plaintiffs have actual or constructive knowledge of the NEM, and (3) the allowance for damages in the event of a significant change in circumstances. 42 In addition to the vast body of federal law indicating that the NAA faces potential liability for such claims as takings in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the NAA also recognizes itself to be exposed to liability under the constitution and laws of the State of Florida. The Florida courts generally accept the requirement in federal cases that overflights must be both low and frequent to constitute a taking under the Florida Constitution. 43 Florida courts have rejected, however, the view held by several federal courts that a taking can result only from aircraft flying directly over plaintiff s property. 44 Although stated differently by the courts, to establish a taking under the Florida Constitution, plaintiffs generally must establish (1) an invasion of the super adjacent airspace causing a direct and immediate interference with the use of the land or a substantial ouster and deprivation of all beneficial use of the land, and (2) a substantial adverse impact on the market value of the land. 45 The Florida courts do not focus on the physical location of the property and/or actual noise levels but instead on the nature of the overflights and the consequential damage, including effects on the market value of particular parcels. 46 In addition to claims for the unlawful taking of private property, the Florida courts also have considered suits for damages on the theory that various consequences of airport and aircraft activity, such as noise, vibrations, and air pollution, constitute a nuisance. 47 To grant relief, Florida courts require that the invasion caused by airport and aircraft activity must be unreasonable, unwarrantable or unlawful. 48 As with inverse condemnation claims, the evaluation of nuisance claims turns on the damage resulting from the offensive activity rather than the particular location of or noise experienced by the plaintiffs. Although this description of the legal standards governing inverse condemnation and nuisance claims alone reveals that there exists a credible risk of liability, the NAA has identified several specific reported instances in which airport proprietors have had to defend litigation brought by property owners in which the affected property is located in areas exposed to less than 65 db DNL. A brief summary of the notable instances of such litigation follows. 42 Ibid. 43 See City of Jacksonville v. Schumann, 167 So.2d 95 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964), cert denied, 172 So.2d 597 (Fla. 1965); Foster v. City of Gainesville, 579 So. 2d 774, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991). 44 See City of Jacksonville, 167 So. 2d Fields v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, 512 So. 2d 961, 963 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987), rev. denied, 520 So.2d 584 (Fla. 1988). See also Bakus v. Broward County, 634 So. 2d 641 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993), rev. denied, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1695; Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority v. Icard, 567 So. 2d 937 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990), rev. denied, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 170; Adams v. Dade County, 335 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976). 46 See e.g. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority v. Benitez, 200 So. 2d 194, 199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967); Young v. Palm Beach County, 443 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). 47 See Brooks v. Patterson, 31 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1947); Corbett v. Eastern Air Lines, 166 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964). 48 Corbett, 166 So. 2d at 201 (citations omitted).

19 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 15 1 Wake County, North Carolina In the late 1980s, property owners in this community brought a class action suit for inverse condemnation against the proprietor of the Raleigh-Durham International Airport. 49 The case was referred to arbitration, which resulted in the proprietor paying homeowners $3,250,000 in settlement of the litigation. 50 The homeowners receiving payments under the settlement owned property exposed to noise as low as DNL 55 db. 51 According to those involved in the case, the arbitrators rejected explicitly the proprietor s contention that liability is limited to homeowners exposed to noise in excess of 65 db DNL and focused instead on demonstrative evidence of the noise impacts at particular locations. 52 This litigation and its precedential effect have been widely reported in the trade and popular press. 2 DuPage County, Illinois In 1989, this county sued the City of Chicago alleging that noise from aircraft overflights associated with O Hare International Airport interfered with the education of students in schools that had not been equipped with sound insulation. 53 The parties settled the lawsuit in 1996 for $12.2 million, with the bulk of the money earmarked for sound insulation of schools located in areas exposed to noise at levels below the land use compatibility thresholds identified in Part 150 for schools. 54 This settlement, as well as its implications on liability exposure and sound insulation programs, has been widely reported. 3 Palm Beach County, Florida In two separate lawsuits within the last five years, homeowners in this community sued the proprietor of Palm Beach International Airport for inverse condemnation. In both suits, plaintiffs included homeowners residing in areas exposed to noise below 65 db DNL. These cases were settled and dismissed on grounds unrelated to cumulative noise exposure levels. These cases have received considerable attention in Florida and have been the subject of particular attention by the NAA because of the similarity between the Palm Beach plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs in the vicinity of the Airport and because the airport proprietor incurred substantial liability in defending the litigation notwithstanding the proprietor s nationally-recognized aggressive and creative noise abatement and mitigation efforts. 4 Plainfield, Indiana Homeowners in this community settled one lawsuit and dismissed another, both involving claims for inverse condemnation for aircraft overflights associated with Indianapolis International Airport. 55 The homes were located several miles from the airport, and the homeowners were contesting the proprietor s failure to include them in its noise reduction program. 56 At least one group of homeowners sued before it was determined whether they lived in areas exposed to noise in excess of 65 db DNL See James E. Shiffer, Spreading the Word About Noise, The News and Observer, Jan. 18, 1997 at B1. 50 Ibid. 51 Telephone conference between Lucinda Henriksen, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld and Jim Tatum, Moore & Van Allen (March 29, 2001). 52 Ibid. 53 William Grady, O Hare Noise Suit to Cost City $12.2 Million, Chicago Tribune, Feb. 12, 1996 at D1. 54 Ibid. 55 Paul B. Johnson, Some Residents Near Indianapolis Airport Still Upset About FedEx Cargo Hub, High Point Enterprise, March 27, Ibid. 57 Kim Hooper, 48 Residents Sue Over Airport Noise, Indianapolis Star, Feb. 1, 1997 at E2.

20 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 16 These are only examples of disputes that have resulted in lawsuits involving property located in areas exposed to noise below 65 db DNL; it is apparent that other disputes, from among the many cases involving liability for aircraft noise, involved parties that were located in these areas. As discussed above, since cumulative noise exposure is rarely a factor in determining whether property has been taken by aircraft overflights, the location of plaintiffs relative to identified noise contours generally is not discussed in reported litigation. These examples do reveal, however, that many property owners sue specifically because they are located in areas exposed to noise below 65 db DNL and accordingly are ineligible for, and thus unable to obtain relief from the noise burden through, sound insulation or other proprietor-sponsored noise mitigation programs. From the foregoing, the NAA recognized that it faced a credible and identifiable threat of liability from property owners whose property is located within the 60 db DNL contour. As with all policy decisions of similar magnitude, the NAA adopted the Stage 2 Ban based upon consideration of many factors, including community concerns about the noise associated with aircraft overflights and the potential liability that may result from this community concern rising to the level of a lawsuit Further Documentation of Reasonable Circumstances The FAA requested that the Supplemental Analysis describe the local conditions that define the noise problem the NAA is trying to address and how these local conditions justify use of the 60 db DNL contour to define the ANSA, including the follow ing specific items: A summary of the processes by which the City of Naples and Collier County selected and adopted the 60 db DNL threshold for land use compatibility, including the relationship to APF Part 150 studies. Further documentation of development requests made since the City and County adopted the 60 db DNL land use compatibility threshold, and actions that the City and County have taken to enforce that threshold. Information on local conditions that support the 60 db DNL compatibility threshold. The following subsections address these items. As discussed in Section 2.1, it should be recognized that the NAA is independent of the City and County, and has no control over zoning or development in the airport environs Legislative History of City, County, and NAA Policies The FAA requested that the NAA summarize the processes by which the City and County selected and adopted the 60 db DNL threshold for land use compatibility, including the relationship to APF Part 150 studies, further discussion of grounds for the City and County adoption of the 60 db DNL land use compatibility threshold, and supporting documentation of resolutions adopted and other formal or informal steps taken prior to the Part 161 study related to the adoption of that threshold. Taken together, this material comprises the legislative history of the City and County policies. 58 It is noteworthy that the NAA chose not to include in its cost-benefit analysis the potential savings of not having to defend inverse condemnation or nuisance litigation. These savings could be considerable. In the interests of protecting its litigation strategy, NAA chooses not to disclose such potential savings though it is a matter of public record that one airport proprietor in Florida budgeted $1.2 million for the defense of an unsuccessful inverse condemnation claim by a single landowner whose property lay outside the 65 db DNL contour.

21 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Development and Documentation of Legislative History To address this request, MCG conducted extensive research to identify steps that the City Council, the Board of County Commissioners, and their respective staffs have taken to develop their airportnoise-related development policies. In many instances, the City and County actions relate to NAA policies; therefore, the NAA staff undertook similar research into NAA actions. MCG summarized the results of this research in separate chronologies of the identified actions undertaken by each of these bodies. Appendices D.1, D.2, and D.3 present the chronologies of the City, County, and NAA actions, respectively. The chronologies cite a diverse range of documentation, including meeting agendas, meeting minutes, correspondence, reports, memoranda, codes, plans, maps, etc. MCG has collected copies of all of these documents. That material is far too voluminous to incorporate into this report or to distribute broadly. MCG has prepared a limited number of copies of three supplemental volumes that include copies of every element of the City, County, and NAA documentation. The NAA will provide one copy to the FAA and make one copy available for public review at the NAA offices. The City and County chronologies and documentation largely address the development of noise overlay zone ordinances (both jurisdictions), zoning maps (County), and comprehensive plans (City) for the planning departments to use on a day-to-day basis for review of proposed development Typical City and County Land Development Policy Update Processes The City and County chronologies reveal the following patterns for land development policy updates: The City or County planning staff develops a new or revised ordinance (typically developed by the planning staff with input from the NAA staff), that outlines the requested changes or amendments to the land development code, zoning definitions and requirements. In order to take public comment, the proposed ordinance is read at two City Council meetings and at one County Commission meeting. The City Council or County Commission vote on the ordinance. In the case of the City, the vote typically amends the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan amendments are typically only done once or twice a year. City staff implements any new requirements. In the case of the County, the vote typically modifies the Land Development Code. Once passed, the County staff revises the zoning maps and implements the new requirements Summary of City Land Development Policy History within the Noise Zone The City s Comprehensive Plan contained specific information regarding rezoning of areas affected or potentially affected by the Airport for the first time in In 1989, the City updated the Comprehensive Plan to establish an Airport High Noise Special Overlay District ( City Special District ), depicted in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan as the area of land exposed to noise in excess of 65 db DNL according to the five-year forecast case (1991) in the 1987 APF FAR Part 150 Study. Any applicant proposing to develop or significantly redevelop land in the City Special District was and is today required to first obtain a rezoning of the property to Planned Development. To obtain the rezoning, the proposed development or redevelopment must conform to existing zoning standards

22 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 18 and must, after specific review for this purpose, be deemed compatible with the Airport in terms of safety and noise. In 1997, the City revised the map of the City Special District in the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the five year forecast case (2001) 60 db DNL contour from the 1996 NEM. In February 2001, the City and the NAA executed an interlocal agreement to update the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the 2005 forecast case 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM update. Based on this agreement, the City is currently (summer 2001) in the process of drafting the appropriate ordinance required to initiate this update. Once the ordinance is approved, it will then be necessary to amend the city s Comprehensive Plan. 59 Appendix D.1 presents the chronology of events that documents the legislative history and other relevant information related to land development policies based on noise-level thresholds, for the City of Naples Summary of County Land Development Policy History within the Noise Zone In June 1986, Collier County developed zoning maps indicating airport noise boundaries. In 1987, the Collier County planning department began referencing standards for sound control. In October 1991, Collier County approved Ordinance that redesigned airport noise zones using the fiveyear forecast case (1991) 65 db DNL contour ( County Special District ), added land use restrictions, and notification and sound level requirements for buildings and structures. These requirements are contained in the County s Land Development Code. In June 1999, the NAA requested that the County adopt the five year forecast case (2003) 60 db DNL contour from the 1998 NEM. Collier County adopted the resolution in June That same month, the NAA requested the County use the five year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the 2000 NEM Update for future land use planning. The County updated its zoning map in December 2000 to reflect those contours. Appendix D.2 presents the chronology of events that documents the legislative history and other relevant information related to land development policies based on noise-level thresholds, for Collier County City and County Development Application Processes The City and County chronologies include current application forms (collected in May 2001) that would be used for commercial or residential applications for development. In May 2001, NAA and MCG staff met with City and County planning, zoning, and building department staffs to review the processes that they follow on a day-to-day basis to identify development applications for properties located in the City Special District and the County Special District. As discussed above, both of these overlay districts currently are based on 60 db DNL contours. For the City, any applicant proposing development in the City Special District must submit a General Development Site Plan that provides the City Council and staff the opportunity to consider the compatibility of the proposed development with the Airport. This review process also provides City staff the opportunity to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 59 In 1998, the NAA requested that the City update their land use plan to reflect the five-year forecast case (2003) 60 db DNL contour from the 1998 NEM; however, the City has not yet processed the relevant changes to the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the updated contours. The interlocal agreement related to the more recent 2000 NEM supercedes the 1998 NEM and makes this prior NAA request moot.

23 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 19 The County Special District is incorporated directly in the Zoning Code, which provides applicants and County staff the ability to readily identify whether proposed development is located in the County Special District. As part of the County staff s review of the development application, staff considers whether the applicant has included necessary information to ensure compliance with the noise compatibility standards identified in the Land Development Code (i.e., land use restrictions, notifications, and sound insulation). Section discusses the City and County treatment of all development requests since the adoption of the 60 db DNL land use compatibility threshold NAA Legislative History A chronology of events has also been developed for the Naples Airport Authority to document the legislative history and other relevant information related to land development policies based on noise-level thresholds and interaction with City and County planning agencies Treatment of Development Requests Since Adoption of City and County Policies The FAA requested that the NAA provide further documentation of development requests made since the City and County adopted the 60 db DNL land use compatibility threshold and actions that the City and County have taken to enforce that threshold, such as denying development approval or placing conditions on it. The FAA requested that the SA explain any differences between City and County implementation of development controls within the 60 db DNL contour, particularly to address the appearance that the City regulations do not set out specific approval criteria, whereas the County provides for approval with sound insulation (within the 60 to 65 db DNL contour). The NAA already has provided extensive information on this subject in prior documents and in the preceding sections. To eliminate any doubt about the City and County policies and practices, MCG researched the City s and County s involvement in every identifiable residential or non-residential development (proposed or constructed) within the five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM. This research revealed some measure of involvement in the following developments (with the primary type of development noted in parentheses): Developments in the City of Naples 1. Beau Mer Condominiums (residential development) 2. Mariner s Cove Condominiums (residential development) 3. Bayfront Marketplace (mixed use development) 4. Buquebus (commercial development) 5. Naples Bay Development Project (commercia l development) 6. Airport SW Property Development (airport-related development) 7. Boat Barn Condos (commercial development) Developments in Collier County 8. Waterfront Condos (residential development) 9. Airport Plaza Development Order (mixed use development) 10. Grey Oaks Development Order (mixed use development) 11. Properties bound by Airport-Pulling Road and Estey Avenue (residential development) Appendices D.1, D.2, and D.3 list the related City, County, and NAA documentation (respectively) that MCG identified for each of these developments.

24 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 20 These 11 developments represent a comprehensive listing of development requests within the db DNL contour since the City and County adopted the 60 db DNL land use compatibility standard. There are only three other residential developments within the db DNL contour; each of these developments were completed prior to the City or County adoption of the 60 db DNL land use compatibility standard. They include: 12. Rock Creek Campground (mobile home park), located off North Road in Collier County. This development was fully built prior to the May 1991 amendment of Collier County Ordinance 82-2 that established the Airport Overlay Noise District, based on the 1991 forecast 65 db DNL contour from the 1987 Part 150 Study (Appendix D.2, Tab 3). 13. Naples Bay Club Condominiums, located on Riverpoint Boulevard, in the City of Naples. This property was fully developed prior to 1989 when the City first considered the Airport High Noise Special Overlay District (Appendix D.1, Tab 3). 14. Marina Manor, located on 8th Avenue South, in the City of Naples. This property was fully developed prior to 1989 when the City first considered the Airport High Noise Special Overlay District (Appendix D.1, Tab 3). There have been no requests for redevelopment approvals in these three areas since the City and County adopted the 60 db DNL land use compatibility standard. Figure 2.1 depicts the location of these 14 developments, numbered as identified above. MCG prepared case studies for each of the 11 development proposals since the City and County adopted the 60 db DNL land use compatibility standard, presenting the following information: Name of development Reference to related materials in chronologies (i.e., Appendices D.1, D.2, and D.3, as noted above) Status of case study Relevant history of development Relevant history of City or County land development regulations related to APF Summary comments Investigation of the City s and County s involvement in these proposed and constructed developments revealed that the City and the County have conscientiously implemented their land use compatibility processes, even in the case of non-residential commercial development. Table 2.3 summarizes the result of these 11 case studies, including identification of the responsible jurisdiction (City or County) and the action taken by that jurisdiction. For completeness, the developments completed prior to the City and County adoption of the 60 db DNL land use compatibility standard are also listed.

25 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 21 Figure 2.1 Case Studies Related to City and County 60 db DNL Compatibility Standard Note: Locations identified in preceding lists and in following case studies.

26 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 22 Table 2.3 Case Studies Related to City and County 60 db DNL Compatibility Standard No. Development Jurisdiction Taking Action Action Taken 1 Beau Mer Condos City Noise warning 2 Mariners Cove Condominiums City No further development 3 Bayfront Marketplace City Noise warning notice 4 Buquebus City Project denied 5 Naples Bay Yacht Storage City Requested an avigation easement 6 Airport SW Property Development City Rezone property to commercial 7 Boat Barn City Rezone property to commercial 8 Waterfront Condominiums County Avigation easement 9 Airport Plaza County Rezone. No development 10 Grey Oaks Development County 11 Properties bound by Airport-Pulling Rd. and Estey Ave. County 12 Rock Creek Campground (Mobile Home Park) County 13 Naples Bay Condominiums City 14 Marina Manor City to date Requested an avigation easement Developments approved prior to 60 db DNL land use compatibility standard

27 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Beau Mer Condos Case Study Reference: Appendix D.1, Tab 25, and Figure 2.1, location number 1. Status of Case Study Approximately 68 dwelling units of Beau Mer Condos are within the five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM Update. Relevant History of Development In September 1980, Power Corp submitted an application to amend a previously approved GDSP to construct an office building and transient lodging (now know as Beau Mer Condominiums). At the time of the application, the land was vacant and zoned C2-A, Waterfront Commercial. In September 1980, the City s Planning Advisory Board (PAB) determined the following: Because of the project s location relative to the flight path of the Naples Municipal Airport, we recommend that no person shall sell, lease, or offer to sell or lease any unit within the project unless the prospective buyer or lessee has been given the following notice in writing: NOISE WARNING This land lies beneath the aircraft approach and departure routes for the Naples Municipal Airport, and is subject to noise that may be objectionable. The PAB recommended approval of the GDSP subject to stipulations included in its findings, which included the noise warning. At the City Council meeting, the owner agreed to meet all of the stipulations and the City Council approved the requested amendment to the previously approved site plan on October 16, Relevant History of City of Naples Land Development Regulations related to APF In September 1970, the City established Ordinance No regulating and restricting the height of structures and objects of natural growth, and otherwise regulating the use of property in the vicinity of the Naples Airport and identified the Naples Airport Zoning Map. The Ordinance addressed development that might affect navigable airspace (FAR Part 77 surfaces); it did not address noise. However, during the PAB review process, it was noted that the development was located within the flight path and a noise warning was recommended. Summary Comments This proposal preceded the adoption of the City Special District in Even without the zoning requirements that were developed in 1984, the City recognized the location of this development in relationship to the Airport and required a noise warning for this development Mariner s Cove Condominiums Case Study Reference: Appendix D.1, Tabs 26 and 27, and Figure 2.1, location number 2. Status of Case Study Approximately 84 dwelling units of the Mariner s Cove Condominiums are within the five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM Update.

28 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 24 Relevant History of Development The staff report of the Planning and Zoning Board indicates that the 84 condominium units were built as the result of a 1974 lawsuit against the City of Naples. In August 1995, a request from the Mariner s Cove Condominium Association was made to rezone the property from I Industrial (the zoning designation at the time of the 1974 lawsuit) to R3-12 Multi-Family Residential. The Condominium Association also requested that the City amend the Comprehensive Plan s Future Land Use Map to change the designation of Mariner s Cove from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential. The City Council approved the rezoning to R3-12 on January 3, 1996 by Ordinance The City Council approved Ordinance on December 20, 1995, amending the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of this property from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential. Relevant History of City of Naples Land Development Regulations related to APF At the time of the 1995 application, the City Special District included Mariner s Cove Condominiums (Building A and part of Building B) (see Appendix D.1, Tab 26). Mariner s Cove Condominium was not included, however, in the City Special District as amended in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan (see Appendix D.1, Tab 9). Summary Comments The City apparently objected to the development of Mariner s Cove; however, development was allowed to proceed as a result of a 1974 lawsuit. Thus, the buildings were in existence prior to the Airport s first FAR Part 150 Study. The changes approved in December 1995 and January 1996 modified the Comprehensive Plan to recognize the existing multiple -family use of the property but did not approve any further development of the property Bayfront Marketplace Case Study References: Appendix D.1, Tab 28, and Appendix D.3, Tab 17, and Figure 2.1, location number 3. Status of Case Study Approximately 160 dwelling units within the Bayfront development are within the five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM. Relevant History of Development In February 1996, Kevin Stoneburner, agent for UDA Architects, petitioned the City to modify an existing, approved planned development (PD) for the construction of a mixed-use development project, including retail, office, and 211 residential units. The City Council approved Ordinance on April 17, 1996, granting the request for rezoning. In May 1997, the NAA staff identified the need for the developer to submit FAA Form 7460 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. Also in May 1997, NAA staff forwarded an elevation drawing identifying the area in the development that is impacted by APF operations. The NAA forwarded a proposed avigation easement agreement and notice to owners to the developers in June 1997 (Appendix D.3, Tab 17).

29 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 25 The developer submitted applications for Building Permits for Bayfront during the months of March through August In response to the NAA request, the Bayfront Condominium Documents and Exhibits, dated March 8, 2000, which are provided to all prospective tenants, indicate the following with respect to the Airport: The Naples Municipal Airport is located less than one mile to the northeast of the condominium, in close proximity to the community. Purchasers can expect all the usual and common noises and disturbances created by, and incident to, the operation of the airport. Relevant History of City of Naples Land Development Regulations Related to APF. The site of the Bayfront Marketplace was not located in the City Special District as shown in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan (see Appendix D.1, Tab 3). The site also was not included in the City Special District as shown in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan (see Appendix D.1, Tab 9). Summary Comments The map of the City Special District has not been updated since the The NAA has forwarded revised contours to the City that will update the City Special District to conform to the most recent, FAA-approved five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contours (from the 2000 NEM Update). When the amendment takes place, the majority of the Bayfront Marketplace will be located in the City Special District (based on the db DNL contours). The developer of Bayfront included a noise statement in the condominium documents so that prospective tenants will be aware of the relationship of the property to the Airport and the noise disturbance associated with Airport operations. The City complied with its zoning requirements for planned developments Buquebus Case Study Reference: Appendix D.1, Tab 29, and Figure 2.1, location number 4. Status of Case Study This project was never built. Relevant History of Development In November 1996, a developer submitted a request to rezone two C2-A zone parcels to PD (Planned Development), in order to permit the development of a port facility for a high-speed ferryboat. A revised PD application for the proposed Buquebus project was submitted in January The project was denied by the City Council in February 19, Relevant History of City of Naples Land Development Regulations Related to APF At the time the application was submitted in 1996, the site for this project was included in the City Special District as shown in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan.

30 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 26 Summary Comments The staff report for this project, dated February 1997, indicated, with minor exceptions, the uses proposed by the petitioner are compatible with the uses permitted under the C2-A zoning district and the Airport High Noise Special Overlay District. It was noted that since the property falls within the Airport High Noise Special Overlay District, and the Comprehensive Development Code requires that properties within the High Noise Overlay District be rezoned to PD (planned development) so that development proposals be reviewed to ensure compatibility with the Airport. The code further states that the proposed development should conform to existing zoning and be reviewed for compatibility with noise and safety considerations. The staff noted, the proposed use will not be hampered by its location in the airport flight path, nor will the use pose safety hazards. This case study reflects the City s review of proposed development within the City Special District to ensure compatibility with the Airport in terms of noise and safety considerations. Although the City ultimately denied this project on other grounds, it illustrates that the City applies the PD (planned development) process even to airport-compatible (i.e., commercial) development proposals Naples Bay Yacht Storage Case Study Reference: Appendix D.1, Tab 30, and Figure 2.1, location number 5. Status of Case Study This development was later sold to Port-O-Call, which developed the Boat Barn Condos (see Boat Barn Condos Case Study). Relevant History of Development In January 1998, a developer submitted an application to the City to amend an existing PD zoning classification to permit marine-oriented facilities on the upland portion of the site and to redefine development standards for subsequent phases of development. The City Council approved Ordinance , dated April 15, 1998, to permit marine-oriented facilities on the upland portion of the site and to define development standards for the remaining parcel. This ordinance contained a requirement that the petitioner provide an avigation easement to the NAA and send a copy of the easement to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Relevant History of City of Naples Land Development Regulations Related to APF The staff report for this project, dated March 1998, indicated the property is within the City Special District. The staff report stated further that petitioner will be required to enter into an avigation easement with the Airport Authority that is intended to acknowledge the property s proximity to the Airport and its relationship to the Airport approach path. It was also noted: boat storage facilities are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the C2-A zoning district. Summary Comments This case study reflects the City s review of proposed development within the City Special District to ensure compatibility with the Airport. Once again, this case study demonstrates that the City applies the PD (planned development) process even to proposals for airport-compatible development.

31 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Airport SW Property Development Case Study Reference: Appendix D.1, Tab 31, and Fig ure 2.1, location number 6. Status of Case Study The Airport SW Property Development located within the five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM Update is considered compatible land use as presented in the Part 161 study, because it is on airport development. Relevant History of Development In March 1999, the City s planning advisory board met to discuss a petition to rezone property along the Gordon River abutting the west side of the southern half of APF, to bring the zoning into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations adopted on January 21, 1998, which designated this property for conservation. In May 1999, a request was made to rezone only a portion of the area as conservation, based on a wetla nd delineation. In November 1999, the staff report to the Naples City Council recommended the parcel be rezoned to Planned Development, not Conservation. In November 1999, the City Council approved the rezoning of Parcel 7 abutting the southwest portion of APF along the Gordon River to PD (planned development) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Relevant History of City of Naples Land Development Regulations Related to APF At the time of this petition, this property was located in the City Special District. Summary Comments This case study illustrates that the City applies the PD development process even in the case of compatible development on Airport property Boat Barn Case Study Reference: Appendix D.1, Tab 32, and Figure 2.1, location number 7. Status of Case Study The Boat Barn is a compatible commercial use located within the five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM Update. Relevant History of Development In August 1999, a developer submitted an applicatio n for the development of Phase 2 of the Naples Bay Yacht Club & Marina. The City Council approved Ordinance , dated October 20, 1999, to rezone property from one form of Planned Development (a 7,000 square foot building) to another (parking area only). Relevant History of City of Naples Land Development Regulations Related to APF At the time of the application, the site of this project was located in the City Special District.

32 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 28 The staff report dated September 1999 indicated the property would not require an avigation easement with the NAA since no building was planned for the site. Summary Comments Once again, this case study illustrates the City applies the PD development process even for compatible development, and further, that it consults with the NAA to determine the applicability and appropriateness of avigation easements Waterfront Condos Reference: Appendix D.3, Tab 6, and Figure 2.1, location number 8. Status of Case Study Approximately 18 units of the Waterfront Condominiums are within the five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM. Relevant History of Development An avigation easement was executed in October 1989 between the NAA and Andrew B. Wolfe, Trustee for the Waterfront Condos for nonexclusive passage of aircraft in the airspace above this property. Relevant History of Collier County Land Development Regulations related to APF. In October 1991, Collier County approved Land Development Code Ordinance that designated the County Special District (using the 65 db DNL contour), added land use restrictions, notification, and sound level requirements for buildings and structures. Summary Comments MCG was not able to establish the specific development date of the Waterfront Condos. However, based on the execution of the avigation easement, the Waterfront condos were developed prior to the passage of the 1991 ordinance that established the County Special District. The Collier County zoning maps dated June 3, 1986, and updated February 16, 1995 (Appendix D.2, Tab 1), illustrate that the majority of the Waterfront Condos were located in Zone C (which corresponded to the 65 db DNL contour) Airport Plaza Case Study Reference: Appendix D.2, Tab 6, and Figure 2.1, location number 9. Status of Case Study This property is currently undeveloped. Relevant History of Development In July 1995, the NAA expressed concern to the Collier County planning department regarding the Airport Plaza PUD (planned unit development) including airspace and noise concerns (see Appendix D.3, Tab 11).

33 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 29 In December 1995, Collier County approved Ordinance No 95-68, changing the zoning of this property to PUD to allow for a maximum of 30 mixed dwelling units and 25,000 square feet of commercial, located on Airport-Pulling Road. The Airport Plaza PUD documents indicate that development will occur in accordance to the County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. In addition, the documents contain the section from the Collier County Land Development Code regarding the County Special District. No permit application has been filed for development. The property remains undeveloped. Based on conversations with Collier County s planning department, since this property has not been developed within five (5) years of the PUD approval, the developer will be required to reapply for that approval prior to initiating any development on the property. Relevant History of Collier County Land Development Regulations Related to APF In October 1991, Collier County approved Land Development Code Ordinance (LDC) that redesigned airport noise zones (using the 65 db DNL contour), added land use restrictions, notification, and sound level requirements for buildings and structures. Summary Comments No development has occurred to date on this property. Since the development date has expired on the approved PUD, any development would require a new rezone application and compliance with LDC 00-49, again allowing for additional staff input. This case study illustrates that Collier County included the appropriate land development codes in the PUD documentation Grey Oaks Development Case Study Reference: Appendix D.2, Tabs 8 and 11, and Figure 2.1, location number 10. Status of Case Study The tip of the five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM extends onto Grey Oaks property. However, the area includes only golf course development; no buildings are located in this area. Thus, there is no non-compatible land use in this development. Relevant History of Development In November 1998, Collier County approved Ordinance No approving the PUD (planned urban development) for Grey Oaks. The PUD calls for a mixed-use development including commercial, residential, and a golf course. The NAA has requested assistance from the County in obtaining an avigation easement for Grey Oaks (Appendix D.3, Tab 28). No avigation easement has been obtained to date. Relevant History of Collier County Land Development Regulations Related to APF. In June 1986, Collier County had airport zoning maps based on the 65 db DNL contour from the airport s ongoing Part 150 study. In October 1991, Collier County approved Land Development Code Ordinance that redesigned airport noise zones (usin g the 65 db DNL contour), added land use restrictions, notification, and sound level requirements for buildings and structures.

34 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 30 In 2000, Collier County amended the Land Development Codes and established the limit of the County Special District as the 60 db DNL contour. Summary Comments The Collier County Zoning maps dated June 3, 1986 indicated that Zone C (65 db DNL contour) extended just slightly into the planned Grey Oaks development. This remains the case for the 60 db DNL contours from the most current, FAA-approved 2000 NEM Update. However, no noncompatible development has occurred within this zone as part of Grey Oaks development. Current Collier County Land Development Codes would govern any new development Properties bound by Airport-Pulling Road and Estey Avenue Case Study Reference: Appendix D.2, Tab 35, and Figure 2.1, location number 11. Status of Case Study Approximately 58 dwelling units in the area bounded by Airport-Pulling Road and Estey Avenue are within the five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM. Relevant History of Development The majority of homes located southeast of the Airport (off the approach end of Runway 32) appear to have been built prior to the establishment of the County Special District and sound insulation requirements developed beginning in To determine if any new homes have been built in this area that would come under the guidelines of the County s land use compatibility standards, the Permitting Division of Collier County was contacted and asked to identify any construction permits for the following streets, which fall within the five-year forecast case (2005) 60 db DNL contour from the FAA-approved 2000 NEM: Seagrape Avenue Central Drive Croton Road Central Drive Poinsettia Avenue Hibiscus Avenue Based on the information provided by the permitting division (Appendix D.2, See Tab 35), there has been no new residential development in this area. Relevant History of Collier County Land Development Regulations Related to APF In June 1986 Collier County developed zoning maps indicating airport noise boundaries, and in 1987 standards for sound control were referenced by Collier County planning department. In October 1991, Collier County approved Land Development Code Ordinance that redesigned airport noise zones (using the 65 db DNL contour), added land use restrictions, notification and sound level requirements for buildings and structures. In 2000, Collier County amended the Land Development Codes and established the limit of the County Special District with reference to the 60 db DNL contour.

35 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 31 Summary Comments The majority of homes in this area were developed prior to incorporation of airport zoning boundaries in the Collier County Land Development Codes. Since this area is fully developed, no new residential properties have been built. If properties in this area were redeveloped (home demolished and rebuilt), the current Collier County Land Development Code would govern the development Local Conditions Supporting 60 db DNL Compatibility Threshold The FAA requested that the NAA include in the SA information on local conditions that support the 60 db DNL compatibility threshold, such as citizen lifestyles, expectations regarding noise levels, quality-of-life impressions, factors that lead to sensitivity at lower thresholds, meteorological and environmental conditions, background (non-aircraft or ambient ) noise levels, construction standards and building types, temporal exposure patterns, other factors that demonstrate why the 65 db DNL compatibility threshold is not applicable at Naples, and other reasons the NAA may have. A number of local conditions justify the 60 db DNL compatibility threshold, including at least: the warm climate preference for open windows outdoor lifestyle and activities residential use of outdoor space architectural design elements integrating indoor and outdoor living spaces low ambient noise levels coincidence of peak activity and population interest in outdoor sports open-air shopping pedestrian orientation to commercial, cultural, and recreational facilities Outdoor Lifestyles and Activities A primary focus of essentially all web sites, brochures, advertisements, and other publications produced by local Chambers of Commerce, government agencies, tourism industry organizations, realty firms, and other organizations that promote Naples and Collier County is on the outdoor lifestyle. Publications focus on the favorable climate, clean environment, and opportunities for outdoor activity. Just a few examples include: The Naples Chamber of Commerce web site introduces the Live and Work in Naples section by saying: Naples is a diverse location bringing people together from everywhere to live, work and relax in a sun-drenched atmosphere. Realty brochures overwhelmingly focus on outdoor living areas included in houses for sale; e.g., Spacious 15 x 42 lanai becomes an extension of your living area. Spacious family room has French doors to lanai looking out to the lake. The Lifestyles section of the Naples Quicktour web site highlights outdoor dining, the City s 1,000 pedestrian pier, open-air business boardwalk, and outdoor sports, including fishing, tennis, golf, and water sports.

36 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Residential Use of Outdoor Space Residential design in Naples and Collier County directly reflects the intense importance of outdoor lifestyles and activities. Figure 2.2 Integration of Interior and Exterior Living Spaces Some developments emphasize the connection to outdoor living through water features: Figure 2.3 Outdoor Living Spaces Townhouses

37 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 33 Condominiums and apartments often include outdoor rooms that are as large as indoor living rooms, with two sides exposed to light, air, and noise. Figure 2.4 Outdoor Living Spaces Condominiums / Apartments Additions to single family homes, and even conversions of carports are a strong indication of residents interest in maximizing outdoor living: Figure 2.5 Outdoor Living Spaces Single Family Homes The addition of outdoor rooms nearly as large as the basic unit clearly indicate the importance of outdoor living to the occupants of trailers and mobile homes: Figure 2.6 Outdoor Living Spaces Trailers / Mobile Homes

38 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Low Ambient Noise Levels Low ambient (non-aircraft) noise levels in residential areas within the ANSA increase the intrusiveness of aircraft operations, particularly those conducted in noisier Stage 2 jets. The EPA Levels Document cites studies of community reaction to environmental noise as a primary basis for supporting its recommendations for protective noise levels. 60 Those studies typically consider community reaction in the context of the residual level, in the absence of the intrusive noise. Most studies characterize the residual noise in terms of the L 90, or the level that is exceeded 90% of the time; i.e., it excludes the noisiest 10% of the time during the day. Most studies are normalized to a residual level of 60 db, which is characterized as typical of an urban residential community (not immediately adjacent to heavily traveled roads and industrial areas). 61 The Levels Document identified corrections to be added to the DNL of intruding noise to obtain normalized DNL, based on recommendations in another EPA report, Community Noise. 62 That report remains the most widely accepted basis for selection of normalizing factors. It recommends that the intruding noise be adjusted upward by five decibels for a normal suburban community (not located near industrial activity) and upward by ten decibels for a quiet suburban or rural community (remote from large cities and from industrial activity and trucking). The residential areas within the ANSA are not immediately adjacent to industrial activity, large cities, and any trucking activity, other than normal de livery vehicles. Using only the lower adjustment of five decibels normalizes the ANSA definition to 65 db, the FAA s guideline for residential land use compatibility. The NAA staff use portable noise monitors to implement a recurring measurement program. The staff conduct a week of noise measurements each quarter at seven selected locations in the airport environs. This measurement program provides the NAA with samples that allow comparison of noise trends over time, with a basis for considering seasonal effects. Tab 3 of the Part 161 Response to Comments volume presents the quarterly noise reports for Figure 2.7 presents the measurement locations and results of the fourth quarter of that year. At each site, a box shows the total measured DNL ( T ) and the L 90 ( B ). As the figure shows, the residual levels are extremely low at most locations, generally between 40 to 50 db, with one level of 39.4 and one of These residual levels suggest that a normalizing factor of 10 db might actually be justified, which would relate the ANSA contour to a normalized value of 70 db, five decibels above the Part 150 guideline for residential compatibility. Considered in light of the EPA recommendations and FAA s source documentation, these measurements of background noise level clearly support an ANSA definition at least five decibels below Part 150 s 65 db compatibility guideline. 60 EPA, Levels Docum ent, Appendix D. 61 Ibid., page D Eldred, K. M., Community Noise, Environmental Protection Agency Report NTID 300.3, December The previously discussed FAA summary of source material for the Part 150 compatibility guidelines (Harris et al, Land Use Compatibility Study: Aircraft Noise and Land Use, Appendix A.13, page A-43) cites this report and its discussion of residual levels, use of L90, and normalizing corrections.

39 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 35 Figure 2.7 NAA Recurring Measurement Locations and Results Fourth Quarter 1999

40 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page DOCUMENT CONSIDERATION OF NON-RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES The NAA has aggressively pursued all feasible noise compatibility options for APF. The Part 161 Study and November 2000 Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update both included summaries of the existing FAA-approved Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) for the airport. 63 The APF NCP includes a broad range of highly effective measures aimed at minimizing current problems and preventing future problems. However, the NAA s compatibility endeavors are even more extensive than those represented in the NCP. In response to FAA comments on the Part 161 Study, the NAA prepared a History of Noise Compatibility Efforts for Naples Municipal Airport, to provide a comprehensive review of the NAA s previous and continuing actions. The FAA recognized that the Part 161 Study, the response to comments, the History Document, and the Part 150 NEM Update provide a comprehensive record of past and ongoing NAA pursuit of non-restrictive noise compatibility efforts. The FAA indicated that it was satisfactory for this supplement to incorporate and reference material from those previous documents where appropriate. As a final step in considering non-restrictive alternatives, the FAA requested that the NAA provide supplemental information addressing the costs, benefits, and feasibility of non-restrictive options that might provide approximately the same benefit as the proposed prohibition of Stage 2 operations. 64 The FAA requested that the NAA consider non-restrictive options in four areas: land acquisition sound insulation noise abatement airport operating procedures noise abatement aircraft operating procedures 3.1 Land Acquisition Land acquisition represents a theoretically possible non-restrictive alternative to the mandatory ban on Stage 2 jet aircraft, but the very high cost and likelihood of strong public opposition to this approach would make it extremely difficult to implement. As discussed in the original Part 161 submission, the 1999 appraised value of the non-compatible property within the 2005 base case 60 db DNL contour restriction was approximately $67.5 million. Under Florida state law property assessments must be updated annually to reflect the just valuation of the present cash value of the property with a willing buyer and willing seller, indicating that the appraised value corresponds closely to the market value at the time. The value of residential property in the City of Naples and Collier County has been appreciating in recent years. The rate of appreciation differs by neighborhood and specif ic parcel, but conversations with Naples-area real estate professionals indicate that an average of 15 percent appreciation per year is a reasonable conservative estimate. The appraised value does not include fees and costs related to property transactions. These expenses would likely increase the average acquisition cost by at least 15 percent. 63 See Section 2.2 of the Part 161 Study and Section 2 of the NEM Update. These materials are not reproduced here for brevity. 64 The FAA requested that the NAA investigate whether non-restrictive options in these four areas could provide approximately the same level of cumulative benefits to residents in the APF environs as the Stage 2 ban. The FAA specifically noted that measures did not have to provide exactly the same magnitude of benefit to exactly the same numbers of residents, nor provide benefits in exactly the same geographic areas.

41 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 37 The 1999 appraised value of $67.5 million is clearly a low range estimate of acquisition cost. Using a conservative (uncompounded) 30% escalation factor to account for inflation from 1999 to 2001 and 15% for transaction fees, a more realistic estimate of the total cost is at least $101 million. We will use a range of $67.5 to $101 million for this alternative. Even the high end of this range is extremely conservative (on the low side), for at least the following reasons: It uses 2001 costs, when the actual acquisition would take many years to complete. It does not use compound growth even for the escalation from 1999 to The 15% transaction fee is a modest estimate of the program management, relocation, appraisal, and other related costs that such a program would require. It includes no economic cost for the significant community disruption that such a program would involve, as residents would be required to move from their homes, and neighborhoods would be reduced in size or eliminated outright. A land acquisition program would take many years to complete, requiring some residents to wait for many years to receive its benefits, in contrast to the recommended Stage 2 restriction, which would provide its universal benefits immediately. Appendix E presents real estate valuation analyses undertaken in estimating this land acquisition expense, reflecting two criteria: relationship of real property market value to assessed value availability of similar residential properties within Collier County 3.2 Sound Insulation The FAA requested that the NAA present an estimate of the approximate cost of sound insulating the dwelling units within the ANSA. Table 3.1 presents the number of dwelling units within the ANSA, by runway end and by type of dwelling unit. Table 3.1 Dwelling Units within Airport Noise Study Area Trailers / Mobile Homes Single Family Units Dwelling Units by Type Multiplex (1 4) Units Condo. or Apart. Units Total Approach Runway End 5 (City land to southwest) (County land southeast) Total Estimated Sound Insulation Program Costs The cost of a sound insulation program can vary according to a number of parameters, such as: Types of dwelling units Construction types Condition of dwelling units Presence/absence of central heating / ventilation / air conditioning ( HVAC ) Specialized local requirements (e.g., hurricane-related building codes)

42 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 38 Program management requirements Program scale The cost of implementing sound insulation programs falls into two principal areas: (1) programmatic and (2) construction. Programmatic Costs Programmatic costs include expenses related to project administration, contractor management, homeowner liaison, architectural design, acoustical consulting, pre- and post-treatment testing, etc. The ANSA includes such a large number of dwelling units that the NAA would be required to retain an integrated program management team to admin ister the overall program. Based on HMMH experience, programmatic costs can range from approximately $4,000 to $7,500 per unit. Construction Costs Construction costs include the expense of labor and materials (e.g., new windows; new doors; weatherstripping; wall, roof, ceiling, and/or attic floor treatments; new or upgraded central HVAC; etc.). HMMH considered a number of cost-estimation approaches: National Average Expense: HMMH has conducted independent research into typical sound insulation construction costs nationwide. We determined that the average construction cost (in year 2000 dollars) from a wide range of airport sound insulation programs that included a total of approximately 3,600 units, was approximately $27,000, per dwelling unit. Palm Beach International Airport Experience: The Palm Beach County Department of Airports is implementing a multi-phase sound insulation program in the environs of PBIA. To date, the County has treated approximately 150 largely single family units at an average construction expense of approximately $25,000 per dwelling unit. Naples-Specific Estimates: HMMH has prepared Naples-specific cost estimates for single family, multi-family (duplex, triplex, and quadplex), and condominium or apartment units, based on field surveys of typical unit characteristics, as follow: 65 - Single family: Each unit has one exterior sliding door, two exterior swinging doors, 12 windows, and requires new or replaced central HVAC. Approximately $35,750 per unit. - Multi-family: Each unit has one exterior sliding door, one exterior swinging door, six windows, and requires new or replaced central HVAC. Approximately $20,700 per unit. - Condominium: Each unit has two exterior sliding doors, one exterior swinging door, eight windows, and does not require HVAC work. Approximately $22,450 per unit. 65 The estimated unit construction cos t for treating individual building elements are as follow: Hurricane-impact resistant sliding door: $3,000 purchase price and approximately $650 in labor to install in concrete frame - $3,650 total. Hurricane-impact resistant swinging door: $2,400 purchase price and approximately $350 in labor to install in concrete frame - $2,750 total Hurricane-impact resistant window: $1,200 purchase price and approximately $350 in labor to install in concrete frame - $1,550 total New central HVAC - $8,000 in single family units, $5,000 in multifamily units.

43 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 39 The Palm Beach and Naples-specific estimates include the added expense of meeting hurricanerelated building code requirements that most Florida jurisdictions strengthened in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. Range of Cost Estimates Table 3.2 presents the ranges of total sound insulation program costs for single family, multi-family, and condominium/apartment units within the ANSA, based on these three construction cost estimation models. The total program costs range from approximately $9.5 million to approximately $12.25 million. Note that these costs exclude the 72 dwelling units within the Rock Creek Campground mobile home park that fall within the ANSA. Sound insulation is not normally considered an effective treatment for trailers or mobile homes. The NAA would have to acquire at least these sites within the Campground. The Campground is assessed for property tax purposes at approximately $1.31 million. Appendix E presents an analysis of the current relationship between appraised and market values in the City of Naples and Collier County. That analysis concludes that market value on July 1, 2001 will be approximately 120% of the appraised value. With this adjustment, the current market value of the Campground is approximately $1.57 million. Since the 72 sites within the ANSA represent a significant percentage (approximately 22%) of the 321 sites within the facility, it is questionable whether the remaining property would be economically viable, suggesting that the NAA may be required to purchase the entire facility, or at a minimum pay for damaging the remainder of the property. 66 Type of Unit Table 3.2 Estimated Ranges of Sound Insulation Program Costs within ANSA Estimate d Costs (in thousands) for Each Cost-Estimation Basis Program National Average Palm Beach Naples-Specific Element Low High Low High Low High Program $4 $7.5 $4 $7.5 $4 $7.5 Construction $27 $27 $25 $25 $35.75 $35.75 Total Per Unit $31 $34.5 $29 $32.5 $39.75 $ Single Family Units Total $527 $587 $493 $553 $ $ Program $4 $7.5 $4 $7.5 $4 $7.5 Multi- Construction $27 $27 $25 $25 $20.7 $20.7 Family Total Per Unit $31 $34.5 $29 $32.5 $24.7 $28.2 Units Total $1,271 $1,415 $1,189 $1,333 $1,013 $1,156 Program $4 $7.5 $4 $7.5 $4 $7.5 Construction $27 $27 $25 $25 $22.45 $22.45 Total Per Unit $31 $34.5 $29 $32.5 $26.45 $ Condo/ Apartment Total $14,415 $16,043 $13,485 $15,113 $12,299 $13,298 Sound Insulation Total $16,213 $18,044 $15,167 $16,998 $13,988 $15,818 Total with Acquisition of Rock Creek Campground (@ $1.57 million) $17,783 $19,614 $16,737 $18,568 $15,558 $17, This value is a conservative estimate of the cost to acquire the Campground, as it does not reflect any relocation costs for the owners of the Campground, since they live on the property, nor does it account for loss of business income, appraisal fees, etc. In addition, FAA regulations provide some relocation assistance to mobile home dwellers, while not to as high a level as that provided to residents of permanent dwelling units.

44 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Local Conditions Affecting Effectiveness of Sound Insulation The NAA considered residential sound insulatio n in both the original Part 150 Study 67 and in the 1996 Update 68. Neither study recommended this measure, for the following principal reasons: Original (1987) Part 150 Study: The original Part 150 stated: Because of the great emphasis on outdoor activities in Naples, soundproofing was not viewed as effective for residential uses since only interior noise levels could be reduced. First (1996) Part 150 Update: The NAA did not recommend residential sound insulation in this study because of its limitation to indoor activities, and because of its high cost. As discussed in detail in Section 2.3.3, lifestyle, climate, housing type, and citizen expectations all combine to significantly limit the potential effectiveness of sound insulation. Naples has developed largely as a resort destination, largely as a result of its climate, which permits outdoor activity throughout the year. Housing units of all types are designed to extend into the outdoors, to take advantage of this situation, as shown in Figures When considering sound insulation as a potential non-restrictive substitute for the NAA s proposed restriction of Stage 2 operations, the following additional factors should be considered: Sound insulation is an incomplete substitute, since it addresses only indoor activity. Sound insulation also does not benefit residents outside of the 60 db DNL contour. While the NAA used that contour line to define the ANSA, the restriction also provides significant benefit to residents in extensive areas outside of that boundary. The original Part 161 Study report discusses the single event related benefits of the restriction in terms of the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) contours and the exceptional number of complaints that are associated with individual Stage 2 operations. Even if the NAA were to accept the very limited geographic and activity-related benefits of sound insulation, it is very unlikely that the NAA would be able to find local funds to cover its very high implementation cost, just within the ANSA. FAA funding is uncertain, at best, given the fact that the measure would apply only to dwelling units outside the 65 db DNL contour, and that the NAA would be competing with many other airports requesting funding within the 65 db and higher contour intervals. As in the case of land acquisition, a sound insulation program would take many years to complete, requiring some residents to wait for many years to receive its benefits, in contrast to the recommended Stage 2 restriction, which would provide its universal benefits immediately. 3.3 Noise Abatement Airport Operating Procedures The November 2000 NEM Update shows that existing elements of the airport s approved Part 150 NCP, and other voluntary actions that the NAA has implemented, eliminate population within the 65 db DNL contours for both 2000 and Part 150 Study for Naples Municipal Airport, prepared by Aviation Planning Associates, Inc., February 1987, page VI Revised Noise Exposure Map " and Revised Noise Compatibility Program , Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Study, prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. and Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., February 1997.

45 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 41 The FAA requested that the NAA investigate whether alternatives to current noise abatement and flight path elements of the NCP might reduce population within 60 db DNL, without significantly increasing population within higher contour intervals, or adding population from areas currently outside the contours. Specifically, Task 2.3 of the scope 69 of this supplemental analysis calls for a further analysis of Noise Abatement Operating Procedures (Airport and Aircraft). This section addresses the noise abatement flight track and runway use alternatives that are candidates for consideration under the airport operating procedures category. Section 3.4 addresses aircraft operating procedures relate to quiet flying techniques Status of Airport Operating Procedures in Existing Noise Compatibility Program The current APF NCP includes 15 measures that the FAA has approved, based on NAA Part 150 Update submissions in and Table 3.3 lists the four airport operational measures recommended in the updates, including a description, the FAA approval/disapproval action 72, and the implementation status of each. Table 3.3 Airport Operational Noise Abatement Elements Considered for APF NCP Measure Description FAA Action Status 1. Preferential Runway Maximize use of Runway 5 for departures. Approved. Implemented 2. Flight Procedures Eliminate existing 2000' MSL initial Disapproved (insufficient No further action departure restriction. noise reduction) 3. Flight Paths Runway 5: straight Approved as voluntary Implemented Runway 23: right turn Runway 14: left turn Runway 32: right turn measure 4. Helicopters Centralized flight corridors, pilot Approved Implemented education, achieve altitude before departing airport 5. Ground Noise Ban nighttime maintenance runups, designate runup locations and orientations Approved Implemented Only Measures 1 and 3 (preferential runway use and flight paths) are candidates for consideration in this analysis: The FAA disapproved the elimination of the 2,000 altitude restriction (Measure 2) for air traffic and safety reasons, and because its benefit was outside the 65 db DNL contour. This altitude limitation does not affect the location of the 60 db DNL contour over any populated area See Appendix B of this document. 70 Ibid. 71 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Update, Amendment of Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Program to Extend Nighttime Stage 1 Use Restriction to 24 Hours, prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., February Appendix A of the November 2000 NEM contains copies of the FAA Record of Approval for both NCP submissions. 73 The noise contours do not take the altitude limitation into account, for two reasons: (1) most aircraft receive a clearance allowing them to climb in an unrestricted fashion before they reach 2,000 and (2) because analysis of

46 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 42 Helicopter and runup activity (Measures 4 and 5) are both too limited and dispersed to affect the DNL contours, and do not factor into their computation at APF Non-Compatible Land Uses to Consider Figure 3.1 presents the currently approved 2005 five-year forecast condition DNL contours, from the November 2000 NEM submission. The FAA concurred that this supplemental analysis should use 2005 NEM forecast year as the basis for contour analyses. The shaded areas in Figure 3.1 show the residential land areas within the 60 db DNL contour; these areas are within the contour lobes off the departure ends of Runways 14, 23, and 32. There is no residential land to the northeast, within the contour lobe off the departure end of Runway 5. The shaded area off the approach end of Runway 14 (to the northwest) is unpopulated; it is a portion of the River Reach development used for recreational purposes. Appendix F presents the addresses, estimated number of dwelling units, and estimated population within the contour lobe off each runway end (again from the 2000 NEM documentation) 74. The tabulation shows an estimated total of 930 residents within the db DNL contour interval off the departure end of Runway 23 (to the southwest), and 376 off the approach end of Runway 32 (to the southeast). Therefore, the focus of this effort is on reducing or eliminating the extent of the encompassed residential areas to the southeast and southwest only, without encompassing population off the other two runway ends. There are four major categories of operations that affect those two areas: 1. Runway 5 arrivals (arrivals from the southwest) 2. Runway 23 departures (departures to the southwest) 3. Runway 32 arrivals (arrivals from the southeast) 4. Runway 14 departures (departures to the southeast) Figure 3.2 presents a drawing of the generalized land uses in the airport environs, once again copied from the 2000 NEM documentation. That figure provides greater detail on the exact location of residential and non-residential uses off the runway ends. It should be noted that the mixed use area to the southwest of the airport, under the extended centerline of Runway 5/23 (shown with open stars) includes a mix of commercial and residential (condominium) uses. This figure provides a useful basis for considering the potential effects of using preferential flight tracks to redirect traffic onto different routes, or of extending the contours into new areas by redistributing runway utilization. six representative aircraft types in the INM database (the BEC58P light reciprocating twin, DHC6 and SF340 twin turboprops, and Lear 25, Lear 35, and GIIB corporate jets) indicates that even off the end of the longest contour lobe (to the northeast, under extended centerline for the Runway 5 departures), only the DHC-6 turboprop is likely to reach 2,000 by the end of the 60 db contour lobe. No aircraft reach 2,000 within the other three contour lobes. 74 These are the updated population data presented in the November 16, 2000 Part 161 Response to Comments volume. Appendix F also presents a summary of the process followed in preparing the population estimates for the non-restrictive alternatives presented in this study.

47 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 43 Figure DNL Contours with Existing NCP, from November 2000 NEM

48 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 44 Figure 3.2 Generalized Land Uses in APF Environs

49 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Consideration of Preferential Runway Alternatives Preferential runway alternatives are designed to distribute arrivals and departures to take advantage of uneven population distribution off each runway end. The current preferential runway program calls for maximizing departures on Runway 5, over the least populated areas in the airport environs, to the northeast of the airport. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 clearly show the effectiveness of this objective. Increasing runway use in any other direction will extend the 60 db DNL contour into residential land uses. HMMH developed the annualized runway use percentages for the 2000 and 2005 NEM contours from NAA logs of actual runway use for five months of actual activity (September 1998, and March, April, May, and August 1999), adjusted to reflect annual activity. Table 3.4 represents this precise estimate of current runway use. Table and 2005 NEM Runway Utilization with Existing NCP Runway Utilization (Percent) 75 Runway Day Night The NAA could consider an infinite number of runway use combinations. However, a number of operational constraints, such as runway length, wind and weather conditions, and other safety and aircraft performance concerns limit feasible options. For the purposes of this supplemental analysis, we have a concrete basis for considering two realistic sets of runway utilization, which we can be assured are operationally feasible. These are the runway utilization rates that the NAA observed in practice at the outset of the 1996 and 1998 Part 150 Update Studies. The NAA has included preferential runway assignment plans in its noise compatibility efforts since at least the original (1987) Part 150 Study, which called for maximizing jet arrivals on Runway 22 (now called Runway 23) and maximizing jet departures on Runway 4 (now called Runway 5). That preferential runway use program was in effect at the outset of the 1996 Part 150 Update Study. Table 3.5 shows the base case runway utilization identified in the study: Table Base Case NEM Runway Utilization Runway Utilization (Percent) (Same utilization for arrivals and departures, Runway and for day and night) Current Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) practice is to use the same runway for arrivals and departures, which causes arrival use to equal departure use.

50 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 46 The 1996 NCP Update led to revisions to the preferential runway program, which simply called for maximizing Runway 5 for departures, as shown in Table 3.6: Table Base Case NEM Runway Utilization Runway Runway Use (%) Departures Arrivals Total Figures 3.3 and 3.4 present DNL contours for 2005 forecast operations with these two sets of runway use assumptions, with all other operational assumptions unchanged from those reflecting the current NCP implementation.

51 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 47 Figure DNL Contours with 1996 NEM Base Case Runway Use

52 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 48 Figure DNL Contours with 1998 NEM Base Case Runway Use

53 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 49 Visual review of Figures 3.3 and 3.4, compared to Figure 3.1 clearly indicates that these realistic preferential runway use alternatives increase the population within the noise contours. Table 3.7 summarizes the residential population within these contours, compared to the 2005 base case and to the recommended mandatory 24-hour restriction of Stage 2 operations. Table 3.7 Estimated Residential Population within Preferential Runway Alternative Contours, Compared to 2005 Base Case NEM and to Mandatory 24-Hour Restriction Case 2005 Base Case NEM Runway Use 2005 with 1996 Base Case NEM Runway Use 2005 with 1998 Base Case NEM Runway Use 2005 with Mandatory 24- Hour Stage 2 Restriction Population within 60 db DNL off of the Approach End of Each Runway (City land (County land (County land (County land area to the area to the area to the area to the southwest) northeast) northwest) southeast) Total , ,466 2, ,670 2, The 1996 runway use alternative would increase the population within the contours by approximately 82%, and the 1998 runway use would increase it by approximately 57%, compared to approximately a 72% reduction with the proposed Stage 2 restriction. Through analyses and implementation efforts starting at least as early as the original 1987 Part 150 Study, the NAA has identified and accomplished an optimal preferential runway use. Any significant change would be likely to increase the population within the contours Consideration of Preferential Flight Path Alternatives Preferential flight path alternatives are designed to route arrivals and departures over relatively lightly populated or unpopulated corridors in the airport environs. The existing NCP includes a preferential departure flight path off each runway end, as identified in Table 3.3. Because the noise contour lobes extend only relatively short distances off three runway ends (to the southeast, southwest, and northwest), the 1996 Part 150 Update Study used single event contours as the primary tool to analyze these routings. For assistance in the consideration of potential alternatives, Figure 3.5 depicts the modeled departure flight tracks, including the preferential routings, and Table 3.6 summarizes the 2005 base case use of these tracks, which include preferential noise abatement flight paths: Runway 5 straight out (The preferential routing is modeled using three tracks; 5N, 5NA, and 5NB ; to represent dispersion on either side of the optimal path) Runway 23 right turn ( 23N, 23NA, and 23NB ) Runway 14 left turn ( 14N, 14NA, and 14NB ) Runway 32 right turn ( 32N, 32NA, and 32NB )

54 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 50 Figure 3.5 Existing and Potential Departure Flight Tracks

55 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 51 Table Base Case NEM Departure Flight Track Use Source: HMMH Departure Percent Use of Track by Aircraft Type Runway End Track Jet Turboprop Piston Prop 5NA NB D D D D D D D Subtotal N NA NB D D D D D D D Subtotal N NA NB D D D D D D D Subtotal N NA NB D D D D D D D Subtotal

56 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 52 Potential Revisions to Existing Noise Abatement Departure Fight Tracks The effectiveness of the existing noise abatement departure flight tracks and the distribution of noncompatible land use in the airport environs offer limited opportunity for potential improvement, as discussed on the following runway-by-runway basis: Runway 5 Departures: The existing preferential flight path calls for a straight-out route, to take advantage of the unpopulated areas northeast of the airport. There is no basis for considering modification to this existing preferential routing, because there is no residential population within the 60 db DNL contour within the northeast contour lobe. Runway 23 Departures: The existing preferential flight path calls for a right-hand turn after departure to route aircraft to the west, over the relatively limited commercial corridor in downtown Naples. This path routes aircraft away from the more consistent residential development under the straight-out path. This routing causes the 60 db DNL contour to protrude to the west. For convenience, this document calls this preferred routing the Gulf departure, since aircraft reach the Gulf of Mexico in the most expeditious manner. A potential alternative routing to consider would be a turn to the west-southwest, to potentially take advantage of Naples Bay. This document refers to this routing as the Bay departure. Runway 14 Departures: There is no undeveloped corridor off this runway end. The existing preferential left turn routes aircraft away from the Rock Creek Campground immediately south of the runway end (on the southwest corner of the intersection of the southern airport property line and Airport Pulling Road). This turn also routes aircraft away from the more densely developed residential areas south of Davis Boulevard. As shown in Table 3.4, the existing runway use at APF exposes the area off the southeast end of Runway 14/32 to more arrivals than departures; i.e., Runway 32 is used more often than Runway 14. The dominance of arrivals, coupled with the relatively limited extent of the 60 db DNL contour lobe off this runway end and the relatively uniform population distribution on either side of the existing lobe lead to the conclusion that there is no basis for considering modification to the existing preferential routing. Runway 32 Departures: The existing preferential flight path calls for a right-hand turn to fly up the Greenway. This preferred routing is modeled using tracks 32N, 32NA, and 32NB, again to show dispersion. The northwest contour lobe, under Runway 32 departures, includes a small portion of a residential development, as shown in Figure 3.1. However, that area of the development is used solely for recreational purposes, so rerouting traffic in that area would not reduce the population within the contour. There is no basis for considering modification to the existing preferential routing, because there is no residential population within the 60 db DNL contour within the northwest contour lobe. Analysis of Alternative Noise Abatement Flight Paths for Runway 5 Departures Based on the preceding review of the existing preferential flight paths, HMMH investigated two variations on the Bay noise abatement flight path for Runway 23 departures. Preferential assignment of jet departures to Bay departure (i.e., shift the existing 95% use of the Gulf departure to the Bay departure), without changing the existing propeller use. Preferential assignment of jet departures to Bay departure, with turbo-propeller departures shifted to Gulf departures, to minimize potential conflicts and delays that might arise from assigning high numbers of operations to this single path.

57 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 53 Baseline track use in Table 3.8 shows that the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) assigns a lower percentage of turbo-propeller departures to the Gulf path than jets, and too few reciprocating engine propeller departures to model on this track. This difference is largely due to the need to separate aircraft based on performance differences. In particular, the ATCT assigns turbo-propeller departures away from the Gulf route (largely to the Bay route) during high demand periods, to segregate them from the faster-moving and faster-climbing jet departures. This segregation is most important when a jet follows a propeller-driven aircraft. The ATCT assigns reciprocating engine propeller departures to a broad range of dispersed tracks, because of their even lower average performance as a class, to minimize conflicts with both jets and turbo-propeller aircraft. Because of this segregation issue, we believe the second of these two alternatives is the most realistic. The first alternative would lead to delays that would arise when the ATCT had to hold a jet that followed a turbo-propeller departure on the Bay route. The second alternative essentially reverses the existing practice, assigning jets to the Bay route and turbo-propeller departures to the Gulf route. Table 3.9 presents the revised Runway 23 departure track assignments assumed for these two cases. Table 3.9 Revised Runway 23 Departure Flight Track Use Assumed in Two Preferential Flight Path Alternatives Source: HMMH Percent Use of Track by Aircraft Type Alternative Track Jet Turboprop Piston Prop 23N NA NB D D DA 12.5 Jet Use of Bay Departure 23DB D D D D Jet Use of Bay Departure and Turbo-Propeller Use of Gulf Departure 23D Subtotal N NA NB D D DA DB D D D D D Subtotal

58 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 54 Figures 3.6 and 3.7 present the resulting DNL contours. Visual review indicates that the contours are essentially identical; jet departures dominate and the assignment of turbo-propeller departures does not affect the contour shape. Visual review of Figures 3.3 and 3.4, compared to Figure 3.1 clearly indicates that these realistic preferential runway use alternatives increase the population within the noise contours. Table 3.10 summarizes the residential population within these contours, compared to the 2005 base case and to the recommended mandatory 24-Hour Stage 2 restriction. Table 3.10 Estimated Residential Population within Runway 5 Departure Flight Track Alternative Contours, Compared to 2005 Base Case NEM and to Mandatory 24- Hour Restriction Source: MCG Case 2005 Base Case NEM Runway Use 2005 with Maximized Jet and Turboprop Use of Bay Departure 2005 with Maximized Jet Use of Bay Departure and Turboprop Use of Gulf Departure 2005 with Mandatory 24- Hour Stage 2 Restriction Population within 60 db DNL off of the Approach End of Each Runway (City land (County land (County land (County land area to the area to the area to the area to the southwest) northeast) northwest) southeast) Total , , , The flight track alternatives produce essentially identical noise contours, reflecting the dominance of jet operations over turbo-propeller in determining contour shape. The two flight track alternatives produce only a 21% reduction in population within the contours, compared to the 72% reduction associated with the recommended restriction. The existing flight track procedures were developed in the 1997 Part 150, as the result of extensive interaction among residential and aviation industry interests. The Naples and Fort Myers ATCT staffs provided important input into the design of the flight track procedures. As noted previously, the ATCT is particularly interested in diverging paths for jet and propeller aircraft; the Gulf departure is the most efficient means of routing jets away from the lower-performance propellerdriven aircraft.

59 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 55 Figure DNL Contours with Maximized Jet Use of Bay Departure, with No Change in Propeller Departure Track Use

60 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 56 Figure DNL Contours with Maximized Jet Use of Bay Departure, and Increased Turbo-Propeller Use of Gulf Departure

61 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 57 Consideration of Potential Preferential Arrival Flight Tracks There are no realistic options for preferential arrival flight paths, for the following reasons: Arrival noise levels are generally quieter than departures, which limit the potential benefit of changes in arrival routings, even out to 60 db DNL. The noise contour lobe off the approach end of Runway 32 (to the southeast) includes residential population. However, the contour extends only a short distance out from the landing threshold (on the order of 2,500 ). Aircraft generally must be stabilized on straight-in trajectories within that distance (particularly larger aircraft which have the most significant effect on the contours), so there is no realistic opportunity to implement effective curved routings. In addition, review of the generalized land uses depicted in Figure 3.2 shows that even if very close-in turns were feasible on approach, they would only shift the contour within the same residential neighborhood that is currently within the contour. The noise contour lobe off the approach end of Runway 14 (to the northwest) includes a portion of a residential development that is used for recreational purposes, so rerouting traffic in that area would not reduce the population within the contour. Even if there were residents within the contour, its short length from the landing threshold (on the order of 3,000 ) raises the same issues discussed above for Runway 32 approaches. The noise contour lobe off the approach end of Runway 23 (to the northeast) is long enough that it could reflect the effect of changes in arrival tracks. However, since there are no residents within that contour lobe, there is no justification for considering changes. The noise contour lobe off the approach end of Runway 5 (to the southwest) includes residential population. However, as in the case of Runways 14 and 32, the contour lobe is too abbreviated to offer opportunity for significant changes in arrival routings, particularly by jets and larger, louder propeller-driven aircraft. 3.4 Noise Abatement Aircraft Operating Procedures The Part 161 analyses used standard Integrated Noise Model (INM) aircraft noise and performance data for all aircraft. The NAA received several comments on the Part 161 Study that noted that many pilots use noise abatement departure profile (NADP) procedures, which can produce significant noise abatement benefits. The FAA requested that the NAA consider the potential benefit of assuming reasonable levels of compliance with such procedures. As discussed in the History of Noise Compatibility Efforts for Naples Municipal Airport, the NAA has requested that pilots use the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) close-in NADP procedure since at least 1979, when NAA Resolution 59 called for turbojet pilots to abide by this procedure. 76 The 1987 and 1997 Part 150 studies reaffirmed the value of this measure. The NBAA close-in departure procedure is defined in detail in the NAA s Recommended Noise Abatement Jet Arrival & Departure Procedures handout. 77 In simple terms, the procedure involves a power cutback at an altitude of approximately 500 above airport elevation, with resumption of 76 Tab 2 of the History document presents this resolution. 77 Tab 6 of the History document presents this handout.

62 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 58 normal climb power at approximately 3,000. The NAA promotes the use of this procedure aggressively in its noise abatement publicity. The standard departure profiles in the INM generally reflect a less beneficial ( noisier ) departure procedure than the NBAA NADP. However, the use of NADPs is strictly voluntary. The NAA cannot mandate the use of NADPs, nor can they determine whether a pilot uses the preferred procedures on any given take-off. For these reasons, the NAA used standard INM departure profiles in the Part 161 Study. The NAA received several comments suggesting that adjusting the modeling inputs to reflect use of NADPs would show a significant benefit. Some comments supported the use of the NBAA close-in procedure. Gulfstream Aerospace provided detailed information on specific Quiet Flying NADP procedures that they have developed for the Stage 2 GII, GIIB, and GIII aircraft. Gulfstream staff stated that they believe these NADP procedures should be considered the standard procedures for these aircraft. They indicated that they are working with the FAA to have the agency revise INM default data for these types of aircraft to assume these NADP procedures. The Gulfstream procedure is similar to the NBAA procedure, but optimized to include more aircraft-type-specific instructions for the pilot. The FAA requested that the NAA evaluate the potential effect of NADPs in the SA. This required developing non-standard departure data for the INM. The FAA requires that an airport apply to the agency for prior approval to use any non-standard INM inputs in any noise study conducted under FAA regulations. The approval process requires the airport to provide extensive technical documentation that supports the use of such non-standard inputs. The NAA and its consultants undertook this process with the assistance of the FAA, in particular Mr. John Gulding, the FAA staff member with jurisdiction over the review and approval of non-standard modeling inputs Pilot Survey As a first step in developing information for the evaluation of NADPs, the NAA and its consultants surveyed a sample of Stage 2 aircraft operators to collect information on their use of NADPs. Appendix G presents a copy of the survey. The first page of the survey related to departure profiles. The second page addressed questions aimed at determining potential compliance with a voluntary restriction of Stage 2 operations, which is considered in Section 3.5. Table 3.11 summarizes the input from the 27 operators who responded to this portion of the survey. Table 3.11 Responses to NADP Survey Source: Operator Survey Number of Respondents Indicating Use of Various Procedures Aircraft Type NBAA and Manufacturer NBAA Manufacturer Other Gulfstream GII/GIIB/GIII Learjet 24/ (Note) Falcon Total Note: One Lear operator indicated that he used the Lear procedure, the NBAA procedure, and a procedure of his own.

63 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 59 All the surveyed operators stated that they use a noise abatement departure profile of one type or another, and in some cases several different options. However, the responses to the survey s detailed questions regarding specific parameters of the procedures contradicted these responses in three cases. Two of the Gulfstream operators and one of the Falcon operators described procedures that did not involve a cutback until 3,000 or higher. These conflicting answers are examples of the ambiguity that is often associated with NADPs. This ambiguity makes it difficult for airports to develop reliable estimates of actual use by the full pilot population. It also raises questions about the legitimacy of operator/pilot statements about adherence to the most beneficial procedures Development of Non-Standard NADP Modeling Inputs HMMH and Senzig Engineering (SE), undertook the following steps to analyze the potential noise benefits of NADP procedures for the three INM Stage 2 corporate jet types modeled in the Part 161 Study: (1) the Gulfstream IIB, (2) the Learjet 25, and (3) the Dassault Falcon 20. Appendix H presents copies of correspondence and back-up materials to which this summary refers. SE evaluated the data that Gulfstream provided in its comments related to Quiet Flying procedures for its Stage 2 GII, GIIB, and GIII jet aircraft, all of which are modeled in the INM using the GIIB as a surrogate. As part of this step, SE identified some possible inconsistencies in the Gulfstream data as they apply at APF. SE summarized these issues in a letter dated April 26, 2001, to Mr. Etter of Gulfstream (included in Appendix H). Gulfstream acknowledged receipt of this correspondence in a telephone call, but did not provide a written response addressing these technical issues. SE contacted Bombardier s Learjet subsidiary to determine Learjet s recommended procedures. Staff of Learjet s Wichita Field Service Office provided data on the Learjet 25 departure procedure. SE also attempted to contact Dassault s Flight Operations Office at Teterboro (New Jersey) Airport, in an effort to obtain information on standard Falcon departure procedures. The Dassault staff did not respond to several requests for information. Based on the information obtained from the operator surveys, Gulfstream, and Learjet, SE developed the following combinations of non-standard departure procedure inputs for the three aircraft types: Gulfstream IIB: The Gulfstream Aerospace recommended procedure. This procedure was based on material provided by Gulfstream, adjusted to take into account the APF-related inconsistencies identified by SE. Mr. Gulding of the FAA requested that we incorporate the adjustments that SE identified as being necessary to properly reflect operations at APF, rather than the unadjusted Gulfstream input. Even with these adjustments, this procedure produced the greatest noise reduction over the standard INM profile. A procedure provided by a local based operator. The operator, Continental Aviation, later withdrew that information and stated that their pilots strictly adhered to the Gulfstreamrecommended procedure. This procedure provided somewhat less noise reduction than the Gulfstream recommendation. A procedure with no cutback until 3,000, based on the detail provided by two operators. This procedure was louder than the INM standard.

64 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 60 Lear 25: The standard Learjet procedure, provided by the manufacturer. This procedure does not provide noise reduction over the INM standard profile. The NBAA procedure, based on input obtained in the survey. This procedure was quieter than the INM and Learjet standard procedures. Falcon 20: The NBAA procedure, based on input obtained in the survey. This procedure was quieter than the INM procedure. A procedure with no cutback until 3,000, based on the detail provided by one operator. This procedure was louder than the INM standard procedure. SE submitted separate letters to Mr. Gulding at the FAA, all dated May 5, that provided backup data related to the development of these non-standard procedures. Mr. Gulding requested that SE provide additional information to clarify the Lear and Gulfstream submissions. SE provided this information in letters of June 7 and 8, respectively. Appendix H presents copies of these submissions. The FAA staff are in the process of reviewing the NAA submissions. Based on verbal communications with Mr. Gulding, we expect to receive his approval of the Gulfstream procedure adjusted to take into account APF conditions, and of the NBAA procedures for the Lear and Falcon. In order to expedite the completion of the SA, we proceeded with the analysis on that assumption Assumptions Regarding Compliance with NADPs As discussed previously, it is impossible for the NAA or any airport operator to determine whether pilots are using NADPs. In light of this uncertainty, the NAA chose to test the most optimistic situation possible, by assuming that each Stage 2 departure used the procedure that would have the greatest benefit within the 60 db DNL contour; i.e., the Gulfstream Aerospace recommended procedure for the GII INM type (adjusted to reflect APF conditions, as requested by the FAA), and the NBAA close-in procedure for the Lear 25 and Falcon 20 INM types. Figure 3.8 presents the DNL contours for this case. Table 3.12 summarizes the estimated residential population within the contours, compared to the 2005 base case and the 2005 contours with the proposed mandatory 24-hour Stage 2 restriction. The table shows that this alternative only reduces the population within the 60 db DNL contour by approximately 16 people (less than two percent), compared to the 936 person (72%) reduction with the proposed mandatory 24-hour Stage 2 restriction. We would expect the actual noise abatement benefits of NADPs to be substantially less in practice, because of the highly optimistic assumption of 100% compliance with the most beneficial NADPs and the inability of the NAA to monitor or enforce their use. The existing APF noise abatement program includes the request that pilots follow the NBAA closein procedure.

65 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 61 Table 3.12 Estimated 2005 Residential Population within Noise Abatement Departure Profile Contours, Compared to Base Case and Mandatory 24-Hour Restriction Source: MCG Case 2005 Base Case NEM Runway Use 2005 with 100% Stage 2 Use of NADPs 2005 with Mandatory 24- Hour Restriction of Stage 2 Operations Population within 60 db DNL off of the Approach End of Each Runway (City land (County land (County land (County land area to the area to the area to the area to the southwest) northeast) northwest) southeast) Total , ,

66 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 62 Figure DNL Contours Assuming 100% of All Stage 2 Jet Departures are Conducted using Noise Abatement Departure Profiles

67 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Voluntary Restraint of Stage 2 Operations The FAA requested that the NAA estimate the potential noise benefit of extending the voluntary restraint of nighttime Stage 2 operations to a 24-hour basis, for reasonable levels of assumed compliance with a voluntary program. The FAA requested that the SA present information that can reasonably be obtained from operators regarding their probable response to a request to voluntarily restrain daytime operations; e.g., replace their aircraft with Stage 3 models, obtain Stage 3 recertification, operate in and out of another airport, use an alternate mode of transportation, not visit Naples, etc. The FAA did not suggest that the NAA undertake a comprehensive survey of Stage 2 operators; rather, the agency felt that it would be satisfactory for the survey to focus on the most active operators, including operators who have requested waivers from the mandatory restriction, based operators, and operators with records of regular activity at the airport. Although such a sample is relatively limited from a statistical basis and may be subject to individual operator biases, it provides an estimate of the anticipated level of voluntary cooperation with the restriction proposal Compliance with the Current Voluntary Curfew Compared to the results of a mandatory ban, the potential effectiveness of a voluntary 24-hour ban on Stage 2 jet operations depends primarily on the degree to which Stage 2 operators at Naples would comply with a voluntary restriction. The pattern of recent violations of the existing voluntary night curfew on jet operations provides one measure of potential compliance with a voluntary 24- hour Stage 2 ban. Table 3.13 shows the number of non-exempt night jet operations from October 2000 through May Except for a decrease in December, the number of night jet operations increased from October to a peak in February and March before beginning a decrease in April, generally following the pattern of total operations at Naples from the Fall through the peak Winter period into the Spring. There were on average two violations per day during the eight month period. Table 3.13 Recent Jet Operations during the Hours of the Existing Voluntary Restriction on Nighttime (10 p.m.- 7 a.m.) Operations Source: NAA Records Month Night Operations Days Per Month Average Per Day October November Decembe r January February March April May Eight Month Total Note: Does not include air ambulance or other exempt operations.

68 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Survey of Stage 2 Operators Requesting Waivers To provide a second measure of potential compliance with a voluntary 24-hour Stage 2 ban, the airport conducted a survey of the Stage 2 aircraft operators who have requested waivers from the mandatory Stage 2 ban. The survey was combined with the inquiry into departure procedures, as discussed in Section The survey form is presented in Appendix G; the second page of the form relates to the potential responses to a 24-hour voluntary restriction of Stage 2 operations. Twenty-nine Stage 2 operators gave full or partial responses to the survey, with one response excluded from the analysis because most of the flights were air ambulance service exempt from the Stage 2 ban. The 28 operators of non-exempt Stage 2 flights, operate 32 Stage 2 aircraft into Naples, and accounted for 332 operations in the 12-month period ending in April When operators were asked how they would react to a voluntary 24-hour ban on Stage 2 flights at Naples, their responses fell into five categories: hushkit or replace their Stage 2 aircraft use alternative airports cancel trips to Naples use Stage 3 aircraft already in their fleets not comply with the voluntary ban Table 3.14 summarizes the survey responses. With responses weighted by the number of operations, almost one-third indicate that they would modify or replace their Stage 2 aircraft, one-quarter would not comply with a voluntary ban, and most of the others would either use an alternate airport or cancel trips to Naples. Table 3.14 Potential Responses to Voluntary 24 Hour Ban of Stage 2 Aircraft Source: Survey of Stage 2 Waiver Applicants Response Weighted Share of Operations Hushkit or Replace Aircraft 32% Not Comply with Ban 25% Use Alternate Airport 23% Cancel Flight 18% Use Stage 3 Aircraft in Fleet 3% Total 100% Forecast of Jet Operations with a Voluntary 24-Hour Stage 2 Restriction Table 3.15 presents the forecast of average daily jet operations at Naples based on 75 percent daytime compliance with a voluntary 24-Hour Stage 2 restriction (consistent with the survey results). This forecast anticipates no change in Stage 2 night operations from the baseline forecast for 2005 (i.e., the no new restrictions scenario), since the airport already has a voluntary curfew on jet operations at night. Extending the voluntary restriction to 24 hours is not likely to change the behavior of operators who do not comply with the existing curfew. Figure 3.9 presents the noise contours for this case.

69 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 65 Table 3.15 Forecast Jet Operations 75 Percent Daytime Compliance with Voluntary 24-Hour Restriction Source: Survey of waiver applicants. Departures Arrivals Aircraft Example Day Night Day Night Total Category INM Type Aircraft Type (Note 1) (Note 1) (Note 2) Stage 1 Jet Lear 25-1 Learjet Total Stage Stage 2 Jet Lear 25 Learjet GIIB Gulfstream II Fal20 Falcon Total Stage 2 (Note 2) Stage 3 Je t Lear 35 Learjet MU3001 Mitsubishi Diamond 300 CIT3 Cessna Citation III Lear Falcon 50/ db CNA500 Cessna Citation 500 CL601 Canadair Challenger 601 IAI1125 Israeli Astra Westwind GIV Gulfstream IV CL600 Canadair Challenger 600 Total Stage 3 (Note 2) Total Jets (Note 2) Notes: (1) Night operations unchanged from 2005 baseline No New Restrictions scenario, since all night operations already represent non-compliance with the voluntary night restriction. (2) Totals do not add exactly because of rounding. Based on the survey of waiver applicants and the record of non-compliance with the existing voluntary night restriction, this forecast scenario assumes that 25 percent of the daytime Stage 2 operations will not comply with a voluntary ban. Over time, the rate of non-compliance may increase. Stage 2 operators who initially comply with the voluntary ban by shifting flights to Fort Myers or other nearby airports will observe other Stage 2 aircraft continuing to use Naples without penalty. Under these circumstances, some operators who initially comply with the voluntary ban may shift some or all of their Stage 2 flights back to Naples. Table 3.16 presents an alternative scenario of jet operations with a voluntary Stage 2 ban. Under this scenario daytime compliance falls to 60 percent, while Stage 2 night operations continue at the base line 2005 No New Restrictions scenario level. Figure 3.10 presents the resulting noise contours.

70 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 66 Figure DNL Contours Assuming 75 Percent Daytime Compliance with a Voluntary 24-Hour Restriction

71 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 67 Table 3.16 Forecast of Jet Operations - 60 Percent Daytime Compliance with a Voluntary 24- Hour Stage 2 Restriction Departures Arrivals Aircraft Example Day Night Day Night Total Category INM Type Aircraft Type (Note 1) (Note 1) (Note 2) Stage 1 Jet Lear 25-1 Learjet Total Stage Stage 2 Jet Lear 25 Learjet GIIB Gulfstream II Fal20 Falcon Total Stage 2 (Note 1) Stage 3 Jet Lear 35 Learjet MU3001 Mitsubishi Diamond 300 CIT3 Cessna Citation III Lear Falcon 50/ db CNA500 Cessna Citation 500 CL601 Canadair Challenger 601 IAI1125 Israeli Astra Westwind GIV Gulfstream IV CL600 Canadair Challenger 600 Total Stage 3 (Note 1) Total Jets (Note 1) Notes: (1) Night operations unchanged from 2005 baseline No New Restrictions scenario, since all night operations already represent non-compliance with the voluntary night restriction. (2) Totals do not add exactly because of rounding.

72 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 68 Figure DNL Contours Assuming 60 Percent Daytime Compliance with a Voluntary 24-Hour Restriction

73 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page Benefits of a Voluntary Stage 2 Ban Table 3.17 compares the population within the 60 db DNL contour for the two voluntary Stage 2 restriction scenarios to the Base Case forecast which assumes no new restrictions and to the mandatory 24 hour Stage 2 ban, as presented original Part 161. Table 3.17 Estimated 2005 Residential Population within Voluntary Restrictions Contours, Compared to Base Case and Mandatory 24-Hour Restriction Source: MCG 2005 Scenario Total Population Base Case No New Restrictions 1,306 Voluntary Stage 2 Restriction with 75% Daytime Compliance 1,178 Voluntary Stage 2 Restriction with 60% Daytime Compliance 1,194 Mandatory Stage 2 24-Hour Restriction 370 Compared to the Base Case with no new restrictions, a voluntary ban with either 60% or 75% daytime compliance reduces the population within the 60 db contour by less than 10 percent, compared to the base case. Neither of the voluntary ban scenarios offers the benefits of a mandatory ban which reduces the population within the 60 db DNL contour by over 70% Costs of a Voluntary Stage 2 Ban The cost of any voluntary or mandatory operating restriction depends on the responses to the restriction. Some potential responses like modifying or replacing Stage 2 aircraft involve substantial cost. Other potential responses such as using alternate airports or using Stage 3 aircraft already in an operator s fleet involve much lower cost. Operators who do not comply with a voluntary ban will incur no additional costs. Table 3.18 compares the responses given to the initial survey of Stage 2 operators at Naples conducted for the Part 161 analysis and the survey of waiver applicants conducted as part of the Supplemental Analysis. Table 3.18 Responses to Mandatory and Voluntary Stage 2 Bans Source: Survey of waiver applicants. Share of Operations Response Mandatory Ban Voluntary Ban (Initial Part 161 Survey) (SA Survey) Substitute Stage 3 Aircraft 20% 35% Hushkit or Replace Aircraft 32% Use Stage 3 Aircraft in Fleet 3% Use Alternate Airport 66% 23% Cancel Flight 14% 18% Not Comply with Ban n.a. 25% Total 100% 100%

74 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 70 The initial survey results indicate that most Stage 2 operators would respond by using an alternate airport, a low cost response to a Stage 2 ban. The results of the survey conducted for the Supplemental Analysis indicate that a larger share of Stage 2 operators would hushkit or replace their Stage 2 aircraft, a high cost response. Taken at face value, the results of the two surveys indicate that a voluntary ban on Stage 2 aircraft would be more costly than a mandatory Stage 2 ban, which seems to be an inconsistent result. The increased willingness to hushkit or replace Stage 2 aircraft under a voluntary restriction that is indicated in this latest survey may reflect increased operator awareness of recent efforts to reduce Stage 2 operations at other important business aviation airports, such as Teterboro and Van Nuys. If this is the case, the most reasonable way to treat the cost of modifying and replacing Stage 2 aircraft under a voluntary ban is to limit those costs to the cost of modifying and replacing aircraft under a mandatory restriction. The cost of modifying or replacing Stage 2 aircraft under a voluntary curfew is not likely to be lower than the costs under a mandatory curfew. Only one of the respondents who indicated they would hushkit their aircraft suggested canceling travel to Naples as a possible alternative, and none of those considering modification or replacement indicated that they would not comply with a voluntary ban. Table 3.19 compares the costs of voluntary and mandatory 24-hour Stage 2 restrictions at APF, 2005, assuming the measures are initially implemented in a prior year. The methodology used to calculate the costs is the same as that used to consider mandatory restrictions in the June 2000 Part 161 report. As in that report, the capital costs for hushkitting or replacing Stage 2 aircraft are assumed to have been incurred in the initial year of implementation. The annually continuing elements include canceled trips to APF, costs associated with using alternative airports, and reduction in FBO revenues. Table 3.19 Comparison of Costs of Voluntary and Mandatory Stage 2 Bans Source: SH&E Analysis Additional Cost of Alternative, Compared to 2005 No New Restrictions Baseline ($1,000) Mandatory 24- Cost Category 75% 60% Hour Stage 2 Compliance Compliance Restriction Cancel Flight $734 $585 $442 Use Alternate Airport $124 - $503 $101 - $409 $268 - $1,087 FBO Lost Revenue $48 $38 $71 Total Cost $906 - $1,285 $724 - $1,032 $781 - $1,600 To assist in illustrating the alternate airport option, Figure 3.11 depicts the locations of three airports within approximately 30 minute drive times from the City of Naples, Marco island Executive, Immokalee Executive, and Southwest Florida International. This figure clearly indicates that aircraft operators have several extremely close alternate airports to consider, with relatively little additional travel time to reach Naples.

75 Naples Municipal Airport Part 161 Study Supplemental Analysis Page 71 Figure 3.11 Areas within a 30-Minute Drive of Neighboring Airports