NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

Transcription

1 NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT F A R P A R T 150 N O I S E E X P O S U R E M A P U P D A T E Prepared under Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 150 November 2000 NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Tke Best LiiM% Aimrt & tk$ m&t?f Prepared by: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. Report Ted Baldwin Robert C. Mentzer Ashish Maru in Association with: Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc. Prepared for: City of Naples Airport Authority 160 Aviation Drive North Naples, FL34104

2 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 ii CERTIFICATION This is to certify the following: (1) The Noise Exposure Maps and associated documentation for Naples Municipal Airport submitted in this volume to the Federal Aviation Administration under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150, Subpart B, Section , are true and complete under penalty of 18 U.S.C Part (2) All interested parties have been afforded opportunity to submit their views, data, and comments concerning the correctness and adequacy of the revised existing and forecast conditions noise exposure map, and of the descriptions of forecast aircraft operations. By: Title: Date: Airport Name: Naples Municipal Airport Airport Operator: City of Naples Airport Authority Address: 160 Aviation Drive North Naples, Florida (941) HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No S:«s fwjects2w4«.apfwem.t»l0wbtor 2000 NBtapd

3 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000' iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES... iv LIST OF FIGURES iv 1. INTRODUCTION Responsibility for Preparation of the Noise Exposure Map Update Noise Exposure Map Checklist Noise Exposure Map Documentation 2 2. Status of Existing Noise Compatibility Program 8 3. NOISE ANALYSIS Airport Physical Parameters Aircraft Operations Aircraft Noise and Performance Characteristics Runway Utilization Flight Track Geometry UPDATED NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS Land Use Compatibility Criteria City of Naples Land Use Compatibility Threshold Collier County Land Use Compatibility Threshold Naples Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Criteria Land Uses within the 2000 and 2005 DNL Contours Non-Residential Land Area within the 2000 NEM Contours Land Area within the 2005 NEM Contours Noise Sensitive Public Facilities Population in Non-Compatible Areas PUBLIC CONSULTATION 27 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: FAA Record of Approval for 1997 NCP Revision FAA Record of Approval for 1998 NCP Update Appendix C: SH&E Forecast of Existing Conditions and Five-Year Forecast Activity Appendix D: City of Naples Land Use Code, Ordinance , Policy Appendix E: Collier County Ordinance No Amending the Land Development Code Relative to Airport Overlay Districts HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G$pmjecTszmm.M^mjmmmtm.2000 ttm.<m

4 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 iv Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: MCG Detail on Existing and Forecast Case Population Counts Minutes of March 2, 2000 Noise Compatibility Committee Meeting and Noise Compatibility Committee Membership Advertisements Placed Requesting Public Review and Comment on Draft Noise Exposure Map LIST OF TABLES Table 1. FAA Noise Exposure Map Checklist. 3 Table 2. Noise Compatibility Program Status... 9 Table 3. Forecast 2000 Annual Average Day Aircraft Operations 12 Table 4. Forecast 2005 Annual Average Day Aircraft Operations 13 Table 5. Modeled Runway Use - FY 2000 and Table 6. Modeled Flight Track Use 17 Table 7. Naples Municipal Airport Noise / Land Use Compatibility Guidelines 20 Table 8. Estimated Residential Population within DNL 60 db Contours LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Modeled Departure Flight Tracks 15 Figure 2. Modeled Arrival Flight Tracks 16 Figure Noise Exposure Map 24 Figure Noise Exposure Map 25 FigureS. Generalized Land Uses 26 HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No Q:\PHOJECTS APF»IM.raNow*er 2000 NBuLnpd

5 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November INTRODUCTION The City of Naples Airport Authority (NAA) submitted a Revised Noise Exposure Map (NEM) and Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) for Naples Municipal Airport (APF) to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in February The Revised NEM and NCP followed Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part requirements and related FAA guidelines 2. The revised NEM included updated documentation for 1998 and 2003 operations. The revised NCP requested FAA approval to extend the previously approved nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) restriction of Stage 1 operations to 24 hours. The 1998 submission also reviewed the implementation status of the 14 NCP measures that the FAA approved (out of 15 that the NAA proposed) following the completion of the preceding Part 150 update study in On September 3, 1998, the FAA determined that the NEM submission for 1998 and 2003 was in compliance with applicable requirements of FAR Part 150. On March 2,1999, the FAA approved the revision to the NCP which extended the Stage 1 restriction to 24 hours. This NEM update includes noise contours for the year of submission and the five-year forecast case that reflect airport operations with all FAA-approved NCP elements in place, including the 24-hour Stage 1 restriction. This submission reviews the current implementation of the NCP, but does not consider or request any changes; it is an NEM update only, 1.1 Responsibility for Preparation of the Noise Exposure Map Update The NAA retained a team of consultingfirmsto prepare this NEM update on its behalf. Thefirmof Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) was the prime consultant, with responsibility for overall project management, preparation of noise contours, and lead responsibility for preparation of documentation. Thefirmof Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. (SH&E) had lead responsibility for development of the base case andfive-yearforecast case fleet mixes. Thefirmof Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc. (MCG) assisted SH&E in operational data collection, and had the lead role in land use data collection and population impact assessment. NAA staff, in particular Ms. Lisa LeBlanc-Hutchings, Ms. Pam Rinehart, and Mr. Theodore Soliday, provided valuable assistance in many project phases, including current and historic operational data collection, provision and review of information necessary for developing noise modeling assumptions, 1 Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150, "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning", U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, as revised March 16, Administration, FAR Part 150, "Noise Exposure Map Checklist", U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:\PKUECT8a9S4«3.APF»4EM.T2»low*»r 2000 NEM.«pd

6 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November field verification of land use data, and review of documentation. The consulting team would like to acknowledge its appreciation for the contributions that these and other staff made, 1.2 Noise Exposure Map Checklist The FAA has developed a checklist for their internal use in reviewing NEM submissions. The FAA prefers that the NEM submission include a copy of the checklist. Table 1 (on the following five pages) presents this checklist, completed to the extent feasible. 1.3 Noise Exposure Map Documentation The balance of this document is organized into the following sections: Section 2 reviews the implementation status of the existing NCP elements. Section 3 summarizes the noise contour development, Section 4 presents updated 2000 and 2005 NEM figures and related land use compatibility information. Section 6 discusses public consultation that the NAA undertook in completing the NEM update process. This consultation exceeds Part 150 requirements. HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:VROJ6CTS^96460.APRNeM.TaNowj*»r 2000 NBHwpd

7 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Table 1. FAA Noise Exposure Map Checklist (4 pages) Source: HMMH (based on FAA format) NOISE EXPOSURE MAP CHECKLiST-PART I Airport Name: Nap es Modes' Alport REVIEWER: Notes/ Comments 1. IDENTIFICATION AND SUBMISSION OF MAP DOCUMENT A. Is this submittal appropriately identified as one of the following, submitted under Part 150: 1. a NEM only No NA 2. a NEM and NCP No NA 3. a revision tonems which have previously been determined by FAA to be in compliance with Part 150? Yes Chapter 1 B. Is the airport name and the qualified airport operator identified? C. Is there a dated cover letter from the airport operator which indicates the documents are submitted under Part 150 for appropriate FAA determinations? Yes Yes Certification, pageii Cover letter II. CONSULTATION: [150.21(B), A (A)] A. Is there a narrative description of the consultation accomplished, including opportunities forpublic review and comment during map development? Yes Chapter 5 B. Identification: 1. Are the consulted parties identified? Yes Chapter 5 2. Do they include all those required by (b) and (a)? C. Does the documentation include the airport operator's certificatjon, and evidence tosupport It, that interested persons have been afforded adequate opportunity tosubmit their views data, and comments during map development and in accordance with (b)? D. Does the document indicate whether written comments were received during consultation and, if there were comments, that they are on file with the FAA region? III. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: (150.21) Yes Chapter 5 Yes Chapter 5 Yes Chapter 5 No comments received. A. Are there two maps, each clearly labeled on the face with year (existing condition year and 5-year)? Yes Figures 3 and and 2005 B. Map currency: 1. Does the existing condition map year match the year on the airport operator's submittal letter? 2. Is the 5-year map based on reasonable forecastsand other planning assumptions and is it for the fifth calendar year after the year of submission? Yes Figure Yes Figure HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:\PHOJECTs\29646o.APF\NEM.T2\Nov«mb«2000 NEMwpd

8 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 FAR PART 150 NOISE EX D OSURE MAP CHECKLIST-PART I Airport Name: Naples Municipal Airport REVIEWER: Yes/No/ NA Page-Other Reference Notes' Comments 3. If the answer to 1 and 2 above is no, has the airport operator verified in writing that data in the documentation are representative of existing conditions and 5-year NA forecast conditions as ofttiedate of submission? C. If the NEM and NCP are submitted together. I I I b. does the documentation specifically describe how these measures affect land use compatibilities NA depicted on the map? 1. Has the airport operator indicated whether the 5-year map is based on 5-year contours without the program vs. NA contours if the program is implemented? b. does the documentation specifically describe how these measures affect land use compatibilities NA depicted on the map? 2. If the five year map is based on program implementation: NA b. does the documentation specifically describe how these measures affect land use compatibilities NA depicted on the map? a. are the specific program measures which are reflected on the map identified? NA b. does the documentation specifically describe how these measures affect land use compatibilities NA depicted on the map? 3. If the 5-year NEM does not incorporate program implementation, has the airport operator included an additional NEM for FAA determination after the program is approved which shows program Implementation conditions NA and which is intended to replace the 5-year NEM as the new official 5-year map? IV. MAP SCALE, GRAPHICS, AND DATA REQUIREMENTS: [A A , A ,150.21(A)] Both the 2000 and 2005 NEMs indude the existing NCP, as described in Chapter 2. There is no change from the existing, approved NCP, so there Is no basis for discussing changes in land use compatibility or a version of the forecast case NEM with revised program implementation. A. Are the maps of sufficient scaletobe dear and readable (they must be not be less than 1"to8,000'), and is the scale indicated on the naps? Yes All figures 1" = 3,750' approximately B. Is the quality of the graphics such that required information is dear and readable? Yes All figures C. Depiction of the airport and its environs. Yes All figures 1. Is the following graphically depictedtoscale on both the existing condition and 5-year maps: Yes a. airport boundaries Yes b. runway configurations with runway and numbers Yes 2000 NEM, Figure 3 and 2005 NEM, Figure 4 HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:\PFKUECTS\ APFWEM.T2\Navembw 2000 NERwpd

9 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 FAR PART 150 NOISE EXPOSURE MAP CHECKLIST-PART; Airport Na-ne: Nap es M jn':! pal Airport REVIEWER: Yes-'No" NA Page'Other Reference Notes/ Comments 2. Does the depiction of the off-airport data include: I I a. a land use base map depicting streets and other identifiable geographic features Yes All figures b. area within 65 DNL (or beyond, at local discretion.) Yes Figures 3 and 4 c. clear delineation of geographic boundaries and the names of ail jurisdictions with planning and land use control authority within the 65 DNL (or beyond, at local discretion). Yes Figures 3 and 4 Discussion in Section 4.1 D. 1. Continuous contours for at least DNL 65, 70, and 75? Yes Figures 3 and 4 2. Based on current airport and operational dataforthe existing condition year NEM, and forecast data for the 5- year NEM? E. Flight tracks for the existing condition and 5-year forecast time frames (these may be on supplemental graphics which must use the same land use base map as the existing condition and 5-year NEM), which are numberedtocorrespond to accompanying narrative? Yes rtgures o ana 4 include 60 db DNL, to respect City of Naples and Collier County policies. Chapter 3 presents current and forecast operational data. Yes Figures 1 and 2 F. Locations of any noise monitoring sties (these may be on supplemental graphics which must use the sametenduse base map as the official NEMs) NA No monitoring for this update. 1 G. Noncompatible land use identification: 1. Are noncompatible land uses within at least the 65 DNL depicted on the maps? Yes Figures 3 and 4 Within 60 db DNL I 2. Are noise sensitive public buildings identified? NA See Figure 5 and Section None exist I 3. Are the noncompatible uses and noise sensitive public buildings readily identifiable and explained on the map legend? Yes Figures 3 and 4 Within 60 db DNL 4. Are compatible land uses, which would normally be considered noncompatible, explained in the accompanying narrative? NA V. NARRATIVE SUPPORT OF MAP DATA: [ (A), A150.1, A , A ] A. 1. Are the technical data, including data sources, on which the NEMs are based, adequately described in the narrative? Yes Chapter 3 2. Are the underlying technical data and planning assumptions reasonable? Yes Chapter 3 HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No Q:\PFCUECTS^96460APFWeM.T2V*jv«nbef 2000 NEM.wpd

10 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 I I Airport Name: Naples Municipal Airport B. Calculation of Noise Contours: 1. Is the methodology indicated? a. is It FAA approved? FAR PART 150 NOISE EXPOSURE MAP CHECKLIST-PART I Yes/No/ NA REVIEWER: Page/Other Reference Notes/ Comments INM 6.0, was Yes Chapter 3 used, the most Yes Chapter 3 b. was the same model used for both maps? Yes Chapter 3 c. has AEE approval been obtained for use of a model other than those with previous blanket FAA approval? 2. Correct use of noise models: a. does the documentation indicate the airport operator has adjusted or calibrated FAA-approved noise models or substituted one aircraft type for another? b. If so, does this have written approval from AEE? NA 3. If noise monitoring was used, does the narrative indicate that Part 150 guidelines were followed? NA NA NA current INM version at the time this NEM Update was prepared. Used unadjusted INM 6.0 model and data. No monitoring data used. 4. For noise contours below 65 DNL, does the supporting Section 4.1 deser ibes the City of documentation include explanation of local reasons? (Narrative explanation is desirable but not required.) Yes Naples and Collie r County policies which consider 6C )db DNL. C. Noncompatible Land Use Information: I 1. Does the narrative give estimates of the number of people residing in each of the contours (DNL 65,70 and 75, at a minimum) for both the existing condition and 5-year maps? 2. Does the documentation indicate whether Table 1 of Part 150 was used by the airport operator? a. If a local variation to Table 1 was used: (1) does the narrative cfearty indicated which adjustments were made and the local reasons fordoing so? (2) does the narrative include the airport operator's complete substitution for Table 1? Yes No Yes Yes Table 8 presents residential population within 60 db DNL, to respect city and county policies As discussed in Section 4.1, the NAA has modified the Part 150 tend use compatibility guidelines to develop land use compatibility criteria that respect City of Naples and Collier County policies, which considertenduse compatibility out to 60 db DNL. Table 7 presents a complete substitution for Table Does the narrative include information on setf-generated or ambient noise where compatjble/noncompatible land use identifications consider non-airport/aircraft sources? NA 4. Where normally noncompatible land uses are not depicted as such on the NEMs, does the narrative satisfactorily explain why, with reference to the specific geographic areas? NA 5. Does the narrative describe how forecasts will affect land use compatibility? Yes Figure 4 and Table 7 HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:\PI^ECTS\ APFWEM.T2^lov«rt)«2000 NEM.apd

11 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 FAR PART 150 NO:SE EXPOSURE MAP CHECKLIST-PART I Airport Name: Naples Municipal Airport REVIEWER: Yes/No/ NA Page.Other Reference Notes/ Comments VI. MAP CERTIFICATIONS: [ (B), (E)] A. Has the operator certified in writing that interested persons have been afforded adequate opportunitytosubmit views, data, and comments concerning the correctness and adequacy of the draft maps and forecasts? B. Has the operator certified in writing that each map and description of consultation and opportunity for public comment are true and complete? Yes Yes Certification page ii, Chapter 5 Public consultation exceeded Part 150 requirements and FAA guidelines. I I HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:\F^OJECTS\ APf^BAT2V*««Tib«' 2000 NEM.wpd

12 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Status of Existing Noise Compatibility Program The current APF NCP includes 15 measures that the FAA has approved, based on NAA Part 150 Update submissions in 1997 and 1998: In the 1997 NCP update, the NAA requested FAA approval of 15 recommended measures. The FAA approved implementation of 13 of these measures in full, disapproved one 1, and approved one in part 2. Appendix A presents a copy of the FAA Record of Approval for this update. In the 1998 NCP update, the NAA requested FAA approval of one additional measure. The 1998 Update reviewed the implementation status of the 14 previously approved measures, but did not request any change to these measures, nor any FAA actions related to them. Appendix B presents a copy of the FAA Record of Approval for this update. Table 2 lists the 16 measures that the two updates recommended, including a description, the year of the applicable update, the FAA approval/disapproval action (see Appendix A), and the implementation status of each. The table shows that the NAA has made significant progress in implementing the NCP. To date, the NAA has implemented all of the FAA-approved operational and continuing program measures, and one of the land use measures. 1 The disapproved measure requested that the FAA eliminate the existing practice that restricts initial departure climb clearances to 2,000' above mean sea level. The FAA disapproved this measure on the basis that there was insufficient noise benefit within the 65 db DNL contour. See item 2 in Table 2. 2 The partially approved measure related to use restrictions. The FAA approved a restriction on nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) Stage 1 jet operations, but disapproved a voluntary curfew on nighttime Stage 2 and 3 jet operations, and a future restriction of nighttime Stage 2 operations. See item 6 in Table 2. HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:»ROJECTSW4S0.APW<IEM.T2Wo*8Bibef.2aM NStopcl

13 Naples Municipal Aiiport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Table 2. Noise Compatibility Program Status Sources: (1) APF Part 150 Update, 1997 (2) FAA Recommendation for Approval, 1997 (3) APF Part 150 Update, 1998 (4) FAA Recommendation for Approval, 1898 (5) NAA staff reports MEASURE (Year of NCP update which recommended measure) DESCRIPTION FAA ACTION IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Operational Measures 1. Preferential Runway (1997) Maximize use of Runway 5 for departures. Approved. Implemented 2, Flight Procedures (1997) Eliminate existing 2000' MSL initial departure restriction. 3. Flight Paths (1997) Runway 5: straight Runway 23: right turn Runway 14: left turn Runway 32: right turn 4, Helicopters (1997) Centralized flight corridors, pilot education, achieve altitude before departing airport 5. Ground Noise (1997) Ban night maintenance runups, designate runup locations and orientations 6. Use Restrictions (1997) Restrict night Stage 1 jet operations Voluntary Stage 2 and 3 night curfew Future elimination of night Stage 2 operations Disapproved (insufficient noise reduction) Approved as voluntary measure Approved Approved Approved Disapproved Disapproved No further action taken Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented No further action No further action 7. Use Restriction (1998) 24 hour Stage 1 restriction Approved Implemented Land Use Measures 8. Land Acquisition (1997) Acquisition in Rock Creek Campground and Naples Villas to develop buffer. 9. Easements (1997) Purchase of easements in Naples Villas and Rock Creek Campground. Approved Approved No action to date No action to date 10. Zoning/Land Use Planning (1997) Adoption of DNL 60 db for zoning and land use planning. Approved Implemented 11. Fair Disclosure (1997) Develop fair disclosure program to educate potential home buyers. Continuing Program Measures 12. Noise Officer (1997) Establish Noise Abatement Officer position. Approved Approved No action to date Implemented 13. Noise Committee (1997) Establish Noise Compatibility Committee. Approved Implemented 14. Noise Monitoring Program (1997) Establish noise monitoring program; acquire portable noise monitor. Approved Implemented 15. Public Information (1997) Implement public information program. Approved Implemented 16. NCP Review, Evaluation, and Revision (1997) Regular or as needed NCP review and evaluation. Approved Implemented HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:\PnOJECTa2W4M.APRNeM.TaNownb8r 2000 NERwpcJ

14 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November NOISE ANALYSIS Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) contours for this study were prepared using Version 6.0 of the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (MM). This is the most current version of the model. This chapter discusses the noise modeling inputs used for the 2000 and 2005 cases, including: airport physical parameters (Section 3.1) number, mix, and day-night split of aircraft operations (Section 3.2) aircraft noise and performance data sources (Section 3.3) runway utilization rates (Section 3.4) flight tracks andflighttrack utilization rates (Section 3.5) 3.1 Airport Physical Parameters Naples Municipal Airport (APF) is located in the City of Naples (FL), approximately two miles east of the coastiine. APF has two operational runways: Runway 5/23 and Runway 14/32. Runway 5/23 is 5,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. Runway 14/32 is 5,000 feet long and 100 feet wide. The airport elevation is nine feet above mean sea level. There are no displaced takeoff or landing thresholds on any runway end. The airport layout will change slightly from 2000 to Runway 5/23 currently has a 290' stopway on the northeastern end. Between 2000 and 2005, the airport will shift the runway to the northeast by 290'. The departure and landing thresholds on both ends of Runway 5/23 will shift by 290' to the northeast. The 2005 NEM graphic (Figure 4) depicts this shift. 3.2 Aircraft Operations The FAA requires airports to base the existing conditions NEM on "current data as of the date of submission (i.e., the year of submission)" and the five-year forecast map on "forecast aircraft operations at the airport and on other reasonable planning assumptions... for the fifth calendar year beginning after the year of submission." 1 Consistent with Part 150 requirements, this document labels the existing conditions contours "2000" and the five-year forecast contours "2005". FAA's Part 150 guidelines for NEM preparation recognize the practical difficulties associated with preparing an existing conditions map for the year of submission, which is still underway: 1 Noise Exposure Map Checklist, Part II, Section III ("Noise Exposure Maps - General Requirements", paragraph B (Federal Aviation Administration, 1989, page 3). This portion of the NEM checklist narrative clarifies the FAA's interpretation of Part requirements. HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No B-m^jB^msmm.m?mMjmmmtm.mBNatupd

15 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November If the maps are based on data generated for timeframes other than the current year of submission and the fifth year following the year of submission, the airport proprietor must verify that the data are representative of existing andfive-yearforecast conditions (i.e., airport layout, runway use percentages, flight tracks, general aircraft mix and operational data, and noncompatible land uses are equivalent; total numbers of operations do not vary over 15% in the aggregate). 1 SH&E developed estimates of existing conditions andfive-yearforecast activity based on the most current information available during the data collection phase of the study, which took place during the last quarter of 1999, Appendix C presents a copy of the SH&E report that documents the preparation of forecasts for annual activity for 1999 and The 2000 and 2005 NEMs are based on the SH&E fleet mixes for those calendar years, since the forecast one-year changes in activity were substantially below the FAA's 15% threshold: The forecast annual change in overall operations is an increase of approximately 5.2%. The forecast annual change in Stage 3 jet operations is an increase of approximately 8.8%. The forecast annual change in Stage 2 jets operations is a decrease of approximately 7.2%. Stage 1 jet operations are forecast to remain constant at the 1999 level. The forecast annual change for non-jet operations is an increase of approximately 4.8%. Therefore, under FAA guidelines, the NEM developed for 1999 accurately represents the year of submission (2000) and the forecast NEM developed for 2004 accurately represents thefive-yearforecast (2005) conditions. Tables 3 and 4 present the forecast 2000 and 2005 annual average day operations. The FAA Orlando Airports District Office (ADO) reviewed the forecast. The ADO staff noted that the forecast of 162,286 operations in 2005 is larger than the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) of 124,230. The TAF is an area-wide forecast, based on regional trends. While it provides forecasts on an airport-byairport basis, these forecasts are based on allocation of regional operations among individual airports, not formal analyses for each airport. The TAF is not meant to provide sufficient precision where a high level of airport-specific detail and precision are required. The NEM forecasts presented in this document are based on extensive data collection and analyses conducted specifically for APF. The approximate nature of the TAF is indicated by the fact that its forecast of 110,250 operations for APF in 1999 is only 87% of the actual 126,155 operations at the airport in that year, as noted in Exhibit 6 of Appendix C. The ADO staff requested that this document note the areawide purpose of the TAF forecast, so that reviewers will understand the difference between it and the airport-specific NEM forecast. 1 Ibid. HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No e^mxmmmmo.apmem.tmomtttm2000nem.**

16 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Table 3. Forecast 2000 Annual Average Day Aircraft Operations Source: SH&E, 2000 Aircraft Departures Arrivals Touch and Go Operations' Total 2 Category INM Type Example Aircraft Type Day Night Day Night Day Stage 1 Jet 3 LEAR25 Learjet 23 0, Stage 2 jet LEAR25 Learjet GIIB Gulfstream II FAL20 Falcon ,49 Stage 3 Jet LEAR35 Learjet MU3001 Mitsubishi Diamond 300 3, CIT3 Cessna Citation CNA500 Cessna Citation CL601 Canadair Challenger CL600 Canadalr Challenger IA1125 Israel Astra 1125 Westwind GIV Gulfstream IV Lear db* Falcon 50/ Total Jet Turboprop DHC8 DeHavilland Twin Otter S340 Saab CNA441 Cessna Conquest Total Turboprop Piston BEC58P Beech B GASEPF GASEPV Single Engine Piston Propeller, Fixed Pitch Single Engine Piston Propeller, Variable Pitch DC3 Douglas DC Total Piston Total Non-jet Total Daily Operations Each touch-and-go counts as two operations (one arrival and one departure). 2 Totals do not always add, due to rounding. 3 Exempt operations, such as medically related flights. 4 FAA guideline for modeling three-engine Falcon jets. HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:tf J ROJECTS^64M.APRNai.TaNo»mtor 200Q NBttopd

17 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Table 4. Forecast 2005 Annual Average Day Aircraft Operations Source: SH&E, 2000 Aircraft Departures Arrivals Touch and Go Operations' Total 2 Category INM Type Example Aircraft Type Day Night Day Night Day Stage 1 Jet 3 LEAR25 Learjet Stage 2 Jet LEAR25 Learjet GIIB Gulfstream II FAL Stage 3 Jet LEAR35 Learjet MU3001 Mitsubishi Diamond C1T3 Cessna Citation III CNA500 Cessna Citation CL601 Canadair Challenger CL6O0 Canadair Challenger IA1125 Israel Astra 1125 Westwind GIV Gulfstream IV Lear db 4 Falcon 50/ Total Jet , Turboprop DHC8 DeHavilland Twin Otter S340 Saab CNA441 Cessna Conquest Total Turboprop riston BEC58P Beech B GASEPF GASEPV Single Engine Piston Propeller, Fixed Pitch Single Engine Piston Propeller, Variable Pitch , Total Piston Total Non-jet Total Daily Operations , Each touch-and-go counts as two operations (one arrival and one departure). 2 Totals do not always add, due to rounding, 3 Exempt operations, such as medically related flights. 4 FAA guideline for modeling three-engine Falcon jets. HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:\PHOJECTSW4M.APFWm.T2»lo*»*8r 2000 NStafpd

18 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Aircraft Noise and Performance Characteristics The INM requires noise and performance data for each aircraft type operating at the airport. Noise data is in the form of Sound Exposure Level (SEL - a measure oftotalnoise exposure from a single aircraft operation) values for a range of distances (from 200 feet to 25,000 feet), for each particular aircraft and engine combination, for specific thrust levels used. Performance data include thrust, speed, and altitude "profiles" for takeoff and landing operations. The INM database contains standard noise and performance data for more than one hundred different fixed wing civilian aircraft types. The program automatically accesses the applicable noise and performance data for departure and approach operations by those aircraft. For aircraft not specifically included in the database, the FAA identifies acceptable "substitutions". 3.4 Runway Utilization Runway use estimates were developed from NAA logs of the active runway for September of 1998, and March, April, May, and August of Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) activity records, which provide statistics on hourly activity throughout the year, were then used to adjust this runway use sample to reflect annual activity, by weighting the data according to each month's share of total annual operations. Table 5 presents the results. Table 5. Modeled Runway Use - FY 2000 and 2005 Sources: (1) Naples Airport runway use logs (2) APF ATCT traffic counts Runway Day 48.3% 31.0% 8.0% 12.7% Night 87,4% 6.1% 1.5% 5.0% 3.5 Flight Track Geometry Flight track geometry and utilization rates used in the 1998 NEM update were reviewed with the ATCT Manager. He recommended changes in utilization based on flight origin and destination. He did not recommend any changes in the flight track geometry. Figure 1representsthe departure flight tracks, and Figure 2representsthe arrival tracks. Table 6 presents the utilization rates for these tracks. Note that the preferential departure flight tracks are modeled with a "backbone" track and a dispersion track on each side. The backbone track off each runway is labeled "N" (for noise abatement), with an "A" and "B" to the sides. HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:\PBOJECTaa»4eO.APF«EM.T2Wowmtof 2000 NBfafpd

19 Figure 1 Naples Municipal Airport Modelled Departure Flight Tracks 2000 Part 150 Study Harris Miller Miliar & Hanson Inc. in cooperation with Simat Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc.

20 2500 Figure 2 Naples Municipal Airport Modelled Arrival Flight Tracks 2000 Part 150 Study Harris Milier Miller & Hanson Inc. in cooperation wfth Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc.

21 Naples Municipal Aiiport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Table 6. Modelei Fight Track Use Runway Track Departures Percent Use Jet Turboprop Piston Prop Track Jet Arrivals Percent Use Turbo-prop Piston Prop 05 5N A NA A NB A D A D A D D D D Subtotal Subtotal N A NA A NB A D A A D D D D Subtotal Subtotal N A NA A NB A D A D A D D D D D Subtotal Subtotal N A NA A NB A D A D A D D D D D Subtotal Subtotal HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No BWROjwTstm4m.mmEmBmm^mmmNEM.^

22 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November UPDATED NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS Figures 3 and 4, on pages 24 and 25, present NEM graphics for 2000 and 2005, respectively. 4,1 Land Use Compatibility Criteria Part 150 Appendix A, Table 1 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 the states the following: 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 perishable 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 inresponseto locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. 1 The NEM graphics include the 60, 65, 70, and 75 db Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours. For both 2000 and 2005, 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. Both the City and the County have formally modified their land use compatibility criteria to protectresidentialuse within the 60 to 65 db DNL contour interval, as discussed below City of Naples Land Use Compatibility Threshold The City adopted 60 db DNL as the threshold of land use compatibility by City Ordinance No on January 21, Appendix D presents a copy of the Ordinance and related material. Although the City has not prohibited development within the 60 db DNL contour, extraordinary City Council approval must be obtained for such projects. The City's 1998 ordinance requires the City Council to grant General Development Site Plan (GDSP) approval for development of non-airport land uses within the 60 db DNL contour. Section of the City's "Requirements for Site Plan Review" states that the GDSPreviewprocess is designed to make certain that the proposed development is compatible with its surrounding area and incorporates adequate buffers between the project and adjoining dissimilar uses. Although the NAA does not have independent control over non-airport use, the City's Planning Advisory Board consults with the NAA during the GDSPreviewprocess before City Council hearings on proposed 1 Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150(14 CFR Part 150), "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning", Appendix B, "Noise Exposure Map Development", Table 1, "Land Use Compatibility Planing with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels". HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No s:vmmcrs^64m.apmmj»^mtmmonem^h

23 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November development. The City has not approved any residential development within the 60 db DNL since the land use compatibility standards were changed in Collier County Land Use Compatibility Threshold Collier County designated the 60 db DNL contour as the outer boundary ofthe airport noise zone, by County Ordinance No , on June 14, The Ordinance revised Section ofthe County Land Development Codetoadd Airport Noise Zone D, that extends from the 65 db DNL contour to the 60 db DNL contour. Within Zone D, sound level reduction measures are required for residential structures and transient lodging (e.g., motels). Appendix E presents a copy ofthe ordinance Naples Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Criteria In compliance with the FAA direction in Part 150 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 airport noise. Table 7 presents a revised version of Table 1fromPart 150 Appendix A, which reflects these revised land use compatibility criteria. 4.2 Land Uses within the 2000 and 2005 DNL Contours Part requires that the NEM figures depict noncompatible land uses within the noise contours. The only non-compatible land use within 2000 and 2005 contours is residential. Figures 3 and 4 depict these areas of residential use. There are residential areas between the 60 and 65 db DNL contours off the approach ends of Runways 05, 14, and 32. The figures also show the border between the City of Naples and Collier County, the two land use planning and control jurisdictions. The airport boundary is shown with a dashed line, where it is not common with the City/County border. At the request of the FAA Orlando ADO, Figure 5, on page 26, presents a base map showing generalized land uses around the airport, to supplement the NEM figures. According to both Part 150 guidelines and the revised APF land use compatibility criteria presented in Table 7, all non-residential land uses are compatible with noise exposure below 70 db DNL. The 70 db DNL contours for 2000 and 2005 extend off the airport property only in a small area to the northeast, over compatible commercial and industrial land use. Therefore, the only non-compatible land use within the contours are the residential areas shown in Figures 3 and 4. Non-residential land within the 60 and 65 db DNL contours include commercial, industrial, and conservation uses, as discussed in the subsections following Table 7. 1 Part 150 Appendix A, Part B, A (e)(5) HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G^mjsxrs^^Fmmjmmmm,.

24 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Table 7. Naples Municipal Airport Noise / Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL (Decibels) Based on Part 150 Appendix A, Table 1, Amended To Comply with City of Naples and Collier County Ordinances DNL Contour Interval (Key and notes on following page) Land Use 60-65(1) >85 Residential Use Residential other than mobile homes and transient lodgings N(2) 25 N(2) 25 N(2)30 N N N Mobile home park N(2) 25 N(2) 25 N(2)30 N N N Transient lodgings N(2) 25 N(2) 25 N(2)30 N N N Public Use Schools Y N N N N N Hospitals and nursing homes Y N N N Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y N N N Governmental services Y Y N N Transportation Y Y Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(5) Parking Y Y Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) N Commercial Use Offices, business and professional Y Y N N Wholesale and retail-building materials, hardware and farm equipment Y Y Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) N Retail trade-general Y Y N N Utilities Y Y Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) N Communication Y Y N N Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing general Y Y Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) N Photographic and optical Y Y N N Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Y Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(9) Y(9) Livestock farming and breeding Y Y(7) Y(8) N N N Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction Y Y Y Y Y Y Recreational Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y(6) Y(6) N N N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y N N N N N Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Y Y Y N N N Golf courses, riding stables, and water rec. Y Y N N HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:VROJECTS^6460.APFWai.T2W(»«i*8r2000N M.wpd

25 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Key to Table 7 SLCUM Y(Yes) N(No) NLR 25, 30, or 35 Standard Land Use Coding Manual, Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. Land use is generally compatible. However, if the applicant chooses to develop within the identified noise zone, measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 db must be incorporated into design and construction of structure and appropriate City or County development approval must be received. Notes for Table 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 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. (1) All land uses are considered compatible with exposure below 60 db DNL without restriction. (2) Residential land use is generally noncompatible in the 60-65, 65-70, and db DNL contour intervals. However, the City of Naples or Collier County (as relevant) may provide development approval if measures to achieve the specified minimum NLR of 25 or 30 db are incorporated into the design and construction of structures used for residential purposes. (3) Measures to achieve NLR of 25 db must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (4) Measures to achieve NLR of 30 db must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (5) Measures to achieve NLR of 35 db must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (6) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (7) Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. (8) Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. (9) Residential buildings not permitted. HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report NO &VPRCUECTS\ APRNEM.T2Wo ember 2000 NEM.«pd

26 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Non-Residential Land Area within the 2000 NEM Contours Comparison of Figure 3 and Figure 5 shows that the db DNL contour extends off airport property only to the northeast into areas used for compatible commercial and industrial purposes,tothe southwest over the Gordon River, and to the northwest over open space adjacent to the river. The db DNL contour extends to the northeast over the same commercial and industrial land, and further out over open space. At its very northeastern tip, it extends into a compatible "public facility" area, used by an electric utility. Figure 3 shows residential areas under the db DNL contour in the other three directions. Other than these residential areas,tothe southeast, it extends over a commercial strip along Airport Pulling Road. To the northwest, it extends over open space. To the southwest, it extends over conservation land open space, and commercial uses. There are "mixed use" areas to the southwest that include a combination of residential and commercial uses. Figure 3 identifies the portions of these mixed use areas in which there is residential use. The remaining portions contain compatible commercial uses Land Area within the 2005 NEM Contours The 2005 contours are slightly smaller than the 2000 contours and extend over the same general offairport areas and uses. Comparison of Figure 4 and Figure 5 shows that the db DNL contour extends off airport property only to the northeast, into areas used for compatible commercial and industrial purposes and to the southwest over the Gordon River. The db DNL contour extends to the northeast over the same commercial, industrial land, open space, and public facility (electric utility) uses. Other than residential land areas shaded on Figure 4, the db DNL contour extends over a commercial strip along Airport Pulling Road to the southeast, over open space to the northwest, and over conservation land, open space, and commercial uses to the southwest. The "mixed use" areas to the southwest include a combination of residential and commercial use. Figure 4 is shaded to identify the portions of these mixed use areas in which there is residential use. The remaining portions are compatible commercial uses Noise Sensitive Public Facilities Figure 5 also shows locations of potentially noise sensitive public facilities, which include only schools and parks in the area covered by the base map. None of these facilities fall within the 2000 or db DNL contours. 4.3 Population in Non-Compatible Areas Table 8 presents the estimatedresidentialpopulation within 60 db for the 2000 and 2005 DNL contours: HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No o ^ v s ^. * ^ ^ m ^

27 Naples Municipal Aiiport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November Table 8. Estimated Residential Population within DNL 60 db Contours Sources: (1) MCG and NAA staff field work (2) HMMH noise contours (3) MCG analysis Population off of Approach End of Each Runway 05 (City land area to the southwest) 23 (County land area to tie northeast) 14 (County land area to tie northwest) 32 (County land areatothe southeast) Total 2000 Existing Conditions ! 498 1, Forecast Conditions ,308 To identify potential non-compatible land areas, the noise contours were overlaid on current (December 1999) aerial photographs and street maps. Then MCG and NAA staff conducted a visual inspection of the areas within the 60 db contours. The staff noted if buildings or units were commercial, industrial or residential For residential uses, the staff noted if it was a single family home, condominium, apartment building, multi-family unit or mobile home, and identified the number of individual units. The same estimates of residents per dwelling were assumed as in the 1998 Part 150 update: single, duplex, or triplex residential units - four residents per unit condominiums, apartments, or mobile homes - two residents per unit Appendix F presents detailed tables indicating the addresses of the specific dwelling units (by type) and the numbers of residents assumed per unit, off of each runway end, between the 60 and 65 db DNL existing conditions andfive-yearforecast case contours. This population counting approach is far more accurate than the most common approach used in Part 150 studies, which is to overlay contours on census tract maps, and to assume uniform distribution of population within the census tracts. The 2000 NEM (Figure 3) shows a triangular area of residential land use immediately off the end of Runway 14. However, this land area is in a portion of a residential development that does not include any dwelling units. It includes tennis courts and a club house for the development. The occupied residential land is at the very tip of the noise contour, on the west bank of the Gordon River. HARRTSMILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G-mmmTsim^PFmmTmmmmtmr

28 I Norwxxnpatibte (and use (residential) Airport property Ine Jurisdictional boundary o Figure Noise Exposure Map Part 150 Study Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. in cooperation with Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc. prepared for Naples Airport Authority

29 Non-compatible land use (residential) Airport property Ine "" Jurisdictional boundary Figure Noise Exposure Map Part 150 Study Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. in cooperation with Simat Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc. prepared for Naples Airport Authority

30 Figure 5. Generalized Land Uses

31 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November PUBLIC CONSULTATION The NAA performed a comprehensive public consultation program related to this NEM update, that exceeded Part 150 requirements. The public consultation included the following elements: Presentation of the draft NEM documentation to the NAA at its meeting on February 2, This meeting was open to the public, and offered an opportunity for public comment. Presentation of the draft documentation ("Phase I of the Noise Study") at the APF Noise Compatibility Committee (NCC) meeting on March 2, This committee includes diverse representation from residents of the APF environs, the aviation industry, the City of Naples, Collier County, and local business interests. Appendix G presents a copy of the minutes from that meeting and the NCC membership list. Distribution of the draft NEM documentation for review. - The NAA distributed the draft documentation to NAA commissioners, NCC members, the City of Naples, and Collier County 1, the APF Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) Manager, and the ATCT Manager at Southwest Florida International Airport (RSW) 2. The NAA requested that these parties provide written comments within 30 days. - The NAA published notice of the availability of the draft NEM Update documentation for public review, and requested submission of comments by March 31,2000. This notice appeared in the Naples Daily News on three dates: Sunday, March 12, 2000; Sunday, March 19,2000; and Sunday, March 26, Appendix H presents copies of these advertisements. The NAA did not receive written comments. 1 The City of Naples and Collier County are the only two government agencies with land use control over area within the 60 db DNL contours, other than the NAA itself. 2 RSW approach control has significant influence over air traffic at APF. HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No SSaiKT^^RNEM.T»N 0«n* ar2000nbu*

32 Naples Mynicipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 Appendices 1 Appendix A: FAA Record of Approval for 1997 NCP Revision i i HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:VROJECTS2964eO.APFWEM.T»Nov«iiber 2000 NEM.«pd

33 PAX T R A N S M I T T A L u.i Deoartmenr of Transoorrcitari Adrrunlihulion Su6iecT: ^SOJ!: Recommendation for Approval 0aw. of Maples Municipal Airport, Florida, NCP Update SEP 29 jgg? * *~ D i " r? r ' f f i f e o f ^ ^ r t Planning a J T ; VXCatlett- ' and Programming, APp-i ' FAX: To: Associate Administrator for Airports Region has evaluated fhmwro feltl. " * te Southern forth in the* SSSd'ScS c f ^ ^ r t e i 0 a S " " SJ** 1 1 2' <=he FAA determined that the noise start Sf t.x" 8 "Sa y JSdSt"E^" r Si? ~ d i t the N C P is not acted on by chat dat* ir ^7TY * The NEMs depict the DNL contours to the S^dn- cv, operator.has adopted the F ^ ^ T i?*?* 5,' c h e airport contained in Table l of il tm Lit"SS** 2?, D N L 6 S d * as j p a r c have been submitted f«, Fifteen measures ^ include several sutefemenr^ ^ f ^ * 1 S o m e ' f ^ measured of program measures w??h S a reco*»ending approval t h t h e f o l l o w qualification^ ^ exceptions and S facf of P nsfsf ^ f i H ^ f?* d ^ P P ^ l due to ^ i g ^ ^ S r e c o n m of Part K T ^ d e d f o r disapproval for purposes avalsle at the S r S T * T \ t e c h * ^ not n implementing that n5?t *?* ^ 1 S e b e f i t s of 3 C h a t p o r t i o n o f c h e shown. measure have not yet been Three subelements are presented under "use re-t^a^. These subelementa have generated inrl^e? restrictions.- with r e p r e s e n t S H ^ ^ a i ^ r f ^ h i e

34 \ recommendations set forth in the MCP portray the FAA's a f IT^rT 5 e r c a r e f u l consideration of the^ata presented d e r e r e a c h e d a f t T e*" consideration of asucakl laws and regulations. Two of the three measures isf^ a r e n a t recommended for approval The Qf- 7 f f r ^ been evaluated f=«ews u f S 1 ni Sr^time curfew has e n evaiua fe<s ror both noise benefits- under Part i qn grants- compliance, ANCA and Part 161 do not apsy!2 measures affecting Stage 1 aircraft operation?* The second JSE**'-* V S l u n 5 r^ a S t a 5 e ^ and Stage 3 n i g S t i J curxes lacks noise benefits data. No penalties wosld be isss' oiasre- r S! C 3?P t 0 f C a n n o t C O m P l v with this volsar^. measure- thus ANCA and Part 161 do not apply. Lastly the Y phaeeout of a l l Stage 2 aircraft by the year 2000 ' regardless of size, has not been sufficiency a^ivzed i * S S ^ ^ 1 1 ^ of Part 23 ^ * additionally requires compliance with ANCA and Part isi 2* recommends disapproval of this r^ensson pending compliance with applicable law and regulatios.! y" IfTssT S mfal ^ S W G r e a d p t e d * «ii^nce in y T h e,, airport sponsor was advised at a meed on ^uly 27 l«7 that it would be in violatfofo? SSFSt Part 161 i f the Stage 2 phaseout goes into-effect withour first complying with applicable portions of Par? i. a S a ^ C O n t i^ i a 9 Program measures are recommended S L ^ "? ^inistrator for Policy, Planning and ^^? a C i n a l A v i a C l o n ^d the Chief Counsel have con ^ ^ ; L t h e ^commendations of the Southern Region? ^ r!? f f e ^ i C C h G r e c - ^ded FAA determinations you should «V a P P r V e d " U n e 0 0 t h e attached memorandum? i ' 1 recommend your approval. Paul L. Galis Attachment

35 \ FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RECORD OF APPROVAL PART ISO NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM Naples Municipal Airport Naples, Florida CONCUR NONCONCUR Policy-, Planning, and ~ J International Aviation, API-i APPROVED DISAPPROVED isociate Administrator for Airports, ARP-i Date \

36 RECORD OF APPROVAL m^ims xmxcipmxs AIRPORT NAPLES, FLORIDA The approvals listed herein include approvals of actions that the _ airport recommends be taken by the Federal Aviation.Administration (FAA). i t should be noted that these approvals indicate only that the actions would, if implemented, be consistent with the purposes of 14 CFR Part 150.' 'The FAA has provided technical advise and assistance to the airport to ensure that the operational elements are feasible (see 14 c^r (c)). These approvals do not constitute decisions to" implement the actions. Later decisions concerning possible implementation of measures in this Record of Approval (ROA) mav be subject to applicable environmental or other procedures or requirements. The operational, land use and continuing program measures below summarize as closely as possible the airport operator's recommendations in the Noise Compatibilitv Program- (NCP) and are cross-referenced to the program. The* statements contained yxthxn the summarized measures and before the indicated FAA approval, disapproval, or other determination do' not represent the opinions or decisions of the FAA. OPERATIONAL MEASURES Preferential Runway. It is recommended that the existing preferential runway measure to maximize the use of Runway 4 for departures and Runway 22 r/ P m^\ S f r a 4 r c r * f * w i c h departure noise levels exceeding 76.4 EPNdB be continued in order to take advantage of the low sensitivity to noise of the commercial/industrial development located northeast of the airport. Implementation is based on fi,*l e d u c a t : i 0 " a n d Preferential runway assignment by the air a3 7? C? n r 1 X? r W h e n t h e t o w e r i s f Upases 3-3 to 3-8 t 0 3 l i d ' 3 ' 3 ~ 1 6 ' 7-2: and Figures 3-1 FAA Action: Approved Flight Procedures, This measure recommends elimination of the existing restriction a l c i c u d e s l J^X^i^}^ departure from Naplel Municipal Airport APF) to 2,000' above sea level (ASL). (pages , and 7-3; Figure 3-4; and Tables 3-6, 3-16 and 7-2)

37 FAA Actios: Disapproved. This measure will not have a significant noise reduction. In addition, it could interfere with air traffic safety and efficiency because the altitude limit is initially necessary to ensure separation from other traffic in the area and is removed by the controller when the aircraft is radar identified and' separation is assured Flight Paths. Revised Visual Flight Rules (VFR) noise abatement departure flight paths have been proposed for each runway at the airport to reduce noise by moving traffic away from developed areas. Runway 4 - early left turn.. Aircraft would fly just to the east of Airport-Pulling Road and would avoid the residential communities in the area. Runway 22 - right turn.' Aircraft would move away from the majority of the residential dwellings which are located southwest of the airport. Runway 13 - early left turn. This traclc turns aircraft just north of Davis Boulevard, away from'the residential development south of Davis. Runway 31 - the existing departure, with a right' turn, would impact the least number of people due to the -fact that the aircraft do not overfly the coastline with its densely packed residential units. The FAA must also develop procedures which allow the pilots to fly these preferred flight paths. This is typically accomplished through SIDs or STARs, which are departure or arrival paths defined by radio navigation aids. Current systems such as the VOR, located on and off the airport, already provide this capability, but newer technology has even greater promise. Two newer systems, the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Transponder Landing System (TLS) could be used to define complex curved approach or departure paths which could be used to keep aircraft away from densely populated residential areas. The NAA has applied for state grants to install the TLS system by the end of fiscal year (pages 3-16 to 3-31, 7-3 and 7-4; Tables 3-8 to 3-11, 3-16 and 7-2; and Figures 3-5 to 3-15). FAA Action: Approved in part as a voluntary measure. The recommended noise abatement departure flight paths are approved as voluntary. The measure is disapproved in part, for purposes of Part 150, for that portion of the proposal which recommends use of the. GPS and T L S to define complex curved approach and departure paths, pending submission of additional information describing

38 avsi?ib;a. b e n e f i t S * C h e S e "Piques when technology b e c o m e E Helicopters. J fc ^commended that the existing noise abatement measure for helicopters be continued including modification of SS SucatJon'ol'r?^ c e ^ ^ * ^ education of helicopter pilots. Helicopter pilots havhrn-o.^ to depart from midfield, rather than rulay ends^ i^rder^ obtain as much altitude as possible before departins? f airport and helicopters will follow the fixed^ing foutes on the crosswmd runway. The Naples Airport AuthoriEy foss 2±li maintain contact with pilot operators to modify these. procedures, if necessary, and work out additional isles as FAA Action: Approved as a voluntary measure Use Restrictions. The following measures were adopted by ordinance effective m* a? L a ^ S e T L d c L 0 d r e r a * ^ airport; n i g h C t i m e e l i r a i n a t i o t l o f Stage 1 aircraft use of the night^ime'hoss;^ " " ^ f S t a 9 e 2 a a d 3 ^ e t s, '. f «ture nighttime elimination of Stage 2 aircraft a f f a, fsl b e f x n? l n 5 of the year 2000, which is the target S th«7 f lf^0 1 ps^: U t f 2 a ± y C r a f t ^ate? r tsn- - These restrictions would not apply to emergency flight-* FAA Action.: that Stage 1 operators have been successfullv IJE^l support. _ with this measure. The NCP atafcen r^f rs. * C o co *«ply 0 _> _ t. A " e nt - K 3tateo tnat this measure unui w reduce the population impacted within the DNL 65<te noise

39 illtis? operac " * %L n & r a j s e s b y h ;j x ^ x ^ r a r i s e s g ss s^sr 1 - withdrawn in accordance with section (d) (6). b Disapproved for purposes of Part 150 pendino SlvSfs Si?J S t 2 f f i c i e n t formation to make as fsormed ssoti W«h r e s p e c c t o ^ voluntary curfew of Stage 2 and Stage 3 jets during nighttime hours, although noise benefits voluntary curfew may be "intuitive", the NcS does not!sii? e U f S e b e n e f i t s measure. Truly voluntary? ^ i r a """"J.effecting Stage 2 and Stage 3 ^ aircraft are not subject to 14 CFR Part 161. However anv changes to the method of implementation which may Iff4cT» V T 1 3 m e a J f i r e i s v ol^tary would be subject to applicable procedures contained in 14 CFR Part 161, c. Disapproved with regard to the mandatory Staoe 2 phaseout to begin the year 2000, pending satisfactory additional information to make an informed analysis The Federal phaseout applies to aircraft weighing grater San S t 3 t e S C h a t plrcent^rffl" ^ "SigSifi^tJ^less csan 1 percent of all corporate 3et operations at APF are in aircraft * h f f i *ross takeoff weights over 75,000 psxnds «Xrc i l ^ # V i r e - f e P a r?* t e analysis of restrictions L Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds,- in addition th* burden on commerce has not been presented nor are the noise xmpacts versus the benefits of this measure presented Ground Noise. It tt o e m 0 n?ns d? d nn h a C C? n^ e e x i s t i ban on nighttime (between 1996 ^ 7 : 0 0 a - m -> maintenance runups, effective May 15 for ^Jntenancf l i T ^ n ^ 0 o r ^ ^ntations reoom^lded d p r e col? ^ Sf - f l l 9 h t runups for turboprop aircraft be continued. Operators may request permission from airoort management to conduct a maintenance runup durs c TK ri««* hours under exceptional circumstances. For SSLf. an 2 lr T m a ^ r e q u i r e ^e aircraft for an early^msrslng departure which would have to incur a substantial delav if ^^ runup could not be conducted until after 7: 0 Sa!m Fo^such raana XS^J ' f e!! eac V set limits on exactly when and where the runup would be conducted, and limit duration of the rxsuo and the- power settings used. Maintenance or pre-flight SL f o ^ t T * 0 ^ a i r c r a f t ^ould be conducted It P one of g U P b the Cnn1^?o" S h 0 W n - 0 a F g U X e 3 i " 1 9 i n t h c * C P document and as wind conditions permit, should be oriented to the north or

40 Figures 3-18 and 3-17). -aoies 3-16, 7-1 and 7-2; and I^AiG? USE MEASURES Land Acquisition. 2SL a S!f* f e c o m m e n d c l a n d acquisition in Rock Creek FAA Action; Approved under 14 CFR Part ISO with resrwr-t- r«s S K I S S ' S S L ^ ^ i "! " F T 4 " ^ However r h o tne parameters of this Part 150 approval Easements. Rook Can^o^d t! d ^ ^ r n S l d r a t : i o n r o o r compatible us2ts 2nrf Y l d e a n adequate buffer of TabXes S-I SSN^rSi^gJSSTi f"' *"* ^ *** = Approved under 14 CFR Part ISO with r.-o.,-r r However, the FAA oul -.our^elo^r^rn^nt^f ^r=i 9 e

41 xts prerogative to establish noise buffers that meet locallv determined needs. Vacant land is deemed compatible under 14 CFR Part ISO unless it is demonstrated that there is imminent danger of it being developed noncompatibly Zoning/Land Use Planning. The MAA has adopted the DNL SSdB noise contour as the threshold of incompatibility for residential areas, but for zoning and land use planning this measure recommends that the area within the DNL 60dS noise contour apply the same standards as Part ISO recommends for the DNL 65dB noise contour as a buffer'to ensure that residential and noise sensitive uses are not developed too close to the Airport. (pages 5-10 to 5-12 and 7-5; Tables S-2 3 and 7-3; and Figure 5-2). * FAA Action: Approved. This is within the authority of the local: land use planning jurisdictions Pair Disclosure It is recommended that a Fair Disclosure Program be developed to educate potential home buyers of the airport and its flight paths through voluntary cooperation from realtors, lenders property managers, and local government staff so all potential residents who would be located along the flight -paths for the runways would be aware of their location. This measure includes the development, publication and distribution of information regarding airport noise and operations. (pages 5-13, 5-14 and 7-5; and Tables S-2 and 7-3). FAA Action: Approved. CONTUTOIHG PROGRAM MEASURES Noise Abatement Officer. It is recommended that the Noise Abatement Officer position currently being filled by staff with additional responsibilities at the Airport be continued. This person's responsibilities include oversight of the implementation of a l l noise abatement/land use compatibility programs as well aa i n d e Tabf a t i a f n i S e C O T np l a i n t s (pages 2-3, 6-1 and 7-6- PAA Action: Approved

42 7,4.2 Noise Compatibility Advisory Committee. This measure recommends the implementation of a noise rssesentatil^f S O Z Y C O n r a i t c e e w i t * membership consisting of representatives of airport users and tenants, local officials area businesses, area residents, and Airport management" S i i 7 b e» advisory committee to provide feedback regardino noise issues and represent all interests on ansarouid trj 9 airport. (pages 6-1 and 7-6; and Table 7-4 ). FAA Actions Approved Noise Monitoring Program. This measure recommends the implementation of a noise monitoring program and the purchase (or rental) of a portable SSfS m? n i C d^ r a n s sociated computer software and JaSES Sr'fSS ^ R 0 U N D N S 0 c a ; ^. ^ T ^ "» ^ s i s t the noise abatement officer by providing sites.for noise monitoring, 9 (pages 6-2 and 7-6,- and Table 7-4 ). FAA Action: Approved Public Information Program. The development and implementation of a public information program is recommended to provide the public with infor^ti which makes them aware of She efforts If the A^rpor? mssgemsnt to address their concerns. One measure which wos?f c S S E T X 1 3 the newsletter which is routinely published by the NAA (pages 6-2 and 7-6; and Table 7-4). FAA Actions Approved NCP Review, Evaluation, and Revision. This measure recommends that the Noise Compatibility P-ooram h» b C reviewed and evaluated on a regular basis^o measure ^ performance against goals. The Part ISO will be updated ev.ru llb!e y? a?k r S O O U e r i f app^able. (pages 6-2 anh-sf a n l ^ FAA Action: Approved

43 Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 Appendices i Appendix B: FAA Record of Approval for 1998 NCP Update HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:VROJECTa2»46o.APRNEM.T2M>to«mb e f 2000

44 FEDERAL A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Office Of The Associate Administrator For Airports Washington, DC fto; Number of pages including cover: Fax number:

45 M e m o r a n d u m USDoportmenl erf Importation ACTION: Record of Approval for M * ^ Naples Municipal Airport (APF), Naples, Florida From; Director. Office of Airport Manning And Programming "GP4f to A t t a * To: Associate Administrator for Airports Attachedforyour action is an updatetothe Noise Compatibility Program for ^n i d p a l M r p 0 t t ( A P F )- n Septeniber , the FAA announced its irtentantoapprove or disapprove the proposed update within 180 days. The last day for such action is March 2, While the aiiport sponsor, the Naples Airport Authority (NAA), was developing a Notee Compatibility Program (NCP), it adopted by ordinance (1) a nigrrttime curfew on Stage 1 operations, (2) a voluntary curfew on Stage 2 and 3 operations, and (3) a plantophase out use of the airport by Stage 1 aircraft bv January 1,1997 The ordinance was effective May 15,1996. In February 1997 NAA submitted these measures along with other recommendationstothe FAA for approval as part of its NCP. In July 1997, the FAA advised the airport ft w t t h ^ AJrPort Noise and Capacity Act and 14 CFR Part 161 to implement a proposed Stage 2 phase out In September 1997 the FAA issued a Record of Approval in which FAA approved the nighttime curfew and most other measures. FAA disapproved a voluntary curfew on Stage 2 and 3 operations, and the mandatory Stage 2 phase out ^/S? 1? 0 **? ^tensive operational and noise data and prepared an update to its NCP dated February 1998 in which It now proposestoban Stage 1 aircraft operator*. NAA would amend its Airport Rules and Regulations, Section 5 06B uponfaa approval ofthe recommendation. This measure has generated some' comroverey, as reflected in two letters objectingtothe proposal that were submitted by the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) on the grounds that it is unreasonable, unjustty discriminatory, and federally preempted it should also be noted that the 1998 NCP Update indicates that the airport sponsor has taken no action to datetoimplement the purchase of avigation easements or the land acquisition measures that FAA approved in the September 1997 ROA.

46 The FAA has undertaken consultation and extensive review, and the airport sponsor has submitted clarifying information, resulting in the attached recommendation for approval. The FAA's decision is explained in detail in the attached Record of Approval. The FAA has also carefully considered the tetters submitted by tie NBAA and has prepared a memorandum that responds to each major issue raised by NBAA. The Assistent Administrator for Policy, Planning and Intemational Aviation and the Chief Counsel have concurred with the recommendations of the Southern Region. If you agree with tie recommended FAA determinations, you should sign the approved" line on the attached memorandum. I recommend your -Sj 3*i tl i r>«ii» vf^ Paul L Gaiis Attachments

47 FEDEHMJ AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RECORD OF APPROVAL PART 150 MOISl COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM REVISION Naples Municipal Airport Naples, Florida NONCONCUR Assistant Administrator for Policy* Planning, and International Aviation, API-l 1 Date DISAPPROVED sistant Administrator for Airports, ARP-1 Date

48 RECORD OF APPROVAL NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NAPLES, FLORIDA The operational measure below summarizes as closely as possible tie airport T H ^ t ^T*:? a t i 0 r 1, n t h e N o i s e CompatibHrty Program (NCP) Update and Is to 2 ^ P«?if m- The statemente contained within the summvnsxt BACKGROUND In EKSft!n 9 J*. t h e l a P, e B A j r p o r t A u t h o r «y (NAA) submitted to the FAA an Update ^.fsj No.se CompaUbility Program (NCP)for Naples Municipal Airport (APR ^ P? ^ n S, S t e d,.? 1 5 m e a a u r e 3 ' o n e ^ich would allow operator* bysfegtl o w PP f ",? ht l rne c u r f e w a n d most ofthe other measures submitted by the a rport eponsor. In March of 1098, the NAA submitted a second Update to Ha Part ISO 7 ^ r r^^t' m p S & ^ p f 0 p o s e d e x t e n d i "9 t h current Stege Lrfewtoa ftl On September 18,1998, the FAA published a notice in the Federal Resistor ~ 9 ^ l i ^ t ^ J! ^ " 9 m * N C P s^mitted by Naples and requesting E I E S ^? 4 ^ t 2 ; A?U F A A rece,ved w ^er, from the National Business Aviatan Association (NBAA), dated March 27,1S98. That letter Indicated that it S i e S! mm * m» NCPfor NaX object ngtorestncttons on Stage 1 aircraft operations. The March 27 letter summarized ^ A? ^ C r f ^, ^ e C t l n t h e S t e 1 a8 *»» As grounds 1*5 5*S5T^ the NBAA argues that: (1) the terms of the 24-hour ban deprives public access ^ unfair and unreasonable terms, (2) the terms of the ban are unjus% dissatorl and clarification through its consultant, Harris Miller Miller and Hanson. Ino (HMMH) In response to issues raised during FAA's preliminary review. ^ w ^ ^ supplement include evidence of the noise benefit mat will accrue to nefahs communities as a result of the ban, statistics on the number of Stage I aircraft ooerati existence of other nearby airports available for use by Stage I operators.

49 OPERATIONAL MEASURES 1. Extend Existing Nighttime Stage 1 Use Restriction to 24 Hour*. Th^pies Airport Authority (NAA) requests that the FAA approve extension of the c u r f e w o n 0 ^Sr^c P er attans by Stage i aircraft (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to a 24 k LSfH TU 6 "? 6 ".^' m e d i c a l ' ^ government flightsor other flights which are for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare would be exempt frorn the ban" (NCP J^l2S5: Amendment to N E M a n d N C P * HMMH. Report * demonstrates that the recommended Stage 1 ban provides a noise beneffi bo* In the short term and in the five year planning teteframes In 1998 n $Z ^ *IS? t o r e d u c e *» n^of reswen JdweB^Tnte rtnntti Sn ^22: f 1^ I 7 dweirm Q u n i *. a n d to^move 120 dividual!from the66 db DNL contour. In 2003, the number of residences significantly Impacted bv^toisl v^.w aytlf^jessi t h!l t a n J B ^ " T ^ b e c a u s e there are no Stage I aircraft base? sl^n^nl^ 1 SS t 0 p T?^i p e r d a y a r e a f f e c t e d by the ban. Thereat r t f operating?tage I aircraft at APF; two companies use the aircraft p^lyfior ambulance services, two other companies have alternate non Stegel th^n "Wire, two companies operating only Stage I aircraft offered no objection to the ban, and only one company indicated that the ban would impose an S ^ ^ S L f l r a n d a, h e ^, p F - ^ those who do not otanste Ses^ftS!? N ^!!? t h e r e, a r e J U m i l e s «" other airports located within of the city of Naples that can accommodate the affected aircraft f nnt^wtl^^ d 0 6 S c o n s l d e r the use of aircraft stage designations to be unjustly d^riminatory per se. Moreover, the ban is not unjustitdiscsnbstorv because Stage 1 aircraft are the loudest type of aircraft operating at NXB ^ 1997 to me Stage 1 nighttime curfew, are being extended tothis 24-hour ban The FAA ^lt11x? mb * T 1 " 7 * B X C e P t i 0 n * e m e r 9 8 n C y ^ Sn" S t a f l e 1 a i r c r a f t 2 ^ ^? ^ ^ weighing less than 75,000 pounds is not federally preempted because the scheme of federal regulation of Stag^^craftfe not sopervasive as tomake reasonable the inference toatfaa left no n^foralsort S ^ l ^ T 6! " ", J J 6 F M ' 6 i n t B r e s t l n S t a 9 1» SSSSint mat the federal system should be assumed to preclude enforcement of local rutes on 9«nt d Fr =i?^! S" y P ^ff,*? p r e d u d e ^ e x e r c f 8 e o f State authority. See Rice v Sanla FeFlevatnrCnrp,. 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). See Pacific Gae & EiJ^ rev' R E S O U R E E S R » A N D D«^P^* n'n, j»i i}q inn%' / 2

50 By stating its Intent to conduct further study and actions as may be appropriate when ft ^ ^ e J a d J f ' * W"f ^ operations by Stage 1 aircraft w e S nsne^an 75,000 pounds FAA did not Intend or ordain complete preemption of regulations of operations by al Stage 1 aircraft. In the preamble of the final rule that phased art operates by Stage 1 aircraft weighing more than 75,000 pounds, FAAsSd h - X S n, S e k m m 1 m U f b o m a l r p l m m W9i 9 hin 9 75,000 pounds or less cannot t ZrZ^rt '7 manner^nslstent with the constraints ln...the Aoi However, the FAA LUKHI^,^ 1 1 6^ Tt m 0 1 t h e p u b, i c lmpact of aircraft noise. As results of this study become available over the next two years, FAA will undertake such actions as may be appropriate." 41 FR (December )Tli^SS!? X? Am t h?? A \ U E 0 s u c h a i r c r a f t! s ooing gradually eliminated through attntion. Although FAA Advisory Circular , Airport Noise Como3tv S «5,1983. and the 1976 Departmelof i S n s ^ n NoiseAbatement Pol.cy warn about conflicts between local airport rutes^md the Sral soheme concerning deadlines for retrofit or replacement of Stage 1 airt^w^n thes % IT read i n «* FAA is speaking onlyxrt Stage 1 a^raft weighing more than 75,000 pounds. These guidance dolumenteimm stent m t l? f P V / ^ *«7WJ00 pounds. Neither S ^ 2 2 L manifests FAA intent to supersede the exercise of proprietary power. f" text n lb d e a r t h a t Given FAA's exercise of a detailed and supervisory role over Stage 1 aircraft weiohino Q mom than pounds, FAA's silence In these droumstanc^lshcii^ofte ^ presumed to be or construed as a barrier to action by Naples Airport Authority to estebhsh requirements as to the permissible level of noise created b^&teoei «L»* such aircraft.left m the total U.S. fleet, estimated by NAA's reported research as les? a c f o n fe TOt S f f i ^ ****** d e t e r m i n e d ^ a ^ ^ ^»n^sf 0 n f m L r e q u, r, r g n a t j o n a l regulation. There do not appear to be any app^oable nsks of disruption In traffic to and from airports or economic^ietrels arnono 9 earners thairequire a federal policy to balance the goal of noise redsn w l w n w m economic and technological difficulties. S a t ^ Pre*?* results from actual conflict between A s t n J^^rJfi l r e 1 8 n o f ederal requirement concerning the pace of elimination of operations by Stage 1 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds aircraft ohsio^ m a p P! a r S t a 9* 1 a t N a P^ Airport would stand as an h 6 T! C C O m p 8 h m e n t a n d e x e c u t t o «o f P^'Poses and objectives of Correal usl h v ^ P *Tl 6 n u m b e r o f s u c h a l r c r a f t. * fact that none are batedlirtt used by air camera at the airport, and the role of Naples Airport indicate thatthe ban Z S ^ ^ Should fr^ac^n a J r-aarecerve significant new information such as that the exemptions are granted In an unjust manner, the FAA wilt reevaluate this determination upon r^lpt of new information to ascertain whether it still meets the standards for Part 150 approval. 3

51 Naples Mynicipal Aiiport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 Appendices Appendix C: SH&E Forecast of Existing Conditions and Five-Year Forecast Activity HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No G:\PROJECTa2»»«).APRNEM.TaNt««rt3sr 2000 NEM.wpd

52 Naples Municipal Airport Part 150 Noise Update Activity Forecasts for 2004 Prepared for: IIAA Prepared by: NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY International Air Transport Consultancy November, 2000

53 W W MUNKML AJBTORT Part 150 Noise Update TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS j TABLE OF FIGURES H SECTION I: OPERATIONS FORECAST 1 Forecasting Goals 1 Data Sources and Years 1 Master Plan Forecast vs. Actual Trends n 2 Forecast by Category 3 Air Carrier ^ Local General Aviation..»... Itinerant General Aviation ZZZZZ7 Military Trend Analysis P g Revised Operations Forecast 1 0 SECTION II: FLEET MIX AND TIME OF DAY FORECASTS 13 Methodology m 1 3 Overview of Operations Breakdown Today 1 4 Aircraft Type ^ Day vs. Night ZZZZZZZZ 17 Market Trends and Future Operations Breakdown 17 General Aviation Fleet and Forecast jy Forecasting Jet Operations ZZZZZ 22 Fleet Mix Forecast " 2 5.3!Z!ZZ!13!."""!.**27 Night Activity - the Voluntary Curfew Night Forecast " 2j» Complete Forecasts for 1999 and Table of Contents -/- SH&E

54 NMtBHUMCmLWPORr Part 1 50 Noise Update TABLE OF FIGURES Exhibit 1 Forecast vs. Actual Daytime Operations Exhibit 2 Forecast vs. Actual Daytime Operations by Category Exhibit 3 Weekly Scheduled Departures from Naples by Airline August Exhibit 4 Historical Based Aircraft 7 Exhibit 5 Historical Operations Trends 10 I I Exhibit 6 Revised Total Operations Forecast 1 2 Exhibit Daytime Operations by Aircraft Type 15 Exhibit Daytime Jet Operations by Noise Stage 15 Exhibit Jet Aircraft Fleet Mix 1 6 Exhibit Operations by Time of Day - 7 Exhibit 11 Projected US General Aviation Fleet 1 8 Exhibit 12 Estimated Jet Fleets of Fractional Ownership Companies 20 Exhibit 13 City of Naples Residential Construction Permits 22 Exhibit 14 Breakdown of Itinerant GA Forecast 23 Exhibit 15 Age Profile of Active US Stage 2 Business Jet Fleet 24 I I Exhibit 16 Forecast Distribution of Jet Operations by Noise Stage 24 Exhibit 17 Jet Fleet Mix Forecast for Exhibit 18 Nonjet Fieet Mix Forecast for Exhibit 19 Curfew Violation Response Cards by Category 28 Exhibit Forecast Day-Night Split by Aircraft Category 29 Exhibit Forecast of Jet Operations Per Day 30 Exhibit Forecast of Nonjet Operations Per Day 31 Exhibit Forecast of Jet Operations Per Day 31 Exhibit Forecast of Nonjet Operations Per Day 32 Table of Contents -/;- SH&E

55 Part 1 50 Noise Update SECTION I: OPERATIONS FORECAST FORECASTING GOALS To model the noise effects of current and projected operations at Naples Municipal Airport, we have developed a forecast scenario for fiscal year For this study, we have reviewed the comprehensive forecast undertaken in the 1997 Master Plan and made adjustments as appropriate for changes in market conditions which have become apparent more recently. We have focused additional attention on developing a scenario for the mix of aircraft using the airport, the time of day of operations, and the particular usage patterns of jet aircraft. In general, time-of-day, fleet mix and type-of-operation forecasts are derivative forecasts. That is, they are best explained as a percentage of a base forecast for total operations: firstreacha number for overall total operations; next determine how those total operations are most likely to break down. This forecast scenario follows that general methodology. First, we will develop an overall forecast by revisiting and updating the forecasts produced for the 1997 Master Plan. Then, we will turn to air traffic control tower data andresearchinto on-the-ground trends and events to predict fleet mix and time-of-day usage. DATA SOURCES AND YEARS The Master Plan forecast and other data use the Naples Airport Authority fiscal year, which runs from 1 October through 30 September. Historical data have been drawn directly from the Master Plan, which in turn obtained data from 1994 and earlier Naples Airport Authority records. Data from 1995 and forward were drawnfromtowerrecordsprovided by the NAA. Together, these sources give us the benefit of four years of consistently maintained data. Starting in 1996, NAA All years in thisreportreferto the Naples Airport Authority's fiscal year, which runs from 1 October through 30 September. We have usedfiscalyears to maintain consistency with the airport's Master Plan, capital budgeting and other records. Operations Forecast -/- SH&E

56 NAPLES WMCMU.MHMRT Part 1 50 Noise Update began adding counts of night operations to the tower data. Since night operations were taking place in earlier years but had not been tallied before 1996, some of the data are inconsistent. To ease year-to-year comparisons, we have removed night operations from several of the exhibits in this section. Dataregardingbased aircraft were compiled by NAA and updatedregularly.in general, NAA tallies are understood to represent peak annual based aircraft, including helicopters. MASTER PLAN FORECAST VS. ACTUAL TRENDS The 1997 Master Plan forecast growth in operations at Naples Airport between 4 and 5 percent per year - just over 4 percent per year from 1994 to 1998, and somewhat higher from 1998 to 1999, owing to the projected introduction of new air carrier service (see Exhibit 1). In reality, operations dropped in 1995 and 1998, but rose in other years to make up for it. Real compound annual growth for the period was 2 percent. Exhibit 1 Forecast vs. Actual Daytime Operations Utrter Plan. Actual Avg Avg "oreoast 110, , , , , ,383 Total Actual 110, , , , , ,213* Daytime Forecast Operation* growth % 4.5% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 5.8% 5% 5% '.ctual Srowth % -8.7% 8.4% 2.9% -3.9% 14.1% 2% 5% Source Forecast Pott Buddey, Schuh a Jerenigan, Inc Muter Plan Update Source Actual: APF Activity Reports (12/96*99), Aircraft Operations Report/Naptee Tower (10/93-11*6), Master Ptan (94) Although the Master Plan was unable to predict the variability from one year to the next, it did accurately predict the longer-term growth trend. Operations at Naples dipped unexpectedly in 1995, from 110,411 to 100,754, setting back a growth trend which subsequently resumed. By measuring the growth trend on the Operations Forecast -2- SH&E

57 Part 1 50 Noise Update 1995 base instead of on 1994, we see that the actual growth rate was 5 percent, in Une with the Master Plan forecast. The following sections will explain which areas of activity experienced notable swings and why, and will discuss why overall growth will probably continue near 5 percent per year. FORECAST BY CATEGORY I I 8 The Master Plan forecast breaks airport operations into the five standard categories tracked in FAA survey data. Although the Master Plan accurately projected growth rates for total operations, it did not predict two important trends m the underlying details. Exhibit 2 shows a comparison of forecast growth and actual growth in three categories - Air Carrier, Itinerant GA and Local GA. The striking trend is that while Air Carrier and Local GA operations held steady or declined during this period, Itinerant GA operations grew markedly. We will discuss how important changes in usage patterns at Naples Airport affected these tallies. Exhibit 2 Forecast vs. Actual Daytime Operations by Category I M»*w Plan va. A ctual orecast Air Canter Actual Air Carrier " y,, m < r-orecaat Local GA Operations Detail Actual Local GA : Forecast Itinerant GA ; Actual Itinerant GA Base Vear 198S B ,657 17,857 18,000 19,830 18,000 19,808 18,000 14,824 34,217 35,004 38,754 38,582 34,217 27, ,089 18,000 13,504 40,521 23,582 20,000 13,719 42,548 28,765 58,386 62,229 85, ,038 75,640 58,388 53,085 61,272 68,323 70,795 80,673 Source Forecast: Post Buckley, Schuh i Jerenigan, Inc Master Flan Update Source Actual: APF Activity Reports (12AKHH»). Aircraft Operations ReporWaples Tower ( /95), Master Plan (94) Operations Forecast -3- SH&E

58 Part 1 50 Noise Update Air Carrier Air carrier includes scheduled operations and non-scheduled charters. In most years, approximately one half of air carrier operations result from scheduled airline service. Despite the opening of nearby Southwest Florida International Airport in Fort Myers in 1983, a number of airlines have attempted over the years to offer some level of scheduled commuter service directly into Naples. Yet as Southwest Florida International has grown to offer a more and more competitive schedule, airlines have consolidated their Naples service, leaving just three carriers in recent years - American Eagle, US Airways Express and Cape Air. As shown in Exhibit 3, the last round of consolidation took place in 1995 and During those years, Delta Express and Gulfstream withdrew service from the market, reducing weekly air carrier frequencies from 140 to 77, a difference of over 6,000 operations over the course of the year. Although air carrier service has barely changed since then, it may have reached a point from which it will slowly begin to grow again. Exhibit 3 Weekly Scheduled Departures from Naples by Airline August al «f US Afcrwayi ExprMt gqulfctrun In r ' H ' ' QCcpe Atr An«letn E«gt* 1 Weekly Schodu'ed Seats 2.22S 3, , S5 1,702 Source: OAQ Market Rtos Operations Forecast -4- SH&E

59 NAPLES 1BJHK3HU. AWOHT Part 1 50 Noise Update From interviews we held with officials at the airlines that serve Naples Airport and Southwest Florida International, we expect incumbent carriers to increase their frequencies at Naples slightly in the coming years. We also believe one new carrier may introduce service by 2004, starting with three flights per day. We have revised the original Master Plan forecast to include an additional 5.5 flights per day, plus 3 percent growth in non-scheduled air carrier service. Locai General Aviation Local general aviation operations include all takeoffs and landings that stay within the local airport flight pattern, taking off, circling the airport, landing, and usually taking off again immediately as touch-and-gos. Each touch-and-go represents two operations - a landing and a takeoff. From interviews with tower officials and other airport users, we believe that 90 percent or more of all local operations are directly related to flight training. These operations are almost uniquely generated by piston aircraft. Local general aviation operations are highly sensitive to the activity of flight schools based at the airport, including how many students enroll at the schools and how they structure their training. As flight school activity goes up and down from year-to-year, it can mask the slow, underlying growth trend in local GA. In 1995, the first year forecast in the Master Plan, local general aviation declined dramatically. Part of this decline was due to a temporary decrease in business activity at local flight schools that was partially recovered in later years. At the same time, the publicity and discussions surrounding the Master Plan update raised awareness of noise sensitivity. In response, flight schools voluntarily began leaving Naples airspace to conduct a significant portion of their training at other nearby airports, including Everglades, Immokalee and Marco Island. 3 Since the local GA operations category is full of exactly this kind of flight activity, these changes resulted in a sharp reduction in local general aviation operations at Naples. When growth resumed in subsequent years, it followed the forecast growth trend, based on the lower, actual 1995 operations figures. 3 Telephone interviews conducted in mid October 1999 with representatives of American Eagle, Comair and Gulfstream. Other airlines were contacted but declined to respond. The expected increase in local GA operations at these nearby airports is not evident in official usage statistics. With no official tower counts and no fuel sales to touch-and-go users, these airports maintain only sketchy statistics that have not tracked the change in usage patterns. Operations Forecast -5- SH&E

60 i/iya/ta MAPLES MUMCML AJBPORT Part 1 50 Noise Update Another increase in local GA operations in 1999 may also be related to flight school activity. In surveys at the airport, fixed base operators (FBOs) suggested that their flight school business at the airport has grown by as much as 30 percent in 1999, consistent with the rise in local GA operations. Although there is some relationship between affluence and flying, local wealth does not appear to be the primary driver of flight school activity in the Naples area. Changes in per capita personal income and real GDP in metropolitan Naples and in Collier County over the past few years do not correlate with the annual variations in local GA operations. Rather, it appears that a significant portion of Naples Airport flight students come from outside the Naples area, or even from outside the US. At some schools, as many as 80 percent may comefromeurope, either to train for a European license that can be arranged in the US, or to train for the US license, which is accepted in many parts of the world. US flight training is attractive to Europeans for several reasons. First, training costs are significantly lower in the US due to lower fuel prices, lower aircraftrentalprices and lower accommodation prices. Almost equally important, the predictably clear weather in the Naples area and elsewhere in Florida makes it possible to schedule training that will not be interrupted by rain, fog and clouds. In turn, that makes training shorter - and cheaper. Although the European economy has improved in recent years, the level of economic growth there does not explain the extraordinary rise in flight training at Naples Airport. Rather, the growth in flight training at Naples appears to be related to targeted marketing efforts that have built a reputation for the specific schools and for the airport. These marketing efforts will continue to pay off in the coming years as new recruits learn about the Naples flight schools from recent graduates. The flight schools we interviewed expected their business to continue to grow apace, subject only to the uncertainty of regulatory changes that could dull the luster of US training for foreigners. Since US training is likely to remain attractive for foreigners, we have maintained the Master Plan's 5 percent annual growth rate for local GA, startingfromthereduced1995 base. Operations Forecast -6- SH&E

61 Part 1 50 Noise Update Itinerant General Aviation Itinerant general aviation operations include all other general-purpose flights. These operations may be VFR or IFR, jet or non-jet. Itinerant GA operations include those training flights that have left the Naples Airport flight pattern - for example to fly to training airspace or toflyto another airport for touch-and-gos. The itinerant GA category is complex. In addition to operations generated by flight schools on the airport, this category includes some "cross-country" training operations from flight schools on Florida's east coast, recreational and travel flights by aircraft based at Naples, and inbound flights for business and leisure. Virtually all jet operations at Naples Airport fall into the itinerant GA category, although they represent only a fraction of the total. To understand the nature of itinerant GA operations, we will consider three potential predictors in this section: based aircraft,flightschool activity and socioeconomic factors. Based Aircraft Official counts of based aircraft at Naples Airport reached 325 this year after dipping to 280 last year, as shown in Exhibit 4. Based aircraft at Naples do not appear to correlate with operations. At a seasonal location such as Naples, the number of based aircraft canfluctuatewildly over the course of the year. Exhibit 4 Historical Based Aircraft S soure.: Bated likfafl NAA: Operation* - APF AclMtf Report* i2m4m) Operations Forecast -7- SH&E

62 N&PLES IMOOPAI. AMFORT Part 1 50 Noise Update Many people who rent hangar space or covered tie-down facilities on full-year contracts only use those facilities during the winter season. Some only use the facilities a few days a week even in season. We understand that Naples Airport policy is to report based aircraft at their yearly peak, a common approach. Any study of the relationship between operations and based aircraft would need to be based on more detailed data than what is commonly documented. Flight School Activity Flight schools drive two kinds of operations: local GA operations, for takeoff and landing training; and itinerant GA operations. Flight training may be considered itinerant when students go to training zones for airwork, to other airports for cross-country flights, or just to fly to a nearby airport to practice touch-and-gos. Although it is difficult to determine precisely what percent of training flights are itinerant rather than local, it appears that a significant portion of itinerant GA operations are related to flight school activity. From interviews with flight school operators, discussions with tower officials and other analysis, we believe that as much as one half of itinerant GA operations at Naples Airport may be flight school-related. This estimate and the recent increase in the flight school fleet at Naples Airport are consistent with the 13 percent rise in itinerant GA operations at Naples in Socioeconomic Drivers The half of itinerant GA operations that are not related to flight school activity involve people coming to and from Naples by private plane and recreational flights by pilots whose aircraft are based in Naples. Since trends in this segment relate to the broader economic activity in the Naples area - conference and leisure tourism, business trips and especially visits to second homes - economic forecasts are a useful indicator. The 1997 Master Plan documented a strong correlation between income and population growth in Lee and Collier counties on the one hand, and passenger enplanements at Naples and Southwest Florida International airports on the other. At the level of total passenger enplanements, most of which are on scheduled flights, the correlation is close. For aircraft operations, however, it is difficult to use formal econometric models. Rather, economic forecasts point to a general trend. Operations Forecast -8- SH&E

63 NAPLES IMOCML AJRPOHT Part 1 50 Noise Update In recent years, the Naples area has enjoyed extraordinary economic growth, holding onto its position as one of the wealthiest metropolitan areas in Florida, with per capita personal income almost 40 percent above the national average in This economic growth is forecast to continue in the coming years, at a somewhat slower pace. Specialized forecasts from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida predict real personal income growth of just over 4 percent in the Naples area and Collier County. 5 Considering these forecasts and projected growth in flight school activity, we have maintained the Master Plan's 5 percent growth rate for itinerant GA operations. Military There are no military aircraft based at Naples, although itinerant military flights do occasionally visit. Their numbers are insignificant. TREND ANALYSIS Historical trends of operations at Naples suggest that the forecast growth rates in this section are realistic. Exhibit 5 shows historical daytime operations and compound annual growth rates for several multi-year periods. Trends from the early years must be interpreted carefully. When Southwest Florida International Airport opened in Ft. Myers in 1983, it dramaticallyreshapedcivil aviation in the region over a several-year period. One could argue that the air carriers did not reach a new equilibrium in the Naples market until ten years later, in Since that time, however, total operations have grown at an average of 5 percent a year, in line with ourrevisedforecast. General aviation operations have also grown dramatically, although most dramatically in itinerant GA, accompanied by a relativereductionin local GA. As explained above, this apparent disparity between growth in itinerant and local GA operations probably represents a voluntary shift in how and where flight schools conduct their training operations. With that change now instituted, future growth trends are more likely to be parallel. 5 University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, The Florida Long-term Economic Forecast 1998, (Gainesville, 1998). Ibid Operations Forecast -9- SH&E

64 Part 1 50 Noise Update Exhibit 5 Historical Operations Trends Daytima Air GA- OA- GA - Operations Cantor itinerant Local Military Total Total ,719 80, , ,504 70,795 23, ,951 94, ,824 68,323 29, ,324 97, ,608 61,272 27, ,194 89, ,630 53,085 27, , ,657 58,386 34, ,411 92, ,070 57,618 45, fl77 102, ,905 62, , , ,698 65,380 39, , , ,757 65,798 37, , ,754 60,044 36, ,945 97, ^19 23, ,327 Compound Annual CAGft % 3.1% 4.1% 5.9% 3.3% 3.4% CAGR % 2.9% -2.4% 11.9% 04% 12% CAGR % 6.5% -3.3% -192% 2.1% 3.3% CAGR % 10.8% 1.0% -26.8% 5.1% 7.7% Source: FY from NAA Monthly Activity Reports; FY 95 from Napiee Tower Record*; FY from 1997 Master Plan REVISED OPERATIONS FORECAST SH&E has built a total operations forecast for 2004 for Naples Airport based on a careful review of the Master Plan forecasts from In our review, we evaluated how these forecasts have fared against reality and identified any specific changes in market conditions that could cause us to question the Master Plan's assumptions. In general, we found that the Master Plan accurately forecast overall trends to date with the exception of a one-time reduction in operations in The 1997 Master Plan is an excellent starting point to forecast total operations at Naples Airport. That document employed a comprehensive range of forecasting Operations Forecast -10- SH&E