NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

FAR PART 150 NOISE EXPOSURE MAP UPDATE

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 296460.01

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 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 150.21, are true and complete under penalty of 18 U.S.C Part 1001.

(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 34104

(941) 643-0733

s HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 S:«fWJECTS2W4«.APFWEM.T»l0WBtor 2000 NBtapd 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 ...... 1 1.1 Responsibility for Preparation of the Noise Exposure Map Update ...... 1 1.2 Noise Exposure Map Checklist 2 1.3 Noise Exposure Map Documentation 2

2. Status of Existing Noise Compatibility Program 8

3. NOISE ANALYSIS ...... 10 3.1 Airport Physical Parameters 10 3.2 Aircraft Operations 10 3.3 Aircraft Noise and Performance Characteristics ...... 14 3.4 Runway Utilization ...... 14 3.5 Flight Track Geometry 14

4. UPDATED NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS 18 4.1 Land Use Compatibility Criteria. 18 4.1.1 City of Naples Land Use Compatibility Threshold 18 4.1.2 Collier County Land Use Compatibility Threshold 19 4.1.3 Naples Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Criteria 19 4.2 Land Uses within the 2000 and 2005 DNL Contours 19 4.2.1 Non-Residential Land Area within the 2000 NEM Contours 22 4.2.2 Land Area within the 2005 NEM Contours 22 4.2.3 Noise Sensitive Public Facilities 22 4.3 Population in Non-Compatible Areas 22

5. PUBLIC CONSULTATION 27

APPENDICES

Appendix A: FAA Record of Approval for 1997 NCP Revision Appendix B: 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 98-8165, Policy 7-1.1 Appendix E: Collier County Ordinance No. 2000-43 Amending the Land Development Code Relative to Airport Overlay Districts

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 G$pmjecTszmm.M^mjmmmtm.2000 ttm.

Appendix F: MCG Detail on Existing and Forecast Case Population Counts Appendix G: Minutes of March 2, 2000 Noise Compatibility Committee Meeting and Noise Compatibility Committee Membership Appendix H: 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 2005 14 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 ...... 23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Modeled Departure Flight Tracks 15 Figure 2. Modeled Arrival Flight Tracks 16 Figure 3. 2000 Noise Exposure Map 24 Figure 4. 2005 Noise Exposure Map 25 FigureS. Generalized Land Uses 26

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 Q:\PHOJECTS296460.APF»IM.raNow*er 2000 NBuLnpd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 1

1. 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 1998. The Revised NEM and NCP followed Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 1501 requirements and related FAA guidelines2.

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 1997.

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 consulting firms to prepare this NEM update on its behalf. The firm of 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. The firm of Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. (SH&E) had lead responsibility for development of the base case and five-year forecast case fleet mixes. The firm of 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 16,1988.

2 FAR Part 150, "Noise Exposure Map Checklist", U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1989.

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 G:\PKUECT8a9S4«3.APF»4EM.T2»low*»r 2000 NEM.«pd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 2 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. 296460.01 G:VROJ6CTS^96460.APRNeM.TaNowj*»r 2000 NBHwpd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 3

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 to NEMs which have previously been Yes Chapter 1 determined by FAA to be in compliance with Part 150?

B. Is the airport name and the qualified airport operator identified? Certification, Yes pageii C. Is there a dated cover letter from the airport operator which indicates the documents are submitted under Part 150 for Yes Cover letter appropriate FAA determinations? II. CONSULTATION: [150.21(B), A150.105(A)] A. Is there a narrative description of the consultation accomplished, including opportunities for public review and Yes Chapter 5 comment during map development? B. Identification:

1. Are the consulted parties identified? Yes Chapter 5 2. Do they include all those required by 150.21 (b) and Yes Chapter 5 150.105(a)?

C. Does the documentation include the airport operator's certificatjon, and evidence to support It, that interested persons have been afforded adequate opportunity to submit their views Yes Chapter 5 data, and comments during map development and in accordance with 150.21(b)?

D. Does the document indicate whether written comments were No comments received during consultation and, if there were comments, that Yes Chapter 5 received. they are on file with the FAA region?

III. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: (150.21)

A. Are there two maps, each clearly labeled on the face with year Yes Figures 3 and 4 2000 and 2005 (existing condition year and 5-year)?

B. Map currency:

1. Does the existing condition map year match the year on Yes Figure 3 2000 the airport operator's submittal letter?

2. Is the 5-year map based on reasonable forecasts and other planning assumptions and is it for the fifth calendar Yes Figure 4 2005 year after the year of submission?

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 G:\PHOJECTs\29646o.APF\NEM.T2\Nov«mb« 2000 NEMwpd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000

FAR PART 150 NOISE EXDOSURE MAP CHECKLIST-PART I

Airport Name: Naples Municipal Airport REVIEWER:

Yes/No/ Page-Other Notes' NA Reference Comments 3. If the answer to 1 and 2 above is no, has the airport operator verified in writing that data in the documentation NA are representative of existing conditions and 5-year forecast conditions as of ttie date of submission?

C. If the NEM and NCP are submitted together. b. does the documentation specifically describe how these measures affect land use compatibilities NA depicted on the map? Both the 2000 1. Has the airport operator indicated whether the 5-year map and 2005 NEMs is based on 5-year contours without the program vs. NA indude the I contours if the program is implemented? existing NCP, as b. does the documentation specifically describe how described in these measures affect land use compatibilities NA Chapter 2. I depicted on the map? 2. If the five year map is based on program implementation: NA There is no change from the b. does the documentation specifically describe how existing, these measures affect land use compatibilities NA depicted on the map? approved NCP, so there Is no a. are the specific program measures which are basis for reflected on the map identified? NA discussing changes in land b. does the documentation specifically describe how use compatibility these measures affect land use compatibilities NA depicted on the map? or a version of the forecast 3. If the 5-year NEM does not incorporate program case NEM with implementation, has the airport operator included an I revised program additional NEM for FAA determination after the program is NA implementation. approved which shows program Implementation conditions and which is intended to replace the 5-year NEM as the new official 5-year map? IV. MAP SCALE, GRAPHICS, AND DATA REQUIREMENTS: [A150.101. A150.103, A150.105,150.21(A)] A. Are the maps of sufficient scale tob e dear and readable (they 1" = 3,750' must be not be less than 1" to 8,000'), and is the scale indicated Yes All figures approximately on the naps?

B. Is the quality of the graphics such that required information is Yes All figures dear and readable?

C. Depiction of the airport and its environs. Yes All figures 1. Is the following graphically depicted to scale on both the Yes 2000 NEM, existing condition and 5-year maps: Figure 3 and a. airport boundaries Yes 2005 NEM, Figure 4 b. runway configurations with runway and numbers Yes

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 G:\PFKUECTS\296460.APFWEM.T2\Navembw 2000 NERwpd 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" Page'Other Notes/ NA Reference Comments 2. Does the depiction of the off-airport data include:

a. a land use base map depicting streets and other Yes identifiable geographic features All figures rtgures o ana 4 b. area within 65 DNL (or beyond, at local discretion.) Yes Figures 3 and 4 include 60 dB c. clear delineation of geographic boundaries and the Figures 3 and 4 DNL, to respect names of ail jurisdictions with planning and land use Yes City of Naples control authority within the 65 DNL (or beyond, at Discussion in and Collier local discretion). Section 4.1 County policies. D. 1. Continuous contours for at least DNL 65, 70, and 75? Yes Figures 3 and 4 2. Based on current airport and operational data forth e I Chapter 3 presents current and existing condition year NEM, and forecast data for the 5- Yes year NEM? forecast operational data. I 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 Yes Figures 1 and 2 and 5-year NEM), which are numbered tocorrespon d to accompanying narrative? F. Locations of any noise monitoring sties (these may be on No monitoring supplemental graphics which must use the same tend use base NA map as the official NEMs) for this update.

G. Noncompatible land use identification:

1. Are noncompatible land uses within at least the 65 DNL Within 60 dB 1 depicted on the maps? Yes Figures 3 and 4 DNL 2. Are noise sensitive public buildings identified? See Figure 5 NA I and Section None exist 4.2.3 3. Are the noncompatible uses and noise sensitive public Within 60 dB buildings readily identifiable and explained on the map Yes Figures 3 and 4 I legend? DNL

4. Are compatible land uses, which would normally be considered noncompatible, explained in the NA accompanying narrative?

V. NARRATIVE SUPPORT OF MAP DATA: [150.21 (A), A150.1, A150.101, A150.103]

A. 1. Are the technical data, including data sources, on which the NEMs are based, adequately described in the Yes Chapter 3 narrative?

2. Are the underlying technical data and planning Yes assumptions reasonable? Chapter 3

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 Q:\PFCUECTS^96460APFWeM.T2V*jv«nbef 2000 NEM.wpd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000

FAR PART 150 NOISE EXPOSURE MAP CHECKLIST-PART I

Airport Name: Naples Municipal Airport REVIEWER:

Yes/No/ Page/Other Notes/ NA Reference Comments B. Calculation of Noise Contours: INM 6.0, was 1. Is the methodology indicated? Yes Chapter 3 used, the most a. is It FAA approved? current INM Yes Chapter 3 version at the b. was the same model used for both maps? Yes Chapter 3 time this NEM c. has AEE approval been obtained for use of a model Update was NA other than those with previous blanket FAA approval? prepared. 2. Correct use of noise models:

a. does the documentation indicate the airport operator Used unadjusted I has adjusted or calibrated FAA-approved noise NA INM 6.0 model models or substituted one aircraft type for another? and data. b. If so, does this have written approval from AEE? NA

3. If noise monitoring was used, does the narrative indicate No monitoring I NA that Part 150 guidelines were followed? data used. 4. For noise contours below 65 DNL, does the supporting Section 4.1 deseribe s the City of documentation include explanation of local reasons? Yes Naples and Collier County policies (Narrative explanation is desirable but not required.) which consider 6C)dB DNL. C. Noncompatible Land Use Information: |

1. Does the narrative give estimates of the number of people Table 8 presents residential residing in each of the contours (DNL 65,70 and 75, at a Yes population within 60 dB DNL, to minimum) for both the existing condition and 5-year maps? respect city and county policies 2. Does the documentation indicate whether Table 1 of Part 150 was used by the airport operator? No As discussed in Section 4.1, the NAA has modified the Part 150 tend a. If a local variation to Table 1 was used: use compatibility guidelines to develop land use compatibility (1) does the narrative cfearty indicated which criteria that respect City of Naples adjustments were made and the local reasons Yes and Collier County policies, which I fordoing so? consider tend use compatibility out (2) does the narrative include the airport operator's to 60 dB DNL. Table 7 presents a Yes complete substitution for Table 1? complete substitution for Table 1.

3. Does the narrative include information on setf-generated or ambient noise where compatjble/noncompatible land use NA identifications consider non-airport/aircraft sources? 4. Where normally noncompatible land uses are not depicted as such on the NEMs, does the narrative satisfactorily NA explain why, with reference to the specific geographic areas?

5. Does the narrative describe how forecasts will affect land Figure 4 and Yes use compatibility? Table 7

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 G:\PI^ECTS\296460.APFWEM.T2^lov«rt)« 2000 NEM.apd 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/ Page.Other Notes/ NA Reference Comments VI. MAP CERTIFICATIONS: [150.21 (B), 150.21 (E)] A. Has the operator certified in writing that interested persons have Public been afforded adequate opportunity tosubmi t views, data, and Yes consultation comments concerning the correctness and adequacy of the Certification exceeded draft maps and forecasts? page ii, Part 150 B. Has the operator certified in writing that each map and Chapter 5 requirements description of consultation and opportunity for public comment Yes and FAA are true and complete? guidelines.

I I

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 G:\F^OJECTS\296460.APf^BAT2V*««Tib«' 2000 NEM.wpd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 8

2. 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 one1, and approved one in part2. 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. 296460.01 G:»ROJECTSW4S0.APW

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 DESCRIPTION FAA ACTION IMPLEMENTATION (Year of NCP update which STATUS recommended measure)

Operational Measures

1. Preferential Runway (1997) Maximize use of Runway 5 for departures. Approved. Implemented 2, Flight Procedures (1997) Eliminate existing 2000' MSL initial Disapproved No further action departure restriction. (insufficient noise taken reduction)

3. Flight Paths (1997) Runway 5: straight Approved as Implemented Runway 23: right turn voluntary Runway 14: left turn measure Runway 32: right turn

4, Helicopters (1997) Centralized flight corridors, pilot education, Approved Implemented achieve altitude before departing airport

5. Ground Noise (1997) Ban night maintenance runups, designate Approved Implemented runup locations and orientations

6. Use Restrictions (1997) • Restrict night Stage 1 jet operations Approved Implemented • Voluntary Stage 2 and 3 night curfew Disapproved No further action • Future elimination of night Stage 2 Disapproved No further action operations

7. Use Restriction (1998) 24 hour Stage 1 restriction Approved Implemented Land Use Measures

8. Land Acquisition (1997) Acquisition in Rock Creek Campground Approved No action to date and Naples Villas to develop buffer.

9. Easements (1997) Purchase of easements in Naples Villas Approved No action to date and Rock Creek Campground.

10. Zoning/Land Use Planning Adoption of DNL 60 dB for zoning and land Approved Implemented (1997) use planning.

11. Fair Disclosure (1997) Develop fair disclosure program to Approved No action to date educate potential home buyers. Continuing Program Measures

12. Noise Officer (1997) Establish Noise Abatement Officer Approved Implemented position.

13. Noise Committee (1997) Establish Noise Compatibility Committee. Approved Implemented

14. Noise Monitoring Program Establish noise monitoring program; Approved Implemented (1997) acquire portable noise monitor.

15. Public Information (1997) Implement public information program. Approved Implemented

16. NCP Review, Evaluation, Regular or as needed NCP review and Approved Implemented and Revision (1997) evaluation.

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 G:\PnOJECTa2W4M.APRNeM.TaNownb8r 2000 NERwpcJ Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 10

3. 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 and flight track 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 2005. 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 150 §150.21 requirements.

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 B-m^jB^msmm.m?mMjmmmtm.mBNatupd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 11

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 and five-year forecast 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 and five-year forecast 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 2004. 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 the five-year forecast (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-by- airport 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. 296460.01 e^mxmmmmo.APmEM.Tmomtttm2000NEM.** Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 12

Table 3. Forecast 2000 Annual Average Day Aircraft Operations Source: SH&E, 2000

Touch and Go

2 Aircraft Departures Arrivals Operations' Total Category INM Type Example Aircraft Type Day Night Day Night Day Stage 1 Jet3 LEAR25 Learjet 23 0,01 0.01 0.01 0.01 — 0.04 Stage 2 jet LEAR25 Learjet 25 0.98 0.04 0.98 0.04 — 2.03 GIIB Gulfstream II 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.01 — 0.63 FAL20 Falcon 20 0.24 0.01 0.24 0.01 — 0,49 Stage 3 Jet LEAR35 Learjet 35 6.56 0.25 6.56 0.25 — 13.62 MU3001 Mitsubishi Diamond 300 3,48 0.14 3.48 0.14 — 7.24 CIT3 Cessna Citation 111 1.61 0.06 1.61 0.06 — 3.34 CNA500 Cessna Citation 500 1.48 0.06 1.48 0.06 — 3.07 CL601 Canadair Challenger 601 0.78 0.03 0.78 0.03 — 1.62 CL600 Canadalr Challenger 600 0.40 0.02 0.40 0.02 — 0.83 IA1125 Israel Astra 1125 Westwind 0.76 0.03 0.76 0.03 — 1.58 GIV Gulfstream IV 0.75 0.03 0.75 0.03 — 1.57 Lear 35 + 1.8 dB* Falcon 50/900 1.48 0.06 1.48 0.06 3.08 Total Jet 18.83 0.74 18.83 0.74 — 39.13 Turboprop DHC8 DeHavilland Twin Otter 8.11 0.62 8.11 0.62 — 17.45 S340 Saab 340 4.26 0.32 4.26 0.32 — 9.18 CNA441 Cessna Conquest 0.78 0.06 0.78 0.06 — 1.68 Total Turboprop 13.15 1.00 13.15 1.00 — 28.30 Piston BEC58P Beech B58 48.10 0.92 48.10 0.92 20.42 138.88 Single Engine Piston Propeller, GASEPF Fixed Pitch 27.42 0.53 27.42 0.53 11.64 79.17 Single Engine Piston Propeller, GASEPV Variable Pitch 19.91 0.38 19.91 0.38 8.46 57.50 DC3 Douglas DC3 1.31 0.02 1.31 0.02 2.65 Total Piston 96.73 1.85 96.73 1.85 40.52 278.19 Total Non-jet 109.89 2.84 109.89 2.84 40.52 306.50 Total Daily Operations 128.72 3.58 128.72 3.58 40.52 345.63

1 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. 296460.01 G:tfJROJECTS^64M.APRNai.TaNo»mtor 200Q NBttopd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 13

Table 4. Forecast 2005 Annual Average Day Aircraft Operations Source: SH&E, 2000

Touch and Go

2 Aircraft Departures Arrivals Operations' Total Category INM Type Example Aircraft Type Day Night Day Night Day Stage 1 Jet3 LEAR25 Learjet 23 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 — 0.04 Stage 2 Jet LEAR25 Learjet 25 0.67 0.03 0.67 0.03 — 1.40 GIIB Gulfstream II 0.21 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.43 FAL20 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.34 Stage 3 Jet LEAR35 Learjet 35 10.03 0.39 10.03 0.39 — 20.83 MU3001 Mitsubishi Diamond 300 5.19 0.20 5.19 0.20 — 10.79 C1T3 Cessna Citation III 2.66 0.10 2.66 0.10 — 5.52 CNA500 Cessna Citation 500 2.20 0.09 2.20 0.09 — 4.59 CL601 Canadair Challenger 601 1.16 0.04 1.16 0.04 — 2.41 CL6O0 Canadair Challenger 600 0.72 0.03 0.72 0.03 1.50 IA1125 Israel Astra 1125 Westwind 1.13 0.04 1.13 0.04 — 2.36 GIV Gulfstream IV 1.12 0.04 1.12 0.04 — 2.33 Lear 35 + 1.8 dB4 Falcon 50/900 2.21 0.09 2.21 0.09 4.57 Total Jet 27.48 1.07 27,48 1.07 — 57.11 Turboprop DHC8 DeHavilland Twin Otter 11.48 0.87 11.49 0.87 — 24.71 S340 Saab 340 5.41 0.41 5.41 0.41 — 11.64 CNA441 Cessna Conquest 1.61 0.12 1.61 0.12 — 3.45 Total Turboprop 18.50 1.40 18.50 1.40 — 39.82 riston BEC58P Beech B58 58.93 1.14 58.93 1.14 26.10 172.35 Single Engine Piston Propeller, GASEPF Fixed Pitch 35.11 0.68 35.11 0.68 15.55 102.68 Single Engine Piston Propeller, GASEPV Variable Pitch 24.85 0.48 24,85 0.48 11.00 72.67 Total Piston 118.89 2.31 118.89 2.31 52.66 347.70 Total Non-jet 137.39 3.71 137.39 3.71 52.66 387.51 Total Daily Operations 164.87 4.78 164,87 4.78 52.66 444.62

1 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. 296460.01 G:\PHOJECTSW4M.APFWm.T2»lo*»*8r 2000 NStafpd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 14

3.3 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 of totalnois e 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 1999. 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 05 23 14 32 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 1 representsth e departure flight tracks, and Figure 2 represents the 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. 296460.01 G:\PBOJECTaa»4eO.APF«EM.T2Wowmtof 2000 NBfafpd 2000 Part 150 Study Figure 1 Harris Miller Miliar & Hanson Inc. Naples Municipal Airport in cooperation with Modelled Departure Flight Tracks Simat Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc. 2000 Part 150 Study Figure 2 Harris Milier Miller & Hanson Inc. Naples Municipal Airport in cooperation wfth Modelled Arrival Flight Tracks Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc. 2500 Naples Municipal Aiiport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 17

Table 6. Modelei Fight Track Use

Departures Arrivals Runway Percent Use Percent Use Track Track Jet Turboprop Piston Prop Jet Turbo-prop Piston Prop 05 5N 75.0 5A1 16.5 34.7 5NA 12.5 5A2 34.7 33.0 5NB 12.5 5A3 12.8 25.8 12.8 5D1 17.5 5A4 52.5 12.4 5D2 11.0 17.5 5A5 12.4 52.5 5D3 11.0 17.5 504 12.0 34.7 5D5 27.5 4.2 5D6 27.5 4.2 5D7 11.0 4.4 Subtotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Subtotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 23N 70.0 8.3 23A1 11.0 34.7 23 23NA 12.5 8.3 23A2 52.5 11.0 23NB 12.5 8.3 23A3 34.7 12.0 12.8 23D1 16.5 17.4 23A4 12.8 33.0 2302 33.0 17.4 23A5 33.0 52.5 2303 4.3 23D4 5.0 25.8 4.2 23D5 4.3 23D8 26.2 23D7 28.3 Subtotal 100.0 100.0 100.1 Subtotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 14N 70.0 12.0 14A1 16.5 12.8 14 14NA 12.5 11.0 14A2 12.8 16.5 14NB 12.5 11.0 14A3 52.5 34.0 52.5 14D1 11.0 17.5 14A4 34.7 14D2 11.0 17.5 14A5 33.0 34.7 14D3 17.5 14D4 5.0 34.7 14D5 16.5 4.2 14D6 16.5 4.2 14D7 11.0 4.4 Subtotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Subtotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 32N 70.0 32A1 11.0 52.5 32 32NA 12.5 32A2 52.5 11.0 32NB 12.5 32A3 34.7 34.0 34.7 32D1 11.0 4.4 32A4 12.8 33.0 32D2 11.0 4.2 32A5 11.0 12.8 32D3 11.0 4.2 32D4 5.0 34.0 52.5 32D5 11.5 32D6 11.5 32D7 33.0 11.7 Subtotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Subtotal 100.0 100.0 100.0

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 BWROjwTstm4m.mmEmBmm^mmmNEM.^ Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 18

4. 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 in responset o 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 protect residential use within the 60 to 65 dB DNL contour interval, as discussed below.

4.1.1 City of Naples Land Use Compatibility Threshold

The City adopted 60 dB DNL as the threshold of land use compatibility by City Ordinance No. 98-8165 on January 21, 1998. 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 86-202 of the City's "Requirements for Site Plan Review" states that the GDSP reviewproces s 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 GDSP reviewproces s 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. 296460.01 s:vmMcrs^64m.APmmj»^mtmmoNEM^H Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 19

development. The City has not approved any residential development within the 60 dB DNL since the land use compatibility standards were changed in 1998.

4.1.2 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. 2000-43, on June 14, 2000. The Ordinance revised Section 2.2.23.4.2 ofthe County Land Development Code to add 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.

4.1.3 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 1 from Part 150 Appendix A, which reflects these revised land use compatibility criteria.

4.2 Land Uses within the 2000 and 2005 DNL Contours

Part 1501 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, §A150.101 (e)(5)

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 G^mjsxrs^^Fmmjmmmm,. Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 20

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) 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 >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 25 30 N N N Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y 25 30 N N N Governmental services Y Y 25 30 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 25 30 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 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) N Communication Y Y 25 30 N N

Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing general Y Y Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) N Photographic and optical Y Y 25 30 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 25 30 N N

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 G:VROJECTS^6460.APFWai.T2W(»«i*8r 2000 N£M.wpd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 21

Key to Table 7

SLCUM Standard Land Use Coding Manual, Y(Yes) Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. N(No) Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 25, 30, or 35 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 70-75 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. 296460.01 &VPRCUECTS\296460.APRNEM.T2Wo¥ember 2000 NEM.«pd Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 22

4.2.1 Non-Residential Land Area within the 2000 NEM Contours

Comparison of Figure 3 and Figure 5 shows that the 2000 65 dB DNL contour extends off airport property only to the northeast into areas used for compatible commercial and industrial purposes, to the southwest over the Gordon River, and to the northwest over open space adjacent to the river.

The 2000 60 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 2000 60 dB DNL contour in the other three directions. Other than these residential areas, to the 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.

4.2.2 Land Area within the 2005 NEM Contours

The 2005 contours are slightly smaller than the 2000 contours and extend over the same general off- airport areas and uses.

Comparison of Figure 4 and Figure 5 shows that the 2005 65 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 2005 60 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 2005 60 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.

4.2.3 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 2005 60 dB DNL contours.

4.3 Population in Non-Compatible Areas

Table 8 presents the estimated residential population within 60 dB for the 2000 and 2005 DNL contours:

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. Report No. 296460.01 o^vs^.*^™^ m ^ Naples Municipal Aiiport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 23

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 23 14 32 (City land (County land (County land (County land area to the area to tie area to tie area toth e southwest) northeast) northwest) southeast) Total 2000 Existing Conditions 930 0 4! 498 1,432 2005 Forecast Conditions 930 0 0 376 1,308

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 and five-yearforecas t 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. 296460.01 G-mmmTsim^PFmmTmmmmtmr I Norwxxnpatibte (and use (residential) Part 150 Study Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. — Airport property Ine Figure 3 — Jurisdictional boundary in cooperation with 2000 Noise Exposure Map Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc.

prepared for o 2900 8000 Naples Airport Authority Non-compatible land use (residential) Part 150 Study — — — Airport property Ine Figure 4 Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. "" Jurisdictional boundary in cooperation with 2005 Noise Exposure Map Simat Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc.

prepared for 2500 9000 Naples Airport Authority Figure 5. Generalized Land Uses Naples Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update - November 2000 27

5. 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, 2000. 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, 2000. 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 County1, 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, 2000. 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. 296460.01 SSaiKT^^RNEM.T»N0«n*ar2000NBU* 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. 296460.01 G:VROJECTS2964eO.APFWEM.T»Nov«iiber 2000 NEM.«pd PAX TRANSMITTAL

u.i Deoartmenr of Transoorrcitari

Adrrunlihulion

Su6iecT: ^SOJ!: Recommendation for Approval 0aw. of Maples Municipal Airport, SEP 29 jgg? Florida, NCP Update

Di r ffi e of *°*~ "r? ' ° f ^^r t Planninga JT; VXCatlett- ' and Programming, APp-i ' FAX:267-8821 To: Associate Administrator for Airports

Region has evaluated fhmwro fElTl. " * te Southern forth in the* •SSSd'ScS cf^^rtei0a " S"

SJ**11 2' 1987 • <=he FAA determined that the noise

d start Sf t.X"8"Say JSdSt"E^"£rSi ?™~

it the NCP 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,' che airport DNL 6Sd contained in Table l of il tm Lit"SS** 2?, * as j have been submitted f«£ parc,150 • Fifteen measures ^ include several sutefemenr^ ^f^*1' Some °f ^ measured reco of program measures w??h Sa *»ending approval qualification^ th the follow^ exceptions and

S facf ofPnSfsf ^fiH™^ f?* d^PP^l due to ^ig^^ S reconm€ ded for of Part K T ^ disapproval for purposes avalSle at the SrST* T\°£ tech*°^ not implementing that n5?T™ *?* ^ n°1Se befits of shown. 3 Chat portion of che measure have not yet been

Three subelements are presented under "use re-t^A^ . These subelementa have generated inrl^e? restrictions.-

with representSH^^ai^rf^hi e \

recommendations set forth in the MCP portray the FAA's IT^rT af5er careful consideration of the^ata presented ™d Tere reached afte*" consideration of aSucaKL laws and regulations. Two of the three measures iSf^ for approval The Qf-™ 7 ffr^ are nat recommended S 1 ni been evaluated f=«EwS u f Sr^time curfew has en evaiuafe

S ! £y" IfTssT mfal™^S WGre ad°pted * °«ii^nce in y, , The airport sponsor was advised at a meed™ on ^uly 27 l«7 that it would be in violatfofo? SSFSt Part 161 if the Stage 2 phaseout goes into-effect withour first complying with applicable portions of Par? i£.

aSa^ COnti^ia9 Program measures are recommended

SL™^"? ^inistrator for Policy, Planning and ^^?aCi°nal AviaClon ^d the Chief Counsel have con™^ ^;Lthe ^commendations of the Southern Region ?° ^r !?ffe^iC- ChG rec°™^ded FAA determinations you should «VaPPr°Ved" Une 00 the attached memorandum? i ' recommend your approval. 1

Paul L. Galis Attachment \

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

\ 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) . it 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 150.23(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

7.2.1 Preferential Runway.

It is recommended that the existing preferential runway measure to maximize the use of Runway 4 for departures and Runway 22

S f r a rcr f wich r/Pm^\ ° 4 * * 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,*Leducat:i0" and Preferential runway assignment by the air a3 7 ? C?n£r1X?rf When the tower is Upases 3-3 to 3-8 lid t0 3'3' 3~16' 7-2: and Figures 3-1

FAA Action: Approved.

7.2.2 Flight Procedures,

This measure recommends elimination of the existing restriction X l°J^ ^i^}^ alcicudes departure from Naplel Municipal Airport APF) to 2,000' above sea level (ASL) . (pages 3-12 3-13, and 7-3; Figure 3-4; and Tables 3-6, 3-16 and 7-2) 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.

7.2.3 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 1997. (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 TLS to define complex curved approach and departure paths, pending submission of additional information describing benefitS CheSe avSi?Ib;a. °* "Piques when technology becomeE

7.2.4 Helicopters.

Jfc ^commended that the existing noise abatement measure for helicopters be continued including modification of SS SucatJon'ol'r?^ ce^^*^ 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. 7.2.5. Use Restrictions.

The following measures were adopted by ordinance effective m*„

a?La^SeTLdcL0drera™ * ^

airport; nighCtime elirainatiotl of Stage 1 aircraft use of the

night^ime'hoSs;^ ""^ °f Sta9e 2 aad 3 ^ets

f , °' . «ture nighttime elimination of Stage 2 aircraft affa, fSlbefxn?ln5 of the year 2000, which is the target S th« 7flf^01pS^:°Ut °f 2 a±yCraft ^ate?rtSn- -

These restrictions would not apply to emergency flight-*

FAA Action.:

that Stage 1 operators have been successfullv IJE^l Co co support . with this measure. AThe ent NCPK atafcen r^f rS. * *«ply _0 _> _ t . " - 3tateo tnat this measure unui w reduce the population impacted within the DNL 65

™h;j x^x^r arises g ss s^sr1-

withdrawn in accordance with section 150.35(d) (6) .

b Disapproved for purposes of Part 150 pendino SlvSfs°Si?J St2fficient formation to make aS fSormed

sSoTI W«h respecc to ^ 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°fSe benefits measure. Truly voluntary °?^ira """"J.effecting Stage 2 and Stage 3 ^ aircraft are not subject to 14 CFR Part 161. However anv changes Tto the method of implementation which may Iff4cT 13 meafire is vol^tary would be subject to applicabl»™V£ Je 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 plrcent^rffl" ^ St3teS Chat "SigSifi^tJ^less cSan 1

percent of all corporate 3et operations at APF are in aircraft * h™ffi *ross takeoff weights over 75,000 pSxnds « Xrc il^#Vire- fePar?*te 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. 7.2.6 Ground Noise.

It tt oem0n?nSd?dnnhaC C?e existin^ ban on nighttime (between 1996° ^7:00 a-m-> maintenance runups, effective May 15 for ^Jntenancf liT^n^0^ or^ntations reoom^Lded coL?™^ Sf d pre-fll9ht 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 T 2™lr° ma^require ^e aircraft for an early^mSrSlng departure which would have to incur a substantial delav if ^^

runup could not be conducted until after 7:0Sa!m Fo^such XS^J ' raanafe!!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 fo^tT*0^ aircraft ^ould be conducted ItPone ofgthe UPb Sh0Wn 0a F gUXe 3 19 in thc CP Cnn1^?o" - i " * document and as wind conditions permit, should be oriented to the north or Figures 3-18 and 3-17). -aoies 3-16, 7-1 and 7-2; and

I^AiG? USE MEASURES

7.3.1 Land Acquisition.

2SL™aS!f* fecommendc land acquisition in Rock Creek

FAA Action; Approved under 14 CFR Part ISO with resrwr-t- r«

SS KISS'S SL^^i"!"F°T 4" — ^

However rho tne parameters of this Part 150 approval

7.3.2 Easements.

Rook Can^o^d t! d^^rnSldrat:ion °£ compatible us2TS£2nrf roYlde an adequate buffe r of £or 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=i9e 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.

7.3.3 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 and 7-3; and Figure 5-2) . 3 * FAA Action: Approved. This is within the authority of the local: land use planning jurisdictions.

7.3.4 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

7.4.1 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 all noise abatement/land use compatibility programs as well aa indeTabfati°a °f n°iSe COTnPlaints • (pages 2-3, 6-1 and 7-6-

PAA Action: Approved 7,4.2 Noise Compatibility Advisory Committee.

This measure recommends the implementation of a noise rSSesentatiL^fSOZY COnraitcee wit* membership consisting of representatives of airport users and tenants, local officials area businesses, area residents, and Airport management" Sii 7 be •» advisory committee to provide feedback regardino noise issues and represent all interests on anSarouId trJ9 airport. (pages 6-1 and 7-6; and Table 7-4). FAA Actions Approved.

7.4.3 Noise Monitoring Program.

This measure recommends the implementation of a noise monitoring program and the purchase (or rental) of a portable SSfS m?niC°r and^ssociated computer software and JaSES ca Sr'fSS ^R0UND;NS ^.^T^0" » ^sist the noise abatement officer by providing sites.for noise monitoring, (pages 6-2 and 7-6,- and Table 7-4). 9 FAA Action: Approved.

7.4.4 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 cSSETX the newsletter which is routinely published by the NAA 13 (pages 6-2 and 7-6; and Table 7-4). FAA Actions Approved.

7.4.5 NCP Review, Evaluation, and Revision.

This measure recommends that the Noise Compatibility P-ooram h» reviewed and evaluated on a regular basis^o measure ^ bC performance against goals. The Part ISO will be updated ev.ru llb!ey?a?K°r SOOUer if aPP^able. (pages 6-2 anH-sf anl^

FAA Action: Approved 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. 296460.01 G:VROJECTa2»46o.APRNEM.T2M>to«mbef 2000 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Office Of The Associate Administrator For Airports Washington, DC

fto;

Number of pages including cover:

Fax number: 202-267- © Memorandum USDoportmenl erf Importation

ACTION: Record of Approval for M* ^ 1 1999 Naples Municipal Airport (APF), Naples, Florida

From; "GP4f to Director. Office of Airport Manning Atta * And Programming

To: Associate Administrator for Airports

Attachedfor your action is an updateto the Noise Compatibility Program for ^nidpal Mrp0tt (APF)- °n Septeniber 3.1998, the FAA announced its irtentanto approve or disapprove the proposed update within 180 days. The last day for such action is March 2, 1999.

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 planto phas e 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 recommendationsto the FAA for approval as part of its NCP. In July 1997, the FAA advised the airport ^ ft wtth 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 proposesto ba n 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 objectingto th e 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 dateto implement the purchase of avigation easements or the land acquisition measures that FAA approved in the September 1997 ROA. 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

-S3*i tl i jr>«ii » vf^ Paul L Gaiis Attachments FEDEHMJ AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

RECORD OF APPROVAL PART 150 MOISl COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM REVISION

Naples Municipal Airport Naples, Florida

NONCONCUR

Assistant Administrator for 1 Date Policy* Planning, and International Aviation, API-l

DISAPPROVED

sistant Administrator Date for Airports, ARP-1 RECORD OF APPROVAL

NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

NAPLES, FLORIDA

The operational measure below summarizes as closely as possible tie airport TH^t ^T*:?ati0r1 ,n the Noise CompatibHrty Program (NCP) Update and Is 2^ to P«?if m- The statemente contained within the summVnSxT

BACKGROUND

In EKSft !n9J* .the£laP,eB Ajrport Author«y (NAA) submitted to the FAA an Update ^.fSJ150 No.se CompaUbility Program (NCP)for Naples Municipal Airport (APR ^P?^nS,,Sted.?15 meaaure3' one ^ich would allow operator* bySfegTl

PP , ht rne o£w f " ? l curfew and most ofthe other measures submitted by the a rport eponsor. In March of 1098, the NAA submitted a second Update to Ha Part ISO m r^^T' ^ pf0posed extendi"9th° current Stege Lrfew to a ftl 7^rpS&

On September 18,1998, the FAA published a notice in the Federal Resistor ~9 ^li^t^J!^"9 m* NCP s^mitted by Naples and requesting 4 2 FAA rece,ved EIES^ • ? ^t ; A?U w ^er, from the National Business

Aviatan Association (NBAA), dated March mm27,1S98 m . That letter Indicated that it SieS °! * •»1997 NCPfor NaX object ng torestnctton s on Stage 1 aircraft operations. The March 27 letter summarized ^A?^C°rf^,^eCtln010 the Sta8e 1 *»»• 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. 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 ^Sr^c curfewon 0Perattans by Stage i aircraft (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to a 24 k LSf H TU6"?6".^' medical' ^ government flights or other flights which are for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare would be exempt frorn the ban" (NCP

J^l2S5:Amendment to NEM and NCP * 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?toreduce *» n^of resWen JdweB^Tnte rtNntti Sn ^22: f 1^°I7 dweirmQ uni*.and to ^move 120 dividual! from the66 dB DNL contour. In 2003, the number of residences significantly Impacted bv^ToisL v^.w

aYtlf^JESSi th!LtanJB ^"T^ because there are no Stage I aircraft base? sl^n^nl^ 1SS t° 0pT?^iperday are affected by the ban. Thereat 228rtf 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^^SLflranda,he^,p- F^ those who do not oTanSTe 5603086 there are Ses^ftJU miles S !?N^!!? , «"° other airports located within of the city of Naples that can accommodate the affected aircraft

£f nnT^wtL^^ d06S 001 conslder 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 to this 24-hour ban The FAA mb T ^lt11X? * 1 "7 *• BXCePti0n * emer98nCy ^ Sn" •

2^^°?°^^ Stafle 1 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds is not federally preempted because the scheme of federal regulation of Stag^^craftfe not sopervasive as to make reasonable the inference toatFAA left no n^ for alSort S^l^T6!"",JJ6 FM'6 intBrest ln Sta9°1 » SSSSint mat the federal system should be assumed to preclude enforcement of local rutes on

9«ntdFr°=i?^! S"y P ^ff,*? predude ^ exercf8e of State authority. See Rice v Sanla FeFlevatnrCnrp,. 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). See Pacific Gae & EiJ^ rEv' RESOUREESR™«»™»™ANDD«^P^*™n'n, j»i i}q inn%'

2 / By stating its Intent to conduct further study and actions as may be appropriate when ft ^^eJadJf' * W"f ^ operations by Stage 1 aircraft weS 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-XS n°,Se kmm 1m Ufbom alrplmm W9i9hin9 75,000 pounds or less cannot t ZrZ^rt '7 manner^nslstent with the constraints ln...the Aoi However, the FAA 116 m LUKHI^,^ ^ Tt 01 the pub,ic 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 50055 (December 23.1878)Tli^SS!? X?

th U 0 such aircraft !s Am ? ?A\ E ooing gradually eliminated through attntion. Although FAA Advisory Circular 150-5020-1, Airport Noise Como3tv S« 5,1983. and the 1976 Departmelof iSns^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 n lB %£IT™ read in f"teXt dearthat «* FAA is speaking onlyXrt Stage 1 a^raft weighing more than 75,000 pounds. These guidance dolumenteimm stent

mtl?fPV/^ *« 7WJ00 pounds. Neither S^22L manifests FAA intent to supersede the exercise of proprietary power.

Given FAA's exercise of a detailed and supervisory role over Stage 1 aircraft weiohino mom than 75 000 pounds, FAA's silence In these droumstanc^lshcii^ofte ^ Q 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? Sffi^ determined ****** acfon fe TOt ^a^^^ »n^Sf0nfmLrequ,r,rg natjonal regulation. There do not appear to be any app^oable nsks of disruption In traffic to and from airports or economic^ietrels arnono earners thaiRequire a federal policy to balance the goal of noise redSn wl 9 economic and technological difficulties. wnwm

Sat^ Pre*™?*™ results from actual conflict between As tn re18 no f J^^rJfi l ® ederal requirement concerning the pace of elimination of operations by Stage 1 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds aircraft

ohSio^ 068 m apP!ar Sta9*1 at NaP^ Airport would stand as an 6 CCOmp 8hment and executto of h T! « P^'Poses and objectives of Correal usl hv^P6 *Tlnumberofsuch alrcraft. *• fact that none are batedlirtT used by air camera at the airport, and the role of Naples Airport indicate thatthe ban ZS^^ 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 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. 296460.01 G:\PROJECTa2»»«).APRNEM.TaNt««rt3sr 2000 NEM.wpd Naples Municipal Airport Part 150 Noise Update

Activity Forecasts for 2004

Prepared for: Prepared by: IIAA

NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY International Air Transport Consultancy

November, 2000 WW 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 P

Trend Analysis g

Revised Operations Forecast 10 SECTION II: FLEET MIX AND TIME OF DAY FORECASTS 13

Methodology m 13

Overview of Operations Breakdown Today 14 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 "25 Night Activity - the Voluntary Curfew .3!Z!!ZZ!13!."""!.**27 Night Forecast " 2j» Complete Forecasts for 1999 and 2004 29

Table of Contents -/- SH&E NMtBHUMCmLWPORr Part 1 50 Noise Update

TABLE OF FIGURES

Exhibit 1 Forecast vs. Actual Daytime Operations 1994-1999 2

Exhibit 2 Forecast vs. Actual Daytime Operations by Category 1994-1999 3

Exhibit 3 Weekly Scheduled Departures from Naples by Airline August 1994-1999..4

Exhibit 4 Historical Based Aircraft 7

Exhibit 5 Historical Operations Trends 10

Exhibit 6 Revised Total Operations Forecast 12 I Exhibit 7 1999 Daytime Operations by Aircraft Type 15 Exhibit 8 1999 Daytime Jet Operations by Noise Stage 15

Exhibit 9 1999 Jet Aircraft Fleet Mix I 16

Exhibit 10 1999 Operations by Time of Day -|7

Exhibit 11 Projected US General Aviation Fleet 18

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

Exhibit 16 Forecast Distribution of Jet Operations by Noise Stage 24

I Exhibit 17 Jet Fleet Mix Forecast for 2004 25

Exhibit 18 Nonjet Fieet Mix Forecast for 2004 26

I Exhibit 19 Curfew Violation Response Cards by Category 28

Exhibit 20 2004 Forecast Day-Night Split by Aircraft Category 29

Exhibit 21 1999 Forecast of Jet Operations Per Day 30

Exhibit 22 1999 Forecast of Nonjet Operations Per Day 31

Exhibit 23 2004 Forecast of Jet Operations Per Day 31

Exhibit 24 2004 Forecast of Nonjet Operations Per Day 32

Table of Contents -/;- SH&E 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 2004.1 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: first reach a 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 and research into 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 drawn fromtowe r records provided by the NAA. Together, these sources give us the benefit of four years of consistently maintained data. Starting in 1996, NAA

All years in this report refer to the Naples Airport Authority's fiscal year, which runs from 1 October through 30 September. We have used fiscal years to maintain consistency with the airport's Master Plan, capital budgeting and other records.

Operations Forecast -/- SH&E 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.

Data regarding based aircraft were compiled by NAA and updated regularly. 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 1994-1999

Avg. Avg. Utrter Plan «». Actual 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 94-99 95-99

"oreoast 110,411 115,433 120,295 125,400 130,759 138,383 Total Actual 110,411 100,754 111,023 112,324 107,951 123,213* 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. 1997 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 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

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 I 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 I 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 8 1994-1999

Base M »*w Plan va. A ctual Vear 198S 1996 1997 199B 1999 orecast Air Canter 17,657 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 20,000 Actual Air Carrier 17,857 19,830 19,808 14,824 13,504 13,719 °"y,,m< r-orecaat Local GA I Operations 34,217 35,004 38,754 38,582 40,521 42,548 Detail Actual Local GA 34,217 27,878 27.979 29,089 23,582 28,765 : Forecast Itinerant GA 58,386 62,229 85,341 68.608 72,038 75,640 ; Actual Itinerant GA 58,388 53,085 61,272 68,323 70,795 80,673

Source Forecast: Post Buckley, Schuh i Jerenigan, Inc. 1997 Master Flan Update Source Actual: APF Activity Reports (12AKHH»). Aircraft Operations ReporWaples Tower (1093-11/95), Master Plan (94)

Operations Forecast -3- SH&E 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 1996. 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 1994-1999

••al f§ US Afcrwayi ExprMt •« gQulfctrun

QCcpe Atr |An«letn E«gt* • In r'H '—' 1

Weekly Schodu'ed 2.22S 3,083 2 073 1,527 1 5S5 1,702 Seats

Source: OAQ Market Rtos

Operations Forecast -4- SH&E 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.

Telephone interviews conducted in mid October 1999 with representatives of American Eagle, Comair and Gulfstream. Other airlines were contacted but declined to respond. 3 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 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 come from Europe, 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 aircraft rentalprice s 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, starting from the reduced 1995 base.

Operations Forecast -6- SH&E 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 to fly to 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, flight school 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 can fluctuate wildly over the course of the year.

Exhibit 4 Historical Based Aircraft

1094 1995 199S 1997 1998 1999

soure.: Bated liKfafl — NAA: Operation* - APF AclMtf Report* |i2M4m)

Operations Forecast -7- SH&E 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 1999.

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 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 1996.4 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 dramatically reshapedcivi l 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 1996. Since that time, however, total operations have grown at an average of 5 percent a year, in line with our revised forecast. General aviation operations have also grown dramatically, although most dramatically in itinerant GA, accompanied by a relative reductioni n 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.

University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, The Florida Long-term Economic Forecast 1998, (Gainesville, 1998). 5 Ibid

Operations Forecast -9- SH&E Part 1 50 Noise Update

Exhibit 5 Historical Operations Trends

Daytima Air GA- OA- GA - Operations Cantor itinerant Local Military Total Total

1999 13,719 80,673 28.765 56 123.213 109,438 1988 13,504 70,795 23,582 70 107,951 94,377 1997 14,824 68,323 29,089 88 112,324 97,412 1996 19,608 61,272 27,979 135 109,194 89,251 1005 19,630 53,085 27,878 181 100.764 80,943 1094 17,657 58,386 34,217 151 110,411 92,603 1993 14,070 57,618 45,194 195 117fl77 102,812 1992 13,905 62,313 41.258 263 117,739 103,571 1991 18,698 65,380 39,732 184 123,994 106,112 1990 19,757 65,798 37,428 176 123.159 103,226 1989 15,754 60,044 36,962 185 112,945 97,006

1985 13374 44^19 23,808 90 82.291 68,327

Compound Annual

CAGft 85-94 2.7% 3.1% 4.1% 5.9% 3.3% 3.4% CAGR 89-99 •1.4% 2.9% -2.4% •11.9% 04% 12% CAGR 94-99 •4.9% 6.5% -3.3% -192% 2.1% 3.3% CAGR 95-99 -8.6% 10.8% 1.0% -26.8% 5.1% 7.7%

Source: FY 96-99 from NAA Monthly Activity Reports; FY 95 from Napiee Tower Record*; FY 85-94 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 1997. 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 1995.

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 NAPLES IWNKML AJRPOBT Part 1 50 Noise Update

methodologies, including comparative analysis of existing forecasts, market share capture, trend analysis and socioeconomic correlation. The document deterrnined that a variety of locally-specific factors drive growth at Naples, leading to higher growth rates than had been predicted by some broad-brush state and federal forecasts. Our task has been to evaluate whether that is still the case, and whether the Master Plan forecast remains an appropriate tool to measure the noise impacts of Naples Airport. With the caveats detailed in this report, we believe the growth rates forecast in the Master Plan continue to be a compelling estimate of future activity at Naples.

Based on our deeper understanding of Naples Airport traffic today, our forecasts include certain important updates. In the Air Carrier category, we recognize that another phase of market consolidation took place in 1997, reducing air carrier operations. After three years of stability, we believe the market has stabilized and may begin to accommodate a small amount of turboprop growth.6

In the General Aviation category, we note that flight schools had experienced a drop in activity in 1995 that to some degree reset the growth trend. More important, around the same time it appears that flight schools shifted a significant portion of their touch-and-go activity to other airports near Naples. This change dramatically reduced local GA operations at Naples Airport and recalibrated the relationship between local and itinerant GA operations. Subsequently, growth in both itinerant and local GA resumed at the average rate forecast in the Master Plan but followed from a lower base. Finally, the last year has seen a dramatic increase in local and itinerant GA activity. From interviews we conducted with Naples Airport businesses, we believe this increase relates primarily to a growth in flight school activity. This growth is likely to continue, but not at the extraordinary pace of this past year.

6 Despite a trend toward increased use of regional jets by commuter airlines, smaller scheduled markets such as Naples are likely to continue to be served by turboprops for some time.

Operations Forecast -7 7- SH&E 'KG

Part 1 50 Noise Update

The updated operations forecast follows in Exhibit 6. Although our forecast for total operations is very close to the Master Plan projection, we have made some important distinctions by category to reflect the recent market changes we have observed. Most important, we have accounted for the apparent change in flight school activity that has taken place since the Master Plan was published.

Exhibit 6 Revised Total Operations Forecast

Day and Night GA Operations Air Carrier Itinerant Local Total Military Cargo Total

1999 Actual with Night 14,002 82,167 29,863 112,030 63 0 126,189

2004 Revised Forecast with Night 18,977 104,812 38,437 143,249 60 0 1S2.286

Implied Annual Growth flaw 6% 5% 5% 5% -1% 0% 6%

Source: Actual 0«ta from NAA Acttvtty Reports; Forecast from SH4£

Operations Forecast -12- SH&E