The URL can be used to link to this page

Item B1 J:\IMAA.TI1OW\AU' Update\""'. I>!P s.t\lIl~--'U"-"U.\1 OI/25/2Q(J1 '::wI ; I Ii i III = III1 ~ ; i U i Ii i i i III I ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ! B ~ I~ I1II ~ Bill ~ ~~IB ~g iiiiil ~ I i I I ~ I ~! I ~! I I ) II ~ I . III I..I! 2i~J:3~0:q:<.lf"l ~~~~s~'lll II D.~l:J~. f lilill .1 i I II" I ! I ~ I ~ ~ _ :: , ~~~I~@~H)(~-V~~rifirf ~!!II I I I I III II I ~~~- ::,F ~~~I~@~H)(~-V~~T ~ l~ftI~!!I! ~~ jiiiill i I ~ I R/W ltlRE'SHOlD ~T iiiiii~! 1/ 'Ii \ ~ I / ~ \ ;t t " i~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!1 : / I~ \ i L_+_--1 I 0 I w, -l ~~n~~1l ~ . ~~~i ~~~i :i i i "1;1~!i ~t:>~" ~I ~ ~~~i ~i~i ~s B ilU hl~ hi ~I ~ie~ B.~~ ~~ :'I"~:! ~=~~ ~i ~~1;1~ ~~MB:..5 . ~~~ ~lE~ ~s = ~ 16~ ~p~~ ;~ II ~~Cl ~~ ~ i ~ 2 ~~ ~~ 0 ",i! "II it:> ~ Iii Iii Iii II!III Ii iilllll IU iil I i ii Iii !;P i II i I II III i ! i ! i I ! III I Ii ! Ilili g i I~ng~ I r 1 i ~g h- ~ I ~ In N! i ::i ! ~.:... ~ ~ I npu ii' ~ II! I II ! III I P i d I !j: lll[lll . , ~ ~ , !I ~ - ~ 5 . ill ~ i ! I n ~ l ~ . ~ .... a ~ E d Iii I ~ ~ I J . , Ii . z e ~ QI ~ I~ ~ = II ~ ~ lli: !/i ~ ! ~ - l! Ii ~! ~l ~ 8 . n ~~ Ii ~ l:: ! 0( . j ~ . ~ 0 I I w z .1- . I I I , I I I ~ a , ' I ~ I I \ Ii i iln i ~ . i i Ii ~ i .... a i!! I "I I i ill nnn . Ui n U lil ~ i .J 8 ... I I I i I n Ii i ~ ~ ~ ~ . z ~ ~ , Ii t; i i i i I n i iii ~ t; ...., Ii ~ ~ ! r n in I . in i I U lil ~ , 8 i.1 d i i I i i n u ~ ; e ~ I . z III~U~ I~I~!I! I I ~ I ~ - ~ i ~ I !t I > Ii! > i ~ ~I ~I ~ B e ~ :II ~ ~I h! n ! i ~ ~ ~. z ~ > ! l; . ,. iilinil ! ~ iiliUq . z il jpUU i ~ '" ~~ ~U;li i 'I i >12 ~~Q ;;I....'" > ";;1 I~I ~q i~i~ t Ul.... ~ n~;;l ~ig f I~~~ i~ II Iii 1i!1 i .... ~ i ~ !!!illl~ :I!~~x~~g II ~ ; ~~ I I ~U~h~ !lll~~~ ~ I I ~ ~il/"i 0 ~p~!L ~~-<~;~ a I < :.,"'~ ~ )- %Ja!u s i~ II r- ~~ ~~ :I! m >< (j) c: -t r- Z -t G) if ....... )> " c: -t -t m c: )> :xl :a m '"tJ )> 0 :a :xl '"tJ -t 0 r- :xl )> -t .< r- 0 )> c: -< -t 0 C c: :xl -t )> '" c ~ ,.., :xl Z VI )> VI - G) ,.., ~ z Z -< G) - ~ r- - _PREPARED FOR fjj~ 1 ~ 4 ~ B~~~":M~lg~~::Y AIRPORT LAYOUT ORA WING \ _ _': == / MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA ........==== ==~~."" GENERAL CONSULTANTS u...-.-......... THE FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT ..... .. " 1JIIS sa MAR A THON, FLORIDA Ph: ('1a)2__'711 i 1111 I~i II III! I~ I~ I~ g o I: ~~ ~}-L o ...D r--' \ , \ ! , \ 1 r--' \ , \ ! , \ I 1 T " ... . ..., ti ... ~IiI~li Ii h i- i iiiiiH i iiWill iiiiiil ... IF iiiiiii =~l._ 1 \ , ! \ , \ L__J I ~~in U.~ ~ > -Iii j! PI ~I g~ I R a I f~~ ~~~ ~~I~ ll!l_ 1101,... !:E:iS I ~ ~ ~9~1 ~!! Ui~! a !!II i~ j ~. e ~ ~ ~~e I ~~I :I iiil~ M ~1I lliS~. S~;:: ,.., ...... VI :g; i~!~~:I~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ii! ; i i ~ u ;!~~~'" ~~! ~u ~~~ Nti i !;; ~ ~ i ~~~li IJ ~ ~~! ~~lil !! ~ ~ ~ l5 ~ :;}~ ~ 0\ ,,1 a~ ~ ~ ~ ~e >~TBI!! ~ & ~~i i!~ ,..~ I: ~ ~! 15~~~:l! ..j I II i~1lI fAil ~:! 5 alil ~~i~8il Ii l ~J ~~~ ~i ~ e :i jli;;! ~ii 1;;&;;Ii ~~ ~;.~:! > ~ - Ii ~ ~R)18~ ~~ ~ 'g~ "'~ ~ 5 ! hT '1lI~ ~:l! ~ h ~~ ;;I" I ~g51~~:I! !i · ~~~ ii ~ ~ B ~ 1lI~ ~R.I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ; : . ~ l" 8 II' N'P. 1l4l[ NO. - II' N'P. 1l4l[ 1111111= ! LJ\_~ f II ~ f ! ~ .11 D I T r~! I 1 I I I ~ ;C <l f"T1 Q Q ~ If;; -1-10;CC;C ~-ij;<lc;') ~i: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (;) ~ 0 :I>;:;j Z.!.. -< -< g tI) 0 C ~ ~ ~ ;C ::!O ITl_ (II lil .., :I> lD :J: .., I " !6 <l > ~~ ~ frl ~ i+1 R ~ 4. ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~~ 9 ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =< z > ~~ > il ~ ~ ;C VI 0 ~ :I> C ~~ ~; ~ ~ ", ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0- Z<l > :I> lD!;; ITl ~ uI~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ IT'! > ~ ~ o c;') IT'! II I 0 ~ ~<' i ~ Ii 5~ I 5; %=e II ~~ 'ii ~Iz:biil II -i R I II I I I II II II I II II II II I iii II II II i1 II il II I I I I I I T II I I I I I I I I ~ i: ~ 5l~ S6 >(') 0 ::J8 (3 ~> .... ~~ ~ ~~ ~ "tl I -< 0- > (11 ~ ~ I g ! ~~ 9 g ! I I I I I I .}l i 1 i 1 ! ~ III D i i!~ i! i! 0 AI AI "tl ,.., ,.., ,., ~ (') ~ ~ ~ !i ~ AI ~ ~ ~ ~ 1M ~f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.,= -< -< r- -< -< ~ " " z ::u z ::0> ~ @ ,.., ~ @ 0 ~ ~ 0 g~ ~ r.; ~ "'1 Fi; :I: ~ ~ iO ::0 _AI =< (') ~ !:1 () ~ I ~ :!' S6 ~~ .... -< --l Cl ~ iO ,., ,.., ~.... ~ il ~ ~ ~ ~ ig "tl Ei ~ ~~ ~ ~ IT1 ~ ~ III ~ ~ ~ r- "'~ ~ > ~ to ;:;; ~ z ,., ::0 ~ C ~ tl > ~ E! ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ . 8 , I.... :lO Ii ~~ !~ h :lO g 5.... ~~ 8~ %I~ ~ i ;!I i1i & iiI !IIN i = -I [3 I I I) I I Ii illlll=l.o: ? ! ! ~4f ~ 'I :II 'I i ~~ I I I I I I ' " , MM' 1M "'. M..." -iO~~;,O ~u;~;g~ -i> ~ > 51 z ~ .~ ::l ~ z ~ 0 > ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :. ~ Q ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~m > ~ 0 < 13 0 'i! ~ ~ .0 0 Z, < ~ ~ g I ~ , , , > ~ ~ M~ ~ @ ~ ~ "'. , . p ~ ~ 0 0 .. > " ~ M 0 ~ . . 0 ~ ,> · 8~ M ~ M ~ ~. ~ ~ , >. C C. ~ ~ N > ~ .. 0 . > C ~~ ~ ~> · ::: 'i! ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;;, ~ ~; ~ ~ M > > ~ ~ ~ '1 ~~ > ~ G Q ~ 5l 0 ill> > z ti ~ z ~ ~ ~ g ~! i II ii 5~e 'I ~~ %I! 111M ; (I) -f ~D:'; ~ "111 II II I I (I fi I I I . = li II I WI a II Ii iii mill I I I I I I I I I ~ .. D I l !)l~ e ~ ! e II 181 .. II ! T ~~: I "I I I I I I I I I . "tl tTI Q Q ~ 1M ~~~~;~:;c i;iu;u;,,~ "tl "tl ~i: ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::u ::u ::u ~ i!!: (") :e ~ ~ ~:I> (Il G'l G'l G'l ~ ~ 2~ ~f ~ ~ g ~.~ 8 Q 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c ~= . g ~ >'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 "tl~ ::u~ ~ frI ;;0 ;;! n z ~ ;ij r- ;Ill ~ ~ ~n ~~ 9 ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ;g ~ ~ i!!: z ~;ij~ N > ." :;c 0 :;c ~ c ~ ~ ~~ ~::: ?o ~ ~ ~ ~ (Il ~ ; ~ ~ < < ~L ~~ ~ ~ > > ~ " ~ ~ ~ iil~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !.f ,., ~ tj G'l ~ II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I ~ I 0 R ~~ . I a I~ ~ il . II ~~~ !~ i .ml R-I"U II il~ %11 ~I ~... N 'I "ail ~ ~~ i5 Ii Z CIJ fi II II II II III II Ii II ~ I I iii m fI II II /,r / / r / Na live' /r ' /' ��////%//� - ,,rrr, %/� �� /�,,ririr �//�/i ,,,,,,,, //�,�„ '//////ii//i riiiii,,�o // // %rr//////i/,�c,,, ,,; rOtt //// �i' iiiii/iir ' ✓,,,, " r/%%%rrr///��/ %/%%r %///r✓ //ri�//// //%/rrr %/%/%/'rr // // " ' ' 1' /; / r / / � /� / %%,,,,,,,,, /iii� / ��%... ,,,",,,,,rill ,✓ii ,. �� ,,,,,,,„ �� ,,, / /rrrrrrrrr % // r rr / // � r �rrrrrrrrrr r 72 011 Y rr n� 1 a Pepard for the. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 9400 Overseas Highway, Suite 200 Marathon, FL 33050 Prepared by: URS;Corporation 76,50 West Courtney Campbell Causeway , Tama, FL, 33607-1462 Feb �r ,20 r ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 AIRPORT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................2 2.1 Runway 7/25 .......................................................................................................................2 2.1.1 Runway Description ...............................................................................................2 2.1.2 Runway Strength....................................................................................................3 2.1.3 Runway Markings/Lighting/Signage.......................................................................3 2.2 Taxiway...............................................................................................................................4 2.3 Aprons.................................................................................................................................4 2.3.1 Commercial Terminal Apron ..................................................................................4 2.3.2 Eastern General Aviation Apron.............................................................................4 2.3.3 West General Aviation Apron.................................................................................5 2.3.4 Former Mosquito Control Hangar and Apron.........................................................5 2.4 Navigational Aids (NAVAIDS).............................................................................................5 2.4.1 Electronic ...............................................................................................................5 2.4.1.1 NDB Published Instrument Approach Procedure...................................5 2.4.1.2 RNAV(GPS) Published Instrument Approach Procedure.....................5 2.4.2 Visual .....................................................................................................................5 2.5 Supporting Facilities............................................................................................................5 2.5.1 Automated Weather Observing System.................................................................5 2.5.2 Airport Rotating Beacon.........................................................................................6 2.5.3 Windsock/Segmented Circle..................................................................................6 2.5.4 Electric Vault..........................................................................................................6 2.6 Passenger Terminal and Related Facilities.........................................................................6 2.6.1 General Description ...............................................................................................6 2.6.2 Common Area........................................................................................................6 2.6.3 Ticket Counter Space.............................................................................................6 2.6.4 Baggage Claim Facilities........................................................................................7 2.6.5 Gate Concourse Area ............................................................................................7 2.6.6 Administration Offices............................................................................................7 2.6.7 Upper Level Commercial Office Space (Future)....................................................7 2.6.8 Lower Level Terminal/Retail/Concession Space....................................................7 2.6.9 Vending..................................................................................................................7 2.6.10 Rental Car Counters ..............................................................................................7 2.6.11 Automobile Parking................................................................................................8 2.6.11.1 Public Parking ..........................................................................................8 2.6.11.2 Employee Parking....................................................................................8 2.6.11.3 Rental Cars ..............................................................................................8 2.7 Aviation-Related Tenants....................................................................................................8 2.7.1 Marathon Jet Center(FBO)....................................................................................8 2.7.1.1 Tie-Down Areas.....................................................................................8 2.7.1.2 Shade Hangars......................................................................................8 2.7.1.3 T-Hangars..............................................................................................8 2.7.1.4 Conventional Hangars ...........................................................................8 2.7.1.5 Fuel Storage/Dispensing........................................................................8 2.7.2 Marathon General Aviation (FBO)..........................................................................9 2.7.2.1 Tie-Down Areas.....................................................................................9 2.7.2.2 Shade Hangars......................................................................................9 2.7.2.3 T-Hangars..............................................................................................9 2.7.2.4 Conventional Hangars ...........................................................................9 2.7.2.5 Fuel Storage/Dispensing........................................................................9 J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc i ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 2.7.2.6 Aircraft Servicing....................................................................................9 2.7.3 County-Owned T-Hangar Facilities........................................................................9 2.7.4 Antique Air(Aircraft Maintenance).........................................................................9 2.7.5 FedEx(Dedicated Air Cargo).................................................................................9 2.7.6 Monroe County Sheriffs Office ............................................................................ 10 2.7.7 City of Marathon Fire Station/ARFF..................................................................... 10 2.7.8 Hangers-On Shade Hangar................................................................................. 10 2.7.9 Shade Hangars .................................................................................................... 10 2.7.10 Flying Club Shade Hangars................................................................................. 10 2.7.11 Mosquito Control (Located Off Airport) ................................................................ 10 2.8 Non-Aviation-Related Tenants.......................................................................................... 11 2.8.1 Disabled American Veteran's (DAV) Meeting Hall............................................... 11 2.8.2 Waste Water Treatment Facilities........................................................................ 11 2.8.3 Humane Society................................................................................................... 11 2.8.4 Department Of Public Works................................................................................ 11 2.9 Existing Modifications to Airport Design Standards .......................................................... 11 2.9.1 Runway to Taxiway Separation and Aircraft Wing Overhang .............................. 11 2.9.2 Terminal Building and Associated Light Poles..................................................... 12 2.9.3 Obstruction Lighting ............................................................................................. 12 3.0 HISTORICAL AVIATION ACTIVITY AND FORECASTS............................................................... 12 3.1 FAA Terminal Area Forecast............................................................................................. 12 3.2 Florida Department of Transportation— Florida Aviation System Plan ............................. 13 4.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Airport Reference Code..................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Aircraft Fleet Mix............................................................................................................... 16 4.3 Applicable Airport Design Standards ................................................................................ 16 4.3.1 Immediate/Future Runway Extension .................................................................. 17 4.3.2 Ultimate Runway Relocation (Shift 40 Feet Northwest)....................................... 18 4.4 Runway Length Requirements.......................................................................................... 18 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1.1-1 Runway Information ........................................................................................................................3 3.1-1 FAA Terminal Area Forecast Summary......................................................................................... 13 3.1-2 FDOT FASP Forecast (2008-2027)................................................................................................ 14 4.1-1 Airport Design Criteria.................................................................................................................... 15 4.3-1 Runway/Taxiway Geometric Requirements................................................................................... 17 Appendix A—Airport Layout Plan Appendix B— FAA Approved Modifications to Design Standards Appendix C—Airfield Design Alternative Study(November 2005) Appendix D— Runway Take-off Length Analysis (February 2009) J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc jj ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN NARRATIVE REPORT THE FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT Marathon, Florida 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Monroe County, owner and operator of The Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH), retained URS Corporation Southern (URS) to update the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The previous Airport Layout Plan update and Narrative Report was completed in August of 1997 by URS Corporation (former URS Greiner). This ALP Narrative Report provides a summary of the existing MTH facilities, reasoning for various proposed airport improvements, and an explanation of major Airport Layout Plan (ALP)drawing set features. The ALP update includes the drawings listed below that are included in Appendix A of this report for review and inspection. ■ Cover Sheet; ■ Sheet 1 -Airport Layout Drawing; ■ Sheet 2-Airport Airspace Plan; ■ Sheet 3- Inner Approach Plan & Profile Ultimate Runway 7; ■ Sheet 4- Inner Approach Plan & Profile Ultimate Runway 25; ■ Sheet 5-40:1 Departure Surface Plan & Profile Runway 7/25; ■ Sheet 6- Building Area Plan (West End); ■ Sheet 7- Building Area Plan (Central); ■ Sheet 8- Building Area Plan (East End); ■ Sheet 9-Airport Land Use Drawing; and ■ Sheet 10-Airport Property Map. Key issues at MTH include need for additional runway take-off length and a 40-foot relocation (parallel shift of the entire runway to the northwest) of the runway to the northwest to fully satisfy the FAA required airport design standards for sustained operations by ARC B-II aircraft. Funding for the ALP Update was provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Monroe County. The ALP drawing set was developed following guidance prescribed by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circulars (AC) 150/5070-613 Airport Master Plans, and 150/5300-13 Airport Design, as well as the Florida Department of Transportation's Guidebook for Airport Master Planning, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-60, Airport Licensing, Registration, And Airspace Protection. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 1 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 2.0 AIRPORT DESCRIPTION The Florida Keys Marathon Airport is located approximately 2 miles east of the Marathon City Center in the Florida Keys. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)lists the airport reference point at 24°43'34.30"N latitude and 81°03'04.90"W longitude(North American Datum 1983—horizontal). The airport property boundary encompasses approximately 197.4 acres. The airport and the City of Marathon are on Vaca Key. The elevation of MTH is 5.2 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Airport History During World War II,the Navy built an Emergency Landing Field at the present Marathon Shores location that was completed in the fall of 1943. After the war, the Landing Field was further developed by the State of Florida in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. In 1956,TAG Airlines began daily service to Miami, and a year later, National Airlines leased the airstrip from the state to begin a short-lived service to and from Miami. In 1964, a non standard runway lighting system was installed as well as a lighted wind cone,segmented circle, and airport beacon. Two years later, in 1966, the runway received a 1-inch bituminous pavement overlay, and the apron was expanded to 150 feet by 250 feet. The county took over the management and maintenance of the facility in the 1950's,and in 1969,the old terminal building was constructed. In 1973, an apron expansion in front of the terminal was completed,and a parallel taxiway was constructed. No further construction occurred at MTH until 1983,when a tie-down ramp was developed in the general aviation area. Construction of a new passenger terminal was completed and opened to the public in February 1995. Airport Aeronautical Role MTH is currently classified by the FAA in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems(NPIAS)as a Primary Commercial Service(PR)airport(Site No.03314*A). For purposes of U.S.Customs, MTH is a classified as a Landing Rights Airport (LRA). This classification means an application for permission to land must be submitted to U.S.Customs prior to arrival. The current approved Airport Reference Code(ARC)for MTH is B- II,which consists of Aircraft Approach Category"B"and Airplane Design Group(ADG)"II." Aircraft Approach Category B includes aircraft with approach (landing)speeds of less than 121 knots.ADG II includes aircraft with wingspans less than 79 feet. Aircraft with greater wingspans are allowed to operate at MTH under an approved adaptation to standards dated May 18, 1983 to FAA standards allowing wing overhangs(measured from outermost wheel to tip of wing)of up to 38.5 feet. 2.1 RUNWAY 7/25 2.1.1 RUNWAY DESCRIPTION Runway 7/25 is 5,008 feet in length and 100 feet in width. The runway has a magnetic heading of 069°/249° with a true bearing of 67°/247°. The runway is of asphalt design and is reported to be in fair condition. The effective gradient is negligible at 0.012 percent. The traffic pattern consists of all left-hand turns. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 2 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport The current runway-to-taxiway centerline separation of 200 feet does not meet FAA airport design standards for runways designated as having Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II that are dictated by aircraft approach speeds and wingspans. The issue of the existing 200-foot runway-to-taxiway centerline separation was addressed and approved by the FAA in a letter dated May 18, 1983. There is a 50-foot-wide paved shoulder (former runway surface) on the south side of the runway. The shoulder area on the north side of the runway is stabilized marl. There are areas of stabilized marl approximately 500 feet in length and 200 feet in width that extend beyond each end of the runway. These areas were developed as part of the original military airfield. Full-strength asphalt pavement extends 400 feet beyond each threshold is 100 feet in width. These paved areas currently serve as oversized blast pads and overruns, but are not designated as Clearways or Stopways. Currently,these paved overruns are marked with chevrons and are unusable for landing or take-off operations. Based on published information contained in the 2008 FDOT Statewide Airfield Pavement Management Program Report, the pavement surface for Runway 7/25 is considered to be in a fair overall condition. Information describing the runway is provided in Table 2.1.1-1. TABLE 2.1.1-1 RUNWAY INFORMATION THE FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT Published Runway Dimensions Instrument Runway Pavement/Strength Runway (feet) Approach Markings Edge (Pounds) Procedures Lighting Asphalt/ 7/25 5,008 x 100 NDB/GPS Non Medium 75,000 (Single Wheel), Precision Intensity 129,000 (Dual Wheel), 191,000 (Dual Tandem) NDB: Non-Directional Beacon GPS: Global Positioning System Source: FAA Airport Master Record Form 5010. Compiled by URS Corporation, 2009. 2.1.2 RUNWAY STRENGTH Runway strength is reported in the March 22, 2001, Southeast U.S. Airport Facility Directory (AFD) to be 75,000 pounds single-wheel, 129,000 pounds dual-wheel, and 191,000 pounds dual-tandem. 2.1.3 RUNWAY MARKINGS/LIGH TIN G/SIGNAGE Runway 7/25 is marked for non-precision approaches on both runway ends. Taxiway and apron taxiway centerline markings are provided to assist aircraft using these airport surfaces. Aircraft hold positions are also marked on all taxiway surfaces. Pavement markings also identify aircraft parking positions. Airfield lighting systems extend an airport's usefulness into periods of darkness and/or poor visibility. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 3 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Runway 7/25 is lighted with medium intensity lights (MIRLs) that are located 10 feet from the edge of pavement completely encased in cans and PVC conduit. Airfield signs are installed at all taxiway and runway intersections. 2.2 TAXIWAY Taxiway A is a full-length 50-foot-wide parallel taxiway that is situated on the south side of the runway and,as previously discussed, has a runway-to-taxiway centerline separation of 200 feet. . There are four taxiways connectors that connect Taxiway A to the various aircraft parking aprons. Taxiway A also serves the commercial terminal apron as an apron edge taxiway. Taxiway pavements are of asphalt construction and are reported to be in fair condition except at the intersection of connector taxiways and the runway where minor surface cracking has occurred. However, it is in need of a new wearing surface due to oxidation. Taxiway is equipped with medium intensity taxiway lights. 2.3 APRONS Aircraft parking aprons at MTH are described in the following sections. 2.3.1 COMMERCIAL TERMINAL APRON The apron available to serve both the new and former commercial terminal buildings is approximately 920 feet wide by 130 feet in depth from the edge of Taxiway A(13,289 square yards). An aircraft parking limit line is marked at a distance of 65.5 feet from the taxiway centerline. This reduces the usable commercial aircraft parking apron area to approximately 9,185 square yards,which must serve both passenger and cargo aircraft. Historical peak use of the commercial terminal parking apron was one aircraft during the day and three for overnight. The pavement could accommodate as many as three of the current commercial aircraft mix directly in front of the terminal. An additional three commercial aircraft could be accommodated west of the terminal on the terminal apron area. The apron serving the FedEx cargo building (original passenger terminal) is of asphalt concrete construction and is in good condition.The FedEx apron, leased by Mountain Air Cargo, has tie-downs and is marked for parking of two Cessna 208 Caravans. Additional space sufficient for a third Caravan is in use for marshaling of FedEx trucks loading and unloading cargo from the aircraft. 2.3.2 EASTERN GENERAL AVIATION APRON Marathon General Aviation operates the eastern general aviation apron. The aircraft parking apron is approximately 1,350 feet wide and 250 feet deep. Its net leased apron area available for the parking and tie- down of aircraft excluding fuel farm, FBO building,flight-line building,and automobile parking is approximately 28,000 square yards. Aircraft park along the apron edges and in six rows perpendicular to Taxiway A. The apron is constructed of asphalt concrete pavement and is in good to excellent condition. The apron is equipped with cable aircraft tie- downs spaced 15 feet apart and anchored at 30-foot intervals. The operating lease was amended to include expanding the apron area 150 feet to the east for a total of 32,167 square yards of apron pavement. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 4 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 2.3.3 WEST GENERAL AVIATION APRON Marathon Jet Center operates the western general aviation aircraft parking apron. The parking apron is approximately 532 feet wide and 235 feet deep(13,891 square yards). The operating lease was amended to include expanding the apron area 240 feet to the west for a total of 20,158 square yards. Aircraft park in rows perpendicular to Taxiway A. The apron is constructed of asphalt concrete pavement and is in good to excellent condition. The western GA parking apron is equipped with cable aircraft tie-downs spaced 15 feet apart and anchored at 30-foot intervals. 2.3.4 FORMER MOSQUITO CONTROL HANGAR AND APRON The former Mosquito Control hangar building and apron is approximately 130 feet wide and 162 feet deep (2,340 square yards)and is located at the northern-most extended end of Taxiway Alpha. This hangar and apron area are now operated by the Airport. 2.4 NAVIGATIONAL AIDS(NAVAIDS) 2.4.1 ELECTRONIC 2.4.1.1 NDB Published Instrument Approach Procedure A non-directional beacon (NDB)is located 2.1 miles southeast of the Runway 7 threshold. The NDB transmits non-directional radio signals whereby the pilot of properly equipped aircraft can determine the bearing to or from the NDB facility and then "home" or track to or from the station. The airport is served by a single published NDB-A procedure providing circling approach minimums of460 feet cloud base and 1 mile visibility. 2.4.1.2 RNA (GPS) Published Instrument Approach Procedure The airport is served by two published RNAV (GPS) straight-in approach procedures. A LPV approach procedure for Runway 7 provides minimums of 389 feet cloud base and 1'/4 mile visibility. A LPV approach procedure provides 315 feet cloud base and 1'/4 mile visibility minimums for Runway 25. 2.4.2 VISUAL Runway 7/25 is equipped with a four-light Precision Approach Path Indicators(PAPI)serving each end with a 3°glide path and 25-foot threshold crossing height. A PAPI is an approach lighting system that is designed to facilitate the pilot's transition from instrument flying to visually locating the runway. Runway 7 is equipped with Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL). 2.5 SUPPORTING FACILITIES 2.5.1 AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM Surface weather observation reports are automatically reported via an Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS),which is located just east of the terminal auto parking area. An ASOS provides improved safety and efficiency of aircraft operations on the airfield. Parameters that are reported at the MTH ASOS include:station J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 5 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport identification;time(Zulu);wind direction/speed; peak wind velocities;visibility/sky condition;temperature;dew point; altimeter; density altitude; and airfield remarks. 2.5.2 AIRPORT ROTATING BEACON A rotating beacon that is operated from dusk to dawn is located on the east end of the airport. The beacon is in good condition. 2.5.3 WINDSOCK/SEGMENTED CIRCLE A single lighted windsock and segmented circle are located to the south of Runway 7. A second windsock is located between Taxiway A and ASOS, adjacent to taxiway Connector A4. The windsocks are in good condition. 2.5.4 ELECTRIC VAULT An elevated electrical vault that serves the entire airfield is located to the east of the passenger terminal and is equipped with an emergency generator. 2.6 PASSENGER TERMINAL AND RELATED FACILITIES 2.6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The 19,000-square-foot commercial passenger terminal building includes a commercial aircraft apron, public and rental auto parking lots,access loop roadway,and lush tropical landscaping.The terminal was completed and opened in May 1995. The terminal building is easily accessed via U.S. Highway 1 and has a curbside frontage of approximately 280 linear feet providing unrestricted access for vehicles and arrival, departure, and commercial transportation activities. 2.6.2 COMMON AREA The common-use (primarily non-revenue generating) areas within the terminal building encompass approximately 5,200 square feet and include all entrance passageways, hallways, concourse entry,security screening area and vending machine areas. Where appropriate, portions of this common-use area are available for kiosk-type or wall mounted advertising or other forms of revenue generating facilities. An area approximately 320 square feet in size is reserved for general (non-secured)seating and is located directly in front of the ticket counters. 2.6.3 TICKET COUNTER SPACE The terminal building has twelve ticket counters that have a combined length of approximately 24 linear feet. A total of five airline ticket agent offices are located directly behind the bank of counters and have a combined area of approximately 2,000 square feet. The queuing area located directly in front of the ticket counters is approximately 1,300 square feet in size. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 6 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 2.6.4 BAGGAGE CLAIM FACILITIES The terminal building utilizes a single-belt baggage system that transfers bags directly from the apron baggage collection area. The bag collection/passenger waiting area is approximately 600 square feet in size. 2.6.5 GATE CONCOURSE AREA The gate/concourse area is located on the north side of the terminal and is centered about a common-use hallway that also serves as a security screening area. The concourse gate area is approximately 2,100 square feet in size, has two gate positions, two secured apron-level access doors that provide covered pathway access along a sidewalk having a length of 260 feet. 2.6.6 ADMINISTRATION OFFICES The airport administration offices are located on the second floor of the terminal building directly over the main terminal building. The office space includes a reception/administrative area, airport manager's office and an adjoining conference room. Combined, all three areas encompass approximately 900 square feet. The second level is accessible by stairs and elevator. Two small non-public restrooms are located in the hallway outside of the airport administrative office entrance door. 2.6.7 UPPER LEVEL COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE(FUTURE) An area of approximately 900 square feet located adjacent to the airport administration offices is reserved for future use as commercial retail/office space. The second level reserved area is accessible by stairs and elevator. Portions of the designated retail area are currently used on a temporary basis by Monroe County Government officials. At such time that the need to utilize this space for retail food and beverage retail space occurs, Monroe County will vacate this area. 2.6.8 LOWER LEVEL TERMINAL/RETAIL/CONCESSION SPACE Three designated rooms comprising a total floor space of approximately 750 square feet are located on the lower level for retail/concession type uses. 2.6.9 VENDING Vending machines are located adjacent to the gate concourse area entrance. 2.6.10 RENTAL CAR COUNTERS The three rental car companies at MTH (Avis, Budget and Enterprise)each lease an area equal to 40 linear feet of terminal counter space in the passenger baggage claim area. An area approximately 70 square feet is designated to accommodate queuing for the rental car counters.Three rental car agent offices located directly behind the counters have a combined area of approximately 470 square feet. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 7 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 2.6.11 AUTOMOBILE PARKING 2.6.11.1 Public Parking The public parking lot is located east of the passenger terminal and has 182 spaces. Of these,five spaces are designated handicapped. 2.6.11.2 Employee Parking Employees of the airport do not have a designated parking area. At present, airport employees park in the public parking area or at the terminal curbside. 2.6.11.3 Rental Cars The rental car parking lot has spaces for 61 cars. 2.7 AVIATION-RELATED TENANTS The following sections describe aviation-related facilities at MTH. 2.7.1 MARATHON JET CENTER(FBO) 2.7.1.1 Tie-Down Areas Marathon Jet Center has 20,158 square yards of apron area available for aircraft parking. This area includes 6,193 square yards of expanded apron that was added in 2002. After the apron expansion, there are 55 paved tie-down positions provided at Marathon Jet Center. These tie-down positions are used primarily by single-engine aircraft but are capable of accommodating multi-engine and jet aircraft. 2.7.1.2 Shade Hangars There are no Shade Hangars provided at Marathon Jet Center. 2.7.1.3 T-Hangars There are no T-Hangars provided at Marathon Jet Center. 2.7.1.4 Conventional Hangars The conventional hangar serving as the operational base for Marathon Jet Center is 6,000 square feet. Of this, 1,200 square feet is reserved for office/shop area. An additional 100 feet by 140 feet(14,000 square feet) conventional hangar is located at the west edge of the apron area just east of the T-hangars. 2.7.1.5 Fuel Storage/Dispensing Marathon Jet Center provides a self-service 100-LL AvGas fueling facility on the apron. Fuel is stored in one 10,000-gallon capacity tank. Marathon Jet Center utilizes two apron fuel trucks to supply 100-LL and Jet-A, respectively. Fuel flowage for 2000 is estimated at 80,000-100,000 gallons. Marathon Jet Center recently installed a 12,000-gallon Jet-A fuel tank. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 8 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 2.7.2 MARATHON GENERAL AVIATION(FBO) 2.7.2.1 Tie-Down Areas Marathon General Aviation has 30,431 square yards of apron area available for aircraft parking. This area includes 2,340 square yards of expanded apron that was added in 2002. After the apron expansion,there are 50 paved tie-down positions provided at Marathon General Aviation. These tie-down positions are used primarily by single-engine aircraft but are capable of accommodating multi-engine and jet aircraft. 2.7.2.2 Shade Hangars There are no Shade Hangars provided at Marathon General Aviation. 2.7.2.3 T-Hangars There are no T-Hangars provided at Marathon General Aviation. 2.7.2.4 Conventional Hangars The conventional hangar at Marathon General Aviation is 7,200 square feet. Of this, 2,400 square feet is reserved for aircraft maintenance and 4,800 square feet for other purposes. 2.7.2.5 Fuel Storage/Dispensing A fuel storage area operated and maintained by Marathon General Aviation is located on the east side of their main apron. Fuel storage tanks consist of one 12,000-gallon 100-LL AvGas and two 20,000-gallon Jet-A tanks. For 2000, Marathon General Aviation estimated fuel flowage for 100-LL AvGas to be 100,000 gallons/year and 450,000 gallons/year for Jet-A. 2.7.2.6 Aircraft Servicing Minor airframe and power plant aircraft servicing is provided by Marathon General Aviation. 2.7.3 COUNTY-OWNED T-HANGAR FACILITIES Four T-hangar structures consisting of 32 T-hangar units were completed by Monroe County in the fall of 2002. These T-hangars are located on the southwest quadrant of the airfield and consist of 42,283 square feet. 2.7.4 ANTIQUE AIR(AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE) Antique Air currently leases a 100-foot-wide by 200-foot-deep parcel east of Marathon General Aviation and west of the Sheriffs Department leasehold without improvements. Antique Air operates out of a single 100 feet by 50 feet (5,000-square foot)conventional hangar. 2.7.5 FED Ex(DEDICATED AIR CARGO FedEx leases an 11,565-square-foot area that comprises the former 2,000-square-foot former terminal building and 9,565-square-foot of apron/ramp area. The FedEx facility operates Monday through Saturday J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 9 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport from 9:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. Automobile parking is available for use but is not included in the lease agreement. The ramp is subleased and operated by Mountain Air Cargo. 2.7.6 MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE The Monroe County Sheriff's Department leases a 3,677 square-yard apron area and a 15,000 square-foot hangar that are located east of the terminal area. 2.7.7 CITY OF MARATHON FIRE STATION/ARFF The airport is currently served by an"Index X Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting(ARFF)facility that is currently operated by the City of Marathon Fire Department. The ARFF facility serves both the airport and City of Marathon. 2.7.8 HANGERS-ON SHADE HANGAR The "Hangers-On" Shade Hangar is currently located at the northeast end of the airfield to an area immediately adjacent to the existing shade hangar facilities. The building dimensions are 30 feet by 165 feet (4,950 square feet). These hangars are located within the Runway Protection Zone(RPZ)and are therefore in violation of FAA's airport design standards. Accordingly the shade hangars are denoted as"to be removed." 2.7.9 SHADE HANGARS Two shade hangars are located on the northeast side of the airfield. One building is 56 feet by 56 feet(3,136 square feet), and the other is 46 feet by 48 feet (2,208 square feet). Due to the proximity to the runway, according Federal Aviation Regulations, these hangars should not be reconstructed if destroyed by a hurricane or some other disaster. 2.7.10 FLYING CLUB SHADE HANGARS The Flying Club shade hangars consist of nine continuous shade hangars located on the northeast side of the airfield. The building dimensions are 32 feet by 424 feet (13,568 square feet). Due to the proximity to the runway, according to Federal Aviation Regulations, this hangar could not be reconstructed if destroyed by a hurricane or some other disaster. These hangars are located within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)and are therefore in violation of FAA's airport design standards. Accordingly the shade hangars are denoted as"to be removed." 2.7.11 MOSQUITO CONTROL(LOCATED OFF AIRPORT The airport serves as the aerial applications operations base for the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District. Mosquito Control owns and occupies a 30,047-square-foot hangar and administration building located adjacent to the southeast corner of airport property. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 10 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 2.8 NON-AVIATION-RELATED TENANTS 2.8.1 DISABLED AMERICAN VETERAN'S(DAV) MEETING HALL The DAV operates a 37,462-square-foot leasehold in the southwest corner of the airport at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and U.S. Highway 1. A single 4,000-square-foot building and adjacent automobile parking area is operated solely by the DAV. 2.8.2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Two waste water treatment facilities are located on the airport. The Little Venice WWTP is located at east end of the airport adjacent to the rotating beacon. Another waste water transfer station for the City of Marathon is located adjacent to the DAV Building at the west end of the airport. 2.8.3 HUMANE SOCIETY The Monroe County Humane Society is located in the northwest corner of the airport along Aviation Boulevard. 2.8.4 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The Monroe County Department of Public Works is located in the northwest corner of the airport along Aviation Boulevard immediately east of the Humane Society. 2.9 EXISTING MODIFICATIONS TO AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS The following modifications to FAA standards have been approved for MTH by the referenced letters included in Appendix B. 2.9.1 RUNWAY TO TAXIWAY SEPARATION AND AIRCRAFT WING OVERHANG The letters are as following: • May 6, 1998 Deviation to Design Standards letter, signed by Miguel A. Martinez (then FAA Orlando Program Manger)concerning non-standard runway centerline to taxiway centerline separation standards; • November 16, 1994 letter from Charles E. Blair (then FAA Orlando ADO Manger) regarding shade hangars located within RPZ for Runway 25; • May 18, 1983 letter, signed by James E. Sheppard (then FAA Miami ADO Manger) regarding adaptation of airport design standards. This letter was written in response to an earlier March 21, 1983 letter from W. Robert Billingsley (then FAA Orlando ADO Manger) addressing Monroe County's request to relocate Runway 7/25 to provide increased runway to taxiway separation. Letter from May 18, 1983 also allows for the maintenance of the 500-foot wide Primary Surface and the 7:1 Transitional Surface without removal of sensitive vegetation. Further, the letter resulted in restriction of any aircraft utilizing the airport to aircraft types with a maximum wing overhang (outside of main gear to wingtip)of 38.5 feet. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 11 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 2.9.2 TERMINAL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED LIGHT POLES A letter from the FAA Orlando Airports District Office to Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe County Assistant County Administrator dated August 22, 1991 approved penetrations of FAR Part 77 surfaces by the terminal building and associated light poles subject to their being lighted in accordance with FAA AC 70/7460-1 G, Obstruction Marking and Lighting. (Not included in this Report) 2.9.3 OBSTRUCTION LIGHTING A letter from the FAA Orlando Airports District Office to Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe County Director of Community Services dated February 1, 1994 states that lighting of vegetation located 250 feet(or more)from the runway centerline is not required as long as the county maintains a clear Object Free Area(250 feet either side of the runway centerline)at all times. (Not included in this Report) 3.0 HISTORICAL AVIATION ACTIVITY AND FORECASTS 3.1 FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST The FAA's Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), provides historical information and a forecast of annual aircraft operational activity and based aircraft counts at the airport. The TAF indicates that annual aircraft operation totals(landings or takeoffs)increased from 59,874 in 1997 to 65,041 in 2008 representing an Average Annual Compound Growth Rate (AACGR)of 0.76 percent. The number of based aircraft remained same at 75 over that same period. The numbers of based aircraft and aircraft operations are projected by TAF to have a moderate growth on an AACGR of 1.39 percent for operations and 2.44 percent for based aircraft from 2008 to 2025 period. The TAF historical and forecast data for the airport is presented in Table 3.1-1. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 12 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport TABLE 3.1-1 FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST THE FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT Itinerant Operations Local Operations Year Air Air Taxi/ General General Total Military Total Military Total Carrier Commuter Aviation Aviation Operations 1997 0 7,430 22,777 156 30,363 29,511 0 29,511 59,874 1998 0 7,677 23,061 156 30,894 29,827 0 29,827 60,721 1999 0 7,770 23,355 156 31,281 30,153 0 30,153 61,434 2000 0 7,862 23,649 156 31,667 30,478 0 30,478 62,145 2001 0 5,000 24,160 156 29,316 30,750 0 30,750 60,066 2002 0 5,078 24,560 156 29,794 31,259 0 31,259 61,053 2003 0 5,157 24,961 156 30,274 31,769 0 31,769 62,043 2004 0 5,235 25,358 156 30,749 32,274 0 32,274 63,023 2005 0 3,705 25,759 156 29,620 32,783 0 32,783 62,403 2006 0 3,754 26,118 156 30,028 33,241 0 33,241 63,269 2007 0 3,805 26,483 156 30,444 33,705 0 33,705 64,149 2008 0 3,855 26,853 156 30,864 34,177 0 34,177 65,041 2010 0 3,959 27,227 156 31,290 34,654 0 34,654 65,944 2015 0 4,231 29,592 156 33,979 37,660 0 37,660 71,639 2020 0 4,522 31,717 156 36,395 40,365 0 40,365 76,760 2025 0 4,833 33,994 156 38,983 43,263 0 43,263 82,246 Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast(TAF), February 2009. 3.2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-FLORIDA AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN Table 3.1-2 summarizes historical data(through 2007)and forecast projections for based aircraft and annual aircraft operations at the airport. The FDOT's Aviation System Plan(FASP)records show 52 based aircraft(at the time of last inspection)and 64,356 aircraft operations in 2007. The numbers of based aircraft and aircraft operations are projected by the FDOT to have an Average Annual Compound Growth Rate(AACGR)of 0.76 and 1.25 percent respectively throughout the 20-year period 2008-2027. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 13 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport TABLE 3.1-2 FDOT FASP FORECAST(2008-2027) THE FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT Based Aircraft Year Aircraft Operations Historic Activity 2000 75 59,074 2001 75 51,856 2002 75 57,792 2003 75 57,314 2004 76 62,356 2005 93 60,891 2006 73 53,467 2007 52 64,356 Projected Activity 2008 52 65,160 2010 53 66,799 2015 55 71,080 2020 57 75,635 2025 1 59 1 80,482 Source: Florida Aviation System Plan (FASP), Forecast for 2008-2027 period,2009. 4.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS This ALP update was predicated upon the need to address and fully satisfy current FAA airport design standards as prescribed in FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, changes 1 through 14 inclusive. Accordingly,the Airport Layout Drawing(ALD)and supporting ALP drawings reflect two significant changes to the airfield: 1. Immediate/future use of existing 400-foot runway overruns located beyond each end of the runway at a length of 5,800 feet; and 2. Ultimate relocation (shift)the runway 40 feet to northwest to provide 240-foot runway-to- taxiway centerline separation. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 14 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 4.1 AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE The proposed airport improvements at the airport must fully satisfy FAA's standards and recommendations for airport design as prescribed in AC 150/5300-13. Accordingly, the proposed airport improvements must be planned, designed and constructed based on the appropriate Airport Reference Code (ARC) that relates airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at the airport. The Airport Reference Code has two components relating to the airport design aircraft. The first component, depicted by a letter, is the Aircraft Approach Category and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteristic). The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the Airplane Design Group and relates to airplane wingspan or tail height (physical characteristic),whichever is most restrictive. Generally, runway standards are related to aircraft approach speed, airplane wingspan and designated or planned approach visibility minimums. It is important to note that taxiway and taxilane standards are related to airplane design group. Table 4.1-1 provides a listing of the various Aircraft Approach Categories and Airplane Design Groups that comprise the Airport Reference Code. TABLE 4.1-1 AIRPORT DESIGN CRITERIA THE FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT Aircraft Approach Category Approach Speed A Less the 91 Knots B 91 to 120.9 Knots C 121 to 140.9 Knots D 141 to 165.9 Knots E 166 Knots or Greater Airplane Design Group Wing Span I Up to 48.9 Feet II 49 to 78.9 Feet III 79 to 117.9 Feet IV 118 to 170.9 Feet V 171 to 213.9 Feet VI 214 Feet or Greater Airplane Design Group Tail Height I Up to 19.9 Feet II 20 to 29.9 Feet III 30 to 44.9 Feet IV 45 to 59.9 Feet V 60 to 65.9 Feet VI 66 Feet or Greater Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,Airport Design, Changes 1 through 14 inclusive. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 15 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 4.2 AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX Like most general aviation airports of similar aeronautical role and size,the airport accommodates operations by a wide variety of general aviation aircraft owner/operators. Locally-based and itinerant aircraft operations at the airport are generated by aircraft that range in size from the smallest of single- and multi-engine propeller-driven aircraft having operating weights of less than 12,500 pounds,to much larger turbo-prop and turbo-jet corporate and executive class aircraft having much greater operating weights. With the advent of on-demand point-to-point service offered by operators of the new Very Light Jet(VLJ), it is envisioned that this new type of aircraft will, over time, represent an increasing part of the daily aircraft fleet mix that operates at the airport. 4.3 APPLICABLE AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS Based on available historical records of itinerant aircraft activity, the airport accommodates 500 or more operations by aircraft having Aircraft Approach Category B approach speeds and wingspan up to, but not including 79 feet. Based on the type of aviation activity conducted at the airport, a B-11 ARC most appropriately represents the "family" of most demanding aircraft that is anticipated to use the airport in the foreseeable future. Aircraft having these operational and physical characteristic include, but are not limited to the following: • Sabreliner Series; • Cessna Citation Series; • Learjet Series; • Bombardier Challenger Series; • Raytheon/Hawker Series; • Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI)Series; and • Dassault Falcon Series. Accordingly, recommended airport planning and design considerations for the existing and future conditions at the airport as reflected in the update of the ALP are based upon ARC B-11 Airport Design standards and are listed in Table 4.3-1. The ALP depicts ARC B-11 airfield design/geometry characteristics, layout features and safety-related setbacks. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 16 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport TABLE 4.3-1 RUNWAY/TAXIWAY GEOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS THE FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT ARC B-II Design Item Requirements' C Existing (Feet) ; Conditions Runway Runway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline 240 200 Runway Centerline to Edge of Aircraft Parking 250 250 Runway Width 75 100 Runway Shoulder Width 10 10 Runway Blast Pad Width 95 N/A Runway Blast Pad Length 150 N/A Runway Safety Area Width 150 150 Runway Safety Area Length Beyond Each Runway or Stopway End 300 300 Runway Object Free Area Width 500 500 Runway Object Free Area Length Beyond Each Runway or Stopway End 300 300 Clearway Width 500 N/A Stopway Width 75 N/A Taxiway Taxiway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline 105 105 Taxiway Centerline to Fixed or Movable Object 65.5 65.5 Taxilane Centerline to Parallel Taxilane Centerline 97 N/A Taxilane Centerline to Fixed or Movable Object 57.5 57.5 Taxiway Width 35 50 Taxiway Shoulder Width 10 10 Taxiway Safety Area Width 79 79 Taxiway Object Free Area Width 131 131 Taxilane Object Free Area Width 115 115 Taxiway Edge Safety Margin 7.5 7.5 Taxiway Wingtip Clearance 26 26 Taxilane Wingtip Clearance 18 18 Note: 'FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,Airport Design, Including changes 1 through 14 inclusive. Airport Reference Code B-II. Source: URS Corporation, 2009. 4.3.1 IMMEDIATE/FUTURE RUNWAY EXTENSION It is Monroe County's desires to immediately utilize all or portions of the existing 400-foot paved overruns located beyond each end of the runway to better accommodate take-off length requirements of certain jet aircraft that currently use the airport. To accomplish this, the first 300 feet of the 400-foot northeast paved overrun would be utilized for take-off operations. The location of the Runway 25 threshold would remain unchanged and therefore be designated as a 300-foot displaced threshold. All of the 400-foot paved overrun located beyond the southwest of the runwaywould be utilized for landing and take-off operations. Accordingly, the Runway 7 threshold would be relocated 400 feet to the southwest. This would provide a total available runway length of 5,708 feet with a Landing Distance Available (LDA)of 5,408 feet for Runway 25. Declared Distance Criteria data are listed in tabular forma on the ALD. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 17 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 4.3.2 ULTIMATE RUNWAY RELOCATION(SHIFT 40 FEET NORTHWEST) The FAA requires ARC B-II airports to have a minimum 240-foot clearance between the runway centerline and the taxiway centerline (FAA AC 150/5300-13). The existing separation between these centerlines at MTH is 200 feet. In addressing this non-standard separation,the FAA approved a deviation to the standards on May 18, 1983(see Appendix B). To resolve this issue,the ALP reflects the future(Ultimate)relocation of Runway 7/25 40 feet in the northwest direction to fully satisfy the current FAA standards of 240-foot separation between runway/taxiway centerline based on ARC B-II criteria. As part of this proposed relocation of Runway 7/25, Monroe County conducted an"Airfield Design Alternative Study"in November 2005. This study provides analysis at various planning considerations,alternative design concepts and anticipated development costs. This study was limited to the assessment of airfield redevelopment options that would serve to rectify and correct the non-standard runway-to-taxiway centerline separations at its current length of 5,008 feet. This Study is provided in Appendix C. Because of issues directly related to development and potential adverse environmental impacts, it is the expressed desire of Monroe County to not relocate the runway at this time and to continue to operate the airport with FAA approval of Modifications to Airport Design Standards that address the non-standard 200-foot runway-to taxiway centerline separation. Subsequent to this Study and as part of this ALP update, Monroe County proposes that,when the runway is shifted 40 feet to the northwest, that the runway be reconstructed to an ultimate length of 5,800 feet. This would include the utilization of portions of the paved overrun located beyond the northeast end, portions of the 400-foot paved overrun located at the southwest end, and construction of an additional 92 feet of runway at the southwest end. 4.4 RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS The required lengths of the runways are dependent upon the characteristics of the aircraft that are anticipated to use them. Characteristics such as aircraft performance (acceleration and take-off speed) at the specific design temperature of the airport, aircraft weight, non-stop stage length, airport elevation, useful load, and runway gradient must all be evaluated. A separate study"Runway Take-off Length Analysis"was conducted in February 2009 considering all factors listed above and recommended the use of the existing full-strength 400-foot paved overruns located beyond each end of the runway. It is clearly demonstrated that at a very minimum,29 percent of all sampled jets and conservatively as much as 37 percent of all jets operating at MTH would benefit from a runway longer than 5,008 feet. Runway take-off length analysis evaluation conducted by URS for this study provides the following finding: 1. 19 jet aircraft generating 204 annual aircraft operations would benefit from a runway longer than 5,008 feet based on data received from local FBO survey; J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 18 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 2. Length recommendations, per FAA AC150/5325-4B, ranged from 5,400 to 8,200 feet based upon 60 percent of useful loads and 90 percent of useful loads respectively for aircraft representing up to 100 percent of the fleet; 3. 19 jet aircraft generating 583 annual aircraft operations would benefit from a runway longer than 5,008 feet based on data collected from Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., computer software; 4. Runway take-off lengths of at least 6,000 are justified; and 5. The use of the existing full-strength paved overruns located beyond each end of the runway could be utilized to provide up to 5,708 feet of runway length today. The Runway Take-off Length Analysis report is provided in Appendix D. J:WARATHON\ALP Narrative Report 02-2009\Text.doc 19 ALP Narrative Report The Florida Keys Marathon Airport APPENDIX A AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET 4, rk t x a N .. c s r., a hg a !, J Z Q Q W J Z z a = Q Cl) Wtot o 00 000 QM � � N dl V N 0 A aD a O li Q o O N J 1N } O oc Z qv 3 W W W % CM & & ° Z W Z Lu ® Lu � G 5 o = , Q W m .e w Q4 a ZOa �tiow a cco Z W < g W D ) LLI cc � W iZC� J a ♦Q♦♦ � a LL. a °z ages ` s Q V — oW �; �Y wm � O oa s a L } � � o�so�s lq � il � z Q � ga °C mm� aaag Oa � � ~ �czzzo�co�c .j co O Q 0 33300 IL 9L IL IL F Ia _� _dammmma < a � a � O o J m Q LL p ✓ /r ��f� ' r � to a VGIUOI=l 'NOHIVUVW — lUOdUlV NOHIVUVW SA351 VCIIUOI=l 3HI SINviinSNOO_mH3N30 vaiuol=l 'A.LNnoo 3OHNOW SU3NOISSIWWOO — UNIAWHa iLnoAvi 1HOdbliV A-LNnoo =io auvog IdO=l 03HVd3Hd 6�0 l �i �i F .,s'an o§ Q U/ 0 X z P i12 A P,�h iM. �H MO El, ❑ II .. �� ffsa e�I9aS ig W MW MM MOM 0CL JI cc ui n. 21 I ? L a s Po 0 LL 3 6� 0 h 12 w 000 21, Co 0 7_1 0 El ZZ o "gym z -8 N 2 DE, Dn I aoII ------ r5 03 E wpn E) OD. o Lm 0, .......... > ------- 10 ms 7_7I a1 T T T I T_m"n ff Al o M Mp .21 ValHOld 'NOH1VUVIN lUOdUIV NOH1VUVW SA3)1 VOIUOld 3H1 " `''9,LNv,,',n8NOO nv113NIII vardold 'A1Nn00 30HNOW SH3NOISSIWW00 Nd1d 3ObdSHIV JLHOdUIV A-LNno0 =io aavoa HOi a3Hvd3ad 44EEE44EE4E44E"e PPPPEEEEEPP4PP444PPE 4E=4 5§$$44444b3b $ § P .. .. -s a - ----- GkCCkkkk�k�k�.,.y€€€€.kmmpp€p.=y€€,€ays€,egg - eg€kNJ',€€ €o€ \ Q kc k---^kk^k ^keck-keccC - Y8.8g...Y3g..%.4.Ya3:a..s. Y. ezcbbbb:eezzc.eg.kBo.k 0 §§ 4 ��4 4§E. Y404.Y.x oxeexe�,x�.x F. ....�xxWI Et• Et E..EE PEE E E.. `3 Q ' 8 IIII I`I` I d �t goI g` d tt d" I"esI dI P gRC6 k\\ q saaenssasmmx ak p \ 6 e',t^^^^^^^^^.^.^pp wades FFedesiii;;;;;;;;;;s's sd3ee *' \5S is d t eF „aggssaaaaaaaagaaaa° aaaaazaaaaa........................aaa <=lladdggg �g g:: :::e o e ee °aaaea eMSSM ............eoeeeeeaa.,,..,.,,... ��a aa.a ass amass a' \". eeza= Nsft�� as a R- ........... .. R „'aaftaasa<sysq,essay.rift.azs'��c a' ;ftsseaew,pxp'.'e''3''��ze=ee:P:e::exi::grrftafta:.;x.aa,MIN ca NW,-P AI z b �;a b � o �saa�o� a a as -I a sa - g ffia �a d 'se: it `s I maw"s_mam a _ W p m .»>. o k g a ak o a` �cc < s vaaasa- g €s ? �`;sseegegs_gageea.:§seaessaag"seeeee^esaese eee ee�'�'4e.?<'$4�:=€ffi3��' ee�'�'�'-�'af a°: gs esg a $ a a a a 11 d VI � ---------------- i ON //% / I W I „ 0 a cc � I L cm o � W o �a _ p� a s /r �I a VaIM01=1 'NOH.LVUVIN lUOdUlV NOHIVUVW SA3N VUIUOI=l 3HI s.LNv.L-ingNOO'lV-d3N31D vardo'la 'A1Nno3 3OUNOIN L AVARNnH 31VWI.L'ln 311=10Hd V NV'ld SH3NOISSIM103 A-LNno3 =io amvos 3ovaum HOVOUddV H3NN1 WOJ U3UVgUd g Tl ISM(L333)NOILVA313 7 2 ims .3—.�n lys as o' 0' Im _ > > z 0 END R IL s CL;"Vur LU Lli vr 58 0 LL x ol 5, 0 OW I"WV' 0 IL IL S4 z z 0 P. z I'l"1,4 1"F` z OC I I LU e1011111RIMPRIP asISO o'V 1�11f' FORI" P qY "p I ra%I�'�Vun ��`��Il>✓�I��fr �rpy � u��l�� 11/�'�IN '� m§ § $ N Not 14 K w 06) ISM(133J)NOIIVA313 VaIHOId 'NOHIVHVW lUOdUlV NOH1VUVW SA3)1 VOIUOld 3H1 "' `''s.LNv.L lnsNOO lvN3N3J vardold 'A1Nno3 3OUNOW 93 AVMNnm 31VWIlln 311d0Md I NVId Sa3NOlSSlWW03 A1NnoO do amvo9 3ovau S HOVOUddV U3NNI aoi a3avmaa 154N(1333)NOLLtlA313 � , r ; 0 �� m a P mim Pr %{I/m/ a :z:4444.�.4o .4ez U $ W xa e asssss== LL U i� z o �;;;;;.;NN N;N O �� R �� ss�sasaaaaa a� � a a o " a a { k �ii��wo/ I�� i��,�"� ,�, � ae ® r f r ?�, W <�� as"aa"aaw aaa a Y J8 f v( m 1�J r m/ l Z n W a gy q:xrt RR rtP. lJl ✓! ". :,r 2 n 2 m Z�ii�fl�Nr of+!r/ Frei �9 i% y! d W) ® z o �r fro cm �® e " cm V Q, - 4 IJ W� R 7 ti� ��W� g� o alr r 1lorl �sM s @� V ! F m W �ea�®sg scma�aaa�a�a f' Q f ® 0s g WI"/ �or al 13 Ad �P It, l Ply/ (i333)rvoudn313 V41H01d 'NOH1tlHVW lUOdUlV NOH1VUVW SA3)1 VOIUOld 3H1 "' `''sssi�Nvi,nsaoo lva3N3lD tlOklold 'A.LNnoO 3OUNOW ^ v3 SZ/L AVMNn i 311d0Hd 9 NVId Sa3NOiSSiWW03 S3ovAunS 3mnlUVd3a L:Ob A1N WOJ �o aavoa aoi a3ava3aa Vo /1 i a ISM(1331)10M313 5 l tR�94 ///ii/ W o- '� � s==€assssssssssass...sssa. g\ � ddg d d 3q `88 I / R d rt� e gnn'CR4,e ..^q Rqo. € €€aaa III€ € a�NNm9 o,3 s3 a3..N.o /r r //J p 3lunnln 8 z A B W 8 L(u) F a y l5N U-)N0M313 Q � fl / ��eavi� LL 3^aya^^^^ ... . �x"�' i/ 'II II/ a - � g �a�.a_.e�`§raNNgN�az�ggazazaz�az LU / l "lll � � II / o JO �Y4 Wj e// ",,3 �/ N 1ff =98888YYYYY=88PYYY€ J I � " r f �/. %// Y 1SN(1333)'w1"313 aa3 ,ssss ag�-s ss «y T"iJ t sMNrw a 41 Na �%� Q $ 8 3 ga sg aa€ § �� ol, /I� L—v 3 e a so a ° f/ F � � wi Nil � aaaaaaaaxdxxa�aax a 7 /r� i•Gi s r r iir�// / a _ � � //.,r x ryas xY rr �"�y ((✓Jii/ �: � g ^x2,^ryx �f ��§ ,, In✓� � 1sN(3.)w1ea13 l �/ i /��7 ky I / k✓ //�l /itfa/' W r V41H01d 'NOH1tlHVW IUOdUIV NOH1VUVW SA3M VOIUOld 3H1 ss�inSNOO nvu3N31D vardold 'A1Nno3 3OUNOW (dN3 1S3M) sa3No€ssiwwoo n e :a e NVId V3HV JNIGIms A1Nno3 �o aavoa aOi O3avd3ad l i I t t o II c < I 00 do W o p � II I I N$ 6II ✓ � p oA III � € o I ®1 •�>,€3 =0 �® I _ I �Aa < ° _ I u W = �oa o0o a ns = I I21 J g II I w } 0 f w 1 w Ell 333 � I 1. .'. I I f' £ .-tt� Hill F V �. ` o 0 1 \ � Ssl I ae \ fik a a'€ `. iff l V,I IN 3(1 1 S 3a V41H01d 'NOH1tlHVW IU dUIV NOH1VUVW SA3)1 VOIUOld 3H1siNviinSNOO waaw31D tlORlold 'A1Nno3 3OUNOW e� (IVHJLN33) SH3NO€SSiww03 NVId V3HV JNIGlino A1N WOJ �o aavoa aoi aaavaaaa Ll 'n 333 f III +III r III +� HIM +lu 0 m:. +Ilep ++t+I a ' w HIM HIM Hit 0 +u HIM ❑ .s +III 8 +II I I 0 o, o 0 w � r El w E II � �g ff II a w �I IN o o U n r z rc z O 3 Ml - �9A .�W II z A I I I P N i W 7, 8„ I I I � I `s �3 f.. Iaoz I � to Ilo o � m r � I f I EGG I I I „ k I o _ 5 am $ II I e 0 a II I� �!I II =so�a oa I o ValHOld 'NOH1VUVIN IUOdUIV NOH1VUVW SA3M VOIUOld 3H1 ss�inseoo nvu311431D vail ld 'A.LNnoO 3OUNOIN eao� (GN3 1SV3) Sa3NOISSiwwoo NVId V3HV JNIGIms A1Nno3 =io aavoa aOi a3avd3ad lVl N3° IS a ITV Zoo ° 1 0 wI l c oa a p � 0 Q ( 8 I 0 <a 3� < ?p W � 2. p W u o W 3 s I � k 1 mAp� I I II 3; I t I = w 3 I I ID s 9 f � /� + I 00 e �w =W I I <.+u u I JL-�� III +III III �. +II II nes r o +II a II C � I + +II II --- j 0 HIM oo� 411 0 �+lit +u< +o I m Li F I ❑ I I +u - 3 II I o f _El Wz' I o�ss w 2. w a < ValHOld 'NOH1tlHtlW lUOdUIV NOH1VUVW SA3)1 VOIUOld 3H1 sss�lnsNoo nvu3N31D vaklold 'A1Nno3 3OUNOW rn SH3NOISSIWW00 JNIMVlia 3sn ONV7 JLHOdHIV A1Nno3 =io aavoa aOi a3avd3ad p w , �rraniillia A, "' 616^ .raid " vfin6J�d nra�fr r Idi'dc e, II %" III ! i i t cbi w / J�� r � r l/O�` PS Wit,n,� // � o "� - ��rn/�l» �//1��i1��V I� , G"�=`I rvr''r1c;J r,,�hgl��jpYronb�r''✓r��""„�%i q/ h �I�1 k"� °z i % a 9 r rr "'�"rr/� Pm /iris/�, ri/r% ra e / ✓ r 1 5 YY ( ° r / ��! ,I✓/b�N r� aw+yr a i, ryw,�" ;6 until '// /� %rp 16��1✓r Y rY v ry a i > � I /b�li �r°✓ n";'u�Nuffn2,a7JY 6 pr � i// , ri/, r d/6,�r 7d NY I VI in r IrrCI/ tlllll In 7- nilki'�i' u, �//�/ V01H01d 'NOH1tlHVW 1UOdU1V NOH1VUVW SA3M VOIUOld 3H1 " `''s.LNv.L-1nSNOO nV M31D varda d 'A.LNn00 30HNOW o 0 SH3NOISSIWW00 dbW A.LH3dOHd LUOdUIV A-LNno0 =io aavoa HOi O3HVd3ad a 21� lo © 0 oo i Boa w� L 1_ EWER, €i€ ❑ o � A �0 � � ao4r - " w W&a - kgERG o oo© fl©ro UNG e O by Z r9w€ v6&:E� e 0� pp, �s 0 LU w�zw �o O w W=s �gasa�n 19 EsgW H 3 g o i 5:zoo 9_ao�w�o-: e 01 �M Xph w� e3^ S s WeeWkaW's �- wm = r„e w w7 ti<9r�o.w ••• n - W APPENDIX B FAA APPROVED MODIFICAITONS TO DESIGN STANDARDS- THE FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT r U.S. Department ORLANDO AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFIC of Transportation 5950 Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 40 Federal Aviation Orlando, Florida 32822-502 G Administration Phone: (407) 812-6331 Fax: (407) 812-697 +�+ n�E 17 May 6, 1998 ING YOOL Mr. Peter Horton , Division Director of ,N Community Services Public Service Building DATE 5100 College Road West Wing 4, Room 405 P°"T'"°SYY°°` Key West, Florida 33040 ,„, ,G,,,T„ RE Dear Mr. Horton: DATE. RE: Marathon Airport; Marathon, Florida A(WINGSYMWIL AIP No. 3-12-0044—1297/1398 Ir,U, Tu� Deviation to Design Standards DATE f This letter is in response to your April 14, 1998, letter concerning the above referenc matter. POUTING STYOOL MQtAL551GNATURE The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has reviewed your request for a deviation o separation standards for Runway Centerline to Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline as outlin UTE in your letter. Based on the justification and FAA's review, we approve the deviation o design standards. This approval is temporary in nature and will only be in effect TUTINGSYY001. long as the shade hangers remain in their current location. Once the shade hang INRLLS/SKaNATURE i, are removed the deviation will expire. DATE This approval will remain in effect until the next regular update of the ALP, or the nE Kt . request for FAA approval of the ALP, whichever comes first. At that time, the faciliti [OUTING SYYSG{. should be shown on the ALP as "constructed" and the deviation shall be shown in t J . INRIALySIGNATURE approved deviation table. a If you have any questions or need any additional information, you can reach me t E T (407) 812-6331, extension 23. ROUTING SYMBOL Sincerely, � ATURE DATE 01'601n`1 SIocliEd By Miguel A. Martinez Project Manager ORL-614:MMartinez:alb:5/6/98 FM Form 1360.14.1 (GAP R T N E R S IN C R E ACPNla FTLLQa&4R R 0 W S MILR#M"Tg 5°-0 f U.S. Depa tment Orlando Airports District Office ; of Transportation 9677 Tradeport Drive, Suite 130 Federal Aviation Orlando, Florida 32827-5397 Administration 407-648-6582 November 16, 1994 Mr. Peter Horton Division Director of Community Services Public Service Building 5100 College Road West 'r .Wing 4, Room 405 � Key West, Florida 33040 Dear Mr. Horton: i This is in response to your November 1, 1994, letter requesting a waiver for the i Marathon Flying Club hangars and the Chuck Pierce hangars at the Marathon Airport. These hangars are located in the outer portion of the existing Runway 25 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). You asked that these hangars be allowed to remain in their 4 present location until alternative hangar storage can be provided at another location on the airport. Our review of your request reveals the following: a. The hangars are located in the controlled activity area of the RPZ. While we recommend that the RPZ be cleared of all.structures, such uses are permitted by our RPZ standards. associated with our approved Airport Layout t- b. The Object Free Area (OFA) assoc y pp +Po Plan Airport Design Group (B-11) extends 600 feet beyond the end of the runway. The hangars do not penetrate this surface. c. The hangars penetrate the edge of the Extended Obstacle Free Area (EOFA) by only 17 feet. However, this standard is only a recommendation and is not a requirement. Our letter to Mr. Charles W. Knighton dated June 10 1993 was apparently based on an incorrect assumption that the SOFA was a mandatory standard. Also, we understand that the Airport Design Advisory Circular will be revised soon to terminate the OFA at the end of the safety area, i.e. 200 feet from the runway end, for Category A and B design aircraft. Partners in creating tomorrow's airports A- <_ 2 d. The hangars conform to all required minimum design standards and a "waiver" is not required. t. Therefore, we concur with your request to allow the hangars to remain in their current locations ntil it may be practical and feasible for alternative aircraft storage to become available elsewhere on the airport or until such time as a new aircraft would dictate that the Airport Design Group be increase rom presen B-II We note that the —TS93 Marathon Flying Club lease requires lessee, upon 30 days notice from the county, to move the structure if the land is required to accommodate airport improvements, safety clearances or any other reason as determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). r This letter supersedes and replaces all other past FAA correspondence concerning this subject. Please keep us advised of the status of Monroe County's plans to provide additional hangar facilities at Marathon Airport. Sincerely, D,^191na2 Signed 37 Charles E. Blair Manager Mr. Mil Reisert. Mr. Charles W. Knighton Mr. Art Skelly Mr. Jim Shimkus ORS-616:PJones:alb:11/16/94 I Partners in creating tomorrow's airports Miami Airports District CT f i ce r_ Post Office Box 59-2014 Miami, Florida 33159 !'ay i IM— !:1r. A. 112'.. Skelly DI rector of !rports D Comity of Monroe Key *it International Air"ft Key West, Florida 33M Re-, Proposed Maption to Standard Marathon Airport. Marathon,#"arida Dear Mr. Skelly: SYMt Your request datel February 18, 198-3, for in adaption to standar-is �0'I N'I'M'A*L'S* -ATE 1. Relocation ef the Runway 07125 c-anted 25 feet r-orth OIL.YM k its present location with associated: WTr..SYM11' L a. Repavills 0 f '"rithermost 1-ONG feet of eaXisti Runway 07/25. DATE h. Decomissioning of Via southernmest, 50 feet �f Rialifay G7/25. FIT..SY.1-1 c. Naintem=* of the privvy surface vW 7 t 1"L*S"I -transition surface without remval of smiti wo 2. Restriction of any aircraft utilizing the airport t,*TG.SYMBOL aircraft types with a maxi mm wing overhang of 3A-.5 feat (Convair 440 for axwpl e voul 4 'he restricted f T operations). .............. DAT E has been miewd. RTG.SYM I The rvqu-.;st&J ad3ption would result in a now rummy centerline 25 f*'t. north Of its present location and hence aITIALSa tax iway-centerl inn-to-runny centarline distanc;n of 2 W- fret (i a I au" t of "e existing 17S feet, but an adaption of the miniaw 300 f ''a..;�... TE Separation called -ft. r by Basic Transport Stand,4rds, AC ISO/5340-6 Ad FAR Par�t 152.11 *ad Airport master Plan). FAA Form 1360-14 (7-67) OFFICIAL FILE COPY `� ?^`=Y�'�?i 1 t�f fiat%sS �!n,at the nt re- t ,- vl-i e + serve, tj `_. .7�:�.` . I♦f:. ~tSTW �MT !�{�%�l•f Ln �`=i�ti�3~tww0 ir!,)ort ;."su Ply': ...'ndlitio+311- a t-}raYe,; ;2 <�1Catf! AP, Pe .r gain; `�.e dita of xis letter. You S;-Ioulld If3I $3 t P_ i^',�";�+f{ i action to rn-yi se :fhe ALp to re`1* 4 y t!Ii s ad 2'~ i ��i for i3;dT' rMppt"t#Ya1 ct^i i q :'Yo ww abrogates --r ut"erA a h � p.. ♦t d = T tI �+. �... `� s, 47v Comlition in I t`'t3 .1}'tinrt Lay-,,ut Plan, :;i'�:°P?V.3 l tt''r :1._ta- u j ' i' f Y Sincerely, a LF1ia~tf Air;,*rts .Nstrict O�ficc g MIA:610:WR3illingsley:eg:6/18/83:LH:NP:610M.ARATHON 71 } k DEPARTMENT OF TRAM; 'ORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINI:,i RATION DATE: March 21, 1983 IN RE SLY MIA-610 - - REFS TO: _ sueJECT: ACTION: Request for Adaptation to Standards, FAR Part 152.11 and AC 150/5340-6, Marathon Flight Strip, Marathon, Florida yitj_,z�lr FROM: Supervisor, Program Development Section, MIA-ADO MAR 2 TO: ASO-200 600 ASO-400 ASO-500 6``1- ASO 62t 61 Background 9 P The existin separation between the centerline of Runway 07/25 (5000� L x 150' ) and the centerline of its associated parallel taxiway 40 n wide) i s 175 feet. The referenced standards (Basic aster Transport) callire s „ a minimum separation of 300 feet. The approved L relocation of Runway 07/25 125 feet to the north in order to meet The airport has been granted FAA annual waivers for several standards. T p years to continue commercial commuter operations until the runway could 2 be relocated in accordance with the master plan. e F The Florida Keys are an environmentally sensitive area and have been designated an area of critical concern by the State of Florida. Key (Marathon) is a long, narrow strip of land. At the center of the Vaca (Mara ) parallel each island the airport runway and Highway U.S. 1 closely other. The only buffer between the airport and the residential areas to the north is a line of vegetation consisting of mangrove, tropical hardwood hammock, and non-critical vegetation. Runway relocation as required by the master plan and implementation of the 250-foot runway safety area and 7:1 transition to the north of the runway would require Ll removal of a significant portion of this vegetation. The environmental coordination of this project resulted in recorded ob- jections to the removal of this vegetation by the U.S . Department the Interior as it i s comprised of plant species 1 i sted as "endangered" and as threatened�� by the State of Florida. These objections further point out that due to the little land mass in the Keys, the loss of this vegetation would be particularly significant threats oftcommercialit is develop- ment) . land and can be protected w Marathon is a noise sensitive area and noise` abatement procedures are used at the airport. The sponsor has advised that local citizens' groups vehemently oppose any construction that will remove or destroy local this vegetation line and sound barrier ; further, that tsu support business community, inclusive of the airlines, strongly pP maintaining the Basic Transport category and commercial commuter operations. Page No. 2 In an effort to reach an acceptable compromise, the sponsor has con- ducted a review of the commercial commuter aircraft (less than 60,000 pounds gross) and others that may occasionally use the airport. This review examined the amount of wing overhang (of these aircraft) from the main landing gear to the wingtips (see enclosure) . In applying this to the "worst possible case" of one aircraft with its main landing gear on the extreme southern edge of the runway and a similar type aircraft located on the extreme northern edge of the taxiway, then on the existing 150-foot wide runway and 40-foot wide taxiway, DC-3's with have 3 feet of wingtip 38.5 feet of overhang woulda 9 p clearance from each other. Problem: The sponsor proposes that instead of relocating the runway (to the re- quired 300' centerline to centerline separation) , that the northernmost 100 feet of the existing runway be repaved (with the southernmost 50' being decommissioned) . This would result in a new runway centerline 25' north of its present location (and hence a new taxiway-centerline- to-runway-centerline distance of 200' ). With the new runway centerline 25 feet north of its present position, it is possible to achieve the required primary and 7:1 transition surfaces without removal of the line of vegetation. This would thereby increase the separation between runway and taxiway centerline to 200 feet and increase the distance from taxiway edge to runway edge by 50 feet (thereby increasing the wingtip separation in the DC-3 example above from 3 feet to 53 feet). To compensate somewhat for the reduced wingtip separation from the standard in a "worst possible case," Monroe County proposes to restrict any commercial carrier aircraft to a maximum overhang of 38.5 feet. The Convair 440, for example, would be restricted from operations. pew and comments will be appreciated. Billin s ey Note: Other alternatives, including moving the taxiway to the south, have been examined and are not feasible for a variety of reasons. The alternative of "relaxing/waiving/modifying" the 500' wide (hence, 250' to the north) and 7: 1 transition surface has not been examined nor is currently proposed by the sponsor. The mangrove line (more or less consistently) is located 385 ' north of the existing centerline at heights not exceeding 15' above the beginning owest) elevation of the 7:1. AIRCRAFT GEAR WIDTH WINGSPAN OVERHANG* Beach 99A 13 45 11 16. 5 Nord N-262A 1013" 71 ' 10" 31 Cessna 402 1418" 39 ' 10" 12 . 5 Convair 440 25 ' 105 4" 40 . 5 DC-3 1816" 95 ' 38 . 5 f F-27 23 8 951211 35 . 5 E f Gulfstream 1 2417" 7814" 26 . 5 { Electra 3112" 99 ' 34 Martin 404 25 ' 9314" 34 DC-9-50 16 ' 93 '4" 38 . 5 YS-11 2.813" 1051 38. 5 - Piper Navajo 131911 401811 13. 5 Aero Commander 12 ' 11" 49 ' 6" 18 . 5 Swearingen Metro 15' 4613" 15 . 5 �e * Rounded to nearest . 5 ft . Information derived from Advisory Circular 150/5325-5B of 7-30-75. L Enclosure (1) APPENDIX C AIRFIELD DESIGN ALTERNATIVE STUDY (NOVEMBER 2005) FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT AIRFIELD DESIGN ALTERNATIVE STUDY PREPARED FOR MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPERATOR OF FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT PREPARED BY um November, 2005 AIRFIELD DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Florida Keys Marathon Airport Marathon, Florida November,2005 Introduction The alternative airfield development analysis described in this report attempts to identify and quantify various runway/taxiway configurations that, if constructed, would possibly eliminate or mitigate one or more non-standard airport design conditions at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport. Historical Background The Florida Keys Marathon Airport is a "Public-Owned", "Public Use" airport licensed by the Florida Department of Transportation. Until 2003, the airport served as a limited F.A.R. Part 139 Air Carrier Airport providing scheduled air service to residents of the lower and middle Florida Keys. The existing airfield layout and geometric centerline separations are the result of several modifications and improvements made to the single-runway landing strip originally developed in 1943 by the U.S. Navy to serve their training needs during World War II. A full-length parallel taxiway (Taxiway Alpha or"A")was constructed along the southeast ("south") side of the runway and has a runway-to-taxiway centerline separation distance of 150 feet. At the request of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA), the runway was subsequently relocated 50 feet to the northwest ("north") to provide the current centerline separation of 200 feet and the runway pavement was reduced to its current width of 100 feet. Federal Aviation Administration Airport Design Criteria Airport facilities are typically designed for a specific aircraft known as the "design" aircraft, which is the most operationally and/or physically demanding aircraft to make substantial use of the airport. The design aircraft is used to establish the dimensional requirements for safety parameters such as lateral clearance for runways, taxiways and aircraft parking positions, and obstacle clearances. In some cases, the design aircraft may be selected to represent the most demanding from the consideration of airfield geometric design such as largest anticipated wingspan or tail height. Other considerations may be include the various landing gear configuration of certain aircraft and its affect on the load bearing capabilities of various runway and taxiways pavements, apron areas and/or aircraft parking hardstands. For the purposes of assessing alternative airfield development alternatives at the airport that would fully satisfy FAA design standards, the proposed airfield improvements follow the design criteria prescribed in the FAA's Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, (Changes 1 through 9 inclusive). The Airport Design Circular prescribes the FAA's Airport Reference Coding (ARC) system that is used to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at the airport. The ARC has two components relating to the airport design aircraft. The first component, designated by a letter, is the Aircraft Approach Category and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteristic). The second component, designated by a Roman numeral, is the Airplane Design Group and relates to airplane wingspan (physical characteristic). Generally, runway standards are related to aircraft approach speed, airplane wingspan, and designated or planned instrument approach capabilities. The airport is currently designated as having Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II airfield design geometry that typically accommodates aircraft having design characteristics that include landing approach speeds of 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots and wingspans of 49 feet, but not including 79 feet. Current FAA airport design standards require that ARC B-II airports provide a minimum runway-to-taxiway centerline separation of 240 feet. The existing runway-to-taxiway centerline separation is 200 feet and is therefore does not satisfy current FAA design standards. 1 In an effort to formerly address these non-standard conditions, the FAA has approved the following Modifications to FAA Airport Design Standards for the Florida Keys Marathon Airport: 1. Runway to Taxiway Separation at 200 feet. FAA approved by letter dated May 18, 1983. 2. No Aircraft with More Than 38.5 'Overhang FAA approved by letter dated May 18, 1983. 3. Prior Permission Required For Aircraft Greater Than 79' Wingspan Exception Number: FAR- 139-94-ASO-04 4. Obstruction Lighting Within Transitional Zones Will Not Be Required Outside of 250 Feet Each Side Of Runway Centerline FAA approved by letter dated February 1, 1994 Alternative Airfield Development Analysis The following sections of this Study report describe three potential airfield development alternatives that, if undertaken, would serve to remedy existing nonstandard airport design conditions that are primarily rated to the non-standard runway-to-taxiway centerline separation. Airfield development three scenarios developed as part of this Study are described as Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Each development scenario attempts to fully accommodate Airplane Design Group (ADG) II taxiway and taxilane separation standards that provide the required minimum runway-to-taxiway centerline separation of 240 feet. A fourth "Null" or "Do Nothing" alternative (Alternative 1) was also examined. Each airfield development scenario is depicted at the end of this Study report. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that all existing and future apron taxilanes under the direct control of the airport's two Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) Marathon Jet Center and Paradise Jet Support would be marked, striped and configured to fully accommodate unrestricted taxi operations by aircraft having ADG II characteristics. This assumption requires that certain existing aircraft tie-down spaces will be eliminated to accommodate the unrestricted airport taxi movement of aircraft having B-II wingspan characteristics. The resultant financial and/or operational impacts that might be imposed upon each FBO as a direct result of these actions are unknown. For example, if the FBO revenues are increased as a direct result of the servicing of larger B-II business jet aircraft, the financial revenues may serve to offset the loss of tie-down revenue. For the purpose of this Study, only the anticipated loss of tie-down revenue is considered. Considerations for Potential Environmental Impacts Tree Impacts Requiring Clearing and Grubbing As part of Alternatives 3 and 4, preliminary cost estimates were developed that represent anticipated tree removal, clearing and grubbing required to fully satisfy FAA design criteria. For the purposes of cost estimating, tree replacement was calculated assuming a tree density of one tree (with a trunk diameter of greater than 4 inches) per four square feet of hammock. These tree clearing actions however, could be in conflict with existing Monroe County Code as cited as General Ordinances of the County, Chapter 9.5 Land Use Regulations, Article V11 Land Use Districts, Division 8 Environmental Standards, Sections 9.5-346 and 347, Transplantation Plan and Open Space Requirements respectively with regard to maintaining at least 80% of the existing hardwood hammock as open space. It should be emphasized that the cost estimates provided in this document are solely for tree removal and relocation costs. 2 Wetland Mitigation Based on review of aerial and site photographs and the Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida (NRCS, 1995), a jurisdictional wetland consisting of an open water "salt pond" and mangrove forest is located in the vegetated area located in the northwest corner of the airport. A discussion of possible impacts to the wetland and potential mitigation requirements and costs are provided for Alternatives 3 and 4. The state of Florida utilizes the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) to determine mitigation requirements for wetland impacts. UMAM was developed to fulfill the mandate of subsection 373.414(18), F.S., which requires the establishment of a uniform mitigation assessment method to determine the amount of mitigation needed to offset adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. The methodology, as described in Chapter 62-345, F.A.C., provides a standardized procedure to be used by all state and local agencies for assessing the functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters, the amount that those functions are reduced by a proposed impact, and the amount of mitigation necessary to offset that loss. This methodology typically results in mitigation requirements for impacts to mangrove forests and estuarine areas to be in the range of 3:1 to 5:1 (mitigation: impact) for wetland creation and restoration. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a 4:1 mitigation ratio will be required. In March 2003, URS prepared a Feasibility Study for Monroe County for the Key West International Airport. In this Study, eighteen (18) mitigation sites located in the lower and middle Keys were identified and cost estimates were prepared. Four (4) of the potential mitigation sites are located in the vicinity of Marathon and are being utilized in this assessment to determine potential mitigation costs. The cost estimates for these four sites have been updated assuming a 3% annual inflation factor. The average cost for one (1) acre of mitigation was determined to be approximately $111,700. Three of the four potential mitigation sites are public lands and would not require land acquisition. Mitigation costs would be higher if land acquisition is needed. Land costs for parcels comparable in size for what would be needed for this project averaged approximately$450,000 per acre. Monroe County Code provides for the conservation and protection of the environmental resources of the Florida Keys by ensuring that the functional integrity of natural areas is protected when land is developed. Clearing of the upland hammock could be in conflict with the Monroe County Code cited as General Ordinances of the County, Chapter 9.5 Land Use Regulations, Article VII Land Use Districts, Division 8 Environmental Standards, Sections 9.5-346 and 347, Transplantation Plan and Open Space Requirements. A previous cost estimate for tree removal and relocation costs in accordance with Monroe County Code was performed by URS. These cost estimates are also included as part of this Study report. 3 Alternative 1 - Do Nothing This alternative assumes that no modifications to the existing airfield are undertaken and the existing non- standard 200-foot runway centerline-to-taxiway centerline condition remains unchanged. No construction, demolition or disturbances and/or impacts to environmentally-sensitive land areas situated along the north side of Runway 7/25 or to existing structures, aircraft parking positions or apron areas south of the runway would occur. The existing vegetative and environmentally-sensitive land areas located parallel and northwest of the runway would remain outside the limits of the Runway Object Free Zone (OFZ)and the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) As part of this "Do Nothing" alternative, it is assumed that the Marathon Jet Center Apron is marked and striped to fully accommodate unrestricted ADG B-II taxiing aircraft movements along the entire length of the north side of the apron. For geometric analysis considerations only, a future ADG B-II apron taxilane across the entire north side of the Paradise Jet Support apron was assumed to be in place and was assessed for potential operational and economic impacts to the FBO's ADG A/B-I operations and tie down positions. Associated Impacts: • Associated Construction: No construction, demolition or disturbance of natural or man-made environs would occur. • Existing Structures: No existing buildings, structures or facilities would be disturbed, relocated or removed. • Marathon Jet Center Apron/Operations: No changes to current operational practices would occur. • Paradise Jet Support Apron/Operations: No changes to current operational practices would occur. (Not considering the development of an ADG B-II taxilane along the full length of apron.) • Passenger Terminal Apron/Operations: No changes or operational impacts to the use of the terminal apron area would occur. Occasional operations by regional jet aircraft having dimensional characteristics larger than B-II wingspans could occur. • Environmentally-Sensitive Land Areas: No disturbances or impacts to mangroves, hardwood hammocks, wetlands or the salt pond would occur. Anticipated Cost: This alternative has no associated construction, relocation, or environmental mitigation costs. Alternative 2 - Relocate Taxiway Alpha South This alternative provides the required 240-foot runway-to-taxiway centerline separation by relocating the Taxiway "A" centerline 40 feet to the south. This proposed action would require the widening of the south edge of the Taxiway "A" to provide an overall ARC B-II taxiway pavement width of 35 feet. Accordingly, the associated ADG B-II Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) and Taxiway Object Free (TOFA) would be shifted 40 feet south. The existing vegetative and environmentally-sensitive land areas located parallel and northwest of the runway would remain outside the limits of the Runway Object Free Zone (OFZ) and the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) 4 Associated Impacts: • Required Reconstruction of Taxiway"A": The entire length of Taxiway A's full strength pavement would be reconstructed 40 feet to the south to provide an overall taxiway pavement width of 35 feet and a shoulder width of 10 feet. The full strength taxiway pavement construction would occur to a width of 32.5 feet along the south side of the existing taxiway. Where required, 10- foot paved shoulders would be developed along the south side. The relocated taxiway would be marked and striped to fully accommodate ADG B-11 operations. All taxiway edge lights would require relocation to within 10 feet of the newly established full strength taxiway pavement edge. • Existing Structures: The relocated TOFA would extend 15 feet beyond the western-most extent of four (Phase 1) T-hangars that are situated along the south side of Taxiway "A". • Impacts to Development of Phase 11 Future T-Hangars: The relocated TOFA would impact the planned Phase 11 T-Hangar development planned immediately south of the existing four T- hangars. The hangar units and associated storage closets would be eliminated. The rental rate for the existing T-hangar units is $450 per month. The T-hangars have an estimated useful life of 28 years. The rental rate for the four end storage closets having the same useful life is $100 per month. Applying the monthly rental rates, the associated financial impacts to the owner/operators would be approximately $739,200 over the remaining 28-year useful life of the existing T-hangars • The same impacts would be associated with the planned four additional multi-unit T-hangar structures that are planned west of the existing T-hangars. Applying the same monthly rental rates the associated financial impacts to the owner/operators would be approximately $792,000 over the 30-year useful life of the future affected T-hangars • Impacts to Future Fire Station Operations: The relocated TOFA would impact the planned operation of a new fire station and supporting apron area adjacent to Taxiway "A". The expanded TOFA would preclude the temporary or parking of various fire truck and/or equipment in areas directly behind the Fire Station building. • Marathon Jet Center Apron/Operations: The required ADG B-11 105-foot taxiway centerline-to- apron-edge taxilane centerline separation would require that the ADG B-11 taxilane be shifted southward impacting (4) four ADG A/B-I tiedown positions. Based on current (2005) monthly tie-down fees charged by the FBO, it is anticipated that the FBO (or future FBO) would incur revenue impacts directly related to the lost of tie-down locations in the neighborhood of $144,000 over a 30-year period. • Paradise Jet Support Apron/Operations: Relocated ADG B-11 TOFA would require elimination of 16 apron-edge tiedown positions and 11 additional apron tie-down positions. Using the same monthly tie-down fee rates, it is anticipated that the FBO (or future FBO) would incur revenue impacts directly related to the lost of tie-down locations in the neighborhood of$972,000 over a 30-year period. • Passenger Terminal Apron/Operations: The anticipated occasional itinerant operations by aircraft having ADG C/D-11 characteristics (e.g., typical Regional Jet) would generate wingtip penetrations of the relocated ADG B-11 TOFA. Itinerant operations of aircraft having ADG B-I characteristics (e.g., Beechcraft 1900 airliner) would not generate wingtip penetrations of the relocated TOFA. • Environmentally-Sensitive Land Areas: No disturbances or impacts to mangrove wetlands, hardwood hammocks or the salt pond would occur. Consequently, there would be no costs associated with tree removal and replacement, wetland mitigation or organism relocation. 5 • Preclude or Severely Impact the Resumption of FAR Part 121 Air Carrier Operations: Following the cessation of air carrier service in 2003, Monroe County has actively pursued all viable avenues to reinitiate air carrier service. Monroe County has submitted a total of three Small Community Air Service grant applications and has all reason to believe that such efforts will serve to attract and retain scheduled air carrier service to serve the air traveling needs of residents of the lower and middle Florida Keys. Anticipated Cost: The estimated direct costs developed for this analysis are limited to the relocation of the Taxiway Alpha full strength pavement, shoulders and taxiway edge lighting. The estimated construction costs limited only to the relocation of Taxiway Alpha is $4,988,914. Other economic impacts include, but are not be limited to the two Fixed Base Operators tie-down revenue loss of approximately $1,116,000, and unquantifiable impacts to certain Federal Aviation Regulations Part 121 and/or Part 135 commercial operations (i.e., Regional Jets and or other charter operations) at the passenger terminal airside apron. The associated impacts to the resumption of Federal Aviation Regulations (F.A.R.) Part 121 or Part 135 operations can not be estimated at this time, but would include lost financial opportunities to the airport and economic generation impacts to the lower Florida Keys. An economic revenue loss of approximately $739,200 would be associated with the required demolition of the four western-most T-hangar bays and corner storage areas to avoid impacts to the Taxiway Alpha Object Free Area and to Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting facility apron operations. Similar lost revenue impacts of approximately $792,000 would also be incurred for the planned four additional multi-unit T-Hangar facilities. No environmental mitigation or environmental permitting costs are anticipated for this alternative. Monroe County's Resection of Alternative 2 The numerous operational, financial and economic impacts associated with this alternative as viewed from the perspective of Monroe County (Owner/Operator of the airport) are considered to render Alternative 2 non-viable or impracticable. Alternative 3 - Relocate Runway 7/25 North This alternative provides the required 240-foot runway-to-taxiway centerline separation by relocating the entire Runway 40 feet to the north. This would require the complete reconstruction of runway pavement and shoulders to provide an overall full strength runway pavement width of 100 feet and shoulder width of 10 feet. Accordingly, the associated ADG B-II Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free (ROFA) area setbacks would be shifted 40 feet to the north. Portions of the existing vegetative and environmentally-sensitive land areas located parallel and northwest of the runway would be located within the limits of the Runway Object Free Zone (OFZ) and the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Associated Impacts: • Associated Construction: The entire length of Runway 7/25 full strength pavement would be reconstructed to relocate the runway centerline 40 feet to the north and to provide an overall runway pavement width of 100 feet. Where required, 10-foot paved shoulders would be developed along the north side of the runway pavement edge. All runway edge lights would require relocation to within 10 feet of the newly established full strength runway pavement edge. • Existing Structures: No man-made structures or facilities would be impacted by the northward relocation of the runway. • Marathon Jet Center Apron/Operations: No adverse operational or financial impacts are anticipated to occur. 6 • Paradise Jet Support Apron/Operations: Establishment of ADG B-II apron taxilane would eliminate 17 apron-edge tiedown positions. Revenue to the FBO typically generated by the seasonal or year-round rental of these tie down positions would be lost. It is anticipated that the FBO (or future FBO) would incur revenue impacts directly related to the lost of tie-down locations in the neighborhood of$612,000 over a 30-year period. • Terminal Apron/Operations: No adverse operational or financial impacts are anticipated to occur. • Environmentally-Sensitive Land Areas: The relocated Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) would extend 40 feet beyond the current 250-foot runway centerline-to-vegetation clearing line. This would require that all wetland areas and upland hammock located within 250 feet of the relocated runway centerline be impacted to satisfy the object free requirements. This would result in an impact to approximately 1.0 acre of the wetland located in the northwest corner of the airport. Mitigation would be required to compensate for the wetland impact. Anticipated Cost: This alternative presents the highest relative cost associated with the relocation of Runway 7/25 centerline, pavement edge expansion and edge lighting. The estimated direct costs developed for this analysis are limited to the relocation of the runway 40 feet to the north is $9,628,344. Other economic impacts to the tie-down revenue for Paradise Jet Support are anticipated to be approximately $612,000 over a 30-year period. This alternative would result in approximately 1.0 acres of wetland impact. Approximately 4.0 acres of wetland creation should be required for mitigation. The wetland mitigation construction would cost approximately $446,800. Land acquisition for approximately 4.0 acres would cost approximately $1,800,000. This is in addition to the estimated $9,600,000 for costs related to tree removal, clearing, grubbing, and canopy replacement per Monroe County Code. Alternative 4 - Relocate Runway 7/25 North and Taxiway Alpha South This alternative provides the required 240-foot runway-to-taxiway centerline separation by relocating Runway 7/25 centerline 15 feet to the north and the Taxiway "A" centerline 25 feet to the south. The north edge of the runway and south edge of the taxiway would be widened to provide 100-foot and 35- foot pavement widths respectively. The existing vegetative and environmentally-sensitive land areas located parallel and northwest of the runway would remain outside the limits of the Runway Object Free Zone (OFZ)and the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) This alternative fully avoids impacts to existing structures located south of Taxiway "A", but imposes certain impacts to mangroves and portions of the hardwood hammock north of the runway. The relocated Taxiway "A" centerline would be established by placing the southern-most extent of the ADG B-II Taxiway"A" TOFA along the face of the four T-hangar buildings. Associated Impacts: • Associated Construction: The Runway 7/25 centerline would be relocated 15 feet to the north and the full strength pavement and 10-foot shoulders widened to the north by 15 feet accordingly. The Taxiway "A" centerline would be relocated 15 feet to the south, but the full strength taxiway pavement and associated shoulders widened only 17.5 feet to the south to provide an overall ARC-B-II taxiway width of 35 feet. All runway and taxiway edge lights would require relocation to within 10 feet of the newly established full strength runway pavement edges. 7 • Existing Structures: No impacts to existing man-made structures or facilities would occur. • Marathon Jet Center Apron/Operations: The relocated Taxiway "A" centerline would require a relocation of the Marathon Jet Center ADG B-II apron taxilane centerline thus requiring the elimination of four ADG A/B-I tiedown positions. It is anticipated that the FBO (or future FBO) would not incur revenue impacts directly related to the lost of tie-down locations. • Paradise Jet Support Apron/Operations: Establishment of ADG B-II apron taxilane would eliminate 16 apron-edge and 12 additional apron tiedown positions. It is anticipated that the FBO (or future FBO) would incur revenue impacts directly related to the lost of tie-down locations in the neighborhood of$1,008,000 over a 30-year period. • Terminal Apron/Operations: Itinerant operations by Regional Jets or Beechcraft 1900 at the Terminal Building apron would not be adversely impacted. • Environmentally-Sensitive Land Areas: The relocated ROFA would extend 15 feet beyond the current 250-foot runway centerline-to-vegetation clearing line. This would require that all wetland areas located within 250 feet of the relocated runway centerline be impacted to satisfy the object free requirements. This would result in an impact to approximately 0.4 acres of the wetland located in the northwest corner of the airport. Mitigation would be required to compensate for the wetland impact. Anticipated Cost: This alternative presents the second highest relative cost associated with the relocation of Taxiway "A" centerline, Runway 7/25 centerline; respective pavement edges expansions and edge lighting relocations. The estimated construction costs limited only to construction is 13,966, 472. Economic impacts to the tie-down revenue for Paradise Jet Support are anticipated to be approximately $ 1,008,000 over a 30-year period. This alternative would result in approximately 0.4 acres of wetland impact. Approximately 1.6 acres of wetland creation should be required for mitigation. The wetland mitigation construction would cost approximately $178,720. Land acquisition for approximately 1.0 acres would cost approximately $450,000. This is in addition to the estimated $3,600,000 for costs related to tree removal, clearing, grubbing, and canopy replacement per Monroe County Code. FAA Study Review and Comments During the course of this Study, the FAA Airports District Office located in Orlando, Florida reviewed the four airfield design alternatives. As part of that review, the FAA has taken the unwavering position that Alternative 1 (Null or Do Nothing) was not considered to be acceptable from a safety standpoint and that all measures should be made by Monroe County to remedy the existing non-standard airfield design conditions. The various physical and financial impacts associate with the remaining three alternatives were thoroughly investigated and evaluated by URS, representatives of the airport and the FAA. Through this collaborative review process, it became evident that each of the remaining airfield design alternatives would: 1) derogate the airport's ability to adequately accommodate existing or future anticipated levels of air service, 2) create financial impacts to Monroe County and its existing airport tenants and stakeholders, and 3) create impacts to environmentally-sensitive land areas on the airport. The FAA recognized that because of the limited geographic area within which the airport operates, the relocation of Taxiway Alpha to the south (regardless of distance) would severely impact existing operations as well as to possibly preclude the resumption of schedule air carrier operations at the airport in the future. 8 Study Findings and Recommendations Study Findings It is apparent that any modifications to the existing runway/taxiway layout at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport to fully satisfy current FAA design standards will carry a high price tag. Beyond the obvious cost of relocating and redesigning airfield pavements, other associated costs would include operational and financial impacts to the airport's two Fixed Base Operators, physical impacts to existing T-hangars and the associated loss of T-hangar revenue, disruption of airport operations and/or the potential need to close the airport during critical phases of construction. The issue of current Monroe County codes that prescribe environmental impact limits to the hardwood hammocks and the anticipated associated mitigation costs will serve to further raise the "cost" bar. One major issue that remains critical to the feasibility of the "Action" Alternatives 3 or 4, centers on the question of hardwood hammock impacts, specifically whether Monroe County would permit this amount of hammock removal and, even if permitted, would the County's requirement to maintain at least 80 percent of the hammock as open space be met. Other areas of critical concern center on the need to maintain access to the nation's system of airports. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport is considered a vital community asset that serves the safety, welfare and economy of the lower and middle Florida Keys. Loss of this airport during the Hurricane Season or other relief support efforts following a natural disaster would be problematic at best. There appears to be no quick or economically attractive solution available to remedy the current non- standard runway-to-taxiway centerline separation dilemma at this airport. Based on the preliminary cost estimates provide in this report, the cost will most likely start at around $7.6 million (Alternative 2) and could be as much as $22.1 million (Alternative 3). It should be noted however, that Alternative 2 has no associated environmental mitigation, the remaining impacts and constructions costs do not adequately reflect or quantify the potential economic impacts associated with the potential resumption of scheduled service at the airport. Study Recommendation Based on the findings and considerations developed as part of this Study, is recommended that Monroe County request that FAA coordinate an Aeronautical Study to evaluate the proposed shifting of Runway 7/25 40 feet to the north (Alternative 3). The shifting of the runway will require that portions of the existing vegetative and environmentally-sensitive land areas along the north side of the airport be situated within the Runway Object Free Area. It is also recommended that Monroe County include as part of the request, the stipulation that the Aeronautical Study assess the 40-foot northward shift of the runway without the trimming, removal or disturbance of existing vegetation or environmentally-sensitive land areas north of the runway. As such, the FAA's Aeronautical Study would investigate the potential for impacts to the existing (or potential future) published instrument approach procedures (i.e., cloud ceiling or visibility minima) caused by the presence of the vegetative hammock within the Runway Object Free Area. If the FAA were to allow for the 40-foot northward shift of the runway without requiring the removal and mitigation of the wetlands and hammock, the overall anticipated total cost of Alternative 3 would be reduced by approximately$11.8 million dollars. This would serve to reduce the overall cost of Alternative 3 from over$22 million to just over$10 million that would be limited to runway reconstruction costs. 9 / 0 0 0 0 $ � 0 0 o A _ (0 OD OD o o c 2 7 k k k k � 7 7 m a as a _ \ 0 0 0 cc 0 \ Iq C /CO) 04 / / / C o o ( - k / k k � co tT o a aaaa q / R R R R Cl� C\l o = 0- 0- 0 0 0 g CO 0') 04 ._ c c c W \ / / / \ k k k 2 + I,: aaa as _ � o2 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 > c c c c c c c c c c ■ - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 o « E � f 0 � U » \ coG \ % 8 / £ k E \ ? � / / / 'E \ $ 0 2 n k \ \ 0 co/ f § e co = U # E ) 2 2 c — > a I \ / \ E E / 0 > / / > > 0 \ k ® $ z % ƒ ƒ j § o « co = o \ E 2 \ c 0 c 0 6 / 0 R E c o / O O ± c U \ w E /_ .0 \ R R E � o % \ £ " \ \ o ® % \ a c g 2 / g g I £ @ / w ƒ 2 ¥ ¥ \ 2 2 20 0 E 0 0 \ 0 \ \ 2 2 / co 2 2 2 / \ < < 0 0 k 0 0 f 3 \ / I € 9 H a s 0 0 HN I F �Q ,Z =LLz p Q o II I Cpy jap Za fZ. c _ o SZ ��z o ¢ a w FZ y� Jy= Yw Z w l0 QWs Q o c -f R Eg II I l III I - ® I� I I o l l I I o000 I / 0 I I �I 0 pl ¢o I al I oo of �J I a I o i a I o i IIIII o I 0 _ so °pop Qom/ i10 % 0' , I I � Doi I I III I \ es i I a ail Il 11 H. Q N sc 43' N N <¢ W G ZO Ids ` I.-M �LL =LL I GZ n Q a= �> CLZ ¢a az li II was ZQ fp IL w H� x Jy ra W o o l aN ao a3 W<_ o LL Q �� C LL F I D o I r y I ' L. °o`er 'I I 0 I oll o o o I'I o I I 3$ I o o w II p II I Iso� I w I a — a � x w � mm Q� II Q � o � w IoLL � oN o� Qoo z I � C O I , 0 �0® Iso . 4 0 '�511 0 4 � � i I III 0�0 of i r it (o � g al I 8 I I I _ Il�j qz� tl I � I I I I o I N I\m , Z 3 LU o 1 as \ \ W M0 C¢ ¢ N sJ10 F Q W =LL LL QCl 6H Q az ap az o� CL w a H v W z pp LL HH i sc o i � a H LL N� a 0 o° o r Q 0 ��I O Q Ila. 8 L a w a a w a s � wwm o d � Q ww x I 0 0 ® e o 0 a II 4 i I i a i i i DV �II o II I mom 0 V\ 0 s os=\ ab� II to � o o � II o ° 1 li N z 0 _ s ° �s I S�� 0 r HOC W C7 LL a Q CL Z m QyQ QZ W W W J LL LL !L LLI 0 QUO <2 W_ G VZ of I I � ZO o D O j0 II � Qe °$ I'I oo � 0 � 0e0 ID 0 i o0I la oa Q II 8 p I 5 3 I I w x z ¢ m zo z z a I o a ¢ o m II o m x w w z _ ¢ w m ¢ m I o'3 I I I I � m I m l Iml I I cJ N N ✓� o z z vi x x ¢ a' I'a I lm l o II II'I KVIT 0 00 0 � 0 pp I� � 00 'II I IIOap II APPENDIX D RUNWAY TAKE-OFF LENGTH ANALYSIS (FEBRUARY 2009) The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Runway Take-off Length Analysis Prepared for Monroe County By 'UM Tampa, FL February 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 2.0 AIRPORT BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................1 3.0 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................2 4.0 RUNWAY TAKE-OFF LENGTH ANALYSIS....................................................................................3 4.1 Runway Take-off Length Identified Through Local Surveys...............................................3 4.2 Runway Take-off Lengths Requirements Referencing FAA AC 150/5325-4B...................5 4.3 Runway Take-off Length Identified Using Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc. ..............................5 5.0 FINDINGS........................................................................................................................................6 LIST OF TABLES Page 4.1-1 Aircraft Requiring Runway Longer than 5,008 Feet- MTH Local Survey.......................................4 4.2-1 Runway Take-off Lengths...............................................................................................................5 4.3-1 Aircraft Requiring Runway Longer than 5,008 Feet-Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc..........................6 APPENDIX A Data Received From Local MTH Survey and Table 1 APPENDIX B Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design — Chapter 3 of FAA AC 150/5325-4B APPENDIX C Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., Data and Table 2 J:\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Length Requirements 0109\Marathon RLA.doc\ i Runway Take-off Length Analysis The Florida Keys Marathon Airport RUNWAY TAKE-OFF LENGTH ANALYSIS THE FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT MARATHON, FLORIDA 1.0 INTRODUCTION Monroe County, Florida is considering runway improvements at The Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH) to better accommodate existing general aviation users of the airport. The existing single asphalt runway (Runway 7/25) is 5,008 feet long, 100 feet wide and has a 400-foot paved full-strength overruns extending beyond each end. The existing runway length limits the utility of the airport for some users, particularly turbine-driven aircraft during hot day conditions. The analysis presented will demonstrate the need for greater runway take-off lengths for jet aircraft operating at MTH. The analysis will concentrate on runway take-off lengths rather than runway landing lengths, as the take-off lengths are typically more demanding with regard to heavier aircraft weight requiring longer runway lengths. 2.0 AIRPORT BACKGROUND Development History The Florida Keys Marathon Airport's development history presented herein, is based on the airport profile located in Florida Aviation Database (http://www.florida-aviation-database.com/). The Florida Keys Marathon Airport was originally developed as a military airfield in the early 1940s. It was known as Marathon Airport until 1999, when it was changed to The Florida Keys Marathon Airport. After World War II, the airport converted to a public facility; today encompassing a 197.4 acre airport that is serving Florida's middle Keys. In 1995, the airport began a multi-million dollar project to support projected increases in commercial service and general aviation demand. A 20,000 square foot terminal building, including a 1,000 square foot administration building, was constructed along with a new parking lot and increased ramp space. In 1998, taxiway lighting was installed and four shade hangars were demolished and rebuilt. In 2001, a new rotating Airport Beacon was installed. In 2002, construction began on 32 T-hangars, four additional shade hangars and Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) Lights. Current Airport Condition and Aviation Activity Levels Runway 7/25 has Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL) and a full-length parallel taxiway 50 feet in width with Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL). Visual guidance lighting systems include PAPIs and Runway End Identification Lights (REILs). Navigational aids include Global Positioning System (GPS) and Non-directional Beacon (NDB)supporting three published non-precision instrument approach procedures. Current Airport Reference Code (ARC) for MTH is B-II, and is based on aircraft approach speeds and J:\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Length Requirements 0109\Marathon RLA.doc 1 Runway Take-off Length Analysis The Florida Keys Marathon Airport wingspans ranging between 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots and wingspans ranging from 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet or tail height from 20 up to but not including 30 feet. Based on data reported on FAA Form 5010, FAA-Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), the Florida Aviation Database, and MTH management interview, 81 aircraft are currently based at MTH and 65,150 annual aircraft operations were estimated for 2008. The runway accommodates single-engine, multi-engine propeller, and turbine-powered aircraft operations. Some of the larger turbojet aircraft operations, however, are limited by runway length that may include weight restrictions during departures. Depending on a number of factors, pilots operating certain jet aircraft may be required to reduce payload (i.e., passengers and cargo) and/or fuel load (i.e., reduces non-stop trip distance)when departing, particularly during hot day conditions. 3.0 METHODOLOGY Three methods were utilized to collect aircraft operations data and analyze runway take-off length needs at MTH: 1. Review of local FBO surveys obtained through MTH management; 2. Use of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5325-4B Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, 7/01/2005; and 3. Use of Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., computer software and data specific to MTH. Use of Local FBO Surveys The first method was based upon review of surveys developed by URS Corporation and utilized by the airport's FBO, Marathon Jet Center. The source of the survey data was based on interviews and questionnaire data collected as well as other supplemental data provided by "flight following" software utilized by the FBO which provided all inbound and outbound flight information specific to MTH. The flight following data, however, is limited to 111 days (07/08/08 through 10/27/08) and represents flights activity collected during the airport's "off season". Accordingly, the number of flights over the year would be proportionally much larger than the data sample when extrapolated to 365 days. Additionally, pilots that were interviewed provided approximate non-stop distances as well as destination, estimated average speed and time in route. Aircraft data included the date, registration number ("N" number) and aircraft type. URS Corporation utilized this information to ascertain aircraft manufacture's name, model, type, and engine type using the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) web-based Civil Aviation Registry database (httpe//registryefaa.gov/). Table 1, Appendix A, identifies a subset of these aircraft that is limited to jet aircraft operating at MTH and their respective adjusted FAA take-off lengths for MTH field elevation of 5 ft (MSL), hottest day temperature of 89.5° F, current runway length of 5,008 feet, and J:\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Length Requirements 0109\Marathon RLA.doc 2 Runway Take-off Length Analysis The Florida Keys Marathon Airport runway slope of 0.01 percent. The applicable ARC for each aircraft is also provided. The runway take-off lengths for each were adjusted using the methodology provided in the Regional Guidance Letter (RGL) 01-2, Airports Division, FAA Southern Region, Dated August 10, 2001, Runway Length and Strength Requirements for Business Jet Aircraft. Although this publication has been cancelled, the mathematical formulas were referenced and used by URS Corporation for adjustment of runway take-off and landing lengths for each aircraft that were identified in the local survey. Use of FAA AC 150/5325-4B The second method utilized FAA AC 150/5325-413 Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design. This AC provides guidelines and recommendations for runway lengths. The AC provides information regarding runway take-off length requirements for airplanes having a maximum certificated take-off weight greater than 12,500 Ibs up to and including 60,000 lbs. Using different assumed aircraft fleet compositions operating at different useful loads, the AC provides aircraft performance curves to derive recommended runway take-off lengths. Appendix B contains Chapter 3 of the AC. Use of Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc. The third method utilized data collected from Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., computer software that provided information for all aircraft that filed IFR flight plans to or from MTH over a 365-day period for MTH (01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008). The number of recorded flight plans at MTH, however, represents a conservative estimate of total annual operations because Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., software does not capture 100 percent of all flight plans. Similar to the first method, Table 2, Appendix C, identifies aircraft operating at MTH and their respective FAA take-off field lengths adjusted for MTH field elevation, hottest day temperature, current runway length, and runway slope. The applicable ARC for each aircraft is also provided. The runway take-off and landing lengths required for each aircraft were adjusted using the methodology provided in the previously referenced Regional Guidance Letter. 4.0 RUNWAY TAKE-OFF LENGTH ANALYSIS This section evaluates runway take-off length needs and is based on aircraft that are currently operating at MTH as identified in the FBO survey received from the airport management and use of Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., software. 4.1 Runway Take-off Length Identified Through Local Surveys The local FBO survey indicated that operators of jet aircraft currently operating at MTH experience take- off performance limitations based on the current runway length. These limitations include take-off weight restrictions and reduced non-stop trip lengths. These limitations typically occur during hot day conditions (hottest day temperatures occur in the month of August). J:\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Length Requirements 0109\Marathon RLA.doc 3 Runway Take-off Length Analysis The Florida Keys Marathon Airport As indicated in Table 1, Appendix A, jet aircraft operating at MTH were analyzed for runway take-off length requirements based on their published FAA standard runway take-off distances. The FAA standard runway take-off distances were obtained from the FAA Regional Guidance Letter, Runway Length and Strength Requirements for Business Jet Aircraft, (RGL01-2, dated August 10, 2001), and the Aviation Week & Space Technology Source Book, dated January 26, 2009. These standard take-off distances runway represent take-off distances based on Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW), zero runway longitudinal gradient, sea level field elevation and standard temperature of 59, F (Standard Atmospheric Day). Using guidance contained in RGL 01-2, FAA standard runway take-off distances were adjusted for MTH field elevation, hottest day temperature, and longitudinal gradient. A copy of the FAA-recommended (RGL 01-2) adjustment methodologies and the URS Corporation developed spreadsheet used to adjust runway lengths is provided in Appendix A, Table 1. The table also shows that approximately 37 percent (168 operations) of current operations by 19 different jet aircraft (generating 62 operations)would benefit from an extended runway of more than 5,008 feet. This validated information provided in local FBO surveys and provided additional insight as to actual runway length needs by specific aircraft. Table 4.1-1 lists the 19 aircraft and 62 aircraft operations by ARC that would benefit from the availability of a longer runway. It is also important to note that this data sample is limited and only provides aircraft operations for 111 days of the year as obtained via survey during the "off season" at the airport. Thus, the number of flights over the year would be proportionally much greater. Taking a conservative approach, the 62 sampled aircraft operations to or from MTH over a 111-day period when extrapolated to an entire year (365 days)would equate to an estimated 204 annual operations by these aircraft. It should be further noted that the total extrapolated estimate may be low based on the "off-season"sampling. Table 4.1-1 Aircraft Requiring Runway Longer than 5,008 Feet— MTH Local Survey The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Number of Number of Aircraft Percent Aircraft Percent ARC Operations 6 32% 13 21% B-1I 3 16% 16 26% C-1 6 32% 25 40% C-11 2 10% 6 10% C-III 1 5% 1 2% D-I 1 5% 1 2% D-11 19 100% 62 100% Source: FBO local survey conducted 07/08/08 to 10/27/08. URS Corporation Analysis, 2009. J:\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Length Requirements 0109\Marathon RLA.doc 4 Runway Take-off Length Analysis The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 4.2 Runway Take-off Lengths Requirements Referencing FAA AC 150/5325-413 The FAA's AC 150/5325-4B Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, Chapter 3 provides two separate aircraft performance curve figures that address 75 percent of fleet at 60 or 90 percent useful loads and 100 percent of fleet at 60 or 90 percent useful loads. Two corresponding tables, support these performance curves. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 list airplanes that make up 75 percent of the fleet and airplanes that make up the remaining 25 percent of airplanes that make up 100 percent of fleet, respectively (also listed by aircraft manufacturer and model). By reviewing information regarding aircraft operating at MTH, 18 of 36 (50 percent) aircraft were identified in Table 3-1 and 12 of 19 (63 percent) aircraft were identified in Table 3-2. Thus, the performance curves in Figure 3-2 (100% of fleet operating at 60 percent or 90 percent useful loads) were used to identify the recommended runway take-off lengths at MTH. When adjusted for local conditions (field elevation and hot day temperature), the runway take-off length recommendations ranged from 5,400 to 8,200 feet based upon 60 percent of useful loads and 90 percent of useful loads respectively. Table 4.2-1 indicates the runway take-off lengths based on adjusted local MTH conditions. A copy of relevant guidance and the performance charts are included in Appendix B. Table 4.2-1 Runway Take-off Lengths The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 75 Percent 100 Percent of Fleet of Fleet 60% Useful Load 4,650 Feet 5,400 Feet 90% Useful Load 7,650 Feet 8,200 Feet Source: FAA Advisory Circular(AC) 150/5325-413 Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, 7/01/2005, Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2. Adjusted for local hot day conditions at sea level. URS Corporation Analysis,2009. 4.3 Runway Take-off Length Identified Using Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc. Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., provided data for a 365-day period from 01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008 that documented a total of 9,282 aircraft operations at MTH (based on filed flight plans to or from the airport) of which 2,044 (22 percent) were generated by jet aircraft. These operations by aircraft are listed in Appendix C. The FAA standard runway take-off distances were obtained from the FAA Regional Guidance Letter 01-2 and the Aviation Week & Space Technology Source Book and represent take-off distances based on Maximum Take-Off Weights (MTOW), zero runway longitudinal gradient, sea level field elevation, during standard temperature conditions. FAA standard runway take-off distances were adjusted for field elevation and hottest day temperature. A copy of the FAA recommended adjustment methodologies and the URS Corporation spreadsheet used to J:\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Length Requirements 0109\Marathon RLA.doc 5 Runway Take-off Length Analysis The Florida Keys Marathon Airport adjust runway lengths is provided in Appendix C, Table 2. The table also shows that approximately 19 aircraft that were documented as generating 583 operations at MTH annually would benefit from an extended runway of more than 5,008 feet. This represents approximately 29 percent of total jet annual operations (583 jet operations requiring longer runway length divided by 2,044 total jet operations). It is also important to note that the data extracted from the Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., represents a conservative estimate the total number of operations over a 365-day period because the Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., system does not capture 100 percent of all filed flight plans. Table 4.3-1 identifies the 19 aircraft and 583 jet aircraft operations by ARC that would benefit from a longer than 5,008 feet runway. Table 4.3-1 Aircraft Requiring Runway Longer than 5,008 Feet-Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Number of Number of Aircraft Percent Aircraft Percent ARC Operations 4 21% 79 14% B-1I 2 11% 155 27% C-1 8 42% 176 30% C-11 1 5% 7 1% C-1I I 1 5% 64 11% D-I 2 11% 98 17% D-11 L- 1 5% 4 1% Unknown 19 100% 583 100% Source: Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., data collected for a 365-day period (01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008) URS Corporation Analysis, 2009. 5.0 FINDINGS It is clearly demonstrated that at a very minimum, 29 percent of all sampled jets and conservatively as much as 37 percent of all jets operating at MTH would benefit from a runway longer than 5,008 feet. Runway take-off length analysis evaluation conducted by URS for this study provides the following finding: 1. 19 jet aircraft generating 204 annual aircraft operations would benefit from a runway longer than 5,008 feet based on data received from local FBO survey; 2. Length recommendations, per FAA AC150/5325-4B, ranged from 5,400 to 8,200 feet based upon 60 percent of useful loads and 90 percent of useful loads respectively for aircraft representing up to 100 percent of the fleet; J:\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Length Requirements 0109\Marathon RLA.doc 6 Runway Take-off Length Analysis The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 3. 19 jet aircraft generating 583 annual aircraft operations would benefit from a runway longer than 5,008 feet based on data collected from Sabre Flight Explorer°, Inc., computer software; 4. Runway take-off lengths of at least 6,000 are justified; and 5. The use of the existing full-strength paved overruns located beyond each end of the runway could be utilized to provide up to 5,708 feet of runway length today. J:\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Length Requirements 0109\Marathon RLA.doc 7 Runway Take-off Length Analysis The Florida Keys Marathon Airport APPENDIX A Data Received From Local MTH Survey and Table 1 Survey Data Obtained from Airport Management The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Manufacturer Engine DATE REG# TYPE DISTANCE, [DESTINATION Name Model AircraftType Type ARC 7/1/08 633SA CII 700 HKY Cessna 560 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/1/08 626S SOVERIGN 110 TMB Beech V35 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Reciprocating A-1 7/2/08 466SS CII 900 CWS Cessna 550 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/2/08 101 BU KA90 700 CHA 7/2/08 533LR H1000 600 ILM Corporate Jets Limited BAE 125-1000A Fixed Winq Multi-En ine Turbo-Jet C-11 7/2/08 748QS G2 100 APF Israel Aircraft Industries Gulfstream 200 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan D-11 7/2/081 32A I B400 800 ROA Schem -Hirth K.G Nimbus-2C Glider None 7/4/08 9NG CXL 900 IAD Cessna 750 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 7/6/08 319QS CIT BRAVO 150 PBI Cessna 560 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/6/08 517LR H1000 650 GMU British Aerospace BAE 125-1000A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 7/6/08 70ONP H25B 1100 GYY British Aerospace BAE 125-700A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/6/08 220LA F20 900 LIT Dassault Falcon 20 Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/7/08 130SL P180 1100 OXC Pia io P-180 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-I 7/8/08 147SL P180 1200 BED Pia io P-180 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-I 7/8/081 444ER CHEYENNE 600 ILM Pi er PA-31T2 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro A-1 7/9/08 199CE KA300 1000 DAL Beech B300 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 7/9/08 60OKM CII 1100 GSH Cessna S550 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/10/08 439FX LJ45 950 ADS Learjet 45 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/10/08 23NG CITXL 920 IAP Cessna 560XL Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/10/08 416BD GLOBAL 1220 MHT Bomardier BD-700-1A10 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-111 7/10/08 818SS G3 900 HOU Gulfstream G-1159A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Jet D-11 7/11/08 415TH WW24 900 MNN Israel Aircraft Industries 1124A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/11/08 412GJ H400XP 650 PDK Raytheon Aircraft 400A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/11/08 717HA CJ2 1200 DXP Cessna 525A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/11/081 165SL I P180 1100 GYY Pia io P-180 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-I 7/12/08 500JE LJ31 250 SFB Learjet 31A Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/13/08 207AH PRIM1 1020 FWA Hawker Beechcraft 390 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 7/13/08 255TC CII 500 DTS Cessna 550 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/13/08 314QS CITV 150 PBA Cessna 560 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Tur o-Fan B-11 7/13/08 854SD G4 1600 ASE Gulfstream G-IV Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan D-11 7/13/08 487PC PC12 100 APF Pilatus PC-12/45 Fixed Wing Sin le-Engine Turbo-Pro A-11 7/14/08 519KK KA300 700 LIFT Beech B300 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 7/14/08 416BD GLOBAL 1200 BED Bomardier BD-700-1A10 Fixed Winq Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-111 7/15/08 517CC LJ31 250 CSG Learjet 31A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/15/08 580RJ H900XP 1200 GRR Hawker Beechcraft 900XP Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/16/08 151WT KA200 900 LUK Beech B200 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 7/19/08 633SA CII 700 HKY Cessna 560 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/20/08 740TA B400 WHITLEY MMU 7/20/08 611TA LJ35 700 LIFT Learjet 35A Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/20/08 5616 GV 1600 ASE Gulfstream G-V Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-111 7/20/08 913AL I P-12 1200 DXR Pilatus PC-12/45 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Turbo-Pro A-11 7/21/08 640BA LJ35 1050 TOIL Learjet 35A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/22/08 61 HT CII 800 614 Cessna 550 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/22/08 43BD H400XP 900 LUK Raytheon Aircraft 400A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/24/08 654AP B400 250 TPA Beech 400A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Jet C-1 7/24/08 336FX CL604 950 ADS Bomardier CL-600-2B16 Fixed Winq Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-11 7/25/08 418GJ B400 600 LZU Raytheon Aircraft 400A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/25/08 292PC F50 600 FLO Dassault Falcon 50 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/28/08 80RP I LJ45 1100 BUF Learjet 45 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 7/28/08 156DH LJ60 1000 AFJ Learjet 60 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan D-I 7/28/08 27CJ CJ2 1050 JXN Cessna 525 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 7/28/08 5431 M B90 500 DTS Raytheon Aircraft C90A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 7/30/08 45TL CI 250 SFB Cessna 501 Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan B-I 7/30/08 804MR H800A 1000 ABE British Aerospace BAE 125-800A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/30/08 341AP F2000 1000 ABE Dassault Falcon 2000EX Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 7/31/08 519KK KA300 700 LIFT Beech B300 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 8/1/08 230LL I CJ 600 BHM Cessna 525 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 8/1/08 801DT B200 350 GNV Blue Side Up Comp Air 8 SS52 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Reciprocating A-1 8/1/08 854SD G4 1600 ASE Gulfstream G-IV Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan D-11 8/5/08 500JE LJ31 250 SFB Learjet 31A Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-1 8/7/08 54EC B90 150 FXE Beech C90 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 8/8/08 972AB CI 110 TMB Cessna 500 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 8/10/08 854SD G4 1600 ASE Gulfstream G-IV Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan D-11 8/13/08 500JE LJ31 250 SFB Learjet 31A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 8/16/08 205BC PRMR1 1075 VPZ Raytheon Aircraft 390 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 8/16/08 5431 M B90 500 DTS Raytheon Aircraft C90A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 8/16/08 854SD G4 1600 ASE Gulfstream G-IV Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan D-11 8/17/08 134CM B400 1000 TTN Raytheon Aircraft 400A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 8/17/08 489QS CX 1050 MMU Gulfstream G-IV Fixed WnQ Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan D-11 8/19/08 740TA B400 MMU 8/20/08 107SL PIAGGIO 1200 BED Pia io P-180 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-I 8/21/08 42DC SBR2 900 SBY Rockwell International NA-265-65 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 8/24/08 854SD G4 1600 AS Gulfstream G-IV Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan D-11 8/25/08 80RP LJ45 1800 POV Learjet 45 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 8/25/081 89R5 I LJ45 800 1 LWB Learjet 45 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 J'.\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Lenngth Requirements 0109\Survey Data From MTH Page 1 Survey Data Obtained from Airport Management The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Manufacturer Engine DATE REG# TYPE ' DISTANCE, [DESTINATION Name Model AircraftType Type ARC 8/25/08 220LA F20 900 LIT Dassault Falcon 20 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 8/27/08 515AM AC95 1000 PHL Rockwell International 695 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro 8/27/08 801 DT B200 350 GNV Blue Side Up Comp Air 8 SS52 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Reciprocating A-1 8/29/08 45TL CI 300 X60 Cessna 501 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 8/29/08 520MP WW24 1000 RBD Israel Aircraft Industries 1124 Fixed Winq Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-1 8/29/08 23WJ B200 350 GNV Beech B200 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 8/29/081 109SL I PIAGGIO 1200 BED Pia io P-180 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-I 8/29/08 157SH P180 1200 BED Robinson Helicopter R22 Beta Rotorcraft Reciprocating 8/31/08 80GJ H25B 300 DAB British Aerospace BAE 125-800A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/1/08 23WJ B200 350 GNV Beech B200 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 9/1/08 220LA F20 900 LIT Dassault Falcon 20 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/3/08 520MP WW24 1000 RBD Israel Aircraft Industries 1124 Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/3/08 5431M B90 500 DTS Raytheon Aircraft C90A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 9/4/08 603CW PRIM1 100 FILL 9/4/081 43TA B200 150 FXE Beech B200 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 9/4/08 54EC B90 150 FXE Beech C90 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 9/5/08 66U CV 200 SRQ Cessna 560 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/5/08 801 DT B200 350 GNV Blue Side Up Comp Air 8 SS52 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Reciprocating A-1 9/6/08 902DK CV 1050 MMU Cessna 550 Fixed Winq Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/6/08 961QS CX 1660 BOR Cessna 750 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 9/6/08 534FX CL30 2000 OD8 Bomardier BD-100-1A10 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan 9/7/08 608CW PRIM1 100 FILL Raytheon Aircraft 390 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 9/7/08 45TL CI 300 X60 Cessna 501 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 9/7/08 962QS CX 1050 MMU Cessna 750 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 9/7/081 5431M I B90 500 DTS Rath eon Aircraft C90A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 9/7/08 42DC SBR2 900 SBY Rockwell International NA-265-65 Fixed Winq Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-11 9/10/08 3VJ LJ31 150 BCT Learjet 31A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/10/08 292PC F50 600 FLO Dassault Falcon 50 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/11/08 500JE LJ31 250 SFB Learjet 31A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/12/08 412GJ 400XP 600 LZU Raytheon Aircraft 400A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/12/08 801 DT B200 350 GNV Blue Side Up Comp Air 8 SS52 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Reciprocating A-1 9/13/08 412GJ 400XP 600 LZU Raytheon Aircraft 400A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/13/08 611JM GIV 1100 LOT Gulfstream G-IV Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan D-11 9/14/08 89RP LJ45 350 SGJ Learjet 45 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/14/08 7ZU CII 150 PBI Cessna 550 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/15/08 633SA CII 700 HKY Cessna 560 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/15/08 562WD C56X 500 KTM Cessna 560XL Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/16/08 7ZU CII 150 PBI Cessna 550 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/17/08 972AB CI 110 TMB Cessna 500 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 9/18/08 975RR I B400 1000 AOH Raytheon Aircraft 400A Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/20/08 731BH C441 1000 PTW Cessna 441 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 9/20/08 51C C560 250 PIE Cessna 560 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/20/08 521CS CXL 900 HOU Cessna 560XL Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/21/08 562WD CXL 900 HOU Cessna 560XL Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/22/08 134CM B400 1000 TTN Raytheon Aircraft 400A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/23/08 1548K 650 GSP Beech 300 Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Pro B-11 9/23/08 466SS CII 1100 M03 Cessna 550 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/24/08 164TC CIT 4000 WCR 9/24/08 70ONP H25B 1100 GYY British Aerospace BAE 125-700A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/24/08 598KW CII 1020 FWA Cessna S550 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/25/08 255TC CII 100 MIA Cessna 550 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 9/25/08 70ONP H25B 1100 GYY British Aerospace BAE 125-700A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/29/08 306M BE30 250 TPA Beech 300 Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Pro B-11 9/29/08 328NA C500 535 MCN Cessna 501 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 9/29/08 134CM B400 500 PINS Raytheon Aircraft 400A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 9/29/08 581PC P-12 400 JAX Pilatus PC-12/45 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Turbo-Pro A-11 9/30/08 633SA I CII 700 HKY Cessna 560 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/1/08 45TL CI 320 X60 Cessna 501 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 10/1/08 77X C208 400 CRG Cessna 208B Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro A-11 10/1/08 292PC F50 550 PQL Dassault Falcon 50 Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/1/08 167SL P180 250 TPA Pia io P-180 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-I 10/1/08 598AT P42T 400 CRG Piper PA46-50OTP Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro A-1 10/3/08 942QS CX 150 PBI Cessna 750 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 10/3/08 77X C208 100 FILL Cessna 208B Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro A-11 10/3/08 30ODG CL30 150 BCT Bomardier BD-100-1A10 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan 10/3/08 159SL P180 400 CRG Pia io P-180 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-I 10/3/08 555PM PAY2 700 MRH Piper PA-31T2 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro A-1 10/4/08 515AM AC95 1000 PHL Rockwell International 695 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro 10/4/08 523CS CV 850 IAH Cessna 560XL Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/4/08 160AD B200 110 TMB Hawker Beechcraft B2000T Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 10/5/08 45TL CI 250 SFB Cessna 501 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 10/5/08 620MJ LJ35 975 IND Learjet 35A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/5/08 292PC F50 600 FL0 Dassault Falcon 50 Fixed Win Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/6/08 427CS CJ3 100 OPF Cessna 525B Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/6/081 296QS I F2000 150 1 PBI Dassault Falcon 2000 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 J'.\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Lenngth Requirements 0109\Survey Data From MTH Page 2 Survey Data Obtained from Airport Management The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Manufacturer Engine DATE REG,# TYPE DISTANCE, [DESTINATION Name Model AircraftType Type ARC 10/8/08 80RP LJ45 150 PBI Learjet 45 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/8/08 9000S CX 1600 ASE Cessna 750 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 10/9/08 89RP LJ45 400 SSI Learjet 45 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/10/08 45TL Cl 250 SFB Cessna 501 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 10/10/08 913QS CX 1700 SDL Cessna 750 Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-11 10/10/08 950QS CX 150 PBI Cessna 750 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 10/10/081 140SL I P180 100 FILL Pia io P-180 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-I 10/12/08 80RP LJ45 1800 POV Learjet 45 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/12/08 560CZ CII 1100 4B8 Cessna 560 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/12/08 615QS C56X 100 APF Cessna 560XL Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/12/08 343DF GLOBAL 1100 HPN Bomardier BD-700-1A11 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-111 10/12/08 555PM PAY2 1800 BUY Piper PA-31T2 Fixed Winq Multi-En ine Turbo-Pro A-1 10/13/08 89RP LJ45 800 LWB Learjet 45 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/13/08 20CZ Cl 500 DTS Cessna 501 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 10/13/08 967QS CX 250 MCO Cessna 750 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 10/13/08 668QS C56X 900 JYO Cessna 560XL Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/13/08 11TE B350 200 SRO Raytheon Aircraft B300 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-11 10/13/08 5353V P46T 600 HUM Piper PA46-50OTP Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro A-1 10/13/08 598AT P42T 400 CRG Piper PA46-50OTP Fixed Winq Multi-En ine Turbo-Pro A-1 10/13/08 913AL P-12 1100 4B8 Pilatus PC-12/45 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Turbo-Pro A-11 10/14/08 531K LJ55 1050 MMU Learjet 55 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/14/08 86VP C650 1100 PTK Cessna 650 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 10/14/08 620MJ LJ35 600 ILM Learjet 35A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/14/08 411TJ CL60 100 OPF Canadair CL-600-2Al2 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 10/14/08 157SL I P180 800 ORF Pia io P-180 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro B-I 10/15/08 18NA CII 1000 BMQ Cessna 550 Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/15/08 731QS GALAXY 600 MSY Israel Aircraft Industries Gulfstream 200 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan D-11 10/17/08 117TF GLOBAL 1100 HPN Bomardier BD-700-1A10 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-III 10/17/08 117TF GLOBAL 1050 TEB Bomardier BD-700-1A10 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-111 10/17/08 42DC SBR2 200 BOW Rockwell International NA-265-65 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 10/19/08 45TL Cl 320 X60 Cessna 501 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 10/19/08 640BA LJ35 1050 DUH Learjet 35A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/19/08 659QS I C56X 150 PBI Cessna 560XL Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/19/08 51LG TBM7 1160 ROC Socata TBM700 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Turbo-Pro 10/20/08 80RP LJ45 150 PBI Learjet 45 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/20/08 425CS CJ3 100 MIA Cessna 525B Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/20/08 347TC H25A 100 APF British Aerospace BAE 125-700A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/20/08 70ONP H25B 1060 VPZ British Aerospace BAE 125-700A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/20/08 598AT P42T 400 CRG Piper PA46-50OTP Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Pro A-1 10/21/08 8283C BE40 1000 CAK Beech 400A Fixed Winq Multi-En ine Turbo-Jet C-1 10/21/08 6525B CJ3 900 WS Cessna 525B Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/23/08 598KW C550 1020 FWA Cessna S550 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/24/08 45TL Cl 250 SFB Cessna 501 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-I 10/24/08 650CZ C650 1100 PWK Cessna 560 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/24/08 910DP C750 950 ADS Cessna 750 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 10/24/08 978QS C750 1600 ASE Cessna 750 Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-11 10/25/08 60ONY WW24 100 MIA Israel Aircraft Industries 1124 Fixed Wing Multi-En ine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/25/08 52NK P-12 150 BCT Pilatus PC-12/45 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Turbo-Pro A-11 10/26/081 1776H I H25B 1 350 1 SGJ British Aerospace BAE 125-800A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan B-11 10/27/08 HONEYWW24 1100 PTK Israel Aircraft Industries 1124 Fixed Win Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/27/08 301PC WW24 950 FSM Israel Aircraft Industries 1124A Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Turbo-Fan C-1 10/27/081 519BD I PAY2 1 300 1 EVB Beech P35 Fixed Wing Single-Engine Reciprocating A-1 Source 1-The source of the data was interviews and the manual questionnaire URS supplied,supplemented by enhanced'flight following'software which provided all inbound and outbound flights actually completed including flight times and speed. 2-The data is limited to 07/08 thru 10/27/08 and represents actual flights during that period.This data was collected during'off season'at the airport so the number of flights over the year would be proportionally much larger than the sample would extrapolate. 3-The pilots provided a distance approximate or,where used a supplemental data,the information was estimated based on average speed and time in route. J'.\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Lenngth Requirements 0109\Survey Data From MTH Page 3 z' o � o � °n'm zp dU __ Q �Q m¢m¢¢mmmmmmmmmmUp)p)tllU UO]0]U 0]000UUpmmmUUpUU LL w a 3 ry G nO �a a m o Z W J O LL J Z O QZ _ J - Q G� No�°�°o�°00000 000000000�°vo 000000000�°�°000 Q J Q a. 4 a o u s n n n n n n n YI 1 YI J CE}Z Z Z rt} �LL•p � � o - F S O Z J O> J O Y _ F - Q u£ Oz W - LL Q = H H x ^2 Q N n U W J w CY W 2 W0` G - W J g m 0 ro I- 13 H'as ¢ U z oo e N v z 0 W N o c w E Q z R t z D D m m K N - LL J m w m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ O — 3 o 1-6 o N a N F 3 7_ ° o a m c _ m m W o - _ N N 0 o L o N l o N N N oo E F o 3 E °g� -- xo z oo `oG moo v:� v o 3 0 o o Z' oQ�_ °U a=a o Q n I - F W L F 3 $- N o I o w J N o N U> m ro N U Q o -w sC n W a w 3 Y N Y c c IAI w _ a U o N a N v m N o o Y o t-d o 0 0 0 V o V o v ?� ...y m o v m 10 o O w Y s s.ro¢ .a, .ro.. N v N m o v LL �U�U�w�ww o. UNmoam�rm_U�rmtiUm¢Ati�r wow°x."°�� >."'w u uu,��j]c7 - - s� E 00° vU, oo.`o' 'a; vi° � `w or E `v_`v_wrwt° `v_ E E`v_ ._ _ p vOOx>,>,^,cw, va c� `w mT'-m PS _ m °w 3 0 ¢Qo >, u °E w aEo o.v E E E > of m L of 3 S c c c c so-- `O L w o 2 m o o m o o o n` o-,K o 5 v��m o ' Goo LT. o ��w� 0 w0 z w 0i 0cic 00'T oo o c:r c:r�mmn xron o oo'c�roroorx oayro c�c�ro ur z� m U w°o °�".° ) o EE § §) f _ Eo IIS ucli o o cm \\ \ ]\\ }o �\ \ \ ; 2 §! : 2 « % \\ k\( rr zm / � So � 2 7 / - 2 ) § _ ( 2 _ _ f ) } \ 2 � } > {o EE j\ ) \ - / _ -IS § �. - ; § \::\ ::: / - - § | §{ So }= E : ) \ 7 / ( ^�\2 2 - - o o 2) § , : E'\ - b �\\ § co) ^ �` r - ! =o § ! ) )k \� o-- /�� k \ ) j k \ APPENDIX B Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design — Chapter 3 of FAA AC 150/5325-413 7/l/2005 AC 150/5325-413 CHAPTER 3. RUNWAY LENGTHS FOR AIRPLANES WITHIN A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF WEIGHT OF MORE THAN 12,500 POUNDS(5,670 KG)UP TO AND INCLUDING 60,000 POUNDS(27,200 KG) 301. DESIGN GUIDELINES. The design procedure for this airplane weight category requires the following information: airport elevation above mean sea level,mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month at the airport,the critical design airplanes under evaluation with their respective useful loads. Once obtained, apply either figure 3-1 or figure 3-2 to obtain a single runway length for the entire group of airplanes under evaluation. Finally, apply any landing or takeoff length adjustments,if necessary,to the resulting runway length to obtain the recommended runway length. 302. DESIGN APPROACH. The recommended runway length for this weight category of airplanes is based on performance curves(figures 3-1 and 3-2)developed from FAA-approved airplane flight manuals in accordance with the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 25,Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes, and Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules. If the airport is planned for operations that will include only turbojet-powered airplanes weighing under 60,000 pounds(27,200 kg)maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW)in conjunction with other small airplanes of 12,500 pounds(5,670 kg)or less,use the curves shown in either figures 3-1 or 3-2. To determine which of the two figures to apply, first use tables 3-1 and 3-2 to determine which one of the two"percentage of fleet"categories represents the critical design airplanes under evaluation. With that determination,then select either the"60 percent useful load"curves or the"90 percent useful load"curves on the basis of the haul lengths and service needs of the critical design airplanes. Note: at elevations over 5,000 feet (1,524 m)above mean sea level,the recommended runway length obtained for small airplanes from chapter 2 may be greater than those obtained by these figures. In this case,the requirements for the small airplanes govern. Finally,the curves of figures 3-1 and 3-2 apply to airport elevations up to 8,000 feet(2,439 m)above mean sea level. For higher elevations, consult the airplane manufacturer(s) for their recommendations. 303. PERCENTAGE OF FLEET AND USEFUL LOAD FACTOR. The curves in figure 3-1 and 3-2 are based on a grouping of only the turbojet-powered fleet(and business jets) according to performance capability as contained in the FAA-approved airplane manuals under an assumed loading condition. Interpolation is allowed only within a single set of curves(e.g., an elevation at 2,500 feet within the"75 percent of the fleet at 60 percent useful load"set of curves)but not valid between sets of curves(e.g., an 85 percent useful load between the set of curves"75 percent of the fleet at 60 percent useful load"and"75 percent of the fleet at 90 percent useful load.") The restriction is because each set assumed a specific,non-variable loading condition. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 contain a set of two curves based upon the percentage of the fleet and the percentage of useful load that can be accommodated by the runway lengths obtained from the curves. For example,the"75 percent fleet at 60 percent useful load"curve provides a runway length suffieient to satisfy the operational requirements of approximately 75 percent of the fleet at 60 percent useful load. This figure is to be used for those airplanes operating with no more than a 60 percent useful load factor. Both figures 3-1 and 3-2 provide examples that start with the horizontal temperature axis,then proceed vertically to the airport elevation curve, and finally proceed horizontally to the vertical axis to obtain the runway length. The final step is to apply any necessary length adjustments to the obtained length in accordance with paragraph 304 to determine the recommended runway length. a. Percentage of Fleet. (1) Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Table 3-1 provides the list of those airplanes that comprise the"75 percent of fleet"category and therefore can be accommodated by the runway lengths resulting from figure 3-1. Table 3-2,provides the remaining airplanes beyond that of table 3-1 that comprise the"100 percent of fleet" category and therefore can be accommodated by the resulting runway lengths from figure 3-2. The distinction between the tables is that airplanes listed in table 3-2 require at least 5,000-foot(1,524 m)runways at mean sea level and at the standard day temperature of 59'F(15' C) (see paragraph 403 and table 4-1 for an explanation of the concept.). Airplanes listed in table 3-1 require less than 5,000 feet(1,524 m) for the same conditions. (2) Selecting Figures 3-1 or 3-2. The airport designer must determine from which list the airplanes under evaluation are found. Use figure 3-1 when the airplanes under evaluation are not listed in table 3-2. If a relatively few airplanes under evaluation are listed in table 3-2,then figure 3-2 should be used to determine the 9 AC 150/5325-413 7/l/2005 runway length. If no adjustments to this length are necessary as outlined above,then this becomes the recommended runway length. b. Useful Load Factor. (1) The term useful load faetor of an airplane for this AC is considered to be the difference between the maximum allowable structural gross weight and the operating empty weight. A typical operating empty weight includes the airplane's empty weight, crew,baggage, other crew supplies,removable passenger service equipment,removable emergency equipment, engine oil, and unusable fuel. In other words,the useful load then consists of passengers, cargo, and usable fuel. It is noted that although operating empty weight varies considerably with individual airplanes,the curves used in the figures were based on the average operating empty weights of numerous business jets. (2) Figures 3-1 and 3-2 provide only two useful load percentages,namely"60 percent useful load"and"90 percent useful load." Curves are not developed for operations at"100 percent useful load"because many of the airplanes used to develop the curves in figures 3-1 and 3-2 were operationally limited in the second segment of climb.That is,the allowable gross takeoff weight is often limited by ambient conditions of temperature and elevation to an operating weight that is less than their maximum structural gross weight. Therefore,APMs contain climb limitations when required. Because of the climb limitation,the runway length resulting from the"90 percent useful load"curves are considered by this AC to approximate the limit of beneficial returns for the runway. A specific list of business jets were used to obtain an average operating empty weight,which in turn,was used to develop the curves. C. Privately Owned Business Jets. Business jets that are privately owned are included in their respective 75 percent and 100 percent of fleet categories. d. Air Carrier Regional Jets. As previously mentioned,the recommended runway lengths for regional jets for air carrier service are addressed in chapter 4. 304. RUNWAY LENGTH ADJUSTMENTS. The runway lengths obtained from figures 3-1 and 3-2 are based on no wind, a dry runway surface, and zero effective runway gradient. Effective runway gradient is defined as the difference between the highest and lowest elevations of the runway centerline divided by the runway length. Therefore,increase the obtained runway lengths from the figures to account for(1)takeoff operations when the effective runway gradient is other than zero and(2)landing operations of turbojet-powered airplanes under wet and slippery runway surface conditions. These increases are not cumulative since the first length adjustment applies to takeoffs and the latter to landings. After both adjustments have been independently applied,the larger resulting runway length becomes the recommended runway length. The procedures for length adjustments are as follows: a. Effective Runway Gradient(Takeoff Only). The runway lengths obtained from figures 3-1 or 3-2 are increased at the rate of 10 feet(3 meters) for each foot(0.3 meters) of elevation difference between the high and low points of the runway centerline. b. Wet and Slippery Runways(Applicable Only to Landing Operations of Turbojet-Powered Airplanes). By regulation,the runway length for turbojet-powered airplanes obtained from the"60 percent useful load"curves are increased by 15 percent or up to 5,500 feet(1,676 meters),whichever is less. By regulation,the runway lengths for turbojet powered airplanes obtained from the"90 percent useful load"curves are also increased by 15 percent or up to 7,000 feet(2,133 meters),whichever is less. No adjustment is necessary by regulation for turboprop-powered airplanes. 305. PRECAUTION FOR AIRPORTS LOCATED AT HIGH ALTITUDES. At elevations above 5,000 feet (1,524 m)mean sea level,the recommended runway length for propeller driven airplanes of 12,500 pounds(5,670 kg)MTOW or less found in chapter 2 may be greater than those determined in this chapter for turbojet-powered airplanes. In this case,the longer recommended runway length of the small airplane weight category must be provided. 10 7/l/2005 AC 150/5325-413 306. GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS. General aviation(GA) airports have witnessed an increase use of their primary runway by scheduled airline service and privately owned business jets. Over the years business jets have proved themselves to be a tremendous asset to corporations by satisfying their executive needs for flexibility in scheduling, speed, and privacy. In response to these types of needs, GA airports that receive regular usage by large airplanes over 12,500 pounds(5,670 kg)MTOW,in addition to business jets, should provide a runway length comparable to non-GA airports. That is,the extension of an existing runway can be justified at an existing GA airport that has a need to accommodate heavier airplanes on a frequent basis. 11 AC 150/5325-4B 7/1/2005 Figure 3-1. 75 Percent of Fleet at 60 or 90 Percent Useful Load �A ._.. . m u x, r 7 rTl°i o ' 11 a � hx Y yy — .r e VI n�+ �d o �.. o „� " _ o y ..... I uu'uu tli uu m uu m m uu"m uu uu � vY r 11 fi 1 �muui m ¢ul m mime III,IIb14p ✓u 1,3 ............ ,.,,,.a�W.,�, ,�t�� ww t t for G! m H _....... ,,' r ;yt r} r,<<t c d;y �� =' fit �hi, i Mean Daily Maximum Temperature of Hottest Month of the Year in Degrees Fahrenheit 75 percent of feet at 60 percent useful load 75 percent of feet at 90 percent useful load Ill i °tl" FAA's Example Calculated for Florida Keys Marathon Airport's Conditions 12 7/1/2005 AC 150/5325-4B Figure 3-2. 100 Percent of Fleet at 60 or 90 Percent Useful Load C L V,11B L 114YVAII ON, I I C11,01(1 ur- . ......... ........ ......... 4 is .......... 7 ---— --- ....... uur 77 50() �t _7 11 ....... 29 F ego �cw'J,1�� ,.,,�,�wm .Y'� ... �,,,".> "' r„„ Y,,,. r f .......... 6,,5,0j,,3 ir P, Iqiu ............ uuu 5 .............. Ill"If E,,Q 3 Mean Daily Maximum Temperature of Hottest Month of the Year in Degrees Fahrenheit 100 percent of feet at 60 percent useful load 100 percent of feet at 90 percent useful load FAA's Example Calculated for Florida Keys Marathon Airport's Conditions 13 AC 150/5325-413 7/l/2005 Table 3-1. Airplanes that Make Up 75 Percent of the Fleet Manufacturer Model Manufacturer Model Aerospatiale Sn-601 Corvette Dassault Falcon 10 Bae 125-700 Dassault Falcon 20 .......................................Beech..Jet .......................................................................................�400A.......................................................... Dassault Falcon 50150 EX .......................................................................................................................�...... Beech Jet Premier I Dassault Falcon 900/900B Beech Jet 2000 Starshi............... Israel Aircraft Industries Jet Commander 1121 p (IAI) Bombardier Challenger 300 IAI Westwind 1123/1124 Cessna�� S�O�OCitation/5O1 Citation s�� Learet�� 2�0S�eries�� p J Cessna Citation 1/11/11I Learjet 31/31A/31A ER Cessna........................................................525A...Citation ..IL..(CJ.2)........................ J Learjet 35/35A/36/36A Cessna 550 Citation Bravo Learjet 40/45 Cessna 550 Citation II Mitsubishi�� Mn300Diamond�� Cessna 551 Citation II/Special Raytheon 390 Premier Cessna 552 Citation Raytheon ..�Hawker......................................................400/40�0 XP..................................�...... Cessna 560 Citation Encore Raytheon Hawker 600 Cessna 560/560 XL Citation Excel Sabreliner 40/60 Cessna.......................................�.......................5�60...Citation ..�V..Ultra ..........................� Sabreliner 75A Cessna 650 Citation VII Sabreliner 80 Ces�sna�� 6�80 Citation S�overein�� Sabreliner T-39 g 14 7/l/2005 AC 150/5325-413 Table 3-2. Remaining 25 Percent of Airplanes that Make Up 100 Percent of Fleet Manufacturer Model Bae Corporate 800/1000 Bombardier 600 Challenger Bombardier 601/601-3A/3ER Challenger Bombardier....................................�............................................604...Challen g.....er............................................... Bombardier.....................................................................�B�D._..1.00 Continental................................�.... Cessna S550 Citation S/11 Cessna...............................................�...................................65O...Citation III/IV essna............................................................................................. ...................................................................................... . .0......Citation.....X........................................................................................ Dassault.........................................................................Falcon ..90OC/900EX..............................�assault Falcon..........................................�..............................Falcon..2000/2000EX................................. Israel Aircraft Industries Astra11�2� �� IAI IAI Galaxy 1126 ......................................................LearJ.et...........................................................................................................45...XR................................................................. Learjet 55/5513/55C Learjet 60 �RaY.....theon/Hawker........................�.........................................................�Horizon..............................................................� Raytheon/Hawker 800/800 XP yt Ra heon/Hawker 1000 S�abreliner�� 6�5/7�5�� Note:Airplanes in tables 3-1 and 3-2 combine to comprise 100%of the fleet. 15 APPENDIX C Sabre Flight Explorer®, Inc., Data and Table 2 Flight Plan Filings To/From MTH The Florida Keys Marathon Airport AC Ueseription Total % Engine Type', Helo 7 0.1% Helo Cessna Citation Excel 352 3.8% Jet Beechcraft Beechjet 400 199 2.1% Jet HS1258 170 1.8% Jet Cessna 525 Citation Jet 146 1.6% Jet Cessna 500 Citation II 132 1.4% Jet Lear 45 117 1.3% Jet Lear 35 115 1.2% Jet Cessna 750 Citation X 90 1.0% Jet GIV 89 1.0% Jet Lear 31 85 0.9% Jet IN 1124 Westwind 79 0.9% Jet Lear 60 64 0.7% Jet Raytheon 390 Jet 54 0.6% Jet Cessna 680 52 0.6% Jet Tear 40 52 0.6% Jet Cessna 501 51 0.5% Jet Bombardier Challenger 300 50 0.5% Jet Cessna 500 Citation I 42 0.5% Jet Lear 55 40 0.4% Jet Falcon 20 35 0.4% Jet Falcon 50 30 0.3% Jet Cessna 650 29 0.3% Jet Sabreliner 65 23 0.2% Jet Eclipse 500(VLJ) 18 0.2% Jet Bombardier Challenger 600 17 0.2% Jet Falcon 10 12 0.1% Jet HS125 11 0.1% Jet Falcon 2000 10 0.1% Jet G200(Not a GI 1) 9 0.1% Jet Tear 25 81 0.1% Jet Bombardier BD-700 7 0.1% Jet Cessna Mustang 7 0.1% Jet IN Astra 7 0.1% Jet Sabreliner 7 0.1% Jet GIII 6 0.1% Jet GII 41 0.0% Jet Gulfstream G-150 4 0.0% Jet BD-700-1A11 2 0.0% Jet Dassault Falcon 20 2 0.0% Jet DC9-10 2 0.0% Jet Embraer EMB-145 Extended 2 0.0% Jet GI 21 0.0% Jet Mitsubishi 300 2 0.0% Jet A320 1 0.0% Jet Bombardier Challenger 604 1 0.0% Jet Embraer EMB-135 1 0.0% Jet Tear 24 1 0.0% Jet Morane-Saulnier M.S.760 1 0.0% Jet Cessna 172 734 7.9% Prop Cessna 208 582 6.3% Prop Beech 58 411 4.4% Prop SR22 363 3.9% Prop Piper32 352 3.8% Prop Piper 44 309 3.3% Prop Cessna 182 Skylane 279 3.0% Prop Piper 31 276 3.0% Prop Piper 28 250 2.7%1 Prop Beech King Air 90 1 234 2.5%1 Prop J:\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Lenngth Requirements 0109\Flight Explorer Data Page 1 Flight Plan Filings To/From MTH The Florida Keys Marathon Airport AC Ueseription Total % Engine Type', Beech Bonanza 229 2.5% Prop Cessna 421 217 2.3% Prop Piper 46 207 2.2% Prop Piper 34 199 2.1% Prop Cessna 210 194 2.1% Prop Beech Super King Air 200 168 1.8% Prop Mooney M20 123 1.3% Prop Piper 23 119 1.3% Prop Pilatus PC-12 118 1.3% Prop Cessna 402 98 1.1% Prop Cessna 206 97 1.0% Prop Cessna 310 94 1.0% Prop SR20 93 1.0% Prop Cessna 414 85 0.9% Prop Beech 55 84 0.9% Prop Beech 33 78 0.8% Prop Beech Super King Air 77 0.8% Prop Piaggio 180 76 0.8% Prop Piper P-60 Aerostar 72 0.8% Prop Cessna 340 53 0.6% Prop BE300 52 0.6% Prop Cessna 152 52 0.6% Prop Lancair LC-40 45 0.5% Prop Mooney 20 44 0.5% Prop Beech 76 40 0.4% Prop Diamond DA-42 39 0.4% Prop Piper 24 37 0.4% Prop Piper 30 31 0.3% Prop Rockwell 695 Jetprop Commander 30 0.3% Prop Diamond DA-40 28 0.3% Prop Experimental (Kit) 25 0.3% Prop Rockwell Commander 690 24 0.3% Prop Socata TBM-700 23 0.2% Prop Beech 95 22 0.2% Prop Cessna 425 22 0.2% Prop Lancair Columbia 300 18 0.2% Prop Grumman/Gulfstream AA-5 Traveller 16 0.2% Prop Cessna 177 14 0.2% Prop Cessna 441 Conquest 13 0.1% Prop Pilatus BN-2T Turbine Islander 12 0.1% Prop Mitsubishi MU-2 11 0.1% Prop Beechcraft Model 60 Duke 9 0.1% Prop Commander 500 9 0.1% Prop BE100 8 0.1% Prop Cessna 337 Super Skymaster 8 0.1% Prop BE65 7 0.1% Prop Cessna 335 7 0.1% Prop VulcanAir SPiper P-68 Observer 7 0.1% Prop Rockwell Commander 6 0.1% Prop Mooney M20J Statesman 5 0.1% Prop Piper Aerostar 601 5 0.1% Prop Trinidad TB-20 5 0.1% Prop Cessna 150 4 0.0% Prop De Havilland DHC-2 Beaver 4 0.0% Prop Piper 22 4 0.0% Prop Beech 18 31 0.0% Prop Beech 1900 3 0.0% Prop Lancair LC42 3 0.0% Prop Maule 4 3 0.0% Prop J:\MARATHON\Runway Takeoff Lenngth Requirements 0109\Flight Explorer Data Page 2 Flight Plan Filings To/From MTH The Florida Keys Marathon Airport AC Ueseription Total % Engine Type', Maule 7 3 0.0% Prop Aero Commander 50 2 0.0% Prop ATR72 2 0.0% Prop Bellanca Super Viking Model 17-30A 2 0.0% Prop Cessna 320 2 0.0% Prop EMB120 2 0.0% Prop Lancair IV 2 0.0% Prop Lancair Super ES 2 0.0% Prop Piper 18 2 0.0% Prop Piper 36 21 0.0% Prop Shorts 330 2 0.0% Prop Socata TB-20 2 0.0% Prop Symphony SA 160 2 0.0% Prop Vans RV-10 2 0.0% Prop Aerostar 601 1 0.0% Prop BE200 1 0.0% Prop Beech 24 1 0.0% Prop Beech 35 1 0.0% Prop Beech 45 1 0.0% Prop Beech 50 1 0.0% Prop Beriev BE-103 1 0.0% Prop BT-13 Valiant 1 0.0% Prop Cessna 170 1 0.0% Prop Cessna 401 1 0.0% Prop DC6 1 0.0% Prop Diamond Aircraft DV-20 1 0.0% Prop Glastar 1 0.0% Prop Grumman/Gulfstream AA1 trainer, Lynx 1 0.0% Prop Helio HT-295 1 0.0% Prop Lancair 320 1 0.0% Prop Lancair LC-41 11 0.0% Prop Long EZ(Kit) 1 0.0% Prop Long-EZ 1 0.0% Prop Mark IV 1 0.0% Prop Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise 1 0.0% Prop Mooney M20C 1 0.0% Prop Nanchang CJ-6 1 0.0% Prop Navion 1 0.0% Prop Partenavia P68 1 0.0% Prop Pilatus BN Islander 1 0.0% Prop Piper 39 1 0.0% Prop Piper 40 1 0.0% Prop Piper 42 1 0.0% Prop Rockwell 680 TP 1 0.0% Prop Rockwell Aero Commander 1 0.0% Prop Rockwell Aero Commander 100-180 1 0.0% Prop Saab 340 Argus 1 0.0% Prop SOCATA TB21 Trinidad 1 0.0% Prop Swearingen SA226 1 0.0% Prop T-6 Texan 1 0.0% Prop Vans RV-4 1 0.0% Prop Grand Total 9,282 Source: Sabre Flight Explorer®, Inc.,2009. Period(01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008). JAMARATHON\Runway Takeoff Lenngth Requirements 0109\Flight Explorer Data Page 3 QO o (D � c_ Z O `O ` o EM � � m z a 0 o0 av du - ----- ----- a m Q ro U ro U U U U U 0 ro D U U U M 6 3 6 rc a mF m�x T J W K N Z O 3 a o 0 �m 'om N 0-mM�� J N _ _ _ Q J Q W a O m N TN IL Y N F w O G J G W J W Ya Q 4 w o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _R_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Lo Q J LL Z 5 Q LL. Q N F N _ Z a O O F W > % N cLLI G 0 Q W m N n U o J mry y O V o V NNM c�2 a' 7 W N Lij W = V' Q Za LLl fn ,o� 3 v`n Mi Nw vo - W o- mrc n44 Q Z oo rc o z j o g o Z m m y = 00 LL c c J _ O Q -w N o O - -o ID tD ID o O C f p O g o o o a o m% L ry o W G m V 0 m L N N V V w Nd'c0 d'c0 N�� — II LL c o a 3 ) N W c a m O '21 C o c N 3 ax w N O O m n o w 3 Eo =o (6 ro v o a E o s ¢9 o o w = IT .u�u�muoiv.o -o re c= m 0 o 'o _ s o _ u Q m m o F�W c s H 3 LL N m u J o m C p W e a E O O g o S 2 E ¢ u c m y-I a m o a ....X m y C o ni m O. �.. o� ::ro.�o mood o din�z� aim II o m o �w w _ o. _ 'o 'o m 10 La ¢ " p>OO=� o�in EN E �w E E.�?w ¢¢� oo ° w E o M-G-o E jo y y o.d EEEccc c F FFw 15 FE2E2ETE -�`�°'-°'• c mo o G.c Q KKKwK 0m C., U' QmmMU' (/Ymw U' NO U' mw wz Z- r m U N m'o -�iF ) o ( ko� ({$/ ° &_\ ® $ ) \ \\\\ {\�\\\ \\ \\ oo m \ ( ( a;Ka;a r `: a ; §) f _ K= \ - cli \\ \ ]\\ }\ �\ \ \ ; \ Zƒ ) $ /w :5 r � !®§ ) - / \k � So cm � 2 7 � - 2 ) § _ ( \ {{} EE j\oa _ \ // - \ _ _ -IS § �. ol - ; § \::\ § | §{ }= E xm ) cm ( o ^�\o o -:Be § \ , : E\ - \ ^ �` r - ol ! =r § §! ) )k \� \__ o k \ ) j k o Noise Screening Assessment The Florida Kevs Marathon Airport Prepared for the: The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 9400 Overseas Highway, Suite 200 Marathon, FL 33050 Prepared by. URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway u Tampa, FL 33607-1462 , gr May 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paqe 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................1-1 1.2 PURPOSE OF STUDY...........................................................................1-1 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT..........................................1-1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................................2-1 2.1 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ............................................2-1 2.1.1 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................2-1 2.1.2 Study Methods.........................................................................2-1 2.1.3 Existing Environmental Conditions ..........................................2-4 2.2 2008 NOISE IMPACTS ..........................................................................2-6 2.2.1 Aircraft Noise Exposure and Land Use Compatibility for 2008........................................................2-6 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................3-1 3.1 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ............................................3-1 3.1.1 Future Conditions without the Proposed Project......................3-1 3.1.2 Future Conditions with the Proposed Project...........................3-1 3.2 2011 IMPACT POTENTIAL....................................................................3-1 3.2.1 No-Action Alternative...............................................................3-1 3.2.2 Proposed Project .....................................................................3-2 3.2.3 Comparison of the 2011 No-Action and Proposed Project Alternatives .....................................................................3-2 3.3 2016 IMPACT POTENTIAL....................................................................3-6 3.3.1 No-Action Alternative...............................................................3-6 3.3.2 Proposed Project .....................................................................3-6 3.3.3 Comparison of the 2016 No-Action and Proposed Project Alternatives............................................3-9 3.4 COMPARISON TO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THRESHOLD..................3-10 3.4.1 Aircraft Noise .........................................................................3-10 3.4.2 Compatible Land Use ............................................................3-10 LIST OF TABLES Table Paqe 2-1 Land Use Compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels..............2-2 2-2 2008 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Estimates ..........................................2-7 3-1 2011 Future Condition No-Action Alternative Noise Exposure Estimates..........3-3 3-2 2011 Future Condition Proposed Project Noise Exposure Estimates................3-4 3-3 2011 Difference Contour Noise Exposure Estimates.........................................3-5 3-4 2016 Future Condition No-Action Alternative Noise Exposure Estimates..........3-7 3-5 2016 Future Condition Proposed Project Noise Exposure Estimates................3-8 3-6 2016 Difference Contour Noise Exposure Estimates.........................................3-9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Follows Page 1-1 Airport Layout Plan.............................................................................................1-1 2-1 Location Map......................................................................................................2-7 2-2 Existing Condition East Flow Flight Tracks........................................................2-7 2-3 Existing Condition West Flow Flight Tracks .......................................................2-7 2-4 Existing Condition 2008 Average Annual Day Noise Contours..........................2-7 3.1 Proposed Project East Flow Flight Tracks .......................................................3-10 3.2 Proposed Project West Flow Flight Tracks ......................................................3-10 3.3 No-Action Alternative 2011 Average Annual Day Noise Contours...................3-10 3.4 Proposed Project Alternative 2011 Average Annual Day Noise Contours.......3-10 3.5 No-Action vs. Proposed Project Alternative 2011 Average Annual Difference Contour.....................................................................................3-10 3.6 No-Action Alternative 2016 Average Annual Day Noise Contours...................3-10 3.7 Proposed Project Alternative 2016 Average Annual Day Noise Contours.......3-10 3.8 No-Action vs. Proposed Project Alternative 2016 Average Annual Difference Contour.....................................................................................3-10 APPENDIX Appendix A Aircraft Noise, Noise Metrics, and the Integrated Noise Model CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION Monroe County has proposed the relocation of runway thresholds at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH). The project would provide additional runway length at the airport and would reduce aircraft operational restrictions (i.e., weight and/or passenger limitations) imposed by the current runway length. To consider the potential environmental impact associated with the project, the County directed URS Corporation to prepare a Noise Screening Assessment. 1.2 PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of the study was to determine whether the proposed relocation of the runway thresholds at MTH (increasing runway length by approximately 700 feet)would cause significant aircraft noise impacts over noise sensitive land uses or sites. This Noise Screening Assessment would allow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine if the Proposed Project is eligible for a Categorical Exclusion or if an Environmental Assessment should be prepared to satisfy the agency's requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act(also see title 40 CFR part 1500). 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The Proposed Project would provide an additional 700 feet of usable runway length at MTH. The existing Runway 07/25 is 5,008 feet in length and there are 400-foot paved overruns located beyond each runway end. The project would relocate the runway end 300 feet to the northeast. However, the Runway 25 landing threshold would remain at its current location. The Runway 07 threshold would be relocated 400 feet to the southwest. The 400 feet of new runway pavement would be used for landing and take-off operations. The project would provide a usable runway length of 5,708 feet. The Proposed Project is depicted in Figure 1-1. The Proposed Project is not expected to induce aircraft operations. Discussions with airport management and the Fixed Base Operator (FBO) indicate that airport users, primarily turbine aircraft operators, have expressed a need for additional runway length to reduce operational restrictions and that increased activity and/or the introduction of new or larger aircraft types is not anticipated. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 1-1 pod.tiv uoq)u.a q� sti.7- rxpl.utblj-,)q,1:, f NV Id LI10A�I L2iOd2il� luaulssasw bultwa.t s asap _ w I� a 0 0 r.s HavHs I— °o� Lj LJ a z tl I b� lsy<pl IEIV z © pCl w >w 2 ®� .2 ® 1 ao LU n w c " r e � �,.. W is Io m ziz-zf a �x AF e J LU o `✓y ' s IL \. 1 Hf0pl Q 3.. 0 '9 W i� o, o pad N W 0 oq z o o 0 3 V N 3 x M s. I n I + 0o a Q w= wa W + +-� w � ao Zoo _ 0 0 oZ O::I ° wz 3` IPs °gip q [ g d W N � IA � W III�II 0ie �,I W a _ aHlpp o a O I HARBO wo I J S w e p ,- I I - - ` � � �r�I � � a i- I I ,00>' a 0 . '2s o, ui < �.wW. w VIRM:� o C c Iz < n� I �I g I � I rc / rc �a 0. ' °6. I a I _ ono � w r w > a rc 'J < 0 4 o w 0 0 z1�6 60oz/20/90 5MP'l—I SIJ\ND-Vv VN\�r CHAPTER 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of the airport's noise impacts. Airport development actions to accommodate fleet mix changes, the number of aircraft operations, or air traffic changes are examples of activities that can alter aviation- related noise impacts and affected land uses subjected to those impacts. This section describes the baseline noise environment and the associated land use compatibility. 2.1.1 Regulatory Setting 2.1.1.1 Federal Guidelines The evaluation of the Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH) noise environment, and land use compatibility associated with airport noise, was conducted using the methodologies developed by the FAA and published in FAA Order 5050.413, FAA Order 1050.1 E, and title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 150. For aviation noise analysis, the FAA has determined that the cumulative noise energy exposure of individuals to noise resulting from aviation activities must be established in terms of yearly day/night average sound level (DNL)as FAA's primary metric. Title 14 CFR part 150, Appendix A, Table 1, provides Federal compatible land use guidelines for several land uses as a function of DNL values. The ranges of DNL values in Table 1 reflect the statistical variability for the responses of large groups of people to noise. Compatible or non-compatible land use is determined by comparing the predicted or measured DNL values at a site to the values listed in Table 1. Land use compatibility with yearly day-night average sound levels is shown in Table 2-1. 2.1.2 Study Methods 2.1.2.1 Aircraft Noise Descriptors and Effects The terms and metrics associated with aircraft noise relative to this analysis are complex and are discussed in detail in Appendix A along with potential effects of aircraft noise. In general and in this document, noise or sound levels are expressed in terms of A-weighted decibels (dBA). DNL is a 24-hour time-weighted-average noise metric expressed in dBA which accounts for the noise levels of all individual aircraft events, the number of times those events occur, and the time of day which they occur. DNL has two time periods: daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). In order to represent the added intrusiveness of sounds occurring during nighttime hours, DNL penalizes or weights events occurring during the nighttime periods by 10 dBA. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 2-1 TABLE 2-1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH YEARLY DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) Below 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Over 85 Decibels Decibels Decibels Decibels Decibels Decibels Residential Residential (Other than mobile homes& Y N' N' N N N transient lodges) Mobile Home Parks Y N N N N N Transient Lodging Y N' N' N' N N Public Use Schools Y N' N' N N N Hospitals, Nursing Homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches,Auditoriums, Concert Halls Y 25 30 N N N Governmental Services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y YZ Y3 Y4 Y4 Parking Y Y y2 Y3 Y4 N Commercial Use Offices, Business& Professional Y Y 25 30 N N Wholesale& Retail Building Materials, Y Y YZ Y3 Y4 N Hardware &Farm Equipment Retail Trade-General Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y YZ Y3 Y4 N Communications Y Y 25 30 N N Manufacturing & Production Manufacturing, General Y Y YZ Y3 Y4 N Photographic and Optical Y Y 25 30 N N Agriculture (Except Livestock)&Forestry Y Y6 Y' Y$ Y$ y8 Livestock Farming & Breeding Y Y6 Y' N N N Mining &Fishing, Resource Production & Y Y Y Y Y Y Extraction Recreational Outdoor Sports Arenas, Spectator Sports Y Y5 Y5 N N N Outdoor Music Shells,Amphitheaters Y N N N N N Nature Exhibits&Zoos Y Y N N N N Amusement, Parks, Resorts, Camps Y Y Y N N N Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Y Y 25 30 N N Recreation The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 2-2 NOTE: The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties remains with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute Federally determined land use for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise-compatible land uses. KEY TO TABLE: SLUCM Standard Land Use Coding Manual. Y(Yes) Land Use and related structures are compatible without restrictions. N(No) Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction(outdoor to indoor)are to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of structure. 25,30,or 35 Land use and related structures are generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30,or 35 dB must be incorporated in design and construction of structure. Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor NLR of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10 or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems 2 Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of the buildings where the public is received,office areas, noise-sensitive areas,or where the normal noise level is low. 3 Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of the 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 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of the buildings where the public is received,office areas, noise-sensitive areas,or where the normal noise level is low. 5 Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. 6 Residential buildings require an NLR of 25 dB. Residential buildings require an NLR of 30 dB. 8 Residential buildings not permitted. Noncompatible land use. Source:Title 14 CFR part 150,Appendix A,Table 1,January 1998. 2.1.2.2 Noise and Compatible Land Use Prediction Methodology The Integrated Noise Model (INM) has been FAA's standard tool since 1978 for determining the predicted noise impact in the vicinity of airports. Statutory requirements for INM use are defined in FAA Order 1050.1 E, Environmental Impacts:Policies and Procedures; Order 5050.413, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions; and title 14 CFR part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. INM Version 7.0a, released September 17, 2008, was the version used for this document (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offiices/aep/models/inm_model/). The INM incorporates the number of annual average daily daytime and nighttime flight and run-up operations, flight paths, run-up locations, and flight profiles of the aircraft along with its extensive internal database of aircraft noise and performance information, to calculate the DNL at many points on the ground around an airport. From a grid of points, the INM contouring program draws contours of equal The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 2-3 DNL to be superimposed onto land use maps. For this document, DNL contours of 65, 70, and 75 dBA were developed. DNL contours are a graphical representation of how the noise from the airport's average annual daily aircraft operations is distributed over the surrounding area. The INM can calculate sound levels at any specified point so that noise exposure at representative locations around an airport can be obtained. The INM aircraft profile and noise calculation algorithms are based on several guidance documents published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). These include the SAE-AIR-1845 report titled Procedure for the Calculation of Airplane Noise in the Vicinity of Airports as well as others which address atmospheric absorption and noise attenuation. The INM is an average-value-model and is designed to estimate long-term average effects using average annual input conditions. Because of this, differences between predicated and measured values can occur because certain local acoustical variables are not averaged, or because they may not be explicitly modeled in INM. Difference may also occur due to errors or improper procedures employed during the collection of the measured data. Examples of detailed local acoustical variables include: • Temperature profiles • Wind gradients • Humidity effects • Ground absorption • Individual aircraft directivity patterns • Sound diffraction caused by water, buildings, barriers, etc. The results of the INM analysis provide a relative measure of noise levels around airfield facilities. When the calculations are made in a consistent manner, the INM is most accurate for comparing before and after noise effects resulting from forecast changes or alternative noise control actions. It allows noise levels to be predicted for such proposed projects without the actual implementation and noise monitoring of those actions. Title 14 CFR part 150, Appendix A, provides Federal compatible land use guidelines for several land uses as a function of DNL values. Compatible or non-compatible land use is determined by comparing the predicted or measured DNL values at a site to the established thresholds. 2.1.3 Existing Environmental Conditions MTH serves Marathon, Florida and other surrounding communities in the middle Florida Keys. MTH is located within the town of Marathon. Monroe County owns and operates the airport, which currently serves only general aviation aircraft. Figure 2-1, at the end of this chapter, illustrates the location of the airport relative to the surrounding area. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 2-4 2.1.3.1 Data Sources Data was collected from multiple sources, examined, and utilized to ensure that this aircraft noise analysis provides an accurate depiction of the existing MTH aircraft noise environment. The data sources utilized for this analysis included: • Flight Explorer ®, computer software which obtains N-number (registration number), aircraft type, arrival and departure airport, and time of day from Air Traffic Control Tower radar data, • USDOT, FAA Airport Master Record, Form 5010 (November 20, 2008), • FAA Terminal Area Forecast (December 2008), • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climatography of the United States No. 81, 2002, and • Florida Keys Marathon Airport Master Plan. 2.1.3.2 Modeled Aircraft Operations This section describes the sources and derivation of the INM input data for the existing (2008) conditions including airport layout, weather, flight operations, runway use, flight tracks, and track use. The detailed description of flight operations can be found in Appendix A-4. Airport Layout MTH has a single runway, which is designated as Runway 07/25. It is 5,008 feet long by 100 feet wide. A full parallel taxiway system, 50 feet wide, supports this runway. The field elevation at MTH is approximately 5 feet above sea level. Apron and hangar facilities are available for both based and transient aircraft. Weather and Climate The INM default for pressure, humidity, and headwind was not changed in the model. INM uses temperature, pressure, and headwind when computing procedural profiles. Humidity is only used in calculating atmospheric absorption. The average temperature at Key West International Airport, the closest monitoring station, is 78.1 degrees Fahrenheit (NOAA Climatography of the United States No. 81, 2002). The INM default airport pressure is 29.92 inches of mercury because it is the average atmospheric pressure at sea level. The default humidity is 70% and the default average headwind is 8 knots. Flight Operations INM-modeled annual operations for the 2008 existing conditions totaled 64,356 operations, which is approximately 176 daily operations. Jet operations accounted for approximately 5.9 percent of the total operations. Nighttime operations accounted for 4.6 percent of the total operations. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 2-5 Runway Use Aircraft will typically take-off and land into the wind. Therefore, a wind rose was completed in order to determine the wind coverage, since actual runway utilization data was unavailable. Runway utilization is approximately 80/20 percent on Runway 07/25, respectively. Discussions with airport management and the wind analysis confirmed this utilization was a reasonable calculation and assumption. See Appendix A-4 for additional details. Flight Tracks and Utilization Flight tracks are the aircraft's actual path through the air projected vertically onto the ground. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 depict the modeled flight tracks. East flow tracks represent aircraft using Runway 07. West flow tracks represent aircraft using Runway 25. Based on previous modeling efforts at MTH, as well as interviews with airport personnel, straight in and straight out flight tracks were modeled. Unique helicopter and touch-and-go flight tracks were also modeled based on interviews. Land Surrounding MTH INM includes the capability to turn off lateral attenuation for helicopters and propeller aircraft, in order to simulate propagation over acoustically hard surfaces such as water or rocks. This capability was utilized to take into account the effect of the water surrounding the airport. 2.2 2008 NOISE IMPACTS 2.2.1 Aircraft Noise Exposure and Land Use Compatibility for 2008 DNL Contours Noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations in 2008 at MTH is depicted as DNL 65, 70, and 75 dBA contours, superimposed over the local land use map of Marathon, on Figure 2-4. The estimated land area within each DNL contour interval is shown in Table 2-2. Land Use Compatibility It should be noted that title 14 CFR part 150 land use compatibility guidelines shown in Table 2-1 do not constitute a Federal determination that a specific land use is acceptable or unacceptable under Federal, state, or local laws. The responsibility for determining acceptable land uses rests with the local authorities through its zoning laws and ordinances. The noise exposure is quantified as acreage of on- and off-airport land exposed to various levels of aircraft noise. The DNL 65+dB contour for the 2008 existing condition, shown in Table 2-2, encompasses approximately 314 acres. As shown in Figure 2-4, the area around the airport is comprised of several land uses. There are 156.4 acres on-airport and 157.3 acres off-airport within the DNL 65 dB contour. Noise-sensitive land uses and sites were identified and are shown on Figure 2-4. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 2-6 Affected Population FAA defines DNL 65 as the threshold of noise compatibility for residential land uses. There are a total of 367 housing units (789 people) within the DNL 65+ contour. Of those units, 48 are within the DNL 70 to 75 contour, with 103 estimated residents. There are no residences within the DNL 75+ contour. The affected population and housing units are detailed in Table 2-2. TABLE 2-2 2008 EXISTING CONDITION NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES Land Use Type (Acres) DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Airport 55.5 52.7 48.2 156.4 Commercial 9.5 1.8 0.0 11.3 Community Facility 2.2 0.2 0.0 2.5 Conservation 9.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 Government 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 Industrial 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 Mobile Home 4.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 Multi-Family Residential 6.2 0.5 0.0 6.6 Single Family Residential 37.1 7.2 0.0 44.2 Transient Residential 2.1 0.4 0.0 2.5 Vacant Residential 9.5 1.8 0.0 11.3 Recreational 2.5 0.1 0.0 2.5 Utility/Right of Way 35.3 9.7 0.0 45.0 Vacant Land 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Water 12.9 2.0 0.0 14.9 Total Acreage 189.0 76.5 48.2 313.7 Population DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Mobile Home 114 2 0 116 Multi-Family Residential 118 11 0 129 Single Family Residential 421 75 0 497 Transient Residential 32 15 0 47 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Population 686 103 0 789 Housing Units DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Mobile Home 53 1 0 54 Multi-Family Residential 55 5 0 60 Single Family Residential 196 35 0 231 Transient Residential 15 7 0 22 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Units 319 48 0 367 Sources: URS Corp., 2009; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Note: Numbers may not add, due to rounding. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 2-7 S N LL r o x M a t FIGURE 2-1 a` x Ik vully t uc ,��; `"�� " � Y u� I „� �i�a�!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i ,✓r"nip {�i1u a m � n � rUn�i r w�llel �� IP I r - m 1 7 r r L I A Y` {{y {I N,y� tii, v %i�M1Yfrnh @�IMM�'I!lPir2 1 .I t F +�na�♦ �� YINI,WV�Ifitiflfl l�¢w aA!l�uvn I " �,a .�_�Y, i I IVYlb�rlk,S✓I'V W, aPX Vfi Y Gd G nr�rs %&dM I ltu�1 k t4;s i:aa"i { I (. a ter y rr Ma m w" a '� �'dakmr III dV YI, 4 I I��iII�Nw�ld°Gu!�oi� � 'r�aiml�!�nw,�rnaH�a � fly "I. a a uIG.IVd 1� p INY �x a�/I ;WXYJ�nn luvr ' s 0 � W LE 0 0 g�y gg II aw .. "D nti 'xkdT71 Pap dl� �p", H El H > H II oa IYl FIGURE Z—G w �l � u»»t m5+rvuaan i "rrom � �Wawild ,e, G �llr! OUP ®PY ��w Nll/11�J15:. u i IS r h R: i riot ' 'I! M � r row II!! I � � •� U4� iYP!� !r Vm� i Z�U rmv is Vl �I ,o-UYPiv`uw�vF �o-�"'UtR !ly!!r ,o cal 91 wll 4 m� W�Bfii@INdI GWIiNI �,�� , ��I� fir Glllfnir a , i!w I %fiY MfiWV-MWaI Gkrvf%'4�M5.'q•,.. �� ufi f!Y%rJ w CBI V I;aall ! ! !_ a ter rr trn� MG n � hl pY hW I� W� 4 iv' o �IIy�14J�1�1iM�Nlr� lU�ll��y�li�ii!�ol"� M� Sri r lt1H/a rvP p w � w � ui%iva �rou �iI 49 d�/I ;WXYJWnn iuvr % S ... W v _ gE Y �u FIGURE y 2-3 a Nlllll "i MGAM IYmfll WF' W+N�N ayy'' ,MAWR�U ''1W 110 r' �% r'� � r � P n✓a� �' w qll aaNN, I w g ��rvllm" '�i"��:� I^ � � 2�r✓�',k<� �u uw�%a��V� �a i _ r d rw' fl �i I w;' ire �' � "Iki d� '� i _ 4 _4�� 6ypdr C��E�o✓y�rlPr w � m uo Vu_ 9 9 _ _ o h f �"ulJ�rvd WIC, P4 = l Isl z I I I a qMP f q �µuui yap � rr�s wa 7 ENV" a �i P�i��il(D��j�il��'I�u61JP{lpl!�4ulliumr, � ��"� � `�i P �i� �� r� �' � .i r �� 4��rni p' q'o ; i !➢W7tw' rf I�G1� N N` � I i ..........,�" �� E' �u , P iry r,;,rrrdo " mrwrr y it �� r �µ �Rio aYre�w�l�a� A 'a➢mu �/ r9��" w , � I��,I� �� I�uu �1i��V��y� �lr" i MN � W �� ' ��f � ��v✓rl� �br`��P� � �� i��i�r a�"uo ,mr i '�,� 00 V �r r FIGURE muimu �ti Y� a�� 2-4 a� e• � IAA �� w��rr��Irr� CHAPTER 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.1 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY This section describes the methodology and assumptions used to prepare the 2011 and 2016 Future Condition aircraft noise exposure contours for aircraft operations at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH). This aircraft noise analysis is based on the 2008 Existing Condition and aviation forecasts from FAA's Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). 3.1.1 Future Conditions without the Proposed Project The TAF provides the projected number of aircraft operations in 2011 and 2016 for the No-Action Alternative. Based on discussions with airport management and the Fixed Base Operator (FBO), fleet mix was assumed to be essentially the same as the existing condition. According to the TAF, 67,789 annual operations, which are approximately 186 average daily operations, are projected to occur in 2011; and 72,636 annual operations, or 199 average daily operations, in 2016. Operations for the 2008 Existing Condition totaled 64,356. Annual operations by aircraft type are provided in Appendix A-4, Tables A-4-2 and A-4-3, for the 2011 and 2016 No-Action Alternative, respectively. All other assumptions and conditions, as described in Sections 3.1 remained the same for the No-Action Alternative. 3.1.2 Future Conditions with the Proposed Project Interviews were conducted with airport management and local FBO, and it was confirmed that the Proposed Project would not result in any induced operations. Therefore, the projected number of aircraft operations in 2011 and 2016 for the Proposed Project would be the same as the No-Action Alternative. Fleet mix would also be the same as the No-Action Alternative. According to the TAF, 67,789 operations are projected to occur in 2011; and 72,636 operations in 2016. The flight operations remain unchanged for the 2011 and 2016 Proposed Project, respectively; and are detailed in Appendix A-4, Tables A-4-2 and A-4-3. All other assumptions and conditions, as described in Section 2.1 remained the same for the Proposed Project Alternative, with the exception of the flight tracks, which are shifted as a result of proposed runway extension. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 depict the Proposed Project flight tracks. Flight track utilization remains unchanged from the No-Action Alternative. 3.2 2011 IMPACT POTENTIAL 3.2.1 No-Action Alternative The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 3-1 DNL Contours Noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations at MTH in 2011 is depicted as DNL 65, 70, and 75 dBA contours, superimposed over the local land use map of Marathon, on Figure 3-3. The estimated land area within each DNL contour interval is shown in Table 3-1. Land Use Compatibility The DNL 65+ dB contour for the 2011 No-Action Alternative, shown in Table 3-1, encompasses approximately 328 acres. As shown in Figure 3-3, the area around the airport is comprised of many land uses. There are 158.2 acres on-airport and 169.9 acres off-airport within the DNL 65+ dB contour. Noise- sensitive land uses and sites were identified and are shown on Figure 3-3. Affected Population There are a total of 389 housing units, and 836 people within the DNL 65+ contour. Of those units, 52 are within the DNL 70 to 75 contour, with 112 estimated residents. There are no residences within the DNL 75+ contour. The affected population and housing units are detailed in Table 3-1. 3.2.2 Proposed Project DNL Contours Noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations at MTH in 2011 is depicted as DNL 65, 70, and 75 dBA contours, superimposed over the local land use map of Marathon, on Figure 3-4. The estimated land area within each DNL contour interval is shown in Table 3-2. Land Use Compatibility The DNL 65+ dB contour for the 2011 Proposed Project Alternative, shown in Table 3-2, encompasses approximately 330 acres. As shown in Figure 3-4, the area around the airport is comprised of many land uses. There are 166.6 acres on-airport and 163.1 acres off-airport with the DNL 65+ dB contour. Noise- sensitive land uses and sites were identified and are shown on Figure 3-4. Affected Population There are a total of 401 housing units, and 862 people within the DNL 65+ contour. Of those units, 36 are within the DNL 70 to 75 contour, with 77 estimated residents. There are no residences within the DNL 75+ contour. The affected population and housing units are detailed in Table 3-2. 3.2.3 Comparison of the 2011 No-Action and Proposed Project Alternatives To identify significant impacts that would occur if the Proposed Project were implemented, the areas exposed to a change of DNL 1.5 at or above DNL 65, and DNL 3.0 at or above DNL 60, were identified. Figure 3-5 depicts the "difference contours" or the noise contours showing the areas that would be exposed to DNL 60 or greater under the Proposed Project and where the change in exposure from the No-Action Alternative would be DNL 1.5 at or above DNL 65, and DNL 3.0 at or above DNL 60. Table 3-3 shows the acreage by land use within the 1.5 and 3.0 dBA difference contours. Table 3-3 also shows the number of housing units and estimated population within these difference contours. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 3-2 TABLE 3-1 2011 FUTURE CONDITION NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES Land Use Type (Acres) DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Airport 54.6 53.3 50.4 158.2 Commercial 10.9 2.0 0.0 12.9 Community Facility 2.3 0.4 0.0 2.7 Conservation 10.2 0.0 0.0 10.2 Government 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 Industrial 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 Mobile Home 5.3 0.0 0.0 5.3 Multi-Family Residential 6.5 0.6 0.0 7.0 Single Family Residential 39.7 8.1 0.0 47.9 Transient Residential 2.2 0.5 0.0 2.7 Vacant Residential 10.0 1.9 0.0 11.9 Recreational 2.4 0.1 0.0 2.5 Utility/Right of Way 37.1 10.2 0.0 47.3 Vacant Land 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Water 13.7 2.2 0.0 15.9 Total Acreage 198.3 79.5 50.4 328.1 Population DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Mobile Home 123 2 0 125 Multi-Family Residential 123 11 0 133 Single Family Residential 447 84 0 531 Transient Residential 32 15 0 47 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Population 725 112 0 836 Housing Units DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Mobile Home 57 1 0 58 Multi-Family Residential 57 5 0 62 Single Family Residential 208 39 0 247 Transient Residential 15 7 0 22 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Units 337 52 0 389 Sources: URS Corp., 2009; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Note: Numbers may not add, due to rounding. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 3-3 TABLE 3-2 2011 FUTURE CONDITION PROPOSED PROJECT NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES Land Use Type (Acres) DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Airport 57.8 57.9 50.9 166.6 Commercial 7.1 2.0 0.0 9.1 Community Facility 1.8 0.1 0.0 1.8 Conservation 7.8 0.0 0.0 7.8 Government 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile Home 5.2 0.0 0.0 5.2 Multi-Family Residential 5.5 1.9 0.0 7.4 Single Family Residential 46.0 3.8 0.0 49.8 Transient Residential 1.2 0.5 0.0 1.7 Vacant Residential 10.4 1.4 0.0 11.9 Recreational 1.4 1.1 0.0 2.5 Utility/Right of Way 37.7 9.8 0.0 47.5 Vacant Land 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.8 Water 12.6 3.5 0.0 16.1 Total Acreage 196.7 82.1 51.0 329.7 Population DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Mobile Home 112 0 0 112 Multi-Family Residential 135 11 0 146 Single Family Residential 439 52 0 490 Transient Residential 99 15 0 114 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Population 785 77 0 862 Housing Units DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Mobile Home 52 0 0 52 Multi-Family Residential 63 5 0 68 Single Family Residential 204 24 0 228 Transient Residential 46 7 0 53 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Units 365 36 0 401 Sources: URS Corp., 2009; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Note: Numbers may not add, due to rounding. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 3-4 TABLE 3-3 2011 DIFFERENCE CONTOUR NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES Change of DNL Change of DNL Land Use Type (Acres) 1.5 dBA in the 3.0 dBA in the DNL 65+ dBA DNL 60 to 65 dBA Airport 31.3 0.8 Commercial 2.3 0.4 Conservation 1.1 0.0 Mobile Home 1.0 2.2 Multi-Family Residential 2.5 0.7 Single Family Residential 6.6 1.7 Transient Residential 0.4 2.1 Vacant Residential 0.4 1.2 Recreational 1.2 0.0 Utility/Right of Way 9.3 1.2 Vacant Land 0.3 0.5 Water 6.2 2.3 Total Acreage 62.7 13.0 Change of DNL Change of DNL Population 1.5 dBA in the 3.0 dBA in the DNL 65+ dBA DNL 60 to 65 dBA Mobile Home 17 101 Multi-Family Residential 28 41 Single Family Residential 49 19 Transient Residential 67 75 Total Population 161 237 Change of DNL Change of DNL Housing Units 1.5 dBA in the 3.0 dBA in the DNL 65+ dBA DNL 60 to 65 dBA Mobile Home 8 47 Multi-Family Residential 13 19 Single Family Residential 23 9 Transient Residential 31 35 Total Units 75 110 Sources: URS Corp., 2009; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Note: Numbers may not add, due to rounding. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 3-5 3.3 2016 IMPACT POTENTIAL 3.3.1 No-Action Alternative DNL Contours Noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations at MTH in 2016 is depicted as DNL 65, 70, and 75 dBA contours, superimposed over the local land use map of Marathon, on Figure 3-6. The estimated land area within each DNL contour interval is shown in Table 3-4. Land Use Compatibility The DNL 65+ dB contour for the 2016 No-Action Alternative, shown in Table 3-4, encompasses approximately 348 acres. There are 160.5 acres on-airport and 187.6 acres off-airport with the DNL 65+ dB contour. Noise-sensitive land uses and sites were identified and are shown on Figure 3-6. Affected Population There are a total of 421 housing units, and 905 people within the DNL 65+ contour. Of those units, 55 are within the DNL 70 to 75 contour, with 118 estimated residents. There are no residences within the DNL 75+ contour. The affected population and housing units are detailed in Table 3-4. 3.3.2 Proposed Project DNL Contours Noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations at MTH in 2016 is depicted as DNL 65, 70, and 75 dBA contours, superimposed over the local land use map of Marathon, on Figure 3-7. The estimated land area within each DNL contour interval is shown in Table 3-5. Land Use Compatibility The DNL 65+ dB contour for the 2016 Proposed Project Alternative, shown in Table 3-5, encompasses approximately 350 acres. There are 169 acres on-airport and 180.8 acres off-airport with the DNL 65+ dB contour. Noise-sensitive land uses and sites were identified and are shown on Figure 3-7. Affected Population There are a total of 448 housing units, and 963 people within the DNL 65+ contour. Of those units, 39 are within the DNL 70 to 75 contour, with 84 estimated residents. There are no residences within the DNL 75+ contour. The affected population and housing units detailed in Table 3-5. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 3-6 TABLE 3-4 2016 FUTURE CONDITION NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES Land Use Type (Acres) DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Airport 53.3 53.9 53.4 160.5 Commercial 12.9 2.3 0.0 15.2 Community Facility 2.6 0.5 0.0 3.1 Conservation 12.1 0.0 0.0 12.1 Government 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 Industrial 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 Mobile Home 6.0 0.1 0.0 6.1 Multi-Family Residential 6.9 0.7 0.0 7.6 Single Family Residential 43.1 9.4 0.0 52.5 Transient Residential 2.4 0.5 0.0 2.9 Vacant Residential 11.0 2.2 0.0 13.2 Recreational 2.3 0.2 0.0 2.5 Utility/Right of Way 39.2 11.0 0.2 50.4 Vacant Land 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 Water 15.0 2.6 0.0 17.6 Total Acreage 211.1 83.4 53.6 348.1 Population DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Mobile Home 129 6 0 135 Multi-Family Residential 127 11 0 138 Single Family Residential 499 86 0 585 Transient Residential 32 15 0 47 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Population 787 118 0 905 Housing Units DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Mobile Home 60 3 0 63 Multi-Family Residential 59 5 0 64 Single Family Residential 232 40 0 272 Transient Residential 15 7 0 22 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Units 366 55 0 421 Sources: URS Corp., 2009; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Note: Numbers may not add, due to rounding. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 3-7 TABLE 3-5 2016 FUTURE CONDITION PROPOSED PROJECT NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES Land Use Type (Acres) DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Airport 56.3 58.7 54.0 169.0 Commercial 8.5 2.3 0.0 10.8 Community Facility 1.8 0.1 0.0 2.0 Conservation 9.3 0.0 0.0 9.3 Government 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Industrial 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Mobile Home 5.8 0.0 0.0 5.8 Multi-Family Residential 6.5 1.9 0.0 8.4 Single Family Residential 50.3 4.8 0.0 55.0 Transient Residential 1.5 0.5 0.0 2.0 Vacant Residential 11.5 1.8 0.0 13.4 Recreational 1.2 1.3 0.0 2.5 Utility/Right of Way 40.5 10.5 0.2 51.2 Vacant Land 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 Water 13.1 4.1 0.0 17.2 Total Acreage 209.4 86.1 54.2 349.8 Population DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Mobile Home 129 0 0 129 Multi-Family Residential 153 11 0 163 Single Family Residential 499 58 0 557 Transient Residential 99 15 0 114 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Population 879 84 0 963 Housing Units DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Total Over 70 dBA 75 dBA dBA DNL 65 dBA Mobile Home 60 0 0 60 Multi-Family Residential 71 5 0 76 Single Family Residential 232 27 0 259 Transient Residential 46 7 0 53 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Units 409 39 0 448 Sources: URS Corp., 2009; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Note: Numbers may not add, due to rounding. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 3-8 3.3.3 Comparison of the 2016 No-Action and Proposed Project Alternatives To identify significant impacts that would occur if the Proposed Project were implemented, the areas exposed to a change of DNL 1.5 at or above DNL 65, and DNL 3.0 at or above DNL 60, were identified. Figure 3-8 depicts the "difference contours" or the noise contours showing the areas that would be exposed to DNL 60 or greater under the Proposed Project and where the change in exposure from the No-Action Alternative would be DNL 1.5 at or above DNL 65, and DNL 3.0 at or above DNL 60. Table 3-6 shows the acreage by land use within the 1.5 and 3.0 dBA difference contours. Table 3-6 also shows the number of housing units and estimated population within these difference contours. TABLE 3-6 2016 DIFFERENCE CONTOUR NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES Change of DNL Change of DNL Land Use Type (Acres) 1.5 dBA in the 3.0 dBA in the DNL 65+ dBA DNL 60 to 65 dBA Airport 31.7 0.7 Commercial 2.6 0.2 Conservation 1.1 0.0 Mobile Home 1.1 2.2 Multi-Family Residential 2.7 0.7 Single Family Residential 7.4 1.7 Transient Residential 0.4 2.1 Vacant Residential 0.8 1.3 Recreational 1.2 0.0 Utility/Right of Way 9.6 1.1 Vacant Land 0.3 0.5 Water 6.3 2.4 Total Acreage 65.2 12.8 Change of DNL Change of DNL Population 1.5 dBA in the 3.0 dBA in the DNL 65+ dBA DNL 60 to 65 dBA Mobile Home 19 101 Multi-Family Residential 41 41 Single Family Residential 60 19 Transient Residential 67 75 Total Population 187 237 Change of DNL Change of DNL Housing Units 1.5 dBA in the 3.0 dBA in the DNL 65+ dBA DNL 60 to 65 dBA Mobile Home 9 47 Multi-Family Residential 19 19 Single Family Residential 28 9 Transient Residential 31 35 Total Units 87 110 Sources: URS Corp., 2009; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Note: Numbers may not add, due to rounding. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 3-9 3.4 COMPARISON TO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THRESHOLD 3.4.1 Aircraft Noise According to FAA Order 1050.1 E, a significant noise impact would occur if the analysis showed the Proposed Project would cause noise sensitive areas to experience an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more at or above DNL 65 dB noise exposure when compared to the No-Action Alternative for the same timeframe. The results of the Noise Screening Assessment conducted for MTH shows that the Proposed Project would cause an increase of DNL 1.5 dB at or above the DNL 65 dB noise contour over noise- sensitive areas. Therefore, the Proposed Project would exceed thresholds indicating significant noise impact. In accordance with the 1992 FICON (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise) recommendations, examination of noise levels between DNL 65 and 60 dB should be conducted if noise sensitive areas at or above DNL 65 dB would have an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more. The potential for mitigating noise- sensitive areas between DNL 60-65 dB having an increase of DNL 3 dB should be considered. The Noise Screening Assessment measured a change of DNL 3 dB over noise sensitive areas within the DNL 60-65 dB area. This indicates that mitigation would be considered for certain land noise sensitive areas between the DNL 60-65 dB. 3.4.2 Compatible Land Use Whether a proposed action has potential for significant compatible land use impacts is addressed in Appendix A, Section 4 of Order 1050.1 E. Although the Order does not define a specific threshold for significant compatible land use impacts, it does provide guidance for determining whether a proposed action would have significant impact. Relevant guidance is excerpted below. Paragraph 4.1 a. The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of the airport's noise impacts. ...In this context, if the noise analysis described in the noise analysis section (section 14) concludes that there is no significant impact, a similar conclusion usually may be drawn with respect to compatible land use... The Proposed Project would cause changes in the noise environment that would affect compatible land use in the vicinity of MTH. As discussed above, aircraft noise impacts would be significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that certain land use impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be significant and mitigation would be required. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page 3-10 rr W""1 V' i. I G vull N L ry 1 Ip y � I I, wo- � �w IIY Y I � •� n�E I � 4au�VJu,�i� � , �VuN77l4wow� �J wry l l � f ✓ � Wr �11uy'n, rr�i A N°�'° �^�.i w.'s t�� L i Y Pdl" 91 r J �a' I�..WVWI fin a t Il mw lrvtt I W uPk Vfi Y PSGrcf'tnT e e �W>KiuuYyk+vw �, ':.A p �'0 fW IddUllRu 41aIfW6x, � ,(�:,��µ rl Z J�Yy ^�iinJ � I .6b11 ( I 4. 'F 1�S �9 WukWd 11tt!>�6n.B l�MN�`91A � yM a '� �'dakmr III �V Yi, ��uill�Nw�ld°Gli!�oi� r�Ei"�l�✓Ki1W��rn�H�a �- ICI " 4�"��Iey rr�. � NwrW1+ �Nrdrmrmm W�mvsvla r tuu'rw w x w ¢Ivti 8 _' O � ��uw•.rwu v� 'n FBI s .. aces LE dZ�i H a H > FIGURE 9 0 N III��GGI II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � u� � � � TUaNU III lP �I�VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � t� dIm u u " Ino bA a row V�� I � � •� 4n rF IV tii, �, U'IIVVIII%(d�'UGM%h�m+IM�u(J(4/f4 I F o,,, +�:na'� ��/, uYl%,Wfil Nnflfl llaw[a ufiuvf s � 1 ry� %fiY��MfiWV-�MNaI %fidK liuuGY M+ -�, ° e ;,; +�mGwlaaunu Ufilrw� ��wy;� ufi rI%fir w Ual v w aI '� �fikmr III �VrY r� U � �Po"G�iI CkI;L 1U�N1s�` �1�I1 ujj,:Ul ° 1d��U�R� I� r y'm rPm'to a hl yYih ui •, ® ��I�ill�J�wlu�l�� GPey ri �� imi�vlw r�� rt�rr W u-9 by R y • , a a u�%IVd 0 w 8 � ,I uml9uti: i' ��II 46�' �WXYJ%nn lWl % s0 0 a K��d� MIlS = 3 ��nmu,., �ardrarlrmluu,�,'I w � o v %Yu gEy gg o o 'x >`i 71cIP r�r:lnll Wd I �„ � m z ��A `I��✓'fll! � II FIGURE 3-2 r I�IPt OUPf�� 'd'NM� Y�� r � � n✓a� �' r d rw' fl �i I w;' ivY �' � "Iki d� '� i _ 4 _4�� 6ypdr C��E�o✓ylrhr w � m IIIIII � � i u ��I� I ,° �tic✓ ��r' r� � � � � � � .� '� � � �o� �� ,�' � '„��`�k � ✓✓a� yv�i u' ern � � x � c c� a > � � ''Yu°I�I�fuµ�c,✓�'�'NI��e i � ,I✓rv'A ( d i � c c c a � � o y °•T 0 '� �"u✓�i ry ��d IVI„ � z" � ,� � 9 G 1yry�I^um imp y' I 7 cw rV mi r�r�i i�Or �Y um ✓off MAIM Ull,I'�r r�a P� v � ICI✓VMI_o rVJR1° �j Fes) �w_.a ✓'mli ry iu mew � '� "� � YIdiY��r I��IWrlµ� 'Nn � i 4 u �E'' �;;y(aU '�!rr '�k P fYiY✓✓' �:Yr�lrfi/rfp ��+'�m�vr A Y i n u f a u ■ ' f ��hl! �� ✓�� !I ill I ro �.t r I++llllIXIX KODUM � r �' z ir"�Y�dY ��i Il✓i y Pn ii�� m � a � Ytit I � �"q ICI �YY v u � �! ✓� 1� � "ml7"` v p �1�� ",�iv N J, !�® ,ffi✓ h � r ' � �'ry � W ICI it a ,, <+��P ✓ _ ro��rjyuivp �Y Yw�uam�i�b � Q "s �l ✓a✓N i, m✓frnr r�� nr Orlfi!r�; a �r��l k�"��, '�l��U✓�r� "�,, �„ ��,;. (u'�l�w�rJ4�II��k�Yi �i'� U "'U;,Y,, c� v�� ✓Y 'A'��te Y rt ✓� �rru A� FIGURE 3-3 .. wll_III ✓ V wv,,�._ I u9r �uw�,au�� r� �� am o• � ?"�� uu �w 9 m of�r t"I � D� P1 wI r U, I U rek v!P n✓a� �, ,� A� ��Y � �'11t�MM i�'N� �.� u• a° g � i�l it k°Cnl db 8 � g � oh a urfg ��ii en o 3 x 3 �° a A I P4 o = l +' o F g I�Il i III °N Y'e <P�� IIIUk I( 'VI tl fT�um��p J U�dU!��U�'N �VI �4 ✓'� 4 � w r r llllr7 q � , f v 4r°Pl a y �° NJA1° FBI Ilo � w�ll� 1 >9X )! wwwuwwmw � ii k IfU.� a it�? �'. � aN � � � xWY�� 1➢1 � �� Y �� I ' � �;W(aU !^" 1 6'YUtiPn'� „r:IUPlrfi/)zfp YIP,�a9 Wµ°r A i n u f a u ■ a ma 1y ahlY i r °lob l; lUI., a 00 all, ff Y �dilu , Y fo r m FIGURE 3-4 IIIIIIII@� � °� ,aviii,��wUinoi�rl „po i P Mal ET� Zz TON cw 4,�,��i4� I i� II o L ��.� s� r � �•"��' 9 �� h.r�� l�Ir,Ylr�q� i 61Uw �' iulld'�� "; a� �. e• �t � ��11{�V�llloi�° r t � 1�f�ll l� � �,,, �� Q��I��Q � ��°�i��11 � + � ,r it • I � � N� ur u,9 i'a�l'�. f r, �� n l � f uv�� I Y1rUl iv Ir"o a �, ,,Uif"�r'�IEIfiN4 � �. �rallr� ViWUa r vie, °j H t r k,, rr� E r �'l a er uwu� r sow - 0 t w� it n w ��o�• r� Ga i a / ,yr �"A� � �,a �� mYld� � � ,: •;dG'r�� y /DGi'� • ��r� r " r rr Uu I U!l � ��• ' ��U�n o a 1i ° /hair .tow r � i.: �IUVW�CIIItl � �I E. C W W �i NO�� j NOUN I w FIGURE 3-5 INS 7—wig Him � Y a. • IIII � e�+�'`+l wI 1 �, I� Lek 4111 n✓a� �, ,� o h----------------- rrll �'� � � z I I I a �Q�� •� i cw r , av r� "s��"` � �i �� 'i� � � r� � vY��U I a , !��Nrr��(nl N t� r i r➢Wnt'�7 ��JI llll� i 4 i . r IA�1V��% Nn FBI WWWWWIPWVIW7W � II k' �lUll.& d S 1�? � rrk�„ �o*vi �*+ �m y ��nu ail � '� �iY�� `'dt➢i' ��tii � � � � t �µ ��li� kYlr��w 6 A u➢mu f f !�"t" ��(rl �& ��auu � �s FIGURE � 3-6 a� e• ' � IAA �w��r��r�r� STS,9 � e�+�'`+l wI 1 �, ,� rek 4111 n✓a� �, ,� "�U'"'1-0Y16 IIIN'm 'SIN IMv�W '�P Mgt 2`fJ ' JM',�%Nl dww IufU'l �d1w4c , 0 0 0 0 9 T o cw 0 N ;rw N w� f�l',wwrr��ar r'"wrq RNA Y aN ��, P� OlV (nlNrrt'o ; ; r➢Wnt� nn � � r mignon w 1• 'r r,,' I'C r; W v�aw rr wwwruuwmw r �' 4 aT"'W itw+ RYId r "✓ y i 1 , 1 a u . h+q a ; �' e hlrq uo ,m I I L 1 W Z H'R. 9 U!7 \C i b � r��kIV al�iwilV ,� �� WI' �'�"�, �� ✓llffli��l ��r�AY!w�'h'' !♦rtuty ..,� ,u��u ,�&�° �^� ,�7W, � � Ifs fi�1 ,:_� a �� P A•� �� R �r r FIGURE 3-7 a� e• ' � IAA �� w��r,��rrl r w PRO V so cW r Ov, � •!d'�� m. (�.; + 1 Yj !�a�... �e � u�IIINh'�� I�CICrY1��q�r.1 6�,�� _,.�' r A quid � W 4 rnfr� '9 IO i'� '�� r ✓ i R n ��• � �rs� r r i V1 N>/;, fnio a 1+ q, .• sha� �:tnw�r nE$ Mw� ICI �W/ I� WER � I a \O P d wu �u h, , �� u, , FIGURE 3-8 APPENDIX A AIRCRAFT NOISE, NOISE METRICS & THE INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL Appendix A describes the various common noise metrics and human perceptions. It also describes the Integrated Noise Model (INM), and its required inputs. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-1 APPENDIX A AIRCRAFT NOISE, NOISE METRICS &THE INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL A-1 AIRCRAFT NOISE Aircraft noise originates from the engines as well as the airframe or structure of aircraft. The engines are generally the most significant source of noise. While noise generated by propeller-driven aircraft can be annoying, jet aircraft are commonly the source of disturbing noise at airports. Two basic types of jet aircraft are operated today equipped with turbofan or turbojet engines. Aircraft flying faster than the speed of sound generate an intense pressure wave called a sonic boom, in addition to the propulsion and airframe noise. Turbofan engines produce thrust as reaction to the rate at which high-velocity gas is exhausted from nozzles. The engine core consists of a compressor, combustion chambers, a turbine and a front fan. The major sources of noise include the core engine fan streams, the compressor, turbine blades and exhaust nozzles. In comparison, turbojet aircraft do not have the front fan component. It has been found in several cases that the sound energy produced by a turbojet engine is greater than that of a turbofan engine with an equivalent thrust rating. The noise produced by jet aircraft flyovers is characterized by an increase in sound energy as the aircraft approaches, up to a maximum level. This sound level begins to lessen as the aircraft passes overhead and then decreases in a series of lesser peaks as the aircraft departs the area. Noise produced by propeller driven aircraft and helicopters emanates from the blades and rotors. There are two components of this noise, namely vortex and periodic. Vortex noise is generated by the formation and shedding of vortices in the airflow past the blade. Periodic noise is produced by the oscillating pressure field in the air that results from the passage of air past the blade. Blade slap is an additional source of noise in helicopters. This is high-amplitude periodic noise and highly modulated vortex noise caused by fluctuating forces as one blade cuts through the tip vortices of another. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-2 A-2 AIRCRAFT NOISE TERMINOLOGY The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses a variety of noise metrics to assess potential airport noise impacts. Different noise metrics can be used to describe individual noise events (e.g., a single operation of an aircraft taking off overhead) or groups of events (e.g., the cumulative effect of numerous aircraft operations, the collection of which creates a general noise environment or overall exposure level). Both types of descriptors are helpful in explaining how people tend to respond to a given noise condition. Descriptions of the metrics used in this Part 150 Study are provided in the following text. Decibel, dB — Sound is a complex physical phenomenon consisting of many minute vibrations traveling through a medium, such as air. The human ear senses these vibrations as sound pressure. Because of the vast range of sound pressure or intensity detectable by the human ear, sound pressure level (SPL) is represented on a logarithmic scale known as decibels (dB). A SPL of 0 dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet (laboratory-type) listening conditions. A person begins to feel a SPL of 120 dB inside the ear as discomfort, and pain begins at approximately 140 dB. Most environmental sounds have SPLs ranging from 30 to 100 dB. Because decibels are logarithmic, they cannot be added or subtracted directly like other (linear) numbers. For example, if two sound sources each produce 100 dB, when they are operated together they will produce 103 dB, not 200 dB. Four 100 dB sources operating together again double the sound energy, resulting in a total SPL of 106 dB, and so on. In addition, if one source is much louder than another, the two sources operating together will produce the same SPL as if the louder source were operating alone. For example, a 100 dB source plus an 80 dB source produces 100 dB when operating together. The louder source masks the quieter one. Two useful rules to remember when comparing SPLs are: (1) most people perceive a 6 to 10 dB increase in SPL between two noise events to be about a doubling of loudness, and (2) changes in SPL of less than about 3 dB between two events are not easily detected outside of a laboratory. A-Weighted Decibel, dBA — Frequency, or pitch, is a basic physical characteristic of sound and is expressed in units of cycles per second or hertz (Hz). The normal frequency range of hearing for most people extends from about 20 to 15,000 Hz. Because the human ear is more sensitive to middle and high frequencies (i.e., 1000 to 4000 Hz), a frequency weighting called "A" weighting is applied to the measurement of sound. The internationally standardized "A" filter approximates the sensitivity of the human ear and helps in assessing the perceived loudness of various sounds. For this Part 150 Study, all sound levels are A-weighted sound levels and the text typically omits the adjective "A-weighted". Figure A-2-1 charts common indoor and outdoor sound levels. A quiet rural area at nighttime may be 30 dBA or lower, while the operator of a typical gas lawn mower may experience a level of 90 dBA. Similarly, the level in a library may be 30 dBA or lower, while the listener at a rock band concert may experience levels near 110 dBA. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-3 FIGURE A-2-1 COMMON OUTDOOR AND INDOOR SOUND LEVELS tOutdoor Sound Levels Indoor Sound Levels tThreshold of Pain Q Threshold of Pain tMilitary Jet Takeoff with Afterburner at 50 feet III I Y,Y,Y,W�,YY, l f ir Rock Band ConcerC �l tAmbulance Siren at 10 feet III t r Pile Driver at 50 feet 0 f Night Club with Live Music mower at 3 feet t Gas Sports nBoat at 100 feet i„lf tDiesel Truck at 50 feet 0r; Concrete Mixer at 50 feet Food Blender at 3 feet t �IiJi Leaf Blower at 50 feet ,'% Noisy Restaurant , tGarbage Disposal at 3 feet " Vaccuunn Cieaner at 110 feet Commercial Urban Area (Daytime ,0�%i INomnal Conversation at 3 feet j UrbanExpressway Area,3e / Active Office Environment Sub Quiet Office Environment j Dushwasher,Next Room tDuiet Urban Area,Nighttime tuOet Suburban Area,Nighttime Library Quiet Rural Area,Nighttime Quiet Bedroom,Nghtime �,.. t Concert Hall,Background Leaves Rustling Quiet Wilderness Area,No Wind r Recording Studio s Threshold of Human Hearing Threshold of Human Hearing l l l r l r l r 1 r i , ,Source: URS Corp.,2008. Maximum A-Weighted Noise Level, Lmax — Sound levels vary with time. For example, the sound increases as an aircraft approaches, then falls and blends into the ambient, or background, as the aircraft recedes into the distance. Because of this variation, it is often convenient to describe a particular noise "event" by its highest or maximum sound level (LmaX). It should be noted that l describes only one dimension of an event; it provides no information on the cumulative noise exposure generated by a sound The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis May 2009 Page A-4 source. In fact, two events with identical L,,,,, levels may produce very different total noise exposures. One may be of very short duration, while the other may last much longer. Sound Exposure Level, SEL—The most common measure of noise exposure for a single aircraft flyover event is the SEL. SEL is a summation of the A-weighted sound energy at a particular location over the true duration of a noise event, normalized to a fictional duration of one second. The true noise event duration is defined as the amount of time the noise event exceeds a specified level (that is at least 10 dB below the maximum value measured during the noise event). For noise events lasting more than one second, SEL does not directly represent the sound level heard at any given time, but rather provides a measure of the net impact of the entire acoustic event. The normalization to the fictional duration of one second enables the comparison of noise events with differing true duration and/or maximum level. Because the SEL is normalized to one second, it will almost always be larger in magnitude than the L,,,,x for the event. In fact, for most aircraft events, the SEL is about 7 to 12 dB higher than the L,,,,x. Additionally, since it is a cumulative measure, a higher SEL can result from either a louder or longer event, or a combination thereof. Since SEL combines an event's overall sound level along with its duration, SEL provides a comprehensive way to describe noise events for use in modeling and comparing noise environments. Computer noise models, such as the Integrated Noise Model (INM) that the FAA used for this PART 150 STUDY, base their computations on these SELs. Figure A-2-2 shows an event's "time history", or the variation of sound level with time. For typical sound events experienced by a stationary listener, like a person experiencing an aircraft flyover, the sound level rises as the source (or aircraft) approaches the listener, peaks and then diminishes as the aircraft flies away from the listener. The area under the time history curve represents the overall sound energy of the noise event. The L,,,,x for the event shown in Figure A-2-2 was 93.5 dBA. Compressing the event's total sound energy into one second yields an SEL of 102.7 dBA. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-5 FIGURE A-2-2 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL(LMAx)AND SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL(SEL) SEL=102.7dBA 100 - — R d � > U Lmax=93.5 dBA c ° ""w 3,0 90 o E o" V)c w �, 'a N 22 N N uiuuuuu,u " i u�, Y✓i 80 a N IVVW uuw uu 70 — 0 10 20 30 Time(seconds) Source: URS Corporation,2008. Equivalent Sound Level, 6— Equivalent sound level (Leq) is a measure of the noise exposure resulting from the accumulation of A-weighted sound levels over a particular period of interest (e.g., an hour, an 8- hour school day, nighttime, or a full 24-hour day). However, because the length of the period can be different depending on the period of interest, the applicable period should always be identified or clearly understood when discussing this metric. Such durations are often identified through a subscript. For example, for an 8 hour or 24 hour day, Leq(B)or Leq(24) is used, respectively. Conceptually, Leq may be thought of as a constant sound level over the period of interest that contains as much sound energy as the actual time-varying sound level with its normal "peaks" and "dips". In the context of noise from typical aircraft flight events, and as noted earlier for SEL, Leq does not represent the sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure for the period of interest. Also, it should be noted that the "average" sound level suggested by Leq is not an arithmetic value, but a logarithmic, or"energy-averaged," sound level. Thus, loud events tend to dominate the noise environment described by the Leq metric. Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL — Time-average sound levels are measurements of sound averaged over a specified length of time. These levels provide a measure of the average sound energy The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis May 2009 Page A-6 during the measurement period. For the evaluation of community noise effects, and particularly aircraft noise effects, the Day-Night Average Sound Level (abbreviated DNL) is used. DNL logarithmically averages aircraft sound levels at a location over a complete 24-hour period, with a 10-decibel adjustment added to those noise events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (local time) the following morning. The FAA defines the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. period as nighttime (or night) and the 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. period as daytime (or day). Because of the increased sensitivity to noise during normal sleeping hours and because ambient (without aircraft)sound levels during nighttime are typically about 10 dB lower than during daytime hours, the 10-decibel adjustment, or "penalty," represents the added intrusiveness of sounds occurring during nighttime hours. DNL accounts for the noise levels (in terms of SEL) of all individual aircraft events, the number of times those events occur and the period of day/night in which they occur. Values of DNL can be measured with standard monitoring equipment or predicted with computer models such as the INM. Typical DNL values for a variety of noise environments are shown in Figure A-2-3. DNL values can be approximately 85 dBA outdoors under an aircraft flight path within a mile of a major airport and 40 dBA or less outdoors in a rural residential area. Due to the DNL descriptor's close correlation with the degree of community annoyance from aircraft noise, most federal agencies have formally adopted DNL for measuring and evaluating aircraft noise for land use planning and noise impact assessment. Federal committees such as the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN) and the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), which include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FAA, Department of Defense, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Veterans Administration, found DNL to be the best metric for land use planning. They also found no new cumulative sound descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to substitute for DNL. Other cumulative metrics are used only to supplement, not replace, DNL. Furthermore, FAA Order 1050.1 E, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, requires DNL be used in describing cumulative noise exposure and in identifying aircraft noise/land use compatibility issues (EPA, 1974; FICUN, 1980; FICON, 1992; 14 CFR part 150, 2004; FAA, 2006). The accuracy and validity of DNL calculations depend on the basic information used in the calculations. At airports, the reliability of DNL calculations is affected by a number of uncertainties: • The noise descriptions used in the DNL procedure represent the typical human response to aircraft noise. Since people vary in their response to noise and because the physical measure of noise accounts for only a portion of an individual's reaction to that noise, the DNL scale can show only an average response to aircraft noise that may be expected from a community. • Future aviation activity levels such as the forecast number of operations, the operational fleet mix, the times of operation (day versus night) and flight tracks are estimates. Achievement of forecasted levels of activity cannot be assured. • Aircraft acoustical and performance characteristics for new aircraft designs are estimates. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-7 Outdoor vs. Indoor Noise Levels — INM calculates outdoor noise levels, while some of the supplemental noise analysis effects are based on noise levels experienced indoors. In order to convert outdoor noise levels to indoor noise levels, an Outdoor-to-Indoor Noise Level Reduction (OILR) is identified. The indoor noise level is equal to the outdoor noise level minus the OILR. Based on accepted research, typical OILR values range between 15 dBA to 25 dBA, depending on the structure and whether windows are open or closed (Wyle, 1989). FIGURE A-2-3 TYPICAL RANGE OF OUTDOOR COMMUNITY DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS 90 Under Flight Path at Major Airport, '/2 to 1 Mile From Runway V! a 80 Downtown in Major Metropolis a Y t 3 Dense Urban Area with Heavy Traffic a 70 J Z 0 N Urban Area J C � 4 y 60 a a� L d a Suburban and Low Density Urban Y t 2 Z R 50 0 Small Town and Quiet Suburban Rural 40 Source: U.S. Department of Defense. Departments of the Air Force,the Army,and the Navy, 1978.Planning in the Noise Environment.AFM 19-10.TM 5-803-2,and NAVFAC P-970.Washington, D.C.: U.S. DoD. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-8 A-3 EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE ON PEOPLE The most common effects regarding aircraft noise are related to annoyance and activity interference (e.g., speech disruption and sleep interference). These effects have been studied extensively and relationships between various noise metrics and effects have been established. The following sections summarize these effects, and the noise metrics that are used to describe them. A-3.1 SPEECH INTERFERENCE Speech interference is the most readily quantified adverse effect of noise, and speech is the activity most often affected by environmental noise. The levels of noise that interfere with listening to a desired sound, such as speech, music, or television, can be defined in terms of the level of noise required to mask the desired sound. Such levels have been quantified for speech communications by directly measuring the interference with speech. Several studies have been conducted over the last 30 years resulting in various noise level criteria for speech interference. As an aircraft approaches and its sound level increases, speech becomes harder to hear. As the ambient level increases, the speaker must raise his/her voice, or the individuals must get closer together to continue talking. For typical communication distances of 3 or 4 feet (1 to 1.5 meters), acceptable outdoor conversations can be carried on in a normal voice as long as the ambient noise outdoors is less than about 65 dBA (FICON, 1992). If the noise exceeds this level, intelligibility would be lost unless vocal effort was increased or communication distance was decreased. Indoor speech interference can be expressed as a percentage of sentence intelligibility between two average adults with normal hearing, speaking fluently in relaxed conversation approximately one meter apart in a typical living room or bedroom (EPA, 1974). Intelligibility pertains to the percentage of speech units correctly understood out of those transmitted, and specifies the type of speech material used, i.e. sentence or word intelligibility (ANSI, 1994). As shown in Figure A-3-1, the percentage of sentence intelligibility is a non-linear function of the (steady) indoor ambient or background sound level (energy- average equivalent sound level (Leq)). For an average adult with normal hearing and fluency in the language, steady ambient indoor sound levels of up to 45 dBA Leq are expected to allow 100 percent intelligibility of sentences. The curve shows 99 percent sentence intelligibility for Leq at or below 54 dBA and less than 10 percent intelligibility for Leq greater than 73 dBA. It should be noted that the function is especially sensitive to changes in sound level between 65 dBA and 75 dBA. As an example of the sensitivity, a 1 dBA increase in background sound level from 70 dBA to 71 dBA results in a 14 percent decrease in sentence intelligibility. In contrast, a 1 dBA increase in background sound level from 60 dBA to 61 dBA results in less than 1 percent decrease in sentence intelligibility. The noise from aircraft events is not continuous, but consists of individual events where the noise level can greatly exceed the background level for a limited period as the aircraft flies over. Since speech interference in the presence of aircraft noise is essentially determined by the magnitude and frequency of individual aircraft flyover events, a time-averaged metric (such as Leq) alone, is not necessarily The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-9 appropriate when setting standards regarding acceptable levels. In addition to the background levels described above, single event criteria, which account for those sporadic intermittent noisy events, are also essential to specifying speech interference criteria. In order for two people to communicate reasonably using normal voice levels indoors, the background noise level should not exceed 60 dBA (EPA, 1974). In other words, an indoor noise event that exceeds 60 dBA has the potential to cause speech and communication disruption (Eagan, 2007). Figure A-3-1 PERCENT SENTENCE INTELLIGIBILITY FOR INDOOR SPEECH 100 � 80 IIIIIIIIIIIIII d IIIIIIIII�� c 60 d d 40 N C N tt L a 20 0 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Steady Indoor A-Weighted Sound Level (dB re:20 micropascals) Source:U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,1974. A-3.2 EFFECT ON CHILDREN'S LEARNING An important application of speech interference criteria is in the classroom where the percent of words (rather than whole sentences) transmitted and received, commonly referred to as `word intelligibility,' is critical. For teachers to be clearly understood by their students, it is important that regular voice communication is clear and uninterrupted. Not only does the steady background sound level have to be low enough for the teacher to be clearly heard, but intermittent outdoor noise events also need to be unobtrusive. The steady ambient level, the level of voice communication, and the single event level (e.g., aircraft over-flights)that might interfere with speech in the classroom are measures that can be evaluated to quantify the potential for speech interference in the classroom. Accounting for the typically intermittent nature of aircraft noise where speech is impaired only for the short time when the aircraft noise is close to its maximum value, different researchers and regulatory organizations have recommended maximum allowable indoor noise levels ranging between 40 and 60 The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-10 dBA L,,,,,. (Lind, et. al., 1998; Sharp and Plotkin, 1984; Wesler, 1986; WHO, 1999; ASLHA, 1995; ANSI, 2002). A single event noise level of 50 dBA L,,,,, correlates to 90 percent of the words being understood by students with normal hearing and no special needs seated throughout a classroom (Lind, et. al., 1998). At-risk students may be adversely affected at lower sound levels. ANSI has developed a standard for classrooms that states that the sound level during the noisiest hour should not exceed a one-hour average Leq of 40 dBA for schools exposed to intermittent noise sources such as aircraft noise (ANSI, 2002). The standard further states that the hourly Leq should not be exceeded for more than 10 percent of the noisiest hour (i.e., Leq should not exceed Leo). FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, Chapter 7, Section 2, Paragraph 812c(1) indicates that schools should have an A-weighted Leq of 45 dB, or less, during school hours, in the classroom environment. Facilities not typically disrupted by aircraft, such as gymnasiums, cafeterias, or hallways, are not usually eligible for noise insulation. However, ANSI recommends that schools have a maximum one-hour average A-weighted unsteady background noise level of Leq of 40 dB, or less, during school hours. Ancillary spaces, such as gymnasiums and cafeterias are recommended to have a maximum Leq of 45 dB. A-3.3 SLEEP DISTURBANCE The EPA identified an indoor DNL of 45 dB as necessary to protect against sleep interference (EPA, 1974). Prior to and after the EPA's 1974 guidelines, research on sleep disruption from noise has led to widely varying observations. In part, this is because: (1) sleep can be disturbed without causing awakening, (2)the deeper the sleep the more noise it takes to cause arousal, (3) the tendency to awaken increases with age, and (4)the person's previous exposure to the intruding noise and other physiological, psychological, and situational factors. The most readily measurable effect of noise on a sleeping person is the number of arousals or awakenings. A study performed in 1992 by the Civil Aviation Policy Directorate of the Department of Transportation in the United Kingdom concluded that average sleep disturbance rates (those that are unrelated to outdoor noise) are unlikely to be affected by aircraft noise at outdoor levels below an L,,,,, of 80 dBA (011erhead, 1992). At higher levels of 80-95 dBA L,,,,x the chance of the average person being awakened is about 1 in 75. The study concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that aircraft noise at these levels is likely to increase the overall rates of sleep disturbance experienced during normal sleep. However, the authors emphasize that these conclusions are based on `average' effects, and that there are more susceptible individuals and there are periods during the night when people are more sensitive to noise, especially during the lighter stages of sleep. In June 1997, the U.S. Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) reviewed the sleep disturbance issue along with data from the 1992 FICON recommendations (which was primarily the result of many laboratory studies) and presented a new sleep disturbance dose-response prediction curve (FICAN, 1997) as the recommended tool for analysis of potential sleep disturbance for residential areas. The FICAN curve, shown in Figure A-3-2, was based on data from field studies of major civilian and The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-11 military airports. For an indoor SEL of 60 dBA, Figure A-3-2 predicts a maximum of approximately 5 percent of the exposed residential population would be behaviorally awakened. FICAN cautions that this curve should only be applied to long-term adult residents. The focus of this research was the human response to individual SELs rather than the response to multiple events in the same night. The relationship of SEL and percent awakenings presented in the figure is for each event, not a cumulative percent awakening for all events during a sleep period. Other studies indicate that for a good night's sleep, the number of noise occurrences plays a role as important as the level of the noise. Vallet & Vernet (1991) recommend that, to avoid any adverse effects on sleep, indoor noise levels should not exceed approximately 45 dBA L,,,,, more than 10-15 times per night and that lower levels might be appropriate to provide protection for sensitive people. This L,,,,, level is equivalent to an SEL of approximately 55 dBA indoors. FIGURE A-3-2 SLEEP DISTURBANCE DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP 50 FICAN 1997 a' 40 Q Field Studies Y o Fidell et al,2000 M _r Q -a 30 .. M w � f %Awakenings=0.0067 x(SEL-30)'79 a v 20 61 E %Awakenings=0.13 x SEL-6.64 X M 10 (76 � � Q 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Indoor Sound Exposure Level(SEL, dBA) Source: FICAN, 1997; Fidell,et.al.,2000. Griefahn (1978) suggests that awakenings from aircraft overflights are dependent upon the number of events and their sound levels. Figure A-3-3 illustrates Griefahn's compilation of data indicating the number of events and noise level that constitute a threshold for sleep. The data in her research were based on levels at which the most sensitive 10 percent of the population would be disturbed, and includes a correction to these levels to represent the most sensitive sleep state and age group. The lower curve represents the indoor noise level (expressed in terms of L,,,,x) and number of noise event combinations at which fewer than 10 percent of the population will show signs of sleep interference. The upper curve indicates the level at which more than 90 percent of the population will be awakened for the given The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-12 combination of noise levels and noise events. Griefahn suggests that, to avoid any long-term health effects, the upper curve should not be exceeded. The bottom curve represents a preferred, preventative goal. The curves indicate that nearly 90 percent of people will show signs of sleep interference in the presence of 10 to 30 flights per night at an approximate indoor L,,,,,of 54 dB. They also show that for the same number of flights but at an indoor L,,,,, of 48 dB, the percentage of the most sensitive population affected is much lower, at less than 10 percent, (with `no reaction' for the less sensitive population). FIGURE A-3-3 NUMBER OF AWAKENINGS AS A FUNCTION OF MAXIMUM INDOOR NOISE LEVEL 66 64 Awakening Reactions 62 y=(-.03+ .129x-.001+6x2)-' +53.16 68 Indoor 58 L max 56 52 58 No Reaction 48 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 28 38 Number of Noise Events Source: Griefahn, B.(1990)."Critical Loads for Noise Exposure During the Night," InterNoise 90,pg. 1165. A-3.4 VIBRATION FROM AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS The effects of vibration in a residence are observed in two ways; it is felt by the occupant, or it causes physical damage to the structure. Subjective detection can be one of direct perception from rattling of windows and ornaments, or dislodgement of hanging pictures and other loose objects. Structural damage may be either architectural (cosmetic or minor effects) such as plaster cracking, movement or dislodgements of wall tiles, cracked glass, etc., or major, such as cracking walls, complete collapsing of ceilings, etc., which is generally considered to impair the function or use of the dwelling. Research has shown that vibration can be felt at levels well below those considered to cause structural damage. Complaints from occupants are usually due to the belief that if vibration can be felt, then it is likely to cause damage. Residents living in proximity to airports often complain that aircraft operations cause vibration induced damage to their homes. Research has also shown however, that the slamming of doors or footfalls within a building can produce vibration levels above those produced by aircraft activities (Reverb Acoustics Noise and Vibration Consultants, 2005). The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-13 Since people spend the majority of time indoors, the perceptions of aircraft noise leading to annoyance or complaint response and potentially to structural/architectural effects are directly and indirectly affected by the building structure. The acoustic loads resulting from aircraft noise can induce vibration in the structure, which can in turn, result in radiation of noise into its interior, rattling of items in contact with the structure, the perception of the occupants that the structure is vibrating, and the assumption that the vibration is causing structural/architectural effects. Consequently, the response of buildings, particularly older residential structures, to aircraft noise and the resulting effects on human and structural response has been the subject of considerable research. C-weighted metrics appear to correlate well with subjective evaluations of low frequency noise from aircraft operations (Fidell, et al, 2002; Eagan, 2006). Perceptible wall vibrations in homes are likely to occur for C-weighted levels between 75 and 80 dB (Eagan, 2006). The likelihood of rattle due to low frequency noise increases notably for C-weighted levels within the range of 75 to 80 dB (Hubbard, 1982, Fidell, et. al, 2002). Rattle always occurs above a threshold of roughly 97 dB L,,,,, (Hodgdon, 2007). In addition, C-weighting is the only weighting scale currently in the Integrated Noise Model (INM) that addresses low-frequency noise. However, it should be noted that INM predictions are based on extrapolation of A-weighted aircraft sound levels. The same data are used in C-weighted predictions by simply reverse filtering the A-weighted levels. The predictions do not extend to frequencies less than 50 Hz where much of rattle and structural response can be attributed. This is a major limitation of INM C- weighted predictions for vibration assessment. Generally, fixed-wing subsonic aircraft do not generate vibration levels of a frequency or intensity high enough to result in damage to structures. It has been found that exposure to normal weather conditions, such as thunder and wind, usually have more potential to result in significant structural vibration than aircraft (FAA, 1985). Two studies involving the measurement of vibration levels resulting from aircraft operations upon sensitive historic structures concluded that aircraft operations did not result in significant structural vibration. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-14 A-4 FAA METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING AIRCRAFT NOISE A-4.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS The evaluation of the Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH) airport noise environment was completed using the methodologies and standards specified in title 14 CFR part 150 (Part 150, 2004). The following paragraphs summarize the pertinent requirements of these documents applicable to conducting a noise analysis and how they were applied in this analysis. The regulations and guidance documents require that the cumulative noise energy exposure of individuals to noise resulting from aviation activities be established in terms of yearly day/night average sound level (DNL) as the FAA's primary metric. All detailed noise analyses must be performed using the most current version of the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM). For this analysis, INM, Version 7.0a, was used to model aircraft noise exposure. The noise analysis was conducted to reflect current conditions (2008) and forecast conditions (2011 and 2016). This analysis includes maps and other means to depict land uses within the noise impact area. The addition of flight tracks is helpful in illustrating where aircraft normally fly. The following information was disclosed for the current conditions (2008) and forecast conditions (2011 and 2016). 1. The number of people living or residences within each noise contour above DNL 65 for both the Existing and Future Conditions. 2. The location of noise sensitive uses (e.g., schools, churches, hospitals, parks, recreation areas) exposed to DNL 65 or greater for both the Existing and Future Conditions. A-4.2 THE INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL Noise contours generated by the FAA's INM do not depict a strict demarcation of where the noise levels end or begin. Their purpose is to describe the generally expected noise exposure. It must be recognized that although the INM is the current state-of-the-art aircraft noise modeling software, input variables to the INM require several simplifying assumptions to be made, such as: aircraft types flown, flight track utilization, day/night operational patterns, and arrival/departures profiles flown. Further, the noise contours represent average annual conditions rather than single event occurrences. Noise exposure on any one day may be greater or less than the average day. The noise model is useful for comparison of noise impacts between scenarios and provides a consistent and reasonable method to conduct airport noise compatibility planning. The INM has been the FAA's standard tool since 1978 for determining the predicted noise impact near airports. The FAA developed the INM computer model and it is the required method to predict airport noise contours. The FAA continually enhances the INM to take advantage of increased computer speed, to incorporate new aircraft types into the aircraft noise database, and to improve its noise computation The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-15 algorithms. INM Version 7.Oa was used to produce the noise contours and to analyze noise levels at sensitive sites. INM includes the capability to turn off lateral attenuation for helicopters and propeller aircraft, in order to simulate propagation over acoustically hard surfaces such as water or rocks. This capability was utilized to take into account the effect of the water surrounding the airport. The model produces noise exposure contours that are used for land use compatibility maps. Its program includes built in tools for comparing contours and utilities that facilitate easy export to Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The model can also calculate predicted noise at specific sites such as hospitals, schools, or other sensitive locations. For these grid points, the model reports detailed information for the analyst to determine which events contribute most significantly to the noise at that location. The INM is a computer model that, during an average 24-hour period, accounts for each aircraft flight along flight tracks leading to or from the airport, or overflying the area of interest. Flight track definitions are coupled with information in the program database relating to noise levels at varying distances and flight performance data for each distinct type of aircraft selected. In general, the model computes noise levels at regular grid locations at ground level around the airport and within the area of interest. The distance to each aircraft in flight is computed, and the associated noise exposure of each aircraft flying along each flight track within the vicinity of the grid location is determined. The logarithmic acoustical energy levels for each individual aircraft are then summed for each grid location. The model can create contours of specific noise levels based on the acoustical energy summed at each of the grid points. The cumulative values of noise exposure at each grid location are used to interpolate contours of equal noise exposure. The model can also compute noise levels at user-defined points on the ground. The noise analyses must be performed using the INM standard and default data, unless there is sufficient justification for modification. Modification to standard or default data requires written approval from the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy (AEE). Standard INM modeling of departure operations begins at the start of takeoff roll and ends when aircraft reach an altitude of 10,000 feet above field elevation (AFE). Standard modeling of arrival operations begins when the aircraft is at an altitude of 6,000 feet and ends when the aircraft land and completes the application of reverse thrust. All computer model input data should reasonably reflect current and forecasted conditions. User-supplied information required to run the model includes: • A physical description of the airport layout, including location, length and orientation of all runways, and airport elevation, • The aircraft fleet mix for the average day, • The number of daytime flight and run-up operations (7 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.), • The number of nighttime flight and run-up operations (10 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.), • Runway utilization rates, • Primary departure and arrival flight tracks, and • Flight track utilization rates. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-16 A-4.2.1 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Fleet mix defines the various types of aircraft and allows development of very specific input data, such as engine type, title 14 CFR part 36 Noise Stage Certification, gross weight, and departure stage length. The INM aircraft database contains actual noise and performance data for 273 types of aircraft. Although the INM aircraft database provides a large selection of aircraft to model, it does not contain every known aircraft. For this reason, the FAA has developed an official aircraft substitution list, containing 260 types of aircraft, which allows the modeler to substitute similar aircraft when necessary for modeling purposes. These substitutions represent a very close estimate of the noise produced by the actual aircraft. All modeled aircraft in this study are either a true representative of an aircraft type or an FAA approved substitution. Tables A-4-1 to A-4-3 detail MTH modeled annual operations for the 2008 existing condition and 2011 and 2016 future conditions. Interviews with airport management and the FBO indicated that the Proposed Project would not induce operations; therefore, the forecasted operations and fleet mix are not expected to change between the No-Action and Proposed Project Alternatives. Annual operations are divided by 365 in order to calculate average daily operations required for INM input. A-4.2.2 Time of Day The time of day that aircraft operations occur is a very important factor in the calculation of cumulative noise exposure. The DNL treats nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.) noise differently from daytime (7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.) noise. DNL multiplies each nighttime operation by 10. This weighting of the operations effectively adds 10 dB to the A-weighted levels of each nighttime operation. This weighting factor is applied to account for people's greater sensitivity to nighttime noise. In addition, events during the night are often more intrusive because the ambient sound levels during this time are usually lower than daytime ambient sound levels. Nighttime operations accounted for 4.6 percent of the total operations. The day/night split for each aircraft type is provided in Table A-4-4. A-4.2.3 Runway Utilization Runway use refers to the frequency with which aircraft utilize each runway during the course of a year as dictated or permitted by wind, weather, aircraft weight, and noise considerations. The more often a runway is used throughout the year, the more noise is created in areas located off each end of that runway. Runway utilization is approximately 80/20 percent on Runway 07/25, respectively. The only exception was operations conducted by Mosquito Control (B206L), of which 100 percent were on Runway 25, due to the proximity of their hangar. A hemispheric chart, shown in Figure A-4-1, was completed in order to determine the wind coverage, since actual runway utilization data was unavailable. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-17 TABLE A-4-1 2008 EXISTING CONDITION ANNUAL OPERATIONS AT MTH Aircraft Type INM Aircraft Itinerant Local Total Name Operations Operations Operations CIT3 137 137 CL600 130 130 CL601 2 2 CNA500 498 498 CNA510 42 42 CNA750 168 168 EMB145 2 2 EMB14L 3 3 Jet FAL20 56 56 GII 7 7 GIIB 10 10 GIV 151 151 GV 15 15 IA1125 152 152 LEAR25 46 46 LEAR35 1,203 1,203 MU3001 1,160 1,160 T37B 2 2 1900D 10 10 CNA441 1,502 1,502 DHC6 982 982 Turboprop EMB120 6 6 HS748A 13 13 SD330 6 6 SF340 3 3 CNA172 7,096 936 8,032 CNA206 5,698 5,698 GASEPF 8,142 8,142 GASEPV 15,436 15,436 Prop PA28 2,405 2,405 T34 20 20 BEC58P 14,714 14,714 PA30 234 234 PA31 2,081 2,081 Al09 193 193 B0105 51 51 Helicopter R22 450 450 S76 322 322 SA350D 51 51 B206L 219 219 Total 63,420 936 64,356 Sources: Flight Explorer, 2009; URS Corp., 2009. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Um May 2009 Page A-18 TABLE A-4-2 2011 FUTURE CONDITION ANNUAL OPERATIONS AT MTH Aircraft Type INM Aircraft Itinerant Local Total Name Operations Operations Operations CIT3 145 145 CL600 137 137 CL601 2 2 CNA500 525 525 CNA510 45 45 CNA750 177 177 EMB145 2 2 EMB14L 4 4 Jet FAL20 59 59 GII 7 7 GIIB 11 11 GIV 159 159 GV 16 16 IA1125 161 161 LEAR25 48 48 LEAR35 1,267 1,267 MU3001 1,222 1,222 T37B 2 2 1900D 10 10 CNA441 1,582 1,582 DHC6 1,035 1,035 Turboprop EMB120 7 7 HS748A 13 13 SD330 7 7 SF340 3 3 CNA172 7,525 936 8,461 CNA206 6,002 6,002 GASEPF 8,577 8,577 GASEPV 16,260 16,260 Prop PA28 2,533 2,533 T34 21 21 BEC58P 15,499 15,499 PA30 246 246 PA31 2,192 2,192 A109 203 203 B0105 54 54 Helicopter R22 475 475 S76 339 339 SA350D 54 54 B206L 230 230 Total 66,853 936 67,789 Sources: Flight Explorer, 2009; URS Corp., 2009. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis ism May 2009 Page A-19 TABLE A-4-3 2016 FUTURE CONDITION ANNUAL OPERATIONS AT MTH Aircraft Type INM Aircraft Itinerant Local Total Name Operations Operations Operations CIT3 155 155 CL600 147 147 CL601 2 2 CNA500 562 562 CNA510 48 48 CNA750 189 189 EMB145 2 2 EMB14L 4 4 Jet FAL20 63 63 GII 8 8 GIIB 11 11 GIV 170 170 GV 17 17 IA1125 172 172 LEAR25 52 52 LEAR35 1,357 1,357 MU3001 1,310 1,310 T37B 2 2 1900D 11 11 CNA441 1,696 1,696 DHC6 1,109 1,109 Turboprop EMB120 7 7 HS748A 14 14 SD330 7 7 SF340 4 4 CNA172 8,130 936 9,066 CNA206 6,431 6,431 GASEPF 9,190 9,190 GASEPV 17,422 17,422 Prop PA28 2,714 2,714 T34 23 23 BEC58P 16,608 16,608 PA30 264 264 PA31 2,348 2,348 Al09 218 218 B0105 58 58 Helicopter R22 508 508 S76 363 363 SA350D 58 58 B206L 247 247 Total 71,700 936 72,636 Sources: Flight Explorer, 2009; URS Corp., 2009. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis ism May 2009 Page A-20 TABLE A-4-4 DAY/NIGHT UTILIZATION BY AIRCRAFT TYPE INM Aircraft Arrivals Total Departures Total Name Day Night Arrivals Day Night Departures CIT3 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% 95.1% 4.9% 100.0% CL600 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CL601 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CNA500 97.4% 2.6% 100.0% 96.4% 3.6% 100.0% CNA510 100.0% 100.0% 92.3% 7.7% 100.0% CNA750 100.0% 100.0% 94.1% 5.9% 100.0% EMB145 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% EMB14L 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% FAL20 100.0% 100.0% 94.1% 5.9% 100.0% GII 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% GIIB 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% GIV 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% GV 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% IA1125 91.1% 8.9% 100.0% 95.6% 4.4% 100.0% LEAR25 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% LEAR35 95.8% 4.2% 100.0% 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% MU3001 97.1% 2.9% 100.0% 95.7% 4.3% 100.0% T37B 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1900D 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CNA441 98.8% 1.2% 100.0% 98.2% 1.8% 100.0% DHC6 98.1% 1.9% 100.0% 94.8% 5.2% 100.0% EMB120 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% HS748A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% SD330 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% SF340 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CNA172 98.3% 1.7% 100.0% 90.6% 9.4% 100.0% CNA206 97.8% 2.2% 100.0% 93.0% 7.0% 100.0% GASEPF 98.7% 1.3% 100.0% 96.0% 4.0% 100.0% GASEPV 98.4% 1.6% 100.0% 90.2% 9.8% 100.0% PA28 98.9% 1.1% 100.0% 96.7% 3.3% 100.0% T34 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% BEC58P 96.7% 3.3% 100.0% 92.7% 7.3% 100.0% PA30 89.5% 10.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% PA31 95.4% 4.6% 100.0% 97.6% 2.4% 100.0% Al09 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% B0105 100.0% j 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% R22 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% S76 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% SA350D 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% B206L 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Sources: Flight Explorer, 2009; URS Corp., 2009. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Im May 2009 Page A-21 A-4.2.4 Flight Tracks and Flight Track Utilization Flight tracks depict the actual path of aircraft over the ground for aircraft arrival, departure, closed pattern (touch-and-go), and overflight operations. In order to calculate the annual average noise exposure, it is necessary to identify the predominant arrival, departure and pattern flight tracks for each runway, and the number of aircraft that used each runway and flight track. These are significant factors in determining the extent and shape of the noise contours and noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors. The use of individual flight tracks is dependent on a variety of factors such as standard procedures, the aircraft's origin or destination, aircraft performance, and weather conditions. INM representative flight tracks at MTH were based on interviews with airport personnel. Modeled flight tracks do not represent the precise paths flown by all aircraft utilizing MTH. Instead, they represent the primary flight corridors for the aircraft using the airport. Flight track figures were provided in the main document. Fixed wing aircraft were modeled with a single arrival and departure track to each runway end. All rotary wing aircraft, with the exception of helicopter operations (B206L) by Monroe County Mosquito Control (MCMC), also have a single arrival and departure track to each runway end. MCMC typically operates from the end of extended Taxiway A, in front of the former MCMC hangar. MCMC helicopter's fly to/from the south, and turn east or west over the water. The flight track utilization is 50 percent for each MCMC arrival track and 50 percent for each MCMC departure track. A-4.2.5 Aircraft Profiles The INM default database includes profiles modeling aircraft departures up to 10,000 feet above field elevation (AFE) and arrivals from 6,000 feet AFE. Arrival Profiles The INM contains one approach profile for most standard aircraft, which represents a 3-degree descent from an altitude of 6,000 feet above field elevation. Some standard general aviation aircraft also have an approach profile representing a 5-degree descent. The assumptions used in the INM are based upon "average" operational data; flight procedures etc. and standard practice is to assign standard 3-degree INM approach profiles. All arrival profiles used in this study are INM default profiles. Departure Profiles The INM relies on the trip length of a given flight to determine the departure weight and associated departure profile. Default procedural profiles are assumed. Three default procedural profiles are available, these are the "Standard," "ICAO-A," and "ICAO-B" departure profiles. The assumptions used in the INM are based upon "average" operational data; aircraft passenger load factors, fuel reserves, flight procedures etc. and standard practice is to assign INM profiles based on trip length. In some cases, the analysis of aircraft departure weight is also used. All departure profiles used in this study are INM default profiles, and stage length is based on trip length. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-22 A-4.2.6 Departure Stage Length The INM database contains several departure profiles for each fixed-wing aircraft type representing the varying performance characteristics for that aircraft at a particular takeoff weight. Use of appropriate departure profiles is an important component of calculating DNL noise exposure contours. Historically, it has been easier to obtain trip length data than average weight data, so the INM uses "departure stage length"to best represent typical aircraft takeoff weight. Departure stage length is the distance between the departure airport and the destination airport. As the departure stage length increases, the aircraft's required fuel load and takeoff weight also increase. The increase in takeoff weight equates to a decrease in aircraft takeoff and climb performance. A decrease in aircraft performance results in a longer takeoff departure roll and decreased climb rates. These performance characteristics produce increased noise exposure impacts. The aircraft's noise impacts are greater because the aircraft is producing noise closer to the ground longer. The departure stage lengths are defined in Table A-4-5. Departure stage lengths for operations occurring at MTH are shown in Table A-4-6. It should be noted that in INM most aircraft operating at MTH are modeled as stage length 1. This is because the INM always models that specific aircraft with its maximum take-off weight. The 1900D and SF340, shown in Table A-4-6, have a maximum stage length of 2. Stage length 2 for these aircraft represents their maximum take-off weight. TABLE A-4-5 INM 7.0 STAGE LENGTH DISTANCES Stage Number Distance(nm) 1 0-500 2 501-1,000 3 1,001-1,500 4 1,501-2,500 5 2,501-3,500 6 3,501-4,500 7 4,501-5,500 8 5,501-6,500 9 > 6,500 Source: FAA INM Version 7.0 User's Guide, 2007. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-23 TABLE A-4-6 MTH DEPARTURE STAGE LENGTH UTILIZATION INM Aircraft Stage Length Type 1 2 CIT3 100.0% CL600 100.0% CL601 100.00 CNA500 100.0% CNA510 100.0% CNA750 100.0% EMB145 100.0% EMB14L 100.0% FAL20 100.0% GII 100.0% GIIB 100.0% GIV 100.0% GV 100.0% IA1125 100.0% LEAR25 100.0% LEAR35 100.0% MU3001 100.0% T37B 100.0% 1900D 50.0% 50.0% CNA441 100.0% DHC6 100.0% EMB120 100.0% HS748A 100.0% SD330 100.0% SF340 100.0% CNA172 100.0% CNA206 100.0% GASEPF 100.0% GASEPV 100.0% PA28 100.0% T34 100.0% BEC58P 100.0% PA30 100.0% PA31 100.0% Al 09 100.0% BO105 100.0% R22 100.0% S76 100.0% SA350D 100.0% B206L 100.0% Sources: Flight Explorer, 2009; URS Corp., 2009. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis May 2009 Page A-24 A-4.2.7 Noise Model Outputs INM has many output capabilities. Charts, graphics, and tables can be viewed, exported, or printed. The most common outputs are the noise contours that INM produces. Additionally, there are many other outputs, such as aircraft performance characteristics, grid point analyses for several noise metrics, and input characteristics such as runways and flight tracks. A complete description of model outputs can be found in the INM Users Guide (FAA, 2007). The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-25 A-5 REFERENCES ANSI, 1994. "American National Standard, Acoustical Terminology," Standard S1.1-1994 (ASA 111- 1994). ANSI, 2002. "Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools," Standard S12.60-2002. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASLHA), 1995. "Guidelines for Acoustics in Educational Environments," V.37, Suppl. 14, pgs. 15-19. Eagan, Mary Ellen. 2006. "Using Supplemental Metrics to Communicate Aircraft Noise Effects," Presented at the Transportation Research Board's 86th Annual Meeting, January 21-25, 2007, Washington, D.C., November 10, 2006. EPA, 1974. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," Report 550/9-74- 004, March 1974. FAA, 1985. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Noise Effects, FAA Report No. FAA-EE-85-2, March 1985. FAA, 2006. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, FAA Order 1050.1 E, Change 1, March 20, 2006. FAA, 2006a. Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions; April 28, 2006. FAA, 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Integrated Noise Model (INM)Version 7.0 Users Guide, April 2007. FICAN, 1997. Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN), "Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep," June 1997, available online at http://www.fican.org/pages/sleepf01.html. FICON, 1992. "Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues," Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), August 1992. Spectrum Sciences and Software Inc., Ft. Walton Beach, FL. FICUN, 1980. "Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control," Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN), June 1980. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-26 Fidell et.al., 2000. Fidell, S., Pearsons, K, Tabachnick, B.G., Howes, R., "Effects on Sleep Disturbance of Changes in Aircraft Noise Near Three Airports," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(5) Pt.1, pgs. 2535-2548, May 2000. Fidell et.al., 2002. Fidell, S., Pearsons, K., Silvati, L., Sneddon, M. 2002. "Relationship Between Low- Frequency Aircraft Noise and Annoyance Due to Rattle and Vibration." J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Volume 111, Number 4, April 2002, pages 1743 - 1750. Griefahn, B. 1978. Research on Noise Disturbed Sleep Since 1073, "Proceedings of Third Int. Cong. On Noise as a Public Health Problem," pg. 377-390 (as appears in NRC-CNRC NEF Validation Study: (2) "Review of Aircraft Noise and Its Effects", A-1505.1, pg. 31. Hodgdon, 2007. Hodgdon, K.K,. Atchley, A.A., Bernhard, R.J. 2007. "Low Frequency Noise Study," Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction, Report No. PARTNER-COE-2007- 001, April, 2007. Hubbard, Harvey H. 1982. "Noise Induced House Vibrations and Human Perception," Noise Control Engineering Journal, Volume 19, Number 2, p. 49-55, September 30, 1982. Lind S.J., Pearsons K., and Fidell S., 1998. "Sound Insulation Requirements for Mitigation of Aircraft Noise Impact on Highline School District Facilities Volume I. BBN Systems and Technologies," BBN Report No. 8240. 011erhead J.B., Jones C.J., Cadoux R.E., Woodley A., Atkinson B.J., Jorne J.A., et al. (1992). "Report of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance," Department of Transport, London, UK. Part 150, 2004. Title 14 CFR part 150. "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning,"Amendment 150-4, October 2004. Reverb Acoustics Noise and Vibration Consultants, 2005. "Noise Impact Assessment, Galston Rural Sports Facility, No.'s 18 & 20 Bayfield Road, Galston NSW," Prepared for Hornsby Shire Council, Report No. 04-772-R1, January 2005. Sharp, B.S., Plotkin, K. J., 1984. "Selection of Noise Criteria for School Classrooms," Wyle Research Technical Note TN84-2 for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, October 1986. Vallet M., Vernet I., 1991. "Night Aircraft Noise Index and Sleep Research Results," Inter-Noise, 91: 207- 210. Wesler, J.E., 1986. "Priority Selection of Schools for Soundproofing," Wyle Research Technical Note TN96-8 for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, October 1986. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-27 World Health Organization [WHO] (1999). "Guidelines for Community Noise," available online at http://www.who.int/peh/noise/guidelines2.html. Wyle Research (1989). "Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Operations." The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis UM May 2009 Page A-28 O o O O CD co rn o T o � r o � O�!�1 N , (0 O O « Ln Q O O CD y T 0 CD O O / Ln f � 4 0 CD O , / � N y' o O CD CDT P/ O O O O O co M T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w`. O 0 0 O O LO O M T O O MCD N Y 0 o CDO M T M N r, O O CD CD .rM M N O O O O T M M O O N O O F � O O N O O O o LO w' N CD 0 CD N OD N N N co co .o; 0 c J E L-L Uzi �x � 4— vn O O ZC) � N FIGURE O O N Co 0') A-4_1 cn z (-) U)