The URL can be used to link to this page

Item R07 *3:00 P.M. Public Hearing* BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 7/17/2013 Division: County Administrator Bulk Item: Yes Department: Airports Staff Contact Person/Phone#: Peter Horton, 809-5200 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to receive comments on the Noise Compatibility Program for the Key West International Airport Part 150 Noise Study. ITEM BACKGROUND: The Key West International Airport Ad Hoc Committee on Noise has been working on an FAA Part 150 Noise Study for more than a year. The Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) has been prepared to set forth the measures that the Airport proposes to take in order to minimize and reduce noise impacts. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: 10-19-2011 - Item C12 - Ratification of FAA Grant#3-12- 0037-045-2011 providing funding to "Conduct Noise Compatibility Plan Study (Part 150 Noise Study)" at the Key West International Airport. 10-19-2011 —Item C14—Approval of Purchase Service Order#11-12-02 with URS for"Title 14 CFR Part 150 Study Update" at the Key West International Airport. 6-19-2013 —Item C27- Approval to Advertise for a Public Hearing approved by the BOCC. ...._ .._. . ....,.. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: NA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. TOTAL COST: $00 INDIRECT COST: NA BUDGETED: Yes DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: NA COST TO COUNTY: None SOURCE OF FUNDS: COST TO AIRPORT: None COST TO PFC: None REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER YEAR: NA APPROVED BY: County Attorney NA OMB/Purchasing NA Risk Management NA DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM# NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM FOR THE PART 150 STUDY PREPARED FOR: MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPERATOR OF: KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PREPARED BY: URS CORPORATION July2013 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 SectionPage 4 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ES-1 6 ES.1 The Part 150 Process ................................................................................................... ES-1 7 Key West International Airport Noise Compatibility Program ....................................... ES-1 ES.2 8 Consideration of Operational Alternatives .................................................................... ES-3 ES.3 9 ES.4 Consideration of Land Use Alternatives........................................................................ ES-3 10 ES.5 Consideration of Program Management Alternatives ................................................... ES-4 11 ES.6 Recommended Noise Compatibility Program ............................................................... ES-5 12 7.0INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................7-1 13 7.1 The Part 150 Process ...................................................................................................... 7-1 14 7.2 Key West International Airport Noise Compatibility Program .......................................... 7-2 157.3Noise Metrics and the Integrated Noise Model................................................................7-4 16 Noise Metrics ...................................................................................................... 7-4 7.3.1 17 The Integrated Noise Model ................................................................................ 7-4 7.3.2 18 7.4 Noise Compatibility Program Checklist ............................................................................ 7-6 19 CONSIDERATION OF OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES..........................................................8-1 8.0 20 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 21 Barriers and Acoustical Shielding .................................................................................... 8-2 8.2 22 8.2.1 Ground Power Units ............................................................................................ 8-3 23 8.2.2 Aircraft Run-Up Location ..................................................................................... 8-3 24 8.3 Preferential Runway System ............................................................................................ 8-4 25 8.3.1 Intersection Departures ....................................................................................... 8-5 26 8.4 Modification of Flight Tracks ............................................................................................ 8-5 27 8.4.1 Flight Track Considerations ................................................................................ 8-5 28 Flight Track Alternatives ..................................................................................... 8-7 8.4.2 29 Helicopters ........................................................................................................ 8-15 8.4.3 30 Air Tours and Banner Towing ........................................................................... 8-15 8.4.4 31 Airport Use Restrictions ................................................................................................. 8-17 8.5 32 Denial of Use to Aircraft Not Meeting Federal Noise Standards ...................... 8-17 8.5.1 33 8.5.2 Capacity Limitations Based on Relative Noisiness ........................................... 8-19 34 8.5.3 Required Use of Noise Abatement Takeoff and/or Approach Procedures ....... 8-19 35 8.5.4 Landing Fees Based on Noise Level or Time of Arrival.................................... 8-22 368.5.5Partial or Complete Curfews.............................................................................8-23 37 8.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 8-24 38 9.0 CONSIDERATION OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES..................................................................9-1 39 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 40 Noncompatible Land Uses ............................................................................................... 9-2 9.2 41 Corrective Land Use Actions ........................................................................................... 9-6 9.3 42 Land Acquisition to Change Land Use ............................................................... 9-6 9.3.1 43 Land Acquisition Without Change to Land Use .................................................. 9-9 9.3.2 44 Noise Insulation of Noncompatible Structures .................................................. 9-15 9.3.3 45 9.4 Preventive Land Use Measures ..................................................................................... 9-18 46 9.4.1 Zoning ............................................................................................................... 9-19 47 9.4.2 Acquisition of Full or Partial Interest ................................................................. 9-22 48 9.4.3 Transfer of Development Rights ....................................................................... 9-26 49 9.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 9-27 50 10.0CONSIDERATION OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES....................................10-1 51 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 52 Noise Compatibility Program Management ................................................................... 10-1 10.2 53 Public Involvement Program .......................................................................................... 10-1 10.3 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport i Noise Compatibility Program TABLE OF CONTENTS(CONTINUED) SectionPage 1 10.4Pilot Information Program ............................................................................................. 10--2 2 Noise and Flight Track Monitoring Program .................................................................. 10-3 10.5 3 10.6Noise Program Update .................................................................................................. 10-4 4 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 10-5 10.7 5 RECOMMENDED NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM..........................................................11-1 11.0 611.1Summary of Recommended Measures.........................................................................11-1 7 11.2Measures Recommended for FAA Approval ................................................................. 11-1 8 11.3Measures to be Implemented by Monroe County and/or Key West International 9Airport ............................................................................................................................. 11-4 10 11.4Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................... 11-6 11 12.0 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION...................................................................12-1 12 12.1Introduction .................................................................................................................... 12-1 13 Identification of Consulted Parties ................................................................................. 12-1 12.2 14 Monroe County Ad Hoc Committee on Noise ................................................................ 12-2 12.3 15 Monroe County Board of County Commissioners ......................................................... 12-2 12.4 16 Public Hearing ................................................................................................................ 12-2 12.5 17 18 19 LIST OF APPENDICES 20 21 22 Appendix I Noise Analysis for Proposed Runway 9 Visual Approach Procedure 23 Appendix J Aircraft Noise Abatement Procedures 24 Appendix K Noncompatible Residential Units and Public Buildings in Program Area 25 Appendix L Sample Avigation Easement for Developed Property 26 Appendix M Sample Avigation Easement for Undeveloped Property 27 Appendix N Information Regarding Program Management Measures 28 Appendix O Noise Insulation Program Participants by Phase 29 Appendix P Consulted Parties 30 Appendix Q Ad Hoc Committee Information 31 Appendix R Public Comments 32 33 34 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport ii Noise Compatibility Program 1 LIST OF TABLES 2 3 TablePage 4 5 7-1 Title 14 CFR part 150 Noise Compatibility Program Checklist ..................................................... 7-6 6 7 8-1 Summary of Operational Noise Abatement Alternatives Considered ......................................... 8-27 8 9 9-1 Number of Dwelling Units and Noncompatible Public Buildings within the Proposed Program 10 Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 9-5 11 9-2 Cost Estimate for Land Acquisition to Change Land Use ............................................................. 9-6 12 9-3 Cost Estimate for Purchase Assurance ...................................................................................... 9-10 13 9-4 Cost Estimate for Transaction Assistance .................................................................................. 9-11 14 9-5 Cost Estimate for Avigation Easement Acquisition ..................................................................... 9-12 15 9-6 Cost Estimate for Purchase, NIP, and Resale ............................................................................ 9-14 16 9-7 Cost Estimate for Noise Insulation Program ............................................................................... 9-17 17 9-8 Cost Estimate for Avigation Easement Acquisition for Vacant Parcel ........................................ 9-26 18 9-9 Summary of Land Use Mitigation Alternatives Considered ........................................................ 9-29 19 20 10-1 Summary of Program Management Alternatives Considered .................................................... 10-7 21 22 11-1 Summary of Recommended Noise Compatibility Program ........................................................ 11-9 23 11-2 Cost Estimate for Implementation ............................................................................................. 11-19 24 11-3 Proposed Implementation Program .......................................................................................... 11-20 25 26 27 28 29 LIST OF FIGURES 30 31 Page Figure 32 33 7-1 Common Sounds on the dBA Scale ............................................................................................. 7-5 34 35 8-1 Proposal for Alternate Approaches ............................................................................................... 8-9 36 8-2 Radar Flight Track Density Plot – Departures ............................................................................ 8-11 37 8-3 Radar Flight Tracks – Arrivals ..................................................................................................... 8-13 38 8-4 NBAA Close-in Departure Procedure ......................................................................................... 8-20 39 8-5 NBAA Approach and Landing Procedure VFR & IFR ................................................................. 8-21 40 41 9-1 Program Areas .............................................................................................................................. 9-7 42 9-2 Recommended Parcel to Acquire Avigation Easement .............................................................. 9-23 43 44 11-1 Program Area – Key West by the Sea ...................................................................................... 11-13 thth 45 and 5 Street ............................................................................................. 11-15 11-2 Program Area – 4 46 11-3 Program Area – Flagler Avenue Area ....................................................................................... 11-17 47 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport iii Noise Compatibility Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport iv Noise Compatibility Program 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 ES.1The Part 150 Process 3 The Part 150 Noise Compatibility Planning process was established by the FAA on February 28, 1981, 4 issued as title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning (Part 5 150). The most recent revision of Part 150 was accomplished by Amendment 150-4 and became 6 effective October 25, 2004. Part 150 specifies the methodology and procedures governing the 7 development and implementation of Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) and Noise Compatibility Programs 8 (NCPs). 9 Through the airport noise and land use compatibility planning process, airport operators voluntarily 10 prepare airport Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) and Noise Compatibility Programs (NCPs) and submit 11 these materials to the FAA for acceptance and/or approval. Federal funding is available to the airport 12 sponsor to conduct this work. The NEM is a graphic depiction of noise exposure around an airport in 13 current and future operational conditions. NEMs also depict the noncompatible land uses within the noise 14 contours. Based on the NEM, an NCP is prepared that sets forth the measures an airport operator 15 proposes to take in order to reduce existing noncompatible land uses and minimize additional 16 noncompatible land uses around the airport. 17 The Part 150 program provides a comprehensive approach to both prevention and mitigation of airport 18 noise in a community, seeks recommendations from interested parties throughout the development of the 19 program, and provides funding of eligible items through the Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP). 20 Furthermore, the NCP is primarily conducted to benefit the areas surrounding an airport. 21 Under the Part 150 process, FAA will indicate, upon receipt and review, whether the NEMs are in 22 compliance with the requirements of title 14 CFR part 150. The FAA will publish a notice of NEM 23compliance in the Federal Register if they are found to be in compliance. Once the NEMs are found to be 24 in compliance, the NCP will undergo a 180-day FAA review period, and the FAA will determine which 25 elements of the program will be approved or disapproved. 26 ES.2Key West International Airport Noise Compatibility Program 27 As the previous Noise Compatibility Program measures were approved on May 7, 1999, this update to 28 the Part 150 Study is necessary due to changes in operational activity levels and aircraft fleet mix 29 operating at the airport. Furthermore, this update will document if these changes have any influence on 30 the size and shape of the KWIA noise contours, and will determine if there are any noncompatible land 31 uses within the updated DNL 65 dB contours. 32 Included in the document is a review of operational, land use, and program management noise mitigation 33 measures, and recommendations as to which measures would best accomplish the goals of the Part 150 34 program. A discussion of the measures approved in the 1999 NCP is also included. 35 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport ES-1 Noise Compatibility Program 1 The KWIA NCP document is presented in six sections and ten appendices. 2 Section 7.0 Introduction 3 Section 8.0 Consideration of Operational Alternatives 4 Section 9.0 Consideration of Land Use Alternatives 5 Section 10.0 Consideration of Program Management Alternatives 6 Section 11.0 Recommended Noise Compatibility Program 7 Section 12.0 Consultation and Public Involvement 8 Appendix I Noise Analysis for Proposed Runway 9 Visual Approach Procedure 9 Appendix J Aircraft Noise Abatement Procedures 10 Appendix K Noncompatible Residential Units and Public Buildings in Program Areas 11 Appendix L Sample Avigation Easement for Noise Insulation Program 12 Appendix M Sample Avigation Easement for Undeveloped Property 13 Appendix N Information Regarding Program Management Measures 14 Appendix O Noise Insulation Program Participants by Phase 15 Appendix P Consulted Parties 16 Appendix Q Ad Hoc Committee Information 17 Appendix R Public Comments 18 The NCP is considered a continuation of the NEM documentation, therefore sections and appendices in 19 the NCP begin where they left off in the NEM documentation. 20 This Part 150 NCP Update serves to assess and recommend proposed noise mitigation alternatives. 21 This report contains the Noise Compatibility Program for KWIA. 22 The previous Part 150 NCP assessed seventeen (17) actions and recommended six (6) measures to 23 remedy existing noise problems and prevent future noncompatible land uses. The six measures are 24 described in Section 7.2. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport ES-2 Noise Compatibility Program 1 ES.3ConsiderationofOperational Alternatives 2 Modification of certain aircraft and airport operational procedures has the potential to reduce aircraft noise 3 exposure on people, residential areas, schools, churches, and other noise-sensitive sites around the 4 airport. Operational noise abatement alternatives typically result in either a shift in the location of the 5 noise contours or a reduction in the size of the noise contours. Title 14 CFR part 150 §B150.7(b) 6 indicates that the following alternatives should be analyzed as potential operational noise abatement 7 measures: 8 The construction of barriers and acoustical shielding, 9 The implementation of a preferential runway system, 10 The use of flight procedures (including the modifications of flight tracks) to control the 11 operation of aircraft to reduce exposure to individuals (or specific noise-sensitive areas) 12 to noise in the area around the airport, 13 The implementation of any restriction on the use of the airport by any type or class of 14 aircraft based on the noise characteristics of those aircraft, 15 Other actions or combinations of actions which would have a beneficial noise control or 16 abatement impact on the public. 17 Specific information regarding operational alternatives is provided in Section 8.0. Table 8.1 presents a 18 summary of the operational alternatives listing the advantages and disadvantages of each, and whether 19 the alternative is recommended for inclusion in the NCP. 20 ES.4ConsiderationofLand Use Alternatives 21 Land use alternatives have the potential to mitigate noise exposure on existing noise-sensitive land uses 22 and minimize the introduction of additional noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the airport. The 23 following goals and objectives will be considered for all potential land use measures: 24 Minimizing new noncompatible noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of the airport, 25 Providing mitigation alternatives which are sensitive to the needs of the community and 26 its stability, 27 Providing alternatives which will maintain the existing tax base and property values, 28 Ensuring that alternatives presented are consistent with land use policies and regulations 29 of the respective jurisdictions, and 30 Providing mitigation for noncompatible noise-sensitive sites impacted by noise exceeding 31 DNL 65 dB wherever practical and feasible. 32 To meet these goals and objectives, two types of land use measures have been identified: preventive and 33 corrective. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport ES-3 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Corrective or remedial actions seek to alleviate existing conflicts between land use and airport noise. 2 Changes in the use of noise-impacted land or changes in occupancy to uses or occupations less 3 sensitive to noise are practical strategies for resolving conflicts. Noise insulation and acquisition of full or 4 partial interest in the land are also examples of possible actions that can be used to mitigate noise 5 impacts. 6 The FAA published a policy in April of 1998 advising land use jurisdictions across the Country that it will 7 no longer approve remedial noise mitigation measures for new noncompatible development that occurs in 8 the vicinity of airports after October 1, 1998. Noncompatible land uses must have been in existence on 9 that date in order to be eligible for remedial mitigation. 10 The FAA recognizes that there will be gray areas which will have to be addressed on a case-by-case 11 basis within these policy guidelines. Examples of these instances include: 12 Minor development on vacant lots within an existing residential neighborhood which 13 clearly is not extensive new noncompatible development, may, for practical purposes, 14 need to be treated with the same remedial measure(s) applied to the rest of the 15 neighborhood. 16 A remedial situation in which noise from an airport’s operation has significantly increased 17 as a result of the following changes, resulting in new areas that were compatible with 18 initial conditions now becoming noncompatible: 19 o In the type and frequency of aircraft operations, or 20 o In the airport layout, or 21 o In the flight patterns, or 22 o Increased nighttime operations. 23 Land use and development controls that seek to prevent the introduction of additional noncompatible and 24 noise-sensitive land uses within existing and future noise contours are referred to as preventive 25 measures. The controls which are generally most useful are: zoning, easements, transfer of development 26 rights, establishing minimum acoustical insulation standards for building codes, and land acquisition. 27 Specific information regarding land use alternatives is provided in Section 9.0. Both remedial and 28 preventive land use measures will be described and evaluated in this section with regard to their 29 suitability for implementation at KWIA. Table 9.9 presents a summary of the land use alternatives listing 30 the advantages and disadvantages of each, and whether the alternative is recommended for inclusion in 31 the NCP. 32 ES.5Consideration of Program Management Alternatives 33 The success of the Noise Compatibility Program requires a continuing effort to monitor compliance and 34 identify new or unanticipated problems and changing conditions. Section 10.0 identifies various 35 alternatives that could become components of such a program. Monroe County and the airport staff are 36 responsible for implementing these measures. Table 10.1 presents a summary of the program 37 management alternatives describing the advantages and disadvantages of each, and indicating if each is 38 recommended for inclusion in the NCP. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport ES-4 Noise Compatibility Program 1 ES.6Recommended Noise Compatibility Program 2 The objective of this recent noise compatibility planning process for KWIA is to improve the compatibility 3 between aircraft operations and noise-sensitive land uses, while allowing the airport to continue to serve 4 its role in the community. The result of this planning process is a Noise Exposure Map (NEM) and a 5 recommended Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). Specific recommended NCP elements are 6 summarized in Section 11.0. These recommendations are those of the Key West International Airport, 7 the Monroe County Ad Hoc Committee on Noise, and the Monroe County Board of County 8 Commissioners not those of their consultant or any third party. 9 Table 11.1, a copy of which is included herein, provides a summary of all alternatives recommended 10 for the Noise Compatibility Program. A cost estimate for the Noise Insulation Program (NIP), as funding 11 is primarily provided through FAA AIP grant funds, is provided in Table 11.2. Table 11.3 indicates the 12 number of properties and the required annual funding for each phase of the NIP. 13 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport ES-5 Noise Compatibility Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport ES-6 Noise Compatibility Program 1 7.0INTRODUCTION 2 7.1The Part 150 Process 3 The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) was established by Congress in 1979 as a means 4 to address the impact of aircraft noise on communities and to assure continued safety in aviation. Under 5 ASNA, the Secretary of Transportation was charged with the responsibility to establish a single system of 6 measuring noise at airports, determine noise exposure, and identify compatible land uses. Thus, in 1981, 7 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 150, 8 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning (Part 150). 9 Through the airport noise and land use compatibility planning process, airport operators voluntarily 10 prepare airport Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) and Noise Compatibility Programs (NCPs) and submit 11 these materials to the FAA for acceptance and/or approval. Federal funding is available to the airport 12 sponsor to conduct this work. The NEM is a graphic depiction of noise exposure around an airport in 13 current and future operational conditions. NEMs also depict the noncompatible land uses within the noise 14 contours. Based on the NEM, an NCP is prepared that sets forth the measures an airport operator 15 proposes to take in order to reduce existing noncompatible land uses and minimize additional 16 noncompatible land uses around the airport. 17 Title 14 CFR part 150 implements the provisions in the ASNA for airport noise compatibility planning. 18 This regulation sets forth the following: 19 The yearly day-night average sound level, abbreviated as DNL, for measuring noise 20 exposure, 21 The Integrated Noise Model (INM) as the standard noise modeling methodology, 22 Land uses that are normally compatible with various levels of airport noise, 23 The voluntary development of NEMs and NCPs by airport operators, 24 The process by which FAA reviews NEMs to ensure compliance with Part 150, and 25 The criteria for FAA approval or disapproval of measures recommended in NCPs. 26 The Part 150 program provides a comprehensive approach to both prevention and mitigation of airport 27 noise in a community, seeks recommendations from interested parties throughout the development of the 28 program, and provides funding of eligible items through the Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP). 29 Furthermore, the NCP is primarily conducted to benefit the areas surrounding an airport. 30 Under the Part 150 process, FAA will indicate, upon receipt and review, whether the NEMs are in 31 compliance with the requirements of title 14 CFR part 150. The FAA will publish a notice of NEM 32 compliance in the Federal Register if they are found to be in compliance. Once the NEMs are found to be 33 in compliance, the NCP will undergo a 180-day FAA review period, and the FAA will determine which 34 elements of the program will be approved or disapproved. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 7-1 Noise Compatibility Program 1 7.2Key West International Airport Noise Compatibility Program 2 KWIA is owned and operated by the County of Monroe. It is located on the southeast corner of the island 3 of Key West, within the city limits of Key West, Florida. In the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airports 4 Systems (NPIAS) which defines the role of an airport, KWIA is classified as a Non-hub Primary Service 5 airport enplaning more than 10,000 passengers per annum. 6 Monroe County has established a goal to provide aviation facilities to all residents and guests in a manner 7 that maximizes safety, convenience, economic benefit, and environmental compatibility. As part of their 8 plan to achieve this goal, they conducted a Part 150 Study to explore adverse impacts of aircraft noise on 9 the surrounding community. This study culminated with FAA approval of the Noise Exposure Maps and 10 Noise Compatibility Program on May 7, 1999. Additionally, the FAA accepted the updated Noise 11 Exposure Maps and Supporting Documentation on August 27, 2008. 12 As the previous update to the KWIA NEMs was completed and accepted in 2008, this update to the Part 13 150 Study is necessary due to changes in operational activity levels and aircraft fleet mix operating at the 14 airport. Furthermore, this update will document if these changes have any influence on the size and 15 shape of the KWIA noise contours, and will determine if there are any noncompatible land uses within the 16 updated DNL 65 dB contours. 17 This Part 150 Update serves to assess the current and future aircraft noise environments and identify 18 compatible and noncompatible land uses within the noise contours. This report contains the NCP for 19 KWIA. The NEM was submitted to the FAA in May 2013 and accepted as compliant on \[DATE\] as noted 20 in the Federal Register on \[DATE\]. For additional information, please see the Key West International 21 Airport Noise Exposure Maps and Supporting Documentation, April 2013. 22 The previous Part 150 NCP assessed seventeen (17) actions and recommended six (6) measures to 23 remedy existing noise problems and prevent future noncompatible land uses. The six measures are 24 described below. Greater detail regarding these measures is provided in Section 1.3 of the Noise 25 Exposure Maps and Supporting Documentation. 26 A.Continuing Noise Program Measure: Voluntary Curfew 27 FAA Action: Approval not requested 28 Current Status: Implemented, but not monitored. 29 B.Continuing Noise Program Measure: Voluntary Use of NBAA Close-in Departure Procedure 30 FAA Action: Approval not requested 31 Current Status: Implemented but not monitored. 32 C.Continuing Noise Program Measure: Restriction on Engine Warm-Ups and Run-Ups 33 FAA Action: Approval not requested 34 Current Status: Implemented but not monitored. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 7-2 Noise Compatibility Program 1 D.Continuing Noise Program Measure: Voluntary Use of Flight Tracks to Reduce Noise 2 Exposure 3 FAA Action: Approval not requested 4 Current Status: Implemented but not monitored. 5 E.Operational Measure: Conduct an FAR Part 161 analysis to further study prohibiting 6 operation of non-Stage 3 jet aircraft. 7 FAA Action: DISAPPROVED 8 Current Status: Item not approved. 9 F.Operational Measure: Conduct an FAR Part 161 analysis to further study establishing a partial 10 or complete curfew. 11 FAA Action: DISAPPROVED 12 Current Status: Item not approved. 13 G.Land Use Measure: Provide Noise Insulation in Exchange for Avigation Easements 14 FAA Action: APPROVED 15 Current Status: Completed except where homeowner declined or home was determined ineligible for 16 reasons outside the purvey of the Part 150. 17 H.Land Use Measure: Purchase Homes, Provide Noise Insulation, then Resell with Easements 18 FAA Action: APPROVED 19 Current Status: Not implemented because funding was not adequate to offer it simultaneously with 20 the noise insulation program. 21 I.Land Use Measure: Update Noise Contours Annually 22 FAA Action: APPROVED 23 Current Status: Implemented. Annual noise contours were produced starting with Year 2000. The 24 Year 2007 annual noise contour became the Year 2008 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map, 25 which was accepted by the FAA on August 27, 2008, along with the Year 2013 Future Condition 26 Noise Exposure Map. Following FAA acceptance of the Year 2013 Future Condition Noise Exposure 27 Map, the wording in the avigation easements for NIP Phases 6 and 7 was changed to reference the 28 Year 2013 Future Condition Noise Exposure Map, rather than the Year 2003 Future Condition Noise 29 Exposure Map. The most recent annual noise contour was produced for Year 2010. It did not exceed 30 the Year 2013 Future Condition Noise Exposure Map. 31 J.Land Use Measure: Rezone Vacant Parcels 32 FAA Action: APPROVED 33 Current Status: Not Implemented. To date, the City of Key West has not implemented this measure. 34 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 7-3 Noise Compatibility Program 1 K.Land Use Measure: Acquire Vacant Parcel 2 FAA Action: APPROVED 3 Current Status: The airport is currently in the process of purchasing this property. 4 L.Land Use Measure: Establish Compatible Land Use 5 FAA Action: APPROVED 6 Current Status: Not implemented. To date, the City of Key West has not implemented this measure. 7 7.3Noise Metrics and the Integrated Noise Model 8 7.3.1Noise Metrics 9 The characteristic by which noise can be described objectively is loudness. Loudness is typically 10 measured in decibels (dB). Aircraft noise studies use the A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale because it is a 11 measure that better associates sound frequencies with the sensitivity of the human ear. The relative 12 loudness of a sound doubles for each increase of 10 dBA on this scale even though this corresponds to a 13 factor of 10 in relative sound energy. Figure 7-1 presents some common sounds on the dBA scale and 14 their relative sound energy. It should be noted that sounds that differ by 2 dBA or less are not perceived 15 to be significantly different by most people. 16 The evaluation of the noise environment at KWIA will be conducted using the methodology developed by 17 the FAA. Title 14 CFR part 150 and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5020-1 require that aircraft noise in an 18 airport’s vicinity be determined on an annual average daily basis. The methodology uses the Day Night 19 Average Sound Level (DNL) metric developed by the Environmental Protection Agency and used by the 20 FAA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other Federal agencies concerned with 21 community noise levels. DNL is a 24-hour logarithmic average of noise levels in A-weighted decibels, as 22 recommended by the FAA for evaluating aircraft noise impacts. Since sound occurring during nighttime 23 hours is usually found to be more annoying due to sleep disruption, the DNL metric requires the addition 24 of a 10-decibel penalty (twice as loud) to nighttime operations taking place between the hours of 10 p.m. 25 and 7 a.m. 26 7.3.2The Integrated Noise Model 27 The FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version (v) 7.0c features enhancements that enable it to 28 produce more accurate noise predictions than previous versions. INM v 7.0c was used for the 2013 29 Existing Condition NEM and for the 2018 Future Condition NEM. 30 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 7-4 Noise Compatibility Program 1 FIGURE7-1 2 COMMON SOUNDS ON THE dBA SCALE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Source: URS Corp, 2008. 12 13 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 7-5 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Noise contours generated by the FAA’s INM do not depict a strict demarcation of where the noise levels 2 begin or end. Their purpose is to describe the generally expected noise exposure. It must be recognized 3 that although the INM is the current state-of-the-art aircraft noise modeling software, input variables to the 4 INM require several simplifying assumptions to be made, such as: aircraft types flown, flight track 5 utilization, day-night operational patterns, and arrival/departure profiles flown. Further, the noise contours 6 represent average annual conditions rather than single event occurrences. Noise exposure on any one 7 day may be greater or less than the average day. The noise model is useful for comparison of noise 8 impacts and provides a consistent and reasonable method to conduct airport noise compatibility planning. 9 The information needed to perform a noise analysis typically includes the number of aircraft operations by 10 time of day, aircraft type, and stage length for an average day; operational information; including the use 11 of the runways, the location and use of flight tracks, and aircraft departure and arrival profiles. Detailed 12 methodology is described in Section 4.2 of the Noise Exposure Maps and Supporting Documentation. 13 7.4Noise Compatibility Program Checklist 14 To aid in the NCP review process, the FAA has prepared a checklist that details the items to be included 15 in the NCP. This checklist is provided below in Table 7-1. Note that the Checklist identifies which 16 sections of title 14 CFR part 150 need to be addressed and included in the NCP. 17 TABLE 7-1 18 TITLE 14 CFR PART150 19 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM CHECKLIST 20 AIRPORT NAME:Key West International AirportREVIEWER: Page No./Other ItemYes/No/NAReference I.Identification and Submission Program: A. Submission is properly identified: 1.FAR 150 NCP?Yes Section 7.2 2.NEM and NCP together? No Section 7.2 3.Program revision? Yes Section 7.2 B. Airport and Airport Operator's name identified? Yes Section 7.2 C. NCP transmitted by airport operator cover letter? Yes To Be Provided II.Consultation: \[150.23\] A. Documentation includes narrative of public Yes Section 12 participation and consultation process? B. Identification of consulted parties: Section 12.2, 1. Are parties in 150.23(c) consulted? Yes Appendix P Section 12.2, 2. Public and planning agencies identified? Yes Appendix P 3.Agencies in 2., above, correspond to those Yes NEM Section 6.2 indicated on the NEM? C. Satisfied 150.23(d) requirements: 1.Documentation shows active and direct Section 12.3, Yes participation of parties in B. above? Appendix Q W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 7-6 Noise Compatibility Program TABLE 7-1 (CONTINUED) TITLE 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM CHECKLIST AIRPORT NAME:Key West International AirportREVIEWER: Page No./Other ItemYes/No/NAReference Section 12.3, 2. Active and direct participation of general public: Yes Appendix Q 3.Participation was prior to and during development Section 12.3, Yes of NCP and prior to submittal to FAA?Appendix Q 4.Indicates adequate opportunity afforded public to Section 12.3, Yes submit views, data, etc.?Appendix Q D. Evidence included of notice and opportunity for public Section 12.5, Yes hearing on NCP? Appendix R E.Documentation of comments: 1.Includes summary of public hearing comments if Yes Appendix R hearing was held? 2.Includes copy of all written material submitted to Figure 8-1, Yes operator? Appendix R 3.Includes operator's responses/disposition of Sections 8.2, 8.4, 8.5, Yes written and verbal comments?10.4, Appendix R F. Informal agreement received from FAA on flight NA procedures? III.Noise Exposure Maps: \[150.23, B150.3, B150.35(f)\] This section of the checklist is not a substitute for the NEM checklist. It deals with maps in the context of the NCPsubmission. A. Inclusion of NEMs and supporting documentation: 1.Map documentation either included or Yes Section 7.2 incorporated by reference? 2.Maps previously found in compliance by FAA?Yes Section 7.2 3.Compliance determination still valid? Yes Section 7.2 4.Does 180-day period have to wait for map Yes Section 7.2 compliance finding? B. Revised NEMs submitted with program: (Review using NEM checklist if map revisions included in NCP submittal) 1. Revised NEMs included with program? No 2.Has airport operator requested FAA to make a determination on the NEM(s) when NCP approval No is made? C. If program analysis uses noise modeling: 1.INM, HNM, or FAA-approved equivalent? NA 2.Modeling in accordance with A150.5? NA D. Existing condition and future maps clearly identified NA as the official NEMs? IV.Consideration of Alternatives: \[B150.7, 150.23(e)\] A. At a minimum, are the alternatives below considered? 1.Land acquisition and interest therein, including air Yes Sections9.3, 9.4 rights, easements, and development rights 2.Barriers, acoustical shielding, public building Section 8.2, Yes soundproofingSection 9.3.3 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 7-7 Noise Compatibility Program TABLE 7-1 (CONTINUED) TITLE 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM CHECKLIST AIRPORT NAME:Key West International AirportREVIEWER: Page No./Other ItemYes/No/NAReference 3. Preferential runway system Yes Section 8.3 4. Flight procedures Yes Sections 8.4, 8.5.3 5.Restrictions on type/class of aircraft (as least one restriction below must be checked) a. Deny use based on Federal standards Yes Section 8.5.1 b. Capacity limits based on noisinessYes Section 8.5.2 c. Noise abatement take-off/approach Yes Section 8.5.3 procedures d. Landing fees based on noise or time of day Yes Section 8.5.4 e. Nighttime restrictions Yes Section 8.5.5 6. Other actions with beneficial impact Yes Section 10 7. Other FAA recommendations NA B. Responsible implementing authority identified for Yes Sections 8, 9, 10 each considered alternative? C. Analysis of alternative measures: 1. Measures clearly described? Yes Sections 8, 9, 10 2. Measures adequately analyzed? Yes Sections 8, 9, 10 3.Adequate reasoning for rejecting alternatives?Yes Sections 8, 9, 10 D. Other actions recommended by the FAA: 1.Should other actions be added? (List separately or on back of this form, actions and discussion with airport NA operator to have them included prior to the start of the 180-day cycle) V.Alternatives Recommended for Implementation: \[150.23(e), B150.7(c), B150.35(b), B150.5\] A. Document clearly indicates: Sections11.2, 11.3, 1. Alternatives recommended for implementation? Yes Table 11-1 2.Final recommendations are airport operator's, not Yes Section 11.1 those of consultant or third party? B. Do all program recommendations: 1.Relate directly or indirectly to reduction of noise Yes Tables 8-1, 9-9, 10-1 and noncompatible land uses? 2.Contain description of contribution to overall Yes Tables 8-1, 9-9, 10-1 effectiveness of program? 3.Noise/land use benefits quantified to extent Yes Table 9-1 possible? 4.Include actual/anticipated effect on reducing noise exposure within noncompatible area shown on Yes Table 9-1, Figure 9-1 NEM? 5.Effects based on relevant and reasonable Yes Section 9.3.3 expressed assumptions? 6.Have adequate supporting data to support its Yes Sections 9.3.2.3, 9.3.3 contribution to noise/land use compatibility? W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 7-8 Noise Compatibility Program TABLE 7-1 (CONTINUED) TITLE 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM CHECKLIST AIRPORT NAME:Key West International AirportREVIEWER: Page No./Other ItemYes/No/NAReference C. Analysis appears to support standards set forth in Yes Sections 8, 9, 10 150.35(b) and B150.5? D. When use restrictions are recommended: 1.Are alternatives with potentially significant noise/compatible land use benefits thoroughly NA analyzed so that appropriate comparisons and conclusions can be made? 2.Use restrictions coordinated with APP-600 prior to NA making determination on start of 180 days? E.Do the following also meet Part 150 analytical standards: 1.Formal recommendations which continue existing Yes Section 11.3 practices? 2.New recommendations or changes proposed at NA end of Part 150 process? F. Documentation indicates how recommendations may Yes Section 9.4.1, 9.4.2 change previously adopted plans? G. Documentation also: 1.Identifies agencies which are responsible for Yes Table 11-1 implementing each recommendation? 2.Indicates whether those agencies have agreed to No implement? 3.Indicates essential government actions necessary Yes Table 11-1 to implement recommendations? H. Timeframe: 1.Includes agreed upon schedule to implement Yes Tables 11-1, 11-3 alternatives? 2. Indicates period covered by the program? Yes Sections 10.6, 11.5 I. Funding/Costs: 1.Includes costs to implement alternatives?Yes Tables 11-1, 11-2 2.Includes anticipated funding sources?YesTable 11-1 VI.Program Revision: \[150.23(e)(9)\] 1.Supporting documentation includes provision for Yes Section 11.5 revision? 1 2 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 7-9 Noise Compatibility Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 7-10 Noise Compatibility Program 1 8.0CONSIDERATION OF OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES 2 8.1Introduction 3 The primary goals of the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) are: 4 Reducing existing noncompatible land uses around the airport, and 5 Preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses. 6 Since the situation at Key West International Airport is not identical to any other airport, it will require a 7 unique combination of mitigation measures to achieve an acceptable resolution. A wide range of feasible 8 operational alternatives will be explored in this section. 9 Modification of certain aircraft and airport operational procedures has the potential to reduce aircraft noise 10 exposure on people, residential areas, schools, churches, and other noise-sensitive sites around the 11 airport. Operational noise abatement alternatives typically result in either a shift in the location of the 12 noise contours or a reduction in the size of the noise contours. Title 14 CFR Part 150 §B150.7(b) 13 indicates that the following alternatives should be analyzed as potential operational noise abatement 14 measures: 15 The construction of barriers and acoustical shielding, 16 The implementation of a preferential runway system, 17 The use of flight procedures (including the modifications of flight tracks) to control the 18 operation of aircraft to reduce exposure to individuals (or specific noise-sensitive areas) 19 to noise in the area around the airport, 20 The implementation of any restriction on the use of the airport by any type or class of 21 aircraft based on the noise characteristics of those aircraft, 22 Other actions or combinations of actions which would have a beneficial noise control or 23 abatement impact on the public. 24 FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Chapter 4, “Environmental 25 Assessments and Findings of No Significant Impact,” states in Subsection 401n that “new or revised ATC 26 procedures which routinely route air traffic over noise-sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet above 27 ground level are subject to environmental assessment.” This includes procedures that alter flight tracks or 28 the specific altitudes utilized by aircraft. It also includes changes in percent use of a particular altitude, 29 runway, or heading, and use of new headings within an existing departure or arrival area. New 30 procedures that routinely route aircraft over non-noise-sensitive areas are categorically excluded from an 31 environmental assessment (EA). Procedural actions requested by users on a test basis to determine the 32 effectiveness of new technology and measurement of possible impacts on the environment are also 33 categorically excluded from environmental assessments. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-1 Noise Compatibility Program 1 8.2Barriers and Acoustical Shielding 2 Aircraft ground-level noise source locations on an airport include run-up and maintenance areas, 3 taxiways, and freight warehouse areas. Because the noise is generated on the ground, the impact is 4 usually confined to those areas immediately adjacent to the noise source. 5 An effective method of mitigating this type of noise impact is through the use of noise barriers or berms. 6 This type of mitigation shields nearby noise-sensitive receptors from airport noise sources by placing 7 barriers around the perimeter of airport property or warehouse areas. These barriers absorb and reflect 8 aircraft noise away from the receptors. Barriers are only effective for aircraft on the ground. A barrier 9 cannot absorb or reflect noise energy away from a noise-sensitive receptor after an aircraft is airborne 10 and reaches an altitude that exceeds the height of the barrier. The noise reduction effects of a barrier are 11 based upon the geometric layout of the noise source, the receiver, and the intervening noise barrier. The 12 amount of noise reduction provided by a barrier is calculated based upon the location and position of 13 these three elements relative to each other. 14 The effectiveness of a noise barrier is based upon the change in path length distance, relative to direct 15 line-of-site between the source and receiver; the noise must travel around the barrier to reach the 16 receiver. Basically, the greater the distance the noise must travel around the barrier to get to the 17 receiver, the more effective the barrier. This relative change in path length difference is easier to obtain if 18 the noise source and receiver are within close proximity to each other. 19 Another method of measuring the effectiveness of a noise barrier is the level of diffraction, or the amount 20 of bending around the barrier, the sound must achieve in order to reach the receiver. The greater the 21 change in direction required for the sound to reach the receiver, the greater the noise reduction of the 22 barrier. Due to this characteristic of sound, barriers that are located close to either the source or the 23 receiver are the most effective, and this type of geometry is effective even if there is a large distance 24 between the source and the receiver. This is one of the reasons ground run-up enclosures are so 25 effective. If the noise source is located within 100 feet of a very high barrier, the sound must diffract a 26 significant amount in order to reach the receiver. As the aircraft is moved further away from the barrier, 27 the effectiveness of the barrier is decreased, and even though the distance between the source and 28 receiver increases minimally, the noise level at the receiver increases. 29 Noise barriers would work effectively to reduce the level of noise from departure roll as long as the aircraft 30 remains close to the barrier. As the departing aircraft moves further away from the barrier, the amount of 31 diffraction caused by the barrier decreases, the path length difference to the receiver due to the barrier 32 also decreases, and the noise level heard by the receiver increases. Since effective geometry between 33 the source, barrier, and receiver cannot be maintained for departing aircraft, noise barriers do not work 34 effectively to reduce noise from aircraft departure rolls. In addition, the placement of fixed noise barriers 35 of any appreciable size at the end of active runways will impact the runway safety areas and the runway 36 object free areas as mandated in the title 14 CFR part 77 standards. In order to meet the clearance 37 requirements described in the aforementioned standards, any noise barrier at the end of a runway would 38 be ineffective. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-2 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Strategic placement of new hangar or terminal structures on the airport may also be used as a ground- 2 level noise mitigation measure. Like barriers, buildings will shield adjacent neighborhoods by absorbing 3 and reflecting noise energy. This type of mitigation method can only be addressed during land use 4 planning and site development for future airport improvement projects. 5 A Noise Buffer Evaluation (Greiner, Inc., February 12, 1996) was prepared for Monroe County to evaluate 6 the effect of providing a noise wall to reduce aircraft noise from KWIA. Insertion losses were estimated 7 for the Riviera Shores neighborhood, located north of Runway 09. Detailed information regarding the 8 results is provided in the Key West International Airport Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility 9 Program, approved May 1999. 10 The Noise Buffer Evaluation concluded that regardless of the location, a noise barrier would have little 11 discernible effect on reducing aircraft noise on the Riviera Shores neighborhood from aircraft operations 12 at KWIA. 13 Currently, there is a natural vegetative buffer in place around much of KWIA. This buffer consists of 14 naturally occurring and intentionally planted mangrove trees along the border of airport property. 15 Recommendation:Barriers and acoustical shielding are not recommended for inclusion in this 16 NCP. 17 8.2.1Ground Power Units 18 Another source of ground level noise at an airport is the aircraft Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) that 19 continue to operate while the aircraft is on the ground. These APUs allow the aircraft avionics and air 20 conditioning to remain operational while the aircraft is being serviced for an outbound flight. The APU 21 consists of a small turbine engine, usually mounted in the tail of the aircraft. The alternative to running 22 the APU is what is known as a Ground Power Unit (GPU). The GPU is usually a mobile cart operating a 23 smaller engine operating either on diesel or Jet-A fuel, or an electric or electric hybrid powered motor. 24 The GPU is usually noise insulated and provides a greater air emissions reduction than obtained by the 25 use of the APU. The use of the GPU also provides a fuel savings when compared to running the APU. 26 There are GPUs available for use on the commercial ramp and USAir currently requires the use of one on 27 every turn, time permitting. There is also a GPU unit available at the FBO, but most GA aircraft that 28 would use a GPU remain at KWIA long enough that the aircraft is shut down completely. 29 : The voluntary use of Ground Power Units by commercial and GA aircraft, Recommendation 30 when time and safety factors permit,is recommended for inclusion in this NCP. 31 8.2.2Aircraft Run-Up Location 32 Aircraft preflight run-ups are another source of aircraft ground noise at KWIA. Monroe County Board of 33 County Commissioners (BOCC) Resolution Number 191 – 1995 restricts the location of aircraft run-ups 34 between the hours of 11:00 pm and 7:00 am local time. Run-up is defined in the Resolution as “advancing 35 the r.p.m. of a prop aircraft’s engine or engines to the appropriate medium setting for the aircraft type as a W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-3 Noise Compatibility Program 1 final engine and systems test before full power takeoff.” Any violation of this Resolution may be 2 prosecuted as a misdemeanor of the second degree as provided in §775.082 or §775.03, Florida 3 Statutes. The BOCC adopted this Resolution on May 16, 1995. 4 The pre-flight run-up location is shown in Figure 8-2. While approximately 80 percent of the airport run- 5 ups occur at the designated location, the remaining aircraft still perform this activity at the taxiway end 6 prior to entering the runway for departure. These occurrences, particularly at the Runway 09 end nearest 7 to the Key West by the Sea condominium, result in instances of noise that the residents find disturbing. A 8 greater use of the designated run-up location would result in fewer noise issues, particularly with the early 9 morning departures. 10 :Continued mandatory use of the designated engine run-up location between Recommendation 11 the hours of 11:00 pm and 7:00 am is recommended for inclusion in this NCP. Voluntary use of the 12 designated engine run-up locationbetween the hours of 7:00 am and 11:00 pm, with better 13 signage and education of local and itinerant pilots, is recommended for inclusion in this NCP. 14 8.3Preferential Runway System 15 A preferential runway system involves shifting a portion of the aircraft operations from one runway system 16 to another in order to reduce noise impacts. The purpose of implementing a preferential runway system 17 is to shift aircraft operations from a runway that has noncompatible land uses beneath its approach and 18 departure paths to a runway with compatible land uses beneath its approach and departure paths. A 19 preferential runway will usually have commercial, industrial, or vacant land adjoining the runway ends, 20 thereby reducing noncompatible noise impacts. . 21 FAA Order 8400.9, National Safety and Operational Criteria for Runway Use Program, (FAAO 8400.9) 22 defines two classes of systems: informal and formal. A formal system must be defined and 23 acknowledged in a Letter of Understanding between the FAA’s Flight Standards Division and Air Traffic 24 Service, the airport proprietor, and the airport users. Operational details of the system are published in a 25 Tower Order and the Airport Facility Directory (AFD) for air traffic controller and pilot compliance with the 26 procedure. Once established, participation by aircraft operators is mandatory. Formal systems can be 27 extremely difficult to establish, especially at airports with many different users. 28 An informal system is an approved runway use system, which does not require the Letter of 29 Understanding. Informal systems are typically implemented through a Letter of Agreement between the 30 airport proprietor and the Air Traffic Service provider. Like the formal system, operational details of the 31 informal system are published in a Tower Order and the AFD. Participation in the program is voluntary. 32 A preferential runway use system, either formal or informal, can only be used as long as weather and 33 runway conditions meet the criteria established in FAA Order 8400.9, Section 7. If any of the weather or 34 runway condition criteria in Section 7 are not met or if unusual circumstances regarding air traffic, 35 airspace use, and/or runway availability arise, then the runway that provides the greatest degree of 36 aviation safety will be used. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-4 Noise Compatibility Program 1 KWIA currently utilizes Runway 09 for approximately eighty percent of daytime and seventy-seven 2 percent of nighttime operations, with the remaining operations utilizing Runway 27. This utilization results 3 primarily from prevailing wind conditions and interaction with Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW). 4 Fortunately, it coincides with compatible land use patterns surrounding KWIA. Numerous noise-sensitive 5 land uses occur to the west of KWIA, including residential areas and the historic district. However, to the 6 east, there are few impacts since most of the contour is over water and other compatible land uses. 7 Since KWIA is a single-runway airport, and use of that runway is dictated by prevailing winds as well as 8 overlapping airspace with NASKW, implementation of a preferential runway use system is not an option. 9 Recommendation:Implementation of a preferential runway system is not recommended for 10 inclusion in this NCP. 11 8.3.1Intersection Departures 12 Due to the relatively short distance between noise sensitive areas and the end of Runway 09, intersection 13 departures present a simple way to increase the distance between these noise receptors and departing 14 aircraft. Smaller general aviation aircraft do not require the entire runway length to reach and maintain a 15 safe altitude before crossing the airport boundary. To further minimize the amount of aircraft noise 16 experienced by noise sensitive sites near the end of Runway 09 from any single event, these departures, 17 when wind and weather permit, could occur from the Taxiway C intersection. 18 The use of the Taxiway C intersection departure would also result in reduced taxi times for these aircraft, 19 with the associated reduction in fuel usage and air emissions. 20 Since any intersection departures implemented from the Runway 27 end would result in aircraft flying at a 21 lower altitude as they cross the western airport boundary, Runway 27 intersection departures would have 22 an undesirable effect on noise sensitive areas to the west of the airport. 23 : The voluntary use of an intersection departure at Taxiway C on Runway 09, Recommendation 24 with the appropriate aircraft, and when weather and safetypermit, is recommended for inclusion 25 in this NCP. Prohibition of intersection departures from Runway 27 is recommended for inclusion 26 in this NCP. 27 8.4 Modification of Flight Tracks 28 The modification of flight tracks is a common method of redirecting aircraft overflights, and their 29 corresponding noise, to areas with less-sensitive land uses. The pattern of land use around the airport 30 provides guidance to the design of arrival and departure routes for noise abatement. Any flight track 31 modification considered for implementation cannot compromise safety and must be designed within the 32 realistic capabilities of the aircraft intended to fly the modified flight track. 33 8.4.1Flight Track Considerations 34 Flight tracks are the result of individual aircraft performance, runway and navigational aid (NAVAID) 35 locations, weather conditions, and ATC procedures. Individual aircraft performance factors include W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-5 Noise Compatibility Program 1 required takeoff and landing distances, climb and descent rates, and the aircraft’s speed. The speed of 2 an aircraft, along with the amount of bank angle used by the pilot in a turn, influences an aircraft’s turning 3 performance and radius. A comparison of the aircraft’s required takeoff or landing distance to runway 4 lengths available at an airport may require the use of a specific runway. Once a runway is selected, an 5 aircraft’s performance while following departure and arrival procedures for that runway will define an 6 aircraft’s flight track to or from the runway. 7 8.4.1.1Runway and NAVAID Locations 8 Runway locations and alignment are generally planned and constructed after considering prevailing wind 9 flow patterns, terrain, obstructions, environmental consequences, and the expeditious handling of aircraft 10 arrivals and departures. In turn, NAVAID locations are evaluated under the same criteria, with the added 11 criterion of considering the location of the airport(s) and runway(s) the particular NAVAID is intended to 12 serve. 13 8.4.1.2Weather Influence 14 Weather conditions are another factor evaluated in the selection of a runway and the type of procedure 15 used to navigate to or from the runway. All pilots are trained to takeoff and land into the wind; this 16 practice optimizes aircraft performance. Based on this practice, a runway’s alignment into the wind is 17 used as a runway selection criterion. The two types of aircraft departure and arrival procedures are visual 18 and instrument. Visual procedures can only be used during periods of favorable weather conditions. All 19 active runways support visual procedures. During unfavorable weather conditions, and at the discretion 20 of the pilot during favorable weather conditions, instrument procedures are used. Not all runways support 21 instrument procedures. Even runways that have instrument procedure capability may lose this capability 22 temporarily because of NAVAID outage or maintenance. The evaluation of wind conditions and the type 23 of operating procedures required and available (visual versus instrument) may necessitate the use of a 24 specific runway and flight track. 25 8.4.1.3Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures 26 The primary purpose of ATC is to maintain the safe separation of participating aircraft and to develop an 27 orderly and efficient flow of aircraft arrivals and departures. Despite ATC’s purpose, the ultimate 28 responsibility for aircraft separation and operation rests solely with the pilot-in-command of each aircraft, 29 according to Federal regulations. However, the pilot-in-command relies heavily on information and 30 assistance received from ATC during times of reduced visibility and poor weather conditions. The need 31 to avoid other aircraft and undesirable weather conditions, such as thunderstorms, may dictate to a pilot 32 and air traffic controller where an aircraft needs to be operated to continue the flight safely. These 33 avoidance situations may cause an aircraft to fly outside the area that is considered the normal departure 34 and arrival corridors (flight tracks) for an airport. 35 8.4.1.4Aircraft Wake Turbulence 36 Aircraft separation during takeoff and landing is important not only for avoiding a collision, but also to 37 avoid the potentially unsafe situation of an aircraft flying through another aircraft’s wake turbulence. All 38 aircraft produce wake turbulence, but the severity of the wake turbulence varies with the size, speed, and 39 configuration of an aircraft. Wake turbulence is generated the entire time an aircraft is flying and is a by- W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-6 Noise Compatibility Program 1 product of the aircraft’s wings producing lift. Wake turbulence is especially hazardous in the region 2 behind an aircraft in the takeoff or landing phases of flight. During take-off and landing, aircraft operate at 3 high angle of attack. This flight attitude maximizes the formation of strong vortices. The strength of wake 4 turbulence produced by large and heavy aircraft may exceed the flight control authority of some small 5 aircraft. Therefore, a small aircraft’s encounter with a large aircraft’s wake turbulence can be disastrous 6 for the smaller aircraft. An aircraft operator’s best defense against a wake turbulence encounter is to 7 avoid potential wake turbulence areas trailing behind heavy aircraft. The FAA established aircraft 8 separation standards to be used by pilots and air traffic controllers for both collision and wake turbulence 9 avoidance and to expedite aircraft traffic. These standards can be found in the FAA’s Aeronautical 10 Information Manual(AIM) and FAA Order 7110.65R, Air Traffic Control Handbook. 11 All the factors discussed above have an effect on where aircraft fly while departing and arriving at an 12 airport. All these factors need to be considered while modifying any flight track. 13 8.4.2Flight Track Alternatives 14 At KWIA, modification of flight tracks is limited by the proximity of NASKW. The NASKW ATCT is located 15 approximately three miles east of the KWIA ATCT. The two airports have overlapping airspace, which is 16 described in Section 3.2.2 of the Key West International Airport Noise Exposure Maps and Supporting 17 Documentation. Because KWIA ATCT does not have radar, civilian as well as military aircraft are 18 directed by Navy air traffic controllers from the NASKW ATCT. The mixture of high-performance military 19 jets, commercial aircraft, and lower-performance civilian general aviation creates a complex air traffic 20 control scenario. This situation limits the flexibility of flight tracks into and out of KWIA. 21 A perceived source of aircraft noise annoyance is the “long, scenic, straight-in approach to Runway 09, 22 which stretches from Key West Harbor at the western edge of the island to the runway” (Skelly, 1997). 23 The County’s Ad Hoc Committee on Noise has investigated several alternative VFR approach paths to 24 Runway 09 over the past 15 years. 25 For example, in 2002, the Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise requested that a formal study be conducted to 26 analyze and document potential aircraft-generated noise exposure levels directly associated with the 27 proposed alternative use of a visual approach procedure referred to as the “Runway 9 Noise Abatement 28 Visual Approach Procedure.” The proposed visual approach procedure was offered to the Ad Hoc 29 Committee by a member of the public to potentially reduce aircraft-generated noise exposure levels to 30 land areas located west of the airport along the extended runway centerline. The study investigated the 31 use of alternative visual approach tracks to Runway 09, alternative visual approach glide paths to 32 Runway 09, and use of a continuous descent approach procedure to Runway 09. 33 Results of noise analysis conducted as part of this study indicate that although potentially feasible, the 34 development and use of various alternative visual approach procedures to Runway 09 offer limited 35 reductions of aircraft-generated noise exposure levels to land areas west of the airport when compared to 36 existing approach procedures. Based upon discussions with the FAA, implementation of a non-standard 37 3.8-degree glide path at KWIA for the existing visual approaches to Runway 09 or the proposed Runway 38 09 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure would require FAA analysis and approval. The W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-7 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Continuous Descent Approach Procedure is not applicable or prudent for use at KWIA at this time. A copy 2 of the study is located in Appendix I. 3 In approximately 2003, KWIA initiated an alternative voluntary approach from the north for smaller 4 aircraft. This approach, referred to as the “Garrison Bight Approach” was initially to be used for general 5 aviation piston powered aircraft. After initiation, some of the turboprop powered commuter aircraft began 6 using the approach, resulting in an increase in aircraft noise complaints in areas that had not previously 7 experienced aircraft noise. Due to the increased noise complaints, KWIA rescinded the voluntary request 8 for aircraft to use this approach. 9 A proposal was presented to the Ad-Hoc Committee during this Part 150 Study by members of the public 10 who live along the extended centerline of Runway 09. The IFR approach to Runway 09 flies over the 11 entire length of the island of Key West, impacting a large number of homes, albeit at less than DNL 65 12 dB. The request was made to analyze alternatives for VFR approaches to Runway 09 that encourage a 13 distributed mixture of alternate approach tracks that should be used whenever possible. The relief that 14 would be experienced by the residents living along the extended centerline would be noticeable, and 15 much appreciated. The proposers characterized their proposal as a “socialized noise approach to spread 16 the pain.” Figure 8-1 is an illustration of the proposal, provided by the proposer. 17 An analysis of radar data shows that while the larger jet aircraft tend to prefer the long, straight in 18 approach, a wide variety of flight paths are used by smaller aircraft during daytime hours on the approach 19 to Runway 09, as shown in Figure 8-2. Additional approach paths were examined to determine if 20 mandatory or voluntary use would reduce the noise impacts to noncompatible land uses around KWIA. 21 In the analysis of other possible approach paths to Runway 09, it was determined that any change in 22 exposure to aircraft noise would occur outside the DNL 65 dB noise contour, and due to the level of 23 development on the island, that any voluntary or mandatory change in flight paths would result in areas 24 newly subject to aircraft noise. Furthermore, it was determined through discussions with the airport, that 25 any flight paths coming in from the east and / or south would be unsafe due to the interaction with the 26 NAS Key West aviation activity. 27 The only current flight path prescribed by the airport is a voluntary request for all departing VFR aircraft to 28 maintain runway heading until reaching the airport boundary before executing turns to the north or south. 29 Figure 8-3 illustrates the variety of actual departure flight paths that are used on Runways 09 and 27. 30 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-8 Noise Compatibility Program Airport Noise Compatibility Program Key West International 1 - 9 - 8 FIGURE 8 PROPOSAL FOR ALTERNATE APPROACHES 13.docx - Key West NCP_07 \\ NCP \\ 12010302_Key West \\ W: 123456789 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-10 Noise Compatibility Program NOISE COMPATIBILITY STUDY Track Density PART 150 ARRIVALS TO RUNWAY 09 8-2 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM FIGURE Airport Noise Compatibility Program Key West International 12 - 8 13.docx - Key West NCP_07 \\ NCP \\ 12010302_Key West \\ W: 123456789 1011121314151617181920 NOISE COMPATIBILITY STUDY Runways 09 and 27 PART 150 RADAR DEPARTURE TRACKS 8-3 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM FIGURE Airport Noise Compatibility Program Key West International 14 - 8 13.docx - Key West NCP_07 \\ NCP \\ 12010302_Key West \\ W: 123456789 10111213141516171819 1 Recommendation: Continued voluntary use of awide variety of flight paths during daytime hours 2 by smaller aircrafton the approach to Runway 09, as shown in Figure 8-2, is recommended for 3 inclusion in this NCP. Implementation of a prescribed flight path is not recommended for 4 inclusion in this NCP. 5 8.4.3Helicopters 6 As discussed previously, modification of flight tracks is limited by the proximity of NASKW. However, one 7 aircraft type that can benefit from modified flight tracks would be rotary wing or helicopter aircraft. 8 Currently, helicopters traverse from the airport either directly north over residential areas, or directly south 9 over the Atlantic. As helicopters are able to safely maintain a lower altitude than fixed wing aircraft, they 10 are able to remain below the operating altitude of military aircraft departing from or returning to NASKW. 11 While helicopters do not provide a large contribution to the DNL 65 dB noise contours at KWIA, they do 12 produce noise levels that could be considered disturbing on each individual event. 13 The voluntary use of a south bound arrival and departure pattern for helicopters at KWIA will not result in 14 a reduction of noise sensitive areas within the DNL 65 dB noise contour. However, it would reduce the 15 number of individual noise events experienced by residential areas along the northern boundary of the 16 airport. 17 It should be noted that there are numerous helicopter operations that occur at KWIA that are performed 18 for emergency medical transport, law enforcement, etc. that by the nature of their activity must take the 19 shortest, fastest route possible. 20 Recommendation: The voluntary use of south bound arrival and departure tracks for helicopters 21 operating at KWIA, time and safety permitting, is recommended for inclusion in this NCP. 22 8.4.4Air Tours and Banner Towing 23 A commercial air tour operation is defined as a flight conducted for compensation or hire in a powered 24 aircraft where the purpose of the flight is sightseeing, during which the aircraft flies below a minimum 25 altitude of 5,000 feet above ground level (AGL). Air tour aircraft operations differ from the average 26 national air transportation system operations, occurring in most cases seasonally, and only during 27 daylight hours. Air tour aircraft are by nature flying low for sightseeing purposes. 28 FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-36D encourages pilots making VFR flights near noise-sensitive areas to fly 29 at altitudes higher than the minimum permitted by regulation and on flight paths that will reduce aircraft 30 noise in such areas. A copy is included in Appendix J. The voluntary practices set forth in this AC 31 include: 32 Avoidance of noise-sensitive area, if practical, is preferable to overflight at relatively low altitudes. 33 Pilots operating noise producing aircraft (fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and hot air balloons) over noise- 34 sensitive areas should make every effort to fly not less than 2,000 AGL, weather permitting. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-15 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Departure from or arrival to an airport, climb after take-off, and descent for landing should be 2 made so as to avoid prolonged flight at low altitudes near noise-sensitive areas. 3 Aerial advertising is a form of advertising that incorporates the use of aircraft to display advertising media. 4 Because of the relatively low speed and altitude ceiling of propeller aircraft, this type is generally favored 5 for the deployment of mobile billboards when fixed-wing aircraft are used. Many companies have signed 6 the "Aerial Media Code of Conduct" which specifies minimum safety and community standards. A copy of 7 the entire "Aerial Media Code of Conduct," which was authored by Wayne Mansfield in 2008, is included 8 in Appendix J. The Community Operational Sensitivity section of the "Aerial Media Code of Conduct" 9 states: 10 Subscribers will assure that they will operate their aircraft so that the lowest point of the 11 aircraft shall at all times be (a) no lower than one thousand feet (1,000’) above land 12 areas, and (b) no lower than five hundred feet (500’) when flying over any body of water 13 and (c) no nearer than five hundred feet (500’) from any person or structure when flying 14 over any body of water. 15 Subscribers will assure that they will operate their aircraft so that in circling any event 16 over a land area whose populace has made it known to subscribers that they are 17 sensitive to the impact of aerial advertising, they shall not circle the area for more than 18 fifteen (15) minutes without vacating that area for at least ten (10) minutes before 19 returning. In addition, the number of planes circling such an event shall be limited to four 20 (4) at one time, and they shall fly at a minimum altitude of twelve hundred (1,200) feet. 21 Subscribers will assure that they shall operate their aircraft so that when traversing along 22 a linear stretch such as a shoreline they shall not make more than four (4) roundtrip 23 passes during such trip within a twenty (20) minute period. 24 Subscribers will assure that they shall operate their aircraft so as to use their best 25 reasonable efforts, commensurate with technological improvements from time to time, to 26 reduce the noise level of all aircraft. This shall include installing proven safe, and legally 27 available sound reduction mufflers and propellers. 28 Subscribers will ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, safe, and in compliance 29 with Air Traffic Control instructions, flights shall avoid funerals, religious services and 30 other similar events that might be adversely impacted by aircraft noise or advertising of 31 which they have received prior, actual notice. 32 Key West Seaplane Adventures, Key West Bi-Planes, Island Aeroplane Tours, and Key West Seaplanes 33 currently operate at KWIA, conducting air tours and aerial advertising. The residents of Key West are 34 sensitive to the noise impact of aerial advertising and sightseeing. Therefore, it is recommended that 35 these operators (and any other air tour and/or aerial advertising operators) subscribe to the voluntary 36 practices of FAA AC 91-36D and/or the Community Operational Sensitivity standards described above, 37 as applicable to their particular operation. In addition, it is recommended that these operators continue to 38 avoid flying directly over Key West by the Sea as they approach or depart KWIA. 39 Recommendation:Adherence to the voluntary practices set forth in FAA AC 91-36D and/or the 40 Community Operational Sensitivity standards included in the "Aerial Media Code of Conduct" by 41 pilots of all air tour and aerial advertising flights is recommended for inclusion in this NCP. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-16 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Continued voluntary avoidance of flight directly over Key West by the Sea by pilots of all air tour 2 and aerial advertising flights is recommended for inclusion in this NCP. 3 8.5Airport Use Restrictions 4 Title 14 CFR Part 150 §B150.7(b)(5) indicates airport use restrictions may include, but are not limited to: 5 Denial of use of the airport to aircraft types or classes which do not meet Federal noise 6 standards; 7 Capacity limitations based on the relative noisiness of different types of aircraft; 8 Requirement that aircraft using the airport must use noise abatement takeoff or approach 9 procedures previously approved as safe by the FAA; 10 Landing fees based on FAA-certificated or FAA-estimated noise emission levels or on 11 time of arrival; and 12 Partial or complete curfews. 13 Under Federal law, the County of Monroe has limited authority to restrict access to KWIA. The County 14 may adopt airport use restrictions, provided the restrictions are reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and do not 15 impose an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce (Title 14 CFR Part 150 §150.35(b)(1)). In 16 addition, to maintain eligibility to receive Federal grant funds under the Airport Improvement Program 17 (AIP) or approval to impose and use a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC), the County of Monroe would be 18 required to propose airport noise and access restrictions in compliance with the Airport Noise and 19 Capacity Act of 1990 (recodified at P.L. 103-272), 49 USC 47521 (ANCA), as implemented by title 14 20 CFR part 161 (Part 161). 21 By requiring the preparation of extensive documentation under Part 161, the National Noise Policy has 22 applied a more uniform national standard which has made it more difficult for individual airports to 23 establish access restrictions. This action was taken as a compromise to facilitate the accelerated 24 transition of the commercial jet fleet from Stage 2 to Stage 3 aircraft under the requirements of the ANCA. 25 Part 161 applies to noise or access restrictions on any Stage 3 aircraft, regardless of weight. The 26 following subsections provide more detail regarding airport use restrictions and their applicability at KWIA. 27 8.5.1Denial of Use to Aircraft Not Meeting Federal Noise Standards 28 Federal noise standards are established in title 14 CFR part 36, Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and 29 Airworthiness Certification (Part 36), which prescribes noise standards for the issue of airworthiness 30 certificates for the following aircraft types: 31 Subsonic transport-category large airplanes, 32 Subsonic turbojet-powered airplanes, 33 Propeller-driven small airplanes, 34 Propeller-driven commuter-category airplanes, W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-17 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Concorde airplanes, and 2 Helicopters. 3 Aircraft that meet Federal noise standards are listed in Advisory Circular 36-1H, Noise Levels for U.S. 4 Certificated and Foreign Aircraft. 5 Title 14 CFR part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, Subpart I -Operating Noise Limits, prescribes 6 operating noise limits and related requirements that apply to the operation of civil subsonic turbojet 7 airplanes with a maximum certificated weight of more than 75,000 pounds. Airplanes that do not comply 8 with Part 36 Stage 2 or Stage 3 noise levels have been prohibited from operating at KWIA since January 9 1, 1985 by title 14 CFR part 91 § 91.805. Since December 31, 1999, airplanes that do not comply with 10 Part 36 Stage 3 noise levels are prohibited from operating at KWIA by title 14 CFR Part 91 § 91.853. 11 There are currently no Federal operating noise limits that apply to the operation of Stage 1, Stage 2, or 12 Stage 3 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds. However, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 13 2012, signed into law February of 2012, states in Section 506 §47534 that: 14 Prohibition on operating certain aircraft weighing 75,000 pounds or less not complying 15 with stage 3 noise levels 16 PROHIBITION—Except as otherwise provided by this section, after December 31, 2015, a 17 person may not operate a civil subsonic jet airplane with a maximum weight of 75,000 pounds or 18 less, and for which an airworthiness certificate (other than an experimental certificate) has been 19 issued, to or from an airport in the United States unless the Secretary of Transportation finds that 20 the aircraft complies with stage 3 noise levels. 21 Since any civil subsonic jet aircraft currently operating at KWIA that do not meet Stage 3 noise levels will 22 be prohibited from further operation after December 31, 2015, it is unnecessary to address any use 23 restriction of such aircraft in this NCP. 24 Most turbojets and other large aircraft produced after 1974 meet Federal noise standards, as do most 25 propeller-driven light airplanes. However, there are smaller piston aircraft currently based at KWIA that 26 may be adversely affected by a restriction of this nature. Operations by some or all of these aircraft at 27 KWIA are frequently the target of complaints by neighboring residents. Even though the nature of their 28 operations may be considered a nuisance, their contribution to the cumulative noise exposure is minimal. 29 An access restriction denying the use of KWIA to aircraft not meeting Federal noise standards may place 30 a severe operational and economic burden on the local businesses operating sightseeing tours, banner 31 towing services, or local charter type services, etc. 32 Because of the potentially-severe economic impacts that may be imposed on several local businesses 33 currently operating at KWIA, an access restriction denying the use of KWIA to aircraft not meeting Federal 34 noise standards is not recommended. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-18 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Recommendation:An access restriction pertaining to non-Stage 3 private/corporate jet aircraft 2 weighing less than 75,000 pounds, or private piston-powered aircraft is not recommended for 3 inclusion in this NCP. 4 8.5.2Capacity Limitations Based on Relative Noisiness 5 Capacity limitations based on either total operations or relative noisiness of aircraft can be considered as 6 a method of controlling total cumulative noise exposure. 7 A capacity limitation based on the relative noisiness of aircraft would involve the selection of a maximum 8 allowable noise level or different noise levels for daytime and nighttime operations. Advisory Circular 36- 9 3H, Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A-Weighted Decibels, provides listings of estimated airplane 10 noise levels for most of the airplanes currently operating at KWIA. 11 KWIA could consider prohibiting aircraft that exceed the AC 36-3H estimated noise levels of the “loudest” 12 aircraft currently based at KWIA. This approach would reduce or eliminate potential adverse economic 13 impacts to local businesses currently operating at KWIA. Conversely, it would preclude the introduction 14 of noisier aircraft to KWIA. It may limit the ability of the airport to attract some future businesses such as 15 air cargo and industrial users. 16 An access restriction denying the use of KWIA to aircraft with AC 36-3H estimated noise levels that 17 exceed an established threshold would restrict the operation of Stage 3 aircraft. Therefore, such a 18 restriction would be subject to the extensive analysis required in Part 161. 19 : Capacity limitations are not recommended for inclusion in this NCP. Recommendation 20 8.5.3Required Use of Noise Abatement Takeoff and/or Approach Procedures 21 Another approach to noise abatement suggested by part 150 guidance is the implementation of operating 22 techniques which would make the aircraft fly quieter over noise-sensitive areas. These take the form of 23 either adjustments to the rate of descent, flap settings for aircraft on approach, or the level of thrust used 24 in takeoff. The measures related to arrival operations are relatively limited in their effect by virtue of the 25 low thrust levels during approach and the necessity to establish stabilized descent gradients prior to 26 reaching the landing decision heights. However, because of the higher thrust levels, the adjustment of 27 takeoff procedures are frequently identified as being a potential alternative for noise abatement. Noise 28 abatement procedures cannot compromise safety, are normally voluntary, and at the pilot’s discretion. 29 There are five recognized sources of noise abatement procedures or guidelines. The first source is FAA 30 Advisory Circular 91-53A (AC 91-53A), which describes acceptable criteria for safe noise abatement 31 departure profiles for subsonic turbojet-powered airplanes with a maximum certificated gross takeoff 32 weight of more than 75,000 pounds. The second source is an aircraft manufacturer’s Pilot Operating 33 Handbook or an air carrier’s Operations Manual, which contain specific noise abatement procedures for a 34 particular make and model of aircraft. The third source is the National Business Aircraft Association 35 (NBAA) Noise Abatement Program, which has developed noise abatement takeoff and arrival procedures 36 for its membership that have virtually become an industry standard for operators of business jet aircraft. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-19 Noise Compatibility Program 1 The fourth source is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), which publishes noise 2 awareness guidelines in its yearly airport directory. The fifth source is the Helicopter Association 3 International (HAI) Fly Neighborly Program, which offers the technical information necessary for helicopter 4 operators to fly both current and new advanced helicopters as quietly as practical, and to make helicopter 5 operations compatible with nearly all land uses. 6 AC 91-53A has two types of procedures, close-in and distant community procedures. Close-in 7 community noise abatement departure profiles are intended to provide noise reduction for noise sensitive 8 areas located in close proximity to the departure end of an airport runway. Distant community noise 9 abatement departure profiles are intended to provide noise reduction for all other noise sensitive areas. 10 Studies conducted for the FAA reveal that the aforementioned procedures provide negligible noise 11 reduction (0 to 2 decibels) for Stage 3 aircraft such as the 757, 737-300, and 737-400. Noise reduction 12 for Stage 2 aircraft that have been fitted with hushkits to meet Stage 3 requirements is normally less 13 significant. 14 The NBAA standard departure procedure is recommended for use when sensitive sites are located 15 further than 10,000 feet from the beginning of takeoff roll. They have also developed a similar close-in 16 departure procedure for situations when sensitive sites are located less than 10,000 feet from the start of 17 takeoff roll. Figure 8-4 illustrates the NBAA Close-in Departure Procedure. Arrival procedures have also 18 been developed for both instrument and visual flying conditions, which are illustrated in Figure 8-5. 19 FIGURE 8-4 20 NBAA CLOSE-IN DEPARTURE PROCEDURE 21 22 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-20 Noise Compatibility Program 1 FIGURE 8-5 2 NBAA APPROACH AND LANDING PROCEDURE VFR &IFR 3 4 5 The AOPA has published a Guide to Airport Noise and Compatible Land Use. This guide includes 6 suggestions for pilots, flight instructors, fixed-base operators, and airport managers for reducing airport 7 noise complaints and improving relationships with airport neighbors. Specific information pertaining to 8 noise abatement arrival and departure routes or procedures is also published in the AOPA airport 9 directory for airports that have developed noise abatement procedures or profiles. The suggestions for 10 pilots to consider while operating their aircraft include: 11 Be aware of noise-sensitive areas, especially residential communities, near airports. 12 Avoid flying low, especially at high power settings, over these areas. 13 Void high rpm settings in the pattern. 14 Follow any voluntary noise abatement procedures for arrivals and departures. 15 On takeoff, reduce to climb power as soon as it is safe and practical to do so. 16 Depart from the runway end, rather than intersections, to give you the greatest altitude 17 when leaving the airport threshold and flying over surrounding communities. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-21 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Make a straight-ahead climb to 1,000 feet before making any turns (unless the path 2 crosses a noise-sensitive area). Turning reduces altitude gained in a climb. 3 Avoid prolonged run-ups and, if possible, do them inside the airport, rather than at its 4 perimeter. 5 Use low power approaches when possible, and always avoid the low, dragged-in 6 approach. 7 If you want to practice night landings, stay away from residential airports. Practice at 8 major fields where a smaller airplane’s sound is less obtrusive. 9 Appendix J contains a copy of AC 91-53A, the NBAA Noise Abatement Program, the AOPA’s Guide to 10 Airport Noise and Compatible Land Use, and the HAI Fly Neighborly Guide. 11 This NCP recommends the NBAA Close-In departure procedure for use on both Runway 09 and 27. 12 Further, the departure from Runway 27 should make a right turn to Garrison Bight as soon as safely 13 possible. 14 In addition, another method for aircraft to reduce their noise signature is the implementation of Propeller 15 and Power Adjustments. High performance aircraft with adjustable propellers are especially noisy on 16 take-off, when the pitch angle is set to high RPM. Adjust the propeller control knob either to the 17 recommended RPM setting, or reduce the propeller pitch angle, following gear retraction. In some aircraft 18 types, the manifold pressure (MP) can be reduced at the same time by adjusting the throttle. Aside from 19 reducing noise, engine wear and fuel consumption are reduced by decreasing propeller RPM and MP. 20 Similar adjustment can be made on approach including reducing propeller RPM prior to extending landing 21 gear. 22 : Key West International Airport should continue to encourage the voluntary Recommendation 23 utilization of Noise Abatement Departure and Arrival Procedures as outlined in FAA AC 91-53A, air 24 carrier or aircraft manufacturer-specific procedures, the NBAA Noise Abatement Program,the HAI 25 Fly Neighborly Program, and AOPA’sGuide to Airport Noise and Compatible Land Use. 26 The voluntary use of Propeller and Power Adjustments, when safety permits, in recommended for 27 inclusion in this NCP. 28 8.5.4Landing Fees Based on Noise Level or Time of Arrival 29 KWIA levies landing fees on aircraft to raise revenue for airport operations and maintenance. Fees are 30 based on aircraft gross weight. Landing fees can also be based on aircraft noise levels and the time of 31 day of aircraft landings. The theory behind the use of differential landing fees based on noise levels or 32 the time of arrival is they will provide an incentive for airlines to bring quieter aircraft into the airport or 33 schedule landing operations during low-fee hours. However, for such a landing fee to exert genuine 34 leverage on carriers to convert to quieter aircraft, it would most likely be challenged as an undue burden 35 on interstate commerce. Additionally, development of a differential fee structure that would not be W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-22 Noise Compatibility Program 1 considered discriminatory, while at the same time being effective, would be difficult and would be subject 2 to the extensive analysis required in Part 161. Such fees would be more likely to drive carriers away 3 rather than force them to use quieter aircraft. A differential nighttime landing fee may also create 4 potential adverse economic impacts and furthermore, it may limit the ability of the airport to attract some 5 future businesses such as air cargo users. 6 A few years ago, the airport industry entertained the idea of instituting landing fees for GA operations. 7 The motivation behind this concept was the generation of revenue to replace anticipated losses in AIP 8 discretionary and entitlement funds. GA organizations such as AOPA and NBAA actively opposed this 9 action, arguing it would place an undue economic burden on general aviation and fees are already 10 collected from GA aircraft operators during fuel sales. Generally, there are two types of fees collected, 11 Federal and local. The Federal fees are placed in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Legislation passed 12 by Congress authorizes the FAA to use money from this trust fund to operate the FAA and fund airport 13 improvements. Local fees are usually referred to as “flowage” fees and are used to offset the cost of 14 maintaining refueling equipment and other airport facilities. Regardless, because of the unscheduled 15 nature of GA operations, the collection of additional landing fees can at times be burdensome and require 16 a lot of effort from the airport staff to manage. The additional expense associated with collecting GA 17 landing fees may exceed the revenue collected. 18 KWIA could consider establishing a differential landing fee based on noise levels or time of arrival. The 19 fee could be applicable only to commercial operations, or could include general aviation operations as 20 well. A fee based on time of arrival might be useful in discouraging nighttime landing operations, but an 21 activity-monitoring system would have to be developed in order for such a measure to be successful. 22 A differential nighttime landing fee may create potential adverse economic impacts to local businesses 23 currently operating at KWIA. It may also limit the ability of the airport to attract some future businesses 24 such as air cargo users. 25 A differential landing fee based on noise or time of arrival at KWIA would impact the operation of Stage 3 26 aircraft. Therefore, such a restriction would be subject to the extensive analysis required in Part 161. 27 Recommendation: Differential Landing Fees based on noisiness or time of arrival are not 28 recommended for inclusion in this NCP. 29 8.5.5Partial or Complete Curfews 30 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5020-1 indicates that curfews are an effective though costly method of 31 controlling airport noise. Since unwanted noise is most pronounced in the late evening or early morning 32 hours, curfews are usually implemented to restrict nighttime operations. A nighttime curfew could be in 33 effect between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., which corresponds to the nighttime period for the DNL 34 calculation, or, to be less restrictive, could be in effect between midnight and 6:00 a.m., for example. A 35 curfew could also apply only to departures, only to arrivals, or to both departures and arrivals. A curfew 36 could be implemented in conjunction with a restriction based on relative noisiness, to restrict use of the 37 airport during certain nighttime hours to aircraft that generated noise levels below a specified threshold. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-23 Noise Compatibility Program 1 The prohibition of all traffic during the noise-sensitive hours may place a significant constraint on certain 2 businesses currently operating at KWIA. Currently, there is one scheduled commuter arrival between 3 10:00 p.m. and midnight, and two departures scheduled between 5:45 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Early morning 4 departures are often very attractive for business travelers who wish to reach their destination with a large 5 part of the workday ahead of them. Similarly, late night arrivals are important in allowing travelers to 6 return home without incurring the costs of another night away. Also, commuter carriers need to position 7 their aircraft so they are ready for the bank of early morning departures. This tends to mandate nighttime 8 arrivals. Cargo carriers tend to operate during the nighttime hours between midnight and 5:00 a.m. 9 Overall, approximately seven percent of aircraft operations at KWIA occur between the hours of 10:00 10 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 11 To avoid impacting scheduled commuter service, KWIA could restrict access to the airport between the 12 hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. Such a curfew may still create potential adverse economic impacts to 13 local businesses currently operating at KWIA, and may limit the ability of the airport to attract some future 14 businesses such as air cargo users. A curfew at KWIA would impact the operation of Stage 3 aircraft. 15 Therefore, such a restriction would be subject to the extensive analysis required in Part 161. 16 The 1999 Part 150 Study recommended a Part 161 analysis for a mandatory access restriction on aircraft 17 operating at KWIA between midnight and 6:00 a.m. In the FAA Record of Approval, this recommendation 18 was disapproved because the FAA felt that the other recommendations would reduce noncompatible land 19 use without restricting the use of the airport. 20 KWIA currently has a voluntary curfew on aircraft operations between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 21 Recommendation: Mandatory partial or complete curfews are not recommended for inclusion in 22 this NCP. A continuation of the voluntary 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. curfew is recommended for 23 inclusion in this NCP. 24 8.6Summary 25 This section presented a variety of operational alternatives for consideration at KWIA. Table 8-1 26 summarizes the alternatives, describes advantages and disadvantages of each, and indicates which 27 alternatives are recommended for inclusion in the NCP for KWIA. The following measures were 28 recommended for inclusion in this NCP: 29 Voluntary use of Ground Power Units when time and safety permit. 30 Continue use of designated run-up location. 31 Voluntary use of Taxiway C intersection departures for Runway 09. 32 Voluntary use of arrivals from and departures to the south for helicopter activity. 33 Continue voluntary use of a wide variety of flight paths during daytime hours by smaller 34 aircraft on the approach to Runway 09, as shown in Figure 8-2. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-24 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Adherence to the voluntary practices set for the in FAA AC 91-36D and/or the Community 2 Operational Sensitivity standards included in the "Aerial Media Code of Conduct" by 3 pilots of all air tour and aerial advertising flights. 4 Voluntary avoidance of direct flight over Key West by the Sea by pilots of all air tour and 5 aerial advertising flights. 6 Continue voluntary utilization of Noise Abatement Arrival and Departure Procedures. 7 Voluntary use of Propeller and Power Adjustment when safety permits. 8 Continue the voluntary 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. curfew. 9 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-25 Noise Compatibility Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 8-26 Noise Compatibility Program For Airport NoNoNo YesYesYesYes NCP Recommended Noise Compatibility Program ED Key West International Disadvantages close proximity for effective noise reduction. aircraft.aircraft.flexibility and may cause delays.performance.previously impacted. procedures, airport efficiency and capacity, and cause delays. performance.procedures, airport efficiency and capacity, and cause delays. Sources and receptors must be in Expensive and permanent. Maybe unappealing to some.Increases ramp agents’ workload. May increases time on the ground for May increases time on the ground for Decreases Air Traffic Control Limited in some regard by aircraft May shift noise to areas not May effect Air Traffic Control Limited in some regard by aircraft May effect Air Traffic Control LTERNATIVES CONSIDER -- 1 - 27 - . 8 TABLE 8 Advantages generated by ground AL NOISE ABATEMENT A on the airport.on the airport. the airportsourcesonboard APUs. the airport generated by ground sourcescompatible land uses. use mitigation measures.at Runway 09 end.compatible land use areas. use mitigation measures.compatible land use areas. May reduce ground noise from May reduce airport emissions.May decrease fuel costs for airlines.Reduces noise levels at sites near Directs operations over more May decrease area requiring land May reduce aircraft departure noise May decrease fuel costsMay reduce airport emissions.Minimal expense. May decrease area requiring land Shifts noise impacts away from nonMinimal expense. Reduces noise levels at sites near Shifts noise impacts away from non 13.docx - SUMMARY OF OPERATION up location - Use System Key West NCP_07 \\ NCP \\ Install Barriers and Acoustical ShieldingUse of Ground Power UnitsDesignated Aircraft RunPreferential Runway Intersection DeparturesModification of Flight TracksAir Tour and Aerial Advertising Flight Tracks Operational Noise Abatement Alternatives 12010302_Key West \\ W: 123 For Airport NoNoNo YesYes NCP Recommended Noise Compatibility Program Key West International . CONSIDERED s Disadvantages educe airport capacity, and enroute time for some aircraft.performance.aircraft. another airport and decrease revenue opportunities for the airport. airport revenue economy. Discourages new business. public. assurances. study and FAA approval. Limits airport potential. Impacts local May inconvenience the traveling May violate Federal grant Usually requires detailed Part 161 Increases pilot workload. Slightly increases time to climb and Increases pilot workload.Limited in some regard by aircraft Possible discrimination against some Increased administrative workload. May shift aircraft operations to May r LTERNATIVES noise 28 s - 8 1 (CONTINUED) - duce TABLE 8 Advantages AL NOISE ABATEMENT A decrease area requiring land use mitigation measures.use mitigation measures.mitigation projects. another airport where no landing fee is charged. If aircraft operations shift to another airport, reimpacts.specified curfew period. use mitigation measures. noisier aircraft. use mitigation measures. Reduces noise impacts by restricting May decrease area requiring land Decreases noise impacts. May Minimal expense. May decrease area requiring land Generates revenue for noise May shift aircraft operations to Reduces noise impacts during the May decrease area requiring land 13.docx - SUMMARY OF OPERATION Key West NCP_07 \\ NCP \\ Airport Use RestrictionsAircraft Noise Abatement Procedures Propeller and Power AdjustmentsLanding FeesCurfews Operational Noise Abatement Alternatives 12010302_Key West \\ W: 1 1 9.0CONSIDERATION OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 2 9.1Introduction 3 Land use alternatives have the potential to mitigate noise exposure on existing noise-sensitive land uses 4 and minimize the introduction of additional noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the airport. The 5 following goals and objectives will be considered for all potential land use measures: 6 Minimizing new noncompatible noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of the airport, 7 Providing mitigation alternatives which are sensitive to the needs of the community and 8 its stability, 9 Providing alternatives which will maintain the existing tax base and property values, 10 Ensuring that alternatives presented are consistent with land use policies and regulations 11 of the respective jurisdictions, and 12 Providing mitigation for noncompatible noise-sensitive sites impacted by noise exceeding 13 DNL 65 dB wherever practical and feasible. 14 To meet these goals and objectives, two types of land use measures have been identified: preventive and 15 corrective. 16 Corrective or remedial actions seek to alleviate existing conflicts between land use and airport noise. 17 Changes in the use of noise-impacted land or changes in occupancy to uses or occupations less 18 sensitive to noise are practical strategies for resolving conflicts. Noise insulation and acquisition of full or 19 partial interest in the land are also examples of possible actions that can be used to mitigate noise 20 impacts. 21 The FAA published a policy in April of 1998 advising land use jurisdictions across the Country that it will 22 no longer approve remedial noise mitigation measures for new noncompatible development that occurs in 23 the vicinity of airports after October 1, 1998. Noncompatible land uses must have been in existence on 24 that date in order to be eligible for remedial mitigation. 25 The FAA recognizes that there will be gray areas which will have to be addressed on a case-by-case 26 basis within these policy guidelines. Examples of these instances include: 27 Minor development on vacant lots within an existing residential neighborhood which 28 clearly is not extensive new noncompatible development, may, for practical purposes, 29 need to be treated with the same remedial measure(s) applied to the rest of the 30 neighborhood. 31 A remedial situation in which noise from an airport’s operation has significantly increased 32 as a result of the following changes, resulting in new areas that were compatible with 33 initial conditions now becoming noncompatible: 34 o In the type and frequency of aircraft operations, or 35 o In the airport layout, or W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-1 Noise Compatibility Program 1 o In the flight patterns, or 2 o Increased nighttime operations. 3 Land use and development controls that seek to prevent the introduction of additional noncompatible and 4 noise-sensitive land uses within existing and future noise contours are referred to as preventive 5 measures. The controls which are generally most useful are: zoning, easements, transfer of development 6 rights, establishing minimum acoustical insulation standards for building codes, and land acquisition. 7 Both remedial and preventive land use measures will be described and evaluated in this section with 8 regard to their suitability for implementation at KWIA. 9 9.2Noncompatible Land Uses 10 Noncompatible land uses identified on the 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map include: 11 located primarily on Single-family and low-density multi-family residential dwellings th 12 Flagler Avenue and Staples Avenue, between 10 Street and Kennedy Drive. 13 Multi-family residential dwellings located in Key West by the Sea Condominiums, Las 14 Salinas Condominium, Ocean Walk Apartments, Seaside Residences, and Sunrise 15 Suites. 16 Transient lodging units located in the Hyatt Windward Point Resort and the Best Western 17 Key Ambassador. 18 Community facilities (aka Public Buildings) including Grace Lutheran Church and School 19 and the Catholic Charities facility. 20 The previous NCP, approved by FAA on May 7, 1999, concluded that corrective land use actions should 21 not be recommended for the multi-unit apartment complex (Ocean Walk Apartments), the multi-unit 22 condominium complex (Las Salinas Condominiums), or the transient lodgings (Best Western Key 23 Ambassador and Key Wester Motel). In 1991, the developers of Ocean Walk Apartments and Las Salinas 24 Condominium were warned of the potential noise impact prior to construction, and advised to incorporate 25 measures to achieve appropriate outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction into the design and construction 26 of the buildings. 27 The Key Wester Motel was razed in 1999 and replaced by the Hyatt Windward Pointe Resort. The Salt 28 Ponds Condominiums were built in 2000, Sunrise Suites Condominiums in 2001, and Seaside 29 Residences in 2005. Since all of these buildings were constructed after October 1, 1998, and the property 30 was inside the DNL 65 dB contour of the 2003 Future Condition NEM, they are ineligible for remedial 31 mitigation as a result of FAA’s policy (described in Section 9.1). 32 Key West High School was reconstructed in four phases over a four-year period from approximately 2001 33 through 2005. The existing school was located on approximately 24 acres and was also the site of the 34 new school. Therefore, phased construction of the new facility required construction of portions of the 35 new facility followed by demolition to prepare a site for the next area to be built. The buildings were 36 designed and constructed to incorporate measures to achieve appropriate outdoor-to-indoor noise level W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-2 Noise Compatibility Program 1 reduction. While a small portion of the property is still within the DNL 65 dB noise contour, the buildings 2 were reconstructed outside the contour; therefore Key West High School is no longer considered a 3 noncompatible land use. 4 Therefore, only the single-family and low-density multi-family residential dwellings, Key West by the Sea 5 Condominiums, Grace Lutheran Church and School, and Catholic Charities, which are located within the 6 DNL 65+ dB noise contours were addressed in the following discussion of remedial land use actions. 7 Key West by the Sea Condominiums is located at 2601 South Roosevelt Blvd, which is across the street 8 from Smather’s Beach. It is a gated community on approximately eight (8) to eight and one-half (8½) 9 acres, including three residential buildings, two swimming pools, and two tennis courts. There are a total 10 of 206 dwelling units, built between 1967 and 1969, consisting of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and 11 three-bedroom floor plans. 12 Grace Lutheran Church and School, built in 1970, is located at 2713 Flagler Avenue, which is at the 13 corner of Flagler Avenue and 10th Street. Grace Lutheran Church and School offers weekly Divine 14 Services, Bible study, Sunday School, a Christian Day School, and other events and activities. Grace 15 Lutheran School (GLS) currently offers three Pre-School classes as well as Kindergarten through the 16 Eighth Grade. In addition, GLS also offers before- and after-school care for their students. Grace 17 Lutheran Church and School includes the Parish Hall, four (4) classroom buildings, and two (2) 18 parsonages. 19 Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami is a non for profit social service agency serving the poor, 20 the marginalized and those most in need in South Florida. St. Mary’s Soup Kitchen, St. Clare’s Clinic, and 21 Catholic Charities are located at 2700-2706 Flagler Avenue, which is near the southeast corner of Flagler 22 Avenue and Venetian Drive. Catholic Charities operates several shelters in Key West, two of which, St. 23 Francis House and St. Bede’s, are at this location. St. Francis House, built in 2004, is a ten-unit 24 transitional shelter designed to assist adult men transition from homelessness into stable employment 25 and permanent housing. A ten-unit permanent housing apartment complex for the elderly homeless who 26 are permanently disabled, but who are able to live independently was added onto the original St. Bede’s 27 church building in 2005. In addition to safe housing Catholic Charities provides case management, 28 information and referral services. St. Mary’s Soup Kitchen operates seven days a week, 364 days a year. 29 The soup kitchen serves one hot meal a day plus a bag lunch "to go" seven days a week, to 30 approximately one hundred twenty-five (125) patrons each day. The St. Clare's Clinic program provides 31 an onsite mental health and primary care clinic for the homeless population in Monroe County. The 32 original St. Bede’s Church and parsonage were built in 1958. Currently, the former church building 33 houses St. Mary’s Soup Kitchen, St. Clare’s Clinic, an office for Catholic Charities, and one (1) dwelling 34 unit. The former parsonage has been converted to a duplex that can house up to eight (8) people. Even 35 though St. Francis House and St. Bede’s apartment complex were constructed after October 1, 1998, 36 they are still considered eligible because they were constructed outside the DNL 65 dB contour of the 37 2003 Future Condition NEM. 38 Flagler Court Townhouses, built in 1996, are located at 3075 Flagler Avenue. There are twenty-six (26) 39 elevated, two-story units surrounding a common courtyard. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-3 Noise Compatibility Program th 1 The Lime Grove House, originally constructed in 1912, is located at 1528 12 Street, which is on the th 2 corner of Staples Avenue and 12 Street. It is a privately-owned multi-family residence, and is eligible for 3 listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 4 According to the land use compatibility guidelines provided in title 14 CFR part 150 Appendix A Table 1, 5 residential and school uses are not compatible with aircraft noise levels equal to or greater than DNL 65 6 dB, and should not be permitted. However, where the community determines that residential or school 7 uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of at least 25 8 dB (within the DNL 65 to 70 dB contour) and 30 dB (within the DNL 70 to 75 dB contour) through 9 incorporation of noise attenuation into design and construction of the structure are recommended. 10 However, the use of NLR measures will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. 11 Churches are considered generally compatible with aircraft noise levels between DNL 65 and 75 dB, if 12 measures to achieve NLR of at least 25 dB (within the DNL 65 to 70 dB contour) and 30 dB (within the 13 DNL 70 to 75 dB contour) are incorporated in the design and construction of the structure. Offices, 14 business, and professional uses are considered compatible with aircraft noise levels equal to or greater 15 than DNL 65 dB. 16 FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook, Chapter 8, Section 2, paragraph 17 810.b states, “Noise compatibility projects usually are located in areas where aircraft noise exposure is 18 significant, as measured in 65 decibels (dB) or greater of day-night average sound level (DNL). In 19 addition, projects within DNL 65 may be expanded beyond the DNL 65 dB contour to include a 20 reasonable additional number of otherwise ineligible parcels contiguous to the project area, if necessary 21 to achieve equality in the neighborhood. Neighborhood or street boundary lines may help determine what 22 is reasonable, in addition to numbers of properties.” 23 FAA has drafted a revision to the AIP Handbook, which will be known as FAA Order 5100.38D once it is 24 finalized. Appendix R of the draft provides guidance on Noise Compatibility Planning/Projects. Paragraph 25 R-9 addresses Block Rounding, and says, “If a sponsor proposes to expand noise mitigation just beyond 26 the DNL 65 dB contour to include otherwise ineligible parcels contiguous to the project area (referred to 27 as block rounding), the FAA Airports District Office (ADO) has the option to approve this request if the 28 requirements in Table R-2 are met.” The applicable requirements in Table R-2 include: 29 DNL 65 dB Contour does not have a Reasonable End Point. The block rounding must 30 be necessary to reach a reasonable end point for noise insulation projects. 31 Sponsor Provides a Detailed List of Residences. The sponsor must provide the ADO 32 the proposed end point information, including a complete list of the specific residences 33 (by address) that are proposed for block rounding. 34 Called Out on All Lists. On all other lists of residences, these residences must be noted 35 as included due to block rounding. 36 ADO Determination. The ADO must review and either approve or disapprove including 37 the proposed block rounding residences as part of the associated noise mitigation 38 program. The ADO must document the determination and place a copy of the 39 determination in the project file. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-4 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Logical Breakpoint. In determining the reasonable end point for noise insulation 2 projects, the ADO must ensure that the end point is a logical breakpoint (such as a 3 neighborhood boundary, significant arterial surface street, highway, river, other physical 4 or natural barrier or feature) or whether the end point extends unreasonably beyond a 5 natural break. Neighborhood or street boundary lines may help determine what is a 6 reasonable additional number of properties. 7 Interior Noise Levels Qualify. Once a residence is approved for block rounding, its 8 interior noise levels must meet the requirements in Paragraph R-7 in order for that 9 particular residence to be eligible. 10 Figure 9-1 identifies the proposed Program Areas for the recommended land use mitigation measures. 11 Table 9-1 provides detailed information regarding the number of dwelling units and noncompatible public 12 buildings within the Program Areas. Appendix K contains a listing of single- and multi-family dwelling 13 units and noncompatible public buildings located within the Program Areas. The list indicates which 14 dwelling units are included due to block rounding. The City of Key West is the local jurisdiction within the 15 Program Areas. 16 TABLE 9-1 17 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS AND NONCOMPATIBLE PUBLIC BUILDINGS 18 WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROGRAM AREAS 19 Dwelling Units or Less than DNL 65 to DNL 70 to DNL 75+ Noncompatible Public BuildingsDNL 65 dB70 dB75 dBdBTotal Unmitigated (i.e., Noncompatible) 1 Single-Family Residential 14 78 5 0 97 Low Density Multi-Family 4 11 0 0 15 2 Residential Key West by the Sea 103 103 0 0 206 Condominiums 3 23 Catholic Charities 023 0 0 4 5 Grace Lutheran Church & School 0 5 0 0 Total Unmitigated Dwelling Units12122050346 5 Mitigated(i.e., Compatible) Single-Family Residential 20 94 70 8 192 Low Density Multi-Family 4 0 4 0 0 Residential Total Mitigated Dwelling Units2098708196 Total Dwelling Units141318758542 1 20 Notes: Includes the two (2) parsonages associated with Grace Lutheran Church and School 2 21 Includes fifteen (15) dwelling units in seven (7) buildings 3 22 Includes twenty-three (23) dwelling units in St. Francis House, St. Bede’s, and the former parsonage. 4 23 Includes the Parish Hall and four (4) classroom buildings. 5 24 Dwelling units have been mitigated through participation in the NIP. 25 Numbers may not add, due to rounding. 26 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County, 2013. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-5 Noise Compatibility Program 1 9.3Corrective Land Use Actions 2 There are three main types of corrective land use actions that County of Monroe could pursue in the 3 vicinity of KWIA: 4 Land acquisition to change land use, 5 Land acquisition without change to land use, and 6 Noise insulation of noncompatible noise-sensitive structures. 7 Each of these options are described and analyzed in detail in the following sections. 8 9.3.1Land Acquisition to Change Land Use 9 Acquisition of land for noise compatibility is an option available to the County of Monroe and KWIA. The 10 objective is to convert the land to compatible uses. It is by far the most effective means of achieving land 11 use compatibility. However, purchase of sufficient land area to totally contain the significant noise 12 impacts in the vicinity of KWIA would be very costly and is impractical. In addition to the substantial 13 capital costs of acquiring parcels and relocating residents, there are also the intangible costs of 14 community and family disruption. Comparable replacement dwellings are scarce within the Key West 15 community and the Keys in general. Therefore, land acquisition to change land use should be limited to 16 those areas where other land use actions are not feasible or effective. Procedures and requirements for 17 such acquisition are as described in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 18 Policies Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-646, as amended), and in title 49 CFR part 24. 19 A land acquisition program to change land use for noncompatible dwelling units located within the 20 Program Areas would be eligible for funding through the AIP. Table 9-2 provides the detailed costs for 21 those dwelling units. For the purpose of this cost estimate, market values were obtained from the Monroe 22 County Property Appraiser’s office. Relocation and moving expenses were estimated at $33,500 for each 23 dwelling unit. Administrative costs, including but not limited to, abstract of title, appraisal, review 24 appraisal, boundary survey, environmental site assessment, legal, recording, demolition, property 25 management, and security costs were estimated at $40,000 per dwelling unit. 26 TABLE 9-2 27 COST ESTIMATE FOR LAND ACQUISITION TO CHANGE LAND USE 28 # of Relocation and Residence TypeUnitsMarket ValueMovingAdministrativeTotal $34,704,328 Single-Family 97 $27,574,828 $3,249,500 $3,880,000 1 $3,986,830 Multi-Family7 $2,884,330 $502,500 $600,000 $56,844,890 KWBTS Condos206 $41,703,890 $6,901,000 $8,240,000 Total310$72,163,048$10,653,000 $12,720,000 $95,536,048 1 29 Note: Includesfifteen (15) dwelling units in seven (7) buildings 30 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2013. 31 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-6 Noise Compatibility Program OPJTF!DPNQBUJCJMJUZ!TUVEZ! Opjtf!Jotvmbujpo!Qsphsbn! QBSU!261!! QSPHSBN!BSFB! OPJTF!DPNQBUJCJMJUZ!QSPHSBN!! Airport Noise Compatibility Program Key West International 8 - 9 13.docx - Key West NCP_07 \\ NCP \\ 12010302_Key West \\ W: 123456789 10111213141516171819 1 It is not anticipated that, if offered, all of the homeowners would choose participation in this program. 2 However, for the purpose of estimating maximum potential costs, all noncompatible dwelling units within 3 the Program Areas are included in the calculations in Table9-2. Catholic Charities and Grace Lutheran 4 Church and School were not considered for this program. 5 Title 49 U.S.C., Section 47107(c)(2)(A) provides that for land purchased under a grant for airport noise 6 compatibility purposes, the airport owner/operator will dispose of the land at fair market value at the 7 earliest practicable time after the land is no longer needed for a noise compatibility purpose or does not 8 have a documented need for airport development. Disposal is defined as lease, sale, or exchange (which 9 includes reclassification of the land as land needed for airport development). Any disposal must assure 10 that the land is re-used compatibly with aircraft noise exposure levels. The proceeds, at the discretion of 11 the FAA, may be returned to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund or reinvested in approved noise 12 compatibility or airport development projects. 13 Because the Noise Insulation Program (NIP) has been so successful, and the cost for a land acquisition 14 program to change land use would be very high, the Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise chose not to 15 recommend this alternative for the NCP. In addition, members of the public in attendance at the Ad-Hoc 16 Committee meetings were not in favor of this land use mitigation alternative. 17 Recommendation:Land acquisition to change land use is not recommended for inclusion in this 18 NCP. 19 9.3.2Land Acquisition Without Change to Land Use 20 The acquisition of noncompatible land in a voluntary transaction for subsequent resale without changing 21 the existing land use is another option available to the County. The objective is to achieve compatibility 22 without changing the land use. Acquisition procedures should be in conformance with the Uniform 23 Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-646, as amended), 24 and title 49 CFR part 24. In general, these transactions do not entail relocation benefits for residents. The 25 general intent of this option is to facilitate the timely sale of noise-impacted property, providing the 26 homeowner the opportunity to move from the noise-impacted area, while retaining the residential use of 27 the impacted neighborhood. 28 There are generally four methods of acquiring land for subsequent resale, or acquiring an interest in land, 29 to achieve compatibility without changing the existing land use. All four methods involve the reservation of 30 an avigation easement or similar interest permitting overflights and associated noise exposure. Resale of 31 homes with an easement provides fair disclosure and constitutes a suitable compatibility measure 32 according to Federal guidelines. The four methods are: 33 Purchase Assurance, 34 Transaction Assistance, 35 Purchase of an Avigation Easement, and 36 Purchase Homes, Provide Noise Insulation, then Resell with an Avigation Easement. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-9 Noise Compatibility Program 1 9.3.2.1Purchase Assurance 2 An airport offering Purchase Assurance will typically offer to pay the difference between the appraised 3 value and the owner’s open market sales price. The airport may choose to purchase the property for the 4 appraised value if the owner is unable to sell the property on his own within an established time frame. 5 Potential buyers must be provided with an appropriate disclosure statement which describes the airport 6 noise exposure on the property and the intention of the airport to retain an avigation easement or similar 7 interest. At conveyance of the property an avigation easement is placed on the property reserving to the 8 airport the right of over flight and associated noise exposure. 9 A purchase assurance program for residential parcels located within the Program Areas would be eligible 10 for funding through the AIP. Table 9-3 provides the detailed costs for those dwelling units. For the 11 purpose of this cost estimate, market values were obtained from the Monroe County Property Appraiser’s 12 office. The estimated net cost of purchase assurance (not including administrative costs) is ten percent of 13 the market value of the dwelling unit. Administrative costs, including abstract of title, appraisal, review 14 appraisal, boundary survey, environmental site assessment, legal, and recording costs were estimated at 15 $20,000 per parcel. 16 It is not anticipated that, if offered, all of the homeowners would choose participation in this program. 17 However, for the purpose of estimating maximum potential costs, all noncompatible dwelling units within 18 the Program Areas are included in the calculations in Table 9-3. Catholic Charities and Grace Lutheran 19 Church and School were not considered for this program. 20 TABLE 9-3 21 COST ESTIMATE FOR PURCHASE ASSURANCE 22 # of 10% of Market Residence TypeUnitsMarket ValueValueAdministrativeTotal 97 $27,574,828 Single-Family $2,757,483 $1,940,000 $4,697,483 1 7 $2,884,330 Multi-Family $288,433 $140,000 $428,433 206 $41,703,890 $8,290,389 KWBTS Condos $4,170,389 $4,120,000 Total310$72,163,048$7,216,305 $6,200,000 $13,416,305 1 23 Note: Includes fifteen (15) dwelling units in seven (7) buildings 24 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2013. 25 Because the Noise Insulation Program has been so successful, and Purchase Assurance does not 26 reduce interior noise levels, the Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise chose not to recommend this alternative for 27 the NCP. In addition, members of the public in attendance at the Ad-Hoc Committee meetings were not in 28 favor of this land use mitigation alternative. 29 : Purchase Assurance is not recommended for inclusion in this NCP. Recommendation 30 9.3.2.2Transaction Assistance 31 An airport offering Transaction Assistance will typically offer to reimburse owners the cost of selling noise- 32 impacted property. Allowable costs are generally limited to the real estate commission. Potential buyers W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-10 Noise Compatibility Program 1 must be provided with an appropriate disclosure statement which describes the airport noise exposure on 2 the property and the intention of the airport to retain an avigation easement or similar interest. The airport 3 never holds title to the property. At conveyance of the property an avigation easement is placed on the 4 property reserving to the airport the right of over flight and associated noise exposure. 5 A transaction assistance program for noncompatible dwelling units located within the Program Areas 6 would be eligible for funding through the AIP. Table 9-4 provides the detailed costs for those dwelling 7 units. For the purpose of this cost estimate, market values were obtained from the Monroe County 8 Property Appraiser’s office. The estimated cost of transaction assistance is approximately eight percent of 9 the market value of the dwelling unit (for the real estate commission), plus $10,000 per unit for 10 administrative costs. 11 It is not anticipated that, if offered, all of the homeowners would choose participation in this program. 12 However, for the purpose of estimating maximum potential costs, all noncompatible dwelling units within 13 the Program Areas are included in the calculations in Table9-4. Catholic Charities and Grace Lutheran 14 Church and School were not considered for this program. 15 TABLE 9-4 16 COST ESTIMATE FOR TRANSACTION ASSISTANCE 17 # of 8% of Market Residence TypeUnitsMarket ValueValueAdministrativeTotal 97 $27,574,828 Single-Family $2,205,986 $970,000 $3,175,986 7 $2,884,330 Multi-Family¹ $230,746 $70,000 $300,746 206 $41,703,890 KWBTS Condos $3,336,311 $2,060,000 $5,396,311 Total310$72,163,048$5,773,043 $3,100,000 $8,873,043 1 18 Note: Includes fifteen (15) dwelling units in seven (7) buildings 19 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2013. 20 Because the Noise Insulation Program has been so successful, and Transaction Assistance does not 21 reduce interior noise levels, the Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise chose not to recommend this alternative for 22 the NCP. In addition, members of the public in attendance at the Ad-Hoc Committee meetings were not in 23 favor of this land use mitigation alternative. 24 Recommendation: Transaction Assistance is not recommended for inclusion in this NCP. 25 9.3.2.3Purchase of Avigation Easements 26 It may be appropriate for an airport to purchase avigation easements where residents do not wish to 27 relocate, noise insulation is not feasible or desirable, or the cost of land acquisition and relocation are too 28 high. Avigation easements provide the airport with a limited form of control on surrounding properties, 29 while maintaining neighborhood character and stability. To ensure easement rights remain enforceable, a 30 mortgage holder’s interest in the property should be subordinated to the easement’s rights. 31 Subordination assures the easement rights will survive a foreclosure action and mortgagee or trustee sale 32 of the fee interest. After selling an easement to the airport, homeowners can still sell their homes; W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-11 Noise Compatibility Program 1 however, potential buyers must be provided with an appropriate disclosure statement which describes the 2 airport noise exposure on the property and the airport’s avigation rights in the form of the recorded 3 perpetual easement. 4 An easement is an interest in a property owned by another, in which the holder of the easement is 5 allowed a specific limited use of that property. The interest in the land is recorded with the property deed, 6 and transfers from owner to owner. There are many different types of easements; however, for the 7 purpose of this study, only avigation easements will be evaluated. An avigation easement provides right 8 of flight at any altitude above the approach surface and a right to create noise, vibrations, dust, fumes, 9 etc. without incurring any liability. Thus, the provider of an avigation easement has given up the right to 10 sue for noise or nuisance damages associated with the normal operation of aircraft to and from an airport. 11 Easements are significantly less expensive to acquire than full fee-simple interest. However, valuation of 12 an easement is a very difficult task. In Key West, market data is available within some of the Program 13 Areas to document the difference (if any) between sales of homes with avigation easement vs. those 14 without. However, there is an additional variable affecting the potential value difference, which is the 15 presence of noise insulation in the homes that have avigation easements. Therefore, the analysis could 16 indicate that the presence of an avigation easement has no negative impact on the sales price, and 17 therefore has no value. Airports around the country have successfully valued avigation easements 18 between $2,000 and $10,000 per household unit. 19 An avigation easement acquisition program for noncompatible dwelling units located within the Program 20 Areas would be eligible for funding through the AIP. Table 9-5 provides the detailed costs for those 21 parcels. For purposes of this cost estimate, $5,000 was utilized as the nominal value of an avigation 22 easement. Administrative costs, including abstract of title, legal, and recording costs were estimated at 23 $10,000 per parcel. 24 TABLE 9-5 25 COST ESTIMATE FOR AVIGATION EASEMENT ACQUISITION 26 # of Residence TypeUnitsEasementValueAdministrativeTotal $1,455,000 Single-Family 97 $485,000 $970,000 1 $105,000 Multi-Family 7 $35,000 $70,000 $3,090,000 KWBTS Condos 206$1,030,000 $2,060,000 2 Catholic Charities 1 $5,000$10,000$15,000 Grace Lutheran 1 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 2 Church and School Total308$1,560,000$3,120,000 $4,680,000 1 27 Note: Includes fifteen (15) dwelling units in seven (7) buildings 2 28 All facilities are located on a single parcel, and therefore eligible for only one avigation easement 29 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013;Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2012. 30 It is not anticipated that, if offered, all of the homeowners would choose participation in this program. 31 However, for the purpose of estimating maximum potential costs, all noncompatible dwelling units within W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-12 Noise Compatibility Program 1 the Program Areas are included in the calculations in Table9-5. Catholic Charities and Grace Lutheran 2 Church and School were also included as potential participants in this program, and each is eligible for 3 one easement acquisition. Each parcel containing a multi-family dwelling unit is eligible for one easement 4 acquisition. Appendix K contains a listing of single- and multi-family dwelling units and noncompatible 5 public buildings located within the Program Areas. The list indicates which dwelling units are included due 6 to block rounding. 7 Acquisition of easements does not reduce the noise impacts on people or by and of itself change 8 noncompatible land uses to compatible land uses. Nonetheless, purchase of an easement provides fair 9 disclosure and constitutes a suitable compatibility measure according to federal guidelines. 10 Homeowners within the Program Areas who choose not to participate in the Noise Insulation Program 11 (NIP), or whose home is determined ineligible for participation in the NIP, could be offered the option to 12 participate in an Avigation Easement Acquisition Program. 13 The NIP has been very successful, with a participation rate of 88 percent in Phases 1 through 7. 14 However, there were a few homeowners who chose not to participate for a variety of reasons. While the 15 purchase of avigation easements does not reduce interior noise levels, it does provide fair disclosure to 16 future buyers, and constitutes a suitable compatibility measure according to federal guidelines. Therefore, 17 offering to purchase an avigation easement from homeowners who do not want to or are identified as 18 ineligible to participate in the NIP provides a mechanism to achieve compatibility. For these reasons, the 19 Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise chose to recommend this alternative for the NCP. In addition, members of 20 the public in attendance at the Ad-Hoc Committee meetings were in favor of this land use mitigation 21 alternative. 22 :Purchase of Avigation Easements is recommended for inclusion in this NCP. Recommendation 23 9.3.2.4Purchase Homes, Provide Noise Insulation, then Resell with Easements 24 An airport offering to purchase homes, provide noise insulation, then resell the homes with avigation 25 easements will typically offer to purchase a noise-impacted property at its appraised value, install noise 26 attenuation materials in the structure, and reserve an easement, or similar interest, when the property is 27 resold. Potential buyers must be provided with an appropriate disclosure statement which describes the 28 airport noise exposure on the property, a description of the noise attenuation provided, and the intention 29 of the airport to retain an easement or similar interest. At conveyance of the property an easement is 30 placed on the property reserving to the airport the right of over flight and associated noise exposure. 31 Unlike the three options described above, this option provides true compatibility within the DNL 65 and 70 32 dB contours because interior noise levels are reduced to compatible levels through the installation of 33 appropriate noise attenuating materials. Homes within the DNL 75+ dB contour cannot be made truly 34 compatible under the compatible land use criteria even with noise insulation, although an easement 35 provides a measure of compatibility under FAA criteria. 36 In most cases, the aesthetic value as well as the appraised value of the structure is increased as a result 37 of upgrading windows and doors, sealing and weather stripping openings, adding thermal insulation in the W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-13 Noise Compatibility Program 1 attic, and installing acoustic baffling in vents. Usually, these types of modifications have the added 2 benefit of conserving air conditioning and heating. 3 A program to purchase, provide noise insulation, then resell the homes with avigation easements for 4 noncompatible dwelling units located within the Program Areas would be eligible for funding through the 5 AIP. Table 9-6 provides the detailed costs for those dwelling units. For the purpose of this cost estimate, 6 market values were obtained from the Monroe County Property Appraiser’s office. The estimated net cost 7 of purchase and resale (not including administrative costs) is estimated at ten percent of the market value 8 of the dwelling unit. Administrative costs, including abstract of title, appraisal, review appraisal, boundary 9 survey, environmental site assessment, legal, and recording costs were estimated at $20,000 per parcel. 10 Noise insulation costs were estimated at $50,000 for each dwelling unit. Administrative costs for noise 11 insulation, including design and construction oversight, were estimated at $24,000 per dwelling unit. 12 It is not anticipated that, if offered, all of the homeowners would choose participation in this program. 13 However, for the purpose of estimating maximum potential costs, all noncompatible dwelling units with 14 the Program Areas are included in the calculations in Table9-6. Catholic Charities and Grace Lutheran 15 Church and School were not considered for this program. 16 TABLE 9-6 17 COST ESTIMATE FOR PURCHASE, NIP, ANDRESALE 18 Residence # of 10% of Purchase TypeUnitsMarket ValueMarket ValueAdminNIPNIP AdminTotal $11,875,483 Single-Family 97 $27,574,828 $2,757,483 $1,940,000 $4,850,000 $2,328,000 1 $1,538,433 Multi-Family7 $2,884,330 $288,433 $140,000 $750,000 $360,000 KWBTS $23,534,389 206 $41,703,890$4,170,389$4,120,000 $10,300,000 $4,944,000 Condos Total310$72,163,048$7,216,305$6,200,000 $15,900,000 $7,632,000 $36,948,305 1 19 Note: Includesfifteen (15) dwelling units in seven (7) buildings 20 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2012. 21 In 1998, KWIA submitted the following measure for FAA approval: 22 A program to purchase existing homes, provide noise insulation, then resell the homes 23 with avigation easements is recommended for noncompatible single-family dwellings 24 (and multi-family dwellings of four units or less) within the DNL 65+dB contour of the Year 25 2003 Future Condition Noise Exposure Map, With Program Implementation. Priority 26 should be given first to homeowners located within the DNL 75 dB contour, then to 27 homeowners located within the DNL 70 dB contour, and finally to homeowners located 28 within the DNL 65 dB contour. The avigation easement will remain valid until noise levels 29 exceed those projected for the year 2003 Future Condition Noise Exposure Map, Without 30 Program Implementation. Eligible homeowners will be given the option of participating in 31 either this program or the noise insulation program in Measure 3 above. If funding is not 32 adequate to implement both programs simultaneously, Measure 3 will be offered first. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-14 Noise Compatibility Program 1 In its May 7, 1999 Record of Approval (ROA), FAA approved this measure. The measure was not 2 implemented. Because the Noise Insulation Program has been so successful on its own, and the cost for 3 acquisition would be very high, the Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise felt this measure was no longer 4 appropriate for the NCP. In addition, members of the public in attendance at the Ad-Hoc Committee 5 meetings were not in favor of this land use mitigation alternative. 6 : Approval of the measure recommending a program to purchase homes, Recommendation 7 provide noise insulation, then resell the homes with avigation easements, which was approved in 8 FAA’s May 7, 1999 ROA, should be rescinded in this NCP. 9 9.3.3Noise Insulation of Noncompatible Structures 10 Noise insulation usually involves reducing aircraft noise levels inside noise-sensitive structures by 11 decreasing the paths by which sound enters a building. Basic noise insulation methods include window 12 and door replacement, caulking, weather-stripping, and installing central air ventilation so that the 13 windows can be kept closed if the structure does not already have a central air ventilation system. 14 Usually, these types of modifications have the added benefit of conserving air conditioning and heating. 15 Eligible structures include residences (single-family and multi-family), schools, churches, and other 16 buildings located within the DNL 65 dB contour and identified in the NCP as noncompatible. Normally, 17 unless extenuating circumstances dictate, noise insulation should not be considered for structures within 18 a DNL 75 dB or greater noise contour since it is preferable to change the land use. 19 The purpose of noise insulation projects is to reduce the adverse impact of airport-related noise on 20 building occupants or residents. Noise insulation reduces the interference of aircraft noise with household 21 activities such as sleeping, talking on the telephone, and watching television, but it does not alter noise 22 impacts outside the home. 23 Noise insulation projects are not intended to compensate for inadequate maintenance, to bring 24 nonconforming structures up to building code standards, or to improve the comfort or attractiveness of a 25 building, although these benefits may result indirectly from the project. Because noise insulation is a 26 capital improvement that is likely to increase the value of a property, the airport should work with the 27 Monroe County Property Appraiser’s Office to develop an agreement to preclude increases in the 28 property’s assessed value, so the homeowner’s property taxes will not rise as a result of the project. 29 An easement or similar interest should be reserved by the County as a condition of participation in a 30 noise insulation program. To ensure easement rights remain enforceable, a mortgage holder’s interest in 31 the property should be subordinated to the easements rights. Subordination assures the easement rights 32 will survive a foreclosure action and mortgagee or trustee sale of the fee interest. 33 For residences located in areas where exterior noise exposure is DNL 65 dB, the requisite noise level 34 reduction (NLR) provided by the structure should be at least 20 dB in major habitable rooms. The 35 requisite NLR should be increased commensurate with any increase in exterior DNL above 65 dB. The 36 design objective in a residential noise insulation project should be to achieve the requisite NLR when the W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-15 Noise Compatibility Program 1 project is completed. (This is mathematically equivalent to achieving a DNL of 45 dB in all habitable 2 rooms.) The project design should be based on exterior DNL and existing NLR in the structure. 3 Since it takes an improvement of at least 5 dB in NLR to be perceptible to the average person, any 4 residential noise insulation project must be designed to provide at least that increase in NLR. For 5 example, a residence located in an area where the DNL is 73 dB has existing NLR of 26 dB. The requisite 6 NLR in that area is 28 dB (73-45). However, to meet the requirement for increasing the NLR by not less 7 than 5 dB, a noise insulation project for that residence should result in NLR of 31 dB (26+5). A residence 8 located in an area where the DNL is 67 dB has existing NLR of 16 dB. The requisite NLR in that area is 9 22 dB (67-45). Therefore, the noise insulation project should be designed to increase the NLR by 6 dB 10 (22-16). 11 Habitable areas of residences are living, sleeping, eating or cooking areas (single family and multi-family) 12 per the current version of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5000-9, Announcement of Availability Report No. 13 DOT/FAA/PP/92-5, Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Operations. 14 Bathrooms, closets, halls, vestibules, foyers, stairways, unfinished basements storage or utility spaces 15 are not considered to be habitable. 16 For schools, the usual design objective for a classroom environment is a time-average A-weighted sound 17 level of 45 dB resulting from aircraft operations during normal school hours. As with residential noise 18 insulation, a school project should reduce existing noise levels by at least 5 dB. For schools, noise 19 insulation is limited to classrooms, libraries, fixed seat auditoriums, and educator’s offices. Areas that are 20 used for incidental instruction, such as hallways, gymnasiums and cafeterias, are not eligible. 21 Grace Lutheran Church and School is comprised of seven (7) buildings, which include the Parish Hall, 22 four (4) classroom buildings, and two (2) parsonages. The Parish Hall includes the main worship space, 23 which is a fixed seat auditorium, as well as other associated worship and study rooms. The four (4) 24 classroom buildings include a total of twelve (12) classrooms. One of the classroom buildings is two 25 stories. The other three (3) classroom buildings are connected to each other via a covered walkway. 26 The noncompatible public buildings located at the Catholic Charities facility include the St. Francis House, 27 St. Bede’s (including the former church building and the apartment complex addition), and the former 28 parsonage. St. Francis House is comprised of ten (10) dwelling units, St. Bede’s apartment complex is 29 comprised of ten (10) dwelling units, the former church building includes one (1) dwelling unit, and the 30 former parsonage is comprised of two (2) dwelling units. Both the St. Francis House and the St. Bede’s 31 apartment complex addition are elevated because of building code requirements for construction in a 32 flood zone. 33 In 1998, KWIA submitted the following measures for FAA approval: 34 A program for noise insulation of existing noncompatible structures is recommended for 35 noncompatible single-family dwellings (and multi-family dwellings of four units or less) 36 within the DNL 65+dB contour of the Year 2003 Future Condition Noise Exposure Map, 37 With Program Implementation, in exchange for an avigation easement. Priority should be W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-16 Noise Compatibility Program 1 given first to homeowners located within the DM 70dB contour, and finally the 2 homeowners located within the DNL 75 dB contour, then to homeowners located within 3 the DNL 65 dB contour. The avigation easement will remain valid until noise levels 4 exceed those projected for the year 2003 Future Condition Noise Exposure Map, Without 5 Program Implementation. Eligible homeowners will be given the option of participating in 6 either this program or the purchase program in Measure 4 below. If funding is not 7 adequate to implement both programs simultaneously this program will be offered first. 8 A program for noise insulation of noncompatible structures isalso recommended for Key 9 West High School. At the time when the high school is being renovated, measures to 10 achieve a Noise Level Reduction (NRL) of 30 dB should be incorporated into the design 11 and construction of all classrooms, libraries, offices, and other rooms for which nose 12 insulation is specifically justified because of the substantial and disruptive effect of aircraft 13 noise. 14 In its May 7, 1999 Record of Approval (ROA), FAA approved these measures. The measures were 15 successfully implemented between 2000 and 2012. Key West High School was rebuilt with noise 16 attenuation measures incorporated in the design and construction of the buildings. 296 out of 338 eligible 17 participants participated in the residential NIP, which is a participation rate of 88 percent. 18 A noise insulation program for dwelling units and noncompatible public buildings located within the 19 Program Areas would be eligible for funding through the AIP. Table 9-7 provides the detailed costs for 20 those dwelling units and public buildings. Based on the costs incurred in the previous NIP, construction 21 costs were estimated at $50,000 for each dwelling unit and administrative costs for noise insulation, 22 including homeowner liaison, design, and construction phase services, were estimated at $25,000 for 23 each dwelling unit. The unit costs for the previous NIP were for single-family and low-density multi-family 24 dwelling units, not for condominiums. It is anticipated that the unit costs for condominiums and 25 townhouses could be less than for single-family and low-density multi-family dwelling units, but rather 26 than risk under estimating, the available unit costs were utilized for this cost estimate. 27 TABLE 9-7 28 COST ESTIMATE FOR NOISE INSULATION PROGRAM 29 # of NIP DescriptionUnitsNIPAdministrationTotal 1 Single Family 97 $4,850,000 $2,425,000 $7,275,000 2 Multi – Family15 $750,000 $375,000 $1,125,000 KWBTS Condos 206 $10,300,000 $5,150,000 $15,450,000 3 $1,725,000 Catholic Charities 23 $1,150,000 $575,000 4 $375,000 Grace Lutheran Church and School 5 $250,000$125,000 Total337$17,300,000 $8,650,000 $25,950,000 1 30 Note: Includes the two (2) parsonages associated with Grace Lutheran Church and School 2 31 Includes fifteen (15) dwelling units in seven (7) buildings 3 32 Includes twenty-three (23) dwelling units in St. Francis House, St. Bede’s, and the former parsonage. 4 33 Includes the Parish Hall and four (4) classroom buildings. 34 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2013. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-17 Noise Compatibility Program 1 It is not anticipated that, if offered, all of the property owners would choose participation in this program. 2 However, for the purpose of estimating maximum potential costs, all dwelling units and noncompatible 3 public buildings within the Program Areas are included in the calculations in Table9-7. 4 The Ad Hoc Committee on Noise discussed noise insulation of the noncompatible public buildings at 5 Grace Lutheran Church and School, Catholic Charities, and the residential dwelling units. Because the 6 Noise Insulation Program has been so successful, the Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise chose to recommend 7 this alternative. In addition, impacted homeowners in attendance at the Ad-Hoc Committee meetings 8 were in favor of this land use mitigation alternative. 9 Figure 9-1 shows the single- and multi-family dwellings and noncompatible public buildings located inside 10 the Program Areas that would potentially be eligible for participation in the NIP. Appendix K contains a 11 listing of single- and multi-family dwelling units and noncompatible public buildings located within the 12 Program Areas. The list indicates which dwelling units are included due to block rounding. 13 The avigation easement for the previous NIP for KWIA contained a maximum noise level limit, which if 14 exceeded, would invalidate the avigation easement and trigger an update to the Part 150 Noise 15 Compatibility Program. The Ad Hoc Committee decided that the avigation easement should remain valid 16 until noise levels exceeded those shown on the Year 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map. In 17 order to monitor compliance with this limit, the Committee proposed that KWIA update the noise contours 18 annually for comparison with the Year 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map. Appendix L 19 contains a sample avigation easement document for the NIP. 20 : A program for noise insulation of noncompatible structures, administered in Recommendation 21 compliance with FAA Program Guidance Letter 12-09, for noncompatible single-and multi-family 22 dwellingslocated within the Program Areas, as well as Grace Lutheran Church and School, and 23 the Catholic Charities facilityis recommended for inclusion in this NCP. Noise insulation will be 24 provided in exchange for an avigation easement. The avigation easement should remain valid 25 until noise levels exceed those shown onthe Year 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map. 26 In order to monitor compliance with this limit, KWIA should update the noise contours annually 27 for comparison with the Year 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map. 28 9.4Preventive Land Use Measures 29 Potentially new noncompatible land uses could include: 30 Areas currently undergoing residential or other noncompatible construction; 31 Areas zoned for residential or other noncompatible development where construction has 32 not begun; and 33 Areas currently compatible but in danger of being developed noncompatibility within the 34 time frame covered by the airport’s noise compatibility program. 35 The FAA has given extensive consideration to the subject of noncompatible land uses around airports. In 36 1993, the FAA established a Study Group on Compatible Land Use to assist in the development of a W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-18 Noise Compatibility Program 1 national strategy to prevent and reduce noncompatible land uses. The Study Group’s final report (FAA, 2 1995) concluded that, while Part 150 and its predecessor programs have contributed to the reduction of 3 existing noncompatible land use by mitigating and abating aircraft noise, they have been generally 4 ineffective in preventing noncompatible development from continuing in the airport environs. This is 5 particularly the case when airport owners are not the jurisdictions with land use control authority. 6 Because of the wide range of often opposing interests, it has proven difficult to reach a consensus on 7 how best to promote or require compatible land use planning controls. 8 Prevention of additional noncompatible land uses is dependent upon the cooperative efforts of airport 9 operators, state/local planners, other officials, and interested citizens. When a local jurisdiction allows 10 additional noncompatible development within the airport’s noise impact area, it can result in noise 11 problems for the people who move into the area. This can, in turn, result in noise problems for the 12 airport’s operator in the form of inverse condemnation or noise nuisance lawsuits, public opposition to the 13 airport, and local political pressure for airport operational and capacity limitations to reduce noise. 14 Following publication of the Study Group’s report, the FAA revised their policy on Part 150 land use 15 determinations and AIP funding. The impact of the FAA’s revised policy would be to preclude the use of 16 the Part 150 program and AIP funds to remediate new noncompatible development within the noise 17 contours of an airport after the effective date of the policy revision (January 1, 1998). By precluding this 18 option while at the same time emphasizing the array of preventive land use measures that may be 19 applied to potential new noncompatible development, the FAA seeks to focus airport operators and local 20 governments more clearly on using these Federal programs to the maximum extent to prevent 21 noncompatible development around airports, rather than attempting to mitigate noise in such 22 development after the fact. The FAA has determined that such a policy will better serve the public 23 interest. Federal funding would be available to assist airport operators in dealing with new noncompatible 24 development that is not being successfully controlled by local jurisdictions, so long as the airport’s 25 methods prevent the noncompatible development rather than mitigating it after development has 26 occurred. This should be a more cost-effective use of limited Federal dollars since remedial land use 27 measures generally cost more for a given unit than preventive measures. 28 9.4.1Zoning 29 Land use planning and the adoption, administration and enforcement of zoning regulation is an exclusive 30 authority and obligation retained by Florida’s local governments within their jurisdictions. This includes 31 authority for aviation and airport compatible land use. Chapter 333, Florida Statutes, requires local 32 governments to exercise their land use planning and regulation authority to protect airports from 33 noncompatible development and loss of navigable airspace. 34 Airspace protection is necessary to protect public airports and the navigable airspace needed to operate 35 them safely and efficiently. This is accomplished by regulating the height of objects. Chapter 333, 36 Florida Statutes, subsection 333.01(1) establishes the requirement and grants the authority for the 37 airspace protection compatible land use consideration. Airspace protection is provided by overlay height 38 zoning. The zoning must limit objects to navigable airspace heights. 39 Airport noise compatible land use is needed to promote public health and welfare while preserving airport 40 operating capability. Noncompatible development can be prevented and further development controlled W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-19 Noise Compatibility Program 1 by limiting noise-impacted or noise-sensitive uses. Chapter 333, Florida Statutes, subsections 2 333.03(2)(c) & (d), establish the requirement and grant the authority for the airport noise compatible land 3 use consideration. Noise compatibility is provided by establishing overlay zoning to limit noise-sensitive 4 land uses in the vicinity of airports. Controls should address current and future land use within specific 5 areas of exposure to airport-generated noise. 6 Compatible land use for public safety is required to minimize the risk of injury to the general public in the 7 event of an aviation accident. Controls are necessary to prevent interference with effective aircraft 8 accident emergency response and to limit the potential for additional aircraft damage or occupant injury. 9 Land use control is also needed to ensure conditions associated with a use will not interfere with the safe 10 operation of aircraft in flight. Chapter 333, Florida Statute, subsections 333.03(2)(a) & (b), establish the 11 intent, provide guidelines and grant the authority for public safety compatible land use regulation in airport 12 vicinities. Chapter 333, Florida Statute, subsection 333.03(3) establishes the specific requirement for 13 local government to enforce public safety compatible land use regulation in airport runway protection 14 zones. Public safety compatibility is established by overlay zoning that limits land uses to minimize risk 15 factors associated with aircraft operations. 16 In 1998, KWIA submitted the following measures for FAA approval: 17 Establishment of airport noise compatible land use zoning and public safety compatible 18 land use zoning is recommended, as required by Florida Statutes Chapters 163 and 333. 19 The County of Monroe will seek the cooperation of the City of Key West to establish 20 airport noise compatible land use zoning and public safety compatible land use zoning. 21 It is recommended that the County of Monroe direct a written request to the City of Key 22 West to rezone two vacant parcels to prevent noncompatible development. One parcel 23 on the southwest corner of Flagler Avenue and 11th Street would be rezoned from single 24 family residential development (SF) to an airport noise compatible land use zoning such 25 as limited commercial (LC). Another parcel on South Roosevelt Boulevard would be 26 rezoned from coastal low density residential (LDR–C) to an airport noise and public 27 safety compatible land use zoning such as limited commercial (LC). 28 In its May 7, 1999 Record of Approval (ROA), FAA approved these measures. Although requested in a 29 letter from Monroe County to the City of Key West, these measures were not implemented by the City of 30 Key West. Therefore, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends that FAA rescind approval of these measures 31 because two measures are being recommended to replace them. 32 On July 3, 1997, the City of Key West adopted Ordinance No. 97-10, which established airport hazard 33 zoning. Key West, Florida, Code of Ordinances, Subpart B - Land Development Regulations, Chapter 122 34 – Zoning, Article V. - Supplementary District Regulations, Division 9. - Airport Restrictions, Sections 122- 35 1436 through 122-1440 describe the airport hazard zoning regulations. The restrictions of this ordinance 36 are enforced by the City Zoning Administrator. 37 Ordinance No. 97-10 also established the Airport District. Key West, Florida, Code of Ordinances, 38 Subpart B - Land Development Regulations, Chapter 122 – Zoning, Article IV. - Districts, Division 14. - 39 Airport District (A), Section 122-1046 – Intent, states: W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-20 Noise Compatibility Program 1 (a) The purpose and intent of the airport district (A) is to provide a management framework for 2 implementing comprehensive plan policies for the Key West International Airport which is 3 designated "A" on the future land use map. All development proposed for the airport district 4 (A) district shall comply with the comprehensive plan and performance criteria in chapters 94, 5 102 and 106; articles I and III through IX of chapter 108; and chapters 110 and 114, as well 6 as other applicable land development regulations. 7 (b) Performance criteria within the land development regulations require that land use changes 8 adjacent to the Key West International Airport avoid encroaching upon the airport hazard 9 zone. Furthermore, land uses proposed within noise impact areas defined in the Federal 10 Aviation Administration (FAA) noise control regulations shall comply with Federal Aviation 11 Administration guidelines for managing noise impacts through land use regulation. The 12 airport district regulations establish the permitted uses and applicable restrictions within the 13 air operations area. The Federal Aviation Administration regulations shall govern the land 14 use, specifications and placement of structures within the airport operations area. 15 The paragraphs quoted above constitute the City of Key West’s airport noise compatible land use zoning 16 and public safety compatible land use zoning. The wording is vague and not specific enough to provide 17 adequate protection. 18 It is recommended that the City of Key West amend the wording in paragraph (b) to read as follows: 19 (b) Performance criteria within the land development regulations require that land use changes 20 adjacent to the Key West International Airport avoid encroaching upon the airport hazard 21 zone. Furthermore, noise-sensitive land uses proposed within the DNL 65+ dB noise contour 22 identified on the current Key West International Airport Noise Exposure Maps are prohibited 23 unless measures to achieve an outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of at least 25 24 dB (within the DNL 65 to 70 dB contour) and 30 dB (within the DNL 70 to 75 dB contour) are 25 incorporated in the design and construction of the structure. The airport district regulations 26 establish the permitted uses and applicable restrictions within the air operations area. The 27 Federal Aviation Administration regulations shall govern the land use, specifications and 28 placement of structures within the airport operations area. 29 Monroe County is currently in the process of acquiring the vacant parcel on South Roosevelt Boulevard, 30 to prevent noncompatible development. Since the City of Key West did not rezone the vacant parcel on 31 the corner of Flagler Avenue and 11th Street to an airport noise compatible land use zoning as 32 recommended and approved in the previous NCP, the Ad Hoc Committee on Noise agreed that approval 33 of the measure should be rescinded and replaced with a measure that is under the jurisdiction and control 34 of Monroe County. The replacement measure is discussed in Section 9.4.2, below. 35 : Approval of the measure recommending rezoning of two vacant parcels to Recommendations 36 prevent noncompatible development, which was approved in FAA’s May 7, 1999 ROA, should be 37 rescinded in this NCP. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-21 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Approval of the measure recommending establishment of airport noise compatible land use 2 zoning and public safety compatible land use zoning, which was approved in FAA’s May 7, 1999 3 ROA, should be rescinded in this NCP. 4 A formal request to the City of Key West to amend the wording of Key West, Florida, Code of 5 Ordinances, Subpart B -Land Development Regulations, Chapter 122 –Zoning, Article IV. - 6 Districts, Division 14. -Airport District (A), Section 122-1046 –Intent, paragraph (b) to prohibit 7 noise-sensitive land uses within the DNL 65+ dB noise contour of the KWIA NEMs unless 8 measures to achieve NLR of at least 25 dB (within the DNL 65 to 70 dB contour) and 30 dB (within 9 the DNL 70 to 75 dB contour) are incorporated in the design and construction of the structure is 10 recommended for inclusion in this NCP. 11 9.4.2Acquisition of Full or Partial Interest 12 Easements can be an effective strategy for assuring compatible development around airports. A major 13 advantage of easements for controlling land use around airports is that they can be permanent, whereas 14 zoning may be easily changed. Obtaining an easement does not reduce the noise impacts on people or 15 by and of itself change noncompatible land uses to compatible uses. However, a requirement to achieve 16 appropriate noise level reduction (outdoor to indoor) through incorporation of noise attenuation into the 17 design and construction of structures should be included in the provisions of the easement. 18 There are often locations or circumstances within the noise impact areas which leave little choice other 19 than direct acquisition of full or partial interest in the impacted land to prevent the introduction of 20 additional noncompatible development. The land could be resold with covenants or easements retained 21 to assure long-term compatibility. 22 There is a vacant parcel north of the airport fronting on Flagler Avenue, shown in Figure 9-2. It is 23 bounded by the Riviera Canal and 11th Street. The City of Key West’s Future Land Use Map and Zoning 24 Map designate a portion of this parcel C-TW (Conservation: Tidal Wetlands of the State) and the 25 remainder SF (Residential Development: Single Family Units). The Monroe County Property Appraiser’s 26 Office identifies this land as Parcel ID: 00065090-000100, Alternate Key: 8633394. It is currently owned 27 by Chabad of Key West Inc. Data obtained from the Monroe County Property Appraiser’s Office indicates 28 there are 1.55 acres of land designed 010D – Residential Dry and 2.70 acres of land designated 000X – 29 Environmentally Sensitive. The 2012 total assessed value of this parcel was $600,000. The most recent 30 sale occurred on July 30, 2004, for $675,000. An appraisal has not been performed to determine the 31 current fair market value of the parcel. 32 Key West, Florida, Code of Ordinances, Subpart B - Land Development Regulations, Chapter 122 – 33 Zoning, Article IV. - Districts, Division 2. – Conservation District (C), Section 122-126 – Intent, states that 34 no development shall be permitted within the conservation district and/or within waters below mean high 35 water, wetlands, upland habitats or yellow heart hammocks unless the applicant for such development 36 provides proof of permits or proof of exemptions from all applicable state or federal agencies having 37 jurisdiction. Where the city determines that development should be allowed to occur for purposes of 38 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-22 Noise Compatibility Program GJHVSF!! :.3! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-24 Noise Compatibility Program 1 avoiding a taking, the density in no case shall exceed one unit per ten acres, and site alteration shall be 2 limited to ten percent of the entire site. 3 Key West, Florida, Code of Ordinances, Subpart B - Land Development Regulations, Chapter 122 – 4 Zoning, Article IV. - Districts, Division 3. – Residential Districts, Section 122-231 – Intent, states the SF 5 district is designed to accommodate single-family permanent residential development and may also 6 include one accessory attached or detached unit per principal dwelling unit. The SF district shall not 7 include transient accommodations. Supportive community facilities and accessory land uses may be 8 located within areas designated for single-family residential uses. 9 In 1998, KWIA submitted the following measure for FAA approval: 10 It is recommended that the vacant parcel on the southwest corner of Flagler Avenue and 11 11th Street be acquired to prevent noncompatible development if the City of Key West 12 does not rezone the parcel to an airport noise compatible land use zoning. 13 In its May 7, 1999 Record of Approval (ROA), FAA approved this measure, under the following 14 conditions: 15 Approved under 14 CFR part 150 with respect to the described vacant land within the 16 DNL 65 dB contour where it can be demonstrated that the property is in imminent danger 17 of being developed noncompatibly and local controls are insufficient to prevent that 18 development. Mitigation with respect to new noncompatible development that isallowed 19 to occur on this property is outside the parameters of this part 150 approval. However, 20 the FAA would encourage local government to exercise its prerogative to change the 21 zoning to a compatible use prior to development. 22 Since the City of Key West did not rezone the vacant parcel on the corner of Flagler Avenue and 11th 23 Street to an airport noise compatible land use zoning as recommended and approved in the previous 24 NCP, the Ad Hoc Committee on Noise agreed that approval of the measure should be rescinded and 25 replaced with a measure that is under the jurisdiction and control of Monroe County. Because a portion of 26 this parcel is zoned SF, and the Land Development Regulations allow noncompatible development within 27 this area, the Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise felt it was important to protect this parcel from development as 28 a noncompatible land use. The Ad Hoc Committee on Noise agreed that it was unnecessary and too 29 expensive to purchase full fee simple interest in the parcel. Instead, it was recommended that an 30 avigation easement be acquired which prevented noncompatible development on the parcel and limited 31 development to uses that are compatible with aircraft noise. Appendix M contains a sample avigation 32 easement document which prevents noncompatible development. 33 Acquisition of an avigation easement from the owner of the vacant parcel (Parcel ID: 00065090-000100) 34 located within the Program Areas would be eligible for funding through the AIP. The avigation easement 35 should prevent new noncompatible development by requiring measures to achieve NLR of at least 25 dB 36 (within the DNL 65 to 70 dB contour) and 30 dB (within the DNL 70 to 75 dB contour) be incorporated in 37 the design and construction of the structure(s). Table 9.8 provides the detailed costs for this parcel. For W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-25 Noise Compatibility Program 1 purposes of this cost estimate, $5,000 was utilized as the nominal value of an avigation easement. 2 Administrative costs, including abstract of title, legal, and recording costs were estimated at $10,000 per 3 parcel. 4 TABLE 9-8 5 COST ESTIMATE FOR AVIGATION EASEMENT ACQUISITION FOR VACANT PARCEL 6 # of Parcel IDUnitsEasement ValueAdministrativeTotal 00065090-000100 1 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 Total1$5,000$10,000$15,000 7 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2012. 8 Other vacant parcels exist around the airport. Most of them contain salt ponds, mangroves, and limited 9 upland. It appears these parcels are adequately protected from noncompatible development through 10 their zoning as conservation lands. 11 FAA policy on Part 150 noise mitigation measures indicates that FAA will approve only preventive noise 12 mitigation for potential new noncompatible development. 13 : Approval of the measure recommending acquisition of the vacant parcel Recommendation 14 located on the southwest corner of Flagler Avenue and 11th Street, which was approved in FAA’s 15 May 7, 1999 ROA, should be rescinded in this NCP. 16 Acquisition of an Avigation Easement from the owner of the vacant parcel on the southwest 17 corner of Flagler Avenue and 11th Street (Parcel ID: 00065090-000100) to prevent new 18 noncompatible developmentis recommended for inclusion in this NCP. 19 9.4.3Transfer of Development Rights 20 Transfer of development rights (TDR) involves separate ownership and use of various “rights” associated 21 with a parcel of real estate. Under the TDR concept, some of the property’s development rights are 22 transferred to a remote location where they may be used to intensify allowable development. With TDR, 23 for example, lands within the airport’s noise impact area could be kept in open space or agricultural uses 24 and their development rights for residential uses transferred to locations outside the area. Landowners 25 could be compensated for the transferred development rights by the sale of those rights at the new 26 location, or the rights could be purchased by the airport. Depending on market conditions and/or legal 27 requirements, the airport could either hold or resell the rights. The TDR approach must be fully 28 coordinated with the community’s planning and zoning. It may be necessary for the zoning ordinance to 29 be amended in order to permit TDRs. Also, such transfers must usually be contained within single zoning 30 jurisdictions. 31 Recommendation:Transfer of development rights is not recommendedfor inclusion in this NCP. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-26 Noise Compatibility Program 1 9.5Summary 2 This section presented a variety of land use alternatives for consideration at KWIA. Table 9-9 3 summarizes the land use alternatives, describes advantages and disadvantages of each, and indicates 4 which alternatives are recommended for inclusion in this NCP for KWIA. 5 The following recommendations were approved by the Ad Hoc Committee for inclusion in the NCP: 6 Rescind approval of the measure recommending a program to purchase homes, provide 7 noise insulation, then resell the homes with avigation easements, which was approved in 8 FAA’s May 7, 1999 ROA. 9 Provide noise insulation for noncompatible single- and multi-family dwellings within the 10 Program Areas, in exchange for an avigation easement. 11 Provide noise insulation for Grace Lutheran Church and School, in exchange for an 12 avigation easement. 13 Provide noise insulation for the Catholic Charities facility, in exchange for an avigation 14 easement. 15 Offer to purchase an avigation easement from owners of noncompatible dwelling units 16 and/or public buildings that do not wish to participate or are identified as ineligible to 17 participate in the NIP. 18 Rescind approval of the measure recommending rezoning of two vacant parcels to 19 prevent noncompatible development. 20 Rescind approval of the measure recommending acquisition of the vacant parcel located 21 on the southwest corner of Flagler Avenue and 11th Street, which was approved in FAA’s 22 May 7, 1999 ROA. 23 Offer to purchase an avigation easement from the owners of the vacant parcel located on 24 the southwest corner of Flagler Avenue and 11th Street (Parcel ID: 00065090-000100) 25 which prevents noncompatible development by requiring measures to achieve outdoor- 26 to-indoor NLR of at least 25 dB be incorporated in the design and construction of the 27 structure(s). 28 Rescind approval of the measure recommending establishment of airport noise 29 compatible land use zoning and public safety compatible land use zoning, which was 30 approved in FAA’s May 7, 1999 ROA. 31 Request that the City of Key West amend the wording of Key West, Florida, Code of 32 Ordinances, Subpart B - Land Development Regulations, Chapter 122 – Zoning, Article 33 IV. - Districts, Division 14. - Airport District (A), Section 122-1046 – Intent, paragraph (b) 34 to prohibit noise-sensitive land uses within the DNL 65+ dB noise contour of the KWIA 35 NEMs unless measures to achieve outdoor-to-indoor NLR of at least 25 dB (within the 36 DNL 65 to 70 dB contour) and 30 dB (within the DNL 70 to 75 dB contour) are 37 incorporated in the design and construction of the structure(s). 38 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-27 Noise Compatibility Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 9-28 Noise Compatibility Program Airport NoNoNoNo YesYesYesYes Recommended? Noise Compatibility Program Key West International closed Disadvantages VES CONSIDERED High capital costDisrupts neighborhoods resortlevelsselling homelevelslevelsand real estate brokerlevelslevelslevelslevels Airport may become buyer of last Does not reduce interior noise Homeowner maintains burden of Does not reduce interior noise Does not reduce interior noise Airport becomes property manager Does not reduce exterior noise Only effective with windows Does not reduce exterior noise Only effective with windows closedDoes not reduce exterior noise Only effective with windows closedDoes not reduce exterior noise Only effective with windows closed 9 - 29 - 9 TABLE 9 MITIGATION ALTERNATI Advantages Eliminates noncompatible land use move away from the airport receive fair market valueeasementthose who want to move away from the airporteasementhomeowners who want to remain in the neighborhoodfrom the airport if they desire to do so Guarantees those who want to Provides compatibility through Reimburses certain expenses to Airport never takes titleProvides compatibility through Provides monetary value to Provides compatibilityReduces interior noise levelsProvides compatibilityAllows residents to move away Reduces interior noise levelsProvides compatibilityReduces interior noise levelsProvides compatibilityReduces interior noise levelsProvides compatibility - SUMMARY OF LAND USE and Multi - 13.docx - Grace Lutheran Alternative Key West NCP_07 \\ NCP \\ Land Acquisition to Change Land UsePurchase Assurance Transaction AssistancePurchase Avigation EasementsPurchase Homes, Provide Noise Insulation then Resell with EasementsNoise Insulation of SingleFamily Dwelling Units within the Program AreaNoise Insulation of Church and SchoolNoise Insulation of the Catholic Charities Facility 12345678 No. 12010302_Key West \\ W: 123 Airport NoNoNo YesYes Recommended? Noise Compatibility Program Key West International Disadvantages VES CONSIDERED jurisdictionjurisdictionowner Requires cooperation of another Requires cooperation of another High capital costRequires cooperation of property Limited available land 30 - 9 9 (CONTINUED_ - MITIGATION ALTERNATI TABLE 9 Advantages developmentdevelopmentdevelopmentdevelopmentinterestinterest Prevents future noncompatible Prevents future noncompatible Prevents future noncompatible Prevents future noncompatible Lower cost than acquisition of full Lower cost than acquisition of full SUMMARY OF LAND USE Rights 13.docx - Alternative Key West NCP_07 \\ existing zoning regulations NCP \\ Change Existing Zoning of two vacant parcelsAmend Acquisition of vacant land to prevent noncompatible developmentAcquisition of an avigation easement for vacant land to prevent noncompatible developmentTransfer of Development 9 11121314 No. 12010302_Key West \\ W: 12 1 10.0CONSIDERATION OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENTALTERNATIVES 2 10.1Introduction 3 The success of the Noise Compatibility Program requires a continuing effort to monitor compliance and 4 identify new or unanticipated problems and changing conditions. This section identifies various 5 alternatives that could become components of such a program. Monroe County and the airport staff are 6 responsible for implementing these measures. 7 10.2Noise Compatibility Program Management 8 Typically, the management of an ongoing NCP involves the designation of a person (or persons) that will 9 manage the short- and long-term activities related to noise at the airport. The NCP may involve the 10 implementation of several actions that will require the close management and coordination by the 11 facilitator of the NCP. 12 Historically, the airport has operated with very limited staff and, because of budget constraints, has been 13 hesitant to hire additional staff. As a result, the role of the Airport Noise Program Coordinator has been 14 fulfilled by the airport’s noise consultant. The Airport Noise Program Coordinator performed the following 15 tasks, which were eligible for funding through the AIP: oversight and administration of the AIP-funded 16 noise mitigation program, receiving and responding to noise complaints, preparing agendas and meeting 17 minutes for the Ad Hoc Committee, and answering questions from the public regarding the airport’s noise 18 program. 19 The following additional tasks could also be performed by the Airport Noise Program Coordinator, as 20 appropriate: reviewing compliance with noise abatement procedures, operating and maintaining the noise 21 and flight track monitoring system. 22 The airport should continue to provide an Airport Noise Program Coordinator to maintain responsibility for 23 noise compatibility program management. The airport has the option of continuing to utilize a consultant 24 to fulfill the role of the Airport Noise Program Coordinator, or hire an experienced individual as an addition 25 to the airport staff. The estimated cost of an Airport Noise Program Coordinator is $75,000 per year. 26 :Maintaining responsibility for NCP management, by hiring staff or utilizing the Recommendation 27 airport’s noise consultant to fulfill the role ofAirport Noise Program Coordinatoris recommended 28 for inclusion in this NCP. 29 10.3Public Involvement Program 30 The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners established the Ad Hoc Committee on Noise May 31 16, 1995, by board motion. Ad Hoc Committee meetings provide the public with an opportunity to 32 express their viewpoints, ideas and concerns about aircraft noise resulting from aircraft operations to and 33 from Key West International Airport. Historically, the Ad Hoc Committee on Noise has been a valuable 34 forum for interacting with the public and disseminating information about KWIA’s noise program. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 10-1 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Each of the committee members represents one or more constituent interests: neighborhood residents, 2 public agencies, and aviation users. Currently, there are nine regular members and two alternates. Four 3 of the regular members and one alternate represent neighborhood residents; four regular members and 4 the other alternate represent aviation users, and one non-voting member represents the Monroe County 5 Board of County Commissioners. Traditionally, the County Commissioner from District 1 is the BOCC 6 representative and chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee. The committee members act as a conduit for 7 information to and from their constituents on issues related to airport and aircraft noise. There is no set 8 term for committee members. The Ad Hoc Committee generally meets on a bi-monthly (i.e., every other 9 month) basis. Agenda packages are distributed in advance of each meeting, and minutes of each 10 meeting are prepared and approved by the committee. The annual meeting schedule, agenda packages, 11 and meeting minutes are posted on the Ad Hoc Committee’s website. 12 The Ad Hoc Committee on Noise has historically been successful in maintaining the public’s involvement 13 in the airport’s noise program. 14 :Continuing the Ad Hoc Committee on Noise is recommended for inclusion in Recommendation 15 this NCP. 16 10.4Pilot Information Program 17 This measure is intended to educate, inform, and notify pilots and airport users of the airport’s voluntary 18 noise abatement measures with the goal of increasing awareness and promoting the use of these 19 measures. 20 While various components of KWIA’s noise abatement program are published in several locations (e.g., 21 Airport Facilities Directory, AirNav.com), a comprehensive description of the program does not exist in a 22 readily accessible form or location. It is recommended that a full color informational insert in a format that 23 is compatible with the Jeppesen Sanderson manual be developed that provides a description of all 24 components of KWIA’s voluntary operational noise abatement program. This would be useful for 25 educating both citizens and pilots. 26 Island City Flying Service is the airport’s Fixed Based Operator. Historically, they have been very 27 supportive of the airport’s noise abatement efforts, and have encouraged pilots to abide by voluntary 28 noise abatement procedures. It is recommended that color copies of the pilot handout be placed in a 29 countertop brochure holder in an accessible location at the FBO, and a framed, weatherproof, large scale 30 version be clearly posted where it can be seen by pilots as they enter and exit the FBO on the airside. 31 Key West Seaplane Adventures, Key West Bi-Planes, Island Aeroplane Tours, Key West Seaplanes, and 32 FedEx are also located at the airport. It is recommended that color copies of the pilot handout be provided 33 to each company for distribution to their pilots. 34 Since the voluntary noise abatement procedures also apply to commercial pilots, it is recommended that 35 color copies of the pilot handout be provided to each airline station manager for distribution to their crews, 36 and a framed, weatherproof, large scale version be clearly posted where it can be seen by pilots as they 37 enter and exit the terminal on the airside. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 10-2 Noise Compatibility Program 1 The estimated cost for 2,000 copies of the pilot handout is $1,600, and for two signs is $1,000. Prior to 2 release, language in the pilot handout should be reviewed for wording and content by the appropriate 3 FAA office. The content of the pilot handout is subject to specific approval by appropriate FAA officials. 4 Whispertrack™ is a service that allows airports to distribute information about their noise abatement 5 procedures (NAPs) to pilots through iPads and flight planning services. They have developed an online 6 interface that provides airports the ability to create and manage their own noise abatement procedures. 7 This gives airports the ability to choose what, when, and how their procedures are published and provides 8 access to widespread distribution channels previously unavailable to them and provides pilots with an 9 innovative way to get the information they need to adhere to the airport’s noise abatement procedures. 10 Currently, Whispertrack™ interfaces with ForeFlight and ARINC, and plans to add Honeywell, 11 AirNav.com, and Universal Aviation in the near future. The cost for this service is currently $195 per 12 month ($2,340 per year). 13 It is also recommended that lighted information signs be purchased and installed on the airfield to 14 promote use of noise abatement procedures. These signs will replace the existing signs. Prior to 15 purchase and installation, proposed language on signage must be reviewed and approved by the FAA. 16 The signs must be designed and installed in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-18E, 17 Standards for Airport Sign Systems. The estimated cost for two signs is $15,000, including installation. 18 :Preparation, printing, and distribution of a full color informational insert in a Recommendations 19 format that is compatible with the Jeppesen Sanderson manual, which describes all voluntary 20 noise abatement procedures,is recommended for inclusion in this NCP.Posting of framed, 21 weatherproof, large scale versionsof the pilot handout that can be seen by pilots as they enter 22 and exit the FBO and terminal on the airside is alsorecommended for inclusion in this NCP. 23 Purchasing a subscription to Whispertrack™to facilitate distribution of voluntary noise 24 abatement procedures is recommendedfor inclusion in this NCP. 25 Purchase and installation of lighted airfield information signs to promote use of voluntary noise 26 abatement proceduresis recommendedfor inclusion in this NCP. 27 10.5Noise and Flight Track Monitoring Program 28 Numerous comments were received from the public regarding location of flight tracks and adherence to 29 noise abatement procedures. In order to effectively monitor compliance with recommended, albeit 30 voluntary, procedures, Monroe County should establish a noise and flight track monitoring program. 31 Monroe County should acquire a noise and flight track monitoring system to facilitate this effort. The 32 system should have the capability to identify aircraft operations, display their flight tracks, record their 33 noise levels, and provide a method to store and analyze associated data. Two portable noise monitoring 34 units should be acquired initially, in conjunction with an FAA-approved flight track monitoring system. 35 The aircraft operations and flight track data collected will be extremely valuable for updating noise 36 contours. Results of periodic noise monitoring, as well as analysis of flight tracks, should be included in 37 the annual noise contour update report. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 10-3 Noise Compatibility Program 1 The objectives of the noise and flight track monitoring program are as follows: 2 Provide accurate data to aid in the calculation of aircraft noise contours. 3 Provide accurate flight track and profile data to monitor and encourage compliance with 4 voluntary noise abatement procedures at KWIA. 5 Provide data to concerned citizens, local officials, and aircraft operators regarding aircraft 6 operations at KWIA. 7 Respond to noise complaints by correlating flight track information with aircraft ownership 8 data and accurately determining the circumstances leading to complaints. 9 The noise and flight track monitoring system will not be used for enforcement purposes either by in-situ 10 measurement of any preset noise thresholds or for mandatory enforcement of any voluntary measure. 11 The acquisition of a noise and flight track monitoring system would be eligible for funding through the AIP. 12 A system consisting of two portable noise monitors and an FAA-approved flight track monitoring system 13 will cost approximately $300,000. 14 :Establishing a noise and flight track monitoring program, and acquiring two Recommendation 15 portable noise monitors and an FAA-approved flight track monitoring system is recommended for 16 inclusion in this NCP. 17 10.6Noise Program Update 18 To understand the possible changes in noise impacts due to airport operations and changes in objectives 19 and land use, it may be desirable to routinely re-examine the noise and land use compatibility 20 characteristics of the airport. On a routine basis, the operational characteristics of the airport should be 21 re-examined and new noise contours developed. Changes in land use and zoning should also be 22 reviewed periodically. 23 Title 14 CFR part 150, §150.21(d) requires airport operators to update their NEMs when a change in Day 24 Night Level (DNL) of 1.5 decibels (dB) has occurred over any noise sensitive land use. A change may 25 consist of: 26 (1)Increases in non-compatible land uses inside the noise contours and/or an increase of 27 DNL 1.5 dB or greater over land which was formerly compatible (e.g., one that was 28 outside the DNL 65 dB contour), but is now non-compatible (e.g., now inside the DNL 65 29 contour), or 30 (2)Increases over previously determined non-compatible land uses, or 31 (3)Decreases of non-compatible land uses and/or a decrease of DNL 1.5 dB or greater over 32 a former noncompatible land use (e.g., one that was inside the DNL 65 dB contour) that 33 becomes compatible (e.g., now outside the DNL 65 dB contour) as a result of the noise 34 reduction. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 10-4 Noise Compatibility Program 1 FAA funding decisions are based on accurate Noise Exposure Maps, and KWIA will be receiving Federal 2 funds to carry out NCP noise mitigation program recommended in this NCP. FAA Program Guidance 3 Letter 05-4 provides instructions on this matter to FAA Regional and Airports District Offices. The 4 instructions are: 5 Absent information to the contrary, NEMs on file with the FAA for less than 5 years may 6 be presumed to be current and project eligibility may be determined using either the 7 existing or forecast conditions NEMs on file with FAA. However, if there is information 8 indicating that the NEMs on file with the FAA do not reflect recent significant changes that 9 have occurred at the airport that would affect the noise contours, or if the NEMs are older 10 than 5 years, the sponsor must certify the existing or forecast year NEM reflects current 11 conditions at the airport, or the sponsor must submit updated NEMs. 12 The previous NCP included a recommendation to prepare annual noise contour updates to compare the 13 Future Condition Noise Exposure Map projected noise levels to the noise levels generated from actual 14 aircraft operations. The comparison of these two noise levels was used to determine whether the NIP 15 avigation easement remained a valid agreement. 16 If the annual noise contour update meets the criteria identified in title 14 CFR part 150, §150.21(d) as 17 described above, an update to the NEMs will be required. If the updated NEMs change the boundary of 18 the noise mitigation program, an amendment or update to the NCP will be required. Preparation of annual 19 noise contour updates, as well as NEM and/or NCP updates, would be eligible for funding through the 20 AIP. The estimated cost for annual noise contour updates is $35,000 per year. The estimated cost of an 21 NEM or NCP update is $250,000 each. 22 :An annual noise contour update is recommended for inclusion in this NCP. Recommendation 23 10.7Summary 24 This section presented a variety of program management alternatives for consideration at KWIA. 25 Table10-1 summarizes the program management alternatives, describes advantages and disadvantages 26 of each, and indicates which alternatives are recommended for inclusion in this NCP for KWIA. 27 The following measures were recommended for inclusion in this NCP: 28 Maintain responsibility for NCP management by hiring staff or utilizing the airport’s noise 29 consultant to fulfill the role of Airport Noise Program Coordinator. 30 Continue holding meetings of Monroe County’s Ad Hoc Committee on Noise. 31 Prepare, print, and distribute full color informational inserts in a format that is compatible 32 with the Jeppesen Sanderson manual, which describe all voluntary noise abatement 33 procedures. 34 Post framed, weatherproof, large scale versions of pilot handout on the airside at the 35 FBO and airline terminal. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 10-5 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Subscribe to Whispertrack™ to facilitate distribution of voluntary noise abatement 2 procedures. 3 Purchase and install lighted airfield information signs to promote use of voluntary noise 4 abatement procedures. 5 Establish a noise and flight track monitoring program by acquiring two portable noise 6 monitors and an FAA-approved flight track monitoring system. 7 Continue to prepare an annual noise contour update for comparison with the NEMs. 8 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 10-6 Noise Compatibility Program Airport YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes Recommended? Noise Compatibility Program Key West International RED dedicated staff site - work effort for airport Disadvantages or consultant Personnel costs for Additional staffRequires time commitment from committee membersCost of repeated printingOnly available to pilots after they arrive at the airport for the first timeOnly available to pilots after they arrive at the airport for the first timeCost of annual subscriptionCurrently on available on two flight planning servicesCost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining signsCost of purchase and maintenance of the systemAdditional work effort for airport staffAnnual cost for updating contoursCould result in changes to Program Areas and eligibility for NIP Consultant not on ALTERNATIVES CONSIDE 1 - 10 7 - 10 TABLE about noise Advantages accurate data for date - tement procedures to - Public has a consistent point of contactFacilitates accurate and timely dissemination of information to the publicProvides a consistent forum for public participationProvides access to accurate information about noise abatement proceduresHelp educate pilots and airport usersProvides access to accurate informationabatement proceduresHelp educate pilots and airport usersProvides access to accurate information about noise abaProvides access prior to pilot’s initial arrival at the airportReminds pilots of noise abatement procedures just prior to departureProvide development of noise contoursProvide accurate information for responding to the public and pilotsContinues the airport’s commitment to noise issuesReassures the public and FAA that the NEMs are accurate and up PROGRAM MANAGEMENT n o large nually SUMMARY OF of Airport 13.docx - terminal role ill ulf Alternative monthly meetings of the - to f FBO and or utilize airport noise Key West NCP_07 \\ framed, weatherproof, NCP \\ Hire staff consultant Noise Program CoordinatorContinue biAd Hoc Committee on NoisePrepare, print, and distribute pilot information handoutPost scale version of pilot handout airside at Purchase subscription to Whispertrack™Purchase and install lighted airfield information signs to promote use of voluntary noise abatement proceduresPurchase two portable noise monitors and a flight track monitoring systemUpdate noise contours an 12345678 No. 12010302_Key West \\ W: 1234 Airport Noise Compatibility Program Key West International 8 - 10 13.docx - Key West NCP_07 \\ NCP \\ 10302_Key West 120 \\ W: 123456789 10111213141516171819 1 11.0RECOMMENDED NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM 2 11.1Summary of Recommended Measures 3 The objective of this recent noise compatibility planning process for KWIA is to improve the compatibility 4 between aircraft operations and noise-sensitive land uses, while allowing the airport to continue to serve 5 its role in the community. The result of this planning process is a Noise Exposure Map (NEM) and a 6 recommended Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). Specific recommended NCP elements are 7 summarized in this chapter. These recommendations are those of the Key West International Airport, the 8 Monroe County Ad Hoc Committee on Noise, and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 9 not those of their consultant or any third party. 10 Several operational, land use, and program management alternatives were evaluated by the study team 11 for their potential effectiveness at KWIA. In accordance with part 150 §B150.7, noise control alternatives 12 must be considered and presented for which the airport operator has adequate implementation authority, 13 for which the implementation authority is vested in a local governing body, and for which authority is 14 vested in the FAA or other Federal agency. The airport is owned and operated by the County of Monroe. 15 Section 11.2 details the recommendations for which the County of Monroe is seeking FAA approval 16 under the Part 150 Study process. Section 11.3 lists measures that the County of Monroe and/or Key 17 West International Airport have vested authority to implement. The County of Monroe is not seeking FAA 18 approval for measures listed in Section 11.3. Section 11.4 provides details regarding the implementation 19 of the recommended measures, including the implementation authority and cost of each measure. 20 11.2Measures Recommended for FAAApproval 21 1.Provide noise insulation fornoncompatible structures in exchange for avigation 22 easements 23 It is recommended that owners of noncompatible dwelling units and/or public buildings located 24 within the Program Areas be offered the opportunity to participate in the Noise Insulation Program 25 (NIP), as described in Section 9.3.3. The NIP shall include noncompatible single- and multi- 26 family dwelling units located within the Program Areas, as well as Grace Lutheran Church and 27 School, and the Catholic Charities Facility. 28 Property owners will be required to grant avigation easements to Monroe County in exchange for 29 noise insulation. The avigation easement will remain valid until noise levels exceed those shown 30 on the Year 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map. Appendix L contains a draft of this 31 avigation easement. 32 2.Purchase avigation easements 33 It is recommended that owners of noncompatible dwelling units and/or public buildings located 34 within the Program Areas that do not wish to participate, or are identified as ineligible to 35 participate, in the NIP be offered the opportunity to participate in the Avigation Easement 36 Acquisition Program, as described in Section 9.3.2.3. The Avigation Easement Acquisition W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 11-1 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Program shall include noncompatible single- and multi-family dwelling units located within the 2 Program Areas, as well as Grace Lutheran Church and School, and the Catholic Charities 3 Facility. 4 3.Rescind approval of the measure to purchase homes, provide noise insulation, and then 5 resell the homes with avigation easements 6 In its May 7, 1999 Record of Approval of the Key West Noise Compatibility Program, the FAA 7 approved a measure to purchase homes, provide noise insulation, and resell the homes with an 8 avigation easement. It is recommended that approval of this measure be rescinded due to the 9 successful implementation of the Noise Insulation Program, and the high cost of implementing 10 such a measure, as described in Section 9.3.2.4. 11 4.Rescind approval of the measure to rezone two vacant parcels 12 In its May 7, 1999 Record of Approval of the Key West Noise Compatibility Program, the FAA 13 approved a measure to rezone two vacant parcels to prevent noncompatible development. th 14 These properties are located at the corner of Flagler Avenue and 11Street, and on South 15 Roosevelt Boulevard adjacent to airport property. It is recommended that approval of this 16 measure be rescinded. It will be replaced with a measure that will be under the jurisdiction of 17 Monroe County, rather than the City of Key West, as described in Section 9.4.1. 18 5.Rescind approval of the measure to acquire the vacant parcel at the corner of Flagler th 19 Avenue and 11Street 20 In its May 7, 1999 Record of Approval of the Key West Noise Compatibility Program, the FAA 21 approved a measure to acquire the vacant parcel, located at the corner of Flagler Avenue and th 22 11 Street, to prevent noncompatible development. It is recommended that approval of this 23 measure be rescinded. It will be replaced with a measure that will be under the jurisdiction of 24 Monroe County, rather than the City of Key West, as described in Section 9.4.2. 25 6.Purchase an avigation easement fromthe owner of the vacant parcel at the corner of th 26 Flagler Avenue and 11Street 27 It is recommended that the owner of the vacant parcel located at the corner of Flagler Avenue th 28 and 11 Street (Parcel ID: 00065090-000100) be offered the opportunity to sell an avigation 29 easement to Monroe County, as described in Section 9.4.2. In addition to permitting aircraft 30 overflight and associated noise, this avigation easement will specifically prohibit noncompatible 31 development on this parcel by requiring outdoor-to-indoor NLR of at least 25 dB be incorporated 32 into the design and construction of structures that will accommodate noise sensitive uses. 33 Appendix M contains a draft of this avigation easement. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 11-2 Noise Compatibility Program 1 7.Rescind approval of the measure to establish airport noise and public safety compatible 2 land usezoning 3 In its May 7, 1999 Record of Approval of the Key West Noise Compatibility Program, the FAA 4 approved a measure directing Monroe County and the City of Key West to develop airport noise 5 and public safety compatible land use zoning to prevent noncompatible development in the 6 vicinity of the airport. It is recommended that approval of this measure be rescinded. It will be 7 replaced with a similar measure, as described in Section 9.4.2. 8 8.Update noise contours annually 9 In order to monitor compliance with the avigation easement noise level limit, it is recommended 10 that the County of Monroe update the KWIA noise contours on a yearly basis for comparison to 11 the Year 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map, as described in Section 10.6. 12 9.Hirestaff or utilize a consultant to fulfill the roleof Airport Noise Program Coordinator 13 It is recommended that Monroe County and KWIA hire a staff person or utilize their airport noise 14 consultant to fulfill the role of Airport Noise Program Coordinator, as described in Section 10.2. 15 10.Prepare, print, and distribute full color informational inserts in a format that is compatible 16 with the Jeppesen Sanderson manual, which describe all voluntary noise abatement 17 procedures 18 It is recommended that KWIA prepare, print, and distribute a full color informational insert in a 19 format that is compatible with the Jeppesen Sanderson manual that provides a description of all 20 components of KWIA’s voluntary operational noise abatement program. This would be useful for 21 educating both citizens and pilots. It is recommended that KWIA provide color copies of the pilot 22 handout to the FBO and airline station managers, and ask that they be placed in accessible 23 locations at the FBO and distributed to pilots. This measure is described in Section 10.4. Prior to 24 release, language in the pilot handout should be reviewed for wording and content by the 25 appropriate FAA office. The content of the pilot handout is subject to specific approval by 26 appropriate FAA officials. 27 11.Post framed, weatherproof, large scale versions of pilot handout on the airside at the FBO 28 and airline terminal 29 It is recommended that KWIA provide a framed, weatherproof, large scale version of the pilot 30 handout to the FBO to be posted on the airside where it can be seen by pilots as they enter and 31 exit the FBO, as described in Section 10.4. It is also recommended that KWIA post a framed, 32 weatherproof, large scale version of the pilot handout on the airside at the airline terminal where it 33 can be seen by pilots as they enter and exit the terminal, as described in Section 10.4 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 11-3 Noise Compatibility Program 1 12.Purchase and install lighted airfield information signs to promote use of voluntary noise 2 abatement procedures 3 It is recommended that that KWIA purchase lighted information signs to be installed on the airfield 4 to promote use of noise abatement procedures, as described in Section 10.4. These signs will 5 replace the existing signs. Prior to purchase and installation, proposed language on signage must 6 be reviewed and approved by the FAA. The signs must be designed and installed in accordance 7 with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-18E, Standards for Airport Sign Systems. 8 13.Establish a noise and flight track monitoring program by acquiring two portable noise 9 monitors and an FAA-approved flight track monitoring system 10 It is recommended that KWIA establish a noise and flight track monitoring program, and acquire 11 two portable noise monitors and an FAA-approved flight track monitoring system, as described in 12 Section 10.5. The noise and flight track monitoring system will not be used for enforcement 13 purposes either by in-situ measurement of any preset noise thresholds or for mandatory 14 enforcement of any voluntary measure. 15 11.3Measures to be Implemented by Monroe County and/or Key West International Airport 16 1.Voluntary use of Ground Power Units when time and safety permit 17 It is recommended that aircraft make voluntary use of available Ground Power Units (GPUs) in 18 place of the on-board aircraft Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) when time and safety permit, as 19 described in Section 8.2.1. The use of GPUs may reduce ground noise associated with the 20 operation of the airport, and will reduce emissions and fuel usage by aircraft. 21 2.Continue voluntary use of designated aircraft run-up location 22 It is recommended that Key West International Airport continue the voluntary use of the 23 designated run-up location between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and the mandatory use of the 24 designated run-up location between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. as described in Section 8.2.2. 25 3.Voluntary use of intersection departures on Runway 09 26 It is recommended that aircraft departing from Runway 09 use an intersection departure at 27 Taxiway C, weather and aircraft performance permitting, as described in Section 8.3.1. The use 28of the Taxiway C intersection departure will reduce departure noise at noise sensitive locations 29 west of Runway 09. 30 4.Voluntary southerly helicopter arrival and departure tracks 31 It is recommended that rotary wing aircraft (aka helicopters), depart and arrive to the south to 32 avoid low overflights of noise sensitive land uses directly north of the airport, as described in 33 Section 8.4.3. The helicopters have the ability to safely operate at altitudes below those at which 34 the NASKW aircraft are transitioning through the airspace, and as a voluntary measure, would not 35 apply to the “first responder” helicopter operations that occur at KWIA. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 11-4 Noise Compatibility Program 1 5.Adherence to voluntary practices for air tour and aerial advertising flights 2 It is recommended that pilots of all air tour and/or aerial advertising flights adhere to the voluntary 3 practices set forth in FAA AC 91-36D and/or the Community Operational Sensitivity standards 4 included in the “Aerial Media Code of Conduct,” as described in Section 8.4.4. 5 6.Continue voluntary avoidance of direct flight over Key West by the Sea by pilots of air 6 tours and aerial advertising flights 7 It is recommended that KWIA continue to discourage pilots of air tours and aerial advertising 8 flights from flying directly over Key West by the Sea, as described in Section 8.4.4. 9 7.Continueuse of a wide variety of flight paths on approach to Runway 09 10 It is recommended that smaller aircraft continue to use a variety of flight paths during daytime 11 hours as they approach to land on Runway 09, as described in Section 8.4.2. 12 8.Continue voluntary useof noise abatement arrival and departure procedures 13 It is recommended that KWIA continue the voluntary use of the NBAA close-in noise abatement 14 departure procedure. Further, it is recommended that VFR aircraft continue the voluntary use of 15 specific departure procedures requiring maintaining runway heading until reaching the airport 16 boundary. In addition, it is recommended that the appropriate arriving and departing aircraft use 17 voluntary propeller and power adjustments, as safety allows. These measures are described in 18 Section 8.5.3. 19 9.Continue voluntary curfew between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 20 It is recommended that KWIA continue the voluntary curfew on aircraft activity between 11:00 21 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. as described in Section 8.5.5. 22 10.Amend land development regulationsto prohibit noncompatible land uses within the DNL 23 65+ dB noise contour 24 It is recommended that Monroe County make a formal request to the City of Key West to amend 25 the wording of Key West, Florida, Code of Ordinances, Subpart B - Land Development 26 Regulations, Chapter 122 – Zoning, Article IV. - Districts, Division 14. - Airport District (A), Section 27 122-1046 – Intent, paragraph (b) to prohibit noncompatible land uses within the DNL 65+ dB 28 noise contour of the KWIA NEMs by requiring indoor-to-outdoor NLR be incorporated into the 29 design and construction of buildings, as described in Section 9.4.1. 30 11.Continue holding meetings of Monroe County’s Ad Hoc Committee on Noise 31 It is recommended that Monroe County and KWIA continue holding meetings of the Ad Hoc 32 Committee on Noise, as described in Section 10.3. The Ad Hoc Committee on Noise has been a 33 valuable forum for interacting with the public and disseminating information about KWIA’s noise 34 program. Ad Hoc Committee meetings provide the public with an opportunity to express their W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 11-5 Noise Compatibility Program 1 viewpoints, ideas and concerns about aircraft noise resulting from aircraft operations to and from 2 Key West International Airport. 3 12.Subscribe to Whispertrack™ to facilitate distribution of voluntary noise abatement 4 procedures 5 It is recommended that KWIA purchase a subscription to Whispertrack™ to facilitate distribution 6 of voluntary noise abatement procedures, as described in Section 10.4. 7 11.4Implementation Plan 8 Primary responsibility for implementation of all the above recommended measures rests with the Monroe 9 County. Table11-1 indicates the implementation responsibility and estimated cost of each 10 recommended measure. It is anticipated that the FAA will play an important and substantial role in 11 funding the implementation of remedial land use mitigation. 12 Monroe County intends to fund the implementation of grant-eligible NCP recommendations through the 13 utilization of Federal funding through the noise set-aside portion of the Airport Improvement Program 14 (AIP). Monroe County anticipates that approximately $3 million per year in AIP funding will be available to 15 them for implementation of the recommended program. However, the FAA’s approval of the NCP 16 recommendations does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the 17 implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered under the program are 18 eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. As 19 a result, implementation of the recommendations will progress as funding becomes available. The FAA 20 Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 stipulates that the Federal share is 90 percent, through Fiscal 21 Year 2015. It is unknown if the Federal share will change after 2015. Monroe County will provide the 10 22 percent matching share. Historically, Monroe County has utilized Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) 23 revenue to fund their matching share. 24 Because the demand for Federal funds exceeds the amount available, a priority system is used by FAA to 25 evaluate projects on the basis of standardized criteria. Projects are then ranked according to their 26 national priority to ensure that discretionary funds are used more effectively. For example, noise 27 compatibility in the DNL 70 to 75 dB noise contour has a higher priority than noise compatibility in the 28 DNL 65 to 70 dB noise contour. 29 Figures 11-1 through 11-3 illustrate the Program Areas. Within the Program Areas, eight phases were 30 created based on noise levels, location relative to the airport, and the estimated funding level of 31 approximately $3 million per year. 32 Table11-2 delineates the number of dwellings, by type, and anticipated cost for mitigation within the 33 Program Areas. At this point, it is impossible to estimate actual participation in each recommended 34 program. Therefore, Table 11-2 presents the cost estimate for the most costly scenario (i.e., the NIP). 35 Design costs were estimated at $16,000 per dwelling unit and construction phase services at $9,000 per 36 dwelling unit, for a total of $25,000 per dwelling unit for NIP administration costs. Construction was W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 11-6 Noise Compatibility Program 1 estimated at $50,000 per dwelling unit, for a total of $59,000 per dwelling unit for NIP costs. The total cost 2 was estimated at $75,000 per dwelling unit. 3 The cost for the Catholic Charities facility and Grace Lutheran Church and School were each estimated at 4 $700,000 for construction and $200,000 for administration ($130,000 for design, $70,000 for construction 5 phase services). 6 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 11-7 Noise Compatibility Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 11-8 Noise Compatibility Program Airport FundsFunds Sources Not Applicable Not ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot Applicable FAA AIP Grant FAA AIP Grant Potential Funding $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 Noise Compatibility Program Cost Key West International $4,680,000 Estimated $ $25,395,000 M OngoingOngoingOngoingOngoingOngoing Timing for Not Applicable Implementation 2015 through 20242015 through 2024 As soon as possibleAs soon as possibleAs soon as possibleAs soon as possible COMPATIBILITY PROGRA 1 - 9 None KWIAKWIAKWIAKWIAKWIAKWIAKWIAKWIAKWIAKWIAKWIA - Implement 11 ED NOISE Responsibility to TABLE 11 NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo YesYes Yes Approval? Requesting FAA arrival SUMMARY OF RECOMMEND of noise se easements 13.docx 7:00 a.m. - up location of intersection - flights procedures flight over KWBTS Key West NCP_07 \\ and departure tracks NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES aircraft run approach to Runway 09 for avigation easements 11:00 p.m. and with avigation easements departures on Runway 09 NCP Description of Measures \\ Provide noise insulation for when time and safety permit Voluntary use Purchase avigation purchase homes, provide noise Continue voluntary u abatement arrival and departure flight paths by smaller aircraft on Continue voluntary curfew between Rescind approval of the measure to Adherence to voluntary practices by Voluntary southerly helicopter insulation, and then resell the homes Continue voluntary use of designated Continue voluntary use of a variety of Voluntary use of Ground Power Units noncompatible structures in exchange Continue voluntary avoidance of direct pilots of air tours and aerial advertising 123456789123 No. 12010302_Key West OPERATIONALLAND USE MITIGATION MEASURES\\ W: 123 Airport Local Local oror Funds Budget Budgets Sources Not ApplicableNot ApplicableNot Applicable FAA AIP Grant FAA AIP Grant FAA AIP Grant Funds FAA AIP Grant Funds Local Operating Local Operating Funds and Local Operating BudgetOperating Budget Operating Budget Potential Funding $0$0$0 Noise Compatibility Program Cost Key West International posters framed, $15,000 for KWIA and printing Estimated $ weatherproof for City of Key $1,000 for two graphic design West and KWIA $1,600 for 2,000 copies, including $75,000 annually Minimal staff time Minimal staff time TY PROGRAM Timing for Not ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot Applicable Implementation is made availableis made availableis made available As soon as funding As soon as funding As soon as funding As soon as possibleAs soon as possible NoneNoneNone 10 KWIAKWIAKWIA - Key West and KWIA and KWIA Implement 1 (CONTINUED) 11 - KWIA, Monroe County, City of Monroe County Monroe County ED NOISE COMPATIBILI Responsibility to TABLE 11 NoNo YesYesYesYesYesYes Yes Approval? Requesting FAA SUMMARY OF RECOMMEND large scale terminal public safety on the airside 13.docx - Street approval of the measure to FBO and airline Key West NCP_07 \\ NCP Description of Measures rezone two vacant parcels \\ compatible land use zoning Noise Program Coordinator framed, weatherproof, compatible with the Jeppesen the DNL 65+ dB noise contour at the of Flagler Avenue and 11th Street corner of Flagler Avenue and 11th Rescind Rescind approval of the measure to Rescind approval of the measure to Hire staff to fill the position of Airport the owner of the vacant parcel at the Continue holding meetings of Monroe Prepare, print, and distribute full color County’s Ad Hoc Committee on Noise Purchase an avigation easement from Sanderson manual, which describe all informational inserts in a format that is voluntary noise abatement procedures acquire the vacant parcel at the corner versions of pilot handout Post prohibit noncompatible land uses within establish airport noise and Amend land development regulations to 456781234 No. 12010302_Key West PROGRAM MANAGEMENT MEASURES\\ W: Airport Local or FundsFunds Budget Sources FAA AIP Grant Funds FAA AIP Grant FAA AIP Grant Local Operating Operating Budget Potential Funding annually Noise Compatibility Program Cost Key West International $300,000 installation Estimated $ signs, including $15,000 for two $2,340 $35,000 annually TY PROGRAM Timing for Starting in 2015 Implementation is made availableis made available As soon as funding As soon as funding As soon as possible 11 KWIAKWIAKWIAKWIA - Implement 1 (CONTINUED) 11 - ED NOISE COMPATIBILI Responsibility to TABLE 11 No YesYes Yes Approval? Requesting FAA - SUMMARY OF RECOMMEND 13.docx - Key West NCP_07 \\ abatement procedures NCP Description of Measures \\ Subscribe to Whispertrack™ to Update noise contours annually Establish a noise and flight track Purchase and install lighted airfield information signs to promote use of monitoring program by acquiring two portable noise monitors and an FAA facilitate distribution of voluntary noise voluntary noise abatement procedures approved flight track monitoring system 5678 No. 12010302_Key West \\ W: 1 Airport Noise Compatibility Program Key West International 12 - 11 13.docx - Key West NCP_07 \\ NCP \\ 12010302_Key West \\ W: 123456789 10111213141516171819 NOISE COMPATIBILITY STUDY Key West by the Sea PART 150 PROGRAM AREA NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM11-1 FIGURE Airport Noise Compatibility Program Key West International 14 - 11 13.docx - Key West NCP_07 \\ CP N \\ 12010302_Key West \\ W: 123456789 1011121314151617181920 NOISE COMPATIBILITY STUDY 4th and 5th Street PART 150 PROGRAM AREA NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM11-2 FIGURE Airport Noise Compatibility Program Key West International 16 - 11 13.docx - Key West NCP_07 \\ CP N \\ 12010302_Key West \\ W: 123456789 1011121314151617181920 NOISE COMPATIBILITY STUDY Flagler Avenue Area PART 150 PROGRAM AREA NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM11-3 FIGURE Airport Noise Compatibility Program Key West International 18 - 11 13.docx - Key West NCP_07 \\ CP N \\ 12010302_Key West \\ W: 123456789 1011121314151617181920 1 TABLE 11-2 2 COST ESTIMATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION 3 # of NIP Residence TypeNIPTOTAL UnitsAdministration Single Family 97 $4,850,000 $2,425,000 $7,275,000 Multi – Family 15 $750,000 $375,000 $1,125,000 KWBTS Condos 206 $10,300,000 $5,150,000 $15,450,000 Catholic Charities 23 $700,000 $200,000 $900,000 Grace Lutheran 5 $700,000 $200,000 $900,000 Church and School TOTAL346$17,300,000 $8,350,000 $25,650,000 4 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2013. 5 Table 11-3 presents the anticipated years of implementation by phase and the estimated cost per year. 6 Eligible participants for each phase are listed in Appendix O. 7 Prior to implementation of Phase 1 of the NIP, it may be necessary to conduct an Initial Testing Phase 8 (ITP), as described in Draft FAA Order 5100.38D, Appendix R, Table R-4. In this phase, the dwelling units 9 within the Program Areas will be characterized by housing type and location (i.e., exterior noise level). 10 Differences in dwelling unit age, construction type (e.g., concrete block, wood frame with stucco, wood 11 frame with siding), size, number of levels, and type of housing (e.g., single-family detached, single family 12 attached, multi-family detached, multi-family attached) will be identified. Once the diversity of the dwelling 13 units has been characterized, a representative sample of each type of dwelling unit will be selected for 14 the ITP. The ITP will include a minimum of 10 percent of each identified dwelling unit type. Consistent 15 with FAA Program Guidance Letter 12-09, all habitable rooms within each selected dwelling unit will be 16 tested. In addition, the noise testing will be consistent with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5000-9 in the areas 17 of microphone placement, room averaging, etc. Unique noise insulation packages will then be designed 18 to reduce the interior noise level of each identified dwelling unit type. 19 A “proposed testing phase protocol” will be developed and submitted to the FAA Orlando Airports District 20 Office for review. The ADO has the option to review the sampling protocol. After ADO review or after the 21 ADO has indicated that the protocol will not be reviewed, noise insulation of the dwelling units in the ITP 22 will occur. Upon completion of the construction, all habitable rooms within each selected dwelling unit will 23 be re-tested in the same manner as they were prior to construction. A summary report will be prepared 24 and submitted to the ADO detailing the effectiveness of the design packages for each identified dwelling 25unit type. The before and after interior noise level data will be included in the report. The report will also 26 include recommendations for any changes to the packages. 27 The number of dwelling units to be included in the ITP was estimated at 40, and the cost for the ITP was 28 estimated at $80,000 per dwelling unit since each dwelling unit must be tested. Dwelling units for the ITP W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 11-19 Noise Compatibility Program 1 will be selected from Phases 1 through 8. The specific dwelling units to be included in the ITP cannot be 2 identified at this time, so the number of dwelling units (and their associated cost) in Phases 1 through 8 3 was not reduced to account for the ITP. 4 TABLE 11-3 5 PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6 Number Of Cost Per Fiscal Fiscal YearPhaseDwelling Estimated Cost Year Units 2015 Initial Testing Phase 40$3,200,000 $3,200,000 2016Phase 1 Design42$672,000$672,000 Phase 1 Construction 42$2,478,000 2017 $3,182,000 Phase 2 Design 44$704,000 Phase 2 Construction 44$2,596,000 2018 $3,204,000 Phase 3 Design 38$608,000 Phase 3 Construction 38$2,242,000 2019 $2,914,000 Phase 4 Design 42$672,000 Phase 4 Construction 42$2,478,000 2020 $3,182,000 Phase 5 Design 44$704,000 Phase 5 Construction 44$2,596,000 2021 $3,268,000 Phase 6 Design 42$672,000 Phase 6 Construction 42$2,478,000 2022 $3,182,000 Phase 7 Design 44$704,000 Phase 7 Construction 44$2,596,000 2023 $3,208,000 Phase 8 Design 25$612,000 2024 Phase 8 Construction 25$2,838,000 $2,838,000 7 Source: URS Corporation, 2013. 8 9 11.5PROGRAM REVISION 10 Title 14 CFR Part 150 §150.21(d) indicates that if any change in the operation of KWIA would create any 11 “substantial, new noncompatible use” in any area depicted on the map beyond that which is forecast for 12 the 2014 Future Condition, the airport shall promptly prepare and submit a revised NEM. Title 14 CFR 13 Part 150 §150.21(d) (2) indicates that if any change in the operation of KWIA would significantly reduce 14 noise over existing noncompatible uses that is not reflected in either the existing conditions or forecast 15 noise exposure map, the airport shall promptly prepare and submit a revised NEM. If a revision to the 16 NEM becomes necessary for either of these reasons, the NCP will be revised accordingly. 17 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 11-20 Noise Compatibility Program 1 12.0 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 2 12.1Introduction 3 Title 14 CFR part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, requires that each noise exposure map and 4 noise compatibility program must be developed and prepared in consultation with FAA regional officials, 5 the officials of the state and of any public agencies and planning agencies whose area, or any portion of 6 whose area, of jurisdiction is within the DNL 65 dB contour depicted on the noise exposure map, and 7 other Federal officials having local responsibility for land uses depicted on the map. This consultation 8 must include regular aeronautical users of the airport, including air carriers and other aircraft operators. 9 Prior to and during the development of a program, and prior to submission of the resulting draft program 10 to the FAA, the airport operator shall afford adequate opportunity for the active and direct participation of 11 the states, public agencies and planning agencies in the areas surrounding the airport, aeronautical users 12 of the airport, and the general public to submit their views, data, and comments on the formulation and 13 adequacy of that program. 14 The County of Monroe, operator of Key West International Airport, certifies that it has afforded interested 15 persons adequate opportunity to submit their views, data, and comments concerning the correctness and 16 adequacy of the draft noise exposure maps, descriptions of forecast aircraft operations, and the 17 formulation and adequacy of the noise compatibility program. Documentation describing the consultation 18 accomplished during the development of the noise exposure maps and noise compatibility program and 19 the opportunities afforded the public to review and comment are included in this section and associated 20 appendices. 21 12.2Identification of Consulted Parties 22 Title 14 CFR part 150 §150.21(b), §150.23(c), and §A150.105(a) specify the parties that must be 23 consulted during development of the noise exposure maps and noise compatibility program. Accordingly, 24 the following parties were contacted and requested to provide input as appropriate: 25 Federal Aviation Administration, 26 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 27 U.S. Navy, 28 Florida Department of Transportation, 29 State Historic Preservation Office, 30 State Clearinghouse, 31 City of Key West, 32 County of Monroe, 33 Air Carriers, and W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 12-1 Noise Compatibility Program 1 Other Aeronautical Users. 2 Copies of correspondence with these parties are included in Appendix P. 3 12.3Monroe County Ad Hoc Committee on Noise 4 The County of Monroe established the Ad Hoc Committee on Noise. The committee is composed of 5 airport neighbors, airport users, and the airport operator. Ad Hoc Committee meetings provide diverse 6 interests an opportunity to directly experience the viewpoints, ideas, and concerns of other committee 7 members. The Ad Hoc Committee generally meets on a bi-monthly basis. During the course of the Part 8 150 study, the Committee met in December 2011; February, April, June, August, October, and 9 December, 2012; and February, April, June 2013 to discuss issues related to the Part 150 study. 10 The Ad Hoc Committee played an important role in the course of the noise compatibility study. Each of 11 the members represented one or more constituent interests: neighborhood residents, public agencies, 12 and aviation users. The committee members brought together the study team and the people they 13 represented. The study team benefitted from the unique viewpoints and had access to the people and 14 resources each committee member represented. In addition, the study team needed a forum in which to 15 present information, findings, ideas, and recommendations during the course of the study. The 16 committee members informed their constituents about the study as it progressed, and brought into the 17 committee the views of others. The study team needed their work scrutinized closely for accuracy, 18 completeness of detail, clarity of thought, and intellectual honesty. The committee pointed out any 19 shortcomings and suggested improvements. 20 Appendix Q contains a list of current Ad Hoc Committee members, newspaper advertisements 21 announcing the meetings, and copies of agendas and minutes for the meetings which occurred during the 22 development of the noise compatibility program. 23 12.4Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 24 The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) oversees the management and operation of all airports 25 within the County, including KWIA. It is comprised of five elected officials, each representing a different 26 district. The BOCC meets monthly in Key Largo, Marathon, or Key West. The consultant will attend a 27 BOCC meeting in Key West to present the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Noise. The 28 BOCC will hold a public hearing to receive comments from the public regarding the Part 150 Noise 29 Compatibility Program. 30 12.5Public Hearing 31 A Public Hearing will be held regarding the findings and recommendations of the Noise Compatibility 32 Program. The Public Hearing is intended to provide the public an opportunity to make recorded formal 33 statements in favor of or opposed to the recommended noise compatibility program. This will give the 34 BOCC an opportunity to hear the public's input prior to making final decisions regarding the 35 recommended noise compatibility program. W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 12-2 Noise Compatibility Program 1 The Part 150 document will be made available for public review prior to the public hearing. The 2 document will be available for review at the KWIA Director’s office, the BOCC Office of Commissioner 3 Danny Kolhage, and the Monroe County Public Library. 4 A summary of the comments received at the public hearing will be included in Appendix R, as required 5 by §150.23(e)(7). This appendix will contain a copy of all written material submitted, together with the 6 response and disposition of those comments, and materials to demonstrate the program is feasible and 7 reasonably consistent with obtaining the objectives of airport noise compatibility planning under title 14 8 CFR part 150. 9 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 12-3 Noise Compatibility Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 W:\\12010302_Key West\\NCP\\Key West NCP_07-13.docx Key West International Airport 12-4 Noise Compatibility Program Appendix I Noise Analysis for Proposed Runway 9 Visual Approach Procedure KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED RUNWAY 9 VISUAL APPROACH PROCEDURE P REPARED FOR MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS O PERATOR OF KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P REPARED BY June, 2003 Revised December, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STUDY CONCLUSIONS............................................................................1 REQUEST FOR THIS STUDY.........................................................................................................1 STUDY APPROACH ..................................................................................................................1 STUDY CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................1 PROPOSED RUNWAY 9 NOISE ABATEMENT VISUAL APPROACH PROCEDURE NOISE ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................................................2 1.0INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................2 2.0METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................2 2.1Review of Existing Condition.................................................................................2 2.2Use of FAA’s Integrated Noise Model...................................................................2 2.3Selection of the FAA’s Time Above Noise Metric for Comparative Purposes.......3 2.4Selection of Time Above Noise Level Compatibility Thresholds...........................4 3.0RUNWAY 9 VISUAL ARRIVAL ALTERNATIVES...............................................................4 3.1DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ARRIVAL TRACKS.................................................4 3.1.1Existing Visual Arrival Tracks.................................................................................4 3.1.2Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure Arrival Track................4 3.2Development of Alternative Approach Path Slopes............................................................5 3.3Development of Noise Exposure Modeling Alternatives.....................................................5 3.3.1 Alternative 1: 2002 Existing Condition with 6 Approach Flight Tracks to Runway 9 .............................................................................................................5 3.3.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach with Standard 3.0-degree Glide Path............................................................................5 3.3.3 Alternative 3: Alternative 2 with Alternate 3.8-degree Glide Path.........................6 3.3.4 Alternative 4: Combined Alternatives 1 and 2 with Standard 3.0-degree Glide Path .............................................................................................................6 3.3.5 Alternative 5: Alternative 4 with Alternate 3.8-degree Glide Path.........................6 4.0CONTINUOUS DESCENT APPROACH PROCEDURE....................................................6 5.0CESSNA 500 APPROACH PROFILE.................................................................................7 6.0SUMMARY OF STUDY FINDINGS....................................................................................9 7.0CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................9 J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 2002 Average Daily Operations Summary Regional Air Carrier Table 2 2002 Average Daily Operations Summary Private Jet Table 3 2002 Average Daily Operations Summary Piston and Turboprop Table 4 2002 Average Daily Operations Summary Touch and Go Activities Table 5 Alternative 1 Flight Track Utilization Table 6 Alternatives 2 and 3 Flight Track Utilization Table 7 Alternatives 4 and 5 Flight Track Utilization Figure 1 Existing (Alternative 1) Flight Tracks Figure 2 Proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Track Figure 3 Glide Paths and Altitudes Difference Figure 4 Alternative 2 Flight Tracks Figure 5 Alternative 3 Flight Tracks Figure 6 Alternative 4 Flight Tracks Figure 7 Alternative 5 Flight Tracks Figure 8 Time Above Contours Comparison Figure A1 CNA500 Standard/User-Specified Approach Profiles – Typical Approach Figure A2 CNA500 Standard/User-Specified Approach Lmax Contours – Typical Approach Figure A3 CNA500 Standard/User-Specified Approach Profiles – CNA500 Approach Figure A4 CNA500 Standard/User-Specified Approach Lmax Contours – CNA500 Approach J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STUDY CONCLUSIONS REQUEST FOR THIS STUDY At the request of the KWIA Ad Hoc Committee on Airport Noise, and under contract to Monroe County, URS analyzed and documented potential aircraft-generated noise exposure levels directly associated with the proposed alternative use of a visual approach procedure referred to as the “Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure”. This proposed visual approach procedure was offered to the KWIA Ad Hoc Committee to potentially reduce aircraft-generated noise exposure levels to land areas located west of the airport along the extended runway centerline. STUDY APPROACH The study utilized the following information, data and modeling scenarios: Existing aircraft operational levels; FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM); Alternative Visual Approach Tracks to Runway 9; Alternative Visual Approach Glide Paths to Runway 9, and; Investigation of Continuous Descent Approach Procedure. STUDY CONCLUSIONS Results of noise analysis conducted as part of this study indicate that although potentially feasible, the development and use of various alternative visual approach procedures to Runway 9 offer limited reductions of aircraft-generated noise exposure levels to land areas west of the airport when compared to existing approach procedures. Based upon discussions with the FAA, implementation of a non-standard 3.8-degree glide path at KWIA for the existing visual approaches to Runway 9 or the proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure would require FAA analysis and approval. The Continuous Descent Approach Procedure is not applicable or prudent for use at KWIA at this time. J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc Page 1 of 9 PROPOSED RUNWAY 9 NOISE ABATEMENT VISUAL APPROACH PROCEDURE NOISE ANALYSIS 1.0 INTRODUCTION As Owner and Operator of the Key West International Airport (KWIA), it’s the expressed goal of Monroe County to provide timely and efficient general aviation and commercial air services to residents and visitors of the Middle and Lower Florida Keys in a manner that maximizes safety, convenience, economic benefit and environmental compatibility. At the request of the KWIA Ad Hoc Committee on Airport Noise, and under contract to Monroe County, URS analyzed and documented potential aircraft-generated noise exposure levels directly associated with the proposed alternative use of a visual approach procedure referred to as the “Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure”. This proposed visual approach procedure was offered to the KWIA Ad Hoc Committee to potentially reduce aircraft-generated noise exposure levels to land areas located west of the airport along the extended runway centerline. 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Review of Existing Condition To assess the beneficial reduction or detrimental increase in aircraft-generated noise levels resulting from the use of such a procedure, calendar year 2002 aircraft operational data as documented in the KWIA F.A.R. Part 150 Study 2002 Noise Contour Update was referenced and utilized. As reported in that study, 82,036 aircraft operations (a takeoff or a landing) were reported for the calendar year 2002 thereby yielding and average of 225 daily aircraft operations. These average daily aircraft operational totals are listed by aircraft type (i.e., regional air carrier, private jet, turbo-prop, piston and touch-and-go) in Tables 1 through 4. 2.2 Use of FAA’s Integrated Noise Model The FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 6.0c, was used to produce the noise contour map associated with KWIA’s 2002 aircraft operations. The INM is a computer-based noise level prediction model and it is the most commonly used method to predict aircraft-generated noise contours. Information required as inputs and variables to FAA’s INM include: The number of average daytime operations (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.); The number of average nighttime operations (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.); Aircraft fleet mix; Runway utilization; J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc Page 2 of 9 Primary departure and arrival flight tracks; Aircraft flight profiles, and: Aircraft make, model and engine-specific noise data. Utilizing the data and information listed above, the INM predicts aircraft-generated noise exposure levels at many geographic points surrounding the airport. By using a variety of pre-established noise measurements (metric) criteria and a calculation of which points have equal noise levels, continuous noise contour lines are generated to graphically depict selected noise exposure levels and to determine potential adverse noise exposure impacts to surrounding land uses. Typically, the evaluation of community noise exposure impacts are addressed using published recommended methodologies developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). These guidelines are published in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations under Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports. Both publications require that aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of airports be determined on an average- daily basis utilizing the DNL metric. For aircraft-generated noise exposure modeling purposes, the Day-Night Sound Level (DNL) is the summation of the noise exposure from all of the individual aircraft operational events that occur during a 24-hour period, with the provision that aircraft-generated noises occurring at night (defined as 10:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m.) are increased by 10 decibels (dB). This penalty, or weighting, reflects the added intrusiveness of nighttime noise. Since community background noise typically decreases about 10 dB at night, nighttime noise events sound louder because there is less ambient noise. Environmental levels of DNL can be measured or estimated. Measurements are practical only for obtaining DNL values for a relatively limited number of geographic locations and, in the absence of permanently installed noise monitors, only for a few days. For this reason, most aircraft-generated noise assessments use computer- generated DNL estimates, depicted as equal-exposure DNL noise contour lines. When using the DNL noise metric, noise is typically measured using a specific adjustment, or “A” weighting that best approximates the limited hearing range of the human ear. Although not specifically referenced, all decibels reported in this study represent A-weighted decibels technically represented as dBA. The KWIA F.A.R. Part 150 Study 2002 Noise Contour Update utilized the DNL metric and FAA prescribed noise contour mapping methodologies. 2.3 Selection of the FAA’s Time Above Noise Metric for Comparative Purposes Through detailed investigation of noise modeling applications and methodologies specific to this study, it was determined that the prescribed DNL metric alone was not suitable as a noise exposure prediction tool in assessing the inherent changes in noise exposure levels west of the airport that would be directly associated with the proposed implementation of the visual approach procedure. The FAA’s INM however, does provide other noise prediction metrics such as Time Above (TA) that was found to serve as a suitable analysis tool in assessing the predicted resultant change in noise levels. The TA metric was J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc Page 3 of 9 developed by the FAA as a secondary metric for assessing impacts of aircraft-generated noise around airports. The TA index refers to the total time in seconds or minutes that aircraft-generated noise levels exceed certain dB noise levels in a 24-hour period. There are no existing formal noise/land use compatibility standards defined in terms of a Time Above index. 2.4 Selection of Time Above Noise Level Compatibility Thresholds In an effort to more accurately predict noise exposure levels that would be experienced inside an air conditioned residential dwelling with all windows and doors closed, a TA noise exposure threshold was established using published findings and reports issued by the Federal Interagency Committee On Noise (FICON). The FICON research indicates that interference to speech communication begins when intrusive noise is 60 dB or greater. Using the assumption that typical residential structures offer a noise level attenuation of 15 dB (inside versus outside noise exposure levels), the 75 dB (non-attenuation) TA noise exposure threshold was selected to best model the attenuated 60 dB (inside residential) noise speech interference threshold. For study-specific analysis purposes, the INM-generated 5-minute 75 dB TA and the 20-minute 60 dB TA noise exposure contours were utilized to measure the resultant changes in noise exposure levels offered by the proposed alternative. The 5-minute 75 dB TA contour represents geographic locations that were exposed to aircraft-generated noise exposure levels of 75 dB or more for 5 or more minutes within a 24- hour period. Likewise, the 20-minute 60 dB TA contour represents geographic locations that were exposed to aircraft-generated noise exposure levels of 60 dB or more for 20 or more minutes within a 24- hour period. 3.0 RUNWAY 9 VISUAL ARRIVAL ALTERNATIVES 3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ARRIVAL TRACKS 3.1.1 Existing Visual Arrival Tracks Arrival tracks that are typically utilized when approaching Runway 9 were developed using pre-existing aircraft flight regime and operational information previous developed from the KWIA 2002 Noise Contour Update. However, when examining the previously modeled arrival track scenarios, it was revealed that the KWIA F.A.R. Part 150 Study 2002 Noise Contour Update utilized only two “generalized” arrival tracks to Runway 9, one from the north and one from the south. For purposes of this study and to more fully investigate the potential changes in aircraft-generated noise exposure offered by the proposed visual approach procedure, a total of twelve arrival tracks were modeled, six from the north and six from the south. Figure 1 depicts the 12 arrival tracks and assumed track use distribution by aircraft category. 3.1.2 Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure Arrival Track The proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure was modeled to assess potential noise exposure reductions to surrounding land uses west of the airport. This proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure would primarily serve to reduce or eliminate random arrival flight tracks to Runway 9. As depicted in Figure 2, aircraft utilizing the proposed visual procedure would allow J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc Page 4 of 9 aircraft to enter the airport traffic pattern over water using a standard 45-degree downwind entry. Aircraft would then navigate visually outbound on a compass heading of 270 degrees initiating a left turn to the base leg at a proposed 2.0 DME point from the EYW VORTAC. Continuing the visual descent on the left base leg, the aircraft would enter a 4 nautical mile final approach path to the runway end. 3.2 Development of Alternative Approach Path Slopes For purposes of this study, the feasibility of developing alternative approach path descent angles was investigated. Such procedures would allow aircraft to approach Runway 9 utilizing visual glide paths that are steeper than the FAA’s prescribed 3.0-degree glide path angle thereby allowing aircraft to approach Runway 9 from slightly higher altitudes over land areas west of the airport. Referencing FAA’s Advisory Circular 150/5340-14B, “Economy Approach Lighting Aids”, the maximum effective visual glide path approach angle is limited to 4.0 degrees. This steeper glide path angle is offered all aircraft type. As such, the effectiveness of utilizing such steeper glide path for noise reduction purposes would appear questionable in that when compared to piston-powered aircraft, turbine-powered (jet) aircraft produce greater noise levels when on final approach to the runway end. For noise modeling purposes of this study, an alternative procedure utilizing a 3.8-degree glide path was developed for use by all aircraft types. The varying resultant above ground level altitudes of aircraft utilizing either the 3.0- or 3.8-degree approach paths while on approach to Runway 9 are depicted in Figure 3. 3.3 Development of Noise Exposure Modeling Alternatives 3.3.1 Alternative 1: 2002 Existing Condition with 6 Approach Flight Tracks to Runway 9 As depicted in Figure 1, Alternative 1 represents the existing Runway 9 approach conditions in 2002. The 12 flight tracks from the north and south modeled for this study represent a realistic distribution of aircraft approach paths and aircraft performance characteristics. For example, jet aircraft would most likely utilize larger (i.e., wider) turning paths utilizing the outer-most set of approach tracks. Likewise, while smaller more maneuverable propeller-driven aircraft could utilize all tracks, most would most likely use smaller turning radii and shorter final approach leg segments. Detailed information of flight tracks and distribution rates are depicted in Figure 1 and Table 5. 3.3.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach with Standard 3.0-degree Glide Path This alternative utilizes the Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure as depicted in Figure 4. Aircraft operational levels remain unchanged from Alternative 1. It is important to note that for this alternative, it was assumed that all aircraft would use proposed visual approach flight track to Runway 9. Detailed flight track utilization of Alternative 2 is depicted on Table 6. J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc Page 5 of 9 3.3.3 Alternative 3: Alternative 2 with Alternate 3.8-degree Glide Path As depicted in Figure 5, Alternative 3 has the same proposed flight track as Alternative 2. However, the approach glide path was changed from the standard 3.0-degree approach slope to a 3.8-degree approach slope. The steeper glide path would allow all aircraft to approach Runway 9 from slightly higher altitudes over the residential areas west of the airport. 3.3.4 Alternative 4: Combined Alternatives 1 and 2 with Standard 3.0-degree Glide Path Alternative 4 was modeled using the combination of Alternatives 1 and 2. Jet and turbo-prop aircraft were assigned to the proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure flight track while single- and multi-engine propeller aircraft were assigned to Alternative 1’s 6 approach flight tracks depicted in Alternative 1. Detailed flight track utilization is depicted on Table 7. Figure 6 depicts Alternative 4 modeled flight tracks. 3.3.5 Alternative 5: Alternative 4 with Alternate 3.8-degree Glide Path The same methodology of Alternative 4 was used for Alternative 5 except glide path angle. Alternate 3.8- degree glide path was utilized for this alternative. Table 7 shows flight track utilization. Alternative 5 flight tracks were depicted in Figure 7. 4.0 CONTINUOUS DESCENT APPROACH PROCEDURE During the Ad Hoc Meeting on April 8, 2003, a resident of the Island proposed that the study identify and assess one additional potential approach procedure called a Continuous Descent Approach. This innovative and experimental approach procedure was developed by a commercial dedicated air cargo carrier and has been investigated and evaluated by the FAA for safety issues and the potential for offering and noise reduction to land areas located directly beneath the extended approach path to an airport. The procedure offers the greatest noise reduction benefits during nighttime conditions. Under typical approach conditions, while on extended final approach to the runway, commercial aircraft descend in incremental stages, leveling the aircraft intermediate altitudes. Varying levels of thrust power must be applied to descend and subsequently maintain level flight. The Continuous Descent Approach procedure is different in that it utilizes a linear (constant slope) descent rate requiring pilots to utilize the natural effects of gravity and glide characteristics of the aircraft to utilize minimum thrust power settings and to reduce aircraft-generated noise impacts to land area below. A multi agency task force that included the FAA, NASA, MIT, UPS and Louisville International-Standiford Airport tested the Continuous Descent Approach at Louisville International-Standiford Airport using United Parcel Service’s Boeing 767s for the period of two weeks, which began on October 28, 2002. The Task Force findings, in part, stated that the procedure would reduce noise exposure caused by arriving aircraft in areas far from the airport. Assuming that aircraft thrust settings remain constant, a doubling of altitude could result in a 6 dB reduction in noise directly beneath the aircraft. A primary finding of the Task Force study indicates that the benefits of this measure decrease however, as the J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc Page 6 of 9 distance from the aircraft flight path increases and that the use the maximum glide slope angle would only reduce noise levels by about 1 dB within the DNL 65 noise exposure area. In terms of safety, the FAA stated that it might decrease ATC flexibility and capacity and may cause potential airspace conflicts. With respect to the potential noise reduction benefits resulting from the use of this procedure, the Task Force findings did not recommend the Continuous Descent Approach Procedure for further consideration because of apparent minimal noise reduction benefits to land areas within the DNL 65 noise exposure area. From these preliminary investigations and the results of the Continuous Descent Approach trials, it would appear that the application of this procedure is not applicable or prudent for use at KWIA at this time. 5.0 CESSNA 500 APPROACH PROFILE Following public review of the draft Noise Analysis for Proposed Runway Visual Approach Procedure study conclusions, specific questions and criticisms were raised by a professional pilot that frequently operates a Cessna 500 jet aircraft at KWIA. Of critical concern was the fact that the prescribed use of the FAA’s INM is based on pre-defined aircraft operating assumptions that may not fully simulate actual arrival procedure used by pilots. For example, while certain modeling assumptions such as aircraft speed, approach / departure slope and engine thrust can be modified, the INM uses pre-defined flight regime parameters. These modeling variables are typically not adjusted for the sake of uniformity of aircraft-generated noise exposure measurements conducted within communities all over the country. When using the INM for community noise exposure measurements, modifications to the INM aircraft operational parameters database can be adjusted to reflect unique to a particular runway or airport. In response to these concerns, URS developed a revised arrival procedure to Runway 9 using the Cessna 500 jet aircraft and its specific operating characteristics at KWIA. The aircraft-specific operating parameters of the Cessna 500 (with the exception of flap coefficients) were modeled in response to public comments and requests for further validation of previous modeling efforts. It should be noted however, that while this particular make and model of jet aircraft is known to operate at the airport, it is not considered to be an exceptionally noisy aircraft. Working jointly with a local pilot for that aircraft, URS refined the modeling parameters to simulate the actual \[pilot prescribed\] approach parameters of the Cessna 500 at KWIA. The refined Cessna 500-specific approach profile included: changes in flight regime based upon distance from the runway end along the approach path, approach speed, thrust settings for both the proposed visual approach track to Runway 9 and the standard approach track to Runway 9. Because aircraft flap coefficient records for the Cessna 500 aircraft as simulated within the INM are derived from measurements of actual aircraft flight dynamics or derived from manuals and handbooks, the ability to manipulate or modify these parameters is not available within the model. Thus, flap settings remain unchanged, but were not considered to materially alter or skew the modeling results. This INM approach profile modeling refinement exercise was conducted to: 1) adequately respond to comments and concerns regarding the use of the FAA’s INM, and 2) to provide alternative methods of validation for the analysis efforts at hand. J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc Page 7 of 9 Two separate noise modeling scenarios were developed to reflect the Cessna 500-specific operating parameters along a typical arrival flight path to Runway 9 and the proposed visual approach track to Runway 9 having an extended downwind, base and final segment. The modeled approaches using the Cessna 500 parameters differed slightly from that originally simulated within the INM’s database and were limited to approach speed, altitude and engine thrust setting. The first scenario utilized an approach path similar to that typically used today. This path approaches the island from the northeast intercepting the EYW VORTAC continuing along a descending left base turn to final. Within this modeling effort, adjustments were made to the INM’s aircraft approach profile database to simulate the reported Cessna 500 approach profile. A comparison of profile parameters of the standard INM profile to that of the Cessna 500 profile reveal that the latter approached at a faster speed and with higher thrust settings. Figure A1 illustrates both standard INM profile and proposed profile using standard approach track to Runway 9. A graphic comparison of the resultant Lmax contours generated by the two respective approach scenarios is shown in Figure A2. As shown, it appears that the two contours are very similar in shape and size. It should be noted that the desired noise level exposure reduction was achieved along the straight-in segment of the final approach using the Cessna 500-defined approach profile. This however was accomplished while at the same time, generating increased noise levels to land areas farther out along the approach path below the curved portions of the descent. This is most likely the result of the prescribed aircraft-specific parameters used in the modeling scenario. Using location-specific comparison of Lmax noise exposure levels along the final approach path to Runway 9 revealed that the maximum Lmax noise reduction by proposed Cessna-specific profile was limited to 1.6 dBA Applying the same methodology to the user defined approach track having the extended downwind, left base and final segment, similar changes in Lmax noise exposure are exhibited. It is evident that a reduction of noise exposes levels \[measured in Lmax metrics\] along the entire straight-in portion of the approach to the end of the runway is achieved. Figure A3 illustrates both standard INM profile and proposed profile using user-defined approach track to Runway 9. Figure A4 depicts the comparison of 70-, 75-, and 80 dBA Lmax noise contours along all portions of the modeled user define approach profile scenario. Using a location-specific comparison of Lmax noise exposure levels along the final approach path to Runway 9 reveals that the maximum Lmax noise reduction by proposed profile was limited to 2.1 dBA Acoustic Noise Measurements by Hassall and Zaveri in 1979 stated that noise reduction in level of 3 dB is just perceptible and reduction of 5 dB is clearly perceptible. In the end, the results the INM prediction of Lmax noise exposure levels between the use of the model’s standard approach profile and that of the Cessna 500-specific approach profile were found to be very similar in shape and size. This similarity serves to confirm that the default INM aircraft operation parameters are within the norm and valid for modeling alternative approach procedures at KWIA. The analysis goes to further illustrate that given slight variation of certain aircraft approach performance J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc Page 8 of 9 variable such as approach speed and engine thrust levels does serve to provide small changes in Lmax noise exposure levels to land areas directly below the modeled approach path. 6.0 SUMMARY OF STUDY FINDINGS As depicted in Figure 8, a comparison of all INM-generated Time Above contours generated within this investigative study. Inspection of the 75 dB 5-minute TA contours gives indication that the noise exposure levels of Alternatives 3 and 5 are vary similar to those of Alternative 1. It is also apparent that Alternatives 2 and 4 produce significantly greater noise impacts when compared to Alternative 1. Inspection of the 60 dB 20-minute TA contours indicates that Alternative 1 generates the least noise impacts when compared to all other alternatives and that Alternative 2 presents the greatest level of associated most noise impacts. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Results of noise analysis indicate that although potentially feasible, the development and use of various alternative visual approach procedures to Runway 9 offer limited reductions of aircraft-generated noise exposure levels to land areas west of the airport when compared to existing approach procedures. Based upon discussions with the FAA, implementation of a non-standard 3.8-degree glide path at KWIA for the existing visual approaches to Runway 9 or the proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Procedure would require FAA analysis and approval. J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Document\\FINAL DOC Dec 2003\\Key West Visual Approach Study Final Report 120903.doc Page 9 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TABLES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 rrivals A 2.8621 - - 0.0759 - - 0.8530 0.9608 - 0.0027 0.9695 44.0393 0.4959 10.8986 0.1542 0.5096 0.0247 21.1771 4.5268 1.8301 0.0055 4.4168 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4959 0.4959 - - - - - - - - - TABLE 1 Stage Length 1Stage Length 2 3.7962 - 0.9599 0.0805 - - 0.9140 0.8693 - 0.0029 0.9695 REGIONAL AIR CARRIER y Key West International Airport 93.8027 AverageDepartures 42.6093 - 9.9387 0.1496 0.5096 0.0247 21.1162 4.6184 1.8301 0.0053 4.4168 OperationsDayNightDayNightDayNight 2002 AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS SUMMARY 1 INM Proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Analysis Total Aircraft TypeDail Actual Integrated Noise Model, Version 6.0c Canadair Regional Jet 700BAE1460.9918Cessna 402, Piper 31BEC58P21.7973Embraer 137CL6000.4603Canadair Regional JetCL6011.0192Beech 100CNA4410.0493Beech 1900DHC644.0603Dash 8, ATR42DHC810.9753Embraer 120EMB1203.6603Embraer 145EMB1450.0164ATR72HS748A10.7726Stage Length 1 = 0 to 500 N.M.Stage Length 2 = 500 to 1,000 N.M.Source: Key West International Airport, 2002. Official Airline Guide, February to December 2002. URS Corporation, 2003. 1 J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Tables.xls\\10/5/2006 rrivals A 0.0055 0.0301 0.0027 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0548 0.0575 0.1671 0.1974 0.1448 0.4107 0.0329 0.0367 0.0932 0.0866 0.3235 1.8138 0.9755 4.5438 Departures 0.00660.00660.12500.18920.14200.41340.08550.03020.02850.00660.09050.08940.20400.30711.79740.9755 0.0066 0.0066 0.1195 0.0082 0.0027 0.0274 0.0855 0.0027 0.0110 0.0066 0.0082 0.0027 0.2040 0.0219 0.0712 0.0575 0.2137 y 0.0132 0.01320.25000.39480.28950.88170.17110.06580.07900.01320.19740.18420.40790.65803.73722.06609.4219 TABLE 2 Average 4.4973 OperationsDayNightDayNight PRIVATE JET 1 Key West International Airport GV GIV GIIB CIT3 INM CL600CL601FAL20 IA1125 737300 BAE146 LEAR25LEAR35 CNA500CNA750MU3001 EMB145 2002 AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS SUMMARY Proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Analysis Total Aircraft TypeDail Actual Integrated Noise Model, Version 6.0c Boeing 737-300Source: Island City Flying Service, 2002. Key West International Airport, 2002. URS Corporation, 2003. Canadair Regional Jet 700Cessna 650Canadair 600, Falcon 2000/50Canadair 601Cessna 500/501/525Cessna 750Falcon 900Falcon 20Gulfstream IIGulfstream IVGulfstream VWestwind 1125/1125, Galaxy JetHawker 100/400/600/700, Lear24/25, Sabreliner 40/60/70Beech 400, Falcon 10/200, Hawker 800/1000, Lear 31/35/45/55/60, Sabreliner 65, Lockheed 1329Cessna 550/551/560, Mitsubishi 300 1 J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Tables.xls\\10/5/2006 rrivals A Departures TABLE 3 y 92.926045.69320.769945.88490.5781 Average OperationsDayNightDayNight PISTON AND TURBOPROP Key West International Airport 1 INM BEC58P39.025119.16190.350719.29890.2137GASEPV17.11798.40550.15348.46030.0986DHC66.49393.19210.05483.18390.0630 2002 AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS SUMMARY Proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Analysis Total Aircraft TypeDail Actual Integrated Noise Model, Version 6.0c Source: Key West International Airport, 2002. URS Corporation, 2003. Beech 55/58/76, Cessna 310/337/340/402/411/421, Piper 23/30/31/34/44Cessna 150/172/177CNA17212.27226.02930.10686.03480.1014Cessna 182/188/210CNA2064.12372.02900.03292.03720.0247Convair 340DC30.00000.00000.0000Beech 24, Piper 18/28GASEPF3.53821.72250.04661.71980.0493Beech 36, Mooney 20, Piper 28/32/46Beech 90, Piper 42CNA4419.10904.52990.02474.53260.0219Convair 580CVR5800.00000.000 00.0000Beech 200, Merlin, Mitsubishi 2Gulfstream 159HS748A1.24600.62300.61750.0055 1 J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Tables.xls\\10/5/2006 Total ht g Ni 2.8605 14.3027 11.4422 28.6055 y 28.2336 0.0372 0.1859 0.1487 0.3719 GASEPF14.1168GASEPV11.2934BEC58P2.8234 TABLE 4 TOUCH AND GO ACTIVITIES Key West International Airport Total 2002 AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS SUMMARY Aircraft TypeTouch and Go ctualINMDa A Proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Analysis BeechcraftSkipper,Cessna150,Cessna152,Cessna172,Cessna177,PiperCub(J-3),PiperCherokee (PA28)BeechcraftBonanza,Cessna182,Cessna206,Cessna210,PiperArrow,PiperCherokeeSix,Piper LanceBeechcraftBaron,Beec hcraftDuke,Beech18,Cessna310,Cessna340,Cessna402,Cessna421,PiperAerostar,PiperAztec,PiperSeneca,Piper SeminoleNote: The number indicated in the table is the total of Departures and Arrivals. Actual Touch and Go activities will be the half of the table indicates.Source: URS Corporation, 2003. J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Tables.xls\\10/5/2006 - - 23.3% 46.5% 23.3% - - - .3% .5% .3% - 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% 93.0% 1.0% 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% 2.0% 3.8% 5.7% 5.7% 7.6% 11.4% 3.8% 5.7% 8.6% 8.6% 11.4% 17.1% 5.7% 3.0% 100.0% 38.0% 57.0% 2.0% 3.0% 100.0% - - - 69.8% 23.3% - - - - .8% .3% - - - - 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% 93.0% 1.0% 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% - - - TABLE 5 7.0% - - 21.8% 43.5% 21.8% - - - 1.3% 2.5% 1.3% - 1.0% 100.0% 87.0% 5.0% 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% - - - ----------- 3.8%1.3%7.0%1.0%5.0%7.0%1.0% 65.3% 21.8%87.0% 100.0%100.0% Key West International Airport 8.7% 13.1% 13.1% 17.4% 26.1% 8.7% .5% .8% .8% 1.0% 1.5% .5% 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% 87.0% 5.0% 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% - - - ALTERNATIVE 1 FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION TypeRegional Air CarrierGeneral Aviation Proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Analysis TotalTotalTotal 09A1AArrival09A1BArrival09A1CArrival09A1DArrival09A1EArrival09A1FArrival09A2AArrival09A2BArrival09A2CArrival09A2DArrival09A2EArrival09A2FArrival27A3Arrival27A4Arrival09D1Departure09D2Departure27D3Dep arture27D4Departure09TG1Local Pattern27TG2Local Pattern RunwayFlight TrackOperationsJetPropTurbopropJetPropTurboprop Source: URS Corporation, 2003. J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Tables.xls\\10/5/2006 94.0% 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% 93.0% 1.0% 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% 95.0% 2.0% 3.0% 100.0% 38.0% 57.0% 2.0% 3.0% 100.0% - - - 94.0% 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% 93.0% 1.0% 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% - - - TABLE 6 92.0% 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% 87.0% 5.0% 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% - - - --- 7.0%1.0%5.0%7.0%1.0% 92.0%87.0% 100.0%100.0% Key West International Airport 92.0% 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% 87.0% 5.0% 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% - - - ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3 FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION TypeRegional Air CarrierGeneral Aviation Proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Analysis TotalTotalTotal ht TrackOperationsJetPropTurbopropJetPropTurboprop g Fli y 09A1Arrival27A3Arrival27A4Arrival09D1Departure09D2Departure27D3Departure27D4Departure09TG1Local Pattern27TG2Local Pattern Runwa Source: URS Corporation, 2003. J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Tables.xls\\10/5/2006 94.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% 93.0% 1.0% 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% - 3.8% 5.7% 5.7% 7.6% 11.4% 3.8% 5.7% 8.6% 8.6% 11.4% 17.1% 5.7% 2.0% 3.0% 100.0% 38.0% 57.0% 2.0% 3.0% 100.0% - - - 94.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% 93.0% 1.0% 5.0% 1.0% 100.0% - - - TABLE 7 92.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% 87.0% 5.0% 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% - - - --------------- 7.0%1.0%5.0%7.0%1.0% 92.0%87.0% 100.0%100.0% Key West International Airport - 8.7% 13.1% 13.1% 17.4% 26.1% 8.7% .5% .8% .8% 1.0% 1.5% .5% 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% 87.0% 5.0% 7.0% 1.0% 100.0% - - - ALTERNATIVES 4 AND 5 FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION TypeRegional Air CarrierGeneral Aviation Proposed Runway 9 Noise Abatement Visual Approach Analysis TotalTotalTotal 09A1AArrival09A1BArrival09A1CArrival09A1DArrival09A1EArrival09A1FArrival09A2AArrival09A2BArrival09A2CArrival09A2DArrival09A2EArrival09A2FArrival27A3Arrival27A4Arrival09D1Departure09D2Departure27D3Dep arture27D4Departure09TG1Local Pattern27TG2Local Pattern 09A1Arrival RunwayFlight TrackOperationJetPropTurbopropJetPropTurboprop Source: URS Corporation, 2003. J:\\Key West\\Visual Approach Analysis\\Tables.xls\\10/5/2006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FIGURES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 7 EYW 45’ 92 Above Ground Elevations. Threshold Crossing Height34’–3.0-degree glide path45’–3.8-degree glide path 34’ 448’ 97’ 3.8-degree Glide Path3.0-degree Glide Path Not Actual Scale.All elevations shown as 1 N.M. 352’ 852’ FIGURE 3 182’ 2 N.M. 670’ Key West International Airport Glide Path and Altitude Difference West End of the Island 1255’ Proposed Visual Approach Noise Analysis 267’ 3 N.M. 989’ Water 1659’ 352’ 4 N.M. 1307’ Date: 04/07/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix J Aircraft Noise Abatement Procedures U.S. Department of Transportation ADVISORY Federal Aviation CIRCULAR Administration Subject: VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) FLIGHT Date: September 17,2004AC No: 91-36D NEAR NOISE-SENSITIVE AREAS Initiated by: ATO-R 1. PURPOSE.Uijt!Bewjtpsz!Djsdvmbs!)BD*!fodpvsbhft!qjmput!nbljoh!WGS!gmjhiut!ofbs!opjtf. tfotjujwf!bsfbt!up!gmzbubmujuveft!ijhifsuibo!uif!njojnvn!qfsnjuufe!cz!sfhvmbujpo!boepo!gmjhiu!qbuit uibu!xjmm!sfevdf!bjsdsbgu!opjtf!jo!tvdibsfbt/ 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. Uijt!bewjtpsz!djsdvmbs!jt!fggfdujwf!poTfqufncfs!28-!3115/ 3. CANCELLATION.Bewjtpsz!Djsdvmbs!:2.47D-!Wjtvbm!Gmjhiu!Svmft!)WGS*!Gmjhiu!Ofbs!Opjtf!Tfotjujwf Bsfbt-!ebufe!Pdupcfs!2:-!2:95-jtdbodfmmfe/ 4. AUTHORITY.Uif!GBB!ibt!bvuipsjuz!up!gpsnvmbuf!qpmjdz!sfhbsejohvtf!pg!uif!obwjhbcmf!bjstqbdf )Ujumf!5:!Vojufe!Tubuft!Dpef-Tfdujpo51214*/ 5. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES.Uijt!BD!ibt!cffovqebufeup!jodmvef!b!efgjojujpopg!opjtf. tfotjujwf!bsfb!boe!bee!sfgfsfodftupQvcmjd!Mbx!211.:2<!uif!GBB!Opjtf!Qpmjdz!gps!Nbobhfnfou!pg Bjstqbdf!Pwfs!Gfefsbmmz!NbobhfeMboet-!ebufe!Opwfncfs!2::7<!boe!uif!Obujpobm!Qbslt!BjsUpvs Nbobhfnfou!Bdu!pg3111-!xjui!puifs!njops!xpsejoh!dibohft/ 6.BACKGROUND/ b/!Fydfttjwf!bjsdsbgu!opjtf!dbo!sftvmu!jo!boopzbodf-!jodpowfojfodf-!ps!joufsgfsfodf!xjui!uifvtft!boe fokpznfou!pg!qspqfsuz-!boe!dbo!bewfstfmz!bggfdu!xjmemjgf/!!Ju!jt!qbsujdvmbsmz!voeftjsbcmf!jo!bsfbt!xifsf!ju! joufsgfsftxjui!opsnbm!bdujwjujft!bttpdjbufexjui!uif!bsfbt!vtf-!jodmvejoh!sftjefoujbm-!fevdbujpobm-!ifbmui- boe!sfmjhjpvt!tusvduvsft!boe!tjuft-!boe!qbslt-!sfdsfbujpobm!bsfbt)jodmvejoh!bsfbt!xjuixjmefsoftt dibsbdufsjtujdt*-!xjmemjgf!sfgvhft-!boe!dvmuvsbm!boeijtupsjdbm!tjuft!xifsf!b!rvjfu!tfuujoh!jt!b!hfofsbmmz sfdphoj{fe!gfbuvsf!ps!buusjcvuf/Npsfpwfs-uif!GBB!sfdphoj{ft!uibu!uifsf!bsf!mpdbujpot!jo!Obujpobm!Qbslt boepuifsgfefsbmmznbobhfe!bsfbt!uibu!ibwfvojrvfopjtf.tfotjujwf!wbmvft/!!Uif!Opjtf!Qpmjdz!gps Nbobhfnfou!pg!BjstqbdfPwfs!Gfefsbmmz!NbobhfeBsfbt-!jttvfe!Opwfncfs!9-!2::7-!tubuft!uibu!ju!jt!uif! qpmjdz!pg!uif!GBB!jo!jut!nbobhfnfou!pg!uif!obwjhbcmfbjstqbdf!pwfs!uiftf!mpdbujpot!upfyfsdjtf!mfbefstijq jo!bdijfwjoh!bo!bqqspqsjbuf!cbmbodfcfuxffo!fggjdjfodz-!ufdiopmphjdbm!qsbdujdbcjmjuz-!boe!fowjsponfoubm dpodfsot-xijmf!nbjoubjojoh!uifijhiftu!mfwfm!pg!tbgfuz/! c/!Uif!Gfefsbm!Bwjbujpo!Benjojtusbujpo!)GBB*!sfdfjwft!dpnqmbjout!dpodfsojoh!mpx!gmzjoh!bjsdsbgu!pwfs! opjtf!tfotjujwf!bsfbt!tvdi!bt!Obujpobm!Qbslt-!Obujpobm!XjmemjgfSfgvhft-!Xbufsgpxm!Qspevdujpo!Bsfbt!boe XjmefsofttBsfbt/!!Dpohsftt!beesfttfe!bjsdsbgu!gmjhiut!pwfs!Hsboe!DbozpoObujpobm!Qbsl!jo!QvcmjdMbx 211.:2!boe!dpnnfsdjbm!bjs!upvs!pqfsbujpot!pwfs!puifs!vojut!pg!uif!Obujpobm!Qbsl!Tztufn!)boe!usjcbm!mboet xjuijo!ps!bcvuujoh!tvdi!vojut*!jouif!ObujpobmQbslt!Bjs!Upvs!NbobhfnfouBdupg!3111/ d/!Jodsfbtfe!fnqibtjt!po!jnqspwjoh!uif!rvbmjuz!pg!uif!fowjsponfou!sfrvjsft!b!dpoujovjoh!fggpsu!up! qspwjefsfmjfg!boe!qspufdujpogspn!mpx!gmzjoh!bjsdsbgu!opjtf/ e/!Qpufoujbm!opjtf!jnqbdut!up!opjtf.tfotjujwf!bsfbt!gspn!mpx!bmujuvef!bjsdsbgu!gmjhiut!dbo!bmtpcf!beesfttfe uispvhi!bqqmjdbujpo!pg!uifwpmvoubsz!qsbdujdft!tfu!gpsui!jo!uijt!BD/Beifsfodf!up!uiftf!qsbdujdft!jt!b! qsbdujdbm!joejdbujpo!pg!qjmpu!dpodfso!gps!uiffowjsponfou-!xijdi!xjmm!cvjme!tvqqpsu!gps!bwjbujpo!boe!bmmfwjbuf uif!offegps!boz!beejujpobm!tubuvupszps!sfhvmbupsz!bdujpot/ 7. DEFINITION.Gps!uif!qvsqptftpg!uijtBD-!bo!bsfb!jt!opjtf.tfotjujwf!jg!opjtf!joufsgfsft!xjui!opsnbm bdujwjujft!bttpdjbufe!xjui!uifbsfbtvtf/!!Fybnqmft!pgopjtf.tfotjujwf!bsfbt!jodmvefsftjefoujbm-!fevdbujpobm- ifbmui-boesfmjhjpvt!tusvduvsft!boe!tjuft-!boe!qbslt-!sfdsfbujpobm!bsfbt!)jodmvejoh!bsfbt!xjui!xjmefsoftt dibsbdufsjtujdt*-!xjmemjgf!sfgvhft-!boe!dvmuvsbm!boeijtupsjdbm!tjuft!xifsf!b!rvjfu!tfuujoh!jt!b!hfofsbmmz sfdphoj{fegfbuvsf!ps!buusjcvuf/ 8. VOLUNTARY PRACTICES. !b/!Bwpjebodf!pg!opjtf.tfotjujwf!bsfbt-!jg!qsbdujdbm-!jt!qsfgfsbcmf!uppwfsgmjhiu!bu!sfmbujwfmz!mpx!bmujuveft/ c/!Qjmput!pqfsbujohopjtf!qspevdjoh!bjsdsbgu!)gjyfe.xjoh-!spubsz.xjoh!boeipu!bjs!cbmmppot*!pwfsopjtf. tfotjujwf!bsfbt!tipvmenblf!fwfsz!fggpsu!up!gmz!opu!mftt!uibo!3-111!gffu!bcpwfhspvoe!mfwfm!)BHM*-!xfbuifs qfsnjuujoh/!!Gps!uif!qvsqptf!pg!uijt!BD-!uif!hspvoe!mfwfm!pg!opjtf.tfotjujwf!bsfbt!jt!efgjofe!up!jodmvef!uif ijhiftu!ufssbjoxjuijo3-111gffu!BHM!mbufsbmmz!pg!uif!spvuf!pg!gmjhiu-ps!uif!vqqfsnptu!sjn!pg!b!dbozpo!ps! wbmmfz/!!Uif!joufou!pg!uif3-111gffu!BHM!sfdpnnfoebujpo!jt!up!sfevdfqpufoujbm!joufsgfsfodfxjui!xjmemjgf boe!dpnqmbjout!pg!opjtfejtuvscbodft!dbvtfeczmpx!gmzjohbjsdsbgu!pwfs!opjtf.tfotjujwfbsfbt/ d/!Efqbsuvsf!gspn!ps!bssjwbm!up!bo!bjsqpsu-!dmjnc!bgufs!ublf.pgg-!boeeftdfou!gps!mboejoh!tipvme!cf!nbef tp!bt!up!bwpjeqspmpohfe!gmjhiu!bu!mpx!bmujuveftofbs!opjtf.tfotjujwf!bsfbt/ e/!Uijt!bewjtpszepft!opu!bqqmz!xifsf!ju!xpvme!dpogmjdu!xjui!Gfefsbm!Bwjbujpo!Sfhvmbujpot-!bjs!usbggjd! dpouspm!dmfbsbodft!ps!jotusvdujpot-psxifsfbo!bmujuvefpg!mftt!uibo!3-111gffu!BHM!jt!dpotjefsfe!ofdfttbsz cz!b!qjmpu!up!pqfsbuf!tbgfmz/! 9. COOPERATIVE ACTIONS.Bjsdsbgu!pqfsbupst-!bwjbujpo!bttpdjbujpot-!bjsqpsunbobhfst-!boepuifst bsf!btlfe!up!bttjtu!jo!wpmvoubszdpnqmjbodf!xjui!uijt!BD!cz!qvcmjdj{joh!ju!boeejtusjcvujoh!jogpsnbujpo sfhbsejoh!lopxo!opjtf.tfotjujwf!bsfbt/ Tjhofe ```````````````````````````````` Tbcsb!X/!Lbvmjb Ejsfdupspg!Tztufn!Pqfsbujpot!'!Tbgfuz Qbhf!3 Gmz!Ofjhicpsmz!Qsphsbn pvu!dbo! . perators of helicopters are sensitive to community concerns. They address those Cz!jnqmfnfoujoh!qspbdujwf!nfbtvsft-!tvdi!bt!uiptf!eftdsjcfe!jo!IBJt!Gmz!Ofjhicpsmz!Qsphsbn-!xijdi!ifmq!sfevdf!opjtf!jnqbdut!up!uif!dpnnvojuz/Cz!sftqpoejoh!up!b!djuj{fo!dpnqmbjou!jo!psefs!up!bttvsf!u if!djuj{fo!uibu!zpv!ifbs!uifjs!dpodfsot!boe!bsf!sfevdjoh!opjtf!jnqbdut!xifo!qpttjcmf/Cz!qspwjejoh!jogpsnbujpobm!nbufsjbmt!up!uif!qvcmjd/!B!bjnfe!bu!uif!qvcmjd0mpdbm!dpnnvojuz!jt!bwbjmbcmf!gspn!IBJ/!D pqjft!gps!iboe.pvu!ps!nbjmcf!pcubjofe!cz!wjtjujoh!Gmz!Ofjhicpsmz/dpn/Nbjoubjo!b!dvssfou!gbdu!tiffu!boe!qspwjef!bddvsbuf!boe!vq!up!ebuf!jogpsnbujpo/Nblf!b!dpnnjunfou!up!uif!dbmmfs!up!gpmmpx!vq!xifo!bq qspqsjbuf/Uipspvhimz!jowftujhbuf!uif!dbvtf!pg!uif!dpodfso/!Dpotjefs!b!gbdf.up.gbdf!nffujoh/Qspwjef!bwbjmbcmf!nbufsjbmt0jogpsnbujpo/ Qvcmjd!Bddfqubodf O concerns in the following ways, among others:Iboemjoh!Jorvjsjft0Dpnqmbjout In handling citizen inquiries/complaints, most operators:By establishing standard procedures, operators and professionally. For help in doing this, operators can go to Fly Neighborly.com and download the powerpoint presentation ‘Responding to Community Concerns about Helicopter Noise and Operations.’ web site provides uif!jnqbdu!pqfsbujpot!ibwf!po!opjtfuif!ebohfst!pg!opu!beesfttjoh!opjtf!dpodfsotuif!qsjnbsz!opjtf!tpvsdft!po!b!ifmjdpqufsxijdi!opjtf!tpvsdft!epnjobuf!uif!fggfdu!uibu!ejtubodf!ibt!po!tpvoeuif!fggfdut!p g!ufnqfsbuvsf-!ivnjejuz-!boe!xjoe!po!tpvoeuif!jnqbdut!pg!ufssbjo!po!tpvoeuif!tufqt!nbovgbduvsfst!ibwf!ublfo!up!sfevdf!ifmjdpqufs!opjtfofx!eftjho!gfbuvsft!cfjoh!fybnjofe!gps!gvuvsf!opjtf!sfevdujpouif! offe!gps!opjtf!bcbufnfouipx!qjmpu!buujuvef!gbdupst!joup!opjtf!bcbufnfouhfofsbm!hvjefmjoft!gps!sfevdjoh!ifmjdpqufs!opjtfuif!spmf!pg!bttpdjbujpot!jo!ftubcmjtijoh!boe!fogpsdjoh!opjtf!bcbufnfou!qspdfevsf t he Fly Neighborly section on HAI’s www.rotor.com Opjtf!Bcbufnfou!Usbjojoh!DE T information about Fly Neighborly, including manufacturer-recommended Noise Abatement Procedures for many helicopter models and information on the HAI Noise Abatement Training program that will help in recognizing: ! ! ! Qsftjefou-!IBJ Nbuu!\[vddbsp ! xxx/spups/dpn 2:31!Cbmmfohfs!Bwfovf Bmfyboesjb-!WB!33425.39:9 As part of the original team that launched the HAI Fly Neighborly Gps!npsf!jogpsnbujpo-!qmfbtf!dpoubdu he HAI’s Fly Neighborly Program is a voluntary noise reduction program. It has Ifmjdpqufs!Bttpdjbujpo!Joufsobujpobm Gmz!Ofjhicpsmz!Qsphsbn!Tvddftt T been successful, when followed and made an integral part of daily operations, in reducing noise complaints and winning public acceptance.Program in 1982 I have monitored its progress on a continuing basis. I am happy to report it has been accepted internationally and has the full support of helicopter operators, regional associations, manufacturers, pilots, and communities. As I have stated previously, just is not enough. We must also Fly Neighborly, it is in the best interest of everyone.” ! Ebwf!Difwbmjfs DFP-!Cmvf!Ibxbjjbo!Ifmjdpqufst Communication between the public and helicopter operators is key to s operations increase, more residents have nvironmental issues are the forefront of every business today, and the helicopter may have on our neighbors. Understanding understanding any negative impact our operations and compassion on both sides of this equation, Qvcmjd!Qfsdfqujpo A areas have become more vocal about helicopter activity. Their complaints center around noise and safety issues, although invasion of privacy and perceived lack of control regarding aircraft operations seem to add to their frustration.Xiz!Gmzjoh!Ofjhicpsmz!Jt!Jnqpsubou!E industry is no exception. We all want peace and quiet at home and in our neighborhoods. concern. Flying neighborly is also a concern. It is the key to improving public perception and fostering public acceptance of helicopters. ! Operators Strive to Be Good Neighbors by Flying in a Quiet, Respectful Way Ifbervbsufst;!Cvscbol-!Dbmjgpsojb As professional pilots, we are sensitive to Gmz!bu!bo!bmujuvef!uibu!jt!bt!ijhi!bt!qsbdujdbm/Bwpje!sftjefoujbm!bsfbt!xifo!qpttjcmf/Gmz!pwfs!joevtusjbm!bsfbt!boe!nbkps!spbexbzt!up!nbtl!uif!tpvoe!pg!ifmjdpqufst/Gmz!bu!bo!bmujuvef!uibu!jt!bt!ijhi! bt!qpttjcmf!pwfs!tdfojd!boe!sfdsfbujpo!bsfbt!tvdi!bt!qbslt!boe!cfbdift/Jefoujgz!opjtf!tfotjujwf!bsfbt!boe!bekvtu!spvuft!up!bwpje!uifn!up!uif!fyufou!qpttjcmf/Beifsf!up!qvcmjtife!opjtf!bcbufnfou!bqqspb di0efqbsuvsf!qspdfevsft!xifo! Qspgfttjpobm!Ifmjdpqufs!Qjmput!Bttpdjbujpo Ijhimjhiut!Gspn!IBJtGmz!Ofjhicpsmz!Qsphsbn safety permits and our work allows. Whether that helicopters make noise and how that noise the pilots and the community is the process by which we will achieve compatibility.” 12 13 14 12131415161718191:1211221231241251 TPVOE!MFWFM!DPNQBSJTPOT ¨ 15 16 17 18 19 1: 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Appendix K Noncompatible Residential Units andPublic Buildings in Program Areas 1 of 8 YESYESYESYESYESYES NOW INTERESTED YES NEW OWNER OFFERED SINCE NIP YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES NIP PREVIOUS ELIGIBLE IN YESYESYESYESYES BLOCK DUE TO INCLUDED ROUNDING SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF TYPE MF(2) MF(21) MF (R2)MF (R2)MF (R3)MF (R3)MF (R3)MF (R2)MF (R2) CH & SCH PROPERTY OWNERGIBSON WILLIAM TERSKINE LARRY RGILMARTIN MARC R AND JILLIAN AMPA OF KEY WEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP c/o STELLER MURRAY HCONFIDENTIAL DATA F.S. 119.07 DRESIE DAVID GCROOKS RICHARD AND NINA1441 12TH ST LLC MARCIAL INGE MARCIAL INGE KUNTTI REGINALD LEON HERCE TODD MITCHELLFILER CHARLES R AND JANET LGREEN BRADLEY S AND MARIA ECARROLL COLEMAN F B OF THE DIOC OF MIAMI ROM BOSCAMP KAREN LCARROLL COLEMAN F B OF THE DIOC OF MIAMI ROM GRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH U A C GRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH U A C MELLIES NIEL S II AND ELIZABETH CROMERO JORGEANSELL CHARLES W II AND MARY L ROBERTS RICHARD DENNISROBINSON WILLIAM SANDS JRHERNDON JOHN AND GIANNINA CLYDA THERON ESTATEIMBERT GEORGE A IMBERT GEORGE A IMBERT GEORGE A DOMINGUEZ RAFAEL MENENDEZ JUAN AND AMBERVICTOR MARIE YVICTOR MARIE YMENDEZ OTNIEL AND MARITZACATES CRAIG AND CHERYLSHIPLEY RONALD E PAZO LOUIS A AND CARIDAD SMILSTEAD JAMES D AND JOYCE A BAILEY JERRY LEE BARRIOS AUGUSTO AND MARIA UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT 3UNIT 1UNIT 2 NUMBER UNIT OR APT STREET NAME12TH ST12TH ST12TH ST12TH ST12TH ST12TH ST12TH ST12TH ST12TH ST12TH ST5TH ST5TH ST5TH STBAHAMA DRFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVE Noncompatible Residential Units and Public Buildings in Program Areas 1427142914311433143514371439144115281528152515321544160427002705270627072713280128052809281528192825283128352835283529102918300030003001300530093014301530213031 NUMBER ADDRESS PARCEL_NO 65280.00070865280.00070765280.00070665280.00070565280.00070465280.00070365280.00070265280.00070166500.00000066500.00000063650.00000063760.00000063790.00000070300.00000065090.00000067830.00000065090.0 0000067850.00000064860.00000066850.00000066860.00000066870.00000066880.00000066890.00000066900.00000066910.00000066920.00000066920.00000066920.00000069240.00000069220.00000069170.00000069170.00000066 270.00000066280.00000066290.00000069140.00000066300.00000066310.00000066320.000000 123456789 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940 2 of 8 YESYESYESYES NOW INTERESTED YESYESYES NEW OWNER OFFERED SINCE NIP YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES NIP PREVIOUS ELIGIBLE IN YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES BLOCK DUE TO INCLUDED ROUNDING SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF TYPE MF (R2)MF (R2) PROPERTY OWNERMEIVES JANE Z AND MICHAELLACAYO OSCARAMBROSE GRETCHEN EHENRIQUEZ LORI MHAZELTINE NAOMI LCAULEY CHRISTOPHER WBARACK JERILYN GANDRADE ADONIS MBERNAL HENRIQUEZ YOLIMA MILENABOYER SHERRI ANNLAKE OVILDA V AND DANIEL LFERNANDEZ JORGE LUIS AND FRANCISCAKEMEZYS DEANNAYI SO TONG THRIFT BRINSON C AND GRACE NHAMILTON K PAIGEVIDAL DARA MHINKLE EDGAR H JRCOHEN KEITH AND CHERI LYNNHOLIFIELD WENDY MNULISCH JOY EKNOWLES THEODORE MCCURDYPISZKER MARY FKOEHN JOY EMANUEL AND SHLOMOTRENT TERESA ANNWELLS ROBYN LGARCIA JAIME J AND NARA J JOHNSON THOMAS W AND CARRIE C HALPERN MICHELLEN KEEVAN AHRENS SCOTT AHRENS SCOTT SALGADO RICHARD A AND OLGAHAMBRIGHT THOMAS L AND LYNDA MSHEEHAN KATHA DBAKER JOYCEKOHEN SHLOMO AND JOYRUSS STEPHEN J AND KATHLEEN A PADEN SUZANNE J BUCHENMIANI PHILLIP NSELIG JULIAN WOOD JR AND BETSEY BLADESSHETZLEY GEORGE W UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT 3UNIT 4UNIT 5UNIT 6UNIT 7UNIT 8UNIT 9UNIT 1UNIT 2 UNIT 10UNIT 11UNIT 12UNIT 13UNIT 14UNIT 15UNIT 16UNIT 17UNIT 18UNIT 19UNIT 20UNIT 21UNIT 22UNIT 23UNIT 24UNIT 25UNIT 26 NUMBER APT 101C APT 101AAPT 101BAPT 102A UNIT OR APT STREET NAMEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEFLAGLER AVEJAMAICA DRRIVIERA DRRIVIERA DRRIVIERA DRRIVIERA DRRIVIERA DRRIVIERA DRRIVIERA DRRIVIERA DRS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVD Noncompatible Residential Units and Public Buildings in Program Areas 30413051307530753075307530753075307530753075307530753075307530753075307530753075307530753075307530753075307530751717291629162919292329242930320032202601260126012601 NUMBER ADDRESS PARCEL_NO 66330.00000066340.00000065280.00080165280.00081065280.00081165280.00081265280.00081365280.00081465280.00081565281.00081665282.00081765283.00081865284.00081965280.00080265285.00082065286.00082165287.0 0082265288.00082365289.00082465290.00082565291.00082665280.00080365280.00080465280.00080565280.00080665280.00080765280.00080865280.00080970460.00000069840.00000069840.00000069310.00000069320.00000069 820.00000069810.00000069550.00000069460.00000065141.00010065143.00010065141.000200 65142.000100 4142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081 3 of 8 NOW INTERESTED NEW OWNER OFFERED SINCE NIP NIP PREVIOUS ELIGIBLE IN YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES BLOCK DUE TO INCLUDED ROUNDING SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF TYPE PROPERTY OWNEROLIVARES RAFAEL AND HILDA GENNIBOWNS JOHN LDACRA GLASS CO INCDUNN STUART M ELLIOTT ROBERT W IIIDOWER BARBARA MELLIS LEONARD C JRSELLIER PATRICIANEAGLEY ROSS L AND BARBARA GCUSHMAN VICTOR L AND JOAN EHECHT EVA LEIGHSWEENEY ANNELEACH FRANCES HSMITH RICHARD EGREENHILL BARRY TELSER AND AUDREY GAILOLIVARES RAFAEL A AND HILDA GENNIPAUL ROBERT E AND MARTHA PCHLEBOWSKI STANLEY R AND KATHRYN ADAHL RUTH SBROWN FAMILY C/O RIDDELL CATHERINE D WEST PATSY RUTHHERMAN CARL M BERNAT GEORGE J LUCE LAURE ANNEMAY SUSANAMEADOWS DANIEL V AND KIMBERLY RMCDONALD RANDAL S AND ELIZABETH KNELSON JAN JSANDERS CHRISTOPHER AND SAMANTHAHILL BRIAN L AND SUSAN MDOOM DANNY C AND MARSHA LBRYANT LINDA D KLUSKA PAUL AND NATALIEBYWATER SHERMAN MHARDERS DOUGLAS BSCRIBNER ELIZABETH ELEHMANN MARTIN AND SHARONKEYZ REALTY TRUST MORGANTE MICHELLEHALPERN MICHAELWAYTENA JAMES R NUMBER APT 102CAPT 103CAPT 104CAPT 105CAPT 106CAPT 107CAPT 108CAPT 109CAPT 110CAPT 111CAPT 112CAPT 113CAPT 114CAPT 115CAPT 116CAPT 117CAPT 118CAPT 119CAPT 120CAPT 121CAPT 122CAPT 123CAPT 124C APT 102BAPT 103AAPT 103BAPT 105AAPT 105BAPT 106AAPT 106BAPT 107AAPT 107BAPT 108BAPT 109BAPT 110AAPT 110BAPT 111AAPT 111BAPT 201AAPT 201B APT 108 A UNIT OR APT STREET NAMES ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVD Noncompatible Residential Units and Public Buildings in Program Areas 26012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601 NUMBER ADDRESS PARCEL_NO 65142.00020065143.00020065141.00030065142.00030065143.00030065143.00040065141.00040065142.00040065143.00050065141.00050065142.00050065143.00060065141.00060065142.00060065143.00070065141.00070065142.0 0070065143.00080065142.00080065143.00090065141.00090065142.00090065143.00100065141.00100065142.00100065143.00110065143.00120065143.00130165143.00140065143.00150065143.00160065143.00170065143.00180065 143.00190065143.00200065143.00210065143.00220065143.00230065143.00240065141.00110065142.001100 828384858687888990919293949596979899 100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122 4 of 8 NOW INTERESTED NEW OWNER OFFERED SINCE NIP NIP PREVIOUS ELIGIBLE IN YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES BLOCK DUE TO INCLUDED ROUNDING SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF TYPE PROPERTY OWNERSCHENCK WILLIAM D JR AND HANNAVORNHOLT CATHYDIXON GEORGE A AND MARIE LSHOULTZ JAMES CNASET WALLACE J AND RUTH SRAUM DAVID C AND HELEN EBONNER MICHAEL H AND JULIAALBANO LOUIS J AND ELIZABETH EKUHAR RITA MEDWARDS GORDONMCCARTHY CAROLYN AEADEH LESLIE WDONOHUE THOMAS RNELSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUSTMITCHELL CALVIN HSCHAEFER JOSEPH AND DONNATOWNSEND KATHLEENBLACHE STEFAN C AND JAMIE LNEWBURY JAMES TLIBERATORE STEVEN COLBETTWOLNEY HARVEY P SR AND MARTA JEAN ZINKEVICH JOHN CMCMACKIN CARL H AND PATRICIA LESQUIROL JORGEHALL BRIDGET AND MICHAEL JEREMYARVANITIS JANNOULAMENDOLA BIQUETTE AND CHARLES JSKILLINGTON GARY LEEDURAZO MARLENE LHERMAN CARL M FASANO LEONARD AKEELER JILL RROMANO ALBERT RMCDERMOTT JAMES T JR AND SUSAM MDIXON ROBERT W AND MADELON ELURSKI ROBERT B AND CHRISTINE MO'LEARY FAMILY BELL ROY M AND PHYLLIS HDOBOS BETH AMURPHY PATRICK JOSEPH AND JUDITH ANNEPSTEIN MARINA J NUMBER APT 201CAPT 202CAPT 203CAPT 204CAPT 205CAPT 206CAPT 207CAPT 208CAPT 209CAPT 210CAPT 211CAPT 212CAPT 213CAPT 214CAPT 215CAPT 216CAPT 217CAPT 218CAPT 219C APT 202AAPT 202BAPT 203AAPT 203BAPT 204AAPT 204BAPT 205AAPT 205BAPT 206AAPT 206BAPT 207AAPT 207BAPT 208AAPT 208BAPT 209AAPT 209BAPT 210AAPT 210BAPT 211AAPT 211B APT 207SCAPT 217SC UNIT OR APT STREET NAMES ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVD Noncompatible Residential Units and Public Buildings in Program Areas 26012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601 NUMBER ADDRESS PARCEL_NO 65143.00250065141.00120065142.00120065143.00260065141.00130065142.00130065143.00270065141.00140065142.00140065143.00280065141.00150065142.00150065143.00290065141.00160065142.00160065143.00300065141.0 0170065142.00170065143.00310065143.00320065141.00180065142.00180065143.00330065141.00190065142.00190065143.00340065141.00200065142.00200065143.00350065141.00210065142.00210065143.00360065143.00370065 143.00380065143.00390065143.00400065143.00410065143.00420065143.00430065143.00440065143.004500 123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163 5 of 8 NOW INTERESTED NEW OWNER OFFERED SINCE NIP NIP PREVIOUS ELIGIBLE IN YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES BLOCK DUE TO INCLUDED ROUNDING SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF TYPE PROPERTY OWNERSCHWARTZ DOROTHY M REIF UDO AND DIANAHEUTON PAUL H AND LUCILLE M WILLIAMS GARY L AND DALE BMORRIS MARY S C/O SPICER K NEIL CORBETT MARIEHARVEY STACEYBECH VENTURESMCKEE ANN MCMENAMIN MICHAEL J AND MONICAZABLOCKI ROBERT E AND LOUISE LBERKIN MICHAEL E TOLLEN ROBERT R AND KAYLA RMCKAY JOSEPH AGASSER ROBERT E AND JUNE M DURAZO MARLENE LUCILLEVAILLANT RICHARD CCHICK ALICECANTLAY RUSSELL C AND AMY EEUBANK CRAIG HSEADEN GEORGEREID JULIE WINNKAPLAN MAEMCGINN NEIL L AND BARBARA ECASEY THOMAS FX AND NANCY AHALLBERG FAMILY SHOAF PATRICIA RUTHLAVERY JUDITH AYOUNG ANNE MARIESUNDSTROM JAN LEON AND PATRICIA LSTANFORD MAUREEN AWHALEN-DUNNING JANETLEBAR CHARLES S AND ELIZABETHVANTAGE IRA FBO STEVEN GOLLISHPOLIZZOTTO RICHARD J AND BRENDA LPINNEY RICHARD DMAURER REBECCAROLF JOAN W BRIZZI FRANCO LUCIO MARIO ANGELO SWITZER TODD M AND JOIE M ROLF-SWITZERTEIXEIRA JOANNE D NUMBER APT 220CAPT 221CAPT 222CAPT 223CAPT 224CAPT 301CAPT 302CAPT 303CAPT 304CAPT 305CAPT 306CAPT 307CAPT 308CAPT 309CAPT 310CAPT 311CAPT 312CAPT 313C APT 301AAPT 301BAPT 302AAPT 302BAPT 303AAPT 303BAPT 304AAPT 304BAPT 305AAPT 305BAPT 306AAPT 306BAPT 307AAPT 307BAPT 308AAPT 308BAPT 309AAPT 309BAPT 310AAPT 310BAPT 311AAPT 311B APT 307SC UNIT OR APT STREET NAMES ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVD Noncompatible Residential Units and Public Buildings in Program Areas 26012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601 NUMBER ADDRESS PARCEL_NO 65143.00460065143.00470065143.00480065143.00490065143.00500065141.00220065142.00220065143.00510065141.00230065142.00230065143.00520065141.00240065142.00240065143.00530065141.00250065142.00250065143.0 0540065141.00260065142.00260065143.00550065141.00270065142.00270065143.00560065141.00280065142.00280065143.00570065143.00580065141.00290065142.00290065143.00590065141.00300065142.00300065143.00600065 141.00310065142.00310065143.00610065141.00320065142.00320065143.00620065143.00630065143.006400 164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204 6 of 8 NOW INTERESTED NEW OWNER OFFERED SINCE NIP NIP PREVIOUS ELIGIBLE IN YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES BLOCK DUE TO INCLUDED ROUNDING SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF TYPE PROPERTY OWNERKEY WEST BY THE SEA ASSOCIATION INCO'LEARY FAMILY BANK OF NEW YORK MELLONBIEDERMANN DORIS YOUNGMAN BARBARALOREK CAROLLINDSAY THOMAS LTUCKER JOSEPH EDWARD AND LORRAINE ANNEWILLIAMS A LYNN COLLINS JOHN J PORTER WILLIAM M AND MARY CARLIN B WIGLE A ROGERCARLSON-HEIM PAIGE LEEHOWARD MARCIAHUBBELL JAMES HPADRON MARTHA G FORD INGRIDWILLIAMS GARY L JR AND BARBARA DALESUTTON DIANNA LBATTY PETER H AND ELLEN DASHMORE ANDREW J C/O ASHMORE BRUCE VDRUCKER DAVID AND PENNYMANION MARTIN AND CAROL LLCGODSEY H CARLETONREIF UDO AND DIANAHERL JAMES CMURPHEY MARK H AND JOAN ECOOKE DONALD P STUBBLEFIELD JOY A CALLAGHAN BRIAN ESATZ PERRY AND LINDATROST GEORGE D AND MARIE CGARBER PATRICK AND JULIE ANNBARNHILL PAUL WCOOK DAVID H IIISTUBBLEFIELD ROBERT P SRTHEIL NANCY MHARDEJ ADRIAN AND DIANETHIEL NANCYFLENNER SHIRLEY ANN C LYNNCOOK DAVID H II NUMBER APT 314CAPT 315CAPT 316CAPT 317CAPT 317CAPT 318CAPT 319CAPT 320CAPT 321CAPT 322CAPT 323CAPT 324C APT 401AAPT 401BAPT 402AAPT 402BAPT 403AAPT 403BAPT 404AAPT 404BAPT 405AAPT 405BAPT 406AAPT 406BAPT 407AAPT 407BAPT 408AAPT 408BAPT 409AAPT 409BAPT 410AAPT 410BAPT 411AAPT 411BAPT 501AAPT 501BAPT 502AAPT 502BAPT 503AAPT 503BAPT 504A UNIT OR APT STREET NAMES ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVD Noncompatible Residential Units and Public Buildings in Program Areas 26012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601 NUMBER ADDRESS PARCEL_NO 65143.00650065143.00660065143.00670065143.00680065143.00690065143.00700065143.00710065143.00720065143.00730065143.00740065143.00750065143.00760065141.00330065142.00330065141.00340065142.00340065141.0 0350065142.00350065141.00360065142.00360065141.00370065142.00370065141.00380065142.00380065141.00390065142.00390065141.00400065142.00400065141.00410065142.00410065141.00420065142.00420065141.00430065 142.00430065141.00440065142.00440065141.00450065142.00450065141.00460065142.00460065141.004700 205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245 7 of 8 NOW INTERESTED NEW OWNER OFFERED SINCE NIP NIP PREVIOUS ELIGIBLE IN YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES BLOCK DUE TO INCLUDED ROUNDING SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF TYPE PROPERTY OWNERFLENNER JAMES A AND SHIRLEY ANN LYNNSILVER CAROL D CAPAS RAYMONDCMIEL HOLLY R CAPAS RAYMONDTEPPER STEVEN DHILTON MADELINEROMANO ALBERT R AND RACHELLE MROMANO ALBERT RCOLEMAN CLINTON R AND JANICE ESENLER OSMAN H DULBERGER JOHANNACICCARELLI BENNY AND DINAGREEN BRUCE L AND ARLETTE P COLLIERODAY WILLIAM L JR AND ELISA RSTANFORD LELAND CWILLIAMS GARY L AND DALE BYOUNG CHARLES J JRROMANO ALBERT RALLEN MARJORIE CHOPPS DENNIS R AND ROSEMARY PKNIGHT HARRY F JRBLACK DYANNE LONDERDONK GARY R AND DIANE MBOOTH NELLIE SGATES CHRISTINE AND EDWARD W JRBALBONTIN GLORIA MCMAHON JAMES KEVINMCGRATH PATRICIA LROSE PAUL EDWARD AND ADENE STRAWHILTON MADELEINEHERBRUCK DIANE W COOKE PAULINE K CAWLEY THOMAS P CORBETT R BRIAN AND NANCYROBINSON RICHARD R AND KATHERINE JUNEALEXIS BARBARA ELLENTOLPA SUSAN MWILLIS VAUGHN LUTHER KEYGRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH GIBSON GAYLE GORDON NUMBER APT 504BAPT 505AAPT 505BAPT 506AAPT 506BAPT 507AAPT 507BAPT 508AAPT 508BAPT 509AAPT 509BAPT 510AAPT 510BAPT 511AAPT 511BAPT 601AAPT 601BAPT 602AAPT 602BAPT 603AAPT 603BAPT 604AAPT 604BAPT 605AAPT 605BAPT 606AAPT 606BAPT 607AAPT 607BAPT 608AAPT 608BAPT 609AAPT 609BAPT 610AAPT 610BAPT 611AAPT 611B UNIT 109A UNIT OR APT STREET NAMES ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDS ROOSEVELT BLVDSTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVE Noncompatible Residential Units and Public Buildings in Program Areas 26012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601260126012601271227142800 NUMBER ADDRESS PARCEL_NO 65142.00470065141.00480065142.00480065141.00490065142.00490065141.00500065142.00500065141.00510065142.00510065141.00520065142.00520065141.00530065142.00530065141.00540065142.00540065141.00550065142.0 0550065141.00560065142.00560065141.00570065142.00570065141.00580065142.00580065141.00590065142.00590065141.00600065142.00600065141.00610065142.00610065141.00620065142.00620065141.00630065142.00630065 141.00640065142.00640065141.00650065142.00650065141.00080067820.00000067840.00000067000.000000 246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286 8 of 8 NO NOW INTERESTED NEW OWNER OFFERED SINCE NIP YESYESYESYES NIP PREVIOUS ELIGIBLE IN YESYESYES BLOCK DUE TO INCLUDED ROUNDING SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF TYPE MF (R2)MF (R2)MF (R2)MF (R2)MF (R2)MF (R2) PROPERTY OWNERFORD KATHLEEN SFORD KATHLEEN SFORD KATHLEEN SMELNICK ALAN DBENNETT LEE F AND MELAINE MIRA RACHELRAMEY ROBERT E IIIANDERSON RUTHCASTELLANOS DOMINGO G AND KELLY LSWAN ANNE MLASWELL JIMMY G AND NEDRA MAMAR OLIVER MLYHNE ROBERT HPERKINS MARK T ALEMDA ELMIRA LHAWKINS RICHARDWILSON MICHAEL C JR AND MELANIE BRODRIGUEZ ANGEL IGNACIO AND DANIELA ORLINDA RANDALL MARGARETMOLLOT IRWIN BOYLE JEAN MMCCARTHY RITA W GIBSON BARRYWEITZ ANDREA RENEERICKS KEITH O AND LAURA EMAKIMAA BRADLEY J AND RENEE CD'AMATO NANCY JD'AMATO NANCY JMIRA JAMES JR AND ROBERTA ANDREWSMIRA JAMES JR AND ROBERTA ANDREWSDEPOO PAUL JULIOVERNON JAMES PDURBIN SHARON GROBINSON RAYMOND R RAYVAN CORP (RAYMOND VANYO) UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT 1UNIT 2 NUMBER UNIT OR APT STREET NAMESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVESTAPLES AVEVENETIAN DRVENETIAN DRVENETIAN DRVENETIAN DR Noncompatible Residential Units and Public Buildings in Program Areas 28012807280728082811281228152816281928202824282528272828283229032907290829112912291529162919292029232924292729272928292829321603280528272929 NUMBER ADDRESS PARCEL_NO 67010.00000067020.00000067020.00000066990.00000067030.00000066980.00000067040.00000066970.00000067050.00000066960.00000066950.00000067060.00000067070.00000066940.00000066930.00000066430.00000066440.0 0000066410.00000066450.00000066400.00000066460.00000066390.00000066470.00000066380.00000066480.00000066370.00000066490.00000066490.00000066360.00000066360.00000066350.00000070780.00000070970.00000070 900.00000070810.000000 287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318318319320 Appendix L Sample Avigation Easement for Noise Insulation Program Prepared By and Return To: AVIGATIONEASEMENT Key West International Airport NoiseInsulationProgram THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT isentered intothis dayof , 20, by “HOMEOWNER(S)”,hereinafter referred to as“the Homeowner,” in favor of the MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, a body politicand corporate, hereinafter referred to as “BOCC.” RECITALS: A. The Homeowner isthefee simple titleholder to certain real property (“the Property”) located in Monroe County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: “LEGALDESCRIPTION” alsoidentified asstreet address: “ADDRESS” B. The BOCC is the owner and operator of Key West International Airport (“the Airport”). C. It is the purpose of this Easement Agreement to grant to the BOCC a perpetual avigation easement, on terms as hereinafter set forth. NOW THEREFORE,forandinconsiderationofthesumofTenDollarsandother considerations, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by valuable both parties, the Homeowner andthe BOCC agree as follows: 1.The Homeowner onbehalfof the Homeowner and its heirs, assigns and all successors ininterest, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey to the BOCC, its successors and assigns, a perpetual avigation easement over the Property. The use of the easement shall include the right to generate and emit noise, and to causeothereffects asmaybeassociatedwithaircraftlandingandtakingoffatthe Airport. This easement shall apply to all such aircraft activity at the Airport, with a maximumapplicablenoise levelas projected on the Year 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map, (see attached), anditbeing the intentof the parties that all such Airport activity shallbe deemed to be included within the purview of this easement so long as the noise level does not exceed the referenced maximum (Year 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map). 2.This easement shall beperpetualin nature and shall bind and run with the title to the Property and shall run to the benefit of the BOCC or its successor in interestasowner and operator of the Airport. 3.The Homeowner on behalf of the Homeowner, its heirs, assigns and successors in interest, does hereby release the BOCC, and any and all related parties of the BOCC, including but not limited to BOCC members, officers, managers, agents, servants, employeesandlessees,fromanyandallclaims,demands,damages,debts,liabilities, costs,attorney’s fees or causesof action of every kind or nature for whichthe Homeowner or its heirs, assigns, or successors currently have, have inthe past possessed,orwillin the future possess, as a resultof normal Airport operations or normal aircraft activities and noise levels related toor generated by normalAirport activity, or may hereafter have as a result of use of this easement, including but not limited to damage to the above-mentioned property or contiguous propertydue to noise,and other effects of thenormal operationof the Airport or of aircraft landing or taking off at the Airport. 4.Should either partyheretoorany of theirsuccessors orassignsin interestretain counseltoenforceany of the provisions herein or protect its interest in any matter arising under this Agreement, or to recover damages by reason of any alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs, damages and expenses incurred including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection therewith, including appellate action. 5. No provision of this Agreement is to be interpreted for or against any party because that party orthatparty's legal representative drafted such provision. Thisagreement shall be interpreted andconstrued according to thelaws of the State of Florida. 6.Nobreach of any provision of this Agreement may be waivedunless in writing. Waiver of any one breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument executed by the parties in interest at the time of the modification. In the event that any one or more covenant, condition or provision contained herein is held invalid, void or illegal by any court of competent jurisdiction, the sameshallbe deemed severable from the remainder of this Agreement andshall in noway affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof so long as the remaining provisions donotmaterially alter the rightsand obligations of the parties. If such condition, covenant or other provision shall be deemed invalid due to this scope or breadth, such covenant, conditionor otherprovisionshallbe deemed valid to theextentof the scope or breadth permitted by law. 7.Inthe event the Airport shall be subdivided into more than one parcel, or the Airport or a portion thereof becomes subject to operation, management or administration by a party in addition to or in lieu of the BOCC, then and in that event the parties agree that same shall not terminate or otherwise affect this Agreement so long as a portion of the Airport continues to operate for standard airport flight purposes, and that any such successor in interest to the BOCC shall be entitled to all of the benefits running to the BOCC hereunder. 8.If themaximumapplicablenoise level as projectedontheYear 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map (see attached), is exceeded, then theBOCC will, upon simple demand in writing from the Homeowner, cancel this Agreement fromthe publicrecords. This Easement Agreement is executed as of the date first above written. Witnesses: MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Mayor "HOMEOWNER" "HOMEOWNER" STATE OFFLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE The foregoing instrumentwasacknowledged before me this day of , 20 by as Mayor of the MonroeCountyBoard ofCounty Commissioners,a body politicandcorporate. NotaryPublic My CommissionExpires: STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrumentwasacknowledged before me this dayof , 20 by . Homeowner(s) NotaryPublic My CommissionExpires: THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix M Sample Avigation Easement for Undeveloped Property Prepared By and Return To: AVIGATIONEASEMENT Key West International Airport THISEASEMENTAGREEMENTisenteredintothis dayof , 20 , by “PROPERTY OWNER(S)”,hereinafter referred toas“the Property Owner,” in favorof theMONROECOUNTYBOARDOFCOUNTYCOMMISSIONERS, abody politic and corporate, hereinafter referred to as “BOCC.” RECITALS: A. The Property Owner is the feesimple titleholder tocertain real property (“the Property”)locatedin MonroeCounty,Florida,moreparticularlydescribedasfollows: “LEGALDESCRIPTION” alsoidentified asstreet address: “ADDRESS” B. The BOCC is the owner and operator of Key West International Airport (“the Airport”). C. It is the purpose of this Easement Agreement to grant to the BOCC a perpetual avigation easement, on terms as hereinafter set forth. NOW THEREFORE, forand inconsideration ofthe sum of Ten Dollars andother valuable considerations, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by both parties, the Property Ownerand the BOCC agree as follows: 1.TheProperty OwneronbehalfoftheProperty Owneranditsheirs,assignsandall successors in interest, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and conveyto the BOCC, itssuccessors andassigns,aperpetual avigationeasement overtheProperty. The use of the easement shall include the right to generate and emit noise, and to causeothereffects asmaybeassociatedwithaircraftlandingandtakingoffatthe Airport. This easement shall apply to all such aircraft activity at the Airport, with a maximumapplicablenoise levelasprojectedonthe Year2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map, (see attached), and it being the intent ofthe parties that all such Airport activity shall be deemed to be included within the purview of this easement so long as the noise level does not exceed the referenced maximum (Year 2013 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map). 2.The Property Owner on behalf of the Property Owner and its heirs, assigns andall successors in interest, shall not permit the construction of any facility or improvement on the Property, or permit any use of the Property, that will reduce the compatibility of the Property as defined in Key West International Airport’s Noise Exposure Maps and Supporting Documentation and Noise Compatibility Program. Measures to achieve outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB must be incorporated in the design and construction of all structures that will be used for noise-sensitive uses, including, but not necessarily limited to: residential (including transient lodgings), hospitals, nursing homes, places of worship, auditoriums, concert halls, and/or educational uses of any kind. Mobile homes, outdoor music shells, and amphitheaters are prohibited. 3. This easement shall be perpetual in nature and shall bind and run with the title to the Property and shall run to the benefit of the BOCC or its successor in interest as owner and operator of the Airport. 4.The Property Owner on behalfof theProperty Owner, its heirs, assigns and successors in interest, does hereby release the BOCC, and any and all related parties of the BOCC, including but not limited to BOCC members, officers, managers, agents, servants, employees and lessees,fromany and all claims, demands, damages, debts, liabilities, costs, attorney’s fees or causes of action of every kind or nature for which the Property Owner or its heirs, assigns, or successors currently have, have in the past possessed, or will in the future possess, as a result of normal Airport operations or normal aircraft activities and noise levels related toor generated bynormal Airport activity, or may hereafter have as a result of use of this easement, including but not limited to damage to the above-mentioned property or contiguous property dueto noise,and other effects of the normal operation of the Airport or of aircraft landing or taking off at the Airport. 5.Should either partyheretoorany of theirsuccessors orassignsin interestretain counseltoenforceany of the provisions herein or protect its interest in any matter arising under this Agreement, or to recover damages by reason of any alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs, damages and expenses incurred including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection therewith, including appellate action. 6. No provision of this Agreement is to be interpreted for or against any party because that party orthatparty's legal representative drafted such provision. Thisagreement shall be interpreted andconstrued according to thelaws of the State of Florida. 7.Nobreach of any provision of this Agreement may be waivedunlessin writing. Waiver of any one breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument executed by the parties in interest at the time of the modification. In the event that any one or more covenant, condition or provision contained herein is held invalid, void or illegal by any court of competent jurisdiction, the sameshallbe deemed severable from the remainder of this Agreement andshall in noway affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof so long as the remaining provisions donotmaterially alter the rightsand obligations of the parties. If such condition, covenant or other provision shall be deemed invalid due to this scope or breadth, such covenant, conditionor otherprovisionshallbe deemed valid to theextentof the scope or breadth permitted by law. 8.IntheeventtheAirportshallbesubdividedintomorethanoneparcel,ortheAirportor a portion thereof becomes subject to operation, management or administration by a party in addition to or in lieu of the BOCC, then and in that event the parties agree that same shall not terminate or otherwise affect this Agreement so long as a portion of the Airport continues to operate for standard airport flight purposes, and that any such successor in interest to the BOCC shall be entitled to all of the benefits running to the BOCC hereunder. 9.If themaximumapplicablenoise level as projectedontheYear 2013 Existing Condition NoiseExposureMap(seeattached), isexceeded, thentheBOCCwill, uponsimple demandinwritingfromtheProperty Owner,cancelthisAgreementfrom the public records. This Easement Agreement isexecuted as ofthe date first above written. Witnesses: MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Mayor "PROPERTY OWNER" "PROPERTY OWNER" STATE OFFLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE Theforegoing instrumentwasacknowledged before me this day of , 20 by as Mayor of the MonroeCountyBoard ofCounty Commissioners,a body politicandcorporate. NotaryPublic My CommissionExpires: STATE OF COUNTY OF Theforegoing instrumentwasacknowledged before me this dayof , 20 by . Property Owner(s) Notary Public My CommissionExpires: THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix N Information Regarding Program Management Measures bjsqpsu!ebub!)Kfqqftfo-!Cpfjoh!Opjtf-!fud* Bjsqpsu!pxot!uif!ebub!vomjlf!upebz!xjui!nvmujqmf!qbsujft!nbobhjoh!Bjsqpsu!dpouspmt!xifo!uif!ebub!jt!qvcmjtife!boe!dpouspmt!uif!dpoufouDvssfou!ebub!jotuboumz!efmjwfsfe!bvupnbujdbmmz CFOFGJUT Nbobhf!ebub!jo!bo!jouvjujwf!xbz!boe!fbtjmz!dibohf!pomz!qbsut!pg!zpvs!ebubBjsqpsut!dbo!efmfhbuf!uif!nbobhfnfou!pg!OBQ!nbjoufobodf!up!boz!joejwjevbm!jo!uif!pshboj{bujpoBmmpxt!bjsqpsu!nbobhfst! up!vqebuf!ebub!uifntfmwft!ps!efmfhbuf!up!b!tvcpsejobuf!up!nbobhf!uif!ebub!xjuipvu!xfc!efwfmpqfst!ps!JU!dppsejobujpo GFBUVSFT EBUBCBTF!ESJWFO!DNTTUBOEBSEJ\[FE!EBUB!FOUSZPO.EFNBOE!QVCMJTIJOHEFMFHBUJPO!DBQBCMFJOUVJUJWF!JOUFSGBDF Xijtqfsusbdl!jt!b!spcvtu!Dpoufou!Nbobhfnfou!Tztufn!)DNT*!uibu!dfousbmj{ft!boe!tuboebsej{ft!Opjtf!Bcbufnfou!Qspdfevsft!gps!bjsqpsut!xpsmexjef/!Jut!qpxfsgvm-!zfu!jouvjujwf!joufsgbdf!nblft!ju!qfsgfdu!gp s!uif!qjmpu!dpnnvojuz!xijmf!fotvsjoh!jut!fbtz!gps!bjsqpsu!benjojtusbupst!up!nbobhf/!Vq.up.uif!njovuf!ebub!bcpvu!zpvs!bjsqpsu!jt!ejtusjcvufe!po.efnboe!uispvhi!Xijtqfsusbdl!up!qjmput!boe!uispvhi!ejtqb udifst!xjui!qpxfsgvm!ebubcbtf!esjwfo!uppmt/joufsgbdf!gps!bjsqpsut!up!vqmpbe!jnbhft0ejbhsbnt-!ufyuvbm!qspdfevsft-!boe!bjsqpsu!dpoubdu! f m Nbef!Tjnq GMZ!UIF!RVJFU!SPVUF OBQ!Nbobhfnfou Xibu!jt!Xijtqfsusbdl@ Bjsqpsu!Xfctjuf GMZ!UIF!RVJFU!SPVUF Mftt!Fyqfotjwf Xijtqfsusbdl!Nblft Qsphsbnt!bsf!fyqfotjwf Dvssfou!Opjtf!Bcbufnfou Opjtf!Bcbufnfou!Qsphsbnt . Ifmqgvm!ujqt!boe!jotusvdujpot!gps!fbdi!dbufhpsz!up!ifmq!nblf!zpvs!ebub!Nvmujqmf!ebub!gpsnbut!bddfqufe!)jnbhft!boe!ufyu*Tfu!ufyu!boe!jnbhft!gps!qspdfevsf!uzqft-!boe!svoxbzt!gps!fbtz!tfbsdijoh!pg!ebub! cz!qjmput!boe!ejtqbudifst Xijtqfsusbdlt!DNT!gfbuvsft!qpxfsgvm!uppmt!gps!nbobhjoh!zpvs!bjsqpsut!opjtf!bcbufnfou!qspdfevsft!boe!qbdlbhft!uifn!joup!bo!jouvjujwf!joufsgbdf/ GMZ!UIF!RVJFU!SPVUF Qpxfsgvm!Zfu!Jouvjujwf Tfu!Zpvs!Opjtf!TfotjujwjuzJouvjujwf!Ebub!Pshboj{bujpoBee!dvtupn!tfdujpot!up!nffu dpnnvojuzuibu!bsf!jnnfejbufmz!pvu!pg!ebuf Fmjnjobuf!dvncfstpnf!nbjoufobodf!pg!zpvs!pxo!OBQ!qbhft!)xfc!ps!qsjou*Vomjnjufe!bddftt!up!b!dfousbmj{fe!ebubcbtf!gps!qjmput!boe!uif!ejtqbudi!Fmjnjobuf!fyqfotjwf!qspevdujpo!pg!hmpttz!Opjtf!Bcbufnfou!Cs pdivsft!Ep!tnbmm!qsjou!kpct!uibu!lffq!ebub!dvssfouFbtjmz!bmmpx!qjmput!up!qsjou!dvssfou!ebub!bu!GCPt!jo!b!tuboebse!gpsnbu CFOFGJUT jQbe!boe!Tnbsu!Qipof!eftjho!nblft!dvssfou!bjsqpsu!Xijtqfsebub!fbtjmz!bwbjmbcmf!xifo!qjmput!offe!ju GFBUVSFT IPTUFE!TPMVUJPOPO.EFNBOE!QVCMJTIJOHXJUI!XIJTQFSQMBUFTEFTJHOFE!GPS!NPCJMF!BQQT Xijtqfsusbdl!xbt!cvjmu!gspn!uif!hspvoe!vq!up!cf!b!qpxfsgvm!Ebub!Ejtusjcvujpo!Tfswjdf-!xijdi!jodmveft!vomjnjufe!epxompbet!boe!ejtusjcvujpo!pg!bjsqpsu!ebub!uispvhi!uif!Xijtqfsusbdl!xfctjuf!boe!qsjoufe! XijtqfsQmbuft GMZ!UIF!RVJFU!SPVUF Cvjmu!up!Nffu!Zpvs!Offet Find An Airport DEBORAHLAGOS GetthemostoutofWhispertrack KeyWestIntlAirport KEYW Key West, Florida, UnitedStates PROCEDURESSTAFFSUBSCRIPTIONMY PROFILE Published: Preview Noise Abatement Procedures AirportContact Information Noise SensitivityLow Medium High Airport ContactInformation AirportContactInformation FIRSTNAMELASTNAME All sections are optional. Only populate the sections relevant to your airport. Overview TITLE TemporaryInformation MandatoryRestrictions Curfews ADDRESS1ADDRESS2 Images/Diagrams Arrivals CITYSTATEZIPCODE Departures PreferentialRunways PreferentialInstrumentProcedures PHONEMOBILEPHONE ReverseThrust PatternAltitudes IntersectionTakeoffs FAXNOISEHOTLINE APUUse EngineRunup EMAIL FlightTraining CommunityGroups/Info StageII WEBADDRESS StageIII FlightTrackMonitoring NoiseOrdinance NOISECOMPLAINTURL NoiseMonitoring PriorPermission(PPR)Operations NBAAProcedures Submit AOPANoiseAwarenessSteps +NewSection © Copyright 2009-2013 WhispertrackLLC. All Rights Reserved.Your feedbackis important to us, please Contact Us | Terms of Use KeyWestIntlAirport KEYW KeyWest,Florida,UnitedStates PROCEDURESSTAFFSUBSCRIPTIONMY PROFILE CurrentPlan Pro Basic $195/mo Free Features Procedure Management System Manage andupdate your NAPs through Whispertrack’s easy-to-useonline tools. Online Procedure Publishing Your airport'sNAPs are available to everyone on Whispertrack's website. Whisperplate PDF Distribution Noise abatementbrochuresallow pilots to easilyprint your procedures during theirflight planning process. Unlimited Industry Distribution Instantly and automatically load your procedures into aviation services duringthe flight planningprocess. Coming Soon Coming Soon Coming Soon © Copyright 2009-2013 WhispertrackLLC. All Rights Reserved.Your feedbackis important to us, please Contact Us | Terms of Use joGmjhiu }Dpoubdu}Fnbjm!up!b!Dpmmfbhvf}Qsjou}Tfbsdi JoGmjhiu Qspevdut Overview B!Gmjhiu!Usbdl!Npojupsjoh!Tztufn!uibu!fobcmft!bewbodfe!wjtvbmj{bujpo-!bobmztjt!boe!sfqpsujoh!pg!bjsqpsu!gmjhiu Airports pqfsbujpot/!Uijt!tpguxbsf!npojupst!dpnqmjbodf!xjui!opjtf!bcbufnfou!efqbsuvsf!qspdfevsft-!svoxbz!vtbhf-!boe sftqpoet!up!opjtf!jttvft!jo!uif!tvsspvoejoh!dpnnvojujft!boe!bttjtut!jo!bjstqbdf!bobmztjt/!Gmjhiu!usbdlt!bsf Qvmtf!Mboejoh!Gff dpmmfdufe!gspn!pof!pg!nboz!tvqqpsufe!sbebs!tztufnt!boe!tupsfe!jo!b!sfmbujpobm!ebubcbtf!jo!gpvs!ejnfotjpot!)Y-!Z- Nbobhfnfou Bmujuvef!boe!Ujnf*!bmpoh!xjui!gmjhiu!jefoujgjdbujpo/ Ubsnbd!Efmbz!Npojups Uiftf!dbo!cf!wjfxfe!pwfs!b!cbtf!nbq!jo!uxp!ps!uisff!ejnfotjpot/!Gmjhiu!usbdlt!dbo!cf!tfmfdufe!gps!bobmztjt!cz QBTTVS!PQTofu ujnf.pg.ebz-!bssjwbm0efqbsuvsf!npef-!svoxbz-!bjsmjof-!bjsdsbgu!uzqf-!ps!boz!dpncjobujpo/!Hsbqijdbm!boe!ubcvmbs SjhiuFUB fyqpsujoh!gvodujpot!joufsgbdf!fbtjmz!xjui!fyufsobm!uppmt!tvdi!bt!Njdsptpgu!Pggjdf/ Qpsubm Noise Abatement Flight Path Procedures QBTTVS!joTjhiu Hbuf!bobmztjt!jt!bo!fggfdujwf!uppm!gps!npojupsjoh!bssjwbm!boe!efqbsuvsf!qspdfevsft!jo!boe!bspvoe!uif!bjsqpsu/!Hbuf dpnqvubujpot!qspevdf!uif!gpmmpxjoh!nfbtvsfnfout; GmjhiuQfsgpsn BjsqpsuNpojups Gmjhiu!usbdl!jefoujgjdbujpo Ujnf!pg!qfofusbujpo Opjtf!Pqfsbujpot Bmujuvef-!mbujuvef-!mpohjuvef Nbobhfnfou Efwjbujpo!gspn!dfoufs!pg!hbuf Cvtjoftt!Joufmmjhfodf Dpnqbtt!ifbejoh Sfqpsut Hbuf!qfofusbujpo!hsbqit!pggfs!b!4E!wjfx!pg!uif!dspttjoht-!bmmpxjoh!gps!b!npsf!efubjmfe!bobmztjt! Airlines pg!hspvqt!pg!gmjhiu!usbdlt FBOs Hbuf!dspttjoh!ebub!dbo!cf!fyqpsufe!up!b!tqsfbetiffu!gps!gvsuifs!bobmztjt-!boe!hbuf!qfofusbujpo!hsbqit!dbo!cf fyqpsufe!bt!b!hsbqijd!gps!tfbnmftt!joufhsbujpo!xjui!NT!Pggjdf!epdvnfout!boe! qsftfoubujpot Analyzing Community Effects Tqifsft!boe!dzmjoefst!dbo!cf!dsfbufe!tqfdjgzjoh!b!qbsujdvmbs!bjstqbdf!gps!tuvez!boe!bobmztjt/!Cpui! tibqft!dbo!cf!mpdbufe!pwfs!boz!qpjou!po!uif!nbq-!jodmvejoh!b!ipvtf-!tdippm!ps!boz!puifs!cvjmejoh!xjui! b!tusffu!beesftt/!Cpui!tibqft!ibwf!b!vtfs.efgjofe!sbejvt-!boe!uif!dzmjoefs!ibt!gmpps!boe!dfjmjoh! bmujuveft/ Air Traffic Density Plots Wjtvbmj{joh!uipvtboet!pg!gmjhiu!usbdlt!bu!podf!zjfmet!b!tqbhifuuj!ejtqmbz!xijdi!qspwjeft!wfsz!mjuumf! voefstuboejoh!bt!up!xifsf!uif!nbkpsjuz!pg!uif!usbdlt!bsf!gmzjoh/!JoGMJHIU!jt!bcmf!up!hfofsbuf!bjs!usbggjd!efotjuz!qmput bt!b!xbz!up!fyusbdu!jogpsnbujpo!gspn!b!mbshf!ovncfs!pg!gmjhiut/!Uiftf!efotjuz!qmput!bsf!b!nfbojohgvm!dpnnvojdbujpo nfdibojtn!jo!efbmjoh!xjui!dpnnvojuz!dpodfsot-!efwfmpqjoh0npejgzjoh!bssjwbm!boe!efqbsuvsf!qspdfevsft-!boe!fwfo efwfmpqjoh!npefm!usbdlt!gps!uif!GBBt!Joufhsbufe!Opjtf!Npefm!)JON*/ Bmm!gmjhiu!usbdl!gjmufsjoh!dbqbcjmjujft!dbo!cf!bqqmjfe!zjfmejoh!efotjuz!qmput!sfqsftfoujoh!wbszjoh!xfbuifs!dpoejujpot!boe svoxbz!dpogjhvsbujpot-!bjsdsbgu!gmffu!njy!ejggfsfodft-!boe!ebz0fwfojoh0ojhiu!dpnqbsjtpot/! Filtering JoGmjhiu!qspwjeft!uif!bcjmjuz!up!tfmfdu!gmjhiu!usbdlt!gspn!uif!ebubcbtf!vtjoh!b!wbsjfuz!pg!tfmfdujpo! qbsbnfufst!tvdi!bt; Boz!sbohf!pg!ebuft!boe!ujnft Tqfdjgjd!gmjhiu!npeft!tvdi!bt!bssjwbmt!ps!efqbsuvsft Tqfdjgjd!bjsqpsut!boe!svoxbzt Bjsmjof!mjtut Bjsdsbgu!uzqf!mjtut! ª!3124!QBTTVS!BfsptqbdfDpoubdu}Tjufnbq iuuq;00xxx/qbttvs/dpn0qspevdut.gps.bjsqpsut.jogmjhiu/iun\\603203124!23;24;64!QN^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Appendix O Phasing Plan for Noise Insulation Program NIP PHASE 1 INCLUDED NEW SHOWN ON ELIGIBLE IN ADDRESS UNIT OR APT DUE TO OWNER INTERESTED FOLLOWING #PARCEL_NOSTREET NAMEPROPERTY OWNERTYPEPREVIOUS NUMBERNUMBERBLOCK SINCE NIP NOWPHASE 1 NIP ROUNDINGOFFEREDMAP 169840.0000002916RIVIERA DRUNIT 1AHRENS SCOTT MF (R2)NOYESYESYESMAP A 269840.0000002916RIVIERA DRUNIT 2AHRENS SCOTT MF (R2)NOYESYESYESMAP A 369810.0000002930RIVIERA DRBAKER JOYCESFNOYESYESYESMAP A 469220.0000002918FLAGLER AVEMENENDEZ JUAN AND AMBERSFNOYESYESYESMAP A 565143.0013012601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 113CNELSON JAN JSFNONOMAP B 665143.0014002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 114CSANDERS CHRISTOPHER AND SAMANTHASFNONOMAP B 765143.0015002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 115CHILL BRIAN L AND SUSAN MSFNONOMAP B 865143.0016002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 116CDOOM DANNY C AND MARSHA LSFNONOMAP B 965143.0017002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 117CBRYANT LINDA D SFNONOMAP B 1065143.0018002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 118CKLUSKA PAUL AND NATALIESFNONOMAP B 1165143.0019002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 119CBYWATER SHERMAN MSFNONOMAP B 1265143.0020002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 120CHARDERS DOUGLAS BSFNONOMAP B 1365143.0021002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 121CSCRIBNER ELIZABETH ESFNONOMAP C 1465143.0022002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 122CLEHMANN MARTIN AND SHARONSFNONOMAP C 1565143.0023002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 123CKEYZ REALTY TRUST SFNONOMAP C 1665143.0024002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 124CMORGANTE MICHELLESFNONOMAP C 1765143.0038002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 213CMCDERMOTT JAMES T JR AND SUSAM MSFNONOMAP B 1865143.0039002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 214CDIXON ROBERT W AND MADELON ESFNONOMAP B 1965143.0040002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 215CLURSKI ROBERT B AND CHRISTINE MSFNONOMAP B 2065143.0041002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 216CO'LEARY FAMILY SFNONOMAP B 2165143.0042002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 217CBELL ROY M AND PHYLLIS HSFNONOMAP B 2265143.0043002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 217SCDOBOS BETH ASFNONOMAP B 2365143.0044002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 218CMURPHY PATRICK JOSEPH AND JUDITH ANNSFNONOMAP B 2465143.0045002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 219CEPSTEIN MARINA JSFNONOMAP B 2565143.0046002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 220CSCHWARTZ DOROTHY M SFNONOMAP B 2665143.0047002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 221CREIF UDO AND DIANASFNONOMAP C 2765143.0048002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 222CHEUTON PAUL H AND LUCILLE M SFNONOMAP C 2865143.0049002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 223CWILLIAMS GARY L AND DALE BSFNONOMAP C 2965143.0050002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 224CMORRIS MARY S C/O SPICER K NEIL SFNONOMAP C 3065143.0064002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 313CTEIXEIRA JOANNE DSFNONOMAP B 3165143.0065002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 314CKEY WEST BY THE SEA ASSOCIATION INCSFNONOMAP B 3265143.0066002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 315CO'LEARY FAMILY SFNONOMAP B 3365143.0067002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 316CBANK OF NEW YORK MELLONSFNONOMAP B 3465143.0068002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 317CBIEDERMANN DORIS SFNONOMAP B 3565143.0069002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 317CYOUNGMAN BARBARASFNONOMAP B 3665143.0070002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 318CLOREK CAROLSFNONOMAP B 3765143.0071002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 319CLINDSAY THOMAS LSFNONOMAP B 3865143.0072002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 320CTUCKER JOSEPH EDWARD & LORRAINE ANNESFNONOMAP B 3965143.0073002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 321CWILLIAMS A LYNN SFNONOMAP C 4065143.0074002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 322CCOLLINS JOHN J SFNONOMAP C 4165143.0075002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 323CPORTER WILLIAM M AND MARY CARLIN B SFNONOMAP C 4265143.0076002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 324CWIGLE A ROGERSFNONOMAP C 3 8. 5 3 NIP PHASE 2 INCLUDED SHOWN ON ADDRESS UNIT OR APT DUE TO FOLLOWING #PARCEL_NOSTREET NAMEPROPERTY OWNERTYPE NUMBERNUMBERBLOCK PHASE 2 ROUNDINGMAP 165142.0022002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 301BHARVEY STACEYSFNOMAP B 265142.0023002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 302BMCMENAMIN MICHAEL J AND MONICASFNOMAP B 365142.0024002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 303BTOLLEN ROBERT R AND KAYLA RSFNOMAP B 465142.0025002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 304BDURAZO MARLENE LUCILLESFNOMAP B 565142.0026002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 305BCANTLAY RUSSELL C AND AMY ESFNOMAP B 665142.0027002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 306BREID JULIE WINNSFNOMAP B 765142.0028002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 307BCASEY THOMAS FX AND NANCY ASFNOMAP A 865142.0029002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 308BYOUNG ANNE MARIESFNOMAP A 965142.0030002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 309BWHALEN-DUNNING JANETSFNOMAP A 1065142.0031002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 310BPOLIZZOTTO RICHARD J AND BRENDA LSFNOMAP A 1165142.0032002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 311BROLF JOAN W SFNOMAP A 1265142.0033002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 401BHOWARD MARCIASFNOMAP B 1365142.0034002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 402BPADRON MARTHA G SFNOMAP B 1465142.0035002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 403BWILLIAMS GARY L JR AND BARBARA DALESFNOMAP B 1565142.0036002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 404BBATTY PETER H AND ELLEN DSFNOMAP B 1665142.0037002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 405BDRUCKER DAVID AND PENNYSFNOMAP B 1765142.0038002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 406BGODSEY H CARLETONSFNOMAP B 1865142.0039002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 407BHERL JAMES CSFNOMAP A 1965142.0040002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 408BCOOKE DONALD P SFNOMAP A 2065142.0041002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 409BCALLAGHAN BRIAN ESFNOMAP A 2165142.0042002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 410BTROST GEORGE D AND MARIE CSFNOMAP A 2265142.0043002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 411BBARNHILL PAUL WSFNOMAP A 2365142.0044002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 501BSTUBBLEFIELD ROBERT P SRSFNOMAP B 2465142.0045002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 502BHARDEJ ADRIAN AND DIANESFNOMAP B 2565142.0046002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 503BFLENNER SHIRLEY ANN C LYNNSFNOMAP B 2665142.0047002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 504BFLENNER JAMES A AND SHIRLEY ANN LYNNSFNOMAP B 2765142.0048002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 505BCAPAS RAYMONDSFNOMAP B 2865142.0049002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 506BCAPAS RAYMONDSFNOMAP B 2965142.0050002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 507BHILTON MADELINESFNOMAP A 3065142.0051002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 508BROMANO ALBERT RSFNOMAP A 3165142.0052002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 509BSENLER OSMAN H SFNOMAP A 3265142.0053002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 510BCICCARELLI BENNY AND DINASFNOMAP A 3365142.0054002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 511BODAY WILLIAM L JR AND ELISA RSFNOMAP A 3465142.0055002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 601BWILLIAMS GARY L AND DALE BSFNOMAP B 3565142.0056002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 602BROMANO ALBERT RSFNOMAP B 3665142.0057002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 603BHOPPS DENNIS R AND ROSEMARY PSFNOMAP B 3765142.0058002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 604BBLACK DYANNE LSFNOMAP B 3865142.0059002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 605BBOOTH NELLIE SSFNOMAP B 3965142.0060002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 606BBALBONTIN GLORIA SFNOMAP B 4065142.0061002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 607BMCGRATH PATRICIA LSFNOMAP A 4165142.0062002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 608BHILTON MADELEINESFNOMAP A 4265142.0063002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 609BCOOKE PAULINE K SFNOMAP A 4365142.0064002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 610BCORBETT R BRIAN AND NANCYSFNOMAP A 4465142.0065002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 611BALEXIS BARBARA ELLENSFNOMAP A NIP PHASE 3 INCLUDED SHOWN ON ADDRESS UNIT OR APT DUE TO FOLLOWING #PARCEL_NOSTREET NAMEPROPERTY OWNERTYPE NUMBERNUMBERBLOCK PHASE 3 ROUNDINGMAP 165142.0001002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 101BMIANI PHILLIP NSFNOMAP A 265142.0002002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 102BOLIVARES RAFAEL AND HILDA GENNISFNOMAP A 365142.0003002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 103BDUNN STUART M SFNOMAP A 465142.0004002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 105BSELLIER PATRICIASFNOMAP A 565142.0005002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 106BHECHT EVA LEIGHSFNOMAP A 665142.0006002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 107BSMITH RICHARD ESFNOMAP A 765142.0007002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 108BPAUL ROBERT E AND MARTHA PSFNOMAP A 865142.0008002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 109BDAHL RUTH SSFNOMAP A 965142.0009002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 110BHERMAN CARL M SFNOMAP B 1065142.0010002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 111BMAY SUSANASFNOMAP B 1165142.0011002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 201BWAYTENA JAMES R SFNOMAP A 1265142.0012002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 202BDIXON GEORGE A AND MARIE LSFNOMAP A 1365142.0013002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 203BRAUM DAVID C AND HELEN ESFNOMAP A 1465142.0014002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 204BKUHAR RITA MSFNOMAP A 1565142.0015002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 205BEADEH LESLIE WSFNOMAP A 1665142.0016002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 206BMITCHELL CALVIN HSFNOMAP A 1765142.0017002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 207BBLACHE STEFAN C AND JAMIE LSFNOMAP A 1865142.0018002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 208BZINKEVICH JOHN CSFNOMAP A 1965142.0019002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 209BHALL BRIDGET AND MICHAEL JEREMYSFNOMAP A 2065142.0020002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 210BSKILLINGTON GARY LEESFNOMAP B 2165142.0021002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 211BFASANO LEONARD ASFNOMAP B 2265143.0008002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 108CCHLEBOWSKI STANLEY R AND KATHRYN ASFYESMAP C 2365143.0009002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 109CBROWN FAMILY C/O RIDDELL CATHERINE D SFYESMAP C 2465143.0010002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 110CBERNAT GEORGE J SFYESMAP C 2565143.0011002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 111CMEADOWS DANIEL V AND KIMBERLY RSFYESMAP C 2665143.0012002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 112CMCDONALD RANDAL S AND ELIZABETH KSFYESMAP C 2765143.0032002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 207SCLIBERATORE STEVEN COLBETTSFYESMAP C 2865143.0033002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 208CMCMACKIN CARL H AND PATRICIA LSFYESMAP C 2965143.0034002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 209CARVANITIS JANNOULASFYESMAP C 3065143.0035002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 210CDURAZO MARLENE LSFYESMAP C 3165143.0036002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 211CKEELER JILL RSFYESMAP C 3265143.0037002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 212CROMANO ALBERT RSFYESMAP C 3365143.0058002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 307SCSHOAF PATRICIA RUTHSFYESMAP C 3465143.0059002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 308CSUNDSTROM JAN LEON AND PATRICIA LSFYESMAP C 3565143.0060002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 309CLEBAR CHARLES S AND ELIZABETHSFYESMAP C 3665143.0061002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 310CPINNEY RICHARD DSFYESMAP C 3765143.0062002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 311CBRIZZI FRANCO LUCIO MARIO ANGELO SFYESMAP C 3865143.0063002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 312CSWITZER TODD M AND JOIE M ROLF-SWITZERSFYESMAP C NIP PHASE 4 INCLUDED SHOWN ON ADDRESS UNIT OR APT DUE TO FOLLOWING #PARCEL_NOSTREET NAMEPROPERTY OWNERTYPE NUMBERNUMBERBLOCK PHASE 4 ROUNDINGMAP 166270.0000003001FLAGLER AVEMENDEZ OTNIEL AND MARITZASFNOMAP A 266280.0000003005FLAGLER AVECATES CRAIG AND CHERYLSFNOMAP A 366290.0000003009FLAGLER AVESHIPLEY RONALD E SFNOMAP A 466300.0000003015FLAGLER AVEMILSTEAD JAMES D AND JOYCE A SFNOMAP A 566310.0000003021FLAGLER AVEBAILEY JERRY LEE SFNOMAP A 666320.0000003031FLAGLER AVEBARRIOS AUGUSTO AND MARIASFNOMAP A 766330.0000003041FLAGLER AVEMEIVES JANE Z AND MICHAELSFNOMAP A 866340.0000003051FLAGLER AVELACAYO OSCARSFNOMAP A 966350.0000002932STAPLES AVEDEPOO PAUL JULIOSFNOMAP A 1066360.0000002928STAPLES AVEUNIT 1MIRA JAMES JR AND ROBERTA ANDREWSMF (R2)NOMAP A 1166360.0000002928STAPLES AVEUNIT 2MIRA JAMES JR AND ROBERTA ANDREWSMF (R2)NOMAP A 1266370.0000002924STAPLES AVEMAKIMAA BRADLEY J AND RENEE CSFNOMAP A 1366380.0000002920STAPLES AVEWEITZ ANDREA RENEESFNOMAP A 1466390.0000002916STAPLES AVEMCCARTHY RITA W SFNOMAP A 1566400.0000002912STAPLES AVEMOLLOT IRWIN SFNOMAP A 1666410.0000002908STAPLES AVERODRIGUEZ ANGEL IGNACIO AND DANIELA ORLINDA SFNOMAP A 1766850.0000002801FLAGLER AVEMELLIES NIEL S II AND ELIZABETH CSFNOMAP B 1866860.0000002805FLAGLER AVEROMERO JORGESFNOMAP B 1966870.0000002809FLAGLER AVEANSELL CHARLES W II AND MARY L SFNOMAP B 2066880.0000002815FLAGLER AVEROBERTS RICHARD DENNISSFNOMAP B 2166890.0000002819FLAGLER AVEROBINSON WILLIAM SANDS JRSFNOMAP B 2266900.0000002825FLAGLER AVEHERNDON JOHN AND GIANNINA CSFNOMAP B 2366910.0000002831FLAGLER AVELYDA THERON ESTATESFNOMAP B 2466920.0000002835FLAGLER AVEUNIT 1IMBERT GEORGE A MF (R3)NOMAP B 2566920.0000002835FLAGLER AVEUNIT 2IMBERT GEORGE A MF (R3)NOMAP B 2666920.0000002835FLAGLER AVEUNIT 3IMBERT GEORGE A MF (R3)NOMAP B 2766930.0000002832STAPLES AVEALEMDA ELMIRA LSFNOMAP B 2866940.0000002828STAPLES AVEPERKINS MARK T SFNOMAP B 2966950.0000002824STAPLES AVELASWELL JIMMY G AND NEDRA MSFNOMAP B 3066960.0000002820STAPLES AVESWAN ANNE MSFNOMAP B 3166970.0000002816STAPLES AVEANDERSON RUTHSFNOMAP B 3266980.0000002812STAPLES AVEMIRA RACHELSFNOMAP B 3366990.0000002808STAPLES AVEMELNICK ALAN DSFNOMAP B 3467000.0000002800STAPLES AVEGIBSON GAYLE GORDONSFNOMAP B 3567010.0000002801STAPLES AVEFORD KATHLEEN SSFYESMAP B 3667020.0000002807STAPLES AVEUNIT 1FORD KATHLEEN SMF (R2)NOMAP B 3767020.0000002807STAPLES AVEUNIT 2FORD KATHLEEN SMF (R2)NOMAP B 3867030.0000002811STAPLES AVEBENNETT LEE F AND MELAINE SFNOMAP B 3967040.0000002815STAPLES AVERAMEY ROBERT E IIISFNOMAP B 4067050.0000002819STAPLES AVECASTELLANOS DOMINGO G AND KELLY LSFNOMAP B 4167060.0000002825STAPLES AVEAMAR OLIVER MSFNOMAP B 4267070.0000002827STAPLES AVELYHNE ROBERT HSFNOMAP B 5 9 . 3 1 5 9 . 3 1 " 4 4 9 . 3 1 " " 4 9 . 3 1 9 5 . 0 1 NIP PHASE 5 INCLUDED SHOWN ON ADDRESS UNIT OR APT DUE TO FOLLOWING #PARCEL_NOSTREET NAMEPROPERTY OWNERTYPE NUMBERNUMBERBLOCK PHASE 5 ROUNDINGMAP 166430.0000002903STAPLES AVEHAWKINS RICHARDSFNOMAP A 266440.0000002907STAPLES AVEWILSON MICHAEL C JR AND MELANIE BSFNOMAP A 366450.0000002911STAPLES AVERANDALL MARGARETSFNOMAP A 466460.0000002915STAPLES AVEBOYLE JEAN MSFNOMAP A 566470.0000002919STAPLES AVEGIBSON BARRYSFNOMAP A 666480.0000002923STAPLES AVERICKS KEITH O AND LAURA ESFNOMAP A 766490.0000002927STAPLES AVEUNIT 1D'AMATO NANCY JMF (R2)YESMAP A 866490.0000002927STAPLES AVEUNIT 2D'AMATO NANCY JMF (R2)YESMAP A 966500.000000152812TH STUNIT 1MARCIAL INGE MF (R2)YESMAP A 1066500.000000152812TH STUNIT 2MARCIAL INGE MF (R2)YESMAP A 1165280.000701144112TH ST1441 12TH ST LLC SFNOMAP A 1265280.000702143912TH STCROOKS RICHARD AND NINASFNOMAP A 1365280.000703143712TH STDRESIE DAVID GSFNOMAP A 1465280.000704143512TH STCONFIDENTIAL DATA F.S. 119.07 SFNOMAP A MPA OF KEY WEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP c/o STELLER 1565280.000705143312TH STSFNOMAP A MURRAY H 1665280.000706143112TH STGILMARTIN MARC R AND JILLIAN ASFNOMAP A 1765280.000707142912TH STERSKINE LARRY RSFNOMAP A 1865280.000708142712TH STGIBSON WILLIAM TSFNOMAP A 1965280.0008013075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 1AMBROSE GRETCHEN ESFNOMAP B 2065280.0008023075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 2YI SO TONG SFNOMAP B 2165280.0008033075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 3KNOWLES THEODORE MCCURDYSFNOMAP B 2265280.0008043075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 4PISZKER MARY FSFMAP B NO 2365280.0008053075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 5KOEHN JOY EMANUEL AND SHLOMOSFMAP B NO 2465280.0008063075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 6TRENT TERESA ANNSFMAP B NO 2565280.0008073075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 7WELLS ROBYN LSFMAP B NO 2665280.0008083075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 8GARCIA JAIME J AND NARA J SFMAP B NO 2765280.0008093075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 9JOHNSON THOMAS W AND CARRIE C SFMAP B NO 2865280.0008103075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 10HENRIQUEZ LORI MSFMAP B NO 2965280.0008113075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 11HAZELTINE NAOMI LSFMAP B YES 3065280.0008123075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 12CAULEY CHRISTOPHER WSFMAP B YES 3165280.0008133075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 13BARACK JERILYN GSFMAP B YES 3265280.0008143075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 14ANDRADE ADONIS MSFMAP B YES 3365280.0008153075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 15BERNAL HENRIQUEZ YOLIMA MILENASFMAP B YES 3465281.0008163075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 16BOYER SHERRI ANNSFMAP B YES 3565282.0008173075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 17LAKE OVILDA V AND DANIEL LSFMAP B YES 3665283.0008183075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 18FERNANDEZ JORGE LUIS AND FRANCISCASFMAP B NO 3765284.0008193075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 19KEMEZYS DEANNASFMAP B NO 3865285.0008203075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 20THRIFT BRINSON C AND GRACE NSFMAP B NO 3965286.0008213075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 21HAMILTON K PAIGESFMAP B NO 4065287.0008223075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 22VIDAL DARA MSFNOMAP B 4165288.0008233075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 23HINKLE EDGAR H JRSFNOMAP B 4265289.0008243075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 24COHEN KEITH AND CHERI LYNNSFNOMAP B 4365290.0008253075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 25HOLIFIELD WENDY MSFNOMAP B 4465291.0008263075FLAGLER AVEUNIT 26NULISCH JOY ESFNOMAP B NIP PHASE 6 INCLUDED SHOWN ON ADDRESS UNIT OR APT DUE TO FOLLOWING #PARCEL_NOSTREET NAMEPROPERTY OWNERTYPE NUMBERNUMBERBLOCK PHASE 6 ROUNDINGMAP 165141.0004002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 105AELLIS LEONARD C JRSFYESMAP A 265141.0005002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 106ACUSHMAN VICTOR L AND JOAN ESFYESMAP A 365141.0006002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 107ALEACH FRANCES HSFYESMAP A 465141.0007002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 108 AOLIVARES RAFAEL A AND HILDA GENNISFYESMAP A 565141.0008002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDUNIT 109ATOLPA SUSAN MSFYESMAP A 665141.0009002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 110AWEST PATSY RUTHSFYESMAP A 765141.0010002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 111ALUCE LAURE ANNESFYESMAP A 865141.0015002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 205AMCCARTHY CAROLYN ASFYESMAP A 965141.0016002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 206ANELSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUSTSFYESMAP A 1065141.0017002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 207ATOWNSEND KATHLEENSFYESMAP A 1165141.0018002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 208AWOLNEY HARVEY P SR AND MARTA JEAN SFYESMAP A 1265141.0019002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 209AESQUIROL JORGESFYESMAP A 1365141.0020002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 210AMENDOLA BIQUETTE AND CHARLES JSFYESMAP A 1465141.0021002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 211AHERMAN CARL M SFYESMAP A 1565141.0026002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 305ACHICK ALICESFYESMAP A 1665141.0027002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 306ASEADEN GEORGESFYESMAP A 1765141.0028002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 307AMCGINN NEIL L AND BARBARA ESFYESMAP A 1865141.0029002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 308ALAVERY JUDITH ASFYESMAP A 1965141.0030002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 309ASTANFORD MAUREEN ASFYESMAP A 2065141.0031002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 310AVANTAGE IRA FBO STEVEN GOLLISHSFYESMAP A 2165141.0032002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 311AMAURER REBECCASFYESMAP A 2265141.0037002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 405AASHMORE ANDREW J C/O ASHMORE BRUCE VSFYESMAP A 2365141.0038002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 406AMANION MARTIN AND CAROL LLCSFYESMAP A 2465141.0039002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 407AREIF UDO AND DIANASFYESMAP A 2565141.0040002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 408AMURPHEY MARK H AND JOAN ESFYESMAP A 2665141.0041002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 409ASTUBBLEFIELD JOY A SFYESMAP A 2765141.0042002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 410ASATZ PERRY AND LINDASFYESMAP A 2865141.0043002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 411AGARBER PATRICK AND JULIE ANNSFYESMAP A 2965141.0048002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 505ASILVER CAROL D SFYESMAP A YESMAP A 3065141.0049002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 506ACMIEL HOLLY R SF 3165141.0050002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 507ATEPPER STEVEN DSFYESMAP A 3265141.0051002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 508AROMANO ALBERT R AND RACHELLE MSFYESMAP A 3365141.0052002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 509ACOLEMAN CLINTON R AND JANICE ESFYESMAP A 3465141.0053002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 510ADULBERGER JOHANNASFYESMAP A 3565141.0054002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 511AGREEN BRUCE L AND ARLETTE P COLLIERSFYESMAP A 3665141.0059002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 605AONDERDONK GARY R AND DIANE MSFYESMAP A 3765141.0060002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 606AGATES CHRISTINE AND EDWARD W JRSFYESMAP A 3865141.0061002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 607AMCMAHON JAMES KEVINSFYESMAP A 3965141.0062002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 608AROSE PAUL EDWARD AND ADENE STRAWSFYESMAP A 4065141.0063002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 609AHERBRUCK DIANE W SFYESMAP A 4165141.0064002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 610ACAWLEY THOMAS P SFYESMAP A 4265141.0065002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 611AROBINSON RICHARD R AND KATHERINE JUNESFYESMAP A NIP PHASE 7 INCLUDED SHOWN ON ADDRESS UNIT OR APT DUE TO FOLLOWING #PARCEL_NOSTREET NAMEPROPERTY OWNERTYPE NUMBERNUMBERBLOCK PHASE 7 ROUNDINGMAP 165141.0001002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 101APADEN SUZANNE J BUCHENSFYESMAP A 265141.0002002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 102ASHETZLEY GEORGE W SFYESMAP A 365141.0003002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 103ADACRA GLASS CO INCSFYESMAP A 465141.0011002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 201AHALPERN MICHAELSFYESMAP A 565141.0012002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 202AVORNHOLT CATHYSFYESMAP A 665141.0013002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 203ANASET WALLACE J AND RUTH SSFYESMAP A 765141.0014002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 204AALBANO LOUIS J AND ELIZABETH ESFYESMAP A 865141.0022002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 301ACORBETT MARIESFYESMAP A 965141.0023002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 302AMCKEE ANN SFYESMAP A 1065141.0024002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 303ABERKIN MICHAEL E SFYESMAP A 1165141.0025002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 304AGASSER ROBERT E AND JUNE M SFYESMAP A 1265141.0033002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 401ACARLSON-HEIM PAIGE LEESFYESMAP A 1365141.0034002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 402AHUBBELL JAMES HSFYESMAP A 1465141.0035002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 403AFORD INGRIDSFYESMAP A 1565141.0036002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 404ASUTTON DIANNA LSFYESMAP A 1665141.0044002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 501ACOOK DAVID H IIISFYESMAP A 1765141.0045002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 502ATHEIL NANCY MSFYESMAP A 1865141.0046002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 503ATHIEL NANCYSFYESMAP A 1965141.0047002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 504ACOOK DAVID H II SFYESMAP A 2065141.0055002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 601ASTANFORD LELAND CSFYESMAP A 2165141.0056002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 602AYOUNG CHARLES J JRSFYESMAP A 2265141.0057002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 603AALLEN MARJORIE CSFYESMAP A 2365141.0058002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 604AKNIGHT HARRY F JRSFYESMAP A 2465143.0001002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 101CSELIG JULIAN WOOD JR AND BETSEY BLADESSFYESMAP B 2565143.0002002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 102CBOWNS JOHN LSFYESMAP B 2665143.0003002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 103CELLIOTT ROBERT W IIISFYESMAP B 2765143.0004002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 104CDOWER BARBARA MSFYESMAP B 2865143.0005002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 105CNEAGLEY ROSS L AND BARBARA GSFYESMAP B 2965143.0006002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 106CSWEENEY ANNESFYESMAP C 3065143.0007002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 107CGREENHILL BARRY TELSER AND AUDREY GAILSFYESMAP C 3165143.0025002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 201CSCHENCK WILLIAM D JR AND HANNASFYESMAP B 3265143.0026002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 202CSHOULTZ JAMES CSFYESMAP B 3365143.0027002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 203CBONNER MICHAEL H AND JULIASFYESMAP B 3465143.0028002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 204CEDWARDS GORDONSFYESMAP B 3565143.0029002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 205CDONOHUE THOMAS RSFYESMAP B 3665143.0030002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 206CSCHAEFER JOSEPH AND DONNASFYESMAP C 3765143.0031002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 207CNEWBURY JAMES TSFYESMAP C 3865143.0051002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 301CBECH VENTURESSFYESMAP B 3965143.0052002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 302CZABLOCKI ROBERT E AND LOUISE LSFYESMAP B 4065143.0053002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 303CMCKAY JOSEPH ASFYESMAP B 4165143.0054002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 304CVAILLANT RICHARD CSFYESMAP B 4265143.0055002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 305CEUBANK CRAIG HSFYESMAP B 4365143.0056002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 306CKAPLAN MAESFYESMAP C 4465143.0057002601S ROOSEVELT BLVDAPT 307CHALLBERG FAMILY SFYESMAP C NIP PHASE 8 INCLUDED NEW SHOWN ON UNIT OR ELIGIBLE IN ADDRESS DUE TO OWNER INTERESTED FOLLOWING #PARCEL_NOSTREET NAMEAPT PROPERTY OWNERTYPEPREVIOUS NUMBERBLOCK SINCE NIP NOWPHASE 8 NUMBERNIP ROUNDINGOFFEREDMAP 164860.0000002713FLAGLER AVEGRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH U A C CH & SCHNOMAP A NO 267850.0000002714FLAGLER AVEGRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH U A C SFYESMAP A NO 367840.0000002707STAPLES AVEGRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH U A C SFYESMAP A NO 467820.0000002712STAPLES AVEWILLIS VAUGHN LUTHER KEYSFYESMAP A NO 567830.0000002705FLAGLER AVEBOSCAMP KAREN LSFYESMAP A NO 665090.0000002700FLAGLER AVECARROLL COLEMAN F B OF THE DIOC OF MIAMI ROM MF (2)NOMAP B NO 765090.0000002706FLAGLER AVECARROLL COLEMAN F B OF THE DIOC OF MIAMI ROM MF (21)NOMAP B NO 869820.0000002924RIVIERA DRSHEEHAN KATHA DSFNOYESNOMAP C 969310.0000002919RIVIERA DRSALGADO RICHARD A AND OLGASFNOYESNOMAP C 1069320.0000002923RIVIERA DRHAMBRIGHT THOMAS L AND LYNDA MSFNOYESNOMAP C 1169140.0000003014FLAGLER AVEPAZO LOUIS A AND CARIDAD SSFNOYESNOMAP C 1269240.0000002910FLAGLER AVEDOMINGUEZ RAFAEL SFNOYESNOYESMAP C 1369170.0000003000FLAGLER AVEUNIT 1VICTOR MARIE YMF (R2)NOYESNOYESMAP C 1469170.0000003000FLAGLER AVEUNIT 2VICTOR MARIE YMF (R2)NOYESNOYESMAP C 1569550.0000003200RIVIERA DRKOHEN SHLOMO AND JOYSFNOYESNOMAP D 1669460.0000003220RIVIERA DRRUSS STEPHEN J AND KATHLEEN ASFYESYESMAP D 1770460.0000001717JAMAICA DRHALPERN MICHELLEN KEEVAN SFNOYESNOYESMAP E 1870810.0000002929VENETIAN DRRAYVAN CORP (RAYMOND VANYO)SFNOYESNOMAP E 1970780.0000001603VENETIAN DRVERNON JAMES PSFNOYESNOMAP E 2070300.0000001604BAHAMA DRGREEN BRADLEY S AND MARIA ESFNOYESNOMAP E 2170970.0000002805VENETIAN DRDURBIN SHARON GSFNOYESNOMAP F 2270900.0000002827VENETIAN DRROBINSON RAYMOND R SFNOYESNONOMAP F 2363650.00000015255TH STKUNTTI REGINALD LEON SFYESYESNOYESMAP G 2463790.00000015445TH STFILER CHARLES R AND JANET LSFNOYESNOYESMAP G 2563760.00000015325TH STHERCE TODD MITCHELLSFNOYESNOMAP G ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 8 .5 3 3 8 .5 3 2 9 . 5 8 48 2.21 07 5 52 4. R D D A D I N I R T 65 65 86 5 6 5 .4 4 1 5 6 4 6 5 658 13.7 9 2 8.5 53 ! ! ! ! ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Appendix P Consulted Parties June 18, 2013 \[NAME\] \[STREET ADDRESS\] \[CITY\], \[STATE\] \[ZIP\] RE:Key West International Airport Part 150 Noise Compatibility Planning Study UpdatePublic Hearing Dear \[NAME\], The County of Monroe would like to inform you of a public hearing to be held regarding the ongoing Noise Compatibility Planning Study Update currently underway for the Key West International Airport. This hearing will be held on Wednesday July 17, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. in the Harvey Government Center Commission Chambers, located upstairs at 1200 Truman Avenue, Key West. The County of Monroe, as owner and operator of the Key West International Airport, is completing work on a title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 150 Noise Compatibility Planning Study Update. The Part 150 Study consists of two parts; the Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) and the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). The County contracted the consulting firm URS Corporation to assist them in the preparation of the study. URS has provided updates to the local community and interested parties throughout the study period at the regularly- scheduled Ad Hoc Committee on Noise meetings. These meetings were held on the following dates in 2012 and 2013: February 14, 2012 April 3, 2012 June 5, 2012 August 7, 2012 October 2, 2012 December 4, 2012 February 5, 2013 April 2, 2013 June 4, 2013 Additional meetings are currently scheduled for the following dates in 2013. August 6, 2013 October 1, 2013 December 3, 2013 Note: These dates may change and all parties will be notified of these changes. The Ad Hoc Committee meets at 2:00 pm in the Harvey Government Center Commission Chambers, located upstairs at 1200 Truman Avenue, Key West. The NEM consists of updating the existing and future condition Noise Exposure Maps and is under review by the FAA for acceptance. The NCP consists of reviewing the numerous operational noise abatement measures and corrective and preventive land use measures that were previously approved in the 1999 Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program to determine their effectiveness and to develop and recommend additional mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of aircraft noise in the surrounding communities. URS Corporation 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.636.2445 Fax: 813.636.2400 www.urscorp.com If you have any questions regarding the Key West International Airport’s Part 150 Study Update, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (813) 675-6507 or by e-mail at dan.botto@urs.com . If you would like to be on included on the distribution list for the Ad Hoc Committee agenda packagesplease provide an e-mail address to dan.botto@urs.com. Sincerely, Daniel Botto, Deputy Project Manager URS Corporation CC: Peter J. Horton, Director of Airports URS Corporation 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.636.2445 Fax: 813.636.2400 www.urscorp.com The Parties Consulted by the Airport Operator: FAA Officials Dean Stringer, Manager Federal Aviation Administration Orlando Airports District Office 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400 Orlando, FL 32822-5024 Phone: (407) 812-6331 Fax: (407) 812-6978 Dana Perkins Environmental Program Specialist Federal Aviation Administration Atlanta Airports District Office 1701 Columbia Ave Suite 2-260 College Park, GA 30337 Phone: (404) 305-7152 Fax: (404) 305-7155 FAA Key West Work Station 3491 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Tom Frost: (305) 684-4796 Kevin Graniela: (305) 684-4792 Ted Williamson: (305) 684-4798 Rich Peiffer, Tower Chief FAA Air Traffic Control Tower 3479 S. Roosevelt Blvd. Key West, FL 33040 Phone: 305-294-2549 Cell: 727-455-2114 State Officials Sergey Kireyev, Manager Airspace and Land Use FDOT Aviation Office 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 46 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Phone: (850) 414-4502 Andy Keith Aviation Planning FDOT Aviation Office 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 46 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Phone: (850) 414-4516 Fax: (850) 414-4508 Email: andy.keith @dot.state.fl.us Kenneth Robertson Contracts Administrator, District VI Florida Department of Transportation 1000 NW 111th Avenue, Room 6105 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: (305) 377-5912 E-mail: Kenneth.Robertson@dot.state.fl.us Lauren P. Milligan Florida State Clearinghouse Office of Intergovernmental Programs Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 47 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900 Phone: (850) 245-2161 Fax: (850) 245-2190 Email: lauren.milligan@dep.state.fl.us Frederick Gaske SHPO & Division Director Division of Historical Resources Department of State R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone: (850) 245-6300 Email: fgaske@dos.state.fl.us Public and Planning Agencies having jurisdiction within the DNL65 dB Jim Scholl, City Manager City of Key West 525 Angela Street Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 809-3888 Email: jscholl@keywestcity.com Don Craig, Planning Director City of Key West Planning Department 3140 Flagler Avenue Key West, Florida 33040 Phone: (305) 809-3728 Email: dcraig@keywestcity.com Roman Gastesi, Jr. Monroe County Administrator 1100 Simonton Street, Suite 205 Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 292-4441 Email: gastesi-roman@monroecounty-fl.gov Christine Hurley, Division Director Monroe County Growth Management Division Marathon Government Center 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 Marathon, FL 33050 Phone: (305) 289-2517 Fax: (305) 289-2854 Email: hurley-christine@monroecounty-fl.gov James F. Murley, Executive Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (954) 985-4416 Email: jmurley@sfrpc.com Claudia Pennington, Executive Director Key West Art and Historical Society 281 Front Street Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 295-6616 Email: cpennington@kwahs.org RE: Fort East Martello Museum and Gardens 3501 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL Other Federal Officials that have local responsibility for the area within the DNL65 dB depicted on the maps U.S. Navy Captain Patrick A. Lefere, U.S.N. Commanding Officer NAS Key West P.O. Box 9001 Key West, FL 33040-9001 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA 3535 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 295-1316 Matt Strahan: (305) 294-7380 Email: matt.strahan@noaa.gov U.S. Government: Sector Field Office 3479 S Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 294-7410 Regular Aeronautical Users of the Airport Island City Flying Service Peter Sellers 3471 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 296-5422 Fax: (305) 296-4141 or (305) 296-5691 Cell: (305) 587-3025 US Airways, Inc. Marvin Hunt, Manager 3491 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 293-8464 Cell: (724) 333-4137 Email: Marvin_Hunt@usairways.com American (Eagle) Airlines Stephen Manuguerra, Manager 3491 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 296-7664 Gate: (305) 296-7397 Fax: (305) 296-2428 Email: Stephen.Manuguerra@aa.com Continental-Gulfstream Michaela Allen, Station Manager 3491 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 294-9460 Office: (305) 294-2855 Cell: (954) 554-0604 Email: mallen@gulfstreamair.com Delta Doug Plummer, Manager 3491 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 292-4650 Cell: (612) 281-1749 Email: douglas.plummer@regionalelite.com Air Key West Robert Valle, Director of Operations 5450 MacDonald Avenue, Suite 4 Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 923-4033 Email: airkeywest@att.net Robinson Aviation, Inc. (RVA, Inc.) Rich Peiffer, Manager KWIA Air Traffic Control Tower 3479 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 294-2549 Fax: (305) 292-7769 Email: eyw@rvainc.com Key West Seaplane Tours Julie Ann Floyd 3471 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 293-9300 Email: info@keywestseaplanecharters.com Island Aeroplane Tours (M&F Flying, Inc.) Susan Cabanas 3469 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 294-8687 Home: (305) 296-5720 Email: administrator@keywestairtours.com Web: www.islandaeroplanetours.com Mountain Air Cargo Business Address: 3524 Airport Road Maiden, NC 28650 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 488 Denver, NC 28037 Phone: (828) 464-8741 Fax: (828) 465-5281 Cape Air Brad Desai, Station Manager Phone: (305) 296-8201 Reservations: 1-866-Cape-Air Customer Relations: 1475 Airport Road New Bedford, MA 02746-1368 Federal Express Steve Saunders, Operations Manager 3553 South Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, FL 33040 Phone: (305) 797-2362 Fax: (305) 292-1136 Email: ssaunders@fedex.com Last Stand Mark Songer, President PO Box 146 Key West, FL 33041 Phone: (305) 296-3335 Email: info@last-stand.org Appendix Q Ad Hoc Committee Information Npospf!Dpvouz-!GM!.!Pggjdjbm!Xfctjuf!.!LXJB!Be!Ipd!Dpnnjuuff!po!Opjtf Search Home > About Monroe County > Board of County Commissioners > Boards & Committees > KWIA Ad Hoc Committee on Noise Bylaws KWIA Ad Hoc Committee on Noise Supporting Maps Contact The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners established the Ad Peter Horton Hoc Committee on Noise on 5/16/95 by board motion. The committee Director of Airports is composed of airport neighbors and representatives of the airline Email industry. Members serve for the duration of the committee. Ad Hoc Committee meetings provide an opportunity to directly experience the viewpoints, ideas and concerns about noise at Key West International Airport. The Ad Hoc Committee generally meets on a bi-monthly basis. KW International Airport 3491 W. Roosevelt Blvd. Each of the members represents one or more constituent interests: Key West, FL 33040 neighborhood residents, public agencies and aviation users. The committee members act as a conduit for information to and from their Ph: (305) 809-5200 constituents on issues related to airport and aircraft noise. Fx: (305) 292-3578 Daniel T. Botto Airport Environmental Planner Agendas Minutes Schedule URS Corporation Most Recent | View All View Meeting Schedule Email URS Corporation 7650 W. Courtney Campbell ADA Assistance: If you are a person with a disability who needs Causeway special accommodations in order to participate in these proceedings, Tampa, FL 33607-1462 please contact the County Administrator's Office, by phoning (305) 292- 4441, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., no later than five Ph: (813) 675-6507 (5) calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting; if you are hearing or Fx: (813) 636-2400 voice impaired, call "711." Accommmodation Request Form Meetings:6/4/13 Time: 2:00 PM Members Harvey Gov. Center Commission Chambers Aviation RepresentativesCommunity Representatives 1200 Truman Avenue Alfred "Sonny" KnowlesKay Miller 2nd Floor Paul DePoo, Jr. Robert Padron Key West, FL 33040 Dr. Julie Ann FloydMarlene Durazo Marvin Hunt Harvey Wolney, Sr. Alternates Monroe County BOCC Tina Mazzorana, Community Danny Kolhage Nikali Pontecorvo, Aviation Home Contact EEO and ADA Coordinator Sitemap Copyright Photo Credits Translate Outlook Accessibility Powered by CivicPlus iuuq;00xxx/npospfdpvouz.gm/hpw0joefy/btqy@oje>42:\\702903124!5;44;32!QN^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 February 5, 2013 Key West International Airport Ad-hoc Committee on Airport Noise th Agenda for Tuesday, February 5, 2013 Call to Order 2:00 pm Harvey Government Center Roll Call A.Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes nd 1. For October 2, 2012 th 2.For December 4 , 2012. 3.Approve Meeting Schedule for 2013 B. 1. Role of the FAA and the Part 150 Process 2.Section 1, 2, and Forecast Comments 3.Sections 4 and 5 4.Noise Exposure Maps C. Other Reports: 1. Noise Hotline and Contact Log 2.Airport Noise Report D. Any Other Discussion nd E. Next meeting: April 2, 2013 2013 Schedule of Meetings thndth February 5 April 2 June 4 thstrd August 6 October 1 December 3 ADA ASSISTANCE: If you are a person with a disability who needs special accommodations in order to participate in this proceeding, please contact the County Administrator's Office, by phoning (305) 292-4441, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., no later than five (5) calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call "711". 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise February 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes Meeting called to order by Commissioner Kolhage at 2:00 PM. ROLL CALL: Committee Members in Attendance: Commissioner Danny Kolhage Sonny Knowles Dr. Julie Ann Floyd Marlene Durazo Marvin Hunt Harvey Wolney (Alternate) Staff and Guests in Attendance: Peter Horton, KWIA. Deborah Lagos, URS Corp. Dan Botto, URS Corp. R. L. Blazevic, Bob Tepper. Resident AL Sullivan, Last Stand Tina Mazzorana, Resident T. J. Menendez A quorum was present. nd Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes for the October 2and December th 4, 2012 Ad Hoc Committee Meetings Commissioner Kolhage asked if there were comments on the meeting minutes for either the October or December meetings. No comments were volunteered. Motion to approve minutes was made by Marvin Hunt and seconded by Marlene Durazo. There were no objections and the motion carried. ttendance list in the approved, December meeting minutes. He stated that he would make the correction and post the revised minutes to the website. He asked that the approval of the December minutes be contingent on the revision. The committee agreed and approved the minutes with the contingency. KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise February 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes Review and Approval of Meeting Schedule Commissioner Kolhage asked if the committee had issues with the meeting schedule. Peter Horton commented that it was the same schedule as the previous year, with meetings falling on the first Tuesday of every other month. Motion to approve meeting schedule was made by Marvin Hunt and seconded by Marlene Durazo. There were no objections and the motion carried. Discussion of Part 150 Study Update Role of the FAA Dan Botto reported to the committee that sections 4 and 5 have been submitted to the FAA. He continued that from this point forward review will be more serious than assuring the noise exposure maps are in compliance, as they will either approve or disapprove the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) recommendations. Dan said we are asking for ideas for \[noise mitigation\] measures to include in the program, realizing that those ideas could be disapproved by FAA. The question was asked by R.L. Blazevic on how high up in the FAA organization does the review goes. Deborah Lagos answered that it ultimately goes as high as FAA Headquarters in Washington D.C. after the initial reviews that are performed at the district and regional levels. Deborah added, in response to a follow up statement on how the levels of review flow, that it starts at the bottom (district) and goes to the top (Headquarters), and then comes back to the bottom. Marlene Durazo asked if the district and regional FAA will forward the reviews up to the next level even if their recommendation is to disapprove one or more of the proposed measures. Deborah Lagos said that they would, and that ultimately, Headquarters would have the final say. She continued that any disagreements on the proposed measures between different levels of the review would be discussed and resolved within the FAA. Marlene Durazo asked if the committee would have the opportunity to speak in support of the proposed program measures if the district recommends disapproval of any of the measures, and would the district let the committee know of their position on the proposed program. Deborah Lagos answered that we will most likely know of the districts stance when they do their informal review and can try to work with them on resolving any issues. Deborah continued that we can go higher in the FAA organization Dan Botto KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise February 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes added that often the potential issues can be resolved by adjusting the wording of the recommendation(s) such that the district would approve the measure(s). Deborah added that once we start submitting formal recommendations, the FAA will get more involved in the process. Commissioner Kolhage requested that URS staff give the committee an update on the maps. Dan Botto said the Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) have been submitted to the FAA for their initial review, and that we are waiting for their comments. Deborah Lagos added that the committee would be discussing those maps as part they were submitted to the FAA. Commissioner Kolhageasked if anyone here has seen them. Deborah indicated that the committee has not seen them, and that they would see them today. Peter Horton stated that, referring to the maps, the committee would love what they saw. Peter requested that the maps be passed out to the committee. While the maps were being passed out, Peter asked the committee to recall how four years ago, when the noise contours showed Key West by-the-Sea (KWBTS) inside the contour, the FAA responded that our data was too old. He continued that FAA requested that the airport perform a Part 150 study to update the maps which they would (and did) fund, and that if KWBTS was still inside the new noise contour, it could be addressed in the NCP. Section 1, 2, 3, and Forecast Comments Dan Botto asked if there were any comments to Sections 1, 2, 3, and the Forecast which were previously submitted to the committee. Deborah Lagoscommented that Marlene Durazo had previously shared one comment. No other comments were made by the committee. Sections 4 and 5&Noise Exposure Maps Peter Horton briefed the committee on the work that URS performed that was necessary to generate the noise contours. He continued that the “meat” of the information was on Figure 4.7, which shows the existing condition, and Figure 5.1, which shows the future (base study year plus five years) noise contour. Peter KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise February 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes stated that the important thing is that he could see three building of KWBTS that fall within the existing contours and continue to be within the contours in the future. Deborah Lagos added that \[a portion of\] Flagler Avenue was also within the contour. Peter continued that the results are preliminary, and the FAA will be reviewing the methodology as well as the results, but he was confident that the methodology and results are sound. Commissioner Kolhage made the comment that he lived nearby, and the contours looked reasonable to him. Peter continued that thth several blocks in the area between Staples and Flagler and from 10 thru 12 \[Streets\] would be in the contour for the first time, which represents a good number of houses. Commissioner Kolhage asked if the funding \[for noise mitigation\] was restricted to areas within the noise contours. Deborah Lagos answered that that is yet to be determined. Peter Hortonadded that they \[FAA\] generally approve mitigation in blocks. Harvey Wolney asked if that means the Part 150 will repeat in the next five years. Peter answered that it would not, and that Part 150 studies are generally good for ten years. He gave the example using the last cycle of the 1999 study and this Current study starting in 2011. We have pulled all new data to perform this update. Sonny Knowles asked Peter Horton what he thought the odds were for getting the noise program going again after the study. Peter deferred to the URS staff, saying he thought the odds were good unless FAA has a cut back on funding. Deborah Lagos states that they have not cut back on funding, but the committee has to bear in mind that the FAA has clarified the rules on how to determine if houses are eligible, and this includes condominiums. In the former program, all seven phases, a sample, or about ten percent, of the homes were tested for noise levels before they were insulated, mainly so they could be retested after the noise insulation was installed. This was strictly done to see how much of an improvement had been achieved. Deborah Lagos said that the FAA has clarified the rules so that eligibility is now a two-step process. Where before, a house was deemed eligible if it was within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour (one step process), now a house also has to exhibit an interior sound level of DNL 45 dBA or greater (second step) to qualify as eligible. So, the testing requirements for determining eligibility have increased. KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise February 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes Deborah Lagos continued that the FAA does not require 100 percent testing, and they have suggestions for grouping homes of similar characteristics \[age, building material, etc.\] so that a certain percentage of each group can be tested. If those homes qualify, then all homes in that group qualify. If not then, potentially, all homes in that group would not qualify. Deborah added that it is still early in the implementation of these new requirements and there are no field testing results that would tell us how to implement these guidelines. Sonny Knowles asked if the testing is done with the windows open or closed. Deborah Lagos said that testing is performed with the windows closed. A brief discussion took place on how that would be implemented in the case of condominiums. Deborah commented that it will be an interesting discussion with the FAA about how the determination of eligibility will work in the case of a condominium complex. She continued that methodologies, such as what kind of sound/noise source is used to test each housing unit, have yet to be determined. Further discussion regarding possible methodology of testing and grouping of residences continued. Peter Horton concluded that this \[preliminary noise results\] is just the important first step, and there is a lot of work left to do before the committee can decide on what gets included in the program (NCP). He continued that there is also the question of if and what kind of a cleanup phase can be done for homes in the previous NCP. He commented that we would be “nowhere” if KWBTS was not solidly within the noise contours. Mr. Menendez asked if his home would be included in the clean-up phase. Deborah Lagos statedhis house is within the contour so he has nothing to worry about. Houses that were within the previous NCP that were not insulated and are within the current Part 150 NEM would have the chance to receive noise insulation under the new NCP. However, it is unclear if houses that were within the previousNCP that were not insulated and are not within the current NEM would have the chance to receive noise insulation under the new NCP. That is the question of the cleanup phase for the previous NCP. Deborah stated and Dan Botto affirmed that the only houses that fall within this category are those on Linda Avenue. Deborah responded to Sonny Knowles on whether or not the houses on Linda Avenue had KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise February 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes already been offered sound insulation measures saying that they had, but for various reasons some had not been insulated. Peter Horton cautioned that we need to remember the lessons learned in the last determined eligible for sound insulation. He continued that 306 or 307 houses were submitted for consideration in the previous NCP, and the FAA approved all of them and suggested notifying each homeowner that they were a part of the program. He continued that by the time the airport got around to insulating some of those homes, the FAA said that they were no longer eligible. Sonny Knowles asked for the reason the FAA took the homes out of the program. Deborah Lagos explained that it was due to the smaller size of the annual noise contours that were generated subsequent to the Part 150 NEM. The homes in question were not within those updated contours. Peter Hortonrecalled that Linda Avenue was an example of this situation. R.L. Blazevic asked if an empty lot that was built upon after the noise contours were published would be eligible. Deborah Lagosstated that according to current Federal law, if there was a published set of noise contours, that home would not be eligible. FAA set the cut-off date for construction as October 1, 1998. Peter Horton commented that a good example of post cut-off construction is the La Salinas/Ocean Walk complex which is not eligible for that reason, and they constructed the complex with that in mind. There was a brief discussion of the effectiveness of the soundproofing that was built into the complex. Peter Horton commented that later in the study, work would shift to focus on what the community wants to see included in the NCP. He continued that we really need to get into that work and that today is an overview, but at the next meeting in April, the committee will need to identify what kind of measures we want to propose. He added that the NCP is what the FAA would need to approve, and if Peter Horton led a discussion on noise mitigation measures that can be included in the NCP. He brought up measures from the past NCP process that included both measures that were approved and those that were not. Among the measures that KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise February 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes did not get approved were restrictions onnon-stage three jet operations and restrictions on midnight to 6 AM), both of which would require a Part 161 Study. Peter mentioned that the non stage 3 jet aircraft would be banned from operation across the country by 2016. What the FAA did approve were measures to: provide noise insulation in exchange for avigation easements, this is the NIP at an average cost of $75,000 per home. This was completed with the FAA covering 95 percent of the cost. They also approved the purchase of homes which were then to be sound insulated, and then resold with an avigation easement, this was not done as the costs were too high and no one really wanted to participate. FAA also approved updating the noise contours annually, which has been done; rezone vacant parcels around the airport, establish compatible land use zoning, both of which are the responsibility of the City of Key West; and acquire 2 large vacant parcels, one of which will be completed very soon. Peter mentioned that over the years the airport has tried a variety of other measures including adjusting flight tracks and creating noise buffers. He reiterated that the committee needs to consider all these types of measures when coming up with what goes in the new NCP. Deborah Lagos added there are a lot of different measures that need to be considered including the land use and operational measures that Peter Horton mentioned. Deborah added that some of the measures, like the operational curfew that Peter mentioned, are very difficult to get FAA to approve. We still need to consider all of them and document why we deemit as appropriate or not appropriate for the airport. We can come to the end of the analysis and determine that there are no measures that are appropriate. Deborah Lagos continued that there is a third category of measures that needs to be considered called Program Management Measures. This includes measures such as the installation of a permanent noise and flight track monitoring system, the hiring of a noise abatement officer, the developmentof a “Fly Quiet” program, and the development of a community participation and/or public involvement program. These are measures that are designed to help the community deal with the noise, rather than reduce the noise. Some of these may be appropriate for Key West, and some are not, but they need to be looked at. Deborah reiterated that all measures need to be looked at and then documented as to the appropriateness of each measure for Key West. Deborah continued, saying that each of the KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise February 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes recommended measures will be looked at and either approved or disapproved by the FAA. Dan Botto added that on page two of the agenda package there is a list of what the FAA looks at in determining whether or not a proposed measure gets approved or not. There was a brief discussion between R.L. Blazevic and Peter Horton about the th possibility of the city purchasing a vacant parcel on 11Street,close to theboat ramp. R.L. would like the property purchased for a place to park boat trailers on the weekend. Peter Horton explained that the City was looking at making that property a park, but the city did not want to spend the money to maintain an additional park. It was also discussed that it would become a magnet for the homeless people in the area. Tina Mazzorana asked if changes to flight tracks can be discussed at the April meeting. Deborah Lagos said that it can be discussed and that it is difficult to get those types of measures approved, but that kind of thinking is along the right line for discussion point at the next meeting. Deborah added that because FAA considers houses outside the DNL 65 dBA noise contour to be compatible, even if you have aircraft flying over your house on a daily basis, the FAA does not consider your house to be impacted. So the FAA would only consider approving such measures if they benefit homes that are impacted. Dan Botto asked that the committee review the documentation included in the agenda package, and come up with ideas on potential noise mitigation measures for discussion at the next meeting. Commissioner Kolhage asked if there was a menu \[list\] of possible measures to consider that would help the committee come up with ideas. Dan Botto and Deborah Lagos said that there is a list of measures that have to be considered, but it is not very descriptive. Peter Horton offered to get that list out to the committee as well as anyone else who would like a copy. Commissioner Kolhage explained that the reason for his question is a concern that people might spend a lot of time coming up with ideas that have little chance of success. Dan explained that having worked with FAA over the years that there are a number of measures on which we can forego analysis and come up with reasoning on why it is not appropriate for the airport. Dan added that someone could come up with a viable measure that has not been thought of before. KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise February 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes R.L. Blasevic asked that with all the other cities that have similar airport noise issues and on which we have data, could we generate a list of measures that have the best chance of success. Dan Botto responded that we do use the lessons learned at other airports to help with ongoing studies. The problem is that Key West has residential land use on three sides and the ocean on the remaining side continued that the airport is also constraint by the weather, with the wind blowing 80% of the time such that the planes have to come in across the island. Also, the FAA will not approve moving the noise from one area to another area that does not currently experience noise. Other Reports Noise Hotline and Contact Log Dan Bottoreported that there were three calls the noise hotline. One was from KWBTS, and Dan said that all calls came in on the same day, and it looked like they were on a day with a west flow. Dan reported that there were four entries on the contact log. Threewere about being included in the NIP, and the otherwas from Helen Heitzeman asking about the noise monitor report from the noise monitoring completed in October of last year. Airport Noise Report Dan Botto stated and Deborah Lagos agreed that they did not see anything of interest in the Airport Noise Reports. Peter Horton said that an article on page 40 on improving helicopter noise modeling caught his eye because the airport is seeing more helicopter traffic. There was a brief discussion about modeling helicopter noise and the characteristics of helicopter operations that lead to noise complaints. Any Other Discussion Committee Member Nominations Peter Hortonintroduced the topic of the need to select a new committee member and alternate. Deborah Lagos explained that with the resignation of Dan McMahon we have an open spot for a full committee member from the community. Deborah KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise February 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes made the suggestion that Harvey Wolney could be promoted from an alternate to a full committee member. That would result in the need for recruiting a new community alternate.At the previous meeting it was mentioned there was an vacant committee position for an aviation representative alternate. However, if Paul Depoo resigns, we could have a full aviation position available as well. Commissioner Kolhage asked for a motion to promote Harvey. Marlene Durazo made the motion and Sonny Knowles seconded the motion. There were no objections and the motion carried. Commissioner Kolhage asked for a motion to officially nominate Nick Pontecorvofor the aviation representative alternate. Marlene made the motion and Sonny Knowles seconded the motion. There were no objections and the motion carried. Deborah Lagos said that there are several options for the open community representative alternate. The first is the new would accept as she was too busy. The second possible nominee is Robert Gold, who has expressed a possible interest. Sonny Knowles asked if there were requirements as to where in the community the new committee member needed to reside. Deborah answered was that there is no such requirement. Sonny Knowles nominated Tina Mazzorana. Harvey Wolneyseconded the nomination. There were no objections and the motion carried. There was a brief discussion on what was required to make the committee membership official (appointment by the BOCC). New 4 and Stage 5 Noise Requirements Deborah Lagos brought up what is currently being discussed internationally with respect to the new stage 4 and stage 5 noise rated aircraft requirements. She said that a number of the newer aircraft already meat the stage 4 criteria. She continued that stage 5 criteria are currently under discussion internationally. The likely outcome would be that stage 5 criteria will be 9 dB quieter than the stage 4 criteria. Deborah added that the stage 5 criteria would likely be required for aircraft certificated after the year 2020. So these would apply to future designed aircraft. Commissioner Kolhage asked if there was any other business. No additional business was brought up to the committee. Commissioner Kolhageadjourned the meeting at 3:03 PM. TheRoleoftheFAAinthePart150Process: NoiseExposureMaps Indicateswhethertheyareincompliancewithapplicablerequirements, PublishesnoticeofcomplianceintheFederalRegister,includingwhereandwhenthemapsand relateddocumentationareavailableforpublicinspection. NoiseCompatibilityProgram TheFAAconductsanevaluationofeachofthemeasures(operational,landuse,andprogram management)includedinthenoisecompatibilityprogramand,basedonthatevaluation,either approvesordisapproveseachofthemeasuresintheprogram.Theevaluationincludesconsiderationof proposedmeasurestodeterminewhether Maycreateanundueburdenoninterstateorforeigncommerce(includingunjust discrimination); Arereasonablyconsistentwithobtainingthegoalofreducingexistingnoncompatiblelanduses andpreventingtheintroductionofadditionalnoncompatiblelanduses; Includetheuseofnewormodifiedflightprocedurestocontroltheoperationofaircraftfor purposesofnoisecontrol,oraffectflightproceduresinanyway; Theevaluationmayalsoincludeanevaluationofthoseproposedmeasurestodetermine whethertheymayadverselyaffecttheexerciseoftheauthorityandresponsibilitiesofthe AdministratorundertheFederalAviationActof1958,asamended. TheAdministratorapprovesprogramsunderthispart,if Programmeasurestobeimplementedwouldnotcreateanundueburdenoninterstateor foreigncommerceandarereasonableconsistentwithachievingthegoalsofreducingexisting noncompatiblelandusesaroundtheairportandofpreventingtheintroductionofadditional noncompatiblelanduses; Theprogramprovidesforrevisionifmadenecessarybytherevisionofthenoisemap; Thoseaspectsofprogramsrelatingtotheuseofflightproceduresfornoisecontrolcanbe implementedwithintheperiodcoveredbytheprogramandWITHOUT o Reducingthelevelofaviationsafetyprovided; o Derogatingtherequisitelevelofprotectionforaircraft,theiroccupants,andpersons andpropertyontheground o AdverselyaffectingtheefficientuseandmanagementoftheNavigableAirspaceandAir TrafficControlSystems;or o AdverselyaffectinganyotherpowersandresponsibilitiesoftheAdministrator prescribedbylaworanyotherprogram,standard,orrequirementestablishedin accordancewithlaw. Source:.Title14cfrpart150. PART 150 PROCESS NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS Existing Noise Exposure Map Future Noise Exposure Map Public Review Noise Exposure Maps Report FAA Review / Comments FAA Notice of Noise Exposure MapConformance NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM Operational Noise Abatement Alternatives Land Use Noise Mitigation Alternatives Public Review Program Management Alternatives Implementation Plan / Noise Benefit Analysis / Cost Estimate / Roles & Responsibilities Preliminary Noise Compatibility Program Report FAA Review Final Noise Compatibility Program Report Public Hearing FAA Review -180 Days FAA Record of Approval MEASURES THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED. The following list includes the mitigation measures that must, as a minimum, be evaluated in an NCP. These measures come directly from the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) (recodified at 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 47504). The minimum measures that you must consider for applicability and feasibility at your airport are: (1) Acquisition. Acquisition of land and interests therein, including but not limited to air rights (e.g., over flight rights), easements and development rights, to ensure property use is for purposes which are compatible with airport operations. (2) Construction and Shielding. Construction of noise barriers and acoustical 1 of public buildings. shielding including the sound insulation (3) Runway Use. Implementation of a preferential runway system. (4) Flight Procedures. Use of flight procedures, including the modification of flight tracks, to control the operation of aircraft to reduce noise exposure of individuals or specific noise-sensitive areas around the airport. (5) Restrictions. Restrictions that affect Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft must first comply with 14 CFR Part 161. Implementing restrictions on the use of the airport by any type or class of aircraft based on the noise characteristics of those aircraft to include at least one of the following. The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) was enacted in 1979. Title 14 CFR part 150 implements ASNA. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) was enacted in 1990. Title 14 CFR part 161 implements relevant portions of ANCA that relate to restrictions on flight operations. (Many of the restrictions specified in ASNA may be superseded by technological advances and be no longer feasible.) Denial of use of the airport to aircraft types or classes which do not meet Federal noise standards, Capacity limitation based on the relative noisiness of different types of aircraft, Requiring that aircraft using the airport must use noise abatement takeoff or approach procedures previously approved as safe by the FAA, Landing fees based on FAA certificated or estimated noise emission levels, or on time of arrival, and Nighttime restrictions. 1 The term “sound insulation” is also called “sound attenuation,” “noise insulation “or “sound proofing.” (6) Other Measures or Combinations of Measures. Other actions or combinations of actions which would have a beneficial noise control or abatement impact on the public. (7) FAA-Recommended Measures. Other measures recommended for analysis by the FAA for the specific airport. MITIGATION CATEGORIES. Most Airport Operators typically propose mitigation measures in three general categories: noise abatement (i.e., aircraft operations/airport layout), land use, and program management (i.e., administrative). The three general categories of mitigation measures are explained below. a. Noise Abatement Measures. Noise abatement measures may include: Implementing a preferential runway system, Using flight procedures to control aircraft operations, Using airport development measures such as noise barriers, hush houses, or relocating runways or taxiways, or Implementing any restriction on using the airport by any type or class of aircraft based on the noise characteristics of those aircraft. The Airport Operator must comply with title 14 CFR part 161 before implementing any airport noise or access restriction affecting Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft, regardless of aircraft weight. You must comply with your grant assurances for any airport noise or access restriction that affects any aircraft type (any stage or non-staged aircraft.) In addition to showing that the operational measures would reduce existing (i.e., provide a net reduction) or prevent future noncompatible land uses, part 150 section 150.33 requires the FAA to conduct a separate evaluation of these types of proposed measures to determine their impacts on aviation safety and efficiency. The objective in choosing specific aircraft operational measures is to achieve the best combination of noise abatement strategies in conjunction with the compatible land use measures that work best for your airport and the surrounding environment. b. Land Use Measures. Land use mitigation measures may include: (1) Remedial Measures. These measures are intended to reduce existing noncompatible land uses. The most commonly used remedial noise mitigation measures are: Land acquisition, Sound insulation, Easement acquisition, and Purchase assurance / sales assurance / transaction assistance. (2) Preventive Measures. These measures are intended to prevent the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses. The most commonly used preventive land use noise mitigation measures are: Comprehensive planning, Zoning regulations, Subdivision regulations, Acquisition of easements or development rights, Revised building codes for sound insulation, Real estate disclosure, and Acquisition of vacant land. The FAA believes that preventing additional residential land uses within the DNL 65 dB noise contour is highly preferred over allowing such uses, even with sound attenuation or avigation easements. However, as noted in Table 1 of part 150, the FAA does not substitute Federally-determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally-determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. The Airport Operator and local land use jurisdiction(s) are urged to pursue all possible avenues to discourage new residential development within the levels of noise exposure designated as “significant” in part 150. Even if local needs dictate permitting incompatible developments inconsistent with Table 1 of part 150, any incompatible land use structures (e.g., residences, schools, etc.) constructed after October 1, 1998, are not eligible for remedial mitigation using Federal financial assistance. c. Program Management Measures. The NCP description of program management measures should include evidence they are related to successful implementation of your NCP. As an example of a program management measure, part 150 section 150.35 requires that the NCP provide for revision if made necessary by revision of the NEM. Many Airport Operators include automatic revision or review of the NCP and/or the NEM within a specified timeframe. Other program management measures may include: Periodic program monitoring, Establishing committees to keep the public informed of NCP progress, Establishing a noise abatement contact at the airport, and Establishing a noise complaint hotline. mjtife! Mboe!Vtf Nbobhfnfou Opjtf!Qsphsbn! Type of Measure boe!Bjsdsbgu!Pqfsbujpo Bjsqpsu!Mbzpvu!Dibohft Bjsqpsu!boe!Bjstqbdf!Vtf-! jpot!cf!dpotjefsfe!bt!b!mbtu!sftpsu/ Bjsdsbgu+ Consider These Actions Mboe 2 Vtf!\[pojoh!0!\[pojoh!Sfhvmbujpot Tqffe!Fyju!Ubyjxbzt . Matrix of Noise Control Actions Dibohft!jo!Svoxbz!Mpdbujpo!ps!MfohuiEjtqmbdfe!UisftipmetIjhiJtpmbujoh!Nbjoufobodf!Svovqt!ps!Vtf!pg!Opjtf!Cbssjfst!boe!Bdpvtujdbm!TijfmejohQsfgfsfoujbm!ps!Spubujpobm!Svoxbz!Vtf+Qsfgfsfoujbm!Gmjhiu!Usb dl!Vtf+Npejgjdbujpo!up!Bqqspbdi!boe!Efqbsuvsf!Qspdfevsft+Sftusjdujpot!po!Hspvoe!Npwfnfou!pg!Sftusjdujpot!po!Fohjof!Svovqt!ps!Vtf!pg!Hspvoe!FrvjqnfouVtf!SftusjdujpotSbjtf!Hmjef!Tmpqf!Bohmf!ps!Joufsdfq u+Dpnqsfifotjwf!QmboojohDpnqbujcmf!Cvjmejoh!Dpef!QspwjtjpotTvcejwjtjpo!SfhvmbujpotSfbm!Ftubuf!EjtdmptvsfMboe!Bdrvjtjujpo!boe!SfmpdbujpoBdrvjtjujpo!pg!Wbdbou!Opjtf!JotvmbujpoBdrvjtjujpo!pg!Fbtfnfout!p s!Efwfmpqnfou!SjhiutQvsdibtf!Bttvsbodf!0!Tbmft!Bttvsbodf!0!Usbotbdujpo!BttjtubodfQjmpu!Bxbsfoftt!QsphsbnQfsjpejd!Qsphsbn!NpojupsjohFtubcmjti!b!Opjtf!Bcbufnfou!Dpoubdu!0!Opjtf!Dpnqmbjou!IpumjofOpjtf!N pojupsjohFtubcmjti!Dpnnvojuz!Qbsujdjqbujpo!Qsphsbn Ojhiuujnf! Pqfsbujpot Njmjubsz! Pqfsbujpot Hspvoe! Frvjqnfou Fohjof! Svovqt Upvdi.boe. Hp!Gmjhiut pqfsbujpobm!qspdfevsft!gps!xijdi!GBB!jt!sftqpotjcmf!up!fotvsf!tbgf!boe!fggjdjfou!npwfnfou!pg!bjsdsbgu/!!Uifz!dboopu!cf!bddpnq Mboejoh! Spmm If You Have Noise From Bqqspbdi Efqbsuvsf Opjtf!gspn! Ubyjjoh Qbsu!272!bqqmjft!up!Tubhf!3!boe!4!bjsdsbgu!sftusjdujpot/!!Evf!up!tusjohfou!bqqspwbm!dsjufsjb-!ju!jt!sfdpnnfoefe!uibu!sftusjdu +Uiftf!bsf!fybnqmft!pg!vojmbufsbmmz!cz!uif!bjsqpsu!pqfsbups-!boe!bsf!bu!uif!ejtdsfujpo!pg!uif!qjmpu!jo!dpnnboe/ 2 April 2, 2013 Key West International Airport Ad-hoc Committee on Airport Noise nd Agenda for Tuesday, April 2, 2013 Call to Order 2:00 pm Harvey Government Center Roll Call A.Welcome New Members 1. Tina Mazzorana and Nikali Pontecorvo B. Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes th 1. For February 5, 2013 C. 1. Role of the FAA and the Part 150 Process 2.NEM Documentation Comments 3.Noise Compatibility Program D. Other Reports: 1. Noise Hotline and Contact Log 2.Airport Noise Report E. Any Other Discussion 1. By-Laws th F. Next meeting: June 4, 2013 2013 Schedule of Meetings thndth February 5 April 2 June 4 thstrd August 6 October 1 December 3 ADA ASSISTANCE: If you are a person with a disability who needs special accommodations in order to participate in this proceeding, please contact the County Administrator's Office, by phoning (305) 292-4441, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., no later than five (5) calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call "711". 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise April 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes Meeting called to order by Commissioner Kolhage at 2:00 PM. ROLL CALL: Committee Members in Attendance: Commissioner Danny Kolhage Marlene Durazo Marvin Hunt Harvey Wolney Tina Mazzorana (Alternate) Staff and Guests in Attendance: Peter Horton, KWIA. Deborah Lagos, URS Corp. Dan Botto, URS Corp. R. L. Blazevic, Resident Robert Gold, Resident Ashley Monnier, NAS Key West Inocente Santiago, Jr., Resident A quorum was not present. th Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes for the February 5, 2013 Ad Hoc Committee Meetings th Review and approval of the February 5Ad Hoc Committee meeting minutes has been postponed due to lack of a quorum. Dan Botto mentions that this actually ackage delivered to the members living at Key West by the Sea (KWBTS). After a discussion of when other members received their packages, it was determined that KWBTS members would have their packages hand delivered as there is an issue with mail delivery to KWBTS. Welcome to the New Members Commissioner Kolhage welcomed the two new members, Tina Mazzorana and Nick Pontecovo. KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise April 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes Discussion of Part 150 Study Update Role of the FAA and the Part 150 Process Dan Botto reported to the committee that Peter Horton had signed the tCertification for the NEM. The NEM with the will be sent to the FAA for review and official acceptance of the noise contours. Dan Botto explained that the alternatives analysis for the NCP has begun and some local inspection was performed while Dan and Deborah Lagos were in Key West for the Ad Hoc meeting. Dan went on to explain that this is the area where the FAA takes a greater role as they will approve or disapprove any recommended mitigation measures that the NCP and the Ad Hoc committee recommend. Commissioner Kolhage asked about a public review of the Noise Exposure Maps and when does that happen. Deborah Lagos explained that these Ad Hoc meeting are the public review. Commissioner Kolhage then asked if there was no general dissemination of this information. Peter Horton and Dan Botto mentioned that the meetings were advertised as open to the public for the Part 150 Study in the local papers. Commissioner Kolhage then asked if there was a public hearing process. Deborah Lagos explained that there is a public hearing requirement at the end for the NCP, but there is not a public hearing requirement for the NEMs. Deborah continued that just because there is no requirement for a public hearing, the committee can elect to hold one anyway. Commissioner Kolhage then clarified that the public review in the Part 150 process refers to the Ad Hoc committee meetings.Deborah explained that was the case, but before the NCP can go to the FAA for review, there is a public hearing requirement. Commissioner Kolhage deal. Peter Horton explained that any comments received at the public hearing have to be included and responded to before the NCP goes to the FAA. Commissioner Kolhage explained that he felt there was something wrong with this process but he was unsure if we could change it. Peter Horton mentioned that we could discuss this more as we go through the NCP. KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise April 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Kolhage then asked how is the Ad Hoc meeting advertised. Peter Horton explained that it was a public notice placed in the Key West Citizen. Commissioner Kolhage then asked if the ad mentioned that we were going to consider the Noise Exposure Maps. Peter Horton believes that the ad, while mentioning the ongoing Part 150 Study, did not specifically mention the NEMs. Robert Gold mentioned that he found out about the meetings through the Monroe County Website. Deborah Lagos and Peter Horton indicated that there is a separate website available specifically for the Ad Hoc committee that contains all the historical and current noise and Part 150 information. Dan Botto mentioned that at another airport letters were sent directly to the homes within the contours, but it was dealing with a much smaller number of homes. Commissioner Kolhage asked if there is a process that must be followed. Deborah Lagos explained that the regulations are vague and provide very little regarding specifics. Commissioner Kolhage asked if we publish an ad that does not specifically mention the NEM maps, how does that meet the standards. Deborah thought we had specifically changed the ad mentioning the Part 150 and the NEMs as topics for the Ad Hoc meeting. Dan Botto said he will check the advertisements, and any future ads will contain more specific information about the purpose of the meeting. Dan Botto discussed that at the last meeting, the committee asked for a list of items that are required to be analyzed during the Part 150 Study. This information along with the items the FAA uses for determination of acceptability was emailed to all that provided email addresses. NEM Documentation Dan Botto mentioned that we have already covered the NEM documentation update and he reviewed the information provided before. Dan also provided a copy of the Executive Summary that was provided to the FAA. Commissioner Kolhage asked how long of a review time does the FAA have. Deborah Lagos explained that there is no time limit for the review of the NEM, but as the FAA has already seen the document by sections, there should not be a large number of new comments. Peter Horton and Deborah explained that while we are waiting on the comments from the FAA, the NCP is not on hold and work KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise April 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes continues forward. Furthermore, unless there are significant comments on the NEM, the FAA will provide a letter to the airport, and will place a notice in the Federal Register that the noise contours have been accepted. Then the airport will publish a notice in the local papers indicating the contours have been accepted and they are made available for viewing in the local libraries. Dan Botto asked if there were any comments on Sections 1, 2, 3, and the Forecast which were previously submitted to the committee. Deborah Lagos commented that Marlene Durazo had previously shared one comment. No other comments were made by the committee. NCP Each member of the committee and all guests were provided ahandout containing noise abatement information from 12 different airports around the nation that are similar in size and operational characteristics to EYW.Deborah explained that this information was obtained from a Boeing airports website. She said we have provided this information so the committee can see what other airports have done to deal with noise and to give the committee some idea of what can be looked at for EYW. Deborah also explained that there will be some restrictions that due to the passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, passed by Congress in 1990, are no longer available. Deborah went on to discuss each different airport covered in the handout. The following restrictions were mentioned and specifically discussed: Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) and Ground Power Units (GPUs): Deborah Lagos mentioned that there are not specific complaints regarding APU usage, but along Riviera Drive there have been complaints about airport but not aircraft noise. Deborah mentioned that it would be quieter if the aircraft use GPUs instead of APUs. Marvin Hunt thinks the APUs at the airport are not that noisy since most aircraft are smaller aircraft. Deborah felt that while there are no specific complaints about APU noise, use of GPUs may results in a general reduction of airport noise. Deborahasked Peter Horton what is the current situation regarding GPUs at the airport. Peter believed that all airlines but Silver Air has access to a GPU. Marvin informed the committee that US Airways must use the GPU to save the fuel that the APU uses, unless there is a quick turn like KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise April 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes Southwest performs. Peter Horton felt that during the busy times, it would be hard to distinguish APU noise from the noise as a whole, but that during the average day there are some very loud APUs in the GA business jet fleet. While there are GPUs available for the GA side, many of the older business jets will be phased out anyway. Peter suggested that a voluntary request to use GPUs agreement, that GPU usage also saves a considerable amount of jet fuel. Marvin asked if this would be mandatory for the airlines, but Peter Horton explained that this would be a voluntary. Marvin felt that making it mandatory might lead to additional chances for mistakes if they have to hook-up a GPU. Marlene Durazo asked if the GPU produces a different level of air pollution compared to the APUs. Peter Horton explained that while he did not know for sure, it sure seemed like the GPU produces less exhaust then an APU. Dan Botto guessed that strictly on the basis of the GPU using less fuel in the same time period as the APU would result in less air pollution. Use of NBAA Close in Departure and Arrival Procedures: For use when noise sensitive areas are close to the airport, asking the aircraft to obtain maximum altitude as quickly as possible on departure. EYW could apply this departure procedure to departures from Runway 27, and arrival procedure to arrivals to Runway 09. Peter Horton suggests we recommend putting these procedures into the Airport Facilities Directory. Robert Gold asked if the arrival procedures would also be put in for arrivals to Runway 09. Robert Gold and Tina Mazzorana mentioned that they are looking for arrival track variability to Runway 09. Peter Horton explained that while the airport had previously looked into additional arrival routes, the resultant outcry from neighborhoods newly experiencing noise caused them to be removed as a recommended route. Marlene Durazo asked if we had a pamphlet that outlines the noise abatement policies at EYW that we can compare to the ones of other airports provided at this meeting. Deborah Lagos explained that there currently is not one, but that was going to be another suggestion for the NCP. Deborah also explained that in the most recent Airport Noise Report, that will be in the June 2013 Ad Hoc agenda package, there was an article about a new app that pilots can use that would provide all of the noise abatement requests electronically, instead of having to cart KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise April 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes around large amounts of paper, that they have to obtain and print out. In other words, the information will be much more readily available to the airport users. Quiet Flying Page: Hayward Executive has a Fly Quiet page with specific procedures for jet aircraft and for helicopters. Deborah Lagos mentioned that EYW could examine the idea of having all helo operations arriveand depart from the south side of the airport, US Navy operations permitting. Peter Horton felt that helo operations could be requested to fly to the south as their operating altitude would be below what the Navy is operating. Deborah continued discussing that Hayward also has a “Propeller and Power Adjustment” recommendation that could be implemented at EYW. Peter Horton believed that would work on arrivals, but not so much on departures. Intersection Takeoffs: Deborah Lagos mentioned that at Boca Raton, they prohibit intersection takeoffs, and she inquired of Peter Horton if they perform intersection takeoffsat EYW. Deborah asked if the departures from Runway 09 could move to the next taxiway for take offs. Peter Horton felt that this could be done and would be beneficial in two ways. It could possibly reduce departure noise at KWBTS and would reduce fuel usage because aircraft would not have to taxi to the end of the runway. Dan Botto mentioned that we should not allow intersection takeoffs on Runway 27 to force aircraft higher as they pass by KWBTS. Robert Gold and Marlene Durazo expressed their surprise that EYW does not have a documented set of noise abatement procedures for EYW. Deborah Lagos explained that the Airport Facilities Directory (AFD) does contain the information, the airport has just not put together a slick presentation of it, but this will be suggested in the NCP, could get a copy of the AFD for EYW. Peter Horton mentioned using Google for the online AFD. Robert also asked that the previous test of the Garrison Bight Approach had any documentation available. Deborah Lagos explained that we have the Approach Procedure Study, but the only documentation we have is from the previous Ad Hoc meetings where the residents affected by the new tracks attended to express their displeasure. Peter Horton and Harvey Wolney KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise April 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes mentioned that there had been handouts provided to the pilots requesting they use the Garrison Bight Approach. Robert Gold said that even if this reduced the arrivals over his home from 30 ops a day to 15, that it would make a huge improvement. Robert Gold felt the biggest problem is the small tour/sightseeing aircraft that fly all over the island at low altitudes. Peter Horton explained that that is much easier to remedy than the large air carrier aircraft. Peter felt that these operations can be adjusted with a simple request for voluntary compliance. Avoidance of Noise Sensitive Area and AOPA Noise Awareness Steps: Deborah discussed 2 other airports that have published flight procedures to avoid noise sensitive areas and to apply Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Noise Awareness Steps. Marlene Durazo asked if the next meeting will have the recommendations of what would and would not work at EYW. Deborah said that the plan is to have these recommendations customized by the next meeting. Peter Horton mentioned that EYW used to have a Noise Abatement Officer at the airport, funded by the FAA, to work with the pilots and homeowners to increase interaction and application of noise abatement procedures. Peter suggested that the NCP recommend that the airport renew this position to manage this noise program. Flight Track Restrictions: Deborah Lagos discussed the radical flight tracks that are being used in Sun Valley to avoid noise sensitive areas. Approach Procedures: Peter Horton began the discussion of approach procedures by discussing how limited the airport is due to the proximity of NAS Key West. Peter explained the various approaches currently in place at EYW and how they interact with NASKW. He also discussed the right hand pattern at EYW and the interaction with NASKW traffic. Peter then mentioned the approaches that have been previously examined, including coming in at White Street Pier and the Garrison Bight Approach. He discussed that the GB approach was suggested to aircraft that could make the turn, and many aircraft began to use this approach, which led to noise complaints from areas that had not been previously experiencing noise. Additionally, the KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise April 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes approach became so popular due to fuel/time savings that Cape Air, the Beech 1900s, and Gulfstream began using it. Even the ATR aircraft began using it, which is the noisiest aircraft arriving to EYW. Peter Horton explained that the southern approach does not work because of the interaction with NASKW, and the shifting of noise to new areas. Peter also explained that the jets and regional jets very much prefer to have the 3 mile stabilized approach for safety. approach procedures. Peter Horton explained that it would work on local pilots as the Noise Abatement Officer would be knocking on their hanger door to re-explain the requested procedures. Robert Gold continued saying just a small variability in flight tracks would have a noticeableeffect on those homeowners on the runway centerline. follow the “tracks” indicated in the NEM, but already have some variability. Peter Horton explained that if you examine the radar track figures, it is recognizable that there is some variability already in the flight of aircraft due to weather, aircraft type, and pilot skill. Commissioner Kolhage mentioned that therefore there already is operator variability in the flight tracks. Tina Mazzorana mentioned that while KWBTS is getting the brunt of the departure noise, Old Town is receiving the brunt of the arrival noise. Peter Horton explained that there is not a lot that can be done because they are on the runway centerline, but as Commissioner Kolhage said, there is already much variabilityin arrival tracks as seen in the radar data. Robert Gold felt th a concise set of noise abatement procedures to be provided to the pilots. Noise Barriers and Taxiway Signs: Tina Mazzorana mentioned that at Columbus International Airport website has their full noise abatement program details, which includes noise abatement wall KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise April 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes that reducesnoise in nearby neighborhoods by up to 10 dB. She indicated that while this may not help her area, it may buffer some of the areas directly surrounding the airport. Peter Horton mentioned that EYW has done a study on this and determined that putting the vegetative buffer had a better benefit compared to the wall as the wall would have been much more restrictive on the area residents and a wall has a habit of bouncing the noise back in other directions and onto other areas. Peter mentioned that in addition to the vegetative buffer, they also have insulated many of the homes for which a barrier would have a benefit. Marlene Durazo mentioned that at KWBTS they already experience sound bouncing among the buildings. R.L Blazevic mentioned that since the last hurricane, the mangroves surrounding the airport have become much denser. Dan Botto explained that the mangroves are a much better barrier than a wall because they tend to absorb the sound whereas a wall reflects the sound. Deborah Lagos asked Peter Horton if there are already taxiway signs in place asking pilots to follow noise abatement procedures. Peter explained that the airport does have a few, but could do a much better job, especially if the airport recommends the use of NBAA procedures. Tina Mazzorana mentioned that the airport should look at a soft curfew limiting some types of operations as specific times. Deborah Lagos indicated that EYW currently does have a voluntary curfew limiting operations between 11 pm and 7 am, but these voluntary restrictions could be better publicized. Peter Horton explained that this is voluntary and occasionally flights do come in after hours when they really have no other option. Other Reports Noise Hotline and Contact Log Dan Bottoreported that there were nine calls to the noise hotline, six from Patrick Murphy. Dan responded directly to Mr. Murphy and he is now receiving the agenda package and has been invited directly to the Ad Hoc meetings. Commissioner Kolhage asked what where the dates of his calls to see if the calls coincided with the airshow. These were not the dates of the airshow. Commissioner Kolhage was surprised there were no calls during the airshow, but Peter Horton said they did a great job notifying the public that the airshow was going on. KWIA Ad-Hoc Committee on Noise April 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes Airport Noise Report Dan Botto stated applicable to EYW. Any Other Discussion Dan Botto was going to discuss by-laws but without a quorum, there is no point this time. Commissioner Kolhage informed the committee that he will not be at the June 2013 meeting. Marvin Hunt informed the committee that he may not be at the June meeting as US Air does not operate during the summer. Commissioner Kolhage asked if there was any other business. No additional business was brought up to the committee. Commissioner Kolhage adjourned the meeting at 3:30 PM. TheRoleoftheFAAinthePart150Process: NoiseExposureMaps Indicateswhethertheyareincompliancewithapplicablerequirements, PublishesnoticeofcomplianceintheFederalRegister,includingwhereandwhenthemapsand relateddocumentationareavailableforpublicinspection. NoiseCompatibilityProgram TheFAAconductsanevaluationofeachofthemeasures(operational,landuse,andprogram management)includedinthenoisecompatibilityprogramand,basedonthatevaluation,either approvesordisapproveseachofthemeasuresintheprogram.Theevaluationincludesconsiderationof proposedmeasurestodeterminewhether Maycreateanundueburdenoninterstateorforeigncommerce(includingunjust discrimination); Arereasonablyconsistentwithobtainingthegoalofreducingexistingnoncompatiblelanduses andpreventingtheintroductionofadditionalnoncompatiblelanduses; Includetheuseofnewormodifiedflightprocedurestocontroltheoperationofaircraftfor purposesofnoisecontrol,oraffectflightproceduresinanyway; Theevaluationmayalsoincludeanevaluationofthoseproposedmeasurestodetermine whethertheymayadverselyaffecttheexerciseoftheauthorityandresponsibilitiesofthe AdministratorundertheFederalAviationActof1958,asamended. TheAdministratorapprovesprogramsunderthispart,if Programmeasurestobeimplementedwouldnotcreateanundueburdenoninterstateor foreigncommerceandarereasonableconsistentwithachievingthegoalsofreducingexisting noncompatiblelandusesaroundtheairportandofpreventingtheintroductionofadditional noncompatiblelanduses; Theprogramprovidesforrevisionifmadenecessarybytherevisionofthenoisemap; Thoseaspectsofprogramsrelatingtotheuseofflightproceduresfornoisecontrolcanbe implementedwithintheperiodcoveredbytheprogramandWITHOUT o Reducingthelevelofaviationsafetyprovided; o Derogatingtherequisitelevelofprotectionforaircraft,theiroccupants,andpersons andpropertyontheground o AdverselyaffectingtheefficientuseandmanagementoftheNavigableAirspaceandAir TrafficControlSystems;or o AdverselyaffectinganyotherpowersandresponsibilitiesoftheAdministrator prescribedbylaworanyotherprogram,standard,orrequirementestablishedin accordancewithlaw. Source:.Title14cfrpart150. PART 150 PROCESS NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS Existing Noise Exposure Map Future Noise Exposure Map Public Review Noise Exposure Maps Report FAA Review / Comments FAA Notice of Noise Exposure MapConformance NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM Operational Noise Abatement Alternatives Land Use Noise Mitigation Alternatives Public Review Program Management Alternatives Implementation Plan / Noise Benefit Analysis / Cost Estimate / Roles & Responsibilities Preliminary Noise Compatibility Program Report FAA Review Final Noise Compatibility Program Report Public Hearing FAA Review -180 Days FAA Record of Approval FLORIDA97 MIAMI KEY WEST INTL(EYW)N24º33.37´W81º45.57´ 3 BS4 FUEL 100, JET AAOEClassI,ARFFIndexB NOTAMFILEEYW IAP, AD RWY 09: RWY 27: ARRESTING GEAR/SYSTEM RWY 09: EMAS AIRPORT REMARKS: Numerous flocks of birds on and in the vicinity of airport. Departing VFR acft requested to maintain rwy heading until reaching fld cable to 14,000 ft. Extremely noise sensitive area. Urge no ops ise abatement procedures other times. Local ordinance rqr engine runups in designated area on N side and fines. PPR for unscheduled air carrier operations with more than 30 passenger seats exceeding rwy weight bearing capacity; call arpt manager arpt tfc area from SE through W. Enter arpt tfc area blo 2000´; refer to MIAMI VFR Terminal Area Chart for suggested VFR flyway routes. Twy WEATHER DATA SOURCES: HIWAS 113.5 EYW. COMMUNICATIONS: CTAF 118.2 ATIS 119.675 UNICOM 122.95 RCO 122.1R 122.2 123.65 113.5T (MIAMI RADIO) ®NAVY KEY WEST APP/DEP CON ®MIAMI CENTER APP/DEP CON TOWERGND CON 121.9 CLNC DEL 121.9 AIRSPACE: CLASS D RADIO AIDS TO NAVIGATION: NOTAM FILE EYW. (H) VORTAC 113.5EYWChan 82 N24º35.15´ W81º48.03´127º2.9NMtofld. 10/1E. HIWAS. VOR unusable: FISH HOOK NDB (HW) 332FIS N24º32.90´ W81º47.18´076º1.5NMtofld. ASR COMM/NAV/WEATHER REMARKS: and MAXIM shall ctc Miami Center 10 minutes prior to crossing the Miami flight information region 132.2. SE, 7 MAR 2013 to 2 MAY 2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 June 4, 2013 BEB!BTTJTUBODF;!Jg!zpv!bsf!b!qfstpo!xjui!b!ejtbcjmjuz!xip!offet!tqfdjbm!bddpnnpebujpot! jo!psefs!up!qbsujdjqbuf!jo!uijt!qspdffejoh-!qmfbtf!dpoubdu!uif!Dpvouz!Benjojtusbups(t!Pggjdf-!cz! qipojoh!)416*!3:3.5552-!cfuxffo!uif!ipvst!pg!9;41!b/n/!.!6;11!q/n/-!op!mbufs!uibo!gjwf!)6*! dbmfoebs!ebzt!qsjps!up!uif!tdifevmfe!nffujoh<!jg!zpv!bsf!ifbsjoh!ps!wpjdf!jnqbjsfe-!dbmm!#822#/! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TheRoleoftheFAAinthePart150Process: NoiseExposureMaps Indicateswhethertheyareincompliancewithapplicablerequirements, PublishesnoticeofcomplianceintheFederalRegister,includingwhereandwhenthemapsand relateddocumentationareavailableforpublicinspection. NoiseCompatibilityProgram TheFAAconductsanevaluationofeachofthemeasures(operational,landuse,andprogram management)includedinthenoisecompatibilityprogramand,basedonthatevaluation,either approvesordisapproveseachofthemeasuresintheprogram.Theevaluationincludesconsiderationof proposedmeasurestodeterminewhether Maycreateanundueburdenoninterstateorforeigncommerce(includingunjust discrimination); Arereasonablyconsistentwithobtainingthegoalofreducingexistingnoncompatiblelanduses andpreventingtheintroductionofadditionalnoncompatiblelanduses; Includetheuseofnewormodifiedflightprocedurestocontroltheoperationofaircraftfor purposesofnoisecontrol,oraffectflightproceduresinanyway; Theevaluationmayalsoincludeanevaluationofthoseproposedmeasurestodetermine whethertheymayadverselyaffecttheexerciseoftheauthorityandresponsibilitiesofthe AdministratorundertheFederalAviationActof1958,asamended. TheAdministratorapprovesprogramsunderthispart,if Programmeasurestobeimplementedwouldnotcreateanundueburdenoninterstateor foreigncommerceandarereasonableconsistentwithachievingthegoalsofreducingexisting noncompatiblelandusesaroundtheairportandofpreventingtheintroductionofadditional noncompatiblelanduses; Theprogramprovidesforrevisionifmadenecessarybytherevisionofthenoisemap; Thoseaspectsofprogramsrelatingtotheuseofflightproceduresfornoisecontrolcanbe implementedwithintheperiodcoveredbytheprogramandWITHOUT o Reducingthelevelofaviationsafetyprovided; o Derogatingtherequisitelevelofprotectionforaircraft,theiroccupants,andpersons andpropertyontheground o AdverselyaffectingtheefficientuseandmanagementoftheNavigableAirspaceandAir TrafficControlSystems;or o AdverselyaffectinganyotherpowersandresponsibilitiesoftheAdministrator prescribedbylaworanyotherprogram,standard,orrequirementestablishedin accordancewithlaw. Source:.Title14cfrpart150. PART 150 PROCESS NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS Existing Noise Exposure Map Future Noise Exposure Map Public Review Noise Exposure Maps Report FAA Review / Comments FAA Notice of Noise Exposure MapConformance NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM Operational Noise Abatement Alternatives Land Use Noise Mitigation Alternatives Public Review Program Management Alternatives Implementation Plan / Noise Benefit Analysis / Cost Estimate / Roles & Responsibilities Preliminary Noise Compatibility Program Report FAA Review Final Noise Compatibility Program Report Public Hearing FAA Review -180 Days FAA Record of Approval Appendix R Public Comments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 !!!! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20