Click for next page ( 100

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 99
100 APPENDIX D Case Study: Naples Municipal Airport BACKGROUND 24-hour ban on non-emergency Stage 1 jet operations. In March 1999, the FAA approved this measure. The implemen- In 1942, the city of Naples and Collier County, Florida, leased tation of this measure essentially eliminated any population land to the U.S. government for construction of the Naples within the DNL 65 dB contour. Airdrome. After World War II, the field was returned to the city and county; they operated the airport jointly until 1958 Despite diligent--and successful--NAA efforts to imple- when the county sold its interest to the city. In 1969, with the ment the approved measures, including the Stage 1 ban, the facility operating at a loss, the Florida Legislature created NAA continued to receive community pressure regarding the Naples Airport Authority (NAA) to independently operate noise exposure. In August 1999, the NAA initiated a Part 161 the airport. The NAA was given no taxing authority and has study to identify potential operational restrictions that would operated the Naples Municipal Airport (APF) at a profit with be appropriate for addressing these community concerns. income from airport users and state and federal grants. The Part 161 study determined that Stage 2 jets were the Today, APF operates as a certificated air carrier airport with principal source of the noise impact that caused community 130,917 operations in 2007. This includes one commercial air concern; Stage 2 jet operations were more than 25 times more taxi service (Yellow Air Taxi), flight schools, fire/rescue ser- likely to cause noise complaints than Stage 3 operations and vices, car rental agencies, and other aviation and non-aviation nearly 250 times more likely to cause noise complaints than businesses. propeller operations. Even more importantly, the analysis indicated that individual Stage 2 operations were more than APF is surrounded by residential land use (see Figure D1), 50 times more likely than Stage 3 jets to cause multiple citi- but there are no residential or other noise-sensitive properties zens to complain (and more than 800 times more likely than within the DNL 65 dB contour. Nevertheless, aircraft noise propeller aircraft to do so). The number of people estimated to live within the 60 dB DNL contour if there were no restrictions remains a serious issue and concern for the NAA. The policies in 2000 was about 1,400; a 24-hour ban on Stage 2 operations and programs APF has developed to address noise outside would reduce this to approximately 130. The Part 161 study DayNight Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 is the focus of was published in June 2000 and recommended the total ban on this case study. Stage 2 aircraft operations as the most reasonable and cost- effective measure to minimize incompatible land use. On Jan- NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM uary 1, 2001, the Stage 2 restriction went into effect. In 1987, the NAA conducted its first FAR Part 150 study, Following publication of the Part 161 study a complicated which recommended six noise control measures that were ulti- series of events unfolded, which ultimately resulted in the find- mately implemented. In 1989, an "Airport High Noise Special ing that the Stage 2 ban was permissible; these are summarized Overlay District" was established that required rezoning for in Table D1. any new development or significant redevelopment of land within the 65 dB DNL contour. APF is the only airport with an FAA-approved FAR Part 161 study. For the purposes of this ACRP Synthesis, In February 1997, the NAA submitted a revised Part 150 the most relevant aspect of the APF Part 161 Study is the submission to the FAA, which adopted DNL 60 dB as its establishment--and legal determination--of DNL 60 dB as threshold of compatibility for land use planning (described a threshold of residential land use compatibility, described later). The FAA approved 14 of 15 measures, including noise here. abatement measures--such as preferential flight tracks and runway use, and maintenance run-up procedures; land use Operational Measures measures--such as compatible zoning districts and compre- hensive plan elements; and continuing program measures-- APF uses flight tracks and procedures to minimize noise effects such as a noise officer, noise committee, and recurring noise on surrounding communities. APF's flight tracks have received monitoring. Perhaps most importantly, the FAA approved a formal FAA approval and are implemented by air traffic ban on non-emergency night operations in Stage 1 jet aircraft. controllers. APF has also developed informal Visual Flight Rules noise abatement procedures; the noise metrics used In February 1998, the NAA submitted a second Part 150 to evaluate these procedures have varied, and include: DNL, update to the FAA. That update included a single measure: a Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Time Above, Continuous

OCR for page 99
101 FIGURE D1 General location of Naples Municipal Airport (APF). Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), and Maximum A-weighted as the threshold of incompatibility, and the 65 Ldn contour Sound Level (Lmax). APF reported that both flight tracks and does not contain any incompatible uses in the revised 2001 NEM which includes the noise abatement alternatives. How- procedures are somewhat effective at reducing aircraft noise ever, it is important to create a buffer of compatible land use and complaints from noise-sensitive communities. These around the Airport. As such, another standard should be des- procedures have been developed and refined through FAR ignated by the local land use planning agencies to ensure Part 150 processes. that residential and noise sensitive uses are not developed too close to the Airport. One possible standard is the 60 Ldn contour. Land Use Measures Figure 13 depicts the 60 Ldn contour for the revised NEM Most noise and land use compatibility studies, in conformance including the noise abatement measures. Applying the land with the guidelines of FAR Part 150, use 65 dB DNL as the use compatibility guidelines normally used for the 65 Ldn contour to this 60 Ldn contour should create an adequate area determinant of compatibility--all noise-sensitive land uses, of compatible land use. such as residential areas, are considered compatible with air- craft noise exposure less than 65 dB DNL. However, the 1996 APF Part 150 study and the associated Noise Compatibility Summary of City Land Development Policy Program (NCP) found that no noise-sensitive land uses would History Within the Noise Zone lie within the 65 dB DNL contour. Consequently, the FAR Part 150 study provided the 60 dB DNL contour, Figure D2, and The city's Comprehensive Plan contained specific information recommended that zoning be used by the city of Naples and regarding rezoning of areas affected or potentially affected by Collier County as a preventive measure to preclude the devel- the airport for the first time in 1984. In 1989, the city updated opment of incompatible uses in the vicinity of the airport. the Comprehensive Plan to establish an Airport High Noise Specifically, the study recognized that although both FAA Special Overlay District ("City Special District"), depicted in guidelines and Florida statutes, Chapter 333, encourage airport the 1989 Comprehensive Plan as the area of land exposed to compatible zoning, those guidelines applied at the 65 dB DNL noise in excess of 65 dB DNL according to the five-year fore- level. The study contained the following recommendation: cast case (1991) in the 1987 APF FAR Part 150 Study. Any applicant proposing to develop or significantly redevelop land For Naples Municipal Airport, the FAA and FDOT guidelines in the City Special District was--and is today--required to first do not apply since these guidelines use the 65 Ldn contour obtain a rezoning of the property to Planned Development. To

OCR for page 99
102 TABLE D1 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF STAGE 2 RESTRICTION Date Event Comments June 23, 2000 NAA invitation to public to comment on proposed restriction on Stage 2 jet operations at Naples Municipal Airport June 30, 2000 Part 161 study published Notice of study availability and opportunity for comments distributed widely Nov. 16, 2000 Response to Comments published Responses provided for 36 comment categories Dec. 2000 FAA initiates enforcement action alleging NAA suspends enforcement of ban while Stage 2 ban violated Part 161 responding to FAA. Dec. 2000 National Business Aviation Association Ban upheld in federal district court, (NBAA) and General Aviation Manufacturers September 2001. Association (GAMA) sue NAA in federal court alleging the ban is unconstitutional Jan. 18, 2001 NAA meeting w/FAA staff Discuss FAA comments. FAA staff offer to work with the NAA in an informal process to resolve any agency concerns, approach to supplemental analysis. Aug. 2001 Part 161 Supplemental Analysis published Oct. 2001 FAA found that the study fully complied with the requirements of Part 161 Oct. 2001 FAA initiates second enforcement action under FAA alleges that Stage 2 ban violates the Part 16 rules which require (1) Investigation, grant assurance that "the airport will be (2) Hearing, and (3) Final Decision. available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination." March 2002 NAA enforces ban Grant money withheld March 2003 INVESTIGATION: NAA appeals decision, provides responses FAA issues 94-page "Director's to all FAA allegations Determination" that Stage 2 ban is preempted by federal law and violated Grant Assurance 22--"make airport available for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities." June 2003 HEARING: Hearing Officer issues 56-page "Initial FAA attorney appointed as Hearing Officer and Decision" that ban not preempted, not conducts hearing on NAA appeal. unjustly discriminatory, but was (1) unreasonable, (2) Part 161 compliance does not affect Grant Assurance obligations, and (3) FAA not bound by prior federal court decision [see Dec. 2000, above] July 2003 Both NAA and FAA appeal the Initial Decision Aug. 2003 FINAL DECISION: Decision: Associate Administrator issues Final Agency (1) FAA is not bound by prior federal court Decision and Order--Grant funding to be decision because FAA was not a party to withheld so long as NAA enforces Stage 2 ban. the case. 2) Compliance with Part 161 has no effect on Grant Assurance Obligations. 3) Stage 2 ban unreasonable because there is no incompatible land use problem in Naples that warrants a restriction on airport operations [because there is no incompatible land use inside 65 dB DNL]. Sept. 2003 Naples Airport Authority files petition for Petition to U.S. Court of Appeals for the review District of Columbia. June 2005 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Circuit Court found that it is permissible Columbia Circuit rules Stage 2 ban is for NAA to consider the benefits of the reasonable (and Grant Assurances not affected) restriction to noise-sensitive areas within 60 dB DNL. It also found that Grant Assurances do apply, but that because the ban is not unreasonable, the Grants are not affected.

OCR for page 99
103 FIGURE D2 Forecast 2001 APF 60 dB DNL with NCP implemented. obtain the rezoning, the proposed development or redevelop- District"), added land use restrictions, and notification and ment must conform to existing zoning standards and must, sound level requirements for buildings and structures. These after specific review for this purpose, be deemed compatible requirements are contained in the county's Land Develop- with the airport in terms of safety and noise. ment Code. In 1997, the city revised the map of the City Special District In June 1999, the NAA requested that the county adopt in the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the five-year forecast case the five-year forecast case (2003) 60 dB DNL contour from (2001) 60 dB DNL contour from the 1996 NEM. In February the 1998 NEM. Collier County adopted the resolution in June 2001, the city and the NAA executed an interlocal agreement 2000. That same month, the NAA requested the County to update the District and Comprehensive Plan to reflect the use the five year forecast case (2005) 60 dB DNL contour 2005 forecast case 60 dB DNL contour from the FAA- from the 2000 NEM Update for future land use planning. approved 2000 NEM update. The County updated its zoning map in December 2000 to reflect those contours. Summary of County Land Development Policy History within the Noise Zone City and County Development Application Processes In June 1986, Collier County developed zoning maps indicat- In May 2001, NAA staff met with city and county planning, ing aircraft noise boundaries. In 1987, the Collier County zoning, and building department staffs to review the processes planning department began referencing standards for sound that they follow on a day-to-day basis to identify development control. In October 1991, Collier County approved Ordinance applications for properties located in the City Special District 91-102 that redesigned aircraft noise zones using the five-year and the County Special District. As discussed earlier, both of forecast case (1991) 65 dB DNL contour ("County Special these overlay districts are based on 60 dB DNL contours.

OCR for page 99
104 For the city, any applicant proposing development in the meet regularly to review the Airport Noise Abatement City Special District must submit a General Development Site Program and make appropriate recommendations to Plan that provides the City Council and staff the opportunity to airport staff and the authority. All Noise Compatibility consider the compatibility of the proposed development with Committee members are local residents and volunteers the airport. This review process also provides city staff with who donate their time and expertise to help maintain the opportunity to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive a high quality of life in Naples. The Committee meets Plan and Zoning Code. quarterly. APF also produces quarterly noise reports, which pro- The County Special District is incorporated directly in the vide data on aircraft operations and noise complaints. Zoning Code, which provides applicants and county staff the APF has an extensive website (http://www.flynaples. ability to readily identify whether proposed development is com/Noise%20Abatement%20Office%20index.htm), located in the County Special District. As part of the county which provides information on noise abatement proce- staff's review of the development application, staff considers dures, the portable noise monitoring program, aircraft whether the applicant has included necessary information noise terminology, quarterly noise reports, online com- to ensure compliance with the noise compatibility standards plaint form, and other noise-related topics. identified in the Land Development Code (i.e., land use restric- tions, notifications, and sound insulation). In November of 2000, the NAA Board of Commissioners adopted a Noise Abatement Award Program for operators, ten- ants, or transient flight crews that continually operate or work Monitoring and Outreach Measures toward furthering the airport's Noise Abatement Program. APF does not have a permanent noise and operations moni- toring system. However, it does monitor noise and operations SUMMARY OF PROGRAM MEASURES through the following: OUTSIDE DNL 65 As part of the implementation of the 1996 NCP Study, There are no residential or other noise-sensitive land uses NAA purchased two portable noise monitoring field kits, inside the DNL 65 contour at APF. As a result, the entire noise which have allowed staff to conduct portable monitoring program is devoted to addressing noise outside DNL 65, which in the communities that surround the airport. The two includes: main objectives of this program are to provide the public with useful, understandable, and geographically repre- Operational measures such as noise abatement flight sentative information on long-term noise exposure pat- tracks and procedures, as well as ground noise control, terns, and to answer community questions with regard to and a use restriction that prevents Stage 1 or Stage 2 air- levels of noise in their areas with solid reliable data. craft from operating at APF. APF has an online flight tracking program on the home- Land use measures, most notably the adoption--and page of its website; the program shows real-time flight implementation by local authorities--of DNL 60 as the tracks and aircraft information for the entire country, as threshold of compatibility with residential land use. well as archives of that data for three months. Monitoring of noise and operations using technology that is appropriate to the size of the airport. APF also has an extensive public outreach program, Extensive public outreach, including a Noise Compati- including: bility Committee, Quarterly Noise Reports, public web- site, and Noise Abatement Awards. In 1997, an Airport Noise Compatibility Advisory Com- mittee was established. This Committee's nine members APF has just initiated another update of its Part 150.