Why is the Navy doing this EIS They

Why is the Navy doing this EIS? • They want to bring in new types of aircraft o F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, F-22 Raptor, etc. • They want the flexibility to do a lot more Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) - as a backup location o Up to 4500 additional operations (above the baseline of 500 FCLP operations) 13 07 03

NASKW Airfield Operations EIS Schedule June 29, 2012 August 15, 2012 comments): Navy released Draft EIS for public comment Monroe County provided comments to Navy (41 o Revise the baseline to exclude the Super Hornet o Clarify maximum number of operations (& maximum noise) o Provide validation of noise modeling o Provide mitigation for affected residents August 2, 2013 Navy issued Final EIS: o Didn’t exclude the Super Hornet from baseline o Partially clarified maximum number of operations o Didn’t provide validation of noise modeling o Didn’t provide mitigation for affected residents Sept. 1, 2013 30 -day waiting period ends After Sept. 1, 2013 Navy may sign the Record of Decision (ROD)

The EIS evaluated four alternatives No Action: • Existing/baseline – keep flying existing aircraft with the same number of operations Alternative 1: • Introduce next-generation aircraft (F-35 et al) Alternative 2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE): • Introduce next-generation aircraft (F-35 et al) • An additional 4500 Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) operations. This is approximately a 10% increase in overall operations, but using the loudest aircraft Alternative 3: • Same as Alternative 2, but with an additional 10% increase in overall operations

Navy’s Preferred Alternative Introduces next generation aircraft: FA-18 C/D Hornet, F-16 Fighting Falcon, AV-8 B Harrier F-35 P-3 Orion P-8 Poseidon F-15 Eagle F-22 Raptor Keep flying these: F-5 N Freedom Fighter/Tiger 12, 714 ops/yr 24% FA-18 E/F Super Hornet 13, 848 ops/yr 27% The Super Hornet is one of the loudest aircraft, yet it has not been properly evaluated as a new aircraft. It should have been evaluated as a new aircraft in this EIS.

Navy’s Preferred Alternative • Increases Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) o Additional 4, 500 operations/yr (500 + 4, 500 = 5, 000) • Uses FA-18 E/F Super Hornet (13, 848 ops/yr) and F-35 (10, 718 ops/yr) • Uses Runway 07/25 67% of the time • Total annual operations = 51, 914 (about 10% increase in overall operations, but using the loudest aircraft) 13 07 03

Noise Impacts (ignoring the Super Hornet as a new aircraft) More Population >65 DNL 2, 416 people +13 +1% +366 +15% +533 +22% • The number of residents exposed to >65 DNL could increase 15% from 2, 416 to 2, 782 (an additional 366 residents) • No residents would be exposed to >80 DNL • Indoor speech interference and indoor sleep disturbance could increase

Concern #1 Noise • The Navy has brought in the Super Hornet, one of the loudest aircraft, without a proper NEPA assessment. • If the Super Hornet were treated as a new aircraft, the changes in noise impacts would be much worse. • The County request that the Navy remove the Super Hornet from the baseline and treat it as a new aircraft. Baseline Without Super Hornet Navy’s Preferred Baseline Alternative with Super Hornet

Concern #2 • The FEIS is not entirely clear on the maximum limits on the types and number of operations. o The FEIS repeatedly uses language like: “up to approximately 52, 000”. o This wording is not clear and should not appear in the ROD. • The County request that the ROD clearly specify that exceeding any one of the following conditions would trigger a re-evaluation under NEPA: o A single year above 51, 914 total annual airfield operations (per FEIS Table 2. 8 -1, page 2 -27). o A single year above 5000 FCLP operations (per FEIS Section 2. 3, page 2 -4). o A single year of >12% FCLP operations at night (10 pm to 7 am) (per Navy response to comment M-01 -CC).

Concern #3 All noise assessments were done using modeling – no actual measurements. The modeling was done using NOISEMAP; newer tools are available including the Advanced Acoustic Model (AAM). The County request that the Navy contract with an independent consultant to collect actual noise measurements. • Could determine whether or not the Navy’s noise modeling is accurate. • Could establish a baseline noise level.

Concern #4 The Navy did not propose any mitigation (other than continuing to use BMPs and SOPs), despite the increased noise levels. Further, there has been no mitigation for the introduction of the Super Hornet. The County request that the Navy mitigate fully for the impacts from the F-35, the increased number of FCLPs, and the introduction of the Super Hornet. Mitigation might include: 13 • Soundproofing • Greater use of the alternate runways (13/31 and 03/21) • Modification of operational procedures and full enforcement of course rules (e. g. , altitudes, flight paths) 07 03

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Davis, Vice President of Keith and Schnars mdavis@ksfla. com • (954) 776 -1616 Mayté Santamaria, Monroe County Growth Management Santamaria-Mayte@Monroe. County-FL. Gov • (305) 289 -2500