Airport Master Plan

CHAPTER ONE

Inventory

To produce a realis. c and adequate plan for future growth at Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport (TPL or Airport), it is essen. al to understand the framework within which the Airport func ons. An ini al task within this Master Plan consists of gathering data to provide a clear defini on of the Airport’s physical and opera onal features, including facili es, users, and ac vity levels. The informa on that follows formed the baseline for developing this report.

The ini al ac on necessary in preparing a master plan is the collec on of all per nent data that relates to the area served by the Airport, as well as the Airport itself. This inventory was conducted using the following sources of informa on: • • • • • •

Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, Airport Master Plan, June 2001 On-site visits Aerial photography and associated topographic survey Interviews with Airport staff, tenants, and users Federal, state, and local publica ons Project record drawings

This chapter briefly describes the physical facili es at the Airport. Avia on-specific informa on on the airspace, avia on ac vity, and role of the Airport are described. The chapter also details the environment in which the Airport operates, including surrounding land uses and the socioeconomic characteris cs of the region.

DRAFT Chapter One - 1

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

AIRPORT SETTING LOCALE The City of Temple, with an estimated 2013 population of 70,190 as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, is located in the heart of Central Texas on Interstate 35, 60 miles north of Austin and 30 miles south of Waco. Its location along I‐35 connects the community to the international markets of Mexico via Laredo and three of the largest metro areas in Texas: Aus‐ tin, San Antonio, and Dallas/Ft. Worth. Temple is “Families, merchants and industry lead‐ the second largest city in Bell County after Killeen ers CHOOSE TEMPLE… where suburban (2010 population – 127,921). Belton is the county neighborhoods and an urban center seat and abuts Temple on the southwest. Other combine with unequalled medical facili‐ neighboring communities include Troy to the north, Morgan’s Point to the west, and Little River ties, schools, parks and people to create to the south. According to the City’s comprehen‐ economic growth and an excellent qual‐ sive plan entitled Choices ’08 ‐ City of Temple Com‐ ity of life!” prehensive Plan 2008‐2030, the Community Vision is that, “Families, merchants and industry leaders CHOOSE TEMPLE… where suburban neighborhoods and an urban center combine with unequalled medical facilities, schools, parks and people to create economic growth and an excellent quality of life!”

TPL is located along Texas State Highway 36 (Airport Road), approximately five miles northwest of down‐ town Temple. The 916‐acre airport is bordered by Airport Trail to the southeast and east, Little Mexico Road to the north, State Highway 317 to the northwest, and Airport Road to the west. Airport Road, the primary vehicle entrance/exit point, provides access to the terminal area via Airport Loop Road. The Airport’s location and vicinity features are depicted on Ex‐ hibit 1A. TPL is one of three public‐use airports in Bell County, Texas, the others being Skylark Field in Killeen and Robert Gray Army Airfield at Fort Hood. There are 209 public‐use airports in the State of Texas classified within the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport System (2013‐2017) (NPIAS). TPL is classified as a regional general aviation airport by the FAA. Skylark Field is classified in the NPIAS as a local general avia‐ tion airport, and Robert Gray Army Airfield is classified as a non‐hub commercial service airport. An airport must be listed in the NPIAS to be eligible for federal funding. As a regional general aviation airport, TPL supports regional economies by connecting communities to regional and na‐ tional markets. Regional general aviation airports included in the NPIAS have high levels of activity with jet and multi‐engine propeller aircraft and average about 90 based aircraft, including three jets.

DRAFT Chapter One - 2

Frisco Graham

Farmersville

Boyd

Greenville

Sulphur S

Allen

Justin

Caddo Mills

Hebron PlanoMurphy Lewisville Carrollton Roanoke WylieRoyse City Coppell Richardson Addison Keller Sachse Southlake Buckingham Grapevine p Quinlan Azle Farmers Branch Rowlett Saginaw 75 Bedford Euless 820 Irving Dallas River Oaks 180 Weatherford Mesquite 30 Terrell 635 Fort Worth 820 Arlington 20 Aledo Forest Hill Benbrook 20 Hutchins Crandall 175 Everman Lancaster Cedar Hill Kaufman Combine Crowley Mansfield Burleson Ferris 287 MidlothianRed Oak 45 377 Joshua Granbury Kemp Palmer Venus Keene Waxahachie Mabank Cleburne 67 West Ennis Springtown

VICINITY MAP

enridge 180

281

20

tland

Emory

80

Grand S Canton Canton

V

35

Grandview Stephenville

Gorman

East

35

Glen Rose

Athens Italy

Itasca

67

Kerens

Malakoff Trinidad Malako

Corsicana

Dublin 67

Hillsboro Hico

377

Meridian

Comanche e

287

Whitney

281

Hubbard 35

West

Clifton

45

Wortham

Fairfield

od

Hamilton

Valley Mills

84

Mexia

84

Teague

Bellmead

Waco 84

Gatesville

183

281

McGregor

84

City of Temple

Moody

Marlin 77

Troy

Rosebud Franklin

Calvert Salado Holland Burnet Buchanan Dam

Bertram

190

190

Cameron 79

Granger Leander

Caldwell

Round Rock Lexington

Pflugerville

LOCATION MAP

77

Manor

Johnson City

College Station

79 Thorndale

Taylor

Cedar Park

Bryan

Rockdale

Georgetown

281

dericksburg

190

190

Kingsland Marble Falls

Hearne

Bartlett

35

183

Madisonville

Rogers

Florence Llano

45

79

Bremond

Temple T

Killeen Nolanville Belton

190

Lampasas

Buffalo

35

DRAUGHON-MILLER

Copperas Cove

79

Groesbeck

Lorena

Central Texas Regional Airport

San Saba

Mart

Robinson

Navasota

Somerville

Elgin

Austin 36

Dripping Springs

Bastrop

Blanco

Magnolia

Giddings

City of Temple

Brenham

DRAUGHON-MILLER D Smithville

Buda

35

Central C e Texas Regional Airport

Tom

HempsteadPrairie View Waller

Kyle

Je

Bellville Lockhart

San Marcos

La Grange

Air po

Boerne

SealyBrookshire

rt R

317

oa

New Braunfels

Luling

d

Flatonia

Weimar Columbus en Loop Schulenburg HK D odg

Wallis

McQueeney

Helotes

Seguin

Universal City Alamo Heights Kirby San Antonio

Leon Valley

Temple

Gonzales Shiner

Lytle Somerset a

35

DRAFT Chapter One - 3

Stockdale

Yoakum Nixon

Sugar La S Richmond Rosenberg

Hallettsville

e La Coste

Sp Katy Hedwi Bunker Hil Wes

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

290

Needville Wharton

Exhibit 1A LOCATION/VICINITY MAP El Campo

West Colum

Floresville Poth

Cuero

Br

The Texas State Department of Transportation (TxDOT) prepared its Texas Airport System Plan (TASP) in 2010 to identify airports and heliports that perform an essential role in the economic and social devel‐ opment of Texas. Within the TASP, TPL is classified as a Business Corporate airport.

LAND USE Current land uses immediately surrounding the Airport are primarily agricultural and/or vacant or unde‐ veloped land with intermittent residential uses primarily along Little Mexico Road to the north. Limited commercial/industrial uses are located along Airport Road. The City’s comprehensive plan includes a 2030 future land use and character map, which is included in this Master Plan as Exhibit 1B. According to this map, Airport property is identified as public/institutional land with the land surrounding to the south, west, and north remaining as agricultural/rural use. Land immediately to the east is identified as business park use. This business park use is already under development as the Airport Park at Central Pointe. The intended use for this 377‐acre business park, according to the City of Temple’s Site Selection webpage1 is for corporate headquarters and advanced technology or aviation‐related businesses. The business park is in the Temple Reinvestment Zone, Temple Enterprise Zone, and is covenant protected with fully developed infrastructure. A depiction of the developed and undeveloped areas of the business park is included as Exhibit 1C. On‐Airport Land Use Existing on‐airport development is depicted on Exhibit 1D. Of the 948 acres that make up Airport prop‐ erty, the majority of developed property (429 acres) is utilized for airfield operations purposes (runways, taxiways, safety areas, and navigational aids). Other existing land uses include the general aviation‐ related or revenue support landside developments including the terminal area, aircraft storage hangars, and landside aircraft movement areas (taxilanes and aprons/ramps). General aviation/revenue support uses account for 95 acres of Airport property. The remaining 424 acres of Airport property are either vacant or undeveloped.

Local Zoning and Land Use Regulation The City of Temple has adopted a Unified Development Code (UDC) 2, with the most recent modification made on April 16, 2015. The UDC is established in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the City. It is designed to: A. B. C. D. 1

“Lessen the congestion in the streets; Secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; Provide adequate light and air; Prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid undue concentration of population; and

http://www.choosetemple.com/parks‐central‐pointe

2 City of Temple Unified Development Code (UDC) is available at: http://www.ci.temple.tx.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4362

DRAFT Chapter One - 4

36 Texas

1237

DRAUGHON-MILLER CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL AIRPORT

Troy

¦ ¨ W EN DLAN D RD

35 35

Morgan's Point Resort

FM 24

83

DODG NW H K

AIR RD RT PO

317 Texas

EN LP

K DO

363 363

DGEN

Texas Texas

2271 ST ST

AVE

3 363

Texas Texas

W CE

N 3R DS

T

317

N 31

HW Y

DA M S

LP

WA

438

NE H

North Temple Industrial Park

NT RA

L AV

E

E AD AMS

AVE

¦ ¨ § 35

EN LP

Belton

SE

H

K

SE H K

D ODG

1 190

D

O

DG

EN

LP

5 95

Texas Texas

93

36 Texas

436

Little River Academy

Note: A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries.

0

0.35

0.7

1.4

2.1

2.8 M

2030 Future Land Use & Character Neighborhood Conservation Estate Residential Suburban Residential Auto-Urban Residential Auto-Urban Multi-Family Auto-Urban Mixed Use Auto-Urban Commercial Suburban Commercial

Urban Center Temple Medical Education District Industrial Business Park Public Institutional Parks & Open Space Agricultural/Rural

Source: Choices ’08 – City of Temple Comprehensive Plan 2008-2030

DRAFT Chapter One - 5

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

City Limits Lake; River Railroad Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Right-of-Way

3.1 FIGURE

02 2 1B12 Exhibit FUTURE LAND USE

E. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, wastewater, schools, parks and other public requirements.”

According to Section 4.4.7 of the UDC, “Airport height zoning regulations in the vicinity of Draughon‐ Miller Airport act as an overlay district and may affect maximum allowable building heights. Any devel‐ opment within three miles of the existing runways must comply with airport height zoning regulations…”

The Airport is currently zoned as light industrial (LI), while the majority of land surrounding the Airport is zoned for agricultural (AG) uses.

Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 is used to regulate and restrict the height of structures and objects of natural growth and to regulate the use of property in the vicinity of the Airport. Records show that in 1978, the City adopted specific height hazard zoning ordinances based on Part 77 obstruction clearance surfaces to limit the height of objects around the Airport. However, according to City staff, these ordinances have not been updated since they were originally adopted.

CLIMATE Knowledge of climate and typical regional weather conditions greatly enhances a pilot’s flying capabili‐ ties. Likewise, the ability to prepare for these conditions enhances the use of an airport. High surface temperatures and high humidity, common during summer months in Texas, increase runway length re‐ quirements. Runway orientation is dependent on predominant wind patterns for the area. Cloud cover percentages and frequency of other climatic conditions also determine the need for navigational aids and lighting.

Temple’s central location also presents rapidly changing Texas weather conditions. The effects of con‐ verging frontal activity may create extremes in weather. These air masses are typically warm, moist Gulf of Mexico air, westerly winds caused by the earth’s rotation, and northern cold fronts. With daytime summer temperatures well into the 90s and often surpassing 100 degrees, the average daily tempera‐ ture (over 24 hours) for the hottest month (August) is 95.7 degrees Fahrenheit (F).

High surface temperatures create areas of vertical air movements, causing cumulus cloud building and afternoon thundershowers. Summer evenings are often punctuated by the thunder and high energy winds of thunderstorms driven eastward by westerly winds aloft and fueled by the moist Gulf air. This part of Texas is also known for the high number of days of sunshine, which encourages the demand for general aviation activities.

Wind patterns for the central Texas area are typically from the south/southeast during the spring, sum‐ mer, and fall months and from the north/northwest in the winter months. For this reason, both Runways 20 and 15 are most commonly used year round. Annual average wind speeds for this area are clocked at 8.7 miles per hour (mph). On average, April is the windiest month in Temple, with wind speeds at 10.5 mph.

Table 1A summarizes climatic data for the Temple area. The average annual maximum and minimum temperatures are 77.8 degrees and 54.0 degrees, respectively. Rainfall is most significant in the late

DRAFT Chapter One - 6

Source: KPA Engineers

DRAFT Chapter One - 7

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 1C AIRPORT PARK

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter One - 8

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015 Ro ad

or t

x

Ai rp

0

us

SCALE IN FEET

x x

d

x

95.4

kR oa

Undeveloped/Vacant

423.5 ve ri iikkes D F Total: 947.9

ree

x

x

429.0

General Aviation/ Revenue Support

NORTH

Pe p

pe

x

rC

x

.

ACRES

Airfield Operations

Mo

x

LEGEND

1600

Airport Property Line

er

x

800

Central Point eP kw y

Tr ai l

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

C

220

x x

x

(4 ,7 40 ’x

x x x

10 0’ )

x

x

x

x

x

E

x

x

x

RU NW AY

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

D

x

x

x x x

x

x

C

A

x

x

x

B

Ab Ru and nw on ay ed

x

ttl

x

Li

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’) x

x

eM

x x

ex x ico

Ro a xd

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

DRAFT Chapter One - 9

x

x x

x

17 y3 wa gh

Hi

x

N Airpor

x

t Road

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 1D ON-AIRPORT LAND USE

Aeria

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter One - 10

spring/early summer (May and June) and fall (September and October). Snowfall is rare with only 0.5 inches annually. On average, the area receives precipitation of over 0.1 inch 51 days a year.

Weather data specific to the airport was obtained from the NOAA National Climatic Center consisting of over 236,200 weather observations for the period 2005‐2014. According to the data, visual flight rule (VFR) and marginal VFR weather conditions (greater than 3.0 statute miles visibility and cloud ceiling of greater than 1,000 feet above ground level [AGL]) occurred 93.13 percent of the time. Instrument flight rule (IFR) (1.0‐3.0 statute mile visibility and/or cloud ceilings from 500 feet to less than 1,000 feet AGL) and poor visibility conditions (PVC) (less than IFR conditions) occurred only 6.48 percent and 0.39 percent of the time, respectively.

TABLE 1A Monthly Climate Summary Temple, Texas Temperature Precipitation Averages Maximum Mean Avg. Snowfall Avg. Precipitation Month Minimum (F) (F) (inches) (inches) Days1 January 59.0 35.6 4.5 0.1 2.3 February 62.7 39.1 3.8 0.4 2.6 March 70.1 46.8 4.6 0 3.1 April 77.8 53.4 3.5 0 2.3 May 84.3 62.3 5.5 0 4.3 June 89.9 68.1 5.7 0 4.1 July 94.6 70.7 2.6 0 2.1 August 95.7 71.2 2.7 0 2.6 September 89.9 64.4 4.3 0 3.8 October 80.2 54.5 4.8 0 3.6 November 69.1 45.3 4.4 0 2.7 December 60.0 37.0 4.7 0 2.7 Annual 77.8 54.0 51.1 0.5 36.1 1 With greater than or equal to 0.1 inch of precipitation Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center ‐ Temper‐ ature and precipitation data: Temple, TX Station (1981‐2010); Wind data: Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Station (2005‐2014)

Wind Speed Averages Knots 8.6 9.2 10.0 10.5 9.6 9.4 8.0 7.7 6.9 7.9 8.4 8.3 8.7

AIRPORT HISTORY As is the case with many of the regional airfields in Texas, Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport was built as a Regional Airport was built as a World War II military training facility with three designated World War II military training intersecting runways. The least used of the three original run‐ facility. ways, Runway 11‐29, is now closed. The name Draughon‐Mil‐ ler memorializes two Bell County men, Miller Draughon and Raymond Miller, killed in World War II. In the late 1940s, the Airport was incorporated as the municipal airport by the City of Temple.

Maintaining a Part 139 airport certification for Air Carrier operations for over 25 years, Temple has a history of commercial passenger service. Passenger service was discontinued in 1990 until returning in

DRAFT Chapter One - 11

1994. This service lasted one year. No scheduled carrier or commuter has operated to or from Temple since November of 1995.

GRANT HISTORY The State of Texas participates in the Federal Block Grant Program which transfers the oversight authority of general aviation air‐ ports from the FAA to TxDOT. In this capac‐ ity, TxDOT administers Federal grants as well as State airport grants. Eligible airport im‐ provement projects for general aviation air‐ ports in Texas can receive 90 percent grant funding assistance with the remaining 10 percent the responsibility of the local spon‐ sor (i.e., the City of Temple). Table 1B sum‐ marizes improvements for Fiscal Year (FY) 1970 through FY 2015. In this time period, the FAA provided Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport $19 million in grant funding; the State of Texas provided $1.0 million in grant funding; and the City contributed $2.3 million to airport improvements.

TABLE 1B AIP Grant History FY 1973 ‐ 2013 Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport FY 1970 1973 1974

Agency FAA FAA TAC

1974

FAA

1976 1977 1977 1978 1979 1982

FAA TAC FAA FAA FAA FAA

1983

FAA

1985

FAA

1985

FAA

1986

FAA

1987 1987

FAA FAA

Project Description Acquire ALS land (14.2 acres); grading (ILS) Land; install security fencing Joint with FAA 02 project Overlay and mark RW 15‐33 (6,300 x 150) and associated TWs; install REIL and VASI‐4 RW 33 end; upgrade threshold lighting RW 15‐33 Phase I: overlay and mark portion of RW 2‐20 Joint with FAA 04 project Overlay and mark remaining portion of RW 2‐20 AMP, URS/Forrest and Cotton, Inc. Construct T‐hangar TW and aprons Construct electrical vault; relocate lighting circuits Rehabilitate TW for A, B, C, and D; install lighted windcone and segmented circle Overlay and mark RW 15‐33 (150 x 6301) and portions of con‐ necting TWs; groove and install MIRLs with air‐ground control on RW 15‐33; install TW guidance signs and 3 supplemental wind cones; rehabilitate rotating beacon Amendment to 83‐02; increase of $3,311 Construct/light parallel TW (40 x 5500) to RW 2/20; relocate RW lighting Master Plan Update Overlay and mark terminal apron and taxi lane

DRAFT Chapter One - 12

Funding Source/Amount (dollars) Federal State Local $19,650 ‐ ‐ $8,400 ‐ ‐ ‐ $50,000 ‐

$19,650 $8,400 $50,000

$300,000

‐

‐

$300,000

$154,659 ‐ $140,581 $31,457 $50,000 $83,600

‐ $30,492 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

$154,659 $30,492 $140,581 $31,457 $50,000 $83,600

$65,000

‐

‐

$65,000

$504,000

‐

‐

$504,000

$3,311

‐

‐

$3,311

$495,900

‐

‐

$495,900

$44,550 $166,660

‐ ‐

‐ ‐

$44,550 $166,660

Total

TABLE 1B (Continued) FY 1989

Agency FAA

1992

FAA

1998

FAA

1998

FAA

2000

TxDOT

2000 2002

TxDOT TxDOT

2003

TxDOT

2003 2004 2004

TxDOT FAA TxDOT

2005

TxDOT

2005

TxDOT

2005

TxDOT

2006

TxDOT

2007

TxDOT

2007

TxDOT

Project Description Rehabilitate and expand terminal building Rehabilitate RW 2‐20 & TWs A&D; install MIRL RW 2‐20; up‐ grade airport guidance sign system; reconstruct access road; improve drainage; install perimeter fence & apron lighting Rehab 2‐20 (4742 x 100); overlay RW 15‐33 (6301 x 150); re‐ hab & mark apron (630 x 350), A, B, C, D, E & F; recon hangar access TW #5 & 6; replace MITL wiring in conduit TWs A & D, VASI‐4 w/PAPI‐4 & REILs RW 33; install perimeter fencing (34,000 lf) & access gates; insert concrete parking bays in front of terminal (60 x 270) & (60 x 130) Acquire Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighting Vehicle Airport Master Plan & Economic Benefit Study (including feasi‐ bility assessment for cargo freight) Renovate/expand terminal building Install security fencing (NPE) Design services to upgrade MIRL Runway 15‐33 & Runway 2‐ 20; upgrade MITL Taxiway A, C, D and E; upgrade electrical vault and regulator; upgrade and relocate lighting control panel; upgrade airfield signage system (36 signs); install new VOR sign; relocate and replace three lighted windsocks (Run‐ way 15, 33 and 20); rehabilitate rotating beacon; refurbish and install additional ramp lighting; install in‐pavement runway lights at Runway 15‐33 and 2‐20 intersections and expand gen‐ eral aviation apron and install tie downs for large aircraft Ramp: resurface GA parking lot, access road Install perimeter fencing along west side (15,823 lf) RAMP: Airport interior security fencing and gates Engineering design to install signs and markings for Runway 15‐33 (108,000 sf), rehab RW 15‐33 (6301 x 150) (NPE); Extend MIRL RW 15‐33 (699 lf); Extend RW 15‐33 (699 x 150) RW 33 end; replace REIL RW 33; erosion and sedimentation controls; relocate localizer RW 33; relocate localizer building; install new DME antenna array provided by FAA; remove existing RW 33 DME antenna array; relocate PAPI‐4 RW 33; extend TW D to new RW 33 end (1000 x 75); land reimbursement; drainage improvements; GA apron ‐ Phase 1 NPE 2004 and 2006 Expand GA apron & install tiedowns for large aircraft (300 x 300); upgrade airfield signage system (36 signs); install new VOR sign; upgrade & relocate lighting control panel; upgrade electrical vault & regulator; upgrade MIRL RW 15‐33 (13,000 lf); upgrade MIRL RW 2‐20 (9900 lf); refurbish (3) & install (2) additional ramp lighting; upgrade MITL TWs C & E (8,000 lf) (TW C = 7400 lf) (TW E = 600 lf); rehabilitate rotating beacon; relocate & replace 3 lighted windsocks; improve drainage on apron and hangar access TWs RAMP: City to contract for paving public apron areas, airport equipment parking area, overlay airport entrance road Prepare Airport Layout Plan Acquire land for RW 15‐33 extension (Tract 19 (8.22 ac), Tract 20‐1 (.941 ac), Tract 20‐2 (.007 ac), Tract 21 (3.892 ac), Tract 22 (.145 ac), Tract 23 (11.316 ac), Tract 24 (34.074 ac) land re‐ imbursement $90,000 RAMP: Sponsor to contract for crack filling and marking run‐ ways/taxiways. Sponsor to contract installation of surveillance security system

DRAFT Chapter One - 13

Funding Source/Amount (dollars) Federal State Local $200,000 ‐ ‐

$200,000

$244,811

$13,600

$13,600

$272,011

$2,135,081

‐

$248,293

$2,383,374

$231,457

‐

$25,553

$257,010

‐

$132,197

$14,688

$146,885

‐ $150,000

$297,559 ‐

$297,559 $16,666

$595,118 $166,666

$141,081

‐

$15,676

$156,757

‐ $150,000 ‐

$20,754 ‐ $30,000

$20,754 $16,666 $30,000

$41,508 $166,666 $60,000

$324,944

‐

$36,105

$361,049

$1,581,761

‐

$175,751

$1,757,512

‐

$30,000

$30,000

$60,000

$43,749

‐

$4,861

$48,610

$623,759

‐

$69,307

$693,066

‐

$47,501

$47,501

$95,002

Total

TABLE 1B (Continued) FY

Agency

Project Description RAMP: Sponsor to contract crack filling on airport pavements, 2008 TxDOT airport pavement markings Rehab RW 15‐33 (6301 x 150) (NPE); extend MIRL RW 15‐33 (699 lf); extend RW 15‐33 ( 699 x 150) RW 33 end; replace REIL RW 33; erosion and sedimentation controls; relocate localizer RW 33; install new DME antenna array provided by FAA; relo‐ 2009 TxDOT cate localizer building; remove existing RW 33 DME antenna array; relocate PAPI‐4 RW 33; land reimbursement; extend TW D to new RW 33 end (1000 x 75); drainage improvements GA apron ‐ Phase 1; installation of signs; mark TW 15‐33 (108,000 sf) sbgp‐2007‐41 RAMP: Crack filling, pavement marking, safety area mainte‐ 2009 TxDOT nance Design to install standby generators (Bid alternate 1); install supplemental windosck RW 2; reinstall surface painted hold signs (10); rehabilitate & mark terminal apron (630 x 350); mark RW 2‐20 (22,801 sf); reconstruct & mark TW A, B, C, D, E & F (82,975 sy); contingency, mobilization, admin fees, RPR, 2011 TxDOT etc; apron reconstruction (Bid alternate #2); rotomill & overlay RW 2‐20 (4740 x 100); adjust MIRL elevations RW 2‐20 (64 units); regrade RW 2‐20 shoulder (5000 lf) SBGP‐2009‐57 $4,630; SBGP‐2009‐54 $165,905; SBGP‐2007‐41 $126,266; SBGP‐2010‐67 $12,627 Install supplemental windsock RW 2; apron reconstruction (bid alternate #2); contingency, mobilization, admin fees, RPR, etc.; Reconstruct & mark TW A, B, C, D, E & F (82,975 sy); regrade RW 2‐20 shoulder (5000 lf); adjust MIRL elevations RW 2‐20 2012 TxDOT (64 units); rotomill & overlay RW 2‐20 (4740 x 100); rehabili‐ tate & mark terminal apron (630 x 350); install standby gener‐ ators (bid alternate 1); mark RW 2‐20 (22,801 sf); reinstall sur‐ face painted hold signs (10) RAMP: TxDOT to contract for AWOS maintenance, sponsor to 2012 TxDOT contract for airport general maintenance projects 2013 TxDOT RAMP: Sponsor to perform airport general maintenance Expand/repair main entrance parking lot (1210 sy); construct auto parking (300 units); construct new entrance road (500 x 2015 TxDOT 36) to new development area (FY 13 & FY 14 NPE) (EOPC for entire $1,150,000); construct fuel loop roadway (328 x 20) 2015 TxDOT Update Airport Master Plan Totals Source: TxDOT – Airport Development Worksheet; Airport Project History

Funding Source/Amount (dollars) Federal State Local

Total

‐

$50,000

$50,000

$100,000

$3,003,266

‐

$153,540

$3,156,806

‐

$49,998

$49,998

$99,996

$309,428

‐

$34,381

$343,809

$7,184,948

‐

$798,328

$7,983,276

‐

$50,000

$50,000

$100,000

‐

$50,000

$52,330

$102,330

$600,000

‐

$30,000

$630,000

‐ $18,992,053

$180,000 $1,032,101

$20,000 $2,301,557

$200,000 $22,325,711

AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION The Airport is owned and operated by the City of Temple. A nine‐member Airport Advisory Board serves in an advisory capacity to the Temple City Council in matters pertaining to the airport making recom‐ mendations as to fees, charges, facility improvements, and airport services. Membership includes six residents from the City of Temple and three at‐large residents. Board members are appointed by the Mayor or City Council and serve three‐year terms. Board meetings are held on the second Monday of each month at 4:00 p.m. at the Airport Operations building.

Day‐to‐day operation of the Airport is overseen by the Airport Manager and a staff of 12 full‐time em‐ ployees and two part‐time employees including operations, maintenance, and firefighting personnel.

The Airport Manager is appointed by the City Manager and approved by the City Council. The City also serves as one the Airport’s fixed base operators (FBOs), providing a range of general aviation services

DRAFT Chapter One - 14

and facilities. The Airport is staffed seven days a week from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Airport organ‐ izational chart is depicted on Exhibit 1E. GOVERNING DOCUMENT Most airports have governing documents that outline general day‐to‐day operating procedures and min‐ imum standards to be maintained by tenants and service providers. The Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is governed by Chapter 3, Airports and Aircraft of the City’s Code of Ordinances3. Chap‐ ter 3 establishes the City’s Airport Department, Airport Advisory Board, and the position of Airport Man‐ ager, which is under the general supervision of the City Manager. The chapter also outlines general airport conduct, use restrictions and limitations, and penalties for ordinance violations.

FINANCIAL DATA The Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport has made available a five‐year history of its revenues and expenses. A summary of this financial data can be found in Table 1C. As shown, the Airport’s reve‐ nues and expenses have grown by 8.6 percent and 14.2 percent respectively over the five‐year period.

TABLE 1C Financial Information Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport FY 2015 FY 2014 Budget Revenues Charges for Services $2,594,985 $2,732,476 Lease Revenue $996,478 $996,478 Total Revenues $3,591,463 $3,728,954 Expenses Personnel $758,909 $734,538 Operations $2,076,881 $2,121,932 Capital ‐ $(327,569) Debt Service $481,184 $479,024 Total Expenses $3,316,974 $3,663,063 Net Income $274,489 $65,891 Source: Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Financial Records

FY 2013

FY 2012

FY 2011

FY 2010

$2,847,211 $996,478 $3,843,689

$3,037,702 $996,478 $4,034,180

$2,874,462 $996,478 $3,870,940

$2,311,344 $996,478 $3,307,822

$710,173 $2,179,988 $13,871 $480,631 $3,384,663 $459,026

$728,349 $2,367,319 $18,867 $481,184 $3,595,719 $438,461

$715,479 $2,209,998 $54,823 $480,683 $3,460,983 $409,957

$685,429 $1,649,343 $91,372 $479,128 $2,905,272 $402,550

ECONOMIC IMPACT In 2011, a statewide study was conducted by the University of North Texas’ Center for Economic Devel‐ opment and Research to identify the impact and relationship of airports in Texas with the statewide economy. The study’s description of the Airport is, “a valuable asset to current businesses and is mar‐ keted as an amenity to attract new business to the region. The airport is considered to be the city’s front

3

Available at: http://www.ci.temple.tx.us/DocumentCenter/

DRAFT Chapter One - 15

DRAFT Chapter One - 16

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 1E ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

door and a key element in economic develop‐ ment.” A summary the Airport’s economic im‐ pact is provided in Table 1D.

AVIATION ACTIVITY

TABLE 1D 2010 Economic Impacts Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Description Impacts Economic Activity $18,176,984 Salary, Wages, and Benefits $7,136,239 Employment 191 Source: The Economic Impact of General Aviation in Texas, De‐ cember 2011

Analysis of historical activity levels aid in pro‐ jecting future trends which will enhance the Airport’s ability to plan for facility demands in a timely manner. The following information outlines basic operational activities at the Airport. A more detailed analysis of aviation activity will be provided and discussed in the next chapter on aviation fore‐ casts.

OPERATIONS Records of airport operational activities are essential for determining required facilities (types and sizes), as well as eligibility for federal funding. Since the Airport is non‐towered, a detailed account of aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) is not available. The current FAA Form 5010 ‐ Airport Master Record for the Airport (Data effective date: March 5, 2015) estimates the Airport accommodated 53,275 oper‐ ations for 12 months ending April 8, 2013. The total operations breakdown includes: 79.0 percent itin‐ erant general aviation (GA); 14.1 percent military; and 6.9 percent local GA. The FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) is another source for historical opera‐ tions estimates. Table 1E provides a summary of the TAF operations statistics dating back to 1990.

BASED AIRCRAFT Identifying the current number of based aircraft is im‐ portant to master plan analysis as this number helps determine existing demand for a number of different facilities, including aircraft storage hangar space, parking aprons, pilot and passenger services, and vari‐ ous other aircraft support facilities. The FAA TAF was utilized to provide historical based aircraft levels presented in Table 1E. According to FAA’s records, the Airport had 783 based aircraft in 2005; however, this is likely inaccurate information since surrounding years have based aircraft levels in the 80s. Fur‐ thermore, the 2015 estimate shows a based aircraft level of 207, which is 146 percent higher than what Airport records identify as the current based aircraft count (84). This may be due to the FAA counting military aircraft at the Airport for maintenance and refurbishment at the AMCOM complex. For the purposes of this Master Plan, military aircraft that are only There are 84 total based aircraft at the Airport for maintenance/refurbishment will not be at Draughon‐Miller Central Texas counted as based aircraft as they are not routinely utilizing the various airfield and landside facilities.

Regional Airport.

DRAFT Chapter One - 17

As of August 2014, Airport records indicate there are 84 total based aircraft at Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport. The Airport’s based aircraft total is approximately 37.7 percent of total aircraft currently registered in Bell County (223).

TABLE 1E FAA Terminal Area Forecast – Aviation Activity History Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Itinerant Operations Year

Air Taxi

GA

Military

Local Operations Total

1990 12 46,494 1,000 47,506 1991 0 28,765 1,000 29,765 1992 10 28,765 1,000 29,775 1993 0 28,765 1,000 29,765 1994 0 35,705 1,000 36,705 1995 1,456 41,850 1,000 44,306 1996 1,456 41,850 1,000 44,306 1997 0 48,535 2,010 50,545 1998 0 48,535 2,010 50,545 1999 0 48,163 3,638 51,801 2000 0 48,163 3,638 51,801 2001 0 49,284 5,725 55,009 2002 0 27,000 2,500 29,500 2003 0 28,053 2,500 30,553 2004 0 29,084 2,500 31,584 2005 0 30,136 2,500 32,636 2006 0 30,980 2,500 33,480 2007 0 31,849 2,500 34,349 2008 0 43,749 9,413 53,162 2009 0 40,375 7,243 47,618 2010 0 37,633 7,263 44,896 2011 0 37,633 7,263 44,896 2012 0 37,633 7,263 44,896 2013 0 42,099 5,375 47,474 2014* 0 43,280 5,375 48,655 2015* 0 44,493 5,375 49,868 *Projected Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), January 2015

GA

Military

Total

Total Ops

3,500 2,240 2,240 2,240 2,743 3,225 3,225 3,805 3,805 3,899 3,899 4,141 33,000 34,287 35,547 36,834 37,866 38,928 4,001 3,039 3,380 3,380 3,380 3,652 3,754 3,859

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,149 2,149 2,149

3,500 2,240 2,240 2,240 2,743 3,225 3,225 3,805 3,805 3,899 3,899 4,141 34,000 35,287 36,547 37,834 38,866 39,928 5,001 4,039 4,380 4,380 4,380 5,801 5,903 6,008

51,066 32,005 32,015 32,005 39,448 47,531 47,531 54,350 54,350 55,700 55,700 59,150 63,500 65,840 68,131 70,470 72,346 74,277 58,163 51,657 49,276 49,276 49,276 53,275 54,558 55,876

A history of based aircraft fleet mix is summarized in Ta‐ ble 1F. As shown, single‐engine piston aircraft, such as the Cessna 172, have represented the majority of based aircraft, averaging 84.4 percent of the fleet mix over the nine‐year period. Another trend is a growing jet aircraft mix, increasing from four in 2005 to eight in 2014. Cur‐ rently, jet aircraft based at the Airport include five Lear jets, one Cessna Citation Mustang, one Premier Jet, and one Bombardier Challenger 600. The helicopter, turbo‐ prop, and multi‐engine piston categories have had neg‐ ative growth over the same time period.

DRAFT Chapter One - 18

Based Air‐ craft 51 33 33 33 56 57 57 73 73 76 76 91 92 94 85 783 80 303 279 245 80 80 227 205 206 207

TABLE 1F Based Aircraft Fleet Mix History Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Type 2005 2010 2014 Single‐Engine Piston 65 68 73 Multi‐Engine Piston 3 4 1 Turboprop 1 1 0 Jet 4 7 8 Helicopter 4 3 2 Total 77 83 84 Aircraft Examples: Single‐Engine Piston – Cessna 172 Multi‐Engine Piston – Cessna 340 Turboprop – Cessna 208 Caravan Jet – Lear 60 Helicopter – Hughes 500 Source: Airport records

AIRFIELD FACILITIES Airport facilities can be functionally classified into two broad categories: airfield and landside. The air‐ field category includes those facilities directly associated with aircraft operations. The landside category includes those facilities necessary to provide a safe transition from surface to air transportation and support aircraft parking, servicing, storage, maintenance, and operational safety. This section describes the airfield facilities, including runways, taxiways, lighting, marking, navigational aids, and weather re‐ porting. Airfield facilities are depicted and detailed on Exhibit 1F. Pictures of airfield facilities taken during the inventory trip for this Master Plan are shown on Exhibit 1G. RUNWAYS Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport has two as‐ phalt runways: primary Runway 15‐33 is 7,000 feet long by 150 feet wide and crosswind Runway 2‐20 is 4,740 feet long by 100 feet wide. Runway 15 is equipped with a 150‐foot by 150‐foot blast pad. The blast pad protects the soil beyond the runway end from erosion due to jet blast.

Runway gradient describes the average slope of a runway and is determined by dividing the runway’s high and low points by its length. Runway 15‐33 slopes down 13.3 feet from its high point (Runway 15 end) toward its low point (Runway 33 end), resulting in a 0.2 percent gradient. Cross‐ wind Runway 2‐20 slopes downward 9.3 feet from its high point (Runway 2 end) to its low point (Runway 20 end), re‐ sulting in a 0.2 percent gradient.

Runway load bearing strength for both runways is shown on Exhibit 1F. Single wheel loading (SWL) refers to design aircraft landing gear with a single wheel on each main landing gear strut. Dual wheel loading (DWL) refers to design aircraft landing gear with two wheels on each main landing gear strut.

Dual tandem wheel loading (DTWL) refers to design aircraft landing gear with dual tandem or four wheels on each main landing gear strut.

TAXIWAYS Taxiways providing access to and from the airfield system are as follows:     

Taxiway A – 75 feet wide; partial‐parallel taxiway from the ramp area to Runway 15 threshold.

Taxiway B – 75 feet wide; connecting taxiway from Taxiway A to Runway 15‐33.

Taxiway C – 35 feet wide; partial‐parallel taxiway from Taxiway A to the Runway 20 end.

Taxiway D – 75 feet wide; partial‐parallel taxiway from the ramp area to Runway 33 threshold.

Taxiway E – 40 feet wide; connecting taxiway from Taxiway C to Runway 2‐20.

DRAFT Chapter One - 19

Runway centerline to taxiway centerline distances are as follows:   

Taxiway A to Runway 15‐33 – 400 feet; Taxiway C to Runway 2‐20 – 400 feet; and Taxiway D to Runway 15‐33 – 400 feet.

AIRFIELD LIGHTING Airfield lighting systems extend an airport’s usefulness into periods of darkness and/or poor visibility. A variety of lighting systems are installed at the Airport for this purpose. They are categorized by function as follows: Airport Identification Lighting: The location of the airport at night or during low‐visibility weather is universally identified by a rotating beacon. A rotating beacon projects two beams of light, one white and one green, 180 degrees apart. The airport beacon is located in the terminal area between the Air‐ port Loop Road.

Runway Pavement and Edge Lighting: Pavement edge lighting utilizes light fixtures placed near the edge of the pavement to define the lateral limits of the pavement. This lighting is essential for safe operations during night and/or times of low visibility in order to maintain safe and efficient access to and from the runway and aircraft parking areas. Runway 15‐33 and Runway 2‐20 are equipped with medium intensity runway lighting (MIRL) systems. Runway 15‐33’s MIRL is preset to low intensity after 10:00 p.m. but can be increased in intensity by the Pilot‐Controlled Lighting (PCL) system.

Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs): REILs provide a visual identification of the runway end for landing aircraft. The system consists of two flashing light assemblies located approximately 40 feet to either side of the runway landing threshold. These flashing lights can be seen day or night for a distance of up to 20 miles depending on visibility conditions. Runway ends serving jet aircraft but without an approach lighting system should be outfitted with REILs. None of the runway ends at the Airport are equipped with REILs. Approach Lighting System (ALS): An ALS is a configuration of lights positioned symmetrically along the extended runway centerline to supplement navigational aids, such as an instrument landing system (ILS), to provide lower visibility minimums. Examples include the ALS with Flashing Lights (ALSF); ALS with Sequenced Flashers I & II (ALSF‐1/ALSF‐2); Medium Intensity ALS with Runway Alignment (MALSR). The MALSR system is a typical system for Category I (CAT‐I) precision approaches and includes sequenced flashing runway alignment indicator lights (RAILs). Runway 15 is equipped with a MALSR that extends 2,400 feet beyond the runway threshold in support of the runway’s CAT‐I ILS approach.

Taxiway Lighting: Each taxiway is constructed of asphalt and is equipped with blue medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL).

DRAFT Chapter One - 20

RUNWAY DATA kR oa

Ro a

d

d er

Surface Type Weight Bearing Capacity (pounds) SWL DWL DTWL Runway Edge Lights Runway Markings

us x

x

RU (R NW un A w Y

35’’

x

x

C

Segmented Circle/ Lighted Windcone

x

Supplemental S x Windcone x

lx ai Tr t or irp x

’

A

x

ay 2Gr 20 ad (4 E ie ,74 nt 0 0. ’ x 2% 1 ) 00’

x x

x

x

x

75’

D

Supplemental Windcone

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

LEGEND

x

x

x

Beacon B

x x

x

x

R

x

Emergency Operations E Center C x

x

x

Apron

x

17 y3 wa gh

Hi

E End Elevation 674.4’ MSL

x

N

Supplemental S Windcone

PAPI-4 P x

Ab Ru and nw on ay ed

400’ 4

x

A

2% ) (Runway Gradient 0.2% C 75’

x

B

End Elevation 682.3’ MSL

x

o x ad

E End Elevation n 669.0’ MSL

x

x

ico

x

x x

x

ex

x

Localizer Antenna Array x

)

x

x

eM

x

Intersection I Elevation 673.2’ MSL

x

ttl

20 PAPI-4 None Left

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

250’ Hold Separation

x

x

x

x

DTWL Dual Tandem Wheel Loading DWL Dual Wheel Loading MALSR Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Lighting MIRL Medium Intensity Runway Lighting MITL Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicator SWL Single Wheel Loading

2 None None Left

x

MALSR

ACRONYMS

33 PAPI-4 None Left

x

ILS Glideslope Antenna/AWOS S

Li

Surface Type x Edge Lighting Markings x

x

x

x

0 40

15 MALSR None Left

TAXIWAY DATA Asphalt MITL Basic

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Visual Approach Aid Displaced Threshold xTraffic Pattern

x

Se 250 pa ’ H ra ol tio d n

x

x

31,000 37,000 N/A MIRL Basic

x

x x

PAPI-4

x

50’

55,000 70,000 110,000 MIRL Precision

Pe p

x

x

End Elevation n 665.1’ MSL

Runway 2-20 Asphalt

rC

Mo

x

x

Runway 15-33 Asphalt/Grooved

pe

or t Ai rp

x

x

ree

Tr ai l

x

x

x 0

t Road Airpor

Airport Property Line Airport Fence Line 800

1600

NORTH

SCALE IN FEET

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

DRAFT Chapter One - 21

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 1F AIRSIDE FACILITIES

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter One - 22

Water Tower

ILS Glideslope Antenna/AWOS

Airfield Signage

MITL

Supplemental Windcone

PAPI-4 Taxiway A

Runway 2-20

Runway Threshold Lights

Runway 15-33

Hold Position Signage

Taxiway C

Rotating Beacon

DRAFT Chapter One - 23

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 1G AIRFIELD INVENTORY PICTURES

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter One - 24

Visual Approach Lighting: Visual approach aids have been installed at the Airport to assist pilots in de‐ termining the correct descent path to the runway end during an approach to the Airport. Precision ap‐ proach path indicators (PAPI‐4s) are available on Runways 33 and 20. PAPIs give the pilot an indication of whether their approach is above, below, or on‐path, through the pattern of red and white lights visible from the light units. Both PAPI units are set at a 3.0‐degree visual approach glide path.

Pilot‐Controlled Lighting (PCL): PCL allows pilots to activate and increase the intensity of the Runway 15‐33 MIRL, as well as activate the Runway 15 MALSR and the Runway 33 and 20 PAPIs from their aircraft through a series of clicks of their radio transmitter utilizing the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF ‐ 123.0 MHz).

AIRFIELD SIGNAGE Airfield identification signs assist pilots in identifying runways, taxiway routes, and critical areas. Lighted airfield signage at Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is located at each taxiway intersection.

Taxiways are identified using lighted location, directional, and informational signs.

AIRPORT MARKINGS Pavement markings aid in the movement of aircraft along airport surfaces and identify closed or hazard‐ ous areas on the airport. The Airport provides and maintains parking systems in accordance with Part 139.311(a) and Advisory Circular 150/5340‐1, Standards for Airport Marking.

Runway 15‐33 is equipped with precision runway markings, which identifies the runway centerline, des‐ ignation, aiming points, edge markings, and touchdown zones. Runway 2‐20 is equipped with modified visual/basic runway markings, which identifies the runway centerline, designation, and aiming points.

Aiming point markings are not standard for visual/basic runways; however, Runway 2‐20 is equipped with them since it is longer than 4,200 feet and occasionally serves jet aircraft in approach categories C and D. All taxiways at the Airport are marked with yellow centerline and enhanced hold position markings. Cen‐ terline markings assist pilots in maintaining proper clearance from pavement edges and objects near the taxiway edges.

Aircraft hold positions are marked at each runway/taxiway intersection. Yellow holding position mark‐ ings for Runway 15‐33 and Runway 2‐20 are located 250 feet from the runway centerline and are en‐ hanced with lead‐in marking.

DRAFT Chapter One - 25

NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

Navigational aids are electronic devices that transmit radio frequencies, which pilots of properly equipped aircraft translate into point‐to‐point guidance and position information. The types of elec‐ tronic navigational aids available for aircraft flying to or from Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport include the VOR and global positioning system (GPS).

The VOR provides azimuth readings to pilots of properly equipped aircraft by transmitting a radio signal at every degree to provide 360 individual navigational courses. Frequently, distance measuring equip‐ ment (DME) is combined with a VOR facility to provide dis‐ Navigational aids available for tance as well as direction information to the pilot. Military tactical air navigation aids (TACANs) and civil VORs are com‐ aircraft flying to or from monly combined to form a VORTAC. A VORTAC provides Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport include the VOR distance and direction information to civil and military pi‐ lots. The Temple VOR/DME, located 3.6 miles north of and global positioning system Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, serves the (GPS). regional area.

GPS was initially developed by the United States Department of Defense for military navigation around the world; however, GPS is now used extensively for a wide variety of civilian uses, including civil aircraft navigation. GPS uses satellites placed in orbit around the globe to transmit electronic signals, which pilots of properly equipped aircraft use to determine altitude, speed, and navigational information. This provides more freedom in flight planning and allows for more direct routing to the final destination. GPS provides for enroute navigation and precision (horizontal and vertical guidance) straight‐in instrument approaches to Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport.

INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS) EQUIPMENT

Airports with ILS approaches are equipped with both a glideslope antenna and localizer antenna array.

The glideslope antenna provides vertical guidance to landing aircraft and can be located on either side of the runway; however, it is best to locate the glideslope antenna on the side of the runway with the least possibility of signal reflections from buildings, power lines, vehicles, aircraft, etc. The localizer an‐ tenna array is used to establish and maintain an approaching aircraft’s position relative to the runway centerline until visual contact confirms the runway alignment and location. Typically the localizer an‐ tenna array is sited on the extended runway centerline be‐ tween 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet from the end of the runway. Runway 15 at TPL is equipped with a Cat I ILS.

Runway 15 at TPL is equipped with a Cat I ILS. The glideslope antenna at TPL is located on the northeast side of Runway 15‐33 where potential signal obstructions are limited. The localizer antenna array is located approximately 1,000 feet beyond the Runway 33 end.

DRAFT Chapter One - 26

WEATHER REPORTING

Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is served by an automated weather observing system (AWOS). The AWOS provides automated aviation weather observations 24 hours per day. The system updates weather observations every minute, continuously reporting significant weather changes as they occur. The AWOS system reports cloud ceiling, visibility, temperature, dew point, wind direction, wind speed, altimeter setting (barometric pressure), and density altitude (airfield elevation corrected for tem‐ perature). The AWOS equipment is located north of Runway 15‐33 along with the ILS glideslope antenna.

LANDSIDE FACILITIES

Landside facilities, including the terminal buildings, hangars, apron areas, access roads, and parking lots are detailed on Exhibit 1H. Pictures taken of landside facilities during the inventory trip in January 2015 are shown on Exhibit 1J.

TERMINAL BUILDINGS

The Airport has two terminal facilities, both located on the west side of the airfield and accessible via Airport Road and the Airport Loop Road. The original 6,000 square foot commercial airline passenger terminal building is currently occupied by DRS Technologies, which is a contractor for AMCOM. The building is in poor condition and is in need of repairs/renovations beyond routine maintenance. The 3,900 square foot Elmer Reed General Avi‐ ation Terminal, located immediately north‐ west of the passenger terminal building, houses Airport administrative offices, lobby/reception area, flight planning equip‐ ment, conference room, pilot’s lounge, re‐ strooms, and FBO activities. Both terminal facilities are located adjacent to a 32,000 square yard aircraft parking and movement ramp.

AUTOMOBILE PARKING

The general aviation terminal has an adjacent paved parking lot with 80 vehicle parking spaces. The old terminal building has 46 vehicle parking spaces available. The combined parking lots in the terminal area total approximately 6,400 square yards and 126 parking spaces. Both parking areas are accessible via Airport Loop Road. Several of the executive/corporate hangars have adjacent vehicle parking lots as well. Both public and private vehicle parking lots at the Airport total over 18,500 square yards (including the terminal area lots, AMCOM lot, executive/corporate hangar lots).

DRAFT Chapter One - 27

The AMCOM complex has a 7,500 square yard vehicle parking lot that is often utilized to over capacity.

Plans are in place to expand the vehicle access and parking capacity adjacent to the AMCOM complex along with a guard post and roadway landscaping. This project will add 356 parking spaces over four phases of construction. The future layout of the AMCOM lots and access road are depicted on Exhibit 1K. On March 25, 2015, these projects received City of Temple Reinvestment Zone approval for funding in the amount of $3.3 million. It is anticipated that these projects will be completed by the end of 2015.

FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO) AND OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS/TENANTS

The City serves as one of the Airport’s FBOs with a customer service counter located in the general avi‐ ation terminal building. The FBO is attended from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. The City offers the following services at the Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport:

 Aviation fuel (Jet A/100LL)  Airframe maintenance  Service/repair  Piston engine overhauls  Line services  Avionics  Tiedowns and overnight parking  Aircraft rental  Hangars  Flight training  Pilot supplies  Pilots’ lounge with restrooms/telephone/internet access/flight planning computer/vending ma‐ chines

Other tenants providing aviation services located on the Airport are identified on Exhibit 1H and include:

 U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) – military aircraft refurbishment (scheduled to vacate its Airport facilities in March 2016)  Central Texas Flight Training – fixed‐wing flight training/rentals  Kachemak Bay Flying Service/Summit Aviation – FBO providing fixed‐wing/rotary flight training, air‐ craft maintenance/avionics  JR Aviation – charter helicopter services  WilsonArt – corporate flight services  DRS Technologies – contractor for AMCOM  McLane Company – corporate flight services  JF Air Traffic – air charter/corporate flight services  McLane Aviation – corporate flight services

DRAFT Chapter One - 28

LEGEND

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’) R (4 UN ,7 W 40 AY ’x 2 10 -20 0’ )

Aircraft Wash Rack

x

x

x

19

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

way 36 as High x e T t Road Airpor

Type FBO Hangar T-Hangar (13-16) T-Hangar (17-22) T-Hangar (23-26) T-Hangar (27-32) T-Hangar (33-44) T-Hangar (45-56) T-Hangar (57-66) T-Hangar (67-76) T-Hangar (77-86) Corporate Hangar Executive Hangar

Owner (Tenant) COT (Kachemak Bay Flying Service) COT COT COT COT COT COT COT COT COT COT (McLane Company) COT (Irvine)

CONDITION DEFINITION Good No significant repairs/improvements needed except regular maintenance Fair Minor repairs/improvements needed in addition to regular maintenance Poor Major repairs/improvements needed

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

x

x

Bldg # 21 2 22 3 23 24 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 45 45 48 48

x

x

x

x

x

x x

Condition Poor Good Fair (Undersized Vehicle Storage Unit) Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

30

x

x

Water Tower

29

x

x

x

Area (sf) 6,000 3,900 2,150 3,850 3,960 19,729 8,130 2,200 45,000 49,000 3,528 8,300 N/A 2,300 368 6,500 3,900

ad Ro

Planned Fuel Farm Loop Roadway Not Yet Contructed

28

op Lo

x

x

x

x

DRAFT Chapter One - 29

Owner (Tenant) COT (DRS Technologies) COT COT COT (Central Texas Flight Training) COT (McQueen) COT (McLane Aviation) COT (Kachemak Bay Flying Service) COT COT (AMCOM) COT (AMCOM) COT (Rosier) COT (JR Aviation) COT COT COT COT (WilsonArt LLC) COT (JF Air Traffic, Inc.)

t or rp

16

27

Ai

x

x

x

Type Old Passenger Terminal Building General Aviation Terminal ARFF Facility FBO Hangar Executive Hangar Corporate Hangar FBO Hangar Port-a-Port Hangar Maintenance Hangar Maintenance Hangar Executive Hangar Executive Hangar Fuel Farm Maintenance Building Electrical Vault Corporate Hangar Corporate Hangar

26 x

x

xx

12

Bldg # 11 22 33 66 77 88 99 10 1 10 11 1 11 12 12 13 13 114 14 115 15 116 16 18 18 1 19 20 20

25

x

14

x

45

15

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

24

x

x

x

13

SCALE IN FEET

23

x

11

22 x

6x

x

D

800

x

x

400

x

x

7

10

0

21

2

3

9

Airport Property Line Fence Line

20

x

8

x

Aircraft Parking Ramp 7,200 sy

48

Aircraft Parking Ramp 32,000 sy; 22 Marked 18 Tiedown Positions 1

x

x

A

NORTH

Area (sf) 6,000 4,050 6,600 5,040 6,600 13,200 13,200 14,706 14,300 14,300 24,610 6,400

Condition Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

KEY COT - City of Temple N/A - Not Applicable

Exhibit 1H LANDSIDE FACILITIES

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter One - 30

Kachemak Bay Flying Service FBO Hangar

T-Hangars

T-Hangars

WilsonArt LLC Corporate Hangar

AMCOM Hangar

AMCOM Hangar

Executive Hangar

Old Passenger Terminal Building

General Aviation Terminal

McLane Company Corporate Hangar

McLane Aviation Corporate Hangar

Airport Loop Road Entrance Signage

Landside Directional Signage

T-Hangars

JF Air Traffic Inc. Corporate Hangar

Fuel Farm

ARFF Facility

DRAFT Chapter One - 31

Kachemak Bay Flying Service FBO Hangars

Executive Hangar

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

JR Aviation Executive Hangar

Port-A-Port Hangar Exhibit 1J LANDSIDE INVENTORY PICTURES

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter One - 32

DRAFT Chapter One - 33

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 1K ONGOING LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter One - 34

HANGAR AND APRON FACILITIES

The Airport has a variety of hangar facilities ranging in size and type, including T‐hangar facilities, which are nested hangar storage structures typically used for a single aircraft, as well as conventional‐style FBO/executive/corporate hangars, which can house multiple aircraft. The Airport’s total hangar storage capacity is detailed in Table 1G.

TABLE 1G Hangar Inventory Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Hangar Type Units T‐Hangar 9 structures (74 individual units) FBO/Corporate/Executive/Maintenance 14 structures Total 23 structures Source: Airport Records

Storage Capacity (sf) 91,996 191,107 283,103

As of March 2015, all hangar facilities are occupied with the Airport maintaining a hangar wait list of 37 people (some of As of March 2015, all hangar which have been on the waiting list for two years). Individual facilities are occupied with the T‐hangar units range in cost from $145/month for a single Airport maintaining a hangar unit, $170/month for a twin unit, and $210/month for a wait list of 37 people. larger twin unit. FBO/executive/corporate/maintenance conventional‐style hangars are all currently leased; however, the AMCOM facilities, which include 94,000 square feet of hangar space, will become available once AMCOM vacates in March 2016.

The Airport’s primary aircraft movement apron/ramp space, located adjacent to the general aviation terminal building, is 32,000 square yards of pavement with 22 marked aircraft tiedown positions. An additional 7,200 square yard ramp area is located adjacent to the executive hangars immediately south of the terminal facilities. All hangar facilities are serviced by taxilanes and appropriate pavement to allow for the movement of aircraft in the immediate vicinity of the hangar doors.

SUPPORT FACILITIES

Several support facilities serve as critical links in provid‐ ing the necessary efficiency to aircraft ground opera‐ tions, such as aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF), air‐ port maintenance, emergency generators, and fuel stor‐ age.

DRAFT Chapter One - 35

Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Facilities (ARFF)

Only Part 139 certificated airports are required to provide aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) services. Draughon‐ Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is no longer a Part 139 certificated airport, and as such is not required to support on‐site ARFF services; however, in order to maintain con‐ tracts with the Department of Defense and to better serve the corporate/charter flight operators, the Airport main‐ tains ARFF index B equipment, which can accommodate air‐ craft lengths of up to 126 feet. The Airport has one ARFF vehicle that provides a minimum of 500 pounds of sodium‐ based dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent and 1,500 gallons of water and the commensurate quan‐ tity of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) for foam production. The ARFF services are available from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. ARFF equipment and offices are located at the west end of the General Aviation Terminal building.

In addition to the ARFF facility and equipment, the City of Tem‐ ple Fire and Rescue’s Fire Station #8 is located on Airport prop‐ erty along Airport Road at the south end of the Airport. This station was recently completed in 2014 and also houses a training center and serves as an emergency operations center (EOC).

Maintenance Facilities

The Airport has a 16,000 square‐foot maintenance yard includ‐ ing a 2,300 square‐foot maintenance building which stores Airport maintenance equipment, such as mowers and typical lawn and facility maintenance equipment. The maintenance yard is located north‐ west of the terminal area adjacent to the fuel farm.

The Airport’s fuel facilities meet

all FAA, Defense Department, Fuel Storage and ExxonMobil specifications

The City is the sole aircraft fuel vendor at the Airport. The and safety requirements.

Airport’s fuel farm is located northwest of the terminal area and consists of three 12,000‐gallon above‐ground fuel tanks (one for 100LL Avgas; two for Jet A). The Airport also has four mobile fuel delivery trucks, two for 100LL and two for Jet A, each capable of over the wing or single point refueling. The City also has a Defense Fuel Military Fuel contract. The Airport’s fuel facilities meet all FAA and Department of Defense specifications and safety requirements.

DRAFT Chapter One - 36

The fuel farm is accessible via a secondary access road TABLE 1H north of the Airport Loop Road access point. A project Historic Fuel Revenues/Flowage is currently underway to construct a new fuel farm Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport loop road. The proposed alignment of this new road

Fuel Flowage (gallons) Year Avgas Jet A Total is depicted on Exhibit 1K. This project has received 2006 54,530 415,525 470,055 funding approval from the City of Temple Reinvest‐ 2007 53,901 472,352 526,253 ment Zone and is anticipated to be completed by the 2008 55,996 547,215 603,211 end of 2015. In addition, funding approval has been 2009 62,847 450,590 513,437 2010 56,344 455,448 511,792 received for the construction of a self‐service aviation 2011 63,317 493,284 556,601 fuel facility adjacent to the old terminal building. The 2012 57,575 532,662 590,237 self‐service fuel facility will include tanks for both 2013 59,911 465,330 525,241 Avgas and Jet A aviation fuels.

2014 63,733 454,635 518,368 CAGR 2.0% 1.1% 1.2%

Source: Airport records Historic fuel revenues and flowage on the Airport for CAGR – Compound Annual Growth Rate the years 2006 through 2014 is presented in Table 1H. These records indicate that over this time period, Jet A fuel flowage has accounted for 89.0 percent on average of all flowage at the Airport. Flowage for both fuels has grown over the eight‐year period, with Avgas growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.0 percent and Jet A growing at 1.1 percent. Combined aviation fuel flowage has grown at a 1.2 percent CAGR since 2006.

Perimeter Security Fencing

Perimeter fencing is a standard security feature of most general aviation airports. Security fencing re‐ stricts access to private facilities as well as the airfield operations area (AOA). Standard security fencing consists of seven‐foot chain‐link fencing with a top guard such as barbed wire strands. The Airport is equipped with perimeter security fencing around the entire AOA and throughout the landside area. Most of the landside area fencing is a mixture of chain‐link and wrought‐iron fencing that is not equipped with a top guard. Access gates are located at various loca‐ tions to allow access to hangar facilities. As depicted on Exhibit 1K, plans are in place to upgrade security gate access to the T‐hangar area. This project has received City of Temple Reinvestment Zone funding approval and is anticipated to be completed by November 2015.

UTILITIES

The availability and capacity of the utilities serving the Airport are factors in determining the develop‐ ment potential of Airport property. The Airport receives water, sanitary and storm sewer, and telecom‐ munication services from the City of Temple. Oncore Electric Delivery provides electrical power to the various Airport facilities.

DRAFT Chapter One - 37

AREA AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Act of 1958 established the FAA as the responsible agency for the control and use of navigable airspace within the United States. The FAA has established the National Airspace System (NAS) to protect persons and property on the ground and to establish a safe and effi‐ cient airspace environment for civil, commercial, and military aviation. The NAS covers the common network of U.S. airspace, including air navigation facilities; airports and landing areas; aeronautical charts; associated rules, regulations, and procedures; technical information; and personnel and material.

The system also includes components shared jointly with the military.

AIRSPACE STRUCTURE

Airspace within the United States is broadly classified as either “controlled” or “uncontrolled.” The dif‐ ference between controlled and uncontrolled airspace relates primarily to requirements for pilot quali‐ fications, ground‐to‐air communications, navigation and air traffic services, and weather conditions. Six classes of airspace have been designated in the United States, as shown on Exhibit 1L. Airspace desig‐ nated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered controlled airspace. Aircraft operating within controlled airspace are subject to varying requirements for positive air traffic control. Airspace in the vicinity of Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is depicted on Exhibit 1M.

Class A Airspace: Class A airspace includes all airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to flight level (FL) 600 (approximately 60,000 feet MSL) over the contiguous 48 states and Alaska. This airspace is designated in FAR Part 71.33 for positive control of aircraft. All aircraft must be on an IFR clearance to operate within Class A airspace.

Class B Airspace: Class B airspace has been designated around some of the country’s major airports, such as Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and George Bush Intercontinental/Houston Airport, to separate all aircraft within a specified radius of the primary airport. Each Class B airspace is specifically tailored for its primary airport. All aircraft operating within Class B airspace must have an air traffic control (ATC) clearance. Certain minimum aircraft equipment and pilot certification requirements must also be met. This airspace is the most restrictive controlled airspace routinely encountered by pilots operating under VFR in an uncontrolled environment. The nearest Class B airspace is centered on Dal‐ las/Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas, approximately 106 nautical miles to the north.

Class C Airspace: The FAA has established Class C airspace at approximately 120 airports around the country that have significant levels of IFR traffic. Class C airspace is designed to regulate the flow of uncontrolled traffic above, around, and below the arrival and departure airspace required for high‐per‐ formance, passenger‐carrying aircraft at major airports. In order to fly inside Class C airspace, an aircraft must have a two‐way radio, an encoding transponder, and have established communication with the ATC facility. Aircraft may fly below the floor of the Class C airspace or above the Class C airspace ceiling without establishing communication with ATC. The nearest Class C airspace to Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport surrounds the Austin‐Bergstrom International Airport, approximately 59 nautical miles to the southwest.

DRAFT Chapter One - 38

FL 600

18,000 MSL

KEY AGL - Above Ground Level FL - Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet MSL - Mean Sea Level

14,500 MSL

NOT TO SCALE

40 n.m.

30 n.m.

Nontowered Airport

20 n.m.

20 n.m.

700 AGL

CLASSIFICATION

12 n.m.

1,200 AGL

10 n.m.

10 n.m.

Nontowered Airport

DEFINITION

CLASS A

Generally airspace above 18,000 feet MSL up to and including FL 600.

CLASS B

Generally multi-layered airspace from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busiest airports.

CLASS C

Generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet AGL surrounding towered airports with service by radar approach control.

CLASS D

Generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL surrounding towered airports.

CLASS E

Generally controlled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D.

CLASS G

Generally uncontrolled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E.

Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for VFR Products," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993.

DRAFT Chapter One - 39

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 1L AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION

Class D Airspace: Class D airspace is controlled airspace surrounding airports with an ATCT. The Class D airspace typically constitutes a cylinder with a horizontal radius of four or five nautical miles from the airport, extending from the surface up to a designated vertical limit, typically set at approximately 2,500 feet above the airport elevation. If an airport has an instrument approach or departure, the Class D airspace sometimes extends along the approach or departure path. Hood Army Airfield and Robert Gray Army Airfield, located approximately 20 nautical miles west of Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, are the nearest Class D airspace airports. Waco Regional Airport and Texas State Technical Col‐ lege (TSTC) Waco Airport, located approximately 30 nautical miles north of Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, are also Class D airspace airports.

Class E Airspace: Class E airspace consists of controlled airspace designed to contain IFR operations near an airport and while aircraft are transitioning between the airport and enroute environments. Unless otherwise specified, Class E airspace terminates at the base of the overlying airspace. Only aircraft op‐ erating under IFR are required to be in contact with air traffic control when operating in Class E airspace.

While aircraft conducting visual flights in Class E airspace are not required to be in radio communication with air traffic control facilities, visual flight can only be con‐ ducted if minimum visibility and cloud ceilings exist. Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is located Regional Airport is located within Class E airspace that begins at the Airport surface as within Class E airspace depicted on Exhibit 1M.

Class G Airspace: Airspace not designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered uncontrolled, or Class G, airspace. Air traffic control does not have the authority or responsibility to exercise control over air traffic within this airspace. Class G airspace lies between the surface and the overlaying Class E airspace (700 to 1,200 feet above ground level).

While aircraft may technically operate within this Class G airspace without any contact with ATC, it is unlikely that many aircraft will operate this low to the ground. Furthermore, federal regulations specify minimum altitudes for flight. F.A.R. Part 91.119, Minimum Safe Altitudes, generally states that except when necessary for takeoff or landing, pilots must not operate an aircraft over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open‐air assembly of persons, at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. Over less congested areas, pilots must maintain an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely pop‐ ulated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed above if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA.

Special Use Airspace

Special use airspace is defined as airspace where activities must be confined because of their nature or where limitations are imposed on aircraft not taking part in those activities. These areas are depicted on Exhibit 1M. DRAFT Chapter One - 40

VR1110

V

35 8

IR139

VR1124

TSTC WACO

Waco VORTAC

WACO REGIONAL

PROHIBITED P-49

VR 00 11

Hood & GATESVILLE Hood High MOA

LONGHORN AAF AUX SHORTHORN AAF AUX

MARLIN

RESTRICTED R-6302A Temple VOR-DME

HOOD AAF

ROBERT GRAY AAF Gray VOR-DME

Hood NDB

DRAUGHON-MILLER

15

Starn NDB

V

LAMPASAS

Robinson NDB

V 548

Gray & Hood High MOA Gooch Springs VORTAC

MCGREGOR EXECUTIVE V 17

Hamilton NDB

V 163

HAMILTON

WILDCAT CANYON

4 5-5 V1

CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL

R-6302B

SKYLARK 42

V 163

1 VR

V5

48

V 17

CAMERON

V5

58

GEORGETOWN

H H COFFIELD REGIONAL

V 583

LEGEND Airport with hard-surfaced runways 1,500' to 8,069' in length Airports with hard-surfaced runways greater than 8,069' or some multiple runways less than 8,069' Non-directional Radio Beacon (NDB) VORTAC

Victor Airways Class D Airspace Class E Airspace Class E (sfc) Airspace with floor 700 ft. above surface that laterally abuts 1200 ft. or higher Class E airspace Military Training Route

VOR-DME

Alert Area and MOA

Compass Rose

Prohibited, Restricted, and Warning Area Source: San Antonio Sectional Chart, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, November 14, 2014

DRAFT Chapter One - 41

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

ExhibitExhibit 1M VICINITY AIRSPACE VICINITY AIRSPACE

Victor Airways: For aircraft arriving or departing the regional area using VOR facilities, a system of Fed‐ eral Airways, referred to as Victor Airways, has been established. Victor Airways are corridors of airspace eight miles wide that extend upward from 1,200 feet AGL to 18,000 feet MSL and extend between VOR navigational facilities. Victor Airways are shown with yellow lines on Exhibit 1M.

For aircraft enroute or departing Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, Victor 17 (V17) extends from the Waco VORTAC to the north passing immediately to the east of the Airport as it extends to the south towards the Austin area.

Restricted, Prohibited, and Military Operations Areas: Restricted, Prohibited, and Military Operating Areas (MOAs) are areas of airspace where military activities are conducted. Restricted areas R‐6302A & B, the Hood & Hood High MOA, and the Gray MOAs are located immediately to the Airport’s west/north‐ west and are associated with Hood Army Airfield. Prohibited area P‐49, located west of the Waco area, protects the ranch of former President George W. Bush.

AIRSPACE CONTROL

The FAA has established 21 ARTCCs throughout the continental United States to control aircraft operat‐ ing under IFR within controlled airspace and while enroute. An ARTCC assigns specific routes and alti‐ tudes along Federal Airways to maintain separation and orderly traffic flow. The Fort Worth ARTCC con‐ trols IFR airspace enroute to and from the Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport area.

Flight service stations (FSS) are air traffic facilities which The Fort Worth ARTCC controls IFR airspace enroute to and from provide pilot briefings, flight plan processing, inflight radio communications, search and rescue (SAR) services, and as‐ the Draughon‐Miller Central sistance to lost aircraft and aircraft in emergency situa‐ Texas Regional Airport area. tions. FSSs also relay air traffic control clearances, process notices to airmen (NOTAMs), broadcast aviation meteoro‐ logical and aeronautical information, and notify Customs and Border Protection of trans border flights.

The San Angelo Flight Service Station is the nearest FSS to Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Air‐ port.

Instrument Approach Procedures

Instrument approach procedures are a series of predetermined maneuvers established by the FAA using electronic navigational aids that assist pilots in locating and landing at an airport, especially during in‐ strument flight conditions. There are currently six published instrument approach procedures at Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport: one Cat‐I ILS to Runway 15; three GPS localizer perfor‐ mance with vertical guidance (LPV) approaches to Runways 2, 15, and 33; and two instrument ap‐ proaches utilizing the Temple VOR/DME equipment to Runways 15 and 33. Runway 20 is the only run‐ way end not equipped with a straight‐in instrument approach procedure.

The capability of an instrument is defined by the visibility and cloud ceiling minimums associated with the approach. Visibility minimums define the horizontal distance the pilot must be able to see in order

DRAFT Chapter One - 42

to complete the approach. Cloud ceilings define the lowest level a cloud layer (defined in feet above the ground) can be situated for the pilot to complete the approach. If the observed visibility or ceilings are below the minimums prescribed for the approach, the pilot cannot complete the instrument approach.

Instrument approach plates, depicted on Exhibit 1N, show visibility minimums associated with each of the Airport’s six published instrument approach procedures.

Local Operating Procedures

The traffic pattern at the Airport is maintained to provide the safest and most efficient use of the air‐ space. A standard left‐hand traffic pattern is published for each runway end. In this case, the approach to landing is made using a series of left turns. The typical traffic pattern altitude for propeller aircraft is between 800 and 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and 1,500 feet AGL for turbine aircraft.

Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport does not have aircraft restrictions, curfews, or a manda‐ tory noise abatement program, as these programs would violate the Federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) of 1990. Federal law requires the Airport to remain open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and to accept all civilian and military aircraft that can be safely accommodated.

AREA AIRPORTS

A review of other public‐use airports with at least one paved runway within a 30‐nautical mile radius of Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport was conducted to identify and distinguish the types of air service provided in the region. It is important to consider the capabilities and limitations of these airports when planning for future changes or improvements at Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport. Exhibit 1P provides information on public‐use airports within the vicinity of TPL. Information pertaining to each airport was obtained from FAA Form 5010‐1, Airport Master Record.

SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE

The following sections will analyze socioeconomic indicators, including population, economy/employ‐ ment, and income for the City of Temple, Bell County, and the State of Texas. Socioeconomic data was obtained from the Texas State Data Center; U.S. Census Bureau; the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Woods and Pool Economics, The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, 2014. Tables and charts depicting socioeconomic data are presented on Exhibit 1Q.

POPULATION

Historical population records indicate the City of Temple has grown at a CAGR of 1.8 percent since 1970, a slightly slower rate than Bell County (2.3 percent) and the State (2.0 percent). The U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent population estimate (July 2013) indicates a City population of 70,190.

DRAFT Chapter One - 43

SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015

SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015

SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015 SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015

SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015

SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015

Exhibit 1N INSTRUMENT APPROACH PLATES

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

DRAFT Chapter One - 44

SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015

SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015

SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015 SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015

SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015

SC-3, 05 MAR 2015 to 02 APR 2015

Exhibit 1N (conÆ&#x;nued) INSTRUMENT APPROACH PLATES

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

DRAFT Chapter One - 45

The demographics breakdown for the City of Temple’s population includes 56.4 percent white alone; 22.8 percent Hispanic or Latino; 16.6 percent black or African American; with the remaining population identifying as American Indian, Asian, or two or more races.

ECONOMY

According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Temple’s top two industries in terms of employment and number of establishments are Trade, Transportation & Utilities, and Education & Health Services. Major employers with over 1,000 employees include Scott & White Hospital and Clinic, Wilsonart International, McLane Company, Temple Independent School District, and Nextel Communications.

Gross regional product (GRP) is a measure of the market value of the goods and services produced within an area in a given period of time. Despite the recent worldwide economic recession, GRP has been on the upswing in the past few years. GRP for Bell County and the State of Texas has grown significantly since the 1970s, with CAGRs of 4.3 percent for both the County and the State. Since 2010, GRP growth in the County has seen an uptick in growth with a 5.3 percent CAGR, which closely mirrors a similar uptick in statewide GRP (5.5 percent CAGR) over the same time period.

Employment growth in Bell County has grown from almost 80,000 in 1970 to over 201,000 in 2015, a 2.2 percent CAGR. This is a slightly slower pace when compared to statewide employment growth over the same time period (2.7 percent CAGR). County employment has grown at a faster pace since 2010 with a 2.6 percent CAGR.

Historical unemployment rates have followed closely to the same trend. Unemployment rates were on the decline up until 2008, when economic recession worries began raising rates to their highest level since the early 1990s. Rates are again on the decline and have reached 5.4 percent in City of Temple, 6.8 percent in Bell County, and 6.2 percent statewide as of 2013.

INCOME

The City of Temple’s per capita personal income (PCPI) for 2015 is estimated at $40,046 per resident.

This is a very similar rate when compared to the statewide PCPI of $40,322. County and State PCPI has grown at the same rate of 2.1 percent CAGR since 1970.

AOPA USER SURVEY

A user survey was conducted to collect the thoughts and comments of regional aviation users. The Aircraft Own‐ ers and Pilots Association (AOPA) assisted Coffman Associates by distributing an on‐line survey to its subscribers that live within a 250‐miles radius of TPL. The questions were designed to extract the type of activity the respond‐ ents conduct with their aircraft and how they view TPL and its facilities. A total of 42 responses were received. A response summary is provided below.

DRAFT Chapter One - 46

SKYLARK FIELD AIRPORT (ILE)

MCGREGOR EXECUTIVE AIRPORT (PWG)

Airport Sponsor:

City of Killeen

Airport Sponsor:

City of McGregor

Distance from TPL:

14.9 nm SW

Distance from TPL:

20.5 nm N

NPIAS Classification: General Aviation Primary Runway: 1-19 Length (feet) 5,495 Width (feet) 100

Surface Type/Condition: Strength Rating: Marking: Runway Lighting: Visual Approach Aids: Based Aircraft: Estimated Operations: Published Instrument Approach Procedures:

Asphalt/Good 17,000 SWL; 50,000 DWL Precision MIRL PAPI-4 (1, 19) 61 6,570 3 - ILS; RNAV; VOR

ROBERT GRAY AAF AIRPORT (GRK) Airport Sponsor: U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Agency 22.2 nm W

NPIAS Classification: General Aviation

Distance from TPL:

Primary Runway: 17-35 Length (feet) 5,501 Width (feet) 75

NPIAS Classification: Primary Commercial Service

Surface Type/Condition: Strength Rating: Marking: Runway Lighting: Visual Approach Aids: Based Aircraft: Estimated Operations: Published Instrument Approach Procedures:

3 - RNAV; VOR

Services Provided: Aviation Fuel (Jet A/100LL); Tiedowns; Minor Airframe and Powerplant Service; Hangar Leasing/Sales; GPU/Power Cart; Passenger Terminal and Lounge; Catering; Pilot Supplies

Services Provided: Aviation Fuel; Aircraft Ground Handling; Oxygen Service; Aircraft Parking; Hangars; GPU/Power Cart; Passenger Terminal and Lounge; Aircraft Maintenance; Aircraft Management; Pilot Supplies; Pilots Lounge

CAMERON MUNICIPAL AIRPARK AIRPORT (T35)

VALLEY MILLS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (9F1)

Surface Type/Condition: Strength Rating: Marking: Runway Lighting: Visual Approach Aids: Based Aircraft: Estimated Operations: Published Instrument Approach Procedures:

Asphalt/Concrete/Excellent 135,000 DWL; 345,000 DTWL Precision HIRL PAPI-4 (15, 33) 0 9,916 8 - ILS; RNAV; VOR; NDB

Services Provided: Commercial Airline Services; Jet A Fuel

WACO REGIONAL AIRPORT (ACT)

Airport Sponsor:

City of Cameron

Airport Sponsor:

City of Valley Mills

Airport Sponsor:

Distance from TPL:

25.7 nm NW

Distance from TPL:

30.8 NM SW

Distance from TPL: 29.1 nm NE

NPIAS Classification: General Aviation

NPIAS Classification: N/A

Primary Runway: 16-34 Length (feet) 3,200 Width (feet) 50

Primary Runway: 6-24 Length (feet) 3,028 Width (feet) 40

Surface Type/Condition: Strength Rating: Marking: Runway Lighting: Visual Approach Aids: Based Aircraft: Estimated Operations: Published Instrument Approach Procedures:

Asphalt/Good 19,000 SWL Basic MIRL None 9 1,500 None

Services Provided: Aviation Fuel; Aircraft Parking; Hangar Leasing/Sales

Surface Type/Condition: Strength Rating: Marking: Runway Lighting: Visual Approach Aids: Based Aircraft: Estimated Operations: Published Instrument Approach Procedures: Services Provided: None

City of Waco

NPIAS Classification: Primary Commercial Service Primary Runway: 1-19 Length (feet) 7,107 Width (feet) 150 Turf/Fair N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 50 None

Surface Type/Condition: Strength Rating: Marking: Runway Lighting: Visual Approach Aids: Based Aircraft: Estimated Operations: Published Instrument Approach Procedures:

Airport Sponsor:

City of Gatesville

Distance from TPL:

25.7 nm NW

NPIAS Classification: General Aviation Primary Runway: 17-35 Length (feet) 3,400 Width (feet) 60

Primary Runway: 15-33 Length (feet) 10,000 Width (feet) 200 Asphalt/Good 30,000 SWL; 50,000 DWL Non-precision MIRL PAPI-4 (17, 35) 69 25,200

GATESVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (GOP)

Asphalt/Grooved/Good 50,000 SWL; 82,000 DWL Precision HIRL PAPI-4 (1); MALSR (19) 53 34,997

Surface Type/Condition: Strength Rating: Marking: Runway Lighting: Visual Approach Aids: Based Aircraft: Estimated Operations: Published Instrument Approach Procedures:

Asphalt/Good 12,000 SWL Non-precision MIRL PAPI-2 (17, 35) 10 4,500 None

Services Provided: Aviation Fuel; Hangar Leasing/Sales; Pilots Lounge

ABBREVIATION KEY: DWL - Dual Wheel Loading HIRL - High Intensity Runway Lighting ILS - Instrument Landing System MALSR - Medium Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights MIRL - Medium Intensity Runway Lighting NDB - Nondirectional Radio Beacon PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator SWL - Single Wheel Loading VOR - Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range

7 - ILS; RNAV; VOR/DME

Services Provided: Commercial Airline Service; Aviation Fuel; Aircraft Parking/Hangars; Pilot's Lounge; Aircraft Sales; Concierge Services; Aircraft Maintenance Source: FAA Form 5010-1, Airport Master Record

DRAFT Chapter One - 47

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 1P AREA AIRPORTS

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter One - 48

Population

Gross Regional Product (2009 dollars) $25,000

Year

City of Temple

Bell County

1970

33,431

124,483

11,196,730

204,053,325

1980

42,345

157,820

14,229,288

226,548,632

1990

46,109

191,088

16,986,510

248,709,873

USA

237,974

20,851,820

281,421,906

2010

63,378

310,235

25,145,561

308,745,538

326,843

26,448,193

316,128,839

1.8%

2.3%

2.0%

1.0%

$17,752

$1,200,000 $1,000,000

$15,000

$800,000 $10,000

$600,000

$9,632

$5,443

$200,000

$3,376

$0

Texas

$400,000

$6,831

$5,000

Bell County

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2015

$0

Year

* CAGR - Compound Annual Growth Rate Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Texas State Data Center

Source: Woods & Pool Economics, The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, 2014

Total Employment

Unemployment Rates (not seasonally adjusted)

Employment (County )

250,000

9 8 7

Unemployment Rate

$20,739

6

18,000,000 16,000,000

200,000

201,725 186,749

150,000

12,000,000

156,266

10,000,000 8,000,000

119,543

100,000 104,030 50,000

14,000,000

6,000,000

79,227

Employment (State)

CAGR*

70,190

Dollars (County ) Millions

54,514

$20,000

Millions Dollars (State)

$1,400,000

Texas

2000

2013 est.

$1,600,000

Bell County Texas

4,000,000 2,000,000

5

-

-

1970

1980

1990

4

Year

2000

2010

2015

Source: Woods & Pool Economics, The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, 2014

3

Per Capita Personal Income (2009 dollars) 2

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year City of Temple

Bell County

Texas

Dollars

1

$45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0

Bell County Texas

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2015

Year Source: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

DRAFT Chapter One - 49

Economics, The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source Source, 2014 Source: Woods & Pool Economics

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 1Q SOCIOECOMIC DATA

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter One - 50

1. In what ZIP code is your home or business located that is primarily associated with your aircraft?  The vast majority of responses came from zip codes within Bell County and primarily within the 76502 and 76513 zip codes.

2. What is the “n” number(s) for the aircraft that you own/operate?  Respondents listed 55 individual aircraft “n” numbers. The majority of which (46) were single‐ engine piston aircraft; however, three turboprop aircraft, a helicopter, and a jet aircraft were also reported.

3. Please indicate what percentage of your flight activity involves each of the following: Corporate/business; recreational; student training; instructor (CFI); air taxi (passenger); air taxi (cargo); other.  The majority of respondents reported that their flight activity primarily involves recreational flying with the second most common activity being corporate/business flying.

4. There are two types of operations: itinerant and local. Approximately how many operations (takeoffs and landings) per month does your aircraft average at TPL?  The number of estimated local operations per month ranged from zero (0) to 50 with an average of seven total local operations per respondent per month. The range for itinerant operations was from zero (0) to 30 per month with an average of three total itinerant operations per respondent per month.

5. At what airport is your aircraft currently based?  About 46 percent of respondents reported TPL as their base airport. The remaining respondents reported base airports including Georgetown Municipal Airport, Skylark Field Airport, Austin Ex‐ ecutive, and Austin‐Bergstrom International Airport. A few of the respondents also reported out‐ of‐state base airports in Louisiana and Alabama.

6. Please rank the following reasons for deciding where to base your aircraft from the most important (1) to the least important (8): convenience; availability of aircraft storage hangar space; availability of FBO ser‐ vices; cost of FBO services; lower aircraft storage costs; available runway length; navigational aids; secu‐ rity/safety related issues.  Respondents overwhelmingly ranked convenience (closer to where they live or work) as the most important reason for deciding where to base their aircraft. Availability of hangar facilities was the second most important reason, with none of the other responses ranking nearly as high as those two reasons.

7. If your aircraft is/are not based at TPL, please rank the following reasons for deciding to base your aircraft elsewhere from the most important (1) to the least important (8): convenience; unavailability of aircraft storage hangar space; availability of FBO services; cost of FBO services; lower aircraft storage costs; avail‐ able runway length; navigational aids; security/safety related issues.  Again, respondents overwhelmingly ranked convenience as the most important reason for basing their aircraft elsewhere from TPL. The second highest reason was that aircraft storage hangar space was unavailable at TPL.

DRAFT Chapter One - 51

8. Please indicate the type of parking or hangar space that you currently use for your aircraft.  The majority of respondents (66 percent) currently utilize a T‐hangar or an individual box/corpo‐ rate hangar. Only about five percent of respondents do not currently utilize an enclosed hangar or shade hangar, instead keeping their aircraft on an open tiedown space.

9. If it were available, please indicate the type of parking or hangar space that you would prefer to use for your aircraft.  T‐hangar or individual box/corporate hangar space is by far the most desired aircraft storage op‐ tion, as indicated by over 80 percent of respondents. Only one respondent indicated that they prefer their aircraft be stored on an open tiedown space.

10. Please rate the priority of improvements you consider most necessary at TPL: runway/taxiway; air‐ port/FBO services; aircraft apron area; aircraft hangars; navigational aids; security/safety.  Respondents indicated the highest priority needs at TPL are for increased aircraft storage hangar capacity, followed by improvements to the runway/taxiway pavements, and improved air‐ port/FBO services. The lowest priority areas were aircraft apron area pavements, and secu‐ rity/safety issues. Some other responses included adding non‐ethanol automobile fuel (MoGas) storage, locked gate access, and a restaurant to attract more traffic.

11. Please rate TPL in the following areas: geographic location; vehicle access roads; navaids; hangar facilities; runway pavement condition; taxiway pavement condition; apron pavement condition; FBO services.  The areas that received the most “excellent” or “good” ratings included the Airport’s geographic location, the runway pavement condition, and taxiway pavement conditions. The areas that re‐ ceived the most “fair” or “poor” ratings included the hangar facilities and the FBO services.

12. If you use TPL services, how do you rate the following expenses compared to other airports you may have utilized: fuel costs; flight training rates; aircraft rental rates; maintenance rates; aircraft storage/parking rates; charter rates?  The vast majority of respondents indicated that costs for each category were average when com‐ pared to other airports.

13. What additional amenities would you like to see added at TPL?  Over 66 percent of respondents indicated that they would like to see self‐service fuel added at TPL. Only 24 percent indicated they would like a self‐service aircraft maintenance facility. Other responses included adding MoGas; on‐field restaurant; more hangar space; and a courtesy car.

14. What are TPL’s strengths with regard to its services and facilities?  Sample responses include: Great staff; great location; good runways, FBO; good training; close to VOR; pleasant service, responsive linemen and office personnel; excellent ramp facilities, wash rack; good fuel service; City management; availability of an ILS.

15. What are TPL’s weaknesses with regards to services and facilities?  Sample responses include: lack of courtesy car; hangar availability; need east/west runway; on‐ site restaurant; need corporate pilot sleep rooms; lacking high‐quality FBO services; need staffed tower; high fuel prices; no self‐service fuel; hangars need maintenance work to prevent leaky roofs.

DRAFT Chapter One - 52

16. Do you have any comments regarding the future development of Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport?  Sample responses include: future growth and more hangars; clean out non‐aviation use hangars; safety; add non‐ethanol MoGas; more progressive maintenance and avionics repair/testing for small private and corporate cabin aircraft; more security; focus on bringing in new tenants/busi‐ nesses; add a staffed tower; turn old terminal into a restaurant; be careful not to drive up prices on the little guy; protect approach procedures.

ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY

The purpose of the following environmental inventory is to identify potential environmental sensitivities that might affect future improvements at the Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Airport. The Airport is lo‐ cated within Bell County, within an area of Texas designated as the Texas Hill Country by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The Airport itself is located several miles east of the Belton Lake/Leon River recreational area.

The following information regarding environmental resources of the region has been comprised from internet sites, agency maps, and other existing literature.

AIR QUALITY

The Airport is located in an attainment area for all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria pollutants, as of January 30, 2015.4 Airports in attainment areas are assumed to conform to the require‐ ments of the General Conformity Rule provided in the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Federal Aviation Administra‐ tion [FAA] Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 2.1j).

COASTAL RESOURCES

Bell County is not located within a coastal area nor is it within the jurisdictional area of a State Coastal Management Program.5 The Airport is located approximately 185 miles from the Gulf Coast.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT: SECTION 4(F)

Bell County has numerous public recreational areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and significant historic sites. The closest Section 4(f) resource to the Airport is the Cedar Creek Wildlife Management Area, located just northwest of the Airport. Other urban parks are located more than one mile away in Morgan Point or in City residential neighborhoods. Recreational areas and trails associated with Belton Lake, 4 http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/anayo_tx.html, accessed March 2015.

5

http://www.glo.texas.gov/what‐we‐do/caring‐for‐the‐coast/_documents/landing‐page‐folder/CoastalBoundaryMap.pdf, accessed March 2015.

DRAFT Chapter One - 53

Leon River, and Miller Springs Nature Center are located two to four miles west and southwest of the Airport. The nearest historic property listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is located approximately four miles southeast in the City of Temple.6

FARMLANDS

According to the Soil Survey website of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conser‐ vation Service (NRCS), soils on Airport property include both prime and non‐prime farmland.7 Therefore, the Farmland Protection Policy Act is potentially applicable to development at the Airport. Soils consid‐ ered prime farmland that are present on the Airport are listed below. See also Exhibit 1R.

 CrA, Crawford silty clay, 0‐1 percent slopes  CrB, Crawford silty clay, 1‐3 percent slopes Most soils located within the  DeB, Denton silty clay, 1‐3 percent slopes airfield and developed areas of  HoA, Houston Black clay, 0‐1 percent slopes the Airport are rated as “not  LeC, Lewisville silty clay, 3‐5 percent slopes prime farmland.”  SaA, San Saba clay, 0‐1 percent slopes  SaB, San Saba clay, 1‐3 percent slopes

Prime farmland is located primarily along the southwestern Airport boundary with Airport Road, in iso‐ lated areas south and southeast of the primary runway and in the northwestern quadrant of Airport property. Most soils located within the airfield and developed areas of the Airport are rated as “not prime farmland.” None of the Airport is currently in agricultural production.

FISH, WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

The Airport is vegetated with grasses and other ruderal vegetation created by ongoing airfield manage‐ ment activities. However, portions of the Airport are also heavily vegetated with bushes and mature trees, especially along the Airport perimeter and in the northern part of Airport property.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) maintains a list of federally protected species that have the potential to occur in a given area. These include species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Based on the Service’s online environmental tool, which accesses its Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC), there are three endangered species, one threatened species, and two candidate species that should be addressed when considering projects at the Airport. Based on Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) An‐ notated County Lists of Rare Species, the Airport may also contain additional state‐listed species that are known to occur in Bell County. Potential federal or state protected species of concern are listed in Table 1J. 6

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html, accessed March 2015.

7 http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed March 2015.

DRAFT Chapter One - 54

ƒ

:

ƒ

:

)DUPODQG &ODVVLILFDWLRQ²%HOO &RXQW\ 7H[DV 7HPSOH $LUSRUW 03

ƒ

1

ƒ

1

0$3 /(*(1'

$UHD RI ,QWHUHVW $2,

$UHD RI ,QWHUHVW $2,

6RLOV 6RLO 5DWLQJ 3RO\JRQV 1RW SULPH IDUPODQG $OO DUHDV DUH SULPH

IDUPODQG

ƒ

:

XYZ 1

0DS 6FDOH LI SULQWHG RQ $ SRUWUDLW [ VKHHW

1

)HHW

ƒ

1

0HWHUV

Refer to text for definition of

0DS 6FDOH LI SULQWHG RQ $ SRUWUDLW [ VKHHW 0DS SURMHFWLRQ :HE 0HUFDWRU &RUQHU FRRUGLQDWHV :*6 (GJH WLFV 870 =RQH 1 :*6 Soil Types 0HWHUV

)HHW

0DS SURMHFWLRQ :HE 0HUFDWRU &RUQHU FRRUGLQDWHV :*6 (GJH WLFV 870 =RQH 1 :*6

DRAFT Chapter One - 55

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

ƒ

:

ƒ

1

Exhibit 1R FARMLAND CLASSIFICATION ON AIRPORT

TABLE 1J Federal or State Listed Species that may Potentially Occur in the Airport Vicinity Species Federal Listing State Listing Known Habitat Needs Amphibians Salado Salamander Threatened Not Listed Endemic; surface springs and subterranean waters of the Salado Springs system along Salado Creek Birds Black‐capped vireo Endangered Endangered Oak‐juniper woodlands with distinctive patchy, two‐layered aspect; shrub and tree layer with open, grassy spaces with foliage reaching to ground level Golden‐cheeked Endangered Endangered Juniper‐oak woodlands; dependent on Ashe juniper (cedar) warbler for long fine bark strips from mature trees used in nest con‐ struction Bald eagle De‐Listed Threatened Found primarily near rivers and large lakes; nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water Whooping crane Endangered Endangered Potential migrant via plains throughout most of state to coast Clams/Mollusks Smooth pimpleback Candidate Threatened Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs; mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel with very slow to moderate flow rates Texas fawnsfoot Candidate Threatened Little known; possibly rivers and larger streams, and intol‐ erant of impoundment; flowing rice irrigation canals, possi‐ ble sand, gravel, and perhaps sandy‐mud bottoms in mod‐ erate flows Reptiles Texas horned lizard Not Listed Threatened Open, arid and semi‐arid regions with sparse vegetation, in‐ cluding grass, cactus, scattered brush or scrubby trees; bur‐ rows into soil, enters rodent burrows, or hides under rock when inactive Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC). Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/, accessed March 2015; TPWD, Annotated County Lists of Rare Species. Available at: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/gis/ris/es/ES_Reports.aspx?county=Bell, accessed March 2015.

Migratory birds may nest, winter, or migrate throughout the area. According to the Service, migratory birds that may be affected by projects at the Airport are as follows: bald eagle, Bell’s vireo, burrowing owl, dickcissel, fox sparrow, Harris’s sparrow, Hudsonian godwit, lark bunting, Le Conte’s sparrow, least bittern, little blue heron, loggerhead shrike, Mississippi kite, orchard oriole, painted bunting, prothonotary war‐ There are no designated critical bler, red‐headed woodpecker, rusty blackbird, scissor‐ habitats or National Wildlife Ref‐ tailed flycatcher, short‐eared owl, and Sprague’s pipit. uges within the vicinity of the Air‐

port.

There are no designated critical habitats or National Wildlife Refuges within the vicinity of the Airport.

DRAFT Chapter One - 56

FLOODPLAINS

FEMA’s Flood Insurance map was consulted to determine potential flooding issues related to the Airport.

The Airport is designated as Zone X, Other Areas, which designates areas that have been determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance (500‐year) floodplain, on the appropriate FEMA floodplain map (Community Panel No. 48027C0170E, effective date September 26, 2008).8 Thus, no 100‐year floodplains occur at the Airport.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE

According to EPA’s EJView online tool, there are no sites at the Airport that currently report to EPA; there are also no known environmental hazards, such as SUPERFUND sites, brownfields, or sites on the Na‐ tional Priority List (NPL) in the Airport vicinity.9 The Airport does have several aboveground fuel tanks as well as an ARFF facility and aircraft maintenance facilities on the premises. Previous underground fuel storage tanks are no longer in use and have been filled with concrete (Airport Master Plan Final Report, June 2001). The Airport maintains a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, dated August 2009.

HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

There are no NRHP‐listed cultural resources sites located at the Airport and much of the Airport has been disturbed through the development and maintenance of the property as an airfield. However, unless an on‐ground cultural survey is undertaken for those areas not previously disturbed, the presence of po‐ tentially significant cultural resources cannot be definitively dismissed. There have been several archae‐ ological sites recorded near Clear Creek north of the Airport (Airport Master Plan Final Report, June 2001).

WATER QUALITY

The Airport includes portions of two different subwatersheds: Cedar Creek subwatershed north of the airfield; and Pepper Creek/Leon River subwatershed for the remainder of the Airport. According to the EPA’s online MyWATERs Mapper, these do not contain waters listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.10 Storm water flows from the airfield northwest towards Cedar Creek and south and east towards Pepper Creek.

8

http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?KEY=95133131&IFIT=1, accessed March 2015. http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/ejmap.aspx?wherestr=Temple%20Airport%2C%20Temple%2C%20Texas, accessed March 2015.

10 http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mwm/, accessed March 2015.

9

DRAFT Chapter One - 57

Water quality at the Airport is protected through the Airport’s Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Storm Water Multi‐sector General Permit No. TXR05M524. As a condition of this permit, the Airport must implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and conduct monitoring, reporting, and periodic inspections. The current permit expires on August 14, 2016, unless otherwise amended.

WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

According to the NRCS Soil Survey, there are no hydric soils present on the Airport property.11 Hydric soils are one indication that wetlands may be present. However, the National Wetland Inventory does show several freshwater ponds located on, or near, the Airport.12 These ponds are man‐made ponds, some of which are only seasonally flooded. Some, however, are permanently flooded and all have the potential to support wetland emergent vegetation. Two of the ponds are located on Airport property in the northernmost corner (Exhibit 1S).

Any on‐airport streams or drainages may potentially be considered waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. These drainages, if providing connectivity to navigable waters such as Leon River and Belton Lake, would be under the management of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

There are no Wild or Scenic Rivers, as designated by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, in the vicinity of the Airport. The only Wild or Scenic River designation in Texas is the Rio Grande, located along the southwestern border of the State. There are no rivers in Bell County that are listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 13

11

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed March 2015. http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mwm/, accessed March 2015.

13 http://www.rivers.gov/, accessed March 2015.

12

DRAFT Chapter One - 58

Sources: USEPA, MyWATERS Mapper, March 2015

DRAFT Chapter One - 59

Airport Property Line Subwatershed Boundary Freshwater Emergent Freshwater Forested/Shrub

LEGEND Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Freshwater Pond Lake AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Riverine Cedar Creek National Hydrologic Data -Other Other Exhibit 1S WATER RESOURCES AND WETLANDS IN VICINITY OF AIRPORT

CHAPTER TWO

Aviation Demand Forecasts

An important factor when planning the future needs of an airport involves a defini. on of avia on demand that may reasonably be expected to occur in both the near term (five years) and long term (20 years). For a general avia on airport such as Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport (TPL or Airport), forecasts of based aircra and opera ons (takeoffs and landings) serve as the basis for facility planning.

The Federal Avia on Administra on (FAA) has oversight responsibility to review and approve avia on forecasts developed in conjunc on with airport planning studies. The FAA reviews such forecasts with the objec ve of comparing them to the FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) and the NaƟonal Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). In addi on, avia on ac vity forecasts are an important input to the benefit-cost analyses associated with some airport development projects.

FAA Order 5090.3C, Field FormulaƟon of the NaƟonal Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, dated December 4, 2004, states that forecasts should be: • • • • •

Realis c Based on the latest available data Reflec ve of current condi ons at the airport Supported by informa on in the study Able to provide adequate jus fica on for airport planning and development

DRAFT Chapter Two - 1

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

The forecast process for an airport master plan consists of a series of basic steps that vary in complexity depending upon the issues to be addressed and the level of effort required. The steps include a review of previous forecasts, determination of data needs, identification of data sources, collection of data, selection of forecast methods, preparation of the forecasts, and evaluation and documentation of the results. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070‐6B, Airport Master Plans, outlines seven standard steps involved in the forecast process, including:

1) Identify Aviation Activity Measures: The level and type of aviation activities likely to impact facility needs. For general aviation, this typically includes based aircraft and operations.

2) Review Previous Airport Forecasts: May include the FAA Terminal Area Forecast, state or regional system plans, and previous master plans.

3) Gather Data: Determine what data are required to prepare the forecasts, identify data sources, and collect historical and forecast data.

4) Select Forecast Methods: There are several appropriate methodologies and techniques available, including regression analysis, trend analysis, market share or ratio analysis, exponential smoothing, econometric modeling, comparison with other airports, survey techniques, cohort analysis, choice and distribution models, range projections, and professional judgment.

5) Apply Forecast Methods and Evaluate Results: Prepare the actual forecasts and evaluate for rea‐ sonableness.

6) Summarize and Document Results: Provide supporting text and tables as necessary.

7) Compare Forecast Results with FAA’s TAF: Follow guidance in FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formula‐ tion of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. In part, the Order indicates that forecasts should not vary significantly (more than 10 percent) from the TAF. When there is a greater than 10 percent variance, supporting documentation should be supplied to the FAA.

The aviation demand forecasts are then submitted to the FAA for their approval. Master plan forecasts for operations and based aircraft for general aviation airports are considered to be consistent with the TAF if they meet certain criteria:

Where the 5‐ or 10‐year forecasts exceed 100,000 total annual operations or 100 based aircraft:

a) Forecasts differ by less than 10 percent in the 5‐year forecast and 15 percent in the 10‐year period, or b) Forecasts do not affect the timing or scale of an airport project, or c) Forecasts do not affect the role of the airport as defined in the current version of FAA Order 5090.3C.

Aviation activity can be affected by many influences on the local, regional, and national levels, making it virtually impossible to predict year‐to‐year fluctuations of activity over 20 years with any certainty.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 2

Therefore, it is important to remember that forecasts are to serve only as guidelines, and planning must remain flexible enough to respond to a range of unforeseen developments.

The following forecast analysis for Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport was produced follow‐ ing these basic guidelines. Existing forecasts are examined and compared against current and historic activity. The historical aviation activity is then examined along with other factors and trends that can affect demand. The intent is to provide an updated set of aviation‐demand projections for Draughon‐ Miller Central Texas Regional Airport that will permit City of Temple officials to make planning adjust‐ ments as necessary to maintain a viable, efficient, and cost‐effective facility.

FORECASTING APPROACH

The development of aviation forecasts proceeds through both analytical and judgmental processes. A series of mathematical relationships is tested to establish statistical logic and rationale for projected growth. However, the judgment of the forecast analyst, based upon professional experience, knowledge of the aviation industry, and assessment of the local situation, is important in the final determination of the preferred forecast.

Beyond five years, the predictive reliability of the forecasts can diminish. Therefore, it is prudent for the airport to update the forecasts, reassess the assumptions originally made, and revise the forecasts based on current airport and industry conditions. Facility and financial planning usually require at least a 10‐ year preview, since it often takes several years to complete a major facility development program. How‐ ever, it is important to use forecasts which do not overestimate revenue‐generating capabilities or un‐ derstate demand for facilities needed to meet public (user) needs.

A wide range of factors are known to influence the aviation industry and can have significant impacts on the extent and nature of activity occurring in both the local and national markets. Technological ad‐ vances in aviation have historically altered and will continue to change the growth rates in aviation de‐ mand over time. A recent example is the substantial growth in the production and delivery of business jet aircraft, which resulted in a growth rate that far exceeded expectations. Such changes are difficult to predict, but over time, reasonable growth trends can be identified. Using a broad spectrum of demo‐ graphic, economic, and industry data, forecasts for Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport have been developed.

For each aviation demand indicator, such as based aircraft and operations, several forecasts are devel‐ oped. These forecasts are presented to define a reasonable planning envelope. The selected forecast for a particular demand indicator may be one of the forecasts or it may be an average of all of the fore‐ casts. Several standard statistical methods have been employed to generate various projections of avi‐ ation demand.

Trend series projections are probably the simplest and most familiar of the forecasting techniques. By fitting growth curves to historical demand data and then extending them into the future, a basic trend line projection is produced. A basic assumption of this technique is that outside factors will continue to affect aviation demand in much the same manner as in the past. As broad as this assumption may be, the trend line projection does serve as a reliable benchmark for comparing other projections.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 3

Correlation analysis provides a measure of a direct relationship between two separate sets of historic data. Should there be a reasonable correlation between the data, further evaluation using regression analysis may be employed.

Regression analysis measures the statistical relationship between dependent and independent varia‐ bles, yielding a “correlation coefficient.” The correlation coefficient (Pearson’s “r”) measures the asso‐ ciation between changes in a dependent variable and independent variable(s). If the r‐squared (r2) value (coefficient determination) is greater than 0.90, it indicates good predictive reliability. A value below 0.90 may be used with the understanding that the predictive reliability is lower.

Historical growth analysis is a simple forecasting method in which the historical compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is identified and then extended out to forecast years. This analysis method assumes factors that impacted growth in the past will continue into the future.

Market share analysis involves a historical review of airport activity as a percentage, or share, of a larger regional, state, or national aviation market. A historical market share trend is determined providing an expected market share for the future. These shares are then multiplied by the forecasts of the larger geographical area to produce a market share projection. This method has the same limitations as trend line projections, but can provide a useful check on the validity of other forecasting techniques.

Utilizing these statistical methods, available existing forecasts, and analyst expertise, forecasts of aviation demand for Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport have been devel‐ oped. The remainder of this chapter presents the aviation de‐ mand forecasts and includes activity in two broad categories: based aircraft and annual operations.

NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS AND FORECASTS

Each year, the FAA updates and publishes a national aviation fore‐ cast. Included in this publication are forecasts for the large air carriers, regional/commuter air carriers, general aviation, and FAA workload measures. The forecasts are prepared to meet budget and planning needs of the constituent units of the FAA and to provide information that can be used by state and local authorities, the aviation industry, and the general public. The cur‐ rent edition when this chapter was prepared was FAA Aerospace Forecasts – Fiscal Years 2015‐2035, published in March 2015. The FAA primarily uses the economic performance of the United States as an indicator of future aviation industry growth. Similar economic analyses are applied to the outlook for aviation growth in international markets. The following discussion is summarized from the FAA Aero‐ space Forecasts.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 4

U.S. ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Since the beginning of the century, the aviation industry has suffered several major shocks that have led to reduced demand for air travel. These shocks include the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, periods of rising fuel prices, and the most significant global economic recession since the Great Depression. Ac‐ cording to the FAA Forecast report, as the economy recovers from the most serious economic downturn and slow recovery in recent history, aviation will continue to grow over the long run. Fundamentally, demand for aviation is driven by economic activity. As economic growth picks up, so will growth in avi‐ ation activity. In the next five years, growth is anticipated to be somewhat muted, primarily due to uncertainty that surrounds the U.S. and global economies.

U.S. economic performance in 2014 was mixed with modest growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) and real incomes, a falling unemployment rate, and oil prices and consumer inflation remaining in check.

The economy grew at an average annual rate of 2.6 percent in fiscal year (FY) 2014 after expanding 1.8 percent in FY 2013. GDP growth was strong in the second half of the year after shrinking in the second quarter due to the negative effects of the polar vortex. Posi‐ tive signs in the data included a recovering stock market and In the next five years, growth is steady improvement in the labor market with almost 2.8 mil‐ anticipated to be somewhat lion new jobs created during the year. muted, primarily due to uncer‐

tainty that surrounds the U.S. During FY 2014, the rate of job creation picked up, and the and global economies. improvement in the labor market was reflected in the falling unemployment rate. The price for oil remained fairly stable throughout FY 2014, averaging $97.76 per barrel, down 3.0 percent from the FY 2013 figure of $100.78. Consumer prices also increased in FY 2014 with core inflation (excluding food and energy) growing at a moderate 1.7 percent, while headline infla‐ tion (including food and energy) was up 1.6 percent.

Entering 2015, questions remain about whether the U.S. and global economies are on firm ground and whether oil prices will rebound sharply or remain at current levels. A decline in oil prices would usually lead to faster economic growth; however, a higher dollar, slower foreign economic growth, and reduced investment in energy drilling equipment and infrastructure, mitigates a significant portion of the growth benefit from lower oil and gasoline prices. The U.S. economy is projected to experience accelerated growth through most of FY 2015 with projected increases of 2.1 to 3.1 percent on an annualized basis for the next two years. In the medium term (the three‐year period between 2016 and 2019), U.S. eco‐ nomic growth is projected to average 2.6 percent per year with rates ranging between 2.4 and 2.7 per‐ cent. Income growth picks up during the same period, averaging 3.2 percent per year. For the balance of the forecast period, annual average growth of the U.S. real GDP growth and real income slow to 2.4 and 2.5 percent, respectively. The long‐term stability of U.S. economic growth depends on sustained growth in the workforce and capital stock along with improved productivity and competitiveness.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 5

GENERAL AVIATION

The general aviation (GA) industry continued modest growth in 2014, especially in the business jet and single‐engine piston categories. Turboprop and multi‐engine piston growth slowed from 2013 levels.

According to data released by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), U.S. manufac‐ turers of GA aircraft delivered 1,631 aircraft in CY 2014, 1.0 percent more than CY 2013. This is the fourth year of increased shipments. Overall piston deliveries increased by 4.5 percent, with single‐engine deliveries up 6.2 The general aviation (GA) in‐ percent but the much smaller multi‐engine category down dustry continued modest 10.0 percent. Turbojet deliveries were up by 12.3 percent, and turboprop deliveries were down by 11.2 percent in growth in 2014, especially in 2014. U.S. billings in CY 2014 totaled $11.7 billion, up 5.6 the business jet and single‐en‐ gine piston categories. percent from 2013.

The FAA forecasts the fleet mix and hours flown for single‐engine piston aircraft, multi‐engine piston aircraft, turboprops, business jets, piston and turbine helicopters, light sport, experimental, and others (gliders and balloons). The FAA forecasts “active aircraft,” not total aircraft. An active aircraft is one that is flown at least one hour during the year. Exhibit 2A presents the historical and forecast U.S. active general aviation aircraft.

After growing rapidly for most of the past decade and then slowing over the past few years, the most recent shipment activity indicates the modest growth continues in the overall GA market. While the recovery in the business jet market has been slow, 2014 recorded the first increase in shipments by U.S. manufacturers since 2008. The long term forecast calls for robust growth driven by higher corporate profits and the growth of worldwide GDP, though at rates slightly lower than those predicted last year.

Continued concerns about safety, security, and flight delays keep business aviation attractive relative to commercial air travel. Overall, business aviation is projected to outpace personal/recreational use.

The active general aviation fleet is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.4 percent through 2035, growing from a 2014 estimate of 198,860 to 214,260 in 2035. The turbine fleet, including helicop‐ ters, is forecast to grow annually at 2.4 percent, growing from 28,085 in 2014 to 45,905 in 2035. The fixed wing jet aircraft portion is forecast to grow 2.8 percent annually from a 2014 estimate of 11,750 to 20,815 in 2035. The turbine helicopter segment is forecast to grow 2.8 percent annually reaching 12,120 by 2035.

Piston‐powered aircraft, including helicopters, are projected to decrease from the 2014 total of 139,890 to 125,935 through 2035, with declines in both single and multi‐engine fixed wing aircraft but growth in piston helicopters. Over the forecast period, piston‐powered fixed‐wing aircraft are projected to de‐ crease by an average annual rate of 0.6 percent. Although piston helicopters are forecast to increase by 2.1 percent a year, they are a relatively small portion of this segment of general aviation aircraft and, therefore, have little effect on the overall trend. Single‐engine fixed‐wing piston aircraft, which are much more numerous, are projected to decline at an annual rate of 0.6 percent, while multi‐engine fixed wing piston aircraft are projected to decline by 0.4 percent a year.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 6

U.S. Active General Aviation Aircraft FIXED WING Piston Single Engine Multi-Engine Turbine Turboprop Turbojet

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

122,435 13,175

117,770 12,920

113,905 12,545

110,635 12,230

108,810 12,135

9,390 11,915

9,315 13115

9,855 15,000

11,155 17,565

12,970 20,815

3,335 7,105

3,785 8,410

4,165 9,595

4,555 10,805

4,990 12,120

24,880

26,795

28,875

30,975

33,040

2,355

3,170

3,970

4,705

5,360

4,190

4,130

4,060

4,055

4,020

198,780

199,410

201,970

206,680

214,260

ROTORCRAFT Piston Turbine EXPERIMENTAL SPORT AIRCRAFT OTHER TOTAL 275

Forecast

Historical

Aircraft (in thousands)

250

225

200

175

150

‘14

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2015-2035.

Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown at least one hour during the calendar year.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 7

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 2A U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT FORECASTS

The FAA began tracking the light sport aircraft segment of the general aviation fleet in 2005. At the end of 2014, a total of 2,200 of these aircraft were estimated. By 2035, a total of 5,360 light sport aircraft are forecast to be in the fleet for an annual growth rate of 4.3 percent.

RISKS TO THE FORECASTS

While the FAA is confident that its forecasts for aviation demand and activity can be achieved, this hinges on a number of factors, including the strength of the global economy, security (including the threat of international terrorism), and the level of oil prices. Higher oil prices could lead to further shifts in con‐ sumer spending away from aviation, dampening a recovery in air transport demand. In the long term, the FAA foresees a competitive and profitable industry characterized by increasing demand for air travel and airfares growing more slowly than inflation.

AIRPORT SERVICE AREA

In determining aviation demand for an airport, it is necessary to identify the role of that airport.

Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is classified as a regional general aviation airport in the NPIAS. As such, the primary role of the airport is to support the regional economies and connect the community to regional and national markets. General aviation is a term used to describe a diverse range of aviation activities, which includes all segments of the aviation industry except commercial air carriers and the military. General aviation is the largest component of the national aviation system and includes activities such as pilot training, recreational flying, and the use of sophisticated turboprop and jet aircraft for business and corporate use.

The initial step in determining the general aviation demand for an airport is to define its generalized service area. The airport service area is a generalized geographical area where there is a potential mar‐ ket for airport services, particularly based aircraft. Access to general aviation airports and transportation networks enter into the equation to determine the size of a service area, as well as the quality of aviation facilities, distance, and other subjective criteria.

Typically, the service area for a general aviation airport can extend up to 30 miles. The proximity and level of general aviation services are largely the defining factors when describing the general aviation service area. A description of nearby airports was previously completed in Chapter One. Seven public‐ use airports are located within 30 nautical miles of Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, in‐ cluding Skylark Field Airport in Killeen; McGregor Executive Airport; Robert Gray AAF Airport in Killeen; Gatesville Municipal Airport; Cameron Municipal Airport; Valley Mills Municipal Airport; and Waco Re‐ gional Airport.

When discussing the general aviation service area, two primary demand segments need to be addressed.

The first segment is the airport’s ability to attract based aircraft. Almost universally, aircraft owners choose to base at an airport nearer their home or business. Convenience is the most common reason for basing at a particular airport, which was confirmed by the respondents to the survey conducted for this Master Plan (see AOPA User Survey in Chapter One).

DRAFT Chapter Two - 8

Exhibit 2B depicts the location of aircraft registrations in the region for 2004, 2009, and 2014. According to this data, the number of registered aircraft within 10 nautical miles of the Airport has grown from 93 in 2004 to 120 in 2014. This 10 nautical mile ring represents the primary service area and is contained almost entirely within Bell County. TPL still has the ability to attract based aircraft from areas outside the 10 nautical mile ring; however, pilots have more basing options with Skylark Field (ILE) closer to the Killeen area southwest of TPL; McGregor Executive Airport (PWG) and Waco Regional Airport (ACT) cov‐ ering the Waco area and southern McLennan County north of TPL; Cameron Municipal Airport (T35) covering northwest Milam County southeast of TPL; Gatesville Municipal Airport (GOP) covering Coryell County to the northwest; and Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) further to the south covering Wil‐ liamson County. A secondary market area could cover southwestern Falls County; however, the data shows there are very few registered aircraft in this area.

The second segment is itinerant aircraft operations. In most cases, transient aircraft operators will also elect to utilize airports nearer their intended destination. This, however, is highly dependent on the airport’s capabilities to accommodate the aircraft operator. As a result, the more attractive the facility, the more likely an airport will be to attract a larger portion of the region’s itinerant aircraft operations.

TPL has longer runways, higher pavement strength capacities, and better instrument approach capabili‐ ties than most of the neighboring general aviation airports giving it a distinct advantage.

Given these considerations, the primary The primary general aviation service area for based aircraft service area for TPL is a 10 TPL extends to all of Bell County with a second‐ to 20 nautical mile radius from the Air‐ ary service area extending to a 30 nautical mile port. Within this radius, the only other radius from the Airport and including portions public‐use airport facility is Skylark Field, of Falls County, McLennan County, Coryell which has a shorter runway length and is essentially landlocked by two highways County, Lampasas County, Burnet County, Wil‐ that may restrict if from future growth. liamson County, and Milam County.

Furthermore, TPL’s service area can be extended to all of Bell County to account for its advantages of attracting itinerant aircraft operations over the other County airports (Skylark Field and Robert Gray Army Airfield, which has very limited gen‐ eral aviation services). Therefore, the primary general aviation service area for TPL extends to all of Bell County with a secondary service area extending to a 30 nautical mile radius from the Airport and includ‐ ing portions of Falls County, McLennan County, Coryell County, Lampasas County, Burnet County, Wil‐ liamson County, and Milam County.

SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS

The socioeconomic conditions provide an important baseline for preparing aviation demand forecasts.

Local socioeconomic variables such as population, employment, and income are indicators for under‐ standing the dynamics of the community and can relate to local trends in aviation activity. Analysis of the demographics of the primary airport service area (Bell County) will give a more comprehensive un‐ derstanding of the socioeconomic situations affecting the region which supports Draughon‐Miller Cen‐ tral Texas Regional Airport. The following is a summary of historical demographic trends as well as fore‐ casts of those socioeconomic characteristics.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 9

Table 2A summarizes historical and forecast population, employment, and income estimates for Bell County and the State of Texas. Over the next 20 years, Bell County’s socioeconomic indicators are an‐ ticipated to grow at very similar rates as that of the State.

Detailed historical and forecasted socioeconomic data for the City of Temple was not readily available; however, the Texas Water Development Board has prepared population projections for the cities of Texas, and according to those projections, the City of Temple is anticipated to grow to 89,247 by 2040, a CAGR of 0.9 percent.

TABLE 2A

Socioeconomic Trends and Forecast

HISTORIC

2000

2010

2014

CAGR 2000‐2014

2019

2024

FORECAST

2029

2034

CAGR 2014‐2034

Bell County Population 237,974 310,235 329,799 2.4% 355,437 382,161 409,738 437,945 1.4% Employment 156,266 186,749 195,647 1.7% 214,510 231,767 250,530 270,934 1.6% Income (PCPI) $28,992 $37,109 $39,311 2.4% $41,823 $44,493 $47,524 $50,925 1.3% Texas Population 20,851,820 25,145,561 26,966,087 1.9% 29,193,817 31,212,758 33,281,994 35,266,791 1.4% Employment 12,151,393 14,296,234 15,141,299 1.7% 16,849,862 18,421,494 20,141,092 22,023,001 1.9% Income (PCPI) $34,292 $37,600 $39,400 1.1% $42,520 $45,857 $49,718 $54,148 1.6% CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate

PCPI ‐ Per Capita Personal Income ($2009)

Source: 2000 & 2010 Population – U.S. Census Bureau; All other historic and forecast data ‐ Woods & Poole Economics ‐ Complete Eco‐ nomic Demographic Data Source (CEDDS‐2014);

AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS

To determine the types and sizes of facilities that should be planned to accommodate aviation activity, certain elements of this activity must be forecast. Indicators of aviation demand include:

• Based Aircraft • Operations • Based Aircraft Fleet Mix • Peaking Period Operations

The remainder of this chapter will examine historical trends with regard to these areas of aviation de‐ mand and project future demand for these segments of activity at the Airport. These forecasts, once approved by the FAA, will become the basis for planning future facilities, both airside and landside, at the Airport.

FAA FORECASTS

In an effort to assist the FAA in developing its programs and budgets, the TAF is updated annually. FAA staffing standards and other resource models also use the TAF to forecast requirements for operating the airspace system. Historical and forecast data for airport operations and based aircraft help the FAA, state aviation authorities, and other aviation entities in planning for future airport improvements. The TAF is referenced throughout the remainder of this chapter as they relate to forecast aviation demand at Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 10

2004 p !

Bosque

Hubbard

p !

Bosque

West

County

! (

461

! (

Valley Mills

! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! (! (

9F1

p !

! ( ! ( ! (! (

! (

Jonesboro

! (

! (

pCoryell !

! (

Valley Mills

( !! (

! (

Mart

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

pCoryell !

! ( ! (

( ! (!

p !

! (

93

! (! ( ! ( ! (

! (

119

! (

! (

p !

p !

! ( ! (

! ( ! ! ( ( ( ! ( ! (!

! (

Bell

! (

! ( County

! (

! ( ( ! ( ! (!

! ( ! (

County

! (

! (! (

! (

! (

! (

Academy

! ( (! ( ( ! ! ! (

Salado

Salado ! (

! (

Burnet County Briggs

p !

! (

Cameron

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! (! (

p !

p !

Rosebud ! ( ! (

! ( ( ! (! ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! (! ! ( GTU (! ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ( (! ! ! (! (( ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! ( (! ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! (! ( !

Williamson ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ( ! ( County ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! ( ( ( ! (! ! ! (! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( !

Georgetown ! ! ( ! ( (( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( (! avis ( !! ! ! ! ( ( (! ! ( ( !(( ! ! ( ( ! ! (! ! ( (( ! ! ounty (! (! ! ! ( ( ( ! (! ! ( !! ( (! ( ( ! ( ! ( (! ! ! (! (! ( ! ( ! (( !

RYW ! ! ! ( ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ( ( ! ( ! ! ! ( (! ( ! ! (! (! ( (! ( ! ( (! ( ! ! ( ( ! (! (! ! (!

(Travis ! (! ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (!

County ! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

Granger

p !

! (

! (

Thorndale

!

(T74 ! ( ! ! ( ( !! !! ( ( (( ( ! ( !

p !

Taylor

! ! ( ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

p !

! (

2004 Registered Aircraft

! (

2009 Registered Aircraft

2014 Registered Aircraft

! (

p !

Cameron

! (

! (

Lott

Milano

p !

! (

RCK

! (! (

! ( ( ! (!

! !( (

! (

! (

Lee County ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

Burleso Countyavis unty

! (

! (

p !

! (

! ( ( RYW! ! (

p !

! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! (! ( ! ! ( ! (! (( ! (! ! !! (! ( (! ( ! ! (! ( ( ! (! ( ( ! ! ( ( (!

GTU (! (! ! ( (! ! (! ! ( (! (( (! (( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !

Williamson ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ! ( ( ( ! ( ! (! ( (County ! ( ! ( ! !! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( ( ! (! ! (! ! ! ( ( ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ! ! ( (( ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( Georgetown ( ! (! ! ( ! (

Cameron Milam County

! (

! ( ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! (!

! (

! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( (! ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( !! ! ! ( ( ( (! ! (! ( (( ! ! ( ! (! ( ! (! ! ( (! ! (! ((! ! ( ! ( ! ! (! ((

! ! ( (! ! ( ! (( ! ( ( !! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ! (( ( ! !! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( !! ( (! ( ( ( ! ( ! ! (! ! (! (! ! (! (( ! ! (! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Travis ! ! (! (( ! (! ( !! ( ! ( (

County

! (

T35

! ( (! ( ! (! ! (

! ( ! (

p !

! (

! (

p !

! (

Rosebud ! (

Bartlett

! (

Thorndale

!

T74 ( ( !! ( ! ! (( ( ! ( !! ( ! ( ( Taylor ! ! ! ( ( ! ( ! (

! ! ( (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (! ( (!

Robertso County

! (

Academy

! (! (

! (

! (

! (

Falls County

! (

! (

! (

Salado

! (

Milam County

Granger

! ( ! ( ! (

Burnet County Briggs

! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! (

! (

! (

T15

Marlin

! (

T35

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

Milano

Granger ! (! (

! (

! ( ! ( T74 ( !! ( ! ( ! !! (( ! ( ( ! ( ! ((! (! ( Taylor ! ! ( ! (

RCK R C

! (

Thorndale ! (

p !

NORTH

Burleso County

! (

NOT TO SCALE

! (

! (

p !

tty y

! (

LEGEND County Line Registered Aircraft

0 - 10

93

119

120

10 Miles

0 - 20

222

263

245

20 Miles

0 - 30

461

514

473

30 Miles

DRAFT Chapter Two - 11

! (

p !

p !

Distance in Miles

! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! (! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! !! ( ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ( Milano ! ( ! (! ! ( ( GTU ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ! ( ( !(( (( ! ( ! ! ( (! ! ! ! ( ( ( ! (! ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! (( ( ! (! ! ( Williamson RCK (! ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ! (! ( ! ( ( ! ( County ( ! ! ( !! ( (! ! ! (! ! ( ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Georgetown ! ! ( ( ! (! ! ! ( ( ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( Burleso ( ! (! ! ! ( ! ( ! ! ! (! ( ( (! ( ( (!

Countyravis ( ! ! ( ! ( ! (! (( ! ( ( ! ! ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ounty ! ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ! ! ( ! ( ( ( ! ( ( ( ! ! (! (! ( (! ! ! ! ! ( ( ! (( !

RYW ( ! (!

Lee ! (( (! (! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! ! ( (! ( ! (! ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( (!

County ! ((! ! (! !(( ( ( ! ( (! ( ( ( !

Travis ! (! ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !

County ( ! ! (! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! (

Bartlett

p !

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! (! (! ! ! ! (( ( ! ! ( ! (! ( ! ( (! ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ( ( ! ( ! ! ( (! ! !! ( ( ! (! (! ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( Temple ! ( ! ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ( Bell ! ( Belton ! ( ! ( ( ! !! ! ( (( County ( ! ( ! ! ( ( (! ! (!

! (

! ( ! (

! ( !! ( (

! (

Mart

!

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( Roberts pasas ! ( ! (! ( (! ( Fort Hood ! (! ! ( (! ( (! (! ! ( !

Count unty Copperas Cove ( ILE !

Killeen ( ( ! ! ( ! ! ( ! (! ( GRK ! ! ( ( ! ! (! ( ( ! (! (! ( (! ((! ! ( ! (!

! (! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! (

( !

! (

! (

( ! ! (

Draughon-Miller ! ( Central Texas ! ( ! ( Regional Airport ! (

( ! (!

Academy

! (

Milam County

Bartlett

! (

! ( ! (

! (

p !

! (

! (

! (

Burnet County Briggs

120

Lott

T35

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! ! ( ! ! ( ( (

! ( ! (

p!(!(!(!(!( !

p !

! (

! (

! (

p !

ACT

Limestone County

! (

CNW

! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ! ( ! (( ! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! (( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! (! ( ! (!

McLennan ( ! (! ( ! ! ! (! ( ! ( ! (( County ! (! ( ! ( (!

Waco ! ( ! ( ( (! ( ! (! ( ! ! ! (! (! ( ( ! (! ! ! ! ( ! (! (! ( PWG ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! (! ! ( ( (! ! (! ( (! (! !( ! ( ! ( (( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! (! ( ! (! ( ! ! (! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! !( (

Falls County

! ( ! (

! (

( !! (

! (

Marlin

! (

! ( ! ( ! (! (

! (

! (

North Fort Hood Mound

! (

! (

! (

pCoryell !

T15

! ( ! (

McGregor

! (

! (

! ( ! (( ! (! ! ( (! ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! (! ( ! ( (!

Temple ( ! ( ! ! ( (! ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( Bell ( Belton ! ( ! ! ( ! ( County ! (

p !

! (

!

!( ( ! ( ! (! ! ( (! ! ( (! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( (! ! (! ( ! ( ! (

! (

p !

Rosebud

! ( ! (! (

Belton

GOP! ! (! ( ! (! (( ! (

! (

! (

o

! (

! ( ( Roberts pasas ! (! !! ( ( Fort Hood ! ( (! ! ( ( ! !! ( ( (! ( ! ( (! ! (! (!

Count unty Copperas ! ILE Cove Killeen ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! (! ( GRK ! ! ( ( ( !! ! ! ( ( ! !! ! ( (! (( ( ! ( ! ( ((! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! (

! (

! (

Draughon-Miller ! ( Central! ( Texas ! ( ! ( Regional Airport

o

pasas unty Copperas Cove

! (

( ! ! !( ( ! (! (! ! ( ( ! (( ( ( ! ! ! ( ( ! (! (! ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! (! (!

Temple ( ( ! ( ! (!

! (

! ( ! (! (

!

! ( ! ( ! ((! ! ( (! ! ( (! ( ! (!

! (

! (

245!(

! (

! (

Lott

o

! ( ( ( ( ! ( ! ( !! ! ( (! ! ! (! ( ! ( ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ILE ( ! (!

Killeen ( ! ( ! (! ( GRK ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! (! ( ( ! ((! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ! (

! ( ( (Fort Hood ! ( ! ! (!

! (

! (

! (

! (

Draughon-Miller

! ( ! ( Central Texas ! Regional Airport ! ((

! ( (!

! ( ! (( (! ! (!

! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ( ( ! ! (! ( ! ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ( ! (!

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

Mart

! ( ! (

Falls County

! (

! ! ( ! ((

9F1

! (

! (

p !

! (

Marlin

! (

! (

p !

( Jonesboro !

! (

! (

! (

North Fort Hood Mound

! (

! (! ( (!

Valley Mills

! ( ! (

! (

473 !(!(

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

( ! ( !! ( ( (! ( ! ! (!

McGregor

County

T15

! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ((

! ( ! ! ( ! ( McLennan ( ! (( ! ( ( ! ! ! (! (! ( (! ( ( ! ! ((!

County ! (!! ! ( ! (! ( ! ( (Waco ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ! (

! ( ! (

! (! (! ( ! (

! (! !! ( ( (

! (

p !

263

GOP! (

p!(!(!(!( !

! ! ( ( ! ( (! ! (! ( (! ( ! ! (!

(PWG ! (! (! ! ( ! (! ( ( ( ! ! ( (! (! ! ! ( (! ( ! (! ( ! ! ( ( ( ( ! ( ! (! ( ! (! ! (

( (! ! (! ! (

p !

ACT

! (

! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! (! ( ! (! ( ! (! ( ! ((!

CNW

! (

! (

! (

Limeston County

! (

! (

! (

9F1

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

p !

Jonesboro

! (

( ! (!

McGregor

North Fort Hood Mound

! (

! (

514 !(

! (

! ( ! (

Hamilton County ! (

! ( ! ( ! (! (

! (

Hubbard

West

County ! (

! (

! (

! (! (

! (

p !

! (! ! ( (! ! ( ( ! (

!! !( ( (

! (

! ( ! ! ( !

McLennan ( !( ( ( ! (! ! (! ((! (! ! (! ! ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! (( !

County ( ! (! (! ( !

(Waco ( ! ! ! ( (! (! ( ( ! ( ! (! (

! ! ( (! (! ( ! ( ! ! (! ( (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( PWG ! ! ( ! ! ( ((! ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ((! ( ! ! ( ( ! ! (! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! (! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

222

GOP! (

! ( ! ( ( !! ( ! ( (! ( ! (!

! ( ( (! ! (! (! ! (

p !

! (! ( (! ! ( ( ! ( !! (

! (! (

ACT

p!(!(!( !

CNW

p !

Bosque

! (

Limeston County

! (

Hill County

7F7

West

! ( ! ( ! (

Hamilton County

! (

Hubbard

( !

County

! (

! (

2014 Hill County

7F7

! (

Hamilton County

County

2009

009 Hill County

7F7

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 2B SERVICE AREA REGISTERED AIRCRAFT

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Two - 12

REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECAST

The number of based aircraft is the most basic indicator of general aviation demand at an airport. By first developing a forecast of based aircraft, other demand segments can be projected utilizing the fore‐ cast trend in based aircraft. One method of forecasting based aircraft is to first examine local aircraft ownership by reviewing aircraft registrations in the region. As was previously established, the primary service area for the Airport is Bell County. Table 2B presents historical data regarding aircraft registered in Bell County. Trends show that the total number of registered aircraft in Bell County has fluctuated over the past 20 years to a high of 237 in 2011, and then dropped back to 206 by 2013. The decline from 2011 to 2013 is likely due to the FAA’s effort to create a more accurate aircraft registration database by requiring aircraft owners to re‐register their aircraft. On July 20, 2010, the FAA issued a rule that termi‐ nated the registration of all aircraft registered before October 1, 2010 over a three‐year period and re‐ quired re‐registration to retain U.S. civil aircraft status. As a result, previously registered aircraft that may have been sold, scrapped/destroyed, or registered to multiple addresses were dropped from the database. Since 2013, registered aircraft figures have increased to 209 in 2014 and grown to 223 as of March 2015.

TABLE 2B Historical Registered Aircraft Bell County, Texas Year SEP MEP TP 1994 109 8 0 1995 113 11 0 1996 105 10 0 1997 117 9 0 1998 120 9 0 1999 123 11 1 2000 135 14 1 2001 137 10 5 2002 140 10 5 2003 146 9 7 2004 151 6 4 2005 156 6 4 2006 153 9 1 2007 163 15 1 2008 158 10 1 2009 169 9 2 2010 176 9 2 2011 180 9 1 2012 168 8 1 2013 159 9 1 2014 163 9 0 2015 180 8 0 Source: FAA Aircraft Registration Database Key: SEP ‐ Single‐Engine Piston MEP ‐ Multi‐engine Piston

Jet 4 5 4 5 5 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 11 11 7 7 6 6 6 4

Rotor 2 4 4 4 4 5 9 9 9 10 9 12 14 14 14 11 18 17 14 9 9 8

Other 8 8 7 7 9 9 10 10 10 10 12 14 14 19 24 21 21 23 22 22 22 23

Total 131 141 130 142 147 155 176 177 180 188 188 198 195 218 218 223 233 237 219 206 209 223

TP ‐ Turboprop

The first forecast considers the relationship between historical registered aircraft and the population.

By maintaining the average ratio of aircraft per 1,000 people over the past 20 years (0.63), a long term forecast emerges, resulting in 278 registered aircraft by 2034 and a compound annual growth rate DRAFT Chapter Two - 13

(CAGR) of 1.4 percent. A second forecast was prepared to consider a growth scenario similar to what was experienced during the past 20‐year period, which resulted in a CAGR of 2.4 percent. Maintaining this CAGR over the next 20‐year period results in 333 registered aircraft by 2034.

A forecast has been developed utilizing a market share ratio of the active U.S. general aviation fleet as forecast by the FAA. In 2014, County registered aircraft represented 0.105 percent of the total general aviation fleet of 198,860. This rate is higher than the Airport’s 20‐year average of 0.088 percent. The highest market share the Airport achieved was 0.108 percent in 2011. Maintaining the current market share over the forecast periods results in 223 County registered aircraft by 2034 and a CAGR of 0.33 percent.

Another forecast considers the possibility of recapturing the 20‐year high market share of registered aircraft of 0.108 percent by 2034. This forecast results in 228 registered aircraft in the County by 2034 and a CAGR of 0.44 percent.

Several regression forecasts were prepared, including single‐variable regressions examining registered aircraft’s correlation with Bell County population, employment, and per capita personal income (PCPI) growth trends and its correlation with U.S. active general aviation aircraft. Multiple variable regressions were also prepared combining the various variables. An r2 value of over 0.9 is the general threshold to determine dependability.

The highest r2 value by a single‐variable regression was from the PCPI regression, which had an r2 value of 0.88. This regression resulted in 300 registered aircraft in the County by 2034 and a CAGR of 1.82 percent. The highest r2 value multi‐variable regression resulted from the population and U.S. active general aviation fleet variables, which had an r2 value of 0.941. This multi‐variable regression resulted in 299 registered aircraft in the County by 2034 at a CAGR of 1.8 percent.

Examining the past 20‐year period, the County has experi‐ The County has experienced mod‐ enced modest growth in registered aircraft and it is antici‐ pated that this trend will continue into the next 20‐year pe‐ est growth in registered aircraft riod as population and economic growth is expected to and it is anticipated that this continue. Ultimately, the selected forecast for registered trend will continue into the next aircraft in Bell County is the multiple‐variable regression 20‐year period as population and with population and U.S. active general aviation fleet. economic growth is expected to These two variables typically have the strongest correla‐ continue. tion to registered aircraft growth and take into account both local and national trends. The resulting total registered aircraft in the County is forecasted at 234 in 2019, 253 in 2024, and 299 in 2034. Exhibit 2C and Table 2C summarize each of the registered aircraft forecasts for Bell County. These registered aircraft forecasts will be one element considered in the fol‐ lowing based aircraft forecasts.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 14

350 FORECAST

HISTORICAL

300

250

200

150

100

50

‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99

1994

‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04

2000

‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09

2005

‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14

2010

‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19

2015

‘21 ‘22 ‘23 ‘24

2020

‘26 ‘27 ‘28 ‘29

2025

‘31 ‘32 ‘33

2030

2034

LEGEND Constant Market Share of U.S. Active GA Aircraft (0.105%) Recapture High Market Share of US Active GA Aircraft (.108%) Growth Trend - 1994-2014 Growth Trend (2.4%) Constant Ratio of Registered Aircraft Per 1,000 Residents (Bell County) Single Variable Regression - Per Capita Personal Income Multiple Regression (Population & US Active GA Aircraft) - Selected Forecast

DRAFT Chapter Two - 15

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 2C: BELL COUNTY REGISTERED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS

TABLE 2C Summary of Registered Aircraft Forecasts Bell County, Texas

Market Share of U.S. Active GA Aircraft Constant Market Share (0.105%) Recapture High Market Share (0.108%) Registered Aircraft Per 1,000 Residents (Bell Co.) Constant Ratio Projection (Ratio = 0.63) Historic CAGR Projection 1994‐2014 Growth Trend (2.4%) Regressions Single Variable: PCPI (r2 value = 0.88) Multi‐Variable: Population & U.S. Active GA Aircraft (r2 value = 0.94) Boldface indicates Selected Forecast Source: Coffman Associates Analysis

2014

2019

2024

209 211

212 215

225

242

235

244 234

209

264

260 253

2034

223 228

278

333

300 299

BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS

Prior to generating statistical forecasts of based aircraft for the Airport, it is important to establish the current number of based aircraft. Until recently, the FAA has not required airports to maintain annual based aircraft figures. The FAA began a National Based Aircraft Inventory Program to create a database of based aircraft at non‐primary airports in the National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS). This database indicates a validated based aircraft count for TPL of 52; however, it does not indicate when this count was validated nor was any more detail available on what aircraft were included in this count. The FAA TAF for TPL indicates a based aircraft total of 206 for 2014. Again, the TAF does not indicate whether this count is validated and provides no detail about what aircraft are included in the count. Airport records, maintained dating back to 2005, indicate a current based aircraft count of 84, up from 77 based aircraft in 2005. This is a CAGR of 1.0 percent.

The Airport’s based aircraft count includes reg‐ istration (“N‐numbers”) and therefore can be verified. Since the National Based Aircraft In‐ ventory and the FAA TAF do not provide sup‐ porting documentation, those counts cannot be verified. For this reason, the Airport’s count of 84 based aircraft will be used as the existing based aircraft count.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 16

Existing Forecasts

Two previously prepared forecasts of based aircraft for Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport are shown in Table 2D. The FAA TAF is a generalized annual forecast of airport activity produced by the FAA. It can be used for long term planning when other statistical measures support its forecasts. The TAF estimates that there are 206 based aircraft at the Airport currently. It is assumed that this figure accounts for military aircraft being serviced at the AMCOM complex. While the TAF based aircraft figures do not correlate to what Airport records identify as the current based aircraft count (84), the resulting CAGR can still be utilized for comparison purposes. The TAF shows very modest growth at 0.4 percent CAGR over the next 20 years resulting in an increase of 19 based aircraft.

TABLE 2D Existing Based Aircraft Forecasts Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Base Year

2014 FAA Terminal Area Forecast 206 (2014)

2001 Master Plan 80 (1999) CAGR: Compound annual growth rate Source: Coffman Associates analysis

Projection Years 2019 2029 2034 211 221 225 2005 2010 2020 90 110 150

CAGR

0.4%

3.0%

The forecast from the previous master plan, which was finalized in 2001, was also examined. The base year for the previous master plan forecast was 1999, when a total of 80 based aircraft were identified.

The 2001 Master Plan forecasts reflected a CAGR of 3.0 percent, which was dependent upon significant population and socioeconomic growth in the region and also took into consideration constraints of re‐ gional airports at that time.

The previous forecasts can serve as a comparison to the selected based aircraft forecast to emerge from this Master Plan, and they can also serve as the basis for several new forecasts.

New Based Aircraft Forecasts

Table 2E presents historical based aircraft at Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport compared to County registered aircraft. These figures show that TPL’s market share of County registered aircraft reached a high of 51.4 percent in 2001 and then began dropping off, reaching a 20‐year low of 34.4 percent in 2008. The Airport’s market share began growing again in 2011 and reached 40.2 percent in 2014.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 17

TABLE 2E Based Aircraft Market Share of County Aircraft Projections Year TPL Based Aircraft Bell County Registered Aircraft 1994 56 131 1995 57 141 1996 57 130 1997 73 142 1998 73 147 1999 80 155 2000 76 176 2001 91 177 2002 92 180 2003 94 188 2004 85 188 2005 77 198 2006 79 195 2007 78 218 2008 75 218 2009 80 223 2010 83 233 2011 82 237 2012 81 219 2013 82 206 2014 84 209 CONSTANT SHARE PROJECTION 2019 94 234 2024 102 253 2034 120 299 Source: Based aircraft from FAA TAF and Airport records; Forecasts by Coffman Associates

Market Share 42.7% 40.4% 43.8% 51.4% 49.7% 51.6% 43.2% 51.4% 51.1% 50.0% 45.2% 38.9% 40.5% 35.8% 34.4% 35.9% 35.6% 34.6% 37.0% 39.8% 40.2%

40.2% 40.2% 40.2%

For the purposes of forecasting, examining the Airport’s market share of service area registered aircraft is used to generate a historical trend as well as a reasonable forecast. A market share projection main‐ taining the Airport’s current market share of 40.2 percent of County registered aircraft results in 120 based aircraft by 2034 at a CAGR of 1.8 percent.

Several other forecasts have been developed that are based on applying the forecast growth rate of one variable to the current based aircraft figure. The first variable considered is the FAA’s active aircraft forecast CAGR of 0.4 percent. When applying this growth rate to the Airport’s current based aircraft figure of 84, a long term based aircraft figure of 91 results. Other forecasts have been similarly devel‐ oped which consider the forecast growth rate for population, employment, and income in Bell County.

A historical trend identified is that based aircraft have grown at a CAGR of 2.0 percent over the past 20 years. Applying this CAGR results in a forecast of 126 based aircraft by 2034. In more recent years (2005‐ 2014), based aircraft have not fluctuated significantly, growing by only 1.0 percent CAGR over the time period. This growth trend was also utilized to create a forecast that results in 102 based aircraft by 2034.

A summary of the based aircraft forecasts is presented in Table 2F.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 18

TABLE 2F Summary of Based Aircraft Forecasts Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Constant Share of County Registered Aircraft (40.2%) 2001 Airport Master Plan Growth Rate 2014 FAA Active GA Aircraft Forecast Growth Rate County Population Growth Rate County Employment Growth Rate County Income Growth Rate 20‐Year Historical Growth Trend – Selected Forecast 9‐Year Historical Growth Trend CAGR: Compound annual growth rate Source: Coffman Associates analysis

2014 (Base Year) 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84

2019 94 98 86 90 91 90 93 88

2024 102 113 87 97 98 96 103 93

2034 CAGR 2014‐2034 120 1.8% 153 3.0% 91 0.4% 111 1.4% 115 1.6% 109 1.3% 126 2.0% 102 1.0%

SELECTED BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST Considering projected increases in local

Ultimately, the 20‐year growth trend was identified population and economic conditions as the most reasonable forecast scenario for the Air‐ and that the Airport maintains an air‐ port. It has already been proven that the Airport craft hangar waiting list (which stands can grow its based aircraft at this rate over time. at 37 individuals currently), it is feasi‐ Considering projected increases in local population ble that based aircraft levels could and economic conditions and that the Airport main‐ grow to 126 by the long term horizon. tains an aircraft hangar waiting list (which stands at 37 individuals currently), it is feasible that based aircraft levels could grow to 126 by the long term hori‐ zon. Oftentimes, somewhere up to 25 or 50 percent of individuals on an aircraft hangar waiting list may ultimately decide, for various reasons, against renting a hangar when they become available. Assuming the worst case scenario that only 50 percent (18) of the existing waiting list would own an aircraft and rent hangar space if it were available, the existing based aircraft count would be 103. So assuming there is already demand for 103 based aircraft at TPL, a forecast over a 20‐year period to 126 based aircraft is a reasonable growth rate (an approximate increase of one based aircraft each year). Of course, steady growth at this rate is not anticipated. More likely, based aircraft growth will occur in a stair‐step fashion, increasing in larger numbers as hangar facilities are constructed and become available. Exhibit 2D de‐ picts the based aircraft projections.

BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX PROJECTION

Knowing the aircraft fleet mix expected to utilize the Airport is necessary to properly plan facilities that will best serve the level of activity and the type of activities occurring at the Airport. The existing based aircraft fleet mix is comprised of 73 single‐engine piston aircraft, one multi‐engine piston aircraft, two helicopters, and eight jet aircraft.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 19

200

150

100

50

‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99

1994

‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04

2000

‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09

2005

‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14

2010

‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19

2015

‘21 ‘22 ‘23 ‘24

2020

‘26 ‘27 ‘28 ‘29

2025

‘31 ‘32 ‘33

2030

2034

County Employment Growth Rate County Population Growth Rate County Income Growth Rate 2014 FAA Active GA Aircraft Forecast Growth Rate 2001 Airport Master Plan Growth Rate Constant Share of County Registered Aircraft 9-Year Historical Growth Trend 20-Year Historical Growth Trend - Selected Forecast

DRAFT Chapter Two - 20

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 2D BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS

Several factors must be considered when projecting a future fleet mix. As discussed previously, on the national level, the growth areas for the general aviation fleet are in turbine‐powered aircraft (business jets and helicopters), while piston‐powered aircraft are forecast to decrease in numbers.

On a local level, registered aircraft in Bell County dating back to 1994 have been primarily piston‐pow‐ ered aircraft with very few turbine aircraft or helicopters. In fact, with eight based jets, TPL has more turbine aircraft than are registered in the County. This is due to several of the based jets being registered to out‐of‐state Growth trends for the Airport business entities. Due to the strong business climate in and will closely mirror national and around Temple, it is anticipated that TPL will continue to at‐ regional trends. tract more sophisticated aircraft over time.

Table 2G presents the forecast fleet mix of based aircraft for Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport. Growth trends for the Airport will closely mirror national and regional trends. Single‐engine piston aircraft are forecast to continue to account for the vast majority of based aircraft, while modestly decreasing as a percentage of the total based aircraft due to growth in other categories such as jets and helicopters.

TABLE 2G Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

EXISTING Aircraft Type 2014 % 2019 Single‐Engine 73 86.9% 78 Multi‐Engine 1 1.2% 1 Turboprop 0 0.0% 1 Jet 8 9.5% 10 Helicopter 2 2.4% 3 Totals 84 100.0% 93 Source: Airport Records; Coffman Associates Analysis

% 83.9% 1.1% 1.1% 10.8% 3.2% 100.0%

FORECAST 2024 % 85 82.5% 1 1.0% 1 1.0% 12 11.7% 4 3.9% 103 100.0%

2034 100 1 3 16 6 126

% 79.4% 0.8% 2.4% 12.7% 4.8% 100.0%

GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS

GA operations are classified as either local or itinerant. A local operation is a take‐off or landing per‐ formed by an aircraft that operates within sight of the airport, or which executes simulated approaches or touch‐and‐go operations at the airport. Generally, local operations are characterized by training op‐ erations. Itinerant operations are those performed by aircraft with a specific origin or destination away from the airport. Typically, itinerant operations increase with business and commercial use, since busi‐ ness aircraft are not typically used for large scale training activities.

Since TPL is not equipped with an airport traffic control tower (ATCT), precise operational (takeoff and landing) counts are not available. Sources for estimated operational activity at TPL include the FAA Form 5010, Airport Master Record, and the FAA TAF. The FAA TAF indicates a total of 47,034 GA operations in 2014 (43,280 itinerant & 3,754 local), while the FAA Form 5010 indicates 45,753 for the 12‐month period ending April 8, 2013 (42,099 itinerant & 3,652 local). Since the FAA TAF operational figures are more current, it will be estimated that the Airport experienced 47,034 GA operations in 2014.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 21

Itinerant General Aviation Operations

Table 2H provides the FAA’s TAF history of estimated GA itinerant operations at TPL from 2007 to 2014.

According to FAA TAF data, the Airport’s itinerant GA operations dipped from 2009‐2012 likely due to the nationwide economic recession, but have begun to increase again in the last couple of years. The FAA’s Aerospace Forecast projects itinerant GA operations at towered airports, which can be utilized to establish TPL’s market share of GA itinerant operations. This data shows TPL’s market share of GA itin‐ erant operations has grown from 0.171 percent in 2007 to 0.310 percent in 2014. TPL’s itinerant GA operations per based aircraft have also grown from 408 in 2007 to 515 in 2014. Based upon this infor‐ mation, trend forecasts have been prepared.

TABLE 2H General Aviation Itinerant Operations Forecast Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Itinerant U.S. ATCT GA TPL Year Operations Itinerant Market Share 2007 31,849 18,575,188 0.171% 2008 43,749 17,492,653 0.250% 2009 40,375 15,571,066 0.259% 2010 37,633 14,863,856 0.253% 2011 37,633 14,527,903 0.259% 2012 37,633 14,521,656 0.259% 2013 42,099 14,177,424 0.297% 2014 43,280 13,977,545 0.310% Constant Market Share Forecast (0.4% CAGR) 2019 43,823 14,153,026 0.310% 2024 44,713 14,440,395 0.310% 2034 46,613 15,053,994 0.310% Constant Operations per Based Aircraft Forecast (2.0% CAGR) 2019 47,917 14,153,026 0.339% 2024 53,070 14,440,395 0.368% 2034 64,920 15,053,994 0.431% Increasing Market Share Forecast (3.3% CAGR) 2019 56,612 14,153,026 0.400% 2024 64,982 14,440,395 0.450% 2034 82,797 15,053,994 0.550% Increasing Operations per Based Aircraft Forecast (2.8% CAGR) 2019 48,825 14,153,026 0.345% 2024 56,650 14,440,395 0.392% 2034 75,600 15,053,994 0.502% 2001 Master Plan Growth Rate (3.0% CAGR) 2019 50,264 14,153,026 0.355% 2024 58,374 14,440,395 0.404% 2034 78,732 15,053,994 0.523% FAA Terminal Area Forecast (2.8% CAGR) – Selected Forecast 2019 49,696 14,153,026 0.351% 2024 57,063 14,440,395 0.395% 2034 75,228 15,053,994 0.500% CAGR – Compound Annual Growth Rate Source: Coffman Associates Analysis

DRAFT Chapter Two - 22

TPL Based Aircraft 78 75 80 83 82 81 82 84

Itinerant Ops Per Based Aircraft 408 583 505 453 459 465 513 515

93 103 126

471 434 370

93 103 126

515 515 515

93 103 126

609 631 657

93 103 126

525 550 600

93 103 126

540 567 625

93 103 126

534 554 597

Table 2H presents a forecast for TPL, based upon maintaining its current market share of U.S. itinerant GA operations. This forecast has itinerant operations reaching 46,613 by 2034. The table also displays the findings of an analysis that examined the relationship of annual operations to based aircraft. The second forecast in Table 2H reflects the itinerant operational levels that could be expected if the opera‐ tions per based aircraft ratio were to remain constant into the future. This forecast results in 64,920 itinerant GA operations The FAA TAF accounts for re‐ by 2034. cent growth trends but is not

overly optimistic about future Since trends show TPL’s market share and operations per GA itinerant operational based aircraft have been increasing in recent years, addi‐ tional forecasts were prepared based upon an increasing growth at TPL. market share of U.S. itinerant GA operations and increasing operations per based aircraft. The results of these forecasts are 82,797 and 75,600 GA itinerant operations at TPL by 2034 respectively.

For comparison, the growth rate projected from the 2001 Master Plan was applied to generate a fore‐ cast, which resulted in 78,732 GA itinerant operations by 2034. Finally, the FAA TAF projections are also presented, which show TPL GA itinerant operations growing to 75,228 by 2034 at a CAGR of 2.8 percent.

After examination of each forecast, it was determined the FAA TAF accounts for recent growth trends but is not overly optimistic about future GA itinerant operational growth at TPL. For this reason, the FAA TAF is considered reasonable and will be carried forward as the selected forecast for this Master Plan.

Local General Aviation Operations

A similar methodology was utilized to forecast local general aviation operations. Table 2J presents the FAA TAF historical estimates of local GA operations at TPL. As can be seen, local operations make up a much smaller portion of total operations and have ranged from 0.024 percent to 0.032 percent of U.S. local GA operations. Local operations per based aircraft have remained fairly static in the last five years ranging from 38 to 45.

Table 2J presents a market share projection based upon carrying forward a constant share of 0.032 per‐ cent. This projection results in 4,109 local GA operations by 2034. The second projection in Table 2J examines local operations based on the operations per based aircraft remaining static at 45 through the planning period. This projection results in 5,631 local operations by 2034.

Again, the 2001 Airport Master Plan growth rate has been utilized to forecast local GA operations for comparison purposes. This forecast results in 6,829 local GA operations at TPL by 2034, a CAGR of 3.0 percent. The FAA TAF projects a more moderate growth rate of 2.8 percent, achieving 6,522 local GA operations by 2034.

With active student pilot training in decline nationwide and projected to continue to decline over the next 20 years, significant growth in local general aviation operations at TPL is not anticipated. However, since market share and operations per based aircraft have grown slightly in recent years, it is reasonable to consider a growth scenario in which the Airport returns to local GA operations per based aircraft levels experienced in its recent history. As recently as 2008, TPL was experiencing 53 local GA operations per DRAFT Chapter Two - 23

based aircraft. The FAA TAF results in 52 operations per based aircraft by 2034. For this reason, the FAA TAF projection will be carried forward as the selected forecast for this Master Plan.

TABLE 2J General Aviation Local Operations Forecast Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Local U.S. ATCT GA TPL Year Operations Local (millions) Market Share 2008 4,001 14,081,157 0.028% 2009 3,039 12,447,957 0.024% 2010 3,380 11,716,274 0.029% 2011 3,380 11,437,028 0.030% 2012 3,380 11,608,306 0.029% 2013 3,652 11,748,301 0.031% 2014 3,754 11,674,060 0.032% Constant Market Share (0.5% CAGR) 2019 3,859 11,999,063 0.032% 2024 3,939 12,247,840 0.032% 2034 4,109 12,779,047 0.032% Constant Operations per Based Aircraft (2.0% CAGR) 2019 4,156 11,999,063 0.035% 2024 4,603 12,247,840 0.038% 2034 5,631 12,779,047 0.044% 2001 Master Plan Growth Rate (3.0% CAGR) 2019 4,360 11,999,063 0.036% 2024 5,063 12,247,840 0.041% 2034 6,829 12,779,047 0.053% FAA Terminal Area Forecast (2.8% CAGR) – Selected Forecast 2019 4,309 11,999,063 0.036% 2024 4,948 12,247,840 0.040% 2034 6,522 12,779,047 0.051% CAGR – Compound Annual Growth Rate Source: Coffman Associates analysis

TPL Based Aircraft 75 80 83 82 81 82 84

Local Ops Per Based Aircraft 53 38 41 41 42 45 45

93 103 126

41 38 33

93 103 126

45 45 45

93 103 126

47 49 54

93 103 126

46 48 52

AIR TAXI AND MILITARY OPERATIONS FORECAST

The air taxi category includes aircraft involved in on‐demand passenger charter, fractional ownership aircraft operations, small parcel transport, and air ambulance activity. The Airport’s TAF and 5010 Air‐ port Master Record reported no air taxi operations at TPL; however, according to the FAA’s Traffic Flow Management System Counts1 (TFMSC) online database, there were 613 air taxi operations conducted at TPL in 2014. The bulk of these operations were by on‐demand passenger charters and fractional own‐ ership operators operating a variety of aircraft including the Bombardier Challenger 600, Hawker 800, and Learjet 31. Since the operational counts used in this Master Plan were based upon the FAA TAF, which reported no air taxi operations, it can be assumed that the TAF accounts for air taxi operations within the itinerant GA operations count. Therefore, for the purposes of the Master Plan, air taxi oper‐ ations will represent a percentage of itinerant GA operations. With 613 total air taxi operations in 2014, this represents 1.4 percent of itinerant GA operations. Air taxi operations are forecasted by the FAA to decline nationwide through 2024, and then begin a modest growth period through 2034. So throughout 1

Accessible at: https://aspm.faa.gov/tfms/sys/Airport.asp

DRAFT Chapter Two - 24

the planning horizon, it is anticipated that air taxi operations at TPL should remain relatively consistent at 1.4 percent of itinerant GA operations, or over 1,050 operations by 2034.

Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport has military operations that total more than 7,500 an‐ nually, according to the Airport’s 5010 Airport Master Record and the FAA TAF. Of this amount, more than 70 percent are itinerant operations, with the remainder being local training operations. The types of military aircraft that frequent TPL are primarily helicopters, including the Sikorsky UH‐60 Black Hawk, Boeing AH‐64 Apache, and the Boeing CH‐47 Chinook. In many cases, the helicopters are brought into the Airport to be serviced at the AMCOM complex and to receive fuel.

While it is anticipated that AMCOM will vacate its facilities at TPL in March 2016, it is uncertain at this time what effect this will have on military operations. Because of the unpredicta‐ ble nature of military activity and readiness, the existing mil‐ itary operational level is planned for future operations. Table 2K presents a summary of air taxi and military operations forecasts.

TABLE 2K Military Operations Forecasts

Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Year Air Taxi (Itinerant) Military (Itinerant) Military (Local) 2014 613 5,375 2,149 Selected Forecast 2019 696 5,375 2,149 2024 799 5,375 2,149 2034 1,053 5,375 2,149 Source: 2014 Air taxi count ‐ FAA TFMSC database; 2014 military counts – FAA TAF; selected Forecast prepared by Coffman As‐ sociates.

TOTAL OPERATIONS FORECAST

Table 2L and Exhibit 2E summarizes the selected operations forecast for Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport. By 2019, operations are forecast to increase to 61,529. By the long term planning period, total operations are forecast to reach 89,274, a CAGR of 2.5 percent.

TABLE 2L Total Operations Forecast Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Itinerant Operations Year GA1 Military Total Itinerant 43,280 5,375 48,655 2014 49,696 5,375 55,071 2019 2024 57,063 5,375 62,438 2034 75,228 5,375 80,603 2.8% 0.0% 2.6% CAGR: CAGR: Compound annual growth rate 2014 through 2034 1 Includes air taxi operations.

Source: Coffman Associates analysis

DRAFT Chapter Two - 25

GA 3,754 4,309 4,948 6,522 2.8%

Local Operations Military Total Local 2,149 5,903 2,149 6,458 2,149 7,097 2,149 8,671 0.0% 1.9%

Total Ops 54,558 61,529 69,535 89,274 2.5%

LOCAL OPERATIONS (in thousands)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ‘08 ‘09

2010

‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14

2015

‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19

2020

‘21 2’22 ‘23 ‘24

2025

‘26 ‘27 ‘28 ‘29

2030

‘31 ‘32 ‘33

2034

Constant Market Share (0.5% CAGR*)

2001 Master Plan Growth Rate (3.0% CAGR)

Constant Operations Per Based Aircraft (2.5% CAGR)

FAA TAF (2.8% CAGR) - Selected Forecast

ITINERANT OPERATIONS (in thousands)

100

80

60

40

20

2007

‘08 ‘09

‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14

2010

2015

‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19

2020

‘21 ’22 ‘23 ‘24

2025

‘26 ‘27 ‘28 ‘29

2030

‘31 ‘32 ‘33

2034

Increasing Operations Per Based Aircraft (3.3% CAGR)

Constant Operations Per Based Aircraft (2.5% CAGR)

Increasing Market Share (3.3% CAGR) Constant Market Share (0.4% CAGR)

2001 Master Plan Growth Rate (3.0% CAGR) FAA TAF (2.8% CAGR) - Selected Forecast

*CAGR - Compound Annual Growth Rate

DRAFT Chapter Two - 26

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 2E GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FORECASTS

COMPARISON TO THE TAF

The FAA will review the forecasts of this Master Plan and compare them to the TAF. Where the 5‐ or 10‐ year forecasts exceed 100,000 total annual operations or 100 based aircraft, the FAA prefers that the forecasts differ by less than 10 percent in the 5‐year period and 15 percent in the 10‐year period. Where the forecasts do differ, supporting documentation should be provided.

Table 2M presents a direct comparison of the 2015 FAA TAF to the forecasts in this Master Plan. Since the TAF operational figures are being carried forward as the selected forecast for this Master Plan, the only differentiation will come in the comparison of based aircraft forecasts.

TABLE 2M

Forecast Comparison to the Terminal Area Forecast Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Year Master Plan Forecast TOTAL OPERATIONS 2014 54,558 2019 61,529 2024 69,535 2034 89,274 CAGR 2014‐2034 2.5% BASED AIRCRAFT 2014 84 2019 93 2024 103 2034 126 CAGR 2014‐2034 2.0% CAGR – Compound annual Growth Rate Source: Coffman Associates analysis

2014 FAA TAF

Percent Difference

54,558 61,529 69,535 89,274 2.5%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

206 211 217 225 0.4%

‐59.2% ‐55.9% ‐52.5% ‐44.0%

The Master Plan based aircraft figures are considerably below what is being reported on the FAA TAF. An explanation for this discrepancy is likely due to the FAA counting military aircraft that visit the AMCOM complex for maintenance and repair services. These military aircraft are not included in the Airport’s count and will not be considered based aircraft for the purposes of the Master Plan. As a result, the TAF comparison results in a difference of ‐59.2 percent in 2014, reducing further to ‐44.0 percent by 2034.

ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES (AIAs)

An instrument approach, as defined by the FAA, is “an approach to an airport with the intent to land an aircraft in accordance with an Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) flight plan, when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude.” To qualify as an instrument approach, aircraft must land at the airport after following one of the published instrument approach procedures. Forecasts of annual instrument approaches (AIAs) provide guidance in determin‐ ing an airport’s requirements for navigational aid facilities. Practice or training approaches do not count as annual AIAs.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 27

Currently, there are six published instrument approaches at Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Air‐ port, one of which is a Category I (Cat‐I) ILS approach; three are precision localizer performance (LPV) approaches to Runways 2, 15, and 33; and the remaining two are VOR approaches to Runways 15 and 33. The ILS approach provides the lowest minimums at the Airport with cloud ceilings down to 200 feet and visibility to ½‐mile.

When weather conditions are below the ILS approach minimums, the Airport is essentially closed to arrivals. However, visual flight conditions occur approximately 93 percent of the time, while IFR condi‐ tions persist approximately seven percent of the time in the region, so it is extremely rare that the Airport would be closed to arrivals. As a result, AIA projections consider a constant percentage of seven percent of annual itinerant operations. The AIA projections are presented in Table 2N.

TABLE 2N Annual Instrument Approaches (AIAs) Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Year Itinerant Operations 2014 48,655 2019 55,071 2024 62,438 2034 80,603 Source: Coffman Associates analysis

Ratio 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%

AIAs 3,406 3,855 4,371 5,642

PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS

Many aspects of facility planning relate to levels of peaking activity – times when the airport is busiest.

For example, the appropriate size of a terminal building can be estimated by determining the number of people that could reasonably be expected to use the facility at a given time. The following planning definitions apply to the peak periods:

 Peak Month ‐‐ The calendar month when peak aircraft operations occur.  Design Day ‐‐ The average day in the peak month.  Busy Day ‐‐ The busy day of a typical week in the peak month.  Design Hour ‐‐ The peak hour within the design day.

It is important to note that only the peak month is an absolute peak within a given year. All other peak periods will be exceeded at various times during the year. The peak period forecasts represent reason‐ able planning standards that can be applied without overbuilding or being too restrictive.

A ten‐year history of monthly operations as reported on the FAA’s TFMSC online database indicated that the peak month The peak month on average ac‐ on average accounted for 9.7 percent of yearly operations. counted for 9.7 percent of The peak month varied from year to year, but the most fre‐ yearly operations. quent peak month over the ten‐year period was October.

The design day is equal to the average number of operations in a month, divided by the number of days in the month. The month of May has 30 days, resulting in a peak design day of 337 operations. The busiest day of each week typically accounts for approximately 18 percent of weekly operations. Thus, DRAFT Chapter Two - 28

to determine the typical busy day, the design day is multiplied by 1.25, which represents approximately 18 percent of the days in a week. Design hour operations were determined at 15 percent of the design day operations. Utilizing these factors, the peaking characteristics for the future can be estimated, as shown in Table 2P.

TABLE 2P Total Peak Operations Forecast Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Peak Month

Estimated Peak Month Operations 7,070 6,391 7,298 4,702 5,978 4,902 5,126 4,354 4,695 4,938 5,317

Design Day 228 206 235 152 193 163 165 145 151 159 172

Busy Day 285 258 294 190 241 204 207 181 189 199 214

2004 10.4% ‐ Oct 2005 9.1% ‐ Jan 2006 10.1% ‐ Mar 2007 9.9% ‐ Oct 2008 10.3% ‐ May 2009 9.5% ‐ Jun 2010 10.4% ‐ May 2011 8.8% ‐ Jun 2012 9.5% ‐ May 2013 9.3% ‐ Oct 2014 9.7% ‐ Oct Average 9.7% Forecast 2019 9.7% 5,985 193 241 2024 9.7% 6,764 218 273 2034 9.7% 8,684 280 350 Source: Monthly operation percentage data – FAA TFMSC data for calendar years 2004 through 2014; Forecast data ‐ Coffman Associates analysis

Design Hour 34 31 35 23 29 25 25 22 23 24 26

29 33 42

CRITICAL DESIGN STANDARDS

The selection of appropriate FAA design standards for the development and location of airport facilities is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using or are expected to use the airport. The critical design aircraft is used to define the design parameters for the airport. In most cases, the design aircraft is a composite aircraft representing a collection of aircraft classified by three parameters: Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), Airplane Design Group (ADG), and Taxiway Design Group (TDG). The first consideration is the safe operation of aircraft likely to use the airport. Any oper‐ ation of an aircraft that exceeds design criteria of the airport may result in either an unsafe operation or a lesser safety margin; however, it is not the usual practice to base the airport design on an aircraft that uses the airport infrequently.

The design aircraft is defined as the most demanding category of aircraft, or family of aircraft, which conducts at least 500 operations per year at the airport. Planning for future aircraft use is of particular importance since the design standards are used to plan separation distances between facilities. These future standards must be considered now to ensure that short term development does not preclude the long range potential needs of the airport.

Exhibit 2F summarizes representative design aircraft categories. The Airport does not currently, nor is it expected to, regularly serve larger commercial transport aircraft such as Boeing or Airbus manufac‐ tured aircraft.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 29

A-I

B-I

B-II

A-III, B-III

C-I, D-I

• Beech Baron 55 • Beech Bonanza • Cessna 150 • Cessna 172 • Cessna Citation Mustang • Eclipse 500/550 • Piper Archer • Piper Seneca • Beech Baron 58 • Beech King Air 100 • Cessna 402 • Cessna 421 • Piper Navajo • Piper Cheyenne • Swearingen Metroliner • Cessna Citation I (525)

• Super King Air 200 • Cessna 441 • DHC Twin Otter • Super King Air 350 • Beech 1900 • Citation Excel (560), Sovereign (680) • Falcon 50, 900, 2000 • Citation Bravo (550) • Embraer 120 • DHC Dash 7 • DHC Dash 8 • DC-3 • Convair 580 • Fairchild F-27 • ATR 72 • ATP

• Beech 400 • Lear 31, 35, 45, 60 • Israeli Westwind

C-II, D-II

• Cessna Citation X (750) • Gulfstream 100, 200,300 • Challenger 300/600 • ERJ-135, 140, 145 • CRJ-200/700 • Embraer Regional Jet • Lockheed JetStar • Hawker 800

C-III, D-III

less than 100,000 , lbs.

C-III, D-III

over 100,000 lbs.

C-IV,, D-IV

D-V

• ERJ-170 • CRJ 705, 900 • Falcon 7X • Gulfstream 500, 550, 650 • Global Express, Global 5000 • Q-400

• ERJ-90 • Boeing Business Jet • B-727 • B-737-300, 700, 800 • MD-80, DC-9 • A319, A320

• B-757 • B-767 • C-130 Hercules • DC-8-70 • MD-11

• B-747-400 • B-777 • B-787 • A-330, A-340

Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 30

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 2F AIRCRAFT REFERENCE CODES

In order to determine airfield design requirements, a design aircraft, or group of aircraft with similar characteristics, is determined for the runway. This begins with a review of aircraft currently using the Airport and those expected to use the airport through the Generally, runway standards 20‐year planning period. are related to aircraft approach

speed, aircraft wingspan, and

Runway Design Code (RDC) designated or planned ap‐

proach visibility minimums.

The AAC, ADG, and approach visibility minimums are com‐ bined to form the RDC of a particular runway. The RDC provides the information needed to determine certain design standards that apply. The first component, depicted by a letter, is the AAC and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteristics). The second component, depicted by a Roman nu‐ meral, is the ADG and relates to either the aircraft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristics), whichever is most restrictive. The third component relates to the visibility minimums expressed by run‐ way visual range (RVR) values in feet of 1,200, 1,600, 2,400, 4,000, and 5,000. The third component should read “VIS” for runways designed for visual approach use only. Generally, runway standards are related to aircraft approach speed, aircraft wingspan, and designated or planned approach visibility min‐ imums. Table 2Q presents the RDC parameters.

TABLE 2Q

Runway Design Code Parameters

Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) Category Approach Speed A less than 91 knots B 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots C 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots D 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots E 166 knots or more Airplane Design Group (ADG) Group # Tail Height (ft) Wingspan (ft) I <20 <49 II 20‐<30 49‐<79 III 30‐<45 79‐<118 IV 45‐<60 118‐<171 V 60‐<66 171‐<214 VI 66‐<80 214‐<262 Visibility Minimums RVR (ft) Flight Visibility Category (statute miles) VIS 3‐mile or greater visibility minimums 5,000 Lower than 3 miles but not lower than 1‐mile 4,000 Lower than 1‐mile but not lower than ¾‐mile (APV ≥ ¾ but < 1‐mile) 2,400 Lower than ¾‐mile but not lower than ½‐mile (CAT‐I PA) 1,600 Lower than ½‐mile but not lower than ¼‐mile (CAT‐II PA) 1,200 Lower than ¼‐mile (CAT‐III PA) RVR: Runway Visual Range

APV: Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance PA: Precision Approach

Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design

DRAFT Chapter Two - 31

DESIGN AIRCRAFT

The critical design aircraft is defined as the most demanding category of aircraft which conduct 500 or more itinerant operations at the airport each year. In some cases, more than one specific make and model of aircraft comprises the airport’s critical design aircraft. One category of aircraft may be the most critical in terms of approach speed, while another is most critical in terms of wingspan and/or tail height, which affects runway/taxiway width and separation design standards. The critical design aircraft for a general aviation airport may be a specific aircraft model or it can be a combination of several aircraft within the same design code that, when combined, exceed the 500 operations threshold.

A critical design aircraft will be determined for both Runway 15‐33 and Runway 2‐20. The largest design aircraft in terms of approach speed and airplane design group will determine the appropriate design standards for each runway and associated taxiways. The determination of the design aircraft (or family of aircraft) will first examine the types of based aircraft followed by an analysis of itinerant activity.

The current airport layout plan (ALP) for Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, which was up‐ dated most recently in August 2008, classifies Runway 15‐33 as airport reference code (ARC) C‐II and Runway 2‐20 as ARC B‐II. The ARC is made up of the first two components of the RDC without RVR component. Specific design aircraft for each runway are not identified on the current ALP.

Based Aircraft

The current based aircraft fleet mix consists mostly of small single‐engine piston aircraft typified by the Cessna 172. However, the Airport has eight based business jets including five Learjets and a Bombardier Challenger 600. The Learjets are ARC C‐I aircraft and, according to the FAA’s TFMSC 2014 report, com‐ bined to conduct over 500 annual itinerant operations. The Challenger 600 is an ARC C‐II aircraft, which according the TFMSC report, conducted 232 total operations in 2014.

Itinerant Aircraft

According to flight records obtained from the FAA’s 2014 TFMSC report, there were a total of 2,335 operations conducted at TPL by turboprop and jet aircraft in 2014. Since TFMSC records do not represent official traffic counts and are essentially a sampling of total operations, it can be assumed that there were more operations by turbine aircraft that were not included in the TFMSC database. These records show that the most common turboprop aircraft to operate at the Airport in 2014 was the Beechcraft Super King Air 200 (ARC B‐II aircraft) with 192 total operations. The most common jet aircraft to operate at the Airport was the based Learjet 60 aircraft with 672 total operations in 2014.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 32

Current Design Aircraft

Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is home to several business jet aircraft and, according to the FAA’s TFMSC records, accommodates a wide variety of business jet aircraft throughout the year.

Records show that the Learjet 60 is the most frequent business jet with over 600 annual itinerant oper‐ ations. As an ARC C‐I aircraft, that qualifies AAC C as the critical AAC.

To identify the critical ADG, a combination of aircraft op‐ erations is needed since no one single ADG II aircraft con‐ ducted more than 500 annual itinerant operations in 2014. The following ADG II aircraft conducted more than 500 combined annual itinerant operations at TPL in 2014: Challenger 600 ‐ 232 operations; Cessna family of business jets (Citation Excel, Citation III/VI/VII, Citation Sovereign, and Citation X) – 187 operations; King Air 200 – 192 operations.

Aircraft within AAC D and ADG III, such as the Gulfstream Source: www.wikipedia.org family of business jets, did on rare occasions operate at TPL in 2014; however, these aircraft do not come close to meeting the 500 annual itinerant operations threshold and therefore cannot be considered as critical de‐ sign aircraft. Therefore, this Master Plan will consider an This Master Plan will consider an existing RDC of C‐II‐2400 as existing RDC of C‐II‐2400 as applied to Runway 15‐33.

applied to Runway 15‐33.

Crosswind runways, such as Runway 2‐20, are intended to provide a crosswind alternative for smaller aircraft that operate to the Airport. In the case of TPL, the most demanding small aircraft to regularly operate at the Airport is the Super King Air 200 (ARC B‐II).

Therefore, this Master Plan will consider an existing RDC of B‐II‐5000 as applied to Runway 2‐20

Future Design Aircraft

The aviation demand forecasts indicate the potential for continued growth in turbine activity at the Air‐ port. This includes eight additional based jets and three based turboprops by the long term planning horizon. The type and size of business jets/turboprops using the Airport regularly can impact the design standards to be applied to the airport system. Therefore, it is important to have an understanding of what type of aircraft may use the Airport in the future. Factors such as population and employment growth in the airport service area, the proximity and level of service of other regional airports, and de‐ velopment at the Airport can influence future activity.

The trend toward manufacturing of a larger percentage of The Master Plan will consider medium and large business jets, those in AACs C and D, may the Gulfstream G450 (ARC D‐II) lead to greater utilization of these aircraft at Draughon‐Mil‐ as the future critical design air‐ ler Central Texas Regional Airport by the long term horizons. craft for Runway 15‐33.

Additionally, with the continued operational growth of the DRAFT Chapter Two - 33

Gulfstream business jet aircraft nationally, the Airport might experience increased usage by these air‐ craft within AAC D. However, as of 2014, TPL experienced very limited operations conducted by AAC D aircraft.

The majority of operations throughout the planning period of this Master Plan are ex‐ pected to be by aircraft within AACs A, B, and C and within ADGs I and II. However, the potential exists for a regional business enterprise to base a larger business jet air‐ craft at TPL at some point in the future, and with increased overall activity by larger business jets throughout the country, it is Source: www.gulfstream.com anticipated that the ultimate Airport con‐ dition will involve enough AAC D operations to classify as the future critical design category. Therefore, for planning purposes, the Master Plan will consider the Gulfstream G450 (ARC D‐II) as the future crit‐ ical design aircraft for Runway 15‐33.

Runway 2‐20 is anticipated to continue to serve as the crosswind runway alternative for smaller aircraft throughout the planning horizon of this Master Plan. Therefore, for planning purposes, the Master Plan will consider maintaining the King Air 200 (ARC B‐II) as the future critical design aircraft for Runway 2‐ 20.

SUMMARY

This chapter has outlined the various activity levels that might reasonably be anticipated over the next 20 years at Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport. Exhibit 2G presents a summary of the avia‐ tion demand forecasts. The forecasting effort extends 20 years to the year 2034.

General aviation activity often trends with national and local economies. The country was in a reces‐ sionary period from December 2007 through the third quarter of 2009 and has been slow to recover.

Activity at both commercial service airports and general aviation airports has been down. Draughon‐ Miller Central Texas Regional Airport was not immune to these national trends, experiencing a decline in operations as a result of the recession. However, there have been signs of increased activity as the number of based aircraft and operations at the Airport have grown in recent years.

Forecasts of aviation activity, including based aircraft and operations, is key to determining future facility requirements. There are currently 84 aircraft based at the Airport, and this is forecast to grow to 126 aircraft by 2034. The Airport experienced an estimated 54,558 operations in 2014. This is forecast to grow to approximately 89,274 operations annually by 2034.

The fleet mix operations, or type and frequency of aircraft use, is important in determining facility re‐ quirements and environmental impacts. While single‐engine piston‐powered aircraft are expected to represent the majority of based aircraft, the forecast considers the possibility of more turbine aircraft DRAFT Chapter Two - 34

2014

2019

2024

2034

43,280 5,375 48,655

49,696 5,375 55,071

57,063 5,375 62,438

75,228 5,375 80,603

3,754 2,149 5,903 54,558

4,309 2,149 6,458 61,529

4,948 2,149 7,097 69,535

6,522 2,149 8,671 89,274

5,317 172 214 26

5,985 193 241 29

6,764 218 273 33

8,684 280 350 42

613

696

799

1,053

3,406

3,855

4,371

5,642

73 1 0 8 2 84

78 1 1 10 3 93

85 1 1 12 4 103

100 1 3 16 6 126

Annual Operations Forecast Itinerant General Aviation Military Subtotal Itinerant Local General Aviation Military Subtotal Local Total Operations

Peaking Characteristics Peak Month Design Day Busy Day Design Hour

Air Taxi Operations Annual Instrument Approaches Based Aircraft Forecast Single-Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Business Jet Helicopter Total Based Aircraft

100

OPERATIONS

160

BASED AIRCRAFT

140 120

60

BASED AIRCRAFT

OPERATIONS (in thousands)

80

40

100 80 60 40

20

20 2014

2019

2024

DRAFT Chapter Two - 35

2034

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

2014

2019

2024

2034

Exhibit 2G FORECAST SUMMARY

utilizing and basing at the Airport over the course of the planning period, which reflects a national trend towards a more sophisticated general aviation fleet.

The next step in the Master Plan process is to use the forecasts to determine development needs for the Airport through 2034. Chapter Three – Facility Requirements will address airside elements, such as safety areas, runways, taxiways, lighting, and navigational aids, as well as landside requirements, includ‐ ing hangars, aircraft aprons, and support services. As a general observation, Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is well‐positioned for growth into the future. The remaining portions of the Mas‐ ter Plan will lay out how that growth can be accommodated in an orderly, efficient, and cost‐effective manner.

DRAFT Chapter Two - 36

CHAPTER THREE

Airport Facility Requirements

To properly plan for the future of Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport (TPL or Airport), it is necessary to translate forecast avia. on demand into the specific types and quan es of facili es that can adequately serve the iden fied demand. This chapter uses the results of the forecasts presented in Chapter Two, as well as established planning criteria, to determine the airside (i.e., runway, taxiways, naviga onal aids, marking and ligh ng) and landside (i.e., hangars, aircra parking apron, and automobile parking) facility requirements.

The objec ve of this effort is to iden fy, in general terms, the adequacy of the exis ng airport facili es and outline what new facili es may be needed, and when these may be needed to accommodate forecast demands. Having established these facility requirements, alterna ves for providing these facili es will be evaluated in Chapter Four - Alterna ves to determine the most cost-effec ve and efficient means for implementa on.

PLANNING HORIZONS An updated set of avia on demand forecasts for TPL has been established. These ac vity forecasts include annual opera ons, based aircra , fleet mix, peaking characteris cs, and the cri cal design aircra . With this informa on, specific components of the airfield and landside system can be evaluated to determine their capacity to accommodate future demand.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 1

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Cost‐effective, efficient, and orderly develop‐ In order to develop a master plan that is ment of an airport should rely more upon actual demand‐based rather than time‐based, a demand at an airport than on a time‐based fore‐ cast figure. In order to develop a master plan series of planning horizon milestones that is demand‐based rather than time‐based, a have been established that take into con‐ series of planning horizon milestones have been sideration the reasonable range of avia‐ established that take into consideration the rea‐ tion demand projections. sonable range of aviation demand projections.

The planning horizons are the Short Term (approximately years 1‐5), the Intermediate Term (years 6‐ 10), and the Long Term (years 11‐20). Table 3A presents the planning horizon milestones for each avia‐ tion activity category.

TABLE 3A Planning Horizon Activity Levels Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Current

ANNUAL GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS General Aviation Operations 47,034 Military Operations 7,524 Total Operations 54,558 BASED AIRCRAFT Single‐Engine Piston 73 Multi‐Engine Piston 1 Turboprop 0 Business Jet 8 Rotorcraft 2 Total Based Aircraft 84

Short Term (1‐5 Years)

Intermediate Term (6‐10 Years)

Long Term (11‐20 Years)

54,005 7,524 61,529

62,011 7,524 69,535

81,750 7,524 89,274

78 1 1 10 3 93

85 1 1 12 4 103

100 1 3 16 6 126

It is important to consider that the actual activity at the Airport may be higher or lower than what the annualized forecast portrays. By planning according to activity milestones, the resultant plan can ac‐ commodate unexpected shifts or changes in the area’s aviation demand. It is important for the plan to accommodate these changes so that airport officials can respond to unexpected changes in a timely fashion.

The most important reason for utilizing milestones is it allows airport management the flexibility to make decisions and develop facilities according to need generated by actual demand levels. The demand‐ based schedule provides flexibility in development, as development schedules can be slowed or expe‐ dited according to demand at any given time over the planning period. The resultant plan provides air‐ port officials with a financially responsible and needs‐based program.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 2

AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS

The FAA publishes Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design, to guide airport planning. The AC provides guidance on various design elements of an airport intended to maintain or improve safety at airports. The de‐ sign standards include airport elements such as runways, taxiways, safety areas, and separation distances. According to the AC, “Airport planning should consider both the present and potential aviation needs and demand associated with the airport.” Consideration should be given to plan‐ ning runway and taxiway locations that will meet future separation requirements even if the width, strength, and length must increase later. Such deci‐ sions should be supported by the aviation demand forecasts and coordinated with the FAA and shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

The new AC defines the Airport Reference Code (ARC) as, “An airport designation that signifies the air‐ port’s highest Runway Design Code (RDC), minus the third (visibility) component of the RDC. The ARC is used for planning and design only and does not limit the aircraft that may be able to operate safely on the airport.”

The RDC is defined as, “A code signifying the design standards to which the runway is to be built.” The Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), the Airplane Design Group (ADG), and the approach visibility mini‐ mums combine to form the RDC of a particular runway. These provide the information needed to de‐ termine certain design standards that apply.

ARC C‐II design standards will RUNWAY 15‐33 DESIGN STANDARDS be applied to existing facility

It was determined in the forecast chapter of this Master Plan design. that the existing critical design aircraft for Runway 15‐33 is a combination of the Learjet 60 business jet (ARC C‐I) and a group of aircraft within the same ADG (Group II wingspans between 49 and 79 feet) including the Bombardier Challenger 600, the Cessna Citation busi‐ ness jet family, and the Beechcraft Super King Air 200. Therefore, ARC C‐II design standards will be ap‐ plied to existing facility design. The ultimate critical design aircraft for Runway 15‐33 was established as being within the ARC D‐II group, which accounts for the potential for faster business jets to account for more operations throughout the planning period. Therefore, ARC D‐II design standards will be applied to the existing facility design. It is worth noting that ARC C‐II and D‐II design standards are exactly the same; therefore, airfield design will not be affected by a change from ARC C‐II to D‐II critical design air‐ craft.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 3

RUNWAY 2‐20 DESIGN STANDARDS

The existing critical design aircraft for Runway 2‐20 was estab‐ lished as the Beechcraft Super King Air 200, which is an ARC B‐II aircraft. It is not anticipated that Runway 2‐20, which is the desig‐ nated crosswind runway for the Airport, will cater to aircraft in larger categories; therefore, the ultimate critical design aircraft should remain the Super King Air 200.

STATE OF TEXAS FACILITY OBJECTIVES

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) completed the Texas Airport System Plan (TASP) update in 2010. As a part of that study, all state airports were classified into distinctive groupings based on key factors. The study classified TPL as a as a Business Corporate airport. Table 3B presents the minimum design standards for Business Corporate airports as outlined in the state plan. TPL’s existing airfield facilities currently satisfy each of the minimum design standards established for Business Corporate airports by TxDOT.

TABLE 3B Texas Airport System Plan Business Corporate Airport Minimum Design Standards Airport Design Aircraft Design Category ARC B‐II, C‐II thru C‐IV, D‐II thru D‐IV Design Aircraft Business Jet Minimum Land Requirements Runway Safety Area (RSA) 136 Acres Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 160 Acres Landside Development 24 Acres Runways Primary Runway Length 5,000 Feet Primary Runway Width 100 Feet Primary Runway Lights Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL) Primary Runway Strength 30,000 Pounds Single Wheel Landing Gear (SWL) Taxiways Taxiway Availabilities Full Parallel Approach Primary Runway Instrument Approach Type Non‐Precision Visibility Minimums 250’ – ¾ mile LPV Services Terminal, Restrooms, Telephone, AvGas, Jet A, Attended 18 Hours Source: Table 6 Texas Airport System Plan, Update 2010

AIRFIELD CAPACITY

A demand/capacity analysis measures the capacity of the airfield facilities (i.e., runways and taxiways) in order to identify a plan for additional development needs. The capacity of the airfield is affected by DRAFT Chapter Three - 4

several factors, including airfield layout, meteorological conditions, aircraft mix, runway use, aircraft ar‐ rivals, aircraft touch‐and‐go activity, and exit taxiway locations. An airport’s airfield capacity is expressed in terms of its annual service volume (ASV). ASV is a reasonable estimate of the maximum level of aircraft operations that can be accommodated in a year.

Runways 15‐33 and 2‐20 are intersecting runways and Current (2014) estimated oper‐ therefore cannot serve simultaneous operations in most op‐ ations are only 23.7 percent of erational situations. Pursuant to FAA guidelines detailed in the Airport’s ASV and are fore‐ the FAA Advisory Circular (AC 150/5060‐5, Airport Capacity cast to reach only approxi‐ and Delay, the ASV for the TPL airfield system is approxi‐ mately 230,000 operations. The forecasts for the Airport in‐ mately 38.8 percent of ASV by dicate that activity throughout the planning period will re‐ the long term horizon. main well below 230,000 annual operations. Current (2014) estimated operations are only 23.7 percent of the Airport’s ASV and are forecast to reach only approxi‐ mately 38.8 percent of ASV by the long term horizon. The capacity of the existing airfield system will not be reached, and the airfield is expected to accommodate the forecasted operational demands. There‐ fore, consideration of additional airfield capacity improvements is not warranted at this time.

AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS

As indicated earlier, airport facilities include both airfield and landside components. Airfield facilities include those facilities that are related to the arrival, departure, and ground movement of aircraft. These components include:

 Runway Configuration  Taxiways  Safety Area Design Standards  Navigational Approach Aids  Runways  Lighting, Marking, and Signage

RUNWAY CONFIGURATION

The Airport is served by a crosswind runway system constructed of asphalt. Primary Runway 15‐33 is 7,000 feet long and 150 feet wide and oriented in a northwest/southeast manner. Crosswind Runway 2‐20 is 4,740 feet long and 100 feet wide and oriented in a northeast/southwest manner. The centerlines of both runways intersect approximately 3,038 feet from the Runway 33 end and approximately 762 feet from the Runway 2 end. The intersection point is within the middle third (high activity area) of the primary runway and within the primary landing area for Runway 2. There are no established design standards for where runways should intersect, but the FAA does suggest avoiding the need to adjust aiming point markings and/or remove touchdown zone markings for intersecting runways. No adjust‐ ment to either runway’s markings is necessary to maintain the existing intersection point.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 5

For the operational safety and efficiency of an airport, it is desirable for the primary runway to be ori‐ ented as close as possible to the direction of the prevailing wind. This reduces the impact of wind com‐ ponents perpendicular (crosswind) to the direction of travel of an aircraft that is landing or taking off.

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design, recommends that a crosswind runway be made available when the primary runway orientation provides for less than 95 percent wind coverage for specific crosswind components. The 95 percent wind coverage is computed on the basis of the cross‐ wind component not exceeding 10.5 knots (12 mph) for RDC A‐I and B‐I, 13 knots (15 mph) for RDC A‐II and B‐II, and 16 knots (18 mph) for RDC A‐III, B‐III, C‐I through C‐III, and D‐I through D‐III.

Weather data specific to the Airport was obtained from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administra‐ tion (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center. This data was collected from the on‐field automated weather observation station over a continuous 10‐year period from 2005 to 2014. A total of 236,216 all‐weather observations of wind direction and other data points were made, and a total of 16,225 instrument flight rule (IFR) weather observations were made.

Combined wind coverage for both runways for all‐weather observations provides 98.97 percent wind coverage for 10.5 knot crosswinds, 99.6 percent coverage at 13 knots, 99.88 percent at 16 knots, and 99.97 percent at 20 knots. IFR wind coverage for both runways combined provides 99.3 percent for 10.5 knot crosswinds, 99.71 percent coverage at 13 knots, 99.9 percent at 16 knots, and 99.98 percent at 20 knots. Exhibit 3A presents the all‐weather and IFR wind roses for the Airport.

This wind rose data indicates that the dual runway system at TPL satisfies 95 percent wind coverage recommendation and that no new runways are necessary for crosswind purposes. In fact, the wind rose indicates that Runway 15‐33 could singularly meet all crosswind components in visual flight rules (VFR) and IFR conditions.

RUNWAY DESIGN STANDARDS

The FAA has established several imaginary surfaces to protect aircraft operational areas and keep them free from obstructions that could affect their safe operation. These include the runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway obstacle free zone (ROFZ), and runway protection zone (RPZ).

The entire RSA, ROFA, and ROFZ must be under the direct ownership of the airport sponsor to ensure these areas remain free of obstacles and can be readily accessed by maintenance and emergency per‐ sonnel. The RPZ should also be under airport ownership. An alternative to outright ownership of the RPZ is the purchase of avigation easements (acquiring control of designated airspace within the RPZ) or having sufficient land use control measures in places which ensure the RPZ remains free of incompatible development. The existing/ultimate airport safety areas are presented on Exhibit 3B.

Dimensional standards for the various safety areas associated with the runways are a function of the type of aircraft expected to use the runways as well as the instrument approach capability. Table 3C presents the FAA design standards as they apply to the runways at TPL.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 6

15

20

15

20

2

33

2

33

N O R T H

DRAFT Chapter Three - 7

N O R T H

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 3A WINDROSES

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Three - 8

TABLE 3C FAA Runway Design Standards Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Runway Design Code

Runway 2‐20 Existing/Ultimate B‐II

Runway 15‐33 Existing C‐II

Ultimate D‐II

RUNWAY DESIGN Runway Width 75 100 100 Runway Shoulder Width 10 10 10 SAFETY AND OBJECT FREE AREAS

Runway Safety Area (RSA)

Width 150 500 500 Length Beyond Departure End 300 1,000 1,000 Length Prior to Threshold 300 600 600 Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)

Width 500 800 800 Length Beyond Departure End 300 1,000 1,000 Length Prior to Threshold 300 600 600 Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ)

Width 400 400 400 Length Beyond End 200 200 200 Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ)

Width NA 800 800 Length Beyond End NA 200 200 RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE DIMENSIONS Approach and Departure Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) – Visual and Not Lower than 1‐mile Visibility Minimums Length 1,000 1,700 1,700 Inner Width 500 500 500 Outer Width 700 1,010 1,010 Approach RPZ – Not Lower than ¾‐mile Visibility Minimums Length 1,700 1,700 1,700 Inner Width 1,000 1,000 1,000 Outer Width 1,510 1,510 1,510 Approach RPZ – Lower than ¾‐mile Visibility Minimums Length 2,500 2,500 2,500 Inner Width 1,000 1,000 1,000 Outer Width 1,750 1,750 1,750 RUNWAY SEPARATION

Runway Centerline to:

Holding Position 200 250 250 Parallel Taxiway 240 400 400 Aircraft Parking Area 250 500 500 Note: All dimensions in feet NA – Not Applicable Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design

Runway Safety Area

The RSA is defined in FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design, as a “surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway.” The RSA is centered on the runway and dimensioned in ac‐ cordance to the approach speed of the critical design aircraft using the runway. The FAA requires the RSA to be cleared and graded, drained by grading or storm sewers, capable of accommodating the design DRAFT Chapter Three - 9

aircraft and fire and rescue vehicles, and free of obstacles not fixed by navigational purpose such as runway edge lights or approach lights.

The FAA has placed a higher significance on maintaining adequate RSA at all airports. Under Order 5200.8, effective October 1, 1999, the FAA established the Runway Safety Area Program. The Order states, “The objective of the Runway Safety Area Program is that all RSAs at federally‐obligated airports…shall conform to The existing/ultimate RSA is un‐ the standards contained in Advisory Circular 150/5300‐13, obstructed by objects, and Airport Design, to the extent practicable.” Each Regional Air‐ grading within the RSA appears ports Division of the FAA is obligated to collect and maintain to meet standards. data on the RSA for each runway at the airport and perform airport inspections.

As shown on Exhibit 3B, the existing/ultimate RSA is unobstructed by objects, and grading within the RSA appears to meet standards. No improvements to the RSA are anticipated over the course of the planning period of this study.

Runway Object Free Area

The ROFA is “a two‐dimensional ground area, surrounding runways, taxiways, and taxilanes, which is clear of objects except for objects whose location is fixed by function (i.e., airfield lighting).” The ROFA does not have to be graded and level like the RSA; instead, the primary requirement for the ROFA is that no object in the ROFA penetrates the lateral elevation of the RSA. The ROFA is centered on the runway, extending out in accordance to the critical design aircraft utilizing the runway.

The existing/ultimate ROFA for both runways at TPL have been evaluated for obstructions, as depicted on Exhibit The only ROFA penetration identi‐ 3B. The only ROFA penetration identified was the perim‐ fied was the perimeter security eter security fence in the northwest corner of the Run‐ fence in the northwest corner of way 15‐33 ROFA. The penetration is very minor, but cor‐ the Runway 15‐33 ROFA. rective action should still be considered to remove the perimeter fence from the ROFA.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 10

Ro a

x

LEGEND

1600

x

x

Airport Property Line

SCALE IN FEET

x

er

x

800

d

0

Airport Fence Line

kR d

Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) rive

s D (POFZ) Precision Obstacle Free FiikkeZone

rC

x

ree

x

Runway Safety Area (RSA)

NOR TH

x

x

pe

x

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

Pe p

x

x

x

Departure RPZ x

x

220

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015 x

x

or irp

il x ra tT

A

x

x

(4 ,7 40 ’x

x x x

10 0’ )

x

x

x

E

x

Runway Visibility Zone

x

1.8 Acres

x

x

R x oa d

ico

C

x Lit tle M x ex

Residential Land Use Within RPZ (6.72 Acres)

x

RU NW AY

x

30’ Building Restriction Line (BRL)

x

x

x

x

Uncontrolled RPZ Areas

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

ral Point Cent eP kw y.

x

us

Ai rp

or t

x

Mo

Tr ai l

RUNWAY 15-33: RDC C/D-II-2400 RUNWAY 2-20: RDC B-II-5000

x x

x

x

B

C

A

x

x

x

x

x x

x

Fence Line in OFA

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

17 y3 wa gh

Hi

x

N x

x

x

Airpor

DRAFT Chapter Three - 11

x

x

x

D

x

x

x

28.2 Acres

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

x

x

x

x

t Road

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 3B EXISTING/ULTIMATE AIRFIELD SAFETY AREAS

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Three - 12

Runway Obstacle Free Zone

The ROFZ is an imaginary volume of airspace which precludes object penetrations, including taxiing and parked aircraft. The only allowance for ROFZ obstructions is navigational aids mounted on frangible bases which are fixed in their location by function, such as airfield signs. The ROFZ is established to ensure the safety of aircraft operations. If the ROFZ is obstructed, the airport’s approaches could be removed or approach minimums could be increased.

The existing/ultimate ROFZ is depicted on Exhibit 3B. There are no known obstructions to the ROFZ. Therefore, no improvements to the ROFZ are anticipated through the planning period.

Precision OFZ

A Precision OFZ (POFZ) is applicable only on runways with precision instrument approaches and is lo‐ cated beginning at the threshold of a runway at the threshold elevation and centered on the extended runway centerline. When a POFZ is in effect, neither an aircraft’s fuselage nor tail may penetrate the POFZ. A POFZ is only in effect for runways that meet each of the following operational conditions:

DRAFT Chapter Three - 13

1. The runway must have an approach with vertical guidance (APV) 2. The reported cloud ceiling must be below 250 feet or visibility must be less than 3/4 statute miles 3. An aircraft must be on final approach within two miles of the runway threshold

Runway 15 is the only runway at TPL equipped with an instrument approach that allows for visibility less than 3/4 statute miles. Thus, the POFZ applies only to the Runway 15 threshold, as depicted on Exhibit 3B. There are no known obstructions to the POFZ; therefore, no improvements are anticipated through the planning period.

Runway Protection Zones

The RPZ is a trapezoidal area centered on the runway, typically beginning 200 feet beyond the runway end. The RPZ has been established by the FAA to provide an area clear of obstructions and incompatible land uses, in order to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is comprised of the central portion of the RPZ and the controlled activity area. The central portion of the RPZ extends from the beginning to the end of the RPZ, is cen‐ tered on the runway, and is the width of the ROFA. The controlled activity area is any remaining portions of the RPZ. There is an approach RPZ and a departure RPZ for each runway end. The dimension of the approach and departure RPZ varies according to the visibility minimums serving the runway and the type of aircraft (design aircraft) operating on the runway. In some cases, such as with Runway 2‐20, the ap‐ proach and departure RPZ is the same size. In the case of Runway 15‐33, the approach RPZs are larger than the departure RPZs since it serves larger aircraft and is equipped with lower visibility minimum instrument approaches.

While the RPZ is intended to be clear of incompatible objects or land uses, some uses are permitted with conditions, while other land uses are prohibited. According to AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, the following land uses are permissible within the RPZ:

 Farming that meets the minimum buffer requirements,  Irrigation channels as long as they do not attract birds,  Airport service roads, as long as they are not public roads and are directly controlled by the air‐ port operator.  Underground facilities, as long as they meet other design criteria, such as RSA requirements, as applicable,  Unstaffed navigational aids (NAVAIDs) and facilities, such as required for airport facilities that are fixed‐by‐function in regard to the RPZ.

Any other land uses considered within RPZ land owned by the Airport sponsor must be evaluated and approved by the FAA Office of Airports. The FAA has published the Interim Guidance on Land Uses within

DRAFT Chapter Three - 14

a Runway Protection Zone (9.27.2012), which identifies several potential land uses that must be evalu‐ ated and approved prior to implementation. The specific land uses requiring FAA evaluation and ap‐ proval include:

 Buildings and structures. Examples include, but are not limited to: residences, schools, churches, hospitals or other medical care facilities, commercial/industrial buildings, etc.  Recreational land use. Examples include, but are not limited to: golf courses, sports fields, amuse‐ ment parks, other places of public assembly, etc.  Transportation facilities. Examples include, but are not limited to: ‐‐ Rail facilities ‐ light or heavy, passenger or freight ‐‐ Public roads/highways ‐‐ Vehicular parking facilities  Fuel storage facilities (above and below ground)  Hazardous material storage (above and below ground)  Wastewater treatment facilities  Above ground utility infrastructure (i.e., electrical substations), including any type of solar panel installations.

The Interim Guidance on Land within a Runway Protection Zone states, “RPZ land use compatibility also is often complicated by ownership considerations. Airport owner control over the RPZ land is empha‐ sized to achieve the desired protection of people and property on the ground. Although the FAA recog‐ nizes that in certain situations the airport sponsor may not fully control land within the RPZ, the FAA expects airport sponsors to take all possible measures to protect against and remove or mitigate incom‐ patible land uses.”

Currently, the RPZ review standards are applicable to any new or modified RPZ. The following actions or events could alter the size of an RPZ, potentially introducing an incompatibility:

 An airfield project (e.g., runway extension, runway shift)  A change in the critical design aircraft that increases the RPZ dimensions  A new or revised instrument approach procedure that increases the size of the RPZ  A local development proposal in the RPZ (either new or reconfigured)

Since the interim guidance only addresses new or modified RPZs, existing incompatibilities are essentially grandfathered under certain circumstances. While it is still necessary for the airport sponsor to take all reasonable actions to meet the RPZ design standard, FAA funding priority for certain actions, such as relocating existing roads in the RPZ, will be determined on a case‐by‐case basis.

Existing/ultimate RPZs at TPL are depicted on Exhibit 3B. The Runway 15 and 33 approach RPZs both extend beyond Air‐ Proposals to mitigate the risk to port property and in both cases contain incompatible land the residential neighborhood uses. A public roadway (Little Mexico Road) passes through within the Runway 15 RPZ the Runway 15 RPZ, and a portion of a residential neighbor‐ should be a priority. hood (approximately 6.72 acres) north of Little Mexico Road DRAFT Chapter Three - 15

is within the RPZ. The Runway 33 RPZ contains a portion of a public roadway (Airport Trail). Since these are existing conditions, the FAA expects the Airport to develop a plan to remove or mitigate the risk of these incompatible uses; most notably, proposals to mitigate the risk to the residential neighborhood within the Runway 15 RPZ should be a priority. Proposals to consider include the purchase and removal of the residential land uses within the RPZ; displacing the Runway 15 threshold to shift the RPZ away from the residential land uses; or the raising of approach visibility minimums to reduce the size of the RPZ. Alternatives for the mitigation of the residential land uses within the Runway 15 RPZ will be con‐ sidered in more detail in the next chapter. In total, the Runway 15 and 33 RPZs encompass 30 acres of land beyond Airport property. Additional consideration should be given to acquiring property control through either fee simple acquisition or avigation easements for the portion of the RPZs that extend beyond Airport property.

The Runway 2‐20 RPZs are located entirely on Airport property and do not have any incompatible land uses within their boundaries. As such, no additional property acquisition or other modifications will be necessary to meet RPZ standards for Runway 2‐20.

Runway/Taxiway Separation & Holding Positions

The design standards for the separation between runways and parallel taxiways are a function of the critical design aircraft and the instrument approach visibility minimums. The separation standard for DRAFT Chapter Three - 16

RDC C/D‐II‐2400 is 400 feet from the runway centerline to the parallel taxiway centerline. This standard applies to those taxiway segments that are parallel to Runway 15‐33. Partial‐length parallel Taxiways A and D are located 400 feet from the Runway 15‐33 centerline. The separation standard for RDC B‐II‐ 5000 is 240 feet from the runway centerline to the parallel taxiway centerline. This standard applies to those taxiway segments that are parallel to Runway 2‐20. Partial‐length parallel Taxiway C is located 400 feet from the Runway 2‐20 centerline, thus exceeding the FAA design standard.

The FAA also mandates that taxiway holding positions be located a certain distance from the runway centerline. For RDC C/D‐II‐2400, the holding positions on parallel taxiways should be located a minimum of 250 feet from the runway centerline. Holding position markings for Runway 15‐33 are located 250 feet from the runway centerline, meeting the FAA design standard. For RDC B‐II‐5000, hold positions should be located a minimum of 200 feet from the runway centerline. Hold position markings for Run‐ way 2‐20 are located 250 feet from the runway centerline, exceeding the FAA design standard.

RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ)

The RVZ is an area formed by imaginary lines connecting the line of sight points of intersecting runways.

The purpose of the RVZ is to facilitate coordination among aircraft, and between aircraft and vehicles that are operating on active runways. Having a clear line of sight allows departing aircraft and arriving aircraft to verify the location and actions of other aircraft and vehicles on the ground that could create a conflict. Within the RVZ, any point five feet above the runway centerline must be mutually visible with any other point five feet above the centerline of the crossing runway. The RVZ at TPL is depicted on Exhibit 3B. Currently, there are no known obstructions to the line of sight within the RVZ.

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL)

The BRL identifies suitable building area locations on the airport. The BRL encompasses the RPZs, the OFA, navigational aid critical areas, areas required for terminal instrument procedures, and other areas necessary for meeting airport line‐of‐sight criteria, such as the RVZ.

Two primary factors contribute to the determination of the BRL: type of runway (utility or other‐than‐ utility) and the capability of the instrument approaches. Runway 15‐33 is considered a “precision instru‐ ment” runway with a CAT‐I ILS with visibility minimums down to ½‐mile. Runway 2‐20 is considered a “non‐precision instrument” runway with a vertically‐guided instrument approach with visibility mini‐ mums down to one‐mile.

The BRL is the product of CFR Part 77 transitional surface clearance requirements. These requirements stipulate that no object be located in the primary surface, defined as being 500 feet wide for non‐preci‐ sion instrument runways (visibility minimums not lower than ¾‐mile), and 1,000 feet wide for precision instrument runways. From the primary surface, the transitional surface extends outward at a slope of one vertical foot to every seven horizontal feet. For Runway 15‐33, the 30‐foot BRL is set at 710 feet from the runway centerline. For Runway 2‐20, the 30‐foot BRL is set at 460 feet from the runway cen‐ terline. The BRL is depicted on Exhibit 3B, and it appears all landside facilities are located beyond the 30‐foot BRL.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 17

RUNWAYS

The adequacy of the existing runways at TPL has been analyzed from a number of perspectives, including runway orientation and adherence to safety area standards. From this information, requirements for runway improvements were determined for the Airport. Runway elements, such as length, width, and strength, are now analyzed.

Runway Length

The determination of runway length requirements for the airport is based on four primary factors:

 Mean maximum temperature of the hottest month  Airport elevation  Runway gradient  Performance characteristics and operating weight of aircraft

The mean maximum daily temperature of the hottest month for Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is 95.7 degrees Fahrenheit (F), which occurs in August. The Airport elevation is 682 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The primary Runway 15‐33 end elevation difference is 13.3 feet, resulting in a gradient of 0.2 percent.

Advisory Circular 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, provides guidance for determining runway length needs. Airplanes operate on a wide variety of available runway lengths.

Many factors will govern the suitability of those runway lengths for aircraft such as elevation, tempera‐ ture, wind, aircraft weight, wing flap settings, runway condition (wet or dry), runway gradient, vicinity airspace obstructions, and any special operating procedures. Airport operators can pursue policies that can maximize the suitability of the runway length. Policies, such as area zoning and height and hazard restricting, can protect an airport’s runway length. Airport ownership (fee simple or easement) of land leading to the runway ends can reduce the possibility of natural growth or man‐made obstructions. Plan‐ ning of runways should include an evaluation of aircraft types expected to use the airport now and in the future. Future plans should be realistic and supported by the FAA approved forecasts and should be based on the critical design aircraft (or family of aircraft).

The first step in evaluating runway length is to determine general runway length requirements for the majority of aircraft operating at the Airport. The majority of fixed‐wing aircraft operations at TPL are conducted using small aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Following guidance from AC 150/5325‐ 4B, to accommodate 95 percent of small aircraft with less than 10 passenger seats, a runway length of 3,400 feet is recommended. To accommodate 100 percent of these small aircraft, a runway length of 4,000 feet is recommended. To accommodate small airplanes having 10 or more passenger seats, a runway length of 4,400 feet is recommended.

Runway length requirements for business jets weighing less than 60,000 pounds have also been calcu‐ lated. These calculations take into consideration the runway gradient. AC 150/5325‐4B stipulates that runway length determination for business jets consider a grouping of airplanes with similar operating characteristics. The AC provides two separate “family groupings of airplanes,” each based upon their DRAFT Chapter Three - 18

representative percentage of aircraft in the national fleet. The first grouping is those business jets that make up 75 percent of the national fleet, and the second group is those making up 100 percent of the national fleet. Table 3D presents a partial list of common aircraft in each aircraft grouping. A third group considers business jets weighing more than 60,000 pounds. Runway length determination for these aircraft must be based on the performance characteristics of the individual aircraft.

TABLE 3D

Business Jet Categories for Runway Length Determination 75 percent of the 75‐100 percent of MTOW MTOW national fleet the national fleet Lear 35 20,350 Lear 55 21,500 Lear 45 20,500 Lear 60 23,500 Cessna 550 14,100 Hawker 800XP 28,000 Cessna 560XL 20,000 Hawker 1000 31,000 Cessna 650 (VII) 22,000 Cessna 650 (III/IV) 22,000 IAI Westwind 23,500 Cessna 750 (X) 36,100 Beechjet 400 15,800 Challenger 604 47,600 Falcon 50 18,500 IAI Astra 23,500 MTOW: Maximum Take Off Weight

Source: FAA AC 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design

Greater than 60,000 pounds Gulfstream II Gulfstream IV Gulfstream V Global Express

MTOW 65,500 73,200 90,500 98,000

Table 3E presents the results of the runway length analysis for business jets developed following the guidance provided in AC 150/5325‐4B. To accommodate 75 percent of the business jet fleet at 60 per‐ cent useful load, a runway length of 5,900 feet is recommended. This length is derived from a raw length of 5,000 feet that is adjusted, as recommended, for runway gradient and for wet surface conditions. To accommodate 100 percent of the business jet fleet at 60 percent useful load, a runway length of 7,200 feet is recommended.

TABLE 3E Primary Runway Length Requirements Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Airport Elevation 682 feet above mean sea level

Average High Monthly Temp.

95.7 degrees (August)

Runway Gradient Runway 15‐33: 13.3’ High/Low Point Difference

Runway Length Raw Runway Wet Surface With Gradient Final Runway Fleet Mix Category Length from Landing Length for Adjustment Length* FAA AC Jets (+15%) (+130') 95% of small aircraft 3,400’ N/A N/A 3,400’ 100% of small aircraft 4,000’ N/A N/A 4,000’ Small airplanes with 10 or more seats 4,400’ N/A N/A 4,400’ 75% of business jet fleet at 60% useful load 5,000’ 5,130’ 5,900’ 5,900’ 75% of business jet fleet at 90% useful load 7,100’ 7,230’ 8,315’ 8,300’ 100% of business jet fleet at 60% useful load 6,100’ 6,230’ 7,165’ 7,200’ 100% of business jet fleet at 90% useful load 9,400’ 9,530’ 10,960’ 11,000’ N/A – Not Applicable * Final runway length was rounded up if the ten value was at or above 30’ and down if it was below 30’.

Source: FAA AC 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design.

To examine the adequacy of the existing runway length for some of the largest business jet aircraft, the aircraft planning manuals for the Gulfstream G200, G450, and G550 were utilized to calculate what the

DRAFT Chapter Three - 19

operational capabilities of these aircraft would be during the hottest times of the year at TPL’s elevation.

The results indicate that the Gulfstream G200 could operate at TPL at 93 percent (33,000 pounds) of its maximum gross takeoff weight (MTOW) of 35,450 pounds, and both the G450 and G550 could operate at a field length of 7,000 feet at their MTOW (73,900 pounds and 91,000 pounds respectively) with no weight penalties.

Utilization of the 90 percent category for runway length determination is generally not considered by the FAA unless there is a demonstrated need at the airport. This could be documented activity by a cargo carrier or by a business jet operator that flies out frequently with heavy loads. To accommodate 75 percent of the business jet fleet at 90 percent useful load, a runway length of 8,300 feet is recom‐ mended. For 100 percent of the business jet fleet at 90 percent useful load, a runway length of 11,000 feet is recommended. There is currently no user that justifies planning to a 90 percent category.

Primary Runway 15‐33’s current length is 7,000 feet. The runway length analysis indicates that the cur‐ rent length satisfies the length recommendation for 75 percent of the business jet fleet at 60 percent useful load (5,900 feet) and is only 200 feet shy of satisfying the recommendation for 100 percent of business jets at 60 percent useful load (7,200 feet). The current length also satisfies the TASP minimum runway design standard length of 5,000 feet for Business/Corporate airports. The analysis also showed that the existing runway length is capable of accommodating even the largest business jet aircraft in‐ cluding the Gulfstream family of jets with little to no weight penalties during the hottest times of the year.

The existing Runway 15‐33

Runway 15‐33 has adequately served a variety of business length is considered adequate jet aircraft on a regular basis without incident. There has for the planning period of the been no indication by users, which include several based Master Plan.

Learjets and a Bombardier Challenger 600 business jet, or Airport staff that a runway extension is warranted. Therefore, the existing Runway 15‐33 length is con‐ sidered adequate for the planning period of the Master Plan. If demand does materialize for a runway extension, the FAA requires detailed justification, including specific aircraft registration numbers and the total number of operations by the aircraft requiring the additional runway length. In addition, a runway extension project would require a detailed environmental assessment to examine the potential impacts on the surrounding environment and infrastructure, such as the vicinity roadway network.

According to FAA AC 150/5325‐4B Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, the secondary run‐ way should be designed for the lower crosswind capable aircraft using the primary runway. In the case of TPL, Runway 2‐20, with a runway length of 4,740 feet, has adequate length to accommodate all small general aviation aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds and, in many cases, can accommodate up to medium sized business jet aircraft at cooler temperatures and dry runway conditions. Similar to Runway 15‐33, a runway extension would need thorough justification and environmental analysis to receive FAA funding. Runway 2‐20 currently has adequate length to serve almost all the current and forecasted users of the Airport; therefore, an extension for capacity purposes will be considered through the planning period of the Master Plan.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 20

Runway Width

The required width of the runway is a function of the airplane design group (ADG). Runway 15‐33 is 150 feet wide and Runway 2‐20 is 100 feet wide. Both runway widths exceed the FAA design standards of 100 feet wide for C/D‐II runways and 75 feet wide for B‐II runways. The TASP minimum runway width standard for Business/Corporate runways is 100 feet wide, which is satisfied by both runways. The ad‐ ditional runway width can be beneficial for smaller aircraft operating under higher crosswind conditions, improving overall operational safety or for the occasional use by larger business jet aircraft. Therefore, the runway width for both runways is adequate and should be maintained through the planning period of this Master Plan.

Runway Strength

An important feature of airfield pavement is its ability to withstand repeated use by aircraft. The current pavement strength for Runway 15‐33 is 55,000 pounds single wheel loading (SWL), 70,000 pounds dual wheel loading (DWL), and 110,000 pounds dual tandem wheel loading (DTWL). Runway 2‐20 is strength rated at 31,000 pounds SWL and 37,000 pounds DWL. Strength ratings refer to the configuration of the aircraft landing gear. For example, SWL indicates an aircraft with a single wheel on each landing gear.

The strength ratings of a runway do not preclude operations by aircraft that weigh more; however, fre‐ quent activity by heavier aircraft can shorten the useful life of that pavement.

The strength rating for both runways The vast majority of aircraft operating at TPL now and is considered adequate and should those anticipated to use the Airport in the future can be accommodated by the current runway strength ratings. be maintained through the planning The current pavement strengths can accommodate us‐ period of this Master Plan. ers including large business jet aircraft such as the Gulf‐ stream G450 on the primary runway and all small aircraft and some mid‐sized jet aircraft on the cross‐ wind runway. Larger business jet aircraft such as the Gulfstream G550 and G650 and the Bombardier Global Express have MTOWs between 91,000 pounds and 99,600 pounds on DWL. While these weights exceed the current pavement strength of the primary runway, these aircraft can still operate at TPL on a limited basis. It is not anticipated that these heavier aircraft will operate frequently enough to justify a pavement strengthening project and furthermore, no indication has been made by existing users of the Airport or by Airport staff that additional runway pavement strength is needed. Therefore, the strength rating for both runways is considered adequate and should be maintained through the planning period of this Master Plan.

TAXIWAYS

The design standards associated with taxiways are de‐ termined by the taxiway design group (TDG) or the air‐ plane design group (ADG) of the critical design aircraft.

As determined previously, the applicable ADG for both runways is ADG‐II. Table 3F presents the various taxiway design standards related to ADG‐II.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 21

TABLE 3F Taxiway Dimensions and Standards Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport STANDARDS BASED ON WINGSPAN

ADG II

Taxiway Protection Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) width Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA) width Taxilane Object Free Area width

79' 131' 115' Taxiway Separation

Taxiway Centerline to: Fixed or Movable Object Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane Taxilane Centerline to: Fixed or Movable Object Parallel Taxilane Taxiway Centerline to: Runway Centerline

65.5' 105'

57.5' 97'

240'

Wingtip Clearance Taxiway Wingtip Clearance Taxilane Wingtip Clearance STANDARDS BASED ON TDG Taxiway Width Standard Taxiway Edge Safety Margin Taxiway Shoulder Width ADG: Airplane Design Group TDG: Taxiway Design Group Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design

26' 18' TDG 2 35' 7.5' 15'

The table also shows those taxiway design standards related to TDG. The TDG standards are based on the Main Gear Width (MGW) and the Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance of the critical design aircraft expected to use those taxiways. Different taxiways/taxilane pavements can and should be designed to the most appropriate TDG design standards.

The existing/ultimate critical TDG for TPL is 2 based upon the combination of business jet aircraft that make up the critical design aircraft including the Learjet 60, Beechcraft Challenger 600, and the Cessna Citation jet family of business jet aircraft. This means that the taxiways associated with the runways should be at least 35 feet wide. All taxiways on the airfield are at least 35 feet wide, with Taxiways A and D at 75 feet wide. All taxiways meet or exceed the FAA design standard and therefore should be maintained through the planning period of this Master Plan.

The Taxiway D connection with Taxiway Design Considerations the Runway 2 threshold is not

FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design, provides right‐angled and, as such, does guidance on recommended taxiway and taxilane layouts to not meet standards. enhance safety by avoiding runway incursions. A runway in‐ cursion is defined as “any occurrence at an airport involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle,

DRAFT Chapter Three - 22

or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft.” The taxiway system at TPL generally provides for the efficient movement of aircraft.

One area of concern is the alignment of Taxi‐ way D where it intersects with the end of Run‐ way 2. Taxiway D functions primarily as a par‐ allel taxiway for Runway 15‐33, but also pro‐ vides access to the Runway 2 threshold. Due to its location and configuration, the Taxiway D connection with the Runway 2 threshold is not right‐angled and, as such, does not meet standards. Such configurations can lead to pi‐ lot confusion and increases the potential for runway incursions. In addition, pilots taxiing on Taxiway D must hold short of Runway 2‐20 when it is in use, and depending on the direc‐ tion of travel, will have difficulty turning to see arriving or departing traffic due to the angle of the run‐ way. This creates a potentially unsafe operating environment. In short, the intersecting configuration of Taxiway D with Runway 2‐20 does not conform to FAA standard. Measures will be considered in the alternatives analysis to provide more standardized connections from Taxiway D to the Runway 2 thresh‐ old.

Taxilane Design Considerations

Taxilanes are distinguished from taxiways in that they do not provide access to or from the runway sys‐ tem directly. Taxilanes typically provide access to hangar areas. As a result, taxilanes can be designed to varying design standards depending on the type of aircraft utilizing the taxilane. For example, a tax‐ ilane leading to a T‐hangar area only needs to be designed to accommodate those aircraft typically ac‐ cessing a T‐hangar.

The alternatives chapter will consider various designs for improving the safe movement of aircraft via taxilanes as hangar and apron facilities expand over time.

INSTRUMENT NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

The Airport has six published instrument approach procedures including a Cat‐I ILS, three RNAV LPV ap‐ proaches, and two VOR approach procedures. Each runway end except for Runway 20 is served by a straight‐in procedure. These are excellent instrument approaches providing all‐weather capability for the Airport and they should be maintained in the future. Consideration should be given to establishing a GPS approach to Runway 20 so that all runway ends are equipped with instrument approach proce‐ dures. The alternatives analysis will consider the potential of an instrument approach procedure to Run‐ way 20.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 23

VISUAL AIDS

The Airport beacon is located along the Airport Loop Road and should be maintained as necessary.

Runways 33 and 20 are equipped with 4‐light precision approach path indicator (PAPIs). PAPIs are the most common visual approach aid equipment and should be considered for the Runway 2 end as well.

Runway 15 is equipped with a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment lights (MALSR), which supports the ILS. These systems should be maintained as necessary through their useful life.

None of the runway ends are equipped with runway end identifier lights (REILs). Since Runway 15 is equipped with a MALSR, REILs are not necessary; however, REILs should be considered for all other run‐ way ends to help improve a pilot’s situational awareness.

WEATHER AIDS

TPL is equipped with an automated weather observing system (AWOS‐3). This is an important system that automatically records weather conditions such as wind speed, wind gust, wind direction, tempera‐ ture, dew point, altimeter setting, visibility, fog/haze condition, precipitation, and cloud height. This information is then transmitted at regular intervals (usually once per hour). Aircraft in the vicinity can receive this information if they have their radio tuned to the correct frequency (134.975 MHz). In addi‐ tion, pilots and individuals can call a published telephone number (254‐774‐8337) and receive the infor‐ mation via an automated voice recording. This system should be maintained as necessary through the equipment’s useful life.

AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

A summary of the airside needs at Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport is presented on Ex‐ hibit 3C.

LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS

Landside facilities are those necessary for the handling of aircraft and passengers while on the ground. These fa‐ cilities provide the essential interface between the air and ground transportation modes. The capacity of the various components of each element was examined in relation to projected demand to identify future landside facility needs. This includes components for general aviation needs such as:

 Aircraft Hangars  Auto Parking and Access  Aircraft Parking Aprons  Airport Support Facilities  Terminal Building Services

DRAFT Chapter Three - 24

Category

Short Term

Long Term

Runway 15-33

Runway 15-33

Runway 15-33

RDC C-II-2400

RDC C-II-2400

RDC D-II-2400

7,000' x 150'

Maintain

Maintain

55,000 # SWL; 70,000 # DWL; 110,000 # DTWL

Maintain

Maintain

Standard RSA/ROFZ/POFZ

Maintain

Maintain

Standard ROFA; obstructed by perimeter security fence

Remove obstruction from ROFA

Maintain

Standard RPZs; partially owned in fee; portions extend beyond Airport property and encompass incompatible land uses

Mitigate risk of incompatible land uses within RPZs and acquire control over entire RPZ

Maintain

Precision markings

Maintain

Maintain

MIRL

Maintain

Maintain

Runway 2-20

Runway 2-20

Runway 2-20

RDC B-II-5000

Maintain

Maintain

4,740' x 100'

Maintain

Maintain

31,000 # SWL; 37,000 # DWL

Maintain

Maintain

Standard RSA/ROFA/ROFZ

Maintain

Maintain

Standard RPZs; Owned in fee

Maintain

Maintain

Basic markings

Maintain

Maintain

MIRL

Maintain

Maintain

General: Non-standard intersection - Taxiway D and Runway 2 threshold

Consider corrective measures to improve operational safety

Maintain

TDG-2

Maintain

Maintain

Centerline Marking

Maintain

Maintain

Taxiway Width: A, B, D, - 75'; C, E, - 35'

Maintain

Maintain

MITL

Maintain

Maintain

AWOS

Maintain

Maintain

Beacon

Maintain

Maintain

PAPI-4s (33 & 20); MALSR (15)

PAPI-4 (2)

REILs (33, 2 & 20)

CAT-I ILS (15); 3 RNAV LPV approaches (2, 15 & 33) 2 VOR approaches (15, 33)

Maintain

Consider GPS-based instrument approach to Runway 20

Available

RUNWAYS

TAXIWAYS

KEY

NAVIGATIONAL AND WEATHER AIDS

AWOS - Automated Weather Observing System CAT-I - Category I DTWL - Dual Tandem Wheel Loading GPS - Global Positioning System ILS - Instrument Landing System MIRL - Medium Intensity Runway Lights MITL - Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights

DRAFT Chapter Three - 25

PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator RDC - Runway Design Code REIL - Runway End Identifier Lights RNAV - Area Navigation ROFA - Runway Object Free Area ROFZ - Runway Obstacle Free Zone RPZ - Runway Protection Zone

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

RSA - Runway Safety Area SWL - Single Wheel Loading TDG - Taxiway Design Group VOR - Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range

Exhibit 3C AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

A summary of landside and support needs is presented on Exhibit 3D and described in the sections be‐ low.

HANGARS

Utilization of hangar space varies as a function of local climate, security, and owner preferences. The trend in general aviation, whether single or multi‐engine aircraft, is toward more sophisticated aircraft (and, consequently, more expensive aircraft); therefore, many aircraft owners prefer enclosed hangar space to outside tie‐downs, which was confirmed by the respondents to the AOPA user survey conducted for this project (see response summary in Chapter One).

The demand for aircraft storage hangars is dependent upon the number and type of aircraft expected to be based at the airport in the future. However, hangar development should be based upon actual de‐ mand trends and financial investment conditions.

All T‐hangar units are currently oc‐ At TPL, all based aircraft are hangared with none choos‐ cupied and the Airport maintains a ing to base on a ramp tie‐down. Therefore, enclosed hangar facilities will be planned for each based aircraft. hangar waiting list, which has 37 There are two types of aircraft storage hangars at TPL: people listed currently.

T‐hangars and conventional hangars. T‐hangars are sim‐ ilar in size and will typically house a single piston‐powered aircraft. The average size of a T‐hangar unit at TPL is approximately 1,300 square feet. There are typically many T‐hangar units “nested” within a single structure. There are 73 T‐hangar units at the Airport encompassing 91,996 square feet of storage space. All T‐hangar units are currently occupied and the Airport maintains a hangar waiting list, which has 37 people listed currently.

Conventional hangars are open‐space facilities with no interfering supporting structure. Conventional hangars can vary in size and can either be attached to others or be standalone hangars. Typically, con‐ ventional hangars will house larger multi‐engine turboprop, jets, or helicopters. At TPL, there are 14 conventional hangars with a total of 191,107 square feet of storage space that serve a variety of uses including fixed base operator (FBO) services, corporate or executive aircraft services, and aircraft mainte‐ nance services. All of the conventional hangars are currently occupied; however, the maintenance hang‐ ars currently occupied by AMCOM, which accounts for 94,000 square feet of hangar space, could become available if AMCOM were ever to vacate the Airport. There is presently strong demand for new hangar facilities at TPL and identifying specific development locations for new hangar facilities will be a top pri‐ ority in this Master Plan.

Table 3G presents aircraft storage needs based on the demand forecasts. Assumptions have been made on owner preferences for a hangar type based on trends at general aviation airports. Facility require‐ ments consider space requirements for 42 additional aircraft anticipated to require storage space through the planning period. All additional turbine and rotorcraft aircraft are assumed to be stored in conventional hangars. Additional piston aircraft are assumed to be housed in T‐hangars.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 26

Aircraft Storage Hangar Requirements

Base Year (2014) 84 84 91,996 191,107 283,103

Based Aircraft Aircraft to be Hangared T-Hangar Area (s.f.)

Conventional Hangar Area (s.f.)

Total Storage Area (s.f.)

Short Term 93 93 98,496 196,607 295,103

Intermediate Term 103 103 107,596 203,107 310,703

Long Term 126 126 127,096 221,107 348,203

Aircraft Parking Apron Requirements

Local Apron Positions Piston Transient Positions Turbine Transient Positions Total Positions Total Apron Area (s.y.)

9 21 7 37 34,000

10 24 8 42 38,700

13 31 10 54 49,000

3,900 126

3,760 102

4,160 112

5,440 144

12,000 24,000

2,500 20,300

2,900 22,900

3,700 29,500

22 39,200

General Aviation Terminal Facility Requirements

Terminal Building Area (s.f.)

Automobile Parking Spaces

14-Day Fuel Storage Requirements

AvGas Jet A

Support Facility Requirements Perimeter Security Fence P i Airport maintenance facility ARFF Facilities Aircraft Wash Rack DRAFT Chapter Three - 27

Relocate where it obstructs the ROFA

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Expand ARFF equipment storage

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 3D LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

TABLE 3G

Hangar Needs

Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Based Aircraft Hangared Aircraft Hangar Area Requirements T‐Hangar Area (s.f.)

Conventional Hangar Area (s.f.)

Total Storage Area (s.f.)

Source: Coffman Associates analysis.

Current Capacity

Short Term

Intermedi‐ ate Term

Long Term

84 84

93 93

103 103

126 126

91,996 191,107 283,103

98,496 196,607 295,103

107,596 203,107 310,703

127,096 221,107 348,203

Long Term Need Less Current Capacity

35,100 30,000 65,100

There is 283,103 square feet of hangar storage space available currently. Throughout the planning pe‐ riod, it is anticipated the most significant change in aircraft storage needs will occur for more sophisti‐ cated aircraft (turbine and helicopters). By the long term planning horizon, it is anticipated that an ad‐ ditional nine turbine aircraft and four helicopters could base at the Airport. A planning standard of 2,500 square feet per turbine aircraft and 1,500 square feet per helicopter was utilized to generate additional conventional hangar space needs for each planning period. By the long term planning period, a total of 30,000 square feet of conventional hangar space is forecast as needed. It has been indicated that there is a potential for AMCOM to vacate its facilities in the future. Should this occur, this hangar analysis assumes that a new tenant for the maintenance hangar complex can be found. Depending on the type of services and activities conducted by a new tenant, the maintenance hangars could be used to satisfy some of the projected hangar demand and, therefore, reduce the amount of new hangar space needed.

T‐hangar requirements increase over time to account for an additional 27 piston aircraft. A planning criterion of 1,300 square feet per piston aircraft was used to generate additional hangar space needs.

By the long term horizon, a need for an additional 35,100 square feet (27 units) of T‐hangar storage is identified.

Hangar requirements are general in nature and are based on standard hangar size estimates. If a private developer desires to construct or lease a large hangar to house one plane, any extra space in that hangar may not be available for other aircraft. The actual hangar area needs will be dependent on the usage within each hangar.

AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON

The aircraft parking apron is an expanse of paved area intended for aircraft parking and circulation. Typ‐ ically, a main apron is centrally located near the airside entry point, such as the terminal building or FBO facility. Ideally, the main apron is large enough to accommodate transient airport users as well as a portion of locally based aircraft. Often, smaller aprons are available adjacent to hangars and at other locations around the airport. The apron layout at TPL follows this typical pattern.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 28

The primary ramp area at TPL is approximately 32,000 square yards and includes 22 marked aircraft tiedown positions. The ramp space is located adjacent to the general aviation (GA) terminal building and is accessible to/from the airfield via Taxiways A and D. An additional 7,200 square yards of ramp space is available south of the GA terminal and adjacent to three corporate/FBO hangars.

FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design, suggests a methodology by which transient apron re‐ quirements can be determined from knowledge of busy‐day operations. At TPL, the number of itinerant spaces required is estimated at 13 percent of the busy‐day itinerant operations. This results in a short‐ term need for 28 itinerant aircraft parking spaces. Of these, seven should be for heavier turboprops and business jets and 21 should be for small aircraft. By the long term planning period, 41 spaces are esti‐ mated to be needed, with ten identified for heavier turbine aircraft and 31 for small aircraft.

A planning criterion of 800 square yards per aircraft was applied to determine future transient apron area requirements for single and multi‐engine aircraft. For turboprops and business jets (which are typ‐ ically larger), a planning criterion of 1,600 square yards per aircraft position was used. The short term need for transient apron area is 28,000 square yards. By the long term planning period, approximately 40,800 square yards is estimated.

Since all based aircraft are planned to be stored in hangars, little apron space needs to be planned for based aircraft. However, on occa‐ sions when based aircraft do require both hangar storage and apron space, 10 percent of the based aircraft total will be used to determine the locally based aircraft apron requirements.

This results in a need for 8,200 square yards of local apron area by the long term.

Total apron parking requirements are presented in Table 3H. While the total apron square yard‐ age exceeds the short and intermediate term needs, the analysis identifies a need for more tie‐down positions. The alternatives chapter will examine the potential for additional tie‐down positions as well as new apron area to satisfy long term require‐ ments.

TABLE 3H Aircraft Apron Requirements Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Current

Capacity Local Apron Positions

Local Apron Area (s.y.)

Transient Apron Positions Piston Transient Positions Turbine Transient Positions

Transient Apron Area (s.y.)

Total Positions 22 Total Apron Area (s.y.)

39,200 Source: Coffman Associates analysis

DRAFT Chapter Three - 29

Short Term

Intermediate Term

Long Term

9 6,000

10 6,700

13 8,200

21 7 28,000 37 34,000

24 8 32,000 42 38,700

31 10 40,800 54 49,000

TERMINAL BUILDING FACILITIES

General aviation terminal facilities have several functions. Space is necessary for a pilots’ lounge, flight planning, concessions, management, and storage. More advanced airports will have leasable space in the terminal building for such features as a restaurant, FBO line services, and other needs. This space is not necessarily limited to a single, separate terminal building, but can include space offered by FBOs in their hangars for these functions and services.

TPL’s Elmer Reed GA terminal provides a wide range of services including FBO‐services, flight planning, pilots’ lounge, concessions, management, conference room, and restrooms. The GA terminal facility has a total area of 3,900 square feet.

The methodology used in estimating general aviation terminal facility needs is based on the number of airport users expected to utilize general aviation facilities during the design hour. General aviation space requirements were then based upon providing 80 square feet per design hour itinerant passenger. De‐ sign hour itinerant passengers are determined by multiplying design hour itinerant operations by the number of passengers on the aircraft (multiplier). Table 3J outlines the general aviation terminal facility space requirements for TPL.

TABLE 3J General Aviation Terminal Area Facilities Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Existing

Design Hour Itinerant Operations Multiplier Total Design Hour Itinerant Passengers Total GA Terminal Building Space (s.f.)

Source: Coffman Associates analysis

26 1.8 47 3,760

3,900

Intermediate Term 29 1.8 52 4,160

Short Term

Long Term 38 1.8 68 5,440

GA terminal calculations based on forecast passenger activity indicates that the existing terminal building may need to be expanded over time to maintain a level of service for an increasing number of terminal users. The terminal building is the entrance to the community for many visitors to the area. It should be assumed that these passengers include individuals who may be considering investment in the com‐ munity. Therefore, it is recommended that the airport sponsor be cognizant of the appearance of the Airport and the GA terminal in particular.

SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

Various facilities that do not logically fall within classifications of airside or landside facilities have also been identified. These other areas provide certain functions related to the overall operation of the air‐ port.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 30

Automobile Parking

Planning for adequate automobile parking is a necessary element for any airport. Parking needs can effectively be divided between transient airport users, locally based users, and airport business needs.

Transient users include those employed at the airport and visitors, while locally based users primarily include those attending to their based aircraft. A planning criteria of 1.5 times the design hour passenger count provides the minimum number of vehicle spaces needed for transient users. Locally based parking spaces are calculated as one‐third of the number of based aircraft. A planning standard of 41 square yards per space is utilized to determine total vehicle parking area necessary, which includes area needed for circulation and handicap clearances. Parking requirements for the Airport are summarized in Table 3K.

TABLE 3K GA Vehicle Parking Requirements Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Existing

Short Term

Design Hour Itinerant Passengers VEHICLE PARKING SPACES GA Itinerant Spaces GA Based Spaces Total Parking Spaces VEHICLE PARKING AREA Total Parking Area (s.y.) a Includes GA terminal area paved public parking lots.

Source: Coffman Associates analysis

126

6,400a

47

71 31 102

4,180

Intermediate Term 52

78 34 112

4,600

Long Term 68

102 42 144

5,900

The existing terminal area automobile parking lot appears to satisfy long‐term parking requirements. In an effort to limit the level of vehicle traffic on the aircraft movement areas, many general aviation air‐ ports are providing separate parking in support of facilities with multiple aircraft parking positions, such as T‐hangars. Vehicle parking spaces will be considered in conjunction with additional facility needs in the alternatives chapter.

The maintenance hangars that are currently occupied by AMCOM have a separate 7,500 square yard vehicle parking lot that is planned to be expanded to add 356 parking spaces over four phases of con‐ struction.

Airport Access Roads

Airport Loop Road, a paved, two‐lane road, serves as the only public access point to the GA terminal and the many hangar facilities in the vicinity. An additional paved, two‐lane road provides access to the Airport maintenance facility and several conventional hangars, including the AMCOM complex. Both roads are accessible via Airport Road (State Highway 36). Neither access point with Airport Road is a lighted intersection; however, Airport Road is a four‐lane roadway with a middle turning lane. Both Airport access points are also equipped with attractive signage identifying the Airport access points and directional signage for the various Airport tenants.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 31

Various roadway improvements are currently under development (see Chapter 1, Exhibit 1K). Improve‐ ments include a new fuel farm loop roadway, which will allow for easier access to the fuel storage tanks by fuel supply trucks, and a new roadway access point from Airport Road to the maintenance hangars currently occupied Consideration should be given

by AMCOM. Vehicle traffic increases due to increased oper‐ to expanding the ARFF facility ational activities are not anticipated to exceed the capacity of the existing roadway. Therefore, the existing on‐airport to adequately store the ARFF roadway network should continue to be maintained through equipment and office space for the ARFF specialists on staff. the planning period.

Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF)

Presently, TPL maintains ARFF index B equipment even though it is not required to do so as it is no longer a C.F.R. Part 139 certificated Airport. The Index B equipment accom‐ modates aircraft lengths up to 126 feet. The ARFF equip‐ ment is stored in a facility that is attached to the GA terminal building. At present, the storage facility for the ARFF truck is undersized. Consideration should be given to expanding the ARFF facility to adequately store the ARFF equipment and of‐ fice space for the ARFF specialists on staff.

Fuel Storage

The Airport owns three above ground fuel storage tanks west of the terminal area providing 12,000 gal‐ lons of 100LL Avgas storage and 24,000 gallons of Jet A storage. The Airport also has four mobile fuel delivery trucks, two for Avgas and two for Jet A.

Additional fuel storage capacity should be planned when the Airport is unable to maintain an adequate supply and reserve. While each airport determines their own desired reserve, a 14‐day reserve is com‐ mon for GA airports. When additional capacity is needed, it should be planned in 10,000‐ to 12,000‐ gallon increments. Common fuel tanker trucks have an 8,000‐gallon capacity.

As was previously mentioned in Chapter One, the City of Tem‐ ple Reinvestment Zone approved funding for the construction According to the responses re‐ ceived from the AOPA user sur‐ of a self‐service aviation fuel facility adjacent to the old termi‐ nal building on the main aircraft parking ramp. This facility vey, a self‐service fuel facility is will include tanks for both Avgas and Jet A. According to the in high demand and should be responses received from the AOPA user survey, a self‐service operational by the end of 2015. fuel facility is in high demand and should be operational by the end of 2015.

Table 3L presents a forecast of fuel demand through the planning period. Fuel needs were based on an eight‐year average of Jet A and AvGas fuel flowage per operation. Forecasted Jet A fuel needs were DRAFT Chapter Three - 32

based on 8.6 gallons purchased per operation, and AvGas needs were forecast based on 1.1 gallons pur‐ chased per operation.

TABLE 3L

Fuel Storage Requirements

Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

Planning Horizon

Current

Short Term Intermediate Term Capacity Jet A Requirements 24,000

Annual Usage (gal.)

528,900 597,700 Daily Usage (gal.)

1,450 1,650 14‐Day Storage (gal.)

20,300 22,900 AvGas Requirements 12,000

Annual Usage (gal.)

65,300 73,800 Daily Usage (gal.)

180 200 14‐Day Storage (gal.)

2,500 2,900 Assumptions:

Jet A 8.6 gallons per operation Avgas 1.1 gallons per operation Source: Fuel flowage history from Airport records; Coffman Associates analysis

Long Term

767,400 2,100 29,500

94,700 260 3,700

By the estimates developed, the capacity of Jet A fuel storage may need to be expanded by the long term horizon as turbine operations increase. Current Avgas storage capacity appears to be sufficient to meet the forecasted need through the long term horizon.

Maintenance/Storage Facilities

A dedicated maintenance facility is available at TPL and is located away from the main terminal ramp west of the fuel farm. This facility is utilized to store airport maintenance equipment and appears to be sufficient to meet the current demands. Its current location away from the main flightline is ideal also since it does not occupy valuable aviation‐related development real estate. As expansion of landside facilities occurs over time, it may be necessary to relocate the maintenance yard to allow for aviation‐ related development. Relocation alternatives will be considered in the next chapter.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 33

Aircraft Wash Rack

The Airport has an aircraft wash rack located on the main aircraft parking ramp adjacent to the old passenger terminal building. This self‐service facility is equipped with an oil/water separator that al‐ lows pilots to wash their aircraft and safely dispose of cleaning ma‐ terials. It is in an ideal location on the airfield as it allows for easy access to all aircraft types and does not obstruct the flow of the ramp area. An aircraft wash rack is a standard amenity at most GA airports, and the AOPA user survey indicated that many pilots utilize the wash rack. The wash rack should be maintained as needed through the planning period.

Perimeter Fencing

The Airport’s perimeter is fenced with a combination of wire chain‐link security fencing and wrought‐ iron fencing. Perimeter fencing is used at airports primarily to secure the aircraft operational area. The physical barrier of perimeter fencing provides the following functions:

 Gives notice of the legal boundary of the outermost limits of a facility or security‐sensitive area.  Assists in controlling and screening authorized entries into a secured area by deterring entry else‐ where along the boundary.  Supports surveillance, detection, assessment, and other security functions by providing a zone for installing intrusion‐detection equipment and closed‐circuit television (CCTV).  Deters casual intruders from penetrating a secured area by presenting a barrier that requires an overt action to enter.  Demonstrates the intent of an intruder by their overt action of gaining entry.  Causes a delay to obtain access to a facility, thereby increasing the possibility of detection.  Creates a psychological deterrent.  Optimizes the use of security personnel, while enhancing the capabilities for detection and appre‐ hension of unauthorized individuals.  Demonstrates a corporate concern for facilities.  Limits inadvertent access to the aircraft operations area by wildlife.

TPL’s security fencing is adequate for the existing facilities; however, a small portion of the airfield pe‐ rimeter fencing extends into the ROFA and should be relocated. Additionally, as new development oc‐ curs on the landside area, security fencing should be expanded as well to ensure proper access controls.

Utilities

The availability and capacity of the utilities serving the Airport are factors in determining future devel‐ opment potential. The Airport is currently served by adequate utility infrastructure, which could be ex‐ panded to serve future development.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 34

Security Recommendations

In cooperation with representatives of the general aviation community, the Transportation Security Ad‐ ministration (TSA) published security guidelines for general aviation airports. These guidelines are con‐ tained in the publication entitled, Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports, published in May 2004. Within this publication, the TSA recognized that general aviation is not a specific threat to national security. However, the TSA does believe that general aviation may be vulnerable to misuse by terrorists as security is enhanced in the commercial portions of aviation and at other transportation links.

To assist in defining which security methods are most appropriate for a general aviation airport, the TSA defined a series of airport characteristics that potentially affect an airport’s security posture. These in‐ clude:

1. Airport Location – An airport’s proximity to areas with over 100,000 residents or sensitive sites that can affect its security posture. Greater security emphasis should be given to airports within 30 miles of mass population centers (areas with over 100,000 residents) or sensitive areas such as military installations, nuclear and chemical plants, centers of government, national monuments, and/or in‐ ternational ports.

2. Based Aircraft – A smaller number of based aircraft increases the likelihood that illegal activities will be identified more quickly. Airports with based aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds warrant greater security measures.

3. Runways – Airports with longer paved runways are able to serve larger aircraft. Shorter runways are less attractive as they cannot accommodate the larger aircraft which have more potential for dam‐ age.

4. Operations – The number and type of operations should be considered in the security assessment.

Table 3M summarizes the recommended airport characteristics and ranking criterion. The TSA suggests that an airport rank its security posture according to this scale to determine the types of security en‐ hancements that may be appropriate. As shown in the table, the TPL ranking on this scale is 42 out of a possible 64. Points are assessed for being located near a large population area, Fort Hood, having a based aircraft count of 84, having a primary runway greater than 5,001 feet in length and a crosswind runway less than 5,000 feet but greater than 2,001 feet, having paved runway surfaces, having over 50,000 annual operations, offering flight training and rental aircraft, for having 14 CFR Part 135 air char‐ ter operations, and for having a military aircraft repair and overhaul facility (AMCOM).

As shown in Table 3N, a rating of 42 points places TPL in Tier 2 of security measures by the TSA. This rating clearly illustrates the importance of meeting security needs at TPL as activity grows. The Airport is not projected to transition to the first tier during the planning period. Based upon the results of the security assessment, the TSA recommends 13 potential security enhancements for TPL. These enhance‐ ments are discussed in detail in the paragraphs following the table.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 35

TABLE 3M General Aviation Airport Security Measurement Tool Transportation Security Administration

Security Characteristic

Assessment Scale Draughon‐Miller Public Use Central Texas Airport Regional Airport

5 5 4 4 3 0 3 0

3 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 3 3

5 5 4 4 2 0 1 1

4 4 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 3 4 0 4 4

Location Within 20nm of mass population areas¹ Within 30nm of a sensitive site² Falls within outer perimeter of Class B airspace Falls within boundaries of restricted airspace Based Aircraft Greater than 101 based aircraft 26‐100 based aircraft 11‐25 based aircraft 10 or fewer based aircraft Based aircraft over 12,500 pounds Runways Runway length greater than 5,001 feet Runways less than 5,000 feet and greater than 2,001 feet Runway length less than 2,000 feet Asphalt or concrete runway Operations Over 50,000 annual operations Part 135 operations (Air taxi and fractionals) Part 137 operations (Agricultural aircraft) Part 125 operations (20 or more passenger seats) Flight training Flight training in aircraft over 12,500 pounds Rental aircraft Maintenance, repair, and overhaul facilities conducting long‐ 4 4 term storage of aircraft over 12,500 pounds Totals 64 42 ¹ An area with a population over 100,000

² Sensitive sites include military installations, nuclear and chemical plants, centers of government, national monuments, and/or international ports Source: Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports (TSA 2004)

DRAFT Chapter Three - 36

TABLE 3N Recommended Security Enhancements

Security Enhancements Fencing Hangars Closed‐Circuit Television (CCTV) Intrusion Detection System Access Controls Lighting System Personal ID/Vehicle ID System Challenge Procedures Law Enforcement Support Security Committee Transient Pilot Sign‐in/Sign‐Out Procedures Signs Documented Security Procedures Positive/Passenger/Cargo/Baggage ID Aircraft Security Community Watch Program Contact List Source: Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports

Points Determined Through Airport Security Characteristics Assessment Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 > 45 25‐44 15‐24 0‐14 X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Access Controls: To delineate and adequately protect security areas from unauthorized access, it is im‐ portant to consider boundary measures such as fencing, walls, or other physical barriers, electronic boundaries (e.g., sensor lines, alarms), and/or natural barriers. Physical barriers can be used to deter and delay the access of unauthorized persons onto sensitive areas of airports. Such structures are usually permanent and are designed to be a visual and psychological deterrent as well as a physical barrier. As it was previously discussed, the Airport’s perimeter is equipped with security fencing, providing access control.

Lighting System: Protective lighting provides a means of continuing a degree of protection from theft, vandalism, or other illegal activity at night. Security lighting systems should be connected to an emer‐ gency power source, if available.

Personal ID System: This refers to a method of identifying airport employees or authorized tenant access to various areas of the airport through badges or biometric controls.

Vehicle ID System: This refers to an identification system which can assist airport personnel and law enforcement in identifying authorized vehicles. Vehicles can be identified through use of decals, stickers, or hang tags.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 37

Challenge Procedures: This involves an airport watch program which is implemented in cooperation with airport users and tenants to be on guard for unauthorized and potentially illegal activities at the airport.

Law Enforcement Support: This involves establishing and maintaining a liaison with appropriate law en‐ forcement including local, state, and federal agencies. These organizations can better serve the Airport when they are familiar with airport operating procedures, facilities, and normal activities. Procedures may be developed to have local law enforcement personnel regularly or randomly patrol ramps and aircraft hangar areas, with increased patrols during periods of heightened security.

Security Committee: This committee should be composed of Airport tenants and users drawn from all segments of the Airport community. The main goal of this group is to involve Airport stakeholders in developing effective and reasonable security measures and disseminating timely security information.

Transient Pilot Sign‐in/Sign‐Out Procedures: This involves establishing procedures to identify non‐based pilots and aircraft using their facilities, and implementing sign‐in/sign‐out procedures for all transient operators and associating them with their parked aircraft. Having assigned spots for transient parking areas can help to easily identify transient aircraft on an apron.

Signs: The use of signs provides a deterrent by warning of facility boundaries as well as notifying of the consequences for violation.

Documented Security Procedures: This refers to having a written security plan. This plan would include documenting the security initiatives already in place at TPL, as well as any new enhancements. This document should consist of Airport and local law enforcement contact information and include utiliza‐ tion of a program to increase airport user awareness of security precautions, such as an airport watch program.

Positive/Passenger/Cargo/Baggage ID: A key point to remember regarding general aviation passengers is that the persons boarding these flights are generally better known to airport personnel and aircraft operators than the typical passenger on a commercial airliner. Recreational general aviation passengers are typically friends, family, or acquaintances of the pilot in command. Charter/sightseeing passengers typically will meet with the pilot or other flight department personnel well in advance of any flights.

Suspicious activities, such as use of cash for flights or probing or inappropriate questions, are more likely to be quickly noted and authorities could be alerted. For corporate operations, typically all parties onboard the aircraft are known to the pilots. Airport operators should develop methods by which indi‐ viduals visiting the airport can be escorted into and out of aircraft movement and parking areas.

Aircraft Security: The main goal of this security enhancement is to prevent the intentional misuse of general aviation aircraft for criminal purposes. Proper securing of aircraft is the most basic method of enhancing general aviation airport security. Pilots should employ multiple methods of securing their aircraft to make it as difficult as possible for an unauthorized person to gain access to it. Some basic methods of securing a general aviation aircraft include: ensuring that door locks are consistently used to prevent unauthorized access or tampering with the aircraft; using keyed ignitions where appropriate; storing the aircraft in a hangar, if available; and locking hangar doors, using an auxiliary lock to further

DRAFT Chapter Three - 38

protect aircraft from unauthorized use (i.e., propeller, throttle, and/or tie‐down locks); and ensuring that aircraft ignition keys are not stored inside the aircraft.

Community Watch Program: The vigilance of airport users is one of the most prevalent methods of enhancing security at general aviation airports. Typically, the user population is familiar with those in‐ dividuals who have a valid purpose for being on the airport property. Consequently, new faces are quickly noticed. A watch program should include elements similar to those listed below. These recom‐ mendations are not all‐inclusive. Additional measures that are specific to each airport should be added as appropriate, including:

 Coordinate the program with all appropriate stakeholders, including Airport officials, pilots, busi‐ nesses, and/or other Airport users.

 Hold periodic meetings with the Airport community.

 Develop and circulate reporting procedures to all who have a regular presence on the Airport.

 Encourage proactive participation in aircraft and facility security and heightened awareness measures. This should include encouraging airport and line staff to “query” unknowns on ramps, near aircraft, etc.

 Post signs promoting the program, warning that the Airport is watched. Include appropriate emer‐ gency phone numbers on the sign.

 Install a bulletin board for posting security information and meeting notices.

 Provide training to all involved for recognizing suspicious activity and appropriate response tactics.

Contact List: This involves the development of a comprehensive list of responsible personnel/agencies to be contacted in the event of an emergency procedure. The list should be distributed to all appropriate individuals. Additionally, in the event of a security incident, it is essential that first responders and Air‐ port management have the capability to communicate. Where possible, coordinate radio communica‐ tion and establish common frequencies and procedures to establish a radio communications network with local law enforcement.

Other security measures may be considered by the Airport as the local need demands. The additional measures include full perimeter fencing, hangar availability, closed‐circuit television, intrusion detection systems, access controls, lighting systems, personal/vehicle ID systems, and challenge procedures.

SUMMARY

The intent of this chapter has been to outline the facilities required to meet potential aviation demand projected for TPL for the next 20 years. In an effort to provide a more flexible master plan, the yearly DRAFT Chapter Three - 39

forecasts from Chapter Two have been converted to planning horizon levels. The short term roughly corresponds to a five‐year time frame, the intermediate term is approximately 10 years, and the long term is 20 years. By utilizing planning horizons, Airport management can focus on demand indicators for initiating projects and grant requests rather than on specific dates in the future.

Primary Runway 15‐33 is planned to accommodate regular use by aircraft within RDC C/D‐II‐2400 FAA design standards. This category includes most mid‐ and large‐size business jet aircraft including the Gulf‐ stream G450. Its existing runway length of 7,000 feet was also found to be adequate to meet existing and forecasted users. Secondary Runway 2‐20 is planned to accommodate regular use by aircraft within RDC B‐II‐5000 FAA design standards, which includes aircraft such as the Beechcraft Super King Air 200 and many small‐ to mid‐size business jet aircraft including the Cessna Citation 560XL (Excel). Its existing length of 4,740 feet was also found to be adequate for the aircraft anticipated to use the secondary runway on a regular basis.

Immediate airfield requirements identified include the mitigation of residential land use within the Run‐ way 15 RPZ, the protection of the Runway 15 and 33 RPZs through control measures such as acquisition, and the relocation of the perimeter security fence where it encroaches upon the ROFA. In addition, Taxiway D’s intersection with the Runway 2 threshold is non‐standard and corrective measures should be considered to improve operational safety. Future consideration will also be given to equipping sev‐ eral runway ends with REILs to improve a pilot’s situational awareness and to equipping Runway 20 with a GPS‐based instrument approach procedure.

On the landside, planning calculations show an immediate need for expanded aircraft storage hangar capacity for both T‐hangar and conventional hangar storage as more sophisticated aircraft (i.e., business jets and helicopters) base at the Airport. Hangar space will largely depend on individual desires and may not precisely follow the forecast. With a hangar waiting list of 37 individuals, current demand appears to give priority to additional T‐hangar development. The availability of additional hangar space is a sig‐ nificant factor as to whether the Airport will experience and can accommodate the forecast growth in based aircraft.

The next chapter, Alternatives, will examine potential improvements to the airfield system and the land‐ side. Most of the alternatives discussion will focus on those capital improvements that would be eligible for federal grant funds. Other projects of local concern will also be presented. On the landside, several facility layouts that meet the forecast demands over the next 20 years will be presented. Ultimately, an overall airport layout that presents a vision beyond the 20‐year scope of the Master Plan will be devel‐ oped.

DRAFT Chapter Three - 40

CHAPTER FOUR

Alternatives

In the previous chapter, airside and landside faciliƟes required to saƟsfy the demand through the long range planning period were idenƟfied. The next step in the planning process is to evaluate reasonable ways these faciliƟes can be provided. There can be numerous combinaƟons of design alternaƟves, but the alternaƟves presented here are those with the perceived greatest potenƟal for implementaƟon.

Any development proposed for a master plan is evolved from an analysis of projected needs for a set period of Ɵme. Though the needs were determined by uƟlizing industry accepted staƟsƟcal methodologies, unforeseen future events could impact the Ɵming of the needs idenƟfied. The master planning process aƩempts to develop a viable concept for meeƟng the needs caused by projected demands for the next 20 years. However, no plan of acƟon should be developed which may be inconsistent with the future goals and objecƟves of the City of Temple, which has a vested interest in the development and operaƟon of the Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport (TPL or Airport).

The development alternaƟves for the Airport can be categorized into two funcƟonal areas: the airside (runways, navigaƟonal aids, taxiways, etc.) and landside (hangars, apron, and terminal area). Within each of these areas, specific capabiliƟes and faciliƟes are required or desired. In addiƟon, the uƟlizaƟon of Airport property to provide revenue support for the City and to benefit the economic development and well-being of the region must be considered.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 1

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Each functional area interrelates and affects the development potential of the others. Therefore, all areas are examined individually and then coordinated as a whole to ensure the final plan is functional, efficient, and cost‐effective. The total impact of all these factors on the Airport must be evaluated to determine if the investment in TPL will meet the needs of the City, both during and beyond the 20‐year planning period.

The alternatives considered later in this chapter will be evaluated by a variety of methods to determine which of the alternatives will best fulfill the local aviation needs. With this information, as well as input from various Airport stakeholders, a final Airport concept can evolve into a realistic development plan.

NON‐DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Prior to the presentation of development alternatives for Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Air‐ port, there are several non‐development options that should be considered. Non‐development alterna‐ tives include a “no‐build” or “do‐nothing” alternative, development of a new replacement airport at a new location, or closure of the existing Airport and the transfer of services to another existing airport.

The following will present a discussion of the three primary non‐development alternatives and the im‐ pact of pursuing each.

TRANSFER SERVICE TO ANOTHER AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE

The feasibility of transferring services to an alternate airport relies on two primary factors: first, is a capable alternative airport located in a reasonable distance from TPL, and second, can a nearby airport accommodate TPL’s existing and projected aviation demand factors. An analysis of regional airports has been completed to determine if transferring aviation demand is reasonable.

There are six other public‐use airports within 30 nautical miles (nm) of TPL, the nearest being Skylark Field Airport (ILE) in Killeen, located 14.9 nm southwest of TPL. A comparison of TPL and ILE facilities finds that ILE has a single asphalt runway measuring 5,495 feet long and 100 feet wide, while TPL has two runways, the longest of which is 7,000 feet. ILE is equipped with three instrument approach proce‐ dures including instrument landing system (ILS) and global positioning system (GPS) approaches, both with visibility minimums down to ¾‐mile, while TPL has six instrument approach procedures including an ILS with visibility minimums down to ½‐mile. The Texas Airport System Plan (TASP) classifies ILE as a Business Corporate airport, the same classification as TPL. Landside facilities at both airports include a wide range of general aviation (GA) services including flight instruction, aircraft rental, and pilot facilities and supplies, and both Jet A and 100LL (Avgas) aviation fuel. A detailed hangar inventory at ILE was not available, but based upon current aerial photos of the airport, ILE does not appear to have nearly the aircraft storage hangar capacity as TPL (ILE reports 61 based aircraft to TPL’s 84). Drive time from down‐ town Temple to ILE is approximately 27 minutes, compared to nine minutes to TPL.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 2

This airport comparison shows that while ILE has the same classification within the TASP and adequate airfield facilities for some of the existing users at TPL, there certainly would not be adequate aircraft storage hangar capacity for existing TPL users. Moreover, TPL offers a primary runway which is 1,505 feet longer than ILE, as well as a crosswind runway and better instrument approach capabilities. Con‐ sidering all factors, transferring TPL demand to ILE appears impractical.

Other factors should also be considered prior to suggesting a transfer of service to another airport. The City of Temple has accepted federal development grant funding through the Airport Improvement Pro‐ gram (AIP). Development grants come with certain grant assurances that the airport sponsor must meet to be in compliance with the award of the grant. One of the grant assurances is for the sponsor to maintain the improvement for its useful life, typically 20 years. Acceptance of development grants also obligates the airport sponsor to maintain the airport as an airport. Closing the existing Airport and trans‐ ferring services to another existing airport would be considered a violation of these grant assurances and would require repayment of grants not yet fully depreciated. Moreover, the investments made and the economic benefits received from the Airport, both public and private, could not readily be shifted or regenerated to another regional airport without significant costs/losses. As such, this alternative is not financially feasible and will not be considered further within this Master Plan.

NO‐BUILD/DO‐NOTHING ALTERNATIVE

There is significant public and private investment at the Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport.

Pursuit of a non‐development alternative would slowly devalue these investments, lead to infrastructure deterioration, and potentially the loss of significant levels of federal funding for Airport improvements.

Ultimately, the safety of aircraft, pilots, and persons on the ground could be jeopardized. Therefore, the no‐build/do‐nothing alternatives are not considered further.

RELOCATE AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE

This option considers constructing a new airport to replace the existing Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport. Typically, this option may be considered if the existing airport has been encroached upon by surrounding incompatible land uses to such a degree that safety has been compromised or airport operations become an environmental impact to the local community. Another reason would include other geographical or socioeconomic/political factors which would limit any future airport growth opportunities. These issues are not applicable for Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Air‐ port. As such, constructing a replacement airport is not a prudent or reasonable alternative and will not be considered further.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 3

SUMMARY

Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport plays a critical role in the economic development of the City and an important role in the continuity of the statewide and national aviation network. Pursuing a no‐build/do‐nothing alternative will directly lead to a deterioration of Airport facilities including the run‐ ways and taxiways. Ultimately, safety could be compromised. Moreover, the do‐nothing alternative would lead to a diminished return on investments for both public and private capital improvements. The airport currently serves as a very important asset for the City’s continued economic growth and pros‐ perity as it serves the needs of many local businesses as well as the public at large. Lack of continued support will diminish the airport’s ability to properly and effectively serve in this role.

It is recommended that the City con‐ Construction of a replacement airport is not necessary as TPL is able to serve its defined role in the aviation tinue to maintain the Airport to system currently (that of GA activity). Closure of TPL serve aviation and economic devel‐ and transferring activity to another airport is not con‐ opment. sidered feasible primarily due to the detrimental im‐ pacts to the City and existing users, legal obligations, and the substantial costs associated with closure. Federal grant assurances necessitate that the Airport remain in operation until grant assurances expire.

Considering all issues outlined above, it is recommended that the City continue to maintain the Airport to serve aviation and economic development. No further consideration will be given to the non‐devel‐ opment alternatives.

REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS AIRPORT PLAN

The last master plan was completed in June 2001. The recommended development plan that resulted from that master plan includes the following:

• Extend primary Runway 15‐33 to 7,000 feet (project completed in 2009); and an additional extension to a length of 8,500 feet should commercial airline service operators return to TPL. • Extend crosswind Runway 2‐20 to 5,600 feet to better serve smaller GA operators.

• Expansion of the taxiway system to include full‐length parallel taxiways on both sides of both run‐ ways to accommodate future landside developments in undeveloped areas of the Airport.

• Landside improvements including the development of a new passenger terminal building (should scheduled passenger service return to TPL); a helicopter operating area on the east side of the field; a cargo facility located on the southwest side of Runway 15‐33 (should demand for such a facility develop); and expansion of GA facilities in the existing terminal area.

Since the completion of the last master plan, the primary runway was extended to 7,000 feet and new hangar facilities as well as a GA terminal building have been developed in the existing terminal area.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 4

Since passenger commercial service and air cargo operations have not materialized, none of those facil‐ ities have been developed. Analysis conducted in this study (Chapter Two) does not include a return of commercial service passenger or cargo activities.

The analysis to follow in this Alternatives chapter will revisit the recommendations presented in the pre‐ vious master plan. Some elements may be carried over to this Master Plan and others may be removed from future consideration.

AIRPORT LAND USE

Ultimately, the purpose of the alternatives analysis is to identify specific uses for Airport property to create the safest and most efficient operating environment and allow the Airport to market itself to developers and businesses so it can maximize its revenue potential. TPL consists of approximately 916 acres (as shown on Exhibit 1D from the Inventory chapter) of property divided between the following uses:

 Airfield Operations – includes the runway and taxiway system and the safety areas associated with them (370 acres)  General Aviation/Revenue Support – includes those facilities catering to the various operators at the Airport including the GA terminal building, ramp, hangar developments, and non‐aviation related tenants including the fire station training center/emergency operations center (95 acres)  Undeveloped/Vacant – Airport property that currently has no development (450 acres)

The Facility Requirements chapter of this Master Plan identified nu‐ The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to identify merous considerations for im‐ specific uses for Airport property to create the safest proved or expanded facilities in‐ and most efficient operating environment and allow cluding airfield geometry improve‐ the Airport to market itself to developers and busi‐ ments and new or expanded nesses so it can maximize its revenue potential. hangar and apron facilities. The land needed to accommodate the 20‐year landside facility requirements is not anticipated to exceed the undeveloped/vacant property currently available for development. With a surplus of property that is accessible to/from the airfield system, the Airport has a great opportunity to market itself to potential developers and increase land lease revenues. For areas that are not easily accessible to the airfield sys‐ tem, such as certain parcels with good visibility along the Highway 36 frontage, these areas should be considered for non‐aviation related developments such as industrial parks or business centers that can increase land lease revenues for the Airport.

The FAA typically requires airports to receive approval through a land‐use release to lease airport owned land for non‐aviation related purposes. The FAA stipulates that all land with reasonable airside access should be used or reserved for aviation purposes. Those areas on the airport not readily linked to the airfield can be considered favorably in a land‐use release. In some cases, the FAA will be hesitant to release land‐use if the airport has limited development areas near the airfield system. In TPL’s case, DRAFT Chapter Four - 5

there is a surplus of land for aviation uses well beyond the scope of this Master Plan planning period (20 years).

AIRSIDE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Generally, airside issues relate to those airport elements that contribute to the safe and efficient transi‐ tion of aircraft and passengers from air transportation to the landside facilities at the airport. Planning must factor and balance many airside items including meeting FAA design parameters of the established design aircraft, instrument approach capability, airfield capacity, runway length, taxiway layouts, and pavement strengths. Each of these elements for TPL was analyzed in the previous chapters. This chapter will examine airside improvement opportunities to meet design standards and/or capacity constraints.

Exhibit 4A presents a summary of the primary airside and landside planning issues to be considered in this alternatives analysis.

As discussed in the Facility Requirements chapter of this Master Plan, a Runway Design Code (RDC) iden‐ tifies the appropriate design standards to apply to the runway and taxiway system. The RDC for Runway 15‐33 is planned to be C/D‐II‐2400 and the RDC for Runway 2‐20 is planned to be B‐II‐5000. The appli‐ cable design standards were previously presented on Table 3C.

RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) ALTERNATIVES

The most significant airfield issue that needs to be addressed at TPL is the protection of the RPZs for Runway 15‐33. Currently, a total of 28.2 acres of the Runway 15 RPZ lies beyond Airport property, with 6.72 acres of that total being residential land uses (approximately ten residential dwellings). In addition, a public roadway (Little Mexico Road) passes through the Runway 15 RPZ. The Runway 33 RPZ encom‐ passes 1.8 acres of non‐Airport controlled property including a public roadway (Airport Trail). As was explained in the previous chapter, the FAA encourages airport sponsors to establish plans to gain own‐ ership control over the RPZ to ensure the safety of people and facilities on the ground. This includes mitigating incompatible land uses such as residential land use within the RPZ.

Under FAA’s current guidance, existing public roadways are effectively “grandfathered” and therefore allowed within the RPZ as long as no modifications of the runway or RPZ are made. Should modifications be made to the runway or RPZ dimensions introducing new or modified incompatible land uses to the RPZ, a detailed review and determination of the land uses by the FAA will be required. The review pro‐ cess involves coordination between the airport sponsor and TxDOT and several FAA lines‐of‐business including the Regional Office, Airport’s District Office (ADO), National Airport Planning and Environmen‐ tal Division (APP‐400), and Airport Engineering Division, (AAS‐100). The alternatives considered in this Master Plan serve as a basis of determination for the FAA. None of the RPZ alternatives proposed in this chapter introduce new or modified incompatible land uses to the RPZs; therefore, the full FAA RPZ de‐ termination analysis put forth in the FAA interim guidance should not be required. It should be clearly stated that the FAA will make this decision during the review and approval of the airport layout plan (ALP) that will be prepared as a part of this Master Plan.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 6

AIRSIDE CONSIDERATIONS

Maintain Airport Reference Code (ARC) C/D-II FAA design standards Mitigate risk of incompatible land uses within RPZs and acquire control over entire RPZ Correct non-standard intersection of Taxiway D and Runway 2 Threshold Remove portion of perimeter security fencing from obstructing the runway object free area (ROFA) Maintain Taxiway Design Group (TDG) 2 FAA design standards Install precision approach path indicators (PAPIs) on Runway 2 and runway end identifier lights (REILs) on Runways 33, 2 & 20 Consider a GPS-based instrument approach procedure to Runway 20

LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS Identify locations for expanded hangar storage capacity Identify locations for expanded aircraft parking apron Consider a new general aviation terminal facility Consider ARFF facility expansion Identify locations to support revenue generation

DRAFT Chapter Four - 7

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 4A ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

This analysis will explore three alternatives for the protection of the RPZs and the mitigation of incom‐ patible land use including:

1. Acquiring ownership control of the property within the entire RPZ and removing residential land uses.

2. Increasing instrument approach visibility minimums to reduce the size of the RPZ. 3. Displace the runway thresholds and implement declared distances to shift the RPZs away from incompatible land uses.

RPZ Alternative 1 – Acquire Land within RPZ

The first RPZ improvement alternative, depicted on Exhibit 4B, is the simplest of the three alternatives considered. It proposes acquiring ownership control over the property within the entire RPZ. This in‐ cludes the acquisition of 28.2 acres for the Runway 15 RPZ and 1.8 acres for the Runway 33 RPZ. As has been mentioned, approximately ten residential dwelling units located within the Runway 15 RPZ would need to be acquired and the residents relocated. For the public road right‐of‐ways (for both Little Mexico Road and Airport Trail) within the RPZs, if ownership control is not feasible, avigation easements could be considered to afford the Airport airspace control over those portions of the public roadways. However, While this alternative is the simplest further mitigation of the public roadways is not neces‐ in terms of maintaining those existing sary as no modifications of the runway or RPZs is pro‐ facilities and services, it could be the posed in this alternative. As such, the public roadways are considered an existing condition and therefore ac‐ most controversial within the commu‐ nity based upon the need to relocate ceptable under FAA’s current guidance.

residents from their homes.

This alternative maintains the full existing runway length (7,000 feet) and the instrument approach capabilities of both runway ends. While this alternative is the simplest in terms of maintaining those existing facilities and services, it could be the most contro‐ versial within the community based upon the need to relocate residents from their homes. Moreover, this alternative will be the most costly as approximately 30 acres of land would be acquired, including 10 homes and resident relocations. Should the Airport pursue this alternative with FAA Airport Improve‐ ment Program (AIP) grant funding, the FAA will require an environmental assessment (EA) to examine the environmental impacts of the proposed actions.

RPZ Alternative 2 – Increase Instrument Approach Visibility Minimums to Runway 15

Alternative 2, depicted on Exhibit 4B, explores increasing instrument approach visibility minimums for Runway 15 to reduce the size of the RPZ. As shown, the Runway 15 approach RPZ is reduced from 78.9 acres (1/2‐mile visibility) to 48.9 acres (3/4‐mile visibility). The reduced Runway 15 RPZ will still require the Airport to acquire uncontrolled property (3.3 acres for the Runway 15 RPZ and 1.8 acres for the Runway 33 RPZ); however, the residential land use and the public roadway to the north would no longer be located within the Runway 15 RPZ. While a public roadway is currently in the Runway 33 RPZ, no DRAFT Chapter Four - 8

x

Residential Land Use Within RPZ (Approximately 10 Dwellings) x

C

x

E

x

220

x

A

x

x

(4 ,7 40 ’x

¾ Mile Visibility Approach RPZ

x x x

10 0’ )

x

x

x

x

½ Mile Visibility Approach RPZ

or irp

1.8 Acres

x

x

x

RU NW AY

x

il x ra T t

x

x

x

x

Runway 15-33: RPZs Alternative 1 - Acquirex Land within RPZs

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

ex Li

C

A

x

eM

x

ttl

B

D

x

x

x

x

x

28.2 Acres

x

x x

N

x

17 y3 wa gh

Hi

x

x Runway 15-33: RPZs Alternative 2 - Increase Instrument Approach Visibility Minimums to Runway 15 x x

x

e

x

Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ)

1600

x

Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ)

SCALE IN FEET

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

x

Departure RPZ

x

x

Land in RPZ not owned by airport

x

220

30’ Building Restriction Line (BRL)

x

(4 ,7 40 ’x

x

Li

ttl

Runway Safety Area (RSA)

x

x

x

x

C

800

Airport Fence Line

x

¾ Mile x Visibility Approach RPZ

x

x

x

E

¾ Mile Visibility Approach RPZ

x Me xi co x Ro

ad

A

x

RU NW AY

t or irp

0

x

x

lx ai Tr

x

x

x

NOR TH

x

x x

x

x

10 0’ )

x

x

Airport Property Line

x

1.8 Acres

x x

x

x

C D

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

N

x

x x

y wa gh

Hi

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

7

31

DRAFT Chapter Four - 9

x

x

x

A

x

B

x

3.3 Acres

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

x

x

LEGEND

x

x

Ro a

x

ico

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

x

x

d

x

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 4B RUNWAY 15-33 RPZ ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Four - 10

change to the RPZ would be required under this alternative since the road currently exists and no new changes to Runway 33 end are proposed.

This alternative maintains the existing runway This alternative maintains the existing length (7,000 feet) but will make the Airport less ac‐ runway length (7,000 feet) but will cessible during periods of poor visibility. An analysis make the Airport less accessible during of ten years of historical weather data indicates that increasing approach visibility minimums from ½‐ periods of poor visibility. mile visibility to ¾‐mile visibility on Runway 15 (with prevailing winds from the south) would reduce the Airport’s accessibility by 0.25 percent. This accessi‐ bility reduction would primarily affect business and corporate operations, which are more likely to op‐ erate in low visibility weather conditions. Business aviation activities is one of the few growth segments of the GA industry, and limiting the Airport’s accessibility to this segment could stifle the long term op‐ erational and economic growth of the Airport.

RPZ Alternative 3 – Displace Runway Thresholds

Alternative 3, depicted on Exhibit 4C, explores displacing the Runway 15 threshold and implementing declared distances to mitigate incompatible land uses to the north. In order to shift the Runway 15 approach RPZ entirely off of residential land use and off of Little Mexico Road, the Runway 15 threshold would need to be displaced 1,000 feet to the south. The Runway 15 departure RPZ (for northerly depar‐ tures) would not need to be shifted as it does not encompass incompatible uses; however, portions of both the approach and departure RPZs would need to be acquired (approximately 2.8 acres). While a public roadway is currently in the Runway 33 RPZ, no change to the RPZ would be required under this alternative since the road currently exists and no new changes to the Runway 33 end are proposed. As such, approximately 1.8 acres of property acquisition is needed to control the entirety of the Runway 33 RPZs.

Displacing the Runway 15 threshold also involves implementing declared distances. Declared distances are used by the FAA to define the effective runway length for landing and takeoff when a displaced threshold is involved. The four types of declared distances, as defined in FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design, are as follows:

 Takeoff Run Available (TORA) – The runway length declared available and suitable for satisfying takeoff run requirements. This declared distance reflects the length of pavement that can handle the weight of an aircraft. The length of the TORA determines the location of the departure RPZ, which is located 200 feet beyond the end of the TORA.

 Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) – The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway and/or clearway beyond the departure end of the TORA available for satisfying takeoff distance require‐ ments.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 11



Accelerate‐Stop Distance Available (ASDA) – The runway declared available for the acceleration and deceleration of an aircraft aborting a takeoff. ASDA takes into consideration RSA standards, thereby improving safety margins for users. ASDA is equal to the balance field length calculated by pilots prior to takeoff. The ASDA, or balanced field length, considers the runway length re‐ quired by an aircraft to accelerate to rotation speed and then decelerate safely on the remaining runway available. This is the controlling takeoff distance and is used for evaluating if sufficient takeoff distance is provided.

 Landing Distance Available (LDA) – The runway length declared available and suitable for landing taking into account the RSA standard. LDA considers the runway length necessary for an aircraft to touch down and decelerate to a safe speed prior to exiting the runway, while allowing for appropriate safety areas at each end of the runway to safely accommodate an aircraft that may undershoot or overrun the runway.

For Runway 15, the TODA, TORA and ASDA are equal to the length of the runway pavement (7,000 feet).

The LDA is reduced to 6,000 feet to account for shifting the approach RPZ off of residential land use and Little Mexico Road. For Runway 33, all declared distances are equal to the length of the runway pave‐ ment (7,000 feet).

To determine the impact of reducing the Runway 15 landing length, an analysis of Code of Federal Reg‐ ulations (CFR) Part 91k and Part 135 business jet landing weights and distances was conducted. Aircraft selected for analysis include those that most frequently operate at the Airport currently and those that are expected to increase in frequency over the planning period. CFR Part 91k refers to operations con‐ ducted via fractional ownership, and Part 135 refers to commuter/on‐demand (charter) operations.

Both operation types are required to meet specific landing length standards for safety purposes. Frac‐ tional operations must be capable of landing within 80 percent of the LDA, and commuter/on‐demand operations must be capable of landing within 60 percent of the LDA. The analysis first examined each aircraft’s landing distance requirements at the aircraft’s maximum landing weight (MLW). If the resulting Part 135 landing distance was greater than 7,000 feet (existing runway condition) or greater than 6,000 feet (Alternative 3 condition), the aircraft’s landing weight was adjusted to determine weight penalties that would be required for the aircraft to operate under those conditions. Typically, weight penalties include reducing the aircraft’s fuel load, which limits the aircraft’s range, or another method would be reduced passenger/payload weights.

The landing distance analysis, summarized in Table 4A, utilized the aircraft planning manuals for each aircraft and included the following factors: airfield elevation (682 feet mean sea level [MSL]) and mean maximum temperature of the hottest month of August (95.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The results of the analysis show that fractional jets can operate on the existing LDA of 7,000 feet during wet pavement conditions without any weight penalties. If the LDA were reduced to 6,000 feet, the Cessna Citation Excel and the Gulfstream G450 would be weight restricted by up to 5,050 pounds and 18,250 pounds respectively. All other fractional jets analyzed can operate without weight restrictions with a reduced LDA.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 12

1600

LEGEND

d

Tr ai l

or t

Ro a

Airport Property Line

er

SCALE IN FEET

us

x

Airport Fence Line

Mo

x

Declared distances are used by the FAA to define the effectivexrunway length

kR d

x

for landing and takeoff when a displaced threshold is involved. The four types x Airport Design, are of declared distances, as defined in FAA AC 150/5300-13A, as follows:

Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ)

Takeoff Run Available (TORA) – The runway length declared available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane taking off. This declared distance reflects the length of pavement that can handle the weight of an aircraft.

riivve

D Precision Obstacle FikesFree Zone (POFZ)

rC

x

ree

x

Runway Safety Area (RSA)

NOR TH

Ai rp

x

x

DECLARED DISTANCES

800

x

Pe p

pe

x x

Approach Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

x

Departure RPZ x

x

x

x

Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA) – The runway declared available x for the acceleration and deceleration of an aircraft aborting x a takeoff.

220

M

E

x

x

A

x

x

RUNWAY 15

x x

TODA 7,000’

10 0’ )

x

TORA 7,000’

x

1.8 Acres

x

x

ASDA 7,000’

x

(4 ,7 40 ’x

x

x

000’ 6,000’ LDA 6

x x x

15

x

C A

D

x

x

x x

x

ASDA 7,000’

x

0.7 Acres

x

LDA 7,000’

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

RUNWAY 33 x

17 y3 wa gh

Hi

x

N x

x

DRAFT Chapter Four - 13

x

x

TODA / TORA 7,000’

Airpor

x

x

x

x

B

x

x

2.1 Acres

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

x

x

Displaced Threshold 1,000’ x

x

or irp

il x ra tT

x

x ex ic

x

x Lit t

le

x

x

x

C

o

R x oa d

x

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

x

x

x

RU NW AY

Land in RPZ not owned by airport

x

x

Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) – The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway and/or clearway beyond the far end of the TORA.

x Landing Distance Available (LDA) – The runway length declared available and suitable for landing. x

ral Point Cent eP kw y.

0

Runway 15-33: RPZs Alternative 3 - Displace Runwayx 15x Threshold

t Road

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 4C RUNWAY 15-33 RPZ ALTERNATIVE 3

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Four - 14

TABLE 4A Landing Length Analysis Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Un‐factored CFR Part 135 Landing CFR Part 91k (Fractional) Landing Length (Commuter/On‐Demand) Aircraft Weight – Pounds Dry Runway Dry Runway Wet Runway Dry Runway Wet Runway Cessna Citation I MLW 9,800 3,000’ 3,800’ 5,000’ 5,000’ 6,600’ Alternative 3 Condition 8,200 2,600’ 3,300’ 4,500’ 4,400’ 6,000’ Cessna Citation Excel

MLW 18,700 3,400’ 4,300’ 6,800’ 5,700’ 9,100’ Existing Condition 13,650 2,700’ 3,400’ 5,300’ 4,500’ 7,000’ Alternative 3 Condition 13,000* 2,600’ 3,300’ 4,500’ 4,400’ 6,700’ Learjet 45 MLW 19,200 2,900’ 3,600’ 4,100’ 4,900’ 5,500’ Learjet 60

MLW 19,500 4,000’ 5,000’ 5,700’ 6,700’ 7,600’ Existing Condition 17,000 3,700’ 4,600’ 5,300’ 6,200’ 7,000’ Alternative 3 Condition 14,000 3,200’ 4,000’ 4,500’ 5,400’ 6,000’ Hawker 800XP

MLW 23,350 2,700’ 3,400’ 5,100’ 4,500’ 6,800’ Alternative 3 Condition 20,000 2,400’ 3,000’ 4,500’ 4,000’ 6,000’ Cessna Citation Sovereign

MLW 27,575 2,800’ 3,500’ 4,500’ 4,700’ 5,900’ Gulfstream G200

MLW 30,000 3,500’ 4,400’ 5,100’ 5,900’ 6,800’ Alternative 3 Condition 26,000 3,200’ 4,000’ 4,500’ 5,400’ 6,000’ Bombardier Challenger 600 MLW 38,000 2,800’ 3,500’ 5,300’ 4,700’ 7,600’ Existing Condition 35,500 2,700’ 3,400’ 5,200’ 4,500’ 7,000’ Alternative 3 Condition 27,250 2,400’ 3,000’ 4,200’ 4,000’ 6,000’ Gulfstream G450

MLW 66,000 3,300’ 4,100’ 6,800’ 5,500’ 9,100’ Existing Condition 47,750 2,700’ 3,400’ 5,300’ 4,500’ 7,000’ Alternative 3 Condition 45,000* 2,600’ 3,300’ 5,000’ 4,400’ 6,700’ Notes: Existing Condition – 7,000’ Landing Distance Available (LDA) Alternative 3 Condition – 6,000’ LDA Calculation factors: 682 feet MSL airfield elevation; 95.7 degrees Fahrenheit ambient temperature. Results were rounded to nearest 100’.

Boldface indicates distance exceeds Alternative 3 Condition Landing weights and distances are for planning purposes only and should not be used for flight planning purposes. * ‐ Lowest calculable landing weight CFR – Code of Federal Regulations MLW – Maximum Landing Weight Source: Aircraft Operations Manuals

Commuter/on‐demand operations conducted by Cessna Citation Excel, Learjet 60, Bombardier Chal‐ lenger 600, and the Gulfstream G450 are required to take weight penalties under the current LDA during the hot summer months. Under this alternative, which would reduce the LDA to 6,000 feet, weight restrictions would be required for an additional three aircraft (Cessna Citation I, Hawker 800XP, and the Gulfstream G200). Two aircraft, the Learjet 45 and Cessna Citation Sovereign, do not require weight penalties under either the existing or Alternative 3 conditions.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 15

RPZ Alternative 3 preserves the instrument ap‐ proach capabilities currently offered on Run‐ way 15, but also would result in increased weight restrictions for most business jet air‐ craft operating under CFR Part 135 regulations.

Small and mid‐sized fractional jet operations are impacted less under this alternative; how‐ ever, large business jets may be required to take weight penalties as well. Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative reduces the Airport’s accessibility to the business jet fleet, which could potentially inhibit long term operational and economic growth.

TAXIWAY CONFIGURATION ALTERNATIVES

As was discussed in the previous chapter, the pavement configuration connecting Runway 2 with Taxi‐ way D does not meet current FAA standard and should be redesigned to improve operational safety and limit runway incursions. Additional consideration should also be given to constructing new taxiway pave‐ ment to improve airfield efficiency and safety. The following sections address the various taxiway im‐ provement alternatives.

Runway 2/Taxiway D Intersection Alternatives

Taxiing aircraft operating in an airfield environment with crossing runways are required to stop and hold short of runways at holding position markings. At uncontrolled airports like TPL, pilots must then visually confirm no aircraft traffic prior to crossing the active runway. In the case of Runway 2‐20, the hold position markings are located 200 feet from the runway centerline, but the current holding position is aligned so that pilots have a limited view of the north end of the runway. The purpose of these alter‐ natives is to identify solutions so that the Taxiway D holding position on Runway 2 will be configured at a 90‐degree angle with the runway. This would result in a full field of vision to both ends of the runway for holding aircraft.

Two alternatives have been prepared examining new taxiway connections to Runway 2:

 Alternative 1, depicted on the left side of Exhibit 4D, realigns Taxiway D (northwest of Runway 2‐20) so that instead of simply crossing Runway 2‐20, Taxiway D is configured at a right angle with the end of the runway. This configuration would allow for a new holding position situated at a 90‐degree angle on the northwest side of Runway 2‐20. The Taxiway D connection on the southeast side of Runway 2‐20 would also need to be realigned slightly to provide better access to the Runway 2 threshold; however, the modified southeast side realignment would not allow for a 90 degree holding position. Therefore, Alternative 1 would correct the north side holding position but does not fully correct the south side position.

 Alternative 2, depicted on the right side of Exhibit 4D, explores extending Runway 2‐20 by 500 feet so that Taxiway D can be realigned to allow for the correct 90‐degree angle for the holding

RPZ Alternative 3 preserves the instrument approach capabilities currently offered on Runway 15, but also would result in in‐ creased weight restrictions for most busi‐ ness jet aircraft operating under CFR Part 135 regulations.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 16

l

r

o ri p

l

ai r tT

r

o irp

A x Runway 2/Taxiway D Intersection - Alternative 1

ai r tT

x LEGEND

x

x

A x Runway 2/Taxiway D Intersection - Alternative 2

Airport Property Line x

Airport Fence Line

NOR TH

Future Airfield Pavement Pavement to be Removed Runway Safety Area (RSA) Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)

RU NW AY

Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

220

30’ Building Restriction Line (BRL)

(4 ,7 40 ’x

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

RU NW AY

10 0’ )

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

D

0

400

800

SCALE IN FEET

220

(4 ,7 40

x

10 0’ )U LT IM AT E

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’) (5 ,2 40 ’x

10 0’ )

D

50

0’

Ex

te n

x

x x

x

x

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

x

x

x

DRAFT Chapter Four - 17

n

x

x

sio

Exhibit 4D RUNWAY 2/TAXIWAY D INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Four - 18

positions on both sides of the runway. This alternative involves more extensive construction, but would also result in meeting FAA airfield geometrical standards and a crosswind runway length of 5,240 feet. This added length would expand the capacity of the airfield making it more acces‐ sible to larger GA aircraft during high crosswind conditions. This alternative would also result in the shifting of the Runway 2 RPZ nearer to Airport Road; however, no new or modified incom‐ patible land uses will be introduced to the RPZ. The runway extension will require FAA evaluation and approval. Ultimately, Alternative 2 provides the best option for meeting FAA airfield geo‐ metrical standards.

This alternative considers the construction of a new exit taxiway for Runway 15‐33. The new exit taxiway would be aligned with the southeast Taxiway D/Runway 2 connection proposed in this alternative. This new exit would be located approximately 5,000 feet from the Runway 15 end and 2,000 feet from the Runway 33 end. This new exit would reduce runway occupancy time and increase runway capacity.

Ancillary Taxiway Consideration

An additional taxiway consideration is for the construction of taxiway holding aprons at each end of Taxiway A and Taxiway D. Holding aprons improve taxiway circulation efficiency by providing a location for aircraft to perform engine run‐up procedures and allowing aircraft to bypass each other if necessary.

The proposed location for these holding aprons is depicted in Figure 4‐1.

FIGURE 4‐1 Proposed Holding Apron Locations

DRAFT Chapter Four - 19

ROFA OBSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE

The northwest corner of the Runway 15‐33 ROFA is currently obstructed by the perimeter security fence. This area is shown in Figure 4‐2. Per FAA guidance, the ROFA should be cleared of objects, including the perimeter security fence. Since the penetration is limited to a small area, the most reasonable alternative is to realign the perimeter fence outside the ROFA. The realigned fence would consist of approximately 340 linear feet of new fence line and would require the clearance of approximately eight trees and shrubs, which also obstruct the ROFA. The Airport owns the property within this area so no property acquisition would be necessary.

FIGURE 4‐2

Proposed Fence Realignment VISUAL AIDS

Runway 2 is the only runway end at TPL not currently equipped with a visual approach aid. Visual ap‐ proach aids provides pilots a visual indication as to their position in the approach path to the runway end, reducing the probability for undershoots and overshoots. The most common visual approach aid Consideration should be given to in‐ is the precision approach path indicator (PAPI‐4) stalling a PAPI‐4 system on Runway 2 light system. The PAPI system is typically located on to improve operational safety. the left side of the runway for approaching aircraft at a distance from the runway threshold that would be determined during the installation process to achieve the correct threshold crossing height (TCH) and obstacle clearance surface (OCS). Consideration should be given to installing a PAPI‐4 system on Runway 2 to improve operational safety.

Runway end identifier lights (REILs) aid pilots in the identification of the runway end. REILs are recom‐ mended for runway ends not equipped with an approach lighting system (ALS). Runway 14 is equipped with an ALS; therefore, it does not need additional lighting. Runways 33, 2, and 20 are not currently equipped with an ALS or REILs. REILs consist of two flashing lights at 40 feet on either side of the runway edge in line with existing runway threshold lights. REILs should be considered for Runways 33, 2, and 20 to improve pilot situational awareness and, consequently, operational safety.

INSTRUMENT APPROACH

Instrument approach procedures, as previously described in the Inventory chapter, are critical to extend‐ ing the usefulness of an airport in times of poor weather. Instrument approaches are particularly im‐ portant for airports serving business jet and training operations.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 20

At present, TPL has six published instrument approaches. Each runway end, besides Runway 20, is served by a straight‐in instrument approach procedure. Consideration will be given to implementing a GPS‐ based instrument approach to Runway 20 with visibility minimums at one‐mile. Implementation of such a procedure would not alter the size of the RPZ nor require the installation of ground‐based equipment.

The Airport’s current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) already indicates future plans for an instrument approach procedure to Runway 20, so this project is carried forward from previous planning efforts.

LANDSIDE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Generally, landside issues relate to those airport facilities necessary or desired for the safe and efficient parking and storage of aircraft, movement of passengers and pilots to and from aircraft, airport land use, and overall revenue support functions. In addition, elements such as fueling capability, availability of services, and emergency response are also considered in the landside functions.

Landside planning issues, summarized on Exhibit 4A, will focus on locating facilities following a strategy of separating activity levels. To maximize Airport efficiency, it is important to locate facilities intended to serve similar functions close together. For example, it makes sense to plan hangar structures in a designated area rather than haphazardly building them as needed on the next available spot at the Air‐ port. It is also important to plan for facilities that airport users desire and to group those facilities to‐ gether, whether they are T‐hangars or conventional hangars of varying sizes.

The orderly development of the Airport terminal area and flight line (areas located with immediate ac‐ cess to the airfield) can be the most critical, and probably the most difficult development to control on the airport. A development approach of “taking the path of least resistance” can have a significant effect on the long term viability of an airport. Allowing development without regard to a functional plan can result in a haphazard array of buildings and small ramp areas, which will eventually preclude the most efficient use of valuable space.

In addition to the functional compatibility of the landside areas, the proposed development concept should provide a first‐class appearance for the airport. Consideration to aesthetics should be given high priority in all public areas, as many times the airport serves as the first impression a visitor may have of the community.

Each of the landside alternatives will plan for adequate facilities to meet the forecast needs as defined in the previous chapter of this plan.

HANGAR AND APRON DEVELOPMENT

TPL currently maintains an aircraft hangar waiting list of 37 people. Forecasts of aviation demand indi‐ cate a need for more hangar storage capacity over the entire forecast period of the Master Plan. Fore‐ casted hangar needs include a variety of hangar types, including T‐hangars for smaller aircraft and con‐ ventional hangar space for larger aircraft or multiple aircraft storage. The highest priority at this time is for T‐hangar development to satisfy the aircraft hangar waiting list. Aircraft parking apron space will DRAFT Chapter Four - 21

The highest priority at this time is for T‐hangar development to satisfy the aircraft hangar waiting list.

also need to be expanded as new hangar develop‐ ments are constructed and as itinerant operational ac‐ tivity increases over time. Each landside alternative will propose hangar and apron development that would meet or exceed the long term planning need.

It should be noted that individual preference should be the final arbiter as to what types of hangars are developed. For example, right now the strongest demand is for T‐hangars. However, if an entity ap‐ proaches the Airport with plans to construct an executive/corporate hangar that might generate more revenue for the Airport, then those types become the priority. The overall hangar space estimates can and should be adjusted by the City to reflect actual demand at the Airport.

GA TERMINAL BUILDING

The Airport’s Elmer Reed GA terminal has a total area of 3,900 square feet (sf) and provides space for offering fixed base operator (FBO) services, flight planning, pilot’s lounge, concessions, management offices, conference room, and restrooms. The GA terminal is located immediately adjacent to the origi‐ nal 6,000 sf commercial airline passenger terminal building, which is currently occupied by a non‐aviation tenant. Both terminals are located at the focal point of the landside area with the main terminal aircraft parking ramp.

Analysis in Chapter Three indicated a long term need to expand GA terminal facilities to maintain an appropriate level of service to the Airport’s customers. Since the landside area of the Airport is well established with infrastructure and with available land for expanded development, relocating the GA terminal from the immediate area to another undeveloped area of the Airport is not considered con‐ structive or feasible. Furthermore, Airport staff has indicated a desire to utilize the original commercial airline passenger terminal building site as a future GA terminal expansion site. Therefore, the landside alternatives will consider GA terminal development expansion within this area.

AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING (ARFF)

The existing 2,150 square‐foot ARFF facility is attached to the GA terminal facility. This facility is inade‐ quate for the storage of the ARFF Index B equipment currently housed at the Airport. ARFF equipment should be stored as close to the airfield as possible to increase reaction time to an on‐airport incident.

The current location, near midfield, provides for adequate access to the airfield. Relocation of ARFF facilities to other undeveloped locations on the Airport would require significant infrastructure improve‐ ments and would not provide for adequate accessibility from the vicinity roadway network. Therefore, the alternatives analysis will consider the expansion of ARFF facilities within the immediate area of the existing facility.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 22

REVENUE SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT

TPL has a significant amount of undeveloped property that could be marketed for aviation‐related and non‐aviation related business development. Land located along the flightline, with direct access to the airfield should be reserved for aviation‐related activities. Land segregated from the airfield by access roads can be considered for other non‐aviation related development such as business parks or industrial cen‐ TPL has a significant amount of un‐ ters. With the amount of available land, the Airport developed property that could be should continue to market itself as an economic center marketed for aviation‐related and to attract new businesses and revenue streams. The al‐ non‐aviation related business de‐ ternatives analysis will examine locations for aviation re‐ serve development and non‐aviation related develop‐ velopment. ment.

LANDSIDE LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES

With the amount of available land at TPL, the number of potential landside alternatives can be numer‐ ous. The following three alternatives explore maintaining future development within the current land‐ side area and expanding to undeveloped areas of the Airport. Each alternative meets FAA design stand‐ ards and satisfies long term horizon facility demand identified in the previous chapter. The landside element of the recommended Master Plan concept, to be presented in the next chapter, may be one of these alternatives or, more likely, is a combination of elements from each of them. Input from the plan‐ ning advisory committee (PAC) and public is integral to determining the landside vision for the Airport.

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1

Landside Alternative 1, depicted on Exhibit 4E, examines the full development potential of the existing landside area. An advantage of maintaining all future development within this area is that existing in‐ frastructure can be utilized rather than expanding to new areas of the Airport where infrastructure de‐ velopment could be difficult and expensive. The core terminal area is maintained with locations for a new GA terminal facility and ARFF facility development. These sites provide the most centralized loca‐ tion within the landside area and are easily accessible from Airport Loop Road.

Hangar development in this alternative provides a mix‐ Landside Alternative 1 examines ture of different sizes and types to give options to poten‐ the full development potential of tial tenants. T‐hangar facilities are currently in greatest demand, so this alternative considers expanding the ex‐ the existing landside area. isting T‐hangar facilities and associated taxilane pave‐ ment out to the 30‐foot building restriction line (BRL) (as shown on the right hand side of the exhibit).

The expansion of the existing facilities would provide an additional 36 T‐hangar units without needing to expand vehicle access roadways or extensive “greenfield” construction. Land in the vicinity of the McLane Company corporate hangar is shown for 14 new executive hangars (3,600 square foot/unit) and four 6‐unit T‐hangar facilities. Two conventional hangars and two executive hangars, located adjacent DRAFT Chapter Four - 23

to existing hangars, would require little infrastructure improvements since they are within an existing taxilane network and utility hookups are nearby.

The Taxiway A flightline is shown to be developed for more high‐activity uses (specialized aviation service operators [SASOs]/corporate). This space includes three 27,025 square‐foot facilities for aircraft storage hangar and associated office space. This space, which is highly visible from the airfield, would be vehicle accessible via an existing access road from Airport Road. The far northwest end of the new development area includes six 10‐unit T‐hangar facilities, but could be reserved for other hangar types depending on hangar demands that materialize in the future.

Various planned or ongoing improvements are shown on this alternative including the AMCOM facility parking and access road improvements, the construction of a new fuel farm loop road and new mainte‐ nance yard facility, and a new self‐service fuel station under development adjacent to the GA terminal development site.

Two aviation reserve parcels totaling 26.2 acres are identified north of the AMCOM facilities. These sites can be reserved for expanded hangar development in the future or for new or expanded aviation‐related industrial complexes. Both sites are accessible to the airfield and provide adequate space for significant operators, whether it is a large‐scale aircraft maintenance/repair/overhaul (MRO) operator, aircraft manufacturer, or other specialty operators.

Land that is inaccessible to the airfield has been identified for non‐aviation revenue support. In all, these areas total 9.8 acres and are primarily located along Airport Road. These sites are attractive to business developers as they are highly visible from Airport Road and have existing vehicle roadway networks for accessibility. Since this is Airport property and subject to AIP grant assurances, the City would need to request that the FAA release these parcels from these grant assurances to allow for non‐aviation related development.

In total, this alternative provides the following:

 40 new hangar facilities – 358,975 sf of new storage capacity o 3 SASO/Corporate hangars – 81,075 sf o 18 Conventional/Executive hangars – 82,000 sf o 19 T‐Hangars – 195,900 sf/120 individual units  88,505 square yards of new apron pavement  26.2 acres of aviation reserve development  9.8 acres of non‐aviation revenue support development

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2

The second landside alternative, depicted on Exhibit 4F, expands upon the first alternative by proposing development within the existing landside core and in a currently undeveloped portion of the Airport.

This alternative shows the development of the Taxiway D flightline to include SASO/Corporate hangar development and aircraft parking ramp and access from Airport Road. Since this is an undeveloped site, DRAFT Chapter Four - 24

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1 SUMMARY 40 New Hangar Facilities (358,975 sf ) 3 SASO/Corporate Hangars (81,075 sf ) 18 Conventional/Executive Hangars (82,000 sf ) 19 T-Hangars (195,900 sf/120 units) 88,505 square yards of additional apron pavement.

26.2 Acres of Aviation Reserve 9.8 Acres of Non-Aviation Revenue Support

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

A

R (4 UN ,7 W 40 AY ’x 2 10 -20 0’ )

Self-Service Fuel Station

10-Unit T-Hangars 15,000 sf ea.

D

85,710 sy 30’ BRL RL ’B

x

SASO/Corporate Hangars S 27,025 sf ea.

2

30

2,795 sy x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

800

x

x

x

SCALEAerial: IN FEET Geodetix 3-2015

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

x

x 400

x

x

0

x

x

x x

x

NORTH

DRAFT Chapter Four - 25

LEGEND

Road

Executive Hangars 3,600 sf ea.

x

x

x

x

x

x

8-Unit T-Hangars 12,000 sf ea.

Airport

x

x x

2.6 acres

0.8 acres

x

1.5 acres

x

x

x

ad Ro

x

3.1 acres

Expand T-Hangars 57,900 sf (36 units)

x

x

op Lo

x

1.8 acres

36 ighway Texas H

t or rp

x

x

x

Maintenance Facility Expansion

x

xx

Ai

x

x

Planned Fuel Farm P Loop Roadway Not L Yet Constructed Y

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Conventional Hangar 15,400 sf

x

12.9 acres

13.3 acres

x

x x

Conventional Hangar 8,400 sf Executive Hangars 3,900 sf ea.

x

Airport Property Line Fence Line Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Future Airfield Pavement Future Building/Facility Future Road/ Parking General Aviation Terminal Development Expanded ARFF Facilities AMCOM Complex Expansion Area Aviation Reserve Non-Aviation Revenue Support Exhibit 4E LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Four - 26

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2 SUMMARY RU NW AY

220

(4 ,7 40 ’x

20 New Hangar Facilities (328,675 sf ) 7 SASO/Corporate Hangars (189,175 sf ) 5 Executive Hangars (19,500 sf ) 8 T-Hangars (120,000 sf/80 units) 111,973 square yards of additional apron pavement.

43.4 Acres of Aviation Reserve 7.8 Acres of Non-Aviation Revenue Support

10 0’ )

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

D

A

38,857 sy

30’ BRL

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

x

x

x

x

x

DRAFT Chapter Four - 27

x

x

x

SCALE IN FEET

x

x

x

x

x x

x

NORTH

500

x

x

LEGEND

36 ighway Texas H

SASO/Corporate Hangars 27,025 sf ea.

0

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Maintenance Facility Expansion

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

7.8 acres

x

x

RL ’B

Planned Fuel Farmx P Loop Roadway Not L Yet Constructed Y

x

30

x

SASO/Corporate Hangars 27,025 sf ea.

x

x

x

x

,

73

Self-Service Fuel Station

x

sy

x

6 11

x

43.4 acres

Executive Hangars 3,900 sf ea.

x

10-Unit T-Hangars 15,000 sf ea

30’ BRL

1000

x

Airport Property Line Fence Line Future Airfield Pavement Future Building/Facility Future Road/ Parking General Aviation Terminal Development Expanded ARFF Facilities AMCOM Complex Expansion Area Aviation Reserve Non-Aviation Revenue Support Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

Exhibit 4F LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Four - 28

this alternative would require significantly more capital funding and construction work to clear and grade the site and to extend utility infrastructure than the previous alternative. Another consideration to de‐ veloping outside the existing landside area is the availability of aviation services such as fuel. To prevent pilots from having to taxi across an active runway to receive fuel, this alternative considers the construc‐ tion of a second self‐service fuel station so that this area can operate somewhat autonomously from the main landside area. Another consideration for the development of this site is making available more Airport Road frontage for non‐aviation revenue support such as a business/industrial center. Like the previous alternative, the City would need to get approval from the FAA to release this property from its grant assurances to allow non‐aviation related development.

This alternative includes a variety of hangar types The second landside alternative expands and sizes but focuses smaller hangar facilities de‐ velopment (T‐hangars and executive hangars) upon the first alternative by proposing along the abandoned runway pavement. This development within the existing landside layout includes nine new 10‐unit T‐hangar facili‐ core and in a currently undeveloped por‐ ties and five 3,900 sf executive hangars, which in‐ tion of the Airport. cludes new taxiway connections to Taxiway A. These new hangars are automobile accessible via an extension of the existing Airport access road.

Remaining hangar development in this alternative focuses on larger‐scale facilities for SASO/corporate activities such as specialty operators or MROs. Four new 27,025 sf facilities are proposed with new tax‐ ilane connections and ramp space extended from the McLane Company corporate hangar. These facili‐ ties would require the construction of new vehicle access roads and parking lots. If these facilities were to be occupied by higher‐activity users such as MROs or other specialty operators, this location would increase taxi times for larger aircraft and require them to taxi through the terminal apron which is utilized by all aircraft types from large to small. Typically, it is more desirable to reduce taxi distances for larger aircraft and to segregate larger aircraft from smaller aircraft where possible to mitigate conflicts be‐ tween the different user types. As a result, while there is abundant area for this type of development in this location, it may not be the most efficient location for high‐activity operators and larger aircraft due to its distance from the flightline.

The remainder of the Taxiway A flightline is reserved for future aviation‐related development such as additional based aircraft hangar units or new SASO/specialty operators. Ideally, high‐activity uses such as those catering to itinerant users should be located as close as possible to the flightline with low‐activ‐ ity uses, such as hangar facilities for smaller aircraft, located farther from the flightline.

In total, this alternative provides the following:

 20 new hangar facilities – 328,675 sf of new storage capacity o 7 SASO/Corporate hangars – 189,175 sf o 5 Executive hangars – 19,500 sf o 8 T‐Hangars – 120,000 sf/80 individual units  111,973 square yards of new apron pavement  43.4 acres of aviation reserve development  7.8 acres of non‐aviation revenue support development

DRAFT Chapter Four - 29

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 3

Landside Alternative 3, depicted on Exhibit 4G, considers all landside development in a separate unde‐ veloped quadrant of the Airport. In addition to the need for expanded utility infrastructure and new automobile access roads, the development of the east side of the airfield would require a large‐scale expansion of the airfield facilities as well. To provide safe and efficient taxiway access to both runways, a full‐ Landside Alternative 3 considers all length parallel taxiway would need to be constructed on landside development in a separate the east side of Runway 15‐33 and on the southeast side undeveloped quadrant of the Air‐ of Runway 2‐20. If full‐length parallel taxiways were not port. constructed, aircraft in the new landside development area would be required to taxi across active runways in most cases, creating a runway incursion hazard.

Airport Trail currently provides access to agricultural/rural land uses in the vicinity of the Airport and may require upgrades to accommodate increased traffic for new businesses and hangar facilities.

Similar to the previous alternative, the new development area should be somewhat autonomous from the existing landside area, equipped with its own aircraft fueling facilities, aircraft parking apron, and hangar/office space for SASO/corporate or specialty operators. Having these services and facilities limits the need for users having to taxi across the airfield to receive services. Facilities identified in this alter‐ native include SASO/corporate hangars centrally located near the intersection of the runways and smaller executive hangars and T‐hangars closer to the Runway 33 threshold. The majority of the Runway 2‐20 flightline and land behind the development shown would still be airfield accessible and, therefore, has been identified as aviation reserve.

While it is certainly possible to expand landside facilities to this area of the Airport, this alternative can be considered the most difficult alternative to implement considering the higher capital development costs and more construction work to expand utilities and roads to this area and to develop the necessary taxiway system to safely accommodate users. While it certainly should be considered for the future development of the Airport, it may be a more reasonable alternative for development once the west side of the airfield is fully developed.

In total, this alternative provides the following:

 22 new hangar facilities – 176,450 sf of new storage capacity o 2 SASO/Corporate hangars – 54,050 sf o 16 Executive hangars – 62,400 sf o 4 T‐Hangars – 60,000 sf/40 individual units  103,858 square yards of new apron pavement  91.8 acres of aviation reserve development

DRAFT Chapter Four - 30

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 3 SUMMARY 22 New Hangar Facilities (176,450 sf ) 2 SASO/Corporate Hangars (54,050 sf ) 16 Executive Hangars (62,400 sf ) 4 T-Hangars (60,000 sf/40 units) 103,858 square yards of additional apron pavement.

91.8 Acres of Aviation Reserve

75.8 acres

SASO/Corporate Hangars 27,025 sf ea.

240’

Self-Service Fuel Station 16.0 acres

RU N

W AY

30’ BRL

2-

20

30’ BRL

(4

,7 40 ’x

Executive Hangars 3,900 sf ea.

10 0’ )

103,858 sy 10-Unit T-Hangars 15,000 sf ea.

400’

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

D

A

x

LEGEND Airport Property Line x

Fence Line

x

x

x

x x

Future Building/Facility

NORTH

x

x

x

Future Airfield Pavement

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x x

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

x

x

x

x

DRAFT Chapter Four - 31

500 SCALE IN FEET

1000

Future Road/ Parking Aviation Reserve

x

x

0

x

x

x

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

Exhibit 4G LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 3

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Four - 32

ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY Several development alternatives related to both the airside and the landside have been presented. On the airside, the major considerations involve removing incompatible land uses from the Runway 15 RPZ, correcting the non‐standard Runway 2/Taxiway D intersection and expanding visual and navigational aids to the Airport. The alternatives have shown there are several positive and negative impacts that need to be weighed, including potential impacts to neighboring residents and impacts on the airfield that could affect the operational capabilities of existing and forecast business aircraft operators.

On the landside, several alternatives were presented to consider additional hangar and apron develop‐ ment, GA terminal area expansion, ARFF facility expansion, and potential for revenue support. Consid‐ erations are given to development within the existing landside area and expanding beyond to other un‐ developed areas of the Airport. All landside alternatives for hangar and apron development exceed the forecast 20‐year need.

After review by the PAC and public, a recommended concept will be presented in the next chapter. Ele‐ ments such as compliance with FAA and TxDOT standards and on‐airport land use will also be addressed.

DRAFT Chapter Four - 33

CHAPTER FIVE

Recommended Master Plan Concept

The planning process for the Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport (TPL or Airport) Airport Master Plan has included several analy. cal efforts in the previous chapters intended to project poten. al avia on demand, establish airside and landside facility requirements, and evaluate op ons for improving the Airport to meet the iden fied facility needs. The purpose of this chapter is to describe, in narra ve and graphic form, the recommended Master Plan concept for the future of TPL.

AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS Advisory Circular 150/ 5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, is the key reference used to ensure compliance with Federal Avia on Administra on (FAA) design standards. Design and safety standards are based primarily upon the characteris cs of aircra expected to use an airport on a regular basis. As previously discussed in Chapter Three, the design codes are based upon the approach speeds and wingspans of these “cri cal” aircra . This is comprised of the most demanding aircra or “family” of aircra conduc ng at least 500 annual opera ons at the Airport.

A cri cal design aircra is iden fied for each runway at an airport to establish its associated design standards. Analysis in Chapter Two – Avia on Demand Forecasts indicated that the current cri cal design aircra for Runway 15-33, the primary runway, is a family of aircra within the runway design code (RDC) C-II category, which includes up to mid-sized business jet aircra such as the Beechcra

DRAFT Chapter Five - 1

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Super King Air 200 and the Learjet 60. It is anticipated that over the course of the planning period, growth in turbine activity nationwide will result in larger business jet aircraft operating at TPL on a more frequent basis. Therefore, the ultimate critical design aircraft for Runway 15‐33 has been projected to be the Gulfstream G450, which is an RDC D‐II aircraft. As such, Runway 15‐33 should be planned to ultimately satisfy RDC D‐II design standards. It should be noted that the projected change in critical design aircraft from RDC C‐II to D‐II for Runway 15‐33 does not result in a change in airfield design stand‐ ards as they are identical.

The ultimate critical design air‐ craft for Runway 15‐33 has Runway 2‐20, the secondary or crosswind runway, serves smaller aircraft that are more greatly affected by high cross‐ been projected to be the Gulf‐ wind conditions. Its length of 4,740 feet allows it to serve a stream G450. large variety of aircraft up to small business jet aircraft. The most demanding aircraft that regularly use the secondary runway are in the RDC B‐II family of aircraft represented by the Super King Air 200 turboprop aircraft. The critical design aircraft for the secondary runway is not anticipated to change over the course of the Master Plan; therefore, Runway 2‐20 should be planned to satisfy RDC B‐II design standards.

The recommended developments to address airfield and landside demands are summarized in the fol‐ lowing sections.

RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT

The Master Plan concept includes improvements to the airfield and landside facilities to meet current and forecast needs over the long range planning horizon. It is also designed to ensure a viable aviation facility for the region and State well beyond the long range horizon. The recommended concept is de‐ picted on Exhibit 5A. The following sections further detail these plans and recommendations.

Recommendations are then de‐

AIRFIELD RECOMMENDATIONS signed to improve the opera‐

tional efficiency, circulation, The principal airfield recommendations should always focus and capability of the airfield. first upon safety and security. Of key importance is to ensure that proposed airfield improvements will be designed to meet all appropriate FAA airport design stand‐ ards. Recommendations are then designed to improve the operational efficiency, circulation, and capa‐ bility of the airfield. Exhibit 5A depicts the principal airfield recommendations. The following subsec‐ tions summarize the elements of the airfield recommendations.

Runway Protection Zones (RPZs)

Currently, approximately 28.2 acres of the Runway 15 approach RPZ and 1.8 acres of the Runway 33 approach RPZ encompass areas which are not controlled by the Airport. Furthermore, approximately ten residential units are located within the Runway 15 approach RPZ. FAA guidance requires action be DRAFT Chapter Five - 2

0

800

x

Ultimate Property Line

Ro a us

er

Runway Safety Area (RSA) Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)

Mo

x

x

NORTH

REILs

Pe pp er Cr ee kR d

x

x

x

x

Helicopter Approach Test Strip (500’ x 50’)

x

x

220

C

E

x

Ai

x

x

Land Acquisition

r

r po

il x ra tT

Aviation Reserve Non-Aviation Revenue Support

x

AMCOM Complex Expansion Area

x

x

x

G

x

119.1 acres

x

ILS Glideslope Antenna

x

¾ Mile x Visibility Approach RPZ

0’ 24 5,

x

Glideslope Critical Area

x

10 0’ )

E AT M TI UL

Li

Future Building x

x

(4 ,7 40 ’x

Future Parking/Roads

x

x

x

ttl xe M

ex

x

x

x

ico xR oa

d

x

30’ Building Restriction Line (BRL)

x

20

0’

x

Driivve Fiikkes

Departure RPZ

Future Airfield Pavement

40

RU NW AY

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

x

x

x

x

Airport Fence Line

x

x

x

x

¾ Mile Visibility Approach RPZ

Airport Property Line

d

x 1 Mile Visibility RPZ

x

x

LEGEND

SCALE IN FEET

x

x

1600

1.8 Acres

x

x

x

x F

x

0’ 10

F

x x

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

PAPI-4

2

sio

30’ BRL

n

x

REILs

x

21.2 acres

x

x

x

x

14.3 acres

x

19.9 acres

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

0.8 acres

x

x

3.1 acres

x

x

2.6 acres

1.9 acres

x

x

x ad port Ro ir y 36 /A a w h ig sH

x

1.8 acres

x

Temporary Helicopter Approach Test Strip (250’ x 50’)

x

17 y3 wa gh

Hi

14.7 acres

x

N

x

x

x

x

x

30’ BRL

D

x

50 0’ Ex te n

x

C A

x

x

Realign Fence Outside of ROFA

Localizer Antenna Array

x

B

x

x

x

3.3 Acres

x

0.83 Acres

x

x

REILs

Texa

1 Mile Visibility RPZ

x

x

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

DRAFT Chapter Five - 3

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 5A RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Five - 4

taken to mitigate incompatible land uses such as residential units within the RPZ. Aside from the resi‐ dential land uses, public roadways (Little Mexico Road and Airport Trail) extend through the RPZs. The presence of the roadways is considered an existing condition and therefore does not need to be miti‐ gated. The remainder of the uncontrolled RPZs does not contain incompatible land uses.

The previous chapter proposed several alternatives to address the incompatible land uses within the Runway 15‐33 RPZs. These alternatives included:

 Alternative 1 – Acquire Land within RPZs: This alternative proposes the acquisition of all uncon‐ trolled property within the RPZs and the removal of residential land uses. This is a simple ap‐ proach that maintains the existing runway facilities and instrument approach capabilities, but would be the most expensive and controversial as it will require the most property acquisition (approximately 30 acres) and the relocation of residents from their homes (approximately 10 homes).

 Alternative 2 – Increase Instrument Approach Visibility Minimums to Runway 15: This alternative increases the instrument approach capabilities of Runway 15 from ½‐mile visibility to ¾‐mile vis‐ ibility, resulting in a reduction in the size of the approach RPZ and the removal of the residential land uses from the RPZ. This is the most cost‐effective alternative as it would not require signif‐ icant land acquisition (approximately 5.1 acres of currently vacant land) or modification to run‐ way facilities; however, it would reduce the runway’s utility during poor weather conditions by approximately 0.25 percent.

 Alternative 3 – Displace Runway Threshold: This alternative displaces the Runway 15 threshold by 1,000 feet, effectively reducing the available runway for landing operations to shift the RPZ off of the residential land uses. This preserves the existing instrument approach capabilities, but would also result in increased weight restrictions for most business jet aircraft operating under CFR Part 135 regulations. This alternative would also require acquisition of vacant land encom‐ passed by the RPZs (approximately 4.6 acres).

After consideration and discussions with Airport staff and the Following this plan, the residen‐ Airport Master Plan Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), Al‐ tial land uses (homes) will no ternative 2, which increases the runway instrument approach longer be in the smaller Run‐ visibility minimums, is the recommended alternative. Follow‐ way 15 approach RPZ. ing this plan, the residential land uses (homes) will no longer be in the smaller Runway 15 approach RPZ. As presented be‐ fore, the ¼‐mile visibility minimum increase will have minimal impact on operations and can be done relatively quickly and easily at no cost to the Airport. This alternative also avoids the potential contro‐ versy of acquiring and then relocating residents from their homes.

Runway 2/Taxiway D Configuration

The taxiway system serving the airfield has been examined for configuration improvement opportuni‐ ties. As discussed in previous chapters, the Taxiway D intersection with Runway 2‐20 results in a non‐ DRAFT Chapter Five - 5

standard alignment of the hold position markings where the current markings are not aligned at a 90‐ degree angle with the Runway 2‐20 centerline. As a result, pilots holding to cross the runway will not have a full field of vision to the north, making it more difficult for pilots to visually confirm no traffic prior to crossing the active runway. Two alternatives in the previous chapter examined adjustments to the taxiway and runway pavement to provide a 90‐degree angle for the holding position to the runway cen‐ terline.

 Runway 2/Taxiway D Intersection Alternative 1 – This alternative realigns Taxiway D pavement at a right angle with the existing end of Runway 2. This alternative corrects the hold position marking northwest of the runway threshold, but not the hold position marking on the southeast side of the threshold.

 Runway 2/Taxiway D Intersection Alternative 2 – This alternative extends Runway 2‐20 by 500 feet and realigns Taxiway D at a right angle to the new Runway 2 threshold. This alternative results in a right angle for the hold position markings on both sides of the runway threshold.

Alternative 1 would not result in a correction to both hold position markings; thus, Alternative 2 was selected as the Recommended Master Plan Concept. The proposed project improves operational safety and results in a longer Runway 2‐20 (5,240 feet), The proposed project improves opera‐ making it better able to serve a greater variety of tional safety and results in a longer Run‐ aircraft during high crosswind conditions. way 2‐20 (5,240 feet), making it better

able to serve a greater variety of aircraft

Holding Aprons during high crosswind conditions.

Taxiway holding aprons improve taxiway circulation efficiency by providing a location for aircraft to per‐ form engine run‐up procedures and allow aircraft to bypass each other if necessary. The airfield is not currently equipped with holding aprons. The Recommended Master Plan Concept includes the construc‐ tion of two holding aprons, one at each end of Runway 15‐33.

Additional Taxiway Improvements

The alternatives analysis included discussion of development on areas of the airfield that are not cur‐ rently developed for aviation‐related purposes, such as the southwest and east sides of the airfield. Pre‐ vious planning efforts have identified these areas for development and included additional taxiway fa‐ cilities to accommodate that future development. The Recommended Master Plan Concept carries for‐ ward the previous plans and includes the construction of a full‐length parallel taxiway (ultimate Taxiway F) on the northeast side of Runway 15‐33 and a partial‐parallel taxiway (ultimate Taxiway G) on the east side of Runway 2‐20. These additional taxiways should be designed to meet Taxiway Design Group (TDG) 2 standards with a width of 35 feet and with standard markings, medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL), and lighted guidance signage.

A portion of ultimate Taxiway F is within the Instrument Landing System (ILS) glideslope antenna critical area (green shaded area on Exhibit 5A). The glideslope antenna uses the ground in front of the antenna DRAFT Chapter Five - 6

to transmit its signal, and therefore needs to remain clear of obstructions including aircraft and vehicles while it is in use. Appropriate glideslope critical area markings and signage should be incorporated into the development of Taxiway F to inform taxiing aircraft that they are entering the glideslope critical area and to hold short of this area while the ILS is in use.

In anticipation of AMCOM vacating its facilities at the Airport, the plan includes the rehabilitation of a portion of the abandoned runway pavement from Taxiway A to the maintenance hangar ramp. Rehabil‐ itating this pavement as a new 35‐foot wide taxiway will enhance the utility of the hangar complex and make it attractive to potential fixed‐wing aircraft users. This taxiway would also provide airfield access for future hangar development for the site directly across from the maintenance hangar complex.

Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Obstruction Relocation

The perimeter security fence and overgrown vege‐ tation obstructs the northwest corner of the Run‐ way 15‐33 ROFA. To clear these obstructions, the Recommended Master Plan Concept proposes the relocation of the fence outside of the ROFA and the removal of approximately eight overgrown trees and shrubs. As shown in Figure 5‐1, the realigned fence consists of approximately 340 linear feet and requires no property acquisition.

Runway Visual Approach Aids

As was outlined in the previous chapter, additional visual approach aids are needed to improve opera‐ tional safety by reducing the probability for under‐ FIGURE 5‐1 shoots and overshoots. The Recommended Mas‐ Proposed Fence Realignment ter Plan Concept proposes the installation of preci‐ sion approach path indicator (PAPI‐4) lighting systems for Runway 2 and runway end identifier lights (REILs) at the end of Runways 2, 20, and 33. The location for each of these lighting systems is identified on Exhibit 5A.

Runway 15 is equipped with an approach lighting system. This medium intensity approach lighting sys‐ tem with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR) extends out from the runway end 2,400 feet to the northwest. No change is proposed for this system; however, a small portion of the MALSR is located on land not currently controlled by the Airport. The Recommended Master Plan Concept proposes property acquisition of approximately 0.83 acres to ensure ownership control over this land. The 0.83 acres of land is currently owned by the City of Temple.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 7

Runway 20 Instrument Approach Procedure

The Airport is currently equipped with six published instrument approach procedures. Each runway end at TPL is currently equipped with an instrument approach procedure with the exception of Runway 20.

Previous planning efforts have identified plans for an instrument approach procedure for Runway 20; however, the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Central Service Center has indicated that no previous request has been submitted to establish one for Runway 20. This Master Plan carries forward the rec‐ ommendation to establish a GPS‐based instrument approach to Runway 20 with visibility minimums equal to or greater than one‐mile.

Construct Helicopter Approach Test Strip

Helicopter operators at TPL currently conduct approach training operations utilizing the runway system.

These frequent training operations can result in a disruption of regular fixed‐wing operations, and the combination of these operations can create a challenging operating environment. The intent of explor‐ ing airfield improvements when considering the mixture of fixed‐wing and rotorcraft operations is to segregate the two uses to the greatest extent possible. Segregating the two uses, which function in significantly different manners, improves operational safety and efficiency.

During the public review process for the previous chapters of the Master Plan, it was indicated by several members of the TPL pilot community that the construction of a helicopter approach test strip would be very beneficial by relocating helicopter training activity from the active runway environment. As a result, the Recommended Master Plan Concept proposes the construction of a helicopter approach test strip to function as a location for helicopters to conduct these operations away from the runway environment.

A temporary helicopter approach test strip measuring 250 feet by 50 feet is proposed to the north of the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) complex. Once demand dictates development of this site for landside‐related facilities, the test strip should be relocated to the east side of Runway 15‐ 33. Depending on the particular needs of the helicopter operators, the test strip can be extended to a length of 500 feet or beyond if necessary. The ultimate design of the test strip should include input from the various helicopter users at the Airport to ensure it meets the needs of its operators.

LANDSIDE RECOMMENDATIONS

Examples of landside facilities include aircraft storage hangars, terminal buildings, aircraft parking aprons, hangars, and vehicle parking lots. Landside recommendations have been devised to efficiently accommodate potential aviation demand and provide revenue enhancement possibilities.

The development of landside facilities will be demand‐based.

The development of landside facilities will be demand‐based. In this manner, the facilities will only be constructed if re‐ quired by verifiable demand. For example, T‐hangars will only be constructed if an adequate number of new based aircraft owners desire enclosed aircraft stor‐ age. The landside plan is based on projected needs that can change over time and was planned with flexibility in mind to ensure the orderly development of the airport should this demand materialize.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 8

The recommended development plan focuses on satisfying the anticipated hangar, apron, and support facility needs of the Airport for the next 20 years. In addition, the plan puts forth a strategy for surplus property the Airport controls in an effort to increase potential revenue sources. Recommended landside projects are depicted on Exhibit 5B.

New GA Terminal/ARFF Development

The existing 3,900 square foot (sf) Elmer Reed GA terminal is located at the focal point of the landside facilities adjacent to the terminal aircraft parking ramp and accessible from the main Airport access loop road. The original 6,000 sf commercial airline passenger terminal building is located adjacent to the GA terminal and is currently occupied by a non‐aviation related business.

The facility requirements analysis indicated A new GA terminal facility will support that the existing GA terminal building is ad‐ growth in transient users and provide for ex‐ equate for current operations but should be panded office space, conference rooms, pilot expanded as itinerant operations increase to support areas, leasable areas for aviation‐re‐ maintain an adequate level of service for Airport users and to ensure that the Airport lated businesses, and a location for a restau‐ continues to provide an attractive, modern rant. facility. The Recommended Master Plan Concept proposes that once the lease agreement with the non‐aviation related tenant in the passenger terminal building is expired, this facility be demolished and the land reserved for a new 6,000 sf GA terminal and expanded aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) facilities. A new GA terminal facility will support growth in transient users and provide for expanded office space, conference rooms, pilot sup‐ port areas, leasable areas for aviation‐related businesses, and a location for a restaurant. It is also in‐ tended to provide appropriate storage and office space for ARFF equipment and personnel.

Once GA terminal services and ARFF facilities are relocated to the new GA terminal, the existing GA terminal building and ARFF facilities can be repurposed and leased to a specialized aviation service op‐ erator (SASO). These facilities have prime terminal ramp locations and are easily accessible from the main Airport Loop Road, making them attractive to SASOs such as a flight school.

Hangar Development

The most significant facility The most significant facility need at the Airport currently is for increased aircraft storage hangar capacity. This is indi‐ need at the Airport currently is cated by the current hangar waiting list, which includes 37 for increased aircraft storage potential tenants. The alternatives analysis proposed multi‐ hangar capacity. ple potential hangar development considerations, including development within the existing landside facilities core, development on the southwest side of the air‐ field adjacent to the fire station, and on the east side of the airfield. After consideration by Airport staff, the PAC members, and the public, it was determined that the most reasonable hangar development areas for demand that is anticipated to occur over the next 20 years is within the existing northwest DRAFT Chapter Five - 9

landside facility core. Utilities are readily available in this area and vehicle roadway access has already been established. Furthermore, there is adequate developable land available within this core area to meet the long term needs projected within this Master Plan timeframe.

Core area hangar developments depicted on Exhibit 5B include a mixture of small aircraft storage units (T‐hangars) and larger/multiple aircraft storage facilities (conventional/corporate or executive hangars).

The intent of the hangar layout is to segregate the differing uses to the greatest extent possible. This way smaller, primarily recreational aircraft are segregated from larger business/corporate aircraft. The following bullets summarize the hangar‐related developments proposed in the Recommended Master Plan Concept:

 T‐hangar development is proposed in two locations. The first location involves the expansion of the existing T‐hangar facilities southwest of the Runway 2 threshold. An expansion of the existing taxilanes in this area would allow for the extension of the T‐hangar facilities out to the 30‐foot building restriction line (BRL) resulting in the addition of 32 individual T‐hangar units (51,500 sf).

A second location for T‐hangar development is located to the southwest of the Runway 15 thresh‐ old. This location can provide for an additional 60 individual T‐hangar units (90,000 sf) and offers quick taxi access to the primary runway. Vehicle access and parking to this location would need to be extended from an existing vehicle access driveway off of Airport Road. In total, the Recom‐ mended Master Plan Concept proposes an additional 96 individual units and 147,900 sf of T‐ hangar capacity.

 Executive/Conventional Hangars are proposed for mid‐sized aircraft or multiple small aircraft.

The proposed facilities in the Recommended Master Plan Concept range in size from 3,900 sf up to 18,750 sf. Four of these hangars are planned to be located among several existing hangar facilities off of the terminal aircraft parking ramp. These areas are served by existing taxilanes and are accessible from existing vehicle access roads. In addition to these facilities, the owner of existing executive hangar #48 has indicated plans to expand this facility. A potential expansion area has been identified on Exhibit 5B as an Aviation Reserve parcel and has a footprint allowing for a hangar facility up to 11,100 sf in size. The ultimate size and style of this facility expansion will be determined through agreements and negotiations between the hangar owner and Airport staff. An additional eight executive/conventional hangars are identified adjacent to the existing McLane Company Corporate hangar. These hangars range in size from 6,400 sf to 18,750 sf. The development of this area would require the expansion of taxilane and ramp pavement as well as landside vehicle access and parking pavements. In total, the Recommended Master Plan Concept proposes an additional 122,050 sf of executive/conventional hangar capacity.

 SASO or Corporate hangars are the largest proposed hangar facilities and are intended for devel‐ opment by operators of multiple large business jet aircraft. These facilities are shown at a similar size to some existing SASO/Corporate hangar facilities at the Airport (27,025 sf) and are antici‐ pated to include hangar storage space in addition to office space. Three SASO/Corporate hangars are proposed along the Runway 15‐33/Taxiway A flightline. This location will require extensive ground and utility preparation as well as the construction of an associated 82,064 square yard (sy) aircraft parking ramp. Vehicle access to this area is planned to be extended from an existing DRAFT Chapter Five - 10

RU NW AY ILS Glideslope Antenna

LEGEND 220

F

G

30’ BRL x

(4 ,7 40 ’x

Airport Property Line Fence Line Future Airfield Pavement Future Building/Facility Future Road/ Parking General Aviation Terminal/ARFF Development AMCOM Complex Expansion Area Aviation Reserve Non-Aviation Revenue Support Glideslope Critical Area

x

F

10 0’ )

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’) E AT M TI UL

Executive Hangar #48 Proposed Expansion Area

0’

30’ BRL

30’ BRL

sio

n

x

x x

Executive Hangar 18,000 sf x

x

x

x

x

Conventional Hangar 15,400 sf

x

x x

x

x

x

x

14.3 acres

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Executive Hangar 14,400 sf

x

x

Executive Hangar 12,500 sf

x

x

x

x

x

DRAFT Chapter Five - 11

Maintenance Facility Expansion

Executive Hangars 6,400 sf ea.

Expand T-Hangars 51,500 sf (32 units)

x

t Road / Airpor 6 3 y a ighw Texas H

x

2.6 acres

0.8 acres

x

x

xx

1.9 acres

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

1.8 acres

3.1 acres

Executive Hangar 10,000 sf

x

x

x

Temporary Helicopter Approach Test Strip (250’ x 50’)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

te n

RL ’B

Planned Fuel Farm Loop Roadway Not Yet Constructed

Conventional Hangar 8,400 sf

Executive Hangars 3,900 sf ea.

Ex

30

SASO/Corporate Hangars 27,025 sf ea.

14.7 acres

D

50

0’ 10

82,064 sy

x

Self-Service Fuel Station

A

SASO - Specialized Aviation Service Operator

0’ 24 5,

10-Unit T-Hangars 15,000 sf ea.

Executive Hangar 18,750 sf NORTH

0

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

400

800

SCALE IN FEET

Exhibit 5B RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT - WEST LANDSIDE DETAIL

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Five - 12

vehicle access driveway off of Airport Road. In total, the Recommended Master Plan Concept proposes an additional 81,075 sf of SASO/Corporate hangar capacity.

While the specific hangar facility developments proposed in this Master Plan focus on the existing core area, the Recommended Master Plan Concept reserves land along the airfield flightlines throughout the airfield for future aviation‐related developments such as small‐scale aircraft storage and aviation busi‐ nesses or large‐scale aviation‐related commercial or industrial developments that require immediate airfield access. These aviation reserve areas are shown on Exhibit 5A and total 169.3 acres.

As a reminder, all hangar‐related development should occur only as dictated by demand. The locations and sizes of hangars proposed in this Master Plan are conceptual and may not reflect the needs of future developers and their customers. The Recommended Master Plan Concept is intended to be used strictly as a guide for Airport staff when considering new hangar developments.

Maintenance Facility Expansion/Self‐Service Fuel Station

Several upcoming projects at the Airport have already received funding approval from the City of Temple Reinvestment Zone and include the expansion of the maintenance facility, the construction of a fuel farm loop roadway, and the installation of a self‐service fuel station. The fuel farm loop roadway will make it easier for fuel resupply trucks to access the fuel tanks. The self‐service fuel station is planned for a site on the terminal aircraft parking ramp between the ultimate GA terminal development site and the air‐ craft wash rack. The self‐service fuel station will include both Avgas and Jet A aviation fuels. These projects are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2015.

AMCOM Complex Expansion

The AMCOM facility at the Airport is undergoing an expansion of the vehicle parking lot. This project expands vehicle parking capacity at the facility by 356 spaces over four phases of construction and in‐ cludes the addition of a guard post and roadway landscaping. This project also received funding approval from the City of Temple Reinvestment Zone and is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2015.

Non‐Aviation Revenue Support

Areas of the Airport where accessibility to the airfield is limited or infeasible have been reserved for non‐ aviation revenue support purposes such as commercial or industrial development. These parcels are identified on Exhibits 5A and 5B with yellow shading and are primarily located along Airport Road. Since this land is Airport property and subject to Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant assurances, which require airport land to be used for aeronautical purposes, the City will need to request the FAA release of this land from the grant assurances to allow for non‐aviation related development. Should the FAA grant a land release for these parcels, the Airport could then lease the land to non‐aviation related de‐ velopers to support revenue generation. In total, approximately 30 acres of land is identified in this category.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 13

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING

Local zoning and land use regulation in the City of Temple is subject to the Unified Development Code (UDC), which was most recently updated on April 16, 2015. The UDC references airport height zoning regulations based upon Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 obstruction clearance surfaces. These height zoning regulations apply to any development within three miles of the existing runways. Accord‐ ing to records, these airport height zoning regulations were adopted by the City in 1978; however, it is unclear if these regulations are still in place, and the height zoning regulations referenced have not been located.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has developed a reference document, Airport Com‐ patibility Guidelines, January 2003, for elected officials, zoning board members, and city and county staff members responsible for assuring compatibility between an airport and the community it serves. This reference document provides an understanding of compatibility issues as well as instructions for imple‐ menting compatibility plans. This document also contains model zoning regulations that can be utilized when developing new or modified regulations.

Airport compatible land use and height and hazard zoning regulations generally consist of two items: regulation text and a zoning map. The text describes land uses that are not permissible or the height limitations in the various overlay zones, as well as the procedures for administering and enforcing the regulation. The zoning map graphically depicts the various overlay boundaries. Compatible land use zoning maps generally utilize the Airport’s noise exposure contours to establish overlay zones, and the Airport’s FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces are generally utilized to establish the height and hazard overlay zones.

To begin the process of adopting or updating the Airport’s zoning regulations, a legislative body com‐ prised of City of Temple representatives must be established. Since the Airport is located within the boundaries of a city that has a population of more than 45,000 persons (Temple’s 2013 estimated pop‐ ulation is 70,190 according to the U.S. Census Bureau), the city can act unilaterally in the adoption of the zoning although the areas affected by the zoning may extend beyond its normal jurisdictional limits. If the City chooses to act unilaterally, an Airport Zoning Commission (AZC) must be appointed to recom‐ mend the boundaries of the various zones.

The Airport’s FAR Part 77 airspace surfaces It is recommended that the City establish an are being updated for this Airport Master AZC and update its height and hazard zon‐ Plan and are included as a drawing the in the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) set. This updated ing regulations based upon, at a minimum, FAR Part 77 airspace drawing can be utilized the updated FAR Part 77 airspace surface by the City for the establishment or update of drawing within the ALP and the updated its height zoning regulations. The ALP set is noise exposure contours prepared for this included as Appendix B in this Airport Master Airport Master Plan.

Plan. The Airport’s noise exposure contours are also being updated as a part of this Airport Master Plan. These updated noise exposure contours are discussed in more detail in the Environmental Overview section of this chapter.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 14

It is recommended that the City establish an AZC and update its height and hazard zoning regulations based upon, at a minimum, the updated FAR Part 77 airspace surface drawing within the ALP and the updated noise exposure contours prepared for this Airport Master Plan. The specific procedural steps to be taken by the City in this process are outlined in Chapter Four: Adoption of Airport Zoning Regula‐ tions, of the TxDOT Airport Compatibility Guidelines reference document.

RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN SUMMARY

The Master Plan for TPL has been developed in cooperation with the PAC, interested citizens, and Airport staff. It is designed to assist the City in making decisions relative to the future use of the Airport as it is maintained and developed to meet its role as a general aviation airport.

Flexibility will be a key to the plan, since activity may not occur exactly as forecast. The Master Plan provides the City with options to pursue in marketing the assets of the Airport for community develop‐ ment. Following the general recommendations of the plan, the Airport can maintain its viability and continue to provide air transportation services to the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

Analysis of the potential environmental impacts of proposed airport development projects, as discussed previously in this chapter and depicted on Exhibit 5A and Exhibit 5B, is an important component of the airport master plan process. The primary purpose of this Environmental Overview is to identify signifi‐ cance thresholds for the various resource categories contained in FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Im‐ plementation Instructions for Airport Actions. The overview then evaluates the development program to determine whether proposed actions could individually or collectively affect the quality of the envi‐ ronment.

The construction of any improvements depicted on The construction of any improvements the recommended development concept plan depicted on the recommended develop‐ would require compliance with NEPA to receive ment concept plan would require com‐ federal financial assistance. For projects not “cate‐ gorically excluded” under FAA Order 1050.1E, com‐ pliance with NEPA to receive federal fi‐ pliance with NEPA is generally satisfied through the nancial assistance. preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA).

In instances where significant environmental impacts are expected, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required. While this portion of the master plan process is not designed to satisfy the NEPA requirements for a Categorical Exclusion (CatEx), EA, or EIS, it is intended to supply a preliminary review of environmental issues.

This Environmental Overview is based on information contained in the Environmental Inventory of Chap‐ ter One.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 15

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Table 5A summarizes potential environmental concerns associated with implementation of the Recom‐ mended Master Plan Concept. These concerns are related to the future construction of specific projects that could be built based on the recommended CIP. Analysis under NEPA includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

TABLE 5A Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Environmental Significance Threshold/ Impact Category Factors to Consider Air Quality Threshold: The action would cause pollutant concentrations to exceed one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act, for any of the time periods an‐ alyzed, or to increase the frequency or severity of any such existing violations.

Biological Resources (including fish, wild‐ life, and plants)

Threshold: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines that the action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed threatened or endangered spe‐ cies, or would result in the destruction or ad‐ verse modification of federally designated criti‐ cal habitat.

FAA has not established a significance threshold for non‐listed species. However factors to con‐ sider are if an action would have the potential for:  Long term or permanent loss of unlisted plant or wildlife species;  Adverse impacts to special status species or their habitats;  Substantial loss, reduction, degradation, dis‐ turbance, or fragmentation of native spe‐ cies’ habitats or their populations; or  Adverse impacts on a species’ reproductive rates, non‐natural mortality, or ability to sus‐ tain the minimum population levels required for population maintenance.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 16

Potential Concern Although the projected increase in operations over the 20‐year planning horizon of the AMP would result in additional emissions, Bell County currently meets federal NAAQS standards. Thus, general conformity review per the Clean Air Act is not required. According to the most recent FAA Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook (2015), an emissions inventory under NEPA may be necessary for any proposed action that would result in a reasonable foreseeable increase in emissions due to its implementation.

For construction emissions, a qualitative or quanti‐ tative emissions inventory under NEPA may be re‐ quired, depending on the type of environmental review required for the project.

For federally‐listed species: There are two feder‐ ally‐listed birds, the black‐capped vireo and the golden‐cheeked warbler, that may potentially oc‐ cur in the vicinity of the Airport in oak‐juniper woodlands. Prior to ground disturbance of any wooded areas on the Airport, the potential for the occurrence of these species shall be evaluated.

Federally‐listed species known to occur in the County that are dependent upon aquatic re‐ sources, for example, the whooping crane, are not as likely to be present at the Airport, but should also be evaluated on a project‐specific basis.

For designated critical habitat: None. There is no designated critical habitat is located at or near the Airport.

For non‐listed species: Non‐listed species of con‐ cern include those protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as those listed by the State of Texas. The potential for the presence of migra‐ tory birds and the State‐threatened Texas horned lizard should be evaluated on a project‐specific ba‐ sis.

TABLE 5A (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Environmental Significance Threshold/ Impact Category Factors to Consider Climate FAA has not established a significance threshold for Climate; refer to FAA Order 1050.1F’s Desk Reference for the most up‐to‐date methodology for examining impacts associated with climate change.

Coastal Resources

Department of Transportation (DOT) Act: Section 4(f)

FAA has not established a significance threshold for Coastal Resources. Factors to consider are if an action would have the potential to:  Be inconsistent with the relevant state coastal zone management plan(s);  Impact a coastal barrier resources system unit;  Pose an impact to coral reef ecosystems;  Cause an unacceptable risk to human safety or property; or  Cause adverse impacts to the coastal envi‐ ronment that cannot be satisfactorily miti‐ gated.

Threshold: The action involves more than a min‐ imal physical use of a Section 4(f) resource or constitutes a “constructive use” based on an FAA determination that the aviation project would substantially impair the Section 4(f) re‐ source. Resources that are protected by Section 4(f) are publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl ref‐ uge of national, state, or local significance; and publicly or privately owned land from an his‐ toric site of national, state, or local significance.

Substantial impairment occurs when the activi‐ ties, features, or attributes of the resource that contribute to its significance or enjoyment are substantially diminished.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 17

Potential Concern An increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would occur over the 20‐year planning horizon of the Airport Master Plan. Project‐specific analysis may be required per the FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference based on the parameters of the individ‐ ual projects.

None. The Airport is not located within a desig‐ nated Coastal Zone.

Although the Cedar Creek Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is located approximately 0.15 mile north of the Airport, no physical impact or sub‐ stantial impairment to this resource per Section 4(f) will occur as a result of the Recommended Master Plan Concept. The Airport’s existing (year 2014) and future (year 2034) Day‐Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise exposure contours are shown in Exhibits 5C and 5D. Since the noise con‐ tours do not extend past the Airport property lines, the Airport’s noise does not substantially im‐ pair the WMA as a Section 4(f) resource. The fu‐ ture anticipated change in Airport noise is minor.

There are known cultural resources near the Air‐ port that have not yet been evaluated for signifi‐ cance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. If impacts result to a cultural site that is determined to be significant, a Section 4(f) impact would also occur.

TABLE 5A (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Environmental Significance Threshold/ Impact Category Factors to Consider Farmlands Threshold: The total combined score on Form AD‐1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating,” ranges between 200 and 260. (Form AD‐1006 is used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nat‐ ural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to assess impacts under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA).)

Factors to consider are if an action would have the potential to convert important farmlands to non‐agricultural uses. Important farmlands in‐ clude pastureland, cropland, and forest consid‐ ered to be prime, unique, or statewide or locally important land.

Hazardous FAA has not established a significance threshold Materials, Solid for Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollu‐ Waste, and tion Prevention. However, factors to considered Pollution are if an action would have the potential to: Prevention  Violate applicable federal, state, tribal, or lo‐ cal laws or regulations regarding hazardous materials and/or solid waste management;  Involve a contaminated site;  Produce an appreciably different quantity or type of hazardous waste;  Generate an appreciably different quantity or type of solid waste or use a different method of collection or disposal and/or would exceed local capacity; or  Adversely affect human health and the envi‐ ronment.

Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources

FAA has not established a significance threshold for Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources. Factors to consider are if an action would result in a finding of “adverse ef‐ fect” through the Section 106 process. However, an adverse effect finding does not automatically trigger preparation of an EIS (i.e., a significant im‐ pact).

DRAFT Chapter Five - 18

Potential Concern Some of the soils at the Airport are classified as prime farmland by the NRCS (see Exhibit 1R).

However, the prime soils located between High‐ way 36 and the airfield are located in a developed area of the Airport and are, thus, not considered important farmland.

Soils rated as prime farmland in the northeastern part of the Airport could be considered important farmland by the NRCS. This area is shown as “Avi‐ ation Reserve” on the Recommended Master Plan Concept. Prior to proposed development of this area, Form AD‐1006 should be submitted to the NRCS for an evaluation of potential impact.

The Airport has a fuel farm and provides oppor‐ tunity for aircraft maintenance activities that could involve fossil fuels or other types of hazard‐ ous materials or wastes; these operations are reg‐ ulated and monitored by the appropriate regula‐ tory agencies, such as the U.S. EPA, the State, and Bell County.

The Recommended Master Plan Concept does not anticipate land uses that would produce an appre‐ ciably different quantity or type of hazardous waste. However, should this type of land use be proposed, further NEPA review and/or permitting would be required. There are no known hazard‐ ous materials or waste contamination sites at the Airport, and the Airport maintains a spill preven‐ tion, control, and countermeasure (SPCC) plan.

Existing and future solid waste is, or would be, col‐ lected and taken to Temple Landfill, located ap‐ proximately seven miles southeast of the Airport.

There are known cultural resources located north of the Airport near Clear Creek. Any areas at the Airport that would be subject to ground disturb‐ ance should be surveyed for cultural resources prior to construction unless previously disturbed to the point that artifacts could no longer be in‐ tact.

er

Ro a

x

x

Pe pp er Cr ee kR oa d

d

x

us

x

x

Mo

Tr ai l Ai rp

or t

x

x

x x

x

x x

70

x

x

x

75

x

A

x

(4 ,7 40 ’x

x x x x x

10 0’ )

x

x

x

x

x

E

220

or irp

C D

x x

x

x

x

x

N

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x x

x

17 y3 wa gh

Hi

70 75 x

R

x

65

x

o x ad

x

65

x

x

70

LEGEND x

x

x

x

0

t Road Airpor

x

75

x

A

x

x

B

75

x

x

ico

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

x x

x

eM

70

x

x

ttl

x

65

70 75 x

ex

x

65

Li

x

x

x

C

x

x

il x ra tT

x

x

RU NW AY

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

65

Airport Property Line Airport Fence Line DNL Noise Contour 800

1600

NORTH

SCALE IN FEET

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

DRAFT Chapter Five - 19

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 5C EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Five - 20

er

Ro a

x

x

Pe pp er Cr ee kR oa d

d

x

us

x

x

Mo

Tr ai l Ai rp

or t

x

x

x x

x

65 x

x

75 70 x

x

x

x

C

220

x

A

x

(4 ,7 40 ’x

x

x

E

x

or irp

x

il x ra tT

x x x x x

10 0’ )

65

x

C

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

R

x

x x x

LEGEND x

x

x

x

0

t Road Airpor

x

x

x x

x

17 y3 wa gh

Hi

70 75

x x

N

65

65

x

x

2

x

75

D

70 7

x

x

A

x

x

o x ad

x

B

x x

x

ico

75

x

x

eM

x

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

x

ex

70

75

ttl

x

x

65

70

Li

x

x

x

x

RU NW AY

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Airport Property Line Airport Fence Line DNL Noise Contour 800

1600

NORTH

SCALE IN FEET

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

DRAFT Chapter Five - 21

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 5D 2034 NOISE CONTOURS

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Five - 22

TABLE 5A (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Environmental Significance Threshold/ Impact Category Factors to Consider Land Use FAA has not established a significance threshold for Land Use. There are also no specific inde‐ pendent factors to consider. The determination that significant impacts exist is normally depend‐ ent on the significance of other impacts.

Natural FAA has not established a significance threshold Resources and for Natural Resources and Energy Supply. How‐ Energy Supply ever, factors to consider are if an action would have the potential to cause demand to exceed available or future supplies of these resources.

Noise and Threshold: The action would increase noise by Compatible Land Day‐Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 1.5 deci‐ Use bel (dB) or more for a noise‐sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase, when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe.

Another factor to consider is that special consid‐ eration needs to be given to the evaluation of the significance of noise impacts on noise‐sensitive areas within Section 4(f) properties where the land use compatibility guidelines in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 150 are not rel‐ evant to the value, significance, and enjoyment of the area in question.

Potential Concern None. The proposed development concept plan includes land acquisition of three areas of the Air‐ port that are not yet within Airport control. This action will help prevent land use compatibility im‐ pacts with the Airport.

Planned development projects at the Airport are not anticipated to result in a demand for natural resources or energy consumption beyond what is available by service providers.

None. The Airport’s existing and future DNL noise exposure contours are shown on Exhibits 5C and 5D and remain contained within Airport property during the 20‐year planning horizon of the Airport Master Plan. (See also the discussion of noise un‐ der DOT Act: Section 4(f).)

Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks Socioeconomics

FAA has not established a significance threshold for Socioeconomics. However, factors to con‐ sider are if an action would have the potential to:  Induce substantial economic growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through establishing projects in an undevel‐ oped area);  Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community;  Cause extensive relocation when sufficient re‐ placement housing is unavailable;  Cause extensive relocation of community businesses that would cause severe economic hardship for affected communities;  Disrupt local traffic patterns and substantially reduce the levels of service of roads serving the airport and its surrounding communities; or  Produce a substantial change in the commu‐ nity tax base.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 23

Proposed development projects would occur on Airport property itself and would not result in sub‐ stantial economic growth or a physical disruption or division within Bell County. No relocation of housing or community businesses, disruption of local traffic patterns, or a substantial change in the community tax base would occur.

According to TxDOT’s Congestion Map for 2012, the segment of Highway 36 that fronts the Airport does not experience peak hour congestion; how‐ ever, by 2032, the segments of Highway 36 ap‐ proaching its intersection with Highway 217 just west of the Airport will experience heavy peak hour congestion.1 Thus, future traffic impact anal‐ yses of Airport development projects may be re‐ quired.

TABLE 5A (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Environmental Significance Threshold/ Impact Category Factors to Consider Environmental FAA has not established a significance threshold Justice for Environmental Justice. However, factors to consider are if an action would have the potential to lead to a disproportionately high and adverse impact to an environmental justice population, i.e., a low‐income or minority population, due to:  Significant impacts in other environmental impact categories; or  Impacts on the physical or natural environ‐ ment that affect an environmental justice population in a way that FAA determines are unique to the environmental justice popula‐ tion and significant to that population.

Children’s FAA has not established a significance threshold Environmental for Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Health and Safety Risks. However, factors to consider are if an ac‐ Risks tion would have the potential to lead to a dispro‐ portionate health or safety risk to children.

Visual Effects Light Emissions

Visual Resources/ Visual Character

FAA has not established a significance threshold for Light Emissions. However, a factor to con‐ sider is the degree to which an action would have the potential to:  Create annoyance or interfere with normal activities from light emissions; and  Affect the visual character of the area due to the light emissions, including the im‐ portance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value of the affected visual resources.

FAA has not established a significance threshold for Visual Resources/Visual Character. However, a factor to consider is the extent an action would have the potential to:  Affect the nature of the visual character of the area, including the importance, unique‐ ness, and aesthetic value of the affected vis‐ ual resources;  Contrast with the visual resources and/or visual character in the study area; and  Block or obstruct the views of the visual re‐ sources, including whether these resources would still be viewable from other locations.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 24

Potential Concern None. According to the 2010 U.S. census, as re‐ ported by the U.S. EPA, the two‐mile area around the Airport has 686 households and a minority population of 28 percent. Income statistics for this area have not been reported.

No disproportionately high and adverse impacts will occur to surrounding disadvantaged popula‐ tions near the Airport since development impacts to adjacent neighborhoods are not anticipated.

Temple Charter Academy, a K‐12 public charter school, is located across Highway 36 from the Air‐ port. Future development of an approximate 20‐ acre parcel for non‐aviation revenue support should be evaluated to ensure that environmental health and safety risks to children present at this school do not occur.

New lighting proposed within the Airport Master Plan would remain on the airfield and other devel‐ oped portions of the Airport. If lands on the northern part of the airfield shown as “Aviation Reserve” on the development concept map are developed, however, lighting impacts on the nearby residences should be assessed prior to de‐ velopment.

Although there are existing residences and a State highway located within proximity to the Airport, development planned in the Recommended Mas‐ ter Plan Concept would not change the overall vis‐ ual character of the Airport. However, if lands on the northern part of the airfield shown as “Avia‐ tion Reserve” on the development concept map are developed, visual impacts should be assessed prior to development.

TABLE 5A (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Environmental Im‐ Significance Threshold/ Potential Concern pact Category Factors to Consider Water Resources (including Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface Waters, Groundwater, and Wild and Scenic Rivers) Wetlands Threshold: The action would: There is no development proposed near the 1. Adversely affect a wetland’s function to pond located in the extreme north part of the protect the quality or quantity of munici‐ Airport; therefore, no impacts to wetlands pal water supplies, including surface wa‐ would occur due to the proposed development ters and sole source and other aquifers; concept. However, on‐airport drainages may 2. Substantially alter the hydrology needed be considered jurisdictional if they connect to to sustain the affected wetland system’s tributaries of Clear Creek, Pepper Creek, or values and functions or those of a wet‐ other traditionally navigable waters. Any fill or land to which it is connected; disturbance of these drainages, therefore, will 3. Substantially reduce the affected wet‐ need to be evaluated for compliance with Sec‐ land’s ability to retain floodwaters or tion 404 of the Clean Water Act. storm runoff, thereby threatening public health, safety or welfare (the term wel‐ fare includes cultural, recreational, and scientific resources or property important to the public); 4. Adversely affect the maintenance of nat‐ ural systems supporting wildlife and fish habitat or economically important tim‐ ber, food, or fiber resources of the af‐ fected or surrounding wetlands.

5. Promote development of secondary ac‐ tivities or services that would cause the circumstances listed above to occur; or 6. Be inconsistent with applicable state wet‐ land strategies.

Floodplains Threshold: The action would cause notable None. There are no 100‐year floodplains lo‐ adverse impacts on natural and beneficial cated on the Airport. floodplain values. Natural and beneficial floodplain values are defined in Paragraph 4.k of DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Manage‐ ment and Protection.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 25

TABLE 5A (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Environmental Significance Threshold/ Impact Category Factors to Consider Surface Waters Threshold: The action would: 1. Exceed water quality standards established by federal, state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies; or 2. Contaminate public drinking water supply such that public health may be adversely affected.

Factors to consider are when a project would have the potential to:  Adversely affect natural and beneficial water resource values to a degree that substan‐ tially diminishes or destroys such values;  Adversely affect surface water such that the beneficial uses and values of such waters are appreciably diminished or can no longer be maintained and such impairment cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; or  Present difficulties based on water quality impacts when obtaining a permit or authori‐ zation.

Groundwater Threshold: The action would: 1. Exceed groundwater quality standards es‐ tablished by federal, state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies; or 2. Contaminate an aquifer used for public wa‐ ter supply such that public health may be adversely affected.

Factors to consider are when a project would have the potential to:  Adversely affect natural and beneficial groundwater values to a degree that sub‐ stantially diminishes or destroys such values;  Adversely affect groundwater quantities such that the beneficial uses and values of such groundwater are appreciably dimin‐ ished or can no longer be maintained and such impairment cannot be avoided or satis‐ factorily mitigated; or  Present difficulties based on water quality impacts when obtaining a permit or authori‐ zation.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 26

Potential Concern The Airport has an approved Storm Water Pollu‐ tion Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of its Na‐ tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Airport projects such as addi‐ tional apron, parking lots, or other impervious sur‐ faces could increase the amount of runoff from the Airport. The Airport’s storm water drainage system will need to be upgraded to handle addi‐ tional runoff quantities, when necessary, and its NPDES permit and SWPPP updated accordingly.

A NPDES General Construction permit would be required for all projects involving ground disturb‐ ance of over one acre. FAA’s Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370‐10G, Standards for Specifying Con‐ struction of Airports, Item P‐156, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion and Siltation Control should also be implemented during con‐ struction projects at the Airport.

None. The proposed projects would not substan‐ tially change the amount of water used by the Air‐ port, which receives its water from the City of Temple. See the previous discussion under Sur‐ face Water regarding water quality measures at the Airport.

TABLE 5A (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Environmental Im‐ Significance Threshold/ Potential Concern pact Category Factors to Consider Wild and Scenic FAA has not established a significance thresh‐ None. There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers old for Wild and Scenic Rivers. Factors to con‐ river segments or rivers listed in the NRI within sider are when an action would have an ad‐ Bell County. verse impact on the values for which a river was designated (or considered for designation) through:  Destroying or altering a river’s free‐flow‐ ing nature;  A direct and adverse effect on the values for which a river was designated (or under study for designation);  Introducing a visual, audible, or other type of intrusion that is out of character with the river or would alter outstanding fea‐ tures of the river’s setting;  Causing the river’s water quality to deteri‐ orate;  Allowing the transfer or sale of property interests without restrictions needed to protect the river or the river corridor; or  Any of the above impacts preventing a river on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) or a Section 5(d) river that is not in‐ cluded in the NRI from being included in the Wild and Scenic River System or caus‐ ing a downgrade in its classification (e.g., from wild to recreational).

1 Texas Department of Transportation, Congestion Maps, http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot‐info/tpp/maps/2012‐con‐ gestion.pdf and http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot‐info/tpp/maps/2032‐congestion.pdf, accessed October 2015.

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION SUMMARY

Prior to construction, some of the recommended projects will require NEPA environmental considera‐ tion and analysis. As discussed previously, the three types of environmental documentation under NEPA are the CatEx, EA, and EIS. A CatEx must meet the criteria in 40 CFR §1508.4 and is defined as “a category of actions that do not normally require an EA or EIS because they do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, with the exception of extraordinary circumstances.”

It is the duty of the responsible FAA official to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist and, if so, deem the action appropriate for an EA. Table 5B provides an annotated description of extraordi‐ nary circumstances as detailed in FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5‐2.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 27

TABLE 5B Extraordinary Circumstances FAA Order 1050.1F Annotated Description Would the project have: (1) An adverse effect on cultural resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 54 U.S.C. §300101 et seq.

(2) An impact on properties protected under Section 4(f).

(3) An impact on natural, ecological, or scenic resources of Federal, state, tribal, or local significance (e.g., federally listed or proposed endangered, threatened, or candidate species, or designated or proposed critical habitat under the Endangered Spe‐ cies Act, 16 U.S.C. §§1531‐1544).

(4) An impact on the following resources: - Resources protected by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. §§661‐667d - Wetlands - Floodplains - Coastal zones - National marine sanctuaries - Wilderness areas - National Resource Conservation Service‐designated prime and unique farmlands - Energy supply and natural resources - Resources protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act¸16 U.S.C. §§1271‐1287 and rivers or river segments listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) - Solid waste management (5) A division or disruption of an established community, or a disruption of orderly, planned development, or an inconsistency with plans or goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project is located.

(6) An increase in congestion from surface transportation (by causing a decrease in level of service below acceptable levels de‐ termined by appropriate transportation agency, such as a highway agency).

(7) An impact on noise levels of noise‐sensitive areas.

(8) An impact on air quality or violation of Federal, state, tribal, or local air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7401‐7671q.

(9) An impact on water quality, sole source aquifers, a public water supply system, or state or tribal water quality standards established under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§1251‐1387, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §§300f‐300j‐26.

(10) Impacts on the quality of the human environment that are likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds.

(11) Likelihood to be inconsistent with any Federal, state, tribal, or local law relating to the environmental aspects of the pro‐ posed action.

(12) Likelihood to directly, indirectly, or cumulatively create a significant impact on the human environment, including, but not limited to: - actions likely to cause a significant lighting impact on residential areas or commercial use of business properties - likely to cause a significant impact on the visual nature of surrounding land uses, - likely to cause environmental contamination by hazardous materials - likely to disturb an existing hazardous material contamination site such that new environmental contamination risks are created.

An EA, at a minimum, must be prepared for a proposed action when the initial review of the proposed action indicates that it is not categorically excluded, involves at least one extraordinary circumstance, and the action is not one known normally to require an EIS. The purpose of an EA is to document the FAA determination as to whether or not a proposed action has the potential for significant environmen‐ tal impacts. If none of the potential impacts are likely to be significant, then the responsible FAA official shall prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which briefly presents, in writing, the reasons why an action, not otherwise categorically excluded, will not have a significant impact on the human environment, and the approving official may approve it. Issuance of a FONSI signifies that FAA will not prepare an EIS and has completed the NEPA process for the proposed action.

DRAFT Chapter Five - 28

If the responsible FAA official determines that the proposed action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment, an EIS shall be prepared. An EIS is a clear, concise, and appropriately detailed document that provides agency decision‐makers and the public with a full and fair discussion of signifi‐ cant environmental impacts of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives, and implements the requirement in NEPA §102(2)(C) for a detailed written statement.

Anticipated NEPA environmental review for projects proposed in this Airport Master Plan are summa‐ rized in Table 5C. Most of the proposed improvements, unless involving extraordinary circumstances, could be evaluated in terms of NEPA compliance using one of the CatExes listed in FAA Order 1050.1F. Projects that will likely require an EA include the extension of Runway 2‐20 and the realignment of Tax‐ iway D and the construction of the helicopter approach strip.

TABLE 5C Anticipated Environmental Review For Future Projects Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Master Plan Recommended Project Short Term Projects Conduct Wildlife Assessment Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15‐33 Rehabilitate and Mark Terminal Apron Upgrade Airfield Lighting to LED Fixtures Construct Executive Hangar (12,500 sf) Construct Taxiway Rehabilitation from Taxiway A to Maintenance Hangar Complex Construct T‐Hangar Facility Expansion (8 units) Construct New General Aviation (GA) Terminal Building/ARFF Facility Construct Runway 2‐20 Extension and Taxiway D Realignment Construct Helicopter Approach Strip Acquire 5.93 acres for RPZ Control and MALSR Control Construct Perimeter Fence Realignment Outside of ROFA Install LED REILs on Runway 2, 20, and 33 Install PAPI‐4 on Runway 2 Intermediate Term Projects Construct Holding Aprons on Taxiways A and D Construct T‐Hangar Taxilane Expansion Construct T‐Hangar Building Expansion (23 units) Construct Conventional Hangars (3 units; 16,200 total sf) Construct Executive Hangar (14,400 sf) Reconstruct and Mark Terminal Apron Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15‐33; Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 2‐20 (includes upgrade to non‐precision markings on Runway 2‐20) Rehabilitate and Mark Taxiways A, B, C, D, & E Rehabilitate and Mark Hangar Access Taxiways Long Term Projects Reconstruct and Mark Terminal Apron Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15‐33 Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 2‐20 Rehabilitate and Mark Taxiways A, B, C, D, & E Rehabilitate and Mark Hangar Access Taxiways Construct Conventional Hangar (15,400 sf) Construct Executive Hangar (18,000 sf)

DRAFT Chapter Five - 29

Initial NEPA Action CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx EA EA CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx CatEx

CHAPTER SIX

Capital Improvement Program

The analyses completed in the preceding chapters evaluated development needs at Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport (TPL or Airport) over the next 20 years based on forecast ac. vity and opera onal efficiency. The next step is to apply basic economic, financial, and management ra onale to each development item so that the feasibility of each item in the plan can be assessed.

The presenta on of the capital improvement program (CIP) has been organized into three sec ons. First, the Airport’s capital program needs are recognized by various categories ranging from enhancing safety to sa sfying demand. Second, the Airport development schedule and project cost es mates are presented in narra ve and graphic form. Third, capital improvement funding sources on the state/federal and local levels are iden fied and discussed.

The CIP is developed following Federal Avia on Administra on (FAA) guidelines for Master Plans and primarily iden fies those projects that are likely eligible for grant funding through the Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and/or State of Texas Department of Transporta on (TxDOT) Avia on Division. Other avia on projects that are not programmed to receive federal and/or state funding par cipa on are also presented.

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT NEEDS In an effort to iden fy capital needs at the Airport, this sec on provides an analysis regarding the associated development needs of projects included in the CIP. While some projects will be demand-based, others will be dictated by safety or rehabilita on needs.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 1

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Each development need is categorized according to this schedule. The applicable category, or catego‐ ries, included are presented on Exhibit 6A. The proposed projects can be categorized as follows:

Safety/Security (SS) – these are capital needs con‐ While some projects will be de‐ 1) mand‐based, others will be dic‐ sidered necessary for operational safety and protection of tated by safety or rehabilitation aircraft and/or people and property on the ground near the Airport. needs.

2) Environmental (EN) – these are capital needs which are identified to enable the Airport to operate in an environmentally acceptable manner.

3) Maintenance (MN) – these are capital needs required to maintain the existing infrastructure at the Airport.

4) Efficiency (EF) – these are capital needs intended to optimize aircraft ground operations or users of landside facilities.

5) Demand (DM) – these are capital needs required to accommodate levels of aviation demand. The implementation of these projects should only occur when demand for these needs is verified.

6) Opportunities (OP) – these are capital needs intended to take advantage of opportunities afforded by the Airport setting. Typically, this will involve improvements to property intended for lease to aviation or non‐aviation related development.

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND COST SUMMARIES

With the recommended Master Plan concept developed and specific needs and improvements for the Airport having been established, the next step is to determine a realistic implementation timeline and associated costs for the plan. The recommended improvements are grouped by planning horizon: short term (current – 5 years), intermediate term (6 – 10 years), and long term (11 – 20 years). Table 6A summarizes key activity milestones for the three planning horizons.

A key aspect of this Master Plan is the use of demand‐based planning milestones. Many projects should be considered based on actual demand levels. As short term horizon activity levels are reached, it will then be time to program for the intermediate term based upon the next activity milestones. Similarly, when the intermediate term milestones are reached, it will be time to program for the long term activity milestones.

Many development items included in the recommended concept will need to follow these demand indi‐ cators. For example, the plan includes new hangar development. Based aircraft necessitating the need for additional hangar development and the need to accommodate growth in overall Airport activity will be the primary indicator for these projects. If based aircraft growth occurs as projected, additional hang‐ ars should be constructed to meet the demand. If growth slows or does not occur as forecast, some DRAFT Chapter Six - 2

PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME

SHORT TERM PROJECTS (2016 - 2021) 2016 1

Construct Executive Hangar (12,500 sf )

2 3 4 5 6

Conduct Wildlife Assessment Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15-33 Rehabilitate and Mark Terminal Apron Upgrade Airfield Lighting to LED Fixtures Design/Construct Taxiway Rehabilitation from Taxiway A to Maintenance Hangar Complex

2017

2018 8

Environmental Assessment for Runway 2-20 Extension and Taxiway D Realignment; and Helicopter Approach Strip Design/Construct T-Hangar Facility Expansion (8 Units)

9

Design/Construct New GA Terminal Building/ARFF Facility

10 11 12

Design/Construct Runway 2-20 Extension and Taxiway D Realignment Design/Construct Helicopter Approach Strip (1,388 sy) Acquire Via Fee Simple Acquisition 5.93 Acres for RPZ Control and MALSR Control

7

2019 2020

2021

13 Design/Construct Perimeter Fence Realignment Outside of ROFA 14 Install LED REILs on Runway 2, 20, 33 15 Install PAPI-4 on Runway 2 Short Term Subtotal

PROJECT CATEGORY DM

STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDING $-

AIRPORT/LOCAL SHARE

COST ESTIMATE

$1,130,000

$1,130,000

$90,000 $664,470 $195,302 $1,890,000 $450,000

$10,000 $73,830 $21,700 $210,000 $50,000

$100,000 $738,300 $217,002 $2,100,000 $500,000

EN DM

$247,500 $-

$27,500 $602,000

$275,000 $602,000

EF/DM/OP

$500,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

SS/EF SS/DM SS

$2,844,000 $225,000 $27,000

$316,000 $25,000 $3,000

$3,160,000 $250,000 $30,000

SS SS SS

$11,610 $146,475 $153,000 $7,444,357

$1,290 $16,275 $17,000 $4,003,595

$12,900 $162,750 $170,000 $11,447,952

SS/EF DM DM DM DM DM DM MN MN

$360,000 $1,314,000 $$$$$$195,302 $688,502

$40,000 $146,000 $1,950,000 $307,000 $307,000 $760,000 $1,400,000 $21,700 $76,500

$400,000 $1,460,000 $1,950,000 $307,000 $307,000 $760,000 $1,400,000 $217,002 $765,002

$304,923 $425,849 $294,840

$33,880 $47,317 $32,760

$338,803 $473,166 $327,600

$3,583,416

$5,122,157

$8,705,573

$195,302 $688,502 $337,500 $425,849 $294,840 $$-

$21,700 $76,500 $37,500 $47,317 $32,760 $1,243,000 $1,514,000

$217,002 $765,002 $375,000 $473,166 $327,600 $1,243,000 $1,514,000

$1,941,993 $12,969,766 51.7%

$2,972,777 $12,098,530 48.3%

$4,914,770 $25,068,295

EN/SS MN MN MN/EF EF/DM/OP $-

PROJECT CATEGORY LEGEND SS - Safety/Security EN - Environmental MN - Maintenance EF - Efficiency DM - Demand OP - Opportunities

Intermediate Term Projects (2022 - 2026) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Construct Holding Aprons on Taxiway A and Taxiway D Design/Construct T-Hangar Taxilane Expansion Design/Construct T-Hangar Building Expansion (23 Units) Construct Conventional Hangar (3,900 sf ) Construct Conventional Hangar (3,900 sf ) Construct Conventional Hangar (8,400 sf ) Construct Executive Hangar (14,400 sf ) Reconstruct and Mark Terminal Apron (36,200 sy) Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15-33 (116,700 sy) Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 2-20 (52,700 sy) - Includes Upgrade to Non-Precision Runway Markings Rehabilitate and Mark Taxiways A, B, C, D, & E (82,975 sy) Rehabilitate and Mark Hangar Access Taxiways (54,600 sy)

Intermediate Term Subtotal LONG TERM PROJECTS (BEYOND 2026) 28 Reconstruct and Mark Terminal Apron (36,200 sy) 29 Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15-33 (116,700 sy) 30 Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 2-20 (58,250 sy) 31 Rehabilitate and Mark Taxiways A, B, C, D, & E (82,975 sy) 32 Rehabilitate and Mark Hangar Access Taxiways (54,600 sy) 33 Construct Conventional Hangar (15,400 sf ) 34 Construct Executive Hangar (18,000 sf ) Long Term Subtotal Capital Improvement Program Totals Funding Source Percentages

DRAFT Chapter Six - 3

MN MN MN

MN MN MN MN MN DM DM

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Exhibit 6A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Six - 4

projects may be delayed. As a result, capital expenditures are planned to be made on an as‐needed basis, which leads to a more responsible use of capital assets.

TABLE 6A Forecast Summary by Planning Horizon Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport

BASED AIRCRAFT Single Engine Piston Multi‐Engine Piston Turboprop Business Jet Helicopter Total Based Aircraft AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS General Aviation Itinerant Local Air Taxi Itinerant Military Itinerant Local Total Itinerant Operations Total Local Operations Total Annual Operations Source: Coffman Associates analysis

Base Year (2014)

Short Term

Intermediate Term

73 1 0 8 2 84

78 1 1 10 3 93

42,667 3,754

74,175 6,522

799

5,375 2,149 55,071 6,458 61,529

100 1 3 16 6 126

56,264 4,948

696

5,375 2,149 48,655 5,903 54,558

85 1 1 12 4 103

49,000 4,309

613

Long Term

1,053

5,375 2,149 62,438 7,097 69,535

5,375 2,149 80,603 8,671 89,274

At TPL, all hangar facilities are owned and managed by the City of Temple and leased to individual ten‐ ants. Because of economic realities, many airports are relying on private developers to construct new hangars. In some cases, private developers can keep construction costs lower, which in turn lowers the monthly fee necessary to amortize the cost of development. The CIP for the Airport assumes a potential for future hangars to be constructed through public/private partnerships. This assumption does not preclude the possibility of the Airport constructing new hangars. Ultimately, the City will determine, based upon demand and the specific needs of a potential developer, whether to self‐fund hangar con‐ struction or to rely on private developers.

Since an Airport Master Plan is a concep‐ Not all projects identified are necessary to meet projected demand. Other projects are neces‐ tual document, implementation of the cap‐ sary to enhance the safety and efficiency of the ital projects should only be undertaken af‐ Airport, maintain existing pavement infrastruc‐ ter further refinement of their design and ture, or to address FAA design standards. costs through architectural and engineer‐

ing analyses.

Since an Airport Master Plan is a conceptual document, implementation of the capital projects should only be undertaken after further refinement of their design and costs through architectural and engineering analyses. Moreover, some projects may DRAFT Chapter Six - 5

require additional unforeseen infrastructure improvements (i.e., drainage improvements, extension of utilities, etc.) that may increase the estimated cost of the project or increase the timeline for completion.

Once a list of necessary projects was identified and refined, project‐specific cost estimates were devel‐ oped. The cost estimates include design, engineering, construction administration, and contingencies that may arise on the project. Capital costs presented here should be viewed only as estimates subject to further refinement during design. Nevertheless, they are considered sufficient for planning purposes.

Some project costs, particularly those relating to the ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation of Airport pavement, have been taken from TPL’s Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) currently on file with the TxDOT Aviation Division. Fee simple property acquisition costs were estimated based upon market values of land in the vicinity of the Airport obtained from the Bell County Assessor’s Office. Cost estimates for each of the development projects in the CIP are based on present‐day construction, design, and administration costs. Adjustments will need to be applied over time as construction costs or capital equipment costs change.

Exhibit 6A presents the proposed 20‐year CIP for TPL. An estimate of federal/TxDOT funding eligibility has been included, although actual funding is not guaranteed. For projects that are eligible for fed‐ eral/state funding, AIP/TxDOT grants provide up to 90 percent of the total project cost. The remaining 10 percent, or more, of project costs are funded locally by the City of Temple. Other projects, such as the terminal, aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF), fuel storage, and hangar building construction have funding limitations. For new terminal development, TxDOT can provide up to 50 percent of a project with a maximum TxDOT share of $500,000. The remaining amount would need to be funded locally.

Furthermore, since TPL is not a Part 139 certificated airport (FAA’s certification for commercial service airports), it will not be eligible to receive grant funding to construct new ARFF facilities.

Some projects identified in the CIP will require environmental documentation. The level of documenta‐ tion necessary for each project must be determined in consultation with the FAA and TxDOT Aviation Division. There are three major levels of environmental review to be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that include categorical exclusions (CatEx), Environmental Assessments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). Each level requires more time to complete and more detailed information. Guidance on what level of documentation is required for a specific project is pro‐ vided in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The Environmental Over‐ view presented in Chapter Five addresses NEPA and provides an evaluation of potential environmental impacts for TPL.

Several projects identified in the Recommended Master Plan Concept are not planned to be constructed within the time period covered in the CIP (2016 – 2034). For example, the existing landside area is an‐ ticipated to meet hangar and apron development needs for the next 20 years; therefore, landside de‐ velopment in other areas of the Airport is not included within the CIP. As a result, connected projects such as the construction of Taxiways F and G are also not included within the CIP. These projects are simply placeholders for developments that could occur beyond the scope of this Airport Master Plan.

Development projects that are not anticipated to occur during the scope of the CIP are identified on Exhibit 6B with white shading.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 6

x

Ro ad

Airport Fence Line

x

x

x

x

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

x

x

Departure RPZ

x

Intermediate Term Project

25

x

x

Ro a

xexic o

Expansion Area

C

220

E

ttl Li

x

x

(4 ,7 40 ’x

13

x

10 0’ )

x

x

x

x

INTERMEDIATE TERM PROJECTS (2022 - 2026) x

14

RUNWAY 15-33 (7,000’ x 150’)

0’

2

te n

x

x x

14

18

x

33

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

22

x

x

ad port Ro

36 /Air ighway Texas H

x

x

x

x

x

x

17 y3 wa gh Hi

17

x

x

x

34

x

x

N

1

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

8

x

11

x

x

x

x x

9 19 20 21

x

x

x

x

x

16

10

sio n

10

6

x

D Ex

x

50

15

x

A

16

x

x

x

13

10

C

x

x

x B

2018 Environmental Assessment for Runway 2-20 Extension and Taxiway D Realignment; and Helicopter Approach Strip - NP Design/Construct T-Hangar Facility Expansion (8 Units) 2019 Design/Construct New GA Terminal Building/ARFF Facility 2020 Design/Construct Runway 2-20 Extension and Taxiway D Realignment Design/Construct Helicopter Approach Strip (1,388 sy) Acquire Via Fee Simple Acquisition 5.93 Acres for RPZ Control and MALSR Control 2021 Design/Construct Perimeter Fence Realignment Outside of ROFA Install LED REILs on Runway 2, 20, 33 Install PAPI-4 on Runway 2

12 x

0’ 10

3.3 Acres 12

x1.8 Acres

F

x

12

14 15

x

G

x

x

x

x

x

F

x

x

0’ 24 5,

0.83 Acres

x

il

E AT M TI UL

Helicopter Approach Test Strip (500’ x 50’)

A

rax tT or ri p

x

d

Support

eM

AMCOM

x Complex

x

11 12

x

x

RU NW AY

x

x Revenue

9 10

x

x

8

x

x

x

x

x

Drive Fikes

x

x

Long Term Project Non-Aviation

20

Short Term Project

Aviation Reserve

7

14

x

x

x

Pe pp er Cr ee kR d

Ultimate Property Line

er

x

x

SHORT TERM PROJECTS (continued)

us

Airport Property Line x

x

x

Mo

LEGEND

16 Construct Holding Aprons on Taxiway A and Taxiway D 17 Design/Construct T-Hangar Taxilane Expansion 18 Design/Construct T-Hangar Building Expansion (23 Units) 19 Construct Conventional Hangar (3,900 sf ) 20 Construct Conventional Hangar (3,900 sf ) 21 Construct Conventional Hangar (8,400 sf ) 22 Construct Executive Hangar (14,400 sf ) 23 Reconstruct and Mark Terminal Apron (36,200 sy) - NP 24 Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15-33 (116,700 sy) - NP 25 Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 2-20 (52,700 sy) - Includes Upgrade to Non-Precision Runway Markings - NP 26 Rehabilitate and Mark Taxiways A, B, C, D, & E (82,975 sy) - NP 27 Rehabilitate and Mark Hangar Access Taxiways (54,600 sy) - NP

x

x

LONG TERM PROJECTS (BEYOND 2026) SHORT TERM PROJECTS (2016 - 2021) 1 2 NORTH

0

1000 SCALE IN FEET

Aerial: Geodetix 3-2015

DRAFT Chapter Six - 7

2000

3 4 5 6

28 Reconstruct and Mark Terminal Apron (36,200 sy) - NP 29 Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15-33 (116,700 sy) - NP 30 Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 2-20 (58,250 sy) - NP 31 Rehabilitate and Mark Taxiways A, B, C, D, & E (82,975 sy) - NP 32 Rehabilitate and Mark Hangar Access Taxiways (54,600 sy) - NP 33 Construct Conventional Hangar (15,400 sf ) 34 Construct Executive Hangar (18,000 sf )

2016 Construct Executive Hangar (12,500 sf ) 2017 Conduct Wildlife Assessment - NP Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15-33 - NP Rehabilitate and Mark Terminal Apron - NP Upgrade Airfield Lighting to LED Fixtures - NP Design/Construct Taxiway Rehabilitation from Taxiway A to NP - Not Pictured Maintenance Hangar Complex

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

White - Development Anticipated to Occur Beyond Long Term Horizon

Exhibit 6B DEVELOPMENT STAGING

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT Chapter Six - 8

The following sections will describe in greater detail the projects identified for the Airport over the next 20 years. The short term projects are subdivided into yearly increments and refer to the federal fiscal year (FY) (October – September). The intermediate and long terms are grouped by local priority. While the CIP shows the priority ranking of the projects, the list should be evaluated and revised on a regular basis.

SHORT TERM PROGRAM The short term planning period is the only planning horizon separated into single years. This is to allow the CIP to be coordinated with the planning cycle of TxDOT and the FAA. If any of these projects cannot be funded in the timeframe indicated, the City of Temple should consider the project for the following year.

Projects called out during this timeframe are very specific in terms of actual design and construction.

Several projects in the short term may also need to be addressed in a CatEx or an EA. As such, some projects are initially put through an environmental and/or design phase and then followed up with actual construction.

The short term program considers 15 projects for the planning period as presented on Exhibit 6A and depicted on Exhibit 6B. The following provides a detailed breakdown of each project within FY 2016 through 2021.

FY 2016 Projects Project #1: Construct Executive Hangar Description: This project involves the construction of an executive hangar and adjoining ramp pavement across from the McLane Company corporate hangar.

Cost Estimate: $1,130,000 Funding Eligibility: Local – 100 percent. All future hangar construction is anticipated to be funded locally by the City and/or through agreements with third‐party developers.

FY 2017 Projects Project #2: Conduct Wildlife Assessment Description: The wildlife hazard assessment analyzes potential wildlife hazards to aircraft operations.

This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $100,000 Funding Sources: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 9

Project #3: Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15‐33 Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $738,300 Funding Sources: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #4: Rehabilitate and Mark Terminal Apron Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $217,002 Funding Sources: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #5: Upgrade Airfield Lighting to LED Fixtures Description: This project will replace existing incandescent airfield lighting fixtures (medium intensity runway lighting [MIRL] and medium intensity taxiway lighting [MITL] with LED fixtures. This project will result in reductions in energy use and savings in maintenance costs.

Cost Estimate: $2,100,000 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #6: Design/Construct Taxiway Rehabilitation from Taxiway A to Maintenance Hangar Complex Description: To make the maintenance hangar complex, which is planned to be vacated by AMCOM, accessible to the airfield and therefore more attractive to potential fixed‐wing aircraft operators, this project will rehabilitate a portion of the abandoned runway to create a new taxiway. The taxiway will also provide airfield access to a hangar development site directly across from the maintenance hangar complex.

Cost Estimate: $500,000 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

FY 2018 Projects

Project #7: Environmental Assessment for Runway 2‐20 Extension and Taxiway D Realignment; and Helicopter Approach Strip Construction Description: This project examines the potential National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) impacts of the construction of a 500‐foot extension to Runway 2‐20, realignment of Taxiway D, and for the con‐ struction of a helicopter approach strip. The Environmental Assessment (EA) process is typically allotted a two‐year time period for completion.

Cost Estimate: $275,000 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #8: Design/Construct T‐Hangar Facility Expansion (8 Units) Description: Four existing T‐hangar facilities are planned to be extended to provide new aircraft storage capacity. The existing facilities are already served by existing taxilane pavement; therefore, this project will not require the construction of new taxilane pavement. Extending each of the four hangars within the existing taxilane pavement area will allow for an additional eight individual storage units.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 10

Cost Estimate: $602,000 Funding Eligibility: Local – 100 percent. All future hangar construction is anticipated to be funded locally by the City and/or through agreements with third‐party developers.

FY 2019 Projects

Project #9: Design/Construct New GA Terminal Building/ARFF Facility Description: This project involves the demolition of the original commercial terminal facility and the construction of a new 6,000 square foot GA terminal building and aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) facility. The existing GA terminal and ARFF facilities are then planned to be repurposed and leased to a specialized aviation service operator (SASO).

Cost Estimate: $2,000,000 Funding Eligibility: State – 50 percent (up to $500,000) / Local – remaining amount ($1,500,000). Since TPL is not a Part 139 certificated airport, State or Federal funding is not anticipated for the ARFF compo‐ nents of the building.

FY 2020 Projects

Project #10: Design/Construct Runway 2‐20 Extension and Taxiway D Realignment Description: The 500‐foot extension of Runway 2‐20 and realignment of Taxiway D will allow for right‐ angled holding position markings on both sides of the runway threshold. This project improves opera‐ tional safety and increases the utility of Runway 2‐20 during high crosswind conditions. Initiation of this project is dependent upon the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) by the FAA during the EA process.

Cost Estimate: $3,160,000 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #11: Design/Construct Helicopter Approach Strip Description: The helicopter approach strip is planned to relocate helicopter testing/training operations from the runway environment. The ultimate design of the strip should be coordinated with U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) since it is the primary helicopter operator at the Airport.

Cost Estimate: $250,000 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #12: Acquire Via Fee Simple Acquisition 5.93 Acres for RPZ Control and MALSR Control Description: Acquisition of approximately 5.1 acres of land beyond existing Airport property is planned to establish ownership control over the entire Runway 15 and 33 approach runway protection zones (RPZs). An additional 0.83 acres of land is planned for acquisition to establish control over land on which the medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR) is lo‐ cated.

Cost Estimate: $30,000 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 11

FY 2021 Project

Project #13: Design/Construct Perimeter Fence Realignment Outside or ROFA Description: The perimeter security fence currently obstructs a small portion of the Runway 15‐33 Run‐ way Object Free Area (ROFA). This project realigns the perimeter fence so that it no longer obstructs the ROFA. A connected action for this project is the removal of vegetation in the same area that also obstructs the ROFA. Cost Estimate: $12,900 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #14: Install LED REILs on Runway 2, 20, and 33 Description: Runway end identifier lights (REILs) improve a pilot’s situational awareness and improve operational safety by reducing the probability for undershoots and overshoots. This project involves the installation of LED REILs to the ends of Runway 2, 20, and 33.

Cost Estimate: $162,750 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #15: Install PAPI‐4 on Runway 2 Description: The precision approach path indicator (PAPI‐4) is a visual aid providing pilots with a sense of their position on the approach path to the runway landing threshold. Runway 2 is the only runway that is not equipped with a visual approach aid. This project involves the installation of a PAPI‐4 system on Runway 2.

Cost Estimate: $170,000 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Short Term CIP Summary

The short term CIP includes projects that enhance the overall safety, efficiency, and maintenance of the airfield while also implementing landside improvements. The total investment necessary for the short term CIP is approximately $11.4 million. Approximately $7.4 million is programmed for state/federal funding assistance. The remaining $4.0 million is to be provided through local funding sources.

INTERMEDIATE TERM PROGRAM

The intermediate term covers the period 6 through 10 years and includes 12 projects. These projects are listed on Exhibit 6A and depicted on Exhibit 6B. Planning new projects beyond the short term timeframe can be challenging. Due to the fluid nature of funding availability and the possibility of changing priori‐ ties, these projects have been grouped together into a single project list and not prioritized by year.

Further evaluation of these projects should occur during this planning horizon to determine their order of importance based on airport safety, demand, and efficiency.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 12

Project #16: Construct Holding Aprons on Taxiway A and Taxiway D Description: This project involves the construction of holding aprons at each end of Runway 15‐33 on Taxiway A and Taxiway D. Holding aprons improve taxiway circulation and provide a location for aircraft to perform engine run‐up procedures.

Cost Estimate: $400,000 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #17: Design/Construct T‐Hangar Taxilane Expansion Description: This project is anticipated to occur in coordination with the expansion of the existing T‐ hangar facilities (project #16). The taxilane expansion would provide airfield access to the expanded T‐ hangar facilities.

Cost Estimate: $1,460,000 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #18: Design/Construct T‐Hangar Building Expansion (23 Units) Description: The existing T‐hangar facilities are ultimately planned to be expanded to the east to provide additional aircraft storage capacity. An expansion of each T‐hangar facility up to the 30‐foot building restriction line (BRL) will allow for an additional 23 storage units.

Cost Estimate: $1,950,000 Funding Eligibility: Local – 100 percent. All future hangar construction is anticipated to be funded locally by the City and/or through agreements with third‐party developers.

Project #19: Construct Conventional Hangar (3,900 sf) Description: This project involves the construction of a conventional hangar in an area already served by taxilane access to the terminal apron and the airfield. As with all hangar projects, hangar construction should be dictated by demand.

Cost Estimate: $307,000 Funding Eligibility: Local – 100 percent. All future hangar construction is anticipated to be funded locally by the City and/or through agreements with third‐party developers.

Project #20: Construct Conventional Hangar (3,900 sf) Description: This project involves the construction of a conventional hangar in an area already served by taxilane access to the terminal apron and the airfield. As with all hangar projects, hangar construction should be dictated by demand.

Cost Estimate: $307,000 Funding Eligibility: Local – 100 percent. All future hangar construction is anticipated to be funded locally by the City and/or through agreements with third‐party developers.

Project #21: Construct Conventional Hangar (8,400 sf) Description: This project involves the construction of a conventional hangar in an area already served by taxilane access to the terminal apron and the airfield. As with all hangar projects, hangar construction should be dictated by demand.

Cost Estimate: $760,000 Funding Eligibility: Local – 100 percent. All future hangar construction is anticipated to be funded locally by the City and/or through agreements with third‐party developers.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 13

Project #22: Construct Executive Hangar (14,400 sf) Description: This project involves the construction of an executive hangar across from the McLane Com‐ pany corporate hangar. As with all hangar projects, hangar construction should be dictated by demand.

Cost Estimate: $1,400,000 Funding Eligibility: Local – 100 percent. All future hangar construction is anticipated to be funded locally by the City and/or through agreements with third‐party developers.

Project #23: Reconstruct and Mark Terminal Apron Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $217,002 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #24: Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15‐33 Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $765,002 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #25: Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 2‐20 – Includes Upgrade to Non‐Precision Runway Mark‐ ings Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project also includes the upgrade of the runway to non‐precision markings, which is planned to accommodate the existing instrument approach capability of Runway 2 and the planned implementation of an instrument approach to Runway 20.

Cost Estimate: $338,803 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #26: Rehabilitate and Mark Taxiways A, B, C, D, & E Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $473,166 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #27: Rehabilitate and Mark Hangar Access Taxiways Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $327,600 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 14

Intermediate Term CIP Summary

Projects included in the intermediate term continue to improve the overall safety and efficiency of the airfield as well as expand landside facility capacities. The total investment necessary for the intermedi‐ ate term CIP is approximately $8.7 million. Approximately $3.6 million is programmed for state/federal funding assistance. The remaining $5.1 million is to be provided through local funding sources.

LONG TERM PLANNING PROGRAM

The long term covers the period beyond 2026. This planning horizon includes seven projects for the timeframe as listed on Exhibit 6A and depicted on Exhibit 6B. The following section includes a descrip‐ tion of each project.

Project #28: Reconstruct and Mark Terminal Apron Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $217,002 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #29: Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 15‐33 Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $765,002 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #30: Rehabilitate and Mark Runway 2‐20 Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $375,000 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #31: Rehabilitate and Mark Taxiways A, B, C, D, & E Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $473,166 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

Project #32: Rehabilitate and Mark Hangar Access Taxiways Description: Rehabilitation and marking is a routine preservation project to extend the useful life of airfield pavement. This project is carried over from the Airport’s existing ACIP. Cost Estimate: $327,600 Funding Eligibility: State or Federal – 90 percent / Local – 10 percent.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 15

Project #33: Construct Conventional Hangar (15,400 sf) Description: This project involves the construction of a conventional hangar in an area already served by taxilane access to the terminal apron and the airfield. As with all hangar projects, hangar construction should be dictated by demand.

Cost Estimate: $1,243,000 Funding Eligibility: Local – 100 percent. All future hangar construction is anticipated to be funded locally by the City and/or through agreements with third‐party developers.

Project #34: Construct Executive Hangar (18,000 sf) Description: This project involves the construction of a large executive hangar facility for multiple aircraft storage purposes. The proposed site is in an area previously planned for this type of use and includes the expansion of adjacent ramp pavement.

Cost Estimate: $1,514,000 Funding Eligibility: Local – 100 percent. All future hangar construction is anticipated to be funded locally by the City and/or through agreements with third‐party developers.

Long Term CIP Summary

The total costs associated with the long term program are estimated at $4.9 million. Of this total, ap‐ proximately $1.9 million could be eligible for state/federal funding, and the local share is projected at $3.0 million.

The CIP is intended as a road map of air‐

port improvements to help guide the City CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY of Temple, TxDOT Aviation Division, and

The CIP is intended as a road map of airport im‐ the FAA. provements to help guide the City of Temple, TxDOT Aviation Division, and the FAA. The plan as presented will help accommodate increases in fore‐ cast demand at TPL over the next 20 years and beyond. The first five years of the CIP are separated into yearly installments, and the intermediate and long term projects are grouped together respectively. The sequence of projects may change due to availability of funds or changing priorities. Nonetheless, this is a comprehensive list of capital projects the Airport should consider in the next 20 years.

The total 20‐year CIP proposes approximately $25.1 million in airport development needs. Of this total, approximately $13.0 million (51.7 percent) could be eligible for state/federal funding assistance. The local funding estimate for the proposed 20‐year CIP is $12.1 million. The bulk of the local funding is from hangar development projects.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 16

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING SOURCES

There are generally four sources of funds used to finance airport development which include:

 Airport cash flow  Revenue and general obligation bonds  Federal/state/local grants  Passenger facility charges (PFCs), which are reserved for commercial service airports

Access to these sources of financing varies widely among airports, with some large airports maintaining substantial cash reserves and the smaller commercial service and general aviation airports often requir‐ ing subsidies from local governments to fund operating expenses and finance modest improvements.

Financing capital improvements at the Airport will not rely solely on the financial resources of the City.

Capital improvement funding is available through various grant‐in‐aid programs on both the federal and state levels. Historically, TPL has received federal and state grants. While some years more funds could be available, the CIP was developed with project phasing in order to remain realistic and within the range of anticipated grant assistance. The following discussion outlines key sources of funding potentially available for capital improvements at the Airport.

FEDERAL GRANTS

The United States Congress has long recognized the need to develop and maintain a system of aviation facilities across the nation for the purpose of national defense and promotion of interstate commerce.

Various grants‐in‐aid programs to public airports have been established over the years for this purpose.

The most recent legislation affecting federal funding was enacted on February 17, 2012 and is titled, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. This legislation expired on September 30, 2015. Long‐term reauthorization has not yet been passed; however, Congress did pass the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2015. This temporary authorization legislation funds the FAA’s AIP at $1.68 billion through March 31, 2016. For the purposes of the Airport Master Plan, it is assumed that once long‐term FAA reauthor‐ ization legislation is passed, funding levels will be similar to funding levels from the recently expired FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

Eligible airports, which include those in the National Plan of Integrated Airports Systems (NPIAS), such as TPL, can apply for airport improvement grants. Table 6B presents the approximate distribution of the AIP funds based upon the new expired FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. TPL is eligible to apply for grants which may be funded through state apportionments, the small airport fund, discretion‐ ary, and/or set‐asides categories.

Funding for AIP‐eligible projects is undertaken through a cost‐sharing arrangement in which the FAA provides up to 90 percent of the cost. In exchange for this level of funding, the airport sponsor is required to meet various grant assurances, including maintaining the improvement for its useful life, usually 20 years.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 17

The source for AIP funds is the Aviation Trust Fund. The Aviation Trust Fund was established in 1970 to provide funding for aviation capital investment programs (aviation development, facilities and equip‐ ment, and research and development). The Aviation Trust Fund also finances the operation of the FAA. It is funded by user fees, including taxes on airline tickets, aviation fuel, and various aircraft parts.

TABLE 6B Federal AIP Funding Distribution Funding Category Percent of Total* Apportionment/Entitlement Passenger Entitlements 26.6% Cargo Entitlements 3.5% Alaska Supplemental 0.7% State Apportionment for Non‐Primary Entitlements 12.5% State Apportionment Based on Area and Population 7.4% Carryover 22.1% Small Airport Fund Small Hubs 2.2% Non‐Hubs 8.7% Non‐Primary (GA and Reliever) 4.3% Discretionary Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise 5.4% Pure Discretionary 1.8% Set‐Asides Noise 4.2% Military Airports Program 0.5% Reliever 0.1% Totals 100.0% *Percentages based on FAA fiscal year 2013 final funding breakdown. **FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 – expired September 30, 2015 AIP ‐ Airport Improvement Program Source: FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Program Handbook

Funds** $891,100,000 $117,250,000 $23,450,000 $418,750,000 $247,900,000 $740,350,000 $73,700,000 $291,450,000 $144,050,000 $180,900,000 $60,300,000 $140,700,000 $16,750,000 $3,350,000 $3,350,000,000

Apportionment (Entitlement) Funds

AIP provides funding for eligible projects at airports through an apportionment (entitlement) program.

Non‐primary airports, such as TPL, receive a guaranteed minimum level of federal assistance each year in the amount of $150,000. These non‐primary entitlement (NPE) funds are available to use in the fiscal year it becomes available and the following three fiscal years. Unused funds expire after four years unless the sponsor obligates the funds under a grant or transfers the funds to another NPIAS airport.

States also receive a direct apportionment based on a federal formula that takes into account area and population. For the State of Texas, TxDOT distributes these funds for projects at various airports throughout the state.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 18

Small Airport Fund

If a large or medium hub commercial service airport chooses to institute a PFC, which is a fee of up to $4.50 on each airline ticket for funding of capital improvement projects, then their apportionment is reduced. A portion of the reduced apportionment goes to the small airport fund. The small airport fund is reserved for small‐hub primary commercial service airports, non‐hub commercial service airports, and general aviation airports. TPL is a general aviation airport; therefore, it is eligible for small airport funds.

Discretionary Funds

In a number of cases, airports face major projects that will require funds in excess of the airport’s annual entitlements. Thus, additional funds from discretionary apportionments under AIP become desirable.

The primary feature about discretionary funds is that they are distributed on a priority basis. These priorities are established by the FAA, utilizing a priority code system. Under this system, projects are ranked by their purpose. Projects ensuring airport safety and security are ranked as the most important priorities, followed by maintaining current infrastructure development, mitigating noise and other envi‐ ronmental impacts, meeting standards, and increasing system capacity. Additional buildings and struc‐ tures may be eligible if the function of the structure is to serve airport operations in a non‐revenue gen‐ erating capacity, such as maintenance facilities. Some revenue‐enhancing structures, such as T‐hangars, may be eligible if all airfield improvements have been made but the priority ranking of these facilities is very low.

It is important to note that competition for discretionary funding is not limited to airports in the State of Texas or those within the FAA Southwest Region. The funds are distributed to all airports in the country and, as such, are more difficult to obtain. High priority projects will often fare favorably, while lower priority projects many times will not receive discretionary grants.

Set‐Aside Funds

Portions of AIP funds are set‐asides designed to achieve specific funding minimums for noise compati‐ bility planning and implementation, select former military airfields (Military Airport Program), and select reliever airports. TPL does not qualify for set‐aside funds as it is not a former military airfield or a reliever airport.

FAA Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Program

The Airway Facilities Division of the FAA administers the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Program. This program provides funding for the installation and maintenance of various navigational aids and equip‐ ment of the national airspace system. Under the F&E program, funding is provided for FAA airport traffic control towers (ATCTs), enroute navigational aids, on‐airport navigational aids, and approach lighting systems.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 19

While F&E still installs and maintains some navigational aids, on‐airport facilities at general aviation air‐ ports have not been a priority. Therefore, airports often request funding assistance for navigational aids through AIP and then maintain the equipment on their own1.

STATE AID TO AIRPORTS

The State of Texas participates in the federal State Block Grant Program. Under this program, the FAA annually distributes general aviation state apportionment and discretionary funds to TxDOT, which in turn distributes grants to airports within the state. In compliance with TxDOT’s legislative mandate that it “apply for, receive, and disburse” federal funds for general aviation airports, TxDOT acts as the agent of the local airport sponsor. Although these grants are distributed by TxDOT, they contain all federal obligations.

The State of Texas also distributes funding to general aviation airports from the Highway Trust Fund as the Texas Aviation Facilities Development Program. These funds are appropriated each year by the state legislature. Once distributed, these grants contain state obligations only.

The establishment of a CIP for the state entails first identifying the need, then establishing a ranking or priority system. Identifying all state airport project needs allows TxDOT to establish a biennial program and budget for development costs. The most recent TxDOT CIP, Aviation Capital Improvement Program 2016‐2018, assumed that approximately $19 million in annual federal AIP grants, plus $24 million ear‐ marked for non‐primary entitlements, $8 million in annual federal discretionary funding, and $16 million in state funds, would be available.

The TxDOT biennial program sets a project priority system established by the Texas Transportation Com‐ mission in order to make the best use of limited state and federal airport development funds. Table 6C presents the priority objectives and their associated description in order of importance.

TABLE 6C TxDOT Project Priorities Priority Description Objective Safety Projects needed to make the facility safe for aircraft operations.

Preservation Projects to preserve the functional or structural integrity of the airport.

Standards Improvements required to bring the airport up to design standards for current user aircraft.

Upgrade Improvements required to allow the airport to accommodate larger aircraft or longer stage lengths.

Capacity Expansion required to accommodate more aircraft or higher activity levels.

New Access A new airport providing new air access to a previously unserved area.

New Capacity A new airport needed to add capacity or relieve congestion at other area airports.

Source: TxDOT Aviation Capital Improvement Program 2016‐2018

1 Guidance on the eligibility of a project for federal AIP grant funding can be found in FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improve‐ ment Program Handbook, which can be accessed at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/media/AIP‐Handbook‐Order‐5100‐38D

DRAFT Chapter Six - 20

Each project for the Airport must be identified and programmed into the state CIP and compete with other airport projects in the state for federal and state funds. In Texas, airport development projects that meet TxDOT’s discretionary funds’ eligibility requirements can receive 90 percent funding from the AIP State Block Grant Program. Eligible projects include airfield and apron facilities. Historically, reve‐ nue‐generating improvements, such as fuel facilities, utilities, and hangars, have not been eligible for AIP funding. However, FAA funding legislation has historically provided an allowance of NPE funds to be utilized for hangar or fuel farm construction if all other airfield needs have been addressed.

The availability of grant funds can fluctuate from year to year. Typically, an airport can expect a grant to cover several projects in one grant‐cycle. The next grant opportunity may not arise for a couple of years thereafter. This cycle occurs as TxDOT must administer grants for more than 300 airports and has rela‐ tively limited resources. As a result, local budgeting for future capital improvements should consider sporadic grant availabilities.

Routine Airport Maintenance Program (RAMP)

TxDOT has established the RAMP to help general aviation airports maintain and, in some instances, con‐ struct new facilities. The program was initially designed to help airports maintain airside and landside pavements, but has since been expanded to include construction of new facilities. RAMP is an annual funding source in which TxDOT will provide a 50 percent funding match for projects up to $100,000.

Table 6D outlines the projects that are eligible under RAMP. It should be noted that several of the pro‐ jects listed in the Airport’s proposed CIP are also eligible for RAMP funding.

TABLE 6D Eligible Work Items Routine Airport Maintenance Program AIRSIDE MAINTENANCE Pavement crack seal Pavement slurry seal/Fog seal/Rejuvenator Pavement markings Pavement failure repairs Drainage maintenance Sweeping Herbicide application Replacement bulbs/lamps for airside lights and approach aids Repair/maintenance of beacon, lighting, and approach aids AWOS part replacement LANDSIDE MAINTENANCE (after airside has been addressed) Repair/maintenance of vehicle parking Hangar/terminal painting and repairs ‐ airport‐owned facilities only Security camera systems Game‐proof or security fencing and gates Access roads for AWOS installations Navigational aids purchase and installation AWOS NADIN Interface charges Airport entrance signs and landscaping Repair of fuel systems ‐ airport‐owned Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans and Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure Plans

DRAFT Chapter Six - 21

TABLE 6D (Continued) Eligible Work Items Routine Airport Maintenance Program CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS New public vehicle parking areas New entrance roads and hangar access roads Aircraft wash racks Aircraft parking aprons Small general aviation terminal buildings Drainage improvements Extension of runway lighting systems Beacon/tower replacements Water wells, sewer lines, and septic systems Preparation of FAA Form 7460‐1 for RAMP projects Source: TxDOT

Other State Airport Programs

TxDOT also provides a funding mechanism for terminal building and ATCT improvements. TxDOT has funded terminal building construction on a 50/50 basis, up to a $1.0 million total project cost. It should be noted that TxDOT has recently considered upgrading the total cost allowance on a case‐by‐case basis.

TxDOT also funds the construction of up to two ATCTs statewide each year. TxDOT has improved the program so that ATCT funding could be provided on a 90/10 basis, up to a total construction cost of $1.67 million.

This Master Plan for TPL does not propose the construction of an ATCT but does include new terminal building facilities.

LOCAL FUNDING The goal for the operation of the Airport is

to generate ample revenues to cover all op‐ The balance of project costs, after considera‐ erating and maintenance costs, as well as tion has been given to grants, must be funded the local matching share of capital expendi‐ through local resources. The City of Temple operates the Airport and could provide capital tures. funding assistance. The goal for the operation of the Airport is to generate ample revenues to cover all operating and maintenance costs, as well as the local matching share of capital expenditures. As with many airports, this is not always possible and other financial methods will be needed.

According to Exhibit 6A, local funding will be needed in each planning horizon. This includes $4.0 million in the short term, $5.1 million in the intermediate term, and $3.0 million in the long term.

There are several alternatives for local financing options for future development at the Airport, including airport revenues, direct funding (subsidizing) from the City, issuing bonds, and leasehold financing.

These strategies could be used to fund the local matching share, or complete the project if grant funding cannot be arranged.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 22

There are several municipal bonding options available, including general obligation bonds, limited obli‐ gation bonds, and revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are a common form of municipal bond which is issued by voter approval and secured by the full faith and credit of the city, and future tax revenues are pledged to retire the debt. As instruments of credit and because the community secures the bonds, general obligation bonds reduce the available debt level of the community. Due to the com‐ munity pledge to secure and pay general obligation bonds, they are the most secure type of municipal bond and are generally issued at lower interest rates and carry lower costs of issuance. The primary disadvantage of general obligation bonds is that they require voter approval and are subject to statutory debt limits. This requires that they be used for projects that have broad support among the voters, and that they are reserved for projects that have the highest public priorities.

In contrast to general obligation bonds, limited obligation bonds (sometimes referred to as self‐liquidat‐ ing bonds) are secured by revenues from a local source. While neither general fund revenues nor the taxing power of the local community is pledged to pay the debt service, these sources may be required to retire the debt if pledged revenues are insufficient to make interest and principal payments on the bonds. These bonds still carry the full faith and credit pledge of the local community and are considered, for the purpose of financial analysis, as part of the debt burden of the local community.

The overall debt burden of the local community is a factor in determining interest rates on municipal bonds.

There are several types of revenue bonds, but in general, they are a form of municipal bond which is payable solely from the revenue derived from the operation of a facility that was constructed or acquired with the proceeds of the bonds. For example, a lease revenue bond is secured with the income from a lease assigned to the repayment of the bonds. Revenue bonds have become a common form of financing airport improvements. Revenue bonds present the opportunity to provide those improvements without direct burden to the taxpayer. Revenue bonds normally carry a higher interest rate because they lack the guarantees of general and limited obligation bonds.

Leasehold financing refers to a developer or tenant financing improvements under a long term ground lease. The obvious advantage of such an arrangement is that it relieves the community of all responsi‐ bility for raising the capital funds for improvements. However, the private development of facilities on a ground lease, particularly on property owned by a government agency, produces a unique set of con‐ cerns.

In particular, it is more difficult to obtain private financing as only the improvements and the right to continue the lease can be claimed in the event of a default. Ground leases normally provide for the reversion of improvements to the lessor at the end of the lease term, which reduces their potential value to a lender taking possession. Also, companies that want to own their property as a matter of financial policy may not locate where land is only available for lease.

In addition to leasehold financing, it is acceptable for the airport to enter into some form of public/pri‐ vate partnership for various airport projects. Typically, this would be limited to hangar construction, but there are some examples where a private developer constructs, for example, a taxilane, and then deeds

DRAFT Chapter Six - 23

it to the airport for ongoing maintenance. When entering any such arrangement, the airport must be sure that the private developer does not gain an economic advantage over other airport tenants.

FUNDING AIRPORT OPERATIONS

The Airport is operated by the City of Temple through the collection of various rates and charges from general aviation revenue sources. These revenues are generated specifically by airport operations.

There are, however, restrictions on the use of revenues collected by the Airport. All receipts, excluding bond proceeds or related grants and interest, are irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of oper‐ ating and maintenance expenses, payment of debt service for as long as bonds remain outstanding, or to additions or improvements to Airport facilities.

Table 6E presents historical operating revenues and expenses for the Airport from fiscal year (FY) 2010 to budgeted figures for FY 2015. Charges for services accounts for the largest revenue center for the Airport, which consists primarily of the sale of aviation fuel. Lease revenue from hangar and facility rentals is the other revenue source for the Airport.

TABLE 6E Financial Information Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport FY 2015

FY 2014 Budget Revenues Charges for Services $2,594,985 $2,732,476 Lease Revenue $996,478 $996,478

Total Revenues $3,591,463 $3,728,954 Expenses Personnel $758,909 $734,538 Operations $2,076,881 $2,121,932 Capital ‐ $(327,569) Debt Service $481,184 $479,024

Total Expenses $3,316,974 $3,663,063 Net Income $274,489 $65,891 Source: Draughon‐Miller Central Texas Regional Airport Financial Records

FY 2013

FY 2012

FY 2011

FY 2010

$2,847,211 $996,478 $3,843,689

$3,037,702 $996,478 $4,034,180

$2,874,462 $996,478 $3,870,940

$2,311,344 $996,478 $3,307,822

$710,173 $2,179,988 $13,871 $480,631 $3,384,663 $459,026

$728,349 $2,367,319 $18,867 $481,184 $3,595,719 $438,461

$715,479 $2,209,998 $54,823 $480,683 $3,460,983 $409,957

$685,429 $1,649,343 $91,372 $479,128 $2,905,272 $402,550

Operations expenses constitute the largest expense for the Airport, which includes primarily aviation fuel supplies. The next largest Airport expense is personnel services, which includes staffing and labor expenses.

The operation of the Airport generates revenues, which are secured by federal grant assurances, to be utilized only on the Airport. While these revenues generated are significant, they are oftentimes not enough to fund both Airport operating expenditures and capital improvement requirements. Most gen‐ eral aviation airports in this country do not generate enough revenues to cover operating expenses.

According to records, TPL has been fortunate enough to cover its expenses with operating revenues in recent years. An operating profit, however, should not be taken for granted. All potential revenue sources, including community tax or bonding, should be considered to support future capital expendi‐ tures, if necessary.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 24

To ensure that the airport maximizes revenue potential in the future, TPL should periodically review aviation services rates and charges (i.e., ground lease rates, rental rates, etc.) at other airports to ensure that rates and charges at the Airport are competitive and similar to aviation services at other air‐ ports. This can further generate the opportunity for the City to establish other means of revenue collection or establish future rates and charges. Additionally, all new leases at the Airport should have inflation clauses allowing for periodic rate increases in line with inflationary factors.

AIRPORT RATES AND CHARGES

The FAA places several stipulations on rates and charges establishment and collection; however, two primary considerations need to be addressed. First, the rates and charges must be fair, equally applied, and resemble fair market value. Second, the rates and charges collected must be returned to and used only by and/or for the airport. In other words, the revenues generated by Airport operations cannot be diverted to the general use of the City of Temple. The FAA requires funds to be used at airports, as these funds are many times needed to either support the day‐to‐day operational costs or offset capital im‐ provement costs.

The following provides several activities that enhance revenue production for an airport, some of which are currently being practiced at TPL.

Aircraft Parking/Tiedowns

Aircraft parking fees, also referred to as tiedown fees, are typically assessed to those aircraft utilizing a portion of an aircraft parking area that is owned by the airport. These fees are most generally assessed on a daily or monthly basis, depending upon the specific activity of a particular aircraft.

Aircraft parking fees can be established in several different ways. Typically, airports assess aircraft park‐ ing fees in accordance with an established schedule in which an aircraft within a designated weight and/or size pays a similar fee (i.e., small aircraft, single engine aircraft). Aircraft parking fees may also be charged according to a “cents per 1,000 pounds” basis in which larger aircraft with increased weights would obviously pay more for utilizing the aircraft parking apron. There are also instances in which aircraft parking fees are not assessed on an airport.

An airport sponsor may also include in a lease agreement with an aviation‐related commercial operator at the airport to collect aircraft parking fees on portions of an aircraft parking apron in which the airport does not own or is leasing to a commercial operator, such as a SASO. As a result, the airport could directly collect parking fees from an aircraft utilizing this space or allow the commercial operator to col‐ lect the parking fee, in which the agreement may allow the commercial operator to retain a portion of the parking fee as an administrative or service fee.

To ensure that the airport max‐ imizes revenue potential in the future, TPL should periodically review aviation services rates and charges.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 25

As previously discussed, aircraft parking fees can be assessed on a daily or monthly basis. Daily aircraft parking fees are typically assessed to transient aircraft utilizing the airport on a short‐term basis, while monthly fees are charged to aircraft that utilize a particular parking area for the permanent storage of their aircraft. Monthly aircraft parking fees are often assessed at airports that contain a waiting list for aircraft hangar storage space. It is also common practice at many airports to waive a daily aircraft park‐ ing fee in the event the aircraft purchases fuel prior to departing the airport.

Previous rates and charges analysis conducted by the consultant outside this study have indicated that daily aircraft parking fees can vary from $3 to $20 depending on the type of aircraft, and aircraft parking fees can range between $20 to $230 per month depending on the type and size of the aircraft. TPL’s current monthly and daily tiedown fees are $30 and $10, respectively. If an aircraft takes fuel, the daily tiedown fee is waived.

Aircraft Storage Hangars

There are several types of aircraft storage hangars that can accommodate aircraft on an airport. In order to establish hangar fees, an airport typically factors in such qualities as hangar size, location, and utilities.

Aircraft hangar fees are most often charged on a monthly basis.

Common aircraft storage hangars are typically categorized as shade hangars, T‐hangars, and conven‐ tional hangars. Shade hangars consist of tiedown spaces with a protective roof covering. T‐hangars provide for separate, single‐aircraft storage areas. Conventional hangars provide a larger enclosed space that can accommodate larger multi‐engine piston or turbine aircraft and/or multiple aircraft storage.

Conventional hangars can also be utilized by aviation‐related commercial operators for their business activities on an airport.

Location can also play a role in determining hangar rates. Aircraft storage hangars with direct access to improved taxiways/taxilanes and adjacent to aviation services being offered at an airport can oftentimes be more expensive to rent. In addition, the type of utility infrastructure being offered to the hangar can also help determine storage fees. Smaller aircraft storage hangars, such as a T‐hangar or small box hangar, can either be granted access through a manual sliding door or electric door. It is common for hangars that provide electric doors to have higher rental fees, as the cost associated with constructing these hangars would exceed the cost associated with simpler structures.

At some airports, hangar facilities are constructed by the airport sponsor, while at other airports, hangars are built by private entities. In some cases, airports have both public and private hangar facilities avail‐ able. Hangars can be expensive to construct and offer minimal return on investment in the short term.

In order to amortize the cost of constructing hangars, lease rates should be developed at a minimum to recover development and finance costs.

At TPL, the City owns all hangar facilities and leases them to tenants. TPL has several hangar types, including T‐hangars and various sizes of conventional hangars. Lease rates for the T‐hangars range from $145 to $210 per month depending on the size of the storage unit. Conventional hangar facilities are leased on a facility rental basis, which are discussed in the next section.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 26

Ground Rental/Lease

Ground rentals can be applied to aviation and non‐aviation development on an airport. Also known as a land lease, a ground lease can be structured to meet the particular needs of an airport operator in terms of location, terrain features, amount of land needed, and type of facility infrastructure included.

One of the single most valuable assets available to an airport is the leasable land with access to the runway/taxiway system. For aviation‐related businesses, it is critical that they be located on an airport.

Airport property is available for long term lease but, in most cases, it cannot be sold. At the expiration of the lease and any extensions, the improvements on the leased land revert back to the airport sponsor.

In order for this arrangement to make financial sense, most ground leases are at least 20 years in length and include extension opportunities. Those who lease land on an airport are typically interested in con‐ structing a hangar for their own private use, for sub‐lease, or for operation of an airport business. There‐ fore, the long term lease arrangement is important in order to obtain capital funding for the construction of a hangar or other type of facility. It should also be noted that ground leases should include the op‐ portunity to periodically review the lease and adjust the rate according to the consumer price index (CPI).

Typical lease agreements range from 20 to 30 years with options for extensions.

Ground leases are typically established on a yearly fee schedule based upon the amount of square feet leased. The amount charged can vary greatly depending on the level of improvements to the land. For example, undeveloped land with readily accessible utilities and taxiway access can generate more reve‐ nue than unimproved property.

Some airports will have other leasable space available. For example, airports with a terminal building may have office or counter space available for aviation and non‐aviation related businesses. Some ex‐ ample businesses could include SASOs, aircraft sales, flight instruction, aircraft insurance, and a restau‐ rant.

As previously mentioned, under certain circumstances, an airport sponsor may utilize portions of the airport for non‐aeronautical purposes, such as commercial and/or industrial development if certain ar‐ eas are not needed to satisfy aviation demand or are not accessible to aviation activity. Prior to an airport pursuing a ground lease with a commercial operator for non‐aeronautical purposes, the sponsor must formally request the FAA release the land in question from its federal obligations.

The current land lease rate at TPL for undeveloped property is set at $0.10 per square foot per year. The current lease rate for developed land (hangar facilities or office space) ranges from 0.10 to $0.82 per square foot per month. As was previously mentioned, lease rates for developed land take into account the age, condition, and location of the leased facility.

Fuel Sales and Flowage

Fuel sales are typically managed at an airport in one of two ways: the airport sponsor acts as the fuel distributor or fueling operations are sub‐contracted to a fixed‐base operator (FBO). If the airport spon‐ sor acts as the fuel distributor, which is the case at TPL, then the airport would receive revenues equal

DRAFT Chapter Six - 27

to the difference between wholesale and retail prices. Of course, there are added expenses, such as employing people to fuel the aircraft.

When these services are undertaken by an FBO, the airport sponsor typically receives a fuel flowage fee per gallon of fuel. By way of agreement with the airport sponsor, FBOs would be required to pay a fuel flowage fee for each gallon of fuel sold or received into inventory. In the case of self‐fueling entities, a fuel flowage fee could apply for each gallon of fuel dispensed. Fuel flowage fees are typically paid on a “cents per gallon” basis. In some instances, fuel flowage fees will be established based upon the type of aviation activity. For example, commercial airline service operators may be assessed a higher fuel flow‐ age fee than general aviation aircraft or no fuel flowage fee at all if being assessed a landing fee (to be discussed in the next section). Fuel flowage fees can also be distinguished by type of fuel (100LL or Jet A).

The owner of the fuel farm can also be the airport sponsor or an FBO operator. If the airport sponsor owns the fuel farm and the FBO operator undertakes the fueling activities, then a separate fuel storage fee can be charged or a higher fuel flowage fee may be assessed.

Landing Fees

Landing fees typically only apply to larger aircraft, such as those over 60,000 pounds, for example, and only those involved in commercial airline or air taxi operations. Landing fees are not common on general aviation airports and are generally discouraged due to collection difficulty. Moreover, landing fees are somewhat discouraging to aircraft operators, who will many times elect to utilize a nearby airport that does not collect a landing fee.

When landing fees are assessed, they are most commonly based upon aircraft weight and a “cents per 1,000 pounds” approach. In addition, some airport sponsors may use a flat fee approach wherein aircraft within a specified weight range are charged the same fee.

Landing fees may be collected directly by the airport sponsor, or an airport may have an agreement with a commercial operator to collect landing fees. Similar to what was discussed with aircraft parking fees, under this scenario, the agreement may allow the commercial operator, such as an FBO, to retain a portion of the landing fee as an administrative or service fee.

Similar to most general aviation airports, a landing fee has not been imposed at TPL.

The primary goal is for the Air‐ port to best serve the air trans‐

To implement the Master Plan recommendations, it is key to portation needs of the region, recognize that planning is a continuous process and does not while continuing to be economi‐ end with approval of this document. The airport should im‐ cally self‐sufficient.

MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

plement measures that allow them to track various demand indicators, such as based aircraft, hangar demand, and operations. The issues that this Master Plan is DRAFT Chapter Six - 28

based on will remain valid for a number of years. The primary goal is for the Airport to best serve the air transportation needs of the region, while continuing to be economically self‐sufficient.

The actual need for facilities is best established by airport activity levels rather than a specified date. For example, projections have been made as to when additional hangars may be needed at the Airport. In reality, the timeframe in which the development is needed may be substantially different. Actual de‐ mand may be slower to develop than expected. On the other hand, high levels of demand may establish the need to accelerate development. Although every effort has been made in this master planning pro‐ cess to conservatively estimate when facility development may be needed, aviation demand will dictate timing of facility improvements.

The value of a Master Plan is keeping the issues and objectives at the forefront of managers and decision‐ makers. In addition to adjustments in aviation demand, when to undertake the improvements recom‐ mended in this Master Plan will impact how long the plan remains valid. The format of this plan reduces the need for formal and costly updates by simply adjusting the timing of project implementation. Up‐ dating can be done by the manager, thereby improving the plan’s effectiveness.

In summary, the planning process requires the City of Temple to consistently monitor the progress of the Airport in terms of aircraft operations and based aircraft. Analysis of aviation demand is critical to the timing and need for new Airport facilities.

DRAFT Chapter Six - 29

APPENDIX A

Glossary of Terms

A

A

Glossary of Terms

A ABOVE GROUND LEVEL: The eleva on of a point or surface above the ground.

ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): See declared distances.

ADVISORY CIRCULAR: External publica ons issued by the FAA consis ng of nonregulatory material providing for the recommenda ons rela ve to a policy, guidance and informa on rela ve to a specific avia on subject.

AIR CARRIER: An operator which: (1) performs at least five round trips per week between two or more points and publishes flight schedules which specify the mes, days of the week, and places between which such flights are performed; or (2) transports mail by air pursuant to a current contract with the U.S. Postal Service. Cer fied in accordance with Federal Avia on Regula on (FAR) Parts 121 and 127.

AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING: A facility located at an airport that provides emergency vehicles, ex nguishing agents, and personnel responsible for minimizing the impacts of an aircra accident or incident.

AIRFIELD: The por on of an airport which contains the facili es necessary for the opera on of aircra .

AIRLINE HUB: An airport at which an airline concentrates a significant portion of its activity and which often has a significant amount of connecting traffic.

AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): A grouping of aircra based upon wingspan. The groups are as follows: • Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet.

• Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet.

• Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet.

• Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet.

• Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet.

• Group VI: 214 feet or greater.

AIRCRAFT: A transporta on vehicle that is used or intended for use for flight.

AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: A grouping of aircra based on 1.3 mes the stall speed in their landing configura on at their maximum cer ficated landing weight. The categories are as follows: • Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.

• Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots.

• Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots.

• Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots.

• Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots.

AIRCRAFT OPERATION: The landing, takeoff, or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on a runway at an airport.

AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AREA (AOA): A restricted and secure area on the airport property designed to protect all aspects related to aircra opera ons.

AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION: A private organiza on serving the interests and needs of general avia on pilots and aircra owners.

AIRPORT AUTHORITY: A quasi-governmental public organiza on responsible for se ng the policies governing the management and opera on of an airport or system of airports under its jurisdic on.

AIRPORT BEACON: A naviga onal aid located at an airport which displays a rota ng light beam to iden fy whether an airport is lighted.

AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The planning program used by the Federal Avia on Administra on to iden fy, priori ze, and distribute funds for airport development and the needs of the Na onal Airspace System to meet specified na onal goals and objec ves.

AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point on the runway system at an airport expressed in feet above mean sea level (MSL).

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: A program authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 that provides funding for airport planning and development.

A-1

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD): The drawing of the airport showing the layout of exis ng and proposed airport facili es.

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP): A scaled drawing of the exis ng and planned land and facili es necessary for the opera on and development of the airport.

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING SET: A set of technical drawings depic ng the current and future airport condi ons. The individual sheets comprising the set can vary with the complexi es of the airport, but the FAA-required drawings include the Airport Layout Plan (some mes referred to as the Airport Layout Drawing (ALD), the Airport Airspace Drawing, and the Inner Por on of the Approach Surface Drawing, On-Airport Land Use Drawing, and Property Map. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN: The planner’s concept of the long-term development of an airport.

AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM: A system that provides automated alerts and warnings of poten al runway incursions or other hazardous aircra movement events.

AIRPORT OBSTRUCTION CHART: A scaled drawing depicting the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 surfaces, a representation of objects that penetrate these surfaces, runway, taxiway, and ramp areas, navigational aids, buildings, roads and other detail in the vicinity of an airport.

AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the opera onal (Aircra Approach Category) to the physical characteris cs (Airplane Design Group) of the airplanes intended to operate at the airport.

AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP): The la tude and longitude of the approximate center of the airport.

AIRPORT SPONSOR: The en ty that is legally responsible for the management and opera on of an airport, including the fulfillment of the requirements of laws and regula ons related thereto.

AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT: A radar system that provides air traffic controllers with a visual representa on of the movement of aircra and other vehicles on the ground on the airfield at an airport.

AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR: The primary radar located at an airport or in an air traffic control terminal area that receives a signal at an antenna and transmits the signal to air traffic control display equipment defining the loca on of aircra in the air.

The signal provides only the azimuth and range of aircra from the loca on of the antenna.

AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT): A central opera ons facility in the terminal air traffic control system, consis ng of a tower, including an associated instrument flight rule (IFR) room if radar equipped, using air/ground communica ons and/or radar, visual signaling and other devices to provide safe and expedi ous movement of terminal air traffic.

AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER: A facility which provides en route air traffic control service to aircra opera ng on an IFR flight plan within controlled airspace over a large, mul -state region.

AIRSIDE: The por on of an airport that contains the facili es necessary for the opera on of aircra .

AIRSPACE: The volume of space above the surface of the ground that is provided for the opera on of aircra .

AIR TAXI: An air carrier cer ficated in accordance with FAR Part 121 and FAR Part 135 and authorized to provide, on demand, public transporta on of persons and property by aircra . Generally operates small aircra “for hire” for specific trips.

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: A service operated by an appropriate organiza on for the purpose of providing for the safe, orderly, and expedi ous flow of air traffic.

AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER (ARTCC): A facility established to provide air traffic control service to aircra opera ng on an IFR flight plan within controlled airspace and principally during the en route phase of flight.

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM COMMAND CENTER: A facility operated by the FAA which is responsible for the central flow control, the central al tude reserva on system, the airport reserva on posi on system, and the air traffic service con ngency command for the air traffic control system.

A-2

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms AIR TRAFFIC HUB: A categoriza on of commercial service airports or group of commercial service airports in a metropolitan or urban area based upon the propor on of annual na onal enplanements exis ng at the airport or airports. The categories are large hub, medium hub, small hub, or nonhub. It forms the basis for the appor onment of en tlement funds.

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: An organiza on consis ng of the principal U.S. airlines that represents the interests of the airline industry on major avia on issues before federal, state, and local government bodies. It promotes air transporta on safety by coordina ng industry and governmental safety programs and it serves as a focal point for industry efforts to standardize prac ces and enhance the efficiency of the air transporta on system.

ALERT AREA: See special-use airspace.

ALTITUDE: The ver cal distance measured in feet above mean sea level.

ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH (AIA): An approach to an airport with the intent to land by an aircra in accordance with an IFR flight plan when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum ini al approach al tude.

APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (ALS): An airport ligh ng facility which provides visual guidance to landing aircra by radia ng light beams by which the pilot aligns the aircra with the extended centerline of the runway on his final approach and landing.

APPROACH MINIMUMS: The al tude below which an aircra may not descend while on an IFR approach unless the pilot has the runway in sight.

APPROACH SURFACE: An imaginary obstruc on limi ng surface defined in FAR Part 77 which is longitudinally centered on an extended runway centerline and extends outward and upward from the primary surface at each end of a runway at a designated slope and distance based upon the type of available or planned approach by aircra to a runway.

APRON: A specified por on of the airfield used for passenger, cargo or freight loading and unloading, aircra parking, and the refueling, maintenance and servicing of aircra .

AREA NAVIGATION: The air naviga on procedure that provides the capability to establish and maintain a flight path on an arbitrary course that remains within the coverage area of naviga onal sources being used.

AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMATION SERVICE (ATIS): The con nuous broadcast of recorded noncontrol informa on at towered airports. Informa on typically includes wind speed, direc on, and runway in use.

AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVATION SYSTEM (ASOS): A repor ng system that provides frequent airport ground surface weather observa on data through digi zed voice broadcasts and printed reports.

AUTOMATIC WEATHER OBSERVATION STATION (AWOS): Equipment used to automa cally record weather condi ons (i.e. cloud height, visibility, wind speed and direc on, temperature, dew point, etc.)

AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER (ADF): An aircra radio naviga on system which senses and indicates the direc on to a non-direc onal radio beacon (NDB) ground transmi er.

AVIGATION EASEMENT: A contractual right or a property interest in land over which a right of unobstructed flight in the airspace is established.

AZIMUTH: Horizontal direc on expressed as the angular distance between true north and the direc on of a fixed point (as the observer’s heading).

B BASE LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its approach end. The base leg normally extends from the downwind leg to the intersec on of the extended runway centerline. See “traffic pa ern.”

BASED AIRCRAFT: The general avia on aircra that use a specific airport as a home base.

BEARING: The horizontal direc on to or from any point, usually measured clockwise from true north or magne c north.

BLAST FENCE: A barrier used to divert or dissipate jet blast or propeller wash.

A-3

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms BLAST PAD: A prepared surface adjacent to the end of a runway for the purpose of elimina ng the erosion of the ground surface by the wind forces produced by airplanes at the ini a on of takeoďŹ&#x20AC; opera ons.

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL): A line which iden fies suitable building area loca ons on the airport.

C CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The planning program used by the Federal Avia on Administra on to iden fy, priori ze, and distribute Airport Improvement Program funds for airport development and the needs of the Na onal Airspace System to meet specified na onal goals and objec ves.

CARGO SERVICE AIRPORT: An airport served by aircra providing air transporta on of property only, including mail, with an annual aggregate landed weight of at least 100,000,000 pounds.

CATEGORY I: An Instrument Landing System (ILS) that provides acceptable guidance informa on to an aircra from the coverage limits of the ILS to the point at which the localizer course line intersects the glide path at a decision height of 200 feet above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold.

CLASS A AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.

CLASS B AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.

CLASS C AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.

CLASS D AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.

CLASS E AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.

CLASS G AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.

CATEGORY II: An ILS that provides acceptable guidance informa on to an aircra from the coverage limits of the ILS to the point at which the localizer course line intersects the glide path at a decision height of 100 feet above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold.

COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORT: A public airport providing scheduled passenger service that enplanes at least 2,500 annual passengers.

CATEGORY III: An ILS that provides acceptable guidance informa on to a pilot from the coverage limits of the ILS with no decision height specified above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold.

COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY: A radio frequency iden fied in the appropriate aeronau cal chart which is designated for the purpose of transmi ng airport advisory informa on and procedures while opera ng to or from an uncontrolled airport.

CEILING: The height above the ground surface to the loca on of the lowest layer of clouds which is reported as either broken or overcast.

COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): A low power, low/ medium frequency radio-beacon installed in conjunc on with the instrument landing system at one or two of the marker sites.

CIRCLING APPROACH: A maneuver ini ated by the pilot to align the aircra with the runway for landing when flying a predetermined circling instrument approach under IFR.

CLEAR ZONE: See Runway Protec on Zone.

CONICAL SURFACE: An imaginary obstruc onlimi ng surface defined in FAR Part 77 that extends

A-4

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms from the edge of the horizontal surface outward and upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.

Class D airspace is individually tailored and configured to encompass published instrument approach procedure.

Unless otherwise authorized, all persons must establish two-way radio communica on.

CONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport that has an opera ng airport traffic control tower.

• CLASS E: Generally, controlled airspace that is not classified as Class A, B, C, or D. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated al tude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When designated as a surface area, the airspace will be configured to contain all instrument procedures. Class E airspace encompasses all Victor Airways. Only aircra following instrument flight rules are required to establish two-way radio communica on with air traffic control.

CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control services are provided to instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual flight rules (VFR) flights in accordance with the airspace classifica on. Controlled airspace in the United States is designated as follows: • CLASS A: Generally, the airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to but not including flight level FL600. All persons must operate their aircra under IFR.

• CLASS G: Generally, that airspace not classified as Class A, B, C, D, or E. Class G airspace is uncontrolled for all aircra . Class G airspace extends from the surface to the overlying Class E airspace.

10 N

M

• CLASS B: Generally, the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the na on’s 20 NM busiest airports. The configura on of Class B airspace is unique to each airport, but typically consists of two or more layers of air space and is designed to contain all published instrument approach procedures to the airport. An air traffic control clearance is required for all aircra to operate in the area.

30

CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: See special-use airspace.

M

N

• CLASS C: Generally, the airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport eleva on (charted as MSL) surrounding those airports that have an opera onal control tower and radar approach control and are served by a qualifying number of IFR opera ons or passenger enplanements.

Although individually tailored for each airport, Class C airspace typically consists of a surface area with a five nau cal mile (nm) radius and an outer area with a 10 nau cal mile radius that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport eleva on. Two-way radio communica on is required for all aircra .

• CLASS D: Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the air port eleva on (charted as MSL) surrounding those airports that have an opera onal control tower.

CROSSWIND: A wind that is not parallel to a runway centerline or to the intended flight path of an aircra .

CROSSWIND COMPONENT: The component of wind that is at a right angle to the runway centerline or the intended flight path of an aircra .

CROSSWIND LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its upwind end. See “traffic pa ern.”

D DECIBEL: A unit of noise represen ng a level rela ve to a reference of a sound pressure 20 micro newtons per square meter.

DECISION HEIGHT/DECISION ALTITUDE: The height above the end of the runway surface at which a decision must be made by a pilot during the ILS or Precision Approach Radar approach to either con nue the approach or to execute a missed approach.

DECLARED DISTANCES: The distances declared available for the airplane’s takeoff runway, takeoff distance, accelerate-stop distance, and landing distance requirements. The distances are:

A-5

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms • TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): The runway length declared available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane taking off.

• TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway and/or clear way beyond the far end of the TORA. • ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): The runway plus stopway length declared available for the accelera on and decelera on of an aircra abor ng a takeoff.

• LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): The runway length declared available and suitable for landing.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: The cabinet level federal government organiza on consis ng of modal opera ng agencies, such as the Federal Avia on Administra on, which was established to promote the coordina on of federal transporta on programs and to act as a focal point for research and development efforts in transporta on.

DISCRETIONARY FUNDS: Federal grant funds that may be appropriated to an airport based upon designa on by the Secretary of Transporta on or Congress to meet a specified na onal priority such as enhancing capacity, safety, and security, or mi ga ng noise.

DISPLACED THRESHOLD: A threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway.

DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME): Equipment (airborne and ground) used to measure, in nau cal miles, the slant range distance of an aircra from the DME naviga onal aid.

DNL: The 24-hour average sound level, in Aweighted decibels, obtained a er the addi on of ten decibels to sound levels for the periods between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. as averaged over a span of one year.

It is the FAA standard metric for determining the cumula ve exposure of individuals to noise.

DOWNWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direc on opposite to landing.

The downwind leg normally extends between the crosswind leg and the base leg. Also see “traffic pa ern.”

E EASEMENT: The legal right of one party to use a por on of the total rights in real estate owned by another party. This may include the right of passage over, on, or below the property; certain air rights above the property, including view rights; and the rights to any specified form of development or ac vity, as well as any other legal rights in the property that may be specified in the easement document.

ELEVATION: The ver cal distance measured in feet above mean sea level.

ENPLANED PASSENGERS: The total number of revenue passengers boarding aircra , including origina ng, stop-over, and transfer passengers, in scheduled and nonscheduled services.

ENPLANEMENT: The boarding of a passenger, cargo, freight, or mail on an aircra at an airport.

ENTITLEMENT: Federal funds for which a commercial service airport may be eligible based upon its annual passenger enplanements.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA): An environmental analysis performed pursuant to the Na onal Environmental Policy Act to determine whether an ac on would significantly affect the environment and thus require a more detailed environmental impact statement.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT: An assessment of the current status of a party’s compliance with applicable environmental requirements of a party’s environmental compliance policies, prac ces, and controls.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS): A document required of federal agencies by the Na onal Environmental Policy Act for major projects are legisla ve proposals affec ng the environment.

It is a tool for decision-making describing the posi ve and nega ve effects of a proposed ac on and ci ng alterna ve ac ons.

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE: A federal program which guarantees air carrier service to selected small ci es by providing subsidies as needed to prevent these ci es from such service.

A-6

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms F

and in-flight advisory services to pilots through air and ground based communica on facili es.

FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS: The general and permanent rules established by the execu ve departments and agencies of the Federal Government for avia on, which are published in the Federal Register. These are the avia on subset of the Code of Federal Regula ons.

FRANGIBLE NAVAID: A naviga onal aid which retains its structural integrity and s ffness up to a designated maximum load, but on impact from a greater load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a manner as to present the minimum hazard to aircra .

FEDERAL INSPECTION SERVICES: The provision of customs and immigra on services including passport inspec on, inspec on of baggage, the collec on of du es on certain imported items, and the inspec ons for agricultural products, illegal drugs, or other restricted items.

FINAL APPROACH: A flight path in the direc on of landing along the extended runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg to the runway. See “traffic pa ern.”

FINAL APPROACH AND TAKEOFF AREA (FATO).

A defined area over which the final phase of the helicopter approach to a hover, or a landing is completed and from which the takeoff is ini ated.

G GENERAL AVIATION: That por on of civil avia on which encompasses all facets of avia on except air carriers holding a cer ficate of convenience and necessity, and large aircra commercial operators.

GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT: An airport that provides air service to only general avia on.

GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides ver cal guidance for aircra during approach and landing. The glideslope consists of the following: 1. Electronic components emi ng signals which provide ver cal guidance by reference to airborne instruments during instrument approaches such as ILS; or

FINAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point at which the final approach segment for an aircra landing on a runway begins for a non-precision approach.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI): A public document prepared by a Federal agency that presents the ra onale why a proposed ac on will not have a significant effect on the environment and for which an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A provider of services to users of an airport. Such services include, but are not limited to, hangaring, fueling, flight training, repair, and maintenance.

FLIGHT LEVEL: A measure of al tude used by aircra flying above 18,000 feet. Flight levels are indicated by three digits represen ng the pressure al tude in hundreds of feet.

An airplane flying at flight level 360 is flying at a pressure al tude of 36,000 feet. This is expressed as FL 360.

FLIGHT SERVICE STATION: An opera ons facility in the na onal flight advisory system which u lizes data interchange facili es for the collec on and dissemina on of No ces to Airmen, weather, and administra ve data and which provides pre-flight

2. Visual ground aids, such as VASI, which provide ver cal guidance for VFR approach or for the visual por on of an instrument approach and landing.

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS): A system of 48 satellites used as reference points to enable navigators equipped with GPS receivers to determine their la tude, longitude, and al tude.

GROUND ACCESS: The transporta on system on and around the airport that provides access to and from the airport by ground transporta on vehicles for passengers, employees, cargo, freight, and airport services.

H HELIPAD: A designated area for the takeoff, landing, and parking of helicopters.

HIGH INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The highest classifica on in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delinea ng the sides of a runway.

A-7

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: A long radius taxiway designed to expedite aircra turning off the runway a er landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus reducing runway occupancy me.

HORIZONTAL SURFACE: An imaginary obstruc onlimi ng surface defined in FAR Part 77 that is specified as a por on of a horizontal plane surrounding a runway located 150 feet above the established airport eleva on. The specific horizontal dimensions of this surface are a func on of the types of approaches exis ng or planned for the runway.

I INITIAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point at which the ini al approach segment begins for an instrument approach to a runway.

INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircra under instrument flight condi ons from the beginning of the ini al approach to a landing, or to a point from which a landing may be made visually.

INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR): Procedures for the conduct of flight in weather condi ons below Visual Flight Rules weather minimums. The term IFR is o en also used to define weather condi ons and the type of flight plan under which an aircra is opera ng.

INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS): A precision instrument approach system which normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: 1. Localizer.

2. Glide Slope.

3. Outer Marker.

4. Middle Marker.

5. Approach Lights.

K KNOTS: A unit of speed length used in naviga on that is equivalent to the number of nau cal miles traveled in one hour.

L LANDSIDE: The por on of an airport that provides the facili es necessary for the processing of passengers, cargo, freight, and ground transporta on vehicles.

LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): See declared distances.

LARGE AIRPLANE: An airplane that has a maximum cer fied takeoff weight in excess of 12,500 pounds.

LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM: A differen al GPS system that provides localized measurement correc on signals to the basic GPS signals to improve naviga onal accuracy integrity, con nuity, and availability.

LOCAL OPERATIONS: Aircra opera ons performed by aircra that are based at the airport and that operate in the local traffic pa ern or within sight of the airport, that are known to be depar ng for or arriving from flights in local prac ce areas within a prescribed distance from the airport, or that execute simulated instrument approaches at the airport.

LOCAL TRAFFIC: Aircra opera ng in the traffic pa ern or within sight of the tower, or aircra known to be depar ng or arriving from the local prac ce areas, or aircra execu ng prac ce instrument approach procedures. Typically, this includes touch and-go training opera ons.

LOCALIZER: The component of an ILS which provides course guidance to the runway.

INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: Meteorological condi ons expressed in terms of specific visibility and ceiling condi ons that are less than the minimums specified for visual meteorological condi ons.

ITINERANT OPERATIONS: Opera ons by aircra that are not based at a specified airport.

LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID (LDA): A facility of comparable u lity and accuracy to a localizer, but is not part of a complete ILS and is not aligned with the runway.

LONG RANGE NAVIGATION SYSTEM (LORAN): Long range naviga on is an electronic naviga onal aid which determines aircra posi on and speed by measuring the difference in the me of recep on of synchronized pulse signals from two fixed transmi ers. Loran is used for en route naviga on.

A-8

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms LOW INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The lowest classifica on in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delinea ng the sides of a runway.

M MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The middle classifica on in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delinea ng the sides of a runway.

MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM (MLS): An instrument approach and landing system that provides precision guidance in azimuth, eleva on, and distance measurement.

MILITARY OPERATIONS: Aircra opera ons that are performed in military aircra .

MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): See specialuse airspace MILITARY TRAINING ROUTE: An air route depicted on aeronau cal charts for the conduct of military flight training at speeds above 250 knots.

MISSED APPROACH COURSE (MAC): The flight route to be followed if, a er an instrument approach, a landing is not affected, and occurring normally: 1. When the aircra has descended to the decision height and has not established visual contact; or 2. When directed by air traffic control to pull up or to go around again.

MOVEMENT AREA: The runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airport which are u lized for taxiing/hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircra , exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas. At those airports with a tower, air traffic control clearance is required for entry onto the movement area.

N NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM: The network of air traffic control facili es, air traffic control areas, and naviga onal facili es through the U.S.

NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS: The na onal airport system plan developed by the Secretary of Transporta on on a biannual basis for the development of public use airports to meet na onal air transporta on needs.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD: A federal government organiza on established to inves gate and determine the probable cause of transporta on accidents, to recommend equipment and procedures to enhance transporta on safety, and to review on appeal the suspension or revoca on of any cer ficates or licenses issued by the Secretary of Transporta on.

NAUTICAL MILE: A unit of length used in naviga on which is equivalent to the distance spanned by one minute of arc in la tude, that is, 1,852 meters or 6,076 feet. It is equivalent to approximately 1.15 statute mile.

NAVAID: A term used to describe any electrical or visual air naviga onal aids, lights, signs, and associated suppor ng equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc.)

NAVIGATIONAL AID: A facility used as, available for use as, or designed for use as an aid to air naviga on.

NOISE CONTOUR: A con nuous line on a map of the airport vicinity connec ng all points of the same noise exposure level.

NON-DIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB): A beacon transmi ng nondirec onal signals whereby the pilot of an aircra equipped with direc on finding equipment can determine his or her bearing to and from the radio beacon and home on, or track to, the sta on. When the radio beacon is installed in conjunc on with the Instrument Landing System marker, it is normally called a Compass Locator.

NON-PRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE: A standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glide slope is provided, such as VOR, TACAN, NDB, or LOC. NOTICE TO AIRMEN: A no ce containing informa on concerning the establishment, condi on, or change in any component of or hazard in the Na onal Airspace System, the mely knowledge of which is considered essen al to personnel concerned with flight opera ons.

A-9

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms O

• CATEGORY II (CAT II): A precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 100 feet and visibility not less than 1200 feet RVR.

OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): An area on the ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircra opera ons by having the area free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air naviga on or aircra ground maneuvering purposes.

OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): The airspace below 150 feet above the established airport eleva on and along the runway and extended runway centerline that is required to be kept clear of all objects, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their func on, in order to provide clearance for aircra landing or taking off from the runway, and for missed approaches.

ONEͳENGINE INOPERABLE SURFACE: A surface emana ng from the runway end at a slope ra o of 62.5:1. Air carrier airports are required to maintain a technical drawing of this surface depic ng any object penetra ons by January 1, 2010.

OPERATION: The take-off, landing, or touch-and-go procedure by an aircra on a runway at an airport.

OUTER MARKER (OM): An ILS naviga on facility in the terminal area naviga on system located four to seven miles from the runway edge on the extended centerline, indica ng to the pilot that he/she is passing over the facility and can begin final approach.

P PILOT CONTROLLED LIGHTING: Runway ligh ng systems at an airport that are controlled by ac va ng the microphone of a pilot on a specified radio frequency.

PRECISION APPROACH: A standard instrument approach procedure which provides runway alignment and glide slope (descent) informa on. It is categorized as follows: • CATEGORY I (CAT I): A precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 200 feet and visibility not less than 1/2 mile or Runway Visual Range (RVR) 2400 (RVR 1800) with opera ve touchdown zone and runway centerline lights.

• CATEGORY III (CAT III): A precision approach which provides for approaches with minima less than Category II. PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR (PAPI): A ligh ng system providing visual approach slope guidance to aircra during a landing approach. It is similar to a VASI but provides a sharper transi on between the colored indicator lights.

PRECISION APPROACH RADAR: A radar facility in the terminal air traffic control system used to detect and display with a high degree of accuracy the direc on, range, and eleva on of an aircra on the final approach to a runway.

PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA (POFA): An area centered on the extended runway centerline, beginning at the runway threshold and extending behind the runway threshold that is 200 feet long by 800 feet wide. The POFA is a clearing standard which requires the POFA to be kept clear of above ground objects protruding above the runway safety area edge eleva on (except for frangible NAVAIDS).

The POFA applies to all new authorized instrument approach procedures with less than 3/4 mile visibility.

PRIMARY AIRPORT: A commercial service airport that enplanes at least 10,000 annual passengers.

PRIMARY SURFACE: An imaginary obstruc on limi ng surface defined in FAR Part 77 that is specified as a rectangular surface longitudinally centered about a runway. The specific dimensions of this surface are a func on of the types of approaches exis ng or planned for the runway.

PROHIBITED AREA: See special-use airspace.

PVC: Poor visibility and ceiling. Used in determining Annual Service Volume. PVC condi ons exist when the cloud ceiling is less than 500 feet and visibility is less than one mile.

A - 10

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms R RADIAL: A naviga onal signal generated by a Very High Frequency Omni-direc onal Range or VORTAC sta on that is measured as an azimuth from the sta on.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS: A sta s cal technique that seeks to iden fy and quan fy the rela onships between factors associated with a forecast.

REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUTLET (RCO): An unstaffed transmi er receiver/facility remotely controlled by air traffic personnel. RCOs serve flight service sta ons (FSSs). RCOs were established to provide ground-to-ground communica ons between air traffic control specialists and pilots at satellite airports for delivering en route clearances, issuing departure authoriza ons, and acknowledging instrument flight rules cancella ons or departure/ landing mes.

REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER (RTR): See remote communica ons outlet. RTRs serve ARTCCs. RELIEVER AIRPORT: An airport to serve general avia on aircra which might otherwise use a congested air-carrier served airport.

RESTRICTED AREA: See special-use airspace.

RNAV: Area naviga on - airborne equipment which permits flights over determined tracks within prescribed accuracy tolerances without the need to overfly ground-based naviga on facili es. Used en route and for approaches to an airport.

RUNWAY: A defined rectangular area on an airport prepared for aircra landing and takeoff. Runways are normally numbered in rela on to their magne c direc on, rounded off to the nearest 10 degrees.

For example, a runway with a magne c heading of 180 would be designated Runway 18. The runway heading on the opposite end of the runway is 180 degrees from that runway end. For example, the opposite runway heading for Runway 18 would be Runway 36 (magne c heading of 360). Aircra can takeoff or land from either end of a runway, depending upon wind direc on.

RUNWAY ALIGNMENT INDICATOR LIGHT: A series of high intensity sequen ally flashing lights installed

on the extended centerline of the runway usually in conjunc on with an approach ligh ng system.

RUNWAY DESIGN CODE: A code signifiying the design standards to which the runway is to be built.

RUNWAY END IDENTIFICATION LIGHTING (REIL): Two synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the runway threshold, which provide rapid and posi ve iden fica on of the approach end of a par cular runway.

RUNWAY GRADIENT: The average slope, measured in percent, between the two ends of a runway.

RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ): An area off the runway end to enhance the protec on of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are determined by the aircra approach speed and runway approach type and minima.

RUNWAY REFERENCE CODE: A code signifying the current opera onal capabili es of a runway and associated taxiway.

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway.

RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ): An area on the airport to be kept clear of permanent objects so that there is an unobstructed line of- site from any point five feet above the runway centerline to any point five feet above an intersec ng runway centerline.

RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): An instrumentally derived value, in feet, represen ng the horizontal distance a pilot can see down the runway from the runway end.

S SCOPE: The document that iden fies and defines the tasks, emphasis, and level of effort associated with a project or study.

SEGMENTED CIRCLE: A system of visual indicators designed to provide traffic pa ern informa on at airports without opera ng control towers.

A - 11

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms SHOULDER: An area adjacent to the edge of paved runways, taxiways, or aprons providing a transi on between the pavement and the adjacent surface; support for aircra running off the pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast protec on. The shoulder does not necessarily need to be paved.

SLANT-RANGE DISTANCE: The straight line distance between an aircra and a point on the ground.

SMALL AIRCRAFT: An aircra that has a maximum cer fied takeoff weight of up to 12,500 pounds.

SPECIAL-USE AIRSPACE: Airspace of defined dimensions iden fied by a surface area wherein ac vi es must be confined because of their nature and/or wherein limita ons may be imposed upon aircra opera ons that are not a part of those ac vi es. Special-use airspace classifica ons include: • ALERT AREA: Airspace which may contain a high volume of pilot training ac vi es or an unusual type of aerial ac vity, neither of which is hazardous to aircra .

• CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: Airspace wherein ac vi es are conducted under condi ons so controlled as to eliminate hazards to nonpar cipa ng aircra and to ensure the safety of persons or property on the ground.

• MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): Designated airspace with defined ver cal and lateral dimensions established outside Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain military ac vi es from instrument flight rule (IFR) traffic and to iden fy for visual flight rule (VFR) traffic where these ac vi es are conducted.

• PROHIBITED AREA: Designated airspace within which the flight of aircra is prohibited.

• RESTRICTED AREA: Airspace designated under Federal Avia on Regula on (FAR) 73, within which the flight of aircra , while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restric on. Most restricted areas are designated joint use. When not in use by the using agency, IFR/VFR opera ons can be authorized by the controlling air traffic control facility.

• WARNING AREA: Airspace which may contain hazards to nonpar cipa ng aircra .

STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE (SID): A preplanned coded air traffic control IFR departure rou ng, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual form only.

STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES: A published standard flight procedure to be u lized following takeoff to provide a transi on between the airport and the terminal area or en route airspace.

STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL ROUTE (STAR): A preplanned coded air traffic control IFR arrival rou ng, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual or textual form only.

STOP-AND-GO: A procedure wherein an aircra will land, make a complete stop on the runway, and then commence a takeoff from that point. A stop-and-go is recorded as two opera ons: one opera on for the landing and one opera on for the takeoff.

STOPWAY: An area beyond the end of a takeoff runway that is designed to support an aircra during an aborted takeoff without causing structural damage to the aircra . It is not to be used for takeoff, landing, or taxiing by aircra .

STRAIGHT-IN LANDING/APPROACH: A landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees of the final approach course following comple on of an instrument approach.

T TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (TACAN): An ultrahigh frequency electronic air naviga on system which provides suitably-equipped aircra a con nuous indica on of bearing and distance to the TACAN sta on.

TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): See declared distances.

TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): See declared distances.

TAXILANE: The por on of the aircra parking area used for access between taxiways and aircra parking posi ons.

TAXIWAY: A defined path established for the taxiing of aircra from one part of an airport to another.

A - 12

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms TAXIWAY DESIGN GROUP: A classifica on of airplanes based on outer to outer Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance.

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): A defined surface alongside the taxiway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to an airplane uninten onally depar ng the taxiway.

TRAFFIC PATTERN: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircra landing at or taking off from an airport.

The components of a typical traffic pa ern are the upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base leg, and final approach.

TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES: Published flight procedures for conduc ng instrument approaches to runways under instrument meteorological condi ons.

TERMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROL: An element of the air traffic control system responsible for monitoring the en-route and terminal segment of air traffic in the airspace surrounding airports with moderate to high levels of air traffic.

TETRAHEDRON: A device used as a landing direc on indicator. The small end of the tetrahedron points in the direc on of landing.

THRESHOLD: The beginning of that por on of the runway available for landing. In some instances the landing threshold may be displaced.

U UNCONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport without an air traffic control tower at which the control of Visual Flight Rules traffic is not exercised.

UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace within which aircra are not subject to air traffic control.

TOUCH-AND-GO: An opera on by an aircra that lands and departs on a runway without stopping or exi ng the runway. A touch-and go is recorded as two opera ons: one opera on for the landing and one opera on for the takeoff.

UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION (UNICOM): A nongovernment communica on facility which may provide airport informa on at certain airports.

Loca ons and frequencies of UNICOM’s are shown on aeronau cal charts and publica ons.

TOUCHDOWN: The point at which a landing aircra makes contact with the runway surface.

UPWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direc on of landing. See “traffic pa ern.”

TOUCHDOWN AND LIFT-OFF AREA (TLOF): A load bearing, generally paved area, normally centered in the FATO, on which the helicopter lands or takes off.

V

TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): The first 3,000 feet of the runway beginning at the threshold.

TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION (TDZE): The highest eleva on in the touchdown zone.

TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHTING: Two rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically about the runway centerline normally at 100- foot intervals. The basic system extends 3,000 feet along the runway.

VECTOR: A heading issued to an aircra to provide naviga onal guidance by radar.

VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/ OMNIDIRECTIONAL RANGE (VOR): A ground-based electronic naviga on aid transmi ng very high frequency naviga on signals, 360 degrees in azimuth, oriented from magne c north. Used as the basis for naviga on in the na onal airspace system. The VOR periodically iden fies itself

by Morse Code and may have an addi onal voice iden fica on feature.

A - 13

Airport Consultants

Glossary of Terms VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI-DIRECTIONAL RANGE/ TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (VORTAC): A naviga on aid providing VOR azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and TACAN distancemeasuring equipment (DME) at one site.

W WARNING AREA: See special-use airspace.

VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or por on thereof established in the form of a corridor, the centerline of which is defined by radio naviga onal aids.

VISUAL APPROACH: An approach wherein an aircra on an IFR flight plan, opera ng in VFR condi ons under the control of an air traffic control facility and having an air traffic control authoriza on, may proceed to the airport of des na on in VFR condi ons.

VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR (VASI): An airport ligh ng facility providing ver cal visual approach slope guidance to aircra during approach to landing by radia ng a direc onal pa ern of high intensity red and white focused light beams which indicate to the pilot that he is on path if he sees red/ white, above path if white/white, and below path if red/red. Some airports serving large aircra have three-bar VASI’s which provide two visual guide paths to the same runway.

VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conduc ng flight under visual condi ons. The term VFR is also used in the United States to indicate weather condi ons that are equal to or greater than minimum VFR requirements.

In addi on, it is used by pilots and controllers to indicate type of flight plan.

VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: Meteorological condi ons expressed in terms of specific visibility and ceiling condi ons which are equal to or greater than the threshold values for instrument meteorological condi ons.

VOR: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirec onal Range Sta on.”

VORTAC: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirec onal Range Sta on/Tac cal Air Naviga on.”

WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM: An enhancement of the Global Posi oning System that includes integrity broadcasts, differen al correc ons, and addi onal ranging signals for the purpose of providing the accuracy, integrity, availability, and con nuity required to support all phases of flight.

Abbreviations AC: advisory circular ADF: automa c direc on finder ADG: airplane design group AFSS: automated flight service sta on AGL: above ground level AIA: annual instrument approach AIP: Airport Improvement Program AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford Avia on Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century ALS: approach ligh ng system ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach ligh ng system with sequenced flashers (CAT I configura on) ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach ligh ng system with sequenced flashers (CAT II configura on) AOA: Aircra Opera on Area APV: instrument approach procedure with ver cal guidance ARC: airport reference code ARFF: aircra rescue and fire figh ng

A - 14

Airport Consultants

Abbreviations ARP: airport reference point

LDA: localizer type direc onal aid

ARTCC: air route traďŹ&#x192;c control center

LDA: landing distance available

ASDA: accelerate-stop distance available

LIRL: low intensity runway edge ligh ng

ASR: airport surveillance radar

LMM: compass locator at middle marker

ASOS: automated surface observa on sta on

LOM: compass locator at outer marker

ATCT: airport traďŹ&#x192;c control tower

LORAN: long range naviga on

ATIS: automated terminal informa on service AVGAS: avia on gasoline - typically 100 low lead (100LL)

MALS: medium intensity approach ligh ng system with indicator lights

AWOS: automa c weather observa on sta on

MIRL: medium intensity runway edge ligh ng

BRL: building restric on line

MITL: medium intensity taxiway edge ligh ng

CFR: Code of Federal Regula on

MLS: microwave landing system

CIP: capital improvement program

MM: middle marker

DME: distance measuring equipment

MOA: military opera ons area

DNL: day-night noise level

MSL: mean sea level

DWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircra with dual-wheel type landing gear

NAVAID: naviga onal aid

DTWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircra with dual-tandem type landing gear FAA: Federal Avia on Administra on FAR: Federal Avia on Regula on

NDB: nondirec onal radio beacon NM: nau cal mile (6,076.1 feet) NPES: Na onal Pollutant Discharge Elimina on System NPIAS: Na onal Plan of Integrated Airport Systems

FBO: fixed base operator FY: fiscal year

NPRM: no ce of proposed rule making

GPS: global posi oning system

ODALS: omnidirec onal approach ligh ng system

GS: glide slope

OFA: object free area

HIRL: high intensity runway edge ligh ng

OFZ: obstacle free zone

IFR: instrument flight rules (FAR Part 91)

OM: outer marker

ILS: instrument landing system

PAC: planning advisory commi ee

IM: inner marker

PAPI: precision approach path indicator

A - 15

Airport Consultants

Abbreviations PFC: porous fric on course

SM: statute mile (5,280 feet)

PFC: passenger facility charge

SRE: snow removal equipment

PCL: pilot-controlled ligh ng

SSALF: simplified short approach ligh ng system with runway alignment indicator lights

PIW public informa on workshop

STAR: standard terminal arrival route

PLASI: pulsa ng visual approach slope indicator POFA: precision object free area

SWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircra with single-wheel tandem type landing gear

PVASI: pulsa ng/steady visual approach slope indicator

TACAN: tac cal air naviga onal aid

PVC: poor visibility and ceiling

TAF:

RCO: remote communica ons outlet RRC: Runway Reference Code RDC: Runway Design Code REIL: runway end iden fica on ligh ng RNAV: area naviga on RPZ: runway protec on zone RSA: runway safety area RTR: remote transmi er/receiver RVR: runway visibility range RVZ: runway visibility zone SALS: short approach ligh ng system SASP: state avia on system plan SEL: sound exposure level

Federal Avia on Administra on Terminal Area Forecast

(FAA)

TDG: Taxiway Design Group TLOF: Touchdown and li -off TDZ: touchdown zone TDZE: touchdown zone eleva on TODA: takeoff distance available TORA: takeoff runway available TRACON: terminal radar approach control VASI: visual approach slope indicator VFR: visual flight rules (FAR Part 91) VHF: very high frequency VOR: very high frequency omni-direc onal range VORTAC: VOR and TACAN collocated

SID: standard instrument departure

A - 16

Airport Consultants

APPENDIX B

Airport Plans

Appendix B AIRPORT PLANS The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Texas Department of Transportation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Aviation Division (TxDOT) require the development of Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawings detailing specific parts of the airport and its environs. These drawings were created on a computer-aided drafting (CAD) system and serve as the official depiction of the current and planned condition of the airport. These drawings will be delivered to TxDOT for their review. TxDOT will critique the drawings from a technical perspective to be sure all applicable federal regulations are met. TxDOT will use the ALP drawings as the basis for justification for funding decisions.

It should be noted that FAA and TxDOT require that any changes to the airfield (i.e., runway and taxiway system, navigational aids, etc.) be presented on the drawings. The landside configuration developed during the master planning process is also depicted on the drawings, but TxDOT recognizes that landside development is much more fluid and dependent upon developer needs. Thus, an updated drawing set is typically not necessary for future landside development.

The following is a description of the CAD drawings that make up the ALP drawing set included with this Development Plan.

AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING An Airport Layout Drawing (ALD) graphically presents the existing and ultimate airport layout. The ALD includes such elements as the physical airport features, wind data tabulation, location of airfield B-1

facilities, and existing general aviation development. Also presented on the ALD are the runway safety areas, airport property boundary, and revenue support areas.

The computerized plan provides detailed information on existing and future facility layouts on multiple layers that permit the user to focus on any section of the airport at a desirable scale. The plan can be used as base information for design and can be easily updated in the future to reflect new development and more detail concerning existing conditions as made available through design surveys.

INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE DRAWING The Inner Portion of the Approach Surface Drawing contains the plan and profile view of the inner portion of the approach surface to the runway and a tabular listing of all surface violations. The drawings also contain other approach surfaces, such as the threshold siting surface (TSS). Detailed obstruction and facility data is provided to identify planned improvements and the disposition of the obstructions. A drawing of each runway end is provided.

TERMINAL AREA PLAN The Terminal Area Plan is a larger scale plan view drawing of existing and planned aprons, buildings, hangars, parking lots, and other landside facilities focused on airport terminal area development.

LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan is a depiction of the land use recommendations on airport property. The objective of this drawing is to coordinate uses of the airport property in a manner compatible with the functional design of the airport facility. When development is proposed, it should be directed to the appropriate land use area depicted on this plan.

PROPERTY INVENTORY MAP The Airport Property Map provides information on the acquisition and identification of all land tracts under the control of the airport. Easement interests in areas outside the fee simple property line are also included. The primary purpose of the drawing is to provide information for analyzing the current and future aeronautical use of land acquired with federal funds.

PART 77 AIRSPACE DRAWING Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, was established for use by local authorities to control the height of objects near airports. The FAR Part 77 Airspace Drawing included in this ALP set are graphic depictions of this regulatory criterion. The FAR Part 77 B-2

Airspace Drawings are a tool to aid local authorities in determining if proposed development could present a hazard to aircraft using the airport. The FAR Part 77 Airspace Drawings can be a critical tool for the airport sponsorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use in reviewing proposed development in the vicinity of the Airport.

Airport sponsors should do all in their power to ensure development stays below the FAR Part 77 surfaces to protect the role of the Airport. The following discussion will describe those surfaces that make up the recommended FAR Part 77 surfaces at the airport.

The FAR Part 77 Airspace Drawings assign three-dimensional imaginary surfaces associated with the airport. These imaginary surfaces emanate from the runway centerlines and are dimensioned according to the visibility minimums associated with the approach to the runway ends and size of aircraft to operate on each runway. The FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces include the primary surface, approach surface, transitional surface, horizontal surface, and conical surface. Each surface is described as follows: Primary Surface The primary surface is longitudinally centered on the runway and extends 200 feet beyond each runway end. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation along the nearest associated point on the runway centerline. The primary surface for Runway 15-33 is 1,000 feet wide and Runway 2-20 is 500 feet wide centered on the runway.

Approach Surface An approach surface is also established for each runway end. The approach surface begins at the end of the primary surface, extends upward and outward, and is centered along an extended runway centerline. The approach surface leading to each runway is based upon the type of approach available (instrument or visual) or planned.

The approach surface for Runway 15, which is equipped with a precision Instrument Landing System (ILS), extends a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet at a 50:1 slope with an additional 40,000 feet at a slope of 40:1. The outer width of the approach surface is 16,000 feet. The approach surfaces for the other runway ends extend a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet at a 34:1 slope with an outer width of 4,000 feet.

Transitional Surface Each runway has a transitional surface that begins at the outside edge of the primary surface at the same elevation as the runway. The surface rises at a slope of 7:1, up to a height 150 feet above the highest runway elevation. At that point, the transitional surface ends and the horizontal surface begins.

B-3

Horizontal Surface The horizontal surface is established at 150 feet above the highest elevation of the runway surface.

Having no slope, the horizontal surface connects the transitional and approach surfaces to the conical surface at a distance of 10,000 feet from the end of the primary surfaces of each runway.

Conical Surface The conical surface begins at the outer edge of the horizontal surface. The conical surface then continues for an additional 4,000 feet horizontally at a slope of 20:1. Therefore, at 4,000 feet from the horizontal surface, the elevation of the conical surface is 350 feet above the highest airport elevation.

DRAFT ALP DISCLAIMER The ALP drawing set has been developed in accordance with accepted FAA and TxDOT standards. The ALP has not been approved by TxDOT and is subject to further airspace review. Land use and other changes may result. The airport sponsor and TxDOT have access to the most recently approved ALP.

B-4

\\STORE3\CADFiles\CAD\HopkinsD\MP\Temple\ALP\TEMPLE_TAD_2016.DWG, 12/10/2015 11:24:37 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3

103

2.3

20:

1C

982

.3 AL SU RF 932 AC .3

ON IC

E

882

.3

832

.3

20 83 2.

3

:1 34

AIRPORT EL = 682.3' HORIZONTAL SURF EL = 832.3'

73

2.

3

78 2.

3

RW 20 END EL 665.1

68

2.

3

RW 33 669.0'

2

83

2.

3

78

2.

3

73

2.

3

3

2

:1

34

U RW 2 674.0

1 .3

832

.3

882

E .3 AC 932 RF U LS ICA N O .3 :1 C 982

20

2.3

103

34:1

33

832.3

782.3

732.3

682.3

732.3

50:1

782.3

832.3

882.3

932.3

982.3

1032.3

15

1082.3

RW 15 682.3'

MATCHLINE

1532.3

1582.3

1632.3

1682.3

1732.3

1782.3

1832.3

1882.3

1082.3

1132.3

1182.3

1232.3

1282.3

1332.3

1382.3

1432.3

1482.3

40:1

MATCHLINE

65

65

65

65

65

65

65 65

65

LAND USE LEGEND Ultimate Property Boundary

General Aviation

Open Space

Existing Property Boundary

Airfield Operations

Non-Aviation Revenue Support

Existing 65 DNL Contour

Aviation Reserve

Terminal Area

Ultimate 65 DNL Contour

65

65

65