HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-007
·
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
ORDINANCE NO. 07-007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CHANGING THE TEXT OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE AS PART OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY;
AUTHORIZING TEXT CHANGE AMENDMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DELETING
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OBJECTIVE 2.7.1 AND POLICIES 2.7.1.1,
2.7.1.2, AND 2.7.1.3, ADDING A NEW OBJECTIVE 2.7.1 PROVIDING FOR AN
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COUNTY POLICY, AND ADJACENT LAND USES
AND ADDING A NEW POLICY 2.7.1.1 INCORPORATING THE AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY REFERENCE AS A
TRANSPORTATION SUBELEMENT AND RENUMBERING THE FOLLOWING
POLICIES TO MAINTAIN A CORRECT NUMERICAL SEQUENCE;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR FILING
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida,
has made the following determinations:
1. The Director of the St. Lucie County International Airport presented a
petition for a change in the St. Lucie County Cornpfehensive Plan
Transportation Element to add the Airport Master Plan as a
Transportation subelernent.
2. On July 20, 2006, the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency held a
public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice in the Ft. Pierce
Tribune at least 10 days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail all
owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property, and
recommended that this Board approve the hereinafter described request
for a text change amendrnent to the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Airport Master Plan as a
subelernent;
3. On September 19, 2006, this Board held a public hearing for transmittal of
the Compfehensive Plan Amendment to the Department of Community
Affairs, after publishing a notice in the Ft. Pierce Tribune at least 10 days
prior to the hearing and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500
feet of the subject property.
Ordinance 07 - 007
March 27, 2007
Page 1
::tJO:!!(I)m
~::tJr:ÞC
~8~~~
~;J\~E3:
P~~Q:'"
-EAw~m;::a
~ ~ ~ g~-<
g:G)~C:~
m-z':
f'.)N-IO
··,d3-<r-
S-.¡ m
,!!1,. :::0
~~ "
g~ ~
Wi: :i!
.;! m
~ "
~ :ij
o "
" c
~ =i
"
o
c
"
....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
4. On September 19, 2006, this Board authorized the transmittal of this
petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further agency
review in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes;
5. On December 1, 2006, the Department of Community Affairs found the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment to be in compliance with State
Statutes and raised no objections to the proposed amendment package;
and
6. On March 5, 2007, This Board held a public hearing on the adoption, after
publishing a notice in the Ft. Pierce Tribune of such hearing at least 10
days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail all owners of property
within 500 feet of the subject property, and continued the hearing to
March 27, 2007.
7. On Mafch 27, 2007, held a public hearing on the adoption, after
publishing a notice in the Ft. Pierce Tribune of such hearing at least 10
days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail all owners of property
within 500 feet of the subject property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida:
A. CHANGE IN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TEXT
The Transportation Element of the adopted 81. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan shall
be revised by deleting the words shown in strike-through type and adding the words
shown in underlined type, as follows:
~~j:;~B ~~.1
:~~i :O~ ~t'i:i~ ~~~t~ Ghall prepa~o ~ ~d~:m:= :: t:: e~::
: as e ~ Ah' 'Iiil ï~cÍ~de specifiG recommemtatwnG fen airport
operation and dovelopment.
Polioy 2.7.1.1
~~ ~::~~~n ~:::~~~ ~e County in the develepment ?~ a ~~~~~:e ~.. ~~~
:~i;:e ~=~~e:'~~~r:O:~UPI~: I:~t~:~n:~~o~:u:~~n~r:i~~~~~;~~ (~~~:~t
Polioy 2.7.1.2
~:~ ~::e~:~an Ch;~ ~~r:@h1y rovie'.... the ccepe of prep~~~ ~i~: :::~p~~~' ~:
~~:;i~~:~i:~:~:;::n~~~:~~:~, ~;t~~~i:~ ~e~~~r~~~~ :nt:r::7~lc~::a~
noice impaot€: within the airßert'c beundario5.
Policy2.7.1.ð
Ordinance 07 - 007
March 27, 2007
Page 2
:~: ~.a:~~~,~~n3:~~:'~~~:~ ~~ ilJAGaffiontal iAG~Ðtrial!Ceffi~:~~~ ::~~ :f i~
=o:i~~=¿:::~~:~I~a::~:~:~::;;~~::t~:~~~£;~~:fE~~=~:S~
Lucio Co~nty IntematioAal Airßort.
Objective 2.7.1
Provide for a periodicallv undated Airnort Mastef Plan that directs airnort nrowth
consistent with this Comprehensive Plan. Countv Policv. and adjacent land uses.
Updates of the Aimort Master Plan are to be accomplished bv amendment to the St.
Lucie Countv ComDrehensive Plan.
Policv2.7.1.1
The Aimort Master Plan adopted December 1993 and last revised Auqust 2002,
attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hefebv incomorated into the Transportation Element of
the adopted St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan as a Transportation Subelement.
Policy 2.7.1.1 2.7.1.2
All aviation master plans and related development activities shall be consistent with the
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and applicable regional, state and federal plans.
Policy 2.7.1.5 2.7.1.3
The St. Lucie County International Airport shall be developed and operated in
conformance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Policy 2.7.1.6 2.7.1.4
St. Lucie County shall work to assure that the surface transportation needs of the St.
Lucie County International AifpOrt are considered In and afe consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 2.7.1.72.7.1.5
The Master Plan for the St. Lucie County International Airport shall be updated every five
years to evaluate concurrency of actual airport development with the Master Plan and to
determine future development concurrent with plans of the Florida Department of
Transportation (FOOT), Federal Aviation Administfation (FAA), Florida Aviation System
and any other plans prepared pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S.
B. FINDING OF CONSISTENCY
This Board specifically determines that the approval of this change in the Transportation
Element is internally consistent with the policies and objectives contained in the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan.
C. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
March 27, 2007 Ordinance 07 - 007
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Special acts of the Flofida Legislatufe applicable only to unincorpofated areas of St.
Lucie County, County Ordinances and County Resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict
with this Ordinance are hereby superseded by this Ofdinance to the extent of such
conflict.
D. SEVERABILITY
if any portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held Of declared to be unconstitutional,
inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. if this Ofdinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to
any pefson, property, or circumstances, such holding shall not affect its applicability to
any other person, property or circumstances.
E. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE
This ordinance shall be applicable to the St. Lucie County intemational Aifport.
F. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
The Clerk is hefeby difected forthwith to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the
Bureau of Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32304.
G. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
The Growth Management Director shall send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the
Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, FL
32399-2100.
H. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect upon the issuance by the State Land Planning Agency
of a Notice of Intent to find the adopted amendment in compliance in accordance with
Section 163.3184(9), or Section 125.66(4)(a), Florida Statutes, or upon the
Administration Commission issuing a final order finding the adopted amendment in
compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184(10).
Ordinance 07 - 007
March 27, 2007
Page 4
1 I.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ".C(
20 . .... .t:/i'
( ("", ~ " " -,?-.,-
. ~ ") ~~. ':~-QM~ÓUN1"Ý CQMMÎsslONERs
"';,*~~~~~.J.~~~NTY, FLORIDA
24 ,'~..; .\., Ii",
25.. . \;:;îj'f)'¡;¡o/..J ;
,.yj;;¡,' :J'l'~~~~ß
1..··~7 ·f- ,/¿~"
fiiZ ' <'It"'- ",
': '28",' . '.'~' ,.' .
2(/: :~,.,. .... .
30 . >
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 ATTEST:
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
ADOPTION
After motion and second, the vote on this Ordinance was as follows:
Chairman Chris Craft
Aye
Commissioner Joe Smith
Aye
Commissioner Doug Cowafd
Aye
Commissioner Paula Lewis
Aye
Commissioner Charles Grande
Aye
';/
PASSED 'AND DULY ADOPTED this 27th day of March, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
March 27, 2007
Page 5
Ordinance 07 - 007
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 EXHIBIT A
21
22
23
24 51. Lucie County International Airport Master Plan Adopted December 1993, last
25 revised August 2002
26
27
March 27, 2007
Page 6
Ordinance 07 - 007
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 EXHIBIT A
21
22
23
24 51. Lucie County International Airport Master Plan Adopted December 1993, last
25 revised August 2002
26
27
February 13, 2007
Page 6
Ordinance 07 - 007
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 EXHIBIT A
21
22
23
24 51. Lucie County International Airport Master Plan Adopted December 1993, last
25 revised August 2002
26
27
February 13, 2007
Page 6
Ordinance 07 - XXX
-- _..-_.,-~--.._---------_.--_._-
-r----
_._._----_.~-
-----.--.--
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
. .
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
St. Lucie County . ...,. .,c,"".
INTERNATIONAL AIRNl'J~~~,)
on Florida's Treasure Coast' .'
"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John D. Bruhn, District 1
Doug Coward, District 2
Paula Lewis, District 3
Frannie Huu:hlnson, Disúiè. 4
Cliff Barnes, District 5
~-1~
~~~
Douglas Anderson, County Administrator
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney
Paul Phillips, A.A.E., Airport Director
Ronald Hall, C.M, Airport Operations Manager
MASTER PLAN STUDY GROUP
Robert Bangert Skip Lyshon
Robert C. Clark Councilman Jack Kelly
Charles R. Serge, P.E. Mayor Bill Thiess
Diane L. Andrews Frank Lillo
Dominic Scotto F. DeWitt Beckett
Richard W. Thoma Michael Cohen
Adam Houck Mayor Ed EMS
Lena C. Ghaffari Roger On, Esquire
This Ma>te, Plan Updllte was prepared by:
Hoyle, Tanner & AssoCÛlles, Inc.
Chapter
-~._-
-~-_.-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INVENTORY ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.0 General ............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Airport Setting.............................................................·..........·......·..· 1-1
1.1.1 Role/Service Level................................·................·......··....·..· 1-2
1.1.2 Location...........................................··..·......·..........·..·......··...... 1-2
Airport Vicinity Map ........................................................... 1-A
1.1.3 Access Roadways ................................................................... 1-3
1.1.4 St. Lucie County History .......................................................... 1-4
1.1.5 Project Status Update ............................................................ 1-4
1.2 Airside Facilities ..........;................................................................... 1-5
1.2.1 Runways..............................·...............·..·..·........·..··..··..··..·..... 1-5
1.2.2 Taxiways ................................................................................. 1-6
1.2.3 Run-Up Areas.................·....................·....·..........·....·..··......·.. 1-8
1.2.4 Lighting ................................................................................... 1-8
1.2.5 Navigational Aids............................................·..........·......·..· 1-10
1.2.6 Helipads ..............:....................:............................................ 1-10
1.3 Landside Facilities........................................·......·........·..·........··..·· 1-10
1.3.1 Fixed Base Operators .............................:.............................1-11
1.3.2 Airport Facilities.....................................·....·....··............·..·.... 1-13
1.3.3 Airport ruelil,g ....................................................................... 1-14
1.3.3.1 Fuel Storage Facilities.........................·......·..·.............. 1-14
1.3.3:2 Fuel Flowage..............................,··..·..·........·........····..·· 1-15
1.3.4 Public Safety Coverage..........................·....................·......·.. 1-15
1.4 Airspace Structure ......................................................................... 1-16
Miami Sectional Aeronautical Chart .................................. 1-B
1.5 On-Airport Land Use ...................................................................... 1-16
1.6 Community Inventory .....................................................................1-16
1.6.1 Off-Airport Land Use ............................................................. 1-16
1.6.2 Zoning ................................................................................... 1-17
1.6.3 Height Zoning ........................................................................ 1-17
1.6.4 Environmental Issues ............................................................ 1-18
1.7 Socioeconomic Data ...................................................................... f-18
1.7.1 Economic Base .....................................................................1-18
1.7.2 Employment ..........................................................................1-19
1.7.3 Per Capita Income....................................·................·..........· 1-20
1.7.4 Population ......................................:...................................... 1-20
1.8 Climate ........................................................................................... 1-21
1.9 Summary ........................................................................................ 1-22
IFR Weather Wind Rose ................................................... 1-C
All Weather Wind Rose .................................................... 1-0
2. AVIATION FORECASTS .................................................................................. 2-1
2.0 General ............................................................................................ 2-1
2.0.1 Unconstrained Forecasts and Controlled Growth.................... 2-1
2.1 Based Aircraft Forecast............................·..........·........·..............·.... 2-2
2.1.1 FAA Aviation Forecast -Based Aircraft ................................... 2-3
2.1.2 The Florida Aviation System Plan - Based Aircraft................. 2-4
2.1.3 Multiple Regression Analysis - Socioeconomic
Variables (Population) and Based Aircraft ............................ 2-5
2.1.4 Based Aircraft Forecast Summary ........................,.................2-6
2.2 Aircraft Operations ......................................................................... 2-7
2.2.1 FAA Aviation Operations Forecast ....................................... 2-10
2.2.2 Florida Aviation System Plan - Annual Operations............... 2-12
2.2.~ Multiple Regression - Annual Operations and
Socioeconomic Variables (Population) .............................. 2-12
2.2.4 Annual Operations Forecast Summary ................................ 2-13
2.2.5 Itinerant and Local Annual Operations
Based on the Preferred Forecast ....................................... 2-14
2.2.6 Operations Fleet Mix Forecast
Based on the Preferred Forecast .........................................2-15
2.2.7 Seasonal Variation - Annual Operations ............................. 2-16
. 2.7.8 Military Operations ..........................................................:..... 2-16
2.2.9 Instrument Operations Forecast
Based on the Preferred Forecast ........................................2-16
2.3 Fuel .Flowage,.............................-................·..................·....·......··.. 2-17
2.4 Forecast Summary ......................................................................... 2-18
3.
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .., ........ .......................... ...... ..... ......... ................. .3-1
3.0 General ....;..................:.................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Airfield .....,....................................... ................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Airfield Capacity Analysis ........................................................3-1
3.1.2 Basis of Calculated Capacities.........................·..·....·..·..........· 3-2
3.1.3 Runway Use Configuration Alternatives ..................................3-2
3.1.4 Aircraft Mix Index and Aircraft Approach Categories............... 3-3
3.1.5 Airplane Design Group ............................................................ 3-4
3.1.6 Airport Reference Code.............................·....·..........·..·....·....· 3-5
3.1.1 Runway Criteria.....,..............................·..·..··........·....·............· 3-5
3.1.8 Taxiway Criteria.............:.....................·........................·.......... 3-6
3.1.9 Percent Arrivals .......................................................................3-7
3.1.10 Percent ofTouch-and-Go's ....................................................3-7
3.1.11 Taxiways ............................................................................... 3-7
3.1.1? R..unway Instrumentation...............................·..·:........·..·........ 3-7
3.1.'13. Weather.........................................·....·..·............·....·..··..··..·" 3-8
3.1.14 Capacity Calculations.....................·................·..·......·....·...... 3-8
3.1.15 VHR Hourly Capacity..............................·....·......·....·......·...... 3-8
3.1.16 IFR Hourly Capacity .............................................................. 3-8
. .
3.1.17 Annual Service Volume.................................·....·..............·..· 3-8
3.1.18 Runway Length ..................................................................... 3-9
3.1.19 Plan, Design and Construct.................·....·..·..........·............ 3-10
3.2 Airspace ............................... .......................................................... 3-10
3.2.1 Air Traffic Control Tower ....................................................... 3-11
3.2.2 Current Approaches .............................................................. 3-11
3.2.3 ILS Approach ........................................................................ 3-11
3.2.4 Approach Slopes...................................·..·......·........·....·..;·..· 3-11
3.2.5 Departure Procedures ...........................................................3-11
3.2.6 Obstructions .......................................................................... 3-12
3.2.7 Airspace Limitations ..............................................................3-12
3.3 NAVAIDS and Lighting .....,............................................................. 3-12
3.3.1 Approach Lights .................................................................... 3-12
3.3.2 Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL)............................... 3-12
3.3.3 Runway Visual Range ........................................................... 3-12
3.3.4 Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) ............................ 3-12
3.4 Terminal Facilities .......................................................................... 3-13
3.4.1 Passenger Terminal..........................·..·..·......·......·............·.. 3-13
3.4.2 Federal Inspection Services (FIS) ......................................... 3-13
3.5 Hangars and Aprons ...................................................................... 3-13
3.6 Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) ........................................ 3-14
3.7 Airport Maintenance Facilities ...............................................:......:. 3-14
3.8 Airport Access ......................................................................... ....... 3-14
4. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.0 General...................................................·....·....·..·....·..·..·..··............4-1
4.1 Planning and Design Criteria................................·........·....·....·....·..· 4-1
4.2 Recommended Development Projects..................·.................·..·..·.. 4-1
4.2.1 Airfield Pavement and Lighting Projects....................··..·..··....· 4-2
4.2.2 Visual/Navigational Aids, Independent Lighting Projects ........ 4-4
4.2.3 Þassenger and Cargo Terminals..............................·......·......· 4-5
4.2.4 Support Facility Projects............................·....·................·......· 4-5
4.2.5 Other Development Projects ..................................................,.4-6
4.3 Land Acquisition ................................................................. .............. 4-6
2,500' Runway Separation ...............................................Ex. 1.3,100' Runway Separation ...........,...................................Ex. 2
3,800' Runway Separation ...............................................Ex: 3
5. AIRPORT PLANS ...........................................................................,.................5-1
5.0 General ....................................................,....................................... 5-1
5.1 Existing and Proposed Airport Layout Plan.,.................................·..: 5-1
5.2 Terminal Area Plan.......................................:..·..·....··..·....·................ 5-2
5.3 Runway Protection Zones and Profiles Plan .................................... 5-2
5.4 FAR Part 77 Airspace Plan .............................................................. 5-2
5.5 Airport Property Map ........................................................................ 5-3
Drawings:
cover................................................................................1 of 8
Existing Airport Facilities Plan .........................................2 of 8
Airport Layout Plan..:...............,........................·....·........·3 of 8
---
--~~-
Terminal Area Plan...................................·....·..·..............4 of 8
Runway Profiles .....................................:........................5 of 8
Present FAR Part 77 Airspace Surfaces .........................6 of 8
Future FAR part 77 Airspace Su'rfaces..........................·7 of 8
Airport Property Map .......................................................8 of 8
6. ENVIRONMENTAL ..OVERViEW...................................·....·······..·:··..·..·..··..··.. 6-1
6.0 General ......................................:...................................................... 6-1
6.1 Environmental Requirements ........................................................... 6-1
6.2 Environmental Analysis .................................................................... 6-2
6.2.1 Noise ....................................................................................... 6-3
6.2.2 Compatible La'nd Use.........................................·....·..·..·........· 6-4
6.2.3 Social Impacts ..........................................................,................6-4
6.2.4 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts........................·..........·........· 6-4
6.2.5 Air Quality................................................·..........................·..·· 6-5
6.2.6 Water Quality ..................................;....................................... 6-5
6.2.7 Department ofTransportation Act, Section 4(f)....................... 6-5
6.2.8 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological,
and Cultural Resources.................................·.................. 6-6
6.2.9 Biotic Communities.......................................··....·..........··........ 6-6
6.2.10 Endangered and Threatened Species...........................·..:....· 6-6
6.2.11 Wetlands ............................................................................... 6-6
6.2.12 Floodplains ....................,................:...................................... 6-7
6.2.13 Coastal Waters.............................................................·....·..· 6-7
6.2.14 PI ill It:: éilld Ulliqut:: Féilllllalld ............................................:.... 6-1
6.2.15 Energy Supply and Natural Resources .................................6-7
6.2.16 Light Emissions ...................................................................... 6-8
6.2:17 Solid Waste Impact ................................................................ 6-8
6.2.18 Construction Impacts.......................................·..·..··..·....·......· 6-8
6.3 Environmental Overview Summary................:...·.............................. 6-9
6.3.1 Environmental Impact Statement ........................................:... 6-9
6.3.2 Environmental Assessment.................:.........·..·....··..·....··......· 6-9
6.4 Development Actions and Environmental Categories..:.................... 6-9
6.4.1 New Parallel Runway 9L-27R........................·........·,..............· 6-9
6.4.2 Connecting North-South Taxiway...........................·.............. 6-10
6.4.3 Land Acquisition .................................................................... 6-10
6.4.4 Extension of Runway 14-32 .................................................. 6-10
6.5 Increased Activities and Environmental Categories.....................·.. 6-10
6.5.1 Noise ............................................:........................................ 6-11
6.5.2 Social Impacts and Induced Socioeconomic Impacts ........... 6-11
6.5.3 Air Quality............................................·..............·..........···..·.. 6-11
6.5.4 Water Quality ........................................................................ 6-11
Exhibits: .
Land Use.......................................................·..........···..·.... 6-A
Existing Flight Tracks ......................................................... 6-B
Existing DNL Contours w/Non-Compatible Land Use ......r.6...C
Future Flight Tracks ........................................................... 6-0
Future DNL Contours w/Non-Compatible Land Use .......... 6-E
--.-.-
-----
7. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM..........................................·......·....·....· 7-1
7.0 General......................................................·..........·..·..·.....................7-1
7.1 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) ........................................................7.1
7.1.1 Short-Term (2001-2006) ..........................................................7-2
7.1.2 Intermediate-Term (2007-2011).....................................·..·...... 7-3
7.1.3 Long-Term (2012-2020)...................................·......·..·..·......·..· 7-4
7.2 FinanciaVManagement Plan..,.........................··......··........·..·..·..·....· 7-8
7.2.1 Existing Lease Structure .......................................................... 7-8
7.2.2 Revenues & Expenses... ..... ........................................ .....7-9
7.2.3 Management........ ......... .... .... ........... ........ ..... ......... ... .... ...... ... 7-10
7.3 Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................·...... 7-10
APPENDIX A - Abbreviations and Meeting Minutes
__... H .
.,~
Chapter. 1
Jnvenú»3'--
,..... .
----
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter J
Chapter One: Inventory
1.0 GENERAL
The Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular (FAAAC) 150/5070-6A, "Airport Master Plans"
and the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) "Airport Master Plan Guidelines," outline the
necessary steps in the development of an Airport Master Plan. The initial step, Inventory, is the collection
of data pertinent to the airport and the area it serves. The objective of the Inventory task fOf 51. Lucie
County International Airport is to provide background infonnation for subsequent phases ofanalysis.
The development of a M(I.~ter Plan for 51. Lucie County International Airport required the collection and
evaluation of data relating to the airport and surrounding area. This infonnation was obtained through on-
site investigations of the airport; interviews with the airport management, fixed base operators, air traffic
control, representatives of the County Office, and the collection and analyses of previaus reports and
studies. A survey of tenants' facilities and futufe plans was conducted throughout the on-site interviews.
The inventory is described in the following sections:
+ Airport Setting
+ Airside Facilities
+ Landside Facilities
+ Airspace Structure
+ On-Airport Land Use
+ Community Inventory
OClOeCOnOJ1JlC a a
+ Climate
The key issues to be dealt with in this Chaptef, as identified by the Mastef Plan Study Group (MPSG), afe
listed below with a note as to the section in which the issue is addfessed.
Aviation
Security
Signage/Marking
ATCT
Run-up Areas
Environment/Community
Noise
Economic Analysis
Preliminary Drainage Plan
Existin~ Commitments
Standardized Leases
Rules & Regulations
\.1 AIRPORT SETTING
SI. Lucie County International Airport is owned and operated by St. Lucie County. An Airport Director,
who is appointed by the SI. Lucie County Administratof, manages the airport. Information pertaining to
5t. Lucie County Intern:ltional Airport can be found in airport referenCe documents under Fort Pierce,
Florida. Databases rnr Ihese documents are organized' alphabetically by the airport's closest located city.
.<. .,
Subsequent para~rJph, ;n tillS Scclllln describe the Airport's Sen'l\;c Le\'d and Role. localion. airport
access. ¡1I1d airp\)r1 h1..t,tr\
I-t
-----
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan.
Inventory
Chapter I
1.1.1 Role/Service Level
St. Lucie County International Airport is designated by the Federal Aviation Administration as a publicly
owned, public-use facility. Under the Airport and Airways Improvement Act, the Secfetary of
Transportation is required to publish a national plan for the development of public-use airports. This.
national airport development plan is published thfougn the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS). Development planned to receive fedefal funding is identified in the NPIAS for each eligible
public-use airport. St. Lucie County International Airport is included in the National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS is prepafed in close coordinatian with the FAA's ten-yeaf plan to
improve the air traffic control system and airway facilities; therefore, projects eligible for federal funding
include safety and airway efficiency projects. Congress bases an airport's eligibility fOf funding on that
Airport's Service Level and Role, as defined by the NPIAS.
The NPIAS has five basic airport service levels that describe the type of service that the airport is
expected to provide to the community at the end of the5-year planning period. The service levels also
repfesent funding categories fOf the distribution of Federal Aid. These levels are:
. PR Commercial Service- Primary
CM Commercial Service - Non-primary
CR Commercial Service Aifport that also serves as a
Reliever (included with CM in statistical
summafies)
RL Relievef
GA General Aviation Airport
Tnt"" NPTA~ nf"fint""C:!:!In A1rpnri'c: ~Prv;('t"" T pvt""1 hy thp fJq)P nfp'lh1if' c:prv1rp th~ !:!Iirport prnv;QPC: tn itc:.
community. si. Lucie County International Airport's Service Level is defined as Genefal Aviation (GA).
The Role of an airport is defined in the NPIAS in terms of the type of aircraft it can accommodate and .its
associated required design specìfications. The NPIAS classifies St. Lucie County International Airport's
Role as a Transport Type (TR) airport. A Transport Type airport can .accommodate genefal aviation
business jets aircraft that have maximum gross takeoff weights ofmofe than 12,500 pounds.
1.1.2 Location
SI. Lucie County International Airpoft is located 3 miles northwest of the. City of Fort Pierce and only an
houf north of West Palm Beach on the southeast coast of sunny Flofida. The Airport Vicinity Map, .
Exhibit I-A, depicts the location of the airport in its regional setting. At 25 feet Above Mean Sea Level
(AMSL), the Airport Reference Point (ARP) is situated on latitude 27-29-42.2N and longitude of 80-22-
05.8W. The ARP is defined as the approximate geometric center of all useable runway surfaces.
The airport is comprised of approximately 3,660 acres of land, and is located eaSI of Interstate 95 and
west of Highway US I. As part of this Mastef Plan. an airport property.'ò"undary survey is .being
conducted. The boundary survey will meet current minimum technical standards of Ih" State of Flor.ida. .
Exact acreage ofthc airport property and a defined propert)' boundary line wlil b., sl,,'" 11 as a result or the
property survey and wi1l be rellected on the Airport Property ¡"'lap in Ihe :\1Il'"n I.a\·out Plan (AU') set.
1-2
.
26ttìSt
~
.~ ~7
. 8th ~;t Royal :PoiI'IcianaPark.
.- '~ 11) .-:-
--.....-..
'.:(
..~. ' .~ (i th E;¡:3V'O/
~;
:"r"""-"--
-=1:: ,
""2; ,1
, -. ~,
-'
~ ¡ . ..-.. - '
.,_.n___'··"_' ,.
~.._-
."...-
//
1 ./....,.
, ",/
,/
, -.'-'" ~~- ù'
o.~.... )1
... ¡r-"-. '·t);·;\ ~/
"; ./<:' . ' : fI '\~:/},
~.-;,,,. "'\".~~, 712 " . .' 't, . tì5
''._.,...-.-- ,_;.,;j~,-. " if "
. - - _,_._.7:'~ 70..:0.--::-:;':-:-:" .: .:.~ ,,} , ,/ /' ~~:~ ¿;-:
709 . ',' rr,·
\'... í~'
.1' W
~.
.- ..~.
.......ã3
Q.
t',
'ï:=
c:
-'
(t'),
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
AIRPORT VICINITY MAP
Exhibit
i-A
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter J
1.1.3 Access Roadways
Major arterial roads serving the area include Interstate 95 and Highway US I. Interstate 95 passes north
and south through St. Lucie County (west of the airport), and US I runs north and south through the
. County just east of the airport. Both arterial roads follow the general direction of the Atlantic Coast
shoreline. .
Access to the airport and businesses located on the airport's property are available in a variety of ways.
Curtis King Boulevard is the main entrance to the Airport & Airport Terminal Area. It can be accessed in
the following ways:
· Coming 1T0m the north on 1-95 take Exit 67 going east on 1ndrio Rd approximately 3 miles to
N. Kings Hwy heading south for 2.5 miles, turn east on St. Lucie Boulevard for 2.0 miles
then turn north òn to Curtis King Boulevard
· Coming 1T0m the south on 1-95 take Exit 66 going west for about Y, mile, turn north on N.
Kings Hwy heading north for 2.5 miles to St. Lucie Boulevard for 2.0 miles then left on to
Curtis King Boulevard
· Coming 1T0m the north on US I turn west onto St. Lucie Boulevard heading west for 1.5
miles to Curtis King Boulevard turning north into the airport
· Coming 1T0m the south on US I turn west onto St. Lucie Boulevard heading west for 1.5
miles to CUftiS King Boulevafd turning north into the airport
· Coming· from the west take the Florida Turnpike .to 1-95 and follow the same directions
coming from the south as heading north on 1-95
Othef roads thai allow access of to the businesses located on the airport are as follows:
· Jet Center Terrace, coming west off Industrial 33n! Street intersects with St. LuCie Boulevard
allows access orï the eastern side of the airport.
· e en rance 0 an Ir er ac!! IS approxlma e y . ml es wes 0 treet. you
are heading east it is approximately .15 miles east of Curtis King Boulevard on the northern
side of St. Lucie Boulevafd.
· Airman's Drive :can be accessed by coming east off of Hammond Road which comes north
offSt..Lucie Boulevard approximately .55 miles west of Curtis King Boulevard.
These access roads afe used to access the airport facilities and tenants located on airport property. A list
. ofairport tenants is provided in Table I-I. .
. Table 1-1 - Airport Businesses
Fort Pierce Air Center Trade Winds International Flight School
Maverick Boat Company Ari-Ben Aviator
BlueWater Boat Company Mirabella Yachts
Air Charter of Florida I Jet Service Center Mobarak Aircraft
Able American Jets I Able Ambulance Aircraft Service Center, Inc,
Airport Tiki Airport Ground Equipment·
Flight Deck Cafe Navtech
Florida Coastal Airlines Air and Sea Recovery
MICCO Aircraft Company Airborne Express
PanAm International Flight Academy Treasure Coast Jet Center
DHL Delivery Fed Ex
Treasure Coast Avionics AeroCadd
... ..
1-3
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter I
1.1.4 St. Lucie County History
St. Lucie County is filled with Florida's history. Although incorporated in 1901, Fort Pierce history
begins in 1837 during the Seminole Indian War. U.S. Army Lt. Co!. Benjamin Kendrick Pierce
established the original fort used as the anny's headquarters. After the war, the Seminoles took refuge in
the Everglades in 1842 leaving Fort Pierce tree to develop as a pennanent settlement. Fort Pierce became
center of the town's activity and gathering place for the early settlers. One of the earliest settlements in
St. Lucie County lies within the area that is presently incorporated as the Town of St. Lucie Vi11~ge,
immediately east of the airport. The St. Lucie Village Historic District is listed on the National Register
of Historic Places and contains approximately two dozen historic homes dating back to 1875.
Today, St. Lucie County plays a key role as the area's commercial development. In the western side of
town you 'can find many acres of ¡¡rape fruit and orange groves covering the land as well as many cattle
ranches. The coastline provides many beautiful beaches that draw vacationers as well as local residents.
T\1e. Fort Pierce Inlet provides access from the Inter-coastal waterway out ta the Atlantic Ocean. Fishing,
scuba diving, and snorkeling are just a few of the things found within the county. All this, together with a
yearly avefage temperature of 73.7 degrees, makes St. Lucie County an ideal residential, retirement, and
vacation community.
1.1.5 Project Status Update
The last Master Plan for St. Lucie Coúnty International Airport was completed in 1993. A description of
the development that has occurred at the airport since 1993 is as follows:
Year
Completed
Description of Development
i995
Able American Jets developed 3,000 squafe foot office facility
1998
Ablè American Jets developed 12,000 square foot hangar facility
Airport developed airport entry road - Curtis King Boulevard
1929'.
Able American lets developed 12,000 square foot hangar facility
Air Charter developed 3,500 square foot restaurant
2000
Pan Am begins development of their flight training facilities
2001
Airport developed 1000 squafe foot office building
Airport developed 1600 square foot manufacturing building
Airport developed 3000 squafe foot maintenance building
.,. .
1-4
----
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory____=---_
. Chapter 1
1.2 AIRSIDE FACILITIES
Airside facilities .at St. Lucie County International Airport include runways, taxiways, lighting, and
navigational aids. Drawing 2 - Existing Facilities, depicts an overview of the existing airfield facilities.
This section describes the airport's existing airfield facilities in tenns of location, canfiguration, size, and
use chafacteristics.
1.2.1 Runways
St. Lucie County International Airport is currently being served by two active Runways; Runway 9-27
and Runway 14-32. Table 1-2 provides a summary offacility data for each Runway at the airport.
Table 1-2
Runway Data
RUlIIvay Ends
9 27 14 32
Length (ft.) 6,492 4,756
Width (ft.) ISO 100
Surface Material Asphalt Asphalt
Surface Treatment Not Grooved Not Grooved
.
Load Bearing Capacity by Gear Type
SWL (Ibs.) 30,000 15,000 ..
DWL (Ibs.) 60,000
. . . .
Markings Condition Good Good Good Good
Traffic pattern Left Left Left Left
Approach Aids- VORTAC No I No No No
Approach Aids - V ASI-4 Yes Yes No No
Visual Glide Path Angle 3 degrees 3 degrees NA NA
Displaced Threshold (ft.) .. 0 0 ° °
Touchdown Point Yes Yes Yes Yes
Touchdown Elevation 23.6 ft : 23.4 ft. 23.8 ft. 23.8 ft.
. .
Lighting M1RUREIL MIRL
Obstructions BRUSH I TREES TREES . I PLINE
Sourœ: Airport Facilities. Directory, 2002.
The primary Runway, Runway 9·27, is oriented in an east·west difection. This Runway measures 6,492
feet long by ISO fcct wide. It is made of asphalt and is in good condition. The FAA published gross
weight pavement strcngth of the Runway is 30,000 pounds single-wheel (SWL) and 60,000 pounds dual·
wheel (DWL). The Runways 9-27 afe both equipped with a VASI-4 on the left sides of each runway, and
have medium intensity runway cdge lights (MIRL). . ..
Runway 14-32 i~ 'Hil'nlt.·d in .llh}rthwðt to southeast dir~ction and m~asLlr~s "'¡.ï56 feci long by 100 feet wjde. and
is equipped with m~d.lum II1I~nsity runway edge lights (MIRL). This RUI1\\·ay has basic type Runway.marking
indicating it is lIs..:d for \l1l1-Pn:cision lnstmment approaches. Runway 14-32 is made of asphalt and is in poor
condition. The gross weight pa\"en1ent strength of the Runway is 15,000 pounds SWL.
1-5
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Masler Plan
Inventory n~'_ .---
Chapter 1
1.2.2 Taxiways
The airport's taxiway system consists of five taxiways. All of these Taxiways are· 50 feet wide and are
lighted with medium intensity taxiway edge lights (MITL), except for Taxiway "E".
Taxiway "A" is a parallel taxiway 6,000 fl. in length and 50 fl. in width; it is located 500 ft. centerline to
centerline south of Runway 9-27. The Taxiway is in two sections. The original 4,500 ft. section is made
of asphalt and is in fair condition. The other 1,500 ft. was constructed to accommodate the Runway 9-27
extension and that is composed of bituminous asphalt and is in excellent condition.
Taxiway "B" is a parallel taxiway 5,000 ft. in length and 50 ft. in width; it is located 500 ft. centerline to
centerline northeast of Runway 14-32. The taxiway is composed of bituminous asphalt and is in fair
condition.
Taxiway "C" is 4,700 ft in length and 50 ft in width; it is located 400 ft centerline to centerline of Runway
14-32. The original 1,700 ft of taxiway is composed of bituminous asphalt and is in fair condition, while
the northern 3,000 ft of taxiway composed of bituminous asphalt and is in very good condition.
Taxiway "CI" is 1,200 ft in length and 50 ft in width, it connects Runway 14-32 with the general aviation
facilities to the southeast. The taxiway is composed of bituminous asphalt and is in good condition.
Táxiway "D" is 5,000 ft. long and 50 ft. wide and is composed of bituminous asphalt in good to fair
condition. It is perpendicular to Runway 14-32 and runs from Taxiway "E" to the approach end of
Runway 9-27.
Toyiw,y "F' i~ ? ,,,,no ft in length ?nd 50 ft ",in ",idth Created from abandoned RUR"'ay 4 22 it is located
west of the existing tenninal area. Composed of bituminous asphalt the taxiway is in fair condition near
the apron afea, and is in excellent condition where it intersects perpendiculaf 10:Runway 14-32.
The FDOT has commissioned the finn of Eckrose, Green & Associates of Madison, WI to develop and
update a system of pavement inspection and evaluation. The system that was developed is known as
Pavement Condition Index (PC!). The pavement is evaluated according to its type, flaws,. and a Corrected
Deduct Value (CDV), which is utilized in cases of multiple flaws. The PCI is supported by FAR
150/5380-6. Table 1-3 shows an of the airside pavement tonditions at SI. Lucie County International
~~ .
Table1-3
Airfield Pavement Canditions
PAVEMENT
RUNWAYS TYPE PCI DISTRESSES PRESENT
LONG & TRANS CRACKING,
9-27 (CENTER 100') Asphalt VERY GOOD RAVELLlNG/WEATHERING, SWELLING
9-27 (OUTER BLOCK CRACKING, LONG & TRANS CRACKING.
25' WINGS) . Asphalt FAIR-POOR RAVELLlNG/WEATHERING, SWELLING
9·27 EXTENSION LONG & TRANS CRACKING.
(CENTER 100') Asphalt EXCELLENT RAVELLlNG/WEATHERING
9-27 EXTENSION LONG & TRANS CRACKING.
(OUTER 25' WINGS) Asphalt EXCELLENT SWELLING
BLEEDING, LONG & TRANS CRACKING.
14-32 Asphalt FAIR-POOR RAVELLlNG/WEATHÉRING, SWELLING
1-6
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter J
TAXIWAYS
ALLIGATOR, BLOCK CRACKING, LONG & TRAN$.
A (Original) Asphalt FAIR-POOR CRACKING, PATCHING, RAVELLlNG/WEATHERING,
LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
A (Extension) Asphalt EXCELLENT SWELLING
ALLIGATOR, BLOCK CRACKING, LONG & TRANS.
A-2 Asphalt VERY POOR CRACKING, RAVElLINGIWEATHERING .
BLOCK CRACKING, RAVELlINGIWEATHERING,
AS Asphalt FAIR SWELLING
LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
A-3 Asphalt EXCELLENT SWELLING
BLOCK CRACKING, LONG & TRANS CRACKING,
A-3 Asphalt FAIR RA VELlING/WEA THERING
B (AT OLD BLOCK CRACKING, LONG & TRANS CRACKING,
R/W PAVEMENT) Asphalt FAIR RA VELlINGIWEA THERING
LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
B Asphalt FAIR-POOR RAVELlINGIWEA THERING,SWELlING
B (AREA DJACENT LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
TO TIW F) Asphalt VERY POOR RA IlELlING/WEA THERING
D (FROM TIW E LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
TO TIW D) Asphalt FAIR RAVELLlNGIWEA THERING,SWELlING
D(FROM TIW C . LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
TO R/W 32) Asphalt FAIR RAVELLINGIWEA THERING,SWELLING
D(FROM R/W 32 LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
TO TIW B) Asphalt GOOD RAVELLlNGIWEA THERING,SWELLlNG
ALLIGATOR CRACKING, BLOCK CRACKING,
1....\' "'''',,, u" u U' ,
TO R/W 27) Asphalt GOOD-FAIR RAVELlINGIWEATHERING, SWELLING
D(AREA ADJACENT LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
TO R/W 27) Asphalt GOOD RAVELlINGIWEA THERING,SWELlING
BLOCK CRACKING,LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
C-1 Asphalt. FAIR PATCHING, RAVELlINGIWEATHERING,SWELlING
LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
C(FROM C-1 TO D) Asphalt GOOD-FAIR RAVELlINGIWEA THERING,SWELLlNG
C (FROM TIW .
A TO TIW D) Asphalt EXCELLENT LONG & TRANS. CRACKING
L:ONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
C-2 Asphalt FAIR RAVELLINGIWEA THERING.SWELLlNG
C-3' Asphalt EXCELLENT . NONE
.
C-4. Asphalt EXCELLENT NONE
C-4 (AT LONG & TRANS. CRACKING, PATCHING,
INTERSECTION RAVELLlNGI
OF 14-32 AND TWY Asphalt . VERY GOOD WEATHERING. SWELLING
A)
C CONNECTOR TO
RAMP Asphalt EXCELLENT LONG & TRANS. CRACKING
LONG & TRANS. CRACKING. .
C AT RAMP Asphalt FAIR RA VELLlNGIWEA THERING.SWELLI NG
- . LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
C-' Asphalt \lERY GOOD RA VELLlNG/WEA THERING.SWELLING
1-7
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport MasterPlan
Inventory
Chapter 1
E (FROM TIW D BLOCK CRACKING, LONG AND TRANS. CRACKING,
TO TNV C) Asphalt FAIR PATCHING, RAVELLlNGNVEATHERING
E (FROM RJW 14-32
TO APRON) Asphalt EXCELLENT NONE
E (FROM RJW 14-32 LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
TO TIW B) Asphalt GOOD RA VELLlNGIWEA THERING,SWElLlNG
BLOCK CRACKING, LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
E Asphalt VERY POOR RAVELLlNGIWEATHERING
Aprons
607 Asphalt EXCELLENT NONE
BLEEDING, LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
- , 4105. Asphalt EXCELLENT SWELLING
.4110 Concrete VERY GOOD JOINT SEAL DAMAGE, LARGE PATCH
. CORNER BREAK, L TD CRACKING, JOINT SEAL
4112 RAMP Concrete VERY POOR DAMAGE, SHATTERED SLAB, JOINT SPALLlNG
4115 Asphalt EXCELLENT OIL SPILL
4120 Asphalt EXCELLENT NONE
. BLOCK CRACKING, LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
..
4125 Asphalt POOR RA VELLlNGIWEA THERING
.BLOCK CRACKING, LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
4127 Asphalt - FAIR RA VElLlNGIWEA THERING
,~_ "~, ,_. , rM I unll....,
4205 Asphalt GOOD RA VELLlNGIWEA THERING, SWELLING
LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
4210 Asphalt FAIR RA VElLlNGIWEA THERING,SWELLlNG
lONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
4212 Asphalt POOR RA VELLlNGIWEATHERING
LONG & TRANS. WEATHERING,
4215 Asphalt GOOD RA VELLlNGIWEA THERING
DEPRESSION, LONG & TRANS. CRACKING.
-. 4220 Asphalt POOR RAVELLlNGIWEATHERING, RUTTING
, LONG & TRANS. CRACKING,
.' 4225 Asphalt GOOD RA VELLlNGIWEA THERING,SWELLlNG
5105 .. Asphalt EXCELLENT LONG & TRANS. CRACKING .
1.2.3 Run-Up Areas
Aircraft engine run-ups at 51. Lucie County International Airport are usually conducted at the approach
ends of all pafallel Taxiways. Only one specific area has been designated a run-up area on the airfield.
1.2A Lighting
lighting at airport facilitates identitication, approaches. landing and taxiing operations at night and in
advefse weathef conditions. A variety of lighting aids afe available at 51. Lucie County International
AirpOfl. These include runway edge lighting, Runway End Identifier Lights, and taxiway lights. Runway
End Identifier Lights (RE[L's) provide positive fun way end identification. Runway edge lighting is used
1-8
--
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter J ------
to outline the edges of a runway during dafkness and times of restricted visibility. These systems are
identified by white lights and their intensity of illumination. Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL)
is appropriate fOf a {Ion-precision runway. Taxiway lighting is blue .colored and is identified in
accordance to their intensity of illumination in the same manner as runway edge lighting. Runways 9-27
and 14-32 afe equipped with MIRL. Currently, only Runway 9 is being equipped with REILs.
Runway 9-27 approaches are equipped with Visual Approach Slope Indicators (V ASI-4) on both ends.
V ASI devices are used to provide vertical visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during approach to
landing by radiating a difectional pattern of high intensity red and white focused light þeams 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. St. Lucie County International Airpart has two-bar V ASl's (V ASI-4). The correct
approach path provides the pilot with obstacle clearance and accurate guidance for a. safe landing.
Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting (MITL) is installed on Taxiways "A", "B", "D", & "C-l", and is
considered to be in fair condition. The only unlit taxiway is the original perimeter Taxiway "E". Medium
Intensity Runway Edge Lights (MIRL) are in~talled on both runways and are considered in fair condition.
Othef lighting at the airport includes a rotating beacon. The location and presence of an airport is
universally identified at night by an airport rotating beacon (designated by alternating green and white
light for civil airports). The rotating beacon is located neaf the tennina] area af the airport. A Non-
Directional Beacon is located to the east of the intersection of Taxiway "D" and Taxiway "E". The
lighted wind cone and segmented circle at St. Lucie County International Airport is located in the middle
of the airfield, just east of the intersection of Taxiway "A" and Taxiway "B". Table 1-4 shows the
conditions of the airfield.lighting at the airport.
Table 1-4
Lighting Condition
St. Lucie County International Airport
Master Plan Update
Date of Last
Surface ~ Type of Lfahtina Rehabilitation
..
Runwavs
9-27 (Original) . 5.000' x 150' MIRL Apf -88
9-27 (Extension) 1.500' x 150' MIRL Jun-90
14-32 4,776' x 100' MIRL Apr -88
Taxiwavs .. . ,
A (Original) 4,500' x 50' MITL Dec-85
A (Extension) 1,500' x 50' MITL Jun-90
B 4.400' x 50' MITL Dec-85
C 4.800' x 50' MITL Dec-85
," ..
D (Original) 1.700' x .50' MITL Dee-85
o (New) 3,000' x 50' MITL 1989
C-1 1.200' x 50' MITL Jun-84
E 2.400' x 50' NONE . --
AA 1,750' x 25' NONE 1991
1-9
----"-
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory__
Chapter I
Aprons
Passenger Terminal 10,000 s.y. NONE 1980
FIS Building 6,200 S.y. NONE 1980
FI. Pierce Air Center 9,725 s.y. NONE 1990
Sheriffs Department .·2,586 s.y. NONE 1991
East GA Apron 24,000 s.y. MITL (Entrances) 1991
West GA Apron 67,225 s.y. MITL (Entrances) 1991
1.2.5 Navigational Aids
Navigational Aids (Navaids) include any visual or electronic devicès, either airborne or on the gròund that
provide point-to-point guidance infonnation or position data to aircraft in flight.
SI. Lucie County International Airport is a towered airport. The Air Traffic Control Tower is located
southwest of the Runways. At St. Lucie County International Airport there are precision approaches.
The Precision Instrument Approach at SI. Lucie County International Airport is for Runway 9, which is
equipped with an ILSIDME. The remaining runway approaches, Runway 27 and Runways 14 and 32 are
all Non-precision Instrument Approaches. SI. Lucie County International Airport is also equipped with a
Non-Directional Radio Beacon (NDB) which is located southwest of Taxiway E. The electronic en-route
navigational guidance system, Of VORTAC, used by SI. Lucie County International Airport is located at
vero Beach Airport to the north. This system provides the airport with its Non-Precisian Approaches, as
. well as providing instrument guidance to othef airports.
The U.S. artment of Commerce the a'o a
National Ocean Service publish the approaches at SI. Lucie County International Airport in the U.S.
Terminal Procedures for the Southeast (SE-3). The pfecision approach minimum for Aircraft.Approach
CategoriesÀ 'and B at SI. Lucie County International Airport are 3/4 of a mile at 223 feet AMSL for
Runway 9. The non-precision approach minimums for Aircraft Approach Categories A and B at SI. Lucie
County International Airport are one mile at 400 feet AMSL fOf Runway 14, one mile at 520 feet AMSL
for Runway 27, and one mile at 480 feet MSL for Runway 32. These mi~imums mean that the landing or
approaches to the specific runway can be safely executed into the airport when cloud covef is at or above
those stated heights and visibility is at or above the stated distance.
1.2.6 Helipads
SI. Lucie County International Airport has no areas designated as helipads on the airfield. Such an area
would have yellow-painted encircled 'H' which designates these afeas as public-use helipads. The circle
designates that the helipad is a helicopter parking spot as well as a landing area. Currently, helicopters
utilize the infield area northeast of Taxiway "C" as a landing / ascent area.
1.3 LANDSIDE FACILITIES
Landside facilities al St. Lucic County Intcrnational Airport are divided into the following categories:
Fixed Base Operators (FBD). aIrport facilities and private hangars.
1-10
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
ChaptêrT------
1.3.1 Fixed Based Operators
There are two majof tenants on the airport that lease land from SI. Lucie County. These tenants are
composed of Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) and Flight Schools. The major tenants on the airport sublease
land to othef tenants at the airport. The services and/or facilities of the major tenants at the airport are
discussed in the following paragraphs and presented in Table 1-5.
Table 1-5
Summary of FBO Services and Facilities
Service I Facilities Fort Pierce . Ari-Ben ··PanAm Air Charter of Totals
Air Center Florida I Jet
Service Center
Total Arca (acres) 86 8 11 20 125
Total Building Space (S.F.) 11,020 5,000 80,000 3,500 99,520
FBO - Based Aircraft
Single-Engine 42 7 24 26 99
Multi-Engine 10 6 7 11 34
Turbo Prop 2 - - .. 2
Jet 5 .. - 2 7
Rotor - .. - - ..
Total 59 13 31 39 142
.. Aircraft Tie-Down
.n I ,n I 50 I 50 150
Area (S.Y.) . 14,500 1 8,9001 9,500 I 16,700 49,600
Conventional Hangars ..
Storage Area (S.F.) 700 I 3,500 - 19,000 23,200
Maintenance Area (S.F.) 18,000 I - .. 3,300 21,300
T -Hangars
Units 301 - I - I .. 30
Area (S.F.) 20,000 I - I - 1 .. 20,000
Fuel Storage.. A VGAS
. No. of Tanks 1 - - 2 3
Tank Capacity A vgas (gal) 20,000 .. - 24,000 44,000
Fuel Storage - JET A .
No. of Jet A Tanks . 1 . .. - 1 2
Tank Capacity JetA (gal) 20,000 .. - 12,000 32,000
Fueling Trucks 2 - - 1 3
Auto Parking Spaces 60 55 320 35 470
. Designates business as a sublease of A ir Charter of Florida
.. Designates bl/silless as a sublease of Fort Pierce Air C~nter
Air Charter a! Florida / Jet Sen.·ice Celller
Air Chartef of Florida is located on 20 aefes on the southeast side of the airport. There are two access
roads provided for Aif Chartef from the south side pafallel to the main entrance of the airport. There is
also an access road on the east side of the airport.
I-II
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter 1
Services. offered by Air Charter of Florida iriclude aircraft fueling, aircraft stOfage, flight school/flight
training (sublease to An-Ben A viator), restaurant, aircraft painting, aircraft interiors, public telephone,
festrooms, aircraft modifications, and aircraft Maintenance.
Air Chartef ofFlofida facilities include:
. a 3,500 square foot restaurant
. Two (2) - 9,600 square foot maintenance hangars
Fort Pierce Air Center
Fort Pierce Air Centef is located 'east of Curtis King Boulevard in the FBO Complex and southwest of
Runway 14-32. This FBO began operations in 1994 and in the year 2000, the FBO had II full-time
employees and 8 part-time employees. The FBO provides a centrally located customer lobby surrounded
. by support services such as vending machines, Avgas and Jet A aircraft fuel, aircraft rental, aircraft
parking, pilotlounge, restaurant, and vehicular parking. The FBO also owns and operates a 6,800 square
foot aircraft maintenance facility. .Fort Pierce Air Center has a total oDO tie-down positions, with 20,000
square feet of T-Hangars, a 12,000 squafe foot Corporate Hanger, and 18,000 square feet of maintenance
hangar space (60 x 60's).
Fort Pierce Aif Centef has two (2) 20,000 gallon storage tanks that are stored above ground. One (I)
20,000 gallon tank is for Avgas and one (I) 20,000 gallon tank that is for Jet A. In 1999, the FBO
pumped 435,439 gallons of Avgas and 435,438 gallons of Jet A. Last year, the Avgas sales for this FBO
were at 341 ,930 gallons and Jet A sales were at 635,020 gallons.
PanAm IlItemational FUgI,t Academy
PanAm International Flight Academy is located just west of Curtis King Boulevard in the FBO Complex.
PanAm recently relocated operations from Vero Beach, Florida OR May 31, 2000 to St. Lucie County
International Airport to handle their expansion requirements and the increase in airport' traffic that will
result. The expansion plans atSt. Lucie County International Airport to accommodate PanAro include
student dormitories, an aifcfaft and maintenance hangar, plus amenities such as tennis and volleyball
courts and a swimming poo\. PanAm has 4 buildings that consist of the flight school, dormitories
currently with 128 beds, and the hangafs. Students also live in off-airport apartment complexes.
FAR Part 141 and Part 61 flight training is pro.vided by PanAro International Flight Academy. This flight
school currently consists of 82 studenì, 22CFI's, 5 mechariics, and 31 training aifcraft.
Able American Jets
Able Amefican Jets is an airline, which is specialized in air ambulance services. Starting back in 1987,
the airline consisted of I tufboprop aifcraft, 3 employees, in I building consisting of 8,000 square feet.
Since 1987, the company· has been steadily growing. In 1993, Able Air had 4 jets, 20 employees and an
additional 2,000 square feet of building space. In 1998 and 1999 Able added two hangars each 12,000
square fe~t)n.size.' .
Able American Jets' aircran consists of 6 Lear jets. 2 King Air. I Cessna 210, and I Maule. Total
operations for Able c'onsists öf approximately 6000 operations pef year with approximately 25 0;', of those
operating out of 51. Lucie. The aircraft are dividéd between two facilities, 5t. Lucie County International
Airport and a faei.lity in St. Petersburg that is also operated by Able American Jets. Able American Jets is
in a sub-lease on a 11l0nth- to-month basis with Air Center, who is also theif fuel supplier.
1-12
---
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory __._._
Chapter J
Able American Jets' facilities include:
· 3,000 squafe foot office for the airline
· 8,000 square foot office for the ambulance division
· 250 squafe foot hazmat drop
.900 squafe foot engine shop (capable of handling 4 jet engines)
· Two(2) 12,000 square foot hangars (I for storage, I for maintenance)
Able American Jets has concerns with the current airport facilities that consist of the vehicular parking
around their facility, and proper drainage for vehicular parking areas. They are in support of radar being
acquired along with a second panllel runway to accommodate the noise sensitive afeas.
1.3.2 Airport Faciiities
On airport property thefe aft several facilities that are directly maintained by the Airport. They include
the General Aviation Air Tenninal Building, the FIS and Customs Building, eight (8) Experimental
Aircraft Association (EM) hangafs, a maintenance building, six (6) industfial park manufactufing
buildings, the electrical vault and associated systems, and the rotating beacon. The Airport has been
continually upgrading the electrical vault and regulatofs on an annual basis. Some of the oldest electrical
wiring along the taxiways and Runway 14-32 requires the most maintenance. The Rotating Beacon, as
mentioned earlier, is. dated and requires feplacement. Table 1-6 shows all buildings (occupant, location
and size - refer to Drawing #4) that are at the airport.'
. .
.....
1-13 "
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter 1
,---'---
Tobie 1-6 ¡
SJ. i ""';e r'OU......L, I",.~.......".....t:"...........! ^:rnnr' BUI'!ri:nn 1....."............1.....".,.
l. LUt..,1 \.t IILV IIÎtCIIIUlIVIIi.;1 ,",I vV l 'fULlY ¡II/CII\.v!V :....12)~
I ----!
I. )jte_ Na:.lß!!ildi~ocili!'y' ....... ,~~.[~ç¡ ~;le No. Buildin Facility... ; A~eG¡ .
1 I Tr. ~ Rcmoved "._. ·u... Am - 471, to .t2 1:1.Pr."..^_~._.',.,,'~_. .1,-9..'.'.co').. J..
~.~.¡ -~.' ~I~f~~ . n"_ ··~f··· 1 ~;r.~:~'., :,~;;r;~;::~,,' ::: -
;.~~:: .._6 __ WE.-!Je Removed _~.= _~~"__,..'~~-'.' '.-"~'-9··""O-'_-_J.. 4~8- loIicco - ,3100 Airmons £hve ...... 6100
.. .._1- _..~ Pml Am· 47.07. 10 4208 PfJI!.^mj!v':.. ..._.__~.____!_ _ _L- Able Air - J01Q Airmons !)rive ._-.._ _ _.L.:J...QP..Q
!...._._.L .", Pan Am - 4210 in 4216 Po:". 1\1:.' Ò'VG. ... J 9:;:0 _J.---=O_ .lliin:...-.. -.-. _¡_QQ.'l ¡
I 9 --t POll A"' - 42,"0 Pan Aln 6'V!1 ..__._. _u_.: !5Q90.J __..5L Ic....4iL....:-JQIiO....Air.a:Qt1SJ)J~ ____._.._...h.. L.~;i9ijP._J
1._ . _;~ __ I ~: ~~ = :~~ ~: : ~::~: ....;. -~~~~~:=-¡ ~~~:t~=.=;i~ ~ Ai, _- \V~~ln A~~~o;~,:: _ -~,~~-~~,:.=1,.~~~
I .....R,'J . _~SfminOI Suadinc - 3000gCudiCS ~;:;..9.1·\'r.'''''_·'';I~-f-OOBº--Y_.-_5i IlL..:....l1QUií.mwn:¡..ÒriY..c..._~. ...- ..~"_.~..'~_nJ·
_ U Cuslmns Buildin - 90 JI,IIS Ki~;..jilvd ~ ...55,_ r - 1 AifmoM D,i\H! _ ____ _ _._.!J..l'!i!!lP_
E 14 iilti RestfOUfont - 2982 2978 CUftis K..i~I.. ßlv 2800 Pon Am., - 4 00 Pon Am !Yd. _ --+.3200 _ ¡
15._ I Hanna, ~ 1974 Cu,lis Kino Blvd. _......_ _ 11000 51 Hnnljllr - ,Q..I; ('"die k'il!g..BML __n._~..l~
11....__.J.Ji..~J !]! ~.l!!!liutl~B!!!I...... .._ .... ··11.,lQ!L. .._\8 ",,09'" . >RIA C",,".!GagJ!"'L. .... . +ó1..0jL
....__11 _~n[ - 1966 Curl!!: Kino Bl'ld..._...... j700 _ ~ ~ 620-18Jb. J81L.JlmB S:"_LJc..!:...!iWa._JOOO I
L- 18 _ . Hun f _ Cu,l; (in~_._,_ _ + j/OO ..L- - L.1J¡r,p RNt! , I~CO I
L_._...J.2._ _ J!m!.gr~O Curlis I(inch....__.,._, ,_.'n'__ ,_.~ 6lOO _ ---61 t.. ~ .JatiL)LLucœ...ßJyd___.__ -- - - .~ 1~JQ...-i
L__.-.2L-_~JkI~9!)4 CUIII! Kina 8~ _ 3600 62 HOnDOf - 3868 Sllu!:"! Shrd : J1ºº--.1
¡___.l.L--_~ - ,q~ Curti" Kllla Rim .._-+~ P~OD I
r--- ...1L__------+-~GQ.-~- 1qft(' C.urll!; 1(¡:\9 13!.vc.:.. _ _ _~~_ "- . _..5L. Alrc-roll SerVice Center - H80 S~_.:·~ 'r~ - .J.lQQQ-
l..._.__2.L- _ ._J)j1m(}p' - 1920Jtlr!io; !C;,,~ RIvd __ ___ _!..JmHL. I ..!ií.- :1.LJeLCe:!!J:!wœ.cœ....-.. + 5
!.. _ ____?,;.~,.... . .~_iiu~~;¡:~~~~~~~~~~~~..~:~'---'" .. -.... ~ ...i~~._.r___._¥ -""--~~~~;;e ~~ ~LicU:..~J,~:~~,~-",-_,~.-.~;-::' ;::~ ·.l~~f~·-I
I ..... '_~-:._' --- -. .~-u;¡L.~9~~:,-'f-:?á..-...._-._.. . ··-1~-·'-1·· ~L_.__ .--. - ---- __lllcr.-LW.L.:-i.:u.'_..'t...n\o!:1.....·_-!~~;¿-·-1
L__..__;uL....._..L..!!!l.fl(j9L-...1iJl....CI;iliL..611s-ll!~.L--.--..-.-.~.2..:...,:L\L.-I. ..ß _ - 7 1,,1 r"ntf"_I!:.m~e . n_'_' _':'~~~º-1
I ."....._.2Z_ .J.JjQQQgL-:.13Zi...C.tæì1..K!aQ....flWj_______.___._~.tilXL~ H r - I J t nt r r If . ~ 1900 I
:?5__ :H::~~li;...:..,l.~.5.j~:.;.c~1..K;.:g.!l!Y'ù-... _..,.jQ:~º.¡, 10., . ~- JI79 Jet Cerll!:! 1l!rrnc~ ,~
..J·.¡ªJi:~~~>'~fTil~~.i~,~j1
[.":=',:~ . -·:::rt·tom:n..-_J824 Sll~~ Blvd: _--~.'~::. ';-3SÕÔ--'--' n77" hoeMf Inc. - InduslroOl ve y-' --"r ¡,~~-'1
, n . : Q¡60\> oetllll nt. - n:::';J5.~I:)1 ,vt' . r vvOÎ
...__JI _. ._ Air...Q\Juæ. -_.JðOO !:il luti!! R!ï!L__,. .__ _;...3800 _. !\er. DI - hdus rlol ve
j.. .J8. .,,__~.œqw _ 1un 1 l1 rpn!Pf 1f!((W;~ ... _.. _~_, ~ :00 _ ~ ---B!L -SJïeril'1 Uepl - I.YoOìñiiüS'f7ô~.r_~_ _--1-~-1
.j!).. .!.!~ti!1Ç1::_,:..J15.!L".'tL.C.:,n1C!...~:':;'L.,. ___¥~..oQ -1 . _n!~ n__~ Creme Inc _-_~5002..~Slf[ ( ~_~!:'" L_____-+__~.~
.__~íL_. .. _LJ-taJI:::: ..:.Jl:i5.";e.Lr~lI!LJ:¡1'¡;ÇC_._- _ _: Jj9.Q. ,! . __~_._ ASI =-l!-ºº..!'dli5If~~V!_ 1.. __. __.:.... ~uu
Jt----. ..~.~~~~~~;~~~~f~_.~1$~~L?{~::.~~~.7-~-:'~.~·u .~. -..~~~~ ---- d_.~~=:t==~~.=~---_h_. -.-- _n~ - -- ----- .J
1.3.3
Airport Fueling
'.
The airport's fueling facilities and fuel flowage volumes afe described in the following paragraphs.
\.3.3.1 Fuel Storage Facilities
Thefe afe a total of five (5) fuel storage tanks on the airfield. Aif Chartef of Florida has three (3) fuel
storage tanks located on its leased property. These storage tanks consist of two (2) i 2.000 gallon fuel
storage tanks for Avgas ¡OOLL and one (I) 12.000 gallon fuel storage tank for Jet A. One (I) of Ihe
Avgas fuel storage tanks is a self·fuelcf. :\11 rud storage tanks are above ground. ." .
Air Center has t\\'O (2) ruel storage tank, ¡",,",.J on liS leased property. These storagctanks consist òf
onc (I) 20.000 gallon!ùcl storage tank :;". \\;'" ~nd onc (I) 20.000 gallon storage tank for Jct l\. All
fuel storage tanks arc abovc ground.
t·14
St. Lucie County International Mrport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter 1
1.3.3.2 Fuel Flowage
Fuel flowage at an airport is expressed as the volume of fuel purchased in gallons by the FBOs from their
suppliefs. Table 1-7a shows the total fuel flowage for the airport. Fuel flowage is shown quarterly rrom
1997 to 2000 fOf comparison purposes. Yearly totals for Avgas and Jet Fuel afe shown in Table 1-7b for
1997 through 2000.
Fuel Flowage
Year Quarter Air Charter ArlBen Air Center Totals
Avgas Jet A Avgas Avgas Jet A Avgas Jet A
1997 1 st Quarter 26,100 17,399 - 142,803 61,201 168,903 78,600
2nd Quarter 26,272 17,516 - 120,408 51,604 146,680 .69,120
3rd Quarter 26,064 17 ,377 - 90,600 38,828 116,664 56,205
4th Quarter 26,363 17,574 - 89,757 38,467 116,120 56,041
1998 1 st Quarter 21,171 14,115 - 131,471 70,792 152,642 84,907
2nd Quarter 20,995 13,997 - 152,521 82,127 173,516 96,127
3rd Quarter 20,857 13,905 - 108,841 56,607 129,698 70,512
4th Quarter 26,012 17,341 - 124,362 66,964 150,374 84,305
1999 1st Quarter 25.758 17 ,172 - 123,799 123,799 149,557 140,971
2nd Quarter 15,668 .12,446 - 128,069 128,069 143,737 140,515
3rd Quarter 25,661 17,107 17,779 85,528 85,528 128.968 1 02 635 -
.. I"Quarter 20,457 13,638 17,527 98,042 98,042 136,026 111,680
2000 1 st Quarte r 36,290 24,194 25,187 100,040 185,789 161,517 . 209,983
2nd Quarter 20,154 13,435 34,607 92,151 171,137 146,912 184,572
3rd Quarter 20,427 13,617 26,252 67,089 124,593 113,768 138,210
4th Quarter 15,446 10.298 34,868 82,654 153,501 132,968 163,799
Table 1-7a
Quarterly Fuel Flowage Amounts (In Gallons)
~ St Lucie County International Airport
Year . . Avgas JetA Total
1997 548,367 259,966 808,333
1998 -c 606,230 335,851 942.081
1999 558.288 495,801 1,054,089
2000 555,165 696,564 1,251.729
Table 1- 7b
Yearly Fuel Flowage of Avgas & Jet A
1.3.4 Public Safet)· Coverage
51. Lucie County provides secunty patrols. emergency medical services. and life-fighting services fOf the
aIrport. 51. Lucie County Fife District has Fire Station #4 located on the east-side tlf the airport access
road and fesponds to any airport emefgencies. if they have not been previously dispatched to another call.
The airport does not have any Airport Rescue and Fife Fighting (ARFF) services as defined by FAA
1-15
.----
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter 1 ----
guidelines. The airport has communication, via radios and direct telephones, between the tower, Central
Dispatch, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Airport Director's office in the event an emergency occurs.
1.4 AIRSPACE STRUCTURE
An Airport Traffic Control Tower was constructed at St. Lucie County International Airport in 1987.
Originally operated as a non-contract tower, the FAA began operating and servicing the tower in 1989.
Currently, the FAA operates and maintains the ATCT. The ATCT is in operation between 7:00 am until
9:00 PM sev~ days a week. The enroute-controlling center at Miami International Airport is responsible
for approach and departure control, and all IFR traffic into and out of St. Lucie County International
Airport.
There are three Military Operations Areas (MOA) about 25 miles to the west of the airport. These MOAs
are Marion, Avon Park, and Basinger. Approximately 70 miles to the west is a Restricted Area (R-2901),
which requires notification and pennission prior to entering.
Aircraft flying through the region or to a neighboring airport usually follow designated transmitter or
beacon air routes known as the Low Altitude Victor Airway system, which are generated by VHF Ornni
Range (VORs). These Victor Airways are eight nautical m\1es wide and are between 1,200 and 18,000
feet in altitude. Exhibit 1-8 from the Miami Sectional Aeronautical Chart, depicts the airspace, Navaids,
frequencies, and aeronautical information, in and around 5t. Lucie County International Airport.
Other Navaids in the area that are used for air navigation include the Melbaume VORJDME and Vero
Beach VORTAC.
Other ublic-use ai orts in the area include: Indiantown Ai ort I àted 7 na tical mi e u w
New Hibiscus Airpark located 12 nautical miles northwest, Okeechobee County Airport located 28
nautical miles west-southwest, Sebastian Municipal Airport located 20 nautical miles north-northwest,
Valkaria Airport located 30 nautical miles north-northwest, Vero Beach Municipal Airport located to
nautical miles north-northwest, and Martin County/Witham Field located 21 nauiical miles south-
southeast.
1.5 ON-AIRPORT LAND USE
The SI. Lucie County Land Development Code, which has been updated in 2000, provides for the
development of public and/or private facilities such as the Airport - TIU TransportationlUtility. The
purpose of this district is to provide appropriate sites for light industrial operations that do not have a
heavy impact on the county utility systems. .
,
1.6 . COMMUNITY INVENTORY
The following paragraphs describe the different aspectS of the community inventory.
1.6.1
OfT-Airport Land Use
.... .~
Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes requifes all local governments to develop compfehensive plans to
"facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of tfanspoftation..... Governments with populations of
50,000 or gfeater afe required to include a Port, Aviatiòn, Of felated facility elements in theif
compfehensive plans.
1-16
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter I
The Florida State Legislature created the Safety and Land Use Compatibility Plan in 2001. This Plan
ensures that Florida's airports have the capability to accommodate aviation demand while maintaining
public safety. The Plan recommends the establishment of compatible land use around airports, and
adequate protection of safety zones around airports. The State Legislation requires these
recommendations be enforced at the County level.
The County has established a Comprehensive Plan that provides long-tenn goals, policies, and needs for
the future of St. Lucie Coùrtty. This plan is divided into individual elements essential to the long-tenn
successful development. The airport is included in this Comprehensive Plan under the fourth element -
Port, Aviation and Related Facilities. Goal 2.7 of the comprehensive plan states ". . . that the purpose of
the airport is to provide airport facilities that are adequate to meet present and future demands and to
operate general aviation facilities in a safe and efficient manner which will maximize ease of movement
of people and goods and minimize conflicts with adjacent land uses and adverse enviranmental impacts."
Adequate protection of safety zones around airports includes keeping those safety zones, including
Runway Protection Zones and Object Runway Free Areas, free and clear of objects. Compatible land use
around airports includes industrial and commercial areas. Examples of incompatible land uses around
airports include residential areas, schools, and chùrches.
1.6.2 Zoning
Off-Airport land-use around St. Lucie County International Airport consists of various different zoning
districts rangingfi'om cammerciaVindustrial to agricultural. These zoning districts are regulated by the
C'ounty's Land Development Code, which dictates the day-to-day requirements necessary for all land use
within the county. Land use within the Town of St. Lucie Village, immediately east of the airport, is
fe ulated b the Town's Com rehensive Plan and Zonin Ofdinance and is rimaril residential. .
East of St. Lucie County International Airport is the Airport Industrial Park, along with other industrial
and residential areas. Neaf the coastline and US I, is the Town of St. Lucie Village and .other
ùnincorporated, mixed residential developments and commercial areas. The Town of St. Lucie Village is
independent from the. County. The County has no jurisdiction over land use and zoning in St. Lucie
Village as well as in the City of Fort Pierce. Every municipality within St. Lucie County has the ability to
control its own land use and zoning.
South'.of St. Lucie CountY International Airport on St. Lucie Boulevard there is some commercial
development. Although the majority of the land immediately south'ofthe airport is undeveloped, the land
further south of St. Lucie County International Airport consists mostly of substantial residential
subdivisions.
. ,
West of St. Lucie County International Airport land uses either consist of agricultural Of undeveloped
propefty. There are some small afeas of Jow-density residential developments along St. Lucie Boulevard.
North of St. Lucie CounlY International Airport is scattefed with residential subdivisions.
.<. .
1.6.3 Height ZlInin¡:
While the FAA dllö ,"'I ,'\~r~lS~ r~gulatoI)' or permitting fun~tions fcgafding structures that might
penetratc navigablè airspa~~. th~ FAA does fely on State and local zoning fcgulations to provide height
and aifspace pfotection. Such regulation around an airport limits encroachment of the Runway protection
zones (RPZs). thus ensuring the safety of the airspace around the airport.
1-17
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory_~_~-
Chapter I
State of Florida Height Zoning regulations are established in Chapter 333 of the Florida Statutes.
Subsection 333.03(1), requires that ·"every political subdivision having an airport hazard afea within its
teITitoriallimits shall, by October I, 1977, adopt, administef, and enforce, under the police power and in
the manner and upon the conditions hereinaftef prescribed, airport zoning regulations' for such airport
hazard areas".
St. Lucie County has developed the Tall Structure Height Planning Guide for St. Lucie County in 1990.
This guide is intended to be used as a tool by developers and government agencies through the site.
development and pennitting process. Much of this document was taken from the 14 CFR Part 77
Obstructions Affecting Navigable Airspace.
1.6.4 Environmental Issues
At most airports, the primary environmental issues relate to aircraft noise, water quality, habitat, and land
use compatibility. St. Lucie County International Airport is no exception. Growth of corporate jet
activity and aircraft training flights as a result of the nation's prosperous economy has resulted in
increased complaints from neighborhoodssulTounding the airport. Airport management is responding to
this development with voluntary procedures, pilot education efforts, and complaint response procedures.
Stonnwater dfainage is the primary water quality issue in Florida. As with any developed afea in the
state, run-off must be controlled and treated through the use of swales and detention areas. Any
development which impacts surface watef on the airport must be pennitted and' approved by the South
Florida Water Management District.· The airport is CUITently in the process of updating the existing
Surface Water Management Plan, and anticipates its completion in 2002.
Land-use "buffef" afeas on and around the airport is part of the analysis that will be undertaken before
finalizing the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The history of St. Lucie County International Airport includes
many such efforts, which will be reflected in the results of this study. Examples are the creation of the
golf course from fonner airport areas, the acquisition of land on the north side of the airPort, and the
Industrial Pafk along the west perimeter of the airport.
1.7 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA
A variety of historical data and socioeconomic tlåta refefencing the St. Lucie County area have been
collected for use fOf various elements of this Master Plan Study. This infonnation is necessary to fonn
part of the basis for identification of projected aircraft activity at the airport. Socioeconomic data
collected include economic, employment, and population data. Socioeconomic data for SI. Lucie County
are presented in the following sections.
\.7.1 Economic Base
Retail, professional services. manufactUl'ing, tourism. and health care sectors are prominent factors in SI.
Lucie County's economy. Agricultufe is also a slgnilieant sector in the St. Lucie COUl]ty .economy. which
include several cattle ranches and large citrus grovc> near the airport. The employment. by industry sector
fOf establishments with payroll and establishments \\'llh no paid employees for $1. Lucie County IS
summafized in Table 1-8.
1-18
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter ¡
NAICS Description All Firms Non-emDlovefs Emolayers
Taxable
code Establish SaIä Establish s.aIä Establish ~
-ments ReceiDts. or -ments . Receipts. or -ments ReceiDts or
Shipments ShiDments ShiDments
(51 000) . ($1.000\ ($1 000\
31-33 ~ 287 548,815 163 6,154 124 542,661
42 ~tr"de 400 W 202 13,852 198 581.483
44-45 Retail trade . 1,757 1.432,786 1,147 ··45,571 610 1,387,215
53 Real estate & rental & leasina 1,128 126,230 950 40,310 178 . 85,920
54 Professional scientific. & 1,642 122,089 1,385 30,479 257 91,610
technical services
56 Admin & waste manaoement 1,147 84,078 675 17 ,925 172 66,153·
& remediatian services
61 Educatianal services 95 5,058 81 1,129 14 3,929
62 Health care & social 970 541,122 610 16,015 360 525,107
assistance
71 Arts. entertainment. & 351 28,165 312 6,327 39 21,838
recreation
72 Accommodation & 366 154,025 121 6,382 245 147,643
foadservices
81 Ç)ther services (except Dublic 1,656 106,894 1,383 32,656 273 74,238
administration\
W: Wholesale Receipts not comparable
Table 1-8
Non-employer I Employer Sec.tor Statistics
In St. Lucie County
Source: 1997 Economic Census
1.7.2 Employment
In December 31,1999, the number of wage and salary jobs in-St. Lucie County was estimated at 69,481
from a total work force of 74,788. Therefore, according to the St. Lucie County Chamber of COmmerce,
the overall unemployment rate in St. Lucie County is at 6.1%, as depicted in Table 1-9. The major
employers in St Lucie County for 2000 are depicted in Table 1-10, with a strong showing of tradesand
service oriented companies being the largest employers.
Estimated Labor Force as of February, 2002 79,409
Total Employed as of February, 2002 74,564
Unemployment Rate as af February, 2002 6.1%
Table 1-9
Employment Information
Source:: St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce
1-19
.--,._---
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory..
Chapter I
~--~--
Company Number of company Number af
Employees . Employees
-
51. Lucie County School 3400 Aegis Comml:Jnications 460
Lawnwood Regional Medical Centef 1400 Walmart 456
. Publix Supermarkets 1260 Indian River Comm. College 446
51. Lucie Caunty (except Sheriff) 1009 Canvergys 421
evc 911 Club MedNillage Hotels of Sandpiper 400
51. Lucie Medical Center 600 New Horizans Health Care 351
Florida Power & Light 790 City of Fort Pierce 350
Winn Dixie Supermarkets 650 BellSouth 350
City òf Port 51. Lucie 535 51. Lucie Caunty Fire District 329
Sheriff's Department 527 Tropicanà 320
. Fort Pierce Utilities Authority 283
Table 1-10
Employment by Company
Top 20 Companies
Source: 51. LucIe Chamber of Commerce/51. Lucie Counl}'
1.7.3 Per Capita Income
. Table 1-11 illustrates the histofical relationship of per capita income between SI. Lucie County, Florida
and the United States. Personal per capita income in SI. Lucie County has consistently been at levels
lower than the national average and lowef than the average for the State of Florida.
1996 .. 1997 . 1998 1999
St. Lucie County 19,399 20,485 21,486 22,189
Florida 23,834 25,645 26,159 27,781
United States $24,651 . $25,924 $26,909 $28,546
Table 1-11
Personal Per Capita IncQme Comparison
Source: Florida Statistical Abstract 2000 & U. S. Dept. of Commerce 2001
1.7.4 population
Information on population was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. SI. Lucie County has experienced
ste~dy growth in theif population in the last decade. FOf example, the County's population was 152,451 in
1990 and 192,695 in 2000. This translates to an annual increase of approximately 2.52 percent in
population growth. With an 8.4% increase in population in 1999 calculating into almost 16,000 new
residents, 51. Lucie County is growing fastef than ever. Refef to Figure 1-1.
The t\~O largest segments of this population growth include persons between 15 - 44 years of age and 45
_ 65 years of age. Indicating a balance shift of persons of the working age with families moving into the
County giving 51. Lucie County residents an average age of 40.46 years old in 2001.
1-20
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory
Chapter J
Figure 1-1
St. Lucie County
population & Growth Statistics
200.000
180.000
160,000
140.000
c:
o 120.000
1i
'S 100.000
~ 80.000
IL 60.000
40,000
20,000
o
. St. Lucie
County
population
1970
1960
1990
1996
1999
2000
Year
In 1997, the Bureau of the CensuS reported the County's population at 177,446. In 2000, the County's
population was repo¡1ed at 192,695. The population is subject to some seasonal fluctuations: As depicted
in Table 1-12, the population growth in the last 10 years for St. Lucie County has stayed below the
aggressive Florida-wide population growth by 4.08% but has showed a steady increase each year.
Table 1 12
population Growth 1990-2010
Year SI. Lucie County Florida
'.
1990 152.451 12,937,926
1991 157,065 13,195,952
..
1992 161,013 13,424,416 .
1993 164,013 13,608,627
1994 168,i'T4 13,878,905
1995 171,207 14,149,317
1997 171,446 14,712.922.
2000 192.695 15,512,940
2010' 237,700 17,927.835
Annual Percent 2.52% 6.6%
Chango
~ourcr: population Eslnnates Pn.')!ïJ.nt. Pupulallon DI\'1510n. U.S. Census Bureau.
" Washington. OC
1.8 CLIMATE
Weather conditions. innuence operational capacity and capital development of an airport. FOf example,
temperature is an important factof in detem1ining funway length required for aircraft operations. Wind
speed and difection determine operational flow chafacteristics. The pefcentage of time when visibility is
impaired due to cloud coverage is a major factor in determining the use of instrument approach aids.
t-21
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Inventory --
Chapter I
The climate of St. Lucie County is best described as being humid subtropical. It is affected by prevailing
northeast winds in the fall and winter months, and southeast winds in the spring and summer. For AIl-
Weather and IFR Wind Rose Tabulations, please see Exhibit 1-C and Exhibit I-D. Average annual
precipitation is 64 inches, with 50% of the precipitation occurring in June, July and August. The mean
annual temperature is 73.2 degrees Fahrenheit, with a spread of 16.7 degrees Fahrenheit in both the winter
and summer. St. Lucie County has an average temperature of 89.9 degrees in the peak of summer and an
average temperature of 56.5 degrees in the peak of winter. This weather infonnation was obtained from
the National Climatic Data Center.
For this Master Plan, the most current wind data was ordered for the most closely located station to the St.
Lucie County International Airport, which is located in St. Lucie County. As depicted on the Wind Rose
Exhibits, the maintenance of two (2) runways allaws the airport to operate in crosswind weather
conditions more than 95% of the time: ' .
1.9 SUMMARY
The information presented and discussed on the previous 'pages provides a foundation upon which the
remaining elements of the master planning process wi\1 be constructed. The information on general
aviation facilities and tenant utilization of the airport, in conjunction with additional analyses and data
collection such as, socioeconomic factors, wi\1 serve as the basis for the development of forecasts of
aviation activity. This information wi\1, in turn, provide guidance. to the assessment of aviation facilities
needed to meet the needs of the St. Lucie County International Airport, the Regional Airport System, and
National Airport System.
1-22
....
w,:", "'\;
If.. 'è.,
~, "':¡~ i~
~ '''';"¡.-
. 1.
co
..1
i
-j
i
~
-+-
\. i
'- -j
.' " ,
..'
?, -J
i
J
,
\
.. l.-
I
,
-,
i
T
,
J
ì
1
~
'1
.1-L-l.-:.-L,~--L..J~
J
WARN
W-49
;~¡~ -f.;·~\:;,~··£J-
t
\ .
. &
0... .
t ~ 12'.111 "'O-T:"C 122.35
~.. P.AHOKU
115.4 n",ot 'HKU"H:"
l..MI4M1:......
~"
'jlo'i¡~t
TenriinìlJ
,
.",
o
o
CO
ì
,
51. Lucie International Airport
Airport Master Plan
MIAMI SECTIONAL
AERONAUTICAL CHART
.'
Exhibit
1-8
IFR.WEATHER WIND ROSEl
/,
(, ,
-<.. / ~
~~/
:/
N
'\.
'180
S
WIND DATA SUMMARY
Qossw ind ColTf>onent R 14-32 R 9-27 R14-32 & R9-27
(Knots) Corrbined
10.5 90.21% 91.17% 96.73%
13.0 94.84% 95.18% 98.55%
16.0 98.16% 99.35% 99.70%
Sfollon; Ft. PIerce - Sf. lucJe " 72210
Sauce: National Clmatlc DolO Cenlel/Nallona1 Oceanic and Alrnosphenc Admnlslrallon
Feriod of Observation: 1989 - 1998
ObseNQtions: 37,909
st. Lucie International Airport
Airport Master Plan
IFR WEATHER WIND ROSE
Exhibit
1-C
I ALL WEATHER WIND ROSE ,
, .
N
360
"
/
180
S
WIND DATA SUMMARY
CrOSS!" Ind Co""onent R 14-32 R 9-27 R14-32 & fl9.27
Knots Corräned
10.5 90.56% 94.11% 98.01%
13.0 94.30% 97.16% 99.46%
16.0 98.61% 99.32% 99.93%
. .,. .
5Iallon: Ft. Pierce - 51. lucie # 7221 a
SOllee: NafIonaI ClImoIIc Data CenterINatlona! Oceanic and Atmospherlc Administration
Fl>rIod of Observation: 1989 -1998
Oboervattons: 38.034
st. Lucie International Airport
Airport Master Plan
ALL WEATHER WINDROSE
Exhibit
1-D
Chapter 2
St. Lucie County International Airport
AirDort Master Plan
Aviation ForeC;lsts___
Chanter 2
Chapter Two: Aviation Forecasts
2.0 GENERAL
This Chapter presents projections of aviation activity at the St. Lucie County International Airport fof.
three future time periods: years 2005, 2010, and 2020. These ¡¡me periods repfesent the short-,
intermediate-, and long-term planning period for the development of the Airport in this Airpart Master
Plan (AMP). The aviation forecasts wefe developed based on historical data from the early 1980s
through 2000.
The purpose of this Chaptef is to establish and pfesent the fOfeca~ted aviation activity. The f~recasts
serve as the basis fOf planning the facilities needed to meet the area's aviation demand. These forecasts
will replace the projections presented in the 1993 Master Plan Update.
To adequately determine the types and sizes of facilities needed, fOfecasts for different elements afe
necessary. These elements are as follows:
o Based Aircraft
o Aircraft Operations
· Total
· Local/Itinerant
· Military
· III.>t1ulllcüt
o Fuel Flowage
· Avgas (IOOLL)
· Jet-A
.2.0.1 Unconstrained Forecasts and Controlled Growth
Forecasts are only estimates of future activity levels. The numbefsprojected for each of thé' categories
above are I1QJ a policy statement as to the level of activity that s'hòuld be at the Airport. The projections
afe estimates of futufe activity based on indicators such as population growth, income growth, etc., that
histofically track closely with aviation activity.
In these forecasts, a close correlation to the FAA's national forecasts fOf general aviation and ATCT data
were used. The FAA bases their forecasts on thc same kind of indicators. The forecasts arc
. unconstrained, meaning that no limiting influences arc applied. The activity levels are an unconstrained
estimate of the total demand within the Airport's market. The identification of the unconstrained demand
is the tìfst step in developing a facility plan for the Airport.
,. ..
Facility requircmenls to service thc unconstraincd d,'m,md ar,' subscqucntly calculalcd and thcir impact
analyzed. Allhal point. consideratIon can be g,wn 1<1 !Illlu"nclIlg thc demand growth through thc typcs
of facilitics that arc. or arc not. de\·eloped. ßy analYlIng Ij,,· unconslfained developmcnt tirsl. all partlcs
can see what the cffects will bc of any' controls.
2-1
-------~_.
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoort Master Plan
Aviation Forecasts
~----
Chanter 2
Future development at the Airport will build on the existing facilities, agreements and policies that have
been developed over the almost seventy yeafs of Airport operations. The runway configuration, seI'Vice
facilities and operating agreements in place have established a base fOf current activity levels. Policies
such as the voluntary touch and go limitations, Of the FBO lease agreements, will have an effect on future
levels. The Mastef Plan elements subsequent to these fOfecasts undertake this pfocess of analysis and
selection.
2.1 BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST
, .
Priof to generating the forecast, all available historical based aircfaft infonnation was collected and
reviewed. .The infonnation obtained from each of these sources is outliried in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
St.,Lucie County International Airport
Historical Based Aircraft Information
Yeaf FAA Terminal
Area Forecast
1980 100
1985 161
1990 172
1995 131
1996 119
II ~7 -, 10
1998 119
1999 147
2000 174
Typically, based aifcraft information is more accufate than other airpoft activity measures, such as annual
opefations. This is because the number of based aifcfaft is easier to track than daily aircraft operations.
Howevef, it is still common to have differen't feports of based aircraft, depending on the source.
Discussions with Fixed Based Opefators indicate that the activity at the Airport does not show high
seasonal variations, except for aircraft training periods.
,The infom1ation reported in the 1993 AMPU for 1980 - 1993, and reported by Airport Management and
the FBOs for the subsequenl years 1993 - 2000 are believed to be the most reliable sources of historical
information since they wefe obtained directly Jrom Airport fecords. These based aircraft counts were
used a. the historical based aircraft data for the lòrecast.
With. the ,fecent arrival of Pan 1\01 International Flight Academy to St. Lucie County International
Aill'0rt. the Airport has seen a signiliÒnt increase in based aircraft. Since Pan Am arrived in 1999. they
h3\ e ;¡dded J I aircrafl. In the ,hurt term. Pan Am is expecting to top out with 75 aircraft. An increase of
.¡.¡ aircraft Irom Pan Am. pills the nl11111al growth to SI. Lucie County International Airport is expected to
lake pia" 111 a shon penod of 11I11e. Su,h;¡ change only occurs with thc arrival of an additional night
"h"ol. sud1 as Pan Am. or a Fixed Bascd Operator. After discussIons with the Airport DircCIOr, no
additional changes of lhls size were pre,!i.:led in the near future. In order- to. accol11modate lor ¡hi. qriet'
increase. all of the fÓrecasting methods must have a signiJicant increase in the lirst two years and then
2-2
"----
St. Lucie County International Airport
AirDòrt Master Plan
Aviation Forecasts
ChaDler 2
level off accordingly. To do this, the forecasts will begin with the most current number of based aircfaft,
being 181. FOf the years 2002 and 2003, 24 aircraft will be added each year. This was determined by the
initial increase rrom Pan Am and continuing the nonnal growth of the airport. For all the forecasts
determined, the number of based aifcfaft for the years 2002 and 2003 will be 205 and 229 respectively.
2.1.1 FAA Aviation Forecast - Based Aircraft
Each year the FAA develops and publishes its n!\tional aviation forecast. This forecast looks at all
segments of aviation including commercial, air taxi, general aviation, and air cargo. In March of 2000,
the FAA published its current edition of this fOfecast (FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2000-
2011).
The FAA's general aviation forecast was developed through review of historical trends. The FAA
describes a turnaround in the genefal aviation industry attributed to the U.S. economic expansion that
began in 1993 and the passage of the General Ayiation Revitalization Act in 1994. In support of that
statement, they report that the general aviation fleet and activity have increased annually since 1994.
General aviation shipments and billings have more than doubled since 1994, with shipments of 928
aifcraft in 1994 increasing to 2,220 aircraft in 1998. This is an increase of almost 140%. During the first
three quarters of 1999, shipments wefe ·up an additional 13.4 %.
In 1999, opefations at FAA and Contract Air Traffic·Conti'ol Tower (ATCn Airports were up 5.2 %.
This is the third consecutive year that general aviation activity has increased at Air Traffic Control (A TC)
facilities. Instrument operations have also increased 15.5 % in the last three yeafS. The FAA also reported
increases' in fecreational and instructional flying, the number of active pilots, and for the thifd consecutive
year. the number of active student pilots All elements of aviation activitÿ are on the rise
The FAA projects this growth trend to continue, with the active general .aviation fleet projected to
increase at an average annual growth rate of 0.9 % until 20 II. Business use of general aviation aircraft is
c:xpected to grow at a more rapid pace than personal use due to continued growth in rractionaI ownership
programs. This expected growth in business use is reflected in the FAA's fleet mix forecast. They expect
the turbine-powered fleet to grow at a rate four times that of the piston engine fleet. The FAA's
projections fOf fleet mix growth are shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2
FAA Fleet Mix Growth Projections
Aircraft Type . FAA Projected Growth Rate from
years 2000-2011
SE Piston 1.7%
ME Piston 0.3%
TurboProp 1.2%
Jet 7.6%
Rotor . 2.5%
~; FAA Aerospace Forecasts. FIscal Yeafs 2000-2011.
For long-tcrm planning purposes. thc FAA also publishcd ¡hc FAA's Lmig-Rallge Aem.lpaœ FUI'ecasls.
Fiscal )'"al'.\· JO I I -JOJO. These proJcctions are one year older than the short-tern, projections contained
in FAA Ai.'I'ospaœ FOl'"ca.\·/'( Fis'wl Years JOIJO-JO/l.. However, due to thc long-term nature of these
projections, they are still valid.
2-3 .
----
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoort Master Plan
Aviation Forecasts--
ChaDter 2
The FAA projects that the overall general aviation fleet will continue to increase at an average annual
growth rate of 0.8 % in the long-term planning pefiod. Piston engine fixed wing aircraft afeprojected to
increase at an average annual growth rate of 0.8%, while turbine powered aircraft are expected to incfease
at an avefage annual growth fate of 2.0"10. The long range forecast does not provide projections for
rotorcfaft. Thefefore, the FAA's short-term projections fOf rotorcraft were extrapolated through 2020.
The FAA's short-term and long-term projected growth rates, as outlined above, were applied to the 2000
based aircraft fleet. The resuiting fOfecast is shown in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3
St. Lucie County International Airport
FAA Fleet Mix Projections
Year SE ME Jet HE Total
2001 129 44 5 3 181
2002 147 49 5 4 205
2003 165 54 6 4 229
2004 168 54 6 4 232
2005 171 54 7 4 236
2010 186 55 10 5 256
2015 .195 57 12 5 269
2020 203 59 13 6 281
!Y2tn:
Fon:cast developed based on FAA nee! mi:t projections as published in FAA
A..rncp~"" ~nr..,.,u c. ~;."ilJ V",n... 1nnn "J/ 1 fiord P..4. L.pqg RR''f1l illr.ørpRct!
Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1000-1020.
2.1.2 The Florida Aviation System Plan - Based Aircraft
The Florida Aviation System Plan (FASP) is a broad bluepfint that guides the development of Flofida's
103 publicly owned Airports. The FASP is necessary to enSUfe that Florida's airports will work together
effectively as a statewide tfansportation system, pfovide a link to the global air transportation system, and
effectively interface with regional transportation systems.
. .
The statewide system of Airports is important to the quality of life and economic well being of Florida's
citizens.' The Florida Department of Transportation and the Fedefa1 Aviation Administration developed
the Continuing Flofida Aviation System Planning Process (CF ASPP) to maintain and enhance Florida's
aviation system. The purpose of the CF ASPP is to develoþ the . most cost-effective ZO-year F ASP
possible, to justify public funding for Airports, and to direct funding to the Airports that need it most.
The latest version of the F ASP (years 1992 to 20 I 0) was based on historical data collectcd up to. and
including 1991. An update of the I'ASP is ongoing and is expected to be published in June of ~OO 1. Thc
data used in the development of the FASP fOfeeasts is not as c'uITent as the data used in Ih,' F..\,.\'s
forecasts. However. the ClllTent FASP ';,'a5 rC"iewed as part of this sludy 10 dctemline the elllH'm ,,,lldlly
l)f its lindings. .
In the FASP. the FDOT proJecled that hased airerali '" St. Lucie County Internali"n," .'\Irl'nn \\"uld
merease 54%, by 2010. increasing frol11 172 in 1990 10 265 in 20 10. This \\"15 del~rl11ineJ hy ~n Il1er~"SC
01'48 bused"aircraft from 2002 to 2003. with iJn average annual rate of 2. I I}';,. Unoer this mcthnJulogy. it
2-4
St Lucie County International Airport
Airvort Master Plan
Aviation ForecastS-_~.___
ChaDter 2
is assumed that the number of based aifcraft at the Airport will continue to increase. Table 2-4 shows the
forecast:
Table 2-4
St. Lucie County International Airport
F ASP Based Aircraft Forecast
Year Based AIII/ual
Aircraft Growt" Rate
2005 239 2.1%
2010 265 2.1%
- .
2020 326 2.1%
2.1.3 Multiple Regression Analysis - Socioecononlic Variables (Population) and Based Aircraft
This socioeconomic methodology is a multiple regression analysis using time and population as the
independent variables. It is similaf to the methodology used in the 1993 51. Lucie County International
Airpoft Master Plan Analysis. This analysis determined a 2.5% forecast fate, and is presented in Table
2-5.
Table 2-5
St. Lucie County International Airport .
Multiple Regression Analysis - Population, Based Aircraft, & Linear Regression
;:)(. Lucie ;:)(. LUCie
County Based Years County Multiple Linear
Year Population Aircraft Continued Population Regression Regression
'1990 152,451 172 2001 195,605 181 181
1991 157,065 168 2002 . 200,534 205 205
1992 161,013 169 2003 205,588 229 229
1993 164,721 169 2004 210,769 235 230
1994 168,774 169 2005 216,080 241 231
1995 171,207 131 2010 244,718 272 237
,
1996 174,392 119 2020 .313,865 348 248
1997 177,446 119
1998 179,360 119 ,
1999 181,850 147 . .
2000 190,797 174
Bold = ¡\-IP forecast planning years
I. Actual & Proj~c(cd population rcpo'1cd by th~ Pl}pul;JIIOn ES1imarcs Program, Population Division. C'.S.
Census Bureau, W¡Jshinglon. D.C. (1990-ltJY'J & Ourcau or Economic & Business Research. Vnin:rsity of
Florida
., AClual ßased A¡reran Count. h,'fer 10 Table 1·' \'''¡ 1I~ h,'pon
.'\. Ih:'iloricJI b;Jscd ;.lircr;.¡li h;,t~C'd 011 ¡he T:\F r~'I~tP!
<. '.
In th~ sl)¡;iocconomic multiple reg:rL~SSHm analysis. Ih~' ..-¡;~7-;':~;~:¡11I1 \\'JS di.:tc-nnined to b~ rclati\'~'ly II1¡:X;lt:t.
This ;nex3et eon'el3tion between b3SCÙ a",:r31i 3nd pllpUbli\1l1 is c\'Idem in the trends of the last ten years.
Dunng 1990-2000. the populalion III St. LUêlC Cllumy steaddy grew from 152,451 10 190. ì<J7
respectively; an mcrease of approXImately 2.5%, annually. However. the number of based aIrcraft at the
, :
----.--
St. Lucie County International Airport
AirDort Master Plan
Aviation Forecasts----
ChaDter 2
Airport has been randomly rising and falling, currently peaking at 181 in 2001. Nonnally this
methodology would not be considefed, but after discussions with the Mastef Plan' Study Group (MSPG) it
was detennined to be the preferred fOfecasting method. This detennination was due to the high percent
yield that the multiple regfession gave.
The fOfecasts displayed in Figure 2-1 show a significant difference in the number of based aircraft
between the Multiple Regression and the Linear Regression Forecast. The Multiple Regression Forecast
detennined that thefe would be 348 based aircraft in 2020, while the Linear Regression FOfecast predicted
that thefe would be 248 based aifCfaft in 2020. These two fOfecasts wefe detennined on historical
infomlation from 1990 to 2000.
Figure 2-1
St. Lucie County International Airport
Based Aircraft Forecast Comparison
Between Multiple & Linear Regression
;:::
III
...
,t.)
...
ë{
'C
Q
1/1
III
\:) ~ 'b [1.-"'-" ~!b '\. 'ò-"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v
, , , , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Year
.-.-- .-......-.--.....-------.- .
-.--..--....-. _.__._.......~.---_.-
2.1.4 Based Aircraft Forecast Summary
i
I
I
I
The fOfecast based on the Multiple Regression projections was selected as the preferred forecåst for this
study. The sections below descfibe the feasons fOf selecting this forecast.
Table 2-6
St. Lucie Count)· International Airport
Based Aircraft Forecast Comparisons
Year , FAA FASP Multiple
I Projection Projection Regression
2001 I 181 181 181
, 2002 I 205 205 205
, 2003 229 , 229 229
_....._-- :!y:! 234 235
2004
-200S----· :!3(, 239 241
-2010 -.-.---- 2:,() 265 272 I
2020 ---.--- 2~1 , 326 348 I
,---.
,
1-6
----,-.-
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Aviation Forecasb
Chanter 2
Figure 2-2
St. Lucie County International Airport
Based Aircraft Forecast
The growth rates based on the FAA Fleet Mix forecast were discounted, because the MPSG understood
this methodology to be significantly lower than the actual operational growth of the airport. Since the.
l'AA l'Jeet MIX l'orecast IS determmed on a nalIonallevel, the MPSU lell that the State 01 Flonda, and
specifically 51. Lucie County, has a larger number of flight schools and ideal weather all year round.
Therefore, giving the airport a higher' level of growth than the national trend.
The forecast developed based on the FASP growth rate, projected growth level of ovef 16% above the
national trends over the 20-year time frame of the study_ This would normally suit most General Aviation
(GA) Airports adequately, but with the arrival of the Pan Am International Flight School and the recent
trends at SI. Lucie County International Airport, this method was seen as too moderate. For these
reasons, the FASP forecasting methodology was discounted by the MPSG. .
The forecast developed based on a Multiple Regression Analysis projected a growth level of over 23%
above the national trends ovef the 20-year timefÌ'ame of the fOfecasting study. The trend at St. Lucie
County International Airport ovef the last 10 years has been relatively conservative, but with the arrival of
Pan Am and the large increase in the demand for pilots the MPSG opted fOf a higher growth rate. With
an average annual growth fate of 2.5%, it was determined that the Multiple Regression Analysis was the
preferred forecasting methodology considering the dfamatic growth rate within the county.
2.2 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
AVIation activity recofds were gathered for the development of the annual operations forecast as shown in
Table 2-8. There were several sources of contlicting data. but the TAF report was deemed most reltable.
The annu31 operations forecast percentages for each of the methodologies are shown in Table 2-7.
2-7
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoort Master Plan
Aviation Forecasts------·
Chaoter 2
Table 2-7
St. Lucie County International Airport
Forecast % Comparisons
Multiple
FAA Fleet Mix FDOT-FASP Regression
See Table 2-10,
2-11 2.1% 2.5%
Accofding to the Airpoft Traffic Control Tower recofds, the percentage of aircraft training "touch &go's"
have remained at a constant level for the last ten years. Approximately fifty pefcent (50%) of all the
airport's aircraft operations afe made up of aircraft flight training. This aifcraft activity is classified as
"Local" General Aviation operations, even though aifcraft flight-training schools from other airports
perform operations at St. Lucie County International Airport. It is also important to note that the
operational numbers Iltilized are actual daytime FAA Tower hour numbers. Since the Towef is open ITom
7 AM to 9 PM daily, there may be a percentage of opefations that are not taken into account. Since a vast
majority of operations occur during Tower houfs, there is no accurate means of obtaining an exact.
nighttime operations number, and in light of the fact that current operational numbers are significant, the
MPSG felt that it was unnecessary to modify this data to include nighttime operations.
Aircraft training opefations can be expected to increase dramatically due to the development of the new
Pan Am Flight School. In the past year, this company has brought 31. additional training aircraft into St.
Lucie County International Airport. Aircraft operations are currently at 186,000, or 81% of the airport's
current"capacity. For the forecasts developed, it is being assumed that Pan Am will feach its capacity of
75 training aircraft within approxim3tPly tñp nf'!xt two yp:;¡rc:. It UI~C: ("~lrlll~tpti th~t o~e (1) Pan Âm
training aircraft will equal 986 operations, with Pan Am anticipating the arrival of 44 more aircraft within
the next two yeafs, operations are expected to· increase by 43,387. This amount of operations was
calculated into all of the forecasting methods'to show the most realistic forecast possible. Although this
percentage is not at the 80% level where the FAA recommends capacity enhancements, thefe afe many
times throughout the year that the airport cannot handle these operational demands. At these times,
aircraft afe forced by the A TCT to operate at alternative airport locations. The issues of Facility Needs &
Demand Capacity will be discussed in Chapter 3. Refer to Table 2-8 and Figure 2-3 for the airport's
historical operational data.
.. ,
2-8
St. Lucie County International Airport
Air:port Master Plan
Aviation Foreeasts
Chal1ter 2
Table 2-8
St. Lucie County International Airport
Historical FAA Terminal Area Forecasts of Aircraft Operations
Itinerant Operations local Operations Total"
Year Air Taxi GA Military GA Military
1988 1,071 66,000 100 120,000 0 187,171
1989 3,161 78,189 559 115,744 0 197,653
1990 2,094 57,699 100 135,722 6 195,621
1991 3,052 58,022 159 115,602 29 176,864
1992 2,075 69,441 211 85,131 16 156,874
1993 . 2,307 81,490 165 89,328 4 173,294
1994 2,540 77,484 277 73,535 64 153,900
1995 2,350 75,886 94 71,554 2 149,886
1996 2,210 64,449 34 68,531 2 135,226
1997 1,545 72,554 359 69,614 0 144,072
1998 1,503 71,974 40 70,876 0 144.393
1999 1,477 71,974 133 73,656 29 155,461
2000 1,349 88,430 180 83,969 29 173,957
Average %
arTotal 0.78% 50.83% 0.10% 48.27% 0.02% 100%
Ops
Total
, Percentaoe 51.71% 48.29% 1 00%
Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast
Data is actual FAA Tower Hour (7 AM to 9 PM) only
Figure 2-3
St. Lucie County International Airport
Historical FAA Terminal Area Forecasts of Aircraft Operations
~~!:;., ~.o ,0 oo:.~:;
z 130.0.0~·
...o,,'b'b ...#
g¡'\o g¡~ g¡'O n.o,,'b
...~ ...q¡ ...~ .......
Year
'\or#'
---------.-.----.,..----..--.-
.. .-.---._-'.
-------,...--....
2-9
--.-
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
A viationForecasts--
ChaDter 2
Table 2-9
St. Lucie County International Airport
Forecasted Aircraft Operations.
FAA Fleet Mix FASP Multiple
Regression
Total Total
2.1"10 2.5"10
Year SE ME TP JET HE Total Annual Annual
Increase Increase
2001 137,640 11,160 20,460 7,455 9,316 18ß,031 186,031 186,031"
2002 153,693 12,462- 22,846 8,324 10,402 207,726 207,726 207,726"
2003 169,746 13,763 25,233 9,193 11 ,488 229,423 229,423 229,423
2004 172,632 13,804 25,536 9,891 11,776 233,639 234,242 235,160
2005 175,566 13,846 25,842 10,643 12,071 237,968 239,162 241,040
2006 178,551 13,887 26,152 11,450 12,373 242,413 244,185 247,066
2007 181,586 13,929 26,466 12,320 12,682 246;983 249,313 253,242
2008 184,673 13,971 26,784 13,255 12,999 251,682 254,550 259,574
2009 187,813 14,013 27,105 14,261 13,325 256,517 259,895 266,064
2010 191,006 14,055 27,430 15,344 13,657 261 ,492 265,353 272,715
2011 194,253 14,097 27,760 16,509 13,999 266,618 270,926 . 279,533
2012 196,584 14,266 28,093 16,708 14,167 269,818 276,615 286,521
2013 198,943 14,437 28,430 16,909 14,337 273,056 282,42-5 293,685
')MA ')n1 ':I':In 1A <=:11 ')" 771· 1711') 1" "in
, ,
2015 203,746 14,786 29,116 17,318 14,684 279,650 294,411 308,552
2016 206,191 14,963 29,466 17,525 14,861 283,006 300,594 316,265
2017 208,666 15,143 29,819 17,763 15,039 286,403 306,906 324,172
2018 211,170 15,325 .30,177 17,950 15,220 289,842 313,352 332,277
2019 213,704 15,509 30,539 18,165 15,403 293,320 319,932 340,583
2020 216,268 15,695 30,906 18,383 15,588 296,840 326,651 349,097
. - Years 2001 & 2002 are calculaled uSing antlclpaled growth of44 based aircraft & 43,,387 operatIons
2.2.1 FAA Aviation Operations forecast
In addition to providing fOfecasts of the genefal aviation fleet, the FAA develops aviation activity
projections in their publications FAA Aerospace Foreemts Fi.l'eal Years 2000-2011, and FAA Long-Range
Aerospace Forecast.' Fiscal Year.' 2010-2025.
As discussed in Seclion 1.3.1. FAA Fleet Mix Fo/'eea.çt, the FAA has repofted increases in general
aviation active neel O\'Cr the past ten years, with significant increases in the general aviation active fleet
since 1994. .
For the period e\I"mh,,),! ("'111 1990 through 1998. aeti\'lly ~t lOwered Airports increased at an avcfage
annual gro\\·th "11,' ,,:'/1 'I"". .\hhou),!h complele d~l~ w~s nol ~\'albblc for i999, Ihe FAA reported that
operations al low",,'d ..\ll'pOrIS were up 5.2%.. wilh itincront and local operations up 4.3% and 5.6%
rcspectively. 1999 is Ihe third conseculÌve year of increases al lowered facilities. wilh a 13.4% incrcase
l'or the three-ye~f period extending from 1997-1999.
2-10
------,-
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoort Master Plan .
Aviation Forecasts-·-
Chaoter 2
Another important factor in the growth of annual operations is'the number of general aviation and student
pilots. 1999 mafked the second consecutive yeaf of an increase in the total number of active licensed
pilots, and the third consecutive year of an increase in active student pilots. The FAA reports that this
. increase in active pilots will be one of the key factofs impacting the growth of the general aviation
industry.
The FAA projects that general aviation aircraft hours flown will increase at almost 2.7% annually until
201 I, with turbojet activity showing the most significant increases. The FAA's projections for aircfaft
utilization are shown in Table 2-10.
In the FAA publication, FAA Long-Range Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 20.15,2020 and 2025, the
FAA projects that aftef 20 II general aviation operations will continue to grow at an annual rate of 1.2%.
Howevef, in this publication (Long-Range Forecasts), the FAA does not identifY the projected growth
levels by aircraft type.
Table 2-10
FAA Projected Aircraft Utilization Growth
Average
Aircraft Type Annual Growth
Rate 1999-2011
SE 1.7%
ME 0.3%
'TP 1.2%
0 "
Rotor 2.5%
Source: FAA Aerospac~ Forecasts.
Fiscal Vears 2000-2011
The level of activity conducted by each type of aifcraft opefating at the Airport was determined fo.r the
Integrated Noise Model (INM), which is discussed in Environmental Overview Chapter. The INM does
not model helicoptef activity. Thefefore, the operational percentages that wefe used in the INM do not
account fOf helicopter activity.
Table 2-11
Fleet Mix - Percent of Annual Operations
Aircraft Type Percentage of Total
Annual Operations
SE 74%
ME . 6%
TP 11%
Jet 4%
HE 5%
Total 100%.
," '.
The pereelllages sh.,wnlI1 Table 2-10 were applied to the current annual operations in 2001 for caeh type
oi'airaali. The II1ne'lse III operations by Pan Ani were accounted fOf and taken into effect over the years
2002 and 2003. The FAA's average annual growth rates f~r each type ofaifcfati for 2000 through 2011
were applied to the 2001 annual operations total to project annual operations through 2011. The FAA's
2-11
St. Lucie County International Airport
AirDort Master Plan
A viatioD Forecasts---------
ChaDter 2
long-range projection of 1.2% average annual growth was applied to the 2011 projected opefations for
each aircraft type to fOfecast the activity level through 2020. The resultant operations projection is shown
in Table 2-12.
Table 2-12
St. Lucie County International Airport
FAA-Based Annual Operations Forecast by Fleet Mix
Year SE ME TP Jet HE Total
2001 137,640 11,160 20,460 7,455 9,316 186,031 *
2005 175,566 13,846 25,842 10,643 12,071 . 237,968
2010 191,006 14,055 27,430 15,344 13,657 261,492
2020 216,268 15,695 30,906 18,383 15,588 296,840
. .
. . Years 200 I & 2002 are calculated usmg antIcipated growth of 44 based aircraft & 43,387 operatIons
2.2.2 Florida Aviation System Plan - Annual Operations
The F ASP forecasting method projected that annual opefations at SI. Lucie County International Airport
would increase by 40.6% from the level of 186,031 in 200 I to 265,353 annual operations by 2010. The
initial incfease in opefations was detennined to increase 43,387 operations in 2002 - 2003 and an average
annual growth rate of apProximately 2. I %. Prior to the development of the F ASP forecast prepafed in
2001, the Airport has experienced sevefal ups and downs in annual operations.
The F ASP projected that the annual ope fat ions at SI. Lucie County International Airport would grow at
rates significantly above that of current national projections. The F ASP forecast was developed prior to
the turnaround that occurred in the aviation industry aftef 1'994. Even with the growth that has occurred
in the aviation industry as a whole, the annual operations that have occurred have been significantly less
than w~s projected in the F ASP forecast.
Continuation of the FASP's projected growth fates from 2000 to 2010 results in a projected activity leve]
of 265,353 annual operations by 2010. This is a projected increase of over 42% from the 2001 activity
level. Further projections of that growth rate to 2020 result in a fOfecast that is in excess of 75% above
the 2001 activity level of326,651 annual opefations. This fOfecast is shown in Table 2-13.
Table 2-13 "
St. Lucie County International Airport
FASP Annual Operations Forecast
Annual
Year Operations
2001 186,031
2005 239,162
2010· 265,353
2020 326,651
2.2.3 :\Iultiple Regressiun - Annual Operatiunsand Sucioeconomic Variables (I'opnlati,-!n)
In Section 2.1.3.. A/ifIll/lIe Regression .- Based ,·Iirend; aJ/{1 Soc:Îoecollomic.: (Pupulatiofl), it was
determined that an inexact cOI1'elollOl1 exists between the St. Lucie County population and thc number of
2-11
St. Lucie County International Airport
AirDort Master Plan
Aviation Forecast~______
ChaDter 2
based aircfaft at SI. Lucie County International Airport. An additional analysis was conducted to
detennine if there is a correlation with the 51. Lucie County population and the total annual operations.
For this methodology, the evaluation feveals only slight correlation, because of the significant fluctuation
in the annual opefations while population was growing at a steady rate. However, after discussions with
the Master Plan Study Group (MPSG), it was determined that the multiple fegression analysis with the
average annual incfease of 2.5% was the best means of forecasting. Table 2-14 depicts the annual
aifcraft operations fOfecast based on population projection.
Table 2-14
St. Lucie County International Airport
Population Analysis - Annual Operations Forecast
Annual
Year Population Operations
2001 195,605 186,031
2005 216,080 241,040
2010 244,718 272,715
2020 313,865 349,097
I. Estimated population provided By: Populati9" Estimates Program,
Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.
2. Proj~ct~d population d~v~lop~d by HT A by ~xt~nding th~ growth
trend of the U.S. Census Bureau
2.2.4 Annual Operations Forecast Summary
The annual operations projections afe summarized in Table 2-15 and the historical and forecasted
operations are depièted in Figure 2-4. Again, the Multiple Regression Analysis fOfecast was selected as
the preferred forecast for this study, fOf reasons outlined in the sections below.
Table 2-15
St. Lucie County International Airport
Annual Operations Forecast Summary
, Multiple
Year FAA FASP Regression
2001 186,031 186,031 186,031'
~005 237,968 239,162 241,040
2010 261.492 265,353 272,715
2020 296,840 326,651 349,097
. - Years 200 I & 1002 arc calculated usmg ::mllclp:ucd growth of 4.t
based aircraft & 43)87 operations
Mu'ltî¡Jlë Regression projected the highest le\'el of growlh. well above the f AA's nall"Il'" prni<'ct;"ns and
Ihe prÖJeetìons de\'eloped using Ihe most reeentlrends al 51. Lucie County Internatl""ai .\Ir¡)<'rt.
."'though not as drastic as in the early 1990·s. Ihe Airport is still expen~nell1g tluetuutl\1llS 111 Ie\'ds of
aireran op~rutions. Thc proJcction developed uSll1g the Multiple R~gr~ssion AnalysIS ";1S s~leeled as the
prelèrr~d foreeust. since the growth rate is 1l1or~ eonsislel1l wilh rec~nt gro\\·th trends al the Airport. The
2-13
-----
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airnort Master Plan
Aviation Forecasts
Chanter 2
.-----"-
Multiple Regression of aircraft operations projections are based on CUITent circumstances at St. Lucie
County International Airport.
Figure 2-4
St. Lucie County International Airport
Actual Operations Forecast
2.2.5 Itinerant & Local Annual Operations Based on the Preferred Forecast
Due to the number of flight training schools in the State of Florida, itinerant and local annual operations
were fòrecasted to determine if any festrictions would need to be implemented. Itinerant and local
operations are defined as follows:
. Lo.ca,1 Operations are performed by aircraft that:
I. Operate in the local traffic pattern within the sight of the airport (touch and go flights);
2. Are known to be departing for, or arriving fÌ'om flight in local practice areas located
within a 20 nautical mile radius of. the airport; or
3. Executive simulated instrument approaches or low passes to the airport;
. Itinerant operations are all aircraft operations other than local operations.
A projection of the futufe operations mix was conducted by applying the average percentage fOf each type
of operation, as shown in Table 2-17. It was deteiinined that approximately 48% of total opefation are
general aviation (GA) local operations. approximately 50% of total operations are general aviation (GA)
itinerant operations, and the remaining 2% of operations was divided up between local and itinerant
military operations and aif lax I s~r\'I~~S. The resultant fOfecasts are shown in Table 2-16.
2-14
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airyort MasterPlan
Aviation Forecasts-------
Chapter 2
Table 2-16
Annual Operations --' Itinerant and Local Operations
Itinerant Local
Year Air Taxi GA Military GA Military Total
2001 1,488 94,488 186 89,838 31 186,031
2005 1,928 122,428 241 116,403 40 241,040
2010 2,181 138,516 273 131,699 46 272,715
2020 2,792 177,312 349 168,586 58 349,097
2.2.6 Operations Fleet Mix Forecast, ßased on the Preferred Forecast
The preferred forecast methodology for annual operations using operations and population þistory was
detennined by the Master Plan Study Group (MSPG) to be the Multiple Regression forecast method,
using a 2.5% increase in annual operations. The fleet mix breakdown was then detennined by usirig the
percentages found in Table 2-11 and the pfeferred annual operations forecasted. The fleet mix results are
shown in Table 2-17 and depicted in Figure 2-5.
Table 2-17
Operations Fleet Mix for the Preferred Forecast
Year SE ME TP Jet HE Total
2001 137,640 11,160 20,460 7,455 9,316 186,031
2005 178,340 14,460 26510 9660 12070 241 040
2010 201,775 16,360 29,994 10,930 13,656 272,715
2020 258,289 20,942 38,394 13,991 17,481 349,097
Figure 2-5 . .
Operations Fleet Mix for the Preferred Forecast
2-15
-----
St. Lucie County International Airport
Ai1J1ort Master Plan
Aviation Forecast~------
Chanter 2
2.2.7 Seasonal Variation - Annual Operations
Due to the seasonality of operations at General Aviation Airports, fleet mix operation projections were
considered being developed for each season (summer and wintef). Interviews with the FBO's found that
there is no definitive active and inactive season. Therefore, it will not be necessary to proceed with any
. seasonaVnon-seasonal data comparisons.
2.2.8 Military Operations
Military operations accounted for an average of 0.12% of total annual aircraft operations in 2000. The
FAA-TAP will be utilized since it is the only methodology available for calculating this activity. As
shown in the FAA-TAP section of Table 2-8, all of the operations are itinerant, with a very low number
of local military activity. Military operations are not expected to increase or decrease significantly. This
is consistent with the projection for military operations shown in Table 2-16.
2.2.9 Instrument Operations Forecast Based on the Preferred Forecast
Instrument operations include Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations (those flights landing at the airport
in accordance with an IFR flight plan) and instrument approaches due to weather conditions. The number
of IFR op~rations occuning at FPR from 1993 through 2001, presented in Table 2-18, has remained
relatively constant until 1999 when it had a significant jump in operations, primarily due to the increase in
flight training activity.
Table 2-18
Hidnri("~1I TFR 0pprgtinnc
Year IFR Operations
1993 11,393
1994 13,343
1995 15,999
1996 15,679
1997 18,748
1998 19,750
1999 25,473
2000 25,164
2001 (through 18,578
June)
Est. of 2001 37,156
The IFR opefations fOfecast was developed using the estimated IFR operations for 2001 and the preferred
operations forecast (Multiple Regression Analysis). It was calculated that 19.98 % of the annual
Preferred Operations equaled the annuallFR opefations. Table 2-19 and Figure 2-6 shows the fOfecasts
through the year 2020.
2-16
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airnort Master Plan
Aviation Forecasts
Chanter 2
Table 2-19
IFR Operations Forecast
Preferred
Year Operations IFR
Forecast .
2001 186,031 37,156
2005 239,162 48,152
2010 265,353 54,479
2020 326,651 69,738
Figure 2-6
IFR Operations Forecast
To make the IFR operations forecast as accurate as possible, the number of IFR operations in 2001
through June was doubled to show a current number for 2001. The percentage was then calculated in
relation to the preferred forecasts. 1t was determined that in 20 10 there would be over a 45% increase
from the year 2001 with 54,479 operations. It was also determined that there would be 69,738 IFR
operations in 20,20, which equals over an 85 % increase from the 37,156 operations in 2001.
2.3 FUEL FLOWAGE
Fuel sale fórecasts. are developed to project the ability of the existing fuel facility to accommodate the
future demands and to estimate the Airport revenues that will be received from fuel flowage fees. These
projections were developed using historical fuel sales data provided from the Airport for a total of 100LL
(Low Lead aviation fuel) and Jet-A fuel sales in 1999 and 2000, as presented in the Inventory Chapter.
The computations for developing future fuel flowage fOfecasts assume that there is a direct relationship
between fuel sales and total annual operations. The fue.1 sale projections were developed by increasing
the 1999 Avgas and Jet-A fuel sales at the same projected growth rates as were applied to piston and jet
. aifcfaft operations.
Using the preferred fleet mix projection shown in Table 2-3, the growth rates of annual operations for the
single-engine, and multi-engine piston aircfaft were applied to project A vgas fuel sales. The operational
2-17
St. Lucie County International Airport
'r a
Aviation Forecasts--------:
h t
growth rate of the turbopfop, jet and helicopter aircraft was applied to detennine the projected Jet-A fuel
sales. The results of this forecast are shown in Table 2-20.
Year A vgas Jet A Total
2000 555,165 696,564 1,251,729
2005 593,066 757,645 1,350,711
2010 634,136 824,880 1,459,016
2020 726,908 980,677 1,707,585
Table 2-20
St. Lucie County International Airport
. Fuel Flowage Projections
t. Actual 2000 fuel jlowtJge In gallolU
2.4.1 FORECAST SuMMARY
Table 2-21 displays the forecast summary for the majof forecast elements. OveraIl this represents a
modest growth consistent with national trends projected by the FAA. These forecasts are the basis fÌ'om
which to detennine the facility needs necessary to accommodate existing and future demand at St. Lucie
County International Airport.
Activity - 1 2001 1 2005 2010 T 2020
Based Aircraft:
·,.,0 - ,-.,.,
Multi Engine Piston (ME) 44 59 66 84
Jet 5 6 7 10
Rotorcraft (HE) 3. _ 4 5 6
Total Based Aircraft 181 241 272 348
Annual Operations:
.. Single Engine Piston (SE) 137,640 178,340 201,775 258,289
Multi Engine Piston (ME) 11,160 14,460 16,360 20,942
. '- Multi Engine Turboprop (TP) 20,460 26,510 29,994 38,394
Jet 7,455 9,660 10,930 13,991
Rotofcraft (HE) 9,316 12,070 13,656 17,481
Total Annual Operations _ 186,031 241,040 272,715 349,097
. Itinerant Operations: ..
Air Taxi 1,488 -1,928 2,181 2,792
General Aviation 94,488 122,428 138,516 177,312
Military 186 241 273 349
Local Operations:
General Aviation .. 89,838 116,403 131,699 168,586
Military 31 40 46 58
Fuel Sales:
Avgas (IOOLL) 562.505 I 593.066 634,136 726,908
Jet-A 708.31 S 757,645 824,880 980,677
Total Fuel 1,270,823 1,350,711 1,459,016 1,707,585
Total Annual Instrument Operations 37,156 48,152 54,479 69,738
Table 2-21
Airport Forecast Summary
2-18
·~.__._....,_.-_., -
s~. Lucie Cf)UD~ I:terDatioDal Airport
Alr"ort Ma.der la
. Aviatioll·Foreeasts
Chauter 2
---
" ......
2-19
--
-.
-
.:~~:.-,~;, '
.....
I
I
~
/-
I
-¡
-¡
/
.
.
II V
· !
·
~ I
· I
~ I "
E
z_( !;
"
~
.
!
AI
n.1.UΠCCKM'Y NrElt*.11CIHAL ~
.....................
1H.WW. MfA rwi ':IU:~i~~ .
H.... Tomer .. As............. ArÞi.
_I.MI:L_M'II[,""~I.-'n._7 __
..--- --- --
-- -- --
""'""'''''
...,..
-...
...
f ~l3JdBq~)
---------
St. Lucie County International Airport
. Airrzort Masler Plan
Facility Requirements----
Chaoter 3
Chapter Three: Facility Requirements
3.0 GENERAL
The previous chapter forecasted aviation demand, which presented the projected levels of growth
for based aircraft, aircraft operations, aircraft fleet mix, and fuel flowage. If St. Lucie County is
to accommodate the forecasted future demand through the planning period, specific components
of the airport system must be evaluated.
The Facility Requirements are .developed with Demand/Capacity calculations to determine the
abilities of airport systems and facilities to accommodate the forecasted aviation-related demand.
The demand/capacity analysis considers the effects of possible design features and additional
facilities that may increase capacity to levels equal to or greater than forecasted demand. To be
recommended for a development program, the recommended design features and additional
facilities must undergo a benefit/cost analysis that shows the most benefit per estimated cost.
FAA procedures are used to alert airport management to initiate planning, design, land
acquisition, and construction programs for all of the recommended programs, so as to maintain
airport operations without extending periods of inefficient operations and delay. Planning,
acquiring land, and designing required systems and facilities should begin when 60 percent of the
existing facilities' capacity is reached. Construction ~hould begin when 80 percent of existing
capacity is reached.
The previous chapter showed reasons för recommending a parallel runway (9L-27R) of sufficient
length, weight bearing and width capacity te accemmedate gencml aviatien aireFllft training
. operations that are expected to cause total operations to exceed the capacity of existing runways.
. With the recent arrival of Pan Am International Flight Academy to FPR, the existing on and off
airport flight schools, and the growing demand for student pilots, a parallel runway is still the
optimum means to be considered in the benefit/cost ratio solution to an airfield capacity shortfall
at FPR. The significant change in this study's recommendation to develop a ·parallel runway with .
intTastructure is the focus on safety, noise benefits, flight training and the need to separate these
operations from the operations of higher speed and transient aircraft.
3.1 AIRFIELD
Demand/capacity analysis of airfield systems and facilities (runways/taxiways) result in
calculations of hourly capacities under visual flight rules (YFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR)
conditions plus an annual service volume (ASY) of aircraft operations that may be
accommodated without excessive aircraft delays and operating expense.
3.1.1 Airfield Capacity Analysis
The airfield capacity analysis lor St. Lucie County International Airpon was conducted to
determine the capacity of the airlield and to identify any present or potential defic'iencies in the
airfield system. The demand/capaCIty analysis was conducted by calculating the capacity of the
existing airfield layout and comparing It 10 Ihe projected levels of aviation operations. A chart
(Figure 3-1) comparing forecasted operallòns versus existing ASY shows a delicit in 2004 ¡fno
additional airport capacity is added.
,. .
3-1
--~--
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airnort Master Plan
Facility Requirement~-----
Chaoler 3
Figure 3-1
St. Lucie County International Airport
Existing ASY Demand/Capacity Comparison
Source: FAA i\ClSOIS06Q.S, Airport Capacity and Delay, 9·23..83 &.,Hoyle, Tanner &. Associates, Inc.
3.1.2 Basis of Calculated Capacities
Calculated airfield capacities are developed by methods and capacity assumptions described in
FAA AC 150/5060-5; Airport Capacity and Delay. An AC is utilized as a guideline to implernent
these.improvements. In addition, this AC refines definitions of capacity and delay. Capacity is the
throughput rate, i.e. the maximum number of operations that can take place in an hour. Delay is
tel erence m lime etween a cons ame an an uncon i' '
defil}itions take into account that delays occur because of simultaneous dernands on the facility.
The acceptable level of delay will vary from airport to airport. Calculations are based on runway
utilizations, which produce the highest sustainable capacity consistent with current air traffic'
conirol (A TC) rules and practices. Parameters and assumptions used in the calculations are
discussed in the following sections, '
3.1.3 Runway Use Configuration Alternatives
The existing (2001) runway-use configuration has RunwllY 9-27 and a skewed Runway 14-32,
with the threshold of Runway 14 within the Runway 9-27 Runway Safety Area. The proposed
configuration has a future general aviation runway parallel and north of Runway 9-27. These
configurations approximate typical runway-use configurations for which calculations are based.
The calculations assurne that the airpon is operated with the runway-use configuration, which
produces the greatest hourly capacity 80 percent of the time. This assumption is supponed by the
wind rose analysis in Chapter 1 - Inventory.
Under YFR conditions, the largest annual average difference between total airfield wind coverage
(96.73 percent) and wind coverage for Runway 9-27 only (9\.17 percent) is 6,52 percent for 10-
knot crosswinds. However, reports from A TCT personnel state that Runway 14-32 is used
extensively during periods of high demand with u~a!!e approaching and at times exceeding: 50
percent of total operations during high demand periods.
3-2
---.----
St. Lucie County International Airport
. Airoorl Masler Plan .
Facility Requirements..:.------
Chanler 3
3.1.4 Aircraft Mix Index & Aircraft Approach Categories
The FAA has established a classification system for the various sizes, weights, and performance
of aircraft as shoWn in Table 3-1. These classifications allow the calculation of a "mix index" for
use in airfield (runway) capacity studies. The mix index is stated as a percent and is calculated as
a percent of Class C aircraft operations plus three times the percent of Class D aircraft operations
(C + 3D). Mix indices fall into five ranges for use with capacity calculations. These are. 0 to 20,
21 to 50, 51 to 80, 81 to 120, and 121 to 180. There are no .Class D aircraft (300,000 Ibs.)
operations at FPR (none forecasted) and a mix index above 0 to 20 requires that more than 20
percent of total operations are by Class C aircraft (12,500 to 300,000 lbs.). The current and
forecasted activity does not indicate this level of Class C aircraft operations. The airport does
have minimal operations by aircraft in the Class. It is, therefore, assumed that a mix index of 0 to
20 is appropriate for FPR capacity calculations for this planning period.
Table 3-1
St. Lucie County International Airport
Aircraft Classification System For Airfield Capacity Analysis
Classifications
Class A
Type of Aircraft
Small single7engine aircraft weighting 12,500 pounds or less.
Class B
Small twin-engine aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less
Including Small corporate jets.
Class C
.. Large aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds but less than
300,000 pounds.
Class D Heavy aircraft weighing more than 300,000 pounds.
Source: FAA AC 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay -
The FAA groups aircraft in aircraft approach categories based on 1.3 times their stall speed in
their landing configuration at the maximum certified landing weight. The categories are defined
as follows: .
Category A:
Category B:
Category C:
Category D:
Category E:
Speed less than 91 knots.
Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots.
Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots.
Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots.
, Speed 166 knots or more. .
Aircraft with approach speeds within the range of Categories A and B include virtually all piston
and turboprop driven aircraft and several of the popular business turbojet driven aircraft. Aircraft
with approach speeds within the range of Categories C and D include the remainder of the current
aircraft with the exception of some very high performance military aircraft.
.<. '.
FAA AC 150/5300-13 specifies two sets or divisions of planning and design dimensional criteria.
These sets of criteria are for (I) Categories A and B and for (2) Categories C and D. Many
Category C and D aircraft that presently use Runway 9-27 at their maximum landing weights may
also use Runway 14-32 when crosswinds for Runway 9-27 exceed 12 or 15 knots (aircraft
dependent). Although some aircraft operating at landing weights and approach speeds requiring
Runway 14-32 when these crosswind limitations are reached, the crosswind limitation for many
3-3
-----"
'St. Lucie County International Airport
AirTJort Masler Plan
Facility Requirements.-----,~
Chanter 3
larger, heavier aircraft using a l50-foot-wide runway such as Runway 9-27 is 18 knots. With this
crosswind limitation, Runway 14-32 increases the total wind coverage for the Category C and D
aircraft by less than 0.1 percent. This would not justify extending Runway 14-32. Category A
and B planning and design criteria are, therefore, recommended for Runway 14-32. Most
elements or Runway 14-32 and its taxiway system currently maintain Category C and D design
criteria. When the runway is extended or upgraded, these criteria should continue to apply.
However, the future length of Runway 14-32 (5,400 feet) should continue to be based upon a
minimum of 80 percent of the current length of Runway 9-27 (6,500 feet), It is also
recommended that Category C be utilized for the design and construction of the future Runway
9L-27R to accommodate the training aircraft, which utilize' St. Lucie County International
Airport.
3.1.5 Airplane Design Group
Aircraft are also divided into airplane design groups (ADG) on the basis of their wingspan.
Those ADG's are defined as follows:
Group I:
Group II:
Group Ill:
Group IV:
Group V:
Group VI:
Up to but not including 49 feet (15m).
49 feet (15m) up to but not including 79 feet (24m).
79 feet (24m) up to but not including 118 feet (36m).
118 feet (36m) up to but not including 171 feet (52m).
171 feet (52m) up to but not including 214 feet (65m).
214 feet (65m) np to but not including 262 feet (80m).
As was true for approach speed categories, it is feasible to have different ADG's for Runways
9R-27L and 9L-27R and their associated taxiway systems than for Runway 14-32 and its
8S30eiated ta)tÍway BY stem.
Runway 9-27 meets runway width (150 feet) and runway to taxiway separation (400 feet
centerline distances) criteria necessary for ADG V. However, lease lines shown on the current
Airport Layout Plan adjacent to Runway 9-27 (Taxiway A) only meet ADG III (100 feet) criteria.
The distances between taxiway centerline to fixed or movable objects for ADO's III are 93 feet.
'ADG III airplanes include the Gulfstream V (96-foot wingspan), the Global Express (94-foot
wingspan), the Douglas DC-6 (117.5-foot wingspan) and smaller. Since many versions of ADG
III aircraft.. do utilize the St. Lucie International Airport, it is recommended that ADG III criteria
be utilized as a minimum in planning and designing for 9R-27L because of the existing runway to
taxiway separation and the opportunity to preserve taxiway centerline to fixed or movable
distances. It is also recommended that the future Runway 9L-27R be designed and constructed to
meet the characteristics ofthe training aircraft at St. Lucie County International Airport, which is
ADG II. .
Runway to taxiway centerline separation distances for Run.way 14-32 and its associated taxiways
are 400 feet, which exceed .ADO III criteria. Other existing facilities (apron edge aircraft parking
areas) and property lease lines adjaceni to Runway 14-32 are located at taxiway centerline to
fixed or movable object separation lirnits špecífied for ADG III aircraft (118 feet). This means
that a vinually unconstrained expansion adjacent to Runway 14-32 could be accommodated if
ultimate demands should indicate that requirement. The 93-foot separation will accommodate
Gulfstream V, Global Express. and Douglas DC-6 airplanes.
It is recommended that Runway 14-32 and its associated taxiway systems continue to be
maintained and operated in conformance' with ADO III criteria.
3-4
St. Lucie County International Airport
AirDorl Masler Plan
Facility Requirements
. Chanler 3
3.1.6 Airport Reference Code
The Airport Reference Codes recommended for planning and design of facilities for FPR, as
previously discussed, are comprised of the Aircraft Approach Category and Airplane Design
Group selected for each airfield element.
The most demanding ARC D-III (Aircraft Approach Category D - Airplane Design Group Ill)
has been utilized as the design criteria for Runway 9R-27L, as it exists currently. It is understood
that this design group is excessive for the type of aircraft that are and will be utilizing the St.
Lucie County Intemational Airport, and in an effort to reduce the level of airfield maintenance, it
is recommended that it be reduced to ARC C-IIl. The ARC C-llI includes aircraft with approach
speeds under 141 knots and wingspans less than 118 feet.
Using ARC C-Ill for Runway 14-32 and its associated taxiway systems allows the aircraft with
approach speeds under 141 knots and wingspans under 118 feet. Using this ARC precludes the
necessity of extending Runway 14-32 beyond that total lengthrecommended in the 1984 Master
Plan (5,400 feet) while allowing ground movements of Gulfstream V, Global Express, and
Douglas DC-6 sized airplanes.
Using ARC ColI for the parallel Runway 9L-27R and its associated taxiway systems allows the
aircraft with approach speeds under 141 knots and wingspans under 79 feet. Using the ARC ColI
allows for the operations and ground movements of the typical single and multi-engine trainers,
as well as the Beech King Air sized airplanes.
3.1.7 Runway Criteria
Minimum h sical dimensions se aration distances and adient r it a e
and design criteria of FPR runway developments are shown in Table 3-2. Dimensional values
shown are rninimum criteria for the ultimate, unconstrained development of FPR. Interim or 20-
year range developments may not require full conformance to some physical dimensions such as
pavement and shoulder widths.
Table 3-2
St. Lucie Countÿ International Airport
Runway Criteria
lliUD Runwav Dimensions (feet)
9R-27L 1H2 9L-27R
Airport Reference Code C-III C-III C-II
Runway Dimensions: DIM/1/ .'
Runway Length A Refer to FAA AlC150/5325-4
Runway Width B 100 ft/2/ (same) (same)
30m/2/
Runway Shoulder Width /3/ 20ft/2/ (same) (same)
6m12/
Runway Blast Pad Width 140 ft/2/ (same) (same)
42 m/2/
Runway Blast Pad 200 ft (same) (same)
Length 60 m
Runway Safety Area C 500 ft (same) (same)
Width 141 150 m
3-5
St. Lucie County International Airport
'r rl P
Facility Requirements
h r
(Table 3-2 Continued)
Runway Safety Area P 1,OOOft (same) (same)
Length Beyond RW End 151 300 m
Obstacle Free Zone 200 ft (same) (same)
Width and Length 400 ft (same) (same)
Runway Object Free Area a 600 ft (same) (same)
Width 240 m
Runway Object Free Area R 1,000 ft (same) (same)
Length Beyond RW End 151 300 m
Minimum separation distances, safety areas, object free areas, and obstruction tree zones must be
observed. Those minimum operational and safety related dimensional criteria have little or no
effect on constructed cost of development and result only in reservation of land areas. This
reservation of land areas will preclude relocation or loss of facilities at some future date when
aviation demands by larger, faster aircraft may develop.
3.1.8 Taxiway Criteria
Minimum physical dimensions, separation distances, and gradient lirnits applicable to planning
and design criteria of FPR taxiway segments and systems are shown in Table 3-3. As for
runways, values shown are applicable to ultimate, unconstrained development of FPR. Pavement
widths may not require full compliance during interim or 20-year development programs.
Minimum safety areas, separation distances, and distances to fixed or movable objects must be
rnaintained.
Table 3-3
Sr. Lucie Coumy International Alrpon
Taxiway Criteria
'Taxiway Dimensions (feet)
Item 9R-27L 9L·27R 14-32
Airport Reference Code C-III C-III C-III
Taxiway Width 50ftJ21 (same) (same)
15 m/21
Taxiway Edge Safety 10 ftJ4/ (same) (same)
Margin 131 3 rn/41
Taxiway Pavement Fillet -Refer to Table #-#
Configuration
Taxiway Shoulder Width 20ft (same) (same)
6m
Taxiway Safety Area 116ft (same) (same)
Width 36 m
Taxiway Object free
Area Width 166ft (same) (same)
57 m
Taxilane Object Free
Area Width 162 ft . (same) (same)
49 m
Radius of Taxiway Turn 13/ 100 It (same) (same)
3-6
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoort Masler Plan
Facility Requirement.
ChaDler 3
----~---,--
(Table 3-3 Continued)
30m
Length of Lead-in to Fillet 150 ft (same) (same)
45m
Fillet Radius for Tracking 55ft (same) (same)
Centerline 16.5 m
Fillet Radius for Judgmental 68 ft (same) (same.)
Oversteering Symmetrical 20.4 m
Widening /4/ .
Fillet Radius for Judgmental 60ft (same) (same)
Oversteering One Side 18m
Widening /5/
3.1.9 Percent Arrivals
Total annual arrivals are typically assumed to always equal the total annual departures.
Therefore, average daily arrivals and departures should also be equal. VFR and IFR busy hour
operations may not be equal. Arrivals under IFR conditions may be less than departures as it is
easier to utilize IFR departure procedures (assuming good weather at destinations) than to be
equipped and rated for IFRapproach procedures. The calculation data differentiates between
arrival/departure percents of 40 and 60 percent for some operating conditions with the lower
percentages resulting in the highest hourly IFR capacities. The difference between 40 and 50
percenUs not great, and IFR capacities are only a small part of annual capacities. It is, therefore,
reasonable to use 50 percent arrivals as the basis for calculations.
3.1.10 Percent of Training Operations
Runway capacity calculation methods and data recognize six ranges of percent oftouch-and-go's
including 0, I to 10, II to 20, 21 to 30,31 to 40, 41 to 50, and 50+ with the highest percentage
resulting in the highest capacity. This occurs because a touch-and-go operation, where an aircraft
lands and then takes off without exiting the runway, counts as two operations and takes no more
time than a combined landing and takeoff (one operation). The most recent counts by the Fort
Pierce A TCT indicate that touch-and-go operations are 50 percent of total operations. A level of
50 percent bas been utilized for capacity calculations for this Master Plan Update.
3.1.11 Tllxiways
The highest runway capacities result when full-length parallel taxiways with ample runway
entranC'e/exittaxiways with no taxiway crossing problems are available, as with the existing
airport runway/taxiway systems at the Airport. An analysis of the current runway capacities
shows. that adequate taxiway systems are available, and the proposed future capacity
improvements will also provide adequate capacity.
3.\.12 Runway Instrumentation
Calculated capacities are based on the existing aircraft training schools, the recent arrival of Pan
Am International Flight Academy and the growing trends at St. Lucie County International
Airport.
3-7
St. Lucie County International Airport
Ai'1'0rl Master Plan
Facility Requirements______
Chaoler 3
3.1.13 Weather
The calculations assume IFR weather conditions occur approximately 10 percent of the time.
3.1.14 Capacity Calculations.
Capacity Calculations were perfonned using the described parameters and assumptions. Capacity
calculations for the present configuration were based on the two "skewed" runways now in
operation. The calculations for short- and long-term development were made for two parallel
runways and the skewed runway. Runway 14-32 is approximately equal to Runway 9-27 in
percent of wind coverage and is actually in use around 50 percent of the time due to current
demand (ATCT observations). Calculated VFR and IFR hourly plus annual service volume
capacities are presented and discussed below.
3.1.15 VFR Hourly Capacity
VFR hourly capacity will increase from 150 to 295 operations when the proposed parallel general
aviation runway to the north (9L-27R) becomes available to accommodate training. These
capacities were examined for the effects of designating the second runway for training. In this
circumstance, no difference was found because of the low mix index and the use of Runway 9L-
27R as a VFR runway only. .
3.1.16 IFR Hourly Capacity
The IFR hourly capacity remains at 59 as long as there is only one ILS and the mix index remains
low. A higher mix index would lower IFR capacity because of increased separation requirements
when mixin lar e and small aircraft. An examination of the effects of designating one· runwa
for small aircraft and the other for large aircraft when there are two ILSs with adequate separation
for sirnultaneous approaches reveals that it 'would allow double the capacity available with one
ILS. Simultaneous ILS approaches presently require a 4,300-foot separation while this Master
Plan Update is proposing a 2,500-foot separation.
3.1.17 Annual Service Volume
The Annual Service Volume (ASV) will increase from 230,000 to 350,000 with the addition of
, the parallel runway. This increase is based on ample- access taxiway systems and a low mix
'index. The parallel general aviation (GA) runway will best contribute toward this higher capacity
increasing in safety and accompanying decrease in delays for itinerant traffic through designation
as a training runway. For the purposes of this Master Plan, the concept of developing the airport
into a future air-carrier, or regional hub, were not considered as the community has concerns
regarding excessive growth and the noise issues with that type of growth. The future capacity
levels for FPR are shown in Figure 3-2.
3-8
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoort Master Plan
Facility Requirements-..--------
Chaoter 3
Figure 3-2
St. LuCie County International Airport
.Future ASV Demand/Capacity Comparison
sou=: FAA ACISOIS06O-S, Airport Copacitý ond Delay, 9-23-83 &. Hoyte, Tonner &. Associates, tne.
3.1.18 Runway Length
A 4,OOO-foot Runway 9L-27R at a separation of 2,500 feet from Runway 9R-27L is
recommended as a long-range development item for small general aviation aircraft training
operations. Table 3-4 shows the runway lengths needed to accommodate certain aircraft.
Operational demands have now increased so that the capacity to be gained by constructing this
runway is required as a short-range item. The lel)gth requirement has been evaluated. The
original recommendation 0 3,1 0 eet wou ave accommo ate approxlma e y percen 0
the fleet of small aircraft with less than 10 seats weighing 12,500 pounds, or less. The
effectiveness of a new, 4,000 foot Runway 9L-27R, to increase capacity will be much higher as
that length will allow operations by 100 percent of that fleet, while accommodating 75 percent of
the aircraft in the fleet of srnall aircraft with 10 or more seats, as can be seen in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4
St. Lucie County International Airport
. Runway Lengths
Runwav Length (ft.)
Critical Aircraft
Small Airplanes With 10 or Less Seats
(12,500 Pounds or Less)
75 Percent of Fleet
95 Percent of Fleet
100 Percent of Fleet
2,500
3,075
3,650
Small Airplanes With 10 or More Seats
(Table 3-5 Continued)
(12,500 Pounds or Less)
Beech B80 Queen Air
Beech E90 King Air
Beech B99 Airlines
4.225
3-9
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airporl Master Plan
Facility Requirements..~_______
ChalJter 3
Beech A 100 King Air
Large Airplanes
(60,000 Pounds or Less)
75 Percent of Fleet, 60 Percent of Useful Load
75 Percent of Fleet, 90 Percent of Useful Load
100 Percent of Fleet, 60 Percent of Useful Load
100 Percent of Fleet, 90 Percent of Useful Load
4,650
6,800
5,400
8,400
Piston and Turboprop-Powered Large Airplanes
(60,000 Pounds or Less)
DC-3 4,000
DC-6A, 6B 6,300
Fairchild F-27A 6,000
Source: FAA AC l50/5325-4A, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design
Information concerning the size and location of the solid waste disposal site located between
Runways 9R-27L and 9L-27R is also available. It indicates that the centerline spacing of 3, 100
feet versus 3,800 feet may encroach into this site if the runway is placed directly north of the
existing Runway 9-27. For the purposes of reducing residential noise impacts to the east and
north, the new Runway 9L-27R will be placed west of the 1993 Master Plan locations.
Specifically, the westerly orientation will allow construction of the runway and its taxiway
system west of the former waste site without structural problerns and removal expenses. Because
of this westerly orientation, the clearance of trees and burial or rerouting of power transmission
lines at Taylor Dairy Road will be required. Also, the narrower separation will allow the ATCT
better visual access to the new runway.
3.1.19 Plan, Design, and Construct
Total aircraft operations at FPR have exceeded the 60 percent of capacity criteria (0.6 x 230,000
= 138,000) for initiating planning and design of a second runway for several years. Tòtal ¡lircraft
operations have also surpassed the FAA construction criteria of 80% (0.80 x 230,000 = 184,000).
This has been confirmed by ATCT recorded data records and comments· have been made by
tower personnel concerning delays during busy hours.
. ,
The next level of capacity improvement is not expected to be exceeded during the 20-year
planning period of this Master Plan Update. It may be reached by installing a secondILS on
Runway 9L. which will allow the segregation or distribution of ILS training operations during
VFR conditions and a doubling of IFR capacity during IFR conditions. This presumes a vast
reduction in the required 4,300-foot runway separation, which will require close coordination
with and approval by the FAA and FDOT.
3.2 AIRSPACE
FPR shares controlled airspace with Vero Beach Municipal Airport (VRB). A ponion of the.
Miami Sectional Aeronautical Chan showing their relative location is included as in Exhibit l-B
in Chapter 1 - Inventory. The amount of joint usage airspace has increased since the instrument
landing systern (ILS) at FPR became operational. The FAA will examine these relationships and
will specify necessary revisions when pending ILS, Terminal Very High Frequency Omni-
Directional Range (TVOR), Global Positioning System (GPS), or other equipment are installed
and placed in operation at FPR.
3-10
St. Lucie County International Airport
Aimorl Ma.~ler Plan .
Facility Requirements
Cha"ler 3
3.2.1 Air Traffic Control Tower
The Air Traffic Control Tower constructed in 1987 is staffed by FAA personnel. Traffic counts
and descriptions of operating characteristics supplied by tower personnel were a welcomed
contribution to the development of this and all previous Master Plan Updates. Refer to Table 2.8.
3.2.2 Current Approaches
Approaches for FPR and VRB, shown in the United States Government Information Publication,
U.S. Terminal Procedures, Southeast (SE), Volume 3 of 3, are within shared airspace but may be
utilized independently. A minimum of 500 feet of elevation separation may be shown to exist
where specified approach paths cross. Current approaches for these airports and their minimum
decision heights/visibility limits are as follows:
Airport
Approach
Ceilinl' (ft.)Nisibility (miles)
FPR
NDB RWY 9 (9R)
VOR/DME RWY 14
600/1
44011
VRB
NDB RWY llR
VOR RWY llR
VOR/DME RWY 29L
580/1
380/1
480/1
..3.2.3 ILS Approach
istru etl
marker, and outer marker has been installed and funded by the County and FDOT for Runway 9
since the last Master Plan. FAA Handbook 8260.3B, United States Standard for Terminal
Instrument Procedures (TERPS) allows a precision approach to Runway 9.
3.2.4 Approach Slopes
The inner approach slope for Runway 9R is 50: I with the ILS. To achieve this approach slope,
the lines at Taylor Dairy Road will need to be lower or buried. An approach slope extending
from the inner approach slope from 40,000 feet at a slope of 40: I will also need to be protected.
The approach slope for proposed Runway 9L has changed from an initial 20: I to 34: I and
ultimately 50: I. The slope changes and runway extensions will require further land acquisition,
clearance of trees, and burial or rerouting of power transmission lines at Taylor Dairy Road.
. ,
3.2.5 Departure Procedures
Current U.S. Terminal Procedures specify IFR Take-Off Minimums and Depanure Procedures
for FPR. . Standard IFR take-off minimums for FPR, applicable when specific departure
procedures arc not given, are 600 feel cloud hcight and one-mile visibility. Specific departure
procedures for Runway 14 are 10 climb 10 600 feet on the runway heading before turning right.
3-11
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airaort Master Plan
Facility Requirements
Chaater 3
3.2.6 Obstructions
No obstructions are known to intersect with current horizontal, transitional, approach or runway
protection zone surfaces for FPR. As previously discussed, power lines along Taylor Dairy Road
must be buried or rerouted for clearance beneath ILS approach surfaces of 50: I for Runway 9R
and 91. Even without an ILS, Runways 9R-27L and/or 9L-27R will require the burial or
rerouting of these lines.
3.2.7 Airspace Limitations
Planning and design of airspace restrictions in the vicinity of FPR should be in accordance with
FAA FAR Part 77 design criteria. Airspace reservations should be put into effect to preserve
those areas described by the ultimate development. For the purpose of these calculations, it is
assumed that there are no limitations on airspace utilization for approaches or missed approaches.
3.3 NA V AIDS AND LIGHTING
To achieve the calculated airfield capacities, in addition to improving the airfield pavements,
improvernents to the navigational aids (NA V AIDs) or airfield lighting must also be made. Many
of the short-range and some of the long-range projects recommended in the 1993 Master Plan
have been accomplished. Others will be retained and added to recommendations of this Master
Plan Update.
3.3.1 Approach Lights
A medium intensity lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR) were
. rp~onimpnci"ci for Ihp ~pprn~~h to Runway 9R in order 10 allow Category I (Cat 1) >\pproaches at a
decision height (DH) of 200 feet and one-half mile visibility in the 1993 Master Plan. This
requirement has been eliminated since the larger aircraft type that were to be utilizing the airport
are no longer a consideration.
3.3.2 Medium Intensity Runway Lights
The existing medium intensity runway lights (MIRL) on Runway 9R-27L are found to be
adequate since the larger aircraft type that were to be utilizing the airport under the 1993 Master
Plan are no longer a consideration. The proposed High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL) is
required on all runways equipped with an ILS to achieve a Decision Height (DH) of 200 feet with
one-half mile visibility. With the MIRL, the ILS approaches will remain at three-quaner rnile
visibility .
3.3.3 Runway Visual Range (RVR)
The proposed RVR on Runway 9R-27L are found to be adequate since the larger aircraft type that
were to be utilizing the airpon under the 1993 Master Plan are no longer a consideration. No
additional RVR' are found to be needed.
3.3.4 I'recision Appruach I'ath Indicator
As recommended in the I <)'13 Master Plan. when the existing 4-13ox Visual Approach Slope
Indicators (4-Box V ASI) on approaches to Runways 9R and 27L reach thcir uscfullife, that they
be replac'ed with precision approach path indicators (PAPI). The purpose of these visual aids is to
3-12
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoort Master Plan
Facility Requirements_
Chaoter 3
----
enhance airfield safety . PAP!' s will also need to be installed on each end of existing Runway 14-
32 and proposed Rùnway 9L-27R.
3.4 TERMINAL FACILITIES
Terminal facilities at FPR include the passenger terminal and the Federal Inspection Services
Facility (FlS). These facilities are adjacent to each other because the FlS serves passengers and
small cargo operators.
3.4.1 Passenger Terminal
The 1993 Master Plan projected explosive growth in the number of annual passenger
enplanernents and operation forecasts. The projected forecasts supported improvements in the
terminal building areas, aircraft positions, and auto parking areas. These estimates did not
develop and are not anticipated within this Master Plan schedule and based on the historical
analysis the existing facilities are adequate for the existing and future operations.
3.4.2 Federal Inspection Services (FIS)
The projected passenger growth was evaluated, and it was determined that the physical size of the
FIS building appears to be adequate to serve the forecasted demand. Therefore, this facility will
not require any improvements within this planning period.
3.4.3 Aviation Business
Air Cargo operations at FPR are currently limited to direct transfer between aircraft and trucks by
c:p.vf"r~l Ii:rn~l1 ~:uen npf"T:ltorc:. :lnci 1::U:gf"T r.~rgo comp:¡nie~ with ~m311 operations It appears that
this procedure will continue through the short term, but like many other airports similar to FPR, it
has a potential for larger cargo to come in rrom a variety of areas (produce, assembly line
products, etc.). Similarly, aviation support facilities, maintenance, and other operations could
demand additional facilities.
3.5 HANGARS AND APRONS
Hangars, restaurant buildings, offices, and other facilities occupied by leases and within leased
areas are normally developed and rnaintained by the lessee, for the term of the lease at-which time
they become the property of the Airport. Building maintenance remains the responsibility of the
lessee or the building becomes Airport property. Development and maintenance of lessee
occupied buildings and other facilities should be governed by St. Lucie County Airpon as to size,
location, style, and conformance to applicable codes, etc. The Airport is not required to· develop
such structures and, therefore, they are not included in the following development plans. The
in!Tastructure (taxiways, utilities, roadways, etc,) for such facilities is typically provided by the
landlord and will be pan of the development plans of this document. Lessee sponsored hangar
development and increases in available protective aircraft storage is expected to continue at a rate
similar to the rate of increase in based aircraft.
Available apron tie-down spaces were dramatically increased by the addition of new east and
west general aviation parking aprons. The number of paved tie-down spaces available with these
aprons appears sufficient through shon and intermediate development stages so that apron
construction during those periods should be required only for specifically identified purposes.
The majority of existing apron spaces are currently leased by FBOs. . Expansion of aviation
3-13
St. Lucie County International Airport
ir rl fer Ian
Facility Requirements
ha er
building facilities on airport properties designated for aviation-related activities will require that
tie-down aprons be provided in those areas, and at the St Lucie County International Airport these
facilities have typically been developed as capital improvements of the tenants.
3.6 AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIREFlGHTlNG
Requirements for a new ARFF facility remain as recommended in the 1984 and 1993 Master
Plans. A new facility will be required on a site nearest the three runways. This recommendation
will become more critical with the construction and operation of Runway 9L-27R as the distance
and response time from the ~xisting fire station will be increased.
3.7 AIRPORT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
Requirements for airport maintenance facilities also rernain as in the 198~and 1993 Master Plans.
A site near the A TCT remains reserved for a maintenance shop, storage building, garage, and
materials lay-down area. A secure perimeter fence has been provided in this area for both the
A TCT and to restrict airfield access.
3.8 AIRPORT ACCESS
Existing access to the airport and businesses located on airport property is supported in a variety
. of ways. Curtis King Boulevard is the main entrance to the Airport and Airport Terminal Area,
which can be accessed in several ways from the east (tTom US I) and the west (from 1-95) as
described in Chapter I _ Inventory. Current access to the aviation facilities is adequate to support
ail development in the planning period. .
3-14
Chapter 4
Airport Alternatives
, -
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoori Masler Plan
Airport Alternatives
Chaoter 4
Chapter Four: Airport Alternatives
4.0 GENERAL
In many airpon planning situations, rnore than one potential solution or location to develop a
needed airpon improvement exists. Examples include selecting a site for a T-hangar facility or
planning of a new runway. Such decisions are made by conducting an alternative evaluation,
which considers various airport development concepts. Evaluation factors such as costs and
environmental impacts are used in the decision making process. The evaluation and selection
process should be as straightforward and streamlined as possible. In many cases, this can be
accomplished by performing a comparison of realistic and viable alternatives.
This chapter describes the specific facilities identified in Chapter 3 - Facility Requirements that
are required to meet the Chapter 2 - Aviation Forecasts Demands. Other facilities recommended
on the basis of safety; operating efficiency; or to maintain, restore, and upgrade facilities to
current standards are also described. FAA planning and design standards for the location,
construction, and protection of those facilities are also presented.
4.1 PLANNING AND DESIGN CRITERIA
The FAA uses an Airport Reference Code (ARC) to relate airport planning and design criteria to
the operational and pl1ysical characteristics of the aircraft intended to operate at an airport. This
designator was discussed in the previous Chapter - 3 Facility Requirements under Section 3.1.16.
The ARC relates to the design aircraft and is comprised of the following two components. The
first is Aircraft Approach Category, a letter identifying the aircraft approach category and related
to aircraft aooroach speeds. The second is Airplane Design Group. a Rornan numeral that relates
to the wingspan of an aircraft. While in some instances it may be desirable to design all
applicable airport elements to the most demanding ARC; it is more practical to design some
elements to a less demanding ARC on the basis of both operations and benefit/cost
.considerations. Therefore, it has been recommended that all of the airpon runways be designed
and maintained to ARC CllI level exceptthe future Runway 9L-27R, which will be designed and
maintained to CII.
4.2 RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The following descriptions are for those projects recommended on the basis of forecasts of
aviation activity demands developed in Chapter 2 and the shonfall of facility capacities to rneet
those demands discu5sed in Chapter 3. The described projects are those that will be required to
meet forecast growth of current activities. Recommended development schedules and cost
estimates are developed for those projects in Chapters 5 - Environmental Overview and 6 -
Capital Improvement Program. respectively.
These project descriptions are formatted so that they can be conveniently used for.a variety of
purposes including applying for federal funding. The project are listed in Table 4-1 and the
mcthod of notation used is as follows:
A = proJccts which are primarily airlìeld pavemcnt and associatcd lighting;
N '= projects which are primarily visual and navigational aid and airfield lighting
independent of airfield pavemcnt improvemcnts;
S = projects which are suppon facilities;
4-1
-----
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoorl Masler Plan
Airport Alternatives
Chaoler 4
T = projects which are new passenger and cargo facilities;
L = Land Acquisition; and
0= other development projects.
4.2.1 Airfield Pavement and Lighting Projects
New Parallel Runway 9L-27R Alternatives (A-l) - It is recommended that a new parallel
Runway 9L-27R be constructed to provide additional airfield/runway safety, capacity, and noise
related benefits. The proposed 4,000-foot-long by 100-foot-wide runway will accommodate 100
percent of srnall aircraft with 10 or less seats weighing 12,500 pounds or less, and 75 percent of
small aircraft with 10 or more seats weighing 12,500 pounds or less. The primary function of
Runway 9L-27R will be for training flights. Using Runway 9L-27R for training will reduce
current demand on Runways 9R-27L and 14-32, so that larger and faster aircraft operations can
be accommodated more efficiently thereby significantly reducing aircraft operational fleet mix. It
is recommended that the runway be placed any distance between 2,500-feet and 3,800-feet, if
additional negative environmental impacts can be avoided by doing so.
Utilizing FAA criteria (AC 150/5060-5 - Airport Capacity And Delay) as a means of reducing
aircraft incidents and to accommodate for the projected operational demand, a runway centerline
separation distance of 2,500 feet or greater is needed to provide adequate increased Annual
Service Volume (ASY). As a result, all alternative configurations for the new Runway 9L-27R
that would provide less than an ASV of 355,000 operations were rejected from additional study.
All Runway 9L-27R alternatives are shown to be the same level of developrnent and the same
development criteria. The development criteria are based on FAA criteria (AC 150/5325-4A -
Runway Length Requirements For Airport Design) that allows for short-range development and
tlSC as a eapacity imprevement providing far general aviatien !mining in small aiIfJlanes, and
separation of these aircraft tTom the larger and faster aircraft on Runway 9R-27L. These criteria
are based on providing an extra measure of safety for pilots, aircraft and ground facilities since
the primary function of the new runway would be the training of new pilots. The design criteria
for new runway are as follows:
· Runway Length 4,000 feet
· Runway Width 100 feet
.. Runway to Taxiway Centerline Separation 400 feet
· Runway Safety Area
· Width 400 feet
· Length Beyond Runway End 800 feet
· Runway Object Free Area
· Width 800 feet
· Length Beyond Runway End 800 feet
All of the runway alternatives developed are oriented westerly of the existing Runway 9R-27L in
order to avoid noise sensitive areas east and nonh of the airpon. By doing so, the castcrn-most
training traffic will be kept above airport propeny minimizing noise to the areas surroundmg the
airpon. Also, this westerly orientation will enable the new runway to avoid an abandoned solid
waste disposal site and the various potential structural and environmental problems that could be
introduced. All approaches to the proposed alternative runways will have an appTl)ach ,;Iope of
20: I, and this runway should be marked for visual operations and lighted with medIUm intensIty
runway lights.
4-2
St. Lucie County International Airport
Aimort Masler Plan
Airport AlternatiYJ:L
Chaoler 4
Alternative 1: 2,500-foot Runway Separation (Master Plan Alternative)
Alternative I, depicted in Exhibit 1, consists of the construction ofa new general
aviation runway designated at' 9L-27R, with a 2,500-foot centerline separation
distance between existing 9R-27L and the proposed 9L-27R. The runway length
would be 4,000 feet long and 100 feet wide. It would have a full-length parallel
taxiway on the south side of the runway, with a centerline distance of 400 feet
from the Runway 9L-27R. This alternative would also have a single taxiway
connecting it to Runway 9R-27L. Both the runway and taxiways would be
marked and lighted with medium intensity lighting (MIRL, MITL). . No
navigational aids would be installed for the new runway, but the east runway end,
Runway 27R, would have a precision approach path indicator (PAPI).
Alternative 2: 3,100-foot Runway Separation (Master Plan Alternative)
Alternative I, depicted in Exhibit 2, is the runway configuration depicted on the
airport's current ALP. It consists of the construction of a new general aviation
runway designated as Runway.9L-27R, with a 3,IOO-foot centerline separation
distance between existing Runway 9R-27L and proposed Runway 9L-27R.
The runway length would be 4,000 feet long and 100 feet wide. It would have a
full-length parallel taxiway on the south side of the runway, with a centerline
distance of 400 feet tTom the Runway 9L-27R. This alternative would also have
a single taxiway connecting it to Runway 9R-27L. Both the runway' and
taxiways would be marked and )ighted with medium intensity lighting (MIRL,
MITL). No navigational aids would be installed for the new runway, but the east
runway end, Runway 27R, would have a precision approach path indicator
(PAP!)
This runway configuration, depicted in the Master Plan, and on the airport's
current ALP to optimize traffic, is not necessarily the alternative that will be
recornmended in the proposed Environmental Assessment (EA). Alternative 2,
as well as other reasonable alternatives, will be subject to detailed environmental
analysis in that report. After comparing the results of this analysis, the preferred
alternative will be determined for submittal to the FAA for a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). . .
Alternative 3: 3,800-foot Runway Separation
Alternative 3, depicted in Exhibit 3, consists of the construction of a new general
aviation runway designated as Runway 9L-27R, with a 3,800-foot centerline
separation distance between existing Runway 9R-27L and proposed Runway 9L-
27R. The runway length would be 4,000 feet long and 100 feet wide and located
700 feet to the north of Alternative 2. With a separation distance of 3,800 feet
between existing Runway 9R-27L and proposed Runway 9L-27R flight training
traffic would be forced to take dramatic turns to avoid noise sensitive areas· east
and north of the airpon. As in Alternative 2, this alternative would have a fuB'·
length parallel taxiway on the south side of the runway, wíth a centerline distance
of 400 feet from Runway 9L-27R. Alternative 3 would also have a single
ta.,iway connecting it to Runway 9R-27L. Both the runway and taxiways would
be marked and lighted with medium intensity lighting (MIRL. MITL). No
navigational aids would be installed for the new runway, but the east runway end;
Runway 27R would have a precision approach path indicator (P API).
4-3
-~---~---'---
St. Lucie County International Airport
r ler a
Airport Alternatives_______
a ter
Alternative 4: No-Action
The No-Action Alternative consists of leaving the airport in its existing
configuration and not undertaking the proposed new runway development.
Under this alternative, the proposed runway, Runway 9L-27R, the proposed
taxiway connector, and the proposed south parallel taxiway would not be
constructed. Although the No-Action Alternative would not meet the air
transportation needs of the airport or region, it will be retained for further study
for comparative purposes.
Taxiway Parallel to Runway 9L-27R (A-2) - A taxiway parallel to the recommended Runway
9L-27R is recommended to prevent the need to taxi along the runway prior to takeoffs or after
landings. Such taxi operations restrict runway capacities. The recornmended taxiway may be
either north or south of the runway. Placing the runway to the north will facilitate opening the
area north of future Runway 9L-27R to aviation-related development.
Connecting North-South Taxiways (A-3) - Although the primary function of recommended
Runway 9L-27R will be training operations, it is necessary that the runway be connected to the
remainder of the airfield. It is recommended that a 50-foot-wide by 3, I OO-foot-Iong taxiway be
constructed between Runways 9R-27L and 9L-27R as a westerly extension to Taxiway A turning
north beyond the Runway 9R-27L RSA. This taxiway should be marked and equipped with
MITL edge lights.
Runway 14-32 Extension (A-4) -It is recommended that Runways 14 and 32 be extended 850
feet (total runway length of 5,600 feet) to the northwest across Runway 9-27. This extension will
enhance capacity and safety by providing a takeoff holding area outside the safety area of both
.. .' . .
(MIRL). (See related Project A-5). Currently, Runway 14-32 does not serve as a certified second
runway to Runway 9-27 due to limits on length and load bearing capacity, also the threshold of
Runway 14-32 is within the RSA of9-27, which has. negative effects on capacity and safety. It is
suggested that Runway 14-32 meet the 80% capacity criteria of Runway 9-27, so that it can be
considered as a secondary runway and be able to support the existing and future capacity needs at
St. Lucie International Airport.
Extended Taxiway B (AS) _ It is recornmended that Taxiway B be extended to the northwest to
'. provide access to the threshold of extended Runway 14-32. The intersection with Runway 14
should be at 90 degrees to provide for good line-of-sight along Runway 14-32 and its approaches.
FAA standard marking and MITL are also recommended.
General Aviation Taxiway Southeast of Taxiway (C) (A-6) - This taxiway is to be an
extension of a Taxiway (C) and is to provide airside access to potential development in the east
quadrant of the ai'1'0n. It is shown to be approximately 2,500 feet by 50 feet.
4.2.2 VisuaVNavigational Aids, Independent Lighting Projects
Local Radar (:'\-1) _ It IS recommcnded that a Local Radar with distance measuring equipment
(TYORlDME) bc established on FPR. Primarily a safety issue, this will allow the A TCT to spot
and direct aircraft (outsidc of visual range) in tight patterns to avoid noise sensitive areas.
GI'S/DME (N-2) _ It is recommended that Global Positioning System type equipment with
distance measuring (GPS/DME) be established on FPR. This will eliminate confúsion between
4-4
----~--~-
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airvorl Masler Plan
Airport Alternatives_~_
Chaoter 4
--~--
FPR and Vero Beach Airports which occurs occasionally with use of the Vero Beach VOR.
Location of a GPSIDME on or off airport will also enable straight-in, non-precision approaches to
all FPR runways.
Install PAPIs on Runway 9, 27, 14 and 32 (N-3) - This visual approach to Runway 32 is over a
built-up area. The recommended addition of PAPls for both approaches will enhance safety for
aircraft using the airpon as well as for the neighboring community. Replacement of the existing
V ASIs on Runway 9-27 once they have surpassed their useful life span is recommended also.
Airport Beacon and Tower (N-4) - It is recomrnended that the rotating beacon and supporting
tower be rehabilitated. The existing beacon and tower were installed under an FAA project over
20 years ago. Due it's the age, replacement of both the pole and the head need to be considered.
The tower, although structurally sound, is in need of preparation and painting to FAA marking
standards.
REILs (N-S) _ It is recommended that Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) be installed on
runway thresholds 9, 27, and 32 to better define the runway thresholds for nighttime operations.
The lights will add to the operational safety of aircraft utilizing these runways for landings.
REILs should also be installed on runway threshold 14 when it is extended. Threshold 14 REILs
should be shielded from view by aircraft making approaches to Runway 9R.
STARS (N-6) _ It is recommended to provide safety enhancement through the. Air Traffic
Control, that.a low cost aircraft display system be installed in the A TCT. Standard Terminal
Automation Replacement System (STARS) provides this display through an existing digital radar
. system.
4.2.3 Passtftgcr anI! Carge Tcrminals
New Passenger Terminal Building Design (T-l) - It IS recommended that the existing
passenger terminal building be renovated when necessary.
4.2.4 Support Facility Projects
Airport Maintenance Building (S-l) - The recommendation to establish an airport maintenance
building and 'materials lay-down yard remains valid due to current and projected needs. A
. location north of the A TCT site is designed for airpon maintenance facilities.
Fencing (S-2) _ The airpon is presently accessible to persons, vehicles and animals. In a number
of instances, unauthorized access has occurred thorough numerous .areas around the Airport.
Therefore, the need to secure the airport by installing fencing has increased. It is thus
recommended that perimeter fencing be provided for vulnerable and accessible areas of the
airpon operating area.
ARFf VehicJe(s) (S-3) _ A rapid intervention vehicle is needed for safety of aircraft and
passcngcrs In theevént of an emergency. A vehicle meeting the requirements of NC 150/5220-
I... ..\I'l)on FiTC and Rescue Vehicles. is recommcnded.
..\I{FF Building (5-4) _ A new building is nccded to house the recommended ARFF vehicle and
othcr trucks presently located on FPR. The existing budding is poorly located for airfield access.
Thc proposed buildIng will be located close to the primary and sccondary runways plus the
recommended parallel Runway 9L-27R is accordance with the Airpon Layout Plan.
4-5
--.---.-...--.---
SI. Lucie County International Airport
Aimorl Masler Plan.
Airport Alternatives-
Chaoler 4
._-~---
4.2.5 Other Development Projects
Improve Airfield Drainage Structures (0-1) - Existing headwalls at two locations east of the
intersection of Taxiways B and (D) are inadequate to prevent erosion that rnay result from heavy
rains. The structures need to be modified and/or extended to allow stability of the surrounding
soils and permit slope protection. Presently, the unstable soil is being washed into ditches
causing a blockage of drainage through drainpipes. Efforts have been made to maintain the areas
around the structures, but the recommended improvements are required to prevent further
deteriorations.
Rehabilitate Airfield Drainage - General (0-2) - This project will complete the replacement of
drainage structures and redesign the existing outfall ditches which were installed over 40 years
ago to accornmodate the original airfield configuration. Most of the drainage ditches serving the
airport operations area will also be cleaned to provide adequate operation of the drainage outfall
system. During the past 40 years, a significant amount of pavement and several buildings have
been constructed. The two large FBO areas currently under development will add to the drainage
outfall requirements. The future developrnent project should include drainage features necessary
for those projects.
Update Master Drainage Plan (0-3) - Currently underway. Suggest that this project be
upgraded to an Envi~onmental Resource Permit (ERP).
"Fairgrounds" Road (0-4) - A new roadway has been constructed from Hammond Road
eastward to the fairgrounds boundary. This roadway provides access to the southwest quadrant of
the aviation-related development area. It is recornmended that this road be extended to Aviation
.' .
era IS epen n on w en e alrgroun prope les ecome IrpO
property. The roadway may either continue due east through the present fairgrounds or follow a
right-of-way just north of the fairgrounds.
Taylor Dairy Road Power Lines (0-5) - It is recommended that power lines at Taylor Dairy
Road be buried or rerouted and lowered beyond Kings Highway so that present ILS and future
approaches rnay be established.
4.3 LAND ACQUISITION'
There are approximately 3,660 acres of land within current airpon boundaries. The land area
includes numerous parcels acquired through the previous Master Plans recommendations. This
land is necessary under this Master Plan as property necessary for aircraft over-flights and the
elimination of non-compatible land development beneath the proposed parallel runway's flight
tracks. Land acquisitions required for development projects are programrned in this Master Plan.
There are seven land parcels along the airport property that are candidates for acquisition for the
ultimate development (create buffers to non-compatible land-uses and suppon current/future
intTastructure of the airport) and are as follows:
Parcels Acquisitions L-1, L-2 & L-3
Acquisition of land necessary Parcels 17 & 24 acquired to create buftèrs, and Parcels 53. 59A. 40.
41, 42 & 65 acquired to complete the construction of the new parallel runway and suppon
NA V AIDS.
4-6
.-.--"--------
St. Lucie County International Airport
Aimort Masler Plan
Airport Alten!~tiv~L-~__~-
ChaDter 4
Table 4-1
St. Lucie County International Airport
Recommended Development' Projects
I. Airfield Pavement And Related Li\ hting Proiects IAI
A-1 New Parallel Runway 9L-27R
(4,000' x 100')(w/Marking, MITL, PAP Is)
A-2 Taxiway Parallel to R/W 9L-27R
(4,700' x 50)(w/Marking, MITL)
A-3 Connecting North-South Taxiway
(3,675' by 50')(w/Marking, MITL)
A-4 Runway 14-32 Extension
(450' x 1 OO')(North of Runway 9-27)
A-5 Construct Taxiway Between Thresholds 9 and 14
(2,200' x 50')(w/Marking, MITL)
A-6 FBO Access Taxiways (2)
(2500' x 50')
II. Visual/Naviqational Aids and Indeoendent Airfield Liahtina proiects IN)
N-1 Local Radar
(Safety and Noise)
N-2 GPS/DME
Safety
N-3 Install PAPls
(Runways 9L, 27R, 14 and 32)
N-4 Airport Beacon and Tower
(Rehabilitation)
N-5 REILS (R/W Ends 9L, 27R, and 32)
N-6 STARS-LITE
III.Passenaer Terminal IT}
T-1 Passenger Terminal Building
Renovation
4-7
.~.._--~-----'--
St. Lucie County International Airport
AirDort Mosler Plan
Airport AlteFDatWes-----------
Chaoler 4
Table 4·1 (Continued)
IV. SUODDrt Facilities (S}
$-1 Airport Maintenance Building
S-2
S-3
$-4
VI. Other (O}
0-1
0-2
0-3
0-4
0-5
Fencing
ARFF Truck
ARFF Building
Improve Airfield Drainage Structures
(East ofTIW B & (D) Intersection)
Rehabilitate Airfield Drainage (General)
Update Master Drainage Plan
Construct Road Through or Around Fairgrounds to Aviation Way
Taylor Dairy Road Power Lines Burial or Rerouting
V. Land Acouisitions (L}
L-1 Parcel 17 northeast corner of airport property
L-2 Parcel 24 northwest corner of airport property
L -3 Parcels 53, 59A, 40, 41, 42 & 65 west perimeter of airport property
And approaches of 9L & 9R
4-8
150 feet above the esfablished airport elevation.
Construct surface with arcs centered on each
end of the primary surface and connecting tangents.
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000
A surface extending outward and upward from the hOrizontal surface.
. 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
20 to 1 20 to 1 20 to 1 20 to 1
Same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline.
. 200 feet beyond each end of the runway.
1,000 1,000 500 500 500
A surface extending from the sides of approach and primary surfaces.
Extends to intersection with other surfaces.
Extends to 5,000 feet from edge of approach surface beyond horizontal
and conical surfaces.
7to 1
St. Lucie County International Airport
Aimorl Masler Plan
!Wn
Table 4-2
St. Lucie County International Airport
Runway & Airspace Criteria
Runway
NPw/lLS
27
27L
27L
27L
Runways:
2001
2006
20-Year Program:
Ultimate:
Approach:
Length (feet) (Total)
Length (feet) (Inner Segment)
Inner Width (feet)
Intermediate Width
Outer Width (feet)
Slope (Inner Segment)
Runway Protection Zones (RPZ):
Length (feet)
Inner Width (feet)
Outer Width (feet)
Area (Acres)
Horizontal Surfaces:
Elevation
Area
!!..§
9
9R
9R
9R
50,000 10,000
10,000
1,000 1,000
4,000
16,000 3,500
50:1 34:1
2,500 1.700
1,000 500
1,750 1,010
78.9 29.5
Outer Width· (feet)
Arc Length (feet)
Conical Surfaces:
Distance (feet)
Slope
Primary Surface:
Elevation
Length (feet)
Width (feet)
Transitional Surfaces:
Distance (Non-ILS)
Distance with ILS
Slope
7 to 1
Airport Alternatives
ChaDler 4
._-----~--
ApDroaches
NP Vw/NP y.
14 32
14 32 9L-27R
14 32
14 32 9L-27R
10,000 10,000 10,000
500 500 500
3,500 3,500 1,500
34:1 34:1 20:1
1,700 1,700 1,700
500 500 500
1,010 1,010 1,010
29.5 29.5 29.5
4,000
20 to 1
7 to 1
7 to 1
7 to 1
Source: Federal AViation Regulation Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace
Legend: ILS = Instrument Landing System (Approach)
NPw/lLS = Non-precision approach with an ILS on the opposite end.
NP = Non-precision approach.
Vw/NP = Visual approach with NP on the opposite end.
V = Visual approach.
4-9
---.---
__M._ ... ___ '.
. ,
. .. .
.-
Chapter 5
AiqwrLl!lans
-------
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Masler Plan
Airport PIan5--'----~-~.
Chapler 5
Chapter Five: Airport Plans
5.0 GENERAL
The Airport Layout Plan set for St. Lucie County International Airport is available in the office of the
Airport Director. These plans have been designed to meet criteria established by the FAA in AC
150/5070-6A, "Airport Master Plans" and AC 150/5300-13 "Airport Design", and illustrate the current
airport facilities and the proposed airpon deveJopment.
The Airport Layout Plan set includes the following sheets:
» Cover Sheet
» Existing Airpon Facilities Plan! Airport Data
» Airport Layout Plan
» T enninal Area Plan
» Runway Approach and Protection Zones and Profiles Plan
» Existing Pan 77 Airspace Surfaces
» Future Pan 77 Airspace Surfaces
» Airport Property Map
I of8
20f8
30f8
40f8
50f8
60f8
70f8
8of8
Reduced II "x 17" copies of these graphics are included at the end of this chapter.
The key issues to be dealt with in this chapter, as defined by the Master Plan Study Group (MPSG), are
lIsted below with a nore as 10 the sec<ion in which the issue is addressed.
Aviation
Environment/Community
Existing Commitment
Graphics
Copies Available at Public Location
For Viewing
FAA & FDOT Graphic Criteria
Incorporated In The Graphics
Selected Plan
Existing and Proposed
Airport Layout Plan
5.1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED AlRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
The Existing Airport Facilities Plan, Sheet 2 of 8, is provided as both a reference document to identify
existing facilities (including Runways, Taxiways, buildings and other structures), and a presentation
document to identify a beginning point to this study.
The Airpon Layout Plan (ALP), Shcct 3 of 8. IS a graphic depicting all of the existing facilities at the
airpon and the future development planned for the airport. This allows the viewer the opþonunity to
visually identify all future development relat"'e to the existing facilities.
This airport plan graphic is intended t" be used by the airport sponsor. airpon operator. FBO's and other
airpon tenants for many uses. Thesc' u'c, JI1c1ude operational, safety, interim and alternatives planning,
emergency and rescue. and plannmg. fnr t:\t:IlIS.
5-1
------
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airporl Master Plan
Airport Plans___..__
Chapter 5
The Airport Layout Plan must be approved by the FAA in order for St. Lucie County International
Airport to be eligible for and receive airport improvement funding. Likewise, the plan rnust be approved
by the Florida Depanment of Transponation (FDOT) for the airport to receive State funding of eligible
airpon development projects.
5.2 TERMINAL AREA PLAN
The Terminal Area Plan illustrated on Sheet 4 of 8, focuses on the central aviation facilities.
There are three general areas encompassing aviation facility developrnent. The existing facilities are
located in the southern ponion of the airfield. There are also some existing facilities on the eastern and
western side of the terminal facility. Future facility developmenhs being located in the eastern and
western sides of the airport where space is available.
It is recommended that an Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) operation be constructed at the St.
Lucie County International Airport to support the existing and anticipated safety needs of the aircraft
operations. The exact location of this facility has not been determined; a study should be conducted so
that the optimal location can be determined.
5.3 RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES AND PROFILES PLAN
The Runway Approach and Protection Zones (RPZ) plans, Sheet 5 of 8, illustrate the approach area
immediately beyond the ends of the Runways at the airpon. The areas within the RPZs should be kept
free and clear of obstacles. This reduces any hazards to the aircraft or people on the ground in the
approach and depaning paths of the Runways.
The RPZs for each of the Runways are shown in plan and profile to depict clearly any obstacles located
within the existing and planned approaches to the Runways.
The approach surfaces to the St. Lucie County International Airport have varying glide slopes. Runway
9 is a precision instrument approach while Runways 27, 14, & 32 are all non-precision instrurnent
approaches with a 34 to I glide slope. The approach surfaces to the future parallel runway will have a 20
to I glide slope.
5.4 FAR PART 77 AIRSPACE PLAN
To protect aircraft from the hazard of manmade and natural obstructions in the airspace around the
airport, the FAA relies upon imaginary surfaces on and around an airpon, which are defined in FAR Part
77. Obstructions Affecting Navigable Airspace. Subpan C of FAR Part 77 establishes standards for
determining obstructions to air navigation. Florida State Statute 333 suppons the protection of these
surfaces by prohibiting any objects from penetrating these surfaces. These regulations enable the
establishment of imaginary surfaces. which no object, manmade or natural, should enter. These surfaces
at SI. Lucie County International Airpon are described on Sheets 6-7 of8.
FAR Part 77 surfaces are utilized in zoning and land use planning adjacent to the airport to protect the
tu'lgable airspacc from encroachmcnt by hazards. which would potentially affect the safety of airport
l'l'crallOns. The FAR Pan 77 AlrSpaêe Plan depicts the physical features of the area around the airport,
the Pan 77 surfaccs. and identilics any obstructions to any of the surlàces.
5-2
-~~--,--
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Airport PlanS-------
Chapter 5
There are several different Part 77 surfaces. These include the primary surface, the transitional surface,
the horizontal surface, the conical surface, and approach surface.
Primary Surface - A rectangular area symmetrically located 250' each side of the Runway
centerline (500' for a precision approach Runway) and extending a distance of 200 feet beyond
each Runway threshold.
Transitional Surface - A sloping area beginning at the edge of the Primary and Approach Surface
and sloping outward at a ratio of 7: I perpendicular to the Runway and to the end of the Approach
Slope.
Horizontal Surface - An oval-shaped level area situated 150 feet above the airport elevation,
extending 5,000 - 10,000 feet outward, depending on the Runway category and approach
procedure available.
Conical Surface - Extends outward for a distance of 4,000 feet beginning at the outer edge òf the
Horizontal Surface, and sloping upward at a ratio of 20: I.
Approach Surface - These surfaces begin at the end of the Primary Surface (200' beyond the
Runway threshold) and slope upward at a ratio determined by the Runway category and type of
instrurnent approach available to the Runway. The width and elevation of the inner end conforms
to that of the Primary Surface while approach surface length and width of the outer end' are
governed by the Runway category and approach procedure available.
5.5 AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP
The Airport PropertY Map - Exhibit "A", Sheet 8 of 8, is intended to accurately show the airport
propertY boundary and all current lease boundaries. To develop this map, specific data was provided by
the St. Lucie County International Airport.
5-3
.--+---
I-
~
o
Q.
~
<{
..J
<{
Z «
o º
- ~
I- 0
<(-I
Z LL
BJ uj
~BJ
ã:
>- l-
I- ~
Z 0
::> LL
o
U
LlJ"
Ü
::>
..J
~
V)
-
;:)
c..
...J
<t:
'-"
LlJ
I-
<t:
o
c..
;:)
Z
<t:
...J
I-
;:)
o
>-
<t:
...J
l-
e¿
o
c..
e¿
-
<!
I
oh
HI
a.
os
~
»
-
'2
ë¡
:;
Õ
I
V
"'N
10
i....·
_r")
01/1
....co
.o.
r") 0
NZ
'aJ
~o
~
~<I:
u..¡-
¡-:I:
o
o
u..
a.
as
~
c
.2
-
as
u
o
...I
-
i
/4-
'!E
<
:¡
.
! Ie-
~ ¡t~
~ ~¡¡~
~ -~~
~ ~~~~
5 ..!t
~J¡¡ '~.
~i<h"·
~. ·~I
I ='~¡;i!;
~~~'hi~
hit."1
j
.-
I
~
..
~I
I; .
~~II
j -...............:..
N
o
o
N
-
.........ø
o
~~
i::::~
>.; Q)
§~.=
o ø
O,.....-ëu
.$!~~
U~¡..;:: 0
:::J -
....J LL.
-~ c::
ëi5~ 0
VI
:J
(j
:J
<I:
i .
; -.. ~
~ Õ_C':Ištn
U1 Hi, ~
ai!lig:;¡
, .0.0
1" '"~ '.
.. ,j;iH
o o. :;
S dCJ~'!!m
::¡ . r.; I-
i ~&:.ta
~ I
J!~ I
. -
.. ëJ!a
i ~u
!fHi
~-- i
.ë!~ã
iI:.,_ Q,.
u¡¡'I'¡~
, iSc c .
go, è;¡¡
., ct' .
IPl1
t~h!
~i
i~~
i~ .
1:1
~I·
t .
~ I
Ui
t,- - J -..--..-.....
~ ,
~ ,
. !
i /
,
~
, i I
i.
; . Ii ¡
C:::J i
I . I
; I I ~
: .
" - M';pê:: n=! i
':j I . X
I -t--\ .
,. II i I I
I , .. I
,"- ,
. I . '~
I I \, . z.¡
-
')....
J
I
I
I
"
r-.
;:
\.
..<
\:-.
;,.'.' ..i.';
.1·_;' .
.;',' .
!.
ii
I~
!¡
','..'.....,;:-..'::...
.,........-'õ-::..;:
.................-
~.........
' , --.'.
.' '.
; .\.. )
¡ \\
,'::'
~
1.1
.~'
., '
'": ~
-_._,-. ._.
_... ___. ~(f'.
Y.
---...-.---.^
·c
.,'
JI'
,I
"
'.'
, \:;-- ~ '.":'<~
'-" ......"'!'.
...
.~ 1 !!
;:r::-I
:--'1
.;,
,.
'-'.
. ....
.. .
.::-.'
,
, ,.
.' ,.....
. .. ;)':·i,~;~·;~:<
iI '. f;;;tf~ .
II§¡ --.¡.' Â'-;-
r .....-..~'"
~i,
'I>
.4
.<~
'.>.
'.
.'~' ..
./
;f
___._________ ë
fT_ LUCIE CC)l..Hrr N'ÆIINAT1OI\W.. AIIPOIIr
ARI"ORT MASTØ.I'I.AN
,..OJtCTNO.
Hoyle, T....... I. Associe.t... mo. Hr~ ISJ702
~u......:I._·II'I""t....'P.:II',_I\._.
",1"'- -,-"__ __~_._ __ C.tDQ1IO.
-,.y
- .........-..
.
. tv i
EJOSTr«:AllPOItTF~1'lAN
_._---"---_._~
f
'.
-,
,
;1
-.-J¡
~
!ä¡tn!iI¡~lmm ~
~II !~¡liaI ,~.¡;: ¡;
¡; I lit.. ¡llil' '"
· ~ I R!!!~-~ "i'PF:¡n
I.~ = I¡-il!! :II .b. i
.'.~. - ~.'I =<!
3~,.1 !:i 111§¡ifi!
',. .a . '~i-_. ,~
· II "'b Ir.·~ -':' ~
Ii~q. !! a¡-ZII ¡ Q
!!~ ! ¡; ì -I! ;~
t;~ ~ " ~i ~ ~
F. . .. ¿¡
I~I ~ 1. .;!¡
.. - ¡ fi
¡::;!Ç t; ¡;
i ~ § c
: ~
{ i!
I
~
~
ö
z
--~-~~~~~-
--------.---
ucn::O.l.U IUI
at-1M(!
1M
W'W J.noJ.Y'1 JM:UJrI
·O"-DOW:>
___ ___ ..'-'-1- __...,..
'"t .,.._',S':¡¡'" ·__,:DIf'1tnt
'J.Ii ·oul '..a.¡:Iossy 1 Jeww! 'ItJAOH
í
tol.E5it
'tiN ¡a"QW
NYW mnw .JJIOoM't'
,UI()4h' "'NOU.'WNB1H .I..1N'IO:I Ðl1'U
____~~;4T--:·1'
,,:;~.-~. 1..1;\11
I, J
.' ~'1
\ . '....11 'I
~ \ .-c/.
ø~···¡'
.-09'- . . .......
_. Þ..··j-
~=~-; ·jl··
~! __ - . 'r
I ~ 'u I ;,
~.-' . ..¡-.
=-~:L ."
~.::.;:>~i /.-..-.. I-
I ',"
::1/
§
~
a ~~D! i
11'9' ~ ~
ilm j, x-;:::_/íJ· -l
1\ ~; ~/.. \
",.jJI I
I jj~ .Y
~-ø--
~/;"'.~-::'::::;
'~",,"-">- :
,..../""TI'I: ~ ,"_00...1
" .
.-'" . I
,,0" . J
(' L..
",J
I
!
f
i
¡ 1
r--j
I
I '
i / !
¡---T- ----:-1 __ /--
t! J :...-
~ L._____l j
. ______..__--.J
p
I !
!
..-4-z i
I
/¿O~:. ,
c -~-""
,- ~ '...
/
.'
.'
/
/
/
.---
r"!
i i
. .
. .
I
-U
~
I
!
H
¡
~
i
1....
1 j'~:i!':'- - .j- !~
'I , , ,,'--....-----;- -..-..Jo1J
: "- ...-..........------
_ I.. r-- h_. -·1-· --- ..
r.:1 '1, ,
11'" '" I
roo, ... I'.
I', \, i
, ";---. I
' I '
.., II ' \ ..---- ,__,
: ~ j ;
ut:-_ _ -.....~ -~ ~ ~
il
CJ
d
I~
u.au a
1m, 1m, jm! ¡ml I II ,
"" "" "" ill; HI ~H
m1! h!!! 1m! I
¡!!!! ' , ·1 'I "'I
I,.,) ~ '"'O"!'O
'Olrl DØ\':I
_....... __wot_
-- ~"S'Jo"''Joowa_'JW1I_
. '4JI:4 'OU ·..¡W!:)OIliV ,,- Jew_l ·.I'<OH
NY10 .... _
NYW Ø1SYW ~y
'ae..... 'tWNOU"fNHLN J.,u.nco 3I::Wn'IS
.
Iq-
to.trs.
·0.. ~::IJ/"Oäo
'---~ -
..
u )_z
;
k
!
~
.
2
~
Ii .
~
2 ~
,
k
" i
1./
1'1
I i
I
~====- -,-
I
I
. , I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
ill!
~;: 'i"'~,:"
--.---
··-~·,i'.'/:-'17r"·.
~.'''., --- -~- --I... ·.··-~ -;~rt'· . ¥m.liÐy..}D'fO&I¡, y....
' L"''''--'1CI2I.N':..._''''':_\f;.{ ...,'...'.'......,. ':,.
r:O.(U, ~JH ';)II "'I~O'.Y , )IM.IWJ"'"eI.(~H·~:·';¡ ~~1~;\:15.::~·~ E.I.SWW .LIO.IÞ
"ON l~Y'OIIoI t . ' ,. ~J.m.ø", 1YNOO.YN8W ~ Dn ".11
:::;¿~~~-- . :' -_.._,-~----
. 1',:::*' ,.{~ '1.111
'1riiC,
. ;
..
f5 =e
. I
\ ,
.
4n
>-- I......
/' ,j ~-7
l'lj . I
\ I
II : Ij 1lr11 I'
-:~
" I'll 'p
, II i I .,
,
< ,
" 1 ' !~
I 'Ij · il j Il'íl~ Ij 1/ I ~I
Ii:lj :1
I
Ii ! ij
jJ i Jj :.~
II ; II d
jJ! U .~.i
11¡,I!j .'
tj ~ ~ . .,'
It ~j ¡:I I
r~' ~.... "
_II r~ i
, ¡ ;~.
(\ ,:1 .
J' \ 4' ¡ L l'
I , '-' . /; I I
t::,~~ bd/ I '~.
!;. ~ I '¡ .
; ;/ i :.'.,
"--!Y ' .
~. ~.
~ ..- r !
. LLL.1.1. f
Þ ~ ~ ~
Y'¡-ì
J
I
¡,t 1:~;,æ . 1:= ¡,~
~ ~ iif .' ~! ~ ~ ; ii' iiii,""::.' iif ii,
HJ ~~ !I. ¡" 'j. ~rl ~¡¡ ",u '¡;i. !I.IU fie
¡u hm! ì~~;U ~ :it ~ ì~~ In ~u!f¡. I~!8m ~ IU ~
r m!~1 ~ IU~~I'''I::I n!~~1 m~~I.. ::' m~~I,·~U '.. ::I;~ m~~1 'W~I..
~ mUI!I...·.·!·.....'...·.·.I.."...:.:..;.'. .. I.. ~1..lf...'...'1I1 !!J/mU¡ ~ nl. "/.Ifl....'.'.. I.... ·~I.· :U..'i.!.II..",,'.," :!¡mUf
\ III" ! M~l!I¡! ~!. iI ! III'" ! II!! ¡ I~c'~ · ~~ i" UIJ II . . L
.-
.
¡"
.
I ..
~, I
I 'II
R !..
j~ III
'11
"II
JD
.
.
¡li.;-
-
ij
~ i
H
.-
za'
\,
t
o
["
~
"
:-:iJ~
r·.r
11_ ,..1
! ·r=-
1·'-"
:__ 1-
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
..-.,j
-,~'--~ß-l
r::-=-'
u
=>
..
.........
---
/
/
l
r{l
b
~-_.
. -'--
"
:!
~
ST, LI..ICI: Coo.M"Y MtRIUTIONAL A.III"œT
0\"'011'" MAST8I f\.AN
Hoyl_, Tanner I. ",saoci.I.S, Inc. fIT"'-
....u ~.ooI[L_ ~!U1t I!I. _~, J\ :11'"
..,--- -,--- .-.
AAQJtCTII:)
152702
. '"' .
",. i
NE5B'ff "'MT 77 ,..Aa SlAFAm
.
//
/
b
,
o
..J -: 4·-
, . ~.
: ¡ ~ ... t_ .-.
, .,
'.
~<II.OQ
: CI: ~ r,r
rr"rrr
,F~¡::~F~
r FPo~o 0
F~F~ ~'~rrr¡;'r
tÇP;:R::~~F~~
rrlT"rrr"rrr"rrrr
¡,rr-r-r-rrr.l"'r-r r ,
- ~"'rrrrr -rrrrrrrr
,rr·rrl HtTrrrrrrrrrrír
rrrrrrrrrrr:
rrl , ,r:rF~l;FFF
¡::F¡ '¡Y61""f"',-rrrrr,
ri! '. ,-i"O O,rri,-rrr.
FFFF~rFFFFF~co~FFFFFFr-
r-rrrr rrrrr ,I ~r¡
;F~FF~~~IFi=F~FF~~c1r;>
rrrrr:rr-rrrrcrrrrrl \ I:C?);¡
rFfF~rrvr: , -::r-rrr-rcrrr
:-;-'0 0:17' r:.~
i II
I{.
i57
;, .
,
~f+Tr-¡:'h-.
trI=FFFFH=
rrrrrrrrr
ipFFFFFFFF
:"':W
,.:t
'. .. .f.'1!,·
,r 110m I~~ (J)
·t-¡-r-Fþ:tF~ .1 .. mü§ :> :-'
.. 55
rrrrrr,-rr: .. r
-rrrTrr .. "U
~rr-rrrl' C
rt-,.rrrrr- .. 0
rr"- .. :<J ()
. "-r'r:ttfh-~ --i r;
rrrrr'" , ;:: r () () ;:: () Z :I: --i ;:: (J) "
r-rr" X 0 0 =; rT1 0 ë) ::0 0 c 11:- ()
r· 0 X
~ 0 ::;: Z -< CJ ;:: > CD 0
(J) c ;:: C :I: Z rT1 r· < C
:> ;:0 rT1 (J) If) 0 ë5 ë5 z
! ;:: rT1 --i ::0
55 rT1 ;:0 ;:0 ::0 rT1 C () Z :<
" " ~ fi ::0 () :;; ¡Q (J) :> :; ~
0 0 -; rT1 ¡; r CJ :> " Z
" ::0 rT1 Ô ~ r C C) ::0 ()
~ i --i Z rT1 --i rT1 0 ¡= --i
Q -; Z 0 Z ¡= Z ~ :; rT1
I ~ ¡; rT1 --i =; ::0
:>. Z :;; z :z
r fTi -; 0
i ! . ::0 --i r ~ :>
rT1 :;; lJ) --i
~ :> r ¡= C Ô
z_( (/ z
. rT1 :>
r
i
---~-~---
ª
en
I
'1:>
!
ST. lUΠco.M"Y NT!RN.A'OCINAL A~T
A/III"otT MA519!"LAN
Hoyle. Tamer I. ",s:!Ioci.tn. Inc,
AI"ÞI.
PROJCCTIIIC
.53702
___~_____ 1iii
L.AJ<)UIO
JoIUUll'tL"'g·0Int...'It,..._....UI117
......- ...--- --..-
---
----.~,-~~~----
-------
'- ,~
h
iii,
. ¡.. :'~"~ ;
~' .. ¡¡
!J r;~
L:t..
r ;:,f!'·,
tl" !' 1:/
~~i'~: ij.., ;.
i
~
q
In
I
!
~
I i
cc
.
:~ I
I" --..¡,
.',-11: ! j i
:1 ¡ I
,I I, I
! If' ··--C- _._---J.__.___.JJ_
·1 '¡" ! ~
--..: iH--- - - --t --.-==-- -=-=-----=:--~~-;""f.::-:-
II: 1-
,'j ,!
, ¡
: i
r~" lJ I I .
I~" -~-_t-~
'~.::!- - '_..J
I
-~
·i!: .
'I;:'
:1;'
.J.
,
!-,
··......,.,'·=.;io,"('_,'_:'
,.----.+) ¡
; i
T-r·~·f···"
! 'I
I.-
~-.,', JJTJ
þ! . 1)-
..1:1, '.'
11
'1'
I
I
i;
!,:
.- .
.; "
·,i
."
. , i ~ I
'~ . .
c.)
4---
roD
~J
0·'
.",
'.\
~
-<
.,
I
.
~
I
.
z-l
I
;i
ST.,LUΠCOlHTY MRNA'1'IOfrIAL AIIP'OIIT
MtP'OIT M&S1tI: I"l..IN
PIIMeTNO
Hoyle, T_mer . AsSOciet... Ine. flr"'- 15110",
)OHlllOCl:l_"""-..Tt",.-.-.o.,,.,gll
......,_.... "'1_- -_ __ CADOtlD.
eJC/5,.,..c RJOff TRACXS
........
..-...
,
,.
fi;
f.
~-T ~ '. ,
¡ 't-..~ :
,.r---'~
':--;, )
-i!
"
:;
:·..,i
1 ",:¡; i;
'i :-;t~·::
¡:,,~j jl'..,
¡!·~LT ;
~,' . _,,L..¡.__,_.._
U:¡'f.i·: .
: J I "
.,-!;---,., .
It-1t;;:'f: .
.' ..:¡;'. ., ,.
I, 11 .~\' 1'~
.:. '... ::."
..'
~
¡¡
q
~ ~
0"1
I Î
()
:1
"
·1
!;
'''t~''"
I 'I I I I
I II \ ¡c.
¡-Tr--~-"-r--I'
'I ¡ ¡ i~--ì . I L .
--1'-' .-' i II : : . :'0 n¡-r1-r¡
. -1 I' I '! ¡ ! I ¡I ',M{
:-__J~l. >. "J¡~i 1 tn·e..·
¡.; I ¡¡!J;-'-~,~ TI .
i I_.+---.i.~=]' :,1.· IV
II ¡..I
I .~>~ :-J 'i ~
'-1 ~:tJ..' '~~.ãt.
c. , . .,.
.~~~...
1'(.=1 ~;\-
I Ii ~-t::"~~~-;"
- ·14r-r (' ."~
ç_~~=. _. _._LJ1k~~~
I II'~~'¡' d....
~II l··' -i'":;·=:::::-
-. 11 ~
~.. .-., .
- . .:. Ij ,..
- PS< '~ht",,----,
! ;; ~M ~-r ~j.~ 1,:\:-1 '=i'
l\f:,;~,J ~:p~~ -- i.~.Nt·:/¡ j r~
·It .J..~__¡¡' .-.- ';_~","-.L'--_
I /-, 1 . r .~-
I....- ..... I ,,'-,~kI t ' ."",";'
ff - .'[' ,-.L-_.:- ;." ~~.,¡. Ì\.) -~./
-' . 1 ,¿. " '.. '. .-
- j .........."" ,.r~, -.. .:... .
r·-·
.-r:
.)
o
·ì-
....,-
-I
I
¡
"1
:.,. L..~~_~ ";
·1
- .
,
r ' l__.
." ._~. "r" ..., _.~( ;;.-,J--.--:--.-
,¡ , j;:~. I
: ¡ .- ~- -~-- i
: ¡ -TTrf1·
.!. ; i ~¡.LJ
;7:'---1 k~· '. -~_W_
¡~:': H-II' ¡ii-
,.:.. :; I, . ,:.iP
ii !-fjL--~ .
" i ~ :';'';
'i! ' ~! ( I
,0, ,I' ~
.,~: I'I~--I!:
.' : l 1~.;
! ,ii
..1.1'··· '
I!,..,
(:-:;'.1
I
¡;¡ .=._aO
I c;J
.
(::ìC¡
("!}
1
E
...
~
~
...
""Di·
II!'
'Iri
,
\
II I
J>
-i
-z -z n
z" z"
",z ",z
"''' ,,' I
n
",,, ""
z:¡) ]I
r,,· .¡¡~ r
z:) z:)
"to "to rl
-r ¡;;r
¡q,., I~I f""'I Cì
"r- ~~ rl
,," "z
zz ~"
..'" Z
"c "c
c", c:'" 0
:0,., ¡j¡,.,
I·
ST_ LIJUE COUU", N18INAT1Of\W. AI!POI:T
....01' tfIIASTØ: I'L..NoI
"lItOJ[tT/riO
153702
Hoyle. T.nner . Associl:tea, Inc. Arr...
.)oU'-""I ~_~ 11.0"'1: .t!, _DO. ",_,
.._1.."_.... ..,...,_._- __..._ ____
£JUS T1'tG DN. NOtSE COI'f'I"OIAS
WITH NON-COMf'A'TBLf LNC) UIf
t¡t,DCfOO.
_.ß
j
,
~,~. .
.¡
-',-
¡--;
; - ..,..,..i !
, '~-
¡ ~______r
¡
!
i.
,
! I
·0
.. 1,/:
-·i ;
t
T-·---·-"
DEP--1'1
j
I
/;
/'
!
.
l·'
-.
"-.,.
.T7i
J :Hiil
·,1"
I I·
.._i fr,
'j. I p
/:":' ¡ ~
;0·"'1 i
ttr:-t·.
ø-;·ii" :
r ,.,>. ,
~'-:~:i
[iX"
,~ :i·~ ,,' j'
'i ¡ f
r ...., - ../
'! !j'
, I
, ~.
\
APP~8 !
r·j'·
J ..
r:';":
DEP_2°
c:; ~_..
,....
C
. ...
g .. -<
< 0
§ ! ."
."
I i R ~
~
I ,Q -,
( .,
\
ë \
\.
0"1 >
. I
,....., Î
!
i
.
.
%.'
\
,
Hoyle, Tanner I.
~__I.MI:L_~ ,Associal.....
_ ,""111._ ' C. ~r"
......" nn.
PltOJtCrHCI
151702
,
r
I
I
. ~ J '
" I
rl,"
;'i~ i,
,-,,;\ '
~ 'I '.r-!-,.
,,1 !I .
rJ:!
,~. ~ j¡.
~~f"¡¡ ;
1,T· t "
),-¡ \
~ ·f·A:--
T··"
'¡¡Hi 0.
j.l;' .'
j ,: ~ :: I ,õ'.-
\~: t i ..
\. .:;1,
\\.
¡
q
f~
~
~
0"1
I î
i¡if ___~ j~j
" . ,
,Iii 'I I r--- -- .
,'; ,I. J
ii' '.JJ' ¡ ¡ r'
, ! ! I r ----¡r----¡---- -'-----
,i'! . ., ¡ ,
.:.~·tIL____-....!.\- -=.:""-þ----- --- _._~~
¡ ¡ j t-1=~¡--~TT ~-~.~ I
¡i! ),-" h_:': þL-Lh_ I!,
II --' Î
¡ilr ====1 ~~r~-I--.:.:i-=--+-~-I· I
I I __' j '_...:-_-11' I
.JII - :'---1! I I - 'U1 I
:1'11' "I f--' ! I
~ ':-- .;.~LJ....iI.-... ;.~nL_! .
\1 : I I I ;
)¡ ~ J I ¡
, -- ----I q¡-
I' in -;" Lr---Lj'- L_~.
¡. I '----1 L
I.. , I
iJ 'i: I
,J ) . _ 1_. .
-- ¡ ·~r"· - ':,~ ~ ----"-7L- ---t' .if-"-
~! I I i ---
.. ! r . I . - "
;l~~Wi ~.!. H±L
ttft I ì iiF- , ¡<-- -
mL~1lr " I
".I Co. ,-t-'L -.-,.
: ',~-~=It'H ~' i"
;::I--~ Ti
: :;TI F1: I . -",~~)-.(. I I
, , ' ; J.
,:" :_j '\,/ i
v(.·
(
. .
-'
i ;,
If
.:¡
~..
~
I
I ",_.
I::)
,....."\ i
" .
,....r:
.'
,:;:.;'j z-L
~',1" ~ .
,Þ; . .'
'~
II I
J>
---j
-z -z n
Zif z",
.., ..z I
"'n 0'
n
0'" =c
z'" z3:
rj! r"
> I
z:: z~
"'.. ",- rr1
-,- Vi~
::::'" ",'"' Cl
nr nr
",> ",0> rr1
zZ ZZ
~co ~" Z
0<:: Ec:
c:'" ",V> b
"'''' w..,
.~
,
..
.'
'i'
,
.¡
;
I):
.,¡ .
Plfo.orCil«l
Hoyle, T_nner .. A..ocl.tes, tne.
Arr-.
153702
Jo""-l_1IIWL "'11;'."__,, ._.
!I:·~t;::
~ '2',;. ~:'íí
a;;m
',.;. ,~. : . ;".,
D ~.,~:~~~
~ ::~: ,? t-).
.~ ';f:~,'::..~'
;~ ;~.~.
" t-;imiji;
: .- r~~- LL :;::~ìì~
I 9':': '.;'
..' '. .'
.j,:> ;','v
. r~~ 1 ~:~ ',":,
I--í"' . r rl~ ~ '.' ;.;':;.
,/ ,-tri . LI( ~ .. ':. .,.
,
,/ lB~ :..~~ 90
/j~ ~, r= -';:~"'. ~~\\\
r· -I c j m ~ c ....~\\\\
Uî::r'j :/1:' ~": ",,,w,,
't:-1 ' 'J -g-I ~ V ,\~"
r >¡.p,-J;:Ju' .I! ru---,=. It;¡ -J I,i, ....'" µ , '-'
'ß~-I~, ;.".. ·~_·t. Iß / ~. ,; ~
,I r, 'I' .~ .. 1 '-' 'i "
r~\~ii¡",,, :~{. '.j-~! ," , - 01 1.~
lJ . '''~~I~ c. o.d::l~ 'I ..4/ "' t../,
I~ ..-;,.....no1'=' . ~"'~ _ f jdyp<..\ [J, ~ C\..
~ ~ c [:15i. \ ~ '~I' 1-4 ~ .¿ r- [--1J//J. ~
ió\mlµl:·!.i~j.~~. . G;:, ~~ .' ~ (
~;·f,_., I¡~~ /1~Ul
~:tbl\~ ~.. \7f)ù
¡~,;~~~/ o··~ /'2!~ ~
~_._- .;,.. / ..' "' ~ f.", {~
y---. l' '-.[\: ~ I I '~
--.
¡
.
.
~
q
~ g
.
f
f.
z-.(
.
!
I
..
.
~
ST. LUŒ CO\.HT'f MåtNA.T1ONAl ARPOIrT
~TIAASTEll:I'LAN
.-.
--
,.
I 'k:.'l1~i
I ;'; --:; :-~1~~
.. ...... '.
.' , ~ .,' /,
~F::;:· ~~
- ? ~~ : :; .: . ~
~;..~~:" ~;
.', ',- ,'.
.....,'... ..
--
I J
:
L.,u
I : ..... ,,:.. >'.
Jl\..::
. "~. "
. ,.' ~~
;:~:;/~
, ',;; .;¡
I ". " ".
~ ~ . ,~'. '::
I ~: " :....~
" ." ~ '~~;<
'.
/
/
..
: ~ ~ : ~
. ,
. ,
-
.'
. '
,
..
,~~:- " I
.>"'.;
,.<.~ . ~¡
..: ~
,
¡-
o
---,
" ""--J ¡
.
RlT\JŒ ,",UT 77 AlRSPAœ SlItF-AŒS
MOJt'CrMO
HOYle. Tamer I. Aaaociate, tno. Rr"- .5]702
Jo5;I L...tO.: L_. _, '-/lit .s.. _~~. n._1J
",1..,__ _IWII__ --..._ ''''OOtlO.
C. ¡~"IM" 1-·"
AI!: at.trrHC I""'~ AU(; o:z _ WJt...J 1m SJ702Of1...
.
-
---~-,-
~
,
I
I
I
I
i
n
n
~
·
.. . . ..
it;
0.
~ Q
I
- .
· ~ I
¡:
.
,
;
..'
'y.
>'-..
r.
3.
Z_!.
-==,,
il
i ..,
j ~
'"
n
Imll . ~
"
z S
~ c
-þ n
~< en> '" ~
no< ~ ;g z n
",- þ
þ þ ~I]) ~ ~ "
"'~ ~ ,., a ~
~n~ ~
~'" 0"'- ,., z '"
~z "no ~ '" " :-'
:z-z a <
n 1'1:to> "- ~
~ z~- z " ~
c ... z ~ þ c
'" g þ a ;¡; n
,., þ '" z " M
'" '" ,., 0
'"' ... þ .. '" n
~ '" '" ~ 0
'" ;; ~
~
, ~
-<
'" r-
n þ
z
'"
~
'"
n
n
r-
~
~
þ
z
'"
þ
n
"
:=
'"
...
6
z
~
þ
n
g
;¡;
n
c
~
o
C»
ST.lLJC( CÖI..fIo'TY
NTBIINAnOl'lW. AllPORT
"'"'011 MAna rlMl
~ORT PROPERTY M4P
C"IXI "0.
Mo....tCT~O.
15:J702
Hoykt. Tenner I. A
~!oil ¡.- L""''' - saoctatel.
..'....J-..... _,,,,,1'(',,,
...,....-
·
·
c;M\ , I~
...
'51702001
._~_n,_..._
---~~--~~---------
--~-
-- - -
---,-
Chapter 6
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoorl Mas/er Plan
EnvironmentalOveFVic'N
Chao/er 6
Chapter Six: Environmental Overview
6,0 GENERAL
Although an airport has many positive impacts on the cotl1munity it serves, including providing a
direct stimulus to the local economy, it may also generate negative environmental impacts.
Through prudent planning and realistic mitigation measures, however, an airpon and its environs
can be compatible. This Chapter examines the environmental conditions surrounding SI. Lucie
County International Airport in relation to the consequences of the preferred alternative and
recommended developrnent projects. The actions proposed include the addition of parallel
Runway 9L-27R, an extension of Runway 14·32, a north south taxiway and the development of
additional facilities and equipment. .
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The goal of this master plan is to provide guidelines for future airport development that are
financially, technically, and environmentally feasible. The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEP A) significantly affects airport planning by requiring that environmental impacts of
proposed airpon development be considered early and throughout the entire planning process.
Environmental feasibility is as imponant as economic or engineering. feasibility in determining
how an airport will be developed.
Three categories of envirorimcntal action relevant to airport development arc outlined in 40 Code
of Fpti"'~1 Regul]ti9ns (CFR) Parts 1500-1508. EvelY project proposed tor an airport will
eventually fall into one of the following three categories: .
· Ca/eeorical Exclruiol1s - Projec/s calegorical/y excluded are Ihose ac/ions Iha.! have been
found under normal cirwmstances 10 have no pOlenlial for significanì environmental impact.
· AClions Normal/v Requirin~ an Envirol1men/al A.çsessment - Projecls normally requiring an
envirol1menlal assessmelll are actions /hal have been found by experience to somelimes have
significant environmental impacts.
· AClionç Normallv Requiring an Envir01111rental Imnac/ Sla/emen/ (EI.'i) - The purpose of all
environmen/al assess men/ is /0 delermine IVhelher or nol a projecl will have significanl
impac/s. Based on Ihe resul/s reported in an ellvironmen/a[ asse:"smen/, /he FAA Ihen
prepares eilher a finding of no significanl impac/ or a de/ermina/ion /ha/ an EIS is required.
An EIS fur/her investigaies a project's poten/ial ellvironmenlal impac/s.
The major product of the mastcr planning process is the Airpon Layout Plan (ALP), which shows
an airport's existing and future planned development. Federal aviation regulations require that an
airport operator submit an environmcntal assessment of the planned development for FAA review
and apprOl'al if it plans [0 al'l'l~· ti" fcdcral grants to fund development depicted on the ALP.
There are certain types of Jc\cll)pmcnt. as previously noted, that have categorical exclusions
from the federally mandal<'d ern ¡",nmcntal assessment process. Due 10 thc hmJtcd shelf life of
an environmcntal asscssmcnl. ncarly all ALl's are conditionally appro\'cd by the FAA without an
environmental asscssment. The fomla! cnVJTonmental assessment is undenaken at a later date to
---.----.
, .
----.-
St. LucieCounty International Airport
Airoorl Master Plan
Environmental Overview
Chaoler 6
Chapter Six: Environmental Overview
6.0 GENERAL
Although an airpon has many positive impacts on the community it serves, including providing a
direct stimulus to the local economy, it may also generate negative environmental impacts.
Through prudent planning and realistic mitigation measures, however, an airport and its environs
can be cornpatible. This Chapter examines the environmental conditions surrounding St. Lucie
County International Airport in relation to the consequences of the preferred alternative and
recommended development projects. The actions proposed include the addition of parallel
Runway 9L-27R, an extension of Runway 14-32, a north south taxiway and the development of
additional facilities and equipment.
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The goal of this master plan is to provide guidelines for future airport development that are
financially, technically, and environmentally feasible. The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) significantly affects airport planning by requiring that environmental impacts of
proposed airpon development be considered early and throughout the entire planning process.
Environmental feasibility is as important as economic or engineering feasibiIity in determining
how an airport will be developed.
Three categories of environmental action relevant to airport development are outlined in 40 Code
c¡f Federal ReS'llatior:ls (C'FP) "ort~ 1500-1 ,08 "'very proj~çt propO$"~ fnr on o;rpnrt ",;11
eventually fall into one of the following three categories:
. Calegorical Exclusions - Projecls calegorically excluded are Ihose aclions Ihal have been
found under normal circumslances 10 have no polenlial for significani environmenlal impaCI.
.. Aclions Normallv Requiring an Environmenlal Assessmenl - Projecls normally requiring an
environmental assessment are aclions Ihal have been found by experience 10 sometimes have
significant environmental impacts.
. Actions Normallv Requirint: an Environmenlal ImDacl Slalement (El,~ - The purpose of an
environmenlal assess men I is to delermine whelher or not a projecl will have significanl
impacts. Based on the results reporled in an environmenlal assesslllenl, Ihe FM then
prepares either a finding of no significant impacl or a determination that an ElS is required.
An ElS further investigates a project's potential environmenlal impacts.
The major product of the master planning process is the Airpon Layout Plan (ALP), which shows
an airport's existing and future planned deyelopment. Federal aviation regulations require that an
airpon operator submit an environmental assessment of the planned development for FAA review
and approval if it plans to apply for fedcral grants to fund development dcpicted on the ALP.
There are cenain types of dc\'Clopment. as previously noted. that have categorical exclusions
from the federally mandatcd cn' ",,,,mcntal assessment process. Due to the limited shelf life of
an environmental assessmcnt. ncarly all ALPs are conditionally appro,·ed by the FAA without an
environmental assessment. The formal environmental assessment is undenaken at a later date to
6-1
--..----.-
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airvort Master Plan
Environmental Overview____~_
Chaoter 6
ensure that the environmental work is current within the timeframe in which the actual project is
undertaken.
According to FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook, an environmental
assessrnent is needed to secure federal participation in the following:
· Development of a new runway
· Major extension of an existing runway
· Runway slrenglhening thai would result in a 1.5 DNL or grealer increase in noise over any
noise sensitive area localed within Ihe 65 DNL contour
.. Conslruclion or relocalion of a service road Ihal inlersecls a public access road and affects
Ihe capacity of such public road
· Land acquisilion in associalion with any of Ihe above or when residenlial unils are relocated
when Ihere is insufficient comparable replacements, major disruplion of business aClivities,
or acquisilion that involves lands covered under U.S. DeparlmentofTransportalion. Section
4 (f).
· ESlablishmenl of an Instrumenl Landing Syslem (ILS) or Approach Lighling Syslem
· An airport development aclion Ihat falls wilhil¡ Ihe scope of various exlraordinary
circumslances as defined by the FAA. Theseaclions include properties protecled by the
Hisloric Preservation Acl; conlroversial environmenl grounds; significant impacls on
nalural, ecological, cullural, or scenic resources; use oj wettands; converSIOn oj prlme
farmlands; endangered species; elc.
The remaining proposed development in the Master Plan for St. Lucie County International
Airport would not trigger a federal Environmental Assessment nor Environmental Impact Study.
However, it should be noted that if projects such as hangars, ramps, on-airport access are in
wetland areas or impact other environmentally sensitive areas, environmental approval and
mitigation might be required. Each project will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for
specific determinations.
The purpose of this environmental overview for St. Lucie County International Airport is to
provide a preliminary review of the environmental issues that must be addressed in an
.' environmental assessment. This overview is not prepared at the level of detail required for
environmental assessment. The proposed development plan for the Airpon was evaluated in
relation to each of the 19 environmental impact categories outlined in the Airport Environmental
Handbook.
,6.2 ENVIRONMENT AL ANALYSIS
The environmental categones listed below that are most likely to require inclusion in an EA are
marked \vith an astensk (0). Thosc categones that are unmarked have been considered and may
be eligible for a deternlination of FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) status but will
requITe further consideration when construction designs and schedules are better defined. _.
6-2
-----
St. Lucie County International Airport
AirDorl Master Plan
Environmental Overview
ChaDter 6
Noise
· Compatible Land Use
· Social Irnpacts
· Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
· Air Quality
· Water Quality
Department of Transportation Act, Section 4 (I)
Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources
· Biotic Communities (including both Flora and Fauna)
· Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Faunà
· Wetlands
Floodplains
Coastal Waters
Wjlçl and Scenic Rivers
Farmland
Energy Supply and Natural Resources
Light Emissions
Solid Waste Impact
· Construction Impacts
FAA Order 5050.4A discusses types of impacts and the thresholds that determine if an impact is
considered significant. In some instances, these determinations are made by calculations,
measurements, or observations. In other cases, it is established through correspondence with
appropriate Federal, State, or local officials. The following sections discuss each of the impact
categories in relation to the recommended development for the Airpon.
6.2.1 Noise
Noise, defined as "undesirable sound" is one of the major concerns of airport owners and airport
neighbors affected by it. Noise is measured in decibels (db). Aircraft sound levels are measured
using the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA), which was developed to measure sounds with more
emphasis on frequencies that can be heard by the human ear.
The noise analysis for the Airport was prepared utilizing a standard, single-number measurement
of community noise exposure, the DNL. The DNL (average day/night sound level) metric
identifies a single value of A-weighted sound for a duration of 24 hours that includes all of the
time-varying sound energy for that period. A 10-dBA penalty is applied to nighttime (10:00 p.m.
_ 7:00 a.m.) sounds to reflect the increase in perceived sensitivity to noise occurring during
sleeping hours.
The DaylNight Noise Level metric, also referred to as DNL, was introduced by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) as a simple method for predicting the effects on a
population of the average long-term exposure to environmental noise. Regulations of the
Depanment of Housing and Urban Devèlopment (HUD) include the DNL as the standard for
measuring outdoor noise environments. An~as' exposed to noise levels of 65 DNL or less are
considered normally acceptable for all types of land use development.
Aircratì noise impacts are assessed through use of the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM)
Version 6.0c. The INM produces noise contours, which depict noise impact areas based on input
of an airpon's activity levels, fleet mix, approach and takeoff profiles, and flight tracks.
6-3
---------.
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoorl Masler Plan
EnvironmentaIOverview___._
Chaoler 6
6.2.2 Compatible Land Use
Noise contours are used to identify land uses that are typically compatible or incompatible with
various levels of noise exposure. Exhibit 6-A provides a detailed listing of land use categories
within various DNL contour intervals. As shown, all land uses are generally acceptable outside
the 65 DNL. Residential development is normally not compatible within the 65-75 DNL unless
soundproofing is incorporated into the structure or the community determines that this type of
development is necessary in this noise environment.
The forecasts of increased operations at FPR are displayed in Exhibit 6-B through Exhibit 6-E as
part of this Master Plan Update. The 75 and 70 DNL contours for both existing and future
conditions at the. airport are contained on Airport property. Almost all of the existing and future
65 DNL contours are contained within the Airport. The future noise contours, however, show
that the 65 DNL encompasses a ponion of the residential Aevelopment off the approac!¡ end to
Runway 27. A FAR Part 150 Noise Study would help to more specifically identify noise
sensitive areas around the Airpon.
All non-compatible land uses within the 65 DNL contour and above are identified and quantified
as pan of a FAR Part 150 Noise Study. With an approved Part 150 Study, the FAA and FDOT
may provide funding to the airport in sponsoring noise abatement and mitigation projects such as
the purchase, relocation, or soundproofing of homes, noise abaternent measures, and noise
mitigation measures.
6.2.3 Social Impacts
The purpose of a social impact analysis is to determine the effect of airport development on the
human en ¡jreflment. The types ef sðeial impaets that can generally result frõlll airpðrt
development incJude:
· Relocation of residences and/or businesses
· Disruption of communities
· Disruption of orderly, planned development
· Alterations in traffic patterns that may permanently or temporarily restrict traditional
community access
The proposed Airpon development will not require the acquisition of area homes or businesses.
The proposed project does not involve residential or commercial relocation. In addition, no
significant changes in current vehicular traffic patterns in the community will occur as a result of
the proposed development at the Airpon. No negative social impacts are anticipated as a result of
the development proposed as St. Lucie County International Airpon.
". .
6.2.4 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
This category refers to the potential for induced or secondary impacts surrounding commuI1II1C'.
such as changes In population and business/economic activity due to the proposcd AlTpnn
_ Developments. .
6-4
---------'-
St. Lucie County In.ternational Airport
Airoort Masler Plan
EnvironmentaIOverview----------
Chanter 6
No existing businesses are anticipated to be disturbed or relocated. For this reason, it is expected
that the proposed projects will not induce any negative socioeconomic impacts. Future expansion
of the general aviation facilities has the potential to generate employment and, therefore, is
considered a beneficial impact for the community through increased revenue and jobs; '.
The proposed action is not considered to be capable of producing any negative induced
socioeconomic impacts on either the City of Fort Pierce or St. Lucie County since there are no
significant impacts in land use or social categories.
6.2.5 Air Qualitý
The effects of air pollution, ranging rrom impaired health to deterioration of structures, are well
documented. Historically, however, airports and aircraft emissions constitute oníy a minor
percentage of the air pollutants in the air. Air pollution is generally caused by "stationary" or
"point" sources, and airports are not considered such sources.
No air quality impacts are expected due to proposed landside or airside improvements. Given the
Airport's existing aircraft activity and the forecast or operational activity, additional impacts rrom
aircraft emissions are projected to be minimal. Additional emissions rrom airborne aircraft are
also expected to be minimal. While additional aircraft operations are anticipated at the Airport,
the type of aircraft operating at the Airport will remain relatively constant.
Air quality impacts associated with automobile activity will not significantly worsen due to
increased traffic and parking lot usage. Concentrations of emissions and their dispersion are not
currently a significant problem due to the lack of any barriers preventing emission dispersion. It
is anticipated that there will be no negative air quality impacts from either airside or landside
upca öliull:).
6.2.6 Water Quality
Water Quality is a particular sensitive, political, social, environmental, and economic issue. A
community's ability to provide adequate volumes of high quality water is seen as one factor in
being able to support additional residential development and to expand an area's economic·base.
Concern for water quality naturally extends to consideration of the status of the sub-surface,
water table, storrnwater, and the adverse affects of chemical, physical, and biological changes to
water supplies.
6.2.7 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(1)
Section 4(f) of the Depanment of Transponation (DOT) Act states that the Depanment secretary
shall not approve any project using land that is considered to be of national, state, or local
significance and is included under one or more of the following categories:
· Publicly owned park or recreation area
· Wildlife or waterfowl refuge
· Historic sites
There are no Section 4(f) lands required for use under the proposed action. Therefore. for the
purpose of this analysis no additional analysis is required. .
6-5
-----
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airnort Masler Plan
Environmental Overview
Chapter 6
6.2.8 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources
Two federal laws apply to this category:
· The Nalional Hisloric Preservalion Acl Q( 1966 - This Acl requires an initial review to
determine whether properlies conlained wilhin the National Regisler Qf Historic Places or
properlies eligible for inclusion in the Regisler will be ajJecled by the proposed development.
· The Archaeological and Hislorical Preservation Acl Qf /974 - This Acl requires a survey.
. recovery. and preservalion of significànl and prehislorical dala Ihal may be destroyed or
irreparably losl due to a federal. federally licensed. or federally funded project.
For this environmental overview, the Florida Division of Historical Resources was contacted for
assistance in assessing the affect of the recommended development on area resources.
Correspondence from this agency is included in Appendix A. The Florida Division of Historical
Resources recommends that a historic structure survey be performed to determine if any of the
original buildings on the airfield are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. If so, the
design of any new buildings planned for construction adjacent to a historical building eligible for
listing in the National Register must incorporate the same historical character.
6.2.9 Biotic Communities·
Biotic c.ommunities are gatherings of animals and plants in the sarne habitat, which interact
through feeding and other activities. The assessment of biotic impacts is directly related to the
effects of noise,air, and water quality changes due to construction irnpacts.
6.2.16 EII(}AlIg~1 ~d alld Till ~A{~II~d Sl'~\;;t:~
A list of any endangered, protected or threatened species that inhabit the areas around the Airport
should be compiled with the assistance of federal and state agencies. These agencies provide a
list of threatened or endangered animals and natural communities found within a two-mile radius
of the Airport.
6.2.11 Wetlands
Wetlands :ire defined as those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a
frequency sufficient to support vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally
saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marsheS', bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud
flats, and natural ponds. Wetlands also include estuarine areas, tidal overflows, and shallow lakes
and ponds with emergent vegetation.
The wetlands on airpon are being determined and defined in a separate project to update the
airpon's storm-water management plan.·· This yet-to-de-determined map would identify the
specific types of wetlands that are located on the airport. Example. types of wetlands are
abbreviated as follows:
· Palustrine/Forested/Broad-leafed Deciduousffemporary
· Palustrine/Shrub/Broad-Ieafed Deciduous and Emergent/Persistent/Seasonal
· Pal ustrine/Emergent/Persistent/Sem ipermanen t
6-6
St. Lucie County International Airport
Ail'Jlort Master Plan
Environmental Overview
Chanter 6
· Riverine/Lower Perennial/Open Water/Excavated
· Palustrine/Open Water/Excavated
· Palustrine/Aquatic BedlUnknown Submergent/Semipermanent
· EstuarinelIntertidal/Emergen tlPersistentlUnknown
The wetlands map will be reviewed by a qualified environrnental specialists, including
representatives tTom the South Florida Water Management District and the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, to verify that a particular project does not impact wetlands, or to calculate the
extent of impact.
As development occurs on the airfield, if any develoþrnent or construction requires the alteration
of wetlands or surface waters, a wetland resource (dredge and fill) permit would be required.
This permit can be obtained fi-om the South Florida Water Management District and the United
, States Anny Corps of Engineers.
6.2.12 Floodplains
Floodplains are defined as lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters
including flood-prone areas or offshore islands. At a minimum, areas that are subject to a one
percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (IOO-year flood) are,also considered to be
floodplain areas.
6.2.13 Coastal Waters'
The Coastal Barriers Resource Act of 1982, PL 97-348 (CBRA), prohibits, with some exception,
federal financial assistance for the development within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
6.2.14 Prime and Unique Farmland
Prime and Unique Farmland is considered to be available land that is best suited for producing
.food, feed, forage, and other types of crops. In addition, prime and unique farmland has the soil
quality and rnoisture supply needed to produce and sustain high yields of crops when treated and
managed according to modern fa"?ing methods.
Currently, St. Lucie County International Airport is panially surrounded by citrus groves mainly
on the western side of the Airport. Some citrus growers' have expressed concern though that the
iand is no longer considered farmable. These effects are not due to the operations of the airport in
any way, but due to natural citrus predators. For these reasons, no adverse impacts to prime and
unique fannland are expected. . , ,
6.2.15 Energy Supply and Natural Resources
In tenns of airpon develqpment, there are typically two areas of concern with regard to energy
supply and natural resources:
. Stationary consumers
. Mobile consumers
Stationary consumers include facilities in a fixed 10catioTl" and can be further categorized into
landside consumers and airs ide consumers. The two primary lands ide consumers include
6-7
------
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoort Màsler Plan
Environmental Overview
Chaoler 6
-----.--
terminal buildings and general aviation facility buildings. Runway, taxiway, and approach
lighting are the primary airside energy consumers. It is anticipated that increases in energy
consumption, due to general aviation and runway/taxiway lighting, will not adversely affect the
area's local energy supply.
. Mobile consumers include moving consumers such as aircraft and autornobiles. At an airport,
aircraft are the primary users of fuel. Since the forecasts indicate an increase in activity during
the planning period, additional fuel will be consumed. It is anticipated that the local consumption
of aviation fuel will not have an adverse local or regional impact on carbon fuel production.
6.2.16 Light Emissions
Light Emissions which rnay create an annoyance to residents in the vicinity of the Airport must
be taken into account. As part of the recommended Airport development plan, runway and
taxiway lighting will be installed.
Currently, annoyance from the Airport's existing light emissions is minimal. Additional airfield
lighting is also expected to have minimal light emission impacts. Due to the relatively low
intensity of runway and taxiway lighting, additional light emission created by these airfield lights
will not be significant and are not expected to cause annoyance. Runway lighting for nighttirne
operations at the airport are typically keyed on by the approaching pilot. . This minimizes the
impact from Airport lighting.
6.2.17 Solid Waste Impac.t
Solid waste is typically affected by terminal development rather than airfield development.
prnjprl~ ",hirh rprote t''1ly to airfield del'clopment (run'''ays, taxi;"ays, et~.) do nGt nGrmally
result in any direct impact to solid waste collection, control, or disposal other than that associated
with the construction itself.
6.2.18 Construction Impacts
Construction activities generäte noise, dust, air emIssIOns, and erosion, which impact the
surrounding environment. Heavy construction equipment will generate noise. However, it is
expected that this noise will occur only ßuring the daylight hours. During construction of the
runway, it is expected that temporary noise impacts will occur. Noise is an expected by-product
of construction and will not produce any pemianent, on-going impacts.
Potential impacts of dust during construction include reduced visibility,. unsightly coatings on .
buildings, and discomfon for dust-sensitive individuals. Methods for dust control can be
implemented to minimize dust generation and transport.
Construction activity will produce emissions from vehicular, equipment, and other construction
activity associated with the projects. A temporary increase in emissions will occur due to the
presence of constantly running internal combustion engines. While these acÎivÌ!ies will produce a
temporary increase of emissions, they are typical of iarge construction projects and will not pose
any lasting negative impacts.
Constructiori impacts such as noise, dust, air emissions, and erosion generated by construction
activities assocíated with the proposed project are anticipated to be minirnal and are not long-term
impacts on the environment. Measures for limiting construction impacts described in the FAA
6-8
St. Lude County International Airport
Airport Master Plan
Environmental Overview.._~--,-_____
Chaoter 6
Advisory Circular l50/5370-IOA, Standards for SpecifYing Construction of Airports (Item P-156)
should be followed during construction.
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW SUMMARY
This environmental overview has not identified any major impacts that would be associated with
the proposed Airport development plan recommended by this Master Plan. If future development
of the airport requires an environmental assessment, several categories may need to be
investigated in more detail. These categories include noise, biotic communities, threatened or
endangered species, floodplains, and wetlands.
6.3.1 Environmental Impact Statement
Development projects recommended by this Master Plan Update will not require an EIS .unless it
is determined by an EA that environmental categories investigated in that EA require the detailed
investigation of an EIS action.
6.3.2 Environmental Assessment
An EA may be required due to the physical characteristics of development projects recomrnended
by this Master Plan Update. In addition to the potential environmental effects of the physical
characteristics of recommended developments, an EA may also be required due to the increasing
numbers of aircraft operations and related activities, for example, aircraft maintenance and
ground access.
The 1993 FAR Pan 150 Study will need to be revised due to such projects as the installation of
Runway 9L-2ï'R, and thc cJ<tcn,iun uf Runway 14 lIuc,huld bcyuud thc RSA, and thc updatcd
forecasts of aviation activity.
6.4 DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CATERGORlES
Recommended development actions that may require an EA are as follows.
Within 20-year master plan period:
New Parallel Runway 9L-27R
Connecting North-South Taxiway
Land Acquisition for New Runway Approaches
Extension of Runway 14-32
6.4.1 New Parallel Runway 9L-27R
Although a formal site inspection has not been conducted, aerial photography indicates that the
construction site for Runway 9L-27R and its future taxiway systems is on relatively stable land.
The site appe'ars suitable for construction of paved surfaces and there appears to be minimal
wetlands within the construction site. However, wetlands occur off each end of the runway
location in or near future runway protection zones.
Because Gopher Tonoise colonies have been found in similar sites on FPR, a site inspection will
be required. Where Gopher Tonoises are found, there may also be Eastern Indigo Snakes and
Gopher Frogs. Gopher Tonoise relocation programs have been completed for other construction
6-9
St. Lucie County International Airport
Ai¡:port Ma.çter Plan
Environmental Overview_~:_~__
Chanter 6
projects at FPR. The construction of Runway 9L-27R may require expansion of . current
relocation sites or other mitigation actions.
Further east, beyond the runway protection zone, are possible nesting/roosting sites, which need
to be investigated to determine types and numbers of birds that may be affected by fly-overs of
aircraft. It is suspected that there may be Egrets, Herons, and Scrub Jays in those nesting sites.
Approximately 4,450 feet north of the new runway centerline and 5,910 feet east of the Runway
27R threshold is a Bald Eagle nest. The site is approximately 1,900 feet south of Indrio Road.
There are residential units on the north side of Indrio Road 4,150 feet closer to thenest than the
runway. The acclimation of the birds to the residences needs to be determined and can serve as
input with regard to determining the overall amount of controlled space needed.
6.4.2 Connecting North-South Taxiway
The recommended north-south connecting taxiway passes both eXIsting citrus groves and
undeveloped upland areas. There are also some existing site drainage canals which could be
placed in conduit beneath the taxiway.
6.4.3 Land Acquisition
Sorne additional land acquisition. will be required for the new parallel Runway 9L~27R,
supporting taxiway systems, and runway protection zones. These areas include parcels 40, 41, 42
and 53.
6.4.4 Extension of Runway 14-32
The extension of Runway 14-32 by 850 feet north of Runway 9-27 plus the extension and
connection of Taxiway B to the new Runway 14 threshold will extend northwest toward the site
of a temporary Gopher Tortoise relocation program. The effects on the site will require
investigation prior to a construction program.
6.5 INCREASED ACTIVITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORIES
The effects on environmental categories, due to increased activities, are not as easily related to an
individual recommendation, as is a defined construction project. In most cases, the
environmental categories affected are off-site. An example of an on-site effect due to increased
activities may, however, be the fly-over of nesting areas. Increased activities that mayrequire an
EA include aircraft operations, aircraft maintenance, and ground access.
The increase in aircraft operations may contribute directly to environmental categories of noise,
social irnpacts, induced socioeconomic impacts, and air quality and indirectly to water quality.
The increase in aircraft maintenance resulting /Torn increased numbers of based aircraft, visiting
aircraft, and aircraft operating hours contribute most directly to effects on environmental
categories of water quality.
The need for alTtield ground access will increase due to increased number of based and visiting
aircraft with the most significant effect on environmental categories being related to induced
socioeconomic impacts because of increased surface traffic.
6-10
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoort Master Plan
Environmental Overview
Chanler 6
6.5.1 Noise
The forecasts of increased operations at FPR are displayed in Exhibits 6-B through 6-E as part of
this Master Plan Update. The proposed FAR Part 150 Noise Study Update will consider any
additional noise impacts, abatement, and mitigation.
6.5.2 Social Impacts and Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
There are no social impacts or induced socioeconomic impacts due to the recommended airport
development projects or increased activities because they will result in very limited relocation of
residences, businesses, or patterns of population and business movement. Increased ground
access will not be a significant contributor to surface transportation.
6.5.3 Air. Quality
An air quality analysis in accordance with the Air Quality handbook, "Air Quality Procedures for
Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases," Report No. F AA-EE-82-2l will be a requirement of an
EA.
6.5.4 Water Quality
Aircraft operations contribute to water quality effects through increased maintenance and repair
functions. that occur when numbers of based aircraft, visiting aircraft, and aircraft services
increase. Water quaIity certification may also be required under the Federal Government's 1982
Airport Act for airport developments such as a new runway. Water certification may be obtained
through consultation with and approval from the EP A regional office concerning the potential for
~ulll411.iuC1L;UII uf c:u"-Iuift::I~ idcuLiGçJ (t~ è1 :.vlc VI p.iu\';ipl¡;; Jlillki1J~ watt;l ò)uw\.<¡¡;;, ,,",vuldiuaLivu
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (and equivalent state agency); and acquisition of various
permits having to do with release of water into navigable waters which includes some wetlands.
An update of the master drainage plan for FPR is recommended in this Master Plan Update and
may be helpful in obtaining the various permits.
6-1 I
· .
--......-... ..
-- - ....- - ~- ..
Chapter 7
.' ..<, .
---.-
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airoort Masler Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
ChaTJler 7
Chapter Seven: Capital Improvement Plan
. .
7.0 GENERAL
A staging plan and a financial plan are presented to describe the. steps required to reach the
development discussed in Chapler 4 - Airport Alternatives. The staging plan considers the demand-
driven need for facilities according to Chapter 3 - Facility Reqlliremenls, as well as the financial
feasibility of construction as determined in this task, so that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) can be
reasonably implemented. The financial plan evaluates the airport's resources and proposes financial
actions and revenue improvements.
The key issues to be dealt with in this Chapter, as identified by the Master Plan Study Group (MPSG),
are listed below with a note as to the Section in which the issue is addressed.
Aviation
Environment/Community
Existin¡¡ Commitments
Five Year, Annualized List of
Development Project's Costs
Funding Sourçes
(FAA, FDOT, County, Private)
Short-tenn (2002-2006)
Analysis of Airport Budget as it Relates to
County Budget
Conclusions
Federal Regulations Regarding
Diversion of Airport Revenue
Existing Lease Structure
Analysis of Airport's Ability to Support Itself
Revenues
Existing Leases
Existing Lease Structure
Ten Year List of Projects/Costs
Intennediate-Tenn
(2007-2011)
FAA & FDOT Grant Programs
Capital Improvement Plan
Twenty Year List of Projects/Costs
Long-tenn (20 12-2020)
Review of Revenue Sources and Levels
FinanciallManagement Plan
Analysis of Airport Operating Expenses
Revenues
7.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
The CIP represents a schedule and cost estimate for implementing the airport improvements, which
have been recommended as a result of the AMPU process. Scheduling of improvements has been sub-
divided into three phases: short-term (2002-2006), intermediate-term (2007-2011) and long-term (2012-
2020). The CIP must be viewed as a constantly evolving document: planning for the airport should
remain flexible and should incorporate annually updated estimates of costs and priorities.
The CIP is structured in a manner that presents a logical sequence of improvements, while attempting to .
reflect available funding from the State and Federal levels. Those airport improvements which are
eligible for AlP funding in the State of Florida, such as the Design and Construction of Security
Fencing, receive 90% of the funding from the FAA, 5% is funded by FDOT and the remaining 5% by
the local sponsor. Projects ineligible for AlP funding must either be funded by the State, the Airport or
by·private entities, such as the FBO's at the airport or outside developers.
7-1
---,-
St. Lucie County International Airport
AirDort Mosler Plan
Capital Improvement PIan---~--·
Chapler 7
The following sections describe the proposed airpon improvements for each of the three phases. The
short-term phase represents a more detailed plan as it is broken down by individual fiscal years. The
intermediate and long-term phases only include a prioritized order of project implementation. Table7·
1 contains details for the short-term phase of the CIP and Table 7-2 contains details for the intermediate
and long-term phases of the CIP.
7.1.1 Short -Term (2002-2006)
The majority of the projects recommended by this AMPU occur during the short-term development
phase. The projects range from safety enhancements, to buildings, to meeting FAA design criteria, to
providing additional safety and capacity at St. Lucie County International Airport.
Individual Explanations of the Proposed Projects and their timelines.
CONSTRUCT MARK & LIGHT TfW A·6 & E
This taxiway is in accordance with the approved Master Plan. Pavement design strength will be 60,000
pounds, which is consistent with the associated taxiways. Standard marking and lighting will be
applied. Combined with A·6 and E, it will provide rnore efficient access to the terminal and FBO areas.
INSTALL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR RIW 9L 27R
Install vertical/visual guidance systems (P API/V ASIlREILI ALS/etc.)
REHAB & MARK TfW "A"
The runway weight bearing capacity is rated at 60,000#DG. The taxiway strength has been evaluated at
30,000 Ibs. GW and the PCI is below standards in many sections.
REIMBURSE AIRPORT LAND
Acquire land or easement for approaches
CONSTRUCTPARALLELR~AY
Needed for capacity enhancement and noise abatement.
CONSTRUCT PARALLEL T/W TO PARALLEL RIW 9L-27L
Needed to support new Parallel Runway 9L-27R.
CONSTRUCT CONNECTING TfW TO PARALLEL RIW
Needed to support new Parallel Runway 9L·27R.
CONbUCT PART 150 NOISE STUDY
Update to evaluate, reduce and mitigation for existing and future conditions.
INSTALL REILs RIWs 9R, 27L & 32
Installation of REIL's on these runways will better define the runway thresholds for nighttime
operations: The lights will add to the operational safety of aircraft utilizing these runways for landings.
IMPROVE AIRFIELD DRAINAGE (Multi-Phased)
The existing headwalls on the west end of 9/27 at two locations near the runway are inadequate to
prevent erosion due to heavy rains. The structures need to be modified and/or extended to allow
stability of the surrounding solid and permit slope protection. Presently the unstable soil is being
7-2
-------
St Lucie County International Airport
'Airoorl Mosler Plan
Capital Improvement Plan ----
ChalJler 7
washed into the ditches causing a blockage of the drainage through the pipes. Efforts have been rnade
to maintain the areas around the structures.
APRON IMPROVEMENTS
Rehab Apron Areas.
REIMBURSE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT LAND
Acquire land or easement for development.
STARS-LITE DISPLAY SYSTEM
Provide Safety Enhancement through Air Traffic Control.
7.1.2 Intermediate -Term (2007-2011)
The intermediate-term phase includes pavement maintenance projects for Runway 14-32 as well as
Taxiways 'A', 'E' and 'C'. The improvements will extend the service life of the Runways and
Taxiways.
It is essential for airports to update their Master Plans every 5 to 10 years. Airports significantly
increase the potential for State and Federal funding when their AMP is kept up-to-date. Therefore, the
next AMPU is.suggested during this phase.
An Airport Rescue and Eire Fighting (ARFF) facility is recommended for construction during· the long-
term phase. Having an ARFF facility located directly at the airport significantly reduces response time
when such services are called upon. Also, the FBO's are expected to add T-hangars, conventional
hangars and fuel farm capacity. These projects will be privately developed and financed through the
FBO's, but primary taxilanes, roadways, and utilities will be provided by the airport. .
INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT (Phase I & II)
Project will be used as industrial Park Development for SW area of Airport.
AIRPORT DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT
The sponsor has acquired a significant amount of property (approxímately 2,500 acres) for expansion
purposes. Additionally, drainage plans for individual projects will need to be updated to reflect recent
regulatory changes as welÌ as to tie in with near and intermediate-term planned development.
UPGRADE R/W 9R127L TO HIRL
Install runway lighting; HIRL, MIRL, TDZ or CL IÍghting
CONSTRUCT GA APRON NW OF TfW 'B'
Needed for General Aviation Infra structure Improvements".
. .CONSTRUCT GA APRON NW OF TfW 'F'
Needed for General Aviation Infra structure Improvements.
CONSTRUCT TERMINAL APRON
Construct Terminal Apron
REIMBURSE AIRPORT LAND - PHASE I
Ongoing FAA program
7-3
.._'.._---'.._~-
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airporl Masler Plan
Capital Impróvëtnent I'lan
Chaoler 7
CONSTRUCT PASSENGER TERMINAL
Improve/Modify/Rehab terminal
INSTALL PERlMETER SAFETY FENCING -PHASES III - VIII
Acquire security equipment/perimeter fencing
CONSTRUCT PERlMETER ROAD
Construct/ExpandlImprove/Modify/Rehab Service Road
REIMBURSE AIRPORT LAND
Acquire land or easement for approaches
INSTALL SECURITY FENCING
Acquire security equipment/perimeter fencing not required by Part 107
CONSTRUCT GA APRON
Needed for General Aviation Infrastructure Improvements.
CONSTRUCT AIRCRAFT RUN-UP AREAS
Locate to reduce aircraft noise irnpacts and assist aircraft operations.
REHABILITATE RlW 14/32
Maintenance to Runway to keep facility to acceptable standards.
sa ety.
ACQUIRE ARFF VEHICLE
Needed for airfield operations support and safety.
REHAB R!W 9/27 LIGHTING
Rehab Runway lighting or electrical vault
EXTEND TAXIWAY 'A'
ExtendlWiden(Strengthen Taxiway to meet acceptable standards.
REHAB TAXIWAY 'C'
Maintenance to Runway to keep facility to acceptable standards.
DEMOLITION OF AIRPORT OWNED STRUCTURES
To allow for needed commercial development in the south quadrant.
AIRPORT INDUSTRlAL PARK NORTH,. .
Needed for Commercial or General Infrastructure Improvements.
7.1.3 Long -Term (2012-2020)
Additional T -hangars, conventional hangars ançl fuel farm capacity are expected to be privately
developed, and financed by the FBO's at the airport. Maintenance projects as needed.
7-4
="
«I ...
¡¡:;
....
i! ë
=
...
..
Q
...
Q,
=
....
-
«I
....
's.
«I
U
....
...
Q
Q,
...
<
-
«I
=
Q
"-
....
«I
=
...
...
....
=
¡~
= ...
~1
~J
s:::'
º'
r::
..
s:
d
..
e
..
.... ..
. 0
.... ..
~!ä'
....
.....
-
.~
c.
..
u
e
..
..
Eo;'
t:
o
-=
'"
-
;¡
"
.
..¡
8 I !&§ ~&~5
'~ ::: VI f"'-" :! ~ ~ ~
:J
.
0;
8 §~8~&8j
o~I~~~:!::::~:::
00 11'"11"'1 _...;
~
o
...
N
I t I
...
oÖ
Ii;
o
~u
b~
¡....,
0=
..
00
00
I~~:
- N
<>
8~§88888:q
" è!) 8 vi as a.~ o~ Ó ~
8V\ VlV'lIXIIl"'lt--..
-cë N_N ~
n
æ ~
- ~
S>
~
88888888g
NNNNNNNNr'\t
i
..
"I
....
..
..
~
- Q ~
u Z '"
l~ffiffi~
¡gæ::!i"-:>
<::st5>t;
~ø....J~UJ
~g~~f!3
QtL UJCI)°z
> Q œ
Q~~~!5
§¡"<'"
g¡œ..::!it2
_ 0 ..J ~ <
~ë5~æ~
> < ~ ..¡ U
oa¡cn,... ~
œ",,:>.'SQ
a.. ::. CI .. Z
~ ~ ~I~IR
~
u
~
.
...
'"
¡¡
"
.!!.
e
..
£!
..
~
~"
< ~
Ë; :J
~~
œ '"
I;:u
~ ~
~~
g~5
C( ~ '
li;o~
~~¡:
-NM"'-Vl'D['OO
00
8&1
ô~
......
8 ~ 8 ... ~88 ¡:¡
....
~ .... '" ..:
Ö ..,~ ,.; f.:;{g ~
... ~ =: ~ ~
-:
88
8~
N ...
~ M ~ .~ :ð
I Õ·8P1~::;
~QC~""~
....
88~
..; o~..
N ~ '"
-:
<>
:::
'-';
,<>
"'
oò
I
11'"120 S:::~2 VI
S{õ8 'D õ ~
I . ö I ~~",..¡ 1 ~
~~1r1 ~~~ ~
'2§.~§.~
â8 8 ~
~~....:~\O
&5g§&~
~~:Qi~...
..., Ñ I:"'Î"" (:: ..
888888§888g
NNNNNNNNNN""
~
..
-
Ii ~
.21- ~
bffi E:.
[3::!i "
gg~ ~
~~:S8ffi
QQ~:!tI.o
~~~~~
~::<~8
~~~~~
>~~=:J
o",,,,~<
œ:>::!i;t¡"
~2~~¡g
is
~
~
œ
...
N
..:, '"
"'œfiJ
~¡¡j!3
..¡..¡I-
",..¡U
::J~~
~..!;;
i~~!
œ~"~
z~¡¡jF~
~..¡::Jì:¡jë5
~~~<ð;::
o ~ ø.. U 0
E-of-f-of-oe;i
gggg-
œ 0= œ œ !::
....f-ofoooof-o...J
en rJ'J CI1 rJ'J 0
~~~~a;
uuuuc
a.2=~~::!:~~r---oo
8~8~8:g8§¡;;
" .. ..... "t"\ A A"':
~~~MVlMO;:!¡~
§~§~8:g88~
8~gg::::VI"~Ô'tt"~
NNM_ ""N...;
1
..
,~~~
_°oõ
~~VI
<>
8 ~
Ñt::
~ ~
... ..;
I
88§5&88&!
gsf~~8~s:ri:~
N N "<#' rf f"'1 "<#' ...
88888888~
NNNNMNNMI">t
œ '"
W œ
'"
12 ~
j~; ~ ~
;;;~~~ '" Ë
C) ¡.... 0:z 0 ¡::
<='"3 ~~'"
~"z~ ....N~
~ ::¡ Z ¡¡j ¡::;ì ~
9~~~ ~¡:¡~
",«œ t2i~
-::!i« 0-0
g¡I-~~~~~~
-UUUQ-"'u
<:>:>:>«0=:>
W..œœœœ"'..¡œ
~ f-o f-o..J U...J ¡....
~"'''''''<j<'''
"~~~U!!ii!i~
::!iuuu'ì~",u
~2Ñ~~~~~
--,~--
on
,
r-
~
,
I
=="
~ ....
~
....
==
..
E
..
;>
Q
..
S'
....
-
0:1
....
.-
C.
0:1
U
....
..
Q
C.
..
<
-
0:1
==
Q
.-
....
0:1
==
..
..
.....
==
¡~
=
Q
U
..
~~
~~
-,----
§~&~§.~. 0 0 8. ~ ...
;¡ 0 ~ §I ~ 8. ~
0 ~ ~ ~.
" '" .... 1 ~ :;¡
· "'. ~ .... 0 . '"
0 "" ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~
... ~ .., :!: ~ "" !;j "" ~ ~ ...
..;
·
£
~
...
t;
o
:¡]U
..t¡
0..
..::¡
'"
Do
g ~ ~
'" ......
~S!:..,.
88888:
18~òg&f;;;
M "'~ -0
080
~ .... ~
~ -....
virJOtS
'" ~ ....
o
...
...
&;;1
'"
'"
~
..,
II::
~
-:
..,
§ 8- ,
";8
~'"
o
8 8 8 ; :
rt ,.; II). ::;
~ g :;; Q\~
'"
o °oo~
88~88;::'
ô¿8ôg~
;Q~q,::i Pi
- ..,
ë
·
¡,... If'! If'I on VI .." '" V'\ .1.1") '" :s
;¡= 888888888..
t> NNMMNNNNN"'II
...
·
...
·
...
·
·
=
..
o
"
·
¡
:;¡
...
co
..
C!,
~
"'
'"
,¿ ~
¡:¡ e:,
..J CJ
~ 2i
~ .... u
~ -1G3
UN.... < Lt.
Õ ~ ~ ;z;25>-
~ ~@~gæ~§
o N..tø..::E:<t-<U
,:¡<"'..J,;2..J"'",
cr.. O\....._.--<~rn
:I:~~O;¡",..J25t.:J,¿
~....~O~~~~"'~
O~"'~"'-'"' ~
~<ffi~~~t:~ffi
<';'¿iQ0",U~Do
..J~..J::>:;;02<..J
:¡]~:;¿",O~f-o>:;¿
.... :I: ¡... ~ Do CJ 2 ¡;¡ ....
~g¡~g¡~~R~~
e
-
·
~
1:
o
...
'"
~
!
o
-
Do
~~~g;:;;~~;!;~
..
~.~8§t§.8.~
.. sf
~M~~;:¡~'"
'" r-- N r-- ~..
I ~ I
'":
..
..
..
\0>
~
...,
I
§.8.!~8.&!
~SC3\M~&~
r-- 0'1": M 0'\ ....;
888888~
NNNNNN.....
s
~
:>
"'
~
e:,
CJ
CJ 2i
~ æ
:I: ...
o § ~
<
~ ~ ~ §
cnCš¡¡:~=~
~}o-oe:UUCl)
","'<s:<'¿
~~¡:~$~
9":;!!::<~
-.... '" "'.... "'
:äU~<UDo
_;,¿g¡;..J
z~cc5~:i
9 ;z; < O';z; ....
~ g i':! 0 ~
\0 t-. .., 0\ ~ ....
t""I "" """ "' .... ....
...
~
'"
'0
..,
.:
'"
..,
'0
.,;
;:
...
...,
~
"
"
.,;
::¡
..;
...
s
~
:;¡
....
¡:
~
~
~
~
.:.
~
~
'"
,
...
u
. "
c"
...
-
.,
...
. c.
..
e
..
..
o
..
c.
e
....
-
...
...
'6.
...
u
...
..
o
C.
..
<
-
...
c
o
;::
...
c
..
..
...
c
....
ã$
cc:o..
ð~
.sd'
~ 1:
~!
.,
....
u
a
..
OJ
~
.... =
, 0
.......
.!!...,
.. :;;
Eo< OJ
...
...
.~
...,
OJ
a
..
OJ
¡;;
....
.
,
.
u
·
....
&88_§8~
..., V). In .. .. ""
r- r- 0'1 II'") 0 r-
oc '"' loCI oc
8888
: ""!."1.trI"'ì,
N~C-:r-
:!
·
¡;;
§8§~8§
V'Î "1. Ö .. ò It\
r;;;r-~~~r;;;
8888
!"'1."'!.V"IV'I
~~r:r:
~
...
o 0
.8 I~'
1.,.;'.0'\ .
~ ~
'"
!~&8.§.
N \I'), "" ".. ..,.,
ON 0'1 1'""\ ....
. "'....
¡
§
~u
foot;
0..,
foo::¡
0:
...
o ,0 0 §
~~~ö
~ g; 8 '"
O'II"'-M:--
!~~§.8.
Noeoo
~:q~"'\t'\
8. §
~ö
r-. V")'
-
.
u
·
~ ..
'it ~
~>
...
~
...
r-r-r-r-r---ocOOOODCIO'<O'I r-
88888888888õ8
MNNMMNNMNNNNN
~
~
~
"
'I
...
"
"
t!-
E
~
u
~
.
:a
~
E
~
:!
.:
~;:
;;; ;; s:
UJ UJ UJ
~~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~~
fæ "'$:, 2ææ
-u z_ r-uu
x~ Qx :¡ ~~
~LI.o ~î2 WJu..~
o~ ¡:;~ '<":.~~
~ª ~~< ~~~ªª~
~írl ~... jz:&Jírlj
~~< ~~ ~~~~~t2
õ2¡:!>u:::¡õ1UJoffi"foofooO
fooUJ<~ò/¡;;~::a¡:~UJUJ::a
~~~~¡:!i5",<"'ø:~~<
7UJ:.(xl:1æ"'UJ«UJUJUJ
"'......<0 OjO::1.........g¡
t¡:JQ...~t¡:J5~:J:J:J:J
~<~~"'~<~o«<e
I-¡::::ClI !-_ØoI!-t-<f-o,c;
:;;: !21~ 119 ~ I:;;: 1!2 i:11!;§!2 .!2 !2 t!J
jj
~
'õ'
~
...
'" ~
.... ....
~~~!¡~~~;;;
N ..,....
~ ~ ~
"
"
.,
..
"
~
..
.
u
.3
"
"
"
00
'CO
'"
..
~
~
~.
~
,,'
~
::!;
~'
~
...:
foo
'"
8
~foo
E;u
foo~
Ii:
¡;
æ~
- .
~>
~
i!
...
l;;j
¡..;
12
~
:x¡
..
~
~
¡!¡
:;
~
~
¡..;
'"
§888.~
gôvi~g
<n oo~
.
.
3,
en
'"
88.§&~
¿gviVllr¡
...oN-f;'"":.
~
~
...
8. § ~
¡s I ö ¡ ~
0.. r- ""
N ...,
8. 8 8· 8. ~
8 . . 0 '"
N~8~~
.. N!""\ .. ..
- .,
M o.n 't' f-
a õ õ 8
N N N N
~
N
N
:jI
..
~
o
t!-
....
¡::
¡:
~
~
~~
en ~~
ffi~ ~~
~ >....
~~¡:!~
~o>ð~
... 0.: is'''
~~z~
..J _ j ;:¡
ð¡§...~
~g~~
..J~~~
UJ ::1..J
t¡t¡t¡;:¡
oOoUJ
~ ~ ~I~
E
~
~
'¡,
.
.
..J
i
'f'
..
V"\ \0 r-- 00
01"\ '" on '"
...
o
...
.
St. Lucie County International Airport
Airyorl MasterPlan
Capital Improvement Plan
Chqpler 7
-----
7.2 FINANCIAL/MANAGEMENT PLAN
This Section deals with the financial structure and management of St. Lucie County International Airport.
The airpon is a revenue generating entity within the St. Lucie County structure; its operating revenues
meet its operating expenses. Nonetheless, the airport's goals should be to realize the maximum revenue
from the airport lease structure, thereby insuring the ability of the airport to cover operating costs and
match for State or Federal capital grants for the CIP.
7.2.1 Existing Lease Structure
St. Lucie County International Airport owns the land within the leasehold of the airport, and the tenants
develop and own the buildings, hangars and other facilities located on airport property. Currently, there
are two primary leases that. ultimately define the financial structure of the St. Lucie County International
Airport. Table 7-3 summarizes the main provisions of these leases.
The two primary FBO leases are held by Air Charter and B & E Houck Enterprises, both on a renewable
basis. All other leases at the airport are through the primary FBO lessors. The requirements to become a
FBO at St. Lucie County International Airport are detailed in the airport's Rule & Regulations and
comprise of providing basic aircraft support such as fueling, aircraft rental, storage, tie-down and sales
aircraft maintenance, and Hangar rental. Various aviation support services, such as the FAA Airport
Traffic Control Tower, The St. Lucie County Sherifrs Department, and the St. Lucie County Fire
District, have lease agreements with the airport in exclIange for providing services.
Any revenues generated from the airport land must remain .on the airport and be used to offset airport
expenses per Federal regulations. Airport leases should provide for revenue generation tTom several
differenl separalely n:cogni:LCd ~OUICt::s. A It::ösc which uuly I,,;a.lb CUl ö. luulp :twu p4)'UJ.'-lít fl()Ul the.:. kssc.G
does not clearly identify what the lessee is paying for and makes it more difficult to alter the lease if the
lessee's conditions change in such a way as would warrant an adjustment in the lease terms. The
following four major revenue components should be identifiable in an airport lease:
Land Rent: Land is an airport's major resource and the airport should be compensated for its
use. Airport land should be leased, not sold, and at rates cornparable to commercial and industrial
rates.
Facility Rent: The airport should be adequately compensated by users who rent or lease space in
airport-owned facilities, e.g. terminal buildings, hangars, fuel farms, etc.
Gross Receipts Fee (GRF): This fee is based on the fact that the airpo~'s existence creates the
market on which a commercial operator depends'. The airport should be compensated for the
expense of maintaining the airport and creating that market opportunity. The GRF can be
difficult to administer.
Additional Fees: These are charges to direct users of the airport. A typical example is the fuel
flowage fee. The fuel nowage fee is a predetermined charge owed to the airport for each gallon
of fuel purchased by the FBO's on the field.
Table 7-3 il1ustrates how the FBO and other leases at St. Lucie County Airport incorporate the majority
of the revenue sources previously mentioned. Additionally, they clearly identify the services to be
provided and normal operating contingency provisions. The four leases are, therefore~ compensatory
leases for the airport. Specific recommendations for improvements are described in the following section.
7-9
St. Lucie County International Airport
Ai,.porl Master Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
ChaDler 7
--~-
Table 7-3
Current Lease Agreements
Lessee Lease Dates Premises Services Provided . . Payments Renegotiation
Leased
Air Acreage: Full Service FBO: -Rent: $Iacre/yr. Renewal
Chartèr* -Plus tenant -Fuel sales -Fuel Flowage Fee:
constructed -Aircraft rental, storage, tie-down Sigal., min. ofS/month
facilities and sales -Adjusted per Consumer
-Aircraft maintenance Price Index (CPI) upon
-Hangar rental renewal
B&E Acreage: Full Service FBO: -Rent: S/acre/yr. Renewal
Houck -Plus tenant -Fuel sales -Fuel Flowage Fee:
Enterprises* constructed -Aircraft rental, storage, tie-down Sigal., min. of S/month
facilities and sales -Adjusted per CPI upon
-Hangar rental renewal
Sherifrs None Safety & Security Renewal
Department
Fire District None Fire Protection Renewal
EMS services
ATCT None Airspace & Ground Control Renewal
Aiifield Monitoring
Source: HT A
. Includes a number of sub-tenant agreements.
7.2.2 Revenues and Expenses
The primary sources of airport revenues come from land leases, rentals, and fuel fees, while St. Lucie
County assists in paying the local share of capital development. Most of the airport expenses can be
classified as "Administrative, "Maintenance", and "Capital", or "Development", The classification of
"Other" covers such expense items from the airport industrial park, small project studies, foreign trade
zone, and outside services.
Table 7-4 illustrates the latest financial performance figures for the airport. Table 7-5 is a projection of
future revenue at St. Lucie County Int:rnational Airport under the current revenue structure.
Table 7-4
Operating History
Revenues 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001*
Land Rent l50,OOC 150,00C 150,001 150,000 150,00C .
Fuel Flowage 3l,39C 35,583 42,82~ 50,393 51,13C
¡Rentals 358,65( 396,446 424,799 424,41.1 . 431,613
~nterest 106,22( 134,26~ 153,73:< l50,6H 55,00C
~iscellaneous 8,57( 59,75' 931,35( 784,473 1,204,449
peneral Revenues 523,57\ 1,400,82, 2,801 1,203 --
IFDOT/Federal Grants 2,249,65C 1,307,03( 905,471 100,62( 4,152,17(
Total 3,428,07 3,483,911 2,610,97 1,661,72_ 6,044,36,
7-10
St. Lucie County International Airport
Aimorl Masler Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
ChaDler 7
----'--._--
Expenses 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001*
Admin. / Maintenance 462,232 669,217 548, I J( 523,32C 598,031
Development 2,74l,47~ 1,805,261 1,767,588 113,958 4,733,80
Capítal ll8,97C 38,11' 5l,40~ 302,59 153,511
Other 70,4/iA 113,20. 1,073,231 70,18( 558,99S
Tota 3,393,14£ 2,625,79~ 3,440,33~ 1,013,05/ 6,044,36.
T olal Surplus (Deficit)1 34,9371 858,116. (829,361)1 648,6731 /
Source: St. Lucie County International Airport
. 200 I fiscal year budgeted figures were used and are therefore estimates.
Table 7-5
Revenue & Expense Projections
Year Rent/Fees Fuel . Total Expenses
Flowage Fee Revenue
2005 1,497,60( 8l,IOC 1,578,70C 857,500
2010 1,9ll,30( 103,500 2,014,80( 1,018,100
2020 3,113,30( 168,50C 3,281,80( 1,515,800
. Source: St. Lucie County International Airport and HT A.
_ Future projections based on projected annual operations and historical data.
All figures rounded to the nearest 100.
7.2.3 Management
St. Lucie County International Airport is owned by St. Lucie County. An Airport Director, who is
appointed by the St. Lucie County Administrator, manages the airport. The airport management staff
consists of the following eight St. Lucie County employees: Airport Director, Executive Assistant,
Airport Operations Manager, and Noise Abatement Officer. Four airport staff personnel handle airfield
maintenance and security.
7.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The comparison of the projected revenues and expenditures at St. Lucie County International Airport
represents an estimate of future trends, which are subject to the assumptions previously mentioned. The
airport cash flow and finances are sound, and this study has two recommendations for improvement.
I. Although revenues cover expenses, St. Lucie County International Airport should make maximum
use of the revenue generating elements of the existing leases so as to ensure continued capability to
fund the capital program in the CIP.
2. St. Lucie County should consider creating an independent "airport account" within the 'County
Accounting System to simplify the ability to strictly account for airport funds per FAA and FDOT
regulations. Such accounting will assist the airport to remain fiscally self-sufficient.
7-11
--
-~--
____n..'.."·_______'_ -",,".
wendix A
----"-
Abbreviated Aviation Terms and Names:
This glossary is intended to provide a general reference for commonly used terms
relating to aviation, aircraft and airport operation or regulation. While all are not
used in this document's text, they may be used in the various guidance, reference
or regulatory publications listed in Section V. The definitions section of the model
zoning ordinance is Section IV contains a glossary of specific aviation related land
use terms used in the model.
AAAE - American Association of Airport Executives
AASHTO _ American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
A/C - Aircraft
AC (00/0000-0) - Advisory Circular (with an identification number
ACHP - A,dvisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACI-NA - Airports Council International-North America
ACM - ASbestos-containing materials
ADA -Americans with Disabilities Act
ADG - Airplane Design Group
ADO _ Airports District Office (FAA - Federal Aviation Administration)
ADPM - Average day of the peak month
AGL - Above ground level
AlP - Airport Improvement Program -
AIR-21 _ Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
ALP - Airport Layout Plan·
ALPA - Airline Pilots Associati.on
ALUC - Airport Land Use Commission
AMP.- Airport Master Plan
AMPU - Airport Master Plan Update
AMSL - Above Mean Sea Level
ANG - Air National Guard
AOA - Air operations area
AOCI - Airport Operations Council International
AOPA - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
APM - Automated people mover
APU - Auxiliary power unit
AQMP - Air Quality Management Plan
ARC - Airport Reference Code
ARFF _ Aircraft rescue and fire fighting (formerly crash/fire/rescue [CFR])
ARP - Airport reference point
ARSA _ Airport Radar Service Area (now, Class C airspace)
ARSR - Air route surveillance radar.
ARTCC - Air Route Traffic Control Center
ASOS - Automated Surface Observation System
ASR - Airport Surveillance Radar
ASV - Annual service volume
ATA - Air Transport Association of America
A TC - Air traffic control
ATCT - Airport traffic control tower
BCA - Benefit-cost analysis (FAA)
BEA _ Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce)
BIDS - Baggage Information Display System
BlM - Bureau of land Management
· --,'--'----_.
---,--------
BLS - Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor)
BMP - Best management practices
BRL -B'uilding restriction line
CAD - Computer Assisted Design.
CATER - Collection and Analysis of Terminal Records
CBD - Central Business District
CDV - Corrected Deduct Value
CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (Superfund)
CFASPP - Continuing Florida Aviation System Planning Process.
CFI - Certified Flight Instructor
CFR - .Code of Federa~Regulation
CMSA - Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area
CO - Carbon monoxide·
CPI - Consumer Price Index
dBA - A-weighted decibels
DBE - Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
DBO - Date of Beneficial Occupancy
DEIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
DGPS - Differential global positioning system
DME - Distance measuring equipment
DNL - Day-night average sound level (expressed in dBA)
DOT - Department of Transportation
DRI De·.'elopment of Regional Impact
EA - Environmental Assessment
EAA - Experimental Aircraft Association
EDMS - Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System
EIR - Environmental Impact Report (state)
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement (federal)
EPA -.Environmental Protection Agency
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
FAMA - Florida Airport Managers Association
FAR - Federal Aviation Regulation
FASP - Florida Aviation System Plan
FATA - Florida Aviation Trades Association
FBO - Fixed base operator
FCC - Federal Communications Commission
FOOT - Florida Department of Transportation
FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFY - Federal Fiscal Year ,. .
FHA - Federal Housing Administration
FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
FICAN - Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise
FICON - Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FICUN - Federal Interagehcy Committee on Urban Noise
FIDS - Flight Information Display System
FIP - Federal Implementation Plan
-,.,--_.",---
.---,,---",-_.
FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS - Federal Inspection Services
FONSI - Finding of No Significant Impact
FPR - St. Lucie County International Airport
FSDO - Flight Standards District Officer
FSS - Flight service station
FTZ - Foreign trade zone
FY - Fiscal Year
GA - General aviation
GAO - Government Accounting Office
GARB - General Airport'Revenue Bonds
GCA - Ground Controlled Approach
GDP - Gross domestic product
GDS - Global distribution system
GIS - Geographic Information System
GPO - Government Printing Office
GPS - Global positioning system
GSE - Ground support equipment
GTC - Ground Transportation Center
HIRL - High-intensity runway lights
HOV - High occupancy vehicle
HTA - Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.
HUD - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban' Development
TAR _ Tnt,.rn::ltinn::ll Arriv::Ilc Rllilrling
lATA - International Air Transport Association
ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR - Instrument flight rules
ILS - Instrument landing system
IMC - Instrument meteorological conditions
INM - Integrated Noise Model
INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service
ISTEA - Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (1991)
IT - Information technology
ITB - International Terminal Building
LBE - Local Business Enterprise
LDA - Localizer-type directional aid
LLWAS - Low Level Wind-shear Advisory System
LOI - Letter of Intent
LOS - Level of service
MALS - Medium intensity approach lighting system
MALSF - Medium-intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashers
MALSR - Medium-intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment
indicator lights
MBE - Minority-owned Business Enterprise
MDA - Minimum Descent Altitude
MEA - Minimum Enroute Altitude
.. '.
MEF - Maximum Elevation Figure
MGTW - Maximum gross takeoff weight
MIRL - Medium-intensity runway lights
MITL - Medium-intensity runway lights
MLS - Microwave landing system
MOA - Memorandum of Agreement
MOCA - Minimum Obstruction Clearance Altitude
MOU - Memorandum of Understanding
mph Mil.es per hour
MPO- Metropolitan Planning Organization
MPSG - Master Plan Study Group
MSA - Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSL - Mean sea level
MTOW - Maximum takeoff weight
MTR - Military Training Route
MVA - Minimum Vectoring Altitude
NA-l - Noise Abaternent measure for jet aircraft
NA-2 - Noise Abatement measure for jet aircraft
NA-3 - Noise Compliant Procedures
Navaids - Navigational Aids
NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAS - Naval Air Station
NAS - National Airspace System .
NASAO - Nationa' Association of State Aviation Officials
NATA - National Aviation Transportation Association
NBAA Natioflal Busifless Aircraft Associatiofl
NCDC - National Climatic Data Center
NCP - Noise Compatibility Program
NDB - Non-directional radio beacon
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NLA - New Large Aircraft
NLR - Noise level reduction
NM - Nautical Mile{s)
NO - Nitrogen oxides
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI - Notice of Intent
NOP - Notice of Preparation
NOTAM - Notice to Airmen
NP"- Non-Precision Approach
NPA - National Planning Association
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPIAS - National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
NPw/ILS - Non precision Approach with ILS on opposite end
NTSB -National Transportation SOIfety Board
NWS - National Weather Service
O&D - Origin and destinOltion
O&M - Operation and mOlintenance
OAG - Official Airline Guide (a registered trademark of Official Airline Guides, Inc.)
ODALS - Omni-directional Approach Lighting System
OFA - Object free area
OFZ - Obstacle free zone
.------
OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PAL - Planning activity 'evel
PAPI - Precision approach path indicator
. PAR - precision approach radar
PCB - POlychlorinated biphenyls
PCI - Pavement Condition Index
PFC - Passenger facility charge
PIC - Pilot in. Command
PL - Public Law
PM - Particulate matter
PMSA - Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
PRM - Precision runway monitor
R&D - Research and development
RAIL - Runway alignment indicator lights
RAPCON - Radar approach control
RDSIM - Runway ,Delay Simulation Model (FAA)
REIL - Runway end identifier lights
RIMS - Regional Input-Output Modeling System
ROD - Record of Decision
RPM - Revenue passenger miles .
RPZ - Runway protection zone (formerly clear zone)
RSA - Runway safety area
RVR - Runway visual range
SEL - Sound exposure level
SHPO - State Historic Preservation Officer
SIMMOD - Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (FAA)
SIP - State Implementation Plan
SlAP - Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
SLUCM - Standard Land Use Coding Manual
STAR - Standard Terminal Arrival Route
SWAP - Severe Weather Avoidance Plan
TACAN - Tactical area navigational aid
TCA - Terminal Con"trol Area (now, Class B airspace)
TCAS - Terminal Collision Avoidance System
TDM - Transportation Demand Management
TEA 21 - Transpartation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TERPS - U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures
(FAA Handbook 8260.3B)
TODA - Takeoff distance available
TORA - Takeoff run available
TRACON - Terminal Radar Approach Control·
TRB - Transportation Research Board
TVOR - Terminal Very High Frequency Omni Directional
T /U - Transportation Utility
USC - United States Code
USGS - United States Geological Survey
USPS - United States Postal Service
~---
UST - Underground storage tank
v - Visual Approach
VASI - Visual approach slope indicator
VFR - Visual Flight Ru'e
VMC - Visual meteorological conditions
VMT - Vehicle miles traveled
. VOC - Volatile organic compounds
VOR - Very-high frequency omni-directional range station
VORTAC - Very-high frequency omni-directional range tactical air navigation
VFR - Visual flight rules
VRB - Vero Beach Municipal Airport
VwlNP - Visual Approach with Non Precision Approach on Opposite End
WAAS - Wide Area Augmentation System
WBE - Woman-owned Business Enterprise
WVAS - Wake Vortex Advisory System
Glossary of Terms:
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (d.BA); The. ear does not respond equally to sound
frequencies. It is less efficient at low and high frequenCies than it is at medium or speech-
range frequencies. Thus, to obtain a single number representing the sound level of a noise
having a wide range of frequencies in a manner representative of the ear's respol1se, it is
l1ecessary to reduc.e the effects of the low al1d hiQh frequencies with respect to the medium
frequel1cies. The resultant soul1d level is said to be A-weighted, al1d the units are decibels
(dB); hence, the abbreviation is dBA·. The A-weighted soul1d level is also called the 110ise
level. Sound level meters have an A-weighting l1etwork for measuril1g A-weighted soul1d
level.
Ac (00/00.00-0) - Advisory Circular (with an identification nurnber) published by the
Federal Aviatiol1 Admil1istration (FAA) to provide specific il1formatiol1, instructions or
standards established for aviation related subjects. AC 74/7460-IH provides the stal1dards
for Markil1g and Lighting obstructiol1s to air l1avigation.
ACCEPTABLE (DNL 110t exceeding 65 decibels)- The noise exposure may be of sorne
concern but common buildil1g constructions will make the indòor envirol1ment acceptable
and the outdoor environment will be reasonably pleasant for recreation and play.
AlP-See AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
AIR CARRIER, CERTIFICATED ROUTE-AI1 air carrier holding a Certificate of PubHc
Conveniel1ce and Necessity, issued by the Federal Aviation Admil1istration (FAA), to conduct
scheduled services over specified routes and a limited arnount of 110nscheduled operations.
AIR CARRIER, COMMUTER-An air taxi operator who (1) performs at least five round trips
per week between two or more points and publishes flight schedules that specify the times,
days of the week, and places between which such flights are performed; or (2) tral1sports
mail by air pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Postal Service.
AIRCRAFT DELAY -The additional travel time, caused by aircraft congestion, taken by an
aircraft to move from point A to point B.
AIRCRAFT OPERATION-An aircraft arrival (landing) or an aircraft departure (takeoff)
represents one aircraft operation.· A low approach below traffic pattern altitudes or a touch-
and-go operation is counted as both a landrng a'nd a takeoff, that is, as two operations.
Aircraft operations are recorded by the FAA in four categories: air carrier, air taxi, general
aviation, and military.
-,----_.,-
AIR CARRIER-Operations perforrned in revenue service by certificated route air
carriers.
AIR TAXI/COMMUTER-Operations performed by operators of aircraft holding an air
taxi certificate under Part 298 of the FAA regulations. This category includes commuter
airline operations (excluding certificated commuter airlines), mail carriers under contract
with the U.S. Postal Service, and operators of nonscheduled air taxi service.
GENERAL AVIATION-All civil aircraft operations not classified as air carrier or air taxi
operations.
MILITARY-Operations performed by military groups, such as the Air National Guard,
the U.S. Air Force, or the U.S. Marine Corps.
Aircraft operations may also be described as local or itinerant:
LOCAL-'Local operations are performed by aircraft that (1) operate in the local traffic
pattern or within sight of the airport, (2) are known to be departing for, or arriving from,
flight in local practice areas within a 20-mile radius of the airport, and (3') execute
simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport.
ITINERANT-All aircraft operations other than local operations.
AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON-See APRON.
AIRCRAFT PARKING POSITION-The area on the ramp where aircraft park for servicing
and preparation for flight.
AIRFIELD CAPACITY (HOURLY)- The maximum number of aircraft operations (landings
or takeoffs) that can take place on an air-field in one hour under specific conditions.
AIR NAVIGATION FACILITY (NAVAID)-A facility designed for use as an aid to air
navigation, including landing areas, lights, any apparatus or equipment for- disseminating
weather information, for signaling, for radio direction-finding, or for radio or other electronic
communication, and any other structure or mechanisrn having a similar purpose for guiding
and controlling flight in the air or the landing or takeoff of aircraft.
4IAPORT Þ.CCfC;:S AND P4RKING PLAN "plan that indicates the prQpgged rgyting gf
airport access facilities to central business districts and to points of connection with existing
or planned arteries and based on airport access studies that take into account traffic
demands, existing and potential access problems, highway and rapid rail facilities, and in-
town terminal facilities. The plan also incorporates on- and off-airport parking facilities for
passengers, ernployees, and visitors and is a required element of an airport master plan.
AIRPORT APPROACH AND RUNWAY. PROTECTION ZONE LAYOUT PLAN-A plan map
showing the imaginary surfaces that specify the maximum height of structures, trees, and
other phenomena around an airport and which is prepared in accordance with FAR Part 77,
"Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." The plan'·is required as part of an airport master
plan.
AIRPORT ELEVATION-The highest point of an airport's usable runways measured in feet
above mean sea level (AMSL).
AIRPORT ENVIRONS-The area surrounding an airport that is considered to be directly
affected by the presence and operation of the airport.
AIRPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES-Imaginary surfaces established at an airport for
obstruction determination purposes, and consisting of primary, approach-departure,
horizontal, vertical, conical, and transition surfaces.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP)-A program administered by the Federal
Aviation Administration to provide financial grants-in-aid for airport planning; âirport
developrnent projects, and noise compatibility programs. rhe program was established
through the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, which was incorporated as Title V
of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248).
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN-A generalized plan depicting proposed land uses wltn,r1 tile
airport boundary. The land use plan is a required element of an airport master plan.
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP)-A plan for an airport showing boundaries and proposed
additions to all areas owned or controlled by the sponsor for airport purposes, the location
and nature of existing and proposed airport facilities and structures, and the location on the
airport of existing and proposed non-aviation areas and improvements thereon. The ALP is a
required element of an airport master plan.
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN-An assembly of appropriate documents and drawings covering
the development of a specific airport from a physical, economic, social, and political
jurisdictional perspective. The airport master plan includes an airport land use plan, airport
layout plan, airport approach and runway protection zone layout plan, terminal area plan,
airport access and parking plan, staging plan, and financial plan.
AIRPORT NOISE AND CAPACITY ACT OF 1990-Public Law 101-508, enacted November
5, 1990. Two important provisions of the law were the establishment of a national aviation
noise policy (Sections 9308 and 9309) and the creation of a passenger facility charge
(Sections 9110 and 9111), which enables airport sponsors to impose fees on the tickets
issued to enplaning passengers. An amendment to FAR Part 91, "Transition to an All Stage 3
Fleet Operating in the 48 Contiguous United States and the District of Columbia," and new,
FAR Part 161, "Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions," implement the
national noise po1ìcy. New FAR Part 158, "Passenger Facility Charges," implements that
portion of the Act authorizing the imposition of such charges.
AIRPORT SPONSOR-A public agency or tax-supported organization, such as an airport
authority, that is authorized to own and operate an airport, to obtain property interests, to
obtain funds, and to be legally, financially, and otherwise able to meet all applicable
requirements of current laws and regulations.
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR (ASR)-Radar providing position of aircraft by azimuth
and range data. It does not provide elevation data. ASR is designed for range coverage up
to 60 nautical miles and is used by terminal area air traffic control.
AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT)-A central operations facility in the
terminal air traffic control system, consisting of a tower cab structure, including an
~c:c;;nri~tprl inc;;trllmpnt flight rlllp (TFR) rnnm if r~rtÄr p'llrÎrr :lrf, Ildn') ::tirj'Jrnlmn
communications and/or radar, visual signaling and other devices, to provide safe and
expeditious movement of terminal air traffic.
AIRSPACE-Space in the air above the surface of the earth or a particular portion of such
space, usually defined by the boundaries of an area on the surface projected upward.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC}-A service operated by appropriate authority (the FAA) to .
promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic. ..
ALERT AREA - A geographically designated area of airspace where a high volume of pilot
training or an unusual aeronautical activity is conducted (See: Special Use Airspace).
AMBIENT NOISE-The total of all noise in a system or situation, independent of the . ,
presence of the specific sound to be rneasured. In acoustical measurements, strictly
speaking, ambient noise means electrical noise in the measurement system. However, in
popular usage, ambient noise is also used to mean "background noise" or "residual noise."
AMSL - Above Mean Sea Level. The most common height or altitude reference used fro
flying and flight procedures usually measured in feet.
Approach Category - A grouping of aircraft based on recommended final approach speed
or maximum certified landing weight. The size of an airport's VFR traffic pattern is
calculated using aircraft approach category.
Category A:
Speed:
Weight:
Less than 91 knots
Less than 30,001 pounds
Category B:
Speed:
Weight:
91 knots or more but less than 121 knots
30,001 pounds or more but less than 60,001 pounds
Category C:
Speed:
Weight:
121 knots or rnore but less than 141 knots
30,001 pounds or more but less than 60,001 pounds
Category D:
Speed:
Weight:
141 knots or more but less than 166 knots
30,001 pounds or more but less thEn 60,001 pounds
Category E:
Speed: 166 knots or more
Weight: and any weight
APRON-A paved area that provides the connection between the. terminal buildings and the
airfield. The apron includes aircraft parking areas, called ramps, and aircraft circulation and
taxiing areas for access to these ramps. On the ramp, aircraft park in locations typically
designated as gate positions or gates.
ATC-See AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL.
AUTOMATED RADAR TERMINAL SYSTEM (ARTS)-Computer-aided radar display
subsystems capable of associating alphanumeric data with radar returns.
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)- The average traffic flow on a specific street, road, or
highway segment. ADT can be either total average flow or the average traffic in each
direction.
AVIATION SAFETY AND NOISE ABATEMENT ACT OF 1979-Public Law 96-193, enacted.
February 18, 1980. The purpose of the Act is to provide assistance to airports in preparing
and carrying out noise compatibility programs and in assuring continued safety for aviation.
The Act also contains provisions that extend until January 1,1988, the requirement for
certain types of aircraft to comply with Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (see also
FAR Part 36)
BACKGROUND NOISE-See AMBIENT NOISE.
BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY-See DATE OF BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY.
BUILDING CODE-A legal document that sets forth requirements to protect the public
health, safety, and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of
buildings and structures. The code establishes the minimum acceptable conditions for
matters found to be in need of regulation. Topics generally covered are exits, fire
protection, structural design, sanitary facilities, light, and ventilation. Sound insulation rnay
also be included. .
BUILDING PERMIT-A permit issued by a local political jurisdiction (village, town, city, or
county)' to erect or modify a structure.
BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL)- The BRL should be located on an airport layout
plan to identify suitable locations for building areas on airports. It is recommended that the
BRL éncompass the runway protection zones, the runway visibility zone, areas required for
airport traffic control tower clear line of sight, and all airport areas with less than 35-foot
clearance under the FAR Part 77 surfaces.
CAD - Computer Assisted Design. A-specific program capability within a computer or
computer system to produce, examine or alter three dimensional, on-screen displays or
"drawings".
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)-A multiyear (sornetimes a single year>
schedule of capital expenditures for construction or equipment at an airport.
CEQ (COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY) REGULATIONS-CEQ Regulations
Implementing the National Environmental POlicy Act of 1969 (NEPA) were published in the
Federal Register on November 29, 1978. References to the 4 Regulations in FAA Order
50S0.4A (Airport Environmental Handbook) identify a given section, e.g., CEQ 1500 or CEQ
1508.8. (See also IMPACT.)
-~~-
CFASPP - Continuing Florida Aviation System Planning Process. Florida's Method to
provide for long-range, continuos planning for state's airports and airways systems needs.
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations. The system identifying rules of the Executive branch
departments and agencies of the Federal Government. In use, CFR is preceded by a Title
number to identify broad functional area and followed by Part Numbers to further delineate
the area of interest. Title 47, CFR are rules on Telecommunications; Title 14, CFR contains
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR). .
Ch.333, F.S. - Chapter of Florida's Statutes (F.S.) concerning "Airport Zoning" established
to prevent the erection of structures dangerous to air navigation. It is the authority under
which local airport zoning ordinances are enacted.
Clear Zone - Clear zone or runway clear zone means an area at ground level underlying a
portion of the approach surface. The term "clear zone" has been redesignated by the FAA
to Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Under either usage, the zone extends to a point on the
ground where the approach surface reaches fifty (50) feet above the runway end
elevation.(See: RPZ for additional definition.) .
CONTOUR-See NOISE CONTOUR.
DATE OF BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY (DBO)-The date on which the replacement terminal
facilities are as substantially complete that they are usable by Airport tenants and the public
without hazard or undue inconvenience. .
DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL (DNL)-A method for predicting, by a single
number rating, cumulative aircraft noise that affects communities in airport environs: The
DNL value represents decibels of noise as measured by an A-weighted sound-Ievel.meter
(see also). In the DNL procedure, the noise exposure from each aircraft takeoff or landing at
ground level around an airport is calculated, and these noise exposures are accumulated for
a typical 24-hour period. (The 24-hour period often used is the average day of the peak
month for aircraft operations during the year being analyzed.) Daytime and nighttime noise
eXPQsure~ are ronc;:irlprpd c;:ppar;:¡tply A wpighting f;:¡rtnr Pfp IÎv;¡lpnt to ;t ppn;tlty of 1 n
decibels is applied to operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for the increased
sensitivity of people to nighttime noise. The DNL values can be expressed graphically on
rnaps using either contours or grid cells. DNL may also be used for measuring other noise
sources, such as automobile traffic, to determine combined noise effects.
dBA-See A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL.
DECIBEL (dB)-A unit for measuring the volurne of a sound, equal to the logarithm of the
ratio of the intensity of the sound to the intensity of an arbitrarily chosen standard sound.
DEPLANED PASSENGERS-The volume of passengers inbound to an airport. The annual
passenger volume of an airport is the total of deplaned and enplaned passengers (see also).
DEREGULATION ACT-Airline regulatory refor'm act of 1978. Designed, among other
things, to encourage competition among domestic airlines, the Act allows an airline greater
freedom to enter and leave any given market.
Determination - The term used by FAA to denote the outcome of an'aeronautical study
under FAA Part 77 (See: Hazard or No Hazard).
DEVELOPMENT PLAN-A detailed land use plan for all or specific areas on an airport. The
plan usually includes a plot map depicting parcel size and configuration, access, land use
categories, utilities, and performance standards for each parcel and use category.
DISPLACED THRESHOLD-A runway threshold that is located at a point other than the
designated beginning of the runway.
DNL-See DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL.
Development of Regional Impact - The term applied to a proposed development which
under Florida Statutes Chapter 380 has potential environmental, economic or other
significant regional impact.
EFFECTS-See IMPACT.
---~_.-
ENGINE RUNUP AREA-An· area on an airport where aircraft engines are serviced or
tested. The noise from such servicing or testing can affect neighborhoods adjacent to the
airport.
ENPLANED PASSENGERS-The volume of passengers outbound from an airport. The
annual passenger volume of an airport is the total of enplaned and deplaned passengers
(see also).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)-A statement prepared under the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Section 102(2)(c).
The EIS represents a federal agency's evaluation of the effects of a proposed action on the
environment. Regulations relating to the preparation of an EIS are published in FAA Order
5050.4A.
FAA-See FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION.
FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR lS0/S300-13-This document, titled "Airport Design,"
contains airport design standards, including descriptions of various subdivisions of FAR Part
77 (see also) such as obstacle free zones (OFZs), object free areas (OFAs), and runway
protection zones (RPZs) formerly referred to as "clear zones"-on airports. According to
Paragraph 211, "Safe and efficient operations at an airport require that certain areas on and
near the airport be clear of objects or restricted to objects with a certain function,
composition, and/or height." To achieve this requirement, object clearing criteria contained
in the handbook describe the type of objects tolerated within various subdivisions of FAR
Part 77. Aircraft are controlled by aircraft operating rules and not by these criteria.
However, objects not in conformance with these criteria may result in aircraft operating
restrictions. .
FAA HANDBOOK 7400.2- This document, titled "Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters," contains procedures and gUide-lines for conducting aeronautical studies and
determining effects of existing or proposed objects that 'exceed FAR Part 77 (see also)
standards. Objects that exceed rAR Part 77 standal as are subject to ai, aelollaulic.al stuJy
and are presumed to be hazards to air navigation unless an aeronautical study determines
otherwise. However, once an aeronautical study has been initiated, Part 77 standards are
not the basis for determining whether or not an object would be a hazard. Other standards,
including operational, procedural, and electronic requirements, are uséd to determine if the
object being studied would actually be a hazard to air navigation. The outcome of an FAA
aeronautical study is either a "Determination of No Hazard" or "Determination of Hazard to
Air Navigation."
FAA HANDBOOK 8260.3B-This dQcument, titled "TERPS," contains obstruction clearance
criteria for instrument procedures:· Imaginary surfaces for each particular type of instru!TIent
procedure are described. If an object would penetrate the imaginary surfaces for a
particular procedure and could not be· relocated or sufficiently reduced in height, one of the
following actions would be necessary: (1) alteration of the procedure, to minimize or
eliminate effects; (2) increase in the minimum cloud ceiling and/or visibility requirern'ents .
for conducting the procedure; (3) sorne cornbination of (1) and (2); or (4) preclusion of the
affected procedure.
FAA ORDER S050.4A- This document, entitled "Airport Environ-mental Handbook," was
published by the FAA on October 8, 1985. It contains all of the essential information an
airport sponsor needs to meet both procedural and substantive environmental
requirements....
FAR PART 36-Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36, "Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and
Airworthiness Certification." Establishes noise standards for the civil aviation fleet. Some
extensions for compliance are included in the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of
1979 (see also).
FAR PART 77-Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable
Airspace." Establishes standards for determining obstructions and conducting aeronautical
studies to determine the potential effects of obstructions on aircraft operations. Objects are
"_.,-'-----
considered to be obstructions to air navigation according to FAR Part·?? if they would
exceed certain heights or penetrate certain imaginary surfaces established in relation to
airports. Objects classified as obstructions· are subject to an aeronautical study by FAA to
determine their potential effects on aircraft operations.
FAR PART 91-Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91, "General Operating and Flight Rules."
On September 25, 1991, the FAA issued an amendment to FAR Part 91 (14 CFR Part 91) in
conformance with requirements of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (see also).
The amendment to the aircraft operating rules requires a phased transition to an all Stage 3
fleet operating in the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia by December
31, 1999. The amendment places a cap on the number of Stage 2 aircraft allowed to
operate in the United States and provides for a continuing reduction in the population
exposed to noise frorn Stage 2 aircraft:
FAR PART lS0-Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150, "Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning." An FAR Part 150 Program is an FAA-assisted study designed to increase the
compatibility of land and facilities in the areas surrounding an airport that are most directly
affected by the operation of the air-port. The specific purpose is to reduce' the adverse
effects of noise as much as possible by implementing both on-airport noise abatement
measures and off-airport noise mitigation programs. The basic products of an FAR Part 150
program typically include (1) noise exposure maps for the existing condition and for five
years in the future; (2) workable on-airport noise abatement measures, such as preferential
run-way use programs, new or preferential flight tracks, curfews; (3) off-airport noise
mitigation measures (land use control programs and regulations), such as land acquisition,
soundproofing, or special zoning; .(4) an analysis of the costs and the financial feasibility of
the recomrnended measures; and (5) policies and procedures related to the implementation
of on- and off-airport programs. A community involvement program is carried on
throughout all phases of development of the prograrn.
FAR P"RT 158 Federal r"'iation Regulations Part lSa, "Piisalmg¡¡r Fiicility Chiirg¡¡s."
Adopts new regulations to establish a passenger facility charge (PFC) program. The rule
implements Sections 9110 and 9111 of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (see
also), which requires the Department of Transportation to issue regulations under which a
public agency may be authorized to irnpose a PFC of $1, $2, or $3 per enplaned passenger
at a commercial service airport it controls. The proceeds from such PFCs are to be used to
finance eligible airport-related projects that pre-serve or enhance safety, capacity, or
security of the national air transportation system, reduce noise from an airport that is part
of such system, or furnish opportunities for enhanced competition between or among air
carriers. The rule sets forth procedures for public agency applications for åuthority to
impose PFCs, for FAA processing of such applications; for collection, handling,. and
remittance of PFCs by air carriers; for record-keeping and auditing by air carriers and public
agencies; for terrninating PFC authority; and for reducing federal grant funds apportioned to
large and mediurn hub airports imposing a PFC.
FAR PART 161-Federal Aviation Regulations Part 161, "Notice and Approval of Airport
Noise and Access Restrictions." Establishes a þrograrn for reviewing airport noise and access
restrictions on the operations of Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft. This rule is in response to
specific provisions in the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (see also) and is a major
element of the national aviation noise policy required by that statute.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)- The FAA is the agency of the U.S.
Department of Transportation that is charged with (1) regulating air commerce to promote
its safety and development; (2) achieving the efficient use of navigable airspace of the
United States; (3) promoting, encouraging, and developing civil aviation; (4)developing
and operating a common system of air traffic control and air navigation for both civilian and
military aircraft; and (5) promoting the development of a national system of airports.
·-----
---.-
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)-A finding by the FAA that a proposed
action by an airport sponsor will have no significant impact (on the environment). Specific
gUide-lines for the preparation of a FONSI report are included in FAA Order 5050AA.
FLIGHT TRACK-The average flight path flown by aircraft within specific corridors.
Deviation from these tracks occurs because of weather, pilot technique, air traffic control,
and aircraft weight. Individual flight tracks within a corridor are "averaged" for purposes of
modeling noise exposure using the Integrated Noise Model (see also).
FONSI-See FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
47 CFR Parts 0-70 - (Parts 0-19 and 70-79) All current parts of the Code of Federal
Regulations governing telecommunications and licensing including organizations of the FCC,
frequency allocations, construction of antennas, broadcast services, cable services and rules
of operation.
GATE-The designated location in a terminal building that contains an airline podium area
where ticketed passengers check in for a specific flight. (See also APRON.)
GENERAL AVIATION (GA)-AII civil aviation except that classified as air carrier or air taxi.
The types of aircraft typically used inGA·activities vary from multiengine jet aircraft to
single-engine piston aircraft.
GENERAL PLAN (sometimes referred to as a comprehensive plan or community plan)-An
overall plan of a political jurisdiction setting forth the goals and objectives of the
jurisdiction, policies for development and redevelopment, and maps showing the spatial
arrangement of land uses, circulation routes, and community facilities.
Ground Controlled Approa~h - A type of ground radar controlled precision instrument
. approach system used to land aircraft safely in conditions of very low visibility and cloud
ceilings. This system is more commonly used at military airfields than at civil airports (See:
Precision Approach) .
Hazard - An advisory determination rendered by the FAA at the conclusion of an
Aprnnalltiral C:;:tllrly m~rfp IInrfpr FAR 77 inrfir~tin0 thp rrnrnc:ørt strll<,tllre is not a 5afe
and/or efficient use of airspace.
IFR-See INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES.
IFR AIRPORT-An airport with an authorized instrument approach procedure.
IFR CONDITIONS-Weather conditions that require aircraft to be operated in accordance
with instrument flight rules.
IFR MINIMUMS AND DEPARTURE PROCEDURES (FAR PART 91)-Prescribed takeoff
rules. For some airports, obstructions or other factors require the establishment of .
nonstandard takeoff minimurns or departure procedures, or both, to assist pilots in avoiding
obstacles during climb to the minimum en route altitude.
ILS-See INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM.
IMPACT-In environmental studies, the word "impact" is used to express the extent or
severity of an environmental problem, e.g., the number of persons exposed to a given noise
environment. As indicated in CEQ 1500 (Section 1508.8), impacts and effects are
considered to be synonyrnous. Effects or impacts may be ecological, aesthetic, historic,
cultural, economic, social, or health related, and they may be direct, indirect, or cumulative.
INM-See INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL.
INSTRUMENT APPROACH-An approach to an airport, with intent to land, by an aircraft
flying in accordance with an IFR flight plan, when the visibility is less than 3 miles and/or
when the ceiling is at or below the minimum initial altitude.
INSTRUMENT APPROACH RUNWAY-A runway served by an electronic aid providing at
least directional guidance adequate for a straight-in approach.
INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR)-Rules specified by the FAA for flight under weather
conditions in which visual reference cannot be made to the ground and the pilot must rely
on instruments to fly and navigate.
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)-A system that provides in the aircraft the
lat~ral, longitudinal, and vertical electronic guidance necessary for an instrument landing.
----
---
INSTRUMENT OPERATION-An aircraft operation in accordance with an IFR flight plan or
an operation where IFR separation between aircraft is provided by a terminal control facility
or air route traffic control center.
INSTRUMENT RUNWAY-A runway equipped with electronic and visual navigation aids
and for which a straight-in (precision or non-precision) approach procedure has been
approved or is planned.
INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL (INM)-A computer rnodél developed by the FAA and
required by the FAA for use in environmental assessments, environmental impact
statements, and FAR Part 150 studies for developing existing and future aircraft noise
exposure maps.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY:- The compatibility of land uses surrounding an airport with
airport activities and particularly with the noise from aircraft operations.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ASSURANCE-Documentation provided by an airport
sponsor· to the FAA. The documentation is related to an application for an airport
development grant. Its purpose is to assure that a reasonably appropriate action, including
the adoption of zoning laws, has been taken or will be taken to restrict the use of land
adjacent to the airport or in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Such uses are limited to
activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including the landing and
takeoff of aircraft.
LAND USE CONTROLS--Controls established by local or state governments to carry out
land use planning. The controls include zoning, subdivision regulations, land acquisition (in
fee sirnple, lease-back, or easements), building codes, building permits, and capital
improvement programs (to pro-vide sewer, water, utilities, or other service facilities).
LAND USE PLANNING-Comprehensive planning carried out by units of local government,
for all areas under their jurisdiction, to identify the optimum uses of land and to serve as a
basis for the adoption of zoning or ottïer land use controls.
lOYDNESS The judgment of the intensity of iI sound b'l iI person Loudness depends
primarily on the sound pressure of the stimulus. Over much of the loudness range, it takes
about a threefold increase in sound pressure (approximately 10'decibels) to produce a
doubling of loudness.
MARKING 8< LIGHTING - Terminology used to indicate methods to increase visibility of an
obstruction to air navigation. AC 70/7460 describes the standards established for the
purpose. Marking refers to paint and colors; flags or other high visibility devices for day
time use.
MAXIMUM ELEVATION FIGURE - The height"above MSL of the highest known feature,
, natural or man-made, on a given quadrangle area of an air navigation chart.
MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM - A new technology ground based radio system to
provide pilots very precise cockpit instrument readings to land an aircraft invery poor
weather conditions. These systems will be replacing older ILS systems over the next several
years. (See: Precision ApproaCh) .
MILITARY OPERATING AREA - Airspace established to separate or segregate certain
types of non-hazardous military activities from IFR fiight traffic and identify areas where
these activities are conducted for VFR flight traffic. (See: Special Use Airspace)
MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE - The lowest altitude in feet above mean sea level (MSL)
a pilot' may descend during a given type final instrument approach to a·runway.
MINIMUfill ENROUTE ALTITUDE - Lowest height above MSL between air navigation radio
fixes at which acceptable signals can be received and obstructions between the fixes can be
safely cleared.
MINIMUM OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE ALTITUDE - The lowest height in feet AMSL
between air navigation radio fixes on an Identified airway or route segment which provides
safe obstruction clearance for the entire route segment and assures acceptable radio signal
coverage only within 25 nautical miles (NM) of the navigation radio station.
---------
MITIGATION· MEASURE-An action that can be planned or taken to alleviate (mitigate) an
adverse environrnental impact. Mitigation includes:
(1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(2) Minirnizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment.
(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
(5) Compensating for the irnpact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments. .
A proposed airport development project, or alternatives to that project, may constitute a
mitigation measure.
NAVAID-See AIR NAVIGATION FACILITY.
NOISE-Any sound that is considered to be undesirable because it interferes with speech
and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying.
NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES-Changes in runway use, flight approach and
departure routes and procedures, and other air traffic procedures that are made to shift
adverse aviation effects away from noise-sensitive areas (such as residential
neighborhoods).
NOISE ATTENUATION OF BUILDINGS-The use of building rnaterials to reduce noise
through absorption, transmission loss, and reflection.of sound energy.
NOISE CONTOURS-Lines drawn on a map that connect points of equivalent Ldn or CNEL
values. They are usually drawn in 5-Ldn intervals, such as connections of Ldn 75 values,
Ldn 70 values, Ldn 65 values, and so forth.
NOISE CONTROL PLANS-Documentation by an airport sponsor of actions to be taken by
thf' ~pnn~or tn rprill,p thp pffp(7t nf "vi"tinn ·nni<p Th"<e ..<:~;ons are to be taken b'l the
sponsor either alone or in cooperation with the FAA, airport users, and affected units of local
government, with appropriate comments from affected citizens. Alternative actions should
be considered, particularly where proprietary use restrictions (see also) on aircraft
operations are involved.
NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION (NLR)- The noise reduction between two areas or rooms is
the nume~ical difference, in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in those areas or
rooms. A measurement of noise reduction combines the effect of the transmission loss
performance of structures separating the two areas or rooms and the effect of acoustic
absorption present in the receiving room. .
NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USE-Land uses that can be adversely affected by high levels of
aircraft noise. Residences, schools, hospitals, religious facilities, libraries, and other similar
uses are often considered to be sensitive to noise.
NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE (DNL above 65 but not exceeding 7S decibels)- The
noise exposure is significantly more severe; barriers may be necessary between the site and
prominent noise sources to make the outdoor environment acceptable; special building
constructions rnay be necessary to ensure that people indoors are sufficiently protected
from outdoor noise.
OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ)- TheOFZ is a ·three-dimensional volume of airspace that
supports the transition of ground-to-airborne-aircráff operations (and vice versa). The OFZ
clearing standard precludes taxiing and parked airplanes and object penetrations, except for
frangible NAVAIDS whose location is fixed by function. The runway OFZ and, when
applicable, the inner-approach OFZ, and the inner-transitional OFZ compose the obstacle
free zone.
OBSTRUCTION-An object that exceeds a limiting height or penetrates an imaginary
surface described by current Federal Aviation Regulations (Part 77).
-------
PATTERN-The configuration or form of a flight path flown by an aircraft, or prescribed to
be flown, as in making an approach to a landing.
PRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE-A standard instrument procedure for an aircraft to
approach an airport in which an electronic glide scope is provided-for example, an
instrument landing system and precision approach radar.
PREFERENTIAL RUNWAY USE (PROGRAM)-A noise abatement action whereby the FAA
Air Traffic Division, in conjunction with the FAA Airports Division, assists the airport sponsor
in developing a program that gives preference to the use of a specific runway(s) to reduce
over-flights of noise-sensitive areas.
PRIORITY ACTION PROGRAM-See STAGING PLAN.
PROPRIETARY USE RESTRICTIONS-Restrictions by an airport sponsor on the number,
type, class, manner, or time of aircraft operations at the airport.
RAMP-See APRON.
RETROFIT-The retroactive modification of existing jet aircraft engines for noise abatement
purposes.
RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA-The runway object free area (OFA) is a two-dimensional
ground area surrounding the runway. The runway OFA clearing standard precludes parked
airplanes and objects, except objects whose location is fixed by function.
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ)-The RPZ (formerly the runway clear zone) is
trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended runway centerline. It begins 200 feet
beyond the end of the area usable for takeoff or landing. Displacing the threshold does not
change the beginning point of the RPZ. The RPZ dimensions are functions of the design
aircraft, type of operation, and visibility minimums.
RUNWAY THRESHOLD-The beginning of that portion of a runway usable for landing.
RUNWAY USE PROGRAM-See PREFERENTIAL' RUNWAY USE PROGRAM.
SEVERE NOISE EXPOSURE-'-Exposure to aircraft noise that is likely to interfere with
hI.Jman activity in noise sensitive areas; repeated vigorous coml1laints can be expected ;¡nd
group action is probable. This exposure may be specified by a cumulative noise descriptor
as a level of noise exposure, such as DNL 75. (See also SIGNIFICANT NOISE EXPOSURE.)
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT-A substantial, or potentially substantial,
adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project,
including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient nOise,·and objects of historic or
aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself is not considered a significant
effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be
considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.
SIGNIFICANT NOISE EXPOSURE-Exposure to aircraft MOìse that is likely to 'interfere
with human activity in noise-sensitive areas; individual complaillts may be expected and
group action is possible. This exposure rnay be specified by a cumulative noise description
as a level of noise exposure, such as DNL 65. (See also SEVERE NOISE EXPOSURE.)
SOUND INSULATION-(1) The use of structures and materials designed to reduce the
transmission of sound from one room or area to another, or from the exterior to the interior
of a building. (2) The degree of reduction in sound transmission by means of sound
insulating structures and materials.
SOUND LEVEL (NOISE LEVEL)- The weighted sound pressure level obtained by the use of
a sound level meter having a standard frequency filter for attenuating part of the sound
spectrurn.
SOUND LEVEL METER-An instrument, consisting of a microphone, an amplifier, an output
meter, and frequency-weighting net-works, that is used to measure noise and sound levels
in a specified manner.
TERPS-Certain airspace needs to'be cleared for aircraft operations. This airspace is
determined by the application of operating rules and terminal instrument procedures
(TERPS). Removing obstructions to air navigation, except those which an FAA aeronautical
.'. .
-.-'.-,-----
--~-
study determined need not be removed, satisfies these requirements. Subpart C of FAR Part
77 defines obstructions to air navigation. (Also see FAA HANDBOOK 8260.3B.)
TOWER-See AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT).
UNACCEPTABLE (DNL above 75 decibels)-The noise exposure at the site is so severe that
the construction cost to make the indoor noise environment acceptable may be prohibitive
and the outdoor environment would still be unacceptable.
VFR AIRPORT-An airport without an authorized or planned instrument approach
procedure.
VFR CONDITIONS-Weather conditions that permit aircraft to be operated in accordance
with visual flight rules.
VHF OMNIDIRECTIONAL RANGE (VOR)-A radio transrnitter facility in the navigation
system radiating a VHF radio wave modulated by two signals, the- relative phases of which
are compared, resolved, and displayed by a compatible airborne receiver to give the pilot a
direct indication of bearing relative to the facility.
VISUAL APPROACH-An approach to an airport wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan,
operating in VFR conditions under the control of a radar facility and having air traffic control
authorization, may deviate from the prescribed instrument approach procedure and proceed
to the airport of destination, served by an operational control tower, by visual reference to
the surface.
VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR (VASI)-An airport lighting facility in the
terrninal area navigation system used primarily under VFR conditions. It provides vertical
visual guidance. to aircraft during approach and landing by radiating a directional pattern 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.
. VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR)-Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight·
under visual conditions (Federal Aviation Regulations Part ~1).
VT!;; II A I RIINWAY-A runwAY intE'nrlE'rl ~olply for thE' appratian af aircraft u~ing visual
approach procedures, with no straight-in instrument approach procedure and no instrument
designation indicated on an FAA-approved airport layout plan, or by any planning document
submitted to the FAA by competent authority.
ZONING AND ZONING ORDINANCES-Ordinances that divide a community into zones or
districts according to the present and potential use of properties for the purpose of
controlling and directing the use and development of those properties. Zoning is concerned.
primarily with the use of land and buildings, the height and bulk of buildings, the proportion
of a lot that buildings may cover, and the density of population of a given area. As an
instrument of plan implementation, zoning deals principally with the use and development
of privately owned land and buildings. The objective of zoning legislation is to establish
regulations that provide locations for all essential uses of land and buildings and to ensure
that each use is located in the most appropriate place. In noise compatibility planning,
zoning can be used to achieve two major aims: (1) to reinforce existing compatible land
uses and promote the location of future compatible uses in vacant or underdeveloped land,
and (2) to convert existing incompatible uses to compatible uses over time.
.,--------
MINUTES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN STUDY GROUP
JUNE %1, 2001 - 3:00 P.M.
HELD AT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY AIRPORT
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
PRESENT............. ................................................. .....REPRESENTING
Frank Lillo...... ... ......... ...... ............ ....... ... ... ...... ..Chamber of Commerce
John Holt... ............... ..................... ......... ..........8t Lucie Conservation Alliance
Diane Andrews... ............ ............ ............ ... .... .....Commissioner Lewis
Dick Thoma..........:..........................···...·····,····· .Commissioner Barns
Bob Clark..................... ... ...... ......... ......... ......... Commissioner Bruhn
Skip Lyshon................... ........ ...... ............. .........Industrial Park
Lena Ghaffari......... ........ .... ... ...... ... ...... ...... ... ......Aircraft Service Center, Inc
Michael Cohen......... ...... ......... .................. ..........Ari Ben Aviator
Adam Houck...... ......... ......... ..................... .........Fort Pierce Air Center
F. Dewitt Beckett. ........... ...... ........ ....... ......... '" ....Micco Aircraft Co.
Mayor Thiess...... ...... ........................... .............. .St Lucie Village
Susan Sharpe...... ...... ...... ........................... .........A TC
Ben Williams....... ................................ ................A TC
Paul Phillips.................. ... .... ........................... ...St Lucie County Intemational Airport
Heather young...... ............... ... ... ......... ...... ......:...County Attorney
Jim Van.Hekken:..... ............... ........................... ..Citizen
Curtis King.............................. .................. ... ......Citizen
Carla Roccapriare... ............... ............ ....~............ . Reponer
Robert E. Barnhan......... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ......Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.
WilliamJ. Hess.....................................·......·······Huyh:, Ti:1IlHC:I & A~~u\,;ii:1I:t:~, 1111....
Absent............... ..................................................... .....REPRESENTING
Dominic Scotto.................. ... ... ...... ......... ...... ..... Commissioner Hutchison
Charlie Serge...... ......... ... ... ... ......... ...... ......... ..... Commissioner Coward
Roger Orr... ............... ... ... ... .................. ... ... ... ....City of Port St Lucie
Major Ed Enns...... ...... ...... ...... .,. .............. .... .......City of Fort Pierce
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Master Plan Study Group meeting was called to order by Mr. Barnhart at 3:05 P.M.
An attendance sign in sheet was handed around to those present.
II.
The meeting started with a presentation by Mr. Barnhart explaining the work done on the
first two chapters of the master plan. The inventory and forecasting chapters were
presented and then questions and comments were taken from the MPSG.
.. .
The issues raised by the MPSG concerning the information presented by Mr. Barnhart are
as follows:
ChaDter 1 - Inventorv
. The list of the tenants on the airport should include all of the businesses on airport
property whether they are in a lease with the airport or whether they are in a sublease
at the airport.
· The issue was raised by Mr. Phillips that relatively soon a signage project will be
underway and this will be changing the names of the existing taxiways. It was noted
that this will cause a problem in the inventory chapter naming the correct section of
pavement and where they are located. All Chapters will reflect the new pavement
designations.
· It was brought to the attention of Mr. Barnhart that only Runway 9 is a precision
approach runway, and that Runway 27 is a non-precision approach runway.
· Current information regarding the square footage of the ramps size and building size
of the tenants at the airport was requested from the airport operators.
· Any corrections to the write ups pertaining to the tenants at the airport should be
passed to the tenant first, before finally being adopted into the master plan.
· It was inquired that the number of based aircraft at Able Jets and Pan Am was
inaccurate, HT A needs to double check on that.
ChaDter 2 - Aviation Forecasts
· It was pointed out that the number of operations was 186,000 in the last year (June
2000 to June 2001) which is greater than the 173,000 operations for January 2000 to
January 200 I.
. The selection of the operations forecast percentage utilizëd by the Master Plan 'was a
large ¡epic ef diseli~sien. It was fiRally agreed IipSR that the MIJltiple R~gressiÐR
model increase rate of2.5% would be the preferred choice of the available choices.
· There are a couple of charts that are confusing to the reader. 2-9 and 2-14, one shows
the forecasted numbers at the time and the other shows the actual numbers. These
will be corrected in the next handout.
. Make the forecasts for operations acknowledge the presence of Pan Am and show
what effects that they will have on operations for the next year or so. Then proceed
with the' actual forecasting method.
· It was noted that 184,000 operations equates to 80% of the airport's capacity, or
Annual Service Volume (AS V), and it was stated that 230,000 operations is the .
airport's current ASV (100% capacity).
. It was noted that the A TC is expecting to see operations to be 195,000 operations in
the 200 I calendar year (88 % ASV).
· Chapters I & 2 will be finalized according to the Group's recommendations.
· The subsequent chapters will be developed according to the Group's suggestions
HT A will develop proposed airport alternatives for the Group to consider
accommodating the airport growth.
· It was noted that another P~n Am could come to the· airport, but such a large action is
not likely. If this would 'occur, it would trigger a revision to the Master Plan
forecasts and any impacts it would have on the development of the airport.
· Pan Am has shown ajump in activity from only 31 aircraft presently, their full
capacity is 75 aircraft. Consider that the number of operations that will be produced
by all 75 aircraft will be over double the number of operations Pan Am is currently
operating.
-----
· The tower noted that they do have the number of operations that are operated by
training aircraft, which is approximately 50%.
· It was requested thatlhe Master Plan consider that 100 Octane gas could run out, and
how would that effect the number of operations.
· It was finally determined that the forecast would utilize the anticipated Pan Am
growth over two years and continue with the Multiple Regression model (2.5%
annual increase)
Anticipated Pan Am growth = (Increased 2000 & 200 I Operations) divided by
(Number of existing Pan Am aircraft) multiplied by (Number of anticipated Pan
Am aircraft).
.. Due to the number of aircraft operations and the mix of different aircraft, the
immediate issue of aircraft (Jperational safety was presented by Mr. Phillips. To
successfully accommodate operations Jlnd separate the traffic a parallel runway
would need to be considered. The Group discussed the current operations along with
the future fOrecasts, concurred that the situation was critical, and approved
proceeding with the immediate development of a runway parallel to Runway 9/2 7.
. The information and feedback from the MPSG will be compiled and developed into
Chapter 3 _ Facility Requirements & Chapter 4 - Airport Alternatives and will be
distributed to the MPSG prior to the next meeting on August 16,2001 at 3:00 PM in
the SLCIA General Aviation Terminal Building.
- --"-~-'---_._-
---_.._~~
MINUTES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN STUDY GROUP
AUGUST 16,200l-3:00P.M.
HELD AT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
PRESENT.. ........ ..................... ....... ....... ....... .... ..... .... ...REPRESENTING
Diane Andrews..... ........ ................ ... ........... .... .....Conunissioner Lewis
Frank Lillo. ........................... ..................... ....... . Chamber of Commerce
Bob Bangert........................ .. ....................;....... ..Conservation Alliance
Mayor Bill Thiess................................................ SI. Lucie Village
Chris Hill (for Dewitt Beckett). ......... ............ ............Micco
Skip Lyshon................................. .................... ...Maverick
Bob Clark.................................................. ...... ...Littlewood Park
Dick Thoma........ ......... ..................... .......... .........Study Group
Dominick Scotto...................... ................... ......... .Conunissioner Hutchinson
Lena Ghaffari.................................. ................... ..Àircraft Service Center, Inc
Errol Houck............. ..... .......................... .............Fon Pierce Air Center/Adam Houck
Frannie Hutchinson.................. ............................ ..County Conunissioner
Richard Funcheon. ....................................... ....... ...Pan Am Intemational Flight School
Ben Williams......................... ............................ ..FAA
Steve Dowd....................................................... ..Self
Heather Young.. ............................ ...................... ...County Attorney
Carla Roccapriore. ................... ........................... ....Tribune
H. B. Moore.........................................................SI. Lucie Village
Jim "a., H.kk.., . Ri".,,"ood
Patricia E. Weiner. ......... ...... ............. ........ .............Tax Payer
John Emrick......................... ............................... N/A
Paul Phillips........ ................ ............... ............. .....SI. Lucie Countylntemational Airport
Roben E. Barnhart....... ................ ............... ............Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.
William J. Hess.................... ..··.............................Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.
Fannie Howard.................................................. ...N/A
Lisa Waters........... ............................................ ..MEA Group
Absent....................................................................... ...Representing
Roger Orr.................. ......... ....................... ..... .....City ofPon SI. Lucie
Major Ed Enns. .................. ....... ....... .......... ...... .....City of Fort Pierce
Councilman Jack Kelley............. ......... ................... ..Study Group
Michael Cohen................... .............................. .....Ari Ben Aviator
Charlie Serge................................... .................. ...Commissioner Coward
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Master Plan Study Group meeting was flfst staned at 3:10 P.M. by Lisa Waters of MEA
Group giving ~ noise Presentation.
Mr. Bamhan at 4:00 P.M. began the Master Plan presentation on Chapters 3 & 4 (Facility
Requirements and Airport Alternatives).
An attendance sign in sheet was passed around during the meeting to all those present.
II. The meeting was started with a noise presentation by Lisa Waters of MEA Group, Inc concerning
four main points:
.----,-
address the concerns ofthe community;
stay consistent with other ailports in the local region;
the safety of operations at the aiIport; and
the need to comply with FAA guidelines.
The issues raised by the MPSG and the public concerning the information presented by Lisa Waters are as
follows:
If the ailpon was to have a fee on aircraft using the ailpon, would the money be put back into
the airpon fund and used to benefit the airport or would it be put into a city or a county
general fund.
A question was raised "With cenain operations being banded, why then are there still aircraft
going over noise sensitive areas such as 51. Lucie Village?" "Stop & Gos" were explained
that, by landing a plane, stopping it, and then proceeding to take off again it is considered a
safe and legal operation. It is not considered a touch and go operation.
The issue was raised with the new training Runway 9L-27R being proposed. Will the noise
problems end on the current 9R-27L Runway? It was answered by saying that yes it will
move the majority of the training aircraft to the new runway but there will still be instrument
training operations on Runway 9R-27L.
An airfield signage power line was brought to everyones' attention. It was discussed that ID
signs for noise abatement would control aircraft procedures. Notifying them if the were
breaking any noise abatement policies.
III. The Master Plan presentation followed directly after the Noise presentation. Mr. Bamhan
presented on the Master Planning process concentrating his attention of the Facility Needs and the
Airport Altematives Chapters. Issues raised by the MPSG were as follows;
The question was asked concerning the forecasting for the master plan "Why were the
forceasled 6111) based 0111988 allt! fßf\\ard, if in 1985"1987 the ntI'hbu of ul"'latiúlls w=
near 240,000 operations annually?" It was explained that from 1988 on was when the tower
started recording the number of operations, and that prior to that the operations were only
estimates. Also it showed a more realistic trend using the 1988 operation numbers rather than
past numbers, because the new Master Plan is trying to be as accurate as possible.
_ The question was raised concerning the strengthening of Runway 9R-27L. "If it is suggested
that all runways are to be limited to C-III aircraft as the maximum allowable aircraft, why is it
suggested that the airport strengthen Runway 9R-27L with an overlay?" It was then
explained that all runways over time need improvements due to the PCI index reports. Like
any pavement, runways get wear and tear, and over time these things add up to where a
runway overlay is required.
The suggestion that the current Runway 9R-27L be brought up to a strength of90,000 1bs, it
was asked why? It was explained that St. Lucie is in the process of building a paint shop that
will be suited for,a Regional Jet size of aircraft. With this paint shop fully built, the traffic for
RJ's at the airport would be increasing along with these aircraft coming in for other reasons.
90,000 lbs was suggested because it was a great cut line, it allowed all of the small aircraft
you wanted to the airport, and pushed away any of the larger aircraft that were in some ways
still considered relatively smaller. There was concern that the increase in pavement strength
would invite much larger aircraft.
The question was aSked as why are we limiting ourselves as.and airport. St. Lucie
International Ailport is growing so fast, why not improve everything to handle what could
come in. More paint shops, Executive Jet overflowing to St. Lucie, why not plan for
everything that could possibly come to St. Lucie instead of delaying what we say could
happen.
_ It was suggested why not have simultaneous ILS operations on the new runways once 9L-27R
is built. It was discussed then that you need 4,000 feet of separation for simultaneous ILS
operations and if we did that then the training routes would be pushed off of airport property.
.For that reason, there is a 3,100 foot separation that is being suggested for the new parallel
---,-,.....
- .'.,-------~-
runway. With the 3,100 foot separation the new training flight path will all be kept over
airport property helping in noise control and safety issues.
- The Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAP!'s) were suggested for all the existing runways
along with the new proposed parallel runway. No objects Were made towards the suggestion
and it was widely excepted.
The question was asked why should we obtain Area 17 if it is surroWlded by protected wet
lands.
- The issue of the Fan Tower being suggested in the noise presentation by Lisa Waters was
brought up again in the Master Plan discussion. It was noted that the fan tower will not be of
any significance for the airport. . Reason being because if you already are listening to the radio
and looking out for navigational aids. The new Fan Tower is not going to benefit the pilot
anymore. The equipment and the safety is already there it just needs to be made use of.
The extension of Runway 14-32 was a topic of discussion. Having Runway 14-32 extended
was already suggested at one time in the previous master plan and dismissed by Griener
because' it waS detemùned it would decrease capacity. Other reasons being were because you
would have to crown both Runway 14-32 and Runway 9R-27L in order to keep proper storm
water drainage. The suggestion of extended the Runway in the other direction was mentioned.
but nothing evolved from it due to the fact that if you extended the runway in the other
direction the RWlway Protection Zones, Runway Safety Areas and the Obstacle free zones
would not allow it.
IV. The information and feedback from the MSPG will be compiled and developed into the future
chapters of the Master Plan as well as making cenain changes with the suggestions that were made
to the current chapters. The changes and new information compiled will be distributed to the
Master Plan Study Group prior to the next meeting on December 20,2001 at 3:00 P.M. in the
SLCIA General Aviation Tenninal Building.
".
MINUTES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
INTERN A TIONAL A1RPORT
MASTER PLAN STUDY GROUP
DEC 20,2001 - 3:00 P.M.
HELD AT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY AIRPORT
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
PRESENT... ......... ..................... ............ .................. ....REPRESENTING
Frank Lillo............... ... ......... ............ ....... ..... .....Chamber of Commerce
Diane Andrews............ ...... ......... ............... ........ .Commissioner Lewis
Dick Thoma............... ......... ... ... ............ ........... ..Commissioner Barnes
Skip Lyshon..................... ... ......... ..................... ..Industrial Park
Lena Ghaffari......... ... ............ ............ ... ...............Aircraft Service Center, Inc
Mayor Thiess... ... ... .........:.:... ............ ... ...... .........51. Lucie Village
Paul Phillips...... ........................... ... ...... ......... ....51. Lucie County International Ailport
Heather Young... ... ... ............ ...... ...... ...... ... ..:... .:..County Attorney
Bob Bangert........................ .................. ....... .......Conservation Alliance
Roger Orr......... ...... ............ ......... ... ...... ... ...........City of Port St Lucie
Robert E. Barnhart...... ......... ............... ....... ...........Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.
William J. Hess.................. ......... ......... ..... .... ......Hoyle. Tanner & Associates, Inc.
Absent...... ............. ......... .,. ... .................................. ......REPRESENTING
Dominic Scotto... ......... ...... ...... ...... ......... ...... ..... Gommissioner Hutchison
Charlie Serge....... ................. ...... ..... .... ... ........... Commissioner Coward
Major Ed Enns......... ........................... ...... ..........City ofFon Pierce
Bob Clark...................... .......... .... ... ... ........ .:Commissioner Bruhn
Hichael CgheR .. .. AriB"" A"i~tnr
Councilman Jack Kelly......................··... .........City ofPon St. Lucie
Adam Houck............... ............... ..................Fort Pierce Air Center
F. Dewitt Beckett.................................····..····Micco Aircraft Co.
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Master Plan Study' qroup meeting was called to order by Mr. Barnhart at 3:05 P.M.
An attendance sign in sheet Was handed around to those present.
II. The meeting was started with questions and comments to Mr. BarnhanpertaininKto the
previous meetings and the information that was sent out to the members of the Master
Plan Study Group(MPSG).
It was pointed out that Mayor Bill Thiess was present at the previous MPSG meeting that
was held on August 16th. Mr. Barnhan apologized for not showing Mayor Thiess as .
being present for that meeting and stated to the MPSG the importance of signing in at the
meetings to assure accuracy of who ìs present and who is not.
The next issue raised was about the pavement strength of the future parallel runway. It
stated in the handouts that the pavement was to have flexible pavement strength of
90.000 tbs. and that it was agreed upon. The members of the MPSG noted that they
never agreed on a strength of90,000 Ibs. for the future þarallel runway and that it \Vas not
needed because the future runway is being planned for small aircraft that will never
--~-~----,~-
exceed that weight of 60,000 Ibs. This issue was discussed for a'short time and it was
decided that it should be carried over to the next meeting because some of the people that
had issues with it at the August 16th meeting were not present at this meeting.
The next small comment that was brought up was that the MPSG only had received
minutes from the August 16th meeting and not the June 21" meeting. Mr. Barnhart said
that he would send out to each MPSG member the minutes from the June 21" meeting.
Since the last meeting the tragic events on September 11th have taken a tremendous effect
to the aviation world. The concerns that were raised pertAin to the forecasts that were
forecasted before 9/11. Mr. Bamhart along with Paul Phillips announced to the MPSG
that the operations at SI. Luciè County International Airport (FPR) were immediately
impacted by 9/11, but have bounced back and are still increasing at the same rate or even
greater than before the tragedy. So the forecasts that were determined bèfore hand will
stay as they are.
Another action that was talked about was the recently at FPR the FAA has put some
restrictions on the Touch and Go activity at the airport. Questions where raised as to
what effects this would have and the activity at the airport. Currently it is too soon to tell
as to what will happen.
It was suggested after all these important issues raised that it would be important to the
MPSG to send a letter to all the absent members of the MPSG to inform them and
prepare them for the next MPSG meeting. The letter wilr contain the Minutes from. the
June 21" meeting and discuss the issues that have been raised and have concern on tTom
the MPSG.
The next issue raised was in the scheduling and the number of meetings. Some members
of the MPSG have raised comment that they feel a meeting will be needed between
February 21" and April I ". This was discussed for a bit and then decided upon that
instead of having an extra meeting that the public meeting would be moved ahead of the
February 21" meeting to allow the MPSG to reflect and give· feedback on the comments
and questions that were raised by the public.
III. The presentation by Mr. Barnhan explaining the work done on the last three chapters of
the master plan began after the MPSG gave input on the concerns that they,had. The
Airpon Plans, Environmental Overview, and the Capital Improvement Program chapters
were presented and then questions and comments were taken from the MPSG.
The issues raised by the MPSG conceming the information presented by Mr. Barnhart are
as follows:
Chapter 5 - Airport Plans
. The Airpon Plans have been being developed throughout the Master Planning'
Process. Thesc plans were shown to the MPSG and reviewed for comments.
. The barrier islands on some of the drawings and exhibits were not displayed
accurately. Mr. Bamhan noted thaI a standard background for these drawings
containing the barrier islands would be established.
~~--
· Mr. Barnhart also announced to the MPSG that Drawing 9 would become Drawing 8.
· The next issue that was raised was that St. Lucie Village should not just be zoned as
St. Lucie Village but rather as individual entities, such as low residential,
commercial, etc.
Chapter 6 - Environmental Overview
· The main issue that was raised under the Environmental Chapter dealt with if there
was going to be a need for an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the future parallel
runway because of the large amount of acres of land that will be used to create it.
Mr. Barnhart stated that the need for an EA can only be determined by the FAA and
could not himself say if there would be a need for one or not.
· Also discussed under the Environmental Chapter was the on going signage project
and the fact that that required an Environmental Assessment which is currently
already in process.
· It was noted in the Environmental Overview Chapter that Exhibits 6A - 61 were
changed to Exhibits 6A - 6E.
· The comment was also raised on this chapter asking why it says that toe Master Plan
does not identify any problems nor are there any problems with Environmental
Assessments. The Ijuestion was asked, "Hal'.' Gan there 8@ na probl@ms identified ifit
has not been evaluated yet?"
Chapter 7 - Capital Improvement Plans
· The question was raised about what is meant by reimburse money back to the Florida
Department of Transportation. Mr. Barnhart and Mr. Phillips clarified that saying
that the airport had gotten money from the FDOT before with the understanding that
overtime the airport would give the money back when it was available to give back.
. ,
· The fencing project was also discussed and notified the MPSG that because of
September II'" and what had happened that the fencing projects would be sped up
'dramatically for safety and security reason, not just for FPR but airports nationwide.
· Money was a large issue that was brought up about the airport itself, how money is
dealt, the airport needing to capitalizing on revenues, and having a clear picture on
when the what it will take for the aitline to make a profit.
· In the Chapter. il say" why big swings under others in" the MPSG asks what others
is defined as. .
· Airpon revenue was also discussed asking where the income goes that is brought in
for diftèrent areas on the airpon. One area that was brought up was the golf course.
--",-
-~.-.--~"'-
Mr. Phillips stated that the airport does not get any money from the golf course at all.
The golf course is in its own relationship with the county and has nothing to do with
the airport in terms of money. Mr. Phillips also stated that not all the revenues from
property on the airport went into the airport revenue, if that were they case then the
airport would be profitable all the time.
IV. The presentation with comments and questions was followed up by a final call on any
questions the MPSG might have on anything that they feel necessary. A reminder was
brought up pertaining to the public meeting and that there will be a need for a notice to be
sent out. This again brought up a small discussion on what would be a good date to have
this meeting. The meeting was determined to be a couple of weeks ahead of the February
21 st meeting. Everyone was in favor of such a date, so the third MPSG meeting came to
an end. .
MINUTES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN STUDY GROUP
FEBRUARY 21, 2002 - 3:00 P.M.
HELD AT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
PRESENT............... ...... ...................... ..... .... ...... ...... .....REPRESENTING
Diane Andrews...... ......... ...... ............ ......... ........... Commissioner Lewis
Roger Orr......... .., ...... ......... ............ .......... ...........City of Port St. Lucie
Bob Bangert... ... ...... ............ ...... ............. .............. Conservation Alliance
Major Ed Enns...... ...................... ...... ......... ...........City of Fort Pierce
Errol Houck...... ........................... ............. ............Fort Pierce Air Center
Adam Houck...... ......... ...... ........ ............ .... ..... .......Fon Pierce Air Center
Lena Ghaffari... ............. .,. .., ...... ............... ............ Aircraft Service Center, Inc
Dominick Scotto... ............... ... ... ... ................... ..... ..Commissioner Hutchinson
Dick Thoma......... ...... ............ ................... ........... Commissioner Barnes
Charlie Serge...... ...... ...... ... .......... .... ... ......... ........ ..Commissioner Coward
Fannie Howard... ................. ............ ...................... No One
Carla Roccapriore....... ..... ......... ............ ........... ... ....Tribune
Jim Van Hekken... ... ...... ............ ....................... ......Riverwood
Heather Young... .....:............ ...... .....:............ ...:... ...County Attorney·
Paul Phillips...... .................. ...... ......................... ...SI. Lucie County International Airport
Ronald Hall...... ..................... .., ..... ...... ... ........... .,. SI. Lucie County International Airport
Al Finster...... ... ........................ ............................SI. Lucie County International Airport
Robert E. Barnhart.......:........ ........................ ...... .......Hoyle. Tanner & Associates, Inc.
ABSENT.................. ..:..................... .,. ..................... ......REPRESENTING
Frank Lillo... ...... ......... ...... ... ......... ......... ......... .,. Chamber of Commerce
Mayor Bill Thiess.........................··..·..··....·····..··· SI. Lucie Village
Bob Clark.......... ................. ......... ........................ Commissioner Bruhn
Skip Lyshon... ... ... ...... ...... ... ... ......... ...... ... ........... Maverick
Councilman Jack Kelley... .................. ...... .................City of Port SI. Lucie
Michael Cohen... ......... ............................... ........ ...Ari Ben Aviator
F. DeWitt Beckett...... ...................... .............. ........ . Aircraft Manufaoturing
I. CALL TO ORDER
An attendance sign in sheet was passed around during the meeting to all those presenl.
The Master Plan Study Group meeting was first started at 3:15 P.M. by Robert Bamhan of Hoyle,
Tanner & Associates to discuss the "MPSG Comments to the February 2002 Draft AMPU.
II. Discussion regarding the "General" issues began.
. The first discussion was to add a: 60,000 Ibs. weight threshold to the new parallel R W 91.-
27R with agreement by the group. .
~.~---
· The next discussion regarded Issue 8 - extending RW 14 and why. To qualify RW
14/32 as a secondary runway and remove the threshold from the R W 9-27 RSA. Research shows
that it wíl1 not be excessively difficult to mate the two runway spines together.
· The next discussion regarded lssue 1 - to review the forecasts. The forecasts were
developed anticipating the Pan Am growth and 2.5% annual growth. Additional explanations to
be inserted into the AMPU.
· The next discussion regarded Issue 2 - for more accurate drawings of the Barrier Islands
in the AMPU.
· The next discussion regarded Issue 3 - to consider more aggressive forecasts and airport
development. The team discussed that this was reviewed with the understanding of existing
conditions taken into account and the forecasts were acceptable.
· The next discussion regarded Issue 4 & 7- request for greater parallel RW separation.
The group detennined that the need to keep the training traffic on-airpon was critical and
requested consideration of closer R W separation in order to a"oid envirorunental issues. The
MPSG detennined that 2500',3100' and 3800' scenarios would be depicted in the AMPU.
· The next discussion regarded Issue 5 - consider longer parallel R W length. The tern
discussion felt that 400' was optimal for the, use of training traffic aircraft. .
.. The next discussion regarded Issue 6 - concern that the AMPU states no impacts to
areas. The team discussed that the Envirorunental Overview sections points out specific areas of
consideration to be reviewed prior to significant projects and does not specify projects with no·
impacts.
III. The individual notes on the chapters were discussed as editorial except 1.4 was found to be mis-
read as "town" should have been "tower". A request to update the statistical data in Chapter· 1
fiom 1999 to the most recently released was discussed and wíl1 be included in the AMPU.
IV. . Comments from outside the MPSG were read with the consultant's responses as acceptable.
V. TIt(; A~fìðlt f¡tA"l\.o1 Piau Study GIUUp ,",uíl\..lu.dt;d tin;:; 11Ie;;e;;liu~ with dll1vLLUU tv ø...."'e;;pt the;; 3L Lu-.;iç
County Intemational Airport - Airpon Master Plan Draft Final Technical Report with the above.
mentioned comments included, and to present this document to the St. Lucie Board of County
Commissioners for consensus.
MPSG Comments to the
February 2002 Draft AMPU
GENERAL
I A request to review the forecasting methods.
lA The Forecasts compensate for the arrival of Pan Am and the highly expected
increases in aircraft and operations associated with the.
2 A request for more accurate drawing of the Barrier Islands. Done
3 A request to consider rnore aggressive forecasts and alternatives such as: a Cargo
hub, Regional Carrier hub, with a vision for rnore tourism and business.
4 A request to review parallel runway separate of 4,300' for dual operations.
5 A request to consider longer parallel runway length.
6 A concern about wetland and habitat mitigation. That the MPU states that there is
no impact to these areas.
6A The MPU addresses 19 specific areas of environmental concerns to be research
through an EA or EIS prior to proceeding with any development.
7 A request for the MPSG to consider the closest allowable runway separation
(2500') to the effort to avoid environmental irnpacts.
8 . What about an extension to get out of 9-27 RSA? Safety vs. capacity BOTH
Credit Page _ Remove Heather Y Ollng, Paul Phillips, Robert E. Barnhart and William J.
Hess from this page.
rHAPTER I
1.0 - "County Offices" should read "County Office"
1.1.3 - rnake the directions more specific getting to the airport
1.1.3 - add access roads to the airport.
J. Jet Center Terrace, coming west off Industrial 33rd St. which intersects St.
Lucie Blvd. at the eastern boundary of the airport.
2. The entrance to an Air Charter facility about 0.35 miles west of33rd, or about
0.15 miles east of Curtis King, turning north off St. Lucie Blvd.
3. Airman's Dr., coming east off Hammond Rd. which comes north ofSt. Lucie
Blvd. about 0.55 miles west of Curtis King Blvd.
1.1.4 - "key role in the areas" change "in" to "as"
1.1.4 - add to the end of the first paragraph. "One of the earliest settlements in St. Lucie
County lies within the are that is presently incorporated as the Town of St. Lucie Village,
immediately east of the airport. St. Lucie Village Historic District is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places and contains approximately two dozen historic
homes dating back to 1875."
1.1.4 - "Although dated" should read "Although incorporated"
1.1.4 - "cattle ranches in the area." Remove "in the area"
"draw in vacationers" should read "draw vacationers"
"found here, all this together with a yearly average temperature 'Of73.7 degrees
makes St. Lucie County" should read "found here. All this, together with a yearly
average ternperature of73.7 degrees, rnakes St. Lucie County"
Table 1-5 Put an * next to Ari-Ben and PanAm because they are subleases at the Airport.
1.2.6 - "'H' designates these areas" should read "'H' which designates these area"
1.3.1 - check the location of Fort Pierce Air Center in relation to Curtis King Blvd. (east)
1.3.2 - "On-Airport property" does not required a hyphen.
"The City has been" should read "The County has been"
1.4 - The ATCT is in operation from 7:00 a.m. unti19:00 p.m., seven daysa week
1.4 - "the FAA began operating and servicing the airport in 1989." should read (the FAA
began operating and servicing the town in 1989." *
"and alllFR traffic in to" should read "and all IFR traffic into"
1.6.1 - "safety zones including" should read "safety zones, including"
"As stated in this plan as Goal 2.7..." should read (Goal 2.7 of the comprehensive
plan stated)
"Free Areas free and clear" should read "Free Areas, free and clear"
1.6.2.,.. "This land use is regulated by the County's Land Development Code" should be
changed to "Land use with in unincorporated areas is regulated by the County's
Land Development Code"
Add to first paragraph. "Land use within the Town of S1. Lucie Village,
imrnediately east of the airport is regulated by the Town's Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance and is primarily residential"
1.6.2 - Add "Each jurisdictional entity within S1. Lucie County has the ability to cçmtrol
its own land use."
Add sentence regarding residential areas east and south of the airport as
substantial.· The statement here treats thern lightly.
1.6.2 - "Near the coastline and US I, there is a small area of mixed residential
developments and commercial areas." Changed to "Near the coastline and US I,
is the Town of St. Lucie Village and other unincorporated, mixed residential
developments and commercial areas."
1.6.4 - "frorn neighborhood surrounding the airport." Make neighborhood plural.
"The west perimeters" perimeters should be singular.
"different uses ranging" should read "different zoning districts ranging"
"This land use is regulated" should read (These zoning.districts are regulated"
Table 1-10 - ",$1. Lucie County Firefighters" should read "S1. Lucie County Fire District"
1.7.1 - "large citrus crops" should read "large citrus groves"
1.7.2 - why is 1999 data used. The new numbers have been released.
Exhibit I-A.- S1. Lucie Village should be identified on the Airport Vicinity Map
CHAPTER 2
2.0: 1 - "But by analyzing" should be (By analyzing).
"the proposed touch and go restriction" should read "the voluntary touch and go
limitations"
2.1.3 - "difference of the number" should read "difference in the number"
·2.1.4 - "the State is at a higher rate" should read "it is at a higher rate"
"FASP growth rate, projected a" should not have "a"
"The forecast developed, based on a Multiple Regression" remove the (,)
"It was determined with an average annual growth rate of 2.5% that the Multiple
Regression Analysis was the preferred forecasting methodology." change to "With
an average annual growth rate of2.5%, it was determined that the Multiple
Regression Analysis was the preferred forecasting methodology."
2.2 - "and the fact that current" should read "and in light of that fact that current"
2.2.8 - "operations have accounted for" should read "operations accounted for"
CHAPTER 3
3.1.1 - "capacity on the airfield" should be "capacity of the airfield"
3.1.4 - "crosswinds for Runway 9-27 exceed 12 or 15 knots (aircraft dependent)
conditions." remove "conditions"
3.1.18 - "Table 3-5 shows that the runway" should read "Table 3-5 shows the runway"
3.3.3 - question was asked if the airport is getting RVR equipment?
3.8 '- Airport Access - this paragraph is inaccurate and should be rewritten.
CHAPTER 4
4.1 - "under Section 1.16" change to "under Section 3.1.16"
4.2.1 - "wheel strength FAA standard" change to "wheel strength. FAA standard"
4.2.1 - 3'd paragraph second line should read "The developrnent criteria arè based"
"approaches into the proposed" change to "approaches to the proposed"
4.2.2 - "GPSIDME (N-l)" should read (GPS/DME (N"2»)
"Runway 9,27,14 and 32 (N-2)" should read "Runway 9, 27,14 and 32 (N-3)"
"Beacon and Tower (N-3)" should read "Beacon and Tower (N-4)"
4.2.4 -'- "and the Authority has acquired" change to "and the County has acquired"
4 1 "These tHnrl i. n"'rf"~Hry" ("h~"gp.d to "This land is mCllssary"
"projects programmed in" change to "projects are programmed in"
4.3 (L-l) - Need to refer to Airport Property Map.
Table 4-1 - should read :between "Thresholds 9 and 14"
CHAPTER 5
5.4 - cornment - request comments relative to compatible land use planning
(Drawings 6 & 7 of 8) - "River Woods Development" label should be adjusted to the
proper location. The town of St. Lucie Village should be label on the southern end as .
well as the northern.
CHAPTER 6
6.2 - what does FONSI stand for? Finding Of No Significant Irnpact
6.2.11 - "Exhibit 6-J" should be (Exhibit 6-F) comment -:- a sentence refers to the wetland
areas located south, wes.t and north but ornits the wetlands areas to the east.
(Exhibit 6-A) - Title should be changed from "St. Lucie County International Airport
Land Use" to "St. Lucie County International Airport & Vicinity Land Use"
CHAPTER 7
7.2.1- "St. Lucie County Fire Safety" shoulâ read "St. Lucie County Fire District"
----.--
CommentS from outside the MPSG
(Comment) - "As the plån has no constraints, and none are approved, I feel it is not a
very useful tool in this airports long range development plans. The master plan
barely touch on non-compatible areas which are now negatively irnpacted by noise
pollution and does not touch at all on areas which maybe impacted with
unconstrained growth"
(Response) - The FAA requires that the AMP Forecasts be developed as
unconstrained. The Environmental Overview section addresses specific issues to be
addressed by the proposed development. A FAR Part 150 Noise Study, which will
address aircraft noise impacts on the community, is recommended in this report.
(Comment) - There is no direction given, as to alternatives, which would allow future
development of the airport and keep it compatible with the community as a whole.
One thing this plan rnakes very clear is the damage unconstrained growth has already
done. A quick look at the previous noise contour maps and the present on depicted
on the plan shows a total lack of due diligence and planning by the airport proprietors
and a total lack of constraint in previous development."
(Response) - The fact that the County has aggressively purchased property
surrounding the airport and zoned other properties adjacent to the airport (see Exhibit
6-4 Land Use) shows a significant effort on its part to reduce or prevent property
owners from creating áreas of incompatible land-use due to aircraft noise.