PORT OF PORTLAND A I R P O R T M A S T E R P L A N E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y HILLSBORO AIRPORT Hillsboro, Oregon AIRPORT MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared for: Prepared by: May 2005 PORT OF PORTLAND Airport Consultants PACIFIC NRPS Mark J. Greenfield Attorney at Law HILLSBORO AIRPORT Hillsboro, Oregon Airport Master Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MASTER PLAN GOAL .................................................................................ES-2 MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVES ....................................................................ES-2 Preserve Public and Private Investments ............................................ES-2 Be Reflective of Community Goals and Objectives ..............................ES-2 Determine Role ......................................................................................ES-2 Maintain Safety .....................................................................................ES-2 Preserve the Environment ....................................................................ES-3 Seek to Balance Disruption...................................................................ES-3 Attract Public Participation..................................................................ES-3 Strengthen the Economy.......................................................................ES-3 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COORDINATION...........................................ES-3 FUTURE ROLE HILLSBORO AIRPORT....................................................ES-4 AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS............................................................ES-6 NEED FOR A PARALLEL RUNWAY..........................................................ES-7 MASTER PLAN CONCEPT..........................................................................ES-8 Airfield Plan...........................................................................................ES-8 Landside Plan ......................................................................................ES-11 SECURITY...................................................................................................ES-14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued) AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS..................................................................ES-16 COMPATIBLE LAND USE ........................................................................ES-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS .....................................................................ES-17 Capital Improvements Funding..........................................................ES-18 ECONOMIC IMPACT .................................................................................ES-19 EXHIBITS ES-1 MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS .......... after page ES-4 ES-2 FORECAST SUMMARY............................................... after page ES-6 ES-3 DEMAND VS. CAPACITY ........................................... after page ES-8 ES-4 MASTER PLAN CONCEPT AIRSIDE ........................ after page ES-8 ES-5 MASTER PLAN CONCEPT LANDSIDE .................. after page ES-12 ES-6 EXISTING, PROJECTED SHORT TERM, & PROJECTED LONG TERM NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS ........................... after page ES-16 ES-7 DEVELOPMENT STAGING...................................... after page ES-18 ES-1 DRAFT FINAL PORT OF PORTLAND The Hillsboro Airport Master Plan study was undertaken to evaluate the airport's capabilities and role, to forecast future aviation demand, and to plan for the timely development of new or expanded facilities that may be required to meet that demand. The ultimate goal of the Master Plan was to provide systematic guidelines for the airport's overall maintenance, development, and operation. The Master Plan is a proactive document which identifies and then plans for future facility needs well in advance of the actual need for those facilities. This is done to ensure that the Port of Portland (Port) can coordinate project approvals, design, financing, and construction in a timely manner prior to experiencing the detrimental effects of inadequate facilities. An important result of the Master Plan was reserving sufficient land area for future facility needs. This protects development areas and ensures they will be readily available when required to meet future needs. The result is a detailed airfield and landside development concept which outlines recommended uses for all areas of airport property. The preparation of this Master Plan is evidence that the Port recognizes the importance of air transportation to the community and the associated challenges inherent in providing for its unique operating and improvement needs. The costs of maintaining an airport is an investment which yield benefits to the community. With a sound and realistic Master Plan, Hillsboro Airport can maintain its role as an important link to the national air trans- Airport Master Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT FINAL ES-2 portation system for the community and the Port of Portland will be able to maintain the existing public and pri- vate investments in this facility. MASTER PLAN GOAL “Develop a comprehensive tool to guide the Airport’s development and optimize community compatibility through the year 2025.” MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the Master Plan is to formulate and maintain a long-term development program which will yield a safe, efficient, economical, and environmentally acceptable avia- tion facility. The accomplishment of this objective requires the evaluation of the existing airport and a determination of what actions should be taken to main- tain an adequate, safe, and reliable air- port facility to meet the needs of the area. This update will provide an out- line of the necessary improvements and give those responsible for its operation advance notice of future airport funding needs so the appropriate steps can be taken to ensure that adequate funds are budgeted. Specific objectives of the Hillsboro Air- port Master Plan update are: PRESERVE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENTS The Port and United States Govern- ment (through the Federal Aviation Administration, or the FAA) have made considerable investments in the air- port’s infrastructure. Private individu- als and businesses have made invest- ments in buildings and other facilities as well. This update will provide for the continued maintenance and the neces- sary improvements to the airport’s in- frastructure to ensure maximum utility of both public and private-use facilities at the Hillsboro Airport. BE REFLECTIVE OF COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Hillsboro Airport is a public-use aviation facility serving the aeronauti- cal needs of local and regional residents and businesses. The Master Plan needs to reflect the desires the surrounding communities have for quality of life, business and development, and land use. The Master Plan will consider ex- isting planning documents for sur- rounding communities and the county in the ultimate design and use of the Hillsboro Airport. DETERMINE ROLE The Hillsboro Airport is part of a re- gional and national aviation system. To ensure that the Hillsboro Airport fulfills its role, the Master Plan will evaluate the segments of aviation that it must serve to ensure strong and vibrant re- gional and national aviation systems. MAINTAIN SAFETY Safety is an essential consideration in the planning and development at the DRAFT FINAL ES-3 Airport. The Master Plan will focus on maintaining the already high levels of safety for airport users, visitors, em- ployees, and surrounding communities. PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT Protection and preservation of the local environment are important concerns in the Master Plan. Any improvements suggested within the Master Plan will be mindful of environmental require- ments, such as those for air quality, noise, and the protection of sensitive species’ habitat. SEEK TO BALANCE DISRUPTION The Master Plan will seek to balance the needs of the community for quality of life with the need for a vibrant busi- ness atmosphere. The Master Plan will seek to moderate the effects of aircraft activity on existing land uses while meeting aviation needs. ATTRACT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION To ensure that the Master Plan reflects the concerns of the public and their rep- resentatives, the local communities, residents, and businesses throughout the region will be notified of the Master Plan update process and their com- ments and suggestions will be actively solicited and included in the final Mas- ter Plan, to the extent possible. STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY In continuing support of the area’s economy, the Master Plan is aimed at retaining and increasing jobs and reve- nue for the region and its businesses. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COORDINATION The Hillsboro Airport Master Plan is of interest to many within the local com- munity. This includes local citizens, community organizations, airport users, airport tenants, area-wide planning agencies, and aviation organizations. As an important component of the re- gional, state, and national aviation sys- tems, the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan is of great importance to both state and federal agencies responsible for oversee- ing air transportation. To assist in the development of the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan, the Port identified a cross- section of community members and in- terested persons to act in an advisory role in the development of the Master Plan. As members of the Project Advi- sory Committee (PAC), the committee members reviewed draft working papers and provided comments throughout the study to help ensure that a realistic, vi- able plan was developed. To assist in the review process, draft working papers of each chapter were prepared at several milestones in the planning process as shown on Exhibit ES-1. The draft working papers process DRAFT FINAL ES-4 allowed for input and review during each step within the update process to ensure that all issues were fully ad- dressed as the recommended program was developed. Two project-specific Open Houses were held as part of the plan coordination. Open Houses afforded the public oppor- tunities to provide input and learn about general information concerning the Master Plan update. Master Plan information was made available through the publication of a series of brochures and newsletters. The working papers and draft final report were also made available to the general public over the internet via the Port web page shortly after submission to the commit- tee. The web site allowed persons to e- mail comments to the Port. FUTURE ROLE HILLSBORO AIRPORT Hillsboro Airport is defined as a reliever airport for Portland International Air- port (PDX) in the Federal Aviation Ad- ministration’s (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). In this role, Hillsboro Airport is intended to preserve capacity at PDX by offering an alternative operating area for gen- eral aviation aircraft, separate from commercial airline and air cargo activi- ties. At the state level, Hillsboro Air- port is included as a Category 2 Airport in the Oregon Aviation Plan prepared by the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA). The Oregon Aviation Plan de- fines a Category 2 airport as an airport to “accommodate corporate aviation act- ivity, including business jets, helicop- ters, and other general aviation activi- ties.” Four potential future roles or options for development were considered for Hillsboro Airport in the Master Plan as outlined below: 1. General Aviation/Reliever: This is a continuation of the airport’s ex- isting role. 2. General Aviation/Reliever That Also Supports Scheduled Com- muter Airline Operations With Aircraft With Fewer Than 10 Passenger Seats: This would be the extent of commercial air service that could be accommodated with- out the FAR Part 139 certification that is required for scheduled air- line service. (Hillsboro Airport is presently not certificated to ac- commodate scheduled airline ser- vice with aircraft with more than 9 passenger seats.). 3. Commercial Service/Reliever: This would be characterized by the airport primarily serving as a gen- eral aviation reliever for PDX, but also planning for the potential for scheduled airline activity with air- craft capable of carrying 10 or more passengers. 4. General Aviation/Air Cargo: This would be characterized by the airport primarily serving as a gen- eral aviation reliever for PDX, but also planning for the potential for air cargo. Potential role one, General Avia- tion/Reliever, and potential role two, General Aviation/Reliever That Also Supports Scheduled Com- 03 M P0 1- IA -5 /9 /0 5 Exhibit ES-1 MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS SELECT AND REFINE PLAN SM AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS N T OPE KA & S ANT A F E R AIL RO AD KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE 25 25 LEGEND Passenger Terminal Area (Passenger Related Activities) Air Cargo Operation Area (Air Cargo Related Activities) General Aviation Area Airfield Support Airport Commercial Support 0 2000 4000 SCALE IN FEET SM PAC PAC PAC PAC PAC PAC PAC PAC LEGEND Draft Study Materials Project Advisory Committee Meetings Open House NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER PORT OF PORTLAND PORT APPROVAL FAA APPROVAL DRAFT MASTER PLAN INVENTORY SM PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE E ALTERNATIVE F 10R 10L 28 R 28 L 5 2,800' 10R 10L 28 R 28 L 5 PHASE 1 3,100' PHASE 2 3,400' 10R 10L 28 R 28 L 5 4,100' 28 R 5 3,400' 800' 10L 23 28 L 28 L 28 C 28 C 28 L 28 C 10R 10R 10C 10C 10R 10C 23 23 23 Existing Configuration plus 1,000' extensions on each end of 10L-28R. New 8,000' long 10L-28R - 300' north of existing location; New 10,250' long 10R-28L 300' south of existing location. New 8,000' long 10L-28R - 1,300' north of existing location; Maintain existing 10R-28L. New 8,000' long 10L-28R - 600' north of existing location; Maintain existing 10R-28L; New 10,250' long 10R-28L - 800' south of existing 10R-28L. 6,000' x 150' Runway 10,250' x 150' Runway Taxiway "C" Taxiway "E" Taxiway "B""B4" "C4" "B3" "C3" "B2" "B1" "C2" "E1""E2""E3" 6,000' x 150' Runway 10,250' x 150' Runway Taxiway "C" Taxiway "E" Taxiway "B" Taxiway "D" "F2""B2" "B1" "C2" "C1" "F1 "B3" "C3" "E2" "E1" TERMINAL CONCEPT "F" TERMINAL CONCEPT "G" 4 GATES 38 GATES TOTAL: 52 GATES 4 GATES 25 GATES TOTAL: 53 GATES 6,000' x 150' Runway 10,250' x 150' Runway Taxiway "C" Taxiway "E" Taxiway "B""B4" "C4" "B3" "C3" "B2" "B1" "C2" "F2" "C1" "F1 "E1""E2""E3" TERMINAL CONCEPT "D" 29 GATES5 GATES 4 GATES 5 COMMUTER GATES 10 GATES 9 GATESTOTAL: 62 GATES Taxiway "C" Taxiway "E" "C4" "C3" "C2" " "E1""E2""E3" 6,000' x 150' Runway 10,250' x 150' Runway 4 GATES 25 GATES TOTAL: 53 GATES SM SM SMFORECASTS SM FINAL MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT FINANCIAL PROGRAM SM OPEN HOUSE OPEN HOUSE OPEN HOUSE DEMAND CAPACITY & FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FUTURE ROLE OF HILLSBORO AIRPORT AVIATION NOISE REVIEW 2015201020051995 20001990 60% Ann ual Servi ce Volum e Operatio nal Dema nd Forec ast DRAFT FINAL ES-5 muter Airline Operations With Air- craft With Fewer Than 10 Passen- ger Seats, can be accommodated within the existing infrastructure capabilities (runway length, pavement strength) of Hillsboro Airport and existing FAA regulatory environment. Commuter airline aircraft are permitted by FAA regulations to operate into Hillsboro Airport and do not require FAR Part 139 certification. Potential role three, Commercial Service/Reliever, and potential role four, General Avia- tion/Air Cargo cannot be fully accom- modated at Hillsboro Airport due to ex- isting limitations of the pavement strengths and runway lengths and the absence of FAR Part 139 certification. Expansion or strengthening of the exist- ing runway and taxiway system to sup- port heavier commercial service aircraft cannot be economically or environmen- tally justified at this time, and is not supported by the local community or Port staff. Therefore, the selected role for Hillsboro Airport must remain within the existing infrastructure limi- tations at Hillsboro Airport (i.e., roles one and two). The examination of the future role of Hillsboro Airport determined that initi- ating new scheduled passenger airline and/or air cargo activity at Hillsboro Airport would be difficult. Any airline would face considerable risk and chal- lenges including: limited market oppor- tunities, lack of suitable facilities for their operation, and considerable com- petition from PDX. Therefore, it does not appear that the potential for roles two, three, and four is strong enough to change the role of the airport at this time. The existing role of the airport (role one), as a growing business-class general aviation/reliever airport, is the most likely role for Hillsboro Airport in the future. The Port's overall mission is to provide competitive cargo and passenger access to regional, national and international markets, while enhancing the region's quality of life. The Aviation mission is to operate, maintain and promote an airport system that satisfies the air transportation needs of its customers by providing competitive cargo and pas- senger access to regional, national and international markets. Since general aviation contributes to moving cargo and passengers around the region, na- tion, and the world, maintaining the same role for Hillsboro Airport allows the Port to directly meet these missions. Ensuring that Hillsboro Airport can continue to accommodate general avia- tion activity, aids the Port in imple- menting the objectives of the 2000 Port- land International Airport Master Plan. The 2000 Portland International Airport Master Plan called for “Strategies to Preserve Capacity.” By accommodating general aviation activity at Hillsboro Airport, the capacity of the runway sys- tem is maximized at PDX and the need for a third parallel runway at PDX is reduced. Hillsboro Airport is the most capable general aviation airport in the metro- politan region as well as near the Port- land central business district. The ca- pabilities of Hillsboro Airport cannot be duplicated at another regional airport without significant capital investments. Therefore, Hillsboro Airport should con- tinue to be developed primarily for gen- eral aviation services. DRAFT FINAL ES-6 AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS An important factor in any facility plan is a definition of the demand that it should reasonably be expected to ac- commodate during the useful life of its key components. In the Hillsboro Air- port Master Plan, this involved project- ing aviation activity indicators through the Year 2025. Forecasts of based air- craft and operations (takeoffs and land- ings) served as the basis for facility planning. Aviation activity can be affected by many influences on the local, regional, and national levels, making it virtually impossible to predict year-to-year fluc- tuations over 20 years with any cer- tainty. Therefore, it must be remem- bered that forecasts are to serve only as guidelines and planning must remain flexible enough to respond to a range of unforeseen developments. Recognizing this, it was intended to de- velop the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan to be demand-based rather than time- based. As a result, the reasonable lev- els of activity potential that are derived from the forecasting effort will be re- lated to planning horizon levels rather than points in time. These planning horizons are established as levels of ac- tivity that will call for consideration of the implementation of the next step in the Master Plan program. Moderate growth in based aircraft and operations was projected for Hillsboro Airport as shown on Exhibit ES-2. This growth is influenced by local socio- economic growth in the Portland Metro- politan Area and growth in the national general aviation industry. The Metro Council projects the Portland- Vancouver population to grow by 1.6 percent annually through 2025, from 1.9 million to 2.8 million. Total house- holds and total employment are pro- jected to grow by 1.7 percent and 2.2 percent annually, respectively, over the same period. Finally, per capita per- sonal income is projected to grow 4.0 percent annually through 2025, from $32,563 to $79,894 (constant dollars). Nationally, the number of general avia- tion aircraft is expected to grow at 1.3 percent annually as forecast by the FAA. This growth is influenced by new federal rules creating the affordable Light Sport Airport, the expected intro- duction of the microjet (a low-cost busi- ness jet), and continued growth in cor- porate and fractional ownership of air- craft. Corporate and fractional aircraft growth is the result of changes in busi- ness travel away from the commercial airports for travel flexibility and time savings. Turbine-powered aircraft, which make up the overwhelming ma- jority of the corporate and fractional fleet, are projected to grow at 3.6 per- cent annually, the fastest pace of all general aviation aircraft. The Master Plan projected based air- craft at Hillsboro Airport to grow at an annual rate of 1.4 percent, increasing from 363 to 464 based aircraft by the end of the planning period. Along with national general aviation trends and the growing local economy, the trend of increased aircraft ownership in Wash- ington County was a factor in projecting based aircraft growth. Between 1993 and 2003, 191 new aircraft were regis- tered in Washington County. Based Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Turbojet Helicopter Other Total Based Aircraft BASED AIRCRAFT BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX OPERATIONS FORECASTS ITINERANT OPERATIONS General Aviation Air Taxi Military Subtotal Itinerant Operations LOCAL OPERATIONS General Aviation Military Subtotal Local Operations Total Operations OPERATIONS SHORT TERM INTERMEDIATE TERM FORECASTSBASE YEAR LONG TERM 03 M P0 1- ES 2- 5/ 23 /0 5 Other Helicopter Turbojet Turpoprop Multi-Engine Single Engine TotalLocalItinerant 50 100 150 200 OP ER AT IO NS (i n th ou sa nd s) BA SE D AI RC RA FT 250 300 350 100 200 300 400 500 LongIntermediateShort2003 LongIntermediateShort2003 Exhibit ES-2 FORECAST SUMMARY PORT OF PORTLAND 244 35 13 41 29 1 363 83,381 9,561 503 93,445 160,261 141 160,402 253,847 105,700 14,200 900 120,800 166,900 600 167,500 288,300 119,700 17,100 900 137,700 184,700 600 185,300 323,000 99,000 11,300 900 111,200 158,500 600 159,100 270,300 256 37 17 56 32 1 399 265 38 19 63 34 1 420 284 41 23 79 37 1 465 DRAFT FINAL ES-7 upon the pilot survey results conducted for the Master Plan, it is expected that new aircraft owners in Washington County would prefer to base at Hills- boro Airport since it is the most capable airport near their homes or businesses. Nationally, general aviation operations are projected to grow at 1.7 percent an- nually. The Master Plan projected total annual operations at Hillsboro Airport to grow at 1.1 percent annually through the planning period. Itinerant opera- tions were projected to grow faster than local operations (training operations) as the mix of aircraft operating at the air- port is expected to continue to include a higher percentage of business aircraft which normally only conduct itinerant operations. The number of helicopter operations was projected to remain con- stant through the planning period as 2003 was considered a peak year for helicopter operations at Hillsboro Air- port. NEED FOR A PARALLEL RUNWAY An airfield capacity analysis confirmed the need for a small aircraft-only run- way at Hillsboro Airport. An airport’s airfield capacity is expressed in terms of its annual service volume (ASV). An airport’s ASV is a reasonable estimate of the maximum level of aircraft opera- tions that can be accommodated in a year. An airport’s ASV figure accounts for annual differences in runway use, aircraft mix, and weather conditions. As shown in the upper left-hand corner of Exhibit ES-3, the airport is pres- ently operating beyond its ASV. The present ASV is estimated at approxi- mately 169,000 operations; however, the airport accommodates more than 180,000 operations to the runways (helicopters operating in the Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie Patterns do not oper- ate to the runways. Therefore, these operations which are included in the airport’s total operations count and are not considered in the ASV calculations). Exceeding the ASV increases departure and arrival delays to aircraft. At cur- rent operational levels, this delay is es- timated at an average of 1.9 minutes per operation. As the mix of aircraft operating at the airport continues to shift to include a larger percentage of business aircraft, and as operations increase, this delay figure is projected to increase to over six minutes per aircraft operation on aver- age. Increasing levels of annual delay create undesirable conditions such as increased air emissions, increased oper- ating costs, and extended aircraft traffic patterns. Increased air emissions are the result of aircraft engines running for longer periods of time. Aircraft en- gines running for longer periods of time increase fuel and maintenance costs for owners. In-flight delays cause extended downwind legs for arriving aircraft, which can lead to aircraft flying larger- than-typical traffic patterns and in- creased overflights of residential areas. Such temporary changes to the airport’s operating environment makes confor- mance with voluntary noise abatement procedures more difficult for a pilot. The availability of radar coverage and additional exit taxiways along Runway 30 can increase the ASV as shown on Exhibit ES-3. Radar coverage can in- DRAFT FINAL ES-8 crease the ASV by approximately 1,000 annual operations; however, this would not reduce delay. Additional exit taxi- ways along Runway 30 could increase the ASV by approximately 9,000 annual operations and reduce the current delay by approximately 36 seconds per opera- tion. However, even with both of these improvements in place, the airport would still be operating beyond its cur- rent ASV. The capacity analysis confirmed previ- ous planning efforts from the 1990 and 1996 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan Up- dates and concluded that a runway for use by small general aviation aircraft exclusively is the best means available for reducing delays and the undesirable conditions that occur due to delay. The parallel runway achieves the capacity enhancement by segregating small air- craft and large aircraft operations. As shown on Exhibit ES-3, combining the benefits of improved radar coverage and several additional exit taxiways with a parallel runway, the airport’s ASV is consistently higher than the number of operations through the planning period. It is anticipated that these improve- ments will reduce delay to less than 30 seconds per aircraft operation on aver- age. MASTER PLAN CONCEPT The Master Plan Development Concept represents the development direction for the Hillsboro Airport through the planning period of this Master Plan. The Master Plan Development Concept is the consolidation and refinement of the three airfield and three landside al- ternatives into a single development concept collectively representing input received from the PAC, public Open House meetings, Port, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). AIRFIELD PLAN Airfield components include the run- ways, parallel and connecting taxiways, lighting aids, navigational aids, and imaginary surfaces which help to pro- vide a safe operating environment. The specific development plans for the air- field are shown on Exhibit ES-4 and are more fully described in the following subsections. Capacity Improvements The airfield plan includes the construc- tion of three acute-angled (high-speed) exit taxiways between Taxiway A3 and Taxiway A5. High-speed exit taxiways are the preferred taxiways for capacity enhancement, as they allow aircraft to exit the runway at a higher speed, thus allowing the aircraft to clear the run- way faster. Taxiway A4 is planned to be closed since it would be redundant to the high-speed exits. A fourth high- speed exit taxiway is also planned near the Runway 30 end to allow business aircraft stored in the future northeast corporate aircraft storage facility area to exit Runway 12 quickly. The FAA currently does not provide pi- lots with radar coverage to the ground at Hillsboro Airport. Adding radar cov- erage would improve capacity during poor visibility and cloud ceiling condi- tions, and reduce instrument departure delays. Improved radar coverage would also serve to reduce controller workload, 03 M P0 1- ES 3- 5/ 23 /0 5 Exhibit ES-3 DEMAND VS. CAPACITY 150 200 AN NU AL O PE RA TI ON S (In th ou sa nd s) 250 300 350 100 50 150 200 AN NU AL O PE RA TI ON S (In th ou sa nd s) 250 300 350 100 50 150 200 AN NU AL O PE RA TI ON S (In th ou sa nd s) 250 300 350 100 50 150 200 AN NU AL O PE RA TI ON S (In th ou sa nd s) 250 300 350 100 50 Long Term Intermediate Term Short Term Existing Long Term Intermediate Term Short Term Existing Long Term Intermediate Term Short Term Existing Long Term Intermediate Term Short Term Existing Annual Service Volume Planning Horizon Demand Levels 180,147 196,600 214,600 249,300 162,000165,000169,000 167,000 Annual Service Volume Planning Horizon Demand Levels 180,147 196,600 214,600 249,300 163,000166,000170,000 168,000 309,000311,000 315,000 313,000 Annual Service Volume Planning Horizon Demand Levels 180,147 196,600 214,600 249,300 171,000174,000178,000 176,000 EXISTING AIRFIELD CONDITIONS ADD RADAR COVERAGE ADD EXIT TAXIWAYS ADD PARALLEL RUNWAY, EXITS, RADAR COVERAGE , , Planning Horizon Demand Levels Annual Service Volume 180,147 196,600 214,600 249,300 PORT OF PORTLAND N.E. 25th Ave. Max Station Fairplex Brookwood Parkway Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Exhibit ES-4 MASTER PLAN CONCEPT AIRSIDE 0 3 M P 0 1 - E S 4 - 5 / 1 0 / 0 5 Co rn el l R oa d RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') 24 0' 24 0' 39 0' 35 ' 39 0' 4 95 ' 49 5' 700' 400' 400' 300' 240' Existing Charlie Pad 35' 50' C H CC A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A M A8 A AA A M D A B B F RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ultimate (4,200' x 100') 386' 23 5' Sh ift 12R 30 l NORTH 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Potential Property Acquisition Ultimate Pavement Existing Runway Visibility Zone Ultimate Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Proposed Runway 12L-30R (3,600' x 60') Training Helipad 151' Extension AA Future City-Owned Collector Road (Alignment Generalized) NOTE: A detailed traffic assessment of surrounding facilities has not been completed. The future Evergreen Road to Brookwood Parkway alignment is generalized. This alignment may change. The road would be constructed with local resources and not by the Port. DRAFT FINAL ES-9 expedite instrument departures, and give the Port’s Noise Management Of- fice the ability to track aircraft opera- tions near the airport. While some in- strument departure delays will be re- duced by adding radar coverage, in- strument departures will still need to be sequenced with Portland International Airport (PDX) aircraft. Depending on overall air traffic in the region, some delays may still occur for instrument departures. The Port should aggres- sively pursue the addition of radar cov- erage with the FAA. The airfield plan includes the construc- tion of a parallel runway 700 feet east of Runway 12-30 for the exclusive use of small general aviation aircraft to reduce delay. This runway is planned to be 3,600 feet long, 60 feet wide and have visual approaches. A parallel taxiway is planned 240 feet east of the runway to serve future small aircraft apron ar- eas and storage hangars. Runway 2-20 The FAA recommends that Runway 2- 20 be 4,200 feet long. Runway 2-20 is presently 4,049 feet long, 151 feet short of this design length. While this addi- tional length is too short to allow for a change in the mix of aircraft operating on the runway, this additional length would improve the safety of operations on the runway by increasing the land- ing length and accelerate stop/distance available (ASDA). The ASDA is a de- parture length calculation that allows for an aircraft to reach rotation speed (liftoff) and stop on the paved runway surface should the pilot elect not to con- tinue the departure for safety reasons (such as loss in engine power). Longer paved areas decrease the potential for aircraft to exit the runway should they have a power reduction or failure dur- ing the ground roll on departure, or land long or too fast to the runway. The runway visibility zone (RVZ) is es- tablished by federal design standards to provide a clear view of intersecting runways for departing pilots. Perma- nent structures are not normally per- mitted in the RVZ. Several T-hangars and the airport traffic control tower (ATCT) are located within the limits of the existing RVZ. The size and configuration of the RVZ is controlled by the distance between the runway intersection and the runway ends. Therefore, any changes to loca- tion of the intersecting runway ends will change the dimensions and location of the RVZ. Instead of removing the T- hangars and relocating ATCT facilities to clear the RVZ, the airfield plan pro- poses to relocate the Runway 2 end ap- proximately 238 feet east, to move the RVZ away from these facilities. The airfield plan includes the addition of 238 feet behind the Runway 20 end to replace the runway lost at the Runway 2 end due to this shift. Since Runway 2-20 is being shifted to the east, the ex- tension is also planned to the east. Instrument Approaches The airfield plan reserves the potential for the FAA to establish future straight- in instrument approaches to Runways 2, 20, and 30, utilizing the Global Posi- tioning System (GPS). The marking and lighting available at these runway DRAFT FINAL ES-10 ends currently comply with applicable federal standards for establishing an instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as one mile and cloud ceilings as low as 300 feet. Improving the instrument approach capability to these runway ends will be at the sole discretion of the FAA. While instru- ment approaches are designed for use by pilots during inclement weather con- ditions, instrument approaches are commonly used during good visibility conditions by transient pilots, to navi- gate to the airport. Taxiways A focus of airfield planning and devel- opment is to reduce the number of run- way crossings. Runway crossings in- crease the potential for runway incur- sions and the potential for aircraft acci- dents. A full-length parallel taxiway 400 feet east of Runway 12-30 would ensure that aircraft located east of Run- way 12-30 would not have to cross the runway to access either the Runway 12 or Runway 30 ends. Taxiway B is planned to be extended to the Runway 2 end. Extending Taxiway B to the Runway 2 end would eliminate the need for pilots to taxi through the main apron area to reach the Runway 2 end and give pilots a direct taxi route to each end of Runway 2-20. The Runway 2 entrance taxiway on the south side of the runway is planned to be reconfigured at a right angle to the Runway 2 end. This is the preferred method for intersecting the runway, as it allows the pilot to have a better view of both the approach and departure ar- eas. Taxiway C is planned to be relocated 40 feet north to meet current FAA runway centerline-to-taxiway centerline separa- tion distances. Relocating Taxiway C will require closing Taxiway CC be- cause, once relocated, Taxiway C would be located too close to Taxiway CC for simultaneous aircraft use. The exten- sion of Taxiway C to the Runway 20 end is also planned. Extending Taxiway C to the Runway 20 end provides a con- nection to the future parallel runway from the west side of the airport. Piston-powered aircraft must complete a series of engine run-up tests before departure. Some aircraft on Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) flight plans must hold at the runway end for departure clear- ance. Holding aprons at the runway ends allow these activities to take place off the active taxiway surface, allowing ready-for-departure aircraft to bypass those aircraft holding or completing en- gine run-up tests. Holding aprons are planned along Taxiway C at the future Runway 20 end, along Taxiway B at the Runway 20 end, along Taxiway M at the Runway 30L and 30R ends, and along Taxiway D at the future Runway 12L and Runway 30R ends. The hold- ing apron along Taxiway M, serving the Runway 12L and Runway 12R ends, is located outside the glideslope critical area, east of the taxiway. Charlie Pattern Landing Pads The existing Charlie Pattern landing pads are located where the parallel DRAFT FINAL ES-11 runway is planned to be constructed. Therefore, the existing Charlie Pattern landing pads will need to be removed when the parallel runway is con- structed. The airfield plan includes the eventual replacement of the Charlie Pattern landing pads approximately 1,500 feet east of the parallel runway. This location allows for the development of landside facilities along Taxiway D. While the Charlie Pattern operations could be conducted to Taxiway D (as might be required after the parallel runway is constructed and before the new landing pads can be constructed), the relocated Charlie Pattern landing pads offer greater segregation between the aircraft using the parallel runway and the Charlie Pattern landing pads. A relocated Charlie Pattern landing pad allows the Charlie Pattern flight paths to be located further east over existing and planned industrial/commercial land uses, which are more compatible with Charlie Pattern usage. The relocated Charlie Pattern landing pads would re- quire the acquisition of approximately 30 acres of land north of the airport’s intersecting runways as shown on Ex- hibit ES-4. LANDSIDE PLAN Examples of landside facilities include aircraft storage hangars, terminal buildings, aircraft parking aprons, han- gar and apron access taxilanes, fuel storage facilities, and vehicle parking lots. The landside plan for Hillsboro Airport has been devised to efficiently accommodate potential aviation de- mand and provide revenue enhance- ment possibilities by designating the use of certain portions of airport prop- erty for aviation-related and non- aviation-related commercial and indus- trial uses. With the exception of the public terminal building and aircraft wash racks, most structural improve- ments are anticipated to be developed privately, as has been done in the past at Hillsboro Airport. The development of landside facilities depicted on Exhibit ES-5 will be de- mand-based. In this manner, the facili- ties will only be constructed if required by verifiable demand. For example, T- hangars will only be constructed if new based aircraft owners desire enclosed aircraft storage. The landside plan is based on projected needs that can change over time to ensure the orderly development of the airport should this demand materialize. A conceptual alignment of a connector road between Evergreen Road and Brookwood parkway is also shown on Exhibit ES-5. The conceptual align- ment for this future collector road con- siders the constraints of the existing and planned future airport facilities and need to protect the required FAA safety areas at the airport. Perimeter Service Road Perimeter service roads allow vehicles to circumnavigate the airfield without using a runway or taxiway surface. The existing perimeter service road only ex- tends around the Runway 2 and Run- way 30 ends. The airfield plan includes the extension of the perimeter service road around the Runway 20 end, to the DRAFT FINAL ES-12 future landside facilities east of the proposed short parallel runway. Revenue Enhancement Portions of existing airport property which are not contiguous to the airfield have been reserved for revenue enhancement potential, as shown on Exhibit ES-5. This can include the property being developed for a variety of income-generating uses. For example, these areas could be developed for commercial/industrial uses similar to the manner in which the property at the intersection of N.E. 25th Avenue and Cornell Road was developed. Portions of this property could continue to be used for agricultural purposes. Other uses could include automobile parking. The non-aviation use of existing airport property will require specific approval of the FAA. The range and intensity of all such uses described above will vary significantly relative to imaginary operating surfaces that must be maintained by both the Port and the FAA. Certain areas behind each runway end cannot be used for automobile parking, or the construction of buildings and facilities which cause the congregation of people and property on the ground. Fuel storage facilities are also prohibited. These areas are shown in a different hatch pattern. The further description of the landside plan is organized around four separate and distinct quadrants of the airport: Northwest, Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast. These quadrants are generally described in the following manner: Northwest Quadrant The northwest quadrant includes the area west of Taxiway A and north of Taxiway C. The landside plan for the northwest quadrant includes expanded apron, improved taxiway access, and new hangar development. A portion of available land west of Taxiway AA and the ATCT is presently undeveloped. The landside plan re- serves this area for the development of up to six 3,600-square-foot clearspan hangars for aircraft storage. Clearspan hangars can provide for the storage of multiple aircraft, depending on the type and size of the aircraft stored in the hangar. A new taxiway extending to the west from Taxiway AA, near the in- tersection with Taxiway A5, would pro- vide the connection to the airfield. Two additional rows of hangars can be constructed in the hangar area west of Taxiway C, north of the west tiedown apron. The landside plan reserves this area for the development of T-hangars or clearspan hangars. An aircraft wash rack is planned along the west tiedown apron to provide for the collection and proper disposal of aircraft cleaning agents and debris resulting from air- craft washing. Taxiway AA is planned to be relocated to the east approximately 152 feet west of Taxiway A. Taxiway AA would be extended to Taxiway A3. The portion of Taxiway AA north of Taxiway G would allow an alternative access/egress point for the northwest apron area. Once re- located, the existing Taxiway AA sur- face would serve as the perimeter ser- N.E. 25th Ave. Brookwood Parkway Exhibit ES-5 MASTER PLAN CONCEPT LANDSIDE 0 3 M P 0 1 - E S 5 - 5 / 1 0 / 0 5 24 0' 39 0' 39 0' C CC A1 A2 A A3 A A5 A6 A7 A A8B B 400' Auto Parking 30 Spaces AA 30 L 12R Auto Parking ± 700 Spaces Wash Rack NORTH SCALE IN FEET 0 800 LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Ultimate Airfield Pavement Ultimate Roads/Parking Pavement to be Removed Building to be Removed T-Hangar Parcel Aircraft Storage Parcel Aviation Services Parcel Terminal Parcel Potential Revenue Enhancement Limited Revenue Enhancement Existing Runway Visibility Zone Ultimate Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Co rn el l R oa d 700' Exp ans ion Pot ent ial RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ultimate (4,200' x 100) A A4 A5 AA PORT OF PORTLAND Auto Parking 140 Spaces Terminal Parcel Transient and Local Tie-down NOTE: A detailed traffic assessment of surrounding facilities has not been completed. The future Evergreen Road to Brookwood Parkway alignment is generalized. This alignment may change. The road would be constructed with local resources and not by the Port. Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Compass Calibration/ Maintenance Run-Up Pad Future City-Owned Collector Road (Alignment Generalized) H M G M D F Wash Rack Training Helipad DRAFT FINAL ES-13 vice road and connect with the existing perimeter service road near the airport traffic control tower (ATCT). The expansion of the existing automo- bile parking area along N.E. 25th Ave- nue by approximately 30 spaces is pro- vided in the landside plan. The existing parking area will need to be reconfig- ured to allow for the development of the portion of Taxiway AA between Taxi- way A3 and Taxiway G. A portion of this parking area is located too close to the taxiway to ensure the safe and clear passage of aircraft. This parking area could be extended to the north. Southwest Quadrant The southwest quadrant includes the existing terminal area located west of Taxiway A and south of Runway 2-20. The landside plan includes a complete redevelopment of this portion of the air- port to better meet large business air- craft needs and provide a more appeal- ing entrance to the primary public ac- cess point of the airport consistent with other local community commercial de- velopment. The apron will be expanded toward the runway intersection to allow for in- creased automobile parking between the terminal building and Cornell Road. The proposed configuration will allow for more than 700 automobile parking spaces along Cornell Road. Redevelop- ing the apron closer to the parallel taxiways and runway intersection takes advantage of the underdeveloped por- tion of the airport which is not conven- iently located near the FBOs and ter- minal building. The existing terminal building is ulti- mately planned to be removed and re- placed by a new facility north of its ex- isting position in the center of the rede- veloped southwest apron. The existing terminal building is presently underuti- lized and not ideally configured for gen- eral aviation activity. Most of the sec- ond floor is vacant (including the previ- ous restaurant space), while the ground floor is occupied mostly for the private air-shuttle operation and supporting rental car services. Ultimately, a ter- minal building at Hillsboro Airport may need to serve several potential functions such as: airport concessions (i.e., a res- taurant, rental cars, etc.), space for flight planning and a pilots’ lounge, and serving the private shuttle operation. Southeast Quadrant: The southeast quadrant includes the area south of Taxiway B, east of the Runway 30 end. The landside plan in- cludes relocating all existing T-hangars in this area east of the future parallel runway, and consolidating all large cor- porate storage needs in this area. In the southeast quadrant of the air- port, there is a mix of small aircraft T- hangars and large corporate storage hangars. Existing Taxiways B and F, as well as the future Taxiway M, are stressed to handle large corporate air- craft which use Runway 12-30 almost exclusively. Since the proposed parallel runway is planned for small aircraft use only, the T-hangars for small aircraft are best placed in this area, as the fu- ture pavements along the proposed par- allel runway would not be stressed for large aircraft commonly stored in corpo- DRAFT FINAL ES-14 rate hangars. The southeast landside plan allows for up to 13 new corporate hangar parcels which would be accessed via Taxiway B or Taxiway M. Vehicle access would be off of Brookwood Park- way. Northeast Quadrant: The northeast quadrant includes the area north of Runway 2-20, east of the proposed parallel runway. The landside plan calls for the consolidation of most future small aircraft landside facility needs in this area, along the runway specifically designed and intended to accommodate most small aircraft use in the future. As mentioned previously, the existing T-hangars located in the southeast quadrant of the airport are planned to be relocated east of the parallel runway, near the proposed Runway 30R end. Any future T-hangar expansion would occur in this area. An automobile park- ing area for visitors and pilots is located on the east side of the T-hangars. With the redevelopment of the south- west apron for hangars, additional apron area will be needed to replace lost parking positions and to meet projected demand. An apron area for small air- craft is planned along Taxiway D. This apron area will provide approximately 100 tiedown locations and include an aircraft wash rack. An aircraft wash rack allows for the collection of cleaning fluids and debris when an aircraft is cleaned. Vehicle access is via a new roadway connecting to Evergreen Road. This apron would serve both transient and local tiedown needs. Vehicle access is via a new roadway connecting to Ev- ergreen Road There is currently no compass calibra- tion pad at the airport. A compass cali- bration pad is used by pilots and main- tenance technicians to align an aircraft on known magnetic headings for pur- poses of determining and correcting er- rors in the magnetic compass caused by equipment installed in the aircraft. The compass calibration pad is planned north of the shifted\extended Runway 20 end, to maintain it at a distance from potential development that may inter- fere with the magnetic readings. Ulti- mately, a second or replacement engine maintenance run-up area would be co- located with the compass calibration pad. This location is near the center of the airport, and more distant from nearby land uses that are more sensi- tive to such activities. Depending on the number and type of engine run-ups, a blast fence may be needed to reduce soil erosion around the run-up pad. SECURITY Application of the Aviation and Trans- portation Security Act of 2001 will need to be closely monitored throughout the implementation of this Master Plan. This law established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to ad- minister transportation security na- tionally. While the most visible func- tion of the TSA is commercial airline checked baggage and carry-on baggage screening, a component of the TSA se- curity plan is general aviation airport security. The TSA has issued a series of security recommendations for general DRAFT FINAL ES-15 aviation airports. The Port will need to monitor these security recommenda- tions for their applicability to the secure operation of Hillsboro Airport. Specific recommendations of the TSA applicable to Hillsboro Airport include: 1. Access Controls: Already imple- mented. The Port maintains pe- rimeter security fencing and con- trolled access vehicle gates. 2. Lighting System: Already imple- mented. Security lights are in place along most hangar buildings at the airport, which includes illumination of aircraft parking aprons. Security lighting systems should be included in all future landside development areas and connected to an emer- gency power source, if available. 3. Personal ID System: A method of identifying airport employees or au- thorized tenant access to various ar- eas of the airport through badges or biometric controls. 4. Vehicle ID System: An identification system which can assist airport per- sonnel and law enforcement in iden- tifying authorized vehicles. Vehicles can be identified through use of de- cals, stickers, or hang tags. 5. Law Enforcement Support: Proce- dures may be developed to have local law enforcement personnel regularly or randomly patrol ramps and air- craft hangar areas, with increased patrols during periods of heightened security. 6. Security Committee: This Committee should be composed of airport ten- ants and users drawn from all seg- ments of the airport community. The main goal of this group is to involve airport stakeholders in developing effective and reasonable security measures and disseminating timely security information. 7. Transient Pilot Sign-in/Sign-Out Procedures: Establishes procedures to identify non-based pilots and air- craft using their facilities, and im- plementing sign-in/sign-out proce- dures for all transient operators and associating them with their parked aircraft. Having assigned spots for transient parking areas can help to easily identify transient aircraft on an apron. 8. Signs: Already implemented. Signs are posted at each vehicle access gate noting that access to the airport is restricted to authorized users. 9. Documented Security Procedures: A written security plan that would in- clude documenting the security ini- tiatives already in place at the air- port, as well as any new enhance- ments. This document could consist of, but not be limited to, airport and local law enforcement contact infor- mation, including alternates when available, and utilization of a pro- gram to increase airport user awareness of security precautions such as an airport watch program. The security plan should include a contact list. The contact list involves the development of a comprehensive DRAFT FINAL ES-16 list of responsible personnel/ agen- cies to be contacted in the event of an emergency procedure. The list should be distributed to all appro- priate individuals. Additionally, in the event of a security incident, it is essential that first responders and airport management have the capa- bility to communicate. Where possi- ble, coordinate radio communication and establish common frequencies and procedures to establish a radio communications network with local law enforcement. 10. Community Watch Program: Al- ready implemented. A watch pro- gram involves the tenants and users monitoring activity on the airport and reporting suspicious behaviors. Established challenge procedures can assist tenants and users in iden- tifying unauthorized and potentially illegal activities at the airport. AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS To distinguish changes in the overall noise environment caused by the pro- posed changes to the airfield configura- tion, new noise exposure contours were prepared considering implementation of the improvements shown in the Master Plan Development Concept. This in- volved use of the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) version 6.1. See the Master Plan for specifics of the INM. Two noise contours have been prepared. The first assumes the Short Term Plan- ning Horizon projected activity levels and fleet mix, and the construction of the parallel runway (the Charlie Pat- tern moves to Taxiway D, the eastern parallel taxiway for the parallel run- way, in this scenario). The second con- tour assumes the projected Long Term Planning Horizon activity levels and fleet mix, and the implementation of all airfield improvements shown in the De- velopment Concept, including the relo- cated Charlie Pattern landing pads 1,500 feet east of the proposed short parallel runway. Both scenarios as- sume all three existing helicopter pat- terns would remain accessible into the foreseeable future. The FAA has established the 65 day- night noise level (DNL) contour as the threshold of incompatibility for assess- ing environmental impacts of proposed improvement. As shown on Exhibit ES-6, the 65 DNL contour for the base- line, Projected Short Term Noise Expo- sure and Projected Long Term Noise Exposure contours, remains almost en- tirely within existing airport property. The 65 DNL contour extends slightly outside the existing airport boundary north of Evergreen Road, along the ex- tended centerline of the short parallel runway, over Evergreen Road west of the Runway 12 end. Portions of the 65 DNL contour for the relocated Charlie Pattern landing area in the Projected Long Term Noise Exposure contours would extend beyond existing and fu- ture airport boundaries. These land ar- eas are currently planned for indus- trial/commercial uses. Therefore, it is anticipated that no incompatible devel- opment would be located within the 65 DNL contour as the result of project implementation. Brookwood Parkway Highway 26 NW Shute Road Evergreen Road Cornell Road Main Street Baseline Road Evergreen Road NE Jackson School Road 55 60 65 75 65 70 70 0 3 M P 0 1 - E S 6 - 5 / 1 0 / 0 5 Exhibit ES-6 EXISTING, PROJECTED SHORT TERM, & PROJECTED LONG TERM NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS PORT OF PORTLAND Brookwood Parkway Highway 26 NW Shute Road Evergreen Road Cornell Road Main Street Baseline Road Evergreen Road NE Jackson School Road 60 55 55 65 60 65 75 70 75 70 NORTH 0 2,000 4,000 SCALE IN FEET Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Baseline DNL Noise Contours Projected Short Term DNL Noise Contours Projected Long Term DNL Noise Contours This noise analysis demonstrates that the current noise exposure levels conform to land use compatibility guidelines established by the FAA, which states that residential land uses at or above the 65 DNL are non compatible land uses. In general, most land uses (including residential) are considered compatible below the 65 DNL contour. These guidelines are also accepted as the basis for land use planning in Oregon. However, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality goes one step further by requiring noise information out to the 55 DNL contour for local land use planning purposes. LEGEND Date of Photo: 2000 55 60 65 75 70 75 DRAFT FINAL ES-17 COMPATIBLE LAND USE Following the development of the Mas- ter Plan, the Airport Compatibility Study for Hillsboro Airport will be up- dated. The Airport Compatibility Study is a comprehensive document examin- ing both operational and land use measures to improve the compatibility between aircraft operations and the lo- cal community. The updated Airport Compatibility Study is a stand-alone document. Public input for the Airport Compatibility Study includes the review of the document by the Master Plan Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and two Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs). CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Exhibit ES-7 presents development staging for the capital improvements at the airport through the planning period. The capital needs for the airport can be categorized as follows: 1) Maintenance - Maintaining the existing infrastructure is a prior- ity. The capital needs program provides for the continued mainte- nance and rehabilitation of the airport’s pavement areas. 2) Safety - Of utmost importance with any transportation facility is safety. All projects in the plan are designed according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) de- sign standards. This is carried throughout the other areas of fo- cus. The safety needs are consid- ered necessary for the operational safety and protection of aircraft and/or people and property on the ground near the airport. 3) Environmental – These are pro- jects to carry out the Port Commis- sion's environmental policy of achieving its mission through re- sponsible environmental steward- ship and to integrate environ- mental considerations into all as- pects of the Port's planning and business decision-making. 4) Capacity – These are projects which improve the capacity or use of the airport in an effort to reduce delay. Examples include taxiway improvements and new runways. 5) Demand - The Master Plan has established future activity levels for the airport. Should these activ- ity levels be reached, it may be necessary to improve existing fa- cilities to safely, efficiently, and securely accommodate the new ac- tivity levels. Therefore, the capital needs program includes provisions to accommodate levels of aviation demand. The implementation of these projects should only occur when demand for these needs are verified. Table ES-A summarizes capital im- provement costs by category and plan- ning term. DRAFT FINAL ES-18 TABLE ES-A Total Projects By Type Hillsboro Airport Short Intermediate Long Percent of Term Term Term Total Total Maintenance $4,214,000 $15,185,000 $6,759,000 $26,158,000 20.6% Safety 2,102,000 4,608,000 0 6,710,000 5.3% Environmental 2,150,000 0 0 2,150,000 1.7% Capacity 18,234,000 13,788,000 0 32,022,000 25.2% Demand 8,073,000 25,248,000 26,328,000 59,649,000 47.0% Other 300,000 0 0 300,000 0.2% Total $35,073,000 $58,829,000 $33,087,000 $126,989,000 100.0% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING Financing capital improvements at the airport will not rely exclusively upon the financial resources of the Port of Portland (Port). Through federal legis- lation over the years, various grants-in- aid programs have been established to develop and maintain a system of public airports throughout the United States. The purpose of this system and its fed- erally-based funding is to maintain na- tional defense and promote interstate commerce. The source for federal funding of air- ports is the Aviation Trust Fund. The Aviation Trust Fund was established in 1970 to provide funding for aviation capital investment programs (aviation development, facilities and equipment, and research and development). The Aviation Trust Fund also finances the operation of the FAA. It is funded by user fees, taxes on airline tickets, avia- tion fuel, and various aircraft parts. Airport development that meets the FAA’s eligibility requirements can re- ceive 95 percent of the total eligible pro- ject cost from the FAA. Property acqui- sition, airfield improvements, aprons, perimeter service roads, and access road improvements are examples of eligible items. The balance of project costs, after con- sideration has been given to federal grants, must be funded through local sources. There are several alternatives for local finance options for future de- velopment at an airport. The Port can fund the local share, after FAA grants, through airport revenues, Port Cost Center Income (aviation) and/or bonds. The Port Cost Center represents the fi- nancial conglomeration of several avia- tion business lines including parking, rental cars, PDX airside and landside, and general aviation. Some improve- ments may require private funding mechanisms, such as bank loans or pri- vate capital investments. These deci- sions are made at project implementa- tion, based on Port financial resources at that time. The development of general aviation fa- cilities at Hillsboro Airport has relied on a combination of public and private investments in the past. The Port has N.E. 25th Ave. Brookwood Parkway Exhibit ES-7 DEVELOPMENT STAGING 0 3 M P 0 1 - E S 7 - 5 / 2 4 / 0 5 24 0' 39 0' 39 0' C CC A1 A2 A A3 A4 A G A5 A6 A7 A A8B M D B 400' AA 30 L 12R Co rn el l R oa d 700' Exp ans ion Pot ent ial RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ultimate (4,200' x 100) A A4 A5 AA PORT OF PORTLAND 1 5 4 12 6 5 9 4 22 10 9 16 15 3 8 16 27 16 7 3 15 21 18 10 7 18 6 16 16 16 28 22 9 1 15 14 21 23 3 1 14 18 27 25 24 22 10 6 2 13 17 7 20 23 24 23 17 25 7 29 8 19 11 13 20 8 3 14 11 NORTH SCALE IN FEET 0 800 LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Short Term Planning Horizon Intermediate Term Planning Horizon Long Term Planning Horizon Pavement to be Removed Building to be Removed Potential Revenue Enhancement Limited Revenue Enhancement Existing Runway Visibility Zone Ultimate Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) F 20 12 30 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 SHORT TERM LEGEND $35.1 Million in Improvements Construct Shoulders Taxiway A - Phase II Construct Terminal Apron Taxiway (Not Depicted) Construct T-Hangar Taxilanes Acquire Backup Generator (Not Depicted) Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway - Phase I (Not Depicted) Crack Fill and Slurry Seal Taxiway AA Runway 2-20 and Taxiway B Fog Seal Reconstruct West Perimeter Service Road Construct Northeast Corporate Hangar Access Taxiway F Construct Northeast Corporate Hangar Access Roads Construct Aircraft Wash Rack Overlay Taxiway H Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway - Phase II (Not Depicted) Taxiway A3 Extension Taxiway Access to Northwest Corporate Center Construct Runway 12-30 High Speed Exit Taxiways Storm Water Quality Facility (Not Depicted) Slurry Seal West Local Tiedown Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway - Phase III (Not Depicted) Construct Taxiway C Extension Construct T-Hangar Access Taxilanes - Phase I Construct East Perimeter Service Road Construct Runway 12L-30R - Phase I Land Acquisition Reimbursement (Not Depicted) Construct Runway 12L-30R - Phase II (Taxiway D) Master Plan Update (Not Depicted) Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Construct Terminal Apron - Phase II Construct T-Hangar Access Taxilanes - Phase II Construct T-Hangar Automobile Parking - Phase II Construct East Apron/Aircraft Wash Rack - Phase II Construct East Apron Automobile Parking - Phase II Construct Taxiway M - Phase II Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Runway 2-20 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Runway 12L-30R Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway M-South Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Compass Calibration Pad Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Taxiway C Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway AA/Taxiway A3 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Charlie Pattern Landing Area Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) East Apron Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) T-Hangar Access Taxilane Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Southeast Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Southwest Apron Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) West Local Tiedown Apron Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway D Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Northwest Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LONG TERM LEGEND $33.1 Million in Improvements Reconstruct/Shift/Extend Runway 2-20, Taxiway C, & Taxiway B 386' East Relocate Taxiway C Construct Taxiway M - Phase I Construct Southeast Corporate Hangar Access Taxiway Land Acquisition Construct East Access Road Construct East Apron - Phase I Construct T-Hangar Automobile Parking - Phase I Construct East Apron Automobile Parking - Phase I 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 INTERMEDIATE TERM LEGEND $58.8 Million in Improvements Relocate Taxiway AA/Extend to Taxiway A4 Construct Compass Calibration Pad Relocate Charlie Pattern Landing Area Extend Taxiway B West Construct Terminal Apron - Phase I Construct Terminal Area Automobile Parking Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Runway 2-20 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway C Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Runway 12L-30R Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Construct New Terminal Building Taxiway D Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Northwest Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) T-Hangar Access Taxilane Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) West Local Tiedown Apron Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 11 27 Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Future City-Owned Collector Road (Alignment Generalized) NOTE: A detailed traffic assessment of surrounding facilities has not been completed. The future Evergreen Road to Brookwood Parkway alignment is generalized. This alignment may change. The road would be constructed with local resources and not by the Port. 12 21 26 19 2 DRAFT FINAL ES-19 funded many of the grant-eligible items for general aviation at the airport in- cluding taxiways, aprons, access roads, and automobile parking. Private indi- viduals or businesses have financed the construction of hangar facilities. The Oregon Economic & Community Development Department (OECDD) and Federal Economic Development Administration provide a number of grant and loan programs to businesses that create jobs. These programs could be used to support infrastructure im- provements at Hillsboro Airport for the attraction of a specific business. A continuation of public and private in- vestments will be necessary to imple- ment the proposed plan. The capital improvement program includes the Port fully pursuing all the grant-eligible im- provements to accommodate general aviation growth in the future. This in- cludes apron development, hangar ac- cess taxiways, public roadways and automobile parking, and land acquisi- tion. The hangars are assumed to be devel- oped by private developers through long-term ground leases. The obvious advantage of such an arrangement is that it relieves the Port of all responsi- bility for raising the capital funds for these improvements, considering the remaining capital needs at the airport. These improvements are demand-based; therefore, these projects should only be pursued when the need for these facili- ties can be determined. Furthermore, these facilities should only be con- structed when it is found that the de- velopment costs can be fully recovered through lease and rental fees. ECONOMIC IMPACT The total number of jobs, total employee earnings, total business revenue, total state taxes collected, and total local taxes collected as a result of the use of Hillsboro Airport were determined through an economic study completed by Martin Associates in September 2003. A summary of the direct impacts (airport-generated impacts generated by activities conducted on the airport), in- direct (visitor industry impacts gener- ated by local visitors who came to the area using the airport), and induced impacts (economic activity generated as direct income recirculated through the economy) are shown in Table ES-B. The complete document can be obtained from the Port. These impacts are calcu- lated for the Portland metropolitan area. As shown in the table, there are 558 di- rect jobs on Hillsboro Airport, generat- ing over $22 million in annual income. These 558 jobs support an additional 305 induced jobs in the community that collectively earn another $23 million. Finally, activity at Hillsboro Airport was found to support an additional 496 indirect jobs and over $16 million in in- come. Another segment of activities af- fected by HIO’s presence is the visitor industry (i.e., hotels, car rental agen- cies, etc.). This represents individuals who travel to Hillsboro by air and stay an average of 2.2 nights per trip. Last year, this group generated 76 direct and 29 indirect jobs and provided $2.0 mil- lion and $1.7 million in personal in- come, respectively. In summary, the use of Hillsboro Airport generated over $110 million for the local economy in 2002, supported 1,464 jobs, and pro- vided over $6.1 million in state and lo- cal tax revenues. DRAFT FINAL ES-20 TABLE ES-B Economic Impacts of Hillsboro Airport Impact Category Hillsboro Airport Generated Hillsboro Airport Visitors Combined Total Impacts Jobs Direct Induced Indirect Total 558 305 496 1,359 76 29 N/A 105 634 334 496 1,464 Personal Income Direct Induced Indirect Total $22,221,000 23,409,000 16,178,000 $61,808,000 $2,016,000 1,734,000 N/A $3,750,000 $24,237,000 25,143,000 16,178,000 $65,558,000 Avg. Income/ Direct Em- ployee $39,823 $26,526,000 $38,229 Business Reve- nue $106,821,000 $3,466,000 $110,287,000 Local Purchases $40,958,000 N/A $40,958,000 State and Local Taxes $5,814,000 $353,000 $6,167,000 Source: The Economic Impacts of Hillsboro Airport on the Local and Regional Economy, Martin Associates, September 2003 PORT OF PORTLAND A I R P O R T M A S T E R P L A N HILLSBORO AIRPORT Hillsboro, Oregon FINAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TECHNICAL REPORT Prepared for: Prepared by: Adopted by the Port of Portland Commission June 8, 2005 PORT OF PORTLAND Airport Consultants PACIFIC NRPS Mark J. Greenfield Attorney at Law TABLE OF CONTENTS PORT OF PORTLAND HILLSBORO AIRPORT Hillsboro, Oregon Final Airport Master Plan Introduction MASTER PLAN GOAL ...................................................................................... ii MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVES ......................................................................... ii Preserve Public And Private Investments.............................................. ii Be Reflective Of Community Goals And Objectives............................... ii Determine Role ........................................................................................ ii Maintain Safety ....................................................................................... ii Preserve The Environment..................................................................... iii Seek To Balance Disruption ................................................................... iii Attract Public Participation ................................................................... iii Strengthen The Economy ....................................................................... iii MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS ............................................... iii COORDINATION................................................................................................v Chapter One INVENTORY AIRPORT SETTING ....................................................................................... 1-1 AIRPORT HISTORY ....................................................................................... 1-2 Recent Capital Improvements ................................................................ 1-2 HISTORICAL ACTIVITY................................................................................ 1-5 OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT ............................................................ 1-8 ECONOMIC IMPACT ..................................................................................... 1-8 Chapter One (Continued) AIRSIDE FACILITIES.................................................................................... 1-9 Runways................................................................................................. 1-10 Pavement Condition Index.................................................................... 1-11 Taxiways and Taxilanes........................................................................ 1-11 Airfield Lighting & Signage.................................................................. 1-11 Pavement Markings .............................................................................. 1-12 Weather Reporting ................................................................................ 1-12 AREA AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .................................... 1-13 Airspace Structure................................................................................. 1-13 Airspace Control .................................................................................... 1-16 NAVIGATIONAL AIDS ................................................................................ 1-16 INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES ............................................. 1-17 Precision Instrument Approach ............................................................ 1-19 Nonprecision Instrument Approaches .................................................. 1-19 Standard Instrument Departures......................................................... 1-19 VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) PROCEDURES....................................... 1-20 LANDSIDE FACILITIES.............................................................................. 1-22 Terminal Building ................................................................................. 1-23 Aprons and Aircraft Parking................................................................. 1-30 Fixed Base Operators (FBO) and Specialty Aircraft Shops................. 1-31 FBO ........................................................................................................ 1-31 Specialty Aircraft Shops........................................................................ 1-31 Airport Management/Operations and Maintenance ............................ 1-32 Fueling Facilities................................................................................... 1-32 Utilities .................................................................................................. 1-32 Security Fencing and Gates .................................................................. 1-32 Agricultural Operations Area ............................................................... 1-33 ACCESS, CIRCULATION AND PARKING................................................. 1-34 Access to Hillsboro Airport – General Transportation Framework........................................................................................... 1-34 General Access to Hillsboro Airport – Surrounding Roads.............................................................................. 1-35 Access to Airport Terminal ................................................................... 1-36 Internal Circulation............................................................................... 1-37 Parking................................................................................................... 1-38 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE ..................................................................... 1-38 Population.............................................................................................. 1-39 Households............................................................................................. 1-40 Employment........................................................................................... 1-40 Per Capita Personal Income.................................................................. 1-42 CLIMATE....................................................................................................... 1-42 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS INVENTORY............................................ 1-45 Social Impacts........................................................................................ 1-45 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts............................................................ 1-46 Chapter One (Continued) Environmental Justice .......................................................................... 1-46 Water Quality ........................................................................................ 1-47 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 1-47 Section 4F .............................................................................................. 1-47 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological And Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 1-48 Biotic Communities ............................................................................... 1-48 Endangered and Threatened Species ................................................... 1-50 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................... 1-50 Migratory Birds ..................................................................................... 1-51 Wetlands ................................................................................................ 1-51 Floodplains............................................................................................. 1-52 Wild and Scenic Rivers.......................................................................... 1-52 Farmlands.............................................................................................. 1-52 Energy Supply and Natural Resources ................................................ 1-53 Light Emissions ..................................................................................... 1-53 Solid Waste ............................................................................................ 1-54 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................. 1-54 Storm Water Permits, SPCC, and SWPCP Plans................................ 1-55 OPERATIONAL INVENTORY AND AVIATION NOISE........................... 1-55 Operational Inventory........................................................................... 1-56 Determining The Fleet Mix................................................................... 1-58 Existing Fleet Mix ................................................................................. 1-60 AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY..................................... 1-61 INM Input.............................................................................................. 1-62 INM OUTPUT ............................................................................................... 1-69 Existing Noise Exposure Contours ....................................................... 1-71 DOCUMENT SOURCES............................................................................... 1-72 Chapter Two FUTURE ROLE OF HILLSBORO AIRPORT HILLSBORO AIRPORT’S EXISTING ROLE ................................................ 2-1 THE AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY.................................................. 2-2 Commercial Air Carriers......................................................................... 2-2 Military .................................................................................................... 2-4 General Aviation...................................................................................... 2-4 REASONS FOR EXAMINING THE AIRPORT ROLE.................................. 2-5 REGIONAL AIRPORT COMPARISON ......................................................... 2-6 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER AIR SERVICE POTENTIAL........................ 2-7 Airline Business Environment................................................................ 2-9 U.S. Cities Served By More Than One Commercial Service Airport..................................................................................... 2-11 Chapter Two (Continued) Hillsboro Airport Capabilities............................................................... 2-16 Airline Requirements ............................................................................ 2-19 Competitive Factors .............................................................................. 2-21 Market Viability .................................................................................... 2-26 Commercial Passenger, Air Service Potential Conclusions................. 2-28 AIR CARGO SERVICE POTENTIAL........................................................... 2-29 Air Cargo Service Potential Conclusions.............................................. 2-32 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE FUTURE ROLE OF HILLSBORO AIRPORT............................................ 2-33 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 2-35 Chapter Three AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS.................................................................. 3-2 General Aviation Trends......................................................................... 3-3 Corporate Ownership Trends.................................................................. 3-5 LOCAL SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS................................................ 3-7 PILOT SURVEY .............................................................................................. 3-8 AIRPORT SERVICE AREA .......................................................................... 3-10 AIRCRAFT OWNERSHIP ............................................................................ 3-11 FORECASTING APPROACH....................................................................... 3-14 AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS........................................................... 3-15 Based Aircraft........................................................................................ 3-15 Based Aircraft Fleet Mix ....................................................................... 3-19 Annual Operations ................................................................................ 3-22 Itinerant Operations ............................................................................. 3-27 Local Operations.................................................................................... 3-29 Total General Aviation Operations ...................................................... 3-31 OPERATIONAL MIX .................................................................................... 3-32 AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE ................................................................... 3-34 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................. 3-36 ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES FORECAST ............................. 3-37 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 3-38 Chapter Four AVIATION FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS........................................................................ 4-2 Airfield Capacity...................................................................................... 4-3 Runway Orientation.............................................................................. 4-14 Chapter Four (Continued) Physical Planning Criteria.................................................................... 4-15 Airfield Safety Standards...................................................................... 4-17 Runway Length ..................................................................................... 4-18 Runway Width ....................................................................................... 4-20 Runway Pavement Strength................................................................. 4-21 Navigational Aids And Instrument Approach Procedures .................. 4-23 Taxiways ................................................................................................ 4-25 Transient Helipad.................................................................................. 4-28 Lighting And Marking........................................................................... 4-28 Other Facilities...................................................................................... 4-30 LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 4-31 Aircraft Hangars.................................................................................... 4-31 Aircraft Parking Aprons........................................................................ 4-33 Public Terminal Facilities..................................................................... 4-35 Airport Maintenance ............................................................................. 4-37 Emergency Vehicle Storage................................................................... 4-37 Security .................................................................................................. 4-38 Fencing................................................................................................... 4-43 Aviation Fuel Storage............................................................................ 4-44 Revenue Support Facilities ................................................................... 4-44 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION REQUIREMENTS .................................... 4-44 General Access To Hillsboro Airport .................................................... 4-44 Street Segment Improvements ............................................................. 4-45 Intersections Improvements ................................................................. 4-46 Drainage Requirements ........................................................................ 4-47 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 4-48 Chapter Five AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE........................................................................... 5-2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS ............................. 5-4 Airfield Issues .......................................................................................... 5-4 Landside Issues ....................................................................................... 5-8 ANALYSIS OF AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES................. 5-12 Development Alternative A................................................................... 5-12 Development Alternative B................................................................... 5-15 Development Alternative C................................................................... 5-18 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING ANALYSIS OF MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES....................................................... 5-22 NEPA Impact Categories ...................................................................... 5-22 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 5-28 Chapter Six AIRPORT PLANS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ............................................. 6-1 Airfield Plan............................................................................................. 6-2 Landside Plan ........................................................................................ 6-10 AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS.................................................................... 6-19 Compatible Land Use............................................................................ 6-23 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW ................................................................ 6-24 Controversy............................................................................................ 6-24 Noise....................................................................................................... 6-24 Compatible Land Use............................................................................ 6-25 Social Impacts........................................................................................ 6-25 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts............................................................ 6-26 Environmental Justice .......................................................................... 6-27 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 6-27 Water Quality ........................................................................................ 6-28 Section 4F Lands ................................................................................... 6-30 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, And Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 6-31 Biotic Communities ............................................................................... 6-32 Endangered And Threatened Species................................................... 6-35 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................... 6-35 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................... 6-36 Wetlands ................................................................................................ 6-36 Floodplains............................................................................................. 6-37 Coastal Zone Management Program .................................................... 6-37 Wild And Scenic Rivers ......................................................................... 6-37 Farmlands.............................................................................................. 6-37 Energy Supply And Natural Resources................................................ 6-38 Light Emissions ..................................................................................... 6-38 Solid Waste Impact................................................................................ 6-39 Construction Impacts ............................................................................ 6-39 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................. 6-39 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................. 6-39 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 6-39 Chapter Seven CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING ...................................................... 7-1 Federal Grants......................................................................................... 7-2 Local Funding .......................................................................................... 7-3 Chapter Seven (Continued) CAPITAL NEEDS AND COST SUMMARIES............................................... 7-4 Demand-Based Plan ................................................................................ 7-4 Short Term Capital Needs ...................................................................... 7-8 Intermediate Term Capital Needs........................................................ 7-11 Long Term Capital Needs ..................................................................... 7-12 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................... 7-12 EXHIBITS, MAPS, AND FIGURES Introduction IA MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS ......................after page iv Chapter One 1A LOCATION MAP....................................................................after page 1-2 1B EXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES...................................after page 1-10 1C PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX .....................................after page 1-12 1D AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION...........................................after page 1-14 1E AIRSPACE MAP...................................................................after page 1-14 1F LANDSIDE FACILITIES.....................................................after page 1-22 1G LOCAL WILDLIFE-HABITAT CLASSES ..........................after page 1-50 1H HABITAT STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS ..........................after page 1-50 1J FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS ....................................after page 1-52 1K NEAREST LANDFILL.........................................................after page 1-54 1L INM PROCESS.....................................................................after page 1-62 1M GENERALIZED ARRIVAL FLIGHT TRACKS ..................after page 1-66 1N GENERALIZED DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS........................................................after page 1-66 1P GENERALIZED TRAINING FLIGHT PATHS ..........................................................after page 1-66 1Q 2003 NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS ..............................after page 1-70 1R LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES ...................after page 1-70 Chapter Two 2A REGIONAL AIRPORT COMPARISON ................................after page 2-6 Chapter Three 3A U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ....................................................after page 3-6 3B BASED AIRCRAFT SERVICE AREA .................................after page 3-12 3C REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ..................................................after page 3-12 3D BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS ..................................after page 3-18 3E BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX ........................................after page 3-22 3F GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FORECAST.........................................................................after page 3-30 3G FORECAST SUMMARY ......................................................after page 3-38 Chapter Four 4A FACTORS INFLUENCING ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME.............................................................after page 4-4 4B DEMAND VS. CAPACITY ...................................................after page 4-10 4C AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES........................................after page 4-16 4D AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS..............................................................after page 4-18 4E EXISTING AIRFIELD SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS..............................................................after page 4-18 4F AIRFIELD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS ..........................after page 4-24 4G HANGAR AND APRON REQUIREMENTS .......................after page 4-32 4H STUDY INTERSECTIONS AT LOS E OR F 2015 WITHOUT MITIGATION.........................................after page 4-46 4J PEDESTRIAN ACTION PLAN ...........................................after page 4-46 4K BICYCLE ACTION PLAN ...................................................after page 4-46 4L STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN.......................................after page 4-46 4M INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS.............after page 4-48 4N STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL MAP...............after page 4-48 4P STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL MAP...............after page 4-48 Chapter Five 5A DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS ................................after page 5-4 5B DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE A AIRSIDE .................after page 5-12 5C DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE A, NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS ..................................................after page 5-14 5D DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE A LANDSIDE .............after page 5-14 5E DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE B AIRSIDE .................after page 5-16 5F DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE B, NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS ..................................................after page 5-18 EXHIBITS, MAPS, AND FIGURES Chapter Five (Continued) 5G DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE B LANDSIDE .............after page 5-18 5H DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE C AIRSIDE .................after page 5-18 5J DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE C, NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS ..................................................after page 5-20 5K DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE C LANDSIDE .............after page 5-20 Chapter Six 6A AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT PLANS...................................after page 6-2 6B MASTER PLAN CONCEPT AIRSIDE..................................after page 6-6 6C LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS.................after page 6-14 6D MASTER PLAN CONCEPT LANDSIDE............................after page 6-14 6E EXISTING, PROJECTED SHORT TERM, & PROJECTED LONG TERM NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS ..................................................after page 6-22 6F FUTURE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES.................................after page 6-30 6G NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY (NRI) AND JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.............................after page 6-32 6H FUTURE NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY (NRI) AND JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.............................after page 6-32 6I NRI & ASSOCIATED WETLANDS ON POP PROPERTY INFLUENCED BY 2005 HIO MASTER PLAN PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ....................after page 6-32 6J CITY OF HILLSBORO SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCE OVERLAY..................................after page 6-34 6K WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY PROTECTIVE BUFFERS..................................................after page 6-36 6L NRCS SSURGO WASHINGTON COUNTY SOIL SURVEY....................................................................after page 6-38 Chapter Seven 7A DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE..............................................after page 7-4 7B DEVELOPMENT STAGING .................................................after page 7-8 Appendix A GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS Appendix B AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS Appendix C RUNWAY HOURLY CAPACITY CALCULATIONS Appendix D FAA DESIGN STANDARD COMPUTATIONS Appendix E SURVEY FORM HILLSBORO AIRPORT Hillsboro, Oregon Compatibility Study Update Executive Summary CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .....................ES-2 CHAPTER TWO – AVIATION OPERATIONAL MEASURES...................ES-2 Potential Noise Abatement Measures ...............................................ES-2 Implementation Strategies...............................................................ES-13 CHAPTER THREE – LAND USE MEASURES ........................................ES-15 Policy Techniques .............................................................................ES-17 Regulatory Techniques .....................................................................ES-18 Expenditure Techniques...................................................................ES-21 CHAPTER FOUR – COMPATIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS .............ES-22 EXHIBITS ES-1 NBAA NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES ...............................................................after page ES-3 ES-2 CURRENT HILLSBORO AIRPORT RUNWAYS..............................ES-5 ES-3 POTENTIAL NOISE ABATMENT DEPARTURE TRACKS ...........ES-8 ES-4 MASTER PLAN CONCEPT AIRSIDE ............................................ES-12 INTRODUCTION PORT OF PORTLAND i INTRODUCTION PORT OF PORTLAND The Hillsboro Airport Master Plan study evaluates the airport's capabilities and role, forecasts future aviation demand, and plans for the timely development of new or expanded facilities that may be required to meet that demand. The ultimate goal of the Master Plan is to provide systematic guidelines for the airport's overall maintenance, development, and operation. The Master Plan is a proactive document which identifies and then plans for future facility needs well in advance of the actual need for those facilities. This is done to ensure that the Port of Portland (Port) can coordinate project approvals, design, financing, and construction in a timely manner prior to experiencing the detrimental effects of inadequate facilities. An important result of the Master Plan is reserving sufficient land area for future facility needs. This protects development areas and ensures they will be readily available when required to meet future needs. The result will be a detailed on-airport land use concept which outlines recommended uses for all areas of airport property. The preparation of this Master Plan is evidence that the Port recognizes the importance of air transportation to the community and the associated challenges inherent in providing for its unique operating and improvement needs. The costs of maintaining an airport is an investment which yield benefits to the community. With a sound and realistic Master Plan, Hillsboro Airport can maintain its role as an important link to the national air transportation system for the community and maintain the existing public and private investments in its facilities. ii MASTER PLAN GOAL “Develop a comprehensive tool to guide the Airport’s development and optimize community compatibility through the year 2025.” MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the Master Plan is to formulate and maintain a long-term development program which will yield a safe, efficient, economical, and environmentally acceptable avia- tion facility. The accomplishment of this objective requires the evaluation of the existing airport and a determination of what actions should be taken to maintain an adequate, safe, and reli- able airport facility to meet the needs of the area. This update will provide an outline of the necessary improvements and give those responsible for its opera- tion advance notice of future airport funding needs so the appropriate steps can be taken to ensure that adequate funds are budgeted. Specific objectives of the Hillsboro Air- port Master Plan update are: PRESERVE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENTS The Port and United States Govern- ment (through the Federal Aviation Administration, or the FAA) have made considerable investments in the air- port’s infrastructure. Private individu- als and businesses have made invest- ments in buildings and other facilities as well. This update will provide for the continued maintenance and the neces- sary improvements to the airport’s in- frastructure to ensure maximum utility of both public and private-use facilities at the Hillsboro Airport. BE REFLECTIVE OF COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Hillsboro Airport is a public-use aviation facility serving the aeronauti- cal needs of local and regional residents and businesses. The Master Plan needs to reflect the desires the surrounding communities have for quality of life, business and development, and land use. The Master Plan will consider ex- isting planning documents for sur- rounding communities and the county in the ultimate design and use of the Hillsboro Airport. DETERMINE ROLE The Hillsboro Airport is part of a re- gional and national aviation system. To ensure that the Hillsboro Airport fulfills its role, the Master Plan will evaluate the segments of aviation that it must serve to ensure a strong and vibrant re- gional and national aviation system. MAINTAIN SAFETY Safety is an essential consideration in the planning and development at the Airport. The Master Plan will focus on maintaining the already high levels of safety for airport users, visitors, em- ployees, and surrounding communities. iii PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT Protection and preservation of the local environment are important concerns in the Master Plan. Any improvements suggested within the Master Plan will be mindful of environmental require- ments, such as those for air quality, noise, and the protection of sensitive species’ habitat. SEEK TO BALANCE DISRUPTION The Master Plan will seek to balance the needs of the community for quality of life with the need for a vibrant busi- ness atmosphere. The Master Plan will seek to moderate the effects of aircraft activity on existing land uses while meeting aviation needs. ATTRACT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION To ensure that the Master Plan reflects the concerns of the public and their rep- resentatives, the local communities, residents, and businesses throughout the region will be notified of the Master Plan update process and their com- ments and suggestions will be actively solicited and included in the final Mas- ter Plan, to the extent possible. STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY In continuing support of the area’s economy, the Master Plan is aimed at retaining and increasing jobs and reve- nue for the region and its businesses. The Master Plan will accomplish these objectives by carrying out the following: • Determining projected needs of air- port users through the year 2025; • Identifying existing and future facil- ity needs; • Evaluating future airport facility development alternatives which will optimize airport capacity and air- craft safety; • Developing a realistic, commonsense plan for the use and/or expansion of the Airport; • Establishing a schedule of develop- ment priorities and a program for improvements; • Analyzing the airport’s financial re- quirements for capital improvement needs and grant options; and • Developing land use and operational compatibility guidelines to moderate the impact of the airport on adjacent land uses. MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS The Hillsboro Airport Master Plan was prepared in a systematic fashion follow- ing FAA guidelines and industry- accepted principles and practices. The Master Plan for the Hillsboro Airport has several general elements that are intended to assist in the identification iv of future facility needs and provide the supporting rationale for their imple- mentation. Exhibit IA provides a graphical depiction of the Hillsboro Air- port Master Plan update process and its elements. Element One encompasses inventory efforts. The inventory was focused on collecting and assembling relevant data pertaining to the airport and the area it serves. Information was collected on existing airport facilities and opera- tions. Local economic and demographic data were also collected to define the local growth trends. Planning studies which may have relevance to the Mas- ter Plan were also gathered. Informa- tion assembled during the inventory ef- forts is summarized in Chapter One, Inventory. Element Two determined the future role for the Hillsboro Airport. This analysis resulted in a determination of whether or not the Hillsboro Airport should continue its current role with an emphasis on business aviation or if it should potentially serve the scheduled passenger airline and/or air cargo needs of the region. This analysis is presented in Chapter Two, Future Role of Hills- boro Airport. Element Three examined the potential aviation demand for aviation activity at the Airport. This analysis utilized local socioeconomic information as well as national air transportation trends to quantify the levels of aviation activity which can reasonably be expected to oc- cur at the Airport though the year 2025. The results of this effort were used to determine the types and sizes of facili- ties which will be required to meet the projected aviation demands for the Hillsboro Airport through the planning period. The results of this analysis are presented in Chapter Three, Aviation Demand Forecasts. Element Four comprises the facility re- quirements analysis. The intent of this analysis was to compare existing facil- ity capacities to forecast aviation de- mand, determining where deficiencies in capacities (as well as excess capaci- ties) may exist. Where deficiencies were identified, the size and type of new facilities to accommodate the demand were identified. The airfield analysis focused on improvements needed to serve the type of aircraft expected to op- erate at the Airport in the future, as well as navigational aids to increase the safety and efficiency of operations. This element also examined aircraft storage hangar and apron needs. The findings of this analysis are presented in Chap- ter Four, Aviation Facility Require- ments. Element Five considered a variety of solutions to accommodate the projected facility needs. This element proposed various facility and site plan configura- tions which may either singly or in combination with other configurations meet the projected facility needs. A thorough analysis identified the strengths and weaknesses of each pro- posed development alternative, with the intent of determining a single direction for development. This element also ex- amined the “No Build” alternative. These results are presented in Chapter Five, Airport Development Alternatives. Element Six is comprised of two inde- pendent, yet interrelated, work efforts: 03 M P0 1- IA -5 /9 /0 5 Exhibit IA MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS SELECT AND REFINE PLAN SM AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS N T OPE KA & S ANT A F E R AIL RO AD KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE 25 25 LEGEND Passenger Terminal Area (Passenger Related Activities) Air Cargo Operation Area (Air Cargo Related Activities) General Aviation Area Airfield Support Airport Commercial Support 0 2000 4000 SCALE IN FEET SM PAC PAC PAC PAC PAC PAC PAC PAC LEGEND Draft Study Materials Project Advisory Committee Meetings Open House NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER PORT OF PORTLAND PORT APPROVAL FAA APPROVAL DRAFT MASTER PLAN INVENTORY SM PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE E ALTERNATIVE F 10R 10L 28 R 28 L 5 2,800' 10R 10L 28 R 28 L 5 PHASE 1 3,100' PHASE 2 3,400' 10R 10L 28 R 28 L 5 4,100' 28 R 5 3,400' 800' 10L 23 28 L 28 L 28 C 28 C 28 L 28 C 10R 10R 10C 10C 10R 10C 23 23 23 Existing Configuration plus 1,000' extensions on each end of 10L-28R. New 8,000' long 10L-28R - 300' north of existing location; New 10,250' long 10R-28L 300' south of existing location. New 8,000' long 10L-28R - 1,300' north of existing location; Maintain existing 10R-28L. New 8,000' long 10L-28R - 600' north of existing location; Maintain existing 10R-28L; New 10,250' long 10R-28L - 800' south of existing 10R-28L. 6,000' x 150' Runway 10,250' x 150' Runway Taxiway "C" Taxiway "E" Taxiway "B""B4" "C4" "B3" "C3" "B2" "B1" "C2" "E1""E2""E3" 6,000' x 150' Runway 10,250' x 150' Runway Taxiway "C" Taxiway "E" Taxiway "B" Taxiway "D" "F2""B2" "B1" "C2" "C1" "F1 "B3" "C3" "E2" "E1" TERMINAL CONCEPT "F" TERMINAL CONCEPT "G" 4 GATES 38 GATES TOTAL: 52 GATES 4 GATES 25 GATES TOTAL: 53 GATES 6,000' x 150' Runway 10,250' x 150' Runway Taxiway "C" Taxiway "E" Taxiway "B""B4" "C4" "B3" "C3" "B2" "B1" "C2" "F2" "C1" "F1 "E1""E2""E3" TERMINAL CONCEPT "D" 29 GATES5 GATES 4 GATES 5 COMMUTER GATES 10 GATES 9 GATESTOTAL: 62 GATES Taxiway "C" Taxiway "E" "C4" "C3" "C2" " "E1""E2""E3" 6,000' x 150' Runway 10,250' x 150' Runway 4 GATES 25 GATES TOTAL: 53 GATES SM SM SMFORECASTS SM FINAL MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT FINANCIAL PROGRAM SM OPEN HOUSE OPEN HOUSE OPEN HOUSE DEMAND CAPACITY & FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FUTURE ROLE OF HILLSBORO AIRPORT AVIATION NOISE REVIEW 2015201020051995 20001990 60% Ann ual Servi ce Volum e Operatio nal Dema nd Forec ast v a capital improvement program (CIP) and an airport layout plan (ALP). This element produced Chapters Six and Seven of the Master Plan. Chapter Six provides both a graphic and narrative description of the recommended plan for the use, development, and operation of the Hillsboro Airport. Specifics on envi- ronmental impacts and compliance are also provided in Chapter Six. Appendix B to the Master Plan includes the offi- cial ALP and detailed technical draw- ings depicting related airspace, land use, and property data. These drawings are used by the FAA in determining grant eligibility and funding. Chapter Seven focuses on the capital needs pro- gram, which defines the schedules, costs, and funding sources for the rec- ommended development projects. COORDINATION The Hillsboro Airport Master Plan is of interest to many within the local com- munity. This includes local citizens, community organizations, airport users, airport tenants, area-wide planning agencies, and aviation organizations. As an important component of the re- gional, state, and national aviation sys- tems, these Hillsboro Airport planning documents will be of great importance to both state and federal agencies re- sponsible for overseeing air transporta- tion. To assist in the development of the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan, the Port identified a cross-section of community members and interested persons to act in an advisory role in the development of the Master Plan. As members of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), the committee members reviewed draft working papers and provided comments throughout the study to help ensure that a realistic, viable plan was devel- oped. To assist in the review process, draft working papers of each chapter were prepared at several milestones in the planning process as shown previously on Exhibit IA. The draft working pa- pers process allowed for input and re- view during each step within the update process to ensure that all issues were fully addressed as the recommended program was developed. As shown on Exhibit IA, a special em- phasis was placed on understanding airport noise modeling and the regula- tory controls over noise management at airports in the United States. A specific PAC meeting was held early in the Master Plan process to discuss these is- sues as well as the implementation of a third training pattern to supplement the airport’s existing Alpha and Bravo patterns, known as the Charlie Pattern. Two project-specific Open Houses were held as part of the plan coordination. Open Houses afforded the public oppor- tunities to provide input and learn about general information concerning the Master Plan update. Master Plan information was made available through the publication of a series of brochures and newsletters. The working papers and draft final report were also made available to the general public over the internet via the Port web page shortly after submission to the commit- tee. The web site allowed persons to e- mail comments to the Port. Chapter One INVENTORY PORT OF PORTLAND 1-1 CHAPTER ONE INVENTORY PORT OF PORTLAND The first step in updating the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan was to collect information on the existing conditions at the airport and within the community. Within this chapter, an inventory is made of pertinent information with regard to existing airport facilities, local airspace, existing uses of airport property, environmental factors, and the local socioeconomic condition. Information on current airport facilities and utilization serves as a basis, with additional analysis and data collection, for the Future Role, Forecasts of Aviation Demand and Aviation Facility Requirements determinations. The inventory of existing conditions is the first step in the complex process of determining those factors which impact aviation demand in the community and region and the types and sizes of airport facilities needed to meet that demand. The inventory of environmental factors will assist in shaping a development program for the airport that minimizes impacts on the environment. AIRPORT SETTING Hillsboro Airport is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Hillsboro, Oregon, along the City's north- central border and in unincorporated Washington County. As shown on Exhibit 1A, the City of Hillsboro is located in central Washington County, on the west side of the Portland metropolitan area. The Portland metropolitan area is generally defined as Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas, 1-2 Yamhill, and Columbia counties in Oregon, and Clark County in Wash- ington. The Hillsboro Airport site encom- passes approximately 928 acres. The airport is bordered by Cornell Road to the south, Brookwood Parkway to the east, N.E. 25th Avenue to the west, and Evergreen Road to the north. AIRPORT HISTORY The Hillsboro Airport was originally founded as a private airport in 1925 by Dr. Elmer Smith. Dr. Smith pur- chased 100 acres of the Hawthorne Estate to accommodate the two origi- nal turf runways. The turf runways were constructed with the assistance of the Hillsboro American Legion. Prior to the purchase of the airport site by Dr. Smith, local pilots used Hillsboro’s first airstrip, a short and grassy plot of ground approximately four blocks north of Main Street. After Dr. Smith’s death in the early 1930’s, several local businessmen ac- quired the deed for the airport site, leasing it to the City of Hillsboro for a period of five years. The lease pro- vided the City the option to purchase the airport at the end of the lease pe- riod. Between 1933 and 1938, the City constructed two runways, one 3,000 feet long (oriented northeast to south- west) and one 2,800 feet long (oriented northwest-southeast). This work was done as a WPA project. The City bought the airport in 1935 for $7,500. During World War II, the federal gov- ernment invested over $600,000 in improving the Hillsboro Airport to serve as a satellite field for the Port- land Air Base. Improvements in- cluded grading, drainage, and lighting equipment. The airport site was also expanded by 280 acres. The Army did not use Hillsboro Airport significantly during the war. The airport returned to civilian use in 1945. The Port of Portland (Port) assumed ownership of Hillsboro Airport on Feb- ruary 1, 1966. With federal assis- tance, the Port constructed two paral- lel taxiways, acquired additional land for approach protection and installed fencing. In 1967, the airport traffic control tower (ATCT) was constructed. In the early 1970’s, the terminal build- ing was constructed and the Port ac- quired an additional 700 acres of land. Runway 12-30 was extended to 6,300 feet in 1976, when the Instrument Landing System (ILS) was also in- stalled. In 1977 and new threshold taxiway was constructed at the Run- way 30 end that produced a 6,600’ us- able length for Runway 12-30. RECENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Between 1997 and 2002, the Port in- vested over $11.9 million in improve- ments at Hillsboro Airport. Table 1A summarizes these projects and their total expenditures over this six-year period. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, the Port expects to invest an additional 03 M P0 1- 1A -9 /4 /0 3 Exhibit 1A LOCATION MAP PORT OF PORTLAND Molalla Gladstone Forest Grove Sheridan St. Helens McMinnville Tigard Tualatin Beaverton 503 500 211 224 Lake Merwin Yale Lake 240 223 211 21899E 212 210 47 6 99W 18 26 30 14 BYP 30 C O L U M B I A C L A R K W A S H I N G T O N YA M H I L L C L A C K A M A S M U LT N O M A H M olalla Clackam as MOUNT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST Mt. Hood SkiBowl Bull of the Woods Wilderness Area Table Rock Wilderness Area Bull Salmon Yamhill Amboy CamasFisher 47 WAS HING TON NORTH NOT TO SCALE Timberline Lodge Ski Area Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Trask Willam ette Nehalem Columbia River Colu mbi a Ri ver CA SC AD E R AN GE OREGON 26 HILLSBORO Aloha Main St. River Rd. Baseline St. Hillsboro Hw y Hillsboro Hw y. Hillsboro Hw y. 8 219 Brookw ood A Brookw ood Ave. ve. Brookw ood Ave. 1st Ave. Glencoe Rd. Glencoe Rd. Glencoe Rd. NE 25th Ave. .ywkP doo wkoor B 253rd Ave. NW Shute Rd.2 73 rd A ve . 15th Ave. Airport Rd. Cornell Rd. Evergreen Rd. 26 8t h A 26 8t h Av e.ve . 26 8t h Av e. Sunset Hwy. 26 HILLSBORO AIRPORT Tualatin Valley Hwy. 5 84 217 Gresham205 Lake Oswego W. Linn Oregon City Newberg 47 Scappoose Portland Vancouver Bull Run. Res. 30 1-3 $6.1 million, mostly for the Runway 12-30 runway safety area (RSA) im- provements. Therefore, for the seven- year period from 1997 to 2003, the Port will have invested over $18.0 mil- lion in Hillsboro Airport. TABLE 1A Port of Portland Capital Investments at Hillsboro Airport, 1997-2002 Port Project Number Project Description Total Expenditures Fiscal Year 1997 21141 22251 22423 23221 Apron and West Hangar Pavement Slurry Seal Purchase Flatbed Truck Land Acquisition Connecting Taxiway (Slurry Seal) $126 25,458 812,170 11,341 Subtotal FY 1997 $849,097 Fiscal Year 1998 21954 22251 22423 22947 23092 23221 23224 23342 23344 23599 Land Acquisition Connecting Taxiway (Slurry Seal) Land Acquisition Construct Taxiway “F” and Install Perimeter Road and Fencing PHA Land Purchases Connecting Taxiway (Slurry Seal) Pavement Crack Seal Tractor Overhaul PHA Maintenance Building Roof Replacement Reconstruct Northwest Corporate Taxiway $1,700 14,127 9,277 107,749 2,000 1,998 43,052 18,087 36,867 1,741 Subtotal FY 1998 $236,601 Fiscal Year 1999 21954 22423 22947 23221 23224 23599 23638 Land Acquisition Land Acquisition Construct Taxiway “F” and Install Perimeter Road and Fencing Connecting Taxiway (Slurry Seal) Pavement Crack Seal Reconstruct Northwest Corporate Taxiway Runway 12-30 RSA Improvements $1,250 1,088 1,080,777 35,080 25,262 52,764 61,091 Subtotal FY 1999 $1,257,314 Fiscal Year 2000 22423 22947 23221 23599 23638 23811 23823 Land Acquisition Construct Taxiway “F” and Install Perimeter Road and Fencing Connecting Taxiway (Slurry Seal) Reconstruct Northwest Corporate Taxiway Runway 12-30 RSA Improvements Purchase Spray Tank Install Used Oil Heater $24,148 136,578 536 536 290,189 6,975 9,269 Subtotal FY 2000 $468,232 Fiscal Year 2001 22423 22947 23512 23638 24026 Land Acquisition Construct Taxiway “F” and Install Perimeter Road and Fencing Replace Tractor and Mower Runway 12-30 RSA Improvements Noise Monitoring System $397,986 10,102 105,986 2,700,950 48,600 Subtotal FY 2001 $3,263,625 1-4 TABLE 1A (Continued) Port of Portland Capital Investments at Hillsboro Airport, 1997-2002 Port Project Number Project Description Total Expenditures Fiscal Year 2002 23387 24078 23092 23601 23638 23804 24026 Terminal Building Upgrade – Phase I Administration Building HVAC Rehabilitation Land Acquisition Reconstruct NE T-Hangar Taxiway Runway 12-30 RSA Improvements NE Corporate Hangar Infrastructure Noise Monitoring System $123,935 50,965 1,663,950 91,295 3,511,917 360,903 22,800 Subtotal FY 2002 $5,825,765 Total All Projects, 1997-2002 $11,900,634 Source: Port of Portland To assist in funding the capital im- provements listed above, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has provided funding assistance to the Port through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The AIP is funded through the Aviation Trust Fund, which was established in 1970 to pro- vide funding for aviation capital in- vestment programs (aviation devel- opment, facilities and equipment, and research and development). The Trust Fund also finances a portion of the op- eration of the FAA. It is funded by user fees, taxes on airline tickets, aviation fuel, and various aircraft parts. Table 1B summarizes FAA AIP grants for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1997 through FFY 2002. The FAA has offered a total of $14,873,167 in the past five years, for capital improve- ments at Hillsboro Airport. TABLE 1B Federal Grants Offered to Hillsboro Airport, 1997-2002 Date Grant Number Project Description Total Grant Funds June 1997 03-41-0025-08 Land Acquisition $990,606 May 1999 03-41-0025-09 (22947) $894,600 March 1999 03-41-0025-10 Runway 12-30 RSA Improvements $1,936,376 September 1999 03-41-0025-11 Runway 12-30 RSA Improvements $344,668 July 2001 03-41-0025-12 Runway 12-30 RSA Improvements $5,650,000 March 2002 03-41-0025-13 Runway 12-30 RSA Improvements $5,020,000 September 1997 03-41-0410-01 Pavement Crack Seal $21,928 June 1998 03-41-0410-02 Pavement Crack Seal $14,989 Total FAA Grant Funds $14,873,167 Source: Port of Portland 1-5 The Oregon Department of Aviation has also provided financing assistance to the Port for Runway 12-30 RSA im- provements. In December 2002, ODOT offered $10,000 through their Financial Aid to Municipalities Pro- gram. HISTORICAL ACTIVITY The number of aircraft operations and based aircraft are used to define the type and level of activity at general aviation airports such as Hillsboro Airport. Table 1C summarizes the historical aircraft operations recorded by the FAA ATCT at Hillsboro Airport between 1990 and 2004. These repre- sent only the aircraft operations ob- served during the hours the ATCT was open. Presently, the ATCT is open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. TABLE 1C Historical Aircraft Operations Hillsboro Airport Itinerant Local Year Air Carrier Air Taxi General Aviation Military Total Itinerant General Aviation Military Total Local Total Operations % Increase/ Decrease 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20031 20041 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12 6 -- -- 1,946 3,039 2,899 3,112 3,562 3,371 4,175 5,631 5,710 6,553 7,230 7,931 9,078 9,386 8,287 87,979 87,479 85,964 86,797 87,746 89,467 88,148 96,284 85,619 89,386 83,201 84,639 82,493 78,492 72,446 903 712 706 634 755 1,068 1,491 735 1,133 871 1,103 873 426 450 852 90,828 91,230 89,569 90,543 92,063 93,906 93,814 102,650 92,462 96,810 91,534 93,455 92,003 88,778 81,585 120,015 121,054 109,124 102,632 118,523 127,233 119,630 129,381 138,105 154,123 151,645 141,880 131,495 129,141 111,250 766 499 748 628 724 715 378 364 599 824 1,332 48 91 199 18 120,781 121,533 109,872 103,260 119,247 127,948 120,008 129,745 138,704 154,947 152,977 141,928 131,586 129,340 111,268 211,609 212,783 199,441 193,803 211,310 221,854 213,822 232,395 231,166 251,757 244,511 235,383 223,589 218,118 192,853 N/A 0.6% -6.3% -2.8% 9.0% 5.0% -3.6% 8.7% -0.5% 8.9% -2.9% -3.7% -5.0% -2.4% -11.5% Source: FAA ATADS 1 General aviation local operations and total operations not comparable to earlier years due to a change in the method of count- ing operations by the ATCT. An operation is defined as either a takeoff or landing. As shown in this table, aircraft operations have varied annually at the airport since 1990. The lowest recorded level of total op- erations during the period was 192,853 operations in 2004. The high- est level of total operations of 251,757 was recorded in 1999. Twelve of the past 15 years have had recorded op- erations in excess of 200,000 annually. Seven of these years have had re- corded operations in excess of 220,000, five years had operations in excess of 230,000, while there was one year each with recorded operations in ex- cess of 240,000 and 250,000 annually, respectively. Aircraft operations are classified as either local or itinerant and separated further into air carrier, air taxi, gen- eral aviation, and military. Local op- erations are performed by aircraft which: 1-6 (a) Operate in the local traffic pat- tern or within sight of the air- port; (b) Are known to be departing for or arriving from flight in local practice areas located within a 20-mile radius of the airport; (c) Execute simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport. Itinerant operations are all other op- erations and essentially represent the originating or departing aircraft. For traffic count purposes, the air car- rier category is defined as an aircraft capable of carrying more than 60 pas- sengers or a maximum payload capac- ity of more than 18,000 pounds. While the title of this category may imply that scheduled airline operations were conducted at the airport, it should not be viewed in that manner. The ATCT classifies aircraft in categories based on the size and capabilities of the air- craft. With a number of aircraft manufacturers now marketing corpo- rate/business versions of common air carrier aircraft, these aircraft are now conducting operations at general avia- tion airports. A prime example is the Boeing 737, which is the most common air carrier aircraft in the U.S. fleet. This aircraft is also sold as the Boeing Business Jet. The air carrier opera- tions in the past two years are the re- sult of this aircraft operating at the airport, not the existence of scheduled airline service. The air taxi category comprises air- craft designed to have a seating capac- ity of 60 seats or less, or a maximum payload capacity of 18,000 pounds or less, carrying passengers or cargo for hire or compensation. This category includes a wide range of civil aircraft conducting charter operations. General aviation comprises the take- offs and landings of all remaining civil aircraft. All operations within the air taxi category are recorded as tran- sient, while military and general avia- tion activity is divided into local and itinerant categories. Since 1990, local operations have av- eraged 58 percent or more of all opera- tions, with itinerant operations com- prising the remaining 42 percent. Since 1990, general aviation aircraft have conducted 99 percent of local op- erations and accounted for 93 percent of itinerant operations, while air taxi and military aircraft have accounted for 5.3 percent and 0.9 percent of itin- erant operations, respectively. The air taxi category has grown in recent years, increasing from 2.1 percent of itinerant operations in 1990, to over 10 percent of operations in 2003 and 2004. This trend indicates the growing business and corporate use of Hills- boro Airport, along with Hillsboro Air- port becoming more of a general avia- tion destination airport. The majority of local operations at Hillsboro Airport are representative of the flight train- ing operations that have historically been based at the Airport. At times, aircraft may operate at the airport without ATCT services. Dur- ing these periods, aircraft operations at the airport are not included in the ATCT count. Since October 2003, 1-7 some helicopter operations at Hills- boro Airport are no longer being in- cluded in the overall ATCT count due to changes in air traffic control ac- counting procedures. Helicopter activ- ity in the helicopter training patterns after October 2003 were considered by air traffic control guidance to be activ- ity operating independently of ATC, and therefore, no count is authorized. Air traffic control guidance allows for the ATCT to count the entry into the training pattern and the departure from the training pattern. However, the ATCT cannot record operations occurring within the training patterns. The ATCT can also count those times when the ATCT advises a helicopter to “remain below 50 feet,” as required when other aircraft are conducting an instrument approach or planned missed approach (an aborted approach to landing). Prior to October 2003, the practice of the ATCT was to count all training operations within the helicopter train- ing patterns. Each flight, or circuit, within a helicopter training pattern was counted as two operations. There- fore, the 2003 and 2004 total local general aviation operational counts are not comparable to previous years. Table 1D summarizes historical total based aircraft for Hillsboro Airport since 1980. For 1990 to 2000, based aircraft totals were derived from his- torical records maintained by the FAA. The Port does not maintain an independent record of historical based aircraft. However, the Port deter- mined the 2003 based aircraft number through tenant surveys and field ob- servations. As shown in this table, based aircraft levels have fluctuated over the past 23 years from a low of 322 to a high of 399. TABLE 1D Historical Based Aircraft Hillsboro Airport Year Based Aircraft 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003 349 322 341 399 392 363 Source: 1980 to 2000, FAA TAF; 2003 Port of Portland Based aircraft are also classified ac- cording to type. Table 1E summa- rizes the mix of aircraft based at Hillsboro Airport in 2003. Aircraft type categories include single engine piston, multi-engine piston, turboprop, turbojet, and rotorcraft. The single engine piston includes all aircraft that are piston-powered and have a single powerplant. This category represents 67 percent of based aircraft at Hills- boro Airport in 2003. The multi- engine piston category includes all aircraft that are piston-powered and have more than one powerplant. This category of aircraft represented 10 percent of based aircraft in 2003. The turboprop category includes both sin- gle engine and multi-engine turbine- powered aircraft with propellers. The turboprop category represented four percent of 2003 based aircraft. The turbojet category comprised 11 percent of 2003 based aircraft and includes all turbine-powered aircraft with fan- ducted power plants. This can include 1-8 business and corporate aircraft as well as a number of models of military jet aircraft that have now become part of the civilian aircraft fleet. Finally, the rotorcraft category includes all heli- copters whether they are piston- powered, turbine-powered, or have more than one power plant. Rotor- craft aircraft represented eight per- cent of HIO’s total based aircraft in 2003. There was one balloon based at the airport in 2003. It is included in the category entitled “Other.” TABLE 1E 2003 Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Total Based Aircraft Single Engine Piston Multi- Engine Piston Turboprop Turbojet Rotorcraft Other 363 244 35 13 41 29 1 Source: Port of Portland. OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT Hillsboro Airport is owned by the Port of Portland (Port). The Port is a re- gional government encompassing Clackamas, Multnomah, and Wash- ington counties. The Port is directed by a nine-member commission ap- pointed by the governor of Oregon and confirmed by the Oregon Senate. At least two commissioners must live in each of the three counties. The re- maining three members may live in any part of the State. Commissioners serve four-year terms and can be re- appointed. The Commission meets monthly, and appoints the Port’s Ex- ecutive Director. In addition to Hillsboro Airport, the Port also owns and manages Troutdale Airport, Mulino Airport, and Portland International Airport. Management of all Port airports falls within the Port’s Aviation Division. Troutdale Airport, Mulino Airport, and Hillsboro Airport fall under the direction of the Manager of General Aviation. The day-to-day operation of all three general aviation airports is managed by the General Aviation Department’s Operations Manager. Hillsboro Airport has two full-time maintenance personnel. ECONOMIC IMPACT The total number of jobs, total em- ployee earnings, total business reve- nue, total state taxes collected, and total local taxes collected as a result of the use of Hillsboro Airport were re- cently determined through an eco- nomic study completed under a sepa- rate contract by Martin Associates in September 2003. A summary of the direct impacts (airport-generated im- pacts generated by activities con- ducted on the airport), indirect (visitor industry impacts generated by local visitors who came to the area using the airport), and induced impacts (economic activity generated as direct income recirculated through the econ- omy) are shown in Table 1F. The 1-9 complete document can be obtained from the Port. These impacts are cal- culated for the Portland metropolitan area. As shown in Table 1F, there are 558 direct jobs on Hillsboro Airport, gen- erating over $22 million in annual in- come. These 558 jobs support an addi- tional 305 induced jobs in the commu- nity that collectively earn another $23 million. Finally, activity at Hillsboro Airport was found to support an addi- tional 496 indirect jobs and over $16 million in income. Another segment of activities affected by HIO’s presence is the visitor industry (i.e., hotels, car rental agencies, etc.). This represents individuals who travel to Hillsboro by air and stay an average of 2.2 nights per trip. Last year, this group gener- ated 76 direct and 29 indirect jobs and provided $2.0 million and $1.7 million in personal income, respectively. In summary, the use of Hillsboro Airport generated over $110 million for the local economy in 2002, supported 1,464 jobs, and provided over $6.1 mil- lion in state and local tax revenues. AIRSIDE FACILITIES Airside facilities include runways, taxiways, lighting, and navigational aids. Airside facilities are depicted on Exhibit 1B. TABLE 1F Economic Impacts of Hillsboro Airport Impact Category Hillsboro Airport Generated Hillsboro Airport Visitors Combined Total Impacts Jobs Direct Induced Indirect Total 558 305 496 1,359 76 29 N/A 105 634 334 496 1,464 Personal Income Direct Induced Indirect Total $22,221,000 23,409,000 16,178,000 $61,808,000 $2,016,000 1,734,000 N/A $3,750,000 $24,237,000 25,143,000 16,178,000 $65,558,000 Avg. Income/ Direct Employee $39,823 $26,526,000 $38,229 Business Revenue $106,821,000 $3,466,000 $110,287,000 Local Purchases $40,958,000 N/A $40,958,000 State and Local Taxes $5,814,000 $353,000 $6,167,000 Source: The Economic Impacts of Hillsboro Airport on the Local and Regional Economy, Martin Associates, September 2003 1-10 RUNWAYS The Hillsboro Airport has two run- ways as depicted on Exhibit 1B. Run- way 12-30 is 6,600 feet by 150 feet, and has a 200-foot blast pad on each end. The second runway is Runway 2- 20, which is 4,049 feet by 100 feet, and has a displaced threshold on the 20 end of the runway. Runway 12-30 was originally built in 1942, along with Runway 2-20. Both runways were built 4,050 feet long. In 1976, Runway 12 was extended and Runway 30 relocated to a length of 6,600 feet. 600 feet of the relocated runway was designated as a stop way. The pavement section and strength history is summarized in Table 1G. TABLE 1G Runway Pavement Section and Strength Runway 12-30 Pavement Section Surface Base Subbase Runway 30 – South 3,450 ft. 3.5” AC (1993) Fabric (1993) 3-5” AC (1984) 2” AC (1942) 6” (1942) 8” (1942) 500 ft. at Exit A-4 Fog Seal (2002) 3.5” AC (1992) Fabric (1992) 0-2.5” AC (1984) 5” AC (1997) 6” Crushed Aggregate (1997) 9” Lime or Cement Treated Subbase (1997) North – 3,150 ft. Fog Seal (2002) 3.5” AC (1992) Fabric (1992) 5” AC (1997) 6” Crushed Aggregate (1997) 9” Lime or Cement Treated Subbase (1976) Runway 12 – 163 ft. Extension Fog Seal (2002) 4” AC (2002) 8” Crushed Aggregate (2002) 12” Crushed Aggregate (2002) Fabric (2002) Runway 12 Blast Pad Fog Seal (2002) 3” AC (2002 12” Crushed Aggregate (2002) Fabric (2002) Pavement Strength Single Wheel Gear 50,000# Dual Wheel Gear 70,000# Dual-Tandem Gear 110,000# Runway 2-20 Pavement Section Surface Base Subbase 4,050 ft. runway 2” AC (1992) 6” Pulverized Base (1993) 6” (1942) 8” (1942) Pavement Strength Single Wheel Gear 45,000# Dual Wheel Gear 58,000# Dual-Tandem Gear 90,000# 03 M P 0 1 - 1 B - 5 / 2 4 / 0 5 Exhibit 1B EXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES PORT OF PORTLAND RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') C CC NORTH 0 1,000 2,000 SCALE IN FEET N.E. 25th Ave. Glideslope Antenna PAPI-4 Blast Pad Berm Ev er gr ee n Ro ad A1 A2 A3 A4 A4 A5 A5 A6 A7 A A8 Center Taxiway AA A AA A4 00' 50' A B B 250' Blast Pad Localizer Antenna Rotating Beacon Brookwood Parkway VASI-4 VASI-4 40' 50' 40' Segmented Circle With Lighted Windcone VOR/DME or GPS-A Circling Instrument Approach (166°) MA LSR NDB/GPS-B and Instrument Landing System Approach Wind Recorder Ceilometer 200' Cornell Road LEGEND Airport Property Line PAPI VASI MALSR VOR NDB DME GPS Precision Approach Path Indicator Visual Approach Slope Indicator Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights Very High Frequency Omni- Directional Range Facility Nondirectional Radio Beacon Distance Measuring Equipment Global Positioning System RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') VASI-4 162' 28' 1-11 PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX The Federal Aviation Administration has mandated that any airport spon- sor receiving and/or requesting federal funds for pavement improvement pro- jects must have implemented a pave- ment maintenance management pro- gram. To ensure that its airport sys- tem complies with this Federal man- date, the Port of Portland elected to implement a pavement management system for its four airports. Part of the pavement maintenance management program is to develop a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rat- ing. This rating is based as the guide- lines contained in FAA Advisory Cir- cular 150/5380-6, Guidelines and Pro- cedures for Maintenance of Airport Pavements. The PCI procedure was developed to collect data that would provide engi- neers and managers with a numerical value indicating overall pavement conditions to reflect both pavement structural integrity and operational surface condition. A PCI survey is per- formed by measuring the amount and severity of certain distresses (defects) observed within a pavement sample unit. Exhibit 1C identifies the 2002 PCI ratings (i.e., good, fair, etc) of the pavements at Hillsboro Airport. This information, along with the Ports management information, will be used later in the report to identify pave- ment maintenance strategies and their cost. TAXIWAY AND TAXILANES There are three parallel taxiways, Taxiway A (parallel to Runway 12-30), Taxiway B (south parallel to Runway 2-20), and Taxiway C (north parallel to Runway 2-20). Taxiways A and B are 50 feet wide, built in 1967, and Taxiway C is 40 feet wide and built in 1983. Taxiway A has eight connecting taxiways to Runway 12-20, Taxiway B has three, and Taxiway C has two, connecting respectively to Runway 2- 20. In addition, a secondary partial parallel taxiway, AA, runs from Taxi- way A-4 to Taxiway C and parallel to Taxiway A. Taxiway AA is 40 feet wide and was built in 1984. Taxiway CC is 28 feet wide. AIRFIELD LIGHTING & SIGNAGE Runway 12-30 and 2-20 are equipped with runway edge lighting and run- way end-threshold lighting. Runway 12-30 has a High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL) system, while Run- way 2-20 has a Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL) system. In addition, Runway 30 is equipped with Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs), which are flashing lights on either side of the runway threshold that help delineate the end of the runway. With the exception of Taxi- ways CC and AA, all taxiways and as- sociated connecting taxiways, are equipped with Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL). 1-12 The airport has all of the FAA re- quired lighted location signs, manda- tory signs, directional and designation signs. A Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI-4) is available on Runway 12 and 30. The PAPIs provide approach path guidance with a series of light units. The four-unit PAPI gives the pilot an indication of whether their approach is too low, slightly low, too high, slightly high, or on-path, through the pattern of red and white given by the light unit. Runway 2 and 20 are equipped with Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI-4). A VASI is the older version of the PAPI, and also provides ap- proach path guidance through the pat- terns of red and white lights. A rotating beacon is located on a 77- foot-tall steel tower, adjacent to NE Cornell Road at the main airport en- trance. The beacon delineates the air- port location to pilots with rotating white and green lights located 180 de- grees apart. The white and green lights have no individual meaning. A lighted wind cone is located at the base of the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). The wind cone indi- cates wind direction and approximate speed. The airport lighting and signage sys- tem are powered through the electrical equipment building at the base of the ATCT. The ATCT operators have con- trol over the use and intensity settings of the lighting system when the ATCT is open. After the ATCT is closed, the lighting system is pilot-controlled. Us- ing the radio transmitter in the air- craft, the pilots can turn on and choose the intensity of the airfield lighting. PAVEMENT MARKINGS Pavement markings aid in the move- ment of aircraft along airport surfaces and identify closed or hazardous areas on the airport. Precision runway markings identify the runway center- line, designation, touchdown point, threshold, and pavement edge. Non- precision runway markings identify the runway centerline, threshold, and designation. Runway 12 is equipped with precision runway markings. Runway 30 is equipped with nonpreci- sion runway markings. Runways 2 and 20 are equipped with basic mark- ings which identify the runway center- line and designation. Taxiway and apron taxilane centerline markings are provided to assist air- craft using these airport surfaces. Centerline markings assist pilots in maintaining proper clearance from pavement edges and objects near the taxilane/taxiway edges. Aircraft hold positions are also marked on all taxi- way surfaces. Pavement markings also identify aircraft parking posi- tions. WEATHER REPORTING Hillsboro Airport is equipped with an Automated Surface Observation Sys- tem (ASOS). The ASOS provides automated aviation weather observa- 1-13 tions 24-hours-a-day. The system up- dates weather observations every minute, continuously reporting signifi- cant weather changes as they occur. The ASOS system reports cloud ceil- ing, visibility, temperature, dew point, wind direction, wind speed, altimeter setting (barometric pressure), and density altitude (airfield elevation cor- rected for temperature). AREA AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Act of 1958 established the FAA as the responsible agency for the con- trol and use of navigable airspace within the United States. The FAA has established the National Airspace System (NAS) to protect persons and property on the ground and to estab- lish a safe and efficient airspace envi- ronment for civil, commercial, and military segments of the aviation in- dustry. The NAS covers the common network of U.S. airspace, including the following: air navigation facilities; airports and landing areas; aeronauti- cal charts; associated rules, regula- tions, and procedures; technical in- formation; and personnel and mate- rial. The system also includes compo- nents shared jointly with the military. AIRSPACE STRUCTURE Airspace within the United States is broadly classified as either Acontrolled@ or Auncontrolled.” The difference be- tween controlled and uncontrolled air- space relates primarily to require- ments for pilot qualifications, ground- to-air communications, navigation and air traffic services, and weather condi- tions. Six classes of airspace have been designated in the United States. Exhibit 1D shows the airspace classi- fications and terminology. Airspace designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered controlled airspace. Air- craft operating within controlled air- space are subject to varying require- ments for positive air traffic control. Airspace in the vicinity of Hillsboro Airport is depicted on Exhibit 1E. There is no Class B airspace in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area; therefore, no explanation is nec- essary in the following paragraphs. Class A Airspace Class A airspace includes all airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to flight level (FL) 600 (approximately 60,000 feet MSL). This airspace is designated in Federal Aviation Regu- lation (F.A.R.) Part 71.193, for positive control of aircraft. The Positive Con- trol Area (PCA) allows flights gov- erned only under IFR operations. The aircraft must have special radio and navigation equipment, and the pilot must obtain clearance from an air traffic control (ATC) facility to enter Class A airspace. In addition, the pi- lot must possess an instrument rating. Class C Airspace The FAA has established Class C air- space at 120 airports around the coun- 1-14 try, as a means of regulating air traffic in these areas. Class C airspace is de- signed to regulate the flow of uncon- trolled traffic above, around, and be- low the arrival and departure airspace required for high-performance, pas- senger-carrying aircraft at major air- ports. In order to fly inside Class C airspace, the aircraft must have a two- way radio and an encoding trans- ponder, and the pilot must obtain an ATC clearance. However, aircraft may fly below the floor of the Class C air- space, or above the Class C airspace ceiling without an ATC clearance. The Portland International Airport Class C airspace is divided into six ar- eas, each with different floor eleva- tions and boundaries. The core of the Class C area is a circular area that ex- tends for approximately 5 nautical miles from the center of Portland In- ternational Airport, from the ground up to 4,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This core area has a cut-out over Evergreen Airport. The cut-out over Evergreen Airport is incorporated into an outer zone of Class C airspace, with a floor elevation of 2,000 feet MSL and a ceiling of 4,000 feet MSL. The Class C airspace over Pearson Airport has a floor of 1,100 feet MSL and ceiling of 4,000 feet MSL. The crescent shaped portion of Class C air- space northwest of the airport has a floor elevation of 1,800 feet MSL and a ceiling elevation of 4,000 feet MSL. The crescent shaped portion of Class C airspace southwest of Portland Inter- national Airport has a floor elevation of 2,300 feet MSL and a ceiling eleva- tion of 4,000 feet MSL. The crescent shaped portion of Class C airspace southeast of Portland International Airport has a floor elevation of 1,700 feet MSL and a ceiling elevation of 4,000 feet MSL. Class D Airspace Class D airspace is controlled airspace surrounding airports with an ATCT. The Class D airspace typically consti- tutes a cylinder with a horizontal ra- dius of four or five nautical miles (NM) from the airport, extending from the surface up to a designated vertical limit, typically set at approximately 2,500 feet above the airport elevation. If an airport has an instrument ap- proach or departure, the Class D air- space sometimes extends along the approach or departure path. The Class D airspace for Hillsboro ex- tends for approximately four nautical miles around the airport, from the sur- face to 2,700 feet MSL. The Hillsboro Airport Class D airspace is effective only during the time the ATCT is op- erational, which is from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., daily. At all other times, Class E airspace surrounds the air- port. Class E Airspace Class E airspace consists of controlled airspace designed to contain IFR op- erations near an airport, and while aircraft are transitioning between the airport and enroute environments. Unless otherwise specified, Class E airspace terminates at the base of the overlying airspace. Only aircraft op- erating under IFR are required to be CLASS E14,500MSL Nontowered Airport 700 AGL 1,200 AGL Nontowered Airport CLASS GCLASS G CLASS G CLASS AFL 60018,000 MSL LEGEND Above Ground Level Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet Mean Sea Level NOT TO SCALE - - - AGL FL MSL CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION CLASS A CLASS B CLASS C CLASS D CLASS E CLASS G Generally airspace above 18,000 feet MSL up to and including FL 600 . Generally multi-layered airspace from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busiest airports. Generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet AGL surrounding towered airports with service by radar approach control. Generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL surrounding towered airports. Generally controlled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D. Generally uncontrolled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E. CLASS G Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for VFR Products," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993. CLASS B CLASS C CLASS D 40 n.m. 30 n.m. 20 n.m. 12 n.m. 20 n.m. 10 n.m. 10 mi. Exhibit 1D AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION 03 M P0 1- 1D -9 /2 5/ 03 PORT OF PORTLAND 03 M P0 1- 1E -9 /8 /0 3 LEGEND Airport with other than hard-surfaced runways Airport with hard-surfaced runways 1,500' to 8,069' in length Airports with hard-surfaced runways greater than 8,069' or some multiple runways less than 8,069' Non-Directional Radiobeacon (NDB) VORTAC VHF Omni Range (VOR) VOR-DME Compass Rose Class C Airspace Class D Airspace Class E Airspace Class E Airspace with floor 700 ft. above surface Victor Airways Wilderness Area Source: Seattle Sectional Chart, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration June 12, 2003 Exhibit 1E AIRSPACE MAP PORT OF PORTLAND Mc Minnville Chehalem Sportsman Lenhardt Portland Mulino Valley View Country Squire Sandy River Grove Evergreen Portland Troutdale Cedars North Goheen Fly For Fun Skyport Scappoose Woodland State Kelso-Longview Starks Twin Oaks Vernonia Aurora State Pearson Portland International Laker NDB Newberg VOR-DME Battle Ground VORTAC V112 V4 48 V520 V165 V595 V500 V165 V2 3 V2 87 -49 5-5 00 V4 95 V2 87 V1 82 V112-182 V468 V44 8 V495 V23 TRAPPER CREEK WILDERNESS AREA MT. ST. HELENS NATIONAL VOLCANIC MONUMENT RIDGEFIELD NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SALMON HUCKLEBERRY WILDERNESS AREA HILLSBORO AIRPORT NORTH NOT TO SCALE 1-15 in contact with air traffic control when operating in Class E airspace. While aircraft conducting visual flights in Class E airspace are not required to be in radio communications with air traf- fic control facilities, visual flight can only be conducted if minimum visibil- ity and cloud ceilings exist. Hillsboro Airport has a Class E air- space extension to the northwest of the airport, which encompasses the Runway 12 instrument landing sys- tem (ILS) approach procedure, and a Class E airspace extension to the south, which encompasses an instru- ment approach procedure from the south. The Class E extension airspace begins at the surface and extends up- ward to Class A airspace. A Class E airspace transition area surrounds Hillsboro Airport and the entire Portland metropolitan area. This area of controlled airspace has a floor of 700 feet above the surface and extends to Class A airspace, except for the areas of Class D or Class C air- space. This transition area is in- tended to provide protection for air- craft transitioning from enroute flights, to the airport for landing. Class G Airspace Airspace not designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered uncontrolled, or Class G, airspace. Air traffic con- trol does not have the authority or re- sponsibility to exercise control over air traffic within this airspace. Class G airspace lies between the surface and the overlaying Class E airspace (700 to 1,200 feet above ground level [AGL]). Class G airspace extends be- low the floor of the Class E airspace transition area in the Portland metro- politan area. While aircraft may technically operate within this Class G airspace without any contact with ATC, it is unlikely that many aircraft will operate this low to the ground. Furthermore, fed- eral regulations specify minimum alti- tudes for flight. F.A.R. Part 91.119, Minimum Safe Altitudes: generally states that except when necessary for takeoff or landing, pilots must not op- erate an aircraft over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. Over less congested areas, pilots must maintain an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Finally, this section states that helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed above if the op- eration is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a heli- copter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA. Wilderness Area While not considered part of the U.S. airspace structure, the boundaries of National Park Service areas and U.S. Forest and Primitive areas are noted 1-16 on aeronautical charts. While aircraft operations are not specifically re- stricted over these areas, aircraft are requested to maintain a minimum al- titude of 2,000 feet above the surface while traversing these areas. Exhibit 1E depicts the boundaries of these ar- eas near Hillsboro Airport. The wilderness areas shown on Ex- hibit 1E include the Ridgefield Na- tional Wildlife Refuge, Mount St. Helen’s National Volcanic Monument, Trapper Creek Wilderness Area, and Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness Area. FAA Advisory Circular 91-36C defines the Asurface@ as the highest terrain within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of flight or the upper-most rim of the canyon or valley. AIRSPACE CONTROL The FAA is responsible for the control of aircraft within the Class A, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace de- scribed above. The Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) con- trols aircraft operating in Class A air- space. The Seattle ARTCC is respon- sible for aircraft operations over the State of Washington, and portions of Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, and California. The Portland Terminal Radar Ap- proach Control (TRACON) facility, based at Portland International Air- port, controls aircraft operating within the Class C and Class E airspace. The Hillsboro ATCT, located on Hillsboro Airport west of Runway 12-30, con- trols aircraft operating in the Hills- boro Airport Class D airspace. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS Navigational aids are electronic de- vices that transmit radio frequencies, which pilots of properly equipped air- craft translate into point-to-point guidance and position information. The types of electronic navigational aids available for aircraft flying to or from Hillsboro Airport include: the Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) facility, Nondirectional Beacon (NDB), Global Positioning Sys- tem (GPS), and Loran-C. The VOR, in general, provides azi- muth readings to pilots of properly equipped aircraft by transmitting a radio signal at every degree to provide 360 individual navigational courses. Frequently, distance measuring equipment (DME) is combined with a VOR facility to provide distance as well as direction information to the pilot. Military tactical air navigation aids (TACANs) and civil VORs are commonly combined to form a VOR- TAC. A VORTAC provides distance and direction information to civil and military pilots. The Battle Ground VORTAC and Newberg VOR/DME serve the Port- land metropolitan area and Hillsboro Airport. The Battle Ground VORTAC is located approximately 20 nautical miles northwest of Hillsboro Airport. The Newberg VOR/DME is located 10.9 nautical miles south of Hillsboro Airport. These facilities are identified on Exhibit 1E. VORs define low-altitude (Victor) and high altitude airways through the 1-17 area. Many aircraft operating under an instrument flight plan enter the area via one of these federal airways. Aircraft assigned to altitudes above 18,000 feet MSL in Class A airspace use the high altitude system. Aircraft operating in Class E and G airspace use the low altitude airways. Victor Airways in the vicinity of Hills- boro Airport are shown on Exhibit 1D. Radials off the Battle Ground VOR- TAC or Newberg VOR/DME define the centerline of these flight corridors. The NDB transmits nondirectional ra- dio signals, whereby the pilot of prop- erly equipped aircraft can determine the bearing to or from the NDB facility and then Ahome@ or track to or from the station. Pilots flying to or from the airport can utilize the Abate NDB located 6.1 nautical miles northwest of the Runway 12 threshold. Loran-C is a ground-based enroute navigational aid which utilizes a sys- tem of transmitters located in various locations across the continental United States. Loran-C varies from the VOR as pilots are not required to navigate using a specific facility (with the VOR, pilots must navigate to and from a specific VOR facility). With a properly equipped aircraft, pilots can navigate to any airport in the United States using Loran-C. GPS was initially developed by the United States Department of Defense for military navigation around the world. However, GPS is now used ex- tensively for a wide variety of civilian uses, including the civil aircraft navi- gation. GPS technologies use satellites placed in orbit around the globe to transmit electronic signals, which pilots of properly equipped aircraft use to de- termine altitude, speed, and naviga- tional information. Similar to Loran- C, pilots do not have to fly from one navigational aid to the next. This provides more freedom in flight plan- ning and allows for more direct rout- ing to the final destination. A GPS modernization effort is under- way by the FAA and focuses on aug- menting the GPS signal to satisfy re- quirements for accuracy, coverage, availability, and integrity. For civil aviation use, this includes the devel- opment of the Wide Area Augmenta- tion System (WAAS), which was launched on July 10, 2003. The WAAS uses a system of reference sta- tions to correct signals from the GPS satellites for improved navigation and approach capabilities. The present GPS provides for enroute navigation and instrument approaches with both course and vertical navigation. The WAAS upgrades are expected to allow for the development of approaches to most airports with cloud ceilings as low as 250 feet above the ground and visibilities restricted to three-quarters of a mile. This capability is not ex- pected until after the Year 2015. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES Instrument approach procedures are a series of predetermined maneuvers established by the FAA, using elec- tronic navigational aids that assist pi- lots in locating and landing at an air- 1-18 port during low visibility and low cloud ceilings condition. Hillsboro Airport has three published instru- ment approach procedures. This in- cludes one precision instrument ap- proach and two nonprecision instru- ment approaches. The Runway 12 Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach is a precision instrument approach, as it provides both vertical descent information and course guidance information to the pi- lot. In contrast, the VOR/DME or GPS-A circling approach and NDB or GPS-B circling approaches are non- precision approaches, providing only course guidance information to the pi- lot. The capability of an instrument is de- fined by the visibility and cloud ceiling minimums associated with the ap- proach. Visibility minimums define the horizontal distance the pilot must be able to see in order to complete the approach. Cloud ceilings define the lowest level a cloud layer (defined in feet above the ground) can be situated for the pilot to complete the approach. If the observed visibility or cloud ceil- ings are below the minimums pre- scribed for the approach, the pilot cannot complete the instrument ap- proach. Table 1H summarizes in- strument approach minima for Hills- boro Airport. TABLE 1H Instrument Approach Data WEATHER MINIMUMS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE Category A/B Category C Category D CH VIS CH VIS CH VIS ILS RUNWAY 12 Straight-In ILS Localizer Only Circling 200 600 600 0.5 0.5 1.0 200 600 600 0.5 1.0 1.5 200 600 600 0.5 1.0 2.0 VOR/DME or GPS-A Circling 500 1.0 500 1.5 600 2.0 NDB or GPS-B Circling1 900 1.0 900 2.5 600 2.75 Aircraft categories are based on the approach speed of aircraft, which is determined as 1.3 times the stall speed in landing configuration. The approach categories are as fol- lows: Category A 0-90 knots (Cessna 172) Category B 91-120 knots (Beechcraft KingAir) Category C 121-140 knots (Canadair Challenger) Category D 141-165 knots (Gulfstream IV) CH – Cloud Height (in feet above ground level) VIS – Visibility (in statute miles) 1For Category B aircraft, visibility minimums are 1.5 miles Source: U.S. Terminal Procedures 1-19 PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH Most precision approaches in use in the United States today are instru- ment landing systems (ILS). An ILS provides both exact course alignment and descent paths for an aircraft on final approach to a runway. The sys- tem provides three functions: guid- ance, provided vertically by a glide slope (GS) antenna and horizontally by a localizer (LOC); range, furnished by marker beacons or distance meas- uring equipment (DME); and visual alignment, supplied by the approach light systems and runway edge lights. As stated previously, Hillsboro Airport has one published precision instru- ment approach to Runway 12. The Runway 12 ILS consists of a localizer antenna (located behind the Runway 30 end); glide slope antenna (located east of Runway 12); and an outer marker (the Abate NDB located 6.1 nautical miles northwest of Runway 12) The location of the localizer and glideslope is shown on Exhibit 1B. The Runway 12 ILS has a standard 3.0 degree glide slope. This means that aircraft correctly following the glide slope descend 1-foot vertically for each 20 feet that move forward hori- zontally. Visual alignment information is pro- vided by the Medium Intensity Ap- proach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lighting (MALSR). The MALSR is a series of light standards extending 2,700 feet northwest of the Runway 12 thresh- old. The location of the MALSR is shown on Exhibit 1B. NONPRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACHES The VOR/DME or GPS-A approach is one of two published nonprecision ap- proaches for Hillsboro Airport. A pilot using this approach can either use the Newberg VOR/DME navigational aid or GPS navigation system to fly this approach. Pilots flying this approach only have course guidance informa- tion. Pilots must maintain the mini- mum descent altitude indicated for that approach until having the airport in sight, when the landing can be made, or until a designated point (de- fined in nautical miles from the final approach fix), when a missed approach must be executed. The second nonprecision approach available at Hillsboro Airport is NDB or GPS-B approach. Similar to the VOR/DME or GPS-A, a pilot flying this approach can either use the Abate NDB navigational aid or GPS naviga- tion system. STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURES Currently, three Standard Instrument Departure (SID) procedures are pub- lished for Hillsboro Airport. SIDs are preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures which provide ob- struction clearance from the terminal area to the appropriate en route struc- ture. SIDs are primarily designed for system enhancement and to reduce pilot/controller workload. ATC clear- ance must be received prior to flying a SID. 1-20 The CANBY SIX SID is used for in- strument departures to the east. In- strument departures from Runways 12, 30, and 2 are directed by the CANBY SIX SID to follow a heading of 110 degrees after departure, then in- tercept the 175 degree radial from the Battle Ground VORTAC, then proceed to the CANBY intersection (the CANBY intersection is an imaginary point defined by the intersection of the 175 degree radial from the Battle Ground VORTAC and 085 radial from the Newberg VOR/DME). After inter- secting CANBY, the pilot flies the route established by ATC. Departures from Runway 20 follow a 090 degree heading to the Battle Ground VORTAC 175 degree radial. The FARMINGTON THREE SID is used for instrument departures to the south/southeast. Instrument depar- tures from Runways 12 and 2 are di- rected by the FARMINGTON THREE SID to follow a heading of 210 degrees after departure, and then intercept the 346-degree radial from the Newberg VOR/DME, then proceed to intercept the Newberg VOR/DME. After inter- cepting the VOR/DME, the pilot flies the route established by ATC. Depar- tures from Runway 20 and 30 follow a 120-degree heading to the Newberg VOR/DME 346-degree radial. The SCAPO THREE SID is used for instrument departures to the north. Instrument departures from Runways 12, 2, and 20 are directed by the SCAPO THREE SID to follow a head- ing of 280 degrees after departure, then intercept the 334-degree radial from the Newberg VOR/DME to SCAPO intersection (the SCAPO in- tersection is defined by the intersec- tion of the 334-degree radial from the Newberg VOR/DME and Portland In- ternational Airport localizer antenna). After intercepting SCAPO, the pilot flies the route established by ATC. Departures from Runway 30 follow runway heading until intercepting the 334-degree radial. VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) PROCEDURES Most flights at Hillsboro Airport are conducted under VFR conditions. Un- der VFR flight, the pilot is responsible for collision avoidance and is provided basic radar service from ATC. The purpose of basic radar services is to sequence arriving IFR and VFR traffic into the traffic pattern and to provide traffic information and radar vectors to departing VFR traffic. Typically, the pilot will contact the tower when approximately 15 miles from the air- port, for sequencing into the traffic pattern for landing. While VFR air- craft arriving and departing Hillsboro Airport are not required to contact the Portland TRACON, they may do so to expedite their progress through the area. In most situations, under VFR and ba- sic radar services, the pilot is respon- sible for navigation and choosing the arrival and departure flight paths to and from the airport. However, de- pending on the needs of the ATCT for sequencing, the pilot may be given di- rections by the ATC to fly specified headings to position their aircraft be- hind a preceding aircraft in the ap- proach sequence. Tower controllers 1-21 sequence arriving and departing air- craft based on observed traffic, pilot reports, and anticipated aircraft ma- neuvers. The results of individual pi- lot navigation for sequencing and col- lision avoidance and ATCT instruc- tions for sequencing and safety are that aircraft do not fly a precise flight path to and from the airport. There- fore, aircraft can be found flying over a wide area around the airport for se- quencing and safety reasons. While aircraft can be expected to op- erate over most areas of the airport, the density of aircraft operations is higher near the airport. This is the result of aircraft following the estab- lished traffic patterns and noise abatement procedures for the airport, and common sequencing techniques used by the ATCT. The traffic pattern is the traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing or taking off from an airport. The components of a typical traffic pattern are upwind leg, cross- wind leg, downwind leg, base leg, and final approach. a. Upwind Leg - A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direc- tion of landing. b. Crosswind Leg - A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its upwind end. c. Downwind Leg - A flight path par- allel to the landing runway in the direction opposite to landing. The downwind leg normally extends be- tween the crosswind leg and the base leg. d. Base Leg - A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its approach end. The base leg nor- mally extends from the downwind leg to the intersection of the ex- tended runway centerline. e. Final Approach - a flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg to the runway. Essentially, the traffic pattern defines which side of the runway aircraft will operate. For example, at Hillsboro Airport, Runway 30 and Runway 2 have an established right-hand traffic pattern. For these runways, aircraft make a right turn from base leg to fi- nal for landing. Therefore, aircraft operating to Runway 30 remain east of the runway. For Runway 2, aircraft remain south of the runway. When landing to Runway 12, aircraft make left-hand turns. This also allows these aircraft to remain east of Runway 12- 30. Aircraft landing to Runway 20 also follow a left-hand traffic pattern. Aircraft landing to Runway 20 remain south of Runway 2-20. The Port has instituted a voluntary noise abatement program at Hillsboro Airport to assist in minimizing air- craft noise over residential develop- ments near the airport and along pri- mary flight paths to the airport. Safety permitting, aircraft are asked to avoid flying over nearby residential areas when arriving or departing Hillsboro Airport. Furthermore, air- craft are asked to follow the proce- dures below when safety, weather, and ATC instructions permit: 1-22 • Runway 30 is the preferred depar- ture runway. • Runway 30 is designated the active runway under calm wind condi- tions (winds of 3 knots or less, irre- spective of direction). • Use of Runway 20 for takeoffs and Runway 2 for landings should be avoided unless wind or operational conditions dictate otherwise. • Runway 2-20 should be used only when the wind velocity is 10 knots or greater from a direction that is between 170 degrees and 230 de- grees or 350 degrees and 050 de- grees. • For closed traffic patterns (touch- and-go operations), Runways 30 and 2 shall use right traffic pat- terns; standard left traffic patterns shall be used on Runways 12 and 20. • Runway 2-20 is closed to touch and go landings between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. • Aircraft should avoid unnecessary over flight of the urban residential areas south and west of the air- port. While, the traffic pattern defines the direction of turns that an aircraft will follow on landing or departure; it does not define how far from the runway an aircraft will operate. The distance lat- erally from the runway centerline an aircraft operates or the distance from the end of the runway is at the discre- tion of the pilot, based on the operat- ing characteristics of the aircraft, number of aircraft in the traffic pat- tern, and metrological conditions. The actual ground location of each leg of the traffic pattern varies from aircraft operation to aircraft operation for the reasons of safety, navigation and se- quencing described above. The dis- tance that the downwind leg is located laterally from the runway will vary based mostly on the speed of the air- craft. Slower aircraft can operate closer to the runway as their turn ra- dius is smaller. The FAA has established that piston- powered aircraft operating in the traf- fic pattern, fly at 1,000 feet above the ground (or 1,200 feet MSL) when on the downwind leg. Turbine-powered aircraft fly the downwind leg at 1,700 feet MSL. The traffic pattern altitude is established so that aircraft have a predictable descent profile on base leg to final for landing. LANDSIDE FACILITIES Landside facilities are the ground- based facilities that support the air- craft and pilot/passenger handling functions. These facilities typically include a terminal building, aircraft storage/maintenance hangars, aircraft parking aprons, and support facilities such as fuel storage, automobile park- ing, roadway access, and aircraft res- cue and firefighting. The landside fa- cilities at Hillsboro Airport are identi- fied on Exhibit 1F. Table 1J pro- vides a building inventory for Hills- boro Airport. AREA 1 AREA 3 Exhibit 1F LANDSIDE FACILITIES 03 M P0 1- 1F -5 /2 4/ 05 PORT OF PORTLAND AREA 3 AREA 2 AREA 1 LEGEND Airport Property Line 0 400 800 SCALE IN FEET NORTHInternational Business Services (T-Hangar Storage) Delta Management (T-Hangar Storage) Nike Brookwood Parkway B B RUNWAY 2-20 Transient Apron Center Taxiway TerminalApron Hillsboro Aviation (FBO Services) Northwest Avionics (Aircraft Maintenance) Eagle Flight Center (Flight Training) Port Maintenance Facility Terminal Building Tualatin Valley Avionics (Aircraft Maintenance) Premier Jets (Private Storage) Hangar 53 (FBO Services) Center for Airway Sciences (Education) C o r n e l l R o a d C o r n e l l R o a d C o r n e l l R o a d RUNWAY 2-20 CCC West Apron Apron Taxilane Global Aviation (FBO Services) Aero-Air (FBO Services) Global Aviation (FBO Services) Premier Jets (Charter Air Ambulance) RU NW AY 12 -30 A4 A5 A4 A A AA AA Aerovertigo (Private Storage) Four S (Private Storage) Teufel Nursery, Inc. (Private Storage) Delta Management (T-Hangar Storage) Tower Park Hangar Owner's Association (T-Hangar Storage) Flightline Systems (T-Hangar Storage) FAA ATCT N.E. 25th Street RUNWAY 2-20 AREA 2 Lorentz Bruun Construction (Private Storage) 0 500 SCALE IN FEET 1-23 TERMINAL BUILDING The existing terminal building is lo- cated in the airport’s south building area adjacent to Cornell Road. The building was dedicated in October 1976, and is a two-story wood frame building with approximately 12,800 square feet per floor. The terminal building is approxi- mately 50% occupied with a variety of tenants. The following is a list of cur- rent tenants: First Floor Avis Car Rental Hertz Car Rental Bill Foote Aircraft Sales Alpha Building Maintenance Intel (as managed by Executive Jet) Second Floor KUIK 1360 Radio Port of Portland TABLE 1J Building Inventory Approximate Area Port Address Name Building (s.f.) Lease Lot (acre) Description General Condition 3355 Terminal/ Administration 12,800 (80 x 160) Port-Owned 2-Story Fair * See summary of condition re- port on page 1-I- 27. 1040 PHA Maintenance/ OPS/Mgmt. 8,500 Port-Owned 2-Story Concrete tilt-up construction. 2 maintenance roll- up doors. Good 3565 Hillsboro Aviation, Inc. 22,000 (100 x 220) 5.4 2 Large hangars adjoined, concrete block walls, wood truss, arch roof. Attached 2-story office building (20 x 100), concrete block walls Fair – HAI has dis- cussed re- placement but has no imme- diate plans. 3443 Hillsboro Aviation, Inc. 13,200 (120 x 110) Included above Large hangars, concrete block walls, wood truss, arch roof. At- tached single- story of- fice/maintenance building, each side (20 x 110) Fair – HAI has dis- cussed re- placement but has no imme- diate plans 1-24 TABLE 1J (Continued) Building Inventory Approximate Area Port Address Name Building (s.f.) Lease Lot (acre) Description General Condition Large mainte- nance hangar (140 x 170); steel frame doors at each end. Good Adjoined conven- tional hangar & office (60 x 100); wood truss frame hangar, attached offices, portion two stories, brick construction Fair 3301 Soloflex/Hangar 53 Northwest Avionics 37,600 (multi- ple structures) 10.4 Adjoined large hangar (50 x 60); steel frame Poor 2-story office/shop; concrete block walls Good 3301A Soloflex/Hangar 53 8,000 (80 x 100) Included above Lease hold in- cludes fuel island under 90 ft. di- ameter canopy Good 3155 Airway Sciences 3,000 (50 x 60) 0.2 Hangar 4 attached wood frame con- struction Offices/classrooms Good 3005 Classic Aircraft Aviation Museum/ Premier Jets 5,300 (70 x 80) 0.6 Hangar with at- tached offices, wood siding Good 2995 Eagle Flight Center & Tualatin Valley Avionics 4,050 (45 x 90) 0.5 Maintenance han- gar, metal con- struction with B1- fold door Good 3 hangar build- ings, Building A- east, Section 7 executive hangar units (60 x 370) Good Building B-West, Section 22 T- hangar, 4 execu- tive hangar units (60 x 700) Good 2995 Tower Park Condo Association Hangars 96,200 (3 buildings) 2.7 Building C-32, T- hangar units (50 x 640). All buildings are metal con- struction with B1- fold doors Good 1-25 TABLE 1J (Continued) Building Inventory Approximate Area Port Address Name Building (s.f.) Lease Lot (acre) Description General Condition 2 hangar build- ings, Building A- west, Section 6 executive hangar units (50 x 330) Good 2995 Flightline Condo Hangars 44,000 (2 buildings) 2.0 Building D-27 T- hangar units (50 x 550), Bi-fold doors. All buildings are metal construction Good 3115 Teufel Hangar 12,000 (80 x 150) 0.7 Large storage han- gar, metal frame construction Very Good 3121 Aerovertigo Han- gar 18,000 (100 x 180) 1.2 Large storage han- gar, metal frame construction Good 2010 Four “S” Properties Hangar (Life Flight 6,400 (80 x 80) 0.8 2-story wood frame construction Good 2020 Lorentz-Bruun 5,600 (70 x 80) 0.8 Hangar and office, metal construction Very Good 1 large mainte- nance hangar (135 x 170) metal con- struction Very Good 2050 Aero Air 24,000 (2 Buildings) 7.8 Large storage/ Maintenance han- gar (180 x 190) Very Good 2140 Premier Jets 4,900 (70 x 70) 1.2 Office building, wood frame con- struction Very Good 2146 Premier Jets 4,800 (60 x 80) Included above Maintenance/ storage hangar, metal construction Good 2166 Premier Jets 11,500 Included above Large mainte- nance/ Storage hangar, metal construction Good Corporate hangar/ Stor- age/Maintenance Metal Construction Very Good 2210 Global Aviation 16,000 (100 x 160) 2.3 Attached offices (50 x 100), wood frame construction Good 1-26 TABLE 1J (Continued) Building Inventory Approximate Area Port Address Name Building (s.f.) Lease Lot (acre) Description General Condition Large mainte- nance/ Storage hangar (120 x 210), metal construction Very Good 2250 Global Aviation 2 buildings 25,200 & 26,400 4.2 Large mainte- nance/ Storage hangar (120 x 220), metal construction Very Good 3999 Delta Management 106,000 (6 buildings) 2.2 6 T-hangar buildings Metal construction Building A-10 units Building B-12 units Building C-12 units Building D-11 units Building E-11 units Building F-12 units Total 64 units All in Fair Condition 4141 International Business Services 68,400 (3 buildings) 1.9 3 T-hangar buildings Metal construction All three buildings have 16 units with extra storage units on each end All good 2315 Nike, Inc. 32,400 3.4 Large corporate stor- age/maintenance hangar (140 x 180) Metal construction with attached office facilities (40 x 80) Excellent Airport Traffic Control Tower 2,500 No record ATCT Approximate Height 77 feet Cab and Equipment refurbished in 2003 Good Electrical Equip- ment Vault 400 Port-Owned Located adjacent to ATCT, concrete block construction Good U.S. Customs 200 No record Located adjacent to Aero Air, wood frame construction Good Executive Jet Management operates jet services for Intel Corporation. The space is equipped with a check-in area, metal detection screening device, waiting area for approximately 100 passengers and several small offices with phone and internet access. 1-27 Oregon International Airshow leases space for a three-month period be- tween July and September for the Hillsboro Airshow. The Port of Portland uses space on the second floor for temporary office space, as well as hosting Airport open houses and miscellaneous meetings. The largest space on the second floor was used by a restaurant that closed in 2002. The building is equipped with an elevator and centrally-located public restroom facilities on both floors that are ADA compliant. The following is a summary of an Ar- chitectural Maintenance Review con- ducted in 1993 by Gazley Plowman Atkinson Architects of Portland and recently updated by the Port of Port- land Maintenance personnel. General The basic structure of the building is a combination of tube steel columns and wood posts supporting glulam beams which support 2x6 decking and ply- wood at the second floor and roof. The ground floor is a concrete slab on grade. The second floor has undergone various tenant improvements since construction, the latest being a major exterior renovation including complete siding replacement in 1988, a stair addition and other modifications to the restaurant in 1991. The building is fully equipped with sprinklers. Roof The roof is built-up roofing with cap sheet and the roof is the original roof that was installed. Within the last two years the roof has had a minor reha- bilitation to extend its life another 5-7 years. The roof leaks in a number of places and some of the roof drains are not sealed properly. There has also been evidence of trapped water in be- tween the roofing and wood decking as well as evidence of dry rot. The exist- ing roofing needs to be completely re- moved and replaced. Exterior Walls/Windows The exterior walls are wood frame with painted rough sawn plywood and wood trim. The siding was completely replaced in 1988 but has some rotting beginning at the plywood sheet edges. Some of the wood trim is also rotting in places and appears to be loose in spots. The exterior siding will require substantial attention to prevent addi- tional deterioration. The windows are single pane with a rubber gasket glazing system. There are either wood or metal sills at the windows which were refinished when the exterior siding was replaced and are in fair condition. The ground floor sills are generally in better condition than the second floor sills due to over- hangs. The wood sills are in poor con- dition with dry rot and several have lost their seal. These wood seals re- quire major attention or replacement. 1-28 Doors The wood and glass entry doors are in poor condition. The recessed floor clos- ers have been replaced on a number of occasions and still do not operate properly. The doors themselves are badly in need of refinishing or re- placement. The majority of the interior doors are solid core wood veneer doors, some with vision panels, in hollow metal frames. The doors are in good to fair condition, but need general mainte- nance such as repainting. In addition, because of the size of the doors, the building does not meet ADA stan- dards. Interior Walls, Floors and Ceilings The interior walls are wood frame with painted gypsum board or vinyl wall covering in some areas and de- mountable vinyl covered gypsum board partitions in other areas. The vinyl wall covering is in various condi- tions depending on how recently it is replaced, if at all, but generally it is in fair to good condition. The ground floor is concrete with floor coverings consisting of carpet, ceramic tile, and quarry tile. The 6”x6” quarry tile in the corridor is in fair condition but the grout is discolored and stained. The carpet in the public area is in good condition. The second floor is plywood subfloor on wood decking with floor covering of carpet, ceramic, tile, and quarry tile that resembles brick pavers in two different patterns. This quarry tile is in fair to good con- dition but appears very outdated. The ceramic tiles in both bathrooms are in fair condition and should be entirely regrouted to reseal the floor to avoid further damage. The ceilings are suspended type with a mixture of concealed spline 12”x12” system in corridor, 2’x2’ in dining area of restaurant, and 2’x4’ grid system in the office areas. Office areas have 2’x4’ fluorescent light fixtures and the cor- ridors have a combination of 2’x2’surface mounted fluorescent fix- tures and surface mounted round fluo- rescent fixtures. There are also nu- merous tiles that are broken or cracked and the general condition is poor. All of these tiles should be re- placed. Maintenance reports that the size of the tiles makes it difficult to access electrical or plumbing mainte- nance needs in the ceiling. The light- ing fixtures are dated and are no longer economical to run or maintain and should be replaced. Accessibility There are disabled parking spaces in the parking lot adjacent to the build- ing with wheelchair accessible curb cuts that provide access to the main building entry. The toilet rooms on both the first and second floors have accessible sinks and allow access according to ADA guide- lines. The restroom facilities are not sized to handle the amount of traffic within the building. In addition, the facilities 1-29 are poorly ventilated which keeps the areas from smelling fresh. The width of the public area corridors is not suitable for the level of passen- ger traffic with luggage. The building doesn’t have a luggage check-in/pick-up area. Mechanical Two gas-fired multi-zone rooftop air conditioning units serve tenants spaces on the first and second floors. A 1-1/2 ton gas-fired single-zone rooftop air conditioning unit was added in 1991 to serve the northeast corner of- fice on the second floor. All controls are electric. The two multi-zone units were recon- ditioned approximately two years ago to extend their life 5-7 years. The units should be replaced with units that are energy efficient. In addition, over the years, various tenant im- provements have modified internal walls that have the left the HVAC sys- tem out of balance and very ineffi- cient. Plumbing and Fire Protection Fire Protection: The building is fully equipped with sprinklers. Water sup- ply is from an 8-inch main in the North Frontage Road. The building has 6-inch service with fire depart- ment connection, post indicator valve, detector check assembly, and water gong. Cold Water: The domestic cold water is a 3-inch service. A 3-inch main serves common toilet rooms and a separate 3-inch main serves tenant water needs. Hot Water: Domestic hot water is served from a 6-inch sanitary service and an 18-inch storm drain. The build- ing has adequate roof drains and over- flow roof drains. Fire protection and plumbing for the building seems adequate. Several leaks have occurred over the years and have been repaired on a temporary basis. As with many other items, a renovation of the plumbing system could be needed in the near future as the building approached 30 years of age. Electrical The building is served at 120/208V from a 300KVA pad mounted trans- former located at the south west cor- ner of the building. There is a 1600A circuit breaker main distribution panel located on the second floor with three utility metered feeders. Lighting in general utilizes 4-tube, 2x4 fluorescent fixtures. Emergency power for egress and exit lighting is provided by a 1500W central battery invertor located in the second floor electric room. There is neither a build- ing security system nor a fire alarm system in the building. Telephone service is located on the first floor within a tenant space. 1-30 Based on maintenance reports and the age of the building a complete over- haul of the electrical system is needed to meet current code requirements. APRONS AND AIRCRAFT PARKING The main apron (south building area) at the airport is approximately 400 feet by 1,500 feet. The apron is adja- cent to three operation areas, Hills- boro Aviation Inc. (HAI) on the east end, the Terminal/Administration Building in the center and Hangar 53 on the west end. HAI’s portion of the apron is used for fixed-wing and rotor- craft parking for both itinerant and based aircraft. The terminal portion of the apron is mainly utilized by Execu- tive Jet Management, providing the Intel Shuttle. Hangar 53’s portion is used for fueling and central parking for both based and itinerant aircraft. The apron to the north of the main apron is approximately 400 feet by 500 feet and is used mainly for transient aircraft and overflow based or corpo- rate use. The west apron is approxi- mately 200 feet by 450 feet and is used for based aircraft parking. Other apron areas are located throughout the airport generally in front of corporate/private hangars. These areas are used for tenant, cor- porate business, or itinerant aircraft parking, as well as fueling operations. Table 1K summarizes the permanent aircraft apron parking spaces at Hills- boro Airport. TABLE 1K Aircraft Apron Parking Space Locations Location Based Aircraft Spaces Transient Aircraft Spaces Hillsboro Aviation, Inc. 10 8 Terminal/Administration 3 2 Hangar 53 22 8 Center Apron 20 20 Eagle Flight Center 3 2 West Apron 44 -- Aero Air 11 6 Premier Jet 3 1 Global Aviation 3 1 Global Aviation 4 2 Total 126 50 1-31 FIXED BASE OPERATORS (FBO) AND SPECIALTY AIRCRAFT SHOPS FBO Hillsboro Airport currently has three full-service Fixed Base Operators; Hillsboro Aviation Inc.; Hangar 53; and Aero Air. The following is a list of services provided by each FBO. Hillsboro Aviation ƒ Aircraft Sales ƒ Aviation Fuel ƒ Oxygen Service ƒ Aircraft Parking (ramp or tiedown) ƒ Passenger Terminal and Lounge ƒ Flight School/Flight Training ƒ Aircraft Rental ƒ Aerial Tours/Aerial Sightseeing ƒ Aircraft Maintenance ƒ Avionics Sales and Service Hangar 53 ƒ Aviation Fuel ƒ Oxygen Service ƒ Aircraft Parking (ramp or tiedown) ƒ Hangars ƒ Passenger Terminal and Lounge ƒ Aircraft Charters ƒ Aircraft Maintenance ƒ Avionics Sales and Service ƒ Aircraft Interiors ƒ Catering Aero Air ƒ Aircraft Sales ƒ Aviation Fuel ƒ Oxygen Service ƒ Aircraft Parking (ramp or tiedown) ƒ Hangars ƒ Passenger Terminal and Lounge ƒ Aircraft Charters ƒ Aircraft Maintenance ƒ Avionics Sales and Service ƒ Aircraft Modifications ƒ Aircraft Interiors SPECIALTY AIRCRAFT SHOPS Several specialty shops provide a vari- ety of services for aircraft owners, op- erators and enthusiasts. The follow- ing is a listing of the businesses and services provided by each. Eagle Flight Center ƒ Flight School/Training ƒ Aircraft Rental ƒ Aerial Tours/Sightseeing ƒ Aircraft Charters ƒ Pilot Supplies Global Aviation ƒ Aircraft Charter ƒ Aviation Fueler ƒ Aircraft Management J&J Aircraft ƒ Aircraft Rental Northwest Aircraft Maintenance ƒ Aircraft Maintenance Premier Jet ƒ Aircraft Charter ƒ Cargo and Air Ambulance Tualatin Valley Avionics ƒ Aircraft Avionics Bill Foot Aircraft Sales ƒ Aircraft Sales 1-32 AIRPORT MANAGEMENT/ OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE The Port of Portland acquired a build- ing previously located off airport prop- erty to consolidate airport manage- ment, operations and maintenance, as well as construction project offices. The facility is located in the southwest corner of the airport and is accessed off N.E. 25th Street. The maintenance portion of the building is tilt-up con- struction, with two large rollup doors on each side of the building for thru access with equipment. The manage- ment and operations offices are lo- cated in an attached single-story wood frame building. This space also has a conference room with a thirty-person capacity. The building and adjacent fenced area houses various mowers, small plows, tractors, dump trucks with snow plow attachments and a small water truck. The facility also has 20 auto parking spaces. Access to the airfield is through a manual gate to the west pe- rimeter road. FUELING FACILITIES The three full-service FBO’s on the field own and maintain Jet A and 100 low-lead Avgas fuel tanks. Aircraft charter/rental companies, as well as private hangar owners, have fueling facilities on the airport. In addition, the Port has several used oil deposito- ries located around the airport. There are no public self-service fueling facili- ties on the airport. All three FBOs have 24-hour fueling service, with prior notice after regular business hours. Table 1L lists the fuel tanks located at Hillsboro Airport. UTILITIES Utilities serving the airport are the City of Hillsboro Public Works for wa- ter and sanitary sewer. The storm wa- ter system on the airport is main- tained by the Port, and off-airport, by Washington County and Clean Water Services. Electrical service is provided by Portland General Electric, phone service by AT&T, natural gas service by Northwest Natural, and cable ser- vice is Comcast. The location of exist- ing and utility lines at Hillsboro was compiled as part of the inventory ef- fort. These maps have been provided separately to the Port as a supplemen- tal document. SECURITY FENCING AND GATES The entire airport is surrounded by security-type fencing. The fence is FAA standard 8-foot chain-link with three strands of barbwire. There are over 20 vehicle access gates to the airport. The majority of those are in the south and west building ar- eas. These gates are automatic and operated by a combination punch pad. There also are several swing-type ve- 1-33 hicle access gates with padlocks lo- cated along the north property line fence. These gates are used mainly by tenant farmers to access the agricul- tural areas. Table 1L Storage Tank Summary Hillsboro Airport Owner Contents Size (Gallons) Tank Type Aeroair Jet A 10,500 UST Aeroair Jet A 10,500 UST Aeroair Used Oil 8,000 AST Eagle Used Oil 275 AST Global Aviation Jet A 12,000 AST Hangar 53 Avgas 12,000 UST Hangar 53 Jet A 12,000 UST Hangar 53 Used Oil 250 AST Hillsboro Aviation Avgas 12,000 AST Hillsboro Aviation Gasoline 500 AST Hillsboro Aviation Jet A 12,000 AST Global Aviation Avgas 5,000 UST Global Aviation Jet A 30,000 UST Global Aviation Used Oil 5,000 AST Port of Portland Diesel 500 AST Port of Portland Used Oil 250 AST Port of Portland Used Oil 280 AST Port of Portland Used Oil 280 AST Port of Portland Used Oil 675 AST Premier Jets Jet A 12,000 AST Teufel, Inc. Avgas 6,000 UST Teufel, Inc. Jet A 6,000 UST AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AREA The Port currently has leases with three different agricultural operators: Alan Schaaf and Robert Vanderzan- den conduct agricultural operations individually. Dick Vanderzanden and Ken Belt operate a joint operation. Farming is conducted both on and off airport property. Table 1M summa- rizes the operations. 1-34 TABLE 1M Agricultural Operations Areas On-Airport Off-Airport Operator Total Lease Area Total Farmable Acres Acres Location Acres Location Alan Schaaf 109 92 52 Runway 20- RPZ 40 Runway 30- RPZ Dick Vanderzanden/ Ken Belt 128 118 15 Runway 2- RPZ 6 East of Brookwood 12 Adjacent to Taxiway A along NE 25th 25 East of Run- way 30 to Brookwood Parkway 62 North of the intersection of Runways 12 & 20 East of Run- way 12 Threshold 35 East of N.W. Airport Road to N.W. Ev- ergreen Street 78 Runway 12- RPZ-North of N.W. Ever- green Street 10 North of N.W. Ever- green Street between N.W. 268th and 273rd Avenue Robert Vanderzanden 164 142 14 5 West of N.E. 25th Avenue, adjacent to Intel Campus ACCESS, CIRCULATION AND PARKING ACCESS TO HILLSBORO AIRPORT – GENERAL TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK The regional transit network is de- signed to provide convenient transit access and improve connections be- tween transit modes. It is the policy of Metro [RTP Policy 13.0 (Regional Pub- lic Transportation Performance)] to provide transit service that is fast, re- liable and has competitive travel times compared to the automobile. In addi- tion, it is Metro’s policy to enhance mobility and support the use of alter- native transportation modes by im- 1-35 proving regional accessibility to public transportation. Objective 1.3.4 of the ODOT Portland- Cannon Beach Junction (US 26) Cor- ridor Plan seeks to improve connec- tions via transit and other modes to Portland International and Hillsboro Airports. Other objectives include promotion of increased transit service throughout the corridor, and the use of Westside Light Rail and other transit to accommodate additional trips. Cor- ridor Plan solutions emphasize sup- port for transportation system and demand management measures, re- ducing single-occupancy vehicle trips, limited-capacity expansion, reliance on transit, and improvements to the city and county street networks for in- tracity trips (i.e., using Cornell or Cornelius Pass between Hillsboro and other cities, instead of Highway 26). GENERAL ACCESS TO HILLSBORO AIRPORT – SURROUNDING ROADS The airport is surrounded by the arte- rials of NW Evergreen Road to the north, NE Cornell Road to the south, NE Brookwood Parkway to the east, and NE 25th Avenue to the west (see Exhibit 1B – Existing Airfield Facili- ties). Additional side streets that lead to airport property include NW Air- port Road, NW 264th Avenue, and NW 268th Avenue. These side streets end in locked gates; therefore, no general public access is available at these loca- tions. Cornell Road is a very busy 5-lane ar- terial in good condition, with stop- lights, bike lanes, sidewalks and curbs in the vicinity of the airport. Ever- green Road is only slightly less busy than Cornell; from 25th to Brookwood Parkway it is 2-3 lanes, with new pavement, some paved median, curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Brookwood is used with less frequency, and is in good condition, with 4 lanes, curbs, and sidewalks. 25th is a fairly busy street, with 2 lanes in good condition, and no curbs, sidewalks, or bike lanes. Level of Service (LOS) describes a range of operating conditions on a roadway, including: speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic in- terruptions, safety, comfort, and con- venience. Level A represents the best conditions, with free flow and very low delay or congestion. Level F repre- sents the very worst operating condi- tions. The Washington County 2020 Trans- portation Plan (2002) gives an existing LOS for all Hillsboro Airport sur- rounding roads of “C” or better. How- ever, this same plan advises that without implementation of the docu- ment’s recommended transportation improvements, the LOS for Cornell Road will drop to “D” or “E”, and LOS for Highway 26 will drop to “E” and “F” (depending on highway section) by 2005. Of much concern to the Airport is the intersection of Cornell and 25th, which in 1999 had a LOS of “D”. One of the goals of the Hillsboro Transpor- tation System Plan (1999) is to provide for an efficient transportation system that manages congestion. This is con- sistent with regional goals. To this end, the Washington County 2020 Plan identifies system capacity im- 1-36 provements that will aid in easing congestion. Projects in the Airport area include the 25th Avenue Im- provements, which would widen 25th to 3 lanes with bike lanes, and the Hills- boro to US 26 Improvements, which would improve the Shute Road and Cornell Corridor routes from Hillsboro to Highway 26. In addition, the Tri- Met Westside TMA project imple- ments a transportation management association program aimed at reducing single occupancy automobile work commutes with employers in Western Washington County. ACCESS TO AIRPORT TERMINAL Auto: Access to the airport terminal is gained primarily via NE Cornell Road. Additional airport facilities are located to the northeast and northwest of the terminal, and can be reached by turn- ing right onto Brookwood Parkway and NE 25th Avenue respectively, from Cornell. The airport terminal is located about 3 miles south of Highway 26. Many travelers will be approaching the air- port from Highway 26 westbound. Westbound drivers take the Shute Road exit south to Cornell Road. Turn right onto Cornell Road, and follow Cornell to a right-hand turn opposite 34th Avenue, directly into the airport terminal parking area. Highway 26 also has an exit directly to Cornell Road, an exit at 185th in Tanasborne, and an exit at Cornelius Pass Road, however, travel time to the airport will be lengthier using these exits. The exit to NW Jackson School Road will be more convenient for eastbound Highway 26 travelers west of Hills- boro. Eastbound drivers take the NW Jackson School Road exit south to Ev- ergreen Road. Take left onto Ever- green Road, a right onto NE 25th Ave- nue, and a left onto Cornell Road. Light Rail: The Fair Complex (“Fair- plex”)/Airport MAX Station is located about 0.4 mile south of the terminal building. The MAX Blue Line leaves for Hillsboro at 45-minute intervals from 12:00 A.M. to 4:45 A.M., and then 12-14 minute intervals from 5 A.M. to 11:30 P.M. weekdays. Trains to Elmonica/170th are available at 12:30 A.M., 8 A.M., and from 6:30 P.M. to 7:45 P.M. and to Ruby Junc- tion/E 197th Ave from 6:30 A.M. to 8:30 A.M., and 5 P.M. to 11:40 P.M. The MAX Blue Line to Gresham leaves from 4:00 A.M. to 11 P.M. at 13-15 minute intervals. This route allows connections to the Portland Interna- tional Airport. Bus: A Tri-Met bus stop is located at the intersection of Cornell Road and 34th Avenue (Route 46 – regular local service to North Hillsboro), with buses leaving weekdays every 45 minutes for the Hillsboro Transit Center, from about noon to 7:30 P.M. This bus stops first at the Fair Complex Transit Center (MAX station), where riders can transfer to light rail. Another bus stop is located at 3355 Cornell, about 0.1 mile west of the Airport. The Route 48 bus leaves here for Willow Creek and the SW 185th Avenue Tran- sit Center at 45 min.-1 hour intervals, from 6 A.M. to 10 P.M. weekdays. 1-37 Shuttle: Intel Corporation provides a continuous shuttle service for their employees to and from the Airport at Fairplex Station using Raz Transpor- tation bus service. There is no public shuttle service that goes continuously from the airport to the Fairplex Sta- tion or other Hillsboro locales, how- ever, riders can take the Tri-Met Route 46 bus, which makes its first stop at the Fairplex Station. Riders will pay for the entire transit ride (bus and light rail) when they embark on the Route 46 bus. Cab: Taxis are available on-call. Pa- cific Cab Co., Hillsboro Taxicab, and Broadway Cab, Inc., are among the local companies providing service to the Airport. Rental Cars: Hertz and Avis have rental desks in the airport terminal, with parking spaces reserved in the terminal parking lot. An additional 4 spots are reserved for Hertz customers at the terminal building on the Airport West Entrance road. INTERNAL CIRCULATION Internal circulation is via a combina- tion of perimeter roads, parking lots, taxilanes and aprons. Beginning at the East Building Area, vehicles can travel along the paved East Perimeter Road, around the end of Runway 30, to the access gate adjacent to Hillsboro Aviation. Perimeter Road, between the northeast T-hangar area and the terminal building area, is restricted to airport staff vehicles, FAA vehicles, and FBO fuel trucks. Perimeter Road is closed to all other traffic because a portion of it is within the Runway 12- 30 safety area. Proceeding west, through the parking lots to the paved West Perimeter Road around the end of Runway 2. The road then continues along the west side of the west build- ing area. Access to the Runway ends, Navigational aids and other airfield facilities is via various taxiways, taxi- lanes, and aprons. The perimeter road doesn’t extend to the North side of the airport. Access to this area is through gates along N.E. 268th Avenue and N.W. Airport Road. Terminal Area Circulation The main entrance to the terminal is at 34th Avenue off of Cornell Road. This entrance is a single-lane entrance with an immediate 90 degree turn, which can be a difficult movement when more than one car is entering or exiting the parking lot. The area also becomes a bottle neck when freight trucks and/or fuel supply trucks enter for distribution to HAI or Hangar 53. Site distance at this entrance is also limited due to overgrown landscape. Airfield Circulation There is limited room for the Intel buses to pick-up and drop-off passen- gers at the curb in front of the termi- nal building. During the time that they are parked in front of the build- ing, vehicles in the first row of parking within the vehicle parking lot are somewhat restricted in their ability to enter or exit a parking stall. While parked at the curb, the Intel buses normally keep their engines running 1-38 and the building’s HVAC system will sometimes take into the interior of the building these diesel fumes. The parking stalls are laid out for a one-way flow through the lot; however, the actual practice is frequently two way or opposite direction to the planned traffic flow. The Port maintenance staff believes that the parking lot has too many landscape islands which affect circula- tion and capacity. The Intel buses currently lay over be- tween flights on the south side of the parking lot, which restricts the use of several diagonal parking spaces. The general pavement condition of the access road in front of the terminal building is failing as the result of the weight of the buses and freight trucks that are using the road. The parking lot asphalt is also beyond its useful life and needs to be rehabilitated. PARKING Terminal Parking Lot: A total of 350 parking spaces. 29 spaces reserved for Hertz, 10 reserved for Avis, and 60 spaces reserved for the Intel Shuttle (as managed by Executive Jet). Hillsboro Aviation: 64 general spaces, 35 spaces reserved for Hillsboro Avia- tion customer parking. Lot was about 85% full. In addition, employees park inside the fence adjacent to the office buildings. West Entrance (Control Tower): 4 spaces reserved for Hertz customers, 11 spaces reserved for Aero Air cus- tomers, 33 spaces for general parking. There appears to be ample parking across the street at the business park. Lot was about 95% full. Other Parking: Northwest Aircraft Maintenance has 15 spaces, Premier Jets and Museum has 10 spaces, Tu- alatin Valley Avionics and Eagle Flight Center have about 10 spaces. An empty grassy field next to Eagle Flight Center appears to be available for overflow parking, and approxi- mately 30 spaces are available inside the fence adjacent to the West Apron Tiedown Area. In addition, some pi- lots park their vehicles inside their hangars when flying. General: A Park-and-Ride lot with about 400 spaces is located at the Fairplex Transit Center. Lot was about 40% full. SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE The socioeconomic profile provides a general look at the socioeconomic make-up of the community that util- izes an airport. It also provides an understanding of the dynamics for growth and the potential changes that may affect aviation demand. Aviation demand forecasts are often directly related to the population base, eco- nomic strength of the region, and the ability of the region to sustain a strong economic base over an extended period 1-39 of time. Current demographic and economic information was collected from Metro for the Portland- Vancouver Primary Metropolitan Sta- tistical Area (PMSA). POPULATION As shown in Table 1N the population of the Portland metropolitan area nearly doubled between 1970 and 2002, growing by 85 percent and more than 900,000 residents. About 1.6 million or 82 percent of the metropoli- tan population resides in Oregon. The remaining residents are located in Clark County in the State of Washing- ton. Almost one-half of Oregon’s popu- lation lives in the metropolitan Port- land area. Portland’s population is primarily urban and has been for many decades. Population growth in the metropolitan area has historically outpaced growth for the United States. For example, between 1990 and 2000, the United States population grew by 13 percent, whereas, the metropolitan Portland population grew by 27 percent. TABLE 1N Total Population and Households Portland-Vancouver PMSA Year Total Population Percent Change Total Households Percent Change 1970 1,078,100 N/A N/A N/A 1975 1,177,600 9.2% N/A N/A 1980 1,333,600 13.2% N/A N/A 1985 1,378,400 3.4% N/A N/A 1990 1,515,500 9.9% 575,500 N/A 1995 1,720,800 13.5% 653,100 13.5% 2000 1,918,100 11.5% 730,200 11.8% 2001 1,946,000 1.5% 741,700 1.6% 2002 1,978,200 1.7% 751,800 1.4% Average Annual Growth Rate 1970- 1980 2.1% 1980- 1990 1.3% 1990- 2000 2.2% 2.3% 2000- 2002 1.9% Source: Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional Forecast for the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area, September 2002. Population growth depends on changes in births, deaths, and migra- tion. The difference between births and deaths is called natural increase. 1-40 According to the Population Research Center at Portland State University, natural increase contributed about 134,000 persons, or 18%, of the metro- politan area’s growth from 1990 to 2000. Migration, however, has been the main factor affecting population growth in the metropolitan area. Ac- cording to the Population Research Center, migration accounted for more than two-thirds of the area’s popula- tion increase from 1990 to 2000. HOUSEHOLDS Metro has maintained historical in- formation on the number of house- holds since 1990. The number of households between 1990 and 2002 is summarized in Table 1N. As shown in this table, growth in the number of households has been nearly equivalent to population growth. EMPLOYMENT Employment opportunities affect mi- gration to the metropolitan area and population growth. Historically, when unemployment rates have been low in the metropolitan area, net migration has increased. Except for an upswing in 1992-1993, unemployment re- mained below five percent in the met- ropolitan area between 1988 and 2000. Unemployment grew to six percent in 2001, and over eight percent in 2002 and 2003. Table 1P summarizes total employ- ment for the metropolitan area from 1970 to 2002. As shown in the table, the metropolitan area recorded consis- tent growth in total employment be- tween 1970 and 2000. During that 30- year period, total employment grew by more than 741,000. Between 2000 and 2002, total employment decreased by 5,800. The decline in total em- ployment follows with the increases in unemployment in 2001 and 2002. Be- tween 1970 and 2002, total employ- ment grew at three percent annually. This is 1.1 percent higher than the population growth over that period, which was 1.9 percent annually. Historically, wage and salary em- ployment has accounted for 80 percent of all employment. Self-employment, partnerships, and wage salary work- ers accounted for approximately 19 percent, while defense employment has historically accounted for less than one percent of total employment in the Portland-Vancouver PMSA. Non-manufacturing wage and salary employment has grown the greatest of all employment categories, adding more than 509,000 workers between 1970 and 2002. Only 51,000 manufac- turing jobs were added since 1970, with over 46,000 of those in durable manufacturing. The proprietors plus category has grown by over 174,000, whereas military employment has slightly declined. 1-41 TABLE 1P Total Employment Portland-Vancouver PMSA EMPLOYMENT * Wage and Salary Year Total Emp. w/Defense Percent Change Proprietors Plus Durable Mtg. Non-Durable Mtg. Non-Mfg. Military 1970 475,600 N/A 78,700 56,500 32,100 301,500 6,800 1975 561,100 18.0% 99,700 63,000 30,800 359,600 8,000 1980 699,300 24.6% 120,100 86,100 32,700 453,800 6,600 1985 728,500 4.2% 142,500 75,200 32,200 470,900 7,800 1990 891,500 22.4% 168,000 85,300 36,400 593,500 8,300 1995 1,038,800 16.5% 201,100 94,600 40,300 695,600 7,200 2000 1,217,000 17.2% 252,200 107,400 38,100 812,500 6,800 2001 1,215,800 -0.1% 254,300 105,000 37,200 812,500 6,700 2002 1,211,200 -0.4% 253,300 103,300 37,100 810,900 6,600 Average Annual Growth Rate 1970-1980 3.9% 4.7% 4.39% 0.2% 4.2% -0.3% 1980-1990 2.5% 3.4% -0.1% 1.1% 2.7% 2.3% 1990-2000 2.6% 3.5% 1.6% 0.2% 2.6% -1.9% 2000-2002 3.0% 3.7% 1.9% 0.5% 3.1% -0.1% Source: Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional Forecast for the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area, September 2002 * Includes Partnerships, self-employed, and wage salary workers Components of Wage and Salary Employment Wage and salary employment is cate- gorized by industry to aid in the un- derstanding of employment character- istics in the Portland-Vancouver PMSA. There are nine categories of wage and salary employment as shown in Table 1Q. Service is the largest category of employment, repre- senting 29.3 percent of total wage and salary employment in 2002. This category has shown the largest amount of growth since 1970, growing by nearly 210,000 positions. The ser- vice category has increased from 17.8 percent of wage and salary employ- ment in 1970. Growth in the Retail Trade sector since 1970 was second only to growth in the Service category. Between 1970 and 2002, the retail trade category grew by 105,300 positions. State and local government had the third largest employment gain, growing by 59,100 positions. The Manufacturing sector saw the next largest job growth, grow- ing by 51,800 positions. The Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (F.I.R.E.) sector grew by 39,200 positions during this time period; while Construction and Mining grew by 35,700 positions; Wholesale Trade grew by 32,600 posi- tions; Transportation, Communica- tions, and Utilities grew by 24,000 po- sitions; and Federal Civilian employ- ment grew by 4,000 positions. 1-42 TABLE 1Q Components of Wage and Salary Employment Portland-Vancouver PMSA WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT Year Total C&M Man. T.C.&U. Wholesale Trade Retail Trade F.I.R.E. Service St. & Loc. Govt. Fed. Civ. Govt. 1970 390,100 17,600 88,600 30,500 32,400 62,100 25,300 69,600 49,900 14,100 1975 453,400 18,700 93,800 30,900 36,400 77,500 32,700 88,500 60,000 15,000 1980 572,600 26,000 118,800 37,100 46,000 99,500 46,600 114,200 68,100 16,400 1985 578,300 21,400 107,400 36,800 48,500 102,200 45,000 131,400 69,200 16,600 1990 715,200 36,300 121,700 41,600 55,200 128,200 52,100 182,200 79,900 18,100 1995 830,500 45,000 134,900 47,800 61,800 147,100 59,800 226,100 90,600 17,600 2000 958,000 53,900 145,500 55,400 67,200 168,100 64,500 276,300 108,500 18,500 2001 954,800 53,100 142,200 54,800 65,600 168,100 64,600 278,900 109,700 17,900 2002 951,300 53,300 140,400 54,500 65,000 167,400 64,500 279,100 109,000 18,100 Average Annual Growth Rate 1970-1980 3.9% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 3.6% 4.8% 6.3% 5.1% 3.2% 1.5% 1980-1990 2.2% 3.4% 0.2% 1.2% 1.8% 2.6% 1.1% 4.8% 1.6% 1.0% 1990-2000 3.4% 3.3% 1.2% 2.3% 1.4% 2.2% 1.8% 3.6% 2.6% 0.0% 2000-2002 2.8% 3.5% 1.4% 1.8% 2.2% 3.1% 3.0% 4.4% 2.5% 0.8% Source: Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional Forecast for the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area, September 2002. C&M -- Construction and Mining T.C. & U. -- Transportation, Communication, and Utilities F.I.R.E. -- Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate St. -- State Loc. -- Local Fed. -- Federal Civ. -- Civilian Govt. -- Government PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME Per capita personal income (PCPI) for the Portland-Vancouver PMSA is summarized in Table 1R. PCPI is de- termined by dividing total income by population. Therefore, for PCPI to grow significantly, income growth must outpace population growth. PCPI figures in the table have been adjusted to constant 1996 dollars to eliminate the effects of inflation. As shown in the table, PCPI has grown significantly since 1970, growing at an average annual rate of 6.5 percent be- tween 1970 and 2002. However, PCPI has shown the slowest growth rate lately. Between 1990 and 2002, PCPI grew at only 3.9 percent annually. Be- tween 1980 and 1990, PCPI grew at 6.5 percent annually, while PCPI grew at 10 percent annually between 1970 and 1980. CLIMATE Weather plays an important role in the operational capabilities of an air- port. Temperature is an important factor in determining runway length required for aircraft operations. The percentage of time that visibility is impaired due to cloud coverage is a major factor in determining the use of instrument approach aids. Wind 1-43 speed and direction determine runway selection and operational flow. TABLE 1R Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Portland-Vancouver PMSA Year Per Capita Personal Income, 1996$ 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 $4,368 6,813 11,324 15,179 20,649 25,377 31,844 32,455 32,563 Average Annual Growth Rate 1970-1980 10.0% 1980-1990 6.2% 1990-2000 3.9% 2000-2002 6.5% Source: Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional Forecast for the Portland- Vancouver Metropolitan Area, September 2002. Approximately 88 percent of the re- gion’s annual rainfall total occurs in the months of October through May, 9 percent in June and September, while only 3 percent comes in July and Au- gust. Precipitation is mostly rain, as on the average there are only five days each year with measurable snow. Snowfalls are seldom more than a couple of inches, and generally last only a few days. The winter season is marked by relatively mild tempera- tures, cloudy skies and rain, with southeasterly surface winds predomi- nating. Summer produces pleasantly mild temperatures, northwesterly winds and very little precipitation. Fall and spring are transitional in na- ture. Fall and early winter are times with the most frequent fog. Table 1S summarizes typical temperature and precipitation data for the region. TABLE 1S Temperature and Precipitation Data Temperature (Fahrenheit) Means Maximum Minimum Precipitation (inches) January 45.4 33.3 6.31 February 50.6 35.0 4.49 March 55.4 37.0 3.93 April 61.5 39.7 2.21 May 68.1 44.4 1.79 June 73.6 49.5 1.46 July 80.7 52.5 0.48 August 80.7 51.9 0.83 September 76.1 47.7 1.39 October 64.3 41.6 2.95 November 52.6 37.7 5.78 December 46.2 34.3 6.62 Annual 62.9 42.1 38.24 Source: International Station Meteorological Climate Summary, 1926-1995. 1-44 As shown in Table 1T, on average, rain falls 196 days per year and visibility is restricted 142 days annu- ally. TABLE 1T Mean Number of Days by Month with Precipitation or Obstructions to Vision Precipitation (Days) Obstruction to Vision1 (Days) January February March April May June July August September October November December 22 19 21 19 16 13 7 8 11 16 21 23 16 13 11 9 6 5 5 8 14 20 18 17 Annual Total 196 142 Source: International Station Meteorological Climate Summary, 1926-1995 1 Smoke, Haze, Blowing Snow, Sand, Dust According to Federal Aviation Admini- stration regulations, visual flight con- ditions exist when the cloud ceilings are 3,000 feet above the ground and visibility is greater than three miles. As shown in Table 1U, these condi- tions occur 81.2 percent of the time in the Portland region. When flight con- ditions with lower visibility and cloud ceilings exist, pilots must rely on navigational aids to safely navigate and land at Hillsboro Airport. The ex- isting airport navigational aids are re- lied upon 18.8 percent of the time. TABLE 1U Percent Frequency of Ceiling and Visibility Conditions Visibility (Statute Miles) Ceiling > = 1 > = ¾ > = ½ > = ¼ > = 3,000’ 81.2% 81.3% 81.5% 81.6% > = 500’ 96.6% 96.8% 97.0% 97.2% > = 200’ 97.5% 97.9% 98.3% 98.6% > = 100’ 97.6% 98.0% 98.4% 98.8% > = 0’ 97.6% 98.0% 98.4% 98.9% Source: International Station Meteorological Climate Summary, 1926-1995. 1-45 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS INVENTORY As part of the Master Plan update for Portland’s Hillsboro Airport (HIO), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends early consideration of environmental consequences. This inventory summarizes those aspects of the environment that occur at HIO and how they might be considered within the alternatives planning proc- ess. The categories and level of detail presented are in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Environmental Handbook (FAA 5050.4A). The purpose of this inventory is to provide a preliminary review of environmental issues that would need to be analyzed in more de- tail within the NEPA or the permit- ting process for specific projects that may trigger the need for such analy- sis. Consequently, this analysis does not address mitigation or the resolu- tion of environmental impacts. Each of the environmental categories listed in FAA Order 5050.4A were in- vestigated within this inventory. Data, maps, aerial photographs, published and non-published literature were re- searched and obtained as listed in the report bibliography. The data sources were primarily from Port of Portland’s environmental offices located at its downtown headquarters building and at the Aviation Office located at the Portland International Airport. Other sources included Metro, City of Hills- boro, Washington County, Clean Wa- ter Services and federal agencies. Mapped data was reviewed (and up- dated) in consultation with the Port’s environmental managers. Tabular data associated with the GIS mapping was reviewed and summarized for this inventory. None of the resource infor- mation was field checked for this pre- liminary review; however, field verifi- cation will be conducted prior to any further NEPA compliance or permit- ting activity. There are several environmental re- sources within the FAA Order 5050.4A that are not relevant to the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan either because they do not exist there or they are be- ing investigated as part of a separate study for the planning effort (i.e., op- erational noise and land use compati- bility). Resource information and op- portunities or constraints are pre- sented below for each of the FAA Or- der 5050.4A categories with the excep- tion of coastal zones and coastal barri- ers, as these categories do not appear within or near the HIO. Additionally, there are several categories that do not occur in the Airport Environ- mental Handbook (Order 5050.4A) but are investigated in this inventory be- cause they pertain to HIO. SOCIAL IMPACTS Authority: Uniform Relocation Assis- tance and Real Property Acquisition Policies of 1970 and Washington County and City of Hillsboro Ordi- nances and Codes. These impacts are often associated with the relocation of residents or businesses or other community disrup- tions. The airport is surrounded by residential and industrial land uses. Compliance with the Uniform Reloca- tion Assistance and Real Property Ac- 1-46 quisition Policies Act will be required for the purchase of any residence, business or farmland envisioned for any potential development of the air- port. INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Authority: Washington County and City of Hillsboro Ordinances and Codes The likelihood of significant induced socioeconomic impacts is extremely low. These impacts, where they occur, include shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, increases in public services demand, and major changes in business and economic ac- tivity. If the planning alternatives fo- cus on a preferred alternative that creates significant impacts in noise, land use or direct social impacts, only then would there be greater induced socioeconomic impacts. Again, there would have to be significant direct im- pacts to result in significant induced impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Authority: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environ- mental Justice in Minority Popula- tions and Low-Income Populations. The potential for displacement of mi- nority or low income populations at a higher percentage than the general population is low. The principal areas of analysis to determine potential en- vironmental justice impacts to the ra- cial groups are guided by the following three concepts from the USDOT, Envi- ronmental Justice – The Facts, July 3, 2002. 1) Avoid, minimize, or mitigate dis- proportionately high and adverse human health or environmental ef- fects including social and economic effects on minority and low income populations, 2) Ensure the full and fair participa- tion by residents in the affected community, and 3) Prevent the denial or, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low in- come populations. From the standpoint of Concept 1, the age cohort and income level of resi- dents within the City of Hillsboro are not minority populations or high per- centage of elderly; therefore should any displacements occur (which is re- mote), there would not be a dispropor- tionate adverse effect on these groups. From the standpoint of Concept 2, the Master Plan project will have numer- ous public meetings and open houses as well as other media outreach (news- letters, meetings with neighborhood groups). The Port has appointed a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) with neighborhood representatives to assist them in identifying alternatives and decide on the preferred alterna- tive. Neighborhood residents and oth- ers will be encouraged to attend all meetings and to contact the Port’s pro- ject manager should they have any questions regarding the project. 1-47 From the standpoint of Concept 3, the Port will identify any direct or secon- dary impacts to residents in the pro- ject study area. For those residents that have the potential to be nega- tively impacted, the Port would take compensatory actions in the form of financial compensation for property and improvements to be acquired in part or full, relocation benefits, and other measures to ensure that all resi- dents would be fairly treated. WATER QUALITY Authority: Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977; 1982 Airport Act There are two hydrographic basins within the airport property, both part of the Tualatin River basin, a water quality limited river. The DEQ is es- tablishing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) on waters of the state that have been designated water quality limited. Both Dawson and McKay Creeks eventually discharge to the Tualatin and the TMDLs will be es- tablished as part of the Tualatin Basin program. Approximating the northern boundary of the property, the unnamed tribu- tary flows into McKay Creek approxi- mately 2.6 miles toward the northwest of the airport boundary. The unnamed tributary is an intermittent drainage that flows to McKay Creek which dis- charges to Dairy Creek, a major tribu- tary of the Tualatin River. Dawson Creek flows southeast on the eastern portion of the airport property. Dawson Creek is a regionally signifi- cant feature that is protected under the jurisdiction of Clean Water Ser- vices. Pesticides are used to control pests and weeds throughout the airport property. This ongoing lawn and land- scaping maintenance also require that water quality standards (OAR 340-41) be upheld by the Port or the tenants of the HIO. An extensive storm water pollution control program (SWPCP) is in place for the Port and industrial tenants at HIO. This program is described under storm water, below. There is some po- tential for water quality degradation due to storm water runoff from office buildings, parking lots and other non- regulated activities since storm water discharges from site areas not associ- ated with industrial activity are not subject to SWPCP monitoring re- quirements. AIR QUALITY Authority: Section 176 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977; 1982 Airport Act The FAA is responsible for assuring that Federal airport actions conform to state Plans for controlling area wide air pollution impacts. Oregon is a state that does not have applicable in- direct source review (ISR) require- ments, so the need for air quality analysis is assessed based upon the 1-48 activity levels of the facility. An air quality analysis is required for general aviation airports if the levels of activ- ity forecast in the time frame of the proposed action are greater than 180,000 operations forecast annually. Hillsboro Airport currently has over 200,000 annual operations, so an emissions inventory for the existing airport conditions and forecast condi- tions with and without the project will be required as part of any future NEPA review. The DEQ Air Quality should be consulted on the format and methods as well as to review the re- sults of the study to be certain that HIO will be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Ad- ditional analysis would be required only if the project did not conform to the SIP or that the proposed project resulted in carbon monoxide levels that exceeded state or national stan- dards. SECTION 4F Authority: Section 4(f) of the De- partment of Transportation Act 1966 Section 4(f) of the DOT Act aims to protect key public lands including fed- eral, state or local public parks, rec- reation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or historic sites from impacts associated with transportation pro- jects. Hillsboro Airport is owned by the Port of Portland. There is no public recrea- tion or park land within the airport boundaries. The Washington County fairgrounds is just south of Cornell Road and is accessed from Sewell Road. The Port of Portland may need to address this public use area if any of the alternatives would require use of the County fairgrounds. HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Authority: National Historic Preser- vation Act of 1966, as amended and Archeological and Historic Preserva- tion Act of 1974 There have been several cultural re- source surveys of the Hillsboro Airport vicinity for purposes of improvement to Evergreen Road and for the airport runway safety area project. The re- cords search and literature review in- dicated that the project area lies within the traditional homeland of the Tualatin Indians. As such, there is a probability that archaeological re- sources could occur especially along the waterways. There are no proper- ties that are eligible for the National Historic Site Register or National His- toric Landmarks within the Hillsboro area. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES Authority: Clean Water Services, ODFW, Metro, Port of Portland’s re- source management policies; if affect- ing water resources- Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act This section includes discussion of the following aspects of the biotic commu- 1-49 nities: watershed, creeks and water- ways; wildlife habitat types and struc- ture (Exhibit 1G and Exhibit 1H); vegetation including noxious or inva- sive plant species and control; wildlife use and potential wildlife hazards; and sensitivity of the biotic communi- ties relative to the region’s natural re- source goals and policies. The value of the waterways is dis- cussed under water quality and en- dangered species sections of this re- port. Local wildlife habitat (Exhibit 1G) for HIO are homogeneous com- prised almost entirely of improved pasture, perennial grass seed hay or grass/forb plant communities. Excep- tions to this as previously mentioned are the herbaceous wetland habitats around the waterways and particu- larly the mixed conifer – hardwood woodlands in the eastern bounds of the airport along Dawson Creek. Ri- parian vegetation, i.e. cottonwood, wil- low, ash forest, exists in this same cor- ridor as well as several small patches of medium height conifer. The Port’s GIS database contains spe- cific notes on exotic plants that occur on HIO. Four noxious weeds, i.e. Hi- malayan blackberry, Scot’s broom, English ivy, and bull thistle and four invasive species, i.e. reed canary grass, thistle, teasel and poison hem- lock occur on the HIO property. The incidence of these plant species ap- pears to be higher along the natural resource protection zones and water- ways; this may be because the Port conducts routine weed control as part of their maintenance. Reed canary grass and Himalayan blackberry and thistle are abundant within the ripar- ian corridor along Dawson Creek. Reed canary grass is also common in the wetlands along the northern boundary of the airport. Control of in- vasive and noxious weeds is recom- mended but problematic as chemical treatment is sometimes forbidden and manual removal is costly and often re- quires repeat treatment (Personal communication, D. Green, July 2003). Raptors are a threat to aircraft and airfield operations. There are no nest trees on the HIO property and bald eagle do not occur there. Red-tailed hawk may frequent the airport forag- ing for food and hazing harassment is not effective when a prey base is pre- sent. The options to exclude red tails or other raptors include direct inter- vention or reduction of the prey base. The HIO has a perimeter fence, but the hawk’s prey base, e.g. voles, moles, field mice, are present. A preferred method of reducing raptor use on the airfield is to install an exclusion fence with underground apron to exclude the small burrowing mammals from the property. As much of the airport property has been altered through historic ranch- ing, agriculture, industry and the use of the site as an airfield since the 1930’s, the biotic communities within the airport boundaries are of relatively poor quality. The riparian habitat along Dawson Creek provides value to the local wildlife and is protected un- der Clean Water Services rules for vegetated corridors as well as under the State of Oregon Land Use Law, Goal 5 for Natural Resource Protec- tion. Although much is documented about the sensitivity of the biotic 1-50 communities, any airport actions would actually provide an opportunity for habitat improvements and wetland restoration and enhancement on sites outside of the airport operations areas. The Randall Site has been planned as a wetland mitigation area for im- provements completed along Ever- green Road and in connection with the Runway Safety Area project. Other sites should be considered for natural resource preservation or restoration should the property acquisition con- tinue in the surrounding the airport boundary. Invasive plant species re- moval and control, wetland restora- tion, reconnection of the historic flood plains and other mitigative measures are certainly all available and would allow the HIO to better meet the re- gion’s natural resource goals and poli- cies. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES Authority: Section 7 Endangered Species Act, as amended. The HIO is in the Tualatin River Ba- sin along an unnamed tributary to McKay Creek and to the west of the Dawson Creek. This section describes the known endangered, threatened or sensitive plant or animal species within the study area. In this case the study area was broadened beyond the airport boundaries to the area of eco- logical influence, the portion of the Tualatin River Basin that includes the Dawson and McKay Creeks and their tributaries. Agencies that were con- sulted include the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Ma- rine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisher- ies). The response to a species request letters from the Oregon Natural Heri- tage Program included bald eagle, Upper Willamette River steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), North- western Pond Turtle (Emys marmo- rata ssp. marmorata) and Shaggy Horkelia (Horkelia congesta ssp. con- gesta) as potentially present within a two mile radius of the study area. The significance of this fish listing is dis- cussed in the Section X, Essential Fish Habitat. Wildlife and plants are within the riparian areas that are dis- cussed within Section VIII, Biotic Communities. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT Authority: Section 305 Magnuson- Stevenson Act of 1996, as amended. Under Section 305 of the Magnuson- Stevens Act, federal agencies that au- thorize, fund, or undertake any action that may adversely affect any essen- tial fish habitat (EFH) are required to consult with NOAA-Fisheries to re- ceive recommendations on measures necessary to conserve or enhance EFH. Statutorily defined, EFH is those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. EFH is desig- nated on the basis of information indi- cating that certain aquatic habitats or conditions are necessary to sustain the fishery. Response from NOAA Fisher- ies indicates that all aquatic habitat within the project study area is desig- 03 M P0 1- 1G -5 /6 /0 5 Exhibit 1G LOCAL WILDLIFE-HABITAT CLASSES PORT OF PORTLAND N 03 M P0 1- 1H -5 /6 /0 5 Exhibit 1H HABITAT STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS PORT OF PORTLAND N 1-51 nated as EFH for chinook and coho salmon (Correspondence re Hillsboro Airport from NOAA Fisheries, July 2, 2003). The type of EFH potentially af- fected by this project is freshwater, riverine salmonid spawning and rear- ing habitat. There is no chinook salmon or steelhead trout spawning or rearing habitat within the intermit- tent tributary to McKay Creek (Final Biological Assessment for the Runway Safety Area, January 24, 2001). Es- sential fish habitat for coho and win- ter-run steelhead occurs within Daw- son Creek, therefore, if there is any activity planned that may adversely effect the Dawson Creek system, both the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries should be consulted. MIGRATORY BIRDS Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended. Migratory birds are protected under this federal law. It is specifically pro- hibited to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill …any migratory birds or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird. For general aviation airports, it is typi- cally upheld by taking measures to ex- clude (or at least not attract) migra- tory birds from the airport operations areas. Measures must be taken to limit the open ponded areas or types of landscape vegetation that would be an attractant to the birds as they mi- grate. Currently there is a storm wa- ter collection ditch on the airport run- way that collects water from both the runway as well as the filled bench area to the north of the runway. This ditch is filled with water during the bird migration period and it attracts waterfowl (Personal Communication, D. Green, July 2003). Plans are un- derway to redesign the storm water system as part of the Phase IV Airfield Improvement Program, such that the runoff does not pond but is immedi- ately piped underground thereby eliminating this hazard. WETLANDS Authority: Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, Section 404 Clean Water Act The wetlands that have been identi- fied on the airport property include riverine slope systems that are associ- ated with the creeks and tributaries to the McKay and Dawson Creeks (Ex- hibit 1J). There are a few isolated wetlands that are depressional closed systems related to historic remnants of pre existing waterways. The Corps of Engineers no longer claims jurisdic- tion over the isolated depressional closed systems that are not hydrologi- cally connected to the water of the U.S. No comprehensive wetlands in- ventory has been made for all Port of Portland properties; however, most of the wetlands have been identified from aerial photographic interpreta- tion and from project specific delinea- tions done for the development pro- jects approved on the HIO property within the past five years. The wet- lands shown in the areas around the McKay Creek were field verified. Also, 1-52 the wetlands associated with the Dawson Creek (southeast airport boundary) have been inventoried as part of the Healthy Streams program for the Clean Water Services (formerly Unified Sewerage Agency) as shown on Figures 2 and 4. The Randall Prop- erty NW 860 334th Avenue is being used as the Port’s mitigation bank for wetland impacts resulting from air- port improvements under the current program (Preliminary Final Compen- satory Mitigation Plan, Entranco Au- gust 24, 2000). Most of the wetland mitigation credits for this site are al- ready slated for (Personal Communi- cation, D. Green, July 2003); therefore it is recommended that additional wet- land compensatory mitigation sites be identified for any future needs. FLOODPLAINS Authority: Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; DOT Order 5650.2 Floodplain Management and Protection The intent of Executive Order 11988 is to mandate federal agencies to try to avoid flood loss and impact on human health and welfare by identifying and avoiding development within the 100 year floodplain, where practicable. The Order defines floodplains as “the lowland and relatively flat areas ad- joining inland and coastal waters in- cluding floodprone areas of offshore including at a minimum that area sub- ject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year”, i.e. the area that would be inundated by a 100-year flood. There are two floodplains within the HIO boundary (Exhibit 1J). The flood- plain hydraulics of the intermittent tributary to McKay Creek are very well known (Entranco, December 12, 2000) because of the engineering mod- eling conducted as part of the Runway Safety Area project. Dawson Creek floodplain 100-year storm event should be considered if any of the pro- posed alternatives would be proposed in the southern half of the airport property. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Authority: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act There are no rivers with a wild or sce- nic designation within the HIO vicin- ity. Onsite waterways are creeks and intermittent drainages. The nearest major river to the airport is the Tuala- tin River which is not designated or nominated for wild and/or scenic des- ignation. FARMLANDS Authority: Farmland Protection Pol- icy Act (FPPA), P.L. 97 98 This section relates to the degree to which the lands within the HIO qual- ify as protected agricultural lands, prime or unique farmlands. The Farm- land Protection Policy Act (FPPA), P.L. 97 98, authorizes the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop cri- teria for identifying the effects of Fed- eral programs on the conversion of 03 M P0 1- 1J -5 /6 /0 5 Exhibit 1J FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS PORT OF PORTLAND 1-53 farmland to nonagricultural uses. Federal agencies are directed to use the developed criteria; to identify and take into account the adverse effects of Federal programs on the preservation of farmland; to consider appropriate alternative actions which could lessen adverse effects; and to assure that such Federal programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with state, unit of local government, and private programs and policies to protect farm- land. Guidelines developed by the USDA be- came effective August 6, 1984, and apply to Federal activities or responsi- bilities that involve undertaking, fi- nancing or assisting construction or improvement projects or acquiring, managing, or disposing of Federal lands and facilities. For Airports Pro- gram actions, this includes proposed Airport Improvement Program pro- jects and requests for conveyances of government land. The guidelines do not cover permitting or licensing pro- grams for activities on private or non- federal lands. Airport Layout Plan (ALP) approval, involving only devel- opment shown on an ALP which is not to be federally funded, even if farm- land is involved, is exempt from FPPA. Some categorically excluded actions on prime or unique farmlands will still require coordination under the FPPA. The land for the Hillsboro Airport was acquired in 1966; therefore, the FPPA does not apply and no formal coordina- tion with the Natural Resource Con- servation Service (NRCS) is required because the land was purchased prior to August 6, 1984, for purposes of be- ing converted. For those lands outside of the airport boundary that may be acquired for future development, the prime or unique farmland designation should be confirmed and NRCS should be consulted. ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Authority: none specifically There is some potential for changes in energy demands (i.e., terminal build- ing heating or for airfield lighting). Should the airport alternatives re- quire increased demands for electric- ity, Portland General Electric would be contacted. Any change to the air- port layout or terminal facilities or in- dustrial tenants could have an in- creased demand on the gas, electrical, communications or sewer systems. For increased gas or fuel consumption due to the movement of air or ground vehicles, the total volume of this can not be determined until alternative scenarios are identified and clarified. LIGHT EMISSIONS Authority: none specifically The majority of airfield lighting is for the benefit of airborne craft, and is typically placed with an orientation that does not affect nearby residents, as the lighting is oriented toward the sky or the approach. For this prelimi- nary inventory, no lighting was mapped and the Port of Portland air- port operations had no record of com- plaints. 1-54 Placement of future lighting at the air- field has the potential to annoy people in the vicinity of the installation. Im- pacts are a result of increased opera- tions and upgraded facilities. Should this occur, decisions on the placement of new lights must be made in consid- eration of the proximity to sensitive receptors such as residences or com- mercial facilities. Measures to shield or make adjustments to the light angle will often lessen the annoyance. Only under special circumstances would high intensity strobe lights be neces- sary and placement of these must be carefully evaluated with input from the community. SOLID WASTE Authority: RCRA, City of Hillsboro Sanitation and Disposal Solid waste collection and disposal ac- tivities must be conducted at sufficient distance from the existing runways and taxiways to avoid interference with runway operations. HIO does not operate an on-site solid waste landfill. Exhibit 1K shows the location of the nearest landfill that currently receives refuse and solid waste from HIO. Hillsboro Sanitation and Disposal Services receives the unconsolidated refuse from the airport’s 1.5 cubic yard container each week; it is typically underutilized (Personal communica- tion, Sanitation Engineer, Hillsboro Sanitation and Disposal, July 2003). Also a refuse compactor with a 1.23- ton capacity is located at HIO. The refuse from this unit is picked up every three weeks from the airport and hauled to the Forest Grove trans- fer station and eventually to the McMinnville Landfill (Personal com- munication, Hillsboro Sanitation and Disposal Service, July 2003). HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Authority: CERCLA; SARA; RCRA; TRIS; UST/AST Potential pollutants are associated with the airport industrial areas op- erations. Potential pollutants are in- ventoried as described within the Storm Water Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP) and include a variety of fu- els and used oils, washing detergent and oils and grease, herbicides and pesticides, paints, thinners and sol- vents. The controls and containment catch basins and filters for these fuels and chemicals are part of the airports extensive storm utilities. For properties that are being consid- ered for acquisition northeast of the airport’s primary runway, hazardous materials and storage tanks were in- ventoried as part of the preliminary site assessments conducted by the Port of Portland for Tax Lots 800, 900, 1100 and 2800. Port of Portland has references for the status of disposition of soil or water contamination, and any tanks that occur either above or under ground on each of these proper- ties (S. Jones, Port of Portland, July 2003). 03 M P0 1- 1K -5 /6 /0 5 Exhibit 1K NEAREST LANDFILL PORT OF PORTLAND 1-55 STORM WATER PERMITS, SPCC, AND SWPCP PLANS Authority: Section 402, Clean Water Act; Underground Injection Control program (OAR 340-044-0050) Storm water runoff quantity, quality and handling are a primary issue at airports in general and at HIO specifi- cally. An extensive storm water pollu- tion control program is in place for the Port and industrial tenants at HIO (Figure 11). The storm water control and handling system is designed to quickly remove water from the airport surfaces and direct surface runoff into discharge areas that are permitted through the U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency pursuant to the Na- tional Pollutant Discharge Elimina- tion System. As part of the compliance with the federal and state implemen- tation of the Clean Water Act, a Storm Water Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP) has been developed by the Port of Portland and its thirteen co- permittees. The co-permittees are ten- ants at HIO that include aeronautics and aircraft maintenance related businesses that use fuels that must be stored either above or under ground. The control measures outlined in the HIO SWPCP are intended to meet the requirements of the 1200-Z Permit. The Oregon DEQ originally issued the Port of Portland this permit in No- vember 1997 and extensive monthly monitoring is conducted, as required, on all industrial operations within the airport boundaries. Operations include vehicle and aircraft maintenance in- cluding rehabilitation, mechanical re- pairs maintenance painting fueling and lubrication equipment cleaning operations and wholesale bulk petro- leum storage and handling facilities. Outfalls of the six drainage areas with industrial activity exposed to storm water are monitored using both grab samples and visual techniques. OPERATIONAL INVENTORY AND AVIATION NOISE This section summarizes the October 2002 through September 2003 esti- mate of the number of operations and type of aircraft operating (typically re- ferred to as the fleet mix) at Hillsboro Airport. This section also provides the calculation of existing or current noise exposure contours generated from the operation of this fleet mix at the Hills- boro Airport during that time period. This analysis defines the baseline fleet mix and noise exposure condition for Hillsboro Airport. This baseline con- dition will form the basis for determin- ing the future fleet mix within Chap- ter Three, Aviation Demand Fore- casts, and future facilities needs for the projected fleet mix, which will be defined within Chapter Four, Aviation Facility Requirements. This analysis does not consider any new noise abatement procedures to reduce noise exposure. The existing noise contour maps shown in this sec- tion will serve as a baseline against which the noise exposure patterns re- sulting from potential changes in the airfield configurations will be com- pared and evaluated during the alter- natives analysis and final concept as- pects of the Master Plan. 1-56 OPERATIONAL INVENTORY The number and type of aircraft oper- ating at the airport (typically referred to as the fleet mix) is important for the Airport Master Plan. First, this in- formation is used in the analysis of aircraft noise emissions and air qual- ity (to be completed separately by the Port during future NEPA review). Since different aircraft types generate different noise and emission levels, the computer modeling requires the defi- nition of aircraft by type and the number of operations attributable to those aircraft. Secondly, an under- standing of the mix of aircraft operat- ing at the airport is needed to define several critical airport design consid- erations for the airport. The mix of aircraft is important to defining the capacity of the runway system and size and type of landside facilities such as hangars and aircraft parking aprons. For example, business class aircraft require a different type and size of hangar facility than do smaller, general aviation aircraft. Annual Operations Prior to defining the mix of aircraft operating at an airport, a full account- ing of annual aircraft operations must be determined. As detailed previously in this chapter, an operation is defined as either a takeoff or a landing. Air- craft operations are further classified as either local or itinerant. Local op- erations are performed by aircraft which: (a) Operate in the local traffic pat- tern or within sight of the airport; (b) Are known to be departing for or arriving from flight in local practice areas located within a 20-mile radius of the airport; (c) Execute simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport. Itinerant operations are all other op- erations and essentially represent the originating or departing aircraft. The number of recorded local opera- tions at an airport does not equate ex- actly to the number of flights. Since one aircraft’s flight to the airport counts as two operations (one opera- tion for the arrival and one operation for the departure), the number of flights to and from the airport is es- sentially half of the total number of operations. For example, if there are 100 recorded local operations at the airport at a given time, there would be approximately 50 flights. It is important to understand this dis- tinction, especially when considering those aircraft that conduct local train- ing operations at an airport and their subsequent flights in the training pat- tern. A common training practice for helicopter or fixed wing aircraft is a “touch-and-go.” A touch-and-go in- volves the pilot landing, then immedi- ately departing. Since there is a land- ing and departure, a touch-and-go is counted as two operations even though only one aircraft, or flight, was in- volved. Each and every aircraft arrival to and departure from Hillsboro Airport re- ceiving a specific air traffic control in- struction is counted by FAA Airport 1-57 Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) person- nel as one operation. In October 2003, the FAA ATCT changed the manner in which they counted helicopter opera- tions. As detailed earlier, when a helicopter is in the Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie pattern, FAA ATCT personnel only count the entry into the pattern or the exit from the pattern as an op- eration since this is when they provide a helicopter pilot with specific air traf- fic instructions. The FAA air traffic controllers keep track of operations by clicking a counter each time an air- craft is issued an instruction. Airport Traffic Control Tower Count The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is the primary source for the number of operations occurring at an airport. The Hillsboro Airport ATCT is open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. During this period, aircraft op- erations at the airport are controlled and counted/logged by ATCT person- nel. Between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., there is no FAA tower-directed control of aircraft landings and depar- tures at Hillsboro Airport. After 10:00 p.m., pilots maintain separation be- tween aircraft by following standard traffic flight patterns and announcing their position and intentions over a radio frequency. Thus, aircraft opera- tions after the tower is closed are not counted by the FAA. Federal air traffic control guidance specifies for ATCT personnel exactly how operations are to be recorded for the official ATCT count. Keeping in mind that the principal purpose of the FAA ATCT operational count is to de- fine the workload of personnel within the ATCT, national air traffic control guidance allows the ATCT personnel to record as operations only those air- craft operations in which ATCT clear- ance was issued. ATCT clearance is provided for the departure and arrival of all fixed wing aircraft. Therefore, most fixed wing operations are re- corded by the ATCT. As shown in Table 1V, the ATCT re- corded 234,627 operations between October 2002 and September 2003. During the summer of 2003 the ATCT estimates that some helicopter opera- tions may not have been fully ac- counted for in the ATCT count due to the changes in recording operations. For this reason, the ATCT has advised that the local operations count for Oc- tober 2002 to September 2003, be in- creased by 15,000 for an adjusted total of 249,627. TABLE 1V Annual Operations Hillsboro Airport October 2002 – September 2003 Day Night Total Local Itinerant Subtotal Local Itinerant Subtotal Operations ATCT Recorded Operations 143,649 90,978 234,627 Adjusted ATCT Count 158,649 90,978 249,627 Port of Portland Estimate 1,753 2,467 4,220 Total Annual Operations 158,649 90,978 249,627 1,753 2,467 4,220 253,847 Source: FAA, Port of Portland 1-58 Nighttime Operational Count Since the ATCT is closed between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (typically re- ferred to as “nighttime”), no opera- tions are recorded by FAA personnel for Hillsboro Airport during this pe- riod. However, the assessment of aviation noise and air quality requires an estimate of all operations including those unaccounted for by the ATCT between the above-referenced hours. To estimate operations between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., the Port completed a review of recorded aircraft radio transmissions on the Hillsboro Airport Common Traffic Ad- visory Frequency (CTAF). The CTAF is used by pilots after the ATCT is closed, to broadcast their position and intentions to other pilots. Aircraft type is commonly transmitted by pi- lots on the CTAF. The process used to estimate annual nighttime operations between October 2002 and September 2003 involved a review of CTAF tapes for three periods of time. These periods were deter- mined by the Port to have similar characteristics in terms of hours of daylight, prevailing weather, and number of aircraft operations. The periods were: Period 1: January, February, No- vember, December Period 2: March, April, September, October Period 3: May through August For period 1, 10 days of data from January 2004 were reviewed (every 3rd day starting on 1/3/04). This was av- eraged and multiplied by 3 to create a representative month of data. For pe- riod 2, 15 consecutive days in Septem- ber 2003 were reviewed. The results were then multiplied by 2 to create a representative month. For period 3, every day of August 2003 was moni- tored and tabulated. The figures de- rived for each of these periods were added together, divided by three to yield a monthly average for night op- erations, and then that figure was multiplied by 12 to create an annual estimate. As shown in Table 1V, the Port estimates that there were ap- proximately 4,220 annual operations conducted between October 2002 and September 2003, when the ATCT was closed. This equates to an average of 11 operations per day or approxi- mately 341 per month. DETERMINING THE FLEET MIX The type of aircraft operating at Hills- boro Airport is not regularly recorded. One reason for this is that the re- cording of aircraft type requires actual aircraft observation by a person on the ground, since there is no electronic method to record aircraft operations by type. Aircraft type is not transmit- ted by an aircraft nor captured by air traffic control radar (most operations at Hillsboro Airport are presently out- side radar coverage). While the air- craft type is recorded on aircraft flight plans, not all aircraft operating at Hillsboro Airport file a flight plan. 1-59 With the airport open 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, and handling over 250,000 annual operations, this would require a significant level of staff. Since fleet mix information is needed only periodically to reassess airport design parameters and there are al- ternative methods available to deter- mine fleet mix, the fleet mix for the airport is only reviewed periodically. To collect fleet mix data for Hillsboro Airport, several data sources and methods of collecting information on the fleet mix were employed. These sources and methods are described be- low. Landing Fee Summaries The Port of Portland collects a landing fee at Hillsboro Airport on general aviation aircraft used for commercial passenger or cargo operations and air- craft weighing 10,000 pounds or more. Since the landing fee is based upon the aircraft weight, the aircraft type must be known to accurately assess the landing fee. An examination of these landing fee reports which iden- tify aircraft by type provided data for defining many turboprop and most turbojet operations at the airport. Aircraft Operator Records Some airport tenants maintain opera- tional records by aircraft type. In co- operation with the Port of Portland, records maintained by the airport op- erators contributed to the definition of the fleet mix at Hillsboro Airport. Aircraft Radio Transmission Recordings As discussed earlier, the Port main- tains recordings of aircraft radio transmissions on the Hillsboro Airport Common Tower Area Frequency (CTAF). The type of aircraft operating after the ATCT is closed was esti- mated by the Port after reviewing se- lected CTAF tapes. Actual Aircraft Observations While examining landing fee reports, reviewing CTAF recordings, and util- izing records maintained by airport tenants provides some insight into the mix of aircraft operating at Hillsboro Airport, those data sources do not cover all operations at the airport. To gain a complete understanding of the type of aircraft operating at the air- port, as well as how they operate to and from the runway system, actual observations of aircraft activity were completed for Hillsboro Airport. This observation program involved one or more personnel located on the air- port, recording the following relevant data: • Time of operation • Aircraft registration number • Aircraft type 1-60 • Aircraft make and model • Runway or training pattern used • Approach and/or departure path • Number of touch-and-go’s • Taxi route • Total taxi time Aircraft observations were completed over three seasons – summer (June/July 2003), fall (October 2003), and winter (January 2004). In total, over 7,700 operations were recorded over 37 separate days and 200 hours of observations. Most observation pe- riods lasted between three and four hours, including weekdays, weekends, evening, and daytime hours. Table 1W summarizes the days air traffic was observed at Hillsboro Airport and the number of operations observed. EXISTING FLEET MIX The estimated fleet mix for Hillsboro Airport for October 2002 to September 2003 is shown in Table 1X. This mix was determined using the information sources stated above. Tenant records provided the helicopter count for the daytime local and itinerant count. The daytime fixed wing fleet mix was de- rived from the aircraft observation program. The nighttime mix was es- timated after reviewing the CTAF tapes. TABLE 1W Aircraft Observation Program Results Date Hours Observed Total Observed Operations 06/09/03 4 202 06/10/03 4 273 06/11/03 4 102 06/13/03 4 15 06/14/03 6 275 06/16/03 4 273 06/18/03 4 53 06/19/03 5 294 06/21/03 4 217 06/22/03 6 257 06/23/03 4 111 06/24/03 4 272 06/25/03 4 45 06/26/03 4 93 06/28/03 6 171 06/30/03 4 302 07/01/03 4 103 07/02/03 4 127 07/08/03 4 302 07/09/03 4 174 07/10/03 4 158 07/11/03 4 300 07/12/03 6 255 10/04/03 8 135 10/05/03 3 46 10/06/03 8 261 10/07/03 8 473 10/08/03 4 44 10/09/03 14 266 10/10/03 6 282 01/13/04 7 469 01/14/04 6 117 01/15/04 4 8 01/16/04 6 397 01/17/04 10 717 01/18/04 6 22 01/19/04 7 138 Totals 201 7,747 Source: Port of Portland, Coffman Associates 1-61 The analysis of the fleet mix for Hills- boro Airport revealed that there were approximately 165,700 fixed wing op- erations and 88,100 helicopter opera- tions between October 2002 and Sep- tember 2003. This resulted in fixed wing aircraft representing approxi- mately 65 percent of total annual op- erations, whereas helicopter opera- tions comprised the remaining 35 per- cent of total annual operations. TABLE 1X Estimated Fleet Mix and Aircraft Operations Day Night Aircraft Type Local Itinerant Total Local Itinerant Total Total All Operations Single Engine Piston – Fixed Propeller 72,317 49,644 121,961 1,307 776 2,083 124,044 Single Engine Piston – Variable Pitch Propeller 8,035 8,761 16,796 145 137 282 17,078 Multi-Engine Piston 2,356 4,990 7,346 57 115 172 7,518 Turboprop 2,084 4,797 6,882 72 266 338 7,219 Turbojet 272 8,940 9,212 57 583 640 9,852 Helicopter Piston 72,880 9,808 82,688 115 460 575 83,263 Helicopter Turbine 705 4,038 4,743 0 130 130 4,873 Total 158,649 90,978 249,627 1,753 2,467 4,220 253,847 Source: Port of Portland, Coffman Associates analysis Upon closer examination of the fixed wing fleet mix, it is evident that the single engine piston powered aircraft fleet represented approximately 85 percent of total fixed wing operations. Multi-engine piston powered aircraft, on the other hand, represented only five percent while, turboprop and tur- bojet aircraft represented four percent and six percent of total annual fixed wing operations, respectively. For helicopter operations, piston- powered helicopters represented ap- proximately 94 percent of helicopter operations, whereas turbine-powered helicopters represented the remaining six percent of helicopter operations. AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The standard methodology for analyz- ing the prevailing aircraft noise condi- tions at airports involves the use of a computer simulation model. The Fed- eral Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved the Integrated Noise Model (INM) for use in assessing air- craft noise. The latest versions of the INM are quite sophisticated in pre- dicting noise levels at a given location, accounting for such variables as air- field elevation, temperature, head- winds, and local topography. INM Version 6.1 was used to prepare noise exposure contours for Hillsboro Air- port. 1-62 Exhibit 1L depicts generic INM input assumptions. Inputs to the INM in- clude runway configuration, flight track locations, aircraft fleet mix, stage length (trip length) for depar- tures, and numbers of daytime and nighttime operations by aircraft type. The INM provides a database for the general aviation aircraft which com- monly operate at Hillsboro Airport. The INM computes typical flight pro- files for aircraft operating at the as- sumed airport location. This location information is based upon an airport’s established elevation, average annual temperature, and flight procedure data as provided by aircraft manufac- turers. The FAA, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) all recognize the use of a single noise metric for assessing aircraft sound emission impacts. Consistent with the findings of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the FAA, ODA, and DEQ use the day-night sound level (DNL) for determining air- craft sound emission impacts at air- ports. DNL represents all of the aircraft sound energy present in a 24-hour pe- riod at the airport. DNL is calculated by adding up all the sound energy dur- ing daytime (0700 – 2159 hours), plus 10 times the sound exposure occurring during the nighttime (2200 – 0659 hours), and averaging this sum by the number of seconds in a day. The mul- tiplication factor of 10 applied to nighttime sound is often referred to as a 10dB penalty. It is intended to ac- count for the increased annoyance at- tributable to noise at night when the ambient noise levels are lower as peo- ple are trying to sleep. DNL is a summation metric which allows objec- tive analysis and can describe aircraft sound exposure comprehensively over a large area. INM INPUT Airport and Study Area Description The runways were input into the INM in terms of latitude and longitude, as well as elevation. As previously men- tioned, the INM computes typical flight profiles for aircraft operating at the airport location, based upon the field elevation, temperature, and flight procedure data provided by aircraft manufacturers. The Hillsboro Air- port’s field elevation is 204 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and its average annual temperature is 53.6 degrees. It is also possible to incorporate a to- pographic database into the INM, which allows the INM to account for changes in distances from aircraft in flight to elevated receiver locations. Topographic data from the U.S. Geo- graphical Survey was used in the de- velopment of the noise exposure con- tours for Hillsboro Airport. Activity Data The noise evaluations made for the October 2002 to September 2003 pe- TERRAIN DATA GLENDALE PHOENIX AVONDALE MARICOPA COUNTY COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD CAMELBACK ROAD GLENDALE AVENUE NORTHERN AVENUE P ow er T ra ns m is si on L in e 10 3R D A V E N U E 99 T H A V E N U E Noise and overflights redirected over open  space and undeveloped land. Noise and overflights reduced near residential areas. Noise and overflights reduced near residential areas. Noise and overflights redirected over  undeveloped land. 55 60 65 70 NOISE CONTOURS GRID POINT ANALYSIS GULFSTREAM-IV 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 5 10 15 20 Distance From Brake Release in Feet (x 1000) 25 30 35 40 INM Stage 3 INM Stage 4 INM Stage 5 Selected Profile Observed Summer Observed Fall INM Stage 1 INM Stage 2 LEGEND PROFILE ANALYSIS 30TH AVENUE L A N D A U B L V D . D A T E P A L M D R . 34TH AVENUE SUNNY DUNES RD. PALM CANYON DRIVE RAMON RD. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY ALEJO RD. GERALD FORD DR. D A V A L L D R . SH IF T IN G S A N D S T R A IL C R O SS L E Y R D . E L C IE L O R D . C A B A L L E R O S A V E . IN D IA N C A N Y O N D R . G E N E A U T R Y T R A IL (P al m D r. ) ci to o t is Tahquitz Creek W hitew ater R iver INDIO FREEWAY RN PACIFIC R.R. N N R R ED Ri ersi e o nt i i mal n sri at e ral it Ranc o ira e 10 IFO NI 111 IFO NI 111 13 13 31 31 VISTA CHINO ROAD RAMON RD. DINAH SHORE DR. MESQUITE AVE. RACQUET CLUB RD. SAN RAFAEL RD. F A R R E L D R . SU N R IS E W A Y IN D IA N C A N Y O N D R . at e ral it FLIGHT TRACKS EXISTING & FORECAST OPERATIONS/FLEET MIX 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 YEAR O PE RA TI O NS (In Th ou sa nd s) HISTORICAL FORECAST LEGEND Historic Maine Aviation Systems Plan FAA-TAF-93 (Selected) FE DE RA L AVI ATI O N ★ ★ A DM I N I S T R AT I O N 6.1 Exhibit 1L INM PROCESS 03 M P0 1- 1L -5 /6 /0 5 PORT OF PORTLAND 1-63 riod were based on the annual opera- tional inventory summarized above. Average daily aircraft operations were calculated by dividing total annual op- erations by 365 days. The distribution of these operations among various categories, users, and types of aircraft is critical to the development of the input model data. Table 1Y summa- rizes the daily operations by aircraft type. TABLE 1Y Noise Model Input: Aircraft Operations DAY Night Aircraft Type INM Aircraft Local Itinerant Subtotal Local Itinerant Subtotal Total Single Engine – Fixed Prop. GASEPF 198.1 136.0 334.1 3.6 2.1 5.7 339.8 Single Engine – Variable Prop. GASEPV 22.0 24.0 46.0 0.4 0.4 0.8 46.8 Multi-Engine Piston BEC58P 6.5 13.7 20.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 20.6 Turboprop HS748A 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 CNA441 5.7 0.7 6.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 6.7 DHC6 0.0 11.7 11.7 0.0 0.6 0.6 12.3 Turbojet LEAR25 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.0 GIIB 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 LEAR35 0.7 6.1 6.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 7.4 CL600 0.0 15.0 15.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 16.0 GIV 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.5 RP (Helicopter Piston) H500D 199.7 26.9 226.5 0.3 1.3 1.6 228.1 RT (Helicopter Turbine) B206 1.9 11.1 13.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 13.3 Total 434.7 249.3 683.9 4.8 6.8 11.6 695.5 Source: Port of Portland, Coffman Associates Analysis Database Selection For the INM, aircraft with similar noise emission characteristics are grouped together for noise evalua- tions. The INM provides a substitu- tion list for most aircraft make and models. This list was consulted to de- velop the fleet mix shown in Table 1Y. The FAA aircraft substitution list in- dicates that the general aviation, sin- gle engine variable-pitch propeller model (GASEPV) represents a number of single engine general aviation air- craft (i.e., Beech Bonanza, Cessna 177,Cessna 180, Piper Cherokee Ar- row, Piper PA-32, Mooney). The gen- eral aviation single engine fixed-pitch propeller model (GASEPF) also repre- sents several single engine general aviation aircraft including the Cessna 150, Cessna 172, Piper Archer, Piper PA-28-140 and 180, and the Piper Tomahawk. The FAA's substitution list recommends the BEC58P or the 1-64 Beech Baron to represent the light multi-engine piston aircraft such as the Piper Navajo, Beech Duke, Cessna 310, and others. The Boeing H500 helicopter was used to represent pis- ton helicopter activity. The Bell 206 was used to represent turbine helicop- ter operations. Table 1Z summarizes the substitutions for common turbo- prop and turbojet aircraft used in this analysis. TABLE 1Z Business Aircraft INM Assignment Aircraft Make and Model INM Substitution Turbojet Canadair CRJ200 Embraer ERJ135 Falcon 900 Citation X Canadair Challenger Global Express CL600 Gulfstream G-II Gulfstream G-III GIIB Gulfstream IV Gulfstream V GIV IAI 1124 Astra Gulfstream 100 Westwind Hawker 125 Lear 24 Lear 25 LEAR25 Cessna 650 Citation III Citation Citation II BAE 125SE Beech 400 Falcon 10 Falcon 20 Falcon 200 Falcon 50 Hawker 400 LEAR35 1-65 TABLE 1Z (Continued) Business Aircraft INM Assignment Aircraft Make and Model INM Substitution Turbojet Hawker 700 Hawker 800 Lear 31 Lear 35 Lear 36 Lear 45 Lear 55 Lear 60 Cessna 550 Cessna 560 Turboprop Cheyenne Commander 690 Commander 840 Fairchild SA227 King Air F-90 CNA441 Beech 200 Beechcraft 1900 King Air 300 MU-2 DHC6 G-I Dash 7 HS748A Source: Port of Portland, Coffman Associates Analysis Flight Tracks Where aircraft fly when arriving and departing the airport is an important consideration for noise modeling. As the person legally in command of the aircraft, the pilot determines route and altitude of flight. Due to vari- ances in aircraft speed, ATCT control, and aircraft performance, an, aircraft can be flown in many different direc- tions and altitudes at Hillsboro Air- port. Therefore, aircraft can be seen at times in many different areas around the airport. However, aircraft, for the most part, fly common arrival and departure paths due to common operating practices recommended by the FAA, aircraft manufacturers and local operating procedures at Hillsboro Airport. 1-66 Consolidated flight tracks for Hills- boro Airport were developed in con- junction with the ATCT, airport ten- ants, and after reviewing local and re- gional air traffic control procedures. Consolidated flight tracks basically describe the average flight corridors that lead to and from Hillsboro Air- port. INM consolidated flight tracks are developed by plotting the center- line of a concentrated group of tracks and then dispersing the consolidated track into multiple sub-tracks. All aircraft assigned to each flight track are dispersed over the sub-tracks. Sub-tracks account for the variations in flight paths caused by the reasons stated above. Exhibit 1M depicts the consolidated arrival flight tracks developed for in- put into the INM. Arrival tracks at Hillsboro Airport are generally con- centrated on the runway centerline due to the precision needed to safely land an aircraft. The wider lines rep- resent the centerline of each consoli- dated arrival path. The sub tracks are shown with a thinner line. For the most part, aircraft approach the run- way along the extended runway cen- terline or via a left-hand or right-hand turn approximately one-quarter mile to one-half mile from the runway threshold. These arrival paths also account for the instrument approach procedure flight paths. Exhibit 1N depicts the consolidated departure flight tracks developed for Hillsboro Airport. Due to the need for pilots to intercept their enroute course headings, there are many more depar- ture flight tracks than arrival flight tracks at Hillsboro Airport. These flight tracks reflect the need for pilots to a primary heading after departure. For example, for Runway 30, flight track 30VB allows pilots to depart to the northeast; whereas, 30D allows for pilots to depart to the east and 30E allows for southeasterly departures. Flight track 30C allows for departures to the west and 30F provides for southwesterly departures. Exhibit 1P depicts the consolidated training or touch-and-go tracks devel- oped for input into the INM. Typi- cally, Hillsboro Airport utilizes a left- hand traffic pattern for each runway. On Runway 12-30, some smaller air- craft fly a “tighter” traffic pattern. This results in two touch-and-go pat- terns for Runway 12-30. Exhibit 1P also illustrates helicopter training patterns currently in use and as a result modeled for this analysis. The Bravo training pattern is located southeast of Runway 2-20. The Alpha pattern is located west of Runway 12- 30. The Charlie Pattern is located northeast of Runway 12-30 on a sepa- rate landing pad. These patterns were designed to allow helicopters to ap- proach and depart from either Taxi- way A (Alpha Pattern), Taxiway B (Bravo Pattern), or a paved landing pad (Charlie Pattern) while remaining clear of fixed wing operations. For op- erations in any pattern, helicopters will land then immediately lift off and follow a ground track that represents paths shown on Exhibit 1P. Finally, the helicopter will land again in nearly the same point on the taxiway and repeat the pattern. 03 M P0 1- 1M -5 /2 4/ 05 NORTH 0 2,500 5,000 SCALE IN FEET Hi gh wa y 2 6 NW Shute Road Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Co rn el l R oa d 12 30 2 20 NE Corneilus Pass Road Brookwood Par kw ay Exhibit 1M GENERALIZED ARRIVAL FLIGHT TRACKS PORT OF PORTLAND 12 30 2 20 2B 2A 30B 30A 30C 2C 12C 12B 12A 20A 20C 20B 30E 30D SE T ua la tin V al le y H wy . M ai n St re et Ba se lin e Ro ad Hi gh w ay 8 SE Ri ve r R oa d NW 2 29 th Avenue Ev er gr ee n Ro ad NE Jackson School Road LEGEND Airport Property Line Runway 12-30 Arrival Flight Paths Runway 12-30 Sub Tracks Runway 2-20 Arrival Flight Paths Runway 2-20 Sub Tracks 03 M P 0 1 - 1 N - 5 / 2 4 / 0 5 NORTH LEGEND Airport Property Line Runway 12-30 Departure Flight Paths Runway 12-30 Sub Tracks Runway 2-20 Departure Flight Paths Runway 2-20 Sub Tracks 0 2,500 5,000 SCALE IN FEET 12 30 2 20 Brookwood Par kw ay Exhibit 1N GENERALIZED DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS PORT OF PORTLAND Hi gh wa y 2 6 NW Shute Road Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Co rn el l R oa d 12 30 2 20 NE Corneilus Pass Road Brookwood Par kw ay 12 Northerly Departure 20 Right Turn 20 Straight 20 Left Turn 12 Right Turn 12 Straight 12 Left Turn 30 Right Turn 30 Straight 2 Right Turn 2 Left Turn 2 Southerly Departure 30 Southerly Departure 30 Southerly Departure 30 Straight 20D 20C 20A 20B 2A 2C 2B 2D 2E 2 W es te rly De pa rtu re 20D 12A 12B 12C 20C 20A 20B 2A 2C 2B 2D 2E 12D 30B 30A 30F 30C 30D 30E Hi gh wa y 2 6 NW Shute Road Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Co rn el l R oa d NE Corneilus Pass Road SE T ua la tin V al le y H wy . M ai n St re et Ba se lin e Ro ad Hi gh w ay 8 SE Ri ve r R oa d NW 2 29 th Avenue Ev er gr ee n Ro ad NE Jackson School Road 03 M P0 1- 1P -5 /2 4/ 05 NORTH 0 2,500 5,000 SCALE IN FEET 12 30 2 Exhibit 1P GENERALIZED TRAINING FLIGHT PATHS PORT OF PORTLAND 20 LEGEND Airport Property Line Runway 12-30 Touch-and-Go Pattern Runway 12-30 Sub Tracks Runway 2-20 Touch-and-Go Pattern Runway 2-20 Sub Tracks Helicopter Training Pattern Helicopter Training Sub Tracks Hi gh wa y 2 6 NW Shute Road Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Co rn el l R oa d 12 30 2 Dow nw ind Le g 12 Fin al Dow nw ind Le g 2 Final 20 Cr os sw ind 2 B as e NE Corneilus Pass Road Downwind Leg 30 Crosswind 12 Base 12 Crosswind 30 Base Existing "Alpha" Helicopter Training Pattern Existing "Bravo" Helicopter Training Pattern Brookwood Par kw ay 20 2 Final 30 Fin al 2 C ro ss wi nd 20 Ba se Existing "Alpha" Helicopter Training Pattern Existing "Bravo" Helicopter Training Pattern Existing "Charlie" Helicopter Training Pattern 2A 20A 12B 12A 30B 30A Brookwood Par kw ay Hi gh wa y 2 6 NW Shute Road Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Co rn el l R oa d NE Corneilus Pass Road SE T ua la tin V al le y H wy . M ai n St re et Ba se lin e Ro ad Hi gh w ay 8 SE Ri ve r R oa d NW 2 29 th Avenue Ev er gr ee n Ro ad NE Jackson School Road 1-67 Runway Use Runway use is another essential input to the INM. For modeling purposes, wind data analysis usually determines runway use percentages. Aircraft will normally land and takeoff into the wind. However, wind analysis pro- vides only the directional availability of a runway and does not consider pi- lot selection, primary runway opera- tions, or local operating conventions. At Hillsboro Airport, the dual runway configuration offers four directions of choice. Runway usage at Hillsboro Airport was established by the aircraft observation program. Table 1AA summarizes the runway use percent- ages used for the noise modeling as derived from the aircraft observation program. TABLE 1AA Runway Use Percentages Runway Aircraft 2 12 20 30 Total Itinerant Operations SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 3% 7% 1% 89% 100% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 3% 7% 1% 89% 100% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 3% 18% 2% 77% 100% TP (Turboprop) 3% 27% 0% 70% 100% J (Turbojet) 1% 24% 0% 75% 100% RP (Helicopter Piston) 5% 5% 26% 64% 100% RT (Helicopter Turbine) 5% 5% 26% 64% 100% Local Operations SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 5% 2% 1% 92% 100% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 5% 2% 1% 92% 100% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 0% 40% 0% 60% 100% TP (Turboprop) 0% 40% 0% 60% 100% J (Turbojet) 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% Source: Port of Portland, Coffman Associates Analysis As indicated above, helicopter training is conducted in the Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie patterns. Table 1AB specifies the percentage use of each pattern used in this analysis. (Note: the Char- lie Pattern was not in use until Octo- ber 2004 after the initial operational inventory and noise exposure analysis was conducted. A portion of the heli- copters that were operating in the Al- pha and Bravo patterns during the October 2002 to September 2003 time- frame were reassigned to the Charlie Pattern to establish this baseline con- tour.) 1-68 TABLE 1AB Helicopter Pattern Use Pattern A Pattern B Pattern C 12.5% 12.5% 75% Source: Port of Portland, Coffman Associates Analysis Assignment of Flight Tracks The final step in developing input data for the INM model is the assignment of aircraft to specific flight tracks. Table 1AC summarizes the percent- age use of each flight track as derived from the aircraft observation program. TABLE 1AC Primary Flight Track Percentage Use Arrivals Departures Touch-and-Go Flight Track Percentage Use Flight Track Percentage Use Flight Track Percentage Use 12A 91.0% 12A 66.0% 12A 50.0% 12B 4.0% 12B 3.0% 12B 50.0% 12C 5.0% 12C 10.5% 30A 50.0% 30A 40.0% 12D 10.5% 30B 50.0% 30B 16.0% 30A 31.0% 2A 100.0% 30C 14.0% 30B 7.0% 20A 100.0% 30D 16.0% 30C 24.0% 30E 14.0% 30D 7.0% 2A 67.0% 30E 7.0% 2B 25.0% 30F 24.0% 2C 80.0% 2A 30.0% 20A 37.0% 2B 9.0% 20B 36.0% 2C 9.0% 20C 27.0% 2D 26.0% 2E 26.0% 20A 33.0% 20B 41.0% 20C 13.0% 20D 13.0% Source: Port of Portland, Coffman Associates Analysis Each aircraft’s use of a flight track was determined by multiplying a spe- cific aircraft’s total annual operations by its runway use percentage, then multiplying that result by the flight track percentage use. For example, the following methodology was used to determine the general aviation single engine piston fixed-pitch propeller (GASEPF) aircraft’s use of arrival flight path 12A: 1-69 SEPF ANNUAL OPERATIONS 124,044 SEPF Runway 12 Use Percentage X 7% SEPF Annual Use of Runway 12 (Operations) = 8,683 Arrival Flight Path 12A Percentage Use X 91% SEPF Annual Use of Flight Path 12A (Operations) = 7,901 This methodology was applied to all flight track assignments. INM OUTPUT Since noise decreases at a constant rate in all directions from a source, points of equal DNL noise levels are indicated by means of a contour line. Exhibit 1Q presents the plotted re- sults of the INM contour analysis for the October 2002 to September 2003 period, using the input data and as- sumptions described in the preceding pages. It is important to recognize that a line drawn on a map does not imply that a particular noise condition exists on one side of the line and not on the other. DNL calculations do not pre- cisely define noise impacts. Neverthe- less, DNL contours can be used to: (1) highlight existing or potential incom- patibilities between an airport and any surrounding development; (2) as- sess relative exposure levels; (3) assist in the preparation of airport environs land use plans; (4) provide guidance in the development of land use control devices such as zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations and building codes; and (5) develop operational pro- cedures to mitigate noise exposure. Individual responses to noise are highly variable, thus making it very difficult to predict how any one person is likely to react to environmental noise. However, the response of a large group of people to environmental noise is much less variable and has been found to correlate well with cu- mulative noise metrics such as day- night noise level (DNL). The devel- opment of aircraft noise impact analy- sis techniques has been based on this relationship between average commu- nity response and cumulative noise exposure. The degree of annoyance which people suffer from aircraft noise varies de- pending on their activities at any given time. People rarely are as dis- turbed by aircraft noise when they are shopping, working, or driving, as when they are at home. Transient hotel and motel residents seldom express as much concern with aircraft noise as do permanent residents of an area. The concept of “land use compatibility” has arisen from this systematic varia- tion in human tolerance to aircraft noise. Studies by governmental agen- cies and private researchers have de- fined the compatibility of different land uses with varying noise levels. The FAA has established guidelines 1-70 for defining land use compatibility for use in Federal Aviation Regulations (F.A.R.) Part 150 noise compatibility studies. The FAA adopted land use compatibil- ity guidelines when it promulgated F.A.R. Part 150 in the early 1980s the Interim Rule was adopted on January 19, 1981; the Final Rule was adopted on December 13, 1984, was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 1985, and became effective on January 18, 1985). These new guide- lines were based on earlier studies and guidelines developed by federal agen- cies (Federal Interagency Committee of Urban Noise, 1980). These land use compatibility guidelines are only advi- sory; they are not regulations. Part 150 explicitly states that determina- tions of noise compatibility and regu- lation of land use are purely local re- sponsibilities (see Section A150.101(a) and (d) and explanatory note in Table 1 of F.A.R. Part 150). Exhibit 1R il- lustrates the FAA’s guidelines with regard to the issue of land use com- patibility. The FAA uses the Part 150 guidelines as the basis for defining areas within which noise compatibility projects may be eligible for federal funding through noise set-aside funds of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). In gen- eral, noise compatibility projects must be within the 65 DNL contour to be eligible for federal funding. According to the AIP Handbook, “Noise compati- bility projects usually must be located in areas where noise measured in day- night average sound level (DNL) is 65 (dB) or greater.” (See FAA Order 5100.38A, Chapter 7, paragraph 710.b.) Funding is permitted outside the 65 DNL contour only where the airport sponsor has determined that non-compatible land uses exist at lower levels, adopted a change to Ta- ble 1 of F.A.R. Part 150, and the FAA has explicitly concurred with that de- termination. The FAA guidelines outlined in Ex- hibit 1R show that residential devel- opment, including standard construc- tion (residential construction without special acoustical treatment), mobile homes, and transient lodging are in- compatible with noise above 65 DNL. Homes of standard construction and transient lodging may be considered compatible where local communities have determined these uses are per- missible. However, noise level reduc- tion measures are recommended for such uses. Schools and other public-use facilities are generally incompatible with air- craft-generated noise between 65 and 75 DNL. However, the guidelines note that where local communities deter- mine that these uses are permissible, noise level reduction measures should be used. Other land uses considered incompatible at levels exceeding 65 DNL include outdoor music shells and amphitheaters. Land uses considered incompatible at levels above 75 DNL include hospitals, nursing homes, places of worship, auditoriums, concert halls, livestock breeding, amusement parks, resorts, and camps. Many of these incompati- ble land uses are considered compati- ble in areas subject to noise between 65 DNL and 75 DNL, if prescribed 03 M P0 1- 1Q -5 /2 4/ 05 NORTH LEGEND Airport Property Line DNL Noise Contours Exhibit 1Q 2003 NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS PORT OF PORTLAND 75 70 65 60 55 0 2,000 4,000 SCALE IN FEET Brookwood Par kw ay Hi gh wa y 2 6 NW Shute Road Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Co rn el l R oa d SE T ua la tin V al le y H wy . M ai n St re et Ba se lin e Ro ad SE Riv er Ro ad Ev er gr ee n Ro ad NE Jackson School Road Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Mobile home parks Transient lodgings Schools Hospitals and nursing homes Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Government services Transportation Parking Offices, business and professional Wholesale and retail-building materials, hardware and farm equipment Retail trade-general Utilities Communication Manufacturing, general Photographic and optical Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Livestock farming and breeding Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Nature exhibits and zoos Amusements, parks, resorts, and camps Golf courses, riding stables, and water recreation Y N N N N N Y N1 N1 N1 N N Y N1 N1 N N N Y 25 30 N N N Y 25 30 N N N Y Y 25 30 N N Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 Y4 Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Y Y 25 30 N N Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Y Y 25 30 N N Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Y Y 25 30 N N Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Y Y 25 30 N N Y Y6 Y7 Y8 Y8 Y8 Y Y6 Y7 N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y5 Y5 N N N Y N N N N N Y Y N N N N Y Y Y N N N Y Y 25 30 N N Below 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Over 85 LAND USE Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) in Decibels Y N1 N1 N N N The designations contained in this table do not constitute a federal determination that any use of land covered by the program is acceptable under federal, state, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally-determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally-determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. See other side for notes and key to table. PUBLIC USE COMMERCIAL USE MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION RECREATIONAL RESIDENTIAL 03 M P0 1- 1R -5 /9 /0 5 Exhibit 1R LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES PORT OF PORTLAND 03 M P0 1- 1R -5 /9 /0 5 Exhibit 1R (Continued) LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor-to-indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. Residential buildings require a NLR of 25. Residential buildings require a NLR of 30. Residential buildings not permitted. Source: F.A.R. Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1. KEY Y (Yes) Land Use and related structures compatible without restrictions. N (No) Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor-to-indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 25, 30, 35 Land Use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated into design and construction of structure. NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PORT OF PORTLAND 1-71 levels of noise reduction can be achieved. These include hospitals, nursing homes, places of worship, auditoriums, and concert halls. EXISTING NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS The shape and extent of the existing 2003 baseline noise contours depicted on Exhibit 1Q reflect the underlying flight track assumptions. The con- tours extend the greatest distance be- hind the Runway 30 and Runway 12 ends due to the higher number of air- craft utilizing this longer of the two available runways. The long slender shape of the contour behind Runway 30 reflects the dominance of arrivals to Runway 30. The large numbers of departures on Runway 30 contribute to the extended 55 and 60 DNL con- tours behind the Runway 12 end to the north. The bulges to the west and east on the 55 DNL contour behind the Runway 12 end are attributable to departure turns. The long slender shape of the contour behind the Run- way 20 end to the east is attributable to operations in the Bravo helicopter pattern. The 65, 70, and 75 DNL contours are contained almost entirely on existing airport property. Portions of the 55 and 60 DNL contours extend off air- port property. There are no incom- patible land uses within the 65 DNL or higher noise contour. 1-72 DOCUMENT SOURCES A variety of sources were used during the inventory process. The following listing reflects a partial compilation of these sources. In addition, consider- able information was provided directly to the consultant by the Port of Port- land Staff. AirNAV Airport information, website: www.airnav.com Hillsboro Airport Master Plan Final Report, prepared for the Port of Port- land by W&H Pacific, October 1996. Portland-Hillsboro Airport Master Plan, prepared for Port of Portland by Hodges and Shatt, September 1990. Port of Portland website: www.portofptld.com City of Hillsboro Geographic Informa- tion System, GIS. Exhibit “A” Airport Property Map (draft) prepared by the Port of Port- land, November 2002. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Ordinance No. 00-0869A as amended by Ordinance 02-9464A. 2002. Port- land Metro. Oregon Highway Plan. 1999. ODOT. Portland – Cannon Beach Junction U.S. 26 Corridor Plan, Volume 1. May 18, 1999. ODOT. Washington County 2020 Transporta- tion Plan. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 588, Exhibit 14. October 9, 2002. Washington County. City of Hillsboro Comprehensive Plan. February, 2003. Ordinance No. 2793- 4-77, as amended. City of Hillsboro Transportation Sys- tem Plan – Final Draft. 1999. DKS Associates. Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional Forecast, Septem- ber 2002, Metro. Seattle Sectional Aeronautical Chart, June 12, 2003, Edition U.S. Terminal Procedures, Northwest Volume 1 or 1, September 4, 2003, Edition Airport/Facility Directory Northwest U.S., September 4, 2003, Edition The Economic Impacts of Hillsboro Airport on the Local Economy, Martin Associates, September 2003 Baseline Environmental Conditions Unnamed Tributary to McKay Creek, Shapiro and Associates, Inc, Septem- ber 2000 Cultural Resources Study for the Hillsboro Airport Runway Safety Area Project Hillsboro and Washington County Oregon, Archeological Investi- gations Northwest, December 2000 Drainage Report for Runway and Taxiway Improvement – Port of Port- land Hillsboro Airport, Entranco, De- cember 2000 1-73 Environmental Assessment Hillsboro Airport Runway Safety Area, Century West, February 2001 Natural Resource Assessment – Port- land Hillsboro Airport Runway Safety Area Project, Entranco, June 2000 Preliminary Final Compensatory Mitigation Plan – Portland Hillsboro Runway Safety Area Project, En- tranco, August 2000 Revised Floodplain Hydraulics for Unnamed Tributary to McKay Creek – Portland Hillsboro Airport Runway Safety Area Project, Entranco, De- cember 2000 Wetland Delineation Report – Port- land Hillsboro Airport Runway Safety Area Project, Entranco, May 2000 Chapter Two FUTURE ROLE OF HILLSBORO AIRPORT PORT OF PORTLAND 2-1 CHAPTER TWO PORT OF PORTLAND The purpose of this chapter of the Airport Master Plan is to analyze the feasibility of alternative roles for Hillsboro Airport within the context of the Portland metropolitan system of airports and State of Oregon system of airports. This analysis provides a foundation for the Port of Portland to determine, specifically and ideally, what Hillsboro Airport's role should be through 2025. This involves considering the probability and viability of supporting scheduled commercial air service and/or air cargo activity at Hillsboro Airport. HILLSBORO AIRPORT'S EXISTING ROLE The role for Hillsboro Airport is defined within both state and federal aviation plans. At the national level, Hillsboro Airport is defined as a reliever airport in the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Reliever airports are specially designated general aviation airports intended to reduce congestion at large commercial service airports. This reliever role is usually accomplished, not by accommodating commercial flights, but by providing an attractive option for the myriad of non-commercial, general aviation aircraft operations that urban areas generate. Hillsboro Airport is classified as a reliever for Portland International Airport (PDX). In this role, Hillsboro Airport is intended to preserve capacity at PDX by offering an alternative operating area for general FUTURE ROLE OF HILLSBORO AIRPORT 2-2 aviation aircraft, separate from com- mercial airline and air cargo activities. The NPIAS includes a total of 3,489 airports (both existing and proposed), together with the airport development necessary to meet the present and fu- ture requirements in support of civil, national defense, and postal service needs. An airport must be included in the NPIAS to be eligible for federal grant-in-aid assistance. Hillsboro Airport and Troutdale Airport are the only designated reliever airports in the State of Oregon included in the NPIAS. At the state level, Hillsboro Airport is included in the Oregon Aviation Plan prepared by the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA). The Oregon Aviation Plan defines five categories of airports, ranging from Category 1, Commercial Service Airports, to Category 5, Low Activity General Aviation Airports. Hillsboro Airport is classified as a Category 2, Business or High Activity General Aviation Airport. The Oregon Aviation Plan defines a Category 2 airport as an airport to “accommodate corporate aviation activity, including business jets, helicopters, and other general aviation activities.” Including Hillsboro Airport, there are ten (10) Category 2 airports in the Oregon Aviation Plan. Neither the NPIAS nor the ODA an- ticipate Hillsboro Airport changing from a general aviation airport to a commercial service airport in the fu- ture. THE AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY Prior to examining the existing and future role for Hillsboro Airport, it is important to draw a distinction be- tween the various segments of the air transportation industry in the United States. There are three broad seg- ments of the national air transporta- tion system: commercial air carriers, military, and general aviation. Hills- boro Airport currently serves each of these segments of the air transporta- tion industry. COMMERCIAL AIR CARRIERS Commercial air carriers are broadly defined in section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, as any domestic or foreign aircraft carry- ing passengers or cargo for hire. Fed- eral regulations draw a distinction be- tween air carriers, based on the num- ber of seats within an aircraft used for air carrier activities or the payload ca- pacity of the aircraft, and whether the air carrier provides scheduled or un- scheduled service. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 121, Operat- ing requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations, requires that air carriers using passenger air- craft with more than nine passenger seats operate only at certificated air- ports such as PDX. PDX is certificated under FAR Part 139, Certification and Operations: 2-3 Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers, to allow the operation of scheduled air carriers with more than nine passenger seats. Hillsboro Air- port is not certificated under FAR Part 139; therefore, at this time, Hillsboro Airport cannot accommodate sched- uled air carriers using aircraft with more than nine passenger seats. Hillsboro Airport would be required to obtain FAR Part 139 certification to accommodate scheduled air carrier ac- tivity with aircraft with more than nine passenger seats. FAR Part 139 sets forth rules for a continuous self-inspection program of operations and maintenance by the airport owner, to ensure a safe operat- ing environment for commercial air carrier aircraft. FAR Part 139 re- quires the development of an airport certification manual to describe how the airport would comply with the regulations and the details of the self- inspection program. These regula- tions specify that airport rescue and firefighting equipment and personnel be on hand during air carrier opera- tions, and the development of an emergency plan. FAR Part 139 fur- ther specifies inspections of the air carrier operating areas, limiting vehi- cle and pedestrian access to the air- field and air carrier operating areas, the protection of navigational aids on the airport, and identification (or re- moval) of obstructions in the air space used by air carrier aircraft. The Port of Portland estimates the ini- tial cost to implement FAR Part 139 certification at Hillsboro Airport at $200,000, with annual recurring op- erational costs between $50,000 and $75,000. These initial costs assume the necessary terminal modifications to accommodate the security and op- erational needs of an airline, while the recurring costs include the costs asso- ciated with an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Hillsboro for Police and Fire support. Airports without FAR Part 139 certifi- cation can only accommodate opera- tions by passenger-carrying aircraft with fewer than 10 passenger seats. This would comprise a limited number of aircraft such as the Cessna Caravan or Beechcraft King Air aircraft. These are aircraft that currently operate at the airport. Within the continental U.S., there are only a handful of op- erators providing scheduled service with aircraft with fewer than 10 pas- senger seats. These aircraft are used on specialty niche routes and are not associated with any mainline aircraft operation. The use of this size aircraft for scheduled airline service is most prevalent in Alaska. Some air carriers operate on an on- demand basis, while other air carriers provide commuter service. These types of operations fall outside the FAR Part 139 certification described above, and could be accommodated at Hillsboro Airport. In fact, on-demand services, or charter services as they are commonly referred to, are cur- rently provided from Hillsboro Airport now. Charter services are also avail- able from many of the Fixed Base Op- erators (FBO) on the airport. 2-4 On-demand air carrier services are provided using aircraft with 30 or fewer passenger seats or payload ca- pacity less than 7,500 pounds. A commuter operation must be con- ducted with non turbojet (i.e., turbo- prop or piston-powered) aircraft with nine or less passenger seats or a pay- load capacity less than 7,500 pounds. A commuter must operate more than five scheduled flights per week, oth- erwise they would be considered as an on-demand air carrier. FAR Part 135, Operating Requirements: Commuter and on Demand Operations and Rules Governing Persons On board Such Aircraft, governs these operations. These operations are sometime re- ferred to as air taxi operations and in- cluded in the air taxi category for air traffic counts. Without FAR Part 139 certification, Hillsboro Airport can only legally ac- commodate the following segments of the commercial air carrier industry: • Scheduled air carriers using aircraft with nine or fewer pas- senger seats. • Air cargo carriers using aircraft with a payload capacity less than 7,500 pounds. • On demand air carriers using aircraft with 30 or fewer pas- senger seats and a payload ca- pacity of less than 7,500 pounds. • Commuter operations with non turbojet aircraft that have a seating capacity of nine or fewer passenger seats and a payload capacity of less than 7,500 pounds. MILITARY The term “military” refers to U.S. De- partment of Defense (DOD) aircraft operations, foreign military opera- tions, or operations by state National Guard aircraft. Hillsboro Airport cur- rently accommodates local and tran- sient operations by military rotorcraft and an occasional jet aircraft. GENERAL AVIATION General Aviation or GA is defined as all aviation other than military and commercial airlines. General aviation includes a diverse range of activities such as pilot training, sightseeing, personal/recreational flying, agricul- tural spraying and seeding, and emer- gency medical services. Fractional business jet operations (i.e. companies or individuals owning fractions or shares in a fleet of aircraft managed by a single operator) are also a compo- nent of general aviation. The General Aviation Manufacturers’ Association (GAMA) estimates that 166 million passengers are carried an- nually on general aviation aircraft ranging from two-seat training air- craft to intercontinental business jets. Furthermore, GAMA states that gen- eral aviation is relied on exclusively by more than 5,000 communities for their air transportation needs (scheduled airlines served about 500) and that nearly 70 percent of the hours flown by general aviation are for business purposes. 2-5 REASONS FOR EXAMINING THE AIRPORT ROLE The examination of a new role for Hillsboro Airport within the Portland metropolitan system of airports is the result of a number of factors including changes within the air transportation industry, interest by the business and general aviation community for some change, interest in such service by the community, and facility planning for PDX. A component of the 2000 Port- land International Airport Master Plan was the determination of “Strategies for Capacity Preservation.” These strategies included the Port of Portland (Port) examining “other transportation modes or other airports to meet the air transportation needs of the region.” This included investigat- ing passenger air service and air cargo handling opportunities at both Port- owned and non-Port owned airports. Prior to completing the 2000 Portland International Airport Master Plan, the Port requested that a panel of local and regional experts provide a “scan” of possible air transportation alterna- tives to determine whether or not any warranted further review. This panel was known as the Regional Air Trans- portation Demand Task Force (RATDTF). In their final report dated April 14, 2000, this panel suggested that other airports in the State of Oregon could offer capacity relief for PDX should they be able to accommo- date more air service and/or air cargo activity. Hillsboro Airport was men- tioned as one of several potential air- ports to accommodate commercial pas- senger activity. Existing commercial service airports in Medford, Corvallis, Eugene, and Redmond were also men- tioned as potential candidates to re- duce demand at PDX should these airports be able to capture a greater number of the passengers in their ser- vice areas that now use PDX. This is commonly referred to as leakage, where passengers will by-pass the air- port closest to them and use PDX. For example, an air traveler located in Bend, Oregon, would drive to PDX in- stead of flying from Redmond. However, in noting the potential for other airports to emerge as greater commercial service and/or air cargo providers, the RATDTF also recog- nized that none of the airports men- tioned above were likely to emerge as significant substitutes. The study noted that Hillsboro Airport could only accommodate small regional air car- rier passenger equipment and would require large capital investments to handle the larger airplanes currently using PDX. For Medford, Corvallis, Eugene, and Redmond, the RATDTF noted that unless the markets in these areas grow or current airline business practices change, the likelihood of these airports to grow substantially is remote. While the airport role analysis con- tained in this chapter will examine the potential for commercial air service and/or air cargo at Hillsboro Airport, the establishment of a military unit on the airport will not be considered within the airport role chapter or the Master Plan. As recommended by the RATDTF in the 2000 PDX Master Plan, the Port of Portland is currently 2-6 conducting a military siting analysis to determine the most feasible long- term location for the military cur- rently operating at PDX (the Oregon Air National Guard and the U.S. Air Force Reserve). The RATDTF recom- mended that the military remain in the metro area, but not necessarily at PDX. All potential locations within the metro area will be considered as part of the analysis. This will include general aviation airports such as Hillsboro, McMinnville, and Scappoose – among others - as well as undevel- oped sites. Site selection criteria from five broad categories will assist in narrowing the list of potential military relocation sites. These criteria include: physical, operational, environmental, economic and social-political elements. The in- formation gained from the analysis will feed into the next PDX Master Planning process scheduled to begin in the latter half of 2005. The final mili- tary siting analysis report is not ex- pected to be published until summer 2004. A summary of the report’s find- ings as they may relate to the update of this update of Hillsboro Airport’s master plan and compatibility study will be incorporated as appropriate. Defining the airport’s role is an impor- tant component of the Hillsboro Air- port Master Plan, as the defined role will form the basis for the determina- tion of aviation demand (Chapter Three) and facility requirements (Chapter Four) for Hillsboro Airport through 2025. REGIONAL AIRPORT COMPARISON There are 23 public-use airports in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area, each having different capabili- ties, capacities, and roles. Half of these airports are publicly-owned (owned by the Port, a municipality, or the state), while the others are pri- vately-owned. Portland International Airport is the only commercial service airport in the metropolitan area. Six of the 23 airports are located in Clark County, Washington. Exhibit 2A summarizes specific facility data for each of these airports and depicts their location in the metropolitan area. In examining the data on Exhibit 2A, it is evident that Hillsboro Airport is the most capable general aviation air- port in the metropolitan region. Hills- boro Airport has the longest runway of all general aviation airports, a cross- wind runway to allow for safe landing and departures in all wind conditions, an airport traffic control tower (ATCT), and an instrument landing system (ILS). McMinnville Municipal Airport provides the only other ILS at a general aviation airport and a crosswind runway. Hillsboro Airport supports the second largest number of based aircraft and highest number of annual operations. While Pearson Field and Grove Field are located closer to the Portland city center than Hillsboro Airport, these airports are under the more restrictive 03 M P0 1- 2A -2 /1 0/ 04 Exhibit 2A REGIONAL AIRPORT COMPARISON Portland International Airport Hillsboro Airport McMinnville Municipal Airport Troutdale Airport Scappoose Industrial Airpark Aurora State Airport Mulino Airport Pearson Field Grove Field Airport Veronia Airfield Woodland State Airport Sportsman Airpark Valley View Lenhardt Airpark Country Squire Goheen Airport Fly For Fun Airport Evergreen Field Airport Chehalem Airpark Sandy River Stark's Twin Oaks Airpark Skyport Airport Cedars North Airpark Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 Category 2 Category 2 Category 2 Category 4 N/A N/A Category 4 N/A Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 N/A N/A N/A Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 Category 5 N/A 11,000' Asphalt 6,600' Asphalt 5,420' Asphalt 5,399' Asphalt 5,100' Asphalt 5,004' Asphalt 3,600' Asphalt 3,275' Asphalt 2,710' Asphalt 2,940' Turf 1,965' Asphalt 2,745' Asphalt 3,780' Asphalt 3,200' Asphalt 3,095' Asphalt 2,600' Turf 2,580' Turf 2,545' Asphalt 2,285' Asphalt 2,115' Turf 2,060' Asphalt 2,000' Turf/Gravel 1,960' Turf 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 128 363 140 177 151 387 58 210 61 7 16 53 33 23 27 29 7 165 9 24 98 3 7 Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No F,T,RE,C,AR,FI F,T,RE,C,AR,FI F,T,RE,C,AR,FI F,T,RE,C,AR,FI F,T,RE,C,AR,FI F,T,RE,C,AR,FI F,T,RE,AR,FI F,T,RE,AR,FI F,T,RE,AR,FI T T F,T,RE,AR,FI T F,T T F,T,RE,AR,FI T F,T,RE,AR,FI F,T,RE,C,AR,FI T,RE F,T,RE,AR,FI F,T,RE,AR,FI T Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Washington Washington Oregon Washington Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Washington Washington Washington Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Class C Class D/E Class E Class C Class E Class E Class E Class C Class C Class E Class E Class E Class E Class E Class E Class E Class C Class C Class C Class E Class E Class E Class E Airport Nameir rt Included in NPIAS I l i I ODA Categoryt r Longest Runway t # of Runways f Based Aircraftir r ft Annual Operations l r ti AirspaceirStatet t Owner- ship r- iServicesr iIAPIATCT Source: FAA 5010-1, Airport Master Record Form; US Terminal Publications, Oregon Aviation Plan, NPIAS; Washington Department of Transportation IAP - Instrument Approach Procedure; ATCT - Airport Traffic Control Tower; ODA - Oregon Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division F - Fuel, T - Tiedown, RE - Repair, AR - Aircraft Rental, FI - Flight Instruction, C - Charter Molalla GladstoneW. Linn Forest Grove Sheridan Scappoose St. Helens Gresham McMinnville Tigard Tualatin Beaverton 503 205 Lake Oswego Oregon City 30 6 99W 18 26 30 14 BYP 30Portland C O L U M B I A C L A R K W A S H I N G T O N YA M H I L L C L A C K A M A S M U LT N O M A H MOUNT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST Mt. Hood SkiBowl Bull of the Woods Wilderness Area Table Rock Wilderness Area Vancouver WAS HING TON Timberline Lodge Ski Area Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area CA SC AD E R AN GE OREGON 26 HILLSBORO Aloha Newberg PORT OF PORTLAND NORTH NOT TO SCALE Portland International Airport Hillsboro Aiport Stark's Twin Oaks Airpark Scappoose Industrial Airpark Veronia Airfield Pearson Field Skyport Airport Evergreen Field Airport Fly For Fun Airport Cedars North Airpark Goheen Airport Grove Field Airport Woodland State Airport Troutdale Airport McMinnville Municipal Airport Sportsman Airpark Aurora State Airport Lenhardt Airpark Mulino Airport Sandy River Country Squire Valley View Chehalem Airpark 310,000 240,000 63,000 107,000 60,000 73,000 21,000 41,000 12,400 2,900 3,500 11,600 3,000 6,000 2,000 1,600 2,900 68,000 7,800 11,300 22,000 2,000 1,000 2-7 Class C airspace surrounding Portland International Airport. Pearson Field and Grove Field have short term run- ways that are not as capable of han- dling the mix of aircraft operating at Hillsboro Airport. Hillsboro Airport is in Class D air- space when the ATCT is operating; Class E airspace when the tower is closed. Troutdale Airport does not currently provide the same instrument approach capability as does Hillsboro Airport. While the airspace surround- ing Troutdale is Class D due to the ATCT at Troutdale, Troutdale Airport is also located under the PDX Class C airspace. The 23 general aviation public-use airports are important to the Portland metropolitan air transportation sys- tem. First, these airports provide al- ternate landing areas for general avia- tion aircraft away from PDX. This preserves airfield capacity at PDX by reducing general aviation traffic at the airport. Secondly, these airports pro- vide convenient locations near local residents’ homes and businesses, to locate privately-owned aircraft. These airports also support business and eco- nomic growth by being located near the diverse economic areas of the met- ropolitan area for access by visitors and transient business users. Finally, these airports also allow convenient locations for air ambulance transport flights. In recognizing the importance of the benefits of these general aviation air- ports, it is important to consider the impacts that any change to the role of any one of these airports may have on the ability to continue to provide gen- eral aviation services at Hillsboro Air- port. As alternative roles for Hillsboro Airport are examined within this sec- tion, it is important to remember how Hillsboro Airport is positioned in the metropolitan air transportation sys- tem. Hillsboro Airport has evolved as the primary general aviation airport in the metropolitan area. The capa- bilities of the airport cannot readily be replaced by another airport in the re- gion, without significant capital in- vestments for runway development, air traffic control, and/or instrument approach capability. COMMERCIAL PASSENGER AIR SERVICE POTENTIAL Commercial air service for residents of Washington County has historically been provided at PDX, located ap- proximately 30 miles (by vehicle) northeast of the City of Hillsboro. The primary reasons for considering the potential for commercial passenger air service at Hillsboro Airport include capacity preservation at PDX and roadway congestion that at times in- creases travel times to PDX from Washington County. Capacity preser- vation relates to the objective of the 2000 Portland International Airport Master Plan that suggested that al- ternative airports be examined to ac- commodate demand currently accom- modated at PDX. The goal of the ob- jective was to evaluate if facility ex- pansions at PDX could be delayed if 2-8 sufficient levels of air travelers and air cargo needs could be accommodated at another regional airport. During peak travel periods, travel to PDX from the Hillsboro area by road has considerable delays, with travel times extending more than one hour. The availability of commercial service at Hillsboro Airport is thought to have the potential to reduce vehicle travel times and be more convenient for local residents. Reduced travel times could have ancillary benefits in terms of air and water quality, due to reduced emissions. This is shown by the re- sults of the Hillsboro Community Sur- vey commissioned by the Port during the week of April 8, 2002. The survey results noted that 40 percent of those surveyed thought PDX was not easy to get to, and that roadway congestion is a moderately negative factor for Wash- ington County residents traveling to PDX. While vehicle travel times to PDX are affected by congestion, light rail ser- vice is available from Washington County to PDX. According to the Tri- Met schedule, light rail service from the Washington County Fair Com- plex/Hillsboro Airport Max station to PDX is scheduled at 88 minutes. Other factors that trend toward con- sidering scheduled passenger air and/or air cargo service at Hillsboro Airport include: location and prox- imity to population growth in the western metropolitan area, potential operating cost advantages over PDX for an airline, the growing high-tech economy and the many individuals and businesses in the western metro- politan areas that have voiced an in- terest in seeing such services offered. With regard to the potential for scheduled airline service, 42 percent of the respondents in the Hillsboro Community Survey stated that they were “very likely” to use scheduled air- line service at Hillsboro Airport if it were available. Another 29 percent said they were somewhat likely to do so. In all, seven in ten respondents said that they were “very” or “some- what” likely to use Hillsboro Airport if commercial passenger service were available. It should be noted that this survey did not qualify the type of air service at Hillsboro Airport in terms of cost, des- tinations served, or aircraft type, when asking the survey respondents if they would use air service at Hillsboro Airport. There are many choices for air travelers in terms of the number of destinations, costs, and aircraft types operating at PDX. An air traveler’s decision to fly is highly volatile and based on these factors - most impor- tantly cost. The survey also assessed the impres- sions of the respondents to two differ- ent commercial service scenarios at Hillsboro Airport. When asked to rate their impressions of commercial air service at Hillsboro Airport that in- cluded 20-seat planes to one or two west coast cities, 54 percent of the re- spondents indicated that they “liked” this scenario, rating their support be- tween eight and ten on a ten-point scale. For service with 50-seat planes 2-9 to several west coast cities, 49 percent of the respondents rated this between eight and ten on a ten-point scale. Most notable was the increase in the “dislike” rating (a 1 to 4 rating on the ten-point scale) between these scenar- ios. For service with 20-seat planes to one or two west coast cities, 14 percent of the respondents disliked the idea. For the 50-seat plane scenario, 25 per- cent of the respondents disliked the idea. These responses indicate that the public views the 20-seat scenario as being commensurate with the cur- rent activities at Hillsboro Airport. The 50-seat regional jet scenario, on the other hand, was viewed as not be- ing commensurate with existing Hills- boro Airport activities. AIRLINE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT The U.S. airline industry is commonly divided into major airlines, national airlines, regional airlines, and com- muter airlines. The major and na- tional airline distinction is defined by annual revenues. Major airlines ex- ceed revenues of $1 billion annually, whereas, the national airlines gross between $100 million and $1 billion annually. Examples of major air car- riers include United, American, and Alaska. National airlines include Ha- waiian Air and Sun Country Airlines. Regional airlines are air carriers pro- viding regularly scheduled passenger service with fleets composed primarily of aircraft having 100 seats or less. Regional carriers include Horizon Air and Skywest (in the state of Oregon, Skywest operates as United Express). Dramatic growth in code-sharing agreements with the major carriers, followed by a wave of air carrier ac- quisitions and purchases of equity in- terests, has led to the regional airline industry being closely tied to their ma- jor airline partner. (In the most basic form, code-sharing agreements essen- tially allow for the regional/commuter airline partner’s flights to be recog- nized in computer reservations sys- tems as part of the major airline's sys- tem. This allows the mainline airline to sell tickets for both the re- gional/commuter airline and the mainline airline themselves.) With these agreements, the regional air- lines have evolved from primarily in- dependent air carriers, to air carriers being closely linked to the scheduling needs of the major air carrier. Many regional airline agreements with their major airline partner are provided a fee-for-departure, with the major air- line determining the destination, air- craft type, and schedule. Since the primary role of regional air- lines is to feed traffic to their major airline partner, regional airlines pro- vide service to smaller communities from the hub airport where the major airline operates. Recently, the re- gional airlines have begun to operate routes typically flown by their major airline partner. The regional airline can operate a lower density route more profitably than the major airline, as they operate smaller aircraft that are more closely matched to the num- ber of travelers in a particular market. 2-10 Since regional airlines are so closely integrated with their major airline partner, regional airlines must oper- ate at the same airport for ease of pas- senger connections with the major air- line. These operations cannot be seg- regated between airports, even though the regional airline’s aircraft could be operated at another airport where their major airline partner’s aircraft could not operate. For example, while the aircraft Skywest uses could oper- ate within the current pavement strength and runway length limits at Hillsboro Airport, they need to operate at PDX to provide convenient connec- tions to United Airlines, their major network partner. Prior to the first quarter of 2001, the large commercial air carriers had 24 consecutive profitable quarters. Dur- ing that period, they had reported cu- mulative operating and net profits of $43.9 and $22.2 billion, respectively. Since the first quarter of 2001, the in- dustry has incurred losses in each subsequent quarter. Cumulative and net losses through 2002 totaled $16.2 and $14 billion, respectively. These losses would have increased by $5 bil- lion if it had not been for the Federal government aid package to U.S. air- lines in FY 2003. The dramatic turn-around in industry profits is due to a number of factors. First, the tenth economic recession since World War II began in March 2001, causing a downturn in passen- ger traffic. Second, the events of Sep- tember 11, 2001, further reduced travel demand. In 2003, the SARS outbreak and war with Iraq impacted travel demand. The end of the eco- nomic recession in 2003, led to some nominal growth in late 2003 for air travel. With the gains in air travel, many of the major airlines were still experiencing financial difficulties. Since September 11, 2001, six carriers have filed for bankruptcy and/or ceased operations due to the economic conditions. To combat the staggering losses, major U.S. airlines have insti- tuted massive cost cutting programs, focusing on labor and capacity. The airlines have renegotiated labor con- tracts, retired older, less efficient air- craft, delayed delivery of new aircraft and transferred many routes to their regional partners. Overshadowed by the overall industry losses are the strides the low-cost car- riers are making. Low-cost carriers (i.e., Southwest Airlines, JetBlue, and Air Tran) continue to garner market share and generate operating profits. This is due to the lower operating costs and higher yields. A 2003 study by JP Morgan noted that low-cost car- riers are making significant gains in total market share. Presently, low- cost carriers have 30 percent of the to- tal passenger market. This could grow to 40 percent by 2006. Ultimately, low-fare operations could increase to 60-70 percent of the total market. Despite the economic downturn and events of September 11 which have so significantly impacted the major air carriers, many regional and commuter air carriers have been able to main- tain their previous flight schedules. Many have even increased their flight 2-11 schedules in response to the transfer of additional routes from their larger code-sharing partners. Regional/commuter traffic continued to grow in 2002, enplaning 90.7 mil- lion passengers in the fiscal year. This is an increase of 8.5 percent from 2001. Industry growth is expected to outpace that of the larger commercial air car- riers. The introduction of new state- of-the-art aircraft, especially high- speed turboprops and regional jets with trip ranges of well over 1,000 nautical miles, is expected to open up new opportunities for growth in non- traditional markets. The regional air- line industry will also continue to benefit from continued integration with the larger commercial air carri- ers. The further need for air carriers to reduce costs and fleet size will in- sure that they continue to transfer smaller, marginally profitable routes, to their regional and commuter part- ners. Likewise, the increasing use of re- gional jets and high speed turboprops is expected to lead to more route transfers from the larger commercial air carriers to their regional/commuter partners, particularly on low-density routes in the 500-mile range. These aircraft can serve these markets with the speed and comfort of a large jet, while at the same time providing greater service frequency that is not economically feasible with the speed and comfort of a large jet. The FAA does not expect recovery for the U.S. airline industry until 2005, when U.S. passenger enplanements are projected to reach year 2000 lev- els. Table 2A summarizes FAA fore- casts for total scheduled U.S. passen- ger traffic as summarized in the FAA’s most recent forecast document: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2003-2014. The FAA projects U.S. Large Air Carriers to grow at 3.6 per- cent annually from 2002 to 2014. In contrast, the combined enplanements for regional and commuter air carriers are projected to grow at 5.6 percent annually over the same period. U.S. CITIES SERVED BY MORE THAN ONE COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORT Prior to examining the potential for scheduled airline service at Hillsboro Airport, it is appropriate to review the characteristics of U.S. cities that are served by more than one commercial service airport. This can help identify if there are potential market opportu- nities that could be captured at Hills- boro Airport. It may also indicate the characteristics within other communi- ties that are not applicable to the Port- land-Vancouver metropolitan area. 2-12 TABLE 2A FAA National Enplanement Forecasts Year U.S. Regional/Commuter Airline (millions) U.S. Large Air Carriers (millions) Total Scheduled U.S. Passenger Traffic (millions) Historical 1997 64.3 567.1 631.4 1998 67.8 576.9 644.7 1999 76.0 589.8 665.8 2000 81.5 614.8 696.3 2001 83.6 599.8 683.4 2002 90.7 536.9 627.6 Forecasts 2003 97.1 549.8 646.9 2004 106.6 573.2 679.8 2005 114.0 595.1 709.1 2010 146.4 707.6 854.0 2014 174.0 822.2 996.2 Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2003-2014 The NPIAS is the primary national airport planning document. This document includes those airports that are most important to interstate air travel. The NPIAS classifies commer- cial service airports as either a pri- mary commercial service airport (an airport that support over 10,000 an- nual passengers) or as a non-primary commercial service airport (an airport that serves fewer than 10,000 passen- gers annually). Table 2B summarizes the communities with two or more commercial service airports in NPIAS. The Year 2003 population of the ser- vice area for each of these airports is also included for comparison to the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area (which is noted at the top of the table). While there are many extended met- ropolitan areas in the United States that are served by more than one commercial service airport (i.e., Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Washington, D.C.), the airports in these metropolitan areas are in dis- tinct statistical and economic areas. For example, in the Los Angeles met- ropolitan area, Ontario International Airport is listed in a separate Metro- politan Statistical Area (MSA) from Los Angles International Airport. For these reasons, the communities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C., have been ex- cluded from this analysis. Table 2B presents population and en- planement data for nine communities across the U.S. with one commercial service airport in the NPIAS (Portland is noted only for comparison pur- poses). With the exception of Anchor- age, Alaska; Seattle, Washington; Or- lando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Ne- vada; the remaining communities have a population substantially greater than the Portland-Vancouver 2-13 metropolitan area and serve a signifi- cantly larger number of passengers. Therefore, these communities do not have as direct of a correlation to the Portland-Vancouver market as the others and cannot be relied upon to derive an understanding of the poten- tial market in Portland for a second commercial passenger airport. TABLE 2B Communities with More Than One Primary Commercial Service Airport in the NPIAS Community Airport Name 2003 Population 2002 Enplanements 2 Portland, Oregon PMSA* 2,034,730 Portland International 6,115,728 Anchorage, Alaska MSA 270,660 Lake Hood SPB 2,756 Ted Stevens Anchorage International 2,390,821 Chicago, Illinois PMSA 8,492,430 Chicago O’Hare International 31,627,040 Chicago Midway 7,874,507 Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas PMSA 3,785,470 Dallas Love 2,815,689 Dallas-Ft. Worth International 24,754,807 Detroit, Michigan PMSA 4,482,410 Detroit Metropolitan-Wayne County 15,514,195 Detroit City 1 --- Houston, Texas PMSA 4,442,130 Ellington 42,578 Bush Intercontinental 15,854,284 Houston Hobby 3,819,284 Las Vegas, Nevada MSA 1,757,220 Henderson --- McCarran International 15,781,720 North Las Vegas 69,755 New York PMSA 9,456,130 John F. Kennedy International 14,369,331 La Guardia 11,068,411 Orlando, Florida MSA 1,785,710 Orlando Sanford 509,576 Orlando International 12,902,363 Seattle, Washington PMSA 2,506,000 Seattle-Tacoma Int’l 12,959,567 Boeing Field/King County Int’l 7,436 1 No service since 1999. 2 Typically one-half of an airport’s total passengers * For comparison only Source for Population Data: 2003 Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS), Woods and Poole Economics Source for Enplanement Data: FAA MSA – Metropolitan Statistical Area PMSA – Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area 2-14 The Portland-Vancouver MSA is slightly larger than the Orlando, Flor- ida, and Las Vegas, Nevada, markets. However, each of these markets en- planes a significantly larger number of air travelers. The combined commer- cial service airport enplanements in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2002 were 15.8 million. The Orlando market en- planed 13.4 million air travelers. For comparison, PDX enplaned 6.1 million passengers in 2002. McCarran International Airport served all scheduled airline service in that market. The enplanements at North Las Vegas airport were attrib- utable to Grand Canyon air tours. While Orlando International captures most air travelers to the region, Or- lando Sanford serves a large number of international charters and sched- uled flights from national airlines. The Las Vegas and Orlando visitor markets are significantly larger than the Portland area and each has one or more world-renowned tourist attrac- tions. According to the Portland Visi- tors Association, there are approxi- mately 7.1 million visitors to the Port- land metropolitan area annually and approximately 28 million in the entire State of Oregon. According to the Or- lando/Orange County Convention and Visitors Bureau, there have been more than 40 million visitors each year to Orlando since 1999. According to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, there are more than 33 mil- lion visitors to Las Vegas annually. The Seattle, Washington MSA has ap- proximately 471,000 more residents than Portland. Combined, the com- mercial service airports in Seattle en- plane nearly 13.0 million passengers annually. The Seattle Convention and Visitors Bureau estimates that there are more than 8.5 million visitors to the City of Seattle each year. Air ser- vice at King County Interna- tional/Boeing Field consists of sched- uled helicopter and fixed wing travel to Vancouver, British Columbia, Can- ada as well as regularly scheduled service to the San Juan Island Port Angeles using turboprop aircraft. There are no U.S. domestic destina- tions served presently from Boeing Field. This is similar in many re- spects to Las Vegas, where the second commercial service airport serves a unique aspect of the local tourist mar- ket. Similar to Orlando and Las Vegas, it would appear that the second com- mercial service airport in Seattle sup- ports a unique travel aspect of that market. Therefore, these markets do not provide any similarities for poten- tial markets development at Hillsboro Airport. Anchorage, Alaska, has a lower popu- lation and enplanement level. Lake Hood Seaplane base is co-located with Anchorage International Airport and only has water runways. Lake Hood serves small air taxi and air tour op- erators. The characteristics of Lake Hood Seaplane Base are not compara- ble to the Portland-Vancouver area. According to Metro Regional Govern- ment data, the Portland-Vancouver population is projected to grow by ap- 2-15 proximately 800,000 over the next 22 years, growing from 2.0 million in 2003, to 2.8 million in 2025 (see Table 2B). Table 2C summarizes metropoli- tan areas in the United States that have existing populations within the projected population growth range of the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. The commercial service airports in those markets are also identified. The intent of this comparison is to identify if there is a potential for a second commercial service airport in the Portland-Vancouver area, should the population grow as projected by Metro. TABLE 2C Commercial Service Airports in Similarly-Sized Communities MSA Airport Name 2003 Population 2002 Enplanements Nassau-Suffolk, NY Long Island – MacArthur 2,811,540 961,573 St. Louis, MO – IL Lambert-St. Louis International 2,648,500 12,452,597 Baltimore, MD Baltimore-Washington International 2,634,740 9,329,844 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 2,517,960 St. Petersburg-Clearwater Int’l Tampa International 267,514 7,669,694 Seattle, WA 2,506,000 Seattle-Tacoma International Boeing Field/King County Int’l 12,559,567 7,436 Oakland, CA Metropolitan Oakland International 2,502,920 6,087,773 Pittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh International 2,350,060 8,966,407 Miami, FL Miami International 2,333,720 13,910,802 Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH Cleveland-Hopkins International 2,254,200 5,130,345 Denver, CO Denver International 2,239,610 16,929,111 Newark, NJ Newark 2,064,930 14,523,556 Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA Portland International 2,034,730 6,115,728 Source for Population Data: 2003 Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS), Woods and Poole Economics Only two of the twelve communities shown in Table 2C with existing popu- lations falling within the current and Year 2025 projected population growth range of the Portland-Vancouver met- ropolitan area support more than one commercial service airport. Those are Seattle, Washington, and Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida. The characteris- tics of Seattle, Washington, were dis- cussed earlier. Similar to Orlando, the Tampa/St. Pe- tersburg area is a resort destination. Combined, total visitors to the Tampa/St. Petersburg area is ap- proximately 20 million annually. The St. Petersburg/Clearwater Airport is served by nine airlines providing both domestic and international service. Service includes large transport air- craft. The St. Petersburg/Clearwater area is located on the west side of the Tampa Bay, along the gulf coast beaches. The proximity to the beaches and resorts supports the specialized airlines serving this specialized mar- ket. 2-16 While there are many communities in the United States that are served by more than one commercial service air- port, none of these communities are similar to the Portland-Vancouver area. Either the communities with two airports have a larger population or they have a significantly larger air travel market that is driven by their resort/tourist destination characteris- tics. In similarly-sized communities to Portland-Vancouver, the secondary commercial service airport serves a unique tourist attraction that is not present in the Portland-Vancouver market. HILLSBORO AIRPORT CAPABILITIES It is important to derive an under- standing of the type of aircraft that could operate at Hillsboro Airport, prior to examining other future poten- tial roles of the facility and in particu- lar commercial air passenger and/or air cargo market opportunities. The size of aircraft that can operate at the airport will dictate a number of key factors, including: the maximum flight distance from the airport and the des- tinations that could be served, the air- craft seating size and minimum num- ber of passengers needed to profitably serve the market, and capital re- quirements at the airport such as apron area, terminal building size, and automobile parking needs. In addition to meeting the regulatory requirements listed above, the airport that an air carrier would operate from must also provide sufficient runway length and pavement strength to ac- commodate the operations of the air carrier. Table 2D summarizes repre- sentative narrow body turbojet air- craft presently used by U.S. air carri- ers. Information on maximum takeoff weight, runway departure length, landing length, seating capacity, and range is also presented. Runway 12-30 is 6,600 feet long and offers a pavement strength rating of 50,000 pounds single wheel (SW) load- ing, 70,000 pounds dual wheel (DW) loading, and 110,000 pounds dual tan- dem wheel (DTW) loading. Examining the maximum gross weights of aircraft within Table 2D, it is evident that the overwhelming ma- jority of those aircraft exceed the pavement strength ratings at the air- port. With the exception of the Boeing 757 (which has a dual tandem wheel loading configuration), all remaining aircraft have dual wheel configura- tions. Therefore, using pavement strength as the first criterion to de- termine the type of aircraft that could currently operate at Hillsboro Airport, only 14 of the 45 models of aircraft listed in the table could regularly op- erate at Hillsboro Airport. This in- cludes nine models of regional jets. The remaining aircraft models would be excluded from regularly operating at Hillsboro Airport, without first in- creasing the runway, taxiway, and apron area pavement strengths at the airport; and in some cases, extending the runway. 2-17 TABLE 2D Representative Narrow Body Air Carrier Turbojet Aircraft Aircraft Gross Weight (lbs.) Number of Seats FAA Takeoff Field Length (ft.) FAA Landing Field Length (ft.) Range (miles) Airbus A318 Airbus A319 Airbus A320-200 Airbus A321-100 Airbus A321-200 BAe 146-100 BAe 146-200 BAe 146-300 Boeing 717-200 Boeing 727-200 Boeing 737-200 Boeing 737-300 Boeing 737-400 Boeing 737-500 Boeing 737-600 Boeing 737-700 Boeing 737-800 Boeing 737-900 Boeing 757-200 Boeing 757-300 Boeing DC9 Series 10 Boeing DC9 Series 20 Boeing DC9 Series 30 Boeing DC9 Series 40 Boeing DC9 Series 50 Boeing MD-81 Boeing MD-82 Boeing MD-83 Boeing MD-87 Boeing MD-88 Boeing MD-90-10 Boeing MD-90-30 Boeing MD-90-40 Bombardier CRJ200 (LR) Bombardier CRJ700 (ER) Bombardier CRJ900 (ER) Embraer ERJ 135 LR Embraer ERJ 140 LR Embraer ERJ 145 Embraer ERJ 170 LR Embraer ERJ 175 LR Embraer ERJ 190 LR Embraer ERJ 195 LR Fokker 70 Fokker 100 149,910 166,500 169,800 187,400 205,000 84,000 93,000 97,500 121,000 191,500 116,000 124,500 138,500 115,500 143,500 154,500 174,200 174,700 255,000 273,000 90,700 98,000 108,000 114,000 121,000 140,000 149,500 160,000 140,000 149,500 139,000 156,000 163,500 53,000 75,000 82,500 44,092 44,517 45,415 82,012 85,958 109,129 110,209 92,000 101,000 107 124 150 185 185 70-85 80-100 95-112 106 145 120 126 147 110 110 126 162 177 200 243 85 85 110 120 135 143 143 143 117 143 139 153 208 50 70 90 37 44 50 70 78 98 108 70-80 100-109 4,200 4,800 5,900 6,300 7,100 3,650 3,880 4,670 5,750 10,000 8,970 6,660 7,730 6,100 5,900 5,500 7,350 7,900 7,700 8,650 6,500 5,080 7,410 7,410 8,300 6,150 7,550 8,100 6,100 6,650 6,500 6,400 7,200 6,290 5,500 6,462 5,577 6,463 5,839 5,541 6,365 6,194 6,814 3,545 4,280 - 4,700 4,800 5,000 5,200 3,500 3,700 3,950 5,000 5,300 4,580 4,580 4,880 4,450 4,400 4,700 5,450 5,450 5,100 5,750 4,470 3,800 4,070 4,120 4,230 5,080 5,300 5,800 5,080 5,400 4,565 1,445 5,545 4,850 4,850 5,136 4,363 4,495 4,495 3,868 4,035 4,166 4,330 3,855 4,180 3,700 4,200 3,500 2,700 3,500 1,200 1,300 1,300 2,371 2,240 2,840 2,600 2,370 2,740 3,511 3,873 3,522 3,136 4,489 3,908 1,300 1,400 1,340 1,120 1,260 1,770 2,400 2,900 2,730 2,400 - - - 2,307 2,284 1,993 1,956 1,875 1,220 2,417 2,186 2,647 2,071 2,300 2,100 Source: Aviation Week and Space Technology Aircraft shown in bold can operate within the pavement strength and runway length limitations present at Hillsboro Airport 2-18 It should be noted that the Port, on occasion, allows aircraft exceeding the pavement strength rating to land at the airport (i.e., the annual air show). However, to maintain the integrity of the pavement, the number of such landings is tightly controlled. There- fore, if there were to be regular use of the airfield (i.e., daily landings) of air- craft over the pavement strength rat- ings, the pavement strength would need to be upgraded. The BAe, Bombardier and Embraer aircraft are regional jets. Their use in the U.S. national transportation sys- tem has been primarily for regional airlines providing passengers to their major network partner’s hub locations. As shown in Table 2D, these aircraft would have a range up to 2,300 nauti- cal miles from Portland. This would include all west coast metropolitan ar- eas and extend to the east to Chicago and southeast to Houston. To operate these aircraft on a scheduled basis at Hillsboro Airport, the airport would have to first become FAR Part 139 cer- tificated. Table 2E summarizes representative turboprop aircraft in the national re- gional/commuter airline fleet. All of these aircraft would be able to operate within the pavement strength and runway length limitations of Hillsboro Airport. The maximum stage length is 1,500 nautical miles for the Bombar- dier Q400. This would allow flights from Portland to Denver. Most of the remaining aircraft have stage lengths less than 1,000 miles, which would only allow service to regional popula- tion bases on the west coast. However, it should be noted that there would be varying regulatory compli- ance requirements before the airport could allow the use of turboprop air- craft in scheduled service at the air- port. Based on the number of seats, the aircraft shown in italics in Table 2E would require that Hillsboro Air- port be FAR Part 139 certificated prior to their use in commercial air service at the airport. The aircraft shown in a bold text could operate at the airport without a certification requirement. However, they would need to be con- figured for fewer than 10 passenger seats. As mentioned previously, these aircraft are not used extensively in scheduled airline service in the conti- nental United States. 2-19 TABLE 2E Representative Air Carrier Turboprop Aircraft Aircraft Gross Weight (lbs.) Number of Seats FAA Takeoff Field Length (ft.) FAA Landing Field Length (ft.) Range (miles) ATR 42-400 ATR 42-500 ATR 72-200 ATR 72-210 ATR 72-500 BAe ATP BAe Jetstream 31 BAe Jetstream 32EP BAe Jetstream 41 Cessna 208B Grand Caravan Bombardier Dash 7 Series 100 Bombardier Q100 Bombardier Q200 Bombardier Q300 Bombardier Q400 Embraer EMB-120 Fairchild Merlin 23 Fairchild Metro 3 Fairchild Metro 23 Pilatus PC-12 Beechcraft 1900C Beechcraft 1900D Saab 340 Saab 2000 39,462 41,005 47,400 47,400 48,500 52,200 15,212 16,204 24,000 8,750 44,000 36,300 36,300 43,000 64,500 26,433 16,500 14,500 16,500 9,920 16,600 17,120 29,000 50,265 48 48 66 66 68 64-72 19 19 29 9-14 50-54 37-39 37-39 50-56 68-78 30 6-14 19 19 9 19 19 30-37 50-58 3,904 3,822 4,625 3,970 4,012 4,430 4,800 4,700 4,400 2,420 2,250 3,250 3,280 3,865 4,265 5,118 5,400 4,400 5,503 2,300 3,800 3,813 3,830 4,235 3,688 3,694 3,953 3,440 3,438 3,700 4,000 3,700 4,400 1,795 2,160 2,560 2,560 3,415 4,221 4,528 2,605 4,092 4,609 1,830 2,450 2,380 3,258 4,193 949 966 1,015 910 821 530 242 367 611 1,338 795 1,269 1,155 1,063 1,565 800 - - 1,266 - 723 606 857 1,350 Source: Aviation Week and Space Technology AIRLINE REQUIREMENTS To add new service or to improve ex- isting service, an airlines needs to en- sure that the service to a new airport would be more beneficial to their long- term goals than initiating service at a new airport or expanding services at an existing airport in their system. Their evaluation includes many fac- tors, most proprietary and specific to the airline. However, for all airlines the decision to initiate new service re- volves around three common factors: • Adequate Facilities • Community Support • Route Profitability Adequate Facilities A number of facilities must be in place to serve the passenger handling and flight operations of scheduled airline service. This includes a terminal building that provides areas for airline management, passenger ticketing, bag claim, and passenger screening and secure holding prior to flight. An 2-20 apron area adequate for the size of aircraft using the airport must be available. Sufficient automobile park- ing must be available for passengers. Presently, the Port of Portland owns the Hillsboro Airport terminal build- ing. This building currently serves a number of aviation-related and non- aviation tenants, including two rental car companies. The primary aircraft operation from the terminal building is a private shuttle service which now occupies most of the first floor of the terminal and the terminal apron. The terminal vehicle parking lot is typi- cally full supporting this shuttle op- eration. The present terminal building does not provide ticket counters or baggage claim areas. A significant reconfigu- ration of the terminal building would be required to accommodate scheduled airline service. Substantial expansion of the public parking area would be required to serve the additional public parking needs of the scheduled airline passengers. The Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 re- quires that an air carrier/commuter service airport either have loading bridges or equipment to assist the boarding of disabled passengers where level entry is not available. Hillsboro Airport is not equipped with loading bridges, nor does it have a disabled person lift. This arrangement would need to be met prior to initiating air- line service at Hillsboro Airport. Of special consideration with all scheduled airline activities are new requirements for passenger checked baggage and departure screening. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the federal government passed the Aviation and Transportation Secu- rity Act. This law created the Trans- portation Security Administration (TSA) to administer air transportation security. With this law, the TSA took responsibility for conducting check point passenger screening and was re- sponsible for checked baggage screen- ing. The law requires security screen- ers to be employees of the Federal government, except for a few limited situations when the airport can re- quest contract security screeners funded by the TSA. Therefore, prior to establishing any new scheduled airline service at Hills- boro Airport, the TSA must fund secu- rity screening at Hillsboro Airport. In 2003 and 2004, the TSA was reducing their security staff nationwide to meet congressionally mandated staffing size. Furthermore, the TSA was focus- ing their capital funding requirements on the installation of in-line auto- mated baggage screening devices at major airports, to meet explosive de- tection requirements of the law. With- out the support of the TSA, scheduled airline service could not be established at Hillsboro Airport. Community Support There are more airports desiring air service than there are airlines and aircraft to provide the air service. Communities across the country have implemented extensive programs to 2-21 initiate or increase air travel. These include marketing support for the air- lines and establishing travel banks. Travel banks are essentially pledges from the community to spend a certain amount of their travel funds on the new airline service. The cost of initiat- ing service is high and it takes an air- line a significant amount of time to recover this cost. Operating subsidies typically are also provided to help off- set this initial investment by an air- line. In most cases, the establishment of new service at an airport never previ- ously served by airline service involves a combination of these arrangements for airlines. Without a community ac- tively pursuing an airline candidate, it is not likely that new service will be established. There is no active pro- gram within the Port or the commu- nity to provide marketing or opera- tional subsidies to an airline for ser- vice at Hillsboro Airport. Route Profitability The primary factor for route expansion for an airline is profitability. Profit- ability is a direct result of load factors. The more passengers on each flight increases load factors and revenue for an airline. Any airline choosing to op- erate from Hillsboro Airport will con- sider the number of passengers that could be captured for each destination. For Hillsboro Airport, the potential passenger market that could be cap- tured would be limited to the western areas of the metropolitan area, specifi- cally Washington County, Yamhill County, and Columbia County resi- dents. It is not anticipated that resi- dents in Clark County Washington or residents of Multnomah or Clackamas Counties in Oregon would by-pass PDX to fly from Hillsboro Airport. This would increase their current travel times and distances. The combined population of Washing- ton County, Yamhill County, and Co- lumbia County is approximately 591,000. This is approximately 30 percent of the entire metropolitan area. Route profitability is more fully addressed in the discussion of market viability. Hillsboro Airport currently does not provide adequate terminal facilities, public parking, security or certifica- tion to allow most commercial air car- rier operations. These capital and op- erational needs would need to be im- plemented prior to accommodating most types of scheduled air service at Hillsboro Airport. Although through the Port sponsored Hillsboro Commu- nity Survey there has been shown some support for potential airline ser- vice at Hillsboro Airport, there is cur- rently not an organized travel bank or program to attract an airline to Hills- boro Airport. COMPETITIVE FACTORS The primary factors that influence passenger selection for air service in- clude: type of aircraft, low fares, con- venient departure times, and nonstop service. Jet aircraft are preferred over 2-22 turboprop aircraft for their speed, per- ceived level of safety, and comfort due to bigger cabins and reduced vibration levels. The range of jet aircraft oper- ating at PDX include most models of the Airbus and Boeing fleets, includ- ing narrow body and wide body trans- port aircraft. As shown earlier, Hills- boro Airport is presently not capable of accommodating these aircraft. Therefore, aircraft service from Hills- boro Airport could not directly com- pete with the type of aircraft offered by the air carriers at PDX. The best type of air service that could be provided from Hillsboro Airport would be from regional jet aircraft. Regional jets can operate within the pavement strength and runway length limitations of Hillsboro Airport. Re- gional jet aircraft are gaining greater acceptance with the traveling public due to their speed and conveniences, which are similar to that of the major airline aircraft. If regional jet service was provided from Hillsboro Airport, it can be expected that this would not be viewed by the public as an inferior service to that of PDX. However, if only turboprop aircraft service was provided at Hillsboro Airport, this ser- vice would be at a considerable com- petitive disadvantage with PDX. As noted above, the traveling public pref- erence is for turbojet aircraft. At PDX, most major markets are served by more than one air carrier providing competition for price and schedule. PDX is also served by Southwest Airlines and other low-fare carriers. This supports lower fares for air travelers in the region. This re- moves a potential competitive advan- tage for an operator from Hillsboro Airport that could market lower fares than offered at PDX. Table 2F summarizes fall 2003 non- stop destinations from PDX. In total, 48 markets were served by nonstop service from PDX, including most commercial service airports in Oregon. As shown in this table, non-stop ser- vice from PDX is available to all the major west coast destinations (i.e., Se- attle, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco Bay Area), all commercial service airports within the State of Oregon (i.e., Redmond, North Bend, Eugene, Klamath Falls) several west- ern mountain communities (i.e., Boise, Spokane, Salt Lake City) and major U.S. airline hubs across the country (i.e., Phoenix, Las Vegas, Chicago O’Hare, Atlanta, Cincinnati). With all major markets being flown to from PDX, any service to/from Hillsboro Airport would directly compete with the destinations served from PDX, unless service was provided to an al- ternate airport such as Boeing Field in Seattle, Washington. 2-23 TABLE 2F Non-Stop Destinations Served by Airlines Operating Out Of Portland International Airport Destination Albuquerque Anchorage Atlanta Billings Boise Burbank Chicago O’Hare Cincinnati Dallas/Fort Worth Denver Detroit/Metro Eugene Eureka/Arcata Frankfurt Fresno Guadalajara Honolulu Houston Intercontinental Kahului Maui Kansas City Klamath Falls Las Vegas Los Angeles Medford Minneapolis/St. Paul North Bend/Coos Bay Newark Oakland Ontario Orange County Pasco Pendleton Phoenix Redding Redmond/Bend Reno Sacramento Salt Lake City San Diego San Francisco San Jose Santa Barbara Seattle Spokane St. Louis Vancouver, B.C. Washington D.C./Dulles Source: Port of Portland A summary of the top 20 destinations for PDX is provided in Table 2G. The destinations are ranked according to the number of air travelers to each market. For 2001, the last full year of available data for PDX, Los Angeles was the top destination, with 561,830 passengers. In total, the top 20 mar- kets for PDX accounted for over six million passengers or approximately half of the 12.7 million total passen- gers at PDX in 2001. 2-24 TABLE 2G Market Capture Analysis (Optimal Load Factor) Rank Destination Distance (nm) 2001 Passengers 2001 Avg. Daily Departures Annual Seats to Fill Required Capture % Regional Jet Scenario 1 Los Angeles, CA 836 561,830 10.0 67,900 12% 2 San Jose, CA 568 494,480 11.0 67,900 14% 3 Las Vegas, NV 770 464,400 6.3 67,900 15% 4 Phoenix, AZ 1,018 440,110 10.4 67,900 15% 5 Oakland, CA 541 431,470 9.7 67,900 16% 6 Sacramento, CA 477 400,100 9.2 67,900 17% 7 San Francisco, CA 548 390,440 14.2 67,900 17% 8 San Diego, CA 936 312,590 4.0 67,900 22% 9 Salt Lake City, UT 644 272,760 6.8 67,900 25% 10 Denver, CO 999 260,870 7.7 67,900 26% 11 Boise, ID 360 252,700 8.6 67,900 27% 12 Spokane, WA 296 251,080 9.4 67,900 27% 13 Orange County, CA 863 236,820 2.8 67,900 29% 14 Chicago (O’Hare), IL 1,753 219,430 7.3 67,900 31% 15 Ontario, CA 842 200,770 2.8 67,900 34% 16 Reno, NV 448 195,520 3.1 67,900 35% 17 Burbank, CA 820 172,170 2.8 67,900 39% 18 Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX 1,629 157,170 5.1 67,900 43% 19 Seattle, WA 136 151,670 39.9 67,900 45% 20 Baltimore, MD 2,370 148,840 NA NA NA 30-Seat Turboprop Scenario 1 Los Angeles, CA 836 561,830 10.0 NA NA 2 San Jose, CA 568 494,480 11.0 40,700 8% 3 Las Vegas, NV 770 464,400 6.3 40,700 9% 4 Phoenix, AZ 1,018 440,110 10.4 NA NA 5 Oakland, CA 541 431,470 9.7 40,700 9% 6 Sacramento, CA 477 400,100 9.2 40,700 10% 7 San Francisco, CA 548 390,440 14.2 40,700 10% 8 San Diego, CA 936 312,590 4.0 NA NA 9 Salt Lake City, UT 644 272,760 6.8 40,700 15% 10 Denver, CO 999 260,870 7.7 NA NA 11 Boise, ID 360 252,700 8.6 40,700 16% 12 Spokane, WA 296 251,080 9.4 40,700 16% 13 Orange County, CA 863 236,820 2.8 NA NA 14 Chicago (O’Hare), IL 1,753 219,430 7.3 NA NA 15 Ontario, CA 842 200,770 2.8 NA NA 16 Reno, NV 448 195,520 3.1 40,700 21% 17 Burbank, CA 820 172,170 2.8 NA NA 18 Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX 1,629 157,170 5.1 NA NA 19 Seattle, WA 136 151,670 39.9 40,700 27% 20 Baltimore, MD 2,370 148,840 NA NA NA 2-25 TABLE 2G (Continued) Market Capture Analysis (Optimal Load Factor) Rank Destination Distance (nm) 2001 Passengers 2001 Avg. Daily Departures Annual Seats to Fill Required Capture % 19-Seat Turboprop Scenario 1 Los Angeles, CA 836 561,830 10.0 NA NA 2 San Jose, CA 568 494,480 11.0 25,800 5% 3 Las Vegas, NV 770 464,400 6.3 NA NA 4 Phoenix, AZ 1,018 440,110 10.4 NA NA 5 Oakland, CA 541 431,470 9.7 25,800 6% 6 Sacramento, CA 477 400,100 9.2 25,800 6% 7 San Francisco, CA 548 390,440 14.2 25,800 7% 8 San Diego, CA 936 312,590 4.0 NA NA 9 Salt Lake City, UT 644 272,760 6.8 NA NA 10 Denver, CO 999 260,870 7.7 NA NA 11 Boise, ID 360 252,700 8.6 25,800 10% 12 Spokane, WA 296 251,080 9.4 25,800 10% 13 Orange County, CA 863 236,820 2.8 NA NA 14 Chicago (O’Hare), IL 1,753 219,430 7.3 NA NA 15 Ontario, CA 842 200,770 2.8 NA NA 16 Reno, NV 448 195,520 3.1 25,800 13% 17 Burbank, CA 820 172,170 2.8 NA NA 18 Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX 1,629 157,170 5.1 NA NA 19 Seattle, WA 136 151,670 39.9 25,800 17% 20 Baltimore, MD 2,370 148,840 NA NA NA Source: Port of Portland, Coffman Associates analysis. The most viable markets for potential air service from Hillsboro Airport would be the highest density markets within the top ten. With the higher density markets, a small percentage capture of the total market could pro- vide a large number of passengers for Hillsboro Airport. For example, cap- turing only 10 percent of the Los An- geles market could provide over 50,000 passengers annually at Hills- boro Airport, whereas with the Seattle market, to achieve the same level of passengers would require capturing 32 percent of the market. These high density markets provide the greatest number of passengers for capture by an airline operating at Hillsboro. Since Hillsboro Airport would be competing with the estab- lished airline at PDX, which could of- fer larger aircraft types, and poten- tially more departures, it is expected that Hillsboro Airport could only cap- ture a portion of each market with re- gional jet or turboprop service. For Hillsboro Airport, it is not ex- pected an airline operating at PDX would be a candidate airline for ser- vice at Hillsboro Airport. The regional airlines operating the type of aircraft that could land and depart at Hills- boro Airport feed connecting traffic to their major airline partner at PDX. Feeder operations cannot be segre- gated between airports since the 2-26 feeder relies on quick and convenient connections with the major airline partner. Quick and convenient con- nections could not be made between Hillsboro Airport and PDX. The regional airline also operates routes that would ordinarily be flown by the major airline partner. For ex- ample, regional jet service is provided from San Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento to Portland daily by the regional affiliate of a major air carrier. Service at Hillsboro Airport could be offered by a new airline operating the types of aircraft capable of operating at Hillsboro Airport. This may be a start-up airline. Most of the existing regional airlines operating in the Northwest region of the United States code-share with a major airline. In some cases, these agreements restrict the regional airline from developing individual routes without the approval of the major airline partner. There- fore, these code-share agreements could inhibit existing regional airlines from independently developing new service at Hillsboro Airport. Regional airlines in the northwest and their code-share partners are listed below: • Horizon Air – Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Continental Airlines. • Skywest – United Airlines • Mesa – America West • Big Sky - Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines and Alaska Airlines MARKET VIABILITY An airline’s decision to enter a market is purely a business decision based, in part, on the potential passenger mar- ket. The viability of airline service at Hillsboro Airport will be examined by first determining the number of an- nual passengers required to sustain certain levels of air service. The num- ber of passengers will then be viewed as a percentage of the top PDX mar- kets to determine what percentage of those markets must be captured at Hillsboro Airport to support air service in that market. Three different levels of service will be examined in this section: regional jet service, 30-seat turboprop services, and finally 19-seat turboprop services. Regional airlines generally focus their operation on a particular aircraft type or seating capacity. These three sce- narios are intended to represent typi- cal regional airline operations in the United States. The greater the frequency of flights, the more support there is for service in a city pair. Frequency of flights offers flexibility for the air traveler. At a minimum, two daily flights are needed to support air travel. However, three or more daily departures garners more support, as departure and landing times can be more closely matched to air travelers’ schedules. A review of the average number of de- partures for the PDX Top 20 markets 2-27 reveals that with the exception of On- tario and Orange County, each market had more than three daily departures. With this understanding, to effectively compete with service at PDX to the same destination, service at Hillsboro Airport would need to encompass at least three daily departures. Nationwide, the regional/commuter airline industry achieves a load factor of approximately 62 percent. Essen- tially, this means that the re- gional/commuter airlines fill approxi- mately 62 percent of the available seats. The available seats are deter- mined by multiplying the aircraft seating by the number of daily flights. For the regional jet scenario, the total seats in the market would be 300 a day or 109,500 per year (assuming both arrivals and departures). Apply- ing the 62 percent load factor to the total seats in the market results in a requirement that the airline fill ap- proximately 67,900 seats each year for profitability. For the 30-seat turboprop scenario, there are 65,700 total seats available each year. For profitability, the air- line must fill approximately 40,700 seats annually. For the 19-seat turbo- prop scenario, there are a total of 41,610 seats annually. An airline must fill approximately 25,800 seats to be profitable. Table 2G compares each regional sce- nario requirement for seats to be filled to the PDX Top 20 markets to deter- mine the required capture rate within each market for airlines to profitably serve that market. Table 2G also ex- amines the markets that could be served under each scenario. For the 30-seat turboprop scenario and 19-seat turboprop scenario, there are a num- ber of the Top 20 markets that cannot be served with these aircraft due to these markets being outside the range of the typical turboprop aircraft. For the regional jet scenario, only Bal- timore, Maryland, could not be served by a typical regional jet now in the na- tional fleet. As shown in Table 2G, to serve 40,700 annual passengers, re- quires capturing 14 percent of the San Jose, California market. This in- creases to 45 percent in the Seattle, Washington market. For the 30-seat turboprop scenario, only 10 of the Top 20 markets could be served by a typical 30-seat aircraft. Service with this size of aircraft re- quires capturing eight percent of San Jose, California, market and 27 per- cent of the Seattle, Washington, mar- ket. Only eight of the Top 20 markets could be served by a 19-seat turboprop aircraft. Service with this size of air- craft requires capturing five percent of the San Jose market and 17 percent of the Seattle, Washington, market. Three of the PDX Top 20 markets have some level of turboprop service. This includes Boise, Spokane, and Se- attle. The remaining markets are all served with turbojet aircraft ranging from the regional jet to transport air- craft such as the Boeing 737. Based upon this service differential, it is likely that service from PDX would be 2-28 chosen over service at Hillsboro Air- port, should only turboprop service be provided at Hillsboro Airport to the same markets. Therefore, the only likely turboprop markets would be the three listed above. Both Boise and Spokane are served with turboprop aircraft with greater than 35 passenger seats. Ser- vice to Seattle includes 30-seat turbo- prop aircraft. The turboprop aircraft with greater than 30 passenger seats include a flight attendant and rest- room facilities. These aircraft are ac- cepted more by the traveling public. This reduces the desirability of 19-seat turboprop service and decreases its chances of success in any markets that could be served from Hillsboro Airport. Regional jet service from Hillsboro Airport would provide the best com- petitive advantages with PDX, since all of the top 20 markets are served with some level of turbojet service. The origin/destination capture rate at a second commercial service airport typically ranges up to 40 percent of the total origin/destination market. The higher capture rates are seen in markets where the secondary airport is served by the low-fare carriers (i.e., Houston and Chicago). Without an easily recognized low-fare air carrier at the secondary airport (i.e., Southwest Airlines), the secon- dary airport could be expected to cap- ture only a small portion of the pas- senger market, most likely below 15 percent. For Hillsboro Airport, this would leave only four potential re- gional jet markets: Los Angeles, San Jose, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. Other- wise, the air carrier would need to provide some level of continuing ser- vice to a market to generate the neces- sary passenger levels to support air- line service. For example, a flight to Los Angeles could continue to San Diego. COMMERCIAL PASSENGER AIR SERVICE POTENTIAL CONCLUSIONS Portland International Airport pro- vides significant competitive advan- tages over Hillsboro Airport that re- duce the potential for establishing scheduled passenger air service at Hillsboro Airport. First, PDX is an operational and certificated commer- cial service airport. Hillsboro Airport has never been certificated for com- mercial service and has many capital improvement needs and regulatory re- quirements that must be met prior to establishing scheduled air service. These include: • Establishing Part 139 certifica- tion, • Obtaining TSA security personnel and security equipment for checked baggage and passenger screening, • Upgrading terminal facilities that do not have ticketing or baggage claim facilities. The terminal apron and automobile parking ar- eas are used by a private shuttle service. Additional apron area and public parking are needed to ac- commodate scheduled airline ser- vice. There are no loading bridges 2-29 or lifts to accommodate disabled passengers. A review of communities across the country that support more than one commercial service airport indicated that there are no market similarities between Portland and these communi- ties. Either these communities have a much larger population and air service market than Portland, or the secon- dary airport served a unique aspect of that community. For example, the secondary commercial service airport in Las Vegas provided air tours over the Grand Canyon. Since PDX provides non-stop service to 48 destinations and all west coast destinations within the range of a re- gional jet or turboprop aircraft, service from Hillsboro Airport would compete directly with service from PDX. All the top 20 markets at PDX are served with jet service. Only three have some level of turboprop service with aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats. For this reason (and others stated in the preceding paragraphs of this section), 19-seat turboprop services are not considered feasible at Hillsboro Air- port. The remaining markets would need to be priced competitively with PDX in order for Hillsboro Airport to capture any reasonable market share. There are only four potential regional jet markets for Hillsboro Airport; each of these markets is currently served by low-cost service from PDX. With no community-based programs currently in place to attract air service (such as a travel bank or airline guar- antee program to initiate new air ser- vice at Hillsboro Airport), it does not appear that commercial air service is being actively pursued within the community. Furthermore, there is no potential airline candidate to serve Hillsboro Airport. The four primary regional airlines serving Oregon and Washington currently provide feeder services for their code-sharing part- ners at PDX. While a start-up airline could serve the airport, start-up air- lines are typically hampered by a lack of capital, operating funds, and name recognition, which proves difficult in maintaining reliable service. Since feeder service is provided now to Port- land, scheduled airline service from Hillsboro Airport would strictly be ori- gin/destination traffic to a specific market. The commercial airline in- dustry is also in a restructuring and contraction period. The industry is reeling from significant losses due to the recent economic recession, events of September 11, 2001, SARS, and the war on terrorism. Given these consid- erations, it does not appear that scheduled airline service is feasible at this time for Hillsboro Airport. AIR CARGO SERVICE POTENTIAL The U.S. air cargo industry is a di- verse collection of companies and ser- vices providing for the movement of freight by air. Air cargo in the U.S. and internationally is moved by the passenger airlines (more commonly referred to as “belly cargo” since the cargo being shipped by air is loaded into the lower half of the passenger aircraft, or its belly), mixed carriers 2-30 (those airlines that have both dedi- cated air cargo and air passenger air- craft in their fleet), integrated cargo carriers, and all-cargo companies. Table 2H summarizes the air cargo carrier types and their business char- acteristics. TABLE 2H Air Cargo Carriers And Their Business Characteristics Air Cargo Carrier Type Characteristics Representative Carriers Customers Desired Airport Characteristics Belly Baggage holds of passenger air- craft. Delta, United, American. Wholesale, Mail, Retail Passenger Air- port Mixed Baggage holds of passenger air- craft and main decks of all-cargo aircraft. Northwest, Luf- thansa, EVA Wholesale, Mail, Retail Passenger Air- port Integrated Main decks of all- cargo carriers FedEx, UPS, Air- borne Express Retail, Mail Airport near population base All-cargo Main decks of all- cargo carriers Challenge, Air Cargo, Cargolux, Evergreen Wholesale Airport near population base Source: Coffman Associates Analysis Passenger airlines move freight dur- ing their regularly scheduled passen- ger flights. This segment of the air cargo industry does not appear to be feasible for Hillsboro Airport since, as discussed above, scheduled airline service at Hillsboro Airport does not appear feasible and the major air car- riers operate from PDX. This leaves the only air cargo market opportuni- ties for Hillsboro Airport, all-cargo carriers who do not necessarily need to operate from a passenger airport such as the integrated air carriers or all- cargo airlines. The integrated air carriers are charac- terized by providing for both the ground and air transportation of freight. The all-cargo airlines rely on freight forwarders and other inde- pendent agents for ground transporta- tion. The integrated air carriers, feeders, and all-cargo carries serving PDX are listed in Table 2J. As shown in this table, PDX is served by four inte- grated carriers, eight all-cargo carri- ers, and two feeder carriers. Ameri- Flight and Empire Airlines provide feeder services for the integrated car- riers to outlying communities in Ore- gon and Washington from PDX. 2-31 TABLE 2J Cargo Carriers at PDX Integrated Carriers Feeders All-Cargo Carriers Airborne DHL Worldwide Express Federal Express (FedEx) United Parcel Service (UPS) AmeriFlight Empire Airlines Air China Cargo Kitty Hawk Cargo Bax Global Emery Worldwide Evergreen Airlines Korean Air Western Air Express Source: Port of Portland. Cargolux ceased operations out of PDX on October 26, 2003 The integrated air carriers are similar in many respects to the major air car- riers. The integrated air carriers have established a network of hub airports across to the country to ensure the overnight delivery of packages to vir- tually any address in the U.S. These hub airports serve the large transport aircraft of the integrated air carrier. Feeder aircraft operate at outlying communities that do not have the ca- pabilities to accommodate the large transport aircraft or have sufficient levels of freight to support a larger aircraft. Table 2K summarizes the operational characteristics of representative air- craft within the existing integrated cargo fleets and all-cargo airline fleets. As evident in the table, Hillsboro Air- port does not have the runway pave- ment strength or runway length, in some cases, to serve the large trans- port aircraft in either the integrated air carrier fleets or all-cargo fleets. The smaller aircraft in their fleets are feeder aircraft and cannot operate at an airport independently from the large transport aircraft. Therefore, based upon the infrastructure limita- tions at Hillsboro Airport, it does not appear that Hillsboro Airport could accommodate an integrated air car- rier. Furthermore, the integrated air carriers operate under FAR Part 121. Similar to the commercial airlines, the airport would need to be FAR Part 139 certificated to accommodate the opera- tions of these aircraft. Hillsboro Airport could not serve the large transport aircraft operated by the all-cargo carriers either. The only aircraft that could be accommodated at Hillsboro Airport are the turboprop aircraft listed above. There are many all-cargo airlines operating versions of these turboprop aircraft. These air- craft are used for specialty, on-demand services. Aircraft such as the Jet- stream 31 and Cessna Caravan have a payload capacity less than 7,500 pounds. These aircraft would operate under FAR Part 135 and could use Hillsboro Airport without any FAR Part 139 certification. 2-32 TABLE 2K Representative Aircraft Integrated Cargo Air Carriers and All-Cargo Airlines Aircraft Gross Weight (lbs.) FAA Takeoff Field Length (ft.) FAA Landing Field Length (ft.) Range (miles) Narrow Body Turbojet Transport Aircraft Boeing 727-200 Boeing DC9 Series 10 Boeing DC9 Series 30 Boeing DC- Series 40 Boeing DC8 Series 60 191,500 90,700 108,000 114,000 328,000 10,000 6,500 7,410 7,410 10,000 5,300 4,470 4,070 4,120 6,150 2,240 1,300 1,340 1,120 5,460 Wide Body Turbojet Transport Aircraft Boeing 767-200 Boeing DC-10 Boding MD-11 Boeing 747-200 Airbus A300-200 Airbus A310-200 300,000 580,000 630,500 833,000 363,800 313,100 5,500 10,700 10,000 10,900 NA NA 4,850 6,320 7,600 6,200 NA NA 4,589 3,780 4,120 6,876 NA NA Turboprop Aircraft BAe Jetstream 31 Shorts 360-300 Cessna 208B Super Cargomaster 15,212 27,100 8,750 4,800 4,280 2,420 4,000 4,220 1,795 242 978 1,338 Source: Aviation Week and Space Technology AIR CARGO SERVICE POTENTIAL CONCLUSIONS There is only a limited opportunity for air cargo services at Hillsboro Airport. This is a function of the structure of the air cargo industry and type of air- craft used for air cargo services, more than it is a function of the air cargo market in the Portland-Vancouver area. Air freight is moved by both the pas- senger air carriers and all-cargo air- lines. The cargo handling from the passenger and mixed airlines is only feasible at PDX where the passenger airlines operate. The integrated all-cargo carriers util- ize a combination of large transport aircraft and feeder aircraft at hub network locations. Integrated all- cargo service could not be established at Hillsboro Airport, since Hillsboro Airport does has neither the pavement strength nor the runway length needed to serve the large aircraft in the integrated airline fleet. Also, the airport neither has the available land to support the aircraft parking needs for these size aircraft nor the space for the required package sort- ing/handling/transfer facilities. The feeder operations of the integrated all- cargo airlines cannot be segregated to another airport. It is imperative that the feeder aircraft use the same air- port for the convenient and efficient consolidation of freight. The larger aircraft operated by all- cargo carriers would be prohibited from using Hillsboro Airport. An all- cargo airline that operates a turboprop or piston-powered fleet would be the 2-33 only type of air cargo operation that could be accommodated at Hillsboro Airport. These aircraft are similar in size to the existing fleet at Hillsboro Airport and could be easily integrated into existing airport operations. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE FUTURE ROLE OF HILLSBORO AIRPORT Considering the organization of the air transportation industry as defined by FAA regulation (discussed above) and industry practices, there are four po- tential future roles or options for de- velopment that can be considered for Hillsboro Airport as outlined below: 1. General Aviation/Reliever: This is a continuation of the air- port’s existing role. 2. General Aviation/Reliever That Also Supports Scheduled Commuter Airline Operations With Aircraft With Fewer Than 10 Passenger Seats: This would be the extent of commercial air service that could be accom- modated without FAR Part 139 certification. 3. Commercial Service/Reliever: This would be characterized by the airport primarily serving as a general aviation reliever for PDX, but also planning for the potential for scheduled airline activity with aircraft capable of carrying 10 or more passengers. 4. General Aviation/Air Cargo: This would be characterized by the airport primarily serving as a general aviation reliever for PDX, but also planning for the potential for air cargo. Potential role one, General Avia- tion/Reliever, and potential role two, General Aviation/Reliever That Also Supports Scheduled Com- muter Airline Operations With Aircraft With Fewer Than 10 Pas- senger Seats, can be accommodated within the existing infrastructure ca- pabilities (runway length, pavement strength) of Hillsboro Airport and ex- isting FAA regulatory environment. Commuter airline aircraft are permit- ted by FAA regulation to operate into Hillsboro Airport and do not require FAR Part 139 certification. Potential role three, Commercial Service/Reliever, and potential role four, General Aviation/Air Cargo cannot be fully accommodated at Hillsboro Airport due to existing limi- tations of the pavement strengths and runway lengths and the absence of FAR Part 139 certification. As men- tioned previously, Hillsboro Airport can only accommodate regular use by regional jet aircraft and smaller tur- boprop aircraft without increasing the existing pavement strengths and run- way lengths at Hillsboro Airport. Without FAR Part 139 certification, the airport could only accommodate air carrier aircraft with fewer than 10 passenger seats. Expansion or strengthening of the ex- isting runway and taxiway system to support heavier commercial service aircraft cannot be economically or en- 2-34 vironmentally justified at this time, and is not supported by the local community or Port staff. Therefore, the selected role for Hillsboro Airport must remain within the existing infra- structure limitations at Hillsboro Air- port (i.e., roles one and two). Federal regulations prevent the Port from specifically excluding certain classes of aircraft operating from the airport. For example, the Port cannot, by policy, exclude commercial air ser- vice aircraft and only accommodate general aviation aircraft. Nor can the Port set a limitation on the size of commercial aircraft that it would al- low to operate at the airport. For ex- ample, the Port could not allow the use of the airport by 30 or 50-seat pas- senger aircraft, but exclude aircraft with larger seating capacities. How- ever, current federal policy allows the airport to limit operations by aircraft that exceed pavement strength limita- tions at the airport. Therefore, any future role for Hillsboro Airport that considers potential roles three and four would, by regulation, need to ac- commodate all those aircraft that can operate within the existing pavement strength and runway length limita- tions of the airport. In essence, federal regulations and policy require that the Port allow non- FAR Part 139 commercial passenger service and air cargo operations as long as they are compatible with the Airport’s infrastructure and there is space at Hillsboro Airport to support their operation. Title 49, Sec. 44706, Para (f), of U.S. Code, does give the Port the authority to decline Part 139 certification for Hillsboro Airport if the Port, as a policy, desires not to pursue certification. As discussed above, initiating new scheduled passenger airline and/or air cargo activity at Hillsboro Airport would be difficult. Any airline would face considerable risk and challenges including: limited market opportuni- ties, lack of suitable facilities for their operation, and considerable competi- tion from PDX. Therefore, it does not appear that the potential for roles two, three, and four is strong enough to change the role of the airport at this time. The existing role of the airport (role one), as a growing business-class general aviation/reliever airport, is the most likely role for Hillsboro Airport in the future. The Port's overall mission is to provide competitive cargo and passenger ac- cess to regional, national and interna- tional markets, while enhancing the region's quality of life. The Aviation mission is to operate, maintain and promote an airport system that satis- fies the air transportation needs of its customers by providing competitive cargo and passenger access to re- gional, national and international markets. Since general aviation con- tributes to moving cargo and passen- gers around the region, nation, and world, maintaining the same role for Hillsboro Airport allows the Port to directly meet these missions. The Port recognizes that the potential for business conditions to change or for an airline to develop a business plan around the infrastructure limita- 2-35 tions at Hillsboro Airport cannot be excluded from future consideration. Therefore, while this Master Plan will forecasts facilities to accommodate the growing business-class general avia- tion/reliever activities associated with role/option one at the Hillsboro Air- port, the alternatives analysis to fol- low will recognize and consider the po- tential for accommodating roles/options two, three and four in limited iterations of each within the future land use schematics for Hills- boro Airport. The Port recognizes that any aircraft operations associated with these distant future, optional roles will need to be compatible with Hillsboro Airport’s existing airport in- frastructure (i.e., regional jets and small cargo feeder aircraft with oper- ating weights not to exceed 100,000 lbs. and capable to safely operate on a 6,600-foot runway). Further, the Port recognizes that any future shift from the existing design standards will have to be economically, politically and environmentally justified at that time and will not be pursued within this Master Plan. SUMMARY Ensuring that Hillsboro Airport can continue to accommodate general aviation activity, aids the Port in im- plementing the objectives of the 2000 Portland International Airport Master Plan. The 2000 Portland Interna- tional Airport Master Plan called for “Strategies to Preserve Capacity.” By accommodating general aviation activ- ity at Hillsboro Airport, the capacity of the runway system is maximized at PDX and the need for a third parallel runway at PDX reduced. Hillsboro Airport is the most capable general aviation airport in the metro- politan region as well as near the Portland central business district. The capabilities of Hillsboro Airport cannot be duplicated at another re- gional airport without significant capi- tal investments. Therefore, Hillsboro Airport should continue to be devel- oped primarily for general aviation services. The analysis to follow will detail the specific aspects of the gen- eral aviation industry that are ex- pected to be accommodated at Hills- boro Airport. Chapter Three AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS PORT OF PORTLAND 3-1 CHAPTER THREE AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS PORT OF PORTLAND Facility planning must begin with a definition of the demand that may reasonably be expected to occur at the facility over a specific period of time. For Hillsboro Airport, this involves forecasts of aviation activity through the year 2025. In this master plan, forecasts of based aircraft, the based aircraft fleet mix, and annual aircraft operations will serve as the basis for facility planning. Air transportation is a unique industry that has experienced wide fluctuations in growth and recession. For this reason, it is important that from time-to-time an airport re-evaluate its current position and examine future demand trends and potential. The primary objective of this planning effort is to define the magnitude of change in aviation demand that can be expected over time. Because of the cyclical nature of the economy, it is virtually impossible to predict, with certainty, year-to-year fluctuations in activity when looking more than 20 years into the future. However, a trend can be established which delineates long-term growth potential. While a single line is often used to express the anticipated growth, it is important to remember that actual growth may fluctuate above and below this line. The point to remember about forecasts is that they serve only as guidelines, and planning must remain flexible to respond to unforeseen facility needs. This is because aviation 3-2 activity is affected by many external influences, as well as by the types of aircraft used and the nature of available facilities. Recognizing this, the master plan for Hillsboro Airport will be demand- based rather than time-based. Demand-based planning relates capital improvements to demand factors, such as based aircraft, instead of points in time. This allows the airport to address capital improvement needs according to the actual demand occurring at the airport. For example, should based aircraft growth slow or dramatically decline, it may not be necessary to implement some improvement projects. However, should the airport experience accelerated growth in based aircraft, the plan will need to be flexible enough to respond accordingly. This dynamic aspect of forecasting aeronautical needs will be further described in subsequent chapters of this master plan. In order to fully assess current and future aviation demand for Hillsboro Airport, an examination of several key factors is needed. These include: national and regional aviation trends, historical and forecast socioeconomic and demographic information of the area, and historical trends at Hillsboro Airport. These are the first planning forecasts to be prepared for Hillsboro Airport subsequent to the events of September 11, 2001 (9/11). There is no comparative period in recent history to draw conclusions or trends to gauge the full effects of the events of 9/11. In 1991, general aviation was already in an extended period of decline due to product liability concerns and was not specifically affected by the war or economic recession. The industry did not begin to recover until 1994 with the passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act. The total impacts the events of 9/11 will have on general aviation can only be determined over time. General aviation recovery will be dependent upon the economy, corporate profitability, fuel prices, and the type and extent of any new regulatory controls over flight training, aircraft operations, and security. The demand-based manner in which this master plan is being prepared is intended to accommodate variations in demand at the airport. NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS Each year, the FAA updates and publishes a national aviation forecast. Included in this publication are forecasts for the large air carriers, regional/commuter air carriers, general aviation, and FAA workload measures. The forecasts are prepared to meet budget and planning needs of the constituent units of the FAA and to provide information that can be used by state and local authorities, the aviation industry, and the general public. The current edition when this chapter was prepared was FAA Aerospace Forecasts-Fiscal Years 2004- 2015, published in March 2004. The forecasts use the economic performance of the United States as an indicator of future aviation industry growth. Similar economic analyses are applied to the outlook for aviation growth in international 3-3 markets. It should be recognized that these are national forecasts that are not specific to Hillsboro Airport. However, these forecasts provide important indicators in industry changes that can affect demand at Hillsboro Airport. GENERAL AVIATION TRENDS Following more than a decade of decline, the general aviation industry was revitalized with the passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act in 1994, which limited the liability on general aviation aircraft to 18 years from the date of manufacture. This legislation sparked an interest to renew the manufacturing of general aviation aircraft, due to the reduction in product liability, as well as renewed optimism for the industry. The high cost of product liability insurance was a major factor in the decision by many U.S.-based aircraft manufacturers to slow or discontinue the production of general aviation aircraft. The industry responded as expected. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), between 1994 and 2000, general aviation aircraft shipments increased at an average annual rate of more than 20 percent, increasing from 928 shipments in 1994 to 3,140 shipments in 2000. However, the growth in the general aviation industry has slowed considerably since 2000, negatively impacted by the national economic recession and the events surrounding 9/11. In 2001, aircraft shipments were down 4.7 percent to 2,994. The 2002 shipments were down an additional 10.2 percent to 2,687. 2003 aircraft shipments were down less than 1.0 percent from 2002, declining only to 2,686. However, 2003 billings were down 15.5 percent, declining for the third straight year. Most notable about 2003 shipments was that single-engine piston deliveries were the only category to increase. Single-engine piston deliveries increased to 1,825 from 1,601 or 14.0 percent. This is most likely the result of new product offerings and the age of the single engine piston aircraft fleet. Turboprop and turbojet deliveries declined. Business jets were down 23.4 percent, the second year of declines. This is the result of slowing demand by fractional jet companies and a large used market for turboprop and turbojet aircraft. Table 3A summarizes aircraft shipments and billings since 2000. TABLE 3A Annual General Aviation Airplane Shipments Manufactured Worldwide and Factory Net Billings Year Total SEP MEP TP TJ Net Billings ($millions) 2000 2001 2002 2003 3,140 2,994 2,687 2,686 1,8962 1,644 1,601 1,825 103 147 130 71 415 421 280 272 760 782 676 518 13,497.0 13,866.6 11,823.1 9,994.8 Source: GAMA SEP – Single Engine Piston; MEP – Multi-Engine Piston; TP – Turboprop; TJ - Turbofan/Turbojet 3-4 The decline in aircraft shipments is not expected to last long. According to the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), there are more than 2,700 aircraft still on order. NBAA cites a study by Honeywell that aircraft shipments will recover to record levels by 2004 and that 8,400 business aircraft will be delivered over the next 10 years. On February 5, 2002, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), titled Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft. The rulemaking would establish new light-sport aircraft categories and allow aircraft manufacturers to build and sell completed aircraft without obtaining type and production certificates. Instead, aircraft manufacturers would build to industry consensus standards. This reduces development costs and subsequent aircraft acquisition costs. This new category places specific conditions on the design of the aircraft to limit them to low performance aircraft. New pilot training times are reduced and offer more flexibility in the type of aircraft which the pilot would be allowed to operate. Viewed by many within the general aviation industry as a revolutionary change in the regulation of recreational aircraft, this new rulemaking is anticipated to significantly increase access to general aviation by reducing the time required to earn a pilot’s license and the cost of owning and operating an aircraft. These regulations are aimed primarily at the recreational aircraft owner/ operator. This new rulemaking is expected to add between 300 and 500 new aircraft each year to the national fleet beginning in 2006. By 2015, there is expected to be 20,915 of these aircraft in the national fleet (including approximately 15,300 existing aircraft which will now be included in the active fleet beginning in 2004). At the end of 2003, the nation’s total pilot population, including student, private, commercial, and airline transport, was estimated by the FAA to decline to 625,011 from the 625,358 pilots in 2002. However, the total pilot population is expected to grow 1.6 percent annually over the next 12 years. A large portion of this growth is from the expected certification of approximately 16,100 currently unrated pilots between 2004 and 2005 as sport-rated pilots. Excluding this influx of pilots due to new regulations (many of these are existing ultralight pilots which now are not certificated), the annual growth rate for pilots is 1.4 percent. Student pilots increased 1.5 percent in 2003. The number of student pilots is projected to increase by 1.9 percent annually through 2015. While impacting aircraft production and delivery, the events of 9/11 and economic downturn have not had the same negative impact on the business/corporate side of general aviation. The increased security measures placed on commercial flights have increased interest in fractional and corporate aircraft ownership, as well as on-demand charter flights. According to GAMA, the total number of corporate operators increased by 471 operators in 2003. Corporate operators are defined as those companies that have their own flight departments and utilize general aviation airplanes to enhance 3-5 productivity. Table 3B summarizes the number of U.S. companies operating fixed-wing turbine aircraft since 1991. TABLE 3B U.S. Companies Operating Fixed-Wing Turbine Business Aircraft And Number Of Aircraft, 1991-2003 Year Number of Operators Number of Aircraft 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 6,584 6,492 6,747 6,869 7,126 7,406 7,805 8,236 8,778 9,317 9,709 10,191 10,661 9,504 9,504 9,594 10,044 10,321 11,285 11,774 12,425 13,148 14,079 14,837 15,569 15,870 Source: GAMA/NBAA CORPORATE OWNERSHIP TRENDS The growth in corporate operators comes at a time when fractional aircraft programs are experiencing significant growth. Fractional ownership programs sell 1/8 or greater shares in an aircraft at a fixed cost. This cost, plus monthly maintenance fees, allows the shareholder a set number of hours of use per year and provides for the management and pilot services associated with the aircraft’s operation. These programs guarantee the aircraft is available at any time, with short notice. Fractional ownership programs offer the shareholder a more efficient use of time (when compared with commercial air service) by providing faster point- to-point travel times and the ability to conduct business confidentially while flying. The lower initial startup costs (when compared with acquiring and establishing a flight department) and easier exiting options are also positive benefits. Since beginning in 1986, fractional jet programs have flourished. Table 3C summarizes the growth in fractional shares since 1986. The number of aircraft in fractional jet programs has grown rapidly. In 2001 there were 696 aircraft in fractional jet programs. This grew to 776 aircraft in fractional jet programs at the end of 2002 and 823 in 2003. TABLE 3C Fractional Shares 1986-2003 Year Number of Shares 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 3 5 26 51 57 71 84 110 158 285 548 957 1,551 2,607 3,834 4,071 4,232 4,515 Source: GAMA/NBAA Manufacturer and industry programs and initiatives continue to revitalize the general aviation industry with a variety of programs. For example, 3-6 Piper Aircraft Company has the Piper Financial Services (PFS) to offer competitive interest rates and/or leasing of Piper aircraft. Manufacturer and industry programs include the ANo Plane, No Gain@ program promoted jointly by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and the National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA). This program was designed to promote the use of general aviation aircraft as an essential, cost-effective tool for businesses. Other programs are intended to promote growth in new pilot starts and to introduce people to general aviation. These include AProject Pilot@ sponsored by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), AFlying Start@ sponsored by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), ABe a Pilot@ jointly sponsored and supported by more than 100 industry organizations, and AAv Kids@ sponsored by the NBAA. Over the years, programs such as these have played an important role in the success of general aviation and will continue to be vital to its growth in the future. In 2002, there were an estimated 211,244 active general aviation aircraft, representing a decrease of 203 active aircraft from the previous year and the third straight decline following five years of increases. Exhibit 3A depicts the FAA’s forecast for active general aviation aircraft in the United States. The FAA predicts the number of active general aviation aircraft to increase at an average annual rate of 1.3 percent over the 12- year forecast period. Piston-powered aircraft are expected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.2 percent. This is due, in part, to declining numbers of multi-engine piston aircraft, while single-engine and rotorcraft increase at rates of 0.3 and 1.0 percent, respectively. Turbine-powered fixed-wing aircraft (turboprop and turbojet) are expected to grow at an average annual rate of 3.6 percent over the forecast period. The jet portion of this fleet is expected to grow at an average annual growth rate of 5.1 percent. This growth rate for jet aircraft can be attributed to growth in the fractional ownership industry, new product offerings (which include new entry level aircraft and long-range global jets), and a shift away from commercial travel by many travelers and corporations. The Business Aviation Panel has suggested that the market for the new small business jets (i.e. Eclipse Jet) aircraft could reach as high as 5,000 new aircraft in the national fleet by 2010. These small twin-engine business jets are expected to be priced between one and two million dollars, and is believed to have the potential to redefine business jet flying, with the capability to support a true air taxi business service due to their low operating costs. The current FAA general aviation fleet forecast assumes the entry of the Eclipse (or similar jet) in 2006, reaching 4,600 aircraft by 2015. U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT (in thousands) 2003 (Est.) 2005 2010 2015 143.4 143.5 146.2 148.5 6.9 7.0 7.6 8.1 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.6 211.2 227.6 236.9 246.4 Year 22.0 22.1 22.7 23.1 FIXED WING Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2004-2015. Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown at least one hour during the calendar year. 8.5 9.0 12.0 15.5 17.5 17.3 16.9 16.5 PISTON NOTE: Totals may not add due to rounding. ROTORCRAFT 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.7 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.5 TURBINE Single Engine Turboprop Other N/A 15.5 18.1 20.9 Sport Aircraft TotalExperimentalTurbojet Multi- Engine Piston Turbine U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT ACTUAL FORECAST 125 150 175 200 225 A IR C R A F T ( in t h o u sa n d s) 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 YEAR 2010 250 120 2015 Exhibit 3A U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT FORECASTS 03 M P0 1- 3A -5 /2 4/ 05 PORT OF PORTLAND 3-7 LOCAL SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS Similar to other industries, the size of the local population, that population’s income, and employment levels are indicators of the underlying viability of the aviation industry. Projected growth in these areas can provide comparative growth rates for estimations of future growth potential of aviation activity. The local population relates to the size of the pilot population and aircraft ownership. Aircraft ownership is typically associated with a small portion of the total population; given a larger population, there is a greater likelihood of increased aircraft ownership. Strong employment levels and income are needed to support both business and recreational aircraft ownership and use. Table 3D summarizes historical and forecast population, households, and total employment for the Portland Metropolitan Area as developed by Metro. The Portland metropolitan area includes Multnomah, Clackamas, Columbia, Washington, and Yamhill counties in the state of Oregon and Clark County in the state of Washington. TABLE 3D Portland-Vancouver Socioeconomic Projections Year Total Population Total Households Total Employment Per Capita Personal Income 1 1970 1,078,100 N/A 475,600 $ 4,368 1980 1,333,600 N/A 699,300 11,324 1990 1,515,500 575,500 891,500 20,649 2000 1,918,100 730,200 1,217,000 31,844 2002 1,978,200 751,800 1,211,200 32,563 Forecasts 2005 2,094,500 799,600 1,320,700 36,612 2010 2,281,800 876,700 1,483,900 44,317 2015 2,444,700 946,900 1,631,800 53,321 2020 2,624,500 1,021,600 1,795,500 65,414 2025 2,824,400 1,104,200 1,979,300 79,894 Average Annual Growth Rate 2002-2025 1.6% 1.7% 2.2% 4.0% Source: Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional Forecast for the Portland- Vancouver Metropolitan Area, September 2002 1 1996$ 3-8 Table 3D indicates that the total population of the metropolitan area has grown consistently over the past 33 years, growing from approximately 1.1 million in 1970 to nearly 2.0 million in 2002. Metro projects the total population to grow to 2.8 million in 2025, or at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent. There has also been consistent growth in households, employment, and per capita personal income (PCPI) since 1970. Table 3D presents the expected growth rates in each of these categories through 2025. Employment and PCPI are expected to outpace growth in housing and population. The higher growth in employment versus population indicates a trend towards declining unemployment rates. PILOT SURVEY A survey was sent to 1,500 registered pilots in the Portland Metropolitan area in July 2003 to gather local users’ perspectives on Hillsboro Airport and to gather specific input into the master plan process. A copy of this survey form is included in Appendix E. As shown in Table 3E, 168 pilots responded to this survey. Of this, 80 were pilots who owned an aircraft and kept that aircraft at Hillsboro Airport. The remaining pilots based their aircraft at other metropolitan airports. The survey asked these pilots if they were considering purchasing or upgrading their aircraft. This was done to gauge the continued growth in aircraft ownership and confirm changes to the regional fleet mix. TABLE 3E Pilot Survey Results Total Surveys Sent 1,500 Total Survey Responses 168 Response Rate 11.2% Respondents Based at Hillsboro Airport 80 Respondents Based at Other Metropolitan Airports 88 Respondents Based at Hillsboro Airport Considering Upgrade or Purchase of Another Aircraft in Next 5 Years. 14 (17.5% of respondents) Respondents Based at Other Metropolitan Airports Considering Upgrade or Purchase of Another Aircraft in Next 5 Years 17 (19.3% of respondents) Source: Coffman Associates Analysis Of the pilots basing at Hillsboro Airport, 17.5 percent indicated that they would be purchasing a replacement aircraft. One respondent indicated an upgrade to a business jet. The survey also collected information on aircraft use. Table 3F indicates that for Hillsboro Airport, the pleasure/recreational use comprised 72 percent of aircraft use of those that 3-9 responded to the survey. Flight instruction was four percent, while business use represented 24 percent. The non-based aircraft owners indicated a higher pleasure/ recreational use than Hillsboro Airport pilots and a lower business and flight instruction use. The higher business use of aircraft at Hillsboro Airport is indicative of the stature of Hillsboro Airport within the Portland Metropolitan area. As detailed in Chapter Two, Hillsboro Airport is the most capable general aviation airport in the region. This has led to the growth of business jet aircraft basing and use at the airport. (Please note that these survey results are only indicative of those surveys and does not reflect the actual use of aircraft at Hillsboro Airport.) The survey respondents were also asked the primary reason for choosing to base at their home airport and rank, on a scale of one to ten, several criterion. Table 3G summarizes the responses of Hillsboro Airport based aircraft owners. The table shows the actual number of responses in each category. The number one response of Hillsboro Airport based aircraft owners was convenience. That is, these aircraft owners based at Hillsboro Airport since the airport is located closest to their home or office. The availability of suitable hangar facilities was the second highest rated category, followed by the existing navigational aids available at Hillsboro Airport. The fourth highest included several categories: Fixed Based Operator (FBO) services, hangar costs, and available runway length. Fuel costs, the availability of rental car services and a restaurant all ranked low among the respondents, as a reason why they would choose to base their aircraft at Hillsboro Airport. TABLE 3F Pilot Survey Results Primary Use of Aircraft Based Aircraft Type Percentage Business 24 Pleasure/Recreation 72 Flight Instruction 4 Total 100 Non-Based Aircraft Type Percentage Business 16 Pleasure/Recreation 82 Flight Instruction 2 Total 100 Source: Coffman Associates Analysis TABLE 3G Based Aircraft Pilot Survey Results Primary Reason for Basing at Hillsboro Airport Rank Convenience Hangar Facilities FBO Services Hangar Cost Runway Length Navigational Aids Restaurant Rental Car Services Fuel Cost Number of Responses 1 57 27 0 2 8 17 1 0 3 2 11 25 3 1 3 7 3 0 1 3 3 8 5 4 4 12 0 0 3 4 2 2 7 4 4 2 2 0 3 5 0 1 5 6 4 4 2 3 5 6 0 0 0 1 4 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 2 3 1 2 2 0 3 8 0 0 1 1 2 0 4 6 2 9 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 4 1 10 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 Median 1 2 4 4 4 3 8 8 5 Source: Coffman Associates Analysis 3-10 Table 3H summarizes the response of non-based aircraft owners to the same question. Similar to Hillsboro Airport based aircraft owners, aircraft owners basing their aircraft at other metropolitan airports chose their airport first for its convenience or location to the home or business and/or the type of hangar facilities available. Hangar cost, FBO services, fuel cost, and runway length were the next highest rated categories. The availability of navigational aids, a restaurant, or rental car services ranked lower. TABLE 3H Non-Based Aircraft Pilot Survey Results Primary Reason for Basing at Hillsboro Airport Rank Convenience Hangar Facilities FBO Services Hangar Cost Runway Length Navigational Aids Restaurant Rental Car Services Fuel Cost Number of Responses 1 39 28 5 17 3 5 3 3 9 2 12 18 4 10 3 2 0 1 6 3 7 6 2 7 3 1 0 0 8 4 1 2 3 3 6 2 1 1 5 5 1 2 5 2 7 4 5 1 3 6 1 0 3 0 0 5 5 0 2 7 1 0 0 1 4 3 1 1 2 8 0 0 0 1 0 3 6 3 0 9 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 9 0 10 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 Median 1 1 3 2 4 5 6 9 3 Source: Coffman Associates Analysis These survey responses were not unexpected. It is often found that aircraft owners choose an airport first for its proximity to their home and second for the type of shelter available for their aircraft. These are important confirmations for the forecasting effort, as it can be reasoned that the area from which Hillsboro Airport would draw future/potential based aircraft from is most likely confined to the communities closest to the airport. Secondly, it indicates that growth in based aircraft is most likely linked to the availability of new hangar facilities. AIRPORT SERVICE AREA The local airport service area is defined by the proximity of other airports and the facilities they are able to provide owners/operators of general aviation aircraft. General aviation service areas are limited by nearby general aviation airports, which provide similar aircraft tiedown, fuel, and hangar services. Chapter Two provided a summary of the Portland Metropolitan area’s public-use airports. These airports provide a wide range of tiedown, fuel, hangar, and general aviation services. Considering that the services at each airport vary according to local conditions (hangar, fuel, tiedown rates, hangar availability, etc.), the service area for Hillsboro Airport is not considered to exactly follow the boundaries of any jurisdictional unit, and is affected by many of the factors detailed above. The availability and cost of aircraft storage facilities is an 3-11 important factor in determining based aircraft demand. Through the pilot survey process discussed above, the zip code of Hillsboro Airport based aircraft owners was collected to gain an understanding of the existing service area for based aircraft demand. Exhibit 3B depicts the zip codes of 78 of the 80 Hillsboro Airport-based aircraft owners that responded to the survey. This exhibit clearly shows that the airport’s based aircraft service area is primarily limited to Washington County, especially the eastern communities within the County, and areas in western Multnomah County. This coincides with the survey responses, which indicated convenience, or the proximity of the airport to the aircraft owner’s home as a primary reason for basing at an airport. The Hillsboro Airport-based aircraft service area overlaps the service areas of Skyport Airport and Stark’s Twin Oaks Airpark, both of which are located in zip codes of Hillsboro Airport based aircraft owners. These airports draw from the same service area as Hillsboro Airport and take away aircraft that may otherwise base at Hillsboro Airport if these airports were not there. The service area for transient aircraft users of Hillsboro Airport is expected to comprise a slightly larger area, extending into all the western portions of the metropolitan area and overlapping the general aviation service area of Portland International Airport. Typically, transient users will use the airport located closest to their destination. However, airport capabilities, general aviation services, and aircraft owner preferences are also factored into their decision. Portland International Airport is more conveniently located to eastern metropolitan areas than Hillsboro Airport, and provides adequate runway length, navigational aids, and general aviation services. Therefore, some transient users coming to the metropolitan area will choose Portland International Airport or even Troutdale Airport over Hillsboro Airport, especially if they are accessing the eastern portions of the metropolitan area. However, some users will choose Hillsboro Airport to avoid the commercial airline activity at Portland International Airport. AIRCRAFT OWNERSHIP The number of aircraft based at an airport is, to some degree, dependent upon the nature and magnitude of aircraft ownership in the local service area. In addition, Hillsboro Airport is one of several airports serving the general aviation needs of the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. Therefore, the process of developing forecasts of based aircraft for Hillsboro Airport begins with a review of historical aircraft registrations in the area. Historical records of aircraft ownership in the six-county Portland metropolitan area were obtained from the FAA-maintained database of 3-12 aircraft ownership. Table 3J summarizes total aircraft registrations from 1993 to 2003 for the six-county metropolitan area. As shown in the table, aircraft registrations have grown steadily in the past 10 years, growing from 3,328 aircraft in 1993, to 3,858 aircraft in 2003. In examining the specific type of aircraft growth, it is evident that turbine-powered aircraft have enjoyed the strongest growth rates. The number of turboprop aircraft registered to residents of the Portland metropolitan area has grown at an average annual rate of 3.8 percent while the number of registered turbojet aircraft has grown at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Single- engine piston powered aircraft have had the largest numerical growth, growing by 414 aircraft, yet have grown at an average annual rate of only 1.6 percent. There was a net addition of 12 helicopters in the region between 1993 and 2003. Exhibit 3C illustrates these growth trends for aircraft ownership in the metropolitan area. TABLE 3J Registered Aircraft Portland Metropolitan Area Year Total Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Turbojet Helicopter Other1 1993 3,328 2,392 305 93 136 290 112 1994 3,330 2,421 302 87 115 289 116 1995 3,396 2,492 305 76 108 287 128 1996 3,418 2,496 312 80 107 295 128 1997 3,546 2,600 320 81 109 295 141 1998 3,577 2,607 298 98 123 311 140 1999 3,610 2,640 307 89 137 297 140 2000 3,779 2,765 323 93 142 310 146 2001 3,804 2,775 290 118 158 307 156 2002 3,820 2,786 287 119 162 304 162 2003 3,858 2,806 282 135 175 302 158 Avg. Ann. 1.5% 1.6% -0.8% 3.8% 2.6% 0.4% 3.5% % Growth 15.9% 17.3% -7.5% 45.2% 28.7% 4.1% 41.1% Actual 530 414 (23) 42 39 12 46 Source: FAA Records 1 Other: Examples include balloon, glider, ultralight Table 3K summarizes this same aircraft registration data only by county. Registered aircraft growth has been strongest in Clackamas County and Washington County. Clackamas County and Washington County have grown at a 2.8 percent and 2.9 percent annual rate, respectively. Clackamas County and Washington County have added 192 and 191 aircraft, respectively over the past 10 years. When combined, this figure represents 72 percent of the 530 new registered aircraft in the region since 1993. Clark County has grown by nearly 23 percent, adding 99 such aircraft. Columbia and Yamhill Counties have added 27 new registered aircraft each. Aircraft registrations are down slightly in Multnomah County. Table 3L more closely examines the mix of aircraft registrations by type in 03 M P0 1- 3B -5 /2 4/ 05 Exhibit 3B BASED AIRCRAFT SERVICE AREA 97124 Yamhill Clackamas Multnomah Washington Clark Columbia Salem Kelso Keizer Woodburn Longview Hillsboro 97133 97231 97123 97007 97116 97113 97006 97229 97210 97225 97201 97221 97206 97224 97219 97030 97211 97217 97223 97008 3 2 1 1 17 4 12 1 1 1 1 12 3 4 10 1 15 PORT OF PORTLAND 1 LEGEND Portland Metropolitan Area Number of Survey Respondents Basing Aircraft at Hillsboro County Line Airport NOTE: One aircraft in 97296 and one aircraft in 97729 are not shown. 3 5 84 205 5 30 30 26 26 97005 33 Portland International Airport Scappoose Industrial Airpark Veronia Airfield Pearson Field Skyport Airport Evergreen Field Airport Fly For Fun Airport Cedars North Airpark Goheen Airport Grove Field Airport Woodland State Airport Troutdale Airport McMinnville Municipal Airport Sportsman Airpark Aurora State Airport Lenhardt Airpark Mulino Airport Sandy River Country Squire Valley View Chehalem Airpark Stark's Twin Oaks Airpark Hillsboro Airport 03 M P0 1- 3C -3 /3 1/ 04 Exhibit 3C REGISTERED AIRCRAFT PORT OF PORTLAND 800 Portland Metropolitan Region Registered Aircraft Washington County Registered Aircraft 750 700 650 600 550 450 500 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Total Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Helicopter Turboprop Turbojet Other LEGEND 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 3-13 Washington, County (the primary area for based aircraft demand at Hillsboro Airport). As shown in this table, turboprop and turbojet registrations have grown at the fastest rate, growing at an average annual rate of 10.4 percent and 7.4 percent annually, respectively. In the past 10 years, there have been 22 new turboprop registrations and 23 new turbojet registrations. When combined, this growth represents 23 percent of the new registered aircraft in Washington County. Single engine piston aircraft have had the largest numerical change, growing by 107. Multi-engine piston aircraft registrations have remained static. There were 20 new helicopter registrations during this time period. The information presented in Table 3L is also presented graphically in the lower portion of Exhibit 3C. TABLE 3K Registered Aircraft Portland Metropolitan Area Year Clackamas County, Oregon Clark County, Washington Columbia County, Oregon Multnomah County, Oregon Washington County, Oregon Yamhill County, Oregon Total 1993 602 439 68 1,292 580 347 3,328 1994 611 476 70 1,277 565 331 3,330 1995 624 482 62 1,287 610 331 3,396 1996 638 466 74 1,293 599 348 3,418 1997 669 482 81 1,331 639 344 3,546 1998 677 464 87 1,345 653 351 3,577 1999 690 505 92 1,312 667 344 3,610 2000 729 547 95 1,373 691 344 3,779 2001 749 527 97 1,361 722 348 3,804 2002 759 528 98 1,355 727 353 3,820 2003 794 538 95 1,286 771 374 3,858 Avg. Ann. 2.8% 2.1% 3.4% 0.0% 2.9% 0.8% 1.5% % Growth 31.9% 22.6% 39.7% -0.5% 32.9% 7.8% 15.9% Actual 192 99 27 (6) 191 27 530 Source: FAA Records TABLE 3L Registered Aircraft Washington County, Oregon Year Total Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Turbojet Helicopter Other1 1993 580 426 46 13 22 36 37 1994 565 409 42 17 21 38 38 1995 610 437 48 12 27 42 44 1996 599 426 44 17 24 44 44 1997 639 450 50 14 25 45 55 1998 653 444 51 23 28 50 57 1999 667 455 49 21 34 50 63 2000 691 469 50 25 34 50 63 2001 722 488 48 31 41 55 59 2002 727 490 48 32 45 51 61 2003 771 533 47 35 45 56 55 Avg. Ann. 2.9% 2.3% 0.2% 10.4% 7.4% 4.5% 4.0% % Growth 32.9% 25.1% 2.2% 169.2% 104.5% 55.6% 48.6% Actual 191 107 1 22 23 20 18 Source: FAA Records 1 Other: Examples include balloon, glider, ultralight 3-14 While Washington County is the primary area for based aircraft demand at Hillsboro Airport, it is evident that only a small portion of these new registered aircraft are basing at Hillsboro Airport. While there are 191 new registered aircraft in Washington County since 1993, there were only 16 more based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport in 2003 compared to 1993 based aircraft figures. This clearly indicates that the bulk of the additional aircraft owners over the past 10 years have elected to not base their aircraft at Hillsboro Airport, even though it may be located closer to their home or business. This can be caused by a lack of available hangar storage space for their aircraft at Hillsboro Airport, registered aircraft being based out-of-the-state or at one of the other airports in the region such as Skyport Airport and Stark’s Twin Oaks Airport for a whole host of other “preference” reasons. A review of the aircraft registrations reveals a couple of trends. First, business class aircraft registrations (turboprop and turbojet) are growing faster than all other types of aircraft in both the metropolitan region and in Washington County. This correlates with the increases in new turbine- powered aircraft at Hillsboro Airport in the past few years. In 2003, the 41 based turbojets at Hillsboro Airport represented 91 percent of the registered turbojets in Washington County. Secondly, aircraft registrations in Washington County are growing the fastest of all counties in the metropolitan area. This indicates a potential growing demand for based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport since from the pilot survey we know that local aircraft owners desire to base their aircraft at the closest airport with available hangar storage space. FORECASTING APPROACH The development of aviation forecasts proceeds through both analytical and judgmental processes. A series of mathematical relationships are tested to establish logic and a rationale for projected growth. However, the judgment of the forecast analyst, based upon professional experience, knowledge of the aviation industry, and assessment of the local situation, is important in the final determination of the preferred forecast. The most reliable approach to estimating aviation demand is through the utilization of more than one analytical technique. Methodologies frequently considered include trend line/time-series projections, correlation/regression analysis, and market share analysis. Trend line/time-series projections are probably the simplest and most familiar of the forecasting techniques. By fitting growth curves to historical data, then extending them into the future, a basic trend line projection is produced. A basic assumption of this technique is that outside factors will continue to affect aviation demand in much the same manner as in the past. As broad as this assumption may be, the trend line projection does serve as 3-15 a reliable benchmark for comparing other projections. Correlation analysis provides a measure of direct relationship between two or more separate sets of historical data. Should there be a reasonable correlation between the data sets, further evaluation using regression analysis may be employed. Regression analysis measures statistical relationships between dependent and independent variables yielding a “correlation coefficient.” The correlation coefficient (Pearson’s “r”) measures association between the change in a dependent variable and the independent variable(s). The higher the “r-squared” value (coefficient determination); the greater the predictive reliability. Market share analysis involves a historical review of the airport activity as a percentage, or share, of a larger regional, state, or national aviation market. A historical aviation market share trend is determined providing an expected market share for the future. These shares are then multiplied by the forecasts of the larger geographical area to produce a market share projection. This method has the same limitations as trend line projections, but can provide a useful check on the validity of other forecasting techniques. AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS To determine the types and sizes of facilities that should be planned to accommodate general aviation activity, certain elements of that activity must be forecasted. Indicators of general aviation demand include: $ Based Aircraft $ Based Aircraft Fleet Mix $ Annual Operations $ Peak Activity $ Operational Mix by Airport Reference Code (ARC) $ Annual Instrument Approaches (AIAs) The remainder of this chapter will examine historical trends with regard to these areas of general aviation activity, and project future demand for these segments of general aviation activity at the airport through the Year 2025. BASED AIRCRAFT The number of based aircraft is the most basic indicator of general avia- tion demand at an airport. By first developing a forecast of based aircraft, the growth of other factors can be projected. Table 3M summarizes based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport between 1980 and 2003. The 2003 based aircraft total was derived by the Port of Portland through contact with aviation tenants and airport management knowledge of actual based aircraft at the airport. As shown in Table 3M, based aircraft totals have fluctuated during this time period, reaching as high as 399 in 1996, and as low as 303 in 1986 and 1987. The based aircraft level of 363 in 2003 is 14 based aircraft higher than the 1980 total of 349. 3-16 TABLE 3M Historical Based Aircraft Hillsboro Airport Based Year Aircraft 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 349 353 355 355 322 322 303 303 350 341 341 347 347 347 368 368 399 390 390 392 392 392 375 363 Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast, 1996 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan, Port of Portland Several analytical techniques were examined for their applicability to projecting based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport. These included time-series extrapolation, regression analyses, and market share analyses. A time- series analysis of based aircraft was prepared based upon the historic based aircraft levels between 1980 and 2003. This resulted in a correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.47. Extrapolating the results of this analysis results in a projection of 446 based aircraft in 2025. An additional time series extrapolation was tested with a beginning year of 1990. This resulted in a much lower correlation coefficient of 0.095. This analysis was discarded due to its low correlation coefficient. Next, a series of regression analysis compared historical based aircraft with various socioeconomic variables for the metropolitan area. The first tested based aircraft against the six- county population total between 1980 and 2003. This resulted in a correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.59. Extrapolating the results of this analysis results in a projection of 466 based aircraft in 2025. A regression analysis comparing total employment in the same period resulted in a correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.594. An extrapolation of this analysis, yields 461 based aircraft in 2025. Finally, a regression analysis compared per capita personal income (PCPI) against based aircraft starting in 1980. This resulted in a in a correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.512 and a projection of 514 based aircraft in the Year 2025. As stated earlier, the higher the r2 value, the greater the predictive reliability. Generally, a value above 0.90 indicates good predictive reliability. A value below 0.90 may be used with the understanding that the predictive reliability is lower. Since none of these analyses yielded a correlation coefficient above the 0.90 threshold, none of these forecasts can be relied upon on their own to project future based aircraft with any degree of confidence. However, each forecast resulted in a narrow range of based aircraft levels, indicating good comparative value. Therefore, these forecasts have been retained for comparison to other based aircraft 3-17 forecasts using market share analyses which compare historical based aircraft totals to U.S. active aircraft and registered aircraft in Washington County. Table 3N compares based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport to U.S. active general aviation aircraft. As shown in the Table 3N, the percentage of U.S. active general aviation aircraft based at Hillsboro Airport has generally been declining since 1996. This is due in part to declining based aircraft levels at Hillsboro Airport, but also indicates that U.S. active aircraft have been growing at a quicker rate than based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport. From 1993 to 2003, U.S. active general aviation aircraft grew at an annual average rate of 1.8 percent, whereas based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport grew at 0.5 percent annually. From the earlier analysis, it was established that aircraft registrations were increasing in Washington County and that Hillsboro Airport was not capturing all the potential for based aircraft. Capturing a greater share of the Washington County registered aircraft could reverse the declining share of U.S. active general aviation aircraft. As shown in the table, maintaining the 2003 share of U.S. active aircraft constant through the planning period, results in based aircraft growing at a rate similar to U.S. active aircraft. This translates into 462 based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport by the Year 2025. TABLE 3N Hillsboro Airport Share of U.S. Active Aircraft Year U.S. Active Aircraft Hillsboro Airport Based Aircraft % of U.S. Active Aircraft Historical 1993 177,119 347 0.196% 1994 172,936 368 0.213% 1995 188,089 368 0.196% 1996 191,129 399 0.209% 1997 192,414 390 0.203% 1998 204,710 390 0.191% 1999 219,464 392 0.179% 2000 217,533 392 0.180% 2001 211,447 392 0.185% 2002 211,040 375 0.178% 2003 211,370 363 0.172% Constant Share of U.S. Active Aircraft 2010 236,915 407 0.172% 2015 246,415 423 0.172% 2020 258,400 444 0.172% 2025 269,300 462 0.172% Source for Historical Based Aircraft Data: FAA, Port Records Source for Historical and Forecast U.S. Active Aircraft: 2004 FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Selected Years, 2020 & 2025 Extrapolated by Coffman Associates A second technique examined historical based aircraft totals as a share of Washington County registered aircraft. Since there are no 3-18 recent forecasts of Washington County registered aircraft, Coffman Associates prepared a forecast of aircraft registrations for planning purposes. A time series analysis of aircraft registrations since 1993 resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.966. This result indicates very good predictive reliability. Table 3P shows the results of extrapolating the historic registered aircraft growth rates through 2025. This forecast indicates that Washington County registered aircraft could grow to 1,159 by 2025. TABLE 3P Hillsboro Airport Share of Aircraft Registered to Washington County Residents Year Washington County Registered Aircraft Hillsboro Airport Based Aircraft % of Registered Aircraft Historical 1993 580 347 59.8% 1994 565 368 65.1% 1995 610 368 60.3% 1996 599 399 66.6% 1997 639 390 61.0% 1998 653 390 59.7% 1999 667 392 58.8% 2000 691 392 56.7% 2001 722 392 54.3% 2002 727 375 51.6% 2003 771 363 47.1% Constant Share of Washington County Registered Aircraft 2010 878 414 47.1% 2015 972 458 47.1% 2020 1,066 502 47.1% 2025 1,159 546 47.1% Source for Historical Data: FAA, Port Records Source for Historical and Forecast Washington County Aircraft: Coffman Associates Analysis Similar to its share of U.S. active general aviation aircraft, the Hillsboro Airport share of Washington County registered aircraft has generally been declining since 1997. As shown in the Table 3P, maintaining the 2003 share of Washington County registered aircraft constant through the planning period results in based aircraft growing at a rate similar to that projected for Washington County registered aircraft. This results in approximately 546 based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport by the Year 2025. A summary of all forecasts for based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport and the selected planning forecast are shown on Exhibit 3D. Together, the combination of forecasts represents a forecast envelope, or an area in which future based aircraft at Hillsboro Airport should be found. The FAA TAF and linear trend line forecasts represent the lower end of the planning envelope, whereas the constant share of Washington County registered aircraft represents the upper end of the forecast envelope. 03 M P0 1- 3D -5 /2 4/ 05 Exhibit 3D BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS PORT OF PORTLAND 600 2025202020152010200520001995199019851980 500 400 300 200 B A S E D A IR C R A F T FORECASTSHISTORICAL Linear Trendline Regression Analyses vs. PMSA Population vs. Per Capita Personal Income vs. PMSA Employment Constant Share of U.S. Active Aircraft Constant Share of Washington County Registered Aircraft FAA Terminal Area Forecasts Selected Planning Forecast 406 417 417 414 407 414 399 399 420 432 442 428 423 458 415 420 433 448 474 444 444 502 433 444 2010FORECAST 2015 446 466 514 461 462 546 - 465 2020 2025 *PMSA - Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area Six County Metro Region Linear Trendline Regression Analysis PMSA Population (r2.59) PMSA Per Capita Personal Income (r2.512) PMSA Employment (r2.594) Constant Share of U.S. Active Aircraft Constant Share of Washington County Registered Aircraft FAA Terminal Area Forecasts 1999 ODOT Aeronautics Forecast Forecast Envelope Selected Planning Forecast LEGEND 3-19 In closely examining the forecasts, it is evident that four independent projections fall within a fairly tight range. The regression analysis using the Portland primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA) employment, regression analysis using PMSA population, the constant share of U.S. active general aviation aircraft and linear trend line extrapolation all project based aircraft in 2025 within a range of 20 based aircraft. Two forecasts (the regression analysis using PMSA employment and the constant share of U.S. active general aviation aircraft) project based aircraft levels of 462 and 461, respectively. This narrow range suggests that the other forecasts outside this range (the regression analysis using PMSA PCPI and constant share of Washington County registered aircraft) are most likely not representative of future based aircraft demand. A planning forecast has been prepared which has based aircraft growing to the 465 in 2025. This is within the 2025 projections of three forecasts (the regression analysis using PMSA employment, regression analysis using PMSA population, and the constant share of U.S. active general aviation aircraft). The selected planning forecast begins at the lower end of the envelope, consistent with the FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for Hillsboro Airport. This allows for a realistic recovery of based aircraft to 1996 levels in the next seven years. Levels above that may be too optimistic considering the time inherent in facility planning and development. This forecast results in based aircraft growing at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent through 2010, and 1.0 percent thereafter. Many factors appear to support future growth in based aircraft demand for Hillsboro Airport. As shown earlier, there is growing aircraft ownership in the Washington County area that could possibly be captured. Washing- ton County registered aircraft are growing at the strongest rate in the metropolitan area. Finally, the pilot survey indicates that aircraft owners prefer to be located closest to their home or business. This means, that for Washington County, many aircraft owners would possibly choose Hillsboro Airport over other metropolitan airports where they may now be basing. The potential long range future of privately-owned airports such as Skyport Airport and Stark’s Twin Oaks Airport is not known. Private airports face many problems that affect their ability to remain in operation. More and more privately owned airports are being closed to the public each year for reasons such as incompatible land use encroachment, insurance costs, and liability considerations, as well as a changeover in property ownership. BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX Knowing the aircraft fleet mix expected to utilize the airport is necessary to properly plan facilities that will best serve the level of activity and the type of activities occurring at the airport. Table 3Q indicates the 2003 based aircraft fleet mix as being comprised mainly of single engine 3-20 TABLE 3P Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Year Total Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Turbojet Helicopter Other1 1995 368 267 41 18 24 18 0 2003 363 244 35 13 41 29 1 Avg. Ann. -0.2% -1.1% -2.0% -4.0% 6.9% 6.1% - % Growth -1.4% -9.4% -17.1% -38.5% 41.5% 37.9% - Change (5) (23) (6) (5) 17 11 1 Percentage Share 1995 100.0% 72.6% 11.1% 4.9% 6.5% 4.9% 0.0% 2003 100.0% 67.2% 9.6% 3.6% 11.3% 8.0% 0.3% Forecast 1 (Maintain 2003 Shares) 2010 399 268 38 14 45 32 1 2015 420 282 40 15 47 34 1 2020 444 298 43 16 50 35 1 2025 465 313 45 17 53 37 1 Percentage Share 2010 100.0% 67.2% 9.6% 3.6% 11.3% 8.0% 0.3% 2015 100.0% 67.2% 9.6% 3.6% 11.3% 8.0% 0.3% 2020 100.0% 67.2% 9.6% 3.6% 11.3% 8.0% 0.3% 2025 100.0% 67.2% 9.6% 3.6% 11.3% 8.0% 0.3% Avg. Ann. 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% Change 102 69 10 4 12 8 0 Forecast 2 (Increasing TP & TJ & H, Declining MEP & SEP) 2010 399 263 38 16 48 34 1 2015 420 270 39 18 55 37 1 2020 444 279 41 20 62 40 1 2025 465 285 43 23 70 43 1 Percentage Share 2010 100.0% 65.8% 9.5% 4.0% 12.0% 8.4% 0.3% 2015 100.0% 64.3% 9.4% 4.3% 13.0% 8.7% 0.3% 2020 100.0% 62.8% 9.3% 4.6% 14.0% 9.0% 0.3% 2025 100.0% 61.2% 9.2% 5.0% 15.0% 9.3% 0.3% Avg. Ann. 1.1% 0.7% 0.9% 2.7% 2.4% 1.8% 1.5% Change 102 41 8 10 29 14 0 Forecast 3 (Increasing TP & TJ, Declining MEP & SEP & H) 2010 399 255 37 20 55 30 1 2015 420 259 38 23 68 31 1 2020 444 262 39 27 83 32 1 2025 465 260 40 30 101 32 1 Percentage Share 2010 100.0% 63.9% 9.3% 5.0% 13.9% 7.6% 0.3% 2015 100.0% 61.7% 9.0% 5.5% 16.1% 7.4% 0.3% 2020 100.0% 59.1% 8.8% 6.0% 18.7% 7.1% 0.3% 2025 100.0% 56.0% 8.6% 6.5% 21.7% 6.9% 0.3% Avg. Ann. 1.1% 0.3% 0.6% 3.9% 4.2% 0.5% 1.5% Change 102 16 5 17 60 3 0. Selected Planning Forecast 2010 399 256 37 17 56 32 1 2015 420 265 38 19 63 34 1 2020 444 276 39 21 71 35 1 2025 465 284 41 23 79 37 1 Percentage Share 2010 100.0% 64.2% 9.3% 4.3% 14.0% 8.0% 0.3% 2015 100.0% 63.1% 9.0% 4.5% 15.0% 8.1% 0.2% 2020 100.0% 62.2% 8.8% 4.8% 16.0% 8.0% 0.2% 2025 100.0% 61.1% 8.8% 4.9% 17.0% 8.0% 0.2% Avg. Ann. 1.1% 0.7% 0.7% 2.7% 3.0% 1.1% 0.0% Change 102 40 6 10 38 8 - Source for Historical Data: Port of Portland Forecasts: Coffman Associates Analysis 1 Examples: Glider, Balloon, Blimp 3-21 piston aircraft. Comparing the 2003 fleet mix to the 1995 fleet mix indicates that turbojet, helicopter and “other” levels have grown, while single engine piston, multi-engine piston and turboprop have declined. The based aircraft fleet mix has been examined as a share of total based aircraft. Three separate projections have been made considering local and national trends. The first projection maintains the 2003 share for each aircraft category through the planning period. This projection results in growth for each category consistent with the growth in based aircraft. This projection yields 69 additional single-engine piston aircraft, 10 multi- engine piston aircraft, four turboprops, 12 turbojets, and eight helicopters. A limitation of this forecast is that it does not fully account for some of the changes taking place nationally and more locally at Hillsboro Airport. As discussed earlier, turboprop and turbojet aircraft are the fastest growing segment of active aircraft nationally. Since 1995, turbojet aircraft have grown the most of all aircraft categories at Hillsboro Airport. Additionally, this forecast only provides for four new turboprop aircraft by the Year 2025. While turboprops have declined at Hillsboro Airport recently, this slow of a growth rate cannot be assumed through the planning period. Therefore, this forecast may not fully account for business aircraft (turboprop and turbojet) growth at Hillsboro Airport. A second forecast addresses the limitations of the constant share forecast discussed above. This forecast increases the share of turboprop, turbojet, and helicopter categories at Hillsboro Airport, mirroring the 1995 to 2003 growth patterns for helicopters and turbojets at Hillsboro Airport and national forecasts for turboprop growth. This forecast continues the trend of declining percentages of single engine piston and multi-engine piston aircraft. Nationally, the number of helicopters is declining. The FAA projects very little change in the helicopter fleet over the next 12 years. The FAA projects only 300 new piston engine helicopters and 260 new turbine- powered helicopters by 2015. This indicates that the supply of new helicopters will only barely keep pace with helicopter retirements and that there is not an expected significant expansion of current helicopter activities nationwide. The national helicopter trend is in contrast with what may be happening with single engine piston aircraft. As mentioned previously, the FAA is finalizing new legislation for sport aircraft. This will create a new category of aircraft and a more simplified approval and manufacturing process. This new rule-making is expected to result in 300 to 500 new aircraft each year beginning in 2006. By 2015, this results in between 2,700 and 4,500 new single engine piston aircraft. The traditional single engine piston fleet is expected to grow by an additional 5,100 aircraft in the next 12 years as well. For comparison, single engine 3-22 piston aircraft growth is projected by the FAA to be 1,920 percent higher than helicopter growth. This underscores the fact that the changes in the mix of aircraft at the airport are most likely to be seen within the fixed wing category of aircraft at the airport and that single-engine piston aircraft can be expected to be a growing category of aircraft. A final forecast more closely follows the national trend of growing business class aircraft (turboprops and turbojets) and declining percentages of single engine piston, multi-engine piston, and helicopters. In doing so, this forecast severely limits other category growth potential (single engine piston growth in particular), while most likely overstating business class aircraft potential. The selected fleet mix projection shown in Table 3Q includes a growing percentage of turboprop and turbojet aircraft at the airport, similar to national trends and local growth patterns. While the single engine piston category declines as a percentage of total based aircraft, the total number of single engine piston aircraft is expected to grow by 40, the highest numerical change of all aircraft categories. Local economic and population growth will add new private aircraft ownership. The new regulations for sport aircraft should increase single-engine based aircraft levels as well. Multi-engine piston aircraft decline as a percentage, adding only six (6) new aircraft through the planning period. Nationally, the multi-engine piston mix is expected to decline. The cost of a new multi-engine piston aircraft is comparable to many used turboprops, which has led to their decline in use. The operational costs are also too high for widespread recreational aircraft ownership and use. For perspective, GAMA reports that only 71 new multi- engine piston aircraft were built and delivered worldwide in 2003. This compares with over 1,800 new single engine piston aircraft and 500 busi- ness jets. Multi-engine piston aircraft will always have a place in new pilot training and some aircraft charter activities. Both are important components of activity at Hillsboro Airport. In the preferred forecast, the helicopter percentage is maintained constant through the planning period. This allows for some growth in this category at Hillsboro Airport which has shown a greater percentage of ownership than the national fleet. In 2003, helicopters represented eight percent of the Hillsboro Airport mix, whereas nationally, helicopters represent approximately three percent of active aircraft. The based aircraft fleet mix projection for Hillsboro Airport is summarized on Exhibit 3E. ANNUAL OPERATIONS An aircraft operation is either a takeoff or landing. Aircraft operations are classified by the airport traffic control tower (ATCT) as either local or itinerant and separated further into air carrier, air taxi, general aviation, 03 M P0 1- 3E -3 /3 1/ 04 Exhibit 3E BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX 1995 2010 2020 Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Turbojet Helicopter Other LEGEND 2003 2015 2025 PORT OF PORTLAND SE - 67.2% ME - 9.6%TP - 3.6% TJ - 11.3% H - 8.0% O - 0.3% SE - 64.2% ME - 9.3%TP - 4.3% TJ - 14.0% H - 8.0% O - 0.3% SE - 63.2% ME - 9.0%TP - 4.5% TJ - 15.0% H - 8.0% O - 0.2% SE - 62.2% ME - 8.8%TP - 4.8% TJ - 16.0% H - 8.0% O - 0.2% SE - 60.9% ME - 8.8%TP - 5.0% TJ - 17.0% H - 8.0% O - 0.2% SE - 72.6% ME - 11.1% TP - 4.9% TJ - 6.5% H - 4.9% 3-23 and military. Local operations are performed by aircraft which: (a) Operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the airport; (b) Are known to be departing for, or arriving from, flight in local practice areas located within a 20-mile radius of the airport; (c) Execute simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport. Itinerant operations are all other operations and essentially represent the originating or departing aircraft. For traffic count purposes, the air carrier category is defined as an aircraft capable of carrying more than 60 passengers or a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds. There have never been more than 12 operations in this category since 1980. Approximately 80% or 19 of the past 23 years there have been no air carrier operations at HIO. Due to the limited number of historical air carrier operations, air carrier operations will be combined with air taxi operations for this analysis. The air taxi category comprises aircraft designed to have a maximum seating capacity of 60 seats or less or a maximum payload capacity of 18,000 pounds or less, carrying passengers or cargo for hire or compensation in any combination. This category includes a wide range of civil aircraft conducting charter operations as well. General aviation comprises the takeoffs and landings of all remaining civil aircraft. All operations within the air taxi category are recorded as transient, while military and general aviation activity is divided into local and itinerant categories. The Hillsboro Airport ATCT is open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. During this period aircraft operations are recorded and classified as above and in accordance with national ATCT directives. Between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., aircraft operations are not recorded or tracked. Therefore, historical operational levels are only applicable to the period the ATCT was open. Annual operations will be examined and projected consistent with the historical counts. A factor for operations after the tower is closed will be added later. Since October 2003, local helicopter training operations at Hillsboro Airport within the Alpha and Bravo patterns are no longer being included in the overall ATCT count due to changes in air traffic control guidance for recognizing aircraft operations for the ATCT count. Helicopter activity in the helicopter training patterns is now considered by air traffic control guidance to be activity operating independently of ATC, and therefore, no count is authorized. Air traffic control guidance allows for the ATCT to count the entry into the training pattern and the departure from the training pattern. However, the ATCT cannot record operations occurring within the training patterns. The ATCT can also count those times when 3-24 the ATCT advises a helicopter to “remain below 50 feet,” as required when other aircraft are conducting an instrument approach or planned missed approach (an aborted approach to landing). Prior to October 2003, the practice of the ATCT was to count all training operations (both a takeoff and a landing) within the helicopter training patterns. Each flight, or circuit, within the helicopter training patterns were counted as two operations (this is similar to how fixed-wing training activities are recorded by ATCT personnel). Therefore, operations for 2003 are not comparable to historical data and will be excluded from this analysis. However, annual operations, in particular general aviation operations, will be projected consistent with the historical recordings in an attempt to account for all helicopter operations. Table 3R summarizes ATCT recorded operations since 1980. Total operations did not exceed 200,000 annually until 1989. Since then, total annual operations have exceeded 200,000 operations annually, 12 of the past 14 years. The highest level of operations since 1980 was recorded in 1999, with 251,747 operations. Local operations have historically represented approximately 57 percent of operations, with itinerant operations representing the remaining 43 percent. TABLE 3R Historical Aircraft Operations Itinerant Local Year Air Carrier Air Taxi General Aviation Military Total Itinerant General Aviation Military Total Local Total Operations % Increase/ Decrease 1980 - 1,675 88,222 228 90,125 91,360 1,034 92,394 182,519 N/A 1981 - 1,798 91,001 228 93,027 93,854 1,034 94,888 187,915 3.0% 1982 - 68 65,041 268 65,377 75,268 1,294 76,562 141,939 -24.5% 1983 - 94 62,517 398 63,009 77,365 1,064 78,429 141,438 -0.4% 1984 - 1,077 61,915 700 63,692 77,627 1,265 78,892 142,584 0.8% 1985 - 1,946 60,722 771 63,439 78,475 1,933 80,408 143,847 0.9% 1986 - 1,682 68,498 804 70,984 96,857 1,300 98,157 169,141 17.6% 1987 - 1,034 76,654 637 78,325 106,822 756 107,578 185,903 9.9% 1988 5 1,466 89,790 783 92,044 93,808 701 94,509 186,553 0.3% 1989 2 1,941 92,230 749 94,922 107,470 468 107,938 202,860 8.7% 1990 - 1,946 87,979 903 90,828 120,015 766 120,781 211,609 4.3% 1991 - 3,039 87,479 712 91,230 121,054 499 121,553 212,783 0.6% 1992 - 2,899 85,964 706 89,569 109,124 748 109,872 199,441 -6.3% 1993 - 3,112 86,797 634 90,543 102,632 628 103,260 193,803 -2.8% 1994 - 3,562 87,746 755 92,063 118,523 724 119,247 211,310 9.0% 1995 - 3,371 89,467 1,068 93,906 127,233 715 127,948 221,854 5.0% 1996 - 4,175 88,148 1,491 93,814 119,630 378 120,008 213,822 -3.6% 1997 - 5,631 96,284 735 102,650 129,381 364 129,745 232,395 8.7% 1998 - 5,710 85,619 1,133 92,462 138,105 599 138,704 231,166 -0.5% 1999 - 6,553 89,386 871 96,810 154,123 824 154,947 251,757 8.9% 2000 - 7,230 83,201 1,103 91,534 151,645 1,332 152,977 244,511 -2.9% 2001 12 7,931 84,639 873 93,455 141,880 48 141,928 235,383 -3.7% 2002 6 9,078 82,493 426 92,003 131,495 91 131,586 223,589 -5.0% Source: 1976 – 1989 FAA TAF, 1990 – 2003 FAA Air Traffic Activity Data System Notes: Year shown in bold is peak year for aircraft operations. Year shown in italics has the lowest level of aircraft operations. 3-25 Air Taxi Operations Historical air taxi operations at Hillsboro Airport are shown in Table 3S. Since 1995 air taxi operations have grown each year. Between 1980 and 2002, air taxi operations grew at an average annual rate of 8.0 percent. TABLE 3S Air Taxi Operations Year HIO Air Taxi Operations 1980 1,675 1981 1,798 1982 68 1983 94 1984 1,077 1985 1,946 1986 1,682 1987 1,034 1988 1,466 1989 1,941 1990 1,946 1991 3,039 1992 2,899 1993 3,112 1994 3,562 1995 3,371 1996 4,175 1997 5,631 1998 5,710 1999 6,553 2000 7,230 2001 7,931 2002 9,078 Forecast 2010 10,300 2015 12,100 2020 13,900 2025 15,700 Historical: FAA Forecast: Coffman Associates Due to a consistent growth pattern in air taxi operations over the past 22 years, a time-series analysis yielded a high correlation coefficient of 0.851. As shown in Table 3S, extrapolating the results of this analysis through 2025 yields an estimated 15,700 annual air taxi operations. Table 3T compares historical Hillsboro Airport air taxi operations as a percentage of total U.S. air taxi operations since 1992. As shown in this table, the Hillsboro Airport share of U.S. air taxi operations have increased during this period as Hillsboro Airport air taxi operations have grown faster than U.S. air taxi operations. In addition to air taxi operations at general aviation airports, the U.S. air taxi total also includes scheduled re- gional airline operations at commercial service airports. This segment of the aviation industry is expected to grow at a faster rate than any other category. Therefore, the long term growth rates may overstate air taxi operations potential at Hillsboro Airport which does not have scheduled regional airline operations. For this reason, a constant share of projected U.S. air taxi operations has been made. This results in an estimate of 17,400 air taxi operations in the Year 2025. Given that the correlation coefficient of the time series extrapolation does not exceed the 0.90 threshold for better predictive reliability and considering that future U.S. air taxi operations forecasts may overstate air taxi growth rates applicable to Hillsboro Airport, a planning forecast for Hillsboro Airport air taxi operations has been selected that is mid-range of these two forecasts to capture a reasonable growth 3-26 projection. Table 3U summarizes this forecast. In 2004, the Port of Portland determined that nighttime itinerant activity was approximately 2.73 percent of ATCT recorded itinerant operations. Table 3U increases the forecast air taxi operations by this percent to account for operations after the tower is closed. This forecast results in air taxi operations growing at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent through 2025. TABLE 3T Share of U.S. Tower Air Taxi Operations Year HIO Air Taxi U.S. Air Taxi HIO Share 1992 2,899 9,307,300 0.031% 1993 3,112 9,676,000 0.032% 1994 3,562 10,008,400 0.036% 1995 3,371 9,823,800 0.034% 1996 4,175 9,314,900 0.045% 1997 5,631 10,052,700 0.056% 1998 5,710 10,172,200 0.056% 1999 6,553 10,573,500 0.062% 2000 7,230 10,760,600 0.067% 2001 7,931 10,881,700 0.073% 2002 9,078 11,029,500 0.082% Avg. Ann. 12.1% 1.7% % Growth 68.1% 15.6% Forecast 2010 11,700 14,295,600 0.082% 2015 15,400 18,779,000 0.082% 2020 16,600 20,259,000 0.082% 2025 17,400 21,229,500 0.082% Avg. Ann. 2.9% 2.9% % Growth 47.8% 48.0% Historical FAA Tower Operations: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Selected Years Source for Forecast FAA Tower Operations: 2004 FAA Aerospace Forecasts, 2020 & 2025 Extrapolated by Coffman Associates Historical HIO Air Taxi: FAA Forecast HIO Air Taxi: Coffman Associates TABLE 3U Share of U.S. Tower Air Taxi Operations Year Day Nighttime Total 2010 11,000 300 11,300 2015 13,800 400 14,200 2020 15,300 400 15,700 2025 16,600 500 17,100 Source: Coffman Associates Analysis 3-27 General Aviation Operations General aviation operations are classified as either itinerant or local. To examine the different growth rates and trends applicable to each category, the analysis which follows examines general aviation itinerant and general aviation local operations separately. ITINERANT OPERATIONS Table 3V depicts the history of general aviation itinerant operations, as counted by the ATCT at Hillsboro Airport since 1980. Since 1980, general aviation itinerant operations have fluctuated from a high of 96,284 in 1997, to a low of 60,722 in 1985. The 2002 level of 82,493 operations is 5,700 operations below the 1980 level of 88,222 operations. Since 1998, general aviation itinerant operations have remained above 82,000 annually. Eight of the past 15 years (53 percent) have seen general aviation itinerant operations above 87,000 annually. Table 3V examines the relationship of annual operations to based aircraft. As shown in this table, the number of general aviation itinerant operations per based aircraft has varied from 176 operations in 1983 to 270 operations per based aircraft in 1989. Since 2000, the ratio has been increasing slighting. Since 1988, the number of operations per based aircraft has averaged 239. A forecast for general aviation itinerant operations has been made by carrying forward this average operation per based aircraft ratio through 2025. Table 3V indicates that general aviation itinerant operations could grow to 111,000 by 2025, under this scenario. TABLE 3V Itinerant Operations Per Based Aircraft Year Total Itinerant Operations Per Based Aircraft 1980 88,222 253 1981 91,001 258 1982 65,041 183 1983 62,517 176 1984 61,915 192 1985 60,722 189 1986 68,498 226 1987 76,654 253 1988 89,790 257 1989 92,230 270 1990 87,979 258 1991 87,479 252 1992 85,964 248 1993 86,797 250 1994 87,746 238 1995 89,467 243 1996 88,148 221 1997 96,284 247 1998 85,619 220 1999 89,386 228 2000 83,201 212 2001 84,639 216 2002 82,493 220 Avg. Ann. -0.3% % Growth -6.8% Forecast 2010 95,400 239 2015 100,400 239 2020 106,100 239 2025 111,000 239 Avg. Ann. 1.3% % Growth 25.7% Source for Historical Data: FAA Records Forecasts: Coffman Associates Analysis Table 3W depicts this historical share of Hillsboro Airport general aviation itinerant operations as a percentage of general aviation itinerant operations 3-28 at towered airports across the country. The Hillsboro Airport share has remained within a tight range during this period, ranging from a low of 0.36 to a high of 0.50. The average market share over the period has been 0.42 percent. Table 3W presents a project- tion for Hillsboro Airport based upon maintaining its average share of the itinerant market at 0.42 percent. The 2004 FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) projects annual general aviation itinerant operations growing to 129,411 in 2020, or at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent from 2002 to 2020 (the FAA TAF forecast period). TABLE 3W Share of U.S. Tower Itinerant General Aviation Operations Year HIO Itinerant U.S. Itinerant HIO Share 1992 85,964 21,820,900 0.39% 1993 86,797 20,376,800 0.43% 1994 87,746 20,208,400 0.43% 1995 89,467 18,886,400 0.47% 1996 88,148 17,574,500 0.50% 1997 92,284 21,669,100 0.44% 1998 85,619 22,086,500 0.39% 1999 89,386 23,019,400 0.39% 2000 83,201 22,844,100 0.36% 2001 84,639 21,432,000 0.39% 2002 82,493 21,419,900 0.39% Avg. Ann. -0.4% -0.2% % Growth -4.2% -1.9% Forecast 2010 96,400 23,078,400 0.42% 2015 102,900 24,644,300 0.42% 2020 109,800 26,286,500 0.42% 2025 116,500 27,895,400 0.42% Avg. Ann. 1.5% 1.2% % Growth 29.2% 23.2% Source for Historical FAA Tower Operations: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Selected Years Source for Forecast FAA Tower Operations: 2004 FAA Aerospace Forecasts, 2020 & 2025 Extrapolated by Coffman Associates Historical HIO Itinerant: FAA HIO Itinerant Forecast: Coffman Associates The FAA projects an increase in aircraft utilization and the number of general aviation hours flown nationally. National general aviation itinerant operations at towered airports are projected to grow by 1.7 percent annually through 2015. This is following a 2.8 percent increase in 2004. These trends, along with projected growth in based aircraft, support future growth in annual operations at Hillsboro Airport. In particular, the growth in based business class aircraft will drive itinerant operations. Turboprop and turbojet operations are primarily itinerant operations. Considering these factors, the market share projection of U.S. tower 3-29 itinerant operations is the selected planning forecast. This forecast provides for an average annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. This is slightly lower than forecast nationally for itinerant operations. However, Hillsboro Airport itinerant operations have not grown at the same rate as national general aviation itinerant operations. The FAA TAF forecast appears to be too aggressive. Hillsboro Airport has not sustained this level of growth historically and the 2.8 percent annual growth rate greatly exceeds national forecast levels. Since the FAA TAF provides forecast figures only, the underlying assumptions generating those forecasts are unknown. Therefore, an explanation is not known for this higher level of projected growth. Exhibit 3F depicts the Hillsboro Airport general aviation itinerant operations forecasts. LOCAL OPERATIONS A similar methodology to that used for itinerant operations was used to analyze local operations. Table 3X depicts the history of local operations at Hillsboro Airport, and shows the ratio of local general aviation operations to based aircraft. Local operations are higher in 2002 than 1980, averaging an annual growth rate of 1.7 percent over that period. Local operations peaked in 1999 with 154,123 operations. The year 1982 was the lowest in terms of annual operations (only 75,268 operations). Since 1989, local operations have remained above 102,000 annually. A general decline between 2000 and 2002 was experienced. TABLE 3X Local Operations Per Based Aircraft Year Total Local Operations Per Based Aircraft 1980 91,360 262 1981 93,854 266 1982 75,268 212 1983 77,365 218 1984 77,627 241 1985 78,475 244 1986 96,857 320 1987 106,822 353 1988 93,808 268 1989 107,470 315 1990 120,015 352 1991 121,054 349 1992 109,124 341 1993 102,632 296 1994 118,523 322 1995 127,233 346 1996 119,630 300 1997 129,381 332 1998 138,105 354 1999 154,123 393 2000 151,645 387 2001 141,880 362 2002 131,495 351 Avg. Ann. 1.7% % Growth 28.3% Forecast 2010 156,800 393 2015 165,100 393 2020 174,500 393 2025 182,700 393 Avg. Ann. 1.4% % Growth 28.0% Source for Historical Data: FAA Forecast: Coffman Associates Analysis The 2003 local operations were trending higher than 2002 local operations. However, as mentioned earlier, 2003 operations have been removed from comparison to historical operations due to a significant change in recording methodology used by FAA ATCT personnel (which, as of October 3-30 1, 2003, no longer captures all helicopter training operations at the airport). When considering local operations levels between January 2003 and September 2003, and adjusting these upward 15,000 as detailed in Chapter One, Section Four, the 2003 local operations were slightly higher than, but comparable to, the 1999 annual local operations. As mentioned, 1999 was the peak year for local operations. Therefore, 1999 local operations seem to be a reasonable estimate of the true 2003 annual local operations at Hillsboro Airport if there were no changes in the ATCT count methodology. With this understanding, a projection of future local operations has been made assuming the 1999 ratio of 393 operations per based aircraft is maintained through the planning period. This results in 182,200 annual operations in 2025. Table 3Y depicts the Hillsboro Airport share of general aviation local operations at towered airports in the United States. The market share has declined between 2000 and 2002, as local operations declined. The average share since 1992 is 0.86 percent. The increase in local operations in 2003 suggests this decline has leveled off, especially since general aviation local operations at towered airports in the United States declined in 2003. A projection of general aviation local operations at Hillsboro Airport has been made assuming the 1999 share of 0.86 percent remains constant through the planning period. The 2004 FAA TAF projects annual general aviation local operations growing to 201,525 in 2020, or at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent from 2002 to 2020 (the FAA TAF forecast period). TABLE 3Y Share of U.S. Tower Local General Aviation Operations Year HIO Local U.S. Local HIO Share 1992 109,124 15,664,400 0.70% 1993 102,632 14,851,000 0.69% 1994 118,523 14,484,100 0.82% 1995 127,233 13,379,200 0.95% 1996 119,630 11,098,000 1.08% 1997 129,381 15,164,200 0.85% 1998 138,105 15,960,000 0.87% 1999 154,123 16,980,200 0.91% 200 151,645 17,034,400 0.89% 2001 141,880 16,188,000 0.88% 2002 131,495 16,155,500 0.81% Avg. Ann. 1.9% 0.3% % Growth 17.0% 3.0% Forecast 2010 149,000 17,363,500 0.86% 2015 161,200 18,779,000 0.86% 2020 173,900 20,259,000 0.86% 2025 182,200 21,229,500 0.86% Avg. Ann. 1.4% 1.2% % Growth 27.8% 23.9% Historical FAA Tower Operations: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Selected Years Forecast FAA Tower Operation: 2004 FAA Aerospace Forecasts, 2020 & 2025 Extrapolated by Coffman Associates Historical HIO Local: FAA HIO Local Forecast: Coffman Associates 03 M P0 1- 3F -5 /2 4/ 05 Exhibit 3F GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FORECAST PORT OF PORTLAND 350 2025202020152010200520001995199019851980 *OPBA - Operations Per Based Aircraft 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 G E N E R A L A V IA T IO N O P E R A T IO N S ( x 1 ,0 0 0 ) G E N E R A L A V IA T IO N O P E R A T IO N S ( x 1 ,0 0 0 ) HISTORICALI I FORECASTS Local FAA-TAF Forecast Constant Ratio of OPBA Share of U.S. Tower Operations L E G E N D Itinerant FAA-TAF Forecast Constant Ratio of OPBA Share of U.S. Tower Operations L E G E N D Total FAA-TAF Forecast Constant Ratio of OPBA Share of U.S. Tower Operations ODOT Aeronautics L E G E N D 3-31 The FAA Aerospace Forecasts projects a 1.7 percent per year increase in local operations nationwide. This follows a 3.3 percent increase in 2004. Future growth in local operations will be driven by training operations at Hillsboro Airport. This will be a function of the businesses on the airport which provide pilot training services. The number and type of these businesses through the planning period cannot readily be determined. That will be a function of private business models and business practices. However, considering that historically businesses have been established at Hillsboro Airport that provide pilot training services, it can be expected that these activities will continue in the future. Additionally, new pilot starts are projected to increase over the next 12 years. This will be driven, in part, by the new regulations for sport aviation, which are expected to encourage new recreational pilots who will need primary flight training. This training will be primarily in fixed wing aircraft. Exhibit 3F graphically depicts the general aviation local operations forecast for Hillsboro Airport. The constant operation per based aircraft forecast is the preferred forecast. This forecast accounts for the higher growth in operations experienced in 2003 and provides for an annual growth rate in local operations of 1.4 percent. This is slightly below the historical 1.7 percent annual growth rate at Hillsboro Airport since 1980, but provides for a 2.7 percent increase in operations over the 2002 level. Similar to general aviation itinerant operations, the FAA TAF appears to overstate growth potential in local operations. Exhibit 3F depicts the Hillsboro Airport general aviation local operations forecasts. TOTAL GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS Table 3Z and Exhibit 3F depict the combined itinerant and local general aviation operations forecasts. An adjustment for nighttime operations is also made in the table. Nighttime general aviation operations were projected as 2.73 percent of projected itinerant operations consistent with the results of the nighttime survey prepared by the Port in 2003. Nighttime local operations were projected as 1.11 percent of projected local operations. Combined, annual general aviation operations are projected to grow to 304,400 annually by the Year 2025. 3-32 TABLE 3Z General Aviation Operations Planning Forecast 2010 2015 2020 2025 Itinerant Operations 96,400 102,900 109,800 116,500 Nighttime Itinerant Operations 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 Total Itinerant Operations 99,000 105,700 112,800 119,700 Operations Per Based Aircraft 248 252 254 257 % of Total Operations 38.4% 38.8% 39.0% 39.3% Local Operations 156,800 165,100 174,500 182,700 Nighttime Local Operations 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 Total Local Operations 158,500 166,900 176,400 184,700 Operations Per Based Aircraft 397 397 397 397 % of Total Operations 61.6% 61.2% 61.0% 60.7% Total Operations 257,500 272,600 289,200 304,400 Source: Coffman Associates analysis Military Operations Military activity accounts for the smallest portion of the operational traffic at Hillsboro Airport. Since 1990, annual military operations have averaged approximately 1,500 annually, with approximately 900 attributable to itinerant operations and approximately 600 attributable to local operations. Unless there is an unforeseen mission change in the area, a significant change from these average figures is not anticipated. Therefore, annual military operations have been projected at these annual levels throughout the planning period. This is consistent with typical industry practices for projecting military operations. OPERATIONAL MIX The number and type of aircraft operating at the airport through the planning period will be important throughout the master plan study. This type of information will be used in determining airfield capacity, future noise emissions, and air quality analysis. Section Four of Chapter One detailed the estimate of the existing operational mix. This is summarized at the top of Table 3AA. This analysis concluded that the fixed wing aircraft represented approximately 65 percent of the total operations at the airport, while helicopters represented the remaining 35 percent. A forecast of the operational mix is also shown in Table 3AA. This projection assumes that fixed wing aircraft will grow in number and in percentage of the total mix through the planning period. This is consistent with projected based aircraft fleet mix changes for Hillsboro Airport and national trends showing stronger growth rates for the number of active fixed wing aircraft versus helicopters through 2015. For Hillsboro Airport, business class aircraft use is expected to grow faster than all other categories at the airport. 3-33 TABLE 3AA Operational Split Aircraft Type Total Local % of Total Total Itinerant % of Total Total % of Total 2003 SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 73,624 45.9% 50,420 54.0% 124,044 48.9% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 8,180 5.1% 8,898 9.5% 17,078 6.7% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 2,413 1.5% 5,105 5.5% 7,518 3.0% TP (Turboprop) 2,156 1.3% 5,063 5.4% 7,219 2.8% TJ (Turbojet) 329 0.2% 9,523 10.2% 9,852 3.9% HP (Helicopter Piston) 72,995 45.5% 10,268 11.0% 83,263 32.8% HT (Helicopter Turbine) 705 0.4% 4,168 4.5% 4,873 1.9% Total 160,402 100.0% 93,445 100.0% 253,847 100.0% Fixed Wing 86,702 54.1% 79,009 84.6% 165,711 65.3% Rotorcraft 73,700 45.9% 14,436 15.4% 88,136 34.7% 2010 SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 72,100 45.3% 61,500 55.3% 133,600 49.4% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 8,000 5.0% 10,800 9.7% 18,800 7.0% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 2,400 1.5% 6,200 5.6% 8,600 3.2% TP (Turboprop) 2,500 1.6% 6,300 5.7% 8,800 3.3% TJ (Turbojet) 400 0.3% 11,900 10.7% 12,300 4.6% HP (Helicopter Piston) 73,000 45.9% 10,300 9.3% 83,300 30.8% HT (Helicopter Turbine) 700 0.4% 4,200 3.8% 4,900 1.8% Total 159,100 100.0% 111,200 100.0% 270,300 100.0% Fixed Wing 85,400 53.7% 96,700 87.0% 182,100 67.4% Rotorcraft 73,700 46.3% 14,500 13.0% 88,200 32.6% 2015 SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 78,800 47.0% 67,300 55.7% 146,100 50.7% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 8,800 5.3% 11,900 9.9% 20,700 7.2% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 2,600 1.6% 6,800 5.6% 9,400 3.3% TP (Turboprop) 3,100 1.9% 7,000 5.8% 10,100 3.5% TJ (Turbojet) 500 0.3% 13,300 11.0% 13,800 4.8% HP (Helicopter Piston) 73,000 43.6% 10,300 8.5% 83,300 28.9% HT (Helicopter Turbine) 700 0.4% 4,200 3.5% 4,900 1.7% Total 167,500 100.0% 120,800 100.0% 288,300 100.0% Fixed Wing 93,800 56.0% 106,300 88.0% 200,100 69.4% Rotorcraft 73,700 44.0% 14,500 12.0% 88,200 30.6% 2020 SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 86,500 48.9% 72,500 56.0% 159,000 51.9% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 9,600 5.4% 12,800 9.9% 22,400 7.3% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 2,800 1.6% 7,300 5.6% 10,100 3.3% TP (Turboprop) 3,800 2.1% 7,700 6.0% 11,500 3.8% TJ (Turbojet) 600 0.3% 14,600 11.3% 15,200 5.0% HP (Helicopter Piston) 73,000 41.2% 10,300 8.0% 83,300 27.2% HT (Helicopter Turbine) 700 0.4% 4,200 3.2% 4,900 1.6% Total 177,000 100.0% 129,400 100.0% 306,400 100.0% Fixed Wing 103,300 58.4% 114,900 88.8% 218,200 71.2% Rotorcraft 73,700 41.6% 14,500 11.2% 88,200 28.8% 2025 SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 93,000 50.2% 77,400 56.2% 170,400 52.8% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 10,300 5.6% 13,7600 9.9% 23,900 7.4% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 3,000 1.6% 7,800 5.7% 10,800 3.3% TP (Turboprop) 4,600 2.5% 8,400 6.1% 13,000 4.0% TJ (Turbojet) 700 0.4% 16,000 11.6% 16,700 5.2% HP (Helicopter Piston) 73,00 39.4% 10,300 7.5% 83,300 25.8% HT (Helicopter Turbine) 700 0.4% 4,200 3.1% 4,900 1.5% Total 185,300 100.0% 137,700 100.0% 323,000 100.0% Fixed Wing 111,600 60.2% 123,200 89.5% 234,800 72.7% Rotorcraft 73,700 39.8% 14,500 10.5% 88,200 27.3% Source: Coffman Associates Analysis 3-34 The majority of the increased local operations level recorded in the year 2003 is attributed to a peaking of helicopter training operations at the airport. From discussions with airport tenants, it was determined that late 2002 into 2003 was an unusually busy period for their operations. The level of flight training in 2003 had not been experienced before. The type and level of helicopter training at Hillsboro Airport are unique to the businesses located at the airport. These businesses cater to students from outside the United States. This is a cyclical business that is based in part on the flight training needs in the United States and in other countries worldwide. It is also a factor of the number and type of competitors to the businesses at the airport. Some flight training businesses have been more successful in managing the new regulatory environment after 9/11. Considering that this was a peak year and not representative of past years, it is assumed that helicopter operations would not grow much higher than estimated for 2003. Therefore, for planning purposes, helicopter operations have been fixed at the 2003 levels through the planning period. This results in the decline as a percentage of total operations. The growth in new helicopter pilots nationally also suggests that this market may be limited in the future. Nationally, the number of new helicopter only pilots is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.0 percent through 2015, growing from 7,918 pilots in 2003, to 8,970 pilots in 2015. This is only 1,052 or 87 new pilots each year. Fixed wing pilots are projected to grow at 1.4 percent annually. AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE Table 3AB classifies 2003 and forecast fixed-wing operations by FAA airport reference code (ARC). This FAA coding system relates airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of aircraft expected to use the airport. The ARC has two components: the first component, depicted by a letter, is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteristic); the second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the airplane design group and relates to aircraft wingspan (physical characteristic). Generally, aircraft approach speed applies to runways and runway-related facilities, while airplane wingspan primarily relates to separation criteria involving taxiways, taxilanes, and landside facilities. 3-35 TABLE 3AB Forecast by Airport Reference Code Airport Reference Code 2003 2010 2015 2020 2025 A-I, A-II, B-I, B-II 153,004 166,400 182,300 198,300 212,700 C-I, C-II, D-I, D-II 12,317 15,200 17,200 19,300 21,400 C-III, D-III 390 480 550 610 680 Total 165,711 182,080 200,050 218,210 234,780 Source: Coffman Associates Analysis According to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, an aircraft's approach category is based upon 1.3 times its stall speed in landing configuration at that aircraft's maximum certificated weight. The five approach categories are as follows: Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots. The airplane design group (ADG) is based upon the aircraft’s wingspan. The six ADGs are as follows: Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet. Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet. Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet. Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet. Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet. Group VI: 214 feet or greater. All approach category C and D aircraft, as well as some category B aircraft, are turbojets. All turboprop and piston engine aircraft are in categories A and B. These reference codes will be discussed in more detail later in the master plan, in the Facility Requirements chapter. The most demanding ARC (highest approach category and ADG) with over 500 annual operations is used in determining the applicable FAA airport design criterion. ARC C-III has been applied to Hillsboro Airport planning and design in the past. As shown in the table, ARC C-III is expected to remain the planning ARC through the planning period as this is expected to be the most demanding ARC with over 500 annual operations. This analysis was completed by applying 2003 ARC percentages to the forecast fixed wing operational mix shown previously in Table 3AA. 3-36 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS Many airport facility needs are related to the levels of activity during peak periods. The periods used in developing facility requirements for this study are as follows: Recommend we do not use money signs as bullets. $ Peak Month - The calendar month when peak activity occurs. $ Design Day - The average day in a peak month. The indicator is easily derived by dividing the peak month activity by the number of days in the month. $ Design Hour - The peak hour within the design day. For itinerant operations, a fourth factor, busy day is considered. This is used in calculating apron requirements. • Busy Day - The busy day of a typical week in the peak month. Table 3AC summarizes peak period forecasts for the airport. This is separated between total annual operations and itinerant general aviation operations. The peak periods were determined by reviewing ATCT counts in the past 13 years. In the past 13 years, the peak month for operations has averaged 11.3 percent of total operations. For itinerant general aviation operations, the peak month has averaged 12 percent of itinerant general aviation operations. The design day is derived simply by dividing the peak month by 30. Design hour operations were estimated at 20 percent of design day operations. The forecast of busy day operations was determined to be 1.23 times design day activity. TABLE 3AC Peak Period Forecasts 2002 2010 2015 2020 2025 Annual Operations Annual 227,589 270,300 288,300 306,400 323,000 Peak Month 8,554 30,500 32,600 34,600 36,500 Design Day 285 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,200 Design Hour 57 200 220 240 240 Itinerant General Aviation Operations Annual 94,503 111,200 120,800 129,400 137,700 Peak Month 11,340 13,300 14,500 15,500 16,500 Busy Day 465 545 595 636 677 Design Day 378 443 483 517 550 Design Hour 76 89 97 103 110 Source: Coffman Associates Analysis 3-37 ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES FORECASTS An instrument approach as defined by the FAA is "an approach to an airport with the intent to land an aircraft in accordance with an Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) flight plan, when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude." Available data on actual instrument approaches (AIAs) was obtained from the FAA for the period from 1994 to 2003. This historical data is summarized in Table 3AD. As a percentage of air taxi operations, air taxi instrument approaches have averaged 9.0 percent since 2001. This is a decline from the previous seven years, where air taxi AIAs averaged 20 percent of air taxi operations. An increase in air taxi operations, along with a decline in the actual number of AIAs, has led to this percentage decline. Future air taxi AIAs have been projected at 9.0 percent of future air taxi operations. (Similar to air taxi operations, the air taxi AIAs include air carrier AIAs). General aviation instrument approaches have represented 1.7 percent of total itinerant general aviation operations since 1994. The forecast of general aviation AIAs was prepared by applying this percentage to forecast general aviation itinerant operations. Military AIAs were projected at the peak level of 50 through the planning period. Table 3AD summarizes the annual instrument approach forecast. TABLE 3AD Actual Instrument Approaches Year Air Carrier/ Air Taxi General Aviation Military Total HISTORICAL 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 623 1,197 1,140 634 1,232 1,242 1,090 1,002 737 562 780 2,668 2,239 950 2,042 1,693 1,395 958 815 835 21 39 20 38 53 43 52 23 12 16 1,424 3,904 3,399 1,622 3,327 2,978 2,537 1,983 1,564 1,413 FORECAST 2010 2015 2020 2025 1,000 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 50 50 50 50 2,750 3,150 3,150 3,550 Source for Historical Data: FAA Source for Forecasts: Coffman Associates 3-38 SUMMARY This chapter has outlined the various aviation demand levels anticipated through the year 2025 at Hillsboro Airport. Long term growth at the airport will be influenced by many factors including the local economy, the need for a viable aviation facility in the immediate area, and trends in general aviation at the national level. A summary of the forecasts aviation activity levels for Hillsboro Airport is presented on Exhibit 3G. The next step in the master planning process will be to assess the capacity of existing facilities, their ability to meet forecast demand, and to identify changes to the airfield and/or landside facilities which will create a more functional aviation facility. Single Engine Piston 244 256 265 276 284 Multi-Engine Piston 35 37 38 39 41 Turboprop 13 17 19 21 23 Turbojet 41 56 63 71 79 Helicopter 29 32 34 35 37 Other 1 1 1 1 1 Total Based Aircraft 363 399 420 444 465 BASED AIRCRAFT BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX OPERATIONS FORECASTS ITINERANT OPERATIONS General Aviation 83,381 99,000 105,700 112,800 119,700 Air Taxi 9,561 11,300 14,200 15,700 17,100 Military 503 900 900 900 900 Subtotal Itinerant Operations 93,445 111,200 120,800 129,400 137,700 LOCAL OPERATIONS General Aviation 160,261 158,500 166,900 176,400 184,700 Military 141 600 600 600 600 Subtotal Local Operations 160,402 159,100 167,500 177,000 185,300 Total Operations 253,847 270,300 288,300 306,400 323,000 OPERATIONS 2010 2015 FORECASTSBASE YEAR 2020 2025 03 M P0 1- 3G -5 /2 3/ 05 Other Helicopter Turbojet Turpoprop Multi-Engine Single Engine TotalLocalItinerant 50 100 150 200 OP ER AT IO NS (i n th ou sa nd s) BA SE D AI RC RA FT 250 300 350 100 200 300 400 500 20252020201520102003 20252020201520102003 Exhibit 3G FORECAST SUMMARY PORT OF PORTLAND Chapter Four AVIATION FACILITY REQUIREMENTS PORT OF PORTLAND 4-1 CHAPTER FOUR AVIATION FACILITY REQUIREMENTS PORT OF PORTLAND In this chapter, existing components of the airport are evaluated to identify the capacities of the overall system. Once identified, the existing capacity is compared to the forecast activity levels prepared in Chapter Three to determine where deficiencies currently exist, or may be expected to materialize in the future. Once deficiencies in a component are identified, a more specific determination of the approximate sizing and timing of the new facilities can be made. The objective of this effort is to identify, in general terms, the adequacy of the existing airport facilities and outline what new facilities may be needed and when they may be needed to accommodate forecast demands. Having established these facility requirements, alternatives for providing these facilities will be evaluated in Chapter Five to determine the most cost- effective and efficient means for implementation. As stated previously, the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan covers a 20-year period through 2025. The base year used for starting the forecasting effort and in turn the capacity analysis is the year 2003. The first year for implementation of Master Plan recommendations is expected to be 2006, which will be the beginning of the Short Term Planning Horizon. The Short Term Planning Horizon covers the first five years of the 20-year planning period (2006-2010). The Intermediate Term Planning Horizon encompasses the next five years (2011 4-2 through 2015). The Long Term Plan- ning Horizon would correlate to the final 10 years of the planning period (2016 through 2025). The cost-effective, efficient, and or- derly development of an airport should rely more upon actual demand at an airport than a time-based forecast. In order to develop a Master Plan that is demand-based rather than time-based, a series of planning horizon mile- stones have been established for Hillsboro Airport that take into con- sideration the reasonable range of aviation demand projections. It is important to consider that during the 20-year planning period of this Master Plan, actual activity at Hills- boro Airport (HIO) may be higher or lower than projected activity levels. By planning according to activity milestones, the resultant plan can ac- commodate unexpected shifts or changes in the area’s aviation de- mand. It is important that the plan accommodate these changes so that Port of Portland (Port) decision- makers can respond to unexpected changes in a timely fashion. These milestones provide flexibility, while potentially extending this plans useful life if aviation trends slow or acceler- ate over the period. The most important reason for utiliz- ing milestones is that they allow the airport to develop facilities according to needs that are generated by actual demand levels. A demand-based schedule of planned improvements provides flexibility in development since development schedules can be slowed or expedited according to ac- tual demand at any given time over the planning period. The resultant plan provides airport officials with a financially responsible and need-based program. Table 4A presents the planning horizon milestones for each activity demand category. AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS Airfield facilities include those facili- ties that are related to the arrival, de- parture, and ground movement of air- craft. Theses components include: $ Runways $ Navigational Approach Aids and Instrument Approaches $ Taxiways $ Airfield Lighting, Marking, and Signage The adequacy of existing airfield fa- cilities at Hillsboro Airport is analyzed from a number of perspectives within each of these components, including (but not limited to): airfield capacity, runway length/width, runway pave- ment strength, Federal Aviation Ad- ministration (FAA) design standards, navigational aids, airspace configura- tion, and air traffic control. 4-3 TABLE 4A Planning Horizon Activity Levels Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term Planning Horizon Planning Horizon Planning Horizon 2003 (0-5 years) (6-10 years) (11-20 years) Based Aircraft Single Engine Piston 244 256 265 284 Multi-Engine Piston 35 37 38 41 Turboprop 13 17 19 23 Turbojet 41 56 63 79 Helicopter 29 32 34 37 Other 1 1 1 1 Total Based Aircraft 363 399 420 465 Annual Operations Itinerant General Aviation 83,381 99,000 105,700 119,700 Air Taxi 9,561 11,300 14,200 17,100 Military 503 900 900 900 Subtotal Itinerant 93,445 111,200 120,800 137,700 Local General Aviation 160,261 158,500 166,900 184,700 Military 141 600 600 600 Subtotal Local 160,402 159,100 167,500 185,300 Total Annual Operations 253,847 270,300 288,300 323,000 AIRFIELD CAPACITY An airport’s airfield capacity is ex- pressed in terms of its annual service volume (ASV). An airport’s annual service volume is a reasonable esti- mate of the maximum level of aircraft operations that can be accommodated at HIO in a year. Annual service vol- ume accounts for annual differences in runway use, aircraft mix, and weather conditions. Hillsboro Airport’s annual service volume was examined utilizing FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5060- 5, Airport Capacity and Delay. For this capacity analysis, only those operations utilizing the runway sys- tem were considered. For Hillsboro Airport, this includes all fixed-wing aircraft operations (both itinerant and local) and itinerant helicopter opera- tions. Since helicopter training opera- tions at Hillsboro Airport operate to taxiways and other landing areas, they are not considered in the capacity analysis since they do not dictate the need for additional runways. Table 4B summarizes annual operational levels considered in the capacity analysis. 4-4 TABLE 4B Annual Operations For Capacity Calculations 2003 Short Term Planning Horizon Intermediate Term Planning Horizon Long Term Planning Horizon Fixed Wing Operations Itinerant 79,009 96,700 106,300 123,200 Local 86,702 85,400 93,800 111,600 Subtotal Fixed Wing 165,711 182,100 200,100 234,800 Helicopter Itinerant 14,436 14,500 14,500 14,500 Total Operations 180,147 196,600 214,600 249,300 Factors Influencing Annual Service Volume Exhibit 4A graphically presents the various factors included in the calcula- tion of an airport’s annual service vol- ume (ASV). These include: airfield characteristics, meteorological or weather conditions, aircraft mix, and demand characteristics (the mix of dif- fering types of aircraft operations). These factors are described below. • AIRFIELD CHARACTERISTICS The layout of the runways and taxi- ways directly affects an airfield’s ca- pacity. This not only includes the lo- cation and orientation of the runways, but the percent of time that a particu- lar runway or combination of runways is in use and the length, width, weight bearing capacity, and instrument ap- proach capability of each runway at Hillsboro Airport and whether or not the airport has radar coverage. The length, width, weight-bearing capac- ity, and instrument approaches avail- able to a runway determine which type of aircraft may operate on the runway and if operations can occur during poor weather conditions. Runway Configuration: Hillsboro Airport has two runways in an inter- secting configuration. Runway 12-30 is the longest runway at the airport and currently serves the mix of large business jet aircraft and general avia- tion aircraft which use the airport. The precision instrument approach is aligned with Runway 12. Runway 2- 20 is the crosswind runway and pri- marily serves small general aviation aircraft. Runway Use: Runway use is nor- mally dictated by wind conditions. The direction of takeoffs and landings is generally determined by the speed and direction of wind. It is generally safest for aircraft to takeoff and land into the wind, avoiding high crosswind (wind that is blowing perpendicular to the direction of travel of an aircraft) or tailwind components during such op- erations. At Hillsboro Airport, most aircraft depart to the northwest (Runway 30) due to the prevailing Exhibit 4A FACTORS INFLUENCING ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME AIRFIELD LAYOUT WEATHER CONDITIONS OPERATIONS VFR PVCIFR AIRCRAFT MIX Touch-and-Go Operations Arrivals and Departures Total Annual Operations J F M A M J J A S O N D 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A&B C Beechcraft Bonanza Cessna 441Beechcraft King Air SAAB 340 Gulfstream Cessna Citation 03 M P0 1- 4A -8 /2 3/ 04 Runway Configuration Number of ExitsRunway Use PORT OF PORTLAND 4-5 wind flows from the west and the preferential runway use program. For this capacity analysis, Runway 30 was assumed to be used most of the time. However, the use of both Runway 12- 30 and Runway 2-20 simultaneously was assumed. During periods when wind conditions require the use of Runway 2-20 for small general avia- tion aircraft, larger aircraft may need to use Runway 12-30 due to its longer length. During these periods, aircraft are sequenced to allow for departures and landings to both runways. Exit Taxiways: Exit taxiways have a significant impact on airfield capacity since the number and location of exits directly determines the occupancy time of an aircraft on the runway. Runway 12-30 has eight exit taxiways, while Runway 2-20 has four exit taxi- ways. The airfield capacity analysis gives credit to exits located within a pre- scribed range from a runway's thresh- old. This range is based upon the mix index of the aircraft that use the run- way. The exits must be at least 750 feet apart to count as separate exits. For Hillsboro Airport, the exit taxi- ways must be within 2,000 to 4,000 feet from the runway threshold. Fol- lowing this criteria, each runway is credited with only two exits. This re- duces capacity by approximately six percent. Radar Coverage: Radar coverage improves air traffic control sequencing during poor weather conditions. Since the air traffic controller has positive contact with an aircraft, closer separa- tion distances can be maintained. Without radar coverage, additional spacing and control measures must be implemented to ensure aircraft safety. Hillsboro Airport currently lacks radar coverage to the surface. This dimin- ishes the annual service volume by less than one percent. In poor weather conditions, hourly capacity is reduced by nearly eight percent • METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS Weather conditions can have a signifi- cant affect on airfield capacity which is usually at its peak during clear weather (i.e., flight visibility is at its best). Airfield capacity is diminished as weather conditions deteriorate and cloud ceilings and visibility are re- duced. As weather conditions deterio- rate, the spacing of aircraft must in- crease to provide allowable margins of safety. The increased distance be- tween aircraft reduces the number of aircraft which can operate at HIO dur- ing any given period. This conse- quently reduces overall airfield capac- ity. FAA AC 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, defines three categories of meteorological conditions for use in determining capacity analysis. The meteorological conditions are defined by reported cloud ceiling and flight visibility. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions exist whenever the cloud ceiling is greater than 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL), and visibility is greater than three statute miles. VFR conditions permit pilots to approach, land or takeoff by visual reference, and to see and avoid other aircraft. Airfield capacity is highest during 4-6 VFR conditions. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions exist when the reported ceiling is less than 1,000 feet above ground level but greater than 500 feet above the ground and/or visi- bility is less than three statute miles but greater than one mile. Under IFR conditions, pilots must rely on instru- ments for navigation and guidance to the runway. Other aircraft cannot be seen and safe separation between air- craft must be assured solely by follow- ing air traffic control rules and proce- dures. This leads to increased in trail distances between arriving aircraft, which diminishes airfield capacity. Poor Visibility Conditions (PVC) exist when the cloud ceiling is less than 500 feet above the ground and/or visibility is less than one mile. Similar to IFR conditions, PVC conditions result in diminished airfield capacity due to in- creased in trail distances between ar- riving aircraft. For this analysis, meteorological con- ditions between 1993 and 2002 were collected for Hillsboro Airport from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Table 4C summarizes the percentage of time each meteorological condition pre- vailed at Hillsboro Airport based upon recorded observations. TABLE 4C Weather Conditions Observations % of Total Visual Flight Rules (VFR) 74,660 93.0% Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) 3,999 5.0% Poor Visibility Conditions (PVC) 1,648 2.0% Total 80,307 100.0% Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Hillsboro Airport 1993-2002 • AIRCRAFT MIX Aircraft mix refers to the speed, size, and flight characteristics of aircraft operating at an airport. As the mix of aircraft operating at an airport in- creases to include larger aircraft, air- field capacity begins to diminish. This is due to larger separation distances that must be maintained between air- craft of different speeds and sizes. Aircraft mix for the capacity analysis is defined in terms of four aircraft classes. Classes A and B consist of single and multi-engine aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Aircraft within these classifications are primarily associated with general aviation operations, but does include some business turboprop and business jet aircraft (e.g., the Cessna Citation business jet and Beechcraft King Air). 4-7 Class C consists of multi-engine air- craft weighing between 12,500 and 300,000 pounds. This is a broad clas- sification that includes business jets, turboprops, and large commercial air- line aircraft. Most of the business jets in the national fleet are included within this category. Class D includes all aircraft weighing over 300,000 pounds (i.e., wide-bodied and jumbo jet aircraft). No aircraft within Class D currently operate, or are expected to operate, at HIO. Table 4D summa- rizes operations by aircraft type and class for Hillsboro Airport through the planning period. These projections were derived from the forecast opera- tional fleet mix as determined in Chapter Three. TABLE4D Aircraft Operational Fleet Mix, By Classification Hillsboro Airport Aircraft Type Short Intermediate Long (Class) 2003 % Term % Term % Term % Single Engine Piston (A&B) 141,122 78.3% 152,400 77.5% 166,800 77.7% 194,300 77.9% Multi-Engine Piston (A&B) 7,518 4.2% 8,600 4.4% 9,400 4.4% 10,800 4.4% Helicopters (A&B) 14,436 8.0% 14,500 7.4% 14,500 6.8% 14,500 5.8% Turboprop (C) 7,219 4.0% 8,800 4.5% 10,100 4.7% 13,000 5.2% Turbojet (C) 9,852 5.5% 12,300 6.2% 13,800 6.4% 16,700 6.7% Totals 180,147 100.0% 196,600 100.0% 214,600 100.0% 249,300 100.0% For the capacity analysis, the percent- age of Class C aircraft operating at HIO is critical in determining the an- nual service volume since this class includes the larger and faster aircraft in the operational mix. As the per- centage of Class C aircraft operating at HIO increases, ASV begins to di- minish. Table 4E summarizes the percentage of Class C aircraft ex- pected to operate at HIO through the planning period. Consistent with pro- jections prepared in Chapter Three, the operational fleet mix at HIO is ex- pected to slightly increase its percent- age of Class C aircraft throughout the planning period, as business and cor- porate use of the airport increases. TABLE 4E Total Operations by Classification Hillsboro Airport Short Intermediate Long Class 2003 % Term % Term % Term % A&B 163,076 90.5% 175,500 89.3% 190,700 88.9% 219,600 88.1% C 17,071 9.5% 21,100 10.7% 23,900 11.1% 29,700 11.9% Totals 180,147 100.0% 196,600 100.0% 214,600 100.0% 249,300 100.0% 4-8 • DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS Operations, not only the total number of annual operations, but the manner in which they are conducted, have an important effect on airfield capacity. Peak operational periods, touch-and- go operations, and the percent of arri- vals impact the number of annual op- erations that can be conducted at an airport. Peak Period Operations: For the airfield capacity analysis, average daily operations and average peak hour operations during the peak month are calculated. These figures were derived from the peak period forecasts prepared in Chapter Three. Table 4F summarizes peak period figures for Hillsboro Airport that were used in the capacity analysis. TABLE 4F Peak Period Summary Hillsboro Airport Short Intermediate Long 2003 Term Term Term Annual Operations 180,147 196,600 214,600 249,300 Peak Month 21,618 23,592 25,752 29,916 Design Day 721 786 858 997 Design Hour 144 157 172 199 Ratio of Annual to Daily Demand 250 250 250 250 Ratio of Daily to Peak Hour Demand 6.15 6.15 6.15 6.15 Touch-and-Go Operations: A touch-and-go operation involves an aircraft making a landing and an im- mediate takeoff without coming to a full stop or exiting the runway. These operations are typically associated with general aviation training opera- tions. Touch-and-go activity is counted as two operations since there is an arrival and a departure involved. A high percentage of touch-and-go traffic normally results in a higher op- erational capacity because one landing and one takeoff occurs within a shorter time period when compared to individual operations. Fixed wing touch-and-go activities represent ap- proximately 48 percent of total annual fixed-wing operations at HIO. This level of activity increases the hourly capacity by 40 percent. Percent Arrivals: The percentage of arrivals as they relate to the total op- erations in the design hour is impor- tant in determining airfield capacity. Under most circumstances, the lower the percentage of arrivals, the higher the hourly capacity. However, except in unique circumstances, the aircraft arrival-departure split is typically 50- 50. For HIO, traffic information indi- cated no major deviation from this pattern, and therefore arrivals were estimated to account for 50 percent of design period operations. 4-9 • CALCULATION OF ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME The preceding information was used in conjunction with the airfield capac- ity methodology developed by the FAA to determine airfield capacity for Hillsboro Airport. Hourly Runway Capacity: The first step in determining annual service volume involves the computation of the hourly capacity of each runway in use configuration. The percentage use of each runway, the amount of touch- and-go training activity, and the num- ber and locations of runway exits be- come important factors in determining the hourly capacity of each runway configuration. The hourly capacity cal- culations for Hillsboro Airport (assum- ing the existing airfield configuration) are summarized in Appendix C to this report. Annual Service Volume: Once the hourly capacity is known, the annual service volume can be determined. Annual service volume is calculated by the following equation: Annual Service Volume = C x D x H C = weighted hourly capacity D = ratio of annual demand to average daily demand during the peak month H = ratio of average daily demand to average peak hour demand during the peak month Following this formula, the current and future annual service volume for Hillsboro Airport has been estimated. Table 4G summarizes annual service volume data for Hillsboro Airport through the planning period assuming the existing airfield configuration as well as three capacity-enhancing sce- narios of development. Exhibit 4B compares annual service volume for the existing airfield con- figuration to 2003 and forecast opera- tional levels. As evident on the exhibit, HIO is currently operating slightly be- yond its existing conditions annual service volume. The 2003 total of 180,147 fixed wing and itinerant heli- copter operations represents 107% of the annual service volume. By the end of the planning period, without any capacity improvements, the total an- nual operations can be expected to represent 154% of annual service vol- ume. FAA Order 5090.3B, Field Formula- tion of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), indicates that improvements for airfield capac- ity purposes should be considered when operations reach 60 percent of the ASV. Capacity improvements should be implemented when an air- port exceeds 80 percent of the ASV. At current operational levels, methods to improve ASV should be included in facility planning. 4-10 TABLE 4G Annual Service Volume Comparison Planning Weighted Hourly Annual Service Annual Percent Horizon Capacity Volume Operations Capacity Existing Conditions 2003 110 169,000 180,147 107% Short Term 109 167,000 196,600 118% Intermediate Term 108 165,000 214,600 130% Long Term 106 162,000 249,300 154% Add Radar Coverage Only 2003 110 170,000 180,147 106% Short Term 109 168,000 196,600 117% Intermediate Term 108 166,000 214,600 129% Long Term 106 163,000 249,300 153% Add Exit Taxiways Only 2003 115 178,000 180,147 101% Short Term 114 176,000 196,600 112% Intermediate Term 113 174,000 214,600 123% Long Term 111 171,000 249,300 146% Add Parallel Runway, Radar Coverage, Exit Taxiways 2003 205 315,000 180,147 57% Short Term 204 313,000 196,600 63% Intermediate Term 202 311,000 214,600 69% Long Term 201 309,000 249,300 81% • CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT As noted previously, HIO’s ASV is re- duced by the lack of radar coverage and the number/placement of exit taxiways on Runway 12-30. As shown in Table 4G, adding radar coverage could increase the airport’s ASV by 1,000 annual operations. Adding two exit taxiways to Runway 12-30 could increase the airport’s ASV by 9,000 annual operations. Combined, both improvements could increase HIO’s ASV by 10,000 compared to the do- nothing condition. While the Port can design and install additional exit taxiways, the installation of radar coverage is an FAA responsibility. The FAA has attempted in the past year to gain radar coverage at Hills- boro Airport using existing regional radar systems. However, terrain fea- tures prevent full coverage at HIO. While adding radar coverage and exit taxiways can increase airfield capac- ity, neither improvement alone (or combined) can significantly increase an airport’s ASV. The goal of airfield capacity improvements is to increase ASV to a point where annual opera- tions represent between 60 and 80 percent of the ASV. This level of im- provement at HIO can only be achieved with the development of a runway parallel to Runway 12-30. The intent of the parallel runway would be to segregate small training 03 M P0 1- 4B -5 /2 3/ 05 Exhibit 4B DEMAND VS. CAPACITY 150 200 AN NU AL O PE RA TI ON S (In th ou sa nd s) 250 300 350 100 50 150 200 AN NU AL O PE RA TI ON S (In th ou sa nd s) 250 300 350 100 50 150 200 AN NU AL O PE RA TI ON S (In th ou sa nd s) 250 300 350 100 50 150 200 AN NU AL O PE RA TI ON S (In th ou sa nd s) 250 300 350 100 50 Long Term Intermediate Term Short Term Existing Long Term Intermediate Term Short Term Existing Long Term Intermediate Term Short Term Existing Long Term Intermediate Term Short Term Existing Annual Service Volume Planning Horizon Demand Levels 180,147 196,600 214,600 249,300 162,000165,000169,000 167,000 Annual Service Volume Planning Horizon Demand Levels 180,147 196,600 214,600 249,300 163,000166,000170,000 168,000 309,000311,000 315,000 313,000 Annual Service Volume Planning Horizon Demand Levels 180,147 196,600 214,600 249,300 171,000174,000178,000 176,000 EXISTING AIRFIELD CONDITIONS ADD RADAR COVERAGE ADD EXIT TAXIWAYS ADD PARALLEL RUNWAY, EXITS, RADAR COVERAGE , , Planning Horizon Demand Levels Annual Service Volume 180,147 196,600 214,600 249,300 4-11 aircraft operations to a separate run- way away from the larger business aircraft operations. Airfield capacity increases since a parallel runway pro- vides for simultaneous operations. As shown in Table 4G, adding a parallel runway (along with radar and exit taxiways since these capacity im- provements are anticipated to have been implemented by the time a paral- lel runway is operational) increases airfield capacity by 146,000 annual operations and the ratio of operations to ASV between 57 and 81 percent. • DELAY Delay is the by-product of the opera- tion of the airport and the best de- scriptor of adverse effects of high an- nual operations to ASV ratios. As more aircraft attempt to access the airport at the same time, some aircraft operations must be slowed to allow sufficient time and distance between other aircraft operating in the vicinity of the airport. This causes delay. For example, delays for arriving aircraft occur as some aircraft must hold prior to landing or incur other air traffic control measures for sequencing and separations such as 360-degree turns, extending downwind legs, or speed re- ductions. Departure delays include longer hold times at the end of the runway prior to departure. Capacity enhancements are considered to minimize delays to the extent practi- cable. According to the FAA capacity model used in this analysis, delay can be ex- perienced at airports that are operat- ing at only 10 percent of their ASV. This is caused by peak hour demand where more than one aircraft are at- tempting to land at the airport at one time. At this ratio of demand to ASV at general aviation airports, the aver- age delay to aircraft is less than 6 sec- onds per aircraft operation. However, as the ratio of annual demand to ASV increases, delay to aircraft arriving and departing the airport increases. At 50 percent of ASV, delay is 12 sec- onds per aircraft operation. At 70 per- cent of ASV, delay increases to 18 sec- onds per aircraft operation. At 90 per- cent of ASV delay is 36 seconds per aircraft operation, at 100 percent ASV, the delay averages one minute per air- craft operation. Delay is expressed in terms of the av- erage delay per aircraft operation and the cumulative annual hours of delay. Table 4H summarizes the average de- lay per aircraft operation and the cu- mulative annual hours of delay based on the operation of Hillsboro Airport in its existing condition and assuming the three capacity enhancing scenarios describe above. As shown in the table, while the air- port is exceeding its estimated annual capacity by seven percent, delay is av- eraging only 1.9 minutes per aircraft operation. As stated previously, delay is inherent to the operation of an air- port, especially during peak periods when multiple aircraft are attempting to operate at the same time. At less than two minutes per operation, this delay may not be totally noticeable by the pilot. However, without capacity enhancements, delay would increase to 2.5 minutes at the operational lev- els shown for the Short Term Planning 4-12 Horizon. At the Intermediate Term Planning Horizon activity levels and Long Term Planning Horizon activity levels, delay would increase 4.4 and 6.7 minutes per operation. As delays reach this level, the impact to opera- tors of aircraft using HIO may become increasingly unacceptable. TABLE 4H Operational Delay Average Delay per Planning Horizon Aircraft Operation (Minutes) Cumulative Delay (Hours) Existing Conditions 2003 1.9 5,700 Short Term 2.5 8,200 Intermediate Term 4.4 15,700 Long Term 6.7 27,800 Add Radar Coverage Only 2003 1.9 5,700 Short Term 2.5 8,200 Intermediate Term 4.4 15,700 Long Term 6.7 27,800 Add Exit Taxiways Only 2003 1.1 3,300 Short Term 1.9 6,200 Intermediate Term 3.6 12,900 Long Term 6.0 24,900 Add Parallel Runway, Radar Coverage, Exit Taxiways 2003 0.2 600 Short Term 0.2 700 Intermediate Term 0.3 1,100 Long Term 0.4 1,700 While delay can never be entirely eliminated, it can be reduced by im- plementing capacity enhancements. While radar coverage would greatly enhance flight tracking and air traffic control, particularly for aircraft closer to the surface, adding radar coverage only increases annual capacity by ap- proximately 1,000 annual operations. This small change in ASV does not have an appreciable change in delay. Additional exit taxiways would reduce delay by 42 percent at existing opera- tional levels. These exit taxiways could maintain the existing average delay per aircraft operation of 1.9 minutes per operation through the end of the Short Term Planning Horizon. Increasing levels of annual delay also creates other undesirable conditions such as increased air emissions; in- creased operating costs, delays that extend the time aircraft must operate, and extended aircraft traffic patterns. These conditions can result in the fol- lowing: aircraft engines running for longer periods of time which in turn 4-13 increases air emissions, increased fuel and maintenance costs for owners; ex- tended downwind legs for arriving air- craft which can causes aircraft to fly larger-than-typical traffic patterns; and, increased overflights of residen- tial areas which makes conformance with voluntary noise abatement pro- cedures more difficult for a pilot. • SUMMARY This capacity analysis has shown that while Hillsboro Airport is operating at, or slightly above, its estimated annual capacity, delay is still minimal for each aircraft operation. Should the projected increases in operations be experienced, there could be noticeable increases in delay. While additional radar coverage and the addition of exit taxiways can add capacity and slightly reduce delay, eventually, without the addition of a parallel runway, delays experienced by aircraft operating to and from HIO could increase signifi- cantly. The ratio of annual operations to ASV is not the primary consideration for implementing capacity-enhancement projects such as those discussed ear- lier and in particular a parallel run- way. This ratio is one of several tools decision-makers use to assess the po- tential for the development of im- provements such as a parallel runway and the need to consider placement of such a runway in the facility planning for an airport. The decision to con- struct a parallel runway should only be made after careful calculation of the level of delay at Hillsboro Airport. While this analysis continues to sup- port the addition of a parallel runway at the airport for facility planning purposes (based on the ratio of opera- tions to ASV), the actual construction of the runway should only proceed af- ter a verification of the delay levels. Delay levels can be more accurately determined through computer simula- tion modeling. The FAA and industry groups have developed several simula- tion models that are commonly used at the time construction of a parallel runway is considered. As detailed previously in Chapter Two, Future Role of Hillsboro Airport, Hillsboro Airport is a designated re- liever for Portland International Air- port (PDX). In serving this role, Hills- boro Airport provides an attractive al- ternate landing area for general avia- tion aircraft away from PDX. This maximizes capacity at PDX as many of the smaller general aviation aircraft operations are not occurring simulta- neously with large commercial aircraft operations. In serving this role, Hills- boro Airport must make all prudent improvements to accommodate gen- eral aviation activity at Hillsboro Air- port, including improvements to en- hance airfield capacity. The remainder of this chapter will ex- amine the design and safety require- ments for a runway parallel to pri- mary Runway 12-30. This parallel runway would be designated Runway 12L-30R. The centerline of this run- way should be located at least 700 feet from the existing Runway 12-30 cen- terline. Consistent with recommenda- tions of the previous Master Plan, this Master Plan should consider the de- velopment of this runway in the Short 4-14 Term Planning Horizon (2006 through 2010). RUNWAY ORIENTATION For the operational safety and effi- ciency of an airport, it is desirable for the primary runway of an airport's runway system to be oriented as close as possible to the direction of the pre- vailing wind. This reduces the impact of wind components perpendicular to the direction of travel of an aircraft that is landing or taking off (defined as a crosswind). FAA design standards specify that ad- ditional runway configurations are needed when the primary runway con- figuration provides less than 95 per- cent wind coverage at specific cross- wind components. The 95 percent wind coverage is computed on the ba- sis of crosswinds not exceeding 10.5 knots for small aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds, and from 13 to 16 knots for aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds. Runway 12-30 serves as the primary runway orientation at HIO, providing for wind flows from the northwest and southeast. Runway 2-20 serves as HIO’s crosswind runway during those times when wind flows may be from the northeast or southwest. The most current 10 years (1994-2002) of wind data was collected to deter- mine wind coverage for HIO. As shown in Table 4J, when combined, Runway 12-30 and Runway 2-20 pro- vide greater than 99 percent wind cov- erage for all crosswind components. This exceeds the minimum design re- quirement discussed above. Therefore, no additional runway orientations are needed. TABLE 4J Wind Coverage 10.5 12.0 16.0 20.0 Knots Knots Knots Knots Runway 12-30 96.04% 97.94% 99.43% 99.86% Runway 2-20 96.54% 98.40% 99.79% 99.98% Combined Coverage 99.49% 99.92% 99.99% 100.00% Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Hills- boro Airport 1993-2002,78,488 Observations 4-15 Since Runway 12-30 alone provides more than 95 percent wind coverage in all crosswind configurations, Runway 2-20 is only needed for smaller general aviation aircraft that are susceptible to strong wind conditions. Runway 12-30 is expected to continue to serve the largest business aircraft antici- pated to use HIO through the plan- ning period (given existing airfield constraints such as the primary run- way’s length and pavement strength). The remainder of this chapter will ex- amine the design and safety require- ments for Runway 2-20, assuming this runway will continue to be used by the same aircraft through the planning period. PHYSICAL PLANNING CRITERIA The selection of appropriate FAA de- sign standards for the development and location of airport facilities is based primarily upon the characteris- tics of the aircraft which are currently using, or are expected to use the air- port. Planning for future aircraft use is of particular importance since de- sign standards are used to plan sepa- ration distances between facilities. These standards must be determined now, since the relocation of these fa- cilities will likely be extremely expen- sive at a later date. The most important characteristics in airfield planning are the approach speed and wingspan of the critical de- sign aircraft anticipated to use the airport now or in the future. The criti- cal design aircraft is defined as the most demanding category of aircraft which conducts 500 or more operations per year at an airport. The FAA has established a coding sys- tem to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical charac- teristics of aircraft expected to use an airport. This code, referred to as the airport reference code (ARC), has two components: the first component, de- picted by a letter, is the aircraft ap- proach category and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational charac- teristic); the second component, de- picted by a Roman numeral, is the airplane design group (ADG) and re- lates to aircraft wingspan (physical characteristic). Generally, aircraft approach speed applies to runways and runway-related facilities, while airplane wingspan primarily relates to separation criteria involving taxiways, taxilanes, aircraft storage facilities and other miscellaneous aviation sup- port buildings (i.e., fueling facilities, terminal buildings, etc.). According to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, an aircraft's approach category is based upon 1.3 times its stall speed in land- ing configuration at that aircraft's maximum certificated weight. The five aircraft approach categories used in airport planning are as follows: Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. 4-16 Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots. The airplane design group (ADG) is based upon the aircraft=s wingspan. The six ADGs used in airport planning are as follows: Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet. Group II: 49 feet up to but not in- cluding 79 feet. Group III: 79 feet up to but not in- cluding 118 feet. Group IV: 118 feet up to but not in- cluding 171 feet. Group V: 171 feet up to but not in- cluding 214 feet. Group VI: 214 feet or greater. Exhibit 4C depicts representative general aviation aircraft by ARC. Air- craft larger than ARC D-III are not expected to conduct more than 500 annual operations at HIO through the planning period. Therefore, these air- craft will not be considered as the critical design aircraft. This conclu- sion is based upon the projection of annual operations by ARC, developed previously in Chapter Three. As shown in Table 4K, fixed-wing air- craft within ARC C-I, C-II, D-I and D- II are the most demanding group of aircraft currently operating at HIO due to their higher approach speeds and longer wingspans when compared to the remaining mixture of aircraft conducting more than 500 annual op- erations at HIO. Currently, this grouping of aircraft conduct more than 12,000 annual operations at HIO. Air- craft within ARC C-III and D-III are projected to conduct more than 500 annual operations by the Intermediate Term Planning Horizon. Therefore, aircraft within ARC C-III and D-III will become the critical design aircraft in the future. Runway 12-30 provides the greatest length at HIO and pres- ently serves as the primary runway for large aircraft. This runway should consider ARC D-III design require- ments. TABLE 4K Fixed-Wing Operations by Airport Reference Code Short Intermediate Long Airport Reference Code 2003 Term Term Term A-I, A-II, B-I, B-II 153,004 166,400 182,300 212,700 C-I,C-II,D-I, D-II 12,317 15,200 17,200 21,400 C-III,D-III 390 500 600 700 Total 165,711 182,100 200,100 234,800 Note: Helicopters are not assigned an ARC • B-747 Series • B-777 D-V • B-757 • B-767 • DC-8-70 • DC-10 • MD-11 • L1011 C-IV, D-IV • Beech Baron 55 • Beech Bonanza • Cessna 150 • Cessna 172 • Piper Archer • Piper Seneca • Beech Baron 58 • Beech King Air 100 • Cessna 402 • Cessna 421 • Piper Navajo • Piper Cheyenne • Swearingen Metroliner • Cessna Citation I • Super King Air 200 • Cessna 441 • DHC Twin Otter • Super King Air 300 • Beech 1900 • Jetstream 31 • Falcon 10, 20, 50 • Falcon 200, 900 • Citation II, III, IV, V • Saab 340 • Embraer 120 • DHC Dash 7 • DHC Dash 8 • DC-3 • Convair 580 • Fairchild F-27 • ATR 72 • ATP A-I B-I less than 12,500 lbs. B-II less than 12,500 lbs. B-I, II over 12,500 lbs. A-III, B-III • Lear 25, 35, 55 • Israeli Westwind • HS 125 • Gulfstream II, III, IV • Canadair 600 • Canadair Regional Jet • Lockheed JetStar • Super King Air 350 • Gulfstream V • Global Express C-I, D-I C-II, D-II C-III, D-III Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type. Helicopters are not assigned an ARC. Exhibit 4C AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES 03 M P0 1- 4C -8 /2 4/ 04 PORT OF PORTLAND 4-17 Since Runway 12-30 adequately serves the mix of large aircraft operating at HIO, it is appropriate to consider maintaining Runway 2-20 to design standards more applicable to the air- craft that need this runway for safety reasons. As mentioned previously, this includes smaller general aviation aircraft susceptible to strong wind conditions. In situations such as these, typical planning practice is to develop the crosswind runway to ARC B-II standards. Therefore, consistent with the existing Port planning and current FAA recommendations, Run- way 2-20 will continue to be desig- nated an ARC B-II runway for design and safety standards. The appropriate design category for parallel Runway 12L-30R is ARC B-I, small (less than 12,500 pounds) air- craft only. The primary capacity im- provement of this runway is to segre- gate the smaller, slower aircraft from the larger, high-performance aircraft operating on the longer Runway 12-30. This allows air traffic control person- nel to maintain separation distances appropriate for each level of aircraft. The design of taxiway and apron areas should consider the wingspan re- quirements of the most demanding aircraft to operate within that specific functional area of Hillsboro Airport. Transient apron areas and corporate hangar areas and fixed base operator (FBO) hangar areas serving large air- craft should consider ADG III re- quirements to accommodate the wing- spans of largest transient business jets. This includes a portion of Taxi- way B west of Runway 12-30, which serves a large corporate hangar area. T-hangar areas should consider ADG I requirements, as these commonly serve smaller single and multi-engine piston aircraft. Appendix D provides copies of the FAA design requirements for Hillsboro Air- port utilizing the FAA Airport Design program version 4.2d. AIRFIELD SAFETY STANDARDS The FAA has established several imaginary surfaces to protect aircraft operational areas and keep them free from obstructions that could affect the safe operation of aircraft to and from an airport. These include the runway safety area (RSA), object free area (OFA), precision object free area (POFA), obstacle free zone (OFZ), runway visibility zone (RVZ), and runway protection zone (RPZ). The RSA is "a defined surface sur- rounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of dam- age to airplanes in the event of an un- dershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway." The OFA is ”a two- dimensional ground area surrounding runways, taxiways, and taxilanes, which is clear of objects except for ob- jects whose location is fixed by func- tion.” The precision OFA (POFA) serves the same function of the OFA, but has slightly different dimensions than the OFA. The POFA only applies to runways with a precision instru- ment approach. The OFZ is defined as a “defined volume of airspace centered 4-18 above the runway centerline whose elevation is the same as the nearest point on the runway centerline and extends 200 feet beyond each runway end.” The RVZ encompasses an area that should be clear of permanent structures to provide a clear line of sight between intersecting runways. An RVZ is required at airports with- out an operational 24 hour airport traffic control tower (ATCT). The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered above the extended runway centerline. The RPZ is defined as “an area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground.” The dimensions of an RPZ are a func- tion of the runway ARC and approach visibility minimums. Exhibit 4D summarizes the design requirements of these safety areas for each runway at Hillsboro Airport. The FAA expects the RSA, OFA, RVZ, and OFZ areas to be under the control of the airport and free from obstructions. While the FAA prefers that the RPZ be owned fee simple, the RPZ can be secured with avigation easements. The Port is completing a multi-year project to improve the Runway 12-30 RSA to ARC C-III standards. While previous years focused on improving the RSA behind the Runway 12 end, a project in 2004 improved the RSA be- hind the Runway 30 end. This project required relocating the Runway 30 end 163 feet northwest to allow for the relocation of the RSA onto airport property within the boundaries of the perimeter service road. Exhibit 4E depicts these safety areas for the existing runway configuration (including the completion of the Run- way 12-30 RSA project in 2004). As evident on the exhibit, the OFZ for each runway is clear of any obstruc- tions, other than frangible naviga- tional aids (Navaids), which are per- mitted. The RPZ is controlled fee simple at each runway end. There are no incompatible land uses within the RPZs for each of the four runway ends. The perimeter service road extends through the OFA behind the Runway 30 end. A series of T-hangar struc- tures are within the limits of the RVZ. The alternatives analysis to follow in Chapter Five will more closely exam- ine the potential options to fully meet OFA and RVZ standards. RUNWAY LENGTH Runway length is determined by the takeoff requirements of the critical aircraft using a runway. Takeoff re- quirements are a factor of airport ele- vation, mean maximum temperature of the hottest month, and runway gra- dient. Aircraft performance declines as each of these factors increase. For calculating runway length re- quirements at Hillsboro Airport, the airport elevation is 204 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and the mean maximum temperature of the hottest month is 80.7 degrees Fahrenheit (July). The Runway 12 end is 2.1 feet higher than the Runway 30 end. This equates to a runway gradient of 0.03 percent (difference in elevation divided 03 M P 0 1 - 4 D - 5 / 2 3 / 0 5 Exhibit 4D AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS ARC B-II • 4,049' x 100' 45,000 SWL • 58,000 DWL 90,000 DTWL Runway Safety Area (RSA) 75' each side of runway centerline 300' beyond each runway end Object Free Area (OFA) 250' each side of runway centerline 300' beyond each runway end Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 200' each side of runway centerline 200' beyond each runway end Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Each End Inner Width - 500' Outer Width - 700' Length - 1,000' No Changes Runway Safety Area (RSA) No Changes Object Free Area (OFA) No Changes Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Each End No Changes No Changes Runway Safety Area (RSA) No Changes Object Free Area (OFA) No Changes Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Each End No Changes No Changes Runway Safety Area (RSA) No Changes Object Free Area (OFA) No Changes Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Each End No Changes ARC C-III • 6,600' x 150'* 50,000 SWL • 70,000 DWL 110,000 DTWL Runway Safety Area (RSA) 250' each side of runway centerline 1,000' beyond each runway end Object Free Area (OFA) 400' each side of runway centerline 1,000' beyond each runway end Precision Object Free Area (POFA) Runway 12 400' each side of the runway centerline 200' beyond each runway end Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 200' each side of the runway centerline 200' beyond each runway end Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway 12 Inner Width - 500' Outer Width - 1,750' Length - 2,500' Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway 30 Inner Width - 500' Outer Width - 1,010' Length - 1,700' No Changes Conduct Pavement Condition Survey Runway Safety Area (RSA) No Changes Object Free Area (OFA) No Changes Precision Object Free Area (POFA) Runway 12 No Changes Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway 12 No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway 30 No Changes No Changes Runway Safety Area (RSA) No Changes Object Free Area (OFA) No Changes Precision Object Free Area (POFA) Runway 12 No Changes Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway 12 No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway 30 No Changes No Changes Runway Safety Area (RSA) No Changes Object Free Area (OFA) No Changes Precision Object Free Area (POFA) Runway 12 No Changes Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway 12 No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway 30 No Changes ARC B-I (Small Aircraft Only) 3,600' x 60' • 12,500 SWL Runway Safety Area (RSA) 60' each side of runway centerline 240' beyond each runway end Object Free Area (OFA) 125' each side of runway centerline 240' beyond each runway end Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 125' each side of runway centerline 200' beyond each runway end Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Each End Inner Width - 250' Outer Width - 450' Length - 1,000' No Changes Runway Safety Area (RSA) No Changes Object Free Area (OFA) No Changes Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Each End No Changes No Changes Runway Safety Area (RSA) No Changes Object Free Area (OFA) No Changes Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) No Changes Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Each End No Changes RUNWAYS RUNWAY 12-30 RUNWAY 12L-30R (PROPOSED) RUNWAY 2-20 Full-length Parallel Taxiway A - 50' wide 400' from runway centerline 8 Connecting Taxiways - 50' wide No Changes East Partial Parallel from Taxiway B to Runway 30 End, 50' wide, 400' from centerline Add 2 exits No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes TAXIWAYS Partial Parallel Taxiway B - 50' wide 200' from runway centerline Partial Parallel Taxiway C - 40' wide 200' from runway centerline No Changes Relocate 40' North Extend to Runway 2 End Realign Runway 2 Entrance Taxiway No Changes No Changes No Changes RUNWAY 12-30 East full-length parallel taxiway 150' from centerline, 25' wide 5 Connecting Taxiways No Changes No Changes RUNWAY 2-20 PARALLEL RUNWAY 12L-30R Relocate 122' East Close Taxiway AA - 40' wide Taxiway CC - 40' wide No Changes Closed No Changes Closed (2) Hardstands on Main Apron OTHER TAXIWAYS No Changes No Changes TRANSIENT HELICOPTER OPERATIONS RUNWAYS (continued) *Length after 2004 RSA improvements are completed. LONG TERM NEED INTERMEDIATE TERM NEED SHORT TERM NEEDEXISTING LONG TERM NEED INTERMEDIATE TERM NEED SHORT TERM NEEDEXISTING PORT OF PORTLAND 03 M P0 1- 4E -8 /2 4/ 04 Exhibit 4E EXISTING AIRFIELD SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS PORT OF PORTLAND RUNWAY 2-20 C CC N.E. 25th Ave.Ev er gr ee n Ro ad A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A5 A6 A7 A AA A AA A4 00' 50' A B 250' Brookwood Parkway 40' 50' Cornell Road RU NW AY 12 -30 162' 28' LEGEND Airport Property Line Runway Safety Area (RSA) Object Free Area (OFA) Precision Object Free Area (POFA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Runway Visibility Zone Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) NORTH 0 1,000 2,000 SCALE IN FEET 600 ' A8 A4 40' B 274 ' 117' 200' 4-19 by the runway length). The Runway 20 end is 3.4 feet higher than the Runway 2 end. This equates to a runway gradient of 0.08 percent. Using the specific data for Hillsboro Airport described above, runway length requirements for the various classifications of aircraft that may op- erate at HIO were examined. This was done using the FAA’s Airport De- sign computer program, Version 4.2D. This computer program groups gen- eral aviation aircraft into several categories, reflecting the percentage of the fleet within each category and use- ful load (passengers and fuel) of the aircraft. Table 4L summarizes the FAA’s recommended runway lengths for Hillsboro Airport. TABLE 4L Runway Length Requirements Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats 75 percent of these small airplanes ................................................................................... 2,500 feet 95 percent of these small airplanes .................................................................................... 3,100 feet 100 percent of these small airplanes .................................................................................. 3,600 feet Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats ................................................................ 4,200 feet Large airplanes between 12,500 and 60,000 pounds 75 percent of large aircraft at 60 percent useful load ........................................................ 5,300 feet 100 percent of large aircraft at 60 percent useful load ...................................................... 5,500 feet Source: FAA Airport Design computer program, Version 4.2D The appropriate FAA runway length planning category for Runway 12-30 is “100 percent of large aircraft at 60 percent useful load.” As shown in the table, the FAA recommends a runway length of 5,500 feet for the runway length category. At 6,600 feet (follow- ing the 2004 RSA improvement pro- ject), Runway 12-30 exceeds this minimum requirement. For comparison purposes, specific de- parture requirements of typical busi- ness turbojet aircraft to operate at HIO were computed. As shown in Ta- ble 4M, typical business turbojet air- craft operating at maximum takeoff weight need up 6,900 feet of runway length for departure. Therefore, at maximum loading conditions, the en- tire 6,600-foot length of Runway 12-30 is needed. When the departure length exceeds the available runway length, aircraft must reduce payload (typically fuel) prior to departure. For Hillsboro Airport, a survey of tenants and based aircraft owners did not indicate a need for additional runway length. There- fore, no extensions of Runway 12-30 are planned and the existing runway length should be maintained through the planning period. The appropriate planning standard for Runway 2-20 is also “Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats”. This planning category specifies a runway length of 4,200 feet. Runway 2-20 is 4,049 feet long, 151 feet short of the recommended runway length. 4-20 The 1996 Master Plan concluded that a limited extension such as this would not provide a meaningful improve- ment to the use of Runway 2-20. Therefore, a runway extension was not planned. During the review of this chapter by the Project Advisory Com- mittee (PAC) and public, specific comment on extending Runway 2-20 by 151 feet will be sought and used in a final determination of runway length. TABLE 4M Representative Business Jet Operating Requirements Takeoff Aircraft Maximum Takeoff Weight (pounds) Requirement (feet) Beechcraft 400 16,100 4,700 Canadair Challenger 46,000 6,900 Cessna Citation III 22,000 5,500 Falcon 50 38,000 4,800 Gulfstream IV 74,600 5,800 Lear 35 18,300 6,100 Source: Airport Planning Guides, Specific Aircraft The appropriate planning category for the proposed parallel Runway 12L- 30R is “100 percent of small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats.” At Hillsboro Airport, the FAA recom- mends a runway length of 3,600 feet to meet the requirements of this category of aircraft. RUNWAY WIDTH Runway width is based upon the planning ARC for each runway. For the design aircraft (those falling with ARC C-III and ARC D-III), the FAA specifies a runway width of 100 feet. As depicted on Exhibit 4D, Runway 12-30 is presently 150 wide, exceeding these design requirements. For ARC B-II (the design aircraft category for Runway 2-20), the FAA specifies a runway width of 75 feet. Presently, Runway 2-20 is 100 feet wide, exceed- ing this minimum requirement. In the future, it may be necessary to analyze the cost-benefit of reducing the width of Runway12-30 and Runway 2-20 to meet FAA design standards. This cost-benefit is primarily related to the costs to remove and reconstruct the airfield lighting at the new pavement width. If the cost to remove and re- construct the airfield lighting is more than the cost to rebuild the pavement, then it is likely that the existing widths may be maintained. If it is not, then the runways would need to be re- built to standards when the recon- struction of the runway is needed. For parallel Runway 12L-30R, which has been assigned ARC B-I (small aircraft only), FAA design standards specify a runway width of 60 feet. 4-21 RUNWAY PAVEMENT STRENGTH The most important feature of airfield pavement is its ability to withstand use by aircraft of significant weight on a regular basis. For Hillsboro Airport, this includes a wide range of general aviation aircraft. The current pavement strength rat- ings assigned to Runway 12-30 and Runway 2-20 are shown on Exhibit 4D. Single wheel loading (SWL) refers to the design of certain aircraft land- ing gear having a single wheel on each main landing gear strut. Dual wheel landing (DWL) refers to the design of certain aircraft landing gear having two wheels on each main landing gear strut. Dual tandem wheel loading (DTWL) refers to the aircraft landing gear struts with a tandem set of dual wheels (four wheels) on each main landing gear strut. Double dual tan- dem wheel loading refers to aircraft landing gear struts with two tandem wheels on each landing gear strut (eight wheels). The heaviest based aircraft and tran- sient aircraft anticipated to use Hills- boro Airport on a regular basis include the Global Express, which has a maximum gross weight of 95,250 pounds dual wheel loading (DWL), and the Gulfstream G550 (a.k.a. Gulfstream V), which has a maximum gross weight of 91,400 pounds DWL. These aircraft typically operate from Runway 12-30. Presently, Runway 12-30 has a DWL strength rating of 70,000 pounds. The Boeing Business Jet (174,000 DWL), the largest busi- ness aircraft and a derivative of the 737 series of commercial airline air- craft, has used the airport in the past. The use of this aircraft was only at the specific approval of the Port and at limited operating weights. While this aircraft falls within ARC D-III and the design and planning standards of the airport, as noted, this aircraft greatly exceeds the pavement strengths at HIO. Airfield pavements are designed to ac- commodate a finite number of aircraft operations, based on planning as- sumptions made at the time the pavement was constructed. The pavement strength ratings are as- signed to assist in ensuring the pave- ment will not fail during the expected life of the pavement (typically 20 years) based upon the operation of those aircraft expected to use the pavement during the pavement’s ex- pected life. However, aircraft exceed- ing the pavement strength ratings can use the airport on a limited basis. The official FAA Airport/Facility Directory states that “airport pavements are ca- pable of supporting limited operations with gross weights of 25-50% in excess of the published figures [pavement strength ratings]”. Based upon this information, limited operations by the Global Express and Gulfstream G550 (a.k.a. Gulfstream V) can be accommodated on Runway 12-30. However, the long term ad- verse effects (if any) of their use of the runway can only be determined through more extensive engineering analysis. Since Runway 12-30 has a pavement strength rating of 70,000 4-22 DWL, this indicates that these aircraft may eventually have an adverse im- pact on the pavement if their use of the airport increases dramatically. Therefore, a current pavement evalua- tion is necessary to determine if run- way strengthening is needed to ac- commodate these aircraft and their current and future use of the airport. Until confirmed by specific engineer- ing analysis, facility planning should include strengthening the Runway 12- 30 pavement to at least 95,000 DWL, to accommodate the regular use of the airport by the Global Express and Gulfstream G550 (a.k.a. Gulfstream V). On July 2, 2003, the FAA published a proposed policy on weight-based re- strictions at airports. This was prompted by some airports setting an administrative pavement strength rat- ing (a strength rating in many cases below the actual pavement strength rating) to restrict certain aircraft op- erations. This is in violation of federal grant assurances and policy. In effect, this policy does not allow the sponsor to arbitrarily deny access to any air- craft just because it exceeds the pub- lished pavement strength ratings for HIO. This policy, which is still under review by the FAA, states that airport opera- tors have a dual responsibility in managing airfield pavements. First, the FAA expects the airport to be in compliance with Grant Assurance No. 22, which states “[the sponsor] will make the airport available as an air- port for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimina- tion to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities of- fering services to the public at HIO.” At the same time, the FAA expects the airport sponsor to protect the federal investment in the pavement and pro- tect the pavement from damage or early deterioration. Recognizing that airfield pavements can accommodate a limited number of operations by aircraft heavier than the pavement strength rating, the FAA has recommended a policy to allow for aircraft operations which exceed the pavement strength ratings on a lim- ited basis, except in cases when the airport sponsor reasonably believes that actual damage or excessive wear could result from the operations. This policy, if enacted, would require the airport to regulate the number and maximum weight of operations on a permission-required basis. Essen- tially, the airport would be required to determine the number of operations that can be accommodated without the threat of pavement deterioration. Air- craft operators exceeding these pave- ment strength ratings would then be required to obtain permission from the airport prior to landing. The Port needs to monitor the progress of this proposed policy and its impact on pavement design at HIO. Specific structural pavement analysis is needed for the potential use of Boe- ing Business Jet and other very large business aircraft at maximum takeoff weights. Since these aircraft greatly exceed HIO’s current pavement strength ratings, a determination will 4-23 need to be made on the adverse effects these aircraft may have on the pave- ment. The pavement strength for Runway 2- 20 is sufficient to serve the mix of smaller general aviation aircraft ex- pected to operate on this runway through the planning period. This in- cludes general aviation aircraft to 30,000 pounds SWL. Runway 2-20 currently exceeds this pavement strength rating. A pavement strength rating of 12,500 pounds single wheel loading (SWL) is appropriate for the proposed parallel Runway 12L-30R. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES Navigational Aids Navigational aids are electronic de- vices that transmit radio frequencies which properly equipped aircraft and pilots translate into point-to-point guidance and position information. The types of electronic navigational aids available for aircraft flying to or from Hillsboro Airport include the very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) facility, nondirectional beacon (NDB), global positioning sys- tem (GPS), and Loran-C. These sys- tems are sufficient for navigation to and from the airport; therefore, no other navigational aids are needed at HIO. GPS was developed and deployed by the United States Department of De- fense as a dual-use (civil and military) radio navigation system. A GPS mod- ernization effort is underway by the FAA and focuses on augmenting the GPS signal to satisfy requirements for accuracy, coverage, availability, and integrity. For civil aviation use, this includes the development of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), which was launched on July 10, 2003. The WAAS uses a system of reference stations to correct signals from the GPS satellites for improved navigation and approach capabilities. The pre- sent GPS provides for enroute naviga- tion and instrument approaches with both course and vertical navigation. The WAAS upgrades are expected to allow for the development of ap- proaches to most airports with cloud ceilings as low as 250 feet above the ground and visibilities restricted to three-quarters mile, after 2015. The FAA is also studying the devel- opment of the Local Area Augmenta- tion System (LAAS). The LAAS varies from the WAAS since the corrected GPS signals are broadcast directly to aircraft within line-of-sight of a ground reference station established on the airport. The LAAS is expected to support approach capability below Category I provided by WAAS, and be implemented in areas which are not supported by the WAAS upgrade. The LAAS may also be able to support runway incursion warnings, high- speed turnoffs, missed approaches, departures, vertical takeoffs, and sur- face operations. LAAS is not expected to be implemented until after 2015. Once augmented, GPS will become the primary federally-provided radio- 4-24 navigation system. During the transi- tion, the FAA plans to phase-out exist- ing navigational aids, as dependence on these systems is reduced by the ca- pabilities of the GPS system. Ulti- mately, the instrument landing sys- tem (ILS) could be expected to be re- placed by GPS after 2015. Instrument Approach Procedures Instrument approach procedures have been established for the airport using the VOR and GPS navigational aids and ILS installed at HIO. Instrument approach procedures consist of a series of predetermined maneuvers estab- lished by the FAA for navigation dur- ing inclement weather conditions. As shown on Exhibit 4F, the ILS pro- vides for the best visibility and cloud ceiling minimums of all instrument approach procedures available for Hillsboro Airport. As detailed previ- ously in Chapter One, pilots using the ILS 12 approach can land at HIO when cloud ceilings are as low as 200 feet above the ground and visibility is restricted to ½ mile. This is the best capability that can be achieved with the ILS equipment and existing light- ing systems at HIO. Lower approach capabilities are only available for spe- cially-designed ILS systems and certi- ficated pilots and aircraft. Capabili- ties below Category I are not needed at Hillsboro Airport, as it is not served by regularly scheduled commercial service airlines or air cargo operators. Ultimately, GPS may provide for an instrument approach procedure to Runway 30. Runway 30 is used the majority of the time at Hillsboro Air- port for noise abatement purposes. An instrument approach to this runway could reduce the amount of time that the Runway 12 ILS approach must be used when aircraft are landing on Runway 30. Using the Runway 12 ILS when Runway 30 is the preferred runway, diminishes airfield capacity, as aircraft must be sequenced properly to avoid conflicts. Appendix 16 of FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 8, details the requirements for approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV). An APV will provide descent and course guid- ance information to the pilot, similar to a precision approach like the ILS. A review of Appendix 16 indicates that the existing airport site can support an APV with visibility minimums of one mile and cloud ceilings as low as 300 feet, without any further im- provement. Lower approach mini- mums are not needed considering the capabilities of the ILS system. When weather conditions require the use of the ILS, airfield demand is reduced as many of the aircraft, in particular training aircraft, only fly during visual conditions. Considering the capabili- ties of the ILS and in consideration of the adjoining residential land uses be- hind Runway 30, the installation of an approach lighting system to the Run- way 30 end is not planned. The ap- proach lighting system could reduce visibility minimums below one-mile. 03 M P0 1- 4F -5 /2 3/ 05 Exhibit 4F AIRFIELD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS 200' Cloud Ceiling, 1/2 mile visibility No Changes No Changes No Changes No ChangesNo Changes No Changes No ChangesNo Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes Category A & B - 500' Cloud Ceilings, 1 mile visibility Category C - 500' Cloud Ceilings, 1/2 mile visibility Category D - 600' Cloud Ceilings, 2 mile visibility Category A - 900' Cloud Ceilings, 1 mile Visibility Category B - 900' Cloud Ceilings, 1 1/2 mile Visibility Category C - 900' Cloud Ceilings, 2 1/2 miles visibility Category D - 900' Cloud Ceilings, 2 3/4 miles visibility APV - Runway 30 300' Cloud Ceilings, 1 mile visibility Rotating Beacon • Pilot Controlled Lighting No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes Distance Remaining Signs No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes Convert to PAPI-4 No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes Convert to PAPI-4 No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes High Intensity Runway Edge Lighting (HIRL) Medium Intensity Taxiway Edge Lighting (MITL) Lighted Runway/Taxiway Directional Signage Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI-4) - Rwy 12 Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI-4) - Rwy 30 MALSR - Runway 12 Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) - Runway 30 Nonprecision Runway Markings - Runway 30 Precision Runway Markings - Runway 12 No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lighting (MIRL) Medium Intensity Taxiway Edge Lighting (MITL) Lighted Runway/Taxiway Directional Signage Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI-2) - Each End Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) - Each End Basic Runway Markings - Each End No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes No Changes Runway End Identifier Lights No Changes No Changes Add Radar Coverage No Changes Compass Calibration Pad Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lighting (MIRL) Medium Intensity Taxiway Edge Lighting (MITL) Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI-4) - Each End Basic Runway Markings - Each End Lighted Runway/Taxiway Directional Signage Lighted Wind Indicator Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES VOR/DME or GPS-A ILS RUNWAY 12 NDB or GPS-B RUNWAY 12-30 RUNWAY 12L-30R (PROPOSED) RUNWAY 2-20 OTHER FACILITIES EXISTING LONG TERMNEED INTERMEDIATE TERM NEED SHORT TERM NEED KEY Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range Facility Distance Measuring Equipment Global Positioning System Instrument Landing System Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lighting Nondirectional Beacon VOR - DME - GPS - ILS - MALSR - NDB - 4-25 No additional instrument approach capabilities are needed for the airport. The proposed parallel Runway 12L- 30R is needed for local training opera- tions by fixed wing aircraft to enhance capacity. Since most flight training of this nature is conducted during visual conditions, instrument approach ca- pability is not needed. Furthermore, the parallel runway would be located too close to Runway 12-30 to allow for simultaneous instrument approaches. Straight-in instrument approach pro- cedures are not needed for Runway 2- 20 since it is mostly needed to serve small aircraft during visual conditions and the use of this runway is limited by the voluntary noise abatement pro- cedures. Instrument approach capa- bility is available to Runway 2-20 us- ing the circling approach minimums for the existing instrument approaches at HIO. TAXIWAYS Taxiways are constructed primarily to facilitate aircraft movements to and from the runway system. Some taxi- ways are necessary simply to provide access between the aprons and run- ways, whereas other taxiways become necessary as activity increases at an airport to provide safe and efficient use of the airfield. The FAA has established standards for taxiway width and runway/taxiway separation distances. Taxiway width is determined by the ADG of the most demanding aircraft to use the taxiway. According to FAA design standards, the minimum taxiway width for ADG III is 50 feet. This width applies to all taxiways serving Runway 12-30, and corporate and FBO hangar areas serv- ing large business aircraft. For ADG II, the minimum width is 35 feet. This width is applicable to all taxiways serving Runway 2-20. For ADG I, the minimum width is 25 feet. This is ap- plicable to taxiways serving the pro- posed parallel Runway 12L-30R. Design standards for the separation distances between runways and paral- lel taxiways are based primarily on the ARC for that particular runway and the type of instrument approach capability. FAA design standards specify a runway/taxiway separation distance of 400 feet for Runway 12-30, which is designed to ARC D-III stan- dards with visibility minimums below one-mile. FAA design standards spec- ify a runway/taxiway separation dis- tance of 240 feet for Runway 2-20, which is designed to ARC B-II stan- dards with visibility minimums above one-mile. For the proposed parallel Runway 12L-30R, ARC B-I (small air- craft exclusively) standards specific a runway/taxiway separation distance of 150 feet. Taxiway A is the only full-length par- allel taxiway at HIO. Taxiway A is located on the west side of Runway 12- 30, and provides eight connecting taxiways. As mentioned previously, to increase airfield safety and capacity, facility planning should consider the development of two additional exit taxiways on Runway 12-30. These exit taxiways should be between 2,000 and 4,000 feet from each runway end 4-26 and be separated by at least 750 feet. The location of these additional taxi- ways will be more fully examined in Chapter Five, Airport Development Alternatives. Taxiway A meets run- way/taxiway separation criterion and taxiway width standards. A partial parallel taxiway is needed on the east side of Runway 12-30, be- tween the Runway 30 end and Taxi- way B. This taxiway would allow air- craft located in the southeast quad- rant of the airport to access the Run- way 30 end without needing to cross Runway 12-30. Presently, aircraft must cross Runway 12-30 and use Taxiway A to reach the Runway 30 end. Since Runway 30 is used the ma- jority of the time, reducing the number of times an aircraft needs to cross the runway would also reduce the poten- tial for runway incursions and air traf- fic controller workload. Reducing the potential for runway incursions is a primary goal of the FAA. This taxi- way should be 50 feet wide and be lo- cated 400 feet from the Runway 12-30 centerline. Taxiway B presently extends between Taxiway A and the Runway 20 end, south of Runway 2-20. Facility plan- ning should include extending Taxi- way B to the Runway 2 end. This would provide direct access to this runway end for aircraft located in the southeast quadrant of the airport. Presently, aircraft located in this quadrant of HIO must use the center taxiway and apron taxilanes to access the Runway 2 end. Taxiway B is lo- cated 250 feet from the Runway 2-20 centerline, exceeding minimum sepa- ration distances. Taxiway B is 50 feet wide since it serves the corporate han- gar area south of the runway which accommodates aircraft through ADG III. The portion of Taxiway B from Taxiway A to the Runway 2 end may only need to be 35 feet wide, since it is not expected that it would accommo- date aircraft in ADG III. Those air- craft would utilize Runway 12-30 for departure. Consideration should be given to re- aligning the Runway 2 end connecting taxiway perpendicular to the Runway 2-20 centerline. This is the typical alignment of a connecting taxiway as it provides for a better view of both the approach and departure path. Taxiway C is 40 feet wide and extends between the Runway 2 end and Taxi- way A on the north side of Runway 2- 20. Taxiway C is located 200 feet from the Runway 2-20 centerline. As indi- cated previously, ARC B-II standards specify a runway/taxiway separation distance of 240 feet. Taxiway C causes an obstruction to the Runway 2-20 OFZ, as the wing from a taxiing aircraft penetrates the OFZ surface. Facility planning should include relo- cating Taxiway C approximately 40 feet north to meet FAA run- way/taxiway separation standards and clear the OFZ. Taxiway CC is located approximately 117 feet from the existing Taxiway C centerline and is 28 feet wide. The centerline of Taxiway CC is located only 29.5 feet from the existing T- hangar facilities. This is 10 feet less than needed for taxiing aircraft in 4-27 ADG I, and 28 feet less than needed for taxiing aircraft in ADG II. To en- sure proper clearance for taxiing air- craft, additional separation between Taxiway CC and the T-hangars is needed. This additional clearance can only be achieved by relocating Taxiway CC to the south towards Taxiway C. This is complicated by the need to relocate Taxiway C to the north to meet FAA runway/taxiway separation criterion and clear the Runway 2-20 OFZ. Re- locating Taxiway C 40 feet north would reduce the Taxiway C to Taxi- way CC separation distance to 77 feet. FAA design standards specify a mini- mum separation distance between parallel taxiways of 105 feet. Follow- ing a relocation of Taxiway C, this minimum separation distance would not be met. Therefore, it is recom- mended that Taxiway CC be closed and ultimately removed so that Taxi- way C can meet FAA design standards and clear the OFZ, and provide greater clearance between the taxiway centerline and the T-hangars. All ex- isting T-hangar access taxilanes should be extended to Taxiway C after Taxiway CC is closed. Taxiway C should ultimately be ex- tended to the Runway 20 end once it is relocated. This will allow direct access to the Runway 20 end for aircraft lo- cated in the northwest quadrant of the airport. Aircraft taxiing to or from the Runway 20 end would only need to cross Runway 12-30 with an extended Taxiway C. Without an extended Taxiway C, aircraft must cross both Runway 12-30 and Runway 2-20. Taxiway AA is located approximately 274 feet west of Taxiway A. Taxiway AA is 40 feet wide and extends be- tween Taxiway C and Taxiway A4, providing access to a number of corpo- rate hangar parcels and FBO parcels on the west side of the airport. ADG III design standards specify a mini- mum separation distance of 152 feet between parallel taxiways. Presently, the Taxiway A to Taxiway AA separa- tion distance exceeds this minimum requirement by 122 feet. Considera- tion may be given to relocating Taxi- way AA 122 feet east to the minimum ADG III parallel taxiway separation distance. This could allow for the de- velopment of additional apron area along this taxiway. A full-length parallel taxiway should be planned for the proposed parallel Runway 12L-30R. This taxiway should be located 150 feet from the runway centerline and be 25 feet wide. Most likely this taxiway would extend along the east side of the runway to provide for future landside facilities developed in that quadrant of the air- port. Holding aprons provide an area for aircraft to prepare for departure and allow aircraft to bypass other aircraft which are ready for departure. A holding apron is currently provided at the Runway 12 end for this purpose. Holding aprons should be planned for the Runway 2 and 20 ends. A holding apron should be planned on the east side of Runway 30. A holding apron cannot be developed on the west side of Runway 30, as there is not suffi- cient area between Taxiway A and the 4-28 tiedown apron. The by-pass taxiway configuration at the Runway 30 end serves the same function as a holding apron and should be maintained. TRANSIENT HELIPAD Hillsboro Airport does not have a des- ignated transient helipad. Transient helicopters must operate in the same area as fixed wing aircraft. Parking areas for helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft parking areas are typically segregated to the extent practicable to avoid the effects of helicopter rotor wash on fixed-wing aircraft that are tied down. Facility planning should include es- tablishing a designated transient heli- pad along the primary transient apron area at HIO. This should be supple- mented with two parking positions, and be lighted to allow for operations at night and during poor visibility conditions. LIGHTING AND MARKING Currently, there is a number of light- ing and pavement marking aids serv- ing pilots using the Hillsboro Airport. These lighting and marking aids as- sist pilots in locating the airport dur- ing night or poor weather conditions, as well as assist in the movement of aircraft on the ground. Exhibit 4F de- picts the requirements for lighting and marking aids. Identification Lighting The location of an airport at night is indicated by a rotating beacon. The rotating beacon at HIO is located in the parking lot behind the terminal building. The rotating beacon is suffi- cient and should be maintained in the future. Runway and Taxiway Lighting Runway and taxiway lighting utilizes light fixtures placed near the pave- ment edge to define the lateral limits of the pavement. This lighting is es- sential for safe operations during night and/or times of low visibility in order to maintain safe and efficient access to and from the runway and aircraft parking areas. Runway 12-30 is equipped with high intensity runway lighting (HIRL). HIRL is required for the ILS approach and should be maintained through the planning period. Runway 2-20 is equipped with me- dium intensity runway lighting (MIRL). MIRL is sufficient for the visual approaches to Runway 2-20. The proposed parallel Runway 12L- 30R should be equipped with MIRL. Effective ground movement of aircraft at night is enhanced by the availabil- ity of taxiway lighting. Presently, only Taxiways A, B and the Terminal Apron are lighted. This lighting should be maintained through the planning period and added to any new taxiways. 4-29 Airfield Signs Lighted directional and hold signs are installed at HIO. This signage identi- fies runways, taxiways, and apron ar- eas. These aid pilots in determining their position on the airport and pro- vide directions to their desired loca- tion on the airport. These lighting aids should be maintained through the planning period. Lighted distance-remaining signs as- sist pilots in quickly identifying the runway length remaining when land- ing and departing an airport. Dis- tance-remaining signs are typically placed in 1,000-foot intervals along the runway. Facility planning should in- clude installing lighted distance re- maining signs along Runway 12-30, since it accommodates the majority of business jet use. Pilot-Controlled Lighting Hillsboro Airport is equipped with a pilot-controlled lighting (PCL) system. PCL allows pilots to control the inten- sity of MALSR. PCL also provides for more efficient use of MALSR lighting energy use. A PCL system turns the MALSR lights off when not in use. This system should be maintained through the planning period. Visual Approach Lighting In most instances, the landing phase of any flight must be conducted in vis- ual conditions. To provide pilots with visual descent information during landings to the runway, visual glide- slope indicators are commonly pro- vided at airports. A precision ap- proach path indicator (PAPI-4) is in- stalled at the Runway 12 end. A visual approach slope indicator (VASI-4) is installed at the Runway 2, 20, and 30 ends. These systems are appropriate for the mix of aircraft currently oper- ating at HIO and should be main- tained through the planning period. Consideration may be given to replac- ing the VASI-4 with the newer design PAPI-4, which are less costly to main- tain and operate. PAPI-2 should be planned for each end of proposed par- allel Runway 12L-30R. Approach Lighting Approach lighting systems provide the basic means to transition from in- strument flight to visual flight for landing. A medium intensity approach lighting system with runway align- ment indicator lighting (MALSR) is installed at the Runway 12 end and used in conjunction with the ILS to provide the 2-mile visibility mini- mums for the ILS approach. This sys- tem should be maintained through the planning period. Runway End Identification Lighting Runway end identification lighting provides the pilot with a rapid and positive identification of the runway end. Runway end identifier lights (REILs) are presently installed at the Runway 30 end. As REILs provide pi- 4-30 lots with the ability to identify runway ends and distinguish the runway lighting from other lighting on the airport and in the approach areas, REILs should be considered for the Runway 2, 20, 12L, and 30R ends. Pavement Markings Pavement markings are designed ac- cording to the type of instrument ap- proach available on the runway. FAA AC 150/5340-1F, Marking of Paved Areas on Airports, provides the guid- ance necessary to design an airport's markings. Runway 30 is equipped with nonprecision runway markings. These markings are sufficient for a fu- ture APV approach to this runway end. Runway 12 is equipped with pre- cision runway markings. These mark- ings are required for ILS approaches and should be maintained through the planning period. Runway 2-20 is equipped with basic markings. These markings are sufficient for pilots exe- cuting visual approaches to these runways and should be maintained through the planning period. Basic runway markings are appropriate for the proposed parallel Runway 12L- 30R. Taxiway and apron areas also require marking to assure that aircraft re- main on the pavement. Yellow center- line stripes are currently painted on all taxiway and apron surfaces at HIO to provide this guidance to pilots. Be- sides routine maintenance, these markings will be sufficient through the planning period. OTHER FACILITIES The airport has a lighted wind cone which provides pilots with information about wind conditions. This is suffi- cient and should be maintained in the future. The Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) is an important com- ponent to airfield operations, as it no- tifies pilots of local weather condi- tions. This system should be main- tained through the planning period and upgraded as needed. The airport traffic control tower (ATCT) is located west of Runway 12- 30. The ATCT is owned and operated by the FAA. The ATCT enhances safety at HIO by providing aircraft separation and sequencing services. The ATCT is expected to be needed for these purposes throughout the plan- ning period. The hours of operation and staffing levels of the ATCT are the responsibility of the FAA, and will be determined based upon controller workload following FAA air traffic guidance and standards. A compass calibration pad is used by pilots and/or maintenance personnel to align an aircraft on known magnetic headings, for the purpose of determin- ing and correcting the degree of error in the magnetic compass caused by equipment installed in the aircraft. There is presently no compass calibra- tion pad at Hillsboro Airport. Specifications for the siting of a com- pass calibration pad are found in FAA 4-31 AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design. A compass calibration pad must be at least 300 feet from power and commu- nication cables and other aircraft, and at least 600 feet from large magnetic objects such as buildings, railroad tracks, high-voltage electrical trans- mission lines, or cables carrying direct current. The compass calibration pad must be located outside the runway RSA and OFZ and runway and taxi- way OFAs. The compass calibration pad shall have a radius of at least 39.5 feet to accommodate aircraft up to ADG II. A magnetic survey is re- quired prior to construction to ensure that the selected site is not influenced by unknown magnetic or ferrous ma- terials, and that the site can be devel- oped to minimum tolerance levels for determining magnetic headings. LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS Landside facilities are those necessary for handling general aviation aircraft and passengers while on the ground. These facilities provide the essential interface between the air and ground transportation modes. The capacities of the various components of each area were examined in relation to projected demand to identify future landside fa- cility needs. This includes: $ Aircraft Hangars $ Aircraft Parking Aprons $ Public Terminal Facilities $ Airport Maintenance $ Emergency Vehicle Storage $ Security $ Fencing $ Aviation Fuel Storage $ Revenue Support Facilities Along with considering the number and type of future on-airport facilities that will be needed to meet projected demand, access and circulation to and from the airport and storm water drainage should be considered in facil- ity planning. AIRCRAFT HANGARS The demand for aircraft storage han- gars typically depends upon the num- ber and type of aircraft expected to be based at HIO. For planning purposes, it is necessary to estimate hangar re- quirements based upon forecast opera- tional activity. However, hangar de- velopment should be based on actual demand trends and financial invest- ment conditions. Presently, there are 213 separate T- hangar units in 15 separate buildings totaling approximately 320,700 square feet. There are six corporate hangars totaling approximately 101,500 square feet housing 22 aircraft. There are 12 FBO hangars totaling approximately 238,100 square feet housing 66 air- craft. The FBO hangar space is used for both aircraft storage and for pro- viding aircraft/aviation services such as maintenance. 4-32 Presently, 71 percent of all aircraft based at HIO and stored inside some type of a storage building are in T- hangars, seven percent are in corpo- rate hangars, and 22 percent are in FBO-owned and operated hangars. Table 4N summarizes the distribu- tion of based aircraft by type and han- gar location. As shown, the majority of single engine piston and multi- engine piston aircraft are stored in the T-hangars, while the majority of tur- bojet, turboprop and helicopters are stored in the FBO hangars. TABLE 4N Existing Based Aircraft by Type and Hangar/Tiedown Location Single Multi- Engine Engine Turboprop Turbojet Helicopter Other Total T-hangars Number of Aircraft 178 25 4 3 2 1 213 % of Total Aircraft in Hangars 95.2% 75.8% 30.8% 7.3% 7.7% 100.0% Corporate Hangars Number of Aircraft 6 4 3 5 4 0 22 % of Total Aircraft in Hangars 3.2% 12.1% 23.1% 12.2% 15.4% 0.0% Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Hangars Number of Aircraft 3 4 6 33 20 66 % of Total Aircraft in Hangars 1.6% 12.1% 46.2% 80.5% 76.9% 0.0% Total Aircraft in Hangars 187 33 13 41 26 1 301 Tiedowns Number of Aircraft 57 2 0 0 3 0 62 % of Total Based Aircraft 23.4% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 0.0% Total All Aircraft 244 35 13 41 29 1 363 Source: Port of Portland, Airport Operator Records Utilization of hangar space varies as a function of local climate, security, and owner preferences. The trend in gen- eral aviation aircraft, whether single or multi-engine, is in more sophisti- cated (and consequently more expen- sive) aircraft. Therefore, many hangar owners prefer hangar space to outside tiedowns. Vintage aircraft owners and many recreational aircraft owners pre- fer hangar space to protect their air- craft, which many times are con- structed with fabric wing and fuselage covers. Future hangar requirements for Hills- boro Airport are summarized on Ex- hibit 4G. Future hangar require- ments were developed with the as- sumption that a majority of aircraft owners would continue to prefer en- closed storage through the planning period. A growing percentage of based aircraft are projected to be based in corporate hangars. Table 4P summa- rizes the distribution of based aircraft in hangars through the planning pe- riod. 03 M P0 1- 4G -5 /2 4/ 05 Exhibit 4G HANGAR AND APRON REQUIREMENTS Total Aircraft to be Hangared1 In T-Hangars In Corporate Hangars In Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Hangars Change From Existing 301 213 22 66 T-Hangar Area (s.f.) Corporate Hangar Area (s.f.) Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Hangar Area Total Hangar Area (s.f.) Change From Existing 320,700 101,500 238,100 660,300 334 227 39 68 33 352 236 45 71 51 394 257 57 80 93 342,200 177,500 244,900 764,600 104,300 355,000 208,300 254,900 818,200 157,900 386,400 259,900 287,100 933,400 273,100 76 23,100 0 0 76 104,004 42 11,300 3 11,800 197 150,204 73 36,400 8 12,800 76 81,300 26 13,000 3 11,800 186 155,300 78 38,900 9 14,400 80 85,300 26 13,000 3 11,800 196 163,400 87 43,600 10 16,000 87 94,700 33 16,500 3 11,800 220 182,600 Single, Multi-engine - Transient Aircraft Positions Apron Area (s.y.) Transient Business Jet Positions Apron Area (s.y.) Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Aircraft Parking Positions Apron Area (s.y.) Locally-Based Aircraft Positions Apron Area (s.y.) Terminal Building Apron2 Apron Area (s.y.) Total Positions Total Apron Area (s.y.) HANGAR AREA REQUIREMENTS EXISTING SHORTTERM NEED LONG TERM NEED INTERMEDIATE TERM NEED AIRCRAFT STORAGE HANGAR REQUIREMENTS AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON REQUIREMENTS PORT OF PORTLAND 1 The total based aircraft figure listed in Table 4A includes aircraft stored outdoors on the apron in addition to these aircraft expected to be hangared. 2 Two (2) Regional Jet parking positions, One (1) Turboprop parking position 4-33 TABLE 4P Distribution by Hangar Type Short Intermediate Long Existing Term Term Term T-hangars 71% 68% 67% 65% Corporate Hangars 7% 12% 13% 14% FBO Hangars 22% 20% 20% 20% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% T-hangar requirements were deter- mined by providing approximately 1,500 square feet of space for each T- hangar unit, which is equal to the av- erage T-hangar unit size at Hillsboro Airport. On average, approximately 3,600 square feet is currently provided each existing based aircraft located in a corporate hangar at Hillsboro Air- port. This ratio was used to determine future corporate hangar area require- ments. On average, approximately 3,600 square feet is provided for each existing based aircraft stored in an FBO hangar at Hillsboro Airport. This ratio was used to calculate future FBO hangar area requirements. As indicated on the exhibit, additional hangar space is expected to be re- quired through the planning period. The strongest growth is for corporate hangar space. The Port is currently considering development plans for pri- vate aircraft owners to construct new corporate hangars on the airport. Similar to existing conditions, it is ex- pected that the aircraft storage han- gar requirements will continue to be met through a combination of hangar types. The alternatives analysis will examine several possible options for hangar development at HIO and de- termine the best location for each type of hangar facility. AIRCRAFT PARKING APRONS A parking apron should be provided for at least the number of locally- based aircraft that are not stored in hangars, as well as transient aircraft. Additionally, since most FBO hangars are used for maintenance in addition to aircraft storage, the stored aircraft are commonly removed from the han- gar and stored on the apron when maintenance activities are taking place in the hangar. Apron space for these aircraft should be considered in facility planning. As shown on Exhibit 4G, there are ap- proximately 197 tiedowns available for based and transient aircraft at HIO. Approximately 76 of these are located on private FBO leaseholds. Although the majority of future based aircraft were assumed to be stored in an en- closed hangar, a number of based air- craft will still tie down outside. This is expected to decline from approxi- mately 17 percent of all aircraft based at HIO in 2003, to 10 percent of based 4-34 aircraft in the Long Term Planning Horizon. Along with based aircraft parking needs, transient aircraft parking needs must also be considered in de- termining apron requirements. Table 4Q depicts the calculation process for the number of transient aircraft tie- downs. Turbojet tiedown locations were estimated at 10 percent of total transient aircraft parking needs. TABLE 4Q Transient Aircraft Parking Apron Positions Determination Short Intermediate Long Term Term Term Busy Day Forecast 1,286 1,373 1,539 Percentage of Itinerant Operations 42% 42% 42% Busy Day Itinerant Operations 540 577 647 Multiplier 15% 15% 15% Itinerant Aircraft Positions 81 86 97 Multiplier 10% 10% 10% Business Aircraft Parking Positions 8 9 10 Total apron area requirements were determined by applying a planning criterion of 500 square yards for each based parking position and 800 square yards for each single-engine piston and multi-engine piston parking posi- tion. Transient business jet positions were determined by applying a plan- ning criterion of 1,600 square yards for each transient business jet posi- tion. The transient aircraft parking needs may not need to be met in one location on the airport. More tran- sient activities are being focused at the FBO areas on airports for conven- ience and security reasons. Separate transient areas away from the general aviation services are not highly desir- able. Ultimately, this may require providing for larger apron areas asso- ciated with each FBO operation. In addition to the aircraft based on the FBO apron areas, the FBO apron area requirements also assumed that 50 percent of aircraft stored in FBO han- gars would need to tie down outside during periods when aircraft mainte- nance or other activities were occur- ring in the hangar. Total apron area requirements were determined by ap- plying a planning criterion of 800 square yards for each single-engine piston and multi-engine piston park- ing position and 1,600 square yards for each business aircraft position. The results of this analysis are pre- sented on Exhibit 4G. Based upon the planning criteria above and trends as- sumed for transient and based aircraft users, approximately 32,400 square yards of additional apron area is ex- 4-35 pected to be needed through the end of the long term planning period. How- ever, additional apron area in excess of these needs may be needed as new hangar areas are developed on the airport which are not contiguous with existing apron areas. PUBLIC TERMINAL FACILITIES Unlike commercial service airports such as Portland International Airport (PDX) which require a terminal build- ing for passenger ticketing, baggage claim, and aircraft boarding, a general aviation airport does not specifically require a public terminal building. While space is needed at a general aviation airport for waiting passen- gers, a pilot’s lounge, flight planning, concessions, management, storage, and various other needs, these func- tions oftentimes are provided in pri- vate FBO buildings. The need for a public terminal build- ing at a general aviation airport is de- clining with greater emphasis placed on suitable FBO facilities by fractional aircraft operators and corporate air- craft owners. Each of the major frac- tional aircraft operators has developed a set of minimum FBO standards which set forth safety, security, cater- ing, cleaning, aircraft handling, ground transportation, and hangar and office space standards for each FBO wishing to serve the fractional aircraft owner. Since the fractional aircraft owner relies on the FBO for all these services, they also rely on the FBO to provide well-kept, professional in appearance terminal facilities. Since many fractional jet customers travel anonymously, private business offices are requested. These types of services cannot be provided in a public terminal building. Corporate opera- tors are just as discerning in their op- erational requirements, although they do not generally publish FBO stan- dards. Similar to Hillsboro Airport, there are many general aviation airports with public terminal buildings. These pub- lic terminal buildings provide many of the functions described above. In most cases these facilities provide space for airport administration in ad- dition to the services described above. In fact, the very reason the building was constructed was to provide the airport administrative functions. Since airport management offices re- quire public access, providing space for public terminal functions in the same building is commonly considered. In these instances, the cost to build and maintain terminal facilities is often considered part of the normal costs of operating the airport, as space is needed for airport administration. At Hillsboro Airport, airport administra- tive offices are co-located with the air- port maintenance facilities, with no similar requirement for space in the public terminal building. Similar to Hillsboro Airport, many general avia- tion public terminal buildings provide leaseable space for many small busi- nesses, which adds to airport reve- nues. The terminal building at Hillsboro Airport has vacant office spaces, par- 4-36 ticularly on the second floor where the vacant restaurant is also located. A radio station is located on the second floor. The first floor of the terminal building is primarily used by Intel Corporation for their private shuttle service. Two car rental businesses, one aviation-related and two private businesses are also located on the first floor. The trend towards reliance on FBO facilities is clearly evident at Hillsboro Airport, as the underutiliza- tion of the existing terminal building for public general aviation services al- lowed this building to be put in alter- nate use. The size of a public terminal building varies due to airport sponsor prefer- ences. There are no specific airport planning standards for general avia- tion terminal buildings. The size and configuration of a public general avia- tion terminal is based more on the in- tended use of the building rather than the number of passengers using the facility (which is typically used to de- fine commercial service terminal buildings). When designing an airport terminal building, the building spon- sor needs to determine if the terminal building will provide for a restaurant and how much space will be devoted to leaseable office space. Ultimately, the decision to construct and operate a terminal building needs to be built on a solid business case. As with all facility development at an airport, the projected revenues from the terminal building must exceed de- velopment and operational costs. As long as the terminal building provides sufficient cash flow and covers opera- tional costs and amortization, the terminal building should remain in use. However, should the terminal building’s costs exceed the revenues it generates, consideration should be given to redevelopment of the terminal building site. As noted above, the need for a public terminal building is diminishing as aircraft owners are re- lying more and more on private FBO operators to meet those needs. This provides significant competition to the successful and profitable operation of a public terminal building at an air- port such as HIO. During the planning period of this Master Plan, the terminal building (constructed in 1976) may exceed its useful life or become a financial bur- den to the Port. Therefore, this Mas- ter Plan needs to examine redevelop- ment scenarios for the existing termi- nal building site for alternative avia- tion uses. This may include an FBO or corporate hangar development. Chapter Two, Future Role of Hillsboro Airport, concluded that while the role of Hillsboro Airport through the plan- ning period is to serve general avia- tion activity, the potential for com- mercial airline activity to materialize and be operated within the infrastruc- ture limitations at Hillsboro Airport should be considered in the Alterna- tives Analysis. An alternative use for the existing terminal building may ul- timately be for commercial airline ser- vice. The Alternatives Analysis to fol- low in Chapter Five will more thor- oughly examine how to accommodate commercial airline service and general aviation activities at Hillsboro Airport. 4-37 Providing passenger-handling services in the existing terminal building, or considering alternate uses for the ex- isting terminal building site, needs to take into account the requirements of the existing corporate aviation shuttle operation located in the terminal building. This type of operation is very different from the typical tran- sient business aircraft user, which usually consists of only one flight and only a few passengers. The shuttle op- eration consists of three commercial airline-type aircraft, operating several times per day, generating more than 100,000 passengers annually. This type of operation cannot be simply ac- commodated at an FBO facility. The unique nature of this operation, which is similar in many respects to a sched- uled airline operation, requires a large holding area, adequate public parking and rental car facilities. The Airport Alternatives chapter will consider the continuation of this unusual opera- tion, providing adequate facilities, comparable in size to the existing fa- cility. AIRPORT MAINTENANCE The Hillsboro Airport maintenance and administration building is located in the southwest portion of the airport along N.E. 25th St. This building pro- vides approximately 8,500 square feet of space for vehicle, equipment, and material storage. Conference rooms and office space are also provided in the building. The size of the maintenance facility is dependent upon Port needs. The FAA does not provide funding for mainte- nance or equipment storage facilities at general aviation airports. Since an airport maintenance facility does not require aircraft access, it can be located in a more remote location of the airport off the primary flight line location. Vehicle access to the airfield is needed. The airport maintenance facility should be located to provide for public vehicle access without the need to cross aircraft operational areas. The existing airport maintenance building meets all these design con- siderations. The maintenance build- ing is located off the main flight line and does not occupy land available for hangar or aviation facility develop- ment. Public access is available via N.E. 25th St. Airfield access is avail- able via the perimeter service road. The Master Plan will continue to re- serve this area for airport mainte- nance and administration activities. EMERGENCY VEHICLE STORAGE As detailed in Chapter Two, require- ments for airport rescue and fire- fighting (ARFF) are only applicable to commercial service airports certifi- cated under Federal Aviation Regula- tion (FAR) Part 139. Hillsboro Airport does not accommodate scheduled air- line service with aircraft with more than nine passenger seats. Therefore, the airport is not required to be certi- ficated under the recently updated FAR Part 139 rules and regulations and there is no specific requirement for an ARFF facility at Hillsboro Air- 4-38 port. Chapter Two concluded that the ideal role of Hillsboro Airport through the planning period is to accommodate the growing business-class general aviation activity in the metropolitan area. Unless federal regulations change, there will not be a regulatory requirement for ARFF facilities on the airport. Emergency services will con- tinue to be met with off-airport vehi- cles through mutual aid agreements with the City of Hillsboro. As discussed above, the Alternatives Analysis for Hillsboro Airport will in- clude considering the potential for commercial airline service. Commer- cial airline service would require dedi- cated ARFF services and a require- ment for an equipment storage build- ing which provides access to the pri- mary runway within three minutes of an emergency call. This Master Plan will consider a location for establish- ing an ARFF station to meet these needs. The location of this ARFF facil- ity should also consider the potential for this facility to serve as a joint-use structural firefighting station for the local community. This is a common practice which helps to reduce devel- opment and operational costs. SECURITY Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Security Guidelines In cooperation with representatives of the general aviation community, the TSA published security guidelines for general aviation airports in May 2004. These guidelines are contained in the TSA publication, Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports. Within this publication, the TSA recognized that general aviation is not a specific threat to national security. However, the TSA does believe that general aviation may be vulnerable to misuse by terrorists as security is enhanced in the commercial portions of aviation and at other transportation links. To assist in defining which security methods are most appropriate for a general aviation airport, the TSA de- fined a series of airport characteristics that potentially affect an airport’s se- curity posture. These include: 1. Airport Location – An airport’s proximity to areas with over 100,000 residents or sensitive sites can affect its security posture. Greater security emphasis should be given to airports within 30 miles of mass population centers (areas with over 100,000 resi- dents) or sensitive areas such as mili- tary installations, nuclear and chemi- cal plants, centers of government, na- tional monuments, and/or interna- tional ports. 2. Based Aircraft – A smaller num- ber of based aircraft increases the like- lihood that illegal activities will be identified more quickly. Airports with based aircraft over 12,500 pounds warrant greater security. 3. Runways – Airports with longer paved runways are able to serve larger aircraft. Shorter runways are less at- tractive as they cannot accommodate the larger aircraft which have more potential for damage. 4-39 4. Operations – The number and type of operations should be considered in the security assessment. Table 4R summarizes TSA- recommended airport characteristics and ranking criterion. The TSA sug- gests that an airport rank its security posture according to this scale to de- termine appropriate security en- hancements. TABLE 4R Airport Characteristics Measurement Tool Assessment Scale Security Characteristic TSA Established Factors Hillsboro Airport Location Within 20 nm of mass population areas 1 Within 30 nm of a sensitive site2 Falls within outer perimeter of Class B airspace Falls within boundaries of restricted airspace 5 4 3 3 5 4 0 0 Based Aircraft Greater than 101 based aircraft 26-100 based aircraft 11-25 based aircraft 10 or fewer based aircraft Based aircraft over 12,500 pounds 3 2 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 Runways Runway length greater than 5,001 feet Runway length less than 5,000 feet, greater than 2,001 feet Runway length 2,000 feet or less Asphalt or concrete runway 5 4 2 1 5 0 0 1 Operations Over 50,000 annual operations Part 135 operations Part 137 operations Part 125 operations Flight training Flight training in aircraft over 12,500 pounds Rental aircraft Maintenance, repair, and overhaul facilities conduct- ing long term storage of aircraft over 12,500 pounds 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 0 0 3 0 4 4 Totals 39 Source: Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports 1 An area with a total population over 100,000 2 Sensitive sites include military installations, nuclear and chemical plants, centers of government, national monuments, and/or international ports Table 4R also ranks Hillsboro Airport according to this scale. As shown in the table, the Hillsboro Airport rank- ing on this scale is 39. Points are as- 4-40 sessed for the airport being located in a major metropolitan area with a population over 100,000 and being lo- cated within 30 nautical miles of the Portland downtown area where major state and federal government offices are located. The airport is also as- sessed for having more than 101 based aircraft, based aircraft over 12,500 pounds, having a runway greater than 5001 feet in length, having a paved runway surface, conducting more than 50,000 annual operations, accommo- dating FAR Part 135 charter activi- ties, accommodating flight training activities, having rental aircraft, and having maintenance, repair, and over- haul facilities conducting long term storage of aircraft over 12,500 pounds. Based upon the results of the security assessment, the TSA recommends several security enhancements for Hillsboro Airport. These enhance- ments are shown in Table 4S. TABLE 4S Recommended Security Enhancements Based on Airport Characteristics Assessment Results Points Determined Through Airport Characteristics Assessment Security Enhancements > 45 25-44 15-24 0-14 Fencing Hangars Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Intrusion Detection System Access Controls Lighting System Personal ID System Vehicle ID System Challenge Procedures Law Enforcement Support Security Committee Transient Pilot Sign-in/Sign-Out Procedures Signs Documented Security Procedures Positive/Passenger/Cargo/Baggage ID Aircraft Security Community Watch Program Contact List Source: Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports A review of each recommended secu- rity procedure is below. The TSA rec- ommends that these security consid- erations be incorporated into an over- all security plan for HIO. Access Controls: To delineate and adequately protect security areas from unauthorized access, it is important to consider boundary measures such as fencing, walls, or other physical barri- 4-41 ers, electronic boundaries (e.g., sensor lines, alarms), and/or natural barriers. Physical barriers can be used to deter and delay the access of unauthorized persons onto sensitive areas of air- ports. Such structures are usually permanent and are designed to be a visual and psychological deterrent as well as a physical barrier. Lighting System: Protective lighting provides a means of continuing a de- gree of protection from theft, vandal- ism, or other illegal activity at night. Security lighting systems should be connected to an emergency power source, if available. Personal ID System: This refers to a method of identifying airport employ- ees or authorized tenant access to various areas of the airport through badges or biometric controls. Vehicle ID System: This refers to an identification system which can assist airport personnel and law enforcement in identifying authorized vehicles. Ve- hicles can be identified through use of decals, stickers, or hang tags. Challenge Procedures: This in- volves an airport watch program which is implemented in cooperation with airport users and tenants to be on guard for unauthorized and poten- tially illegal activities at HIO. Law Enforcement Support: This involves establishing and maintaining a liaison with appropriate law en- forcement agencies including local, state, and federal. These organizations can better serve the airport when they are familiar with airport operating procedures, facilities, and normal ac- tivities. Procedures may be developed to have local law enforcement person- nel regularly or randomly patrol ramps and aircraft hangar areas, with increased patrols during periods of heightened security. Security Committee: This Commit- tee should be composed of airport ten- ants and users drawn from all seg- ments of the airport community. The main goal of this group is to involve airport stakeholders in developing ef- fective and reasonable security meas- ures and disseminating timely secu- rity information. Transient Pilot Sign-in/Sign-Out Procedures: This involves establish- ing procedures to identify non-based pilots and aircraft using their facili- ties, and implementing sign-in/sign- out procedures for all transient opera- tors and associating them with their parked aircraft. Having assigned spots for transient parking areas can help to easily identify transient aircraft on an apron. Signs: The use of signs provides a de- terrent by warning of facility bounda- ries as well notifying of the conse- quences for violation. Documented Security Procedures: This refers to having a written secu- rity plan. This plan would include documenting the security initiatives already in place at HIO, as well as any new enhancements. This document could consist of, but not be limited to, airport and local law enforcement con- 4-42 tact information, including alternates when available, and utilization of a program to increase airport user awareness of security precautions such as an airport watch program. Positive/Passenger/Cargo/Baggage ID: A key point to remember regard- ing general aviation passengers is that the persons on board these flights are generally better known to airport per- sonnel and aircraft operators than the typical passenger on a commercial air- liner. Recreational general aviation passengers are typically friends, fam- ily, or acquaintances of the pilot in command. Charter/sightseeing pas- sengers typically will meet with the pilot or other flight department per- sonnel well in advance of any flights. Suspicious activities such as use of cash for flights or probing or inappro- priate questions are more likely to be quickly noted and authorities could be alerted. For corporate operations, typically all parties onboard the air- craft are known to the pilots. Airport operators should develop methods by which individuals visiting the airport can be escorted into and out of aircraft movement and parking areas. Aircraft Security: The main goal of this security enhancement is to pre- vent the intentional misuse of general aviation aircraft for terrorist purposes. Proper securing of aircraft is the most basic method of enhancing general aviation airport security. Pilots should employ multiple methods of securing their aircraft to make it as difficult as possible for an unauthorized person to gain access to it. Some basic methods of securing a GA aircraft include: en- suring that door locks are consistently used to prevent unauthorized access or tampering with the aircraft, using keyed ignitions where appropriate, storing the aircraft in a hangar, if available, and locking hangar doors, using an auxiliary lock to further pro- tect aircraft from unauthorized use (i.e., propeller, throttle, and/or tie- down locks), and ensuring that air- craft ignition keys are not stored in- side the aircraft. Community Watch Program: The vigilance of airport users is one of the most prevalent methods of enhancing security at general aviation airports. Typically, the user population is famil- iar with those individuals who have a valid purpose for being on the airport property. Consequently, new faces are quickly noticed. A watch program should include elements similar to those listed below. These recommen- dations are not all-inclusive. Addi- tional measures that are specific to each airport should be added as ap- propriate, including: • Coordinate the program with all appropriate stakeholders including airport officials, pilots, businesses and/or other airport users. • Hold periodic meetings with the airport community. • Develop and circulate reporting procedures to all who have a regu- lar presence on the airport. • Encourage proactive participation in aircraft and facility security and heightened awareness measures. 4-43 This should include encouraging airport and line staff to ‘query’ un- knowns on ramps, near aircraft, etc. • Post signs promoting the program, warning that the airport is watched. Include appropriate emergency phone numbers on the sign. • Install a bulletin board for posting security information and meeting notices. • Provide training to all involved for recognizing suspicious activity and appropriate response tactics. Contact List: This involves the de- velopment of a comprehensive list of responsible personnel/ agencies to be contacted in the event of an emergency procedure. The list should be distrib- uted to all appropriate individuals. Additionally, in the event of a security incident, it is essential that first re- sponders and airport management have the capability to communicate. Where possible, coordinate radio communication and establish common frequencies and procedures to estab- lish a radio communications network with local law enforcement. Fractional Jet Operator Security Requirements The major fractional jet operators have established minimum standards for FBOs serving their aircraft. These minimum standard documents specify the following general security re- quirements: Identification: The FBO should issue unique identification badges for em- ployees who have access to the aircraft operations areas. Unescorted passen- ger access to the ramp is prohibited. Employees: The FBO must conduct FAA-compliant background checks on each employee. The FBO must have pre-employment drug screening. Aircraft Security: Aircraft cannot be left unattended when the ground power unit or auxiliary power unit is operating. Aircraft must be locked when unattended. Aircraft must be parked in well-lit, highly-visible areas with a minimum of six-foot chain link fencing. Security cameras are pre- ferred. Sightseers or visitors are not allowed access aboard or near aircraft. Facility Security: Visual surveil- lance of all aircraft operational areas belonging to the FBO is required. FBOs shall establish controlled access to the aircraft operational areas. The FBO should maintain at least six feet between safety fence and parked ground equipment. Bushes and shrubs must be less than four feet in height. FENCING Hillsboro Airport is currently sur- rounded by standard eight-foot chain- link fencing with three strands of barbwire. There are over 20 vehicle 4-44 access gates the majority of which are in the south and west building areas. These gates are automatic and oper- ated by a combination punch pad. There are also several vehicle access gates located along the north property line fence that are swing-type gates with a padlock. These gates are used mainly by the Port’s tenant farmer to access the agricultural areas. Future fence will be needed as the airport property line is expanded by property acquisitions. Automated ve- hicle access gates will be required at all new vehicle access points to the aircraft operations area. The future fence line and access gates will be more fully described as the recom- mended Master Plan concept is devel- oped and final facility configurations are established. The ultimate fencing plan will be identified on the landside facility plan, which will be included as part of the final Airport Layout Plan set. AVIATION FUEL STORAGE All aviation fuel storage at Hillsboro Airport is privately-owned and main- tained. Requirements for additional storage tanks and/or dispensing equipment will be determined indi- vidually by the private fuel distribu- tors based upon fuel sale averages and average fuel delivery schedules. The amount of time it takes to order and then receive a fuel delivery dictates the minimum storage levels required, and subsequently the total storage re- quired to maintain adequate levels for average sales periods. REVENUE SUPPORT FACILITIES Revenue support facilities refer to ar- eas of non-aviation uses on airport property. Non-aviation uses assist in expanding and diversifying the income stream at HIO. Existing non-aviation land uses at Hillsboro Airport are cur- rently located along Cornell Road and Cornell Road/N.E. 25th St. intersection. This includes a number of retail estab- lishments and Hotel/Restaurant on long-term ground leases with the Port of Portland. FAA policy requires that all airport property be used for aeronautical ac- tivities prior to being used for non- aviation uses. The FAA must release any land that would be used for non- aviation uses. Areas for non-aviation uses will be considered during the Al- ternatives Analysis and development of the recommended Master Plan con- cept. A full understanding of the area to be reserved for aeronautical activi- ties must be considered before defin- ing areas that may be available for non-aviation development. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION REQUIREMENTS GENERAL ACCESS TO HILLSBORO AIRPORT The airport is surrounded by the arte- rials of NW Evergreen Road to the north, NE Cornell Road to the south, NE Brookwood Parkway to the east, and NE 25th Avenue to the west (see 4-45 Exhibit 1B- Existing Airfield Facili- ties). Cornell Road is a 5-lane arterial (Washington County data for 2003 show a daily traffic count of 29,273 vehicles west of NW 231st Avenue) with stoplights, bike lanes, sidewalks and curbs in the vicinity of the Air- port. Evergreen Road, from 25th to Brook- wood Parkway, is 2-3 lanes, with new pavement, paved median, curbs, side- walks and bike lanes. Brookwood Parkway is in good condi- tion, with 4 lanes, curbs and side- walks. 25th Avenue 2 lanes in good condition, with the majority of this street con- taining curbs and sidewalks. The northern portion of this street does not include any curbs, sidewalks or bike lanes. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that describes a range of op- erational conditions on a roadway, in- cluding: speed and travel time, free- dom to maneuver, traffic interrup- tions, comfort and convenience. LOS A represents the best conditions, with free flow and very low delay or conges- tion. LOS F represents the worst op- eration condition with significant de- lays. The Washington County 2020 Trans- portation Plan (Plan) 2002, shows an existing LOS for all Hillsboro Airport surrounding roads of “C” or better. However, this same Plan advises that without implementation of the docu- ment’s recommended transportation improvements, the LOS for Cornell Road will drop to “D” or “E”. A major concern to the Airport should be the intersection of Cornell and 25th, which in 1999 had a LOS of “D”. (Refer to Exhibit 4H, Intersection at LOS E or F.) One of the goals of the Hillsboro Transportation System Plan is to pro- vide for an efficient transportation system that manages congestion. This is consistent with regional goals. To this end, the Washington County 2020 Plan identifies system capacity im- provements that will aid in easing congestion. STREET SEGMENT IMPROVEMENTS The major street segments providing access to the airport could require im- provements during the planning pe- riod in order to accommodate antici- pated traffic growth. An examination of the current City of Hillsboro Trans- portation System Plan indicated pro- grammed improvements. The System Plan was supplemented with informa- tion on what improvements have al- ready been completed. The following list of current facility and improve- ments to be constructed including automobiles, buses, bicycles and pe- destrians. (Refer to Exhibit 4J, Pe- destrian Action Plan, Exhibit 4K, Bi- cycle Action Plan, and Exhibit 4L, Street Improvement Plan.) 4-46 Brookwood Parkway (Evergreen Road to Butler Road) Auto: 5 Lanes, No further improve- ment planned Bus: No Current Service Bicycle: Multi-use Path, No further improvement planned Pedestrian: Multi-use Path, No fur- ther improvement planned Brookwood Parkway (Butler Road to Cornell Road) Auto: 5 Lanes, No further improve- ment planned Bus: No Current Service Bicycle: Multi-use Path, Bike Lanes to be built with roadway im- provement projects Pedestrian: Multi-use Path, Sidewalks to be built with roadway im- provement projects Evergreen Road (Brookwood Park- way/Shute Road to 25th Avenue) Auto: 3/5 Lanes, Widening to 5 lanes throughout Bus: No Current Service Bicycle: Existing/Proposed Bike Lanes (proposed bike lanes to be built with roadway im- provement projects) Pedestrian: Proposed/Existing Side- walks to be built with road- way improvement projects 25th Avenue (Evergreen Road to Cor- nell Road) Auto: 2/3 Lane, No further improve- ment planned Bus: Currently serviced by TRIMET Bus #46 Bicycle: Existing/Proposed Bike Lanes (proposed bike lanes to be built) Pedestrian: Existing Sidewalks, No further improvement planned Cornell Road (25th Avenue to Brook- wood Parkway) Auto: 5 Lanes, No further improve- ment planned Bus: Currently serviced by TRIMET Bus #48 Bicycle: Existing Bike Lanes, No fur- ther improvement planned Pedestrian: Existing Sidewalks, No further improvement planned Proposed Airport Road Realignment (Evergreen Road to Brookwood Park- way) Auto: Planned 3 lane collector street Bus: None proposed Bicycle: Proposed Bike Lane/Path to be built with roadway re- alignment Pedestrian: Proposed Sidewalks to be built with roadway realign- ment INTERSECTIONS IMPROVEMENTS Each of the major intersections around the airport will require improvements during the planning period in order to accommodate anticipated traffic growth and changing traffic patterns. An examination of the current City of 03 M P 0 1 - 4 H - 5 / 9 / 0 5 Exhibit 4H STUDY INTERSECTIONS AT LOS E OR F 2015 WITHOUT MITIGATION PORT OF PORTLAND SOURCE: DKS Associates NORTH NOT TO SCALE 03 M P 0 1 - 4 J - 5 / 9 / 0 5 Exhibit 4J PEDESTRIAN ACTION PLAN PORT OF PORTLAND SOURCE: DKS Associates NORTH NOT TO SCALE 03 M P 0 1 - 4 K - 5 / 9 / 0 5 Exhibit 4K BICYCLE ACTION PLAN PORT OF PORTLAND SOURCE: DKS Associates NORTH NOT TO SCALE 03 M P 0 1 - 4 L - 5 / 9 / 0 5 Exhibit 4L STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN PORT OF PORTLAND SOURCE: DKS Associates NORTH NOT TO SCALE 4-47 Hillsboro Transportation System Plan indicated the programmed improve- ments. This examination was sup- plemented with information on what improvements have been completed, yielding the following list of improve- ments to be constructed. (Refer to Ex- hibit 4M, Intersection Improvement Locations.) Brookwood Parkway/Evergreen Road, #14 – No further improvement planned Evergreen Road/25th Avenue, #13 – No further improvement planned 25th Avenue/ Cornell Road, #22 - Im- prove Intersection/Signal with the ad- dition of second NB and SB left turn lanes, SB right turn lane Cornell Road/ Brookwood Parkway, #23 - Improve Intersection/Signal with addition of second EB and WB turn lanes Cornell Road/34th Avenue, main ter- minal entrance- No improvement identified, however improvements may be necessary based on terminal parking requirements identified in the alternative chapter Proposed Airport Road Realign- ment/Brookwood Parkway – Improve Intersection by installing new signal Airport Road/ Brookwood Parkway – No further improvement planned Improvements and/or realignment of several streets and intersections may be necessary based on the require- ments outlines in the alternatives chapter. Refinement at the facility re- quirements will be made in that chap- ter as necessary. DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS Hillsboro Airport comprises approxi- mately 900 acres. The majority of the site is bordered on the south by NE Cornell Road, on the east by NW Brookwood Parkway, on the north by NW Evergreen Street and on the west by NE 25th and NE 272nd and is consid- ered the current developed portion of the airport. The total airport area that contributes storm water runoff to the storm water system is approximately 540 acres. Approximately 200 acres of that is considered impervious because it is paved or occupied by building. The impervious surface consists of two runways, numerous taxiways, aircraft parking aprons, hangars, a terminal building, tenants parking and vehicle parking areas. The Port and 13 of its tenants are co- permittees on a Department of Envi- ronmental Quality (DEQ) Storm Wa- ter Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP). The primary activity at Hillsboro air- port includes aircraft storage, parking, fueling and maintenance. A number of co-permittees own and operate storage tanks (above ground, underground and mobile) for aviation fuel and other petroleum products such as used oil. A number of co-permittees have in- stalled washing facilities that dis- charge to the sanitary system for the washing of aircraft. There are two rental car companies with limited op- 4-48 erations on the property. Other ten- ants have office space with no outdoor activities. Port activities include pavement maintenance, pesticide application, mowing, vehicle and equipment main- tenance and fueling and building maintenance. Tenant activities in- clude aircraft and associated equip- ment storage, maintenance, washing and fueling. Site storm water is collected through a drainage system that is owned by the Port or the City of Hillsboro and oper- ated by the City of Hillsboro. Storm water at Hillsboro Airport is currently discharged from six outfalls corre- sponding to drainage areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Each drainage area is shown on Exhibit 4N and Exhibit 4P. The airport lies on high ground be- tween two watersheds. McKay Creek drains the northerly and westerly por- tions of the site. Dawson Creek serves the southern and eastern portions of the site. Both creeks are part of the Tualatin watershed. The DEQ is establishing total maxi- mum daily loads (TMDLs) on waters of the state that have been designated water quality limited. Dawson and McKay Creek discharge into the Tu- alatin River which is designated water quality limited by DEQ. The existing storm water collection system at Hillsboro Airport consists of pavement underdrains, storm sewer piping, catch basins, field inlets, man- holes, grass lined swales and out fall structures. Facility Requirements As new facilities, pavement and build- ings are constructed by the Port or its tenants, handling of storm water is considered a major part of that devel- opment. The new features as described earlier in this chapter include a new runway, associated taxiways, aircraft parking, aprons, hangars, tenant buildings, ve- hicle parking and new roadways. These new facilities will create addi- tional acres of impervious surface that will contribute to storm water runoff and water quality. The new drainage features required to meet this demand will be similar to the type of system that exists at the airport, including underground con- veyance with storm pipes, overland flow with grass lined swales to be col- lected by catch basins and inlets with outfalls to Dawson Creek/McKay Creek and the City system. The new development areas will also be re- quired to comply with the water qual- ity regulations as outlined in the cur- rent Storm Water Pollution Control Plan. SUMMARY The intent of this chapter has been to outline the facilities required to meet 03 M P 0 1 - 4 M - 5 / 9 / 0 5 Exhibit 4M INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS PORT OF PORTLAND SOURCE: DKS Associates NORTH NOT TO SCALE 03 M P 0 1 - 4 N - 5 / 9 / 0 5 Exhibit 4N STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL MAP PORT OF PORTLAND NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: DKS Associates REVISED: JULY 2002 03 M P 0 1 - 4 P - 5 / 9 / 0 5 Exhibit 4P STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL MAP PORT OF PORTLAND SOURCE: DKS Associates REVISED: JULY 2002 NORTH NOT TO SCALE 4-49 potential aviation demands projected for Hillsboro Airport through the Long Term Planning Horizon. The next step is to develop a direction for devel- opment to best meet these projected needs. The remainder of the Master Plan will be devoted to outlining this direction, its schedule, and costs. Chapter Five AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES PORT OF PORTLAND 5-1 CHAPTER FIVE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES PORT OF PORTLAND Prior to defining the recommended development program for Hillsboro Airport, it is important to consider development potential and constraints at the airport. The purpose of this chapter is to consider the actual physical facilities which are needed to accommodate projected demand and meet the program requirements as defined in Chapter Four, Aviation Facility Requirements. In this chapter, a number of airport development alternatives are considered for the airport. For each alternative, different physical facility layouts are presented for the purposes of evaluation. The ultimate goal is to develop the underlying rationale which supports the final recommended master plan development concept. Through this process, an evaluation of the highest and best uses of airport property is made while considering local development goals, physical and environmental constraints, and appropriate federal airport design standards. Any development proposed by a Master Plan evolves from an analysis of projected needs. Though the needs were determined by the best methodology available, it cannot be assumed that future events will not change these needs. Therefore, to ensure flexibility in planning and development to respond to unforeseen needs, some of the landside alternatives consider the maximum development potential of airport property. 5-2 The alternatives presented in this chapter have been developed to meet the overall program objectives for the airport in a balanced manner. Through coordination with the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), the public, and the Port of Portland (Port), the alternatives (or combination thereof) will be refined and modified as neces- sary to develop the recommended de- velopment concept. Therefore, the al- ternatives presented in this chapter can be considered a beginning point in the development of the recommended concept for the future development of Hillsboro Airport (see Chapter Six). Input from the general public and members of the PAC will be necessary to define this concept and the resul- tant capital improvement program (see Chapter Seven). NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE In analyzing and comparing the ad- vantages and disadvantages of various development alternatives, it is impor- tant to consider the consequences of no future development at Hillsboro Air- port (HIO). The “no-build” or "do- nothing" alternative essentially con- siders keeping the airport in its pre- sent condition and not providing for any type of expansion or improvement to the existing facilities (other than general airfield and terminal building maintenance projects, tenant-defined projects and any other miscellaneous projects beyond the Port’s purview and control). The primary result of this alternative, as with any growing air transportation market, would be the eventual inability of the airport to sat- isfy the increasing demands of the airport service area. The growth of activity at Hillsboro Airport is par- tially a function of the growing econ- omy and population of Washington County and the general aviation in- dustry. The general aviation industry has ex- perienced extended periods of decline and growth over the last 20 years. However, general aviation is now seen as a growth industry once more. While overall, general aviation growth will be slow nationally, the demand for higher performance aircraft is experi- encing the strongest rate of growth. With heightened interest in commer- cial aviation security, corporate gen- eral aviation could expect demand for private aircraft to grow even more. Although some restrictions (i.e., Transportation Security Administra- tion [TSA] rulemaking) may work to counter-balance some of this growth, Hillsboro Airport’s role as a strategi- cally located airport requires that it be in a position to respond to anticipated demands for improved facilities. The analysis of facility needs indicated long-term needs for airfield, aircraft storage, terminal, and access needs resulting from existing demand and projected demand. Continual air traf- fic growth and changes to the mix of aircraft operating at the airport are placing increased demands on the air- field and changes in aircraft storage hangar, apron, and taxiway needs. Some of the newer-generation busi- ness jets require larger hangars for storage and larger apron areas to ma- neuver. The increased use of Hillsboro Airport by larger business jets and the continued level of pilot training activi- ties have caused the airport to reach 5-3 its annual service volume, causing in- creasing levels of delay to aircraft op- erators. Faced with continual growth in air traffic activity, the runway system would not be able to efficiently ac- commodate air traffic, and delays would increase. Following the no- build alternative would not allow for incremental airfield capacity im- provements such as adding exit taxi- ways to reduce runway occupancy times. Following the no-build alterna- tive would not allow for improvements which are needed to meet new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards for runway centerline to taxiway centerline separation dis- tances and object clearing standards. Following the no-build alternative would not support the private busi- nesses that have made considerable investments at Hillsboro Airport. As these businesses grow, the airport will need to be able to accommodate the infrastructure needs of new hangars, expanded apron, and automobile park- ing needs. Each of the businesses on the field, provide jobs for local resi- dents, interject economic revenues into the community, and pay taxes for local government operations. Even if the no-build alternative is cho- sen, the airport would still need to be maintained in a safe condition. This would require continual maintenance to paved areas and even replacement over time. As a federally-funded air- port, the Port is obligated to maintain the federal investment made in the airport. Table 5A estimates the costs to maintain existing pavements at the airport over the next 20 years. This includes a variety of preventative maintenance projects such as seal coating and crack sealing as well as more extensive pavement overlays. These costs do not reflect tenant- initiated maintenance projects. TABLE 5A No-Build Alternative Cost Summary Period Total Cost 1 - 5 Years $8,668,000 5 - 10 Years $13,825,000 10 - 15 Years $4,334,000 15 - 20 Years $21,254,000 Total $48,081,000 Source: W&H Pacific Analysis The Port is charged with the responsi- bility of developing aviation facilities necessary to accommodate aviation demand and to minimize operational constraints. Flexibility must be pro- grammed into airport development to assure adequate capacity should mar- ket conditions change unexpectedly. While these objectives may not be all- inclusive, they should provide a point of reference in the alternatives evalua- tion process. In essence, the no-build alternative is inconsistent with the long-term goals of the Oregon Department of Aviation, and the FAA, which are to enhance local and interstate commerce. This alternative, if pursued, would affect the long-term viability of the airport and its services to the City of Hillsboro and the Portland Metropolitan Area. 5-4 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS The issues to be considered in this analysis are summarized on Exhibit 5A. The issues are summarized by functional category - airfield and land- side. These issues are the result of the findings of the Aviation Demand Fore- casts and Aviation Facility Require- ments evaluations, and include input from the PAC and Port staff. AIRFIELD ISSUES Airfield Capacity The need to increase airfield capacity was a primary finding of the aviation facility requirements analysis. As de- tailed in Chapter Four, Hillsboro Air- port is currently operating at 107 per- cent of its annual service volume (ASV). This imposes an average de- lay per aircraft operation (either a takeoff or a landing) of approximately 1.9 minutes. Without the implemen- tation of airfield capacity improve- ments, this delay can be expected to increase to 6.7 minutes on average per aircraft operation (assuming the Long Term Planning Horizon level of annual operations). Three potential methods of improving airfield capacity were analyzed: add- ing radar coverage, adding exit taxi- ways, and constructing a parallel runway for small (less than 12,500 pound) aircraft. Adding radar cover- age would improve capacity during poor visibility and cloud ceiling condi- tions, and improve instrument depar- tures delays. However, this has lim- ited impact on overall annual airfield capacity, adding approximately 1,000 operations to the airport’s calculated annual service volume. While its im- pact is only limited on annual service volume, improved radar coverage will reduce controller workload, expedite instrument departures, and allow the ability to track aircraft operations near the airport. While some instru- ment departure delays will be reduced by adding radar coverage, instrument departures will still need to be se- quenced with PDX aircraft. Depend- ing on overall air traffic in the region, some delays may still occur for in- strument departures. The FAA has responsibility for implementing this improvement. Therefore, this im- provement will not be analyzed within this chapter. The capacity analysis revealed that there are not sufficient exit taxiways on Runway 30. A total of four exit taxiways between 2,000 and 4,000 feet from the Runway 30 threshold are needed to maximize capacity on that runway. The alternatives to follow will consider both acute-angled and right-angled exit taxiways. The pri- mary advantage of acute-angled exit taxiways is that they allow aircraft to exit a runway at higher speeds com- pared to right-angled exit taxiways. Taxiway A5 is an existing acute- angled taxiway. Since Runway 30 is used over 90 percent of the time, exit taxiway improvements are primarily needed for this runway. While adding exit taxiways and im- proving radar coverage would improve airfield capacity by as many as 10,000 03 M P0 1- 5A -1 1/ 10 /0 4 Exhibit 5A DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Additional exit taxiways to Runway 12-30 to reduce delay A parallel runway for exclusive use by small general aviation aircraft to reduce delay A 151-foot extension to Runway 2-20 to meet recommended design length A partial (or full) parallel taxiway east of Runway 12-30 to reduce runway crossings Extend Taxiway B to the Runway 2 end for efficiency Realign Runway 2 entrance taxiways for improved pilot visibility Relocate Taxiway AA 122 feet east to allow for increased apron area Relocate Taxiway C 40 feet north to meet design standards A compass calibration pad for aircraft maintenance 44 new T-hangars to meet projected demand An additional 158,400 square feet of corporate hangar space to meet projected demand An additional 49,000 square feet of Fixed Base Operator (FBO) hangar space to meet projected demand An additional 23 tiedowns and 32,400 square yards of apron area for aircraft tiedown Public terminal building for aviation users A transient helipad and two helicopter hardstands on main apron to segregate helicopter and fixed wing aircraft Clear objects in the Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) Identify potential revenue support parcels Consider vehicle, pedestrian, and public transit access needs AIRFIELD CONSIDERATIONS LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS PORT OF PORTLAND 5-5 annual operations, these improve- ments would not significantly reduce delay, especially if operational levels were to grow as forecast through the Year 2025. The capacity analysis con- firmed previous planning efforts from the 1990 and 1996 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan updates and concluded that a runway for use by small general aviation aircraft exclusively is the best method available for reducing delays. The proposed parallel runway (Run- way 12L/30R) is considered in each of the three airfield alternatives to fol- low. The proposed parallel runway would be aligned east of Runway 12- 30, on land the Port has been acquir- ing primarily for this purpose since completion of the 1996 Master Plan Update. Runway 2-20 Extension A 151-foot extension of Runway 2-20 is considered in the alternatives analy- sis. This extension would bring Run- way 2-20 up to 4,200 feet as recom- mended by the FAA for aircraft types expected to utilize this runway. Three alternatives can be considered for the runway extension: place the entire ex- tension on the Runway 20 end, place the entire extension on the Runway 2 end, or split the extension between each end. Since land is available for the entire 151-foot extension to be ac- commodated at either runway end, it is neither necessary nor practical to consider splitting the extension. Taxiways Several taxiway improvements are considered. This includes extending Taxiway B to the southwest to the Runway 2 end. Presently, Runway 2- 20 is not served by a full-length paral- lel taxiway. Full-length parallel taxi- ways reduce taxi times and the poten- tial for pilot disorientation on the air- field. Presently, reaching the Runway 2 end from areas south of Runway 2- 20 requires using a taxiway which ex- tends through aircraft parking areas near the main terminal building. This taxiway bisects aircraft parking areas and reduces available parking area on the apron. Extending Taxiway B to the Runway 2 end would eliminate the need for this taxiway and give pilots a direct taxi route to the Runway 2 end. The Runway 2 entrance taxiway is recommended to be reconfigured at a right angle to the Runway 2 end. This is the preferred method for intersect- ing the runway as it allows the pilot to have a better view of both the ap- proach area and departure area. Taxiway C is planned to be relocated 40 feet north to meet current FAA runway centerline to taxiway center- line separation distances. Presently, the location of Taxiway C obstructs the Runway 2-20 obstacle free zone (OFZ). Relocating Taxiway C will re- quire closing Taxiway CC because once relocated, Taxiway C would be located too close to Taxiway CC for simultaneous use. The extension of Taxiway C to the Runway 20 end is also considered. Extending Taxiway C to the Runway 20 end not only pro- vides a connection to the future paral- lel runway, but also eliminates a re- quired runway crossing for aircraft lo- cated north of Runway 2-20 that are trying to reach either the Runway 2 or Runway 20 end. 5-6 Taxiway AA is presently located 274 feet from Taxiway A. FAA design standards allow this taxiway to be lo- cated as close as 152 feet from Taxi- way A. The relocation of Taxiway AA is considered as a means to increase apron area in the northwest quadrant of the airport, and perhaps extend taxiway access to Taxiway A3. A parallel taxiway access east of Run- way 12-30 is considered to reduce the number of potential runway crossings for aircraft attempting to reach the Runway 12 or Runway 30 end from areas east of Runway 12-30. Aircraft Noise Analysis To distinguish the changes in the overall noise environment caused by the proposed changes to the airfield configuration, new noise exposure con- tours were prepared for each of the three airside alternatives. These noise contours were based upon the Long Term Planning Horizon projection of airfield activity and aircraft mix as presented previously in Chapter Three, Aviation Demand Forecasts. Similar to the calculation of existing noise exposure contours presented in Chapter One, Section Four, this task involved use of the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) version 6.1. Table 5B summarizes the annual operations by aircraft type used in calculating the noise exposure contours used in this analysis. TABLE 5B Noise Model Input: Aircraft Operations Day Night Aircraft Type INM Aircraft Local Itinerant Subtotal Local Itinerant Subtotal Total Single Engine – Fixed Propeller GASEPF 90,994 76,404 167,398 2,292 719 3,011 170,409 Single Engine – Variable Propeller GASEPV 10,171 13,317 23,488 255 127 381 23,869 Multi-Engine Piston BEC58P 2,906 7,667 10,753 101 107 208 10,781 Turboprop HS748A 0 452 452 0 14 14 12,985 CNA441 4,541 7,175 11,716 126 14 140 11,856 DHC6 0 444 444 0 219 219 663 Turbojet LEAR25 0 1,150 1,150 0 40 40 1,191 GIIB 0 92 92 0 3 3 95 LEAR35 726 3,818 4,544 101 134 235 4,780 CL600 0 9,415 9,415 0 332 332 9,747 GIV 0 859 859 0 30 30 889 RP (Helicopter Piston) H500D 71,560 11,165 82,725 201 427 328 83,353 RT (Helicopter Turbine) B206 1,326 3,456 4,782 0 120 120 4,903 Total 182,224 135,414 317,638 3,076 2,286 5,362 323,000 Source: Coffman Associates Analysis 5-7 Table 5C summarizes runway use as- sumptions used for this noise model- ing analysis. The proposed parallel runway (Runway 12L-30R) is assumed to serve the majority of small aircraft operations in all alternatives ana- lyzed. The Runway 12L-30R traffic pattern is assumed to be located east of the runway. TABLE 5C Runway Use Percentages Runways Existing Proposed Aircraft 2 20 12R 30L 12L 30R Total Itinerant Operations SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 3% 1% 3% 29% 4% 60% 100% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 3% 1% 3% 29% 4% 60% 100% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 3% 2% 9% 37% 9% 40% 100% TP (Turboprop) 3% 0% 27% 70% 0% 0% 100% J (Turbojet) 1% 0% 24% 75% 0% 0% 100% RP (Helicopter Piston) 5% 26% 2% 32% 3% 32% 100% RT (Helicopter Turbine) 5% 26% 2% 32% 3% 32% 100% Local Operations SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 5% 1% 1% 32% 1% 60% 100% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 5% 1% 1% 32% 1% 60% 100% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 0% 0% 20% 30% 20% 30% 100% TP (Turboprop) 0% 0% 40% 60% 0% 0% 100% J (Turbojet) 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% Source: Coffman Associates Analysis Note: Helicopter usage assumptions are summarized in Table 5D. Helicopter training is currently con- ducted in the Alpha, Bravo, and Char- lie patterns. The Charlie Pattern be- came operational in October 2004. Current operational procedures only allow four helicopters training at any time with only two of the three train- ing patterns activated at any given time. The ultimate goal is to put three of the four helicopters in the Charlie Pattern. If a fourth helicopter is in use, it would default to the either the Alpha or Bravo Pattern, depending on wind conditions. This analysis assumes all three exist- ing helicopter patterns would remain in the future. The Charlie Pattern would remain as the predominate pat- tern, accommodating 71 percent of all helicopter training. The Bravo Pat- tern would only be used when Runway 2-20 is in use, since the Bravo Pattern would be located under the proposed Runway 30R final approach path. Table 5D specifies the percentage use of each pattern as derived from the aircraft observation program. TABLE 5D Helicopter Pattern Use Pattern A Pattern B Pattern C 23% 6% 71% Source: Coffman Associates Analysis 5-8 For comparative purposes, the base- line contour from Chapter One will be shown on all exhibits depicting the fu- ture noise exposure contours. LANDSIDE ISSUES While the airfield is comprised of fa- cilities where aircraft movement oc- curs – runways, taxiways, ramps – other “landside” functions occur out- side of this area. The primary general aviation functions to be accommodated landside at Hillsboro Airport include public terminal facilities, aircraft storage hangars, aircraft parking aprons, commercial general aviation hangars, and automobile parking and access. The interrelationship of these functions is important to defining a long-range landside layout for general aviation uses at the airport. Runway frontage should be reserved for those uses with a high level of airfield inter- face, or need of exposure. Other uses with lower levels of aircraft move- ments or little need for runway expo- sure can be planned in more isolated locations. The following briefly de- scribes proposed landside facility im- provements. Public Terminal Facilities While a public terminal building is not specifically required at a general avia- tion airport, a public terminal pro- vides some benefits. It provides a cen- tral gathering point for air travelers. A terminal building can provide a pi- lots’ lounge and flight planning area. A terminal building commonly houses a restaurant which is an attractive quality for an airport. Terminal build- ings can provide leaseable space for aviation-related businesses desiring to be located on an airport. The existing terminal building at Hillsboro Airport is somewhat under- utilized. Most of the second floor is vacant (including the previous restau- rant space), while the ground floor is occupied mostly for the private air- shuttle operation and supporting rental car services. While being a compatible use of the terminal build- ing, the private air shuttle service uses almost all available aircraft park- ing capacity due to the size and num- ber of the aircraft used in the air shut- tle service. The regional passenger jets and turboprop aircraft used in the air shuttle service require nearly the entire terminal apron for parking. This has resulted in the relocation of general aviation aircraft parking to the remote transient apron or use of existing FBO facilities. In addition, the users of the private shuttle opera- tion occupy nearly all of the terminal building’s vehicle automobile parking spaces on a daily basis. This creates a heavy vehicle traffic burden in this area, which is constrained by existing hangar facilities and Cornell Road for expansion potential. Ultimately, a terminal building at Hillsboro Airport may be desirable to serve several potential functions such as: airport concessions (i.e., a restau- rant, rental cars, etc.), providing space for flight planning and a pilots’ lounge, serving the private shuttle operation, concession operators, and accommo- dating scheduled airline service. As discussed in Chapter Two, scheduled 5-9 airline service can occur at Hillsboro Airport with aircraft with nine or less passenger seats. This service could be handled in a public terminal building where adequate space can be provided for ticketing, baggage claim, and boarding areas. Considering these many potential uses, the landside al- ternatives maintain a public terminal building site at Hillsboro Airport. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5360-13, Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport Terminal Facilities, identifies a number of basic considerations that affect the location of a terminal build- ing. The primary considerations in- clude the following: 1. Runway configuration: The terminal should be located to minimize aircraft taxiing dis- tances and times and the number of runway crossings. The existing terminal site is located adjacent to Taxiway A. The Runway 30 end can be accessed without crossing a runway. The Runway 12 end only requires crossing Runway 2-20. 2. Access to transportation net- work: The terminal should be located to provide the most di- rect/shortest routing to the re- gional roadway network. The ex- isting terminal is located along Cornell Road, a major arterial road. A MAX light rail station is located less than one-half mile from the terminal, south of Cor- nell Road. 3. Expansion potential: The long term viability of the terminal is dependent upon the ability of the site to accommodate expansion of the terminal beyond forecast re- quirements. The configuration of the existing terminal site pre- vents any meaningful expansion. The expansion of the apron area is limited by a taxiway extending through the apron and existing FBO leaseholds to the east and west. Expansion of the parking area is limited by the location of Cornell Road to the south and the existing leaseholds also to the east and west. Therefore, one of the best means available for meeting this need is redevelop- ment of the existing terminal area, including possible expan- sions resulting from a relocation of Cornell Road. A realignment of Cornell Road is not presently in- cluded in the city, county or re- gional transportation plans. Plan amendments would need to be ob- tained, and a commitment of funds from various sources would be required to move forward. 4. FAA Geometric Design Stan- dards: The terminal location needs to assure adequate dis- tance from present and future aircraft operational areas. The existing terminal site does not impact any FAA design stan- dards. With the exception of expansion po- tential, the existing terminal site meets the general recommendations of the FAA, utilizing this criterion. Therefore, the terminal building should stay in the same general area along Cornell Road. The alternatives 5-10 analysis will examine different rede- velopment scenarios which can pro- vide for expansion potential, particu- larly for the parking and access. Commercial General Aviation Activities This essentially relates to providing areas for the development of facilities associated with aviation businesses that require airfield access. This in- cludes businesses involved with (but not limited to) aircraft rental and flight training, aircraft charters, air- craft maintenance, line service, and aircraft fueling. These types of opera- tors are commonly referred to as Fixed Based Operators (FBOs). High levels of activity characterize businesses such as these, with a need for apron space for the storage and circulation of aircraft. These facilities are best placed along ample apron frontage with good visibility from the runway system for transient aircraft. The fa- cilities commonly associated with businesses such as these include large conventional type hangars that hold several aircraft. Utility services are needed for these types of facilities, as well as automobile parking areas. Planning for commercial general avia- tion activities is important for this Master Plan. The mix of aircraft us- ing Hillsboro Airport has changed re- cently to include some business class aircraft which have larger wingspans than the mix of aircraft using the air- port in the past. These larger aircraft which have wingspans in approaching 100 feet require greater separation distance between facilities, larger apron areas for parking and circula- tion, and larger hangar facilities. The existing areas dedicated to com- mercial general aviation activity lack sufficient area to accommodate these aircraft. The FBO facilities near the terminal building are restricted by the location of Cornell Road, the location of the terminal building and terminal apron, a taxilane extending between the Runway 30 end and Runway 2 end, and building height restrictions protecting operations on Runway 2-20 and Runway 12-30. The FBO facilities located west of Runway 12-30 along Taxiway AA are severely restricted by N.E. 25th Avenue and FAA design standard restrictions. While there is one parcel of land avail- able for development in this area, this parcel is leased for an ultimate hangar facility. Apron expansion is limited in this area. While the apron can be lo- cated as close as 500 feet from Run- way 12-30, the present location of Taxiway AA prevents apron expansion to the east. Height restriction limits protecting the Runway 12-30 aircraft operational areas determine how close an aircraft can park to the runway in this area. Aircraft with tall tail heights must remain further from the runway and cannot park within 500 feet of the runway centerline. Aircraft with tail heights at 20 feet or above (e.g., Falcon series of aircraft) must remain at least 640 feet from the Runway 12-30 centerline. Aircraft with tail heights in excess of 26 feet (e.g., Gulfstream IV) must remain at least 682 feet from the Runway 12-30 centerline. 5-11 Small Aircraft Storage Hangars The facility requirements analysis in- dicated a need for the development of small general aviation aircraft storage hangars. This primarily involves ad- ditional T-hangars but may also in- clude some clearspan hangars for ac- commodating several aircraft simulta- neously. Since storage hangars often have lower levels of activity, these types of facilities should be located away from the primary apron areas which should be reserved for commer- cial general aviation activity and can be located in more remote locations of the airport. Since most of the aircraft owners want to access their aircraft directly and park their vehicle in their hangars when they are gone, these fa- cilities do not have a requirement for large parking areas. Limited utility services are needed for these areas. Typically, this involves water, sani- tary sewer and electricity. Corporate Hangar Areas This includes areas for large hangar development. Typically, these types of hangars are used by corporations with company-owned aircraft. Since large business jets utilize these areas, the minimum parcel size must be at least one acre, and up to two-acre parcels are commonly requested. Corporate hangar areas require all utilities and segregated roadway access. Taxiway F is presently reserved for corporate hangar development at Hillsboro Air- port. Transient Helicopters A helipad and helicopter parking area should be considered. There is cur- rently no designated helipad, and heli- copters must use apron areas typically designed for use by fixed-wing aircraft. Fixed-wing aircraft and rotary aircraft should be segregated to the extent practical. Public Access Public vehicle access and parking at the airport is a primary concern in the planning process. The lack of avail- able automobile parking is a concern for many areas of the airport. Increas- ing automobile parking areas will be a goal of the planning process. Main- taining the terminal in close proximity to the MAX light station will also be a goal of the planning process. Automo- bile parking within near the terminal building and the aviation service par- cels was determined using general planning parameters and not is based on a detailed parking assessment. This is due to the fact that each exist- ing and future tenant at the airport has unique automobile parking needs. The number of parking spaces for any future development parcels will need to be revisited and fine-tuned as de- velopments are proposed and consid- ered to ensure the parking supply meets the need and to ensure approv- als by governing agencies responsible for such development approvals. Air- craft parking along future aircraft storage parcels will be a function of the number of spaces needed by the tenant and the configuration of the fa- cilities on the parcel. 5-12 Runway Visibility Zone The runway visibility zone (RVZ) is established by federal design stan- dards to provide a clear view of inter- secting runways for departing pilots. Buildings are not permitted in the RVZ. The existing RVZ is obstructed by a series of T-hangars and the air- port traffic control tower (ATCT). The alternatives analysis examines oppor- tunities to clear the RVZ over time. Compass Calibration Pad A compass calibration pad is used by pilots and maintenance technicians to align an aircraft on known magnetic headings for purposes of determining and correcting errors in the magnetic compass caused by equipment in- stalled in the aircraft. There is cur- rently no compass calibration pad at the airport. The alternatives will ex- amine potential locations for estab- lishing a compass calibration pad. ANALYSIS OF AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The purpose of this section is to iden- tify and evaluate various viable devel- opment alternatives at Hillsboro Air- port to meet program requirements set forth in Chapter Four. Airfield facili- ties are, by nature, the focal point of an airport complex. Because of their primary role and the fact that they physically dominate airport land use, airfield facility needs are often the most critical factor in the determina- tion of viable airport development al- ternatives. In particular, the runway system requires the greatest commit- ment of land area and defines mini- mum building set-back distances from the runways and object clearance standards. These criteria, depending upon the areas around the airport, must be defined first in order to en- sure that the fundamental needs of the airport are met. Therefore, air- field requirements will be considered prior to detailing land use develop- ment alternatives. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE A The proposed airside configuration of Development Alternative A is shown on Exhibit 5B. This alternative closely follows the 1996 Master Plan recommendations and incorporates the following: 1. Construction of a parallel runway to serve small general aviation aircraft exclusively, 800 feet east of Runway 12-30. The parallel runway would be identified as Runway 12L-30R. The existing Runway 12-30 would be known as Runway 12R-30L. 2. Extension of Taxiway B west of Taxiway A to the existing Runway 2 entrance taxiway. 3. Construction of a partial parallel taxiway east of Runway 12R-30L, between the Runway 30R end and Taxiway CC. PORT OF PORTLAND NORTH 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET N.E. 25th Ave. Brookwood Parkway Co rn el l R oa d 12L 30 R Exhibit 5B DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE A AIRSIDE 0 3 M P 0 1 - 5 B - 1 1 / 1 0 / 0 4 Ev er gr ee n Ro ad LEGEND Airport Property Line Ultimate Pavement Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Building to be Removed Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 39 0' 39 0' 49 5' 49 5' 225' 800' 300' 25' Existing Charlie Pad RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') C CC A1 A2 A3 A4 A4 A A A5 A5 AA A AA A6 A7 A A8B B Max Station Fairplex 500' 30 L 20 2 12R Proposed Runway 12L-30R (3,600' x 60') 5-13 4. Extension of Taxiway CC to the Runway 20 end. 5. A full-length parallel taxiway 300 feet east of Runway 12L-30R. This alternative meets some, but not all, of the program requirements of this Master Plan. This alternative does not relocate Taxiway C to meet Runway 2-20 OFZ standards; does not extend Runway 2-20 151 feet to 4,200 feet; nor does it realign the Runway 2 southern entrance taxiway to improve pilot visibility of the Runway 2 approach and departure paths. This alternative does not provide for any exit taxiways to Runway 12-30 as an intermediate means to improve airfield capacity before constructing the parallel runway. The object free area (OFA) behind the Runway 30R end is obstructed by a perimeter service road and Cornell Road. This alternative does not propose a means to clear the OFA as required by FAA design standards. Since Runway 12L-30R would extend over the existing Charlie Pattern landing sites, the Charlie Pattern would move to the eastern parallel taxiway, or to Runway 12L-30R itself. While this alternative does provide for a parallel runway for increased capacity, the location of runway protection zone (RPZ) associated with Runway 30R may be of concern. This RPZ crosses Runway 2-20, Taxiway B, and encompasses an existing T-hangar unit. FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, states that the function of the RPZ is “to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground” through owner control of the RPZ and main- taining the RPZ clear of incompatible objects. The T-hangar unit would be considered incompatible since it houses aircraft where pilots and visitors gather before flight. While FAA design standards do not specif- ically prohibit a runway or taxiway from extending through an RPZ, the FAA also desires that runways and taxiways be located outside the RPZ. Exhibit 5C depicts the noise exposure (Long Term Planning Horizon) contour for this alternative and the baseline contour. The 65, 60, and 55 DNL contours expand to the east due to the operation of Runway 12L-30R, Charlie Pattern helicopter operations, and an overall increase in the level of operations occurring at the airport. For ease of comparison and description, the landside descriptions are summarized into four separate quadrants of the airport: Northwest, Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast. Northwest Quadrant: includes the area west of Taxiway A and north of Taxiway C. Southwest Quadrant: includes the existing terminal area located west of Taxiway A and south of Runway 2-20. Southeast Quadrant: includes the area south of Taxiway B and east of the Runway 30 end. Northeast Quadrant: includes the area north of Runway 2-20 and east of the future parallel runway. 5-14 The proposed landside configuration of Development Alternative A is shown on Exhibit 5D. The primary concern in the northwest quadrant is clearing of the Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ). This alternative proposes to remove those objects currently protruding into the RVZ. The T-hangar unit obstructing the RVZ is proposed to be reduced in size and located outside the limits of the RVZ. The ATCT is proposed to be relocated. Two aircraft storage parcels would replace the area vacated by the ATCT, to take advantage of the taxiway frontage that the ATCT does not require. Six aircraft storage parcels would be located in a vacant area along the interior service road. Two additional T-hangar parcels are available east of the west apron. The undeveloped parcel of land north of Taxiway A4 is reserved for a future aircraft storage hangar. The compass calibration pad is proposed to be located near the Runway 12 run-up area. This location is near the existing engine main- tenance run-up area. This location was chosen, as the area between Taxiway A and N.E. 25th Avenue is not readily available for development. The building restriction line (BRL) extends along the airport boundary, so buildings cannot be developed in this area. For this reason, this area is currently part of an agricultural lease. The compass calibration pad would not garner daily use; therefore, it may be best located outside a main apron area which accommodates daily aircraft traffic. Aircraft engine power is used to orient the aircraft on the different primary headings on the compass rose. Therefore, the proximity to N.E. 25th Avenue should be considered. Propeller wash and jet exhaust may impact vehicles on this roadway. The maintenance run-up area has an earthen berm to reduce effects of propeller wash and jet exhaust on vehicles traveling on N.E. 25th Avenue. The location of the compass calibration pad is sensitive to the location of metallic objects which can interfere with the compass. Existing fencing and lighting in this area may interfere with the proposed compass calibration pad. This location would require further analysis. Two development options for the southwest quadrant area are shown on Exhibit 5D. Alternative A1 is shown directly on the exhibit, while Alternative A2 is shown on the inset. Alternative A1 proposes to develop future commercial aviation parcels along the BRL, parallel with each runway. This moves these facilities away from Cornell Road, which allows for increased vehicle parking and circulation, a significant disadvantage of the existing development in this area. Moving the commercial aviation buildings towards the BRL also allows for more effective use of the area between Taxiway A and Runway 2-20 for apron. A large portion of this area is largely unused now. Moving the buildings closer to the BRL allows for the new apron to be conveniently located next to the buildings. A parcel for the redevelopment of the terminal building is reserved in the center of the apron, with adjacent automobile parking. 03 M P0 1- 1I VE -2 /1 3/ 04 NORTH Exhibit 5C DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE A, NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS PORT OF PORTLAND 0 2,000 4,000 SCALE IN FEET Highway 26 NW Shute Road Evergreen Road Cornell Road Main Street Baseline Road Evergreen Road NE Jackson School Road LEGEND Airport Property Line Baseline DNL Noise Contours Alternative A DNL Noise Contours While this noise analysis indicates that the current noise exposure levels conform to land use compatibility guidelines established by the FAA and recognized by the Oregon DEQ, the Oregon DEQ has established the 55 DNL contour as the study boundary for planning and zoning measures for noise compatibility. 60 60 55 55 55 6565 70 75 Brookwood Parkway 03 M P 0 1 - 5 D - 1 1 / 1 0 / 0 4 N.E. 25th Ave. 12L 12R 30 R 30 l RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ev er gr ee n Ro ad RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') PR OP OSE D R UN WA Y 1 2L- 30R (3, 600 ' X 60' ) Co rn el l R oa d Auto Parking Gro up II W ing spa n A pro n Relocated ATCT Hangars to be Removed Compass Calibration Pad Existing ATCT Bro okw ood Pa rkw ay Replacement T-Hangar Terminal CCC A1 A2 A3 A4 A4 A5 A5 A6 A7 A A8 A AA A A B B Helicopter Hardstands PORT OF PORTLAND Exhibit 5D DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE A LANDSIDE NORTH 0 800 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airfield Pavement Ultimate Roads/Parking Pavement to be Removed Building to be Removed T-Hangar Parcel Aircraft Storage Parcel Aviation Services Parcel Potential Future Development Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') Auto Parking Gro up III W ing spa n A pro n Relocated ATCT CCC A5 A5 A6 A7 A A8 AA B Helicopter Hardstands Cornell Road Terminal TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVE A2 20 2 5-15 The primary disadvantage of Alter- native A1 is the size and depth of the apron. By locating the buildings as close as possible to the BRL, the apron is reduced to accommodating aircraft within only Airplane Design Group (ADG) II (wingspans to 79 feet). The critical design aircraft are aircraft in ADG III (wingspans to 118 feet). This alignment does allow for two revenue enhancement parcels to be developed along Cornell Road, as shown on Exhibit 5D. Alternative A2 proposes a similar configuration for this area. A terminal building parcel is retained in the center of the apron. In this alternative, the apron is developed to ADG III standards. The deeper apron pushes the commercial aviation parcels further from the building restriction line towards Cornell Road, which causes the automobile parking area to be much smaller than in Alterative A1. Whereas, Alternative A1 provided for approximately 500 vehicle parking spaces, Alternative A2 provides for only approximately 300 vehicle parking spaces. Alternative A1 provides for parking expansion potential. Neither alternative locates the terminal any closer to the MAX light rail station. This alternative maximizes the existing development patterns in the southeast quadrant. T-hangar parcels are reserved south of Taxiway B. A series of aircraft storage parcels are reserved along Taxiway F and along an easterly extension of Taxiway B. Vehicle access would be developed from existing intersections with Brookwood Parkway. Vehicle parking for the larger aircraft storage parcels is assumed to be developed privately by the lessee on the leasehold. Additional large aircraft storage hangars are proposed east of the Runway 30R end. Since this alter- native proposes a 300-foot separation distance between the parallel taxiway and Runway 12L-30R, large business jets could use this taxiway for access. An apron area supporting future commercial aviation development is shown at the Runway 12L end. Areas for potential future development are shown on this exhibit by a pink hatch. These are separated from the airport by existing roadways which prevent them from being used for aviation-related development. There- fore, these parcels have the potential to be used for commercial/industrial uses, after the necessary approval of the FAA. Table 5E summarizes the estimated development costs to implement Development Alternative A. These costs are in addition to the maintenance costs summarized earlier Table 5A. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE B The proposed airside configuration of Development Alternative B is shown on Exhibit 5E. In this alternative, the parallel runway remains 800 feet east of Runway 12-30, as shown in Development Alternative A, but it is shifted to the north closer to Evergreen Road in an effort to clear the RPZ associated with the proposed 5-16 Runway 30R end of potential pene- trations. The distance the runway can be shifted towards Evergreen Road is governed by a 20:1 approach surface which begins 200 feet behind the Runway 12L end. A minimum clearance of 15 feet is needed over Evergreen Road to allow for safe passage of vehicles traveling beneath an aircraft on final approach to Runway 12L. While shifting the runway north as close as possible to Evergreen Road moves the RPZ north of Taxiway B, the RPZ still extends over Runway 2-20 and the proposed Taxiway C extension. TABLE 5E Development Alternative A Cost Summary Airside Runway 12L-30R (12,500 SWL) $3,261,000 Taxiway B (95,000 DWL) 1,252,000 Taxiway D (95,000 DWL) 5,889,000 Taxiway C Extension (95,000 DWL) 2,536,000 Taxiway E North (95,000 DWL) 1,536,000 Taxiway E South (95,000 DWL) 2,606,000 Taxiway F (95,000 DWL) 627,000 Subtotal Airside $17,707,000 Landside Alternative A1 Airport Access Roads/ Auto Parking/Aprons/Taxilanes $30,138,000 Total All Development Alternative A1 $47,845,000 Landside Alternative A2 Airport Access Roads/ Auto Parking/Aprons/Taxilanes $35,233,000 Total All Development Alternative A2 $52,940,000 Source: W&H Pacific Analysis The east parallel taxiway for Runway 12L-30R is shown at a distance of 240 feet from the Runway 12L-30R centerline. This is the same distance as Taxiway B is now from Runway 2- 20, which serves as the landing spot for helicopters using the Bravo Pattern. This is the minimum separation distance that is needed to allow for helicopter operations to this runway. Since Runway 12L-30R would extend over the existing Charlie Pattern landing sites, the Charlie Pattern would need to move to this parallel taxiway, or to Runway 12L- 30R itself. A full-length parallel taxiway is shown east of Runway 12-30. Coupled with the extension of Taxiway C to the Runway 20 end and the east parallel taxiway to Runway 12L-30R, no aircraft would be required to cross more than one runway to reach any runway end. Of concern with the placement of this taxiway is the location of the glideslope critical area at the Runway 12 end. No aircraft would be able to enter this critical area while the ILS is in operation. Additional aircraft control is required when a taxiway intersects the glideslope critical area. In this alternative, Taxiway B is extended to the Runway 2 end and the southern Runway 2 entrance taxiway is realigned perpendicular to the Runway 2-20 centerline. Three new acute-angled exit taxiways are shown for Runway 30. These taxiways allow aircraft to exit the runway at higher rates of speed compared to right- angled exits. Taxiway AA is relocated 122 feet east and extended to Taxiway A3. The PORT OF PORTLAND N.E. 25th Ave. Max Station Fairplex Brookwood Parkway Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Exhibit 5E DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE B AIRSIDE 0 3 M P 0 1 - 5 E - 1 1 / 1 0 / 0 4 Co rn el l R oa d Re lo ca te d Co rn el l R oa d RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') 24 0' 24 0' 39 0' 35 ' 39 0' 4 95 ' 49 5' 800' 400' 400' 400' 240' Existing Charlie Pad 35' 50' C CC A1 A2 A3 A4 A4 A5 A5 A6 A7 A A8 AA A AA A A B B RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ultimate (4,200' x 100') 386' 15 1' Ex te ns ion 23 5' Sh ift 12R 30 l NORTH 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Potential Property Aquisition Ultimate Pavement Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Building to be Removed Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Proposed Runway 12L-30R (3,600' x 60') 5-17 present activity in this area causes congestion along Taxiway A4 and the apron taxilane located between Taxiway A3 and Taxiway A4. The additional intersection with Taxiway A3 would relieve some of this congestion. While the relocated taxiway would relieve access and egress congestion in this area, a portion of the automobile parking area along N.E. 25th Avenue would be located within the relocated Taxiway AA OFA which extends 93 feet from the relocated taxiway centerline. A reconfiguration of the parking lot would be required to ensure wingtip clearance for taxiing aircraft. Rather than remove the obstructions to the RVZ as shown in Development Alternative A, this alternative proposes to shift or relocate the Run- way 2 end 235 feet east, thereby shifting the RVZ away from the T- hangar and ATCT. To ensure that existing runway length is maintained, the 235 feet removed at the Runway 2 end is added to the Runway 20 end. This alternative also extends the Runway 20 end an additional 151 feet, for a total length of 4,200. In all, 386 feet is added to the Runway 20 end in this alternative. Development Alternative B incorporates the possible relocation of Cornell Road. An ongoing Master Plan for the Washington County Fairplex has revealed that Fairplex may have some surplus property, which ultimately could be incor- porated into the airport, with a possible relocation of the Cornell Road. There are a couple of primary advantages with a relocated Cornell Road. First is the added property at the airport, which can be utilized for aviation-related development in the constrained terminal area. Second, the obstructions to the OFA behind the Runway 30L end can be eliminated through a realignment of the perimeter service road outside the OFA, as shown on Exhibit 5E. Finally, a relocated Cornell Road elim- inates the existing S-curve that currently exists near the Fairplex. A realignment of Cornell Road is not presently included in the city, county or regional transportation plans. Plan amendments would need to be obtained, and a commitment of funds from various sources would be required to move forward. Exhibit 5F depicts the noise exposure (Long Term Planning Horizon) contour for this alternative and the baseline contour. The 65, 60, and 55 DNL contours expand to the east due to the operation of Runway 12L-30R, Charlie Pattern helicopter operations, and an overall increase in the level of operations occurring at the airport. The proposed landside configuration of Development Alternative B is shown on Exhibit 5G. T-hangar expansion is proposed in the Northwest Quadrant. This expansion would be to the west, across the West Apron and onto a five acre parcel of land adjacent to the airport boundary. The existing perimeter service road is relocated around the T-hangars to retain vehicle circulation. An aircraft storage parcel is proposed along Taxiway AA, in a vacant parcel between two existing corporate hangars. 5-18 In the Southwest Quadrant of the airport, terminal building and comm- ercial general aviation parcels are segregated. Segregation of the term- inal may be desired for commercial service activities and for separating the private shuttle operation from general aviation activities. Comm- ercial general aviation parcels are located along a 99,600 square yard apron facing Runway 2-20. The terminal parcel is reserved near the Runway 30 end. The relocated Cornell Road allows for considerable parking expansion, enabling the development of approximately 1,300 parking spaces. This alternative has the advantage of locating the terminal in close proximity to the existing hotel site and in close proximity to the MAX light rail station. Transient helicopter parking is located on the north end of the apron. The large aircraft storage parcels at the airport require the strongest pavement at the airport, as these parcels can serve large business jets. Taxiways A and B are presently capable of serving large business aircraft. The future parallel taxiway located east of Runway 12-30 would also be capable of serving large business jets. Development Alter- native B proposes to take advantage of this pavement strength and locate the large (corporate) aircraft storage parcels adjacent to these taxiways. This requires relocating all the existing T-hangars located south of Taxiway B to the east of the Runway 30L end. T-hangars are proposed at the east end of the aircraft storage parcels near Airport Road. T-hangars can be placed in more remote areas as they generally have lower levels of activity. The compass calibration pad is located north of the extended Taxiway C, near the Runway 20 end. This located the compass calibration pad in a remote area of the airport not needed in this alternative to serve demand. Table 5F summarizes the estimated development costs to implement Development Alternative B. These costs are in addition to the main- tenance summarized earlier in Table 5A. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE C The proposed airside configuration of Development Alternative C is shown on Exhibit 5H. In this alternative, the parallel runway is located 700 feet east of Runway 12-30, the minimum separation distance provided by FAA design standards. Runway 12L-30R is shifted to the north to ensure the Runway 30R RPZ is clear and does not cross any runway or taxiway. This shift requires that Evergreen Road be relocated to allow for sufficient approach clearance to Runway 12L. Assuming the land on which this realignment remains in rural/ agricultural use, difficulties likely to be encountered for converting farmland to such a use would need to be evaluated before steps are taken to implement. If the land is brought into the urban growth boundary as has been discussed recently, the chall- enges would be somewhat less, but nonetheless a challenge, given the 03 M P0 1- 5F -1 1/ 10 /0 4 Exhibit 5F DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE B, NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS PORT OF PORTLAND Highway 26 NW Shute Road Evergreen Road Cornell Road Main Street Evergreen Road NE Jackson School Road 60 55 65 70 NORTH 0 2,000 4,000 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND Airport Property Line Baseline DNL Noise Contours Alternative A DNL Noise Contours While this noise analysis indicates that the current noise exposure levels conform to land use compatibility guidelines established by the FAA and recognized by the Oregon DEQ, the Oregon DEQ has established the 55 DNL contour as the study boundary for planning and zoning measures for noise compatibility. 55 55 60 65 70 75 Brookwood Parkway Baseline Road 03 M P 0 1 - 5 G - 1 1 / 1 0 / 0 4 N.E. 25th Ave. Brookwood Parkway Ev er gr ee n Ro ad RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') PR OP OSE D R UN WA Y 1 2L- 30R (3, 600 ' x 60' ) RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Cornell Road Terminal Relocated Cornell Road Max Station Fairplex Auto ParkingGroup III Wingspan Apron 386' 15 1' Ex te ns ion 23 5' Sh ift Compass Calibration Pad Hardstands 235' PORT OF PORTLAND Exhibit 5G DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE B LANDSIDE CCC A1 A2 A3 A4 A4 A5 A5 A6 A7 A A8 AA A AA A A B B 12R 30 l NORTH 0 800 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Ultimate Airfield Pavement Ultimate Roads/Parking Pavement to be Removed Building to be Removed T-Hangar Parcel Aircraft Storage Parcel Aviation Services Parcel Potential Future Development Runway Visibility Zone Relocated Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PORT OF PORTLAND N.E. 25th Ave. Brookwood Parkway Co rn el l R oa d Exhibit 5H DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE C AIRSIDE 0 3 M P 0 1 - 5 H - 1 1 / 1 0 / 0 4 Ev er gr ee n Rd . R elo ca tio n Re lo ca te d Co rn el l R oa d 24 0' 39 0' 15 1' Ex te ns ion 39 0' 240' 700' Helicopter Training Helipad 35' RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ultimate (4,200' x 100) RU NW AY 12 R-3 0L (6, 600 ' x 150 ') C CC A6 A7 A A1 A2 A3 A4 A4 A A5 A5 A AA 400' A8B A B 49 5' 49 5' AA 26' Tail Height Parking Limit 20' Tail Height Parking Limit Max Station Fairplex 30 L 12R NORTH 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Potential Property Aquisition Ultimate Pavement Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Building to be Removed Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Proposed Runway 12L-30R (3,600' x 60') 20 2 5-19 development pressure such land would experience once so designated. In contrast with previous two alternatives, only one parallel taxiway is provided for Runway 12L-30R. This taxiway would be located east of Runway 12L-30R and located 240 feet from the runway centerline. This would ensure that ADG II aircraft could use this taxiway to gain access to future landside facilities located east of the proposed runway. TABLE 5F Development Alternative B Cost Summary Airside Runway 12L-30R (12,500 SWL) $3,261,000 Taxiway D (12,500 SWL) 2,729,000 Taxiway M North (95,000 DWL) 9,189,000 Taxiway C East (95,000 DWL) 2,438,000 Taxiway C West (95,000 DWL) 3,088,000 Taxiway E (95,000 DWL) 2,919,000 Runway 2-20 Extension (58,000 DWL) 1,119,000 Taxiway B East (95,000 DWL) 494,000 Taxiway B West (95,000 DWL) 1,513,000 Taxiway A Crossovers (95,000 DWL) 2,433,000 Taxiway Apron (95,000 DWL) 5,310,000 Compass Rose 668,000 Subtotal Airside $35,161,000 Landside Cornell Road Relocation $9,788,000 Airport Access Roads/ Auto Parking/Aprons/Taxilanes 37,507,000 Land Acquisition 8,379,000 Subtotal Landside $55,674,000 Total All Development $90,835,000 Source: W&H Pacific Analysis Runway 12L-30R overlays the current Charlie Pattern training pads. In this alternative, the Charlie Pattern is located approximately 1,900 feet east of Runway 12L-30R. This has the advantage of moving the Charlie Pattern ground track further east and over land that is planned for more compatible commercial and industrial uses in the future. The acquisition of approximately 95 acres of land is needed to protect the relocated Charlie Pattern training pads. Of concern with this alternative is the ultimate flight path to the landing pads. In this configuration, the ultimate flight path for the Charlie Pattern would cross the extended Runway 2-20 centerline. This would most likely prevent the Charlie Pattern from being used when Runway 2-20 is in use. In Development Alternatives A and B, the helicopters would land to the parallel taxiway which are located far enough north of Runway 2-20 to 5-20 ensure that the flight paths do not cross. Taxiway C is extended to the Runway 20 end to provide access to the parallel runway from the Northwest Quadrant of the airport. Taxiway B is extended to the Runway 2 end and the Runway 2 entrance taxiway realigned. A partial parallel taxiway is developed between Taxiway C and the Runway 30L end. This taxiway allows access to the Runway 30L end, without needing to cross the runway as is currently required for aircraft located in the Southeast Quadrant of the airport. In contrast with Development Alternative B, the additional exit taxiways on Runway 30 are configured as right-angled taxiways. This configuration only requires the development of two exit taxiways to meet the four exit taxiway require- ment of the FAA’s computational capacity model. In Development Alternative B, three taxiways were re- quired to meet this requirement as Taxiway A4 was not retained. Taxiway AA is eliminated in this alternative. This allows the creation of apron between Taxiway A to the west and the RVZ to the south of Taxiway A4. Due to the distance from the Runway 12R-30L centerline, tail height restrictions would be placed on business aircraft parking, as shown on the exhibit. Only smaller aircraft could be parked on the apron edge. Taxiway AA is eliminated to maximize the apron area for parking, as Taxi- way AA occupies a large portion of the available area for parking in order to ensure adequate wingtip clearance for taxiing aircraft. The hangars located along Taxiway AA would simply be connected to Taxiway A for airfield access. Runway 2-20 is extended 151 feet west in this alternative. While there is sufficient area available for this extension, the Runway 2 RPZ extends further over commercial property west of the Runway 2 end. Exhibit 5J depicts the noise exposure (Long Term Planning Horizon) contour for this alternative and the baseline contour. The 65, 60, and 55 DNL contours expand to the east due to the operation of Runway 12L-30R, Charlie Pattern helicopter operations, and an overall increase in the level of operations occurring at the airport. The proposed landside configuration of Development Alternative C is shown on Exhibit 5K. This alternative attempts to segregate large aircraft and small aircraft operations to the extent possible. In this alternative, all T-hangars are located in the Northeast Quadrant of the airport. In the Northwest Quadrant of the airport, the existing T-hangar area is redeveloped with large aircraft storage parcels to take advantage of the Taxiway C and Taxiway A pavement strengths. The RVZ is cleared as the T-hangars are removed and the ATCT relocated in a vacant area between two corporate hangars. Large aircraft storage parcels are reserved for the Southeast Quadrant of the airport. Two alternatives are presented for the Southwest Quadrant. Alternative C1 is depicted on the exhibit, while Alter- 03 M P0 1- 5J -1 1/ 10 /0 4 Exhibit 5J DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE C, NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS PORT OF PORTLAND Highway 26 NW Shute Road Evergreen Road Cornell Road Main Street Evergreen Road NE Jackson School Road 55.0 60.0 65.0 65.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 60 55 55 60 60 65 65 65 75 70 70 70 NORTH 0 2,000 4,000 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND Airport Property Line Baseline DNL Noise Contours Alternative A DNL Noise Contours While this noise analysis indicates that the current noise exposure levels conform to land use compatibility guidelines established by the FAA and recognized by the Oregon DEQ, the Oregon DEQ has established the 55 DNL contour as the study boundary for planning and zoning measures for noise compatibility. Baseline Road Brookwood Parkway RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') Auto Parking Relocated ATCT CCC A5 A5 A6 A7 A A8 AA B Cornell Road Terminal X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X N.E. 25th Ave. Brookwood Parkway Exhibit 5K DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE C LANDSIDE 0 3 M P 0 1 - 5 K - 1 1 / 1 0 / 0 4 Re lo ca te d Co rn el l R oa d 24 0' 39 0' 15 1' Ex te ns ion 39 0' 240' 700' Training Helipad 35' RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ultimate (4,200' x 100) RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') PR OP OSE D R UN WA Y 1 2L- 30R (3, 600 ' x 60' ) PORT OF PORTLAND Ev er gr ee n Rd . R elo ca tio n Compass Calibration Pad Group III Wingspan Apron Group III Wingspan Apron Relocated ATCT C CC A1 A2 A A3 A4 A4 A A5 A5 A A6 A7 A A8B AA B 400' 26' Tail Height Parking Limit 20' Tail Height Parking Limit (OFA Instrument Approach may be jeopardized) Auto Parking TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVE C2 Terminal AA 30 L 12R Auto Parking Auto Parking NORTH SCALE IN FEET 0 800 LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Ultimate Airfield Pavement Ultimate Roads/Parking Pavement to be Removed Building to be Removed T-Hangar Parcel Aircraft Storage Parcel Aviation Services Parcel Potential Future Development Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Co rn el l R oa d 5-21 native C2 is presented on the inset. Similar to Development Alternative B, Alternative C1 assumes the relocation of Cornell Road and segregates the terminal building from the commercial general aviation parcels. The term- inal building is located east of its present position to keep the terminal in close proximity to the MAX light rail station. The hotel site is redeveloped for automobile parking for the terminal. The compass calibration pad is located at the northern edge of the apron. Alternative C2 assumes that Cornell Road would remain along its existing alignment. Alternative C2 attempts to maximize both automobile parking and apron area. In this alternative, a large parking area is established behind the commercial aviation parcels and the terminal parcels. This is essentially the same flight line as the existing facilities; however, automobile parking is reserved in areas which are now occupied by hangars. The terminal parcel is located at the east end to maintain its close proximity to the MAX light rail station. Table 5G summarizes estimated development costs to implement Development Alternative C. These costs are in addition to maintenance costs summarized earlier in Table 5A. TABLE 5G Development Alternative C Cost Summary Airside Runway 12L-30R (12,500 SWL) $3,261,000 Taxiway D (12,500 SWL) 3,662,000 Taxiway C (95,000 DWL) 5,680,000 Taxiway CC Removal 276,000 Taxiway M (95,000 DWL) 2,483,000 Runway 2-20 Extension ( 95,000 DWL) 254,000 Taxiway B (95,000 DWL) 1,995,000 Taxiway A Connectors (95,000 DWL) 705,000 Taxiway Apron (95,000 DWL) 7,033,000 Helicopter Landing Area - Pattern 'C' 1,262,000 Subtotal Airside $26,611,000 Landside Alternative C1 Cornell Road Relocation $10,394,000 Evergreen Road Relocation 3,603,000 Airport Access Roads/ Auto Parking/Aprons/Taxilanes 55,314,000 Perimeter Road Relocation 311,000 Land Acquisition 29,802,000 Subtotal Landside $99,424,000 Total All Development – Alternative C2 $126,035,000 Landside Alternative C2 Evergreen Road Relocation $3,603,000 Airport Access Roads/ Auto Parking/Aprons/Taxilanes 49,546,000 Perimeter Road Relocation 311,000 Land Acquisition 21,423,000 Subtotal Landside $74,883,000 Total All Development – Alternative C2 $101,494,000 Source: W&H Pacific Analysis 5-22 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING ANALYSIS OF MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES Four of the five Master Plan alterna- tives were reviewed for environmental impacts. Alternative A1 was not re- viewed since it did not meet the facil- ity needs of accommodating Design Group III aircraft which are currently using the airport. The results were tabulated and compared to the 1996 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan in Ta- ble 5H. This analysis was conducted at a screening level to identify potential impacts and to facilitate comparison between alternatives. A slightly more detailed analysis will be conducted once a preferred master plan develop- ment concept is selected. The analysis was conducted using the environ- mental impact categories from FAA Order 1050.1E. This Order details how the FAA implements the re- quirements of the National Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The reader should note that although the NEPA categories are used for this screening analysis, neither this analy- sis nor that which will be conducted as part of the subsequent environmental overview for the preferred master plan development concept fulfills the re- quirements of the NEPA process. The NEPA process will be undertaken dur- ing the future development and con- struction of any element of the pre- ferred development concept identified by this Master Plan Update. Although NEPA is not applicable at this time, NEPA impact categories are being used for this screening analysis to en- sure that the requirements of NEPA can be met when triggered. Several categories had similar impacts among airport development alterna- tives. Other categories lacked signifi- cant impacts for all or most alterna- tives (i.e., Light Emissions, Solid Waste). Some categories were not ap- plicable (i.e., Coastal Management Zones, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Es- sential Fish Habitat). The criteria used to evaluate each of the NEPA impact categories and the anticipated impacts are described briefly below. However, only categories where poten- tial significant impacts were identi- fied, where controversy is anticipated or where substantial differences exist between alternatives were tabulated. The NEPA review categories are listed in the left-hand column of Table 5H. The alternatives are listed across the top. Black dots are used to indicate potential impacts associated with each alternative. The degree of the poten- tial impact increases with the number of black dots. NEPA IMPACT CATEGORIES Controversy: As with any significant aviation-related development plan, some degree of controversy should be expected. Controversy may arise due to real or perceived effects. Contro- versy is possible on the bases of noise, land use compatibility, social impacts, air quality, water quality, natural re- sources, wetlands, flood plains, farm- lands, construction impacts and cumu- lative impacts. Controversy can be addressed through public involvement 5-23 and outreach strategies such as pro- ject information on the Port of Port- land’s web site, neighborhood meet- ings, project advisory committees, di- rect mail information and other tech- niques. Noise: The various development al- ternatives describe many construction projects that may be undertaken dur- ing the 20-year life of the plan. Con- struction noise for airport develop- ment projects is typically minimal and temporary, occurring predominantly during the summer months. Cumulative noise impacts from in- creased aircraft operations may be of concern. The FAA approved Inte- grated Noise Model (INM) was used to characterize aircraft noise impacts from the various alternatives. The analyses are limited to assessing the variability in noise contours associated with facility changes such as the loca- tion and size of a new runway and helicopter training area. The analyses conducted to date do not address op- erational measures that may be used to mitigate potential noise impacts. Operational mitigation measures will be examined in the airport compatibil- ity study once the preferred master plan development concept is identi- fied. In all alternatives, the 65 day-night level (DNL) noise contour expands to the north and northeast due to in- creased operations and the addition of runway 12L/30R. Small shifts in this contour were also identified to the northwest near the intersection of Ev- ergreen Road and NE 25th Avenue and in an agricultural field to the south along the approach for Runway 30. The 65 DNL contour is officially rec- ognized by federal and state govern- ments as the approved noise metric to identify sensitive or compatible land uses. Alternatives C1 and C2 include a new remote training helipad to accommo- date helicopter training operations for the Charlie Pattern. These two alter- natives result in the greatest expan- sion of the 65 DNL contour, however, these alternatives move the Charlie Pattern away from the populated ar- eas. Most of the land affected by the expanded 65 DNL noise contour lies within airport property or on property that would be acquired for airport ex- pansion. The predominant land use in these areas is agriculture and the oc- casional rural residence. The area is zoned for industrial uses. Although the impacts are similar among the al- ternatives, noise is included in Table 5H since further operational analyses are needed. Land Use Compatibility: A sepa- rate airport operations and land use compatibility study is being conducted concurrent with this Master Planning effort. The results of the compatibility study will be incorporated into the en- vironmental screening analysis when available. Social Impact: The criteria being considered here include land acquisi- tion, resident relocation, public road relocation and construction of new roads. All criteria are associated with conversion of predominantly rural land uses surrounding the airport to urban land uses associated with the 5-24 airport. Currently, the predominant land uses are agriculture with a few rural residences. Virtually all of the alternatives are located within the ur- ban growth boundary (UGB) in an area zoned for industrial uses; a very small amount of land area outside of the current UGB could be affected by runway end protection for the pro- posed 3rd runway. While potentially significant, the types of changes to the patterns of land use described here have been anticipated by various local governments. The area has been zoned to accommodate these land uses. Considerable variation exists between the alternatives. Alterna- tives C1 and C2 have the greatest im- pacts and require significant land ac- quisition (approximately 100 acres), relocation of residents, new access roads and relocation of existing public roads. Induced Socio-Economic Impacts: Airport expansion, regardless of the alternative, will have some positive socio-economic impacts. The construc- tion phases will provide a temporary increase in employment. Increased operations, depending on the scope, scale and nature, may provide a per- manent increase in employment and corresponding increase in income tax revenues. Economic activity and pub- lic services will remain consistent with existing airport operations. Secondary impacts, such as changes in popula- tion patterns, are not expected be- cause the area is already zoned for in- dustrial land uses. Tenant owned im- provements would generate additional property tax revenues. These impacts are relatively consistent among the alternatives. Environmental Justice: The Envi- ronmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as follows: "The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, im- plementation, and enforcement of envi- ronmental laws, regulations, and poli- cies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, eth- nic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the exe- cution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies." No minority or low income populations are known to exist within the project area. Water Quality: All alternatives re- sult in an increase in impervious sur- face. Some development would occur outside existing airfield drainage ba- sins in certain alternatives. The im- provements called for in the 1996 air- port master plan (includes a third runway and associated taxiway sys- tem improvements) that have not been implemented would increase impervi- ous surface area an additional 77 acres from existing conditions. Alter- native C2, representing the greatest increase of the current alternatives, would add 166 acres of impervious surface area. Each alternative will increase stormwater volume. No new types of pollutants are expected, how- ever, pollutant loading may increase commensurate with aircraft opera- tions and other activities. Best Man- 5-25 agement Practices (i.e., storm water treatment) are already required and will continue to be required. Storm- water quality may also be a cumula- tive impact concern for surface waters since the Tualatin River is Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limited for temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen & total phosphorus. Stormwa- ter runoff from Hillsboro Airport drains into tributaries of the Tualatin River. Air Quality: Hillsboro Airport is lo- cated in an area that has been desig- nated by EPA as a Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area. As a result, a General Conformity demonstration will be required for the construction and operational phases in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93 Subpart B. The Federal Clean Air Act Amend- ment of 1990 requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions (in this case the approval of an airport layout plan by the FAA) conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the air- shed in which the action would take place. The SIP is a comprehensive plan that provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Stan- dards (NAAQS) and includes emission limitations and control measures to attain and maintain compliance with the NAAQS. General Conformity is defined as demonstrating that a project conforms to the SIP’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and frequency of violations of the ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. This demonstration will be conducted for the preferred alternative. Hillsboro Airport currently operates above its annual service volume. The average delay per aircraft operation is forecast to increase from 1.9 minutes to 6.7 minutes in 2025. As such, all alternatives or “build scenarios” would reduce air quality impacts relative to the “no-build scenario” by relieving congestion and reducing delay. New fuel storage tanks may trigger New Source Performance Standards under 40 CFR Part 60. Installation of emergency generators may also be necessary. These changes may trigger the obligation to obtain an Air Con- taminant Discharge Permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. These impacts are consistent among the alternatives. Section 4F Impacts: The project area does not contain any 4F resources based on consultation with the City of Hillsboro, Washington County and the Tualatin Valley Parks and Recreation Department. Cultural Resources: The project area is a highly disturbed site. His- torical uses include aviation and agri- culture. Previous cultural resource surveys conducted in the vicinity found no significant resources. This lack of impact is consistent among the alternatives. Biotic Communities: Each alterna- tive other than the 1996 Master Plan includes development in the sensitive habitat types along Brookwood Park- 5-26 way and to the south of Cornell Road. These impacts may be controversial and are consistent among the alterna- tives. This screening level analysis did not consider Statewide Planning Goal 5 or Clean Water Services’ miti- gation requirements for buffers. These issues will be addressed for the preferred alternative. Threatened & Endangered Spe- cies: Findings similar to those of the Environmental Assessment for the Hillsboro Airport Runway Safety Area project are expected. That project re- sulted in a “no effect” determination for threatened and endangered plants, bald eagle, Aleutian Canada goose and Upper Willamette River Chinook, a “not likely to effect” determination for Upper Willamette River Steelhead and short-term temporary construc- tion impacts “may effect but would not likely adversely modify” critical steel- head habitat. Please note that there are no critical habitats in the project area but drainage basins 4 & 5 are linked hydrologically via the unnamed tributary to McKay and Dairy creeks with critical habitat in the Tualatin River. Drainage basins 1-3 and 6 as well as the areas that may be devel- oped that are outside of the airfield drainage basins are linked hydrologi- cally via Dawson Creek with critical habitat in the Tualatin River. These impacts are consistent among the al- ternatives. Essential Fish Habitat: No such habitat exists within the project area. Migratory Bird Treaty Act: While new acreage where birds may forage, nest or loaf would be impacted, the fu- ture impacts would be consistent with current impacts. Efforts to limit the presence of wildlife species of concern and habitat modifications as neces- sary, to ensure safe aircraft opera- tions, would continue. These impacts are consistent among the alternatives. Wetlands: Wetlands impacts range from 4 acres in the 1996 Master Plan to between 7.3 and 7.6 acres in the other alternatives. Each alternative other than the 1996 Master Plan in- cludes development in the sensitive habitat types along Brookwood Park- way and to the south of Cornell Road. These impacts may be controversial and are consistent among the alterna- tives. This screening level analysis did not consider Statewide Planning Goal 5 or Clean Water Services’ miti- gation requirements for buffers. These issues will be addressed for the preferred alternative. Floodplains: Each alternative in- creases impervious surface. Some de- velopment would occur outside exist- ing airfield drainage basins in certain alternatives. The increase in impervi- ous surface ranges from 77 additional acres for the 1996 Master Plan to 166 additional acres for Alternative C2. Every alternative will increase storm- water volume. McKay & Dawson Creek drainages contain lands desig- nated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as floodplains. Cumulative impact concerns are ex- pected. Onsite stormwater reten- tion/detention may be required. Con- struction and operation of open water features should be discouraged in or- der to avoid compromising safety by creating a wildlife attractant. (Ref. AC 150-5200/33A.) 5-27 Coastal Zone Management Pro- gram: Given the location of the Hills- boro Airport, this impact category is not applicable per the FAA Northwest Mountain Region Airports District Of- fice. Wild and Scenic Rivers: None of the streams in the Hillsboro Airport area are designated as wild & scenic. This includes the unnamed tributary of McKay Creek, McKay Creek itself, Diary Creek, Dawson Creek and the Tualatin River. Farmlands: Farmland impacts are expected. Some soils may be classified as "prime." Amity silt loam, a prime agricultural soil, is known to exist in the area. Those areas identified for potential future development for avia- tion purposes have been zoned for in- dustrial uses and lie within the cur- rent urban growth boundary. While potentially significant, the impacts of converting rural land uses to urban land uses have been anticipated, planned for and approved by various local governments. Farmlands im- pacts range from conversion of 134 acres in the 1996 Master Plan up to 223 acres in Alternative C1. Energy Supply & Natural Re- sources: The operations forecast shows that energy consumption will increase. New utilities and/or expan- sion of existing utility service would be needed (i.e., potable water, electricity, natural gas, communications and sanitary sewer). Stormwater collec- tion and conveyance system upgrades along with appropriate Best Manage- ment Practices for stormwater treat- ment would be required as well. A small temporary increase in energy consumption during construction is anticipated. New stationary sources, fuel storage facilities in particular, would be required. These impacts are consistent among the alternatives. Light Emissions: Additional exterior lighting would be required. These im- pacts are not expected to be significant and would be consistent with existing operations and continued urbanization of the area. These impacts are consis- tent among the alternatives. Solid Waste: Temporary short-term demolition and construction impacts are expected. Future operational im- pacts would be consistent with current impacts. Solid waste impacts are con- sistent among the alternatives. Construction: Short-term mitigati- ble impacts include noise, fugitive dust, air quality, erosion control, de- watering, potential site contamina- tion, spill prevention and surface traf- fic. The extent, intensity and duration of the construction impacts are related to the scope, scale and scheduling of the new infrastructure. Alternative C2 entails the greatest amount of con- struction since it has the greatest footprint, has the most development outside the existing airport property boundary and involves relocation of two public roads. The 1996 Master Plan entails the least amount of con- struction given the relatively modest new features and all construction would occur within the existing air- port property boundary. Hazardous Materials: Additional fuel delivery, handling, storage and 5-28 consumption are anticipated for every alternative. Additional storage tanks for Jet-A and low lead 100 aviation gasoline will be required. Some ten- ants may also require small gasoline storage facilities. It is further antici- pated that natural gas service would be provided to new corporate hangars, terminal buildings and FBO facilities. These features and activities repre- sent significant but readily miti- gatable impacts that are consistent among the alternatives. These im- pacts are also consistent with current operations. These impacts are primar- ily of concern to emergency response agencies. These impacts are not ex- pected to be of significant given the nature of nearby micro-chip research and development and manufacturing facilities. Cumulative Impacts: Noise, social impacts, water quality, wetlands, floodplains, farmlands and construc- tion impacts are expected to be of con- cern. These issues as well as cumula- tive impacts may become controver- sial. TABLE 5H Preliminary Environmental Review of Alternatives NEPA Review Category 1996 Master Plan Alternative A2 Alternative B Alternative C1 Alternative C2 Controversy z zz zzz zzzzz zzzz Noise zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz Social Impact z z zz zzzz zzz Water Quality z zz zzz zzzzz zzzz Wetlands z zzz zz zzz zzz Floodplains z zz zzz zzzzz zzzz Farmlands zz zzz zzz zzzzz zzzzz Construction Impacts z zz zzz zzzzz zzzz Cumulative Impacts z zz zzz zzzzz zzzz SUMMARY The process utilized in assessing airside and landside development alternatives involved a detailed analysis of short and long-term requirements, as well as future growth potential. Current airport design standards were considered at each stage of development. 5-29 These alternatives present an ultimate configuration of the airport that would need to be able to be developed over a long period of time. The next phase of the Master Plan will define a reasonable phasing program to implement a preferred master plan development concept over time. Upon review of this chapter by the Port, the public, and the PAC, a final Master Plan concept can be formed. The resultant plan will represent an airside facility that fulfills safety and design standards, and a landside complex that can be developed as demand dictates. The preferred master plan development concept for the airport must represent a means by which the airport can grow in a balanced manner, both on the airside as well as the landside, to accommodate forecast demand. In addition, it must provide for flexibility in the plan to meet activity growth beyond the 20- year planning period. The remaining chapters will be dedicated to refining these basic alternatives into a final development concept with recommendations to ensure proper implementation and timing for a demand-based program. Chapter Six AIRPORT PLANS PORT OF PORTLAND 6-1 CHAPTER SIX AIRPORT PLANS PORT OF PORTLAND The planning process for the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan has included several technical efforts as outlined in the previous chapters. Those efforts established the role for the airport, projected potential aviation demand, established airfield and landside facility needs, and evaluated options for improving the airport to meet airfield and landside facility needs. The planning process, thus far, included the presentation of five draft working papers to the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and the Port of Portland (Port). A plan for the use of Hillsboro Airport has evolved considering the input of this group. The purpose of this chapter is to describe, in narrative and graphic form, the preferred plan for the future use and development of Hillsboro Airport. MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The Master Plan Development Concept represents the development direction for the Hillsboro Airport through the planning period of this Master Plan. The Master Plan Development Concept is the consolidation and refinement of the three airfield and three landside alternatives, presented in Chapter Five, into a single development concept collectively representing input received from the PAC, public Open House meetings, Port, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) staff. Following the review of alternatives as discussed in Chapter Five, development considerations were refined into a comprehensive list of airport improvements addressed by the Master Plan Development Concept. 6-2 AIRFIELD PLAN Airfield components include the run- ways, parallel and connecting taxi- ways, lighting aids, navigational aids, and imaginary surfaces which help to provide a safe operating environment. The specific development plans for the airfield are summarized on Exhibit 6A. These issues will be more fully described in the following subsections. As a federally-obligated airport (the result of accepting federal grant fund- ing), Hillsboro Airport must comply with FAA design and safety stan- dards. The FAA has established these design criteria to define the physical dimensions of runways and taxiways and the imaginary surfaces surround- ing them that ensure the safe opera- tion of aircraft at the airport. FAA de- sign standards also define the separa- tion criteria for the placement of land- side facilities. As discussed previously in Chapter Three, FAA design crite- rion is a function of the critical design aircraft’s wingspan and approach speed, and in some cases, the runway approach visibility minimums. The critical design aircraft is defined as the most demanding aircraft or “fam- ily” of aircraft which will conduct 500 or more operations (take-offs and land- ings) per year at the airport. The FAA has established the Airport Reference Code (ARC) to relate the physical and operational factors of the critical de- sign aircraft to airfield design stan- dards (refer to Chapter Four). According to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, an aircraft's approach category is based upon 1.3 times its stall speed in land- ing configuration at that aircraft's maximum certificated weight. The five approach categories used in air- port planning are as follows: Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots. The airplane design group (ADG) is based upon the aircrafts wingspan. The six ADGs used in airport planning are as follows: Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet. Group II: 49 feet up to but not in- cluding 79 feet. Group III: 79 feet up to but not in- cluding 118 feet. Group IV: 118 feet up to but not in- cluding 171 feet. Group V: 171 feet up to but not in- cluding 214 feet. Group VI: 214 feet or greater. Hillsboro Airport is used by a wide range of general aviation aircraft and helicopters. General aviation aircraft include single and multi-engine piston aircraft within ARCs A-I and B-I, tur- boprop aircraft within ARCs B-I and B-II, and business jet aircraft within ARCs C-I, C-II, and C-III, and occa- sionally ARCs D-I and D-II. As detailed in Chapter Four, each runway at Hillsboro Airport is ex- pected to serve different types of air- 03 M P0 1- 6A -5 /2 3/ 05 Exhibit 6A AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS Additional exit taxiways to Runway 12-30 to reduce delay Improved radar coverage1 A parallel runway for exclusive use by small general aviation aircraft to reduce delay A 151-foot extension to Runway 2-20 to meet recom- mended design length and full-length reconstruction Shift Runway 2-20 235 feet east to clear the Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) of obstructions Improved instrument approach capability to Runways 2, 20, and 30 A full parallel taxiway east of Runway 12-30 to reduce runway crossings Extend Taxiway B to the Runway 2 end for efficiency Realign Runway 2 entrance taxiways for improved pilot visibility Relocate Taxiway C 40 feet north to meet design standards Remove Taxiway CC to meet design standards Extend Taxiway C to the Runway 20 end After construction of parallel runway, shift Charlie Pattern landing pads to the east for greater segregation between fixed wing and rotary aircraft Construct holding aprons to allow aircraft to prepare for departure or hold off the active taxiway AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS PORT OF PORTLAND 1 Implementation is at the sole discretion of the FAA 6-3 craft; therefore, an ARC has been as- signed separately for each runway at the airport and used in the develop- ment of the ultimate airfield plan. As the longest runway at the airport with the greatest pavement strength and best instrument approach capability, Runway 12-30 is expected to serve the needs of all aircraft expected to use the airport. For this reason, Runway 12-30 is planned for the most demand- ing ARC C-III standards. As shown in the runway orientation analysis in Chapter Four, Runway 2-20 is needed only for smaller aircraft when the wind is from the east or west. There- fore, consistent with FAA design stan- dards, Runway 2-20 is planned for air- craft falling into the ARC B-II classifi- cation. The capacity analysis in Chap- ter Four revealed that a future paral- lel runway is needed for small aircraft (aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds) within ARC B-I. The design of taxiway and apron areas considers the wingspan requirements of the most demanding aircraft to op- erate within the specific area. The Runway 12-30 parallel taxiways and connecting taxiways, the portion of Taxiway B east of Runway 12-30, cor- porate parcel taxiways in the south- east quadrant of the airport, and por- tions of the southwest itinerant aprons are planned to accommodate aircraft within airplane design group (ADG) III. The Runway 2-20 parallel taxi- ways and connecting taxiways and portions of the west apron and south- west transient apron are planned to accommodate aircraft within ADG II. While the proposed 3,600-foot short parallel Runway 12L-30R, parallel taxiways and connecting taxiways, are only needed for ADG I aircraft, the taxiways are planned at ADG II since there is available development area for the increased runway/separation distance. The T-hangar areas, and east transient and based aircraft apron are planned to accommodate aircraft in ADG I. Table 6A summa- rizes the planned airfield safety and facility components for Hillsboro Air- port. • Additional Exit Taxiways to Runway 12-30 to reduce delay The capacity analysis (see Chapter Four, pages 4-3 to 4-10) revealed that the airport’s annual service volume (ASV) was being exceeded by the cur- rent level of operations and could be increased by 9,000 operations per year with additional exit taxiways along Runway 12-30. The capacity analysis specifies four exit taxiways 750 feet apart between 2,000 and 4,000 feet from the Runway 30 threshold. As shown on Exhibit 6B, the airfield plan includes the construction of three acute-angled (high-speed) exit taxi- ways between Taxiway A3 and Taxi- way A5, closely following the exit taxiway configuration shown on Al- ternative B. High-speed exit taxiways are preferred, as they allow aircraft to exit the runway at a higher speed, thus allowing the aircraft to clear the runway faster. Taxiway A4 is planned to be closed, as it is redundant to the high-speed exits. 6-4 TABLE 6A Planned Airfield Safety and Facility Dimensions (in feet) Hillsboro Airport Existing Runway 12-30 (1) Existing Runway 2-20 Proposed Runway 12L-30R Airport Reference Code (ARC) Approach Visibility Minimums C-III ½ Mile – Runway 12 One Mile – Runway 30 B-II One Mile Each End B-I (small aircraft) Visual Each End Runway Length Width Runway Safety Area (RSA) Width Length Beyond Runway End Object Free Area (OFA) Width Length Beyond Runway End Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Width Length Beyond Runway End Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ) Runway 12 End Width Length Beyond Runway End Runway Centerline To: Hold Line Parallel Taxiway Centerline Edge of Aircraft Parking Apron 6,600 150 500 1,000 800 1,000 400 200 800 200 250 400 500 4,200 100 150 300 500 300 400 200 N/A N/A 200 240 305.5 3,600 60 120 240 250 240 250 200 N/A N/A 125 2402 284.5 12 30 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Inner Width Outer Width Length 1,000 1,700 2,500 500 1,010 1,700 500 700 1,000 250 450 1,000 Obstacle Clearance 50:1 34:1 34:1 20:1 Taxiways Width Safety Area Width Object Free Area Width Taxiway Centerline To: Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane Fixed or Moveable Object 50 118 186 152 93 35 79 131 105 65.5 352 492 892 692 44.52 Taxilanes Taxilane Centerline To: Parallel Taxilane Centerline Fixed or Moveable Object Taxilane Object Free Area 140 81 162 97 57.5 115 642 39.52 792 Source: FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 8; FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1) Will be renamed Runway 12R/30L once the short parallel Runway 12L/30R is constructed. (2) Exceeds the standards for ARC B-I small aircraft exclusively. 6-5 Alternatives A and C were dismissed. Alternative A did not provide for exit taxiway improvements, while Alterna- tive C provided for right-angled taxi- ways only. • Improve radar coverage The FAA does not provide pilots with radar coverage to the ground at Hills- boro Airport. Though it offers only modest improvement to the airport’s annual service volume (ASV), better radar coverage could add approxi- mately 1,000 operations to the air- port’s calculated ASV. Adding radar coverage would improve capacity dur- ing poor visibility and cloud ceiling conditions, and improve instrument departure delays. Improved radar coverage will also serve to reduce con- troller workload, expedite instrument departures, and allow the ability to track aircraft operations near the air- port. While some instrument depar- ture delays will be reduced by adding radar coverage, instrument departures will still need to be sequenced with Portland International Airport (PDX) aircraft. Depending on overall air traffic in the region, some delays may still occur for instrument departures. The Port should aggressively pursue the addition of radar coverage with the FAA. • A parallel runway for exclusive use by small general aviation aircraft to reduce delay Taken together, additional exit taxi- ways and improved radar coverage add approximately 10,000 operations to the ASV and lower the existing av- erage delay per aircraft operation from approximately 1.9 minutes to 1.1 min- utes. However, as the mix of aircraft operating at the airport continues to shift to include a larger percentage of business aircraft, and as operations increase, the delay is projected to in- crease to over six minutes per aircraft operation. Increasing levels of annual delay create undesirable conditions such as increased air emissions, oper- ating costs, and extended aircraft traf- fic patterns. Increased air emissions are the result of aircraft engines run- ning for longer periods of time. Air- craft engines running for longer peri- ods of time increase fuel and mainte- nance costs for owners. In-flight de- lays cause extended downwind legs for arriving aircraft, which can lead to aircraft flying larger-than-typical traf- fic patterns and increased overflights of residential areas. Such temporary changes to the airport’s operating en- vironment makes conformance with voluntary noise abatement procedures more difficult for a pilot. The capacity analysis confirmed pre- vious planning efforts from the 1990 and 1996 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan Updates and concluded that a runway for use by small general avia- tion aircraft exclusively is the best method available for reducing delays and the undesirable conditions that delay creates. The parallel runway achieves the capacity enhancement by segregating small aircraft and large aircraft operations. 6-6 The airfield plan includes the con- struction of a parallel runway east of Runway 12-30, following the configu- ration shown in Alternative B, with the exception that the parallel runway is located 700 feet from the Runway 12-30 centerline, instead of 800 feet as shown in Alternative B. FAA design standards allow a parallel runway to be located 700 feet from a parallel runway centerline. While FAA design standards specify that Taxiway D (the parallel taxiway for proposed parallel Runway 12L- 30R) could have a centerline-to- centerline separation distance as little as 150 feet, Taxiway D is planned to be located 240 feet from the runway centerline. This is done to allow Taxiway D to serve as the Charlie Pat- tern landing area should that be re- quired in the future. Development staging may require that the Taxiway D accommodate Charlie Pattern land- ings until the relocated Charlie Pat- tern landing area is constructed ap- proximately 1,500 feet east of the pro- posed parallel runway, as shown on Exhibit 6B. The 240-foot separation exceeds ARC B-I small aircraft exclu- sively standards. The FAA has con- curred that a greater separation dis- tance is allowed since space allows for this separation. The 240-foot separa- tion distance meets ARC B-II re- quirements, should the runway ever need to be upgraded to this standard in the future. The configurations of the parallel runway in Alternative A and Alterna- tive C were dismissed. Alternative A did not provide sufficient approach clearance over Runway 2-20 and would not have allowed for the exten- sion of Taxiway C to the east. Fur- thermore, the southern runway pro- tection zone (RPZ) would have over- lapped an existing T-hangar and fu- ture corporate hangar lease site. FAA standards are highly restrictive on de- velopment within the RPZ and in par- ticular developments with structures that attract persons for long periods of time. This would have resulted in a loss of revenue for the airport, as this area could not have been leased. Al- ternative C required the relocation of Evergreen Road. This was determined to be unnecessary since appropriate approach clearance can be obtained over Evergreen Road in Alternative B. • A 151-foot extension to Runway 2-20 to meet recommended de- sign length and full-length re- construction • Shift Runway 2-20 to the north- east to clear the Runway Visi- bility Zone (RVZ) of obstruc- tions As detailed in Chapter Four, the FAA recommends that Runway 2-20 be 4,200 feet long. Runway 2-20 is pres- ently 4,049 feet long, 151 feet short of this design length. While this addi- tional length is too short to allow for a change in the mix of aircraft operating on the runway, this additional length would improve the safety of operations on the runway by increasing the land- ing length and accelerate stop/distance available (ASDA). The ASDA is de- parture length calculation that allows for an aircraft to reach rotation speed (liftoff) and stop on the paved runway surface should the pilot elect to not PORT OF PORTLAND N.E. 25th Ave. Max Station Fairplex Brookwood Parkway Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Exhibit 6B MASTER PLAN CONCEPT AIRSIDE 03 M P0 1- 6B -5 /2 3/ 05 Co rn el l R oa d RU NW AY 12- 30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') 24 0' 24 0' 39 0' 35 ' 39 0' 4 95 ' 49 5' 700' 400' 400' 300' 240' Existing Charlie Pad 35' 50' C H CC A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A M A8 A AA A M D A B B F RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ultimate (4,200' x 100') 386' 23 5' Sh ift 12R 30 l NORTH 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Potential Property Acquisition Ultimate Pavement Existing Runway Visibility Zone Ultimate Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Proposed Runway 12L-30R (3,600' x 60') Training Helipad 151' Extension AA NOTE: A detailed traffic assessment of surrounding facilities has not been completed. The future Evergreen Road to Brookwood Parkway alignment is generalized. This alignment may change. The road would be constructed with local resources and not by the Port. Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Future City-Owned Collector Road (Alignment Generalized) 6-7 continue the departure for safety rea- sons (such as loss in engine power). A longer paved area decreases the po- tential for aircraft to exit the runway should they have a power reduction or failure during the ground roll on de- parture, or land long or too fast to the runway. The runway visibility zone (RVZ) is established by federal design stan- dards to provide a clear view of inter- secting runways for departing pilots. Permanent structures are not nor- mally permitted in the RVZ. Several T-hangars and the airport traffic con- trol tower (ATCT) are located within the limits of the existing RVZ. The size and configuration of the RVZ is controlled by the distance between the runway intersection and the run- way ends. Therefore, any changes to location of the intersecting runway ends, changes the dimensions and lo- cations of the RVZ. Instead of removing the T-hangars and relocating ATCT facilities to clear the RVZ, the airfield plan proposes to relocate the Runway 2 end approxi- mately 238 feet east, to move the RVZ away from these facilities, thereby clearing the RVZ. The airfield plan includes the addition of 238 feet behind the Runway 20 end to replace the runway lost at the Runway 2 end due to the shifting. Since Runway 2-20 is being shifted to the east, the extension is also planned to the east, as shown in Alternative B. This runway will also be rehabilitated. Alternatives A and C were dismissed. Alternative A did not provide for an extension to Runway 2-20 or the clear- ing of the RVZ. Alternative C pro- posed extending Runway 2-20 to the west and removing the structures in the RVZ. However, an extension to the west is not possible, as the Run- way 2 RPZ would overlap existing buildings. As stated previously, FAA design standards specify that the RVZ be clear of buildings or structures. • Improved instrument approach capability to Runways 2, 20, and 30 The airfield plan reserves the poten- tial for the FAA to establish future straight-in instrument approaches to Runways 2, 20, and 30, utilizing the Global Positioning System (GPS). The marking and lighting available at these runway ends currently comply with applicable federal standards for establishing an instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as one mile and cloud ceilings as low as 200 feet. Improving the instrument approach capability to these runway ends will be at the sole discretion of the FAA and dependent upon the re- sults of a TERPS analysis completed by the FAA. While instrument ap- proaches are designed for use by pilots during inclement weather conditions, instrument approaches are commonly used during good visibility conditions by transient pilots, to navigate to the airport. 6-8 • A full parallel taxiway east of Runway 12-30 to reduce run- way crossings Taxiway A is the only taxiway surface extending to both ends of Runway 12- 30. Taxiway A is located on the west side of the runway; therefore, aircraft located east of the runway must cross Runway 12-30 to access either the Runway 12 or 30 ends via Taxiway A. A focus of airfield planning and devel- opment is to reduce the number of runway crossings. Runway crossings increase the potential for runway in- cursions and the potential for aircraft accidents. A full-length parallel taxi- way east of Runway 12-30 would en- sure that aircraft located east of Run- way 12-30 would not have to cross the runway to access either the Runway 12 or Runway 30 ends. While aircraft would be required to cross Runway 2- 20, Runway 2-20 is generally not used at the same time as Runway 12-30. Furthermore, the airport is in a pre- dominately northern flow, with Run- way 30 being used over 90 percent of the time; therefore, Runway 2-20 is rarely active since prevailing winds are from the north. This taxiway cen- terline is planned to be located 400 feet from the Runway 12-30 center- line, as shown in Alternative B, and be designed to the same weight bearing strength and ADG III standards as Taxiway A. Alternatives A and C were dismissed as they only provided a partial parallel taxiway segment east of Runway 12-30, extending from Taxiway B to the Runway 30 end. • Extend Taxiway B to the Run- way 2 end for efficiency • Realign the Runway 2 entrance taxiways for improved pilot visibility Taxiway B currently only extends be- tween Taxiway A and the Runway 20 end. Presently, Runway 2-20 is not served by a full-length parallel taxi- way. Full-length parallel taxiways re- duce taxi times and the potential for pilot disorientation on the airfield. Presently, for a pilot to reach the Runway 2 end from areas south of Runway 2-20 and east of Runway 12- 30, he or she must use a taxiway that extends through aircraft parking ar- eas near the main terminal building. This taxiway bisects aircraft parking areas and reduces available parking area on the apron. Extending Taxi- way B to the Runway 2 end would eliminate the need for this taxiway and give pilots a direct taxi route to the Runway 2 end. Taxiway B is planned to have a taxiway centerline to runway centerline distance of 240 feet. The Runway 2 entrance taxiways on the south side of the runway are planned to be reconfigured at a right angle to the Runway 2 end. This is the preferred method for intersecting the runway, as it allows the pilot to have a better view of both the ap- proach and departure areas. This alignment was shown on Alterna- tives B and C. Alternative A was dis- missed as it did not allow for the ex- tension of Taxiway B to the Runway 2 end. 6-9 • Relocate Taxiway C 40 feet north to meet design standards • Remove Taxiway CC to meet design standards • Extend Taxiway C to the Run- way 20 end Presently, the Taxiway C centerline is located 200 feet from the Runway 2-20 centerline. At this distance from Runway 2-20, Taxiway C obstructs the Runway 2-20 obstacle free zone (OFZ). Taxiway C is planned to be relocated 40 feet north to meet current FAA runway centerline-to-taxiway center- line separation distances and to clear the OFZ. Relocating Taxiway C will require closing Taxiway CC because, once relocated, Taxiway C would be located too close to Taxiway CC for simultaneous aircraft use. The exten- sion of Taxiway C to the Runway 20 end is also planned. Extending Taxi- way C to the Runway 20 end not only provides a connection to the future parallel runway, but also eliminates a required runway crossing for aircraft located north of Runway 2-20 that are trying to reach either the Runway 2 or Runway 20 ends. These Taxiway C improvements were shown in Alterna- tives B and C. Alternative A was dis- missed as it did not relocate Taxiway C to meet design standards or allow for the extension of Taxiway C to the Runway 20 end. • After construction of the paral- lel runway, shift Charlie Pat- tern landing pads to the east for greater segregation between fixed wing and rotary aircraft The existing Charlie Pattern landing pads are located where the parallel runway is planned to be constructed. Therefore, the existing Charlie Pat- tern landing pads will need to be re- moved when the parallel runway is constructed. The airfield plan in- cludes the eventual replacement of the Charlie Pattern landing pads ap- proximately 1,500 feet east of the par- allel runway. This location allows for the development of landside facilities along Taxiway D. While the Charlie Pattern operations could be conducted to Taxiway D (as might be required after the parallel runway is constructed and before the new landing pads can be constructed), the relocated Charlie Pattern landing pads offer greater segregation between the aircraft using the parallel runway and the Charlie Pattern landing pads. A relocated Charlie Pattern landing pad allows the Charlie Pattern flight paths to be located further east over existing and planned indus- trial/commercial land uses, which are more compatible with the use of the Charlie Pattern. 6-10 The relocation of the Charlie Pattern landing pads to the east was shown in Alternative C. The relocation of the Charlie Pattern landing pads was not shown in Alternative A or Alternative B. The relocated Charlie Pattern landing pads would require the acqui- sition of approximately 30 acres of land east of the airport, as shown on Exhibit 6B. • Construct holding aprons to al- low aircraft to prepare for de- parture or hold, off the active taxiway Piston-powered aircraft must complete a series of engine run-up tests before departure. Some aircraft on Instru- ment Flight Rule (IFR) flight plans must hold at the runway end for de- parture clearance. Holding aprons at the runway ends allow these activities to take place off the active taxiway surface, allowing ready-for-departure aircraft to bypass those aircraft hold- ing or completing engine run-up tests. Holding aprons are planned along Taxiway C at the future Runway 20 end, along Taxiway B at the Runway 20 end, along Taxiway M at the Run- way 30L and 30R ends, and along Taxiway D at the future Runway 12L and Runway 30R ends. The holding apron along Taxiway M serving the Runway 12L and Runway 12R ends is located outside the glideslope critical area, east of the taxiway. LANDSIDE PLAN Examples of landside facilities include aircraft storage hangars, terminal buildings, aircraft parking aprons, hangar and apron access taxilanes, fuel storage facilities, and vehicle parking lots. The landside plan for Hillsboro Airport has been devised to efficiently accommodate potential aviation demand and provide revenue enhancement possibilities by designat- ing the use of certain portions of air- port property for aviation-related and non-aviation related commercial and industrial uses. With the exception of the public terminal building and air- craft wash racks, most structural im- provements are anticipated to be de- veloped privately, as has been done in the past at Hillsboro Airport. The development of landside facilities will be demand-based. In this man- ner, the facilities will only be con- structed if required by verifiable de- mand. For example, T-hangars will only be constructed if new based air- craft owners desire enclosed aircraft storage. The landside plan is based on projected needs that can change over time to ensure the orderly develop- ment of the airport should this de- mand materialize. Application of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 will need to be closely monitored throughout the implementation of this Master Plan. This law established the Transportation Security Administra- tion (TSA) to administer transporta- tion security nationally. While the most visible function of the TSA is commercial airline checked baggage and carry-on baggage screening, a component of the TSA security plan is general aviation airport security. As detailed in Chapter Four, the TSA has 6-11 issued a series of security recommen- dations for general aviation airports. The Port will monitor these security recommendations for their applicabil- ity to the secure operation of Hillsboro Airport. Specific recommendations of the TSA applicable to Hillsboro Airport include: 1. Access Controls: Already im- plemented. The Port maintains perimeter security fencing and controlled access vehicle gates. 2. Lighting System: Already im- plemented. Security lights are in place along most hangar buildings at the airport, which includes illumination of the air- craft parking aprons. Security lighting systems should be in- cluded in all future landside de- velopment areas and connected to an emergency power source, if available. 3. Personal ID System: A method of identifying airport employees or authorized tenant access to various areas of the airport through badges or biometric controls. 4. Vehicle ID System: An identifi- cation system which can assist airport personnel and law en- forcement in identifying author- ized vehicles. Vehicles can be identified through use of decals, stickers, or hang tags. 5. Law Enforcement Support: Pro- cedures that would be devel- oped to have local law enforce- ment personnel regularly or randomly patrol ramps and air- craft hangar areas, with in- creased patrols during periods of heightened security. 6. Security Committee: This Committee would be composed of airport tenants and users drawn from all segments of the airport community. The main goal of this group is to involve airport stakeholders in develop- ing effective and reasonable se- curity measures and dissemi- nating timely security informa- tion. 7. Transient Pilot Sign-in/Sign- Out Procedures: Involves estab- lishing procedures to identify non-based pilots and aircraft using their facilities, and im- plementing sign-in/sign-out pro- cedures for all transient opera- tors and associating them with their parked aircraft. Having assigned spots for transient parking areas can help to easily identify transient aircraft on an apron. 8. Signs: Already implemented. Signs are posted at each vehicle access gate noting that access to the airport is restricted to au- thorized users. 9. Documented Security Proce- dures: A written security plan that would include documenting the security initiatives already in place at the airport, as well as any new enhancements. This document could consist of, but 6-12 not be limited to, airport and lo- cal law enforcement contact in- formation, including alternates when available, and utilization of a program to increase airport user awareness of security pre- cautions such as an airport watch program. The security plan should include a contact list. The contact list involves the development of a compre- hensive list of responsible per- sonnel/ agencies to be contacted in the event of an emergency procedure. The list should be distributed to all appropriate individuals. Additionally, in the event of a security incident, it is essential that first responders and airport management have the capability to communicate. Where possible, coordinate ra- dio communication and estab- lish common frequencies and procedures to establish a radio communications network with local law enforcement. 10. Community Watch Program: Already implemented, a watch program involves the tenants and users monitoring activity on the airport and reporting suspicious behaviors. Estab- lished challenge procedures can assist tenants and users in identifying unauthorized and potentially illegal activities at the airport. The recommended landside plan does not include a relocation of Cornell Road, as shown in Landside Alterna- tive C. Subsequent to the completion of the Alternatives Analysis in De- cember 2004, the Port held a series of meetings with the Washington County Fair Board and the Fairplex develop- ers, where it was determined that the relocation of Cornell Road was no longer feasible. The ongoing Fairplex Master Plan had evolved to the point where the relocation of Cornell Road would impair the redevelopment of the Fairplex. While the relocation of Cor- nell Road is not included in this Mas- ter Plan Development Concept, it will remain part of the Alternatives Analy- sis to memorialize the analysis for fu- ture reference, as needed. A conceptual alignment of a connector road between Evergreen Road and Brookwood Parkway is shown on Ex- hibit 6B. A collector road linking NE Brookwood Parkway with NE Ever- green Road is a feature of the Trans- portation System Plans of the City of Hillsboro and Washington County. The current conceptual alignment of the road illustrated in these plans would conflict with FAA requirements for excluding newly constructed roads from runway safety area (RSA) and, where possible, runway protection zone (RPZ). The conceptual alignment for this future collector road illus- trated on Exhibit 6B considers the constraints of the existing and planned future airport facilities and safety areas. The alignment of the fu- ture collector street illustrated here is not intended to be a final design but a placeholder for land area which may be required when design and construc- tion of the road is required. A detailed traffic impact analysis of existing and future vehicle access and egress to the airport was not com- pleted as part of the landside plan. This level of analysis was outside the 6-13 scope of the Master Plan Update. However, planned roadway improve- ments in the vicinity of Hillsboro Air- port are detailed in Appendix A to Chapter Five for informational pur- poses, and should be considered in the more detailed analyses to follow the completion of the Master Plan. A detailed parking demand analysis was also not completed. Actual vehi- cle parking demands vary greatly based on the types of tenants on the airport. To the extent possible, park- ing areas were maximized in the plan considering federal design and safety standards and physical limitations such as roadways and buildings. For example, the parking area adjacent to the terminal building in the southwest quadrant of the airport is shown to en- compass all the area between the ter- minal building, FBO buildings, and Cornell Road. This area can provide approximately 700 spaces. While not shown in the plan, a connec- tion to the MAX light-rail station is possible in the future. The main ter- minal building for the airport is planned to remain north of Cornell Road. The need for a connection to the MAX station will be a function of fu- ture terminal services, tenants, and the number of air travelers connecting to the MAX station. This could poten- tially involve pedestrian/bicycle paths between the airport and the light rail station. Vehicle access to the MAX station is already available via N.E. 34th Avenue which connects with Cor- nell Road at the main airport en- trance. Similar to the need for the connection, the type of connection will be dependent upon the function of fu- ture terminal services, the number and type of tenants, and the number of air travelers connecting to the MAX station. Specific landside components for the improvement of Hillsboro Airport through the Year 2025 are summarized on Exhibit 6C. These issues will be more fully described in the following subsections. • Provide a perimeter service road to keep vehicles off the airfield Perimeter service roads allow vehicles to circumnavigate the airfield without using a runway or taxiway surface. The existing perimeter service road only extends around the Runway 2 and Runway 30 ends. The airfield plan includes the extension of the pe- rimeter service road around the Run- way 20 end, to the future landside fa- cilities east of the proposed short par- allel runway, as well as an extension of the perimeter service road to the ex- isting FBOs and corporate tenants along the northwest side of the air- port. • Reserve potential revenue sup- port parcels on existing prop- erty. Portions of existing airport property which are not contiguous to the airfield have been reserved for revenue enhancement potential, as shown on Exhibit 6D. This can include the property being used or developed for a variety of income- generating uses. For example, these 6-14 areas could be developed for commercial/industrial uses similar to the manner in which the property at the intersection of N.E. 25th Avenue and Cornell Road was developed. Portions of this property could continue to be used for agricultural reasons. Other uses could include automobile parking. The non-aviation use of existing airport property will require specific approval of the FAA. The range and intensity of all such uses described above will vary significantly relative to imaginary operating surfaces that must be maintained by both the Port and the FAA. The Port will work closely with the FAA on any future land uses on airport property that are not contiguous to the airfield and could potentially be used for non-aviation uses. The area under the RPZ is subject to restrictions of FAA Northwest Mountain Region Land Policy 97-02. This policy limits the type of development in the RPZ for a distance two times the length of the RPZ (same width as the OFA). This area is shown in an orange crosshatch on Exhibit 6D. More specifically, the land in this area cannot be used for automobile parking, or the construction of buildings and facilities which cause the congregation of people and property on the ground. Fuel storage facilities are also prohibited. The further description of the landside plan is organized around four separate and distinct quadrants of the airport: Northwest, Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast. These quadrants are generally described in the following manner: Northwest Quadrant The northwest quadrant includes the area west of Taxiway A, north of Taxiway C. The landside plan for the northwest quadrant includes ex- panded apron, improved taxiway ac- cess, and new hangar development, incorporating elements of Alternatives A, B, and C. • Extend taxiway between Taxi- way A3 and Taxiway G for im- proved circulation Taxiway G is presently the only means to transition between Taxiway A and the large aircraft apron to the west. During peak periods, Taxiway G can become congested when multiple air- craft are moving in and out of this apron area. As shown on Exhibit 6D, the planned taxiway would allow an alternative access\egress point for this apron area. A portion of the exist- ing automobile parking area along N.E. 25th Avenue would be located within this taxiway’s object free area (OFA). This parking area would need to be reconfigured to ensure that this new taxiway is unobstructed. • Provide for small clearspan hangars west of Taxiway AA to meet demand A portion of available land west of Taxiway AA and the ATCT is pres- 03 M P0 1- 6C -5 /2 3/ 05 Exhibit 6C LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS Provide a perimeter service road to keep vehicles off the airfield Reserve potential revenue support parcels as existing property Northwest Quadrant Extend taxiway between Taxiway A3 and Taxiway G for improved circulation Provide for small clear span hangars west of taxiway AA to meet demand Provide for the completion of available hangar development along Taxiway C to meet demand Expand automobile parking Relocate Taxiway AA east to provide for a perimeter service road Southwest Quadrant Redevelop the southwest apron for Fixed Based Operator (FBO) hangar space and Airplane Design Group II and III aircraft to meet demand Redevelop the public terminal building to better meet aviation uses Expand vehicle parking to meet demand and improve aesthetics of airport entrance Southeast Quadrant Relocate existing T-Hangars east of the parallel runway to consolidate small aircraft storage Consolidate corporate hangar space along Taxiways B, M, and F which are stressed for large business aircraft use Northeast Quadrant Consolidate all future small aircraft T-hangar expansions along the smaller aircraft parallel runway to meet demand Develop a new aircraft tie-down apron and FBO area for small aircraft use to meet demand A compass calibration pad/engine run-up pad for aircraft maintenance LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS PORT OF PORTLAND N.E. 25th Ave. Brookwood Parkway Exhibit 6D MASTER PLAN CONCEPT LANDSIDE 0 3 M P 0 1 - 6 D - 2 / 2 5 / 0 5 24 0' 39 0' 39 0' C CC A1 A2 A A3 A A5 A6 A7 A A8B B 400' Auto Parking 30 Spaces AA 30 L 12R Auto Parking ± 700 Spaces Wash Rack NORTH SCALE IN FEET 0 800 LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Ultimate Airfield Pavement Ultimate Roads/Parking Pavement to be Removed Building to be Removed T-Hangar Parcel Aircraft Storage Parcel Aviation Services Parcel Terminal Parcel Potential Revenue Enhancement Limited Revenue Enhancement Existing Runway Visibility Zone Ultimate Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Co rn el l R oa d 700' Exp ans ion Pot ent ial RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ultimate (4,200' x 100) A A4 A5 AA PORT OF PORTLAND Auto Parking 140 Spaces Terminal Parcel Transient and Local Tie-down Compass Calibration/ Maintenance Run-Up Pad H M G M D F Wash Rack Training Helipad NOTE: A detailed traffic assessment of surrounding facilities has not been completed. The future Evergreen Road to Brookwood Parkway alignment is generalized. This alignment may change. The road would be constructed with local resources and not by the Port. Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Future City-Owned Collector Road (Alignment Generalized) 6-15 ently undeveloped. The landside plan reserves this area for the development of up to six 3,600-square-foot clear- span hangars for aircraft storage. Clearspan hangars can provide for the storage of multiple aircraft, depending on the type and size of the aircraft stored in the hangar. A new taxiway extending to the west from Taxiway AA, near the intersection with Taxi- way A5, would provide the connection to the airfield. • Provide for the completion of hangar development along Taxiway C to meet demand Two additional rows of hangars can be constructed in the hangar area west of Taxiway C, north of the west tiedown apron. The landside plan reserves this area for the development of T- hangars or clearspan hangars. An air- craft wash rack is planned along the west tiedown apron to provide for the collection and proper disposal of air- craft cleaning agents and debris re- sulting from aircraft washing. • Expand automobile parking The expansion of the existing automo- bile parking area along N.E. 25th Ave- nue by the tenant by approximately 30 spaces is provided in the landside plan. The existing parking area will need to be reconfigured to allow for the development of the taxiway be- tween Taxiway A3 and Taxiway G. As discussed previously, a portion of the parking area is located within the taxiway’s OFA. This parking area could be extended to the north. • Relocate Taxiway AA to the east to provide for a perimeter service road Taxiway AA is presently designated as a movement area by the ATCT. This means that any vehicle or aircraft op- erating on this surface must be in two- way radio communication with the ATCT. Presently, service vehicles moving between the northwest corpo- rate area and areas to the south must use Taxiway AA and be in contact with the ATCT. Taxiway AA is planned to be relocated approximately 152 feet west of Taxiway A. Once re- located, the existing Taxiway AA sur- face would serve as the perimeter ser- vice road and connect the existing pe- rimeter service road near the ATCT. Southwest Quadrant The southwest quadrant includes the existing terminal area located west of Taxiway A and south of Runway 2-20. The landside plan for the terminal area includes a complete redevelopment of the apron, public terminal building, and automobile parking area north of Taxiway H. The landside plan for the southwest quadrant closely follows Alternative A2. • Redevelop the southwest apron for Fixed Based Operator (FBO) hangar space and Air- plane Design Group (ADG) II and III aircraft to meet demand The existing southwest apron is bi- sected by a taxiway extending between 6-16 the Runway 2 end and Taxiway A. This segregates the transient parking area from the terminal building. Automobile parking area is limited by the location of the terminal building, existing FBO hangars, and Cornell Road. This apron is configured mostly for small aircraft. As detailed in Chapters Three and Four, the mix of aircraft operating at the airport is transitioning to larger business air- craft. The landside plan for the southwest quadrant closely follows Alternative A. The apron is expanded toward the runway intersection to allow for in- creased automobile parking between the terminal building and Cornell Road. As shown, the proposed con- figuration allows for more than 700 automobile parking spaces along Cor- nell Road. Redeveloping the apron closer to the parallel taxiways and runway intersection takes advantage of the underdeveloped portion of the airport which is not conveniently lo- cated near the FBOs and terminal building. To maximize the development poten- tial of the area, the southwest apron is planned to be developed for two air- plane wingspans. The apron along Taxiway B will be developed for ADG II aircraft (wingspans shorter than 79 feet). The portion of the apron along Taxiway A will be developed for ADG III aircraft (wingspans between 79 feet and 118 feet). Aircraft within ADG II are estimated to conduct more operations annually at the airport than aircraft within ADG III; there- fore, it is not necessary to redevelop this entire apron for ADG III aircraft. A potential configuration of the apron is shown on Exhibit 6D. This includes both ADG I tiedowns and ADG II and ADG III taxi-in/taxi-out positions for larger, business aircraft. This con- figuration allows for the phased rede- velopment of the terminal area as leaseholds become available. The re- development of the apron in Alterna- tives B and C did not meet the phas- ing opportunities or required the relo- cation of Cornell Road, which led to their dismissal as viable redevelop- ment options. • Redevelop the public terminal to better meet aviation uses The existing terminal building at Hillsboro Airport is presently under- utilized and not ideally configured for general aviation activity. Most of the second floor is vacant (including the previous restaurant space), while the ground floor is occupied mostly for the private air-shuttle operation and sup- porting rental car services. Ultimately, a terminal building at Hillsboro Airport may need to serve several potential functions such as: airport concessions (i.e., a restaurant, rental cars, etc.), providing space for flight planning and a pilots’ lounge, serving the private shuttle operation, and concession operators. The existing terminal building is ulti- mately planned to be removed and re- placed by a new facility north of its ex- isting position in the center of the re- developed southwest apron, as shown on Exhibit 6D. 6-17 • Expand vehicle parking to meet demand and improve aesthet- ics of the airport entrance The redevelopment of the terminal area is intended to provide an appeal- ing entrance to the primary public ac- cess point of the airport, consistent with other local community commer- cial development. A primary limita- tion of the existing terminal area is the lack of automobile parking area. As detailed earlier, by moving the apron toward the runway intersection and redeveloping FBO and terminal buildings, approximately 700 automo- bile parking spaces can be developed for the FBO and terminal users (the current number of spaces is slightly more than 300 after a wintertime ex- pansion of parking west of the termi- nal building). Parking near the ter- minal building was maximized consid- ering the physical limitations of this area (i.e., location of Cornell Road to the south and terminal building and hangars to the north and east along the apron). Southeast Quadrant The southeast quadrant includes the area south of Taxiway B, east of the Runway 30 end. The landside plan includes relocating all existing T- hangars in this area east of the future parallel runway, and consolidating all large corporate storage needs in this area. This plan is a combination of Al- ternatives B and C. • Relocate existing T-hangars east of the parallel runway to consolidate small aircraft stor- age • Consolidate corporate hangar space along Taxiways B, M, and F, which are stressed for large, business aircraft use A goal of airport planning is to segre- gate different aviation uses. The wide variety of general aviation aircraft that use the airport have different de- sign requirements for pavement strength and distances between struc- tures and taxilane centerlines. Segre- gating uses allows for more cost effec- tive pavement development, as air- craft with similar weight bearing ca- pacities are consolidated in a single area. For example, if light aircraft and larger corporate aircraft hangar development were mixed, the taxiways serving that area would need to be stressed for the largest aircraft. This pavement would be far stronger than needed for the light aircraft which would be occupying leaseable space that could be used for corporate han- gars along the appropriately stressed pavement area. In the southeast quadrant of the air- port, there is a mix of small aircraft T- hangars and large corporate storage hangars. Existing taxiways B and F, as well as the future Taxiway M, are stressed to handle large corporate air- craft which use Runway 12-30 almost exclusively. Since the parallel runway is planned for small aircraft use only, 6-18 the T-hangars for small aircraft are best placed in this area, as the future pavements along the parallel runway would not be stressed for large aircraft commonly stored in corporate hangars. The southeast landside plans allows for up to 13 new corporate hangar par- cels which would be accessed via Taxiway B or Taxiway M. Vehicle ac- cess would be via Brookwood Park- way. Northeast Quadrant The northeast quadrant includes the area north of Runway 2-20, east of the future parallel runway. The landside plan calls for the consolidation of most future small landside facility needs in this area, along the runway specifically designed and intended to accommodate most small aircraft use in the future. The plan includes components of Alternatives A and C. • Consolidate all future small aircraft T-hangar expansion along the small aircraft paral- lel runway to meet demand As mentioned previously, the existing T-hangars located in the southeast quadrant of the airport are planned to be relocated east of the parallel run- way, near the proposed Runway 30R end. Any future T-hangar expansion would occur in this area. The plan re- serves area north of the T-hangars for future expansion beyond the planning horizon year, as shown on Exhibit 6D. An automobile parking area for visi- tors and pilots is located on the east side of the T-hangars. • Develop a new aircraft tiedown apron and FBO area for small aircraft use to meet demand With the redevelopment of the south- west apron for hangars, additional apron area will be needed to replace lost parking positions and to meet pro- jected demand. An apron area for small aircraft is planned along Taxi- way D. This apron area will provide approximately 100 tiedown locations and include an aircraft wash rack. An aircraft wash rack allows for the col- lection of cleaning fluids and debris when an aircraft is cleaned. Vehicle access is via a new roadway connect- ing to Evergreen Road. This apron would serve both transient and local tiedown needs. • A compass calibration pad/engine run-up pad for air- craft maintenance There is currently no compass calibra- tion pad at the airport. A compass calibration pad is used by pilots and maintenance technicians to align an aircraft on known magnetic headings for purposes of determining and cor- recting errors in the magnetic compass caused by equipment installed in the aircraft. The compass calibration pad is planned north of the shifted\extended Runway 20 end, to maintain it at a distance from poten- tial development that may interfere with the magnetic readings. Ulti- mately, a second or replacement en- gine maintenance run-up area would be co-located with the compass cali- bration pad. This location is near the center of the airport, and more distant 6-19 from nearby land uses that are more sensitive to such activities. Depend- ing on the number and type of engine run-ups, a blast fence may be needed to reduce soil erosion around the run- up pad. AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS To distinguish the changes in the overall noise environment caused by the proposed changes to the airfield configuration, new noise exposure con- tours were prepared for the Master Plan Development Concept. Two noise contours have been prepared. The first assumes the Short Term Plan- ning Horizon projected activity levels and fleet mix, and the construction of the parallel runway (the Charlie pat- tern moves to Taxiway D, the eastern parallel taxiway for the parallel run- way, in this scenario). The second contour assumes the projected Long Term Planning Horizon activity levels and fleet mix, and the implementation of all airfield improvements shown in the Development Concept, including the relocated Charlie Pattern landing pads 1,500 feet east of the proposed short parallel runway. Similar to the calculation of existing noise exposure contours presented in Chapter One and Chapter Five, this task involved use of the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) version 6.1. Table 6B summarizes the annual operations by aircraft type used in calculating the noise exposure contours used in this analysis. Table 6C summarizes runway use as- sumptions used to produce both the Projected Short Term Noise Contours and the Projected Long Term Noise Contours. The proposed parallel run- way (Runway 12L-30R) is assumed to serve the majority of small aircraft op- erations in each scenario. The Run- way 12L-30R traffic pattern is as- sumed to be located east of the run- way. Helicopter training is currently con- ducted in the Alpha, Bravo, and Char- lie patterns. The Charlie Pattern be- came operational in October 2004. Current operational procedures only allow four helicopters to train at any time, with only two of the three train- ing patterns activated at any given time. The ultimate goal is to put three of the four helicopters in the Charlie Pattern. If a fourth helicopter is in use, it would default to either the Al- pha or the Bravo Pattern, depending on wind conditions. This analysis assumes all three exist- ing helicopter patterns would remain accessible into the foreseeable future. The Charlie Pattern would remain the predominate pattern, accommodating 71 percent of all helicopter training. The pattern was assumed to be in a clockwise flow 50 percent of the time and in a counter-clockwise flow the remainder of the time. The Bravo Pattern would only be used when Run- way 2-20 is in use, since the Bravo Pattern would be located under the proposed Runway 30R final approach path. This changes the percentage use of each helicopter training patterns from the baseline condition. Where in the baseline contour the Bravo Pat- tern can be used when the Charlie Pattern is in operation, it cannot be 6-20 TABLE 6B Noise Model Input: Aircraft Operations Hillsboro Airport Day Night Aircraft Type INM Aircraft Local Itinerant Subtotal Local Itinerant Subtotal Total PROJECTED SHORT TERM AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Single Engine – Fixed Propeller GASEPF 71,001 59,318 130,318 1,316 955 2,271 132,589 Single Engine – Variable Propeller GASEPV 7,837 10,405 18,241 146 168 315 18,556 Multi-Engine Piston BEC58P 2,351 6,007 8,358 58 142 200 8,558 Turboprop HS748A 0 342 342 0 18 18 360 CNA441 2,508 336 2,844 73 18 91 2,935 DHC6 0 5,435 5,435 0 291 291 5,727 Turbojet LEAR25 0 853 853 0 54 54 907 GIIB 0 68 68 0 4 4 73 LEAR35 470 2,831 3,301 58 178 236 3,538 CL600 0 6,981 6,981 0 440 440 7,421 GIV 0 637 637 0 40 40 677 RP (Helicopter Pis- ton) H500D 71,941 9,976 81,917 116 566 682 82,599 RT (Helicopter Turbine) B206 1,227 4,976 6,203 0 160 160 6,363 Totals 157,334 108,165 265,499 1,766 3,035 4,801 270,300 PROJECTED LONG TERM AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Single Engine – Fixed Propeller GASEPF 90,994 76,404 167,398 2,292 719 3,011 170,409 Single Engine – Variable Propeller GASEPV 10,171 13,317 23,488 255 127 381 23,869 Multi-Engine Piston BEC58P 2,906 7,667 10,753 101 107 208 10,781 Turboprop HS748A 0 452 452 0 14 14 12,985 CNA441 4,541 7,175 11,716 126 14 140 11,856 DHC6 0 444 444 0 219 219 663 Turbojet LEAR25 0 1,150 1,150 0 40 40 1,191 GIIB 0 92 92 0 3 3 95 LEAR35 726 3,818 4,544 101 134 235 4,780 CL600 0 9,415 9,415 0 332 332 9,747 GIV 0 859 859 0 30 30 889 RP (Helicopter Pis- ton) H500D 71,560 11,165 82,725 201 427 328 83,353 RT (Helicopter Turbine) B206 1,326 3,456 4,782 0 120 120 4,903 Totals 182,224 135,414 317,638 3,076 2,286 5,362 323,000 Source: Coffman Associates Analysis 6-21 TABLE 6C Runway Use Percentages Hillsboro Airport Runways Existing Proposed Aircraft 2 20 12R 30L 12L 30R Total Itinerant Operations SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 3% 1% 3% 29% 4% 60% 100% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 3% 1% 3% 29% 4% 60% 100% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 3% 2% 9% 37% 9% 40% 100% TP (Turboprop) 3% 0% 27% 70% 0% 0% 100% J (Turbojet) 1% 0% 24% 75% 0% 0% 100% RP (Helicopter Piston) 5% 26% 2% 32% 3% 32% 100% RT (Helicopter Turbine) 5% 26% 2% 32% 3% 32% 100% Local Operations SEPF (Fixed Propeller) 5% 1% 1% 32% 1% 60% 100% SEPV (Variable Pitch Propeller) 5% 1% 1% 32% 1% 60% 100% MEP (Multi-Engine Piston) 0% 0% 20% 30% 20% 30% 100% TP (Turboprop) 0% 0% 40% 60% 0% 0% 100% J (Turbojet) 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% Source: Coffman Associates Analysis Note: Helicopter usage assumptions are summarized in Table 6D. used after the parallel runway is con- structed. Therefore, any helicopters that cannot be incorporated into the Charlie Pattern must use the Alpha Pattern. In the future, the Bravo Pat- tern use assumptions are comparable to the fixed-wing aircraft use of Run- way 2-20. Table 6D specifies the per- centage use of each pattern considered in the baseline, Projected Short Term Noise Exposure and Projected Long Term Noise Exposure contours. TABLE 6D Helicopter Pattern Use Hillsboro Airport Pattern A Pattern B Pattern C BASELINE CONTOUR 12.5% 12.5% 75% PROJECTED SHORT TERM & PROJECTED LONG TERM CONTOURSPATTERN USAGE 23% 6% 71% Source: Coffman Associates Analysis For comparative purposes, the base- line contour shown previously in Chapter One has been depicted on Exhibit 6E along with the two pro- jected noise contours, yet separately for ease of comparison. As mentioned in Chapter One, the FAA has established the 65 DNL con- tour as the threshold of incompatibil- ity for assessing environmental im- pacts of proposed improvement. As shown on the exhibit, the 65 DNL con- tour for the baseline, Projected Short Term Noise Exposure and Projected Long Term Noise Exposure contours, remains almost entirely within exist- ing airport property. The 65DNL con- tour extends slightly outside the exist- ing airport boundary north of Ever- green Road, along the extended cen- terline of the short parallel runway, 6-22 over Evergreen Road west of the Run- way 12 end. Portions of the 65DNL contour for the relocated Charlie Pat- tern landing area in the Projected Long Term Noise Exposure contours would extend beyond existing and fu- ture airport boundaries. These land areas are currently planned for indus- trial/commercial uses. Therefore, it is anticipated that no incompatible de- velopment would be located within the 65 DNL contour as the result of pro- ject implementation. The size and shape of the contours are a function of the projected increases in aircraft operations, projected change in aircraft mix to include a slightly higher percentage of larger business aircraft, and the change in the location and use of the Charlie Pattern landing pads. The projected increases in the aircraft operations and changes to the mix result in the future 55 DNL and 60 DNL contours increasing in size along the Runway 12, 30, and 2 ends. The shape of the contours along these runways ends is similar to the base- line contour, indicating that it is only the change in operational levels and mix which change the contour, not a change in the use of the runway. The size and shape of the contour northeast of the proposed, new short parallel runway changes over time due to the projected use and change in lo- cations of the Charlie Pattern landing pads and use of the new, short parallel runway. In the baseline contour, the 55 DNL and 60 DNL contours increase in size northeast of the airport due to the development of the Charlie Pat- tern landing pads in the future short parallel runway area. For the Pro- jected Short Term Noise Contours, the Charlie Pattern landing area moves to Taxiway D, approximately 940 feet east of Runway 12-30, because the third, short parallel runway is con- structed. Since Charlie Pattern moves further away from the operations on Runway 12-30 (which accommodates the large aircraft use), but is still in- fluenced by overlapping fixed wing training operations, the Charlie Pat- tern becomes more independent from existing runway operations which in- fluences the outer noise contours by making them more noticeable.. The 55 and 60 DNL short term noise con- tours are smoothed because of the overlapping of the fixed wing and heli- copter training operations. The pro- jected Long Term Noise Exposure con- tours assume that the Charlie Pattern landing pads move further east from Taxiway D, approximately 1,500 feet from the short parallel runway. At this distance, the shape of the 55 DNL contour is influenced again predomi- nantly by the Charlie Pattern. This leads to the noticeable hooks on the 55 DNL contour northeast of Evergreen Road and behind the Runway 20 end. (These hooks are similar to what is shown for the baseline contour, where Charlie Pattern flights have a more pronounced influence.) For the pro- jected Long Term Noise Exposure con- tours, the hook on the 55 DNL contour north of Evergreen Road increases in size and changes in shape following the generalized Charlie Pattern flight paths. The 55 DNL contour behind the Runway 20 end changes in size and shape for the same reasons – the Charlie Pattern Flight Paths. Highway 26 NW Shute Road Evergreen Road Cornell Road Main Street Baseline Road Evergreen Road NE Jackson School Road 55 60 65 75 65 70 70 03 M P0 1- 6E -5 /9 /0 5 Exhibit 6E EXISTING, PROJECTED SHORT TERM, & PROJECTED LONG TERM NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS PORT OF PORTLAND Highway 26 NW Shute Road Evergreen Road Cornell Road Main Street Baseline Road Evergreen Road NE Jackson School Road 60 55 55 65 60 65 75 70 75 70 NORTH 0 2,000 4,000 SCALE IN FEET Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Baseline DNL Noise Contours Projected Short Term DNL Noise Contours Projected Long Term DNL Noise Contours This noise analysis demonstrates that the current noise exposure levels conform to land use compatibility guidelines established by the FAA, which states that residential land uses at or above the 65 DNL are non compatible land uses. In general, most land uses (including residential) are considered compatible below the 65 DNL contour. These guidelines are also accepted as the basis for land use planning in Oregon. However, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality goes one step further by requiring noise information out to the 55 DNL contour for local land use planning purposes. LEGEND Date of Photo: 2000 55 60 65 75 70 75 NE 25th Ave. NE 25th Ave. NORTH 0 2,000 4,000 SCALE IN FEET Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Baseline DNL Noise Contours Projected Short Term DNL Noise Contours Projected Long Term DNL Noise Contours This noise analysis demonstrates that the current noise exposure levels conform to land use compatibility guidelines established by the FAA, which states that residential land uses at or above the 65 DNL are non compatible land uses. In general, most land uses (including residential) are considered compatible below the 65 DNL contour. These guidelines are also accepted as the basis for land use planning in Oregon. However, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality goes one step further by requiring noise information out to the 55 DNL contour for local land use planning purposes. LEGEND Date of Photo: 2000 6-23 COMPATIBLE LAND USE Following the development of the Master Plan, the Airport Compatibil- ity Study for Hillsboro Airport will be updated. The Airport Compatibility Study is a comprehensive document examining both operational and land use measures to improve the compati- bility between aircraft operations and the local community. The updated Airport Compatibility Study will be a stand-alone document. Public input to the Airport Compatibility Study will include members of the Project Advi- sory Committee on two Technical Ad- visory Groups (TAGs). The Airport Compatibility Study Up- date will recognize and incorporate the latest regarding status of Metro Goal 5 initiatives as they relate to Hillsboro Airport. The following is a summary of what is known to be applicable as of the date of this writing (March 2005): Goal 5 is one of Oregon’s 19 statewide land use planning goals and is in- tended to “protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.” Oregon law requires all cities and counties in the state to adopt land use regulations consistent with all of the land use goals, includ- ing Goal 5. For lands at HIO, both the City of Hillsboro and Washington County have adopted Goal 5 programs consistent with state law. At the time of completion of this Mas- ter Plan, Metro (the Portland area’s MPO) is in the process of trying to complete and adopt a regional Goal 5 program aimed primarily at preserv- ing and restoring fish and wildlife habitat within the Portland Urban Growth Boundary, including lands at and around HIO. The effort to develop and adopt a regional program has been ongoing since 1999, and is cur- rently expected to be completed in May or June of 2005. Under an agreement with Metro, ten Washing- ton County cities (including the City of Hillsboro) have joined with the County and other governmental agencies to develop a specific Tualatin River Ba- sin plan that will be incorporated into the Metro region-wide program. The Port of Portland has been working with the staffs from Metro and the Tualatin Basin Partners to allow management of natural resources on airport property to be subject to the specific findings of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP), instead of any new requirements that may be approved through the Metro/Tualatin Basin program. The WHMP would be required to be consistent with the pro- visions of FAA Part 139 requirements for wildlife management. Currently, the draft programs contain such provi- sions for a WHMP approach at HIO. The development of both the Metro and Tualatin Basin efforts has been recently complicated by the passage of Measure 37, in November of 2004. Once adopted by Metro, the City and County will have up to two years to amend their land use regulations to be consistent with the new Metro pro- gram. In the interim, the existing Goal 5 regulations from the City of Hillsboro, and to a much lesser degree Washington County, will continue to apply at HIO. 6-24 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW A preliminary environmental analysis was conducted for the Master Plan Development Concept using the envi- ronmental impact categories from FAA Order 1050.1E, Policies and Pro- cedures for Considering Environ- mental Impacts, dated June 8, 2004. The findings are discussed below. Ad- ditional supporting documentation can be found in the Technical Appendix to this chapter. This overview is intended to identify potential impacts, circumstances where new or revised permits would be required and conditions under which mitigation would be required. The reader should note that although the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) categories are used for this overview, this does not fulfill the requirements of NEPA. The NEPA process will be undertaken prior to construction of projects shown in the Master Plan Development Concept. Although NEPA is not being under- taken at this time, NEPA impact cate- gories are being used for this overview to ensure that the requirements of NEPA can be addressed in the near future. The Capital Improvement Pro- gram includes funding to meet NEPA requirements in the short term plan- ning horizon. CONTROVERSY As with any significant aviation- related development plan, some de- gree of controversy should be expected. Controversy may arise due to real or perceived effects. Development pro- jects can be controversial on substan- tive grounds (i.e. inability to mitigate significant impacts to a level of non- significance). Development projects project can also be controversial due to a lack of community support. Port staff anticipates that public contro- versy is possible on the bases of noise, land use compatibility, social impacts (surface traffic), air quality, water quality, natural resources, wetlands, flood plains, farmlands, construction impacts and cumulative impacts. Controversy can be addressed through public involvement and outreach ef- forts that provide complete, timely and accurate project information. The Port’s outreach efforts include posting project information on web sites, neighborhood meetings, project advi- sory committees, direct mail and other techniques. Based on extensive community out- reach efforts related to this project, airport noise and traffic congestion are the two areas most likely to be contro- versial to residents. Port staff have also received public inquires regarding aircraft safety and air quality. These latter two concerns are believed to be limited to a few residents whereas concerns regarding noise and traffic are believed to be more prevalent. NOISE The cumulative noise impact associ- ated with increased aircraft operations may be of concern. The FAA-approved Integrated Noise Model (INM) version 6-25 6.1 was used to characterize the air- craft noise impact from the Master Plan Development Concept (see earlier description of noise contours and the analysis conducted to produce them). This analysis did not address all op- erational measures that may be used to mitigate potential noise impacts. As such, any conclusions regarding noise should be considered prelimi- nary. Operational mitigation meas- ures will be examined in greater detail in the airport compatibility study that is being conducted concurrently with this Master Planning effort. The re- sults of the compatibility study will be incorporated into the Master Plan Up- date when completed. Construction noise for airport devel- opment projects is typically minimal (compared to operational noise levels), temporary, and confined to airport property. Construction noise is not anticipated to be significant. COMPATIBLE LAND USE As mentioned above, a separate air- port operations and land use compati- bility study to will be conducted at the completion of the Master Plan Update. The results of the compatibility study will be made available when com- pleted. SOCIAL IMPACTS The potential impacts considered here include land acquisition, resident relo- cation, public road relocation and con- struction of new roads. All criteria are associated with conversion of pre- dominantly rural land uses in the vi- cinity of the airport to urban land uses associated with the airport. Cur- rently, the predominant land uses ad- jacent to the north side of the airport are agriculture with a few rural- density residences with the balance of uses around the airport being already developed as urban uses (i.e., office, commercial, residential, industrial, institutional). Nearly all of the pro- posed development would be located within the existing urban growth boundary (UGB) in an area zoned for industrial uses; a very small amount of land area outside of the current UGB could be affected by runway end protection for the proposed 3rd runway. While potentially significant, the Port is coordinating with the affected local governments for the proposed land use changes described here. Hillsboro Airport has been in continu- ous aviation use for more than 75 years and has been a component in supporting community and regional economic growth. Hillsboro Airport is the second busiest airport in the State of Oregon (as measured by annual air- craft operations). As such, the airport has been a long-established transpor- tation facility recognized in local and regional planning efforts. The Master Plan Development Con- cept would require significant land ac- quisition (approximately 43 acres), re- location of several residents and con- struction of new access roads. The Master Plan Development Concept would not require relocation of public roads. Two tracts of land are being consid- ered for acquisition. Approximately 37 acres would be acquired adjacent to 6-26 the northeast quadrant to allow relo- cation of the Charlie Pattern Landing Area. The parcel is depicted in the next chapter (Chapter Seven - Capital Improvement Program) on Exhibit 7B Development Staging as Intermediate Term Project 5. The second parcel is located on the south side of Evergreen Road. This parcel contains approxi- mately 6 acres and can be identified on Exhibit 7B by the red and white dashed line depicting the Ultimate Airport Property Line. Both proper- ties are currently used for low density single family residences and/or agri- culture. Both property acquisitions would require relocation of residents. A third parcel in the southwest quad- rant identified under Airport Devel- opment Alternatives B and C is no longer being considered for acquisi- tion. The Port must comply with the re- quirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisi- tion Policies Act of 1970. The purpose of this law is to provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, busi- nesses, or farms by Federal and feder- ally assisted programs and to estab- lish uniform and equitable land acqui- sition policies for Federal and feder- ally assisted programs. Among other things, this Act establishes appropri- ate protocol for addressing impacts as- sociated with purchase of residences, businesses or farmland. A new access road and parking facili- ties would be constructed in the northeast quadrant to support the re- located T-hangars and proposed Run- way 12L/30R. The new access road may require signalization at the inter- section with Evergreen Road. These projects are depicted on Exhibit 7B Development Staging as Intermediate Term Projects 6, 8, and 9. Relocation of existing public roads identified under Airport Development Alternatives B and C is no longer be- ing considered. However, airport growth is expected to contribute to an increase in traffic volume in the area. Traffic associated with increased de- mand for aviation services combined with existing traffic and future traffic from rapid urban growth in the Hills- boro area could become a significant cumulative impact issue. Surface transportation will be a critical issue for any future NEPA process. INDUCED SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS Airport expansion, regardless of the alternative, will have some positive socio-economic impacts. The numer- ous construction projects will likely increase employment opportunities for those involved in construction trades. Increased operations, depending on the scope, scale and nature, may also increase employment opportunities and income tax revenues. Tenant- owned improvements would generate additional property tax revenues. Overall economic activity and demand for public services are anticipated to increase commensurate with the growth in demand for aviation ser- vices. Demand for local services such as hotel, restaurants, restaurants and rental cars may also increase. Secon- dary impacts, such as changes in 6-27 population patterns, are not expected because the area where airfield devel- opment is contemplated has few resi- dents and is already zoned for indus- trial uses. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as fol- lows: "The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, im- plementation, and enforcement of envi- ronmental laws, regulations, and poli- cies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, eth- nic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the exe- cution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies." Extensive long-term public outreach efforts have been conducted by the Port of Portland Community Affairs personnel department and these ef- forts are on going. Port staff has not identified any demographic informa- tion suggesting that disparate impacts to any minority population would oc- cur. AIR QUALITY Hillsboro Airport is located in an area that meets all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards but due to pre- vious exceedances, is designated by the U.S. EPA as an air quality Main- tenance Area. At one time the Hills- boro area exceeded the carbon monox- ide standard on occasion during the winter months and the ozone standard on occasion during the summer months. The area has met the ozone standard since 1993 and the carbon monoxide standard since 1989. The Federal Clean Air Act Amend- ment of 1990 requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the airshed in which the action would take place. The SIP is a com- prehensive plan that provides for im- plementation, maintenance, and en- forcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and in- cludes emission limitations and con- trol measures to attain and maintain compliance with the NAAQS. General Conformity is defined as demonstrat- ing that a project conforms to the SIP’s purpose of eliminating or reduc- ing the severity and frequency of vio- lations of the ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. As a result of the Maintenance Area designation, a General Conformity ap- plicability determination will be re- quired. If the emissions of carbon monoxide or ozone precursor pollut- ants (volatile organic compounds or oxides of nitrogen) exceed one hundred tons per year of a single pollutant, a General Conformity demonstration would be required for the construction and operational phases of the Master Plan Development Concept in accor- dance with 40 Code of Federal Regula- tions (CFR) Part 93 Subpart B. An emission estimating and trending tool 6-28 has been developed to allow emissions from all airport activities to be calcu- lated. This tool would be used to de- termine if the one hundred tons per year applicability thresholds have been exceeded. As a result of the EPA-directed transi- tion from the existing 1-hour ozone standard to the recently promulgated 8-hour standard, General Conformity for ozone precursor pollutants will no longer be required after June 15, 2005. Emissions from Operations: The current level of aircraft operations at Hillsboro Airport is such that some delays in aircraft operations can be expected today and to grow in the fu- ture unless additional operating ca- pacity is provided (please see Chapter 4 for additional information). The av- erage delay per aircraft operation is forecast to increase from the current level of 1.9 minutes to 6.7 minutes in 2025 if no capacity-enhancing, projects are implemented. As discussed ear- lier, the combination of additional exit taxiways and improved radar coverage would lower the average delay per air- craft operation from approximately 1.9 minutes to 1.1 minutes. As such, emissions from aircraft operations are anticipated to decrease as a result of the implementation of the Master Plan Development Concept by reliev- ing congestion and reducing delay. A more exact estimate of what that de- crease amounts to will be determined during the conduct of future required environmental documents for specific master plan-identified projects. Construction Emissions: Emissions from construction activities will be calculated once the construction schedule is finalized and preliminary engineering design information is available. This information is needed to complete an accurate emissions in- ventory for construction equipment. Stationary Sources & Permit Re- quirements: It is anticipated that new stationary sources will be needed to accommodate increased demand for aviation services. The most likely types of sources are fuel storage tanks and emergency generators. New fuel storage tanks may trigger New Source Performance Standards under 40 CFR Part 60. An emergency generator will be installed in the short term planning horizon. The generator would provide electrical power to critical airfield sys- tems in the event of a power outage. A Notice of Intent to Construct is re- quired by DEQ in accordance with 340-210-0230 prior to installation of stationary sources. These new sta- tionary sources may also trigger the obligation to obtain an Air Contami- nant Discharge Permit. WATER QUALITY Water quality impacts and an increase in stormwater volume are of potential concern. It is believed that these im- pacts could be mitigated to a level of non-significance but a substantial in- vestment would be necessary to achieve this. Cumulative impacts may also be of concern. The current configuration of the Hills- boro Airport consists of 937 acres of which 197 acres are impervious (run- ways, taxiways, buildings, etc.). The 6-29 Master Plan Development Concept would increase impervious surfaces by 170 acres to a total of 367 acres. 82 acres of new impervious surface would occur outside the six existing airfield drainage basins. All stormwater run- off from Hillsboro Airport drains to Dawson Creek or McKay Creek, both of which are tributaries of the Tuala- tin River. The increase in impervious surface will increase the volume of stormwater runoff. Stormwater vol- ume may be a cumulative impacts concern for floodplains in the Dawson Creek and McKay Creek drainages. Assuming full build-out of all identi- fied projects, 32 acres of new impervi- ous surface (52 % increase) would drain to McKay Creek. Again, assum- ing full build out, 138 acres of new im- pervious surface (102 % increase) would drain to Dawson Creek. Ex- hibit 6Fa titled Future Impervious Surfaces depicts the locations and ex- tent of new impervious surface. In- creased stormwater volume will be a critical issue in any future NEPA process No new types of pollutants are ex- pected; however, increased loading from a few well-characterized pollut- ants may increase commensurate with an increase in aircraft operations and industrial activities. Best Manage- ment Practices (i.e., stormwater treat- ment techniques and devices) are al- ready required and will continue to be required, to the degree commensurate a A slight modification was made to the proposed land acquisition program sine the analysis was done for this topic and those to follow in this environ- mental overview section. The land area was “shrunk” slightly. W hat is depicted and discussed in this environmental overview analysis actually repre- sents a “”worse-case” scenario. with the increased activity. Stormwa- ter quality may also be a cumulative impact concern for surface waters since the Tualatin River was listed under Section 303(d) of the Clean Wa- ter Act as being water quality limited for temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen and total phosphorus. Since that listing, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been established for each of these pollutants for the Tuala- tin River Sub-Basin. EPA has delegated water quality per- mitting responsibility to the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). DEQ has issued two water quality permits applicable to Hillsboro Airport that are structured to prevent and limit water quality im- pacts from construction projects and airfield industrial activities. Con- struction activities are regulated un- der the 1200-CA permit and airfield industrial activities are regulated un- der the 1200-Z permit. Among other things, this permit requires that a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP) be established, implemented and updated on a regular basis to en- sure that all applicable requirements are met. Some of the proposed devel- opment projects may trigger the need to update the SWPCP. The Port recognizes that water quality impacts will merit close attention in the environmental evaluation process. As a preliminary measure, the Capital Improvement Program calls for con- struction of a stormwater quality facil- ity and an aircraft wash rack in the short term planning horizon. The stormwater quality facility could be configured to retain, detain and/or treat collected stormwater. The de- 6-30 sign, capacity and location of this structure have not yet been deter- mined. However, these facilities must be constructed and located in a man- ner that does not create a hazardous wildlife attractant. An example of a structure that could potentially attract hazardous wildlife would be an open stormwater detention structure near an aircraft operating area (Reference: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A). The Capital Improvement Program calls for construction of an additional aircraft wash rack in the long term planning horizon. Several business aviation tenants already have wash racks. Pavement surfaces associated with aircraft wash areas generally drain to the stormwater collection system when not in use. When aircraft are being washed, collected wash water is diverted to the sanitary sewer system for treatment by Clean Water Ser- vices. Wash racks can also be equipped with BMPs to meet effluent pretreatment requirements. The Hillsboro Airport does not hold a deicing permit and aircraft and pave- ment deicing/anti-icing activities are not currently conducted at Hillsboro Airport. In extreme winter weather conditions, aircraft operations gener- ally cease as there is no significant customer demand to continue to oper- ate under these conditions. There is a possibility that tenants and other air- port users may need to operate under extreme winter weather conditions in the future. If demand or need were established, the issues of aircraft and pavement deicing/anti-icing and po- tential water quality impacts would be investigated in detail and the appro- priate infrastructure and operational practices would be constructed and implemented. In addition, appropri- ate permits would be obtained. One potential Best Management Practice available to address this concern would be to construct the wash racks to also serve as aircraft deicing pads. As stated previously, the Tualatin River is TMDL limited for dissolved oxygen primarily as a result of ammo- nia. Deicing and anti-icing chemicals can contribute significant biochemical oxygen demand or BOD which also re- duces dissolved oxygen levels. In ad- dition, the Tualatin River provides habitat for anadromous species of salmonids. Please refer to the Threat- ened and Endangered Species section of this Environmental Overview. SECTION 4F LANDS Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act addresses use of publicly owned land from a park, rec- reation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local sig- nificance or land of an historic site of national state, or local significance. The intent of Section 4(f) is to protect the aforementioned public lands from impacts associated with transporta- tion projects. No affected resources have been iden- tified within the current airport boundary or within the Ultimate Air- port Property Line depicted earlier on Exhibit 6D. The Washington County Fair Complex may qualify for protec- tion under Section 4(f). It is located on the south side of Cornell Road adja- 24 5 3 1 6 Existing APL Storm Basins Future APL Primary Zone Existing Impervious Future Development % Impervious 15% 33% 85% 100% 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Da ws on Cr ee k Filename: Exhibit 6F.pdf03/17/05 B rookw ood Pkwy Cornell Rd Evergreen Rd Dawson Creek 136 274 138 102% McKay Creek 61 93 32 52% Total Acres: 197 367 170 86% Impervious Surface - Receiving Waters Receiving Water Existing Preferred Development Concept Additional Acres % Increase 1 17 19 2 12% 2 50 100 51 101% 3 29 34 4 14% 4 43 57 14 33% 5 19 36 18 95% 6 1 1 0 0% No HIO Storm Basin 38 120 82 214% Total Acres 197 367 170 86% Impervious Surface - Storm Basins Storm Basin Existing Preferred Development Concept Additional Acres % Increase Exhibit 6F: HIO Master Plan Update--Preferred Development Concept Future Impervious Surfaces 6-31 cent to Hillsboro Airport. Since no Fair Complex lands would be con- verted to aviation uses and the Fair Complex is located outside of the pro- jected long term 65 DNL noise con- tour, the Master Plan Development Concept and Fair Complex should be considered compatible land uses. HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES A comprehensive cultural resource survey for the Hillsboro Airport Mas- ter Plan has not been undertaken. Typically, cultural resource surveys are not conducted for airport master planning efforts. Generally, these studies are undertaken for specific airport improvements. However, sev- eral cultural resource surveys have been conducted in the vicinity of Hillsboro Airport: • Washington County Museum cul- tural resource inventory of Wash- ington County (1982-83); • Cultural resources survey for the proposed widening and realign- ments of Cornell Road (1982-83); • Cultural resource survey for pro- posed water pipeline along the BPA transmission corridor (1996); • Cultural resource survey for pro- posed new sanitary sewer line along Dawson Creek (1997); • Cultural resource survey for con- structing a new segment of Brook- wood Parkway (1999); • Cultural resource survey for pro- posed widening of NW Evergreen Road (2000); and • Cultural resource study for pro- posed Hillsboro Airport Runway Safety Area Project for Runway 12/30 (2000). Generally speaking, the studies indi- cated that there was evidence of cul- tural resources (Native American and Euro-American) in the Hillsboro vicin- ity. While the cultural resource stud- ies were conducted for specific projects and most did not find significant evi- dence of cultural resources, they did identify artifacts that suggest the presence of native groups as well as evidence that the area was the center of early Euro-American settlement. Importantly, the survey records search and literature review conducted for the airport runway safety area as well as some of the other cultural studies indicated that the project area lies within the traditional homeland of the Tualatin Indians. While there are no ethno-historic references to Native American camps or other settlements in the project area, there is a potential that archaeological resources could oc- cur especially along the waterways. There is sufficient evidence from the previous cultural resource studies, es- pecially with respect to the presence of the Tualatin Indians and early Euro- American settlement activity, that there will be a need to conduct appro- priate cultural resource and Section 106 studies after the master plan is approved and specific projects are identified. During the NEPA process, areas that have not yet been surveyed will be identified and surveyed as ap- propriate in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office 6-32 (SHPO) to determine if the findings meet significance criteria at federal and state levels. The majority of the Master Plan De- velopment Concept infrastructure would be constructed on highly dis- turbed sites. Most of the project area has been developed, managed and used for aviation related purposes for more than 75 years, and was in agri- cultural production prior to that. The portions of the project area not previ- ously used for aviation have been farmed since Euro-American settle- ment. Given that the historic land uses and site conditions are similar, the Master Plan Development Concept is not ex- pected to impact significant architec- tural, archeological, or paleontological resources. However, appropriate con- sultation with Native American Tribes and the SHPO will be conducted by the FAA when a specific project identi- fied in the Master Plan Development Concept is implemented. In the unlikely event that resources are dis- covered, construction will be inter- rupted so that the resources can be examined and recovered/documented as appropriate. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES Generally speaking, the impacts to bi- otic communities result from conver- sion of vegetated areas to aviation or industrial uses in accordance with lo- cal zoning ordinances. The Port’s Natural Resources Inventory data were used to characterize the type, lo- cation and extent of changes to the various vegetation classifications. The inventory includes 40 vegetation clas- sifications, 29 of which are known to exist in the vicinity of Hillsboro Air- port. The existing condition is de- picted in Exhibit 6G titled Existing Natural Resources Inventory and Ju- risdictional Wetlands – 2002. Future conditions associated with full imple- mentation of the Master Plan Devel- opment Concept are depicted in Ex- hibit 6H titled Future Natural Re- sources Inventory and Jurisdictional Wetlands. Affected acreages of each vegetation classification are quantified and tabulated in Exhibit 6I. The reader should note that all exhibits showing future conditions assume full build-out of the Master Plan Develop- ment Concept. The Master Plan Development Con- cept includes development outside of the existing airport property bound- ary. Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) data are not yet available for these areas. In addition, not all air- port property has been classified un- der NRI. Data are lacking for ap- proximately 91 acres of land poten- tially affected by the Master Plan De- velopment Concept. As a result, the tables showing the number of acres converted from each of the various vegetated classifications to airfield uses will require updating and revi- sion as part of any future NEPA documentation process. The Master Plan Development Concept also in- cludes development in or in close prox- imity to the sensitive habitat types along Dawson Creek which may be considered controversial to some resi- dents. Depending on the extent and degree of development in this area, ex- Exhibit 6G: HIO Master Plan Update--Existing ConditionsNatural Resource Inventory (NRI) and Juristictional Wetlands This map is for illustration purposes only. Improvements illustrated on this map may change and do not necessarily indicate a commitment to implement the improvements by the Port of Portland or the Federal Aviation Administration. - Primary Zone Proposed Property Boundary Airport Property Line County Boundary City Boundary Port Wetlands Jurisdictional- Surveyed Jurisdictional- Not Surveyed 500 0 500 1,000 1,500250 Feet Natural Resource Inventory Blackberry Scrub-Shrub Channel Conifer Conifer (Planted) Cottonwood, Willow Scrub-Shrub Cottonwood, Willow, Ash Forest Cultivated - Bareground/Irrigated Developed - Cultivated Developed - Impervious Developed - Pervious Ditch Ditch - Roadside Emergent Wetland Grass/Forb - Mowed Hardwood Herbaceous Upland Herbaceous Upland (Planted) Herbaceous Wetland Improved Pasture - Perrenial Grass Seed/Hay Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Mixed Conifer-Hardwood (Planted) Pervious Wasteland/Barren/Weedy Fill Pond Railroad - Crushed Rock Road - Dirt Road - Gravel Road - Paved Scrub-Shrub Stream Exhibit 6H: HIO Master Plan Update--Preferred Development ConceptFuture Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) and Juristictional Wetlands This map is for illustration purposes only. Improvements illustrated on this map may change and do not necessarily indicate a commitment to implement the improvements by the Port of Portland or the Federal Aviation Administration. - Primary Zone Proposed Property Boundary Airport Property Line County Boundary City Boundary Streams Port Wetlands Jurisdictional- Surveyed Jurisdictional- Not Surveyed Preferred Development Concept% Impervious 15% Impervious--Limited Revenue Enhancement 33% Impervious--Potential Revenue Enhancement 500 0 500 1,000 1,500250 Feet Natural Resource Inventory Blackberry Scrub-Shrub Channel Conifer Conifer (Planted) Cottonwood, Willow Scrub-Shrub Cottonwood, Willow, Ash Forest Cultivated - Bareground/Irrigated Developed - Cultivated Developed - Impervious Developed - Pervious Ditch Ditch - Roadside Emergent Wetland Grass/Forb - Mowed Hardwood Herbaceous Upland Herbaceous Upland (Planted) Herbaceous Wetland Improved Pasture - Perrenial Grass Seed/Hay Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Mixed Conifer-Hardwood (Planted) Pervious Wasteland/Barren/Weedy Fill Pond Railroad - Crushed Rock Road - Dirt Road - Gravel Road - Paved Scrub-Shrub Stream Daws on Cr eek 03 M P 0 1 - 6 I - 5 / 1 0 / 0 5 PORT OF PORTLAND Exhibit 6I NRI & ASSOCIATED WETLANDS ON POP PROPERTY INFLUENCED BY 2005 HIO MASTER PLAN PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 6-33 tensive compensatory mitigation could be required by multiple agencies with jurisdictional constraints at the fed- eral, state and local levels. Natural Resource Protection Areas are regulated by the City of Hillsboro and Washington County under Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the provisions of Oregon Adminis- trative Rule (OAR) 660, Division 23. Potential impacts to Significant Natu- ral Resources areas are depicted in Exhibit 6J titled City of Hillsboro Natural Resource Overlay. Potential impacts are isolated to the Limited Revenue and Potential Revenue En- hancement Areas. Goal 5 is one of Oregon’s 19 statewide land use planning goals and is in- tended to “protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.” Oregon law re- quires all cities and counties in the state to adopt land use regulations consistent with statewide land use goals including Goal 5. For lands near Hillsboro Airport, both the City of Hillsboro and Washington County have adopted Goal 5 programs consis- tent with state law. As of March 2005, Metro (the Portland area’s Metropolitan Planning Organi- zation) is in the process of developing a regional Goal 5 program aimed pri- marily at preserving and restoring fish and wildlife habitat within the Port- land Urban Growth Boundary, includ- ing lands at and around Hillsboro Air- port. The effort to develop and adopt a regional program has been ongoing since 1998, and is currently expected to be completed in May or June of 2005. Under an agreement with Metro, ten Washington County cities (including the City of Hillsboro) have joined with the County and other gov- ernmental agencies to develop a spe- cific Tualatin River Basin plan that will be incorporated into the Metro re- gion-wide program. The development of both the Metro and Tualatin Basin efforts has been recently complicated by the passage of Measure 37 in November of 2004. Once adopted by Metro, the City and County will have up to two years to amend their land use regulations to be consistent with the new Metro pro- gram. In the interim, the existing Goal 5 regulations from the City of Hillsboro and to a much lesser degree Washington County will continue to apply. The City of Hillsboro has established four classifications under its program to implement Goal 5. These classifica- tions are based on the habitat value of the resource and the degree to which development would be limited. The four classifications, in ascending order of stringency are: • Impact Area (lands where allowed uses could adversely affect the identified resources) • Resource Level 1: Moderately Limit • Resource Protection Level 2: Limit • Resource Protection Level 3: Strictly Limit. Washington County is responsible for Goal 5 resource protection for areas north of Evergreen Road, among other areas. Potential impacts to these re- sources resulting from the Master 6-34 Plan Development Concept are also isolated to the Limited Revenue and Potential Revenue Enhancement Ar- eas. Potential impacts to Goal 5 re- sources within the jurisdiction of Washington County were not mapped since there is only a remote chance that development would occur in this area. Potential impacts to Goal 5 re- sources under Washington County ju- risdiction will be revisited in any up- coming NEPA process. Many Goal 5 lands regulated by the City as Significant Natural Resource Overlays (SNROs) are subject to mul- tiple overlapping jurisdictions and po- tentially, duplicative mitigation re- quirements in the event that Goal 5 lands would be impacted by develop- ment. The City of Hillsboro recognizes jurisdiction of US Army Corps of En- gineers (USACE), The Oregon Divi- sion of State Lands (DSL) and Clean Water Services (CWS) for areas under their respective jurisdictions that fall within the identified SNROs. For ar- eas outside these jurisdictions, sepa- rate mitigation will be required in ac- cordance with local land use require- ments. Mitigation requirements for Significant Natural Resource Protec- tion areas have established ratios set forth in the Hillsboro Zoning Ordi- nance No. 1945, Section 131a. DSL has established mitigation ratios whereas, the USACE negotiates ap- propriate levels of mitigation based on wetland functions and values. Clean Water Services requires replacement or restoration of the vegetative buffers along each creek or tributary. Project- specific implementation will require both a natural resource assessment for the loss of the vegetative buffer and a mitigation plan. The City of Hillsboro would not issue building permits until Clean Water Services mitigation re- quirements have been addressed. This would be done as part of any fu- ture NEPA-defined, FAA-required documentation process for a specific project having an impact of this na- ture. The Port of Portland has been working with Metro and the Tualatin Basin Partners to recognize the unique con- straints associated with management of natural resources on airport prop- erty. Aviation safety is of primary im- portance. Ensuring aviation safety involves addressing natural resource issues in that they have the potential to attract wildlife to the airfield which could compromise aviation safety. Both FAA and the State of Oregon Department of Aviation recognize the need for compatible land use planning on and around airports. In order to address these potential hazards and minimize the potential for bird strikes, the FAA has established a protocol to manage wildlife hazards under FAR Part 139.337. The Port is developing a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) for Hillsboro Airport in ac- cordance with FAA guidance. The Port is coordinating development of this plan with natural resource agen- cies in an effort to maintain consis- tency and ensure compatible land uses on and around the airport. Ehibit 6J--HIO Master Plan Update--Preferred Development ConceptCity of Hillsboro Significant Natural Resource Overlay This map is for illustration purposes only. Improvements illustrated on this map may change and do not necessarily indicate a commitment to implement the improvements by the Port of Portland or the Federal Aviation Administration. - Primary Zone Proposed Property Boundary Airport Property Line County Boundary City Boundary Significant Natural Resource Overlay Resource Level 1: Moderately Limit Resource Level 2: Limit Resource Level 3: Strictly Limit SNRO Impact Area Preferred Development Concept% Impervious 15% Impervious--Limited Rev. Enhancement 33% Impervious--Potential Rev. Enhancement 85% Impervious 100% Impervious Pervious Land Use Change 500 0 500 1,000 1,500250 Feet Daws on Cr eek SNRO Levels Influenced by 2005 HIO Master Plan Preferred Development Concept Outside Primary Zone SNRO Limited Revenue Enhancement Potential Revenue Enhancement Total Resource Level 1: Moderately Limit 0.02 0.00 0.02 Resource Level 2: Limit 1.72 14.32 16.04 Resource Level 3: Strictly Limit 4.97 0.72 5.68SNRO Impact Area 1.59 2.39 3.98 Total 8.29 17.43 25.72 6-35 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES The purpose of the Endangered Spe- cies Act (ESA) is to ensure that Fed- eral actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any feder- ally listed endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habi- tat. Potential impacts could result from habitat loss, increases in impervious surfaces and the resulting increase in stormwater volume; construction, ero- sion, sedimentation and/or contami- nated stormwater. If and when Development Concept- defined projects requiring a NEPA process are implemented, findings similar to those of the Environmental Assessment for the Hillsboro Airport Runway Safety Area project would be expected for this impact category. Consultation under Section 7 of the ESA for that project resulted in a “no effect” determination for threatened and endangered plants, bald eagle, Aleutian Canada goose and Upper Willamette River (UWR) Chinook, a “not likely to effect” determination for Upper Willamette River Steelhead and short-term temporary construc- tion impacts “may effect but would not likely adversely modify” critical steel- head habitat. The reader should note that Critical Habitat designations for UWR steel- head are currently under review. Consultation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries could be required depending on the outcome of their Critical Habitat review. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries with regard to any action that may adversely affect es- sential fish habitat identified under the Act. The consultation procedures are analogous to those used under the ESA. Consultation with both the Ore- gon Department of Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries will be required prior to implementation of those pro- jects defined by the Master Plan De- velopment Concept that trigger NEPA. Indirect impacts to Essential Fish Habitat could potentially occur through stormwater runoff. Direct impacts attributable to construction or operation are remote. The species of concern are anadro- mous salmonids. Essential Fish Habi- tat designations would need to be identified and evaluated under any upcoming NEPA process prior to im- plementation of projects stemming from the Master Plan Development Process. As mentioned under the ESA discussion above, Critical Habitat des- ignations are pending for UWR Steel- head. Impacts to EFH would require mitiga- tion. NOAA Fisheries has not estab- lished mitigation protocols or ratios. Mitigation for loss of habitat could in- clude, but is not limited to: riparian or channel enhancements, removal of fish passage barriers or obstructions (culvert, etc.), off-site mitigation, 6-36 and/or 100-year floodplain enhance- ment. MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the ‘take” of any mi- gratory bird. The term “take” under the MBTA is defined as the action of or attempt to “pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill.” The MBTA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS interprets the MBTA such that under certain circumstances (generally – active nests), nests and/or eggs of migratory birds are also pro- tected under the “take” provision of the Act. Migratory birds listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and in the case of Bald eagles, the Bald Eagle Protection Act, are man- aged by the agency staff handling com- pliance with Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA; management of all other migra- tory birds is overseen by the Migratory Bird Division of the USFWS. Removal of trees within the project area, should it become necessary to maintain aviation safety, would ide- ally be scheduled to occur outside of the nesting season in order to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Unavoidable impacts to actively nesting birds would require a depredation permit from USFWS. WETLANDS Potential impacts to wetlands are de- picted in Exhibit 6K titled Wetlands and Associated Regulatory Protective Buffers. Wetlands identified to cause a hazardous wildlife attractant would be filled to promote safe aircraft op- erations and minimize the possibility of bird strikes. For purposes of this Master Plan Update, it was assumed that all wetlands within the airfield would be filled. Actual wetlands losses may be substantially less. Fill- ing of jurisdictional wetlands would require justification (i.e. identified as a hazardous wildlife attractant), per- mitting and mitigation. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations discourage wetland mitigation within 10,000 feet of an the airport that handles turbine-powered aircraft (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A “Separation Criteria”) in order to minimize, mitigate and /or lessen the probability of bird strikes near airports. DSL has established mitigation ratios. The USACE negotiates appropriate levels of mitigation based on wetland functions and values. Clean Water Services requires replacement or res- toration of the vegetative buffers along each creek or tributary. Project- specific implementation will require both a natural resource assessment for the loss of the vegetative buffer and a mitigation plan. The City of Hillsboro would not issue building permits until Clean Water Services mitigation re- quirements have been addressed. This would be done as part of any fu- ture NEPA-defined, FAA-required documentation process for a specific project having an impact of this na- ture. Exhibit 6K: HIO Master Plan Update--Preferred Development ConceptWetlands and Associated Regulatory Protective Buffers This map is for illustration purposes only. Improvements illustrated on this map may change and do not necessarily indicate a commitment to implement the improvements by the Port of Portland or the Federal Aviation Administration. - Primary Zone Proposed Property Boundary Airport Property Line County Boundary City Boundary Streams Wetlands and Associated Regulatory Protective Buffers Jurisdictional- Surveyed Jurisdictional- not Surveyed 25 ft Buffer 50 ft Buffer Preferred Development Concept% Impervious 15% Impervious--Limited Rev. Enhancement 33% Impervious--Potential Rev. Enhancement 85% Impervious 100% Impervious Pervious Land Use Change 500 0 500 1,000 1,500250 Feet Daws on Cr eek Wetlands and Associated Regulatory Buffers Influenced by 2005 HIO Master Plan Preferred Alternative Primary Zone Wetland Classification 13' Pavement Shoulder 3rd Runway Airfield Pavement Aviation Storage Limited Revenue Enhancement 15% Impervious Pervious Land Use Change to Grass/Forb Mowed* Potential Revenue Enhancement 33% Impervious Roads/Parking Taxiway Grand Total Inside Primary Zone Jurisdictional- surveyed 0.11 0.07 0.00 1.26 0.69 0.10 0.16 2.39 Jurisdictional- not surveyed 0.10 0.12 0.24 0.02 0.47 25 ft Buffer 0.53 0.32 0.13 3.06 0.91 4.95 50 ft Buffer 0.22 0.09 0.34 0.65 0.51 0.73 0.12 0.34 3.00Inside Primary Zone Total 0.97 0.38 0.34 0.57 1.91 4.26 0.82 0.14 1.41 10.82Outside Primary Zone** Jurisdictional- surveyed 2.03 2.03 Jurisdictional- not surveyed 0.89 0.89 25 ft Buffer 0.26 0.26 50 ft Buffer 0.005 2.56 0.05 2.61Outside Primary Zone Total 0.005 5.74 0.05 5.80 Grand Total 0.97 0.38 0.34 0.57 1.91 4.26 6.56 0.18 1.41 16.61 * This category includes pervious areas of the infield that will transitioned to Pervious Grass/Forb-Mowed due to airfield regulations. ** Land use influences outside of the Primary Zone have been discounted according to anticipated % impervious development. 6-37 FLOODPLAINS Stormwater runoff from Hillsboro Air- port drains into Dawson Creek or McKay Creek. Both drainages contain lands designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as floodplains. If and when Development Concept-defined projects requiring a NEPA process are implemented, the increase in stormwater volume result- ing from increased impervious surface could be a potentially significant im- pact and would be evaluated in detail. It is believed that these impacts could be mitigated to a level of non- significance but a substantial invest- ment would be necessary to achieve this. Onsite stormwater reten- tion/detention may be required. Cu- mulative impacts may also be of con- cern as other areas currently used for agriculture are converted to industrial uses, by the Port as well as other businesses, in accordance with local zoning ordinances. The current configuration of the Hills- boro Airport consists of 197 acres of impervious surface and 742 acres of pervious surface. The Master Plan Development Concept would increase impervious surfaces by 170 acres to a total of 367 acres. 82 acres of new de- velopment would occur outside the six existing airfield drainage basins. As- suming full build out of all identified projects, 32 acres of new impervious surface (52% increase) would drain to McKay Creek. Again, assuming full build out, 138 acres of new impervious surface (102% increase) would drain to Dawson Creek. Exhibit 6F titled Im- pervious Surfaces described earlier depicts the locations and extent of new impervious surfaces. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM This category is not applicable since the nearest federally-designated Coastal Zone is greater than 15 miles west of Hillsboro Airport. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS This category is not applicable. None of the streams in the Hillsboro Airport area are designated as wild and sce- nic. These include the unnamed tribu- tary of McKay Creek which crosses the northern edge of the airport, McKay Creek itself, Dairy Creek, Dawson Creek and the Tualatin River. FARMLANDS The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impacts that Federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricul- tural uses. It assures that, to the ex- tent possible, Federal programs are administered to be compatible with state, local units of government, and private programs and policies to pro- tect farmland. Statewide Planning Goal 3 defines ag- ricultural lands and requires counties to inventory such lands and to "pre- serve and maintain" them through ex- clusive farm use (EFU) zoning per ORS Chapter 215. Soil classification data were obtained from the National Resource Conserva- tion Service’s Soil Survey Geographic Database known as “SSURGO.” A 6-38 map was developed showing the exist- ing airfield and the Master Plan De- velopment Concept overlain on the soil classification map to characterize the location and extent of potential im- pacts. Farmland impacts are depicted in Exhibit 6L titled NRCS SSURGO Washington County Soil Survey. Ap- proximately 85 acres of soils classified as Prime Farm Land could be removed from agricultural production assuming complete implementation of the Mas- ter Plan Development Concept. Ap- proximately 125 acres of soils classi- fied as having Statewide Importance could be removed from agricultural production assuming complete imple- mentation of the Master Plan Devel- opment Concept. The reader should note that the map depicting the Washington County Soil Survey is based on data published by the National Resource Conservation Service in 1982. Since the date of the soil survey, numerous construction projects have occurred at and in the vicinity of Hillsboro Airport. Many of these construction projects include ex- tensive filling and grading activities that could alter the soil composition and characteristics. Changes result- ing from these construction projects are not reflected on the map or in the analysis table. As a result, predicted impacts are overstated and highly conservative relative to actual im- pacts. Areas identified for potential future development for aviation purposes have been zoned for industrial uses and lie within the current urban growth boundary. While potentially significant, the impacts of converting farmlands to urban land uses have been anticipated, planned for and ap- proved by various local governments. The Master Plan Development Con- cept is consistent with local zoning or- dinances as well as all other applica- ble current and foreseeable future land use requirements. The FPPA re- quires consultation with NRCS and submittal of Form AD-1006 “Farmland Conversion Impact Rating” prior to implementation of the proposed pro- ject. This would be incorporated into the NEPA process. ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES The operations forecast shows that energy consumption will increase. New utilities and/or expansion of ex- isting utility service would be needed (i.e., potable water, electricity, natural gas, communications and sanitary sewer). Stormwater collection and conveyance system upgrades along with appropriate Best Management Practices for stormwater treatment would be required as well. A small temporary increase in energy con- sumption during construction is an- ticipated. New stationary sources, fuel storage facilities and emergency generators in particular, would be re- quired. LIGHT EMISSIONS Additional exterior lighting would be required. These impacts are not ex- pected to be significant and would be consistent with existing operations Exhibit 6L: HIO Master Plan Update--Preferred Development ConceptNRCS SSURGO Washington County Soil Survey This map is for illustration purposes only. Improvements illustrated on this map may change and do not necessarily indicate a commitment to implement the improvements by the Port of Portland or the Federal Aviation Administration.- Primary Zone Proposed Property Boundary Airport Property Line County Boundary City Boundary NRCS SSURGO Soils Aloha silt loam Amity silt loam Cove silty clay loam Dayton silt loam Quatama loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Quatama loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes Quatama loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes Urban land Verboort silty clay loam Woodburn silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Woodburn silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes Woodburn silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes Xerochrepts and Haploxerolls, very steep 500 0 500 1,000 1,500250 Feet Preferred Development Concept% Impervious 15% Impervious--Limited Revenue Enhancement 33% Impervious--Potential Revenue Enhancement 85% Impervious 100% Impervious Pervious Land Use Change NRCS SSURGO County Soil Survey for Washington County Influenced by 2005 HIO Master Plan Preferred Development Concept** Farmland Classification Soil Mapunit 13' Pavement Shoulder 3rd Runway Airfield Pavement Aviation Services Aviation Storage Buildings Limited Revenue Enhancement 15% Impervious Pervious Land Use Change to Grass/Forb Mowed* Potential Revenue Enhancement 33% Impervious Roads/Parking Taxiway Training Helipad Total Prime farmland Quatama loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.48 0.48 Woodburn silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.30 0.33 1.91 1.49 1.864* 4.41 0.91 0.20 9.55 Woodburn silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 1.17 0.17* 4.14 5.31 Aloha silt loam 0.01 3.02 0.09 3.12 Amity silt loam 6.69 2.48 8.36 2.53 5.29 6.60 36.66* 18.53 4.50 11.61 1.34 67.93 Sub-total 6.99 2.48 8.69 2.53 7.21 9.74 38.69* 30.10 5.50 11.81 1.34 86.39Farmland of statewide importance Cove silty clay loam 0.36 0.12* 1.10 1.46 1.46 Dayton silt loam 2.32 0.20 6.42 1.25 2.84 1.66 9.60* 5.58 2.32 3.49 26.08 26.08 Quatama loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 0.39 0.39 0.39 Verboort silty clay loam 0.14 4.57 0.51* 3.85 0.76 0.29 9.61 9.61 Woodburn silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 0.14 1.69 1.84 1.84 Sub-total 2.46 0.20 6.42 1.25 2.84 7.12 10.23* 12.22 3.08 3.78 39.38 39.38 Total 9.45 2.68 15.12 2.53 8.46 2.84 16.86 48.92* 42.33 8.57 15.59 40.72 125.78 * This category includes pervious areas of the infield that will transitioned to Pervious Grass/Forb-Mowed due to airfield regulations. ** Acreages have been adjusted to reflect anticipated % of impervious build out per land use type. 6-39 and continued urbanization of the area. SOLID WASTE IMPACT Temporary short-term demolition and construction impacts are expected. Future operational impacts would be consistent with current impacts. No significant impacts are expected. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Short-term mitigatible impacts in- clude noise, fugitive dust, air quality, erosion control, excavation dewater- ing, potential site contamination, spill prevention and surface traffic. The extent, intensity and duration of the construction impacts are related to the scope, scale and scheduling of the new infrastructure. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Additional fuel delivery, handling, storage and consumption are antici- pated. Additional storage tanks for Jet-A and low lead 100 aviation gaso- line will be required. Some tenants may also require small gasoline stor- age facilities. It is further anticipated that natural gas service would be pro- vided to new corporate hangars, ter- minal buildings and FBO facilities. These features and activities repre- sent significant but readily miti- gatable impacts that are consistent with current operations. These im- pacts are primarily of concern to emergency response agencies. These impacts are not expected to be of sig- nificant given the nature of nearby micro-chip research and development and manufacturing facilities. Given the scope, scale and number of construction projects there is a poten- tial to encounter soil and/or ground water contamination. In the event that contamination is discovered, con- struction activities would be stopped as needed to allow investigation and remediation, as necessary. Contami- nation, if present, would be addressed in accordance with applicable Oregon Department of Environmental Quality rules and guidelines. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This Environmental Overview identi- fied a number of potential cumulative impact concerns. Cumulative impacts are defined as interrelated projects and activities that when combined have greater environmental impact than each would have individually. Noise, social impacts (land acquisition and traffic issues), water quality, wet- lands, habitat loss, floodplains, farm- lands and construction impacts are expected to be of concern. These cu- mulative impact issues may also be- come controversial. SUMMARY The Master Plan for Hillsboro Airport has been developed in cooperation with the PAC, interested citizens, and the Port. It is designed to assist the Port in making decisions relative to the future use of Hillsboro Airport as 6-40 it is maintained and developed to meet its role as defined in Chapter Two. Flexibility will be a key to the plan, since activity may not occur exactly as forecast. The Master Plan provides the Port with options to pursue in market- ing the assets of the airport for com- munity development. Following the general recommendations of the plan, the airport can maintain its viability and continue to provide air transpor- tation services to the region. Chapter Seven CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PORT OF PORTLAND 7-1 CHAPTER SEVEN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PORT OF PORTLAND The analyses conducted in the previous chapters evaluated airport development needs based upon safety, security, potential aviation activity, and operational efficiency. Through these analyses, a plan for the use and development of the airport was defined. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the projects to implement the proposed plan for the use and development of Hillsboro Airport, and those capital needs required to operate and maintain the airport in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner. The presentation of the financial plan and its feasibility has been organized into two sections. First, funding sources on the federal and local levels are identified and discussed. Second, the airport's capital needs, costs, and funding eligibility are presented in narrative and tabulated form. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING Financing capital improvements at the airport will not rely exclusively upon the financial resources of the Port of Portland (Port). Capital improvement funding is available at the federal level for many airport projects. The following discussion outlines the key sources for capital improvement funding. 7-2 FEDERAL GRANTS Through federal legislation over the years, various grants-in-aid programs have been established to develop and maintain a system of public airports throughout the United States. The purpose of this system and its federally- based funding is to maintain national defense and promote interstate com- merce. The most recent legislation, Vi- sion 100 – Century of Aviation Reau- thorization Act (Vision 100), was signed into law on December 13, 2003. Vision 100 is a four-year bill covering federal fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Vision 100 provides national funding levels to the FAA of $3.4 billion in 2004, increasing $100 million annu- ally, until reaching $3.7 billion in 2007. The source for federal funding of air- ports is the Aviation Trust Fund. The Aviation Trust Fund was established in 1970, to provide funding for aviation capital investment programs (aviation development, facilities and equipment, and research and development). The Aviation Trust Fund also finances the operation of the FAA. It is funded by user fees, taxes on airline tickets, avia- tion fuel, and various aircraft parts. Proceeds from the Aviation Trust Fund are distributed each year by the FAA, from appropriations by Congress. A portion of the annual distribution is to primary commercial service airports (e.g., Portland International Airport), based upon enplanement levels. Com- mercial service airports enplaning more than 10,000 passengers annually are provided a minimum $1,000,000 annual entitlement. For eligible general avia- tion airports, Vision 100 provides up to $150,000 of funding each year. As a general aviation airport, Hillsboro Air- port does not qualify for the commercial service entitlement; however, it does qualify for the annual $150,000 enti- tlement. An airport can consolidate four years of entitlement funding for a total of $600,000. However, these an- nual entitlement levels can be reduced if Congress does not appropriate the full funding levels specified above. After meeting entitlement obligations, the remaining Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds are distributed via grants issued by the FAA, based upon the priority of the project for which air- port sponsors have requested federal assistance through discretionary appor- tionments. A national priority ranking system is used to evaluate and rank each project for which an airport spon- sor seeks federal assistance for. Those projects with the highest priority are given preference in funding. Each pro- ject for Hillsboro Airport is required to follow this procedure and compete with other airport projects in the state for AIP State Apportionment dollars, and across the country for other federal AIP funds. An important point to consider is that most funding for Hillsboro Airport is not guaranteed, as the airport is cur- rently only eligible for the $150,000 an- nual entitlement under Vision 100 leg- islation. Therefore, the Port must rely on federal discretionary funding. Airport development that meets the FAA’s eligibility requirements can re- ceive 95 percent of the total eligible pro- ject cost from the FAA. This is a five 7-3 percent increase from past funding, which only provided 90 percent funding for eligible projects. The 95 percent funding level is currently only provided by law until 2007. After 2007, the fund- ing level would revert back to 90 per- cent (the federal share for the past two decades), unless extended by Congress. Funding at 95 percent for AIP-eligible projects has been assumed to extend through the planning period, as it is ex- pected that subsequent legislation would make permanent the 95 percent funding level. Property acquisition, air- field improvements, aprons, perimeter service roads, and access road im- provements are examples of eligible items. Vision 100 does provide for the Secre- tary of Transportation to fund revenue- generating developments such as han- gars and fuel facilities, which have his- torically not been eligible for federal funding. Vision 100 limits this funding eligibility to non-primary airports such as Hillsboro Airport, and the airports must use their annual entitlement dol- lars. Vision 100 also requires that all airside needs at the airport are met prior to an airport receiving funding for revenue-generating development. LOCAL FUNDING The balance of project costs, after con- sideration has been given to federal grants, must be funded through local resources. There are several alterna- tives for local finance options for future development at the airport. The Port can fund the local share, after FAA grants, through airport revenues, Port Cost Center cost center income (avia- tion) and/or bonds. The Post Cost Cen- ter represents the financial conglomera- tion of several aviation business lines including parking, rental cars, PDX air- side and landside, and general aviation. Some improvements may require pri- vate funding mechanisms, such as bank loans or private capital investments. These decisions are made at project im- plementation, based on Port financial resources at that time. The development of general aviation fa- cilities at Hillsboro Airport have relied on a combination of public and private investments in the past. The Port has funded many of the grant-eligible items for general aviation at the airport in- cluding taxiways, apron, access roads, and automobile parking. Private indi- viduals or businesses have typically fi- nanced the construction of hangar fa- cilities. The Oregon Economic & Community Development Department (OECDD) and Federal Economic Development Administration provide a number of grant and loan programs to businesses that create jobs. These programs could be used to support infrastructure im- provements at Hillsboro Airport for the attraction of a specific business. A continuation of public and private in- vestments will be necessary to imple- ment the proposed plan. The capital improvement program shown on Ex- hibit 7A assumes the Port will be able to fully pursue all the grant-eligible im- provements to accommodate general aviation growth in the future. This in- cludes apron development, hangar ac- 7-4 cess taxiways, public roadways and automobile parking, and land acquisi- tion. The T-hangars, Fixed Base Operator (FBO) hangars, and corporate hangars are all assumed to be funded by private developers through long-term ground leases. The obvious advantage of such an arrangement is that it relieves the Port of all responsibility for raising the capital funds for these improvements, considering the remaining capital needs at the airport. These improvements are demand-based; therefore, these projects should only be pursued when the need for such facilities can be determined. Furthermore, these facilities should only be constructed when it is found that the development costs can be fully recovered through lease and rental fees. CAPITAL NEEDS AND COST SUMMARIES Once the specific needs for the airport have been established, the next step is to determine a realistic schedule and costs for implementing each project. The capital needs presented in this chapter outline the costs and timing for imple- mentation. The program outlined on the following pages has been evaluated from a variety of perspectives and represents the culmination of a com- parative analysis of basic budget fac- tors, demand, and priority assignments by both the Port and Consultants. DEMAND-BASED PLAN The Master Plan for Hillsboro Airport has been developed according to a de- mand-based schedule. Demand-based planning refers to the intention to de- velop planning guidelines for the air- port, based upon airport activity levels, instead of guidelines based on points in time. By doing so, the levels of activity derived from the demand forecasts can be related to the actual capital invest- ments needed to safely and efficiently accommodate the level of demand being experienced at the airport. More spe- cifically, the intention of this Master Plan is that the facility improvements needed to serve new levels of demand should only be implemented when the levels of demand experienced at the air- port justify their implementation. For example, the aviation demand fore- casts projected that the addition of 101 more based aircraft could be expected through the Year 2025. This forecast was supported by the local community’s growing economy and population and historical trends which yielded a grow- ing number of based aircraft levels at the airport. Future based aircraft levels will be de- pendent upon a number of economic fac- tors. These factors could slow or accel- erate based aircraft levels differently than projected in the aviation demand forecasts. Since changes in these fac- tors cannot be realistically predicted for the entire forecast period, it is difficult to predict, with the level of accuracy needed to justify a capital investment, exactly when an improvement will be needed to satisfy demand level. 03 M P 0 1 - 7 A - 5 / 2 3 / 0 5 Exhibit 7A DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE 1. Construct Shoulders Taxiway A - Phase II 1,443,000$ 1,370,850$ 72,150$ 2. Construct Terminal Apron Taxiway 372,000$ 353,400$ 18,600$ 3. Construct T-Hangar Taxilanes 946,000 898,700 47,300 4. Acquire Backup Generator 100,000 95,000 5,000 1,418,000$ 1,347,100$ 70,900$ 5. Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway 500,000$ 475,000$ 25,000$ 6. Crack Fill and Slurry Seal Taxiway AA 214,000 203,300 10,700 7. Runway 2-20 and Taxiway B Fog Seal 286,000 271,700 14,300 8. Reconstruct West Perimeter Service Road 600,000 570,000 30,000 9. Construct Northeast Corporate Hangar Access Taxiway F 1,303,000 1,237,850 65,150 10. Construct Northeast Corporate Hangar Access Roads 466,000 442,700 23,300 11. Construct Aircraft Wash Rack 150,000 142,500 7,500 3,519,000$ 3,343,050$ 175,950$ 12. Overlay Taxiway H 140,000$ 133,000$ 7,000$ 13. Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway 500,000 475,000 25,000 14. Taxiway A3 Extension 2,129,000 2,022,550 106,450 15. Taxiway Access to Northwest Corporate Center 900,000 855,000 45,000 16. Construct Runway 12-30 High Speed Exit Taxiways 2,433,000 2,311,350 121,650 17. Storm Water Quality Facility 500,000 475,000 25,000 6,602,000$ 6,271,900$ 330,100$ 18. Slurry Seal West Local Tiedown 57,000$ 54,150$ 2,850$ 19. Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway 500,000 475,000 25,000 20. Construct Taxiway C Extension 2,104,000 1,998,800 105,200 21. Construct T-Hangar Access Taxilanes - Phase I 4,458,000 4,235,100 222,900 9,221,000$ 8,759,950$ 461,050$ 23. Construct Runway 12L-30R - Phase I 3,261,000$ 3,097,950$ 163,050$ 24. Land Acquisition Reimbursement 4,645,000 4,412,750 232,250 7,906,000$ 7,510,700$ 395,300$ 25. Construct Runway 12L-30R - Phase II (Taxiway D) 3,662,000$ 3,478,900$ 183,100$ 26. Master Plan Update 300,000 285,000 15,000 27. Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 596,000 566,200 29,800 28. Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 326,000 309,700 16,300 29. Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 66,000 62,700 3,300 30. Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 14,000 13,300 700 4,964,000$ 4,715,800$ 248,200$ 35,073,000$ 33,319,350$ 1,753,650$ 1. Reconstruct/Shift/Extend Runway 2-20, Taxiway C, and Taxiway B 386' East 10,649,000$ 10,116,550$ 532,450$ 2. Relocate Taxiway C 3,088,000 2,933,600 154,400 3. Construct Taxiway M - Phase I 4,499,000 4,274,050 224,950 4. Construct Southeast Corporate Hangar Access Taxiway 1,470,000 1,396,500 73,500 5. Land Acquisition 6,795,000 6,455,250 339,750 6. Construct East Access Road 1,558,000 1,480,100 77,900 7. Construct East Apron - Phase I 2,710,000 2,574,500 135,500 8. Construct T-Hangar Automobile Parking - Phase I 457,000 434,150 22,850 9. Construct East Apron Automobile Parking - Phase I 626,000 594,700 31,300 10. Relocate Taxiway AA / Extend to Taxiway A4 1,520,000 1,444,000 76,000 Subtotal 2011 2011 Subtotal 2010 Subtotal 2007 2008 Subtotal 2008 Subtotal Short Term Planning Horizon 2009 Subtotal 2009 2010 No. DESCRIPTION SHORT TERM PLANNING HORIZON INTERMEDIATE TERM PLANNING HORIZON 2005 2006 Subtotal 2006 2007 LOCAL SHARE FEDERALLY ELIGIBLE TOTAL COST No. DESCRIPTION LOCAL SHARE FEDERALLY ELIGIBLE TOTAL COST INTERMEDIATE TERM PLANNING HORIZON (continued) Construct Compass Calibration/Engine Run-Up Pad 709,000 673,550 35,450 11. 12. Relocate Charlie Pattern Landing Area 981,000 931,950 49,050 13. Extend Taxiway B West 1,513,000 1,437,350 75,650 14. Construct Terminal Apron - Phase I 11,907,000 11,311,650 595,350 15. Construct Terminal Area Automobile Parking 2,811,000 2,670,450 140,550 16. Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) 1,901,000 1,805,950 95,050 17. Runway 2-20 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 701,000 665,950 35,050 18. Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Overlay) 1,042,000 989,900 52,100 19. Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Overlay) 212,000 201,400 10,600 20. Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Overlay) 45,000 42,750 2,250 21. Taxiway C Pavement Preservation (Overlay) 115,000 109,250 5,750 22. Runway 12L-30R Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 121,000 114,950 6,050 23. Construct New Terminal Building 3,000,000 300,000 2,700,000 24. Taxiway D Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 135,000 128,250 6,750 25. Northwest Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 11,000 10,450 550 26. T-Hangar Access Taxilane Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 196,000 186,200 9,800 27. West Local Tiedown Apron Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 57,000 54,150 2,850 58,829,000$ 53,337,550$ 5,491,450$ 1. Construct Terminal Apron - Phase II 10,300,000$ 9,785,000$ 515,000$ 2. Construct T-Hangar Access Taxilanes - Phase II 845,000 802,750 42,250 3. Construct T-Hangar Automobile Parking - Phase II 457,000 434,150 22,850 4. Construct East Apron/Aircraft Wash Rack - Phase II 2,630,000 2,498,500 131,500 5. Construct East Apron Automobile Parking - Phase II 579,000 550,050 28,950 6. Construct Taxiway M - Phase II 11,517,000 10,941,150 575,850 7. Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) 1,901,000 1,805,950 95,050 8. Runway 2-20 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) 771,000 732,450 38,550 9. Runway 12L-30R Pavement Preservation (Overlay) 385,000 365,750 19,250 10. Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Overlay) 1,146,000 1,088,700 57,300 11. Taxiway B Pavement Preservation 258,000 245,100 12,900 12. Taxiway F Pavement Preservation 45,000 42,750 2,250 13. Taxiway M-South Pavement Preservation 106,000 100,700 5,300 14. Compass Calibration Pad Pavement Preservation 17,000 16,150 850 15. Taxiway C Pavement Preservation 307,000 291,650 15,350 16. Taxiway AA/Taxiway A3 Pavement Preservation 66,000 62,700 3,300 17. Charlie Pattern Landing Area Pavement Preservation 32,000 30,400 1,600 18. East Apron Pavement Preservation 100,000 95,000 5,000 19. T-Hangar Access Taxilane Pavement Preservation 661,000 627,950 33,050 20. Southeast Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation 35,000 33,250 1,750 21. Southwest Apron Pavement Preservation 280,000 266,000 14,000 22. West Local Tiedown Apron Pavement Preservation 181,000 171,950 9,050 23. Taxiway D Pavement Preservation 432,000 410,400 21,600 24. Northwest Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation NOTES: 1. This is an anticipated schedule for the airport to meet projected demand. Neither the FAA or the Port has committed funding to these projects. The Port's actual costs may vary depending upon final construction costs and FAA funding. The date of implementation may also vary depending upon funding availability. 2. Some projects noted in this schedule are not shown on Exhibit 7B as they are not physical improvements or may be obscured by ultimate facility layouts. 36,000 34,200 1,800 33,087,000$ 31,432,650$ 1,654,350$ Total All Programmed Development 126,989,000$ 118,089,550$ 8,899,450$ Subtotal Intermediate Term Planning Horizon LONG TERM PLANNING HORIZON Subtotal Long Term Planning Horizon PORT OF PORTLAND 22. Construct East Perimeter Service Road 2,102,000 1,996,900 105,100 7-5 For these reasons, the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan has been developed as a demand-based plan. The Master Plan projects various activity levels for short, intermediate, and long term planning horizons. When activity levels begin to reach or exceed the level of one of the planning horizons, the Master Plan suggests the Port begin to consider the development necessary to support the projected demand in the next planning horizon. This provides a level of flexibil- ity in the Master Plan, as the develop- ment program can be accelerated or slowed to meet demand. This can ex- tend the time that elapses between Master Plan updates. A demand-based Master Plan does not specifically require implementation of any of the demand-based improve- ments. Instead, it is envisioned that implementation of any Master Plan im- provement would be examined against demand levels prior to implementation. In many ways, this Master Plan is simi- lar to a community’s comprehensive plan. The Master Plan establishes a plan for the use of the airport facilities, consistent with potential aviation needs and the capital needs required to sup- port that use. However, individual pro- jects in the plan are not implemented until the need is demonstrated and the project is approved by the Port. Table 7A summarizes the key activity mile- stones for each planning horizon. Exhibit 7A summarizes capital needs for Hillsboro Airport improvement pro- jects through the planning period of this Master Plan. Individual project cost es- timates account for engineering, Port administrative costs, and other contin- gencies that may be experienced during implementation of the project, and are in current (2005) dollars. Due to the conceptual nature of a Master Plan, im- plementation of capital improvement projects should occur only after further refinement of their design and costs through engineering and/or architec- tural analyses. Capital costs in this chapter should be viewed only as esti- mates subject to further refinement during subsequent phases of project im- plementation. Nevertheless, these es- timates are considered sufficient for performing the feasibility analyses in this chapter. It is important to recognize that while many of the projects shown below are AIP grant eligible, their funding is un- certain. Hillsboro Airport is only enti- tled to $150,000 annually from the FAA, which needs to be directed to- wards all capital improvement needs at the airport, most importantly, airfield safety and maintenance. Exhibit 7A depicts funding eligibility only and not the actual level of federal or Port funds available for the project. The FAA makes funding decisions on an annual basis and funding is not guaranteed. Based on national priorities and the na- tional AIP funding provided by Con- gress, the FAA will decide the level of funds available each year to the Port for improvements at Hillsboro Airport. This can include the entire amount of funding eligibility shown in each year, or a reduced level. Should the FAA provide a reduced level of funding, the Port would need to decide whether to delay project implementation or fund the project with Port funds entirely. 7-6 TABLE 7A Planning Horizon Activity Levels Hillsboro Airport Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term Planning Horizon Planning Horizon Planning Horizon 2003 (0-5 years) (6-10 years) (11-20 years) Based Aircraft Single Engine Piston 244 256 265 284 Multi-Engine Piston 35 37 38 41 Turboprop 13 17 19 23 Turbojet 41 56 63 79 Helicopter 29 32 34 37 Other 1 1 1 1 Total Based Aircraft 363 399 420 465 Annual Operations Itinerant General Aviation 83,381 99,000 105,700 119,700 Air Taxi 9,561 11,300 14,200 17,100 Military 503 900 900 900 Subtotal Itinerant 93,445 111,200 120,800 137,700 Local General Aviation 160,261 158,500 166,900 184,700 Military 141 600 600 600 Subtotal Local 160,402 159,100 167,500 185,300 Total Annual Operations 253,847 270,300 288,300 323,000 The capital needs for the airport can be categorized as follows: 1) Maintenance - Maintaining or preserving the existing infrastruc- ture is a priority. The capital needs program provides for the continued maintenance and reha- bilitation of the airport’s pavement areas through the application of sealants, minor rehabilitations and major reconstructions. 2) Safety - Of utmost importance with any transportation facility is safety. All projects in the plan are designed according to FAA design standards. This is carried throughout the other areas of fo- cus. The safety needs in the capi- tal needs program are considered necessary for the operational safety and protection of aircraft and/or people and property on the ground near the airport. 7-7 3) Environmental – These are pro- jects to carry out the Port of Port- land's environmental policy of achieving its mission through re- sponsible environmental steward- ship and to integrate environ- mental considerations into all as- pects of the its planning and busi- ness decision-making. 4) Capacity – These are projects which improve the capacity or use of the airport in an effort to reduce delay. Examples include taxiway improvements and new runways. 5) Demand - The Master Plan has established future activity levels for the airport. Should these activ- ity levels be reached, it may be necessary to improve existing fa- cilities to safely, efficiently, and securely accommodate the new ac- tivity levels. Therefore, the capital needs program includes provisions to accommodate varying levels of aviation demand. The implemen- tation of these projects should oc- cur only when demand for these needs are verified. Each capital need is categorized using one of these five categories. Hillsboro Airport projects and their applicable category are included in a table at the end of this chapter. Table 7B summarizes capital im- provement costs by category and plan- ning term. As shown in the table, col- lectively over the planning period of the Master Plan, demand improvements represent nearly 47 percent of the pro- grammed development costs. As dis- cussed earlier, these improvements will only be completed should the actual need for these facilities be demon- strated by new levels of based aircraft or increases in operations. TABLE 7B Total Projects By Type Hillsboro Airport Short Inter- mediate Long Percent of Term Term Term Total Total Maintenance $4,214,000 $15,185,000 $ 6,759,000 $26,158,000 20.6% Safety 2,102,000 4,608,000 0 6,710,000 5.3% Environmental 2,150,000 0 0 2,150,000 1.7% Capacity 18,234,000 13,788,000 0 32,022,000 25.2% Demand 8,073,000 25,248,000 26,328,000 59,649,000 477.0% Other 300,000 0 0 300,000 0.2% Total $35,073,000 $58,829,000 $33,087,000 $126,989,000 100.0% Capacity improvements represent ap- proximately 25 percent of total devel- opment costs. Since the Master Plan is focusing on segregating the large, busi- ness class aircraft and smaller general aviation aircraft operations, several 7-8 new taxiways and a parallel runway are planned. These capacity improvements are represented in this category. Some taxiway improvements are demand- based; in particular, the extension of Taxiway M north of Taxiway C. The need for this taxiway will be dependent on the number of aircraft based east of Runway 12-30, which will need to ac- cess the Runway 12 end. Maintenance projects represent the third largest category. Maintenance projects include crack filling and pave- ment surface seals, and pavement over- lays at regular schedules, in accordance with the Airport’s Pavement Manage- ment Plan. A regular pavement main- tenance program is a condition of the airport receiving federal funding. Due to the role of the FAA in the plan- ning process, compliance with the fed- eral National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is necessary. The scope and scale of NEPA compliance will depend on the nature of the project being evaluated, and the extent to which pro- jects are interrelated and interdepend- ent. An Environmental Assessment will be required prior to the construc- tion of the parallel runway. Should sig- nificant impacts be found, an Environ- mental Impact Statement (EIS) would be needed. Stormwater quality im- provements may be needed at the air- port to comply with applicable water quality regulations. Specific stormwa- ter improvements have not been de- signed because they must take into ac- count the regulatory structure as it ex- ists at the time of project implementa- tion. Therefore, only a general budg- eted amount has been programmed. Other environmental compliance will be a component of each proposed improve- ment. This can include local, state, and federal permits for such improvements. These costs are anticipated in each spe- cific development item. Safety im- provements include compliance with federal design standards. SHORT TERM CAPITAL NEEDS The Short Term Planning Horizon cov- ers fiscal years 2005 through 2011, and includes $35.1 million in capital needs. Since these projects represent the most immediate needs for the airport, it is important that a year-by-year imple- mentation program be developed so that both the Port and the FAA can arrange funding. The Short Term Planning Ho- rizon is the only planning horizon or- ganized by years, as the actual sequenc- ing of projects needs to be more fully examined as one gets closer to imple- mentation. A summary of the projects included in the Short Term Planning Horizon, by category, is presented below. Exhibit 7B graphically depicts development staging. Maintenance Projects: Maintenance projects in the Short Term Planning Horizon total approximately $4.2 mil- lion, representing 12 percent of total Short Term Planning Horizon im- provements. The completion of the con- struction of shoulders on Taxiway A is programmed for 2005. Stabilized taxi- way shoulders are the areas adjacent to the sides of the taxiway surface that N.E. 25th Ave. Brookwood Parkway Exhibit 7B DEVELOPMENT STAGING 0 3 M P 0 1 - 7 B - 5 / 2 4 / 0 5 24 0' 39 0' 39 0' C CC A1 A2 A A3 A4 A G A5 A6 A7 A A8B M D B 400' AA 30 L 12R Co rn el l R oa d 700' Exp ans ion Pot ent ial RU NW AY 12 -30 (6, 600 ' x 150 ') RUNWAY 2-20 (4,049' x 100') Ultimate (4,200' x 100) A A4 A5 AA PORT OF PORTLAND 1 5 4 12 6 5 9 4 22 10 9 16 15 3 8 16 27 16 7 3 15 21 18 10 7 18 6 16 16 16 28 22 9 1 15 14 21 23 3 1 14 18 27 25 24 22 10 6 2 13 17 7 20 23 24 23 17 25 7 29 8 19 11 13 20 8 3 14 11 NORTH SCALE IN FEET 0 800 LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Airport Property Line Short Term Planning Horizon Intermediate Term Planning Horizon Long Term Planning Horizon Pavement to be Removed Building to be Removed Potential Revenue Enhancement Limited Revenue Enhancement Existing Runway Visibility Zone Ultimate Runway Visibility Zone Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 35' Building Restriction Line (BRL) 20' BRL Glideslope Critical Area Localizer Critical Area Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) F 20 12 30 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 SHORT TERM LEGEND Construct Shoulders Taxiway A - Phase II Construct Terminal Apron Taxiway (Not Depicted) Construct T-Hangar Taxilanes Acquire Backup Generator (Not Depicted) Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway - Phase I (Not Depicted) Crack Fill and Slurry Seal Taxiway AA Runway 2-20 and Taxiway B Fog Seal Reconstruct West Perimeter Service Road Construct Northeast Corporate Hangar Access Taxiway F Construct Northeast Corporate Hangar Access Roads Construct Aircraft Wash Rack Overlay Taxiway H Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway - Phase II (Not Depicted) Taxiway A3 Extension Taxiway Access to Northwest Corporate Center Construct Runway 12-30 High Speed Exit Taxiways Storm Water Quality Facility (Not Depicted) Slurry Seal West Local Tiedown Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway - Phase III (Not Depicted) Construct Taxiway C Extension Construct T-Hangar Access Taxilanes - Phase I Construct East Perimeter Service Road Construct Runway 12L-30R - Phase I Land Acquisition Reimbursement (Not Depicted) Construct Runway 12L-30R - Phase II (Taxiway D) Master Plan Update (Not Depicted) Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Construct Terminal Apron - Phase II Construct T-Hangar Access Taxilanes - Phase II Construct T-Hangar Automobile Parking - Phase II Construct East Apron/Aircraft Wash Rack - Phase II Construct East Apron Automobile Parking - Phase II Construct Taxiway M - Phase II Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Runway 2-20 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Runway 12L-30R Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway M-South Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Compass Calibration Pad Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Taxiway C Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway AA/Taxiway A3 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Charlie Pattern Landing Area Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) East Apron Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) T-Hangar Access Taxilane Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Southeast Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Southwest Apron Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) West Local Tiedown Apron Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway D Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Northwest Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LONG TERM LEGEND Reconstruct/Shift/Extend Runway 2-20, Taxiway C, & Taxiway B 386' East Relocate Taxiway C Construct Taxiway M - Phase I Construct Southeast Corporate Hangar Access Taxiway Land Acquisition Construct East Access Road Construct East Apron - Phase I Construct T-Hangar Automobile Parking - Phase I Construct East Apron Automobile Parking - Phase I 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 INTERMEDIATE TERM LEGEND Relocate Taxiway AA/Extend to Taxiway A4 Construct Compass Calibration Pad Relocate Charlie Pattern Landing Area Extend Taxiway B West Construct Terminal Apron - Phase I Construct Terminal Area Automobile Parking Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Runway 2-20 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Taxiway C Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Runway 12L-30R Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Construct New Terminal Building Taxiway D Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Northwest Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) T-Hangar Access Taxilane Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) West Local Tiedown Apron Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) 11 27 Ev er gr ee n Ro ad Future City-Owned Collector Road (Alignment Generalized) NOTE: A detailed traffic assessment of surrounding facilities has not been completed. The future Evergreen Road to Brookwood Parkway alignment is generalized. This alignment may change. The road would be constructed with local resources and not by the Port. 12 21 26 19 2 7-9 help prevent soil erosion and support aircraft that veer off the taxiway center- line. A taxiway leading to the terminal building is programmed for reconstruc- tion in 2006, to support the type of air- craft currently using the terminal. Fog and crack sealing for Runway 2-20, Taxiway AA, and Taxiway B is pro- grammed in 2007. The west perimeter service road that extends along the western airport boundary around the Runway 20 end is programmed to be reconstructed in 2007, due to pavement deterioration. Taxiway H is pro- grammed to be overlaid in 2008, due to pavement deterioration. Fog and crack sealing for the west tiedown apron is programmed in 2009. Fog and crack sealing for Runway 12-30, Taxiway A, Taxiway B, and Taxiway F is pro- grammed in 2011. Environmental Projects: Environ- mental projects in the Short Term Planning Horizon total approximately $2.1 million, representing 6 percent of total Short Term Planning Horizon im- provements. An Environmental As- sessment (EA) will need to be completed before the FAA can approve grant fund- ing for the development of the parallel runway and taxiways, reimbursement of land previously purchased by the Port for the construction of the parallel runway, and land acquisition on the east side of the airport for the relocated Charlie Pattern landing pads. Depend- ing upon the results of the EA, an Envi- ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required. While it is uncertain the level of environmental review that will be needed at this time, a total of $1.5 million has been programmed in this planning horizon for environmental compliance. This covers three fiscal years, beginning in 2007. As new pavement areas are added at the air- port, impervious surfaces are increased. This requires stormwater and water quality improvements to handle the ex- tra loads and meet water quality stan- dards. A total of $500,000 has been programmed for 2008, to improve stormwater handling and meet water quality regulations. The specific types of improvements have not been deter- mined at this time. An aircraft wash rack is programmed along the west tie- down apron in 2007. An aircraft wash rack allows for the collection and proper disposal of the cleaning fluids and de- bris as aircraft are cleaned. An aircraft wash rack could also be designed to ac- commodate deicing activities and collect excess deicing fluids during application. Safety Projects: Safety projects in the Short Term Planning Horizon total ap- proximately $2.1 million, representing 6 percent of total Short Term Planning Horizon improvements. This includes the construction of the east perimeter service road. This new roadway would connect with the existing perimeter ser- vice road, extending around the Run- way 30 end. It would terminate at the east T-hangar facilities. This roadway keeps vehicles from using the run- ways/taxiways to move around the air- port and provide vehicle access to the T- hangars until the east access road is developed. Capacity Projects: Capacity projects in the Short Term Planning Horizon to- tal approximately $18.2 million, repre- senting 52 percent of total Short Term Planning Horizon improvements. Ca- 7-10 pacity projects include the construction of the parallel runway, its associated taxiways, and Runway 12-30 exits to reduce delay. As examined in detail in this report, the current level of aircraft operations exceeds the annual service capacity, increasing delay to both arriv- ing and departing aircraft. The capac- ity analysis revealed that the addition of three high-speed exits to Runway 12- 30 could increase annual capacity by 9,000 operations and lessen the chances that the average delay per aircraft op- eration would increase in the short term, as operational levels grow. These taxiways are programmed for 2008. The capacity analysis concluded that the best means available to reduce de- lay and improve capacity was to segre- gate small aircraft from larger business class aircraft, with the development of a parallel runway east of Runway 12-30. The parallel runway is programmed in two phases in 2010 and 2011. Phase I would include the construction of the runway and the portion for Taxiway D from the Runway 30R end to Taxiway C. Phase II would include the construc- tion of the remaining portions of Taxi- way D, including the exit taxiways. The construction of Taxiway C is pro- grammed to precede the development of the parallel runway in 2009. Taxiway C is necessary to provide access to the parallel runway. Without Taxiway C, most aircraft would be required to cross both runways to access the parallel runway, as Taxiway B would be the only taxiway connecting to the parallel runway. For example, aircraft located in the southeast and northeast quad- rants of the airport would need to cross both Runway 12-30 and Runway 2-20. However, with Taxiway C, aircraft lo- cated in the northwest quadrant of the airport would only need to cross Run- way 12-30. A new taxiway between Taxiway A3 and Taxiway G is pro- grammed for 2008, to improve access and egress in the northwest corner of the airport. The portion of the taxiway extending from Taxiway G north to Taxiway A3 would be developed at the minimum separation distance provided by FAA standards, to ensure automobile parking can be retained along N.E. 25th Avenue. Demand Projects: Demand projects in the Short Term Planning Horizon total approximately $8.0 million, represent- ing 23 percent of total Short Term Planning Horizon improvements. These projects support future aircraft storage needs and are dependent upon based aircraft growth. A project in 2006 pro- vides taxilane access for hangar devel- opment parcels north of the west tie- down apron, along Taxiway C. The con- struction of vehicle access roads and the extension of a taxiway east of Taxiway F to support corporate hangar develop- ment are programmed in 2007. Cur- rently, there are approximately three development parcels available along Taxiway F. This taxiway would only be needed once these parcels are fully de- veloped or a larger parcel is needed. Following the construction of Taxiway C from Taxiway A to the Runway 20 end, T-hangar development on the east side of the future parallel runway could pro- ceed. A project in 2009 allows for the construction of T-hangar access taxi- lanes supporting the relocation of the 112 T-hangars located in the southeast quadrant of the airport to free up the 7-11 airport’s southeast quadrant for corpo- rate hangar development. INTERMEDIATE TERM CAPITAL NEEDS Intermediate Term Planning Horizon development needs support projected aviation demand, continued pavement maintenance, and add taxiways for ca- pacity and efficiency. Intermediate Term Planning Horizon improvements are estimated to cost approximately $58.8 million. A summary of the projects included in the Intermediate Term Planning Hori- zon, by category, is presented below. Maintenance Projects: Maintenance projects in the Intermediate Term Planning Horizon total approximately $15.1 million, representing 26 percent of total Intermediate Term Planning Horizon improvements. This includes the complete reconstruction of Runway 2-20 to replace the aging pavement. Concurrent with the reconstruction is the shifting of the Runway 20 end to the east, to clear the obstructions from the runway visibility zone (RVZ) and extend the Runway to 4,200 feet. All pave- ments surfaces are planned for regular maintenance which may include fog sealing, crack sealing, and pavement overlays, as needed. Safety Projects: Safety projects in the Intermediate Term Planning Horizon total approximately $4.6 million, repre- senting eight percent of total Interme- diate Term Planning Horizon improve- ments. This includes the relocation of Taxiway C from the Runway 2 end to Runway 12-30, 40 feet east, to meet FAA design requirements and clear the obstacle free zone (OFZ). Once relo- cated, Taxiway CC will be too close to Taxiway C to allow for simultaneous operations; therefore, Taxiway CC is planned to be removed. The relocation of Taxiway AA is programmed to pro- vide for a perimeter service road in the northwest quadrant of the airport. Capacity: Capacity projects in the In- termediate Term Planning Horizon to- tal approximately $13.87 million, repre- senting 23 percent of total Intermediate Term Planning Horizon improvements. This includes the first phase construc- tion of Taxiway M. This portion of the taxiway would extend from Runway 2- 20 to the Runway 30 end, allowing the corporate aircraft located in the south- east quadrant of the airport access to the runway end most used by these types of aircraft. The land acquisition for the relocation of the Charlie Pattern landing pads and the construction of the relocated Charlie pattern landing pads is also programmed in this planning pe- riod. The relocated Charlie Pattern landing pads would move the helicopter operations from Taxiway D (constructed in the Short Term Planning Horizon), for greater segregation between fixed wing and helicopter operations. Moving the Charlie Pattern east also places the helicopters over existing and planned compatible uses. Demand Projects: Demand projects in the Intermediate Term Planning Hori- zon total approximately $25.3.3 million, representing 43 percent of total Inter- mediate Term Planning Horizon im- 7-12 provements. This includes the recon- struction of a portion of the southwest apron for Airplane Design Group (ADG) II aircraft. This apron would extend parallel with Runway 2-20. The termi- nal building would be removed and re- placed to the north along the apron. The existing automobile parking area would be expanded along Cornell Road. The east apron for small aircraft opera- tions, including the necessary access roads, is programmed for this planning period. A taxiway serving corporate hangar parcels in the southeast portion of the airport is programmed, as well as the addition of tiedown aprons on the west side of the airport. A compass calibration/engine run-up pad is pro- grammed in the northeast quadrant of the airport. LONG TERM CAPITAL NEEDS Projects in the Long Term Planning ho- rizon are focused on meeting projected demand and maintaining the airfield pavements. Long Term Planning Hori- zon improvements are estimated to cost approximately $33.1 million. Mainte- nance projects in the Long Term Plan- ning Horizon total approximately $6.7 million, representing 20 percent of total Long Term Planning Horizon improve- ments. All pavement surfaces are planned for regular maintenance which may include fog sealing, crack sealing, and pavement overlays as needed. Demand projects in the Long Term Planning Horizon total approximately $26.3 million, representing 80 percent of total Long Term Planning Horizon improvements. Demand improvements include the expansion of the east apron, T-hangar taxilanes, and automobile parking. The second phase construction of the terminal apron for ADG III air- craft is also programmed. The exten- sion of Taxiway M north of Taxiway C is included as a demand project. The need for this taxiway will be dependent on the number of aircraft based east of Runway 12-30, which will need to ac- cess the Runway 12 end. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The successful implementation of the Hillsboro Airport Master Plan will re- quire sound judgment on the part of the Port of Portland to meet future activity demands, while maintaining the exist- ing infrastructure and improving this infrastructure to support new develop- ment. While the projects included in the capital improvement program have been “placed” in short, intermediate, and long term planning periods, the Port will need to consider the schedul- ing of projects in a flexible manner and add new projects from time-to-time to satisfy safety or design standards, or newly created demands. In summary, the planning process requires that the Port continually monitor the need for new or rehabilitated facilities, since ap- plications (for eligible projects) must be submitted to the FAA each year. 7-13 Projects by Type Project Total Description Type Cost SHORT TERM PLANNING HORIZON Construct Shoulders Taxiway A - Phase II Maintenance $1,443,000 Reconstruct Terminal Apron Taxiway Maintenance 372,000 Integrate Backup Generator with airfield lighting Maintenance 100,000 Crack Fill and Slurry Seal Taxiway AA Maintenance 214,000 Runway 2-20 and Taxiway B Fog Seal Maintenance 286,000 Reconstruct West Perimeter Service Road Maintenance 600,000 Overlay Taxiway H Maintenance 140,000 Slurry Seal West Local Tiedown Maintenance 57,000 Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 596,000 Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 326,000 Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 66,000 Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 14,000 Total Maintenance $4,214,000 Construct East Perimeter Service Road Safety $2,102,000 Total Safety $2,102,000 Construct Aircraft Wash Rack Environ- mental $150,000 Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway - Phase I Environ- mental 500,000 Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway - Phase II Environ- mental 500,000 Storm Water Quality Facility Environ- mental 500,000 Environmental Assessment/EIS for Parallel Runway - Phase III Environ- mental 500,000 Total Environmental $2,150,000 Land Acquisition Reimbursement Capacity $4,645,000 Taxiway A3 Extension Capacity 2,129,000 Construct Runway 12-30 High-Speed Exit Taxiways Capacity 2,433,000 Construct Taxiway C Extension Capacity 2,104,000 Construct Runway 12L-30R - Phase I Capacity 3,261,000 Construct Runway 12L-30R - Phase II (Taxiway D) Capacity 3,662,000 Total Capacity $18,234,000 Construct T-Hangar Taxilanes Demand $946,000 Construct Northeast Corporate Hangar Access Taxiway F Demand 1,303,000 Construct Northeast Corporate Hangar Access Roads Demand 466,000 Taxiway Access to Northwest Corporate Center Demand 900,000 Construct T-Hangar Access Taxilanes – Phase I Demand 4,458,000 Total Demand $8,073,000 Master Plan Update Other $300,000 Total Short Term Planning Horizon $35,073,000 7-14 Projects by Type Project Total Description Type Cost INTERMEDIATE TERM PLANNING HORIZON Reconstruct/Shift/Extend Runway 2-20, Taxiway C, and Taxiway B 386' East Maintenance $10,649,000 Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 1,901,000 Runway 2-20 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 701,000 Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 1,042,000 Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 212,000 Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 45,000 Taxiway C Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 115,000 Runway 12L-30R Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 121,000 Taxiway D Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 135,000 Northwest Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 11,000 T-Hangar Taxilane Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 196,000 West Local Tiedown Apron Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 57,000 Total Maintenance $15,185,000 Relocate Taxiway C Safety $3,088,000 Relocate Taxiway AA Safety 1,520,000 Total Safety $4,608,000 Construct Taxiway M – Phase I Capacity $4,499,000 Land Acquisition Capacity 6,795,000 Relocate Charlie Pattern Landing Area Capacity 981,000 Extend Taxiway B West Capacity 1,513,000 Total Capacity $13,788,000 Construct Southeast Corporate Hangar Access Taxiway Demand $1,470,000 Construct East Access Road Demand 1,558,000 Construct New Terminal Building Demand 3,000,000 Construct East Apron – Phase I Demand 2,710,000 Construct T-Hangar Automobile Parking - Phase I Demand 457,000 Construct East Apron Automobile Parking - Phase I Demand 626,000 Construct Compass Calibration\Engine Run-Up Pad Demand 709,000 Construct Terminal Apron - Phase I Demand 11,907,000 Construct Terminal Area Automobile Parking Demand 2,811,000 Total Demand $25,248,000 Total Intermediate Term Planning Horizon $58,829,000 7-15 Projects by Type Project Total Description Type Cost LONG TERM PLANNING HORIZON Runway 12-30 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance $1,901,000 Runway 2-20 Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 771,000 Runway 12L-30R Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 385,000 Taxiway A Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 1,146,000 Taxiway B Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 258,000 Taxiway F Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 45,000 Taxiway M-South Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 106,000 Compass Calibration Pad Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 17,000 Taxiway C Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 307,000 Taxiway AA/Taxiway A3 Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 66,000 Charlie Pattern Landing Area Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 32,000 East Apron Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 100,000 T-Hangar Taxilane Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 661,000 Southwest Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 35,000 Southwest Apron Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 280,000 West Local Tiedown Apron Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 181,000 Taxiway D Pavement Preservation (Overlay) Maintenance 432,000 Northwest Corporate Taxiway Pavement Preservation (Slurry Seal) Maintenance 36,000 Total Maintenance $6,759,000 Construct Terminal Apron - Phase II Demand $10,300,000 Construct T-Hangar Access Taxilanes - Phase II Demand 845,000 Construct T-Hangar Automobile Parking - Phase II Demand 457,000 Construct East Apron - Phase II Demand 2,630,000 Construct East Apron Automobile Parking - Phase II Demand 579,000 Construct Taxiway M - Phase II Demand 11,517,000 Total Demand $26,328,000 Total Long Term Planning Horizon $33,087,000 Total All Projects $126,989,000 Appendix A GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS PORT OF PORTLAND ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): see declared dis- tances. AIR CARRIER: an operator which: (1) performs at least five round trips per week between two or more points and publishes flight schedules which specify the times, days of the week, and places between which such flights are per- formed; or (2) transport mail by air pursuant to a current contract with the U.S. Postal Service. Certified in accor- dance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Parts 121 and 127. AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): a coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the operational (Aircraft Approach Category) to the physical char- acteristics (Airplane Design Group) of the airplanes intended to operate at the air- port. AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP): The latitude and longitude of the approxi- mate center of the airport. AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point on an airport’s usable runway expressed in feet above mean sea level (MSL). AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD): The drawing of the airport showing the layout of existing and proposed airport facilities. AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: a grouping of aircraft based on 1.3 times the stall speed in their landing configuration at their maximum certificated landing weight. The categories are as follows: • Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. • Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. • Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. • Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. • Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots. AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): a grouping of aircraft based upon wingspan. The groups are as follows: • Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet. • Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet. • Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet. • Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet. • Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet. • Group VI: 214 feet or greater. AIR TAXI: An air carrier certificated in accordance with FAR Part 135 and autho- rized to provide, on demand, public transportation of persons and property by aircraft. Generally operates small aircraft “for hire” for specific trips. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-1 AppendixAirport Consultants G L O S S A R Y O F T E R M S AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT): a central operations facility in the terminal air traffic control system, consisting of a tower, including an associated instrument flight rule (IFR) room if radar equipped, using air/ground communications and/or radar, visual sig- naling, and other devices to provide safe and expeditious movement of terminal air traffic. AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CEN- TER (ARTCC): a facility established to provide air traffic control service to air- craft operating on an IFR flight plan within controlled airspace and principally during the enroute phase of flight. ALERT AREA: see special-use airspace. ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH (AIA): an approach to an airport with the intent to land by an aircraft in accordance with an IFR flight plan when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude. APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (ALS): an airport lighting facility which provides visual guidance to landing air- craft by radiating light beams by which the pilot aligns the aircraft with the extended centerline of the runway on his final approach and landing. APPROACH MINIMUMS: the altitude below which an aircraft may not descend while on an IFR approach unless the pilot has the runway in sight. AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER (ADF): an aircraft radio navigation sys- tem which senses and indicates the direction to a non-directional radio bea- con (NDB) ground transmitter. AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVA- TION STATION (AWOS): equipment used to automatically record weather con- ditions (i.e. cloud height, visibility, wind speed and direction, temperature, dew- point, etc...) AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMA- TION SERVICE (ATIS): the continuous broadcast of recorded non-control infor- mation at towered airports. Information typically includes wind speed, direction, and runway in use. AZIMUTH: Horizontal direction expressed as the angular distance between true north and the direction of a fixed point (as the observer’s heading). BASE LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its approach end. The base leg normally extends from the downwind leg to the intersection of the extended runway centerline. See “traf- fic pattern.” BEARING: the horizontal direction to or from any point, usually measured clock- wise from true north or magnetic north. BLAST FENCE: a barrier used to divert or dissipate jet blast or propeller wash. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL): A line which identifies suitable building area locations on the airport. CIRCLING APPROACH: a maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft with the runway for landing when flying Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-2 a predetermined circling instrument approach under IFR. CLASS A AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace. CLASS B AIRSPACE: see Controlled Air- space. CLASS C AIRSPACE: see Controlled Air- space. CLASS D AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace. CLASS E AIRSPACE: see Controlled Air- space. CLASS G AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace. CLEAR ZONE: see Runway Protection Zone. CROSSWIND: wind flow that is not par- allel to the runway of the flight path of an aircraft. COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): a low power, low/medium frequency radio- beacon installed in conjunction with the instrument landing system at one or two of the marker sites. CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: airspace of defined dimensions within which air traf- fic control services are provided to instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual flight rules (VFR) flights in accordance with the airspace classification. Con- trolled airspace in the United States is designated as follows: • CLASS A: generally, the airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to but not including flight level FL600. All persons must operate their aircraft under IFR. • CLASS B: generally, the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL sur- rounding the nation’s busiest airports. The configuration of Class B airspace is unique to each airport, but typically consists of two or more layers of air space and is designed to contain all published instrument approach proce- dures to the airport. An air traffic control clearance is required for all air- craft to operate in the area. • CLASS C: generally, the airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the air port elevation (charted as MSL) sur- rounding those airports that have an operational control tower and radar approach control and are served by a qualifying number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. Although individually tailored for each airport, Class C airspace typically consists of a surface area with a five nautical mile (nm) radius and an outer area with a 10 nautical mile radius that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation. Two-way radio communica- tion is required for all aircraft. • CLASS D: generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the air port elevation (charted as MSL) sur- rounding those airport that have an operational control tower. Class D air space is individually tailored and con- figured to encompass published instru- ment approach procedures. Unless otherwise authorized, all Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-3 persons must establish two-way radio communication. • CLASS E: generally, controlled airspace that is not classified as Class A, B, C, or D. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When designated as a surface area, the airspace will be configured to contain all instrument procedures. Class E airspace encom- passes all Victor Airways. Only aircraft following instrument flight rules are required to establish two-way radio communication with air traffic control. • CLASS G: generally, that airspace not classified as Class A, B, C, D, or E. Class G airspace is uncontrolled for all aircraft. Class G airspace extends from the surface to the overlying Class E airspace. CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: see spe- cial-use airspace. CROSSWIND LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its upwind end. See “traffic pattern.” DECLARED DISTANCES: The distances declared available for the airplane’s take- off runway, takeoff distance, accelerate- stop distance, and landing distance requirements. The distances are: • TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): The runway length declared available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane taking off; • TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway and/or clear way beyond the far end of the TORA; • ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): The runway plus stopway length declared available for the acceleration and deceleration of an aircraft aborting a takeoff; and • LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): The runway length declared available and suitable for landing. DISPLACED THRESHOLD: a threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway. D I S T A N C E M E A S U R I N G E Q U I P M E N T (DME): Equipment (airborne and ground) used to measure, in nautical miles, the slant range A-4 1N M 3 NM 2 NM CLASS E 14,500 MSL Nontowered Airport 700 AGL 1,200 AGL Nontowered Airport CLASS GCLASS G CLASS G CLASS AFL 60018,000 MSL LEGEND Above Ground Level Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet Mean Sea Level NOT TO SCALE - - - AGL FL MSL CLASS G Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for VFR Products," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993. CLASS B CLASS C CLASS D 40 n.m. 30 n.m. 20 n.m. 12 n.m. 20 n.m. 10 n.m. 10 mi. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com distance of an aircraft from the DME navi- gational aid. DNL: The 24-hour average sound level, in A-weighted decibels, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels for the periods between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. as averaged over a span of one year. It is the FAA standard metric for deter- mining the cumulative exposure of individuals to noise. DOWNWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction opposite to landing. The downwind leg normally extends between the crosswind leg and the base leg. Also see “traffic pat- tern.” EASEMENT: The legal right of one party to use a portion of the total rights in real estate owned by another party. This may include the right of passage over, on, or below the property; certain air rights above the property, including view rights; and the rights to any specified form of development or activity, as well as any other legal rights in the property that may be specified in the easement document. ENPLANED PASSENGERS: the total number of revenue passengers boarding aircraft, including originating, stop-over, and transfer passengers, in scheduled and non-scheduled services. FINAL APPROACH: A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg to the runway. See “traffic pattern.” FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A provider of services to users of an airport. Such services include, but are not limited to, hangaring, fueling, flight training, repair, and maintenance. FRANGIBLE NAVAID: a navigational aid which retains its structural integrity and stiffness up to a designated maxi- mum load, but on impact from a greater load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a manner as to present the minimum haz- ard to aircraft. GENERAL AVIATION: that portion of civil aviation which encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers hold- ing a certificate of convenience and necessity, and large aircraft commercial operators. GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing. The glideslope consists of the fol- lowing: 1. Electronic components emitting signals which provide vertical guidance by reference to airborne instruments during instrument approaches such as ILS; or 2. Visual ground aids, such as VASI, which provide vertical guidance for VFR approach or for the visual portion of an instrument approach and landing. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM: See “GPS.” GPS - GLOBAL POSITIONING SYS- TEM: A system of 24 satellites Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-5 used as reference points to enable navi- gators equipped with GPS receivers to determine their latitude, longitude, and altitude. HELIPAD: a designated area for the takeoff, landing, and parking of heli- copters. HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: a long radius taxiway designed to expedite air- craft turning off the runway after landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus reducing runway occupancy time. INSTRUMENT APPROACH: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing, or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR): Rules governing the procedures for con- ducting instrument flight. Also a term used by pilots and controllers to indi- cate type of flight plan. INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS): A precision instrument approach system which normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: 1. Localizer. 4. Middle Marker. 2. Glide Slope. 5. Approach Lights. 3. Outer Marker. LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): see declared distances. LOCAL TRAFFIC: aircraft operating in the traffic pattern or within sight of the tower, or aircraft known to be departing or arriving from the local practice areas, or aircraft executing practice instrument approach procedures. Typically, this includes touch-and-go training opera- tions. LOCALIZER: The component of an ILS which provides course guidance to the runway. LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID (LDA): a facility of comparable utility and accuracy to a localizer, but is not part of a complete ILS and is not aligned with the runway. LORAN: long range navigation, an elec- tronic navigational aid which determines aircraft position and speed by measuring the difference in the time of reception of synchronized pulse sig- nals from two fixed transmitters. Loran is used for enroute navigation. MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM (MLS): an instrument approach and landing system that provides precision guidance in azimuth, elevation, and dis- tance measurement. MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): see special-use airspace. MISSED APPROACH COURSE (MAC): The flight route to be followed if, after an instrument approach, a land- ing is not affected, and occurring normally: 1. When the aircraft has descended to the decision height and has not established visual contact; or A-6 Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com 2. When directed by air traffic control to pull up or to go around again. MOVEMENT AREA: the runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airport which are utilized for taxiing/hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas. At those airports with a tower, air traffic control clearance is required for entry onto the movement area. NAVAID: a term used to describe any electrical or visual air navigational aids, lights, signs, and associated supporting equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc..) NOISE CONTOUR: A continuous line on a map of the airport vicinity connect- ing all points of the same noise exposure level. NONDIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB): A beacon transmitting nondirec- tional signals whereby the pilot of an aircraft equipped with direction finding equipment can determine his or her bearing to and from the radio beacon and home on, or track to, the station. When the radio beacon is installed in conjunction with the Instrument Land- ing System marker, it is normally called a Compass Locator. NONPRECISION APPROACH PRO- CEDURE: a standard instrument approach procedure in which no elec- tronic glide slope is provided, such as VOR, TACAN, NDB, or LOC. OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): an area on the ground centered on a runway, taxi- way, or taxilane centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by having the area free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): the airspace below 150 feet above the estab- lished airport elevation and along the runway and extended runway center- line that is required to be kept clear of all objects, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their function, in order to provide clearance for aircraft landing or taking off from the runway, and for missed approaches. OPERATION: a take-off or a landing. OUTER MARKER (OM): an ILS navi- gation facility in the terminal area navigation system located four to seven miles from the runway edge on the extended centerline indicating to the pilot, that he/she is passing over the facility and can begin final approach. PRECISION APPROACH: a standard instrument approach procedure which provides runway alignment and glide slope (descent) information. It is cate- gorized as follows: • CATEGORY I (CAT I): a precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 200 feet and visibility not less than 1/2 mile or Runway Visual Range (RVR) 2400 (RVR 1800) with operative touchdown zone and runway centerline lights. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-7 • CATEGORY II (CAT II): a precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 100 feet and visibility not less than 1200 feet RVR. • CATEGORY III (CAT III): a precision approach which provides for approaches with minima less than Category II. PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDI- CATOR (PAPI): A lighting system providing visual approach slope guid- ance to aircraft during a landing approach. It is similar to a VASI but pro- vides a sharper transition between the colored indicator lights. PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA (POFA): an area centered on the extend- ed runway centerline, beginning at the runway threshold and extending behind the runway threshold that is 200 feet long by 800 feet wide. The POFA is a clearing standard which requires the POFA to be kept clear of above ground objects protruding above the runway safety area edge elevation (except for frangible NAVAIDS). The POFA applies to all new authorized instrument approach procedures with less than 3/4 mile visibility. PROHIBITED AREA: see special-use airspace. REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUT- LET (RCO): an unstaffed transmitter receiver/facility remotely controlled by air traffic personnel. RCOs serve flight service stations (FSSs). RCOs were established to provide ground-to- ground communications between air traffic control specialists and pilots at satellite airports for delivering enroute clearances, issuing departure authoriza- tions, and acknowledging instrument flight rules cancellations or departure/landing times. REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER (RTR): see remote communications out- let. RTRs serve ARTCCs. RELIEVER AIRPORT: an airport to serve general aviation aircraft which might otherwise use a congested air-car- rier served airport. RESTRICTED AREA: see special-use airspace. RNAV: area navigation - airborne equipment which permits flights over determined tracks within prescribed accuracy tolerances without the need to overfly ground-based navigation facili- ties. Used enroute and for approaches to an airport. RUNWAY: a defined rectangular area on an airport prepared for aircraft land- ing and takeoff. Runways are normally numbered in relation to their magnetic direction, rounded off to the nearest 10 degrees. For example, a runway with a magnetic heading of 180 would be des- ignated Runway 18. The runway heading on the opposite end of the run- way is 180 degrees from that runway end. For example, the opposite runway heading for Runway 18 would be Run- way 36 (magnetic heading of 360). Aircraft can takeoff or land from either end of a runway, depending upon wind direction. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-8 RUNWAY BLAST PAD: a surface adja- cent to the ends of runways provided to reduce the erosive effect of jet blast and propeller wash. RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS (REIL): Two synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the runway threshold, which provide rapid and pos- itive identification of the approach end of a particular runway. RUNWAY GRADIENT: the average slope, measured in percent, between the two ends of a runway. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ): An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are determined by the aircraft approach speed and runway approach type and minima. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): a defined surface surrounding the run- way prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): an instrumentally derived value, in feet, representing the horizontal distance a pilot can see down the runway from the runway end. RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ): an area on the airport to be kept clear of permanent objects so that there is an unobstructed line-of-site from any point five feet above the runway centerline to any point five feet above an intersecting runway centerline. SEGMENTED CIRCLE: a system of visual indicators designed to provide traffic pattern information at airports without operating control towers. SHOULDER: an area adjacent to the edge of paved runways, taxiways or aprons providing a transition between the pavement and the adjacent surface; support for aircraft running off the pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast protection. The shoulder does not nec- essarily need to be paved. SLANT-RANGE DISTANCE: The straight line distance between an air- craft and a point on the ground. SPECIAL-USE AIRSPACE: airspace of defined dimensions identified by a sur- face area wherein activities must be confined because of their nature and/or wherein limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities. Special-use air- space classifications include: • ALERT AREA: airspace which may contain a high volume of pilot training activities or an unusual type of aerial activity, neither of which is hazardous to aircraft. • CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: air- space wherein activities are conducted under conditions so controlled as to eliminate hazards to nonparticipating aircraft and to ensure the safety of persons or property on the ground. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-9 • MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): designated airspace with defined vertical and lateral dimen- sions established outside Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain military activities from instrument flight rule (IFR) traffic and to identify for visual flight rule (VFR) traffic where these activities are conducted. • PROHIBITED AREA: designated air- space within which the flight of aircraft is prohibited. • RESTRICTED AREA: airspace desig- nated under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 73, within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restriction. Most restricted areas are designated joint use. When not in use by the using agency, IFR/VFR operations can be authorized by the controlling air traffic control facility. • WARNING AREA: airspace which may contain hazards to nonpartici- pating aircraft. STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPAR- TURE (SID): a preplanned coded air traffic control IFR departure routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual form only. STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL (STAR): a preplanned coded air traffic control IFR arrival routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual or textual form only. STOP-AND-GO: a procedure wherein an aircraft will land, make a complete stop on the runway, and then commence a takeoff from that point. A stop-and-go is recorded as two operations: one operation for the landing and one oper- ation for the takeoff. STRAIGHT-IN LANDING/APPROACH: a landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees of the final approach course following completion of an instrument approach. TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (TACAN): An ultra-high frequency elec- tronic air navigation system which provides suitably-equipped aircraft a continuous indication of bearing and distance to the TACAN station. TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): see declared distances. TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): see declared distances. TAXILANE: the portion of the aircraft parking area used for access between taxiways and aircraft parking positions. TAXIWAY: a defined path established for the taxiing of aircraft from one part of an airport to another. TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): a defined surface alongside the taxiway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to an airplane uninten- tionally departing the taxiway. TETRAHEDRON: a device used as a landing direction indicator. The small end of the tetrahedron points in the direction of landing. THRESHOLD: the beginning of that portion of the runway available for landing. In some instances the landing threshold may be displaced. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-10 TOUCH-AND-GO: an operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a run- way without stopping or exiting the runway. A touch-and-go is recorded as two operations: one operation for the landing and one operation for the takeoff. TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): The first 3,000 feet of the runway beginning at the threshold. TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION (TDZE): The highest elevation in the touchdown zone. TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHT- ING: Two rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically about the runway centerline normally at 100-foot intervals. The basic system extends 3,000 feet along the runway. TRAFFIC PATTERN: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at or taking off from an airport. The com- ponents of a typical traffic pattern are the upwind leg, crosswind leg, down- wind leg, base leg, and final approach. UNICOM: A nongovernment commu- nication facility which may provide airport information at certain airports. Locations and frequencies of UNI- COM’s are shown on aeronautical charts and publications. UPWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction of landing. See “traffic pattern.” VECTOR: A heading issued to an air- craft to provide navigational guidance by radar. VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/ OMNIDI- RECTIONAL RANGE STATION (VOR): A ground-based electronic navi- gation aid transmitting very high frequency navigation signals, 360 degrees in azimuth, oriented from magnetic north. Used as the basis for navigation in the national airspace system. The VOR periodically identifies itself by Morse Code and may have an additional voice identification feature. VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI- DIRECTIONAL RANGE STATION/ TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (VORTAC): A navigation aid providing VOR azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and TACAN distance-measuring equipment (DME) at one site. VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or portion thereof established in the form of a corridor, the centerline of which is defined by radio navigational aids. VISUAL APPROACH: An approach wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan, operating in VFR conditions under the control of an air traffic control facility and having an air traffic control autho- rization, may proceed to the airport of destination in VFR conditions. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-11 RUNWAY EN TR Y DOWNWIND LEG CROSS- WIND LEG BASE LEG FINAL APPROACH UPWIND LEG DEPARTURE LEG 36 0° 120° 60° 18 0°2 40° 300° VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDI- CATOR (VASI): An airport lighting facility providing vertical visual approach slope guidance to aircraft dur- ing approach to 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. Some airports serving large aircraft have three-bar VASI’s which provide two visual guide paths to the same runway. VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conduct- ing flight under visual conditions. The term VFR is also used in the United States to indicate weather conditions that are equal to or greater than mini- mum VFR requirements. In addition, it is used by pilots and controllers to indi- cate type of flight plan. VOR: See “Very High Frequency Omni- directional Range Station.” VORTAC: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Station/Tactical Air Navigation.” WARNING AREA: see special-use airspace. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-12 A-13 AC: advisory circular ADF: automatic direction finder ADG: airplane design group AFSS: automated flight service station AGL: above ground level AIA: annual instrument approach AIP: Airport Improvement Program AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century ALS: approach lighting system ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach light- ing system with sequenced flashers (CAT I configuration) ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach light ing system with sequenced flashers (CAT II configuration) APV: instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance ARC: airport reference code ARFF: aircraft rescue and firefighting ARP: airport reference point ARTCC: air route traffic control center ASDA: accelerate-stop distance available ASR: airport surveillance radar ASOS: automated surface observation station ATCT: airport traffic control tower ATIS: automated terminal infor- mation service AVGAS: aviation gasoline - typically 100 low lead (100LL) AWOS: automated weather obser- vation station BRL: building restriction line CFR: Code of Federal Regula- tions CIP: capital improvement program DME: distance measuring equip- ment DNL: day-night noise level Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A B B R E V I A T I O N S DWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft with dual-wheel type landing gear DTWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft with dual-tandem type landing gear FAA: Federal Aviation Adminis- tration FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation FBO: fixed base operator FY: fiscal year GPS: global positioning system GS: glide slope HIRL: high intensity runway edge lighting IFR: instrument flight rules (FAR Part 91) ILS: instrument landing system IM: inner marker LDA: localizer type directional aid LDA: landing distance available LIRL: low intensity runway edge lighting LMM: compass locator at middle marker LOC: ILS localizer LOM: compass locator at ILS outer marker LORAN: long range navigation MALS: medium intensity approach lighting system MALSR: medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights MIRL: medium intensity runway edge lighting MITL: medium intensity taxiway edge lighting MLS: microwave landing system MM: middle marker MOA: military operations area MSL: mean sea level NAVAID: navigational aid NDB: nondirectional radio beacon NM: nautical mile (6,076 .1 feet) NPES: National Pollutant Dis- charge Elimination System NPIAS: National Plan of Integrat- ed Airport Systems Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-14 NPRM: notice of proposed rule- making ODALS: omnidirectional approach lighting system OFA: object free area OFZ: obstacle free zone OM: outer marker PAC: planning advisory committee PAPI: precision approach path indicator PFC: porous friction course PFC: passenger facility charge PCL: pilot-controlled lighting PIW: public information workshop PLASI: pulsating visual approach slope indicator POFA: precision object free area PVASI: pulsating/steady visual approach slope indicator RCO: remote communications outlet REIL: runway end identifier lighting RNAV: area navigation RPZ: runway protection zone RSA: Runway Safety Area RTR: remote transmitter/ receiver RVR: runway visibility range RVZ: runway visibility zone SALS: short approach lighting system SASP: state aviation system plan SEL: sound exposure level SID: standard instrument departure SM: statute mile (5,280 feet) SRE: snow removal equipment SSALF: simplified short approach lighting system with sequenced flashers SSALR: simplified short approach lighting system with run- way alignment indicator lights STAR: standard terminal arrival route SWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft with single-wheel type landing gear STWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft with single-wheel tandem type landing gear Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-15 TACAN: tactical air navigational aid TDZ: touchdown zone TDZE: touchdown zone elevation TAF: Federal Aviation Adminis- tration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast TODA: takeoff distance available TORA: takeoff runway available TRACON: terminal radar approach control VASI: visual approach slope indicator VFR: visual flight rules (FAR Part 91) VHF: very high frequency VOR: very high frequency omni- directional range VORTAC: VOR and TACAN collocated Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-16 Appendix B AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS PORT OF PORTLAND Appendix C RUNWAY HOURLY CAPACITY CALCULATIONS PORT OF PORTLAND Appendix D FAA DESIGN STANDARD COMPUTATIONS PORT OF PORTLAND Appendix E SURVEY FORM PORT OF PORTLAND