Master Plan Update

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Chapter One – Introduction 1.1 AIRPORT BACKGROUND ...... 1-1 1.2 MASTER PLAN PURPOSE AND CONTEXT ...... 1-1

Chapter Two – Inventory of Existing Conditions 2.1 AIRPORT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ...... 2-1 2.2 AIRPORT LOCATION ...... 2-1 2.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND CONDITIONS ...... 2-5 2.4 AIRFIELD ...... 2-11 2.5 EXISTING TERMINAL FACILITIES ...... 2-22 2.6 EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ...... 2-36 2.7 SUPPORT FACILITIES ...... 2-43 2.8 GENERAL AVIATION (GA) FACILITIES ...... 2-45 2.9 EXISTING AIRPORT UTILITIES ...... 2-46 2.10 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ...... 2-67

Chapter Three – Forecasts of Aviation Activity 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3-1 3.2 ECONOMIC BASE FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION ...... 3-2 3.3 PAST TRENDS IN AVIATION ACTIVITY ...... 3-8 3.4 ENPLANED PASSENGER FORECASTS ...... 3-18 3.5 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST ...... 3-24 3.6 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS ...... 3-49 3.7 COMPARISON WITH FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST ...... 3-51

Chapter Four – Demand/Capacity & Facility Requirements 4.1 AIRFIELD DEMAND/CAPACITY & REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-1 4.2 PASSENGER TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-34 4.3 SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-43 4.4 SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-50

Chapter Five – Development Alternatives 5.1 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES...... 5-2 5.2 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVES ...... 5-61 5.3 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES ...... 5-78 5.4 AERONAUTICAL SUPPORT ...... 5-95 5.5 OVERALL PREFERRED MASTER PLAN ...... 5-97

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE i Master Plan Update

TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued PAGE Chapter Six – Airport Plans Package 6.1 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP) DRAWING SET ...... 6-2

Chapter Seven – Financial Implementation Plan 7.1 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ...... 7-2 7.2 CIP PHASING PLAN ...... 7-4 7.3 FUNDING SOURCES ...... 7-5 7.4 FINANCIAL AFFORDABILITY ...... 7-10 7.5 FINANCIAL PLAN ...... 7-19 7.6 CONCLUSION ...... 7-20

Chapter Eight – Environmental Overview 8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 8-1 8.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 8-2 8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CATEGORIES ...... 8-3 8.4 FINDINGS AND ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY ...... 8-39

Appendices Appendix A – Cost Estimates Appendix B – Public Comments Appendix C - FAA Eastern Region Modification of Airport Design Standards

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE ii Master Plan Update

LIST OF TABLES PAGE Chapter Two – Inventory of Existing Conditions 2.4-1 AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES ...... 2-11 2.4-2 RUNWAY DATA ...... 2-12 2.4-3 APPROACH PROCEDURES ...... 2-14 2.4-4 PERCENT WIND COVERAGE BY RUNWAY ...... 2-15 2.4-5 WEATHER CATEGORIES ...... 2-16 2.4-6 PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS ...... 2-16 2.4-7 RPZ DIMENSIONS ...... 2-20 2.4-8 RSA DIMENSIONS ...... 2-21 2.5-1 TERMINAL INVENTORY ...... 2-35 2.6-1 AUTO PARKING INVENTORY ...... 2-37 2.7-1 ARFF EQUIPMENT ...... 2-44

Chapter Three – Forecasts of Aviation Activity 3.2-1 LIMA CATCHMENT AREA POPULATION FORECAST ...... 3-3 3.2-2 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND FORECAST EMPLOYMENT (IN THOUSANDS) ...... 3-5 3.2-3 COMPARISON OF HISTORICAL AND FORECAST PCPI ($2005) ...... 3-6 3.2-4 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND FORECAST GRP (IN MILLIONS OF $2005) ...... 3-7 3.3-1 LIMA HISTORICAL ENPLANEMENT TRENDS ...... 3-9 3.3-2 LIMA TOP 25 DOMESTIC O&D MARKETS (12 MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 2012 ...... 3-12 3.3-3 LIMA AIR SERVICE – AIRPORTS SERVED NONSTOP 2007-2013 .... 3-13 3.3-4 CATCHMENT AREA LEAKAGE STATISTICS (CY2008) ...... 3-15 3.3-5 AIR SERVICE SUMMARY LIMA AND SELECT ALTERNATE AIRPORTS ...... 3-15 3.3-6 LIMA HISTORICAL OPERATIONS BY SEGMENT ...... 3-16 3.4-1 REGRESSION INPUTS ...... 3-20 3.4-2 ENPLANED PASSENGER FORECAST RESULTS ...... 3-23 3.5-1 AVERAGE GAUGE ASSUMPTIONS ...... 3-27 3.5-2 LOAD FACTOR ASSUMPTIONS ...... 3-28 3.5-3 BASELINE COMMERCIAL PASSENGER OPERATIONS FORECAST ..... 3-29 3.5-4 HIGH SCENARIO COMMERCIAL PASSENGER OPERATIONS FORECAST ...... 3-31 3.5-5 LIMA HISTORICAL GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS ...... 3-37 3.5-6 LIMA MARKET SHARE OF GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS ...... 3-38

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE iii Master Plan Update

LIST OF TABLES, Continued PAGE 3.5-7 GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FORECAST ...... 3-39 3.5-8 GENERAL AVIATION BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST ...... 3-40 3.5-9 GENERAL AVIATION BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX ...... 3-41 3.5-10 NON-COMMERCIAL AIR TAXI OPERATIONS ...... 3-42 3.5-11 MILITARY OPERATIONS & BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST ...... 3-43 3.5-12 TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST BY SEGMENT – BASELINE ...... 3-44 3.5-13 TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST – HIGH SCENARIO ...... 3-45 3.5-14 TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST (FAA CATEGORIES) .... 3-47 3.6-1 LIMA PEAK PERIOD ENPLANEMENT FORECAST – BASELINE ...... 3-49 3.6-2 LIMA PEAK PERIOD AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST – BASELINE...... 3-50 3.7-1 LIMA FORECAST SUMMARY (FAA APPENDIX B) ...... 3-55 3.7-2 LIMA FORECAST COMPARISON TO 2012 TAF (FAA APPENDIX C) ... 3-57

Chapter Four – Demand/Capacity & Facility Requirements 4.1-1 LIMA FUTURE COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX ...... 4-2 4.1-2 EXISTING RUNWAY 6/24 EXIT TAXIWAYS ...... 4-7 4.1-3 PERCENT OF PAYLOAD AVAILABLE ...... 4-12 4.1-4 LIMA RPZ OWNERSHIP ...... 4-27 4.1-5 LIMA RSA & OFA COMPLIANCE PERCENTAGE ...... 4-28 4.2-1 LIMA PASSENGER GATE REQUIREMENTS (COMMON USE) ...... 4-35 4.2-2 LIMA PASSENGER GATE REQUIREMENTS (NON-SOUTHWEST) ...... 4-35 4.2-3 LIMA CURBFRONT ASSUMPTIONS ...... 4-36 4.2-4 LIMA CURBFRONT REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-36 4.2-5 LIMA TICKETING ASSUMPTIONS ...... 4-37 4.2-6 LIMA TICKETING REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-37 4.2-7 LIMA BAGGAGE SCREENING ASSUMPTIONS ...... 4-38 4.2-8 LIMA BAGGAGE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-38 4.2-9 LIMA SECURITY CHECKPOINT ASSUMPTIONS ...... 4-39 4.2-10 LIMA SECURITY CHECKPOINT REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-39 4.2-11 LIMA BAGGAGE CLAIM ASSUMPTIONS ...... 4-40 4.2-12 LIMA BAGGAGE CLAIM REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-40 4.2-13 LIMA TERMINAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ...... 4-41 4.3-1 LIMA SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ...... 4-45 4.3-2 LIMA HANGAR PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS ...... 4-47 4.3-3 LIMA AUTO PARKING ASSUMPTIONS ...... 4-48 4.3-4 FAA ARFF INDICES ...... 4-48 4.3-5 LIMA AIRCRAFT FUEL STORAGE ASSUMPTIONS ...... 4-49

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE iv Master Plan Update

LIST OF TABLES, Continued PAGE Chapter Five – Development Alternatives 5.1-1 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 1 EVALUATION...... 5-6 5.1-2 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 2 EVALUATION...... 5-8 5.1-3 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 3 EVALUATION...... 5-10 5.1-4 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 3B EVALUATION ...... 5-12 5.1-5 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 4 EVALUATION...... 5-14 5.1-6 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 4B EVALUATION ...... 5-16 5.1-7 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 5 EVALUATION...... 5-18 5.1-8 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 6 EVALUATION...... 5-21 5.1-9 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 7 EVALUATION...... 5-24 5.1-10 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 8 EVALUATION...... 5-26 5.1-11 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 8 EMAS (8E) EVALUATION ...... 5-28 5.1-12 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9 EVALUATION...... 5-32 5.1-13 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9B EVALUATION ...... 5-34 5.1-14 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9C EVALUATION ...... 5-36 5.1-15 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 10 EVALUATION ...... 5-38 5.1-16 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 11 EVALUATION ...... 5-40 5.1-17 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 12 EVALUATION ...... 5-42 5.1-18 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 13 EVALUATION ...... 5-44 5.1-19 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 14 EVALUATION ...... 5-46 5.1-20 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 15 EVALUATION ...... 5-48 5.1-21 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 15B EVALUATION ...... 5-50 5.1-22 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 16 EVALUATION ...... 5-52 5.1-23 RUNWAY EVALUATION CRITERIA ...... 5-55 5.1-24 EVALUATION OF RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES ...... 5-57 5.3-1 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 1 EVALUATION ...... 5-80 5.3-2 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 2 EVALUATION ...... 5-82 5.3-3 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 3 EVALUATION ...... 5-84 5.3-4 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 4 EVALUATION ...... 5-86 5.3-5 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 5 EVALUATION ...... 5-88 5.3-7 TERMINAL EVALUATION CRITERIA ...... 5-93 5.3-8 EVALUATION OF TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES ...... 5-94 5.5-1 TERMINAL EVALUATION CRITERIA ...... 5-97

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE v Master Plan Update

LIST OF TABLES, Continued PAGE Chapter Seven – Financial Implementation Plan

7.1-1 LIMA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ...... 7-3 7.2-1 CIP PHASING PLAN ...... 7-4 7.3-1 LIMA CIP FUNDING SOURCES ...... 7-5 7.3-2 LIMA EXPECTED ANNUAL FAA AIP ENTITLEMENT GRANTS ...... 7-7 7.3-3 LIMA EXPECTED PFC COLLECTIONS ...... 7-8 7.4-1 LIMA HISTORICAL OPERATING REVENUES ...... 7-11 7.4-2 LIMA PROJECTED OPERATING REVENUES ...... 7-12 7.4-3 LIMA HISTORICAL OPERATING EXPENSES ...... 7-13 7.4-4 LIMA PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSES ...... 7-14 7.4-5 LIMA PROJECTED OPERATING INCOME ...... 7-15 7.4-6 LIMA EXISTING DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE ...... 7-17

Chapter Eight – Environmental Overview 8.3-1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES – 14 CFR PART 150 ...... 8-6 8.3-2 STATE AND FEDERAL THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 8-11 8.3-3 DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-19 8.3-4 RUNWAY END UTILIZATION – FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-20 8.3-5 ARRIVAL FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES – FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-23 8.3-6 DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES – FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-24 8.3-7 TOUCH-AND-GO FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES – FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-25 8.3-8 HELICOPTOR FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES – FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-25 8.3-9 DEPARTURE TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-26 8.3-10 DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE FUTURE (2034) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-27 8.3-11 RUNWAY END UTILIZATION – FUTURE (2034) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-28 8.3-12 AREA, POPULATION, AND HOUSING UNITS WITHIN FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-29 8.3-13 AREA, POPULATION, AND HOUSING UNITS WITHIN FUTURE (2034) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-31

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE vi Master Plan Update

LIST OF EXHIBITS PAGE Chapter One – Introduction 1.2-1 2013 MASTER PLAN OVERVIEW ...... 1-3

Chapter Two – Inventory of Existing Conditions 2.2-1 AIRPORT LOCATION MAP ...... 2-3 2.3-1 ON-AIRPORT LAND USE ...... 2-7 2.3-2 ON-AIRPORT BUILDINGS AND AIRFIELD INVENTORY ...... 2-9 2.4-1 FAR PART 77 IMAGINARY SURFACES ...... 2-18 2.4-2 AIRFIELD SAFETY AREAS ...... 2-19 2.5-1 LIMA PASSENGER TERMINAL CONFIGURATION ...... 2-25 2.5-2 FUNCTIONAL AREAS – MAIN TERMINAL LEVEL 1 ...... 2-27 2.5-3 FUNCTIONAL AREAS – MAIN TERMINAL LEVEL 2 ...... 2-29 2.5-4 FUNCTIONAL AREAS – EAST CONCOURSE LEVEL 1 ...... 2-31 2.5-5 FUNCTIONAL AREAS – EAST CONCOURSE LEVEL 2 ...... 2-33 2.6-1 AIRPORT PARKING MAP ...... 2-39 2.6-2 AVERAGE OVERNIGHT PARKING DEMAND 2010-11 ...... 2-41 2.6-3 PEAK MONTH HOURLY DEMAND PROFILE 2010-11 ...... 2-42 2.9-1 UTILITY PLAN – KEY MAP ...... 2-53 2.9-2 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 1 ...... 2-55 2.9-3 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 2 ...... 2-57 2.9-4 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 3 ...... 2-59 2.9-5 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 4 ...... 2-61 2.9-6 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 5 ...... 2-63 2.9-7 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 6 ...... 2-65 2.10-1 TOWN OF ISLIP – 2007 EXISTING LAND USE ...... 2-73 2.10-2 WETLANDS ...... 2-76

Chapter Three – Forecasts of Aviation Activity 3.2-1 DISTRIBUTION OF PASSENGER TRIP ORIGINS FOR LIMA ...... 3-2 3.2-2 NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (2010) ...... 3-4 3.2-3 HISTORICAL TRENDS IN PCPI ($2005) ...... 3-6 3.3-1 LIMA HISTORICAL PASSENGER TRAFFIC ...... 3-10 3.3-2 SOUTHWEST AVERAGE FARE YIELD – ALL U.S. BASES (CY2010) .. 3-11 3.3-3 LIMA HISTORICAL OPERATIONS BY SEGMENT ...... 3-17 3.5-1 U.S. GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS ...... 3-34 3.7-1 LIMA ENPLANEMENT FORECAST COMPARISON ...... 3-52 3.7-2 LIMA AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST COMPARISON ...... 3-53

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE vii Master Plan Update

LIST OF EXHIBITS, Continued PAGE Chapter Four – Demand/Capacity & Facility Requirements 4.1-1 TAXIWAY DESIGN GROUPS(TDGs) ...... 4-3 4.1-2 LIMA AIRFIELD CONFIGURATION ...... 4-6 4.1-3 RUNWAY TAKEOFF LENGTH REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-9 4.1-4 RUNWAY LANDING LENGTH REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-10 4.1-5 RANGE AT MAXIMUM PAYLOAD ...... 4-11 4.1-6 PAYLOAD AVAILABLE – BOEING 737-300 ...... 4-13 4.1-7 PAYLOAD AVAILABLE – BOEING 737-500 ...... 4-15 4.1-8 PAYLOAD AVAILABLE – BOEING 737-700 (CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT) ...... 4-17 4.1-9 PAYLOAD AVAILABLE – BOEING 737-800 ...... 4-19 4.1-10 PAYLOAD AVAILABLE – BOEING MD-83 ...... 4-21 4.1-11 LIMA RPZ OVERVIEW ...... 4-24 4.1-12 RUNWAY 6 RPZ...... 4-25 4.1-13 RUNWAY 24 RPZ ...... 4-25 4.1-14 RUNWAY 10 RPZ ...... 4-26 4.1-15 RUNWAY 28 RPZ ...... 4-26 4.1-16 RUNWAY 15R RPZ ...... 4-27 4.1-17 RUNWAY 6 RSA & OFA ...... 4-30 4.1-18 RUNWAY 10 RSA & OFA ...... 4-31 4.1-19 RUNWAY 28 RSA & OFA ...... 4-32 4.1-20 RUNWAY 15R RSA & OFA ...... 4-33

Chapter Five – Development Alternatives 5.1-1 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 1 ...... 5-7 5.1-2 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 2 ...... 5-9 5.1-3 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 3 ...... 5-11 5.1-4 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 3B ...... 5-13 5.1-5 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 4 ...... 5-15 5.1-6 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 4B ...... 5-17 5.1-7 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 5 ...... 5-19 5.1-8 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 6 ...... 5-23 5.1-9 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 7 ...... 5-25 5.1-10 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 8 ...... 5-27 5.1-11 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 8 EMAS (8E) ...... 5-29 5.1-12 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9 ...... 5-33 5.1-13 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9B ...... 5-35 5.1-14 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9C ...... 5-37 5.1-15 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 10 ...... 5-39

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE viii Master Plan Update

LIST OF EXHIBITS, Continued PAGE 5.1-16 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 11 ...... 5-41 5.1-17 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 12 ...... 5-43 5.1-18 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 13 ...... 5-45 5.1-19 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 14 ...... 5-47 5.1-20 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 15 ...... 5-49 5.1-21 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 15B ...... 5-51 5.1-22 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 16 ...... 5-53 5.1-23 OVERALL RECOMMENDED RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE ...... 5-59 5.2-1 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE 1 ...... 5-63 5.2-2 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE 2 ...... 5-67 5.2-3 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE 3 ...... 5-71 5.2-4 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE 4 ...... 5-75 5.3-1 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 1 ...... 5-81 5.3-2 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 2 ...... 5-83 5.3-3 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 3 ...... 5-85 5.3-4 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 4 ...... 5-87 5.3-5 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 5 ...... 5-89 5.3-6 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 6 ...... 5-91 5.4-1 EAST GA FACILITY DEVELOPMENT ...... 5-96 5.5-1 OVERALL RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN ...... 5-99

Chapter Eight – Environmental Overview 8.3-1 INM FLIGHT TRACKS ...... 8-22 8.3-2 FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-30 8.3-3 FUTURE (2034) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR ...... 8-32 8.3-4 FUTURE (2019) COMPARED TO THE FUTURE (2034) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS ...... 8-33

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE ix Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE x

1 Chapter

Chapter 1: Introduction

Master Plan Update

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 AIRPORT BACKGROUND

Long Island MacArthur Airport (LIMA or the Airport) is owned and operated by the Town of Islip and is located between Montauk Point 67 miles to the east and Manhattan 50 miles to the west. The Town of Islip, in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), initiated a Master Plan for LIMA in 2011. An airport master plan provides a road map for efficiently meeting aviation demand through the foreseeable future while preserving the flexibility necessary to respond to changing industry conditions. The LIMA Master Plan is an important tool the Airport can use to identify aviation issues and needs, land use concerns, transportation issues, development guidelines, recommendations and priorities for public investment, and environmental stewardship for the project areas. It serves as the framework to guide decision-making as it relates to the existing LIMA facilities and future development initiatives.

LIMA ranks among the top 100 busiest airports in the U.S. in terms of annual passenger enplanements and is considered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be a “non-hub primary commercial service airport,” as defined by the 2013-2017 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The FAA classifies airports by their traffic levels for the purpose of determining funding levels. There are 499 commercial service airports in the U.S., of which 378 have more than 10,000 annual passenger enplanements (or boardings) and are classified as “primary” airports. Primary airports are further grouped into four categories (large hub, medium hub, small hub, and non-hub airports). According to the NPIAS, LIMA is one of 239 non-hub primary airports in the U.S. By definition, a non-hub primary airport must annually enplane between 10,000 annual passengers and 0.05 percent of total U.S. passengers.

1.2 MASTER PLAN PURPOSE AND CONTEXT

LIMA has experienced 70 years of growth and development primarily in response to local, regional, national, and global economic trends, as well as the service decisions of the airline industry. In response to airline industry and passenger travel preference trends, LIMA has periodically conducted Master Plans to identify the facilities and service needed to accommodate projected passenger and air traffic demand. The last Master Plan for LIMA was conducted in 1988.

The current Master Plan for LIMA provides a vision for the growth and development of the Airport through 2037. It establishes a framework for the development of airport facilities and will guide future long-term on-Airport land use and development decisions. The Master Plan is prepared in accordance with FAA

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 1‐1 Master Plan Update

guidelines1 and while it does not focus on detailed project development, it does provide a vehicle for community participation in airport planning.

In 2009, with the 1988 Master Plan’s, recommended development programs mostly implemented), LIMA and FAA officials identified the need to update the Airport’s 20-year Master Plan to address current FAA requirements and account for dynamic airline industry and passenger travel choice changes. In light of tempered growth in aviation demand, coupled with increased facility capacities resulting from the Airport’s capital development program in the early 2000s, LIMA chose to conduct this Master Plan to provide a plan for them going forward.

The primary “guiding principles” of the 2013 Master Plan were:  Provide a Master Plan that is Flexible – Due to inherent uncertainties in predicting future airline industry economics and passenger travel trends, priority should be given to providing a plan for future development that is able to adapt to changes in demand as they arise.  Focus on meeting modern airport standards – LIMA can best be prepared to accommodate future airline services and passenger travel choices by providing an airport that meets modern design standards and continues to provide a safe, efficient, and positive travel experience for its customers and users.  Limit Off-Airport Impacts – While it is important to meet demand at the airport, it is also equally important to balance these development needs with potential impacts to the surrounding communities and land uses.

The findings of this Master Plan are documented in detail in the following seven chapters (including this chapter):  Chapter One – Introduction  Chapter Two – Inventory of Existing Conditions  Chapter Three – Forecasts of Aviation Activity  Chapter Four – Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements  Chapter Five – Development Alternatives  Chapter Six – Airport Plans Package  Chapter Seven – Financial Feasibility  Chapter Eight – Environmental Overview

The resulting plan includes; an extension to Runway 15R/33L (Phase II), conversion of Runway 10/28 to a taxiway (Phase I), installation of Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) on the Runway 6 end (post-planning), an extension to the Runway 24 end, identification of a future general aviation development area to accommodate future planning period expansion requirements, and an incremental post-planning period terminal expansion plan. Development forecasted as post- planning will occur after the 20-year Master Plan (2037), reserving space for future growth. The overall recommended development plan for LIMA is presented in Exhibit 1.2-1, 2013 Master Plan Overview.

1 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 1‐2 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 1.2-1 2013 MASTER PLAN OVERVIEW

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 1‐3 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 1‐4

Chapter 2 Chapter

Chapter 2: Inventory of Existing Conditions

Master Plan Update

CHAPTER TWO INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the Master Plan will explain the background and description of the Long Island MacArthur Airport (LIMA or the Airport) in its current condition. A brief history and background of the Airport, its location, and a description of the facilities and conditions as LIMA is today are presented in the sections below.

2.1 AIRPORT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

LIMA, originally constructed in 1943 and named Islip Airport, was first established to provide assistance to the military during World War II. The Town of Islip obtained the land through a federal defense initiative, developing land as an airport and subsequently maintained and operated by the local jurisdiction. The Airport was later renamed Long Island Macarthur Airport, in honor of General Douglas MacArthur. Scheduled commercial service at LIMA began in 1960 and since then, many airlines have operated at LIMA. Today, US Airways Express and Southwest Airlines offer scheduled passenger service at LIMA. In 2010 LIMA served approximately 858,000 enplaned passengers. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) 2011 quarterly directory grouped LIMA with LaGuardia (LGA), John F. Kennedy (JFK), Teterboro (TEB), and Newark (EWR) International airports as an Official Metro Airport (an airport that is a regional transportation hub whose catchment area extends well beyond the bounds of Islip Town).

2.2 AIRPORT LOCATION

LIMA is located in central Long Island within Ronkonkoma, Town of Islip, New York, approximately 41.5 nautical miles east-northeast of Manhattan and 32.5 nautical miles from JFK. The Airport occupies approximately 1,311 acres of land owned by the town of Islip. Exhibit 2.2-1, Airport Location Map, shows the general location of LIMA in relationship to the Town of Islip, New York City, and Long Island.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐1 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐2 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.2-1 AIRPORT LOCATION MAP

Source: Google Maps, Landrum & Brown, & FAA National Aeronautical Chart Office (NACO)

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐3 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐4 Master Plan Update

2.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND CONDITIONS

The inventory of existing conditions was accomplished through review of existing documentation, several site visits, and discussions with the Airport and tenant staff. The following sections will focus on the numerous facilities and conditions that make up LIMA today. They include the following:  Airfield  Terminal Area  Landside Facilities  Military/Police Facilities  General Aviation (GA)  Aviation Support Facilities  Meteorological Conditions  Environmental Conditions

The general areas of land use are shown in Exhibit 2.3-1, On-Airport Land Use. The On-Airport Buildings Inventory List, is included in Exhibit 2.3-2, On-Airport Buildings and Airfield Inventory, consists of.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐5 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐6

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.3-1 ON-AIRPORT LAND USE

Source: Google Earth Imagery, LIMA, Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐7

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐8

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.3-2 ON-AIRPORT BUILDINGS AND AIRFIELD INVENTORY

Source: Pen and Ink ALP – April 25, 2011, Landrum & Brown Analysis, Google Earth

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐9

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐10 Master Plan Update

2.4 AIRFIELD

The following section will focus on a number of important facilities and conditions that accommodate and enable the safe and efficient movement of aircraft at the Airport. These include:  Runways  Taxiways  Aprons  Airfield Lighting  Visual and Navigational Aids  Meteorological Conditions  FAR Part 77 Surfaces and Obstructions  Airfield Safety Areas

Refer to Exhibit 2.3-2, On-Airport Buildings Inventory and Airfield Buildings Inventory, for the locations of the airfield infrastructure. Under FAA guidance the critical aircraft for an airport is defined as the most demanding aircraft that performs at least 500 operations per year at that airport. An operation is defined as either a take-off or a landing. Using this guidance, the Critical Aircraft for LIMA is currently a Boeing 737-700 which is categorized as an Airport Reference Code (ARC) C-III aircraft by the FAA. While the critical aircraft is a C-III, LIMA is capable of accommodating D-IV aircraft on Runways 6/24 and 15R/33L. The information in Table 2.4-1, Airport Reference Codes, is used to determine the Airplane Design Group (ADG) of an aircraft.

Table 2.4-1 AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES

Approach Category (Knots) Airplane Design Group (Ft) Tail Height Wingspan A < 91 I < 20 < 49 B 91 -< 121 II 20 -< 30 49 -< 79 C 121 -< 141 III 30 -< 45 79 -< 118 D 141 -< 166 IV 45 -< 60 118 -< 171 E 166 - V 60 -< 66 171 -< 214 VI 66 -< 80 214 -< 262

Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 17

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐11 Master Plan Update

2.4.1 RUNWAYS

Table 2.4-2, Runway Data, contains all pertinent runway data. Today there are four runways at LIMA. The primary runway is Runway 6/24 at 7,006 feet in length with a width of 150 feet. The runway is made of grooved asphalt and is in excellent condition. Runway 6/24 is the longest of the four runways at LIMA and is the most frequently used.

Runway 10/28 is the third longest runway with a length of 5,034 feet and a width of 150 feet. The runway is made of asphalt and is considered to be in fair condition. Runway 28 is frequently used for arrival operations in visual conditions while departures are occurring on Runway 24. This is possible with Land and Hold Short (LAHSO) operations, whereby aircraft arriving on Runway 28 come to a stop and turn off before the intersection with Runway 6/24.

The two parallel runways consist of 15R/33L and 15L/33R. Runway 15R/33L, the primary crosswind runway, is 5,186 feet in length and has a width of 150 feet. It is constructed of grooved asphalt and is considered to be in good condition. Runway 15L/33R is the second parallel runway and the shortest at 3,175 feet in length and 75 feet wide. Runway 15R/33L is also constructed of asphalt and is considered to be in good condition.

Table 2.4-2 RUNWAY DATA

Runway 6 24 10 28 15L 33R 15R 33L Runway 7,006 X 150 5,034 X 150 3,175 X 75 5,186 X 150 Dimensions (ft.)

Runway Pavement Excellent Fair Good Good Condition

Runway Category D-IV B-IV B-II D-IV Approach Surfaces 50:1 50:1 20:1 20:1 20:1 20:1 34:1 34:1 Slope Runway Marking and PIR/PIR Basic/Visual-B NSTD/Visual-B NPI/Visual-B Instrumentation Runway Edge HIRL N/A N/A MIRL Lighting

Centerline Lighting YES NO NO NO

MALSR/ Approach Lighting VASI N/A PAPI N/A N/A VASI VASI VASI SW 100,000 SW 32,000 SW 25,000 SW 100,000 Pavement DW 210,000 DW 56,000 N/A DW170,000 Strength DT 300,000 DT 92,000 N/A DT 300,000

Source: Airports 5010 http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=ISP and https://nfdc.faa.gov/nfdcApps/airportLookup/airportDisplay.jsp?category=nasr&airportId=isp

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐12 Master Plan Update

2.4.2 TAXIWAYS

The taxiways at LIMA allow for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft between the runways, terminal area, and general aviation (GA) facilities. All taxiways at LIMA are 75 feet wide. LIMA is served by the following taxiways which are referred to using the phonetic alphabet:  “A” – Alpha  “D” – Delta  “A1” – Alpha 1  “E” – Echo  “B” – Bravo  “F” – Foxtrot  “B1” – Bravo 1  “G” – Golf  “B2” – Bravo 2  “H” – Hotel  “B3” – Bravo 3  “S” – Sierra  “B4” – Bravo 4  “W” – Whiskey  “C” - Charlie

2.4.3 APRONS

When discussing aircraft parking aprons, this discussion can generally be broken into two categories: Commercial and GA. For the purpose of this Inventory, the primary focus will be on the commercial aprons; the GA aprons are discussed later in a section focusing on all GA facilities.

The commercial apron at LIMA consists of two functional areas, the west area that is directly adjacent to Concourse B and the east area adjacent to Concourse A. The west apron area is made up of the original apron and is currently used by US Airways Express and charter flights. The west apron area is approximately 155,000 square feet1 in size and has one aircraft parking position equipped with a passenger loading bridge (contact position). This passenger loading bridge is owned by the Airport.

The east apron area, adjacent to Concourse A, is partially on the original aircraft apron and was partially constructed new at the same time Concourse A was constructed by Southwest Airlines. The east apron area is approximately 444,000 square feet1 in size and is used by Southwest Airlines. The east apron area has eight total contact positions. All eight loading bridges are owned by Southwest Airlines. In addition to the eight contact positions on the east apron, there is space enough for up to three remote aircraft parking positions. These positions are most often used by Southwest’s Remain Over-Night (RON) aircraft parking.

1 Area approximations measured in Google Earth – Imagery Date September 20, 2010.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐13 Master Plan Update

2.4.4 AIRFIELD LIGHTING

LIMA provides various types of lighting for visual orientation in both night and poor weather conditions operations. Each runway is equipped with various types of lighting, and this information is listed in Table 2.4-2, Runway Data. The Airport Beacon is located on the southern portion of the airfield atop the new Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT).

2.4.5 NAVIGATIONAL AIDS (NAVAIDS)

The existing runway markings, and NAVAIDs are also listed in Table 2.4-2. There are six published approach procedures for LIMA utilizing the aforementioned NAVAIDs. They are listed in Table 2.4-3, Approach Procedures.

Table 2.4-3 APPROACH PROCEDURES

Runway Approach Type Ceiling (Feet) Visibility (Miles)

ILS 200 1/2*1 6 RNAV (GPS) 200 1/2* ILS 200 1/2* 24 RNAV (GPS) 200 1/2* 10 N/A N/A N/A 28 N/A N/A N/A 15L N/A N/A N/A 33R N/A N/A N/A 15R RNAV (GPS) 316 1 33L RNAV (GPS) 250 3/4

Note: *Visibilities were converted to miles from runway visual range (RVR). Original data indicates Visibility of 24 RVR. 1-RVR 1,800 (1/3 mile) authorized with Flight Director, Auto Pilot, or Heads Up Display down to DA. Source: WWW.NACO.FAA.GOV

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐14 Master Plan Update

2.4.6 METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

A weather analysis was conducted to determine the wind coverage and meteorological conditions at LIMA. Runway magnetic headings and variance information was obtained from the most recent airport diagram. The parameters of the analysis restricted the tailwind component to a maximum of three knots and calm winds were defined as 10.5 knots or less. Four separate crosswind scenarios were completed restricting the crosswind components to 10.5, 13, 16, and 20 knots on each runway. The analysis also considered the entire day, 00:00-23:59.

The weather analysis was conducted using the WIND36 runway-use program and applied aviation surface weather observations taken at LIMA and obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The results were based on 85,067 hourly observations taken between January 2001 and December 2010 which represents the last full 10 years of data available.2

2.4.6.1 Percent Wind Coverage

In order to determine the percent wind coverage for individual runway directions and all runways combined, three scenarios for each crosswind component (10.5, 13, 16, and 20) on each runway were used for a total of twelve scenarios. The first group of scenarios assumed a preference of northeast/southwest flow (Runway 6/24), the second group assumed a preference of northwest/southeast flow (Runways 15R/33L and 15L/33R), and the third group assumed a preference of east/west flow (Runway 10/28). WIND36 was run for each of the scenarios. Table 2.4-4, Percent Wind Coverage by Runway, shows the results of this analysis.

Table 2.4-4 PERCENT WIND COVERAGE BY RUNWAY

Crosswind 6-24 10-28 15-33 All Runways 10.5 knots 87.49 90.26 87.36 99.59 13 knots 93.58 95.81 95.31 99.94 16 knots 97.57 98.71 87.36 100.00 20 knots 99.46 99.78 99.83 100.00

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

2 The 85,067 observations are approximately 97 percent of the total possible observations. No patterns were observed in the missing data, such as missing an entire month or season. Therefore, it can be concluded that this data is a true representation of the weather conditions at LIMA during the time period.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐15 Master Plan Update

2.4.6.2 Historical Meteorological Conditions

The historical occurrences of meteorological conditions at LIMA were calculated under several weather categories described in Table 2.4-5, Weather Categories.

Table 2.4-5 WEATHER CATEGORIES

Cloud Weather Surface Horizontal Ceiling Base Category Visibility (Feet AGL1) All Weather No restrictions No restrictions VMC2 >1,000 and >3 miles IMC3 ≥0 and <1,000 or ≥0 miles and <3 miles 1/ to <3 miles CAT I4 ≥200 and <1,000 or 2 (at least 2,400 feet RVR5) At least 1,200 feet RVR but no CAT II4 ≥100 and <200 or more than 2,400 feet RVR CAT III4 ≥0 and <100 or Less than 1,200 feet RVR

1 AGL - above ground level. 2 VMC - visual meteorological conditions. 3 IMC - instrument meteorological conditions. 4 CAT I, CAT II, and CAT III represent divisions of IMC. 5 RVR - runway visual range in feet. Source: FAA, Instrument Procedures Handbook (FAA-H-8261-1A) 2007, Landrum & Brown analysis, 2011

The historic occurrences for each weather category are given in Table 2.4-6, Percent Occurrence of Meteorological Conditions.

Table 2.4-6 PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

Conditions Percent Occurrence VFR1 84.37% IFR2 15.63% IFR CAT I 13.75% IFR CAT II 1.60% IFR CAT III 0.28%

1 VFR – Visual Flight Rules 2 IFR – Instrument Flight Rules Source: Landrum & Brown analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐16 Master Plan Update

2.4.7 FAR PART 77 SURFACES AND OBSTRUCTIONS

Chapter 5 of this Master Plan Update, Airport Plans Package, provides a detailed description of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). A complete inventory of all Part 77 penetrations at LIMA can be found on Sheet 09 of the ALP. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 defines the standards by which obstructions are identified within the navigable airspace in and around airports. Objects which penetrate the Part 77 imaginary surfaces are identified as potential hazards to air navigation and warrant additional airspace review by the FAA. The FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces are three-dimensional surfaces whose exact dimensions and shape are determined by the type of runway they serve. The imaginary surfaces include the approach, transitional, primary, horizontal, and conical surfaces. The Part 77 Surfaces at LIMA are depicted in Exhibit 2.4-1, FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐17 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.4-1 FAR PART 77 IMAGINARY SURFACES

Source: FAR Part 77, Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐18 Master Plan Update

2.4.8 AIRFIELD SAFETY AREAS

This section presents FAA standards for various airfield safety areas such as: runway protection zones (RPZs), runway safety areas (RSAs), object free areas (OFAs), and obstacle free zones (OFZs). The following subsections provide the standard requirements associated with the runway-related safety elements and their existing conditions at LIMA. Exhibit 2.4-2, Airfield Safety Areas, depicts the various safety areas discussed in this section and how they relate to the runway.

Exhibit 2.4-2 AIRFIELD SAFETY AREAS

Sources: Landrum & Brown and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐19 Master Plan Update

2.4.8.1 Runway Protection Zones (RPZs)

The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and is centered on the extended runway centerline. The function of the RPZ is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground below the immediate approaches to the runway ends. This is best achieved through ownership of the land under the runway approach and departure areas to set the limits of the RPZ.

Other than with a special application of declared distances, the RPZ begins 200 feet beyond the end of the runway pavement that is usable for takeoffs and landings. With a special application of declared distances, separate approach and departure RPZs are required for each runway end. The actual length and width of the RPZ is contingent on the size of the aircraft operating on the runway as well as the visibility minimums required by the approach. Generally, as the aircraft size increases, and the approach minimums become more stringent, the dimensions of the RPZ increases in size. The dimensions for the existing RPZs are listed in Table 2.4-7, RPZ Dimensions.

Table 2.4-7 RPZ DIMENSIONS

Runway Inner Width (Feet) Outer Width (Feet) Length (Feet) 6/24 1,000 1,750 2,500 10/28 500 700 1,000 15R1 500 1,010 1,700 33L1 1,000 1,510 1,700 15L/33R 500 700 1,000

1 Differing Approach Visibility Minimums on Runway 15R and 33L dictate the RPZ Dimensions. a. Approach to 15R = Greater than 1 Mile b. Approach to 33L = ¾ Mile Source: Pen and Ink ALP – April 25, 2011

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐20 Master Plan Update

2.4.8.2 Runway Safety Areas (RSAs)

The RSA is a defined surface surrounding the runway at ground level that is suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershot, overshot, or excursion from the runway. It also provides greater accessibility for firefighting and rescue equipment during such incidents. The RSA should be clear and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts or surface variations. In addition, the RSA, under dry conditions, must be able to support snow removal equipment, emergency equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage to the aircraft. Table 2.4-8, RSA Dimensions, lists the RSA standards for each runway and the dimensions of the existing RSAs at LIMA by runway.

Table 2.4-8 RSA DIMENSIONS

FAA AC 150/5300-13 Standard Existing RSA W/O Declared Runway RSA Dimension Distances End Length Beyond Length Beyond Width (Ft) Width (Ft) RWY End (Ft) RWY End (Ft) 6 495 24 595 10 549 500 1,000 500 28 1,000 15R 944 33L 1,000 15L 150 300 150 300 33R

Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Change 17, Pen and Ink ALP - April 25, 2011

2.4.8.3 Runway Object Free Area (OFA)

The runway OFA is a two-dimensional ground area surrounding the runway. The OFA should be clear of above ground objects protruding above the runway safety area edge elevation. It is acceptable to place objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes, and to taxi and hold aircraft in the OFA.

2.4.8.4 Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)

The OFZ is a three-dimensional volume of airspace centered on the runway that supports the transition of ground to airborne operations (or vice versa). The OFZ clearing and standards prohibit taxiing airplanes, parked airplanes, and other objects, except frangible NAVAIDs or fixed-function objects, from penetrating this zone. The OFZ consists of a volume of airspace centered on the runway and in the case of a precision instrument runway, there is an inner-approach and inner-transitional OFZ.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐21 Master Plan Update

2.5 EXISTING TERMINAL FACILITIES

LIMA currently has one passenger terminal facility, which has been expanded incrementally over the years. The oldest portion of the terminal was completed in 1966 and consists of an “oval shaped” building. This portion of the building today serves as the central core of the passenger terminal connecting the ticketing hall, baggage claim hall, and concourses. The major functional areas located within this central core are Airport Administration Offices on the second level, a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security checkpoint, meeter-greeter/well-wisher space, and concession space on the ground level. Extending from the southwest of the central core is the baggage claim area which houses all four bag claim units at LIMA as well as rental car counters. Opposite the baggage claim area, extending from the southeast of the central core is the ticketing hall which houses all ticketing counters. The ticketing hall also connects to the Southwest Airlines Concourse, which will be discussed in the following paragraphs. Extending from the northeast of the central core is the West Concourse, the older of the two concourses. The West Concourse is equipped with one passenger loading bridge and several non-contact gates for ramp loading of passengers. The general configuration of these terminal areas are depicted in Exhibit 2.5-1, LIMA Passenger Terminal Configuration. The functional spaces within the aforementioned areas of the terminal are depicted in Exhibit 2.5-2 and Exhibit 2.5-3, Functional Areas – Main Terminal Level 1 and Level 2.

The newer East Concourse or Veterans Memorial Concourse, occupied by Southwest Airlines, was completed in 2006 with the addition of Phase II of the East Concourse. The East Concourse connects to both the northeast corner of the central core and to the southeast end of the ticketing hall. This concourse provides circulation, hold room, concession space, an additional TSA security checkpoint, and eight contact gates that can accommodate up to an ADG IV aircraft (e.g., B-757).

Exhibit 2.5-4 and Exhibit 2.5-5, Functional Areas – East Concourse Level 1 and Level 2 show a detailed layout of the functional areas within the terminal building. For a complete inventory of all function spaces of the Passenger Terminal, see Table 2.5-1, Terminal Inventory.

2.5.1 TERMINAL CONTACT GATES AND AIRCRAFT LOADING POSITIONS

The LIMA terminal building contains a total of 16 passenger loading positions and gates. Located in the West Concourse are gates/loading positions numbered B16 to B23. This concourse is primarily used by US Airways Express. The Veterans Memorial Concourse/East Concourse both accommodate Southwest Airlines. Combined they provide eight contact gates, designated A1 to A8. Gates A1 to A8 and B23 are the only gates that are equipped with passenger loading bridges (contact gates). All other gates utilize movable stairs or aircraft stairs to load and unload passengers. Both refueling via trucks and de-icing takes place at the terminal gates and loading positions. Currently gate B23 is not assigned to an airline, but is used for non-scheduled charter operations.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐22 Master Plan Update

2.5.2 TICKET COUNTERS AND KIOSKS

All ticket counters at LIMA are located in the ticketing concourse to the southeast of the Main Terminal. Overall there are a total of 50 dedicated ticketing positions. US Airways’ utilize six of these positions at the far west end closest to the Main Terminal. In addition to the six ticketing positions, US Airways also has two ticketing kiosks in use. Directly adjacent to the US Airways ticketing positions are four ticketing positions in use by the TSA to assist with checked baggage screening. Adjacent to the TSA counters are the Southwest Airlines ticketing counters. Southwest Airlines utilizes 12 ticketing positions and provides eight ticketing kiosks for their passengers. Adjacent to the Southwest Airlines ticketing positions to the east are twelve more ticketing counters utilized by the TSA to assist with checked baggage screening operations. Beyond the TSA baggage screening positions, 4 positions are being utilized by Pen Air for passenger ticketing processes. The remaining 28 ticketing positions are currently vacant and only used on an occasional basis for non-scheduled charter service.

In addition to the ticking positions and their associated queuing areas, there are a total of three Explosive Detection Systems (EDSs) in the ticketing concourse used for checked baggage screening.

2.5.3 CONCESSIONS SPACE

Various concession spaces are located in both the non-secure and secure portions of the Airport. Concession space prior to security makes up approximately 6,327 square feet and secure concession space accounts for approximately 21,959 square feet of the terminal area as listed in Table 2.5-1. There are two primary concessionaires at LIMA, the first being HMS Host. HMS Host offers a totalof six eateries at LIMA, all of which are located after the security checkpoint. They currently operate under a lease with Southwest Airlines and not directly with the Airport. The second concessionaire is Paradies Shops. Paradies operates four retail shops, of which three are located after the security checkpoint. Their fourth pre-security store will be moving to the East end of the terminal to coincide with the relocation of the security screening checkpoint.

2.5.4 BAGGAGE CLAIM AND MAKEUP

The baggage claim facility at LIMA consists of four baggage claim carousels occupying approximately 11,968 square feet of area. Each carousel is capable of accommodating an ADG III/IV aircraft. Southwest primarily uses Carousels 2 and 4, but utilizes all four baggage carousels when necessary. US Airways Express only uses Carousel 1 for their baggage claim operations.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐23 Master Plan Update

2.5.5 AIRPORT SECURITY

There are two areas for TSA security checkpoints at LIMA, however, only the security checkpoint in the East Concourse is currently in use. The Airport recently closed the security checkpoint in the Main Terminal and moved all security checkpoint services to the newer East Concourse checkpoint. The new relocated security checkpoint in the East Concourse occupies approximately 5,284 square feet. The former security checkpoint in the Main Terminal occupies approximately 3,504 square feet of space and is still available for arriving passengers to exit the secure areas of the terminal.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐24 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.5-1 LIMA PASSENGER TERMINAL CONFIGURATION

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐25 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐26 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.5-2 FUNCTIONAL AREAS - MAIN TERMINAL LEVEL 1

Source: LIMA, Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐27 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐28 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.5-3 FUNCTIONAL AREAS - MAIN TERMINAL LEVEL 2

Source: LIMA, Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐29 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐30 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.5-4 FUNCTIONAL AREAS – EAST CONCOURSE LEVEL 1

Source: LIMA, Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐31 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐32 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.5-5 FUNCTIONAL AREAS – EAST CONCOURSE LEVEL 2

Source: LIMA, Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐33 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐34 Master Plan Update

Table 2.5-1 TERMINAL INVENTORY

Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 East Level 2 East Landside Units Main Terminal Main Terminal Concourse Consourse Total Baggage Baggage ClaimArea ft2 11,968 - - - 11,968 Baggage Claim Units units 4 - - - 4 Ticketing Ticketing Area ft2 2,843 - - - 2,843 Counter Length lf 238 - - - 238 Ticketing Circulatio n ft2 3,509 - - - 3,509 Ticketing Positions pos 50 - - - 50 Circulation Area ft2 27,927 1,054 13,457 - 42,438 No n-Public ft2 2,658 - - - 2,658 Vertical Circulation ft2 239 308 - - 547

Landside Concessions/Commercial Retail/Food ft2 2,689 - 659 - 3,348 Rental Car ft2 1,119 - - - 1,119 Storage/Support ft2 490 - - - 490 Police ft2 1,764 - - - 1,764 Toilets ft2 1,291 496 - - 1,787 Storage ft2 389 99 1,113 - 1,601 Airline Offices ft2 5,263 - - - 5,263 Airport Offices ft2 2,396 7,024 - - 9,420 Security Queueing ft2 1,652 - 3,993 - 5,645 Janitorial/Mechanical ft2 1,101 290 - - 1,391 Landside Space by Level Subtotal (ft2): 67,297 9,271 19,222 - 95,790

Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 East Level 2 East Airside Units Main Terminal Main Terminal Concourse Consourse Total Concessions/Commercial Retail/Duty Free/Food ft2 3,101 6,479 - 12,278 21,858 Storage/Support ft2 - - - 101 101 Holdrooms Area ft2 5,234 - - 20,214 25,448 Security Area ft2 3,504 - 5,284 727 9,515 Number of Lanes pos 3 - 7 - 10 Baggage Make-Up Area ft2 9,706 - 15,528 - 25,234

Airside Baggage Make-Up Conveyors units 5 - 1 - 6 Storage ft2 657 - 32,177 527 33,361 Airline Offices ft2 - - 6,247 194 6,441 Circulation Circulation Area ft2 6,537 - 3,768 29,570 39,875 No n-Public ft2 - - 6,887 - 6,887 Vertical Circulation ft2 75 89 1,518 3,126 4,808 Toilets ft2 753 - 2,353 2,874 5,980 Technical Rooms ft2 - - - 254 254 Maintenance/Janitorial/Mechanical ft2 132 - 7,746 2,162 10,040 Airside Space by Level Subtotal (ft2): 29,699 6,568 81,508 72,027 189,802

Overall Grand Total (ft2): 285,592

Source: LIMA, Landrum & Brown analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | PAGE 2‐35 Master Plan Update

2.6 EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION

2.6.1 REGIONAL ROADWAY AND AIRPORT ACCESS

LIMA is surrounded by four major roadways that pass either directly adjacent to, or nearby the Airport. One-half mile to the north, running east/west, is Interstate 495 (I-495), also known as the Long Island Expressway, which is the primary arterial link to New York City. Approximately 1.5 miles to the south is the east/west-running Sunrise Highway (Route 27) which runs the length of Long Island along the southern shore. Running southeast/northwest and immediately adjacent to the south side of the Airport property runs Veterans Memorial Highway. The Airport access roadway connects directly to Veterans Memorial Highway. Approximately two miles to the east, County Road 97 runs north/south connecting I-495 and Sunrise Highway.

Access to the Airport is via Johnson Avenue north from Veterans Memorial Highway. Johnson Avenue serves as the primary public access roadway to the Airport. Approximately 1,100 feet north of Veterans Memorial Highway, Johnson Avenue splits and becomes Arrival Avenue. From Arrival Avenue one can access all Airport parking, the terminal curbfronts, all south side GA facilities, the FAA ATCT, the Army National Guard, and rental car facilities. After passing all these facilities, Arrival Avenue eventually loops back around counter-clockwise and rejoins Johnson Avenue southbound to Veterans Memorial Highway.

2.6.2 TERMINAL CURB FRONTAGE

The curbfront at LIMA consists of a single linear curb divided into two sections: an arrival curbfront and a departure curbfont. When travelling along Arrival Avenue, the departures curbfront is the first and is approximately 430 feet in length. The departures curbfront is directly in front of the ticketing concourse and several doorways along the curbfront lead into the ticketing concourse. The second section is the arrivals curbfront which is approximately 340 feet in length along Arrival Ave. The arrival curbfront is directly in front of the Baggage Claim Concourse and is served by several doorways leading into the Baggage Claim area.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | PAGE 2‐36 Master Plan Update

2.6.3 AIRPORT PARKING

LIMA has a total of eight parking lots dedicated to Auto Parking. These lots include the following types of parking:  Employee Parking  Daily Long-Term Parking  Long-Term Economy Parking  Daily Short-Term Parking  Resident Parking

In addition to these public-use parking lots, there are several other parking lots in the terminal area. These are used for rent-a-car ready lots, government agency (FAA) lots, and GA fixed-base operator (FBO) lots. A full inventory of parking spaces available is provided in Table 2.6-1 Auto Parking Inventory, and a map depicting the location of each lot is provided in Exhibit 2.6-1 Airport Parking Map.

Table 2.6-1 AUTO PARKING INVENTORY

Parking Product 1 2 2A 3 6 6A 6B TOTAL Daily - Short Term 175 175 Daily - Long Term 1,677 1,677 Economy 718 718 Employee 203 203 Resident 386 169 324 879

Source: Standard Parking, Google Earth Imagery, Landrum & Brown Analysis

Usage data was obtained for both the Daily and the Long-Term Economy lots. Both the short-term and long-term Daily lots are analyzed together. This data shows that the overnight parking demand for the Daily Lots peaks during the month of April, shown in Exhibit 2.6-2, Average Overnight Parking Demand 2010-11. The daily lot averaged 757 vehicles in April 2011 and 815 vehicles in April 2010. The Economy Lot’s overnight demand also peaks in April with an average of 465 in 2011 and 492 in 2010. The average annual daily peak for all lots also occurs in April between 14:00 and 16:00, and is 1,336 vehicles in 2011 and 1,445 vehicles in 2010. Exhibit 2.6-3 Peak Month Hourly Parking Demand Profile 2010-11, shows these hourly profiles.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | PAGE 2‐37 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | PAGE 2‐38

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.6-1 AIRPORT PARKING MAP

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | PAGE 2‐39

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | PAGE 2‐40 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.6-2 AVERAGE OVERNIGHT PARKING DEMAND 2010-11

Source: Standard Parking, Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐41 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.6-3 PEAK MONTH HOURLY DEMAND PROFILE 2010-11

Source: Standard Parking, Landrum & Brown Analysis

2.6.4 RENTAL CAR FACILITIES

The rental car facilities at LIMA are located at the far west end of the baggage claim concourse in the passenger terminal building. Currently there are four rental car groups that serve the LIMA market. Enterprise, National, Alamo, and Avis/Budget car rental companies all have customer service counters in this area that encompass 1,119 square feet. In addition to these customer service counters, there are two ready/return lots adjacent to the west end of the terminal building. These lots are for the staging of outbound rental vehicles and the return of inbound vehicles. There are also three separate remote rental car facilities that are used for the maintenance and cleaning of the rental vehicles.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐42 Master Plan Update

2.7 SUPPORT FACILITIES

2.7.1 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER

A new ATCT was commissioned at LIMA on January 21, 2011. This new tower, designated as Building 4, is located adjacent to the old ATCT just to the south, and approximately 1,000 feet due west of the passenger terminal building. The ATCT accommodates the following functions within the tower itself and associated offices at the base of the building;  LIMA Air Traffic Control  FAA LISSC (Tech Ops)  National Weather Service (observers)  Airport Rotating Beacon (located on top of ATCT)

2.7.2 AIRCRAFT FUEL FACILITIES

The existing fuel farm facility at LIMA, owned by the town of Islip, consists of six aboveground 50,000-gallon tanks that contain Jet A fuel. In addition to the Jet A fuel, they also have one underground tank dedicated to holding 12,000 gallons of 100LL fuel for GA aircraft.

Most fueling operations at LIMA are operated by Swissport Fueling which has a 10-year lease with the Airport. In addition to the fuel farm, Swissport maintains five Jet A trucks that hold 5,000 gallons each and one 750-gallon truck that delivers the 100LL fuel. Southwest Airlines also operates their own 8,000-gallon truck to supply fuel to their aircraft.

In addition to the Airport’s fuel farm, there are three GA fuel facilities, one operated by Mid Island Air Service at their facility, and two on the west side of the Airport. One is a self-serve fuel pump for 100LL AvGas and the other an indoor storage tank facility operated by Hawthorne.

2.7.3 AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING (ARFF) AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE

The existing ARFF facility, Building 5, is located on the south side of the airfield just north of the ATCT at the west end of the west aircraft parking apron. The facility has seven vehicle bays and houses both the LIMA Fire Rescue and the LIMA Hazardous Materials Response. Also within this facilities are the ARFF Command and Control room and a shift lounge/kitchen. It should be noted that this building is considered to be obsolete and is in need of replacement.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐43 Master Plan Update

LIMA Fire Rescue maintains ARFF Index B, however, it is equipped up to Index C as defined by FAA Advisory Circular 150/5220-10E, Guide Specification for Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Vehicles. A detailed table of the ARFF vehicle’s equipment is shown below in Table 2.7-1, ARFF Equipment.

Table 2.7-1 ARFF EQUIPMENT

ARFF PKW ARFF Water Capacity Year Make/Model Capacity Capacity Vehicle (GAL) (GAL) (Lbs.) Rescue 1 1992 Oshkosh 1,500 200 500 Rescue 2 2001 Oshkosh 1,500 200 500 Rescue 3 1989 E-One 1,500 200 N/A

Source: LIMA Fire Rescue

2.7.4 SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE

The Suffolk County Police Department has a facility located on the southeast side of the airfield across from the new glycol treatment area. From this facility the Suffolk County Police department bases operations in the area as well as assists the LIMA Law Enforcement with Airport security and patrols. This building is not intended to be a public access building and therefore, is not marked as such.

2.7.5 AIRPORT MAINTENANCE

Airport maintenance facilities occupy a campus in the southern portion of the Airport, west of the passenger terminal building. This Airport Maintenance campus is approximately five acres in area with seven buildings and two salt dome structures. These buildings are used for vehicle maintenance, vehicle storage, and workshops. The two salt domes are used for both airfield sand and roadway salt storage for wintertime operations. All Airport maintenance operations are based from these facilities.

2.7.6 U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL

The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) currently have space in the “egg” portion of the passenger terminal building at gate B14 for the screening of international arrivals. CBP personnel staff the LIMA location on demand. Therefore, CBP staff are based out of LGA so they can be called on short notice. LIMA accepts international GA flights and GA diversions, which requires CBP efforts.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐44 Master Plan Update

2.8 GENERAL AVIATION (GA) FACILITIES

The majority of the GA facilities at LIMA are located on the west side of the Airport along Smithtown Avenue. The area accommodates an FBO (Hawthorne) as well as most GA aircraft tie downs and T-Hangars. In addition, several small aircraft maintenance hangars are located along the western side of the airfield.

Other locations for GA activity are the southwestern corner of the airfield and small “through the fence” hangar operations on the eastern perimeter of the Airport along Lincoln Ave.

2.8.1 FIXED-BASE OPERATORS (FBOS)

LIMA is served by three FBOs, two of which are full service (Sheltair and Mid-Island). The third, Hawthorne, operates its own charter fleet which it bases and services out of the west side of LIMA.

Hawthorne (Previously ExcelAire) – As previously stated, Hawthorne is located on the West side of the airport. In addition to providing FOB services, this facility serves as a base of operations for their own charter aircraft fleet as well as a servicing base for transient charter aircraft. Hawthorne operates their own fuel farm and can service up to a Boeing 757 aircraft. Hawthorne operates out of Buildings 25 and 29.

Mid-Island Air Service – Mid-Island Air Service provides full FBO services to the LIMA aircraft community as well as aircraft storage. Mid-Island operates their own fuel farm and can accommodate up to a Gulfstream G-V in their hangar. Mid-Island is located in the southwestern corner of the airfield and operates out of Buildings 9 and 27.

Sheltair – Sheltair also provides full FBO services to the LIMA aircraft community as well as aircraft storage and maintenance. Sheltair also performs the ground handling of charter aircraft operating out of the end of Concourse B of the Passenger Terminal Building. Sheltair’s operations are split between the west side and the south side of the Airport. Sheltair operates out of Buildings 6, 8, 13, 16, 17, and 18.

2.8.2 “THROUGH THE FENCE” OPERATORS

A “Through the Fence” operation is an aviation user which occupies space on adjacent, non-airport owned land and has access to the airfield “through the fence.” One “Through the Fence” operator, November Romeo exists at LIMA on the eastern perimeter of the Airport along Lincoln Avenue. November Romeo operates four hangar buildings and three T-hangar buildings with a total of 29 T-Hangars and one building containing five box hangars.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐45 Master Plan Update

2.8.3 MILITARY FACILITIES

LIMA is home to an aviation unit of the New York Army National Guard (NYANG) which operates a squadron of UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters from their base at LIMA. The primary mission of this squadron is military flight training and proficiency, and assisting local authorities with search and rescue operations as well as law enforcement. This base is located along the southern perimeter of the Airport west of the Passenger Terminal Building. The NYANG operates out of Building 7 and its associated apron.

2.9 EXISTING AIRPORT UTILITIES

All existing Airport utilities are depicted graphically in Exhibit 2.9-1 through Exhibit 2.9-8.

2.9.1 SANITARY SEWER

The existing sanitary sewer system at LIMA is maintained on Airport property through septic tank and cesspool systems. There is no public sanitary sewer system available within the vicinity of the Airport. There are five septic tank/cesspool systems located on the west and east sides of the main terminal building. These areas include administrative areas, ticket counters, airline offices, TSA offices, east/west check points, and east/west concourses.

Three of the five septic systems were installed with the original development of the Airport between 1949 and 1966. In May 2004, with the Southwest Airlines concourse expansion, two of the three existing systems located on the east concourse of the terminal were expanded for usage and capacity, and two additional systems were installed for the expansion of East Concourse and Southwest Terminal. Systems 1 and 4 were installed as a part of the Southwest expansion that included the construction of the eight-gate concourse, east security checkpoint, and TSA offices. System No. 1 is located adjacent to the Southwest concourse (Veterans Memorial Concourse). Systems No. 2 and 3 are located in the courtyard area in between the Veterans Memorial Concourse, and Main Terminal. System No. 4 is adjacent to the Southwest Concourse and System No. 5 is adjacent to the West Concourse.

System No. 1 was installed with the Southwest terminal expansion. It consists of a quadruple 15,000-gallon septic tank system with a 12-foot diameter grease trap at the building, a 10-foot diameter distribution leaching pool, and six 10-foot diameter leaching pools.

System No. 2, installed with the original main terminal construction and upgraded in 2004, was originally a cesspool system that was abandoned and replaced with a septic tank system. This facility consists of a dual 7,500-gallon septic tank system with a 10-foot diameter distribution leaching pool, and six 10-foot diameter leaching pools.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐46 Master Plan Update

System No. 3 was installed with the main terminal construction. It is a cesspool system installed with the original Airport construction and upgraded with a new building outfall connection in 2004. The existing system consists of two septic tanks and five cesspools.

System No. 4 was installed with the expansion of the Veterans Memorial Concourse. It consists of a dual 7,500-gallon septic tank system with a 10-foot diameter leaching pool distribution, and six 10-foot diameter leaching pools.

System No. 5, installed with the original west concourse construction, consists of a quadruple septic tank system, two distribution pools, and eight leaching pools.

2.9.1.1 Existing Sanitary Sewer System Capacity and Usage

Based on the information provided from LIMA, the septic tank and cesspool systems within the courtyard and west concourse are maintained and pumped out every three months. The solids that are pumped out/removed are approximately 3,000 gallons. Although the systems were originally designed with sufficient capacity for the daily usage, the system would need to be modified or expanded to facilitate growth of the west concourse.

The Southwest concourse expansion in 2004 to 2006 included the addition of two septic tank systems. These facilities are designed for full eight-gate operations, i.e. to accommodate a peak capacity of 80 flights per day. As the operations are not at the designed capacity, there is adequate capacity available for future flights and/or gates.

2.9.2 DOMESTIC WATER

The existing water system at LIMA is served from Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). The SCWA loops around the Airport with a 20-inch main from Johnson Avenue through the Airport west, crossing the airfield at the Runway 6 end just outside of the blast pad. Then it ties into the system north to the 1 Million Gallon Smithtown Reservoir/Booster Station. There is also a 12-inch main that surrounds the main terminal building. This line originates from Smithtown Avenue and runs parallel to the 20-inch main around the Runway 6 end and ties into the existing Smithtown Reservoir.

The 12-inch main surrounding the terminal provides a 4-inch feed and 1-1/2-inch feed into the main terminal area.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐47 Master Plan Update

2.9.2.1 Existing Water System Capacity and Demand

The current domestic water demand is mainly for the terminal building and its surrounding areas. For airports, the water consumption can be based on five gallons per passenger. With approximately 1,300,000 passengers a year (2007), or 3,500 passengers a day at five gallons per passenger, that results in a total usage of 17,500 gallons of water per day. Assuming one quarter of this amount for meters-greeters, the total is about 22,000 gallons per day. For workers, another 25 percent flow can be added, bringing the total water usage to about 27,500 gallons per day. To calculate the peak water demand, it is assumed that the total usage is over a 16-hour period per day, resulting in 1,700 gallons per hour or 30 gallons per minute (GPM).

The SCWA provides six water meters that tie into the terminal area. Five (5) meters are connected to the 12-inch main and 1 meter off an 8-inch main located southeast of the terminal. The main terminal area and the Southwest concourse area are metered separately off of the 12-inch main located along Arrival Avenue. The 12-inch main provides enough water flow for the domestic and fire protection requirements. Areas with high demands within the Airport complex include the main terminal, SheltAir and the Army National Guard. The main terminal has a fire pump which is flow tested and maintained regularly.

In addition to the meters provided in the main terminal area, the SCWA provides six (6) meters within the airport complex connected to the 20-inch main west of the main terminal. Also, one (1) meter located off the 8-inch main that runs along Schaefer Drive. These meters service the buildings within the airport complex west of the main terminal, including the south side general aviation complex and ATCT.

Although current water supply flows and pressure provided to the Airport complex by SCWA appear to be sufficient to meet the Airport’s present needs, it is important for LIMA to coordinate with the county on future growth and planning in order to ensure that the Airport domestic and fire protection water demands are met.

2.9.3 NATURAL GAS SERVICE

Natural gas service for LIMA is provided through National Grid Long Island Gas mains. The main feed that services the Airport main terminal area is from an 8-inch high pressure gas main. This main extends from Smithtown Avenue near the Airport gate, then angles off and crosses the infield in between existing Runway 6 and newly constructed Taxiway G. Then the 8-inch main continues along Schaeffer Drive north to tie into the 4-inch service line at Clark Drive. The 4-inch line along Clark Drive services the buildings and continues adjacent to the ATCT and crosses the parking lot to service the main terminal building.

The major user of the natural gas on the Airport complex is the main terminal building, including the concessions within the terminal. The next large user is the maintenance yard.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐48 Master Plan Update

The 8-inch high pressure main and 4-inch lines servicing the Airport were installed in 1966 with the original airport system. Currently, there are four (4) meters at the main terminal; one (1) at the fire rescue facility; two (2) in the maintenance yard including the snow removal building; one (1) at the sand dome; one (1) at the HAZMAT building; one (1) at 150 Arrival Avenue and one (1) at Hangar 1. There is also one (1) gas meter located at the old ATCT which is no longer in service. The old ATCT was owned by the Town of Islip and was maintained with the airport complex; however, the new ATCT is owned and maintained by the FAA.

The existing underground natural gas provided by National Grid Long Island Gas is well maintained and appears to be in good condition. Although, the majority of all the pipes within the airport complex are approximately forty-nine (49) years old, there have been no reported issues with the existing system or capacity during airport expansions. There are no anticipated issues for future capacity. However, if an adequate natural gas supply is not available from the existing distribution system, the Town of Islip and LIMA will coordinate with National Grid Long Island Gas to make the necessary upgrades.

2.9.4 STORMWATER COLLECTION

The age of the existing stormwater collection system varies across the Airport. Portions have been in place since the original construction of the original terminal building in 1966. Other portions where constructed with the Southwest expansion in 2004-2006. Additional improvements were also made under the Terminal Access Road improvements in 2011. The original pipes and structures were generally concrete pipes with brick or concrete inlets, manholes, and leaching basins. Newer construction is similar with the class of concrete pipe varying with the anticipated loads. Newer structures are concrete.

In 2013, the FAA updated an advisory circular (AC) that outlines the criteria for storm drainage design (FAA AC 150/5320-2D, Airport Drainage Design). Drainage systems designed since then should be in accordance with these criteria. The criterion requires that pipes be designed for a five-year storm event. Larger storms are permitted to pond the infield areas, provided the safety areas remain free of standing water. Pipes in public roadways are typically designed for a 25-year storm event. Exceptions are made depending on the location and the potential for flooding hazards.

The Airport’s stormwater management system consists of a series of open swales and stormwater recharge basins on and off Airport property. There are six drainage areas (watersheds) that discharge around the Airport into existing recharge basins or swale areas. Information and inventory of the Airport’s stormwater management system can be found in the Airport’s Best Management Practice Plan (December 2009).

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐49 Master Plan Update

2.9.4.1 Deicing Fluid Collection System

An integral part of the stormwater system is the deicing fluid collection system. At LIMA, deicing collection is focused on the aircraft loading ramp adjacent to the terminal building. There are eight gates on the Southwest Concourse, one at the West Concourse and two positions at SheltAir that are used for deicing. The drainage systems for these areas are tied into the new glycol treatment facility built in 2011. Typical gate deicing collection involves runoff from the ramp that is collected in the existing stormwater system through a series of catch basins and concrete pipes which connect to the diversion valves that discharge into the glycol treatment facility located southeast of the terminal building and ultimately into the existing recharge basin, located southeast of the terminal building.

2.9.5 HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

The main terminal building is heated by two (2) boilers with power flame burners. At these locations, high temperature hot water (HTHW) is produced. The chilled water (CHW) for the main terminal is produced by a York 280-ton water chiller. These systems are approximately 10 years old and are at capacity for the main terminal usage.

In 1966, with the original terminal building, six (6) Barge air conditioning window units were installed in the west concourse for both heating and cooling of the facility. In 2011, all six (6) were upgraded with new units. In September 2013, three (3) of the Barge units were removed and replaced with new 7.5 ton Fire Efficiency Gas Heat with Electric Cool Lennox Units. The Southwest Concourse runs on its own system for both heating and cooling that is operated and maintained by Southwest Airlines.

Overall, the HTHW and CHW systems appear to be maintained and in good working condition. However, additional equipment may be necessary as the Airport continues to grow and expand.

2.9.6 ELECTRICAL POWER

2.9.6.1 Existing System Description

The LIMA electrical supply comes from the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). All of the electrical distribution at the airport, including the transformers and switchgears are owned and maintained by LIPA. There are two (2) main circuits to the airport from the LIPA Grundy Substation. The substation is located on Grundy Avenue, north of Veterans Memorial Highway in Holbrook. One circuit, 7M-754, consists of mainly overhead aerial lines up to the airport complex which feed the east side of the airport, including the Main Terminal Building, Southwest Concourse and the buildings east of Clark Drive. The other circuit from Grundy Substation, 7M-9P8, consists of mainly underground lines up to the airport complex which feeds the west side of the airport, including the Airfield Electrical Vault, ATCT, Airport

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐50 Master Plan Update

Maintenance and General Aviation Hangars. These feeders are both supplied at 13 kilovolts (kV), which is the LIMA service entrance voltage. The LIPA distribution system at LIMA is serviced at 100 percent redundancy so that if either east or west feeder is lost the other can supply the airports electrical needs. The overhead and underground lines feed into a series of transformers which service all of the buildings within the vicinity of the Airport.

The main terminal building main feeders are supplied by a 1500 kVA transformer located adjacent to the Southwest Concourse. Throughout the Airport, there are 112 kVA to 1500 kVA transformers for local usage. These buildings include the FAA offices, Administrative, ATCT, the National Guard, the Airfield Electrical Vault, Airport maintenance, Mid-Island Air, and hangars.

2.9.6.2 Existing Capacity Issues

The existing West Concourse has recently been modified to include new passenger boarding jet bridges which require more power. The existing capacity at the West Concourse was originally designed for temporary use (10 years maximum), however, has been implemented as a permanent facility.

2.9.6.3 Short Term Plan

The key project in the near future at the Airport that may impact the electrical power demand is the new Airfield Electrical Vault. The new Airfield Electrical Vault demand will be approximately the same at the existing, approximately 175 kW. However, the capacity will be designed to accommodate the planned future expansion with the implementation of instrument approach landing system, SA CAT II, for Runway 6-24 which will add to the power demand.

2.9.7 COMMUNICATION DISTRIBUTION

2.9.7.1 Telephone Distribution

The telephone system used by LIMA’s main terminal building is served by the Town of Islip. The Southwest Concourse and all other facilities on the Airport property are serviced by Verizon. The service to the main terminal building is taken from Veterans Memorial Highway, along Schaeffer Drive, and then feeds the buildings on Clark Drive. In the main terminal building, the phone lines are all routed from the airport communication room in the basement. In the basement, there is also the Verizon POTS (Plain Old Telephone System), which is only used as a backup if the Town’s telephone system is down.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐51 Master Plan Update

2.9.7.2 FAA Communication System

The FAA has a communication system in place for data communication. There are several locations off the airport that provide service to the relocated air traffic control tower (ATCT). There are two main lines that feed the tower from off the airport property. The first one is a primary fiber optic line provided by Light Tower Long Island LLC, runs west on Schaefer Drive, then north on Clark Drive to the ATCT. The second is a Verizon copper line that ties into the ATCT from Johnson Avenue. In addition there is a secondary Verizon fiber optic line that is located off of Arrival Avenue into the ATCT. There is are two existing lines from the New York Center off of Johnson Avenue into the tower that are in place, however, currently not in use. From the ATCT the lines are distributed to the main terminal building and other facilities including the FAA maintained NAVAIDS and Visual Aids within the Airport.

2.9.7.3 Existing Capacity Issues

The largest part of the existing communication system was installed with the original airport complex in 1966. There have not been any noted issues with capacity; however, there is no backup plan in place if any issues were to occur with the existing system. If the use of the system continues to grow, it is likely that a capacity enhancement will be necessary.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐52

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.9-1 UTILITY PLAN – KEY MAP

Source: LIMA As built drawings, JKL Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐53

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐54

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.9-2 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 1

Source: LIMA As built drawings, JKL Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐55

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐56

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.9-3 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 2

Source: LIMA As built drawings, JKL Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐57

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐58

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.9-4 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 3

Source: LIMA As built drawings, JKL Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐59

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐60

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.9-5 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 4

Source: LIMA As built drawings, JKL Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐61

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐62

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.9-6 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 5

Source: LIMA As built drawings, JKL Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐63

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐64

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.9-7 UTILITY PLAN – SHEET 6

Source: LIMA As built drawings, JKL Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐65

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐66 Master Plan Update

2.10 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

The purpose of examining the regional setting of LIMA and the surrounding land use patterns is to provide information for the evaluation of alternatives and to access the potential effect airport planning decisions may have beyond the Airport property line. The investigation of the regional setting includes a review of the available environmental data and information that includes Airport, federal, state, and municipal records; a review of previous studies such as the 1988 Airport Master Plan and Environmental Assessments (EAs); as well as a site inspection and interviews with officials familiar with Airport operations. The land use information includes the political boundaries of the Airport and the local jurisdictions, official maps, comprehensive land use and transportation plans, and zoning ordinances and other land use controls including drainage and flood control issues. Geographic information systems (GIS) data, aerial photographs, topographical maps, obstruction charts, aeronautical charts, and approach plates provided information about the on-Airport and surrounding land uses.

2.10.1 GENERAL SETTING

LIMA is located on Long Island, in Ronkonkoma, Town of Islip, Suffolk County, New York, approximately eight miles northeast of the central business district of the Town of Islip. The Town of Islip and the Airport are located at the approximate geographic mid-point of Long Island. The farthest western tip of the island is the historic site of Fort Hamilton and the community of Dyker Heights, which are located approximately 60 miles to the west of Islip. The farthest eastern tip of the island is the hamlet of Montauk located approximately 60 miles to the east. 3 The New York City Borough of Manhattan is approximately 50 miles to the west of the Town of Islip and the Airport. Exhibit 2.2-1, Location Map, shows the Airport site on Long Island and the Town of Islip. Airport property covers an area of 1,311 acres with four runways and two helipads.4

3 Long Island is physically made up of four counties. On the west end are the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn (or Kings County) and Queens (or Queens County) and on the island’s mid- west and eastern sectors are the suburban centers of Nassau and Suffolk counties. Typically, the term “Long Island” refers only to Nassau and Suffolk counties; Brooklyn and Queens are more closely associated with New York City and the metropolitan area. 2012 Long Island Exchange® Inc. Web site accessed: March 20, 2012, http://www.longislandexchange. com/longisland.html 4 AirportIQ 5010 Airport Master Records and Reports—General Information & Runway Information. Airport Name: LONG ISLAND MAC ARTHUR, NPIAS Number: 36-0046, Location Identifier: ISP, Data Effective Date: 02/09/2012. Web site accessed: March 20, 2012, http://www.gcr1.com/ 5010web/airport.cfm? Site=ISP

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐67 Master Plan Update

2.10.2 FOREIGN TRADE ZONE #52

The Town of Islip owns and operates the Airport and the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) located southeast of the terminal area (see Exhibit 2.3-1, On-Airport Land Use). FTZ #52 is comprised of 52 acres of land and 435,000 square feet of prime warehouse and office space.5 It is the only authorized site on Long Island where foreign and domestic merchandise is considered to be international commerce. Established in 1982, the FTZ’s tenants enjoy the duty-free policy when merchandise is imported into the FTZ, processed, and exported to a foreign market.6

The businesses within the FTZ gain a global competitive edge by eliminating the less prosperous aspects of domestic manufacturing. Importing certain types of merchandise into an FTZ can bypass formal customs entry procedures or the payment of import duties. Deferring the payment on merchandise entering a U.S. Customs Territory allows the business to retain the funds that would have contributed to said payment for its operations. Instead, duties are paid only on the goods entering the domestic marketplace; thus duties may be avoided altogether when products are re-exported. Duty free also means that all merchandise indefinitely held within the FTZ can be completely excluded from custom duties payments.

Finished products manufactured in an FTZ from components purchased abroad may be subject to an even lower rate of duty — referred to as an inverted tariff relief. Manufacturers have the ability to pay duty on component parts or the finished product, whichever rate is lower.

Quotas are applied to goods entered into U.S. Customs territory but may be stored in the FTZ and then entered first into the U.S. market when the quota is eased. Quota restrictions are not applied to goods admitted to the FTZ. Direct deliveries ease the movement restrictions of merchandise in and out of the country.

Being located in an FTZ can induce business profit increase by reducing costs and increasing international market competition. An FTZ is located either within the U.S. or near a U.S. Customs port of entry, where foreign and domestic merchandise is generally considered to be international commerce. Such merchandise may enter the FTZ without a formal Customs entry or payment of Customs or government excise tax. In essence, the FTZ is an area within the U.S. that functions as if it were a territory outside of U.S. Customs. Increased cash flow results from keeping goods out of U.S. Customs territory.7

5 Town of Islip Foreign Trade Zone #52, About Islip FTZ. Web page accessed on March 20, 2012, http://ftz52.com/index.php/about 6 Town of Islip, Foreign Trade Zone Web page accessed on March 20, 2012, http://www.townofislip- ny.gov/departments/other-agencies/foreign-trade-zone 7 Town of Islip Foreign Trade Zone Authority, Administrators of Foreign Trade Zone No. 52. Web page accessed on April 12, 2012, www.liiea.org/resourceDocs/foreign-trade-zone---astrid- fidelia.ppt

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐68 Master Plan Update

2.10.3 PLANNING AND ZONING

The Town of Islip Department of Planning and Development is responsible for the efficient organization of the built environment within the Town. To accomplish this goal, the Department focuses on the following:8  Comprehensive Plan and long-range planning  Environmental Impact Review  Capital Improvement Program  Grants Program  Geographic Information Systems (Computer mapping)  Permit Review: Subdivisions and Road Openings, Planning Board Special Permits, Site Plan review, Town Board Change of Zone, Wetlands and Watercourses, and Land Clearing  Building Permit Review  Engineering Review and Contract Administration  Zoning Board of Appeals Administration  Public Land and Lease Management  Economic Development

According to the Town of Islip’s land use map, the Airport property is classified as “Transportation” while it is zoned as Industrial Planned (zoning is documented in the Code of the Town of Islip9). The Industrial Planned zoning district provides for the planned development of sites that can meet the needs of the Town’s expected future economy, specifically related to industrial and its related activities. 10 (See Exhibit 2.10-1, Town of Islip – 2007 Existing Land Use.)

Industrial development is encouraged so long as it does not endanger the well-being of the residents and visitors of Islip. As such, industrial uses must be free from danger of fire, explosions, toxic and noxious matter, radiation and other hazards, and from offensive noise, vibrations, smoke, dust, and other particulate matter, odorous matter, heat, humidity, glare, and other objectionable influences.11 The protection of residential and other areas as well as the labor force in lesser industry-type establishments is the dual-function of the Industrial Planned district.

8 Town of Islip, Planning and Development. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.townofislip-ny.gov/departments/planning-and-development 9 Code of the Town of Islip (adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Islip, Article I, 9-15-70 as Local Law No. 1, 1970). Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.townofislip-ny.gov/e- services/town-code/town-code-basic. 10 Code of the Town of Islip (adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Islip, Article I, 9-15-70 as Local Law No. 1, 1970). Chapter 68 Zoning. Article 317 Legislative intent: purposes of industrial districts. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.ecode360.com/IS0324. 11 Code of the Town of Islip (adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Islip, Article I, 9-15-70 as Local Law No. 1, 1970). Chapter 68 Zoning. Article 317 Legislative intent: purposes of industrial districts. Part C. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www. ecode360.com/IS0324.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐69 Master Plan Update

West of the Airport, the land use is residential. The Town Board, through the Code of the Town of Islip, adopted legislation to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public from excessive noise generated by commercial jet aircraft operating at the Airport.12 The Airport must conform to the access demands of the commercial air carriers as per the Code of the Town of Islip; and achieve a balance between environmental protection and access demands on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis to all commercial air carriers requesting use of the facilities.13

The Code of the Town of Islip also states that no aircraft of any kind may operate at the Airport between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. if that aircraft noise level exceeds 72 A-weighted sound level dB(A) on departure at the takeoff noise measuring point or 85 dB(A) per 14 CFR Part 36 14 as dictated in Appendix C, Paragraph 36.3 and described in Chapter 3, Section B, Part 3 of the general code.15 It should be noted that this is a voluntary curfew.

The Building Division is in charge of issuing permits for structures or uses that comply with the Fire and Building Codes of New York State, as well as the Town's zoning ordinance. The Engineering Division processes site plan review applications, performs engineering inspections, creates land surveys, while the airport processes these CIP contracts.

2.10.4 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

Long Island is formed largely of two spines of glacial moraine (the accumulation of boulders, stones, and other debris deposited by a glacier). As the glaciers melted and receded to the north, beaches were created on the north and south sides of the island. The North Shore beaches are rocky from the remaining glacial debris, while the South Shore beaches are crisp, clear, outwash sand. Suffolk County encompasses the South Shore inland areas that include the Town of Islip.

12 Code of the Town of Islip (adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Islip, Article I, 9-15-70 as Local Law No. 1, 1970). Chapter 3D Airport, Noise Allocation. Part 1 Legislative Intent. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.ecode360.com/11762936. 13 Code of the Town of Islip (adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Islip, Article I, 9-15-70 as Local Law No. 1, 1970). Code of the Town of Islip (adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Islip, Article I, 9-15-70 as Local Law No. 1, 1970). Chapter 3D Airport, Noise Allocation. Part 1 Legislative Intent. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.ecode360.com/11762936. 14 Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations: Aeronautics and Space. PART 36—NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE AND AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION (14 CFR Part 36). Web page: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr36_main_02.tpl 15 Code of the Town of Islip (adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Islip, Article I, 9-15-70 as Local Law No. 1, 1970). Chapter 3B Nighttime Operation of Aircraft. Section 2 Noise Limitation; maneuvers to avoid measuring points. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.ecode360.com/11762934

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐70 Master Plan Update

Long Island contains a series of sand and gravel aquifers, which are geologic formations that can hold, transmit, and yield water in usable quantities. These aquifers provide all of Long Island's drinking water16 and underlie Nassau and Suffolk Counties. 17 The water supply is provided by the Suffolk County Water Authority. The Authority maintains a system of wells to draw from the aquifer system. The total depth of the Long Island Aquifer System is shallowest on the north shore (approximately 600 feet) and deepest along the south shore (approximately 2,000 feet).18

16 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Long Island Aquifers. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/36183.html 17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nassau-Suffolk Aquifer System. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/aquifer/nasssuff/nassau.htm#I27 18 Suffolk County Water Authority, Our Environment. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.scwa.com/environment/

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐71 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐72 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 2.10-1 TOWN OF ISLIP – 2007 EXISTING LAND USE

Long Island MacArthur Airport

Source: Town of Islip, Suffolk County New York: 2007 Existing Land Use, dated June 17, 2008. Web site accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Portals/0/planning/Cartography/tis_11x17_07cd22.pdf

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐73 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐74 Master Plan Update

2.10.5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Suffolk County is vested in the remediation of stormwater throughout the County.19 The updated stormwater codes incorporate new environmentally sensitive techniques for managing stormwater runoff that includes a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) and “green” technologies.

The County’s stormwater remediation efforts have brought the County into compliance with the Clean Water Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Stormwater Management Phase II regulations. The Phase II requirements have been implemented by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC under the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). This permit requires operators of MS4s to develop a SWMP with the intent to implement programs and best management practices (BMPs) that reduce the discharge of pollutants typically associated with stormwater runoff and protect water quality to the maximum extent practicable.

Local Law No. 12-2008 to Prohibit Illicit Discharges and Elicit Connections to Suffolk County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, and other existing County laws, regulations, policies, and procedures provide a legal basis for the County’s SWMP. The SWMP has been implemented to protect the environment and to comply with federal and state stormwater regulations.

“Green” technologies are being implemented for new stormwater remediation projects that include using permeable asphalt pavement for County roadway projects to remove stormwater pollutants prior to discharge into the watershed and using a modified rain garden median in parking areas to infiltrate and treat stormwater runoff.

2.10.6 FLOODPLAINS

The Airport does not lie within any floodplains. Suffolk County has mapped the expected flood zones for storm surge stemming from Category 1–4 hurricanes. The Airport does not lie in an area of projected storm surge.20

19 County of Suffolk, Office of the County Executive, Steve Levy, County Executive, Suffolk County Planning Commission, Managing Stormwater—Natural Vegetation and Green Methodologies (Guidance for Municipalities in Suffolk County); dated February 2, 2011. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://suffolkcountyny.gov/Portals/0/planning/Publications/Stormwater_green methods021011.pdf and www.suffolkstormwater.com 20 Suffolk County, Mitigation Education for Natural Disasters. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://suffolkcountyny.gov/mend/risk.html and http://gis.co.suffolk.ny.us/Suffolk-Shelters/index. html

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐75 Master Plan Update

2.10.7 WETLANDS

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, two small freshwater ponds are present along the northern border of the Airport (see Exhibit 2.9.-2, Wetlands). Each is estimated at one-quarter acre in size.

Exhibit 2.10-2 WETLANDS Long Island MacArthur Airport

Note: The two areas of “freshwater pond” are outlined in the dashed circle. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory; state downloads last updated September 26, 2011. Web site: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐76 Master Plan Update

2.10.8 AIR QUALITY

The USEPA defines ambient air in CFR 40, Part 50, as “that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access.” In compliance with the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 1977 and 1990 Amendments (CAAA), the EPA has promulgated ambient air quality standards and regulations. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were enacted for the protection of the public health and welfare, allowing for an adequate margin of safety. To date, the USEPA has established NAAQS for six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (micrometers) in size(PM2.5), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb).

There are two types of standards: primary and secondary. Primary standards are designed to protect sensitive segments of the population from adverse health effects, with an adequate margin of safety, which may result from exposure to criteria pollutants. Secondary standards are designed to protect human health and welfare and, therefore, in some cases, are more stringent than the primary standards. Human welfare is considered to include the natural environment (vegetation) and the manmade environment (physical structures). Areas that are below the standards are in “attainment,” while those that equal or exceed the standards are in “non-attainment.”

Although the USEPA has the ultimate responsibility for protecting air quality, each state and local government has the primary responsibility for air pollution prevention and control. The CAA requires that each state prepare and submit a plan, State Implementation Plan (SIP), describing how the state will attain and maintain air quality standards in non-attainment areas. For projects to comply with the CAA and the CAAA, they must conform to attainment plans documented in the SIP. The SIPs sets control strategies to reduce air pollution in nonattainment areas. In addition to adopting an SIP for all nonattainment areas, the USEPA requires a periodic review to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies prescribed in each SIP. At the present time, New York is under mandate to develop SIPs to address O3 and PM2.5. New York is also developing state plans for the requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), New Source Review (NSR), and regional haze.21 The NYSDEC is the agency responsible for implementing the SIP.

21 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, State Implementation Plans. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8403.html

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐77 Master Plan Update

Any assessment of air quality associated with a federal action, such as projects proposed in this Master Plan study, would be prepared in accordance with the FAA guidelines provided in Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports & Air Force Bases, 22 and pursuant to FAA Order 5050.4B and FAA Order 1050.1E. An air quality assessment prepared pursuant to these orders and guidelines would be compliant with all the relevant provisions of NEPA, the CAA, and the New York SIP.

2.10.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Hazardous materials at an airport may be associated with industrial wastes, petroleum products, dangerous goods, or other contaminates. Regulations developed pursuant to the RCRA at 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, define hazardous wastes as solid wastes that are ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Hazardous substances are defined in Section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. § 9601(14)) and includes hazardous waste, hazardous air pollutants, hazardous substances designated as such pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act and elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, or substances listed in 40 CFR Part 302 that pose substantial harm to human health or environmental resources. (Pursuant to CERCLA, hazardous substances do not include any petroleum or natural gas substances and materials.) Hazardous materials, according to 49 CFR Part 172, Table 172.101, are any substances or materials commercially transported that pose unreasonable risk to public health, safety, and property, and include hazardous wastes and hazardous substances as well as petroleum and natural gas substances and materials.

The Airport’s Fire Rescue Division and the Town of Islip Haz-Mat Team are owned by the Islip Department of Aviation and Transportation.23 In addition to serving the Airport, the Haz-Mat Team assists the community beyond the boundaries of LIMA.24 The role of the Haz-Mat Team is to contain and recover only. Currently, there is one full-time and one part-time Haz-Mat Team employee with other personnel available on an on-call basis.

22 Air Quality Procedures For Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases, Form Approved OMB No. 0704- 0188, Report Date: April 1997. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.faa.gov/ regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/airquality_handbook/media/Handbook.pdf 23 Fire Rescue, published Tuesday, April 1, 2008, Islip Takes Delivery on a Hazmat Vehicle & a Mini- Rescue. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.firefighternation.com/article/ apparatus-innovations/islip-takes-delivery-hazmat-vehicle-mini-rescue 24 Long Island MacArthur Airport, Nolan Hosts Farmingdale College Students for HazMat Training at MacArthur, dated March 4, 2011. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.flylima.com/ hazmattrainingatmacarthur

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐78 Master Plan Update

The Fuel Farm Complex contains six 50,000-gallon tanks providing at least a five-day supply of fuel to the airlines and other Airport tenants.25 Because the Airport is located above a drinking water aquifer there was not a stormwater or sanitary system for treating runoff in the new Fuel Farm Complex, two existing 20,000-gallon underground storage fuel tanks (USTs) were repurposed to hold treated stormwater runoff from the fuel farm providing an onsite system to collect and treat stormwater before it enters the existing transfer pads and dike areas.

2.10.10 LIGHT EMISSIONS

The Airport’s rotating beacon is an alternating clear/green beacon that denotes to a pilot that LIMA is a civilian land airport.26 The runway lighting system schedule for the Airport runs from dusk until dawn. Runway 6 integrates a non-standard lighting system (NSTD) with three outermost flasher lights exceeding standard spacing. Runway 24 integrates a 1,400-foot medium-intensity approach light system with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR) and has touchdown lights.27 Both runways have centerline lights and high intensity edge lighting. Runways 15R/33L has medium intensity edge lighting but not centerline lighting or an approach light system. Runway 10/28 has no runway lighting of any kind (edge, centerline or approach).28

2.10.11 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING IN NEW YORK

The NYSDEC is responsible for overseeing permits related to recreation and sporting activities, land access, waste transportation, and several other programs. The NYSDEC is responsible for overseeing many different types of permits that include most major environmental regulatory areas protecting New York's air, water, mineral, and biological resources. These permits are subject to the requirements of the Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) and are managed by the NYSDEC Division of Environmental Permits.29 The procedures for administering the NYSDEC key regulatory permits are standardized in the UPA, Article 70 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL).30 The UPA is intended to ensure a fair, timely and thorough review of permit applications while eliminating inconsistent

25 Nordstrom, Robert. Long Island Airport Triples Fuel Capacity with New Storage Complex. Published in Airport Improvement Magazine – July-August 2011. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.airportimprovement.com/content/story.php?article=00287. 26 Airport-Data.com. Long Island Mac Arthur Airport (ISP) Information. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.airport-data.com/airport/ISP. 27 Airport-Data.com. Long Island Mac Arthur Airport (ISP) Information. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.airport-data.com/airport/ISP. 28 SkyVector Aeronautical Charts. ISP Long Island MacArthur Airport. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://skyvector.com/airport/ISP/Long-Island-Mac-Arthur-Airport. 29 Department of Environmental Conservation, State of New York. Uniform Procedures Act (UPA). What is the Uniform Procedures Act? Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6081.html. 30 Department of Environmental Conservation, State of New York. Environmental Conservation Law. About Environmental Law. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.dec.ny.gov/ regulations/40195.html.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐79 Master Plan Update procedures and encouraging public participation. It also provides time frames and procedures for filing and reviewing applications, providing public notice, holding public hearings, and reaching final decisions. Permits for the following environmental categories that would need to follow the UPA include:  Air Pollution Control31  Coastal Erosion Control  Freshwater Wetlands  Mined Land Reclamation  Protection of Waters, including Dams and Docks  Public Water Supply and Long Island Wells  Solid and Hazardous Waste Management  State Pollutant Discharge and Elimination Systems (SPDES), including Stormwater permits  Tidal Wetlands  Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers  Incidental Take of Endangered/Threatened Species32

31 The Air Pollution Control Permit combines the federal air operating permitting program with state programs. In addition, the DEC’s Air Permitting and Registration Program involves the establishment and use of air facilities. Air pollution sources range from large industrial facilities to small commercial operations. Department of Environmental Conservation, State of New York. Permits, About Permits at DEC. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.dec. ny.gov/chemical/8569.html. 32 Department of Environmental Conservation, State of New York. Permits, About Permits at DEC. Web page accessed on April 26, 2012, http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/363.html.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 2‐80

Chapter 3 Chapter Chapter 3:

Forecast of Aviation Activity

Master Plan Update

CHAPTER THREE FORECASTS OF AVIATION ACTIVITY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the Airport Master Plan Update presents forecasts of aviation activity for Long Island MacArthur Airport (LIMA or the Airport). Forecast activity levels are projected in five-year increments over a 25-year planning horizon, with 2012 serving as the base year for the analysis. Among the components that have been projected are annual passenger enplanements, annual aircraft operations, and aircraft fleet mix. Also provided in the report are based aircraft and peak period activity projections for LIMA.

The aviation activity projections are a critical component in the master planning process and serve as a basis for:  Determining the role of the Airport, with respect to the type of aircraft to be accommodated in the future;  Evaluating the capacity of existing Airport facilities and their ability to accommodate projected aviation demand;  Estimating the development requirements of the future terminal, airside and landside facilities.

This chapter also presents the socio-economic characteristics of the Airport’s catchment area; provides an overview of historical aviation activity trends; and presents the methodology and assumptions for developing the forecasts.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐1 Master Plan Update

3.2 ECONOMIC BASE FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION

The intrinsic links between the level of aviation activity and economic growth are well documented. Simply put, growth in population, income, and business activity typically lead to increased demand for air travel. An individual’s demand for air travel is often referred to as “underlying demand” in that it cannot be realized without the presence of air service at a price that results in a decision to fly. For purposes of the forecasts of aviation activity for LIMA an emphasis was put on the following socio-economic variables as barometers of economic prosperity: population, employment, per capita personal income (PCPI), and gross regional product (GRP).

3.2.1 LIMA CATCHMENT AREA

The primary catchment area for LIMA was determined from a passenger intercept survey conducted in 2005, which identified that the majority of passengers (residents and visitors) come from local origins in Suffolk and Nassau Counties. This finding has subsequently been supported by a leakage study conducted for LIMA in November 2010 and through discussions with Airport staff. The purpose of these analyses was to define those counties that should be included in the socio-economic evaluation for the Airport’s service area. Exhibit 3.2-1, Distribution of Passenger Trip Origins for LIMA shows the distribution of surveys by the zip code of passenger trip origin for LIMA. Virtually all of the surveys came from Suffolk and Nassau counties. About 81 percent of survey respondents were traveling for non-business reasons, indicating a relatively high percentage of travel for leisure or personal reasons. Approximately 55 percent of the surveys were from visitors.

Exhibit 3.2-1 DISTRIBUTION OF PASSENGER TRIP ORIGINS FOR LIMA

Source: FAA Regional Air Service Demand Study, 2005

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐2 Master Plan Update

3.2.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC TRENDS

This section summarizes recent trends and forecasts of population, employment, per capita personal income (PCPI), and gross regional product (GRP) for the LIMA catchment area. The socio-economic data used in this analysis were obtained from: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. of Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Census Bureau. Economic variables are presented in constant dollars where appropriate to eliminate distortions resulting from inflation.

3.2.2.1 Population

In 2012, an estimated 2.9 million people lived in the LIMA catchment area, split almost evenly between the two counties. The population of the LIMA catchment area averaged growth of 0.3 percent per year between 2000 and 2012 and is projected to grow at a slightly higher rate over the next twenty years (0.4 percent per year, on average). As a result, 3.2 million people are forecast to live in the catchment area by 2037 (see Table 3.2-1, LIMA Catchment Area Population Forecast).

Table 3.2-1 LIMA CATCHMENT AREA POPULATION FORECAST

LIMA Catchment 2012 2037 Average Annual Area Counties Population Population Growth Rate Nassau 1,347,352 1,444,000 0.28% Suffolk 1,508,121 1,767,000 0.64% Total 2,855,473 3,211,000 0.43%

Sources: Woods & Poole Economics and Landrum & Brown Analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\Socioeconomic\W&P\[JFK LGA EWR ISP Catchment County Data - with updated graph.xlsx]Sum of Nassau and Suffolk

3.2.2.2 Employment

Growth in employment is an important indicator of the overall health of the local economy. Population changes and employment changes tend to be closely correlated as people migrate in and out of areas largely depending on their ability to find work in the local economy.

The LIMA catchment area has a strong employment base with an estimated 1.6 million jobs in 2010. Indeed, Nassau (807,000 jobs) and Suffolk (801,000 jobs) rank 2nd and 3rd in terms of total employment in the 35-county New York City area. Over the past twenty years, employment in the LIMA catchment area averaged growth of 0.8 percent annually. Projected employment growth over the next twenty years (0.9 percent per year) is expected to be consistent with historical growth rates. Notably, both the historical and forecast employment growth rates for the LIMA catchment area exceed population growth rates.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐3 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 3.2-2, Nassau and Suffolk Counties Employment by Industry provides a summary of the combined key employment sectors for Nassau and Suffolk counties for 2010. The majority of those employed work in the services industry; followed by wholesale & retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and government.

Exhibit 3.2-2 NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (2010)

Sources: Woods & Poole Economics and Landrum & Brown Analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\Socioeconomic\W&P\[JFK LGA EWR ISP Catchment County Data - with updated graph.xlsx]Nassau + Suffolk Employment

Table 3.2-2, Summary of Historical and Forecast Employment (in Thousands) compares the LIMA catchment area historical and forecast employment with data for the New York Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and the United States. A MSA is defined as one or more adjacent counties or county equivalents that have at least one urban core area of at least 50,000 population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐4 Master Plan Update

Table 3.2-2 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND FORECAST EMPLOYMENT (IN THOUSANDS)

Calendar Year LIMA Catchment Area NY MSA U.S.A

Historical 1990 1,367 9,727 138,331 1995 1,358 9,511 147,916 2000 1,487 10,346 165,371 2005 1,578 10,649 172,551 2010 1,618 10,973 173,767 2012 1,617 10,934 177,066 Forecast 2017 1,698 11,482 189,321 2022 1,782 12,058 202,424 2027 1,870 12,664 216,433 2032 1,958 13,302 231,414 2037 2,050 13,973 247,430 Average Annual Growth Rate 1990-2012 0.8% 0.5% 1.1% 2012-2022 1.0% 1.0% 1.3% 2012-2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.3%

Sources: Woods & Poole Economics and Landrum & Brown analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\Socioeconomic\W&P\[NY MSA + USA.xlsx]Employment Summary

3.2.2.3 Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI)

Income statistics are broad indicators of the relative earning power and wealth of the region and inferences can be made related to resident’s ability to purchase air travel. PCPI corresponds to the average income per inhabitant (total personal income divided by total population).

Between 1990 and 2012, PCPI for the LIMA catchment area increased at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. The historical rate of real PCPI growth for the LIMA catchment area is expected to continue in the future, with Woods & Poole Economics projecting long-term growth of 1.9 percent per annum through 2037.

Typically, markets that exhibit above average income levels tend to have a higher propensity to fly. When compared with the New York MSA and the United States average, PCPI for the LIMA catchment area is relatively high (see Exhibit 3.2-3, Historical Trends in PCPI ($2005)).

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐5 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 3.2-3 HISTORICAL TRENDS IN PCPI ($2005)

$60,000

$50,000

$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

Per Capita Personal Income ($2005) $10,000 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 LIMA Catchment Area New York MSA United States

Sources: Woods & Poole Economics and Landrum & Brown Analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\Socioeconomic\W&P\[NY MSA + USA.xlsx]PCPI

Table 3.2-3, Comparison of Historical and Forecast PCPI ($2005) compares the LIMA catchment area historical and forecast PCPI to the NY MSA and United States.

Table 3.2-3 COMPARISON OF HISTORICAL AND FORECAST PCPI ($2005)

Calendar LIMA Catchment Area NY MSA U.S.A Year Historical 1990 38,708 32,848 26,814 1995 39,228 33,025 28,342 2000 46,519 38,548 33,756 2005 49,479 41,108 35,452 2010 51,655 43,746 35,951 2012 52,013 44,174 36,741 Forecast 2012 54,729 46,482 38,559 2017 59,035 50,198 41,525 2022 64,025 54,491 45,012 2027 69,663 59,377 49,053 2032 75,969 64,847 53,653 Average Annual Growth Rate 1990-2012 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 2012-2022 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2012-2037 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%

Sources: Woods & Poole Economics and Landrum & Brown Analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\Socioeconomic\W&P\[NY MSA + USA.xlsx]PCPI

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐6 Master Plan Update

3.2.2.4 Gross Regional Product (GRP)

GRP is a measure of the value of goods and services produced in a state, county or other metropolitan area. GRP for the LIMA air service area grew at a rate of 1.8 percent per year from 1990 to 2012. Over the same period, the U.S. economy grew at a somewhat faster rate, averaging growth of 2.3 percent per year. Over the forecast period, GRP for the LIMA catchment area is expected to grow at 2.0 percent per year, on average, in line with the rate forecast for the New York MSA and below the national average forecast (see Table 3.2-4, Summary of Historical and Forecast GRP (in Millions of $2005)).

Table 3.2-4 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND FORECAST GRP (IN MILLIONS OF $2005)

Calendar LIMA Catchment NY MSA U.S.A Year Area Historical 1990 87,427 679,780 7,815,305 1995 89,006 706,244 8,878,396 2000 104,888 856,500 11,004,665 2005 122,338 959,867 12,539,116 2010 129,248 985,483 12,666,042 2012 129,143 981,516 12,911,575 Forecast 2017 142,406 1,084,358 14,539,930 2022 157,007 1,196,577 16,262,415 2027 173,079 1,320,279 18,191,036 2032 190,748 1,456,549 20,351,420 2037 210,149 1,606,567 22,772,214 Average Annual Growth Rate 1990-2012 1.8% 1.7% 2.3% 2012-2022 2.0% 2.0% 2.3% 2012-2037 2.0% 2.0% 2.3%

Sources: Woods & Poole Economics and Landrum & Brown Analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\Socioeconomic\W&P\[NY MSA + USA.xlsx]GRP

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐7 Master Plan Update

3.3 PAST TRENDS IN AVIATION ACTIVITY

This section summarizes historical aviation activity at LIMA. It shows how the Airport’s traffic has evolved and will serve as the starting point for the development of comprehensive forecasts. A review of recent trends also identifies those factors, which have, or in the future might, influence future traffic volumes.

3.3.1 AIRPORT ROLE

LIMA is designated as a “Small Hub Airport” by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) because enplanements at LIMA account for between 0.05 and 0.25 percent of the annual passenger boardings in the United States. The Airport caters to a diverse aviation customer base including commercial passenger airlines such as Southwest Airlines and US Airways, corporate jet aircraft, ad hoc cargo operators, private pilots, and the military.

3.3.2 ENPLANED PASSENGER TRENDS

Total enplaned passengers at LIMA increased from 567,000 in 1990 to a peak of approximately 1.2 million in 2007. Subsequently, the United States descended into arguably the worst economic recession since the Great Depression between December 2007 and June 2009. While the economy has experienced positive growth in the subsequent quarters, the rate of recovery has slowed and the unemployment rate remains elevated at 7.7 percent. Under the weight of the recession, air travel demand contracted at LIMA. By 2012, enplaned passengers had declined to 668,717 enplanements (see Table 3.3-1, LIMA Historical Enplanement Trends).

The Airport’s enplanement history can generally be divided into two broad time periods, coinciding with the periods before and after Southwest Airlines (SWA) initiated service at the Airport in March 1999. SWA’s service resulted in traffic almost doubling overnight at LIMA and is indicative of the strong underlying demand for air travel in the local catchment area.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐8 Master Plan Update

Table 3.3-1 LIMA HISTORICAL ENPLANEMENT TRENDS

Air Carrier Commuter Total

Fiscal Percent Percent Percent Enpax. Enpax. Enpax. Year of Total of Total of Total 1990 422,634 74.5% 144,677 25.5% 567,311 100.0% 1991 427,798 72.4% 163,451 27.6% 591,249 100.0% 1992 406,842 70.3% 171,474 29.7% 578,316 100.0% 1993 375,744 67.8% 178,815 32.2% 554,559 100.0% 1994 428,544 71.3% 172,907 28.7% 601,451 100.0% 1995 417,235 73.8% 148,286 26.2% 565,521 100.0% 1996 602,399 82.3% 129,744 17.7% 732,143 100.0% 1997 559,577 82.0% 122,601 18.0% 682,178 100.0% 1998 267,707 61.3% 168,685 38.7% 436,392 100.0% 1999 587,208 74.8% 197,553 25.2% 784,761 100.0% 2000 901,119 79.0% 239,010 21.0% 1,140,129 100.0% 2001 830,907 79.8% 209,726 20.2% 1,040,633 100.0% 2002 741,863 78.5% 203,427 21.5% 945,290 100.0% 2003 751,652 79.2% 197,419 20.8% 949,071 100.0% 2004 794,282 81.9% 175,338 18.1% 969,620 100.0% 2005 870,892 84.1% 165,228 15.9% 1,036,120 100.0% 2006 1,035,715 91.9% 90,998 8.1% 1,126,713 100.0% 2007 1,099,840 94.1% 68,752 5.9% 1,168,592 100.0% 2008 1,031,265 95.0% 54,648 5.0% 1,085,913 100.0% 2009 907,611 95.4% 43,986 4.6% 951,597 100.0% 2010 823,088 94.8% 45,340 5.2% 868,428 100.0% 2011 748,797 94.3% 45,210 5.7% 794,007 100.0% 2012 668,717 93.3% 48,220 6.7% 716,937 100.0% Average Annual Growth 1990-1999 3.7% 3.5% 3.7% 1999-2007 8.2% -12.4% 5.1% 1990-2012 2.1% -4.9% 1.1%

Note: Data is presented on a Federal Fiscal Year basis which is the 12 months ended September 30. Sources: FAA 2012 Terminal Area Forecast; Landrum & Brown Analysis Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\FAA\TAF\[2012 TAF.xlsx]EP Hist

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐9 Master Plan Update

Between 1990 and 1998, enplanement volumes averaged 590,000 enplanements annually, ranging from a low of 436,000 enplanements in 1998 to a high of 732,000 enplanements in 1997. Southwest began service at LIMA in March 1999 and enplanement volumes spiked upwards reaching 1.1 million enplanements in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2000. The traffic stimulation resulting from Southwest’s low-fare service is presented in Exhibit 3.3-1, LIMA Historical Passenger Traffic.

Although Southwest continued to increase its own enplanement volumes on an annual basis through 2007, the rapid stimulation that occurred in 1999 and 2000 subsequently gave way to other factors that have resulted in overall enplanement volumes fluctuating in a relatively narrow band at LIMA since 2000. The 2001-2002 economic recession; the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; the Iraq War; and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak all served to dampen demand for air travel between 2001 and 2003 both at LIMA and nationwide. It is also evident from the graphic below that Southwest has absorbed traffic from other airlines operating at the Airport. In FFY2012, just 48,000 enplanements were reported by airlines other than Southwest at LIMA versus almost 240,000 enplanements in FFY2000 (Southwest’s first full federal fiscal year of service). As a result, SWA currently handles 93 percent of all commercial passengers at LIMA.

Exhibit 3.3-1 LIMA HISTORICAL PASSENGER TRAFFIC

Domestic Outbound O&D Traffic

1,200 18

16 1,000 14

800 12

10 600 8

400 6

4 Fare Yield (cents per Mile) 200

Passengers (in thousands) 2

0 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Southwest Other Airlines Fare Yield

Sources: U.S.DOT, Air Passenger Origin-Destination Survey; Landrum & Brown Analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\O&D\[ISP O&D Carrier Graph.xlsx]Sheet2

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐10 Master Plan Update

One of the implicit assumptions of the forecast is that significant fare stimulation at LIMA has already occurred and that fare stimulation is unlikely without new airline competition at LIMA. The primary rationale behind this assumption is that 93 percent of all passengers at LIMA are already enplaned on a low-cost-carrier (LCC). Moreover, LIMA is also a relatively low-priced airport in Southwest’s network (see Exhibit 3.3-2, Southwest Average Fare Yield-All U.S. BASES (CY2010)). In addition, a prolonged and seemingly permanent shift in the price of fuel is causing airlines, including Southwest, to raise ticket prices to better reflect the cost of providing service.

Exhibit 3.3-2 SOUTHWEST AVERAGE FARE YIELD—ALL U.S. BASES (CY2010)

Sources: U.S. DOT, Air Passenger Origin-Destination Survey; Landrum & Brown Analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\O&D

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐11 Master Plan Update

3.3.3 PASSENGER BASE

The majority of enplaned passengers at LIMA are either residents of, or visitors to, Suffolk and Nassau counties. These passengers are referred to as Origin and Destination (O&D) passengers. As shown in Table 3.3-2, LIMA Top 25 Domestic O&D Markets over 90 percent of all domestic O&D passengers traveled in LIMA’s top 25 O&D markets. The Fort Lauderdale/Miami market accounted for the largest share of domestic O&D traffic (25.5 percent), followed by Orlando (22.0 percent) and Tampa (11.0 percent). The table also displays the average daily passengers per day each way (PDEW) for the top 25 O&D markets.

Table 3.3-2 LIMA TOP 25 DOMESTIC O&D MARKETS (12 months ended September 2012)

Percent of Market Rank City Market Outbound O&D Passengers PDEW Total 1 Miami/Ft. Lauderdale 178,250 488 25.5% 2 Orlando 153,810 421 22.0% 3 Tampa 76,860 211 11.0% 4 DC 65,390 179 9.4% 5 Chicago 36,670 100 5.2% 6 Fort Myers 22,110 61 3.2% 7 Las Vegas 10,420 29 1.5% 8 Raleigh-Durham 8,880 24 1.3% 9 Pheonix 8,410 23 1.2% 10 Nashville 6,730 18 1.0% 11 Norfolk 6,460 18 0.9% 12 Jacksonville 6,400 18 0.9% 13 Atlanta 6,370 17 0.9% 14 Los Angeles 6,320 17 0.9% 15 Houston 5,990 16 0.9% 16 San Diego 4,810 13 0.7% 17 Dallas 4,650 13 0.7% 18 St. Louis 4,560 12 0.7% 19 Denver 4,560 12 0.7% 20 Charleston 4,150 11 0.6% 21 San Francisco 4,070 11 0.6% 22 Columbus OH 3,630 10 0.5% 23 Cleveland 3,470 10 0.5% 24 Phildelphia 3,250 9 0.5% 25 New Orleans 3,220 9 0.5% Top 25 Markets 639,440 1,752 91.5% All Others 59,600 163 8.5% Total 699,040 1,915 100.0%

Source: U.S. DOT, Air Passenger Origin and Destination Survey. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\O&D\[LIMA Dom O&D Q4 2011 - Q3 2012.xlsx]Table

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐12 Master Plan Update

3.3.4 AIR SERVICE

Air service at LIMA is currently provided by Southwest Airlines and US Airways. Southwest’s service is focused around five Florida markets and Baltimore-Washington. US Airways provides feeder service to its hubs in Philadelphia and Washington DC.

Prior to Southwest beginning service at LIMA, the Airport functioned as a spoke on many of the legacy carrier networks. As traditional legacy carriers have reduced capacity at the Airport and Southwest has increased market share, the overall number of destinations served from LIMA has declined. Many of the markets that have lost service from LIMA are within 500 miles (i.e., short-haul markets) which is also indicative of a broader national trend not just the competitive impact of Southwest at LIMA.

On the demand side, sometimes onerous security requirements have added a considerable hassle factor to air travel which has caused an increasing number of potential air travelers to seek alternatives (e.g., car or rail) for shorter trips. The decision to drive or use other forms of mass transit rather than fly has disproportionately affected travel in short-haul markets, as driving becomes an increasingly viable alternative the shorter the trip length. On the supply side, airlines (particularly legacy airlines) have cut capacity in short-haul markets, not only to better match capacity with demand, but also to cut costs as part of broader restructuring initiatives.

Table 3.3-3, LIMA Air Service – Airports Served Nonstop 2007-2013 illustrates the change in the number of airports served from LIMA from 2007 to 2013.

Table 3.3-3 LIMA AIR SERVICE—AIRPORTS SERVED NONSTOP 2007-2013

Region Code Airport 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Florida MCO Orlando PBI West Palm Beach FLL Ft. Lauderdale TPA Tampa RSW Ft. Myers

Other BWI Baltimore PHL Philadelphia DCA Washington ‐ National MDW Chicago ‐ Midway LAS Las Vegas BOS Boston ATL Atlanta

Count of Airports Served 111199 8 108 Note: The green check mark denotes that the airport was served by at least once scheduled passenger departure per week on average in the year listed. Source: Official Airline Guide. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\OAG\[LIMA Add Drop Air Service Matrix 1991-2013_OAG.xlsx]Add Drop Matrix 2007_13

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐13 Master Plan Update

3.3.5 MARKET CAPTURE/LEAKAGE

Potential travelers make air travel decisions based primarily on the following three factors: (1) availability of air service, (2) price, and (3) distance of an airport from point of local trip origin/destination. Potential air travelers will typically select the closest airport if all other selection factors are equal. Conversely, a better set of air service options at more competitive prices will cause travelers to select airports which are not necessarily the closest to where their trip begins or ends. Catchment area “Leakage” occurs when passengers use an airport other than the most convenient airport (usually closest) to their trip origin. This is the case at LIMA where a significant portion of the passengers who begin or end their journeys in Nassau and Suffolk counties use alternate airports such as New York-Kennedy and New York-LaGuardia for their air service needs.

3.3.5.1 2005 FAA Regional Air Service Demand Study

The FAA Regional Air Service Demand Study evaluated leakage at LIMA through an airport passenger intercept survey. The survey asked a series of questions about local trip origin, airport preferences, alternative airports considered for the trip, and reasons for choosing a particular New York area airport. The study estimated 4.0 million passengers originated travel in Nassau and Suffolk counties. However, LIMA captured just 24.5 percent of passengers originating travel from Nassau and Suffolk (1.1 million enplanements). The other 2.9 million enplanements from these two counties used New York-Kennedy (JFK), New York- LaGuardia (LGA), or Newark Liberty (EWR). Interestingly, of those 2.9 million passengers who used one of the alternate New York airports, 20 percent (almost 600,000 enplanements) considered, preferred, and originated from a point closer to LIMA.

3.3.5.2 2010 LIMA Leakage Study

The Airport commissioned a more recent leakage study based on 2008 data drawn from reservations made through travel agent global distribution systems (GDS). This data is typically referred to as Market Information Data Transfer data (MIDT). The study, conducted by SH&E, was published in November 2010 and supported the catchment area leakage findings of the earlier 2005 New York Regional Demand Study. The leakage study found that LIMA continues to capture just 25 percent of its market with 75 percent of passengers leaking to Kennedy, LaGuardia, and, to a lesser extent, Newark airports (see Table 3.3-4, Catchment Area Leakage Statistics (CY2008)).

3.3.5.3 2011 Regional Plan Association Report – Upgrading to World Class – The Future of the New York Region’s Airports

The January 2011 report prepared by the Regional Plan Association (RPA) also estimated that the region’s “outlying” airports would capture leaked demand from JFK, EWR and LGA. In the 2015-2021 timeframe, the RPA study estimated that Long Island MacArthur would recapture approximately 645,000 annual passengers

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐14 Master Plan Update

and by the 2030-2042 timeframe the Airport would recapture approximately 1,096,000 annual passengers. The RPA results fit within the range of master plan forecast results discussed later in this chapter.

Table 3.3-4 CATCHMENT AREA LEAKAGE STATISTICS (CY2008)

Statistic Amount LIMA Reported O&D Enplanements 1,046,535 LIMA Capture Rate 26.1% LIMA Market Area Enplanements 4,003,192 Estimated Leaked Enplanements Via New York-Kennedy 1,484,962 New York-LaGuardia 1,178,305 Newark 293,391 Total 2,956,657

Note: SH&E study presented findings in terms of total passengers (enplanements + deplanements). For purposes of consistency with the rest of the chapter, SH&E data was divided by 2 to approximate enplanements only. Source: SH&E Catchment Area and Leakage Study, Draft Final November 2010. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\Powerpoint\[ISP Leakage top markets slide data.xlsx]SH&E Leak

All three aforementioned studies indicate and support the potential upside for future traffic levels at the Airport due to the high level of leakage that is currently experienced from the LIMA catchment area.

3.3.6 COMPETING AIRPORTS

LIMA primarily competes with Kennedy and LaGuardia for passenger traffic. The average fare paid at LIMA is relatively competitive with air fares in comparable markets at Kennedy and LaGuardia. However, the reason such a significant portion of passengers that travel from local origins in Nassau and Suffolk Counties use Kennedy and LaGuardia is due to the frequency of flights and the number of nonstop destinations served (see Table 3.3-5, Air Service Summary, LIMA and Select Alternate Airports (April 11, 2013))

Table 3.3-5 AIR SERVICE SUMMARY LIMA and Select Alternate Airports (April 11, 2013)

Airports Daily Departing Daily Departing Code Airport Served Flights Seats LIMA Long Island MacArthur 8 23 2,725 LGA LaGuardia 70 581 56,551 JFK Kennedy 144 526 84,809 EWR Newark 147 592 65,629

Source: Official Airline Guide. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\OAG\[CompMkt20130411.xlsx]Table 2_9

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐15 Master Plan Update

3.3.7 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

For purposes of developing the operations forecast, historical aircraft operations at LIMA were classified into five key segments: (1) commercial passenger; (2) all-cargo/freighter; (3) non-commercial air taxi; (4) general aviation; and (5) military. Table 3.3-6, LIMA Historical Operations by Segment details historical aircraft operations at LIMA.

Table 3.3-6 LIMA HISTORICAL OPERATIONS BY SEGMENT

Calendar General Passenger Cargo Air Taxi Military Total Year Aviation 2000 40,411 522 840 192,383 4,083 238,239 2001 39,799 520 958 181,415 3,899 226,591 2002 33,640 140 4,616 176,096 3,561 218,053 2003 31,011 0 5,796 141,551 3,155 181,513 2004 30,953 0 2,717 139,823 2,705 176,198 2005 33,016 285 2,921 134,451 2,462 173,135 2006 29,792 300 4,662 151,744 2,892 189,390 2007 28,944 274 3,844 149,181 2,517 184,760 2008 24,050 132 3,123 149,037 2,888 179,230 2009 20,232 2 2,711 135,052 1,739 159,736 2010 18,266 19 2,999 128,229 2,720 152,233 2011 17,594 5 2,229 112,994 2,443 135,265 2012 15,740 12 2,824 126,544 3,331 148,451 Percent of Total 2000 17.0% 0.2% 0.4% 80.8% 1.7% 100.0% 2001 17.6% 0.2% 0.4% 80.1% 1.7% 100.0% 2002 15.4% 0.1% 2.1% 80.8% 1.6% 100.0% 2003 17.1% 0.0% 3.2% 78.0% 1.7% 100.0% 2004 17.6% 0.0% 1.5% 79.4% 1.5% 100.0% 2005 19.1% 0.2% 1.7% 77.7% 1.4% 100.0% 2006 15.7% 0.2% 2.5% 80.1% 1.5% 100.0% 2007 15.7% 0.1% 2.1% 80.7% 1.4% 100.0% 2008 13.4% 0.1% 1.7% 83.2% 1.6% 100.0% 2009 12.7% 0.0% 1.7% 84.5% 1.1% 100.0% 2010 12.0% 0.0% 2.0% 84.2% 1.8% 100.0% 2011 13.0% 0.0% 1.6% 83.5% 1.8% 100.0% 2012 10.6% 0.0% 1.9% 85.2% 2.2% 100.0%

Sources: FAA, ATADS; U.S. DOT, Schedule T-100; Official Airline Guide; Landrum & Brown. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]Hist Ops

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐16 Master Plan Update

Commercial passenger operations have accounted for between 10 and 19 percent of total operations at LIMA since 2000. In 2012, a total of 15,740 passenger operations were reported at the Airport. Passenger operations have represented a declining share of the overall activity at the Airport. This is largely due to an increasing proportion of passengers being served on larger narrow-body jet aircraft operated by Southwest versus smaller commuter aircraft operated by US Airways. In terms of operations, general aviation continues to be the largest segment of activity at LIMA accounting for over 85 percent of the operations in 2012 (see Exhibit 3.3-3, LIMA Historical Operations by Segment). In recent years, general aviation operations at LIMA and broadly within the United States have been negatively impacted by the rise in fuel prices and the associated increased costs to operate general aviation aircraft.

Exhibit 3.3-3 LIMA HISTORICAL OPERATIONS BY SEGMENT

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

Operations 100,000

50,000

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Calendar Year

Passenger Cargo Air Taxi General Aviation Military

Sources: FAA, ATADS; U.S. DOT, Schedule T-100; Official Airline Guide; Landrum & Brown. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]Hist Ops

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐17 Master Plan Update

3.4 ENPLANED PASSENGER FORECASTS

This section presents the forecasts of passenger demand at LIMA. The forecast of passenger traffic is a critical element of the various aviation demand elements.

Any comprehensive effort to project future airline passengers begins with a forecast of originating enplaned passengers. The level of originating passengers reflects the attractiveness of the region as a place to live, a place to visit, and as a place to work and conduct business. A reasonable forecast of originating passengers is critical in order to estimate future demands for terminal facilities such as ticketing, baggage claim, automobile parking, and access roadways. The associated number of passenger aircraft operations is also derived from the passenger forecast and are used as inputs to evaluate airfield and apron requirements.

It is important to note that most enplaned passengers at LIMA are domestic originating passengers. International service is not available at the Airport. Airlines provide point-to-point and spoke service at the Airport, therefore only a handful of connections are made at LIMA during each year. As a result, domestic O&D enplanements are used as a reasonable estimate for total enplanements for LIMA.

Two sets of enplaned passenger forecasts were developed for LIMA. The forecasts use 2012 as a base year and project out over a 25 year planning horizon to 2037. For purposes of the Master Plan these forecasts are referred to as the Baseline and the High Scenario. Both forecasts are underpinned by an econometric forecast model. The High Scenario assumes a certain level of market recapture given the significant leakage that occurs from the LIMA Catchment Area. This is detailed further in the sections below.

3.4.1 ENPLANED PASSENGER FORECAST METHODOLOGIES AND ASSUMPTIONS

Forecasting aviation demand is not an exact science where the same approach can be applied at all airports. Each airport presents its own unique set of variables that need to be considered. In order to project aviation demand at LIMA many factors were analyzed including current aviation industry trends, LIMA catchment area socio-economic data, historical air service and passenger traffic trends, fare data, benchmark airport data, and competing air service at alternate airports.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐18 Master Plan Update

3.4.2 O&D PASSENGER FORECAST MODELS

Twenty seven years of historical originating enplaned passengers was used as a first step to forecast demand at LIMA. The forecast model was developed using the classical technique of multi-linear regression, with the dependent variable transformed according to a linear function. The methodology for preparing the O&D forecasts recognizes that key parameters such as yield and total personal income will change over time. However, it assumes that the fundamental mathematical relationships between the independent variables and domestic O&D passenger traffic will persist and will support the development of realistic forecasts.

3.4.2.1 O&D Regression

The first step in developing the passenger forecast was to develop the econometric model. The dependent variable used in the model was LIMA domestic O&D passengers. The associated independent or explanatory variables were catchment area personal income, yield (i.e., fare paid per mile traveled), and a dummy variable. A dummy variable is used in the absence or presence of some categorical effect that may be expected to shift the outcome and cannot be explained by the other variables in the model. In this instance, the dummy variable was primarily used to explain the sharp spike in demand occurring after Southwest initiated service at LIMA which quantitatively isn’t explained entirely by changes in personal income and air fares. The inputs to the regression model are shown in Table 3.4-1, Regression Inputs.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐19 Master Plan Update

Table 3.4-1 REGRESSION INPUTS

Calendar Outbound O&D Per Capita Personal Constant Yield (cents Southwest Air Year Passengers Income ($2005) per mile) Service 1985 298,230 33,584 20.9 0 1986 347,350 34,553 18.9 0 1987 470,550 35,555 19.1 0 1988 501,150 36,588 21.0 0 1989 428,970 37,651 21.7 0 1990 558,870 38,708 21.0 0 1991 562,410 38,817 20.2 0 1992 568,900 38,920 19.3 0 1993 553,710 39,023 19.8 0 1994 558,520 39,128 16.7 0 1995 561,990 39,228 17.1 0 1996 536,540 40,577 16.8 0 1997 509,560 41,986 16.7 0 1998 401,690 43,431 18.7 0 1999 935,670 44,929 12.2 1 2000 1,108,640 46,519 11.3 0 2001 999,170 47,162 11.1 0 2002 946,640 46,188 10.5 0 2003 930,690 46,127 10.2 0 2004 978,460 47,645 9.7 0 2005 1,051,480 49,479 9.4 0 2006 1,135,300 51,970 9.1 0 2007 1,159,930 54,909 8.8 0 2008 1,040,860 55,108 10.2 0 2009 924,490 51,407 9.8 0 2010 850,600 51,655 10.7 0 2011 793,578 52,632 10.7 0 2012 678,848 52,013 10.2 0 2013 52,206 10.3 0 2014 52,683 10.3 0 2015 53,286 10.2 0 2016 53,978 10.2 0 2017 54,729 10.2 0 2018 55,524 10.2 0 2019 56,353 10.1 0 2020 57,214 10.1 0 2021 58,116 10.0 0 2022 59,035 10.0 0

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐20 Master Plan Update

Table 3.4-1 REGRESSION INPUTS (Cont.)

Calendar Outbound O&D Per Capita Personal Constant Yield (cents Southwest Air Year Passengers Income ($2005) per mile) Service 2023 59,970 9.9 0 2024 60,921 9.9 0 2025 61,927 9.8 0 2026 62,958 9.8 0 2027 64,025 9.7 0 2028 65,090 9.6 0 2029 66,176 9.6 0 2030 67,309 9.5 0 2031 68,472 9.4 0 2032 69,663 9.4 0 2033 70,877 9.3 0 2034 72,113 9.2 0 2035 73,348 9.2 0 2036 74,604 9.1 0 2037 75,882 9.1 0 Average Annual Growth Rates 1985-2012 3.1% 1.6% -2.6% N/A 2012-2037 N/A

Sources: FAA; Woods & Poole Economics; Landrum & Brown analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[1 Airport Model 2013.xlsx]Reg 3 final

The summary output from the regression model is shown below.

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.907 R Square 0.823 Adjusted R Square 0.801 Standard Error 119,100 Observations 28

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P‐value Intercept 1,162,613 558,170 2.0829 0.0481 PCPI ($2005) 4.918 8.771 0.5607 0.5802 Constant Yield ‐44,507 12,246 ‐3.6342 0.0013 Southwest 95,244 123,895 0.7687 0.4495

Forecast = 1,162,613+(4.918*PCPI)+(-44507*Yield)+(95244*Southwest factor)

The model equation was then applied to the forecasts of per capita personal income and yield for the LIMA catchment area to develop the first step of the passenger forecasts. The econometric model is limited to the extent that it relies on past relationships to predict the future. The growth rate generated by the regression equation is applied to the base year enplanements to produce the forecast activity levels. Passenger enplanements are forecast to increase from 678,848 enplanements in 2012 to 804,400 enplanements by 2037, an average annual growth rate of 0.7 percent.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐21 Master Plan Update

3.4.2.2. High Scenario

There are a number of factors that could lead to lower leakage rates from the LIMA catchment area in the future including capacity constraints at the three primary New York airports, greater recognition by airlines of the significant local potential at LIMA as evidenced by current high leakage rates, and ongoing marketing efforts by the Airport to improve and enhance air service.

Currently, Southwest has terminal capacity to expand at LIMA as it currently operates from an 8 gate facility. There is sufficient capacity today in the terminal to handle increased demand both within the 8 gate facility where Southwest operates and on the additional Airport-owned gates and aircraft parking positions (i.e., ground loading). This scenario implicitly assumes that Southwest expands its network of service at LIMA and an additional low-cost carrier initiates service at the Airport thus increasing competition and reducing leakage.

For purposes of the High Scenario forecast it was assumed that LIMA’s capture rate would increase over the forecast period from approximately 25 percent to 33 percent. Based on this assumption, passenger enplanements are forecast to increase from 678,848 enplanements in 2012 to 1.2 million enplanements by 2037 representing average annual growth of 2.2 percent per year over the forecast period.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐22 Master Plan Update

3.4.2.3 Enplaned Passenger Forecast Results

A comparison of the enplanement forecasts for the Baseline and High Scenario is presented in Table 3.4-2, Enplaned Passenger Forecast Results. The long term forecasts provide a range of 0.8 million to 1.2 million enplanements for purposes of facility planning.

Table 3.4-2 ENPLANED PASSENGER FORECAST RESULTS

Calendar Year Historical Baseline High Scenario 2005 1,051,480 2006 1,135,300 2007 1,159,930 2008 1,040,860 2009 924,490 2010 850,600 2011 793,578 2012 678,848 Forecast 2017 694,000 694,000 2022 716,600 716,600 2027 743,000 863,400 2032 772,700 1,013,600 2037 804,400 1,165,700 Average Annual Growth Rate 2005-2012 -6.1% 2012-2017 0.4% 0.4% 2017-2022 0.6% 0.6% 2022-2032 0.8% 3.5% 2012-2037 0.7% 2.2%

Source: Landrum & Brown. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\Forecast Model\[1 Airport Model 2013.xlsx]Table_OD

The baseline enplaned passenger forecast and the associated annual and peak period aircraft operations forecasts are recommended for adoption for the Master Plan Update.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐23 Master Plan Update

3.5 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST

This section presents the rationale and projections of passenger, air cargo, non-commercial air taxi, general aviation, and military operations at LIMA. This provides a functional forecast of the key operational segments at the Airport. For purposes of review of the forecast by the FAA, the operations forecast are also summarized into air carrier, commuter, general aviation, and military categories and by itinerant and local operations.

3.5.1 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER OPERATIONS

Passenger aircraft operations were derived from the Baseline and High Scenario enplaned passenger forecasts. The aggregate number of commercial passenger operations at an airport depends on three factors: total passengers, average aircraft size, and average load factor (percent of seats occupied for planning purposes). The relationship is shown in the equation below.

TotalPassengers Operations  AverageLoadFactor* AverageAircraftSize

This relationship permits literally infinite combinations of load factors, average aircraft size, and operations to accommodate a given number of passengers. In order to develop reasonable load factor and aircraft gauge assumptions, commercial passenger operations were disaggregated into air carrier and regional activity. The breakout of regional activity is based on the individual carrier’s mode of operation (i.e., providing regional feed to its major airline partners such as US Airways existing service to Philadelphia) and certification with the FAA. These commuter carriers typically operate turboprop and small (less than 70 seat) jet equipment. This is slightly different than the FAA’s definition of commuter operations which uses a 60-seat limit to define the commuter group.

A number of sources were used to develop the historical passenger operations, load factor, and aircraft gauge data. The Official Airline Guide; FAA, ATADS and U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Schedule T-100 data was used to develop total departures and seats for each segment. Average Seats per Departure (ASPD) for each of the major group of passenger activity was calculated from total departures and total departing seats. Aircraft load factors were calculated for each group of passenger operations by dividing total enplaned passengers by total departing seats. To calculate total operations, the total number of departures was multiplied by a factor of two.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐24 Master Plan Update

3.5.1.1 Baseline Aircraft Operations Assumptions:

The following assumptions were determined with respect to commercial passenger operations and the associated mix of aircraft the airlines are expected to operate over the forecast period.  Air Carrier Operations: o Air carrier load factors are currently near historical highs at LIMA. As a result, load factors at LIMA are expected to only increase slightly over the forecast period from 75.0 percent in 2012 to 77.0 percent in 2037. o Southwest has replaced its older model B737 aircraft at LIMA with 143-seat B737-700 aircraft with winglets (73W). It is assumed that this will remain the dominate aircraft for Southwest throughout the forecast period.  Regional/Commuter Operations: o Regional aircraft load factors averaged approximately 70 percent in 2012 and are assumed to increase to 75 percent over the forecast period. o The average size of regional aircraft is also expected to increase from 44 seats to 70 seats by 2037. o Faced with higher fuel costs, legacy carriers and their regional partners are moving to larger regional aircraft at airports across the United States. Indeed, the run up in fuel prices that has occurred since 2004 has resulted in a significant decline in flights by aircraft with less than 50-seats as the economics are simply not viable in many markets. At LIMA, it is assumed that spoke service will continue to be provided but that migration to larger 78-seat regional aircraft such as the DCH-8 Q400 will occur over the forecast period without compromising the traditional level of frequency legacy carriers have operated on routes from the Airport.  Results: o Total commercial passenger aircraft operations are expected to increase from 15,740 operations in 2012 to 15,970 operations by 2037, representing average annual growth of 0.1 percent per year.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐25 Master Plan Update

3.5.1.2 High Scenario Aircraft Operations Assumptions:

The following assumptions were determined with respect to commercial passenger operations and the associated mix of aircraft the airlines are expected to operate over the forecast period.  Air Carrier Operations: o Load factor assumptions remain the same as those laid out in the Baseline. o While Southwest’s business model is not expected to change materially, modern replacement aircraft such as the larger Boeing 737-800 will be added to the Southwest fleet during the forecast period. Southwest took delivery of its first B737-800 in March 2012 and had 73 firm orders for the aircraft as of May 16, 2012 for delivery by 2014. These 73 firm orders are equivalent to 13 percent of Southwest’s existing fleet. The B737-800 is an important part of Southwest’s long term strategy, providing lower unit operating costs, greater revenue potential at congested airports, greater long-haul capacity, and the ability to add seats without adding frequency. While these aircraft are already being rolled out in Southwest’s network, the Master Plan forecast does not assume the 737-800 is deployed at LIMA until the 2022 planning horizon. By 2037, the B737-800 is assumed to account for 25 percent of Southwest’s annual operations at LIMA, equivalent to approximately 6 daily departures. These aircraft provide lower operating costs per available seat through greater fuel efficiency and also provide the opportunity to increase capacity without the need to add frequency in a given market. Additionally, a new entrant carrier is also assumed to add service operating a mix of A320 and A321 aircraft. Based on these assumptions the average number of seats per flight in Scenario 2 is expected to increase from 137 seats in 2012 to 150 seats in 2037.  Regional/Commuter Operations: o Load factor assumptions remain the same as those laid out in the Baseline. o Due to increased airline competition in the High Scenario, the regional segment is expected to account for a declining share of enplanements over the forecast period. o Regional carriers will still shift to larger 70-seat regional aircraft, however frequencies will be diminished beyond 2020 due to cannibalization of traffic by other airlines operating at LIMA.  Results: o Total commercial passenger aircraft operations are expected to increase from 15,740 operations in 2012 to 21,690 operations by 2037, representing average annual growth of 1.3 percent per year.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐26 Master Plan Update

Table 3.5-1, Average Gauge Assumptions and Table 3.5-2, Load Factor Assumptions display the assumptions for average gauge and load factor used in the operations forecasts.

Table 3.5-1 AVERAGE GAUGE ASSUMPTIONS

Average Gauge (ASPD)

Year Air High High Baseline Regional Baseline Historical Carrier Scenario Scenario 2005 136.4 36.6 2006 137.0 38.6 2007 137.0 39.5 2008 136.9 42.6 2009 136.7 47.6 2010 136.7 47.4 2011 136.7 45.6 2012 137.5 44.2 Forecast 2017 143.0 143.0 50.0 50.0 2022 143.0 144.7 54.4 54.4 2027 143.0 146.5 59.2 59.2 2032 143.0 148.2 64.4 64.4 2037 143.0 150.0 70.0 70.0

Sources: Official Airline Guide; U.S. DOT Schedule T-100; Landrum & Brown Analysis Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]ASPD LF

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐27 Master Plan Update

Table 3.5-2 LOAD FACTOR ASSUMPTIONS

Average Load Factor Air High High Year Baseline Regional Baseline Carrier Scenario Scenario Historical 2005 66.3% 62.4% 2006 68.2% 59.9% 2007 70.2% 56.6% 2008 72.4% 60.0% 2009 73.4% 73.6% 2010 76.6% 72.8% 2011 74.0% 71.2% 2012 75.0% 69.7% Forecast 2017 75.4% 75.4% 70.7% 70.7% 2022 75.8% 75.8% 71.8% 71.8% 2027 76.2% 76.2% 72.8% 72.8% 2032 76.6% 76.6% 73.9% 73.9% 2037 77.0% 77.0% 75.0% 75.0%

Sources: Official Airline Guide; U.S. DOT Schedule T-100; Landrum & Brown Analysis Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]ASPD LF

The results of the operations and fleet mix forecast are displayed in the two tables below. Table 3.5-3, Baseline Commercial Passenger Operations Forecast presents the commercial passenger operations and fleet mix for the Baseline and Table 3.5-4, High Scenario Commercial Passenger Operations Forecast presents the results for the High Scenario.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐28 Master Plan Update

Table 3.5-3 BASELINE COMMERCIAL PASSENGER OPERATIONS FORECAST

Airline Aircraft Annual Operations Seats Group Type 2011 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Air Carrier 737-300 137 1,912 1,430 0 0 0 0 0 737-500 122 382 252 0 0 0 0 0 737-700 137 12,494 8,084 0 0 0 0 0 737-700 (winglets) 143 0 2,308 11,780 12,100 12,480 12,910 13,370 737-800 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,788 12,074 11,780 12,100 12,480 12,910 13,370 Regional CRJ 50 1,368 1,598 1,300 0 0 0 0 DHC-8-100 37 602 1,628 0 0 0 0 0 DHC-8-300 50 836 434 1,930 2,620 1,960 1,330 730 DHC-8 Dash 8 57 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 DCH-8 Q400 78 0 0 0 500 970 1,440 1,870 Other 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2,806 3,666 3,330 3,120 2,930 2,770 2,600 Total 17,594 15,740 15,110 15,220 15,410 15,680 15,970 Airline Aircraft Percent of Total Operations Seats Group Type 2011 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Air Carrier 737-300 137 10.9% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 737-500 122 2.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 737-700 137 71.0% 51.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 737-700 (winglets) 143 0.0% 14.7% 78.0% 79.5% 81.0% 82.3% 83.7% 737-800 162 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 84.1% 76.7% 78.0% 79.5% 81.0% 82.3% 83.7% Regional CRJ 50 7.8% 10.2% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DHC-8-100 37 3.4% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DHC-8-300 50 4.8% 2.8% 12.8% 17.2% 12.7% 8.5% 4.6% DHC-8 Dash 8 57 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DCH-8 Q400 78 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 6.3% 9.2% 11.7% Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.9% 23.3% 22.0% 20.5% 19.0% 17.7% 16.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Sources: Official Airline Guide; U.S. DOT Schedule T-100; Landrum & Brown Analysis Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]Base Forecast_Doc

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐29 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐30 Master Plan Update

Table 3.5-4 HIGH SCENARIO COMMERCIAL PASSENGER OPERATIONS FORECAST

Annual Operations Airline Group Aircraft Type Seats 2011 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Air Carrier 737-300,-500,-700 122-137 14,788 9,766 0 0 0 0 0 737-700 (winglets) 143 0 2,308 11,780 10,860 11,230 12,230 12,500 737-800 162 0 0 0 1,070 2,360 2,910 4,170 A320 150 0 0 0 0 720 1,080 1,510 A321 200 0 0 0 0 0 420 760 Subtotal 14,788 12,074 11,780 11,930 14,310 16,640 18,940 Regional CRJ 50 1,368 1,598 1,310 0 0 0 0 DHC-8-100 -8 37 602 1,628 0 0 0 0 0 DHC-8-300 -8 50 836 434 1,950 2,680 2,040 1,390 770 DHC-8 Dash 8 57 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 DCH-8 Q400 78 0 0 0 510 1,000 1,510 1,980 Other NA 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 2,806 3,666 3,360 3,190 3,040 2,900 2,750 Total 17,594 15,740 15,140 15,120 17,350 19,540 21,690 Percent of Total Operations Airline Group Aircraft Type Seats 2011 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Air Carrier 737-300 137 84.1% 62.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 737-700 (winglets) 143 0.0% 14.7% 77.8% 71.8% 64.7% 62.6% 57.6% 737-800 162 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 13.6% 14.9% 19.2% A320 150 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 5.5% 7.0% A321 200 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 3.5% Subtotal 84.1% 76.7% 77.8% 78.9% 82.5% 85.2% 87.3% Regional CRJ 50 7.8% 10.2% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DHC-8-100 -8 37 3.4% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DHC-8-300 -8 50 4.8% 2.8% 12.9% 17.7% 11.8% 7.1% 3.6% DHC-8 Dash 8 57 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DCH-8 Q400 78 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 5.8% 7.7% 9.1% Other NA 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Subtotal 15.9% 23.3% 22.2% 21.1% 17.5% 14.8% 12.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Sources: Official Airline Guide; U.S. DOT Schedule T-100; Landrum & Brown Analysis Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]High Ops Fleet Mix

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐31 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐32 Master Plan Update

3.5.2 AIR CARGO OPERATIONS FORECAST

Air cargo operations have historically been relatively limited at LIMA. ABX Air served the Airport with almost daily DC9 freighter service through 2001. Subsequently, FedEx provided freighter service using Cessna 208 aircraft between 2005 and 2008. Virtually, all the air cargo in the New York City region is handled at Kennedy and Newark airports which have highly developed intermodal cargo facilities. Additionally, there has been an industry wide shift of domestic air cargo to trucks driven by increasing fuel prices and a shift from next day delivery to second and third day time definite delivery. For purposes of the forecast, it is assumed LIMA handles 50 freighter operations per annum.

3.5.3 GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS

General aviation activity includes all operations which are not composed of commercial passenger, cargo, or military operations. General aviation activity includes diverse uses such as recreational flying, flight training activities, business travel, news reporting, traffic observation, police patrol, emergency medical flights, civil air patrol, and even crop dusting.

General aviation operations can be subdivided into two major subcategories: “itinerant” and “local” based on FAA classifications. Local operations are defined by the FAA as “operations remaining in the local traffic pattern, simulated instrument approaches at the airport…and operations to or from the airport and a practice area within a 20-mile radius of the tower.”1 Itinerant operations are all operations not classified as “local.”

3.5.3.1 National Trends in General Aviation

Understanding the history and current state of the civil aviation industry can help predict future aviation demand. This section discusses nationwide historical, emerging, and forecast trends in air taxi and general aviation activity.

Historical National Trends

The civil aviation industry in the U.S. has experienced major changes over the last 30 years. General aviation activity levels were at their highest in the late 1970s through 1981. General aviation operations and new aircraft production reached all-time lows in the early 1990s due to a number of factors including increasing fuel prices, increased product liability stemming from litigation concerns, and the resulting higher cost of new aircraft. The passage of the 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA)2 combined with reduced new aircraft prices, lower fuel prices, resumed production of single-engine aircraft, continued strength in the

1 FAA Order 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration, Section 2, Airport Operations Count. 2 GARA imposes an 18-year statute of repose on product liability lawsuits for general aviation aircraft.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐33 Master Plan Update

production and sale of business jets, and a recovered economy led to growth in the general aviation industry in the latter half of the 1990s (see Exhibit 3.5-1, U.S. General Aviation Operations).3

The rebound in the U.S. general aviation industry that began with GARA started to subside by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. General aviation traffic at airports with air traffic control service slowed considerably in FY 2001 due largely to a U.S. economic recession and to some extent the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. General aviation traffic at airports with air traffic control service continued to decline through FY 2006 as spikes in fuel costs occurred and the economy grew at a relatively even pace. For the first time since FY 1999, general aviation traffic at airports with air traffic control service increased in FY 2007, but just slightly (0.2 percent over FY 2006). However, general aviation operations declined in each subsequent year through FY 2011 primarily as a result of the most recent economic recession coupled with higher oil prices. GA operations ticked up 0.6 percent in FY 2012.4.

Exhibit 3.5-1 U.S. GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000 (in Thousands)(in 15,000 General Aviation Operations Aviation General 10,000 Itinerant GA Operations 5,000 Local GA Operations

0 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year

Note: Represents operations at U.S. airports with FAA and Contract Tower Air Traffic Control Service. Sources: FAA, Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2011-2031; Landrum & Brown analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Source Data\FAA\[GA Trends.xlsx]Ops

3 Based on information from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). 4 FAA, Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2013-2033, Table 32

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐34 Master Plan Update

FAA National Forecast

The FAA publishes activity forecasts for the U.S. aviation industry annually. The FAA projects the following trends in the U.S. general aviation industry from 2013 to 2033: 5  The number of active general aviation aircraft is forecast to increase by 0.5 percent annually.  Growth of 1.5 percent annually is expected in the number of general aviation hours flown.  The number of student pilots is expected to decline by 0.1 percent per annum through 2033.  General aviation operations at airports with air traffic control service are forecast to grow by 0.4 percent annually.  Business use of general aviation aircraft will continue to grow more rapidly than recreational use.

Emerging Aircraft Ownership Trends

The concept of purchasing hours of jet time began to emerge in the 1990s as the fractional ownership of business jets started gaining popularity. Fractional ownership, as it suggests, involves purchasing a share of ownership in a general aviation aircraft. The user also typically pays an hourly usage fee and a monthly management fee. The fractional owner will usually purchase the share from one of several operators that can also offer a variety of jet types that the potential purchaser can consider. Companies such as NetJets, FlexJet, Citation Shares, and others provide these types of services. The fractional ownership concept began with jets but has also begun to expand to all types of aircraft including single-engine piston aircraft. Fractional ownership has significantly contributed to the revitalization of the general aviation manufacturing industry in the 21st century. For example, NetJets alone has purchased hundreds of corporate jet aircraft of varying sizes ranging up to the Boeing BBJ (typically a derivative of the Boeing 737 aircraft).

Fuel Prices

The aviation industry’s activity levels depend heavily on the prices of fuel, especially in the commercial and smaller general aviation segments. From 2004 through 2008, fuel prices nearly tripled according to data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA). A decline in fuel prices was experienced in 2009, but fuel prices rebounded sharply in 2010 and have since moderated.

5 FAA, Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2013-2033.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐35 Master Plan Update

Changes in fuel prices impact the economic relationships between modes of transportation and the price differentials between different segments of the aviation market. Although fuel prices are a major problem for the commercial airlines, corporate general aviation users are a little less sensitive to changes in fuel prices. Given the cost to own and operate a corporate aircraft or to charter a business jet, the incremental cost of fuel is typically a secondary consideration.

According to data from the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), major fuel providers and charter companies indicate that when fuel prices spike, activity does decline. In a survey of operators conducted by NBAA, the results from across the U.S. showed that when fuel costs increase dramatically the purchase of Jet-A fuel falls between 10 and 20 percent, while the purchase of AvGas drops between 30 and 40 percent. This indicates the relative sensitivity of the private or leisure segment of the general aviation market versus the corporate general aviation market.

3.5.3.2 LIMA Trends in General Aviation

General aviation (GA) activity continues to be largest segment of activity at LIMA in terms of total aircraft operations. Data in this section is presented on a calendar year basis. Between 1991 and 2000, general aviation operations averaged growth of 1.0 percent per year, with relatively strong growth in local operations. Since 2000, general aviation operations at LIMA dropped from a peak of 192,383 operations to 112,994 in 2011 before rebounding to 126,544 in 2012 (see Table 3.5-5, LIMA Historical General Aviation Operations).

The decline in general aviation operations over this period has coincided with an often negative economic environment coupled with a rapid rise in oil prices which has increased the cost to fly general aviation aircraft. The share of general aviation operations accounted for by itinerant operations has fluctuated and no discernible pattern emerges. As of 2012, itinerant activity at LIMA accounted for 42.9 percent of total general aviation operations.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐36 Master Plan Update

Table 3.5-5 LIMA HISTORICAL GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS

Calendar Year Itinerant Local Total % Itinerant 1991 89,376 86,708 176,084 50.8% 1992 84,787 70,056 154,843 54.8% 1993 81,354 71,663 153,017 53.2% 1994 76,062 68,840 144,902 52.5% 1995 75,582 66,702 142,284 53.1% 1996 77,021 65,656 142,677 54.0% 1997 77,822 82,276 160,098 48.6% 1998 80,991 90,920 171,911 47.1% 1999 78,839 82,398 161,237 48.9% 2000 82,312 110,071 192,383 42.8% 2001 80,328 101,087 181,415 44.3% 2002 77,617 98,479 176,096 44.1% 2003 71,688 69,863 141,551 50.6% 2004 71,594 68,229 139,823 51.2% 2005 69,163 65,288 134,451 51.4% 2006 76,872 74,872 151,744 50.7% 2007 73,903 75,278 149,181 49.5% 2008 65,058 83,979 149,037 43.7% 2009 56,380 78,672 135,052 41.7% 2010 57,534 70,695 128,229 44.9% 2011 51,084 61,910 112,994 45.2% 2012 54,242 72,302 126,544 42.9% Average Annual Growth 1991 - 2000 -0.9% 2.7% 1.0% 2000 - 2012 -3.4% -3.4% -3.4% 1991 - 2012 -2.4% -0.9% -1.6%

Sources: FAA, ATADS; Landrum & Brown analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[NonComm Ops 203.xlsx]GA historical Ops

Historical Market Share

General aviation operations at LIMA were compared to reported general aviation operations for the state of New York and the U.S. as a whole. The data was obtained from historical records in the FAA’s ATADS database. The market share analysis provides an understanding of how general aviation activity at LIMA has performed against a set of broader benchmarks (see Table 3.5-6, LIMA Market Share of General Aviation Operations). Trend analysis of LIMA’s share of general aviation operations for each of these benchmarks indicates a modest upward trend for LIMA indicating that general aviation has performed somewhat better historically at LIMA than these comparative benchmarks.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐37 Master Plan Update

Table 3.5-6 LIMA MARKET SHARE OF GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS:

Calendar Year State of New York United States 1991 14.4% 0.46% 1992 13.6% 0.41% 1993 13.1% 0.42% 1994 12.4% 0.40% 1995 12.0% 0.40% 1996 12.7% 0.41% 1997 12.7% 0.43% 1998 13.1% 0.44% 1999 12.4% 0.40% 2000 15.8% 0.49% 2001 15.8% 0.48% 2002 15.6% 0.47% 2003 13.6% 0.40% 2004 13.4% 0.40% 2005 13.4% 0.40% 2006 15.3% 0.46% 2007 16.3% 0.45% 2008 17.8% 0.49% 2009 16.1% 0.49% 2010 14.7% 0.48% 2011 13.3% 0.44% 2012 15.1% 0.49% Average Market Shares 1991-2012 14.2% 0.44% 2006-2012 15.5% 0.47%

Sources: FAA, ATADS; Landrum & Brown Analysis Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[NonComm Ops 203.xlsx]GA Market Shares

3.5.3.3 General Aviation Operations Forecast

There are a number of approaches to developing general aviation operations forecasts ranging from econometric, trend or time series, and market share forecasts. During the forecast development, no reasonable fit of the general aviation operations to time or socio-economic variables was found. A market share approach was deemed to provide the most viable method for developing the forecasts and is discussed in the section below.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐38 Master Plan Update

General Aviation Operations Forecast Results

Table 3.5-7, General Aviation Operations Forecast presents the general aviation operations forecast for LIMA. The general aviation operations forecast for LIMA is based on applying a market share to the national general aviation operations forecast published in the FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2013- 2033. The FAA projects that general aviation operations at airports with FAA and Contract Control Towers will average growth of 0.4 percent per year through 2033. For purposes of the forecast for LIMA, the FAA national forecasts were extrapolated to 2037. By maintaining the same market share of national GA operations, GA operations at LIMA will grow at the same 0.4 percent per year, increasing from 126,544 operations in 2012 to 139,800 operations in 2037.

Table 3.5-7 GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FORECAST

Calendar United Percent LIMA Year States Share of U.S. Historical 2005 134,451 33,925,208 0.40% 2006 151,744 33,290,626 0.46% 2007 149,181 32,895,626 0.45% 2008 149,037 30,603,304 0.49% 2009 135,052 27,513,640 0.49% 2010 128,229 26,475,482 0.48% 2011 112,994 25,957,089 0.44% 2012 126,544 25,954,531 0.49% Forecast 2017 129,100 26,477,800 0.49% 2022 131,700 27,011,600 0.49% 2027 134,400 27,556,200 0.49% 2032 137,100 28,111,700 0.49% 2037 139,800 28,678,500 0.49% Average Annual Growth 2005-2012 -0.9% -3.8% 2012-2037 0.4% 0.4%

Notes: *Historical calendar year ops based on FAA, ATADS. Forecast based on FAA, Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2012-2032. Sources: FAA, ATADS; FAA, Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2013-2033; Landrum & Brown analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[NonComm Ops 203.xlsx]GA Market Shares

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐39 Master Plan Update

3.5.3.4 General Aviation Based Aircraft Forecasts

The projection of based aircraft is necessary to determine the aircraft storage needs at LIMA. According to Airport records there are currently 233 based aircraft at LIMA comprised of 135 single engine aircraft, 16 multi-engine aircraft (prop and turboprop), 51 jet aircraft, 23 helicopters, and 8 military aircraft. The count of based aircraft was provided in March 2013. For purposes of the general aviation based aircraft forecast, military aircraft based at LIMA are excluded leaving a total count of 225 aircraft is used in the base year.

The forecast of general aviation based aircraft for LIMA was derived from the general aviation operations forecast using a ratio of operations per based aircraft (OPBA). In 2012, there were estimated to be 562 general aviation operations per based aircraft at LIMA and is high by historical standards. By applying a combination of the OPBA ratio to the general aviation operations forecast and FAA guidance on growth rates by aircraft type, a total of 360 based aircraft are projected by 2037 (see Table 3.5-8, General Aviation Based Aircraft Forecast). This represents a 1.9 percent average annual growth rate from 2012.

Table 3.5-8 GENERAL AVIATION BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST

Year Operations Based Aircraft OPBA Historical 2010 128,229 268 478 2011 112,994 287 394 2012 126,544 225 562 Forecast 2017 129,100 295 437 2022 131,700 307 429 2027 134,400 322 417 2032 137,100 339 405 2037 139,800 360 388 Average Annual Growth 2012-2037 0.4% 1.9% -1.5%

Sources: FAA, ATADS; Airport Records; Landrum & Brown analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[NonComm Ops 203.xlsx]GA Operations & BA Fcts

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐40 Master Plan Update

3.5.3.5 General Aviation Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Forecasts

Nationally, the FAA projects in its Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2013-2033 for Active General Aviation Aircraft to grow 0.5 percent annually over the forecast period.6 The FAA also projects the following growth rates by aircraft type:  Single-engine piston aircraft are expected to slowly decline at an average annual rate of 0.2 percent.  Multi-engine piston aircraft are expected to decline at an average annual rate of 0.6 percent from 2012 to 2033.  Turboprops are forecast to grow at rate of 1.7 percent annually  Jet aircraft are expected to be the fastest growing segment with growth of 3.5 percent per year.

For the based aircraft fleet mix for LIMA, national trends were accounted for in the context of the based aircraft fleet mix at LIMA. As such, the single-engine and multi-engine segment are expected to decline over the forecast period, while the jet segment is expected to experience the fastest rate of growth, followed by helicopters. Table 3.5-9, General Aviation Based Aircraft Fleet Mix displays the general aviation fleet mix over the forecast period.

Table 3.5-9 GENERAL AVIATION BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX

Year Single Engine Multi Engine Jet Helicopter Total Historical 2010 161 29 49 29 268 2011 154 41 64 28 287 2012 135 16 51 23 225 Forecast 2017 153 40 71 32 295 2022 151 39 81 36 307 2027 150 37 94 41 322 2032 148 36 108 46 339 2037 147 35 124 53 360 Average Annual Growth 2012-2037 0.3% 3.2% 3.6% 3.4% 1.9%

Sources: FAA, ATADS; FAA, Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2013-2033; Airport Records; L&B analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[NonComm Ops 203.xlsx]GA Operations & BA Fcts

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

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐41 Master Plan Update

3.5.4 NON-COMMERCIAL AIR TAXI OPERATIONS

Air taxi activity typically includes “for hire” aircraft chartered for specific trips on an on demand basis. Air taxi operations are usually made up of larger general aviation aircraft, such as large turboprop aircraft and an array of jets. Air taxi operations have accounted for between 2 to 3 percent of total operations at LIMA over the past 5 years. The expectation is that the corporate general aviation segment will grow at a faster rate than recreational and personal general aviation segment. As a result, air taxi operations are expected to grow at a faster rate than general aviation operations at LIMA which contain a higher proportion of recreational flying particularly by single engine piston aircraft. The non-commercial air taxi operations forecast for LIMA are based on FAA’s outlook for jet and turboprop active aircraft in the United States. As a result, air taxi operations are forecast to average growth of 2.8 percent per year from 2,824 operations in 2012 to 5,630 operations by 2037 (see Table 3.5-10, Non-Commercial Air Taxi Operations).

Table 3.5-10 NON-COMMERCIAL AIR TAXI OPERATIONS

Year Historical Operations 2005 2,921 2006 4,662 2007 3,844 2008 3,123 2009 2,711 2010 2,999 2011 2,229 2012 2,824 Forecast 2017 3,240 2022 3,720 2027 4,270 2032 4,900 2037 5,630 Average Annual Growth 2012-2037 2.8%

Sources: FAA, ATADS; FAA, Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2013-2033; Airport Records; Landrum & Brown. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[NonComm Ops 203.xlsx]Air Taxi Forecast

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐42 Master Plan Update

3.5.5 MILITARY OPERATIONS & BASED AIRCRAFT

Military operations have historically accounted for less that 2 percent of total operations at LIMA. In 2012, military operations, itinerant and local, represented 2.2 percent of total operations. Military operations are forecast to remain constant over the forecast period at 3,300 annual operations. There are currently eight based fixed wing military aircraft at LIMA and this is assumed to also remain constant over the forecast period (See Table 3.5-11, Military Operations & Based Aircraft Forecast).

Table 3.5-11 MILITARY OPERATIONS & BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST

Year Operations Based Aircraft Historical 2010 2,720 8 2011 2,443 8 2012 3,331 8 Forecast 2017 3,330 8 2022 3,330 8 2027 3,330 8 2032 3,330 8 2037 3,330 8 Average Annual Growth 2012-2037 0.0% 0.0%

Sources: FAA, ATADS; Airport Records; Landrum & Brown. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[NonComm Ops 203.xlsx]Military Forecast

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐43 Master Plan Update

3.5.6 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST SUMMARY

Table 3.5-12, Total Aircraft Operations Forecast by Segment - Baseline provides a summary of the annual aircraft Baseline operations forecast through 2037. Total aircraft operations are forecast to increase from 148,451 operations in 2012 to 164,780 operations in 2037, averaging growth of 0.4 percent per year. Table 3.5- 13, Total Aircraft Operations Forecast – High Scenario presents the High Scenario annual operations forecast.

Table 3.5-12 TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST BY SEGMENT - BASELINE

Calendar General Passenger Cargo Air Taxi Military Total Year Aviation Historical 2000 40,411 522 840 192,383 4,083 238,239 2001 39,799 520 958 181,415 3,899 226,591 2002 33,640 140 4,616 176,096 3,561 218,053 2003 31,011 0 5,796 141,551 3,155 181,513 2004 30,953 0 2,717 139,823 2,705 176,198 2005 33,016 285 2,921 134,451 2,462 173,135 2006 29,792 300 4,662 151,744 2,892 189,390 2007 28,944 274 3,844 149,181 2,517 184,760 2008 24,050 132 3,123 149,037 2,888 179,230 2009 20,232 2 2,711 135,052 1,739 159,736 2010 18,266 19 2,999 128,229 2,720 152,233 2011 17,594 5 2,229 112,994 2,443 135,265 2012 15,740 12 2,824 126,544 3,331 148,451 Forecast 2017 15,110 50 3,240 129,100 3,330 150,830 2022 15,220 50 3,720 131,700 3,330 154,020 2027 15,410 50 4,270 134,400 3,330 157,460 2032 15,680 50 4,900 137,100 3,330 161,060 2037 15,970 50 5,630 139,800 3,330 164,780 Average Annual Growth Rate 2005-2012 -10.0% -36.4% -0.5% -0.9% 4.4% -2.2% 2012-2037 0.1% 5.9% 2.8% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

Sources: FAA, ATADS; FAA, Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2013-2033; Airport Records, U.S. DOT, Schedule T- 100; Official Airline Guide; Landrum & Brown. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]Total Ops Forecast_Segment

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐44 Master Plan Update

Table 3.5-13 TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST – HIGH SCENARIO

Calendar General Passenger Cargo Air Taxi Military Total Year Aviation Historical 2005 33,016 285 2,921 134,451 2,462 173,135 2006 29,792 300 4,662 151,744 2,892 189,390 2007 28,944 274 3,844 149,181 2,517 184,760 2008 24,050 132 3,123 149,037 2,888 179,230 2009 20,232 2 2,711 135,052 1,739 159,736 2010 18,266 19 2,999 128,229 2,720 152,233 2011 17,594 5 2,229 112,994 2,443 135,265 2012 15,740 12 2,824 126,544 3,331 148,451 Forecast 2017 15,140 50 3,240 129,100 3,330 150,860 2022 15,120 50 3,720 131,700 3,330 153,920 2027 17,350 50 4,270 134,400 3,330 159,400 2032 19,540 50 4,900 137,100 3,330 164,920 2037 21,690 50 5,630 139,800 3,330 170,500 Average Annual Growth Rate 2005-2012 -10.0% -36.4% -0.5% -0.9% 4.4% -2.2% 2012-2037 1.3% 5.9% 2.8% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6%

Sources: FAA, ATADS; FAA, Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2013-2033; Airport Records, U.S. DOT, Schedule T- 100; Official Airline Guide; Landrum & Brown. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]Total Ops Forecast_Segment

Table 3.5-14, Total Aircraft Operations Forecast (FAA Categories) presents the Baseline operations forecast in FAA defined categories of operations. Table 2- 26 assumes a 60-seat cut off for the commuter category. Consequently, the 70- seat regional aircraft that are projected for the LIMA commercial passenger fleet are categorized in the air carrier category.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐45 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐46 Master Plan Update

Table 3.5-14 TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST (FAA CATEGORIES)

Calendar Air AT & General Aviation Military Grand Year Carrier Cmtr. Itinerant Local Total Itinerant Local Total Total Historical 2005 20,099 16,123 69,163 65,288 134,451 1,971 491 2,462 173,135 2006 22,596 12,158 76,872 74,872 151,744 2,051 841 2,892 189,390 2007 22,871 10,191 73,903 75,278 149,181 1,942 575 2,517 184,760 2008 20,159 7,146 65,058 83,979 149,037 1,514 1,374 2,888 179,230 2009 17,660 5,285 56,380 78,672 135,052 1,082 657 1,739 159,736 2010 15,627 5,657 57,534 70,695 128,229 1,570 1,150 2,720 152,233 2011 14,793 5,035 51,084 61,910 112,994 1,362 1,081 2,443 135,265 2012 12,086 6,490 54,242 72,302 126,544 1,602 1,729 3,331 148,451 Forecast 2017 11,780 6,620 55,500 73,600 129,100 1,600 1,730 3,330 150,830 2022 12,600 6,390 56,600 75,100 131,700 1,600 1,730 3,330 154,020 2027 13,450 6,280 57,800 76,600 134,400 1,600 1,730 3,330 157,460 2032 14,350 6,280 59,000 78,100 137,100 1,600 1,730 3,330 161,060 2037 15,240 6,410 60,100 79,700 139,800 1,600 1,730 3,330 164,780 Average Annual Growth Rate 2005-2012 -7.0% -12.2% -3.4% 1.5% -0.9% -2.9% 19.7% 4.4% -2.2% 2012-2037 0.9% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%

Note: Passenger operations forecast is based on the Baseline forecast. Sources: FAA, ATADS; FAA, Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2012-2032; Airport Records, U.S. DOT, Schedule T-100; Official Airline Guide; Landrum & Brown. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]Total Ops_FAA Categories

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐47 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐48 Master Plan Update

3.6 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS

The traffic demand patterns imposed upon an airport are subject to seasonal, monthly, daily, and hourly variations. These variations result in peak periods when the greatest amount of demand is placed upon facilities required to accommodate passenger and aircraft movements. Peaking characteristics are critical in the assessment of existing facilities to determine their ability to accommodate forecast increases in passenger and operational activity throughout the study period. The objective of developing peak period forecasts is to provide a design level that sizes facilities so they are neither underutilized nor overcrowded too often.

In order to evaluate the peaking patterns at an airport, the annual enplanements and aircraft operations forecasts are converted to monthly, daily, and hourly equivalents. The LIMA design day approximates activity levels that occur on a typical day in the peak month.

Table 3.6-1, LIMA Peak Period Enplanement Forecast - Baseline shows the peak month, design day, and peak hour ratios used to develop the peak period enplanement forecasts for LIMA. Table 3.6-2, LIMA Peak Period Aircraft Operations Forecast - Baseline presents the peak month, design day, and peak hour ratios used to develop the peak period aircraft operations forecasts for each of key operations segments at LIMA: commercial passenger, air cargo, general aviation (including non-commercial air taxi), and military.

Table 3.6-1 LIMA PEAK PERIOD ENPLANEMENT FORECAST - BASELINE

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Annual 678,848 694,000 716,600 743,000 772,700 804,400 Peak Month Percent 9.3% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% of Annual Peak Month 63,256 71,907 74,249 76,984 80,062 83,346 Design Day Percent of 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% Peak Month Design Day 2,153 2,448 2,527 2,621 2,725 2,837 Peak Hour Percent of 17.9% 17.4% 16.9% 16.4% 15.9% 15.4% Design Day Peak Hour 386 426 428 430 434 437

Source: Landrum & Brown analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Peak Activity_2013.xlsx]table for doc

The baseline enplaned passenger forecast and the associated annual and peak period aircraft operations forecasts are recommended for adoption for the Master Plan Update.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐49 Master Plan Update

Table 3.6-2 LIMA PEAK PERIOD AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST - BASELINE

Passenger Operations: 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037

Annual 15,740 15,110 15,220 15,410 15,680 15,970 Peak Month Percent of Annual 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% Peak Month 1,448 1,390 1,400 1,418 1,443 1,469 Design Day Percent of Peak 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% Month Design Day 49 47 48 48 49 50 Peak Hour Percent of Design Day 13.0% 12.7% 12.4% 12.1% 11.8% 11.5% Peak Hour 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cargo Operations: 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Annual 12 50 50 50 50 50 Peak Month Percent of Annual 16.7% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% Peak Month 2 6 6 6 6 6 Design Day Percent of Peak 100.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Month Design Day 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak Hour Percent of Design Day 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% Peak Hour 1 1 1 1 1 1 General Aviation & Air Taxi: 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Annual 129,368 132,340 135,420 138,670 142,000 145,430 Peak Month Percent of Annual 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% Peak Month 13,066 13,366 13,677 14,006 14,342 14,688 Design Day Percent of Peak 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% Month Design Day 431 441 451 462 473 485 Peak Hour Percent of Design Day 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% Peak Hour 42 43 44 45 46 47 Military: 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Annual 2,720 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 Peak Month Percent of Annual 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% Peak Month 384 292 292 292 292 292 Design Day Percent of Peak 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% Month Design Day 18 14 14 14 14 14 Peak Hour Percent of Design Day 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% Peak Hour 2 1 1 1 1 1 Total Operations: 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Annual 147,840 150,200 153,390 156,830 160,430 164,150 Peak Month Percent of Annual 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Peak Month 14,900 15,054 15,375 15,721 16,082 16,455 Design Day Percent of Peak 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% Month Design Day 501 504 515 526 538 551 Peak Hour Percent of Design Day 10.0% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.8% 9.8% Peak Hour 50 50 51 52 53 54

Source: Landrum & Brown analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Peak Activity_2013.xlsx]table for doc

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐50 Master Plan Update

3.7 COMPARISON WITH FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST

The FAA publishes its own forecasts annually for each U.S. airport including LIMA. The FAA requires that Master Plan enplanement and operations forecasts be compared with the most current Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for LIMA. If the Master Plan forecast deviates by more than 10 percent from the TAF in the 5-year time period or by more than 15 percent in the 10-year time period differences have to be resolved before proceeding.7

This section includes comparisons of the baseline enplaned passenger and operations forecasts prepared for the LIMA Master Plan Update with the 2012 TAF (released in early 2013). The Master Plan forecasts do not exceed the 10 percent (5-year) and 15 percent (10-year) ranges when compared to the 2012 TAF.

3.7.1 ENPLANED PASSENGER FORECAST COMPARISON

The variance analysis shown in Exhibit 3.7-1, LIMA Enplanement Forecast Comparison provides a comparison of the enplaned passenger forecasts developed for this study to the FAA’s 2012 TAF for LIMA.

The 2012 TAF for LIMA projects 0.8 percent average annual growth for enplanements between 2012 and 2037. The Baseline forecast projects 0.7 percent average annual growth over the same period. The High Scenario, assumes an increase in the re-capture rate of passengers in the LIMA Catchment area from LGA and JFK, which are projected to remain highly constrained and delay-prone facilities, projects approximately 1.2 million enplanements by 2037 (2.2% average annual growth). These results are in-line with assumptions and analyses previously prepared including the 2005 FAA Regional Air Service Demand Study, the 2010 LIMA Leakage Study and the 2011 Regional Plan Association Report entitled Upgrading to World Class – The Future of the New York Region’s Airports.

7 Federal Aviation Administration, Review and Approval of Aviation Forecasts June 2008.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐51 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 3.7-1 LIMA ENPLANEMENT FORECAST COMPARISON

1.4 Historical Baseline (Status Quo) High Scenario (33% Capture Rate) FAA 2012 TAF

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6 Enplanements (in millions)

0.4

0.2

0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Sources: FAA 2012 Terminal Area Forecast; Landrum & Brown Analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[1 Airport Model 2013.xlsx]graph (2)

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐52 Master Plan Update

3.7.2 TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST COMPARISON

The total operations forecasts developed for the Master Plan were also compared to the FAA’s 2012 TAF. The Baseline, High Scenario, and the 2012 TAF forecasts all project a similar pattern of growth in aircraft operations. (See Exhibit 3.7-2, LIMA Aircraft Operations Forecast Comparison)

Exhibit 3.7-2 LIMA AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST COMPARISON

250,000

200,000

150,000 Operations 100,000

Historical Baseline

50,000 High Scenario FAA 2012 TAF

0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Sources: FAA 2012 Terminal Area Forecast; Landrum & Brown analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]TAF Ops Comparison graph

To facilitate the Baseline forecast review process by the FAA, Appendix B from the FAA July 2001 report, “Forecasting Aviation Activity by Airport” is included as Table 3.7-1, LIMA Forecast Summary (FAA Appendix B). Table 3.7-2, LIMA Forecast Comparison to 2012 TAF (FAA Appendix C) summarizes the comparison between the FAA’s 2012 Terminal Area Forecast and the Baseline and High Scenario enplanements, commercial operations, and total operations forecasts.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐53 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐54 Master Plan Update

Table 3.7-1 LIMA FORECAST SUMMARY (FAA APPENDIX B)

Base 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Average Annual Compound Growth Rates Year Base + Base + Base + Base + Base + Base + Base + Base + Base + Base + 2012 5yr. 10yr. 15yr. 20yr. 25yr. 5yr. 10yr. 15yr. 20yr. 25yr. A. Forecast Levels and Growth Rates Passenger Enplanements Air Carrier 622,425 635,000 655,700 679,800 707,000 736,000 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% Commuter 56,423 59,000 60,900 63,200 65,700 68,400 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% TOTAL 678,848 694,000 716,600 743,000 772,700 804,400 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% Operations Itinerant Air carrier 12,086 11,780 12,600 13,450 14,350 15,240 -0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.9% 0.9% Commuter/air taxi 6,490 6,620 6,390 6,280 6,280 6,410 0.4% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 0.0% Total Commercial 18,576 18,400 18,990 19,730 20,630 21,650 -0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% Operations General aviation 54,242 55,500 56,600 57,800 59,000 60,100 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% Military 1,602 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Local General aviation 72,302 73,600 75,100 76,600 78,100 79,700 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% Military 1,729 1,730 1,730 1,730 1,730 1,730 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL OPERATIONS 148,451 150,830 154,020 157,460 161,060 164,780 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% Peak Hour Operations 50 50 51 52 53 54 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% Based Aircraft Single Engine (Nonjet) 135 153 151 150 148 147 2.5% 1.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% Multi Engine (Nonjet) 16 40 39 37 36 35 20.1% 9.3% 5.7% 4.1% 3.2% Jet Engine 51 71 81 94 108 124 6.8% 4.7% 4.2% 3.8% 3.6% Helicopter 23 32 36 41 46 53 6.8% 4.6% 3.9% 3.5% 3.4% Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL 225 296 307 322 338 359 5.6% 3.2% 2.4% 2.1% 1.9% B. Operational Factors Average aircraft size (seats) Air carrier 137.5 143.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 Commuter 44.2 50.0 54.4 59.2 64.4 70.0 Average enplaning load factor Air carrier 75.0% 75.4% 75.8% 76.2% 76.6% 77.0% Commuter 69.7% 70.7% 71.8% 72.8% 73.9% 75.0% GA operations per based 562 436 428 417 405 389 aircraft

Source: Landrum & Brown analysis Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[FAA Appendix B.xlsx]Forecast Summar

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐55 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐56 Master Plan Update

Table 3.7-2 LIMA FORECAST COMPARISON TO 2012 TAF (FAA APPENDIX C)

Percent Variance High 2012 Forecast Year Baseline Scenario TAF B vs. HS vs. TAF TAF Passenger Enplanements Base Year 2012 678,848 678,848 716,937 -5% -5% Base Yr. + 5 Yrs. 2017 694,000 694,000 662,426 5% 5% Base Yr. + 10 Yrs. 2022 716,600 716,600 711,935 1% 1% Base Yr. + 15 Yrs. 2027 743,000 863,400 765,420 -3% 13% Base Yr. + 20 Yrs. 2032 772,700 1,013,600 823,198 -6% 23% Base Yr. + 25 Yrs. 2037 804,400 1,165,700 885,611 -9% 32% Commercial Operations Base Year 2012 18,576 18,576 18,522 0% 0% Base Yr. + 5 Yrs. 2017 18,400 18,430 18,710 -2% -1% Base Yr. + 10 Yrs. 2022 18,990 18,890 19,145 -1% -1% Base Yr. + 15 Yrs. 2027 19,730 21,670 19,640 0% 10% Base Yr. + 20 Yrs. 2032 20,630 24,490 20,199 2% 21% Base Yr. + 25 Yrs. 2037 21,650 27,370 20,826 4% 31% Total Operations Base Year 2012 148,451 148,451 154,993 -4% -4% Base Yr. + 5 Yrs. 2017 150,830 150,860 158,715 -5% -5% Base Yr. + 10 Yrs. 2022 154,020 153,920 159,856 -4% -4% Base Yr. + 15 Yrs. 2027 157,460 159,400 161,061 -2% -1% Base Yr. + 20 Yrs. 2032 161,060 164,920 162,335 -1% 2% Base Yr. + 25 Yrs. 2037 164,780 170,500 163,681 1% 4%

Sources: FAA 2012 Terminal Area Forecast; Landrum & Brown analysis. Y:\LIMA\Master Plan\E-L&B Work Product\6-Aviation Forecast\Forecast Model\[ISP Operations Data Template 2013.xlsx]Comparison to TAF

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐57 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 3‐58

Chapter 4: Demand/Capacity & Facility Requirements

Chapter 4 Chapter

Master Plan Update

CHAPTER FOUR DEMAND/CAPACITY & FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the future facility requirements that meet the forecast demand throughout the planning period of Long Island MacArthur Airport (LIMA) while providing airport users with a quality level of service. In addition to providing for growth in demand, the facilities also need to accommodate the passengers and aircraft types that are forecast to operate at LIMA. Factors such as aircraft size, demand type, and peak volumes are key drivers of facility needs. LIMA requirements were calculated based on industry standards accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Terminal requirements were calculated using the Airport Cooperative Research Board (ACRP) - Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models.

The facility requirements analysis is a foundation for the next step in the master planning process: the definition of development alternatives. The needs identified in this chapter of the Master Plan are evaluated in subsequent chapters to determine reasonable and prudent alternatives to meet these needs. The results of these Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements are presented in the following sections.

4.1 AIRFIELD DEMAND/CAPACITY & REQUIREMENTS

The airfield demand/capacity analysis examines the ability of ISP’s airfield system to accommodate existing activity levels, as well as determine the ability of the airfield to meet projected levels of demand. The primary objective is to meet existing and future levels of demand without incurring adverse levels of aircraft delay, resulting from an airfield-related deficiency. The demand/capacity analysis was conducted using both existing and forecast aviation demand, and compared to the capacity of the current airfield layout and operational procedures.

Many factors influence an airfield capacity’s ability to meet existing demand and projected demand over the course of a 20-year planning horizon, including predictions of annual operations by a specific fleet mix which was developed, vetted, and approved by the FAA. Various other factors that impact capacity at LIMA may include, but not be limited to, runway configuration, future fleet mix, percentage of arrivals, and the hourly percent of VFR and IFR are presented within the Master Plan. These predictions are presented in Chapter Three, Forecast of Aviation Demand. In addition, a variety of other factors are central to the efficient operation of an airfield; these factors (i.e. airfield environmental factors) are inherent in all of the methodologies used for the capacity calculations and are briefly described in their respective sections.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐1 Master Plan Update

4.1.1 AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX

Understanding the mix of aircraft operating at an airport is critical in determining airfield capacity. The current and projected aircraft fleet mix for LIMA is defined in Chapter Three, Forecast of Aviation Demand.

The combination of small, large, and heavy aircraft operating at an airport influences its operational capacity, both on the airfield and in the surrounding airspace. Combining faster jet aircraft with slower aircraft results in a need for greater spacing between arrivals and departures, which reduces the availability of the runway for operational use, or overall capacity.

In addition to impacting airport capacity, the existing and future aircraft fleet mix operating at an airport sets many of the standards to which the physical airport facilities are planned and designed. “Design Aircraft” can be determined by examining the fleet mix. The existing design aircraft for LIMA is the Boeing 737-700 as presented in Table 4.1-1, LIMA Future Commercial Aircraft Fleet Mix (a C-III aircraft based on the criteria listed in Table 2.4-1 in Section 2.4).1 Based on information in Chapter Two, the Boeing 737-700 is expected to remain the design aircraft throughout the planning period and will also be considered the future design aircraft as well. The future design aircraft classification identifies the airport design standards for planning runways, taxiways, taxilanes, aprons, and other facilities.2

Table 4.1-1 LIMA FUTURE COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX Taxiway Airport Design Manufacturer Model Reference Group Code (ARC) (TDG) Airbus A320-200 C-III 3 Airbus A321-200 C-III 5 Boeing 737-300 C-III 3 Boeing 737-500 C-III 3 Boeing 737-700W C-III 3 Boeing MD-83 C-III 5 Bombardier CRJ-200 C-III 3 Bombardier CRJ-900 C-III 3 Bombardier DHC-8-400 C-III 5 Embraer EMB190 C-III 3 Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

1 The existing fleet mix is provided in Table 3.5-3. 2 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Paragraph 102, cc.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐2 Master Plan Update

It is important to note that the aircraft fleet mix is also used determine various airport “codes”, “classifications”, and designations which help categorize the existing capability of an airfield and to set the design standards used for planning purposes. The following is a listing of these codes, classifications and designations and their appropriate use:  Runway Reference Code (RRC) – A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated parallel taxiway. Consists of Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), Airplane Design Group (ADG), and Visibility Minimums.  Runway Design Code (RDC) – A code signifying the design standards to which the runway is to be built. Consists of AAC and ADG.  Airport Reference Code (ARC) – An airport designation that signifies the airport’s highest RDC, minus the third (visibility) component of the RDC. The ARC is used for planning and design only and does not limit the aircraft that may be able to operate safely on the airport. Consists of AAC and ADG.  Taxiway Design Group (TDG) – A classification of airplanes based on outer to outer main gear width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance.

The RDC (using the AAC, ADG, plus Visibility minimums) is used primarily to determine standards for runways, runway-to-taxiway separations, and safety areas. Conversely, the TDG is used solely for the application of standards for taxiways, taxiway-to-taxiway separations, taxiways turns, and Taxiway Object Free Areas (TOFA). As previously stated, the aircraft characteristics used to determine the TDG of any particular aircraft are MGW and CMG. Exhibit 4.1-1, Taxiway Design Groups (TDGs), illustrates the different TDG classifications that result when MGW and CMG are combined to determine the TDG of the aircraft.

Exhibit 4.1-1 TAXIWAY DESIGN GROUPS (TDGs)

Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Figure 4-1

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐3 Master Plan Update

4.1.2 RUNWAY CONFIGURATION AND CAPACITY

The airport’s runway system layout is the central component in the assessment of airfield capacity. Airports that utilize a single runway or intersecting runway systems to accommodate their demand generally have lower operational capacity than airports that have parallel runways. The existing runway configuration, as discussed in Chapter Two, Inventory of Existing Conditions, Section 2.4.1, comprises four paved runways oriented in 6/24, 10/28, and 15/33 directions as shown in Chapter Two, Inventory of Existing Conditions, Exhibit 2.3-2.

To understand air traffic controllers’ airfield operation methods during normal operations and during periods of increased activity, several discussions with and visits to Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) occurred during the inventory phase of the Master Plan. During normal operations, the airport utilizes a single runway at a time, typically Runway 6/24. However, during busier times, the airport operates on two intersecting runways with a procedure called Land and Hold-Short Operations (LAHSO). The LAHSO allows controllers to depart aircraft on Runway 24, while simultaneously allowing arriving aircraft to land on Runway 28 so long as the pilot commits to hold short of Runway 24. Under this condition, LIMA is able to achieve its greatest airfield capacity throughput. However, this operation is only permitted when the flight crew of the arriving aircraft commits to the LAHSO before commencing their final approach to the runway. Due to the decreased safety margins inherent with LAHSO, many airlines do not allow their flight crews to accept LAHSO.

The “Handbook Method,” or the methodology described in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, determined the Annual Service Volume (ASV) for the LIMA airfield. Using the following assumptions as input for the handbook method, an ASV of 230,000 operations per year and an hourly capacity of 98 operations per hour under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and 59 operations per hour under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) were identified for LIMA.  100% of Commercial Fleet is Class C  13% of operations are commercial  Runway Configuration #9  Mix Index of 13

The Forecast of Aviation Demand shows that through the duration of the planning period annual operations are not projected to exceed 164,780 and peak hour operations are not projected to exceed 54 operations per hour. The existing airfield configuration is sufficient and has a surplus capacity.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐4 Master Plan Update

4.1.3 TAXIWAY CONFIGURATION

Traditionally, taxiway systems have been configured to increase airport by maximizing the efficient movement of aircraft to and from the runway environment. However, over the past decade more emphasis has been placed on taxiway configuration/design as not only a capacity generator, but as a way to increase the overall safety of the airfield. Culminating with the release of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design in late 2012, design guidelines and their ability to address safety concerns has been further emphasized. The primary objective of this new guidance is to decrease the likelihood of runway incursions, and increase overall pilot awareness, while providing for the efficient flow of aircraft.

Recently LIMA made several improvements to the taxiway system which addressed several airfield deficiencies. These improvements included the following:  New partial parallel Taxiway “G” from Taxiway “W” to the Runway 6 end  Realignment of Taxiways “A”, “S”, and “W” intersection  Extension of Taxiway “B” to provide a full-length parallel taxiway for Runway 15R/33L  Realignment and re-designation to Taxiway “B4” of Taxiway “E” between Taxiway “S” and Runway 33L

Exhibit 4.1-2, LIMA Airfield Configuration, presents the existing runway and taxiway configuration and includes the taxiway improvements. The existing taxiway configuration (with recent improvements) was reviewed by the Master Plan Team. The determination of that review is as follows:  The taxiway system at LIMA complies with the “3-node” concept outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, paragraph 401 b. (3).  All future taxiway improvements/rehabilitations should be planned to comply with TDG 5 design standards.  The provision of a full-length parallel taxiway associated with Runway 6/24 to meet the requirements prescribed in FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, for precision instrument approach runways should be studied as an alternative in this Master Plan.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐5 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-2 LIMA AIRFIELD CONFIGURATION

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐6 Master Plan Update

In addition to evaluating LIMA’s overall taxiway system, the runway exit taxiways on the primary runway (Runway 6/24) were evaluated to determine the effectiveness of their configuration, as well as the need for any additional exits. This analysis was performed using the Runway Exit Interactive Design Model (REDIM) developed jointly by the FAA and NASA. Table 4.1-2, Existing Runway 6/24 Exit Taxiways, lists the locations of each exit taxiway in relation to the arrival threshold of the runway.

Table 4.1-2 EXISTING RUNWAY 6/24 EXIT TAXIWAYS Distance Distance Exit Taxiway from RWY 6 from RWY 24 Threshold Threshold

Taxiway “A” - 6,778’ Taxiway “A1” 908’ 5,879’ Taxiway “B” 3,956’ 2,831’ Taxiway “D” 6,676’ - Taxiway “E” 6,521’ - Taxiway “F” 6,676’ - Taxiway “G” - 6,778’ Taxiway “W” - 4,878’

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

This analysis indicates that providing an additional exit taxiway for arrivals on Runway 6 between the intersection of Runway 6 and Runway 15R/33L and the far end of Runway 6 could be beneficial and should be studied further in the development alternatives phase of this Master Plan. An additional exit is not warranted in the opposite (Runway 24) direction.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐7 Master Plan Update

4.1.4 RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS

Runway length requirements were calculated for the aircraft listed in Table 4.1-1, LIMA Future Commercial Aircraft Fleet Mix. Methodology described in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4b, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, provided guidance to determine recommended runway lengths for extensions to existing runways. For each of these aircraft, the following requirements were calculated:  Takeoff Length Requirements  Landing Length Requirements  Payload & Range Calculations

The analysis in these following sections uses charts and information published in the Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning manuals (ACM) by each aircraft’s respective manufacturer. These guidelines determine adequate runway length for master planning purposes. However, they can vary from a more detailed airline analysis, which is based on flight operational manuals and specific airline procedures. These latter calculations are often used in the design and development of flight procedures, and airline dispatch, not general facility planning.

This analysis shows that most of the aircraft are not able to depart LIMA without some sort of a takeoff weight (TOW) penalty. However, when departing from Runway 6/24 (7,006’) the TOW penalty is not prohibitive based on LIMA’s current type of operations (short-haul domestic). When weather/wind conditions require aircraft to depart from Runway 15R/33L (5,186’), this TOW penalty becomes more prohibitive; therefore, an extension of Runway 15R/33L is recommended.

4.1.4.1 Runway Takeoff Length Requirements

All aircraft takeoff requirements were calculated for maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) conditions at LIMA. The MTOW was used to determine the maximum runway length needed for takeoff with no operational restrictions. These MTOW calculations are intended only as a means of comparison of the fleet mix performance and are not intended to reflect real-world scenarios. Runway takeoff lengths were calculated using the ACM for both International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) and “Hot Day” conditions at the airport elevation. Hot Day conditions are defined as the average high temperature of the hottest month of the year (mean-max temperature). The mean-max temperature for LIMA is 81.7 degrees Fahrenheit3 and the airfield elevation is 99 feet above mean sea level (MSL).

3 United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Summary of Monthly Normal 1981-2010, Islip Long Island MacArthur Airport, NY US. Webpage accessed on March 26, 2014, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/quickdata

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐8 Master Plan Update

The results of the runway takeoff length requirements calculations are shown in Exhibit 4.1-3, Runway Takeoff Length Requirements. The critical design aircraft (Boeing 737-700) requires a runway length of 9,350 feet and 10,200 feet for departures under ISA and Hot Day conditions respectively. The results also show that the following aircraft are unable to depart from LIMA without a reduction in TOW:

 Boeing 737-700  Boeing MD-83  Boeing 737-300  Boeing 737-800  Airbus A321-200  Airbus A320-200 (Hot Day Only)  Boeing 737-500

During times when departure from Runway 6/24 is not possible due to weather/wind conditions, the following additional aircraft are not able to depart LIMA without a reduction in TOW:

 Airbus A320-200 (ISA)  Bombardier DHC-8 Q400  Embraer EMB 190  Bombardier CRJ-200 (Hot Day  Bombardier CRJ-900 Only)

Exhibit 4.1-3 RUNWAY TAKEOFF LENGTH REQUIREMENTS 5,186’ – Runway 15R/33L 5,186’ – Runway 7,006’ – Runway 6/24 7,006’ – Runway

Source: Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manuals, Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐9 Master Plan Update

4.1.4.2 Runway Landing Length Requirements

Landing lengths were calculated based on the maximum landing weight (MLW) provided by the manufacturer in the ACMs using an airport elevation of 99 feet MSL. Similar to the takeoff calculations at MTOW, these landing length calculations at MLW are also only intended as a means of comparing the performance of the fleet mix and are not representative of real-world scenarios. Wet and dry runway lengths were calculated for all aircraft. For those aircraft where the ACM does not specifically show a wet landing length curve, the standard planning factor of an additional 15 percent was added to the dry landing length to determine the wet landing length.

The results of the landing length analysis are shown in Exhibit 4.1-4, Runway Landing Length Requirements, and show that all aircraft in the fleet mix are able to arrive at MLW in less than 7,006 feet (Runway 6/24). However, during times when Runway 15R/33L (5,186’) must be used for arrivals, only the following aircraft can land at MLW:

 Boeing 737-500  Embraer EMB-190  Bombardier DHC-8 Q400

The recommendation of extending Runway 15R/33L is also supported by the runway landing length requirements because of the redundancy it would provide by allowing unrestricted landing on both the primary and crosswind runways.

Exhibit 4.1-4 RUNWAY LANDING LENGTH REQUIREMENTS 5,186’ – Runway 15R/33L 5,186’ – Runway

Source: Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manuals, Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐10 Master Plan Update

4.1.4.3 Payload & Range Calculations

Payload range calculations signify the balance between the variables of runway length, payload available, fuel load, and stage length. Payload/Range analyses were completed for the fleet mix at LIMA for both 7,006 feet (Runway 6/24) and 5,186 feet (Runway 15R/33L). The intent of these payload/range calculations is to quantify the reduced performance capability of aircraft when departing from Runway 15R/33L. Based on discussions with airport stakeholders and air traffic controllers, this operation can occur up to 20 percent of the time.

The payload/range analyses for the CRJ-200, CRJ-900, DHC-8 Q400, and EMB-190 were not analyzed, as their manufacturers do not publish enough detail in their manuals to complete the analysis. The results of these analyses are presented in two ways. Exhibit 4.1-5, Range at Maximum Payload, presents the range of each aircraft type in the fleet mix carrying their maximum payload from both a 5,186-foot runway and a 7,006-foot runway under hot day conditions. The following aircraft are unable to depart from 5,186 feet of runway:

 Boeing 737-300  Boeing MD-83  Boeing 737-700  Airbus A321-200  Boeing 737-800

Exhibit 4.1-5 RANGE AT MAXIMUM PAYLOAD

5,186’ Runway 7,000’ Runway

N/A B737-300

B737-500 N/A B737-700 N/A B737-800 A320-200 N/A A321-200 N/A MD-83

Source: Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manuals, Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐11 Master Plan Update

In addition to calculating the range of each aircraft departing from LIMA’s runways with a maximum payload, the percent payload available to various destinations was calculated from both a 5,186-foot runway and a 7,006-foot runway. Runway length proportionally affects the available payload that an aircraft can carry (i.e. the longer runway available, the more payload an aircraft can carry to any given destination). Please note that the results in the following table and exhibits only include Boeing aircraft because only Boeing publishes the data required to perform these calculations in their APMs. Payloads were calculated for the Boeing aircraft departing from LIMA to the following eight airports (percent of 2012 outbound passengers travelling to this destination if in top 25 destinations):  Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI) - Baltimore, Maryland  Dallas Love Field (DAL) – Dallas, Texas (0.7%)  Denver International Airport (DEN) – Denver, Colorado (0.7%)  Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) – Fort Lauderdale, Florida (25.5%)  McCarran International Airport (LAS) – Las Vegas, Nevada (1.5%)  Orlando International Airport (MCO) – Orlando, Florida (22.0%)  Kansas City International Airport (MCI) – Kansas City, Missouri  Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW) – Chicago, Illinois (5.2%)

The results of these payload calculations are presented in Table 4.1-3, Percent of Payload Available, and in Exhibits 4.1-6 through 4.1-10. All calculations presented herein are in compliance with the methodology prescribed in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4b, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design.

Table 4.1-3 PERCENT OF PAYLOAD AVAILABLE Runway Aircraft Type BWI DAL DEN FLL LAS MCO MCI MDW Length 5,186’ 94% 60% 56% 69% 39% 72% 68% 79% Boeing 737-300 7,006’ 100% 93% 88% 100% 69% 100% 100% 100% 5,186’ 100% 75% 66% 81% 49% 84% 79% 90% Boeing 737-500 7,006’ 100% 100% 100% 100% 87% 100% 100% 100% 5,186’ 90% 61% 56% 67% 43% 70% 65% 76% Boeing 737-700 7,006’ 100% 100% 94% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 5,186’ 87% 59% 54% 65% 43% 66% 64% 74% Boeing 737-800 7,006’ 100% 100% 98% 100% 86% 100% 100% 100% 5,186’ 87% 57% 51% 66% 35% 67% 65% 73% Boeing MD-83 7,006’ 100% 94% 90% 100% 71% 100% 100% 100% Note: Percentage of maximum payload available, per destination Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manuals

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐12 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-6 PAYLOAD AVAILABLE – BOEING 737-300

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manuals

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐13 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐14 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-7 PAYLOAD AVAILABLE – BOEING 737-500

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manuals

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐15 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐16 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-8 PAYLOAD AVAILABLE – BOEING 737-700 (CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT)

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manuals

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐17 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐18 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-9 PAYLOAD AVAILABLE – BOEING 737-800

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manuals

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐19 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐20 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-10 PAYLOAD AVAILABLE – BOEING MD-83

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manuals

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐21 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐22 Master Plan Update

4.1.5 AIRFIELD SAFETY AREAS

There are three primary safety areas that provide for the safety of aircraft moving about the airport. These three safety areas include the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), Runway Safety Areas (RSA), and Object Free Areas (OFA); these are examined in detail in Chapter Two, Inventory of Existing Conditions, Section 2.4.8, Airfield Safety Areas.

While LIMA is not completely in compliance with these safety areas, the FAA’s New York Airport’s District Office (NY ADO) has determined them to be “acceptable” in their existing conditions. When any associated runway is significantly improved, a requirement to address any non-compliant safety area as part of the project is likely. Examples of significant improvement are a runway extension, runway widening, or shifting of the runway centerline. The following sections show the requirements for full compliance with the safety area standards for the runways in their existing configuration.

4.1.5.1 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

The RPZ’s function is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. This is best achieved through airport owner control over RPZs. Control is preferably exercised through the acquisition of sufficient property interest in the RPZ and includes clearing RPZ areas (and maintaining them clear) of incompatible objects and activities4.

Exhibit 4.1-11, LIMA RPZ Overview, shows that of the eight RPZs at LIMA (one for each runway end), three are completely on airport property and are located at the ends of Runway 15L, Runway 33R, and Runway 33L. For the remaining five RPZs, at least a small portion of each is over land which is not currently owned by LIMA. Accordingly, LIMA should make every effort to purchase a property in the RPZ when it becomes available. Exhibits 4.1-12 through 4.1-16 depict the particular parcels of (un-owned) land that fall under LIMA’s RPZs. Table 4.1-4, LIMA RPZ Ownership, lists the percentage of each RPZ that is on airport owned property and the number of parcels not owned by the airport.

4 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Paragraph 310.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐23 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-11 LIMA RPZ OVERVIEW

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐24 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-12 RUNWAY 6 RPZ

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

Exhibit 4.1-13 RUNWAY 24 RPZ

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐25 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-14 RUNWAY 10 RPZ

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

Exhibit 4.1-15 RUNWAY 28 RPZ

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐26 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-16 RUNWAY 15R RPZ

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

Table 4.1-4 LIMA RPZ OWNERSHIP % Not Number of % Owned Runway End Owned by Un-Owned by Airport Airport Parcels Runway 6 42% 58% 35 Runway 24 98% 2% 9 Runway 10 46% 54% 18 Runway 28 84% 16% 25 Runway 15R 72% 28% 6 Runway 33L 100% - - Runway 15L 100% - - Runway 33R 100% - -

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐27 Master Plan Update

4.1.5.2 Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area (OFA)

As presented in Chapter Two, Inventory of Existing Conditions, Table 1.4-8, RSA Dimensions, only four of the eight RSA ends meet current design standards. Those four runway ends with a fully compliant RSA (extending beyond the end) are: Runway 24, Runway 33L, Runway 15L, and Runway 33R. Table 4.1-5, LIMA RSA Compliance Percentage lists the percentage of each RSA beyond the respective runway end that is compliant with current design standards. It should be noted that the actual RSA extends the entire length of the runway and beyond the opposite end. All lateral RSAs (along the runways) were considered compliant, and so only the RSAs beyond the runway ends are discussed.

In addition to RSAs, this section also addresses OFAs due to the co-dependency of OFAs to RSAs. Of the eight runway ends, only four OFA “ends” meet current design standards. Those four runway ends with a fully compliant OFA (extending beyond the end) are: Runway 15L, Runway 33R, Runway 24, and Runway 33L. In many instances, the solutions for RSAs concurrently address the requirements for the OFAs.

The following paragraphs describe the necessary steps for bringing each of the deficient RSAs and OFAs up to compliance under the assumption that no runway capacity should be sacrificed to comply with standards (i.e. no declared distances or reduced runway length) and that no runway thresholds are shifted. The requirements listed herein represent a simplistic approach and often a “worst case” solution to these RSA and OFA penetrations. In many cases, several alternatives and countless combinations of alternatives exist to address the same issues, but are too numerous to list in this document. When addressing these deficiencies becomes necessary, further study should be undertaken to evaluate these varying alternatives and determine the best solution for LIMA.

Table 4.1-5 LIMA RSA & OFA COMPLIANCE PERCENTAGE % RSA after % OFA after Runway End RWY End RWY End Compliant Compliant Runway 6 54% 87% Runway 24 100% 100% Runway 10 80% 83% Runway 28 99% 74% Runway 15R 99% 82% Runway 33L 100% 100% Runway 15L 100% 100% Runway 33R 100% 100%

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐28 Master Plan Update

Runway 6 RSA and OFA

The RSA on the Runway 6 end of Runway 6/24, shown in Exhibit 4.1-17, Runway 6 RSA & OFA, provides 541 feet of full-width compliant RSA. The current limiting obstruction is the Localizer (LOC) antenna for the Runway 24 Instrument Landing System (ILS). Beyond the LOC antenna, another 285 feet of full-width RSA is provided before the airport security fence and Lakeland Ave.

With regards to the OFA, the limiting obstruction on the northeast side is the airport perimeter fence located 776 feet from the threshold. On the southwest side, the limiting obstruction is the LOC Equipment Shed located 445 feet from the threshold; the airport perimeter fence, 910 feet from the threshold, is the next limiting obstruction.

To fully comply with current RSA and OFA standards without losing runway capacity (i.e. shifting of Runway 6, 24 thresholds), the following is advised:  Extending full-width RSA and OFA an additional 174 feet (RSA)/224 feet (OFA) by: o Rerouting the Airport Vehicle Service Road o Rerouting the Airport Perimeter Fence o Relocating the LOC Equipment Shed outside of OFA o Rerouting Lakeland Avenue o Acquiring and demolishing the former Chase Bank building o Possibly rerouting Veterans Highway (depends on ultimate alignment of Lakeland Ave. and intersection geometry)  Relocating the Runway 24 ILS LOC antenna beyond the ultimate RSA

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐29 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 4.1-17 RUNWAY 6 RSA & OFA

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐30 Master Plan Update

Runway 10 RSA and OFA

The Runway 10 end RSA and OFA is fully compliant for only 710 feet until the northern edge intersects the Airport Vehicle Service Road. To provide a fully compliant RSA and OFA on the Runway 10 end, the vehicle service road and a portion of the Airport Perimeter Fence and Smithtown Ave would need to be re-routed beyond the RSA and OFA. In addition to these RSA/OFA solutions, several trees on the Suffolk County Water Authority property5 are located within the OFA 500 feet from the runway threshold and would need to be removed to clear the OFA.

Exhibit 4.1-18 RUNWAY 10 RSA & OFA

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

5 LIMA Exhibit A, Airport Property Map, Parcel number 0315

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐31 Master Plan Update

Runway 28 RSA and OFA

The Runway 28 end RSA is nearly compliant and is fully on airport property. The only issue with the RSA on this end is a small grouping of trees at the far northeast corner of the RSA, approximately 908 feet from the runway end. Removal of these trees would bring the RSA into full compliance on this end of the runway.

The OFA on this end of the runway requires the removal of several more trees on both the north (447 feet from runway threshold) and south (657 feet from runway threshold) sides of the OFA. In addition to tree removal, the re-routing of the airport vehicle service road outside of the OFA would also be required. However, this would likely require acquisition of a portion of the Alpha Romeo property.

Exhibit 4.1-19 RUNWAY 28 RSA & OFA

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐32 Master Plan Update

Runway 15R RSA and OFA

The RSA on the end of Runway 15R is almost completely clear with the exception of two small areas. The first area is located 361 feet from the runway threshold on the southwestern side of the RSA; the airport vehicle service road penetrates the RSA. The second area is located 904 feet from the runway threshold; the airport vehicle service road, airport perimeter fence, and Smithtown Ave penetrate the RSA.

The OFA on the Runway 15R end is clear except for extensions of the same areas that penetrate the RSA. Additionally, a section of an aircraft parking apron (associated with Building #25-Hawthorne Hangar) lies within the OFA for Runway 15R.

In order to make the Runway 15R RSA and OFA fully compliant, the following would be required to avoid negatively impacting the operational capability of the runway:  Rerouting the airport vehicle service road beyond the boundaries of the RSA and OFA  Rerouting the airport perimeter fence outside the RSA and OFA  Rerouting Smithtown Ave outside the RSA and OFA  Removing aircraft parking apron associated with Building #25 from the OFA

Exhibit 4.1-20 RUNWAY 15R RSA & OFA

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, Suffolk County Assessor

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐33 Master Plan Update

4.2 PASSENGER TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS

This section discusses the passenger terminal building facility requirements. The following sections describe the methodology and rationale for developing the aircraft gate and building area requirements.

4.2.1 METHODOLOGY

The approach used in the analysis of the LIMA Passenger Terminal facility requirements involved employing the spreadsheet models developed by the Landrum & Brown team as part of Aviation Cooperative Research Board (ACRP) Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design – Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models and User’s Guide. These spreadsheet models utilize the peak hour forecast and apply certain user-defined assumptions to determine future facility requirements. These assumptions and the passenger terminal function results are described below.

4.2.2 AIRCRAFT GATE REQUIREMENTS

Two methods were used to determine the number of aircraft gates required to meet forecast demand: the Annual Enplanements per Gate method and the Departures per Gate method. The results of these methods were then averaged together using the Gate Demand spreadsheet model.

The first method (Annual Enplanements per Gate) uses the current ratio of annual enplaned passengers per gate and adjusts for forecast changes in fleet mix and load factors. This method assumes that the pattern of gate utilization will remain relatively stable over the forecast period.

The second method (Departures per Gate) uses the ratio of annual departures to the number of gates. This method assumes that the future pattern of air service will be stable and will resemble existing conditions.

For the purposes of Master Planning, the average of these two approaches was used.

Two different scenarios were then analyzed for each of the methods described above. The first scenario is based on all gates at LIMA being common use, meaning that any airline can use any gate at the terminal. This is not currently how the airport operates, as the eight gates in the Veterans Memorial Concourse are solely used by Southwest Airlines. The second scenario assumes that Southwest Airlines continues to exclusively use and control the eight gates located in the Veterans Memorial Concourse and any new gate development would occur in the west concourse and be driven by all the other airlines. Table 4.2-1, LIMA Passenger Gate Requirements (Common Use) and Table 4.2-2, LIMA Passenger Gate Requirements (Non-Southwest), presents the results of this gate requirement analysis.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐34 Master Plan Update

In each scenario, the analysis yields the same results; the existing number of contact gates (10) is sufficient to accommodate the forecast growth through the planning period.

Table 4.2-1 LIMA PASSENGER GATE REQUIREMENTS (COMMON USE) Enplanements/Gate Existing 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Method Req. Enplanements/Gate 75,427 83,3751 Gates Required - 8 8 9 9 9 10

Departures/Gate 2012 Existing 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Method Req. Daily Departures/Gate - 4 Gates Required - 6 5 5 6 6 6

Average of Two 2012 Existing 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Methods Req. Gates Required 10 7 7 7 8 8 8 Note: 1 – Average Historical Enplanements per gate 2010-2012. Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Table 4.2-2 LIMA PASSENGER GATE REQUIREMENTS (NON-SOUTHWEST) Enplanements/Gate Existing 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Method Req. Enplanements/Gate 45,483 129,800 Gates Required - 1 1 1 1 1 1

Departures/Gate 2012 Existing 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Method Req. Daily Departures/Gate - 4 Gates Required - 1 1 1 1 1 1

Average of Two 2012 Existing 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Methods Req. Gates Required 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐35 Master Plan Update

4.2.3 CURBFRONT REQUIREMENTS

Curbfront requirements were calculated by applying a set of assumptions based on existing utilization ratios and industry standards to the peak hour passenger forecasts through the planning period. The assumptions used in the curbfront analysis are presented in Table 4.2-3, LIMA Curbfront Assumptions. The findings of this analysis show that LIMA has sufficient curbfront to accommodate more than the forecast demand through the planning period; these results are presented in Table 4.2-4, LIMA Curbfront Requirements. One important assumption is that 30 percent of passengers park their car prior to ever approaching the curbfront. This high percentage of “park first” is attributable to the provision of Resident Lots for use by Town of Islip Residents.

Table 4.2-3 LIMA CURBFRONT ASSUMPTIONS Arrival Departure % Peak Pax per Vehicle Mode Hr. Dep. Vehicle Length (ft) Park First 30% - - Private Auto 60% 1.5 22 Rental Car Shuttle 0% 4.5 50 Taxis 5% 1.5 22 Limos 2% 1.2 50 Hotel Shuttle 1% 4.5 50 LIRR Shuttle 1% 4.5 50 Buses 1% 15 50 Other 0% - 30

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

Table 4.2-4 LIMA CURBFRONT REQUIREMENTS 2012 Curbfont Existing 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Req. Departures (lf) 430 243 267 269 269 273 274 Arrivals (lf) 340 243 267 269 269 273 274

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐36 Master Plan Update

4.2.4 TICKETING REQUIREMENTS

The analysis of the Ticketing Area includes all space occupied by the ticket counter, ticket agents, and the ticket counter baggage belts. The ticketing calculations incorporate models for staffed counters, kiosks, and curb-side check-in areas. In the event that curb-side check-in at LIMA ceases, the curb-side check-in module was not utilized to present a “worst case” scenario in terms of facility needs. The assumptions used for the analysis of the Ticketing positions at LIMA are presented in Table 4.2-5, LIMA Ticketing Assumptions. For the purposes of forecasting changes in passenger behavior regarding the use of staffed counters vs. kiosks, an assumed shift of one percent per annum increase in the use of kiosks was used.

Table 4.2-5 LIMA TICKETING ASSUMPTIONS 2012 Assumption 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Req. % Peak Hr. Pax in Peak 30 min 50% % Connecting Traffic 0% % using Staffed Counters 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% % using Kiosks 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Processing Time - Counters(min) 3 Processing Time – Kiosks(min) 4 Max Wait Time – Counters (min) 10 Max Wait Time – Kiosks (min) 2

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

The results of the ticketing analysis, presented in Table 4.2-6, LIMA Ticketing Requirements, show that LIMA has more than enough existing staffed counter positions to accommodate all forecast demand through the planning period. However, due to the assumed increase in kiosk utilization, by 2027 additional ticketing kiosk positions will be required to prevent unacceptable wait times. By the end of the planning period, a total of six additional kiosks will be needed in 2037. The ticketing area of the terminal has more than sufficient space to accommodate these additional kiosks, given that many counter positions remain unused.

Table 4.2-6 LIMA TICKETING REQUIREMENTS 2012 Requirement Exist 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Req. Counters 181 13 13 13 12 11 10 Avg. Wait Time (min) - 1.7 2.1 1.5 1 0.6 0.3 Kiosks 10 4 6 7 12 14 16 Avg. Wait Time (min) - 0 0 1.1 0.2 0.2

Notes: 1 – Accounts for only those staffed counters currently allocated to airlines. Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐37 Master Plan Update

4.2.5 BAGGAGE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS

Baggage Screening requirements were calculated by applying a set of assumptions to the peak hour passenger forecasts through the planning period. The assumptions for this analysis are presented in Table 4.2-7, Baggage Screening Assumptions. Requirements were calculated for the three different levels of Baggage Screening; Level One, Level Two, and Level Three. All baggage goes through Level One screening, which consists of a standard Explosives Detection System (EDS) scan. Level Two screening is applied to only those bags flagged during Level One screening. This often involves re-scanning the bag in question from a different angle to get a different perspective of any questionable item. Level Three screening involves manual inspection of any flagged baggage not cleared during Level One or Two screening.

Table 4.2-7 LIMA BAGGAGE SCREENING ASSUMPTIONS 2012 Assumption 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Req. % of Passengers Checking 60% Baggage Average Bags per Passenger 1.5 % of Total Bags Oversized 3% Level 1 Processing Rate 150 (bags/hr)

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

The results of this analysis (presented in Table 4.2-8, LIMA Baggage Screening Requirements) indicate that LIMA’s existing number of Level Two and Level Three screening positions will accommodate the forecast traffic growth through the planning period. However, sometime between now and 2017, a fourth (one additional) Level One screening position will be required. This additional position will sufficiently accommodate the forecast demand through the planning period.

Table 4.2-8 LIMA BAGGAGE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS 2012 Requirement Exist 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Req. Level 1 Units Required 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 Level 2 Units Required 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Level 3 Units Required 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐38 Master Plan Update

4.2.6 SECURITY CHECKPOINT REQUIREMENTS

The Security Checkpoint Requirements were calculated using a set of assumptions based on inventory data and stakeholder interviews which were then applied to the peak hour passenger forecasts. The assumptions used in this analysis are presented in Table 4.2-9, LIMA Security Checkpoint Assumptions. The results of this analysis, presented in Table 4.2-10, LIMA Security Checkpoint Requirements, indicate that the existing four Security Checkpoint Lanes will sufficiently accommodate all forecast growth in passenger traffic through the planning period.

Table 4.2-9 LIMA SECURITY CHECKPOINT ASSUMPTIONS 2012 Assumption 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Req. % Peak Hr. Pax in Peak 30 min 50% % Additional Traffic (i.e. crew, 10% employees) Throughput Rate (pax/hr/lane) 125 Target Max Wait Time (min) 10

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

Table 4.2-10 LIMA SECURITY CHECKPOINT REQUIREMENTS 2012 Requirement Exist 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Req. Minimum Lanes 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 Maximum Wait (min) - 5.5 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐39 Master Plan Update

4.2.7 BAGGAGE CLAIM REQUIREMENTS

Baggage Claim requirements were calculated by applying a set of assumptions to the peak hour passenger forecasts through the planning period. The assumptions used to calculate these requirements are presented in Table 4.2-11, Baggage Claim Assumptions. The results of this analysis, presented in Table 4.2-12, Baggage Claim Requirements, indicate that the existing baggage claim presentation length at LIMA today will sufficiently accommodate all forecast growth in passenger traffic through the planning period.

Table 4.2-11 LIMA BAGGAGE CLAIM ASSUMPTIONS 2012 Assumption 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Req. % Peak Hr. Pax in Peak 30 min 50% % of Pax Checking Baggage 60% Average Party Size 1.3 Pax/Party at Claim 1 Claim Frontage/pax (lf) 1.5

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

Table 4.2-12 LIMA BAGGAGE CLAIM REQUIREMENTS 2012 Requirement Exist 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Req. Total Baggage Claim 557 117 129 129 130 131 132 Presentation Length (lf)

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

4.2.8 TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Table 4.2-13, LIMA Terminal Facility Requirements Summary, presents an overall summary of the terminal facility requirements. Overall, the findings of this analysis show that LIMA is well positioned in terms of terminal facilities to accommodate the forecast demand through the planning period. Of all facilities analyzed, only check-in kiosks and baggage screening devices were found to be deficient in future out years. However, due to the aging facilities of the west concourse, certain terminal improvements may be required for non-capacity reasons. In the event that the airport is required to improve or replace the west concourse, all new development should be made in-kind with that of the existing East Veterans Memorial Concourse.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐40 Master Plan Update

Table 4.2-13 LIMA TERMINAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2012 Terminal Facility/Processor Existing 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Required Gates (Contact) 9 7 7 7 8 8 8 Curbfront (lf) Departures Curb 430 243 267 269 269 273 274 Arrivals Curb 340 243 267 269 269 273 274 Ticketing (units) Staffed Counters 50 13 13 13 12 11 10 Kiosks 10 4 6 7 12 14 16 Baggage Screening (EDS units) 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 Security (lanes) 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 Baggage Claim (lf) 557 117 129 129 130 131 132

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis, ACRP Report 25-Volume 2

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐41

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK |DRAFT| PAGE 4‐42

Master Plan Update

4.3 SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

As part of the overall Facility Requirements analysis, requirements for the major support facilities were also calculated. Support Facilities are defined as General Aviation facilities, or facilities that support commercial aviation and non-aviation facilities on the airport. The following airport facilities included in this portion of the analysis are:  Air Cargo  General Aviation o Fixed Base Operators (FBO) o Hangar Space o Apron Space  Auto Parking o Daily Lots o Economy Lots  Rent-a-car (RAC) Parking  Aircraft Fuel Storage o Jet-A o 100LL (AvGas)  Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) Index

Each of these facilities was analyzed “holistically” (i.e. the total quantity of each facility [airport wide] was analyzed and requirements were calculated accordingly). In reality, (due to multiple operators) a greater total amount may be required in the future to meet demand for each operator. The following sections describe the assumptions used for the analysis of each facility. The results of all support facilities requirements are presented in Table 4.3-1, Support Facilities Requirements Summary.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐43 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐44 Master Plan Update

Table 4.3-1 LIMA SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Existing 2012 Support Facility 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 Required Cargo Building (ft2) 4,077 2,220 2,130 2,140 2,170 2,210 2,250 General Aviation FBO (ft2) 12,300 10,430 10,640 10,860 11,080 11,300 11,530 Hangar (ft2) 434,600 348,450 484,430 511,200 564,450 585,100 632,030 Apron (ft2) 1,062,864 901,580 919,790 938,320 957,550 976,790 996,030 Auto Parking Daily Lots (spaces) 1,852 650 660 680 710 740 770 Daily Lots (ft2) 678,739 211,250 214,500 221,000 230,750 240,500 250,250 Economy Lot (spaces) 718 400 410 420 440 450 470 Economy Lot (ft2) 220,752 140,000 133,250 135,500 143,000 146,250 152,750 RAC Parking (spaces) 443 260 260 270 280 290 300 Airfield Maintenance (ft2) 50,952 40,940 43,450 44,370 45,360 46,400 47,470 Aircraft Fuel Jet-A (gal) 300,000 214,130 214,610 219,880 226,140 233,390 241,380 100LL (gal) 12,000 9,550 9,750 9,940 10,150 10,350 10,550 ARFF Index B/C B B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐45 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐46 Master Plan Update

4.3.1 AIR CARGO BUILDING

LIMA’s Air Cargo consists primarily of belly-haul cargo. Belly-haul cargo is carried in the cargo holds of commercial passenger aircraft. This type of cargo usually comprises small parcels and U.S. Mail. Given this cargo profile at LIMA, and the unlikelihood of a major cargo carrier or integrator operating from LIMA given its proximity to the Metropolitan New York area, forecast annual passenger operations would be the most appropriate indicator of cargo throughput.

According to information from inventory interviews with airport stakeholders, the existing cargo building (Building #51) is adequately sized to handle cargo volumes. Using historical annual passenger operations volume from the peak in 2007, a ratio of cargo building area (ft2) to annual passenger operation was developed for future planning purposes. The ratio was 7.1 annual passenger operations per square foot of cargo building. By this ratio, the existing cargo building can sufficiently handle belly-haul cargo through the planning period.

4.3.2 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES

LIMA’s General Aviation (GA) facilities comprise three separate facilities that all serve GA: FBO space, hangar space, and apron space. FBO space can be defined as the “terminal” area for GA operations. Hangar space is any indoor space for the parking of an aircraft. This can include T-hangars, box/corporate hangars, or community/multi-tenant hangars. The assumptions for FBO Area and Apron Area were developed using a ratio of the peak number of annual GA operations (2007) to existing area totals. Given that hangar area required is far more dependent on the number of aircraft based at LIMA, a ratio of peak based aircraft (2011) to existing hangar space was used.

Table 4.3-2, LIMA Hangar Planning Assumptions, presents the assumptions used for the calculations of future hangar needs. The analysis results indicate a need for additional hangar space in or before 2017. FBO and apron space can both sufficiently accommodate forecast demand through the planning period.

Table 4.3-2 LIMA HANGAR PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS GA Facility Assumption FBO Area (ft2) 12.13 (Annual GA Ops/ft2) Hangar Area (ft2) 2,212 (ft2/based aircraft) Apron Area (ft2) 7.14 (Annual GA Ops/ft2)

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐47 Master Plan Update

4.3.3 AUTO PARKING/RENT-A-CAR (RAC) PARKING

As part of this analysis, three different parking lots types were considered; daily lots, economy lots, and rent-a-car (RAC) parking. Resident lots were not analyzed as part of this Master Plan as data does not exist, nor is usage tracked by the airport or the parking operator. Table 4.3-3, LIMA Auto Parking Assumptions, presents the assumptions used in the analysis of auto parking at LIMA. Given that the primary driver of parking requirements is the number of passengers the airport accommodates, parking requirements correlate to forecast annual enplanements. The analysis results indicate that the existing auto parking facilities at LIMA will be more than sufficient to accommodate demand through the planning period.

Table 4.3-3 LIMA AUTO PARKING ASSUMPTIONS Assumption Value Assumed Full Capacity (excluding RAC) 95% Daily Lots 1,048 Annual Enplanements/Space Economy Lots 1,707 Annual Enplanements/Space Area per Space (ft2) 325 Includes Circulation RAC Parking 2,638 Annual Enplanements/Space

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

4.3.4 AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING (ARFF)

The ARFF at LIMA is currently listed as an Index B facility; however, LIMA has adequate equipment to be listed as an Index C facility. When considering the fleet mix listed in Table 4.1-1, there is high potential for LIMA to require an Index C facility. In the future, LIMA should take the appropriate action to maintain Index C when needed. Table 4.3-4, FAA ARFF Indices, presents the various ARFF Index Levels.

Table 4.3-4 FAA ARFF INDICES Vehicles – Dry Aircraft Vehicles – Index Self Chemical Water (gal) Length (ft.) Light Propelled (gal) A Less than 90 1 0 500 or 450 0 or 100 B 90-125.9 1 1 500 1,500 C 126-158.9 1 2 500 3,000 D 159-199.9 1 2 500 4,000 E 200+ 1 2 500 6,000

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐48 Master Plan Update

4.3.5 AIRCRAFT FUEL STORAGE

Similarly to the GA facilities discussed earlier in this section, several aircraft fuel storage facilities exist at LIMA. For the purposes of this analysis and master planning, these facilities were analyzed holistically. In reality, the ultimate allocation may dictate that a greater total of fuel storage be provided at LIMA than is required. Both Jet-A and 100LL (AvGas) requirements were calculated as part of this analysis. The assumptions used are presented in Table 4.3-5, LIMA Aircraft Fuel Storage Assumptions. Industry standards dictate that a minimum of a three-day supply of fuel be kept on airport at all times in the event of a supply disruption. Considering this planning parameter and the assumptions listed in the table, the results of these calculations suggest that the existing fuel storage capacity can sufficiently serve all forecast growth in traffic through the planning period.

Table 4.3-5 LIMA AIRCRAFT FUEL STORAGE ASSUMPTIONS Assumption Value Minimum Supply Inventory (Jet-A) 3 Day Gallons per Annual Operation (Jet-A) 722.8 % of GA Annual Operations using Jet-A 10% Minimum Supply Inventory (100LL) 3 Day Gallons per Annual Operation (100LL) 9.8

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐49 Master Plan Update

4.4 SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

The following section presents a summarized listing of the additional facility requirements previously discussed in this chapter. This only represents a listing of deficiencies found herein through the planning period and is organized by functional area of the airport:  Airfield Facilities o Full length parallel taxiway to Runway 6/24 . The provision of a full-length parallel taxiway serving Runway 6/24 is needed to bring the configuration of the taxiway system at LIMA in line with modern airfield design standards. o Extension of Runway 15R/33L . The extension of Runway 15R/33L to as close to 7,000 feet in length would offer a comparable runway length to Runway 6/24 thus providing similar aircraft performance to the approximately 20 percent of departures that use this runway throughout the year. o Expand control over the property in existing RPZs . Every effort should be made to purchase the non-airport owned parcels that fall under the existing RPZs for Runway Ends 6, 10, 15R, 24 and as this property becomes available. o Provide Clear RSAs and OFAs . RSAs and OFAs should be extended and cleared as needed for Runway Ends 6, 10, 28, and 15R.  Terminal Facilities o Passenger Ticketing . Provide six additional check-in kiosks. o Baggage Screening . Provide one additional screening device for checked baggage.  Support Facilities o General Aviation Hangars . Provide up to 200,000 square feet of additional hangar space for General Aviation.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 4‐50

Chapter 5: Airport Development Alternatives Chapter 5 Chapter

Master Plan Update

CHAPTER FIVE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter identifies and evaluates the airport development alternatives to meet the facility requirements for Long Island MacArthur Airport (LIMA) as defined in Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements. The possible combinations of airport development can be endless, so application of intuitive judgment is required to identify those concepts with the greatest potential for achieving the Airport’s goals and objectives. As such, the most viable plan will provide the optimum combination of financial viability, ease of construction, and flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the aviation industry throughout the 20-year planning period and beyond.

All major functional areas at LIMA require consideration during this process, which includes the airfield, the terminal area, aeronautical support functions, and the supporting roadway network. Other considerations include the potential for future intermodal connectivity and other airport related facilities. Many of the key functional areas of the airport are interrelated and affect the development potential of the surrounding land, either within the current 20-year planning horizon or beyond.

The following sections present the various development alternatives considered in this master plan. These development alternatives are presented in groupings by type; runway alternatives, taxiway alternatives, terminal alternatives, and aeronautical support. The runway alternatives are grouped into two sub-groups, those alternatives pertaining to Runway 6/24 and those alternatives pertaining to Runway 15R/33L. It is important to note that any one alternative from a particular grouping can be paired with any one alternative from each of the other groupings to form an overall airfield alternative. Each alternative was evaluated against the other alternatives within its respective group to determine the recommended alternative of that group. The recommended alternative of each group serves as a piece of the overall Recommended Master Plan.

Planning level order of magnitude cost estimates were developed for each of the alternatives presented herein. A grand total for each alternative is presented in each section describing the respective alternative. More detailed breakdowns of these cost estimates are provided in Appendix A, Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐1 Master Plan Update

5.1 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES

Typically, a master plan for an Airport such as LIMA would include extensive analysis of various alternatives that add additional runway capacity to meet forecast demand through the planning period. However, with the current configuration of runways, the runway system at LIMA provides more than enough capacity to meet forecast demand through the planning period. Therefore the runway alternatives analysis for LIMA focused on two primary areas:  Addressing Design Standards Deficiencies o As currently configured, the airfield is deficient in several instances with regards to Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Object Free Area (OFA) standards; therefore, a primary objective of each runway alternative is to mitigate these deficiencies, as documented in Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements, to the maximum extent possible. o Document the effects of meeting ownership and clearing requirements relating to Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) as published in Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A.  Addressing Runway Length Requirements o Provide primary runway length redundancy by evaluating a 7,000-foot crosswind runway (Runway 15R/33L). o Although forecast demand through the current 20-year planning period does not require a runway length of 7,500 feet, the runway alternatives analysis evaluated preserving the ability to extend Runway 6/24 by 494 feet, should demand someday require such length.

A total of 21 runway development alternatives were created and evaluated as part of this study. Alternatives One through Eight apply to Runway 6/24 and Alternatives Nine through 16 apply to Runway 15R/33L. These alternatives include some or combinations of the following methods of meeting the primary alternatives focus areas:  “Slides” Runway – The relocation of the runway thresholds on either end of a runway along the runway centerline to clear an obstruction or non-standard condition on one end. Sliding a runway maintaining the original runway length by replacing lost length on the opposite end.  “Shortening” Runway - The closure and or demolition of runway pavement in order to clear an obstruction or non-standard condition. This can happen on one or both ends of a runway.  Extend Runway - Extend one or both ends of the runway to meet the overall runway length requirement.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐2 Master Plan Update

 Apply Declared Distances – The distances the airport owner declares available for a powered aircraft’s takeoff run, takeoff distance, accelerate-stop distance, and landing distance requirements. The distances are: o Takeoff Run Available (TORA) - The runway length declared available and suitable for ground run of an aircraft taking off; o Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) – The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway or clearway beyond the far end of the TORA; the full length of TODA may need to be reduced because of obstacles in the departure area; o Accelerate-Stop Distance (ASDA) – the runway plus stopway length declared available and suitable for the acceleration and deceleration of an aircraft aborting a takeoff; and o Landing Distance Available (LDA) – the runway declared available and suitable for landing an aircraft.  Acquire Property – Acquire adjacent non-airport owned property necessary to provide for airfield improvements and associated safety areas or to resolve a non-standard condition within a safety area.  Re-route Public Roadways – The re-routing of public roadways so that they maintain clearance of runways and their associated safety areas.  Provide an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) – A standard EMAS provides a level of safety that is equivalent to an RSA built to dimensional standards. Engineered materials are defined as, high energy absorbing materials of selected strength, which will reliably and predictably crush under the weight of an aircraft.  Relocate NAVAIDs – The relocation of Navigational Aid transmitters and supporting equipment outside of an RSA or OFA.

Each of the 22 runway alternatives were evaluated against each of the other alternatives (pertaining to that runway) using the following evaluation criteria, independent of cost. The “Airfield Goals and Objectives” criteria listed below were designated as “fatal flaws” if the alternative had a negative impact on any of those criteria.  Airfield Goals and Objectives (Fatal Flaws) o 7,500 feet of departure length (Runway 6/24 only) o 7,000 feet of departure length (Runway 15R/33L only)1 o Improved Safety Area Standards Compliance o No Reduction in Capability

1 Section 4.1.4, Runway Length Requirements, found in Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐3 Master Plan Update

 Safety Area Standards Compliance2 o Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) o Runway Safety Area (RSA) o Object Free Area (OFA) o Clean Runway (i.e. no declared distances)  Runway Length Impacts o Arrival Length o Departure Length  Off-Airport Impacts o Impact to Public Roadways o Impact to Off-Airport Property

The following sections present in detail the various runway alternatives that were analyzed as part this Master Plan. Within each section discussing a particular alternative is a listing of the applicable evaluation criteria used in the analysis and that particular alternatives score for each category. Evaluation criteria are scored on a three-point system; positive impact (+), neutral or no impact (0), and negative impact (-). Color codes of green, yellow, and red, respectively, were also used to help indicate score. A detailed comparison of evaluation scores and the resulting recommended alternatives follows.

5.1.1 RUNWAY 6/24 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

The following group of runway alternatives focuses solely on Runway 6/24. Each alternative was evaluated on the criteria previously mentioned. In addition to improving safety area standards compliance and not reducing operational capability, a primary goal of the Runway 6/24 alternatives was to provide 7,500 feet of departure length. This increased length would allow for narrowbody aircraft to achieve limited transatlantic range from LIMA should this demand ever arise. Alternatives were developed to reserve the capability of extending the runway in the future. An extension to 7,500 feet is not expected or forecast to be required during the 20-year planning period.

2 Section 4.1.5, Airfield Safety Areas, found in Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐4 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐5 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.1 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 1

Runway Alternative 1, presented in Exhibit 5.1-1, Runway Alternative 1, addresses runway safety area deficiencies by applying declared distances to the existing runway. Alternative 1 does not remove any runway pavement from operational use, and does not extend the overall length of the runway. Alternative 1 would displace the Runway 24 arrival threshold 341 feet south of its current location and displace the Runway 6 arrival threshold by 3,444 feet. The location of the arrival threshold displacements is dictated by the need to bring the entire approach RPZ onto airport controlled property per FAA guidance. Associated Navigational Aids (Approach Light System, Glide Slope, and Localizer) on each runway end would be relocated to correspond with the new threshold locations. Through the use of declared distance, a full 1,000-foot RSA and a fully compliant RPZ on each runway end would be obtained. However, to accomplish this, this alternative would result in a reduction in Takeoff Run Available (TORA) and Landing Distance Available (LDA) for Runway 24 operations and a reduction in LDA for Runway 6 operations. Table 5.1-1, Runway Alternative 1 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 1 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-1 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 1 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability - Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) - Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length - Departure Length - Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property + Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Although Runway Alternative 1 would comply with all FAA safety area requirements, as well as RPZ design standards, it would reduce existing capability. The significant loss in runway length for both arrival and departure operations would ultimately render the runway operationally unviable for commercial air carrier operations. Alternative 1 is estimated to cost approximately $9.7 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐6 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-1 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 1

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐7 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.2 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 2

Runway Alternative 2, presented in Exhibit 5.1-2, Runway Alternative 2, addresses runway safety area standards by shortening actual runway pavement so as to acquire safety areas that are in compliance with standards. Alternative 2 would remove 341 feet of runway pavement on the Runway 24 end and 3,444 feet of runway pavement on the Runway 6 end. The amount of runway pavement removal is dictated by the need to bring the entire approach RPZ onto airport controlled property. Associated Navigational Aids (Approach Light System and Glide Slope) on each runway end would be relocated to correspond with the new threshold locations. A full 1,000-foot RSA and fully compliant RPZs on each runway end would be obtained. However, to accomplish this, this alternative would result in a 3,208-foot runway. Table 5.1-2, Runway Alternative 2 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 2 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-2 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 2 EVALUATION

Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability - Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length - Departure Length - Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property + Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Although Runway Alternative 2 would comply with all FAA safety area requirements, as well as RPZ design standards, it would reduce existing capability. The significant loss in runway length would ultimately render the runway operationally unviable for commercial air carrier operations. Alternative 2 is estimated to cost approximately $25.6 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐8 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-2 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 2

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐9 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.3 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 3

Runway Alternative 3, presented in Exhibit 5.1-3, Runway Alternative 3, partially addresses runway safety area standards by locating the Runway 24 localizer antenna (LOC) beyond the end of the RSA on the Runway 6 end. Alternative 3 would relocate the LOC 50 feet beyond the RSA end on the opposite side of Lakeland Avenue. Alternative 3 would improve the RSA/OFA condition on the Runway 6 end by providing an additional 231 feet of safety area clearance off the runway end; however, the Runway 6 end RSA would still be considered non-standard because of Lakeland Avenue traversing the RSA. Alternative 3 assumes each RPZ is acceptable to the FAA in its current condition, and based on existing runway threshold placement. This alternative assumes that property inside each RPZ will be purchased by the Airport as it becomes available in order to gradually bring each RPZ into compliance with FAA guidance. Table 5.1-3, Runway Alternative 3 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 3 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-3 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 3 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance - Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 0 Runway Safety Area (RSA) 0 Object Free Area (OFA) 0 Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length 0 Departure Length 0 Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Although Runway Alternative 3 would maintain existing runway capability, this alternative would only marginally improve safety area compliance by removing the LOC from the Runway 6 end RSA. In addition to falling short of the desired post planning period operational length, Alternative 3 would not achieve the goal of fully compliant safety areas in both directions. Alternative 3 is estimated to cost approximately $1.4 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐10 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-3 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 3

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐11 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.4 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 3B

Runway Alternative 3B, presented in Exhibit 5.1-4, Runway Alternative 3B, addresses runway safety area standards by applying declared distances for Runway 24 operations and relocating the Runway 24 LOC beyond the new end of the RSA for Runway 6 end. Alternative 3B would relocate the LOC to a location 50 feet beyond the new RSA end, just inside the airport security perimeter fence along Lakeland Avenue. These two actions would provide for a fully compliant RSA and OFA on the Runway 6 end. Alternative 3B assumes each RPZ is acceptable to the FAA in its current condition, and based on existing runway threshold placement. This alternative assumes that property inside each RPZ will be purchased by the Airport as it becomes available in order to gradually bring each RPZ into compliance with FAA guidance. Table 5.1-4, Runway Alternative 3B Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 3B against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-4 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 3B EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability - Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 0 Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) - Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length - Departure Length - Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Although Runway Alternative 3B would maintain existing runway capability, this alternative would only marginally improve safety area compliance by removing the LOC from the Runway 6 end RSA. In addition to falling short of the desired post planning period operational length, Alternative 3B would not achieve the goal of fully compliant safety areas in both directions. Alternative 3B is estimated to cost approximately $1.6 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐12 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-4 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 3B

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐13 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.5 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 4

Runway Alternative 4, presented in Exhibit 5.1-5, Runway Alternative 4, addresses runway safety area standards by providing a fully compliant and standard RSA and OFA on the Runway 6 end without any changes to the existing runway. Alternative 4 achieves this by relocating the LOC to a location 50 feet beyond the full RSA, re-routing approximately 3 lane-miles of Lakeland Ave beyond the RSA, OFA, and LOC, and purchasing of Parcel #03493, 0.33 acres. These three actions would provide for a fully compliant RSA and OFA on the Runway 6 end with no effects on existing operational runway length. Alternative 4 assumes each RPZ is acceptable to the FAA in its current condition, and based on existing runway threshold placement. This alternative assumes that property inside each RPZ will be purchased by the Airport as it becomes available in order to gradually bring each RPZ into compliance with FAA guidance. Table 5.1-5, Runway Alternative 4 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 4 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-5 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 4 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 0 Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length 0 Departure Length 0 Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways - Property -

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Although Runway Alternative 4 complies with FAA, RSA, and OFA design standards and maintains existing operational runway length, doing so requires impacting lands and roadways beyond the airport property boundary. Additionally, Alternative 4 does not achieve the desired post planning period operational runway length. Alternative 4 is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million.

3 Chapter 5, Airport Layout Plans, Sheet 11, Exhibit A – Property Map

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐14 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-5 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 4

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐15 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.6 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 4B

Runway Alternative 4B, presented in Exhibit 5.1-6, Runway Alternative 4B, is identical to Runway Alternative 4 with one exception; it proposes full RPZ compliance, which is achieved through acquisition of all property within each RPZ and further public roadway relocation. Alternative 4B includes the relocation of the Runway 24 LOC beyond the end of the RSA, the purchase of 64 parcels, totaling 83.44 acres, and the relocation of approximately 7.3 lane-miles of public roadway. The following public roadways are affected by Alternative 4B:  Lakeland Avenue  Veterans Highway  Ocean Avenue  Locust Avenue  Floyds Run  Smithtown Avenue  Lincoln Avenue

Table 5.1-6, Runway Alternative 4B Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 4B against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-6 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 4B EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length 0 Departure Length 0 Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways - Property -

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

While Runway Alternative 4B succeeds in meeting all FAA design requirements, these benefits are greatly offset by the substantial off-airport impacts. In addition, this alternative fails to meet the post planning period runway length goal of 7,500 feet. Alternative 4B is estimated to cost approximately $146.1 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐16 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-6 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 4B

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐17 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.7 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 5

The premise behind Runway Alternative 5, presented in Exhibit 5.1-7, Runway Alternative 5, is to extend Runway 6/24 to 7,500 feet (in length). This assumes that the existing conditions regarding safety areas on the Runway 6 end will be acceptable (to the FAA) moving forward. Alternative 5 proposes to construct 494 feet of runway pavement onto the existing Runway 24 end, resulting in a runway length of 7,500 feet. As a result of the 494-foot runway extension, a relocation of the RPZ, safety areas, and associated Navigational Aids (Approach Light System, Glide Slope, and LOC) will be required. Alternative 5 assumes each RPZ is acceptable to the FAA in its current condition, and based on existing runway threshold placement. This alternative assumes that property inside each RPZ will be purchased by the Airport as it becomes available in order to gradually bring each RPZ into compliance with FAA guidance. Table 5.1-7, Runway Alternative 5 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 5 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-7 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 5 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length + Improved Safety Areas Compliance - Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Runway Safety Area (RSA) 0 Object Free Area (OFA) 0 Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 5 was conceived as a pure runway extension in order to meet the desired 7,500 feet of usable runway pavement. Although the alternative does achieve desired post planning period operation length, it does not improve upon safety area standards compliance. Alternative 5 is estimated to cost approximately $9.6 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐18 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-7 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 5

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐19 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐20 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.8 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 6

The premise behind Runway Alternative 6, presented in Exhibit 5.1-8, Runway Alternative 6, is to extend Runway 6/24 to 7,500 feet with full RSA, OFA, and RPZ compliance by using declared distances to the extent necessary, while maximizing the use of already-owned non-contiguous airport property. Alternative 6 would construct 781 feet of runway pavement onto the existing Runway 24, end resulting in a total runway length of 7,788 feet. Through the use of declared distance, full 1,000-foot RSA’s and fully compliant RPZ’s would be obtained on each runway end, with few off-airport impacts. Alternative 6 achieves at least 7,500 feet of TORA in both directions. In order to achieve this TORA length, the Runway 24 arrival threshold will be displaced 341 feet from its existing location, resulting in a 1,122- foot displaced threshold. The Runway 6 approach threshold will also be displaced 1,787 feet from its existing location. These threshold displacements are required to achieve RPZ ownership and clearance requirements. Alternative 6 includes the relocation of the Runway 24 LOC beyond the end of the RSA, the purchase of 12 parcels (totaling 18.04 acres), and the relocation of approximately 6 lane-miles of public roadway. The following public roadways are affected by Alternative 6:  Lakeland Avenue  Floyds Run  Veterans Highway  Smithtown Avenue  Locust Avenue  Lincoln Avenue

Table 5.1-8, Runway Alternative 6 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 6 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-8 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 6 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length + Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability - Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) - Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length - Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways - Property - Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐21 Master Plan Update

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 6 is successful in meeting full FAA RSA requirements and RPZ design standards, but sacrifices capability to achieve this. Alternative 6 reduces LDA lengths below 7,000 feet in both directions. In addition, through the application of declared distances, Alternative 6 results in a runway that is not considered to be “clean”. Alternative 6 is estimated to cost approximately $71.3 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐22 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-8 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 6

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐23 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.9 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 7

The premise behind Runway Alternative 7, presented in Exhibit 5.1-9, Runway Alternative 7, is identical to that of Runway Alternative 5 with the exception that safety area and RPZ standards will be met by purchasing additional property and relocating public roadways. To this end, Alternative 7 includes a 494-foot runway extension on the Runway 24 end, relocation of the Runway 24 LOC beyond the RSA on the Runway 6 end, and meeting RPZ standards by acquiring property and relocating public roadways. This results in a compliant RSA, OFA, and RPZ’s in both directions. Alternative 7 includes the purchase of 101 parcels (totaling 95.66 acres) and the relocation of approximately 8 lane-miles of public roadway. The following public roadways are affected by Alternative 7:  Lakeland Avenue  Floyds Run  Veterans Highway  Smithtown Avenue  Ocean Avenue  Lincoln Avenue  Locust Avenue

Table 5.1-9, Runway Alternative 7 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 7 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-9 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 7 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length + Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways - Property -

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 7 meets the post planning period goal of 7,500 feet of departure runway length available and meets all safety area and RPZ standards. However, in order to accomplish this, extensive off-airport impacts occur. Alternative 7 is estimated to cost approximately $195.4 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐24 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-9 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 7

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐25 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.10 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 8

The premise behind Runway Alternative 8, presented in Exhibit 5.1-10, Runway Alternative 8, is identical to that of Alternative 7, only without full compliance of RPZ standards. Alternative 8 would extend Runway 6/24 by 494 feet to the northeast bringing the total runway length to 7,500 feet. By not being fully compliant with RPZ standards, the amount of land acquisition is reduced to one parcel totaling 0.33 acres and the requirement for roadway relocation is reduced to approximately three lane-miles. This roadway relocation is only what is required to clear Lakeland Avenue from the RSA, OFA, and around the Runway 24 LOC. Alternative 8 assumes each RPZ is acceptable to the FAA in its current condition, and based on existing runway threshold placement. This alternative assumes that property inside each RPZ will be purchased by the Airport as it becomes available in order to gradually bring each RPZ into compliance with FAA guidance. Table 5.1-10, Runway Alternative 8 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 8 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-10 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 8 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length + Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways - Property -

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 8 provides compliance with FAA, RSA, and OFA requirements, and would achieve desired post planning period runway length of 7,500 feet. However, Alternative 8 does not provide compliance with RPZ standards and does have some off-airport impacts to roadways and land. Alternative 8 is estimated to cost approximately $24.8 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐26 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-10 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 8

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐27 Master Plan Update

5.1.1.11 Runway 6/24 - Alternative 8 EMAS (8E)

The premise behind Runway Alternative 8E, presented in Exhibit 5.1-11, Runway Alternative 8 EMAS, is identical to that of Runway Alternative 8, with the exception of the application of safety areas on the Runway 6 end. Alternative 8E includes a 494-foot runway extension to the northeast to bring the overall runway length to 7,500 feet. At the southwest end of the runway, rather than relocating Lakeland Avenue and purchasing of Parcel #0349 4 , 0.33 acres, Alternative 8E proposes the installation of a 450-foot long Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS). This length of EMAS bed is capable of stopping a Boeing 757-200 exiting the end of the runway at 70 knots. The FAA considers this system to provide an “equivalent level of safety” as a fully compliant RSA. Alternative 8E would also relocate the Runway 24 LOC beyond the end of the EMAS bed. Alternative 8E assumes each RPZ is acceptable to the FAA in its current condition, and based on existing runway threshold placement. This alternative assumes that property inside each RPZ will be purchased by the Airport as it becomes available in order to gradually bring each RPZ into compliance with FAA guidance. Table 5.1-11, Runway Alternative 8 EMAS Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 8E against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-11 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 8 EMAS (8E) EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,500’ Departure Length + Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 8E provides for full compliance of FAA, RSA, and OFA requirements, and would achieve desired post planning period runway length without incurring any off-airport impacts to public roadways or property. Alternative 8E is estimated to cost approximately $21.5 million.

4 Chapter 5, Airport Layout Plans, Sheet 11, Exhibit A – Property Map

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐28 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-11 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 8 EMAS (8E)

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐29 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐30 Master Plan Update

5.1.2 RUNWAY 15R/33L DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

The following group of runway alternatives focuses solely on Runway 15R/33L. Each alternative was evaluated on the criteria previously mentioned. In addition to improving safety area standards compliance and not reducing operational capability, a primary goal of the Runway 15R/33L alternatives was to provide 7,000 feet of departure length while maintaining existing approach minimums. This increased length would provide LIMA with a crosswind runway equal in capability to the primary runway, which in turn would offer consistent capability to airport users during crosswind conditions. An extension to 7,000 feet is forecast for the planning period and is discussed in Section 4.1.4, Runway Length Requirements of Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐31 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.1 Runway 15R/33L - Alternative 9

The premise behind Runway Alternative 9, presented in Exhibit 5.1-12, Runway Alternative 9, is to achieve full RSA, OFA, and RPZ compliance through the application of declared distances. Applying declared distances would require displacing the Runway 15R arrival threshold 999 feet southeast of its current location in order to achieve a fully Airport-owned arrival RPZ. In addition, the RSA and OFA would be slid 192 feet southeast to achieve full-width FAA requirements. Table 5.1-12, Runway Alternative 9 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 9 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-12 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability - Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) - Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length - Departure Length - Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 9 provides for full compliance of FAA RSA, OFA, and RPZ design standards, but sacrifices runway capability in achieving this goal. In addition, Alternative 9 does not meet the goal of 7,000 feet of departure runway length available for the planning period. Alternative 9 is estimated to cost approximately $0.4 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐32 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-12 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐33 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.2 Runway 15R/33L - Alternative 9B

The premise behind Runway Alternative 9B, presented in Exhibit 5.1-13, Runway Alternative 9b, is identical to that of Runway Alternative 9 only without applying declared distances to meet RPZ requirements. Alternative 9B proposes the application of declared distances to meet only RSA and OFA design standards on the Runway 15R end. The result of this solution is the sliding of the RSA/OFA approximately 192 feet southeast. The runway pavement located within the RSA on the 15R end (as a result of sliding the runway) would remain available for departure operations on 15R. Alternative 9B assumes each RPZ is acceptable to the FAA in its current condition, and based on existing runway threshold placement. This alternative assumes that property inside each RPZ will be purchased by the Airport as it becomes available in order to gradually bring each RPZ into compliance with FAA guidance. Table 5.1-13, Runway Alternative 9B Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 9B against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-13 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9B EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability - Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 0 Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) - Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length - Departure Length - Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 9B is successful in meeting full FAA RSA and OFA requirements without resulting in any off-airport impacts. However, in achieving this goal, some runway capacity is sacrificed. Alternative 9B fails to meet the goal of providing 7,000 feet of departure runway length within the planning period. Alternative 9B is estimated to cost approximately $0.1 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐34 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-13 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9B

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐35 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.3 Runway 15R/33L - Alternative 9C

The premise behind Runway Alternative 9C, presented in Exhibit 5.1-14, Runway Alternative 9C, is to maintain existing Runway 15R/33L in its current location and to meet all RSA, OFA, and RPZ standards. To accomplish this, Alternative 9C includes property acquisition and public roadway relocation to meet RPZ standards. In order to meet RPZ standards, all roads located within the RPZ will also be relocated outside of the RPZ boundaries. This would result in fully compliant RSA, OFA, and RPZ’s in both directions. Alternative 9C proposes the purchase of six parcels (totaling 26.28 acres) and the relocation of approximately two-lane miles of Smithtown Avenue. Table 5.1-14, Runway Alternative 9C Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 9C against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-14 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9C EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length 0 Departure Length 0 Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways - Property -

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 9C would be successful in meeting FAA RSA, OFA, and RPZ design standards without sacrificing runway capability to do so. However, Alternative 9C would result in off-airport impacts to property and public roadways. Alternative 9C does not meet the goal of providing 7,000 feet of departure runway length within the planning period. Alternative 9C is estimated to cost approximately $22.7 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐36 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-14 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 9C

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐37 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.4 Runway 15R/33L - Alternative 10

The premise behind Runway Alternative 10, presented in Exhibit 5.1-15, Runway Alternative 10, is to meet all RSA, OFA, and RPZ requirements and maintain existing runway capability through a combination of sliding the runway to the southeast and applying declared distances. Alternative 10 “slides” the runway 728 feet to the southeast along the runway centerline. Additionally, to meet RPZ standards on the 15R end, the 15R arrival threshold will be displaced 464 feet from the new 15R end. The 33L arrival threshold will also be displaced 652 feet to meet RPZ requirements as well. Table 5.1-15, Runway Alternative 10 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 10 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-15 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 10 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability - Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) - Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length - Departure Length 0 Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 10 would be successful in meeting RSA, OFA, and RPZ design standards without requiring off-airport impacts to public roadways or property. However, in accomplishing this, Alternative 10 would sacrifice some runway capability. Alternative 10 is estimated to cost approximately $9.2 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐38 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-15 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 10

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐39 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.5 Runway 15R/33L - Alternative 11

The premise behind Runway Alternative 11, presented in Exhibit 5.1-16, Runway Alternative 11, is to extend the runway to an overall length of 7,000 feet and provide full standard safety areas and RPZs. Alternative 11 would extend Runway 33L 1,814 feet to the southeast, and acquire all property and relocate all public roadways that fall within the resulting safety areas and RPZs for both runway ends. Alternative 11 proposes the purchase of 21 parcels (totaling 67.67 acres) and the relocation of approximately 3.5 lane-miles of public roadway. The following public roadways are affected by Alternative 11:  Smithtown Avenue  Marion Street  Lincoln Avenue  Peachtree Court

Table 5.1-16, Runway Alternative 11 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 11 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-16 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 11 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length + Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways - Property - Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 11 would be successful in meeting RSA, OFA, and RPZ design standards while also meeting the goal of providing 7,000 feet of departure runway length within the planning period. However, in accomplishing this, Alternative 11 would result in off-airport impacts to property and public roadways. By providing 7,000 feet of departure runway length, LIMA would be served by two 7,000-foot or greater runways, thereby offering the required runway capability to airport users during crosswind recommended in Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements. Alternative 11 is estimated to cost approximately $77.3 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐40 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-16 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 11

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐41 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.6 Runway 15R/33L - Alternative 12

The premise behind Runway Alternative 12, presented in Exhibit 5.1-17, Runway Alternative 12, is to extend the runway to 7,000 feet in length and meet RSA and OFA standards with minimal off-airport impacts. Alternative 12 will “slide” the runway 192 feet southeast to address the RSA and OFA deficiencies on the 15R end and construct a 2,006-foot runway extension on the 33L end. Alternative 12 requires the acquisition of two off-airport parcels (totaling 13.3 acres) in order to accommodate the RSA and OFA of the new runway extension. Alternative 12 assumes each RPZ is acceptable to the FAA in its current condition, and based on existing runway threshold placement. This alternative assumes that property inside each RPZ will be purchased by the Airport as it becomes available in order to gradually bring each RPZ into compliance with FAA guidance. Table 5.1-17, Runway Alternative 12 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 12 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-17 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 12 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length + Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property -

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 12 would be successful in meeting RSA and OFA design standards and would achieve the desired runway departure length within the planning period. However, in accomplishing this, Alternative 12 would result in some off-airport impacts to property. In providing 7,000 feet of departure runway length, LIMA would be served by two 7,000-foot or greater runways thereby offering the required runway capability to airport users during crosswind conditions recommended in Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements. Alternative 12 is estimated to cost approximately $22.2 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐42 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-17 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 12

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐43 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.7 Runway 15R/33L - Alternative 13

The premise behind Runway Alternative 13, presented in Exhibit 5.1-18, Runway Alternative 13, is to extend Runway 15R/33L to the extent possible; in a way that produces no off-airport impacts to property or public roadways. This is achieved through the “sliding” of the runway 192 feet to the southeast, construction of a 1,732-foot runway extension on the Runway 33L end, and the application of declared distances. In order to meet RPZ design standards, the 15R approach threshold will be displaced by 1,192 feet from its existing location and the Runway 33L arrival threshold will be displaced by 1,657 feet from the new Runway 33L end. Table 5.1-18, Runway Alternative 13 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 13 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-18 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 13 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 13 would be successful in meeting all RSA, OFA, and RPZ design standards; however, this alternative fails to achieve the desired departure runway length of 7,000 feet. In order to reach full safety area and RPZ compliance without incurring any off-airport impacts, Alternative 13’s maximum operational lengths are defined by the existing airport boundary. Only 5,719 feet of departure length is provided for Runway 15R and only 6,726 feet of departure length is provided for Runway 33L. Alternative 13 is estimated to cost approximately $16.7 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐44 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-18 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 13

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐45 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.8 Runway 15R/33L - Alternative 14

The premise behind Runway Alternative 14, presented in Exhibit 5.1-19, Runway Alternative 14, is identical to that of Runway Alternative 13, but without immediately meeting RPZ design standards. By not meeting RPZ design standards, the application of declared distances would not be necessary, thus a “clean” runway would be able to be provided. Alternative 14 includes a 192-foot “slide” of the runway to the southeast and the construction of a 1,732-foot runway extension on the Runway 33L end. This will result in the full runway length of 6,918 feet available for operations in both directions. Alternative 14 assumes each RPZ is acceptable to the FAA in its current condition, and based on existing runway threshold placement. This alternative assumes that property inside each RPZ will be purchased by the Airport as it becomes available in order to gradually bring each RPZ into compliance with FAA guidance. Table 5.1-19, Runway Alternative 14 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 14 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-19 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 14 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 14 would be successful in meeting RSA and OFA design standards. However, the proposed runway length would not meet the desired goal of a 7,000-foot long crosswind runway. Alternative 14’s maximum runway length (6,726 feet) is defined by the existing airport boundary. Alternative 14 is estimated to cost approximately $15.9 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐46 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-19 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 14

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐47 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.9 Runway15R/33L - Alternative 15

The premise behind Runway Alternative 15, presented in Exhibit 5.1-20, Runway Alternative 15, is identical to that of Runway Alternative 13, with the exception of only meeting the RPZ requirements on the Runway 33L end, given that this is the end the runway extension is occurring on. Alternative 15 would “slide” the Runway 15R end RSA and OFA 192 feet southeast in order to mitigate existing deficiencies. The existing 192 feet of runway pavement would remain available for Runway 15R arrivals and departures as the Runway 15R RPZ will be unchanged. Alternative 15 will also construct a 1,732-foot runway extension on the Runway 33L end. In order to meet RPZ design standards on the 33L end, the Runway 33L arrival threshold will be displaced by 1,657 feet from the proposed end of runway. Alternative 15 assumes each RPZ is acceptable to the FAA in its current condition, and based on existing runway threshold placement. This alternative assumes that property inside each RPZ will be purchased by the Airport as it becomes available in order to gradually bring each RPZ into compliance with FAA guidance. Table 5.1-20, Runway Alternative 15 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 15 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-20 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 15 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) - Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways + Property +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 15 would be successful in meeting RSA, OFA, and RPZ design standards on the Runway 33L end; however, it fails to meet the same level of RPZ compliance on the Runway 15R end and does not meet the goal of providing a 7,000-foot crosswind runway. Alternative 15 is estimated to cost approximately $16.7 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐48 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-20 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 15

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐49 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.10 Runway 15R/33L - Alternative 15B

The premise behind Runway Alternative 15B, presented in Exhibit 5.1-21, Runway Alternative 15B, is to extend Runway 15R/33L to the extent possible, while keeping the RSA and OFA on existing airport property. In addition, this alternative would meet RPZ design standards by acquiring 22 parcels (totaling 69.47 acres) of off-airport property and relocating approximately 3.5 lane-miles of public roadway. Under these constraints, a Runway 33L extension of 1,732 feet is possible, which brings the overall runway length to 6,918 feet, 82 feet short of the 7,000-foot goal. The following public roadways are affected by Alternative 15B:  Smithtown Avenue  Marion Street  Lincoln Avenue  Peachtree Court

Table 5.1-21, Runway Alternative 15B Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 15B against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-21 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 15B EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways - Property -

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 15B would be successful in meeting RSA, OFA, and RPZ design standards, but would fail to meet the goal of providing a 7,000-foot crosswind runway. Although Alternative 15B would create a runway of 6,918 feet in length, this alternative would greatly impact off airport property and public roadways. Alternative 15B is estimated to cost approximately $76.9 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐50 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-21 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 15B

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐51 Master Plan Update

5.1.2.11 Runway 15R/33L - Alternative 16

The premise behind Runway Alternative 16, presented in Exhibit 5.1-22, Runway Alternative 16, is to extend Runway 15R/33L to the extent possible while providing full RSA, OFA, and RPZ compliance without incurring any further off- airport impacts on the Runway 33L end and providing a “clean” runway. Alternative 16 proposes to acquire all property and relocate all public roadways that fall within the existing Runway 15R RPZ. This results in the acquisition of six parcels (totaling 26.28 acres) and the relocation of approximately two lane-miles of public roadways (Smithtown Avenue and Marion Street). Under these constraints and considering the existing airport property boundary, a runway extension of 109 feet to the Runway 33L end would be possible before the Runway 33L RPZ would cross onto off-airport property. Table 5.1-22, Runway Alternative 16 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 16 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.1-22 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 16 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Airfield Goals and Objectives 7,000’ Departure Length - Improved Safety Areas Compliance + Fatal Flaws Flaws No Reduction in Capability + Safety Areas Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) + Runway Safety Area (RSA) + Object Free Area (OFA) + Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) + Runway Length Impacts Arrival Length + Departure Length + Off-Airport Impacts Public Roadways - Property -

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Runway Alternative 16 would meet all RSA, OFA, and RPZ design standards while limiting additional off-airport impacts, but in doing so would be severely limited on the amount of additional runway that could be achieved. Under these constraints, meeting the goal of providing a 7,000-foot crosswind runway is not possible. Alternative 16 is estimated to cost approximately $23.0 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐52 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-22 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE 16

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐53 Master Plan Update

5.1.3 EVALUATION OF RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES

A total of 22 runway alternatives were developed for LIMA, 11 for Runway 6/24 and 11 for Runway 15R/33L. While all the alternatives enhance the airport in some way, they vary in their level of additional compliance to FAA design standards, operational impacts, and off-airport impacts.

Two methods were used to evaluate each set of 11 runway alternatives; the first method was a screening of alternatives based on a set of fatal flaws. In the case of this master plan, a runway alternative was considered to be fatally flawed, and therefore considered ineligible for selection as the recommended alternative for that runway, if it scored any negative or neutral marks on the three applicable fatal flaw evaluation criteria. The following were considered fatal flaws:  7,500-foot Departure Length – (Applies to Runway 6/24 alternatives only) Does the alternative provide a minimum of 7,500 feet of departure runway length?  7,000-foot Departure Length – (Applies to Runway 15R/33L alternatives only) Does the alternative provide a minimum of 7,000 feet of departure runway length?  Improved Safety Areas Compliance – Does the alternative improve the compliance of FAA safety area standards?  No Reduction in Runway Capability – Does the alternative result in a reduction of runway capability?

The second method that was used to evaluate each set of 11 runway alternatives was a ranking by evaluation criteria. Using the remaining evaluation criteria listed in each alternative’s respective evaluation table, an evaluation matrix was created. In order to quantify a particular alternatives total score, a numeric value was assigned to each alternative for each criterion. The numeric values were assigned as follows:  Positive Impact (Green) = +1  Neutral/No Impact (Yellow) = 0  Negative Impact (Red) = (1)

Using this method, the sum total of each alternative’s criteria score was then used to rank the alternatives in order of preference for each runway. A definition of each evaluation criteria is presented in Table 5.1-23, Runway Evaluation Criteria Definitions.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐54 Master Plan Update

Table 5.1-23 RUNWAY EVALUATION CRITERIA Evaluation Criteria Definition Safety Areas Standards Compliance Does the alternative meet the FAA RPZ Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) design standards? Does the alternative meet the FAA RSA Runway Safety Area (RSA) design standards? Does the alternative meet the FAA OFA Object Free Area (OFA) design standards? Does the alternative provide for a runway that does not apply declared Clean Runway (No Declared Distances) distances and has equal operational runway lengths for operations in both directions? Runway Length Impacts What effect does the alternative have on Arrival Length arrival runway length available when compared to existing? What effect doe the alternative have on Departure Length departure runway length available when compared to existing? Off-Airport Impacts Does the alternative impact any off- Public Roadways airport public roadways? Does the alternative impact any off- Property airport property? Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

The evaluation results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.1-24, Evaluation of Runway Alternatives. For the Runway 6/24 alternatives, Alternative 8 EMAS scores the highest with a total score of nine. Alternative 8 EMAS has all positive marks except for RPZ compliance, therefore Alternative 8 EMAS is the recommended runway alternative for Runway 6/24.

For the Runway 15R/33L alternatives, there is a quantitative tie among four alternatives (11, 12, 13, and 14) with a total score of seven points. Alternatives 13 and 14 were eliminated from consideration as they are considered to have a fatal flaw of not meeting the runway length goal of 7,000 feet of departure runway length available, leaving just a two-way tie between Alternatives 11 and 12. The only difference between Alternatives 11 and 12 is that Alternative 11 meets RPZ design standards, but impacts off-airport public roadways, and Alternative 12 does not immediately meet RPZ design standards, thus avoids having to impact off-airport public roadways. Given the significantly less off-airport impact that results, Alternative 12 is considered the recommended runway alternative for Runway 15R/33L.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐55 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐56 Master Plan Update

Table 5.1-24 EVALUATION OF RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES RUNWAY 06/24 RUNWAY 15R/33L

NO EXTENSION EXTEND TO 7,500' NO EXTENSION EXTEND TO 7,000' EXTEND TO ???? RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES R‐08 EMAS R‐01 R‐02 R‐03 R‐03b R‐04 R04b R‐05 R‐06 R‐07 R‐08 R‐09 R‐09b R‐09c R‐10 R‐11 R‐12 R‐13 R‐14 R‐15 R‐15b R‐16 Airfield Goals and Objectives 15R/33L 7,000' (1) (1) (1) (1) 1 1 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 6/24 7,500' (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 1 1 1 1 1 Improved Safety Area Standards Compliance11(1)111(1)1111 1 1111111111

Fatal Flaws No Reduction in Capability (1)(1)1(1)111(1)111 (1)(1)1(1)1111111 Safety Area Standards Compliance Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 110001(1) 11(1) (1) 10111(1) 1 (1) (1) 11 Runway Safety Area (RSA) 11011101111 1 1111111111 Object Free Area (OFA) 11011101111 1 1111111111 Clean Runway (no declared distances) (1) 11(1) 111(1) 111 (1) (1) 1 (1) 11(1) 1 (1) 11 Runway Length Impacts Arrivals (1) (1) 0 (1) 001(1) 111 (1) (1) 0 (1) 1111111 Departures (1) (1) 0 (1) 0011111 (1) (1) 001111111 Off Airport Impacts Roads 1111(1) (1) 1 (1) (1) (1) 111(1) 1 (1) 1111(1) (1) Property 1111(1) (1) 1 (1) (1) (1) 111(1) 1 (1) (1) 111(1) (1) Total Score 1 3 2 - 2 3 5 1 7 5 9 1 - 3 2 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 RANK 9 5 7 11 7 5 3 9 2 3 1 10 11 8 9 1 1 1 1 5 5 5

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐57 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐58 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.1-23 OVERALL RECOMMENDED RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐59 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐60 Master Plan Update

5.2 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVES

The results of the analysis conducted in Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements, regarding the taxiway system at LIMA showed that many of the existing taxiway deficiencies are currently being addressed as part of the “hotspot” modification projects currently underway. In fact, the only need identified in Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements, was to provide a full-length parallel taxiway to Runway 6/24.

In addition, to analyzing alternatives to provide a full-length taxiway to Runway 6/24, this Master Plan looked at alternatives for the conversion of Runway 10/28 to a taxiway. The impetus for this conversion is primarily financial. Given the deteriorating pavement condition of Runway 10/28 identified in Chapter Two, Inventory of Existing Conditions, a runway rehab is going to be required in the near-term. Given the excess runway capacity that LIMA currently has and the status of Runway 10/28 as a visual daytime only runway, the justification for FAA funding to maintain the runway is insufficient. Therefore, it will likely be cost prohibitive for the Town of Islip to maintain the runway with local funds only. Should the runway be converted to a taxiway, the “taxiway” pavement would be eligible for FAA funding without the need for a capacity justification.

The following sections present in detail the various taxiway alternatives that were analyzed as part this Master Plan. Detailed cost estimate breakdowns for each alternative can be found in Appendix A, while estimated overall costs of each alternative is documented below.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐61 Master Plan Update

5.2.1 RUNWAY 6/24 PARALLEL TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives focus solely on the provision of a full-length parallel taxiway to Runway 6/24.

5.2.1.1 Taxiway Alternative 1

Taxiway Alternative 1, presented in Exhibit 5.2-1, Taxiway Alternative 1, proposes to construct a 1,543-foot section of parallel taxiway along the northwest side of Runway 6/24 to connect Taxiway “G” to Taxiway “B2” and “D”. This alternative results in full parallel taxiway along the northwest side of Runway 6/24.

Taxiway Alternative 1 would benefit overall aircraft taxi-flow around the airfield; however, a large percentage of the users of Runway 6/24 are either going to or coming from the southeastern side of the runway. In addition, due to being on the opposite side of the runway from these users, Alternative 1 would have the propensity to promote more runway crossings of Runway 6/24 than exist today. To the benefit of Alternative 1, when compared to other alternatives, Alternative 1 requires less new pavement construction due to the extent of partial parallel taxiways that already exist. Alternative 1 is estimated to cost approximately $6.9 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐62 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.2-1 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE 1

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐63 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐64 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐65 Master Plan Update

5.2.1.2 Taxiway Alternative 2

Taxiway Alternative 2, presented in Exhibit 5.2-2, Taxiway Alternative 2, would extend Taxiway “A” to the northeast approximately 4,695 feet along the southeast side of Runway 6/24 until it intersects with Taxiway “E”. This alternative results in full parallel taxiway along the south side of Runway 6/24.

Compared to Taxiway Alternative 1, Taxiway Alternative 2 would provide more overall benefit to Runway 6/24 operations and traffic flow. This is primarily due to being located on the south side of Runway 6/24; closer to the generators of activity on the airfield. In addition, this taxiway configuration would be far less likely to generate additional runway crossings of Runway 6/24. Alternative 2 is estimated to cost approximately $11.9 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐66 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.2-2 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE 2

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐67 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐68 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐69 Master Plan Update

5.2.2 RUNWAY 10/28 CONVERSION TO TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVES

The following group of taxiway alternatives focuses solely on the closure of Runway 10/28 and its re-use opportunities.

5.2.2.1 Taxiway Alternative 3

Taxiway Alternative 3, presented in Exhibit 5.2-3, Taxiway Alternative 3, proposes to convert Runway 10/28 into a taxiway. Along the complete length of the existing runway, the southern 75 feet of pavement will be abandoned, leaving 75 feet of pavement designated as taxiway pavement. This new taxiway is proposed to be designated as Taxiway “S”. In addition, Alternative 3 proposes to re-designate the existing Taxiway “S” into a non-movement taxi lane, primarily used for aircraft pushback along the terminal ramp and intra-ramp aircraft maneuvering. Alternative 3 is estimated to cost approximately $23.5 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐70

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.2-3 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE 3

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐71

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐72 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐73 Master Plan Update

5.2.2.2 Taxiway Alternative 4

Taxiway Alternative 4, presented in Exhibit 5.2-4, Taxiway Alternatives 4, is identical to Alternative 3 with one exception. Rather than designating the new taxiway as Taxiway “S” and converting existing Taxiway “S” to a non-movement area taxilane, Alternative 4 maintains existing Taxiway “S” and designates the new taxiway as a taxiway parallel to Taxiway “S”. Alternative 4 is estimated to cost approximately $14.2 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐74

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.2-4 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE 4

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐75

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐76 Master Plan Update

5.2.3 EVALUATION OF TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVES

As part of this master plan, a total of four taxiway alternatives were developed for LIMA, two for Runway 6/24 full-length parallel taxiways and two for the conversion of Runway 10/28 into a taxiway. An additional alternative was considered to evaluate the conversion of Runway 15L/33R into a taxiway to provide operational benefits for aircraft landing on Runway 6/24. Through feedback from LIMA Air Traffic Controller (ATCT) staff, converting Runway 15L/33R into a taxiway was not a viable alternative. ATCT staff indicated that Runway 15L/33R was frequently used and the operation of the airport would be diminished by the loss of this runway.

5.2.3.1 Runway 6/24 Parallel Taxiway Alternatives

Subsequent to the completion of the master plan requirements LIMA applied for a Modification of Airport Design Standards (MOS) to the requirement for a full length parallel taxiway to Runway 6/24. This application (see Appendix C) included the exact same two Runway 6/24 Taxiway alternatives as this master plan plus a “do- nothing” alternative. The “do-nothing” alternative was based on engineering-level planning, which identified constructability and operational issues with a future parallel Runway 6/24 Parallel Taxiway. As a result, the application states for following regarding the viability of providing for a full parallel taxiway to Runway 6/24:

“The existing airport layout includes various runway/runway intersection between Runway 6/24, 15R/33L, 15L/33R, and 10/28. A full parallel taxiway would increase the amount of taxiway/runway intersections across the airfield. In addition to the airport layout, there are very low lying areas north of the runway between Taxiways B and Q. Therefore, due to the unusual local conditions at the airport, the design standard cannot be met.”

Therefore, with regards to providing a full-length parallel taxiway to Runway 6/24 and in light of this additional engineering-level analysis, the recommendation of this master plan is in agreement with the MOS application that a full-length parallel taxiway is neither practicable nor feasible at this time.

5.2.3.2 Runway 10/28 Conversion to Taxiway Alternatives

When evaluating the two alternatives to convert Runway 10/28 to a taxiway, a qualitative approach was used. It is important to note that the only real difference between the two Runway 10/28 alternatives is that of an operational nature, but that the infrastructure requirements of each are the same. The added benefit of providing a non-movement area for aircraft push-backs and intra-ramp maneuvering is the primary reason that Taxiway Alternative 3 is selected the recommended alternative for the conversion of Runway 10/28 to a taxiway.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐77 Master Plan Update

5.3 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES

The analysis presented in Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements, Section 4.2, Passenger Terminal Requirements, identified the passenger terminal facility requirements to meet the forecast demand through the 20-year planning period. These requirements determined that there are no real needs in the terminal facility that will drive any expansion of the overall terminal building footprint. However, in this section of the alternatives chapter, several terminal development alternative concepts have been developed should an unforeseen change in demand occur and additional terminal area is required. Throughout these alternatives there is an overall theme that shows two “phases” of terminal development. The first phase (Proposed Terminal Expansion) is represents what would be required should it be determined that the West Concourse needs to be replaced due to age. This “phase” is simply a replacement of that capacity. The second “phase” (Proposed Ultimate Terminal) in each alternative depicts what is ultimately as a result of in this each terminal configuration. It should be noted that the cost estimate information provided is only reflective of the cost to construct the Proposed Terminal Expansion, not the Proposed Ultimate Terminal.

Each of the five terminal alternatives were evaluated against each of the other alternatives using the following evaluation criteria, independent of cost:  Ultimate Capacity o Gates o Potential Terminal Processor Capacity  Terminal Functionality o Passenger Walking Distance o Passenger Flow o Connectivity to the Long Island Railroad (LIRR)  Implementation o Phasability o Access to Utilities  Impact on Existing Conditions o Landside Roadways o Off-Airport Public Roadways  Airfield Impacts o Runways o Taxiways

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐78 Master Plan Update

The following sections present in detail the various terminal alternatives that were analyzed as part this Master Plan. All aircraft parking positions are shown with Aircraft Design Group III aircraft, based on the master plan’s forecast fleet mix. Within each section that discusses a particular alternative, there is a listing of the applicable evaluation criteria used in the analysis and that particular alternatives’ score for each. Evaluation criteria are scored on a three-point system; positive impact (+), neutral or no impact (0), and negative impact (-). Color codes of green, yellow, and red (respectively) were also used to help indicate score. A detailed comparison of evaluation scores and the resulting recommended alternatives follows.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐79 Master Plan Update

5.3.1 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 1

The premise behind Terminal Alternative 1, presented in Exhibit 5.3-1, Terminal Alternative 1, is to develop all future terminal expansion as a continuation of the East (Veterans Memorial) Concourse. Under this configuration, the terminal would become “re-centered” on the current passenger security checkpoint. Upon completion of the first two new gates, the existing West Concourse would be decommissioned and demolished. Table 5.3-1, Terminal Alternative 1 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 1 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.3-1 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 1 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Ultimate Capacity

Gates 0 Potential Processor Expansion + Terminal Functionality Passenger Walking Distances - Passenger Flow + Connectivity to LIRR - Implementation Phasability + Access to Utilities + Impact on Existing Conditions Landside Roadways 0 Off-Airport Public Roadways + Airfield Impacts Runways - Taxiways 0

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Terminal Alternative 1 has the ability to replace the capacity of the West Concourse plus additional expansion capability of two gates. In addition, there is potential to expand the curbfont and terminal processor as well. However, continuing the passenger concourse in an southeasterly direction exacerbates an airspace situation that exists today between the East (Veterans Memorial) Concourse and the FAA Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR), Part 77, Transitional Surface and the Approach-Transitional Surface to Runway 33L. Alternative 1 is estimated to cost approximately $42.5 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐80 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.3-1 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 1

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐81 Master Plan Update

5.3.2 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 2

The premise behind Terminal Alternative 2, presented in Exhibit 5.3-2, Terminal Alternative 2, is to develop all future terminal expansion in the location of the existing West Concourse. Under this configuration, the existing West Concourse would be demolished and replaced with two contact gates similar in style and scope to those found in the existing East (Veterans Memorial) Concourse. Ultimately, as demand requires, additional gates would be added in a linear-concourse fashion to the west. Table 5.3-2, Terminal Alternative 2 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 2 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.3-2 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 2 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Ultimate Capacity

Gates 0 Potential Processor Expansion 0 Terminal Functionality Passenger Walking Distances + Passenger Flow + Connectivity to LIRR - Implementation Phasability - Access to Utilities + Impact on Existing Conditions Landside Roadways + Off-Airport Public Roadways + Airfield Impacts Runways + Taxiways +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Terminal Alternative 2 has the ability to replace the capacity of the existing West Concourse plus additional expansion capability of five gates. However, there is limited potential for terminal processor expansion and after three additional gates to the west, there would begin to be impacts to other surrounding general aviation (GA) facilities. Alternative 2 is estimated to cost approximately $11.5 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐82 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.3-2 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 2

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐83 Master Plan Update

5.3.3 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 3

The premise behind Terminal Alternative 3, presented in Exhibit 5.3-3, Terminal Alternative 3, is similar to that of Terminal Alternative 2; however, this alternative relocated the terminal processor to be adjacent to both the East (Veterans Memorial) and West Concourses. The primary driver of this alternative is to provide more space should additional landside facilities be required. Under this configuration, the existing West Concourse would be demolished and replaced with two contact gates similar in style and scope to those found in the existing East (Veterans Memorial) Concourse. Ultimately, as demand requires, additional gates would be added in a linear-concourse fashion to the west. Directly adjacent to the concourses on the landside, new terminal processing facilities would be constructed and the existing processor facilities would be removed, thus allowing for additional landside area. Table 5.3-3, Terminal Alternative 3 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 3 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.3-3 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 3 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Ultimate Capacity

Gates 0 Potential Processor Expansion + Terminal Functionality Passenger Walking Distances + Passenger Flow + Connectivity to LIRR - Implementation Phasability - Access to Utilities + Impact on Existing Conditions Landside Roadways - Off-Airport Public Roadways + Airfield Impacts Runways + Taxiways +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Terminal Alternative 2 has the ability to replace the capacity of the existing West Concourse plus additional expansion capability of five gates. In addition, with the relocation of the terminal processor facilities, there is potential to realize some expansion of the terminal processor. However, this alternative does have major impacts to the existing airport landside roadways and curbfront. Alternative 3 is estimated to cost approximately $57.2 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐84 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.3-3 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 3

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐85 Master Plan Update

5.3.4 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 4

The premise behind Terminal Alternative 4, presented in Exhibit 5.3-4, Terminal Alternative 4, is the most drastic departure from the existing terminal configuration while remaining on the south side of the airfield. Alternative 4 (in the immediate term) is identical to that of Terminal Alternative 2. However, following the initial two-gate expansion, the proposed ultimate terminal expansion progresses at a northeasterly angle, with a double-loaded concourse. In addition, the area between the West Concourse and the existing Baggage Claim/Rental Car hall can be filled in to add additional terminal processing capacity. The primary driver of this alternative is to provide the maximum number of aircraft gates possible at this site. It should be noted that the Ultimate configuration of this alternative is depended on the closure of Runway 10/28. Table 5.3-4, Terminal Alternative 4 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 4 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.3-4 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 4 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Ultimate Capacity

Gates + Potential Processor Expansion + Terminal Functionality Passenger Walking Distances 0 Passenger Flow + Connectivity to LIRR - Implementation Phasability - Access to Utilities + Impact on Existing Conditions Landside Roadways - Off-Airport Public Roadways + Airfield Impacts Runways 0 Taxiways -

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Terminal Alternative 4 has the ability to replace the capacity of the existing West Concourse plus additional expansion capability of 15 gates. In addition, this alternative has the potential to provide additional terminal processor capacity. However, this alternative does have major impacts to the surrounding GA support facilities such as the existing ARFF Station and the proposed new ARFF Station site. Alternative 4 is estimated to cost approximately $28.6 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐86 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.3-4 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 4

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐87 Master Plan Update

5.3.5 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 5

The premise behind Terminal Alternative 5, presented in Exhibit 5.3-5, Terminal Alternative 5, is a complete relocation of the passenger terminal to the north side of the airfield in order to be co-located with the Ronkonkoma Hub on the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). The terminal proposed in Alternative 5 is a one-for-one gate replacement terminal, offering intermodal connectivity with the LIRR. The proposed terminal would be accompanied by all the associated ramp and taxiways required. Under this alternative the existing terminal facility would be abandoned. Table 5.3-5, Terminal Alternative 5 Evaluation, presents the scoring of Alternative 5 against the evaluation criteria.

Table 5.3-5 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 5 EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria Score Ultimate Capacity

Gates 0 Potential Processor Expansion + Terminal Functionality Passenger Walking Distances + Passenger Flow + Connectivity to LIRR + Implementation Phasability + Access to Utilities - Impact on Existing Conditions Landside Roadways - Off-Airport Public Roadways - Airfield Impacts Runways - Taxiways +

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

Conclusion

Terminal Alternative 5 has the ability to replace the capacity of the existing terminal facility. In addition, this alternative leaves sufficient space vacant on the north side of the airfield to potentially add a satellite concourse in the future should demand ever require one. However, this alternative does have major impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods and off-airport public roadways in terms of additional traffic. It should also be noted that this alternative requires the relocation of the Town of Islip Compost Facility. Alternative 5 is estimated to cost approximately $388.8 million.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐88 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.3-5 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 5

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐89 Master Plan Update

5.3.6 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 6

Terminal Alternative 6, presented in Exhibit 5.3-6, Terminal Alternative 6, is not a standalone terminal alternative, but rather a potential add-on to any of Terminal Alternatives 1 through 4. Alternative 6 proposes the construction of an Automated People Mover (APM) system that would offer intermodal connectivity between the Ronkonkoma Hub on the LIRR and the existing terminal site. Under this alternative, any one of several types of a people mover system could be employed. A benefit of an eastern route, as proposed by this alternative, is that additional stops along the route could be incrementally added to locations such as the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) and the potential FAA facility, or General Aviation development on the east side of the airfield.

It is important to note that this proposed route is predicated on the existing airfield configuration and not any potential runway extension. It is also dependent on the FAA accepting a new “non-compatible land use” within existing or future RPZs. Alternative 6 is estimated to cost approximately $141.3 million. The route could be modified as needed based on future on-and-off-airport development.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐90 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.3-6 TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 6

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐91 Master Plan Update

5.3.7 EVALUATION OF TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES

A total of six terminal alternatives were developed for LIMA. While all the alternatives enhance the airport in some way, they vary in their level of additional impacts, and ultimate capability potential.

The method that was used to evaluate the terminal alternatives is the “same ranking by evaluation criteria” that was utilized to evaluate the runway alternatives. Using a terminal specific set of evaluation criteria (listed in each alternative’s respective evaluation table), an evaluation matrix was created. In order to quantify a particular alternatives total score, a numeric value was assigned to each alternative for each criterion. The numeric values were assigned as follows:  Positive Impact (Green) = +1  Neutral/No Impact (Yellow) = 0  Negative Impact (Red) = (1)

Using this method, the sum total of each alternative’s criteria score was then used to rank the alternatives in order of preference for each terminal plan. A definition of each evaluation criteria is presented in Table 5.3-7, Terminal Evaluation Criteria Definitions.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐92 Master Plan Update

Table 5.3-7 TERMINAL EVALUATION CRITERIA Evaluation Criteria Definition Ultimate Capacity By comparison, what is the ultimate gate Gates potential of the alternative? By comparison, what is the ultimate terminal Potential Processor Expansion processor potential of the alternative? Terminal Functionality Compared to existing conditions, how does the Passenger Walking Distances alternative impact passenger walking distances? Compared to existing conditions, how does the Passenger Flow alternative impact passenger flows? Does the alternative provide connectivity to the Connectivity to LIRR LIRR? Implementation How complex will the construction phasing of Phasability the alternative be? Access to Utilities Is the site served with existing utilities? Impact on Existing Conditions Does the alternative have any effect on on- Landside Roadways airport landside roadways? Does the alternative have any effect on off- Off-Airport Public Roadways airport public roadways? Airfield Impacts Does the alternative have any effect on any Runways runways? Does the alternative have any effect on any Taxiways taxiways? Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

The evaluation results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.3-8, Evaluation of Terminal Alternatives. Terminal Alternative 2 ranks the highest with a total score of five points. Alternative 2 provides LIMA with a reasonable terminal expansion plan that has the least amount of impacts. With the exception of LIRR connectivity (which is the same for all alternatives), the only negative attribute to Terminal Alternative 2 is “Phasability” given that the new concourse would be constructed on the location of the existing West Concourse. This could be solved through the use of temporary remote parking positions while construction is completed. Given the clear results of the alternative ranking, Alternative 2 is the recommended terminal alternative of this master plan and will be reflected as such in the Overall Recommended Plan.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐93 Master Plan Update

Table 5.3-8 EVALUATION OF TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES

CONCEPTS TERMINAL EXPANSION OF EXISTING NEW ALTERNATIVES 12345 Ultimate Capacity Gates 00010 Potential Processor Expansion 1 0 1 1 1 Terminal Functionality Passenger Walking Distances (1) 1101 Passenger Flow 11111 Connectivity to LIRR (1) (1) (1) (1) 1 Implementation Phasability 1 (1) (1) (1) 1 Access to Utilities 1 1 1 1 (1) Impact on Existing Conditions Landside Roads 0 1 (1) (1) (1) Public Roads 1111(1) Airfield Impacts Runway (1) 110(1) Taxiway 011(1) 1 Totals 2 5 4 1 2

RANK 3 1 2 5 3

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐94 Master Plan Update

5.4 AERONAUTICAL SUPPORT

Chapter Four, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements, identified the need for approximately 200,000 square feet of additional general aviation hangar space required by the end of the planning period. Given existing levels of development at LIMA along the western side and in the southwestern corner of the airfield, accommodating this demand in these established General Aviation areas is not possible. Therefore, this master plan recommends the reservation of a portion of the unused airport property on the east side of the airfield to accommodate this demand. Exhibit 5.4-1, East GA Facility Development, depicts the area required to accommodate this additional demand through the planning period. This area accounts for associated ramp, and Airplane Design Group-III taxiway.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐95 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.4-1 EAST GA FACILITY DEVELOPMENT

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐96 Master Plan Update

5.5 OVERALL RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN

The Overall Recommended Master Plan is presented in Exhibit 5.5-1, Overall Recommended Master Plan. This plan consists of the following individual alternatives:  Runway 6/24 Alternative 8 EMAS  Runway 15R/33L Alternative 12  Taxiway Alternative 3 (Convert Runway 10/28 to a taxiway)  Terminal Alternative 2  East GA Facility Development

This overall plan meets the airports goals of providing a crosswind runway of at least 7,000 feet in departure runway length available, preserving for the possibility of extending Runway 6/24 to 7,500 feet, conversion of Runway 10/28 to a taxiway, providing a plan to meet any terminal growth demand, and an area for future GA facilities growth. The general phasing of each project is listed in Table 5.5-1, Overall Recommended Master Plan Phasing. Runway 6/24 Alternative 8 EMAS is broken into two projects. This is due to the fact that the Runway 6 RSA solution will be required by the FAA to be completed prior to the next runway overlay/rehabilitation project which is anticipated in the near-term. The runway extension on the Runway 24 end is anticipated to occur beyond the planning period. More detailed phasing and financial information on the implementation of these projects is presented in Chapter Seven, Financial Feasibility.

Table 5.5-1 TERMINAL EVALUATION CRITERIA 0-5 5-10 10-20 As Project Years Years Year Needed Runway 6/24 Alternative 8 EMAS - Runway 6 End RSA  (EMAS) Runway 6/24 Alternative 8 EMAS - Runway 24 End  Extension Runway 15R/33L Alternative  12 Taxiway Alternative 3  Terminal Alternative 2  East GA Facility  Development

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐97 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐98

Master Plan Update

Exhibit 5.5-1 OVERALL RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN

Source: Landrum & Brown Analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐99

Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 5‐100

6 Chapter

Chapter 6: Airport Plans Package

Master Plan Update

CHAPTER SIX AIRPORT PLANS PACKAGE

INTRODUCTION

The Long Island MacArthur Airport (LIMA) Master Plan has evolved through the analytical efforts described in previous chapters. The analysis in Chapter Five, Development Alternatives, resulted in the selection of an airport development plan for LIMA that accommodates forecast demand through the planning period. This chapter presents the resulting plan in a set of detailed drawings, referred to as the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing set, that depict the recommendations for airfield layout, disposition of obstructions, and future use of land on the airport. This set of plans includes the following drawings which are presented in reduced format at the end of this chapter: • Sheet 1 – Cover Sheet • Sheet 2 – Existing Airport Layout Plan • Sheet 3 – Future Airport Layout Plan • Sheet 4 – Airport Data Sheet • Sheet 5 – Runway 6 Approach Plan and Profile • Sheet 6 – Runway 24 Approach Plan and Profile • Sheet 7 – Runway 15RApproach Plan and Profile • Sheet 8 – Runway 33L Approach Plan and Profile • Sheet 9 – Runway 15L/33R Approach Plan and Profile • Sheet 10 – Runway 10/28 Approach Plan and Profile • Sheet 11 – FAR Part 77 Airspace Plan • Sheet 12 – Obstruction Data Table Sheet 1 • Sheet 13 – Obstruction Data Table Sheet 1 • Sheet 14 – Runway 6/24 & Runway 10/28 Departure Surface Drawing • Sheet 15 – Runway 6/24 & Runway 10/28 Departure Obstruction Data Table • Sheet 16 – Runway 15L/33R & 15R/33L Departure Surface Drawing • Sheet 17 – Runway 15L/33R & 15R/33L Departure Obstruction Data Table • Sheet 18 – Runway 15L/33R & 15R/33L Departure Obstruction Data Table • Sheet 19 – Runway 15L/33R & 15R/33L Departure Obstruction Data Table • Sheet 20 – Tree Removal Summary Sheet - Project #212021 • Sheet 21 – Exhibit A Airport Property Map • Sheet 22 – On-Airport Land Use Plan • Sheet 23 – Off-Airport Land Use and Zoning

This ALP drawing set has been prepared in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circulars (AC) 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, and the FAA Standard Operating Procedure

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 6-1

Master Plan Update

(SOP) 2.00, Standard Procedure for FAA Review and Approval of Airport Layout Plans (ALPs).

6.1 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP) DRAWING SET

The following section describes the major components of the ALP drawing set. The ALP is a planning tool for the FAA‘s review of airport development grant applications under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The FAA refers to the ALP in its review of proposed construction projects that may affect navigable airspace. The ALP also serves as a planning tool for use by surrounding jurisdictions to address land use, zoning, and resource planning issues.

6.1.1 SHEET 1 – COVER SHEET

The cover sheet serves as an introduction to the airport plans set. It includes the following: • Name of the Airport • Name of the Study • Period of the Study • Index of the included drawings • Approval Blocks

6.1.2 SHEETS 2 AND 3 – AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS (ALPs)

The ALP drawing graphically presents the existing and future airport layout. It depicts the recommended improvements that will enable the airport to meet the forecast level of demand through the planning period.

The existing ALP (Sheet 2) is a base drawing that solely depicts the existing airport facilities with their dimensional criteria. The Future ALP (Sheet 3) depicts the proposed airport improvements for both the airside and the landside areas “on top of” of the existing airport facilities. The proposed future airport development program recommends the following projects be completed within the 20-year planning horizon: • Runway 6 end RSA/OFA EMAS • Convert Runway 10/28 to Taxiway “S” • Slide and Extend Runway 15R/33L for a total length of 7,000 feet • Develop GA Future Facilities east of Runway 15L/33R

In addition, the Future ALP depicts a long-range extension to Runway 6/24 and reconstruction of the West Terminal Concourse. Neither the Runway 6/24 extension nor the terminal concourse reconstruction is needed to meet the anticipated operational demand within the 20-year planning horizon. However, should the demand arise, the runway extension and terminal concourse reconstruction is included as a placeholder in LIMA’s future development plan.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 6-2

Master Plan Update

6.1.3 SHEET 4 – AIRPORT DATA SHEET

The detailed airport and runway data are provided on Sheet 4 to facilitate the interpretation of the Master Plan Update facility and design recommendations. In addition, All-Weather and Instrument Flight Rules wind coverage is provided, along with a legend of terms used in the ALP drawings.

6.1.4 SHEETS 5 THROUGH 10 – RUNWAY APPROACH PLANS AND PROFILES

The Runway Approach Plan and Profiles (Sheets 5 through 10) show both plan and profile views of the approaches to each of the existing and future runways. The plan and profile views facilitate identification of obstructions located within the areas that should be void of objects that may endanger safe aircraft flight during takeoff and landing.

6.1.5 SHEET 11 THROUGH 13 – FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION (FAR) PART 77 AIRSPACE PLAN AND OBSTRUCTION DATA TABLES

Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, prescribes airspace standards that establish criteria for evaluating navigable airspace around airports. This sheet presents FAR Part 77 standards and their relationship to the physical features and terrain on and around LIMA. The FAR Part 77 surfaces and limiting heights and evaluations for future development adjacent to the Airport are shown on sheet 9.

The intent of FAR Part 77 is to protect the airspace and approaches to each runway from hazards that could affect the safe and efficient operation of aircraft. These federal criteria have also been established for use by local jurisdictions to control the height of objects in an airport vicinity. For example, FAR Part 77 can be utilized in zoning ordinances to enhance area land use compatibility.

These drawings are also used to identify potential obstructions that are located within the imaginary surfaces of the airport. Ideally, an obstruction should be removed or lowered beneath the imaginary Part 77 surfaces. In some cases, it is appropriate to mark and light the obstruction in accordance with AC 70/7460-1K, Obstruction Marking and Lighting. All obstructions must be reviewed by the FAA to determine if they are a hazard to air navigation and to determine which course of action is appropriate.

The FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces are established relative to the airport and runway system. The size of each imaginary surface is based on the runway approach category (visual, non-precision, or precision). Each of the Part 77 surfaces is described in the following subsections. • Primary Surface – The primary surface is located closest to the runway environment. It is a rectangular area symmetrically located about the runway centerline and extends a distance of 200 feet beyond each runway

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 6-3

Master Plan Update

threshold. Its elevation is the same as the runway centerline at a point perpendicular to the runway centerline. The width of the primary surface depends on the type of runway approach capability (visual, non-precision, or precision). The primary surface must remain clear of most objects to allow unobstructed passage of aircraft. Objects are only permitted if they are no taller than two feet above the ground, and if they are constructed on frangible (breakaway) mounts. The only exception to this rule is for objects for which location is “fixed by function,” such as navigational and visual aid facilities (glide slope, precision approach path indicator, windsock, etc.). • Approach Surface – An approach surface is also established for each runway end. The approach surface has the same inner width as the primary surface, and then flares (gets wider) as it rises upward and outward along the extended runway centerline. The approach surface begins 200 feet beyond the runway end. The slope of the rise and the length of the approach surface is dictated by the type of approach available to the runway (visual, non-precision or precision), and by the approach category of the aircraft for which the runway is designed. • Transitional Surface – Each runway has a transitional surface that begins at the outside edge of the primary surface, and at the same elevation as the runway centerline. There are three transitional surfaces: the first is off the sides of the primary surface, the second is off the sides of the approach surface, and the third is outside the conical surface and pertains to precision runways only. The transitional surface rises at a slope of one-foot vertically for each 7 feet of horizontal distance (7:1) up to a height, which is 150 feet above the highest runway elevation. • Horizontal Surface – The horizontal surface is established at 150 feet above the published airport elevation. This is an oval-shaped flat surface that connects the transitional and approach surfaces to the conical surface at a distance of 10,000 feet from the primary surface. • Conical Surface – The conical surface begins at the outer edge of the horizontal surface. The conical surface continues for a distance of 4,000 feet horizontally at a slope of one-foot rise for each 20 feet of horizontal distance (20:1).

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 6-4

Master Plan Update

6.1.6 SHEET 14 THROUGH 19 – 40:1 DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWINGS AND OBSTUCTION DATA TABLES

The 40:1 Runway Departure Surface drawings show both the plan and profile views for each of the runway departures as shown on the ALP. Departure surfaces, when clear, allow pilots to follow standard departure procedures. Except for runways that have a designated clearway, the departure surface is a trapezoid shape that begins at the end of the Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) and extends along the extended runway centerline and with a slope of 1 unit vertically for every 40 units horizontally (40:1). For runways that have a clearway, the departure surface begins at the far end of the clearway at the elevation of the clearway at that point. Obstacles frequently penetrate the departure surface. Therefore, it is important for airports to identify and remove these obstacles whenever possible when takeoff procedures can be enhanced, and also to prevent new obstacles.

6.1.7 SHEET 20 – TREE REMOVAL SUMMARY SHEET – PROJECT #212021

This sheet provides a summary of the tree removal project #212021, performed in May of 2013. Tree mitigation upon vegetation impacting the 20:1 TERPS surface was completed by Savik & Murray, removing, grubbing, and grading a large number of trees around the airport. Tree obstacles that were part of the original survey were removed from the database as part of this effort.

6.1.8 SHEET 21 – EXHIBIT A PROPERTY MAP

The purpose of an Exhibit A Airport Property Inventory Map (Sheet 21) is to represent all real property currently owned and previously owned by the Airport. Specific data is maintained for each numbered parcel presented in the Exhibit A. The data includes physical description of parcel, grantee information, type of interest acquired, and public land record references. The Exhibit A also includes information, such as project number, specific to FAA funded projects. The Exhibit A is maintained by the Airport and must be provided to the FAA to receive funding for airport projects.

6.1.9 SHEET 22 – ON-AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN

The purpose of developing an on-airport land use plan is to achieve an arrangement of land uses within the airport’s boundary that best utilizes available property for existing and future airport needs; it should also be compatible with the surrounding environment. The future On-Airport Land Use Plan (Sheet 22) provides adequate growth for all airport functions and provides for the potential to develop non-aviation related development that could generate additional revenue for the Airport.

6.1.10 SHEET 23 – OFF-AIRPORT LAND USE AND ZONING

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 6-5

Master Plan Update

Sheet 23 of this plan set presents the off-airport land use plan with the aircraft noise contours overlaid. The purpose of the off-airport land use plan is to guide the future development of the property in the vicinity of the airport so as to ensure that incompatible uses are not developed in areas that are potentially affected by airport operations. This plan should be used by municipal planners to develop the appropriate zoning regulations and for the approval of future off-airport development proposals.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 6-6

Cha p ter 7

Chapter 7: Financial Feasibility

Master Plan Update

CHAPTER SEVEN FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

INTRODUCTION

Chapter Five, Development Alternatives, presented the recommended airport development alternative for LIMA. In addition to the capital projects outlined in the Master Plan, the Town of Islip (which owns and operates LIMA) also plans to make additional capital expenditures outlined in its 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP).1 For purposes of this chapter the 5-Year CIP and the Master Plan projects are collectively referred to as the CIP.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an order of magnitude assessment of the financial implications of undertaking the CIP, and to identify potential sources of funding that may be available to cover the costs of the CIP. This analysis resulted in the development of a Financial Implementation Plan consisting of the following steps. First, a complete project list with cost estimates for each project was compiled. Second, the projects were phased according to whether they were expected to come online in the near-term (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years), or long-term (10-20 years) time horizons. Third, the operating finances of the Airport were reviewed and projected through the long-term planning period. Finally, the sources and uses of available funding were matched and applied against the total development cost to arrive at a net funding requirement, and an indicative assessment of affordability for the CIP. It is also assumed that projects will only be initiated as required and funds are identified and found to be available.

1 Long Island MacArthur Airport 5-year Capital Improvement Plan, prepared for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - dated 10/25/2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐1 Master Plan Update

7.1 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The CIP presented herein includes the existing 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for LIMA and the projects resulting from the recommended alternative presented in Chapter Five of the Master Plan report.

A narrative summary of the individual capital projects follows, and estimated costs associated with the overall CIP are provided in Table 7.1-1, LIMA Capital Improvement Program.  Existing 5-Year CIP o Reconfigure Hotspot #2 - Extend Taxiway W and A, Remove Taxiway S between Taxiway A and Runway 6/24 o Replace Airfield Electrical Vault o Construction of an ARFF Facility o Environmental Assessment - Runway 15R/33L Extension o Rehabilitation of Runway 6/24  Master Plan Recommended Alternative o Runway 6/24 Alternative #08 w/EMAS – Relocation of Localizers, Construction of EMAS to end of Runway 24, Relocation of Glide Slope, Extension of runway by 494 feet (northeast end), Relocation of ALS o Runway 15R/33L Alternative #12 – Extension of runway by 2,006 feet (southeast end), Abandonment of 192 feet of runway (northwest end), Extension of Taxiway B to connect to the extended runway o Conversion of Runway 10/28 to Taxiway S – Remove existing runway surface and repave for new taxiway with new signage and lighting, Resurface and reconfigure existing Taxiway S to a Taxilane. o Terminal Alternative #2 – Demolish and rebuild West Concourse on two levels with a concourse depth consistent with the East Concourse. o Construction of the East General Aviation Facility (3rd Party Development)

The extension of Runway 15R/33L was originally included in LIMA’s existing 5-year CIP to be completed by 2018. The identified phasing of the Runway 15R/33L extension recommended in the Master Plan is in the mid-term planning period (five to ten year timeframe). For purposes of the financial implementation plan, the Master Plan phasing has been assumed. The total cost of the proposed Capital Improvement Program is estimated at $102.1 million in 2013 U.S. dollars ($2013). The Master Plan project cost estimates include a 25 percent general contingency, a 10 percent design fee and a 10 percent construction management fee. It should also be noted, the CIP excludes the proposed East General Aviation Facility which is assumed to be developed by a third party.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐2 Master Plan Update

Table 7.1-1 LIMA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Project Description Project Costs (2013$) Existing 5-Year CIP Reconfigure Hotspot #2, Extend Taxiways W and A $3,600,000 Replace Airfield Electrical Vault $3,000,000 Environmental Assessment - Runway 15R/33L Extension $750,000 Construction of an ARFF Facility $7,500,000 Runway 6/24 Rehabilitation $8,500,000 Subtotal $23,350,000 Master Plan Recommended Alternative Runway 6/24 Alternative #8 w/EMAS $21,500,000 Runway 15R/33L Extension $22,200,000 Conversion of Runway 10/28 to Taxiway $23,500,000 Terminal Alternative #2 $11,500,000 East General Aviation Facility 3rd Party Subtotal $78,700,000 Total Capital Improvement Program $102,050,000

Note: Master Plan project costs are total costs: including design, planning, management, construction, and contingency costs. Sources: Long Island MacArthur Airport; JKL Engineering; Landrum & Brown

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐3 Master Plan Update

7.2 CIP PHASING PLAN

A phasing plan was developed for the CIP presented in the previous section and presented below in Table 7.2-1, CIP Chasing Plan. The phasing plan was developed in three broad time horizons: o Near-term (0 to 5 years) o Mid-term (5 to 10 years) o Long-term (10 to 20 years)

Table 7.2-1 CIP PHASING PLAN

Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term Project Description (0-5 (5-10 (10-20 Years) Years) Years) Existing 5-Year CIP Reconfigure Hotspot #2, Extend Taxiways W X and A Replace Airfield Electrical Vault X Environmental Assessment - Runway 15R/33L X Extension Construction of an ARFF Facility X Runway 6/24 Rehabilitation X Master Plan Recommended Alternative Runway 6/24 Alternative #8 w/EMAS – X Runway 6 End Runway 6/24 Alternative #8 w/EMAS – X Runway 24 End Runway 15R/33L Extension X Conversion of Runway 10/28 to Taxiway X Terminal Alternative #2 X East General Aviation Facility 3rd Party

Sources: Long Island MacArthur Airport; Landrum & Brown

All of the projects presented in the current LIMA 5-year CIP are projected to be completed by the end of 2018, and thus are included as near-term projects. The Master Plan projects resulting from the recommended alternative fall mainly into the near-term and mid-term horizons for the airfield projects, with the terminal project planned in the long-term time horizon. A graphic depiction of the Master Plan projects phasing is presented on Sheet 3, Future Airport Layout Plan, included in Chapter Six, Airport Plans Package. The funding plan for the near-term project costs will need to determined and secured by the Airport within the next few years.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐4 Master Plan Update

7.3 FUNDING SOURCES

The potential funding sources identified for financing the CIP include Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, New York Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) grants, Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), tenant financing, general obligation bonds, and local Airport funding. Each of the major potential sources of capital funding is discussed below. Table 7.3-1, LIMA CIP Funding Sources presents the potential key sources of funding for the $102.1 million CIP.

Table 7.3-1 LIMA CIP FUNDING SOURCES

Project Costs Federal AIP PFC/Local Project Description State Funds ($2013) Grants Funds

Existing 5-Year CIP Reconfigure Hotspot #2, $3,600,000 $3,240,000 $180,000 $180,000 Extend Taxiways W and A Replace Airfield Electrical $3,000,000 $2,700,000 $150,000 $150,000 Vault Environmental Assessment - Runway 15R/33L $750,000 $675,000 $37,500 $37,500 Extension Construction of an ARFF $7,500,000 $6,750,000 $375,000 $375,000 Facility Runway 6/24 Rehabilitation $8,500,000 $7,650,000 $425,000 $425,000 Subtotal $23,350,000 $21,015,000 $1,167,500 $1,167,500 Master Plan Recommended Alternative Runway 6/24 Alternative $21,500,000 $19,350,000 $1,000,000 $1,150,000 #8 w/EMAS Runway 15R/33L Extension $22,200,000 $19,980,000 $1,000,000 $1,220,000 Conversion of Runway $23,500,000 $21,150,000 $1,000,000 $1,350,000 10/28 to Taxiway Terminal Alternative #2 $11,500,000 $1,000,000 $10,500,000 East General Aviation Facility 3rd Party Subtotal $78,700,000 $60,480,000 $4,000,000 $14,220,000 Total Capital $102,050,000 $81,495,000 $5,167,500 $15,387,500 Improvement Program

Sources: Long Island MacArthur Airport; Landrum & Brown analysis.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐5 Master Plan Update

7.3.1 FAA AIP GRANTS

AIP grants are sponsored by the FAA and authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. This act authorizes funding for AIP from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for airport development, airport planning, and noise compatibility planning and programs. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund is funded through several aviation user taxes (including a 7.5 percent Federal tax on airline tickets, a flight segment tax, international taxes and a fuel tax). Federal grants-in-aid are apportioned to airports based on (1) their annual passenger enplanements (entitlement grants) and (2) other remaining funds are distributed, based on the priority and type of capital projects for which funding is requested (discretionary grants). The priority of projects to be awarded discretionary grants is determined by the judgment of the Secretary of Transportation and administered at the district level of the FAA.

In general, AIP grants can be used for land acquisition, noise mitigation, airfield improvements, on-airport roadways, public areas of terminal buildings, and safety and security systems and equipment. In allocating its discretionary funds, the FAA gives priority to projects that enhance airport safety, security, noise mitigation, and capacity where capacity constraints have been identified. As a result of new legislation passed since September 11, 2001, priority has been given to projects that are required to meet new Federal safety and security regulations. The Federal share of eligible project costs at LIMA is currently at 90 percent, and it is assumed to remain at 90 percent for the 20 year planning horizon.

The Master Plan update forecast for LIMA presented in Chapter Three, Forecasts of Aviation Activity shows passenger traffic growing from a projected 682,000 enplanements in 2013 to just over 804,000 enplanements by 2037. The level of available AIP entitlement funding for each airport through the Airport and Airways Trust Fund is predicated upon an approved budget of at least $3.2 billion in accordance with Title 49 U.S.C., Section 48103. Assuming FAA funding will continue to at the same entitlement calculation rate as over the past ten plus years, LIMA will be eligible for approximately $3.6 to $3.8 million in entitlement grants each year through 2037, with additional discretionary grants making up the difference to reach the federal share of 90 percent of the eligible project costs. Estimated FAA AIP entitlement grants for LIMA are presented in Table 7.3-2, LIMA Expected Annual FAA AIP Entitlement Grants.

In addition to the AIP entitlement grants, the CIP program assumes LIMA will also qualify for AIP discretionary grants depending on FAA prioritization of the planned projects. It is assumed that Federal AIP grants (both entitlement and discretionary) will fund approximately $81.5 million of airfield projects proposed in the CIP.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐6 Master Plan Update

Table 7.3-2 LIMA EXPECTED ANNUAL FAA AIP ENTITLEMENT GRANTS

2013 2014 2017 2022 2027 2037

Forecast Enplanements 682,200 685,700 694,000 716,600 743,000 804,400 Estimated Total Entitlement $3,761,651 $3,612,502 $3,625,358 $3,649,145 $3,681,560 $3,759,205 Entitlement per Enplanement Up to 50,000 $15.60 enplanements 50,001 - 100,000 $10.40 enplanements Enplanements from two years prior are used in the FAA appropriations calculation 100,001 - to determine AIP Entitlements for the current year. For example, the 2013 AIP 500,000 $5.20 Entitlement is based on the 2011 enplanements at LIMA. enplanements 500,001 - 1,000,000 $1.30 enplanements over 1,000,000 $1.00 enplanements

Sources: Landrum & Brown; FAA

7.3.2 NYSDOT GRANTS

NYSDOT provides financial assistance to publicly owned, public use airports in the State of New York through the Aviation Capital Grant Program. The Aviation Office of NYSDOT selects eligible projects annually. Commercial service airports in New York with more than 700,000 annual enplanements can receive up to 70 percent coverage of approved eligible projects and a maximum state contribution of $1 million per project. LIMA currently assumes a 50 percent contribution rate for state funding of the remaining costs (10 percent of total) after allocation of federally available funding. The capital projects at LIMA are expected to qualify for the state assistance. Approximately $5.2 million in state grants are assumed to fund portions of the proposed CIP.

7.3.3 PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES

In October of 1990, Congress passed the Aviation Safety and Expansion Act of 1990. In this legislation, sponsoring public agencies of airports were authorized to collect PFCs subject to rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation. The final rules and regulations were issued by the Department of Transportation in May 1991. The legislation authorized a maximum charge of $3.00 to be imposed by an airport on originating and connecting enplaned passengers (with a maximum of two PFCs imposed on each one-way trip). In 2000, the maximum PFC was raised to $4.50 as part of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21).

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐7 Master Plan Update

The revenues derived from PFCs may be used as a funding source for the local airport share of eligible capital project costs directly or may be used to pay debt service on bonds issued to finance eligible capital projects. Eligible airport capital projects include those projects which preserve or enhance airport capacity, safety, and the security of the national transportation system; reduce or mitigate airport noise impacts; or furnish opportunities that enhance competition among air carriers.

LIMA is currently authorized to collect the maximum $4.50 PFC per enplanement through April 1, 2015. It is assumed that a $4.50 PFC will be collected at LIMA to pay for approved capital projects over the forecast period. Of the current PFC, $0.11 is remanded to the airline for each collection with an assumed actual collection rate of 95 percent. PFC collections at LIMA are projected to increase from $2.8 million annually in 2013, up to $3.4 million in 2037 as a function of growth in passenger traffic (See Table 7.3-3, LIMA Expected PFC Collections).

Table 7.3-3 LIMA EXPECTED PFC COLLECTIONS

Forecast 2013 2014 2017 2022 2027 2037 Enplanements 682,200 685,700 694,000 716,600 743,000 804,400 Less 5% Ineligible (34,110) (34,290) (34,700) (35,830) (37,150) (40,220) Enplanements Projected Eligible 648,090 651,410 659,300 680,770 705,850 764,180 Enplanements Total PFC Collections at $2,916,405 $2,931,345 $2,966,850 $3,063,465 $3,176,325 $3,438,810 $4.50 each Less $0.11 per collected ($71,290) ($71,655) ($72,523) ($74,885) ($77,644) ($84,060) enplanement Net PFC Collections to $2,845,115 $2,859,690 $2,894,327 $2,988,580 $3,098,682 $3,354,750 the Airport

Sources: Landrum & Brown; FAA

PFC collections are expected to be eligible for use in funding the capital improvement projects in the recommended plan. PFC funds are planned to be used primarily as ‘Pay-as-you-go’ funds to directly cover a portion of the eligible projects costs annually with the remaining funds in the PFC collections reserve to be used for payment and coverage of any necessary debt service payments. The projected near-term costs of the planned projects may require some near-term funding from new bond debt to cover initial constructions costs before reimbursable grants are received. Approximately $15.4 million in PFC collections are expected to fund a portion of the proposed CIP.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐8 Master Plan Update

7.3.4 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS

City- or county-issued general obligation bonds can be used in part to fund airport projects. These types of city- or county-supported bonds can be reimbursable or solely tax-payer funded (not repaid by the airport). LIMA has, in the past, and is expected to, in the future, work with the Town of Islip to receive Town issued bond proceeds to cover any required portion of the airports share of planned capital improvement project costs that cannot be covered by available cash, PFCs, and Federal or State grants. LIMA currently has $5.6 million in outstanding principle related to general obligation bond debt.

General Airport Revenue Bonds (GARBs) can also be issued to pay for capital improvement projects. GARBs are dependent upon the airport’s credit rating and the health of airport revenues in order to secure necessary financing. GARBs can also be supported by PFC revenues for approved PFC-eligible projects. As discussed above, LIMA has historically relied on Town backed general obligation bonds.

The financial implementation plan assumes that LIMA will pay for upfront capital improvement costs in the recommended plan with city or county issued general obligation bonds. Based on the assumed CIP phasing plan, a bond issue in the order of $8 million in 2014 (amortization period of 15, with a 4.5 percent of annual interest) could be required to fund projected near-term capital program deficits before federal grant reimbursements are received.

7.3.5 DIRECT AIRPORT FUNDING

The balance of the CIP program costs, after consideration has been given to FAA grants, state grants, PFCs and general obligation bonds, must be funded through Airport resources. This direct payment of capital costs is accomplished through the use of net operating income and certain reserves, if available, and after debt obligations have been satisfied.

7.3.6 AIRLINE TENANT FINANCING

Airport capital projects are also sometimes funded from other sources. Fixed based operators, cargo carriers, and airlines can build airport facilities (such as hangars or concourses) with special facility revenue bonds, corporate borrowing, or their own cash flow. Private firms such as concessionaires or developers can also finance airport improvements. The East General Aviation facility is considered to be a tenant- or 3rd Party-financed project and is not a financial liability for the Airport in the recommended development plan. No other airline or tenant financing is assumed in LIMA recommended plan.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐9 Master Plan Update

7.4 FINANCIAL AFFORDABILITY

The Airport operates as a division of the Town of Islip and is similar to an enterprise fund, managed by the Town and airport officials. The Airport, like an enterprise fund, is expected to be self-supporting, and operate within prescribed budgets from revenues provided by passengers and other airport users. The main operating revenues supporting the financial requirements of airport operations come from the following sources:

 Airport Parking  Baggage Claim  Rental Cars  Concessions  Landing Fees  Fuel Surcharges  Rentals

LIMA currently operates a revenue system of setting annual rates and charges, where Town ordinances are projected and set for the key rates affecting airline costs (landing fees, rental rates and baggage claim area fees). Many airports operate under a residual rates and charges methodology or a ‘break even’ system for aeronautical revenues and expenses, where the airlines bear the financial risk through paying rates proportional to the overall expenses. Under the current rates and charges agreements with airlines, LIMA bears the financial risk and also has the opportunity to take advantage of the financial benefit from increasing non-aeronautical revenues. Although a specific rates and charges model is not employed by LIMA, the revenues generated from the collection of these ordinance rates are intended to be sufficient to cover the costs of airfield and terminal building operating and maintenance costs.

The Rates and Charges ordinances to the airlines set forth by the Town of Islip for LIMA are as follows for 2013 (fiscal and calendar years are equal):  Airline Rent is $29.40 per square foot  Landing Fees per 1,000 pounds (lbs.) maximum gross landed weight (MGLW) o Daytime Landing Rate is $1.47 per 1,000 lbs. MGLW o Evening Landing Rate is $2.21 per 1,000 lbs. MGLW  Security Area for the West Concourse is $1.02 per enplaned passenger  Baggage Claim Area cost is $709,674 annually o 20 percent is distributed evenly between the number of carriers o 80 percent is distributed based on passenger enplanements

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐10 Master Plan Update

7.4.1 OPERATING REVENUES

This section provides a summary of reported operating revenues at LIMA from 2009 to 2012 (historical revenues provided by the Airport) and the projected revenues through 2037. Table 7.4-1, LIMA Historical Operating Revenues presents the historical operating revenues, which have been trending at around $12 million annually (excluding the large sale of surplus land in 2010).

Table 7.4-1 LIMA HISTORICAL OPERATING REVENUES

Airport Revenue Historical Categories 2009 2010 2011 2012 Airport Parking $4,144,975 $3,569,919 $3,250,104 $2,918,552 Airport Non-Terminal $2,001,133 $2,213,316 $1,933,108 $2,139,975 Rentals Airport Car Rental $1,918,380 $1,922,623 $1,985,091 $1,919,181 Airport Landing Fees $1,674,254 $1,569,018 $1,512,685 $1,271,884 Airport Baggage Claim $650,594 $669,510 $683,178 $688,514 Area Fees Airport Terminal $542,855 $655,385 $681,894 $676,416 Concessions Fuel Surcharge $140,063 $626,401 $569,204 Airport Terminal Rentals $424,101 $414,825 $414,654 $433,120 Airport Gate Area Fees $165,669 $178,241 $175,664 $177,229 Resident Parking Fees $162,414 $167,545 $157,506 $154,479 Fuel Concession Usage $77,965 $125,322 $131,792 Ready Space - Airport $61,018 $62,695 $64,620 $66,707 Airport Car Rental $89,936 $46,011 $70,455 $48,744 Concessions Airport Non-Terminal $265,892 $112,460 $33,885 $32,889 Concessions Bayport Rentals $28,254 $28,287 $28,684 $29,154 FAA Reimbursement Appro F Bal.General Pr.Yr. and Gas $10,097 $6,956 $74,308 $428,413 Reimbursement/Misc. Airport Other Income $199,318 $55,981 $278,379 $137,416 Interest Earnings General $6,714 $4,882 $23,250 $9,049 Surplus Land/Real Prop. $5,993,512 Sales Property Rental Total Operating $12,345,606 $17,889,194 $12,119,187 $11,832,718 Revenues

Sources: LIMA Financial Reports, Landrum & Brown analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐11 Master Plan Update

The projected operating revenues for LIMA, in Table 7.4-2, LIMA Projected Operating Revenues are based on historical trends in the revenue categories, 2013 Estimate, 2014 Adopted Budget, the forecast growth in enplanements and commercial passenger aircraft operations. The average annual growth in operating revenues between 2014 Budget and 2037 is projected at 2.0 percent per year. Increases in the Landing Fee ordinance, collected by the Airport, were incorporated to recover the 5 percent Airport contribution to the airfield improvement project costs over the next ten years. The increased Landing Fee rate was projected to increase from the 2013 rate of $1.47 per 1,000 lbs. MGLW to $2.16 per 1,000 lbs. MGLW through three equal incremental increases.

Table 7.4-2 LIMA PROJECTED OPERATING REVENUES

Estimate Budget Projected Airport Revenue Categories 2013 2014 2017 2022 2027 2037

Airport Parking $3,300,000 $3,050,000 $3,256,500 $3,712,500 $4,249,700 $5,608,800 Airport Non-Terminal $2,000,000 $2,030,000 $2,122,800 $2,286,800 $2,463,500 $2,859,000 Rentals Airport Car Rental $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $2,862,500 $3,188,700 $3,572,700 $4,539,200 Airport Landing Fees $1,500,000 $1,314,000 $1,679,800 $2,173,500 $2,236,500 $2,386,700 Airport Baggage $670,000 $690,000 $721,600 $777,400 $837,500 $971,800 Claim Area Fees Airport Terminal $700,000 $700,000 $707,900 $730,900 $757,800 $820,500 Concessions Fuel Surcharge $696,000 $570,000 $604,900 $667,800 $737,400 $898,700 Airport Terminal $450,000 $446,000 $473,300 $522,600 $577,100 $703,400 Rentals Airport Gate Area $175,000 $180,000 $191,000 $210,900 $232,900 $283,800 Fees Resident Parking $160,000 $210,000 $222,900 $246,000 $271,500 $330,900 Fees Fuel Concession $150,000 $150,000 $159,200 $175,700 $194,000 $236,500 Usage Ready Space - $68,000 $120,000 $127,300 $140,500 $155,100 $189,100 Airport Airport Car Rental $1,000 $130,000 $138,000 $152,400 $168,200 $205,000 Concessions Airport Non-Terminal $25,000 $70,000 $74,300 $82,000 $90,500 $110,300 Concessions Bayport Rentals $30,000 $35,000 $37,100 $41,000 $45,300 $55,200 FAA Reimbursement $100,000 Appro F Bal.General $3,427,705 Pr.Yr. and Gas $50,500 $64,000 $67,900 $75,000 $82,800 $101,000 Reimbursement/Misc. Airport Other Income $105,000 $305,000 $323,600 $357,300 $394,400 $480,700 Interest Earnings. $8,300 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 General Surplus Land/Real $2,185,000 Prop. Sales Property Rental $728,400 $772,984 $853,437 $942,263 $1,148,613 Total Operating $14,916,505 $14,484,400 $14,550,584 $16,401,437 $18,016,163 $21,936,213 Revenues

Sources: LIMA Financial Reports, Landrum & Brown analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐12 Master Plan Update

7.4.2 OPERATING EXPENSES

Table 7.4-3, LIMA Historical Operating Expenses shows the historical operating expenses at LIMA from 2009 through 2012. Airport operating expenses have been increasing slowly, with labor costs being the largest category and showing the largest proportional increase. Total expenses are also averaging around $12-$13 million annually, which has caused an operating deficit over the last two years.

Table 7.4-3 LIMA HISTORICAL OPERATING EXPENSES

Airport Expense Historical Categories 2009 2010 2011 2012 Personnel Wages $8,360,060 $8,669,655 $9,162,011 $9,740,673 and Benefits Contract Services $1,942,987 $2,224,255 $1,970,157 $2,365,747 Repairs and $478,672 $357,821 $336,860 $241,343 Maintenance Supplies and $193,102 $261,361 $591,168 $209,712 Materials Communication and $201,577 $393,388 $478,026 $174,500 Utilities Insurance , Claims $115,900 $114,759 $100,725 $99,540 and Settlements Misc/Other $43,646 $53,563 $46,827 $44,614 Total Operating $11,335,945 $12,074,803 $12,685,774 $12,876,128 Expenses

Sources: LIMA Financial Reports, Landrum & Brown analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐13 Master Plan Update

The projected operating expenses for LIMA, in Table 7.4-4, LIMA Projected Operating Expenses are also based on the historical trends, 2013 Estimate, 2014 Adopted Budget, as well as modest growth in labor and material costs ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 percent across the expense categories. The average annual growth in operating expenses between 2014 Budget and 2037 is projected to be 1.8 percent per year.

Table 7.4-4 LIMA PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSES

Airport Estimate Budget Projected Expense Categories 2013 2014 2017 2022 2027 2037 Personnel $9,887,189 $9,458,425 $10,037,357 $11,082,053 $12,235,482 $14,914,984 Wages and Benefits Contract $2,410,646 $2,280,484 $2,420,068 $2,671,950 $2,950,049 $3,596,094 Services Repairs and $332,823 $295,380 $318,092 $359,892 $407,185 $521,231 Maintenance Supplies and $248,008 $251,728 $271,084 $306,706 $347,010 $444,202 Materials Communication $428,974 $482,640 $512,181 $565,490 $624,346 $761,075 and Utilities Insurance , $108,000 $108,000 $112,933 $121,661 $131,064 $152,105 Claims and Settlements Misc/Other $43,900 $43,900 $45,905 $49,453 $53,275 $61,828 Total $13,459,540 $12,920,558 $13,717,620 $15,157,205 $16,748,411 $20,451,518 Operating Expenses

Sources: LIMA Financial Reports, Landrum & Brown analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐14 Master Plan Update

7.4.3 OPERATING INCOME

The net operating income at the Airport is the available revenues after satisfying all of the operating expenses incurred during the fiscal year (January to December). The net income from operations is shown in Table 7.4-5, LIMA Projected Operating Income. The net operating income projected in a pro-forma cash flow model of LIMA operations averages around $1 million per year in the near-term, and then gradually increases to a projected net income in 2037 of $1.5 million. This available operating income would be used for all or part of the necessary debt service payments on the existing debt as well as new general obligation debt through the Town of Islip.

Table 7.4-5 LIMA PROJECTED OPERATING INCOME

Income/ Estimate Budget Projected Operating Expense 2013 2014 2017 2022 2027 2037 Total Operating $14,916,505 $14,484,400 $14,550,584 $16,401,437 $18,016,163 $21,936,213 Revenues Total Operating $13,459,540 $12,920,558 $13,717,620 $15,157,205 $16,748,411 $20,451,518 Expenses Net Operating $1,456,965 $1,563,842 $832,964 $1,244,231 $1,267,752 $1,484,696 Income/(Loss)

Sources: LIMA Financial Reports, Landrum & Brown analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐15 Master Plan Update

7.4.4 DEBT SERVICE

The Airport currently has seven Serial Bond liabilities to the Town of Islip with a total principle obligation of $5.6 million to be repaid with interest over the next 12 years (see Table 7.4-6, LIMA Existing Debt Service Schedule) presents the existing debt service payment schedule (principal and interest) for LIMA through 2025.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐16 Master Plan Update

Table 7.4-6 LIMA EXISTING DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE

2008 2008 2008 Serial 2008 Serial 2008 Serial 2009 2010 Serial TOTAL 2007 Serial Serial Fiscal Bonds (Fire Bonds Bonds Serial Bonds (Var. Debt Serial Bonds Bonds Year Rescue (Airport (Haz. Mat. Bonds Capital Service Bonds (Airport (Airport Equipment) Equipment) Equipment) (Series B) Imprvmnts) Payments Building) Vehicles) 2014 $132,578 $33,950 $30,288 $7,132 $8,179 $2,853 $701,300 $16,366 $932,645 2015 $132,518 $34,233 $30,541 $7,192 $8,246 $2,877 $713,900 $16,352 $945,859 2016 $132,687 $34,243 $30,549 $7,194 $8,248 $2,878 $725,600 $16,393 $957,792 2017 $133,068 $34,451 $30,739 $7,238 $8,300 $2,895 $726,400 $16,545 $959,637 2018 $133,251 $34,613 $30,881 $7,271 $8,338 $2,909 $726,600 $16,749 $960,612 2019 $133,232 $34,728 $30,982 $7,296 $8,366 $2,919 $724,500 $16,883 $958,905 2020 $133,802 $34,794 $31,042 $7,310 $8,382 $2,924 $17,049 $235,304 2021 $133,665 $34,858 $31,100 $7,324 $8,397 $2,930 $17,110 $235,385 2022 $34,792 $31,039 $7,309 $8,381 $2,923 $17,134 $101,578 2023 $34,785 $31,033 $7,308 $8,380 $2,923 $17,132 $101,560 2024 $17,104 $17,104 2025 $17,154 $17,154 Total $1,064,800 $345,447 $308,195 $72,573 $83,218 $29,031 $4,318,300 $201,971 $6,423,535

Sources: LIMA Financial Reports, Landrum & Brown analysis

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐17 Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐18 Master Plan Update

7.5 FINANCIAL PLAN

The main objective of this financial plan is to determine the affordability of the proposed capital improvement projects identified in the Master Plan. Whether or not the Airport can financially afford to undertake and complete these planned projects depends on (1) when federal and state grant reimbursements are received by the Airport, (2) the level of operating income and PFC collections available for use in paying the existing and new debt service obligations, as well as paying for immediate project needs until reimbursement grants from the FAA and NYSDOT are received and (3) accuracy of estimated project costs and contingencies. Based on the estimated project costs and phasing, projected LIMA income and proposed funding sources, the overall financial plan for LIMA is summarized below in 2013 constant dollars:  $102.1 million in Total Estimated Project Costs (2013$)  $81.5 million in FAA AIP Grants (entitlement/discretionary) will be available  $5.2 million in NYSDOT Aviation Grants will be available  $15.4 million in PFC Collections will be required  $8.0 million in New Debt could be required to cover initial construction costs and the projected near-term deficits before reimbursements are received for eligible project work

Increases in airport expenses over the next 20 years are expected to increase the average cost per enplanement (CPE) to the airlines only modestly from an estimated CPE in 2013 of $4.10 to about $5.40 in 2037. These increased costs to the airline (landing fees, terminal rents, gate fees and baggage claim fees) and are in line the average overall growth in operating expenses.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐19 Master Plan Update

7.6 CONCLUSION

This affordability analysis indicates that the indicated funding sources will likely be available to plan and implement the recommended development projects identified in the LIMA Master Plan update. A total of 10 capital improvement projects, costing nearly $102.4 million have been identified for completion within the next 20 years (including those in the 5-year CIP). The Airport is expected to be able to secure the $8 million bond through the Town of Islip without difficulty, and the increases CPE to the airlines of $5.40 by 2024 is acceptable.

The affordability of this financial plan is dependent up maximum eligibility of available FAA AIP entitlement grants, continued support from the NYSDOT state aviation grants, continued PFC collections of at least $4.50 per enplanement and net operating income near the projected levels. An increase in PFC collections above $4.50 would provide greater flexibility to funding the financial plan if any of the other funding sources were not to materialize.

To receive the necessary FAA AIP discretionary grants assumed in the financial plan, LIMA will need to be current and competitive with the annual applications to the FAA for AIP support.

The realization of the projects outlined in this financial plan is flexible, in that projects that are not needed immediately can be postponed or scaled down based on limitations or changes to available funding or due to financial complications with the Airport, the city or Federal funding. If any of these conditions occur, the phasing will need to be adjusted accordingly.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 7‐20

Chapter 8 Chapter Chapter 8: Environmental Overview

Master Plan Update

CHAPTER EIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a preliminary review of the environmental conditions surrounding the Long Island Macarthur Airport (Airport or LIMA) and to identify potential environmental impacts associated with the Overall Recommended Master Plan Alternative (Recommended Alternative) discussed in Chapter Five, Development Alternatives. An illustration of the existing Airport layout is provided in Chapter Two, Inventory of Existing Conditions.

8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)1 significantly affects airport planning by requiring that environmental impacts of proposed airport development be considered early and throughout the planning process. Environmental feasibility is as important as economic or engineering feasibility in determining how an airport will be developed. This Environmental Overview identifies the potential impacts that may occur with the development of the recommended Master Plan projects. This information serves to support the decision-making process and to aid future NEPA reviews. The analysis of environmental impacts for future NEPA reviews must be prepared pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures2; and FAA Order 5050.4B, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions3.

FAA Order 1050.1E states that, “Unless otherwise exempted by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, all formal actions taken by FAA officials are subject to NEPA review unless statutory law applicable to the FAA's operations expressly prohibits or makes compliance impossible. Actions covered by NEPA review include grants, loans, contracts, leases, construction, research activities, rulemaking and regulatory actions, certifications, licensing, permits, plans submitted to the FAA which require FAA approval, and legislation proposed by the FAA.”4 As such, the development projects recommended in this Master Plan Update would be required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with NEPA prior to implementation.

1 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. 2 FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, March 20, 2006. 3 FAA Order 5050.4b, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April 28, 2006. 4 FAA Order 1050.1E Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Chapter 2 NEPA Planning and Integration, 200e Applicability of NEPA Procedures to FAA Actions, (3) FAA Actions Subject to NEPA Review. March 20, 2006.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐1 Master Plan Update

Federal regulations outline three major levels of NEPA review relevant to airport development.  Categorical Exclusion – applies to those actions that have been found (under normal circumstances) to have no potential for significant environmental impact.  Environmental Assessment (EA) – applies to those actions that have been found by experience to sometimes have significant environmental impacts. The list of actions normally requiring an EA can be found in Chapter Four of FAA Order 1050.1E. The purpose of an EA is to determine whether the proposed project will have significant environmental impacts. Upon review of the EA findings, the FAA either issues project approval in the form of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or directs the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to further investigate potential environmental impacts in detail before project approval can be granted.  Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – applies to those actions that have been found by experience to usually have significant environmental impacts. The FAA may issue a Record of Decision (ROD) after the Final EIS has been released.

8.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

Each proposed project within the Master Plan must have an acceptable “purpose and need,” for the FAA to issue an environmental finding. The Town of Islip must continue to provide for the development of infrastructure to ensure safe operations and to support the economic growth of the region. LIMA has been and continues to be a major factor in attracting businesses and development to the region.

The Master Plan development projects described in Chapter 4, Development Alternatives, have been developed to meet the following needs: • The need to improve the safety and efficiency of the airfield; • The need to provide up to date terminal facilities and sufficient terminal capacity to accommodate future operating levels; and, • The need to encourage economic development on unused or underutilized property at LIMA.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐2 Master Plan Update

8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CATEGORIES

This preliminary review identifies potential environmental impacts associated with the Recommended Alternative that is recommended in this Master Plan Update study. The FAA examines the NEPA environmental impact categories to determine applicability for its actions.

As identified in FAA Order 1050.1E, the NEPA environmental impact categories are:  Air Quality  Coastal Resources (Coastal Barriers and Coastal Zones)  Compatible Land Use  Construction Impacts  Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f)  Farmlands  Fish, Wildlife, and Plants  Floodplains  Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste  Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources  Light Emissions and Visual Impacts  Natural Resources and Energy Supply  Noise  Secondary (Induced) Impacts  Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks  Water Quality  Wetlands  Wild and Scenic Rivers

8.3.1 AIR QUALITY

As discussed in Chapter Two, Inventory two primary laws apply to air quality: NEPA and the Clean Air Act (CAA) 5 including the 1990 Amendments. An air quality assessment prepared in support of a NEPA environmental document should include an analysis and conclusions of a proposed action’s impacts on air quality.

5 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐3 Master Plan Update

8.3.1.1. Existing Conditions

The Airport is located in Suffolk County, New York, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has designated as a non-attainment area for the average eight-hour concentration of ozone and for emissions of fine particulate 6 matter (PM2.5). Suffolk County was determined to be compliant with all other federally-regulated air quality standards in effect at the time of the preparation of this document.

8.3.1.2 Summary of Air Quality Considerations

In order to determine the net emissions resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Recommended Alternative, an emissions inventory would need to be prepared. A General Conformity evaluation would be required to determine net emissions from construction and implementation. The emissions inventory would be compared to the relevant de minimis thresholds for the pollutants of concern. Generally, when a Federal action will not result in net emissions that equal or exceed the requirements under the CAA General Conformity regulations, a comparative evaluation of the Federal action to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which requires dispersion analysis, is not necessary, and the Federal action is assumed to comply with the NAAQS.

Any assessment of air quality associated with a Federal action would be need to be prepared in accordance with the guidelines provided in the FAA's Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports & Air Force Bases, 7 and pursuant to FAA Order 5050.4B and FAA Order 1050.1E. An air quality assessment prepared pursuant to these orders and guidelines would be compliant with all the relevant provisions of NEPA, the CAA, and the New York State Implementation Plans (SIP).

8.3.2 COASTAL RESOURCES

According to FAA Order 1050.1E, the activities potentially affecting coastal barrier resources and coastal zones must be assessed in a NEPA review. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 requires that no new Federal expenditures or financial assistance may be made available for construction projects within the boundaries of the Coastal Barriers Resource System. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program to encourage and assist states in preparing and implementing management programs to "preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone."

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Status for Each County by Year for New York, http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/anay_ny.html (website accessed on October 24, 2013). 7 FAA and USAF, Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports & Air Force Bases, April 1997. Addendum. September 2004.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐4 Master Plan Update

8.3.2.1 Coastal Barriers

LIMA is not within the Coastal Barrier Resources System according to data accessed from the Fish and Wildlife Service office. The closest protected area in the Coastal Resource Barrier System is the Fire Island National Seashore (Designated NY-59P) located south of LIMA.

8.3.2.2 Coastal Zone Management Consistency

Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, New York State adopted its Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (WRCRA, 1981), which created the New York State Coastal Management Program (CMP) under direction of the New York State Department of the State (NYSDOS). The program encourages coordination among all levels of government to promote sound waterfront planning and requires government to consider the goals of the program in making land use decisions.

8.3.2.3 Summary of Coastal Resource Considerations

Because of the location of LIMA, no significant adverse impacts to coastal barrier resources are expected with the construction and implementation of the Recommended Alternative.

In addition, the Recommended Alternative does not change the manner in which land, water or other coastal resources are used or change the environmental quality of coastal resources, therefore it is unlikely that it would cause adverse significant impacts to coastal resources. Coordination and concurrence would be required from the New York Department of State (Division of Coastal Resources).

8.3.3 COMPATIBLE LAND USE

The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of the airport’s noise impacts. The FAA has identified land use compatibility guidelines relating types of land use to airport sound levels. These guidelines, which are codified in 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150, as reproduced in Table 8.3-1, Land Use Compatibility Guidelines – 14 CFR Part 150, show the compatibility parameters for residential, public (schools, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and libraries), commercial, manufacturing and production, and recreational land uses. All land uses within areas below 65 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) are considered compatible with airport operations.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐5 Master Plan Update

Table 8.3-1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES – 14 CFR PART 150

Land Use Yearly Day – Night Average Below Over 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Sound – Level (DNL) In Decibles 65 85

Residential Residential, other than mobile homes Y N1 N1 N N N and transient lodgings Mobile home parks Y N N N N N Transient lodgings Y N1 N1 N1 N N Public Use Schools, hospitals, nursing homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y 25 30 N N N Governmental services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N4 Parking Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Commercial Use Offices, business and professional Y Y 25 30 N N Wholesale and retail -- building materials, Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Hardware, and farm equipment Retail trade, general Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Communication Y Y 25 30 N N Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing, general Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Photographic and optical Y Y 25 30 N N Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Y Y6 Y7 Y8 Y8 Y8 Livestock farming and breeding Y Y6 Y7 N N N Mining and fishing, resource production Y Y Y Y Y Y and extraction Recreational Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y Y5 N5 N N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y N N N N N Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Y Y Y N N N Golf courses, riding stables, and water Y Y 25 30 N N recreation

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.

Key to Table 8.3-1 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 or NLR of 25, 30, or 35dB must be incorporated into design and construction of structure.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐6 Master Plan Update

Table 8.3-1 (Continued) LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES – 14 CFR PART 150 Notes for Table 8.3-1

1. 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 25dB and 30dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR or 20dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as five, ten, or 15dB 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. 2. Measures to achieve NLR of 25dB 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. 3. Measures to achieve NLR of 30dB 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. 4. Measures to achieve NLR of 35dB 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. 5. Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. 6. Residential buildings require a NLR of 25. 7. Residential buildings require a NLR of 30. 8. Residential buildings not permitted. Source: 14 CFR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, Appendix A, Table 1.

8.3.3.1 Existing Conditions

LIMA is located in a highly urbanized area and is immediately surrounded by commercial, industrial, and residential land uses as shown in Chapter Two, Exhibit 1.10-1, Town of Islip – 2007 Existing Land Use. The land areas proposed for development in the Master Plan Update are owned by the Town of Islip.

8.3.3.2 Summary of Compatible Land Use Considerations

The Town of Islip as the owner and operator of LIMA is required to provide written assurance to the FAA that appropriate action has been or will be taken to the extent reasonable to restrict the use of land adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the Airport, to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft.8

8 FAA Order 1050.1E Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Appendix A, Analysis of Environmental Impact Categories, Section 4.1b, March 20, 2006; as set forth in the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, as amended (49 U.S.C. 47501-47507).

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐7 Master Plan Update

8.3.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

In accordance with FAA Orders 5050.4B and 1050.1E, the impacts to the environment due to construction activities must be assessed. Construction impacts are commonly short-term and temporary in nature. Typical impacts resulting from airport construction include noise, soil erosion, water pollution, and air pollution. Furthermore, the construction materials used could affect the supply of local resources. The NEPA environmental analysis should assess the consumption of energy and natural resources such as water, electricity, wood, metal, and concrete. In addition, surface transportation traffic patterns may be altered during construction.

FAA Order 5050.4B references FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370-10F, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Item P-156 Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control, would be required to be used by the Town of Islip or any contractors for the temporary control of erosion and sediment, as well as all air and water pollution control measures. It is assumed that any construction associated with the Recommended Alternative would involve the use of typical construction vehicles and consume typical construction materials. The number and type of vehicles and amount of resources would vary due to project timing, funding, budget constraints, weather, scope of work, and other unforeseen factors.

8.3.4.1 Summary of Construction Considerations

According to FAA Order 1050.1E “construction impacts alone are rarely significant pursuant to NEPA.”9 Construction impacts are typically minor and temporary, and are often addressed in other environmental categories, such as air quality and water quality. Construction impacts resulting from the Recommended Alternative are not anticipated to be permanent or significant. Furthermore, best management practices (BMPs), such as erosion control measures, emissions reduction measures, and construction traffic management, can be employed to reduce impacts due to constructions. As the timing for projects are identified for development, the specific construction impacts along with BMPs should be identified in the NEPA review.

9 FAA Order 1050.1E Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Appendix A, Analysis of Environmental Impact Categories, Section 5.3, March 20, 2006.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐8 Master Plan Update

8.3.5 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT SECTION 4(F)

The Federal statute that governs impacts in this category is commonly known as the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, Section 4(f) provisions. Section 4(f) of the DOT Act was recodified and renumbered as Section 303(c) of U.S. Code Title 49 (49 USC). FAA Orders 5050.4B and 1050.1E continue to refer to this statute as Section 4(f) to avoid confusion. Section 4(f) provides that the “Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires the use of any publicly-owned land such as a public park, recreation area, or wildlife/waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance or land from an historic site of national, state, or local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use.”10 A direct taking of land occurs when land from a 4(f) site is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility. A constructive taking occurs when proximity impacts of a project on a 4(f) property are so severe that the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property or resources for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act (LWCA) is also pertinent to Section 4(f) lands. Section 6(f) prohibits recreational facilities funded under the LWCA from being converted to non-recreational use unless approval is received from the director of the grantor agency.

8.3.5.1 Potential Section 4(F) Properties

Heckscher State Park, Bayard Cutting Arboretum State Park, Connetquot River State Park, and the Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge are all located southwest of LIMA and are potential Section 4(f) and or Section 6(f) properties. In addition, two properties in the Town of Islip are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Werehome at 5500 S. Bay Avenue and Winganhauppauge 77 St. Marks Lane). Both sites are approximately five miles southwest of LIMA.

8.3.5.2 Summary of Section 4(F) Considerations

It is anticipated that no direct use or taking of land from any Section 4(f) or 6(f) resources would occur with the implementation of the Master Plan development projects. A noise analysis presented later in this chapter indicates that no constructive taking would occur on any 4(f) property. When any of the developments proposed for the Recommended Alternative are ripe for decision, an environmental analysis per NEPA will be required to confirm that no Section 4(f) land will be impacted.

10 FAA Order 1050.1E Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Appendix A, Analysis of Environmental Impact Categories, Section 6.1a, March 20, 2006.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐9 Master Plan Update

8.3.6 FARMLANDS

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA)11 was enacted to minimize the extent to which Federal actions and programs contribute to unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. As defined in the FPPA, land is not considered prime farmland if it has been committed to urban development.

8.3.6.1 Existing Conditions

LIMA is located within in a highly urbanized area. There are no areas on airport property currently being used for agriculture and the land making up the airfield and terminal area has been highly disturbed by past development activity.

8.3.6.2 Summary of Farmland Considerations

Since LIMA is within a highly urbanized area and no Airport property is currently being used as farmland, no impacts to prime or unique farmland are expected to occur with the Recommended Alternative. However, the FAA may require coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to confirm.

8.3.7 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS

This category describes the potential impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants including the destruction or alteration of habitat and the disturbance or elimination of biotic communities due to the Recommended Alternative. A biotic community is an assemblage of living things residing together, including both plants and animals. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 12 as amended, provides for the protection of certain plants and animals, as well as the habitats in which they are found. In compliance with the ESA, agencies overseeing Federally-funded projects are required to obtain from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) information concerning any species listed, or proposed to be listed, which may be present in the area of the proposed projects. A significant impact to Federally-listed threatened and endangered species would occur when the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service determines that the proposed action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species of concern, or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of Federally-designated critical habitat in the affected area.

11 Public Law 97-98, 7 U.S. Code Section 4201 12 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. (1973).

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐10 Master Plan Update

8.3.7.1 Existing Conditions

According to the USFWS website and correspondence from the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), the following Federal and state listed species of plants and animals are found in Suffolk County as shown in Table 8.3-2, State and Federal Threatened and Endangered Species.

Table 8.3-2 STATE AND FEDERAL THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

FEDERAL COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE STATUS STATUS Plant Species Showy aster Eurybia spectabilis n/a Threatened Slender pinweed Lechea tenuifolia n/a Threatened Flax-leaf whitetop Sericocarpus linifolius n/a Threatened Liatris scaiosa var. novae- Northern blazing-star n/a Threatened angliae Sandplain gerardia Agalinis acuta Endangered Endangered Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus Threatened Threatened Non-Plant Species Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Endangered Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Endangered Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened Threatened Kemp’s ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempi n/a Endangered Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta n/a Threatened Proposed Northern Long-Eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis n/a Endangered Proposed Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa n/a Threatened Roseate tern Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered Endangered Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Threatened Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum n/a Endangered Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides n/a Threatened

Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Environment Conservation Online System, http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=36103, Accessed October 2013and NYNHP correspondence dated April 3, 2009 referenced in the FAA Categorical Exclusion for the Terminal Area Roadway Improvements April 16, 2009.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐11 Master Plan Update

8.3.7.2 Summary of Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Considerations

It is unlikely that the Recommended Alternative would adversely impact these species because of the distance of LIMA from any ocean shoreline, inlet, bay, or estuary or lack of ground cover at the airport. Coordination with the USFWS and the NYNHP should be initiated upon the commencement of any environmental review to review the records of threatened or endangered species or their habitat that occur within the boundaries of any proposed Master Plan development projects.

8.3.8 FLOODPLAINS

Floodplains are defined by Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 13 as “the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one-percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year” (i.e., area inundated by a 100-year flood).14 U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5650.2 defines the beneficial values served by floodplains to include “natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, groundwater recharge, fish, wildlife, plants, open space, natural beauty, scientific study, outdoor recreation, agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry.” Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps are the primary reference for determining the extent of the base floodplain.

8.3.8.1 Existing Conditions

LIMA as depicted on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel #36103C069OH. LIMA is not located within the 100-year floodplain.

8.3.8.2 Summary of Floodplain Considerations

Floodplain impacts would only be considered significant relative to NEPA if a proposed Federal action results in one or more of the following impacts:  A high likelihood of loss of human life;  Substantial encroachment-associated costs or damage, including adversely affecting safe airport operations or interrupting aircraft services (e.g., interrupting runway or taxiway use, placing another facility such as a NAVAID out of service, placing utilities out of service, etc.); or  A notable adverse impact on the floodplain’s natural and beneficial floodplain values.

The Recommended Alternative does not encroach upon a mapped floodplain.

13 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, Part 6030 (43 CFR 6030), 14 FAA Order 5050.4B, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April 28, 2006.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐12 Master Plan Update

8.3.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, POLLUTION PREVENTION, AND SOLID WASTE

The potential impacts resulting from hazardous materials, solid waste collection, control, and disposal due to airport projects must be assessed in NEPA documents. The following four primary laws govern the handling and disposal of hazardous materials, chemicals, substances, and wastes:  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), (as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992);15  Pollution Prevention Act of 1990;16  Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, as amended (TSCA);17 and  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), (as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992).18

The two statutes of most importance to the FAA for actions to construct and operate airport facilities and navigational aids are RCRA and CERCLA. RCRA governs the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. CERCLA provides for consultation with natural resources' trustees and cleanup of any release of a hazardous substance (excluding petroleum) into the environment.

8.3.9.1 Existing Conditions

The nearest National Priorities List site is south of LIMA at the Bioclinical Laboratories Inc. location (EPA ID#: NYD980768683). In addition, there is no indication that hazardous materials are present at the site of any of the Recommended Alternative development projects.

8.3.9.2 Summary of Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste Considerations

The potential impacts from hazardous materials would be evaluated as part of the environmental documentation preparation process for the Recommended Alternative. Additional analysis for the proposed development areas such as environmental due diligence audits or environmental site assessments may need to be performed due to the potential to disturb any possible soil contaminants from past uses at the Airport. Coordination with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), USEPA and other agencies may be necessary.

15 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675. 16 42 U.S.C. 1310-1319. 17 15 U.S.C. 2601-2692 18 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992(k)

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐13 Master Plan Update

Some of the development projects associated with the Recommended Alternative may also include demolition activities. Demolition activities will likely require coordination with the NYSDEC and Town of Islip County to ensure proper assessments are conducted and abatement practices are followed if necessary prior to demolition. In addition investigations may be needed to determine if lead paint or asbestos is present in the older portions of the buildings.

It is not anticipated that the Recommended Alternative would generate an unmanageable volume of solid waste or affect the Town of Islip’s existing solid waste management program.

8.3.10 HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)19 and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 20 are primary Federal laws governing the preservation of historic and prehistoric resources, encompassing art, architecture, archaeological, and other cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that, prior to approval of a Federal or Federally-assisted project, or before the issuance of a license, permit, or other similar approval, Federal agencies take into account the effect of the project on properties that are on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

The NRHP has established criteria for determining historic significance. These criteria require a property to have integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Additionally, properties must be at least 50 years old, remain fairly unaltered, and meet one or more of the following National Register criteria for significance, identified as Criterion A through D: A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information on prehistory or history.

19 Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. 20 Public Law 86-523, 16 U.S.C. 469-469c-2

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐14 Master Plan Update

8.3.10.1 Determination of Area of Potential Effect

As described in 36 CFR 800.4(a)(1) and in 36 CFR 800.16(d) the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for historic resources, including structures and archaeological sites, is defined as “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.”

8.3.10.2 Assessment of Effect for the Proposed Action

An assessment would be included in the environmental documentation on whether the Recommended Alternative would physically destroy or alter any historic properties; require removal of any properties from its historic location; introduce an atmospheric, audible or visual feature to the area that would diminish the integrity of any property’s setting; or through transfer, sale, or lease, diminish the long-term preservation of any property’s historic significance that Federal ownership or control would otherwise ensure. A determination in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4 and 36 CFR 800.5 would need to be included in the environmental documentation.

8.3.10.3 Existing Conditions

A review of NRHP records maintained by the National Park Service was conducted to identify historic properties. Two properties in the Town of Islip are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Werehome at 5500 S/ Bay Avenue and Winganhauppauge 77 St. Marks Lane). Both sites are approximately five miles southwest of LIMA. There may be additional properties that are eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

8.3.10.4 Summary of Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources Considerations for All Alternatives

There are no known archaeological resources that would be directly impacted by the Recommended Alternative. It may be necessary to make a determination of NRHP eligibility for any structures that would be impacted due to demolition activities that are greater than 50 years old. The NRHP should be reviewed again when conducting environmental analysis for the Recommended Alternative and any of the specific development projects. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) would be required to confirm a finding of no historic properties affected.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐15 Master Plan Update

8.3.11 LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL IMPACTS

According to FAA Order 1050.1E, “light emissions impacts are unlikely to have an adverse impact on human activity or the use or characteristics of the protected properties.”21 Only in unusual circumstances would the impact of light emissions be considered sufficient to warrant special study and a more detailed examination. Examples of unusual circumstances would be when high-intensity strobe lights would shine directly into residences, or when overhead apron, parking, or street lights create glare that would affect pilots and air traffic controllers.

As stated in FAA Order 1050.1E, “(v)isual, or aesthetic, impacts are inherently more difficult to define because of the subjectivity involved.”22 When analyzing visual impacts of airport projects public involvement and consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies may help determine the extent of any impacts.

8.3.11.1 Existing Conditions

As discussed in Chapter Two, Inventory of Existing Conditions, LIMA is currently illuminated by various types of lighting on the airfield and for landside facilities. Lighting that emanates from the airfield includes runway, apron, and navigational lighting such as, hold position lights, stop-bar lights, and runway and taxiway signage. Airfield lighting is located along taxiways and ramps for guidance during periods of low visibility, and to assist aircraft movement on the airfield. Aircraft lighting, such as landing lights, position and navigation lights, beacon lights, and vehicle lighting are other types of light sources on the airfield. Lights for landside facilities include buildings, roadways, and parking facilities. LIMA is located in an urbanized area which is comprised of other development that is also lighted and contributes to the overall light emissions in the area.

8.3.11.2 Summary of Light Emissions and Visual Impact Considerations

Because of the relatively low levels of light intensity compared to background levels associated with most air navigation facilities and other airport development actions, and the lighting from other non-airport development, light emissions impacts are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on human activity or on the use or characteristics of any protected properties. Due to the density of development surrounding LIMA, the visual impacts of the Recommended Alternative are unlikely to be significant.

21 FAA Order 1050.1E Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Appendix A, Analysis of Environmental Impact Categories, Section 12.2a, March 20, 2006. 22 FAA Order 1050.1E Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Appendix A, Analysis of Environmental Impact Categories, Section 12.2b, March 20, 2006.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐16 Master Plan Update

8.3.12 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY

FAA Order 1050.1E directs that the “use of natural resources other than for fuel need be examined only if the action involves a need for unusual materials or those in short supply.”23 For most airport actions, changes in energy or other natural resource consumption will not result in significant adverse impacts. Executive Order (E.O.) 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management,24 encourages each Federal agency to expand the use of renewable energy within its facilities and in its activities. E.O. 13123 also requires each Federal agency to reduce petroleum use, total energy use and associated air emissions, and water consumption in its facilities.

8.3.12.1 Existing Conditions

The Airport is located within an urbanized area with adequate access to natural resources and energy for construction projects.

8.3.12.2 Summary of natural Resources and Energy supply Considerations

The Recommended Alternative is anticipated to increase the demand for energy supply in order to power new facilities. However, it is unlikely that the Recommended Alternative would have a significant adverse impact to natural resources and energy supply. The construction of the Recommended Alternative is not likely to cause a substantial demand for natural resources or energy that cannot be met by the local supply. It is not anticipated that scarce or unusual materials would be required to construct the Recommended Alternative.

8.3.13 NOISE

Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is measured by its pressure, or energy, in terms of decibels (dB). Because of the range of sound pressures to which the human ear is sensitive, the raw sound pressure measurement is converted to the dB scale for purposes of description, comparison, and analysis. The dB scale is logarithmic. A ten dB increase in sound is perceived as a doubling of sound (or twice as loud) by the human ear. Per FAA requirements, aircraft noise is quantified using the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric. DNL is used to describe the average sound level over a 24-hour period, typically an average day over the course of a year. In computing DNL, an extra weight of 10 dB is assigned to noise occurring at night between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for increased annoyance when ambient noise levels are lower and people are trying to sleep. DNL may be determined for individual locations or expressed in noise exposure contours shown on a map.

23 FAA Order 1050.1E Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Appendix A, Analysis of Environmental Impact Categories, Section 13.2a, March 20, 2006. 24 64 FR 30851, June 8, 1999

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐17 Master Plan Update

For this Environmental Overview, noise exposure contours were prepared showing Future (2019) conditions and Future (2034) conditions. The Future (2019) conditions represent noise levels expected in 2019 based on the aviation activity forecast prepared for this Master Plan Update. This condition assumes no changes to the existing runway layout would occur by 2019 with the exception of the recommended closure of Runway 10/28. Similarly, the Future (2034) noise exposure contour represents noise levels expected in 2034 based on the aviation activity forecast prepared for this Master Plan Update and includes the recommended extension to Runway 15R/33L.

8.3.13.1 Noise Modeling Methodology

The analysis of noise exposure around LIMA was prepared using the latest version of the Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 7.0d. Inputs to the INM include runway definition, number of aircraft operations during the time period evaluated, the types of aircraft flown, the time of day when they are flown, how frequently each runway is used for arriving and departing aircraft, the routes of flight used when arriving to and departing from the runways and aircraft flight profiles which affect departure climb rates. The INM calculates noise exposure for the area around the airport and outputs contours of equal noise exposure. For this Environmental Overview, equal noise exposure contours for the levels of 65, 70, and 75 DNL were calculated.

Future (2019) Noise Exposure Contour Input Data

This section presents the input data used to model the Future (2019) noise exposure contour, including runway definition, number of operations by aircraft type and time of day, runway use and flight track percentages, and flight profiles.

Runway Definition: LIMA currently has four runways; however, Runway 10/28 is recommended for closure in this Master Plan. Therefore, the noise analysis for 2019 conditions includes the runways as listed below:

Runway Length (feet) 15L/33R 3,175 15R/33L 5,186 6/24 7,006

Number of Operations and Fleet Mix: The number of annual operations at LIMA was based on the Aviation Activity Forecast and extrapolated for the year 2019. This forecast data projects 151,946 total annual operations at LIMA in 2019. When divided by 365, this results in 407 average-annual day operations. Table 8.3-3, Distribution of Average Daily Operations by Aircraft Type Future (2019) Noise Exposure Contour, shows the distribution of operations by aircraft type and time of day that were modeled for the Future (2019) noise exposure contour.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐18 Master Plan Update

Table 8.3-3 DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

INM Arrivals Departures Aircraft Type Total Aircraft ID Day Night Day Night Large Jet Boeing 737-700 737700 14.9 0.8 14.9 0.8 31.3 Boeing 737-800 737800 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.2 Prop Beechcraft Baron 58P twin BEC58P 26.6 1.4 26.6 1.4 56.0 engine prop

Cessna 172R single engine CNA172 35.0 1.8 35.0 1.8 73.7 piston

Cessna 182 single engine CNA182 9.0 0.5 9.0 0.5 19.0 piston Cessna 208 single engine CNA208 6.4 0.3 6.4 0.3 13.5 piston Cessna 441 Conquest CNA441 8.1 0.4 8.1 0.4 17.0 twin engine turboprop

Dash 8-300 twin engine DHC830 3.0 0.2 3.0 0.2 6.3 turboprop GA Single Engine Prop GASEPV 30.8 1.4 30.8 1.4 64.5 Variable Pitch Piper Warrior PA-28 single PA28 6.3 0.3 6.3 0.3 13.3 engine piston

Dash 8-Q400 twin engine DHC830 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 turboprop Regional Jet Canadair CRJ-200 CLREGJ 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 2.1 Cessna 525 Citation CNA525C 4.3 0.5 4.3 0.5 9.5

Cessna 560 Encore CNA560E 5.1 0.6 5.1 0.6 11.4

Dassault Falcon 900 F10062 6.4 0.7 6.4 0.7 14.1

Gulfstream GIV GIV 10.1 1.1 10.1 1.1 22.5 Gulfstream GV GV 4.9 0.5 4.9 0.5 10.8 Learjet 35 LEAR35 14.0 1.6 14.0 1.6 31.2 Helicopters Sikorsky S-70 Blackhawk S70 4.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 9.1 Total 191.2 12.3 191.2 12.3 407.1 Note: Day = 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. Night = 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Source: Landrum & Brown, 2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐19 Master Plan Update

Day/Night Ratio: LIMA has a voluntary curfew for nighttime operations that occur from 11:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric that is used to generate the noise exposure contours includes a penalty for nighttime operations that occur between 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m.; therefore this time period will be used to define nighttime operations for input into this Environmental Overview. A review of scheduled aircraft data shows that approximately one to two nighttime operations of large passenger jets occur per day, typically departures between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and arrivals between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Additionally, a small percentage of non-scheduled operations are assumed to occur at night at LIMA. For the Future (2019) noise exposure contour, approximately 94 percent of operations were modeled during the daytime and 6 percent were modeled at night.

Runway End Utilization: Average-annual day runway end utilization was based on a review of the 1995 Long Island MacArthur Airport Part 150 Noise Study (1995 Part 150 Study) and anecdotal data provided by airport and ATC staff. Runway 6/24, at 7,006 feet, is the longest runway at LIMA. Therefore, Runway 6/24 is the most often used runway and accommodates approximately 80 percent of operations at LIMA. Runway 15R/33L is 5,186 feet in length. Runway 15L/33R is 3,175 feet long and is used by small general aviation/commuter aircraft. Table 8.8-4, Runway End Utilization – Future (2019) Noise Exposure Contour, shows the runway use percentages that were modeled for the Future (2019) noise exposure contour.

Table 8.3-4 RUNWAY END UTILIZATION - FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

Runway End Aircraft Category 06 24 15R 33L 15L 33R Large Jet 40% 45% 7% 8% 0% 0% Prop 34% 45% 8% 7% 3% 3% Regional Jet 35% 45% 9% 9% 1% 1% Total 35% 45% 8% 8% 2% 2%

Source: Landrum & Brown analysis, 2013.

Flight Tracks: There are two components to modeling flight tracks in the INM, flight track location and percent utilization. Flight track locations are based on a review of the 1995 Part 150 Study. The flight tracks and procedures presented in this document were used in the INM to model the flight corridors present around the Airport for this Environmental Overview. The Noise Abatement Program from the 1995 Part 150 Study includes a recommended departure procedure for fixed- wing aircraft departing Runway 24 in which aircraft are cleared to maintain runway heading until climbing to 3,000 feet before turning on course.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐20 Master Plan Update

The Noise Abatement Program also includes specific procedures for helicopter operations to reduce overflights of populated areas. Two procedures, the Echo Departure and the Whiskey Departure, were modeled for the Future (2019) noise exposure contour.

Touch-and-Go procedures typically occur on Runway 15R/33L or Runway 6/24; with the traffic pattern to the southeast/southwest side of each runway.

The INM flight tracks modeled for the Future (2019) noise exposure contour are shown on Exhibit 8.3-1, INM Flight Tracks. Each flight track is labeled to correspond to the percentages each track is used in the INM on the subsequent tables. Table 8.3-5, Arrival Flight Track Utilization Percentages – Future (1019) Noise Exposure Contour, shows arrival flight track utilization percentages; Table 8.3-6 Departure Flight Track Utilization Percentages – Future (1019) Noise Exposure Contour shows departure flight track utilization percentages, Table 8.3-7 Touch-and-Go Flight Track Utilization Percentages – Future (1019) Noise Exposure Contour shows Touch-and-Go flight track utilization percentages, and Table 8.3-8 Helicopter Flight Track Utilization Percentages – Future (1019) Noise Exposure Contour shows helicopter flight track utilization percentages for the Future (2019) Noise exposure contour.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐21 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 8.3-1 INM FLIGHT TRACKS

Source: 1995 Long Island MacArthur Airport Part 150 Noise Study, Landrum & Brown, 2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐22 Master Plan Update

Table 8.3-5 ARRIVAL FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES – FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

Runway End Track ID Large Jet Prop Regional Jet

A06E1 2% 2% 2% A06N1 8% 7% 7% 06 A06S1 20% 18% 18% A06W1 10% 9% 9% A24E1 2% 2% 2% A24N1 9% 9% 9% 24 A24S1 22% 22% 23% A24W1 11% 11% 11% A15RE1 0% 0% 0% A15RN1 1% 1% 2% 15R A15RS1 3% 4% 4% A15RW1 2% 2% 2% A33LE1 0% 0% 0% A33LN1 2% 1% 2% 33L A33LS1 4% 4% 4% A33LW1 2% 2% 2% A15LE1 0% 0% 0% A15LN1 0% 1% 0% 15L A15LS1 0% 2% 0% A15LW1 0% 1% 0% A33RE1 0% 0% 0% A33RN1 0% 1% 0% 33R A33RS1 0% 2% 0% A33RW1 0% 1% 0%

Note: Total percent for each aircraft type may not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: Landrum & Brown analysis, 2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐23 Master Plan Update

Table 8.3-6 DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES – FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

Runway End Track ID Large Jet Prop Regional Jet

D06E1 2% 2% 2% D06N1 8% 7% 7% 06 D06S1 20% 18% 18% D06W1 10% 9% 9% D24E1 2% 2% 2% D24N1 9% 9% 9% 24 D24S1 22% 22% 23% D24W1 11% 11% 11% D15RE1 0% 0% 0% D15RN1 1% 1% 2% 15R D15RS1 3% 4% 4% D15RW1 2% 2% 2% D33LE1 0% 0% 0% D33LN1 2% 1% 2% 33L D33LS1 4% 4% 4% D33LW1 2% 2% 2% D15LE1 0% 0% 0% D15LN1 0% 1% 0% 15L D15LS1 0% 2% 0% D15LW1 0% 1% 0% D33RE1 0% 0% 0% D33RN1 0% 1% 0% 33R D33RS1 0% 2% 0% D33RW1 0% 1% 0%

Note: Total percent for each aircraft type may not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: Landrum & Brown analysis, 2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐24 Master Plan Update

Table 8.3-7 TOUCH-AND-GO FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES – FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

Runway End Track ID Large Jet Prop Regional Jet 15R T15L1 0% 50% 0% 24 T241 0% 50% 0% Source: Landrum & Brown analysis, 2013.

Table 8.3-8 HELICOPTER FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES – FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

Runway End Track ID Helicopter

HA1-0 50% Arrival HA1-1 50% HD1-0 50% Departure HD1-1 25% HD1-2 25%

Source: Landrum & Brown analysis, 2013.

Aircraft Weight and Trip Length: Aircraft weight upon departure is a factor in the dispersion of noise because it impacts the rate at which an aircraft is able to climb. Generally, heavier aircraft have a slower rate of climb and a wider dispersion of noise along their flight routes. Where specific aircraft weights are unknown, the INM uses the distance flown to the first stop as a surrogate for the weight, by assuming that the weight has a direct relationship with the fuel load necessary to reach the first destination. The INM groups trip lengths into seven stage categories and assigns standard aircraft weights to each stage category. These categories are:

Stage Category Stage Length 1 0-500 nautical miles 2 500-1000 nautical miles 3 1000-1500 nautical miles 4 1500-2500 nautical miles 5 2500-3500 nautical miles 6 3500-4500 nautical miles 7 4500+ nautical miles

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐25 Master Plan Update

The trip lengths modeled for the Future (2019) noise exposure contour are based upon a review of scheduled operations at LIMA and the market share analysis conducted as part of the forecasting effort. Table 8.3-9, Departure Trip Length Distribution Future (2019) Noise Exposure Contour, indicates the proportion of the operations that fell within each of the seven trip length categories for the Future (2019) noise exposure contour. For the Future (2019) noise exposure contour, 60 percent of all large passenger jet departures, and 100 percent of all regional jet propeller aircraft departures operated to destinations with a stage length of one (0 to 500 nautical miles).

Table 8.3-9 DEPARTURE TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR Stage Length Large Jet Prop Regional Jet Total 1 60% 100% 100% 97% 2 40% 0% 0% 3% 3 or more 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Landrum & Brown, 2013.

Future (2034) Noise Exposure Contour Input Data

Runway Definition: The Master Plan Update includes the following recommended modifications to runway layout at LIMA by the 2034 timeframe:  2,006 foot Runway Extension to Runway 33L End  192 foot Reduction of Runway 15R End  Closure of Runway 10/28

No other changes to runway end or airfield layout are expected by 2034 at LIMA. Therefore, the runway layout with the implementation of the extension and reduction of runway 15R/33L was modeled for the Future (2034) noise exposure contour.

Number of Operations and Fleet Mix: The number of aircraft operations modeled for the Future (2034) noise exposure contour at LIMA was based on the Aviation Activity Forecast. This forecast was extrapolated for 2034 conditions which results in 161,900 total annual operations. When divided by 365, this results in 444 average-annual day operations forecast for 2034. Table 8.3-10, Distribution of Average Daily Operations by Aircraft Type Future (2034) Noise Exposure Contour, provides a summary of the average daily operations forecasted at LIMA in 2034, organized by aircraft type, operation type, and time of day.

Day/Night Ratio: A similar ratio of daytime to nighttime flights at LIMA is expected to occur in 2034.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐26 Master Plan Update

Table 8.3-10 DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE FUTURE (2034) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

INM Arrivals Departures Aircraft Type Total Aircraft ID Day Night Day Night Large Jet Boeing 737-700 737700 16.1 0.8 16.1 0.8 33.8 Boeing 737-800 737800 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.2 9.4 Airbus A320 A320 1.6 0.1 1.6 0.1 3.4 Airbus A321 A321-232 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.5 Prop Beechcraft Baron 58P twin BEC58P 28.3 1.5 28.3 1.5 59.5 engine prop Cessna 172R single CNA172 37.2 2.0 37.2 2.0 78.3 engine piston Cessna 182 single engine CNA182 9.6 0.5 9.6 0.5 20.2 piston Cessna 208 single engine CNA208 6.8 0.4 6.8 0.4 14.3 piston Cessna 441 Conquest CNA441 8.6 0.5 8.6 0.5 18.1 twin engine turboprop Dash 8-300 twin engine DHC830 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.1 3.1 turboprop GA Single Engine Prop GASEPV 32.7 1.5 32.7 1.5 68.5 Variable Pitch Piper Warrior PA-28 single PA28 6.7 0.4 6.7 0.4 14.1 engine piston Dash 8-Q400 twin engine Q400 2.2 0.1 2.2 0.1 4.7 turboprop Regional Jet Canadair CRJ-200 CLREGJ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cessna 525 Citation CNA525C 4.5 0.5 4.5 0.5 10.1 Cessna 560 Encore CNA560E 5.4 0.6 5.4 0.6 12.1 Dassault Falcon 900 F10062 6.7 0.7 6.7 0.7 15.0 Gulfstream GIV GIV 10.7 1.2 10.7 1.2 23.9 Gulfstream GV GV 5.2 0.6 5.2 0.6 11.5 Learjet 35 LEAR35 14.9 1.7 14.9 1.7 33.1 Helicopters Sikorsky S-70 Blackhawk S70 4.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 9.1 Total 208.5 13.3 208.5 13.3 443.6

Note: Day = 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m., Night = 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Totals may not equal sum due to rounding. Source: Landrum & Brown, 2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐27 Master Plan Update

Runway End Utilization: Minor changes in average-annual day runway end utilization are expected by 2034 compared to the Future (2019) conditions. Runway 15R/33L is expected to be extended to 7,000 feet in length by 2034. Historic wind patterns favor Runway 6/24; therefore, Runway 6/24 is still expected to be the primary runway. For the purpose of this analysis, a small increase in use of Runway 15R/33L is assumed due to the extension. The Runway use percentages modeled for the Future (2034) noise exposure contour are shown in Table 8.3-11, Runway End Utilization – Future (2034) Noise Exposure Contour.

Table 8.3-11 RUNWAY END UTILIZATION - FUTURE (2034) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

Runway End Aircraft Category 06 24 15R 33L 15L 33R Large Jet 38% 42% 9% 11% 0% 0% Prop 32% 42% 10% 11% 3% 3% Regional Jet 35% 45% 9% 9% 1% 1% Total 33% 43% 9% 10% 2% 2%

Source: Landrum & Brown analysis, 2013.

Flight Tracks: Flight track locations and percent usage are not expected to change significantly under the Future (2034) condition, with the exception of slight modification in proportion to the extension of Runway 15R/33L. Therefore, flight track locations (shown in Exhibit 8-1) were modeled for the Future (2034) noise exposure contour. Flight track utilization percentages for the Future (2034) noise exposure contour are similar to those modeled for the Future (2019) noise exposure contour with slight change in proportion to the projected increase in use of Runway 15R/33L.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐28 Master Plan Update

8.3.13.2 Noise Modeling Results

Future (2019) Noise Exposure Contour

The Future (2019) noise exposure contour, showing contours of 65, 70, and 75 DNL levels, is presented on Exhibit 8.3-2, Future (2019) Noise Exposure Contour. The area within each five-decibel noise exposure contour is shown in Table 8.3-12, Area, Population, and Housing Units Within Future (2019) Noise Exposure Contour. The 65+ DNL of the Future (2019) noise exposure contour encompasses approximately 0.96 square miles of land area. The majority of this area is over airport property.

The shape of the noise exposure contour is primarily a function of runway use. The contour is largest around Runway 6/24, since that is the most commonly used runway. The contour is smallest around Runway 15L/33R since that runway is used less often and primarily used by smaller aircraft. There is a small bump in the contour south of the center of former Runway 10/28 due to noise from helicopter operations landing and taking off from Taxiway Charlie.

The estimated number of housing units and population within each contour was calculated based on U.S. Census Bureau 2010 decennial census counts at the census block level. The proportion of the land area of each block group that fell within the noise contour band was applied to the housing and population count to determine the counts within the contour. For example, if 50 percent of the land area of a census block was within the contour, fifty percent of the housing and population was assumed to be within the noise contour. Based on this approach, there are an estimated 6 housing units and 19 people within the Future (2019) noise exposure contour.

Table 8.3-12 AREA, POPULATION, AND HOUSING UNITS WITHIN FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

CONTOUR RANGE LAND AREA (IN SQ MILES) HOUSING UNITS POPULATION 65-70 DNL 0.50 6 19 70-75 DNL 0.23 0 0 75 + DNL 0.23 0 0 65 + DNL 0.96 6 19

Note: Total of 65+ DNL may not equal sum of individual contour bands due to rounding. Contour: ISP2018_Noise-Contours.shp Source: Census Bureau, 2013; Landrum & Brown, 2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐29 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 8.3-2 FUTURE (2019) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

Source: Landrum & Brown, 2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐30 Master Plan Update

Future (2034) Noise Exposure Contour Modeling Results

The Future (2034) noise exposure contour, showing contours of 65, 70, and 75 DNL levels, is presented on Exhibit 8.3-3, Future (2034) Noise Exposure Contour. A comparison of the Future (2019) and Future (2034) noise exposure contours are shown on Exhibit 8.3-4 Future (2019) Compared to the Future (2034) Noise Exposure Contours. The size and shape of the Future (2034) noise exposure contour is similar to the Future (2019) noise exposure contour, with a couple of minor differences. The Future (2034) noise exposure contour is larger than the Future (2019) noise exposure contour due to the forecast increase in aircraft operations. Furthermore, the noise contour shifts to the southeast along Runway 15R/33L due to the extension of that runway as recommended in the Master Plan. The area in which the contour shifts due to the extended runway is over vacant/wooded areas and surface vehicle parking. The 65 DNL does not extend beyond Lincoln Avenue or State Route 454 to the southeast of LIMA.

The land area, number of housing units, and population within each five-decibel noise exposure contour is shown in Table 8.3-13, Area, Population, and Housing Units Within Future (2034) Noise Exposure Contour. The 65+ DNL of the Future (2034) noise exposure contour encompasses approximately 1.11 square miles of land area. The majority of this area is over airport property. Similar to the Future (2019) condition, U.S. Census block group data was used to estimate the number of housing units and population within the contour. There are an estimated 11 housing units and 33 people within the Future (2034) noise exposure contour.

Table 8.3-13 AREA, POPULATION, AND HOUSING UNITS WITHIN FUTURE (2034) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

CONTOUR RANGE LAND AREA (IN SQ MILES) HOUSING UNITS POPULATION 65-70 DNL 0.59 11 33 70-75 DNL 0.27 0 0 75 + DNL 0.25 0 0 65 + DNL 1.11 11 33

Note: Total of 65+ DNL may not equal sum of individual contour bands due to rounding. Contour: ISP2034_Noise-Contours.shp Source: Census Bureau, 2013; Landrum & Brown, 2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐31 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 8.3-3 FUTURE (2034) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR

Source: Landrum & Brown, 2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐32 Master Plan Update

Exhibit 8.3-4 FUTURE (2019) COMPARED TO FUTURE (2034) NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS

Source: Landrum & Brown, 2013.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐33 Master Plan Update

8.3.13.3 Summary of Noise Considerations

There are expected to be an estimated 6 housing units within the 65+ DNL of the Future (2019) noise exposure contour and 11 housing units within the Future (2034) noise exposure contour. This increase in housing units is due to the forecast increase in aircraft operations at LIMA. The recommended extension of Runway 15R/33L 2,006 feet to the southeast results in the increase in size of the noise contour in this area; however, a review of existing aerial photography and land use data shows that no additional housing units or other noise-sensitive facilities 25 would be located within the 65+ DNL contour as a result of this action. Although, residential areas to the southeast may experience a noticeable increase in noise levels due to the recommended shift to Runway 15R/33L, which would result in aircraft at lower altitudes over these residential areas. When this project is ripe for decision, an environmental analysis per FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures should be performed to determine impacts on noise sensitive land uses.

8.3.14 SECONDARY (INDUCED) IMPACTS

Major airport development proposals often involve the potential for induced or secondary impacts on surrounding communities. Examples of potential secondary impacts include shifts in patterns of population movement and growth; public service demands; and changes in business and economic activity to the extent influenced by the Airport development. Induced impacts will normally not be significant except where there are also significant impacts in other categories, especially noise, land use, or direct social impacts.

8.3.14.1 Existing Conditions

LIMA is surrounded mostly by commercial, industrial, and residential development. As discussed in Chapter Two, Inventory of Existing Conditions the Town of Islip owns and operates the Airport and the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) located southeast of the terminal area.

8.3.14.2 Summary Of Secondary (Induced) Impact Considerations

The Recommended Alternative includes construction of potential new terminal facilities, airfield modifications, and other potential developments within the airport property. These changes would cause a temporary increase in employment during construction. Any new development is likely to produce positive socioeconomic benefits associated with new jobs and increased tax revenues. Due to the location within an urbanized area, it is anticipated that any demands for new public services as a result of new development could easily be met.

25 Per FAA guidelines, noise-sensitive land uses include residences, schools, churches, hospitals, libraries, and nursing homes.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐34 Master Plan Update

The Recommended Alternative does include the acquisition of property however; it is not expected to cause a major shift in population and/or employment within the Town of Islip or Long Island region.

8.3.15 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS

Significant thresholds for socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice, and children’s environmental health and safety risks are determined by the following:  Extensive relocation of residents is required, but sufficient replacement housing is unavailable.  Extensive relocation of community businesses that would create severe economic hardship for the affected communities.  Disruptions of local traffic patterns that substantially reduce the levels of service of the roads serving the Airport and its surrounding communities.  A substantial loss in community tax base.  Disproportionate health and safety risks to children may represent a significant impact.

8.3.15.1 Existing Conditions

As previously stated, construction of the Recommended Alternative is likely to produce positive socioeconomic benefits associated with new jobs and increased tax revenues.

8.3.15.2 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks Considerations

The NEPA documentation will need to disclose the potential relocation of any residents due to the need for property acquisition.

8.3.16 WATER QUALITY

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA)), 26 provides the authority to establish water quality standards, control discharges, develop waste treatment management plans and practices, prevent or minimize the loss of wetlands location with regard to an aquifer or sensitive ecological area such as a wetlands area, and regulate other issues concerning water quality.

26 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐35 Master Plan Update

8.3.16.1 Existing Conditions

The USEPA has designated the aquifers underlying LIMA as the Nassau-Suffolk sole source aquifer.

8.3.16.2 Summary of Water Quality Considerations

Potential future water quality impacts are associated with the creation of impervious surfaces due to the construction and use of the Recommended Alternative, such as new facilities, new or extended taxiways, runway extension, terminal expansions, and new pavement areas for aircraft and parking for automobiles. Several permits, approvals, or certifications associated with water quality may be required prior to development of the Recommended Alternative:

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit - Under the CWA, construction that disturbs one or more acres requires a Section 402 NPDES permit to minimize impacts from stormwater runoff. The Recommended Alternative has the potential to impact more than one acre due to construction, and therefore would require a permit. The process includes submittal of a Notice of Intent to be covered under the construction general permit and the development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan indicating the procedures used to reduce or eliminate the potential impacts on water quality from construction activities.

Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit - CWA Section 404, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), requires a permit be obtained for dredge and fill activities involving Waters of the U.S. Permitting may be accomplished under either a general permit or an individual permit. Decisions on the type of permit required will depend on the specific Recommended Alternative development project and the extent of impact from construction activities on effected waters of the U.S. It is recommended that proposed construction activities be discussed with the USACE to determine actual permit requirements. The need for certification would be determined in the environmental phase.

Water quality regulations and issuance of permits will normally identify the information necessary for the environmental regulatory agencies to make judgments on the significance of water quality impacts. If the environmental documentation and early consultation with the NYSDEC, USEPA, and USACE show that there is a potential for exceeding water quality standards, identify water quality problems that cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated, or indicate difficulties in obtaining required permits, an EIS may be required.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐36 Master Plan Update

8.3.17 WETLANDS

The USACE and the USEPA define wetlands as: "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.”27 Executive Order 11990, DOT Order 5660.1A, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and the CWA address activities in wetlands. Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies to ensure their actions minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. It also assures the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the nation’s wetlands to the fullest extent practicable during the planning, construction, funding, and operation of transportation facilities and projects." DOT Order 5660.1A provides instructions on how to carry out Executive Order 11990. Section 404 CWA governs the dredging and filling of navigable waters of the U.S. The term, “navigable waters of the U.S.” includes wetlands connected or adjacent to navigable waters of the U.S. Navigable waters of the U.S. are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are used, have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.28

8.3.17.1 Existing Conditions

As disclosed in Chapter Two, Inventory of Existing Conditions and shown on Exhibit 2.10-2, two small freshwater ponds are present along the northern border of the Airport according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. Each is estimated at one-quarter acre in size.

8.3.17.2 Summary of Wetland and Stream Considerations

Prior to commencing any construction of the Recommended Alternative, a wetland delineation may need to be performed to specifically identify if any wetlands exist in the area of disturbance. If any wetlands and/or streams are found and are connected to jurisdictional waters, they would be regulated by the USACE. If not, they would likely constitute isolated wetlands and would fall under the regulation of the NYSDEC.

It is unlikely that the Recommended Alternative would impact the two small freshwater ponds along the northern border of the Airport.

27 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Delineation Manual, January 1987. 28 33 CFR Section 329.4.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐37 Master Plan Update

8.3.18 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 196829 provides protection for certain free-flowing rivers, which have “outstanding or remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values.” The 1979 Environmental Message Directive on Wild and Scenic Rivers (August 2, 1979) from the President, directs Federal agencies to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers identified in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) as having potential for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The NRI is a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments that are believed to possess one or more outstanding remarkable natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance.

8.3.18.1 Existing Conditions

According to the NRI database accessed on the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service website, the Carmans River to the east of the Airport and the Connetquot River to the west of the Airport are listed as having NRI river segments designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System within Suffolk County.30

8.3.18.2 Summary of Wild and Scenic River Considerations

It is not anticipated that the construction and use of the Recommended Alternative would impact either the Carmans River or the Connetquot River.

29 Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. 30 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Nationwide Rivers Inventory, http://www. nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/states.ny (website accessed on October 28, 2013).

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐38 Master Plan Update

8.4 FINDINGS AND ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6b 31 states, “The purpose of considering environmental factors in airport master planning is to help the sponsor thoroughly evaluate airport development alternatives and to provide information that will help expedite subsequent environmental processing. By using existing maps of the airport area, prior environmental documents, and the Internet, planners and environmental specialists can get an excellent overview of sensitive environmental resources in and around the airport.”

Based on this environmental overview, a NEPA environmental review document would be required prior to the development of the Master Plan’s ALP in order to identify and quantify the potential adverse environmental impacts. The determination of purpose and need and potential environmental impacts would need to be disclosed for each project and coordination with the FAA will determine the appropriate type of environmental documentation as required by NEPA. The potential mitigation requirements and permitting would be identified through coordination with the appropriate environmental regulatory agencies, i.e., USEPA, USFWS, USACE, NYNHP, NYSDEC, and the SHPO.

8.4.1 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS

The environmental categories that may require environmental surveys, approvals, and permitting are listed below. Coordination with appropriate environmental regulatory agencies, including the NYSDEC as disclosed in Chapter Two, Inventory of Existing Conditions, would also need to take place.  AIR QUALITY: o General Conformity Evaluation o Appropriate measures recommended to reduce construction air quality impacts on surrounding communities  BIOTIC COMMUNITIES: o Coordination with the USFWS and NYNHP to determine impacts to threatened and endangered species  HAZARDOUS WASTE: o Coordination with the NYSDEC to ensure proper assessments are conducted and abatement practices are followed if necessary  HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES: o Appropriate surveys and coordination with environmental regulatory agencies would need to be conducted

31 FAA Advisory Circular 150 5070-6b, Change 1, Airport Master Plans, Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations, 501 General (a). May 1, 2007.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐39 Master Plan Update

 NOISE COMPATIBILITY: o Typically an important community issue, especially during airport development projects o Appropriate measures recommended to reduce construction noise impacts on surrounding communities  WATER QUALITY: o Update current NPDES Permit. o Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit required for dredge and fill activities involving Waters of the U.S. o Coordination with the USEPA concerning sole source aquifer  WETLANDS: o Wetland Use Permit and mitigation could be required for construction; however, it is unlikely due to the minimal amount of wetlands and streams that are located on Airport property and the low potential of either being impacted by the development of the Recommended Alternative.

Initiating a formal coordination process with the FAA will determine which type of environmental documentation would be required for the Recommended Alternative. 32 If development projects are pursued independently each project would need to demonstrate independent utility according to the regulatory requirements under NEPA prior to processing. It is recommended that Airport staff discuss the individual development projects with the FAA as early as possible to make certain there is sufficient time to obtain the necessary environmental approval(s) and permit(s) before construction needs to begin.

32 See FAA Order 5050.4B National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions (April 28, 2006). Paragraph 700. The Environmental Assessment (EA); and Paragraph 903. Airport Actions Normally Requiring and EIS.

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | PAGE 8‐40

Appendix A: Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates A ppendix A

Master Plan Update

APPENDIX A

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 1 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-01-PROPOSED ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE RPZ WITH DISPLACED Unit Cost Quantity Cost THRESHOLD X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $447,767.06 1 $447,767 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $416,527.50 1 $416,528 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SY $5.00 68,100 $340,500 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 71,600 $143,200 L-110-1 Lighting/Signage LF $250.00 7,400 $1,850,000 L-110-2 Runway 6 ALS Relocation (Inpavement) LS $1,000,000.00 1 $1,000,000 L-110-4 Runway 24 ALS Relocation (Off Pavement) LS $500,000.00 1 $500,000 L-190-1 Runways 6 and 24 Glide Slope Existing Site Demolition LS $60,000.00 2 $120,000 L-190-2 Runways 6 and 24 Glide Slope Relocation LS $400,000.00 2 $800,000 L-190-3 Runway 6 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runway 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000

SUBTOTAL A $6,417,995 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $1,600,000 SUBTOTAL B $8,017,995 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $800,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $800,000 SUBTOTAL C $9,617,995 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $9,617,995 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $9,700,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 2 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-02- PAVEMENT TO BE ABANDONED WITH RELOCATED ALS AND Unit Cost Quantity Cost LOCALIZER X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $1,189,590.59 1 $1,189,591 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $1,106,595.90 1 $1,106,596

X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 34,100 $170,500 X-2 Pavement Removal SY $15.00 134,200 $2,013,000 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $1,082,880.00 1 $1,082,880 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 338,400 $5,414,400 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $162,432.00 1 $162,432 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 20,400 $2,244,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 73,700 $147,400 L-110-1 Lighting /Signage LF $250.00 3,200 $800,000 L-110-3 Runway 6 ALS Relocation (Off pavement) LS $500,000.00 1 $500,000 L-110-4 Runway 24 ALS Relocation (Off Pavement) LS $500,000.00 1 $500,000 L-190-1 Runways 6 and 24 Glide Slope Existing Site Demolition LS $60,000.00 2 $120,000 L-190-2 Runways 6 and 24 Glide Slope Relocation LS $400,000.00 2 $800,000 L-190-3 Runways 6 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runways 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000

SUBTOTAL A $17,050,798 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $4,260,000 SUBTOTAL B $21,310,798 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $2,130,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $2,130,000 SUBTOTAL C $25,570,798 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $25,570,798 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $25,600,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 3 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS)

R-03- RELOCATED LOCALIZER Unit Cost Quantity Cost

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $64,500.00 1 $64,500 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $60,000.00 1 $60,000 L-190-3 Runways 6 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runways 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000

SUBTOTAL A $924,500 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $230,000 SUBTOTAL B $1,154,500 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $120,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $120,000 SUBTOTAL C $1,394,500 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $1,394,500 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $1,400,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 3B 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS)

R-03B-RELOCATED LOCALIZER Unit Cost Quantity Cost

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $72,562.50 1 $72,563 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $67,500.00 1 $67,500 L-110-1 Lighting/Signage/Marking LS $100,000.00 1 $100,000 L-190-3 Runways 6 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runways 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000

SUBTOTAL A $1,040,063 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $260,000 SUBTOTAL B $1,300,063 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $130,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $130,000 SUBTOTAL C $1,560,063 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $1,560,063 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $1,600,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 4 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS)

R-04-RELOCATED LOCALIZER AND ROADWAY Unit Cost Quantity Cost

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $870,750.00 1 $870,750 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $810,000.00 1 $810,000 X-8 Roadway Relocation Lane Mile $3,000,000.00 3.00 $9,000,000 L-190-3 Runways 6 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runways 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 U-1 Utilities (Electrical-LIPA) LS $1,000,000.00 1 $1,000,000

SUBTOTAL A $12,480,750 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $3,120,000 SUBTOTAL B $15,600,750 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,560,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,560,000 SUBTOTAL C $18,720,750 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial LS $2,000,000 1 $2,000,000 SUBTOTAL D $20,720,750 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $20,800,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 4B 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-04B-RELOCATED LOCALIZER AND ROADWAY. PARCEL ACQUISITION Unit Cost Quantity Cost REQUIRED WITHIN THE RPZ. X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $1,910,812.50 1 $1,910,813 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $1,777,500.00 1 $1,777,500 X-8 Roadway Relocation Lane Mile $3,000,000.00 7.30 $21,900,000 L-190-3 Runways 6 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runways 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 U-1 Utilities LS $1,000,000.00 1 $1,000,000

SUBTOTAL A $27,388,313 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $6,850,000 SUBTOTAL B $34,238,313 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $3,420,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $3,420,000 SUBTOTAL C $41,078,313 Property Acquisition-Residential LS $500,000 14 $7,000,000 Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial LS $2,000,000 49 $98,000,000 SUBTOTAL D $146,078,313 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $146,100,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 5 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS)

R-05-PROPOSED 494' RUNWAY EXTENSION WITH RELOCATED NAVAIDS Unit Cost Quantity Cost

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $442,824.43 1 $442,824 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $411,929.70 1 $411,930 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 34,100 $170,500 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $175,040.00 1 $175,040 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 54,700 $875,200 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $26,256.00 1 $26,256 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 8,300 $913,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 15,200 $1,672,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking LS $2.00 50,200 $100,400 L-110-1 Lighting /Signage-Remove and Replace Rwy 24 TDZ lights and Threshold lights LS $200,000.00 1 $200,000 L-110-4 Runway 24 ALS Relocation (Off Pavement) LS $500,000.00 1 $500,000 L-190-1 Runway 24 Glide Slope Existing Site Demolition LS $60,000.00 1 $60,000 L-190-2 Runway 24 Glide Slope Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runway 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000

SUBTOTAL A $6,347,150 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $1,590,000 SUBTOTAL B $7,937,150 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $790,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $790,000 SUBTOTAL C $9,517,150 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $9,517,150 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $9,600,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 6 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-06-PROPOSED 781' RUNWAY EXTENSION WITH RELOCATED NAVAIDS AND PARCEL ACQUISITION WITH PROPOSED ROADWAY TO AVOID THE Unit Cost Quantity Cost NEW RPZS. X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $2,200,001.15 1 $2,200,001 X-7 Temporary Construction Items 7.(5%) LS $2,046,512.70 1 $2,046,513 X-8 Roadway Relocation Lane Mile $3,000,000.00 6.00 $18,000,000 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 68,100 $340,500 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $280,640.00 1 $280,640 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 87,700 $1,403,200 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $42,096.00 1 $42,096 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 13,100 $1,441,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 20,100 $2,211,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 74,200 $148,400 L-110-1 Lighting /Signage-Remove and Replace Rwy 24 TDZ lights and Threshold lights LS $200,000.00 1 $200,000 L-110-2 Runway 6 ALS Relocation (Inpavement) LS $1,000,000.00 1 $1,000,000 L-110-4 Runway 24 ALS Relocation (Off Pavement) LS $500,000.00 1 $500,000 L-190-1 Runways 6 and 24 Glide Slope Existing Site Demolition LS $60,000.00 2 $120,000 L-190-2 Runways 6 and 24 Glide Slope Relocation LS $400,000.00 2 $800,000 L-190-3 Runways 6 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runways 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000

SUBTOTAL A $31,533,350 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $7,880,000 SUBTOTAL B $39,413,350 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $3,940,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $3,940,000 SUBTOTAL C $47,293,350 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial LS $2,000,000 12 $24,000,000 SUBTOTAL D $71,293,350 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $71,300,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 7 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-07-PROPOSED 494' RUNWAY EXTENSION AND PARCEL ACQUISITION TO CLEAR THE PROPOSED RPZS AT THE RUNWAY ENDS. NEW ROADWAYS WILL Unit Cost Quantity Cost ALSO BE REQUIRED. X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $2,241,929.70 1 $2,241,930 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $441,929.70 1 $441,930 X-8 Roadway Relocation Lane Mile $3,000,000.00 8.00 $24,000,000 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 34,100 $170,500 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $175,040.00 1 $175,040 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 54,700 $875,200 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $26,256.00 1 $26,256 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 8,300 $913,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 15,200 $1,672,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 50,200 $100,400 L-110-1 Lighting /Signage-Remove and Replace Rwy 24 TDZ lights and Threshold lights LS $200,000.00 1 $200,000 L-110-3 Runway 24 ALS Relocation (Off Pavement) LS $500,000.00 1 $500,000 L-190-1 Runway 24 Glide Slope Existing Site Demolition LS $60,000.00 1 $60,000 L-190-2 Runway 24 Glide Slope Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-3 Runways 6 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runways 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000

SUBTOTAL A $32,576,255 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $8,140,000 SUBTOTAL B $40,716,255 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $4,070,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $4,070,000 SUBTOTAL C $48,856,255 Property Acquisition-Residential LS $500,000 37 $18,500,000 Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial LS $2,000,000 64 $128,000,000 SUBTOTAL D $195,356,255 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $195,400,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 8 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS)

R-08-PROPOSED 494' RUNWAY EXTENSION AND RELOCATED ROADWAYS. Unit Cost Quantity Cost

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $1,150,074.43 1 $1,150,074 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $441,929.70 1 $441,930 X-8 Roadway Relocation Lane Mile $3,000,000.00 3.00 $9,000,000 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 34,100 $170,500 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $175,040.00 1 $175,040 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 54,700 $875,200 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $26,256.00 1 $26,256 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 8,300 $913,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 15,200 $1,672,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 50,200 $100,400 L-110-1 Lighting /Signage-Remove and Replace Rwy 24 TDZ lights and Threshold lights LF $200,000.00 1 $200,000 L-110-4 Runway 24 ALS Relocation (Off Pavement) LS $500,000.00 1 $500,000 L-190-1 Runway 24 Glide Slope Existing Site Demolition LS $60,000.00 1 $60,000 L-190-2 Runway 24 Glide Slope Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-3 Runways 6 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runways 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 SUBTOTAL A $16,484,400 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $4,120,000 SUBTOTAL B $20,604,400 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $2,060,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $2,060,000 SUBTOTAL C $24,724,400 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $24,724,400 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $24,800,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 8‐EMAS 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-08-EMAS-PROPOSED 494' RUNWAY EXTENSION ON THE 24 END AND A Unit Cost Quantity Cost PROPOSED EMAS SYSTEM ON THE 6 END. X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $995,911.93 1 $995,912 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $926,429.70 1 $926,430 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 34,100 $170,500 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $175,040.00 1 $175,040 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 54,700 $875,200 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $26,256.00 1 $26,256 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 8,300 $913,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 15,200 $1,672,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 50,200 $100,400 L-110-1 Lighting /Signage-Remove and Replace Rwy 24 TDZ lights and Threshold lights LF $200,000.00 1 $200,000 L-110-4 Runway 24 ALS Relocation (Off Pavement) LS $500,000.00 1 $500,000 L-190-1 Runway 24 Glide Slope Existing Site Demolition LS $60,000.00 1 $60,000 L-190-2 Runway 24 Glide Slope Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-3 Runways 6 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 L-190-4 Runways 24 Localizer Relocation LS $400,000.00 1 $400,000 X-9 EMAS SY $850.00 7,600 $6,460,000 SUBTOTAL A $14,274,738 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $3,570,000 SUBTOTAL B $17,844,738 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,780,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,780,000 SUBTOTAL C $21,404,738 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $21,404,738 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $21,500,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 9 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-09-THRESHOLD TO BE DISPLACED TO TAXIWAY B1 WITH NEW Unit Cost Quantity Cost MARKING PRIOR TO THE NEW THRESHOLD

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $17,415.00 1 $17,415 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $16,200.00 1 $16,200 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 23,000 $115,000 L-110-1 Lighting/Signage-Remove and Relocate 15R Threshold Lights LS $50,000.00 1 $50,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 25,500 $51,000

SUBTOTAL A $249,615 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $60,000 SUBTOTAL B $309,615 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $30,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $30,000 SUBTOTAL C $369,615 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $369,615 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $400,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 9B 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-09B-DELCARED DISTANCES TO BE UPDATED WHILE THE MARKING AND Unit Cost Quantity Cost RUNWAY LEGNTH WILL REMAIN THE SAME

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $4,031.25 1 $4,031 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $3,750.00 1 $3,750 L-110-1 Lighting/Signage LF $250.00 200 $50,000

SUBTOTAL A $57,781 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $10,000 SUBTOTAL B $67,781 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $10,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $10,000 SUBTOTAL C $87,781 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $87,781 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $100,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 9C 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-09B-DELCARED DISTANCES TO BE UPDATED WHILE THE MARKING AND Unit Cost Quantity Cost RUNWAY LEGNTH WILL REMAIN THE SAME

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $493,433.31 1 $493,433 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $459,007.73 1 $459,008 X-8 Roadway Relocation LF $3,000,000.00 2 $6,120,103

SUBTOTAL A $7,072,544 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $1,770,000 SUBTOTAL B $8,842,544 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $880,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $880,000 SUBTOTAL C $10,602,544 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial LS $2,000,000 6 $12,000,000 SUBTOTAL D $22,602,544 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $22,700,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 10 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-10-PROPOSED RUNWAY EXTENSION ON 33L AND PAVEMENT TO BE Unit Cost Quantity Cost ABANDONDED ON 15R WITH A NEW PROPOSED TAXIWAY X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $423,704.05 1 $423,704 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $394,143.30 1 $394,143 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 42,200 $211,000 X-2 Pavement Removal SY $15.00 18,500 $277,500 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $266,560.00 1 $266,560 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 83,300 $1,332,800 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $39,984.00 1 $39,984 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 12,200 $1,342,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 10,800 $1,188,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 48,700 $97,400 L-110-1 Lighting /Signage LF $250.00 2,000 $500,000

SUBTOTAL A $6,073,091 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $1,520,000 SUBTOTAL B $7,593,091 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $760,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $760,000 SUBTOTAL C $9,113,091 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $9,113,091 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $9,200,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 11 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-11-PROPOSED 1814' RUNWAY EXTENSION ON 33L WITH NEW ARRIVAL AND DEPATURE RPZS. PARCELS TO BE ACQUIRED FOR PROPOSED Unit Cost Quantity Cost ROADWAY RELOCATION X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $1,547,967.26 1 $1,547,967 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $707,411.40 1 $707,411 X-8 Roadway Relocation Lane Mile $3,000,000.00 3.50 $10,500,000 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 21,200 $106,000 D-701 Drainage (40% of Earthwork) LS $674,560.00 1 $674,560 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 105,400 $1,686,400 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $50,592.00 1 $50,592 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 30,300 $3,333,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 15,300 $1,683,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 24,300 $48,600 L-110-1 Lighting /Signage LF $250.00 7,400 $1,850,000

SUBTOTAL A $22,187,531 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $5,550,000 SUBTOTAL B $27,737,531 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $2,770,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $2,770,000 SUBTOTAL C $33,277,531 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial LS $2,000,000 22 $44,000,000 SUBTOTAL D $77,277,531 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $77,300,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 12 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-12-PROPOSED 2006' RUNWAY EXTENSION ON 33L AND 194' OF PAVEMENT Unit Cost Quantity Cost TO BE ABANDONED ON 15R X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $843,974.76 1 $843,975 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $785,092.80 1 $785,093 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 42,200 $211,000 D-701 Drainage (40% of Earthwork) LS $725,120.00 1 $725,120 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 113,300 $1,812,800 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $54,384.00 1 $54,384 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 33,500 $3,685,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 16,900 $1,859,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 47,800 $95,600 L-110-1 Lighting/Signage LF $250.00 8,100 $2,025,000

SUBTOTAL A $12,096,972 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $3,020,000 SUBTOTAL B $15,116,972 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,510,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,510,000 SUBTOTAL C $18,136,972 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial LS $2,000,000 2 $4,000,000 SUBTOTAL D $22,136,972 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $22,200,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 13 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-13-PROPOSED 1814' RUNWAY EXTENSION WITH A DISPLACED Unit Cost Quantity Cost THRESHOLD ON BOTH ENDS OF THE RUNWAY X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $773,206.01 1 $773,206 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $719,261.40 1 $719,261 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 42,200 $211,000 D-701 Drainage (40% of Earthwork) LS $674,560.00 1 $674,560 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 105,400 $1,686,400 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $50,592.00 1 $50,592 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 30,300 $3,333,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 15,300 $1,683,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 50,800 $101,600 L-110-1 Lighting/Signage LF $250.00 7,400 $1,850,000

SUBTOTAL A $11,082,619 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $2,770,000 SUBTOTAL B $13,852,619 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,390,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,390,000 SUBTOTAL C $16,632,619 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $16,632,619 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $16,700,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 14 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-14-PROPOSED 194' OF ABANDONED PAVEMENT ON 15R AND AN Unit Cost Quantity Cost EXTENSION OF 1732' OF PAVEMENT ON 33L X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $739,517.01 1 $739,517 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $687,922.80 1 $687,923 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 42,200 $211,000 D-701 Drainage (40% of Earthwork) LS $645,120.00 1 $645,120 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 100,800 $1,612,800 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $48,384.00 1 $48,384 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 28,900 $3,179,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 14,600 $1,606,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 47,500 $95,000 L-110-1 Lighting/Signage LF $250.00 7,100 $1,775,000

SUBTOTAL A $10,599,744 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $2,650,000 SUBTOTAL B $13,249,744 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,320,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,320,000 SUBTOTAL C $15,889,744 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $15,889,744 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $15,900,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 15 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS)

R-15- PROPOSED 194' OF ABANDONED PAVEMENTON 15R AND PROPOSED Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1814' OF PAVEMENT ON 33L WITH A DISPLACED THRESHOLD

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $773,125.38 1 $773,125 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $719,186.40 1 $719,186 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 42,200 $211,000 D-701 Drainage (40% of Earthwork) LS $674,560.00 1 $674,560 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 105,400 $1,686,400 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $50,592.00 1 $50,592 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 30,300 $3,333,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 15,300 $1,683,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking LF $2.00 50,300 $100,600 L-110-1 Lighting/Signage LF $250.00 7,400 $1,850,000

SUBTOTAL A $11,081,464 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $2,770,000 SUBTOTAL B $13,851,464 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,390,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,390,000 SUBTOTAL C $16,631,464 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $16,631,464 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $16,700,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 15B 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) R-1BB- PROPOSED 194' OF ABANDONED PAVEMENTON 15R AND PROPOSED 1734' OF PAVEMENT ON 33L WITH A DISPLACED THRESHOLD. ROADWAY Unit Cost Quantity Cost RELOCATION AND PARCEL ACQUISITION WITHIN THE PROPOSED RPZs

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $1,527,017.01 1 $1,527,017 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $687,922.80 1 $687,923 X-8 Roadway Relocation Lane Mile $3,000,000.00 3.50 $10,500,000 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 42,200 $211,000 D-701 Drainage (40% of Earthwork) LS $645,120.00 1 $645,120 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 100,800 $1,612,800 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $48,384.00 1 $48,384 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 28,900 $3,179,000 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Taxiway Full Strength SY $110.00 14,600 $1,606,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking LF $2.00 47,500 $95,000 L-110-1 Lighting/Signage LF $250.00 7,100 $1,775,000

SUBTOTAL A $21,887,244 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $5,470,000 SUBTOTAL B $27,357,244 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $2,740,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $2,740,000 SUBTOTAL C $32,837,244 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial LS $2,000,000 22 $44,000,000 SUBTOTAL D $76,837,244 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $76,900,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE RUNWAY OPTION 16 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS)

R-16-PROPOSED EXTENTION OF 33L BY 109'. PARCELS TO BE ACQUIRED AND EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE NEW RPZ Unit Cost Quantity Cost ON THE 15R END.

X-6 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $509,944.69 1 $509,945 X-7 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $55,762.50 1 $55,763 X-8 Roadway Relocation Lane Mile $3,000,000.00 2.00 $6,000,000 X-1 Pavement Marking Removal SF $5.00 21,200 $106,000 X-2 Pavement Removal SY $15.00 2,500 $37,500 D-701 Drainage (40% of Earthwork) LS $61,440.00 1 $61,440 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 9,600 $153,600 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $15,360.00 1 $15,360 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Runway Full Strength SY $110.00 2,500 $275,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking LF $2.00 22,300 $44,600 L-110-1 Lighting/Signage-Remove and Relocate 33L Threshold Lights LS $50,000.00 1 $50,000

SUBTOTAL A $7,309,207 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $1,830,000 SUBTOTAL B $9,139,207 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $910,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $910,000 SUBTOTAL C $10,959,207 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial LS $2,000,000 6 $12,000,000 SUBTOTAL D $22,959,207 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $23,000,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE 12/15/2013 TAXIWAY OPTION 1

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) TW-01 PROPOSED TAXIWAY BETWEEN TAXIWAY G AND B2 (FULL LENGTH Unit Cost Quantity Cost PARALLEL TAXIWAY FOR RUNWAY 6-24 WEST SIDE) X-5 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $316,762.56 1 $316,763 X-6 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $294,662.85 1 $294,663 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 74,100 $1,185,600 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $35,568.00 1 $35,568 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Full Strength SY $110.00 14,300 $1,573,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 11,200 $22,400 L-110-1 Lighting and Signage LF $250.00 3,300 $825,000 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $237,120.00 1 $237,120 U-1 Utilities/FAA Facilities LS $0.00 0 $0 T-901 Turf Establishment ACRES $5,000.00 3 $10,000 T-905 Topsoil (4" Depth) SY $2.75 14,600 $40,150

SUBTOTAL A $4,540,263 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $1,140,000 SUBTOTAL B $5,680,263 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $570,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $570,000 SUBTOTAL C $6,820,263 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $6,820,263 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $6,900,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE TAXIWAY OPTION 2 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) TW-02 PROPOSED TAXIWAY A (FULL LENGTH PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO Unit Cost Quantity Cost RUNWAY 6-24 EAST SIDE) X-5 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $552,843.61 1 $552,844 X-6 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $514,273.13 1 $514,273 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 30,000 $480,000 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $14,400.00 1 $14,400 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Full Strength SY $110.00 36,300 $3,993,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 28,700 $57,400 L-110-1 Lighting and Signage LF $250.00 8,100 $2,025,000 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $96,000.00 1 $96,000 U-1 Utilities/FAA Facilities LS $0.00 1 $0 T-901 Turf Establishment ACRE $5,000.00 14 $5,000 T-905 Topsoil (4" Depth) SY $2.75 67,700 $186,175

SUBTOTAL A $7,924,092 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $1,980,000 SUBTOTAL B $9,904,092 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $990,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $990,000 SUBTOTAL C $11,884,092 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $11,884,092 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $11,900,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE TAXIWAY OPTION 3 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) TW-04 REMOVE RUNWAY 10-28 PAVEMENT AND BUILD A NEW TAXIWAY AND THEN CONVERT TAXIWAY S INTO A TAXILANE Unit Cost Quantity Cost (INCLUDES TAXIWAYS MILL AND OVERLAY) X-5 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $1,090,227 1 $1,090,227 X-6 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $1,014,164 1 $1,014,164 X-22 Pavement Removal SY $15 71,700 $1,075,500 X-25/P-401 Mill and Overlay of Taxiway S (2" Max) SY $100 54,000 $5,400,000 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16 28,000 $448,000 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $13,440 1 $13,440 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Full Strength SY $110 36,700 $4,037,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2 32,000 $64,000 L-110-1 Lighting and Signage LF $250 8,700 $2,175,000 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $89,600 1 $89,600 U-1 Utilities/FAA Facilities/Runway 28 PAPI Removal LS $10,000 1 $10,000 T-901 Turf Establishment ACRES $5,000 15 $10,000 T-905 Topsoil (4" depth) SY $3 72,600 $199,650

SUBTOTAL A $15,626,581 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $3,910,000 SUBTOTAL B $19,536,581 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,950,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,950,000 SUBTOTAL C $23,436,581 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $23,436,581 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $23,500,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE TAXIWAY OPTION 4 12/15/2013

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS)

TW-04 REMOVE RUNWAY 10-28 PAVEMENT AND CONSTRUCT A NEW TAXIWAY Unit Cost Quantity Cost

X-5 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $653,835.69 1 $653,836 X-6 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $608,219.25 1 $608,219 X-22 Pavement Removal SY $15.00 71,700 $1,075,500 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 28,000 $448,000 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $13,440.00 1 $13,440 P-209/P-401 Bituminous Concrete Pavement - Full Strength SY $110.00 36,700 $4,037,000 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 30,700 $61,400 L-110-1 Lighting and Signage LF $250.00 8,700 $2,175,000 D-701 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $89,600.00 1 $89,600 T-901 Turf Establishment ACRES $5,000.00 15 $10,000 T-905 Topsoil (4" Depth) SY $2.75 72,600 $199,650 U-1 Utilites/FAA Facilities/Runway 28 PAPI removal LS $85,000.00 1 $85,000

SUBTOTAL A $9,456,645 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $2,360,000 SUBTOTAL B $11,816,645 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,180,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $1,180,000 SUBTOTAL C $14,176,645 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $14,176,645 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $14,200,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT 12/19/2013 MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE TERMINAL OPTION 1 PROPOSED

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) T-01-PROPOSED TERMINAL EXPANSION TO THE EAST Unit Cost Quantity Cost X-5 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $1,975,542.28 1 $1,975,542 X-6 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $1,837,713.75 1 $1,837,714 X-8 Existing Terminal Demolition (Decommission) SF $50.00 9,348 $467,400 X-9 Proposed Concourse (2 Story) SF $325.00 73,186 $23,785,450 D-700 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $250,000.00 1 $250,000

SUBTOTAL A $28,316,106 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $7,080,000 SUBTOTAL B $35,396,106 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $3,540,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $3,540,000 SUBTOTAL C $42,476,106 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $42,476,106 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $42,500,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT 12/19/2013 MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE TERMINAL OPTION 2 PROPOSED

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) T-02-PROPOSED TERMINAL EXPANSION TOWARDS THE WEST Unit Cost Quantity Cost X-5 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $530,815.38 1 $530,815 X-6 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $461,172.45 1 $461,172 X-8 Existing Terminal Demolition (Decommission of West Concourse) SF $50.00 9,348 $467,400 X-9 Proposed Concourse (2 Story) SF $325.00 18,920 $6,148,966

SUBTOTAL A $7,608,354 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $1,900,000 SUBTOTAL B $9,508,354 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $950,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $950,000 SUBTOTAL C $11,408,354 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $11,408,354 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $11,500,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT 12/19/2013 MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE TERMINAL OPTION 3 PROPOSED

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) T-03-PROPOSED TERMINAL EXPANSION TOWARDS THE WEST Unit Cost Quantity Cost X-5 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $0.00 1 $0 X-6 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $1,761,337.50 1 $1,761,338 X-8 Existing Terminal Demolition (Decommission of Terminal and West Concourse) SF $40.00 120,984 $4,839,360 X-9 Proposed Concourse (2 Story) SF $325.00 72,260 $23,484,500 X-10 Roadway Improvements LS $8,000,000.00 1 $8,000,000 SUBTOTAL A $38,085,198 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $9,520,000 SUBTOTAL B $47,605,198 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $4,760,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $4,760,000 SUBTOTAL C $57,125,198 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $57,125,198 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $57,200,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT 12/19/2013 MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE TERMINAL OPTION 4 PROPOSED

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) T-04-PROPOSED TERMINAL EXPANSION TOWARDS THE WEST Unit Cost Quantity Cost X-5 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $906,525.00 1 $906,525 X-6 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $841,100.00 1 $841,100 X-8 Existing Terminal Demolition (Decommission of West Concourse) SF $50.00 9,348 $467,400 X-9 Proposed Concourse (2 Story) SF $325.00 51,760 $16,822,000

SUBTOTAL A $19,037,025 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $4,760,000 SUBTOTAL B $23,797,025 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $2,380,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $2,380,000 SUBTOTAL C $28,557,025 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $28,557,025 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $28,600,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT 12/19/2013 MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE TERMINAL OPTION 5 PROPOSED

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS)

T-05-PROPOSED NEW TERMINAL, NEW APRON, AND NEW TAXIWAYS Unit Cost Quantity Cost

X-5 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $18,082,019.99 1 $18,082,020 X-6 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $16,820,483.71 1 $16,820,484 X-8 Existing Terminal Demolition (Decommissioning) SF $40.00 283,615 $11,344,600 X-9 Ultimate Proposed Terminal Building SF $325.00 179,692 $58,399,874 X-10 Proposed Parking Space $2,900.00 2,500 $7,250,000 X-11 Ultimate Proposed Concourse Building SF $550.00 192,140 $105,677,000 X-12 PRT System LS $15,000,000.00 1 $15,000,000 P-152 Unclassified Excavation and Embankment CY $16.00 450,000 $7,200,000 P-156 Erosion and Sediment Control (3% of Earthwork) LS $216,000.00 1 $216,000 P-209/P-501 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement SY $96.00 160,582 $15,415,842 P-620 Permanent Pavement Marking SF $2.00 52,400 $104,800 L-110-1 Lighting and Signage LF $250.00 8,900 $2,225,000 D-700 Drainage (20% of Earthwork) LS $1,440,000.00 1 $1,440,000

SUBTOTAL A $259,175,620 Design Contingency (25% of A) 25% $64,790,000 SUBTOTAL B $323,965,620 Estimated Design Fee (10% of B) 10% $32,400,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of B) 10% $32,400,000 SUBTOTAL C $388,765,620 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $388,765,620 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $388,800,000

Level of Accuracy Planning LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT 12/19/2013 MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE TERMINAL OPTION 6 PROPOSED

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT (2013 DOLLARS) T-06-PROPOSED PEOPLE MOVER OPTION Unit Cost Quantity Cost X-5 Mobilization (7.5%) LS $8,210,199.50 1 $8,210,200 X-6 Temporary Construction Items (7.5%) LS $7,637,394.89 1 $7,637,395 X-12 PRT System Mile $30,000,000.00 3.4 $101,831,932

SUBTOTAL B $117,679,526 Design Contingency (25% of B) 25% $29,420,000 SUBTOTAL D $117,679,526 Estimated Design Fee (10% of D) 10% $11,770,000 Estimated CMI Fee (10% of D) 10% $11,770,000 SUBTOTAL C $141,219,526 Property Acquisition-Residential Property Acquisition-Commercial/Industrial SUBTOTAL D $141,219,526 GRAND TOTAL (Program Cost Estimate) $141,300,000

Level of Accuracy Planning

Appendix B: Public Comments Appendix B

Master Plan Update

APPENDIX B

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | Master Plan Update

JULY 17, 2012 PUBLIC WORKSHOP

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT |

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Nicholas A. Brown

From: JWerner Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:38 PM To: Nicholas A. Brown Subject: LIMA Master Plan Comments

How might I go about having a terminal named after my Uncle, Alfred E. Werner? He worked diligently at McArthur airport for 54 years. I think it would be a very nice way to memorialize him.

Thank‐you, Jean Marie Werner Mission Viejo, Ca. 949‐716‐2834

1 Nicholas A. Brown

From: Paul Klass Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 2:05 PM To: Nicholas A. Brown Subject: LIMA MPU Comments Attachments: WAI-2012-001-LIMA_MPU.pdf

L&B,

Nick Brown's email had bounced my comments with a message he would be away for several weeks so I am forwarding the comments accordingly.

Best Regards,

Paul

Paul Klass President / CEO

Whitewater Axiom, Inc. (631) 352-2028 (631) 956-2509 fax [email protected] www.WhitewaterAxiom.com

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Klass Subject: LIMA MPU Comments Date: July 30, 2012 2:28:33 AM EDT To: [email protected] Cc: Tom Croci

Hello Nicholas,

As requested, I am forwarding my comments (see attached) to the alternatives presented at the recent public workshop.

Please feel free to call me directly if you have any questions.

Have a great day.

Best Regards,

Paul

Paul Klass President / CEO 2

Whitewater Axiom, Inc. (631) 352-2028 (631) 956-2509 fax [email protected] www.WhitewaterAxiom.com

3 Nicholas A. Brown

From: Paul Klass Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 2:29 AM To: Nicholas A. Brown Cc: Tom Croci Subject: LIMA MPU Comments Attachments: WAI-2012-001-LIMA_MPU.pdf

Hello Nicholas,

As requested, I am forwarding my comments (see attached) to the alternatives presented at the recent public workshop.

Please feel free to call me directly if you have any questions.

Have a great day.

Best Regards,

Paul

Paul Klass President / CEO

Whitewater Axiom, Inc. (631) 352-2028 (631) 956-2509 fax [email protected] www.WhitewaterAxiom.com

4 Whitewater Axiom, Inc. 288 Ellery Street - Brentwood, New York 11717 P.O. Box 1346 – Commack, New York 11725 (631) 352-2028 (W) (631) 956-2509 (F) ______

29 July 2012 No. WAI-2012-001

Landrum & Brown, Inc. Attn: Mr. Nicholas Brown Cincinnati, Ohio [email protected] (513) 530-2293

ref: LIMA_PUBLIC_WORKSHOP_SLIDES_7-6-12.pdf

Nicholas,

Thank you to you and the Landrum-Brown team for a great job presenting so many options for the planned update to Long Island MacArthur Airport at the recent workshop. I am a resident of Islip and the following comments respond to the presentations at the workshop as documented in the PowerPoint posted to the FlyLIMA.com website.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Regards,

Paul M Klass President Whitewater Axiom, Inc.

Cc: T. Croci Paul Klass Comments to Long Island MacArthur Airport Master Plan Update – Preliminary Alternatives Public Workshop Held July 17, 2012

1. As an introduction, I do not believe LIMA can compete with the other local airports in terms of flight availability and cost. LIMA must be the “convenient airport”. To play to its strengths, I see three areas worth addressing and pushing as priorities. In one fashion, or another, these agree with components of the L&B presentation. They are: a. Airport Access (by car and rail) i. Parking at LIMA is already at a lower cost than the other regional airports and Islip residents enjoy permit-parking privileges at a very low cost. Multi-level parking would shorten walks (w/ baggage & children) to and from the terminals as well as afford weather protection. ii. Is there currently a shuttle bus that picks-up and delivers between the terminal and all the parking lots? If there is I’m not aware of it and maybe it needs more promotion. If there isn’t, why not? One or two vans circling the loop might do the whole job at the current flight load. iii. I support the proposals for a light rail system from the Ronkonkoma LIRR Station. I believe the proposals to abandon the current southern terminal and build a new northern terminal would be a poor solution because: 1. Unnecessarily costly while throwing out the current working terminal. 2. Loss of significant parking area and revenues. 3. Creation of a avoidable traffic congestion in the area of the train station. 4. Significant harm and loss of business to the businesses in the area of the train station both during access mods and beyond. b. Baggage Handling i. The current baggage recovery system is located solely at the one end of the terminal. Passengers already may have to walk the full length of the terminal and back (sometimes with children) to recover their baggage then leave the terminal to get to their car. Baggage handling on its own is very important and should be broken out as its own initiative.

Consider the following as appropriate for whatever terminal mods are finally developed: 1. A second baggage handling facility near the other end of the terminal. 2. Upper level departures and ground level arrivals with smaller dispersed baggage recovery areas as is done at LGA and JFK. c. Improved Service Coverage i. Any additional flight range or airport capacity to give a greater selection of flights should always be sought. 2. Some specific comments on the slides: a. Slide 4 (“How Many Are We Planning For?”) fails to identify the assumptions that relate to Scenarios 1 and 2.

      

b. Slide 6 (“LIMA Today”): As Grumman learned the hard way in Bethpage and corrected in Calverton, secure as much land at the end of every runway as possible and don’t let anyone live there. c. Slide 8 (“Airfield Concept B) seems to be erroneous since SWA currently flies non-stop to Fort Lauderdale, it’s not clear why the outer yellow ring represents an “extended” 1100 mile capability. d. Slide 9 (“Airfield Concept C”). Modernization of the existing general aviation facility and adding of small commercial businesses would seem to be a good idea, but I have ‘gut’ concerns regarding increasing recreational segments. e. The real pros and cons of the different terminal mod options are probably out of any realistic comment range just from the slides. My only input is that a new North Terminal that replaces the current terminal has so many grossly obvious faults that I find myself strongly against it. f. Slide 15 (“Terminal Concept F”). The light rail to the LIRR station is a great idea. I love it. I’m for it. I support it. Just do it. g. Slide 16 (“Landside Concept A”) i. The multi-level garages would be a great addition. ii. I see the words “Solar Farm” and “Green/Sustainable Energy” and I can only ask so what? 1. How much power would be generated for the concept as shown? 2. What do you envision powering with this source? 3. I have no problem with using solar power or any other sustainable source. I support it. The slide, however, fails to indicate what expected benefits are. Just waving the “Hey everyone I’m politically correct because I have something green and sustainable” flag doesn’t work well with me. Tell me more. 4. Have other sustainable energy sources been evaluated? Has the terminal been evaluated for thermal transmissibility? Could a survey considering current technologies provide for thermal upgrades to the existing terminal provide a bigger savings than the solar farm? Or even pay for the solar farm? h. Slide 17 (“Landside Concept B”) This one is easy. Yes.

Thank you for taking the time to review my comments. Obviously, I’ve gotten on a soap box with a very limited knowledge of the details that your firm has spent a significant number hours investigating in-depth.

       

Nicholas A. Brown

From: P WEINSTEIN Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:04 AM To: Nicholas A. Brown Cc: Councilman Anthony Senft Jr.; Councilwoman Trish Bergin Weichbrodt; Councilman John Cochrane Jr; Supervisor Tom Croci; Councilman Steven Flotteron Subject: lima mpu comments

We needed more narrative to explain the slide show. You needed more people to answer questions. It would have been better to present it as a slide show with narrative. Maybe this time they won't dismiss comments with a simple no and will offer alternatives to help alleviate the problems and dangers to the surrounding residential homes besides move if you don't like it or learn live with it.. Where did these proposals come from? Can I offer alternate proposal? why did all the alternatives involve expanding the airport? It would helpful to have questions answered so all could hear. This would have improved edfficiency and usefulness of workshop.

Please explain Airfield Concept A slide (Meeting All Safety Standards). What does it mean in regard to noise and runway use (esp runway 6‐24)? What are the costs? Does it require condemnation?

I am especially concerned by the routing of the people mover on the east side as being incompatible with the nearby residents. I do not see the need for such a cost nor is their sufficient demand. This can be more efficiently done through the use of buses from the LIRR which service already exists and are very underutilized.

I do not see the need for teminal expansion as it is not needed and the present terminal is underutilized and could accomadate more flights, if the need arises. The airport should to returned to Islip Airport serving the local needs not try to serve the NYC metro area as it does now.

I believe more environmental accessment should be done on the runway extension (15r‐33l) as it will impact surrounding homes and remedies explored to mitigate the increased noise levels.

I believe runway 10‐28 and 15n‐33r should be deactivated regardless of whether any of the proposals are instituted as they seem to be unnecessary and the airport can function without them. They direct air traffic over homes at dangerously low levels to the east. do any of the proposals have to implemented together? Which proposals would prevent the implementation of others? please include proposals such a runway adjustments and takeoff patterns to direct iaircraft and noise away from residences to industrial zones. You need environmental accessments of noise mitigation solutions where aircraft fly dangerously low over homes such as runway (6‐24).

You should explore proposals to reimburse the school districts for lost revenue or in lieu of revenue)for the airport property. The airport should not take more property or homes off the tax rolls thru condemnation or purchase as this is a burden to tax payers. Tolls or parking fees or rents should be used to reimburse the surrounding communities for lost tax revenue from the airport.

When will be able to see the final proposals? They need to be more adequately explained to the public in a way they can understand.

5 the FAA building proposal should include airport road access and not allow access to the inadequate streets on the east.

Moving or adding a terminal to the north seems a waste money, unnecessary with the bus system in place an not compatible in the fact that all facilities such as parking, control towers etc. are to the south. any proposals which limit the recently completed control tower sight of view should not be considered, as it is dangerous.

All aircraft flights need to restricted to daytime hours 7am to 10:30pm as night flights adversely effect residents sleep and are magnified under nightime conditions. This could be accomplished through lease agreements and fines and regulations.

The number of flights per hour should limited (3) to prevent excessive noise at early morning and late night. Use a lottery system or landing fees pricing to implement this. landing fees should be raised to obtain additional revenue and during peak hours.

Helicopters traffic should be routed over non residential areas. Move helicopter pads so they don't send traffic over residences.

Why do all your proposals encourage B757 aircraft. Why about the newer (quieter) generation of aircraft?

We need more public meetings beyond those planned to explain what these proposals mean and how they will effect the residents.

We need to hire an airport official who understands the residents needs and experience in solving problems caused by the airport operations and can collect and present them to the town and airport officials.

We need an airport advisory board to collect data and advocate for residents adversely effected by the airport

6 Nicholas A. Brown

From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:55 AM To: Nicholas A. Brown Subject: LIMA MPU Comments

I was at the Workshop at MacArthur airport. I am a director of the Bohemia Civic Assoc. We received many comments in the past about our Airport. Many in our community have traffic concerns. I think that the rail to the plane is a good idea as it would eliminate some of the traffic. I also like the plan that only 2.1 million passengers per year are using the airport because of the noise and pollution in regards to the plane. I also believe that if we can get direct flights from future airlines, it would become more popular. People feel that it takes too long to travel and also costs more.

Linda O'Connor 424 8th Street Bohemia, NY 11716

7 Nicholas A. Brown

From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 6:44 PM To: Nicholas A. Brown Subject: Islip

I have mix feelings at this time!

Sent from my iPad

8 Nicholas A. Brown

From: William Bruno Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:46 PM To: Nicholas A. Brown Subject: LIMA-MPU Comment

Some pretty ambitious plans for the future of the airport. However, before any plans are decided upon, there has to be some commitment made from another major air carrier. The town can make all the plans it wants but no increase in passengers will happen until there are more choices for those travelers to choose from. The horrible state of the economy over the last several years has been the major reason for the drop in traffic as this has caused Southwest to drop the number of flights at LIMA. Over the last several years Southwest has also stopped flying to several of the destinations that were flown to before. This has caused many people to travel to JFK or Laguardia for better choices and fares. One seat rides from LIMA to most destinations are not available as their merger with Airtran has caused changes to their routes. Basically, if you do not want to fly to Florida you will have to make at least one plane change, if not more, when looking to fly anywhere else. I understand that Soutwest will be dropping more flights come January 2013. Changes to LIMA on the scale of those depicted on the easels at the meeting will be a huge waste of time and money if we can't get competition for Southwest. The present size and setup at LIMA is more than enough to handle additional ridership. Just as it has done in the past when the numbers of passengers was much higher. I think commiting huge amounts of funds to the chance that people would begin to return to LIMA is a very risky proposition. I don't care where the money comes from. Let's get some competion for Southwest first and take it from there. The present setup at LIMA is more than adequate to handle many more flights and thousnads of additional passengers a day. Just the way it has before in it;s present size. William Bruno 28 Zavra St. Bohemia, NY 11716-1714 [email protected]

9 Nicholas A. Brown

From: Matthew Judge Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:44 AM To: Nicholas A. Brown Subject: MasterPlan

When is the 2013 master plan

1 Nicholas A. Brown

From: Matthew Judge Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 6:49 PM To: Nicholas A. Brown

Sent an email to me when master plan workshop starts

2 Nicholas A. Brown

From: Matthew Judge Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:49 AM To: Nicholas A. Brown Subject: LIMA Master Plan Comments

Also fly the 757‐200 etops as well from delta

Sent from my iPad

3 Nicholas A. Brown

From: Matthew Judge Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:57 AM To: Nicholas A. Brown Subject: LIMA Master Plan Comments

Build a spotting area so I can go spot airplanes for my youtube channel

Sent from my iPad

4 Nicholas A. Brown

From: Matthew Judge Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:51 AM To: Nicholas A. Brown Subject: LIMA Master Plan Comments

Try to fly the United A320 And the 737‐800 from airlines such as southwest delta and Alaska airlines and Aeromexico

Sent from my iPad

5 Nicholas A. Brown

From: Matthew Judge Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:48 AM To: Nicholas A. Brown Subject: LIMA Master Plan Comments

I hope to see Delta United US Airways the Mainline JetBlue air Canada west jet also launch fighter jets and millitary cargo planes out of macarthur such as F16s F15s F18 F22 and some A10s And the A6 Prowler and cargo planes such as C130s C17s E2 Hawkeyes and some KC10s

6 Master Plan Update

DECEMBER 4, 2013 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Appendix C

Appendix C: Modification of Airport Design Standards (MOS) Application

Master Plan Update

APPENDIX C

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | Master Plan Update

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT | TOWN OF ISLIP, NEW YORK | DRAFT | FAA EASTERN REGION MODIFICATION OF AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS

BACKGROUND 1. AIRPORT: 2. LOCATION(CITY,STATE): 3. LOC ID: ISP Long Island MacArthur Airport Town of Islip, Suffolk County, NY

4. EFFECTED RUNWAY/TAXIWAY: 5. APPROACH (EACH RUNWAY): 6. AIRPORT REF. CODE (ARC): _X_ PIR Runway 6-24 ___ NPI C-IV ___ VISUAL

7. DESIGN AIRCRAFT (EACH RUNWAY/TAXIWAY): Boeing 757-200 (Runway 6-24)

MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS 8. TITLE OF STANDARD BEING MODIFIED (CITE REFERENCE DOCUMENT):

The standard being modified is FAA AC 150/5300-13A Table 3-4 Standards for Precision Approach Procedures with Vertical Guidance Lower Than 250ft Height Above Threshold.

9. STANDARD/REQUIREMENT:

The establishment of the new authorized Instrument Approach Procedures SA CAT II for Runway 6 would also require the airport landing surface meet the standards specified requirements in Table 3-4 per AC 150/5300-13A, Par. 317. AC 150/5300-13A Table 3-4 states; Parallel Taxiway – Required. A full-length parallel taxiway meeting separation requirements. 10. PROPOSED:

The proposed is to maintain existing conditions with partial parallel Taxiways G and D on the north side and partial parallel Taxiways A and F on the south side of Runway 6-24.

11. EXPLAIN WHY STANDARD CANNOT BE MET (FAA ORDER 5300.1F):

The full length parallel taxiway requirement came into effect with Change 17 to AC 150/5300-13 (09/30/2011) and is retained in the new AC 150/5300-13A. Prior to this requirement, parallel taxiways must lead to the thresholds. ISP met that requirement prior to Change 17.

The existing airport layout includes various runway/runway intersections between Runways 6- 24, 15R-33L, 15L-33R and 10-28. A full parallel taxiway would increase the amount of taxiway/runway intersections across the airfield. In addition to the airport layout, there are very low lying areas north of the runway between Taxiways B and W. Therefore, due to the unusual local conditions at the airport, the design standard cannot be met.

12. DISCUSS VIABLE ALTERNATIVES (FAA ORDER 5300.1F): In order to provide the full-length parallel taxiway, there are three viable options considered.

Option 1: Connect parallel Taxiways A and F, to form a full parallel taxiway system. This option would require crossing Runways 10-28, 15R-33L and 15L-33R in order to complete the full parallel system. This option is not recommended as per AC 150/5300-13A Par.401(b)(5)(c)Limit Runway Crossings, this design would generate too many taxiway/runway intersections and therefore increases the chance of runway incursions.

Option 2: Construct a taxiway between Taxiways Whiskey and Bravo. This would connect the gap between Taxiways D/B2 and G. This option would require significant embankment construction to raise very low areas (aka. North slope). This option is not recommended as it would generate other modifications, as the infields may become too steep to meet safety area criteria. In addition, full length parallel on the north side will not provide any operational benefit as all air carrier operations are on the south side of Runway 6-24.

Option 3: No build option; Maintain the existing conditions with recently constructed partial parallel Taxiway G from Runway 6 to Taxiway W, existing parallel Taxiway D from Runway 24 to Runway 15R-33L, and Taxiways E/F for Runway 24 access and bypass capability. This option is recommended as the existing conditions provide the most operational benefit with access to the main terminal from Taxiways A/S and F/E/B4. 13. STATE WHY MODIFICATION WOULD PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SAFETY (FAA ORDER 5300.1F):

Maintaining the existing conditions of the partial parallel taxiway system along Runway 6- 24 would provide an acceptable level of safety because there are three (3) exits south of the runway and two (2) north of the runway at the 6 end; and there are two (2) exits north and south of the runway at the 24 end. With these various exits along the runway, the runway capacity is maximized and time on the runway upon touchdown is reduced. With the parallel taxiways in place and number of exits mentioned above, there would not be any need for back taxiing on the Runway.

ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NECESSARY – INCLUDE SKETCH/PLAN FAA EASTERN REGION MODIFICATION OF AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS

MODIFICATION: LOCATION: PAGE 2 OF 2 FAA AC 150/5300-13A Table 3-4. Standards for Long Island MacArthur Airport, Precision Approach Procedures Town of Islip, Suffolk County, NY with Vertical Guidance Lower than 250ft Height Above Threshold 14. SIGNATURE OF ORIGINATOR: 15. ORIGINATOR’S ORGANIZATION: 16. TELEPHONE:

Town of Islip

17. DATE OF LATEST FAA SIGNED ALP:

October 2001

18. ADO RECOMMENDATION: 19. SIGNATURE: 20. DATE:

21. FAA DIVISIONAL REVIEW (AT, AF, FS):

ROUTING SYMBOL SIGNATURE DATE CONCUR NON-CONCUR

COMMENTS:

22. AIRPORTS’ DIVISION FINAL ACTION:

[ X ] UNCONDITIONAL APPROVAL [ ] CONDITIONAL APPROVAL [ ] DISAPPROVAL

DATE: SIGNATURE: TITLE:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK