The URL can be used to link to this page

Blair Final ALP Narrative March 2019ED TED I-----, 161UMF�UIPG�[L AIRPORT WELCO-1 iE �-- AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN UPDATE ' o N2S6CP .� _iim - - III 0 promise a�G`�MG1�C�OpLaL� L��G3p�G-�4 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN UPDATE BLAIR MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Blair, Nebraska Prepared for: The City of Blair Prepared by: Co n Associates Airport Consultants March 2019 Lwar�`°� q promise MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS a' q promise ok W--KNUNICIPAL AIRPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS AIRPORT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................. 1 AIRPORTROLE............................................................................................................................................. 3 EXISTING FACILITIES.................................................................................................................................... 5 AirsideFacilities.............................................................................................................................. 5 LandsideFacilities........................................................................................................................... 9 VICINITY AIRPORTS.................................................................................................................................... 11 VICINITY AIRSPACE.................................................................................................................................... 11 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS....................................................................................................... 12 Population..................................................................................................................................... 12 Employment and Personal Income............................................................................................... 18 SWOTANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ 19 SWOTDefinitions.......................................................................................................................... 19 FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND......................................................................................................... 21 ForecastingApproach................................................................................................................... 21 National General Aviation Trends................................................................................................. 22 Airport Service Area Forecasts...................................................................................................... 24 ForecastSummary........................................................................................................................ 43 AIRPORT/AIRCRAFT/RUNWAY CLASSIFICATION....................................................................................... 45 AircraftClassification.................................................................................................................... 45 Airport and Runway Classification................................................................................................ 47 CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT...................................................................................................................... 49 AirportDesign Aircraft.................................................................................................................. 50 ExistingRunway Design................................................................................................................ 52 FutureRunway Design.................................................................................................................. 53 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS ................................................ 53 Airside Facility Requirements and Alternatives............................................................................ 54 Landside Facility Requirements and Alternatives......................................................................... 89 SupportRequirements.................................................................................................................. 93 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................. 97 RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT............................................................................................. 97 AirsideFacilities.......................................................................................................................... 100 LandsideFacilities....................................................................................................................... 106 SupportFacilities......................................................................................................................... 108 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW................................................................................................................. 109 AirQuality................................................................................................................................... 110 Biological Resources (Including Fish, Wildlife, and Plants)......................................................... 110 Climate........................................................................................................................................ 114 CoastalResources....................................................................................................................... 115 1� ,wok q promise Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f)......................................................................... 115 Farmlands.................................................................................................................................... 116 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention.................................................... 117 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ............................................. 119 LandUse...................................................................................................................................... 119 Natural Resources and Energy Supply........................................................................................ 120 Noise and Noise -Compatible Land Use....................................................................................... 120 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health and SafetyRisks................................................................................................................................. 120 VisualEffects............................................................................................................................... 124 WaterResources......................................................................................................................... 125 AIRPORT RECYCLING, REUSE & WASTE REDUCTION.............................................................................. 128 SolidWaste................................................................................................................................. 133 Recycling..................................................................................................................................... 133 Solid Waste Management System.............................................................................................. 133 Solid Waste and Recycling Goals................................................................................................ 135 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM...................................................................................................... 135 Airport Development Needs....................................................................................................... 136 Airport Development Schedule and Cost Summaries................................................................ 138 Short Term Planning Program..................................................................................................... 140 Intermediate Term Planning Horizon......................................................................................... 144 Long Term Planning Program...................................................................................................... 146 Capital Improvement Summary.................................................................................................. 149 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING SOURCES........................................................................................ 149 FederalGrants............................................................................................................................. 150 StateAid to Airports................................................................................................................... 153 LocalFunding.............................................................................................................................. 155 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................................................ 156 EXHIBITS AAirport Location Map...................................................................................................................... 2 BExisting Facilities............................................................................................................................. 7 CVicinity Airports........................................................................................................................13/14 DAirspace Classification.................................................................................................................. 15 EVicinity Airspace............................................................................................................................ 16 F Instrument Approach Procedures................................................................................................ 17 G National General Aviation/Air Taxi Forecasts............................................................................... 25 HAirport Service Area...................................................................................................................... 29 JForecast Summary........................................................................................................................ 44 K Aircraft Classification Parameters................................................................................................. 46 ►0-, A q promise L \MUNICIPAL L Aircraft Reference Codes.............................................................................................................. 48 M Aircraft Operations by Reference Code........................................................................................ 51 NExisting Safety Areas..................................................................................................................... 57 P Runway 13 RPZ Alternatives......................................................................................................... 63 Q Runway 31 RPZ Alternatives......................................................................................................... 64 RWindroses ................................................................................................................................66/67 S Business Jet Runway Length Analysis...................................................................................... 73/74 T Runway Length Alternatives......................................................................................................... 75 UDirect Access................................................................................................................................. 82 V Instrument Approach Impacts on RPZ Size................................................................................... 85 WLandside Alternatives.................................................................................................................... 96 X Facility Requirements Summary..............................................................................................98/99 Y Recommended Development Concept....................................................................................... 101 Z National Ambient Air Quality Standards..................................................................................... 111 AA Environmental Sensitivities......................................................................................................... 118 BB Aircraft Noise Exposure Contours............................................................................................... 121 CCAirport Waste Streams................................................................................................................ 131 DD Waste Management Systems..................................................................................................... 134 EE Capital Improvement Program................................................................................................... 137 FFDevelopment Staging.................................................................................................................. 141 Appendix A GLOSSARY OF TERMS Appendix B FAA FORECAST APPROVAL LETTER Appendix C AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS Appendix D UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WILDLIFE HAZARD OVERVIEW RP ORT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN UPDATE -� ok°� q promise .. MUNICIPAL Al AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN i I RPORT UPDATE This report is intended to provide the Blair Airport Authority, the City of Blair, the Nebraska Department of Transportation— Division of Aeronautics (NDA), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with a document that depicts the most current plans for airport improvements at Blair Municipal Airport (Air- port or BTA). This document will primarily focus on the development direction and facility changes that have taken place since the completion and approval of the last Airport Layout Plan (ALP) in 1999. The report will provide analysis detailing existing and future aviation demand and plans for airport develop- ment to meet the demand. The resultant plan will be reflected on an updated ALP drawing set, which consists of a computer -generated drawing that depicts the current and future Airport conditions. AIRPORT BACKGROUND The Airport is located approximately seven miles to the south of the City of Blair, along State Highway 133 in the southeastern quadrant of Washington County, Nebraska. On a regional scale, the Airport is located roughly 15 miles to the north of Omaha, Nebraska. Owned and operated by the Blair Airport Authority, BTA is positioned on approximately 306 acres of land and at an elevation of 1,317.6 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Exhibit A depicts the location of the Airport and its surroundings. The Airport was originally established between 1938 and 1941, was located north-northwest of the City of Blair, and consisted of a turf runway and rectangular field measuring 2,650 feet long by 1,400 feet wide. The orig- inal Airport was later upgraded to a paved runway section measuring approximately 2,600 feet long and 50 feet wide. This facility was privately -owned and operated by the City of Blair. The original Airport has since been closed and the City of Blair purchased an existing airfield that now serves as BTA. The current Airport location, purchased by the City in 1996, offers amenities such as 24-hour self-service 100 low - lead (LL) and Jet -A fuel, full service quick turn Jet -A fueling, aircraft hangars and tiedown parking, and a pilot's lounge. i REGIONAL MAP • - -- SIOUX CITY j -- - Norfolk_ m 29 NEM KA WA Fy�, *• so •4-DES-MOINES reemont , Columbus .: w OMQHA�. Council Bluffs r Grand �— Island. so ,,'- LINCOLN- -Hast gT l I . - Maryville { E3i _ — Beatrice - I55 ` c St Joseph KA AS 29 VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP y= _ HW BLI �� m a, 29 4 �fhrIA1 a Dr. ice D .. V) ¢ L CC Z e 'y ssD off / - la.Y ''.�, 680 i� Ohl'a�ha ,A -� Y 4 f � � u 80 AW Exhibit A 2 AIRPORT LOCATION MAP ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� Since the Airport does not have an airport traffic control tower (ATCT), the number of annual operations (takeoffs and landings) at the airport must be estimated. Total operations were estimated by the FAA in the 2016 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) at 15,500. These operations comprised of 1,600 itinerant opera- tions and 13,900 local operations. Generally, local operations are characterized by training operations. Itinerant operations are those performed by aircraft with a specific origin or destination away from the airport. Typically, itinerant operations increase with business and commercial use since business aircraft are not usually used for large scale training activities. SUITE The TAF projections are based upon local and na- 0 A10 tional economic factors, as well as conditions within WELCOA-_, the aviation industry. Typically, forecasting at air- _ ports without an ATCT is based upon historic opera- tions reported in the Airport Master Record Form IPA , 5010. This data is generally held constant for the :,+��p� forecast projections unless specified by a local or re- E*-f l� gional FAA official. Currently (October 2016), the Air- port has a total of 60 based aircraft consisting of 48 single engine piston, two multi -engine piston, two turboprop, three jet, and five glider aircraft. Airport Entrance Sign BTA is largely surrounded by agricultural land with residential areas situated on the north, northeast, west, and northwestern sides of the Airport. It should be noted, however, that existing houses located on Airport property are owned by the Airport and are used as rental property. AIRPORT ROLE BTA is recognized within the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) as a Regional General Aviation (GA) airport. The NPIAS is a compilation of airports within the United States that are deemed important to national air transportation by the FAA. Airports included within the NPIAS are qualified for federal funding through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). GA airports within the NPIAS must meet certain criteria to be viewed by the federal government as an asset to the air transportation system. Typically, GA airports have at least ten based aircraft and are approximately 20 miles from any other airport listed in the NPIAS. Within the GA designation, airports are further classified as: National, Regional, Local, and Basic. BTA is classified within the Regional cate- gory. Regional GA airports are located within metropolitan areas and serve relatively large populations. These airports support regional economies with interstate and some long-distance flying and have high levels of activity, including some jets and multi -engine propeller aircraft. Regional airports average about 100 total based aircraft, and typically include at least three jets. r�) L — Z A a��ao�opa� Qoap�a In addition to its inclusion in the NPIAS, BTA is also included in the Nebraska Aviation Systems Plan (NASP), last updated in 2002. Within the NASP, BTA is given the designation of a Regional airport. Mini- mum standards for this qualification are presented in Table A. According to the NASP, the Airport serves as a reliever to Eppley Airfield (OMA) located approximately 12 nautical miles (nm) southeast. TABLE A Facility and Service Criteria NASP Reeional Airports Airport Reference Code B-II or Greater Runway Length 100% of Small Aircraft w/ less than 10 passenger seats Runway Width To Meet ARC Runway Strength To Meet ARC Taxiways Partial Parallel Navigational Aids Non -Precision Approach Visual Aids PAPIs Lighting MIRL, Beacon Weather Automated Weather Services Phone, restrooms, FBO, Maintenance, Jet Fuel, Ground Transportation, RCO Facilities Terminal, Aircraft Apron, Hangars, Auto Parking Ground Access Full paved road from associated city to terminal with roadway signs on and off site ARC: Airport Reference Code AWOS: Automated Weather Observation System FBO: Fixed Based Operator MIRL: Medium Intensity Runway Lighting PAPI: Precision Approach Path Indicator RCO: Remote Communications Outlet Source: Nebraska Department of Aeronautics (2014 Annual Report) Since the completion of the last update to the ALP in 1999, BTA has received Airport Improvement Pro- gram (AIP) funding for various projects, including runway construction, apron and taxiway construction, land acquisition, and this Airport Master Plan Update. AIP grant history since 2002 is presented in Table B. Since 2000, BTA has received $14,246,871 in federal AIP funding. 1� q promise ° �a��ao�opa� Qoap� TABLE B Grant History Blair Municipal Airport 4 Grant Sequence Number Original Amount j 1991 Airport Master Plan and Site Selection Study 1 $54,000 1996 Acquire Existing Airport (tract A) 2 $690,000 2002 Construct Runway 13/31 [Phase 1] (tract 1, partial tracts 0, W, Y, Z & ALP up- 3 $1,153,681 date reimbursement) 2003 Construct Runway 13/31 [Phase 2] (includes tracts C, C-1, D E, F, G, H, J, K, L, 4 $5,422,712 partial 0, W, Y, Z) 2004 Construct Runway 13/31 [Phase 3] 5 $1,468,524 2005 Construct Apron, Construct Runway [Phase 4] - 13/31, Construct Taxiway, In- 6 $939,051 stall Miscellaneous NAVAIDS, Update Airport Master Plan Study 2009 Construct and Pave Full Parallel Taxiway and Install Taxiway Lights, Install 7 8 9 $2,208,475 Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 13/31 2010 Acquire Miscellaneous Land (tract AA) 10 $256,500 2012 Acquire Miscellaneous Land (tractS) 11 $318,600 2013 Acquire Snow Removal Equipment (tractor, blower, blade, broom) 12 $186,795 2013 Acquire Land for Approaches (tract B acquisition) 13 $1,380,000 2015 Acquire Land for Approaches (tract B relocation) 14 $1,583,104 2016 Update Airport Master Plan Study 15 $194,400 Source: FAA AIP Grant History. EXISTING FACILITIES Airport facilities can be categorized into two separate classifications: airside facilities and landside facil- ities. The airside facilities are directly associated with aircraft operations. These facilities may include, but are not limited to, runways, taxiways, airport lighting, and navigational aids. Landside facilities per- tain to facilities necessary to provide safe and efficient transition from surface transportation to air trans- portation, as well as support aircraft servicing, storage, maintenance, and safe operation. The existing airside and landside facilities are presented in Exhibit B. AIRSIDE FACILITIES BTA currently has a single concrete runway: Runway 13-31 (northwest -southeast). Runway 13-31 is 4,200 feet long by 100 feet wide with non -precision markings and two published non -precision instru- ment approach procedures, which are further detailed in the Vicinity Airspace section. The non -precision markings include runway designation, centerline, and aiming point markings. Runway 13-31 has a run- way gradient of 0.5 percent, sloping up from southeast to northwest. o co Q q promise LL LALkbM9MU@UP)Z21L QHap@)Qv Runways 13 and 31 are equipped with two -light Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI-2). Runway 31 is equipped with Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs). The pavement strength rating for Runway 13- 31 is 30,000 pounds for single wheel loading (SWL) and 60,000 pounds for dual wheel loading (DWL) aircraft. Runway 13-31 is served by a 35-foot wide full length parallel taxiway, with a separation distance of 400 feet from runway centerline to taxiway centerline. The parallel taxiway provides access to Runway 13- 31 at each runway end and at runway mid -point. Me- dium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL) is also in place, accommodating all taxiways serving Runway 13-31. Upon the most recent inspection per the Airport Master Record (dated July 15, 2015), runway pave- ment was described as being in good condition. Run- way 13-31 is equipped with medium intensity run- way lighting (MIRL). Lighting and visual approach sys- tems including the PAPI-2s, REILs, and MIRL serving Two -Light Precision Approach Path Indicator BTA can be activated via pilot -controlled lighting operated over the common air traffic frequency (CTAF) 123.05 MHz. Table C contains more information on the runway and taxiway system serving BTA. Navigational aids (NAVAIDS) include a lighted wind indicator and a green and white rotating beacon that remains in operation from sunset to sunrise. TABLE C Airside Facilities Data Blair Municipal Airport Runway Length (feet) 4,200' Runway Width (feet) 100, Runway Surface Material Concrete Condition Good Pavement Markings Non -Precision Runway Weight Bearing Capacity --Single Wheel Weight Bearing Capacity 30,000 lbs. --Dual Wheel Weight Bearing Capacity 60,000 lbs. Runway Lighting MIRL Taxiway Lighting MITL Approach Aids PAPI-2 (13, 31); REILs (31) Instrument Approach Procedures RNAV (GPS) Weather or Navigational Aids AWOS CTAF/U N ICOM Lighted Wind Indicator Rotating Beacon q promise Self S''� S Werx Hangar — —` SkyWerx Aviation - Executiv --- - FBO and Hangar -Beacon Aircraft Apron _ '"'a".... r Hold Apron .T-Hang rs Apron - Lighted Wind 1 P PAPI4�,F Indicator i h ::�Holcl ElLs AWOS� ... 14, 14 LE: II ' Martinez Gep.iW 9A71 016 Exhibit B 7 EXISTING FACILITIES This page intentionally left blank TABLE C (Continued) Airside Facilities Data Blair Municipal Airport Notes: AWOS: Automated Weather Observation System CTAF: Common Air Traffic Frequency MIRL: Medium Intensity Runway Lighting MITL: Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting PAPI: Precision Approach Path Indicator RNAV: Radio Navigation GPS: Global Positioning System REIL: Runway End Identifier Lights UNICOM: Universal Communication Frequency Source: FAA Airport Master Record (Form 5010-1). As previously noted, the Airport is served by a CTAF/universal communication frequency (UNICOM), 123.05 MHz, which can be utilized by pilots to communicate with one another, as well as activate the airport lighting systems by keying the microphone. In addition, BTA is served by an automated weather observation system III (AWOS-III P/T). The AWOS-III P/T automatically records the following weather conditions: • Wind speed, gusts, and direction • Temperature • Dew point • Altimeter setting • Density altitude • Visibility • Precipitation accumulation • Cloud height • Present weather identification • Thunderstorm/lightning reporting This information is transmitted at regular intervals on the Airport's AWOS-III P/T aeronautical advisory frequency (120.225 MHz) or via a local telephone number (402-426-0448), where a computer -generated voice will present Airport weather information. AWOS-III P/T broadcasts are updated on a minute -by - minute basis and provide arriving and departing pilots with the current weather conditions. Instrument approaches and departures are handled by Omaha Approach and Departure Control on fre- quency 120.1 MHz. LANDSIDE FACILITIES BTA offers several amenities to pilots, catering to both transient and based aircraft. SkyWerx Aviation operates as the Airport's fixed base operator (FBO). Aircraft hangars and apron area are also available for both transient and based aircraft. Building and facility footprint measurements can be viewed in Ta- ble D. SkyWerx Aviation is currently in the process of building a new hangar that will have a footprint of 11,700 square feet (sf), which is included in the executive box hangar total presented in Table D. The q promise LLQHap0QV aircraft apron has seven marked tiedown positions, including six small aircraft positions and one large aircraft position. The aircraft apron and movement area encompasses approximately 16,900 square yards. At this time, BTA has approximately 103,400 sf of hangar space on the airfield. Hangar styles avail- able include T-hangars, executive box, and conventional. The SkyWerx FBO facility is a TABLE D two -level structure with a foot- Landside Facility Data print of approximately 2,600 sf Blair Municipal Airport and a total of 5,000 sf of enclosed space. The facility offers provi- sions for passengers as well as pi- lots, including a lobby with wire- less internet, an executive lounge, conference rooms, rental cars, and complimentary refresh- L Total Footprint Arga 5,000* sf Approximate Aircraft Capacity - SkyWerx FBO T-Hangars 54,600 sf 50 Executive Box 22,800 sf 7 Conventional Hangars 26,000 sf 10 Apron and Movement Area 16,900 sy - ments. Pilot services and ameni- *Two level facility with 2,600 square footprint ties include a pilot lounge Sf: Square feet equipped with a large screen tel- Sy: Square yards evision, quiet room, flight plan- Source: Google Maps Satellite Photo (2016). ning room, private shower, complimentary crew car, quick turn Jet -A fuel, and heated hangar space. SkyWerx does not charge ramp, handling, or landing fees. The Airport is partially surrounded by basic fencing and is served by two controlled access gates to pre- vent inadvertent access by unauthorized personnel as well as wildlife. Fuel facilities available at BTA include self -serve Jet - A and 100LL available for purchase with a credit card on a 24-hour basis. Fuel is stored in two underground 12,000-gallon tanks (one tank designated for Jet -A and the other 100LL) that were constructed in 2009 and are located northwest of the terminal area. The Airport's primary water source is provided bythe Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District ___--_------ -- - (NRD). In addition, there is an existing well on the SkyWerx FBO and Hangar airfield, located west of the rotating beacon; how- ever, the well has been deemed insufficient to meet the needs of the Airport upon its expansion. A sin- gle-phase power source supplied by Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) through a transformer is lo- cated between the easternmost T-hangars and Highway 133. r� q promise As a GA airport, BTA is not required to have on -site aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) equipment/fa- cilities. The Airport falls under the jurisdiction of Fort Calhoun Fire Hall, which would respond to on - airport emergencies. The nearest fire station to the Airport is located approximately 7.5 miles to the southeast by road. The Airport can be readily accessed from Highway 133. The automobile parking lot lies in close proximity to Highway 133 on the west side and can be entered from a short access road from the highway. Auto- mobile parking is designated in two common parking areas. Total parking area consists of approximately 14,700 square feet and includes 21 marked parking spaces as well as unmarked spaces. The unmarked parking area is estimated to be capable of accommodating approximately 22 vehicles. Apron and hangar areas are separated from the parking lot by security fencing with access controlled by entrance gates. VICINITY AIRPORTS A review of other public -use airports with at least one paved runway within a 30-nautical mile radius of BTA was conducted to identify and distinguish the types of air service provided in the region. It is im- portant to consider the capabilities and limitations of these airports when planning for future changes or improvements at BTA. Exhibit C provides information on public -use airports within the vicinity of BTA. Information pertaining to each airport was obtained from FAA Form 5010-1, Airport Master Record. VICINITY AIRSPACE The airspace within the National Air Transportation System (NAS) is divided into six different categories or classes. The airspace classifications that make up the NAS are presented in Exhibit D. These categories of airspace are made up of Classes A, B, C, D, E and G airspace. Each class of airspace contains its own criteria that must be met in terms of required aircraft equipment, operating flight rules (visual or instru- ment flight rules), and procedures. Classes A, B, C, D, and E are considered controlled airspace which requires pilot communication with the controlling agency prior to airspace entry and throughout opera- tion within the designated airspace. Pilot communication procedures, required pilot ratings, and re- quired minimum aircraft equipment vary depending upon the class of airspace, as well as the type of flight rules in use. Class G airspace is uncontrolled and extends from the surface to the base of the over- lying Class E airspace. Although ATC has no authority or responsibility to control air traffic within this airspace, pilots should remember there are visual flight rule minimums that apply to Class G airspace. BTA lies within Class E Airspace, which is a form of controlled airspace; however, only pilots operating under instrument flight rules (IFR) are required to be in communication with the controlling air traffic agency. Pilots operating under visual flight rules (VFR) are not required to be in communication with the controlling agency when operating in Class E Airspace. q promise LL L G- M? �C��pLaL� QDap�Q BTA is 12 nautical miles (nm) from Eppley Airfield and 20 nm from Offutt Air Force Base, both of which are encompassed by Class C airspace. Exhibit E presents the classifications of airspace within the vicinity of BTA. Numerous Victor Airways are also in the nearby vicinity of the Airport. Victor Airways are corri- dors of airspace that are eight miles wide and extend from 1,200 feet up to, but not including, 18,000 feet. These airways are navigational routes that extend between VOR navigational facilities. Victor Air- ways near BTA extend from the Omaha Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range, coupled with Tac- tical Aircraft Control and Navigation (VORTACs) navigational aids. These Victor Airways include V138, V159, V6-8, V172, V181, and V307. As previously mentioned, Runways 13 and 31 are served by Area Navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) non -precision instrument approach systems. This system enables pilots to locate and land at the Airport during low visibility conditions. The instrument procedures are a series of electronic navi- gational aids, coupled with maneuvers predetermined by the FAA to ensure safe navigation to the Air- port in reduced visibility conditions. The lowest minimums available provide for landing with a minimum cloud ceiling of 300 feet above ground level (AGL) and visibility of 7/8 of a mile utilizing the RNAV GPS localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) and lateral navigation/vertical navigation (LNAV/VNAV) approach. Circling approaches are also available with minimums of not less than 500 feet AGL cloud ceilings and visibility of 2 miles. The approved approaches for the Airport are for categories A, B, and C aircraft only. Category A aircraft are those with approach speeds of less than 91 knots. Category B aircraft have approach speeds of 91 knots or greater, but less than 121 knots. Category C aircraft have approach speeds of 121 knots or greater, but less than 141 knots. Exhibit F presents each instrument approach and its associated cloud ceiling and visibility minimums. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Socioeconomic characteristics can provide valuable information and insight in terms of the growth and economic well-being of the study area. This information can contribute to the understanding and deter- mination of the aviation service level requirements, as well as forecasting future operation and based aircraft levels. POPULATION The historical population for the State of Nebraska was determined in 1990 by the United States Census Bureau to be over 1.57 million. As of July 1, 2015, the Census Bureau calculated a population total of approximately 1.89 million. This total represents a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly 0.74 percent from 1990-2015. Over the same period, the Omaha -Council Bluffs MSA experienced a popula- tion growth of 275,732 residents. This equates to a 1.44 percent CAGR. The population total for Wash- ington County was reported at 16,607 in 1990 and has grown to an estimated 20,248 in 2015, resulting in a CAGR of approximately 0.80 percent. From 1990 to 2015, the City of Blair population grew from q promise 1-L "-I" U WU(to90) Zia 4L 19 W h(4)k1LU Airport NPIAS Classification............ NA FAA Asset Study Classification.......... NA Location from BIA ............... 4.8 non SE Elevation .......................... 1,32411 Weather Reporting ................... Now ATCT................................ None Annual Operations ................. 14,235 Based Aircraft ........................... 57 Enplaned Passengers ................ None Length 3,173 Width 40 Pavement Strength SWL 28,000 DWL NA Lighting LIRL Marking Numbers only Approach Aids None Instrument Approach Procedures None Services Provided. Aircraft hangars and tiedowns, 100LL fuel, M inor airframe and powerplant mainenance. Airport NPIAS Classification.. Medium Hub rN FAA Asset Study Classification.......... Location from BTA............. Elevation .......................... NA 118 nm SE 994.5 ft llK� Weather Reporting ................... ATCT.................................. Annual Operations ................. ASOS Yes 94,900 Based Aircraft ......................... 118 Enplaned Passengers ............ 2,018,738 Length 9,502 8,500 8,154 Width 150 150 150 Pavement Strength SWL 100,000 100,000 150,000 OWL 184,000 209,000 175,000 Lighting HIRL HIRL HIRL Marking PI PI PI Approach Aids RVR RVR RVR ALSF-2, MALSR MALSR,ALSF-2 MALSR PAPI-4 PAPI-4 PAPIA Instrument Approach Procedures ILS/DME ILS/DME ILS/DME Services Provided. Aircraft hangars and tiedowns, Jet A and 100LL fuel, major airframe and powerplant maintenance, and oxygen. Airport NPIAS CIassifimtion............ GA FAA Asset Study Classification ..... Regional Location from BTA ............ 18.3 no ESE Elevation ........................ 1,244.811 Weather Reporting ................. AWOS ATCT.................................. No Annual Operations ................. 46,355 Based Aircraft .......................... 88 Enplaned Passengers .................. 982 Length 5,500 3,650 Width 100 60 Pavement Strength SWL 30,000 30,000 DWL 60,000 30,000 Lighting HIRL MIRL Marking NPI NPI Approach Aids PAPI-2 PAPI-2 REIL REIL Instrument Approach Procedures GPS, ILS/GPS GPS Services Provided. Aircraft hangars and tiedowns, Jet A and 100LL fuel, major airframe and powerplant maintenance, and oxygen. Airport NPIAS Classification ....... Reliever FAA Asset Study Classification ..... Regional Location from BTA ............... 13.1 no S Elevation ........................ 1,050.7 ft Weather Reporting ................. AWDS ATCT.................................. No Annual Operations ................. 72,270 Based Aircraft .......................... 95 Enplaned Passengers ................ None Length t 3,801 Width 75 Pavement Strength SWL 25,000 OWL 28,000 Lighting MIRL Marking NPI Approach Aids PAPI-2 REIL Airport NPIASCIassification............ GA FAA Asset Study Classification ........ Local Location from BTA .............. 18.7 nm W Elevation .......................... 1, 204 ft Weather Reporting ................. AWOS ATCT.................................. No Annual Operations ................. 22,265 Based Aircraft .......................... 58 Enplaned Passengers ................ None Length 6,353 Width 100 Pavement Strength SWL 8,000 OWL 48,000 Lighting MIRL Marking NPI Approach Aids PAPI-2 REIL Instrument Approach Procedures VOR/GPS, GPS Services Provided. Aircraft tiedowns, let A and 100LL fuel, major airframe and powerplant maintenance, and oxygen. Instrument Approach Procedures GPS Services Provided. Aircraft hangars and tiedowns, 100LL and let -A fuel, major airframe and powerplant mainenance, and oxygen. KEY ALSF-2 - Standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach lighting system with sequenced Flashers (CAT II confi gu ration) ATCT - AlrportTraffic Control Tower ASOS - Automated surface observation station AWOS - Automated Weather Observation System DME - Distance measuring equipment DWL - Dual Wheel Loading GPS - Global Positioning System HIRULIRL - High/Low intensity runway edge lighting ILS - Instrument landing system MALSR - Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights MIRL - Mediumintensity Runway Lighting NDB - 11—directional radio beacon NPI -Non-Precision Instrument NPIAS - National Plan oflntegrated Airport Systems PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator REIL - Ru nway End Identifier Lights RVR - Runwayvisibilityrange SWL -Single Wheel Loading VOR . - VHF Omni -Directional Range— � ` ` Airport NPIAS Classification............ GA FAA Asset Study Classification........ Local Location from BTA .............. 212m N Elevation ......................... 1026.8 ft Weather Reporting .................. ASOS ATCT.................................. No Annual Operations ................. 23,725 Based Aircraft .......................... 28 Enplaned Passengers ................ None Length 4,000 Width 75 Pavement Strength SWL 30,000 DWL 45,000 Lighting MIRL Marking NPI Approach Aids REIL Instrument Approach Procedures GPS Services Provided: Aircraft tiedowns, 100LL fuel, major airframe and powerplant maintenance. - Airport NPIAS Classification............ GA _ FAA Asset Study Classification........ Local ion from BfA ........... 242nnWSW Elewtion......................... 1223.7ft L Weather Reporting ................. AWOS ATCT.................................. No Annual Operations ................. 16,425 Based Aircraft .......................... 35 Enplaned Passengers ................ Norte Length t 4,100 3,290 Width 75 150 Pavement Strength SWL 20,000 Turf DWL NA NA Lighting MIRL None Marking NPI None Approach Aids PAPI-2 None REIL Instrument Approach Procedures GPS/NDB(20) Services Provided: Aircraft hangars and tiedowns, Jet A and 100LL fuel, major airframe and power plant maintenance. ,Airport NPIASClassification........... NA FAA Asset Study Classification.......... NA Location from BTA ............. 27.1 am NE Elevation .......................... 1,068 ft Weather Reporting .................. Nate ATCT................................ None Annaal Operations .................... 504 Based Aircraft ........................... 3 Enplaned Passengers ................ Nate Length 2,045 Width 95 Pavement Strength SWL Turf DWL NA Lighting LIRL Marking NA Approach Aids None Instrument Approach Procedures None Services Provided: None. ssirport NPIAS Classification........... GA FAA Asset Study Classification ........ Local - Location from BTA... ....... 26.2 nmWNW Elevation ........................ 1,324.9 ft Weather Reporting .................. None -__ ATCT................................Nate . .. : Annual Operations rations .................. 2,548 ' - Based Aircraft .......................... 19 Enplaned Passengers ................ Nate Length 4,200 t 3,199 Width 75 60 Pavement Strength SWL 25,000 NA DWL NA NA Lighting MIRL None Marking NPI Basic Approach Aids None None Instrument Approach Procedures GPSNOR(35) Services Provided: Aircraft hangars and tiedowns, and 100LL fuel. Airport NPIAS Classification............ GA ' ... FAA Asset Study Classification ........ Local \ 1 Location from BTA ............ 29.3 on SSE n.-Reporting ss Elevation ........................ Mather 1,204.4ft AWOS I, ATCT.................................. No s° Annual Operations ................. 20,440 -..., `. Based Aircraft .......................... 43 Enplaned Passengers ................ Nate Length 5,500 Width 100 Pavement Strength SWL 30,000 DWL 45,000 Lighting MIRL Marking NPI Approach Aids PAPI-2 REIL Instrument Approch Procedures GPS/NDB Services Provided: Aircraft hangars and tiedowns, 100LL and Jet -A fuel, majam airframe and powerplant maintenance, and oxygen. KEY ALSF-2 - Standard 2,400-feet high intensity approach lighting system with sequenced Flashers (CAT II confi guration) ATCT - AlrportTraffic Control Tower ASOS - Automated surface observation station AWOS - Automated Weather Observation System DME - Distance measuring equipment DWL - Dual Wheel Loading GPS - Global Positioning System HIRVLIRL - High/Low intensity runway edge lighting ILS - Instrument landing system MALSR - Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights MIRL - Medium Intensity Runway Lighting NDB - Noodirectional radio beacon NPI -Non-Precision Instrument NPIAS - National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator REIL - Runway End Identifier Lights RVR - Runway visibility range _ SWL - Single Wheel Loading , VOR -VHF Omni -Directional Range L FL 600 L18,000 MSL 14,500 MSL Nontowered Airport Ill ' MU ICI I �IRP 40 n.m. IF CLASS E F__A 30 n.m. 0. .-20n.m.-, 700 AGL 1,200 AGL F 12 n.m. KEY AGL - Above Ground Level FL - Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet MSL - Mean Sea Level Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for VFR Products;' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993. CLASS BI Nontowered Airport DEFINITION OF AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATIONS Generally airspace above 18,000 feet MSL up to and including FL 600. Generally multi -layered airspace from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busiest airports. Generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet AGL surrounding towered airports with service by radar approach control. Generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL surrounding towered airports. Generally controlled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D. Generally uncontrolled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E. lilh�'q Promise o h (318) I d.) 1 p 7s s 1692 /N 1673 / Craig: kama L� 8) (415) \ 08) /� 16 I Telcd mah - Woodmine I 1 27 L rI 23 ,O u 1 rowell C yUehlin ; /`(31 I \ 1027 L401on 32) 1770 �(2 5) (265) `Woodbine 7 730 1\ a I (A59 Mag lia I c „) i �1• 3 1547 167C, J cri ner _ ¢ • _(2 a 0 r Logan / (310) � OC 1'367 A Scribner.;Sfiate W m I ,(353) /\ i,��1✓ F(2616 to � in \z A A - 1354 Portsmouth Hooper^ Spiker 1305 2s 1 ;9 (2 c MIT7Y ISSOURI UC DE.SOTO NATIONAL (� � 1 NALLEy E ($i'B) A 1(648 WILDLIFE REFUGE,- �� Persic ''- 9 \ „ (315) \ 1373 CalJct �7: \ 140 �'.I(314) Jct V (Pvt) / 1366 O MISSOURI VALLEY 1734 ells LAIR® ^ (361) l000�2,4 Beeb etown (490) Yorks i Nickerson 11777 o M FREMONT (FET) I 0)w school a Si.3LI21,275 1403- -1 -L63122.8" <,.. '(,4 Minden (210� 4_ PLO' OMAHA (2so) RP19, 32 1445 �-i IanY es K ei-atom �,� AR NG KEn'% O Neola ® / 1_54b FREMONT - 11'334 p54 1- 9-�(3�201— 15.12 t� L4247230, C. A/(265) (201 ( 17Fremont (21'5) Ce --- offs (361) -- -- 4Cu..,"A / o (35g) `_ �^ Was n North Omaha V'(375)Ben eyr'., -(P, (. 5 2 (3S b) -RID (Pvt) 1393 I � 13oa 1W5ERN _ �� 2160�(250)� I. ( 1603 �� G 1� uc Eppley (330) 169 �'b_A\�1545 TV TOW — ses_ pP y WAHA? ra J)1 . x, ^ 1749 �� J I ( 7726 � _ Colo (479)I _ 15 6 25 1688 a - L IAH00� `\ p O) VALLEY ue,2) ^ (3 ) 50 f 19) \� 7 7f.. 10 _� ` P588 1\ - AWaho��975. (248) I� 'p15 ysTo \25 1548•of. almo •Cr" 1224 L 4l \campgrountl t"" tan y' 1227 O : -1645 Council Bluffs ! Treyno: 5-15 . - - 20) i'�V'96 1 nqp (350) 5� IL' NLFI� .A v�I,N532 Wahoo NDB Millard ` M - 1552)�(� "^ 'L38 •/ 1�304 �stacks/r 1-I OrOVR lab 29-p°Q 4JRT DODGE . i 70 Ithaca ` I� 1450L;, PaPtllio - " 2024 1 (� GRETT _ �t �LL EVUE _ OmCIh,a VORTAC 50, Offutt AFB /1 p (420) 1754 �V i 7 UC o u b� _ Memph' �J ^/ (470).� \(15 I I 6 OFFUTT AFB (0 \s241 1'476 o PAULAHP(5K3)M 2387 I QT- 123.710 401s: 263 r h �i (236) (Pvt) ® 1'088 La Platte A 6�625 92 C I I STARNS BROS��_� O\iob9`L V 1456 1090 -'20 ° tl.'500 ,1 I 1,5 reek /\. -' ASHL1AfV0 ^(2701 � J1330 Ceda'r\ ^72$3 = 7522 w (3401 55 - 24 / r- V s�j ks 11372- 48 � 1486 14, lIG •( (4 5 wo d C LOUT VILLE LMalvern OFFUTTrAF6 CLAS LEGEND O Airport with other than hard -surfaced VORTAC runways TTp� Compass Rose Airport with hard -surfaced runways 1,500' to 8,069' in length Class C Airspace (Mode C) Airports with hard -surfaced runways Class E Airspace with floor greater than 8,069' or some multiple 700 ft. above surface runways less than 8,069' Victor Airways Non -Directional Radiobeacon (NDB) q promise NORTH Source: Omaha Sectional Chart, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, July 21, 2016 990@0pQ[L AIRPORT SLAIR, NEBRASKA AL-10376 (FAA) 16147 wAAs APPCRs Rwyld1318 s RNAV (GPS) RWY 13 CH 8713a o TDZE 318 W13A134 Apr Elev 1318 BLAIR MUNI (RTA) 0 For uncompensate Bar,-VNAV systems, LNAV/VNAV NA e o -17°C I2°F) or a o 54°G 130°F). Bar. -VNAV and VDP NA when using Eppley Airfield altimeter seffiny V MISSED APPROACH: Climb DME/DME RNP-0.3 NA. Helicopter visibility reduction below'; 5M NA. When local to MISSED direct FALUK end ultimerer setting not received, use Eppley Airfield altimeter setting and increase LPV and LNAV/VNAV DA to 1 642 and visibility to I'/ mile all Cats, increase all MDA 80 hold. feet and LNAV Car C vmbiliy ro 1 /, mile. AWOS-3 OMAHA All CON UNICOM 120.225 120.1 354.05 123.05 ICTAF) Q 6�KPE INoPTJ 4 Nh 2�0 310 BIKPE pp O 134° to RW13 Q u i REIL Rwy 310 MIRL Rwy 13-31 Q BLAIR, NEBRASKA Arndt 1 26MAY16 L� t0romjsed�l (IF/IAF) BIKP/E� 001 �J!IKPE 940 IFAAFII3 \1FOD0 1375 RW 13''. A 1599 A 2548 FALUK !`I Yy4 NM 4 NM 4000 FALUK holding Pattern y BIKPE AFUGII T 314° 9100 IFODO 3100E 2 1 NM *LNAV onf 134°— �34 to RW13 1 NMI. 2900,r * RW13 RW13 GP 3,00" /" *2020 TCH a0 "'"� • • LPV DA 1568-%g 250(300-7e) NA LNAV/ DA 1568-%a 2501300--/ NA VNAV LNAV MDA 1720-1 402(500-1) 1720-11/8 NA 402(500-1'i) 0 CIRCLING 1740-1 1780-1 1780-2 NA 422 (500-1) 1 462 I500-1) 1 462(500-1) BLAIR MUNI (BTA) 41°25'N-96.07'W RNAV (GPS) RWY 13 BLAIR, NEBRASKA AL- 103761FAA) 16147 WAAS APP CR5 Rwy ldg 4200 1318 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31 W31A 314 CH 49238 o TDZE 1314 BLAIR MUNI (BTA Apt Elev ) 0 For uncompensated Baro-VNAV systems, LNAV/VNAV NA below-17°C (2°F) or above 0 54°11130°FI. Baro-VNAV and VDP NA when using Eppley Airfield altimeter setting. MISSED APPROACH'. DME/DME RNP-0.3 NA. When local altimeter setting nor received, use Eppley field Climb ro 3100 direct altimeter setting and increase LPV and LNAV/VNAV DA to 1 638 and visibility to I mile BIKPE and hold. all Cars, increase ell MDA 80 feet and LNAV Car C visibility to P,.F mile. AWOS-3 OMAHA All CON UNICOM 120.225 120.1 354.05 123.05 (CTAF) Q MISSED APCH FIX A1680 NM to FELDA v 4 NM��j4 BIKPE 1/ 1413%S,, 1375 I 4000 rytip 1430A -- 13891 �4 RW31 1 (IAF) NM to IALKU \ ELDA kr FELDA 23 \}S� 1599A RW31 F, EKABE ✓/pro i ryry\o �4 2548n . 01 J 3J IIF/IAF) FALL UK 4000 WUNLI 4 NM 4° z �.c O2oe �ryyP IIAF) FALUK 2 WUNLI opp 4000 J� ELEV 1318 TD7E 1 314 eP 30 N� vo 3100 BIKPE 4 NM FALUK Holding Pattern JALKU EKABE a 2.3 NM to 134° *LNAV only. *1 NM to RW31 3100 4000 Rw31 x Rw31 —31 A' +o -3100 GP 3.00, 2060* TGH 40 INM I.INM 3.EH 6.7NM cATFcoRv A B C o O� \ LPV DA 1564-'/e 250(300-ie] NA f� LNAV/ DA 1564-7/g 2501300-ie) NA 314° to VNAV RW31 LNAV MDA 1640-1 3261400-1) NA REIL Rory 31 Q 1740-1 1780-1 1780-11/z MIRL Rwy 13-31 Q OGIRGLING 422 500-I 462 500-1 462 500-1'/z NA BLAIR, NEBRASKA BLAIR MUNI (BTA) Arndt I 26MAYI6 41°25'N-96°07'W RNAV (GPS) RWY 31 ��L� G MG1U g UpLaLL QDap�Q 6,860 to 7,975 for a CAGR of 0.60 percent. In the past five years, population in Washington County and the City of Blair has remained relatively static. From 2010-2015, the City of Blair experienced a -0.04 percent CAGR, while Washington County experienced a 0.01 percent CAGR. Table E further presents historical population information. TABLE E Historical Population Year 2010 2015 CAGR CAGR ..0 City of Blair 6,860 7,990 7,975 0.60% -0.04% Washington County 16,607 20,234 20,248 0.80% 0.01% Omaha -Council Bluffs MSA 639,580 868,113 915,312 1.44% 1.06% State of Nebraska 1,578,417 1,830,025 1,896,190 0.74% 0.71% CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population projections through 2036 retrieved from the 2016 Woods and Poole Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source are presented in Table F. According to Woods and Poole, the State of Ne- braska is projected to grow at a CAGR of 0.43 percent through 2036, reaching a population total of 2.17 million. The Omaha -Council Bluffs MSA population is forecasted to grow at a CAGR of 1.10 percent, re- sulting in a population of 1.15 million by 2036. Washington County population is forecasted to grow at a CAGR of 0.78 percent through 2036, reaching 23,859 by 2036. TABLE F Forecast Population Washington County 20,248 21,445 22,304 23,859 0.78% Omaha -Council Bluffs MSA 915,312 1,006,424 1,055,381 1,150,861 1.10% 7 State of Nebraska 1,896,190 1,974,407 2,043,887 2,174,816 0.43% CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate Source: U.S. Census Bureau, The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, Woods & Poole, 2016. EMPLOYMENT AND PERSONAL INCOME An overview of the community's employment and personal income base can provide pertinent infor- mation regarding the economic health of the community. Generally speaking, the economic well-being of the community is greatly influenced by the variety and availability of employment opportunities, as well as wages offered by local employers. Table G summarizes employment and income data obtained from Woods and Poole, Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, over the past 25 years for Washington County, Omaha -Council Bluffs MSA, the State of Nebraska, and the United States. ��G`�]MG1��pLaL� L�OG3p�G�4 TABLE G Emplovment and Income Data 1990 2010 nk2015 CAGIR 1990-2015 Washington County Total Employment 7,192 11,022 11,549 1.91% Income Per Capita (2009 Dollars) $27,503 $40,841 $45,100 2.00% Mean Household Income (2009 Dollars) $74,151 $104,244 $108,315 1.53% Omaha -Council Bluffs MSA Total Employment 457,871 584,225 631,353 1.29% Income Per Capita (2009 Dollars) $29,248 $42,117 $45,238 1.76% Mean Household Income (2009 Dollars) $76,563 $106,953 $111,797 1.53% State of Nebraska Total Employment 988,059 1,214,225 1,295,543 1.09% Income Per Capita (2009 Dollars) $27,388 $39,372 $44,194 1.93% Mean Household Income (2009 Dollars) $70,049 $97,468 $106,536 1.69% United States Total Employment 249,622,800 309,347,700 321,545,000 1.02% Income Per Capita (2009 Dollars) $29,050 $39,622 $42,928 1.57% Mean Household Income (2009 Dollars) $76,860 $102,642 $108,025 1.37% Source: The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source, Woods & Poole, 2016. SWOT ANALYSIS A SWOT analysis is a strategic business planning technique used to identify Strengths, Weaknesses, Op- portunities, and Threats associated with an action or plan. The SWOT analysis involves identifying an action, objective, or element, and then identifying the internal and external forces that are positively and negatively impacting that action, objective, or element in a given environment. For this study, the SWOT analysis factors are being applied to BTA within the confines of the ALP Update and Narrative Report. As a result, it provides a continuous vision and direction for the development of the planning effort. SWOT DEFINITIONS As previously discussed, this SWOT analysis groups information into two categories: • Internal - attributes of the airport and market area that may be considered strengths or weak- nesses to the action, objective, or element. • External - attributes of the industry that may pose as opportunities or threats to the action, ob- jective, or element. 0 OJ q promise LL LALkbM9MU@UD)Z2IL QHap@)Qv The SWOT further categorizes information into one of the following: • Strengths — internal attributes of the airport that are helpful to achieving the action, objective, or element. • Weaknesses — internal attributes of the airport that are harmful to achieving the action, objec- tive, or element. • Opportunities — external attributes of the industry that are helpful to achieving the action, objec- tive, or element. • Threats — external attributes of the industry that are harmful to achieving the action, objective, or element. The SWOT analysis for BTA is based upon information gathered, including a kick-off planning advisory committee (PAC) meeting that was conducted in September 2016. The PAC is a diversified group of Airport stakeholders that represent several interests in the airport. A SWOT analysis was conducted with this group to identify key factors that might be addressed in the ALP Update and Narrative Report. A summary of the results from the SWOT analysis exercise is summarized in Table H. These results were utilized to frame the subjective or judgmental processing of the data presented in the planning effort. TABLE H SWOT Analysis Results Blair Municipal Airport • Location: quick access to Highway 133 and BTA is • The Airport Authority does not always keep located between Blair and Omaha. the City's best interests in mind in terms of • Many people tend to believe that BTA is associ- liabilities. ated with the City of Blair. • No flight training currently available at BTA. • The Airport Authority serves as a barrier between • Funding can be difficult to secure. the City of Blair and the Airport. • The construction of the next large hangar • Airport location on top of a hill. will require a taxiway. • SkyWerx FBO is very strong, providing excellent • Vehicle parking is constricted. personnel and no fees. • Aggregate roads produce large amounts of • BTA has the ability to expand. dust. • The Airport has a very "new" appearance. • A runway extension will severely limit the • BTA offers facilities such as AWOS and GPS ap- current infrastructure. proaches. • Lack of aircraft maintenance. • No incentives are available from the State of Nebraska for new infrastructure. .u. , • To date, three additional jets are considering • BTA is in close proximity to Millard Airport. basing at BTA. • Lack of general aviation pilots. ' • Potential for aircraft maintenance at BTA. • Privatization of air traffic control. • BTA could benefit from increased aviation inter- • Fewer active aircraft. est in the area. • ADS-B requirements may damper general • New legislation regarding the class three medical aviation activity. may spark new aviation interest. III °tQJ 0 q promise FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND Facility planning requires a definition of demand that may be expected to occur during the useful life of the facility's crucial components. For BTA, this involves projecting aviation demand for a 20-year timeframe. In this report, forecasts of county registered aircraft, based aircraft, based aircraft fleet mix, annual airport operations, and forecasts of airport peaking charac- teristics are projected. The forecasts generated may be used for a multitude of purposes, including facility needs assessments as well as environmental evaluations. The forecasts will SkyWerx FBO, Hangars, and Aircraft Apron be submitted to the FAA for review and approval to ensure accuracy and reasonable projection of avia- tion activity. The intent of the projections is to enable the Airport to make facility improvements to meet demand in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. It should be noted that aviation activity can be affected by numerous outside influences on a local, re- gional, and national level. As a result, forecasts of aviation demand should be used only for advisory purposes. It is recommended that planning strategies remain flexible enough to accommodate any un- foreseen facility needs. FORECASTING APPROACH Typically, the most accurate and reliable forecasting approach is derived from multiple analytical fore- casting techniques. Analytical forecasting methodologies typically consist of regression analysis, trend analysis and extrapolation, market share or ratio analysis, and smoothing. Through the use of multiple forecasting techniques based upon each aviation demand indicator, an envelope of aviation demand projections can be generated. Regression Analysis can be described as a forecasting technique that correlates certain aviation demand variables (such as passenger enplanements or operations) with economic measures. When using regres- sion analysis, the technique should be limited to relatively simple models containing independent varia- bles for which reliable forecasts are available (such as population or income forecasts). Trend Analysis and Extrapolation is a forecasting technique that records historical activity (such as air- port operations) and projects this pattern into the future. Oftentimes, this technique can be beneficial when local conditions of the study area are differentiated from the region or other airports. q promise 0 /A Market Share or Ratio Analysis can be described as a forecasting technique that assumes the existence of a top -down relationship between national, regional, and local forecasts. The local forecasts are pre- sented as a market share of regional forecasts, and regional forecasts are presented as a market share of national forecasts. Typically, historical market shares are calculated and used as a base to project future market shares. Smoothing is a statistical forecasting technique that can be applied to historical data, giving greater weight to the most recent trends and conditions. Generally, this technique is most effective when gen- erating short-term forecasts. NATIONAL GENERAL AVIATION TRENDS The FAA forecasts the fleet mix and hours flown for single engine piston aircraft, multi -engine piston aircraft, turboprops, business jets, piston and turbine helicopters, light sport, experimental, and others (gliders and balloons). The FAA forecasts "active aircraft," not total aircraft. An active aircraft is one that is flown at least one hour during the year. From 2010 through 2013, the FAA undertook an effort to have all aircraft owners re -register their aircraft. This effort resulted in a 10.5 percent decrease in the number of active general aviation aircraft, mostly in the piston category. The long term outlook for general aviation is favorable, led by gains in turbine aircraft activity. The active general aviation fleet is forecast to increase 0.2 percent a year between 2015 and 2036, equating to an absolute increase in the fleet of about 7,000 units. While steady growth in both GDP and corporate profits results in continued growth of the turbine and rotorcraft fleets, the largest segment of the fleet — fixed -wing piston aircraft - continues to shrink over the FAA's forecast. In 2015, the general aviation industry experienced its first decline in aircraft deliveries since 2010. While the single engine piston aircraft deliveries by U.S. manufacturers continued to grow and business jet deliveries recorded a very modest increase compared to the previous year, turboprop deliveries declined by 10 percent, and the much smaller category of multi -engine piston deliveries declined 40 percent. In 2015, the FAA estimated there were 138,135 piston -powered aircraft in the national fleet. The total number of piston -powered aircraft in the fleet is forecast to decline by 0.7 percent from 2015-2036, resulting in 118,855 by 2036. This includes -0.7 percent annually for single engine pistons and -0.5 per- cent for multi -engine pistons. Total turbine aircraft are forecast to grow at an annual growth rate of 2.1 percent through 2036. The FAA estimates there were 29,040 turbine -powered aircraft in the national fleet in 2015, and there will be 44,655 by 2036. This includes annual growth rates of 1.3 percent for turboprops, 2.5 percent for business jets, and 2.3 percent for turbine helicopters. LL� L G-? G �C��pLaL� QDap�Q While comprising a much smaller portion of the general aviation fleet, experimental aircraft, typically identified as home -built aircraft, are projected to grow annually by 0.9 percent through 2036. The FAA estimates there were 26,435 experimental aircraft in 2016, and these are projected to grow to 31,640 by 2036. Sport aircraft are forecast to grow 4.5 percent annually through the long term, growing from 2,410 in 2015 to 6,100 by 2036. Exhibit G presents the historical and forecast U.S. active general aviation aircraft. The FAA also forecasts total operations based upon activity at control towers across the U.S. Operations are categorized as air carrier, air taxi/commuter, general aviation, and military. General aviation operations, both local and itinerant, declined significantly as a result of the 2008-2009 recession and subsequent slow recovery. Through 2036, total general aviation operations are forecast to grow 0.3 percent annually. Air taxi/commuter operations are forecast to decline by 3.4 percent through 2025, and then increase slightly through the remainder of the forecast period. Overall, air taxi/commuter operations are forecast to decline by 1.1 percent annually from 2015 through 2036. General Aviation Aircraft Shipments and Revenue As previously discussed, the 2008-2009 economic recession has had a negative impact on general avia- tion aircraft production, and the industry has been slow to recover. Aircraft manufacturing declined for three straight years from 2008 through 2010. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Associ- ation (LAMA), there is optimism that aircraft manufacturing will stabilize and return to growth, which has been evidenced since 2011. Table J presents historical data related to general aviation aircraft ship- ments. Worldwide shipments of general aviation airplanes decreased in 2015 with a total of 2,331 units deliv- ered around the globe compared to 2,454 units in 2014. Worldwide general aviation billings were also lower than the previous year. In 2015, $24 billion in new general aviation aircraft were shipped, but yearend results were mixed across the market segments. Results were impacted by economic uncer- tainty in key markets, including Brazil, Europe, and China; however, the U.S. experienced stronger deliv- ery numbers, which is cause for cautious optimism. Business Jets: General aviation manufacturers delivered 718 business jets in 2015, as compared to 722 units in 2014. The industry's continued investment in new products helped maintain the delivery rate for business jets. Turboprops: In 2015, 557 turboprop airplanes were delivered to customers around the world, a decline from the 603 delivered in 2014. Overall, the turboprop market is still significantly stronger over the past five years compared to years prior to 2011. 0 OJ q promise LL LALkbM9MU@UD)Z21L Q�ap�Q Pistons: Piston deliveries declined from 1,129 units during 2014 to 1,056 in 2015. Two-thirds of piston shipments were to North American customers, a significant increase from the 2014 North American mar- ket share of 55.1 percent. TABLE J Annual General Aviation Airplane Shipments Manufactured Worldwide and Factory Net Billings 1994 1,132 544 77 233 278 3,749 1995 1,251 605 61 285 300 4,294 1996 1,437 731 70 320 316 4,936 1997 1,840 1043 80 279 438 7,170 1998 2,457 1508 98 336 515 8,604 1999 2,808 1689 112 340 667 11,560 2000 3,147 1,877 103 415 752 13,496 2001 2,998 1,645 147 422 784 13,868 2002 2,677 1,591 130 280 676 11,778 2003 2,686 1,825 71 272 518 9,998 2004 2,962 1,999 52 319 592 12,093 2005 3,590 2,326 139 375 750 15,156 2006 4,054 2,513 242 412 887 18,815 2007 4,277 2,417 258 465 1,137 21,837 2008 3,974 1,943 176 538 1,317 24,846 2009 2,283 893 70 446 874 19,474 2010 2,024 781 108 368 767 19,715 2011 2,120 761 137 526 696 19,042 2012 2,164 817 91 584 672 18,895 2013 2,353 908 122 645 678 23,450 2014 2,454 986 143 603 722 24,499 2015 2,331 946 110 557 718 24,120 SEP - Single Engine Piston; MEP - Multi -Engine Piston; TP - Turboprop; J - Turbofan/Turbojet Source: General Aviation Manufacturers Association 2015 General Aviation Statistical Databook & 2016 Industry Outlook AIRPORT SERVICE AREA FORECASTS In determining aviation demand for an airport, it is necessary to identify the role of that airport. BTA is classified as a Regional GA airport in the NPIAS. As such, the primary role of the Airport is to serve the needs of GA in the service area. GA is a term used to describe a diverse range of aviation activities, which includes all segments of the aviation industry except commercial air carriers and the military. GA is the largest component of the national aviation system and includes activities such as pilot training, recrea- tional flying, and the use of sophisticated turboprop and jet aircraft for business and corporate use. & 4� q promise ° Piston Single Engine 125,050 120,485 115,960 107,780 -11.7% Multi -Engine 13,085 12,810 12,545 11,765 -0.Sa/o Turbine Turboprop 9,570 9,190 9,600 12,280 1.3% Turbojet 12,475 13,680 15,340 12,280 2.5% Rotorcraft Piston 3,245 3,690 4,090 4,915 2.1% Turbine 6,995 8,020 81990 11,020 2.3% Experimental 26,435 27,485 28,500 31,365 .6 0.9% Sport Aircraft OR 2,410 3,310 4,230 5,940 4.5% 4,615 4,525 4,490 4,445 -0.2% 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 '36 Notes: An active airtaRis one that has 1111 [1gist-,, and was Flown at least one hour d,,,gth-lenda,y- U.S. GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS AAGR 2015 1 2021 2026 2036 2015-2036 Itinerant Local r r Total GA Operations 25,578,216 1 26,025,752 26,472,894 27,416,314 0.3%. 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035'36 AAGR 2015 2020 2025 2035 2015-2036 Air Taxi/Commuter Operations Itinerant 7,895,017 6,640,509 F-t-Fiscal-2016-2036 This page intentionally left blank ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� The initial step in determining the GA demand for an airport is to define its generalized service area. The airport service area is a generalized geographical area where there is a potential market for airport ser- vices, particularly based aircraft. Access to GA airports and transportation networks enter the equation to determine the size of a service area, as well as the quality of aviation facilities, distance, and other subjective criteria. Typically, the service area for a rural Regional GA airport can extend up to and even beyond 30 miles. The proximity and level of GA services are largely the defining factors when describing the GA service area. A description of nearby airports was previously completed in the Vicinity Airports section, as pre- sented on Exhibit C. There are 10 public -use airports located within 30 nautical miles of the Airport. It should be noted that there are also 15 privately owned airports located within the 30-nautical mile ra- dius. Omaha's Eppley Airfield and Millard Airport as well as Council Bluffs Municipal Airport provide the great- est regional competition for general aviation demand as they both offer comparable services and facili- ties to BTA and are located closer to the larger population centers of greater Omaha area. As such, many aircraft in the region have elected to base at Eppley Airfield, Millard Airport, and Council Bluffs Municipal Airport, with a substantial amount also basing at Northern Omaha Airport. Millard Airport and Council Bluffs Municipal Airport will likely continue to attract and accommodate a significant amount of the greater Omaha demand; however, it should be noted that BTA is currently well positioned to accommo- date aviation demands, especially on the north/north-western sides of the greater Omaha area. More- over, Eppley Airfield has and will continue to primarily serve larger more sophisticated general aviation aircraft with the smaller aircraft electing the other regional airports. When discussing the GA service area, two primary demand segments need to be addressed. The first component is the airport's ability to attract based aircraft. Almost universally, aircraft owners choose to base at an airport nearer their home or business. Convenience is the most common reason for basing in close proximity. Based on the current and historical registered aircraft data, depicted on Exhibit H, the number of local and regional aircraft owners within the standard 30-statute mile radius surrounding BTA has increased slightly from 659 in 1995 to 684 in 2015, while aircraft registrations totaled 784 in 2005. However, it should be mentioned that the FAA embarked on a re -registration process between 2010 and 2013 and saw an overall 10.5 percent decline in active aircraft. This decline appears to be represented in the registered aircraft figures for the 30-mile radius surrounding BTA as well. In addition, registered aircraft within the Counties of Douglas, Sarpy, and Washington were also examined as ap- proximately 75 percent of BTA based aircraft are registered within these counties. The tri-county area experienced a registered aircraft total of 525 in 1995, 580 in 2000, 623 in 2005, 606 in 2010, and 522 in 2015 respectively. Another primary reason for basing an aircraft at an airport is the availability of aircraft hangars at a rea- sonable lease rate. Based on Airport discussions with local and regional aircraft owners, there is poten- tial for additional aircraft to base at BTA if additional hangar storage was provided. It is important to note that many aircraft owners prefer to operate at less congested airports if given the option. q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� The second demand segment to consider is itinerant aircraft operations. In most cases, itinerant aircraft operators will also elect to utilize airports nearer their intended destination. This, however, is highly dependent on the airport's capabilities to accommodate the aircraft operator. As a result, airports with better services and facilities are more likely to attract a larger portion of the region's itinerant aircraft operations. With several competing GA airports in the region, BTA's primary service area is defined by its conven- ience to its users. Millard Municipal is better positioned to serve southern Douglas County, and Council Bluffs Municipal Airport and Eppley Airfield are better positioned to serve eastern Douglas County. As a result, BTA's primary service area consists of Washington County and northern Douglas County. Beyond convenience, aircraft owners also consider the availability of affordable hangars and other services when basing their aircraft. For this reason, a secondary service area for BTA extends for a 30-mile radius to encompass the entirety of the greater Omaha region including all of Washington, Douglas, and Sarpy Counties. Registered Aircraft Forecast Table K depicts the historical registered aircraft for the Counties of Douglas, Sarpy, and Washington for years 1993 to 2015. The registered aircraft in the area generally show an increasing trend from years 1993 through 2007. However, after 2007, the service area experienced a downward trend in aircraft registration, reaching lows of 521 and 522 registered aircraft in 2014 and 2015 respectively. The histor- ical U.S. active GA aircraft trends closely mirror the registered aircraft trends of the Airport service area. The U.S. has experienced a decrease in active GA aircraft since 2007, reaching a low of 198,780 in 2015. Similarly, the turbojet category reflects national trends as historic service area jet registrations show a growth trend, particularly since 2007. Although there are no recently prepared forecasts for the Airport service area regarding registered aircraft, one was prepared for this study using market share projection and ratio projection methods. When projecting the registered aircraft, it is helpful to calculate the service area's market share of the total active GA aircraft in the U.S. In conducting this market share analysis, comparison of the service area aircraft ownership trends against the nation's ownership trends can be carried out. Table L details the market share analysis, which shows the service area market share of the U.S. active GA aircraft fleet has not fluctuated significantly, ranging from a high of 0.28 percent in 2005 to a low of 0.25 percent in 2014. Holding the 2015 market share of 0.26 percent constant, the market share can be applied to the forecast of U.S. active GA aircraft to generate the forecast registered aircraft in the Airport service area. According to this projection, 548 aircraft could be registered in the tri-county service area by 2036, yield- ing a CAGR of 0.23 percent. In addition, an increasing market share percentage was also applied. Despite the declining ten-year market share trend, there is potential for increased market share growth should the greater Omaha area economy grow as projected. Utilizing this forecasting technique, registered air- craft within the service area will reach 674 by 2036 and grow at a CAGR of 1.23 percent. Subsequently, the increasing market share forecast has been selected as the preferred planning forecast. q promise County Boundary ,I o State Boundary o Dodge Co. ® p ` 10/20/30 Statute Mile Radius wasne�g tc��, Blair Municipal Airport • Registered Aircraft Location II -,t- Source: ESRI o 14 o 30 1"= 15 Miles This page intentionally left blank TABLE K Historical Registered Aircraft Douglas, Sarpy, and Washington Counties dowmamm - M .. 1993 9 56 28 362 23 13 491 1994 9 59 24 374 24 14 504 1995 10 67 25 381 27 15 525 1996 12 68 26 369 30 20 525 1997 17 66 25 369 25 22 524 1998 17 63 23 392 27 22 544 1999 17 58 24 386 32 24 541 2000 19 56 26 422 35 22 580 2001 18 50 27 411 45 39 590 2002 18 47 27 412 46 38 588 2003 18 40 25 407 50 55 595 2004 20 43 23 425 48 54 613 2005 19 47 26 431 46 54 623 2006 19 60 28 443 36 28 614 2007 17 60 38 443 36 34 628 2008 17 49 39 433 44 40 622 2009 16 47 39 431 42 27 602 2010 17 41 42 431 44 31 606 2011 18 40 42 422 43 31 596 2012 17 32 41 389 54 30 563 2013 16 32 40 367 53 27 535 2014 16 26 34 363 60 22 521 2015 19 24 32 368 55 24 522 MEP: Multi -Engine Piston SEP: Single Engine Piston *The "Other" aircraft category refers to aircraft such as gliders, electric aircraft, balloons, and dirigibles. Source: FAA Registered Aircraft TABLE L Registered Aircraft Forecast Douglas, Sarpy, and Washington Counties 2005 Registered . craft J:U.S.Acti ve . ir k in, 623 224,257 of U.S. Active Tri-County 6A Aircraft .Aircraft At 0.28% 648,214 Aircraft per 1. _dL 0.96 2006 614 221,942 0.28% 657,883 0.93 2007 628 231,606 0.27% 667,160 0.94 2008 622 228,664 0.27% 677,410 0.92 2009 602 223,876 0.27% 688,173 0.87 2010 606 223,370 0.27% 696,184 0.87 2011 596 220,453 0.27% 707,607 0.84 2012 563 209,034 0.27% 717,723 0.78 2013 535 199,927 0.27% 727,648 0.74 2014 521 204,408 0.25% 736,541 0.71 2015 522 203,880 0.26% 746,004 0.70 o ,�OJ q promise 0 i •y�� G�MG1��OpLaL� L��G3p�G-�4 TABLE L (Continued) Registered Aircraft Forecast Douglas, Sarpy, and Washington Counties Year Registered V MTri-Count U.S. Active % of U.S. Active Aircraft GA Aircraft GA Aircraft Tri-County Aircraft per 1,00 Population Residents Increasing• Market Share Projection of U.S. ircraft (CAGR 1.23%)—Sele' Constant Ratio Projection Per Capita (CAGR 1.06 0 Increasing Ratio Projection Per Capita (CAGR 1.94% Source: Historical Registered Aircraft — FAA Aircraft Registry; Historical and Forecast U.S. Active GA Aircraft — FAA Aero- space Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2016-2036 (2016); Historical Population —U.S. Census Bureau, Forecast Population — Woods and Poole Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (2016). Population trends have also been used to analyze and project aircraft registrations within the tri-county service area. This projection method analyzes the service area population as a ratio of the historical registered aircraft per 1,000 residents. In 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau calculated the population of the tri-county service area to be approximately 746,004. The forecast population is expected to increase to 929,975 by 2036. The ratio of registered aircraft to 1,000 population has been trending down from a high of 0.96 in 2005 to a low of 0.70 in 2015. A constant ratio projection maintaining the current ratio of 0.70 yields 651 aircraft in the tri-county service area by 2036, growing at a CAGR of 1.06 percent. An increasing ratio projection of aircraft per 1,000 people was applied to the projected population to reflect a return to the historic average ratio of 0.84. This projection yields a total of 781 registered aircraft and a CAGR of 1.94 percent. The increasing market share projection of U.S. active GA aircraft was selected as the planning forecast as it is a reflection of the historical trends and forecast economic and population growth potential within the region. ,""do4� or, 0 OJ q promise ��G`�]MG1��pLaL� L�OG3p�G�4 Based Aircraft Forecast With respect to the most current Airport records, there are currently 60 aircraft based at the Airport. Building upon the projections previously developed, market share analysis and trend line projection fore- casting approaches were used to generate forecasts for the future based aircraft totals at BTA. As pre- -- --- sented in Table M, from 2005 to 2015, BTA has expe- rienced an increase in the market share of registered aircraft within the tri-county area, growing from 6.58 percent to 11.49 percent. Holding the current mar- ket share constant at 11.49 percent, future based air- craft projections were calculated by applying the tri- county registered aircraft projection to the market share of registered aircraft. This approach results in T-Hangars a projection of 77 based aircraft by the year 2036. Based on the historic trend, an increasing market share projection was also applied, resulting in 90 based aircraft by 2036 and a CAGR of 1.95 percent. Additional projections were prepared by examining the ratio of based aircraft to population. Historic data shows that the ratio of based aircraft per 1,000 residents decreased from 2005 to 2010 but grew strongly in the past five years to a high of 0.080 in 2015. Holding the current value of 0.080 based aircraft per 1,000 residents constant results in a projection of 74 based aircraft by 2036. An increasing ratio of based aircraft per 1,000 residents was also applied to the forecast tri-county population. Over the past ten years, the ratio has grown by 0.017. Maintaining this trend results in a projection of 106 based aircraft by 2036. The FAA's TAF for BTA has also been considered. The TAF reflects a current based aircraft level of 49, which is 11 fewer than what is currently reported by Airport records. The TAF reflects a zero -growth projection, maintaining based aircraft at 49 through 2036. It is common for the FAA TAF to reflect a zero -growth forecast for non -towered GA airports. Since the TAF does not reflect current conditions nor does it consider the potential for future growth, it is used for comparison purposes only and is not con- sidered a reliable forecast. As such, the increasing market share projection has been selected as the preferred planning forecast. This projection has been selected based upon historic based aircraft trends and the potential for new hangar facilities that can support increased based aircraft demand. It should be mentioned, however, that the selected planning forecast is based upon an unconstrained growth model. The ability for the Airport to generate funding for aircraft hangars and capital improvement projects may be a limiting fac- tor to based aircraft growth. 0 q promise a��ao�opa� Qoap� TABLE M Based Aircraft Forecast Blair Municipal Airport BTA Based Aircraft 2005 41 Tri-County Registrations 623 BTA Market Shar 6.58% Tri-County PI 648,214 Aircraft per 000 Residents 0.063 2006 41 614 6.68% 657,883 0.062 2007 41 628 6.53% 667,160 0.061 2008 38 622 6.11% 677,410 0.056 2009 38 602 6.31% 688,173 0.055 2010 30 606 4.95% 696,184 0.043 2011 34 596 5.70% 707,607 0.048 2012 40 563 7.10% 717,723 0.056 2013 52 535 9.72% 727,648 0.071 2014 49 521 9.40% 736,541 0.067 2015 60 522 11.49% 746,004 0.080 2021 65 569 11.49% 795,207 0.082 2026 70 612 11.49% 840,228 0.084 2036 77 674 11.49% 929,975 1 0.083 Increasing Market 2021 Share Projection of 67 Registered Aircraft (CAGR 569 1.95%)—Selected 11.75% Forecast (Monstrained) 795,207 0.084 2026 75 612 12.25% 840,228 0.089 2036 2021 90 64 674 569 13.35% 11.18% 929,975 795,207 0.097 0.080 2026 67 612 10.98% 840,228 0.080 2036 74 674 11.03% 929,975 0.080 720367 71 569 12.44% 795,207 0.089 82 612 13.32% 840,228 0.097 1106 674 15.73% 929,975 0.114 .. 2021 49 569 8.61% 795,207 0.062 2026 49 612 8.01% 840,228 0.058 2036 49 674 7.27% 929,975 0.053 Note: 2015 BTA based aircraft number from current Airport records, 9/30/2016. Historical based aircraft totals from 2005-2014 derived from FAA TAF. Source: Historical Registered Aircraft — FAA Aircraft Registry; Historical Population —U.S. Census Bureau, Forecast Popula- tion — Woods and Poole Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (2016); Airport Communication. Based Aircraft Fleet Mix The current fleet mix based at BTA consists of 47 single engine piston aircraft, two multi -engine piston aircraft, one turboprop, and 10 jets. Given that the total number of aircraft based at the Airport is pro- jected to increase, it is important to have an idea of the type of aircraft expected to utilize the airfield. A q promise forecast of the fleet mix will ensure that adequate facilities are planned to accommodate these aircraft in the future. Table N presents the current based aircraft at BTA. TABLE N Current Based Aircraft Blair Municipal Airport 1 N106CT Make/Model FLIGHT DESIGN GMBH CTSW SEP 2 N10ZT CESSNA 172N SEP 3 N1426U CESSNA 172M SEP 4 N1700B BEECH M35 SEP 5 N18GY CESSNA 550 Jet 6 N1990X CESSNA 182H SEP 7 N1MP PIPER PA-28- 180 SEP 8 N214CF CESSNA 182T SEP 9 N217TH CESSNA 560 Jet 10 N2313Q PIPER PA 46-350P SEP 11 N234WC VANS AIRCRAFT RV-4 SEP 12 N256CP CESSNA 5550 Jet 13 N26244 GRUMMAN AA-5A SEP 14 N277JM CESSNA 551 Jet 15 N2824Z PIPER PA-22- 150 SEP 16 N319SH CZECH AIRCRAFT WORKS SPORTCRUISER SEP 17 N32004 PIPER PA-28- 151 SEP 18 N330EA SOCATA TBM 700 TP 19 N3419A PIPER PA-22- 135 SEP 20 N36AH VANS AIRCRAFT RV-6 SEP 21 N39773 PIPER PA-32RT- 300T SEP 22 N4116G CESSNA 340A MEP 23 N425WY CESSNA 550 Jet 24 N43000 PIPER PA-28- 181 SEP 25 N440RS KITFOX IV SEP 26 N444JK PIPER PA-23- 250 MEP 27 N449L GLASAIR IIS FT SEP 28 N44DZ PIPER PA-32- 260 SEP 29 N44ZT MOONEY M20J SEP 30 N455FL PIPER PA-28- 140 SEP 31 N48ZG VANS AIRCRAFT RV-12 SEP 32 N51365 CESSNA 150J SEP 33 N5172X CHAMPION 7ECA SEP 34 N5226H PIPER PA-16 SEP 35 N5336R CESSNA 172M SEP 36 N533HT CIRRUS SR22 SEP 37 N550GM CESSNA 550 Jet q promise 0�1 now_ ffirMUNICIPAL �QR�� i TABLE N (Continued) Current Based Aircraft Blair Municipal Airport of Aircraft 38 N-Number N6167E Aircraft Make/ModelNumber CESSNA 150C SEP 39 N6232R CESSNA 150E SEP 40 N6612N TAYLORCRAFT BC12D-85 SEP 41 N6645M STINSON 108-3 SEP 42 N66MQ CESSNA 550 Jet 43 N7144R PIPER PA-28- 140 SEP 44 N730JB RENEGADE SPIRIT SEP 45 N732HC CESSNA T210L SEP 46 N7367M CESSNA 175 SEP 47 N736RW CESSNA R172K SEP 48 N7370Z PIPER PA-25- 235 SEP 49 N7402 CESSNA 680 Jet 50 N758SL CESSNA 550 Jet 51 N8782W PIPER PA-28- 235 SEP 52 N8963M BEECH 35-1333 SEP 53 N8985R CHAMPION 7FC SEP 54 N9045G CESSNA 182N SEP 55 N19RC Cessna 525 Jet 56 N9529L GRUMMAN AA-5 SEP 57 N9878U GRUMMAN AA-5A SEP 58 N99036 ERCOUPE 415- C SEP 59 N9991A CESSNA 170A SEP 60* NA ULTRALIGHT EAGLE SEP *Aircraft not registered within FAA Registered Aircraft Database SEP: Single Engine Piston MEP: Multi -Engine Piston TP:Turboprop Source: Airport communication; Basedaircraft.com The projection for the fleet mix of based aircraft was generated by comparing the existing fleet mix of based aircraft at BTA with the U.S. GA fleet trends as well as Airport communication. The forecast for the active U.S. GA fleet shows declining trends in the single and multi -engine categories; however, the larger and more sophisticated aircraft such as turboprop and turbojet are forecast to increase. In addi- tion, both piston and turbine rotorcraft are projected to increase through 2036. It should be noted that three jet aircraft owners are currently considering basing their aircraft at BTA. Taking the national trends and Airport communication into consideration, a projected based aircraft fleet mix has been prepared and is detailed in Table P. &� 4� ,""door, QJ q promise 0 TABLE P Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Blair Municipal Airport Single Engine Piston 47 78.33% 51 76.12% 55 73.33% 66 73.33% Multi -Engine Piston 2 3.33% 2 2.99% 2 2.67% 1 1.11% Turboprop 1 1.67% 2 2.99% 3 4.00% 5 5.56% Jet 10 16.67% 12 17.91% 14 18.67% 16 17.78% Helicopters 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.33% 2 2.22% kL Source: Airport communication; Basedaircraft.com; Coffman Associates analysis General Aviation Operations General aviation operations are classified as either local or itinerant. A local operation is a take -off or landing performed by an aircraft that operates within sight of the airport, or which executes simulated approaches or touch-and-go operations at the airport. Generally, local operations are characterized by training operations. Itinerant operations are those performed by aircraft with a specific origin or desti- nation away from the airport. Typically, itinerant operations increase with business and commercial use, since business aircraft are not typically used for large scale training activities. Although the FAA TAF estimates operational levels for BTA, it is viewed that the current TAF, which pre- sents a flat -line forecast of 15,500 total operations through 2036, does not represent the current oper- ational level occurring at the Airport. As such, the FAA recommends applying an approved forecast model specifically developed for small non -towered GA airports. The report entitled Model for Estimating Gen- eral Aviation Operations at Non -Towered Airports Using Towered and Non -Towered Airport Data (GRA, Inc. 2001) presents the methodology and formula for the model. Independent variables used in the model include airport characteristics, demographics, and geographic features. The model was derived using a combined data set for small towered and non -towered GA airports and incorporates a dummy variable to distinguish the two airport types. Specifically, the model utilizes the following variables: • Based aircraft; • Percent of aircraft based at the airport among general aviation airports within 100 miles; • Number of FAR 141 flight training schools at the airport; • Population within 100 miles; • Ratio of population within 25 miles and within 100 miles. The model factors each of these variables so that both local and national factors are considered when estimating operations. The model results in a total annual GA operations estimate of 27,437. Table Q presents the calculations of operations for the Airport. ,""do4� or, 0 OJ q promise TABLE Q Model for Estimating Operations at Non -Towered Airports Blair Municipal Airport RE I -. i 775 775 + 241(13A) 14,460 - 0.14 (BA2) 504 + 31,478 (%100mi) 1,172 + 5,577 (VITFSnum) 0 + .001 (Pop100) 1,846 - 3,736 (WACAORAK) 0 + 12,121 (Pop25/100) 9,688 = Total 27,437 BA- Based Aircraft: 60 BA2 - Based Aircraft Squared: 3,600 %100mi - % Based aircraft among based GA aircraft within 100 miles: 3.724% VITFSnum - # of FAR 141 flight schools on airport: 0 Pop100 - Population within 100 miles: 1,025,762 WACAORAK - 1 if WA, CA, OR, AK; 0 otherwise: 0 Pop25/100 - Ratio of Pop 25 to Pop 100 (proportion between 1 and 0): 0.799283 Source: 2015 Estimate of operations — Derived from Model for Estimating General Aviation Operations at Non -Towered Airports, Equa- tion #15, FAA Statistics and Forecast Branch (July 2001). Itinerant General Aviation Operations Forecast Utilizing the operations estimate derived from the model described above, four forecast of itinerant general aviation operations have been developed and are presented in Table R. The forecasts presented examine and/or manipulate variables, such as BTA's market share of itinerant operations, forecast growth rates in the FAA's Aerospace Forecast 2016-2036, and operations per based aircraft. The first projection considers the Airport maintaining its market share of total U.S. itinerant GA operations at a constant level. In 2015, BTA accounted for 0.021 percent of U.S. itinerant operations. By carrying this percentage forward to the plan years of this study, a forecast emerges generating a CAGR of 0.43 percent and 3,096 itinerant GA operations by year 2036. The second forecast considers an increasing BTA market share of national GA itinerant operations and produces a CAGR of 2.90 percent and 5,160 operations by 2036. The national itinerant GA operations forecasts presented in the FAA's Aerospace Forecast 2016-2036 were also examined. Using the Aerospace Forecast base year of 2015, the forecasted growth rate of 0.30 percent was carried forward throughout the planning horizon. This technique forecasts 3,016 annual GA itinerant operations by 2036. An additional forecast was prepared by examining the Airport's operations per based aircraft. By maintaining a constant ratio of operations per based aircraft of 50 through the planning period, a forecast of 4,500 itinerant GA operations by 2036 and CAGR of 2.23 percent results. r� ,q promise °t TABLE R Itinerant GA Ops Forecast Blair Municinal Airnort BTA Itinerant U.S. ATCT Itinerant Market Share BTA Based Itinerant Year GA Operations GA Operations of Itinerant Aircraft Operations per Operations Based Aircraft Constant Market Share Projection (CAGR 0.43%) arket Share Projection (CAGR 2.90%) 14,309,000 .�14,742,000 •� Off"Wpace Forecast (CAGR 0.3014,103,000 14,309,000 14,742,000 Constant Operations per Based Aircraft (CAGR 2.23%)—Selected Forecast 000 14,309,000 .�. 14,742,000 •� Sources: Airport based aircraft information; FAA Aerospace Forecast2016-2036; FAA Form 5010; 2015 Estimate of opera- tions — Derived from Model for Estimating General Aviation Operations at Non -Towered Airports, Equation #15, FAA Sta- tistics and Forecast Branch (July 2001); Coffman Associates analysis. Ultimately, the constant operations per based aircraft projection has been carried forward as the se- lected forecast. The potential for facility upgrades make it possible for BTA to grow its market share and to maintain a ratio of 50 operations per based aircraft. The potential for new facilities catering to itiner- ant traffic may draw more transient aircraft. The selected forecast maintains a reasonable level of oper- ations per based aircraft, while modestly increasing the Airport's market share. Local General Aviation Operations Forecast A similar methodology was utilized to generate a planning forecast for local GA operations. Four fore- casts were developed, with the first considering the Airport maintaining a constant percentage of U.S. local GA operations. The second forecast applies an increasing market share of local operations per based aircraft throughout the planning horizon. These forecasts generated CAGRs of 0.41 and 2.88 per- cent, respectively. Local GA operations forecasts are shown in Table S. R0 4� q promise ° TABLE S Local GA Ops Forecast Blair Municipal Airport BTA Local U.S. ATCT Local Market Share BTA Based Local GA Operations GA Operations of Local Operations Aircraft Operations per Based Aircraft .. Constant Market Share Projection (CAGR 0.41% 14,742,000 _Incraacing Market Share Projection (CAGR Z W.) �1 � 1. 111 1 •1'. i i i� 1 i i 111 1 1•• .1 �. FAA Aerospace Forecast (CAGR 0.40% 1•14,309,000 14,742,000 1 1•'. •1 peration�' Based Aircra .83%)—Selected . 111 � � 111 1 •1 �11 Sources: Airport based aircraft information; FAA Aerospace Forecast2016-2036; FAA Form 5010; 2015 Estimate of operations — Derived from Model for Estimating General Aviation Operations at Non -Towered Airports, Equation #15, FAA Statistics and Forecast Branch (July 2001); Coffman Associates analysis. The FAA's Aerospace Forecast 2016-2036 was also examined for comparison. The national local GA op- erations forecast growth rate of 0.4 percent was applied to the forecast years of the report, which gen- erated a total of 26,756 GA local operations at BTA by 2036. Finally, a constant operations per based aircraft forecast was also prepared. This method forecasts a total of 36,000 operations by 2036 at a CAGR of 1.83 percent. The constant operations per based aircraft has been selected as the planning forecast. The potential for increased based aircraft indicates possible growth to BTA's local operational levels and increased market share of national local GA operations. Air Taxi and Military Operations Forecast Air taxi operations are those with authority to provide "on -demand" transportation of persons or prop- erty via aircraft with fewer than 60 passenger seats. Air taxi includes a broad range of operations, in- cluding some smaller commercial service aircraft, some charter aircraft, air cargo aircraft, many frac- tional ownership aircraft, and air ambulance services. 1� o q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� Based on an examination of flight plans filed and closed on the ground from years 2013-2015, it was determined that BTA experiences approximately 100 annual air taxi operations. Per the FAA Aerospace Forecasts, the air taxi/commuter operations category is projected to decline by 1.1 percent annually through 2036. However, with strong based business jet growth projected for the Airport, it is reasonable to assume that some of these aircraft will be utilized for air taxi (Part 135) operations. Thus, a new air taxi forecast was generated for this report and is presented in Table T. TABLE T Air Taxi Ops Forecast Blair Municipal Airport BTA Based Air Taxi U.S. ATCT Market Share BTA Air Taxi IF Business Operations per Air Taxi Operations of Air Taxi Operations Jets Based Business Jet rr rrr rrr � � Constant Market Share Projection of U.S. Air Taxi Operations (CAGR-1.02%) • •� rrr rrr . rrr rrr �. •rrr rrr �. Increasi et Share Projection of U it Faxi Operations - Low(1 1.49%) '' • •� rrr rrr r . rrr rrr :�. •rrr rrr Increasing Market Share Projection of U.S. Air Taxi Operations - Medium (CAGR 7.97%)—Selected Forecast rr • •� rrr rrr..., r . rrr r rr.•�. rr •• rrr rrr• •CAGR creasixa Market Share Projection of U.S. Air Taxi Operations _rrr - High 10.07%) r • •� rrr ' . rrr rrr: �. Sources: Airport based aircraft information; FAA Aerospace Forecast2016-2036; FAA Form 5010; 2015 Estimate of operations — Derived from Model for Estimating General Aviation Operations at Non -Towered Airports, Equation #15, FAA Statistics and Forecast Branch (July 2001): Coffman Associates analvsis. In an effort to generate a reliable air taxi operations forecast, four different forecasting techniques were examined. The first forecast analyzes the existing BTA market share of U.S. air taxi operations, which is held at a constant throughout the planning period. This forecast yields a total of 81 air taxi operations by year 2036 at a CAGR of -1.02 percent. The second forecast also examines the BTA market share of U.S. air taxi operations and applies a slightly increasing market share percentage yielding a CAGR of 1.49 percent and a total of 136 air taxi operations by year 2036. In addition, medium and high increasing BTA market share percentages of U.S. air taxi operations were also examined. Each forecast yields a total of 500 and 750 air taxi operations by year 2036 at an increased CAGR of 7.97 percent and 10.07 percent respectively. Accounting for the potential for based business 0 OJ q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� jet growths, the medium increasing market share projection has been selected as the preferred planning forecast. Military aircraft can and do utilize civilian airports across the country. Current operational data does not identify any military operations at BTA. Forecasting of military activity is inherently difficult because of the national security nature of their operations and the fact that their mission can change on a daily basis. Thus, it is typical for the FAA to utilize a flat -line number for military operations. At BTA, the FAA TAF reflects no annual military operations. For the purposes of the Master Plan, military operations are not forecasted to account for any operations at BTA through the planning period. Annual Instrument Approaches Forecasts of annual instrument approaches (AIAs) provide guidance in determining an airport's require- ments for navigational aid facilities. An instrument approach is defined by the FAA as "an approach to an airport with intent to land by an aircraft in accordance with an IFR flight plan, when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum approach altitude." To qualify as an instrument approach, aircraft must land at an airport after following one of the published instrument approach procedures. Forecasts of annual instrument approaches (AIAs) provide guidance in determin- ing an airport's requirements for navigational aid facilities. Practice or training approaches do not count as AIAs, nor do instrument approaches that occur in visual conditions. It is highly unusual for pilots to perform local operations when IFR conditions are in effect. AIAs may be expected to increase as itinerant operations and operations by more sophisticated aircraft (e.g., turbo- props and businessjets) increase through the planning period. For this reason, AIA projections consider a constant estimate of three percent of annual itinerant operations. The projections are presented in Table U. TABLE U Annual Instrument Approaches (AIAs) Blair Municipal Airport 2015 88 2 3.00% 2021 110 0 7nonn 3.00% 2026 123 0 3.00% 2036 150 , 3.00% Source: Coffman Associates analvsis Operations Forecast Summary Table V presents the aggregate total of estimated current operational totals as well as the operational forecasts for the planning horizon. ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap� TABLE V Operations Forecast Summary Blair Municipal Airport 2015 1 60 1 100 1 2.832 1 0 1 24 27.537 2021 1 67 1 300 3,350 1 0 1 26,800 1 30,450 2026 75 350 3,750 0 30,000 34,100 2036 90 500 4,500 0 36,000 41,000 Source: 2015 Estimate of operations — Derived from Model for Estimating General Aviation Operations at Non -Towered Airports, Equation #15, FAA Statistics and Forecast Branch (July 2001); Coffman Associates analysis. Peak Period Forecasts Peaking characteristics are an important aspect in generating airport capacity and facility requirements. It should be noted that because BTA does not have a control tower, the generalized peaking character- istics of other non -towered general aviation airports have been used for the purpose of this study. The peaking periods used to develop the capacity analysis and facility requirements are described below. • Peak Month —The calendar month in which traffic activity is highest. • Design Day — The average day in the peak month. This indicator is easily derived by dividing the peak month by the number of days in the month. • Busy Day —The busy day of a typical week in the peak month. • Design Hour — The peak hour within the design day. For the purposes of this study, the peak month was estimated at ten percent of the annual operations. By 2036, the estimated peak month is projected to reach 4,050 operations. The design day is estimated by di- viding the peak month by its number of days and the busy day is calculated at 1.25 times the design day. The design hour is then calculated at 15 percent of the design day. These projections can be viewed in Table W. FORECAST SUMMARY TABLE W Peak Period Forecasts Blair Municipal Airport Annual 27,537 30,450 34,100 41,000 Peak Month 2,754 3,045 3,410 4,100 Design Day 89 98 110 132 Busy Day 111 123 138 165 Design Hour 13 15 17 20 This section has provided demand -based forecasts of aviation activity at BTA over the next 20 years. An attempt has been made to define the projections in terms of short (1-5 years), intermediate (6-10 years), and long (11-20 years) term planning horizons. Exhibit J presents a 20-year forecast summary. Elements, q promise �]Ma�C�apad AaI;�PJRT Itinerant AirTaxi General Aviation Local General Aviation Single Engine Multi -Engine Piston Turboprop Jet Rotor 2016 2,832 3,350 3,750 I 4,500 24,605 1 26,800 1 30,000 1 36,000 47 or 51 55 66 2 2 2 1 1 10 0 LEGEND Single Engine Multi -Engine Pisto Turboprop Jet Engine Helicopters 2 12 I 2036 3 14 5 16 2 i A p GA]M[�1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� such as local socioeconomic indicators, anticipated regional development, historical aviation data, and national aviation trends, were all considered when determining future conditions. AIRPORT/AIRCRAFT/RUNWAY CLASSIFICATION The FAA has established multiple aircraft classification systems that group aircraft based upon perfor- mance (approach speed in landing configuration) and on design characteristics (wingspan and landing gear configuration). These classification systems are used to design certain airport elements, such as separation standards, safety areas, runways, taxiways, and aprons, based upon the aircraft expected to use the airport facilities most frequently. AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION The use of appropriate FAA design standards is gen- erally based upon the characteristics of aircraft com- monly using or expected to use the airport facilities. The aircraft used to design the airport is designated as the critical aircraft. The design criteria used in the aircraft classification process are presented in Ex- hibit K. An airport's critical aircraft can be a single aircraft or a collection of multiple aircraft commonly using the airport that fit into a single aircraft cate- gory. The design aircraft or collection of aircraft is Transient Aircraft classified by three different categories: Aircraft Ap- proach Category (AAC), Airplane Design Group (ADG), and Taxiway Design Group (TDG). The FAA Advi- sory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, describes the following classification systems and pa- rameters. Aircraft Approach Category (AAC): A grouping of aircraft based on a reference landing speed (VREF), if specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3 times stall speed (Vso) at the maximum certificated landing weight. VREF, Vso, and the maximum certificated landing weight are those values as established for the aircraft by the certification authority of the country of registry. The AAC generally refers to the approach speed of an aircraft in landing configuration. The higher the approach speed is, the design standards become more restrictive. The AAC, depicted by letters A-E, represents the approach category and relates to the approach speed of the aircraft (operational characteristics). The AAC typically applies to runways and runway related facilities, such as runway width, runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway protection zone (RPZ), and separation standards. AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY (AAC) Category im Approach Speed AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG) Group #1 Tail Height (ft) Wingspan (ft) 1 1 <49 11 1 1 4• • III 1 1 IV .1 .1 .. VI .. :1 • VISIBILITY MINIMUMS RVR-- (ft) Flight Visibility Category (statute miles) M Exhibit K AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q Airplane Design Group (ADG): The ADG, depicted by a Roman numeral I through VI, is a classification of aircraft which relates to the aircraft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristic). If the aircraft wing- span or tail height fall under two different classifications, the higher category is used. The ADG is used to establish design standards for taxiway safety area (TSA), taxiway object free area (TOFA), taxilane object free area, apron wingtip clearance, and various other separation standards. 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 TDG relates to the dimensions of the undercar- riage of the design aircraft. The taxiway design elements determined by the application of the TDG in- clude the taxiway width, taxiway edge safety margin, taxiway shoulder width, taxiway fillet dimensions, and in some cases, the separation distance between parallel taxiway/taxilanes. Other taxiway elements, such as the taxiway safety area (TSA) taxiway/taxilane object free area (TOFA), taxiway/taxilane separa- tion to parallel taxiway/taxilanes or fixed or movable objects, and taxiway/taxilane wingtip clearances are determined solely based on the wingspan (ADG) of the design aircraft utilizing those surfaces. It is appropriate for a taxiway to be planned and built to different taxiway design standards based on ex- pected use. Exhibit L presents the aircraft classification of common aircraft in operation today. AIRPORT AND RUNWAY CLASSIFICATION The airport and runway classifications, along with the aircraft classifications defined above, are used to determine the appropriate FAA design standards to which the airfield facilities are to be designed and built. Airport Reference Code (ARC): An airport designation that signifies the airport's highest runway design code (RDC), minus the third (visibility) component of the RDC. The ARC is used for planning and design purposes only and does not limit the aircraft capable of operating safely on the airport. The current ALP, which was last updated in October 1999 and will be updated as part of this study, indicates that the Airport is currently designed to ARC B-II standards. Runway Design Code (RDC): A code signifying the design standards to which the runway is to be built. The RDC is based upon planned development and has no operational component. The AAC, ADG, and runway visual range (RVR) are combined to form the RDC of a particular runway. The RDC provides the information needed to determine certain design standards that apply. The first com- ponent, depicted by a letter, is the AAC and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteris- tics). The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the ADG and relates to either the aircraft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristics), whichever is most restrictive. The third component re- lates to the visibility minimums expressed by RVR values in feet of 1,200 (%-mile), 1,600 (%- mile), 2,400 (%-mile), 4,000 (%-mile), and 5,000 (1-mile). The RVR values approximate standard visibility minimums o,. o , cok q promise ° A-1 • Beech Baron 55 _ `__ • Beech Bonanza • Cessna 150 • Cessna 172 • Cessna Citation Mustang • Eclipse 500/550 • Piper Archer • Piper Seneca • Beech Baron 58 •Beech King Air 100 • Cessna 402 • Cessna 421 • Piper Navajo a�"t� • Piper Cheyenne • Swearingen Metroliner c — • Cessna Citation 1(525) B-11 C-1, D-1 • Super King Air 200 . • Cessna 41 • DHCTwinin Otter Super King Air 350 • Beech 1900 • Citation Excel (560), Sovereign (680) • Falcon 50, 900, 2000 • Citation Bravo (550) • Embraer 120 • DHC Dash 7 • DHC Dash 8 • DC-3 _ • Convair 580 • Fairchild F-27 �R ATR 72 • ATP • Beech 400 • Lear 31, 35, 45, 60 • Israeli Westwind C-11, D-11 • Cessna Citation X (750) • Gulfstream 100, 200,300 �, • Challenger 300/600 ' • ERJ-1 35, 140, 145 • CRJ-200/700 _ • Embraer Regional Jet C-IIIless than , D-111 100 000lbs. • ERJ-170 • CRJ 705, 900 • Falcon 7X ©• Gulfstream 500, 550,650 • Global Express, y Global5000 • Q-400 C-IIIover , D-111 100,000lbs. • ERJ-90 • Boeing Business Jet • B-727 • B-737-300, 700, 800 i • MD-80, DC-9 • A319, A320 C—IV, D-1V • B-757 • B-767 • C-130 Hercules • DC-8-70 i • MD-11 'y D—V • B-747-400 • B-777 • B-787 • A-330, A-340 '-. Exhibit L. 48 AIRCRAFT REFERENCE CODES I��G�MG1��pLaL� QDap�Q� for instrument approaches to the runways. The third component should read "VIS" for runways designed for visual approach use only. Numerous airfield design standards are based upon the RDC. The RDC of any given runway is used to determine specific airfield design standards, which include imaginary surfaces established by the FAA to protect aircraft operational areas in order to keep them free of obstructions that could possibly affect the safe operation of aircraft. Airfield design standards at BTA are further described later in the report. Approach Reference Code (APRC): A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated parallel taxiway with regard to landing operations. Like the RDC, the APRC is composed of the same three components: the AAC, ADG, and RVR. The APRC describes the current operational capabili- ties of a runway under particular meteorological conditions where no special operating procedures are necessary, as opposed to the RDC, which is based upon planned development with no operational com- ponent. The APRC for a runway is established based upon the minimum runway to taxiway centerline separation. Currently, the runway to taxiway centerline separation for Runway 13-31 is 400 feet. Given that Runway 13-31 is served by non -precision instrument approach procedures with minimums not lower than % mile, Runway 13-31 meets standards for APRC D/IV/4000 and D/V/4000. Departure Reference Code (DPRC): A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated parallel taxiway with regard to take -off operations. The DPRC represents those aircraft that can take off from a runway while any aircraft are present on adjacent taxiways, under particular meteorological conditions with no special operating conditions. The DPRC is similar to the APRC but is composed of two components: AAC and ADG. A runway may have more than one DPRC depending on the parallel taxiway separation distance. The runway to taxiway centerline separation for Runway 13-31 is currently 400 feet which meets FAA design standards for DPRC D/IV and D/V. CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT The selection of airport design criteria is based upon the aircraft currently using or expected to use the airport. The critical aircraft is used to establish the design parameters of the airport. These criteria are typically based upon the most demanding aircraft using the airfield facilities on a relatively frequent basis. The critical design aircraft can be a single aircraft or a composite of multiple aircraft that represent a collection of aircraft characteristics. Upon the selection of multiple aircraft, the most demanding air- craft characteristics are used to establish the design criteria of the airport based upon the AAC, ADG, and TDG. If the airport contains multiple runways, a critical design aircraft will be established for each runway. ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� The primary consideration for a critical design aircraft is to ensure safe operation of the aircraft using the airport. If an aircraft larger than the critical design aircraft is to operate at the airport, it may result in reduced safety margins, or an unsafe operation. However, airports typically do not establish design criteria based solely upon the largest aircraft using the airfield facilities if it operates on an infrequent basis. The critical design aircraft can be defined as an aircraft conducting at least 500 annual operations at an airport or the most regularly scheduled aircraft in commercial service. When planning for future airport facilities, it is extremely important to consider the demands of aircraft operating at the airport in the future. As a result of the separation standards based upon the critical aircraft, caution must be exercised to ensure that short-term development does not preclude the long-term needs of the airport. Thus, it is important to strike a balance between the facility needs of aircraft currently operating at the airport and the facility needs of aircraft projected to operate at the airport. Although precautions must be taken to ensure long-term airport development, airports with critical aircraft that do not use the airport facilities on a regular basis are unable to operate economically due to added development and maintenance ex- penses. AIRPORT DESIGN AIRCRAFT It is imperative to have an accurate understanding of what type of aircraft operate at the airport both now and in the future. The type of aircraft utilizing airport facilities can have a significant impact on numerous design criteria. Thus, an aircraft activity study by type and aircraft category can be beneficial in determining future airport standards that must be met in order to accommodate certain aircraft. The most recent annual data was obtained from the FAA's Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC), a program maintained by the FAA to monitor the amount and type of aircraft activity at air- ports. Typically, information is added to the system when pilots file flight plans and/or when flights are detected by the National Airspace System (NAS) on radar. The TFMSC program includes commercial ser- vice (air carrier and air taxi), military, and general aviation aircraft. Although the program is capable of identifying the aircraft operating under IFR filed flight plans and on radar, TFMSC does not account for all aircraft operating without a flight plan due to limited radar coverage. Thus, it is possible for an airport to experience additional operations that are not counted within TFMSC. Despite its shortcomings, the program is a valuable source of information when it comes to identifying the primary airport users and type of aircraft operating at the airport on a regular basis. For the purpose of this study, a TFMSC report was generated to identify the primary Airport users and aircraft operating at BTA. Exhibit M presents the operational mix of turbine aircraft reported by TFMSC to be operating at BTA. Although many of the aircraft identified by the TFMSC report fall within the A/B-I small aircraft category, numerous aircraft identifying with the B-11 category were identified as well. Of the B-11 aircraft identified, q promise JET OPERATIONS BY AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE A-1 A-1 A -I A-1 A-11 A -II Cessna Citation Mustang Eclipse400/500 Epic Dynasty Piper Malibu/Meridian Cessna 425 Pilatus PC-12 Beechjet 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 6 10 8 0 4 0 0 8 14 10 0 2 0 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 62 14 6 12 4 12 0 4 34 0 4 I 14 I 22 0 4 40 2 6 24 2 0 B-1 B-1 Cessna Citation I/SP 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 16 B-1 Cessna CA 10 4 2 4 0 4 4 0 B-1 Embraer Phenom 100 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 B-1 Mitsubishi MU-2 4 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 B-1 Piaggio P180 Avanti 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 B-1 Piper Cheyenne 4 0 32 2 6 2 2 0 B-1 Raytheon Premier 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 B-1 Swearingen Merlin 2/4 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 B-1 TBM-7/850 1 0 0 0 0 2 14 214 252 B-11 Aero Commander 680/900/1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 B-11 Cessna 441 Conquest 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 0 B-11 Cessna Caravan 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 B-11 Cessna Citation Bravo/SP 0 4 4 0 52 160 170 164 B-11 Cessna Citation Excel/XLS 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 B-11 Cessna Citation 111/VI/VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 B-11 Cessna Citation Sovereign 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 222 B-11 Cessna Citation V/Encore/Ultra 0 2 0 0 62 236 190 0 B-11 Cessna 02, 03, 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 B-11 Dassault Falcon 20/50 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B-11 King Air 90/200/300/350 4 10 28 10 94 188 306 260 C-1 Learjet 30 Series 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 C-11 Challenger 300/600 0 0 2 18 0 0 0 2 C-II Embraer ERJ 135/140/145/Legacy 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE OPERATIONS SUMMARY A-1 0 2 24 32 12 94 42 52 A-11 0 4 4 2 0 16 36 26 B-1 18 8 40 12 10 26 244 272 B-11 12 16 38 20 208 584 734 652 C-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 C-11 2 0 2 18 0 0 0 2 18 10 64 44 22 120 286 326 14 20 44 40 208 600 770 680 Source: Traffic Flow Management System Counts V9,0romiselt ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� some have a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of less than 12,500 pounds, identifying with the small aircraft category, while others have MTOWs greater than 12,500 pounds which are classified as large aircraft. The operational characteristics of the B-II category turbine aircraft operating at BTA can be viewed in Table X. TABLE X Category B-II Aircraft Characteristics Blair Municipal Airport 10,100 101 50.00 14.25 Beech King Air 90 Cessna 441 Conquest 9,925 100 49.30 13.10 Commander 680 6,750 97 49.08 15.00 King Air 100 11,800 111 45.92 15.42 King Air 200 12,500 102 54.50 14.80 King Air 350 15,000 99 57.90 14.30 Citation Excel/XLS 22,000 114 53.50 16.80 Citation II/Bravo 14,800 112 52.17 15.00 Citation Ultra/Encore 16,830 107 55.80 17.20 Citation Sovereign 30,775 112 72.33 20.33 Dassault Falcon/Mystere 50 40,780 113 61.92 22.92 The 1999 ALP designates the ARC as B-II; however, the ARC is based strictly upon the B-II category, or family of similar aircraft, as opposed to identifying a specific critical aircraft. Based upon the TFMSC anal- ysis as well as based aircraft records, category B-II remains a prevalent ARC designation for BTA. It should be noted that numerous B-II category aircraft are currently based at BTA, including a Cessna Citation Sovereign which is the largest based aircraft. The Citation Sovereign is classified within TDG IB due to the dimensions of the undercarriage of the aircraft. Thus, the airport design aircraft is best described as B- II-IB. Although aircraft more demanding than B-II were identified utilizing the Airport, these aircraft do not conduct at least 500 annual operations to justify a larger critical design aircraft. EXISTING RUNWAY DESIGN As previously discussed, each runway is designated as RDC. The RDC relates to specific design criteria set forth by the FAA that should be met. The RDC is determined by the particular aircraft or category of aircraft expected to use each runway. LL L G- M? �C��pLaL� QDap�Q Runway 13-31 Runway Design Code Runway 13-31 is the primary runway and should be designed to accommodate the critical design aircraft. This runway is currently 4,200 feet in length and 100 feet wide. The runway is equipped with instrument approach procedures with visibility minimums down to 7/8 of a mile. Given these characteristics, Run- way 13-31 is currently categorized as B-II-4000. FUTURE RUNWAY DESIGN The aviation demand forecasts indicate the potential for continued growth in turbine activity at the Air- port. This includes 16 based jets and five turboprops by the long-term planning horizon. The type and size of business jets and turboprops using the Airport regularly can impact the design standards to be applied to the airport system. Therefore, it is important to have an understanding of what type of aircraft may use the Airport in the future. Factors such as population and employment growth in the airport service area, the proximity and level of service of other regional airports, and development at the Airport can influence future activity. Most operations throughout the planning period of this Master Plan are expected to be by aircraft within AACs A and B and within ADGs I and 11. However, the trend toward manufacturing of a larger percentage of medium and large business jets, in AACs C and D, may lead to greater utilization of these aircraft (particularly those in AAC C) at BTA by the long-term planning horizon. BTA has 10 based business jets with the potential for two more soon and a forecast total of 16 by 2036. With projected growth in based jets and air taxi operations at BTA, it is reasonable to consider AAC C aircraft, such as the Cessna Citation X, as being a future based aircraft or frequent operator at the Airport. The evidence supporting a poten- tial shift to AAC C verifies the currently approved ALP, which ultimately defines Runway 13-31 as ARC C- 11. Thus, the planning effort will consider ARC C-11 as the critical design category and the future RDC to be .�IQ�iZ�I�a FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS As mentioned previously, components of an airport contain both airside and landside facilities. Airside facilities include facilities that are related to the approach, departure, and ground movement of aircraft on the airport. Airside facility components encompass runways, taxiways, navigational approach aids, airport signage, marking, and lighting. Landside facilities are needed on an airport to foster the interface of air and ground transportation. Landside facility components include GA terminal facilities, aircraft hangars and tiedowns, aircraft parking aprons, automobile parking, and airport support facilities. This portion of the report will not only explore facility requirements, but also alternative ways to meet those requirements. Each functional area interrelates and affects the development potential of the oth- ers. Therefore, all areas are examined individually, and then coordinated as a whole, to ensure the final q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q plan is functional, efficient, and cost-effective. The total impact of all these factors on the Airport must be evaluated to determine if the investment in BTA will meet the needs of the Blair Airport Authority and City of Blair, both during and beyond the 20-year planning period. It is the goal of this alternatives discussion to produce a balanced development plan to best serve fore- cast aviation demands. However, before defining and discussing specific alternatives, Airport develop- ment objectives should be considered. As owner and operator, the Blair Airport Authority provides the overall guidance for the operation and development of the Airport. It is of primary concern that the Airport is marketed, developed, and operated for the betterment of the community and its users. With this in mind, the following development objectives have been defined for this planning effort: • To develop a facility with a focus on self-sufficiency in both operational and developmental cost recovery; • To develop a safe, efficient, and attractive aviation facility in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including best practices for safety and security; • To conform to the intent of applicable FAA and/or NDA Division of Aeronautics design standards and other appropriate planning guidelines; • To plan for the highest and best use of Airport land; • To develop a balanced facility that is responsive to the current and long-term aviation demand for all classes of Airport users; • To be reflective and supportive of the long-term planning efforts currently applicable to the re- gion, including appropriate local, regional, and state transportation plans and other applicable plans; • To provide flexibility to adjust to unforeseen changes; and • To ensure that future development is environmentally compatible and technically, socially, and politically feasible. The alternatives considered are compared to determine which of the alternatives will best fulfill the local aviation needs. With this information, as well as input from various Airport stakeholders, a final Airport concept can evolve into a realistic development plan. AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES Components included within the Airside Facility Requirements and Alternatives section encompass run- ways, safety area design standards, taxiways, navigational and approach aids, lighting, marking, and sign - age. q promise LL ALL �-�? WMG1MMI LL QDap(J)QV Airfield Design Standards The FAA has established several imaginary surfaces to protect aircraft operational areas and keep them free from obstructions that could affect the safe operation of aircraft. These surfaces include the runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway obstacle free zone (ROFZ), and runway pro- tection zone (RPZ). It is important that the RSA, ROFA, ROFZ, and RPZ remain under direct ownership of the airport sponsor to ensure that these areas remain free of obstacles and can be readily assessed by maintenance and safety personnel. The airport should also own or maintain sufficient land use control over RPZs in an effort to ensure that the area remains obstacle free. Alternatives to owning RPZs include maintaining positive control through avigation easements or ensuring proper zoning measures are taken to maintain compatible land use. The safety areas are presented in Exhibit N. Runway Safety Area (RSA) The RSA is an established surface surrounding a runway that is designed or prepared in order to increase safety and decrease potential damage in the event that an aircraft undershoots, overshoots, or makes an excursion from the runway. The RSA is centered upon the runway centerline and its dimensions are based upon the approach speed and design group of the critical design aircraft using the runway. The FAA states within AC 150/5300-13A that the RSA must be cleared and graded and cannot contain haz- ardous surface variations. In addition, the RSA must be drained either by grading or storm sewers, capa- ble of supporting snow removal, ARFF equipment, as well as the occasional passage of aircraft without damaging the aircraft. The RSA must remain free of obstacles, other than those considered fixed by function, such as runway lights. The FAA has placed a higher significance on maintaining adequate RSA at all airports. Under Order 5200.8, effective October 1, 1999, the FAA established the Runway Safety Area Program. The Order states, "The objective of the Runway Safety Area Program is that all RSAs at federally -obligated air- ports ... shall conform to the standards contained in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, to the extent practicable." Each Regional Airports Division of the FAA is obligated to collect and maintain data on the RSA for each runway at the airport and perform airport inspections. The RDC B-II-4000 RSA serving Runway 13-31 is 150 feet wide and extends 300 feet beyond each end of the runway. Based on a site visit and Airport records, there are no known obstructions to the RSA. Under the ultimate RDC C-II-4000 conditions, the RSA is enlarged to 500 feet wide and extending 1,000 feet beyond the departure end of the runway and 600 feet prior to the landing threshold. The ultimate RDC C-II-4000 RSA would introduce several non-standard conditions that would need to be resolved. Under RDC C-II conditions presented on Exhibit N, the RSA extending to the southeast of Runway 13-31 is penetrated by vegetation beginning approximately 450 feet beyond the runway end, while the RSA q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q extending to the northwest is penetrated by vegetation beginning approximately 250 feet beyond the runway end. It should be noted that the vegetation incompatibility at the northwest end of Runway 13- 31 is a field currently being utilized to grow corn. Any crop with a vertical component is considered an obstruction. In addition, the drainage way beyond the Runway 31 threshold creates a non-standard sur- face variation to the RSA. In the event the Airport were to allow the existing non-standard conditions to remain, an alternative would be the implementation of a displaced landing threshold on Runway 31 and decreased runway length declared available for takeoff on Runway 13. The Runway 31 threshold would need to be dis- placed by approximately 150 feet to allow 600 feet of RSA prior to the landing threshold. Declared dis- tances would need to be implemented on Runway 13, to decrease the amount of runway length available for takeoff by approximately 550 feet. Similarly, the Runway 13 threshold could be displaced to provide 600 feet of RSA prior to the landing threshold. In addition, the Runway 31 takeoff length declared dis- tance could be decreased by 750 feet to allow for a full 1,000 feet of RSA beyond the runway end result- ing in the removal of the vegetation penetrations to the northwest This alternative achieves FAA RSA design standards by reducing the amount of runway length available for use. Ultimately, this alternative would negatively impact the growth potential of the Airport by limiting accessibility to business jet air- craft that require longer runway lengths to safely operate. As a result, future planning should include the removal of vegetation and rerouting or grading of the drainage way to conform to RSA standards. In doing so, the full length of Runway 13-31 can continue to be utilized for takeoffs and landings under ultimate RDC C-II. Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) The ROFA can be described as a two-dimensional surface area that surrounds all airfield runways. This area must remain clear of obstructions aside from those that are deemed "fixed by function," such as runway lighting systems. This safety area does not have to be level or graded as the RSA does. However, the ROFA must be clear of any penetrations of the lateral elevation of the RSA. Much like the RSA, the ROFA is centered upon the runway centerline and its size is determined based upon the critical design aircraft using the runway. Currently, RDC B-II-4000 FAA standards call for the ROFA serving Runway 13-31 to be 500 feet wide and extend 300 feet beyond each end of the runway. The Runway 13-31 ROFA is currently obstructed by a small amount of vegetation on the westernmost side of the runway. This vegetation should be cleared and maintained to prevent future vegetation regrowth. ROFA dimensional standards, presented on Exhibit N, for RDC C-II-4000 are 800 feet wide and extend 1,000 feet beyond each end of the runway. Under ultimate conditions, the ROFA would be obstructed by portions of County Road 35, vegetation, and the windcone adjacent to the midfield connector taxiway q promise ""uWuQ�9GAL &9w6,(i�R'W This page intentionally left blank rA" (� providing access to Runway 13-31. These obstructions to the ultimate ROFA should be mitigated prior to upgrading to RDC C-II-4000 standards. Similar to the RSA deficiencies, each end of Runway 13-31 and the westernmost side lacks proper ROFA to meet the future RDC C-II. The ROFA beyond each runway end includes vegetation and it is recom- mended that the ROFA be cleared and graded at the same time of the proposed RSA improvements. In addition, the ROFA extending beyond the northwest end of Runway 13-31 is obstructed by County Road 35, which is located on Airport property and is designated as a public use road. It is recommended that County Road 35 be re-routed and the windcone moved outside the ROFA. Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) An ROFZ can be defined as a portion of airspace centered about the runway, and its elevation at any point is equal to the elevation of the closest point on the runway centerline. The ROFZ extends 200 feet past each end of the runway on the runway centerline. The width of the ROFZ is determined by the critical aircraft utilizing the runway. The ROFZ width for runways accommodating large aircraft is 400 feet. The function of the ROFZ is to ensure the safety of aircraft conducting operations by preventing object penetrations to this portion of airspace. Potential penetrations to this airspace also include taxiing and parked aircraft. Any obstructions within this portion of airspace must be mounted on frangible cou- plings and be fixed in its position by its function. The established FAA dimensions for a B-II runway serving large aircraft (over 12,500 pounds) require the ROFZ to be 400 feet in width and extend 200 feet beyond each end of the runway. Runway 13-31 meets the ROFZ design standards for a B-II runway. ROFZ standards for the ultimate RDC C-II-4000 runway remain the same as the existing B-II-4000 runway; thus, no change would be required. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) An RPZ can be described as a trapezoidal area centered on the extended runway centerline and generally begins 200 feet from the end of the runway. This safety area has been established to protect the end of the runway from airspace penetrations and incompatible land uses. The RPZ is divided into two different portions: the central portion and the controlled activity area. The central portion of the RPZ extends from the beginning to the end of the RPZ, is centered on the runway centerline, and is the same width as the ROFA. The RPZ dimensions are based upon the critical design aircraft using the runway and the visibility minimums serving the runway. While the RPZ is intended to be clear of incompatible objects or land uses, some uses are permitted with conditions and other land uses are prohibited. According to AC 150/5300-13A, the following land uses are permissible within the RPZ: q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� • Farming that meets the minimum buffer requirements. • Irrigation channels as long as they do not attract birds. • Airport service roads, as long as they are not public roads and are directly controlled by the air- port operator. • Underground facilities, as long as they meet other design criteria, such as RSA requirements, as applicable. • Unstaffed navigational aids (NAVAIDs) and facilities, such as required for airport facilities that are fixed -by -function in regard to the RPZ. Any other land uses considered within RPZ land owned by the airport sponsor must be evaluated and approved by the FAA Office of Airports. The FAA has published Interim Guidance on Land Uses within a Runway Protection Zone (September 27, 2012), which identifies several potential land uses that must be evaluated and approved prior to implementation. The specific land uses requiring FAA evaluation and approval include: • Buildings and structures (residences, schools, churches, hospitals or other medical care facilities, commercial/industrial buildings, etc.). • Recreational land use (golf courses, sports fields, amusement parks, other places of public as- sembly, etc.). • Transportation facilities (rail facilities, public roads/highways, vehicular parking facilities, etc.). • Fuel storage facilities (above and below ground). • Hazardous material storage (above and below ground). • Wastewater treatment facilities. • Above -ground utility infrastructure (i.e., electrical substations), including any type of solar panel installations. The Interim Guidance on Land within a Runway Protection Zone states, "RPZ land use compatibility also is often complicated by ownership considerations. Airport owner control over the RPZ land is empha- sized to achieve the desired protection of people and property on the ground. Although the FAA recog- nizes that in certain situations the airport sponsor may not fully control land within the RPZ, the FAA expects airport sponsors to take all possible measures to protect against and remove or mitigate incom- patible land uses." Currently, the RPZ review standards are applicable to any new or modified RPZ. The following actions or events could alter the size of an RPZ, potentially introducing an incompatibility: • An airfield project (e.g., runway extension, runway shift). • A change in the critical design aircraft that increases the RPZ dimensions. • A new or revised instrument approach procedure that increases the size of the RPZ. • A local development proposal in the RPZ (either new or reconfigured). 0 OJ q promise I�G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q Currently, the RPZs associated with Runway 13-31 begin 200 feet from the end of each runway and are 1,000 feet in width at the inner portion, 1,510 feet at the outer portion, and 1,700 feet in length encom- passing 48.98 acres of property. Both approach RPZs to Runways 13 and 31 contain portions of public roads. The southeastern corner of the Runway 13 RPZ contains a portion of County Road 38, while the Runway 31 RPZ contains a portion of County Road 35, Highway 133, and extends off Airport property. Each county road traversing the RPZs provide access to rural residential parcels located west and south- west of the Airport. The FAA recommends that an airport have ownership of the RPZ land, where feasible, that could include outright fee simple ownership or an avigation easement. If an airport cannot fully control the entirety of the RPZ, the RPZ land use standards have recommendation status for that portion of the RPZ not controlled by the airport owner. In essence, this means that the FAA can require a change to the runway environment so as to properly secure the entirety of the RPZ. Objects such as public roads have been allowed within RPZs under previous guidance unless they posed an airspace obstruction. FAA's current guidance; however, does not readily allow for public roads in the RPZ. Since the new RPZ guidance addresses new or modified RPZs, existing incompatibilities may be grandfa- thered under certain conditions. For example, roads that are in the current RPZ are typically allowed to remain as grandfathered unless the runway environment changes. The Airport sponsor should take rea- sonable actions to meet RPZ design standards, which could include relocating portions of Highway 133 and County Roads 35 and 38 from within the Runway 13-31 RPZs; however, it could be considered ac- ceptable since these roads have been in existence since before the RPZ standards were published. FAA funding priority for certain actions, such as relocating existing roads in the RPZ, will be determined on a case by case basis. It should be noted that uncontrolled and/or unowned airport property containing the Right -of -Way (ROW) of Nebraska roads is not a concern for airports located in Nebraska, as the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDR) does not release their ROW. The ultimate RPZ standards for a C-II-4000 runway would remain the same as the existing RPZ standards. Given that the ultimate RPZs would remain unchanged, any incompatibilities could still be grandfathered as long as no other changes to the runway environment or approach minimums alter the size or location of the RPZs. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Alternatives Given that the runway environment is subject to change, the Airport sponsor should take reasonable actions to meet RPZ design standards. As such, alternatives for RPZs serving each runway end have been developed. LL� ALL �-�? WMG1MMI LL /UWD)(j)M4 Runway 13 RPZ Alternatives In its current location, the RPZ serving Runway 13 contains portions of County Roads 35 and 38 as well as Highway 133 and Airport -owned residential housing. The current RPZ configuration also encompasses approximately 1.8 acres of unowned property. Exhibit P presents three alternatives to potentially miti- gate the existing RPZ incompatibilities. Runway 13 RPZAlternative 1 The first alternative presents the RPZ serving Runway 13 in its existing condition and proposes the re- moval of portions of County Roads 35 and 38 and relocation of County Road 35. Furthermore, this alter- native considers the relocation of Highway 133 at the northeastern corner of the RPZ as well as the relocation of an Airport -owned home. Total property to be acquired under this alternative amounts to approximately 1.8 acres. Runway 13 RPZAlternative 2 The second alternative proposes a 1,190-foot threshold displacement to Runway 13. Ultimately, this displacement would position the RPZ in a manner that limits incompatibilities and remain on Airport property. Under this circumstance, it is proposed that a portion of County Road 35 be removed and relocated out of the RPZ. It should be mentioned, however, that a threshold displacement of 1,190 feet would limit the runway's landing distance available (LDA) to 3,010 feet. Takeoff runway available (TORA) and takeoff distance available (TODA) would remain unchanged. Runway 13 RPZAlternative 3 Finally, the third alternative presents the RPZ coupled with a potential 1,300-foot extension to Runway 13. This option would include multiple incompatibilities; however, runway length would ultimately be increased and the RPZ would remain clear of Highway 133. This alternative proposes the removal and relocation of County Roads 35 and 38 as well as Airport -owned residential driveways and homes. Ulti- mately, this alternative would also require property acquisition of 7.99 aces. Runway 31 RPZ Alternatives In its current location, the RPZ serving Runway 31 extends off Airport property and encompasses 10.37 acres of unowned Airport property as well as portions of County Road 38 and Highway 133. Given the incompatibilities to the current RPZ configuration, three alternatives presented in Exhibit Q were devel- oped to potentially mitigate non-standard conditions. it;0 F Fn Faun ay 13-31 4,200' 100' Disp Threshold aced T'_ a 1,300' --� _ 800 d; 1,800 - SCA IN FEET , CDs.. Martine osp tial: 9/17/2016 Exhibit P 63 RUNWAY 13 RPZ ALTERNATIVES 6 a it A w .� $ n NORZH - A ............... ., s w , r LEGENDAirport Property Line Re ocated Runway Protection •' Th eshold Pavement to be Removed Proposed Roadway Property to be Acquired NAET_. -' - Martinlan ial: 9/17/2016 1 25' Di placed �r Th eshold Exhibit Q 64 RUNWAY 31 RPZ ALTERNATIVES Runway 31 RPZAlternative 1 The first alternative presents the removal and relocation of County Road 38, as well as a portion of High- way 133 in an effort to clear the RPZ of any roadway incompatibilities. In addition, this alternative pro- poses the acquisition of 10.37 acres of unowned Airport property. Runway 31 RPZAlternative 2 The second alternative proposes a 625-foot threshold displacement to Runway 31 in an effort to mini- mize roadway incompatibilities as well as eliminate property to be acquired. This alternative would, however, require the relocation of County Road 38, and place limitations on the effective runway length. Under the proposed conditions, the LDA, TORA, and TODA for Runway 31 would be limited to 3,575 feet. Runway 31 RPZAlternative 3 Finally, the third alternative presents the same 625-foot threshold displacement on Runway 31; how- ever, under these conditions, the length of runway prior to the runway threshold could be utilized for takeoff operations. Thus, the LDA would be limited to 3,575 feet and the TORA and TODA would remain unchanged from their current lengths of 4,200 feet. In addition, this option would also require the re- moval and relocation of County Road 38 to remain clear of the Runway 31 RPZ. Runway Orientation Currently, BTA is served by a single runway system (13-31) oriented in a northwest -southeast configura- tion. For the operational safety and efficiency of an airport, it is desirable for the runway to be oriented as close as possible to the direction of the prevailing wind. This reduces the impact of wind components perpendicular to the direction of travel of an aircraft that is landing or taking off. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, recommends that a crosswind runway be made available when the primary runway orientation provides for less than 95 percent wind coverage for spe- cific crosswind components. The 95 percent wind coverage is computed on the basis of not exceeding a 10.5-knot (12 mph) component for RDC A-1 and B-1, 13-knot (15 mph) component for RDC A-11 and B-11, 16-knot (18 mph) component for RDC A -III, B-III, C-1 through C-III, and D-I through D-III, and a 20-knot (23) component for RDC A -IV through E-VI. Data from the AWOS located at BTA was collected from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administra- tion (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center over a continuous nine-year period from January 7, 2008 through December 31, 2016. A total of 231,186 observations of wind direction and other data points were made. Exhibit R presents Runway 13-31 and the associated wind coverage. Given that weather q promise �L^kkWUG=�OG'&[L A6G2WJRT ALL WEATHER WIND COVERAGE 1Runways 1 10.5 Knots 1 13 Knots 1 16 Knots 1 20 Knots I Runway 13-31 1 92.26% 1 96.12% 1 98.74% 1 99.66% 1 a z Magnetic Declination 00° 02' 47"East (January 2017) Annual Rate of Change 00° 06' 00" West (January 2017) A� promise SOURCE: NOAA National Climatic Center Asheville, North Carolina Blair Municipal Airport Blair, NE OBSERVATIONS: 231,186All Weather Observations Jan. 1, 2008 - Dec, 31 2016 �L^kkWUG=�OG'&[L A6G2WJRT ALL WEATHER WIND COVERAGE 1Runways 1 10.5 Knots 1 13 Knots 1 16 Knots 1 20 Knots I Runway 13-31 1 92.92% 1 96.84% 1 99.04% 1 99.74% 1 Magnetic Declination 00° 02' 47"East (January 2017) Annual Rate of Change 00° 06' 00" West (January 2017) Asnevuie, ivorin uaroima Eppley Airfield Omaha, NE OBSERVATIONS: 115,595 All Weather Observations Jan. 1, 2007 - Dec, 31 2016 ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� data specific to the Airport was not available for the required 10-year period, historic information from the nearest weather station at Eppley Airfield (OMA) was also examined and is presented in Exhibit R. In all weather conditions specific to BTA, Runway 13-31 provides 92.26 percent coverage at 10.5 knots, 96.12 percent coverage at 13 knots, 98.74 percent coverage at 16 knots, and 99.66 percent coverage at 20 knots. As evident from the analysis presented above, Runway 13-31 is not ideally oriented to support predominant winds for categories A and B-I aircraft. The runway orientation limits its use during approx- imately three percent of the reported observations for small aircraft. The analysis shows the ideal cross- wind runway orientation for the best wind coverage at 10.5 knots would be 16-34; however, this orien- tation provides only 94.89 percent coverage at 10.5 knots, which does not meet the 95 percent standard. This indicates that no single runway orientation can provide 95 percent wind coverage and a crosswind runway is necessary to satisfy FAA design criteria. Analysis indicates that a crosswind runway with an orientation of 2-20 (north-northeast/south-southwest) would provide optimal wind coverage of 98.60 percent at 10.5 knots when combined with the existing runway. The primary drawbacks with constructing a crosswind runway at BTA is the lack of property to do so and surrounding land uses. The preferred north-northeast/south-southwest runway orientation would likely interfere with existing residential housing, fertile irrigated farmland, as well as existing roadways. Barring the cost of any incompatibilities (existing housing and roadways, purchase of farmland), the cost of con- structing the runway would likely range between $3 and 15 million depending on several factors includ- ing length, amenities, and incidental costs associated with terrain, environmental, and other infrastruc- ture costs. Due to these constraints, a crosswind runway will not be further considered. Runway Length Requirements Runway length requirements for an airport typically are based on factors including airport elevation, mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month, runway gradient (difference in runway eleva- tion of each runway end), critical aircraft type expected to use the airport, and stage length of the longest non-stop trip destination. For aircraft with maximum certificated takeoff weights of less than 12,500 pounds, adjustments for runway gradient are not taken into account. Aircraft performance declines as each of these factors increase. Warmer summertime temperatures and long stage lengths are the primary factors in determining runway length requirements, especially for turbine aircraft models. For calculating runway length requirements at BTA, the Airport's elevation is 1,317.6 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and the mean maximum temperature of the hottest month (July) is 87.3 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The Runway 13 end elevation of 1,317.6 feet MSL is 19.2 feet above the Runway 31 end, which is at 1,298.4 feet MSL. Using the site -specific data described above, runway length requirements for the various classifications of aircraft that may operate at the airport were examined using FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design. The FAA runway analysis groups general aviation aircraft into several q promise a��ao�opa[LQoap(:j)aV categories, reflecting the percentage of the fleet within each category. The runway design should be based upon the most critical aircraft (or group of aircraft) performing at least 500 annual itinerant oper- ations. The first step in evaluating runway length is to determine general runway length requirements for the majority of aircraft operating at the Airport. The majority of operations at BTA are conducted using smaller single engine piston -powered aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Table Y summarizes the FAA's generalized recommended runway lengths determined for BTA. FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, recommends that airports be designed to at least serve 95 percent of small airplanes. The advisory circular further defines the fleet categories as follows: • 95 Percent of Small Airplane Fleet: Applies to airports that are primarily intended to serve medium- sized population communities with a diversity of usage and a greater potential for increased aviation activities. This category also includes airports that are primarily intended to serve low -activity loca- tions, small population communities, and remote recreational areas. • 100 Percent of Small Airplane Fleet: This type of airport is primarily intended to serve communities located on the fringe of a metropolitan area or a relatively large population community remote from a metropolitan area. TABLE Y Runway Length Requirements Blair Municipal Airport Airportelevation................................................................................................................................... 1,317.6 feet Mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month...........................................................................87.3° F Maximum difference in runway elevation................................................................................................ 19.2 feet JIII 111111 1111 1111111111111 • •lillilill lillilill 111111 lillill•• ••• Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats 95 percent of these small airplanes................................................................................................... 3,500 feet 100 percent of these small airplanes................................................................................................. 4,100 feet Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats................................................................................... 4,400 feet Source: FAA AC 150/5325-413, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design. Based upon these calculations, Runway 13-31, at a length of 4,200 feet, currently meets runway length criteria for 95 and 100 percent of small airplanes and falls short of runway length requirements for small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats. At the Airport's temperature and elevation, this would re- quire a primary runway length of 4,400 feet for 100 percent of small airplanes, including those with more r0-1 q promise L._Pa�I�1bMUMU@UPLaL� Q�ap�Q than 10 passenger seats; however, the FAA recommends providing a runway capable of meeting the needs of the critical design aircraft, which is ultimately planned to be in the ARC C-II family of aircraft. Runway length requirements for business jets weighing less than 60,000 pounds have also been calcu- lated based on FAA AC 150/5325-4B. These calculations take into consideration the runway gradient and landing length requirements for contaminated runways (wet). Business jets tend to need greater runway length when landing on a wet surface because of their increased approach speeds. AC 150/5325-4B stipulates that runway length determinations for large aircraft consider a grouping of airplanes with similar operating characteristics. The AC provides two separate "family groupings of air- planes," each based upon their representative percentage of aircraft in the national fleet. The first grouping is those business jets that make up 75 percent of the national fleet, and the second group is those making up 100 percent of the national fleet (75-100 percent of the national fleet). Table Z presents a representative list of aircraft for each aircraft grouping. A third group includes business jets weighing more than 60,000 pounds; however, runway length determination for these aircraft types must be based on the performance characteristics of the individual aircraft. TABLE Z MTOW: Maximum Take Off Weight Source: FAA AC 150/5325-48, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design Table AA presents the results of the runway length analysis for business jets developed following the guidance provided in AC 150/5325-4B. To accommodate 75 percent of the business jet fleet at 60 per- cent useful load, a runway length of 5,500 feet is recommended. This length is derived from a raw length of 4,839 feet that is adjusted, as recommended, for runway gradient, then rounded up to the nearest hundred feet (when the ten value is 30 feet or more). To accommodate 100 percent of the business jet fleet at 60 percent useful load, a runway length of 5,900 feet is recommended. 4� 0 q promise °`QJ L��L � bm 9 M U 9 U FL I / HWD)0)G24 TABLE AA Business Jet Runway Length Requirements Blair Municipal Airport Airport Elevation 1.317.6 feet MSL Average High Monthly Temp. 87.3 degrees (July) Runway Gradient 19.2 feet R aw Runway Runway Length Wet Surface Final LFleet Mix Category Length from With Gradient Landing Length Runway .. AC Adjustment for Jets (+15%)* Length 75% of fleet at 60% useful load 4,839' 5,031' 5,500' 5,500' 100% of fleet at 60% useful load 5,716' 5,908' 5,500' 5,900' * Max 5,500' for 60% useful load in wet conditions Source: FAA AC 150/5325-413, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design. Business Jet Runway Length Analysis Given that BTA is used by based and itinerant business jet aircraft (Cessna Citation family of business jets, Learjet 31/35, and Challenger 300/600), which have a greater impact upon runway length needs, a runway length analysis for specific jet and turboprop aircraft was conducted to better analyze specific runway needs at BTA. Exhibit S provides a detailed runway length analysis for 42 of the most common business jet and turbo- prop aircraft in the national fleet. This data was obtained from Ultranav software which computes op- erational parameters for specific aircraft based on flight manual data. The analysis includes the maxi- mum takeoff weight (MTOW) allowable and the percent useful load for the current runway length. This analysis shows that the primary runway length of 4,200 feet is capable of accommodating all these busi- ness jet/turboprop aircraft during dry runway conditions with varying limitations to their MTOW. This analysis includes the Cessna Citation Sovereign, which is considered the current critical design aircraft; however, many of the aircraft analyzed encounter greater weight penalties on hot days or cannot oper- ate at the Airport at all under wet runway conditions due to wheel gear hydroplaning issues. Exhibit S also presents the runway length required for landing under three operational categories: Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 25, CFR Part 135, and CFR Part 91k. CFR Part 25 operations are those conducted by individuals or companies which own their aircraft. CFR Part 135 applies to all for -hire charter operations, including most fractional ownership operations. CFR Part 91k includes op- erations in fractional ownership which utilize their own aircraft under direction of pilots specifically as- signed to said aircraft. The landing length analysis shows an average landing length of approximately 4,900 feet for aircraft operating under CFR Part 91k during wet runway conditions and an average of 6,500 feet for aircraft operating under Part 135 during wet runway conditions. The Cessna Citation Sov- ereign, when operated at maximum landing weight under Part 135 during wet runway conditions, re- quires up to 6,000 feet for landing. q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� The FAA will typically only support runway length planning to the 60 percent useful load factor unless it can be demonstrated that business jets are frequently operating fully loaded (90 percent). On average, the business aircraft analyzed are capable of taking off at BTA at or above 60 percent useful load under dry runway conditions. For landing situations, the analysis showed that the Citation Sovereign, which is the critical design aircraft, requires additional runway length than what is currently available at BTA when operating under Part 91k or 135 under wet runway conditions. Taking the ultimate AAC critical design aircraft into consideration, a Cessna Citation X would be repre- sentative of the ultimate AAC C. Based upon runway length analysis, the Cessna Citation X is able to operate at 33 percent of useful load when operating under dry runway conditions. Under wet runway conditions, the Citation X is effectively unable to takeoff as the existing runway length is too short for the aircraft to legally operate on. Furthermore, the Citation X would require additional runway length to land under dry and wet runway conditions while operating under Part 91k. Runway 13-31 Length Summary The majority of operations taking place at BTA are conducted by smaller, single engine, fixed -wing air- craft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Following guidance from AC 150/5325-4B, to accommodate 100 percent of these small aircraft, a runway length of at least 4,100 feet is recommended. However, the Airport is also utilized by aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, including small- to mid -sized busi- nessjet aircraft. AC 150/5325-4B stipulates that runway length determinations for business jets consider a grouping of airplanes with similar operating characteristics. As such, runway length calculations specific to BTA for business jets that make up 75 percent of the national fleet at 60 percent useful load would require a 5,500-foot runway. Therefore, specific runway length calculations for turbine aircraft operating at BTA, including the critical design aircraft, suggest that a longer runway length could be utilized. Runway Length Alternative Analysis Analysis in the previous section recommended that the Airport consider a potential runway extension on Runway 13-31 to at least 5,500 feet. The business jet aircraft that utilize BTA are often weight -re- stricted when combining operational factors such as high temperatures and density altitudes experi- enced at the Airport during the summer months. Furthermore, the forecast analysis anticipates the potential increase of business jet operations at the Airport in the future. Runway 13-31 extension alternatives include an option for extending the runway simultaneously in both directions as well as options for only extending the runway to the northwest or the southeast. These alternatives also identify the impacts an extension would have on existing features located beyond the ends of the runway. Associated changes to airfield geometry and efficiency must also be considered to include the need to extend the taxiways serving each runway end. Runway length alternatives are pre- sented in Exhibit T. It should be noted that this exercise only examines impacts incurred by a runway q promise Takeoff Aircraft Name weight Limit Beechjet 400A NEW - Length for Dry Runway Lbs. Payload Available 4,200' %Payload Available Kin Air C9 :I' Citation 560 XL IF - Citation 560 XLS Citation X Citation Bravo Citation Encore 15,925 t Citation Encore Plus r Citation USP t 4,447 100% Citation Mustang s Citation Sovereign Ilt--ilillm,29,250 11,100 Citation Ultra FF 6,275 100% Citation Vll Cit/a't�+ion (5�2�5) U7 9,375 T F Citation (525A) CJ2 Citation C13 '"N= 4-m- 13,870 5,110 00% Challenger 300 F• Canadair601-3A/R 1 5,160 Challenger 6041605 :F' CRJ-200 39,594 09 t, Falcon 7X iL.54,340 17,740 73 Out of Limits 2,245 3,266 3,742 5,443 2,806 4,083 9,464 Z514 80% 1,422 11422 21370 2,370 1,778 1,778 18,299 5,599 77% 3,435 5,462 5,725 9,103 4,294 6,828 18,789 5,989 81% 3,437 5,408 5,728 9,013 4,296 6,760 Outof Limits 3,786 5,376 6,310 8,960 4,733 6,720 12,798 3,473 63 % 3,608 5,663 6,013 9,438 4,510 7,079 Outof Limits 3,024 4,570 5,040 7,617 3,780 5,713 Outof Limits 3,027 4,599 5,045 7,665 3,784 5,749 11,245 3,842 86% 2,432 21796 4,053 4,660 31040 3,495 8,313 Z753 89% 2,578 3,617 4,297 6,028 3,223 4,521 Outof Limits 2,843 3,585 4,738 5,975 3,554 4,481 Outof Limits 3,067 3,527 5,112 5,878 3,834 4,409 Outof Limits 3,180 4,295 5,300 7,158 3,975 5,369 10,064 3,194 116% 21957 3,996 4,928 6,660 3,696 4,995 11,471 3,671 80% 3,194 4,642 5,323 7,737 3,993 5,803 13,316 4,556 89% 3,004 4,104 5,007 6,840 3,755 5,130 Out of Limits 2,675 5,127 4,458 8,545 3,344 6,409 Out of Limits 3,432 4,119 5,720 6,865 4,290 5,149 Out of Limits 2,877 4,445 4,795 7,408 3,596 5,556 38,658 8,158 36% 3,432 6,579 5,720 10,965 4,290 8,224 54,340 17,740 53% 3,005 3,455 5,008 5,758 3,756 4,319 Takeoff Length for Dry Runway 4,200' Takeoff Length for Wet Runway 4,200' Landing Length Required fon -�� 16,710 5,510 73% 15,700 4,500 60% 2,839 3,265 4,732 5,442 3,549 4,081 22,320 35,100 4,707 1Z520 43% 52% Out of Limits 35,100 1Z520 52% 2,600 3,620 2,990 4,160 4,333 6,033 4,983 6,933 3,250 4,525 3,738 5,200 -:... ....'..,- 17,838 19,689 6,853 5,589 54% 52% 17,838 6,853 54% 19,689 5,589 52% 2,370 2,920 2,370 3,730 3,950 4,967 3,950 6,217 2,963 3,650 2,963 4,663 ��•• .... ; 19,854 3,854 34% 19,854 3,854 34% 3,010 3,890 5,017 6,483 3,763 4,863 Hawker 4000 32,168 8,468 54% 31,835 8,135 51% 3,225 3,708 5,375 6,180 4,031 4,635 9,846 1,066 29% 9,846 1,066 29% 1,235 1,235 2,058 2,058 1,544 1,544 King Air ,111k 14,517 4,632 91 % 13,956 4,071 80% 2,740 3,151 4,567 5,252 3,425 3,939 14,345 3,345 55% 14,345 3,345 55% 2,879 3,311 4,798 5,518 3,599 4,139 8,423 1,353 45% 8,423 1,353 45% 1,273 1,273 2,122 2,122 1,591 1,591 15,031 3,817 66% 11,375 161 3% 3,050 4,269 5,083 7,115 3,813 5,336 14,002 3,202 36% Out of Limits 3,284 4,597 5,473 7,662 4,105 5,746 16,296 2,696 36% Out of Limits 2,875 3,662 4,792 6,103 3,594 4,578 17,739 3,789 54% Out of Limits 2,876 3,662 4,793 6,103 3,595 4,578 16,723 2,723 36% Out of Limits 2,876 3,662 4,793 6,103 3,595 4,578 17,739 3,739 50% Out of Limits 2,876 3,662 4,793 6,103 3,595 4,578 16,378 3,485 40% 14,725 1,832 21- 3,491 5,587 5,818 9,312 4,364 6,984 17,294 2,522 29% Out of Limits 3,311 4,359 5,518 7,265 4,139 5,449 k 9,921 3,139 100% 9,921 3,139 100% 2,823 2,823 4,705 4,705 3,529 3,529 4 ' - 11,033 2,433 62% 10,351 1,751 45% 3,434 4,374 5,723 7,290 4,293 5,468 -�®BUSINESS JET RUNWAY LENGTH Exhibit S ANALYSt&- This page intentionally left blank G�MG1�gU U. QDapo)QV extension and does not include existing conditions. Analysis pertaining to existing safety areas including the runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway obstacle free zone (ROFZ), and runway protection zones (RPZs) will be detailed later within the Airfield Design Standards section of this report. Alternative 1 The first alternative examines a runway extension of 1,300 feet to the southeast. Under these conditions, the physical pavement section of the proposed runway and taxiway system would remain on Airport property. However, under existing and ultimate conditions, the RSA, ROFA, ROFZ, and RPZ serving Run- way 31 would ultimately extend off Airport property. In addition, County Road 38 would traverse each associated safety area, while the Runway 31 RPZ would be traversed diagonally by Highway 133 and contain multiple houses. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes a runway extension of 650 feet on each end of the runway. Much like Alternative 1, the physical pavement sections of the proposed runway extension and taxiway system would remain on Airport property under these conditions. Under ultimate RDC C-II conditions, the RSA, ROFA, and ROFZ contain multiple incompatibilities as well as extend off Airport property. The ultimate RSA and ROFA would have incompatible vegetation and would be traversed by County Roads 35 and 38 as well as a portion of residential driveway. The RPZ serving Runway 13 would remain primarily on Airport prop- erty. However, a housing incompatibility and multiple roadway incompatibilities would be in existence posed by County Roads 35 and 38 along with residential roads. Similarly, the RPZ serving the extended Runway 31 would also extend off Airport property and contain portions of Highway 133 and County Road 38. Alternative 3 Finally, the third alternative analyzes a 1,300-foot runway extension to the northwest. Proposed pave- ment sections and all existing and ultimate safety areas associated with this alternative remain on Air- port property with the exception of the northeastern portion of the holding bay and the outermost cor- ners of the RPZ serving Runways 13 and 31. Although pavement sections and safety areas remain pri- marily on Airport property, the runway environment and safety areas still contain housing, vegetation, and roadway incompatibilities posed by County Roads 35 and 38 as well as residential driveways. 1� ,o,. o � q promise 0t FA, L G�MG1�C��p2LL L 0G3p0)G3 Runway Width The width of the existing runway was examined to ensure compliance with FAA runway design standards assigned for each RDC. Runway 13-31 is 100 feet wide, which complies with FAA runway design stand- ards for the existing RDC B-II and ultimate RDC C-II design standards and should be maintained through- out the planning horizon. Runway Pavement Strength Airport pavement strength is very important as it must be able to withstand repeated operations by aircraft of significant weight. The strength rating of a runway does not preclude aircraft weighing more than the published strength rating from using the runway. All federally obligated airports must remain open to the public, and it is typically up to the pilot of the aircraft to determine if a runway can support their aircraft safely. An airport sponsor cannot restrict an aircraft from using the runway simply because its weight exceeds the published strength rating. On the other hand, the airport sponsor has an obliga- tion to properly maintain the runway and protect the useful life of the runway, typically for 20 years. According to the FAA publication, Airport/Facility Directory, "Runway strength rating is not intended as a maximum allowable weight or as an operating limitation. Many airport pavements are capable of sup- porting limited operations with gross weights in excess of the published figures." The directory goes on to say that those aircraft exceeding the pavement strength should contact the airport sponsor for per- mission to operate at the airport. The current pavement rating of Runway 13-31 is 30,000 pounds SWL and 60,000 pounds DWL. This strength rating is sufficient for the aircraft fleet mix currently operating and projected to operate at the airport. The forecast considers the potential of increased operations by mid -size business jets; however, this family of aircraft weigh less than 60,000 pounds DWG, so the current pavement strength should adequately serve the future aircraft fleet mix at BTA. Taxiway Design Considerations The taxiway system of an airport is primarily to facilitate aircraft movements to and from the runway system. While some taxiways are constructed to simply provide access from the apron to the runway, other taxiways are constructed to increase the allowable frequency of aircraft operations as air traffic increases. FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, provides guidance on recommended taxiway and tax- ilane layouts to enhance safety by avoiding runway incursions. A runway incursion is defined as "any occurrence at an airport involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the pro- tected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft." q promise 1 The taxiway system at BTA generally provides for the efficient movement of aircraft; however, re- cently published AC 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Air- port Design, provides recommendations for taxiway design. The following is a list of the taxiway design guidelines and the basic rationale behind each rec- ommendation: Taxi Method: Taxiways are designed for "cock- pit over centerline" taxiing with pavement be- ing sufficiently wide to allow a certain amount of wander. On turns, sufficient pavement should be provided to maintain the edge safety Connecting Taxiway margin from the landing gear. When construct- ing new taxiways, upgrading existing intersections should be undertaken to eliminate "judgmental oversteering." This is where the pilot must intentionally steer the cockpit outside the marked cen- terline in order to assure the aircraft remains on the taxiway pavement. 2. Steering Angle: Taxiways should be designed such that the nose gear steering angle is no more than 50 degrees, the generally accepted value to prevent excessive tire scrubbing. 3. Three -Node Concept: To maintain pilot situational awareness, taxiway intersections should provide a pilot with a maximum of three choices of travel. Ideally, these are right and left angle turns and a continuation straight ahead. 4. Intersection Angles: Design turns to be 90 degrees wherever possible. For acute angle intersections, standard angles of 30, 45, 60, 120, 135, and 150 degrees are preferred. 5. Runway Incursions: Design taxiways to reduce the probability of runway incursions. - Increase Pilot Situational Awareness: A pilot who knows where he/she is on the airport is less likely to enter a runway improperly. Complexity leads to confusion. Keep taxiway systems simple using the "three node" concept. -Avoid Wide Expanses of Pavement: Wide pavements require placement of signs far from a pilot's eye. This is especially critical at runway entrance points. Where a wide expanse of pavement is necessary, avoid direct access to a runway. - Limit Runway Crossings: The taxiway layout can reduce the opportunity for human error. The benefits are twofold — through simple reduction in the number of occurrences, and through a reduction in air traffic controller workload. r� ,�tQJ q promise ° i � I -Avoid "High Energy' Intersections: These are intersections in the middle third of runways. By limiting runway crossings to the first and last thirds of the runway, the portion of the runway where a pilot can least maneuver to avoid a collision is kept clear. - Increase Visibility: Right angle intersections, both between taxiways and runways, provide the best vis- ibility. Acute angle runway exits provide greater efficiency in runway usage but should not be used as runway entrance or crossing points. A right angle turn at the end of a parallel taxiway is a clear indication of approaching a runway. -Avoid "Dual Purpose" Pavements: Runways used as taxiways and taxiways used as runways can lead to confusion. A runway should always be clearly identified as a runway and only a runway. - Indirect Access: Do not design taxiways to lead directly from an apron to a runway. Such configurations can lead to confusion when a pilot typically expects to encounter a parallel taxiway. - Hot Spots: Confusing intersections near runways are more likely to contribute to runway incursions. These intersections must be redesigned when the associated runway is subject to reconstruction or re- habilitation. Other hot spots should be corrected as soon as practicable. 6. Runway/Taxiway Intersections: - Right Angle: Right angle intersections are the standard for all runway/taxiway intersections, except where there is a need for a high-speed exit. Right-angle taxiways provide the best visual perspective to a pilot approaching an intersection with the runway to observe aircraft in both the left and right direc- tions. They also provide optimal orientation of the runway holding position signs so they are visible to pilots. - Acute Angle: Acute angles should not be larger than 45 degrees from the runway centerline. A 30- degree taxiway layout should be reserved for high speed exits. The use of multiple intersecting taxiways with acute angles creates pilot confusion and improper positioning of taxiway signage. - Large Expanses of Pavement: Taxiways must never coincide with the intersection of two runways. Tax- iway configurations with multiple taxiway and runway intersections in a single area create large expanses of pavement, making it difficult to provide proper signage, marking, and lighting. 7. Taxiway/Runway/Apron Incursion Prevention: Apron locations that allow direct access into a runway should be avoided. Increase pilot situational awareness by designing taxiways in such a manner that forces pilots to consciously make turns. Taxiways originating from aprons and forming a straight line across runways at mid -span should be avoided. - Wide Throat Taxiways: Wide throat taxiway entrances should be avoided. Such large expanses of pave- ment may cause pilot confusion and makes lighting and marking more difficult. q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� -Direct Access from Apron to a Runway: Avoid taxiway connectors that crossover a parallel taxiway and directly onto a runway. Consider a staggered taxiway layout that forces pilots to make a conscious deci- sion to turn. - Apron to Parallel Taxiway End: Avoid direct connection from an apron to a parallel taxiway at the end of a runway. The existing taxiway system at BTA is found to be adequate in meeting air traffic demand. However, the current taxiway layout contains conflicts with the current FAA taxiway design standards established in AC 150/5300-13A. To maintain compliance with the current FAA taxiway design standards, the Airport should consider realigning a portion of the connecting taxiway extending from the aircraft apron, to eliminate direct access from the aircraft parking apron to Runway 13-31. Proposed taxiway geometry changes are presented in Exhibit U. These taxiway design requirements are intended to reduce the probability of runway incursions by providing maximum visibility at runway in- tersections and increase pilot situational awareness by requiring a 90-degree turn from the parallel tax- iway to access the runway. Taxiway Geometry Alternative 1 The first alternative proposes two different options that could be employed to eliminate direct access provided from the aircraft apron to Runway 13-31. The first option examines a 200-foot northern offset of the westernmost portion of the taxiway providing access to the runway environment. The second option proposes the same 200-foot offset in a southern direction. Each option would require aircraft exiting the apron to make two 90-degree turns prior to entering the runway environment. It should be noted, however, that only one option shown in this alternative would be eligible for funding, not both. Taxiway Geometry Alternative 2 This alternative examines the inclusion of a no -taxi island. Ultimately, this will eliminate direct access from the apron area to Runway 13-31 by requiring aircraft to taxi around the island prior to entering the full length parallel taxiway and runway environment. However, this alternative option will render a por- tion of the apron area unusable. Taxiway Geometry Alternative 3 A third and final alternative analyzes a 200-foot southern displacement of the easternmost portion of the taxiway providing access to the runway environment. This alternative would eliminate direct access to Runway 13-31, while providing the best access to the apron environment. q promise III!! gRl NORTH %Env Et Option 1d.: Option 2 E. 200'i, i Ef El" on, - - : 0 300 600 �� SCALE IN FEET Martinez Geospatial: 9/17/2016 No -Taxi Island A E iEl , a Airport Property Line Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Proposed Pavement Pavement to be Removed W. Exhibit U �o rrtQ DIRECTACCESS q Promise o ��G`�]MG1��pLaL� L�OG3p�G�4 Navigational and Approach Aids Runways 13 and 31 are accommodated by non -precision instrument approaches providing visibility min- imums down to 7/8-mile. This system allows properly equipped aircraft to navigate to each runway in reduced visibility conditions. Runway 31 is equipped with REILs to guide aircraft to the approach end of each runway. Lighting systems such as this can be beneficial when the airfield environment is contami- nated with lights from the surrounding area, making it difficult for pilots to distinguish the end of the runway. As such, the Airport should consider the addition of REILs to Runway 13. In addition to the non -precision approach and REIL systems, Runways 13 and 31 are also equipped with PAPI-2 visual approach aids. This is a system consisting of two lights that are color -coded to indicate whether the approaching aircraft is on, above, or below the designated glide slope. Depending upon the aircraft's position relative to the predetermined glide slope, the lights will change colors to inform the pilot of their position. The non -precision approach systems and REILs should be maintained throughout the planning period. The Airport should consider upgrading the PAPI-2 systems to four -light PAPIs (PAPI-4), which are recom- mended for runways that accommodate jet aircraft. Given that the Airport currently has approach min- imums down to 7/8-mile, the Airport should also consider the installation of an approach lighting system (ALS), such as a medium intensity approach lighting system (MALS). This type of ALS is typically recom- mended for runways providing approach visibility minimums greater than 3/4-mile, but less than 1-mile. Instrument Approach Considerations Approach minimums should be as low as practical considering possible safety and financial constraints. The best approach minimums practical will ultimately allow aircraft to operate in reduced visibility con- ditions, while increasing the operational safety and Airport capacity. As previously discussed, BTA currently has non -precision instrument approaches providing visibility min- imums down to 7/8 of a mile. The following analysis considers the potential for the improvement or regression of visibility minimums for Runways 13 and 31. The dimensions of the RPZ will change in size if there are adjustments to the instrument approach capabilities. Table BB presents the dimensions of the RPZs based upon the approach visibility minimums that currently, or have the potential to, apply to each runway. Exhibit V presents each runway extension option previously presented within the Runway Length Alter- natives Analysis section of the report, coupled with the potential RPZ sizes associated with each instru- ment approach visibility minimum. a��ao�opa� Qoap� TABLE BB Runway Protection Zones Blair Municipal Airport . . .. . .. . Visibility Minimum >_ 1-Mile >_ 3/4-Mile < 3/4-Mile .. .. Inner Width 500 1,000 1,000 Outer Width 700 1,510 1,750 Length 1,000 1,700 2,500 . , Inner Width 1,000 1,000 1,000 Outer Width 1,510 1,510 1,750 Length 1,700 1,700 2,500 Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design Instrument Approach Improvement RPZ Alternative 1 The first alternative examines the impacts of each approach minimum on required RPZ size coupled with the 1,300-foot runway extension alternative to the southeast. As can be seen, there are numerous in- compatibilities associated with each RPZ serving Runway 31. The RPZ associated with each instrument approach minimum would be traversed by County Roads 35 and 38 as well as Highway 133. Furthermore, RPZs associated with instrument approach minimums of not lower than 3/4-mile and lower than 3/4- mile would contain residential housing incompatibilities. Unowned property associated with each run- way end and the possible approach minimums are presented within Table CC. Potential impacts to the Runway 13 RPZ size required for approach minimums of less than 3/4-mile in- clude County Roads 35 and 38 and Highway 133. In addition, Airport owned residential housing impacts would also be in existence. The RPZ required for instrument approach minimums of not lower than one mile, however, would be traversed only by County Road 35 and would remain on Airport property. TABLE CC Alternative 1 Unowned Acreage Blair Municipal Airport *Unowned acreage for ARC C-II with instrument approach minimums of >_ 1 Mile or >_3/4 Mile. Source: Coffman Associates analysis. q promise 1' no\ RUNWAYI3 RUN-11 _ UNOWNED ACREAGE UNOWNED ACREAGE TOTAL Martinez G- anal: 9/I72We r. -004 t ' 650' 650' RUNWAYI3 RUN-11 .� .NOWNED ACREAGE UNOWNED ACREAGE TOTAL t• 19 nly) 0 1 . ; LEGEND zone .. . - - Proposed N,,eroent z 1 Mlle,, z3/4 Mlle (or Gal runways. ak 1,300' - RUNWAYI3 RUN-11 UNOWNED ACREAGE UNOWNEDACREAGE TOTAL 3/4 Mile* l .. 18.36 i S Exhibit V • • 85 INSTRUMENT APPROACH IMPACTS ON RPZ SIZE This page intentionally left blank Instrument Approach Improvement RPZ Alternative 2 The second alternative presents the proposed runway extension of 650 feet on each end of the runway. Under these conditions, each RPZ associated with potential approach minimums for Runway 31 would be traversed by County Road 38 and Highway 133 in varying amounts. As can be seen, the RPZ size serv- ing approach minimums of less than 3/4-mile would contain greatest amount of roadway incompatibili- ties as well as residential housing incompatibilities. The amount of acreage associated with unowned property located within each potential RPZ size is shown in Table DD. RPZ sizes associated with potential instrument approach minimums serving Runway 13 would each be impacted by County Roads 35 and 38 as well as residential driveways. RPZs associated with instrument approach minimums of not less than 3/4-mile and less than 3/4-mile would also contain Airport owned residential housing incompatibilities as well as portions of unowned property. TABLE DD Alternative 2 Unowned Acreage Blair Municipal Airport *Unowned acreage for ARC C-II with instrument approach minimums of >_ 1 Mile or >_3/4 Mile. Source: Coffman Associates analysis. Instrument Approach Improvement RPZ Alternative 3 The third and final alternative examines the RPZ sizes associated with varying instrument approach min- imums and a 1,300-foot runway extension to the northwest. As can be seen, RPZ sizes associated with each potential instrument approach minimum to Runway 31 would contain roadway incompatibilities in varying amounts. In addition, RPZs associated with each potential instrument approach minimum would also contain portions of unowned property, which are presented in Table EE. RPZs accompanying potential instrument approach minimums serving the extended Runway 13 would all have roadway and housing incompatibilities to varying degrees. Each potential RPZ would be trav- ersed by County Roads 35 and 38 as well as residential driveways and would contain Airport owned residential housing. RPZs associated with instrument approach minimums of not lower than 3/4-mile and less than 3/4-mile would also extend off Airport property. ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap� TABLE EE Alternative 3 Unowned Acreage Blair Municipal Airport *Unowned acreage for ARC C-II with instrument approach minimums of >_ 1 Mile or >_3/4 Mile. Source: Coffman Associates analysis. Instrument Approach Improvement Summary In addition to the RPZs, the determination of airspace obstructions that may be associated with these improved approach procedures would need to be further evaluated. The two primary resources for determining airspace obstructions are Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, ObjectsAffect- ing Navigable Airspace, and Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Part 77 is a filter which identifies potential obstructions, whereas TERPS is the critical tool in determining actual flight obstructions, as its analysis is used to evaluate and develop instrument approach procedures, including visibility minimums and cloud heights associated with approved approaches. Further determination by the FAA would be needed to determine the extent of removing or lowering potential obstructions that may exist in order to support an instrument approach procedure that could serve ultimate conditions. As previously detailed, any change to the runway environment that includes a new or revised instrument approach procedure that increases the RPZ dimensions is subject to a further evaluation of the RPZs meeting updated guidance from the FAA. If an airport cannot fully control the entirety of the RPZ from being free of incompatible land uses, the FAA can require a change to the runway environment to properly secure the RPZs. As such, consideration of instrument approach minimums lower than 3/4- mile will not be further explored in this planning effort. Due to advancements in technology associated with GPS-based instrument approach procedures, the instrument approach options discussed would require minimal enhancements to ground -based naviga- tional aids, as each end of Runway 13-31 is currently served by GPS technologies. Thus, it is recom- mended that the ultimate Runway 13-31 continue to be served by GPS-based instrument approach pro- cedures as opposed to a costly ground -based system, such as an instrument landing system (ILS). Airfield Marking, Lighting, and Signage Runway 13-31 is marked with non -precision runway markings, which is consistent with the available instrument approach capabilities of each runway. These markings should be maintained through the planning horizon. q promise I�GMG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q Given that Runway 13-31 is designated as a B-II runway accommodating large aircraft, FAA separation standards, stated in AC 150/5300-13A, maintain that runways of this designation must have at least 200 feet of separation between runway centerline and any holding position. Holding positions are markings on taxiways leading to runways, which provide for adequate runway clearance for holding aircraft. Cur- rently, all taxiways contain hold position markings at runway intersections located 250 feet from the runway centerline which exceeds the RDC B-II standard. In the future, it is recommended that any addi- tional holding positions be placed at a minimum of 250 feet from the runway centerline to conform to future RDC C-II standards. Runway and taxiway lighting systems serve as a pri- mary means of navigation in reduced visibility and night-time operations. Currently, Runway 13-31 is equipped with MIRL, a common runway lighting sys- tem, that can be controlled by pilots via the CTAF. All taxiways are accommodated by medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL), except for the connecting Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting taxiways linking the nested T-hangars on the north- eastern side of the field with the aircraft parking apron and full length parallel taxiway serving Runway 13-31. This taxiway is intended to be temporary and the Airport will consider replacing all blue reflectors with MITL on the connecting taxiways when upgraded. Airfield signage serves as another means of navigation for pilots. Airfield signage informs pilots of their location on the airport, as well as directs them to major airport facilities, such as runways, certain taxi- ways, and aprons. Currently, the Airport has appropriate signage to facilitate safe navigation; however, the Airport signage system should be updated and or expanded should the runway/taxiway system be expanded. LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES Components included within the Landside Facility Requirements and Alternatives section will encompass terminal facilities, aircraft hangars and tiedowns, aircraft parking aprons, automobile parking, and air- port support facilities. Given the nature of landside facilities, each development area interrelates and affects the development potential of the others. As a result, each alternative will be presented to the planning advisory committee, City of Blair, Blair Airport Authority, NDA, FAA, and the public. Following their input, the selected alternative, combination thereof, or product of the alternative analysis will be coordinated to ensure the functionality of the ultimate landside development area depicted on the rec- ommended development concept to be presented. q promise �a��ao�opa� Qoap�a� Terminal Building and Parking Requirements The terminal facilities typically located on GA airports provide space for a variety of activities, as well as pilot services. The GA terminal facility can potentially function as a flight planning area, pilot's lounge, airport management building, storage space, house fixed base operators (FBOs), serve as a passenger waiting area, as well as provide concessions. In addition, if there is a flight instruction program based at the airfield, the terminal building can also function as a classroom. Currently, BTA is served by a two - level terminal facility with an estimated aggregate square footage of 5,000 sf and a 2,600-sf footprint. To estimate GA terminal facility needs, the number of itinerant passengers expected to use terminal facilities during the design hour are taken into consideration. The terminal area space requirements are based upon the allocation of a range of designated square footage per design hour itinerant passenger. Identifying the number of design hour passengers is achieved by simply multiplying the number of itin- erant design hour operations by the number or passengers expected on the aircraft. The applied square footage requirements can range between 90 and 120 square feet per design hour itinerant passenger. For the purpose of this study, industry standards of 120 square feet per design hour itinerant passenger were applied. Current and projected terminal building requirements can be viewed in Table FF. TABLE FF Terminal Facility/Office Requirements Blair Municipal Airport Design Hour Itinerant Operations 2 2 2 3 Multiplier 2 2.2 2.3 2.5 Total Design Hour Itinerant Passengers 4 4 5 8 Total Building Space (sf) 5,000 500 600 1,000 Source: Coffman Associates analysis. To calculate the demand for the terminal facility, design hour itinerant operations are estimated at 15 percent of the busy day itinerant operations occurring at BTA. This calculation yields a total of two design hour itinerant operations for current demand. Given that most aircraft operating at BTA are capable of accommodating multiple passengers, a multiplier of two was utilized for the calculation. This is a reason- able multiplier as most general aviation aircraft do not operate at full capacity on a regular basis. Over the planning horizon, a modest increase was applied to the itinerant passenger multiplier to reflect greater terminal facility space required when both itinerant passengers and operations potentially in- crease. When considering the square footage provided by the terminal facility, there is enough space provided to support current and future itinerant demand as the current terminal building space totals approxi- mately 5,000 square feet. It should be mentioned, however, that owners of based aircraft may also use 4� tjDromlse ,ra��ao�opa�Qoap�a� the terminal facilities provided. In addition, current and future facilities available at the Airport may gen- erate an increased amount of itinerant traffic and thus more terminal area may be desired. As such, additional space should be planned on an as -needed basis. Currently, the terminal facilities provided are owned and operated by Skywerx FBO and the facilities are beyond the control of the Airport. BTA should give future consideration to owning and operating a ter- minal building. Aircraft Storage Hangars, Apron, and Maintenance Requirements Utilization of hangar space varies as a function of local climate, security, and owner preferences. The trend in general aviation aircraft, whether single or multi -engine, is toward more sophisticated (and con- sequently, more expensive) aircraft. Therefore, many aircraft owners prefer enclosed hangar space to outside tiedowns. There are a variety of aircraft storage options typically available at an airport including shade hangars, T-hangars, linear box hangars, executive/box hangars, and bulk storage conventional hangars. Shade hangars are the most basic form of aircraft protection and are common in warmer climates. These struc- tures provide a roof covering, but no walls or doors. There are no shade hangars at BTA, and for purposes of planning, any future shade hangars are included in the T-hangar need forecast. T-hangars are intended to accommodate one small single engine piston aircraft or, in some cases, one multi -engine piston aircraft. T-hangars are so named because they are in the shape of a "T," providing a space for the aircraft nose and wings, but no space for turning the aircraft within the hangar. Similar to the T-hangar style is the linear box hangar. Linear box hangars typically provide storage for a single aircraft and can be nested with multiple individual linear box hangars. Unlike the T-hangar, linear box hangars enable to user to store aircraft in more ways than one. The next type of aircraft hangar common for storage of general aviation aircraft is the executive/box hangar. Executive/box hangars typically provide a larger space, generally with an area between 2,500 and 6,000 square feet. This type of hangar can provide for maneuverability within the hangar, can ac- commodate more than one aircraft, and may have a small office and utilities. Conventional hangars are the large, clear span hangars typically located facing the main aircraft apron at airports. These hangars provide for bulk aircraft storage and are often utilized by airport businesses, such as a fixed base opera- tor (FBO) and/or aircraft maintenance business. Conventional hangars are generally larger than execu- tive/box hangars and can range in size from 6,000 square feet to more than 20,000 square feet. Planning for future aircraft storage needs is based on typical owner preferences and standard sizes for hangar space. For determining future aircraft storage needs, a planning standard of 1,200 square feet per based aircraft is utilized for T-hangars. For conventional hangars, a planning standard of 3,000 square feet is utilized for turboprop aircraft, 6,000 square feet is utilized for business jet aircraft, and 1,500 square feet is utilized for helicopter storage needs. A6 �o q promise I�G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q The demand for aircraft storage hangars is dependent upon the number and type of aircraft expected to be based at the Airport in the future. For planning purposes, it is necessary to estimate hangar require- ments based upon forecast operational activity. As an industry standard, approximately 250 square feet per based aircraft should be allotted for maintenance purposes. Future hangar requirements are pre- sented in Table GG. TABLE GG Aircraft Storage Requirements Blair Municipal Airport Aircraft to be Hangared Current Estimate 60 Short Term Need 67 Future Requirements Intermediate Need 75 _ Term Need 90 T-hangar /Linear Box Hangar Area 54,600 58,200 63,000 74,700 Executive Box Hangar Area 11,100 14,100 20,100 23,100 Conventional Hangar Area 29,900 47,900 55,400 74,900 Office/Maintenance Area (sf) - 16,750 18,800 22,500 Total Area 95,600 136,950 157,300 195,200 As can be seen in the table, it is estimated that there is approximately 95,600 square feet of hangar storage space currently available at the Airport. In the short term, an additional 41,350 square feet is needed, and by the long term, an additional aggregate 99,600 square feet could be needed. Construction of aircraft storage space should be determined and phased to maximize existing demand. Construction can be undertaken by the Airport or by a private developer, either of which will contribute to fulfilling the overall need at the Airport. A parking apron should provide for the number of locally based aircraft that are not stored in hangars, as well as those aircraft used for air taxi and training activities. Parking should be provided for itinerant aircraft as well. For planning purposes, five percent of the forecast based aircraft will be used to determine the parking apron requirements of local aircraft to accommodate temporary storage for hangar waiting or mainte- nance operations. Currently, the primary aircraft parking apron at BTA totals approximately 6,600 square yards (sy) and has seven marked aircraft tiedown positions including one large aircraft tiedown position. In order to deter- mine required aircraft apron space, an industry planning standard of 650 sy per local aircraft, 800 sy per itinerant aircraft, and 1,600 sy for large turboprop and jet aircraft was applied. Future aircraft parking apron requirements are presented in Table HH. According to these recommendations, an additional 2,250 sy of aircraft parking space could be required throughout the planning period. q promise LL Lirm G�MG1��pLaL� QDap� _ — --_ TABLE HH Aircraft Apron Parking Requirements Blair Municipal Airport I Short Term Future Requirements IntermediateAvailable L mood rked Need Locally Based Aircraft Positions - 3 4 5 Single/Multi-Engine Transient 6 2 2 3 Large Turboprop and Jet Positions 1 1 2 2 Total Positions 7 6 8 10 Total Apron Area (sy) 6,600 4,350 71400 8,850 Total parking area consists of approximately 14,700 sf of parking area and contains unmarked as well as 21 marked parking spaces. Unmarked parking area is estimated to accommodate approximately 22 ve- hicles. Parking space requirements were based upon industry standards of 350 square feet per vehicle. Future parking demands have been determined based on an evaluation of the estimated existing and future itinerant traffic, as well as industry standards, which consider one-half of based aircraft at the Airport will require a parking space. As shown in Table JJ, vehicular parking area currently available is sufficient; however, additional parking capacity will be considered throughout the planning period as new facilities are constructed. TABLE JJ Vehicle Parking Requirements Blair Municipal Airport Terminal Vehicle Spaces - 4 5 8 General Aviation Spaces - 34 38 45 Total Parking Spaces 43 38 43 53 Total Parking Area (sf) 14,700 13,300 22,800 28,100 SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS Various facilities that do not logically fall within classifications of airfield, terminal building, or general aviation areas have also been identified. These other areas provide certain functions related to the over- all operation of the airport and include ARFF, fuel storage, and airport maintenance facilities. Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) BTA does not have an aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) building or equipment located on the air- field. As a GA airport, the FAA does not mandate that ARFF services be provided. Structural firefighting �o q promise LLQHap@)Qv services are provided by facilities off airport property by Fort Calhoun Fire Department, which is located 7.5 miles to the southeast by road. BTA is anticipated to remain a GA airport through the planning period so no on -site ARFF facilities are planned. Aviation Fuel Storage The Airport has one fuel farm, built in 2009, which stores 100LL and Jet -A aviation fuel. The fuel farm has a capacity of 12,000 gallons for 100LL and Jet -A comprising a total of 24,000 gallons and is located to the northwest of the terminal building. 100LL and Jet -A fuels are dispensed through a 24-hour self -serve system, while Skywerx FBO offers quick -turn Jet -A fueling services utilizing a fuel truck. Fuel Farm Additional fuel storage capacity should be planned when the Airport is unable to maintain an adequate supply and reserve. While each airport determines their own desired reserve, a 14-day reserve is com- mon for GA airports. When additional capacity is needed, it should be planned in 10,000- to 12,000- gallon increments, which allows for the capacity of common fuel tanker trucks. Given the existing and fu- ture operational level estimates, fuel storage capac- ity should be adequate though the planning horizon. Should the Airport expand fueling facilities, it is rec- ommended that above ground fuel storage tanks are installed as underground fuel storage tanks are more prone to leaks. Based on average usage assumptions, fuel storage has been estimated and is presented in Table KK. TABLE KK Fuel Storage Requirements Blair Municipal Airport Daily Usage (gal.) 195 260 290 340 14-Day Supply (gal.) 12,000 3,200 3,600 4,000 4,800 Annual Usage (gal.) 71,252 94,900 105,900 124,100 Daily Usage (gal.) 58 70 90 100 14-Day Supply (gal.) 12,000 900 1,000 1,200 1,400 Annual Usage (gal.) 21,014 25,600 32,900 36,500 Source: Coffman Associates analysis ,�tQJ q promise ° ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� Aircraft Wash Facility Currently, there is not a designated aircraft wash facility at BTA. Consideration should be given to estab- lishing such a facility at the Airport. Wash facilities are common amenities at many GA airports that provide for the collection of used aircraft oil and other hazardous materials, as well as provide a covered area for aircraft washing and light maintenance. Maintenance/Storage Facilities and Security Fencing The Airport does not currently have a building dedicated to maintenance or storage. At present, the Airport's snow removal equipment (SRE) is stored in a large, metal building that was included in a 2015 property acquisition located on the north end of the airfield. The Airport should consider the allotment of an additional building specifically dedicated to the storage of airport maintenance equipment. Fur- thermore, the fencing system currently serving the Airport does not fully encompass the airfield. It is recommended that additional fencing be provided to completely enclose the airfield, which would deter casual intruders from penetrating a secured area by presenting a barrier that requires an overt action to enter. Landside Development Alternatives Analysis in this section of the report indicated that the Airport should plan for the construction of addi- tion aircraft hangars and facilities over the next 20 years. Hangar and facility development takes on a variety of sizes corresponding with several different intended uses. Commercial GA activities are essen- tial to providing the necessary services on an airport. This includes privately owned businesses involved with, but not limited to, aircraft rental and flight training, aircraft charters, aircraft maintenance, line service, and aircraft fueling. In addition, forecasted needs for Airport parking, terminal facilities, and support facilities were also discussed. Given the need for additional facilities over the planning horizon, three landside alternatives presented in Exhibit W were developed in an effort to best determine the direction of development. Landside Development Alternative 1 The first alternative is largely based on the Landside Facilities Master Plan completed in June 2006 for BTA. This plan proposes the removal of four existing 10-place T-hangars and includes significant hangar and pavement construction along with the addition of an on -airport restaurant and terminal building. In addition to the proposed hangar, airport parking, and pavement sections detailed in the Landside Facil- ities Master Plan, an Airport maintenance building and aircraft wash facility have been included. 0 q promise t� ® \�IIU__RIRr4L 4P; • Conventional HangaP irport Re . staurant/T Maintenance Executive ® - : g Box Hangars NOON .NOON 1'�T-Hangar*,. ■■■■■ ■■■■ T-Hangars _+.."." ■, Aircraft Wash Facility ii NORTH t° r' Restaurant a - Conventional f Hangar ■■ Airport Maintenance;. ,y Building T-Ha gars Executive r Aircraft Wash Facility Restaurant Air or — - x ■ �� Conventional„. g _ ® - ; Hangar NONE T-Ha gars Box H.a ars *�-Aircraft Wash Facility _ LEGEND AirportPropertyRunway Protection • 0 600 1,200 Proposed Pavement Proposed Roadway/Parking SCALE IN FEET Proposed Building Martinez Geospatial: 9/17/2016WK Exhibit W 96 LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES LL�L�WBMMFZ21 QDap0)11V Landside Development Alternative 2 The second alternative suggests that the four existing 10-place T-hangars be maintained or upgraded in their current location in an effort to reduce the cost of new hangar construction. This alternative pro- poses two additional T-hangar facilities on the northernmost side of the existing T-hangars and a 4-place executive box hangar on the southernmost side. It should be noted that the taxilane serving the four existing T-hangars would need to be removed and regraded to meet FAA taxilane gradient standards upon construction of this alternative. Four conventional hangars are also proposed on the southeastern side of the apron area. Ultimately, this option limits the amount of apron area required by placing two of the conventional hangars on the southernmost side of the apron. However, conventional hangars in this configuration could preclude future landside development to the south-southwest. This alternative includes the on -airport restaurant and terminal building detailed in the Landside Facilities Master Plan as well as an airport maintenance facility, aircraft wash facility, and additional aircraft tiedowns and automobile parking. Landside Development Alternative 3 The third and final alternative examines a landside configuration similar to the second alternative. As such, taxilane gradient issues surrounding the existing T-hangars will need to be addressed prior to con- struction of this alternative. Unlike the previous alternative, the proposed conventional hangars are po- sitioned in a manner that would not preclude future landside development to the south-southwest. This option also presents the on -airport restaurant and terminal building detailed in the Landside Facilities Master Plan with the addition of an airport maintenance building and aircraft wash facility. Additional apron area, aircraft tiedown positions, and automobile parking areas are also proposed. SUMMARY The intent of this document has been to outline the facilities required to meet potential aviation de- mands projected for BTA for the planning horizon as well as determine a direction of development which best meets projected needs through a series of Airport development alternatives. A summary of the airside and landside requirements is presented on Exhibit X. RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Exhibit Y depicts the overall Development Concept for BTA. The aviation demand forecasts and facility requirements assessment in the previous sections identified airside, landside, and support needs as well as facility deficiencies. The purpose of this section is to consider the actual physical facilities which are o co Q q promise g EXISTING NG TERM Runway Design Code (RDC) B-II-4,000 C-II-4,000 Dimensions 4,200 x 100 Runway Length: Consider 5,500 x 100 Pavement Strength 30,000 Ibs SWL, 60,000 Ibs DWL Same Parallel Taxiway Yes Maintain Full Length Parallel Taxiway Parallel Taxiway Separation 400' Same from Runway Widths 35' Same Holding Position Locations 250' Same from Runway Instrument Approaches Not Lower than 3/4- Mile Same AWOS, Lighted Wind Cone, Same and Beacon Runway Lighting MIRL Same Runway Marking Non -Precision Same Taxiway Lighting MITL Same Approach Aids PAPI-2, REILs (31) PAPI-4, REILs (13), MALS (31) \WOS - Automated Weather Observation System MIRL- Medium Intensity Runway Lightin AWL - Dual Wheel Loading MITL - Medium Intensity Taxiway Lightin ;WL- Single Wheel Loading REILs- Runway End Identification Lights VIALS - Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator `'��'' IYIU ICIPAL AII;P HANGAR AREA REQUIREMENTS (S.F.) T-hangar /Linear Box Hangar Area 54,600 58,200 63,000 74,700 Executive Box Hangar Area 11,100 14,100 20,100 23,100 Conventional Hangar Area 29,900 47,900 55,400 74,900 Office/Maintenance Area (s.f) - 16,750 18,800 22,500 Total Area 95,600 136,950 157,300 195,200 APRONAIRCRAFT Locally Based Aircraft Positions - 3 4 5 Single/Multi-Engine Transient 6 2 2 3 Large Turboprop and Jet Positions 1 1 2 2 Total Positions 7 6 8 10 Total Apron Area (s.y.) 6,600 4,350 7,400 8,850 N256CP 0 Total Building Space (s.f.) 5,000 2,800 3,200 4,200 GA Terminal Spaces - 23 27 35 GA Based Owner Spaces - 34 38 45 Total GA Parking Spaces 43 57 1 65 80 SUPPORT Jet -A 14-Day Supply (gal.) 12,000 3,600 4,000 4,800 100LL 14-Day Supply (gal.) 12,000 1,000 1,200 1,400 Security Fencing /Gates Consider Fencing Enhancements Maintain AL----- II-- M Airport Maintenance Faalrties Consider Mantenance Facility Maintain 4 � promise o� ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� needed to accommodate projected demand and meet safety and design requirements at the Airport through the long range planning horizon. AIRSIDE FACILITIEC The principal airfield recommendations focus first upon safety and security with some capacity improve- ments proposed as well. Of key importance is to ensure that proposed airfield improvements will be designed to meet all appropriate FAA airport design standards. Recommendations are then designed to improve the operational efficiency, circulation, and capability of the airfield. Exhibit Y depicts the prin- cipal airfield recommendations. The following subsections summarize the elements of the airfield rec- ommendations. Alternatives presented in the previous section propose several airfield alternative development consid- erations including: • Potential upgrade of Runway 13-31 to an airport reference code (ARC) and RDC C-II; • Runway 13-31 extension —1,300 feet northwest; • Runway protection zone (RPZ) challenges due to proposed runway extension; • Property acquisition issues; • Taxiway enhancements; and • Corrections to airfield geometrical design flaws All alternatives presented would require an investment, and in several cases a substantial investment, from federal, state, and local agencies. It is important to note that any capital expenditures required to meet the needs of a larger ARC C-II critical aircraft would require specific justification. Airside facility upgrades to meet ARC C-II design criteria would include longer runway length and greatly expanded safety areas as outlined in the previous section. The FAA typically stipulates that if any major runway reconstruction or extension is planned, documentation of 500 annual itinerant operations of the design aircraft will be required. Based on historical aircraft operations and projections of future use presented in the Forecasting section, a transition of the critical design aircraft to ARC C-II could be likely. Runway Length Facility requirements completed in the previous section outlined a need for a runway length of up to 5,500 feet to meet a wider range of aircraft in ARC B-II and ultimate ARC C-II. The existing runway length of 4,200 feet is adequate for most aircraft using the Airport but will fall short of the needs of corporate aircraft in B and C-II, especially on hot days and during wet runway conditions. The recommended plan includes a 1,300-foot extension to the northwest end of Runway 13-31, as depicted on Exhibit Y. The ultimate runway extension and associated safety areas (to be discussed) would extend into County Roads q promise _15econdary '"� .T' —,' Entrance rdwm Co R�staurant/Termi _ PErimary Airport a l =-3,...., Ulima -Private Airport --- - win Maintenance -. ._. .,,, 'Flu gPacility Building '- _ --,. ne ospati4: 9/I]2616 �0 mom �� v`Cut PreateU I/ -. or o T-Hangars s Ultimate PA PI-4 aars' AiWashJ Relocate Windcone fl 1 REILs Future MALS Area to be graded conforming to ultimate LEGEND RDC C II RSA standards {..Airport Property Line Ultimate Property Line Zone (RPZ) Runway Protection ultimate Runway Safety Area (BSA) AWOS Critical Area Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) Ultimate Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) f s VP,,pety to be Acquired eetation to be Removed Proposed Pavement -vementto be Removed ca way/Automobile Parking Proposed Building Airport Easement w ' Exhibit Y 101 RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT This page intentionally left blank ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� 35 and 38. As such, the relocation of County Road 35 and the intersection of County Roads 35 and 38 is also depicted on the Development Concept. Runway Width As depicted on Exhibit Y, Runway 13-31 is 100 feet wide. FAA design criteria calls for a runway width of 75 feet to meet RDC B-II design and 100 feet to meet RDC C-II design. The current runway width meets the existing and ultimate planning design standards and should be maintained accordingly. Runway Strength Runway 13-31 is constructed of concrete without a surface treatment. It is strength -rated at 30,000 pounds SWL and 60,000 pounds DWL. Based on existing and projected fleet mix of aircraft, this strength should be maintained through the long term planning horizon. Runway Safety Area FAA design guidance includes several dimensional standards to protect aircraft in the event an aircraft departs the runway surface. The most critical of these standards is the RSA. The RSA is a rectangular area surrounding the runway and is established based on the critical aircraft design for the runway and must be cleared and graded to support the weight of an aircraft. Runway 13-31 currently falls within RDC B-II design criteria, requiring an RSA measuring 150 feet wide and extending 300 feet beyond each runway end. The existing RSA meets FAA standards. The ultimate RDC C-II RSA is required to be 500 feet wide and extend 1,000 feet beyond each runway end. The ultimate RSA will remain on existing Airport property; however, several RSA incompatibilities would be introduced. The RSA extending to the southeast of Runway 13-31 is penetrated by a drainage way and vegetation beginning approximately 450 feet beyond the runway end, while the RSA extending to the northwest is penetrated by vegetation beginning approximately 250 feet beyond the runway end. Vegetation at the northwest end of the RSA is a field currently being utilized to grow corn. Any crop with a vertical component is considered an ob- struction. Furthermore, with the ultimate runway being extended to 5,500 feet, the ultimate RSA would also include portions of County Road 35 and 38. As a result, the Development Concept includes the relocation of County Roads 35 and 38, rerouting and grading of the drainage way, and the removal of vegetation to conform to ultimate C-II RSA standards. Runway Object Free Area The ROFA is an area surrounding the RSA which allows for aircraft operating in the RSA to remain free of objects that may impact the aircraft. The B-II ROFA dimensional standard is a width of 500 feet that extends 300 feet beyond the runway end. Ultimate C-II ROFA design standards are 800 feet wide and extend 1,000 feet beyond each runway end. Under these conditions, the ROFA would be obstructed by portions of County Roads 35 and 38, vegetation, and the windcone located midfield approximately 295 feet from the runway centerline. As such, the Development Concept shows the relocation of County Roads 35, 38, and the existing windcone, as well as the removal of obstructing vegetation. Runway Obstacle Free Zone Under existing B-II and ultimate C-II conditions, the ROFZ is 400 feet wide and extends 200 feet beyond each runway end. With the existing Runway length of 4,200 feet, no changes to the ROFZ would be required. However, given the proposed runway extension to 5,500 feet, the ROFZ would be obstructed by County Roads 35 and 38, and vegetation. As such, the Development Concept shows the removal of obstructing vegetation and relocation of County Roads 35 and 38. Runway Protection Zone and Instrument Approaches The RPZ's function is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. This is achieved through airport owner control over the RPZs. Such control includes clearing RPZ areas (and maintaining them clear) of incompatible objects and activities. Control is preferably exercised through the acquisition of sufficient property interest in the RPZ. Specific land uses prohibited in the RPZ include residences and places of public assembly. Roads are discouraged from being located in the RPZ, especially the central portion of the RPZ (defined as the width of the OFA extended to the end of the RPZ). Existing roads are generally grandfathered, but an effort should be made to relocate them if possible. It should be noted that recent changes in FAA guidelines do not allow for newly constructed incompatible uses to be located in the RPZ without first obtaining approval from the FAA. Incompatible land uses have generally included anything that will attract congregations of people, but now include public roadways. As such, if the existing roads are modified or new roads in the RPZ are proposed, the FAA will require further study and will make a determination if they can be allowed. Moreover, any changes to the exist- ing runway ends will effectively remove the "grandfathering" allowance for any existing roads. Exhibit Y presents the proposed 1,300-foot northwesterly runway extension and the RPZs associated with each end of the runway. The long term plan for Runway 13-31 is to maintain the non -precision approach to each runway end providing not lower than %-mile visibility minimums. Approximately 10.37 acres of the RPZ serving Runway 31 would extend beyond existing Airport property. However, the ma- °' o q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� jority of the unowned property is contained within an existing easement owned by the Airport or in- cludes the Right of Way (ROW) associated with Highway 133. It is understood that the Nebraska Depart- ment of Roads (NDR) does not release the ROW in the State of Nebraska. As such, it is not essential for airports located in the State of Nebraska to purchase the ROW. As a result, property to be acquired totals approximately 0.9 acres. The easement in existence is sufficient to control airspace obstructions but may not be adequate to ensure that on -the -ground improvements are not made. The RPZ cannot contain any improvements that will attract people, including residences, commercial/industrial uses, roads, etc. As long as the area remains free of these types of incompatible uses, the easement should be sufficient and the land would not need to be acquired fee simple. The RPZ serving Runway 13 would extend beyond Airport property upon the extension of the runway. As such, the northeast and northwest portions of the RPZ would encompass approximately 6.38 acres. In addition, the RPZ is traversed by two County Roads-35 and 38. Given that the ultimate Runway 13 RPZ placement is the result of a runway extension, the roads within the RPZ are not grandfathered and must be relocated. As a result of the relocation of County Roads 35 and 38, it is recommended that the Airport acquire the property extending from the northwestern edge of the existing Airport property boundary to the ROW of the proposed County Road 35, encompassing a total of 15.56 acres. It should be noted that residences identified in the previous section as being RPZ incompatibilities have since been removed and are no longer a barrier to the Runway 13-31 extension. Taxiways As previously mentioned in the Facility Requirements and Alternatives sections, the northernmost por- tion of the midfield taxiway connecting the apron area to Runway 13-31 should be relocated approxi- mately 200 feet to the southeast of its existing position. Ultimately, this will bring the connecting taxiway into compliance with FAA taxiway geometry standards by not allowing direct access from an aircraft parking apron to the runway as it currently does. An additional connecting taxiway providing access from the ultimate southeastern apron area to the parallel taxiway serving Runway 13-31 is also included on the Development Concept. Future planning should also include the extension of the parallel taxiway to the northwest on the north- ern side of Runway 13-31. The proposed taxiway also includes the addition of a holding bay serving Run- way 13. Approach and Navigational Aids Currently, Runways 13 and 31 are equipped with PAPI-2 visual approach aids and Runway 31 is equipped with REILs to guide aircraft to the approach end of the Runway. It is recommended that REILs be added to Runway 13, and PAPI-2 approach aids be upgraded to PAPI-4 approach aids to further enhance the use of this runway and overall airfield safety. In addition, consideration is given to the installation of a q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� MALS as this type of ALS is typically recommended for runways providing approach visibility minimums equal to or greater than 3/4-mile, but less than 1-mile. Airfield Signage, Marking, and Lighting Presently, all airfield signage and markings are suitable to serve the Airport. However, as Airport expan- sion and taxiway configuration projects are completed, airfield signage and marking should be updated accordingly. All taxiways are currently served by MITL, with the exception of the connecting taxiways linking the nested T-hangars on the northeastern side of the field with the parallel taxiway and apron area. These areas are currently served by blue reflectors. In the future, areas currently served by blue reflectors should be upgraded to MITL. MITL should also be implemented on the relocated and future southeastern connecting taxiway, providing access from the apron area to the parallel taxiway. In addi- tion, existing MITL serving Runway 13-31 and the parallel taxiway should be extended as the runway and parallel taxiway extension take place. LANDSIDE FACILITIES The primary goal of landside facility planning is to provide adequate space to meet reasonably antici- pated general aviation needs, while also optimizing operational efficiency and land use. Achieving these goals yields a development scheme which segregates functional uses, while maximizing the Airport's revenue potential. The facility requirements analysis identified several opportunities to improve the ex- isting landside facilities in order to better accommodate future aviation demand. This section will specify the recommended improvements pertaining to landside facilities. As a GA airport, the clear majority of landside development proposed within this study will accommo- date the GA operators and service providers at BTA. The existing GA landside facilities are located on the northwest and southeast sides of the airfield and include 60 separate hangar facilities, providing 103,400 sf of hangar capacity, as well as apron and aircraft movement space totaling approximately 16,900 sy. The Development Concept proposes the addition of new hangar and apron facilities on both the north- west and southeast sides of the airfield. Recommended GA developments include a variety of hangar types from T-hangars, mid -sized executive box hangars, and large clearspan conventional hangars to satisfy the full range of GA user needs. However, all hangar -related development should occur only as dictated by demand. The locations and sizes of hangars proposed in this document are conceptual and may not reflect the needs of future developers and their customers. The Development Concept is in- tended to be used strictly as a guide for Airport staff when considering new hangar developments. ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� Aircraft Storage Hangars and Future Aviation Development The facility requirements analysis indicated that an additional 99,600 square feet of aircraft storage hangar area may be needed through the long term planning period in order to meet potential aviation demand. Recommended hangar development is proposed in the form of T-hangars, executive box hang- ars, and large conventional hangars. Again, future demand will dictate the size and type of hangar facil- ities that could be built. As presented on Exhibit Y, the Development Concept shows four additional eight -unit T-hangar facilities on the northernmost side of the existing Airport entrance road. The Development Concept also calls for the four existing 10-unit T-hangars directly across from the Airport entrance road to be removed and replaced with three 10-unit T-hangars. This project will ultimately bring the taxilane serving the north- west GA development area into compliance with FAA gradient standards and allow for the removal of the temporary taxilane. Furthermore, a 10-unit T-hangar will also be placed directly across from the existing executive box hangars. On the southeastern side of the airfield, an additional 37,500 sy of apron area are proposed. It should be mentioned that this area includes small and large transient aircraft parking and an aircraft wash fa- cility located on the westernmost side of the apron area. In conjunction with the apron expansion, one 90 x 100-, one 80 x 100- and eight 100 x 100-foot conventional hangars are located on the easternmost side of the proposed apron. It should be mentioned that construction has begun on the 90 x 100-foot conventional hangar during the course of this study and has been depicted as an existing facility on the Development Concept. Finally, two 10-place T-hangars are planned on the southwest side of the apron area, adjacent to the aircraft wash facility, and up to an additional 27,600 sy of apron area could be reserved for industrial or corporate use on the southernmost side of the landside development area. Terminal Facility As determined in the Facility Requirements and Alternatives section of this report, the current terminal facility is sized adequately to handle projected demand through the long term planning horizon. How- ever, the existing terminal facility is not Airport -owned and is beyond the control of the Airport. There- fore, an additional 70 x 100-foot terminal facility and restaurant is proposed adjacent to the existing self- service fueling system. Future Industrial or Corporate Development The Development Concept reserves a portion of the southeastern apron area for potential industrial or corporate use. The proposed apron area supporting the industrial/corporate reserve totals approxi- mately 27,600 sy, while the industrial/corporate reserve itself encompasses approximately 24,300 sy and provides both air and landside access. q promise t` _•' MUNICIPAL S"IR,MOR, SUPPORT FACILITIES As previously mentioned within the Facility Requirements and Alternatives section of this report, support facilities are integral to the operation of the airport; however, the facilities are not categorized as airside or landside facilities. The facility needs analysis identified several improvements that will ultimately con- tribute to the Airport's ability to accommodate the forecast aviation activity levels. Aircraft Wash Facility The addition of an aircraft wash facility will provide for the collection of used aircraft oil and other haz- ardous materials, as well as provide a covered area for aircraft washing and light maintenance. The rec- ommended location of the aircraft wash facility is on the southwestern side of the proposed apron area. Airport Maintenance Building The facility requirements analysis identified a need for a designated airport maintenance area. This area should consist of a large building used specifically for the storage of airport maintenance equipment. A recommended location is identified immediately northwest of the existing Airport entrance, affixed to the southernmost eight -unit T-hangar. Private Fueling Facility Although a need for additional fuel storage capacity is not anticipated during the planning period, there has been recent interest from a private entity located on the airfield to operate a fueling facility for private use only. The footprint of the private fueling facility is located north of the proposed landside development area, on the east side of Runway 13-31. Given that the fueling facility will be privately funded, operated, and will not be open to the public, the proposed development area is presented on the development concept for conceptual layout purposes only. Airport Utilities At the present time, significant Airport development could be limited by existing utilities. The 2006 Land - side Facilities Master Plan indicates that any substantial hangar development would require enhanced water storage capability (for firefighting purposes), sanitary sewer, natural gas, as well as increased elec- trical output (for heavy electricity users). The study identifies an existing water well on Airport property located west of the rotating beacon; however, it is determined not to be suited for future water supply purposes. The Airport must incorporate additional water storage and pumping capabilities in order to meet minimum flow requirements, which can be dependent upon the type of hangars and facilities built. q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� Future Airport development should consider enhancements to utility infrastructure that could include increased water storage and pumping capacity, sanitary sewer, and improved electrical and natural gas capabilities. Airport Entrance Road and Automobile Parking In addition to the existing Airport entrance, the Development Concept considers a second entrance road serving the southeastern side of the Airport. This proposed second entry location would be located di- rectly across from County Road 38 as it intersects with the easternmost side of Highway 133. The sec- ondary entrance road would continue northwest and adjacent to the eastern portion of Airport property, providing vehicle access and parking for existing and proposed landside development areas. The road eventually connects with the existing Airport entrance and continues northwest to provide vehicle ac- cess and parking to the landside development and Airport maintenance building proposed on the north- western side of the airfield. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW A review of the potential environmental impacts associated with proposed airport projects is an essential consideration in the airport planning process. The primary purpose of this discussion is to review the proposed capital improvements at Blair Municipal Airport (Airport) to determine whether the projects could, individually or collectively, significantly affect existing environmental resources. The information contained in this section was obtained from previous studies, official internet websites, and analysis by the consultant. Construction of all improvements depicted on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) will require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. This includes privately funded pro- jects, in addition to those receiving federal funding. For projects not categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1.F, Environmental Impact: Policies and Procedures, compliance with NEPA is generally sat- isfied through the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). In instances where significant en- vironmental impacts are expected, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required. Note that this portion of the ALP Narrative Report is not designed to satisfy NEPA requirements, but rather it is intended to provide a preliminary review of environmental issues that may require further consideration within the environmental review processes. This evaluation considers the 14 environmen- tal categories required in FAA Order 1050.1F and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act Implementation Instructions for Airport Actions. The following sections describe environmental resources which could be impacted by the proposed Air- port development depicted on Exhibit Y. t` _•' MUNICIPAL �"IR,ORT1 AIR QUALITY The FAA has identified a significance threshold for Air Quality. The proposed action is significant if it will cause pollutant concentrations to exceed one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act, for any of the time periods analyzed, or increase the frequency or severity of any such existing violations. The NAAQS specifies the maximum allowable short term and long term concentration of six criteria pol- lutants, including ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen oxides (NOX), partic- ulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). Based on both federal and state air quality standards, a geographic area can be classified as either an "attainment," "maintenance," or "non -attainment" area for each of the pollutants. The threshold for non -attainment designation varies by pollutant, as seen on Exhibit Z. The Airport is in Washington County, which is in attainment for all federal criteria pollutants. Thus, gen- eral conformity review per the Clean Air Act is not required. Planned projects at the Airport could result in temporary impacts to air quality. This includes exhaust emissions from the operation of construction vehicles and fugitive dust from earthmoving and pavement removal. Temporary impacts would result during the construction of improvements, such as the new hangars, runway extension, apron expansion, terminal building expansion, and road removal and rerouting. According to the most recent FAAAviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook (2015), an emissions inventory under NEPA may be necessary for any proposed action that would result in a foreseeable increase in emissions due to its implementation. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS) A proposed action is significant if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service determines that the action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed threatened or endangered species or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of federally designated critical habitat. Further, a proposed action is significant should there be potential for: — A long term or permanent loss of unlisted plant or wildlife species; — Adverse impacts to special status species or their habitats; — Substantial loss, reduction, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation of native species' habi- tats or their populations; or, — Adverse impacts on a species' reproductive success rates, non -natural mortality, or ability to sus- tain the minimum population levels required for population maintenance. The USFWS oversees the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), specifically Section 7, which sets forth requirements for consultation to determine if a proposed action "may affect" a federally en- �� o °`QJ q promise Carbon Monoxide (CO) I primary I 8 hours I 9 ppm I Not to be exceeded 1 hour 35 ppm more than once per year 98th percentile of 1-hour daily primary 1 hour 100 ppb maximum concentrations, Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) averaged over 3 years primary and secondary 1 year 53 ppb z Annual Mean primary 1 year 12.0 µg/m3 annual mean, averaged over 3 years secondary 1 year 15.0 µg/m3 annual mean, averaged over PM25 Particle Pollution 3 years primary and 98th percentile, averaged (PM) secondary 24 hours 35 µg/m3 over 3 years primary and Not to be exceeded more than PM] ]o secondary 24 hours 150 µg/m3 once per year on average over 3 years UNITS OF MEASURE: ppm -parts per million by volume ppb - parts per billion by volume Ng/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter of air 1) In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 Ng/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect. (2) The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of ppb for the purposes of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard level. (3) Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015.The previous (2008) 03 standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) 03 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards. (4) The previous S02 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2) any area for which an implementation plan providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard has not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous S02 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under the previous S02 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)). A SIP call is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment of the required National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). y j ALI. ._ WA_ i f 1 r Source: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. �. l� IN — e � promise o`� I�G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q dangered or threatened species. If an agency determines that an action "may affect" a federally pro- tected species, then Section 7(a)(2) requires the agency to consult with USFWS to ensure that any action the agency authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If a species has been listed as a candidate species, Section 7(a)(4) states that each agency must confer with USFWS. Additional federal laws protecting fish, wildlife, and plants include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which prohibits activities that would harm migratory birds, their eggs, or nests, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BaGEPA), which prohibits the take (defined as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb") of bald and golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs, without a permit. Executive Order (E.O.) 13751, Safeguarding the Nation from the Im- pacts of Invasive Species aims to prevent the introduction of invasive species because of a proposed action. E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, is discussed under the Water Resources section of this re- port. A USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaQ report indicates that there are five protected species potentially occurring at the Airport. The Nebraska Rare Species organization also maintains a list of federally and state -protected species in Nebraska. Table LL lists all federally listed and State of Ne- braska listed protected species along with their habitat. There are no critical habitats at this location. TABLE LL Federal and State Protected Species Blair Municipal Airport r Species Name I Scientific Name I Federal Status State Status ow— DWS Nests on barren and sparsely vege- Least tern' Sterna antillarum Endangered Endangered tated sandbars near rivers, sand, and gravel pits, and lake and reservoir shorelines. Charadrius melo- Found in wide, flat, open, sandy Piping plover dus Threatened Threatened beaches with very little grass or other vegetation. Pallid Scaphirhynchus al- Endangered Endangered Require aquatic habitat found in large sturgeon bus rivers at a variety of depths. Western prairie Platonthero prae- Unplowed tallgrass prairies and fringed orchid clara Threatened Threatened meadows, as well as old fields and roadside ditches. Northern long- Myotis septen- Threatened Not Listed Roosts in crevices and cavities of live eared bat trionalis and dead trees (in summer). 1 Listed federally as "Least Stern (Sterna antillarum); Listed state as Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) — these represent the same species of bird. Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (accessed July 2017); Nebraska Rare Species (accessed via rarespecies.nebraska.gov, July 2017) Ok q promise r7� � L — ZA a��ao�opa� Qoap�a Based on preliminary review, habitat to support these species is not present at the Airport; however, field surveys may be required prior to project implementation to determine the presence of protected species. Projects outlined in the ALP development concept, such as property acquisition, vegetation re- moval, runway extension, T-hangar construction, and roadway relocation, may require field surveys to determine the potential presence of protected species. Coordination with the USFWS and/or Nebraska Game and Parks Commission may be necessary to determine the extent, if any, of field investigations necessary prior to undertaking these planned improvements. In addition to the ESA, the MBTA is also applicable at the Airport, as much of the study area constitutes habitat for birds protected under this Act. Birds protected under the MBTA may nest, winter, or migrate throughout the area, including those protected by the ESA. Under the requirements of the MBTA, all project proponents are responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations, protecting birds when planning and developing a project. The 26 protected migratory birds with potential to occur in the study area are listed in Table MM. TABLE MM Birds Protected Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Blair Municipal Airport - .,. M. - - Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens Breeding Bald eagle Holioeetus leucocepholus Year -Round Bell's vireo Vireo bellii Breeding Black -billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Breeding Black -crowned night -heron Nycticorox nycticorox Breeding Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulean Breeding Dickcissel Spiza americans Breeding Field sparrow Spizello pusillo Breeding Golden eagle Aquila chrysoetos Wintering Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannorum Breeding Harris's sparrow Zonotrichio querulo Wintering Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Breeding Hudsonian godwit Limoso hoemostica Migrating Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus Breeding Least bittern Lxobrychus exilis Breeding Loggerhead shrike Lonius lubovicianus Wintering Northern flicker Coloptes ouratus Year -Round Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Breeding Red -billed woodpecker Melonerpes erthrocepholus Breeding Rusty blackbird Euphogus carolinus Wintering Short -eared owl Asio flommeus Wintering Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Breeding Upland sandpiper Bortromio longicoudo Breeding Western grebe Aechmorphorous occidentalis Breeding Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Breeding Wood thrush Hylocichlo mustelino Breeding Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (accessed July 2017) o,. 0 ,�QJ q promise 0 a��ao�op2ILQoap0)12U CLIMATE The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Climate. The EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2e, 1990-2015, found that the transportation sector, which includes is used to describe different green - aviation, accounted for 27 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) house gases (GHG) in a common emissions in 2015. Of this, aviation contributed 160.7 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), or unit. For any quantity and type of nearly nine percent of all transportation emission s.1, 2 Transpor- GHG, CO2e represents the amount of tation sources include cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. CO2 that would have the equivalent Most of the GHG emissions from transportation are CO2 emis- global warming potential. sions resulting from the combustion of petroleum -based prod- ucts in internal combustion engines. Relatively small amounts of methane (CHA hydrofluorocarbon (HFC), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are emitted during fuel combustion. From 1990 to 2015, total transportation emissions increased. The upward trend is largely due to in- creased demand for travel; however, much of this travel was done in passenger cars and light -duty trucks. In addition to transportation -related emissions, Figure 1 shows all GHG emissions sources in the U.S. in 2015. Commercial E Residential 12% Figure 12015 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. Source: U.S. EPA (2017) 1 Aviation activity consists of emissions from jet fuel and aviation gasoline consumed by commercial aircraft, general avia- tion, and military aircraft. z Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015, Table 2-13 (available: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemis- sions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2015) k� ,o,. o q promise o ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� Increasing concentrations of GHGs can affect global climate by trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Scientific measurements have shown that Earth's climate is warming, with concurrent impacts, including warmer air temperatures, rising sea levels, increased storm activity, and greater intensity in precipitation events. This climate change is a global phenomenon that can also have local impacts (IPCC 2014). GHGs, such as water vapor (H20), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), and ozone (03), are both naturally occurring and anthropogenic (man-made). Research has also shown a direct correlation between fuel combustion and GHG emissions. GHGs from anthropogenic sources include CO2, CH4, N20, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). CO2 is the most important anthropogenic GHG because it is a long-lived gas that remains in the atmosphere for up to 100 years. Similar to Air Quality, temporary construction activity would result in increased pollutant emissions. COASTAL RESOURCES The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Coastal Resources. Factors to consider include if the proposed action would have the potential to: — Be inconsistent with the relevant state coastal zone management plan(s); — Impact a coastal barrier resources system unit; — Pose an impact to coral reef ecosystems; — Cause an unacceptable risk to human safety or property; or, — Cause adverse impacts to the coastal environment that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. The Airport is over 800 miles away from the nearest costal resource. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT, SECTION 4(f) The FAA has established a significance threshold for this resource category, which states that if the action involves more than a minimal physical use of a Section 4(f) resource or constitutes a "constructive use" based on an FAA determination that the aviation project would substantially impair the Section 4(f) re- source. Resources that are protected by Section 4(f) include: — Publicly owned land from a public park; — Recreation area; — Wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance; and/or, — Privately owned land from an historic site of national, state, or local significance. 0 OJ q promise �a��ao�opa� Qoap�a� Substantial impairment occurs when the activities, features, or attributes of the resource that contribute to its significance or enjoyment are substantially diminished. Section 303(c) of Title 49 United States Code (USC), states that the Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any program or project that requires the use of any of the protected uses unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. As seen on Table NN, the nearest Section 4(f) resource is over two miles away. The closest Wilderness Area and Recreation Area are over 200 miles away from the Airport. Proposed actions at the Airport should not interfere with these protected resources; however, certain changes, like the proposed run- way extension, would change flight paths, and should be evaluated for potential impacts to properties protected under Section 4(f). TABLE NN Section 4(f) Protected Resources AirportName � Distance from Direction from Airport National Register of Historic Place Carl Penke Farm 5.0 miles Southwest Long Creek School 2.3 miles North Cunningham Lake Park 3.6 miles Southwest Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 6.13 miles East Source: U.S. Geolofzical Survev (accessed July 2017) FARMLANDS The FAA significance threshold for Farmlands is if the total combined score on Form AD-1006, "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating," ranges between 200 and 260 points. An important consideration is if this action would have the potential to convert important farmlands to non-agricultural uses. Important farmlands include: — Pastureland; — Cropland; and, — Forest considered to be prime, unique, or statewide or locally important land. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) was enacted to preserve farmland. FPPA guidelines apply to farmland classified as prime or unique, or of state or local importance, as determined by the appropriate government agency, with concurrence by the Secretary of Agriculture. q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� The Natural Resource Conservation Service's (NRCS) Web Soil Survey indicates that much of the Airport is classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as seen on Exhibit AA. Development on existing Airport property will likely be exempt from the requirements of FPPA as NRCS may consider these to be previously committed to urban use. For the land affected by property acquisition and road relocation, further coordination with NRCS may be required. Through coordination with NRCS during the NEPA documentation process, preparation of Form AD-1006 may be required. This form is a land evalu- ation and site assessment system used to determine a rating score to identify impacts to farmlands. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SOLID WASTE, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION The FAA has not established a significance threshold for this resource category; however, the following should be considered should the action have potential to: — Violate applicable Federal, state, tribal, or local laws or regulations regarding hazardous materials and/or solid waste management; — Involve a contaminated site; — Produce an appreciably different quantity or type of hazardous waste; — Generate an appreciably different quantity or type of solid waste or use a different method of collection or disposal and/or would exceed local capacity; or, — Adversely affect human health and the environment. Federal, state, and local laws regulate hazardous materials use, storage, transport, and disposal. These laws may extend to past and future landowners of properties containing these materials. Additionally, disrupting sites containing hazardous materials or contaminates may cause impacts to soil, surface wa- ter, groundwater, air quality, and the organisms using these resources. According to the EPA's EJSCREEN, there are no Brownfields' or Superfund4 sites located near the Airport. The City of Blair's solid waste is hauled to the Douglas County Landfill near Elk City, Nebraska, approxi- mately eight miles west of the Airport.' The ALP does not anticipate land uses that would produce an appreciably different quantity or type of waste; however, should this type of land use be proposed, further NEPA review and/or permitting would be required. 3 A brownfield is a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or po- tential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutants, or contaminant (U.S. EPA). 4 A Superfund site is any land in the U.S. that has been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup as it poses a human health risk and/or a risk to the environment (U.S. Department of Health and Hu- man Services). s http://www.blairnebraska.org/2228/Utility-Public-Works-Services A6 q promise Census Tract: 5 3 Census Tract: 502.01 - r Stream s Pond Coll Wetland Prime Farmland 133 � Farmland of Statewide Importance Census Tract Boundary 100-Year Floodplain ; Hydric Soil t Airport Property Line Sources: ESRI Basemap Imagery (2016), NRCS, FEMA, USFWS, US Census. Loo 1 Promise o t` . ' MUNICIPAL �QIZI'� HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The FAA has not established a significance threshold for this resource category; however, a factor to consider is if the action would result in a finding of Adverse Effect through the Section 106 process. Note that an adverse effect does not automatically trigger preparation of an EIS. Determination of a project's impact to historical and cultural resources is made in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. The ALP can conflict with NHPA if the proposed pro- ject causes an adverse effect on a property which has been identified (or unearthed during construction) as having historical, architectural, archeological, or cultural significance. The closest property listed on the National Register of Historic Places, Long Creek School, is over two miles north of the Airport. Any areas of the Airport that would be subject to ground disturbance should be surveyed for cultural resources prior to construction unless previously disturbed to the point that artifacts could no longer be intact. Should unanticipated cultural resources be uncovered during con- struction activities, all activities near the find will cease and the FAA will be notified immediately. As outlined in Section 8.8 of the FAA 1050.1F, Desk Reference (July 2015), the FAA will then notify the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, any tribe that might attach religious and cultural significance to the affected property, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to resolve any adverse effects. LAND USE The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Land Use, nor are there specific independent factors to consider. The determination that significant impacts exist in the Land Use category is normally dependent on the significance of other impacts. The ALP proposes several areas of land acquisition to help prevent land use compatibility issues with the Airport. A total of approximately 17 acres of land is proposed for acquisition, broken into the following parcels: — 15.56 acres near the Runway 13 RPZ; — 0.17 acres just outside of the Runway 13 RPZ, adjacent to the proposed County Road 35 re-route; — 0.59 acres directly east of the above 0.17-acre acquisition; and, — 0.09 acres in the Runway 31 RPZ (two parcels: 2.16 acres and 4.22 acres). The above land acquisitions contain primarily vacant and open space. Given that there are no residences or businesses that must be removed, the acquisition of these should not pose an issue for the Airport. MUNICIPAL NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY The FAA has not established a significance threshold for this category. A factor to consider is if the action would have the potential to cause demand to exceed available or future supplies of these resources. Planned development projects at the Airport are not anticipated to result in a demand for natural re- sources or energy consumption beyond what is available by service providers. NOISE AND NOISE -COMPATIBLE LAND USE The FAA has developed a significance threshold for the Noise and Compatible Land Use Category. Should the proposed action increase noise by DNL61.5 dB or more for a noise -sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe. Special consideration should be given to the evaluation of the significance of noise impacts on noise -sensitive areas within Section 4(f) properties. As seen on Exhibit BB, the current noise contours are entirely within the Airport property limits, thus causing no significant impacts to surrounding noise -sensitive uses. Exhibit BB also shows future noise contours. The 65 DNL contour extends just beyond Airport property limits on the southwestern side of Runway 13-31. The parcel of land the noise contour extends onto is vacant and undeveloped, thus posing no impact to a noise -sensitive receptor. SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS Socioeconomics The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Socioeconomics; however, factors to consider are if an action would have the potential to: — Induce substantial economic growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through estab- lishing projects in an undeveloped area); — Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; — Cause extensive relocation when sufficient replacement housing is unavailable; 6 Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL). The 24-hour average sound level, in decibels, for the period from midnight to mid- night, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels for the periods between midnight and 7 a.m., and between 10 p.m., and midnight, local time. The symbol for DNL is Ldn (See 14 CFR § 150.7). kA6 o Ok q promise _ PPI - ` Runway 13-31 4,200' x 100' a � e 4 � LEGENAirport Property Line _ . . 75 DIN Runway 13-31 5,500' x 100' pa r 1 Martinez G... paiW DAM016 121 Exh ib t BE AIRCRAFT NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS This page intentionally left blank LL LALkbM9MU@UP)Z21L I�HW )@)Wv — Cause extensive relocation of community businesses that would cause severe economic hardship for affected communities; — Disrupt local traffic patterns and substantially reduce the levels of service of roads serving the airport and its surrounding communities; or — Produce a substantial change in the community tax base. There are two sections of roadways around the Airport that are slated for removal that could disrupt local traffic patterns. Within the Runway 13 RPZ, portions of County Roads 35 and 38 could be removed, rerouting traffic around the perimeter of the Runway 13 RPZ instead of the current pattern that crosses diagonally through the RPZ. The development concept does not recommend any improvements to the Airport that would create substantial economic growth in the area, or substantially change the community's tax base. Environmental Justice The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Environmental Justice; however, factors to con- sider are if an action would have the potential to lead to a disproportionately high and adverse impact to an environmental justice population (i.e., a low-income or minority population), due to: — Significant impacts in other environmental categories; or, — Impacts on the physical or natural environment that affect an Environmental Justice population in a way that FAA determines is unique to the Environmental Justice population and significant to that population. The Airport is in two Census Tracts (CT), 503 and 502.01, as seen on Exhibit AA. Table PP provides various population metrics of these two tracts. TABLE PP Census Tract Demoeranhics Income in Past 12 Months Below Poverty Level 170 (4.2%) 424 (9.6%) Total 4,048 4,403 White 4,037 4,301 Black or African American 0 22 American Indian and Alaska Native 6 5 Asian 0 3 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0 Some Other Race 0 18 Two or More Races 5 54 Total 4,048 4,403 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2011-2015 American Communitv Survev 5-Year Estimates (Tables B17001 and B02001) C OJ ;qpr�omlse LL LALkbM9MU@UD)Z21L QHap@)Qv No disproportionately high and adverse impacts will occur to surrounding disadvantaged populations near the Airport. Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks. However, factors to consider are if an action would have the potential to lead to a disproportion- ate health or safety risk to children. Except for the County Road 35 realignment, all proposed development will occur on existing Airport property. Further, there are no institutions housing children near the Airport that would be impacted by construction. VISUAL EFFECTS Light Emissions The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Light Emissions. Factors to consider include the degree to which the action would have the potential to: - Create annoyance or interfere with normal activities from Light Emissions; and, - Affect the visual character of the area due to the Light Emissions, including the importance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value of the affected visual resource. The following lighting improvements are proposed on the ALP: - Parking lot lights; - Medium intensity runway lights added to extension of Runway 13; - Medium intensity taxiway lighting on full parallel and connector taxiways; - Replace 2-light precision approach path indicators with 4-light precision approach path indicators on both runway ends; - Addition of runway end identifier lights to Runway 13; and, - Medium intensity approach lighting system added to Runway 31. All proposed lighting upgrades are on Airport property and will not impact surrounding land uses given the distance between the lights and any sensitive receptors. 4 q promise ° Visual Resources / Visual Character The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Visual Resources / Visual Character; however, the extent to which the action would have the potential to do the following should be considered: - Affect the nature of the visual character of the area, including the importance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value of the affected visual resources; - Contrast with the visual resources and/or visual character in the study area; and, - Block or obstruct the views of visual resources, including whether these resources would still be viewable from other locations. Most proposed development is on existing Airport property. There is no development proposed in areas slated for acquisition, though there will be perimeter fencing added around the future Airport property line. These proposed changes should not cause notable change in the Airport's visual character as it is today. WATER RESOURCES Wetlands The FAA has established significance thresholds for wetlands based upon the potential that an action would: - Adversely affect a wetland's function to protect the quality or quantity of municipal water sup- plies, including surface waters and sole source and other aquifers; - Substantially alter the hydrology needed to sustain the affected wetland system's values and functions or those of a wetland to which it is connected; - Substantially reduce the affected wetland's ability to retain floodwaters or storm runoff, thereby threatening public health, safety or welfare (the term welfare includes cultural, recreational, and scientific resources or property important to the public); - Adversely affect the maintenance of natural systems supporting wildlife and fish habitat or eco- nomically important timber, food, or fiber resources of the affected or surrounding wetlands; - Promote development of secondary activities or services that would cause the circumstances listed above to occur; or, - Be inconsistent with applicable state wetland strategies. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory, there are no wetlands on Airport property. Approximately 47 percent of Airport property is covered in hydric containing soils, meaning soils have the potential for water retention annually and/or seasonally. Much of the area slated for construction, C OJ ;qpr�omlse ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� specifically for landside development, are hydric containing soils, as seen on Exhibit Z. Construction de- sign should address the potential for saturated soils during Airport development. In addition, wetland surveys may be required prior to construction. Floodplains The action is significant if it would cause notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Natural and beneficial floodplain values are defined in Paragraph 4.k of Department of Transpor- tation (DOT) Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection: "Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values— include but are not limited to: natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, groundwater recharge, fish, wildlife, plants, open space, natural beauty, sci- entific study, outdoor recreation, agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry." Further, the FAA must determine if there would be significant floodplain encroachment based on the intensity of the encroachments and its impacts on the floodplain's natural and beneficial values. A sig- nificant floodplain encroachment under DOT Order 5650.2 is defined as an encroachment resulting in one or more of the following construction- or flood -related impacts: • Considerable probability of loss of human life; • Likely future damage associated with the encroachment that could be substantial in cost or ex- tent, including interruption of service on or loss of a vital transportation facility; and • A notable adverse impact on "natural and beneficial floodplain values." According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Federal Insurance Rate Map number 31177C0315D, dated January 6, 2012, there are two floodplains near the Airport. Neither of them are on Airport property and, thus, would not be impacted by proposed construction. Both floodplains can be seen on Exhibit AA. Surface Waters The FAA has established the following significance thresholds for Surface Waters based upon a project's potential to: - Exceed water quality standards established by federal, state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies; or, - Contaminate public drinking water supply such that public health may be adversely affected. ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� Additional factors to consider are when a project would have the potential to: - Adversely affect natural and beneficial water resource values to a degree that substantially di- minishes or destroys such values; - Adversely affect surface water such that the beneficial uses and values of such waters are appre- ciably diminished or can no longer be maintained and such impairment cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; or, - Present difficulties based on water quality impacts when obtaining a permit or authorization. There are two streams on Airport property, Thomas Creek and a tributary of Thomas Creek, shown on Exhibit AA. Thomas Creek flows near Runway 13 close to where the runway extension is proposed. The tributary of Thomas Creek flows onto Airport property south of Runway 31 and it just slightly crosses the parallel taxiway. The tributary of Thomas Creek flows near where there are proposed T-hangars, future pavement, and the aircraft wash facility. During construction, best management practices (BMPs) should be used to ensure there is minimal contamination to these surface waters. For pollution prevention, the Airport operates under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys- tem (NPDES) per Nebraska Title 119' and has a valid Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Airport projects that increase the amount of impervious surfaces, like the proposed runway extension, parking, roads, and buildings, could increase the amount of stormwater runoff from the Airport. The Airport's stormwater drainage system may need to be upgraded, as necessary, to handle additional run- off quantities. Groundwater The FAA has established the following significance thresholds for Groundwater based upon a project's potential to: - Exceed groundwater quality standards established by federal, state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies; or - Contaminate an aquifer used for public water supply such that public health may be adversely affected. Additional factors to consider are when a project would have the potential to: - Adversely affect natural and beneficial groundwater values to a degree that substantially dimin- ishes or destroys such values; ' Nebraska Title 19 - Rules and Regulations Pertaining to the Issuance of Permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Ili (0 Q q promise n I��G�MG1��pLaL� QDap�Q� - Adversely affect groundwater quantities such that the beneficial uses and values of such ground- water are appreciably diminished or can no longer be maintained and such impairment cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; or - Present difficulties based on water quality impacts when obtaining a permit or authorization. The City of Blair owns and operates the public water system, which receives its water from the Missouri River. The water supply system for the city is currently capable of adequately supplying water to its con- sumers and has available capacity for growth. Future development at the Airport is not anticipated to substantially change the amount of water used at the Airport, thus not significantly impacting the City's water system. Wild and Scenic Rivers The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Wild and Scenic Rivers. Factors to consider are when an action would have an adverse impact on the values for which a river was designated (or con- sidered for designation) through: - Destroying or altering a river's free -flowing nature; - A direct and adverse effect on the values for which a river was designated (or under study for designation); - Introducing a visual, audible, or other type of intrusion that is out of character with the river or would alter outstanding features of the river's setting; - Causing the river's water quality to deteriorate; - Allowing the transfer or sale of property interests without restrictions needed to protect the river or the river corridor; or - Any of the above impacts preventing a river on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) or a Section 5(d) river that is not included in the NRI from being included in the Wild and Scenic River System or causing a downgrade in its classification (e.g., from wild to recreational). The closest Wild and Scenic River is over 100 miles away from the Airport. The ALP projects would, there- fore, not have adverse effects on a National and Wild Scenic River's outstanding remarkable values under consideration in the National River Inventory (i.e., scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, and his- tory). AIRPORT RECYCLING, REUSE & WASTE REDUCTION The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), which amended Title 49, United States Code (USC), included several changes to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Two of these changes are related to recycling, reuse, and waste reduction at airports. o co Q q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q • Section 132 (b) of the FMRA expanded the definition of airport planning to include "developing a plan for recycling and minimizing the generation of airport solid waste, consistent with applicable state and local recycling laws, including the cost of a waste audit." Section 133 of the FMRA added a provision requiring airports that have or plan to prepare a master plan, and that receive AIP funding for an eligible project, to ensure that the new or updated master plan addresses issues relating to solid waste recycling at the airport, including: — The feasibility of solid waste recycling at the airport; — Minimizing the generation of solid waste at the airport; — Operation and maintenance requirements; — A review of waste management contracts; and, — The potential for cost savings or the generation of revenue. The T-hangar facilities and existing four -place executive box hangar facilities are the only buildings the Airport has purview over for waste and recycling practices. Waste and recycling for all other Airport facilities is handled independently by the entities/tenants who lease those spaces from the Airport. While the focus of this plan is on Airport -operated facilities, the Airport should work to incorporate fa- cility -wide strategies that create consistency in waste disposal mechanisms. This would ultimately result in the reduction of materials sent to the landfill. Understanding the Airport's waste stream requires an understanding of the types of waste typically gen- erated at airports. Generally, waste from airports can be divided into eight categories, with additional types of municipal solid waste (MSW).$ • Municipal Solid Waste — more commonly known as trash or garbage — consists of everyday items that are used and then discarded, like product packaging. The following subcategories are either combined with MSW or sorted separately, depending on an airport's solid waste practices. o Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D) is considered non -hazardous trash resulting from land clearing, excavation, demolition, renovation or repair of structures, roads and utilities, including concrete, wood, metals, drywall, carpet, plastic, pipe, cardboard, and salvaged building components. o Green Waste is yard waste consisting of tree, shrub and grass clippings, leaves, weeds, small branches, seeds, and pods. o Food Waste includes unconsumed food products or waste generated and discarded dur- ing food preparation. o Deplaned Waste is waste removed from passenger aircraft. Deplaned waste includes bot- tles, cans, newspaper, mixed paper (newspaper, napkins, paper towels), plastic cups, ser- vice ware, food waste, and food -soiled paper/packaging. $ Recycling, Reuse and Waste Reduction at Airports, FAA (April 24, 2013) q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� • Lavatory Waste is a special waste that is emptied through a hose and pumped into a lavatory service vehicle. The waste is then transported to a triturator' facility for pretreatment prior to discharge in the sanitary sewage system. Due to the chemical in lavatory waste, it can present environmental and human health risks if mishandled. Caution must be taken to ensure lavatory waste is not released to the public sanitary sewerage system prior to pretreatment. • Spill Clean and Remediation Wastes are also special wastes and are generated during cleanup of spills and/or the remediation of contamination from several types of sites on an airport. • Hazardous Wastes are governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as the regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subtitle C, Parts 260 to 270. The Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed less stringent regulations for certain hazardous waste, known as universal waste, described in 40 CFR Part 237—The Universal Waste Rule. Com- mon sources of aviation hazardous waste include: — Solvents — Caustic parts washes — Heavy metal paint waste and paint chips — Wastewater sludges — Unused epoxies and monomers The FAA's Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) identified five key best practices in its report, Recycling Best Prac- tices —A Guidebook for Advancing Recy- cling from Aircraft Cabins (2014), that are most effective at advancing aviation recy- cling. 1. Secure top -down and bottom -up com- mitment within the airport for recycling efforts 2. Develop consistent recycling procedures and infrastructure 3. Increase the efficiency of existing sys- tems 4. Track, evaluate, and share data on pro- gram performance 5. Make recycling a part of everyday busi- ness — Waste fuels and other ignitable products — Unusable water conditioning chemi- cals — Contaminated sludge — Nickel Cadmium batteries — Waste pesticides As seen on Exhibit CC, there are seven potential areas of an airport contributing to the waste stream, including ter- minals, airfields, aircraft maintenance hangars, cargo hangars, flight kitchens, offices, and airport construction projects. To create a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling plan for BTA, all potential inputs must be consid- ered. There are often few key staff members that are directly involved in the waste management system, making their support and participation critical. It is also crucial to gain the participation of tenants to ensure buy -in of the Air- port's recycling efforts. The Airport must establish con- sistent internal procedures to ensure there are no unac- ceptable items contaminating recycling containers, or re- cyclables thrown in the trash. Clearly marked signage of what is and is not accepted placed near the solid waste and recycling containers is another significant part of a g A triturator facility turns lavatory waste into fine particulates for further processing. 1A6 q promise Potential Outputs Food Waste Potential Inputs Paper Restaurants Plastic Shops Terminals Aluminum Cans Passengers Trash Employees Grease & Oil Green Waste Deplaned Waste Potential Outputs Potential In&L puts Airfields JW& Runway Rubber Aircraft Green Waste Operations Potential Outputs Potential Inputs Plastic Goods :I: Cargo Hangers I Wood Movement Vehicle Waste (Tires & Fluids) Potential Outputs Potential Inputs Vehicle Waste jjjj::::r Aircraft Aircraft Plastic GSE Wastewater Hazardous Materials Potential Outputs Potential Inputs Reused Concrete Construction Airport Reused Asphalt � Re -Construction Vehicle Waste Construction � Soils Demolition Building Materials Wood General Waste Potential Inputs Potential Outputs Aircraft Food Flight Kitchens Food Waste Services J61 Waste Water Plastic Wood Potential Outputs Administrative Food Waste Potential Inputs Paper Employees Offices Plastic Aluminum Cans Trash Source: Recycling, Reuse and Waste Reduction at Airports, FAA (April 2013) Exhibit CC 131 AIRPORT WASTE STREAMS consistent, effective recycling system. Currently at BTA, there are no signs at the Airport as there are no recycling bins in Airport -managed buildings. The graphic provides an example of signage that the Air- port could use in the future to explain what can and cannot be recycled. When recycling is implemented, the Airport should track tenant -specific recycling rates and waste quan- tities to identify cost -saving measures that are cur- rently unidentified simply based on the lack of quan- titative data. The Airport should also incorporate re- cycling into everyday business by providing training, education, and support to Airport personnel, tenants, and others who conduct business at the Airport. In - person meetings with Airport tenants should be held to create mutual understanding of the Airport's solid waste and recycling goals and how tenants play a vital role in the Airport's overall success. The implementation of an effective program requires accurate data of current waste and recycling rates. There are several ways an airport can gain insight into their waste stream. The waste audit is the most com- prehensive and intensive way to assess waste stream composition, opportunities for waste reduction, and capture of recyclables. This Recycling Plan is based on information provided by the Airport using an examina- tion of records. What CAN be recycled? _ a NEWS -yp tally, plastic bottles, newspape,~s: magazines, paper, aluminum cans, and non - coated food service containers can be placed in mixed recycling bins. What CAN'T be recycled? t ] -6 Usually, plastic bags, sailed containers, food and non-food product wrapping, and Styrofoam can't be recycled. Is every airport the same? Some a i rports re cycl e g I ass bottles and compost solid and liquid food waste. Be sure to ask what can and can't be recycled to maximize waste diversion i Figure 2: Recycling Do's and Don'ts • Examination of Records — Waste hauling and disposal records and contracts — Supply and equipment invoices — Other waste management costs (commodity rebates, container costs, etc.) • Facility Walk -Through — Qualitative waste information — Understanding waste pickup and hauling practices • Waste Audit Collection and analysis of the types of waste produced 4� 0 OJ q promise t` _•'I MUNICIPAL �"IR,ORT1 SOLID WASTE The Airport is currently doing an excellent job of right -sizing their trash containers and service pickups to the amount of solid waste generated. Waste services are provided on an as -needed basis by Abe's Trash Service. Typically, solid waste is picked up only a couple times a year, which costs the Airport a few hundred dollars annually. Other than the Airport -managed buildings, the FBO is the prime waste dis- poser. Solid waste is hauled to the Douglas County Landfill near Elk City, Nebraska.10 The City of Blair has entered into an agreement with Douglas County that authorizes the City to dispose of solid waste in the Douglas County Landfill near Elk City, Nebraska. By City Ordinance, all solid waste providers removing waste within Blair city limits are required to dispose of waste in the Douglas County Landfill. RECYCLING The Airport currently does not recycle; however, the Airport's current solid waste provider also offers commercial recycling opportunities. Should the Airport decide to add recycling services, the Airport could explore a contract with Abe's Trash Service, which offers two dumpster sizes, as well as the con- venience of single -stream recycling. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Waste management services at BTA are presently managed independently by various tenants and enti- ties in what is known as a decentralized waste management system. To maximize recycling efforts, the Airport should more actively engage tenants by transitioning to a centralized waste management sys- tem. Exhibit DD summarizes the differences between these two styles. Centralized waste management systems provide greater opportunity for participation from Airport ten- ants who may not be incentivized to recycle on their own. The centralized system is advantageous in that is has less players involved in the overall management of the solid waste and recycling efforts. This management style allows greater control by the Airport over the type, placement, and maintenance of compactors and dumpsters, saving space and eliminating the need for each tenant to have their own containers. A centralized strategy can be inefficient for some airports as it requires more effort and over- sight on the part of airport management. Ultimately, a centralized waste management system will streamline waste and recycling collection, maximizing the opportunity to reduce waste generation and increase diversion of recyclables. 10 City of Blair Website (accessed August 2017 via http://www.blairnebraska.org/2228/Utility-Public-Works-Services) A,q Ok ise Flight Kitchens Waste and Recycling Receptacles Waste / Recycling Contracts) Flight Kitchens Waste and Recycling Receptacles Waste / Recycling Contracts) ,tOromise Individual Airlines rAirporE I IAirportAdministration Tenants r I I Airline Retail Shops Airport Airplanes , Public Offices & & , Administration Terminals FTicketing Restaurants Offices :............:............. ....,.;........................ ! ,..._....._.............. .... ............... _..........._._._._..._, Cabin r Cleaning t Janitorial € Janitorial I I Service € Service Service I Janitorial Service € I I I I I I I I [ I r Waste and Recycling Receptacles i Waste and (each airline has its own) i Recycling Waste and Recycling Receptacles i Receptacles I I i I Waste / Recycling Waste / Recycling Removal Waste / Recycling Removal Contracts i Removal Contracts (each airline has its own) I Contracts Individual Airlines ----------------- - Airplanes Airline Offices & Ticketing ,.......... Cabin Gleaning Janitorial Service Service Retail Shops Restaurants Janitorial Service Airport Administration Public Offices Terminals Shared Waste and Recycling Receptacles Janitorial Service Single waste removal and recycling contract with the airport administration. The cost is either factored into the airport lease fees, or billed separately, like a utility. I Flight kitchens usually manage their own waste even if an airport relies on a centralized system Source. Natural Resources Defense Council,Trash Landings: How Airlines and Airports Can Clean UpTheir Recycling Programs, December 2006. t` °' MUNICIPAL �QIZI'(�2�� SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING GOALS While the Airport may or may not pursue the implementation of a centralized waste management sys- tem, there are other opportunities for improvement. Table QQ outlines objectives that could help re- duce waste generation and increase recycling efforts at BTA. To increase the effectiveness of tracking progress at the Airport, a baseline state of all suggested metrics should be established to provide a com- parison over time. TABLE QQ Waste Management and Recycling Goals Blair Municipal Airport Switch to online bill pay to eliminate No longer receiving monthly paper bills monthly paper bills Conduct a waste audit to identify most Identification of most common solid ' • common types of waste waste Eliminate purchase of items that are not Number of items purchased that are not recyclable (i.e., Styrofoam, plastic bags) recyclable Begin a recycling program; or, collect re- Hire a recycling contractor; or, track cyclables to bring to Washington County number of annual trips to Washington Recycling Center' (as needed) County Recycling Center' Increase the number of recycling bins in Number of recycling bins available to public areas the public Incorporate recycling requirements Number of tenant contracts with recy- and/or recommendations into tenant cling requirements and/or recommenda- lease agreements tions Expand recycling marketing & promotion Number of marketing & promotional efforts throughout public areas materials Require contractors to implement strat- Incorporation of waste reduction, reuse egies to reduce, reuse & recycle con- & recycling language into construction struction & demolition waste contracts ' The Washington County Recycling Center is located at 440 S. 3rd Street in Blair. The facility is operated by the Washington County Recycling Association (WCRA), a non-profit organization (source: City of Blair website, Au- gust 2017). MSW: Municipal Solid Waste CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The analyses completed in the preceding section outline airside and landside development needs to meet projected aviation demand based on forecast activity, facility requirements, safety standards, and operational efficiency. This section will provide a description and overall cost of each project identified in the capital improvement program (CIP) and development schedule. The program outlined has been °`QJ q promise I�G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q evaluated from a variety of perspectives and represents a comparative analysis of basic budget factors, demand, and priority assignments. The CIP is developed following FAA and NDA guidelines for airport planning and primarily identifies those projects that are likely eligible for FAA and/or NDA funding assistance. Other aviation projects that are not programmed to receive federal and/or state funding participation are also presented. The presentation of the CIP has been organized into two sections. First, the Airport's capital program needs are recognized by various categories, ranging from enhancing safety to satisfying demand. Sec- ond, the Airport development schedule and project cost estimates are presented in narrative and graphic form. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT NEEDS In an effort to identify capital needs at the Airport, this section provides an analysis regarding the asso- ciated development needs of projects included in the CIP. While some projects may be demand -based, others will be dictated by safety or rehabilitation needs. Each development need is categorized according to this schedule. The applicable category (or catego- ries) included are presented on Exhibit EE. The proposed projects can be categorized as follows: • Safety/Security (SS) — These are capital needs considered necessary for operational safety and protection of aircraft and/or people and property on the ground near the Airport. • Environmental (EN) —These are capital needs that are identified to enable the Airport to operate in an environmentally acceptable manner. • Maintenance (MN) —These are capital needs required to maintain the existing infrastructure at the Airport. • Efficiency (EF) —These are capital needs intended to optimize aircraft ground operations or pas- sengers' use of the terminal building. • Demand (DM) — These are capital needs required to accommodate levels of aviation demand. The implementation of these projects should only occur when demand for these needs is verified. • Opportunities (OP) — These are capital needs intended to take advantage of opportunities af- forded by the Airport setting. Typically, this will involve improvements to property intended for lease to aviation or non -aviation related development. 0 OJ q promise FMVUNICIPAL �4IF3P� CProject I Federal Airport/Local Total Project Short Term Project Description Planning Year 2020 1 1 Construct automobile parking and access road southeast of the existing entrance I DM/OP $ 738,000.00 $ 82,000.00 $ 820,000.00 2019Total $ 738,000.00 $ 82,000.00 $ 820,000.00 Planning Year 2021 2 Design/Construct one 80 x 100-foot conventional hangar and supporting pavement DM 1 $ $ 854,000.00 $ 854,000.00 2020Total $ $ 854,000.00 $ 854,000.00 Planning Year 2023 3 Clear and grub property for the 1,300-foot northwest runway extension SS $ 602,100.00 $ 66,900.00 $ 669,000.00 2022Total $ 602,100.00 $ 66,900.00 $ 669,000.00 Planning Year 2024 4 JAcquire property (total of 23.30 acres) SS/OP $ 166,500.00 $ 18,500.00 $ 185,000.00 2023 Total $ 166,500.00 $ 18,500.00 $ 185,000.00 y0orl . I B � l ill 1 1 p: l 11 1: 5 Environmental documentation for ultimate Runway 13-31 and parallel taxiway extension EN $ 225,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 250,000.00 6 Construct Airport maintenance building MN/EF $ - $ 176,000.00 $ 176,000.00 7 Remove portions of County Roads 35 and 38 and relocate County Road 35 SS $ 241,200.00 $ 26,800.00 $ 268,000.00 8 Construct northwest runway and parallel taxiway extension and conform to ultimate C-II standards SS/EF $ 5,404,500.00 $ 600,500.00 $ 6,005,000.00 9 Relocate windcone from ultimate ROFA SS $ 16,200.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 18,000.00 10 Joint seal and marking SS/MN $ 477,000.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 530,000.00 11 Install REILs on Runway 13 / upgrade PAPI-2s to PAPI-4s and relocate the PAPI-4 serving ultimate Runway 13 SS $ 184,500.00 $ 20,500.00 $ 205,000.00 12 Construct 10-place T-Hangar and supporting pavement DM $ - $ 345,000.00 $ 345,000.00 13 Pave the existing Airport entrance road and construct automobile parking DM/OP $ - $ 675,000.00 $ 675,000.00 14 1 Replace all existing blue reflectors with MITL SS $ 28,800.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 32,000.00 15 Relocate connecting taxiway providing direct access to Runway 13-31 200 feet SS $ 144,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 160,000.00 16 Total 17 Construct two 100 x 100-foot conventional hangars (including supporting apron area and automobile parking and access) Intermediate Term Program DescriptionLong Term Project Construct automobile parking and access road to serve the existing and ultimate northwest aviation development DM DM/OP $ - $ 6,721,200.00 1 1 $ $ 2,799,000.00 : l l 1 1 $ 174,000.00 $ 2,799,000.00 $ 77,463,000.0il $ 174,000.00 18 Construct northwest T-Hangar buildout (four 8-place hangars) and supporting pavement DM $ $ 1,638,000.00 $ 1,638,000.00 19 Construct restaurant/terminal building DM/OP $ $ 1,472,000.00 $ 1,472,000.00 20 Construct southeast apron expansion DM/EF $ 2,399,400.00 $ 266,600.00 $ 2,666,000.00 21 Construct aircraft wash facility EN $ 252,000.00 $ 28,000.00 $ 280,000.00 22 Construct southeast connecting taxiway providing access to the parallel taxiway EF/DM $ 111,600.00 $ 12,400.00 $ 124,000.00 23 Construct three 100 x 100-foot conventional hangars (including automobile parking and access) DM $ - $ 3,269,000.00 $ 3,269,000.00 24 Construct three 100 x 100-foot conventional hangars (including automobile parking and access DM/EF $ $ 3,441,000.00 $ 3,441,000.00 25 Construct southeast T-hangar buildout and supporting pavement DM/EF $ $ 681,000.00 $ 681,000.00 26 Construct MALS SS $ 225,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 250,000.00 27 Complete Area Navigation Approach Survey (PACS/SACS) DM/OP $ - $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 28 Remove existing northwest T-Hangars and temporary taxilane. Construct taxilane and three 10 lace T-Hanclars DM/OP $ - $ 1,729,000.00 $ 1,729,000.00 29 Total Capital Construct 27,600 sy southeast apron expansion (reserved for future corporate/industrial use) Long Term Program Improvement Program Total DM/OP $ 2,488,500.00 $ 5,476,500.00 1 113,062,500.00 $ 13,704,300.00 $ 276,500.00 $ 18,825,700.00 $ 2,765,000.00 $ 18,539,000.00 $ 32,530,000.00 Category Legend: SS - Safety/Security MN - Maintenance DM - Demand EN - Environmental EF - Efficiency OP - Opportunity L • LL— �QJa • • • • • • q Promise of I` . ' MUNICIPAL �QIZI'� AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND COST SUMMARIES With the recommended Development Concept and specific needs and improvements for the Airport having been established, the next step is to determine a realistic implementation timeline and associated costs for the plan. The recommended improvements are grouped by planning horizon: short term (cur- rent — 5 years), intermediate term (6 — 10 years), and long term (11 — 20 years). Table RR summarizes key activity milestones for the three planning horizons. TABLE RR Activity Planning Milestones Blair Municipal Airport TOTAL BASED AIRCRAFT 60 67 75 90 OPERATIONS Air Taxi 100 300 350 500 General Aviation 2,832 3,350 3,750 4,500 Military 0 0 0 0 Total Itinerant Operations 2,932 3,650 4,100 5,000 General Aviation 24,605 26,800 30,000 36,000 Military 0 0 0 0 Total Local Operations 24,605 26,800 30,000 36,000 A key aspect of this document is the use of demand -based planning milestones. Many projects should be considered based on actual demand levels. As short term horizon activity levels are reached, it will then be time to program for the intermediate term based upon the next activity milestones. Similarly, when the intermediate term milestones are reached, it will be time to program for the long term activity milestones. Many development items included in the recommended concept will need to follow these demand indi- cators. For example, the plan includes new hangar development. Based aircraft necessitating the need for additional hangar development and the need to accommodate growth in overall Airport activity will be the primary indicator for these projects. If based aircraft growth occurs as projected, additional hang- ars should be constructed to meet the demand. If growth slows or does not occur as forecast, some projects may be delayed. As a result, capital expenditures are planned to be made on an as -needed basis, which leads to a more responsible use of capital assets. At BTA, some hangars are owned and managed privately on land leased from the Airport. Because of economic realities, many airports are relying on private developers to construct new hangars. In some Ok q promise I�G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q cases, private developers can keep construction costs lower, which in turn lowers the monthly fee nec- essary to amortize the cost of development. The CIP for the Airport assumes future hangar construction will be funded largely by private entities. This assumption does not preclude the possibility of the Airport constructing new hangars. Ultimately, the Airport will determine, based upon demand and the specific needs of a potential developer, whether to self -fund hangar construction or to rely on private developers. The capital plan does provide for the Airport to construct apron, taxiway, and taxilane improvements leading to proposed hangar develop- ment, which is eligible for FAA and NDA (under the hangar loan program) grant funding. Not all projects identified are necessary to meet projected demand. Other projects are necessary to enhance the safety and efficiency of the Airport, maintain existing pavement infrastructure, or to ad- dress FAA design standards. Since this study is a conceptual document, implementation of the capital projects should only be under- taken after further refinement of their design and costs through architectural and engineering analyses. Moreover, some projects may require additional unforeseen infrastructure improvements (i.e., drainage improvements, extension of utilities, etc.) that may increase the estimated cost of the project or increase the timeline for completion. Once a list of necessary projects was identified and refined, project -specific cost estimates were devel- oped. The cost estimates include design, engineering, construction administration, and contingencies that may arise on the project. Capital costs presented here should be viewed only as estimates subject to further refinement during design. Nevertheless, they are considered sufficient for planning purposes. Cost estimates for each of the development projects in the CIP are based on present-day construction, design, and administration costs. Adjustments will need to be applied over time as construction costs or capital equipment costs change. Exhibit EE presents the proposed 20-year CIP for BTA. An estimate of federal/state funding eligibility has been included, although actual funding is not guaranteed. For projects that are eligible for federal/state funding, AIP/NDA grants provide up to 90 percent of the total project cost. The remaining 10 percent, or more, of project costs are funded locally by the City of Blair. Other projects, such as the construction of new access roads, are not eligible for AIP grants because they serve private hangar facilities. As a result, these projects must be funded locally. Exhibit FF graphically depicts the CIP overlaid onto the airport aerial photograph and broken out into planning horizons. The FAA and NDA each utilize a priority ranking system to help objectively evaluate potential Airport projects. Projects are weighted toward safety, infrastructure preservation, meeting design standards, and capacity enhancement. These entities will participate in the highest priority projects before consid- ering lower priority projects, even if a lower priority project is considered a more urgent need by the local sponsor. Nonetheless, the project should remain a priority for the Airport and funding support should continue to be requested in subsequent years. q promise I�G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q Some projects identified in the CIP will require environmental documentation. The level of documenta- tion necessary for each project must be determined in consultation with the FAA and NDA. There are three major levels of environmental review to be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that include categorical exclusions (CatEx), Environmental Assessments (EA), and Environ- mental Impact Statements (EIS). Each level requires more time to complete and more detailed infor- mation. Guidance on what level of documentation is required for a specific project is provided in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The Environmental Overview presented in the previous section addresses NEPA and provides an evaluation of potential environmental impacts for BTA. The following sections will describe in greater detail the projects identified for the Airport over the next 20 years. The projects are grouped based upon a detailed evaluation of existing and projected demand, safety, rehabilitation needs, and local priority. While the CIP shows the priority ranking of the projects, the list should be evaluated and revised on a regular basis. It is also important to note that certain projects, while listed separately for purposes of evaluation in this study, could be combined with other projects during time of construction/implementation. SHORT TERM PLANNING PROGRAM The short term planning period is the only planning horizon separated into single years. This is to allow the CIP to be coordinated with the planning cycle of NDA and the FAA. If any of these projects cannot be funded in the timeframe indicated, the Airport should consider the project for the following year. Projects called out during this timeframe are very specific in terms of actual design and construction. As such, some projects are initially put through a design phase and then followed up with actual construc- tion. The short term program considers four projects for the planning period as presented on Exhibit EE and depicted on Exhibit FF. The following provides a detailed breakdown of each project. FY 2020 Projects Project #1: Construct Southeast Airport Entrance Description: The addition of a secondary Airport entrance on the southeast side of the airfield would create improved Airport access, if demand warrants. Cost Estimate: $820,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local — 10 percent ��o�v�� v��u� This page intentionally left blank a��ao�opa� Qoap�a� FY 2021 Projects Project #2: Design/Construct One 80 x 100-foot Conventional Hangar on the Southeastern Side of the Existing Apron Area Description: This project is the engineering/design and construction of one 80 x 100-foot conventional - style hangar, including supporting pavement (within 25 feet of the structure) and automobile parking located on the southeastern side of the existing apron. Cost Estimate: $854,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local — 100 percent FY 2023 Projects Project #3: Clear and Grub Property for the 1,300-foot Northwest Runway Extension Description: Currently, Airport property on the northwestern side of the airfield contains farmland uti- lized to grow crops, as well as trees and other vegetation once associated with residential property. This project is to clear any existing incompatible vegetation in preparation for the 1,300-foot runway exten- sion to the northwest. Cost Estimate: $669,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local —10 percent FY 2024 Projects Project #4: Acquire Property (23.30 acres) Description: It is recommended that the Airport own in -fee or at least have an easement over unowned property located within the RPZs serving the runway system. Currently, a total of 7.28 acres of property would be uncontrolled under the ultimate runway configuration at the Airport. However, it is recom- mended that the Airport also acquire the property extending beyond the ultimate RPZ serving Runway 13 up to the ROW of the proposed County Road 35. Additionally, 6.08 acres of property within the AWOS critical area should be acquired. In total, the property to be acquired amounts to 23.30 acres. Cost Estimate: $185,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local —10 percent Short Term CIP Summary The short term CIP includes projects that enhance the overall safety, efficiency, and maintenance of the airfield, while also implementing landside improvements. The total investment necessary for the short term CIP is approximately $2.5 million. Approximately $1.5 million is programmed for federal funding assistance. The remaining $1.0 million is to be provided through local funding outlets. 0 q promise !� �f'jl I 11!t� �'_ I Is UNICIPAL RRP(�2 INTERMEDIATE TERM PLANNING HORIZON The intermediate term covers the period 6 through 10 years and includes 12 projects. These projects are listed on Exhibit EE and depicted on Exhibit FF. Planning new projects beyond the short term timeframe can be challenging. Due to the fluid nature of funding availability and the possibility of changing priori- ties, these projects have been grouped together to a single project list and not prioritized by year. Fur- ther evaluation of these projects should occur during this planning horizon to determine their order of importance based on airport safety, demand, and efficiency. Project #5: Environmental Documentation for Ultimate Runway 13-31 and Parallel Taxiway Extension Description: Given the potential environmental impacts associated with the extension of ultimate Run- way 13-31, this project provides the environmental documentation required prior to construction of the runway extension. Cost Estimate: $250,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local —10 percent Project #6: Construct Airport Maintenance Building Description: This project is for the construction of a dedicated Airport maintenance building located near the ultimate hangar development on the northwestern side of the airfield. Cost Estimate: $176,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local — 100 percent Project #7: Remove Portions of County Roads 35 and 38 and Relocate County Road 35 Description: This project considers the removal of portions of County Roads 35 and 38 and the relocation of a portion of County Road 35. Ultimately, County Roads 35 and 38 will obstruct the safety areas and RPZ serving the proposed Runway 13 extension. As such, County Road 35 should be relocated around the ultimate Runway 13 RPZ. Cost Estimate: $268,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local —10 percent Project #8: Construct Northwest Runway and Parallel Taxiway Extension and Conform to Ultimate C- II Standards Description: This project extends Runway 13-31 and the parallel taxiway by 1,300 feet to the northwest in order to better accommodate operations by larger business jet aircraft. Prior to upgrading the airfield to ultimate C-II standards, the Airport must ensure that all standards and gradients associated with the RSA, RCFA, and RCFZ are met. As such, this project includes the removal of any obstructing vegetation and correcting RSA gradient issues in order to conform to FAA standards for RDC C-II standards. Cost Estimate: $6,005,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local — 10 percent IA Project #9: Relocate Windcone From Ultimate ROFA Description: When the Airport transitions to RDC C-II standards, the existing windcone will become an obstruction based upon its current location. It is recommended that the Airport relocate the windcone approximately 200 feet to the north out of the ultimate ROFA. Cost Estimate: $18,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local —10 percent Project #10: Joint Seal and Marking Description: Joint seal and marking projects have been included in this CIP as programmed in the 2017 NDA ACIP. Ultimately, this project is aimed at prolonging the life of existing pavement and increasing pilot situational awareness through improved airfield marking. Cost Estimate: $530,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local — 10 percent Project #11: Install REILs on Runway 13 / Upgrade the Existing PAPI-2s to PAPI-4s and relocate the PAPI-4 serving ultimate Runway 13 Description: Upon the extension of Runway 13-31, it is recommended that the Airport install REILs serv- ing Runway 13, which will increase pilot situational awareness. The existing PAPI-2 approach aids should be upgraded to PAPI-4s as PAPI-4 approach aids typically serve and are recommended for runways that experience jet traffic. As a result of Project #8, the upgraded PAPI-4 serving Runway 13 will need to be located appropriately in relation to the Runway 13 threshold. Cost Estimate: $205,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local — 10 percent Project #12: Construct 10-Place T-Hangar and Supporting Pavement Description: This project calls for the construction of a 10-place T-hangar and supporting pavement lo- cated directly across from the existing four -place executive box hangar. Cost Estimate: $345,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local —100 percent Project #13: Pave the Existing Airport Entrance Road and Construct Automobile Parking Description: This project includes the relocation and paving of the automobile parking and access road serving the southeastern side of the existing Airport entrance road. Cost Estimate: $675,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local —100 percent Project #14: Replace All Existing Blue Reflectors with MITL Description: Currently, the connecting taxiway located near the existing nested T-hangars on the north- west end of the airfield providing access to the parallel taxiway is served by blue reflectors. Upgrading this portion of the taxiway system to be served by MITL will ultimately increase pilot situational aware- ness, as well as airfield operational safety. Cost Estimate: $32,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local —10 percent ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� Project #15: Relocate Easternmost Portion of the Connecting Taxiway Providing Direct Access to Run- way 13-31 to Improve Airfield Safety/Geometry Description: Relocation of the easternmost portion of the connecting taxiway approximately 200 feet to the southeast will bring the taxiway into compliance with current FAA airfield geometry standards. Ulti- mately, the taxiway relocation will enhance the overall safety of the airport by eliminating direct access from the apron to Runway 13-31. Cost Estimate: $160,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local — 10 percent Project #16: Construct two 100 x 100-ft. Conventional Hangars and Supporting Pavement Description: This project considers the construction of two 100 x 100-foot conventional aircraft storage hangars, supporting apron, and automobile parking, located south of the two proposed 80 x 100-foot conventional storage hangars. Cost Estimate: $2,799,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local — 100 percent Intermediate Term CIP Summary Projects included in the intermediate term continue to improve the overall safety and efficiency of the airfield as well as expand landside facility capacities. The total investment necessary for the intermediate term CIP is approximately $11.5 million. Approximately $6.7 million is programmed for federal funding assistance. The remaining $4.8 million is to be provided through local funding sources. LONG TERM PLANNING PROGRAM This long term planning horizon includes 13 projects for the 10-year timeframe as listed on Exhibit EE and depicted on Exhibit FF. The following section includes a description of each project. Project #17: Construct Automobile Parking and Access Road to Serve the Existing and Ultimate North- west Aviation Development Area Description: Construct paved automobile parking and access road serving the existing and proposed ul- timate aviation development on the northwestern side of the existing Airport access road. Cost Estimate: $174,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local —100 percent Project #18: Construct Northwest T-Hangar Buildout (Four 8-Place T-Hangars) and Supporting Pave- ment Description: This project considers the construction of four 8-place T-hangars, supporting apron, and taxilanes located northwest of the existing nested T-hangar facilities near the current Airport entrance road. Cost Estimate: $1,638,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local — 100 percent Project #19: Construct Airport Restaurant/Terminal Building Description: At this time, the terminal facilities provided at BTA are owned and operated by a privately owned FBO. As such, this project allows the Airport an opportunity to control their own terminal facility. Cost Estimate: $1,472,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local — 100 percent Project #20: Construct Southeast Apron Expansion Description: This project considers an apron expansion to the southeast of the existing apron area en- compassing approximately 29,300 sy. Cost Estimate: $2,666,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local —10 percent Project #21: Construct Aircraft Wash Facility Description: The addition of an aircraft wash facility would provide for the collection of used aircraft oil and other hazardous materials, as well as provide a covered area for aircraft washing and light mainte- nance. Cost Estimate: $280,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local —10 percent Project #22: Construct Southeast Connecting Taxiway Providing Access to the Parallel Taxiway Description: As a result of Project #20, additional access from the extended apron area to the parallel taxiway serving Runway 13-31 could be needed. This project is the construction of a connecting taxiway providing access from the extended apron area to the parallel taxiway. Cost Estimate: $124,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local — 10 percent Project #23: Construct Three 100 x 100-foot Conventional Hangars Description: This project includes the construction of three 100 x 100-foot conventional hangars if de- mand warrants. Automobile parking and access serving the proposed facilities are also considered in this project. Cost Estimate: $3,269,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local —100 percent 0 OJ q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� Project #24: Construct Three 100 x 100-foot Conventional Hangars Description: This project involves the construction of three additional 100 x 100-foot conventional hang- ars if demand warrants. Automobile parking and access serving the proposed facilities are also consid- ered in this project. Cost Estimate: $3,441,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local —100 percent Project #25: Construct Southeast T-Hangar Buildout and Supporting Pavement Description: This project includes the construction of two 10-place T-hangars, supporting apron, and taxilanes located southwest of the proposed secondary Airport entrance road. Cost Estimate: $681,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local — 100 percent Project #26: Construct MALS Serving Runway 31 Description: This project includes the installation of a MALS, as this type of ALS is typically recommended for runways providing approach visibility minimums equal to or greater than 3/4-mile, but less than 1- mile. Cost Estimate: $250,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local —10 percent Project #27: Complete Area Navigation Approach Survey Description: This project is the completion of an area navigation survey to establish a Primary Airport Control Station (PACS) and Secondary Airport Control Station (SACS). These control stations are estab- lished in the vicinity of, and usually on, an airport and are tied directly to the National Spatial Reference System. Cost Estimate: $50,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local — 100 percent Project #28: Remove Existing Northwest T-Hangars and Temporary Taxilane and Construct Three 10- Place T-Hangars Description: This calls for the four existing 10-unit T-hangars directly across from the Airport entrance road to be removed and replaced with three 10-unit T-hangars. This project will ultimately allow for better separation between T-hangars, bring the taxilane serving the northwest GA development area into compliance with FAA gradient standards, and allow for the removal of the temporary taxilane. Cost Estimate: $1,729,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 0 percent / Local —100 percent Project #29: Construct Southeast Apron Expansion (reserved for future corporate/industrial use) Description: This project is the construction of a 27,600 sy apron expansion on the southeastern portion of the airfield that will be reserved for corporate or commercial use. Cost Estimate: $2,765,000 Funding/Eligibility: State or Federal - 90 percent / Local — 10 percent q promise Long Term CIP Summary The total costs associated with the long term program are estimated at $18.5 million. Of this total, ap- proximately $5.5 million could be eligible for federal funding, and the local share is projected at $13.0 million. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY The CIP is intended as a road map of airport improvements to help guide Blair Airport Authority, the NDA, and FAA. The plan as presented will help accommodate increases in forecast demand at BTA over the next 20 years and beyond. The first five years of the CIP are separated into yearly installments, and the intermediate and long term projects are grouped together, respectively. The sequence of projects may change due to availability of funds or changing priorities. Nonetheless, this is a comprehensive list of capital projects the Airport should consider in the next 20 years. The total CIP proposes approximately $32.5 million in Airport development needs. Of this total, approx- imately $13.7 million could be eligible for federal funding assistance. The local funding estimate for the proposed CIP is $18.8 million, which is driven primarily by construction costs associated with large con- ventional type hangars. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING SOURCES There are generally four sources of funds used to finance airport development, which include: • Airport cash flow • Revenue and general obligation bonds • Federal/state/local grants • Passenger facility charges (PFCs), which are reserved for commercial service airports Access to these sources of financing varies widely among airports, with some large airports maintaining substantial cash reserves and the smaller commercial service and general aviation airports often requir- ing subsidies from local governments to fund operating expenses and finance modest improvements. Financing capital improvements at the Airport will not rely solely on local financial resources. Capital improvement funding is available through various grant-in-aid programs on both the federal and state levels. Historically, BTA has received federal and state grants. While more funds could be available some years, the CIP was developed with project phasing in order to remain realistic and within the range of anticipated grant assistance. The following discussion outlines key sources of funding potentially avail- able for capital improvements at the Airport. o co Q q promise 14�11JW t`1 � MUNICIPAL "IR,ORT1 FEDERAL GRANTS Through federal legislation over the years, various grant-in-aid programs have been established to de- velop and maintain a system of public use airports across the United States. The purpose of this system and its federally based funding is to maintain national defense and to promote interstate commerce. Recent legislation affecting federal funding was enacted on February 17, 2012 and is titled, The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The law authorized FAA appropriations (AIP) at $3.35 billion for fiscal years 2012 through 2015. In 2016, Congress passed legislation (H.R. 636, FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016) amending the law to expire on September 30, 2017. Subsequently, Congress passed a bill (H.R. 3823, Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017) authorizing appropriations to the FAA through March 31, 2018, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, ex- tended FAA's funding and authority through September 30, 2018. In October 2018, Congress passed legislation entitled, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which will fund the FAA's AIP at $3.35 billion annu- ally until 2023. Several projects identified in the CIP are eligible for FAA funding through the AIP, which provides enti- tlement funds to airports based, in part, on their annual enplaned passengers and pounds of landed cargo weight. Additional AIP funds, designated as discretionary, may also be used for eligible projects, based on the FAA's national priority system. Although the AIP has been reauthorized several times and the funding formulas have been periodically revised to reflect changing national priorities, the program has remained essentially the same. Public use airports that serve civil aviation, like BTA, may receive AIP funding for eligible projects, as described in FAA's Airport Improvement Program Handbook. The Airport must fund the remaining project costs using a combination of other funding sources, as discussed further below. Eligible airports, which include those in the NPIAS, such as BTA, can apply for airport improvement grants. Table SS presents the approximate distribution of the AIP funds. Currently, the Airport is eligible to apply for grants which may be funded through several categories. Funding for AIP-eligible projects is undertaken through a cost -sharing arrangement in which the FAA share varies by airport size and is generally 75 percent for large and medium hub airports and 90 percent for all other airports. In exchange for this level of funding, the airport sponsor is required to meet various grant assurances, including maintaining the improvement for its useful life, usually 20 years. The source for AIP funds is the Aviation Trust Fund. The Aviation Trust Fund was established in 1970 to provide funding for aviation capital investment programs (aviation development, facilities and equip- ment, and research and development). The Aviation Trust Fund also finances the operation of the FAA. It is funded by user fees, including taxes on airline tickets, aviation fuel, and various aircraft parts. ��G`�]MG1��pLaL� L�OG3p�G�4 TABLE SS Federal AIP Funding Distribution titlements 7PassengeritEn 26.6% $891,100,000 3.5% $117,250,000 Alaska Supplemental 0.7% $23,450,000 State Apportionment for Nonprimary Entitlements 12.5% $418,750,000 State Apportionment Based on Area and Population 7.4% $247,900,000 Carryover 22.1 % $740, 350,000 .. Small Hubs 2.2% $73,700,000 Nonhubs 8.7% $291,450,000 Nonprimary (GA and Reliever) 4.3% $144,050,000 Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise 5.4% $180,900,000 Pure Discretionary 1.8% $60,300,000 Noise 4.2% $140,700,000 Military Airports Program 0.5% $16,750,000 Reliever 0.1% $3,350,000 Totals 100.00% $3,350,000,000 * FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 — expired September 30, 2015 AIP: Airport Improvement Program Source: FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Program Handbook Apportionment (Entitlement) Funds AIP provides funding for eligible projects at airports through an apportionment (entitlement) program. Non -primary airports, such as BTA, are eligible to receive federal assistance each year in the amount of $150,000. These non -primary entitlement (NPE) funds are available to use in the fiscal year it becomes available and the following three fiscal years. Unused funds expire after four years unless the sponsor obligates the funds under a grant or transfers the funds to another NPIAS airport. States also receive a direct apportionment based on a federal formula that takes into account area and population. Each state has the ability to distribute these funds for projects at various airports throughout the state. LL� ALL �-�? Small Airport Fund If a large or medium hub commercial service airport chooses to institute a PFC, which is a fee of up to $4.50 on each airline ticket for funding of capital improvement projects, then their apportionment is reduced. A portion of the reduced apportionment goes to the small airport fund. The small airport fund is reserved for small -hub primary commercial service airports, non -hub commercial service airports, and general aviation airports. BTA is a general aviation airport; therefore, it is eligible for small airport funds. Discretionary Funds In a number of cases, airports face major projects that will require funds in excess of the airport's annual entitlements. Thus, additional funds from discretionary apportionments under AIP become desirable. The primary feature about discretionary funds is that they are distributed on a priority basis. These priorities are established by the FAA, utilizing a priority code system. Under this system, projects are ranked by their purpose. Projects ensuring airport safety and security are ranked as the most important priorities, followed by maintaining current infrastructure development, mitigating noise and other envi- ronmental impacts, meeting standards, and increasing system capacity. Additional buildings and struc- tures may be eligible if the function of the structure is to serve airport operations in a non -revenue gen- erating capacity, such as maintenance facilities. It is important to note that competition for discretionary funding is not limited to airports in the State of Nebraska or even those within the FAA Central Region. The funds are distributed to all airports in the country and, as such, are more difficult to obtain. High priority projects will often fare favorably, while lower priority projects many times will not receive discretionary grants. Set -Aside Funds Portions of AIP funds are set -asides designed to achieve specific funding minimums for noise compati- bility planning and implementation, select former military airfields (Military Airport Program), and select reliever airports. BTA does not qualify for set -aside funds as it is not a former military airfield or a reliever airport. FAA Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Program The Airway Facilities Division of the FAA administers the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Program. This program provides funding for the installation and maintenance of various navigational aids and equip- ment of the national airspace system. Under the F&E program, funding is provided for FAA airport traffic control towers (ATCTs), enroute navigational aids, on -airport navigational aids, and approach lighting systems. q promise �a��ao�opa� Qoap�a� While F&E still installs and maintains some navigational aids, on -airport facilities at general aviation air- ports have not been a priority. Therefore, airports often request funding assistance for navigational aids through AIP and then maintain the equipment on their own11 STATE AID TO AIRPORTS In support of the state aviation system, the NDA also participates in airport improvement projects. The source for state airport improvement funds is the State Aid Program which was established in 1945 and amended in 2003. This program is administered by the Nebraska Division of Aeronautics. Project ap- proval and funding limits are determined by the Nebraska Aeronautics Commission, which also has the right to fund projects outside the scope of the program at their discretion. Under the program, all Nebraska public use airports that are included in the Nebraska State Aviation System Plan are eligible. The funding limits are as follows: • State projects: up to 90 percent state funds. • State projects acquiring land or terminal buildings: 50 percent state funds. • Federal projects: two (2) percent state funds on federally funded projects with total costs greater than $500,000. State funds are limited to $100,000 per airport per fiscal year, except that runway construction for state -aid projects is limited to $200,000. State funds allocated for a federal project are limited to a total of $100,000. A federal project includes the entire scope of the federal grant. Multiple grants which are used to finance the same scope of work are considered to be one project. The following is a partial list of airport projects that are generally eligible for funding from the state: 1. Grading, paving, pavement rehabilitation and federally funded seal coating: a. Runways and turnarounds. b. Taxiways, including hold aprons and taxiways between hangars. Individual hangar ramps up to the hangar doors are eligible only under the Hangar Loan Program. c. Aprons - except pavement within 25 feet of a building since aircraft cannot park in this area. This 25-foot area is partially eligible for new hangars under the Hangar Loan Program. "Guidance on thee I igibi I ity of a project for federal AIP grant funding can be found in FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Im- provement Program Handbook, which can be accessed at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip handbook/media/AIP-Handbook-Order-5100-38D e;ot q promis ��G�MG1��pLaL� QDap�Q 2. Lighting of eligible paved or graded items, including a vault, electrical equipment, beacon, standby generator, reflective markers, flood lights, etc. 3. Visual Navaids - PAPI, REIL, ALS, and AWOS. Emphasis will be placed on navaids for instrument runways and on those needed for obstacle clearance. 4. Airport Layout Plans (ALPS), Environment Assessment Reports (EAs), and other planning studies. 5. Obstruction removal of objects in the runway protection zones and objects violating Part 77 obstruction standards. Includes the relocation of roads to allow necessary airport development. 6. Land and easement acquisition for all airport developments, including fencing and relocation. 7. Administration and terminal buildings - public use areas only. Areas rented or reserved for private use are not eligible. Airport offices such as the manager's office or the authority's meeting room are eligible. The eligible amount will be determined by prorating the actual square footage of each area. 8. Related Items (listed below) are eligible at the same rate of participation as the item to which they are related. a. Consulting and other fees, such as engineering, testing, advertising, administrative and legal fees. These fees are only eligible when the project they are related to is completed within a reasonable time. Typically, the fees are not reimbursed until after the construction/ acquisition contracts are executed. b. Related construction items like pavement repairs, utility relocation, incidental fencing, marking, seeding, drainage structures, ducts, etc. The following is a partial list of projects not eligible under the State Aid Program: 1. Not eligible under any state program: a. Security (FAR Part 107) and guidance signs (FAR Part 139). b. Vehicles (SRE and ARFF) and associated buildings. c. Passenger lifts for commuter aircraft. d. Other regular maintenance items. e. Paving access roads and parking lots. f. Runway development not shown on an approved ALP. ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� Not eligible under this program but eligible under other NDA programs: a. Crack/joint sealing not related to construction. b. Seal coats, slurry seals and rejuvenators c. Marking not related to construction. d. Hangars. e. Fuel storage. NDB, VOR and ILS. Additional NDA Funding Programs The NDA offers several other funding programs. The Revolving Hangar Program was established in 1954. This program provides no interest loans to public use airports for hangar construction (typically T-hangar construction). NDA will loan up to 70 percent of the cost of new construction and 50 percent of eligible costs for existing hangar rehabilitation and/or door replacement, up to the amount approved by the Ne- braska Aeronautics Commission (NAC). The maximum loan amount is a total of $600,000, inclusive of all loans made under the program. New construction must be repaid in 10 years and rehabilitation or door replacement must be repaid in five years. NDA and the NAC also offer the Fuel Storage Loan Program of 2004. This is a no interest loan for the ex- pansion of static fuel storage facilities. Mobile tanks are not eligible for this program. Additional fuel storage capacity must first be justified through fuel sales records. This program will provide up to 70 percent funding with a $50,000 cap. The balance must be repaid within 10 years. NDA and NAC also offer a pavement marking program, a crack and joint sealing program, and a pavement preservation program. These programs are cost sharing programs, in which a portion of the cost is subsi- dized by NDA. LOCAL FUNDING The balance of project costs, after consideration has been given to grants, must be funded through local resources. The goal for the operation of the Airport is to generate ample revenues to cover all operating and maintenance costs, as well as the local matching share of capital expenditures. As with many airports, this is not always possible and other financial methods will be needed. According to Exhibit EE, local funding will be needed in each planning horizon. This includes a total of $3.0 million in the short term, $5.2 million in the intermediate term, and $11.5 million in the long term. There are several local financing options to consider when funding future development at airports, including airport revenues, issuance of a variety of bond types, and leasehold financing. These strategies could be q promise ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� used to fund the local matching share, or complete a project if grant funding cannot be arranged. Below is a brief description of the most common local funding options: Leasehold/Third-Party Financing: Leasehold or third -party financing refers to a developer or tenant financ- ing improvements under a long term ground lease. The obvious advantage of such an arrangement is that it relieves the airport of all responsibility for raising the capital funds for improvements. However, the pri- vate development of facilities on a ground lease, particularly on property owned by the airport, produces a unique set of concerns. In particular, it may be more difficult to obtain private financing as only the im- provements and the right to continue the lease can be claimed in the event of a default. Ground leases normally provide for the reversion of improvements to the airport at the end of the lease term, which re- duces their potential value to a lender taking possession. Also, companies that want to own their property as a matter of financial policy may not locate where land is only available for lease. Bonding: Bonding is a common method to finance large capital projects at airports. A bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the bond holders; thus, a bond is a form of loan or IOU. While bond terms are negotiable, typically the bond issuer is obligated to pay the bond holder interest at regular inter- vals and/or repay the principal at a later date. General Revenue: The operations of the airport generate revenues, which are secured by federal grant assurances to be utilized at the airport. All receipts, excluding bond proceeds or related grants and interest, are irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of operating and maintenance expenses, payment of debt service for as long as bonds remain outstanding, or for additions or improvements to airport facilities. All public use airports should establish standard basis rates for various leases. All lease rates should be set to adjust to a standard index such as the Consumer Price Index to assure that fair and equitable rates con- tinue to be charged into the future. The condition and location of hangar space should also be considered when establishing the lease rates. Standard basis rates should be established for sponsor -owned hangars, terminal building office space, and ground leases. Fuel flowage fees and aircraft tie -down fees should also be uniform. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The best means to begin implementation of the recommendations in this study is to first recognize that planning is a continuous process that does not end with completion and approval of this document. The issues upon which this study is based will remain valid for a number of years. The primary goal is for the Airport to best serve the air transportation needs of the region, while striving toward economic self-suffi- ciency. The CIP and the phasing program presented will change over time. An effort has been made to identify and prioritize all major capital projectsthat would require FAA grant funding. Nonetheless, the Airport and NDA review the five-year CIP on an annual basis. it;0 ��G�MG1�C��pLaL� QDap�Q� The real value of a usable planning document is in keeping the issues and objectives in the minds of the managers and decision -makers so that they are better able to recognize change and its effect. In addition to adjustments in aviation demand, decisions made as to when to undertake the improvements recom- mended in this study will impact the timeframe that the plan remains valid. The format used in this plan is intended to reduce the need for formal and costly updates by simply adjusting the timing. Updating can be done by the manager, thereby improving the plan's effectiveness. Nonetheless, the FAA and NDA typically encourage airports to update their planning documents every seven to ten years, or sooner if significant changes occur in the interim. In summary, the planning process requires Airport management to monitor the progress of the Airport. The information obtained from continually monitoring Airport activity, as well as changes to FAA design stand- ards, will provide the information necessary to determine if the development schedule should be acceler- ated or decelerated. 1� tDromlse f�1LIAO 1'11, RP ORT APPENDIX A GLOSSARY o�� o ok q promise APPENDIX A Gross�r of Terms A ............................................................................................................. ABOVE GROUND LEVEL: The elevation of a point or surface above the ground. ACCELERATE -STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): See declared distances. ADVISORY CIRCULAR: External publications issued by the FAA consisting of nonregulatory material providing for the recommendations relative to a policy, guidance and information relative to a specific aviation subject. AIR CARRIER: An operator which: (1) performs at least five round trips per week between two or more points and publishes flight schedules which specify the times, days of the week, and places between which such flights are performed; or (2) transports mail by air pursuant to a current contract with the U.S. Postal Service. Certified in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Parts 121 and 127. AIRCRAFT: A transportation vehicle that is used or intended for use for flight. AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: A grouping of aircraft based on 1.3 times the stall speed in their landing configuration at their maximum certificated landing weight. The categories are as follows: • Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. • Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. • Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. • Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. • Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots. AIRCRAFT OPERATION: The landing, takeoff, or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on a runway at an airport. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AREA (AOA): A restricted and secure area on the airport property designed to protect all aspects related to aircraft operations. AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION: A private organization serving the interests and needs of general aviation pilots and aircraft owners. Coff.. an Associates A- 1 Airport Consultants AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING: A facility located at an airport that provides emergency vehicles, extinguishing agents, and personnel responsible for minimizing the impacts of an aircraft accident or incident. AIRFIELD: The portion of an airport which contains the facilities necessary for the operation of aircraft. AIRLINE HUB: An airport at which an airline concentrates a significant portion of its activity and which often has a significant amount of connecting traffic. AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): A grouping of aircraft based upon wingspan. The groups are as follows: • Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet. • Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet. • Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet. • Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet. • Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet. • Group VI: 214 feet or greater. AIRPORT AUTHORITY: A quasi -governmental public organization responsible for setting the policies governing the management and operation of an airport or system of airports under its jurisdiction. AIRPORT BEACON: A navigational aid located at an airport which displays a rotating light beam to identify whether an airport is lighted. AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The planning program used by the Federal Aviation Administration to identify, prioritize, and distribute funds for airport development and the needs of the National Airspace System to meet specified national goals and objectives. AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point on the runway system at an airport expressed in feet above mean sea level (MSL). AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: A program authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 that provides funding for airport planning and development. Glossary of Terms AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD): The drawing of the airport showing the layout of existing and proposed airport facilities. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP): A scaled drawing of the existing and planned land and facilities necessary for the operation and development of the airport. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING SET: A set of technical drawings depicting the current and future airport conditions. The individual sheets comprising the set can vary with the complexities of the airport, but the FAA -required drawings include the Airport Layout Plan (sometimes referred to as the Airport Layout Drawing (ALD), the Airport Airspace Drawing, and the Inner Portion of the Approach Surface Drawing, On -Airport Land Use Drawing, and Property Map. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN: The planner's concept of the long-term development of an airport. AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM: A system that provides automated alerts and warnings of potential runway incursions or other hazardous aircraft movement events. AIRPORT OBSTRUCTION CHART: A scaled drawing depicting the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 surfaces, a representation of objects that penetrate these surfaces, runway, taxiway, and ramp areas, navigational aids, buildings, roads and other detail in the vicinity of an airport. AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the operational (Aircraft Approach Category) to the physical characteristics (Airplane Design Group) of the airplanes intended to operate at the airport. AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP): The latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the airport. AIRPORT SPONSOR: The entity that is legally responsible for the management and operation of an airport, including the fulfillment of the requirements of laws and regulations related thereto. AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT: A radar system that provides air traffic controllers with a visual representation of the movement of aircraft and other vehicles on the ground on the airfield at an airport. AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR: The primary radar located at an airport or in an air traffic control terminal area that receives a signal at an antenna and transmits the signal to air traffic control display equipment defining the location of aircraft in the air. The signal provides only the azimuth and range of aircraft from the location of the antenna. AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT): A central operations facility in the terminal air traffic control system, consisting of a tower, including an associated instrument flight rule (IFR) room if radar equipped, using air/ground communications and/or radar, visual signaling and other devices to provide safe and expeditious movement of terminal air traffic. AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER: A facility which provides en route air traffic control service to aircraft operating on an IFR flight plan within controlled airspace over a large, multi -state region. AIRSIDE: The portion of an airport that contains the facilities necessary for the operation of aircraft. AIRSPACE: The volume of space above the surface of the ground that is provided for the operation of aircraft. AIR TAXI: An air carrier certificated in accordance with FAR Part 121 and FAR Part 135 and authorized to provide, on demand, public transportation of persons and property by aircraft. Generally operates small aircraft "for hire" for specific trips. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: A service operated by an appropriate organization for the purpose of providing for the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic. AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER (ARTCC): A facility established to provide air traffic control service to aircraft operating on an IFR flight plan within controlled airspace and principally during the en route phase of flight. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM COMMAND CENTER: A facility operated by the FAA which is responsible for the centra I flow control, the central altitude reservation system, the airport reservation position system, and the air traffic service contingency command for the air traffic control system. Coif . an Associates 2 Airport Consultants Ev GCossary of Terms AIR TRAFFIC HUB: A categorization of commercial service airports or group of commercial service airports in a metropolitan or urban area based upon the proportion of annual national enplanements existing at the airport or airports. The categories are large hub, medium hub, small hub, or non - hub. It forms the basis for the apportionment of entitlement funds. AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: An organization consisting of the principal U.S. airlines that represents the interests of the airline industry on major aviation issues before federal, state, and local government bodies. It promotes air transportation safety by coordinating industry and governmental safety programs and it serves as a focal point for industry efforts to standardize practices and enhance the efficiency of the air transportation system. ALERT AREA: See special -use airspace. ALTITUDE: The vertical distance measured in feet above mean sea level. ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH (AIA): An approach to an airport with the intent to land by an aircraft in accordance with an IFR flight plan when visibility is less than three miles and/orwhenthe ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude. APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (ALS): An airport lighting facility which provides visual guidance to landing aircraft by radiating light beams by which the pilot aligns the aircraft with the extended centerline of the runway on his final approach and landing. APPROACH MINIMUMS: The altitude below which an aircraft may not descend while on an IFR approach unless the pilot has the runway in sight. APPROACH SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 which is longitudinally centered on an extended runway centerline and extends outward and upward from the primary surface at each end of a runway at a designated slope and distance based upon the type of available or planned approach by aircraft to a runway. APRON: A specified portion of the airfield used for passenger, cargo or freight loading and unloading, aircraft parking, and the refueling, maintenance and servicing of aircraft. AREA NAVIGATION: The air navigation procedure that provides the capability to establish and maintain a flight path on an arbitrary course that remains within the coverage area of navigational sources being used. AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMATION SERVICE (ATIS): The continuous broadcast of recorded non - control information at towered airports. Information typically includes wind speed, direction, and runway in use. AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVATION SYSTEM (ASOS): A reporting system that provides frequent airport ground surface weather observation data through digitized voice broadcasts and printed reports. AUTOMATIC WEATHER OBSERVATION STATION (AWOS): Equipment used to automatically record weather conditions (i.e. cloud height, visibility, wind speed and direction, temperature, dew point, etc.) AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER (ADF): An aircraft radio navigation system which senses and indicates the direction to a non -directional radio beacon (NDB) ground transmitter. AVIGATION EASEMENT: A contractual right or a property interest in land over which a right of unobstructed flight in the airspace is established. AZIMUTH: Horizontal direction expressed as the angular distance between true north and the direction of a fixed point (as the observer's heading). B ............................................................................................................. BASE LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its approach end. The base leg normally extends from the downwind leg to the intersection of the extended runway centerline. See "traffic pattern." BASED AIRCRAFT: The general aviation aircraft that use a specific airport as a home base. BEARING: The horizontal direction to or from any point, usually measured clockwise from true north or magnetic north. BLAST FENCE: A barrier used to divert or dissipate jet blast or propeller wash. Coff*ran Associates Airport Consultants A - 3 GCossary of Terms BLAST PAD: A prepared surface adjacent to the end of a runway for the purpose of eliminating the erosion of the ground surface by the wind forces produced by airplanes at the initiation of takeoff operations. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL): A line which identifies suitable building area locations on the airport. C ............................................................................................... CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The planning program used by the Federal Aviation Administration to identify, prioritize, and distribute Airport Improvement Program funds for airport development and the needs of the National Airspace System to meet specified national goals and objectives. CARGO SERVICEAIRPORT:Ana irportserved byaircraft providing airtransportationofproperty only, including mail, with an annual aggregate landed weightofat least 100,000,000 pounds. CATEGORY I: An Instrument Landing System (ILS) that provides acceptable guidance information to an aircraft from the coverage limits of the ILS to the point at which the localizer course line intersects the glide path at a decision height of 200 feet above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold. CATEGORYII:An ILSthat provides acceptable guidance information to an aircraft from the coverage limits of the ILS to the point at which the localizer course line intersects the glide path at a decision height of 100 feet above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold. CATEGORY III: An ILS that provides acceptable guidance information to a pilot from the coverage limits of the ILS with no decision height specified above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold. CEILING: The height above the ground surface to the location of the lowest layer of clouds which is reported as either broken or overcast. CIRCLING APPROACH: A maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft with the runway for landing when flying a predetermined circling instrument approach under IFR. %FL 600 KEY L18,000 MSL AGL - Above Ground Level FL Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet MSL Mean Sea Level ;-14,500 MSL Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for VFR Products;' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993. —40n.m.— No i1 — 30 n.m. � �m- 2on.m.� Nortom� A 7 Nontomed Airport 700AGL�t CLASS A AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS B AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS C AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS D AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS E AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS G AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLEAR ZONE: See Runway Protection Zone. COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORT: A public airport providing scheduled passenger service that enplanes at least 2,500 annual passengers. COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY: A radio frequency identified in the appropriate aeronautical chartwhich is designated for the purpose of transmitting airport advisory information and procedures while operating to or from an uncontrolled airport. COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): A low power, low/ medium frequency radio -beacon installed in conjunction with the instrument landing system at one or two of the marker sites. CONICAL SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction - limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 that extends Coif . an Associates A— 4 Airport Consultants Glossary of Terms from the edge of the horizontal surface outward and upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. CONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport that has an operating airport traffic control tower. CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control services are provided to instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual flight rules (VFR) flights in accordance with the airspace classification. Controlled airspace in the United States is designated as follows: • CLASS A: Generally, the airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to but not including flight level FL600. All persons must operate their aircraft under IFR. • CLASS B: Generally, the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busi- est airports. The configuration of Class B air- space is unique to each airport, but typically consists of two or more layers of air space and is designed to contain all published instrument approach procedures to the airport. An air traf- fic control clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area. • CLASS C: Generally, the airspace from the sur- face to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted as MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower and radar ap- proach control and are served by a qualifying number of IFR operations or passenger enplane- ments. Although individually tailored for each airport, Class C airspace typically consists of a surface area with a five nautical mile (nm) radius and an outer area with a 10 nautical mile radius that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation. Two-way radio communi- cation is required for all aircraft. • CLASS D: Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the air port eleva- tion (charted as MSL) surrounding those air- ports that have an operational control tower. Class D airspace is individually tailored and configured to encompass published instru- ment approach procedure. Unless otherwise authorized, all persons must establish two-way radio communication. • CLASS E: Generally, controlled airspace that is not classified as Class A, B, C, or D. Class E airspace extends upward from either the sur- face or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When desig- nated as a surface area, the airspace will be configured to contain all instrument proce- dures. Class E airspace encompasses all Victor Airways. Only aircraft following instrument flight rules are required to establish two-way radio communication with air traffic control. • CLASS G: Generally, that airspace not classified as Class A, B, C, D, or E. Class G airspace is uncontrolled for all aircraft. Class G airspace extends from the surface to the overlying Class E airspace. CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: See special -use airspace. CROSSWIND: A wind that is not parallel to a runway centerline or to the intended flight path of an aircraft. CROSSWIND COMPONENT: The component of wind that is at a right angle to the runway centerline or the intended flight path of an aircraft. CROSSWIND LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its upwind end. See "traffic pattern." D ........................................................................................................... . DECIBEL: A unit of noise representing a level relative to a reference of a sound pressure 20 micro newtons per square meter. DECISION HEIGHT/DECISION ALTITUDE: The height above the end of the runway surface at which a decision must be made by a pilot during the ILS or Precision Approach Radar approach to either continue the approach or to execute a missed approach. DECLARED DISTANCES: The distances declared available for the airplane's takeoff runway, takeoff distance, accelerate -stop distance, and landing distance requirements. The distances are: • TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): The runway length declared available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane taking off. A - 5 Coff*ran Associates Airport Consultants GCossary of Terms • TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway and/or clear way beyond the far end of the TORA. • ACCELERATE -STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): The runway plus stopway length declared available for the acceleration and deceleration of an aircraft aborting a takeoff. • LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): The runway length declared available and suitable for landing. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: The cabinet level federal government organization consisting of modal operating agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, which was established to promote the coordination of federal transportation programs and to act as a focal point for research and development efforts in transportation. DISCRETIONARY FUNDS: Federal grant funds that may be appropriated to an airport based upon designation by the Secretary of Transportation or Congress to meet a specified national priority such as enhancing capacity, safety, and security, or mitigating noise. DISPLACED THRESHOLD: A threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway. DISTANCE MEASURING '--- EQUIPMENT (DME): ---- Equipment (airborne and ground) used to t t 20 NM i measure, in nautical ' o ' miles, the slant range distance of an ` aircraft from the DME navigational aid. DNL: The 24-hour average sound level, in Aweighted decibels, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels for the periods between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. as averaged over a span of one year. It is the FAA standard metric for determining the cumulative exposure of individuals to noise. DOWNWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction opposite to landing. The downwind leg normally extends between the crosswind leg and the base leg. Also see "traffic pattern." E .................................................................................................... EASEMENT: The legal right of one party to use a portion of the total rights in real estate owned by another party. This may include the right of passage over, on, or below the property; certain air rights above the property, including view rights; and the rights to any specified form of development or activity, as well as any other legal rights in the property that may be specified in the easement document. ELEVATION: The vertical distance measured in feet above mean sea level. ENPLANED PASSENGERS: The total number of revenue passengers boarding aircraft, including originating, stop -over, and transfer passengers, in scheduled and nonscheduled services. ENPLANEMENT: The boarding of a passenger, cargo, freight, or mail on an aircraft at an airport. ENTITLEMENT: Federal funds for which a commercial service airport may be eligible based upon its annual passenger enplanements. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA): An environmental analysis performed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to determine whether an action would significantly affect the environment and thus require a more detailed environmental impact statement. ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT: An assessment of the current status of a party's compliance with applicable environmental requirements of a party's environmental compliance policies, practices, and controls. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS): A document required of federal agencies by the National Environmental Policy Act for major projects are legislative proposals affecting the environment. It is a tool for decision -making describing the positive and negative effects of a proposed action and citing alternative actions. ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE: A federal program which guarantees air carrier service to selected small cities by providing subsidies as needed to prevent these cities from such service. Coif . an Associates Airport Consultants Glossary of Terms F ............................................................................................................. FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS: The general and permanent rules established by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government for aviation, which are published in the Federal Register. These are the aviation subset of the Code of Federal Regulations. FEDERAL INSPECTION SERVICES: The provision of customs and immigration services including passport inspection, inspection of baggage, the collection of duties on certain imported items, and the inspections for agricultural products, illegal drugs, or other restricted items. FINAL APPROACH: A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg to the runway. See "traffic pattern." FINAL APPROACH AND TAKEOFF AREA (FATO). A defined area over which the final phase of the helicopter approach to a hover, or a landing is completed and from which the takeoff is initiated. FINAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point at which the final approach segment for an aircraft landing on a runway begins for a non -precision approach. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI): A public document prepared by a Federal agency that presents the rationale why a proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment and for which an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A provider of services to users of an airport. Such services include, but are not limited to, hangaring, fueling, flight training, repair, and maintenance. FLIGHT LEVEL: A measure of altitude used by aircraft flying above 18,000 feet. Flight levels are indicated by three digits representing the pressure altitude in hundreds of feet. An airplane flying at flight level 360 is flying at a pressure altitude of 36,000 feet. This is expressed as FL 360. FLIGHT SERVICE STATION: An operations facility in the national flight advisory system which utilizes data interchange facilities for the collection and dissemination of Notices to Airmen, weather, and administrative data and which provides pre-flight and in-flight advisory services to pilots through air and ground based communication facilities. FRANGIBLE NAVAID: A navigational aid which retains its structural integrity and stiffness up to a designated maximum load, but on impact from a greater load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a manner as to present the minimum hazard to aircraft. G GENERAL AVIATION: That portion of civil aviation which encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers holding a certificate of convenience and necessity, and large aircraft commercial operators. GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT: An airport that provides air service to only general aviation. GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing. The glideslope consists of the following: 1. Electronic components emitting signals which provide vertical guidance by reference to airborne instruments during instrument approaches such as ILS; or 2. Visual ground aids, such as VASI, which provide vertical guidance for VFR approach or for the visual portion of an instrument approach and landing. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS): A system of 48 satellites used as reference points to enable navigators equipped with GPS receivers to determine their latitude, longitude, and altitude. GROUND ACCESS: The transportation system on and around the airport that provides access to and from the airport by ground transportation vehicles for passengers, employees, cargo, freight, and airport services. H ............................................................................................................. HELIPAD: A designated area for the takeoff, landing, and parking of helicopters. HIGH INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The highest classification in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delineating the sides of a runway. A.ull-I man Associates A - 7 Airport Consultants GCossary of Terms HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: A long radius taxiway designed to expedite aircraft turning off the runway after landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus reducing runway occupancy time. HORIZONTAL SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction - limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 that is specified as a portion of a horizontal plane surrounding a runway located 150feetabovetheestablished airport elevation. The specific horizontal dimensions of this surface are a function of the types of approaches existing or planned for the runway. INITIAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point at which the initial approach segment begins for an instrument approach to a runway. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing, or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR): Procedures for the conduct of flight in weather conditions below Visual Flight Rules weather minimums. The term IFR is often also used to define weather conditions and the type of flight plan under which an aircraft is operating. INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS): A precision instrument approach system which normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: 1. Localizer. 2. Glide Slope. 3. Outer Marker. 4. Middle Marker. 5. Approach Lights. INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of specific visibility and ceiling conditions that are less than the minimums specified for visual meteorological conditions. ITINERANT OPERATIONS: Operations by aircraft that are not based at a specified airport. K ............................................................................................................. KNOTS: A unit of speed length used in navigation that is equivalent to the number of nautical miles traveled in one hour. L ............................................................................................................. LANDSIDE: The portion of an airport that provides the facilities necessary for the processing of passengers, cargo, freight, and ground transportation vehicles. LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): See declared distances. LARGE AIRPLANE: An airplane that has a maximum certified takeoff weight in excess of 12,500 pounds. LOCALAREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM: A differential GPS system that provides localized measurement correction signals to the basic GPS signals to improve navigational accuracy integrity, continuity, and availability. LOCAL OPERATIONS: Aircraft operations performed by aircraft that are based at the airport and that operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the airport, that are known to be departing for or arriving from flights in local practice areas within a prescribed distance from the airport, or that execute simulated instrument approaches at the airport. LOCAL TRAFFIC: Aircraft operating in the traffic pattern or within sight of the tower, or aircraft known to be departing or arriving from the local practice areas, or aircraft executing practice instrument approach procedures. Typically, this includes touch and -go training operations. LOCALIZER: The component of an ILS which provides course guidance to the runway. LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID (LDA): A facility of comparable utility and accuracy to a localizer, but is not part of a complete ILS and is not aligned with the runway. LONG RANGE NAVIGATION SYSTEM (LORAN): Long range navigation is an electronic navigational aid which determines aircraft position and speed by measuring the difference in the time of reception of synchronized pulse signals from two fixed transmitters. Loran is used for en route navigation. Coif . an Associates Airport Consultants GCossary of Terms LOW INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The lowest classification in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delineating the sides of a runway. M ............................................................................................................. MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The middle classification in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delineating the sides of a runway. MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM (MLS): An instrument approach and landing system that provides precision guidance in azimuth, elevation, and distance measurement. MILITARY OPERATIONS: Aircraft operations that are performed in military aircraft. MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): See special - use airspace MILITARY TRAINING ROUTE: An air route depicted on aeronautical charts for the conduct of military flight training at speeds above 250 knots. MISSED APPROACH COURSE (MAC): The flight route to be followed if, after an instrument approach, a landing is not affected, and occurring normally: 1. When the aircraft has descended to the decision height and has not established visual contact; or 2. When directed by air traffic control to pull up or to go around again. MOVEMENT AREA: The runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airport which are utilized for taxiing/hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas. At those airports with a tower, air traffic control clearance is required for entry onto the movement area. N ............................................................................................................. NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM: The network of air traffic control facilities, air traffic control areas, and navigational facilities through the U.S. NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS: The national airport system plan developed by the Secretary of Transportation on a biannual basis for the development of public use airports to meet national air transportation needs. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD: A federal government organization established to investigate and determine the probable cause of transportation accidents, to recommend equipment and procedures to enhance transportation safety, and to review on appeal the suspension or revocation of any certificates or licenses issued by the Secretary of Transportation. NAUTICAL MILE: A unit of length used in navigation which is equivalent to the distance spanned by one minute of arc in latitude, that is, 1,852 meters or 6,076 feet. It is equivalent to approximately 1.15 statute mile. NAVAID: A term used to describe any electrical or visual air navigational aids, lights, signs, and associated supporting equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc.) NAVIGATIONAL AID: A facility used as, available for use as, or designed for use as an aid to air navigation. NOISE CONTOUR: A continuous line on a map of the airport vicinity connecting all points of the same noise exposure level. NON -DIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB): A beacon transmitting nondirectional signals whereby the pilot of an aircraft equipped with direction finding equipment can determine his or her bearing to and from the radio beacon and home on, or track to, the station. When the radio beacon is installed in conjunction with the Instrument Landing System marker, it is normally called a Compass Locator. NON -PRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE: A standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glide slope is provided, such as VOR, TACAN, NDB, or LOC. NOTICE TO AIRMEN: A notice containing information concerning the establishment, condition, or change in any component of or hazard in the National Airspace System, the timely knowledge of which is considered essential to personnel concerned with flight operations. MW Coff1MMIn Associates Airport Consultants GCossary of Terms O ............................................................................................................. OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): An area on the ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by having the area free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): The airspace below 150 feet above the established airport elevation and along the runway and extended runway centerline that is required to be kept clear of all objects, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their function, in order to provide clearance for aircraft landing or taking off from the runway, and for missed approaches. ONE -ENGINE INOPERABLE SURFACE: A surface emanating from the runway end at a slope ratio of 62.5:1. Air carrier airports are required to maintain a technical drawing of this surface depicting any object penetrations by January 1, 2010. OPERATION: The take -off, landing, or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on a runway at an airport. OUTER MARKER (OM): An ILS navigation facility in the terminal area navigation system located four to seven miles from the runway edge on the extended centerline, indicating to the pilot that he/she is passing over the facility and can begin final approach. P ............................................................................................................ PILOT CONTROLLED LIGHTING: Runway lighting systems at an airport that are controlled by activating the microphone of a pilot on a specified radio frequency. PRECISION APPROACH: A standard instrument approach procedure which provides runway alignment and glide slope (descent) information. It is categorized as follows: • CATEGORY I (CAT 1): A precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 200 feet and visibility not less than 1/2 mile or Runway Visual Range (RVR) 2400 (RVR 1800) with operative touchdown zone and runway centerline lights. • CATEGORY II (CAT 11): A precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 100 feet and visibility not less than 1200 feet RVR. • CATEGORY III (CAT III): A precision approach which provides for approaches with minima less than Category II. PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR (PAPI): A lighting system providing visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during a landing approach. It is similar to a VASI but provides a sharper transition between the colored indicator lights. PRECISION APPROACH RADAR: A radar facility in the terminal air traffic control system used to detect and display with a high degree of accuracy the direction, range, and elevation of an aircraft on the final approach to a runway. PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA (POFA): An area centered on the extended runway centerline, beginning at the runway threshold and extending behind the runway threshold that is 200 feet long by 800 feet wide. The POFA is a clearing standard which requires the POFA to be kept clear of above ground objects protruding above the runway safety area edge elevation (except for frangible NAVAIDS). The POFA applies to all new authorized instrument approach procedureswith lessthan 3/4 mile visibility. PRIMARY AIRPORT: A commercial service airport that enplanes at least 10,000 annual passengers. PRIMARY SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 that is specified as a rectangular surface longitudinally centered about a runway. The specific dimensions of this surface are a function of the types of approaches existing or planned for the runway. PROHIBITED AREA: See special -use airspace. PVC: Poor visibility and ceiling. Used in determining Annual Service Volume. PVC conditions exist when the cloud ceiling is less than 500 feet and visibility is less than one mile. Coif . an Associates A - 10 Airport Consultants GCossary of Terms R ............................................................................................................. RADIAL: A navigational signal generated by a Very High Frequency Omni -directional Range or VORTAC station that is measured as an azimuth from the station. REGRESSION ANALYSIS: A statistical technique that seeks to identify and quantify the relationships between factors associated with a forecast. REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUTLET (RCO): An unstaffed transmitter receiver/facility remotely controlled by air traffic personnel. RCOs serve flight service stations (FSSs). RCOs were established to provide ground -to -ground communications between air traffic control specialists and pilots at satellite airports for delivering en route clearances, issuing departure authorizations, and acknowledging instrument flight rules cancellations or departure/ landing times. REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER (RTR): See remote communications outlet. RTRs serve ARTCCs. RELIEVER AIRPORT: An airport to serve general aviation aircraftwhich mightotherwise usea congested air -carrier served airport. RESTRICTED AREA: See special -use airspace RNAV: Area navigation - airborne equipment which permits flights over determined tracks within prescribed accuracy tolerances without the need to overfly ground -based navigation facilities. Used en route and for approaches to an airport. RUNWAY: A defined rectangular area on an airport prepared for aircraft landing and takeoff. Runways are normally numbered in relation to their magnetic direction, rounded off to the nearest 10 degrees. For example, a runway with a magnetic heading of 180 would be designated Runway 18. The runway heading on the opposite end of the runway is 180 degrees from that runway end. For example, the opposite runway heading for Runway 18 would be Runway 36 (magnetic heading of 360). Aircraft can takeoff or land from either end of a runway, depending upon wind direction. RUNWAY ALIGNMENT INDICATOR LIGHT: A series of high intensity sequentially flashing lights installed on the extended centerline of the runway usually in conjunction with an approach lighting system. RUNWAY DESIGN CODE: A code signifiying the design standards to which the runway is to be built. RUNWAY END IDENTIFICATION LIGHTING (REIL): Two synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the runway threshold, which provide rapid and positive identification of the approach end of a particular runway. RUNWAY GRADIENT: The average slope, measured in percent, between the two ends of a runway. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ): An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are determined by the aircraft approach speed and runway approach type and minima. RUNWAY REFERENCE CODE: A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated taxiway. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ): An area on the airport to be kept clear of permanent objects so that there is an unobstructed line of- site from any point five feet above the runway centerline to any point five feet above an intersecting runway centerline. RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): An instrumentally derived value, in feet, representing the horizontal distance a pilot can see down the runway from the runway end. S ............................................................................................................. SCOPE: The document that identifies and defines the tasks, emphasis, and level of effort associated with a project or study. SEGMENTED CIRCLE: A system of visual indicators designed to provide traffic pattern information at airports without operating control towers. A-11 Coff*ran Associates Airport Consultants (iCossary of Terms SHOULDER: An area adjacent to the edge of paved runways, taxiways, or aprons providing a transition between the pavement and the adjacent surface; support for aircraft running off the pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast protection. The shoulder does not necessarily need to be paved. SLANT -RANGE DISTANCE: The straight line distance between an aircraft and a point on the ground. SMALL AIRCRAFT: An aircraft that has a maximum certified takeoff weight of up to 12,500 pounds. SPECIAL -USE AIRSPACE: Airspace of defined dimensions identified by a surface area wherein activities must be confined because of their nature and/or wherein limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities. Special -use airspace classifications include: • ALERT AREA: Airspace which may contain a high volume of pilot training activities or an unusual type of aerial activity, neither of which is hazardous to aircraft. • CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: Airspace wherein activities are conducted under conditions so controlled as to eliminate hazards to nonparticipating aircraft and to ensure the safety of persons or property on the ground. • MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): Designated airspace with defined vertical and lateral dimensions established outside Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain military activities from instrument flight rule (IFR) traffic and to identify for visual flight rule (VFR) traffic where these activities are conducted. • PROHIBITED AREA: Designated airspace within which the flight of aircraft is prohibited. • RESTRICTED AREA: Airspace designated under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 73, within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restriction. Most restricted areas are designated joint use. When not in use by the using agency, IFR/VFR operations can be authorized by the controlling air traffic control facility. • WARNING AREA: Airspace which may contain hazards to nonparticipating aircraft. STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE (SID): A preplanned coded air traffic control IFR departure routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual form only. STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES: A published standard flight procedure to be utilized following takeoff to provide a transition between the airport and the terminal area or en route airspace. STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL ROUTE (STAR): A preplanned coded air traffic control IFR arrival routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual or textual form only. STOP -AND -GO: A procedure wherein an aircraft will land, make a complete stop on the runway, and then commence a takeoff from that point. A stop -and -go is recorded as two operations: one operation for the landing and one operation for the takeoff. STOPWAY: An area beyond the end of a takeoff runway that is designed to support an aircraft during an aborted takeoff without causing structural damage to the aircraft. It is not to be used for takeoff, landing, or taxiing by aircraft. STRAIGHT -IN LANDING/APPROACH: A landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees of the final approach course following completion of an instrument approach. T ............................................................................................................. TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (TACAN): An ultrahigh frequency electronic air navigation system which provides suitably -equipped aircraft a continuous indication of bearing and distance to the TACAN station. TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): See declared distances. TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): See declared distances. TAXILANE: The portion of the aircraft parking area used for access between taxiways and aircraft parking positions. TAXIWAY: A defined path established for the taxiing of aircraft from one part of an airport to another. Coif . an Associates A - 12 Airport Consultants (ifossary of Terms TAXIWAY DESIGN GROUP: A classification of airplanes based on outer to outer Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance. TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): A defined surface alongside the taxiway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to an airplane unintentionally departing the taxiway. TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES: Published flight procedures for conducting instrument approaches to runways under instrument meteorological conditions. TERMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROL: An element of the air traffic control system responsible for monitoring the en -route and terminal segment of air traffic in the airspace surrounding airports with moderate to high levels of air traffic. TETRAHEDRON: A device used as a landing direction indicator. The small end of the tetrahedron points in the direction of landing. THRESHOLD: The beginning of that portion of the runway available for landing. In some instances the landing threshold may be displaced. TOUCH-AND-GO: An operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a runway without stopping or exiting the runway. A touch -and go is recorded as two operations: one operation for the landing and one operation for the takeoff. TOUCHDOWN: The point at which a landing aircraft makes contact with the runway surface. TOUCHDOWN AND LIFT-OFF AREA (TLOF): A load bearing, generally paved area, normally centered in the FATO, on which the helicopter lands or takes off. TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): The first 3,000 feet of the runway beginning at the threshold. TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION (TDZE): The highest elevation in the touchdown zone. TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHTING: Two rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically about the runway centerline normally at 100-foot intervals. The basic system extends 3,000 feet along the runway. TRAFFIC PATTERN: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at or taking off from an airport. The components of a typical traffic pattern are the upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base leg, and final approach. DOWNWIND LEG BASE WIND LEG LEG FINAL APPROACH DEPARTURE LEG ir J♦ ... LPW�NILLG— ♦♦ U ............................................................................................................. UNCONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport without an air traffic control tower at which the control of Visual Flight Rules traffic is not exercised. UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace within which aircraft are not subject to air traffic control. UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION (UNICOM): A nongovernment communication facility which may provide airport information at certain airports. Locations and frequencies of UNICOM's are shown on aeronautical charts and publications. UPWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction of landing. See "traffic pattern." V ............................................................................................................. VECTOR: A heading issued to an aircraft to provide navigational guidance by radar. VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/OMNIDIRECTIONAL RANGE (VOR): A ground -based electronic navigation aid transmitting very high frequency navigation signals, 360 degrees in azimuth, oriented from magnetic north. Used as the basis for navigation in the national airspace system. The VOR periodically identifies itself by Morse Code and may have an additional voice identification feature. A-13 Coff*ran Associates Airport Consultants GCossary of Terms VERY HIGH FREQUENCY A_ OMNI-DIRECTIONAL RANGE/` - TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION aN��ii��M __ \``is pv�� (VORTAQ A navigation aid providing VO R azimuth, TACA N azimuth, and TACAN distance- measuring equipment (DME)^ at one site. VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or portion thereof established in the form of a corridor, the centerline of which is defined by radio navigational aids. VISUAL APPROACH: An approach wherein an aircraft on an IFRflight plan, operating in VFR conditions under the control of an air traffic control facility and having an air traffic control authorization, may proceed to the airport of destination in VFR conditions. VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR (VASI): An airport lighting facility providing vertical visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during approach to landing by radiating a directional pattern of high intensity red and white focused light beams which indicate to the pilot that he is on path if he sees red/ white, above path if white/white, and below path if red/red. Some airports serving large aircraft have three -bar VASI's which provide two visual guide paths to the same runway. VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual conditions. The term VFR is also used in the United States to indicate weather conditions that are equal to or greater than minimum VFR requirements. In addition, it is used by pilots and controllers to indicate type of flight plan. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of specific visibility and ceiling conditions which are equal to or greater than the threshold values for instrument meteorological conditions. VOR: See "Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Station." VORTAC: See "Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Station/Tactical Air Navigation." W WARNING AREA: See special -use airspace. WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM: An enhancement of the Global Positioning System that includes integrity broadcasts, differential corrections, and additional ranging signals for the purpose of providing the accuracy, integrity, availability, and continuity required to support all phases of flight. Abbreviations AC: advisory circular ADF: automatic direction finder ADG: airplane design group AFSS: automated flight service station AGL: above ground level AIA: annual instrument approach AIP: Airport Improvement Program AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century ALS: approach lighting system ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashers (CAT I configuration) ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashers (CAT II configuration) AOA: Aircraft Operation Area APV: instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance ARC: airport reference code Coif . an Associates A - 14 Airport Consultants ARFF: aircraft rescue and fire fighting ARP: airport reference point ARTM air route traffic control center ASDA: accelerate -stop distance available ASR: airport surveillance radar ASOS: automated surface observation station ATCT: airport traffic control tower ATIS: automated terminal information service AVGAS: aviation gasoline - typically 100 low lead (100LL) AWOS: automatic weather observation station BRL: building restriction line CFR: Code of Federal Regulation CIP: capital improvement program DME: distance measuring equipment DNL: day -night noise level DWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircraft with dual -wheel type landing gear DTWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircraft with dual -tandem type landing gear FAA: Federal Aviation Administration FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation FBO: fixed base operator FY: fiscal year GPS: global positioning system GS: glide slope HIRL: high intensity runway edge lighting IFR: instrument flight rules (FAR Part 91) A 66reviations ILS: instrument landing system IM: inner marker LDA: localizer type directional aid LDA: landing distance available LIRL: low intensity runway edge lighting LMM: compass locator at middle marker LOW compass locator at outer marker LORAN: long range navigation MALS: medium intensity approach lighting system with indicator lights MIRL: medium intensity runway edge lighting MITL: medium intensity taxiway edge lighting MLS: microwave landing system MM: middle marker MOA: military operations area MSL: mean sea level NAVAID: navigational aid NDB: nondirectional radio beacon NM: nautical mile (6,076.1 feet) NPES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPIAS: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems NPRM: notice of proposed rule making ODALS: omnidirectional approach lighting system OFA: object free area OFZ: obstacle free zone OM: outer marker Con Associates A - 15 Airport Consultants Abbreviations PAC: planning advisory committee PAPI: precision approach path indicator PFC: porous friction course PFC: passenger facility charge PCL: pilot -controlled lighting PIW public information workshop PLASL pulsating visual approach slope indicator POW precision object free area PVASL pulsating/steady visual approach slope indicator PVC: poor visibility and ceiling RCO: remote communications outlet RRC: Runway Reference Code RDC: Runway Design Code REIL: runway end identification lighting RNAV: area navigation RPZ: runway protection zone RSA: runway safety area RTR: remote transmitter/receiver RVR: runway visibility range RVZ: runway visibility zone SALS: short approach lighting system SASP: state aviation system plan SEL: sound exposure level SID: standard instrument departure SM: statute mile (5,280 feet) SRE: snow removal equipment SSALF: simplified short approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights STAR: standard terminal arrival route SWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft with single -wheel tandem type landing gear TACAN: tactical air navigational aid TAF: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast TDG: Taxiway Design Group TLOF: Touchdown and lift-off TDZ: touchdown zone TDZE: touchdown zone elevation TODA: takeoff distance available TORA: takeoff runway available TRACON: terminal radar approach control VAST: visual approach slope indicator VFR: visual flight rules (FAR Part 91) VHF: very high frequency VOR: very high frequency omni-directional range VORTAC: VOR and TACAN collocated Coif . an Associates A - 16 Airport Consultants MuNacipwd we ORT APPENDIX B FAA FORECAST APPROVAL LETTER rro�,�o q promise 4W U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Central Region 901 Locust Administration Iowa, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Missouri, Nebraska (816) 329-2600 April 03, 2017 Mr. Rodney Storm Airport Manager Blair Municipal Airport 218 South 16Th St Blair, NE 68008 Dear Mr. Storm: Forecast/Critical Design Aircraft Approval Blair Municipal (BTA), Blair, NE AIP No, 3-31-0109-015-2016 The submitted Aviation Demand Forecast is Approved. The proposed existing Critical Design Aircraft, Cessna Citation Sovereign, is Approved. The proposed ultimate Critical Design Aircraft, C-II Family, is Approved. However, if any major runway or taxiway construction, reconstruction or extension is planned, documentation of 500 annual operations of the design aircraft will be required. Anna Lannin, NDA, has reviewed and offered comments that I have attached to this letter. I concur with her commnets and offer the following additional comments: • Page 9, Table D — Please include the approximate number of aircraft that the hangars can hold. • Page 34, Table N — Basedaircraft.com should be the source for this table. Please provide the N-number and aircraft type in a table using the information from basedaircraft.com. • Page 47, Critical Design Aircraft — Third paragraph, please remove the word itinerant from the first sentence. • Page 50, Future Runway Design — The future ARC of C-II is not adequately justified. From basedaircraft.com none of the three added jets were C-II. Please provide more justification. The Cessna Citation Sovereign 680 appears to have an ARC of B-III. • Page 61, Runway 31 RPZ Alternative 3 — Write up uses a 4200' runway length but Exhibit Q shows 5500'. Please clarify. ■ Page 71, Runway Length Analysis — None of the three alternatives included the Runway 31 RPZ discussion earlier in the report. How do these alternatives match up with those? Should a fourth alternative be considered with a 625' displacement of the Runway 31 threshold? Please consider. • Page 81, See comment above. Once again no discussion is given to displacing/relocating the Runway 31 threshold. What impacts to State Highway 133 could be minimized? B-1 Please have the operations numbers updated on your 5010 Master Record to match the current year information from the forecast. You may proceed with developing the remainder of the report and the Airport Layout Plan drawings. If you have any questions regarding this project, please call me at (816) 329-2624 or via email at doug.anderson@faa.gov. Sincerely, Original Signed By Douglas R. Anderson Douglas R. Anderson, P.E. Nebraska State Planner CC: W/ike Dmyterko, Coffman Associates, Inc. Anna Lannin, Nebraska Department of Aeronautics &U L— B-2 MuNacipwd we ORT APPENDIX C AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN rro�,�o q promise Q30 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Central Region 901 Locust Administration Iowa, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Missouri, Nebraska (816) 329-2600 March 21, 2019 Mr. Geary Combs Chairman Blair Airport Authority 527 So. 23rd St Blair, NE 68008 Dear Mr. Combs: ALP Conditional Approval Blair Municipal (BTA), Blair, NE AIP No. 3-31-0109-015-2016 The Blair Municipal Airport Layout Plan (ALP), prepared by Coffman Associates, Inc., and bearing your signature, is approved. A signed copy of the approved ALP is enclosed. Although future structures on or near the airport may be in conformance with the ALP, all future alterations or new structures will be subject to the notice provisions of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. An aeronautical study (no.2018-ACE-4270-NRA) was conducted on the proposed development. This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal. The FAA has only limited means to prevent the construction of structures near an airport. The airport sponsor has the primary responsibility to protect the airport environs through such means as local zoning ordinances, property acquisition, avigation easements, letters of agreement or other means. The approval, indicated by my signature, is given subject to the condition that the following may not be undertaken without environmental approval by the Federal Aviation Administration: • Extension of Runway 13131 • Extension of Parallel Taxiway for Runway 13131 • Any land acquisition • Any terminal area development including: construction of aprons, buildings, parking lots and access roads All items of development shall comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policies Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190). Approval of the plan does not indicate that the United States will participate in the cost of any development proposed. Alp funding requires evidence of eligibility and justification at the time a funding request is ripe for consideration. When construction of any proposed structure or development indicated on the plan is undertaken, such construction requires normal 45-day advance notification to FAA for review in accordance with applicable Federal Aviation Regulations (i.e., Parts 77, 157, 152, etc.). More notice is generally beneficial to ensure that all statutory, regulatory, technical and operational issues can be addressed in a timely manner. One set of the of conditionally approved ALP drawings is enclosed. We are keeping one set of the conditionally approved ALP drawing sets for the official FAA files. Copies of this letter with sets of conditionally approved ALP drawings are being furnished to the Nebraska Department of Transportation and your consultant. If you have any questions, you may contact me by telephone at (816) 329-2624 or via email at doug.anderson@faa.gov. Sincerely, Douglas R. Anderson, P.E. Nebraska State Planner Enclosure: ALP Drawing Set CC: Mike Dmyterko, Coffman Associates, Inc. Anna Lannin, Nebraska Department of Transportation AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN FOR BLAIR MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Blair, Nebraska Prepared for Blair Airport Authority INDEX OF DRAWINGS 1. TITLE SHEET 2. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING 3. AIRPORTAIRSPACE DRAWING 4. RUNWAY 13-31 APPROACH SURFACE PROFILES 5. INNER PORTION OF RUNWAY 13 APPROACH SURFACE DRAWING 6. INNER PORTION OF RUNWAY 31 APPROACH SURFACE DRAWING 7. RUNWAY 13-31 DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING 8. TERMINAL AREA DRAW NG 9. AIRPORT LAND USE DRAWING 10. EXHIBIT"A"AIRPORT PROPERTY -vn r expo ,ex. li Wye \ G� e 2 , v OBSTRUCTION LEGEND �. xxwaxwiexrmenoe�ree� \ \ - yi ossraocrox , �p - ®caoua rReesossraucrox X,�i.e....emd 1 a — cEN Po 5 �-,was rne.n..,e®wst^,a...,... 4 I \ \ o,�InFIn AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING Blair. Nebraska SY RUNWAY 13 APPROACH SURFACES PROFILE RUNWAY 31 APPROACH SURFACES PROFILE I qR fi i r ■■■■■■iCC■_■■■■■■■\Citli■\m\■■■■■■■■■\i■ ■■■■■ MEN ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■!I■I■■I■e■■■■C®■i■■■■■■■■■■■Illl■■IY�Ci■I■■\■!\■d■\CiA■�■■■I■■■■■■■■■ ., ■■■■■■■I■■I■IVI■■IVI■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■il!■■1■■■0•l■ill■I■�!\■111■Ili�i\■■■i■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■"I■!°�Ipl■1■■■I■■I■II■V■■■■■■■■■■■■E�I�■■II■■■■hIFiW�IIiIC•N■_.��Ne11■I■■iZC■_■.■■■■■ ■■Iii■■■I■I■■1■i1■■1"■■■11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1■■1"1■■gill l 11 l 11 li■I■■I®ill±s1"11■■■II■■\�i\►_■■■ , ■■I?I■■C��■��AiCI■■�1�1■?■■■■■■1•i■i!ai■I■■Cil��,ii'�'\a�C■Cill!■lii■�\\■ , ■iil■■■l■■■■ii■■I■i \II■I■■GCi■■■\'■■■■1\ii■■iiiC■i■if1■iCiiC�Ji■G�■\CiiCi ■■!1■■■�■i11■IIf■■�■■iBiCi■■■■■■■■■■C�■�■■ii®�i■\�■C1■�■�■�■I•■■■■■■ „■■C■■■■■■■■■■li■iI�■i■■■■■■■■■■■■l■■1■■■■iCfi■■■ilia■t■■■t■■iC■Il1■li■■■■■■ „„ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■11■i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■fi■ii■■■■■■ :.. MUNICIPAL ...•. - ---: 114NER PORTION -OF RUNWAY 13 - - aea�se . �®. . e� aa•aa�®®tea®® aa�moa�aaa•aaa•� m®mava�am•aa� - ©moo�a®av a®a®maaam•aa�a�� I MEN ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■w■■■■■■■■■■■■��/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NONE■.. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■NE■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■L�,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■NE■, ■■■■■■■■■■■■■1�■■■■■■■■■111'■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■NE■ ■■■■■■■■■■■L!■■■■■■■■Ir■.�■®■■■■■■■■W■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ NONE ., ■■■■■■E,■■■EEiEIl■f■I■LIE■11■�■�■■�■■11■■■!■■111■■■■■■■■®■■■■■■p■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■Ei■ElC,i■■■IIIf�■�■Lis■11■�■�■■�E■11■■■',■■n■■■��■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■�■ . , ■■■■IrGE■■■■■■■11■�E'!:.'EEL'aE■EEiEEE■EEI!AIL■■■■I■■■EiI�EE■CEEEEEEE===EE ,.._ :. �Ei%■■■■■■■L�■►EEOSEE■E�L�■�L�■■q■■■■■t�l■E■L�■■■■E■■■■■L�■■■■■■■■■� ■■■�■■■■■fi■■■■■■®EIS■E■�■EL�1�1�■■■�■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E■■■■■■■■�E „ ■►1■■iL�■L�e■�N■E■■EEC■ILE■tlfLEE■■■E■fL■■■■i■■■■flt■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MEN L"i■1!■■■■■Ire'AIL■E■■ti■■■■■■■■CIt■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ., MEHL aE■11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.., ■■■■�. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ L■1■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, . PORTION •:F RUNWAY 31 P ROACH SURFACE DRAWING :. -.. oaa�a�aa•a�a®aat oa�a�aa�a�asa�v . _ . aea�se r aaaa�®aa ao•a��a� aaaa�a�aa�a�z� asa�amaa®� ao•a�a�o� ao•a�a�a® ate® ao•¢��® .. aaaaaesaaaa• aa�aaaa� .. BLAI SURFACE DRAWING ao•aa�®ate a©a��a�� .. - , .... . ao•a®�a�� a�� ao•a�a�av� aea�se .. .. . aaaa�a�av aaa®®aa•� cp ._ �$ e �' �� i ullLLll IILLII�II i III II . i I' lLlllul ,II=!I. II III I `I'e tlLLNh,� 1111114f71k� IILLI LLII i � ' � I1- r 1 -I I Ulm■ E 1 � ao BLA R MUNICIPAL TERMINAL AREA DRAWING:.. Of�tS� se _ I -= f OPEN SPACE —�GA 70s RgGA ��r�mnrm„ — wa. AO h AO 0 AO ' DNL65 ., j—, OS c: p LpitLi... y AO v IDS r A / w" 0. S OPEN SPACE On-A,T.d Lantl Use Le .d AIRPORT OPERATION (AO) _ GENERALAVIATION(GA) SUPPORT IRS) _REVENUE (NorvAvialion R.Wa ) _ RESIDENTIAL (RES) m' ixx��nwff.xE OPEN SPACE (OS) EXISTING2016G1,11L85 ULTIMATE 20M UNIT-65 e X�' BLAIR M UNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT LAND USE DRAWING Blair. Nebraska Z1, FF3 AA F2 -F E w �E D E mi EU=Z= ml0 EU=Z= ol 111111M MrMl— ol �© EU=l= ol RAPPR- -11"1111111LAIRPORT EXHIBIT "A" AIRPORT PROPERTY 31., Nebraska MUNICIPAL AIRPORT APPENDIX D UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WILDLIFE HAZARD OVERVIEW to' q promise ° USDA Rodney Storm 4 -- Airport Manager - Blair Municipal Airport United states 218 South 16' St. Department of Blair, NE 68008 Agriculture June 6, 2016 Animal and Re: Site Visit Plant Health Inspection Service Greetings Mr. Storm, Wildlife Services Thank you and your staff for the time and assistance provided on May 2, 2017 to South 58th Lincoln, NE Linc duct rview of wildlife hazards and wildlife hazard management activities at conan overview g 68516 Blair Municipal Airport (BTA). An overview of the airport, current wildlife (402) 434-23 (402) 434-2339 FAX management practices, and general wildlife concerns were discussed. A brief survey g 1> > g y of the airfield was conducted with Mark Hodson to look for signs of wildlife activity, survey for bird activity, inspect the perimeter fence, and identify wildlife attractants. WS also surveyed a 5-mile radius area around the airport for the presence of hazardous wildlife and attractants.. Based on the analysis of the data gathered, no known history of a Wildlife Hazard Assessment, and lack of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, I recommend a WHA be conducted at BTA by a FAA -qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist. What follows is a summary of observations and recommendations from the site visit. These recommendations are intended to enhance the current wildlife hazard management practices to improve aviation safety. Observations Blair Municipal Airport is a 306-acre, non -towered, NE airport located 7 miles south of Blair Nebraska with land cover consisting of a grass/forb mixture with an area of woody vegetation predominantly on the north end of the airfield. The airport is bounded to the south and east by highway 133, and bounded by an incomplete perimeter fence to the north and west. Neighboring properties consist mainly of agricultural fields, small wooded areas, acreages, and several small ponds and wetlands. Habitat/ On -site Attractant Observations The large block of both deciduous and coniferous trees on the north end of the airfield provides cover and nesting areas for a plethora of various passerines, white-tailed deer, coyotes, foxes and other predators. The perimeter fence does not completely surround the airport and consists of simple barbed wire fence. Most of the fence is approximately 4 feet in height with areas broken down. This style of fencing is not adequate to exclude hazardous wildlife, especially deer which are one of the most damaging species to aircraft. APHIS Safeguarding American Agriculture -/ APHIS is an agency of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs �� An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer D-1 There were 9 different locations on airport property where striped skunks, coyotes and badgers were excavating burrows or foraging for food. One abandoned coyote den was found between the runway and the taxiway. Several fresh gopher mounds were opened by a badger foraging for food. On the west side of the airfield an area of grass several acres in size has been allowed to grow well above 2 feet tall. This area provides habitat for small mammals (evidenced by the numerous burrows surrounding the area) and in turn their predators. It may also provide cover for deer, which could remain undetected here during the day. Hangars and other buildings can provide roosting or nesting habitat for birds. I observed birds actively nesting and roosting in several buildings around BTA including the hangars. Bird Observations The following table summarizes bird species and numbers observed during the site visit. It is not a comprehensive inventory of bird species at BTA. As the seasons change, the species and frequency will fluctuate. Species Number Behavior Approximate Location Great Blue Heron 1 Loafing in pond Pond on west edge of property Canada Geese 6 Flying across runway Flew east to west across the runway Barn Swallow 15 Aerial foraging West and south of airfield Tree Swallow 7 Aerial Foraging Northwest of airfield Bobolinks 9 Flying over observation Grassy areas mainly west of the area, perched on vegetation airfield House Sparrow —25 Flying over observation hangars, probably nesting inside area, perched on structure Red -winged Blackbird —20 Flying over observation South drainage ditch and various area, perched on vegetation other areas throughout the airfield Common Grackle 25+ Flying over observation Timbered area north of airfield area, perched, nesting American Robin 3 Flying over observation North of airfield area Western Meadowlark 10 Flying over observation Grassy areas area, perched American Wigeon 2 Roosting Pond on west perimeter fence Mallard 2 Roosting/feeding Pond APHIS Safeguarding American Agriculture APHIS is an agency of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer D-2 American Crow 2 Loafing on the ground Killdeer 3 Flying over observation area Brown -Headed 8 Perched on structure Cowbird European Starling 15 Perched on structure, flying over airfield Pigeon 12 Flying over airfield Mourning Dove 2 Perched on structure Franklins Gull 10 Flying over property Wild Turkey 1 Feeding in conifers South end of airfield Taxiway Perimeter fence Perimeter fence, hangars South end Perimeter fence East side North end of property in woody vegetation Mammal Observations During the site visit 2 feral cats and an opossum were observed on the north end of the property across the gravel drive in the timbered area. Tracks of deer, coyote, raccoon, badger, and skunk were noted mainly on the northern end of the airfield. Many of these animals are nocturnal and become more active in low light conditions and at night. Several thirteen -lined ground squirrels were observed near the hangars and gopher mounds were spread throughout the field. Several abandoned dens and 1 active plugged badger den were observed on the airport property This den was located south of the pond on the fence line. Since this airfield is not protected by high fence, white-tailed deer, coyotes, foxes, and a multitude of other wildlife species could easily access the AOA. Airport personnel (the mower man) reported that he had observed deer, coyotes, and skunks on the airfield. Off -site Attractant Observations The Missouri River and Desoto NWR is a large permanent wildlife attractant located several miles east of the airport. This provides ample food, water, cover, roosting and nesting habitat for a large diversity of hazardous wildlife including but not limited to Canada Geese and other waterfowl, raptors, gulls, and wading shorebirds. Twice a year, millions of migratory birds pass thru this area being in the heart of the flyway. The airport is surrounded by mostly agricultural fields, acreages, small timbered areas, and housing developments. One of the developments east of the airfield has a small lake that was observed harboring a large flock of Canada Geese. Hazardous species such as white-tailed deer, Canada Geese, and other hazardous wildlife tend to reside in these areas and could move onto the airfield, or fly into critical airspace. APHIS safeguarding American Agriculture APHIS is an agency of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs 'W An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer D-3 Adjacent Farms The farms directly adjacent to the airport contain corn and bean fields, which attract white-tailed deer, Canada Geese, Wild Turkeys, and large flocks of European Starlings and blackbirds. Livestock are housed on the farm as well. A small pond is located on the west boundary fence provides attractive habitat for waterfowl such as Canada Geese and ducks. Recommendations to reduce wildlife attractants on site Grass Management Maintain grass at a height between 7-14 inches. Mowing frequently will prevent seed development to reduce the attraction of hazardous wildlife. Mow marginal areas at least twice during the growing season with a final mow just after the growing season to maintain grass within the recommended height range throughout the fall and winter. When construction projects require re -seeding of land cover avoid clover - grass mixtures which provide a high -nutrient food source for wildlife. Instead plant a tall, high-endophyte fescue grass variety. This type of grass does not provide a quality food source, and is therefore less attractive to hazardous wildlife. Habitat Modification Remove or thin out brushy and woody areas on the AOA especially at the north end. Discontinue the practice of planting row crops such as corn and beans. Instead maintain this area the same as other grass fields on the AOA. Perimeter Fence Modification Replace the existing perimeter fence with a design better suited to prevent hazardous wildlife intrusion. The recommended fence design to properly exclude wildlife is chain link at least 8 feet in height with 3 strands of barbed wire outriggers on top, and 3 feet of chain link skirting attached at the bottom and buried at an outward angle (see FAA Cert Alert 04-16 "Deer Hazards to Aircraft and Deer Fencing"). Alternatively a 10 foot fence buried 2 feet deep with barbed wire outriggers on top would provide similar protection. These designs will greatly reduce the likelihood of wildlife entering the airfield, and increases general security at the airport. Administrative Recommendations & Recommendations for Direct Management Attend Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Training Send appropriate airport personnel to annual airport Wildlife Hazard Management Training administered by a FAA -certified Airport biologist as outlined in FAA AC 150/5200-36. This training should help BTA develop techniques and protocols, and establish priorities for managing hazardous wildlife. Report Wildlife Strikes Report all wildlife strikes to the National Wildlife Strike Database online at http://wildlife-mitip,ation.tc.faa.gov, or using the paper FAA Form 5200-7 Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report, and encourage pilots to do the same. FAA AC 150/5200-32A APHIS safeguarding American Agriculture """is an agency of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs %� An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer D-4 provides the steps for proper strike reporting. Proper identification of wildlife involved in strikes is critical. If the airport cannot identify the species being reported then the carcass, feathers, or tissue can be sent to the Smithsonian Feather. Identification Lab. In addition, maintain an internal Wildlife Strike Log at BTA for your own record. Establish Zero -tolerance Policy for Hazardous Wildlife Maintain a zero -tolerance policy for white-tailed deer, Canada Geese, and gulls anywhere on the airfield as these are some of the most damaging species prevalent in and around BTA. Haze or lethally remove these species as soon as they are observed. Non -lethal harassment techniques such as using pyrotechnics should be attempted before lethal removal. Large flocks of American Crows, European Starlings and blackbirds, or any other wildlife creating a hazardous situation should also be dispersed or removed. Maintain a Wildlife Control & Observation Log Maintain a Wildlife Control and Observation Log. Keeping good records of wildlife observations and management activities helps prioritize species and particular areas of concern to focus future management efforts. I recommend using an electronic database to allow for easy analysis of large amounts of data. Obtain Depredation Permits & Implement Lethal Control Contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Nebraska Game Fish and Parks to obtain proper depredation permits for the management of hazardous species at BTA. Properly trained airport personnel, USDA Wildlife Services or another FAA -certified Airport Biologist, or local law enforcement can be used to remove hazardous species from the airfield. Consult local laws and ordinances, and if necessary coordinate with law enforcement to ensure that airport personnel or other persons designated under permits can legally use firearms at BTA. Establish a Bird Hazard WorkingGrgM Conduct community outreach to neighboring farms, parks, and municipalities where hazardous wildlife could affect BTA. Meet with these groups periodically to discuss ways to mitigate hazardous wildlife attractants in the vicinity of the airport, and if necessary coordinate population management of certain hazardous species. USDA Wildlife Services is available to assist in the implementation of any of these recommendations, which are offered to help establish an effective wildlife hazard management program at BTA and to improve aviation safety. Based on the above observations and the current lack of a formal wildlife hazard management program at BTA, I recommend that a Wildlife Hazard Assessment be conducted. A WHA will obtain a more detailed assessment of wildlife activity and hazards, assess seasonal wildlife activity in the vicinity of the airport, and prioritize wildlife hazards and associated management actions. This type of study can be conducted by USDA Wildlife Services or by another FAA -certified Airport Biologist. APHIS Safeguarding American Agriculture APHIS is an agency of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs %' An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer D-5 Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to safe air operations at your airport. Sincerely, Jed Vonnahme Wildlife Biologist APHIS/USDA/Wildlife Services 5940 S. 58" St. Lincoln, NE 68516 Office/cell: (402) 853-2966 Jed.t.vonnahme@aphis.usda.gov APHIS Safeguarding American Agriculture -/ APHIS is an agency of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs �' An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer D-6 u,f,.#:� a n Associates Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com KANSAS CITY (816) 524-3500 237 N.W. Blue Parkway Suite 100 Lee's Summit, MO 64063 PHOENIX (602) 993-6999 4835 E. Cactus Road Suite 235 Scottsdale, AZ 85254