Metropolitan Airports Commission. Lake Elmo Airport (21D)

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Metropolitan Airports Commission. Lake Elmo Airport (21D)"

Transcription

1 Metropolitan Airports Commission Lake Elmo Airport (21D)

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents... i List of Tables... v List of Figures... vii Executive Summary... viii ES.1 Report Organization... viii ES.2 Forecasts... ix ES.3 Facility Requirements and Concepts Analyzed for Development... x ES.3.1 No Build Alternative... x ES.3.2 Hangar Area Development...xi ES.3.3 Extend Crosswind Runway (4-22) to 3,200 Feet...xii ES.3.4 Extend Crosswind Runway (4-22) to 3,900 Feet...xii ES.3.5 Primary Runway (14-32) Construction and Extension...xiii ES.3.6 Install an Automated Weather Observation System...xiii ES.4 Environmental Considerations... xiii ES.5 Public Involvement Process... xiv ES.6 Preferred Alternative... xiv Existing Conditions/Inventory Airport Location History Airport Role MAC Classification FAA Classification Mn/DOT Classification Metropolitan Council Classification Existing Airside Facilities Pavement Areas Lighting and Navigation Airspace Management System Airspace Structure Delegation of Air Traffic Control Responsibilities Approach Procedures and Traffic Patterns Imaginary Surfaces and Obstructions Runway Protection Zones/State Safety Zones Existing Landside Facilities Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) Hangar Storage Areas Aircraft Space Utilization Maintenance and Equipment Areas Roadway Access Vehicle Parking Areas... 8 i

3 1.5 Airport Environment Drainage Sanitary Sewer and Water Utilities and Local Services Meteorological Data Area Land Use, Airspace and Zoning Area Socioeconomic Data Historic Airport Activity Aviation Forecast Based Aircraft Projections Aircraft Operations Forecasts Peak Activity Forecasts Forecast Scenarios Extended Runway Scenarios High Forecast Scenarios Low Forecast Scenarios Summary Sensitivity Analysis of the Forecasts Airside and Landside Facility Requirements Airside Requirements Airport Reference Code Approach Category Airplane Design Group Wind Coverage Airside Capacity Requirements Annual Service Volume Runway Length Runway Orientation Runway Width and Shoulders Runway Safety and Object Free Areas Taxiway Requirements Landside Requirements Hangar Facilities Fixed Base Operators Airport Access, Roadway Circulation and Parking Maintenance and Fuel Storage Areas Lighting and Navigation Requirements Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting PAPI REIL Instrument Approach Automated Weather Observation Station Security Requirements Utility Requirements...28 ii

4 3.7 Obstruction Related Issues Alternatives Alternatives No Build Alternative Hangar Development Only Extend Crosswind Runway 3,200 Feet, with Hangar Area Development Extend Crosswind Runway to 3,900 Feet, with Hangar Area Development Primary Runway (14-32) Construction and Extension Other Alternatives Estimated Costs No Build Concept Hangar Development Only Crosswind Runway Extension to 3,200 Feet Crosswind Runway Extension to 3,900 Feet Primary Runway Relocation/Extension Other Alternatives Preferred Alternative Environmental Considerations Aircraft Noise Quantifying Aircraft Noise Noise Contour Development Baseline 2005 Noise Impacts Forecast 2025 Noise Impacts Sanitary Sewer and Water Wetlands Other Concerns Land Use Compatibility Land Use Compatibility Criteria Federal Aviation Administration Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Metropolitan Council Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Runway Safety Zones Runway Safety Zones Land Use Compatibility Analysis Existing Condition Land Use Compatibility Preferred Alternative Land Use Compatibility Non-Aeronautical Land Use Areas Available on Airport Property...65 Capital Improvement Program Costs Facility Implementation Schedule Public Information Process iii

5 Appendix A Activity Forecasts Technical Report Appendix B Based Aircraft Sensitivity Analysis Appendix C Public Informational Program Appendix D Correspondence iv

6 List of Tables Table ES-1: Forecast Summaries...ix Table ES-2: Runway Length Comparison...x Table ES-3: Based Aircraft Space Demands...xi Table ES-4: Preferred Alternative Costs and Implementation Schedule...xv Table 1-1: Functional and Operational Characteristics of Metro Airport Facilities...3 Table 1-2: Indoor Aircraft Storage Summary...8 Table 2-1: Based Aircraft Forecast Summary...13 Table 2-2: Aircraft Operations Forecast Summary...13 Table 2-3: Peak Activity Forecast Summary...14 Table 2-4: Extended Runway Scenario...15 Table 2-5: High Forecast Sccenario...16 Table 2-6: Low Forecast Scenario...17 Table 2-7: Based Aircraft Sensitivity Summary...18 Table 3-1: Aircraft Approach Category...19 Table 3-2: Aircraft Design Group...20 Table 3-3: Crosswind Components...21 Table 3-4: All Weather Wind Covereage...21 Table 3-5: IFR Weather Wind Coverage...21 Table 3-6: Airside Capacity...22 Table 3-7: Recommended Runway Lengths Table 3-8: Landside Capacity...26 Table 4-1: Based Aircraft Space Demands...30 Table 4-2: Runway Length Comparison...31 Table 4-3: No Build Cost Considerations...35 Table 4-4: Hangar Development Cost Considerations...36 Table 4-5: Cost Considerations for Crosswind Runway Extension to 3,200 Feet...36 Table 4-6: Cost Considerations for Crosswind Runway Extension to 3,900 Feet...36 Table 4-7: Cost Considerations for Primary Runway Relocation/Extension 3,300 Feet..37 Table 4-8: Cost Considerations for Priimary Runway Relocation/Extension 3,900 Feet.37 v

7 Table 5-1: 2005 Average Daily Flight Operations Table 5-2: 2025 Average Daily Flight Operations Table 5-3: 2005 Departure Flight Track Use...50 Table 5-4: 2025 Departure Flight Track Use...51 Table 5-5: 2005 Average Annual Runway Use...52 Table 5-6: 2025 Average Annual Runway Use...52 Table 5-7: Sanitary Sewer and Water Cost Considerations...54 Table 6-1: FAA Aircraft Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Table 6-2: Metropolitan Council Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise.61 Table 7-1: Recommended Alternative Estimated Costs...66 Table 8-1: Recommended Alternative Implementation Schedule...68 Table 9-1: LTCP Meeting Schedule...69 vi

8 List of Figures All figures for a specific chapter are located at the end of the chapter. Figure ES-1: Proposed 20-Year Development Figure 1-1: MAC Airport System Figure 1-2: Airport Location Figure 1-3: Airport Layout Figure 1-4: Airport Diagram Figure 1-5: VFR Terminal Area Chart Figure 1-6: Area Airspace Figure 1-7: Runway 4 NDB Approach Figure 1-8: Runway 32 RNAV (GPS) Approach Figure 1-9: Imaginary Services Figure 1-10: Airport Building Areas Figure 1-11: West Building Area Figure 1-12: North Building Area Figure 1-13: Drainage Patterns and Wetlands Figure 3-1: Design Group Aircraft Figure 4-1: Concept 1 Building Area Development Only Figure 4-2: Concept 2 Extend Crosswind Runway to 3,200 Feet Figure 4-3: Concept 3 Extend Crosswind Runway to 3,900 Feet Figure 4-4: Concept 4 Previous 1992 LTCP Development Concept Figure 4-5: Preferred Alternative Figure 5-1: Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sourses (dba) Figure 5-2: Typical Range of Outdoor Community Day-Night Average Sound Levels Figure 5-3: 2005 INM Flight Tracks Figure 5-4: 2025 INM Flight Tracks Figure 5-5: 2005 Baseline Contours Figure 5-6: 2025 Preferred Alternative Contours Figure 6-1: RPZs and State Zones Figure 6-2: 2005 Noise Contours with 2005 Land Use Figure 6-3: RPZs and State Zones with 2005 Land Use Figure 6-4: 2025 Preferred Alternative with 2005 Land Use Figure 6-5: 2025 RPZs and State Zones with 2005 Land Use vii

9 Executive Summary The Lake Elmo Airport is located in Washington County, approximately 12 miles east of the downtown St. Paul business district (see Figure 1-1). It lies one mile east of downtown Lake Elmo, within Baytown Township, and is bordered by West Lakeland Township and the City of Lake Elmo. The airport consists of approximately 640 acres of land. The original tract of property purchased for the airport in 1949 was 148 acres. The airport was first opened for operations in 1951 and now has two paved runways. The primary runway (14-32) is 2,850 feet long and 75 feet wide. The crosswind runway (4-22) is 2,497 feet long, and is also 75 feet wide. See Figures 1-2 and 1-3. The long term comprehensive plan update is a 20-year planning document, extending from 2005 to The last plan update for Lake Elmo was completed in The major recommendations included: Relocating Runway to achieve a 3,300-foot length, with an ultimate extension to 3,900 feet New hangar area development Extension and lighting of Runway 4-22 to 3,300 feet Construction of a compass calibration pad In addition, other recommendations included the realignment of the north entrance road and installation of precision approach path indicators. To date, the compass pad has been constructed and the entrance road has been realigned. A hangar area expansion was also completed in ES.1 Report Organization This report is organized into the following sections: Inventory Forecasts Airside and Landside Facility Requirements Alternatives Environmental Considerations Land Use Compatibility Capital Improvement Program Costs Facility Implementation Schedule Public Informational Process The inventory of existing conditions is used to establish a baseline of facilities and services available at the airport. The forecasts are used to determine the type of activity likely to occur at the airport and at what projected levels. Facility requirements use the forecasts to determine what facilities will be required to support the level of activity indicated by the forecast. The projected facility needs are compared to the existing infrastructure to determine if additional facilities at the airport will be needed in the future. The alternatives section identifies and analyzes the concepts considered for the airport, and indicates whether each alternative meets the needs of the airport as identified in the facility requirements chapter. In addition, the preferred alternative recommended for the airport is identified. The environmental considerations and land use sections discuss the existing and preferred alternative in relation to environmental issues, such as noise, and surrounding land use compatibility. viii

10 The last sections identify the preferred alternative project items, lists costs and the proposed timeline for implementation. The final section outlines the public informational program that was followed, and summarizes any comments received during the document development process. ES.2 Forecasts Forecasts were completed for both airport operations and based aircraft. Lake Elmo operations for 2005 were estimated since there is no air traffic control tower. The estimate is calculated using an operations-perbased-aircraft average from Crystal and Anoka, which are similar to Lake Elmo in fleet mix and lack of instrument approach. (Note that future estimates for Lake Elmo will no longer include Anoka given the instrument approach installation in 2006.) The based aircraft number for 2005/2006 comes from the Mn/DOT aircraft registration data base. The forecast calculations take into account assumptions relating to the economy, fuel costs, fractional ownership, new very light jets (VLJs) just coming on the market, and general aviation taxes and fees. The baseline forecast assumes reasonable growth in all of these categories, and uses the FAA s forecast for fuel costs over the planning period. In addition to the baseline forecast, high and low range forecasts were prepared. These adjust the forecast assumptions from the baseline. In the high forecasts, it is assumed that the economy thrives, VLJs are very successful and fractional ownership increases. The opposite is used for the low forecasts. The reason for the range is to make note of the variability in the forecast assumptions. As will be discussed in this document, many of the concepts for Lake Elmo include an extended runway. Therefore, a forecast assuming a runway extension was also prepared. Table ES-1 shows the forecast figures for Lake Elmo. Aircraft operations for 2005 are estimated at 57,667. The maximum number of operations the airport can handle, the annual service volume, is 230,000 operations. Therefore, from an airside standpoint, the airport is at 25% capacity. Even under the high scenario, the forecasted number of operations in 2025 does not trigger the need for additional runways at Lake Elmo. As of note, the historical high for operations at Lake Elmo occurred in the late 1970 s, with approximately 115,000 annual operations. Table ES-1 Forecast Summary Extended Runway Year Baseline High Forecast Low Forecast OPERATIONS ,667 57,667 57,667 57, ,186 74,316 79,119 60, ,249 80,426 91,650 61, ,091 86, ,970 61, ,119 92, ,896 63,700 BASED AIRCRAFT ix

11 The registered number of aircraft based at Lake Elmo is 236. There are estimated to be 256 actual indoor hangar spaces at the airport. The means the current landside capacity equates to about 92%. The historical high number of registered aircraft was in 1995 with 250 aircraft. ES.3 Facility Requirements and Concepts Analyzed for Development The existing runways at Lake Elmo are very short. In comparison to the other MAC-owned Reliever Airports, the primary runway at Lake Elmo (14-32) is by far the shortest in the system. At 2,850 feet, Runway is more than 400 feet shorter than runways at the Crystal Airport, and more than 1,000 feet shorter than any other primary runway in the system. The crosswind runway at Lake Elmo is 2,497 feet long. This is extremely short when compared to primary runways, and shorter than all other crosswind runways within the system. The following table shows a full comparison. Table ES-2 Runway Length Comparison Primary Runway Crosswind Runway Length (ft) Airport Length (ft) St. Paul Downtown 6,491 3,642 Anoka County-Blaine 4,855 5,000 Flying Cloud 3,900 2,691 Airlake 4,098 N/A Crystal 3,266 2,499 Lake Elmo 2,850 2,497 Notes: The lengths listed for St. Paul are the ultimate lengths upon completion of the 2006/2007 runway safety area improvements. The Flying Cloud primary runway is proposed for extension to 5,000 feet. The Airlake Airport has only one runway. The Lake Elmo Airport is categorized as a B-II airport, meaning it serves airplanes with approach speeds less than 121 knots and wingspans up to but not including 79 feet. Aircraft in this category are typically less than 12,500 pounds, and include most single engine aircraft and light twin engine airplanes. This also includes small corporate jets. The existing runway lengths accommodate approximately 75% of the aircraft within this category. While there is some speculation that the new very-light-jets (VLJs) coming on the market could operate at Lake Elmo in its current configuration, the forecasts assume no VLJ operations will occur unless more runway length is provided. The same is assumed for jet aircraft operations. The FAA-recommended runway length needed to accommodate 95% of the aircraft for this category airport is 3,280 feet. To accommodate 100% of the aircraft, a runway length of 3,890 feet is needed. ES.3.1 No Build Alternative The concept of a true no build alternative was not one of the general concepts brought forth for comment in the public involvement process. A no build alternative would include no runway extension, no changes to the airfield at all, and no hangar area development within the 20 year planning period. Since this concept includes a true no-build scenario, there are no related concept costs. However, it should be noted that both existing runways will need reconstruction within the planning period. Runway is in poor condition, and band-aid type rehabilitations are no longer very effective. It is expected that full reconstruction is required within the next five years to maintain its viability and a debris-free pavement x

12 surface. The crosswind runway is in better condition, but will also require full reconstruction sometime within the next years. Bituminous pavements rarely see a life longer than 20 years, and that is achieved only with solid pavement maintenance practices. The only difference between this no-build concept and the next concept is the proposed construction of additional hangar space. The justification and reasoning behind additional hangar spaces is discussed below and in Section as a part of that concept analysis. These are the same reasons why this no-build alternative does not meet the needs of the airport. ES.3.2 Hangar Area Development The existing hangar space at the airport is nearly full. There are no vacant spaces in the existing building areas to construct new hangar facilities. While there is additional outdoor storage available at the FBO facility and in specific areas around the airport, very few pilots will select outdoor storage as a way to permanently store their aircraft. The potential risks from wind and hail damage in the summer, combined with ice, snow and cold engine issues in the winter preclude outdoor storage as an option for many aircraft owners. Therefore, there is a lack of landside capacity. The following table summarizes the forecasted need for additional space. Table ES-4 Based Aircraft Space Demands Spaces Available or Forecasted Current Number of Registered Aircraft 236 Calculated Available Space within Existing Hangars 256 Spaces to be Accommodated 20 within existing hangars; 35 New 2010 Forecast Forecast New 2020 Forecast New 2025 Forecast New TOTALS 56 New Spaces by the end of the planning period The proposed location for a new hangar area is on the airport s east side. In order to access the airfield, construction of a taxiway east of and parallel to Runway 4-22 is required. This is also shown in Figure 4-1. Additional hangar space will accommodate the existing demand and forecasted increase in based aircraft. In addition, there is little cost to MAC since the construction of new hangar areas is to be charged to new tenants within that area. This concept does not address the fact that the runway length does not meet the FAA recommended length for the type of aircraft using Lake Elmo. Other considerations given to this concept are listed in Section xi

13 ES.3.3 Extend Crosswind Runway (4-22) to 3,200 Feet (The Preferred Alternative) This concept includes looking at an extension to the crosswind runway. A crosswind runway extension can be accommodated on airport property without land acquisition or road relocation. In addition, the existing Runway 4-22 pavement is in fairly good condition, and would not require reconstruction as part of a runway extension. Although runway lighting adds to the cost of extending Runway 4-22, the cost for this alternative is less than relocating the primary runway (an alternative discussed in upcoming paragraphs). This concept (shown in Figure 4-2) includes extending Runway 4-22 from 2,497 feet to 3,200 feet. The runway would also be lighted. With an extension to 3,200 feet, the airport could accommodate almost 95% of the aircraft under 12,500 pounds, coming much closer to meeting the demands of the critical aircraft. An extension would provide for safer operations by the aircraft already using the airport, in particular, the design aircraft (King Air) and small corporate jets, as well as provide for operations by the new very-light-jets (VLJs) just coming on the market. If Runway 4-22 were extended to 3,200 feet, it could effectively become the primary runway at the airport. It would most likely be the preferred runway when winds are calm. The single engine aircraft most affected by winds could certainly still utilize either runway as dictated by winds without concern about runway length. The larger aircraft that use Lake Elmo today and the new VLJs would benefit from a longer runway, and could operate on the longer crosswind runway in stronger winds than single engine aircraft. Therefore, the greatest benefit to the larger aircraft (longer runway for safer operations) is not cancelled out by the fact it is on the crosswind runway. As shown in the forecasts outlined in Chapter 2, the forecast does not indicate a large jump in operations would result from the runway extension. Forecasts show an increase by 2025 of 1,244 additional operations per year, or about a 1.4% increase over the forecasted growth without a runway extension. This equates to less than four operations per day in This increase is attributed to expected increases in VLJ and small jet operations. The VLJ operations under this concept are forecasted to increase from zero operations today, to 63 operations per year in 2010, and to 1,301 annual operations in With regard to the extension itself, the length of 3,200 feet was specifically chosen because it can be constructed on MAC property and the required runway protection zones (RPZ) fit almost entirely within MAC property boundaries. There is one small corner of the RPZ that would overlap with the existing railroad corridor. It is not expected MAC would be required to purchase this railroad property, however, it is possible that MAC may be required to obtain an avigation easement. Another factor to be considered is noise. It is expected that if the crosswind runway is extended, the noise contour may be altered somewhat. Overall the noise contour is balanced between to the two runways, and would remain that way in the future, although slightly larger in the crosswind runway direction. Noise and other environmental considerations are discussed in Chapter 5. More discussion on this alternative is located in Section ES.3.4 Extend Crosswind Runway (4-22) to 3,900 Feet This concept is identical to the previous one, except it provides for an even longer crosswind runway length. At 3,900 feet, the airport could accommodate 100% of aircraft under 12,500 pounds, and is the FAA recommended length for such aircraft given the airport s average summer temperature and elevation. The runway length would allow for more use by small corporate jets and King Airs currently using the airport today, however, some slightly larger corporate jets, like the Citation III, would be able to operate with restricted loads at Lake Elmo. xii

14 Based on preliminary calculations completed in early 2006, the increase in operations resulting from a crosswind extension to 3,900 feet is expected to be less than 4% by the year This equates to approximately eight or nine more aircraft operations per day than the forecasted operations with no runway extension. Similar to the previous concept, the increase in operations would be attributed to increased jet and VLJ activity. Under this 3,900-foot runway alternative, single engine aircraft operations are forecasted to remain the same as in the no runway extension alternatives. Of further note, extending the crosswind runway to 3,900 feet could require some land acquisition for RPZ property and would most likely alter the noise contours. More discussion on this concept is located in Section ES.3.5 Primary Runway (14-32) Construction and Extension The Long Term Comprehensive Plan prepared by MAC in 1992 for the Lake Elmo Airport proposed runway extensions for both the primary Runway and the crosswind Runway During the meetings with airport users for this current plan update, they requested MAC review again the potential for an extension to the primary runway. Runway is the preferred runway due to its longer existing length and prevailing winds, and therefore, it is perceived to be a better option than extending the crosswind runway. The current length of Runway14-32 is limited by obstructions at both ends. Two roadways and a railroad prevent any further extension of the existing runway without major relocation to these facilities. Therefore, the 1992 LTCP recommended that the runway be relocated to a parallel location and extended. This would avoid impacts to one of the roads and the railroad. This concept has been in previous plans prior to 1992 as well, and MAC was considering it enough to acquire the property necessary to accommodate it. The previous plans included an initial length of 3,300 feet, with an ultimate extension to 3,900 feet. Given other alternatives reviewed in this document, it appears there is a less expensive option to achieve the extended runway length needs. However, it is recommended that relocation of the primary runway remain as a future consideration for this airport, and that airport layout plans continue to show this ultimate configuration. ES.3.6 Install an Automated Weather Observation System In addition to more hangar space and a longer runway, the airport would also benefit from the installation of an automated weather monitoring system. Currently, data from the St. Paul Downtown Airport is used by pilots to check weather at Lake Elmo. This weather station is about 12 miles away and located within the river valley on the St. Paul airfield. As a result, it may not always represent the weather conditions at Lake Elmo. Mn/DOT currently has a program in which they install, own and maintain automated weather observation stations (AWOS), so there is no cost to MAC for this option. ES.4 Environmental Considerations A runway extension project requires the completion of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), depending on whether federal funds are involved. Hangar area development typically involves the preparation of an EAW, unless federal funds are proposed to be used, then a federal EA could be required. The most notable environmental categories that will require study as part of any implementation of the proposed concepts at Lake Elmo include noise, wetlands, and sanitary sewer and water facilities. An EAW was prepared in 2002 for the east hangar area, but no construction has taken place. xiii

15 1. Noise. MAC has prepared a 2005 noise contour for Lake Elmo Airport, as well as 2025 noise contour for the preferred alternative (included in Chapter 5). The 70, 65 and 60 DNL contours are shown for both scenarios. The noise contours also show a 55 DNL contour. The 55 DNL contour is depicted because the airport lies mostly outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA), and therefore, a 55 DNL contour is required per the Metropolitan Council. 2. Sanitary Sewer and Water. The Lake Elmo Airport currently lies outside of the MUSA boundary. However, the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) agency has requested that MAC provide sanitary sewer and water services for all of the Reliever Airports, including Lake Elmo. Therefore, any hangar area expansion proposals must review the needs and feasibility of providing these services. 3. Wetlands. There are wetlands in existence at the Lake Elmo Airport. Any of the concepts implemented at the airport will be studied closely to prevent wetland impacts. If wetlands are unavoidable, designs will be adjusted as much as possible to minimize impacts. ES.5 Public Involvement Process The public involvement process for the Lake Elmo LTCP update has included two meetings with the community representatives, two meetings with airport users, and one public informational meeting for residents living around the airport. Upon selection of a preferred alternative and completion of a full draft LTCP, the draft was made available for a 30-day public comment period. Prior to the formal comment period, informal comments had been requested at all of the meetings held. As part of that informal process, MAC received 13 letters, completed comment forms or s about the concepts under consideration. These include comments from tenants, residents and the City of Lake Elmo. In very brief summary, the airport users want additional runway length and think a weather station is a good idea. The community representatives and residents are opposed to the suggested improvement to the airport. The formal comment period occurred between June 8, 2007 and July 10, All letters and comments received during the preparation of this document are included in Appendix C. ES.6 Preferred Alternative After reviewing all of the concepts, costs, benefits and negative considerations, the preferred alternative recommended for adoption by the Commission for the Lake Elmo Airport is a crosswind runway extension to 3,200 feet with hangar area development. Operations are expected to grow at the Lake Elmo Airport with or without any improvements, and although use of the airport by VLJs and small jets are forecasted to increase with a runway extension, the aircraft types operating at the airport will not change due to the proposed runway extension. Regarding the other alternatives reviewed, the no-build alternative clearly does not meet the needs of the airport. Hangar development only addresses the landside capacity issue, but does not provide a runway length that meets the FAA recommendation for this type of airport. An extension to 3,900 feet on either runway is not justified at this time. While having an extension to the primary runway would be preferred, the costs preclude this as an option when compared to the crosswind runway extension. Since it is not recommended that the primary runway be relocated within the planning period, it must be reconstructed in the short term to maintain its usability and to prevent the potential for damaging debris. Specifically, the following steps for installation of sanitary sewer and water facilities at Lake Elmo are recommended: xiv

16 1. Pursue an agreement with the City of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township for the provision of sanitary sewer and water to the airport from the proposed development adjacent to airport property. 2. Continue to study the costs, benefits and feasibility of serving the airport with sanitary sewer and water versus well and septic systems. In summary, the Preferred Alternative (shown in Figure ES-1 and in the table) includes the following elements for the 20-year planning period. Please note that all costs are shown in 2006 dollars and include engineering. Timelines may vary, especially for projects that may receive federal funding. They would be planned when funds are most likely to be received. Table ES-4 Preferred Alternative Recommendation Timeline Estimated Cost Pursue Installation of AWOS/ ASOS through Mn/DOT Immediately $0 Construct new hangar area to 0 5 Years first phase accommodate the 2025 needs Construct a Full Parallel Taxiway in conjunction with new hangar area Pursue agreements with the communities to provide limited S&W services to the airport Review alternatives and feasibility of serving hangar area(s) with a public or private systems 5 15 Years final phase $2,600,000 In conjunction with new hangar area $900, Years $0 0 5 Years $900,000 - $1,700,000 Reconstruct the Existing Primary Runway Pavement 0 5 Years $1,500,000 Extend Crosswind Runway 4-22 and Taxiway to 3,200 Feet, including Runway Lighting and PAPI systems 0 5 Years $1,200,000 Reconstruct the Existing Crosswind Runway 4-22 Length Years $1,300,000 Continue to show the need for a relocated Primary Runway in plan, and include the future approach areas in the upcoming zoning effort Beyond 20-year planning period $0 xv

17

18 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions/Inventory 1.1 Airport Location History The Lake Elmo Airport is one of seven airports owned and operated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). The airport identifier, or reference code, for Lake Elmo is 21D. The airport is located in Washington County, approximately 12 miles east of the downtown St. Paul business district (see Figure 1-1). It lies one mile east of downtown Lake Elmo, within Baytown Township, and is bordered by portions of West Lakeland Township and the City of Lake Elmo. (See Figures 1-2 and 1-3.) County Road 15 (Manning Avenue) runs north/south on the airports western border, State Highway 5 runs just to the northwest of the airport, and Interstate 94 is only a few miles to the south. Lake Elmo Airport consists of approximately 640 acres of land. The original tract of property purchased for the airport in 1949 was 148 acres. The airport was first opened for operations in 1951 with a paved runway, sod landing strip and a turf building area. Since that time, the airport has expanded with additional land purchases in 1967, 1968, 1973 and There have been a number of previous airport studies completed for the Airport. The Metropolitan Council prepared the 1986 Metropolitan Airports System Plan and the Metropolitan Development Guide Aviation Policy Plan, which was first adopted in The most recent update to the Policy Plan occurred in December MAC prepared the first Master Plan for Lake Elmo Airport in 1966, and updated it in The most recent Long Term Comprehensive Plan for Lake Elmo prepared by MAC and approved by Metropolitan Council is dated April Airport Role The definition of classification for an airport differs slightly between the MAC, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Minnesota Department of Transportation Aeronautics (Mn/DOT), and the Metropolitan Council MAC Classification In January 2006, MAC accepted the Recommendations Regarding the Future Operation and Development of the Reliever Airport System prepared by the MAC Reliever Airports Task Force. That document recommends the Lake Elmo Airport continue to serve as a recreational use airport, and also labels it as a complimentary reliever in the MAC owned seven airport system. Other complimentary airports listed are the Airlake Airport in Lakeville and the Crystal Airport. The other MAC-owned relievers, the St. Paul Downtown Airport, the Anoka County Blaine Airport and the Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie, are primary relievers. By MAC s definition, this classification identifies them as better equipped to serve small business jets and corporate aircraft in addition to general aviation FAA Classification According to the FAA, airport classification is based on the size and type of aircraft it serves and specific characteristics for those planes. The Lake Elmo Airport has an Airport Reference Code of B-II. This means it is designed, constructed and maintained to serve airplanes in that same Airplane Design Group. The B 1

19 references airplanes with an approach speed of less than 121 knots, the II relates to wingspans up to but not including 79 feet. Some building areas around the airport, however, are only designed to a B-I standard, which limits wingspan to less than 49 feet Mn/DOT Classification Mn/DOT classifies the Lake Elmo Airport as an Intermediate System Airport. This means it has a paved runway of 5,000 feet or less in length, and is capable of accommodating all single engine and most twin engine aircraft as well some light jet aircraft Metropolitan Council Classification The Metropolitan Council classifies the Lake Elmo Airport as a Minor Airport. Under this definition, the airport has a primary runway length between 2,500 and 5,000 feet, with either a precision or non-precision approach. The airport can accommodate personal use and recreational aircraft, business general aviation and air taxi traffic, flight training and military operations (see Table 1-1 on the following page). As a secondary reliever in Metropolitan Council terms, the Lake Elmo Airport focuses primarily on general aviation and recreational aircraft, leaving more opportunity for business jet activity at the larger relievers, including the St. Paul Downtown Airport, and it assists in minimizing the amount of general aviation activity at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. 1.3 Existing Airside Facilities Airside facilities include the operational aircraft areas of runways, taxiways, and aprons. These are areas where vehicular traffic is generally not allowed due to safety concerns of mixing with aircraft. Airside facilities also include airfield lighting and navigational aids Pavement Areas The Lake Elmo Airport has two paved runways. The primary runway, 14-32, is 2,850 feet long and 75 feet wide. The runway has a full length parallel taxiway 30 feet wide with four connector taxiways. The crosswind runway, 4-22, is 2,497 feet long and 75 feet wide. It also has a full length parallel taxiway that is 30 feet wide with three connectors. The north side taxiway connects Runway end 14 and Runway end 22. It is also 30 feet wide and provides access to the compass calibration pad. The airport diagram is shown in Figure 1-4. The airport also has three apron areas that are primarily used for aircraft taxiing. Run-ups and pilot checks can also be performed in these areas. One of the aprons is adjacent to a former Fixed Base Operator (FBO) area, and was used for aircraft parking in the past. The compass calibration pad was constructed in It provides pilots with the necessary equipment to align and calibrate their compasses using the markings and brass inserts on the pad. All of the airfield areas at Lake Elmo are asphalt, but they vary in pavement age, thickness, and typical section. Runway and the associated taxiways were originally constructed in Runway 4-22 and its parallel taxiway were built in The northside taxiway was partially constructed in 1981, and was extended to its current length in Over time, pavement overlays, rehabilitation, reconstruction and/or crack repair methods have changed the characteristics of the pavement from section to section. Both runways have markings for non-precision approaches. 2

20 Airport Type Table 1-1 Functional and Operational Characteristics of Metropolitan Airport Facilities System Role Airport Users Primary Runway Length Primary Rwy Instrumentation MAC- Owned Major Intermediate Minor Special Purpose Scheduled Air Service Minneapolis-St. Paul International Primary Reliever St. Paul Downtown Secondary Reliever Airlake Anoka County Blaine Crystal Flying Cloud Lake Elmo South St. Paul Special Uses Forest Lake Rice Lake Wipline, IGH Air Carriers Regional/Commuter Passenger & Cargo Charters Air Cargo Air Taxi Corporate G.A. Military Regional/Commuter Air Taxi Corporate/Business General Aviation Flight Training Personal Use / Recreational Military Air Taxi Business G.A. Flight Training Personal Use / Recreational Military All general aviation (grass strip) (seaplane) (seaplane) Source: Metropolitan Council Aviation Policy Plan, December Wisconsin, and is no longer just a seaplane base. 8,000 feet or more 5,000 feet to 8,000 feet 2,500 feet to 5,000 feet Varies Precision Precision Precision or Non-Precision Visual Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Note The Rice Lake Airport is located in Lighting and Navigation Navigational aids (NAVAIDS) and runway lighting are intended to guide pilots from point to point, increase the visibility of runway features, and control runway activity both on the ground and in the air. Runway is lighted with Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights (MIRLs), has runway end identifier lights (REILs) at both ends and precision approach path indicators (PAPIs) on the 32 approach. The PAPI system uses a combination of red and white lights only visible at certain angles that help pilots determine appropriate angles of descent during landings. REILs are synchronized flashing lights to help pilots visually acquire the runway end as they approach for landing. In 2005, the runway lighting circuit and lights on Runway were replaced. These lights increase the visibility of runway edges during nighttime or restricted-visibility conditions. Depending on runway type and distance from runway end, these lights are white, yellow, red or green. The REILs and PAPIs are operated by radio control. The lighting project in 2005 provided the equipment to make the runway lights radio controlled. Given the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Aeronautics, however, the 3

21 runway lights operate on a photocell so they are on low during nighttime hours. The radio control offers pilots the choice to click them to medium or high. Runway 4-22 is not lighted. There are no navigational aids on Runway There is a Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) located about 8.2 nautical miles (NM) from the Lake Elmo Airport called Hopey. An NDB transmits radio signals on a designated frequency. This information provides a tool for pilots to navigate within the National Airspace System (NAS). This is particularly useful for low altitude airway vectoring. The signals follow the curvature of the earth so NDB signals can be received at much greater distances at lower altitudes than other systems. However, the NDB signal is affected more by atmospheric conditions, mountainous terrain, coastal refraction and electrical storms, particularly at long range. In addition to providing navigational assistance to aircraft, NDBs also allow for non-precision approaches thereby enhancing the capability of the airport. Lake Elmo Airport has two non-precision instrument approaches, an NDB approach to Runway 4 and an RNAV (GPS) approach to Runway 32. There are no onsite navigational aids associated with the RNAV (GPS) approach. The Airport also has a Remote Transmitter/Receiver (RTR) site that is owned and operated by the FAA. The antennae are located on the south side of the airport near Runway end 32. An RTR is used to boost the airport radio signals so that pilots can file a flight plan from the airport. Lake Elmo also has a compass calibration pad. Constructed in 1992, the pad was reconstructed in The pad is surveyed by the U.S. Geological Service for accuracy, and contains markings and brass inserts for aircraft to calibrate their aircraft compass. This pad is one of only two in the MAC Reliever system. In 1999, MAC updated the designations for both runways due to the change in magnetic declination. Runway became Runway 14-32, and Runway 3-21 became Runway Lastly, the airport has a lighted airfield beacon, a lighted windcone and a wind tee Airspace Management System The airspace around an airport is defined by FAA classification, air traffic control designation, navigational aids (NAVAIDS), other surrounding airports, and flight rules specific to the Lake Elmo Airport. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 gave jurisdiction of all US airspace to the FAA. The National Airspace System (NAS) was hence established to manage this system safely and efficiently among commercial, general aviation, military and other competing users. It is a common network of NAVAIDS, airport and landing sites, charting and information, procedures, regulations, technical support, and resources. Figure 1-5 shows the airports, airspace and radio aids for navigation in the vicinity of the Lake Elmo Airport Airspace Structure The airspace structure is complex and requires the use of highly technical air traffic control (ATC) procedures. Airspace is either controlled or uncontrolled. Controlled airspace is managed by ground-to-air communications, NAVAIDS and air traffic services. Lake Elmo Airport is located in what is considered Class E controlled airspace. (See Figure 1-6). Class E airspace is a general category of controlled airspace that is intended to provide air traffic service and separation for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft from other aircraft. IFR means that the pilot is certified to fly under Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) (under three miles visibility and 1,000 foot ceilings). Pilots rated only for Visual Flight Rules (VFR) can operate in Class E airspace only when visibility is three statute miles and above and cloud heights are 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and higher. These pilots are not required to maintain contact with ATC. 4

22 Class E is a common classification for airports without air traffic control towers (ATCTs). Class E airspace extends to 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and generally fills in the gaps between other classes of airspace in the United States. The Lake Elmo Airport lies under Minneapolis/ St. Paul International Airport s (MSP) Class B Airspace which consists of controlled airspace extending upward from different floor elevations to a ceiling height of 10,000 feet MSL. There are very specific operating instructions and rules pilots must follow when flying within this airspace. Lake Elmo Airport lies under the area where the floor elevation is 4,000 feet MSL. As long as pilots stay below 4,000 feet, they remain outside this MSP airspace Delegation of Air Traffic Control Responsibilities Lake Elmo Airport is within controlled airspace, but does not have its own Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). Instead, air traffic control services are provided by Minneapolis Approach/Departure Control at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Minneapolis Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) in Farmington and the Flight Service Station (FSS) at Princeton, Minnesota. Aircraft operating at Lake Elmo are advised to broadcast their intentions and monitor Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF), which is also the UNICOM frequency (122.8). Pilots can use this frequency to control the intensity of the airfield lighting. Pilots making instrument approaches are in contact with Minneapolis Approach Control Approach Procedures and Traffic Patterns There are two different types of flight rules set out in FAR Part 91. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) applies in generally good weather conditions based on visibility. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) come into play when visibility levels fall to less than three statute miles and cloud cover falls below 1,000 feet. The local traffic pattern altitude is 1,932 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL), 1,000 feet above the airport elevation. All traffic patterns operate in standard left hand flow. When winds are calm (less than 5 knots) Runway is preferred. There are no special clearances or flight procedures for visual operations at Lake Elmo other than the declaration of intentions noted above. Aircraft with IFR instrumentation can utilize established approach procedures at Lake Elmo. IFR flight rules have specific departure and arrival instructions, flight routing, altitude assignment, and communication procedures that are required. As stated, it allows a pilot to operate in controlled airspace and operate in poor weather at appropriately-equipped airport facilities such as Lake Elmo. There are two different instrument approach procedures established for Lake Elmo, both are non-precision approaches. The NDB RWY 4 and RNAV (GPS) RWY 32 approaches are shown on Figures 1-7 and 1-8, respectively Imaginary Surfaces and Obstructions FAR Part 77 is the guidance used to determine obstructions to navigational airspace. The surfaces are comprised of primary, approach, transitional, horizontal and conical three-dimensional imaginary surfaces. (See Figure 1-9.) Their exact configuration varies based upon the approach type of runway. Obstructions are defined as objects that penetrate these imaginary surfaces. Mitigative measures such as obstruction lights, removal or relocation may be required for the obstruction not to be considered a hazard. All obstructions should be catalogued and their disposition noted. The Airport Layout Plan (ALP), published separately from this report, shows the location of obstructions. Critical obstructions are also shown on the approach procedures for the airport Runway Protection Zones/State Safety Zones Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) restrict land use off runway ends to help ensure the safety of people and property on the ground. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that the airport own or have 5

23 control over all land within the RPZs. Among the land uses prohibited in RPZs are residences and those land uses which may result in public assembly (i.e. schools, hospitals, office buildings, and shopping centers). The dimensions of RPZs are determined based upon the aircraft approach category and the associated runway approach visibility minimums. According to Table 2-4 of AC 150/ , Airport Design, all the runways at Lake Elmo Airport fall under the approach visibility minimums category of visual and not lower than one mile and aircraft approach category B. The existing recommended standard RPZ dimensions at Lake Elmo Airport are 500 feet by 1,000 feet by 700 feet (inner width x length x outer width). The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has established regulations that control the type of development allowed off runway ends in order to prevent incompatible development. These guidelines should be used to establish zoning ordinances to protect areas around an airport. The states zoning areas overlay and extend beyond the RPZs, following the FAAs FAR Part 77 approach and horizontal surfaces. The most restrictive areas created by Mn/DOT regulations are called State Safety Zones A and B. Mn/DOT prefers that airports own all of State Zone A. For land within the area that is not airport-owned, land use protection is recommended by including the safety zones in local zoning codes and zoning maps. Inclusion of the safety zones on community Comprehensive Plans is also strongly encouraged. More information on RPZs and State Zones can be found in Chapter 6 - Land Use Compatibility. The RPZs and State Safety Zones for the existing airfield configuration at Lake Elmo Airport are shown in Figure Existing Landside Facilities Landside facilities include aircraft storage hangar areas, aprons, fixed base operator (FBO) areas, terminal buildings, airport maintenance equipment storage areas, roadway access to the airport, and vehicle parking areas Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) Historically, Lake Elmo has had up to three FBOs in operation at one time. Currently, there is one FBO. The FBO, Valters Aviation Service, is located in the north building area, on the very west end (see Figure 1-10). Services offered by this FBO include fueling, aircraft maintenance, aircraft storage and line services, aircraft sales, flight training, aircraft rental, and pilot accessory sales. The FBO sells 100LL fuel. The airport has space for an FBO in the west building area. This site was previously used as an FBO, but remains vacant at this time. After a wind storm in 2000 destroyed many existing hangars, some spaces were left vacant instead of rebuilding, and they remain vacant, for future use in an FBO operation. The FBO offers aircraft parking and storage as one of their services. They have both indoor storage and outdoor apron/tie-down parking. This FBO storage typically is short term parking for visiting aircraft or for parking of planes awaiting maintenance or other services. It can also be used for long term storage of aircraft. Indoor space is addressed in Section For outdoor parking, the FBO has both a paved apron and a grass tie-down area. Tie-downs are small metal rings set into the pavement or grass with ropes that tie to the underside of wings and the aircraft tail. Most planes being stored outdoors want tie-downs to protect the aircraft from wind damage. In Minnesota, pilots prefer indoor storage for both long and short term periods because of the summer storms with wind and hail, and in the winter because of the cold and snow. Grass tie-down areas are unavailable in the winter months. The FBO offers tie-down service on an as-requested basis, and it is estimated that there is space for six aircraft. 6

24 1.4.2 Hangar Storage Areas Lake Elmo Airport currently has two main hangar storage areas the West Building Area and the North Building Area. (See Figures 1-10, 1-11, and 1-12.) The oldest area is located on the west side of the airport, and is divided into a north half and a south half by the airport s main entrance road. This was the location of the original turf hangar area for the airport. The north half of the west building area currently has 10 T-hangars with 31 single aircraft storage units, and 21 conventional storage hangars along six hangar rows. One additional hangar row remains vacant at this time and is currently being reserved (as discussed in the FBO paragraph above). This building area was hit by a windstorm in August 2000, which damaged or destroyed numerous hangars. Since then, tenants have built brand new hangars. In total, the building area contains 31 buildings and can accommodate approximately 57 aircraft. The south half of the west building area contains 14 T-hangars with 66 single aircraft storage units, eight conventional, and one large hangar with an office attached. It contains eight hangar rows. In total, the building area contains 23 buildings that can house approximately 78 aircraft. The north building area is the other main hangar storage area. The first nine alleyways were constructed in 1981 and all run directly north-south. This part of the building area contains one T-hangar with seven single aircraft storage units, and 47 conventional storage hangars. In total, the building area contains 48 buildings and can accommodate approximately 83 aircraft. Note that the FBO area is not included in this calculation. The northeastern half of the north building area was constructed in 1992 and contains six hangar rows. There are 29 conventional storage hangars along five alleyways, but no T-hangars. In total, the 28 buildings house approximately 44 aircraft. One additional existing building area lies on the southwest side of the airport near the end of Runway 32. This area contains only one private hangar. The hangar is 3,000 square feet and in the past has stored two aircraft. The FBO has a large aircraft storage hangar. While this hangar can store a number of aircraft, the planes within these hangars are transient aircraft being stored for a short time or are aircraft being housed temporarily for maintenance. Therefore, the number of spaces within this hangar shown below in Table 1-2 in the next section represents only the number of based aircraft the FBO owns, which is currently five aircraft. The flight school utilizes tie-downs for its three aircraft Aircraft Space Utilization Aircraft space utilization is a calculation completed to estimate the existing number of spaces on the airport that would be available for aircraft parking. This is then compared to the forecasted demand in Chapter 3 Facility Requirements to determine if a need exists for additional hangar space at an airport. MAC allows tenants to construct experimental aircraft within their hangar. While these may or may not represent registered aircraft, they do take up some amount of space at the airport. Therefore, for hangars sized to hold only one aircraft and for T-hangars, we have discounted the number of hangar spaces by 2% to account for some minimal hangar use by experimental aircraft. MAC also allows tenants to sublease space within their hangar if they choose. However, not all tenants do this. For hangars that are large enough to hold two or more aircraft, MAC discounted the number of available spaces by 10% to account for tenants who do not sublease extra space. This discounting does not have a significant impact on the available number of hangar spaces, and is very reasonable given the current status of most leases at the airport today. 7

25 Table 1-2 summarizes the indoor storage information with the discounted numbers shown. Table 1-2 Indoor Aircraft Storage Summary Number of Buildings Number of Spaces Discount Percent Subtracted Spaces Total Spaces T-Hangars % Single Conventional Hangars % Two Space Conv. Hangars % Triple Space or More % 0 6 FBO TOTALS Source: MAC visual survey April Maintenance and Equipment Areas MAC has one maintenance and equipment storage area at Lake Elmo. It is located in the west building area between the two groups of hangars, closest to the airfield. There is one building which contains eight bays for equipment and an office area. Adjacent to the office there are restroom and shower facilities for the maintenance crew. The building also has a separate bathroom accessible from the exterior for use by the tenants and airport visitors. There is a fuel farm in this location which contains only diesel fuel for MAC equipment. There is also a contained recycling area for tenants to dispose of used aircraft oil Roadway Access As shown in Figure 1-2 and 1-3, the Lake Elmo Airport lies in Washington County, adjacent to the City of Lake Elmo in Baytown Township. West Lakeland Township is located just to the south of the airport. Roadway access comes off of County Road 15 (Manning Avenue) for both of the existing building areas. Primary roadway access from the north is State Highway 5 (less than a mile), and from the south via Interstate 94 (about four miles away). These main roads link the airport to metropolitan area and the entire region Vehicle Parking Areas The current FBO in the north building area has automobile parking for customers that contains approximately 20 spaces. Aside from this, there are no designated public vehicle parking areas at the airport. The former FBO site in the west building area also has parking available for customers should a new business begin operating from that site. There is space available on the roadway side of the MAC maintenance building for a few vehicles, but the parallel parking spaces are not marked. Most hangars are accessed via the alleyways, with tenants parking inside or adjacent to their individual hangars. 8

26 1.5 Airport Environment This section highlights briefly the airport environment, including available utilities, drainage, and local services provided Drainage The Lake Elmo Airport is located on relatively flat former farmland. Soils are generally loams and sandy soils. Most of the airfield drainage infiltrates into the ground or is routed into ditches. These ditches outlet into either the Washington County ditch system along County Road 15, or into the township ditch along 30th Street. Some open areas that are currently leased for farming drain internally into farm drain tile. In 1999, it was estimated that only 8% of the airport property is impervious surface (hangars or pavement area). No airport improvements have occurred since that time to raise the percentage. The County Road 15 ditch ultimately takes storm water runoff into Downs Lake. This is a landlocked basin with poor water quality. The ditches that outlet from the airport have been constructed with skimmers to regulate the amount of flow into the drainage system off airport. Figure 1-13 shows the general ditch drainage and direction of flows. There are numerous wetland areas around the airport. Most are regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act and the Valley Branch Watershed District. There is at least one Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulated wetland on site. A field delineation was completed in Approximately 36 acres of wetlands were identified within airport property, with varying wetland types. Figure 1-13 also shows the existing wetland areas. There are no designated flood plain areas on the Airport. MAC maintains a Storm Water Spill Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) and a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) for MAC owned facilities at the Airport. The MAC has a general storm water discharge permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). In addition, MAC maintains a Water Management Plan for the Airport. It includes best management practices for protecting the storm water conveyances, wetlands, and groundwater. Due to the activities the FBO performs, it is required to obtain and maintain their own general storm water discharge permit from the MPCA, along with their own SWPP and SPCC plans. Chemicals used in deicing activities at airports is of concern because of the potential effects on receiving water bodies. There is very little to no aircraft deicing at Lake Elmo. Most aircraft can be stored inside heated hangars prior to takeoff or cannot fly when icing conditions exist, which eliminates the need for glycol use. MAC uses some minor amounts of urea on the runways during icing conditions. The amount is less than 500 pounds annually. Salt is not used due to its corrosive nature. Sand is used on a limited basis, depending on weather conditions. Storm water runoff from paved surfaces is routed through on-airport ditches that act as infiltration and sediment basins. This provides some treatment in addition to rate and volume control of flow off the airport. Given these efforts and minor use of de-icers, the potential impact on water quality from the airport is minimal Sanitary Sewer and Water The Lake Elmo Airport currently lies outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) for sanitary sewer services. Therefore, there is no water or sanitary system available for tenants. There are plans to develop the land immediately west of the Airport that will include the installation of sanitary sewer and water facilities. While there has been little discussion to date about serving the Airport from that system, it may be a possibility. 9

27 Existing tenants that have legal wells and septic holding tanks have been allowed to keep them. The MAC maintenance building also has a well and holding tank. Tenants with illegal drain fields or sandpoint wells were required to remove or abandon them after MAC adopted its Sanitary Sewer and Water Policy in October Consistent with that policy, no new wells or holding tanks have been allowed at the airport. Few wells exist at the airport today, and those that do are equipped with granulated-activated-carbon (GAC) systems. This is due to contaminated groundwater in the Lake Elmo area. In 2005, the source of the trichloroethene (TCE) contamination was located at a commercial business in the City of Lake Elmo. There has been no evidence to indicate any of the TCE contamination originated at the Airport. Chapter 5 contains more discussion on sanitary sewer and water Utilities and Local Services Most tenants at the Airport have electric and/or natural gas service, as well as telephone service. Some tenants utilize propane tanks. The electrical lines are above ground in some locations at the airport, and below ground in others. The tenants are billed directly by the utility companies. AT&T provides telephone service, and Xcel provides both natural gas and electric service to the airport. The Baytown Township volunteer fire fighters provide emergency services for the Airport, including fire and rescue. If necessary, a mutual aid agreement allows the Stillwater Fire Station to assist Baytown Township. Police and law enforcement is provided by the Washington County Sheriff s Office. 1.6 Meteorological Data Unlike most airports, the Lake Elmo Airport does not have a weather station on the airfield. An Automated Weather Observation Station (AWOS) is a standard way of collecting airfield weather conditions for provision to aircraft pilots. In the case of Lake Elmo, weather information is obtained from the St. Paul Downtown Airport automated surface observing system (ASOS). 1.7 Area Land Use, Airspace and Zoning One of the biggest challenges facing airports in general today is the presence of incompatible land use either adjacent to the airport or in runway flight paths. Working closely with City and Township officials, airport users, developers, and any nearby residents, airports can reduce these types of conflicts through the use of zoning regulations that disallow certain types of nearby development. The Lake Elmo Airport is located in Baytown Township with the City of Lake Elmo adjacent and directly west and West Lakeland Township adjacent and directly south of the airport property. All of these areas are located in Washington County. Baytown and West Lakeland Townships have adopted overlay districts for the Lake Elmo Airport. The City of Lake Elmo does not have an overlay district. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan shows these areas and contains a section on aviation pertaining to the Lake Elmo Airport. It describes the airports future recommended development and shows airspace surfaces and Mn/DOT s recommended state safety zones. It also shows noise contours and the Metropolitan Councils Airport Noise Zones. In general, the area directly adjacent to and around the airport is compatible with the airport. Existing land use is primarily agricultural. There has been residential development in recent years that is getting closer to the airport 10

28 property. These developing areas are primarily single family estate (residential) with 16 dwelling units per 40 acres. Figures showing the existing land use maps are included in Chapter 6 of this report. 1.8 Area Socioeconomic Data The reliever airport system owned and operated by MAC includes the Lake Elmo Airport and five other airports in the metropolitan area. According to the Economic Analysis of Reliever Airport System, prepared by Wilder Research in October 2005 for MAC, it is estimated that Lake Elmo contributes approximately $4.3 million per year to the local economy and supports 47 jobs. This includes on airport services, fuel sales, and visitor spending in the community. 1.9 Historic Airport Activity Aircraft based at and using the Lake Elmo Airport are primarily single engine general aviation airplanes. There is also minor activity by twin-engine turbo props, very small business jets, helicopters and military aircraft. There are no military aircraft based at the airport, but they fly in to utilize the compass calibration pad and complete training operations. It is assumed that flights in and out of Lake Elmo are made up of a mix of recreational and business purposes. The based aircraft fleet mix currently registered with the State of Minnesota consists of 221 single engine planes (94%), 11 multi-engine piston aircraft (light twins) (5%), two helicopters (1%), and no jets. An ultralight and a hot air balloon are also registered, but they must be trailered to a location where such activity is allowed. In recent years, the activity at the Lake Elmo Airport has been declining. This is due to the overall downward trend in aviation since Since the Airport does not have an air traffic control tower, historical aircraft operations have been estimated by MAC and the FAA. 11

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42 Chapter 2 Aviation Forecast This chapter provides a summary of the aviation activity forecasts prepared for the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Lake Elmo Airport (21D). The forecasts are intended for use in subsequent facility requirements analyses for the airside and landside area development. A credible and usable forecast is critical to ensure that the type and size of the planned facilities are appropriate for future conditions. Forecasts are presented for an approximate 20-year time horizon, and include 2010, 2015, 2020, and The forecasts are unconstrained, except runway length, and assume that the necessary facilities will be in place to accommodate demand except where noted. The existing and projected socioeconomic conditions in the area and current general aviation activity are used to prepare the assumptions that form the foundation of the forecasts. Based aircraft forecasts for the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) airports are calculated and then allocated among the individual airports. Operations and peak activity forecasts for Lake Elmo are derived from the based aircraft forecasts. An extended runway scenario and a set of high and low activity scenarios are included for the airport. The assumptions inherent in the following calculations are based on data provided by the MAC, federal and local sources, and professional experience. Forecasting, however, is not an exact science. Departures from forecast levels in the local and national economy and in the aviation industry could have an effect on the forecasts presented herein. Economic growth, fuel costs, runway length, and hangar area constraints are all factors in the forecast assumptions. For example, the forecasts prepared for Lake Elmo utilize the same aviation fuel cost estimates and growth rates that the FAA is using for the national system. Other factors, such as the emergence of microjets and interest in fractional ownership (where companies share in the use and cost of a corporate jet) can also influence the number of based aircraft and operations within the 20-year planning period. A copy of the full Activity Forecasts - Technical Report is contained in Appendix A of this document. The report includes background information, socioeconomic data, historical trends, and detailed descriptions of the assumptions for the forecasts. This chapter is a brief synopsis of that report as it pertains to the Lake Elmo Airport. 2.1 Based Aircraft Projections The number of based aircraft at Lake Elmo Airport is expected to increase from 236 in 2005 to 312 in 2025 as shown on Table 2-1. Lake Elmo Airport is expected to grow for many reasons. It is located in rapidly-growing Washington County, and has a long waiting list of aircraft owners that wish to base their aircraft at the airport. 2.2 Aircraft Operations Forecasts The forecasts of aircraft operations were derived from the based aircraft forecasts. Estimates of base year operation levels were provided by the MAC. Operations counts for Lake Elmo were estimated using operations to based aircraft ratios at other MAC airports. Crystal and Anoka County - Blaine Airports operations per based aircraft ratios were averaged to obtain the estimated base year operations for Lake Elmo since the airports have similar runway approaches and types of operations. Note that in future estimating, the Anoka Airport will not be used given the 2006 installation of an instrument approach. 12

43 Table 2-1 Based Aircraft Forecast Summary (a) Ave Annual Growth Rate Single Engine Piston % Multi Engine Piston % Turboprop % Microjets (VLJs) % Other Jets % Helicopter % Other (b) % TOTAL % (a) Assumes no runway extension. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. (c) April 2006 based aircraft data from Mn/DOT was used as a proxy for calendar year The detailed information on aircraft type and county of registration necessary for the forecasts analysis was not available for Although the April 2006 total for the airport differs from the 2005 total, the difference is less than 3 percent. It should be noted that, within any given year, the based aircraft total at an airport will fluctuate. The year 2006 could not be used as the base year because operations totals were not available at the time of the analysis. Source: Appendix A HNTB Activity Forecasts Technical Report, Table 8, 11/20/06 1 Table 2-2 Aircraft Operations Forecast Summary (a) Single Engine Piston 54,471 69,949 75,786 80,884 85,446 Multi Engine Piston 1,976 2,644 2,779 3,128 3,496 Turboprop Microjets (VLJs) Other Jets Helicopter ,185 1,184 Other (b) TOTAL 57,667 74,186 80,249 86,091 91,119 (a) Assumes no runway extension. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: Appendix A HNTB Activity Forecasts Technical Report, Table 11, 11/20/06 1 Table 2-2 summarizes the aircraft operations forecasts for Lake Elmo. The number of operations is projected to grow more quickly than the number of based aircraft. The aircraft operations forecasts assume that average aircraft utilization will increase, consistent with FAA forecasts. This means that the amount of time a pilot uses the aircraft is anticipated to increase. The percentage of touch and go operations in each aircraft category was assumed to remain constant. The table in the Technical Report identifies the breakdown between touch and go operations and itinerant operations. Operations at Lake Elmo are projected to increase from 57,667 in 2005 to 91,119 in 2025, an average annual increase of 2.3 percent. Increases are projected in all aircraft categories. Since no increase in runway length is assumed, some operations by microjets and other jets are not anticipated. By 2025, microjet operations are projected to account for about 0.3 percent of total operations at Lake Elmo. 1 All forecast calculations were adjusted in November 2006 to correct minor mathematical errors in the calculations. Therefore, the numbers shown in this report are slightly different from those included in the September 2006 public meeting handouts. 13

44 2.3 Peak Activity Forecasts Table 2-3 shows the peak month, average day peak month (ADPM), and peak hour operations forecasts for Lake Elmo. The relationship between peak activity and annual activity was assumed to remain constant. Since Lake Elmo has no air traffic control tower, peak month operations were estimated using MAC records of fuel flow. Based on these records, July is the peak month, accounting for 12.5 percent of annual activity. ADPM operations were estimated by dividing by 31 days. Consistent with the previous Lake Elmo LTCP, published in 1992, peak hour operations were estimated at 12.7 percent of ADPM operations. Peak hour operations at Lake Elmo are projected to increase from 30 in 2005 to 47 in Table 2-3 Peak Activity Forecast Summary Annual Operations (a) 57,667 74,186 80,249 86,091 91,119 Peak Month Operations (b) 7,208 9,273 10,031 10,761 11,390 ADPM Operations (c) Peak Hour Operations (d) (a) From Table 2-1. (b) The share of operations occurring in the peak month is based on MAC fuel flow records for This percentage is assumed to remain constant through the forecast period. (c) Average Daily Peak Month - Peak month (July) operations divided by 31 days. (d) Assumed to be 12.7 percent of ADPM operations based on Lake Elmo Airport LTCP, April Source: Appendix A Activity Forecasts Technical Report, Table 14, 11/20/ Forecast Scenarios General aviation activity has historically been difficult to forecast, since the relationships with economic growth and pricing factors are more tenuous than in other aviation sectors, such as commercial aviation. This uncertainty is likely to carry over into the near future, given the volatility of fuel prices and the anticipated emergence of microjets. These uncertainties will also be affected by any decisions to lengthen runways at one or more of the airports. To address these uncertainties, and to identify the potential upper and lower bounds of future activity at Lake Elmo, detailed runway extension, high and low scenarios are presented. These scenarios use the same forecast approach that was used in the base case, but alter the assumptions to reflect either a more aggressive or more conservative outlook Extended Runway Scenarios The extended runway scenario was prepared to evaluate the potential impact associated with runway lengthening under the proposed development alternatives. Specifically, this scenario assumes the extension of the crosswind runway at Lake Elmo to 3,200 feet. All other forecast assumptions are the same as in the base case. 2 All forecast calculations were adjusted in November 2006 to correct minor mathematical errors in the calculations. Therefore, the numbers shown in this report are slightly different from those included in the September 2006 public meeting handouts. 14

45 Table 2-4 shows the extended runway forecast scenario for Lake Elmo Airport. By 2025, the number of based aircraft and operations would be slightly higher than under the base case because more microjets could be accommodated with the extended runway. Table 2-4 Extended Runway Scenario (a) BASED AIRCRAFT SUMMARY Single Engine Piston Multi Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets (VLJs) Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS SUMMARY Single Engine Piston 54,471 69,949 75,786 80,884 85,446 Multi Engine Piston 1,976 2,644 2,779 3,128 3,496 Turboprop Microjets (VLJs) ,301 Other Jets Helicopter ,185 1,184 Other (b) TOTAL 57,667 74,316 80,426 86,301 92,363 (a) Assumes runway extension to 3,200 feet. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: Appendix A Activity Forecasts Technical Report, Table 17, 11/20/ High Forecast Scenarios The high forecast scenario for Lake Elmo is based on the following assumptions: Income in the county is assumed to grow 50 percent more rapidly than under the base case. Fuel costs are assumed to be the same as in the base case. Fractional ownership operations are assumed to significantly boost their investment in microjets, increasing the number of jets based at Lake Elmo, and the number of itinerant operations per aircraft. Microjets are assumed to become very popular, and the number of future aircraft in this category will grow at double the projected FAA rate. The use of microjets for air taxi operations will result in a higher utilization rate which will increase the ratio of aircraft operations to based aircraft. Increased popularity of ultralight recreational (Part 103) aircraft is assumed to cause a doubling of numbers over the FAA forecast levels. This would increase the number of based aircraft, although operations would remain unaffected. Ultralight aircraft can be based at Lake Elmo, but they are not allowed to takeoff or land at the airport. The runway at Lake Elmo is assumed to be extended to 3,900 feet. Other assumptions, including capacity constraints at MSP and STP, are assumed to be the same as in the base case. 3 All forecast calculations were adjusted in November 2006 to correct minor mathematical errors in the calculations. Therefore, the numbers shown in this report are slightly different from those included in the September 2006 public meeting handouts. 15

46 Table 2-5 shows the high forecast scenario for Lake Elmo Airport. By 2025, the number of based aircraft would be 18 percent higher than under the base case. Although microjets would only account for slightly over 1 percent of the total based aircraft, there would still be five times as many as under the base case. Total operations would be 27 percent higher than under the base case, and jet operations would account for almost 9 percent of total operations. Table 2-5 High Forecast Scenario (a) BASED AIRCRAFT SUMMARY Single Engine Piston Multi Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets (VLJs) Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS SUMMARY Single Engine Piston 54,471 73,563 84,176 91,384 99,093 Multi Engine Piston 1,976 2,644 3,176 3,754 3,933 Turboprop Microjets (VLJs) ,579 5,456 9,332 Other Jets ,101 Helicopter ,185 1,481 1,480 Other (b) TOTAL 57,667 79,119 91, , ,896 (a) Assumes runway extension to 3,900 feet. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: Appendix A Activity Forecasts Technical Report, Table 20, 11/20/ Low Forecast Scenarios The low forecast scenarios for each airport were prepared using the following assumptions: Income in the county is assumed to grow 50 percent more slowly than under the base case. Fuel costs are assumed to be the same as in the base case. Fractional ownership operations are assumed to focus mostly on larger business jets, and therefore have little impact on activity at Lake Elmo. Microjets are assumed to fail to excite the market, and only increase at about 100 per year nationally. No runway development is assumed at Lake Elmo. It is assumed that operators currently on waiting lists will become discouraged because of low income and high costs and choose to dispose of their aircraft or to remain at their existing location. Therefore, there would be no additional growth resulting from aircraft currently on waiting lists. Other assumptions, including capacity constraints at MSP and STP, are assumed to be the same as in the base case. 16

47 Table 2-6 presents the low scenario forecast for Lake Elmo Airport. Under this scenario, by 2025, the total based aircraft would be 30 percent lower than under the base case. Total operations would be 30 percent lower than in the base case by Table 2-6 Low Forecast Scenario (a) BASED AIRCRAFT SUMMARY Single Engine Piston Multi Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets (VLJs) Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS SUMMARY Single Engine Piston 54,471 56,527 57,651 57,651 59,337 Multi Engine Piston 1,976 2,078 1,985 2,085 2,185 Turboprop Microjets (VLJs) Other Jets Helicopter ,184 Other (b) TOTAL 57,667 60,197 61,321 61,764 63,700 (a) Assumes no runway extension. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: Appendix A Activity Forecasts Technical Report, Table 23, 11/20/ Summary The base case forecasts anticipate moderate growth in based aircraft at Lake Elmo. Operations are projected to grow more rapidly than based aircraft, reflecting anticipated increased utilization of aircraft. The forecast scenarios indicate that future economic growth, fuel prices, technology, and national policy will have a major impact on the development of general aviation. Runway extensions would also affect the forecasts though not to the same extent as economic growth. Therefore, it is prudent to closely monitor actual aviation activity and modify the phasing of facility improvements at the airport if that activity materially departs from forecast levels. 17

48 2.6 Sensitivity Analysis of the Forecasts The Mn/DOT Office of Aeronautics maintains a database of registered aircraft in the state of Minnesota. The data includes aircraft N-numbers, pilot addresses and in most cases, a designated base airport. It was this database that provided the 2005/2006 starting number of based aircraft for the Lake Elmo forecasts. Specifically, the number from Mn/DOT includes registered aircraft that listed Lake Elmo as their base airport. However, since there are registered aircraft that do not list a base airport, further investigation was completed to determine if additional based aircraft should be accounted for in the Lake Elmo forecasts. There is no air traffic control tower at Lake Elmo, so the base year operations were calculated using information from towered MAC airports where annual operations are recorded. Those annual operations were divided by the number of based aircraft to obtain an annual number of operations per based aircraft. That number was then multiplied by the based aircraft at those airports where no records are kept. The Crystal and Anoka County operations per based aircraft were used to estimate the Lake Elmo Airport operations. This is important to note because changes in the based aircraft number change the annual operations estimate. According to the Mn/DOT database, there are 268 aircraft in the Metro area that did not list a base airport. In order to assign these aircraft, two different methods were used. One method used GIS and owner addresses to assign aircraft within a certain drive times to an airport, and the other used county distribution percentages to assign aircraft. In assigning these aircraft, the estimated number of based aircraft increased at all of the airports, including Crystal and Anoka. By increasing the number of based aircraft, the calculated operationsper-aircraft multiplier goes down. In turn, even though Table 2-7 shows an increased number of based aircraft, the estimated number of operations is lower because the multiplier used is lower. Base Case Forecast Table 2-7 Based Aircraft Sensitivity Summary Using Drive Times Difference Using County Distribution Difference Based Aircraft Annual Operations 57,667 55,274-2,393 57, The results show there is a potential increase in the current number of estimated based aircraft, but it corresponds to only minor changes in the annual operations. There could be potentially more aircraft based at the airport than is being reported in the LTCP, but the differences would not change the forecasts enough to warrant revisions the proposed development concepts for the airport. As discussed in Chapter 4, all of the concepts analyzed include hangar area development. Therefore, the original based aircraft numbers were used in the forecasts discussed earlier in this chapter. A detailed summary of the sensitivity analysis can be found in Appendix B of this document. 18

49 Chapter 3 Airside and Landside Facility Requirements This chapter describes the facility requirements needed to accommodate the base case and demand forecasts for year The sections of this chapter are intended to: Describe relevant design criteria Present airfield requirements in context of the critical aircraft Review NAVAID requirements Identify general aviation facility requirements Review parking and airport access needs Review obstructions issues Present miscellaneous requirements for the airport. 3.1 Airside Requirements Airport Reference Code FAA Advisory Circular 150/ Airport Design outlines airport design guidelines. Primarily aimed at maintaining airport safety and efficiency, these guidelines help ensure that facilities at a given airport will match the requirements of the type of aircraft actually using (or forecast to use) the airport on a regular basis. For example, an airport serving larger aircraft will need wider runways and bigger safety areas than an airport serving small single engine aircraft. In addition to aircraft type, airport design is also affected by the existing or planned approach visibility minimums for each runway. To match aircraft type to the appropriate facility requirements, an Airport Reference Code (ARC) is applied to each runway. An ARC is most often determined based upon the Approach Category (grouping by approach speed) and the Airplane Design Group (ADG - grouping by wingspan) of aircraft using or expected to use the airport on a regular basis (at least 500 operations a year); though the FAA also considers local characteristics when approving applied criteria Approach Category The current aircraft approach category assigned to the Airport is B. Typical aircraft in this aircraft approach category includes most all single engine and twin piston aircraft, as well as a variety of turbo props and small jets. Given that the role of the airport and types of aircraft operating there is not anticipated to change over the forecast period, the plan recommends the criteria associated with category B aircraft continue to be applied. See Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Aircraft Approach Category Category Criteria A Speed less than 91 knots. B Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots. C Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots. D Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots. E Speed 166 knots or more. 19

50 3.1.3 Airplane Design Group The current airplane design group applied to the Airport is group II. This means that aircraft with wingspans less than 79 feet can operate at the airport. Like approach category B, aircraft that fall into this category include most all single engine and twin piston aircraft, the Beechcraft King Air and some of the smaller jets such as the Cessna Citation I and Gulfstream I. Table 3-2 shows the thresholds for the airplane design groups. Category I II III IV V VI Table 3-2 Aircraft Design Group Criteria (Wingspan) Up to but not including 49 feet. 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet. 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet 241 feet up to but not including 262 feet Wind Coverage Weather conditions have a significant influence on the operational capabilities at an airport. Wind speed and direction help determine runway orientation. Temperature plays a role in determining runway length. High temperatures in the summer months result in longer runway length requirements. Cloud cover and low visibility are factors used to determine the need for navigation aids and instrument approaches. Aircraft generally take off and land directly into the wind, or at least as directly into the wind as a given runway alignment allows. Crosswind runways are used when the wind is blowing perpendicular to the primary runway. Because small single engine aircraft have less power and are lighter than larger aircraft, they often have the most pressing need for crosswind runways. The FAA prefers that the primary runway supply at least 95% percent wind coverage for the aircraft anticipated to use the airport. If the primary runway does not provide this level of coverage, a crosswind runway may be justified. Since there is no weather observation system available on the Lake Elmo Airport, wind and weather data at the St. Paul Downtown Airport was used in the wind analysis. The St. Paul Downtown Airport Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) data for was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This data was used to analyze the amount of wind coverage provided by the current runways at Lake Elmo. Because larger, heavier and more powerful aircraft need a crosswind runway less often than smaller, lighter and less powerful ones, different winds speeds are used in the crosswind runway analysis for different aircraft. These different wind speeds are called crosswind components. Crosswind components are defined by wind direction and speed taken at a right angle to a runway. The FAA recommends that the criteria depicted in Table 3-3 be applied: 20

51 Crosswind Component Table 3-3 Crosswind Components 10.5 knots A-I, B-I 13 knots A-II, B-II Airport Reference Code 16 knots A-III, B-III, C-I through D-III 20 knots A-IV through D-VI Tables 3-4 and 3-5 summarize the wind coverage of runways for different crosswind components. Table 3-4 includes the data for all weather conditions and Table 3-5 includes only the data when the weather is under IFR conditions of less than 1,000 foot ceilings and/or three miles visibility. Table 3-4 All Weather Wind Coverage Wind Speed Airport Reference Code Runway Runway 4-22 Both Runways 10.5 A-I and B-I 95.2% 83.4% 98.7% 13 A-II and B-II 97.9% 90.2% 99.7% 16 A-III, B-III, and C-I through D-III 99.6% 97.1% 99.9% Source: NOAA National Data Center, US Department of Commerce, St. Paul Downtown Station (WMO: ), 01/01/96 to 12/31/05. Runway 32 and Runway 4 have non-precision instrument approaches. These allow aircraft to land in a wider range of weather conditions. The data from the St. Paul ASOS indicates that weather conditions are below 1,000 feet ceilings and/or 3 mile visibility about 7% of the time. Weather data indicates that during these instrument-flight-rule (IFR) conditions, Runway 14 is favored. Table 3-5 IFR Weather Wind Coverage Wind Speed Airport Reference Code Runway Runway 4-22 Both Runways 10.5 A-I and B-I 97.3% 88.8% 99.5% 13 A-II and B-II 98.6% 93.4% 99.9% 16 A-III, B-III, and C-I through D-III 99.8% 98.4% 100.0% Source: NOAA National Data Center, US Department of Commerce, St. Paul Downtown Station (WMO: ), 01/01/96 to 12/31/05. These tables show that Runway provides the desired 95% coverage for all types of aircraft, and having the crosswind Runway 4-22 provides nearly 100% coverage for all aircraft in all weather conditions. Another important factor to consider when planning facilities at airports is temperature. Temperature effects aircraft performance. The standard used is the mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month at the airport. For the Lake Elmo Airport, the mean maximum temperature of the hottest month (July) is 83.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Since there is no reporting station at Lake Elmo Airport, an average was taken from Stations in Stillwater, Hastings and St. Paul. 21

52 3.2 Airside Capacity Requirements Annual Service Volume Airfield capacity is defined as the maximum number of operations that can be accommodated by a particular airfield configuration during a specified interval of time when there is constant demand. Annual service volume (ASV) is one capacity measure and the average hourly capacity is another. The Annual Service Volume (ASV) for a given airport is the annual level of aircraft operations that can be accommodated with minimal delay. For an airport with annual operations below its ASV, delay is minimal within one to four minutes per operation. Anything above four minutes of delay per operation can result in increased congestion that can adversely impact airfield capacity. An airfield system s capacity is determined by a multitude of various factors, including prevailing winds and associated orientation of runways, number of runways, taxiway system, fleet mix, operational characteristics of based aircraft and weather conditions. Lake Elmo Airport s ASV is currently calculated to be 230,000, which is well above its current and projected (2025) annual operations of 57,667 and 91,119 respectively. It is also well above the high scenario 2025 year forecast of 115,896 annual operations. From the FAA Advisory Circular 150/ (Airport Capacity and Delay), Lake Elmo Airport s average hourly capacity was estimated to be 98 operations during VFR conditions and 59 operations during IFR conditions. Peak activity forecasts show 47 peak hour operations for the year Table 3-6 summarizes these numbers in terms of airside capacity. Base/Forecasted Operations (No rwy ext) Table 3-6 Airside Capacity Base/Forecasted % Airside Peak Hour Ops Ops/Hour Maximum (VFR) Ops/Year Maximum Capacity (VFR) % Airside Capacity , , , , , , , , , , Lake Elmo Airport has adequate runway capacity to support all of the forecast scenarios. This means that runway capacity will not be a contributing factor to any airport improvements Runway Length Runway length requirements are based on the type of aircraft using or expected to use an airport, and are affected by temperature, airport elevation, and runway gradient. In addition, runway surface conditions also impact runway requirements. This last factor is an important consideration for determining runway lengths at airports in northern climates where wet and icy conditions exist. Runway length analysis was conducted using two similar methods. The first method was the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design while the second was the FAA Airport Design for microcomputers program. 22

53 FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, recommends identifying a critical family of aircraft. Although this methodology is general in nature, it recognizes that there is uncertainty about the composition of the Airport s fleet mix during the forecast period. Determining runway length based on an aircraft family ensures the greatest measure of flexibility. The AC provides runway length requirement tables for three groups of aircraft based upon the Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight (MTOW): Airplane Weight Category 12,500 pounds or less; Airplane Weight Category over 12,500 pounds but less than 60,000 pounds; and Airplane Weight Category 60,000 pounds or more or Regional Jets. Based on both the existing and future fleet mix, the Airplane Weight Category 12,500 pounds or less is the critical grouping for Lake Elmo since aircraft of this category fly in and out of the airport more than 500 times per year. Under this weight range, one of two percentage of fleet categories can be used (95 percent or 100 percent). Typical aircraft are the Cessna 172, the Piper Cherokee, and the Beechcraft King Air. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of the advisory circular were used to calculate runway length requirements. The calculations consider airport elevation above mean sea level, mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month and critical design aircraft. Based on the above analysis, to accommodate 95 percent of the fleet, the runway length should be approximately 3,300 feet. To accommodate 100 percent of the fleet, the runway length should be approximately 3,900 feet long. Another way to calculate runway length requirements is to use the Airport Design for microcomputers program that is part of FAA AC 150/ Airport Design. This program incorporates Airport elevation, mean daily maximum temperature, length of haul, and runway conditions. The following analysis was done as a cross check. The Airport Design for microcomputers program provides runway length requirement tables for six groups of aircraft: Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds Based on the above criteria, the category of small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats is the critical grouping of aircraft for the Lake Elmo Airport since aircraft of this category will fly in and out of the airport more than 500 times per year; the runway length should be approximately 3,300 feet to accommodate 95 percent of these aircraft and 3,900 feet to accommodate 100 percent of these aircraft. Table 3-7 Recommended Runway Lengths AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA Airport elevation 932 feet Mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month 83.3 F. Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation 15 feet Length of haul for airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds 500 miles 23

54 Table 3-7 continued RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN (for wet and slippery runways) Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats 75 percent of these small airplanes 95 percent of these small airplanes 100 percent of these small airplanes Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less 75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 75 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load 100 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 100 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds Source: FAA s Airport Design software (Version 4.2D) Runway Orientation 330 feet 870 feet 2,760 feet 3,280 feet 3,890 feet 4,330 feet 5,450 feet 7,000 feet 5,580 feet 8,280 feet Approximately 5,340 feet For optimum runway design, the primary runway should be orientated to capture 95 percent of the crosswind component perpendicular to the runway centerline for any aircraft that is to use the airport. This is not always achievable. In cases where this cannot be done, a crosswind runway is recommended. It is also recommended when certain aircraft with lower crosswind capabilities are unable to utilize the primary runway, provided they have over 500 annual operations at that airport. According to criteria found in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, dated July 1, 2005, crosswind runway length should be 100% of the recommended runway length for the aircraft with lower crosswind capabilities. If the crosswind runway is designed to accommodate the same aircraft as the primary runway, it should be the same length as the primary. If it is designed for different (typically smaller) aircraft, it should be designed to accommodate the needs of those aircraft. At Lake Elmo, the crosswind runway should be designed to accommodate the same aircraft as the primary runway and therefore be the same length as the primary runway Runway Width and Shoulders The FAA establishes 75 feet as the required width for a runway supporting ADG II. The runways at Lake Elmo are 75 feet wide. Runway shoulders are intended to provide a transition surface between the runway pavement and the adjacent surface, to support aircraft running off the pavement, provide blast protection, and enhance erosion control and drainage. For Aircraft Design Group II, the required shoulder width is 10 feet. The airport has 10- foot wide turf shoulders on its runways Runway Safety and Object Free Areas The Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) for Runways and 4-22 at Lake Elmo meet FAA requirements for ARC-II with greater than ¾ mile visibility minimums (300 feet beyond the runway end, and 150 feet wide). The Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) is centered on the runway and should be clear of any above ground objects protruding into the runway safety area edge elevation. The only exception to this rule is related to objects necessary for air navigation or aircraft ground movement. The ROFA is clear off of both runway ends and extends 300 feet beyond the runway end and has a uniform width of 500 feet. 24

55 The Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) is a defined airspace centered above the runway and extends 200 feet beyond each runway end. The width varies depending on the characteristics of the runway s critical aircraft. For Lake Elmo, it is 400 feet wide and meets FAA requirements Taxiway Requirements ADG II criteria for taxiway width are 35 feet. The two parallel taxiways and all connector taxiways are currently 30 feet wide. This means the taxiway widths are deficient by 5 feet. As taxiway reconstruction projects become necessary, MAC will look at widening the pavements to the MAC standard of 40-feet wide. For ADG II aircraft, the recommended runway centerline-to-taxiway centerline separation is 300 feet for approach minimums less than ¾ mile and 240 feet for approach minimums not lower than ¾ mile. For Runway 14-32, the parallel taxiway separation distance is currently 240 feet. For Runway 4-22, the parallel taxiway separation distance is currently 400 feet. The separation between runway and taxiway for both runways meets the FAA criteria for the existing one mile visibility minimums. Taxiway turnoffs should be present to facilitate aircraft exit off of the supported runway, to reduce incursions and minimize time on runway. The existing connectors currently provide this functionality and AC 150/ guidance will be utilized for proposed future parallel taxiway extensions. Paved or stabilized shoulders are recommended along taxiways. ADG II aircraft would require 10 foot shoulders. Lake Elmo has 10-foot wide turf shoulders on its taxiways. The Taxiway Object Free Area (OFA) width for ADG II aircraft is 131 feet, which is met for all taxiways. The FAA-recommended taxilane OFA width is 115 feet for B-II airports. However, the FAA offers a calculation as an alternative that utilizes the wingspan of a particular aircraft to determine an adequate OFA. The formula takes the wingspan times 1.2, plus 20 feet. Using a King Air 200 with a wingspan of 58-feet, the calculation results in a required OFA of 89.6 feet. Based on a years-old assumption that the majority of airplanes using the airport would have this wingspan or less, MAC developed a standard taxilane OFA of 90-feet. This OFA was used for the development of newer hangar areas at Lake Elmo and the other MAC owned reliever airports. At Lake Elmo, the oldest building area on the airport s west side was designed for even smaller aircraft, and therefore, offer less taxilane OFA. 3.3 Landside Requirements Hangar Facilities The Lake Elmo Airport, like all of the MAC airports, has a wide variety of hangar sizes. In recent years, MAC has tried to standardize the size of hangars within new hangar areas. However, aircraft also come in many different sizes, and trying to accommodate everyone leads to variability. As shown in Chapter 1, the Lake Elmo Airport is estimated to have 256 indoor aircraft storage spaces. This number includes an assumption that most airport tenants sublease extra space for additional aircraft within their hangars, and includes a small discount for those who opt not to lease extra space. Tenants own their hangars and lease the ground space from MAC. It is currently the policy of the MAC that no tenant can lease more space than they can justify with actual aircraft ownership. This practice has reduced the number of large hangar demands, and subsequently, reduces some of the subleasing opportunities at the airport. However, it is feasible that a tenant that owns a 3,600 square foot hangar and two aircraft can sell the hangar to a person who owns only one aircraft. That new tenant then would be allowed to sublet his extra space to house a second aircraft. According to the Chapter 2 forecasts, the number of based aircraft is anticipated to rise from 236 in 2006 to 291 in the year This large increase in the immediate future is attributed to the current waiting list MAC has for new tenant space at Lake Elmo. This initial demand would be satisfied first, with slower growth in the 25

56 number of based aircraft to occur after that. By 2025, the number of based aircraft is forecasted to be 312 aircraft (313 if a 3,200 foot runway is constructed). The number of based aircraft reached a historical high in 1999 with 250 aircraft. The most recent hangar area expansion occurred in 1992, and was full by So, it appears that the space utilization calculation in Chapter 1 is reasonable, and 256 aircraft can be accommodated in the existing building areas. With a forecasted growth to 291 aircraft by 2010, and another 21 aircraft in years following, the airport does not currently have enough hangar space to meet the forecasted demand. Table 3-8 summarizes the landside capacity with the existing hangar areas. Table 3-8 Landside Capacity Based Aircraft Forecast (No rwy ext) Estimated Maximum Number of Spaces % Landside Capacity Historical High Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Based on the current leasing practices, it is expected that the opportunity to sublease space will be limited in new hangar areas. Therefore, hangar area alternatives will assume one new hangar for every aircraft needing space. Chapter 4 addresses more on this issue and the proposed alternatives for additional hangar space. It is important to note that including additional hangar space in this long term comprehensive plan is not a commitment to build or fund such a development. Rather, it is simply ensuring that should the indicated immediate demand lead to actual hangar construction, an appropriate place for them is shown in this plan and subsequent Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Fixed Base Operators At this time no additional space is needed for an FBO. MAC is already reserving space in the west building area, and a new building area on the airport s east side could easily accommodate an FBO, as well. Currently, it is believed that there is not enough air traffic to support more than one FBO facility at the airport Airport Access, Roadway Circulation and Parking At this time, there are no issues related to airport access or parking. The two access roads connect to County Road 15 (Manning Avenue), which continues to see increases in the average daily traffic every year. Washington County is not proposing any improvements to Manning Avenue, or any changes in traffic management (i.e. no four-way stop or signalized intersections) in the vicinity of the airport. Airport users, at times, have to wait for an appropriate gap in the traffic before entering or exiting the airport. Both airport entrances currently have passing and turning lanes. In the past, airport users have expressed an interest in having internal airport roads connecting the two building areas and any future new hangar area on the east side of the airport. This concept was previously studied, and was determined not to be feasible based on the airport s current and potential future runway configurations and limited demand for such a roadway system. In all cases, an internal road would cross within a runway safety area or object free area, which is not a safe or approvable location. Therefore, there will be no concepts showing such a roadway configuration. 26

57 3.3.4 Maintenance and Fuel Storage Areas At this time, there is no demand or requirement for additional maintenance equipment or fueling capabilities at the airport. This should be monitored, however, in future long term plan updates if proposals for substantial airport improvements become more of a reality. 3.4 Lighting and Navigation Requirements Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting Runway edge lights are used to outline the edges of runways during periods of reduced visibility or darkness. These light systems are classified according to the intensity they are capable of producing. Currently there are medium intensity runway edge lights (MIRL) on Runway At night, pilots using the Runway 4 NDB approach must circle to land on Runway It is recommended that MIRL be added to Runway 4-22 to enhance safety of operations and usability of the runway, especially if a runway extension is constructed. There is currently no taxiway lighting at Lake Elmo, and no guidance reflectors on the taxiways either. It is recommended that taxiway reflectors be added to all of the taxiways at the airport. This would improve safety during the evening and after a light snow fall and also aid pilots that are unfamiliar with the airport. If a runway and corresponding taxiway extension are constructed, it is recommended that the potential for installation of taxiway lighting be reviewed as a part of the airfield upgrade PAPI A Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) system is a row of lights normally located on the left side of a runway that provide visual descent guidance information during an approach to a runway. The lights are visible from about 5 miles during the day and up to 20 miles at night. Currently there is a PAPI system on Runway 32. It is recommended that they be added to the other three runways REIL Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) are flashing lights located outboard of the runway end threshold lights that aid pilots in identifying the approach end of a runway quickly. They are especially effective in identifying a runway during reduced visibility or when surrounded by other lights. REILs enhance the usability of an instrument approach by drawing attention to the runway end. There are currently REILs on both ends of Runway It is recommended they be added to both ends of Runway 4-22 as part of any runway lighting project Instrument Approach As noted in the inventory, Runway 32 has an RNAV (GPS) approach with 1 mile visibility minimums and Runway 4 has an NDB approach with 1 mile visibility minimums. These are both non-precision instrument approaches. In the future, there may be some applicability for a precision GPS approach possibly with Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) at Lake Elmo. FAA is developing the WAAS program for use in precision flight approaches. Currently, GPS alone does not meet the FAA s navigation requirements for accuracy, integrity, and availability. WAAS corrects for GPS signal errors caused by ionospheric disturbances, timing, and satellite orbit errors. WAAS accuracy is within approximately 10 feet, as compared to upwards of 330 feet. The technology is still being reviewed by the FAA, and should be monitored in future airport plan updates. 27

58 3.4.5 Automated Weather Observation Station There currently is no Automated Weather Observation Station (AWOS) at the Lake Elmo Airport. It is the only airport in the MAC system that does not have type of equipment. Weather data is currently obtained from the St. Paul Downtown Airport for pilots to make weather-related determinations for Lake Elmo. That airport is located approximately 12 miles away, and is situated in the Mississippi River valley. Therefore, it does not necessarily represent the weather conditions at the Lake Elmo Airport. The installation of an AWOS would be beneficial to the users of the airport. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Office of Aeronautics has a program in which they install, own and maintain these types of systems. This should be considered a facility requirement for the Lake Elmo Airport. 3.5 Security Requirements There is a fence that runs along the airport boundary on the west, south, and the southern end of the east side of the airport. The fence is not secured, as there are no gate closures preventing access to the main hangar areas at the airport. At this time, there is no demand or requirement for security related improvements at the airport. This should be monitored, however, in future long term plan updates if there are any changes to national aviation security recommendations or local issues generate a need for such improvements. 3.6 Utility Requirements At this time, there is no demand or requirement for additional utilities at the airport. If a new hangar area is constructed, certain utility installations will be included in the project, including electricity, telephone, natural gas, etc. The issues related to sanitary sewer and water are discussed in Chapter Obstruction Related Issues Obstructions, if any, are typically analyzed when an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) is prepared. Upon completion of this comprehensive plan, the ALP for Lake Elmo will be updated. Obstructions will be identified with a proposed disposition for each. In recent years, trees on airport property that were identified as potential obstructions were removed. 28

59

60 Chapter 4 Alternatives In this chapter the different potential development options are analyzed for the airport. While the number of concepts could be infinite, the ones in this chapter have been developed taking into consideration the airport inventories, forecasted growth, and facility requirements. In addition, other concepts or ideas arising from public input during the LTCP process also received consideration. 4.1 Alternatives At the onset of this LTCP study, the following general concepts were selected for analysis. These are depicted in Figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. Leave the airport as is with only hangar area development; Extend the crosswind runway (4-22) from 2,497 feet to 3,200 feet, with hangar area development; Extend the crosswind runway (4-22) from 2,497 feet to 3,900 feet, with hangar area development. These concepts are discussed in more detail below. As part of the public informational program, it was these three concepts that were brought to the communities, residents, and airport users for comment. As a result, MAC was requested to analyze some additional concepts as well No Build Alternative The concept of a true no build alternative was not one of the general concepts brought forth for comments. A no build alternative would include no runway extension, no changes to the airfield at all, and no hangar area development within the 20 year planning period. The only difference between this no-build concept and the first general concept is the proposed construction of additional hangar space. The justification and reasoning behind additional hangar spaces is discussed in Section as a part of that concept analysis. These are the same reasons why this no-build alternative does not meet the needs of the airport Hangar Development Only As identified in the facility requirements, there is an existing demand and forecasted growth of based aircraft that cannot be accommodated with the existing number of hangars at the airport. While there is additional outdoor storage available at the FBO facility and in specific areas around the airport, very few pilots will select outdoor storage as a way to permanently store their aircraft. The potential risks from wind and hail damage in the summer, combined with ice, snow and cold engine issues in the winter preclude outdoor storage as an option for many aircraft owners. While there are no empty lots available for new hangar construction, there are available hangar spaces at the airport. These are in the form of hangars for sale or space within hangars for lease. It is expected that there will always be some amount of space available for sale or lease at an airport. Tenants who either lease their extra space or rent space from another hangar owner are comfortable with the potential risk of aircraft damage from moving aircraft in and around the hangar space. Some pilots are not comfortable with this, and will choose to construct their own facility in lieu of renting or leasing space. 29

61 MAC does not own hangars at the airport, and MAC cannot require a hangar owner to sublet any extra space to accommodate the projected growth in based aircraft. It is expected that some of the existing demand can be accommodated in the existing building areas, but not all. The facility requirements indicate that the hangar capacity at the Lake Elmo Airport is approximately 92% full. Considering indoor space only for permanent aircraft storage, there is an excess of 20 spaces within existing hangars. The 2010 forecasted number of based aircraft is 291, which shows a need for 35 hangar spaces over and above those that could be accommodated in existing hangars. See Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Based Aircraft Space Demands Spaces Available or Forecasted Current Number of Registered Aircraft 236 Calculated Available Space within Existing Hangars 256 Spaces to be Accommodated 2010 Forecast within existing hangars; 35 New 2015 Forecast New 2020 Forecast New 2025 Forecast New TOTALS 56 New within 20 yr period Therefore, based on this summary, it is recommended that the preferred alternative include hangar development in the 20-year planning period. This development can be phased over time, but it should be noted that the most noticeable increase in based aircraft occurs between 2006 and This is due to the existing demand for space. The proposed location for a new hangar area is on the airport s east side. In order to access the airfield, construction of a taxiway east of and parallel to Runway 4-22 is recommended to eliminate the need for runway crossings or back taxi on the runway to access the new building area. This full length taxiway could be lighted or constructed with taxiway reflectors for guidance. This alternative is shown in Figure 4-1. In summary, the concept of leaving the airfield as is with only hangar area development results in the following: Beneficial Considerations: Additional hangar space accommodates demand and forecasted growth in based aircraft Costs for hangar development would be charged to new tenants; therefore, little cost to MAC Some comments received through public process support this option Negative Considerations: Construction of new parallel taxiway is recommended Airport does not meet design aircraft requirements for runway length Some comments received from airport users do not support this option Failure to plan and protect for runway growth may ultimately restrict runway extensions in the future Hangar area construction must address the sanitary sewer/water issue (see Ch. 5) 30

62 4.1.3 Extend Crosswind Runway 3,200 Feet, with Hangar Area Development The existing runways at Lake Elmo are very short. In comparison to the other MAC-owned Reliever Airports, the primary runway at Lake Elmo (14-32) is by far the shortest in the system. At 2,850 feet, Runway is more than 400 feet shorter than the Crystal Airport, and more than 1,000 feet shorter than any other primary runway in the system. The crosswind runway at Lake Elmo is 2,497 feet long. This is extremely short when compared to primary runways, and shorter than all other crosswind runways within the system. See Table 4-2 for a full comparison. Table 4-2 Runway Length Comparison Airport Primary Runway Length (ft) Crosswind Runway Length (ft) St. Paul Downtown 6,490 3,642 Anoka County-Blaine 4,855 5,000 Airlake 4,098 N/A Flying Cloud 3,900 2,691 Crystal 3,266 2,499 Lake Elmo 2,850 2,497 Notes: The lengths listed for St. Paul are the ultimate lengths upon completion of the 2006/2007 runway safety areas improvements. The Flying Cloud primary runway is proposed for extension to 5,000 feet. The Airlake Airport has only one runway. As defined in Chapter 1, the Lake Elmo Airport is categorized as a B-II airport, meaning it serves airplanes with approach speeds less than 121 knots and wingspans up to but not including 79 feet. Aircraft in this category are typically less than 12,500 pounds, and include most single engine aircraft and light twin engine airplanes that can carry up to 10 passengers. This also includes small corporate jets, such as the Cessna 501 Citation. The existing runway lengths accommodate approximately 75% of the aircraft within this category. There is some speculation that the new very-light-jets (VLJs) coming on the market could also operate at Lake Elmo in its current configuration. The concept of extending a crosswind runway at Lake Elmo is driven by certain factors related to the airfield instead of the typical FAA-recommended reasons for a crosswind runway. Usually, the recommended crosswind runway length is the same or close to the primary runway length, as defined in Chapter 3. One would first look at extending the primary runway if additional runway length is required at an airport. In many cases, an extension to an airport s primary runway is proposed to provide needed runway length, which is then followed with an extension to the crosswind to meet FAA guidelines. At Lake Elmo, however, the existing primary runway length is restricted by obstructions, including two roadways and a railroad. Therefore, it was proposed to analyze an extension to the existing crosswind runway instead. This concept (shown in Figure 4-2) includes extending Runway 4-22 from 2,497 feet to 3,200 feet. The runway would also be lighted. With an extension to 3,200 feet, the airport could accommodate almost 95% of the aircraft under 12,500 pounds, coming much closer to meeting the demands of the critical aircraft. An extension would provide for safer operations by the aircraft already using the airport, in particular, the design aircraft (King Air) and small corporate jets, as well as provide for operations by the new very-light-jets (VLJs) just coming on the market. If Runway 4-22 were extended to 3,200 feet, it could effectively become the primary runway at the airport. It would most likely be the preferred runway when winds are calm. The single engine aircraft most affected by winds could certainly still utilize either runway as dictated by winds without concern about runway length. 31

63 The larger aircraft that use Lake Elmo today and the new VLJs would benefit from a longer runway, and could operate on the longer crosswind runway in stronger winds than single engine aircraft. Therefore, the greatest benefit to the larger aircraft (longer runway for safer operations) is not cancelled out by the fact it is on the crosswind runway. As shown in the forecasts outlined in Chapter 2, there is not a large jump in operations resulting from the runway extension. Forecasts show an increase by 2025 of 1,244 additional operations per year, or about a 1.4% increase over the forecasted growth without a runway extension. This equates to less than four operations per day in This increase is attributed to expected increases in VLJ and small jet operations. The VLJ operations under this concept are forecasted to increase from zero operations today, to 63 operations per year in 2010, and to 1,301 annual operations in With regard to the extension itself, the length of 3,200 feet was specifically chosen because it can be constructed on MAC property and the required runway protection zones (RPZ) fit almost entirely within MAC property boundaries. There is one small corner of the RPZ that would overlap with the existing railroad corridor. It is not expected MAC would be required to purchase this railroad property, however, it is possible that MAC may be required to obtain an avigation easement. Another factor to be considered is noise. It is expected that if the crosswind runway is extended, the noise contour may be altered somewhat. Overall the noise contour is balanced between to the two runways, and would remain that way in the future, although slightly larger in the crosswind runway direction. Noise and other environmental considerations are discussed in Chapter 5. In summary, the concept of extending the crosswind Runway 4-22 to 3,200 feet with hangar development results in the following: Beneficial Considerations: Additional runway length accommodates almost 95% of aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less Additional runway length enhances airport use and provides for safer operations Additional runway length allows continued use by small corporate jets and the new VLJs Wind coverage adequate for crosswind extension The projected increase in operations from runway extension is less than 1.4% over no runway extension concept Minimal or no land acquisition required for construction RPZs almost entirely on airport property (99+%) Runway extension eligible for federal funding Hangar development will accommodate demand and forecasted growth in based aircraft Comments received from airport users support this option Negative Considerations: Avigation easement may be required for portion of RPZ Extension of Runway would be preferred by users Comments received during public process do not support this option Cost MAC s share of the unfunded runway project or the entire project if funding is not available 32

64 4.1.4 Extend Crosswind Runway to 3,900 Feet, with Hangar Area Development This concept (shown in Figure 4-3) is identical to the previous one, except it provides for an even longer crosswind runway length. At 3,900 feet, the airport could accommodate 100% of aircraft under 12,500 pounds, and is the FAA recommended length for such aircraft given the airport s average summer temperature and elevation. This runway length would allow for more use by small corporate jets and King Airs currently using the airport today, however, some slightly larger corporate jets, like the Citation III would be able to operate with restricted loads at Lake Elmo. Based on preliminary calculations completed in early 2006, the increase in operations resulting from a crosswind extension to 3,900 feet is expected to be less than 4% by the year This equates to approximately eight or nine aircraft operations per day more than the forecasted operations with no runway extension. Similar to the previous concept, the increase in operations would be attributed to increased jet and VLJ activity. Under this 3,900-foot runway alternative, single engine operations are forecasted to remain the same as in the no runway extension alternatives. The airport sees little use by jet aircraft today. This is due in part to the existing runway length, but also to the limited development around the airport. The majority of adjacent land use is still low density residential and farmland. Developed commercial areas do not exist adjacent to the airport. Therefore, little demand exists at this time for a 3,900 foot runway to accommodate jet operations. Of further note, extending the crosswind runway to 3,900 feet could require some land acquisition for RPZ property and would most likely alter the noise contours. In summary, the concept of extending the crosswind runway to 3,900 feet with hangar development results in the following: Beneficial Considerations: Additional runway length accommodates 100% of aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less Runway meets FAA recommended length Additional runway length allows for increased corporate jet aircraft and new VLJs Additional runway length enhances airport use and provides for safer operations for existing aircraft Wind coverage adequate for crosswind extension The anticipated increase in operations from runway extension is less than 4% over the no extension concept FBO business will benefit from increased jet activity Runway extension may be eligible for federal funding Hangar development will accommodate demand and forecasted growth in based aircraft Comments received from airport users support this option Negative Considerations: Comments received during public process do not support this option Noise contours need to be studied to determine if there are any impacts Land acquisition or avigation easements would be required Extension of Runway would be preferred by users Cost MAC s share of the unfunded runway project or the entire project if funding is not available 33

65 4.1.5 Primary Runway (14-32) Construction and Extension The Long Term Comprehensive Plan prepared by MAC in 1992 for the Lake Elmo Airport proposed runway extensions for both the primary Runway and the crosswind Runway During the public open house meetings with residents and the airport users for this current plan update, many airport users requested MAC review again the potential for an extension to the primary runway. Runway is the preferred runway due to its longer existing length and prevailing winds, and therefore, it is perceived to be a better option than extending the crosswind runway. The current length of Runway is limited by obstructions at both ends. Two roadways and a railroad prevent any further extension of the existing runway without major relocation to these facilities. Therefore, the 1992 LTCP recommended that runway be relocated instead to a parallel location and extended, first to an initial length of 3,300 feet, with an ultimate extension to 3,900 feet. This would avoid impacts to one of the roads and the railroad. This concept has been in previous plans prior to 1992 as well, and MAC purchased property in 1975 to accommodate this runway relocation. It is shown in Figure 4-4. The reasons to extend the primary runway are identical to those for extending the crosswind runway, as shown in the list below. The only additional benefit is the improvement in wind coverage in all weather and IFR conditions with the primary runway versus the crosswind. More of a factor is the cost related to the relocation of the runway. It not only involves the construction of an entire runway, at 3,900 feet, it also requires the relocation of a roadway, too. MAC already owns the property over which the road relocation would occur. In summary, the concept of relocating the primary runway to a parallel location, first to 3,300 feet, then ultimately to 3,900 feet with hangar development results in the following: Beneficial Considerations: Additional runway length accommodates 95%, and ultimately 100% of aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less Additional runway length allows for increased corporate jet aircraft and new VLJs Additional runway length enhances airport use and provides for safer operations Wind coverage better for primary runway extension Similar to crosswind extension alternatives, no significant increase in operations would result Primary runway extension preferred by users FBO business will benefit from increased and jet activity Runway extension may be eligible for federal funding No land acquisition would be required Negative Considerations: Comments received during public process do not support this option Noise contours need to be studied to determine impacts 3,900 extension feet requires road relocation - MAC cost Cost MAC s share of the unfunded runway project or the entire project if funding is not available Other Alternatives Other items under consideration for airport improvements include the installation of a weather monitoring systems and specific approach/navigational enhancements. Chapter 3 did not identify any specific runway navigational aids other than REIL and PAPI systems. These have been identified under the runway cost options in the next section. 34

66 4.2 Estimated Costs Each of the alternatives has been analyzed for impacts as well as cost. The details in this section outline some of the cost implications of the different options. All costs are shown in 2006 dollars and include estimated engineering fees No Build Concept Since this concept includes a true no-build scenario, there are no related concept costs. However, it should be noted that both runways are in need of reconstruction. Runway is in poor condition, and band-aid type rehabilitations are no longer very effective. It is expected that full reconstruction is required within the next five years to maintain its viability and a debris-free pavement surface. The crosswind runway is in better condition, but will also require full reconstruction sometime within the next 10 years. Bituminous pavements rarely see a life longer than 20 years, and that is achieved only with solid pavement maintenance practices. Other airfield pavements, including taxiways and all building area alleyways will also require reconstruction and on-going maintenance. These are typically handled through small rehabilitation projects for which MAC utilizes federal non-primary entitlement funds and the funds recouped from tenants through their lease rent for maintenance or preservation projects. Given the significant cost related to runway reconstruction, only those are listed in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 No Build Cost Considerations Concept Element Estimated Cost Reconstruct Existing Runway $1,500,000 Reconstruct Existing Runway ,300,000 Source: MAC calculation Hangar Development Only A project involving the construction of a new building area has been in the MAC capital improvement program for many years. In 2002, MAC completed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed construction, which identified no significant impacts in any environmental review category. The final location of the building area will be determined based on the future runway configuration, and may be different than shown in the 2002 EAW report. The cost to develop it remains basically the same regardless of location. Table 4-4 identifies the estimated cost for new hangar area development. Two concepts are shown. The first would provide enough space to accommodate the existing demand and forecasted 2010 growth. The second concept would provide enough space to meet the 2025 forecasted needs. Costs do not include installation of sanitary sewer and water facilities. That issue is discussed in Chapter 5. The parallel taxiway construction estimates are also shown in the table. The length of the taxiway relates to the ultimate runway length. The costs are for a 40-foot wide pavement, and the option of installing taxiway reflectors or full medium intensity taxiway lights (MITLs) is identified. 35

67 Table 4-4 Hangar Development Cost Considerations Concept Element Estimated Cost New Building Area for 40 Hangars $2,300,000 New Building Area for 60 Hangars 2,600,000 Construct 3,200 Parallel Taxiway with Reflectors 850,000 Construct 3,200 Parallel Taxiway with MITLs 1,135,000 Construct 3,900 Parallel Taxiway with Reflectors 1,130,000 Construct 3,900 Parallel Taxiway with MITLs 1,460,000 Source: MAC calculation Crosswind Runway Extension to 3,200 Feet This concept includes the extension of the runway only, not reconstruction of the entire runway. That cost is included under the no-build scenario. The cost to extend the runway from 2,497 feet to 3,200 feet also includes full medium intensity runway lighting (MIRLs), with runway end identifier lights (REILs). The installation of precision approach path indicators (PAPIs) is also an option, and costs for runway safety area grading and tree clearing within the runway protection zone are listed. There is one existing parallel taxiway to the north and west of Runway This taxiway must also be extended to match the runway length. The taxiway is not lighted, therefore, there are two options here extend the taxiway with installation of taxiway reflectors; or extend the taxiway with the installation of full medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITLs). The existing taxiways at the airport are 30-feet wide, which does not meet the current FAA recommended width for B-II airports. Concept costs for extended or reconstructed taxiways are based on the MAC standard taxiway width of 40 feet. It is expected that if required, the costs for an avigation easement for the RPZ property would be covered in the contingencies included in the costs listed in Table 4-5. Table 4-5 Cost Considerations for Crosswind Runway Extension to 3,200 Feet Concept Element Estimated Cost Extend Runway from 2,497 to 3,200 with MIRLs $715,000 RSA Grading and RPZ Clearing 50,000 Install PAPI systems 100,000 Extend Existing Taxiway with Reflectors 250,000 Extend Existing Taxiway with MITLs 535,000 Source: MAC calculation Crosswind Runway Extension to 3,900 Feet This concept contains all of the same elements as the proposed extension to 3,200 feet. Costs for land acquisition were not estimated for this option. See Table 4-6: 36

68 Table 4-6 Cost Considerations for Crosswind Runway Extension to 3,900 Feet Concept Element Estimated Cost Extend Runway from 2,497 to 3,900 with MIRLs 1,540,000 RSA Grading and RPZ Clearing 50,000 Install PAPI systems 100,000 Extend Existing Taxiway with Reflectors 530,000 Extend Existing Taxiway with MITLs 860,000 Source: MAC calculation Primary Runway Relocation/Extension As discussed above, it was requested that MAC analyze an extension to Runway as an alternative to extending the crosswind runway. This seemed feasible, since MAC had previously studied and planned for such a concept, even going to the extent of acquiring property to accommodate it. The previous plans included a relocation of the runway with an initial length of 3,300 feet. The ultimate plan included an extension to 3,900 feet. Both lengths and their respective costs are outlined below. Note that the required road relocation is an element of the 3,900-foot option only. It is not required for a runway length of 3,300 feet. The reason 3,300 feet was selected is that it is the required length to accommodate 95% of the aircraft that use the airport according to FAA criteria. For this option, the taxiway concepts are slightly different than in the crosswind alternatives. If a new primary runway is constructed, the existing runway would be used as a taxiway. This new taxiway would not necessarily have to be reconstructed or reduced in size. In addition, it already contains a lighting circuit and lights, which would have to be changed out to taxiway lights. In lieu of this, the more expensive elements listed below include full reconstruction of this former runway to make it a 40-wide taxiway. Regardless of the existing taxiway/runway pavement, a taxiway extension is required to get from the old pavement end to the new runway end. Note that no land acquisition is required for either primary runway extension. Tables 4-7 and 4-8 identify the costs associated with relocation of the primary runway. Table 4-7 Cost Considerations for Relocated Primary Runway at 3,300 Feet Concept Element Estimated Cost Construct New Runway at 3,300 with MIRLs $2,030,000 RSA Grading and RPZ Clearing 100,000 Install PAPI systems 50,000 Partial Taxiway Extension at 40 Wide, and Use Former Runway at 75 Wide (incl. MITLs) 370,000 Partial Taxiway Extension at 40 and Reconstruct Former Runway to 40 Taxiway (incl. MITLs) 1,170,000 Source: MAC calculation 37

69 Table 4-8 Cost Considerations for Relocated Primary Runway at 3,900 Feet Concept Element Estimated Cost Construct New Runway at 3,900 with MIRLs $2,325,000 RSA Grading and RPZ Clearing 100,000 Install PAPI systems 50,000 Partial Taxiway Extension at 40 Wide, and Use Former Runway at 75 Wide (incl. MITLs) 675,000 Partial Taxiway Extension at 40 and Reconstruct Former Runway to 40 Taxiway (incl. MITLs) 1,475,000 Roadway Relocation 1,800,000 Source: MAC calculation Other Alternatives An automated weather observation system (AWOS) is recommended for the airport. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Office of Aeronautics has a program in which they install, own and maintain an AWOS system. If this is pursued, there would be no cost to MAC for the system. 4.3 Preferred Alternative After reviewing all of the concepts, costs, benefits and negative considerations, the preferred alternative recommended for the Lake Elmo Airport is a crosswind runway extension to 3,200 feet with hangar area development, as described above and shown in Figure 4-2. This option meets the airport needs identified, primarily additional runway length and hangar space, and takes advantage of existing infrastructure to reduce costs. Taxiway reflectors are recommended in lieu of full edge lighting. Runway safety area grading and RPZ clearing would be required when the runway extension occurs, and the installation of PAPI systems is also recommended. Further, the full parallel taxiway construction is recommended in conjunction with construction of a new hangar area on the east side of the airport. In addition, it is recommended that MAC pursue the installation of an AWOS system. Regarding the other alternatives reviewed, the no-build alternative clearly does not meet the needs of the airport. However, since the airport has existed in its current configuration for many years, it raises questions about why airport improvements continue to be planned even with decreasing operations. At this time, there are no runway capacity issues. In fact, the forecasted number of operations, even in the high forecast scenario, do not warrant the need for additional runways. The proposed runway extension does not provide additional capacity. That is not the purpose for having additional runway length in most of the alternatives. The runway extension is proposed to provide for safer operations, not increase the operations. This is shown in the different forecast scenarios. As previously stated, both of the existing runways will require reconstruction within the 20-year planning period of this document to maintain its usability and to prevent the potential for damaging debris. Runway reconstruction, therefore, is included in the list of the preferred alternative items. Hangar development only addresses the landside capacity issue, but does not provide the runway length that meets the FAA recommendation for this type of airport. It should be noted that the forecasts prepared incorporate the forecasted increase in based aircraft. The number of operations is expected to increase, but it is not solely due to the proposed increase in based aircraft. Itinerant aircraft currently make up about two- 38

70 thirds of the total operations, and as previously stated, the economy and other factors, such as the cost of fuel, drive the operations. An extension to 3,900 feet on either runway is not justified at this time. While having an extension to the primary runway would be preferred by airport users, the costs preclude this as an option when compared to the crosswind runway extension. In summary, the Preferred Alternative includes the following elements for the 20-year planning period: Pursue Installation of AWOS through Mn/DOT Construct new hangar area to accommodate the 2025 needs Construct a Full Parallel Taxiway in conjunction with new hangar area Reconstruct the Existing Primary Runway Pavement Extend Crosswind Runway 4-22 and Taxiway to 3,200 Feet, including runway lighting and PAPI systems Reconstruct the Existing Crosswind Runway 4-22 Length Some of the options discussed warrant further consideration in future airport plans. MAC believes at some point the relocated primary runway will be needed and justified. Therefore, it is recommended that the concept of relocating the runway be included in the preferred alternative, and it should be shown in the ALP update, even though the implementation is expected beyond the 20-year planning period of this document. Lastly, additional hangar space may be needed beyond It is recommended that the preferred alternative not only show the proposed development area, but also future hangar expansion areas. Items to be included that are beyond the 20-year planning period: Continue to show the need for a relocated Primary Runway in the future Continue to show additional future hangar areas. 39

71

72

73

74

75

76 Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations An integral part of the airport planning process focuses on the manner in which the airport and any planned enhancements to the facility pose environmental impacts. This chapter evaluates the environmental implications of the planned operation and development of the Lake Elmo Airport. 5.1 Aircraft Noise Quantifying Aircraft Noise Basics of Sound Sound is a physical disturbance in a medium; a pressure wave typically moving through a fluid - air. A sound source vibrates or otherwise disturbs the air immediately surrounding the source, causing variations in pressure above and below the static (at-rest) value of atmospheric pressure. These disturbances force air to compress and expand setting up a wavelike movement of air particles that move away from the source. Sound waves, or fluctuations in pressure, vibrate the eardrum creating audible sound. The decibel, or db, was introduced as a measure of sound pressure level that is compressed into a convenient range, the tremendous span of human sensitivity to pressure. Using a logarithmic relationship, and the ratio of sensed pressure compared against a fixed reference pressure value, the db scale accounts for the range of hearing with values from 0 to around 200. Most human sound experience falls into the 30 db db range. Decibels are logarithmic, and thus cannot be added directly. Two identical noise sources each producing 70 db do not add to a total of 140 db. The correct answer is 73 db. Each time the number of sources is doubled, the sound pressure level is increased 3 db. 2 sources: 70 db + 70 db = 73 db 4 sources: 73 db + 73 db = 76 db 8 sources: 76 db + 76 db = 79 db The just-noticeable change in loudness for normal hearing adults is about 3 db. That is, changes in sound level of 3 db or less are difficult to notice. A doubling of loudness for the average listener of A-weighted sound is about 10 db 4. Measured, A-weighted sound levels changing by 10 dba effect a subjective perception of being twice as loud. 5 Figure 5-1 provides the noise levels for various common sources. 4 A-weighted decibels represent noise levels that are adjusted relative to the frequencies that are most audible to the human ear. 5 Peppin and Rodman, Community Noise, p ; additionally, Harris, Handbook, Beranek and Vér, Noise and Vibration Control Engineering, among others. 40

77 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) In 1979 the United States Congress passed the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act. The Act required the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop a single methodology for measuring and determining airport noise impacts. In January 1985 the FAA formally implemented the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) as the noise metric descriptor of choice for determining long-term community noise exposure in the airport noise compatibility planning provisions of 14 C.F.R. Part 150. Additionally, FAA Order , Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and FAA Order , National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, outline DNL as the noise metric for measuring and analyzing aircraft noise impacts. As detailed above, the FAA requires the DNL noise metric to determine and analyze noise exposure and aid in the determination of aircraft noise and land use compatibility issues around United States airports. Because the DNL metric correlates well with the degree of community annoyance from aircraft noise, DNL has been formally adopted by most federal agencies dealing with noise exposure. In addition to the FAA, these agencies include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Defense, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Veterans Administration. The DNL metric is calculated by cumulatively averaging sound levels over a twenty four-hour period. This average cumulative sound exposure includes the application of a 10-decibel penalty to sound exposures occurring during the nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). The night sound exposures are increased by 10 decibels because nighttime noise is more intrusive. Figure 5-2 provides examples of typical DNL levels in various environments. The FAA considers the 65 DNL contour line as the threshold of significance for noise impact. As such, sensitive land use areas (e.g., residential) around airports that are located in the 65 or greater DNL contours are considered by the FAA as incompatible structures Integrated Noise Model (INM) The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-100) has developed the Integrated Noise Model (INM) for evaluating aircraft noise impacts in the vicinity of airports. INM has many analytical uses, such as assessing changes in noise impact resulting from new or extended runways or runway configurations and evaluating other operational procedures. The INM has been the FAA's standard tool since 1978 for determining the predicted noise impact in the vicinity of airports. Statutory requirements for INM use are defined in FAA Order , Environmental Impacts: Polices and Procedures and FAA Order , National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, and Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. The model utilizes flight track information, runway use information, operation time of day data, aircraft fleet mix, standard and user defined aircraft profiles, and terrain as inputs. The INM model produces DNL noise exposure contours that are used for land use compatibility maps. The INM program includes built in tools for comparing contours and utilities that facilitate easy export to commercial Geographic Information Systems. The model also calculates predicted noise at specific sites such as hospitals, schools or other sensitive locations. For these grid points, the model reports detailed information for the analyst to determine which events contribute most significantly to the noise at that location. The model supports 16 predefined noise metrics that include cumulative sound exposure, maximum sound level and time-above metrics from both the A-Weighted, C-Weighted and the Effective Perceived Noise Level families. The INM aircraft profile and noise calculation algorithms are based on several guidance documents published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). These include the SAE-AIR-1845 report titled "Procedure for the Calculation of Airplane Noise in the Vicinity of Airports," as well as others which address atmospheric absorption and noise attenuation. The INM is an average-value-model and is designed to estimate long-term 41

78 average effects using average annual input conditions. Because of this, differences between predicted and measured values can occur because certain local acoustical variables are not averaged, or because they may not be explicitly modeled in INM. Examples of detailed local acoustical variables include temperature profiles, wind gradients, humidity effects, ground absorption, individual aircraft directivity patterns and sound diffraction terrain, buildings, barriers, etc. As detailed previously, INM considers multiple airport and aircraft operational and noise propagation variables. The primary inputs into the model include aircraft activity levels, fleet mix, day/night split of operations, flight tracks and runway use Noise Contour Development The noise contours presented in this document were developed using INM Version 6.2a. The contours represent predicted levels, or noise contours, of equal aircraft noise exposure on the ground as expressed in DNL. The FAA currently suggests that three different DNL levels (65, 70, and 75 DNL) be modeled. The Metropolitan Council suggests that the 60 DNL contour be included for airports in an urban environment and the 55 DNL in cases where airports are located outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) owns and operates an Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). In addition to monitoring noise levels at 39 noise monitoring poles located around MSP, the system receives flight track data from the FAA radar located at MSP. The flight track data extends to approximately 40 miles around MSP. Lake Elmo Airport is located approximately 18 miles from MSP. As such, radar flight track data in the vicinity of Lake Elmo Airport was provided by ANOMS to aid in the INM input file development process. ANOMS flight track data from 2005 was utilized in the development of the 2005 Baseline INM Inputs. Due to the distance and geography between the FAA radar at MSP and operations in the vicinity of Lake Elmo Airport, data acquisition/availability is reduced. However, for 2005 ANOMS reported 8,699 operations in the vicinity of Lake Elmo Airport. This provided an adequate data sample for purposes of contributing to the construction of the INM input variables. The following details the methodology utilized in developing the data inputs for the INM contour modeling Aircraft Activity Levels The total number of Lake Elmo Airport operations in 2005 was 57,667. As detailed in Chapter 2 the total number of 2005 operations was developed as a function of the total based aircraft. A per-aircraft-multiplier of operations was applied to the total number of 239 based aircraft to develop the total 2005 operations number. The based aircraft operations multiplier was developed based on the FAA tower operations counts and based aircraft numbers at Anoka County Airport and Crystal Airport. The 2025 preferred alternative forecast number of total operations at Lake Elmo Airport is 92,363. The assumptions that were factored in the determination of the 2025 forecasted operations are detailed in Chapter 2 and Appendix A Fleet Mix Using the ANOMS flight track data available in the vicinity of Lake Elmo Airport for 2005, various data processing steps were taken to develop an actual 2005 fleet mix. The flight track analysis process began by first excluding all MSP carrier jet flight tracks. Then all flight tracks with a start point or end point that did not fall within a 10km radius and 1km (above ground level) ceiling around Lake Elmo Airport were filtered out of the data. If the starting point of a track was within the radius/ceiling criteria around Lake Elmo Airport it was considered a departure operation. If the endpoint of a track was within the radius/ceiling criteria around Lake Elmo Airport it was considered an arrival operation. 42

79 The aircraft type distribution derived from the ANOMS flight track analysis was then applied to the 2005 total number of operations to develop the baseline 2005 fleet mix as detailed in Table 5-1. The 2025 forecast fleet mix at Lake Elmo Airport is provided in Table 5-2. The assumptions that were factored in the determination of the 2025 fleet mix are detailed in Appendix A Day/Night Split of Operations Based on the ANOMS flight track fleet mix data sample for Lake Elmo Airport the split of day and nighttime operations was determined. The daytime hours are defined as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 pm and nighttime hours are 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The day/night operations distribution derived from the ANOMS flight track analysis was then applied to the 2005 total number of operations to develop the baseline 2005 day/night split as detailed in Table 5-1. The 2025 forecast day/night operations at Lake Elmo Airport are provided in Table Flight Tracks The Baseline 2005 INM flight track locations were developed based on the flight track trends established by the ANOMS flight tracks that met the fleet mix data sample criteria for Lake Elmo Airport. The 2005 INM flight tracks are provided in Figure 5-3 and the 2005 flight track use is detailed in Table 5-3. The 2025 forecast INM flight tracks are provided in Figure 5-4 and the 2025 flight track use is detailed in Table Runway Use Using the Lake Elmo Airport fleet mix ANOMS flight track data set, a runway use analysis was conducted. The analysis first included the development of trapezoids off the end of each runway to determine which runway a flight track was operating on. Each trapezoid ran along the axis of the centerline beginning at the runway endpoint and extending 3km from runway end. The trapezoid was 0.1km wide at the runway end point and 1km wide at the extent furthest from the runway end. For the purpose of the runway use analysis the last five, or first five, radar points of each track in the vicinity of Lake Elmo Airport were analyzed relative to the runway trapezoids. In cases where the last five radar points of a track were in the vicinity of Lake Elmo Airport, if any one of the radar points were located within a respective runway trapezoid, the track was assigned as an arrival operation on that runway. Conversely, in cases where the first five radar points were in the vicinity of Lake Elmo Airport, if any one of the radar points were located within a respective runway trapezoid, the track was assigned as a departure operation on that runway. An operation was considered a touch & go if the track was assigned both an arrival and departure for the same airport. The resultant runway use trends were then analyzed and adjusted relative to wind pattern data around Lake Elmo Airport. The 2005 runway use derived from the ANOMS flight track analysis is detailed in Table 5-5. The 2025 forecast runway use at Lake Elmo Airport is provided in Table

80 44

81 45

82 46

83 47

84 48

85 49

86 50

87 51

88 52

89 5.1.3 Baseline 2005 Noise Impacts In the Baseline 2005 noise contours there are no residential structures located within the 60 or greater DNL contours around Lake Elmo Airport. The 55 DNL contour contains approximately 1.12 square miles and 26 single-family structures. The 60 DNL contour contains approximately 0.39 square miles. The 65 DNL contour contains approximately 0.16 square miles with the entire 65 DNL contour on airport property (residential structures are typically considered incompatible within the 65 DNL noise contour). The entire 70 and 75 DNL contours are contained on the airport property, essentially overlying the areas immediately adjacent to the runways. The and 75 DNL contours contain 0.07 and 0.03 square miles respectively. The 2005 noise contours are shown in Figure Forecast 2025 Noise Impacts The Forecast 2025 noise contours around Lake Elmo Airport increase to approximately 2.06 square miles in the 55 DNL contour and approximately 0.81 square miles in the 60 DNL contour. The area within the 65 DNL contour increases to 0.31 square miles. Six residential structures are included within the 60 DNL noise contour and 85 structures are included within the 55 DNL noise contour in 2025 around the airport. The 70 and 75 DNL contours increase to cover 0.14 square miles and 0.06 square miles, respectively. The 2025 noise contours are shown in Figure 5-6. In summary, from 2005 to 2025 with the preferred alternative, there will be an 84 percent increase in the 55 DNL contour and the number of single-family homes in the 55 DNL contour increases by 59. The 60 DNL contour area increases by 108 percent from 2005 to 2025 and the number of single-family homes in the 60 DNL contour increases to six. The area within the 65 DNL contour increases 94 percent over the same period. Almost all of the 65 DNL contour in 2025 will be contained on airport property. The increase in the contours can be attributed primarily to a 60 percent increase in total aircraft operations from 2005 to Sanitary Sewer and Water The Lake Elmo Airport currently lies outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). However, the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) agency has requested that MAC provide sanitary sewer and water services for all of the hangar areas in the Reliever system, including the Lake Elmo Airport. This request was primarily related to concerns about non-compliant well and septic systems that may be in existence at the airports. Subsequent to the MCES request, MAC adopted a Sanitary Sewer and Water policy in The policy required all non-compliant septic systems be abandoned within two years of the adoption of the policy, and that private wells be closed out in accordance with timelines related to each individual airport. Compliant well and septic systems are allowed to remain until sanitary sewer and water services are made available. A tenant with a compliant system is required to close it out and connect to the sanitary sewer and water within two years of the sewer and water installation. The St. Paul Downtown, Crystal, and Anoka County Blaine Airports all have sewer and water facilities available. The Flying Cloud Airport is partially served, and the Airlake Airport FBO and MAC maintenance building are connected to sewer and water. The north hangar area at Airlake does not have services available for tenant connection, but does have a watermain line and hydrants installed for fire protection. 53

90 The Lake Elmo Airport has no services available. At the current time, no adjoining land has services either. In 1997, the MAC prepared a Water and Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for the airport. Since the airport and adjoining properties were located outside the MUSA, the master plan reviewed only private systems as alternatives. Recently, however, the City of Lake Elmo and the adjoining properties just to the west of the airport are reviewing residential development concepts. The Metropolitan Council in their review of the city s long term comprehensive plan is requiring the city to have sanitary sewer and water services provided as part of the development. Therefore, the opportunity for connection to the system may arise as the property adjacent to the airport develops. Some questions have been raised by MAC staff about the validity of serving an airport outside of the MUSA with full sanitary sewer and water. This is primarily due to the high cost of providing the service, and the potential for very little use by tenants. Depending on the goal of the project, different options can be considered. Examples includes: Serving the entire airport with full sanitary sewer and water, or only designated areas within the airport; Serve the entire airport with a community well and septic system(s); Construct stand alone community restroom facilities that have a well and septic system; Do nothing. Options that include well and septic systems will require a change to MAC s current sewer and water policy, and may not have concurrence by the Metropolitan Council. There may also be numerous issues related to community wells, and several permits are required for such a system, from agencies such as the Minnesota Department of Health, the MPCA, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Options that include sanitary sewer and water connection to the future Lake Elmo system may require agreements with the City of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township, communities which may or may not support the proposed installation. Estimated construction and engineering costs, in 2006 dollars, for the examples are provided in Table 5-5. Existing Hangar Areas Table 5-5. Sanitary Sewer & Water Cost Considerations Estimated Cost New Hangar Area Only SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN Estimated Cost Full Service $2,000,000 Full Service $1,700,000 Stand Alone Restroom 600,000 Stand Alone Restroom 500,000 Hydrant Line 200,000 Hydrant Line 100,000 WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEM(S) Full Service 2,600,000 Full Service 900,000 Stand Alone Restroom 500,000 Stand Alone Restroom 250,000 Hydrant Line 1,400,000 Hydrant Line 700,000 Source: MAC calculation 54

91 It is recommended that the steps for installation of sanitary sewer and water facilities at Lake Elmo be: 1. Pursue an agreement with the City of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township for the provision of sanitary sewer and water to the airport from the proposed development adjacent to airport property or via other means. 2. Continue to study the costs, benefits and feasibility of serving the airport with sanitary sewer and water versus well and septic systems. 5.3 Wetlands There are numerous wetland areas around the airport. Most are regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act and the Valley Branch Watershed District. There is at least one Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulated wetland on site. A field delineation was completed in Approximately 36 acres of wetlands were identified within airport property, with varying wetland types. They are shown on Figure Any projects completed at the airport require conformance with the watershed district, as well as WCA and/or DNR regulations regarding wetlands. The projects proposed in the preferred alternative require environmental review, at which time, avoidance and minimization efforts will be discussed if wetland impacts are suspected. Appropriate mitigation will also be discussed should wetland impacts arise from any of the proposed projects. The watershed district also reviews plans for water quality. Previous airport projects have required rate and volume controls, infiltration or other means to enhance water quality. These and other best management practices will continue with future projects listed in the preferred alternative. 5.4 Other Concerns Other areas that will be studied in the environmental documents to be prepared for the preferred alternative developments include, but are not limited to, air quality; farmlands; fish, wildlife and plant species; and historic/archeological research. A full study of these issues at this time falls outside the scope of this long term planning document. 55

92 5-1

93 5-2

94

95

96

97

98 Chapter 6 Land Use Compatibility Planning for the maintenance and development of airport facilities is a complex process. Successfully developing airports requires insightful decision-making predicated on various facts that drive the need for the development of additional airport infrastructure. Furthermore, these efforts should consider surrounding community land uses. Airports cannot be developed in a vacuum; the development effort must consider the needs of the surrounding populations and the land uses in the area surrounding the airport. The success of airport planning is predicated on close consideration and coordination of surrounding land use to ensure compatibility with the community surrounding the airport. Cities and airport operators are both responsible for the ongoing development of public assets. The development of U.S. airports, as well as city infrastructure is within the concept of conducting development predicated on the greater public interest. The responsible development of such community and airport infrastructure requires cooperative efforts on behalf of the airport proprietor and the community. As city governments are responsible for the development and enhancement of city infrastructure, airport proprietors are responsible for the federally endorsed enhancement of our nation s airport system. Airport operators would be remiss in their duties if such efforts did not consider the land use consequences of decisions made regarding airport development. This chapter evaluates the land use implications of the planned operation and development of the Lake Elmo Airport. 6.1 Land Use Compatibility Criteria The Federal Aviation Administration has established Land Use Compatibility criteria in 14 C.F.R. Part 150 detailing acceptable land uses around airports considering noise impacts in terms of DNL. In the case of airports located in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area additional criteria also must be evaluated in relation to noise exposure as established by the Metropolitan Council s Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) Federal Aviation Administration Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Federal guidelines for compatible land use that take into account the impact of aviation noise have been developed for land near airports. They were derived through an iterative process that started before Independent efforts by the FAA, HUD, USAF, USN, EPA and other Federal agencies to develop compatible land use criteria were melded into a single effort by the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise in 1979, and resulted in the FICUN Guidelines document (1980). The Guidelines document adopted DNL as its standard noise descriptor, and the Standard Land Use Coding Manual (SLUCM) as its standard descriptor for land uses. The noise-to-land use relationships were then expanded for FAA s Advisory Circular Airport-Land Use Compatibility Planning. The current individual agency compatible land use criteria have been, for the most part, derived from those in the FICUN Guidelines. Airport environments pertain only to certain categories of these guidelines. 6 In 1985 the FAA adopted 14 C.F.R. Part 150 outlining land use compatibility guidelines around airports. Table 6-1 provides the land use compatibility guidelines as established by the FAA. 6 Federal Interagency Committee On Noise (FICON), Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, (1992), pp. 2-6 to

99 Land Use Table 6.1 FAA Aircraft Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Less than 65 DNL Contour Interval (db) Residential Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N N N Mobile home park, Y N N N N N Transient Lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N(1) N N Greate r than 85 Public Use Schools Y N(1) N(1) N N N Hospitals and nursing homes Y N N N Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y N N N Governmental services Y Y N N Transportation Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(4) Parking Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y Commercial Use Offices, business and professional Y Y N N Wholesale and retail building materials, Hardware and farm equipment Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Retail trade general Y Y N N Utilities Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Communication Y Y N N Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing, general Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Photographic and optical Y Y N N Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Y Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(8) Y(8) Livestock farming and breeding Y Y(6) Y(7) N N N Mining and fishing, resource Production and extraction Y Y Y Y Y Y Recreational Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y(5) Y(5) N N N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y N N N N N Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Y Y Y N N N Golf courses, riding stables, and water recreation Y Y N N See following page for Table Key and Notes. 57

100 Key SLUCM Standard Land Use Coding Manual. Y(Yes) Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. N(No) Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 25, 30, or 35 Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 db must be incorporated into design and construction of structure. Notes The designations contained in this table do not constitute a federal determination that any use of land covered by the program is acceptable or unacceptable under federal, state, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute locally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. (1) Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 db and 30 db should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 db, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 db over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. (2) Measures to achieve NLR of 25 db must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (3) Measures to achieve NLR of 30 db must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (4) Measures to achieve NLR of 35 db must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (5) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (6) Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. (7) Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. (8) Residential buildings not permitted. Source: 14 CFR Part

101 According to FAA standards areas with noise levels less than 65 DNL are considered compatible with residential development Metropolitan Council Land Use Compatibility Guidelines The Metropolitan Council has developed a set of land-use planning guidelines for responsible community development in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area. The intent is to provide city governments with a comprehensive resource with regard to planning community development in a manner that considers adequacy, quality and environmental elements of planned land-uses. Specifically, the Minnesota State Land Planning Act, the underlying law that requires local units of government to prepare a comprehensive plan and submit it for Metropolitan Council review, was enacted in By 1980, all community plans had been approved. The 1973 Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide was updated in In 1983, the Metropolitan Council amended the Aviation Policy Plan to include Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise. In 1994, the Land Planning Act of 1976 had been amended to require communities to update their comprehensive plans at least every ten years. Therefore, all Metropolitan Development Guide chapters were updated by December Under the 1976 legislation, communities designated land uses and defined the zoning applicable to the particular land use parcel; the zoning took precedence. The land use measure was a request that local jurisdictions review existing zoning in Airport Noise Zones to determine their consistency with the regional compatibility guidelines, and rezone the property for compatible development if consistent with other development factors. This policy changed in Under the amended Land Planning Act, communities determine the land use designation, and the zoning must be consistent with that designation. Thus, the communities had to re-evaluate designated use, permitted uses within the designation, zoning classifications, and adequacy. In 2004 the Aviation Policy Plan was incorporated into the Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Land use compatibility guidelines for all metropolitan system airports are included in the TPP. In the case of airports located in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area, the Metropolitan Council Development Guidelines in relation to airport noise exposure need to be considered. The TPP provides land use guidelines based on 4 noise zones around an airport. The following provides the Metropolitan Council s description of each noise zone: Zone 1 Occurs on and immediately adjacent to the airport property. Existing and projected noise intensity in the zone is severe and permanent. It is an area affected by frequent landings and takeoffs and subjected to aircraft noise greater than 75 DNL. Proximity of the airfield operating area, particularly runway thresholds, reduces the probability of relief resulting from changes in the operating characteristics of either the aircraft or the airport. Only new, non-sensitive, land uses should be considered in addition to preventing future noise problems the severely noise-impacted areas should be fully evaluated to determine alternative land use strategies including eventual changes in existing land uses. 7 7 Metropolitan Council 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, Appendix H, December

102 Zone 2 Noise impacts are generally sustained, especially close to runway ends. Noise levels are in the 70 to 74 DNL range. Based upon proximity to the airfield the seriousness of the noise exposure routinely interferes with sleep and speech activity. The noise intensity in this area is generally serious and continuing. New development should be limited to uses that have been constructed to achieve certain exterior-to-interior noise attenuation and that discourage certain outdoor uses. 8 Zone 3 Noise impacts can be categorized as sustaining. Noise levels are in the 65 to 69 DNL range. In addition to the intensity of the noise, location of buildings receiving the noise must also be fully considered. Aircraft and runway use operational changes can provide some relief for certain uses in this area. Residential development may be acceptable if it is located outside areas exposed to frequent landings and takeoffs, is constructed to achieve certain exterior-to-interior noise attenuation, and is restrictive as to outdoor use. Certain medical and educational facilities that involve permanent lodging and outdoor use should be discouraged. 9 Zone 4 Defined as a transitional area where noise exposure might be considered moderate. Noise levels are in the 60 to 64 DNL range. The area is considered transitional since potential changes in airport and aircraft operating procedures could lower or raise noise levels. Development in this area can benefit from insulation levels above typical new construction standards in Minnesota, but insulation cannot eliminate outdoor noise problems. 10 Noise Buffer Zones: Additional area that can be protected at option of the affected community; generally, the buffer zone becomes an extension of noise zone 4. At MSP, a one-mile buffer zone beyond the DNL60 has been established to address the range of variability in noise impact, by allowing implementation of additional local noise mitigation efforts. A buffer zone, out to DNL55 is optional at those reliever airports with noise policy areas outside the MUSA. 11 The listed noise zones also use the DNL noise exposure metric. The Metropolitan Council Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise are provided in Table 6-2. The Metropolitan Council suggests that the 60 DNL contour be used for planning purposes in areas inside the MUSA. However, Lake Elmo Airport is located outside the MUSA, as such the 55 DNL contour is provided in the context of evaluating Land Use Compatibility considerations. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 60

103 Table

104 6.1.3 Runway Safety Zones The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has established regulations that control the type of development allowed off runway ends in order to prevent incompatible development. These guidelines should be used to establish zoning ordinances to protect areas around an airport. The states zoning areas overlay and extend beyond the RPZs which are defined by FAA. The most restrictive areas created by Mn/DOT regulations are called State Safety Zones A and B. The recommended safety zones should exist off each runway end and follow the approach zones out to the total length of the respective runway. The length of Safety Zone A is 2/3 of the total runway length; Safety Zone B is 1/3 of the total runway length and extends from Safety Zone A. There is also an area called Safety Zone C which is circular and typically follows the FAAs FAR Part 77 horizontal surface. Safety Zone A does not allow any buildings or temporary structures, places of public assembly or transmission lines. Permitted uses include agriculture, livestock, cemeteries and auto parking areas. Safety Zone B does not allow places of public or semipublic assembly (i.e. churches, hospitals, schools) and is subject to site-to-building area ratios and site population limits. Permitted uses are generally the same as Zone A, plus some low-density developments. Safety Zone C does not allow use that causes interference with radio or electronic facilities on the airport or interference with radio or electronic communications between the airport and aircraft, lighting that makes it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and other lights or that results in glare in pilot's eyes, and lighting that impairs visibility in the airport vicinity. A complete description and copy of the Minnesota Rules Chapter 8800 Department of Transportation Aeronautics Section 2400 Airport Zoning Standards can be found at Mn/DOT prefers that airports own all of State Zone A. For land within the area that is not airport-owned, land use protection is recommended by including the safety zones in local zoning codes and zoning maps. Inclusion of the safety zones on community Comprehensive Plans is also strongly encouraged. The RPZ s and recommended State Safety Zones for the existing airfield configuration at Lake Elmo Airport are shown on Figure 6-1. The RPZs and State Safety Zone locations for the preferred alternative are shown on Figure Land Use Compatibility Analysis The Lake Elmo Airport is located in Baytown Township with the City of Lake Elmo adjacent and directly west and West Lakeland Township adjacent and directly south of the airport property. All of these areas are located in Washington County. Baytown and West Lakeland Townships have adopted overlay districts for the Lake Elmo Airport. The City of Lake Elmo does not have these overlay districts. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan shows these areas and contains a section on aviation pertaining to the Lake Elmo Airport. It describes the airports future recommended development and shows airspace surfaces and Mn/DOT s recommended state safety zones. It also shows noise contours and the Metropolitan Councils Airport Noise Zones. A copy of this can be found on their web site at along with drawings of the overlay districts. In general, the area directly adjacent to and around the airport is compatible with the airport. Existing land use is primarily agricultural. There has been residential development in recent years that is getting closer to the airport property. These developing areas are primarily single family estate (residential) with 16 dwelling units per 40 acres. 62

105 6.2.1 Existing Condition Land Use Compatibility In general, the area around the airport is compatible with the airport. Existing land use in the vicinity of Runway and Runway 4-22 is agricultural. The closet areas of residential land use are to the northeast, southwest and south of the airport Land Use Compatibility and Airport Noise Considerations As detailed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1, the 2005 baseline 55 and greater DNL noise contours around Lake Elmo Airport contain 26 single-family structures. Figure 6-2 provides the 2005 baseline 55 and greater DNL noise contours around Lake Elmo Airport with 2005 land use data provided by the Metropolitan Council. Existing land uses around Lake Elmo Airport are compatible with airport operations considering airport noise impacts as outlined in both the FAA land use guidelines in Table 6-1 and the Metropolitan Council land use guidelines in Table 6-2. The 2005 baseline 65 and greater DNL contours are contained on airport property. The 60 DNL contours encompass additional areas of agricultural uses to the northwest and southeast of the airport. In addition to airport and agricultural land uses, the 55 DNL contour encompasses residential, retail/commercial, institutional, park/recreational, farmstead and undeveloped land uses Land Use Compatibility and Existing Runway Protection/Safety Zones The existing RPZs and state safety zones A and B for Runway and Runway 4-22 at Lake Elmo Airport encompass areas of airport property in addition to agricultural, undeveloped, park/recreational, residential and farmstead land uses. The RPZs for all runways contain compatible land uses such as airport and agricultural uses. Figure 6-3 provides the existing runway protection and safety zones with existing land use around Lake Elmo Airport. The Runway 14 RPZ encompasses 13.8 total acres; 7.5 acres are airport property and 6.3 acres are agricultural use. State Zone A contains 30.1 total acres; 22.6 acres are airport property and 7.5 acres are agricultural use. State Zone B contains 21.3 total acres, all of which are agricultural use. The Runway 32 RPZ encompasses 13.8 total acres; 12.9 acres are airport property and 0.9 acres are agricultural use. State Zone A contains 34.3 total acres; 33.0 acres are airport property and 1.3 acres are agricultural use. State Zone B contains 26.4 total acres; 9.5 acres are airport property, 15.6 acres are agricultural use, 1.2 acres are residential use, and 0.1 acres are undeveloped. The Runway 4 RPZ encompasses 13.8 total acres, which are all on airport property. State Zone A contains 28.7 total acres; 21.3 acres are airport property, 3.3 acres are agricultural use, and 3.3 acres are undeveloped, and 0.8 acres are residential use. State Zone B contains 21.5 total acres; 2.6 acres are agricultural use, 4.3 acres are residential use, 1.1 acres are farmstead and 6.0 acres are park and 7.5 acres are undeveloped. The Runway 22 RPZ encompasses 13.8 total acres, which are all on airport property. State Zone A contains 25.5 total acres; 25.4 acres are airport property and 0.1 acres are agricultural use. State Zone B contains 17.5 total acres; 9.8 acres are airport property, 1.5 acres are agricultural use, 3.0 acres are residential use, and 3.2 acres are undeveloped. 63

106 6.2.2 Preferred Alternative Land Use Compatibility The preferred development alternative at Lake Elmo Airport provides the extension of Runway 4-22 to 3,200 feet. This development, along with a growth in operation numbers, results in changes to the noise contour and RPZ and state safety zone considerations Forecast Land Use Compatibility and Airport Noise Considerations As detailed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1, the 2025 preferred alternative forecast 55 and greater DNL noise contours around Lake Elmo Airport contain 91 single-family residential structures, six of which are in the 60 DNL contour (85 single-family structures in the 55 DNL and six single family structures in the 60 DNL contour). Figure 6-4 provides the 2025 preferred alternative forecast 55 and greater DNL noise contours around Lake Elmo Airport with 2005 land use data provided by the Metropolitan Council. Existing land uses around Lake Elmo Airport are compatible with the preferred alternative option and resultant airport operations considering airport noise impacts as outlined in the FAA land use guidelines in Table 6-1. There are small areas of residential development at the outer extent of the 60 DNL contour to the southwest and northeast of the airport. With the exception of these small areas, the existing land uses around Lake Elmo Airport are compatible with the preferred alternative option and resultant airport operations considering airport noise impacts as outlined in the and the Metropolitan Council land use guidelines in Table 6-2. When comparing the 2025 preferred alternative noise contours to the 2020 planned land uses provided by the Metropolitan Council for the areas around the Lake Elmo Airport, several areas around the airport are reclassified from a 2005 designation of agricultural use to rural residential or mixed rural residential/agricultural. These areas are located in the 55 DNL noise contour surrounding airport property. Additionally, areas are reclassified from a 2005 designation of agricultural use to rural residential or mixed rural residential/agricultural in the 60 DNL contour to the south and to the west of airport property. The 2025 preferred alternative forecast 75 and 70 DNL contours and the majority of the 65 DNL contour are contained on airport property. A small area of agricultural land use is in the 65 DNL contour to the northwest, east and south of the airport. The 55 and 60 DNL contours encompass additional areas of agricultural, undeveloped, residential, institutional, retail/commercial, farmstead, and park/recreational land uses around the airport. There is a large area of land directly west of airport property (west of Manning Avenue) that is presently agricultural use and being considered for redevelopment. This development vision is referred to as the Lake Elmo Old Village, which includes development of residential, mixed use, civic/institutional, and parks/open space. A small portion of the northeast corner of the proposed residential use part of this development would be in the 2025 preferred alternative 65 DNL contour. A larger portion of the northwest segment of the development would be located in the 2025 preferred alternative 60 DNL contour, and the 2025 preferred alternative 55 DNL contour would encompass a large portion of the overall development site Land Use Compatibility and Preferred Alternative Runway Protection/Safety Zones The preferred alternative RPZs and state safety zones A and B for Runway and Runway 4-22 at Lake Elmo Airport encompass areas of airport property in addition to agricultural, undeveloped park/recreational, residential, farmstead and institutional land uses. The RPZs for all runways contain existing compatible land uses such as airport and agricultural uses. Figure 6-5 provides the preferred alternative RPZs and state safety zones A and B with the existing land uses around the Lake Elmo Airport. The preferred alternative Runway 22 RPZ encompasses 13.8 total acres; which are all on airport property. State Zone A contains 34.9 total acres; 22.1 acres are airport property, 2.6 acres are agricultural use, 2.9 acres are residential use, 1.2 acres are institutional use, and 6.1 acres are undeveloped land. State Zone B 64

107 contains 25.4 total acres; 10.0 acres are agricultural use, 9.2 acres are residential use, 1.6 acres are institutional use, 1.3 acres are farmstead, and 3.3 acres are undeveloped. The Runway 4 RPZ encompasses 13.8 total acres, which are all on airport property. State Zone A contains 40.1 total acres; 21.3 acres are airport property, 3.4 acres are agricultural use, 9.8 acres are undeveloped, 2.1 acres are residential use, 0.4 acres are farmstead, and 3.1 acres are park use. State Zone B contains 31.9 total acres; 15.0 acres are agricultural use, 10.2 acres are residential use, 0.8 acres are farmstead, 3.9 acres are park, and 2.0 acres are undeveloped. Runway 14 RPZ encompasses 13.8 total acres; 7.5 acres are airport property and 6.3 acres are agricultural use. State Zone A contains 30.1 total acres; 7.5 acres are airport property and 22.6 acres are agricultural use. State Zone B contains 21.3 total acres, all of which are agricultural use. The Runway 32 RPZ encompasses 13.8 total acres; 12.9 acres are airport property and 0.9 acres are agricultural use. State Zone A contains 34.3 total acres; 33.0 acres are airport property and 1.3 acres are agricultural use. State Zone B contains 26.4 total acres; 9.5 acres are airport property, 15.6 acres are agricultural use, 1.2 acres are residential use, and 0.1 acres are undeveloped. Additional analysis was conducted relative to the planned 2020 land uses around the Lake Elmo Airport as provided by the Metropolitan Council. The preferred alternative Runway 4, Runway 22 and Runway 32 state safety zones contain existing land uses that are comprised of a combination of agricultural and residential land uses. These areas are classified in the 2020 land use plan as rural residential. The Runway 14 state safety zones contain existing land uses that are comprised of agricultural areas that are classified in the 2020 land use plan as rural residential. In the context of existing and planned land uses around the Lake Elmo Airport, the only RPZ that extends off airport property is the Runway 14 RPZ. The portion of the RPZ that extends off airport property contains existing land uses of agricultural, which are classified in the 2020 land use plan as rural residential. A portion of the northeast corner of the land directly west of airport property (west of Manning Avenue) which is included in the proposed plan or vision for the development of the Lake Elmo Old Village is within the existing and preferred alternative Runway 14 RPZ and Sates Safety Zones A and B. The proposed development in the area of the Runway 14 RPZ and Sates Safety Zones is primarily residential. Shortly following the finalization of the proposed future development plans for Lake Elmo Airport, the MAC will convene a Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) that will include the respective Responsible Governmental Units (RGUs) that control land use development around the Lake Elmo Airport. This effort will address land uses around Lake Elmo Airport in the context of the preferred alternative runway zones. 6.3 Non-Aeronautical Land Use Areas Available on Airport Property MAC is currently analyzing the potential for non-aeronautical revenue-generating development at Lake Elmo and all of its Reliever Airports. Any parcels reviewed by MAC at Lake Elmo will be compatible with the airport and MAC will work with the surrounding communities to ensure proper zoning exists. It is anticipated that the eastern portion of the airport may provide the best opportunities for non-aeronautical development. 65

108

109

110

111

112

113 Chapter 7 Capital Improvement Program Costs The preferred alternative includes many airport improvements. The items included in the 20-year planning period as part of the preferred alternative and those items beyond the planning period are listed in Table 7-1 below. The estimated costs are in 2006 dollars, and they include estimated engineering costs. Table 7-1 Recommended Alternative Estimated Costs Recommendation Estimated Cost Pursue Installation of AWOS through Mn/DOT Construct new hangar area to accommodate the 2025 needs Construct a Full Parallel Taxiway in conjunction with new hangar area Pursue agreements with the communities to provide limited S&W services to the airport Continue to study alternatives and feasibility for serving new and/or existing hangar area(s) with a public or private system Reconstruct the Existing Primary Runway Pavement Extend Crosswind Runway 4-22 and Taxiway to 3,200 Feet, including Runway Lighting and PAPI systems Reconstruct the Existing Crosswind Runway 4-22 Length Continue to show the need for a relocated Primary Runway in plan, and include the future approach areas in the upcoming zoning effort Source: MAC calculation $0 $2,600,000 $900,000 $0 $900,000 - $1,700,000 $1,500,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $0 66

114 Please note that these are recommendations for future airport improvements. Having them listed in this planning document does not guarantee that all or any of them will be completed. Additional study as necessary will be completed prior to any implementation of projects. This summary provides a guide for MAC when planning the Capital Improvement Program. Costs for Reliever Airport projects must be carefully programmed to ensure all necessary funding is available. Those projects that will be eligible for federal or state funding will be placed in years when the opportunity to receive such funds is greatest. Projects that are not eligible for federal or state funds must have other funding sources identified prior to implementation. 67

115 Chapter 8 Facility Implementation Schedule The items included in the 20-year planning period preferred alternative and those items beyond the planning period are listed in the table below. As discussed in the previous chapter, it is expected that these timelines may vary according to the availability of funding sources. Table 8-1. Recommended Alternative Implementation Schedule Recommendation Timeline Pursue Installation of AWOS through Mn/DOT Construct new hangar area to accommodate the 2025 needs Construct a Full Parallel Taxiway in conjunction with new hangar area Pursue agreements with the communities to provide limited S&W services to the airport Continue to review alternatives and feasibility of serving new and/or existing hangar area(s) with a public or private system Reconstruct the Existing Primary Runway Pavement Extend Crosswind Runway 4-22 and Taxiway to 3,200 Feet, including Runway Lighting and PAPI systems Reconstruct the Existing Crosswind Runway 4-22 Length Continue to show the need for a relocated Primary Runway in plan, and include the future approach areas in the upcoming zoning effort Immediately 0 5 Years first phase 5 15 Years final phase In conjunction with new hangar area 0 5 Years 0 5 Years 0 5 Years 0 5 Years Years Beyond 20-year planning period 68

116 Chapter 9 Public Information Process At the onset of this long term comprehensive plan update process, a public involvement program was developed. It included a specific plan for group meetings, with whom and when. The meetings held as part of this public process are listed in Table 9-1. The purpose of the meetings was to inform the airport users and the public about the process and schedule, and offer an opportunity for personal questions-and-answer sessions. The goal was to receive informal input as process advanced, and prior to the formal public comment period that took place upon completion of the full draft document. In addition, MAC held monthly meetings with the technical advisory group, made up of members of MAC staff, the FAA, Mn/DOT Aeronautics, and the Metropolitan Council. Table 9-1 LTCP Meeting Schedule Group Type of Meeting Location Date Held Time City, County and Townships Process and Schedule Review City Hall 4/10/06 11:00 a.m. Airport Users/FBO Process and Schedule Review Airport FBO 4/24/06 9:00 a.m. City, County and Township Review of Alternatives City Hall 8/28/06 10:00 a.m. Airport Users and Tenants Review of Alternatives Airport FBO 9/5/06 5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. General Public Review of Alternatives Baytown Community Center 9/25/06 4:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. The public involvement process for the Lake Elmo LTCP update has included two meetings with the community representatives, two meetings with airport users, and one public informational meeting for residents living around the airport. On November 20, 2006 the Commission formally adopted the recommended alternative, and authorized MAC Staff to complete the draft document for public review. The 30-day public comment period started on June 8, 2007 and ended on July 10, Prior to the 30-day public comment period, MAC received 13 letters, completed comment forms or s about the concepts under consideration. These included comments from tenants, residents and the City of Lake Elmo. Letters and/or s received as part of the 30-day comment period include... All letters, s and completed comment forms are included in Appendix C. 69

117 Appendix A ACTIVITY FORECASTS TECHNICAL REPORT

118 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Activity Forecasts Technical Report 1. Introduction The purpose of this analysis is to provide aviation activity forecasts for use in the Long- Term Comprehensive Plans (LTCPs) for Crystal Airport (MIC), Airlake Airport (LVN) and Lake Elmo Airport (21D). Forecasts are presented for an approximate 20-year time horizon, and include 2010, 2015, 2020, and The forecasts for the three airports are unconstrained, except runway length, and assume that the necessary facilities will be in place to accommodate demand except where noted. The report first discusses the existing and projected socioeconomic conditions in the area, and current general aviation activity. This background information is used to prepare the assumptions that form the foundation of the subsequent forecasts. Based aircraft forecasts for the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) airports are then presented and allocated among the individual airports. Operations and peak activity forecasts for Crystal, Airlake, and Lake Elmo are derived from the based aircraft forecasts. The report concludes with an extended runway scenario and a set of high and low activity scenarios for each airport. The assumptions inherent in the following calculations are based on data provided by the MAC, federal and local sources, and professional experience. Forecasting, however, is not an exact science. Departures from forecast levels in the local and national economy and in the aviation industry would have a significant effect on the forecasts presented herein. 2. Socioeconomic Background This section examines historical and projected income, employment, and population data for the catchment areas for the three airports. Projections of future income, employment and population levels are derived from projections prepared by both the Metropolitan Council s Regional Development Framework forecasts (Met Council) and Woods and Poole Economics (W&P) Catchment Areas Crystal Airport is located in Hennepin County, while Airlake is located in Dakota County and Lake Elmo is located in Washington County. In each instance most of the based aircraft owners reside in the same county as the airport they use. Nevertheless, there is some overlap between the airport catchment areas. Jet and turboprop aircraft owners that require longer runways and more extensive maintenance and fueling facilities tend to gravitate towards airports such as Holman Field in St. Paul (STP) and Flying Cloud Airport (FCM). Likewise, operators of small single engine piston aircraft often shy away from larger more commercial airports such as Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) and STP because of congestion and costs, even though these airports may be closer to their place of residence. Based aircraft were projected from a system standpoint to take 6/11/2007 1

119 these factors into account, and then allocated to the individual airports operated by the MAC including Crystal, Airlake, and Lake Elmo. Separate socioeconomic forecasts for each county in the metropolitan area are required for this methodology Socioeconomic Forecasts As noted earlier, both the Met Council and W&P socioeconomic forecasts were examined for use in this study. Each source has its strengths and weaknesses. The Met Council forecasts are prepared locally and reflect a detailed knowledge of the existing and projected growth trends within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. However, they were prepared using 2000 as a base year and do not incorporate the economic slowdown in the early part of this decade. Likewise, they do not include projections of income or projections of national activity. Income is important because an analysis of historical registered aircraft data by county indicated that registered aircraft were more closely correlated with income than with population or employment. Also, much of the analysis will be based on FAA projections of national general aviation activity. For this analysis to be valid, the local and national socioeconomic projections need to be based on a consistent set of assumptions. The W&P forecasts are more recent than the Met Council forecasts. They also include personal income and prepare metropolitan and national forecasts using a common set of assumptions. However, the W&P forecasts do not incorporate a detailed knowledge of local growth trends and development constraints. A hybrid income forecast that incorporates the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of the two data sources was prepared for use in this study. Per capital income projections by W&P were applied to Met Council population forecasts to generate income forecasts for each county. These forecasts were then adjusted, on a prorated basis, to sum to the W&P income forecasts for the seven-county Met Council metropolitan area. A final adjustment was made to match all the forecasts to the most recent common base year 2003 for which personal income was available. Table 1 shows the income forecast that resulted from the adjustments discussed above. As in most metropolitan areas, the outer counties such as Carver, Dakota, Scott, and Washington, are projected to grow more quickly than the inner counties such as Hennepin and Ramsey. Total real income in the seven-county metropolitan area is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 2.3 percent through 2025, slightly more rapidly than in the United States as a whole. Appendix A provides more detailed historical and projected socioeconomic data, including population, employment, and per capita income as well as total personal income. The original Met Council and W& P forecasts are shown in the appendix, along the hybrid forecasts prepared for this study. 6/11/2007 2

120 3. Historical Trends The MAC is responsible for the operation of four airports in addition to those under study. These include Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), Holman Field (St. Paul Downtown), Flying Cloud Airport, and Anoka County Airport. Table 2 shows historical based aircraft recorded at each of the seven airports from 1980 through Based aircraft at Crystal Airport have declined since the mid-1980s. Based aircraft at Lake Elmo declined abruptly in the mid-1980s, then gradually increased until 1999, at which point they began to gradually decrease again. Based aircraft at Airlake increased rapidly during the 1980s, and then more gradually during the 1990s. The number of based aircraft at Airlake began a gradual decline after Total based aircraft at the MAC airports gradually increased until 1999, after which they began a gradual decrease. Perhaps most notable is the sharp decrease in based aircraft at MSP and Holman Field, as commercial operations or larger business aircraft displaced a greater number of smaller general aviation aircraft. The numbers in Table 2 are the best available but nevertheless should be viewed with caution. In some cases, notably MSP from 1985 through 1998, based aircraft data are missing. In other cases, the numbers remained unchanged over periods of several years indicating infrequent updates. Historically, the number of aircraft based at MAC airports has accounted for between 0.8 and 0.9 percent of the U.S. active fleet (see Table B.2 in Appendix B). Since 1999, the share has been gradually declining. A small part of this decline is attributable to the decline in the share of U.S. income accounted for by the Minneapolis-St. Paul sevencounty metropolitan area (see Table B.3 in Appendix B). The decline in share does not necessarily mean that the number of general aviation aircraft in the Twin Cities area is growing more slowly than in the United States. Some new aircraft could be based at non- MAC airports such as South St. Paul or Forest Lake, or at airports outside the seven county area. Additionally, some ultra light (Part 103) aircraft do need not be based at an airport. In fact, ultra light aircraft are not permitted to operate at MAC airports and are therefore often stored elsewhere. An extrapolation of the recent trend in local aircraft share through the forecast period is also presented in Table B.3. Table 3 shows the current distribution of aircraft based at MAC airports by type and county of registration. The more populous counties, such as Hennepin and Ramsey, have the highest number of registered aircraft. In addition, more sophisticated aircraft such as jets and turboprops tend to be concentrated in the inner counties where most major businesses are located, rather than in the outer counties. Table 4 shows the distribution of general aviation aircraft by the county in which they are registered and the airport at which they are based. 1 Two airports located within the seven-county metropolitan area but not under MAC control South St. Paul and Forest 1 The totals differ slightly from those in Table 2, because the counts were tabulated at different times of the year. 6/11/2007 3

121 Lake are also included for comparison purposes. More than 80 percent of the based aircraft at Crystal Airport are registered in Hennepin County, with another 8 percent registered in Ramsey County. Almost 65 percent of the aircraft based at Airlake Airport are registered in Dakota County, along with 15 percent registered in Scott County and 10 percent registered in Hennepin County. About 59 percent of aircraft based at Lake Elmo Airport are registered in Washington County, and another 23 percent are registered in Ramsey County. As shown, geography is a major determinant but not the only determinant of where aircraft are based. Table C.1 in Appendix C provides the information in Table 4 broken out by aircraft category. 4. Assumptions This section describes the general forecast assumptions that were applied in this forecast. More detailed assumptions specific to a particular activity category are described in the sections pertaining to those categories. The major assumptions are described below. 4.1 Unconstrained Forecasts The activity forecasts contained herein are physically and operationally unconstrained. For the purposes of this study, physically unconstrained means that there are sufficient airport airfield, hangar, apron, and landside facilities at Crystal, Airlake, and Lake Elmo to accommodate all aviation activity dictated by demand. In theory, unconstrained would also mean no runway length restrictions. The base case forecast, however, assumes no changes in the runway lengths at Crystal, Airlake, or Lake Elmo. The impact of changes in runway length on the activity forecasts is explored is some of the scenarios. Except as noted, it is assumed that destination airports will be developed sufficiently to accommodate demand from the Twin Cities area. 4.2 Development at Other MAC Airports The Flying Cloud and Anoka County Airports are assumed to be unconstrained and it is assumed that the main runway at Flying Cloud will be extended to 5,000 feet. General aviation facilities at MSP and Holman Field are expected to remain constrained and therefore no growth in based aircraft above current levels is assumed at these two airports. 4.3 Regulatory Assumptions No regulatory restrictions affecting the types of aircraft operated at Crystal, Airlake, and Lake Elmo are assumed. There will be no nighttime restrictions on aircraft operations at these airports. 6/11/2007 4

122 4.4 Catchment Area It is assumed that ground transportation network will not change sufficiently over the forecast period to materially affect the ground travel time between the MAC airports and the locations of the airport users. 4.5 Economic Assumptions The local and national economies area assumed to grow in accordance with the projections in Table 1. The forecasts assume no major economic downturn, such as occurred during the depression of the 1930s. The local and national economies will periodically increase and decrease the pace of growth in accordance with business cycles. However, it is assumed that, over the next twenty years, the high-growth and low-growth periods will offset each other so that the adjusted economic forecasts described in Section 2 will be realized. 4.6 Fuel Assumptions In accordance with FAA forecasts, fuel costs are assumed to increase significantly (15 percent) in 2006, and then gradually decline between 1 and 2 percent per year until 2011, at which point they would resume a gradual increase of 1 to 2 percent per year thereafter. Also, no major increases in fuel taxes are assumed. 4.7 Environmental Factors No major changes in the physical environment are assumed. It is assumed that global climate changes will not be sufficient enough to force restrictions on the burning of hydrocarbons or major fuel tax increases within the forecast period. 4.8 National Airspace System It is assumed that the FAA will successfully implement any required changes and improvements for the national airspace system to accommodate the unconstrained forecast of aviation demand. 4.9 Fractional Ownership Consistent with FAA projections, the share of business jet aviation accounted for by fractional ownership is expected to increase. Fractional ownership operations are expected to continue to be business related and to focus primarily on jet and turboprop aircraft. As such most of the growth in registered aircraft related to fractional ownership is expected to occur at the main business centers in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties Microjets Microjets or very light jets (VLJs), such as the Eclipse and Mustang, are expected to increase by 400 to 500 per year nationally, consistent with the FAA forecast. Because of their shorter runway requirements, microjets could be used at Airlake. Some of the 6/11/2007 5

123 microjets could be used at Crystal and, should the runway be lengthened to 3,200 or 3,900 feet, at Lake Elmo. It is anticipated that most microjets would be used for business purposes, and therefore most of the demand would originate in the inner counties such as Hennepin and Ramsey Ultra Light Recreational Aircraft The number and utilization of ultra light recreational aircraft is assumed to increase at the FAA projected rate. Because these aircraft are light and easily transported, it is anticipated that most of them will continue to be based off-airport. As noted earlier, they may not be operated at MAC airports General Aviation Taxes and Fees It is assumed that future fuel taxes and other fees related to general aviation will remain unchanged except for adjustments for inflation. It is assumed that there will be no reduction in based aircraft at MAC-owned reliever airports due to the latest increases in rates and charges. 5. Based Aircraft Forecast Since the catchment areas for the three airports under analysis overlap each other and the other MAC airports, the based aircraft forecast was prepared from a system standpoint. The process consisted of the following major steps: 1. Project the number of MAC-airport based aircraft registered in each county by aircraft category. 2. Distribute the county projections of based aircraft to each MAC airport according to the existing distribution patterns for each aircraft category. 3. Estimate the number of aircraft on waiting lists that would be added under unconstrained conditions. 4. Redistribute aircraft from the two constrained MAC airports (MSP and STP) to the remaining unconstrained airports based on the existing distribution patterns to the airports and assuming that Airlake and Lake Elmo could accommodate turboprops and microjets because of lengthened runways. April 2006 based aircraft data from Mn/DOT was used as a proxy for calendar year 2005 data to represent the base year. The detailed information on aircraft type and county of registration necessary for the forecast analysis was not available for Although the April 2006 totals for the three airports differ from the 2005 totals, the difference is 3 percent or less in each case. It should also be noted that, within any given year, the based aircraft totals at an airport will fluctuate. 6/11/2007 6

124 5.1 Forecast of Based Aircraft by County Appendix D shows the methodology used to project MAC based aircraft in each of the seven counties of the Metropolitan Council. Aircraft were projected separately for each of the major categories: single engine piston, multi-engine piston, turboprop, jets, helicopters, and other. Jets were further subdivided into microjets and other jets. Based aircraft were projected to increase as a share of the FAA forecast of active aircraft in each category, essentially a top-down approach. There are two major reasons for using the top-down approach. First, the fortunes of the general aviation industry are subject to a number of factors, many of which cannot be easily incorporated into an economic forecasting model. These factors include technology, tax policy, regulatory policy, recreational trends, and growth in competing transportation modes and communications technology. When they prepare their national forecast, the FAA holds a workshop in conjunction with the Transportation Research Board to which a number of industry experts are invited. The FAA exploits the knowledge and expertise of these industry representatives to help prepare forecast assumptions on the future of general aviation. Using the top-down approach provides a means of incorporating this assembled expertise into the Crystal, Airlake, and Lake Elmo forecasts. Second, as noted earlier, historical data on registered and based aircraft in the Twin Cities area has gaps and inconsistencies. The problems in the historical data make it difficult to prepare credible forecasts based on trend or regression analyses. The FAA forecasts only extend to 2017, so they were linearly extrapolated to 2025 for this study. These forecasts were then adjusted by an income index and a based aircraft index to generate a forecast of based aircraft for each county. The income index is used to adjust for differences in projected economic growth between the United States and the county under analysis. The based aircraft index represents the change in the share of active U.S. aircraft based at MAC airports over time net of income effects (see Table B.3 in Appendix B). Since 1999, the share of U.S. active aircraft based at MAC airports has been declining slightly. Some owners have been moving their aircraft to non-mac airports either inside or outside the seven-county area. Others have bought ultra light aircraft which often are not based at an airport. As an example, the number of single engine piston aircraft registered in Anoka County and based at MAC airports is projected to decline slightly (see Table D.1 in Appendix D). This decline results because the FAA projected increase in U.S. single engine piston aircraft would be offset by the declines in the income index and the based aircraft index. Since microjets are a new phenomenon, there is no historical activity upon which to base future growth. In this instance, each county s share of U.S. microjets was assumed to be the average of its share of turboprops and other jets. Table 5 summarizes the forecasts of based aircraft at MAC airports by county of registration. As shown, counties such as Scott and Carver, which are projected to experience rapid economic growth, show a more rapid increase in based aircraft than the 6/11/2007 7

125 other counties. There are some exceptions, however. Ramsey County is projected to show an increase in total based aircraft compared to a decrease in Anoka County, despite the fact that Anoka County is expected to experience more rapid income growth. This results because Ramsey County has a higher concentration of more rapidly growing turboprop and jet aircraft Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport The county forecasts of based aircraft estimated in Appendix D were distributed among the MAC airports according to existing distributions for each aircraft type. Appendix E shows the results of these distributions. All the MAC airports were assumed to be unconstrained in this iteration. 5.3 Aircraft on Waiting Lists Crystal, Airlake, and Lake Elmo Airports all have waiting lists of aircraft owners and operators who would like to base their aircraft at the airport in question if hangar facilities become available. Since the forecasts in this analysis are unconstrained, this latent demand needs to be considered, since they would presumably base their aircraft at these airports were the facilities available. A number of the people on the waiting lists made their requests many years ago and very likely have lost interest or found an alternative facility for their aircraft by now. Consequently, anyone who signed on to the waiting lists more than five years ago was eliminated from the analysis. Also, it is unlikely that everyone who signed on to a waiting list within the past five years would base their aircraft at the airport in question should the desired facilities become available. Based on consultation with MAC staff, it was assumed that 90 percent of the aircraft owners and operators who signed up for a waiting list within the past five years would base their aircraft at one of the three study airports under unconstrained conditions. The official waiting list at Crystal is very small, reflecting the current belief that no additional hangar facilities will be built at the Airport. The forecast assumes unconstrained conditions, however, and under those circumstances it would be reasonable to expect that the waiting list at Crystal would be more similar to Airlake and Lake Elmo. The potential waiting list at Crystal was therefore based on the average ratio of waiting list owners and operators to based aircraft at Airlake and Lake Elmo. The accommodation of waiting list aircraft at Crystal was assumed to be phased through 2015, to reflect additional time required to mobilize the construction of hangar facilities and for aircraft owners to become aware of their availability. Table F.1 in Appendix F shows the estimate of additional based aircraft at the three airports that would result from accommodating aircraft on the waiting list. Crystal would be expected to accommodate 62 additional aircraft, Airlake would be expected to accommodate 55 additional aircraft and Lake Elmo would be expected to accommodate 39 additional aircraft. Except for two anticipated microjets at Crystal, no information is 6/11/2007 8

126 available on the types of aircraft on the waiting list, so they were assumed to mirror the existing distribution of based aircraft at each airport, mostly single engine piston aircraft. 5.4 Redistribution of Based Aircraft from Constrained Airports As noted earlier, two of the MAC airports MSP and STP are anticipated to be limited in their physical ability to accommodate more based aircraft. Any based aircraft that could not be accommodated at these two airports would have to be accommodated elsewhere. Since the aircraft currently based at these two airports tend to be more sophisticated corporate-owned aircraft, it is likely that their owners would seek out an airport with enhanced facilities which would most likely be found at another MAC airport. Based on the historical experience at MSP and other airports, it was assumed that singleengine piston aircraft would be most likely to be diverted and that jet aircraft would be least likely to be diverted. The diverted based aircraft were assumed to be relocated to the remaining unconstrained airports in proportion to the existing distributions by aircraft type. Tables F.2 through F.5 in Appendix F detail the addition of aircraft on the waiting list and the redistribution of aircraft from MSP and STP. The ability of the three airports to accommodate redistributed aircraft is highly dependent on the runway requirements of these aircraft. For example, the published requirements for microjets range from 1800 feet (takeoff) and 2300 feet (landing) for the Excel Sportjet, to 2155 feet (takeoff) and 2040 feet (landing) for the Eclipse, to 3400 feet (takeoff) and 2520 feet (landing) for the Adam A700. As a comparison, the Beech King Air (C90GT) turboprop requires about 2700 feet for takeoff and 2300 feet for landing Based Aircraft Forecast Results Tables 6, 7 and 8 show the results of the based aircraft forecasts for Crystal, Airlake and Lake Elmo Airports. The number of based aircraft at Crystal Airport is expected to grow from 260 in 2005 to 330 in Most of the growth would be from aircraft on the waiting list. The slow anticipated growth in the other categories is attributable to several factors. The Airport is located in Hennepin County, which is projected to be one of the slower growing counties. Most of the current based aircraft consist of slow-growing piston powered aircraft. Finally, because of its short runways it is unlikely to be able to accommodate many of the based turboprop and jet aircraft diverted from MSP or STP. The growth of based aircraft at Airlake Airport is expected to be more robust than at Crystal. Under unconstrained conditions, the large number of aircraft on the waiting list would provide a significant initial increase in based aircraft. Longer term, the number of based aircraft would continue to grow because Dakota County is expected to grow more rapidly than the remainder of the Twin Cities or the United States. There would also be 6/11/2007 9

127 some increase as a result of the diversion of based aircraft from MSP and STP. As shown in Table 7, total based aircraft are projected to increase from 158 in 2005 to 239 in The number of based aircraft at Lake Elmo Airport is expected to increase from 236 in 2005 to 312 in 2025 (see Table 8). Lake Elmo Airport is expected to grow for many of the same reasons as Airlake. It is located in rapidly-growing Washington County, and has a long waiting list. Appendix G shows the based aircraft forecasts for the other four MAC airports that result from the analysis in Appendix F. 6. Aircraft Operations Forecasts The forecasts of aircraft operations were derived from the based aircraft forecasts. Estimates of base year operation levels were provided by the MAC. Operations counts for Crystal were obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower, while operations for Airlake and Lake Elmo were estimated using operations to based aircraft ratios. The aircraft operations forecasts assume that average aircraft utilization will increase, consistent with FAA forecasts. In each aircraft category, operations per active aircraft were projected to increase at the same rate as hours flown per based aircraft, implicitly assuming that the number of operations per hours flown remain constant. The percentage of touch and go operations in each aircraft category was assumed to remain constant. Tables H.1 through H.3 in Appendix H show the calculations of future aircraft operations for each of the three airports. Tables 9, 10, and 11 summarize the aircraft operations forecasts for Crystal, Airlake, and Lake Elmo. In each case the number of operations is projected to grow more quickly than the number of based aircraft. The FAA projects average aircraft utilization to increase as a result of increased flying by business and corporate users. Total aircraft operations at Crystal are forecast to increase from 72,205 in 2005 to 115,730 in 2025, an average annual increase of 2.4 percent. Increases are projected in all categories except turboprops, for which the FAA projects a decrease in utilization. Microjet operations are projected to increase significantly in percentage terms, and are expected to account for almost 10 percent of total operations in Operations at Airlake are forecast to increase from 57,001 in 2005 to 105,500 in 2025, an average annual increase of 3.1 percent. Increases are projected among all categories, reflecting the increase in based aircraft. Substantial increases are projected in microjets and other jets. By 2025, these two categories are projected to account for over 4 percent of total operations at Airlake, compared to slightly over 1 percent currently. Operations at Lake Elmo are projected to increase from 57,667 in 2005 to 91,119 in 2025, an average annual increase of 2.3 percent. Increases are projected in all aircraft categories. Since no increase in runway length is assumed, some operations by microjets 6/11/

128 and but no operations by other jets are anticipated. By 2025, combined jet operations are projected to account for about 1 percent of total operations at Lake Elmo. 7. Peak Activity Forecasts Tables 12, 13, and 14 show the peak month, average day peak month (ADPM), and peak hour operations forecasts for Crystal, Airlake, and Lake Elmo. In each case the relationship between peak activity and annual activity was assumed to remain constant. The percentage of operations occurring in August, the peak month at Crystal Airport, was estimated from FAA air traffic control tower records. ADPM operations were estimated by dividing by 31 days. Peak hour operations were assumed to be 16 percent of ADPM operations, consistent with the assumptions in the previous Crystal Airport LTCP, published in As shown in Table 12, peak hour operations are projected to increase from 44 in 2005 to 70 in Table 13 presents peak activity forecasts for Airlake Airport. Since Airlake does not have an air traffic control tower, the peak month percentage was estimated based on fuel flow records provided by the MAC. Based on these records, September and June are the peak months, each accounting for 11.4 percent of annual gallons of fuel sold. ADPM operations were estimated by dividing by 30 days. Consistent with the previous Airlake LTCP, peak hour operations were assumed to be 17 percent of ADPM operations. Peak hour operations at Airlake are projected to increase from 37 in 2005 to 68 in Table 14 presents the peak activity forecasts for Lake Elmo Airport. Like Airlake, Lake Elmo has no tower, and peak month operations were therefore estimated using MAC records of fuel flow. Based on these records, July is the peak month, accounting for 12.5 percent of annual activity. ADPM operations were estimated by dividing by 31 days. Consistent with the previous Lake Elmo LTCP, published in 1992, peak hour operations were estimated at 12.7 percent of ADPM operations. Peak hour operations at Lake Elmo are projected to increase from 30 in 2005 to 47 in Forecast Scenarios General aviation activity has historically been difficult to forecast, since the relationships with economic growth and pricing factors are more tenuous than in other aviation sectors, such as commercial aviation. This uncertainty is likely to carry over into the near future, given the volatility of fuel prices and the anticipated emergence of microjets. These uncertainties will also be affected by any decisions to lengthen runways at one or more of the airports. To address these uncertainties, and to identify the potential upper and lower bounds of future activity at Crystal, Airlake, and Lake Elmo, detailed runway extension, high and low scenarios are presented. These scenarios use the same forecast approach that was used in the base case, but alter the assumptions to reflect either a more aggressive or more conservative outlook. 6/11/

129 8.1 Extended Runway Scenarios The extended runway scenario was prepared to evaluate the potential impact associated with runway lengthening under the preferred development alternatives. Specifically, the scenario assumes the following: Extension of the runway at Airlake to 5000 feet with existing 1 mile minimums. Extension of the crosswind runway at Lake Elmo to 3200 feet. Removal of all runways at Crystal expect (14L-32R) which would remain at its current length. All other forecast assumptions are the same as in the base case. Table 15 shows the extended runway forecast scenario for Crystal Airport. Since the scenario involves runway extensions at Airlake and Lake Elmo but not at Crystal, the forecast for Crystal is the same as in the base case. Even with the removal of the other runways, Crystal has enough capacity to accommodate the projected demand and, therefore, there is no reduction in forecast activity. Table 16 shows the extended runway forecast scenario for Airlake Airport. By 2025, the number of based aircraft and operations is slightly higher than under the base case, principally because of the additional jets that could be accommodated with the longer runway. Table 17 shows the extended runway forecast scenario for Lake Elmo Airport. By 2025, the number of based aircraft and operations would be slightly higher than under the base case because more microjets could be accommodated with the extended runway. 8.2 High Forecast Scenarios The high forecast scenarios for the three airports are based on the following assumptions: Income in each county is assumed to grow 50 percent more rapidly than under the base case. Fuel costs are assumed to be the same as in the base case. Fractional ownership operations are assumed to significantly boost their investment in microjets, thereby increasing the number of jets based at Crystal, Airlake and Lake Elmo, and the number of itinerant operations per aircraft. Microjets are assumed to become very popular, and the number of future aircraft in this category will grow at double the projected FAA rate. The use of microjets for air taxi operations will result in a high utilization rate which will increase the ratio of aircraft operations to based aircraft. Increased popularity of ultra light recreational (Part 103) aircraft is assumed to cause a doubling of numbers over the FAA forecast levels. This would increase the number of based aircraft, although operations would remain unaffected. 6/11/

130 The runway at Airlake is assumed to be extended to 5000 feet and the runway at Lake Elmo is assumed to be extended to 3900 feet. Other assumptions, including capacity constraints at MSP and STP, are assumed to be the same as in the base case. Table 18 shows the high forecast scenario for Crystal Airport. By 2025 the number of based aircraft is 15 percent higher than under the base case, as a result of higher economic growth and increased microjet popularity. The number of turboprops and microjets remains relatively small, as the runway length would still be a constraining factor. General aviation operations under the high scenario would be 20 percent higher than in the base case. Table 19 shows the high forecast scenario for Airlake Airport. By 2025, the number of based aircraft is 21 percent higher than under the base case and the number of jets is more than twice as great. By 2025, total annual operations would be 27 percent higher than under the base case. Of these operations, more than 10 percent would be jets, mostly microjets. Table 20 shows the high forecast scenario for Lake Elmo Airport. By 2025, the number of based aircraft would be 18 percent higher than under the base case. Although microjets would only account for slightly over 1 percent of the total, there would still be five times as many as under the base case. Total operations would be 27 percent higher than under the base case, and jet operations would account for almost 9 percent of total operations. 8.3 Low Forecast Scenarios The low forecast scenarios for each airport were prepared using the following assumptions: Income in each county is assumed to grow 50 percent more slowly than under the base case. Fuel costs are assumed to be the same as in the base case. Fractional ownership operations are assumed to focus mostly on larger business jets, and therefore have little impact on activity at Crystal, Airlake and Lake Elmo. Microjets are assumed to fail to excite the market, and only increase at about 100 per year nationally. No runway development is assumed at any of the three airports. It is assumed that operators currently on waiting lists will become discouraged because of low income and high costs and choose to dispose of their aircraft or to remain at their existing location. Therefore, there would be no additional growth resulting from aircraft currently on waiting lists. 6/11/

131 Other assumptions, including capacity constraints at MSP and STP, are assumed to be the same as in the base case. Table 21 shows the low scenario forecast for Crystal Airport. Although a moderate increase in based helicopters and microjets is projected, based fixed-wing piston powered aircraft are projected to decline. As a result, by 2025 total based aircraft would be 32 percent lower than under the base case. Total operations would be 33 percent lower than under the base case. The low scenario forecast for Airlake Airport is presented in Table 22. None of the based aircraft categories would be expected to increase, and there would be a decline in fixedwing piston powered aircraft. Total based aircraft in 2025 would be 41 percent lower than under the base case. Total operations would be 42 percent lower than under the base case, and jets would account for less than 3 percent of the total. Table 23 presents the low scenario forecast for Lake Elmo Airport. By 2025 total based aircraft are expected to be 30 percent lower than under the base case. Total operations would be 30 percent lower than in the base case by Summary The base case forecasts for the three airports anticipate moderate growth in based aircraft at Crystal, Airlake and Lake Elmo. Operations are projected to grow more rapidly than based aircraft at each of the three airports, reflecting anticipated increased utilization of aircraft. The forecast scenarios indicate that future economic growth, fuel prices, technology, and national policy will have a major impact on the development of general aviation. Runway extensions would also affect the forecasts though not to the same extent as economic growth. Therefore, it is prudent to closely monitor actual aviation activity and modify the phasing of facility improvements at the three airports if that activity materially departs from forecast levels. 6/11/

132 7-County United Share of Year Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total States US (a) ,986,412 2,985,484 14,169,374 52,112,908 18,484,297 3,324,987 7,991, ,055,244 9,116,558, % ,520,698 3,311,438 14,664,654 51,634,272 19,033,353 3,672,368 8,516, ,353,685 9,388,118, % ,545,853 4,591,469 17,606,023 58,399,571 21,640,483 5,238,307 10,442, ,464,239 10,824,058, % ,881,232 5,987,606 19,857,081 64,207,508 23,556,888 6,330,352 12,106, ,926,782 11,982,463, % ,339,561 7,527,787 22,359,311 70,639,301 25,669,665 7,526,976 13,946, ,009,304 13,272,837, % ,628,101 8,889,431 25,011,490 78,385,001 28,570,179 8,602,345 16,048, ,135,026 14,713,492, % ,028,465 10,416,459 27,976,030 86,989,735 31,803,654 9,792,853 18,394, ,401,658 16,325,754, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 4.3% 2.4% 2.0% 1.9% 3.7% 2.9% 2.3% 2.1% Table 1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Income (a) Seven-county Metropolitan Council share of U.S. Sources: Table A.6 in Appendix A and HNTB analysis.

133 Table 2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Historical Based Aircraft at MAC Airports Year Flying Cloud Crystal General Aviation Anoka County Lake Elmo Airlake Holman MSP Total without MSP Total with MSP n/a 1651 n/a n/a 1703 n/a n/a 1789 n/a n/a 1684 n/a n/a 1709 n/a n/a 1728 n/a n/a 1740 n/a n/a 1769 n/a n/a 1783 n/a n/a 1799 n/a n/a 1799 n/a n/a 1822 n/a n/a 1842 n/a n/a 1829 n/a Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission.

134 Table 3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Aircraft Based at MAC Airports by County of Registration and Aircraft Type: 2006 Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Single Engine Piston (a) Multi Engine Piston Turboprop Jet Rotor Other Total (a) Light sport aircraft are included in the single engine piston category. Sources: Minnesota Department of Transportation Based Aircraft Reports (April 2006) and HNTB analysis.

135 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Table 4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Forest Lake South St. Paul Municipal-Fleming Field Total Sources: Minnesota Department of Transportation Based Aircraft Reports (April 2006) and HNTB analysis.

136 Table 5 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Projected Based Aircraft at MAC Airports by County of Registration County of Registration Year Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total 2005 (a) (a) April 2006 based aircraft data from Mn/DOT was used as a proxy for calendar year 2005 data. The detailed information on aircraft type and county of registration necessary for the forecast analysis was not available for Although the April 2006 totals for the three airports differ from the 2005 totals, the difference is 3 percent or less in each case. It should also be noted that, within any given year, the based aircraft totals at an airport will fluctuate. The year 2006 could not be used as the base year because aircraft operations totals were not available at the time of the analysis. Source: Appendix D.

137 Table 6 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Based Aircraft Forecast: Crystal (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total 2005 (c) Average Annual Growth Rate 0.9% 1.4% 0.0% % - 1.2% (a) Assumes no runway extensions at Crystal, Airlake, or Lake Elmo. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. (c) April 2006 based aircraft data from Mn/DOT was used as a proxy for calendar year 2005 data. The detailed information on aircraft type and county of registration necessary for the forecast analysis was not available for Although the April 2006 totals for the three airports differ from the 2005 totals, the difference is 3 percent or less in each case. It should also be noted that, within any given year, the based aircraft totals at an airport will fluctuate. The year 2006 could not be used as the base year because aircraft operations totals were not available at the time of the analysis. Source: Appendix F.

138 Table 7 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Based Aircraft Forecast: Airlake (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total 2005 (c) Average Annual Growth Rate 2.1% 1.6% 3.5% % 3.5% 2.1% (a) Assumes no runway extensions at Crystal, Airlake, or Lake Elmo. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. (c) April 2006 based aircraft data from Mn/DOT was used as a proxy for calendar year 2005 data. The detailed information on aircraft type and county of registration necessary for the forecast analysis was not available for Although the April 2006 totals for the three airports differ from the 2005 totals, the difference is 3 percent or less in each case. It should also be noted that, within any given year, the based aircraft totals at an airport will fluctuate. The year 2006 could not be used as the base year because aircraft operations totals were not available at the time of the analysis. Source: Appendix F.

139 Table 8 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Based Aircraft Forecast: Lake Elmo (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total 2005 (c) Average Annual Growth Rate 1.3% 1.9% % 3.5% 1.4% (a) Assumes no runway extensions at Crystal, Airlake, or Lake Elmo. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. (c) April 2006 based aircraft data from Mn/DOT was used as a proxy for calendar year 2005 data. The detailed information on aircraft type and county of registration necessary for the forecast analysis was not available for Although the April 2006 totals for the three airports differ from the 2005 totals, the difference is 3 percent or less in each case. It should also be noted that, within any given year, the based aircraft totals at an airport will fluctuate. The year 2006 could not be used as the base year because aircraft operations totals were not available at the time of the analysis. Source: Appendix F.

140 Table 9 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Aircraft Operations Forecast: Crystal (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,826 5,795 2, ,651-72, ,017 6,855 2,674 2, ,189-85, ,291 7,605 2,543 5, , , ,641 8,409 2,422 8, , , ,861 9,250 2,321 11, , ,730 Forecast of Touch & Go Operations , ,202-25, , ,445-29, ,947 1, ,714-33, ,223 1, ,999-35, ,449 1, ,141-36,817 Forecast of Non-Touch & Go Operations ,670 5,027 2, ,449-47, ,981 5,946 2,674 2, ,744-56, ,344 6,597 2,543 5, ,068-66, ,418 7,294 2,422 8, ,411-73, ,412 8,023 2,321 11, ,581-78,913 (a) Assumes no runway extensions at Crystal, Airlake, or Lake Elmo. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: Table H.1 in Appendix H.

141 Table 10 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Aircraft Operations Forecast: Airlake (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,773 2,877 2, , ,433 4,125 2, , ,472 4,335 4, , ,694 4,554 4,227 1,391 1, , ,099 4,771 4,051 2,887 1, ,500 Forecast of Touch & Go Operations , , , , , , , , , ,215 Forecast of Non-Touch & Go Operations ,296 2,680 2, , ,596 3,843 2, , ,962 4,038 4, , ,872 4,242 4,227 1,391 1, , ,327 4,445 4,051 2,887 1, ,285 (a) Assumes no runway extensions at Crystal, Airlake, or Lake Elmo. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: Table H.2 in Appendix H.

142 Table 11 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Aircraft Operations Forecast: Lake Elmo (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,471 1, , ,949 2, , ,786 2, , ,884 3, ,185-86, ,446 3, ,184-91,119 Forecast of Touch & Go Operations , , , , , , , , , ,268 Forecast of Non-Touch & Go Operations ,323 1, , ,508 2, , ,972 2, , ,997 2, ,034-52, ,704 3, ,033-55,851 (a) Assumes no runway extensions at Crystal, Airlake, or Lake Elmo. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: Table H.3 in Appendix H.

143 Table 12 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Peak Activity Forecast: Crystal Year Annual Operations (a) Peak Month Operations (b) ADPM Operations (c) Peak Hour Operations (d) ,205 8, ,948 10, ,564 11, ,342 12, ,730 13, (a) Table 9. (b) The 2005 percentage of peak month operations, based on ATCT counts, is assumed to continue through the forecast period. (c) Peak month (August) operations divided by 31 days. (d) Assumed to be 16 percent of ADPM operations based on Crystal Airport LTCP, November Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

144 Table 13 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Peak Activity Forecast: Airlake Airport Year Annual Operations (a) Peak Month Operations (b) ADPM Operations (c) Peak Hour Operations (d) ,001 6, ,275 9, ,558 10, ,421 11, ,500 12, (a) Table 10. (b) The share of operations occurring in the peak month is based on MAC fuel flow records for This percentage is assumed to remain constant through the forecast period. (c) Peak month (September) operations divided by 30 days. (d) Assumed to be 17 percent of ADPM operations based on Airlake Airport LTCP, October Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

145 Table 14 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Peak Activity Forecast: Lake Elmo Airport Year Annual Operations (a) Peak Month Operations (b) ADPM Operations (c) Peak Hour Operations (d) ,667 7, ,186 9, ,249 10, ,091 10, ,119 11, (a) Table 11. (b) The share of operations occurring in the peak month is based on MAC fuel flow records for This percentage is assumed to remain constant through the forecast period. (c) Peak month (July) operations divided by 31 days. (d) Assumed to be 12.7 percent of ADPM operations based on Lake Elmo Airport LTCP, April Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

146 Table 15 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Extended Runway Scenario: Crystal (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Based Aircraft Forecast Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,826 5,795 2, ,651-72, ,017 6,855 2, ,189-85, ,291 7,605 2, , , ,641 8,409 2, , , ,861 9,250 2, , ,730 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations , ,202-25, , ,445-29, ,947 1, ,714-33, ,223 1, ,999-35, ,449 1, ,141-36,817 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations ,670 5,027 2, ,449-47, ,981 5,946 2,674 2, ,744-56, ,344 6,597 2,543 5, ,068-66, ,418 7,294 2,422 8, ,411-73, ,412 8,023 2,321 11, ,581-78,913 (a) Assumes main runway at Crystal remains at current length; main runway at Airlake extended to 5000 feet, and main runway at Lake Elmo extended to 3200 feet. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: HNTB analysis.

147 Table 16 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Extended Runway Scenario: Airlake (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Based Aircraft Forecast Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,773 2,877 2, , ,433 4,125 2, , ,472 4,335 4, , ,694 4,554 4, , , ,099 4,771 4, , ,060 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations , , , , , , , , , ,215 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations ,296 2,680 2, , ,596 3,843 2, , ,962 4,038 4, , ,872 4,242 4,227 1,391 1, , ,327 4,445 4,051 2,887 1, ,845 (a) Assumes main runway at Crystal remains at current length; main runway at Airlake extended to 5000 feet, and main runway at Lake Elmo extended to 3200 feet. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: HNTB analysis.

148 Table 17 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Extended Runway Scenario: Lake Elmo (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Based Aircraft Forecast Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,471 1, , ,949 2, , ,786 2, , ,884 3, ,185-86, ,446 3, ,184-92,363 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations , , , , , , , , , ,268 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations ,323 1, , ,508 2, , ,972 2, , ,997 2, ,034-52, ,704 3, , ,033-57,095 (a) Assumes main runway at Crystal remains at current length; main runway at Airlake extended to 5000 feet, and main runway at Lake Elmo extended to 3200 feet. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: HNTB analysis.

149 Table 18 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS High Forecast Scenario: Crystal (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Based Aircraft Forecast Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,826 5,795 2, ,651-72, ,270 6,855 2, ,189-89, ,113 8,405 2, , , ,477 9,670 2, , , ,012 10,131 6, , ,380 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations , ,202-25, , ,445-30, ,544 1, ,857-36, ,967 1, ,142-39, ,074 1, ,426-41,843 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations ,670 5,027 2, ,449-47, ,995 5,946 2,674 2, ,744-58, ,569 7,290 2,543 6, ,240-73, ,510 8,388 2,422 10, ,583-82, ,938 8,788 6,963 15, ,926-96,537 (a) Assumes main runway at Crystal remains at current length; main runway at Airlake extended to 5000 feet, and main runway at Lake Elmo extended to 3900 feet. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: HNTB analysis.

150 Table 19 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS High Forecast Scenario: Airlake (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Based Aircraft Forecast Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,773 2,877 2, , ,603 4,400 2, , ,990 4,913 4,439 1, , ,873 5,465 4,227 2,781 1, , ,378 5,726 4,051 13,775 2, ,461 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations , , , , , , , , , ,045 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations ,296 2,680 2, , ,477 4,099 2, , ,709 4,577 4,439 1, , ,659 5,091 4,227 2,781 1, , ,842 5,334 4,051 13,775 2, ,416 (a) Assumes main runway at Crystal remains at current length; main runway at Airlake extended to 5000 feet, and main runway at Lake Elmo extended to 3900 feet. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: HNTB analysis.

151 Table 20 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS High Forecast Scenario: Lake Elmo (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Based Aircraft Forecast Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,471 1, , ,563 2, , ,176 3, , ,185-91, ,384 3, , , , ,093 3, ,332 1,101 1, ,896 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations , , , , , , , , , ,902 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations ,323 1, , ,652 2, , ,950 2, , ,034-56, ,227 3, , ,292-66, ,802 3, ,332 1,101 1,291-74,994 (a) Assumes main runway at Crystal remains at current length; main runway at Airlake extended to 5000 feet, and main runway at Lake Elmo extended to 3900 feet. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Sources: HNTB analysis.

152 Table 21 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Low Forecast Scenario: Crystal (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Based Aircraft Forecast Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,826 5,795 2, ,651-72, ,988 5,712 2, ,189-74, ,542 5,603 2, ,782-74, ,501 5,886 2, ,780-76, ,820 5,726 2, ,093-77,266 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations , ,202-25, , ,445-25, , ,714-25, , ,713-25, , ,855-25,387 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations ,670 5,027 2, ,449-47, ,770 4,955 2,674 2, ,744-49, ,494 4,860 2,543 2, ,068-49, ,468 5,105 2,422 4, ,067-51, ,047 4,967 2,321 5, ,238-51,879 (a) Assumes no runway extensions at Crystal, Airlake, or Lake Elmo. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Sources: HNTB analysis.

153 Table 22 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Low Forecast Scenario: Airlake (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Based Aircraft Forecast Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,773 2,877 2, , ,433 2,750 2, , ,820 2,890 2, , ,808 2,733 2, , , ,326 2,863 2, , ,325 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations , , , , , , , , , ,363 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations ,296 2,680 2, , ,221 2,562 2, , ,994 2,692 2, , ,544 2,546 2, , , ,276 2,667 2, , ,962 (a) Assumes no runway extensions at Crystal, Airlake, or Lake Elmo. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Sources: HNTB analysis.

154 Table 23 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Low Forecast Scenario: Lake Elmo (a) Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other (b) Total Based Aircraft Forecast Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ,471 1, , ,527 2, , ,651 1, , ,896 2, , ,337 2, ,184-63,700 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations , , , , , , , , , ,512 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations ,323 1, , ,543 1, , ,210 1, , ,356 1, , ,211 1, ,033-39,188 (a) Assumes no runway extensions at Crystal, Airlake, or Lake Elmo. (b) Balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Source: HNTB analysis.

155 7-County United Share of Year Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total States US (a) ,934 37, , , ,972 44, ,207 1,993, ,224, % ,223 37, , , ,661 44, ,489 2,018, ,465, % ,185 38, , , ,807 45, ,856 2,040, ,664, % ,362 38, , , ,240 46, ,247 2,054, ,792, % ,888 39, , , ,887 47, ,543 2,074, ,824, % ,359 40, , , ,859 48, ,760 2,108, ,923, % ,309 41, , , ,857 50, ,522 2,142, ,132, % ,834 42, ,271 1,005, ,597 52, ,170 2,178, ,288, % ,370 44, ,030 1,018, ,483 54, ,085 2,226, ,499, % ,833 46, ,585 1,026, ,633 56, ,537 2,260, ,819, % ,255 48, ,866 1,035, ,531 58, ,940 2,298, ,622, % ,565 50, ,916 1,043, ,277 60, ,340 2,332, ,980, % ,253 52, ,694 1,050, ,517 62, ,392 2,368, ,514, % ,729 54, ,852 1,059, ,298 65, ,677 2,406, ,918, % ,278 56, ,008 1,069, ,614 68, ,796 2,441, ,125, % ,226 59, ,218 1,076, ,857 70, ,062 2,474, ,278, % ,260 62, ,159 1,083, ,326 73, ,824 2,508, ,394, % ,976 63, ,640 1,089, ,514 77, ,208 2,540, ,646, % ,089 65, ,231 1,099, ,075 80, ,341 2,575, ,854, % ,599 68, ,520 1,109, ,175 85, ,391 2,613, ,040, % ,829 70, ,882 1,117, ,348 91, ,651 2,651, ,192, % ,573 73, ,839 1,123, ,141 97, ,329 2,682, ,102, % ,319 76, ,955 1,120, , , ,455 2,699, ,941, % ,403 79, ,521 1,120, , , ,054 2,715, ,788, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 3.3% 2.9% 0.7% 0.4% 4.0% 2.8% 1.4% 1.1% % 2.7% 3.6% 0.9% 0.5% 2.8% 2.6% 1.4% 0.9% % 3.8% 2.3% 0.6% 0.3% 4.9% 2.9% 1.3% 1.2% (a) Seven-county Metropolitan Council share of U.S. Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table A.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Historical Population

156 7-County United Share of Year Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total States US Metropolitan Council - Regional Development Framework (RFD) Forecasts (a) ,084 70, ,904 1,116, ,035 89, ,130 2,642,062 n/a n/a 2003 (b) 316,140 81, ,721 1,145, , , ,342 2,766,283 n/a n/a , , ,960 1,213, , , ,502 3,056,132 n/a n/a 2015 (b) 379, , ,055 1,261, , , ,273 3,243,113 n/a n/a , , ,150 1,310, , , ,043 3,430,093 n/a n/a 2025 (b) 406, , ,580 1,347, , , ,807 3,561,342 n/a n/a , , ,010 1,384, , , ,570 3,692,590 n/a n/a Average Annual Growth Rate % 3.2% 1.2% 0.7% 0.5% 2.7% 1.9% 1.1% n/a n/a Woods & Poole (W&P) Forecasts (c) ,700 70, ,810 1,117, ,360 91, ,620 2,651, ,177, % ,120 76, ,900 1,121, , , ,420 2,701, ,974, % 2003 (b) 314,980 78, ,605 1,124, , , ,315 2,726, ,788, % ,840 80, ,310 1,126, , , ,210 2,750, ,545, % ,400 92, ,170 1,162, , , ,580 2,964, ,066, % , , ,870 1,195, , , ,800 3,151, ,524, % , , ,430 1,231, , , ,510 3,344, ,578, % , , ,350 1,270, , , ,000 3,544, ,419, % , , ,690 1,313, , , ,950 3,758, ,478, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 2.0% 2.2% 0.6% 0.2% 2.2% 2.3% 1.2% Metropolitan Council - Regional Development Framework (RFD) Forecasts Adjusted for Base Year and Scaled to W&P (d) ,084 70, ,904 1,116, ,035 89, ,130 2,642, ,177, % ,403 79, ,521 1,120, , , ,054 2,715, ,788, % , , ,578 1,167, , , ,251 2,951, ,066, % , , ,697 1,215, , , ,413 3,137, ,524, % , , ,632 1,266, , , ,133 3,329, ,578, % , , ,929 1,329, , , ,991 3,529, ,419, % , , ,040 1,396, , , ,588 3,741, ,516, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 3.3% 1.3% 0.8% 0.6% 2.9% 2.0% 1.2% (a) Metropolitan Council, Regional Development Framework 2030 Forecasts, January (b) Interpolated. (c) Woods & Poole Economics, The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS) (d) Forecast growth rates for each county applied to actual 2003 base year data and then adjusted proportionately so that the sum for the seven counties is equal to the Woods and Poole projection for the seven-counties. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis. Table A.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Population

157 7-County United Share of Year Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total States US (a) ,250 15,375 76, , ,451 18,189 36,572 1,259, ,231, % ,162 15,860 76, , ,531 18,278 38,320 1,259, ,304, % ,292 15,540 76, , ,446 18,298 38,283 1,240, ,557, % ,117 15,820 79, , ,835 18,809 40,821 1,257, ,056, % ,808 16,400 88, , ,963 19,872 42,907 1,342, ,091, % ,765 17,772 95, , ,929 21,181 45,079 1,393, ,509, % ,853 17, , , ,165 22,056 47,560 1,426, ,970, % ,616 19, , , ,939 23,435 51,691 1,493, ,400, % ,741 20, , , ,956 24,674 53,311 1,542, ,506, % ,414 21, , , ,128 25,081 54,815 1,574, ,199, % ,479 24, , , ,281 26,151 56,536 1,603, ,380, % ,472 25, , , ,350 27,208 57,844 1,605, ,605, % ,571 28, , , ,107 29,476 59,225 1,628, ,162, % ,016 30, , , ,840 31,925 61,093 1,662, ,779, % ,186 32, , , ,900 33,997 66,184 1,713, ,223, % ,102 35, , , ,292 36,571 68,914 1,766, ,982, % ,382 36, , , ,989 38,314 72,478 1,802, ,150, % ,877 37, , , ,013 39,100 77,642 1,834, ,608, % ,644 39, ,302 1,023, ,128 38,829 80,646 1,884, ,628, % ,474 39, ,330 1,038, ,937 41,487 81,993 1,927, ,955, % ,501 41, ,367 1,057, ,286 44,544 85,883 1,972, ,758, % ,589 43, ,024 1,046, ,445 47,128 88,983 1,982, ,014, % ,112 44, ,050 1,020, ,554 48,609 89,376 1,961, ,699, % ,667 45, ,163 1,009, ,579 50,175 91,507 1,962, ,174, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 4.9% 4.7% 1.4% 1.0% 4.5% 4.1% 1.9% 1.7% % 4.7% 5.8% 2.2% 1.2% 3.7% 4.5% 2.4% 2.0% % 5.0% 3.8% 0.9% 0.8% 5.1% 3.8% 1.6% 1.4% (a) Seven-county Metropolitan Council share of U.S. Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table A.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Historical Employment

158 7-County United Share of Year Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total States US Metropolitan Council - Regional Development Framework (RFD) Forecasts (a) ,814 26, , , ,145 32,009 63,521 1,563,245 n/a n/a 2003 (b) 112,588 30, , , ,011 35,849 70,718 1,640,161 n/a n/a ,060 39, , , ,030 44,810 87,510 1,819,630 n/a n/a 2015 (b) 132,095 45, ,425 1,007, ,205 49,320 98,460 1,910,845 n/a n/a ,130 51, ,340 1,045, ,380 53, ,410 2,002,060 n/a n/a 2025 (b) 143,575 55, ,745 1,075, ,910 57, ,980 2,074,130 n/a n/a ,020 58, ,150 1,105, ,440 60, ,550 2,146,200 n/a n/a Average Annual Growth Rate % 2.5% 1.1% 0.8% 0.8% 2.0% 2.2% 1.0% n/a n/a Woods & Poole (W&P) Forecasts (c) ,500 41, ,370 1,057, ,290 44,540 85,880 1,972, ,758, % ,110 44, ,930 1,025, ,020 47,930 89,330 1,965, ,033, % 2003 (b) 153,625 45, ,730 1,036, ,615 49,415 92,350 1,998, ,546, % ,140 46, ,530 1,047, ,210 50,900 95,370 2,032, ,058, % ,160 54, ,150 1,116, ,750 59, ,490 2,230, ,135, % ,580 61, ,830 1,173, ,640 67, ,590 2,395, ,698, % ,950 67, ,400 1,230, ,460 74, ,680 2,560, ,262, % ,260 74, ,860 1,287, ,200 81, ,770 2,724, ,825, % ,510 80, ,230 1,344, ,850 88, ,850 2,888, ,389, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 2.1% 2.5% 1.0% 1.0% 2.2% 2.4% 1.4% Metropolitan Council - Regional Development Framework (RFD) Forecasts Adjusted for Base Year and Scaled to W&P (d) ,500 41, ,370 1,057, ,290 44,540 85,880 1,972, ,758, % ,667 45, ,163 1,009, ,579 50,175 91,507 1,962, ,174, % ,462 59, ,059 1,103, ,626 62, ,585 2,190, ,517, % ,509 69, ,354 1,170, ,016 70, ,528 2,352, ,904, % ,505 80, ,643 1,237, ,202 78, ,775 2,514, ,292, % ,565 88, ,123 1,306, ,588 86, ,933 2,675, ,680, % ,614 96, ,555 1,374, ,747 93, ,430 2,836, ,068, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 2.8% 1.5% 1.1% 1.2% 2.3% 2.6% 1.4% 1.3% (a) Metropolitan Council, Regional Development Framework 2030 Forecasts, January (b) Interpolated. (c) Woods & Poole Economics, The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS) (d) Forecast growth rates for each county applied to actual 2003 base year data and then adjusted proportionately so that the sum for the seven counties is equal to the Woods and Poole projection for the seven-counties. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis. Table A.4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Employment

159 7-County United Share of Year Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total States US (a) ,098, ,896 4,611,556 25,738,780 11,097, ,680 2,573,448 49,907,037 4,777,005, % ,143, ,384 4,800,367 26,162,114 11,305, ,018 2,707,452 50,958,682 4,924,887, % ,245, ,162 4,993,698 26,819,751 11,580,443 1,011,855 2,832,065 52,351,027 4,999,880, % ,434, ,760 5,232,509 27,460,543 11,852,311 1,042,250 2,979,043 53,886,986 5,114,245, % ,823, ,460 5,836,518 29,610,402 12,669,379 1,150,575 3,294,805 58,372,780 5,472,533, % ,054,667 1,059,086 6,250,796 31,010,485 13,091,225 1,228,235 3,513,355 61,207,849 5,678,393, % ,273,670 1,120,602 6,557,146 32,225,590 13,470,889 1,295,593 3,714,128 63,657,618 5,853,923, % ,470,755 1,191,922 7,011,903 33,362,088 13,752,562 1,356,776 3,925,712 66,071,719 6,003,223, % ,662,784 1,236,849 7,521,351 34,471,086 13,973,592 1,413,656 4,105,581 68,384,899 6,219,077, % ,885,199 1,355,159 8,035,342 35,670,975 14,203,776 1,476,790 4,204,209 70,831,450 6,428,400, % ,976,402 1,407,323 8,282,248 36,171,917 14,533,894 1,514,286 4,369,158 72,255,228 6,537,865, % ,067,166 1,442,496 8,429,466 35,843,251 14,469,174 1,542,900 4,480,501 72,274,955 6,529,868, % ,376,300 1,556,855 8,963,992 37,074,757 14,631,962 1,657,412 4,831,445 75,092,724 6,746,940, % ,667,322 1,661,767 9,243,399 37,033,572 14,543,366 1,752,510 5,077,621 75,979,557 6,839,801, % ,072,401 1,796,044 9,820,004 38,277,788 15,000,864 1,880,083 5,487,849 79,335,033 7,043,712, % ,371,130 1,956,998 10,320,916 40,118,885 15,502,595 2,021,863 5,779,304 83,071,690 7,263,217, % ,750,277 2,123,748 11,003,888 41,548,078 16,102,350 2,202,903 6,078,771 86,810,015 7,535,788, % ,148,167 2,289,670 11,739,495 44,003,450 16,398,271 2,411,174 6,453,322 91,443,549 7,860,172, % ,824,257 2,545,701 12,867,504 47,388,630 17,449,449 2,652,210 7,050,111 98,777,862 8,363,592, % ,349,713 2,727,687 13,441,522 49,335,232 17,665,707 2,916,363 7,461, ,897,482 8,648,738, % ,986,412 2,985,484 14,169,374 52,112,908 18,484,297 3,324,987 7,991, ,055,244 9,116,558, % ,069,756 3,135,609 14,178,568 51,857,296 18,730,706 3,455,068 8,228, ,655,985 9,242,262, % ,328,814 3,226,822 14,408,185 51,375,435 18,966,987 3,541,112 8,340, ,188,197 9,272,771, % ,520,698 3,311,438 14,664,654 51,634,272 19,033,353 3,672,368 8,516, ,353,685 9,388,118, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 6.2% 5.2% 3.1% 2.4% 6.0% 5.3% 3.6% 3.0% % 5.5% 6.0% 3.5% 2.7% 4.6% 5.4% 3.8% 3.2% % 6.8% 4.5% 2.8% 2.1% 7.1% 5.3% 3.4% 2.8% (a) Seven-county Metropolitan Council share of U.S. Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table A.5 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Historical Real Personal Income (thousands of 2004 dollars)

160 Table A.6 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Income 7-County United Share of Year Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total States US Metropolitan Council - Regional Development Framework (RFD) Forecasts (a) ,932,563 2,957,473 14,093,897 52,044,177 18,472,552 3,266,519 7,933, ,700,197 n/a n/a ,532,486 3,384,861 14,969,606 53,916,152 19,671,029 3,606,546 8,656, ,736,749 n/a n/a ,770,299 4,771,890 18,273,191 62,001,905 22,740,147 5,230,592 10,790, ,578,968 n/a n/a ,108,118 6,213,440 20,578,262 68,064,608 24,716,354 6,311,432 12,491, ,483,252 n/a n/a ,542,556 7,787,797 23,100,434 74,653,537 26,850,671 7,481,506 14,346, ,762,599 n/a n/a ,504,619 9,008,960 25,313,643 81,150,332 29,275,292 8,376,039 16,171, ,800,354 n/a n/a ,501,887 10,324,857 27,692,644 88,082,293 31,873,412 9,325,977 18,128, ,929,741 n/a n/a Average Annual Growth Rate % 4.2% 2.3% 1.8% 1.8% 3.6% 2.8% 2.1% n/a n/a Woods & Poole (W&P) Forecasts (b) ,986,410 2,985,487 14,169,376 52,112,904 18,484,300 3,324,989 7,991, ,055,250 9,116,561, % ,174,906 3,148,862 14,379,545 51,957,004 18,851,457 3,514,098 8,288, ,313,929 9,303,807, % 2003 (c) 10,493,846 3,257,736 15,004,835 52,909,200 19,174,783 3,630,963 8,536, ,007,444 9,504,286, % ,812,786 3,366,611 15,630,124 53,861,396 19,498,108 3,747,827 8,784, ,700,958 9,704,764, % ,668,000 4,090,002 19,538,144 59,367,481 21,275,760 4,613,209 10,877, ,430,286 10,957,993, % ,365,312 4,758,499 23,170,305 64,499,548 22,917,692 5,404,258 12,818, ,933,959 12,130,733, % ,216,257 5,494,479 27,203,329 70,187,534 24,728,900 6,268,414 14,957, ,056,318 13,437,074, % ,241,210 6,306,888 31,699,171 76,501,134 26,734,576 7,215,281 17,319, ,017,726 14,895,555, % ,463,478 7,206,036 36,727,663 83,523,614 28,964,411 8,255,680 19,932, ,073,642 16,527,767, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 3.0% 3.4% 1.7% 1.5% 3.1% 3.2% 2.2% 2.1% Metropolitan Council - Regional Development Framework (RFD) Forecasts Adjusted for Base Year and Scaled to W&P (d) ,986,412 2,985,484 14,169,374 52,112,908 18,484,297 3,324,987 7,991, ,055,244 9,116,558, % ,520,698 3,311,438 14,664,654 51,634,272 19,033,353 3,672,368 8,516, ,353,685 9,388,118, % ,545,853 4,591,469 17,606,023 58,399,571 21,640,483 5,238,307 10,442, ,464,239 10,824,058, % ,881,232 5,987,606 19,857,081 64,207,508 23,556,888 6,330,352 12,106, ,926,782 11,982,463, % ,339,561 7,527,787 22,359,311 70,639,301 25,669,665 7,526,976 13,946, ,009,304 13,272,837, % ,628,101 8,889,431 25,011,490 78,385,001 28,570,179 8,602,345 16,048, ,135,026 14,713,492, % ,028,465 10,416,459 27,976,030 86,989,735 31,803,654 9,792,853 18,394, ,401,658 16,325,754, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 4.3% 2.4% 2.0% 1.9% 3.7% 2.9% 2.3% 2.1% (a) Metropolitan Council, Regional Development Framework 2030 Forecasts for population (Table A.2) multiplied by W&P forecasts for per capita income (Table A.8). (b) Woods & Poole Economics, The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS) (c) Interpolated. (d) Population forecasts adjusted for base year and scaled (Table A.2) multiplied by per capita income forecasts adjusted for base year (Table A.8). Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

161 7-County United Share of Year Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total States US (a) ,811 22,147 23,584 27,256 24,074 21,861 22,533 25,038 21, % ,697 22,455 23,987 27,434 24,330 21,959 23,242 25,252 21, % ,893 22,540 24,382 27,896 24,755 22,091 23,828 25,657 21, % ,594 22,829 25,201 28,401 25,259 22,655 24,774 26,233 21, % ,092 25,099 27,274 30,436 26,963 24,383 26,887 28,135 23, % ,691 26,340 28,253 31,464 27,627 25,073 28,161 29,036 23, % ,157 27,158 28,638 32,308 28,131 25,704 29,125 29,708 24, % ,332 27,887 29,062 33,175 28,616 25,810 29,928 30,324 24, % ,370 27,661 29,492 33,834 28,902 25,752 29,949 30,715 25, % ,745 29,267 30,255 34,744 29,248 26,159 29,704 31,341 26, % ,368 29,072 29,807 34,944 29,872 25,981 29,734 31,437 26, % ,118 28,706 29,380 34,358 29,633 25,575 29,411 30,981 25, % ,786 29,888 30,213 35,302 29,769 26,498 30,503 31,702 26, % ,474 30,527 30,222 34,950 29,542 26,800 30,464 31,579 26, % ,362 31,545 31,575 35,806 30,390 27,506 31,576 32,501 26, % ,978 32,811 32,332 37,253 31,264 28,482 32,275 33,565 27, % ,853 34,146 33,532 38,337 32,313 29,816 33,068 34,608 27, % ,795 35,810 34,976 40,381 32,632 31,010 34,288 35,991 28, % ,630 38,666 37,489 43,120 34,480 32,793 36,654 38,354 30, % ,845 40,007 38,347 44,461 34,695 34,272 37,799 39,370 30, % ,307 42,121 39,592 46,627 36,148 36,493 39,436 41,132 32, % ,954 42,781 38,969 46,167 36,573 35,418 39,690 40,871 32, % ,285 42,401 39,051 45,853 37,225 34,098 39,632 40,816 32, % ,462 41,861 39,261 46,084 37,710 33,719 39,789 41,012 32, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 2.8% 2.2% 2.3% 2.0% 1.9% 2.5% 2.2% 1.9% 0.3% % 2.8% 2.4% 2.5% 2.2% 1.7% 2.8% 2.3% 2.2% 0.1% % 2.8% 2.1% 2.2% 1.8% 2.0% 2.3% 2.1% 1.6% 0.4% (a) Seven-county Metropolitan Council share of U.S. Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table A.7 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Historical Real Per Capita Personal Income (2004 dollars)

162 Table A.8 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Per Capita Income 7-County United Share of Year Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total States US Metropolitan Council - Regional Development Framework (RFD) Forecasts (a) ,321 42,126 39,600 46,626 36,147 36,498 39,442 41,135 n/a n/a ,316 41,524 39,842 47,067 37,681 33,706 39,645 41,454 n/a n/a ,644 44,221 43,306 51,075 41,519 35,380 41,744 44,667 n/a n/a ,221 46,506 45,623 53,934 44,193 36,937 43,481 46,938 n/a n/a ,875 48,888 48,111 56,986 47,035 38,584 45,393 49,354 n/a n/a ,598 51,380 50,771 60,227 50,054 40,311 47,451 51,913 n/a n/a ,351 53,950 53,563 63,607 53,220 42,071 49,590 54,570 n/a n/a Average Annual Growth Rate % 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.3% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% n/a n/a Woods & Poole (W&P) Forecasts (b) ,321 42,126 39,600 46,626 36,147 36,498 39,442 41,135 32, % ,810 41,411 38,980 46,312 36,906 33,861 39,388 40,828 32, % 2003 (c) 33,316 41,524 39,842 47,067 37,681 33,706 39,645 41,454 32, % ,807 41,630 40,671 47,818 38,462 33,562 39,890 42,070 33, % ,644 44,221 43,306 51,075 41,519 35,380 41,744 44,667 35, % ,221 46,506 45,623 53,934 44,193 36,937 43,481 46,938 37, % ,875 48,888 48,111 56,986 47,035 38,584 45,393 49,354 39, % ,598 51,380 50,771 60,227 50,054 40,311 47,451 51,913 41, % ,351 53,950 53,563 63,607 53,220 42,071 49,590 54,570 43, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.3% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 1.1% Woods & Poole Forecasts Adjusted for Base Year (d) ,321 42,126 39,600 46,626 36,147 36,498 39,442 41,135 32, % ,462 41,861 39,261 46,084 37,710 33,719 39,789 41,012 32, % ,801 44,580 42,673 50,008 41,551 35,394 41,896 44,667 34, % ,384 46,884 44,956 52,809 44,227 36,952 43,639 46,938 36, % ,046 49,285 47,408 55,797 47,071 38,600 45,558 49,354 38, % ,777 51,797 50,030 58,970 50,092 40,327 47,623 51,913 40, % ,537 54,388 52,781 62,279 53,260 42,088 49,770 54,570 43, % Average Annual Growth Rate % 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.3% 0.8% 0.8% 1.1% 1.1% (a) Assumed to be the same as the Woods & Poole forecasts. (b) Woods & Poole Economics, The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS) (c) Interpolated. (d) Woods & Poole forecasts adjusted for 2003 base year. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

163 Year Table B.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Active General Aviation Aircraft in the United States Piston Piston Single Multi- Piston Total Turbo- Turbo- Rotor- Engine Engine Other Piston prop jet craft Experimental (a) Other (b) TOTAL ,435 24, ,013 4,090 2,992 6,001 NA 4, , ,898 25, ,368 4,660 3,171 6,974 NA 5, , ,173 24, ,195 5,186 3,996 6,169 NA 5, , ,427 24, ,479 5,453 3,898 6,539 NA 5, , ,922 25, ,442 5,809 4,320 7,096 NA 6, , ,400 22, ,600 5,000 4,100 6,000 NA 5, ,500 (c) ,300 22, ,500 5,600 4,200 6,500 NA 6, ,300 (c) ,700 21, ,500 4,900 4,000 5,900 NA 6, ,700 (c) ,700 21, ,000 4,900 3,900 6,000 NA 6, ,200 (c) ,900 21, ,800 5,900 4,100 7,000 NA 7, ,000 (c) ,000 21, ,200 5,300 4,100 6,900 NA 6, ,000 (c) ,836 20, ,518 4,941 4,126 6,238 NA 8, ,874 (d) ,837 17, ,881 4,786 4,004 5,979 NA 8, ,650 (d) ,516 15, ,156 4,116 3,663 4,721 10,426 5, ,120 (d) ,351 14,801 NA 142,152 4,092 3,914 4,728 12,144 5, ,936 (d) ,049 15,739 NA 152,788 4,995 4,559 5,830 15,176 4, ,089 (d) ,401 16,150 NA 153,551 5,716 4,424 6,570 16,625 4, , ,038 16,017 NA 156,055 5,619 5,178 6,785 14,680 4, , ,234 18,729 NA 162,963 6,174 6,066 7,426 16,502 5, , ,886 21,038 NA 171,924 5,679 7,120 7,448 20,528 6, , ,422 21, ,653 5,762 7,001 7,150 20,407 6, , ,034 18,281 NA 163,315 6,596 7,787 6,783 20,421 6, , ,503 17,584 NA 161,087 6,841 8,355 6,648 21,936 6, , ,265 17,491 NA 160,756 7,689 7,997 6,526 20,550 6, , ,831 17,456 NA 161,287 7,806 8,280 6,965 21,995 6, , ,530 17,481 NA 162,011 8,030 8,628 7,595 22,300 6, ,591 (a) Amatuer, exhibition and other. (b) Gliders and lighter-than-air craft. (c) Revised to correct for nonresponse bias on FAA G.A. Activity Survey. (d) Revised due to change in estimating procedures for the 1996 FAA G.A. Activity Survey. Sources: Federal Aviation Administration and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

164 US Active MAC Based Ratio Based AC Year Aircraft (a) Aircraft (b) to US Active Fleet (c) ,045 1, ,226 1, ,779 1, ,293 1, ,943 1, ,500 n/a n/a ,300 n/a n/a ,700 n/a n/a ,200 n/a n/a ,000 n/a n/a ,000 n/a n/a ,874 n/a n/a ,650 n/a n/a ,120 n/a n/a ,936 n/a n/a ,089 n/a n/a ,129 n/a n/a ,414 n/a n/a ,710 n/a n/a ,464 1, ,533 1, ,447 1, ,244 1, ,606 1, ,390 1, ,591 1, (a) Table B.1 (b) Based aircraft at MAC airports fromtable 2. (c) Ratio of based aircraft at MAC airports to U.S. Active Fleet. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis. Table B.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Historical Ratio of MAC Based Aircraft to U.S. Active Fleet

165 Table B.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Historical Registered Aircraft at Met Council Counties Year Seven Couty Income Share (a) Based AC to US Active Ratio (b) Regional Aircraft Ratio Divided by Income Share (c) Index (d) (a) Seven county share of U.S. income fromtable A.5 in Appendix A and Table 1. Share in 2004 and 2005 assumed to be the same as in (b) Table B.2 in Appendix B. (c) Ratio of Based Aircraft to US Active Aircraft divided by income share. Assumed to continue to change at historical trends. (d) Ratio of Based Aircraft to US Activie Aircraft divided by income share converted in index in which 2005 equals 100. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

166 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County and Aircraft Category County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other (c) Total Total Aircraft Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Hollman Field Total MAC Airports Total Aircraft - Distribution Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Hollman Field Total MAC Airports

167 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County and Aircraft Category County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other (c) Total Single Engine Piston Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (a) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

168 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County and Aircraft Category County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other (c) Total Multi-Engine Piston Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (a) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

169 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County and Aircraft Category County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other (c) Total Turboprop Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Turboprop Aircraft - Distribution (a) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

170 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County and Aircraft Category County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other (c) Total Microjets Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjet Aircraft - Distribution (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

171 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County and Aircraft Category County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other (c) Total Other Jets Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jet Aircraft - Distribution (a) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

172 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County and Aircraft Category County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other (c) Total Helicopter Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter - Distribution (a) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

173 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County and Aircraft Category County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other (c) Total Other (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Aircraft - Distribution (a) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (a) Distribution of registered aircraft in each county by airport at which they are based. Registered aircraft that are not based at a MAC airport are excluded. (b) Assumed to be average distribution of turboprops and other jets. (c) Balloons, gliders and ultralight aircraft. Sources: Minnesota Department of Transportation Based Aircraft Reports and HNTB analysis.

174 Table D.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Anoka County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Anoka Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) Single Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $10,520, , $9,798,386,969 $11,099, , $10,824,058,031 $12,545, , $11,982,463,283 $13,881, , $13,272,837,742 $15,339, , $14,713,492,048 $16,628, , Multi Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $10,520, , $9,798,386,969 $11,099, , $10,824,058,031 $12,545, , $11,982,463,283 $13,881, , $13,272,837,742 $15,339, , $14,713,492,048 $16,628, , Turboprop Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $10,520, , $9,798,386,969 $11,099, , $10,824,058,031 $12,545, , $11,982,463,283 $13,881, , $13,272,837,742 $15,339, , $14,713,492,048 $16,628, , Microjets 2003 $9,388,118,544 $10,520, $9,798,386,969 $11,099, $10,824,058,031 $12,545, , $11,982,463,283 $13,881, , $13,272,837,742 $15,339, , $14,713,492,048 $16,628, , Other Jet Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $10,520, , $9,798,386,969 $11,099, ,

175 Table D.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Anoka County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Anoka Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) 2010 $10,824,058,031 $12,545, , $11,982,463,283 $13,881, , $13,272,837,742 $15,339, , $14,713,492,048 $16,628, , Helicopters 2003 $9,388,118,544 $10,520, , $9,798,386,969 $11,099, , $10,824,058,031 $12,545, , $11,982,463,283 $13,881, , $13,272,837,742 $15,339, , $14,713,492,048 $16,628, , Other Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $10,520, , $9,798,386,969 $11,099, , $10,824,058,031 $12,545, , $11,982,463,283 $13,881, , $13,272,837,742 $15,339, , $14,713,492,048 $16,628, , Total Aircraft (a) Table 1. (b) Table 1. (c) County income as share of U.S. income, with 2005 share indexed to equal 100. (d) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (e) Table B.3 in Appendix B. (f) Projected to increase at same rate as U.S. Active Aircraft in that category adjusted by income index and based aircraft index. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

176 Table D.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Carver County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Carver Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) Single Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,311, , $9,798,386,969 $3,677, , $10,824,058,031 $4,591, , $11,982,463,283 $5,987, , $13,272,837,742 $7,527, , $14,713,492,048 $8,889, , Multi Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,311, , $9,798,386,969 $3,677, , $10,824,058,031 $4,591, , $11,982,463,283 $5,987, , $13,272,837,742 $7,527, , $14,713,492,048 $8,889, , Turboprop Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,311, , $9,798,386,969 $3,677, , $10,824,058,031 $4,591, , $11,982,463,283 $5,987, , $13,272,837,742 $7,527, , $14,713,492,048 $8,889, , Microjets 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,311, $9,798,386,969 $3,677, $10,824,058,031 $4,591, , $11,982,463,283 $5,987, , $13,272,837,742 $7,527, , $14,713,492,048 $8,889, , Other Jet Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,311, , $9,798,386,969 $3,677, ,

177 Table D.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Carver County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Carver Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) 2010 $10,824,058,031 $4,591, , $11,982,463,283 $5,987, , $13,272,837,742 $7,527, , $14,713,492,048 $8,889, , Helicopters 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,311, , $9,798,386,969 $3,677, , $10,824,058,031 $4,591, , $11,982,463,283 $5,987, , $13,272,837,742 $7,527, , $14,713,492,048 $8,889, , Other Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,311, , $9,798,386,969 $3,677, , $10,824,058,031 $4,591, , $11,982,463,283 $5,987, , $13,272,837,742 $7,527, , $14,713,492,048 $8,889, , Total Aircraft (a) Table 1. (b) Table 1. (c) County income as share of U.S. income, with 2005 share indexed to equal 100. (d) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (e) Table B.3 in Appendix B. (f) Projected to increase at same rate as U.S. Active Aircraft in that category adjusted by income index and based aircraft index. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

178 Table D.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Dakota County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Dakota Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) Single Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $14,664, , $9,798,386,969 $15,505, , $10,824,058,031 $17,606, , $11,982,463,283 $19,857, , $13,272,837,742 $22,359, , $14,713,492,048 $25,011, , Multi Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $14,664, , $9,798,386,969 $15,505, , $10,824,058,031 $17,606, , $11,982,463,283 $19,857, , $13,272,837,742 $22,359, , $14,713,492,048 $25,011, , Turboprop Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $14,664, , $9,798,386,969 $15,505, , $10,824,058,031 $17,606, , $11,982,463,283 $19,857, , $13,272,837,742 $22,359, , $14,713,492,048 $25,011, , Microjets 2003 $9,388,118,544 $14,664, $9,798,386,969 $15,505, $10,824,058,031 $17,606, , $11,982,463,283 $19,857, , $13,272,837,742 $22,359, , $14,713,492,048 $25,011, , Other Jet Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $14,664, , $9,798,386,969 $15,505, ,

179 Table D.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Dakota County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Dakota Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) 2010 $10,824,058,031 $17,606, , $11,982,463,283 $19,857, , $13,272,837,742 $22,359, , $14,713,492,048 $25,011, , Helicopters 2003 $9,388,118,544 $14,664, , $9,798,386,969 $15,505, , $10,824,058,031 $17,606, , $11,982,463,283 $19,857, , $13,272,837,742 $22,359, , $14,713,492,048 $25,011, , Other Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $14,664, , $9,798,386,969 $15,505, , $10,824,058,031 $17,606, , $11,982,463,283 $19,857, , $13,272,837,742 $22,359, , $14,713,492,048 $25,011, , Total Aircraft (a) Table 1. (b) Table 1. (c) County income as share of U.S. income, with 2005 share indexed to equal 100. (d) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (e) Table B.3 in Appendix B. (f) Projected to increase at same rate as U.S. Active Aircraft in that category adjusted by income index and based aircraft index. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

180 Table D.4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Hennepin County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Hennepin Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) Single Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $51,634, , $9,798,386,969 $53,567, , $10,824,058,031 $58,399, , $11,982,463,283 $64,207, , $13,272,837,742 $70,639, , $14,713,492,048 $78,385, , Multi Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $51,634, , $9,798,386,969 $53,567, , $10,824,058,031 $58,399, , $11,982,463,283 $64,207, , $13,272,837,742 $70,639, , $14,713,492,048 $78,385, , Turboprop Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $51,634, , $9,798,386,969 $53,567, , $10,824,058,031 $58,399, , $11,982,463,283 $64,207, , $13,272,837,742 $70,639, , $14,713,492,048 $78,385, , Microjets 2003 $9,388,118,544 $51,634, $9,798,386,969 $53,567, $10,824,058,031 $58,399, , $11,982,463,283 $64,207, , $13,272,837,742 $70,639, , $14,713,492,048 $78,385, , Other Jet Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $51,634, , $9,798,386,969 $53,567, ,

181 Table D.4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Hennepin County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Hennepin Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) 2010 $10,824,058,031 $58,399, , $11,982,463,283 $64,207, , $13,272,837,742 $70,639, , $14,713,492,048 $78,385, , Helicopters 2003 $9,388,118,544 $51,634, , $9,798,386,969 $53,567, , $10,824,058,031 $58,399, , $11,982,463,283 $64,207, , $13,272,837,742 $70,639, , $14,713,492,048 $78,385, , Other Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $51,634, , $9,798,386,969 $53,567, , $10,824,058,031 $58,399, , $11,982,463,283 $64,207, , $13,272,837,742 $70,639, , $14,713,492,048 $78,385, , Total Aircraft (a) Table 1. (b) Table 1. (c) County income as share of U.S. income, with 2005 share indexed to equal 100. (d) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (e) Table B.3 in Appendix B. (f) Projected to increase at same rate as U.S. Active Aircraft in that category adjusted by income index and based aircraft index. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

182 Table D.5 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Ramsey County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Ramsey Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) Single Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $19,033, , $9,798,386,969 $19,778, , $10,824,058,031 $21,640, , $11,982,463,283 $23,556, , $13,272,837,742 $25,669, , $14,713,492,048 $28,570, , Multi Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $19,033, , $9,798,386,969 $19,778, , $10,824,058,031 $21,640, , $11,982,463,283 $23,556, , $13,272,837,742 $25,669, , $14,713,492,048 $28,570, , Turboprop Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $19,033, , $9,798,386,969 $19,778, , $10,824,058,031 $21,640, , $11,982,463,283 $23,556, , $13,272,837,742 $25,669, , $14,713,492,048 $28,570, , Microjets 2003 $9,388,118,544 $19,033, $9,798,386,969 $19,778, $10,824,058,031 $21,640, , $11,982,463,283 $23,556, , $13,272,837,742 $25,669, , $14,713,492,048 $28,570, , Other Jet Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $19,033, , $9,798,386,969 $19,778, ,

183 Table D.5 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Ramsey County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Ramsey Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) 2010 $10,824,058,031 $21,640, , $11,982,463,283 $23,556, , $13,272,837,742 $25,669, , $14,713,492,048 $28,570, , Helicopters 2003 $9,388,118,544 $19,033, , $9,798,386,969 $19,778, , $10,824,058,031 $21,640, , $11,982,463,283 $23,556, , $13,272,837,742 $25,669, , $14,713,492,048 $28,570, , Other Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $19,033, , $9,798,386,969 $19,778, , $10,824,058,031 $21,640, , $11,982,463,283 $23,556, , $13,272,837,742 $25,669, , $14,713,492,048 $28,570, , Total Aircraft (a) Table 1. (b) Table 1. (c) County income as share of U.S. income, with 2005 share indexed to equal 100. (d) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (e) Table B.3 in Appendix B. (f) Projected to increase at same rate as U.S. Active Aircraft in that category adjusted by income index and based aircraft index. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

184 Table D.6 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Scott County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Scott Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) Single Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,672, , $9,798,386,969 $4,119, , $10,824,058,031 $5,238, , $11,982,463,283 $6,330, , $13,272,837,742 $7,526, , $14,713,492,048 $8,602, , Multi Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,672, , $9,798,386,969 $4,119, , $10,824,058,031 $5,238, , $11,982,463,283 $6,330, , $13,272,837,742 $7,526, , $14,713,492,048 $8,602, , Turboprop Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,672, , $9,798,386,969 $4,119, , $10,824,058,031 $5,238, , $11,982,463,283 $6,330, , $13,272,837,742 $7,526, , $14,713,492,048 $8,602, , Microjets 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,672, $9,798,386,969 $4,119, $10,824,058,031 $5,238, , $11,982,463,283 $6,330, , $13,272,837,742 $7,526, , $14,713,492,048 $8,602, , Other Jet Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,672, , $9,798,386,969 $4,119, ,

185 Table D.6 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Scott County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Scott Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) 2010 $10,824,058,031 $5,238, , $11,982,463,283 $6,330, , $13,272,837,742 $7,526, , $14,713,492,048 $8,602, , Helicopters 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,672, , $9,798,386,969 $4,119, , $10,824,058,031 $5,238, , $11,982,463,283 $6,330, , $13,272,837,742 $7,526, , $14,713,492,048 $8,602, , Other Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $3,672, , $9,798,386,969 $4,119, , $10,824,058,031 $5,238, , $11,982,463,283 $6,330, , $13,272,837,742 $7,526, , $14,713,492,048 $8,602, , Total Aircraft (a) Table 1. (b) Table 1. (c) County income as share of U.S. income, with 2005 share indexed to equal 100. (d) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (e) Table B.3 in Appendix B. (f) Projected to increase at same rate as U.S. Active Aircraft in that category adjusted by income index and based aircraft index. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

186 Table D.7 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Washington County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Washington Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) Single Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $8,516, , $9,798,386,969 $9,067, , $10,824,058,031 $10,442, , $11,982,463,283 $12,106, , $13,272,837,742 $13,946, , $14,713,492,048 $16,048, , Multi Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $8,516, , $9,798,386,969 $9,067, , $10,824,058,031 $10,442, , $11,982,463,283 $12,106, , $13,272,837,742 $13,946, , $14,713,492,048 $16,048, , Turboprop Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $8,516, , $9,798,386,969 $9,067, , $10,824,058,031 $10,442, , $11,982,463,283 $12,106, , $13,272,837,742 $13,946, , $14,713,492,048 $16,048, , Microjets 2003 $9,388,118,544 $8,516, $9,798,386,969 $9,067, $10,824,058,031 $10,442, , $11,982,463,283 $12,106, , $13,272,837,742 $13,946, , $14,713,492,048 $16,048, , Other Jet Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $8,516, , $9,798,386,969 $9,067, ,

187 Table D.7 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Washington County and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) Washington Cty Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) 2010 $10,824,058,031 $10,442, , $11,982,463,283 $12,106, , $13,272,837,742 $13,946, , $14,713,492,048 $16,048, , Helicopters 2003 $9,388,118,544 $8,516, , $9,798,386,969 $9,067, , $10,824,058,031 $10,442, , $11,982,463,283 $12,106, , $13,272,837,742 $13,946, , $14,713,492,048 $16,048, , Other Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $8,516, , $9,798,386,969 $9,067, , $10,824,058,031 $10,442, , $11,982,463,283 $12,106, , $13,272,837,742 $13,946, , $14,713,492,048 $16,048, , Total Aircraft (a) Table 1. (b) Table 1. (c) County income as share of U.S. income, with 2005 share indexed to equal 100. (d) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (e) Table B.3 in Appendix B. (f) Projected to increase at same rate as U.S. Active Aircraft in that category adjusted by income index and based aircraft index. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

188 Table D.8 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Non-Met Council Counties and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) US Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) Single Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $9,388,118, , $9,798,386,969 $9,798,386, , $10,824,058,031 $10,824,058, , $11,982,463,283 $11,982,463, , $13,272,837,742 $13,272,837, , $14,713,492,048 $14,713,492, , Multi Engine Piston Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $9,388,118, , $9,798,386,969 $9,798,386, , $10,824,058,031 $10,824,058, , $11,982,463,283 $11,982,463, , $13,272,837,742 $13,272,837, , $14,713,492,048 $14,713,492, , Turboprop Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $9,388,118, , $9,798,386,969 $9,798,386, , $10,824,058,031 $10,824,058, , $11,982,463,283 $11,982,463, , $13,272,837,742 $13,272,837, , $14,713,492,048 $14,713,492, , Microjets 2003 $9,388,118,544 $9,388,118, $9,798,386,969 $9,798,386, $10,824,058,031 $10,824,058, , $11,982,463,283 $11,982,463, , $13,272,837,742 $13,272,837, , $14,713,492,048 $14,713,492, , Other Jet Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $9,388,118, , $9,798,386,969 $9,798,386, ,

189 Table D.8 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Forecast of Based Aircraft Registered in Non-Met Council Counties and Based at MAC Airports Year US Income (a) US Income (b) Income Index (c) US Active Aircraft (d) Based AC Index (e) Based AC (f) 2010 $10,824,058,031 $10,824,058, , $11,982,463,283 $11,982,463, , $13,272,837,742 $13,272,837, , $14,713,492,048 $14,713,492, , Helicopters 2003 $9,388,118,544 $9,388,118, , $9,798,386,969 $9,798,386, , $10,824,058,031 $10,824,058, , $11,982,463,283 $11,982,463, , $13,272,837,742 $13,272,837, , $14,713,492,048 $14,713,492, , Other Aircraft 2003 $9,388,118,544 $9,388,118, , $9,798,386,969 $9,798,386, , $10,824,058,031 $10,824,058, , $11,982,463,283 $11,982,463, , $13,272,837,742 $13,272,837, , $14,713,492,048 $14,713,492, , Total Aircraft (a) Table 1. (b) Table 1. (c) County income as share of U.S. income, with 2005 share indexed to equal 100. (d) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (e) Table B.3 in Appendix B. (f) Projected to increase at same rate as U.S. Active Aircraft in that category adjusted by income index and based aircraft index. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

190 Table E.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2010 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Total Aircraft (a) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Total Aircraft - Distribution Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Single Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi-Engine Piston (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Multi Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Turboprop (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud

191 Table E.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2010 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Turboprop Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjets (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Microjet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jets (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Other Jet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Helicopter - Distribution (d) Crystal

192 Table E.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2010 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Other Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) (a) Sum of forecasts for individual aircraft categories. (b) Total MAC based aircraft in county multiplied by distribution going to each airport. (c) Appendix D. (d) Table C.1 in Appendix C. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis

193 Table E.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2015 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Total Aircraft (a) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Total Aircraft - Distribution Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Single Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi-Engine Piston (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Multi Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Turboprop (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c)

194 Table E.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2015 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Turboprop Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjets (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Microjet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jets (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Other Jet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Helicopter - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

195 Table E.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2015 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Other (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Other Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (a) Sum of forecasts for individual aircraft categories. (b) Total MAC based aircraft in county multiplied by distribution going to each airport. (c) Appendix D. (d) Table C.1 in Appendix C. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis

196 Table E.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2020 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Total Aircraft (a) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Total Aircraft - Distribution Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Single Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi-Engine Piston (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Multi Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Turboprop (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c)

197 Table E.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2020 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Turboprop Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjets (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Microjet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jets (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Other Jet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Helicopter - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

198 Table E.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2020 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Other (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Other Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (a) Sum of forecasts for individual aircraft categories. (b) Total MAC based aircraft in county multiplied by distribution going to each airport. (c) Appendix D. (d) Table C.1 in Appendix C. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis

199 Table E.4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2025 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Total Aircraft (a) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Total Aircraft - Distribution Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Single Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi-Engine Piston (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Multi Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Turboprop (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c)

200 Table E.4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2025 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Turboprop Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjets (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Microjet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jets (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Other Jet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Helicopter - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

201 Table E.4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Unconstrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2025 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Other (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (c) Other Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (a) Sum of forecasts for individual aircraft categories. (b) Total MAC based aircraft in county multiplied by distribution going to each airport. (c) Appendix D. (d) Table C.1 in Appendix C. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis

202 Estimated Distribution by Type (c) Total post 2000 (a) 90% of total (b) SEP MEP TP Microjets HEL Other Total Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Distribution of Existing Based Aircraft by Type (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo (a) Metropolitan Airports Commission. Potential Crystal waiting list estimated using average ratio of Airlake and Lake Elmo aircraft on waiting list to based aircraft. (b) Assumed that 90 percent of aircraft on waiting list would be attracted under unconstrained conditions. See text for details. (c ) Distribution of aircraft on waiting list by type assumed to be the same as for existing based aircraft at each airport. (d) Table C.1 in Appendix C. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis. Table F.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Estimated Distribution of Aircraft on Waiting Lists

203 Table F.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2010 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Total Aircraft (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Total Aircraft - Distribution Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi-Engine Piston (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Turboprop (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

204 Table F.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2010 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total

205 Table F.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2010 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Turboprop Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjets (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jets (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field

206 Table F.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2010 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Total MAC Airports Other (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (a) Assumed to increase at same rate as total based aircraft in category. (b) Sum of forecasts for individual aircraft categories. (c) Unconstrained aircraft from Appendix E with aircraft that cannot be accommodated at MSP or Holman Field redistributed. See text for details. (d) Table C.1 in Appendix C. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis

207 Table F.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2015 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Total Aircraft (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Total Aircraft - Distribution Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi-Engine Piston (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Turboprop (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

208 Table F.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2015 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Turboprop Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjets (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jets (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

209 Table F.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2015 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Other (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (a) Assumed to increase at same rate as total based aircraft in category. (b) Sum of forecasts for individual aircraft categories. (c) Unconstrained aircraft from Appendix E with aircraft that cannot be accommodated at MSP or Holman Field redistributed. See text for details. (d) Table C.1 in Appendix C. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis

210 Table F.4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2020 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Total Aircraft (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Total Aircraft - Distribution Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi-Engine Piston (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

211 Table F.4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2020 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Turboprop (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Turboprop Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjets (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jets (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

212 Table F.4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2020 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Helicopter (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (a) Assumed to increase at same rate as total based aircraft in category. (b) Sum of forecasts for individual aircraft categories. (c) Unconstrained aircraft from Appendix E with aircraft that cannot be accommodated at MSP or Holman Field redistributed. See text for details. (d) Table C.1 in Appendix C. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis

213 Table F.5 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2025 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Total Aircraft (b) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Total Aircraft - Distribution Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi-Engine Piston (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Multi Engine Piston Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Turboprop (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

214 Table F.5 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2025 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Turboprop Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjets (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Microjet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jets (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Jet Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Helicopter - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports

215 Table F.5 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Projected Constrained Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County: 2025 County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Wait List (a) Total Other (c) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports Other Aircraft - Distribution (d) Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Total MAC Airports (a) Assumed to increase at same rate as total based aircraft in category. (b) Sum of forecasts for individual aircraft categories. (c) Unconstrained aircraft from Appendix E with aircraft that cannot be accommodated at MSP or Holman Field redistributed. See text for details. (d) Table C.1 in Appendix C. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis

216 Table G.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Based Aircraft Forecast: Anoka County Airport Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other Total Average Annual Growth Rate 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% - 2.9% 3.5% 3.5% 0.4% Source: Appendix F.

217 Table G.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Based Aircraft Forecast: Flying Cloud Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other Total Average Annual Growth Rate 0.2% 0.1% 1.7% - 3.0% 3.5% - 0.9% Source: Appendix F.

218 Table G.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Based Aircraft Forecast: MSP Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other Total Average Annual Growth Rate % - 0.3% % Source: Appendix F.

219 Table G.4 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Based Aircraft Forecast: St. Paul Downtown Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other Total Average Annual Growth Rate % % 1.0% - 2.5% 2.6% - 0.0% Source: Appendix F.

220 Table H.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Aircraft Operations Forecast: Crystal Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other Total Based Aircraft Forecast (a) FAA Forecast of Active Aircraft (b) ,530 17,481 8,030-8,628 7,595 28, , ,150 17,575 9,030 1,800 9,775 9,915 38, , ,075 17,660 10,030 4,050 11,555 11,945 43, , ,563 17,735 11,030 6,300 13,468 13,795 46, , ,050 17,810 12,030 8,550 15,380 15,645 49, ,395 FAA Forecast of Hours Flown (000's) (c) ,794 2,363 1,967-3,008 2,440 1,721 28, ,906 2,498 2,104 1,800 3,447 3,065 2,495 33, ,022 2,638 2,223 4,050 4,407 3,650 2,987 38, ,145 2,783 2,328 6,300 5,030 4,213 3,372 44, ,267 2,928 2,433 8,550 5,652 4,775 3,757 49,362 Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations (d) ,826 5,795 2, ,651-72, ,017 6,855 2, ,189-85, ,291 7,605 2, , , ,641 8,409 2, , , ,861 9,250 2, , ,730 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations (e) , ,202-25, , ,445-29, ,947 1, ,714-33, ,223 1, ,999-35, ,449 1, ,141-36,817 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations (f) ,670 5,027 2, ,449-47, ,981 5,946 2,674 2, ,744-56, ,344 6,597 2,543 5, ,068-66, ,418 7,294 2,422 8, ,411-73, ,412 8,023 2,321 11, ,581-78,913 (a) Table 6. (b) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (c) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years Microjet hours flown estimated at 1000 hours per aircraft. (d) Base year data from ANOMS. Future operations projected to increase at same rate as based aircraft adjusted by estimated change in utilization rate (estimated as FAA ratio of hours flown to active aircraft). (e) Share of operations in each category consisting of touch and go operations assumed to remain constant. (f) Total operations less touch and go operations. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

221 Table H.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Aircraft Operations Forecast: Airlake Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other Total Based Aircraft Forecast (a) FAA Forecast of Active Aircraft (b) ,530 17,481 8,030-8,628 7,595 28, , ,150 17,575 9,030 1,800 9,775 9,915 38, , ,075 17,660 10,030 4,050 11,555 11,945 43, , ,563 17,735 11,030 6,300 13,468 13,795 46, , ,050 17,810 12,030 8,550 15,380 15,645 49, ,395 FAA Forecast of Hours Flown (000's) (c) ,794 2,363 1,967-3,008 2,440 1,721 28, ,906 2,498 2,104 1,800 3,447 3,065 2,495 33, ,022 2,638 2,223 4,050 4,407 3,650 2,987 38, ,145 2,783 2,328 6,300 5,030 4,213 3,372 44, ,267 2,928 2,433 8,550 5,652 4,775 3,757 49,362 Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations (d) ,773 2,877 2, , ,433 4,125 2, , ,472 4,335 4, , ,694 4,554 4, , , ,099 4,771 4, , ,500 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations (e) , , , , , , , , , ,215 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations (f) ,296 2,680 2, , ,596 3,843 2, , ,962 4,038 4, , ,872 4,242 4,227 1,391 1, , ,327 4,445 4,051 2,887 1, ,285 (a) Table 7. (b) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (c) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years Microjet hours flown estimated at 1000 hours per aircraft. (d) Base year data from ANOMS. Future operations projected to increase at same rate as based aircraft adjusted by estimated change in utilization rate (estimated as FAA ratio of hours flown to active aircraft). (e) Share of operations in each category consisting of touch and go operations assumed to remain constant. (f) Total operations less touch and go operations. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

222 Table H.3 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Summary of Aircraft Operations Forecast: Lake Elmo Year Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Microjets Other Jets Helicopter Other Total Based Aircraft Forecast (a) FAA Forecast of Active Aircraft (b) ,530 17,481 8,030-8,628 7,595 28, , ,150 17,575 9,030 1,800 9,775 9,915 38, , ,075 17,660 10,030 4,050 11,555 11,945 43, , ,563 17,735 11,030 6,300 13,468 13,795 46, , ,050 17,810 12,030 8,550 15,380 15,645 49, ,395 FAA Forecast of Hours Flown (000's) (c) ,794 2,363 1,967-3,008 2,440 1,721 28, ,906 2,498 2,104 1,800 3,447 3,065 2,495 33, ,022 2,638 2,223 4,050 4,407 3,650 2,987 38, ,145 2,783 2,328 6,300 5,030 4,213 3,372 44, ,267 2,928 2,433 8,550 5,652 4,775 3,757 49,362 Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations (d) ,471 1, , ,949 2, , ,786 2, , ,884 3, ,185-86, ,446 3, ,184-91,119 Forecast of Touch&Go Operations (e) , , , , , , , , , ,268 Forecast of Non Touch&Go Operations (f) ,323 1, , ,508 2, , ,972 2, , ,997 2, ,034-52, ,704 3, ,033-55,851 (a) Table 8. (b) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years (c) FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years Microjet hours flown estimated at 1000 hours per aircraft. (d) Base year data from ANOMS. Future operations projected to increase at same rate as based aircraft adjusted by estimated change in utilization rate (estimated as FAA ratio of hours flown to active aircraft). (e) Share of operations in each category consisting of touch and go operations assumed to remain constant. (f) Total operations less touch and go operations. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.

223 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Total Aircraft Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Forest Lake Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP South St. Paul Municipal-Fleming Field St. Paul Downtown-Hollman Field Other Total Total MAC Airports Single Engine Piston Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Forest Lake Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP South St. Paul Municipal-Fleming Field St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Other Total Total MAC Airports Multi-Engine Piston Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Forest Lake 0 Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP South St. Paul Municipal-Fleming Field

224 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Other Total Total MAC Airports Turboprop Crystal 1 1 Airlake 1 1 Lake Elmo 0 Forest Lake 0 Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP 1 1 South St. Paul Municipal-Fleming Field St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Other Total Total MAC Airports Microjets Crystal 0 Airlake 0 Lake Elmo 0 Forest Lake 0 Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field 0 Flying Cloud 0 MSP 0 South St. Paul Municipal-Fleming Field 0 St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field 0 Other Total Total MAC Airports Other Jets Crystal 0 Airlake 0 Lake Elmo 0 Forest Lake 0

225 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP South St. Paul Municipal-Fleming Field 0 St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Other Total Total MAC Airports Helicopter Crystal Airlake 1 1 Lake Elmo 2 2 Forest Lake 1 1 Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP 0 South St. Paul Municipal-Fleming Field 1 1 St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Other Total Total MAC Airports Other Crystal 0 Airlake 1 1 Lake Elmo 2 2 Forest Lake 0 Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud 0 MSP 0 South St. Paul Municipal-Fleming Field 1 1 St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field 0 Other Total Total MAC Airports Total Crosscheck

226 Table C.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL RELIEVER AIRPORTS Distribution of Based Aircraft by Airport and County County of Registration Airport Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Other Total Crystal Airlake Lake Elmo Forest Lake Anoka County/Blaine - Janes Field Flying Cloud MSP South St. Paul Municipal-Fleming Field St. Paul Downtown-Holman Field Other Total Total MAC Airports

227 Appendix B BASED AIRCRAFT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

228 MEMORANDUM Airport Development TO: FROM: LTCP Technical Advisory Group Bridget Rief, Assistant Director Airside Development Audrey Wald, HNTB DATE: November 1, 2006 RE: Registered Aircraft Used for LTCP Forecasts Concern has been raised by members of the Technical Advisory Group regarding the accuracy of the based aircraft numbers presented in the LTCP Forecasts for Airlake, Lake Elmo and Crystal Airports. These concerns relate to the difference between the FAA registration database and the Mn/DOT database. Further, the information used from the Mn/DOT database was also questioned. The based aircraft data MAC is using for the forecasts and presented in summary information to the communities, tenants, and Commissioners includes pilots/aircraft from the Mn/DOT database that register one of the three airports as the base airport. This is the same information that Mn/DOT provides to the MAC Reliever Airport Department for tracking of historical based aircraft numbers. 1. FAA Database discrepancy. According to the based aircraft numbers MAC received in February 2006, there are 1,404 more aircraft in the FAA database than in the Mn/DOT database when sorting by County and the 7-county metro area. No one from the Tech Group can explain why the difference exists. One possible explanation is that FAA data is not updated as frequently as Mn/DOT data, as FAA does not actively solicit the data in the way that Mn/DOT does. MAC asked the FAA for any insights. To date, no response has been received. It is not within the scope of the MAC LTCP process to investigate and analyze the differences between databases. 2. The Mn/DOT database includes a registration category for base airport. Not all registrants include this information. Therefore, an analysis was done to sort the database by address instead, and assign any aircraft with an address in the 7-county metro area to an airport. This was done using Mn/DOT database information from October The analysis concluded that there are no significant differences in the estimated number of annual operations using the revised based aircraft numbers, and in fact, the estimated number of annual operations actually decreases in some cases we reviewed.

Metropolitan Airports Commission. Flying Cloud Airport (FCM)

Metropolitan Airports Commission. Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Metropolitan Airports Commission Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Flying Cloud Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update FINAL October 2010 Metropolitan Council Determination April 2010 Final Adoption by MAC

More information

1.1.3 Taxiways. Figure 1-15: Taxiway Data. DRAFT Inventory TYPICAL PAVEMENT CROSS-SECTION LIGHTING TYPE LENGTH (FEET) WIDTH (FEET) LIGHTING CONDITION

1.1.3 Taxiways. Figure 1-15: Taxiway Data. DRAFT Inventory TYPICAL PAVEMENT CROSS-SECTION LIGHTING TYPE LENGTH (FEET) WIDTH (FEET) LIGHTING CONDITION 1.1.3 Taxiways EWN has an extensive network of taxiways and taxilanes connecting the terminal, air cargo, and general aviation areas with the runways as listed in Figure 1-15. A 50-foot wide parallel taxiway

More information

Source: Chippewa Valley Regional Airport ASOS, Period of Record

Source: Chippewa Valley Regional Airport ASOS, Period of Record Chapter 1 Inventory Runway wind coverage is the percentage of time a runway can be used without exceeding allowable crosswind velocities. Allowable crosswind velocities vary depending on aircraft size

More information

ACTION TRANSMITTAL

ACTION TRANSMITTAL Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities ACTION TRANSMITTAL 2018-16 DATE: February 9, 2018 TO: Transportation Advisory Board FROM: Technical Advisory Committee PREPARED

More information

Airport Master Plan. Brookings Regional Airport. Runway Runway 17-35

Airport Master Plan. Brookings Regional Airport. Runway Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 Airport Master Plan Runway 12-30 Brookings Regional Airport Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter 1: Master Plan Goals... 1-1 1.1. Introduction... 1 1.2. Objective 1 Identify improvements

More information

Chapter Six ALP Drawings. Tacoma Narrows Airport. Master Plan Update

Chapter Six ALP Drawings. Tacoma Narrows Airport. Master Plan Update Chapter Six ALP Drawings Master Plan Update The master planning process for the (Airport) has evolved through efforts in the previous chapters to analyze future aviation demand, establish airside and landside

More information

Appendix K: MSP Class B Airspace

Appendix K: MSP Class B Airspace Appendix K: MSP Class B Airspace K All of the open sky covering the United States, from less than an inch off the ground all the way to outer space, is part of America s airspace. This airspace resource

More information

CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 3.0 ALTERNATIVES The 2010 Stevensville Airport Master Plan contained five (5) airside development options designed to meet projected demands. Each of the options from

More information

Executive Summary. MASTER PLAN UPDATE Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport

Executive Summary. MASTER PLAN UPDATE Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport Executive Summary MASTER PLAN UPDATE Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport As a general aviation and commercial service airport, Fort Collins- Loveland Municipal Airport serves as an important niche

More information

The following criteria shall be applied within the boundaries of the AO District:

The following criteria shall be applied within the boundaries of the AO District: Sec. 419 (a) Purpose AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT (AO) The purpose of the Airport Overlay District is to regulate and restrict the height of structures, objects, or natural growth, regulate the locations of

More information

DRAFT FINAL REPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. Rifle Garfield County Airport Revised May 15, 2014

DRAFT FINAL REPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. Rifle Garfield County Airport Revised May 15, 2014 DRAFT FINAL REPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Rifle Garfield County Airport Revised May 15, 2014 As required by Paragraph 425.B(4) of FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook: The preparation

More information

Appendix C AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS

Appendix C AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS Appendix C AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS Appendix C AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS Airport Master Plan Santa Barbara Airport As part of this Airport Master Plan, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires the development

More information

Agenda: SASP SAC Meeting 3

Agenda: SASP SAC Meeting 3 Agenda: SASP SAC Meeting 3 Date: 04/12/18 Public Involvement Plan Update Defining the System Recommended Classifications Discussion Break Review current system Outreach what we heard Proposed changes Classification

More information

FINAL DRAFT Lake Elmo Airport 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) Released for Metropolitan Council Review May 06, 2016

FINAL DRAFT Lake Elmo Airport 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) Released for Metropolitan Council Review May 06, 2016 FINAL DRAFT Lake Elmo Airport 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) Released for Metropolitan Council Review May 06, 2016 Prepared jointly by the Airport Development & Environment Departments TABLE

More information

DRAFT MASTER PLAN UPDATE

DRAFT MASTER PLAN UPDATE DRAFT MASTER PLAN UPDATE CHAPTER VI: AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN NARRATIVE DRAFT REPORT APRIL 2017 PREPARED BY: Table of Contents WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT 6 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN NARRATIVE REPORT... 6-1 6.1 AGIS

More information

Table of Contents. Overview Objectives Key Issues Process...1-3

Table of Contents. Overview Objectives Key Issues Process...1-3 Table of Contents Chapter One Introduction Overview...1-1 Objectives...1-1 Key Issues...1-2 Process...1-3 Chapter Two Inventory of Existing Conditions Airport Setting...2-1 Locale...2-1 Airport Surroundings...2-5

More information

Summary of Committee Discussion/Questions Metropolitan Transportation Services Senior Planner Russ Owen presented this item.

Summary of Committee Discussion/Questions Metropolitan Transportation Services Senior Planner Russ Owen presented this item. Committee Report Business Item No. 2017-191 Transportation Committee For the Metropolitan Council meeting of September 13, 2017 Subject: Final Crystal Airport 2035 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) Proposed

More information

The purpose of this Demand/Capacity. The airfield configuration for SPG. Methods for determining airport AIRPORT DEMAND CAPACITY. Runway Configuration

The purpose of this Demand/Capacity. The airfield configuration for SPG. Methods for determining airport AIRPORT DEMAND CAPACITY. Runway Configuration Chapter 4 Page 65 AIRPORT DEMAND CAPACITY The purpose of this Demand/Capacity Analysis is to examine the capability of the Albert Whitted Airport (SPG) to meet the needs of its users. In doing so, this

More information

Merritt Island Airport

Merritt Island Airport TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION... 1-1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW... 1-1 General Guidelines... 1-1 Prior Planning Documentation... 1-2 Key Issues... 1-2 Goals and Objectives... 1-2 Regulatory

More information

Table of Contents. Master Plan March 2014 TOC i Spokane International Airport

Table of Contents. Master Plan March 2014 TOC i Spokane International Airport Table of Contents Page Chapter 1 Inventory 1. Introduction... 1 1 1.1 Community Profile... 1 2 1.1.1 Location and Setting... 1 1 1.1.2 Climate... 1 2 1.1.3 Socioeconomic Conditions... 1 5 1.1.4 Area Land

More information

BELFAST MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OVERVIEW

BELFAST MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OVERVIEW BELFAST MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OVERVIEW LOCATION AND HISTORY Belfast Municipal Airport (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport code BST, International Civil Aviation Organization airport code KBST, FAA

More information

1.0 Project Background Mission Statement and Goals Objectives of this Sustainable Master Plan

1.0 Project Background Mission Statement and Goals Objectives of this Sustainable Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 10 Project Background 1-1 11 Mission Statement and Goals 1-1 12 Objectives of this Sustainable Master Plan 1-2 CHAPTER 2 INVENTORY 20 Airport Background 2-1 201

More information

Prepared By: Mead & Hunt, Inc Port Lansing Road Lansing, MI 48906

Prepared By: Mead & Hunt, Inc Port Lansing Road Lansing, MI 48906 Master Plan The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as provided under Section 505 of the Airport and Airway Improvement

More information

TABLE OF CONTENTS. General Study Objectives Public Involvement Issues to Be Resolved

TABLE OF CONTENTS. General Study Objectives Public Involvement Issues to Be Resolved TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Page Number LIST OF ACRONYMS... a CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION General... 1-1 Study Objectives... 1-1 Public Involvement... 1-2 Issues to Be Resolved... 1-2 CHAPTER TWO EXISTING

More information

CATCODE ] CATCODE

CATCODE ] CATCODE Runways. FAC: 1111 CATCODE: 111111 OPR: AFCEC/COS OCR: AF/A3O-A 1.1. Description. The runway is the paved surface provided for normal aircraft landings and take offs. Runways are classified as either Class

More information

Chapter 9 - AIRPORT SYSTEM DESIGN

Chapter 9 - AIRPORT SYSTEM DESIGN Chapter 9 - AIRPORT SYSTEM DESIGN 9.01 GENERAL This chapter discusses the development program for Dutchess County Airport to the year 2020. This airport system design is based upon the airport's existing

More information

Document prepared by MnDOT Office of Aeronautics and HNTB Corporation. MINNESOTA GO STATE AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN

Document prepared by MnDOT Office of Aeronautics and HNTB Corporation. MINNESOTA GO STATE AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN LAST UPDATE JULY 2013 Acknowledgements The preparation of this document was financed in part by a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (Project No: 3-27-0000-07-10), with the financial support

More information

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Purpose and Scope The information presented in this report represents the study findings for the 2016 Ronan Airport Master Plan prepared for the City of Ronan and Lake County, the

More information

Addendum - Airport Development Alternatives (Chapter 6)

Addendum - Airport Development Alternatives (Chapter 6) Bowers Field Addendum - Airport Development Alternatives (Chapter 6) This addendum to the Airport Development Alternatives chapter includes the preferred airside development alternative and the preliminary

More information

Airport Master Plan for. Brown Field Municipal Airport PAC Meeting #3

Airport Master Plan for. Brown Field Municipal Airport PAC Meeting #3 Airport Master Plan for Brown Field Municipal Airport PAC Meeting #3 Public Meeting #1 > 8/24/17 from 5:30 to 8:00 pm > 41 attendees signed-in > Comments: > EAA area > Environmental constraints > Focus

More information

PLAN Anoka County - Blaine Airport

PLAN Anoka County - Blaine Airport Reliever Airports: NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN Anoka County - Blaine Airport INTRODUCTION The noise abatement plan for the Anoka County-Blaine Airport was prepared in recognition of the need to make the airport

More information

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION William R. Fairchild International Airport (CLM) is located approximately three miles west of the city of Port Angeles, Washington. The airport

More information

Airport Master Plan for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport PAC Meeting #3

Airport Master Plan for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport PAC Meeting #3 Airport Master Plan for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport PAC Meeting #3 Agenda > Introductions > Public Meetings Overview > Working Paper 3 - Facility Requirements > Working Paper 4 - Environmental Baseline

More information

Hartford-Brainard Airport Potential Runway Closure White Paper

Hartford-Brainard Airport Potential Runway Closure White Paper Hartford-Brainard Airport Potential Runway 11-29 Closure White Paper June 2012 In recent years there has been discussion regarding the necessity of Runway 11-29 to the Hartford- Brainard Airport (HFD)

More information

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND An Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the effects of a proposed Federal action on the surrounding environment and is prepared in compliance with the National

More information

Airport Master Plan. Rapid City Regional Airport. October 2015 FAA Submittal

Airport Master Plan. Rapid City Regional Airport. October 2015 FAA Submittal Airport Master Plan Rapid City Regional Airport October 2015 FAA Submittal Rapid City Regional Airport Master Plan Update Table of Contents Executive Summary... i Scope & Timeline... i Forecasts... i Preferred

More information

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005 Section 10 Preferred Inaugural Airport Concept 10.0 Introduction The Preferred Inaugural Airport Concept for SSA was developed by adding the preferred support/ancillary facilities selected in Section 9

More information

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005 Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005 Section 3 - Refinement of the Ultimate Airfield Concept Using the Base Concept identified in Section 2, IDOT re-examined

More information

TECHNICAL REPORT #7 Palm Beach International Airport Airport Layout Plan

TECHNICAL REPORT #7 Palm Beach International Airport Airport Layout Plan TECHNICAL REPORT #7 Palm Beach International Airport Airport Layout Plan Technical Report #7 Palm Beach International Airport Layout Plan Palm Beach International Airport Prepared for Palm Beach County

More information

According to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, the elements that affect airfield capacity include:

According to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, the elements that affect airfield capacity include: 4.1 INTRODUCTION The previous chapters have described the existing facilities and provided planning guidelines as well as a forecast of demand for aviation activity at North Perry Airport. The demand/capacity

More information

Chapter 4.0 Alternatives Analysis

Chapter 4.0 Alternatives Analysis Chapter 4.0 Alternatives Analysis Chapter 1 accumulated the baseline of existing airport data, Chapter 2 presented the outlook for the future in terms of operational activity, Chapter 3 defined the facilities

More information

Table of Contents. List of Tables. Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 2035 Master Plan Update

Table of Contents. List of Tables. Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 2035 Master Plan Update Table of Contents 7.1. Airport Layout Plan (Existing Conditions)... 2 7.2. Airport Layout Plan (Future Conditions)... 3 7.3. Technical Data Sheet... 5 7.4. Commercial Terminal Area Drawing... 5 7.5. East

More information

Appendix M: 2007 Preliminary System Airport Assessments

Appendix M: 2007 Preliminary System Airport Assessments Appendix M: 2007 Preliminary System Airport Assessments M Regional System Airports Major Airport - Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Airside capacity

More information

Airport Master Plan Update

Airport Master Plan Update Duttchessss Countty Airrporrtt Masstterr Plan Updatte Airport Master Plan Update Final Report Dutchess County Airport Town of Wappingers, New York C&S Engineers, Inc. 499 Col. Eileen Collins Blvd. Syracuse,

More information

Chapter Seven COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING A. GENERAL

Chapter Seven COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING A. GENERAL Chapter Seven COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING A. GENERAL This chapter delineates the recommended 2005 2024 Sussex County Airport Capital Improvement Program (CIP). It further identifies probable construction

More information

Appendix D Project Newsletters. Tacoma Narrows Airport. Master Plan Update

Appendix D Project Newsletters. Tacoma Narrows Airport. Master Plan Update Appendix D Project Newsletters Tacoma Narrows Airport Master Plan Update This appendix contains the newsletters distributed throughout the project. These newsletters provided updates and information on

More information

Airlake Airport 2035 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP)

Airlake Airport 2035 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) Airlake Airport 2035 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) Public Informational Meetings August 9 & 10, 2017 Draft LTCP Overview Briefing Agenda Airport Role & Context Existing Conditions & Previous Plan

More information

STUDY WORK GROUP MEETING No. 3. November 29, 2016

STUDY WORK GROUP MEETING No. 3. November 29, 2016 STUDY WORK GROUP MEETING No. 3 November 29, 2016 Agenda Welcome and introductions Update project schedule Brief overview of previous SWG meeting Update on aviation forecasts Introduction to airfield demand/capacity

More information

MASTER PLAN CONCEPT 1 DRAFT

MASTER PLAN CONCEPT 1 DRAFT The Airport Master Plan Update for Dallas Executive Airport has included the development of aviation demand forecasts, an assessment of future facility needs, and the evaluation of airport development

More information

St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP)

St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP) Reliever Airports: NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP) 1 INTRODUCTION The noise abatement plan for the St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP) was prepared in recognition of the need to make the

More information

Grants Pass Airport Master Plan & Airport Layout Plan Update

Grants Pass Airport Master Plan & Airport Layout Plan Update Attendees: Grants Pass Airport Master Plan & Airport Layout Plan Update Meeting #3 January 26, 2010 Merlin Community Center 100 Acorn Street, Merlin 5:45 7:15 p.m. Josephine County Department of Airports:

More information

SITE ELEVATION AMSL...Ground Elevation in feet AMSL STRUCTURE HEIGHT...Height Above Ground Level OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL...Total Overall Height AMSL

SITE ELEVATION AMSL...Ground Elevation in feet AMSL STRUCTURE HEIGHT...Height Above Ground Level OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL...Total Overall Height AMSL ******************************************** * Federal Airways & Airspace * * Summary Report * ******************************************** File: User Assigned File Name Latitude: NAD83 Coordinate Longitude:

More information

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED ACTION

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED ACTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION An Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the effects of a proposed Federal action on the surrounding environment and is prepared in compliance

More information

ERIE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS

ERIE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ERIE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION... 1-1 1.01 General...1-1 1.02 Purpose and Scope of Study...1-1 1.03 The Planning Process...1-2

More information

a. Aeronautical charts DID THIS IN LESSON 2

a. Aeronautical charts DID THIS IN LESSON 2 AIRMAN CERTIFICATION STANDARDS: REMOTE PILOT SMALL: You will know and be able to explain in writing or oral form the below tasks regarding AIRPORT OPERATIONS Task References Objective Task B. Airport Operations

More information

Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Zoning Process: Informing a Mn/DOT Path Forward

Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Zoning Process: Informing a Mn/DOT Path Forward : Informing a Mn/DOT Path Forward A Review of the Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) Process and the Draft Airport Zoning Ordinance B A RPZ RPZ A B C Zone Chad E. Leqve Director

More information

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES OVERVIEW

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES OVERVIEW FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES OVERVIEW This summary is intended to provide a brief overview of the key issues associated with conformance to FAA standards at Methow Valley State Airport.

More information

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE PENSACOLA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 June 20, 2017 Agenda» Introduction» Facility Requirements Airside Terminal Landside General Aviation Cargo

More information

Runway Length Analysis Prescott Municipal Airport

Runway Length Analysis Prescott Municipal Airport APPENDIX 2 Runway Length Analysis Prescott Municipal Airport May 11, 2009 Version 2 (draft) Table of Contents Introduction... 1-1 Section 1 Purpose & Need... 1-2 Section 2 Design Standards...1-3 Section

More information

Chapter One INVENTORY

Chapter One INVENTORY Chapter One INVENTORY Airport Layout Plan Report The initial step in the preparation of the Airport Layout Plan Report for is the collection of information pertaining to the Airport and the area it serves.

More information

AIRSIDE CAPACITY AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

AIRSIDE CAPACITY AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AIRSIDE CAPACITY AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS This Section investigates the capacity of the airport, its ability to meet current demand, and the facilities required to meet forecasted needs as established

More information

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN FOR. charles B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN AIRPORT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN FOR. charles B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN AIRPORT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI AIRPORT MASTER PLAN FOR charles B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN AIRPORT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI Prepared For The City of Kansas City, Missouri By Coffman Associates, Inc. January 2004 "The contents of these documents

More information

Reliever Airports: NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN Flying Cloud Airport (FCM)

Reliever Airports: NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Reliever Airports: NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) INTRODUCTION The Noise Abatement Plan (FCM Plan) for the Flying Cloud Airport has been prepared in recognition of the need to make the

More information

Safety, Infrastructure, and Tenant Improvement Project. Public Hearing Informational Brochure February 26, 2013

Safety, Infrastructure, and Tenant Improvement Project. Public Hearing Informational Brochure February 26, 2013 New York State Department of Transportation Safety, Infrastructure, and Tenant Improvement Project Public Hearing Informational Brochure February 26, 2013 This DEIS/Draft EA evaluates the potential impacts

More information

ArcadiaMunicipalAirportislocatedonthesoutheast sideofarcadia,southofstateroute70,westofstate Route31,andisaccessiblefrom AirportRoad.

ArcadiaMunicipalAirportislocatedonthesoutheast sideofarcadia,southofstateroute70,westofstate Route31,andisaccessiblefrom AirportRoad. Arcadia GeneralAviationAirport ArcadiaMunicipalAirportislocatedonthesoutheast sideofarcadia,southofstateroute70,westofstate Route31,andisaccessiblefrom AirportRoad.Arcadia islocatedapproximately30milesnortheastoftheport

More information

APPENDIX D MSP Airfield Simulation Analysis

APPENDIX D MSP Airfield Simulation Analysis APPENDIX D MSP Airfield Simulation Analysis This page is left intentionally blank. MSP Airfield Simulation Analysis Technical Report Prepared by: HNTB November 2011 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment/

More information

Milton. PeterPrinceAirportislocatedinSantaRosaCounty, approximatelythreemileseastofmilton.

Milton. PeterPrinceAirportislocatedinSantaRosaCounty, approximatelythreemileseastofmilton. Milton GeneralAviationAirport PeterPrinceAirportislocatedinSantaRosaCounty, approximatelythreemileseastofmilton. Existing Facilities Peter Prince Airport is served by one runway, Runway 18/36, 3,700 feet

More information

STUDY OVERVIEW MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

STUDY OVERVIEW MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES INTRODUCTION An Airport Master Plan provides an evalua on of the airport s avia on demand and an overview of the systema c airport development that will best meet those demands. The Master Plan establishes

More information

15 Precision Approach Path Indicator 33 None RSA 150 feet wide by 300 feet long 150 feet wide by 300 feet long

15 Precision Approach Path Indicator 33 None RSA 150 feet wide by 300 feet long 150 feet wide by 300 feet long The first (AMP) was completed in 1984 and updated in 2000. The current FAA approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) is dated November 9, 2001. The FAA suggests updating the AMP every five year in accordance

More information

MetroAir Virtual Airlines

MetroAir Virtual Airlines MetroAir Virtual Airlines NAVIGATION BASICS V 1.0 NOT FOR REAL WORLD AVIATION GETTING STARTED 2 P a g e Having a good understanding of navigation is critical when you fly online the VATSIM network. ATC

More information

Current Airport Roles

Current Airport Roles Chapter Four: Current Airport Roles Introduction Current airport roles are defined differently from national, state, and local perspectives. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has established two

More information

Appendix B Ultimate Airport Capacity and Delay Simulation Modeling Analysis

Appendix B Ultimate Airport Capacity and Delay Simulation Modeling Analysis Appendix B ULTIMATE AIRPORT CAPACITY & DELAY SIMULATION MODELING ANALYSIS B TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBITS TABLES B.1 Introduction... 1 B.2 Simulation Modeling Assumption and Methodology... 4 B.2.1 Runway

More information

DEPARTMENT: CIVIL ENGINEERING SEMESTER: III SUBJECT CODE / Name: CE2303/ Railway, Airport and Harbors Engineering 2 MARK QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

DEPARTMENT: CIVIL ENGINEERING SEMESTER: III SUBJECT CODE / Name: CE2303/ Railway, Airport and Harbors Engineering 2 MARK QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DEPARTMENT: CIVIL ENGINEERING SEMESTER: III SUBJECT CODE / Name: CE2303/ Railway, Airport and Harbors Engineering 2 MARK QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1.Define wind Coverage (AUC NOV/DEC 2010),(AUC NOV/DEC 2011)

More information

1 DRAFT. General Aviation Terminal Services Aircraft Hangars Aircraft Parking Aprons Airport Support Facilities

1 DRAFT. General Aviation Terminal Services Aircraft Hangars Aircraft Parking Aprons Airport Support Facilities To properly plan for improvements at Dallas Executive Airport, it is necessary to translate forecast aviation demand into the specific types and quantities of facilities that can adequately serve the demand.

More information

Chapter 4.0 Facility Requirements

Chapter 4.0 Facility Requirements Chapter 4.0 Facility Requirements Having inventoried the existing infrastructure and forecasted demand, determining airport facility requirements is the next essential step in the airport master planning

More information

Tallahassee International Airport Master Plan. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 October 19, 2016

Tallahassee International Airport Master Plan. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 October 19, 2016 Tallahassee International Airport Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 October 19, 2016 Agenda Welcome / Introductions Master Plan Process and Project Status Forecast of Aviation Demand

More information

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005 Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005 Section 1 - Introduction This report describes the development and analysis of concept alternatives that would accommodate

More information

Chippewa-Eau Claire Metropolitan Planning Area Long Range Transportation Plan

Chippewa-Eau Claire Metropolitan Planning Area Long Range Transportation Plan 1.2.7 2010 Eau Claire County Comprehensive Plan According to Eau Claire County s most recent comprehensive plan, the County will limit land use development adjacent to EAU in order to preserve the ability

More information

FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFT

FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFT D.3 RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS Appendix D Purpose and Need THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix D Purpose and Need APPENDIX D.3 AIRFIELD GEOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS This information provided in this appendix

More information

STAFF REPORT. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Review: Santa Barbara Airport Master Plan. MEETING DATE: November 19, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: 7D

STAFF REPORT. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Review: Santa Barbara Airport Master Plan. MEETING DATE: November 19, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: 7D STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Review: Santa Barbara Airport Master Plan MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: 7D STAFF CONTACT: Peter Imhof, Andrew Orfila RECOMMENDATION: Adopt findings

More information

Acronyms. Airport Layout Plan Report Appendix A A-1

Acronyms. Airport Layout Plan Report Appendix A A-1 Appendix A Acronyms AC... Advisory Circular ADG... Airplane Design Group ADO... Airport District Office AGL... Above Ground Level AIM... Aeronautical Information Manual AIP... Airport Improvement Program

More information

General Aviation Master Plan Update

General Aviation Master Plan Update Peter O. Knight Airport Public Meeting #2 Peter O. Knight Airport Agenda Welcome and Introductions HCAA System of Airports Purpose of Public Meetings Master Plan Status Update Next Steps Q & A 2 Our System

More information

CHAPTER 6 NOISE EXPOSURE

CHAPTER 6 NOISE EXPOSURE CHAPTER 6 NOISE EXPOSURE FAA requires that the NEM submitted for review represent the aircraft noise exposure for the year of submittal (in this case 2008) and for a future year (2013 for OSUA). However,

More information

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Aircraft Noise Contour Map Update

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Aircraft Noise Contour Map Update Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Aircraft Noise Contour Map Update Ultimate ASV, Runway Use and Flight Tracks 4th Working Group Briefing 8/13/18 Meeting Purpose Discuss Public Workshop input

More information

6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVES NORTH PERRY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS SECTION 6: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVES NORTH PERRY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS SECTION 6: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 6.1 INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, facility needs for the 20-year planning horizon were identified. The next step in the planning process is to identify and evaluate the various ways certain facilities

More information

chapter 5 Recommended Master Plan Concept airport master plan MASTER PLAN CONCEPT

chapter 5 Recommended Master Plan Concept airport master plan MASTER PLAN CONCEPT chapter 5 Recommended Master Plan Concept airport master plan The planning process for Coolidge Municipal Airport has included several analytical efforts in the previous chapters intended to project potential

More information

Chapter 9: Aviation Investment Direction and Plan

Chapter 9: Aviation Investment Direction and Plan 9.1 Chapter 9: Aviation Investment Direction and Plan 2040 9.2 Chapter 9: Aviation Investment and Direction CONTENTS Overview 9.3 Roles and Responsibilities 9.4 Airport Classifications, System Role, and

More information

STAFF REPORT. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Review: Old Town Village Mixed Use Project City of Goleta. MEETING DATE: June 18, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: 5M

STAFF REPORT. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Review: Old Town Village Mixed Use Project City of Goleta. MEETING DATE: June 18, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: 5M STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Review: Old Town Village Mixed Use Project City of Goleta MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: 5M STAFF CONTACT: Peter Imhof, Andrew Orfila RECOMMENDATION:

More information

Master Planning AirTAP Fall Forum. Mike Louis, Dan Millenacker

Master Planning AirTAP Fall Forum. Mike Louis, Dan Millenacker Master Planning 2007 AirTAP Fall Forum Mike Louis, Dan Millenacker 1 Measures in the State Aviation System Plan (SASP) 2 Goals for the Airport System Are consistent with the prior System Plan and the Statewide

More information

Airport Obstruction Standards

Airport Obstruction Standards Airport Obstruction Standards Dr. Antonio Trani Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Virginia Tech Outline of this Presentation Obstructions to navigation around airports Discussion of Federal

More information

Study Committee Meeting. September 2015

Study Committee Meeting. September 2015 W ki P T / Working Paper Two/ Study Committee Meeting September 2015 Agenda Introductions and Opening Comments Project Overview, Process, and Schedule Review Materials from Working Paper Two Comments,

More information

msp macnoise.com MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) November 17, 2010

msp macnoise.com MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) November 17, 2010 MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) November 17, 2010 Operations Update Technical Advisor s Report Summary MSP Complaints September October 2010 3,025 3,567 2009 6,350 6,001 Total Operations September

More information

Chapter Four ALTERNATIVES

Chapter Four ALTERNATIVES Chapter Four ALTERNATIVES Master Plan Update This chapter walks through the process of identifying and evaluating development alternatives to serve the (Airport) in the near-term to the distant future.

More information

Chapter 8.0 Implementation Plan

Chapter 8.0 Implementation Plan Chapter 8.0 Implementation Plan 8.1 Introduction This chapter is the culmination of the analytical work accomplished in the previous chapters. The result is a prioritized list of the essential projects.

More information

2009 Muskoka Airport Economic Impact Study

2009 Muskoka Airport Economic Impact Study 2009 Muskoka Airport Economic Impact Study November 4, 2009 Prepared by The District of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Department BACKGROUND The Muskoka Airport is situated at the north end

More information

COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL AVIATION

COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL AVIATION Existing Facilities Daytona Beach International Airport is served by a number of airside and landside facilities. The airport has three asphalt runways: Runway 07L/25R (10,500 feet long by 150 feet wide),

More information

Chapter 2: Existing Facilities

Chapter 2: Existing Facilities Chapter 2: Existing Facilities This chapter describes the existing conditions at the airport and provides an inventory of existing facilities and infrastructure. It provides the baseline for future requirements,

More information

PULLMAN-MOSCOW REGIONAL AIRPORT Runway Realignment Project

PULLMAN-MOSCOW REGIONAL AIRPORT Runway Realignment Project PULLMAN-MOSCOW REGIONAL AIRPORT Runway Realignment Project GENERAL AIRPORT INFORMATION AIRPORT USERS Airport ownership: Public, owned by the Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport Board Year opened: February

More information

New Opportunities PUBLIC WORKSHOP. Venice Municipal. Bringing g the pieces together

New Opportunities PUBLIC WORKSHOP. Venice Municipal. Bringing g the pieces together Bringing g the PUBLIC WORKSHOP Venice Municipal Airport New Opportunities Presented for Venice City Council & Citizens of Venice September 25, 2009 Slide 1 Bringing g the Welcome & Introductions May 12th

More information

APPENDIX X: RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS

APPENDIX X: RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS APPENDIX X: RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS Purpose For this Airport Master Plan study, the FAA has requested a runway length analysis to be completed to current FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for

More information