AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Transcription

1 Chapter Four AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Prior to defining the development program for Telluride Regional Airport, it is important to consider development potential and constraints at the airport. The purpose of this chapter is to consider the actual physical facilities that are needed to accommodate projected demand and meet the program requirements as defined in Chapter Three, Facility Requirements. In this chapter, a series of airport development scenarios are considered for the airport. In each of these scenarios, different physical facility layouts are presented for the purposes of evaluation. The ultimate goal is to develop the underlying rationale that supports the final master plan recommendations. Through this process, an evaluation of the highest and best uses of airport property is made while considering local goals, physical constraints, and appropriate federal airport design standards, where appropriate. Any development proposed by a master plan evolves from an analysis of projected needs. Though the needs were determined by the best methodology available, it cannot be assumed that future events will not change these needs. The master planning process attempts to develop a viable concept for meeting the needs caused by projected demands through the planning period. The number of potential alternatives that can be considered can be endless. Therefore, some judgment must be 4-1

2 applied to identify the alternatives that have the greatest potential for implementation. The alternatives presented in this chapter have been identified as such. The alternatives presented in this chapter have been developed to meet the overall progr am objectives for the airport in a balanced manner. Through coordination with the Telluride Regional Airport Authority (TRAA), the alternatives (or combination thereof) will be refined and modified as necessary to develop the recommended development program. Therefore, the alternatives presented in this chapter can be considered a beginning point in the development of the recommended master plan development program and input will be necessary to define the resultant development program. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES It is the overall objective of this effort to produce a balanced airside and landside complex to serve forecast aviation demands. However, before defining and evaluating specific alternatives, airport development objectives should be considered. As owner and operator, the TRAA provides the overall gu idance for the operation and development of Telluride Regional Air port. It is of primary concern that the airport is marketed, developed, and operated for the betterment of the community and its users. With this in mind, the following development objectives have been defin ed for this planning effort: 1. Develop a safe, attractive, and efficient aviation facility in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 2. Identify facilities to efficiently and securely accommodate commercial airline activity. 3. Identify facilities to efficiently serve general aviation users. 4. Identify the necessary improvements that will provide sufficient airside and landside capacity to accommodate the long term planning h orizon level of demand for the area. 5. Target local economic development through the development of available property. 6. Maintain and operate the airport in compliance with applicable environmental regulations, standards, and guidelines. The remainder of this chapter will describe va rious development alternatives for the airside and landside facilities. Within each of these components, specific facilities are required or desired. Although each component is treated separately, planning must integrate the individual requirements so that they complement one another. 4-2

3 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS The issues to be considered in this alternatives analysis are summarized on Exhibit 4A. The issues are summarized by functional use categories, which include: airfield, passenger terminal, and general aviation uses. Developmental considerations that do not logically fit within one of the use categories are summarized in the category entitled Other Considerations. These issues are the result of the findings of the Aviation Demand Forecasts and Facility Requirements Evaluations and inclu de input from the TRAA. AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES Airfield facilities are, by nature, the focal point of the airport complex. Because of their primary role and the fact that they physically dominate airport land use, airfield facility needs are often the most critical factor in the determination of viable airport development alternatives. In particular, the runway system requires the greatest commitment of land area and often imparts the greatest influence of the identification and development of other airport facilities. Furthermore, aircraft operations dictate the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design criteria that must be considered when looking at airfield improvements. These criteria, depending upon the areas around the airport, can often have a sign ifica nt impact on the viability of va rious alternatives designed to meet airfield needs. AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the primary planning issues for the airfield facilities at Telluride Regional Air port. Since the completion of the last master plan for Telluride Regional Airport in 1996, there has been a transition in the type of aircraft using the airport. The transition includes larger, higher performance general aviation aircraft. The mix of commercial airline aircraft serving the airport has remained virtually unchanged and includes va rious models of turboprop aircraft. The most significant change is the increase in business jet aircraft use of the airport. In contrast to the previous master plan, general aviation business aircraft now define the critical design aircraft for the airport, instead of commercial airline aircraft. In the future, regional jets can be expected to serve Telluride Regional Airport, a transition not envisioned in the last master plan. This has placed the airport in a new design category. The following text summarizes the design requirements for the general aviation business jets and commercial airline regional jets. Following this discussion, options for meeting the design requirements of these aircraft will be presented. 4-3

4 Airport Reference Code (ARC) Designation The design of airfield facilities is based, in part, on the physical and operational characteristics of aircraft using the airport. The FAA utilizes the Airport Reference Code (ARC) system to relate airport design requirements to the physical (wingspan) and operational (approach speed) characteristics of the largest and fastest aircraft conducting 500 or more operations annually at the airport. While this can at times be represented by one specific make and model of aircraft, most often the airport s ARC is represented by several different aircraft which collectively conduct more than 500 annual operations at the airport. The selection of the most appropriate FAA design standard is an important consideration for both the reconstruction of Runway 9-27 as well as the airport s Federal Aviation Regu lation (FAR) Part 139 certification. With regard to the runway reconstruction project, FAA design standards specify physical runway dimensions, runway/taxiway separation distances, runway gradient, and safety area standards (among other standards). With regard to the airport s FAR Part 139 certification, FAA design standards specify the commercial aircraft, which may use the airport. Presently, the airport is certified for commercial aircraft within ARCs A-I, A- II, A-III, B-I, and B-II. This is sufficient for typical turboprop aircraft within the commercial airline fleet, but is not sufficient for regional jet aircraft. An increase in ARC would be a prerequisite to new certification. The facility requirements analysis examined aircraft operations at Telluride Regional Airport by ARC to define the critical approach speed and wingspan and identify the current physical planning cr iteria for the airport. Since the airport charges a landing fee for all users, an accurate defin ition of the critical ARC was made as the make and model of each aircraft operating at the airport has been recorded. The facility requirements analysis concluded that a family of aircraft defines the critical design standards at Telluride Regional Airport. While aircraft operating at the airport fall within Approach Categories A through D and Airplane Design Groups (ADG) I, II, and III, no single airplane falls within both the most demanding Approach Category and ADG. Business jets have the highest approach speeds of all aircraft operating at the airport and thus define the Approach Categor y for the airport. The DeHavilland Dash 8, used in scheduled commercial airline service, has the largest wingspan of aircraft operating at the airport more than 500 times annually and therefore defines the critical ADG. Table 4A summarizes business jet operations by Approach Categor y and ADG for calendar years 2000 and For calendar years 2000 and 2001, Approach Category C was the critical 4-4

5 01MP05-4A-8/30/04 AIRFIELD CONSIDERATIONS Conform with Airport Reference Code (ARC) D-III Design Requirements. Increase the Runway Safety Area (RSA), conform with grade standards. Increase Object Free Area (OFA). Increase runway/taxiway separation distance. Increase runway length. Provide for additional exit taxiways. Consider full-length parallel taxiway. Consider holding apron at Runway 9 end. Provide an area for the ground handling of glider aircraft. PASSENGER TERMINAL BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS SHORT TERM Consider requirements for checked baggage screening. Consider requirements for federally-controlled security screening. LONG TERM Increase the size of terminal functional areas to accommodate regional jets. Provide segregated terminal location. Increase terminal apron to accommodate regional jets. Increase the size of the public automobile parking areas. GENERAL AVIATION CONSIDERATIONS Provide areas for new hangar development to meet long term needs. Increase transient apron area. Provide location for the development of an aircraft wash rack and tenant maintenance shelter. Provide for a helipad and helicopter parking positions. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Provide for expanded fuel storage and self-service fuel island. Provide for efficient vehicular access to future development areas. Provide for an expanded Airport Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) building. Exhibit 4A ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

6 Approach Categor y, while the critical ADG was ADG III. Within the general aviation fleet mix, Approach Category C and ADG II are the critical planning considerations. Within the commercial airline fleet mix, Approach Category B and ADG III are the critical planning considerations. TABLE 4A Summary of Business Jet Operations by Approach Category and Airplane Design Group Category 2000 Operations 2001 Operations Approach Category B Approach Category C Approach Category D 836 1, ,068 1, Total 2,372 2,798 Airplane Design Group I Airplane Design Group II Airplane Design Group III 876 1, ,018 1, Total 2,372 2,798 Source: TRAA Examining FAA design and safety standards, general aviation business jets currently define the runway standards for the airport, while the commercial airline aircraft define the taxiway width and runway/taxiway separation distance. Combining the Approach Category of the business jets with the ADG of the scheduled airline aircraft, the ARC for the Telluride Regiona l Airport can best be described as ARC C-III. Table 4B summarizes the existing and planned regional jets in the commercial airline mix. As shown, the Fairchild- Dornier 328J et (ARC B-II) is the only operating or planned regional jet which could serve Telluride Regional Airport under its existing FAR Part 139 certifica tion. The remaining operational or planned regional jets fall within ARC C-II or C-III. As evident in the table, to have the ability to be certified to serve all regional jet aircraft, and not exclude the potential for any one of these aircraft to serve the airport in the future, the airport must, at a minimum, meet ARC C-III design standards. As shown in the activity summary above, the design requirements for Telluride Regional Airport are being driven by the current mix of business jet aircraft operating at the airport. The current design requirement of ARC C- III is similar to the design requirements of the regional jets. Therefore, meeting the design and safety standards for the current mix of a ircraft operating at the airport could allow for the airport to upgrade its FAR Part 139 certification 4-5

7 and accommodate scheduled operations by regional jet aircraft in the future. In 2000, there were 326 operations by aircraft in Approach Category D. In 2001, there were 276 operations by aircraft within Approach Category D. In the future, increased use of the airport by a ircraft within Approach Categor y D can be expected. Therefore, the appropriate ARC design ation for Telluride Regional Air port is ARC D-III. Table 4C summarizes ARC D-III design standards. TABLE 4B Existing and Planned Regional Jets Model/Type ARC Passengers BAe SYSTEMS Maximum Takeoff Weight (pounds) Production Status BAe BAe BAe Avro RJ70 Avro RJ85 Avro RJ100 Avro RJX70 Avro RJX85 Avro RJX100 C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III ,000 93,000 97,500 95,000 97, ,500 95,000 97, ,500 Production Terminated Production Terminated Production Terminated Production Terminated in 2001 Production Terminated in 2001 Production Terminated in 2001 Production Terminated in 2001 Production Terminated in 2001 Production Terminated in 2001 BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE CRJ 100 CRJ 200 CRJ 700 CRJ 900 C-II C-II C-II C-II ,450 47,450 72,750 80,500 Production Terminated In Production In Production In Production EMBRAER ERJ 135 ERJ 145 ERJ 170 ERJ ERJ C-II C-II C-III C-III C-III ,888 43,415 78, , ,003 In Production In Production In Production In Production In Production FAIRCHILD-DORNIER 328J et 728 B-II C-III ,524 77,602 In Production First Delivery 2006 Safety Areas The design of airfield facilities includes both the pavement areas to accommodate landing and ground operations of aircraft, as well as imaginary safety areas to protect aircraft operational areas and keep them free of obstructions that could affect the safe operation of aircraft at the airport. The imaginary safety areas include the runway safety area (RSA) and object free area (OFA). 4-6

8 The FAA defines the OFA as "a two dimensional ground area surrounding runways, taxiways, and taxilanes which are clear of objects except for objects whose location is fixed by function (i.e., airfield lighting)." The RSA is defined as "a defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. TABLE 4C Airfield Design Standards Airport Reference Code Approach Visibility Minim ums Runway Width Ru nway Safety Area (RSA) Width (centered on runway centerline) Length Beyond Runway End Object Free Area (OFA) Width Length Beyond Runway End Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Width (centered on runway centerline) Length Beyond Runway End Ru n way C en terlin e to: Parallel Taxiway Cen terline Runway P rotection Zones (RP Z) Inner Width Outer Width Length Taxiways Width Safety Area Width Object Free Area Width Taxiway C en terlin e to: Parallel Taxiway/Ta xilane Fixed or Moveable Object Taxila nes Taxila n e Cen terlin e to: Parallel Taxilane Cen terline Fixed or Moveable Object Taxilane Object Free Area D-III One Mile , , ,010 1, Source: FAA Airport Design Software Version 4.2D FAR Part 77 governs obstacle clearance laterally along each side of the runway. FAR Part 77 specifies that permanent objects be located below a 7:1 transitional surface, which for Telluride Region a l Air por t begin s 250 feet on either side of the runway centerline at the same elevation as that portion of the runway centerline. To comply with these standards, terrain and buildings must be below the transitional surface. 4-7

9 Presently, the airport does not meet ARC D-III, RSA, or OFA design standards laterally along the runway or in the area behind each runway end. Two areas, one on the north side of the runway, the other on the south side, require stabilization and fill to meet RSA grade requirements. The runway does not meet longitudinal grade requirements. For ARC D-III, longitudinal grade requirements are limited to a 1.5% maximum grade, with an additional gr ade restriction of 0.8% for the first and last quarter of the runway length. The existing runway gradient exceeds 2%. Existing terrain features penetrate portions of the FAR Part 77 transitional surface. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA AND RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES A series of studies completed in 2000 examined the reconstruction of Runway These studies focused on meeting RSA and OFA design requirements, a s well as runway gradient and transitional surface obstructions. The first study, completed in April 2000, examined requirements for ARC B-III, which meets the design requirements for the commercial service aircraft serving the airport, and ARC C-II, which meets the design requirements for the current critical general aviation business jets using the airport. This initial study focused on meeting the RSA standards beyon d each runway end as well as laterally to each side of the runway. Areas of fill and stabiliza tion were anticipated for both the north and south sides of the runway. The runway length was shortened to provide for the RSA beyond each runway end in the two ARC C-II alternatives. With a need to plan for ARC D-III, these alternatives are no longer valid. A second study, completed in October 2000, exa mined seven additional alternatives for the reconstruction of Runway This inclu ded four additional alternatives to meet ARC C- II design standards and three alternatives to meet ARC C-III design standards. These alternatives focused on realignments of the runway to provide a longer runway length and meet RSA standards. The report examined three skewed alignments (rotating the runway from a point on the centerline) and four canted alignments (rotating the runway with the west end fixed in its existing location). Each of these alternatives had sign ifica nt impacts on the existing terminal area, including the loss of apron area and relocation of the terminal building and airport rescue and fir efighting (ARFF) building. Furthermore, these alternatives could have had significant offsite impa cts, a s aircraft flight paths would be shifted over residential areas not presently subject to overflight. A canted or skewed runway would also be more closely aligned with Diamond Hill, which is the controlling obstacle for the approach and visibility minimums. Aligning the runway with Diamond Hill could impact operations and approach and visibility minimums. The costly impacts on existing facilities and off-site impacts removed these alternatives from consideration. Considering t he offsite impacts and impacts on the existing 4-8

10 terminal area, a determination to leave the runway in its current alignment was made by the TRAA. A third study was completed in October 2001 and examined the requirements to meet ARC C-III design standards with the runway remaining in its existing alignment. This included consideration for the installation of an engineered material arresting system (EMAS) at each runway end. At that time, the FAA had not developed standards for the use of EMAS at airports and was still studying its use. For these reasons, alternatives for implementing EMAS were not considered feasible. Therefore, this study focused on alternatives to fully meet RSA standards at each runway end. This included alternatives of constructing support structures for the RSA, such as deck structure behind each runway end. Various retaining wall options, to accommodate the required fill to meet RSA standards and to stabilize the areas beyond each runway end (which in some cases have been prone to slides in the past) were also examined. This 2001 study ultimately concluded the most cost-effective means for meeting RSA standards beyond each runway end was through the construction of retaining walls and grading and filling the RSA. Runway Alternative A Exhibit 4B depicts a runway safety area and reconstruction alternative assuming the development of the retaining walls proposed by the 2001 study. This alternative incorporates the following major elements: 1. Reconstructing Runway 9-27 to meet longitudinal grade standards by lowering each runway end and raising the center of the runway; 2. Constructing a 200-foot long by 500-foot wide pile and lagging retaining wall behind Runway 9 and grading and filling the area behind the Runway 9 end; 3. Constructing a 980-foot long by 300-foot wide MSE retaining wall southeast of Runway 27; 4. Stabilization and fill of the RSA to standard width on the north and south sides of the runway; 5. Relocating Taxiway A t o meet runway/taxiway separation standards; and 6. Implementing declared distances to provide increased takeoff distance to the west. For this alternative, the existing Runway 9 threshold is relocated approximately 195 feet east to limit the length of the west retaining wall and allow for the full 1,000-foot safety area beyon d the runway end. This retaining wall would be located outside the existing airport property line on land currently owned by the U.S. Forest Service. The fee simple acquisition of this land would be required to allow for the construction of the retaining wall. 4-9

11 A vertical, mechanically-stabilized earth (MSE) wall is proposed to be constructed to accommodate the fill necessary to meet RSA grade requirements at the east end of the runway. Runway 27 is extended 921 feet to the east to provide total runway length of 7,600 feet. Consistent with design standards, a portion of the ext ension is limited to departures only. The Runway 27 landing threshold is displaced 600 feet to allow the full RSA to be available for aircraft landing to the west. This involves the use of a concept known as declared distances. Declared distances clearly define both landing and takeoff lengths at the airport. Specifically, declared distances incorporate the following concepts: Takeoff Runway Available (TORA) - The runway length declared available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane taking off; Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) - The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway and/or clearway beyon d the far end of the TORA; Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA) - The runway plus stopwaylength decla red ava ilable for the acceleration and deceleration of an aircraft aborting a takeoff; and Landing Distance Available (LDA) - The runway length declared available and suitable for landing. This alternative would provide a total pavement lengt h of 7,600 feet. The ASDA and LDA are, in some cases, reduced by the amount of displacement necessary to meet RSA criterions. F or departures to the east (Runway 9), the ASDA is 7,000 feet. This is the length of runway available after providing for the RSA behind the Runway 27 threshold. For departures to the west (Runway 27), the ASDA is not reduced since the full RSA is provided beyon d the east end of the runway. The LDA must allow for the full RSA at the approach end of the runway, as well as at the rollout end of the runway. The LDA for each runway is the same - 7,000 feet. The decla red distances for this alternative are as follows: Runway 9 Runway 27 Takeoff Runway Available (TORA) Takeoff Distance Ava ilable (TODA) Accelerate-Stop Distance Ava ilable (ASDA) Landing Distance Ava ilable (LDA) 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,000 In determining runway length, the ASDA and LDA become critical. ASDA is equal to the balance field length calculated by pilots prior to takeoff. The ASDA, or balanced field length, considers the runway length required by an aircraft to accelerate to rotation speed and then decelerate safely on the remaining runway available. This is the controlling takeoff distance and is used for evaluating if sufficient takeoff distance is provided. Landing distance 4-10

12 03SP05-4B-4/21/05 LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Proposed Easement DECLARED DISTANCES Runway 9 Runway 27 Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) 7,000 7, SCALE IN FEET Date of photo: Existing U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit Runway Object Free Area (OFA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Takeoff Runway Available (TORA) 7,000 7,600 Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA) 7,000 7,600 Landing Distance Available (LDA) 7,000 7,000 Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Pavement/Buildings to be Removed NORTH Ultimate Pavement Existing Pavement to be Reconstructed Existing Safety Area Improved Safety Area LAST DOLLAR ROAD RETAINING WALL ULTIMATE 7,620' x 100' A2 A GLIDER STAGING HOLDING APRON GLIDER STAGING A4 600' DISPLACED THRESHOLD NOISE BERM RETAINING WALL ULTIMATE RPZ ULTIMATE RPZ STATE HIGHWAY 145 Exhibit 4B RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE A

13 considers the runway length necessary for an aircraft to touch down and decelerate to a safe speed prior to exiting the runway while allowing for appropriate safety areas at each end of the runway to safely accommodate an aircraft that may undershoot or overshoot the runway. To conform to ARC D-III runway/ taxiway separation standards, Taxiway A is relocated 100 feet north. Taxiway A is extended to the new runway end to provide for departures to the west. Taxiway A1 is retained as an exit taxiway. The Runway 27 holding apron is moved 500 feet west. This is to reduce engine run-up noise on surrounding residential development. A holding apron is proposed at the Runway 9 end. Presently, any aircraft which departs Runway 9 must backtaxi, turn-around, and hold on the runway. While developing a holding apron at the Runway 9 end does not eliminate the practice of back-taxiing on the runway, it does allow an area off the active runway for aircraft to prepare for departure. This could have some limited safety and capacity benefits since aircraft would not be occupying the runway to prepare for departure, potentially delaying aircraft waiting to land or taxi for departure to the east. Existing landside facilities are impacted by this alternative. The existing de-ice pad and four-unit T-hangar are located within the OFA and will need to be relocated. The segmented circle is within the RSA. This is shown for relocation to the south side of the runway, east of it s present position. This alternative would also require modifications to the existing navigational aids. The Runway 9 precision approach path indicator (PAPI) would need to be relocated to coincide with new Runway 9 threshold and elevation. The Runway 27 PAPI glideslope would need to be adjusted to the touchdown point as a result of the landing threshold location changing and changes in runway grade. This was the original alterative proposed in the 2002 Draft Airport Master Plan. Ultimately, this alterative was eliminated due to the costs of constructing the remaining walls, the fact that this alternative moved the Runway 27 departure and landing thresholds closer to Last Dollar Subdivision, and the size of the east retaining wall. Aesthetics were a primary concern of this retaining wall. On December 23, 2003, t he FAA published a policy (Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway Safety Area Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems) that approved the use of EMAS as means of meeting RSA standards in areas where the full RSA cannot be cost-effectively constructed or there are environmental concerns. This policy established that EMAS can provide an equivalent safety enhancement to the full RSA. Since EMAS does not provide a benefit for short landings, EMAS installations require a displaced landing threshold. This policy stipulated a 600-foot displaced threshold to accommodate short landings. 4-11

14 In 2004, during the approval process for the Airport Master Plan, an additional five options for reconstructing Runway 9-27 and improving the RSA were studied considering the use of EMAS as a means to improve the RSA. The EMAS is customized to each airport based on the maximum takeoff weight of the cortical design aircraft. For Telluride Regional Airport this is the Gulfstream IV and V series of aircraft. The EMAS structure for these aircraft is 150 feet wide and approximately 300 feet long. These five options considered are described below. Runway Alternative B Exhibit 4C depicts the first of these five options. This alternative incorporates the following major elements: 1. Reconstructing Runway 9-27 to meet longitudinal grade standards by lowering each runway end and raising the center of the runway; 2. Installing EMAS at each end; 3. Constructing a 200-foot long by 500-foot wide pile and lagging retaining wall behind Runway 9 and grading and filling the area behind the Runway 9 end; 4. Constructing a 130-foot long by 120-foot wide MSE retaining wall southeast of Runway 27 and gr ading a nd filling t he RSA; 5. Stabilization and fill of the RSA to standard width on the north and south sides of the runway; 6. Relocating Taxiway A to meet runway/taxiway separation standards; and 7. Implementing declared distances to provide increased takeoff distance to the west and provide displaced landing thresholds for short landings. This alternative considered 1,000-foot displaced landing thresholds, which would comply with the standards RSA requirements. For this alternative, the existing Runway 9 threshold is relocated approximately 191 feet east to limit the length of the west retaining wall and allow for the full 1,000-foot safety area beyon d the runway end for landing. The Runway 9 departure threshold could be located 409 feet west of the existing Runway threshold to provide for increased takeoff distance to the east. The EMAS is situated at the far end of the safety area. The Runway 27 end is extended 121 feet to provide for an increased takeoff distance to the west. The Runway 27 landing threshold would be located 479 feet west of the existing landing threshold. Considering these threshold changes, the decla red distances for this option would be as follows: 4-12

15 01MP05-4C-8/30/04 Exhibit 4C RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE B

16 Runway 9 Runway 27 Takeoff Runway Available (TORA) Takeoff Distance Ava ilable (TODA) Accelerate-Stop Distance Ava ilable (ASDA) Landing Distance Ava ilable (LDA) 7,400 7,400 7,400 6,800 7,400 7,400 7,400 6,800 As shown, the landing and departure distances would be the same for each runway end. However, the landing distance would be 70 feet shorter than provided by the existing runway. To conform to ARC D-III runway/ taxiway separation standards, Taxiway A is relocated 100 feet north. Taxiway A is extended to the new runway end to provide for departures to the west. Taxiway A1 is retained as an exit taxiway. The Runway 27 holding apron is moved 500 feet west. This is to reduce engine run-up noise on surrounding residential development. Existing landside facilities are impacted by this alternative. The existing de-ice pad and four-unit T-hangar are located within the OFA and will need to be relocated. The segmented circle is within the RSA. This is shown for relocation to the south side of the runway, east of it s present position. This alternative would also require modifications to the existing navigational aids. The Runway 9 and 27 precision approach path indicators (PAPIs) would need to be relocated to coincide with new thresholds and elevations. Runway Alternative C Exhibit 4D depicts the second of these five options. This alternative was developed assuming a 6,800-foot runway length for both landing and departure. This would essentially provide the same runway length as is now available at the airport (albeit 70- feet shorter). This would not meet an overall goa l of the runway reconstruction and runway safety area improvements of maximizing runway length for aircraft operations. This alterative would move the Runway 27 landing and departure threshold to the east, away from the Last Dollar subdivision. This alternative incorporates the following major elements: 1. Reconstructing Runway 9-27 to meet longitudinal grade standards by lowering each runway end and raising the center of the runway; 2. Installing EMAS at each end; 3. Constructing a 200-foot long by 500-foot wide pile and lagging retaining wall behind Runway 9, and grading and filling the area behind the Runway 9 end; 4-13

17 4. Constructing a 130-foot long by 120-foot wide MSE retaining wall southeast of Runway 27 and gr ading a nd filling t he RSA; 5. Stabiliza tion and fill of the RSA to standard width on the north and south sides of the runway; a nd 6. Relocating Taxiway A to meet runway/taxiway separation standards. The threshold locations for this option are essentially the same as the previous alternative. This alternative does not implement declared distance. The only change is that this alternative does not create additional takeoff distance for each runway. This alternative was essentially created to prove that retaining walls would be needed at each runway end just to maintain the existing runway length while attempting to provide the standard RSA behind each runway end for landing. To conform to ARC D-III runway/ taxiway separation standards, Taxiway A is relocated 100 feet north. Taxiway A is extended to the new runway end to provide for departures to the west. Taxiway A1 is retained as an exit taxiway. The Runway 27 holding apron is moved 500 feet west. This is to reduce engine run-up noise on surrounding residential development. Existing landside facilities are impacted by this alternative. The existing de-ice pad and four-unit T-hangar are located within the OFA and will need to be relocated. The segmented circle is within the RSA. This is shown for relocation to the south side of the runway, east of it s present position. This alternative would also require modifications to the existing navigational aids. The Runway 9 and 27 precision approach path indicators (PAPIs) would need to be relocated to coincide with new thresholds and elevations. Runway Alternative D Exhibit 4E depicts the third of these five options. This alternative was developed to maintain the existing 6,870-foot runway length for both landing and departure, and the runway thresholds in their existing locations. As shown on the exhibit, this alternative eliminates the west retaining wall, but the east retaining wall is still needed. The east retaining wall would be longer than the east retaining wall presented in the two previous alternatives. Similar to the previous alternative, this alternative would not meet an overall goa l of the runway reconstruction and runway safety area improvements of maximizing runway length for aircraft operations. This alternative incorporates the following major elements: 1. Reconstructing Runway 9-27 t o meet longitudinal grade standards by lowering each runway end and raising the center of the runway; 2. Installing EMAS at each end; 4-14

18 01MP05-4D-8/30/04 Exhibit 4D RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE C

19 01MP05-4E-8/30/04 Exhibit 4E RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE D

20 3. Constructing a 159-foot long by 80- foot wide MSE retaining wall southeast of Runway 27 and gr ading a nd filling t he RSA; 4. Stabiliza tion and fill of the RSA to standard width on the north and south sides of the runway; a nd 5. Relocating Taxiway A to meet runway/taxiway separation standards. 6. Providing a 600-foot RSA in accordance with the new EMAS policy described above. To conform to ARC D-III runway/ taxiway separation standards, Taxiway A is relocated 100 feet north. Taxiway A is extended to the new runway end to provide for departures to the west. Taxiway A1 is retained as an exit taxiway. The Runway 27 holding apron is moved 500 feet west. This is to reduce engine run-up noise on surrounding residential development. Existing landside facilities are impacted by this alternative. The existing de-ice pad and four-unit T-hangar are located within the OFA and will need to be relocated. The segmented circle is within the RSA. Runway Alternative E Exhibit 4F depicts the fourth of these five options. This alternative was developed to increase the takeoff and landing distance, without the need for the southwest retaining wall. This alternative incorporates the following major elements: 1. Reconstructing Runway 9-27 to meet longitudinal grade standards by lowering each runway end and raising the center of the runway; 2. Installing EMAS at each end; 3. Constructing a 200-foot long by 500-foot wide pile and lagging retaining wall behind Runway 9 and grading and filling the area behind the Runway 9 end; 4. Stabilization and fill of the RSA to standard width on the north and south sides of the runway; 5. Relocating Taxiway A t o meet runway/taxiway separation standards; 6. Providing a 600-foot RSA in accordance with the new EMAS policy described above; 7. Implementing declared distances. For this alternative, the Runway 9 landing threshold is relocated approximately 209 feet west, to increase the landing distance. The Runway 9 departure threshold is located 409 feet west of the existing Runway 9 threshold to provide for increased takeoff distance to the east. The EMAS is situated at the far end of the safety area. The 4-15

21 Runway 27 landing threshold is relocated 159 west. The Runway 27departure threshold is relocated 41 to the east. Considering these threshold changes, the decla red distances for this option would be as follows: Runway 9 Runway 27 Takeoff Runway Available (TORA) Takeoff Distance Ava ilable (TODA) Accelerate-Stop Distance Ava ilable (ASDA) Landing Distance Ava ilable (LDA) 7,320 7,320 7,320 7,120 7,320 7,320 7,320 7,120 To conform to ARC D-III runway/ taxiway separation standards, Taxiway A is relocated 100 feet north. Taxiway A is extended to the new runway end to provide for departures to the west. Taxiway A1 is retained as an exit taxiway. The Runway 27 holding apron is moved 500 feet west. This is to reduce engine run-up noise on surrounding residential development. Existing landside facilities are impacted by this alternative. The existing de-ice pad and four-unit T-hangar are located within the OFA and will need to be relocated. The segmented circle is within the RSA. This alternative would also require modifications to the existing naviga tional aids. The Runway 9 and 27 precision approach path indicators (PAPIs) would need to be relocated to coincide with new thresholds and elevations. Runway Alternative F Exhibit 4G depicts the fifth and final EMAS option. This alternative examined the maximum runway development potential on the existing mesa using EMAS without developing any retaining walls. This alternative incorporates the following major elements: 1. Reconstructing Runway 9-27 to meet longitudinal grade standards by lowering each runway end and raising the center of the runway; 2. Installing EMAS at each end; 3. Stabilization and fill of the RSA to standard width on the north and south sides of the runway; 4. Relocating Taxiway A t o meet runway/t axiway separation standards; 4-16

22 01MP05-4F-8/30/04 Exhibit 4F RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE E

23 01MP05-4G-8/30/04 Exhibit 4G RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE F

24 5. Providing a 600-foot RSA in accordance with the new EMAS policy described above; and 6. Implementing declared distances. For this alternative, the Runway 9 landing threshold remains in its existing location. The Runway 9 departure threshold is located 200 feet west of the existing Runway 9 threshold to provide for increased takeoff distance to the east. The EMAS is situated at the far end of the safety area. The Runway 27 landing threshold is relocated 159 feet east. The Runway 27 departure threshold remains in its existing location. Considering these threshold changes, the decla red distances for this option would be as follows: Runway 9 Runway 27 Takeoff Runway Available (TORA) Takeoff Distance Ava ilable (TODA) Accelerate-Stop Distance Ava ilable (ASDA) Landing Distance Ava ilable (LDA) 7,070 7,070 7,070 6,911 7,070 7,070 7,070 6,911 To conform to ARC D-III runway/ taxiway separation standards, Taxiway A is relocated 100 feet north. Taxiway A is extended to the new runway end to provide for departures to the west. Taxiway A1 is retained as an exit taxiway. The Runway 27 holding apron is moved 500 feet west. This is to reduce engine run-up noise on surrounding residential development. Existing landside facilities are impacted by this alternative. The existing de-ice pad and four-unit T-hangar are located within the OFA and will need to be relocated. The segmented circle is within the RSA. This alternative would also require modifications to the existing navigational aids. The Runway 9 and 27 precision approach path indicators (PAPIs) would need to be relocated to coincide with new thresholds and elevations. TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVES The facility requirements analysis indicated that the airport could realize an increase in airfield capacity if additional exit taxiways were provided. Exhibit 4H depicts an alternative that provides additional exit taxiways through the development of a partial parallel taxiway south of Runway As shown, this taxiway would extend between the Runway 9 end and a new exit taxiway extending to the existing landside facilities located north of Runway Besides allowing for the development of additional exit taxiways, the partial parallel taxiway would have additional 4-17

25 benefits. This taxiway could serve landside development south of Runway It would also eliminate the need to back-taxi along the runway. Presently, aircraft departing to the east must back-taxi along the runway to reach the Runway 9 end. Additionally, an aircraft landing Runway 27, which does not stop by Taxiway A3, must turn-around and back-taxi along the runway to return to the terminal area. This partial parallel taxiway does not limit development south of Runway FAA design standards require aircraft parking aprons and facilities to be located 500 feet from the runway centerline. The partial parallel taxiway is located 400 feet from the runway centerline. The taxiway OFA is 93 feet each side of the taxiway centerline. While developing the partial parallel taxiway does not impact any existing facilities, existing terrain features are a consideration. Developing the partial parallel taxiway would require eliminating the existing fire protection pond. A similar pond or holding tank would need to be developed to provide similar storage capacity. Additionally, this taxiway passes through a low spot on the airport site that is approximately 70 feet lower than the runway in that area. This would require significant fill. Near the Runway 9 end, the partial parallel taxiway would extend through the existing rock quarry. A parallel taxiway on the north side of Runway 9-27 is not being considered as shown in the previous master plan. The design requirements in the previous master plan only required that the taxiway be located 300 feet from the runway centerline. This would have placed most of the proposed taxiway on existing airport property. However, the new design requirements specify that a parallel taxiway be located 400 feet from the runway centerline. This would place a northern parallel taxiway centerline along, or just outside the existing airport property line. This would require additional property acquisition to allow for the construction of the taxiway and protect the taxiway OFA. Terrain features would also limit the ability to extend a taxiway along the north side of the runway. The terrain to the north of Runway 9-27 declines rapidly. Significant grading and fill would be necessary to accommodate a parallel taxiway on this side of the runway. PASSENGER TERMINAL BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS There are both short and long term needs for accommodating commercial airline services at Telluride Regional Air port. The most immediate needs are related to the new and developing security requirements of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of In the long term, larger functional areas within the terminal will be needed, a s well as aircraft parking, and automobile parking areas. Segr ega tion from general aviation activity is also desirable. The Aviation and Transportation S ecurity Act was written in response to 4-18

26 SCALE IN FEET NORTH 9060 STATE HIGHWAY HIGHWAY Exhibit 4H TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE LAST DOLLAR ROAD LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Proposed Airport Property Line Proposed Easement U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit Runway Object Free Area (OFA) Taxiway OFA Runway Safety Area Pavement to be Removed Ultimate Pavement PROPERTY LINE FIRE PROTECTION POND 800' 500' 400' Date of photo: SP05-4H-4/21/05

27 the terrorist acts of September 11, Major provisions of the law applicable to terminal planning include the federal government taking responsibility of carry-on baggage screening and new requirements for checked baggage screening. The law requires security screeners to be employees of the federal government by the end of 2002, and the establishment of a security manager at each airport. The law further required that all checked baggage be screened by explosive detection systems (EDS) by the end of Prior to the enactment of this law, the airlines were responsible for checked baggage screening. At Telluride Regional Airport, the airline staff would conduct carry-on baggage screening; therefore, unlike other airports, there have not been separate employees for carry-on baggage security screening at Telluride Regional Airport. With the federal government taking on this role, it can be expected that there will be dedicated staff at the airport for carryon baggage security screening. Therefore, there will be a requirement for office space for the federal security screeners and the required security manager. Offices for the TSA were constructed above the secure holdroom within the terminal building. The TSA utilizes trace detection screening equipment for all checked baggage at the airport. Current EDS technology involves the use of computed tomography (CT) imaging technology. The FAA has certified two separate manufacturers systems. To be effective, the EDS must be integrated with the baggage check-in and baggage make-up areas to efficiently direct checked baggage for screening. Presently, there is not an EDS system at the airport, nor is there is a baggage conveyor system at the airport. The current EDS imaging modules span as much as seven feet without conveyor systems and are as much as eight feet wide. An area for the operator work station and maintenance must also be considered. Two options could be considered to implement one of these systems at Telluride Regional Airport. First, this system could be placed in the lobby area near the ticket counters. This would provide the most cost-effective solution to meeting the statutory deadlines. However, this system would encompass a large portion of the existing lobby area, reducing the available space for passenger circulation and waiting. Preservation of circulation and meeting and greeting areas should be the focus of future terminal planning. Current FAA regulations prevent non-ticketed passengers from entering the secure departure area. This is intended to reduce congestion at the baggage screening area by letting on ly t icketed passengers pass through security screening. This concentrates those meeting or dropping-off passengers in the general circulation area of the building. A second option would be to place the EDS in the baggage make-up area located behind the ticket counters. This area is within an area used for aircraft storage. Some modification of the aircraft hangar may be necessary to provide a climate-controlled area for the 4-19

28 machine, as well as to replace any existing baggage make-up areas that would be lost due to the installation of the EDS machine. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the federal agency created to implement the new law, will make any final decisions with regard to implementing EDS at Telluride Regional Air port. The transition to regional jet aircraft will likely limit the length of time that the current passenger terminal functions can be accommodated in the existing terminal building. Regional jet aircraft will carry more passengers during peak hours (especially in the winter months) than the current aircraft operating at the airport. This will place pressures on the ticketing, bag claim, and departure areas. The facility requirements analysis also indicated that additional baggage claim, ticketing, and departure areas would be needed as passenger enplanement levels increase. Since the current terminal facilities have been developed within an existing hangar structure, expansion potential is limited and requires extensive modification of a facility already modified from its original use. The current terminal is not optimally located for future commercial airline needs. Up to three aircraft parking positions were anticipated in the long term. A single airline parking position is now provided at the terminal, which is integrated with transient and general aviation aircraft parking positions. Consistent with recommendations of the previous master plan, the best longterm solution for accommodating commercial airline activities at the airport is with a new passenger terminal building in a new location. This terminal is best placed at a greater lateral distance from the runway to allow for easier circulation and the development of a larger, dedicated apron area. The landside alternatives to follow will examine options for a new terminal location. LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES The primary planning considerations for this analysis include the development of a new commercial service terminal building, the development of additional general aviation storage hangars, the development of a helipad and helicopter parking positions, expansion of fuel storage, self-service fueling, accommodations for the groundhandling of glider aircraft, and the development of a designated aircraft wash facility. The facility requirements analysis indicated the need for additional aircraft storage facilities. This could include the development of T-hangar units for small general aviation aircraft and large clearspan hanga rs for accommodating several aircraft simultaneously or transient business aircraft. Executive hangar development should be considered as well. This includes smaller clearspan hangars and is representative of the newest hangars to be developed at the airport. 4-20

29 A helipad is identified to provide a marked and segregated landing and takeoff area for helicopters. This is anticipated to include specific parking areas for helicopter aircraft. Consideration is given to developing an aircraft wash/maintenance facility to provide a suitable area for the washing of aircraft. This provides for the proper disposal of aircraft cleaning fluids. There is no such facility currently available at the airport. Glider aircraft conducted nearly 1,500 operations in calenda r year Since these aircraft are not powered, they require special ground handling to remove them from the runway after landing. This requires these aircraft to occupy the runway for a longer time than powered aircraft, which diminishes safety and capacity. The existing aircraft parking apron is undersized. The facility requirements analysis indicated that more than 30,000 square yards of additional apron area is needed to accommodate the current transient and based aircraft parking needs. In addition to the current needs, an additional 10,000 square yards of apron is needed to meet long-term needs. A number of existing terrain features and infrastructure needs impact landside development at the airport. The existing landside facilities are developed along a relatively flat area north of Runway However, the surrounding terrain is much higher than the existing apron and parking ground level. This limits, to a certain extent, the expansion capability of this area due to the significant amount of earthwork which would be needed to develop a level surface similar in eleva tion to the existing terminal area. Additionally, the airport presently has limited property holdings in this area. The airport is currently pursuing the acquisition of additional property to the north and east, which includes all property to the forest area access road. The area on the south side of the airport is presently undeveloped. This area lacks any traditional infrastructure such as water and sanitary sewer services. Electrical service may be limited. The south portion of the airport is without a paved access road, which would need to be developed prior to considerable development in this area. This area is not served by any airfield access taxiways. Terrain is also a consideration. The fire protection pond encompasses a portion of the south side. West of the fire protection pond is an area of rapidly declining terrain, which is nearly 70 feet below the existing runway eleva tion at its lowest point. An existing rock quarry is located on the west side of the airport. This limits short-term development, as this rock quarry has not reached the end of its useful life. Additionally, the terrain in this area increases to the south, toward the edge of the mesa. 4-21

30 LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A Landside Alt ernative A is shown on Exhibit 4J. This alternative seeks to segregate general aviation and commercial airline operations while also retaining existing landside facilities north of Runway In this alternative, commercial airline and general aviation activities are segregated with the development of a separate commercial airline terminal building east of the existing terminal building. Envisioned to be developed on the higher terrain to the east of the existing terminal building, this new terminal would be served by a new commercial airline apron developed in the existing public parking areas. Pedestrian ramps from the terminal would provide gr ound level access to the commercial airline aircraft. Access to the new terminal would be developed from an upgraded forest area access road and extend to Last Dollar Road. Public parking would be located east of the new terminal. The existing fuel storage would be relocated for the apron development and be expanded to meet long term needs. The development of large, clearspan hangars is proposed for the area immediately north of the existing terminal building. This area can accommodate hangars in excess of 10,000 square feet. With public roadway access eliminated by the development of the airline apron area, a new roadway and public parking would be developed east of the passenger terminal and new hangars. Access would be developed from the upgraded forest area access road. To the west of the terminal building, the existing hill would be cut for the development of executive hangar units as shown. The apron would be expanded to the west to serve transient aircraft parking. This alternative retains the existing airport rescue and firefighting (ARFF) facility and provides for the expansion of this building to the west to accommodate the additional ARFF vehicle recently purchased for the airport. The de-icing pad is relocated north of its present position, outside the relocated Taxiway A OFA. The existing four-unit T-hangar is relocated south of Runway Two areas south of Runway 9-27 are shown for development. The area immediately south of the existing terminal area is developed for based general aviation aircraft. Airfield access for this area is provided by extending Taxiways A2 and A3 into this area. This area inclu des provisions for T-hangars, outside tiedowns, an aircraft wash rack, self-service fueling, and an area for glider aircraft to exit the runway and prepare for towing to the apron. A helipad and two helicopter parking positions are shown for development along the west portion of the apron. To meet long term apron and hangar needs, Landside Alternative A incorporates additional transient and based aircraft apron expansion to the 4-22

31 01MP05-4J-4/21/ ,000 LEGEND SCALE IN FEET Existing Airport Property Line Date of photo: Proposed Easement NORTH U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit Runway Object Free Area (OFA) Taxiway OFA Employee Parking Existing Executive Hangars Pavement to be Removed Road ollar D t s La Commercial Terminal Building to be Removed Conventional Hangars (10,000 s.f. each) Ultimate Airfield Pavement Terminal Apron Ultimate Access/Auto Parking Non-Aviation Land Use Existing Terminal rea Acce ss Road Rental Car Parking Expanded ARFF Fuel Storage De-Icing Pad 9100 Forest A Executive Hangars (60' x 60') Public Auto Parking A3 A ' A Glider Turnout Executive Hangars (60' x 60') Helicopter Parking Positions Aircraft Wash Rack Self-Service Fuel Helipad Conventional Hangar Parcels Executive Hangars (60' x 60') South Access Road 10-Unit Nested T-Hangars Executive Hangars (50' x 50') 9110 Auto Parking Exhibit 4J LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A

32 west of the hangar area described above. Located near the Runway 9 end, this alternative incorporates a design to accommodate executive hangars and an apron area for based and transient aircraft users. An area for large conventional hangar development is reserved along the south side of the new apron. The alternative offers several advantages. First, it segregates commercial and general aviation activities. Secondly, most based general aviation activity is relocated south of Runway 9-27 and supported by fueling and an aircraft wash rack. The existing terminal building is reserved for transient general aviation activity. This alternative does not require the removal of any existing facilities. The only facility relocations necessary are those needed to clear the runway OFA. This alternative has several limitations. This alternative provides limited apron expansion near the existing terminal building for transient general aviation aircraft. Transient aircraft currently place the highest demands for apron area at the airport. This alternative relies on the runway to provide taxiway access for the facilities located south of Runway This diminishes airfield capacity and safety. This alternative separates transient aviation services between the southern and northern sides of the runway. This could separate the existing TRAA services and potentially increase operational costs for the TRAA. The relocation of the four-unit T-hangar requires a portion of the general aviation area south of Runway 9-27 to be developed with the runway reconstruction. LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B Landside Alternative B is shown on Exhibit 4K. This alternative creates a central apron area to serve both commercial airline and general aviation activity north of Runway An area south of Runway 9-27 is developed for general aviation aircraft storage. A key component of this alternative is the removal of the existing terminal building, storage hangar, airport maintenance/snow removal equipment building, fuel storage, and existing ARFF building. The area occupied by these buildings and the existing public parking areas are converted to apron area. The apron is expanded to the north beyond the existing property line and cut into the rising terrain to the east. As shown, this alternative creates approximately 54,000 square ya rds of apron north of Runway This closely matches projected long term apron needs. Both general aviation and commercial airline facilities are constructed on the perimeter of this apron area. The commercial airline terminal is constructed in the northeast portion of the apron. Access is developed from an upgraded forest area access road. Rental car parking and taxi/limousine parking is developed north of the terminal building. Public parking is developed to the east. 4-23

33 The ARFF facility and airport maintenance/snow removal equipment buildings are cut into the terrain to the west. These facilities would be located along an extended Taxiway A for direct airfield access. The fuel storage is relocated to the eastern edge of the new apron and would include self-service fueling. An aircraft wash rack is located adjacent to the fuel storage. The de-ice pad is located north of its present position. A helipad is located along the southern portion of the apron. General aviation hangars include large, clearspan conventional hangars and individual storage hangars. The conventional hangars would be developed along the north side of the apron with access from the commercial airline terminal service road. Conventional hangars would also be developed at the terminus of Last Dollar Road along t he east side of the apron. Aircraft storage would be expanded on the west side of the apron. As shown on the exhibit, executive hangars could be developed north of the existing hangars. South of these existing hangars, a row of executive hangars and T-hangars could be developed. An area for the relocation of the four-unit T-hangar is provided as well. The conventional hangars along the northern portion of this apron could be developed without requiring the immediate removal of the existing passenger terminal. The areas immediately north of the existing terminal along the northern airport boundary are presently undeveloped. This would allow for the development of apron in this area to serve the hangar development. Airfield access would be available via the existing taxiway located along the west side of the terminal. An area south of Runway 9-27 is developed for general aviation aircraft storage. As shown, this area could be developed to accommodate 40 executive hangars approximately 3,600 square feet each. These are similar in design to the existing executive hangars recently constructed at the airport. This alternative offers several advantages. In contrast with Landside Alternative A, this alternative maintains a large contiguous area focusing on transient general aviation and commercial airline activities. This alternative does not segregate the fuel and line services provided by the TRAA. This alternative provides areas with direct airfield access for the development of ARFF and airport maintenance. Since these facilities would be located off the main apron area, the use and/or expansion of these facilities as needed to meet TRAA requirements would not be limited by aircraft operational needs. This alternative has limitations. First, general aviation and commercial airline activities are concentrated on a single apron area. The helipad is located along the aircraft parking apron. Ideally, the helipad would be segregated from the fixed-wing a ircraft operational areas. This alternative requires the removal of the existing terminal building, storage hangar, airport maintenance/snow removal equipment 4-24

34 01MP05-4K-4/21/ SCALE IN FEET Existing Airport Property Line LEGEND Pavement to be Removed Date of photo: Conventional Hangars Rental Car Parking Proposed Easement U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit Building to be Removed Ultimate Airfield Pavement Executive Hangars Commercial Terminal Runway Object Free Area (OFA) Taxiway OFA Ultimate Access/Auto Parking Non-Aviation Land Use NORTH Forest Area Access Road Existing Executive Hangars Terminal Apron Executive Hangars Existing Terminal Fuel Storage Existing Fuel Storage Public Parking Aircraft Wash Rack Relocated T-Hangar Airport Maintenance ARFF 10-Unit T-Hangar 6-Unit T-Hangar Helipad De-Icing Pad Conventional Hangars Auto Parking Last Dollar Road Existing De-Icing Pad A3 A2 400' 9050 A ' Executive Hangars South Access Road Relocated Segmented Circle Executive Hangars Exhibit 4K LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B