Chapter 4 Development Alternatives

LAKE COUNTY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE The preceding chapter identified deficiencies of the Lake County Airport (Airport) with respect to existing and anticipated aeronautical demand, which are consistent with current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards and State of Oregon development guidelines. This chapter presents several development alternatives that focus on meeting the Airport s facility needs for the long term future (2032 and beyond). While the development alternatives focus on meeting aeronautical demand projected for 2032, it is prudent to consider the ultimate potential of airport property. By doing so, the planning documents remain flexible and functional, considering the possibility that unforeseen events or increases in user demand occur. Consequently, the alternatives highlight possible airfield and landside uses that could meet facility needs projected to occur after 2032. SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS The preceding chapter, Facility Requirements, identified development needs to accommodate forecasted aeronautical activity. These are summarized below. Lake County Airport 4 1

Airfield Requirements If the Airport were upgraded to an approach with lower minimums, improvements would be required for several design standards, including runway safety area (), object free area (), obstacle free zone (), runway protection zone (RPZ), and possibly others depending on the approach. o It is suggested the Airport be upgraded to a precision approach. Final determination of feasibility of implementing a precision instrument approach procedure would need an expensive survey meeting rigorous FAA standards and then an evaluation by the FAA Flight Procedures Office A runway extension may be justified if larger aircraft begin operating at the Airport or if an operator documents constrained operations. A runway length of at least 6,500 feet would be preferred to accommodate all small airplanes and some of the larger aircraft fleet. The current pavement strength rating of Runway 16/34 is 74,000 pounds for Single Wheel Gear (SWG) aircraft and 86,000 pounds for Dual Wheel Gear (DWG). The Runway will need to be reconstructed in the near future and any strength changes can be made at that time, if needed. Develop a parallel taxiway for Runway 16/34. The parallel taxiway could be constructed in phases to lessen the project s overall financial cost. Construct a run up area near each runway end. Markings on Runway 16/34 should be upgraded to nonprecision with threshold markings. If a precision approach were to be implemented, the runway markings would need to be upgraded to precision markings. It is recommended that the Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASIs) should be replaced with Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs), when practical. Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) should be installed for Runway 16. Depending on the instrument approach implemented, an instrument approach lighting system may be required, to include omnidirectional approach lights (ODALs). Future improvements should include the installation of taxiway and taxilane edge lights. The current off airport location of the Remote Communications Outlet (RCO) blocks line of sight transmissions below 2,000 feet (above ground level). The County should begin coordination with the FAA s Airways and Facilities Division to relocate the facility. Develop a public helipad to accommodate helicopter parking. It should be located away from the fixed wing tiedown area, so as to reduce potential damage from rotorwash. It is recommended to place a lighted windcone midfield, with two supplemental windcones at each runway end. The tetrahedron should be removed. An agricultural containment pad should be constructed for when an operator uses the Airport. Also, the area could be used by airport tenants as an aircraft wash pad. The County should continue to participate in the Oregon Department of Aviation s Pavement Maintenance Program to extend the airfield pavement s useful life. Lake County Airport 4 2

Landside Requirements Construct one additional bank of T hangars with a capacity for four airplanes and one additional conventional hangar. Construct an apron that can accommodate at least twelve tiedown positions. It is recommended a cargo apron be developed, which would allow for an ARC B II aircraft taxi, turn and maneuver on the ramp, as well as an area for the delivery truck/van to park. Additional vehicle parking should be developed at the access acres near the Runway 16 end. If demand warrants, a second FBO business may be attracted to the Airport (or the existing FBO may need to expand). It is recommended that at an area be designated for a future FBO facility. As demand at the Airport dictates, it may be advisable to provide a terminal facility separate from the FBO as recommended in the Oregon Aviation Plan. Support Facility Requirements The basic perimeter fencing should be upgraded to chainlink security fence, for safety and wildlife abatement. As facilities are developed, a new septic system should be installed or sewer should be extended to the Airport from the Town of Lakeview. The potable water well and water lines are in need of replacement or upgrade. The overhead electrical lines at the Airport should be replaced and located underground. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Four alternatives for the long term future development of the Airport are presented in this chapter: No Build Alternative, which assumes maintenance of existing facilities and no expansion of airfield or landside facilities. Development Alternative 1 includes a western parallel taxiway, with landside development concentrated in the existing operations area. Development Alternative 2 shows a 1,200 feet runway extension to the north, a full parallel taxiway, and a precision instrument approach. All future development is sited east of the Runway, along County Highway 1 10A. Also included is a reserve for airport compatible development at the northwest section of the Airport property. Development Alternative 3 depicts a 1,200 feet runway extension, a full parallel taxiway, and an instrument approach with visibility greater than ¾ mile. All development, with the exception of T hangars, is located along County Highway 1 10A, with area requirements far beyond the anticipated demand to show full development of that area. In addition to the airport compatible development area, Lake County Airport 4 3

a portion of the County s southwestern property is shown for re designation from Airport use to General County lands (known as surplus property). In addition to a runway extension, instrument approach improvements, and changes to airport land uses, the three development alternatives depict additional hangar and apron expansion, a new area for helicopter operations, corporate development reserves, reserves for aviation related business development, and an agricultural operations area. The below sections further detail the alternatives, along with an environmental overview. No Build Alternative Exhibit 4A illustrates the No Build alternative. By showing the consequences of not developing the Airport, the Airport Sponsor (Lake County) can assess the advantages and disadvantages of development alternatives. As shown in Chapter 2, Aeronautical Activity Forecast, the Airport is expected to experience increased demand. If no development were to occur, the Airport would not be able to support forecasted aeronautical uses and demands. The No Build alternative would not optimize the Airport s potential. While the No Build alternative is essentially a do nothing option, it does not mean that there would be no financial impact to the Airport. Most prominently, there would still be a cost associated with maintaining the current pavements and facilities. Development Alternative 1 Development Alternative 1 includes a western parallel taxiway and an instrument approach with visibility not lower than 1 statute mile, and is illustrated in Exhibit 4B. Generally speaking, Alternative 1 concentrates development near the existing landside facilities, at the Airport s southern section. Per the ConnectOregon IV application, development of a corporate aviation area is shown near the Runway 16 end. It meets some of the above stated facility requirements, excepting runway extension, precision approach, terminal area, and cargo apron. The alternative assumes redevelopment of the existing FBO to meet future needs. Airfield. Airfield developments for Alternative 1 are outlined below. Development of a western parallel taxiway. Construction of run up areas for Taxiways A and B. Upgrades to PAPIs and REILs for both runway ends. Additional windcones, one to be lighted with a segmented circle. Inclusion of a helicopter parking area. Development of an agricultural containment pad. Participation in the Pavement Maintenance Program. Overall, Alternative 1 includes minimal airfield improvements for the planning period. It would most likely meet the needs of existing users for a majority of the operations, but would not enable the use of larger aircraft requiring a longer runway. Landside. The landside development features proposed in Alternative 1 include: Construction of a T Hangar building, with at least four individual units, and a conventional hangar development reserve. Lake County Airport 4 4

X X X X STOCK DRIVE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE =500' X 700' X 1,000' (VISUAL & NOT LOWER THAN 1 MI) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 300' X X X X X 1 6 AIRPORT FENCE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ACCESS ROAD 150' 100' X 5,318' 125' 125' 250' 250' 495' 495' TETRAHEDRON WIND INDICATOR USFS / BLM STAGING AREA 15 ASOS FUEL ISLAND 14 13 16 USFS / BLM TANKER BASE 12 3 2 11 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X RPZ=500' X 700' X 1,000' (VISUAL & NOT LOWER THAN 1 MI) 9 8 3 4 7 6 5 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 300' 27 AIRPORT ROAD X X X X X X X X X X DRAG RACING STRIP EXISTING AIR EASEMENT Property Line Existing Air Easement Primary Surface Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Object Free Zone () Runway Safety Area () Object Free Area () Building Restriction Line (35') Graphic Legend X X X X SCALE 400 0 200 400 ( FEET ) 1 INCH = 400 FT. 1 Aircraft Storage County 2-4 Aircraft Storage Private 5 Well House County 6 Electrical County 7 Storage County 8 Security Private 9 FBO / Maintenance County 10-16 Aircraft Storage Private Storage County 18 Storage County Unused Bunker County Lake County Airport Master Plan Lake County, OR. Exhibit 4A No-Build Alternative June 8, 2012 9755 SW Barnes Rd, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97225 503-626-0455 Fax 503-526-0775 www.whpacific.com 037597-AIRP-EX4A_MC.DWG 06/08/12

X X X X RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE =500' X 700' X 1,000' (VISUAL & NOT LOWER THAN 1 MI) ACCESS ROAD 300' 26 25 ASOS RPZ=500' X 700' X 1,000' (VISUAL & NOT LOWER THAN 1 MI) 300' EXISTING AIR EASEMENT STOCK DRIVE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X AIRPORT FENCE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 23 35' 240' 150' 100' X 5,318' 125' 125' 250' 250' 495' 495' TETRAHEDRON WIND INDICATOR USFS / BLM STAGING AREA 15 FUEL ISLAND 14 13 16 USFS / BLM TANKER BASE 12 3 2 11 22 4 9 H 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X 7 6 23 24 20 21 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 1 26 27 AIRPORT ROAD X X X X X X X X X X DRAG RACING STRIP SCALE 400 0 200 400 ( FEET ) 1 INCH = 400 FT. Property Line Graphic Legend Existing Air Easement Primary Surface Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Object Free Zone () Runway Safety Area () Object Free Area () Building Restriction Line (35') Aquisition and / or Avigation Easement Airport-Compatible Development Area PAPI Lighted Windcone with Segmented Circle Supplemental Windcone Helipad REIL Vehicle Parking Corporate Development Area Conventional Hangar Development Area T-Hangar Development Area Tiedown Apron Agricultural containment area / wash rack Lake County Airport Master Plan Lake County, OR. H 1 Aircraft Storage County 2-4 Aircraft Storage Private 5 Well House County 6 Electrical County 7 Storage County 8 Security Private 9 FBO / Maintenance * County 10-16 Aircraft Storage Private Storage County 18 Storage County Unused Bunker County * 20 Tiedown Apron 21 T-Hangar Development Agricultural Containment Area 22 Wash Rack 23 Run-Up Areas 24 Conventional Hangar Development Area 25 Corporate Development Area 26 Vehicle Parking Redevelopment / Upgrade of Existing FBO Exhibit 4B Development Alternative 1 X X X X June 11, 2012 9755 SW Barnes Rd, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97225 503-626-0455 Fax 503-526-0775 www.whpacific.com 037597-AIRP-EX4B_MC.DWG 06/11/12

Additional tiedown apron near the new hangars. Redevelopment of existing FBO building to meet future needs. Vehicle parking near the Runway 16 access area. Alternative 1 does not provide specific reserves to accommodate a future cargo apron or terminal facility. The reason for this is to allow flexibility to potential developers to site the facility where it is most needed (north vs. south end). There is adequate room remaining on Airport for such development. A benefit to keeping the development at the south end of the Airport is the proximity to the new fueling station. If development were to occur at the north end, there would likely be a need for a fuel truck to service those aircraft. However, any future development will still require significant upgrades to the existing utilities. Development Alternative 2 Development Alternative 2 includes a 1,200 feet runway extension to the north and instrument approaches with visibility minimums lower than ¾ statute mile. All future facilities would be located east of Runway 16/34 along County Highway 1 10A. Exhibit 4C illustrates this alternative. Alternative 2 encompasses the facility requirements previously outlined, with areas identified to meet demand beyond the 20 year planning period. Airfield. Airfield developments for Alternative 2 are outlined below. Runway extension of 1,200 feet to the north. Full parallel taxiway. Precision instrument approach. Run up areas identified for the future parallel taxiway and Taxiways A and B. Upgrades to PAPIs Installation of REILs at the extended Runway 16 end. Helicopter parking area located adjacent to the future terminal/cargo apron. Upgraded wind indicators; a lighted segmented circle at mid field, with two supplemental windcones at each runway end. An agricultural containment pad located on the south end of the future building development, which can also be used as an aircraft wash pad. A significant feature of Alternative 2 is the installation of a precision type approach. In order to meet specific standards outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 13, Airport Design, the RPZ area would be increased to 1,000 feet by 2,500 feet by 1,750 feet, which would require additional property acquisition or avigation easements 27.36 acres for the Runway 34 approach and 51.32 acres for the Runway 16 approach. Landside. The landside development features proposed in Alternative 2 include: Reserve areas identified for T hangar and conventional hangar construction, beyond the land area needs identified in the previous chapter. A tiedown apron located between the hangar development areas for GA tiedown. Location for a future FBO facility sited north of the current access road, with a tiedown and cargo apron located north and west of the facility. Additional vehicular parking along the Runway 16 access road. Development Alternative 2 includes a reserve area in the Airport s northwest section that would allow for airportcompatible development, which would not necessarily be aviation related. The County owns a significant amount of land and, as shown, future facility requirements do not fully develop the property. Any future airport Lake County Airport 4 5

X X X X STOCK DRIVE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE 1,000' X 1,750' X 2,500' (APPROACH MINIMUMS LOWER THAN 3/4 SM) ACQUISITION OR EASEMENT AREA = 51.32 AC. 600' 35' H 26 27 1 EXTENSION (6,518' TOTAL) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 25 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' 100' X 5,318' 1 6 AIRPORT FENCE 20 ACCESS ROAD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 300' 21 22 23 RUN-UP AREA 35' 150' 150' 24 400' 400' 745' 745' TETRAHEDRON WIND INDICATOR USFS / BLM STAGING AREA 15 ASOS FUEL ISLAND 14 13 16 USFS / BLM TANKER BASE 12 35' 3 2 11 4 9 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 4 7 6 5 27 27 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 600' 27 AIRPORT ROAD X X X X X X X X X X DRAG RACING STRIP RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE 1,000' X 1,750' X 2,500' (APPROACH MINIMUMS LOWER THAN 3/4 SM) EXISTING AIR EASEMENT ACQUISITION OR EASEMENT AREA = 27.36 AC. X X X X SCALE 400 0 200 400 ( FEET ) 1 INCH = 400 FT. Property Line Graphic Legend Existing Air Easement Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Object Free Zone () Runway Safety Area () Object Free Area () Building Restriction Line (35') Aquisition and / or Avigation Easement Airport-Compatible Development Area PAPI Lighted Windcone with Segmented Circle Supplemental Windcone Helipad REIL Vehicle Parking Corporate / Conventional Hangar Development Area T-Hangar Development Area Tiedown Apron Agricultural containment area / wash rack Terminal Tiedown Apron & Tiedown Apron Terminal Building Development Area Lake County Airport Master Plan Lake County, OR. H 1 Aircraft Storage County 2-4 Aircraft Storage Private 5 Well House County 6 Electrical County 7 Storage County 8 Security Private 9 FBO / Maintenance County 10-16 Aircraft Storage Private Storage County 18 Storage County Unused Bunker County 20 Vehicle Parking 21 Corporate / Conventional Hangar Development 22 Tiedown Apron 23 T-Hangar Development 24 Agricultural Containment Area 25 Terminal Bldg. Development Area 26 Terminal Tiedown Apron & Cargo Apron 27 Run-Up Areas Exhibit 4C Development Alternative 2 June 11, 2012 9755 SW Barnes Rd, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97225 503-626-0455 Fax 503-526-0775 www.whpacific.com 037597-AIRP-EX4C_MC.DWG 06/11/12

compatible development should be approved with FAA coordination to ensure the development is in compliance with FAA grant assurances. Development Alternative 3 Development Alternative 3 includes a 1,200 feet runway extension to the north and an instrument approach with visibility minimums greater than ¾ statute mile. It also shows a portion of Airport land to be re designated away from airport use. Exhibit 4D illustrates this alternative. Alternative 3 encompasses the facility requirements previously outlined, with areas identified to exceed demand beyond the 20 year planning period. Airfield. Airfield developments for Alternative 3 are outlined below. Runway extension of 1,200 feet to the north. Full parallel taxiway. Non precision instrument approach, with minimums greater than ¾ statute mile. Run up areas identified for the future parallel taxiway and Taxiways A and B. Upgrades to PAPIs Installation of REILs at the extended Runway 16 end. Helicopter parking area located approximately mid field. Upgraded wind indicators; a lighted segmented circle at mid field, with two supplemental windcones at each runway end. An agricultural containment pad located at mid field. The installation of a non precision approach would require additional land acquisition or avigation easements to secure the runway protection zones. In order to meet specific standards outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 13, Airport Design, the RPZ area would be increased to 500 feet by 1,010 feet by 1,700 feet, which would require additional property acquisition or avigation easements of 0.48 acres to Runway 34 and 13.82 acres to Runway 16. Landside. The landside development features proposed in Alternative 3 include: T hangar development located near the existing T hangars, at the Airport s southern end. An area for airport compatible development in the Airport s northwestern section. Conventional hangar development north of the Runway 16 access road, with expanded vehicle parking. A corporate development area located south of the Runway 16 access road. A tiedown apron and terminal building development area near mid field. Reserve areas for future aviation related development at the runway s southern section. The land area needs identified for both landside and airfield facilities over the 20 year planning period are far less than the available Airport property, as shown in all of the development alternatives. Currently, a portion of Airport property is leased for use as a drag racing strip. As the next chapter will outline, this lease may not be in compliance with FAA grant assurances. Since the land, approximately 109 acres, is not needed for Airport use, it is recommended the land be surplussed and designated as general County property. Additionally, the land is already outside of the airport fence and is not in aeronautical use. The process for disposing of airport property is outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 50.6B, Airport Compliance Manual. The Circular requires the land use must continue to be restricted, so that aeronautical operations are not jeopardized. Additionally, the surplussing of land must be justified and the land shown to not be needed for future aviation related activities, to which this Master Plan can exhibit. Lake County Airport 4 6

X X X X STOCK DRIVE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE 500' X 1,700' X 1,010' (APPROACH MINIMUMS GREATER THAN 3/4 SM) ACQUISITION OR EASEMENT AREA = 13.82 AC. 400' 35' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' 600' 1, EXTENSION (6,518' TOTAL) AIRPORT FENCE ACCESS ROAD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 240' 30 21 20 22 23 26 1 6 35' 20 H 100' X 5,318' 30 25 125' 125' 250' 250' 495' 495' 29 TETRAHEDRON WIND INDICATOR USFS / BLM STAGING AREA 15 ASOS FUEL ISLAND 14 13 16 USFS / BLM TANKER BASE 12 3 2 11 4 9 24 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 4 7 6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 400' 600' 1 27 AIRPORT ROAD X X X X X X X X X X DRAG RACING STRIP SURPLUS PROPERTY RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE 500' X 1,700' X 1,010' (APPROACH MINIMUMS GREATER THAN 3/4 SM) ACQUISITION OR EASEMENT AREA = 0.48 AC. EXISTING AIR EASEMENT SCALE 400 0 200 400 ( FEET ) 1 INCH = 400 FT. Property Line Existing Air Easement Graphic Legend Primary Surface Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Object Free Zone () Runway Safety Area () Object Free Area () Building Restriction Line (35') Aquisition and / or Avigation Easement Airport-Compatible Development Area Redesignate from Airport to General County Property (Surplus) Helipad PAPI Lighted Windcone with Segmented Circle Supplemental Windcone REIL Vehicle Parking Corporate Development Area Conventional Hangar Development Area T-Hangar Development Area Tiedown Apron Agricultural containment area / wash rack Septic Drain Field Lake County Airport Master Plan Lake County, OR. 1 Aircraft Storage County 2-4 Aircraft Storage Private 5 Well House County 6 Electrical County 7 Storage County 8 Security Private 9 FBO / Maintenance County 10-16 Aircraft Storage Private Storage County 18 Storage County Unused Bunker County 20 Vehicle Parking 21 Conventional Hangar Development Area 22 Corporate Development Area 23 Tiedown Apron 24 T-Hangar Development Area 25 Agricultural Containment Area 26 Terminal Bldg. Development Area 27 Helipad 29 Future Aviation-Related Development Reserve 30 Septic Drain Field Exhibit 4D Development Alternative 3 X X X X June 11, 2012 9755 SW Barnes Rd, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97225 503-626-0455 Fax 503-526-0775 www.whpacific.com 037597-AIRP-EX4D_MC.DWG 06/11/12

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Detailed costs estimates were not prepared for each alternative; however, the alternatives are compared in order of magnitude costs. Alternative 2 would have the highest capital cost, since it includes both the longer runway extension and the more expensive instrument approach improvement requiring additional property acquisition. Alternative 3 would cost less than Alternative 2, since it requires significantly less property acquisition/easement. Alternative 1, has no change in runway length and the areas identified for development are less than in the other two development alternatives. The No Build Alternative has the lowest capital cost, as it would only maintain the existing pavements and facilities. However, the three development alternatives would provide for more economic benefit and revenue growth than the No Build Alternative. Runway length would be nominally 5,318 feet for the No Build Alternative and Alternative 1, and 6,518 feet for Alternatives 2 and 3. The No Build and Alternative 1 would limit aircraft to those currently operating at the Airport. The instrument approach minimums shown for each development alternative vary greatly. The existing, No Build Alternative, has minimums of not lower than 1 statute mile, which is also retained in the Alternative 1 scenario. Alternative 3 depicts the design standards necessary for an instrument approach with minimums greater than ¾ statute mile. The primary surface, which dictates placement of the 35 foot building restriction line (), does not change as a result of the lower approach minimums. Alternative 2 shows the requirements for a precision instrument approach with minimums lower than ¾ statute mile. As a result of the lowered minimums, the is extended outward by 250 feet on each side of the runway; thereby greatly reducing the buildable land. Additionally, to ensure protection of the RPZs, the amount of land acquisition and/or avigation easement is greatly increased. The Airport would remain open more often in times of low visibility, as the approach minimums decrease. However, according to NOAA data, the Airport only experiences precision approach level weather approximately 2.0% of the time. Therefore, the reduction of buildable land and the increased cost may not justify the need for a precision approach. The three development alternatives include a parallel taxiway to enhance safety. Alternative 1 shows the taxiway west of the runway, while the other two place the taxiway to the east. If the western parallel taxiway were developed, followed by construction of facilities east of the runway, aircraft based on the east side would be required to cross the runway to use the parallel taxiway on the west side a potential safety hazard. Helicopter operations, which currently do not have a designated area (except for those associated with the USFS/BLM tanker base), would be accommodated at various locations per each alternative. In each alternative the helicopter parking is separate from the fixed wing tiedown area to reduce rotorwash impacts to fixed wing aircraft. The FBO will likely need to expand or relocate over the planning period. The current facilities would remain unimproved in the No Build Alternative. Alternative 1 allows the FBO to expand and/or redevelop at its current location. Alternatives 2 and 3 show areas for future terminal and/or FBO development east of the runway, which is desirable from the standpoint of taxiing efficiency, customer visibility, and road access. Currently the FBO offers limited services; an expanded FBO could offer services such as flight instruction, maintenance, aircraft charter, and aircraft fueling. Lake County Airport 4 7

None of the alternatives show a relocation of the existing fueling facility, as it is expected to have a usable life throughout the planning period. However, if facilities are developed east of the runway, it would be inefficient and potentially unsafe due to increased runway crossings to require aircraft to taxi to the existing fuel facility. If development under Alternatives 2 and 3 were to occur, the existing above ground fueling facility could be relocated or a fuel could truck be available to service aircraft on the east side. If needed a second fueling facility could be developed on the east side. The No Build Alternative would have no additional T hangars, conventional hangars, aviation related businesses, or aviation compatible development than now exist. Alternative 3 reserves the most land for future landside development, Alternative 2 has slightly less land available as a result of the larger. Alternative 1 identifies the least area for landside development. In all alternatives the Airport property is under utilized; even when showing development far beyond the anticipated demand. Resultantly, Alternative 3 shows re designation of a portion of property to general County use, rather than dedicating it to Airport only use. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES Each alternative was reviewed to assess its relative environmental impact, as well as identify any environmental constraints that may prohibit development. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4A. Each alternative presents an array of environmental opportunities and constraints. The following discussion summarizes the potential environmental concerns associated with each alternative. Because the airport is so remote, and there is little development around the airport, there are very few environmental impacts associated with any of the alternatives. The issues surrounding the alternatives are likely more associated with cost and needs of the airport. Lake County Airport 4 8

TABLE 4A. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND IMPACTS Impact Categories No Build Alternative Development Alternative 1 Development Alternative 2 Development Alternative 3 Air Quality No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Biotic Resources No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Land Use Impacts No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Slight perception of community character change. Slight perception of community character change. Construction Impacts No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Section 4(f) Resources No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Threatened and Endangered Species No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Energy Supplies, Natural Resources and Sustainability No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Environmental Justice No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Farmlands No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Hazardous Materials Potential for contamination from agricultural chemicals. Wash and containment area reduces agricultural chemical risk. Risk for spills with landside development Wash and containment area reduces agricultural chemical risk. Risk for spills with landside development Wash and containment area reduces agricultural chemical risk. Risk for spills with landside development Historical, Archaeological and Cultural Resources No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Lake County Airport 4 9 (draft)

Impact Categories No Build Alternative Development Alternative 1 Development Alternative 2 Development Alternative 3 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts No apparent issues. Development of landside improvements would create jobs and rent revenue. Development of landside improvements would create jobs and rent revenue. Development of landside improvements would create jobs and rent revenue. Light Emissions and Visual Effects No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Energy Supply & Natural Resources No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Noise No apparent issues. Taxiway relocation changes shape of noise footprint. Runway extension and potential new aircraft types expand airport noise footprint. Runway extension and potential new aircraft types expand airport noise footprint. Social Impacts No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Slight potential for perception of change in community structure. Slight potential for perception of change in community structure. Solid Waste No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Water Quality No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Wetlands No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Cumulative Impact No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Controversy No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. No apparent issues. Lake County Airport 4 10 (draft)

No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative does not propose any new use designations on the airport. It includes only maintenance for the next 20 years. The No Build Alternative does not present land use compatibility concerns, noise concerns, changes to the social environment, or direct threats to plant and animal communities. In terms of overall impact, this alternative has the least impact to the existing natural and built environments. Development Alternative 1 This alternative has minimal landside development, most of which is in the currently developed area of the airport. A small development area is set aside at the northeast corner of the airport for industrial use and associated parking. The runway will be modified to include a parallel taxiway, but will not be extended. The greatest impact of this alternative is associated with the increase in impervious surfaces. New drainage would need to be installed to convey storm water to the existing airport storm water system. The current system, with minor modifications, should be able to accommodate increased storm water from new impervious surface. Because of the airport s remote location from the town of Lakeview and any neighbors, local residents will not likely perceive the small increase in hangar development, as well as new on airport employment uses as a change in character. Development of the landside areas, may also slightly increase surface transportation demand, however local roadways have adequate capacity to accommodate these minor increases. The taxiway area has been previously disturbed and does not constitute prime habitat. The development area in the northeast area is vegetated and known to be home for deer, small mammals, and hunting area for raptors. Many of these species are not desirable on an airport, and loss of habitat (along with improved fencing) will discourage their presence. There is adequate similar habitat off airport. No noise impacts are anticipated from this alternative, other than the forecast increases in aviation use. Aircraft noise will move closer to the runway, due to the inclusion of a parallel taxiway, compared to the present taxiway configuration. This alternative has the least environmental impact of the three build alternatives. Development Alternative 2 This alternative includes a runway extension of 1,200 feet to the north, a parallel taxiway, and development of hangars, tiedowns and other airport facilities along the eastern edge of the runway. Minimal change is planned for the existing landside operation area at the south end. This alternative has a runway extension and full length taxiway; the impervious surface increase would be greater than in Alternative 1. The impervious surface created by the new development would also be significantly greater than Alternative 1. A new storm water collection system would be needed for the eastern development area and taxiway. Storm water would be conveyed to the existing drainage ditches, which appear to have adequate capacity to accommodate additional development. The increase in hangar development, as well as new on airport commercial and employment uses will be more visible from local roads and may be perceived as a change in character by local residents. Development of the Lake County Airport 4 11

landside areas, may also slightly increase surface transportation demand, however local roads have adequate capacity. The runway and taxiway area has been previously disturbed and does not constitute prime habitat. Compared to Alternative 1, more of the vegetated area in the northeast corner will be placed in developed uses. Loss of onairport habitat may be considered a benefit due to the potential for wildlife hazards. There is adequate off airport habitat. This alternative accommodates larger aircraft than Build Alternative 1. There may be a slight noise increase due to the potential use by larger aircraft. Sound generation will also move based on the change in taxiway operation. This alternative is has the mid level of environmental impact of the Build Alternatives. Development Alternative 3 This alternative includes the same features as Build Alternative 2, but with larger space allocations to conventional hangars, tiedowns, and corporate hangar space. This alternative includes additional T hangar development in the existing airport area. The land around the drag strip would be transferred from airport ownership to general County ownership. A septic drainfield would be located in the northeast area to serve the new development area. Because this alternative has the largest amount of potential land development, the impervious surface increase would be larger than in the other alternatives. A new storm water collection system would be needed for the eastern development area and taxiway. Storm water would be conveyed to the existing drainage ditches, which appear to have adequate capacity to accommodate additional development. Transfer of ownership of the area around the drag strip from Airport to general County ownership could open this land for additional development. This alternative is has the greatest environmental impact of the Build Alternatives. As shown in Table 4A, the No Build Alternative has the least impact, as it does not change the airport from its current configuration. Build Alternative 1 has the least impact of the build alternatives because it has no runway extension and the least amount of potential new development. Alternative 2 is shown with the mid level of impact, while Alternative 3 is shown as having the greatest. None of the alternatives appears to have any significant negative environmental impacts. MASTER PLAN CONCEPT The four alternatives were presented to the County, Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), FAA, and members of the public on July 10, 2012. Based on comments given, the County selected a Preferred Alternative (see Exhibit 4E). The Preferred Alternative, or Master Plan Concept, is based on various components of each of the alternatives presented in this chapter. The Preferred Alternative is the basis for the Airport Layout Plan in Chapter 6. The proposed Preferred Alternative is summarized below. Note that the runway was restriped in June of 2012 to reflect the new alignment caused by the shifting magnetic north pole. The runway is now designated /35, and this change will be reflected in the document from this point on. Lake County Airport 4 12

X X X X STOCK DRIVE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE 500' X 1,700' X 1,010' (APPROACH MINIMUMS GREATER THAN 3/4 SM) ACQUISITION OR EASEMENT AREA = 13.82 AC. 400' 35' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' 600' 1, EXTENSION (6,518' TOTAL) AIRPORT FENCE FUTURE TAXILANE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 240' 30 21 24 20 22 23 26 1 6 ACCESS ROAD 35' 20 H 100' X 5,318' 30 25 125' 125' 250' 250' 495' 495' 29 TETRAHEDRON WIND INDICATOR USFS / BLM STAGING AREA 15 ASOS FUEL ISLAND 14 13 16 USFS / BLM TANKER BASE 12 3 2 11 4 9 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 4 7 6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 400' 600' 1 27 AIRPORT ROAD X X X X X X X X X X DRAG RACING STRIP SURPLUS PROPERTY RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE 500' X 1,700' X 1,010' (APPROACH MINIMUMS GREATER THAN 3/4 SM) ACQUISITION OR EASEMENT AREA = 0.48 AC. EXISTING AVIGATION EASEMENT Property Line Graphic Legend X X X X Existing Avigation Easement Primary Surface Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Object Free Zone () Runway Safety Area () Object Free Area () Building Restriction Line (35') Aquisition and / or Avigation Easement Airport-Compatible Development Area Redesignate from Airport to General County Property (Surplus) Helipad SCALE 400 0 200 400 ( FEET ) 1 INCH = 400 FT. PAPI Lighted Windcone with Segmented Circle Supplemental Windcone REIL Vehicle Parking Corporate Development Area Conventional Hangar Development Area T-Hangar Development Area Tiedown Apron Agricultural containment area / wash rack Septic Drain Field 1 Aircraft Storage County 2-4 Aircraft Storage Private 5 Well House County 6 Electrical County 7 Storage County 8 Security Private 9 FBO / Maintenance County 10-16 Aircraft Storage Private Storage County 18 Storage County Unused Bunker County 20 Vehicle Parking 21 Conventional Hangar Development Area 22 Corporate Development Area 23 Tiedown Apron 24 T-Hangar Development Area 25 Agricultural Containment Area 26 Terminal Bldg. Development Area 27 Helipad 29 Future Aviation-Related Development Reserve 30 Septic Drain Field Lake County Airport Master Plan Lake County, OR. Exhibit 4E Master Plan Concept July 20, 2012 9755 SW Barnes Rd, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97225 503-626-0455 Fax 503-526-0775 www.whpacific.com 037597-AIRP-EX4E_MC.DWG 07/20/12

Airfield. Airfield developments for the Master Plan Concept are outlined below. Runway extension of 1,200 feet to the north. * Full eastside parallel taxiway. Non precision instrument approach, with minimums greater than ¾ statute mile. Run up areas identified for the future parallel taxiway and Taxiways A and B. Upgrades to PAPIs Installation of REILs at the extended Runway end. Helicopter parking area located approximately mid field. Upgraded wind indicators; a lighted segmented circle at mid field, with two supplemental windcones at each runway end. An agricultural containment pad located at mid field. Landside. The landside development features proposed for the Master Plan Concept include: An area for airport compatible development in the Airport s northwestern section. Conventional hangar development north of the Runway access road, with expanded vehicle parking. T hangar development located adjacent to the conventional hangar development area. A corporate development area located south of the Runway access road. A tiedown apron and terminal building development area near mid field. Reserve areas for future aviation related development at the runway s southern section. Redesignation of property from airport use to general County property (currently in use as a drag racing area). The above described Preferred Alternative mirrors the PAC s recommendations, which was a slight modification to Development Alternative 3. *The Runway extension of 1,200 feet to the north is neither justified nor necessary in the foreseeable future based on the current critical aircraft and type of operations. Several years ago the County developed a long term vision to move the flight line to the eastside of Runway /35. As previously stated, the infrastructure at the present location is WWII era and in very poor condition. The water supply well is undersized and can t support future development. The water supply piping system is dated from the 40 60s and is corroded and failing. The sanitary drain field is failing and has no expansion capabilities to accommodate future development; the soils in this area don t support current DEQ requirements. Power to the area is via overhead lines that are also undersized with limited expansion capabilities. The various County structures are requiring major maintenance just to meet the current building codes. All of these issues led the County to make the decision to start the development along Runway /35 and in 2009 they invested in building a new access road/taxiway from the County road to the holding apron to Runway. In 2011 the County applied for and will be receiving a $526,000 ConnectOregon IV grant for a new business, Withrotor Aviation Inc., to relocate to the Airport. Withrotor will invest approximately $250,000 to construct a new building that will house 2 3 airplanes and several helicopters, as well as up to 5 full time employees. The County will invest up to $200,000 in the project to bring in new power, a potable water well that will meet long term fire fight needs, and a sanitary sewer system that is expandable to meet future growth. In addition, the access road and connector taxiway to Runway will be paved and security fencing and gates installed. The PAC agreed with this vision when they selected the Master Concept described above. Lake County Airport 4 13