FINAL SUMMARY REPORT

RUNWAY 1-19 EXTENSION ANALYSIS

at

MIDDLEBURY STATE AIRPORT

PREPARED BY

ROXBURY, VERMONT

APRIL 2008

FINAL SUMMARY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.1 OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL, RSA, AND OFA ANALYSIS...... 1 2.1.1 Obstruction Removal, RSA, and OFA Alternatives ...... 2 3.1 RUNWAY EXTENSION ANALYSIS ...... 3 3.1.1 Runway Extension Alternatives...... 3 4.1 FAA COMMENTS ...... 4 4.1.1 Aviation Forecasts ...... 5 4.1.2 Letters of Support ...... 7 5.1 CONCLUSION ...... 7

APPENDIX Letters of Support

Exhibit No. Title 1.1 Location Map 1.2 Vicinity Map 1.3 Existing Airport Layout Plan 2.1 Existing Runway 1 End FAR Part 77 Plan and Profile 2.2 Existing Runway 19 End Far Part 77 Plan and Profile 2.3 Alternative 1: Runway 1 – RSA, OFA, and 14 CFR Part 77 2.4 Alternative 2: Runway 1 – RSA, OFA, and 14 CFR Part 77 3.1 Alternative 1: Extend Runway 1,194 Feet 3.2 Alternative 2: Extend Runway 935 Feet 3.3 Alternative 3: Extend Runway 1,050 Feet 3.4 Alternative 4: Extend Runway 1,535 Feet 3.5 Alternative 5: Extend Runway 1,535 Feet with Declared Distances

Table No. Title Page No. 1 Non-Conforming Condition 1 2 Runway Length Available (Feet) 4 3 Summary of Master Plan Forecast Data 5 4 Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Forecast 6 5 Preferred Aviation Forecasts (2006-2016) 6 6 Airport Comparison 7

ACRONYMS ACOE US Army Corps of Engineers ARC Airport Reference Code CFR Code of Federal Regulations CUD Conditional Use Permit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FBO Fixed Based Operator OFA Runway Object Free Area RSA Runway Safety Area URS URS Corporation VASP Vermont Airport System Plan VTrans Vermont Agency of Transportation

Middlebury State Airport Runway 1-19 Extension Analysis April 2008 i Final Summary Report

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Middlebury State Airport, located on the outskirts of the Village of East Middlebury, Vermont, serves the general aviation market, caters primarily to single engine aircraft, and is home to J&M Aviation, the sole Fixed Based Operator (FBO) located on the airfield (see Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2). Middlebury is a town of 8,400 people (estimated 2007 population) in Addison County. Major industries in the county include dairy farming and Middlebury College, an exclusive liberal arts college of 2,450 undergraduate students. The Middlebury Airport is located approximately 30 miles south of the Burlington International Airport and 40 miles north of the Rutland State Airport. The airfield consists of a single paved runway (1-19), which is 50 feet wide and 2,500 feet in length, approximately 87,000 square feet of apron, nine hangars, a combine terminal and maintenance building, and a full length parallel taxiway (see Exhibit 1.3). The approaches to both runways are visual.

URS Corporation (URS) reviewed the Master Plan Update (2003) for the Middlebury State Airport to determine the design parameters for the proposed runway extension. Current aircraft traffic is generally small single engine aircraft, which lead to the Master Plan Update selection of the Cessna 172 as the pre- dominant aircraft (2001). Both Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 5010-1 and the Master Plan Update cite aviation activity in calendar year 1999 at 35,000 operations with the Master Plan forecast for moderate growth to 37,500 operations for 2004 and 40,200 operations in 2009. Historically, Middlebury State Airport has been one of the busier general aviation airports in the Vermont State System and these numbers appear reasonable. The Master Plan Update noted that the existing runway was adequate for the based aircraft. The Airport generally conforms to Aircraft Reference Code (ARC) A-I standards; however, the Master Plan noted the following non-conforming conditions:

TABLE 1: NON-CONFORMING CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS ARC A-1 STANDARD Runway Width 50 feet 60 feet RSA - Runway 1 120 feet wide x 150 feet beyond threshold 120 feet wide x 240 feet beyond threshold RSA - Runway 19 120 feet wide x 200 feet beyond threshold 120 feet wide x 240 feet beyond ROFA - Runway 1 250 feet wide x 200 feet beyond threshold 250 feet wide x 240 feet beyond threshold Source: Master Plan Update (March 2003).

2.1 OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL, RSA, AND OFA ANALYSIS

The existing 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Approach Drawings in the Master Plan Update revealed the following:

RUNWAY 1: There are at least eight obstructions within the approach to Runway 1 (Exhibit 2.1). The obstructions in the Runway 1 approach appear to consist of solitary or groups of trees. Based on an understanding of the Airport property line and limits of the existing avigation easements, at least seven of these trees can be removed (cut down).

Middlebury State Airport Runway 1-19 Extension Analysis April 2008 1 Final Summary Report

RUNWAY 19: The existing approach to Runway 19 was found to be clear (Exhibit 2.2). There are no obstructions on existing Airport property.

RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACES: Based on a review of the 14 CFR Part 77 Surfaces Plan in the Master Plan Update, there is at least one hangar north of the existing terminal that protrudes into the Transitional Surface.

RUNWAY HORIZONTAL AND CONICAL SURFACES: The 14 CFR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces Plan in the Master Plan Update notes ground obstructions on the east side of the airfield. These ground obstructions are caused by the Green Mountains, which rise to a height of 2,000 feet MSL, approximately 1.6 miles east of the airfield.

Also, the Master Plan Update revealed the following non-conforming Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area (OFA) conditions:

RSA: Runway 1-19, which is included under ARC Design Group I, requires a RSA 120 feet wide (60 feet on either side of the runway centerline) and 240 feet in length beyond the runway threshold. The current RSA for Runway 1 is 120 feet in width, which meets standards, however, given the topography off the runway end and the presence of a wetland, the RSA is only 100 feet in length beyond the runway threshold. Therefore, the ALP lists the existing Runway 1 RSA as a non-conforming condition.

OFA: FAA design standards require an OFA that is 250 feet wide and 240 feet beyond the runway end. As noted in the Master Plan Update, Runway 1 OFA is 250 feet in width; however it only extends 200 feet beyond the Runway 1 end due to existing obstructions (trees).

2.1.1 OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL, RSA, AND OFA ALTERNATIVES

To clear the existing obstructions to the Runway 1 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces and to provide a standard RSA and OFA for Runway 1, two alternatives were developed to determine the ideal location of the Runway 1 threshold.

ALTERNATIVE 1: This alternative would relocate the Runway 1 threshold 140 feet in order to provide a RSA (120 feet by 240 feet) and OFA (250 feet by 240 feet) (see Exhibit 2.3). This alternative would not impact wetlands and, therefore, would not require wetland permitting [US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) or Conditional Use Determination (CUD)]; however, it will require obtaining additional easements to clear obstructions #8 and #9.

ALTERNATIVE 2: This alternative would relocate the Runway 1 threshold 341 feet, which would provide a standard RSA (120 feet by 240 feet) and OFA (250 feet by 240 feet) and would clear all existing 14 CFR Part 77 obstructions off-Airport property (Exhibit 2.4). This alternative would not impact wetlands or require additional easements.

Middlebury State Airport Runway 1-19 Extension Analysis April 2008 2 Final Summary Report

3.1 RUNWAY EXTENSION ANALYSIS

The Master Plan Update recommended widening the existing runway from 50 feet to 60 feet and extending the runway from 2,500 feet to 3,700 feet. These parameters were selected based on the Master Plan Update forecast of the critical or design aircraft as aircraft in ARC B-I. Examples of aircraft in this ARC include: Beechcraft (King Air B-100, Baron), Cessna [Businessliner (402), Golden Eagle (421)], Mitsubishi (MU-2), Piper (Navajo, Cheyenne, Aerostar), and Rockwell (Turbo Commander). All of these aircraft are currently in use and are frequent visitors to airports in the Northeast. Many of these (or similar) aircraft are currently using the Middlebury Airport, albeit, under ideal weather conditions and at reduced weight. The FBO has indicated the larger aircraft often depart with less than a full load of fuel to reduce weight during takeoff.

The Vermont Airport System Plan (VASP), which was prepared by SH&E in July 1973, designated the Middlebury State Airport as an economic development airport. Standards developed under this Plan recommended that economic development airports have a minimum length of 4,000 feet and width of 100 feet. The VASP was revised in September 2006. Middlebury State Airport is now classified as a Local Service Airport. The VASP recommends that Local Service Airports serve aircraft in ARC B-1, with minimum standards to include a runway 75 feet wide and 4,000 feet in length.

Requirements for Small Airplanes with fewer than 10 Passenger Seats identified in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B (July 2005) indicate that runway length for aircraft in ARC B-1 should be between 3,100 and 3,700 feet. A length of 3,100 feet will handle approximately 95% of the aircraft feet in ARC B-1, while a runway length of 3,700 feet will handle 100% of the ARC B-I fleet.

The Airport provides aeronautical services for businesses and visitors to the area, which includes the Middlebury College Campus. Based on the Master Plan Update and the VASP recommendations, the present runway length of 2,500 feet is inadequate for many aircraft operations, and does not serve the recommended role for the Airport. Both of these documents recommended widening and extending Runway 1-19.

3.1.1 RUNWAY EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives were developed with the assumption that additional easements would not be obtained to clear obstructions (#8 and #9 cited above) within Runway 1 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces and that the Runway 1 threshold would then be relocated 341 feet at Station 478+35 to provide for a standard RSA and OFA as well as clear 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces (see Exhibit 2.4).

ALTERNATIVE 1: This alternative would relocate the Runway 19 threshold approximately 1,194 feet at a gradient of 0.00% (Exhibit 3.1). This alternative will require tree clearing on Airport property and acquisition of additional avigation easements to clear trees north of existing Airport property. This alternative will have a minor impact on area wetlands and will require ACOE and CUD permitting. With relocating the threshold 341 feet, the resultant runway length would be 3,359 feet.

Middlebury State Airport Runway 1-19 Extension Analysis April 2008 3 Final Summary Report

ALTERNATIVE 2: This alternative would relocate the Runway 19 threshold approximately 935 feet at a gradient of 0.2% (Exhibit 3.2). This alternative will require tree clearing on Airport property, but no acquisition of additional easements or wetland impacts. With relocating the threshold 341 feet, he resultant runway length would be 3,100 feet.

ALTERNATIVE 3: This alternative would relocate the Runway 19 threshold approximately 1,050 feet at a gradient of 0.7% (Exhibit 3.3). This alternative will require clearing of on Airport obstructions, but will clear the trees north of the Airport property. This alternative should have not require ACOE permits but will require a CUD from the Agency of Natural Resources for temporary work within the wetland buffer areas. With relocating the threshold 341 feet, the resultant runway length would be 3,215 feet.

ALTERNATIVE 4: This alternative would relocate the Runway 19 threshold approximately 1,535 feet at a gradient of 2% (Exhibit 3.4). The 2% gradient will be required to clear the obstructions off Airport property. Note that 2% is the maximum allowable gradient for aircraft in Design Groups I and II; however, FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 indicates that minimum longitudinal grades are desirable. A 2% gradient will also result in a threshold elevation approximately 45 feet above the existing ground elevation. Clearing will still be required on Airport property. With relocating the threshold 341 feet, the resultant runway length would be 3,700 feet.

ALTERNATIVE 5: This alternative takes Alternative 4 above and applies the use of Declared Distances (see Exhibit 3.5). This alternative would relocate the Runway 19 threshold approximately 1,535 feet at a gradient of 2%. This option will provide 3,900 linear feet of runway pavement. Initially, the Runway 1 threshold will be placed at Station 476+34 to allow a 20:1 clear approach to the south. The Runway 19 threshold will be placed at Station 509+35 to provide a 20:1 clear approach to the north. Both Runways 1 and 19 will be displaced as shown on Exhibit 3.5. Displacing the thresholds as shown will provide the following usable runway lengths:

TABLE 2: RUNWAY LENGTH AVAILABLE (FEET) RUNWAY 1 RUNWAY 19 LANDING 3,700 3,300 TAKEOFF 3,900 3,900

The displaced thresholds could be removed after easements are acquired and the obstructions removed. The resultant runway will be 3,900 feet in length.

4.1 FAA COMMENTS

At a meeting with Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) in May 2006, the FAA responded stating that extending Runway 1-19 from its current length of 2,500 feet to 3,700 feet was not satisfactorily justified in the 2003 Master Plan. Page 4-2 of this document stated: “it is recommended that the necessary studies for the extension be carried out at the end of the short-term period to verify that the current aircraft fleet and operations warrant such an extension.” From this statement, the FAA indicated

Middlebury State Airport Runway 1-19 Extension Analysis April 2008 4 Final Summary Report

that the forecasts provided in the Master Plan do not support this proposed runway extension. In order to justify this extension, the runway length acceptable for ARC B-1 aircraft needed to be identified as well as a verification of the number of operations. As a result, action items from this meeting included the installation of acoustical (REMS) counters for Runway 1-19 by VTrans staff and the acquisition of letters of support from the community.

4.1.1 AVIATION FORECASTS

As a result of the acoustical data and letters of support received, forecasts were updated prior to the preparation of the Purpose and Need and Environmental Assessment. REMS data received for the month of July 2006 recorded 483 aircraft takeoffs, which prorate to 11,592 annual operations. This number correlates reasonably with an accepted forecasting formula (based aircraft x 259 = 12,423 annual operations). Table 3 summarizes the aviation forecasts developed in the Master Plan and includes the 2006 REMS data.

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF MASTER PLAN FORECAST DATA 19991 20041 2006 20091 20191 Based Aircraft 44 46 482 50 55 Local Operations 28000 30,000 -- 32,200 37,000 Itinerant Operations 7,000 7,500 -- 8,000 9,200 Total Operations 35,000 37,500 11,5923 40,200 46,200 ARC A-1 B-1 -- B-1 B-1 Sources: 1Airport Master Plan Update- Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 (March 2003). 2 Based aircraft provided by J&M Aviation (September 2006). 3REMS count by VTrans – (483 count x 2 x 12 months = 11,592) (July 2006).

J&M Aviation, the FBO, verified that there were 48 aircraft, including jet and multi-engine piston aircraft such as the Fougere Magistere, Piper Aztec, Cessna Citation and Cessna 310 based at the Airport in 2006. This number of existing based aircraft compared well with the Fleet Mix Forecasts in the Master Plan (2003), which is included in Table 4. In addition to the aircraft currently based on the airfield, other multi-engine and jet aircraft operating at Middlebury State Airport include the Piper Navaho, Piper Aztec, Piper Cheyenne, Cessna 402, and Beechcraft Baron.

Middlebury State Airport Runway 1-19 Extension Analysis April 2008 5 Final Summary Report

TABLE 4: BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX FORECAST 1999 2004 20061 2009 2019 Total Based Aircraft 44 46 48 50 55 Single Engine Piston Aircraft 35 37 42 39 43 Multi-Engine Piston Aircraft 3 3 3 4 4 Turboprop Aircraft ------Jet Aircraft 3 3 3 4 4 Rotor Aircraft 2 2 -- 2 3 Ultra-light Aircraft 1 1 1 1 1 Glider -- -- 1 -- -- Source: Airport Master Plan Update (March 2003) 1Based aircraft provided by J&M Aviation (September 2006).

The existing Master Plan forecasted the annual traffic growth at approximately 1.5% annually over the twenty year plan. Air traffic operations at the neighboring Rutland State Airport have increased approximately 2% annually since the year 2000.

TABLE 5: PREFERRED AVIATION FORECASTS (2006-2016) Actual Forecast 19991 2006 2011 2016 Based Aircraft 44 48 52 57 Local Operations 28,000 ------Itinerant Operations 7,000 ------Operations 35,000 11,600 -- -- Forecast Operations – (Method A) -- -- 12,800 14,000 Forecast Operations – (Method B) -- -- 13,468 14,763 Preferred Forecasts -- -- 13,000 14,200 Airport Reference Code A-1 B-1 B-1 B-1 Source: URS Corporation (2007). 1Airport Master Plan Update (March 2003).

Using the 2006 data, URS developed the Aviation Forecasts cited in the Table 5 using two separate methodologies. The first methodology assumes that aviation growth at the Airport will continue at 2% annually. The second methodology assumes that the forecasts will increase in direct proportion to the based aircraft times 259. Since the results of both forecasts are similar, we are recommending the preferred forecast, as shown in Table 5. Both forecast methodologies assumed that the existing runway dimensions remain constant. These forecasts were reviewed and accepted by VTrans in February 2007.

Middlebury State Airport Runway 1-19 Extension Analysis April 2008 6 Final Summary Report

4.1.2 LETTERS OF SUPPORT

Letters in support of the recommendation for a runway extension to 3,700 feet have been received from the local community and business leaders as well as from aviation users (see Appendix). While some of these letters are of a generic content that simply imply support for the Airport; however, note that at least three of these letters are from potential Airport users, who cannot operate on the airfield due to the short runway. These operators include Worth Mountain Capital Partners, who currently charter aircraft that require a 3,700 foot runway, Eastway Aviation, a jet aircraft charter firm that serves the East coast, and Heritage Flight in Burlington, which operates King Air and Citation Aircraft. Each of these firms is unable to operate out of the Middlebury State Airport due to the limited runway length. In addition, Middlebury is home to Middlebury College, an exclusive liberal arts college. Many of its students, faculty, and trustees have access to high performance aircraft that cannot operate on the existing runway. While it is impossible to quantify this traffic potential, there would be numerous other air traffic that would use this Airport if the runway were long enough.

There are many airports serving resort areas in the North Country that have better facilities and lack the traffic that currently exists at the Middlebury State Airport. Some of these airports are listed in Table 6. It would appear reasonable to expect traffic at Middlebury to mirror traffic at Morrisville-Stowe within the five to ten year time frame following construction of an extension to 3,700 feet.

TABLE 6: AIRPORT COMPARISON Airport Runway Width & Length ARC Operations Based Aircraft Caledonia County State 60’ x 3300’ B-I 2,050 22 Parlin Field 50’ x 3450’ B-1 2,900 12 Middlebury State 50’ x 2500’ B-I 11,600 48 Morrisville-Stowe State 75’ x 3701’ B-II 18,020 20 Mount Washington Regional 75’ x 4001’ B-II 7,000 36 Lake Placid Municipal 60’ x 4200’ B-II 20,000 22 Ticonderoga Municipal 60’ x 4040’ B-I/B-II 11,000 10 Source: FAA Airport Master Record Form 5010-1 (1/18/07).

Based on the existing traffic, potential traffic, forecast data, and support from the community, there is adequate evidence of existing unmet demand for a longer runway at the Middlebury State Airport. Construction of an extension to 3,100 feet (minimum for ARC B-I aircraft) will allow for some of the additional traffic to use this runway; however, there is doubt that this length will be sufficient to service all potential users, whereas an extension to 3,700 feet has the support of all users.

5.1 CONCLUSION

The FAA indicated that they would support a 3,200 foot runway as the maximum recommended length for the Middlebury State Airport, based on the existing aviation forecasts, while both VTrans and the Middlebury Airport Committee have endorsed the Preferred Alternative (refer back to Exhibit 3.5)

Middlebury State Airport Runway 1-19 Extension Analysis April 2008 7 Final Summary Report

On June 1, 2007, URS forwarded a letter to Richard Doucette requesting that the Environmental Assessment continue as originally scoped for Runway 1-19 with an ultimate length of 3,700 feet. In an email response, the FAA has concurred in this request; however, the FAA has concluded that at this time they are not obligating the FAA to commit funding a runway extension beyond 3,200 feet.

Middlebury State Airport Runway 1-19 Extension Analysis April 2008 8

AIRPORT DATA EXISTING ULTIMATE EXISTING ULTIMATE BUILDINGS RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) DIMENSIONS

AIRPORT ELEVATION 494.3 T-HANGAR 200' LENGTH AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT N 43%%d 59' 08" FUEL FARM

E 73%%d 05' 44" HANGAR

MEAN MAX. TEMP. (HOTTEST MO.) 80%%d F TERMINAL HANGAR

TAXIWAY LIGHTING -- HANGARS INNER OUTER WIDTH WIDTH TAXIWAY MARKING -- T-HANGARS

AIRPORT/TERMINAL NAVAIDS None DOWNEY CORP. MAINTENANCE HANGAR

DOWNEY CORP. MAINTENANCE HANGAR END OF RUNWAY AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC) B-I EXISTING ULTIMATE TERMINAL AREA PAVEMENT

ACREAGE OWNED IN FEE SIMPLE 156 Acres LOWER RAMP

ACREAGE OWNED IN EASEMENT 6 Acres FUEL APRON APPROACH INNER OUTER RUNWAY LENGTH ACRES USE/OWNERSHIP General Aviation/State UPPER RAMP TYPE WIDTH WIDTH R/W 1 Visual 250 450 1000 8.035 AUTO PARKING R/W 19 Visual 250 450 1000 8.035

RUNWAY DATA EXISTING ULTIMATE

1 19

PAVEMENT STRENGTH 12,500 SW 12,500 SW

APPROACH SURFACES Visual 20:1 Visual 20:1

RUNWAY MARKINGS Visual Visual NOTE:

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL) WAS ESTABLISHED IN RUNWAY LIGHTING None None ACCORDANCE WITH FAA DESIGN AND FAR PART 77 CRITERIA. ITS LOCATION UTILIZES A 30 FT. VERTICAL OBJECT HEIGHT. RUNWAY NAVAIDS None None THE BRL LOCATION MAY CHANGE DUE TO GROUND CONTOURS OR DIFFERENT OBJECT HEIGHTS, BUT ALWAYS IN ACCORDANCE EFFECTIVE GRADIENT 0.3%%% WITH FAR PART 77 AND FAA DESIGN CRITERIA. RUNWAY END ELEVATIONS 484.7 492.0

RUNWAY END N 43%%d 58' 55" N 43%%d 59' 20" COORDINATES W 73%%d 05' 43" W 73%%d 05' 44"

RUNWAY LENGTH 2506' 2506'

RUNWAY WIDTH 50' 50'

EXTENDED RSA NO YES EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE COMPLIANCE

AVIGATION EASEMENT

RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE 20:1 VISUAL APPROACH SURFACE 20:1 VISUAL APPROACH SURFACE

AVIGATION EASEMENT

NOTES: Scale: AS SHOWN EXISTING RUNWAY 1-19 PLAN 1. HORIZONTAL DATUM NAD 83 (1986) INTERNATIONAL FEET. REPRINTED FROM SHEET 2 2003 AIRPORT MASTERPLAN Date: April, 2008 2. VERTICAL DATUM NAVD 88 IINTERNATIONAL FEET UPDATE, PREPARED BY

0 200 400 DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. 3. EXISTING EASEMENT AND PROPERTY LINES BASED ON EXHIBIT Of "AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP" PREPARED FOR VAOT BY CLOUGH HARBOUR ASSOCIATES, MARCH 1999. SCALE EXHIBIT 1.3 REPRINTED FROM SHEET 5 2003 AIRPORT MASTERPLAN UPDATE, PREPARED BY DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC.

20

10 Scale: AS SHOWN

0 100 0 Date: April, 2008 SCALE

EXHIBIT Of

EXHIBIT 2.1 REPRINTED FROM SHEET 6 2003 AIRPORT MASTERPLAN UPDATE, PREPARED BY DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC.

20

10 Scale: AS SHOWN

0 100 0 Date: April, 2008 SCALE

EXHIBIT Of

EXHIBIT 2.2 EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

9

1 6 5 7 8 2

ROFA 4

RSA

478+00 476+00 474+00 472+00 470+00 468+00 466+00 464+00 462+00 460+00 458+00 456+00 454+00 452+00 450+00

RSA

ROFA TAXIWAY

200'

240'

3 EXISTING RUNWAY 01 THRESHOLD STA. 474+94, ELEV. = 484.9

WETLANDS

PROPOSED RUNWAY 01

0 100 200

EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE SCALE

600 600 590 9 590 603 580 580 570 570 560 560 7 8 550 EXISTING RUNWAY 1 550 6 536 563 PROFILE 540 4 540 2 3 524 530 200' 493 511 530 523.8 520 520 503 240' 510 510 496 500 RSA 5 499.7 500 490 490 480 478.2 478.5 478.9 480.2 480 473.44 474.60 470 461 470 460 460

PROPOSED RUNWAY 01 APPROACH PROFILE

LEGEND 100 Scale: AS SHOWN NOTES: EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

1.) OBSTRUCTIONS 1, 2, 5 AND 7 POSSIBLY LIE WITHIN THE AVIGATION EASEMENT. LIMIT OF DELINEATED WETLANDS Date: April, 2008

2.) OBSTRUCTION 3 ARE ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. 50 EDGE OF RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) EXHIBIT Of 3.) OBSTRUCTION 6 ON AIRPORT PROPERTY OR AVIGATION EASEMENT.

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) 4.) OBSTRUCTIONS 8 AND 9 ARE OFF AIRPORT PROPERTY, NOT IN AVIGATION EASEMENT. 0 100 EXHIBIT

5.) WETLANDS DELINEATED BY THE SMART ASSOCIATES, INC. NOVEMBER 2005 RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) SCALE 2.3 EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

9

1 6 7 8 2 5

ROFA 4

RSA

478+00 476+00 474+00 472+00 470+00 468+00 466+00 464+00 462+00 460+00 458+00 456+00 454+00 452+00 450+00

RSA

ROFA TAXIWAY

200'

240'

3

EXISTING RUNWAY 01 THRESHOLD STA. 474+94, ELEV. = 484.9

WETLANDS

PROPOSED RUNWAY 01

0 100 200

EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE SCALE

600 9 600 590 590 580 580 570 570 560 8 560 1 7 550 EXISTING RUNWAY 550 6 540 PROFILE 515 522 540 2 3 530 200' 504 530 507 548 523.8 520 520 535 510 4 510 5 500 499.7 500 490 490 480 478.2 478.5 478.9 480.2 480 473.44 474.60 470 461 470 460 460

PROPOSED RUNWAY 01 APPROACH PROFILE

LEGEND 100 Scale: AS SHOWN NOTES: EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

1.) OBSTRUCTIONS 1, 2, 5 AND 7 POSSIBLY LIE WITHIN THE AVIGATION EASEMENT. LIMIT OF DELINEATED WETLANDS Date: April, 2008

2.) OBSTRUCTION 3 IS ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. 50 EDGE OF RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) EXHIBIT Of 3.) OBSTRUCTION 6 ON AIRPORT PROPERTY OR AVIGATION EASEMENT.

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) 4.) OBSTRUCTIONS 8 AND 9 ARE OFF AIRPORT PROPERTY, NOT IN AVIGATION EASEMENT. 0 100 EXHIBIT

5.) WETLANDS DELINEATED BY THE SMART ASSOCIATES, INC. NOVEMBER 2005 RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) 2.4 SCALE EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

1000' RPZ

14

12 10

524+00 522+00 520+00 518+00 516+00 514+00 512+00 510+00 508+00 506+00 504+00 502+00 500+00 498+00

11 15 13

SNOW MOBILE TRAIL MARKERS 200'

240' WETLANDS EXISTING AIRPORT RSA PROPERTY LINE

HANGAR

PROPOSED RUNWAY 19 PLAN LOWER RAMP

0 100 200

SCALE

600 600 590 590 580 580 570 570 560 560 15 13 550 12 550 540 14 540 530 200' 530 520 10 520 510 510 11 500 500 490 490 480 480 470 470 460 460

100 LEGEND Scale: AS SHOWN PROPOSED RUNWAY 19 APPROACH PROFILE EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

NOTES: Date: April, 2008 LIMIT OF DELINEATED WETLANDS 1.) OBSTRUCTIONS 10, 11, 12 AND 13 ARE ON AIRPORT PROPERTY 50 EXHIBIT Of EDGE OF RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) 2.) OBSTRUCTIONS 14 AND 15 ARE ON APPROXIMATE EDGE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY

0 100 EXHIBIT 3.) WETLANDS DELINEATED BY SMART ASSOCIATES, NOVEMBER 2005 RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) 0 RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) SCALE 3.1 EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

1000' RPZ

ROFA 14

12 10 RSA

526+00 524+00 522+00 520+00 518+00 516+00 514+00 512+00 510+00 508+00 506+00 504+00 502+00 500+00 498+00

11 RSA 15 13

ROFA

200'

240'

WETLANDS RSA

SNOW MOBILE TRAIL MARKERS

HANGAR PROPOSED RUNWAY 19 PLAN LOWER RAMP 0 100 200

SCALE

600 600 590 590 580 580 570 570 560 560 13 550 14 550 540 12 540 15 200' 530 530 520 10 520 510 11 510 500 500 490 490 480 480 470 470 460 460

LEGEND 100 Scale: AS SHOWN PROPOSED RUNWAY 19 APPROACH PROFILE EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

Date: April, 2008 LIMIT OF DELINEATED WETLANDS NOTES: 50 EXHIBIT Of 1.) OBSTRUCTIONS 10, 11, 12 AND 13 ARE ON AIRPORT PROPERTY EDGE OF RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ)

2.) OBSTRUCTIONS 14 AND 15 ARE ON APPROXIMATE EDGE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY EXHIBIT RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) 0 100

3.) WETLANDS DELINEATED BY SMART ASSOCIATES, NOVEMBER 2005 0 RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) 3.2 SCALE EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

1000' RPZ

ROFA 14

12 RSA 10

526+00 524+00 522+00 520+00 518+00 516+00 514+00 512+00 510+00 508+00 506+00 504+00 502+00 500+00 498+00

11 RSA 15 13

ROFA

200'

240'

WETLANDS RSA

SNOW MOBILE TRAIL MARKERS

HANGAR PROPOSED RUNWAY 19 PLAN LOWER RAMP 0 100 200

SCALE

600 600 590 590 580 580 570 570

560 13 560 550 14 550 540 12 200' 540 15 530 530 520 10 520 11 510 510 500 500 490 490 480 480 470 470 460 460

LEGEND 100 Scale: AS SHOWN PROPOSED RUNWAY 19 APPROACH PROFILE EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

Date: April, 2008 LIMIT OF DELINEATED WETLANDS NOTES: 50 EXHIBIT Of 1.) OBSTRUCTIONS 10, 11, 12 AND 13 ARE ON AIRPORT PROPERTY EDGE OF RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ)

2.) OBSTRUCTIONS 14 AND 15 ARE ON APPROXIMATE EDGE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY EXHIBIT RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) 0 100

3.) WETLANDS DELINEATED BY SMART ASSOCIATES, NOVEMBER 2005 0 RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) 3.3 SCALE EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

1000' RPZ

ROFA 14

12 10 RSA

526+00 524+00 522+00 520+00 518+00 516+00 514+00 512+00 510+00 508+00 506+00 504+00 502+00 500+00 498+00

11 RSA 15 13

ROFA

200'

240'

RSA

WETLANDS

SNOW MOBILE TRAIL MARKERS

HANGAR PROPOSED RUNWAY 19 PLAN LOWER RAMP 0 100 200

SCALE

600 600 590 590 580 580 570 570 12 200' 560 13 560 550 14 550 540 540 15 530 530 520 10 520 510 11 510 500 500 490 490 480 480 470 470 460 460

LEGEND 100 Scale: AS SHOWN PROPOSED RUNWAY 19 APPROACH PROFILE EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

Date: April, 2008 LIMIT OF DELINEATED WETLANDS NOTES: 50 EXHIBIT Of 1.) OBSTRUCTIONS 10, 11, 12 AND 13 ARE ON AIRPORT PROPERTY EDGE OF RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ)

2.) OBSTRUCTIONS 14 AND 15 ARE ON APPROXIMATE EDGE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY EXHIBIT RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) 0 100

3.) WETLANDS DELINEATED BY SMART ASSOCIATES, NOVEMBER 2005 0 RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) 3.4 SCALE 3100'

RSA

RSA 341'

240' 200' 240'

HANGAR

LOWER RAMP

EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RUNWAY 1-19 PLAN

0 200 400

SCALE

600 600 580 580 560 560

540 524 540 493 200' 511 520 200' 503 520 496

+ +

500 + 500

478.2 478.9 + 478.5 480 473.44 474.60 480 460 460

LEGEND

EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RUNWAY 1-19 PROFILE LIMIT OF DELINEATED WETLANDS Scale: AS SHOWN RUNWAY 1 RUNWAY 19 0 200 400 EDGE OF RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) (FEET) (FEET)

Date: April, 2008 LANDING 3700 3300 RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE SCALE

TAKEOFF EXHIBIT Of RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) 3900 3900

SLOPE LIMITS EXHIBIT

LIMITS OF IMPACTED WETLANDS 3.5