Redmond, Oregon Chapter One INVENTORY The initial step in the preparation of the airport master plan for Roberts Field is the collection of information pertaining to the airport and the area it serves. The information collected in this chapter will be used in subsequent analysis in this study. The inventory of existing conditions at Roberts Field provides an overview of the airport facilities, airspace, and air traffic control. Background information regarding the regional area is also collected and presented. This includes information regarding the airport's role in regional, state, and national aviation systems, surface transportation, and a socio- economic profile. The information was obtained from several sources, including on-site inspections, airport records, review of other planning studies, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), various government agencies, a number of on- line (Internet) sites which presently summarize most statistical information and facts about the airport, and interviews with airport staff, planning associations, and airport tenants. As with any airport planning study, an attempt has been made to utilize existing data or information provided in existing planning documents, to the maximum extent possible. REGIONAL SETTING Roberts Field is located two miles southeast of the City of Redmond and is the region's only commercial service airport. The City, which is located on the eastern side of Oregon's Cascade Mountain Range, is located in the geo- 1-1 INVENTORY Chapter One Redmond, Oregon 1-2 graphical heart of Central Oregon and encompasses Jefferson, Crook, and Deschutes counties. This High Desert community is located on a flat plateau, at an elevation of 3,077 feet above sea level. Regionally, the airport is located ap- proximately 146 statute miles south- east of Portland, Oregon; 311 statute miles south of Seattle, Washington; and 323 statute miles west of Boise, Idaho. The location of the airport in its regional and national setting is presented on Exhibit 1A. INFRASTRUCTURE U.S. Highways 97, 20, and 26 provide the primary ground transportation links for the Central Oregon area. U.S. Highway 97 is oriented in a north-south direction through Central Oregon. U.S. Highways 20 and 26 are primarily oriented in an east-west di- rection. State Highway 126 borders the airport on the north. Airport Way and Sisters Avenue connect with U.S. Highway 97 and provide primary ac- cess to airport facilities. Burlington Northern, Union Pacific, and the City of Prineville Railway provide direct rail connections for shipping to any market in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Amtrak provides passenger rail service to Cen- tral Oregon via the Chemult station, located approximately 60 miles south of Bend on Highway 97. Shuttle ser- vices provide connections from Che- mult to LaPine, Sunriver, Bend, and Roberts Field several times a week. Bus transportation by Greyhound is available from Bend, Madras, Prine- ville, and Redmond. CAC Transporta- tion Inc. offers a shuttle service from Central Oregon to Portland. CLIMATE Weather conditions are important to the planning and development of an airport. Temperature is an important factor in determining runway length requirements, while wind direction and speed are used to determine opti- mum runway orientation. The need for navigational aids and lighting is determined by the percentage of time that visibility is impaired due to cloud coverage or other conditions. Central Oregon?s climate is considered semi-arid, characteristic of its high de- sert setting. Temperatures range from 20-47 degrees in the winter to 42- 85 degrees in the summer. Clear skies predominate in this climate, with the area averaging 300 sunny days per year. The Cascade Mountains keep most of Oregon?s precipitation over in the valley and on the coast, so Central Oregon receives very little rain. Occa- sional showers occur during the spring and summer months, with an average precipitation of less than two inches per month. Surface winds prevail out of the south and southeast from Octo- ber to February, then west and north- west for the remaining months. Wind speeds average 5-7 miles per hour most months. Table 1A summarizes climatic data for Redmond, including temperatures and precipitation. 03MP11-1A-11/24/04 Exhibit 1A VICINITY MAP Redmond, Oregon 205 Cascade Locks Cascade Locks Athena Pilot Rock Milton-Freewater Pendleton Prairie City Terrebonne Joseph Enterprise Hines Elgin Stanfield Hermiston John Day Union Warm Springs Nyssa Mount Angel Silverton Mount Angel Oakridge Myrtle Creek Green Myrtle Creek Toledo Newport Toledo Warrenton MolallaWoodburnWoodburn MolallaSheridanSheridanSheridan Reedsport Brookings Green Seaside Sutherlin Stayton Florence Silverton Sweet Home Cottage Grove Redmond OntarioOntarioOntario Gladstone Milwaukie Oregon City Gresham Gladstone Lebanon Forest Grove Lake Oswego Beaverton Hillsboro PortlandForest Grove Coos Bay Woodburn Newberg McMinnville Newberg Ashland AltamontAltamontAltamont Milwaukie Keizer Salem Keizer Lake Oswego Tigard SpringfieldEugeneEugene Springfield Beaverton Salem Vale Heppner Lakeview Burns Coquille Madras Prineville The Dalles Dallas La Grande Pendleton Klamath Falls Oregon City Roseburg Grants Pass McMinnville Bend Albany Corvallis Albany Corvallis Hillsboro Medford Eugene Hermiston 5 205 97 20 97 395 95 26 30 395 20 395 26 97 26 20 197 84 84 5 199 OREGON North Bend Reedsport 101 Newport 20 97 GreshamPortland 101 26 30 Tillamook Vernonia Scappoose Saint Helens Astoria Vernonia Scappoose Saint Helens Astoria Warrenton 101 5 VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP NW Maptel Ave. SW Black Bute Blvd. SW Obsidian Ave. SW Salmon Ave. REDMOND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REDMOND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SW Reservoir Dr. SW Airport Way Canal Blvd. SE Ochoco Way NW 19th St.NW 19th St.NW 19th St. NE Negus Way NE Hemlock Ave. NE 9th St.NE 9th St.NE 9th St. Juniper Golf Club Juniper Golf Club Greens at Redmond Greens at 126 SW 23rd St.SW 23rd St.SW 23rd St.NW 35th St. NW 35th St.NW 35th St. SE A irpo rt W ay SE A irpo rt W ay NORTH NOT TO SCALE 1-3 TABLE 1A Climate Summary Redmond, OR Month Average High (?F) Average Low (?F) Mean (?F) Average Precipitation (in.) January February March April May June July August September October November December 43 48 54 62 69 78 86 86 78 66 50 43 23 26 27 30 36 42 47 47 40 33 28 23 33 37 41 46 52 60 67 67 59 50 39 33 0.97 0.68 0.76 0.65 0.95 0.62 0.55 0.54 0.37 0.56 0.98 0.92 Source: www.weather.com (averages based on a 30-year period). UTILITIES Redmond?s municipal water system supplies a minimum of two million gallons of domestic water daily. All of the system?s sources are subsurface from deep wells. Natural gas service in Redmond is provided by Cascade Natural Gas. The utility serves more than 20,000 customers, both indus- trial/commercial and residential. Pa- cific Power and Central Electric Coop- erative provide electricity to the City of Redmond. The area?s landfill, Knott Landfill, is located southeast of Bend. Telecommunications are provided by Qwest. AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNING ROLE Airport planning exists on many lev- els: local, state, and national. Each level has a different emphasis and purpose. An airport master plan is the primary local airport planning document. At the national level, the airport is in- cluded in the National Plan of Inte- grated Airport Systems (NPIAS). This plan identifies 3,344 existing airports which are significant to national air transportation, as well as airport de- velopment necessary to meet the pre- sent and future requirements in sup- port of civil needs. An airport must be included in the NPIAS to be eligible for federal funding assistance. Rob- erts Field is classified as a primary commercial service airport in the NPIAS. At the state level, the Oregon De- partment of Aviation provides state- wide planning through the 2000 Ore- gon Department of Aviation Plan. The purpose of this plan is to identify the physical facility needs for the state?s system of airports. According to this plan, there are 101 public-use airports in the State of Oregon, including nine 1-4 commercial service airports that pro- vide regularly scheduled passenger services. The 2000 Oregon Department of Avia- tion Plan has established five catego- ries of airports based on their different functions. Roberts Field is listed as a Category 1 airport, which is classified as a commercial service airport. A cri- terion of Category 1 airports is the presence of scheduled commercial ser- vice, while their function is to accom- modate scheduled major/national or regional/commuter commercial air car- rier service. Category 1 coverage is concentrated along the Interstate 5 corridor, east of the Cascades, for Redmond and Klamath Falls. AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION Roberts Field is owned and operated by the City of Redmond. Day-to-day administration and management of the airport is the responsibility of the Airport Manager, who reports to the City Manager. The airport is a stand- alone department within the city. Ad- ditional airport staff positions support administration, operations, and main- tenance. Administrative and financial oversight of the airport is the respon- sibility of the Redmond City Council. COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICE Two airlines currently provide sched- uled passenger service to Roberts Field. Horizon Airlines operates the 37-seat Bombardier Q-200 and United Express (Skywest) operates the 30- seat Embraer Brasilia 120. Together these two airlines provide daily direct flights to Seattle, Washington; Port- land, Oregon; and San Francisco, Cali- fornia. The airline?s flight schedule is presented in Table 1B. AIR CARGO SERVICE Daily air cargo service is provided at Roberts Field by AirPac (Airborne Ex- press), Ameriflight (UPS), and Empire (FedEx). Airborne Express operates the Cessna 404, Piper Chieftan, and Piper Seneca aircraft. UPS operates the Cessna 402, Beechcraft 99, and Piper Chieftan aircraft. FedEx oper- ates the Cessna Caravan aircraft. AIRPORT FACILITIES Airport facilities can be functionally classified into two broad categories: airside and landside. The airside category includes those facilities di- rectly associated with aircraft opera- tions. The landside category includes those facilities necessary to provide a safe transition from surface to air transportation and support aircraft servicing, storage, maintenance, and operational safety. 1-5 TABLE 1B Flight Schedule ? Effective October 31, 2004 Roberts Field Arrival Flight # Origin Depart Flight # Destination HORIZON AIR FLIGHTS Originates Originates 7:45 a.m. 9:01 a.m. 12:50 p.m. 1:41 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 6:40 p.m. 8:40 p.m. 11:46 p.m. --- --- 2149 2055 2162 2043 2135 2033 2053 2139 2167 --- --- Portland Seattle (ex. Sun.) Portland Seattle Portland Portland Seattle Portland Seattle (ex. Sat.) 5:10 a.m. 6:40 a.m. 8:05 a.m. 9:22 a.m. 1:10 p.m. 2:05 p.m. 3:20 p.m. 5:50 p.m. 7:00 p.m. Terminates Terminates 2034 2220 2142 2054 2161 2042 2128 2122 2056 --- --- Portland Seattle (ex. Sun.) Portland Seattle Portland Seattle Portland Portland Seattle (ex. Sat.) --- --- SKYWEST FLIGHTS Originates Originates 9:31 a.m. 11:56 a.m. 1:03 p.m. 2:26 p.m. 5:33 p.m. 8:38 p.m. 11:11 p.m. --- --- 6322 6323 6241 6324 6325 6242 6326 --- --- Portland Portland San Francisco Portland Portland San Francisco Portland (ex.Sat.) 6:20 a.m. 7:30 a.m. 9:47 a.m. 12:30 p.m. 1:19 p.m. 2:45 p.m. 5:50 p.m. Terminates Terminates 6321 6240 6322 6323 6241 6324 6325 --- --- Portland (ex. Sun.) San Francisco Portland Portland San Francisco Portland Portland --- --- Source: Airport Records. AIRSIDE FACILITIES Airside facilities include runways, taxiways, airfield lighting, and navi- gational aides. Airside facilities are identified on Exhibit 1B. Table 1C summarizes airside facility data. Runways The existing runway configuration at Roberts Field includes two intersect- ing runways. Runway 4-22, which is oriented in a northeast-southwest di- rection, serves as the primary air car- rier runway and is 7,040 feet long and 150 feet wide. Runway 10-28 is 7,006 feet long, 100 feet wide, and oriented in a southeast-northwest direction. Both runways are constructed of as- phalt, which is grooved to aid with air- craft braking and water runoff. The load bearing strengths of each runway were also examined. Single wheel loading (SWL) refers to the de- sign of certain aircraft landing gear which has a single wheel on each main landing gear strut. Dual wheel land- ing (DWL) refers to the design of cer- tain aircraft landing gear which has two wheels on each main landing gear strut. Dual tandem wheel loading (DTWL) refers to the aircraft landing gear struts with a tandem set of dual 1-6 wheels on each main landing gear strut. The load bearing strengths for each runway are as follows: Runway 4-22: 68,000 pounds SWL, 110,000 pounds DWL, 200,000 pounds DTWL; and Runway 10-28: 28,000 pounds SWL and 40,000 pounds DWL. TABLE 1C Airside Facility Data Roberts Field Runway 4-22 Runway 10-28 Runway Length (feet) Runway Width (feet) 7,040 150 7,006 100, Runway Surface Material Condition Asphalt (Grooved) Good Asphalt (Grooved) Good Pavement Markings Precision Nonprecision Runway Load Bearing Strengths (lbs.) Single Wheel Loading (SWL) Double Wheel Loading (DWL) Dual Tandem Wheel Loading (DTWL) 68,000 110,000 200,000 28,000 40,000 - Runway Lighting High Intensity Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting Medium Intensity Approach Lighting VASI-4L (4) MALSR (22) REIL (4) VASI-4L (10) PAPI-4L (28) REIL (10 and 28) Instrument Approach Procedures ILS Runway 22 NDB Runway 22 VOR/DME Runway 22 VOR-A Runway 10 GPS Runway 10-28 Weather or Navigational Aids Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) Segmented Circle Lighted Wind Cone Source: Airport/Facility Directory, Northwest U.S. (February 19, 2004). Taxiways The existing taxiway system at Rob- erts Field, as illustrated on Exhibit 1B, consists of parallel, connecting, access, and entrance/exit taxiways. ? Taxiway A is located at the Run- way 10 end and extends from the general aviation apron located north of Runway 10-28 to the south of Taxiway G. Taxiway A is 75 feet wide. ? Taxiway B connects with the Runway 22 end and provides ac- cess to the U.S. Forest Service fa- cilities and the general aviation apron area located north of Run- way 10-28. Taxiway B is 75 feet wide and is restricted to aircraft with less than 30 seats. ? Taxiway C is parallel to Runway 10-28 and extends between Taxi- way A and Runway 4-22. Taxiway C is 50 wide and located 400 feet north of Runway 10-28. Exhibit 1BEXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES 03MP11-1B-11/24/04 08001,600SCALE IN FEET NORTH JuniperJuniper Golf ClubGolf Club JuniperGolf Club SW Veterans Way SE Veterans W S SE Veterans W Airport Way A Airport Way Salmon Ave. Jesse Butler Cr. Runway 4-22 (7,040' x 150') R AirportAirport BeaconBeacon Taxiway B USFS Drive Runway 4-22 (7,040' x 150') Taxiway F T E VASIVASI REILS Taxiway F Runway 10-28 (7,006' x 100') Taxiway C Taxiway G AA REILS R Runway 10-28 (7,006' x 100') Taxiway C Taxiway G DDDLighted Wind Cone Lighted Wind Cone & Segmented Circle& Segmented Circle Lighted Wind Cone& Segmented CircleVASI VASIVASI HHEVASIDAirportBeaconAAATCT ATCTATCT Taxiway G JM Taxiway G JM N PAPIPAPI N LagoonsLagoons Taxiway F T Highway 126Highway 126 MALSR M NPAPINLagoons Taxiway F Taxiway B Highway 126 USFS Drive MALSR REILS REILS North Unit Mai N North Unit Mai PAPIPAPIPAPI AIRPORT PROPERTY LINEAIRPORT PROPERTY LINEAIRPORT PROPERTY LINE Redmond, Oregon Sisters Ave. 10th St. SE Veterans Way S SE Veterans Way 1-7 ? Taxiway D is a connecting taxi- way extending between Taxiways C and G. North of Runway 10-28, Taxiway D is 75 feet wide. South of Runway 10-28, Taxiway D is 40 feet wide. ? Taxiway E extends between the Runway 4 end and terminal apron. Taxiway E is 100 feet wide. ? Taxiway F is a full-length parallel taxiway serving Runway 4-22 and provides primary access to the pas- senger terminal apron. Taxiway F is 50 feet wide and lies 400 feet northwest of Runway 4-22. ? Taxiway G is a full-length parallel taxiway serving Runway 10-28 and provides access to the landside fa- cilities on the northwest corner of the airfield. Taxiway G is 50 feet wide and lies 400 feet southwest of Runway 10-28. West of Taxiway F, Taxiway G is restricted to aircraft 26,000 pounds or less. East of Taxiway F, Taxiway G is restricted to 20,000 pounds SWL and 40,000 pounds DWL. ? Taxiway H is 90 feet wide and ex- tends between Runway 4-22 and the terminal apron. ? Taxiway J is an exit taxiway near the Runway 28 end. Taxiway J is 75 feet wide. ? Taxiway M is a connecting taxi- way at the end of Runway 28. ? Taxiway N is 75 feet wide and ex- tends between Runway 4-22 and Taxiway B. Airfield Lighting Airfield lighting systems extend an airport?s usefulness into periods of darkness and/or poor visibility. A va- riety of lighting systems are installed at the airport for this purpose. These lighting systems, categorized by func- tion, are summarized as follows. Identification Lighting: The loca- tion of the airport at night is univer- sally identified by a rotating beacon. A rotating beacon projects two beams of light, one white and one green, 180 degrees apart. The rotating beacon at Roberts Field is located atop a metal tower on the north side of the airfield. Pavement Edge Lighting: Pave- ment edge lighting utilizes light fix- tures placed near the edge of the pavement to define the lateral limits of the pavement. This lighting is es- sential for safe operations during night and/or times of low visibility, in order to maintain safe and efficient access to and from the runway and aircraft parking areas. Runway 4-22 is equipped with high intensity run- way lighting (HIRL) and Runway 10- 28 is equipped with medium intensity runway lighting (MIRL). Taxiways at the airport are equipped with medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL). Visual Approach Lighting: A preci- sion approach path indicator (PAPI- 4L) is installed on the approach ends of Runways 22 and 28. A PAPI con- sists of a system of lights located at various distances from the runway threshold. When interpreted by the pilot, these lights give him or her an indication of being above, below, or on 1-8 the designed descent path to the run- way. A visual approach slope indicator (VASI-4L) is installed on the approach ends of Runways 4 and 10. A VASI consists of a system of lights located at various distances from the runway threshold. When interpreted by the pilot, these lights give him or her an indication of being above, below, or on the designed descent path to the run- way. The approach end of Runway 22 is equipped with a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Run- way Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR). A MALSR provides visual guidance to landing aircraft by radiat- ing light beams in a directional pat- tern by which the pilot aligns the air- craft with the extended centerline of the runway. Runway End Identification Lighting Runway end identifier lights (REILs) provide rapid and positive identifica- tion of the approach end of a runway. REILs are typically used on runways without more sophisticated approach lighting systems. The REIL system consists of two synchronized flashing lights, located laterally on each side of the runway facing the approaching aircraft. REILs are installed on both ends of Runway 10-28, as well as the end of Runway 4. Pilot-Controlled Lighting: All air- field lighting systems are controlled through a pilot-controlled lighting sys- tem (PCL). This allows pilots to in- crease the intensity of the airfield lighting systems from the aircraft with the use of the aircraft?s radio trans- mitter. At Roberts Field, both run- ways are equipped with PCL. The PCL is enabled only when the control tower is closed. Pavement Markings Pavement markings aid in the move- ment of aircraft along airport surfaces and identify closed or hazardous areas on the airport. The precision mark- ings on Runway 4-22 identify the runway designation, threshold, center- line, side stripes, aiming point, and touchdown zone. The nonprecision markings on Runway 10-28 identify the runway designation, threshold, centerline, side stripes, and aiming point. Taxiway and apron centerline mark- ings are provided to assist aircraft us- ing these airport surfaces. Taxiway centerline markings assist pilots in maintaining proper clearance from pavement edges and objects near the taxiway/taxilane edges. Pavement edge markings also identify aircraft parking and aircraft holding positions. Airfield Signs: Airfield identification signs assist pilots in identifying their location on the airfield and directing them to their desired location. Lighted signs are installed at all taxi- way and runway intersections. Each runway is equipped with lighted runway distance-remaining signs. Placed in 1,000-foot intervals along the runway edge, runway distance- remaining signs notify pilots of the 1-9 amount of usable runway length left, in feet. Weather and Communication Aids The airport is equipped with an auto- mated surface observation system (ASOS). The ASOS provides auto- mated aviation weather observations 24 hours a day. The system updates weather observations every minute, continuously reporting significant weather changes as they occur. The ASOS system reports cloud ceiling, visibility, temperature, dew point, wind direction, wind speed, altimeter setting (barometric pressure), and density altitude (airfield elevation cor- rected for temperature). The airport is also equipped with a lighted wind cone and segmented cir- cle, which provides pilots with infor- mation about wind conditions. A seg- mented circle provides traffic pattern information to pilots. The lighted wind cone and segmented circle are located west of the Taxiway G and F intersection. A lighted supplemental wind cone is also located near the end of Runway 10. LANDSIDE FACILITIES Landside facilities are the ground- based facilities that support the air- craft and pilot/passenger handling functions. These facilities typically include the terminal building, aircraft storage/ maintenance hangars, air- craft parking aprons, and support fa- cilities such as fuel storage, automo- bile parking, roadway access, and air- craft rescue and firefighting. Land- side facilities are identified on Ex- hibit 1C. Passenger Terminal Facilities The passenger terminal building is lo- cated north of the Runway 4 end. The passenger terminal building was re- constructed and expanded from 8,000 to 22,870 square feet in 1993, and pro- vides areas for ticketing, bag claim, airport administration, secure gate lobby, a restaurant, gift shop, and deli. Three rental car companies (Avis, Budget, and Hertz) are also located in the terminal building. The terminal apron, which is constructed of asphalt, encompasses approximately 58,000 square yards on the south side of the terminal building. Approximately 557 vehicle parking spaces are available in the paved pub- lic parking lot located north of the terminal building. It is attended 24 hours a day. Parking rates are $1.00 per hour, $5.00 maximum per day, and $35.00 per week. Employee park- ing is available in an unpaved lot lo- cated adjacent to the southwest end of the terminal building. Approximately 105 spaces for rental car parking are available in a paved lot located north- east of the terminal building. General Aviation Operators General aviation facilities at Roberts Field are concentrated in three sepa- rate areas: north of Runway 10-28 along Taxiway C, south of Runway 10- 28 along Taxiway G, and west of Taxiway A. 1-10 A full range of aviation services are provided at Roberts Field. There are two fixed based operators (FBOs) available at the airport; Butler Air- craft Company and Redmond Air. These FBOs offer aviation fuel (100LL and Jet A), aircraft parking (ramp or tiedown), flight school/flight training, aircraft rental, aircraft maintenance, pilot supplies, catering, rental cars, and courtesy transportation. Butler Aircraft formerly operated an air tanker operation. Butler Aircraft?s facilities include an 11,700 square-foot hangar used for large aircraft maintenance and a 5,000 square-foot hangar used for small aircraft maintenance, FBO ad- ministration, and a pilot?s lounge. These two hangars, which are city- owned, are located north of Taxiway C. Butler Aircraft also leases a 4,200 square-foot storage building from the City, which is located at the west end of the general aviation apron. Redmond Air?s facilities are located south of Taxiway G and include an 8,500 square-foot hangar for aircraft storage and maintenance and a 2,500 square-foot (two-story) terminal area adjacent to the storage hangar. A separate 2,500 square-foot building located along the west end of the apron provides classroom, office, and storage space. A 5,600 square-yard apron provides approximately nine aircraft tiedown positions. An addi- tional 40 aircraft can tie down along the portion of Taxiway A extending south from the Taxiway A and G in- tersection. This area is used by Air- Pac and Ameriflight for daily cargo activities. Lancair, whose facilities are located south of Centurion Air (off of airport property), produces kit planes. They also provide aircraft maintenance and avionics service. Wings of the Cascades offers flight training in six Cessna aircraft. Two Citation Mustang jets are on order for 2007. In addition to the facilities previously described, a number of organizations and businesses are located on airport property, west of Airport Way. This includes the Army National Guard, an 18-hole golf course, the City of Red- mond Public Works Department, and commercial facilities. Additional landside facilities, which are county- owned, are discussed in a separate document, which was prepared by Morrison Maierle, Inc. This document is attached as Appendix B. Aircraft Storage Facilities Hangar space at Roberts Field is com- prised of mainly executive-type han- gars. Executive hangars provide a large open space, free from roof sup- port structures. They have the capa- bility to accommodate several aircraft simultaneously, and are typically less than 10,000 square feet in size. T- hangars, which provide for individual aircraft storage within a larger con- tiguous facility, are also available at the airport. These hangars are identi- fied on Exhibit 1C. Exhibit 1CEXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES 03MP11-1C-8/31/04 Redmond, Oregon NORTH 05001,000SCALE IN FEET Veterans Way Airport Way Runway 4-22 (7,040' x 150') R Runway 4-22 (7,040' x 150') Taxiway F T Taxiway F Runway 10-28 (7,006' x 100') Taxiway G Taxiway G Taxiway C Taxiway C Highway 126Highway 126Highway 126 USFS Drive United States Forest ServiceUnited States Forest Service Redmond Air CenterRedmond Air Center United States Forest ServiceRedmond Air Center Taxiway B ExecutiveExecutive HangarsHangars Executive HangarsHangars ExecutiveHangarsButler Aircraft Butler AircraftButler AircraftJet Fuel Jet Fuel TanksTanks Jet FuelTanksT-Hangars T-HangarsT-HangarsAnimal Shelter Animal ShelterAnimal ShelterFuel FuelFuelApron ApronApron ExecutiveExecutive HangarsHangars ExecutiveHangarsIndustrial Industrial BuildingsBuildings Public ParkingParking PublicParkingTerminal Terminal ApronApron TerminalApronFuel FuelFuelPassenger Passenger TerminalTerminal ARFFARFFMaintenance Maintenance HangarHangar MaintenanceHangarLancair LancairLancairEmployee Employee ParkingParking EmployeeParkingRedmond Air Redmond AirRedmond Air MaintenanceMaintenance GarageGarage MaintenanceGarage ExecutiveExecutive HangarsHangars Executive HangarsHangars ExecutiveHangarsT-Hangars T-HangarsT-HangarsCenturion Air Centurion AirCenturion AirExecutive Executive HangarsHangars ExecutiveHangars Taxiway A T Taxiway A Rental CarRental Car ParkingParking AIRPORT PROPERTY LINEAIRPORT PROPERTY LINEAIRPORT PROPERTY LINE 1-11 Maintenance/Storage Several maintenance buildings/han- gars are available at Roberts Field. These facilities, which are identified on Exhibit 1C, are used to perform aircraft maintenance and to store equipment and vehicles used in gen- eral maintenance activities at the air- port. Fuel Storage Facilities All aircraft fuel storage facilities at the airport are privately-owned and operated. Butler Aircraft owns and operates four aboveground fuel storage tanks; two 10,000-gallon tanks for 100LL (located at the west end of the apron) and two 12,000-gallon tanks for Jet A (located near their large aircraft storage hangar). Redmond Air owns and operates two 12,000-gallon fuel storage tanks (one each for 100LL and Jet A), which are located along Taxi- way A, north of Taxiway G. Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) The airport is required to maintain airport rescue and firefighting (ARFF) capabilities under F.A.R. Part 139, which governs the operation of air- ports with scheduled or unscheduled passenger service by aircraft with more than 30 seats. Roberts Field has been classified with Index B require- ments, which apply to airports servic- ing aircraft less than 126 feet. Speci- fications have been developed for the trucks in terms of dry chemicals, wa- ter, and foam application agents they are required to carry. The ARFF equipment is located in a three-bay building located east of Redmond Air, along Taxiway G. United States Forest Service ? Redmond Air Center The U.S. Forest Service ?Redmond Air Center is a hub for the Pacific North- west Region, which includes Oregon and Washington. Their mission is to provide timely, cost-effective, logistical support to any Federal, State, and designated cooperator incidents in the Pacific Northwest, such as wild land fires, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. Their facilities are located on airport property north of Taxiway B. They maintain two air- craft apron areas totaling approxi- mately 65,900 square yards. ENROUTE NAVIGATION AND AIRSPACE Navigational aids are electronic de- vices that transmit radio frequencies, which pilots of properly equipped air- craft translate into point-to-point guidance and position information. The types of electronic navigational aids available for aircraft flying to or from Roberts Field include the very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) facility, nondirectional beacon (NDB), and global positioning system (GPS). 1-12 The VOR, in general, provides azi- muth readings to pilots of properly equipped aircraft by transmitting a radio signal at every degree to provide 360 individual navigational courses. Frequently, distance measuring equipment (DME) is combined with a VOR facility (VOR/DME) to provide distance as well as direction informa- tion to the pilot. In addition, military TACAN and civil VORs are commonly combined to form a VORTAC. A VORTAC provides distance and direc- tion information to civil and military pilots. Pilots flying to or from the air- port can utilize the Deschutes VORTAC located six miles west of the airport. Exhibit 1D, a map of the re- gional airspace system, depicts the lo- cation of the Deschutes VORTAC. The NDB transmits nondirectional ra- dio signals whereby the pilot of prop- erly equipped aircraft can determine the bearing to or from the NDB facility and then ?home? or track to or from the station. Pilots flying to or from Roberts Field can utilize the Bodey NDB. As shown on Exhibit 1D, the Bodey NDB is located approximately six miles northeast of the airport. GPS is an additional navigational aid for pilots enroute to the airport. GPS was initially developed by the United States Department of Defense for mili- tary navigation around the world. In- creasingly, GPS has been utilized more in civilian aircraft. GPS uses satellites placed in orbit around the globe to transmit electronic signals, which properly equipped aircraft use to determine altitude, speed, and posi- tion information. GPS allows pilots to navigate to any airport in the country, and they are not required to navigate using a specific navigational facility. The FAA is proceeding with a program to gradually replace all traditional en- route navigational aids with GPS over the next 20 years. In July of 2003, the FAA commis- sioned a Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), which is a GPS-based navigation and landing system that provides guidance to aircraft at thou- sands of airports and airstrips where there is currently no precision landing capability. Systems such as WAAS are known as satellite-based augmen- tation systems (SBAS). WAAS is de- signed to improve the accuracy and ensure the integrity of information coming from GPS satellites. The FAA is using WAAS to provide Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV) capability. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES Instrument approach procedures are a series of predetermined maneuvers established by the FAA using elec- tronic navigational aids that assist pi- lots in locating and landing at an air- port during low visibility and cloud ceiling conditions. At Roberts Field, there are six published public instru- ment approaches: ILS Runway 22, RNAV (GPS) Runway 28, VOR/DME Runway 22, VOR-A, NDB or GPS Runway 22, and GPS Runway 10. Ap- proaches to Runway 22 are precision instrument approaches, which provide vertical descent information, as well as course guidance information. The capability of an instrument ap- proach is defined by the visibility and 03MP11-1D-3/22/04 Exhibit 1D AREA AIRSPACE Airport with other than hard-surfaced runways Airport with hard-surfaced runways 1,500' to 8,069' in length Airports with hard-surfaced runways greater than 8,069' or some multiple runways less than 8,069' Non-Directional Radiobeacon (NDB) VORTAC VHF Omni Range (VOR) VOR-DME Compass Rose Class D Airspace Class E Airspace Class E Airspace with floor 700 ft. above surface Differentiates floors of Class E Airspace greater than 700 ft. above surface Victor Airways Military Training Routes Wilderness Area Military Operations Area - MOA Source: Klamath Falls October 2, 2003 & Seattle December 25, 2003 Sectional Chart, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SistersEagle AirEagle AirEagle Air McKenzieBridge StateBridge StateBridge State SantiamJunction State SantiamJunction State SantiamJunction State Gopher Gulch Bend Pilot Butte Sunriver Dry Creek Prineville City-County Lake BillyChinook StateChinook StateChinook State Big Muddy THREE SISTERS WILDERNESS AREA THREE SISTERS WILDERNESS AREA MT WASHINGTON WILDERNESS AREA MT WASHINGTON WILDERNESS AREA MT JEFFERSON WILDERNESS AREA MT JEFFERSON WILDERNESS AREA BULL OF THE WOODS WILDERNESS AREA BULL OF THE WOODS WILDERNESS AREA MILL CREEK WILDERNESS AREA MILL CREEK WILDERNESS AREA Bodey NDB Deschutes VORTAC Deschutes VORTAC V 595 V 165 V 269 V 121 V 25 V 536 V 121 JUNIPER NORTH & LOW MOA JUNIPER NORTH & LOW MOA CrescentLake StateLake StateLake State V 595 V 25 V 165 V 269 DIAMOND PEAK WILDERNESS AREA DIAMOND PEAK WILDERNESS AREA WALDO LAKE WILDERNESS AREA WALDO LAKE WILDERNESS AREA VR1353 IR342 VR1353 Redmond, Oregon LEGEND NORTH NOT TO SCALE ROBERTS FIELD ROBERTS FIELD 1-13 cloud ceiling minimums associated with the approach. Visibility mini- mums define the horizontal distance that the pilot must be able to see in order to complete the approach. Cloud ceilings define the lowest level a cloud layer (defined in feet above the ground) can be situated for the pilot to complete the approach. If the ob- served visibility or cloud ceilings are below the minimums prescribed for the approach, the pilot cannot com- plete the instrument approach. The different minimum requirements for visibility and cloud ceilings are varied, dependent on the approach speed of the aircraft. The ILS Runway 22 approach provides the airport with its lowest minimums. Utilizing this approach, a properly equipped aircraft can land at the air- port with 200-foot cloud ceilings and one-half mile visibility for aircraft in any category. The ILS Runway 22 ap- proach can also be utilized as a local- izer only or circling approach. When using only the localizer portion of the ILS (for course guidance only), the cloud ceilings increase to 400 feet above ground level for all aircraft categories and the visibility mini- mums increase to three-fourths mile for aircraft in category D. When using the ILS approaches to land at a different runway end (de- fined as a circling approach), the cloud ceilings increase to 500 feet above ground for aircraft in categories A and B and 600 feet above ground for air- craft in categories C and D. The visi- bility minimums increase to one mile for aircraft in categories A and B; one and one-half mile for aircraft in cate- gory C; and two miles for aircraft in category D. Table 1D presents the published instrument approaches available at Roberts Field. TABLE 1D Instrument Approach Data Roberts Field WEAHTER MINIMUMS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE Category A/B Category C Category D CH VIS CH VIS CH VIS ILS Runway 22 Approach Straight-In (ILS) Straight-In (Localizer) Circling 200 400 500 0.5 0.5 1 200 400 600 0.5 0.5 1.50 200 400 600 0.5 0.75 2 RNAV (GPS) Runway 28 Approach LNAV MDA Circling 500 500 1 1 500 500 1.25 1.25 N/A N/A N/A N/A VOR/DME Runway 22 Approach Straight-In Circling 1,000 1,000 1.25 1.25 1,000 1,000 2.75 2.75 1,000 1,000 3 3 VOR-A Circling 600 1 600 1.50 600 2 NDB or GPS Runway 22 Approach Straight-In Circling 500 500 0.75 1 500 600 0.75 1.50 500 600 1.25 2 GPS Runway 10 Straight-In Circling 500 500 1 1 500 500 1.25 1.50 500 600 1.25 2 Source: FAA Terminal Procedures, Northwest U.S., February 19, 2004 Edition. 1-14 VICINITY AIRSPACE To ensure a safe and efficient airspace environment for all aspects of avia- tion, the FAA has established an air- space structure that regulates and es- tablishes procedures for aircraft using the National Airspace System. The U.S. airspace structure provides two basic categories of airspace, controlled and uncontrolled, and identifies them as Classes A, B, C, D, E, and G. Class A airspace is controlled airspace and includes all airspace from 18,000 feet MSL to Flight Level 600 (ap- proximately 60,000 feet MSL). Class B airspace is controlled airspace sur- rounding high-capacity commercial service airports (i.e., San Francisco International Airport). Class C air- space is controlled airspace surround- ing lower activity commercial service airports and some military airports. Class D airspace is controlled airspace surrounding airports with an airport traffic control tower. All aircraft oper- ating within Classes A, B, C, and D airspace must be in contact with the air traffic control facility responsible for that particular airspace. Class E airspace is controlled airspace that en- compasses all instrument approach procedures and low-altitude federal airways. Only aircraft conducting in- strument flights are required to be in contact with air traffic control when operating in Class E airspace. Air- craft conducting visual flights in Class E airspace are not required to be in radio communications with air traffic control facilities. Visual flight can only be conducted if minimum visibil- ity and cloud ceilings exist. Class G airspace is uncontrolled airspace that does not require contact with an air traffic control facility. Airspace in the vicinity of Roberts Field is depicted on Exhibit 1D. Class D airspace surrounds the airport in a radius of approximately five stat- ute miles, beginning at the surface and extending up to 5,600 feet MSL. This Class D airspace is in effect when the tower is operating (dusk to dawn). During the period when the airport traffic control tower is closed, the Class D airspace surrounding the air- port reverts to Class E airspace. For aircraft arriving or departing the regional area using VOR facilities, a system of Federal Airways, referred to as Victor Airways, has been estab- lished. Victor Airways are corridors of airspace eight miles wide that extend upward from 1,200 feet AGL to 18,000 feet MSL and extend between VOR navigational facilities. As shown on Exhibit 1D, Victor Airways in the area emanate from the Deschutes VORTAC. Located approximately 25 nautical miles southeast of the airport is the Juniper North Military Operations Area (MOA). MOAs define areas of high-level military activity and are in- tended to segregate military and civil- ian aircraft. While civilian operations are not restricted within the MOA, ci- vilian aircraft are cautioned to be alert for military aircraft when operating in the MOA. Military operations within the Juniper MOA are intermittent and are normally conducted between 11,000 and 18,000 feet above ground. 1-15 A number of military training routes (MTRs) are located near Roberts Field. These routes are used by military training aircraft which commonly op- erate at speeds in excess of 250 knots and at altitudes to 10,000 feet MSL. While general aviation flights are not restricted within this area, pilots are strongly cautioned to be alert for high speed military jet training aircraft. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL The airport traffic control tower at Roberts Field controls air traffic within the Class D airspace surround- ing the airport. The airport traffic control tower is located east of the passenger terminal building and oper- ates daily from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Aircraft arriving and departing the Roberts Field area are controlled by the Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). ARTCCs control aircraft in a large multi-state area. All aircraft in radio communication with the ARTCC will be provided with altitude, aircraft separation, and route guidance to and from the airport. The ARTCC directs aircraft until the pilot can contact the airport traffic control tower on the airport. The McMinn- ville Flight Service Station (FSS) pro- vides additional information to pilots operating in the vicinity of the airport. AREA AIRPORTS A review of airports within 30 nautical miles of Roberts Field has been made to identify and distinguish the type of air service provided in the area sur- rounding the airport. Public-use air- ports within 30 nautical miles of the airport were previously illustrated on Exhibit 1D. Information pertaining to each airport was obtained from FAA master airport records. Bend Municipal Airport is located approximately ten nautical miles (nm) south-southwest of Roberts Field. Bend Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Bend. The airport is served by a single runway, which is 5,005 feet in length. The air- port is not equipped with an airport traffic control tower. There are two published instrument approaches available at the airport. There are 126 based aircraft at Bend Municipal Air- port, the majority of which are single- engine. Services available at the air- port include 100LL and Jet A fuel sales, aircraft tie-downs, and aircraft maintenance. Prineville Airport is located ap- proximately 11nm east of Roberts Field and is owned and operated by the Prineville Airport Commission. Two asphalt runways are available for use, the longest at 5,000 feet in length. The airport is not equipped with an airport traffic control tower. Three published instrument approaches are available at the airport. There are 94 based aircraft at Prineville Airport, the majority of which are single- engine. Services available at the air- port include 100LL and Jet A fuel sales, aircraft tiedowns, and aircraft maintenance. Sisters Eagle Air Airport is located approximately 17nm west of Roberts Field and is owned and operated by Sisters Eagle Air, Inc. A single run- 1-16 way (3,550 feet in length) serves the airport. The airport is not equipped with an airport traffic control tower and there are no published instrument approaches available. There are 17 based aircraft at Sisters Eagle Air Airport. Aircraft tiedowns are avail- able at the airport. Lake Billy Chinook State Airport is located approximately 18nm north- northwest of Roberts Field. A single 5,000-foot runway serves the airport, which is owned and operated by the Oregon Aero Division. There is no airport traffic control tower at the air- port and there are no published in- strument approaches available. Four aircraft are based at Lake Billy Chi- nook State Airport and aircraft tie- downs are available. City-County Airport is located ap- proximately 25nm north of Roberts Field in the City of Madras. The air- port, whose longest runway is 5,100 feet in length, is owned and operated by the City and the County. The air- port is not equipped with an airport traffic control tower and there are no published instrument approaches available. There are 34 based aircraft at City-County Airport. Services available include fuel sales (100LL, Jet A, and 80), aircraft hangars, tie- downs, and aircraft maintenance. Sunriver Airport is a privately- owned airport located approximately 26nm south-southwest of Roberts Field. The airport is served by a sin- gle runway, which is 5,455 feet long. The airport is not equipped with an airport traffic control tower. One pub- lished instrument approach is avail- able at Sunriver Airport. There are 47 based aircraft at the airport and ser- vices available include 100LL and Jet A fuel sales, aircraft hangars, and tie- downs. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS For an airport master plan, socioeco- nomic characteristics are collected and examined to derive an understanding of the dynamics of growth within the study area. This information is essen- tial in determining aviation service level requirements, as well as forecast- ing the number of based aircraft and aircraft activity at the airport. Avia- tion forecasts are typically related to the population base, economic strength of the region, and the ability of the region to sustain a strong eco- nomic base over an extended period of time. POPULATION The size and structure of the local communities and the service area that the airport supports are important factors to consider when planning air- port facilities. These factors provide an understanding of the economic base that is needed to determine future airport requirements. Historical popu- lation totals are presented in Table 1E. The City of Redmond lies at the ap- proximate center of the region, with no more than a 30-minute drive to all communities in the region. According 1-17 to data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, Redmond?s population has nearly doubled since 1990, with an av- erage annual growth rate of 6.5 per- cent. Redmond is Deschutes County?s fastest growing city and consistently one of the fastest in Oregon. The City of Redmond Building Inspection De- partment reports an average of two new home building permits processed each day. The population of Deschutes County was also examined. Many people move to Central Oregon for its quality of life, rather than job opportunities, leading to the creation of more jobs in the area. This is in contrast to the more common pattern of people mov- ing to an area to fill available jobs. Between 1990 and 2000, Deschutes County experienced an average an- nual growth rate of 4.4 percent, add- ing more than 40,000 residents. The State also experienced a positive growth rate between 1990 and 2000, with an average annual growth rate of 1.9 percent, resulting in a net increase of more than half a million residents. The population of Oregon is currently more than 3.4 million. Population projections were obtained from the Deschutes County Coordi- nated Population Forecast. It is ex- pected that the City will continue to outpace the rest of the region and the State, with an average annual growth rate of 5.3 percent throughout the planning period. The City?s popula- tion is expected to reach over 44,000 by the year 2023. The population of Deschutes County is expected to reach over 220,00 by the end of the planning period and the State?s population is expected to reach more than 4.4 mil- lion during this same time. The popu- lation forecasts are presented in Ta- ble 1E. TABLE 1E Historical and Forecast Population HISTORICAL FORECAST Area 1990 2000 Avg. Ann. Growth Rate 1990-2000 2008 2013 2023 Avg. Ann. Growth Rate 2000-2023 City of Redmond Deschutes County State of Oregon 7,163 74,958 2,842,321 13,481 115,367 3,421,399 6.5% 4.4% 1.9% 25,200 155,000 3,765,000 31,800 176,900 3,996,000 44,600 220,200 4,463,000 5.3% 2.9% 1.2% Source: Historical Population - U.S. Census Bureau; Forecast Population ? Interpolated from Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast. EMPLOYMENT Analysis of a community=s employ- ment base can provide valuable in- sight to the overall well-being of the community. In most cases, the com- munity make-up and health is signifi- cantly impacted by the availability of jobs, variety of employment opportuni- ties, and types of wages provided by local employers. Historical unemployment rates for Central Oregon (Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson counties), the State of Oregon, and the United States are presented in Table 1F. Since 1990, the annual average unemployment 1-18 rate for Central Oregon has been con- sistently higher than the State and the Nation. This is not due to a re- pressed economy, but rather because population growth (in-migration) has outpaced job growth. TABLE 1F Historical Unemployment Rates Year Central Oregon Oregon United States 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5.8% 6.6% 8.3% 8.9% 7.2% 6.6% 8.7% 8.1% 7.2% 6.7% 6.5% 6.9% 8.0% 5.5% 6.0% 7.5% 7.2% 5.4% 4.8% 5.9% 5.8% 5.6% 5.7% 4.9% 5.9% 7.5% 5.5% 6.7% 7.4% 6.8% 6.1% 5.6% 5.4% 4.7% 4.5% 4.2% 4.0% 4.8% 5.8% Source: Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO). Employment by economic sector for Central Oregon was also examined. This information, which was obtained from Woods and Poole Economics, can be found in Table 1G. Central Ore- gon?s economy is based largely on tour- ism. As a result, services sector is the largest sector of employment in the Tri-County Region, providing over 28,000 jobs, or nearly 30 percent of to- tal employment. Retail trade, the sec- ond largest industry sector, accounts for approximately 20 percent of total employment, with nearly 19,000 jobs reported. Manufacturing is also a sig- nificant sector of employment in the Tri-County area, with over 10,000 jobs reported in 2003. The services, retail trade, and construction industries are expected to continue dominating em- ployment in Central Oregon and re- main strong assets in the region?s eco- nomic growth. Central Oregon has steadily diversi- fied its employment and economic base. For the past decade, Deschutes County has lead Oregon in high tech- nology growth. Numerous companies from the Silicon Valley, Portland- Vancouver Metro, and Puget Sound have relocated or expanded here to es- cape skyrocketing costs, electricity shortages, and tight labor markets. Many of these firms are small but ex- tremely innovative, producing niche- market products from semiconductors to software, medical instruments to recreational equipment. TABLE 1G Employment by Economic Sector Tri-County Region (Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson) Economic Sector Deschutes County Crook County Jefferson County Tri-County Total % of Total Employment in Tri-County Total Employment Construction Manufacturing Transportation & Public Utilities Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate Services Federal Government State & Local Government 77,160 8,370 6,890 2,840 2,220 16,230 8,250 24,250 1,270 6,840 8,690 520 1,760 460 950 1,280 550 1,810 400 960 8,400 220 2,220 220 360 1,280 390 2,140 230 1,340 94,250 9,110 10,870 3,520 3,530 18,790 9,190 28,200 1,900 9,140 100.0% 9.7% 11.5% 3.7% 3.7% 19.9% 9.8% 29.9% 2.0% 9.7% Source: Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS) 2003. 1-19 Table 1H presents the major employ- ers (private sector) in Central Oregon. As previously noted, Central Oregon?s economy is based largely on tourism. In fact, Central Oregon is known as the ?Destination Resort Capital of the Pacific Northwest,? offering skiing, golfing, fishing, hiking, museums, bik- ing, kayaking, and festivals. As shown in the table, three of the top largest employers in the region are re- sorts. The $37 million Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Expo Center, which was completed in 1999, is a ma- jor attraction in the region. This 132- acre site, located in the City of Red- mond, just minutes from Roberts Field, attracts large-scale national events to the region. Several aviation-related industries have made Central Oregon, and espe- cially Deschutes County, their home. Lancair International/PAC USA pro- duces both kit planes in Redmond, as well as production (ready to fly) air- craft at the company?s new plant in Bend. Mountain High Equipment & Supply (Redmond), which recently re- located from the Salt Lake City area of Utah, produces oxygen systems for non-pressurized aircraft. Aerospace Tool, which relocated from the City of Orange, California, to Redmond, sup- plies casting moulds for Boeing, McDonald-Douglas and other suppli- ers. Similarly, PCC-Schlosser (Red- mond) is a titanium casting foundry for the aerospace and medical indus- tries. TABLE 1H Central Oregon?s Largest Employers (Private Sector) Employer Name Location (city) Industry # of Employees St. Charles Medical Center Bright Wood Corporation Les Schwab Tire Center iSky Sunriver Resort Mt. Bachelor, Inc. Eagle Crest Partners, Ltd. Beaver Motor Coaches Pozzi Window Company Clear Pine Moldings, Inc. Bend Region-Wide Region-Wide Bend Sunriver Bend (seasonal) Redmond (seasonal) Bend Bend Prineville Hospital/Medical Millwork Manufacturer Automotive Retail Customer Contact Center Resort Resort Resort RV Manufacturer Door/Window Manufacturer Molding Manufacturer 1,868 1,392 1,000 850 841 800 660 575 500 500 Source: Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO). Other aerospace firms have moved to the region because of its outstanding workforce and strategic location be- tween the industry?s manufacturing centers in Southern California and Washington?s Puget Sound. These in- clude Precise Flight, Inc. (manufac- turers aircraft safety modification parts), Composite Hobbies (a fabrica- tion supplier to Lancair), Airframes Inc. (a sub-assembler of aircraft air- frames), and Electronics International (recently relocated from the Portland- Metro area) which produces electron- ics systems for general aviation air- craft. 1-20 INCOME Table 1J summarizes historical per capita personal income (PCPI), ad- justed for 1996 dollars, for Deschutes County, the State of Oregon, and the United States. In 1990, the County?s PCPI was just above that of the State?s. However, over the next ten years the average annual growth rate for the Deschutes County PCPI was 1.1 percent, while the State averaged an annual growth rate of 1.9 percent. This resulted in a lower PCPI for the County than the State in the year 2000. The Nation?s PCPI has re- mained consistently above both the County and the State since 1990. Projections of PCPI were obtained from the 2003 Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS) by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. The forecasts indicate that PCPI for Deschutes County will continue to re- main below that of the State and the Nation. TABLE 1J Personal Income Per Capita (1996$) HISTORICAL FORECAST Area 1990 2000 Avg. Ann. Increase (1990-2000) 2008 2013 2023 Avg. Ann. Increase (2000-2023) Deschutes Co. State of Oregon United States $21,970 $21,300 $22,860 $24,630 $25,740 $27,430 1.1% 1.9% 1.8% $25,900 $28,000 $30,000 $27,200 $29,400 $31,700 $30,100 $32,500 $35,500 0.9% 1.0% 1.1% Source: Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS) 2003. SUMMARY The information discussed on the pre- vious pages provides a foundation upon which the remaining elements of the planning process will be con- structed. Information on current air- port facilities and utilization will serve as a basis, with additional analysis and data collection, for the develop- ment of forecasts of aviation activity and facility requirement determina- tions. The inventory of existing condi- tions is the first step in the process of determining those factors which will meet projected aviation demand in the community and the region. Redmond, Oregon Chapter Two FORECASTS This chapter will provide forecasts of aviation activity through the year 2023. Forecasts of annual enplanements, based aircraft, based aircraft fleet mix, annual aircraft operations, peak hour oper- ations, and annual instrument app- roaches will serve as the basis for facility planning. The resulting forecast may be used for several purposes including facility needs assessments, airfield capacity evaluation, and environmental evaluations. The forecasts will be reviewed and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure that they are reasonable projections of aviation activity. The intent is to permit the City of Redmond to make the necessary planning adjustments to ensure the facility meets projected demands in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Because aviation activity can be affected by many influences at the local, regional and national levels, it is important to remember that forecasts are to serve only as guidelines, and planning must remain flexible enough to respond to unforeseen facility needs. NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS Each year, the FAA publishes its national aviation forecast. Included in this publication are forecasts for air carriers, regional/commuters, general aviation, air cargo, and military activity. The forecasts are prepared to meet budget and planning needs of the constituent units of the FAA and to provide information that can be used by state and local authorities, the 2-1 FORECASTS Chapter Two Redmond, Oregon 2-2 aviation industry, and by the general public. The current edition when this chapter was prepared was FAA Aero- space Forecasts-Fiscal Years 2004- 2015, published in March 2004. The forecasts use the economic perform- ance of the United States as an indica- tor of future aviation industry growth. Similar economic analyses are applied to the outlook for aviation growth in international markets. In the seven years prior to the Sep- tember 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. commercial and general aviation community achieved a period of un- precedented growth in both the de- mand for aviation services and profit- ability. The impact of the terrorist at- tacks on the airlines was immediate, significant, and worldwide, although the greater impact occurred in the United States. Commercial air carri- ers sharply reduced capacity in the months following the events of Sep- tember 11. Although capacity has re- covered from the low levels flown in the months immediately following the terrorist attacks, capacity has yet to return to pre-September 11 levels. Despite these economic hardships, the numbers are slowly, but steadily in- creasing in favor of aviation. The U.S. and international economies are ex- pected to expand rapidly over the next two years. Moderate growth thereaf- ter is expected through 2015. The large air carriers and region- als/commuters are projected to grow at an annual rate of 4.3 percent over the forecast period. Passenger demand will return to pre-September 11 levels by 2005 and the number of passengers is forecast to climb above one billion by 2014. International and domestic markets will recover strongly over the next two years. The growth of regional/ com- muter passenger traffic in the U.S. will continue to outpace that of its lar- ger domestic counterparts; 6.4 percent compared to 3.6 percent annually. It is expected that low-cost carriers and regionals/commuters could account for more than half of all domestic passen- gers by the end of the 12-year forecast period. The forecast for air cargo and general aviation indicates growth as well. REGIONAL/COMMUTER AIRLINES The regional/commuter airline indus- try, defined as air carriers providing regularly scheduled passenger service and fleets composed primarily of air- craft having 70 seats or less, continues to be the strongest growth sector of the commercial air carrier industry. Dramatic growth in code-sharing agreements with the major carriers, followed by a wave of air carrier ac- quisitions and purchases of equity in- terests, has resulted in the transfer of large numbers of short-haul jet routes to their regional partners, fueling the industry?s growth. Although regional/commuter carriers were impacted by the events of Sep- tember 11, the negative impact was of relatively short duration, and most of the impact since appears to have been largely positive. This is due, in large part, to the fact that the region- als/commuters have been the benefici- ary of the restructuring and downsiz- 2-3 ing that is taking place among their larger code-sharing partners. Industry growth is expected to outpace that of the larger commercial air car- riers. The introduction of new state- of-the-art aircraft, especially high- speed turboprops and regional jets with ranges of 1,000 miles (or greater), is expected to open up new opportuni- ties for growth in non-traditional markets. The regional airline indus- try will also continue to benefit from continued integration with the larger air carriers. The further need for lar- ger commercial air carriers to reduce costs and fleet size will insure that these carriers continue to transfer smaller, marginally profitable routes to the regional air carriers. Likewise, the increased use of regional jets is expected to lead to another round of route rationalization by the larger commercial carriers, particu- larly on low-density routes in the 500- mile range. Regional jet aircraft can serve these markets with the speed and comfort of a large jet, while at the same time providing greater service frequency that is not economically fea- sible with a large jet. According to the FAA Aerospace Forecasts, this transfer of routes is expected to be one of the major drivers of growth during the early years of the forecast. Regional/commuter revenue passenger miles (RPMs) are expected to increase 26.4 percent in 2004 (to 50.9 billion), 15.8 percent in 2005 (to 58.9 billion), and 9.8 percent in 2006 (to 64.7 bil- lion). The high growth rates reflect the longer stage lengths being flown by the large number of regional jets entering the fleet during these years. Between 2007 and 2015, regional RPMs are expected to increase at an average annual rate of 5.7 percent. Over the 12-year forecast period, the average annual rate of growth in RPMs is 8.4 percent, for a total of 106.4 billion by 2015. Domestic pas- senger miles are forecast to be 63.2 billion in 2006, a 63.2 percent increase from 2003 levels. Over the latter years of the forecast (2007 through 2015), the average annual growth rate is projected to be 5.7 percent. Regional/commuter passenger en- planements are projected to increase by 18.4 percent in 2004 (to 128.7 mil- lion), 11.6 percent in 2005 (to 143.6 million), and 7.2 percent in 2006 (to 153.9 million). The strong growth rate during this three-year period reflects the transfer of additional routes from the larger air carriers and the addition of regional jet aircraft to their fleet. Between 2007 and 2015, enplane- ments are forecast to grow at an aver- age rate of 4.4 percent annually for a total of 226.2 million in 2015. Over the 12-year forecast period, the regional/commuter passenger fleet is projected to net an average annual in- crease of 136 aircraft, going from 2,672 aircraft in 2003, to 4,303 aircraft in 2015. During this same period, the overall fleet of turboprop aircraft will decrease by 240 aircraft. For the first three years of the forecast, 5.4 re- gional jet aircraft will enter the fleet for every one turboprop aircraft re- tired. Exhibit 2A depicts passenger enplanements and fleet mix forecasts for the U.S. regional/commuter mar- ket. 2-4 GENERAL AVIATION Following more than a decade of de- cline, the general aviation industry was revitalized with the passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act in 1994 (federal legislation which limits the liability on general aviation air- craft to 18 years from the date of manufacture). This legislation sparked an interest to renew the manufacturing of general aviation air- craft due to the reduction in product liability, as well as renewed optimism for the industry. The high cost of product liability insurance was a ma- jor factor in the decision by many U.S. aircraft manufacturers to slow or dis- continue the production of general aviation aircraft. However, this continued growth in the general aviation industry slowed con- siderably in 2001 and 2002, negatively impacted by the events of September 11. This, in addition to the economic recession already taking place in 2001- 02, has had a profoundly negative im- pact on the general aviation industry. General aviation activity is expected to continue to experience slow growth in 2004 and return to more normal growth patterns beginning in 2005, as the U.S. economy reaches the peak of its recovery. The forecast assumes that the regulatory environment af- fecting general aviation will not change dramatically. The forecast also assumes that the fractional own- ership market will continue to expand and bring new operators and share- holders into business aviation. The active general aviation aircraft fleet is expected to increase at an av- erage annual rate of 1.2 percent over the 13-year forecast period, increasing from 211,244 in 2002, to 246,415 in 2015. This growth includes the addi- tion of a new aircraft category; light sport aircraft, which is expected to en- ter the active fleet in 2004 and to ac- count for 20,915 aircraft in 2015. Ex- cluding these light sport aircraft, growth averages only 0.5 percent over the 13-year forecast period. Exhibit 2B depicts the FAA forecast for active general aviation aircraft in the United States. The number of single-engine piston aircraft is pro- jected to reach 148,450 in 2015, which represents an average annual growth rate of 0.3 percent. During this same time, the number of active multi- engine piston aircraft fleet is expected to decline by 0.5 percent. The number of turboprop aircraft is expected to in- crease at an average annual rate of 1.3 percent over the 13-year forecast pe- riod, while turbojet aircraft are fore- cast to increase on average by 4.9 per- cent annually. The rotorcraft fleet is forecast to grow only 0.6 percent an- nually through 2015, and the number of experimental aircraft is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.4 percent. Gliders and lighter-than- air aircraft are forecast to increase approximately 0.3 percent annually over the 13-year forecast period. The declines in the aircraft utilization rates experienced in 2000 (down 3.2 percent) and 2001 (down 7.2 percent) were due, in part, to higher fuel prices U.S. REGIONAL/COMMUTER SCHEDULED PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS Exhibit 2A U.S. REGIONAL/COMMUTER FORECASTS U.S. REGIONAL/COMMUTER SCHEDULED PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS PERCENT BY AIRCRAFT SEAT SIZE 2002 2015 PERCENT BY AIRCRAFT SEAT SIZE PASSENGERS (in millions) Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, FY 2004-2015 03MP11-2B-3/29/04 0 50 100 150 200 190 210 180 170 160 140 130 120 110 90 80 70 60 40 30 20 10 220 230 240 HISTORICAL FORECAST 98 03 15 250 <10 Seats (7%) 10-20 Seats (9%) 21-40 Seats (36%) 41+ Seats (48%) 21-40 Seats (11%) 10-20 Seats (5%) <10 Seats (3%) 41+ Seats (81%) Redmond, Oregon U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT (in thousands) 2003 (Est.) 2005 2010 2015 143.4 143.5 146.2 148.5 6.9 7.0 7.6 8.1 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.6 211.2 227.6 236.9 246.4 Year 22.0 22.1 22.7 23.1 FIXED WING Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2004-2015. Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown at least one hour during the calendar year. 8.5 9.0 12.0 15.5 17.5 17.3 16.9 16.5 PISTON ROTORCRAFT 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.7 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.5 TURBINE Single Engine Turboprop Other N/A 15.5 18.1 20.9 Sport Aircraft Total Multi- Engine Piston Turbine U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT ACTUAL FORECAST 125 150 175 200 225 AIRCRAFT (in thousands) 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 YEAR 2010 250 120 2015 Exhibit 2B U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT FORECASTS 03MP11-2B-4/1/04 Redmond, Oregon 2-5 and the U.S. economic recession. How- ever, the restrictions placed on general aviation in the aftermath of the Sep- tember 11 events, contributed heavily to the decline in utilization in 2001. The strong recovery in the U.S. econ- omy in 2004 and 2005, should lead to increased utilization rates for most categories of general aviation aircraft. The total pilot population is projected to increase from an estimated 625,011 in 2003, to 777,730 by 2015, which represents an average annual growth rate of 1.6 percent. This includes the certification of 16,100 new sport pilots. The student pilot population increased 1.5 percent in 2003 and is forecast to increase at an annual rate of 1.9 per- cent (almost 1,800 students annually) over the 12-year forecast period, reaching a total of 108,430 in 2015. Growth rates for the other pilot cate- gories over the forecast period are as follows: airline transport pilots, up 1.6 percent; recreational pilots, up 0.8 percent; rotorcraft only, up 1.0 per- cent; and glider only, up 0.2 percent. Over the past several years, the gen- eral aviation industry has launched a series of programs and initiatives whose main goals are to promote and assure future growth within the in- dustry. ?No Plane, No Gain? is an ad- vocacy program created in 1992 by the General Aviation Manufacturers Asso- ciation (GAMA) and the National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) to promote acceptance and increased use of general aviation as an essential, cost-effective tool for businesses. Other programs are intended to pro- mote growth in new pilot starts and introduce people to general aviation. ?Project Pilot? sponsored by the Air- craft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) promotes the training of new pilots in order to increase and main- tain the size of the pilot population. The ?Be a Pilot? program is jointly sponsored and supported by more than 100 industry organizations. The NBAA sponsors ?AvKids,? a program designed to educate elementary school students about the benefits of business aviation to the community, and career opportunities available to them in business aviation. Over the years, programs such as these have played an important role in the success of general aviation and will continue to be vital to its growth in the future. FORECASTING APPROACH The development of aviation forecasts proceeds through both analytical and judgmental processes. A series of mathematical relationships is tested to establish statistical logic and ra- tionale for projected growth. However, the judgment of the forecast analyst, based upon professional experience, knowledge of the aviation industry, and assessment of the local situation, is important in the final determination of the preferred forecast. The most reliable approach to estimating avia- tion demand is through the utilization of more than one analytical technique. Methodologies frequently considered include trend line/time-series projec- tions, correlation/regression analysis, and market share analysis. Trend line/time-series projections are probably the simplest and most famil- iar of the forecasting techniques. By fitting growth curves to historical 2-6 data, then extending them into the fu- ture, a basic trend line projection is produced. A basic assumption of this technique is that outside factors will continue to affect aviation demand in much the same manner as in the past. As broad as this assumption may be, the trend line projection does serve as a reliable benchmark for comparing other projections. Correlation analysis provides a meas- ure of direct relationship between two separate sets of historic data. Should there be a reasonable correlation be- tween the data sets, further evalua- tion using regression analysis may be employed. Regression analysis measures statisti- cal relationships between dependent and independent variables, yielding a ?correlation coefficient.? The correla- tion coefficient (Pearson?s ?r?) meas- ures association between the changes in the dependent variable and the in- dependent variable(s). If the ?r- squared? value (coefficient determina- tion) is greater than 0.95, it indicates good predictive reliability. A value less than 0.95 may be used, but with the understanding that the predictive reliability is lower. Market share analysis involves a his- torical review of the airport activity as a percentage, or share, of a larger re- gional, state, or national aviation market. A historical market share trend is determined, providing an ex- pected market share for the future. These shares are then multiplied by the forecasts of the larger geographical area to produce a market share projec- tion. This method has the same limi- tations as trend line projections, but can provide a useful check on the va- lidity of other forecasting techniques. It is important to note that one should not assume a high level of confidence in forecasts that extend beyond five years. Facility and financial planning usually require at least a 10-year pre- view, since it often takes more than five years to complete a major facility development program. However, it is important to use forecasts which do not overestimate revenue-generating capabilities or understate demand for facilities needed to meet public (user) needs. AIRPORT SERVICE AREA The service area of an airport is de- fined by its proximity to other airports providing similar services. The ser- vice area may be examined from a commercial service perspective, which will reflect passenger demand for scheduled commercial airline service. Roberts Field is the only commercial service airport in the Central Oregon area providing scheduled passenger services. The nearest commercial ser- vice airport is Mahlon Sweet Field, which is located approximately 126 statute miles (s.m.) west in Eugene, Oregon, although most residents of the area will generally drive to Port- land (146 s.m.) for alternative air ser- vice. While the passenger service area may extend outside the boundaries of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook Coun- ties, these three counties generally make up the geographic boundaries of the Central Oregon area, and provide 2-7 the source for the majority of locally originating passengers. Roberts Field is classified as a non- hub (commercial service) airport, en- planing less than 0.05 percent of the total passenger enplanements re- ported nationally, and functions as a commuter service airport, feeding pas- sengers into the Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco hubs. The general aviation service area is affected by the number of nearby air- fields which also have the ability to base and serve general aviation air- craft. There are six public-use air- ports within a 30 nautical mile (nm) radius of Roberts Field. Five of these airports have a runway 5,000 feet or greater, which is generally preferred by corporate aviation departments op- erating turbine aircraft. Other factors affect the decision to base at a given airport, including availability of hangars (and rates), services offered (including fuel), access to major highways, and instrument capabilities. Services provided at many of these airports include major airframe and powerplant repair, air- craft maintenance, aircraft rental/ sales, flight training, aerial tours, fuel, pilot supplies, aircraft hangars, tie- downs, courtesy transportation, and catering. AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS The following forecast analysis exam- ines each of the aviation demand cate- gories expected at Roberts Field over the next 20 years. Each segment will be examined individually, and then collectively, to provide an understand- ing of the overall aviation activity at the airport through 2023. The need for airport facilities at Rob- erts Field can best be determined by accounting for forecasts of future avia- tion demand. Therefore, the remain- der of this chapter presents the fore- casts for airport users, and includes the following: ? COMMERCIAL SERVICE ? Annual Enplaned Passengers ? Operations and Fleet Mix ? Peak Activity ? Annual Instrument Approaches ? AIR CARGO ? Annual Operations ? AIR TAXI AND MILITARY ? Annual Operations ? GENERAL AVIATION ? Based Aircraft ? Based Aircraft Fleet Mix ? Local and Itinerant Operations ? Peak Activity ? Annual Instrument Approaches COMMERCIAL SERVICE Scheduled air service is currently pro- vided by two regional air carriers; Ho- rizon Air and United Express (oper- ated by SkyWest Airlines), with direct flights to Seattle/Tacoma Interna- tional Airport (SEA), Portland Inter- national Airport (PDX), and San Fran- cisco International Airport (SFO). To- gether, these two airlines offer 16 2-8 daily departures each weekday and 14 daily departures on Saturday and Sunday. To determine the types and sizes of facilities necessary to properly ac- commodate present and future airline activity, two elements of commercial service must be forecast; annual en- planed passengers and annual aircraft operations. Of these, the number of annual enplaned passengers is the most basic indicator of demand for commercial service activity. From a forecast of annual enplanements, op- erations and peak period activity can be projected based on the specific characteristics of passenger demand at the airport. The term ?enplanement? refers to a passenger boarding an airline flight. Enplaning passengers are then de- scribed in terms of ?originating? or ?transfer.? Originating passengers are those who board and depart in a com- mercial service aircraft from an air- port. Transfer passengers are all oth- ers, including those who have de- parted from another location and are aboard aircraft using the airport as an intermediate stop. Passenger Enplanements Historical passenger enplanements and the annual percentage change are presented in Table 2A. Roberts Field has experienced an average annual growth rate of 6.4 percent since 1993. In 2000, the airport experienced a re- cord 161,713 enplanements. However, over the next two years the airport ex- perienced a loss of more than 17,000 enplanements, down 10.6 percent. This significant loss of enplanements can be attributed to the events of Sep- tember 11, 2001, along with the al- ready slowing economy. The airport has since rebounded, with 147,106 en- planements reported in 2003, up 1.7 percent from 2002. TABLE 2A Historical Passenger Enplanements Roberts Field Year Total Enplanements Annual % Change 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 78,983 92,732 105,774 107,530 111,450 127,296 145,740 161,713 158,670 144,582 147,106 - 17.4% 14.1% 1.7% 3.6% 14.2% 14.5% 11.0% -1.9% -8.9% 1.7% Source: Airport records Several analytical techniques have been used to examine trends in pas- senger growth, including several time- series and regression analyses, as well as market share analyses. Forecasts included in the FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF), the 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan, and the previous mas- ter plan (1998) were also examined. The first forecast method used to pro- ject enplanements at Roberts Field was a time-series analysis. This analysis examined the time period 1993-2003, which yielded a correlation coefficient (r2 value) of 0.84. As previ- ously mentioned, if the ?r2? value is greater than 0.95, it indicates good predictive reliability. A second time- 2-9 series analysis, using the time period 1990-2000, was also conducted to rep- resent the airport?s growth trend be- fore the impacts of September 11, 2001. The second time-series analysis yielded a higher correlation coefficient of 0.93. In addition to the time-series analy- ses, several regression analyses were performed using socioeconomic data pertaining to population, employment, and income. These regression analy- ses used historic socioeconomic data for the Central Oregon region to ana- lyze their correlation to historical en- planements at the airport. Correla- tion coefficients ranging from 0.87 to 0.90 were obtained, but were too low to be used in developing accurate fore- casts. Additional forecasting methods were also used to project future enplane- ments at Roberts Field. One method examined the airport?s historic market share of U.S. domestic enplanements. National forecasts of U.S. domestic enplanements are compiled each year by the FAA and consider the state of the economy, fuel prices, and prior year developments. According to the most recent publication, FAA Aero- space Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2004- 2015, domestic passenger enplane- ments are forecast to increase at an average annual rate of 3.4 percent over the 12-year forecast period. As shown in Table 2B, the airport?s market share of U.S. domestic passen- ger enplanements has increased from 0.017 percent in 1993, to 0.031 percent in 2003. From this historical informa- tion, two projections of enplanements were developed for the airport using market share data. The first, a con- stant market share forecast, was pre- pared using 2003?s market share of 0.031 percent as an indicator of future market share, and then applying that share to the forecasted U.S. domestic enplanements. This method yields 299,600 annual enplanements at Rob- erts Field by the year 2023. The second market share forecast, an increasing market share, was devel- oped to represent the historical trend at the airport over the past ten years. This increasing market share forecast assumes that the airport will continue to increase its market share of U.S. domestic passenger enplanements and yields 338,200 enplanements by the year 2023. These market share fore- casts are presented in Table 2B. As previously mentioned, the commer- cial service area for Roberts Field cov- ers the geographic areas of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook Counties. Per capita ratios were determined between the population of the tri-county region and the number of reported enplane- ments. As shown in Table 2C, there were 0.68 enplanements per capita in 1993. This ratio has since increased, with 0.89 enplanements per capita in the year 2003. 2-10 TABLE 2B Market Share Enplanements Forecasts Roberts Field (RDM) Year RDM Enplanements U.S. Domestic Passenger Enplanements (Millions) RDM Market Share of U.S. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 78,983 92,732 105,774 107,530 111,450 127,296 145,740 161,713 158,670 144,582 147,106 470.4 511.3 531.1 558.1 577.8 524.7 537.8 561.5 546.3 485.9 482.2 0.017% 0.018% 0.020% 0.019% 0.019% 0.024% 0.027% 0.029% 0.029% 0.030% 0.031% Constant Market Share Projection 2008 2013 2023 181,100 213,200 299,600 584.3 687.9 966.4 0.031% 0.031% 0.031% Increasing Market Share Projection 2008 2013 2023 187,000 227,000 338,200 584.3 687.9 966.4 0.032% 0.033% 0.035% Source: Historical enplanements at RDM ? airport records; Historical and forecast U.S. domestic enplanements ? FAA Aerospace Forecasts ? Fiscal Years 2004-2015, FAA Long-Range Aerospace Forecasts ? Fiscal Years 2015, 2020, and 2025 Based on historical trends, two projec- tions of enplanements were developed. The first projection assumes that en- planements per capita will remain static at 0.89, resulting in 217,900 an- nual enplanements by the year 2023. A second forecast assumes the air- port?s ratio will increase, as was the overall trend between 1993 and 2003. This increasing ratio projection yields 269,300 annual enplanements by the year 2023. The forecasts of enplane- ments per capita are presented in Ta- ble 2C. Previous forecasts of passenger en- planements were also examined for this study. The FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) presents enplanement projections for all commercial service airports in the United States. The FAA TAF used an estimate of 132,481 enplanements in 2002 as the base year for their forecasts. The FAA TAF pro- jects 250,569 annual enplanements by the year 2020. Extrapolation of this forecast yields 272,300 annual en- planements by the year 2023 (average annual growth of 3.5 percent). 2-11 TABLE 2C Enplanements Per Capita Forecast Roberts Field (RDM) Year RDM Enplanements Tri-County Population Enplanements Per Capita 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 78,983 92,732 105,774 107,530 111,450 127,296 145,740 161,713 158,670 144,582 147,106 115,877 120,624 125,567 130,718 136,083 141,672 147,493 153,558 157,546 161,643 165,851 0.68 0.77 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.90 0.99 1.05 1.01 0.89 0.89 Constant Ratio Projection 2008 2013 2023 167,100 186,100 217,900 187,800 209,100 244,800 0.89 0.89 0.89 Increasing Ratio Projection 2008 2013 2023 178,400 209,100 269,300 187,800 209,100 244,800 0.95 1.00 1.10 Source: Historical enplanements ? airport records; Historical population ? U.S. Census Bureau; Forecast population ? Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast Forecasts included in the 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan were also examined. These forecasts were developed by the Oregon Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division. The plan used actual enplanement totals from 1994 (92,732) as the base year and projects 283,000 annual enplanements by the year 2018. Extrapolation of this fore- cast yields 346,600 annual enplane- ments by the year 2023 (average an- nual growth of 4.7 percent). The spread within the high and low forecasts is a reasonable window within which actual enplanements may fall in the future, based upon sev- eral factors: number of local airlines, frequency of flights, equipment, fares, non-stop destinations, and the local economy. For planning purposes, a mid-range forecast is generally chosen if it provides a reasonable growth rate. The preferred planning forecast is an average of the forecasts and is as fol- lows: 186,000 annual enplanements by 2008; 220,000 annual enplanements by 2013; and 300,000 annual en- planements by the year 2023 (average annual growth of 3.6 percent). Table 2D and Exhibit 2C summarize the passenger enplanement forecasts de- veloped for Roberts Field, as well as the preferred planning forecast. 2-12 TABLE 2D Summary of Passenger Enplanement Forecasts Roberts Field 2003 2008 2013 2023 Time Series Analysis 1990-2000 (r2=0.93) 220,300 264,800 353,800 Market Share of U.S. Domestic Enplanements Constant Share Projection Increasing Share Projection 181,100 187,000 213,200 227,000 299,600 338,200 Enplanements Per Capita (Tri-County Region) Constant Ratio Projection Increasing Ratio Projection 167,100 178,400 186,100 209,100 217,900 269,300 FAA Terminal Area Forecast 172,700 205,200 272,3002 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan 188,6001 231,0001 346,0002 1998 Airport Master Plan 190,7001 221,6001 299,5002 Preferred Planning Forecast 147,106 186,000 220,000 300,000 1Interpolated/2Extrapolated Fleet Mix and Operations Forecast The fleet mix defines a number of key parameters in airport planning, in- cluding critical aircraft, stage length capabilities, and terminal gate con- figurations. Changes in equipment, airframes, and engines have always had a significant impact on airlines and airport planning. There are many on-going programs by the manufactur- ers to improve performance character- istics. These programs are focusing on improvements in fuel efficiency, noise suppression, and the reduction of air emissions. A fleet mix projection for Roberts Field has been developed by reviewing the aircraft historically used by airlines serving the airport. As previously mentioned, Roberts Field receives scheduled air service from two regional airlines: Horizon Air and United Express (SkyWest Air- lines). SkyWest Airlines? fleet, cur- rently serving Roberts Field, consists of the 30-seat Embraer Brasilia 120, while Horizon Air?s fleet consists of the 37-seat Bombardier Q-200. Each of these carriers are transitioning to regional jets, while Horizon Air is also adding the 70-seat Q-400 turboprop to their fleet. Other regional airlines are also transitioning to regional jets with 50 or more seats. The local fleet mix is expected to steadily transition to larger aircraft over the next decade. The fleet mix projections have been used to calculate the average seats per departure, which, after applying a load factor, were used to project an- nual departures. Similar to the na- tional trend, the boarding load factor for Roberts Field is expected to in- crease slightly over the planning pe- riod, reaching 68 percent in the long- term. Annual operations were then calculated based on the boarding load factors. Table 2E summarizes the fleet mix operations forecast for the airlines. 03MP11-2C-3/29/04 Exhibit 2C ENPLANEMENT FORECAST SUMMARY 0 100 0 '23'232020201520102005 100 200 300 200 300 400 500 400 500 Redmond, Oregon Time Series Analysis (1990-2000) Market Share of U.S. Domestic Enplanements Constant Market Share Increasing Market Share Enplanements Per Capita (Tri-County Area) Constant Ratio Projection Increasing Ratio Projection FAA Terminal Area Forecast 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan 1998 Airport Master Plan Preferred Planning Forecast HISTORICALHISTORICALHISTORICALHISTORICAL FORECASTS YEARSYEARSYEARSYEARS ENPLANEMENTS (x 1,000)ENPLANEMENTS (x 1,000) ENPLANEMENTS (x 1,000)ENPLANEMENTS (x 1,000) LEGEND 2-13 TABLE 2E Airline Fleet Mix and Operations Forecast Roberts Field FORECAST Fleet Mix Seating Capacity 2003 2008 2013 2023 < 50 seats (33 average) (EMB 120, Q-200) 50-70seats (60 average) (ERJ-145, CRJ, Q-400) 100% 0% 50% 50% 20% 80% 0% 100% Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% Average Seats Per Departure Boarding Load Factor Enplanements Per Departure 37 62% 23 45 62% 28 50 64% 32 60 67% 40 Annual Enplanements Annual Departures Annual Operations 147,106 6,400 12,800 186,000 6,650 13,300 220,000 6,900 13,800 300,000 7,500 15,000 Source: Coffman Associates Analysis AIR CARGO As mentioned in Chapter One, daily air cargo service is provided at Roberts Field by Airborne Express (AirPac), UPS (Ameriflight), and FedEx (Em- pire). These carriers operate piston and turboprop aircraft, including Cessna Caravans, Piper Senecas and Chieftains, and Beech 99s to provide feeder services to Portland. According to airport records, annual air cargo operations totaled 2,770 in 2003. With strong growth in the air cargo area continuing domestically and in- ternationally, it is anticipated that the level of activity at the airport will con- tinue to grow throughout the planning period. Forecasts of air cargo opera- tions were projected using an average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent, which is consistent with national trends. As shown in Table 2F, apply- ing this growth rate yields 5,500 cargo operations by 2023. The fleet mix is expected to remain in multi-engine piston and turboprop aircraft. How- ever, the cargo companies are achiev- ing larger turboprop aircraft which have been retired from commercial passenger service to complement their fleets. TABLE 2F Air Cargo Operations Roberts Field Airport Year Annual Operations 2003 2,770 Forecast 2008 2013 2023 3,300 4,000 5,500 Source: Historical - Airport Records UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE ? REDMOND AIR CENTER The United States Forest Service (USFS) ? Redmond Air Center is a hub for the Pacific Northwest Region, which includes Oregon and Washing- ton. Their mission is to provide timely, cost-effective, logistical sup- 2-14 port to any Federal, State, and desig- nated cooperator incidents in the Pa- cific Northwest, such as wild land fires, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. The heaviest air- craft in the air tanker fleet mix in- cludes DC-7s and C-130s. A review of landing fee reports indicates a mixture of several other aircraft, including P2V, SP2M, DC-4, DC-6, P2, P3 Orion, and PB4Y2. While the C-130 had pre- viously been targeted as the fleet re- placement aircraft, recent grounding of the fleet has created uncertainty in future fleet composition. The P3 Orion is likely to be part of the future fleet. In 2003, the USFS recorded a total of 750 operations at Roberts Field. The consultants examined a five-year ac- tivity period and found that 2003 rep- resented an average year. For plan- ning purposes, a static level of 750 an- nual air tanker operations has been assumed through the planning period. AIR TAXI AND MILITARY OPERATIONS Air taxi activity is independently re- corded by the airport traffic control tower. Locally, the majority of air taxi operations recorded at the tower are performed by the commercial airlines. However, this category also includes the cargo operations and ?for-hire? general aviation operators, and can also include operations by Part 135 operators and Part 121 operators (less than 60 seats). Since the commercial airline and cargo operations have been handled in pre- vious sections of this chapter, the only remaining portion of the air taxi cate- gory to be considered is ?for-hire?, which has been estimated as ten per- cent of total air taxi operations. This percentage was applied to forecasts by the FAA of future air taxi operations at Roberts Field and yield 2,200 ?for- hire? operations by the year 2023. According to the FAA TAF, there were an estimated 500 total military opera- tions (400 itinerant and 100 local) at Roberts Field in 2003. Forecasts by the FAA project military operations at civilian airports to remain relatively stagnant throughout the planning pe- riod. This plan will assume the same static projection. Table 2G presents the forecasts for the military and ?for- hire? air taxi operations. TABLE 2G Air Taxi & Military Operations Roberts Field Year ?For-Hire? Air Taxi Ops Military Ops 2003 1,430 500 FORECAST 2008 2013 2023 1,620 1,820 2,220 500 500 500 Source: Historical operations ? FAA TAF GENERAL AVIATION General aviation is defined as that portion of civil aviation which encom- passes all portions of aviation, except commercial operations. To determine the types and sizes of facilities that should be planned to accommodate general aviation activity, certain ele- ments of this activity must be forecast. These indicators of general aviation 2-15 demand include: based aircraft, air- craft fleet mix, and annual operations. Based Aircraft The number of based aircraft is the most basic indicator of general avia- tion demand. By first developing a forecast of based aircraft, the growth of aviation activities at the airport can be projected. In 1993, Roberts Field reported 77 based aircraft. Over the next few years, the number of based aircraft increased, reaching a high of 103 in 1996. The number fell to 91 the following year, but has since re- bounded. According to airport records, there are currently 110 based aircraft at Roberts Field. Because of this fluc- tuation, time-series and regression analyses were not performed, as they would not provide useful projections of based aircraft numbers. Instead, other methods were used to forecast based aircraft at Roberts Field. The first method used to project based aircraft examined registered aircraft in The Tri-County region (Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson Counties), which is the local service area for the airport. A forecast of registered aircraft for the Tri-County region had to be deter- mined first. According to the FAA, there are currently 765 total aircraft registered in the three counties. An average annual growth rate of 2.0 per- cent, which is consistent with national trends, was applied to the forecast years to project registered aircraft. This yields 870 registered aircraft by 2008; 960 registered aircraft by 2013; and 1,170 registered aircraft by 2023. The next step was to examine the air- port?s market share of registered air- craft in the Tri-County region. As shown in the table, the airport cap- tured 16 percent of aircraft registered in three counties in 1993. Since then, the airport?s market share has re- mained fairly constant and is cur- rently at 14 percent. Forecasts of based aircraft were developed based on registered aircraft projections and the airport?s market share. The first forecast assumes the airport?s market share will remain constant at 14 per- cent, yielding 164 based aircraft by 2023. The second forecast assumes the airport?s market share will begin to increase and return to previous lev- els, yielding 211 based aircraft by the year 2023. These market share fore- casts are presented in Table 2H. Projections of based aircraft were also made in comparison to the percentage of U.S. active general aviation aircraft based at Roberts Field. In 1993, based aircraft at the airport represented 0.043 percent of U.S. active general aviation aircraft. This percentage in- creased over the following years and is currently at 0.052 percent. A constant share projection was first developed. This forecast assumes the airport?s share of U.S. active general aviation aircraft will remain constant at 0.052 percent, which yields 123 based air- craft by the year 2023. The second forecast assumes the airport?s market share will increase, as it has histori- cally. This increasing market share projection yields 166 based aircraft by the year 2023. These market share projections are presented in Table 2J. 2-16 TABLE 2H Based Aircraft Market Share of Registered Aircraft (Tri-County Region) Roberts Field Year Roberts Field Based Aircraft Tri-County Registered Aircraft Market Share of Registered Aircraft 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 77 77 86 103 91 91 98 98 99 110 110 478 513 565 595 617 634 654 662 715 723 765 16% 15% 15% 17% 15% 14% 15% 15% 14% 15% 14% Constant Market Share 2008 2013 2023 122 134 164 870 960 1,170 14% 14% 14% Increasing Market Share 2008 2013 2023 131 154 211 870 960 1,170 15% 16% 18% Source: Historical Based Aircraft ? FAA TAF; Registered Aircraft ? Census of U.S. Civil Aircraft (1993-1994), Aviation Goldmine CD (1995-2000), Avantex Aircraft & Airmen CD (2001- 2003) TABLE 2J Based Aircraft Market Share of U.S. Active General Aviation (GA) Aircraft Roberts Field Year Roberts Field Based Aircraft U.S. Active GA Aircraft % of U.S. Active GA Aircraft 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 77 77 86 103 91 91 98 98 99 110 110 177,719 172,936 188,089 191,129 192,414 204,711 219,464 217,533 211,447 211,244 211,190 0.043% 0.045% 0.046% 0.054% 0.047% 0.044% 0.045% 0.045% 0.047% 0.052% 0.052% Constant Market Share 2008 2013 2023 112 116 123 215,800 223,100 236,6001 0.052% 0.052% 0.052% Increasing Market Share 2008 2013 2023 121 134 166 215,800 223,100 236,6001 0.056% 0.060% 0.070% Source: Historical Based Aircraft ? FAA TAF; Historical and Forecast U.S. Active Aircraft ? FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2004-2015 1 Extrapolated by Coffman Associates 2-17 The population of Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson counties has also been used as a comparison with based air- craft at Roberts Field. The forecast examined the airport?s historical based aircraft as a ratio of 1,000 residents in the Tri-County region. As shown in Table 2K, the 2003 estimated popula- tion of the three counties is 165,851, which equals 0.66 based aircraft per 1,000 residents. A constant ratio of 0.66 based aircraft per 1,000 residents was first completed to represent the overall trend at the airport since 1993 and yields 162 based aircraft by 2023. Assuming the ratio of based aircraft per 1,000 residents increases gradu- ally throughout the planning period, yields 171 based aircraft at Roberts Field by 2023. These projections are shown in Table 2K. TABLE 2K Based Aircraft Per 1,000 Residents (Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson Counties) Roberts Field Year Roberts Field Based Aircraft Tri-County Population Based Aircraft Per 1,000 Residents 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 77 77 86 103 91 91 98 98 99 110 110 115,877 120,624 125,567 130,718 136,083 141,672 147,493 153,558 157,546 161,643 165,851 0.66 0.64 0.68 0.79 0.67 0.64 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.68 0.66 Constant Share Projection 2008 2013 2023 124 138 162 187,800 209,100 244,800 0.66 0.66 0.66 Increasing Share Projection 2008 2013 2023 126 142 171 187,800 209,100 244,800 0.67 0.68 0.70 Source: Historical Based Aircraft ? FAA TAF; Historical Population ? U.S. Census Bu- reau; Forecast Population ? Interpolated from Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast The historical growth rate of based aircraft between 1993 and 2003 was also examined. As previously men- tioned, there were 77 aircraft based at Roberts Field in 1993. The number of based aircraft in 2003, as reported by the airport, stands at 110. This repre- sents an average annual growth rate 2-18 of 3.6 percent. Applying this growth rate to the forecast years, yields 131 based aircraft by 2008; 157 based air- craft by 2013; and 223 based aircraft by 2023. Previous forecasts were also exam- ined. The FAA Terminal Area Fore- cast (TAF) used a base year of 2002 (110 based aircraft) and projects 215 based aircraft at Roberts Field by the year 2020. Extrapolation of this fore- cast yields 236 based aircraft by the year 2023. The 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan, which used 1994 as the base year for its fore- casts, with a reported 61 based air- craft, projects 75 based aircraft at Roberts Field by 2014. This forecast was considered irrelevant since the current number of based aircraft (110) already exceeds this amount. The se- lected planning forecast in the 1998 Airport Master Plan assumed the number of based aircraft would double over the planning period, reaching 170 by 2017. The preferred planning forecast for Roberts Field is a mid-range of all the forecasts and yields 130 based aircraft by 2008; 150 based aircraft by 2013; and 190 based aircraft by 2023. Table 2L and Exhibit 2D summarize the based aircraft forecasts developed for Roberts Field, as well as the preferred planning forecast. TABLE 2L Summary of Based Aircraft Forecasts Roberts Field 2008 2013 2023 Market Share of Registered Aircraft (Tri-County Region) Constant Market Share Increasing Market Share 122 131 134 154 164 211 Market Share of U.S. Active General Aviation Aircraft Constant Market Share Increasing Market Share 112 121 116 134 123 166 Aircraft Per 1,000 Population (Tri-County Region) Constant Ratio Projection Increasing Ratio Projection 124 126 138 142 162 171 Historical Growth Rate (1993-2003) 3.6% 131 157 223 FAA Terminal Area Forecast 144 172 2362 1998 Airport Master Plan 1241 1481 2102 Preferred Planning Forecast 130 150 190 1 Interpolated by Coffman Associates, 2 Extrapolated by Coffman Associates Based Aircraft Fleet Mix According to airport records, the fleet mix consists of the following: 84 sin- gle-engine aircraft, 21 multi-engine aircraft, three jets, one helicopter, and one glider. While the number of gen- eral aviation aircraft based at Roberts Field is projected to increase, it is im- portant to know the fleet mix of the 03MP11-2D-3/29/04 Exhibit 2D BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST SUMMARY Redmond, Oregon 250 200 150 250 20232023202020152010 0 1993 200520001995 Market Share of Registered Aircraft (Tri-County) Constant Market Share Increasing Market Share Market Share of U.S. Active General Aviation Aircraft Constant Market Share Increasing Market Share Aircraft Per 1,000 Residents (Tri-County) Constant Ratio Projection Increasing Ratio Projection FAA Terminal Area Forecast Historical Growth Rate Projection 1993-2003 (3.6%) 1998 Airport Master Plan Preferred Planning Forecast LEGEND 200 150 100 50 100 50 0 1993 BASED AIRCRAFTBASED AIRCRAFT YEARSYEARS HISTORICALHISTORICALHISTORICALHISTORICAL FORECASTSFORECASTSFORECASTSFORECASTS 2-19 aircraft expected to use the airport. This will ensure the placement of proper facilities in the future. The forecast mix of based aircraft was determined by comparing existing and forecast U.S. general aviation trends. The trend in general aviation is to- ward a greater percentage of larger, more sophisticated aircraft as part of the national fleet. This is reflected in an increasing percentage of jets and multi-engine aircraft in the mix. However, the mix of helicopters and gliders are also expected to increase as a percentage of total aircraft. The general aviation fleet mix projections for Roberts Field are presented in Ta- ble 2M. TABLE 2M General Aviation Fleet Mix Forecast Roberts Field EXISTING FORECAST Type 2003 % 2008 % 2013 % 2023 % Single-Engine Multi-Engine Jets Helicopters Gliders 84 21 3 1 1 76.4% 19.1% 2.7% 0.9% 0.9% 94 27 5 2 2 73.0% 20.5% 3.5% 1.5% 1.5% 104 33 7 3 3 69.5% 22.0% 4.5% 2.0% 2.0% 120 48 12 5 5 63.0% 25.5% 6.5% 2.5% 2.5% Total 110 100.0% 130 100.0% 150 100.0% 190 100.0% *Multi-engine category includes turboprops. General Aviation Operations General aviation operations are classi- fied as either local or itinerant. A lo- cal operation is a take-off or landing performed by an aircraft that operates within sight of the airport, or which executes simulated approaches or touch-and-go operations at the airport. Itinerant operations are those per- formed by aircraft with a specific ori- gin or destination away from the air- port. Generally, local operations are characterized by training operations. Typically, itinerant operations in- crease with business and commercial use, since business aircraft are oper- ated on a high frequency. Previous forecasts were first exam- ined, including the 1998 Airport Mas- ter Plan and the FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). Forecasts included in the 1998 plan used 1996?s total of 47,800 operations as a base number for projections through the year 2017. Extrapolation of this plan yields 76,100 operations by the year 2023. Forecasts included in the FAA TAF used 2002 as the base year for its pro- jections, with an estimated 38,221 op- erations that year. Forecasts included in the FAA TAF were provided through the year 2020. Extrapolation of the FAA TAF yields 57,000 annual general aviation operations by the year 2023. The historical growth rate of general aviation operations at Roberts Field was also examined. Between 1997 and 2003, the airport experienced an 2-20 average annual growth rate of 4.5 per- cent. This percentage was applied to the forecast years and yields 87,100 annual general aviation operations by the year 2023. In order to develop an updated fore- cast, the FAA?s projections for opera- tions at towered airports were exam- ined, along with the airport?s general aviation operations and market shares. As shown in Table 2N, the airport?s market share has increased since 1997. Two market share fore- casts were developed; a constant mar- ket share and an increasing market share. These projections yield 48,100 annual operations and 67,400 annual operations respectively, by the year 2023. TABLE 2N General Aviation Operations Forecasts Roberts Field (RDM) Year Itinerant Operations Local Operations Total Operations GA Operations (U.S.) at Towered Airports RDM Market Share % 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 15,629 17,311 16,726 16,001 16,777 17,033 15,510 12,189 11,275 13,612 19,959 19,033 20,705 20,618 27,818 28,586 30,338 35,960 35,810 37,738 36,128 36,800,000 38,000,000 40,000,000 39,900,000 37,600,000 37,600,000 35,500,000 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.09% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% Constant Market Share Projection 2008 2013 2023 17,100 18,200 20,700 22,600 24,100 27,400 39,700 42,300 48,100 39,700,000 42,300,000 48,100,0001 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% Increasing Market Share Projection (Selected Forecast) 2008 2013 2023 18,800 21,800 29,000 24,900 28,900 38,400 43,700 50,700 67,400 39,700,000 42,300,000 48,100,0001 0.11% 0.12% 0.14% Source: GA Operations at Roberts Field ? FAA TAF; GA Operations at Towered Airports ? FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2004-2015 1Extrapolated by Coffman Associates. A summary of the general aviation op- erations projections at Roberts Field is presented in Table 2P. As previously mentioned, a mid-range forecast is generally chosen. The preferred plan- ning forecast for Roberts Field is the increasing market share forecast. This forecast, which yields 67,400 an- nual general aviation operations by 2023, falls in the mid-range of all the forecasts and is consistent with in- creasing utilization assumptions by the FAA. Itinerant operations are es- timated to account for approximately 43 percent of total operations, while local operations were estimated to ac- count for approximately 57 percent. 2-21 TABLE 2P Summary of General Aviation Operations Forecasts Roberts Field 2003 2008 2013 2023 1998 Airport Master Plan 59,900 64,900 1 76,1002 FAA Terminal Area Forecast 41,800 46,800 57,0002 Historical Growth Rate (1997-2003 = 4.5%) 45,000 56,100 87,100 Market Share of GA Ops at Towered Airports Constant Market Share Increasing Market Share (Selected Forecast) 36,128 39,700 43,700 42,300 50,700 48,100 67,400 1Interpolated/2Extrapolated PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS Most facility planning relates to levels of peak activity. The following plan- ning definitions apply to the peak pe- riods: ? Peak Month ? The calendar month when peak aircraft op- erations occur. ? Design Day ? The average day in the peak month. ? Busy Day ? The busy day of a typical week in the peak month. ? Design Hour ? The peak hour within the design day. It is important to note that only the peak month is an absolute peak within a given year. All other peak periods will be exceeded at various times dur- ing the year. However, they do repre- sent reasonable planning standards that can be applied without overbuild- ing or being too restrictive. The design day is normally derived by dividing the peak month operations or enplanements by the number of days in the month. However, commercial activity is often heavier on weekdays, which may require an adjustment to reflect peak weekday activity. Airline Peaks Historical airport records were exam- ined to determine the peak month for passenger enplanements at Roberts Field. Since 1993, the peak month at the airport has typically been August, when the airport captured an average of 10.0 percent of total enplanements for each year. This percentage has been applied to the forecasts of design hour operations at the airport. Other months with high levels of passenger enplanements included June and July, which is typical of these two months. Design day enplanements were calcu- lated by dividing the number of en- planements in the peak month by the number of days in the month. Design hour enplanements were estimated at 15 percent of the design day. According to airport records, the peak month for airline operations in 2003 was July, when the airport captured approximately 10.0 percent of annual 2-22 operations. According to the current airlines schedules, the peak hourly pe- riod represents 20 percent of design day activity. This percentage has been applied to the forecast years. A summary of the forecasts for airline enplanements and operations is pre- sented in Table 2R. General Aviation Peaks According to the FAA tower records, the peak month for general aviation operations in 2003 was August and represented 10.0 percent of total gen- eral aviation operations that year. Forecasts of peak activity have been developed by applying this percentage to the forecasts of annual operations. As previously mentioned, design day operations were calculated by dividing the total number of operations in the peak month by the number of days in the month. The design hour was es- timated at 15 percent of the design day operations. Busy day operations were calculated as 1.25 times the de- sign day activity. Table 2R summa- rizes the general aviation peak activ- ity forecasts. TABLE 2R Peak Period Forecasts Roberts Field FORECASTS 2003 2008 2013 2023 Airline Enplanements Annual Peak Month (10.0%) Design Day Design Hour (15.0%) 147,106 14,082 454 68 186,000 18,600 600 90 220,000 22,000 710 106 300,000 30,000 968 145 Airline Operations Annual Peak Month (10.0%) Design Day Design Hour (15.0%) 12,800 1,280 41 6 13,300 1,330 43 6 13,800 1,380 45 7 15,000 1,500 48 7 General Aviation Operations Annual Peak Month (10.0%) Design Day Busy Day Design Hour (15.0%) 36,128 3,613 117 146 17 43,700 4,370 141 176 21 50,700 5,070 164 204 25 67,400 6,740 217 272 33 ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES Forecasts of annual instrument ap- proaches (AIAs) provide guidance in determining an airport?s requirements for navigational aid facilities. An in- strument approach is defined by the FAA as ?an approach to an airport with the intent to land by an aircraft in accordance with an instrument flight rule (IFR) plan, when visibility 2-23 is less than three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude.? In 2003, the airport reported 860 AIAs, which accounted for 5.5 percent of total itinerant operations. While AIAs can be partially attributed to weather, they may be expected to in- crease as transient operations and op- erations by more sophisticated aircraft increase throughout the planning pe- riod. Therefore, AIAs as a percentage of itinerant operations are expected to remain constant throughout the plan- ning period. The projections of AIAs for Roberts Field are summarized in Table 2S. TABLE 2S Annual Instrument Approaches (AIAs) Roberts Field Year Annual Instrument Approaches Itinerant Operations AIAs % of Itinerant Operations 2003 860 33,460 2.6% FORECAST 2008 2013 2023 1,060 1,170 1,440 40,810 45,170 55,470 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% Source: Airport Records SUMMARY This chapter has provided forecasts for each sector of aviation demand antici- pated over the planning period. Ex- hibit 2E presents a summary of the aviation forecasts developed for Rob- erts Field. The airport is expected to experience an increase in total based aircraft, annual operations, and an- nual enplaned passengers throughout the planning period. The next step in this study is to assess the capacity of the existing facilities to accommodate forecast demand and determine what types of facilities will be needed to meet these demands. This is consid- ered a preliminary draft until submit- ted and approved by the FAA. Airport Total 147,106 186,000 220,000 300,000 ANNUAL ENPLANEMENTS ENPLANEMENT FORECAST OPERATIONS FORECAST ITINERANT Air Carrier 12,800 13,300 13,800 15,000 Air Cargo 2,770 3,300 4,000 5,500 U.S. Forest Service 750 750 750 750 General Aviation 15,510 18,800 21,800 29,000 Air Taxi 1,430 1,620 1,820 2,220 Military 400 400 400 400 Total Itinerant Operations 33,660 38,170 42,570 52,870 LOCAL General Aviation 20,618 24,900 28,900 38,400 Military 100 100 100 100 Total Local Operations 20,718 25,000 29,000 38,500 Total Operations 54,378 63,170 71,570 91,370 ANNUAL OPERATIONS 2003 2008 FORECASTS 2013 2023 Airport Total 860 1,060 1,170 1,440 ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES (AIAs) Single Engine 84 94 104 120 Multi-Engine 21 27 33 48 Jet 3 5 7 12 Helicopter 1 2 3 5 Glider 1 2 3 5 Total Based Aircraft 110 130 150 190 BASED AIRCRAFT Exhibit 2E FORECAST SUMMARY 03MP11-2E-4/1/04 CATEGORY 100 150 ENPLANEMENTS (in thousands) 200 250 300 350 50 '23 20 40 60 80 100 120 10 30 50 70 90 110 ENPLANEMENTS (in thousands) '23 ITINERANT LOCAL TOTAL ITINERANT Redmond, Oregon Redmond, Oregon Chapter Three FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 3-1 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Chapter Three Redmond, Oregon To properly plan for the future of Roberts Field, it is necessary to translate forecast aviation demand into the specific types and quantities of facilities that can adequately serve this identified demand. This chapter uses the results of the forecasts conducted in Chapter Two, as well as established planning criteria to deter-mine the airfield (i.e., runways, taxiways, navi-gational aids, marking and lighting) and landside (i.e., hangars, terminal building, cargo buildings, aircraft parking apron) facility requirements. The objective of this effort is to identify, in general terms, the adequacy of the existing airport facilities, outline what new facilities may be needed, and when these may be needed to accommodate forecast demands. Having established these facility requirements, alternatives for providing these facilities will be evaluated in Chapter Four to determine the most cost-effective and efficient means for implementation. The cost-effective, efficient, and orderly development of an airport should rely more upon actual demand at an airport than on a time- based forecast figure. In order to develop a master plan that is demand-based rather than time-based, a series of planning horizon milestones have been established for Roberts Field that take into consideration the reasonable range of aviation demand projections prepared in Chapter Two. It is important to consider that the actual activity at the airport may be higher or lower than projected activity levels. 3-2 By planning according to activity milestones, the resultant plan can ac- commodate unexpected shifts or changes in the area?s aviation de- mand. The most important reason for utiliz- ing milestones is that they allow the airport to develop facilities according to need generated by actual demand levels. The demand-based schedule provides flexibility in development, as development schedules can be slowed or expedited according to actual de- mand at any given time over the plan- ning period. The resultant plan pro- vides airport officials with a finan- cially responsible and needs-based program. Table 3A presents the planning horizon milestones for each activity demand category. TABLE 3A Planning Horizon Activity Levels Roberts Field Current Levels Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term Passenger Enplanements Annual Operations Based Aircraft 147,106 54,178 110 186,000 65,870 130 220,000 74,170 150 300,000 93,970 190 AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS Airfield requirements include the need for those facilities related to the arri- val and departure of aircraft. These facilities are comprised of the follow- ing items: ! Runways (including safety ar- eas) ! Taxiways ! Navigational Aids ! Airfield Lighting and Marking The selection of appropriate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards for the development and lo- cation of airport facilities is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using or are expected to use the airport. Planning for future aircraft use is of particular importance since design standards are used to plan separation distances between facilities. These standards must be determined now since the relocation of these facilities will likely be extremely expensive at a later date. The FAA has established a coding sys- tem to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical charac- teristics of aircraft expected to use the airport. This code, the airport refer- ence code (ARC), has two components. The first component, depicted by a let- ter, is the aircraft approach speed (op- erational characteristic); the second component, depicted by a Roman nu- meral, is the airplane design group and relates to aircraft wingspan (physical characteristic). Generally, aircraft approach speed applies to run- ways and runway-related facilities, while aircraft wingspan primarily re- lates to separation criteria involving taxiways, taxilanes, and landside fa- cilities. 3-3 According to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, an air- craft?s approach category is based upon 1.3 times its stall speed in land- ing configuration at that aircraft?s maximum certificated weight. The five approach categories used in air- port planning are as follows: Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots. The airplane design group (ADG) is based upon the aircraft?s wingspan. The six ADG?s used in airport plan- ning are as follows: Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet. Group II: 49 feet up to but not includ- ing 79 feet. Group III: 79 feet up to but not in- cluding 118 feet. Group IV: 118 feet up to but not in- cluding 171 feet. Group V: 171 feet up to but not in- cluding 214 feet. Group VI: 214 feet or greater. In order to determine facility require- ments, an ARC should first be deter- mined, and then appropriate airport design criteria can be applied. This begins with a review of the type of air- craft using and expected to use Rob- erts Field. Exhibit 3A provides a list- ing of typical aircraft and their associ- ated ARC. The FAA recommends designing run- ways and taxiways to meet the re- quirements of the most demanding ARC for that airport. Roberts Field currently accommodates a wide vari- ety of civilian aircraft use. Aircraft using the airport include small single and multi-engine aircraft (which fall within approach categories A and B and airplane design group I) and busi- ness turboprop and jet aircraft (which fall within approach categories B, C, and D and airplane design groups I and II). The airport is also used by jet and prop-jet aircraft for transporting pas- sengers in scheduled service by the two airlines operating at the airport; Horizon Air and United Express (Skywest Airlines). SkyWest Air- lines?s fleet, currently serving Roberts Field, consists of the 30-seat Embraer Brasilia 120, while Horizon Air?s fleet consists of the 37-seat Bombardier Q- 200. As determined by the fleet mix fore- cast in Chapter Two, service by air- craft with an average of 33 seats is ex- pected through the intermediate term. However, each of these carriers is transitioning to regional jets, while Horizon Air is also adding the 70-seat Q-400 turboprop aircraft to their fleet. 3-4 Other regional airlines are also transi- tioning to regional jets with 50 or more seats. Regional jets offer in- creased operating range over turbo- props and their higher speeds can shorten trip times, resulting in lower operating costs. It should also be noted that no significant increase in noise exposure would result with the upgrade from turboprop to jet aircraft. The three air cargo operators at Rob- erts Field operate piston and turbo- prop aircraft, including Cessna Cara- vans, Piper Senecas and Chieftans, and Beech 99s. While the cargo opera- tors may be expected to upgrade to larger turboprop aircraft in the future, they are not expected to transition to jets at Roberts Field. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Roberts Field is a hub for the United States Forest Service (USFS), Pacific Northwest Region. The most demand- ing in the USFS fleet mix include the DC-7 and the Lockheed C-130, which fall within ADG IV. While the C-130 had previously been targeted as the fleet replacement aircraft, recent grounding of the fleet has created un- certainty in future fleet composition. The most demanding aircraft cur- rently operating at Roberts Field (with at least 500 annual operations) fall within ADG IV. It is recommended that the primary runway be designed to ARC C-IV, while the secondary runway is designed to ARC B-III. AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS The FAA has established several imaginary surfaces to protect aircraft operational areas and keep them free from obstructions that could affect the safe operation of aircraft. These in- clude the runway safety area (RSA), object free area (OFA), obstacle free zone (OFZ), and runway protection zone (RPZ). The RSA is ?a defined surface sur- rounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of dam- age to airplanes in the event of an un- dershoot, overshoot, or an excursion from the runway.? An object free area is an area on the ground centered on the runway, taxiway, or centerline, provided to enhance the safety of air- craft operations, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneu- vering purposes. An obstacle free zone is a volume of airspace that is required to be clear of objects, except for frangi- ble items required for navigation of aircraft. It is centered along the run- way and extended runway centerline. The RPZ is defined as an area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended runway centerline. The dimensions of an RPZ are a function of the runway ARC and approach visibility minimums. Table 3B summarizes the design re- quirements of these safety areas by airport reference code for both run- ways. The FAA expects these areas to be free from obstructions. As shown in the table, Runway 4-22 meets the re- quired ARC C-IV standards for an In- strument Land System (ILS) approach with one statute mile visibility mini- Beech Baron 55 Beech Bonanza Cessna 150 Cessna 172 Piper Archer Piper Seneca Beech Baron 58 Beech King Air 100 Cessna 402 Cessna 421 Piper Navajo Piper Cheyenne Swearingen Metroliner Cessna Citation I Super King Air 200 Cessna 441 DHC Twin Otter Super King Air 300 Beech 1900 Jetstream 31 Falcon 10, 20, 50 Falcon 200, 900 Citation II, III, IV, V Saab 340 Embraer 120 DHC Dash 7 DHC Dash 8 DC-3 Convair 580 Fairchild F-27 ATR 72 ATP A-I B-I less than 12,500 lbs. B-II less than 12,500 lbs. B-I, II over 12,500 lbs. A-III, B-III Lear 25, 35, 55 Israeli Westwind HS 125 Gulfstream II, III, IV Canadair 600 Canadair Regional Jet Lockheed JetStar Super King Air 350 Boeing Business Jet B 727-200 B 737-300 Series MD-80, DC-9 Fokker 70, 100 A319, A320 Gulfstream V Global Express B-757 B-767 DC-8-70 DC-10 MD-11 L1011 B-747 Series B-777 C-I, D-I C-II, D-II C-III, D-III C-IV, D-IV D-V Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type. Exhibit 3A AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES 03MP11-3A-3/31/04 Redmond, Oregon 3-5 mum, and Runway 10-28 meets the ARC B-III standards for a Global Posi- tioning System (GPS) approach with one statute mile visibility minimum. This will be sufficient through the planning period. TABLE 3B Airfield Safety Area Dimensional Standards (feet) Roberts Field Runway 4-22 ARC C-IV Standards Runway 10-28 ARC B-III Standards Runway Safety Area (RSA) Width Length Beyond Runway End 500 1,000 500 1,000 300 600 300 600 Runway Object Free Area (OFA) Width Length Beyond Runway End 800 1,000 800 1,000 800 600 800 600 Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Width Length Beyond Runway End 400 200 400 200 400 200 400 200 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Inner Width Outer Width Length 1,000 1,750 2,500 1,000 1,750 2,500 500 1,000 1,800 500 700 1,000 Source: FAA Airport Design Computer Program, Version 4.2D. AIRFIELD CAPACITY An airport?s airfield capacity is ex- pressed in terms of its annual service volume (ASV). Annual service volume is a reasonable estimate of the maxi- mum number of operations that can be accommodated in a year. Annual ser- vice volume accounts for annual dif- ferences in runway use, aircraft mix, and weather conditions. The airport?s annual service volume was examined utilizing FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and De- lay. FACTORS AFFECTING ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME Exhibit 3B graphically represents the various factors included in the calcula- tion of an airport?s annual service vol- ume. These include airfield character- istics, meteorological conditions, air- craft mix, and demand characteristics (aircraft operations). These factors are described below. Airfield Characteristics The layout of the runways and taxi- ways directly affect an airfield?s capac- ity (as does radar coverage). This not only includes the location and orienta- tion of the runways, but the percent- age of time that a particular runway or combination of runways is in use. Additional airfield characteristics in- clude the length, width, load bearing strength, and instrument approach capability of each runway at the air- port, which determine the type of air- craft that may operate on the runway and if operations can occur during poor weather conditions. 3-6 ? RUNWAY CONFIGURATION The existing runway configuration at Roberts Field consists of two intersect- ing runways: Primary Runway 4-22 and Crosswind Runway 10-28. Run- way 10-28 intersects Runway 4-22 2,800 feet from the Runway 4 thresh- old. A full-length parallel taxiway is available to each runway. ? RUNWAY USE Runway use relates to the type of air- craft operating on that runway and the amount of time that runway is in use. Aircraft operations to a particu- lar runway are determined by the load bearing strength of the runway, in- strument approach capability, and wind conditions. Wind conditions are examined for both visual and inclem- ent weather conditions. Runway 4-22 is equipped with an in- strument approach to the Runway 22 end and has a load bearing strength capable of accommodating the full range of aircraft currently using the airport. A GPS approach is available to Runway 10 with one statute mile visibility. Ideally, maximum runway capacity is achieved when all runways at an airport are able to accommodate the entire fleet mix of aircraft. While Runway 10-28 has a similar length to Runway 4-22, the width and load bearing capacity limit its use to gen- eral aviation, small business jet, and regional airline aircraft. Therefore, the capacity of the existing runway system is less than if these aircraft could operate on both runways. Runway use is normally dictated by wind conditions. The number of take- offs and landings are generally deter- mined by the speed and direction of the wind. It is generally safest for air- craft to takeoff and land into the wind, avoiding crosswind (wind that is blow- ing perpendicular to the travel of the aircraft) or tailwind components dur- ing these operations. Prevailing winds at Roberts Field are in a northeast- southwest direction, leading to greater use of Runway 4-22. However, during light wind conditions or situations when the crosswind to Runway 4-22 exceeds allowable thresholds, Runway 10-28 is used simultaneously with Runway 4-22. ? EXIT TAXIWAYS Exit taxiways have a significant im- pact on airfield capacity since the number and location of exits directly determines the occupancy time of an aircraft on the runway. The airfield capacity analysis gives credit to exits located within a prescribed range (3,000 to 5,500 feet) from a runway?s threshold. This range is based upon the mix index of the aircraft that use the runway. The exits must be at least 750 feet apart to count as sepa- rate exits. Under these criteria, Run- way 4-22 is credited with three exits and Runway 10-28 is credited with two exits. Meteorological Conditions Weather conditions have a significant affect on airfield capacity. Airfield ca- pacity is usually highest in clear Exhibit 3B AIRFIELD CAPACITY FACTORS 03MP11-3B-4/5/04 AIRFIELD LAYOUT WEATHER CONDITIONS OPERATIONS VFR PVC AIRCRAFT MIX AIRFIELD LAYOUT WEATHER CONDITIONS OPERATIONS AIRCRAFT MIX A&BA&BA&B Single Piston Twin Piston C Commuter Commercial Jet Business Jet C Touch-and-GoOperations Arrivals andDepartures Total AnnualOperations JFMAMJJASOND 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Number of Exits Redmond, Oregon 3-7 weather, when flight visibility is at its best. Airfield capacity is diminished as weather conditions deteriorate and cloud ceilings and visibility are re- duced. As weather conditions deterio- rate, the spacing of aircraft must in- crease to provide allowable margins of safety. The increased distance be- tween aircraft reduces the number of aircraft which can operate at the air- port during any given period. Conse- quently, this reduces overall airfield capacity. There are three categories of meteoro- logical conditions, each defined by the reported cloud ceiling and flight visi- bility. Visual flight rule (VFR) condi- tions exist whenever the cloud ceiling is greater than 1,000 feet above ground level and visibility is greater than three statute miles. VFR flight conditions permit pilots to approach, land, or takeoff by visual reference and to see and avoid other aircraft. Instrument flight rule (IFR) conditions exist when the reported cloud ceiling is less than 1,000 feet above ground level and/or visibility is less than three statute miles. Under IFR conditions, pilots must rely on instruments for navigation and guidance to the run- way. Safe separations between air- craft must be assured by following air traffic control rules and procedures. This leads to increased distances be- tween aircraft, which diminishes air- field capacity. The third category, poor visibility conditions (PVC), exists when cloud ceilings are less than 500 feet above ground level and visibility is less than one mile. According to wind data reported in the previous master plan, VFR conditions have occurred approximately 94 per- cent of the time, whereas IFR condi- tions have occurred five percent of the time. PVC conditions have occurred one percent of the time and have been included as part of IFR weather condi- tions in determining airfield capacity for Roberts Field. Aircraft Mix Aircraft mix refers to the speed, size, and flight characteristics of aircraft operating at the airport. As the mix of aircraft operating at an airport in- creases to include larger aircraft, air- field capacity begins to diminish. This is due to larger separation distances that must be maintained between air- craft of different speeds and sizes. Aircraft mix for the capacity analysis is defined in terms of four aircraft classes. Classes A and B consist of single and multi-engine aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Aircraft within these classifications are primarily associated with general aviation operations, but this classifica- tion also includes some air taxi and regional airline aircraft (i.e., Cessna Caravan used for air cargo service). Class C consists of multi-engine air- craft weighing between 12,500 pounds and 300,000 pounds. This broad clas- sification includes turboprops, busi- ness jets, and large commercial airline aircraft. All scheduled airline, cargo, and USFS aircraft operating at Rob- erts Field are included within Class C. All aircraft over 300,000 pounds are in Class D, including wide-body and jumbo jets. There are no Class D air- craft operating at the airport. 3-8 For the capacity analysis, the percent- age of Class C and D aircraft operat- ing at the airport is critical in deter- mining the annual service volume, as these classes include the larger and faster aircraft in the operational mix. The existing and projected operational fleet mix for the airport is summarized in Table 3C. Consistent with projec- tions prepared in the previous chapter, the operational fleet mix at the airport is expected to increase its percentage of Class C aircraft as regional airline operations increase and the business and corporate use of general aviation aircraft increases at the airport. The percentage of Class C aircraft is higher during IFR conditions as some general aviation operations are sus- pended during poor weather condi- tions. TABLE 3C Aircraft Operational Mix Roberts Field Weather Year A&B C D VFR (Visual) Existing (2004) Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term 75% 73% 70% 60% 25% 27% 30% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% IFR (Instrument) Existing (2004) Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term 55% 50% 45% 35% 45% 50% 55% 65% 0% 0% 0% 0% Demand Characteristics Operations, not only the total number of annual operations, but the manner in which they are conducted, have an important effect on airfield capacity. Peak operational periods, touch-and- go operations, and the percent of arri- vals impact the number of annual op- erations that can be conducted at the airport. ? PEAK PERIOD OPERATIONS For the airfield capacity analysis, av- erage daily operations during the peak month is calculated based upon data recorded by the air traffic control tower. These peak operational levels were calculated in Chapter Two for existing and forecast levels of opera- tions. Typical operational activity is important in the calculation of an air- port?s annual service level, as ?peak demand? levels occur sporadically. The peak periods used in the capacity analysis are representative of normal operational activity and can be ex- ceeded at various times through the year. ? TOUCH-AND-GO OPERATIONS A touch-and-go operation involves an aircraft making a landing and an im- mediate takeoff without coming to a full stop or exiting the runway. These operations are normally associated with general aviation training opera- 3-9 tions and are included in local opera- tions data recorded by the air traffic control tower. Touch-and-go activity is counted as two operations as there is an arrival and a departure involved. A high per- centage of touch-and-go traffic nor- mally results in a higher operational capacity because one landing and one takeoff occurs within a shorter time than individual operations. Touch- and-go operations are recorded by the air traffic control tower and currently estimated to account for approxi- mately 30 percent of annual opera- tions. ? PERCENT OF ARRIVALS The percentage of arrivals as they re- late to the total number of operations in the design hour is important in de- termining airfield capacity. Under most circumstances, the lower the per- centage of arrivals, the higher the hourly capacity. Except in unique cir- cumstances, the aircraft arrival- departure split is typically 50-50. At Roberts Field, traffic information indi- cated no major deviations from this pattern, and arrivals were estimated to account for 50 percent of design pe- riod operations. CALCULATION OF ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME The preceding information was used in conjunction with the airfield capac- ity methodology developed by the FAA to determine airfield capacity for Rob- erts Field. Hourly Runway Capacity The first step in determining annual service volume involves the hourly ca- pacity of each runway configuration in use. The percentage use of each run- way configuration in VFR and IFR weather, the amount of touch-and-go training activity, and the number and locations of runway exits become im- portant factors in determining the hourly capacity of each runway con- figuration. Considering the existing and forecast mix and the additional factors dis- cussed above, the hourly capacity of each runway configuration was com- puted. The use of both runways dur- ing VFR weather conditions results in the highest hourly capacity of the air- field. The 1998 Airport Master Plan estimated this to be 67 hourly opera- tions by 2017. As the mix of aircraft operating at an airport changes to include an increas- ing percentage of Class C aircraft, the hourly capacity of the runway system is also reduced. This is because larger aircraft require longer utilization of the runway for takeoffs and landings, and because the greater approach speeds of the aircraft require in- creased separation. This contributes to a slight reduction in the hourly ca- pacity of the runway system over the planning period. Annual Service Volume Once the weighted hourly capacity is known, the annual service volume can 3-10 be determined. Annual service vol- ume is calculated by the following equation: Annual Service Volume = C x D x H C = Weighted hourly capacity D = Ratio of annual demand to aver- age daily demand during the peak month H = Ratio of average daily demand to peak hour demand during the peak month The 1998 Airport Master Plan com- pared the annual service volume to existing and forecast operational lev- els. The estimated total of 64,890 op- erations in 1996 represented 44 per- cent of the existing ASV. Using the projected number of 104,810 annual operations by the year 2017, the ASV as a percentage of capacity was pro- jected to reach 72 percent. Consider- ing the additional runway exits added since the last master plan, the ASV was re-examined. Using the projected number of 91,370 annual operations by the year 2023, the ASV as a per- centage of capacity is projected to reach 74 percent in the long term. FAA Order 5090.3B, Field Formula- tion of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), indicates that improvements for airfield capac- ity purposes should be considered when operations reach 60 percent of the annual service volume. While small increases in airfield capacity have been achieved with the develop- ment of an additional taxiway exit and through better radar coverage, the best means to accommodate forecast demand at the airport will be with the construction of an additional runway. Typically, this involves the develop- ment of a parallel runway, as recom- mended in the previous master plan. This will be discussed further in the following chapter. AIRSIDE FACILITIES Airside facilities include those facili- ties that are related to the arrival, de- parture, and ground movement of air- craft. These components include: ? Runways ? Taxiways ? Navigational Approach Aids and Instrument Approaches ? Airfield Lighting, Marking, and Signage RUNWAY ORIENTATION For the operational safety and effi- ciency of an airport, it is desirable for the primary runway of an airport?s runway system to be oriented as close as possible to the direction of the pre- vailing wind. This reduces the impact of wind components perpendicular to the direction of travel of an aircraft that is landing or taking off (defined as a crosswind). FAA design standards specify that ad- ditional runway configurations are needed when the primary runway con- figuration provides less than 95 per- cent wind coverage at specific cross- wind components. The 95 percent wind coverage is computed on the ba- sis of crosswinds not exceeding 10.5 3-11 knots for small aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds and from 13 to 20 knots for aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds. Table 3D summarizes the wind cov- erage for Roberts Field. As shown in the table, the combined wind coverage exceeds 95 percent for all crosswind components. Therefore, based on this analysis, the runway system at the airport is properly oriented to prevail- ing wind flows and aircraft opera- tional safety is maximized. No new runway orientations are needed at the airport. TABLE 3D All-Weather Wind Coverage Roberts Field Runways 10.5 knots 13 knots 16 knots 20 knots Runway 10-28 Runway 4-22 Runways Combined 94.73% 90.90% 97.58% 97.09% 96.24% 99.40% 99.13% 99.07% 99.88% 99.78% 99.88% 99.98% Source: NOAA National Climatic Center ? Observations taken at Redmond, Oregon 1993-2002. Runway Length Runway length is the most important consideration when evaluating the fa- cility requirements for Regional Jets (RJs) at Roberts Field. Runway length requirements are based upon five primary elements: airport eleva- tion, the mean maximum daily tem- perature of the hottest month, runway gradient, critical aircraft type ex- pected to use the runway, and the stage length of the longest non-stop trip destination. Aircraft performance declines as ele- vation, temperature, and runway gra- dient factors increase. For calculating runway length requirements at Rob- erts Field, elevation is 3,081 feet above mean sea level (MSL); the mean maximum daily temperature of the hottest month is 86 degrees Fahren- heit. Runway end elevations vary by 20 feet (Runway 4-22) and 36 feet (Runway 10-28) across the airfield. In examining runway length require- ments at the airport, the primary runway should be designed to accom- modate the most demanding aircraft currently serving the airport, as well as aircraft expected to serve the air- port in the future. The FAA?s design software was used to verify generalized aircraft runway length requirements, which are sum- marized in Table 3E. If 100 percent of larger aircraft are to be accommo- dated on long stage lengths, 10,000 feet should be included in long range planning. If only 75 percent of the fleet is to be accommodated, then lengths of 8,300 feet should be consid- ered. With the current uncertainty in the future composition of the USFS tanker fleet, future planning should assume a broad range of future run- way length requirements. 3-12 TABLE 3E Runway Length Requirements Roberts Field AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA Airport elevation....................................................................................................3,081 feet Mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month........................................... 86? F Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation................................................36 feet Length of haul for airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds................................. 1,000 miles RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats 75 percent of these small airplanes ................................................................3,570 feet 95 percent of these small airplanes ................................................................4,430 feet 100 percent of these small airplanes ................................................................4,890 feet Small airplanes with 10 or more passengers seats...............................................4,900 feet Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less 75 percent of large airplanes at 60 percent useful load .................................5,920 feet 75 percent of large airplanes at 90 percent useful load .................................8,260 feet 100 percent of large airplanes at 60 percent useful load.................................7,250 feet 100 percent of large airplanes at 90 percent useful load .................................9,450 feet Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds .................................................................7,230 feet Reference: FAA?s airport design computer software utilizing Chapter Two of AC 150/5325-4A, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, no changes included. Consideration should be given to pro- viding available runway length on Runway 4-22 of up to 8,300 feet to handle 75 percent of the fleet. This length will also benefit many business jet operators and USFS aircraft on hot days, allowing them greater opera- tional flexibility. The alternatives analysis to be conducted in the follow- ing chapter will consider the potential for extending Runway 4-22 to provide useable runway length of 8,300 feet. Since the airfield capacity analysis has identified the need to plan for a parallel runway, an additional runway length analysis was undertaken. For short term planning, adequate length should be provided for ?75 percent of aircraft at 60 percent useful load,? for aircraft of 60,000 pounds or less. This results in a runway length of at least 5,900 feet. For long range planning, consideration should be given to pro- viding as much as 8,000 feet in length. The parallel runway should be planned at a minimum of 2,500 feet in separation to avoid wake turbulence factors, and 3,400 feet to avoid the need for special radar and/or divergent approaches. 3-13 Runway Width Runway width is primarily deter- mined by the planning ARC for the particular runway. FAA design stan- dards specify a minimum width of 150 feet for Runway 4-22?s design group (IV), while a minimum of 100 feet should be provided for Runway 10-28?s design group (III). Each runway cur- rently meets the standard established by the FAA and should satisfy future needs with normal maintenance. Pavement Strength The most important feature of airfield pavement is its ability to withstand repeated use by aircraft of significant weight. The current strength rating on Runway 4-22 is 68,000 pounds sin- gle wheel loading (SWL), 110,000 pounds dual wheel loading (DWL), and 200,000 pounds dual tandem wheel loading (DTWL). Runway 10-28 has a current strength rating of 28,000 pounds SWL and 40,000 pounds DWL. The current strength ratings on Run- way 4-22 is sufficient for the fleet of aircraft currently serving, and ex- pected to serve, the airport in the fu- ture. However, consideration should be given to increasing the strength rating on Runway 10-28 to satisfy the requirements of aircraft up to 60,000 pounds. TAXIWAYS Taxiways are constructed primarily to facilitate aircraft movements to and from the runway system. Some taxi- ways are necessary simply to provide access between the aprons and run- ways, whereas other taxiways become necessary as activity increases at an airport to provide safe and efficient use of the airfield. Design standards for separation be- tween the runways and parallel taxi- ways are based upon the wingspan of the critical aircraft using the runway. Since this varies between the two runways, different standards apply. Runway 4-22 is served by a full-length parallel Taxiway F. The run- way/taxiway centerline separation of 400 feet meets the requirements for ARC C-IV. Taxiway F is only 50 feet in width, which falls short of the ARC C-IV standard, however, critical air- craft on the airfield do not justify wid- ening to 75 feet. It is recommended that the width of this taxiway remain at 50 feet until it requires major main- tenance, then be considered for poten- tial widening. The design standard for Runway 10-28 (B-III) was also examined. The cur- rent width of parallel Taxiway G (50 feet) meets this standard, as does the 400-foot runway/taxiway separation. Consideration may need to be given in the future for widening some of the entrance/exit and access taxiways on the airfield. The type and frequency of runway en- trance/exit taxiways can affect the ef- ficiency and capacity of the runway system. Right-angled exits require an aircraft to be nearly stopped before ex- iting the runway. Acute-angled (high speed) exits allow aircraft to slow to a safe speed, without stopping, before exiting the runway. A right-angled 3-14 exit (Taxiway N) was recommended in the last master plan and has since been added to Runway 4-22. AIRFIELD MARKING, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAGE In order to facilitate the safe move- ment of aircraft about the field, air- ports use pavement markings, light- ing, and signage to direct pilots to their destinations. Runway markings are designed according to the type of instrument approach available on the runway. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-1H, Marking of Paved Areas on Airports, provides the guidance necessary to design airport markings. Runway 4-22 has the necessary mark- ings for the ILS approach which serves the runway, while nonprecision in- strument markings exist on Runway 10-28. The markings on both of these runways will suffice through the plan- ning period. Taxiway and apron areas also require marking. Yellow centerline stripes are currently painted on all taxiway surfaces at the airport to provide this guidance to pilots. The apron areas also have centerline markings to indi- cate the alignment of taxilanes within these areas. Besides routine mainte- nance of the taxiway striping, these markings will be sufficient through the planning period. Airport lighting systems provide criti- cal guidance to pilots during nighttime and low visibility operations. Runway 4-22 is equipped with high intensity runway lighting (HIRL), while Run- way 10-28 is equipped with medium intensity runway lighting (MIRL). These will be adequate through the planning period. Effective ground movement of aircraft at night is enhanced by the availabil- ity of taxiway lighting. Medium in- tensity taxiway lighting (MITL) is in- stalled on some taxiways, with edge lighting or reflectors in use on taxi- lanes. The existing airfield lighting systems, while adequate in intensity, will require routine maintenance and upgrades during the planning period. Airfield signage provides another means of notifying pilots as to their location on the airport. A system of signs placed at several airfield inter- sections on the airport is the best method available to provide this guid- ance. Signs located at intersections of taxiways provide crucial information to avoid conflicts between moving air- craft. Directional signage instructs pilots as to the location of taxiways and terminal aprons. At Roberts Field, all signs installed at the taxi- way and runway intersections are lit. NAVIGATIONAL AND APPROACH AIDS Electronic and visual guidance to ar- riving aircraft enhance the safety and capacity of the airfield. Such facilities are vital to the success of the airport and provide additional safety to pas- sengers using the air transportation system. While instrument approach aids are especially helpful during poor weather, they are often used by com- mercial pilots when visibility is good. 3-15 There are currently six published in- strument approaches to Roberts Field. Instrument approaches are catego- rized as either precision or nonpreci- sion. Precision instrument approach aids provide an exact alignment and descent path for an aircraft on final approach to a runway, while nonpreci- sion instrument approach aids provide only runway alignment information. Most existing precision instrument approaches in the United States are instrument landing systems (ILS). At Roberts Field, Runway 22 is equipped with a precision instrument approach, while Runway 10-28 is equipped with a nonprecision instrument approach. With the advent of the Global Posi- tioning System (GPS), stand-alone in- strument assisted approaches that provide vertical guidance down to visibility minimums currently associ- ated with precision runways, will eventually be established. As a result, airport design standards that formerly were associated with a type of instru- ment procedure (precision/ nonpreci- sion) are now revised, to relate instead to the designated or planned approach visibility minimums. Existing Instrument Approaches As previously mentioned, a precision instrument approach is available to Runway 22. Utilizing this approach, a properly equipped aircraft can land at the airport with 200-foot cloud ceilings and one-half mile visibility for aircraft in any category. The ILS Runway 22 approach can also be utilized as a lo- calizer only or circling approach. When using only the localizer portion of the ILS (for course guidance only), the cloud ceilings increase to 400 feet above ground level for all aircraft categories and the visibility mini- mums increase to ? statute mile for aircraft in category D. When using the ILS approaches to land at a different runway end (de- fined as a circling approach), the cloud ceilings increase to 500 feet above ground for aircraft in categories A and B and 600 feet for aircraft in catego- ries C and D. The visibility mini- mums increase to ? statute mile for aircraft in category D. Global Positioning System The advent of technology has been one of the most important contributing factors in the growth of the aviation industry. Much of civil aviation and aerospace technology has been derived and enhanced from the initial devel- opment of technological improvements for military purposes. The use of or- biting satellites to confirm an air- craft?s location is the latest military development to be made available to the civil aviation community. The FAA has already approved the publication of thousands of ?overlay? GPS instrument approach procedures. Stand-alone GPS approaches using the Wide-Area Augmentation System (WAAS) will gradually be phased in to provide Category I approaches, while Local Area Augmentation Systems (LAAS) will provide Category I/II/III approaches. Approach lighting and runway lighting systems in use today will continue to be required for the de- sired approaches. 3-16 Visual Approach Aids In most instances, the landing phase of any flight must be conducted in vis- ual conditions. To provide pilots with visual guidance information during landings to the runway, electronic vis- ual approach aids are commonly pro- vided at airports. A four-light preci- sion approach path indicator (PAPI- 4L) is installed on the approach ends of Runways 22 and 28, while a four light visual approach slope indicator (VASI-4L) is installed on the approach ends of Runways 4 and 10. As most airports are replacing older VASIs with the PAPI system, consid- eration should be given to replacing the existing VASI-4L on the approach ends of Runways 4 and 10 with a PAPI-4L, which is less costly to main- tain and operate. Approach Lighting Approach lighting systems provide the basic means to transition from in- strument flight to visual flight for landing. The approach end of Runway 22 is equipped with a medium inten- sity approach lighting system (MALS) with runway alignment indicator lights (RAIL), or (MALSR). The exist- ing MALSR at the end of Runway 22 should be sufficient throughout the planning period. Runway end identifier lights (REILs) are flashing lights that facilitate iden- tification of the runway end. REILs are installed on both ends of Runway 10-28, as well as the end of Runway 4. These existing REILs are sufficient and should be maintained throughout the planning period. Weather Reporting The airport is equipped with an Automated Surface Observation Sys- tem (ASOS), which provides auto- mated aviation weather observations 24 hours per day. The system updates weather observations every minute, continuously reporting significant weather changes as they occur. The ASOS system reports cloud ceiling, visibility, temperature, dew point, wind direction, wind speed, altimeter setting (barometric pressure), and density altitude (airfield elevation cor- rected for temperature). LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS Landside facilities are those necessary for handling aircraft, passengers, and freight while on the ground. These facilities provide the essential inter- face between the air and ground transportation modes. The capacities of the various components of each area were examined in relation to projected demand to identify future landside fa- cility needs. TERMINAL AREA REQUIREMENTS Components of the terminal area com- plex include the terminal apron, vehi- cle parking area, and the various func- tional elements within the terminal 3-17 building. This section identifies the terminal area facilities required to meet the airport?s needs throughout the planning period. The requirements for the various ter- minal complex functional areas were determined with the guidance of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5360-13, Plan- ning and Design Guidelines for Airport Terminal Facilities and FAA Advisory Circle 150/5360-9, Planning and De- sign of Airport Terminal Facilities at Non-hub Locations. The consultant?s database for space requirements was also considered. Facility requirements were developed for the planning period based upon the forecast enplanement levels. It should be noted that actual need for construc- tion of facilities will be based upon en- planement levels rather than a fore- cast year. It is also important to note the impact that increased security is placing on facility requirements. Fu- ture requirements will include in- creased areas for the queuing of pas- sengers and additional security screening equipment. Exhibit 3C, which summarizes pas- senger terminal building functional area requirements for forecast en- planement levels, depicts the need for additional terminal area in the short term. The various functional areas of the terminal building are summarized as follows: ? Ticketing - includes estimates of the space necessary for the queuing of passengers at ticket counters, the linear footage of ticket count- ers, and the space necessary to ac- commodate baggage make-up and airline ticket offices. ? Departure Facilities - includes estimates of the space necessary for departure holdroom and the number of aircraft gate positions. Holdroom space and gate positions in excess of the requirements pre- sented in the exhibit are frequently necessary to accommodate individ- ual airline demands. ? Baggage Claim - includes esti- mates of the linear footage of bag- gage claim needed and space for passengers to claim baggage. ? Rental Cars - includes estimates of space necessary for the queuing of passengers at rental car count- ers, the space necessary for rental car offices, and the linear footage for rental car counters. ? Concessions - includes estimates of the space necessary to provide adequate concession services such as restaurant and retail facilities. ? Security Screening - includes es- timates of the amount of space re- quired to accommodate passenger screening devices, the queuing of passengers, and security officers? office area. ? Public Waiting Lobby - includes estimates of the amount of space to accommodate arriving and de- parting passengers. ? Terminal Area Automobile Parking - space required for long- term and short-term public park- 3-18 ing, employee parking, and rental car parking. ? Terminal Curb Frontage - in- cludes estimates of the linear foot- age of curb required to accommo- date the queuing of enplaning and deplaning passenger vehicles. At Roberts Field, the length of the terminal curb frontage is a function of the length of the terminal build- ing. Terminal Gate Capacity Several methods for estimating the number of required aircraft gate posi- tions were used to determine future gate requirements at the airport. Us- ing figures 4.1- 4.4 in Advisory Circu- lar 150/5360-13, these methods esti- mated the required number of gates based on peak hour utilization, daily utilization, and annual utilization. By examining airline flight schedules, peak hour operations were estimated at seven operations. Using these for- mulas, 10 and 20-year forecasts (of both low and high utilization) were de- termined. It was estimated that four gates will be needed at Roberts Field by the end of the planning period. However, the high number of over- nighting (R.O.N.) aircraft will require greater numbers of parking positions on the ramp. The exact number will vary depending on the number of car- riers and hub destinations. GENERAL AVIATION REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this section is to de- termine the landside space require- ments for general aviation hangar and apron parking facilities during the planning period. In addition, the total surface area needed to accommodate general aviation activities throughout the planning period is estimated. HANGARS Utilization of hangar space varies as a function of local climate, security, and owner preferences. The trend in gen- eral aviation aircraft, whether single or multi-engine, is towards more so- phisticated aircraft (and, conse- quently, more expensive aircraft); therefore, many aircraft owners prefer enclosed hangar space to outside tie- downs. The demand for aircraft storage han- gars is dependent upon the number and type of aircraft expected to be based at the airport in the future. For planning purposes, it is necessary to estimate hangar requirements based upon forecast operational activity. However, hangar development should be based upon actual demand trends and financial investment conditions. While a majority of aircraft owners prefer enclosed aircraft storage, a number of based aircraft will still tie- Counter Length (l.f.) Counter Area (s.f.) Ticket Lobby (s.f.) Airline Operations/Bag Make-up (s.f.) Aircraft Gates Holdroom Area (s.f.) Claim Display (l.f.) Claim Lobby Area (s.f.) TERMINAL SERVICES Rental Car Counter Length (l.f.) Office Area (s.f) Lobby (s.f.) Food/Beverage (s.f.) Retail (s.f.) Restrooms (s.f.) PUBLIC LOBBY Greeting Lobby/Seating (s.f.) Security Queuing Area (s.f.) AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION Offices/Conference Room (s.f.) TOTAL PROGRAMMED TERMINAL AREA (Excludes maintenance, storage, misc. areas). Public Short Term/Long Term Rental Car Employee 85 850 950 3,700 3 2,050 80 1,300 30 600 160 2,000 400 950 3,100 450 1,100 17,610 557 105 60 90 900 2,200 3,900 4 3,900 90 2,400 50 1,500 500 3,300 1,600 1,100 6,000 2,700 2,900 32,900 610 120 90 90 900 2,200 4,100 4 4,700 110 2,900 60 1,700 600 3,900 1,900 1,300 7,100 3,200 3,200 37,700 720 140 110 95 1,000 2,400 5,400 4 6,400 150 3,900 70 2,000 700 5,300 2,600 1,800 9,600 4,300 4,000 49,400 980 190 150 Source: Coffman Associates Analysis 03MP11-3C-4/8/04 Exhibit 3C PASSENGER TERMINAL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AUTO PARKING DEPARTURE FACILITIES BAGGAGE CLAIM TERMINAL SERVICES TICKETING 186,000 220,000 300,000CURRENTLYAVAILABLE ENPLANEMENTS Redmond, Oregon 3-19 down outside (due to the lack of han- gar availability, hangar rental rates, and/or operational needs). Therefore, enclosed hangar facilities should not be planned for each based aircraft. At Roberts Field, approximately 80 per- cent of the based aircraft are currently stored in enclosed hangar facilities. It is estimated that the percentage of based aircraft stored in hangars will remain near 80 percent through the planning period. Approximately 50 percent of the han- gared aircraft at Roberts Field are currently stored in T-hangars. The majority of aircraft currently stored in these hangars are single-engine. A planning standard of 1,200 square feet per based aircraft has been used to de- termine future requirements. The remaining 50 percent of hangared aircraft are stored in execu- tive/conventional hangars, which are designed for multiple aircraft storage. As the trend towards more sophisti- cated aircraft continues throughout the planning period, it is important to determine the need for more conven- tional/executive hangars. For execu- tive/conventional hangars, a planning standard of 1,200 square feet was used for single-engine aircraft, while a planning standard of 3,000 square feet was used for multi-engine, jet, and helicopters. These planning standards recognize that some of the larger busi- ness jets require a greater amount of space. Since portions of executive/con- ventional hangars are also used for aircraft maintenance, and servicing, requirements for maintenance/service hangar area were estimated using a planning standard of approximately 15 percent of the total hangar space needs. Future hangar requirements for the airport are summarized in Table 3F. As shown in the table, additional maintenance area will be required in the short term and additional T- hangar space will be required in the intermediate term. Chapter Four, Airport Development Alternatives, will examine the options available for hangar development at the airport and determine the best location for each type of hangar facility. Building space requirements for the sorting and transfer of air cargo was also examined. As mentioned in Chapter One, three all-cargo operators (Airborne Express, Fed Ex and UPS) offer air service at Roberts Field. Be- cause the air cargo sorting is handled in the general aviation areas, a plan- ning standard of 800 pounds of en- planed air cargo per square foot was used to determine building require- ments. This should be easily absorbed in the overall general aviation space needs. Separate air cargo sorting fa- cilities are not anticipated. 3-20 TABLE 3F Aircraft Storage Requirements Roberts Field Future Requirements Currently Available Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term Aircraft to be Hangared 88 104 120 152 Single-Engine Positions Multi-Engine Positions 75 13 86 18 96 24 114 38 Hangar Area Requirements (s.f.) T-Hangar Area Executive/Conventional Hangar Area Maintenance Area 56,800 180,800 9,600 53,700 82,200 20,400 64,800 104,400 25,400 85,200 150,600 35,400 Total Hangar Area (s.f.) 247,200 156,300 194,600 271,200 AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON A parking apron should provide for the number of locally-based aircraft that are not stored in hangars, and for those aircraft used for air taxi and training activity. Parking should be provided for itinerant aircraft (pas- senger and air freight) as well. As mentioned in the previous section, ap- proximately 80 percent of based air- craft at Roberts Field are currently stored in hangars. It is estimated that the percentage of based aircraft stored in hangars will be near 80 percent by the end of the planning period. For planning purposes, 25 percent of the based aircraft total will be used to determine the parking apron require- ments of local aircraft, due to some aircraft requiring both hangar storage and parking apron. Since the majority of locally-based aircraft are stored in hangars, the area requirement for parking of locally-based aircraft is smaller than for transient aircraft. Therefore, a planning criterion of 650 square yards per aircraft was used to determine the apron requirements for local aircraft. Along with based aircraft parking needs, transient aircraft parking needs must also be considered when determining apron requirements. A planning criterion of 800 square yards was used for single and multi-engine itinerant aircraft, and 1,600 square yards for itinerant jets. Total aircraft parking apron require- ments for general aviation are pre- sented in Table 3G. Currently, apron area at the airport totals approxi- mately 62,000 square yards, with ap- proximately 100 total tie-down posi- tions, which will be sufficient through the end of the planning period. 3-21 TABLE 3G General Aviation Aircraft Parking Apron Requirements Roberts Field Currently Available Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term Single, Multi-Engine Transient Aircraft Positions Apron Area (s.y.) 13 10,700 15 12,400 21 16,500 Transient Jet Aircraft Positions Apron Area (s.y.) 3 5,300 4 6,200 5 8,200 Locally-Based Aircraft Positions Apron Area (s.y.) 33 21,100 38 24,400 48 30,900 Total Positions Total Apron Area (s.y.) 100 62,000 50 37,100 57 43,000 74 55,600 SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS Various facilities that do not logically fall within classifications of airfield, terminal building, or general aviation areas have also been identified. These other areas provide certain functions related to the overall operation of the airport, and include aircraft rescue and firefighting, fuel storage, and air- port maintenance facilities. AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING Requirements for aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) services at an air- port are established under Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 139, which applies to the certification and operation of land airports served by any scheduled or unscheduled passen- ger operation of an air carrier using an aircraft with more than 9 seats. Paragraph 139.315 establishes ARFF index ratings, based on the length of the largest aircraft with an average of five or more daily departures. Roberts Field has been classified with Index B requirements, which apply to airports servicing aircraft less than 126 feet. Specifications have been developed for the trucks in terms of dry chemicals, water, and foam application agents they are required to carry. The ARFF equipment is located in a three-bay building located east of Redmond Air, along Taxiway G. This facility meets Index B requirements (with equip- ment and personnel). AIRPORT MAINTENANCE/ STORAGE FACILITIES Currently, Roberts Field has a 7,200 square-foot maintenance/storage buil- ding, which is located northwest of the ARFF facilities and a 2,400 square- foot maintenance garage, which is lo- cated north of the Runway 10 end. Al- though portions of conventional han- gars are also used for maintenance purposes, the aircraft storage re- quirements indicated a need for addi- tional maintenance area. Therefore, adequate area needs to be reserved in an alternate location. 3-22 FUEL STORAGE All aircraft fuel storage facilities at the airport are privately owned and operated. Butler Aircraft owns and operates four above-ground fuel stor- age tanks; two 10,000-gallon tanks for 100LL (located at the west end of the apron) and two 12,000-gallon tanks for Jet A (located near their large aircraft storage hangar). Redmond Air owns and operates two 12,000-gallon fuel storage tanks (one each for 100LL and Jet A), which are located along Taxi- way A, north of Taxiway G. Aircraft refueling is provided from several fuel- ing trucks. Storage requirements are normally based upon two-week usage require- ments. Generally, fuel tanks should be of adequate capacity to accept a full refueling tanker, which is approxi- mately 8,000 gallons, while maintain- ing a reasonable level of fuel in the storage tank. SUMMARY The intent of this chapter has been to outline the facilities required to meet potential aviation demands projected for the airport through the planning horizon. The next step is to develop a direction for implementation that will best meet these projected needs. The remainder of the master plan will be devoted to outlining this direction, its schedule, and costs. Redmond, Oregon Chapter Four AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 4-1 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Chapter Four Redmond, Oregon In the previous chapter, airside and landside facility needs that would satisfy projected demand over the planning period were identified. The next step in the master planning process is to evaluate the various ways these facilities can be provided. In this chapter, the facility needs will be applied to a series of airport development alternatives. The possible combination of alternatives can be endless, so some intuitive judgment must be applied to identify the alternatives which have the greatest potential for implementation. The alternatives analysis is an important step in the planning process since it provides the underlying rationale for the final master plan recommendations. The alternatives presented in this chapter provide a series of options for meeting short and long-range facility needs. Since the levels of commercial and general aviation activity can vary from forecast levels, flexibility must be considered in the plan. If activity levels vary significantly within a five-year period, the City of Redmond should consider updating the plan to reflect the changing conditions. Since the combination of alternatives can be endless and the budgeted time for alternative evaluation is limited, only the more prudent and fea- sible alternatives were examined. The alternatives presented in this chapter will be reviewed with the Citizens Advi- 4-2 sory Committee to allow for further refinement. Then, a master plan con- cept will be recommended and sub- jected to environmental reviews. Fol- lowing environmental reviews, up- dated airport layout plan drawings and a capital improvement program will be developed. However, a final decision with regard to pursuing a particular development plan which meets the needs of commercial and general aviation users rests with the City of Redmond. While the evaluation of airport devel- opment alternatives may always in- clude the ?no action? or ?no build? al- ternative, this alternative will eventu- ally reduce the quality of services pro- vided to the public and potentially af- fect the area?s ability to accrue addi- tional economic growth. While this study does not deal with the potential relocation of services to other airports, this option also exists. It would be difficult to duplicate the services and convenience of the cur- rent facility at a nearby airport and the economic and environmental costs of new site development are generally far greater than the cost of developing the existing site. It is sometimes pos- sible to relocate, or encourage the relo- cation, of some services. However, most of the services which local users find attractive are not easily met at nearby airports. Therefore, the mas- ter planning process must attempt to deal with the facility needs which have been identified in the previous chapter, providing a logical decision path which the City of Redmond can follow in meeting projected needs. BACKGROUND Prior to presenting airport develop- ment alternatives, it is helpful to re- view some of the previous airport planning efforts and the development that has occurred during the interven- ing years. Recounting recent (or ongo- ing) improvements will assist with the identification of current issues affect- ing future development options. Following completion of the last mas- ter plan in January 1998, the City pursued the following projects: ? Construction of Taxiway N (en- trance/exit taxiway) ? Reconstruction of Taxiway F (full- length) ? Reconstruction and expansion of air carrier ramp (8 positions/Q-400) ? Removal of a hill in front of the U.S. Forest Service (U.S.F.S.) ? Expansion of the air carrier termi- nal parking lots ? Construction of a new Aircraft Res- cue and Firefighting Facility (ARFF) ? Construction of a new airport maintenance facility ? Construction of new executive han- gars ? Construction of new facilities for the U.S.F.S. This updated master plan will identify new demands at the airport while con- tinuing to preserve the long term rec- ommendations of the 1998 Airport Master Plan. 4-3 INITIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Upon completion of the facility needs evaluation and a subsequent meeting with the Citizens Advisory Committee for the master plan study, a number of airport development considerations were outlined. These considerations, which have been grouped into airside, terminal/access, and general aviation categories, have been summarized in Exhibit 4A. While many of these development con- siderations are demand driven (as scheduled passengers, based aircraft, or operational levels increase at the airport), several are somewhat more general in nature, but remain as im- portant considerations in the master planning process. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE In analyzing and comparing costs and benefits of various development alter- natives, it is important to consider the consequences of no further develop- ment. The ?no action? alternative es- sentially considers keeping the airfield in its present condition, and not pro- viding for any improvements to exist- ing facilities. The primary result of this alternative, as in any growing air transportation market, would be the eventual inability of the airport to sat- isfy the increasing demands of the airport service area. As operations increase and the airport exceeds 60 percent of its capacity, the efficiency of the airfield system will deteriorate and delays for all airport users will increase. Based upon the aviation demand forecasts, the airport is expected to reach 74 percent of its capacity during the 20-year planning period. The efficiency of the airfield will diminish over time without en- hancements. The ramifications of the ?no action? alternative extend into impacts on the economic well being of the region. If facilities are not maintained and im- proved so that the airport maintains a pleasant experience to the visitor or business traveler, of if delays become unacceptable, then these individuals may consider doing their business elsewhere. Thus, the ?no action? alternative is in- consistent with the long term trans- portation system goals of the City of Redmond, which are to enhance local and interstate commerce. A policy of ?no action? would be considered an ir- responsible approach, affecting not only the long term viability of the air- port and the investment that has been made in it, but also the economic growth and development of the air- port?s service area. Therefore, the ?no action? alternative was not considered as prudent or feasible. AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES Airfield facilities are, by their very na- ture, a focal point of the airport com- plex. Because of their role, and the fact that they physically dominate a great deal of the airport?s property, airfield facility needs are often the most critical factor in the determina- 4-4 tion of viable airport development al- ternatives. In particular, the runway system requires the greatest influence on the identification and development of other airport facilities. Further- more, due to the number of aircraft operations, there are a number of FAA design criteria that must be consid- ered when looking at airfield im- provements. These criteria, depend- ing upon existing constraints around the airport, can have a significant im- pact on the viability of various alter- natives which are designed to meet airfield needs. RUNWAY CONSIDERATIONS The facility needs evaluation com- pleted in the previous chapter identi- fied the potential need for greater runway length due to aircraft flown by the United States Forest Service (U.S.F.S.). Since only Runway 4-22 has a strength rating to handle air- craft operated by the U.S.F.S. (or lar- ger turboprop or jet aircraft), and this runway provides 99.07 percent wind coverage (at 16 knots) for larger air- craft, runway length requirements for these aircraft were evaluated only for Runway 4-22. The U.S.F.S. and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) canceled 2004 firefighting contracts for 33 large air- tankers in May 2004, siting National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations stemming from three wing-loss accidents. After all 33 airtankers were effectively grounded via contract cancellation, congres- sional hearings spurred the FAA, USFS, and BLM to jointly draft crite- ria for returning the aerial airtankers to service. Airtanker operators were asked to submit information packages designed to satisfy this criteria. Orion P-3A airtankers will be among the first reviewed, and it is believed that these aircraft will have a reason- able chance of being returned to ser- vice quickly. Assessments of other tanker types will follow as soon as pos- sible. Meanwhile, federal agencies are handling fires with single-engine air- tankers, helicopters, and water- scoopers, and without the aid of the ?heavy? airtankers. The previous master plan recom- mended an ultimate runway length of 8,700 feet on Runway 4-22 (a 1,660- foot extension to the Runway 4 end). However, based upon the type of air- tankers which may be used by the U.S.F.S. in the future, a lesser exten- sion may be considered in short-term planning. A useable runway length of 8,000-8,700 feet was initially consid- ered. Exhibit 4B depicts an initial 1,460-foot extension to the Runway 4 end, which will lengthen the runway to 8,500 feet. Runway 4-22 has also been examined for the possibility of an ultimate length of 10,000 feet, which could be achieved with a 1,500-foot extension to the Runway 22 end. This alternative is also shown on Exhibit 4B. With any proposed runway extension, the airport sponsor will be required to submit adequate justification for the project to the FAA. This may include letters from individual operators, itemizing aircraft types, stage lengths, and typical loads. Exhibit 4A DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS 03MP11-4A-6/14/04 AIRSIDE CONSIDERATIONS Provision for perimeter road on Runway 10 end Provision for an ultimate length of 10,000 feet on Runway 4-22 and upgrade to a Category II approach on Runway 22 Realignment of Highway 126 to remove from RPZ and/or allow for Runway 4-22 extension Realignment of Veterans Way/Airport Way intersection to remove from RPZ on Runway 10 end Provisions for a new 7,000' x 150' runway (parallel to Runway 4-22), maintaining adequate separation for simultaneous operations (with capability for 8,000') Extension of Taxiway C to a full-length parallel taxiway Upgrade of taxiways/exits to meet current design standards Placement of new airport surveillance radar (ASR) on airport property TERMINAL/ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS Terminal building and parking lot expansion Entrance road realignment Provision for segregated air cargo facilities Planning for long-term midfield terminal location GENERAL AVIATION CONSIDERATIONS Provide additional hangar capacity Provide leasable parcels for general aviation development Redmond, Oregon Exhibit 4BAIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE A 03MP11-4B-8/31/04 Airport Way A Airport Way USFS Drive Highway 126Highway 126Highway 126 USFS Drive NORTH 01,0002,000SCALE IN FEET 4 22 LEGEND NN Existing Airport Property LineUltimate PavementRunway Safety Area (RSA)Object Free Area (OFA)Precision Object Free Area (POFA)Object Free Zone (OFZ)Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Future Radar SiteFuture Radar SiteFuture Radar SiteFuture MALSR Future MALSRFuture MALSR N o r t h U n i t M a i n C a n a l N o r t h U n i t M a i n C a n a l Redmond, Oregon Runway 10-28 (7,006' x 100') J D T 218' Taxiway G J 70' 50' 50' 50' 75' 75' D D Taxiway C Taxiway G 218' Runway 10-28 (7,006' x 100') D Taxiway A T Taxiway A Ultimate Runway Leng U Ultimate Runway Leng Approximately Existing RPZExisting RPZ 500' x 1,010' x 1,700'500' x 1,010' x 1,700' Existing RPZ500' x 1,010' x 1,700' 218' 2 218' Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500'1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' 1,460' Extension 1 1,460' Extension EE Taxiway F T Taxiway F HH 50' 5 50' HH 50' 5 50' 75' 50' D 50' D Taxiway G 75' 75' D 75' D 218' Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700'1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700' Existing RPZ 500' x 700' x 1,000'500' x 700' x 1,000' Veterans Way Taxiway C NN Taxiway F T Taxiway F 50' NN 50' 5 50' 218' 2 218' 1,500' Extension 1 1,500' Extension Existing RPZExisting RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500'1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' Existing RPZ1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' MALSR M (existing) ( (existing) Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500'1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' Future RPZ1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' Existing RPZExisting RPZ 500' x 700' x 1,000'500' x 700' x 1,000' Existing RPZ500' x 700' x 1,000' Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700'1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700' Future RPZ1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700' 218' Taxiway G Taxiway G J 70' J 70' J Taxiway C 50' 50' 4-5 Whenever an airport master plan study is undertaken, an evaluation of land uses in the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) should be a normal consid- eration, especially if there are existing objects in the RPZ, including roads. The FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300- 13 states that the function of the RPZ is ?to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground.? The RPZ includes the Runway Safety Area (RSA), the standard runway Object Free Area (OFA), and if applicable, the OFA Extension and Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ), as well as any stopway, clearway, threshold obstacle surface, or navaid critical area. The Airports Division, Northwest Mountain Region, has a policy (Land Policy 97-02) on the long term use of obligated airport land in the RPZ or land acquired for approach protection. In the past, land beyond present RPZ dimensions was acquired for ?clear zone? and ?approach protection.? Many airports in this region acquired this land with federal funds and agreed to a special condition that re- quired the land to be cleared. While each grant must be checked for the exact language, in most cases the spe- cial condition stated ?the sponsor agrees to prevent the erection or crea- tion of any structure or place of public assembly in the approach and transi- tion zone, except for navaids that are fixed by their functional purposes or any other structure approved by the FAA. Any existing structures or uses within the approach and transition zone will be cleared or discontinued unless approved by the FAA.? Highway 126 lies within the existing and ultimate RPZ of the Runway 22 end (and an extension of the runway). Therefore, the highway should be con- sidered for relocation. A possible highway realignment is depicted on Exhibit 4C. The secondary crosswind runway, Runway 10-28, should adequately serve users at its existing length of 7,006 feet. However, the Veterans Way/Airport Way intersection cur- rently lies within the current and fu- ture RPZ of the Runway 10 end. Ex- hibit 4D presents two possible scenar- ios for the realignment of these roads to clear the future RPZ. Both alternatives relocate Veterans Way to the north, while Airport Way is shifted west. Alternative A depicts a ?T? intersection with a left turn only lane onto Veterans Way and through traffic onto Airport Way. Alternative B depicts a triangle intersection, al- lowing traffic to merge in either direc- tion. Exhibit 4D also depicts the Object Free Area (OFA) and the OFA Exten- sion. The OFA dimensional standards for a B-III runway specify a length of 600 feet beyond the runway end and a width of 800 feet (centered on the runway line). Extension of the OFA beyond the standard length to the maximum extent feasible is encour- aged. TAXIWAY CONSIDERATIONS Taxiways are primarily constructed to facilitate aircraft movements to and from the runway system. The avail- ability of entrance and exit taxiways 4-6 can affect the overall airfield effi- ciency. Taxiway considerations for Roberts Field have been depicted on Exhibit 4B and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Several provisions for existing taxi- ways are planned and include the fol- lowing: the reconstruction of Taxiways A (design underway now), B, and C; widening Taxiway D to 75 feet and straightening a portion of Taxiway D (north of Taxiway C); the reconstruc- tion of a portion of Taxiway G (north of Runway 4-22) and widening a por- tion of Taxiway G (between Taxiway F and Runway 4-22) to 75 feet to ac- commodate the U.S.F.S. aircraft exit- ing Runway 4-22; the extension of Taxiway H (south of Runway 4-22); the reconstruction of a portion of Taxiway J (north of Runway 10-28); and the extension of Taxiway N (south of Runway 4-22). The extension of Taxiway C to a full- length parallel taxiway was recom- mended in the previous chapter. Taxiways serving Runway 10-28 should meet a 50-foot width standard. Exhibit 4B also depicts the addition of a full-length parallel taxiway (50 feet wide) on the south side of Runway 4-22, which will allow access for future development. Standards require a 400-foot separation between the taxi- way centerline and the runway center- line. PROPOSED PARALLEL RUNWAY The airfield capacity analysis in the previous chapter also identified the need to plan for a new parallel run- way. For short term planning, ade- quate length should be provided for the critical commercial aircraft (the regional jet or Q-400). This results in a runway length of approximately 7,000 feet and a width of 150 feet. Long term planning should consider an extension to 8,000 feet to meet the needs of a greater percentage of the fleet. Exhibit 4E presents three dif- ferent layouts for the proposed paral- lel runway. The first alternative depicts the layout presented in the 1998 Master Plan, which recommended an ultimate length of 8,700 feet for Runway 4-22, and a future parallel runway (Runway 4R-22L) with a length of 6,900 feet. A 3,400-foot separation was recom- mended between the parallel runways to provide simultaneous Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) capability, although simultaneous IFR capability at this separation (based upon standards at the time) required special FAA ap- proval and radar equipment. The minimum separation has since been reduced to 3,000 feet (with special ap- provals and radar). When runway spacing is less than 3,400 feet, but not less than 3,000 feet, the localizer azimuth stations in the close runway pair must be aligned at least 2 1/2o divergent from each other, but not more than 3o and an electroni- cally scanned (E-Scan) radar with an updated interval of 1.0 second must be deployed. Simultaneous non-radar departures require a parallel runway centerline separation of at least 3,500 feet. How- 03MP11-4C-8/31/04 USFS Drive Highway 126 Exhibit 4C HIGHWAY 126 REALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE Highway 126 NORTH SCALE IN FEET 0 1,200 2,400 RUNWAY EXTENSION EXISTING RUNWAYEXISTING RUNWAY 22 Highway 126 Realignment Highw ay 1 26 Re ali gn me nt Highw ay 1 26 Re ali gn me nt Approximately LEGEND Existing Airport Property Line Ultimate Pavement Ultimate Roads Runway Safety Area (RSA) Object Free Area (OFA) Precision Object Free Area (POFA) OFA Extension Object Free Zone (OFZ) Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Existing RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' Existing RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' USFS Drive Redmond, Oregon Future RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' Future RPZ Golf CourseGolf CourseGolf Course Airport Way 600' 200' SW Veterans Way SE Veterans Way S SE Veterans Way 800' 8 800' 03MP11-4D-7/1/04 Golf CourseGolf CourseGolf Course Airport Way 600' 200' SW Veterans Way SE Veterans Way S SE Veterans Way V e t e r a n s W a y R e l o c a t i o n V e t e r a n s W a y R e l o c a t i o n V e t e r a n s W a y R e l o c a t i o n V e t e r a n s W a y R e l o c a t i o n 03MP11-4D-9/1/04 Exhibit 4DVETERANS WAY/AIRPORT WAY REALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE AALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE BALTERNATIVE B A i r portWayRelo c a t i o n A i r portWayRelo c a t i o n 05001,000SCALE IN FEET NORTH EXISTING/SHORT TERMIMPROVEMENTSEXISTING/SHORT TERMIMPROVEMENTS Golf CourseGolf CourseGolf Course Airport Way 800' 8 800' LEGEND Airport Property LineUltimate PavementPavement to be RemovedRelocated RoadsRunway Safety Area (RSA)Object Free Area (OFA)OFA ExtensionObject Free Zone (OFZ)Future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Redmond, Oregon Approximately 600' 200' SW Veterans Way SE Veterans Way S SE Veterans Way Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700'1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700' Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700'1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700' 800' 8 800' Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700'1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700' A i r portWayRelo c a t i o n A i r portWayRelo c a t i o n Exhibit 4EAIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE B - PARALLEL RUNWAY 03MP11-4E-9/7/04 NORTH 01,5003,000SCALE IN FEET ALTERNATIVE 1ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 3ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 2ALTERNATIVE 2 4L 4L 4L 4R 4R 22L LEGEND Airport Property LineUltimate PavementRunway Safety Area (RSA)Object Free Area (OFA)Precision Object Free Area (POFA)Object Free Zone (OFZ)Future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 4R 22L Ultimate Runway 4L-22R (8,7 U Ultimate Runway 4L-22R (8,7 Ultimate Runway 4 U Ultimate Runway 4 Ultimate Runway 4R U Ultimate Runway 4R Ultimate Runway 4R-22L (7,000 x 150') U Ultimate Runway 4R-22L (7,000 x 150') 22L 400' 400' 3,400' 1,660' Extension 1 1,660' Extension 400' 1,460' Extension 1 1,460' Extension 3,500' 400' 400' 400' 2,500' 400' 400' 400' Redmond, Oregon 1,460' Extension 1 1,460' Extension Approximately 4-7 ever, the airport is in the process of installing B16 radar, which will de- crease the parallel runway centerline separation standard to 2,500 feet, which is presented in the second al- ternative. This layout depicts the Runway 4R end flush with the 1,460- foot extension to the Runway 4 (future Runway 4L) end, allowing the opposite end to intersect with Runway 10-28. The third alternative shows a 3,500- foot separation between the parallel runways. While the addition of the radar will decrease the runway center- line separation standard to 2,500 feet, this greater separation allows for more potential development between the parallel runways. Initially, a parallel taxiway on the in- side of the proposed runway is recom- mended. Ultimately, a parallel taxi- way could be added to the outside based upon landside development needs. Design standards indicate a 400-foot separation between the run- way centerline and the parallel taxi- way centerline. Exit taxiways have been reflected at intervals to maxi- mize airfield capacity. TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES Five alternatives for expansion of the existing terminal facilities have been developed by the terminal architect. These alternatives were presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee at the meeting held on July 15, 2004. Following the meeting, a refined al- ternative for the terminal expansion was developed. A series of drawings has been included in an appendix to this master plan. AIR CARGO FACILITIES Currently, air cargo operators serving the airport use existing pavement for parking and transfer onto trucks while the airlines handle air cargo at the terminal. Generally, air cargo facili- ties should be segregated from com- mercial air carrier or general aviation facilities. The amount of truck and delivery van traffic which can be gen- erated from an air cargo complex is an important consideration, as is the abil- ity to expand apron buildings. Due to the limited area available in the ter- minal for handling cargo, it would be desirable to provide a segregated area for air cargo facilities. Exhibit 4F depicts the proposed loca- tion of an air cargo facility southwest of the terminal building. This location would segregate the cargo activity from other activities on the airport. A small building could be provided here, with adequate area adjacent to the building for truck court and passenger vehicle needs. Traffic generated by cargo vans and trucks should be segregated from other airport traffic. From this loca- tion, truck traffic could be routed di- rectly onto Airport Way. However, development in this area will first re- quire the extension of utilities and the construction of new roads. 4-8 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES The facility needs evaluation projected the need for as many as 80 additional storage positions, for both small and large aircraft. Most of the hangar de- velopment in the past has occurred on the east ramp and in the area west of Taxiway A. Limited building area re- mains in these locations and other ar- eas will need to be considered. The potential locations for hangar devel- opment in these and other areas have been identified on Exhibit 4F. The exhibit depicts a row of seven in- dividual hangars west of and parallel to Taxiway A. FBO expansion and maintenance building/area expansion is also depicted along Taxiway G. The area west of the U.S.F.S. facilities is also another option for hangar de- velopment. Exhibit 4F depicts four rows of T-hangars in this area, which could provide storage for approxi- mately 40 aircraft. An extension of Taxiway D would provide access to this area. A conventional hangar is also depicted on this exhibit, west of the Taxiway D extension. The apron could also be extended southeast to reach Taxiway D. Another potential location for future general aviation development is the area north of the Runway 10 end. The exhibit depicts a configuration of large box hangars, as well as a row of box hangars in this location which could provide storage for an additional 20-25 aircraft. An additional apron area could also be provided in front of these hangars. A conventional hangar is also depicted on this exhibit, west of the Taxiway D extension. The apron could also be extended southeast to reach Taxiway D. An additional main- tenance area could be provided in a building northeast of the terminal fa- cilities. The area east of the Runway 4-22 and Runway 10-28 intersection should be reserved for future large hangar de- velopment. A portion of this area has already been filled with material that was removed from the hill in front of the U.S.F.S. facilities. However, the rest of this area would need to be filled, then utilities and roads ex- tended into the area. NAVIGATIONAL AND APPROACH AIDS Electronic and visual guidance to ar- riving and departing aircraft enhance safety and utilization of the airfield. Such facilities are vital to the opera- tional success of the airport and en- hance the safety of passengers using the airport. While instrument ap- proach aids are especially helpful dur- ing poor weather, they often are used by commercial pilots when visibility is above instrument flight rule condi- tions. Instrument Approach Aids The existing instrument approach aids at Roberts Field include a precision instrument approach to one runway end. Runway 22 has a Category I In- strument Landing System (CAT I ILS), consisting of a glide slope, local- Exhibit 4FLANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 03MP11-4F-11/24/04 Airport Way A Airport Way USFS Drive Highway 126Highway 126Highway 126 USFS Drive NORTH 06001,200SCALE IN FEET Refer to TerminalRefer to Terminal Area PlanArea Plan Refer to TerminalArea Plan Box HangarsBox HangarsBox HangarsT-Hangars T-Hangars T-Hangars Cargo BuildingCargo BuildingCargo Building ConventionalConventional HangarHangar FutureFuture DevelopmentDevelopment PotentialPotential FutureDevelopmentPotential Approximately IndividualIndividual HangarsHangars Future Helicopter PadsHelicopter Pads Veterans Way Apron ExpansionApron ExpansionApron ExpansionBox Hangar Box HangarBox Hangar LEGEND Airport Property LineUltimate PavementPavement to be RemovedUltimate BuildingsBuilding Restriction Line (BRL)Runway Safety Area (RSA)Object Free Area (OFA)OFA ExtensionObject Free Zone (OFZ)Future Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ)Future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Apron/HangarApron/Hangar ExpansionExpansion Redmond, Oregon MaintenanceMaintenance Building ExpansionBuilding Expansion 4-9 izer, middle marker, and outer marker. Runway 22 is also equipped with a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway align- ment indicator lights (MALSR). In addition, the approach is supple- mented by a Runway Visual Range (RVR) system to provide information on the runway visibility. The mini- mums for use of CAT I ILS approaches are 200-foot cloud ceilings and one- half mile visibility (2,400 RVR). A Category II ILS approach is recom- mended on Runway 22. A Category II instrument approach has the potential to reduce the mini- mums to 100-foot ceilings and one- fourth mile visibility (1,200 RVR). A Category II ILS upgrades a CAT I sys- tem through the addition of dual elec- tronic equipment, an inner marker beacon, upgraded marking and light- ing systems, and one or more addi- tional runway visual ranges. In addi- tion, the glideslope may need to be re- located and the localizer performance improved in order to achieve FAA specifications for Category II authori- zation. The following requirements must be met for any Category II establishment or upgrade of an existing ILS: ? The candidate must meet all ap- propriate FAA technical standards and requirements, which can be found in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Appendix 16. ? The airport must install and main- tain the required facilities and equipment necessary to supple- ment the CAT II approach. ? The air carrier(s) which will utilize the CAT II facilities must be able to provide CAT II approved crews and equipment. ? The airport must have reached 2,500 air carrier actual annual in- strument approaches (AIAs) for the past three fiscal years. ? CAT II systems to be procured un- der FAA Facilities and Equipment for runways meeting the previous four conditions must be validated by a benefit/cost analysis by the Of- fice of Aviation Policy and Plans. For visibility minimums of less than three-fourth statute miles, a precision object free area (POFA) is required. A POFA is defined as an object free area centered on the runway centerline, be- ginning at the runway threshold, 200 feet long and 800 feet wide. Nonprecision instrument approaches are available to Runway 10-28, which will be sufficient through the planning period. Visual Approach Aids Currently, a four-light precision ap- proach path indicator (PAPI-4L) is in- stalled on the approach ends of Run- ways 22 and 28, while a four-box vis- ual approach slope indictor (VASI-4L) is installed on the approach ends of Runways 4 and 10. As mentioned in the previous chapter, most airports are replacing older VASIs with the PAPI system. Consideration should be given to replacing the existing VA- SIs on Runways 4 and 10 with PAPIs, 4-10 which are less costly to maintain and operate. PAPIs are also recommended on both ends of the proposed parallel runway. Airfield Marking And Lighting Runway markings are designed ac- cording to the type of approach avail- able on the runway. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-1H, Standards for Airport Markings, provides the guid- ance necessary to design an airport?s markings. The precision markings on Runway 4-22 and the nonprecision markings on Runway 10-28 should be adequate for the future uses of these runways. The proposed parallel run- way should be marked with precision markings. Taxiway markings will need to be added to all taxiway addi- tions, as well as to any new apron ar- eas. Airport lighting systems provide criti- cal guidance to pilots during nighttime and/or poor visibility. Runway 4-22 is equipped with high intensity runway lighting (HIRL) and Runway 10-28 is equipped with medium intensity run- way lighting (MIRL). All taxiways at the airport are equipped with medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL). HIRL should be installed on the pro- posed parallel runway and MITL should be installed on all taxiway ad- ditions. DEVELOPMENT OF NON-AVIATION PROPERTIES Roberts Field provides the region with several functions: commercial, air freight, and general aviation services; aerial fire support through the U.S. Forest Service; medical and law en- forcement air support; and develop- ment sites for the commercial/ indus- trial sector. While all but the last of these functions are directly dependent on the ability of Roberts Field to pro- vide facilities which meet their respec- tive need, economic development is not specifically dependent upon the opera- tional capabilities of the airport. While proximity or access to airport services may be desirable for some in- dustrial firms, most of the potential tenants will not have an aviation con- nection. In addition, firms would be required to pay fair market rental value. The airport may provide a site and support services as an alternative location within the overall availability of properties that are zoned and mas- ter planned for commercial/industrial uses in the Redmond area. In that sense, the airport sites may compete with other locations that are devel- oped by private firms, individuals, non-profit foundations, and other mu- nicipal agencies. The City can support a wide variety of discretionary uses on the airport, in- cluding: airport-related commercial service businesses; aviation-related business; aviation/aerospace manufac- turers; non-aviation industrial/ com- mercial uses; and low-density uses in approach/transition areas. 4-11 AIRPORT-RELATED COMMERCIAL SERVICE BUSINESSES The airport can offer location advan- tages for commercial businesses that neither support the airport operations nor provide services to users of the airport, such as motels, restaurants, car rental agencies, service stations, and small executive offices that pro- vide services and facilities for business travelers. In many locations, these businesses are accommodated in off- airport locations, especially where air transportation plays a relatively minor role in the overall commercial activity of the area. The location of the airport adjacent to Highways 97 and 126 makes it suitable for many of these uses. AVIATION-ORIENTED BUSINESSES Roberts Field has played a key role in providing a location for this type of business. These firms generally re- quire direct access to the airfield, al- though some firms (such as parts sup- pliers and avionics repair shops) often operate from locations not directly ac- cessible to the airfield. However, through-the-fence operations should not be allowed, and the City should enact an ordinance to prevent such proposals from being considered in the future. There is also a wide variety of compa- nies that prefer to locate on airports because they have an orientation to aviation through their products, mar- kets, or operations. These include many firms that operate their own aircraft in addition to using commer- cial air services. Several successful commercial airparks have been devel- oped around the country on airport property. AVIATION/AEROSPACE MANUFACTURERS Consolidation of the industry in recent years has created fewer options for aviation/aerospace manufacturers. With the recent resurgence of general aviation aircraft manufacturing, sev- eral of these companies have opened new manufacturing plants, although these facilities are frequently located at general aviation airports (not com- mercial services airports). Typically, these companies will locate in areas with an aviation-oriented labor base. Many manufacturers of specialized parts or components do not require sites on an airport, but their aviation orientation makes a general aviation airport a preferred location. NON-AVIATION INDUSTRIAL/ COMMERCIAL USES While the City should give priority consideration in its real estate policy to firms that are aviation- oriented, it should not preclude using their avail- able properties to attract other indus- trial/commercial activities. Creating strong business activities near the airport will create beneficial effects and a favorable climate for the poten- tial attraction of aviation-related com- panies. 4-12 ROBERTS FIELD BUSINESS CENTER The City completed a development plan for the Roberts Field Business Center in June 1999. The initial phase of the plan was developed to col- lect and evaluate data on the 86.11- acre site within the airport area, pro- vide an objective analysis regarding the site, identify suitable uses (includ- ing commercial and light industrial), identify cost estimates of infrastruc- ture improvements needed to make the site ?market ready,? and create a conceptual development plan for the park. A committee was established to oversee the planning study and to make recommendations. This site is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Redmond along Highway 126 and within the airport property. Access to the site is pro- vided from Highway 97 via Airport Way and Veterans Way. The Juniper Golf Course abuts the site to the west and the U.S.F.S. Redmond Air Center development abuts the site to the east. To the north is Highway 126 and va- cant property zoned Open Space by the City. The Burlington Northern/Santa Fe main line is located to the west of the golf course, approximately 3,000 feet from the site. Rail service to the business park is not anticipated. The site is relatively flat and vegeta- tion within the site consists mainly of grasses and sage brush. The site is zoned General Commercial by the City of Redmond and it does not lie within the floodplain. Plans for the site de- velopment include a policy relating to the development of a Campus Indus- trial Park, with Campus Industrial zoning standards, for new industry in a park-like setting. As depicted on Exhibit 4G, commercial/industrial development is recommended for the site with a combination of aviation and non-aviation related development. Water is provided by the City of Red- mond. The site is currently served by a 12-inch main located along Veterans Way. The City?s water plan identifies a future 12-inch main extension from the airport to the north. Because of the substantial costs to provide a looped water connection to the north, the initial phase of development should utilize the existing 12-inch main along Veterans Way. Continued development or a large water user will require the extension to the north. Sanitary sewer collection and treat- ment is also provided by the City of Redmond. An existing eight-inch gravity main located in Veterans Way currently serves the site, as well as adjacent airport property to the south. The City has indicated that there is about 100,000 gallons per day avail- able capacity from this eight-inch wa- ter line. The topography of this site will allow for the extension from the existing sewer to serve about 40-50 percent of the site area. The remain- der of the site would need to pump to gravity lines extended from Veterans Way or gravity drain to the north and west. New mains, as proposed by the City?s sewer master plan, would have to be constructed north and west to accomplish this. Stormwater drainage in the area is by infiltration. However, the typical USFS Drive Highway 126 03MP11-4G-9/1/04 Exhibit 4G ROBERTS FIELD BUSINESS CENTER SCALE IN FEET 0 600 1,200 Golf Course LEGEND Airport Property Line Ultimate Pavement Ultimate Roads Runway Protection Zone Retail/Flex/Office Flex/Office Business Service Center Flex/Retail Airport Related Service/Flex Airport Related Light/Medium Industrial LAND USE LEGEND RSA OFA OFA OFZ OFZ NORTH Redmond, Oregon Approximately 4-13 method of infiltration is through dry- wells and it is anticipated that devel- opment of this site will require con- struction of storm drains and drywells. Phase II of the Roberts Field Business Center project was completed in May 2000. The purpose of Phase II was to objectively review the possibility of further integrating the adjacent golf course into the development of the business center. Phase II of the pro- ject builds on the information and master plan developed in Phase I of the project and focuses on the refine- ment of the development plan and fea- sibility of the golf course/business park consolidation. SUMMARY The process utilized in assessing air- side and landside development alter- natives involved an analysis of long- term requirements and growth poten- tial. Current airport design standards were reflected in the analysis of run- way and taxiway needs, with consid- eration given to the safety areas re- quired by the FAA at runway ends. As design standards may change in the future, revisions may need to be made in the plan which could affect future development options. Upon review of this chapter by the City of Redmond and Citizens Advi- sory Committee, a final master plan- ning concept will be developed which fulfills the 20-year demands of the planning period. As any good long- range planning tool, it should remain flexible to unique opportunities which may be presented to the airport. The remaining portions of the master plan will be directed towards the refine- ment of the final concept, the prepara- tion and phasing of a detailed capital improvement program, and an evalua- tion of funding options currently available to the City of Redmond for implementation of the plan. Redmond, Oregon Chapter Five AIRPORT PLANS & LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 5-1 AIRPORT PLANS & LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Chapter Five Redmond, Oregon The airport master planning process for Roberts Field has evolved through the development of forecasts of future demand, facility needs assessments, and the evaluation of airport development alternatives. The planning process has included the development of four working papers, distributed to a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and discussed at coordination meetings held throughout the study process. The coordination of the planning effort has allowed the direct input of each of these representatives into the ongoing planning effort, which has resulted in the development of a master plan concept. The purpose of this chapter is to present the master planning concept in narrative and graphic form. The planning process will include one additional coordination meeting with the CAC. At that time, a draft final master plan report will be prepared and presented to the City of Redmond. Upon approval of the final master plan document, a final technical report will be prepared for the study. RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT The recommended master plan con- cept, depicted on Exhibit 5A, provides for anticipated airside and landside needs over the twenty-year planning period (the aerial photograph used in this exhibit was taken in July 2004). This will allow the facility to meet the growing demands of commercial, air cargo, and general aviation users. While a mid-field area (between the 5-2 parallel runways) has been reserved for long-term commercial terminal and related aviation-use areas, it should be recognized that planning studies are underway to provide for an expansion of the existing terminal building which will be reflected in this plan. AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has established design criteria to define the physical dimensions of runways and taxiways, and the imaginary clearance surfaces sur- rounding the runway system. The de- sign standards also define the separa- tion criteria for the placement of land- side facilities. As discussed earlier in Chapter Three, FAA design criterion is a function of the critical design air- craft or ?family? of aircraft which con- duct a minimum of 500 or more itiner- ant operations (landings and takeoffs) each year. The design category is measured by the wingspan of the air- craft, and their approach speed. As a commercial service airport, Rob- erts Field must also comply with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.) Part 139, Certifi- cation of Airports. This regulation prescribes the rules governing the cer- tification and operation of land air- ports which serve scheduled or un- scheduled passenger operations of an air carrier that is conducted with an aircraft having a seating capacity of more than nine passengers. Under F.A.R. Part 139, the airport must complete (and maintain) a certification manual which outlines their compli- ance under each provision of the regu- lation. The compliance level required is dependent on the airport?s design standards and the size and frequency of the aircraft in scheduled service. The master plan and airport layout drawings provide a means to present this information. The certification manual contains in- formation on the following topics: ? General Information ? Organization and Management ? Airport Information ? Maintenance and Inspection Program ? Operational Safety ? Hazardous Materials ? Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting ? Snow and Ice Control ? Airport Emergency Plan ? Wildlife Hazard Management ? Maintenance of Certification Manual The airport will need to continually monitor their compliance with Part 139 in each of the aforementioned ar- eas. The capital program (to be pre- sented in the following chapter) will include items which are necessary to maintain compliance with Part 139 and are reimbursable under the Air- port Improvement Program (AIP). As with many airports, runways, taxiways, and landside development areas are designed to differing design standards. The primary airport run- way (4-22) and associated parallel and connecting taxiways are currently de- signed to airport reference code (ARC) C-IV standards. The crosswind secon- 4R 22L Exhibit 5AMASTER PLAN CONCEPT 03MP11-5A-7/21/04 Airport Way A Airport Way USFS Drive Highway 126Highway 126Highway 126 USFS Drive NORTH Ultimate Runway Length U Ultimate Runway Length 4 22 LEGEND NNExisting Airport Property LineUltimate Airport Property LineUltimate PavementPavement to RehabilitatePavement to be AbandonedUltimate RoadsRunway Safety Area (RSA)Object Free Area (OFA)Precision Object Free Area (POFA)Object Free Zone (OFZ)Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ)Building Restriction Line (BRL)Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Future Radar SiteFuture Radar SiteFuture Radar SiteFuture MALSR Future MALSRFuture MALSR Redmond, Oregon SCALE IN FEET 01,2002,400 TerminalTerminal ReserveReserve TerminalReserve General AviationGeneral Aviation ReserveReserve General AviationReserve Connect toHighway 126 3,700' Runway 4R-22L (6,200' x R Runway 4R-22L (6,200' x BusinessBusiness CenterCenter BusinessCenterCounty Fairgrounds County FairgroundsCounty Fairgrounds AviationAviation ReserveReserve Non-Aviation ReserveReserve Non-AviationReserve Refer to TerminalRefer to Terminal Area PlanArea Plan Refer to TerminalArea Plan ConventionalConventional HangarHangar FutureFuture Helicopter PadsHelicopter Pads IndividualIndividual HangarsHangars IndividualHangars Box HangarsBox HangarsBox Hangars Cargo BuildingCargo BuildingCargo Building Existing RPZExisting RPZ 500' x 1,010' x 1,700'500' x 1,010' x 1,700' Existing RPZ500' x 1,010' x 1,700' Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700'1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700' Future RPZ1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700' Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500'1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' Future RPZ1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' Existing RPZExisting RPZ 500' x 1,010' x 1,700'500' x 1,010' x 1,700' Existing RPZ500' x 1,010' x 1,700' Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500'1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' 1,460' Extension 1 1,460' Extension 218' 2 218' Taxiway F T Taxiway F EE 50' 5 50' HH NN 1,500' Extension 1 1,500' Extension MALSR M (existing) ( (existing) Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500'1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' Future RPZ1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' Existing RPZExisting RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500'1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' Existing RPZ1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' 218' 2 218' T-HangarsT-HangarsT-Hangars RerouteHighway 126Box Hangar Box HangarBox HangarApron Expansion Apron ExpansionApron Expansion Approximately 50' 5 50' HHMaintenance Maintenance Building ExpansionBuilding Expansion NN 50' 5 50' Veterans Way Airport WayAirport Way RelocationRelocation Airport WayRelocation Veterans WayVeterans Way RelocationRelocation Veterans WayRelocation Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700'1,000' x 1,510' x 1,700' Existing RPZExisting RPZ 500' x 1,010' x 1,700'500' x 1,010' x 1,700' N o r t h U n i t M a i n C a n a l N o r t h U n i t M a i n C a n a l Future RPZFuture RPZ 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500'1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500' 5-3 dary runway (10-28) is designed to a B-III standard. The future parallel runway is designed to a C-III stan- dard. While aircraft in higher ARCs may occasionally use the airport, their use is not expected to result in an up- grade to the airport/runway ARC. Air carrier and air cargo areas are de- signed to airplane design group (ADG) III standards, USFS areas are de- signed to ADG IV standards, and gen- eral aviation areas are generally de- signed to lesser ADG II standards. Dimensional standards for safety, in- cluding runway/taxiway safety areas, runway protection zones, and other general physical planning require- ments, have been included as an ap- pendix to this document. AIRFIELD RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended master plan con- cept includes a series of improvements on the airfield to provide additional operational capability and taxiway ac- cess to areas which may be developed during the planning period. Runway extension projects are planned on each end of Runway 4-22, 1,460 feet (southwest) and 1,500 feet (northeast), providing an ultimate length of 10,000 feet. An extension of the runway to the northeast will re- quire the relocation of Highway 126. Runway 4 will ultimately have a pre- cision instrument approach and ap- proach light system. A parallel run- way is planned at a separation of 3,700 feet, south of the existing run- way. This runway will be 6,200 feet long, with a connecting taxiway to the existing runway. Precision instru- ment approaches with approach light- ing systems have been reflected on each runway approach. All runways will have full-length parallel taxiways added as development dictates their need. A straightening of Taxiway D will improve access onto the north ramp and future hangar areas. To clear runway protection zones, road realignments have been shown for Veterans Way and Highway 126. Fu- ture road extensions have been shown into the mid-field terminal reserve area between the parallel runways and to the east side of the airport property, which will be reserved for future general aviation development. AIR CARGO RECOMMENDATIONS Future demand for air cargo transfer and automobile parking will need to be met southwest of the existing ter- minal area on Airport Way. By con- structing a separate building and parking area in this location, air cargo activities can be segregated from the commercial passenger operations. Ini- tially, this is proposed for exclusive use by Horizon Air. GENERAL AVIATION RECOMMENDATIONS Individual storage hangars will con- tinue to infill on the west side, adja- cent to Taxiway A, while new areas will be created on the north side fol- lowing the extension of Taxiways C and D. Facilities requiring a larger footprint will be directed to the unde- 5-4 veloped area on the east side of the airfield. However, utilities and road- ways will first need to be extended into the area. LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS As an airport facility, a large land area needs to be reserved for airfield operations, landside development, and approach protection. This area must include the runway-taxiway system, critical areas for navaids, runway visibility zones, runway protection zones, and building setbacks. The re- maining property may then be desig- nated for specific development catego- ries. Terminal, aviation, non-aviation, and general aviation areas have been de- picted on the plan for each of these specific uses. The general boundaries for the business center have been de- picted on the north side of the airport. The USFS operations area consumes the remaining property on the north side not dedicated to general aviation or the business center. The existing terminal area expansion is noted by reference to the terminal area plan for added detail. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Noise contours have been created for existing and future (five-year) condi- tions. Noise levels are measured in decibels of day-night average sound levels or DNL. This measurement is then translated to contours, which de- pict the areas within the various DNL levels. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 provides guidelines for compatible land uses around an air- port based upon DNL. These guide- lines have been included as Table 5A. The Oregon Department of Environ- mental Quality (DEQ) defines noise- sensitive uses as property normally used for sleeping or used as schools, churches, hospitals, or public libraries. Residential uses usually present the most prevalent noise-sensitive use in a study area. Based upon the noise con- tours presented on Exhibits 5B, 5C, and 5D, existing and future contours of significance (65 DNL and above) remain nearly entirely on airport property. Detailed assumptions used in the derivation of the noise contours have been included as an appendix to this document. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWINGS The remainder of this chapter pro- vides a brief description of the airport layout drawings that will be submitted to the FAA for review and approval. These drawings have been prepared to graphically depict the ultimate airport layout, facility development, safety ar- eas, and imaginary surfaces that ex- tend beyond each runway end. The set includes: ? Title Sheet ? Airport Layout Plan ? Airport Layout Data Summaries ? Airport Airspace Drawing (mul- tiple sheets) ? Airport Airspace Profiles Exhibit 5BEXISTING NOISE CONTOURS 03MP11-5B-9/29/04 Veterans Way Airport Way A Airport Way Runway 4-22 (7,040' R USFS Drive Runway 4-22 (7,040' Runway 10-28 (7,006' x 100') Highway 126Highway 126Highway 126 USFS Drive North Unit Main Canal N North Unit Main Canal Redmond, Oregon 55555560 60 6565 7070 7575 6065707570 70 7575 6565 6060 5555 7075656055 NORTH LEGEND Existing Airport Property LineDNL Noise Contours Approximately 5555 5555 02,0004,000SCALE IN FEET Exhibit 5CINTERMEDIATE NOISE CONTOURS 03MP11-5C-9/30/04 Veterans Way Airport Way A Airport Way Ultimate Runway 4-22 U Ultimate Runway 4-22 USFS Drive Runway 10-28 (7,006' x 100') Highway 126Highway 126Highway 126 USFS Drive North Unit Main Canal N North Unit Main Canal Redmond, Oregon 55555560 60 6565 7070 7575 6065707570 70 7575 6565 6060 5555 7075656055 NORTH LEGEND Existing Airport Property LineDNL Noise ContoursUltimate Runway Extension Approximately 555555 02,0004,000SCALE IN FEET Exhibit 5DULTIMATE NOISE CONTOURS 03MP11-5D-11/30/04 Veterans Way USFS Drive Highway 126Highway 126Highway 126 USFS Drive Redmond, Oregon NORTH LEGEND Existing Airport Property LineDNL Noise ContoursUltimate Runway Extension Approximately 555555 02,0004,000SCALE IN FEET 5555 6060 6565 7070 7575 5555 55 6060 6565 7070 7575 556060656570757075 Runway 10-28 (7,006' x 100') Ultimate Runway 4-22 U Ultimate Runway 4-22 Airport Way A Airport Way North Unit Main Canal N North Unit Main Canal Runway 4R-22 R Ultimate (8,00 U Runway 4R-22 Ultimate (8,00 5-5 ? Inner Portion of the Approach Surface (multiple sheets) ? Terminal Area Plan (multiple sheets) ? Land Use Drawing ? Exhibit A (Property Map) Draw- ing The layout drawings are prepared on a computer-aided drafting system (AutoCAD) to allow easier updating and revision. The set provides de- tailed information on existing and fu- ture facilities. The drawings will be submitted to the FAA for approval and must reflect any future development under consideration for potential fund- ing with the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). TABLE 5A Federal Part 150 ? Land Use Compatibility* Guidelines Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) in Decibels Land Use Below 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Over 85 Residential Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N N N Mobile home parks Y N N N N N Transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N(1) N N Public Use Schools Y N(1) N(1) N N N Hospitals and nursing homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y 25 30 N N N Government services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(4) Parking Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Commercial Use Offices, businesses and Professional Y Y 25 30 N N Wholesale and retail building ma- terials, hardware and farm Equipment Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Retail trade general Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Communication Y Y 25 30 N N Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing general Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Photographic and optical Y Y 25 30 N N Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Y Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(8) Y(8) Livestock farming and breeding Y Y(6) Y(7) N N N 5-6 TABLE 5A (Continued) Federal Part 150 ? Land Use Compatibility* Guidelines Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) in Decibels Land Use Below 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Over 85 Manufacturing and Production (Continued) Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction Y Y Y Y Y Y Recreational Outdoor sports arena and spectator sports Y Y(5) Y(5) N N N Outdoor music shell, Amphitheaters Y N N N N N Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, parks, resorts, and camps Y Y Y N N N Golf courses, riding stables, and water recreation Y Y 25 30 N N * The designations contained in this table do not constitute a Federal determination that any use of land covered by the program is acceptable under Federal, State, or local law. The re- sponsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with local authorities. FAA de- terminations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally-determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally-determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. NOTES Y (YES) Land Use and related structures compatible without restrictions N (NO) Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure 25, 30, 35 Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated into design and construction of structure 5-7 TABLE 5A (Continued) Federal Part 150 ? Land Use Compatibility* Guidelines NOTES - (Continued) (1) Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, meas- ures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the re- duction requirements are often stated as 5, 10 or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. (2) Measures to achieve NLR 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (3) Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive ar- eas or where the normal noise level is low. (4) Measures to achieve NLR 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas or where the normal level is low. (5) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (6) Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. (7) Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. (8) Residential buildings not permitted. Source: Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) graphically presents the existing and ultimate airport layout. Data tables for runway and building information have been included on a separate drawing sheet. The ALP also depicts runway protection zones, property boundaries, building restriction lines, elevation information, wind informa- tion, runway and taxiway details, lo- cation of navaid equipment, and sev- eral tables to identify object penetra- tions or modifications to FAA stan- dards. This drawing must be ap- proved by the FAA before individual projects shown on the drawing are ap- proved for construction. AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWINGS To protect the airspace around the airport and approaches to each run- way end from hazards that could af- fect the safe and efficient operation of aircraft arriving and departing the airport, standards contained in 14 CFR, Part 77, Objects Affecting Navi- gable Airspace, have been established for use by local jurisdictions to control the height of objects near the airport. The Airport Airspace Drawings in- 5-8 cluded in the drawing set are a graphical depiction of these regulatory criterions. The Airspace Drawings assign three- dimensional imaginary surfaces to each runway, each approach, and the area immediately around and above the airport. These imaginary surfaces emanate from the runway centerline and are dimensioned according to visi- bility minimums associated with each runway approach. These surfaces in- clude the primary surfaces, approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, hori- zontal surface, and conical surface. The primary surface is an imaginary surface centered on the runway and extending 200 feet beyond the end of each runway. It has the same eleva- tion as the runway at any point along the runway. Each of the runways has primary surfaces 1,000 feet wide. An approach surface is established for each runway. The approach sur- face begins at the same width as the primary surface, and extends upward and outward for a distance which is based upon the category of the runway approach. For Runways 4L, 22R, 4R, and 22L (each with ILS approaches) the approach surfaces extend 50,000 feet from the edge of the primary sur- faces. The approach slope is 50:1 for the first 10,000 feet and 40:1 for the remaining 40,000 feet. Runways 10 and 28 have approach surfaces which extend 10,000 feet from the primary surface at an upward slope of 34:1. Each runway has a transitional sur- face that begins at the outside edge of the primary surface and approach sur- faces. This surface rises at a slope of 7:1 until it intersects with the hori- zontal surface which is established at an elevation 150 feet above the highest runway surface elevation. The outer edges of the horizontal surface connect with the transitional and conical surfaces at a distance of 10,000 from the primary surfaces at each runway end. The conical surface begins at the outer edge of the hori- zontal surface, continuing outward and upward for 4,000 feet at a slope of 20:1. INNER APPROACH SURFACE AND RUNWAY PROFILE DRAWINGS The Inner Approach Surface and Runway Profile Drawings are pre- pared for each runway approach sur- face and runway end, with details provided on runway protection zones, runway safety areas, object free areas, and obstacle free zones. It is intended to provide enlarged views and detail of the approaches for evaluation of ob- structions or potential obstructions. TERMINAL AREA DRAWINGS The Terminal Area Drawings provide greater detail of the facilities located between Airport Way and the runway. Details on existing terminal building expansion have not been included; however, drawings have been included in the appendix depicting a two-phase expansion of the existing terminal. It has also been assumed in this plan that additional terminal area will need to be reserved east of Runway 4- 5-9 22, for eventual construction of a mid- field terminal. LAND USE DRAWING The Land Use Drawing is provided in the drawings set to depict future uses of airport property and the current zoning (or land use) of properties out- side of existing airport property. Much of this information was included on Exhibit 5A, which depicts the master plan concept. The land use categories include: passenger terminal complex, general aviation, air cargo/airline maintenance, indus- trial/commercial, national guard, U.S. Forest Service, Deschutes County fairgrounds, airfield, open space/park reserve (OS/PR), tourist control (C5), general residential (R4), medium in- dustrial (M2), and light industrial (M1). The plan depicts the ultimate use of the airport property, taking into consideration potential runway- taxiway development, building restric- tion lines, and potential re- development areas. As facilities are proposed on airport property, they will need to be coordinated with the local FAA office. EXHIBIT A (PROPERTY MAP) DRAWING The Exhibit A (Property Map) Draw- ing provides information on land tracts owned (or released) by the City of Redmond. Tract numbers, property interest, acreage, and project number (as applicable) are provided on the drawing. Metes and bounds informa- tion is also provided for the airport pe- rimeter, and survey monuments and section corners are noted. This draw- ing identifies 1,980 acres as currently within the City of Redmond?s (airport property) ownership. SUMMARY The airport layout drawings and noise contours are designed to assist the City of Redmond and the FAA in deci- sion-making relative to future devel- opment. The plan considers antici- pated development needs based upon forecasts developed for a 20-year planning period, yet provides flexibil- ity should activity not occur exactly as forecast. Areas have been reserved for terminal, general aviation, and air cargo facilities which exceed the ex- pectations of this 20-year plan. The airspace drawings will need to be ac- cepted by the City of Redmond as part of the master plan, and may be used by Deschutes County for updates to the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone Ordinance (Title 18-County Zon- ing). This will help to ensure land use compatibility and restrict the heights of future structures which could pose a hazard to air navigation. In the following chapter, airport de- velopment schedules will be estab- lished based upon the operational re- quirements of the recommended air- port concept. Potential funding sources will be identified to provide for an analysis of airport funding re- quirements. Redmond, Oregon Chapter Six CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 6-1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Chapter Six Redmond, Oregon The successful implementation of the Roberts Field/Redmond Municipal Airport master plan will require the sound judgment on the part of the City of Redmond to meet changing needs. Among the more important factors influencing decisions to carry out a given recommendation are timing and airport activity. Both of these factors should be used as references in plan implemen- tation. Experience has indicated that problems have materialized from the standard time-based format of traditional planning documents. The problems center around their inflexibility and inherent inability to deal with unforeseen changes that may occur on the airport. While it is necessary for scheduling and budgeting purposes to consider the timing of airport development, the actual need for facilities is established by airport activity. Proper master planning implementation suggests the use of airport activity levels, rather than time as guidance for development. This chapter of the master plan is intended to become one of the primary references used by the City of Redmond for implementing the plan recommen- dations. Consequently, the following narrative and graphic presentations must provide understanding of each recommended development item. This understanding of the overall program will be critical in main- 6-2 taining a realistic and cost-effective program that provides maximum benefit to the City of Redmond and the Federal Aviation Administration. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND COST SUMMARIES Once the specific needs and improve- ments for the airport have been estab- lished, the next step is to determine a realistic schedule and cost for imple- menting the plan. This section exam- ines the overall cost of development and a demand-based schedule. The development schedule can be ini- tially established, dividing the im- provement needs into the three plan- ning horizons: short, intermediate, and long term. Table 6A summarizes the key activity milestones for each planning horizon. TABLE 6A Aviation Activity Planning Horizons Redmond Municipal Airport Base Year Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term Annual Operations (Total) Commercial Air Carrier General Aviation Military/USFS 54,378 12,800 36,128 1,250 63,170 13,300 43,700 1,250 71,570 13,800 50,700 1,250 91,370 15,000 67,400 1,250 Passenger Enplanements 147,106 186,000 220,000 300,000 Total Based Aircraft 110 130 150 190 The short term horizon covers items of highest priority, as well as items that should be developed as the airport ap- proaches the short term activity mile- stones. A terminal planning effort has recommended the expansion of the ex- isting terminal in the area adjacent to the existing ramp. The Phase I termi- nal program is reflected in a multi- year project through the short-term period. Other items in the short-term period include pavement rehabilita- tion, taxiway extensions, and exten- sion of utilities to the east side of the airfield. Because of their priority over the next five years, these items will need to be incorporated in the City of Redmond and FAA programming for the FY 2005-2009 programming period. How- ever, since the priorities will need to be reestablished each year for pro- gramming the projects which are in- tended to receive federal aid, the City and FAA will need to revisit the pro- gram each year. As the City reestablishes their projects and develops an updated five-year program, they will need to add pro- jects included in the intermediate planning period. While demand levels will change over time, projects may need to be accelerated or delayed. However, the master plan program 6-3 should remain viable over a multi-year period, before it becomes necessary to update the overall plan. Due to the conceptual nature of a mas- ter plan, implementation of capital projects should occur only after fur- ther refinement of their design and costs through architectural and engi- neering analyses. Under normal con- ditions, the cost estimates reflect an allowance for engineering and contin- gences that may be anticipated on the project. Capital costs presented in this chapter should be viewed only as estimates subject to further refine- ment during design. Nevertheless, these estimates are considered suffi- ciently accurate for performing the feasibility analyses in this chapter. Cost estimates for each development project have been presented in Table 6B and are given in current (2004) dollars, without future inflationary adjustment. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING Financing for capital improvements at Redmond Municipal Airport does not utilize any general tax monies. Rather, the contributors to the air- port?s development are its users, through a system of leases and fees. These sources include not only the rates and charges for airport use im- posed by the Redmond Municipal Air- port, but also federal airport im- provement programs (AIP) and pas- senger facility charge (PFC) revenues. Projects funded under these programs since 1993 have been itemized in Ta- ble 6C. The following paragraphs outline the key sources for funding. 6-4 TABLE 6B Roberts Field ? Redmond Municipal Airport 20-Year Capital Improvement Program Airport Master Plan 2004 Year(s) Project Description Total Cost Federal/ AIP Share Local/ PFC Share 2005 Perimeter Road Construction ? Runway 10 Terminal Building Expansion ? Phase 1 (Design) Taxiway D Reconstruction and Extension General Aviation Apron Reconstruction Subtotal $250,000 450,000 500,000 850,000 $2,050,000 $237,500 427,500 475,000 807,500 $1,947,500 $12,500 22,500 25,000 42,500 $102,500 2006 Taxiway G (North) Reconstruction Taxiway C (North & South) Reconstruction Taxiway C Extension ? South Terminal Building ? Phase 2 (Construction) Multi-Year Subtotal $2,340,000 2,350,000 4,800,000 3,000,000 $12,490,000 $2,223,000 2,232,500 4,560,000 1,500,000 $10,515,500 $117,000 117,500 240,000 1,500,000 $1,974,500 2007 Apron Expansion/Helipads Taxilane Development (Hangars) Terminal Building ? Phase 2 (Construction) Multi-Year Subtotal $555,000 480,000 3,000,000 $4,035,000 $527,250 456,000 1,500,000 $2,483,250 $27,750 24,000 1,500,000 $1,551,750 2008 Terminal Building ? Phase 2 (Construction) Multi-Year Veterans Way/Airport Way Relocation Utility Extension to East Side ? Phase 1 Subtotal $3,000,000 900,000 2,200,000 $6,100,000 $1,500,000 810,000 0 $2,310,000 $1,500,000 90,000 2,200,000 $3,790,000 2009 Utility Extension to East Side ? Phase 2 Master Plan Update Subtotal $2,200,000 250,000 $2,450,000 $0 225,000 $225,000 $2,200,000 25,000 $2,225,000 Subtotal Short Term (2005-2009) $27,125,000 $17,481,250 $9,643,750 2010- 2014 Runway 4-22 Extension ? West Install CAT I Approach (Runway 4L) Expand Maintenance Building Water and Sewer Connection ? West Side Re-route Highway 126 Master Plan Update Subtotal Intermediate Term (2010-2014) $5,640,000 1,500,000 350,000 4,700,000 1,500,000 250,000 $13,940,000 $5,076,000 1,350,000 315,000 2,350,000 1,350,000 225,000 $10,666,000 $564,000 150,000 35,000 2,350,000 150,000 25,000 $3,274,000 2015- 2024 Runway 4-22 Extension ? East Relocate CAT I Equipment (Runway 22) Parallel Runway (4R-22L) Install CAT I Approaches (Runway 4R-22L0 Parallel Taxiway K Parallel Taxiway L Taxiway E Connector Master Plan Update Subtotal Long Term (2015-2024) $5,700,000 750,000 16,200,000 3,000,000 10,000,000 7,200,000 2,460,000 250,000 $45,560,000 $5,130,000 675,000 14,580,000 2,700,000 9,000,000 6,480,000 2,214,000 225,000 $41,004,000 $570,000 75,000 1,620,000 300,000 1,000,000 720,000 246,000 25,000 $4,556,000 Grand Totals $86,625,000 $69,151,250 $$17,473,750 Sources: Cost estimates for pavement and utility extensions provided by Morrison Maierle, Inc. Cost estimates for terminal expansion provided by HNTB Corp. Notes: AIP ? Airport Improvement Program, PFC ? Passenger Facility Charge CAT I Approach consists of a localizer, glide slope, and medium intensity approach light system. 6-5 TABLE 6C Projects Receiving AIP or PFC Funding, 1993-2003 Redmond Municipal Airport FAA Fiscal Year Project Description Total Project Amount 1993 Reconstruct Runway 4/22, Including HIRLS Expand/Rehabilitate Aircraft Apron (PFC) Install Signs (PFC) Expand/Modify Terminal Building (PFC) Rehabilitate Runway 4/22, Lights, Electrical Vault, Windsock (PFC) Conduct Master Plan Update (Pavement Study) (PFC) Rehabilitate Runway 10/28, Markers, With Sock (PFC) $4,223,802 100,000 20,000 584,052 405,792 2,500 200,000 1994 Overlay Runway 10/28 Acquire Emergency Generator Rehabilitate Runway 10/28 (Design Only) Construct Electrical Vault Acquire Snow Removal Equipment $1,770,792 55,556 83,034 72,521 324,742 1995 Extend Taxiway C or G (Design) Acquire ARFF Vehicle (PFC) Conduct Feasibility Study (Parallel Taxiway C) $48,669 350,000 6,100 1997 Construct ARFF Station Install PAPI/Revise ALP Extend Taxiway G and Construct Taxiway J Master Plan Update $792,000 35,556 1,370,521 197,792 1998 Reconstruct Taxiway F (North) (Design Only) Acquire Handicap Lift $145,000 25,000 1999 Acquire Sweeper (PFC) Acquire Snow Removal Equipment (PFC) $122,222 222,222 2000 Construct Snow Removal Equipment Building (PFC) Rehabilitate Apron, Including Taxiway F South Terminal Bldg. (Design) Install Perimeter (Wildlife) Fencing $600,000 509,300 650,108 2001 Remove Obstructions (Line-of-sight) Rehabilitate Terminal Apron (Phase 2) Install Runway 4 REIL Install Runway 10 Distance-To-Go Signs Rehabilitate Taxiway F (PFC) $1,500,000 3,507,919 30,000 40,000 4,909,736 2002 Rehabilitate Terminal Apron Security Enhancements (100% Funding) Security Enhancements (90% Funding) Rehabilitate Taxiway F South (Phase 3) Revise ALP Install PAPI (Amendment to Project #1702) $1,555,556 28,000 879,097 555,556 5,556 58,858 2003 Rehabilitate Runway (Electrical Building) Rehabilitate and Relocate Airport Beacons (Required by Part 139) Update Runway, Taxiway, and Apron (PCI) $388,889 76,111 35,000 Source: FAA NPIAS Database, 2004. (PFC-funded projects noted in parentheses.) 6-6 FEDERAL GRANTS The United States Congress has long recognized the need to develop and maintain a system of aviation facilities across the nation for the purpose of national defense and promotion of in- terstate commerce. Various grants-in- aid programs to public airports have been established over the years for this purpose. The most recent legisla- tion was the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) of 1982. AIP has been reauthorized several times. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Invest- ment and Reform Act for the 21st Century covered four years (through federal fiscal year 2003), while Vision 100 ? Century of Aviation Reau- thorization Act covers FY 2004- 2007. The source for AIP funds is the Avia- tion Trust Fund. The Trust Fund is the depository for all federal aviation taxes such as those on airline tickets, aviation fuel, lubricants, tires and tubes, aircraft registrations, and other aviation-related fees. The funds are distributed under appropriations set by Congress to airports in the United States which have certified eligibility. The distribution of grants is adminis- tered by the Federal Aviation Admini- stration. Under the AIP program, examples of eligible development projects include the airfield, aprons, and access roads. Passenger terminal building im- provements (such as bag claim and public waiting lobbies) may also be eligible for FAA funding (in addition, TSA provides funding for terminal se- curity). However, improvements such as automobile parking, fueling facili- ties, utilities, hangar buildings, airline ticketing and airline operations areas are not generally eligible for AIP funds. The airport is eligible for 95 percent funding under Vision 100, al- though the FAA has recommended that airports only assume 90 percent participation after 2007 (when the cur- rent bill expires). The program provides funding for eli- gible projects at airports. Through an entitlement program, primary com- mercial service airports receive a guaranteed minimum of federal assis- tance each year, based on their en- planed passenger levels and Congres- sional appropriation levels. A primary airport is defined as any commercial service airport enplaning at least 10,000 passengers annually. Red- mond was the 193rd busiest primary airport in the U.S. in CY 2002. Under the current formula, airports enplaning at least 10,000 passengers annually are entitled to a minimum of $1,000,000. For the first 50,000 en- planements, the airport receives $15.60 per enplanement. For the next 50,000 enplanements, the airport re- ceives $10.40 per enplanement. The next 400,000 boardings provide $5.20 per enplanement. For the next 500,000, the airport receives $1.30 per enplanement. For all enplanements over one million, the airport receives $1.00 per enplaned passenger. 6-7 In addition, airports that have over 100 million pounds of landed weight by all-cargo carriers receive a cargo entitlement (Redmond does not qual- ify). This entitlement is based upon the airport?s percentage of the total landed weight at all eligible airports. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation In- vestment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21) adjusted alloca- tion formulas to increase entitlements over previous levels and to establish special set-asides for noise programs, general aviation and non-primary air- ports, and other special programs. Table 6D outlines estimates of annual entitlement funds for Redmond Mu- nicipal Airport for each of the plan- ning horizon milestones assuming the current entitlement formula remains in place over the planning period. In a number of cases, airports face ma- jor projects that will require funds in excess of the airport?s annual entitle- ments. Thus, additional funds from discretionary apportionments under AIP become desirable. The primary feature about discretionary funds is that they are distributed on a priority basis. These priorities are established by the FAA, utilizing a priority code system. Under this system, projects are ranked by their purpose. Projects ensuring airport safety and security are ranked as the most important pri- orities, followed by maintaining cur- rent infrastructure development, miti- gating noise and other environmental impacts, meeting standards, and in- creasing system capacity. Capacity projects requiring greater than $5 mil- lion in discretionary funding require a benefit-cost analysis to prove that the benefit-cost (B/C) ratio is greater than 1.0. Other funds can come through the Fa- cilities and Equipment (F&E) section of the FAA. As activity conditions warrant, the airport will be considered by F&E for various navigational aids to be installed, owned, and maintained by the FAA. TABLE 6D Potential FAA Entitlement Funds Redmond Municipal Airport Period Annual Enplanements Annual Entitlement Funding Level Current 147,106 $1,544,950 Short Term 186,000 $1,747,200 Intermediate Term 220,000 $1,924,000 Long Term 300,000 $2,340,000 Whereas entitlement monies are guaranteed on an annual basis, discre- tionary funds are not assured. Table 6B has outlined the amount of funding for the development program that Redmond will desire from the FAA. If the combination of entitlement and discretionary funding does not provide 6-8 enough capital for planned develop- ment, projects would either be delayed or require funding from the airport?s revenues or other authorized sources such as those described in the follow- ing subsections. PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES The Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 contained a provision for airports to levy passen- ger facility charges (PFCs) for the purposes of enhancing airport safety, capacity, or security, or to reduce noise or enhance competition. 14 CFR Part 158 of May 29, 1991, establishes the regulations that must be followed by airports choosing to levy PFCs. Passenger facility charges may be imposed by public agencies controlling a commercial service air- port with at least 2,500 annual pas- sengers with scheduled service. Au- thorized agencies were allowed to im- pose a charge of $1.00, $2.00, or $3.00 per enplaned passenger. Recent legis- lation (AIR 21) passed in early 2000, has allowed the cap to increase to $4.50. Redmond has been collecting at this level since November 1, 2001. Prior approval is required from the Department of Transportation (DOT) before an airport is allowed to levy a PFC. DOT must find that the pro- jected revenues are needed for specific, approved projects. Any AIP-eligible project, whether development or plan- ning related, is eligible for PFC fund- ing. Gates and related areas for the movement of passengers and baggage are eligible, as are on-airport ground access projects. Any project approved must preserve or enhance safety, secu- rity, or capacity; reduce/mitigate noise impacts; or enhance competition among carriers. PFCs may be used only on approved projects. However, PFCs can be util- ized to fund 100 percent of a project. They may be used as matching funds for AIP grants or to augment AIP- funded projects. PFCs can be used for debt service and financing costs of bonds for eligible airport development. These funds may also be commingled with general revenue for bond debt service. Before submitting a PFC ap- plication, the airport must give notice and an opportunity for consultation to airlines operating at the airport. PFCs are to be treated similar to other airport improvement grants, rather than as airport revenues, and will be administered by the FAA. Participat- ing airlines are able to retain up to eight cents per passenger for adminis- trative handling purposes. Redmond Municipal Airport has im- posed a PFC and is dedicating reve- nues from this source to several pro- jects. Table 6E outlines the esti- mated annual PFC revenue at $4.50 per enplaned passenger at each of the planning horizon thresholds. 6-9 TABLE 6E Potential PFC Revenues Redmond Municipal Airport Annual PFCs (at $4.50) Current $584,000 Short Term $738,000 Intermediate Term $873,000 Long Term $1,191,000 Note: Based upon 90 percent revenue pas- sengers and $0.08 per passenger to airlines for administration costs. LOCAL SHARE FUNDING The balance of project costs, after con- sideration has been given to grants, must be funded through local re- sources. Assuming federal funding, this essentially equates from 5 to 10 percent of the project costs if all eligi- ble FAA funds are available. A year-by-year cash flow has been in- cluded as Table 6F. The cash flow projects operating revenues and ex- penses, capital development items, an- ticipated federal funding, PFC reve- nues, and local match or bonding needs. There are several alternatives for local finance options for future development at the airport, including airport reve- nues, direct funding from the City, is- suing bonds, and leasehold financing. These strategies could be used to fund the local matching share, or complete the project if grant funding cannot be arranged. The capital improvement program has assumed that some landside facility development (e.g., private hangars) would be completed privately. Under this type of development, the City would complete the necessary infra- structure (e.g., ramp and taxiway) im- provements, as this development is grant-eligible. There are several municipal bonding options available through the City of Redmond including: general obligation bonds, limited obligation bonds, and revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are a common form of municipal bonds which are issued by voter ap- proval and secured by the full faith and credit of the City of Redmond. City of Redmond tax revenues are pledged to retire the debt. As instru- ments of credit, and because the com- munity secures the bonds, general ob- ligation bonds reduce the available debt level of the community. Due to the community pledge to secure and pay general obligation bonds, they are the most secure type of municipal bond and are generally issued at lower interest rates and carry lower costs of issuance. The primary disadvantage of general obligation bonds is that they require voter approval and are subject to statutory debt limits. This requires that they be used for projects that have broad support among the voters, and that they are reserved for projects that have highest public pri- orities. In contrast to general obligation bonds, limited obligation bonds (some- times referred to as Self-Liquidating Bonds) are secured by revenues from a local source. While neither general fund revenues nor the taxing power of the local community is pledged to pay 6-10 the debt service, these sources may be required to retire the debt if pledged revenues are insufficient to make in- terest and principal payments on the bonds. These bonds still carry the full faith and credit pledge of the local community and, therefore, are consid- ered, for the purpose of financial analysis, as part of the debt burden of the local community. The overall debt burden of the local community is a fac- tor in determining interest rates on municipal bonds. There are several types of revenue bonds, but in general they are a form of a municipal bond which is payable solely from the revenue derived from the operation of a facility that was constructed or acquired with the pro- ceeds of the bonds. For example, a Lease Revenue Bond is secured with the income from a lease assigned to the repayment of the bonds. Revenue bonds have become a common form of financing airport improvements. Revenue bonds present the opportu- nity to provide those improvements without direct burden to the taxpayer. Revenue bonds normally carry a higher interest rate because they lack the guarantees of general and limited obligation bonds. Leasehold financing refers to a devel- oper or tenant financing improve- ments under a long term ground lease. The obvious advantage of such an ar- rangement is that it relieves the com- munity of all responsibility for raising the capital funds for improvements. However, the private development of facilities on a ground lease, particu- larly on property owned by a munici- pal agency, produces a unique set of problems. Companies that want to own their property as a matter of fi- nancial policy may not locate where land is only available for lease. The existing leases for the airport have been summarized in tables which are attached as an appendix to this master plan. These leases have also been graphically depicted on an aerial base (and AutoCAD drawing) to depict the boundaries of existing leases on airport property. This has been un- dertaken to provide the sponsor with clear direction on the availability of leasable airport property (in addition to existing lease terms). By taking advantage of areas which are not needed for aviation-related develop- ment (identified on Sheet 11 of the airport layout drawings), the sponsor will optimize local share financing of future capital projects. IMPLEMENTATION Experience has indicated that prob- lems have materialized from the stan- dard format of time-based planning documents. These problems center around the plan?s inflexibility and in- herent inability to deal with new is- sues that develop from unforeseen changes that may occur after it is completed. The format used in the de- velopment of this Master Plan has at- tempted to deal with this issue by pro- viding more flexibility in the program. The primary issues upon which this Master Plan is based will remain valid for many years. The primary goal is for the airport to maintain a self- supporting position without sacrificing service to the public. Redmond, Oregon Appendix A GLOSSARY OF TERMS ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): see declared dis- tances. AIR CARRIER: an operator which: (1) performs at least five round trips per week between two or more points and publishes flight schedules which specify the times, days of the week, and places between which such flights are per- formed; or (2) transport mail by air pursuant to a current contract with the U.S. Postal Service. Certified in accor- dance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Parts 121 and 127. AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): a coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the operational (Aircraft Approach Category) to the physical char- acteristics (Airplane Design Group) of the airplanes intended to operate at the air- port. AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP): The latitude and longitude of the approxi- mate center of the airport. AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point on an airport?s usable runway expressed in feet above mean sea level (MSL). AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD): The drawing of the airport showing the layout of existing and proposed airport facilities. AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: a grouping of aircraft based on 1.3 times the stall speed in their landing configuration at their maximum certificated landing weight. The categories are as follows: ? Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. ? Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. ? Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. ? Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. ? Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots. AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): a grouping of aircraft based upon wingspan. The groups are as follows: ? Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet. ? Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet. ? Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet. ? Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet. ? Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet. ? Group VI: 214 feet or greater. AIR TAXI: An air carrier certificated in accordance with FAR Part 135 and autho- rized to provide, on demand, public transportation of persons and property by aircraft. Generally operates small aircraft ?for hire? for specific trips. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-1 AppendixAppendixAirport Consultants GLOSSARY OF TERMS AA AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT): a central operations facility in the terminal air traffic control system, consisting of a tower, including an associated instrument flight rule (IFR) room if radar equipped, using air/ground communications and/or radar, visual sig- naling, and other devices to provide safe and expeditious movement of terminal air traffic. AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CEN- TER (ARTCC): a facility established to provide air traffic control service to air- craft operating on an IFR flight plan within controlled airspace and principally during the enroute phase of flight. ALERT AREA: see special-use airspace. ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH (AIA): an approach to an airport with the intent to land by an aircraft in accordance with an IFR flight plan when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude. APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (ALS): an airport lighting facility which provides visual guidance to landing air- craft by radiating light beams by which the pilot aligns the aircraft with the extended centerline of the runway on his final approach and landing. APPROACH MINIMUMS: the altitude below which an aircraft may not descend while on an IFR approach unless the pilot has the runway in sight. AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER (ADF): an aircraft radio navigation sys- tem which senses and indicates the direction to a non-directional radio bea- con (NDB) ground transmitter. AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVA- TION STATION (AWOS): equipment used to automatically record weather con- ditions (i.e. cloud height, visibility, wind speed and direction, temperature, dew- point, etc...) AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMA- TION SERVICE (ATIS): the continuous broadcast of recorded non-control infor- mation at towered airports. Information typically includes wind speed, direction, and runway in use. AZIMUTH: Horizontal direction expressed as the angular distance between true north and the direction of a fixed point (as the observer?s heading). BASE LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its approach end. The base leg normally extends from the downwind leg to the intersection of the extended runway centerline. See ?traf- fic pattern.? BEARING: the horizontal direction to or from any point, usually measured clock- wise from true north or magnetic north. BLAST FENCE: a barrier used to divert or dissipate jet blast or propeller wash. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL): A line which identifies suitable building area locations on the airport. CIRCLING APPROACH: a maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft with the runway for landing when flying Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-2 a predetermined circling instrument approach under IFR. CLASS A AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace. CLASS B AIRSPACE: see Controlled Air- space. CLASS C AIRSPACE: see Controlled Air- space. CLASS D AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace. CLASS E AIRSPACE: see Controlled Air- space. CLASS G AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace. CLEAR ZONE: see Runway Protection Zone. CROSSWIND: wind flow that is not par- allel to the runway of the flight path of an aircraft. COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): a low power, low/medium frequency radio- beacon installed in conjunction with the instrument landing system at one or two of the marker sites. CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: airspace of defined dimensions within which air traf- fic control services are provided to instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual flight rules (VFR) flights in accordance with the airspace classification. Con- trolled airspace in the United States is designated as follows: ? CLASS A: generally, the airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to but not including flight level FL600. All persons must operate their aircraft under IFR. ? CLASS B: generally, the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL sur- rounding the nation?s busiest airports. The configuration of Class B airspace is unique to each airport, but typically consists of two or more layers of air space and is designed to contain all published instrument approach proce- dures to the airport. An air traffic control clearance is required for all air- craft to operate in the area. ? CLASS C: generally, the airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the air port elevation (charted as MSL) sur- rounding those airports that have an operational control tower and radar approach control and are served by a qualifying number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. Although individually tailored for each airport, Class C airspace typically consists of a surface area with a five nautical mile (nm) radius and an outer area with a 10 nautical mile radius that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation. Two-way radio communica- tion is required for all aircraft. ? CLASS D: generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the air port elevation (charted as MSL) sur- rounding those airport that have an operational control tower. Class D air space is individually tailored and con- figured to encompass published instru- ment approach procedures. Unless otherwise authorized, all Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-3 persons must establish two-way radio communication. ? CLASS E: generally, controlled airspace that is not classified as Class A, B, C, or D. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When designated as a surface area, the airspace will be configured to contain all instrument procedures. Class E airspace encom- passes all Victor Airways. Only aircraft following instrument flight rules are required to establish two-way radio communication with air traffic control. ? CLASS G: generally, that airspace not classified as Class A, B, C, D, or E. Class G airspace is uncontrolled for all aircraft. Class G airspace extends from the surface to the overlying Class E airspace. CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: see spe- cial-use airspace. CROSSWIND LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its upwind end. See ?traffic pattern.? DECLARED DISTANCES: The distances declared available for the airplane?s take- off runway, takeoff distance, accelerate- stop distance, and landing distance requirements. The distances are: ? TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): The runway length declared available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane taking off; ? TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway and/or clear way beyond the far end of the TORA; ? ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): The runway plus stopway length declared available for the acceleration and deceleration of an aircraft aborting a takeoff; and ? LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): The runway length declared available and suitable for landing. DISPLACED THRESHOLD: a threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway. DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME): Equipment (airborne and ground) used to measure, in nautical miles, the slant range A-4 1NM 3 NM 2 NM CLASS E 14,500 MSL Nontowered Airport 700 AGL 1,200 AGL 14,500 MSL Nontowered Airport Nontowered Airport Nontowered Airport 700 AGL 1,200 AGL CLASS G CLASS G CLASS G CLASS G CLASS AFL 60018,000 MSL CLASS AFL 60018,000 MSL LEGEND Above Ground Level Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet Mean Sea Level NOT TO SCALE - - - AGL FL MSL CLASS G Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for VFR Products," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993. CLASS B CLASS C CLASS B CLASS C CLASS D 40 n.m. 30 n.m. 20 n.m. 12 n.m. 40 n.m. 30 n.m. 20 n.m. 12 n.m. 20 n.m. 10 n.m. 20 n.m. 10 mi. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com distance of an aircraft from the DME navi- gational aid. DNL: The 24-hour average sound level, in A-weighted decibels, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels for the periods between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. as averaged over a span of one year. It is the FAA standard metric for deter- mining the cumulative exposure of individuals to noise. DOWNWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction opposite to landing. The downwind leg normally extends between the crosswind leg and the base leg. Also see ?traffic pat- tern.? EASEMENT: The legal right of one party to use a portion of the total rights in real estate owned by another party. This may include the right of passage over, on, or below the property; certain air rights above the property, including view rights; and the rights to any specified form of development or activity, as well as any other legal rights in the property that may be specified in the easement document. ENPLANED PASSENGERS: the total number of revenue passengers boarding aircraft, including originating, stop-over, and transfer passengers, in scheduled and non-scheduled services. FINAL APPROACH: A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg to the runway. See ?traffic pattern.? FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A provider of services to users of an airport. Such services include, but are not limited to, hangaring, fueling, flight training, repair, and maintenance. FRANGIBLE NAVAID: a navigational aid which retains its structural integrity and stiffness up to a designated maxi- mum load, but on impact from a greater load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a manner as to present the minimum haz- ard to aircraft. GENERAL AVIATION: that portion of civil aviation which encompasses all facets of aviation except air carriers hold- ing a certificate of convenience and necessity, and large aircraft commercial operators. GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing. The glideslope consists of the fol- lowing: 1. Electronic components emitting signals which provide vertical guidance by reference to airborne instruments during instrument approaches such as ILS; or 2. Visual ground aids, such as VASI, which provide vertical guidance for VFR approach or for the visual portion of an instrument approach and landing. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM: See ?GPS.? GPS - GLOBAL POSITIONING SYS- TEM: A system of 24 satellites Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-5 used as reference points to enable navi- gators equipped with GPS receivers to determine their latitude, longitude, and altitude. HELIPAD: a designated area for the takeoff, landing, and parking of heli- copters. HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: a long radius taxiway designed to expedite air- craft turning off the runway after landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus reducing runway occupancy time. INSTRUMENT APPROACH: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing, or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR): Rules governing the procedures for con- ducting instrument flight. Also a term used by pilots and controllers to indi- cate type of flight plan. INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS): A precision instrument approach system which normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: 1. Localizer. 4. Middle Marker. 2. Glide Slope. 5. Approach Lights. 3. Outer Marker. LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): see declared distances. LOCAL TRAFFIC: aircraft operating in the traffic pattern or within sight of the tower, or aircraft known to be departing or arriving from the local practice areas, or aircraft executing practice instrument approach procedures. Typically, this includes touch-and-go training opera- tions. LOCALIZER: The component of an ILS which provides course guidance to the runway. LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID (LDA): a facility of comparable utility and accuracy to a localizer, but is not part of a complete ILS and is not aligned with the runway. LORAN: long range navigation, an elec- tronic navigational aid which determines aircraft position and speed by measuring the difference in the time of reception of synchronized pulse sig- nals from two fixed transmitters. Loran is used for enroute navigation. MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM (MLS): an instrument approach and landing system that provides precision guidance in azimuth, elevation, and dis- tance measurement. MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): see special-use airspace. MISSED APPROACH COURSE (MAC): The flight route to be followed if, after an instrument approach, a land- ing is not affected, and occurring normally: 1. When the aircraft has descended to the decision height and has not established visual contact; or A-6 Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com 2. When directed by air traffic control to pull up or to go around again. MOVEMENT AREA: the runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airport which are utilized for taxiing/hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas. At those airports with a tower, air traffic control clearance is required for entry onto the movement area. NAVAID: a term used to describe any electrical or visual air navigational aids, lights, signs, and associated supporting equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc..) NOISE CONTOUR: A continuous line on a map of the airport vicinity connect- ing all points of the same noise exposure level. NONDIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB): A beacon transmitting nondirec- tional signals whereby the pilot of an aircraft equipped with direction finding equipment can determine his or her bearing to and from the radio beacon and home on, or track to, the station. When the radio beacon is installed in conjunction with the Instrument Land- ing System marker, it is normally called a Compass Locator. NONPRECISION APPROACH PRO- CEDURE: a standard instrument approach procedure in which no elec- tronic glide slope is provided, such as VOR, TACAN, NDB, or LOC. OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): an area on the ground centered on a runway, taxi- way, or taxilane centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by having the area free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): the airspace below 150 feet above the estab- lished airport elevation and along the runway and extended runway center- line that is required to be kept clear of all objects, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their function, in order to provide clearance for aircraft landing or taking off from the runway, and for missed approaches. OPERATION: a take-off or a landing. OUTER MARKER (OM): an ILS navi- gation facility in the terminal area navigation system located four to seven miles from the runway edge on the extended centerline indicating to the pilot, that he/she is passing over the facility and can begin final approach. PRECISION APPROACH: a standard instrument approach procedure which provides runway alignment and glide slope (descent) information. It is cate- gorized as follows: ? CATEGORY I (CAT I): a precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 200 feet and visibility not less than 1/2 mile or Runway Visual Range (RVR) 2400 (RVR 1800) with operative touchdown zone and runway centerline lights. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-7 ? CATEGORY II (CAT II): a precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 100 feet and visibility not less than 1200 feet RVR. ? CATEGORY III (CAT III): a precision approach which provides for approaches with minima less than Category II. PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDI- CATOR (PAPI): A lighting system providing visual approach slope guid- ance to aircraft during a landing approach. It is similar to a VASI but pro- vides a sharper transition between the colored indicator lights. PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA (POFA): an area centered on the extend- ed runway centerline, beginning at the runway threshold and extending behind the runway threshold that is 200 feet long by 800 feet wide. The POFA is a clearing standard which requires the POFA to be kept clear of above ground objects protruding above the runway safety area edge elevation (except for frangible NAVAIDS). The POFA applies to all new authorized instrument approach procedures with less than 3/4 mile visibility. PROHIBITED AREA: see special-use airspace. REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUT- LET (RCO): an unstaffed transmitter receiver/facility remotely controlled by air traffic personnel. RCOs serve flight service stations (FSSs). RCOs were established to provide ground-to- ground communications between air traffic control specialists and pilots at satellite airports for delivering enroute clearances, issuing departure authoriza- tions, and acknowledging instrument flight rules cancellations or departure/landing times. REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER (RTR): see remote communications out- let. RTRs serve ARTCCs. RELIEVER AIRPORT: an airport to serve general aviation aircraft which might otherwise use a congested air-car- rier served airport. RESTRICTED AREA: see special-use airspace. RNAV: area navigation - airborne equipment which permits flights over determined tracks within prescribed accuracy tolerances without the need to overfly ground-based navigation facili- ties. Used enroute and for approaches to an airport. RUNWAY: a defined rectangular area on an airport prepared for aircraft land- ing and takeoff. Runways are normally numbered in relation to their magnetic direction, rounded off to the nearest 10 degrees. For example, a runway with a magnetic heading of 180 would be des- ignated Runway 18. The runway heading on the opposite end of the run- way is 180 degrees from that runway end. For example, the opposite runway heading for Runway 18 would be Run- way 36 (magnetic heading of 360). Aircraft can takeoff or land from either end of a runway, depending upon wind direction. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-8 RUNWAY BLAST PAD: a surface adja- cent to the ends of runways provided to reduce the erosive effect of jet blast and propeller wash. RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS (REIL): Two synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the runway threshold, which provide rapid and pos- itive identification of the approach end of a particular runway. RUNWAY GRADIENT: the average slope, measured in percent, between the two ends of a runway. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ): An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are determined by the aircraft approach speed and runway approach type and minima. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): a defined surface surrounding the run- way prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): an instrumentally derived value, in feet, representing the horizontal distance a pilot can see down the runway from the runway end. RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ): an area on the airport to be kept clear of permanent objects so that there is an unobstructed line-of-site from any point five feet above the runway centerline to any point five feet above an intersecting runway centerline. SEGMENTED CIRCLE: a system of visual indicators designed to provide traffic pattern information at airports without operating control towers. SHOULDER: an area adjacent to the edge of paved runways, taxiways or aprons providing a transition between the pavement and the adjacent surface; support for aircraft running off the pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast protection. The shoulder does not nec- essarily need to be paved. SLANT-RANGE DISTANCE: The straight line distance between an air- craft and a point on the ground. SPECIAL-USE AIRSPACE: airspace of defined dimensions identified by a sur- face area wherein activities must be confined because of their nature and/or wherein limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities. Special-use air- space classifications include: ? ALERT AREA: airspace which may contain a high volume of pilot training activities or an unusual type of aerial activity, neither of which is hazardous to aircraft. ? CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: air- space wherein activities are conducted under conditions so controlled as to eliminate hazards to nonparticipating aircraft and to ensure the safety of persons or property on the ground. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-9 ? MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): designated airspace with defined vertical and lateral dimen- sions established outside Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain military activities from instrument flight rule (IFR) traffic and to identify for visual flight rule (VFR) traffic where these activities are conducted. ? PROHIBITED AREA: designated air- space within which the flight of aircraft is prohibited. ? RESTRICTED AREA: airspace desig- nated under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 73, within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restriction. Most restricted areas are designated joint use. When not in use by the using agency, IFR/VFR operations can be authorized by the controlling air traffic control facility. ? WARNING AREA: airspace which may contain hazards to nonpartici- pating aircraft. STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPAR- TURE (SID): a preplanned coded air traffic control IFR departure routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual form only. STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL (STAR): a preplanned coded air traffic control IFR arrival routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual or textual form only. STOP-AND-GO: a procedure wherein an aircraft will land, make a complete stop on the runway, and then commence a takeoff from that point. A stop-and-go is recorded as two operations: one operation for the landing and one oper- ation for the takeoff. STRAIGHT-IN LANDING/APPROACH: a landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees of the final approach course following completion of an instrument approach. TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (TACAN): An ultra-high frequency elec- tronic air navigation system which provides suitably-equipped aircraft a continuous indication of bearing and distance to the TACAN station. TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): see declared distances. TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): see declared distances. TAXILANE: the portion of the aircraft parking area used for access between taxiways and aircraft parking positions. TAXIWAY: a defined path established for the taxiing of aircraft from one part of an airport to another. TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): a defined surface alongside the taxiway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to an airplane uninten- tionally departing the taxiway. TETRAHEDRON: a device used as a landing direction indicator. The small end of the tetrahedron points in the direction of landing. THRESHOLD: the beginning of that portion of the runway available for landing. In some instances the landing threshold may be displaced. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-10 TOUCH-AND-GO: an operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a run- way without stopping or exiting the runway. A touch-and-go is recorded as two operations: one operation for the landing and one operation for the takeoff. TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): The first 3,000 feet of the runway beginning at the threshold. TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION (TDZE): The highest elevation in the touchdown zone. TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHT- ING: Two rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically about the runway centerline normally at 100-foot intervals. The basic system extends 3,000 feet along the runway. TRAFFIC PATTERN: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at or taking off from an airport. The com- ponents of a typical traffic pattern are the upwind leg, crosswind leg, down- wind leg, base leg, and final approach. UNICOM: A nongovernment commu- nication facility which may provide airport information at certain airports. Locations and frequencies of UNI- COM?s are shown on aeronautical charts and publications. UPWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction of landing. See ?traffic pattern.? VECTOR: A heading issued to an air- craft to provide navigational guidance by radar. VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/ OMNIDI- RECTIONAL RANGE STATION (VOR): A ground-based electronic navi- gation aid transmitting very high frequency navigation signals, 360 degrees in azimuth, oriented from magnetic north. Used as the basis for navigation in the national airspace system. The VOR periodically identifies itself by Morse Code and may have an additional voice identification feature. VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI- DIRECTIONAL RANGE STATION/ TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (VORTAC): A navigation aid providing VOR azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and TACAN distance-measuring equipment (DME) at one site. VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or portion thereof established in the form of a corridor, the centerline of which is defined by radio navigational aids. VISUAL APPROACH: An approach wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan, operating in VFR conditions under the control of an air traffic control facility and having an air traffic control autho- rization, may proceed to the airport of destination in VFR conditions. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-11 RUNWAY ENTRY DOWNWIND LEG CROSS- WIND LEG BASE LEG FINAL APPROACH UPWIND LEG DEPARTURE LEG 360? 120? 60? 180? 240? 300? VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDI- CATOR (VASI): An airport lighting facility providing vertical visual approach slope guidance to aircraft dur- ing approach to landing by radiating a directional pattern of high intensity red and white focused light beams which indicate to the pilot that he is on path if he sees red/white, above path if white/white, and below path if red/red. Some airports serving large aircraft have three-bar VASI?s which provide two visual guide paths to the same runway. VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conduct- ing flight under visual conditions. The term VFR is also used in the United States to indicate weather conditions that are equal to or greater than mini- mum VFR requirements. In addition, it is used by pilots and controllers to indi- cate type of flight plan. VOR: See ?Very High Frequency Omni- directional Range Station.? VORTAC: See ?Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Station/Tactical Air Navigation.? WARNING AREA: see special-use airspace. Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-12 A-13 AC: advisory circular ADF: automatic direction finder ADG: airplane design group AFSS: automated flight service station AGL: above ground level AIA: annual instrument approach AIP: Airport Improvement Program AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century ALS: approach lighting system ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach light- ing system with sequenced flashers (CAT I configuration) ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach light ing system with sequenced flashers (CAT II configuration) APV: instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance ARC: airport reference code ARFF: aircraft rescue and firefighting ARP: airport reference point ARTCC: air route traffic control center ASDA: accelerate-stop distance available ASR: airport surveillance radar ASOS: automated surface observation station ATCT: airport traffic control tower ATIS: automated terminal infor- mation service AVGAS: aviation gasoline - typically 100 low lead (100LL) AWOS: automated weather obser- vation station BRL: building restriction line CFR: Code of Federal Regula- tions CIP: capital improvement program DME: distance measuring equip- ment DNL: day-night noise level Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com ABBREVIATIONS DWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft with dual-wheel type landing gear DTWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft with dual-tandem type landing gear FAA: Federal Aviation Adminis- tration FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation FBO: fixed base operator FY: fiscal year GPS: global positioning system GS: glide slope HIRL: high intensity runway edge lighting IFR: instrument flight rules (FAR Part 91) ILS: instrument landing system IM: inner marker LDA: localizer type directional aid LDA: landing distance available LIRL: low intensity runway edge lighting LMM: compass locator at middle marker LOC: ILS localizer LOM: compass locator at ILS outer marker LORAN: long range navigation MALS: medium intensity approach lighting system MALSR: medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights MIRL: medium intensity runway edge lighting MITL: medium intensity taxiway edge lighting MLS: microwave landing system MM: middle marker MOA: military operations area MSL: mean sea level NAVAID: navigational aid NDB: nondirectional radio beacon NM: nautical mile (6,076 .1 feet) NPES: National Pollutant Dis- charge Elimination System NPIAS: National Plan of Integrat- ed Airport Systems Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-14 NPRM: notice of proposed rule- making ODALS: omnidirectional approach lighting system OFA: object free area OFZ: obstacle free zone OM: outer marker PAC: planning advisory committee PAPI: precision approach path indicator PFC: porous friction course PFC: passenger facility charge PCL: pilot-controlled lighting PIW: public information workshop PLASI: pulsating visual approach slope indicator POFA: precision object free area PVASI: pulsating/steady visual approach slope indicator RCO: remote communications outlet REIL: runway end identifier lighting RNAV: area navigation RPZ: runway protection zone RSA: Runway Safety Area RTR: remote transmitter/ receiver RVR: runway visibility range RVZ: runway visibility zone SALS: short approach lighting system SASP: state aviation system plan SEL: sound exposure level SID: standard instrument departure SM: statute mile (5,280 feet) SRE: snow removal equipment SSALF: simplified short approach lighting system with sequenced flashers SSALR: simplified short approach lighting system with run- way alignment indicator lights STAR: standard terminal arrival route SWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft with single-wheel type landing gear STWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft with single-wheel tandem type landing gear Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-15 TACAN: tactical air navigational aid TDZ: touchdown zone TDZE: touchdown zone elevation TAF: Federal Aviation Adminis- tration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast TODA: takeoff distance available TORA: takeoff runway available TRACON: terminal radar approach control VASI: visual approach slope indicator VFR: visual flight rules (FAR Part 91) VHF: very high frequency VOR: very high frequency omni- directional range VORTAC: VOR and TACAN collocated Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com A-16 Redmond, Oregon Appendix B BUILDING EVALUATION Redmond, Oregon Appendix C AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS Redmond, Oregon Appendix D AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS D-1 Appendix D Roberts Field/ AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS Redmond Municipal Airport This aircraft noise analysis was prepared to assess aircraft noise at Roberts Field/Redmond Mun icipal Airport ba sed on current a nd future operations. In addition, a 1,460-foot extension to Runway 4 is included in the 2008 future aircraft noise assessment. In the long range 2023 noise assessment, a 1,500-foot extension to Runway 22 a nd an 8,000-foot parallel Runway 4R-22L are included in t he analysis. The following discussion describes the m ethodology, input assu mptions, an d result s of aircraft n oise an alysis. AIRCRAFT N OISE ANALYS IS METHODOLOGY The standard methodology for analyzing the prevailing noise conditions at ai rports involves the use of a compu ter simulation model. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has appr oved th e Integrated Noise Model (INM) for developing noise exposure contours at civilian airports. The INM is designed as a conservative planning tool, tending to slightly overstate noise. The m odel and its database are periodically updated based on t he philosophy that each version should err on the side of over-prediction while each subsequent update moves closer to reality. Version 6.1 is the most current version of the INM at this time. It is th e version u sed for t he noise an alysis described in t his an alysis. INM describes aircraft noise in Yearly Day-Night Average S ound L evel (DNL). DNL accounts for the increased sensitivity to noise at night (10:00 p.m . to 7:00 a .m.) and is the metric preferred by the FAA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), among others, as an appropriate measure of cumulative noise exposure. DNL is defined as t he a verage A-weighted sound level a s m easured in decibels d uring a 24-hour period. A 10-decibel weighting is applied to noise events occurring during the nighttime hours. DN L is a summation m etric which allows for objective an alysis and can describe noise exposure comprehensively over a large area. In addition to being widely accepted, the pr imary ben efit of using the DNL metric is that i t accounts for the avera ge community response t o noise as det ermined by t he actual nu mber and types of noise events and the time of day they occur. The INM works by defin ing a network of gr id points at gr ound level around the airport. It t hen selects t he sh ortest dist ance from ea ch grid point to e ach flight track and D-2 computes the noise exposure for each aircraft operation, by a ircraft type and engine thrust level, along each flight track. Corrections are applied for air-to-ground acoustical attenuation, a coustical shielding of t he a ircraft en gines by the a ircraft itself, and aircraft speed variations. The noise exposure levels for each aircraft are then summed at e ach grid location. Th e cumulative noise exposure levels at all grid points are then used to develop noise exposure contours for selected va lues (we show 55, 60, 65, 70, an d 75 DN L). Noise contours are then plotted on a base map of the airport environs u sing the DNL m etrics. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 provides guidelines for compatible land uses around an ai rport based upon DNL. Th e Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) defines noise sensitive uses as property normally used for sleeping or used as schools, churches, hospitals, or public libraries. Residential uses usually present the most n oise sensitive uses. 65 DNL has been identified as the threshold of incompatibility. In addition to the m athematical procedures defined in the m odel, the INM has a nother very important element. T his is a d atabase containing ta bles correlating n oise, th rust settings, an d flight pr ofiles for m ost of the civilian aircraft, and many common military aircraft, operating in the United States. This dat abase, often referred to as t he noise curve data, has been developed under FAA guidance based on rigorous noise monitoring in controlled settings. In fact, the INM da tabase was developed through more than a decade of research including extensive field measurements of more than 10,000 aircraft operations. The database also includes performance data for each aircraft to allow for the computation of airport-specific flight profiles (rates of climb and descent). INM INPUT A variety of user-supplied input data is requ ired to use the INM. This includes the airport elevation, average annual temperature, a mathematical definition of the airport runways, the mathematical description of ground tracks above which aircraft fly, and t he a ssignment of specific aircraft with specific engine t ypes at specific takeoff weights to individual flight tracks. In addition, aircraft not included in t he model's database may be defined for modeling, subject to FAA approval. For the purposes of this analysis, computer input files were pr epared for the exist ing (2003) noise condition without planned airfield changes at Roberts Field/Redmond Municipal Air port. The 2008 noise contours were developed with a 1,460-foot ext ension to R unway 4. Th e 2023 noise contours were developed with a 1,460-foot ext ension to D-3 Runway 4, a 1,500-foot extension to Runway 22 a nd an 8,000-foot parallel Runway 4R-22L. OPERATIONS AND FLEET MIX The number of aircraft operating at the airport on an average day is the result of a compilation of all recorded operations during the base period divided by th e number of days in the period. The distribution of th ese operations a mong various categories, users, and types of aircraft is pa rt of the basic input data required for the model. Operational and fleet mix sh own in Table 1 is ba sed on forecasting information in the Airport Master Plan. DATABASE SELECTION For the general aviation aircraft, the FAA has published a Pre-Approved List of Aircraft Substitutions. T he list indicates that the general aviation single engine fixed pitch pr opeller a nd var iable pitched models, the GASEPF and GASEPV, represent a broad range of single engine general aviation a ircraft. The li st r ecommends the use of BEC58P for the light twin-engine aircraft. The CN A441 was used to represent the small turboprop aircraft. The DHC6 was u sed to represent the larger turboprop aircraft. The CNA500, Lear25, Lear35 and GIV were used to model the range of the business jets a t the a irport. The CL601, DHC8, EMB120 and DHC830 were used to model the range of commercial aircraft at the airport. The B206L was used to represent the civilian helicopters and the S70 wa s used to represent the military helicopters operating at the airport. T he DC6 and the P3A were used to represent the United St ates F orest Ser vice a ircraft. All su bstitutions a re in a ccordance wit h the P re- Approved Substitution List and are commensurate with published F AA guidelines. D-4 TABLE 1 Existing and Forecast Annual Operations Roberts F ield/Redmond Mu nicipal Airpo rt INM Designator 2003 2008 2023 GENERAL AVIATION (Itinerant) Single E ngine P iston Va riable P itch Single E ngine P iston F ixed P itch Twin-Engine P iston F ixed P itch Turboprop H elicop t er Bu siness J et Business J et Bu siness J et Business J et COMMERCIAL (Itinerant) Regio nal J et T urboprop T urboprop T urboprop Military H e licop t e r United S tates Forestry Service Piston T urboprop Subtotal GENERAL AVIATION (Local) Single E ngine P iston Va riable P itch Single E ngine P iston F ixed P itch Twin-Engine P iston F ixed P itch Military H elicop t er Subtotal GASEPV GASEPF BE C58P CN A441 B206L CN A500 GIV Lear 25 Lear 35 CL601 DH C8 E MB 120 DH C830 S70 DC6 P 3A GA SEPV GA SEPF BE C58P S70 5, 665 7, 935 1, 290 1, 660 130 800 600 600 1, 030 0 6, 400 6, 400 0 400 375 375 33, 660 9, 165 9, 165 2, 288 100 20, 718 6, 475 9, 225 1, 635 2, 550 315 1, 000 1, 370 300 850 9, 300 0 0 4, 000 400 375 375 38, 170 10, 940 10, 940 3, 020 100 25, 000 11, 278 14, 171 1, 998 3, 872 386 1, 224 1, 676 0 2, 115 10, 500 0 0 4, 500 400 375 375 52, 870 16, 875 16, 875 4, 650 100 38, 500 TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATIONS 54,378 63,170 91,370 Source: Airport Master Plan TIME-OF-DAY The time-of-day at which operations occur is important as i nput to the INM due to the penalty weighting of nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) operations. In calculating airport noise exposure, one nighttime operation is equivalent to ten daytime operations. General aviation nighttime operations were assumed to occur approximately five percent of the time. D-5 RUNWAY USE The use of a specific runway is typically influenced by wind dir ection. The ru nway use percentages assumed for both the 2003 and 2008 analysis a re summarized in Table 2. Th e runway use percentages a ssumed for 2023 are su mmarized in Table 3. TABLE 2 Runway Use (2003 an d 2008) Roberts Field/Redmond Mun icipal Airport Runway Commercial Business Jet & Turboprop Single and Multi-Engine Piston Itinerant Military Helicopter Single and Multi-Engine Piston Local ARR IVALS 4 22 10 28 37.0% 60.0% 1.0% 2.0% 10.0% 40.0% 10.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 25.0% 35.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 20.0% 30.0% 20.0% DEP AR TURES 4 22 10 28 60.0% 37.0% 2.0% 1.0% 20.0% 20.0% 50.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 50.0% 10.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 20.0% 30.0% 20.0% TABLE 3 Runway Use (2023) Roberts Field/Redmond Mun icipal Airport Runway Commercial Business Jet & Turboprop Single and Multi-Engine Piston Itinerant Military Helicopter Single and Multi-Engine Piston Local ARR IVALS 4L 22R 4R 22L 10 28 18.5% 30.0% 18.5% 30.0% 1.0% 2.0% 10.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 35.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% DEP AR TURES 4L 22R 4R 22L 10 28 30.0% 18.5% 30.0% 18.5% 2.0% 1.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 10.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% D-6 FLIGHT TRACKS Consolidated flight tracks which describe t he average flight route corridors that l ead to and from Roberts Field/Redmond Municipal Airport were developed. The consolidated flight tracks are based upon experience at general aviation airports similar to Roberts F ield/Redmond Mu nicipal Airport. Although the consolidated flight tracks appear as distinct paths, they actually represent average flight routes and illustrate the areas of th e surrounding community where aircraft operations can be expected most often. A ir traffic density generally increases nearer the airport as it is funneled to and dispersed from the runway system. The consolidated tracks were developed to reflect these common patterns and to account for the inevitable flight track dispersions a round the a irport. FLIGHT PROFILES INM Version 6.1 was u sed in th is an alysis to compute the takeoff profiles based on the user-supplied airport elevation and the average annual temperature entries in the input bat ch. A t Roberts Field/Redmond Mun icipal Airport, th e elevation is 3,077 feet and the average annual temperature is 44.2 degrees Fahrenheit (F). If other than standard conditions (temperature of 59 degrees F and elevat ions of zero feet mean sea levels [MSL]) are specified by the user, the profile generator automatically computes the takeoff profiles using the airplane performance coefficients and the equations in the Society of Automotive Engineers Aerospace Information Report 1845 (SAE/AIR 1845). RESULTS OF NOISE ANALYSIS Output data selected for calculation by the INM were an nual average noise contours in DNL. This section presents the results of the contour analysis without the project and wit h the project noise exposure conditions, a s developed from the Int egrated Noise Model. Table 4 summarizes the area within each set of contours. The Federal government, including the FAA, has identified the 65 DNL contour as the threshold of incompatibility. D-7 TABLE 4 Comparative Areas of Noise Exposur e (Square Miles) Roberts Field/Redmond Mun icipal Airport DNL Contour 2003 2008 2023 55 60 65 70 75 5.30 2.10 0.86 0.41 0.22 5.26 2.01 0.81 0.41 0.20 2.68 1.37 0.71 0.30 0.11 2003 Noise Exposure Contours Exhibit 5B presents the plotted results of the INM contour analysis for 2003 using input da ta as previously described. The surface areas falling within the contours are shown in Table 4. The shape and extent of the contours reflect the underlying flight track assumptions. T he 70 and 7 5 DNL contours remain on a irport property. Th e 65 DNL contour extends beyond airport property to th e southeast, off Runway 28 (921 feet)and t o t he northeast, off Runway 22 (80 feet). Th e 60 DNL contour ext ends beyond airport property to the southeast, off Runway 28 (3,736 feet); to the southwest, off Runway 4 (701 feet); to the n ortheast, off Runway 22 (4,425 feet). The 55 DNL contour extends beyond airport property to the southeast, off Runway 28 (7,304 feet); to the southwest, off Runway 4 (7,843 feet); to the northwest, off Runway 10 (12,082 feet), and to the northeast, off Runway 22 (1,665 feet). 2008 Noise Exposure Contours Exhibit 5C presents the plotted results of the INM contour analysis for 2008 using input data as previously described. The surface areas falling within the 2008 contours are sh own in Table 4. The 2008 DNL noise exposure contours are similar in sha pe to the 2003 contours. However, due to the 1,460-foot extension of Runway 4 a nd the forecasted in crease in operations the contours have in creased in size along Runway 4-22. Th e contours h ave decreased sligh tly in size along Runway 10-28. This is due to the transition from older generation business jet a ircraft to newer quieter generation aircraft that operate on this runway. T he 70 and 7 5 DNL contours remain on airport property. The 65 DNL contour extends beyond airport property to the southeast, off Runway 28 (10 feet). The 60 DNL contour extends beyond airport property to th e southeast, off Runway 28 (2,249 feet); to the southwest, off Runway 4 (1,254 feet); to the northeast, off Runway 22 (3,705 feet). The 55 DNL contour ext ends beyon d airport property to the southeast, off Runway 28 (5,286 feet); to the southwest, off Runway 4 (9,629 feet); to the northeast, off Runway 22 (12,462 feet); and to the northwest, off Runway 10 (577 feet). D-8 2023 Noise Exposure Contours Exhibit 5D presents the plotted results of the INM contour analysis for 2023 using input data as previously described. The surface areas falling within the 2023 contours are shown in Table 4. The 2023 DNL noise exposure contours are different in s hape to the 2003 a nd 2008 contours. Du e to the 1,460-foot extension of Ru nway 4, t he 1,500-foot extension to Runway 22 and the addition of the 8,000-foot parallel Runway 4R-22L, the contours have redu ced in size along all ru nways. T he reduction in size is a result of the addition of an 8,000-foot parallel Runway 4R-22L. D ue to the transition of aircraft to the new Runway 4R-22L, the contours h ave decreased sign ificantly in size along Run way 10-28 and Runway 4L-22R. The 70 a nd 75 DN L contours are mostly contained on airport property. Th e 70 DNL contour extends beyond airport property to th e southeast, off of Runway 22L (16 feet). T he 65 DNL contour extends beyond airport property to the southeast off Runway 22L (109 feet). The 60 DNL contour extends beyond airport property to the southeast, off Runway 28 (590 feet); to the southeast, off Runway 22L (718 feet); it a lso bulges off airport property to th e south of Runway 4R-22L (606 feet). The 55 DNL contour extends beyon d airport property t o the southeast, off Runway 28 (3,728 feet); to the northeast, off Runway 22 (3,726 feet); to the southeast, off Runway 22L (3,300 feet); it also bulges off airport property to th e south of Runway 4R-22L (1,372 feet). SUMMARY The noise exposure maps were prepared using the FAA Integrated Noise Model, Version 6.1, based upon data obtained from the Airport staff and the Airport Master Plan. Noise exposure contours have been prepared for Roberts Field/Redmond Municipal Airport for the years 2003, 2008 and 2023. The 1,460-foot extension to Runway 4 is in cluded in the 2008 and 2023 aircraft noise analysis. The 1,500-foot extension to Runway 22 and the addition of a 8,000-foot parallel Runway 4R-22L are included in the 2023 aircraft noise analysis. The 65 DNL contour in the 2003, 2008 and 2023 analysis are mostly contained on a irport property. Redmond, Oregon Appendix E TERMINAL EXPANSION DIAGRAMS Redmond, Oregon Appendix F ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION DESCHUTES COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS Antler Ave Birch Ave Black Butte Ave Cascade Ave Deschutes Ave Evergreen Ave Forest Ave Glacier Ave Highland Ave Indian Ave Juniper Ave Kalama Ave Lava Ave Newberry Ave Obsidian Ave S. Canal Blvd Pumice Ave 15th St Metolius Ave Lava Ave Juniper Ave Kalama Ave Parkway Dr HWY 126 - Highland Ave Glacier Pl Indian Ave 23rd Ct 24th Ct Metolius Ave S. Canyon Dr 18th St Obsidian Ave Pumice Ave Quartz Ave Rimrock Way 21st Pl Obsidian Ave 35th Pl 34th St 33rd St Pumice Ave Pumice Pl Quartz Ave 35th Pl 35th St Quartz Pl Reindeer Ave 33rd St Salmon Ave Timber Ave Umatilla Ave Umatilla Ct Volcano Cr 28th St 28th Ct Volcano Way Wickiup Ave 27th St Xero Ave S. Canal Blvd 23rd St 30th St 28th Ct Newberry Ave Salmon Ct Savannah Ct 31st St 30th St 29th St 27th St 26th St 24th St 25th St 23rd St 21st St Timber Ave Salmon Ave Reindeer Ave Indian Ave 17th St 15th St 14th St 13th St 12th St 9th St 8th St 7th St 6th St 5th St 4th St 9th St 8th St 5th St Elm Ave 3rd St 4th St Fir Ave Greenwood Ave Hemlock Ave Jack Pine Ave Kingwood Ave Ivy Ave Negus Pl Negus Ln Maple Ct Maple Ln Maple Ave Larch Ave 9th St 8th St 4th st N Canyon Dr HWY 97 12th St 10th St N Canal Blvd Hemlock Ave 9th St 11th St Greenwood Ave Hemlock Ave E Antler Ave 6th St Redmond Ave Black Butte Blvd Cascade Ave Deschutes Ave Evergreen Ave Railroad Blvd 3rd St 2nd St 17th St 15th St Rimrock Way Fissure Lp South Fissure Lp North Evergreen Ave Glacier Ave 26th St 24th St Glacier Ave 32nd Ct 31st St 29th Ct 29th St 33rd St Forest Ct 35th St Forest Ave Forest Ct W Antler Ave Antler Ct Black Butte Ct Cascade Ave 23rd St 27th St 28th St Cedar Ave Hemlock Ct Oak Pl Oak Ln Poplar Ave Poplar Pl 15th St 13th St 12th St 11th St 10th st Spruce Ave N Canyon Dr 16th St 15th St Spruce Pl Redwood Ave Redwood Pl Quince Pl 8th St 7th St King Way N Canal Blvd 10th St N Canyon Dr Quince Ave Larch Ave Rimrock Dr Maple Ave Jackpine Ct Jackpine Pl Ivy Ave 22nd Ct 20th Ct Ivy Ct Ivy Pl 21st St 19th Pl 21st Ct22nd St Greenwood Pl 20th St Hemlock Pl Greenwood Ave Fir Ave Elm Ct 17th St Hemholtz Way Forked Horn Butte Dr Umatilla Ave 41st St Salmon Ave Hillcrest Ct Crest Ct Summit Ave Timber Ave 37th St 39th St Valleyview Dr 34th St 35th St 32nd St 36th St 36th Ct 35th St 34th St 33rd St Reservoir Dr Volcano Ave 37th Ct Cascade Vista Dr Cascade Vista Ct Volcano Ave Wickiup Ave 34th St Wickiup CtXero Ave Wickiup Pl Xero Pl 35th St Xero Ave Wickiup Ct Umatilla Ave 21st St 20th St Curry Ct 19th St S Canyon Dr Odem Medo 17th Pl Xero Ave Meadow Ln Windrow Ct Meadowbrook Dr 27th Ct 26th Ct Hall Ct Dana-Butler Ct Yew Ave 26th St The Greens Blvd Bobby Jones Ct Sam Snead Ct The Greens Blvd Ben Hogan Dr Trevino Ct Tommy Armour Ct Reservoir Dr Bentwood Dr Wickiup Ct 41st St Volcano Ave 47th St Wickiup Ave 47th St 46th St Yew Ave 45th St 44th St 43rd Pl 43rd St Yew Ct Yew Ave 35th St 36th St Antelope Ave 34th St 32nd St Badger Ave S Canal Blvd 26th St Peridot Ave Veterans Way Pumice Ave Veterans Way Veterans Way USFS Dr 10th St HWY 126 Lake Rd Lake Ct Glacier Ave 1st St Dogwood Ave 35th St 32nd St Hemlock Ave N Canal Blvd Negus Way 2 5th St Oak Pl Nickernut Ave Nickernut Pl Negus Pl 6th St Reindeer Ave Second Ct 1st St Salmon Dr Timber Ave Jesse Butler Ct Salmon Ave 4th StUmatilla Ave 13th St Airport Way Airport Way HWY 97 Wickiup Ave 20th St 20th Ct Metolius Ave 31st St 28th St. 33rd St Aspen Creek Indian Ave Reindeer Ct 30th Ct Reindeer Ct Reindeer Ave Obsidian Ave Lava Ct Stonehedge Ct 23rd St 19th St Rockcrest Ct Larch Ct Poplar Ave HWY 97 N Canyon Dr N Canyon Dr Maple Ct 8th St 19th St HWY 97 21st St 9th St Northwest Way 7th St Glacier Ave 19th Pl North 19th Pl South Hillcrest Dr 32nd St 31st St Volcano Ct Umatilla Ct 34th St 32nd CtReindeer Ave37th St 38th St 37th St 36th St Volcano Ct Gene Sarazan Dr Evergreen Ave Warsaw St 5th St Franklin St Jackson St 25th St 9th St Canyon Ct Sisters Ave 7th Ct Wildflower Pl Maple Pl 20th St Antler Lp 25th St Spruce Pl 17th St 15th St Metolius Ave Metolius Pl Jackpine Ave 17th St 8th St Veterans HWY 97 Cedar Ave 21st St Elm Ave Poplar Pl Quince 21st Ct Ave 19th Pl Poplar Ave Oak Ave Shoshone Ct Apache Ct Cheyenne Dr Uintah Ct Sioux Ct Ute Ct Paiute Ct Navaho Ct Crow Ct Modoc Ct S B N A 6 Shoshone Dr Xero Ave Xero Ct 29th St 31st St Lava Ave2nd Ct Lava Ave Yew Ln 35th Pl Xero Way 2 College Way 20th Ct 21st St 22nd St Quince Ct Ivy Ave 15th St Volcano Pl Wickiup Ct Negus Loop Larch Ave 27th St 35th St Indian Ave Teak Ave 35th Ct 23rd St 25th St Cedar Ave Nickernut Ct Nickernut Ave 33rd St Tommy Armour Ct Callaway Ct Zenith 29th St Ave 30th St Metolius Ct Newberry Ct 22rd St 22nd Ct Salmon Pl Majestic Ave 41st St 40th St TimberSummit Ave Salmon Ave 39th St 43rd St 25th St Hillcrest Dr Quartz Ave Volcano Ct 19th St Kalama Ave Way L 7th St Metolius Ave Timber Ct 33rd St 34th St Indian Pl Juniper Ave Larch Spur Ct 21st Way 6th St 31st St Ave Nickernut Ct Maple Ct Zenith Pl Cascade Vista Dr 35th Pl 36th Pl Quince Pl Sterling Ave Redwood Ave 19th St 8th St Maple Ct 1st St Dogwood Ave 23rd St 5th St Indian Ave 28th St 32nd Ct 31st St 36th Ct Salmon Ct Salmon Ave 27th St 6th St Cliff Side Way 19th St Nickernut Pl 18th St 18th St Redwood Ave 13th St 12th St Obsidian Ave Rimrock Way Kingwood Ave Kingwood Pl 18th St 17th St Rimrock Dr Kingwood Ave Larch Pl Larch Ave 4th St Pershall Way Cascade Mt Ct Cascade Mt Ln 26th St Maple Tree Ct Maple Nut Ct 22nd St Oak Ct 35th St 27th St Kalama Ave Cascade Ave 29th St 28th St Fir Ave 24th St Elm Ave Maple Rim CtRimrock Ct Spruce Tree Pl Teak Ave 9th Pl 9th Pl 10th St Spruce Ave11th St Teak Ave 30 29 32 30 31 25 24 25 30 19 20 29 19 13 18 19 18 17 20 21 28 20 21 22 28 27 16 21 17 16 15 22 28 33 29 28 27 34 15 14 23 14 13 24 23 26 23 24 25 26 35 26 25 36 33 4 32 33 34 3 35 3 2 34 35 36 1 36 31 31 32 6 5 6 5 8 7 8 17 8 9 16 9 10 15 10 14 11 15 11 13 12 14 4 8 5 9 4 10 3 9 3 11 2 10 2 1 12 6 1 6 7 12 7 18 PF PARK PF PARK PF PARK R5 PF PARK PF PARK PF PARK PARK PARK PF PF PARK PF PARK PARK PARK PARK PF AIRPORT PF C4 OSPR R5 M1-L C4 PF R5 R5 PARK PF PF R5 M1-L OSPR M1 PF M1 M1-L R5 R4 R1 C4 M1 R5 OSPR R2 M1 M1 C3 OSPR C5-L OSPR R3 PF M2 R4 M1-L R1 OSPR R1 C2 R3 R4 C1 FG R5 R3 M2 C1 AIRPORT M1-L R2 R4 PF M1 DESCHUTES COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS Antler Ave Birch Ave Black Butte Ave Cascade Ave Deschutes Ave Evergreen Ave Forest Ave Glacier Ave Highland Ave Indian Ave Juniper Ave Kalama Ave Lava Ave Newberry Ave Obsidian Ave S. Canal Blvd Pumice Ave 15th St Metolius Ave Lava Ave Juniper Ave Kalama Ave Parkway Dr HWY 126 - Highland Ave Glacier Pl Indian Ave 23rd Ct 24th Ct Metolius Ave S. Canyon Dr 18th St Obsidian Ave Pumice Ave Quartz Ave Rimrock Way 21st Pl Obsidian Ave 35th Pl 34th St 33rd St Pumice Ave Pumice Pl Quartz Ave 35th Pl 35th St Quartz Pl Reindeer Ave 33rd St Salmon Ave Timber Ave Umatilla Ave Umatilla Ct Volcano Cr 28th St 28th Ct Volcano Way Wickiup Ave 27th St Xero Ave S. Canal Blvd 23rd St 30th St 28th Ct Newberry Ave Salmon Ct Savannah Ct 31st St 30th St 29th St 27th St 26th St 24th St 25th St 23rd St 21st St Timber Ave Salmon Ave Reindeer Ave Indian Ave 17th St 15th St 14th St 13th St 12th St 9th St 8th St 7th St 6th St 5th St 4th St 9th St 8th St 5th St Elm Ave 3rd St 4th St Fir Ave Greenwood Ave Hemlock Ave Jack Pine Ave Kingwood Ave Ivy Ave Negus Pl Negus Ln Maple Ct Maple Ln Maple Ave Larch Ave 9th St 8th St 4th st N Canyon Dr HWY 97 12th St 10th St N Canal Blvd Hemlock Ave 9th St 11th St Greenwood Ave Hemlock Ave E Antler Ave 6th St Redmond Ave Black Butte Blvd Cascade Ave Deschutes Ave Evergreen Ave Railroad Blvd 3rd St 2nd St 17th St 15th St Rimrock Way Fissure Lp South Fissure Lp North Evergreen Ave Glacier Ave 26th St 24th St Glacier Ave 32nd Ct 31st St 29th Ct 29th St 33rd St Forest Ct 35th St Forest Ave Forest Ct W Antler Ave Antler Ct Black Butte Ct Cascade Ave 23rd St 27th St 28th St Cedar Ave Hemlock Ct Oak Pl Oak Ln Poplar Ave Poplar Pl 15th St 13th St 12th St 11th St 10th st Spruce Ave N Canyon Dr 16th St 15th St Spruce Pl Redwood Ave Redwood Pl Quince Pl 8th St 7th St King Way N Canal Blvd 10th St N Canyon Dr Quince Ave Larch Ave Rimrock Dr Maple Ave Jackpine Ct Jackpine Pl Ivy Ave 22nd Ct 20th Ct Ivy Ct Ivy Pl 21st St 19th Pl 21st Ct22nd St Greenwood Pl 20th St Hemlock Pl Greenwood Ave Fir Ave Elm Ct 17th St Hemholtz Way Forked Horn Butte Dr Umatilla Ave 41st St Salmon Ave Hillcrest Ct Crest Ct Summit Ave Timber Ave 37th St 39th St Valleyview Dr 34th St 35th St 32nd St 36th St 36th Ct 35th St 34th St 33rd St Reservoir Dr Volcano Ave 37th Ct Cascade Vista Dr Cascade Vista Ct Volcano Ave Wickiup Ave 34th St Wickiup CtXero Ave Wickiup Pl Xero Pl 35th St Xero Ave Wickiup Ct Umatilla Ave 21st St 20th St Curry Ct 19th St S Canyon Dr Odem Medo 17th Pl Xero Ave Meadow Ln Windrow Ct Meadowbrook Dr 27th Ct 26th Ct Hall Ct Dana-Butler Ct Yew Ave 26th St The Greens Blvd Bobby Jones Ct Sam Snead Ct The Greens Blvd Ben Hogan Dr Trevino Ct Tommy Armour Ct Reservoir Dr Bentwood Dr Wickiup Ct 41st St Volcano Ave 47th St Wickiup Ave 47th St 46th St Yew Ave 45th St 44th St 43rd Pl 43rd St Yew Ct Yew Ave 35th St 36th St Antelope Ave 34th St 32nd St Badger Ave S Canal Blvd 26th St Peridot Ave Veterans Way Pumice Ave Veterans Way Veterans Way USFS Dr 10th St HWY 126 Lake Rd Lake Ct Glacier Ave 1st St Dogwood Ave 35th St 32nd St Hemlock Ave N Canal Blvd Negus Way 2 5th St Oak Pl Nickernut Ave Nickernut Pl Negus Pl 6th St Reindeer Ave Second Ct 1st St Salmon Dr Timber Ave Jesse Butler Ct Salmon Ave 4th StUmatilla Ave 13th St Airport Way Airport Way HWY 97 Wickiup Ave 20th St 20th Ct Metolius Ave 31st St 28th St. 33rd St Aspen Creek Indian Ave Reindeer Ct 30th Ct Reindeer Ct Reindeer Ave Obsidian Ave Lava Ct Stonehedge Ct 23rd St 19th St Rockcrest Ct Larch Ct Poplar Ave HWY 97 N Canyon Dr N Canyon Dr Maple Ct 8th St 19th St HWY 97 21st St 9th St Northwest Way 7th St Glacier Ave 19th Pl North 19th Pl South Hillcrest Dr 32nd St 31st St Volcano Ct Umatilla Ct 34th St 32nd CtReindeer Ave37th St 38th St 37th St 36th St Volcano Ct Gene Sarazan Dr Evergreen Ave Warsaw St 5th St Franklin St Jackson St 25th St 9th St Canyon Ct Sisters Ave 7th Ct Wildflower Pl Maple Pl 20th St Antler Lp 25th St Spruce Pl 17th St 15th St Metolius Ave Metolius Pl Jackpine Ave 17th St 8th St Veterans HWY 97 Cedar Ave 21st St Elm Ave Poplar Pl Quince 21st Ct Ave 19th Pl Poplar Ave Oak Ave Shoshone Ct Apache Ct Cheyenne Dr Uintah Ct Sioux Ct Ute Ct Paiute Ct Navaho Ct Crow Ct Modoc Ct S B N A 6 Shoshone Dr Xero Ave Xero Ct 29th St 31st St Lava Ave2nd Ct Lava Ave Yew Ln 35th Pl Xero Way 2 College Way 20th Ct 21st St 22nd St Quince Ct Ivy Ave 15th St Volcano Pl Wickiup Ct Negus Loop Larch Ave 27th St 35th St Indian Ave Teak Ave 35th Ct 23rd St 25th St Cedar Ave Nickernut Ct Nickernut Ave 33rd St Tommy Armour Ct Callaway Ct Zenith 29th St Ave 30th St Metolius Ct Newberry Ct 22rd St 22nd Ct Salmon Pl Majestic Ave 41st St 40th St TimberSummit Ave Salmon Ave 39th St 43rd St 25th St Hillcrest Dr Quartz Ave Volcano Ct 19th St Kalama Ave Way L 7th St Metolius Ave Timber Ct 33rd St 34th St Indian Pl Juniper Ave Larch Spur Ct 21st Way 6th St 31st St Ave Nickernut Ct Maple Ct Zenith Pl Cascade Vista Dr 35th Pl 36th Pl Quince Pl Sterling Ave Redwood Ave 19th St 8th St Maple Ct 1st St Dogwood Ave 23rd St 5th St Indian Ave 28th St 32nd Ct 31st St 36th Ct Salmon Ct Salmon Ave 27th St 6th St Cliff Side Way 19th St Nickernut Pl 18th St 18th St Redwood Ave 13th St 12th St Obsidian Ave Rimrock Way Kingwood Ave Kingwood Pl 18th St 17th St Rimrock Dr Kingwood Ave Larch Pl Larch Ave 4th St Pershall Way Cascade Mt Ct Cascade Mt Ln 26th St Maple Tree Ct Maple Nut Ct 22nd St Oak Ct 35th St 27th St Kalama Ave Cascade Ave 29th St 28th St Fir Ave 24th St Elm Ave Maple Rim CtRimrock Ct Spruce Tree Pl Teak Ave 9th Pl 9th Pl 10th St Spruce Ave11th St Teak Ave 30 29 32 30 31 25 24 25 30 19 20 29 19 13 18 19 18 17 20 21 28 20 21 22 28 27 16 21 17 16 15 22 28 33 29 28 27 34 15 14 23 14 13 24 23 26 23 24 25 26 35 26 25 36 33 4 32 33 34 3 35 3 2 34 35 36 1 36 31 31 32 6 5 6 5 8 7 8 17 8 9 16 9 10 15 10 14 11 15 11 13 12 14 4 8 5 9 4 10 3 9 3 11 2 10 2 1 12 6 1 6 7 12 7 18 PF PARK PF PARK PF PARK R5 PF PARK PF PARK PF PARK PARK PARK PF PF PARK PF PARK PARK PARK PARK PF AIRPORT PF C4 OSPR R5 M1-L C4 PF R5 R5 PARK PF PF R5 M1-L OSPR M1 PF M1 M1-L R5 R4 R1 C4 M1 R5 OSPR R2 M1 M1 C3 OSPR C5-L OSPR R3 PF M2 R4 M1-L R1 OSPR R1 C2 R3 R4 C1 FG R5 R3 M2 C1 AIRPORT M1-L R2 R4 PF M1 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 2020 Greater Redmond Area Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map L - Lease Hold, FAA Restricted Land R5 - High Density Residential R4 - General Residential R3 - Limited Residential R2 - Limited Residential R1 - Limited Residential PF - Public Facility PARK OSPR - Open Space Park Reserve M2 - Heavy Industrial M1 - Light Industrial FG - Fairgrounds C5 - Tourist Commercial C4 - Limited Service Commercial C3 - Special Service Commercial C2 - Central Business District Commercial C1 - Strip Service Commercial Airport Comprehensive Plan & Zone Designations Redmond City Limits Urban Growth Boundaries Runway Protection Zone Updated: June 18, 2004 Exhibit C to Ords. No. 2001 - 026 Board of County Commissioners Adopted: June 27, 2001 Map Prepared By CITY OF REDMOND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 757368686982 8268 7273717287658932495054838732796683736873657832658669 7273717287658932495054 873265788476698232658669 7887327269777679677532658669 78873251538472328384 78798284728769838432876589 788732776580766932658669 78873272697677727976849032876589 788732776580766932658669 788732757378718779796832658669 78873267798978698232658669 786932898567676532658669 783249488472328384 72737172876589325755 783267657865763266768668 786932786971858332876589 693265788476698232658669 7273717287658932515548 78693249558472328384 78693251518268328384 78693252498384328384 786932538472328384 78693287737667798832658669 786932498384328384 8377738472328279677532876589 678279797569688273866982326882 78693269668932658669 78873273676932658669 78873250558472328384 72737172876589325755 78873276798769823266827368716932876589 78873251498384328384 78873252518268328384 7887327968697732658669 8469847269827987328268 78873283696871698773677532658669 83873253568472328384 67797884656784328472693267738489327970 8269687779786832707982328269687779786832 907978737871327378707982776584737978 83101101 8410111411410198111110110101 7797112325252 686983677285846983328273866982 67827979756968328273866982 49524951 49534951 4950 4855 4856 4948 49494857 4950 4951 4956 4955 4953 4952 4951 5052 4957 5048 5049 5050 5051 5052 5053 5148 5057 5056 5055 5054 5053 5154 5149 5150 5151 5152 5153 5154 4849 4854 4853 4852 4851 4850 4849 4950 4855 4856 4857 4948 4949 4950 4951 4956 4955 4954 4953 4952 4951 5052 4957 5048 5049 5050 5051 5052 5053 5148 8765 83777365 83777365 83777365 671111121211141051031041163216932504848513298121326810111599104117116101115326711111711011612144327911410110311111046 651081083282105103104116115328210111510111411810110046328011410511011610110032105110321161041013285110105116101100328311697116101115321111023265109101114105999746 49 5148 5149 5150 4949 5050 53 57 51 52 5151 56 4948 5152 4953 5054 5055 5056 5053 4956 4957 4952 5048 5049 761119997116105111110 7797112 78 68658469583274117108121325053443250484851 48465553 48 48465553 494653 77105108101115 48 53 697085324532657670657670653283856690797869 69708532453272798283693282736871693283856690797869 697085324532766532807378693283856690797869 6970853245327679876982326682736871693283856690797869 6970853245328373838469828347677679866982686576693283856690797869 697085324532846982826966797878693283856690797869 697085324532848577657679478269687779786847666978683283856690797869 79806978328380656769323832677978836982866584737978 707982698384328583693249 707982698384328583693250 7076797968328076657378 65738280798284326869866976798077697884 778576847332858369326571827367857684858269 8285826576328269837368697884736576 82858265763273786885838482736576 8385827065676932777378737871 6573828079828432836570698489 8385827065676932777378737871327377806567843265826965 827965683238328765846982 76657868836765806932776578657169776978843282796568 7665786883676580693277657865716977697884328765846982 8773766876737069 6779788669788473797865763272798583737871 NWI Wetland Redmond Municipal Airport (Roberts Field) Location of National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands N NWI Wetland Redmond, Oregon Appendix G LEASE SUMMARIES ROBERTS FIELD (RDM) - REDMOND, OREGON LEASE SUMMARY LEASE DESCRIPTION Space in Radio Room and Antenna Space in Radio Room and Antenna 8,400 Square Feet - Airside Public Paid Parking Lot Car Rental Counter Space and Parking August 31, 2027 27,272 Square Feet - Airside June 10, 2026 4,320 Square Feet - Airside 6,617 Square Feet - Airside 3 Acres 5 Acres 2.97 Acres 30,000 Square Feet 2.21 Acres and 2.37 Acres 28.93 Acres 1 Acre Car Rental Counter Space and Parking 6,000 Square Feet - Airside Right to do Business at Airport - Use of Taxi, Bus and Shuttle Areas Restaurant Space in Terminal 0.75 Acres Indefinite Carrier Space in Terminal Carrier Space in Terminal 3.25 Acres - Landside 134.35 Acres 0.18 Acres - Airside 62,932 Square Feet - Airside 156,558 Square Feet - Airside 2,750 Square Feet - Airside 1,108 Square Feet - Airside 11,762 Square Feet - Airside 6.4 Acres - Landside Automated Surface Observing System I Acre Parcel that Airport Leases for Outer Marker 9 Acres Industrial Land on Airport Way 5.62 Acres Land Side on Veterans Way 0.99 Acres Land Side on Airport Way at Terminal Drive 0.28 Acres Land Side on Veterans Way 12,786 Square Feet - Airside 1.75 Acres Industrial Land at 2064 SW First Street 5 Acres Industrial Land on Salmon Avenue Deli Space in Terminal 13,547 Square Feet - Airside Carrier Space in Terminal Cart Units in Terminal and on Curb 0.5 Acres Airside Airside 3,800 Square Feet - Airside Car Rental Counter Space and Parking 10,208 Square Feet - Airside, South of Tognoli Hangar February 15, 2013 21,579 Square Feet (+ 3,863) - Built on Part of Air Center Land Lease Interactive Video Display in Terminal 6,204 Square Feet - Built on Part of Air Center Land Lease 5,460 Square Feet Terminal Pay Phones 1,212 Square Feet Terminal Space for ATM 0.25 Acres - Airside 0.08 Acres - Airside $110.00 Per Month $185.00 Per Month Lease information compiled by Coffman Associates for Airport Master Plan, 2004. KANSAS CITY (816) 524-3500 237 N.W. Blue Parkway Suite 100 Lee's Summit, MO 64063 PHOENIX (602) 993-6999 4835 E. Cactus Road Suite 235 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Airport Consultants