APPENDIX E: 2012 Forecasting Report for RCA

Transcription

1 APPENDIX E: 2012 FORECASTING REPORT FOR RCA D 1 APPENDIX E: 2012 Forecasting Report for RCA RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

2

3

4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS i Table of Contents Table of Contents... i Acknowledgements... vii Abbreviations and Acronyms... ix Executive Summary... 1 ES.1. Issues and Areas of Concern... 2 ES.2. Needs and Objectives... 4 ES.3. Airport Improvement Option Alternatives... 5 ES.4. Conclusion Recommendations... 7 Chapter 1. Introduction Background Purpose Process Previous Forecasting Planning History of Recent Ravalli County Airport Planning Ravalli County Growth Policy Airport Affected Area FAA Aerospace Forecast (Years ) US Census Bureau FAA Terminal Area Forecast and FAA FAA Study of General Aviation Chapter 2. Existing Facilities and Operations Background Airport Location Climate Temperature Precipitation Wind Visibility and Ceiling Facilities Airside Pavements FAR Part 77 Airspace FAA Airspace Classification Instrument Procedures Fixed Based Operators Commercial Operations Fuel Hangars and Lease Areas Access and Parking Utilities Other Airport Operations FlightAware SEPTEMBER, 2012

6 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Fuel Sales User Survey Terminal Area Forecast Based Aircraft Commercial Activity Fixed-Wing Helicopter Government Activity Chapter 3. Forecasts FAA Aerospace Forecast Number of Aircraft Hours Flown FAA Forecast Implications FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) National Based Aircraft Inventory Program US Census Bureau Montana Department of Commerce Based Aircraft Recent Local Aircraft Growth (1.5%) Local Historic Population Growth (2%) Forecasted Population Growth (1.9%) FAA Aerospace Forecast Based Aircraft Forecast Summary Operations Ratio to Based Aircraft FAA Aerospace Forecast Operations Forecast Summary Design Group II and Larger Forecast Chapter 4. Facility Requirements Airport Reference Code Runway Design Standards Widths Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Minimum Separation Standards Runway Length Approach Departure Requirements Taxiway Standards Hangars Apron Calculation of Existing Apron Needs Calculation of Future Apron Needs Instrument Procedures Helipdads SEPTEMBER, 2012

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii Future Development Chapter 5. Improvement Options Daly Ditch Area Considerations Relocation Building Documentation Alternatives Considered Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Relocate 95 East and 600 North Alternative 2A Relocate 93 East and 1000 North Alternative 3 Relocate 240 East and 600 North Alternative 3A Relocate 240 East and 1550 North Alternative 4 Relocate 400 East and 600 North Alternative 4A Relocate 400 East and 1000 North Alternative 4B Relocate 400 East and 1550 North Alternative comparison SEPTEMBER, 2012

8 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Table ES.1: Improvements Alternatives Considered... 6 Table 2.1: Ravalli County Airport Fuel Flowage Summary Table 2.2: Survey Response Summary Tables Table 3.1: FAA Forecasted Annual Growth for General Aviation Fleet Table 3.2: FAA Forecasted Annual Growth for General Aviation Hours Flown Table 3.3: FAA Terminal Area Forecast Consolidated Operations Table 3.4: FAA Terminal Area Forecast - Based Aircraft Table 3.5: FAA 5010 Based Aircraft Summary Table 3.6: County Population Census Data Table 3.7: Hamilton Population Census Data Table 3.8: Ravalli County Population Projections Table 3.9: Based Aircraft Forecast - Based on 10-year 5010 Trend Table 3.10: Based Aircraft Forecast - Based on Historic Population Trends Table 3.11: Based Aircraft Forecast - Based on FAA Aerospace Forecast Table 3.12: Based Aircraft Forecast Summary Table 3.13: Forecast Operations by Based Aircraft Ratio Table 3.14: Forecast Operations by FAA Aerospace Forecast Hours Table 3.15: Forecast Operations Summary Table 3.16: Design Group II or Larger Operations by Based Aircraft Ratio Table 3.17: Design Group II or Larger Operations by Av. Operation per Aircraft Table 3.18: Design Group II Forecast Operations Table 4.1: Airport Reference Codes Table 4.2: Hangar Lease Needs Projections Table 5.1: Alternative 2 Cost Estimate Table 5.2: Alternative 2A Cost Estimate Table 5.3: Alternative 3 Cost Estimate Table 5.4: Alternative 3A Cost Estimate Table 5.5: Alternative 4 Cost Estimate Table 5.6: Alternative 4A Cost Estimate Table 5.7: Alternative 4B Cost Estimate SEPTEMBER, 2012

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS v List of Figures Figure 1.1: Forecast Report Study Boundary Figure 2.1: Bitterroot Valley Vicinity Map Figure 2.2: Hamilton Historic Temperature and Precipitation Averages Figure 2.3: Ravalli County Airport Wind Rose Figure 2.4: Ravalli County Airport Apron Areas Figure 2.5: FAA Sectional Map Figure 4.1: Airport Reference Codes Illustration Figure 4.2: Existing Available Apron Figure 5.1: Interior of Northern Daly Ditch Building Figure 5.2 Northern Daly Ditch Building Column Detail Figure 5.3: Exterior - Northern Daly Ditch Building Figure 5.4: Exterior - Southern Daly Ditch Building Figure 5.5: No action Figure 5.6: Alternative Figure 5.7: Alternative 2A Figure 5.8: Alternative Figure 5.9: Alternative 3A Figure 5.10: Alternative Figure 5.11: Alternative 4A Figure 5.12: Alternative 4B SEPTEMBER, 2012

10 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Appendices Appendix A: Reference Material Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular , Airport Design - Excerpts Advisory Circular B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design - Excerpts Ravalli County Airport Instrument Procedure Approaches and Departure Federal Aviation Regulations 14 CFR Part Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces Montana Code Annotated MCA Title 67, Chapter 7 Appendix B: Data Based Aircraft Inventory Lease Inventory FlightAware Combined with Fuel Sales Summary Survey Response Summary Survey Response Hangar Comments Survey Response General Comments USDA Forest Service Letter Ravalli Republic News Article Appendix C: Population Forecast Sources FAA Aerospace Forecast FY Excerpts FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) Montana Department of Commerce Population Estimates and Projections US Census Bureau - Montana Population Projection Map US Census Bureau 2010 State and County Population Summary Appendix D: Miscellaneous Survey Post Card FAA 5010 SEPTEMBER, 2012

11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES vii Acknowledgements The successful completion of this study was made possible through the cooperation and assistance of many individuals. The following people provided guidance and support throughout the course of this study: FORECAST STUDY TEAM NAME TITLE AGENCY David Stelling, PE Manager Federal Aviation Administration, Helena District Office Steve Engebrecht, PE Project Manager Federal Aviation Administration, Helena District Office Diane Stilson, PE Engineer, Environmental Specialist Federal Aviation Administration, Helena District Office Janell Barrilleaux Environmental Program Manager Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region Debbie Alke Administrator Montana Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division Greg Chilcott Commissioner Ravalli County Commission Ron Stoltz Commissioner Ravalli County Commission Suzy Foss Chairperson Ravalli County Commission JR Iman Commissioner Ravalli County Commission Page Gough Manager Ravalli County Airport Scott Bell, PE Vice President Morrison Maierle, Inc. David Hedditch Chairman Ravalli County Airport Board SEPTEMBER, 2012

12 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES LIST OF PREPARERS NAME TITLE AGENCY Rick Donaldson, PE Vice President & Project Manager Robert Peccia and Associates Dan Norderud, ACIP Environmental Specialist Certified Planner Robert Peccia and Associates Lance Bowser, PE Project Engineer Robert Peccia and Associates Nancy Geary Engineering Designer Robert Peccia and Associates Nicholas Ladas Graphics Designer Robert Peccia and Associates Kari Slyder Administrative Assistant Robert Peccia and Associates LIST OF PRIMARY REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Reference FAA Advisory Circular AC Airport Design FAA Advisory Circular AC B Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design FAA Advisory Circular AC B Airport Master Plans 14 CFR FAR Part 77 FAA Aerospace Forecast ( ) Source FAA Office of Airport Safety & Standards - Airport Engineering Division FAA Office of Airport Safety & Standards - Airport Engineering Division FAA Office of Airport Planning and Programming - Planning and Environmental Division US Code of Federal Regulations, TITLE 14-Aeronautics and Space, Part 77 - Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans - Forecasts and Performance Analysis Division 2010 Census Statistics US Census Bureau Final Draft Environmental Assessment, Nov Morrison - Maierle, Inc. SEPTEMBER, 2012

13 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix Abbreviations and Acronyms AAA Airport Affected Area AC ACA ADG AIA AIP ALP ARC CFR DNL EA FAA FAR FBO FOD GA GPS GQS HABS IFR MACo MCA MDT MMI MSL NEPA NPIAS OFA FAA Advisory Circular Airport Compatibility Act Airplane Design Group Airport Influence Area Airport Improvement Program (or Project) Airport Layout Plan Airport Reference Code Code of Federal Regulations Day-Night Sound Level Environmental Assessment Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations Fixed Based Operator Foreign Object Debris General Aviation Global Positioning System Glide Slope Qualification Surface Historic American Building Survey Instrument Flight Rules Montana Association of Counties Montana Code Annotated Montana Department of Transportation Morrison - Maierle, Inc. Mean Sea Level National Environmental Policy Act National Plan of Integrated Airports Systems Object Free Area SEPTEMBER, 2012

14 x ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS OFZ PAPI REIL RCA RNAV RPA RPZ RSA SHPO TAF TRB USC VFR VOR Obstacle Free Zone Precision Approach Path Indicator Runway End Identifier Light Ravalli County Airport Area Navigation Robert Peccia and Associates, Inc. Runway protection Zone Runway Safety Area State Historic Preservation Office Terminal Area Forecast Transportation Research Board United States Code Visual Flight Rules Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range (Navigational Aid) SEPTEMBER, 2012

15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Executive Summary Ravalli County, Montana in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Aeronautics Division initiated an Environmental Assessment Revision with associated Forecasting Report, to assess and identify improvement options for the Ravalli County (Hamilton) Airport. The Environmental Assessment Revision and Forecasting Report were contracted to Robert Peccia and Associates (`) through a quality based selection process. The study area boundary includes the Ravalli County Airport (RCA) property as well as most properties immediately adjoining that property. The Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 airspace associated with the existing airport and airspace associated with alternatives considered were also included. The Forecasting Report, intended as a planning study and not a design project, was developed through a collaborative process with FAA, MDT- Aeronautics Division, and Ravalli County. It involved data collection from MDT, Ravalli County pilots and aircraft owners, North Star Aviation fuel sales, the airport manager, various FAA web-sites, other web-sites and FlightAware. Aside from pilot and aircraft owner surveys, there was community involvement in the form of public availability to review the Forecast Report and a public meeting held by the County Commissioners to review it. Resource agencies and the public will be included for participation during the Environment Assessment Revision. An evaluation of known and publically available resource information was conducted. Activities that were completed for the development of the Forecasting Report include the following: Process review meeting with Ravalli County Review existing 2010 Final EA forecasting section Purchase and analyze FlightAware data Survey post-card to Ravalli County pilots and aircraft owners Survey post-card to Ravalli County instrument procedure users Survey post-card to North Star jet fuel purchasers Inventory and review aircraft data Collect information on aviation activity Forecast future aviation activity by categories and by time frames Collect and review population forecasts for area Establish reasonable expectations of airport use including current and future critical aircraft Forecast based aircraft, local and itinerant operations, charterair-taxi operations, and aircraft use by type for 5, 10, and 20-year periods Working draft paper on forecasts SEPTEMBER, 2012

16 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Establish Airport Reference Code (ARC) TO BE COMPLETED FOLLOWING PUBLIC MEETING AND RAVALLI COUNTY COMMISSIONER Review FAA guidance INPUT. regarding runway length Review M-M cost estimate for proposed improvements and update based on current bid tabulations from other airports Produce draft forecasting narrative report & present results at a public meeting Summarize, and update if necessary, alternatives considered to meet the facility requirements, Presenting the information at one of the Commissioner s regular public meetings. Produce final planning narrative report ES.1. ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONCERN Based on the assessment of the existing based aircraft, documentable usage of the airport, existing geometry, forecast conditions for aviation and the community, and 2010 Final EA data, airport issues and areas of concern were identified. The major issues identified are presented below: Existing Pavement Conditions With the exception of the runway itself and Taxiway A5, all the other pavements at the airport are in very poor condition. Not only are these pavements to the point where preventative pavement is a waste of resources, but the conditions introduce risks to the aircraft using the facility. FOD could damage propellers or jet engines. Deteriorated thin pavement sections could result in aircraft sinking through or rutting the pavement section further damaging the pavement and possibly damaging the aircraft. Pavement rehabilitation at the airport is eligible for FAA funding, but only after there is a clear direction for future improvements, and for those pavements that conform to FAA design standards. If Ravalli County chooses not to improve the airport per applicable design standards, they risk the loss of FAA participation in future improvements. That decision should be carefully considered since the FAA participates in projects to the level of 90% of eligible project costs. Airport Geometrics Ravalli County Airport s geometric areas of concern primarily include runway length, runway taxiway separation, apron space availability and hangar space availability. Runway length is shorter than recommended by FAA methodologies. The shortest runway lengths recommended by the FAA for this facility is either the length required to support 95% or 100% of the small fleet (aircraft 12,500 pounds and less). These lengths are 4,800 feet and 5,200 feet respectively. The existing facility is only 4,200 feet long. Feasible alternatives evaluated are all SEPTEMBER, 2012

17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 shown as 5,200 feet. The runway could be constructed shorter, initially, but the full length is shown to evaluate the impact of future proposed improvements to the airport s ultimate airspace and to completely evaluate possible environmental concerns for ultimate runway development. Existing runway-taxiway separation does not meet FAA design standards. The minimum separation between the runway and a parallel taxiway for the Ravalli County Airport is 225 feet for Design Group I aircraft and 240 feet for Design Group II aircraft. The existing separation is 200 feet. Feasible alternatives evaluated have at least 240 feet of separation. Apron space at the existing airport is so limited that it has been the focal point of lawsuits and a private company has even built apron space for their exclusive use with their own funds. Currently, it would be feasible to add apron space north of the existing parking, but it would be at the expense of available future hangar development areas. The Ravalli County airport is in the top three Montana general aviation (GA) airports for aircraft based at the airport. Consequently, they have many more hangars than compared to most GA airports. There are several inquiries regarding hangar development each year. As of the writing of this report, there are three new hangars being considered. All three face constraints. Noise 65 DNL Perimeter This report did not scrutinize the noise component of previous planning nor develop independent noise analysis. Noise will be addressed as an item for the alternatives reviewed in the Environmental Assessment Revision. However, the forecasts developed in this report result in operations that do not exceed those of the 2010 Final Environmental Assessment. FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface Clearance The 7:1 surface defined in 14 CFR Part 77 known as the transitional surface, and associated with any runway alternative, is a significant factor in the alternative selected by the airport owner. Judging from the current ALP, there are several buildings that penetrate this surface on the west side of the existing runway. Using the existing building that most obtrusively penetrates this surface, the previous planning documents indicate that the runway should be moved to the east a minimum of approximately 93 feet east. However, if the runway is to be relocated, it would make good business sense to consider optimal relocation now from an airspace perspective and possibly provide for future growth, as long as it is a financially and environmentally prudent decision. (This report does not evaluate the environmental aspects as they will be addressed later under an Environmental Assessment Revision.) Since apron space is already at a premium and hangar space availability is a foreseeable concern, future expansion potential needs to be strongly considered by the airport owner. SEPTEMBER, 2012

18 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There is also terrain to the north of the airport which will cause transitional surface penetrations in the alternatives evaluated. However, these should be mitigated during the design process and subsequent earthwork. FAR Part 77 Approach, Horizontal and Conical Surface Clearances Other 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces were also considered in this report. Any runway configuration considered will have some penetrations to both the horizontal and conical surfaces. Terrain, along with any vegetation, trees or structures southeast of the airport property in the area known as the Flat Iron Subdivision will penetrate a portion of the horizontal and conical surfaces. By western Montana standards, this is a fairly minor area of concern. Ravalli County does have an AIA in place that may provide some protection from development that could worsen the amount of penetrations. The approach surface into Runway 34 necessitates the relocation of the runway north by a minimum of approximately 650 feet just for the required 15-foot clearance over Tammany Lane. This amount of relocation also locates the RPZ completely north of Tammany Lane. For this same approach area, the trees and structures in the Daly Ditch complex area also needs to be considered for both approach surface and RPZ clearance. In other words, additional displacement to the north should be considered if the Daly Ditch complex is to remain intact. FAA Runway Approach, Departure, Siting and GQS Surface Clearances When considering a runway s location or evaluating problems with a runway, there are a number of surfaces to be depicted and analyzed on an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) separate from the FAR Part 77 surfaces. For the alternatives considered, the approach, departure and glide slope qualification (GQS) surfaces, defined in FAA Advisory Circular (Airport Design) were considered and discussed. However, like the FAR Part 77 surfaces, their evaluation is based on approximations from limited elevation data provided by others rather than topographic survey information. ES.2. NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES Based TO on BE the COMPLETED analyses of existing FOLLOWING and future conditions PUBLIC of MEETING the Ravalli County AND Airport, RAVALLI the following COUNTY needs COMMISSIONER and objectives were INPUT. established for use in the development of improvement options identified later in this study. These needs and objectives will be met to the extent practicable given financial, owner preference and environmental constraints within the area. NEED #1: Objectives: PROVIDE PROPER AIRPORT GEOMETRY - Establish runway dimensional criteria - Review runway taxiway separation alternatives - Identify areas of deficiency SEPTEMBER, 2012

19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 NEED #2: Objectives: PROVIDE PROPER FAR PART 77 AIRSPACE CLEARANCES - Establish the acceptable ranges of distance to move the runway laterally (east) to clear existing and future transitional surface penetrations - Establish the acceptable ranges of distance to move the runway longitudinally (north) to clear approach, departure, siting and GQS surfaces or minimize their impacts Need #3: Objectives: PLAN FOR FUTURE APRON EXPANSIONS TO ACCOMODATE EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS - Establish amount of need for additional apron space NEED #4: Objectives: PROVIDE HANGAR DEVELOPMENT LOCATIONS - Establish amount of need for additional hangar development areas ES.3. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT OPTION ALTERNATIVES Airport improvements alternatives were identified to address the current needs and objectives. Improvement options for the airport were evaluated by utilizing Federal Aviation Regulations and established FAA recommended and required design criteria. Input was also solicited from the airport user community. Table ES.1 provides a summary of the alternatives considered. Improvements were evaluated based on FAA recommended and required design criteria, proper airspace facilitation and future growth. Environmental data and resource agencies input will be considered during the following EA Update Revision process. Alternatives developed in a 2000 Master Plan were reviewed in the 2010 EA. The 2010 Final EA was reviewed and this report concurs in the elimination of those alternatives as being viable. Alternatives developed in a 2003 Airport Layout Plan Narrative Report were also evaluated in the 2010 Final EA. Two of the three alternatives were forwarded into the 2010 Final EA for consideration and the other eliminated. This report also concurs with that action. Since all new alternatives considered in the 2010 Final EA appear to meet the transitional surface clearance criteria, they were all continued into this Forecasting Report for further consideration. Two new alternatives were added for consideration. SEPTEMBER, 2012

20 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE Runway Centerline Lateral (east) shift Runway 34 Threshold Longitudinal (north) shift STATUS 1 No Action Eliminated by Airport Owner as not financially sound and does not meet FAA design standards However it must be evaluated in any EA Master Plan 1A Eliminated by 2010 EA - Concur Master Plan 1B Eliminated by 2010 EA - Concur 2000 Master Plan Master Plan 2A 40 0 Eliminated by 2010 EA - Concur Master Plan 2B 0 0 Eliminated by 2010 EA - Concur Master Plan 3A Eliminated by 2010 EA - Concur Master Plan 3B Eliminated by 2010 EA - Concur Master Plan 4 Reorientation Reorientation Eliminated by 2010 EA - Concur Master Plan 5 >400 Unknown Eliminated by 2010 EA - Concur Master Plan Eliminated by 2010 EA - Concur 2003 ALP 2003 ALP # Eliminated by 2010 EA - Concur 2003 ALP #2 240 Forwarded into 2010 EA as Alt ALP #3 400 Forwarded into 2010 EA as Alt Forwarded into 2012 Forecast Report 2012 Forecast Report New 2010 EA 2A Forwarded into 2012 Forecast Report Forwarded into 2012 Forecast Report 3A Forwarded into 2012 Forecast Report Forwarded into 2012 Forecast Report 4A New Alternative 4B New Alternative Table ES.0.1: Improvements Alternatives Considered SEPTEMBER, 2012

21 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 ES.4. CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATIONS Although many of the alternatives evaluated will technically meet the FAA s recommended and required design criteria and have similar airspace evaluations, other factors such as growth potential and project cost were considered. However, the element that drives the decision for the preferred alternative for this Forecast Report is the consideration of future development area for apron and hangar space. The Airport Owner is in the fairly uncommon position of needing to shift their only runway to meet FAA required separation between run runway and parallel taxiway. Since this is such a major undertaking, serious consideration needs to be made about moving it enough and purchasing enough land to accommodate future development. This Forecasting Report recommends updating the EA for a runway that is 75 feet wide and 5,200 feet long as Ravalli County s preferred alternative. If staged development is necessary, 4,800 feet should be the minimum length initially considered with follow-up extension when practical. A runway of these dimensions should be shifted 400 east of the existing runway. The southern threshold should be shifted approximately 1,550 feet north. Other improvements that need to be completed, some possibly prior to runway relocation, include apron expansion and existing apron taxiway rehabilitation reconstruction. The results of the study conclude that, provided funding can be secured and an environmental determination made; there are no major impediments to developing the preferred alternative. This study evaluated a range of improvement options and strategies that may be considered as funding becomes available. The ability to develop projects based on the County s preferred alternative for the Ravalli County Airport is a function of the availability of existing and future federal, state, local, and private funding sources. At the current time there is no funding identified to complete any of the improvement options recommended in this study. FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds are the most logical source of funding for the major improvement options for the airport. Other funding sources may also be available such as the Montana Department of Transportation s Aeronautics Division grant loan program. SEPTEMBER, 2012

22 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To continue with the development of a project (or projects) the following steps are needed: Airport owner, Ravalli County, concurs with or revises this Forecasting Report; Submit Forecasting Report to the FAA for their concurrence or revision; Following any revisions, forward preferred alternative(s) for a Revised Environmental Assessment process including the public involvement process; After completion of the Revised EA process and an environmental determination, follow FAA guidelines for project nomination and development including completion of a detailed Airport Layout Plan for the preferred alternative; Identify and secure a funding source or sources for projects. SEPTEMBER, 2012

23 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT - Hamilton, Montana Forecasting Report Chapter 1. Introduction

24

25 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1-1 Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. BACKGROUND Ravalli County Airport (RCA) is located in Ravalli County Montana on the eastern edge of the City of Hamilton. It is just over one mile east of highway 93 and adjacent to State Highway 269 which is also known as the East Side Highway. It is bounded on the south by Tammany Lane although airport property goes further south to Golf Course Road. On the north, the first feature encountered is Stock Farm Road. However the current northern airport property line is about a quarter mile south of that. Undeveloped land lies to the east. The Airport is owned and operated by Ravalli County. The Ravalli County Airport Board serves at the County Commissioner s pleasure and they serve voluntarily. They serve the Commissioners in an advisory role only. The County also employs an airport manager to take care of the day-to-day duties required at the airport PURPOSE The Ravalli County and the Federal Aviation Administration initiated this Forecasting Report in an effort to assess needs and identify improvement options at the Ravalli County Airport that meet aviation demand and safety requirements. The County encourages aviation as they see the facility as a critical piece of public infrastructure which provides related economic activity in the region. In order to determine facility improvements required to accommodate projected future activity, it is necessary to understand the types and extent of current aviation activity. Therefore, the primary purpose the forecast effort is to assess the existing aviation activity and apply reasonable future projections to document justification for any airport improvements. As stated above, the purpose of the study is to determine feasible facility improvement options to address the existing and future needs and objectives of the airport. Concerns within the study area for this report will focus on the aeronautical sufficiency of the options considered. Concerns within the study area based on community input, the environment, and resource agencies will be addressed by an Environmental Assessment (EA) Revision following this Forecast Report. The Forecast Report examines geometric and operational characteristics of the airport facility. Based on this, alternative evaluations will be presented to the airport owner for consideration. Recommended alternative(s) resulting from that will be forwarded into the NEPA process. Reasons for revising the 2010 Final EA are discussed in detail in History of Recent Ravalli County Airport Planning SEPTEMBER, 2012

26 1-2 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The study area boundary includes the outside perimeter of the conical surfaces defined in FAR Part 77 for the alternatives considered. The study area is shown in Figure 1.1: Forecast Report Study Boundary. Figure 1.1: Forecast Report Study Boundary 1 SEPTEMBER, 2012

27 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1-3 The conical surface perimeter was chosen because any substantive revisions to the airport geometry will likely cause Ravalli County to revisit their Airport Influence Area (AIA) document and possibly convert it to an Airport Affected Area (AAA) to comply with current Montana statutes. This is discussed in Airport Affected Area. Aside from this factor, the study area will be limited approximately to the 65DNL line perimeters of each alternative considered which includes the existing airport property and portions of most adjoining properties PROCESS The forecasting process was developed primarily by RPA working with Ravalli County with input from the FAA. The scope of the planning effort was developed based on the need to review and update forecasting information previously generated for the 2010 Final EA by Morrison Maierle, Inc. (MMI) see History of Recent Ravalli County Airport Planning. A number of public comments were received that challenged the validity of the forecasts of aviation activity at the airport. Therefore, it was decided to update the forecast using current information and applying national trends and forecasts for aviation activity. Another objective of the Forecasting Report was to evaluate the alternatives considered in the 2010 Final EA in light of the revised forecast and establish if they should be revised or others considered. Cost estimates by MMI are to be updated and new ones generated for any new alternatives. This Forecasting Report is developed as a planning study to determine the feasibility of various improvements options to the airport and does not include design effort or Airport Layout Plan development. The Forecast Report provides another opportunity to coordinate establish the proposed airport improvements with the airport owner, facility users, and public. The results of the planning effort will be used to justify the recommended project improvements forwarded by Ravalli County PREVIOUS FORECASTING PLANNING History of Recent Ravalli County Airport Planning In July 2003, Ravalli County initiated work on a NEPA EA to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with implementing improvements to meet FAA design standards for runway to taxiway separation. A Preliminary Draft of the EA was presented to the Ravalli County Airport Board at a special meeting on March 25, 2004 in the Ravalli County Courthouse. Airport Board members instructed their consultant to revise the Preliminary Draft EA based on comments and discussion at the meeting. The Board expressed their desire to present a revised version of the EA to the Board of County Commissioners after appropriate changes had been made to the document. SEPTEMBER, 2012

28 1-4 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION A public information meeting was held in the Ravalli County Courthouse on November 16, 2004 to present the Preliminary Draft EA to the County Commissioners and to receive public comment. A public hearing scheduled for May 2005 was cancelled to allow for further work on the EA. In February 2008 a revised Draft Environmental Assessment was submitted to Ravalli County. A public hearing was scheduled for October 2008 but was cancelled to examine issues arising from public comment. After many revisions, a Final Draft EA was released in November A public hearing was scheduled for January 7, 2009, but was postponed by Ravalli County for further review of the document and additional public input. In August 2009, Ravalli County determined that additional analysis was needed of the 2008 Draft EA including an update to the aviation forecasts, an evaluation of additional alternatives from the 1996 Master Plan and 2002 Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Narrative Report, review of the potential to relocate the airport, and study of two additional development alternatives (identified as Alternatives 2A and 3A) requested by Ravalli County. An analysis of Draft Alternatives 2A and 3A was presented to the Ravalli County Commission on November 16, Following discussion and public comment, the Commission requested Alternatives 2A and 3A be modified. Modified Alternatives 2A and 3A were presented to the Commission April 7, After discussion and public comment, the Commission voted to adopt modified Alternative 2A as the preferred alternative in the Final Draft EA. Alternative 2A called for the construction of Runway 1634 to a width of 75 feet and a length of 4,200 feet. Under Phase 1 of the preferred alternative, the runway would be built parallel to the existing runway but moved 93 feet to the east and the 34 end of the existing runway shifted 1,000 feet to the north. Phase 2 development activities included a 1,000-foot long extension to Runway In June 2010, the Final Draft EA was released. A public hearing on the document was held on August 31, Responses to comments received were incorporated into a Final EA in November The Final EA was accepted by Ravalli County on November 17, 2010 with the passage of Resolution 2610, and the Final EA was submitted to the FAA for a final environmental determination shortly thereafter. During March 2011, the FAA prepared a draft Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision (FONSIROD) for relocating Runway 1634 and the document was made available for public review beginning April 6, The Board of County Commissioners held a meeting on May 5, 2011 to discuss and take action regarding the draft FONSIROD for the Final EA and whether another alternative should be identified as the County s preferred alternative. Through discussion, the following issues were generally identified as reasons for no longer favoring Alternative 2A: Closure of Runway 1634 for a significant period of time during construction of Alternative 2A; SEPTEMBER, 2012

29 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1-5 Potential negative effects on airport based businesses during the time when the runway is closed; Costs there may be some options that are less expensive than Alternative 2A; and The potential benefits of initially building a 5,200-foot long runway rather than stage constructing the new runway to an ultimate length of 5,200 feet over an extended period. The Board of County Commissioners heard comments from the public and addressed questions prior to taking action. Ultimately, the Commissioners passed Resolution 2766 rescinding their approval of the November 2010 Ravalli County Airport Final EA (Resolution 2610). The resolution indicated the Commissioners no longer favored Alternative 2A and intended to undertake a public process to identify a new preferred airport improvement action. Further, the resolution requested the FAA take no further action regarding the draft FONSIROD offered for public review and comment in April In late May 2011, Ravalli County solicited statements of qualifications and experience (SOQ) to be used in selecting a Principal Consultant to provide Airport Planning Services for the Ravalli County Airport. The services requested by the county included planning, coordination, contract administration, accounting, and incidental services for updating the EA. One of the major tasks identified was the need to address previously unanswered concerns related to the November 2010 Environmental Assessment for the Ravalli County Airport. Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. (RPA) was selected by Ravalli County on July 20, 2011 to provide the desired airport planning and environmental services needed for the EA. RPA coordinated with both the County and FAA representatives to develop an appropriate scope of services for updating and completing the EA process. A contract with the RPA was executed on October 27, RPA held an introductory meeting with the County Commissioners on November 30, The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the scope of work and proposed approach to completing the EA. The meeting was duly advertised and public comment was accepted at the meeting. The reasons for issuing a Revised Draft EA are as follows: Since the FONSIROD on the November 2010 Ravalli County Airport Final EA was never finalized, the project reverts back to the Draft EA stage. The County believes that the Preferred Action presented in the November 2010 Ravalli County Airport Final EA is not the best alternative. The FAA requires that a newrevised Draft EA be produced and made available for public review and comment for any different Preferred Alternative. The agency (FAA) must prepare supplements to an EA if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. (Significant information is information that SEPTEMBER, 2012

30 1-6 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION paints a dramatically different picture of impacts compared to the description of impacts in the EA.) Ravalli County Growth Policy The Ravalli County Growth Policy, adopted December 2002 was developed as a guiding document for growth and development within the County. The Growth Policy was a decision making tool to help achieve the vision of Ravalli County citizens and to provide guidance to developers and investors in the area. The Policy was approved by voters in November of 2004 and amended in November of However the Policy was repealed in November 2008 following a voter based initiative driven by their concerns over county wide zoning efforts. Citizen-initiated zoning districts are still enforceable as they are developed as a result of at least 60% of the freeholders within the proposed district signing a petition for implementation. 2 The vision of the Growth Policy was as follows: The Ravalli County Growth Policy is designed to establish a comprehensive set of longrange goals and goal-related policies to guide future growth and development. It seeks to provide an increased level of predictability to land owners, neighbors and developers about where and how growth can be accommodated in ways that are compatible with fiscal and environmental concerns. - pg. 1, Ravalli County Growth Policy Airport Affected Area On April 19, 2005, the Montana State Legislature approved the "Airport Compatibility Act" (ACA), Title 67, Chapter 7, Montana Code Annotated. Pursuant to the ACA, local governing bodies who own or control an airport included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) were to: 1. Designate an airport affected area (AAA); 2. Concurrently adopt regulations for the AAA that comply with MCA ; and 3. Administer and enforce the regulations that are adopted. Ravalli County owns the airport east of the City of Hamilton, and is therefore the local governing body with the authority to designate an AAA. Ravalli County's airport is included in the NPIAS. The designation of the AAA and associated regulations were to be adopted by April 19, 2006, but Ravalli County failed to adopt the AAA or regulations. The County is currently in the process of identifying the AAA and generating appropriate land use regulations. 4 The Ravalli County Planning Department s web-site summarizes existing statute in MCA regarding the AAA and MACo developed model regulations. SEPTEMBER, 2012

31 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1-7 In November 2002, Ravalli County adopted regulations governing the Airport Influence Area (AIA) under MCA Title 67, Chapter 4, 5 and 6. The area is an irregularly defined area generally following roads and topographical features around the airport. Although Chapters 4, 5 and 6 have been repealed and replaced with Title 67, Chapter 7 Airport Affected Areas, the AIA regulations likely meet the legal requirements of the ACA. However any revisions to the airport configuration or proposed revisions to the AIA may require the adoption of an AAA and associated regulations under current MCA statutes. Ravalli County will need to determine if revisions to the existing AIA, if required due to airport configuration changes, comply with current MCA statues. MCA Title 67, Chapter 7 is included for reference in Appendix A FAA Aerospace Forecast (Years ) The FAA updates yearly their aviation forecast projections. The 2012 update is now available for reference, and is available for review at asts According to the FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years , The general aviation forecasts rely heavily on discussions with industry experts conducted at a workshop co-hosted by FAA and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in July 2011 along with the results of the 2010 General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey. The assumptions have been updated by FAA analysts to reflect more recent data and developing trends, as well as further information from industry experts. Although the slow growth and expectations of a European recession has dampened the near term prospects for general aviation, the long-term outlook remains favorable. We see growth in business aviation demand over the long term driven by a growing U.S. and world economy especially in the turbo jet and turbine rotorcraft markets. As the fleet grows, the number of general aviation hours flown is projected to increase an average of 1.7 percent a year through In this FAA Aerospace Forecast, aviation traffic and activity forecasts are broken out separately by commercial aviation activity and general aviation activity. This Forecast Report for Ravalli County Airport will draw information from the FAA s report in an attempt to project existing numbers into the future. Applicable excerpts are included in Appendix C US Census Bureau The US Census Bureau is an agency that has a wealth of data from information they collect and periodically update. This report will primarily make use of the historical population growth for Ravalli County and City of Hamilton. They will be considered with the FAA Aerospace Forecast to establish airport forecasts. SEPTEMBER, 2012

32 1-8 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION FAA Terminal Area Forecast and FAA 5010 The Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) system is the official forecast of aviation activity at FAA facilities. These forecasts are prepared to meet the budget and planning needs of FAA and provide information for use by state and local authorities, the aviation industry, and the public. 7 The TAF includes forecasts for active airports in the National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS). 7 The web-site associated with the TAF allows any user to query their data base in many ways. For this report, a query was made for the Ravalli County Airport only. The resulting detailed report was based on their forecast issued in January This query tool is available at The TAF summary report is available for review at The content of the TAF report was reviewed and used for comparison of aircraft operations established and estimated in this Forecast Report. The FAA must consider the TAF in their evaluation approval of any airport forecasts. The TAF also has based aircraft data which was also used for comparison to this report s findings. In fact, the airport manager is tasked with updating these figures periodically on the FAA s National Based Aircraft Inventory Program. This web-based program has a process to verify and eventually confirm the aircraft list. Users are to follow certain steps to eliminate N-Number duplicates from their airport's list, verify N-Numbers reported by other airports, verify N-Numbers not found in FAA Aircraft Registration data and finally verify that all aircraft in the list are based at the facility FAA Study of General Aviation The FAA is taking a top-down look at the current general aviation airport system in the U.S. to better describe and explain the many roles and functions these airports serve in their respective communities. The review, which began in the fall of 2010, is focusing on infrastructure needs, based on the roles and functions of the airports. 8 The FAA worked closely with aviation industry stakeholders including associations, state aeronautical agencies, airport directors, airport authorities, airport planners, local councils of governments, and aviation user groups to classify general aviation airports based on the roles they support. These stakeholders agree that more descriptive categories are needed in order to help the general public understand the importance of these airports and their capital investment needs. 8 With input from aviation industry stakeholders, the FAA has developed a list of classifications for general aviation airports. The report was published in May of 2012, and is available to the public at The report SEPTEMBER, 2012

33 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1-9 also discusses how general aviation serves important societal needs and aeronautical functions serving the public interest. Of the 2,952 general aviation airports studied, the report further classifies general aviation airports as National, Regional, Local or Basic. The number of airports in the US in these new categories are 84, 467, 1236 and 668 respectively. 497 have not been classified yet and require further study. Ravalli County Airport was categorized as a Local airport. The report entitled General Aviation Airports: A National Asset says, Local airports (1,236) are the backbone of our general aviation system with at least one local airport in virtually every state. They are typically located near larger population centers, but not necessarily in metropolitan or micropolitan areas. Local airports account for 42 percent of the general aviation airports eligible for Federal funding. They also account for approximately 38 percent of the total flying at the studied general aviation airports and 17 percent of flying with flight plans. Most of the flying is by piston aircraft in support of business and personal needs. In addition, these airports also typically accommodate flight training, emergency services, and charter passenger service. The flying tends to be within a state or immediate region. There are no heliports, but there are four seaplane bases in this category. 9 Local airports supplement communities by providing access to primarily intrastate and some interstate markets. These airports accommodate small businesses, flight training, emergency service, charter passenger service, cargo operations, and personal flying activities. They typically accommodate smaller general aviation aircraft, mostly single-engine propeller and some multiengine aircraft. Some 1,236 general aviation airports meet the following criteria and have been designated local airports: The airport has at least 10 annual IFR operations and at least 15 based aircraft; or the airport has at least 2,500 annual passenger enplanements. 9 Appendix B of that report summarizes that Montana has 120 public use airports, 70 of which are in the NPIAS. Seven of those are Primary Airports like Missoula. Of the remaining 63 Nonprimary Airports, none were National, one was Regional, 25 were Local and 33 were Basic. Four were not classified. SEPTEMBER, 2012

34 1-10 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This page intentionally left blank. SEPTEMBER, 2012

35 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT - Hamilton, Montana Forecasting Report Chapter 2. Existing Facilities and Operations Background

36

37 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS BACKGROUND 2-1 Chapter 2. Existing Facilities and Operations Background Ravalli County Airport (RCA) is classified as a general aviation (GA) airport. Although the USC Title 49 Transportation does not define general aviation airport, it is taken to mean all airports that are not commercial service, cargo service or a reliever of a commercial service airport. 10 The airport primarily serves the Ravalli County area, but also provides a convenient pit-stop for aircraft operations into remote strips and as a transition into Idaho. General aviation airports provide a variety of functions, ranging from access for emergency medical services, disaster relief, aerial firefighting, law enforcement and border control to agricultural functions, flight training, charter passenger, recreation and time-sensitive air cargo services, among others. This chapter portrays the conditions of the existing airport facility and users AIRPORT LOCATION Ravalli County Airport lies within the Bitterroot Valley of southwest Montana approximately 50 miles south of Missoula. It is toward the southern end of the valley, prior to where the valley narrows in the vicinity of Darby. It currently occupies approximately 319 acres through fee ownership and easements. The west side of the valley is bounded by the Bitterroot Range of mountains. The eastern side is bounded by the Sapphire range. Both are included in the Bitterroot National Forest. Over a quarter-million acres of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness lies within Montana in the Bitterroot Range. The Anaconda-Pintlar Wilderness is within the Sapphire Range, but it lies within the Big Hole Valley drainage. The facility is at approximately 3,640 above mean sea level (MSL). This is important to note because elevation plays a role in runway length determination since reciprocating engines are not as efficient at higher elevations. SEPTEMBER, 2012

38 2-2 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPS BACKGROUND Figure 2.1: Bitterroot Valley Vicinity Map 1 SEPTEMBER, 2012

39 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS BACKGROUND CLIMATE Climate and predominate weather conditions are a consideration at airports for many reasons. The main factors are discussed below Temperature Temperature effects aircraft engine performance and lift and therefore runway length requirements. The mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month at an airport is used along with runway elevation to calculate recommended runway length. (Sometimes runway gradient plays a role too.) According to the Western Regional Climate Center, July is the hottest month at Hamilton, with a mean daily maximum temperature of 84.8 F. August follows closely behind at 83.1 F. 11 Figure 2.2: Hamilton Historic Temperature and Precipitation Averages below illustrate the historical temperatures for the Hamilton area Precipitation Precipitation can causes slippery runway conditions, which reduce aircraft braking performance and in turn is sometime factored into runway length requirements. Precipitation in the form of snow can also cause snow removal problems for airport personnel and hazards to aircraft if not properly removed. Figure 2.2: Hamilton Historic Temperature and Precipitation Averages 11 SEPTEMBER, 2012

40 2-4 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPS BACKGROUND Wind Wind often plays a significant role in Montana regarding airport runway orientations. It is also a factor in determining whether or not multiple runways are justified. Aircraft, particularly smaller ones, have a more difficult time landing in heavy winds that are blowing across the runway. Ideally, aircraft land and take-off directly into the wind. Consequently the airport s primary runway should be aligned with the prevailing wind. Cross-winds tend to weather-vane aircraft causing them to land skewed to the runway centerline unless corrected with a crabbing maneuver. It also causes aircraft to drift off centerline because they are literally blown sideways from their intended target. A tail wind necessitates longer runway take-off and landing requirements. Figure 2.3: Ravalli County Airport Wind Rose shows a wind rose from the Ravalli County Airport ALP. Figure 2.3: Ravalli County Airport Wind Rose 12 SEPTEMBER, 2012

41 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS BACKGROUND 2-5 The wind rose indicates that winds at the airport are often calm. Winds are under 10 knots 98% percent of the time. Winds between 10 and 17 knots emanate from many directions, but mostly from the southeast. Winds over 17 knots generally emanate from the north-northwest direction. The FAA uses 95% coverage as adequate cross-wind coverage for an airport. (10.5 knots for the smallest airplanes is the most stringent.) Less coverage could serve as justification for runway realignment or additional runways. Fortunately, the Ravalli County Airport exceeds this expectation, even at 10.5 knots, and so consideration of realignment due to winds is not necessary Visibility and Ceiling Other factors that affect air navigation are the elevation of cloud base layers and visibility distance. Depending upon what airspace classification a pilot is in, there are rules as to whether or not they can operated an aircraft with certain visibility and ceiling parameters. Once those are exceeded, a pilot needs to be appropriately qualified and must rely more on their navigational instruments. They also operate under a different set of rules called instrument flight rules (IFR). The ability to arrive or depart from an airport not only depends on the visibility and ceiling, but also whether or not instrument procedure(s) have been developed to facilitate operations under deteriorated conditions. In the case of the Ravalli County Airport, the valley is sometimes prone to fog that becomes trapped in an inversion during the winter and smoke can affect visibility in the summer and fall. The Airport has three instrument procedures that have been developed by the FAA to assist operations in poorer weather FACILITIES Facility classifications that are commonly used to organize this information include the following: Airside Pavements Runway Ravalli County Airport has one runway. It is 75 feet wide and 4,200 feet long. The runway is designated as Runway 1634 and it has a magnetic bearing of N00⁰44 45 E. Taking into account the magnetic declination of the area and its drift, it is anticipated that if the runway s alignment stays the same, the designation will soon change to The airport is most frequently used for small general aviation (GA) aircraft operations. However, due to the nature of the valley, the airport sees a fair number of larger (large twin engine and business jet) aircraft operations too. There are also many helicopter operations compared to other Montana SEPTEMBER, 2012

42 2-6 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPS BACKGROUND airports. Government use is primarily though the US Forest Service for fire suppression activities. The Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks department is also known to be a user. Increased operational capacity resulting from a longer runway would allow the US Forest Service greater ability flexibility to service surrounding forests in the event of fire. See the US Forest Service letter in Appendix B. The runway has a standard medium intensity runway edge lighting system for aircraft to use during night operations or during periods of low visibility. They also assist during instrument landings. The airport runway does not have any Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) but each runway end is equipped with Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) to assist pilots with visual cues to establish the proper glide path for landing. The weight-bearing capacity of a runway is not a limit on the size of aircraft that can use the runway, but an indication of the size of aircraft for which the runway was designed. The RCA runway was designed for 17,000 pound aircraft with single wheel gear. Dual wheeled aircraft can be somewhat larger because the load is spread over a larger tire footprint. Use by aircraft heavier than the design capacity can result in damage, increased runway maintenance and premature replacement. Taxiways and Taxilanes RCA has a full length parallel taxiway with four connectors to the runway. The parallel taxiway is a non-standard width of 30 feet. Its centerline is only 200 feet from the runway centerline. There are also a multitude of taxiways and taxilanes on the airport that facilitate the ground movement of aircraft to areas of apron parking, fueling and hangar storage. All but one of these are in poor condition. Most are non-standard in design, configuration and size. Pavement sections and consequently weight bearing capacity likely vary significantly. Aprons RCA has three apron areas. The southernmost apron is immediately adjacent to and west of the parallel taxiway. It is quite small, has two tiedown locations (which are leased out) and is in very poor condition. The main portion was historically used as a location for fueling aircraft. The middle apron is immediately north of that apron. It is also west of the parallel taxiway, but it is separated from it by a narrow turf island. This is considered the airport s main apron and has 28 tiedown positions. The pavement is in very poor condition. This area has also been the focus of territory disputes, so to speak, because of the lack of parking facilities at the airport during peak periods of the year. Seven of the tiedowns are leased to individual pilots, 14 are leased to the FBOs. The remaining seven are for general itinerant or larger aircraft parking. However, these tiedowns are clustered quite closely together in the limited area at the south end of that ramp. The northernmost apron is essentially an extension of the middle apron with a taxiway bisecting them. This pavement is in good condition because it was placed in the recent past at the expense of one of the FBOs and is therefore for their exclusive use in parking aircraft. It has nine tiedowns. SEPTEMBER, 2012

43 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS BACKGROUND 2-7 NORTH APRON (9 PRIVATE) ROW LEASED TO LOCAL PILOTS (7) MIDDLE APRON ROWS LEASED TO FBOs (14) OVERFLOW (7 TIGHT) SOUTH APRON (2) LEASED Figure 2.4: Ravalli County Airport Apron Areas FAR Part 77 Airspace The various imaginary surfaces defined by 14 CFR FAR Part 77 for the existing facility along with their problem areas are listed below. They are listed in order of proximity and importance to the runway. Excerpts of applicable Part 77 text are included in Appendix A. Primary Surface Having a pavement strength of 17,000 pounds, and the type of aircraft that use the facility, classifies the existing runway as other than utility in FAR Part 77. The primary surface width associated with other than utility is 500 feet. The primary surface is a surface longitudinally centered on a runway extending 200 feet beyond each runway end. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. SEPTEMBER, 2012

44 2-8 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPS BACKGROUND There are no documented issues with primary surface penetrations. Approach Surfaces The 14 CFR FAR Part 77 surface considered most important to protect is the approach surface to each runway. Each approach surface is longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extends outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and it expands uniformly to a width of 1,500 feet at 5,200 feet from each runway end since the runways currently have visual or instrument circling approaches, which are considered visual approaches. The slope of this approach surface is 20:1. With the emergence of satellite based approaches, it is recommended that Ravalli County plan for future straight-in instrument approach procedure(s). The required dimensions for this approach surface are: inner edge equals primary surface width of 500 feet, expands uniformly to a width of 3,500 feet at 10,200 feet from the runway end, and has a slope of 34:1. The existing runway has tree and terrain penetrations for the approach into Runway 16. It also has tree and road clearance penetrations for the Runway 34 approach. Transitional Surfaces These surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline, and the runway centerline extended, at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. Based on the information available on the existing Airport Layout Plan, it appears that there are several structures that penetrate the transitional surface on the west side of the runway. The east side appears to be clear. Horizontal Surface This surface is defined as a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging 5,000-foot arcs from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. As discussed above, with the emergence of satellite based approaches, it is recommended that Ravalli County plan for future straight-in instrument approach procedure(s). To support those operations, the perimeter is this case would be constructed by swinging 10,000-foot arcs from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. There may be slight penetrations of the existing horizontal surface southeast of the airport in the form of terrain and any trees or structures in that area. SEPTEMBER, 2012

45 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS BACKGROUND 2-9 Conical Surface The conical surface is a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. There may be slight penetrations of the existing conical surface in the same vicinity as those of the horizontal surface FAA Airspace Classification Ravalli County Airport is centered within a 10 mile diameter ring of FAA Class E Airspace which extends to the ground surface. There is similar airspace in the vicinity of Stevensville Airport to the north. Figure 2.5: FAA Sectional Map 13 SEPTEMBER, 2012

46 2-10 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPS BACKGROUND There is also a Victor Airway V231 that runs north-south through the valley that connects Missoula Airport to the Salmon VOR, which is a major navigation hub that radiates to other airport areas like Anaconda and Dillon Montana; Lewiston, McCall, Burley, Pocatello and Dubois Idaho. This airspace classification dictates pilot rules in the area but really has no bearing on the Forecast Report. From the sectional map it can be seen that there are five restricted or private landing strips located in the vicinity. There is also a heliport indicated as well as a notice that there is frequent glider activity in the area Instrument Procedures The FAA Flight Procedures Division develops, checks, and updates instrument procedure for many airports although many airports do not have any procedures. An instrument procedure is a series of predetermined maneuvers a pilot makes with the aircraft, under instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions, to safely transition from an enroute flight, begin an initial approach, and make a final approach to a landing - or then transition to visual flight rules (VFR). Procedures are accomplished using on-board equipment on the aircraft, ground based equipment transmissions and global positioning satellite signals to provide aircraft position, both horizontally and vertically. As touched on in Visibility and Ceiling, instrument procedures are categorized by type, aircraft approach speed, minimum visibility, and cloud ceiling height. Two RNAV GPS instrument approaches currently exist for RCA - one from the south and one from the north. There is also a published departure to the north. There is no instrument departure south because of obstacles as noted in the Hamey One Departure shown in Appendix A 14. Both of these circling approaches allow pilots to get to the airport and then transition to visual flight rules (VFR) before landing. They cannot be used at night. The southern approach requires a 1,098-foot or better ceiling height, while the northern approach required a 1,018 ceiling. Both have 1-14 to 1-12 mile visibility requirements depending on the approach speed of the aircraft. The departure requires 1 mile of visibility. These are included in Appendix A Fixed Based Operators RCA has had several FBOs over its history. RCA currently has two FBOs. North Star Aviation North Star Aviation has a large commercial hangar adjacent to the middle apron. They also lease a similar size lot just north of their building. They provide 100 octane low-lead (100LL) and Jet A fueling services, flight training, aircraft rental, transient hangar storage, chartered flights, courtesy cars, rental cars, pilot facilities and ground power unit for operation of aircraft avionics and engine start up on the ground. SEPTEMBER, 2012

47 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS BACKGROUND 2-11 Hamilton Aviation Hamilton Aviation also has a large hangar. The building is west of the north apron and north of the North Star operation. They provide Jet A fuel services. Other services provided could not be confirmed Commercial Operations There are no commercial passenger flights at the airport, although charter flights do occur. Consequently there are no public terminal building space ticket counters, gates, concession, security, etc. There is a history of multiple FBOs at the airport and there are currently two in operation. Along with general public aircraft parking these business also need aircraft parking apron area. The airport also has a history of usually having a restaurant in business on the field Fuel As discussed in Fixed Based Operators, both 100LL and Jet A fuel are available. North Star provides 100LL that is available by self-service or truck. Jet A is delivered by fuel truck only. Hamilton Aviation has sold fuel in the past, but did not in They have resumed sales of Jet A in Hangars and Lease Areas In comparison to most general aviation airports across Montana, RCA has a multitude of hangars. The most current list of buildings for which the Airport collects hangar leases is fifty-five (55). Some buildings contain more than one lease holder. The total leases for hangar type buildings are sixtyfour (64). In those buildings are 105 aircraft. (Some do not show up in the based aircraft count because they are inactive as they are being restored or built.) There are also six aircraft that rent apron space for their permanent parking. See Appendix B for the Lease Holder Listing Summary. As of the writing of this report there are three people that have expressed interest in building a hangar and are working through the review process. Other lease areas include the Trap Club, US Forest Service, two aviation fuel farms, Hamilton Aviation ramp area and a café Access and Parking The Airport is served by one access point from the East Side Highway. Capacity and condition of the access do not appear to be an issue. There are some interior service roads, but much of the traffic travels via taxilanes. Access to the active side of the airport is relatively unrestricted to vehicles or pedestrians. SEPTEMBER, 2012

48 2-12 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPS BACKGROUND Parking seems to be adequate but unstructured. Parking during events like fly-ins relies on field parking Utilities Utility demands for such things as water, sanitary sewer, power and communications fall outside of the scope of this Forecasting Report planning document. However, it can be noted that ground water is not difficult to find. Airport water users are not connected to city water. It can also be noted that there is a current moratorium on new waste water treatment on airport property. This is an on-going issue being reviewed at the county level Other There are no general aviation terminal facilities (pilot preparation areas or restrooms) aside from the FBOs. There are no designated Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) vehicles or stations. Another feature of the airport includes an eating establishment called the Hangar Café. The establishment has been owned by several different people under several names over the years. It is located adjacent to the southern apron described above. There is a large shop building that serves as the Airport Manager s office as well as equipment storage and repair. The US Forest Service owns a building on leased airport property. The facility primarily serves as a headquarters for aerial fire suppression activities in the area. As one enters the County s property from highway 93, immediately to the south of the access road is an area that has been mined for aggregate. It still serves as a location to process and store aggregate materials and equipment for the County. North of the access road is the Hamilton Trap Club. It was relocated to this location with County Commissioner coordination in The facility is for shotguns only no rifle or pistol shooting is allowed. The Club remains active in membership leagues, charity events and youth programs. Yearly skydiver events utilize an open field near mid-field and west of the Café and south apron area. A very minor amount of camping and parking for special events is facilitated by this area as well. However, there are no parks per se, and no industrial parks, agricultural or grazing leases, or retail businesses. There are no cargo facilities at the airport; however, on occasion some companies like UPS and USPS make use of the facility with relatively small aircraft. (An example would be in 2011 when Missoula Airport was shut down.) SEPTEMBER, 2012

49 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS BACKGROUND AIRPORT OPERATIONS Following is an overview data sources usually used for establishing aviation activities at general aviation airports without air carrier activity and how they relate to the Ravalli County Airport FlightAware FlightAware is a company that offers flight tracking data for aircraft whose pilots file IFR flight plans. FlightAware data includes aircraft registration and owner information, aircraft type, origin airport, destination, departure arrival date and times. FlightAware data is not a complete record of aviation activity at an airport because aircraft flying VFR flight plans are not included in the tracking data. Also many aircraft owners request that their aircraft information be blocked to protect their privacy. A one year period of IFR operations was purchase from FlightAware 15 for the period of October 2010 through October The data was painstakingly reviewed. Any IFR flights should have an arrival and a departure. If there was only one flight by an aircraft, that means the other leg of the trip was accomplished using a VFR flight plan in which case a flight was added to the data. The data was also combined with the Fuel sales data discussed below. See Appendix B Fuel Sales One of the main purposes of this report is to determine the appropriate airport reference code (ARC) for future improvements. Like the FlightAware data above, fuel sales are another recorded set of data from which a minimum amount of any given airport reference code can be estimated. Since required runway separation is determined from the ARC design group component, there is an interest in the number of aircraft design group (ADG) II or larger operations. Most of the aircraft in ADG II or larger use jet fuel as opposed to 100 low-lead (LL) aviation fuel. (Higher performance, piston driven, aircraft and helicopters often use jet fuel not just jet engine aircraft.) There may be some ADG II aircraft using the Ravalli County Airport that use 100LL fuel. If so, they were not accounted for in this fuel sale tally. Fuel Sales records were obtained from North Star Aviation for the same time period as the FlightAware data above. (According to the Airport Manager, Hamilton Aviation did not have any fuel sales reported during that period.) The hand written records for the jet fuel sales only were tabulated into a spreadsheet. Each fuel sale was considered to constitute two operations (a take-off and a landing). This is conservative as more than two operations can occur between fuelings. Also some aircraft may not take on fuel because of a close destination or the inability to take on fuel because of the runway length. SEPTEMBER, 2012

50 2-14 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPS BACKGROUND This spreadsheet was then combined (not added) to the FlightAware spreadsheet. Duplicates were eliminated. In other words, if an aircraft had fueling in close proximity to an IFR flight, they were considered to be the same and not counted twice. An extensive spreadsheet of this combination of data is included in Appendix B. From this combined data set, the primary result was that the minimum number of B-II (see 4.1. Airport Reference Code) aircraft operations were able to be determined. RCA collects a fuel flowage fee from entities that sell fuel on the airport. Summaries from the airport manager were collected for 2009, 2010 and They are tabularized below. Ravalli County Airport Fuel Flowage Summary (Gallons Jet Fuel) % Increase % Increase 2011 North Star Aviation (FBO) 127, % 131, % 149,179 Hamilton Aviation (FBO) 6, % 9, % 0 Others (Mostly Helicopter) 3, % 4, % 9,218 Total 138, % 145, % 158,397 FBO s Combined 134, % 140, % 149,179 Table 2.1: Ravalli County Airport Fuel Flowage Summary What can be gleaned from this information is that Jet A fuel use continues to grow even in a depressed economy. Gallons of fuel are approximately proportional to increased operations at RCA for Airplane Design Group II (ADG-II) and larger aircraft that use the facility. When taking out the helicopter fuel and combining the FBO totals to eliminate any swings in sales distribution, it can be seen that over the last few years Jet A fuel sales have increased 4.5% and 6.1% User Survey An on-line survey was developed to collect data from airport users to the extent possible. Post cards were sent to all Ravalli County registered pilots and registered aircraft owners inviting them to take part in the survey. The survey forms were also distributed to business entities from the FlightAware data set and a few others. 447 post cards were sent out. 114 completed the survey some with multiple aircraft, bringing the total responses to 135. SEPTEMBER, 2012

51 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS BACKGROUND 2-15 The survey solicited information from users or potential users aircraft (wing span, weight, runway length required) as well as frequency of use (currently and with improvements), hangar needs and general comments. A summary of those responses is included in Appendix B. Even though ranges of responses were prompted through pull-down selections, some respondents made errors in reporting information. (For example a certain model of aircraft might actually have a wing span different than what the respondent reported. Any obvious errors or omitted information were corrected.) From the survey for following observations can be made: WING SPAN SUMMARY No Response 2 Number W < (Design Group I) Number 49' W < 79' 19 (Design Group II) Number 79' > W 0 (Design Group III) 135 STALL SPEED SUMMARY No Response 3 Number S < 70 Knots 98 (Approach Cat. A) Number 49' S < 79' 30 (Approach Cat. B) Number 79' > S 4 (Approach Cat. C) 135 RUNWAY LENGTH SUMMARY No Response 5 Length 4,200' 100 Length 4,800' 10 Length 5,200' 10 Length > 5,200' Table 2.2: Survey Response Summary Tables AIRCRAFT WT. SUMMARY No Response 3 No. w < 12,500 lbs. 114 No. 12,500 < w < 30, No. 30,000 < w < 60,000 5 No. 60,000 < w < 100,000 0 No. 100,000 < w A summary of estimated current annual operations for the respondents only, totals approximately 6,886. Forty-five respondents owned hangars at the airport while thirteen felt they would construct a hangar if improvements were made. SEPTEMBER, 2012

52 2-16 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPS BACKGROUND An open ended comment was solicited relative to hangars and well as a general comment opportunity. Those responses are also summarized in Appendix B Terminal Area Forecast As described in FAA Terminal Area Forecast and FAA 5010, the TAF is an FAA annual report of historical aviation data. For some airports this includes forecast projections. However, for non-faa facilities, operation levels are held constant unless otherwise specified by a local or regional FAA official. 16 In other words, since the facility is not FAA owned, does not have an FAA tower or does not have passenger service, operations forecasts are held constant not forecasted. TAF operational data is broken into itinerant and local categories. Itinerant operations are takeoffs and landings for flights going from one airport to another. Local operations are takeoffs and landings by aircraft operating in the traffic pattern, to and from local practice areas, or aircraft otherwise practicing touch-and-goes or instrument approaches to the airport. The TAF data and forecasts include itinerant activity broken down by air carrier, air taxicommuter, GA, and military aircraft. Local activity is subdivided by civilian general aviation and military aircraft operations. The TAF does not break down operations by aircraft design group, approach category, engine type or make and model. TAF operational data published in 2012 is included in Appendix C. 7 Currently operations are estimated at 1,900 charters and 8,200 GA for a total of 10,100 itinerant operations. Local GA operations are estimated at 13,500 operations BASED AIRCRAFT Ravalli County Airport has an extensive variety of aircraft permanently stationed or based at the airport. The based aircraft at RCA are primarily small single engine aircraft, but of the 96 current aircraft, eight are multi engine, three are jet powered and one is a glider. These are shown in tabular form in the Forecasts Chapter Table 3.5: FAA 5010 Based Aircraft Summary. The complete list of aircraft is in Appendix B COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY Fixed-Wing There is no scheduled commercial activity at RCA. There is some charter fixed-wing activity with the FBO(s), but it is a relatively small amount. SEPTEMBER, 2012

53 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS BACKGROUND 2-17 Since this does not have a bearing on the results of this report, the extent of the charter activity was not delved into Helicopter There are a number of companies that operate helicopters in the valley and from the RCA. Minuteman Aviation, based in Missoula Montana, offers a selection of several helicopter models for charters hire. They provide services for geological survey crews, private companies and government agencies, construction company assistance, agricultural projects, recreation, air support for firefighters of the US Forest Service, and aid in search and rescue efforts. They have helicopters fully equipped for ambulance services. Carisch Helicopters is another helicopter charter company, based in Manhattan Montana, which has paid fuel flowage fees to RCA. They are reported to provide charter support for recreation, firefighting, search and rescue, filmingcinematography, and wildlife surveys. Others that have brought fuel on site and paid fuel flowage fees include Brainerd and AeroTech Helicopter. Mountain West has also operated from the field. They provide primarily helicopter logging and fire suppression support GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY The biggest government user of the airport, by far, is the USDA Forest Service. The airport serves as a central valley location for their fire suppression and other aviation needs. Their use is highly dependent on the fire conditions of any given year. The Forest Service has enough use that they have leased ground and gone to the extent of building a base for their operations. See Appendix B for a letter stating the airport s importance to them and a newspaper article relative to runway length versus single engine air tanker operations. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department and other government agencies may use the facility from time to time, but the use is sporadic and undocumented. SEPTEMBER, 2012

54 2-18 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPS BACKGROUND This page left intentionally blank. SEPTEMBER, 2012

55 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT - Hamilton, Montana Forecasting Report Chapter 3. Forecasts

56

57 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS 3-1 Chapter 3. Forecasts This chapter presents recent national aviation industry trends and local population and aviation trends. This information provides background for critical design aircraft activity and other needs forecasts. Short, intermediate and long-term (5, 10 & 20 year) RCA forecasts, will be presented. Forecasts will focus on those operations by critical design aircraft, but the figures will be evaluated for apron and hangar needs too FAA AEROSPACE FORECAST Ravalli County Airport (RCA) primarily serves general aviation (GA) aircraft including some charter flights. Included in the fleet of aircraft that use the facility are single-engine piston, multiengine piston, turboprop, and turbojet aircraft. Helicopters and gliders also use the facility. National GA trends should be reviewed relative to the aircraft activity and related needs. Each year, the FAA publishes its national aviation industry outlook in the FAA Aerospace Forecast. The forecast includes data on the current world and US economy as well as commercial and GA statistics. Forecasted aviation activity, aircraft fleet size and mix are also a product of their report, which will be referred to as one way to forecast growth trends at RCA. The FAA forecasts active aircraft, not total aircraft. The FAA uses estimates of fleet size, hours flown, and utilization from the General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey (GA Survey) as baseline figures upon which assumed growth rates can be applied. Beginning with the 2004 GA Survey, there were significant improvements to the survey methodology. Coinciding with the changed survey methodology, large changes in many categories were observed, both in the number of aircraft and hours flown. The results of the 2010 GA Survey are consistent with the results of surveys conducted since 2004, reinforcing our belief that the methodological improvements have resulted in superior estimates relative to those of the past. Thus, they are used as the basis for our forecast. Because results from the GA Survey are not published until the following year, the 2010 statistics are the latest available. Figures for 2011 are estimated based on other activity indicators. Activity forecasts begin in 2012 and continue through The general aviation forecasts rely heavily on discussions with industry experts conducted at a workshop co-hosted by FAA and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in July 2011 along with the results of the 2010 General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey. The assumptions have been updated by FAA analysts to reflect more recent data and developing trends, as well as further information from industry experts. The FAA also presents the forecasts and assumptions to industry staff and aviation associations, who are asked to comment on the reasonableness of the assumptions and forecasts. Their comments andor suggestions have been incorporated into the forecasts as appropriate. 6 SEPTEMBER, 2012

58 3-2 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS Number of Aircraft According to the Forecast, the average annual growth for piston powered fixed-wing GA aircraft is expected to decline throughout the 20-year planning period. A 0.1% decline is estimated for the single and multiengine combined category. Conversely, the Forecast estimates the average annual growth for turbo powered fixed-wing GA aircraft will increase throughout the 20-year planning period. A 2.9% increase is estimated for the turboprop and turbojet combined category. This is likely because fractional, corporate, and ondemand charter flights are becoming more practical. These types of flights minimize delays, increase convenience and increase corporate safety. Because of this, the people and corporations that have more need to use these types of aircraft for business or personal reasons are on the rise as compared to piston powered aircraft. Overall, the Forecast projects a 0.6% annual increase in all GA aircraft. (This includes rotorcraft, experimental, sport and other categories as well as the fixed wing mentioned above.) This can be related to the trend in number of based aircraft and hangar needs for airports in the US. Time Period GA Piston GA Turbo GA Total Aircraft Fleet Aircraft Fleet Annual Annual Aircraft Fleet Forecast Forecast Annual Growth Growth Forecast Growth % 4.7% 0.2% % 1.7% 0.1% % 2.5% 0.3% % 2.9% 0.6% Table 3.1: FAA Forecasted Annual Growth for General Aviation Fleet SEPTEMBER, 2012

59 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS Hours Flown According to the Forecast, the average annual growth for piston powered fixed-wing GA aircraft hours flown is expected to decline throughout the 20-year planning period. They estimate a 0.1% decline for the single and multiengine combined category. Conversely, the Forecast estimates the average annual growth for turbo powered fixed-wing GA aircraft hours flown will increase throughout the 20-year planning period. They estimate a 4.0% increase for the turboprop and turbojet combined category. Again this in large part due to expected increases in business and corporate aircraft numbers and use. Overall, they project a 1.7% annual increase in hours flown for all GA aircraft over the 20-year forecast period. (This includes rotorcraft, experimental, sport and other categories as well as the fixed wing mentioned above.) This can be related to the trend in number of operations for airports in the US. Time Period GA Piston GA Turbo GA Total Aircraft Hours Aircraft Hours Forecast Forecast Aircraft Hours Growth Growth Forecast Growth % 1.7% -1.9% % 12.7% 1.4% % 4.6% 1.2% % 4.0% 1.7% Table 3.2: FAA Forecasted Annual Growth for General Aviation Hours Flown FAA Forecast Implications As opposed to other general aviation airports in Montana, Ravalli County Airport has a mix of based aircraft that covers the spectrum of the GA categories. Therefore the data presented in the FAA s forecast can reasonably be used as an indicator for forecast projections. To support the FAA s indication of a proportionally higher use by larger aircraft, airport management and the FBOs have noticed increased operations by the larger airplanes and this is also supported by the increased demand for sites to build larger hangars. SEPTEMBER, 2012

60 3-4 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS 3.2. FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST (TAF) The FAA Terminal Area Forecast in Appendix C is generated from the FAA s TAF web-site. Background discussion was presented in Terminal Area Forecast. Below is a consolidated table of the historical TAF information for operations with annualized growth calculations incorporated. Itinerant Operations Local Operations Total Operations Fiscal Year Est. Ops Change Annualized Change Est. Ops Change Annualized Change Est. Ops Change Annualized Change ,800 8,000 15, ,900 1, % 11,500 3, % 20,400 4, % ,100 1, % 13,500 2, % 23,600 3, %* 2012 No FAA TAF projections 2022 No FAA TAF projections 2032 No FAA TAF projections *The annualized change over the 20 year period calculates to 2.03% Table 3.3: FAA Terminal Area Forecast Consolidated Operations If it were an issue, total operations estimates and forecasts could be used in an analysis of annual service volume for runway capacity. Runway volume capacity has not been an issue at this airport. SEPTEMBER, 2012

61 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS 3-5 Also of interest is the number of design critical aircraft operations and based aircraft. See 4.1. Airport Reference Code for the design critical aircraft determination. Below is a table of uncategorized based aircraft information from the TAF. Based Aircraft Fiscal Year Number Change Annualized Change % % 2012 No FAA TAF projections 2022 No FAA TAF projections 2032 No FAA TAF projections *The annualized change over the 20 year period calculates to 3.08% Table 3.4: FAA Terminal Area Forecast - Based Aircraft There is a discrepancy between this summary and the based aircraft numbers gleaned from the 5010 forms as recorded through the National Based Aircraft Inventory Program probably because the TAF information was gathered in Since the TAF based aircraft figures are updated only periodically and are inconsistent with the ones in the following section, the data in 3.3. National Based Aircraft Inventory Program in the following section will be used. Also, for the most part, the TAF has higher based aircraft reported. So the use of the numbers from the National Based Inventory Program will be more conservative. SEPTEMBER, 2012

62 3-6 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS 3.3. NATIONAL BASED AIRCRAFT INVENTORY PROGRAM Based aircraft data from the MMI 2010 Final EA is represented in the table below along with the most current years of 2011 and Single Engine Multi Engine Jet Glider Total Based Fixed Wing Aircraft: Annualized Growth Between Periods 5.0% 10.8% 5.9% -8.7% -6.3% -5.0% (1) Annualized Growth from : 7.4% Annualized Growth from : -6.6% Annualized Growth from : 1.0% Total Based Powered Fixed Wing: Annualized Growth Between Periods 5.3% 11.3% 6.1% -9.1% -6.6% -1.0% Annualized Growth from : 7.8% Annualized Growth from : -5.9% Annualized Growth from : 1.5% (1) Impacted by glider business owner deceased following 2010 Final EA completion and his Wave Soaring Adventures business being relocated. *Ultralights and helicopters were omitted from the tables Table 3.5: FAA 5010 Based Aircraft Summary Consistent with the FAA s Aerospace Forecast, RCA is seeing a level or slight increase in larger airplanes and a slight decrease in the smaller airplanes over the last few years. Since small aircraft makeup the majority of the based aircraft at RCA, this has actually resulted in an overall decline in based aircraft from its peak in SEPTEMBER, 2012

63 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS 3-7 However, even with the inclusion of this recent decline (consistent with the economic downturn), RCA has seen an overall annual increase in based aircraft of 1% to 1.5% over the last decade. Like the other data being considered, this increase can be used as a predictor of future growth in based aircraft, their related operations and the need for additional apron hangar space US CENSUS BUREAU Following is a table that summarizes the population changes in Ravalli County since 1960 according to the US Census Bureau. Census Ravalli County Population % Change from Previous Census % 1.09% Annualized Yearly Rate of Change % 3.73% 2.40% % % 2.39% % Table 3.6: County Population Census Data Census City of Hamilton Population % Change from Previous Census % 1.61% Annualized Rate of Change % 3.07% 2.34% % % 1.13% % Table 3.7: Hamilton Population Census Data SEPTEMBER, 2012

64 3-8 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS County population trends are likely more indicative of airport growth since the majority of the population and therefore pilots aircraft owners live outside the city limits. Over the last 50 years the County has seen an annualized yearly population growth rate of 2.39%. Over the last 20 years it has been 2.40%. Yearly population growth over the last decade ranges between 1.1% and 1.6% for the County and City respectively over the last decade which is well known to be a period of economic recession. Yearly population growth over the previous decade ranges between 3.7% and 3.1% for the County and City respectively, which was well known to be a period of economic prosperity. Conditions in the Bitterroot Valley are conducive to growth. Abundant services, amenities, and a breathtaking landscape drive growth even during harder economic times. The resources that draw people are in place and improving, which will encourage growth proportional to the status of the economy. One way to forecast growth related to the airport is a correlation with the local population. The lowest population growth rate seen by both the County and City has been about 1.1%. In the County, the yearly annualized growth rate over the last half-century was about 2.4%. It should be noted that there have been many fluctuations in the economy over that period, so it is a good long term average. Using these trends, a 1.5% population growth rate should be conservative. A 2% growth rate is likely a better estimate, while 2.5% might be a bit optimistic. 1.5% corresponds nicely with the historic based aircraft growth rate and TAF operation increase over the last decade too. SEPTEMBER, 2012

65 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Montana Department of Commerce publishes Census information for the State and Counties. The most recent information that could be located dates from It is included in Appendix C. Ravalli County s data is summarized below. Ravalli County Population Projections Year Population Projection Annualized Growth from % Annualized Growth from % Annualized Growth from % Annualized Growth from % Annualized Growth from % Annualized Growth from % Table 3.8: Ravalli County Population Projections 17 These projections from 2008 correspond well with the 2% likely population growth estimated from the historical Census Bureau data. It also serves as good support for the conservative 1.5% population growth rate being used for this report as discussed above in 3.4. US Census Bureau. SEPTEMBER, 2012

66 3-10 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS 3.6. BASED AIRCRAFT As stated in the operations forecast above, there are many factors that affect aviation demand. This forecast should only serve as a guide for near term planning. Accurately predicting 20 years into the future is unrealistic and therefore these estimates should be updated at intervals appropriate for any significant new improvements. Four methods are used below to project based aircraft estimations into the future. They include: Projection using recent local growth of the local fleet Projection using recent county population growth Projection using forecasted county population growth Projection using FAA Aerospace Forecast estimates for national trends Recent Local Aircraft Growth (1.5%) Using the nearly 10-year annualized growth rate for powered fixed wing aircraft in Table 3.5: FAA 5010 Based Aircraft Summary of (1.5%), we can project into the future estimates of what the based aircraft might likely be at RCA. Below is a table representing that line of reasoning over the planning period of 20 years. A 1.5% annual growth factor was used for each category to project this table s figures Single Engine Multi Engine Jet Glider Total Based Fixed Wing Aircraft: Total A-II and B-II Based Aircraft: Table 3.9: Based Aircraft Forecast - Based on 10-year 5010 Trend SEPTEMBER, 2012

67 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS Local Historic Population Growth (2%) Another method to estimate based aircraft growth is the use of historical local population growth. This method makes the assumption that the number of based aircraft is roughly proportional to the local population and that population trends will extrapolate into the future at the same rate. In 3.4. US Census Bureau, an annualized growth rate of 2% was exceeded by Ravalli County and City of Hamilton. This was used in the table below to project all categories Single Engine Multi Engine Jet Glider Total Based Fixed Wing Aircraft: Total A-II and B-II Based Aircraft: Table 3.10: Based Aircraft Forecast - Based on Historic Population Trends Forecasted Population Growth (1.9%) Yet another method to estimate based aircraft growth is the use of published population growth forecasts. This method also makes the assumption that the number of based aircraft is roughly proportional to the local population and will continue to be in the future. Although it varies slightly throughout the period, Table 3.8: Ravalli County Population Projections shows that the annualized growth rate expected for the County is 1.9%. This is very nearly the same as the 2% annualized growth used above and so the projections would be the same. SEPTEMBER, 2012

68 3-12 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS FAA Aerospace Forecast Finally, the FAA Aerospace Forecast projections discussed in 3.1. FAA Aerospace Forecast can be used to estimate the based aircraft expected over the planning period at RCA. From Table 3.1: FAA Forecasted Annual Growth for General Aviation Fleet the piston forecast growth rates were applied to the single engine category below. From the same reference, turbo forecast growth rates were applied to the multi-engine, jet and design group II categories Single Engine Multi Engine Jet Glider Total Based Fixed Wing Aircraft: Total A-II and B-II Based Aircraft: Table 3.11: Based Aircraft Forecast - Based on FAA Aerospace Forecast SEPTEMBER, 2012

69 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS Based Aircraft Forecast Summary The FAA Aerospace Forecast data is the forecast information most specifically tailored for forecasting based aircraft growth at an airport. However, it is a national estimation for the average general aviation airport. Census Bureau information predicts that the national population will increase by just under 1% annually over the planning period. Since the Ravalli County s population has been, and is projected to be, close to 2%, the Ravalli County Airport based aircraft growth will likely exceed the Aerospace Forecast. For this reason, the preparers of this document feel that the use of the FAA s Aerospace Forecast is appropriate for the most part, but that the single engine category should be increased slightly. Using a 1% annualized growth factor would somewhat account for the population growth projection discrepancy between the US (<1%) and Ravalli County (>2%). This 1% estimate would also be conservative, relative to 1.5% based aircraft growth rate realized at the airport even through the recent economic difficulties. Below is a table representing this reasoning and a forecast of based aircraft for this report Single Engine Multi Engine Jet Glider Total Based Fixed Wing Aircraft: Total A-II and B-II Based Aircraft: Table 3.12: Based Aircraft Forecast Summary SEPTEMBER, 2012

70 3-14 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS 3.7. OPERATIONS There are many factors that affect aviation demand. This forecast should only serve as a guide for near term planning. Accurately predicting 20 years into the future is unrealistic and therefore these estimates should be updated at intervals appropriate for any significant new improvements. The data most commonly accepted as a basis for operations forecasts is the TAF. Other data collected for this Forecast Report only represent subsets of the total TAF estimate. For example, the FlightAware data only records flights filed under instrument flight rules. While this may yield a somewhat inclusive estimate of high performance itinerant aircraft operations, it by no means captures the total operations experienced at the airport. The FlightAware data for this report really serves as an indisputable way to establish the minimum number of annual design group II operations at the airport. Likewise fuel sales assisted in estimating the number of design group II operations, but since takingon fuel every time an aircraft lands is not required, it is a conservative estimate of the number of operations too. Advisory Circular Appendix 5 (included in Appendix A) suggests that 637 total annual operations per based aircraft is an estimated ratio that can be used to approximate operations in the absence of data. Since 96 based aircraft were established in the section above, this equates to 61,152 operations per year. That would be an average of over 167 takeoffs or landings each day throughout the year, or nearly 7 every hour. Casual observation at the facility indicates that is too high of an estimate. For these reasons, the use of the FAA s TAF numbers will serve as the starting point for forecasted operations. See Table 3.3: FAA Terminal Area Forecast Consolidated Operations. This total operations base-line is a more reasonable number (23,600) which equates to an average day of one takeoff or landing approximately every 2½ hours. Like the based aircraft forecasts, several methods of estimating the growth of operations can be used. Two methods are used below to project TAF estimations into the future. They include: Projection using ratio of forecasted based aircraft Projection using FAA Aerospace Forecast estimates for national trends Ratio to Based Aircraft Using the FAA s 2010 estimate of 23,600 operations per year divided by their 2010 based aircraft estimate of 99 yields a ratio of 238:1. (This is fairly close to the estimate used in the MMI projections SEPTEMBER, 2012

71 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS 3-15 from the 2010 Final EA.) That is not to say that all the aircraft at the airport take 119 flights (2382 = 119) per year roughly one every three days, because itinerant aircraft are involved too. Instead the ratio is only a proportion of number of total operations to local based aircraft. The use of this ratio relies on itinerant and local traffic mimicking the growth rate of local based aircraft. Using this ratio and unchanged proportion of itinerant to local operations, the operations over the planning period can be projected as follows: Itinerant Estimated Operations 10,100 9,794 10,304 11,018 12,345 Local Estimated Operations 13,500 13,091 13,773 14,728 16,500 Total Estimated Operations 23,600 22,885 24,077 25,746 28,845 Estimated Total Based Aircraft Table 3.13: Forecast Operations by Based Aircraft Ratio FAA Aerospace Forecast The FAA Aerospace Forecast projections discussed in 3.1. FAA Aerospace Forecast can be used to estimate the aircraft operations expected over the planning period at RCA. If we conclude the number of aircraft hours flown correlates with the number of aircraft operations, Table 3.2: FAA Forecasted Annual Growth for General Aviation Hours Flown can be used to project operation forecasts. The overall hours flown growth forecast for the respective time periods were applied to each of the categories below. That is 1.2% through 2022 and 1.7% for the last decade Itinerant Estimated Operations 10,100 10,344 10,980 11,655 13,795 Local Estimated Operations 13,500 13,826 14,676 15,578 18,438 Total Estimated Operations 23,600 24,170 25,656 27,233 32,233 Table 3.14: Forecast Operations by FAA Aerospace Forecast Hours SEPTEMBER, 2012

72 3-16 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS Operations Forecast Summary Both forecast methods above yield relatively close estimates. Both methods have their strong and weak points. The preparers of this document believe that averaging these results is the best way to estimate future operations at RCA. The resulting operations forecast is as follows: Itinerant Estimated Operations 10,100 10,069 10,642 11,235 13,019 Local Estimated Operations 13,500 13,459 14,225 15,017 17,401 Total Estimated Operations 23,600 23,528 24,867 26,490 30,539 Table 3.15: Forecast Operations Summary Design Group II and Larger Forecast Of particular interest for this Forecasting Report is the number of operations for design group II or larger aircraft. Many airport design criteria are based on the design group categorization. When the number of operations for any given categorization of aircraft exceeds, or is projected to exceed 500 operations during the forecast period, the FAA usually will support design of facilities to that level. Based Aircraft Ratio Method As shown in all the tables of 3.6. Based Aircraft, currently six of the 96 aircraft based at the Ravalli County Airport are design group II, while the remainder are design group I. Table 3.12: Based Aircraft Forecast Summary, shows the forecasted design group II aircraft for this report. Using the proportion of design group II aircraft to the total based aircraft and multiplying it by the forecasted operations in Table 3.15: Forecast Operations Summary yields the following estimate Total Estimated Operations 23,600 23,528 24,867 26,490 30,539 Ratio of DG II Based to Total Based Total Estimated DG II Operations 1,470 1,723 1,962 2,524 Table 3.16: Design Group II or Larger Operations by Based Aircraft Ratio SEPTEMBER, 2012

73 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS 3-17 Operations per Aircraft Method Another way to estimate design group II or larger operations would be to multiply the operations per aircraft ratio (238:1) shown in Ratio to Based Aircraft by the number of these category aircraft Design Group II Forecast Operations per Aircraft estimate x 238 x 238 x 238 x 238 Total Estimated DG II Operations 1,428 1,666 1,904 2,380 Table 3.17: Design Group II or Larger Operations by Av. Operation per Aircraft This method assumes that all categories of aircraft have a proportional number of operations. Both of the estimates above are close to the ones generated in the 2010 Final EA. For purposes of this report the two methods above will be averaged to establish the forecast design group II operations at the Ravalli County Airport Design Group II Forecasted Operations 1,449 1,695 1,933 2,452 Annualized Change 3.2% 2.7% 2.4% Aerospace Forecast - Turbine Hours Flown Projections 4.3% 3.1% 3.4% Table 3.18: Design Group II Forecast Operations As a comparison, the table above includes the FAA s Aerospace Forecast for hours flown by turbine aircraft over the same time periods (Table 29) 6. If operations flown are considered approximately proportional to hours flown, and turbine aircraft are generally ADG-II or larger, the forecasted operations shown are conservative throughout the time period compared to the FAA s forecast. FlightAware and Jet Fuel Sales minimum As discussed earlier, one year s worth of FlightAware data was combined with Jet fuel sales as a method to establish an undisputable minimum number of design group II operations. The methodology is discussed in 2.4. Airport Operations. Referring to the extensive list in Appendix B, it was established that there were 494 design group II operations, at a minimum, over a one year period. 14 operations were blocked. Since the people that go to the trouble of blocking their aircraft and flight details are often high-profile people, it is SEPTEMBER, 2012

74 3-18 CHAPTER 3: FORECASTS likely most if not all of these are large sophisticated aircraft that would fit into the design group II category too. 494 is a minimum documentable number of design group II operations. It is a conservative estimate because of the blocked aircraft not being included, and the fact that design group II operations can occur without an associated IFR flight plan or fueling. Therefore it can be concluded that design group II operations are certainly over the 500 operations threshold already. SEPTEMBER, 2012

75 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT - Hamilton, Montana Forecasting Report Chapter 4. Facility Requirements

76

77 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 4-1 Chapter 4. Facility Requirements 4.1. AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE The critical design aircraft or airport reference code (ARC) forecasted provides the basis for determining most of the airport facility requirements. This Chapter will enumerate the proposed improvements needed, but Chapter 5 will present alternatives considered for meeting those needs as well as assessing the effects of the proposed improvements. The table below summarizes the various ARC categories from which most airport design is based. Airport Reference Code (ARC) Categories Aircraft Approach Approach Speed (knots)* Category A speed < 91 B 91 speed < 121 C 121 speed < 141 D 141 speed < 166 E 166 speed Airplane Design Group (ADG) Wingspan (feet) Tail Height (feet) I wingspan < 49 Height <20 II 49 wingspan < height < 30 II 79 wingspan < height < 45 IV 118 wingspan < height < 60 V 171 wingspan < height < 66 VI 214 wingspan < height < 80 * Approach Speed is defined as 1.3 times an aircraft s stall speed in the landing configuration at certificated maximum flap settings and weight at standard atmospheric conditions. Table 4.1: Airport Reference Codes 18 The following page shows some common aircraft that illustrate the various ARCs. SEPTEMBER, 2012

78 4-2 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Figure 4.1: Airport Reference Codes Illustration SEPTEMBER, 2012

79 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 4-3 Based on the forecast information presented in Chapter 3, the critical design aircraft for RCA is Aircraft Approach Category B, Airplane Design Group II, or B-II. RCA needs to be designed to facilitate those aircraft above and left of the heavy dividing line on Figure 4.1: Airport Reference Codes Illustration. RCA also sees C-I and C-II traffic very occasionally, but not to the level requiring design of the airport to accommodate them. The sections below discuss the various elements affected by the ARC RUNWAY DESIGN STANDARDS Widths FAA Advisory Circular , Airport Design provides runway width requirements in Table 3-1. For an ARC of B-II (and approach visibility minimums not lower than ¾ mile), the requirements are: Runway Pavement 75 Runway Object Free Area (OFA) 500 Runway Safety Area (RSA) 150 Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 400 Excerpts from the AC are included in Appendix A Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Table 2-4 of the Airport Design AC provides the dimensional criteria for the trapezoidal shaped Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for an airport with approach minimums not lower than one mile: Inner Width Outer Width Length Minimum Separation Standards Minimum Separation Standards from Table 2-1 of the AC for Approach Category B aircraft with approach visibility minimums not lower than ¾ mile are: Runway centerline to parallel taxiway centerline Runway centerline to hold lines Runway centerline to parking areas SEPTEMBER, 2012

80 4-4 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Separation between the runway and parallel taxiway is a key parameter to be established in this planning effort for future development. FAA Advisory Circular , Airport Design provides guidance on parallel taxiway and object separation from the runway. For the B-II aircraft justified as the ARC for this airport, a separation of 240 feet is required. Table 2-1 of the AC is included Appendix A for reference RUNWAY LENGTH Paragraph 301 of FAA Advisory Circular references AC , Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design for guidance on Runway Lengths. Excerpts from AC are included in Appendix A. The guidance from the AC provides runway length determination procedures for three weight categories of aircraft. Although RCA does see some aircraft over 12,500 pounds, these aircraft do not approach the regular or substantial use criteria of the AC. Therefore, runway length will be calculated based on the smallest airport category (less than or equal to 12,500 pounds - often referred to as small ). The next criteria considered are approach speed and number of passengers. Most small aircraft on the market and operating at RCA have approach speeds that exceed 50 knots, but virtually all fall in the smallest category of less than ten passenger seats. AC B, Paragraph 201 and associated Figure 2-1 explains the process on for establishing the recommended runway lengths. By entering the mean Daily Maximum Temperature (from Figure 2.2: Hamilton Historic Temperature and Precipitation Averages) and an approximated runway elevation of 3,644 MSL, a minimum runway length recommended is 4,800 feet. A runway length of 5,200 feet is the most the FAA would support to cover 100% of the small aircraft fleet. To go beyond that length, the FAA would require further justification for a design critical aircraft that has or would have substantial use of the airport. That is not the case in the foreseeable future at RCA. For the small aircraft fleet we are considering, with approach speeds over 50 knots and less than 10 passengers, there is no length adjustment for non-zero longitudinal runway grades. The adjustment for wet conditions in paragraph 508 does not apply either, even though the runway is used by turbojet aircraft. Ultimately pilots must use their aircraft performance manuals to decide whether or not operating at any given runway is safe. And although RCA, does have turbojet traffic and wet pavements at times, it is felt that design the runway length to meet 100% of the small fleet (5,200 ) is a good middle ground to cover all the small fleet and a smaller portion of turbojet traffic that would operate there under wet conditions. SEPTEMBER, 2012

81 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS APPROACH DEPARTURE REQUIREMENTS Aside from FAR Part 77, discussed in FAR Part 77 Airspace, there are similar approach and departure surface requirements in the FAA s Airport Design manual FAA Advisory Circular These are in Table A2-1 with related requirements in Table A16-1C of that manual and included in this report in Appendix A. Approach Surface RCA serves large airplanes and has circling approaches which corresponds to row 3 of Table A2-1 of the AC. The dimensions are described there, and like FAR Part 77 surfaces, should not have penetrations. Otherwise the procedure or runway itself could be nullified or reduced in effectiveness. The existing approach to Runway 34 has penetrations by trees. The existing approach to Runway 16 also has penetrations by trees. Glide Slope Qualification Surface (GQS) New GPS technology is resulting in improved instrument procedures at many airports. In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The existing GQS to Runway 34 likely has penetrations by the clearance over Tammany Lane. The existing GQS to Runway 16 appears to be just clear of terrain. Departure Surface Departure Surfaces are of a similar category as approaches for airports with instrument procedures. They are even wider than the approaches and flatter (40:1) than approach surfaces (20:1 or 34:1) and so all of the above problems are more abundant and pronounced when considering these surfaces. SEPTEMBER, 2012

82 4-6 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 4.5. TAXIWAY STANDARDS Taxiways serving the general aviation, and particularly the itinerant traffic, should, like the runway, be designed to B-II criteria. Taxiways or taxilanes serving discreet areas of exclusively smaller aircraft could be designed to a design group I criteria with careful planning. B-II taxiways taxilanes have the following dimensional standards as described in Table 4-1 and 4-3 from FAA Advisory Circular and included in Appendix A: Taxiway Pavement Width 35 Taxiway Object Free Area Width 131 Taxiway Safety Area Width 79 Taxilane Object Free Area Width 115 Taxiway Wingtip Clearance - 26 Taxilane Wingtip Clearance HANGARS As stated in Hangars and Lease Areas there are currently 55 hangars with at least three currently being contemplated for construction. The existing approved ALP does not quite depict all the existing hangars. The ALP also shows hangars for future development. Not all of the future hangar locations depicted on the existing approved ALP are practical. Depending on how the airport will be configured in the future, those hangars could interfere with approach surfaces, departure surfaces or transitional surfaces. Also, many are shown in the area of the existing Hamilton Trap club and in an area commonly used for parking during events. The FAA does not have a requirement for location, number or size of hangars to provide. They only dictate that they shouldn t interfere with the airport s operation surface separation and airspace criteria. However, it is an airport, and so hangar development is encouraged. The FAA will consider land acquisition that facilitates future development potential if there is strong justification. A reasonable way to look at the issue is to establish a ratio of how many hangars are in existence relative to the based aircraft and then extrapolate that with the forecasted aircraft. It is also prudent to review the number of survey respondents indicating they will consider building a hangar if airport improvements are made. Several of the existing larger hangars house multiple aircraft. There are 72 aviation related leases mostly as hangars, but also a few apron space leases, fuel farms leases, etc. SEPTEMBER, 2012

83 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 4-7 There is an existing ratio of about 1.33 based aircraft per aviation related lease (96 72), about 1.75 based aircraft per hangar type building (96 55) and about 1.50 based aircraft per lease for hangar space (96 64). Using the based aircraft forecast from Based Aircraft Forecast Summary, 0 Local Historic Population Growth (2%) and the ratios above, the following is a projection of the building needs at the end of the planning period. Projected Total Based Fixed Wing Aircraft for 2032: Projected Based Aircraft 1.33 Based Aircraft Aviation Related Lease Projected Leases or Hangars Needed 1.50 Based Aircraft Hangar Building Leasers 1.75 Based Aircraft Hangar Building Existing Conditions Needed: Most Optimistic Total Based Aircraft Estimate for 2032: Existing Conditions Needed: Table 4.2: Hangar Lease Needs Projections 4.7. APRON There is no doubt that the Ravalli County Airport already has too small of an area for both local (nonhangared) and itinerant aircraft tiedowns and ground circulation. As stated earlier, the space is so limited; allocation of apron space to each of the FBOs and the public has been contentious for several years. Figure 2.4: Ravalli County Airport Apron Areas shows the existing apron areas based on how the use is divided and the number of tiedowns. The figure below illustrates each of those aprons respective footprint area. It also shows the area available once B-I taxilane object free areas are deducted from the footprint. This only allows for parking of one or two B-II aircraft at the south end of the middle apron. A Cessna 680 that commonly uses the airport and a Beech C90 are depicted as B-II aircraft for scale. Total apron pavement area totals approximately 19,638 square yards. When the taxilane OFAs in this scenario are deducted, approximately 7,701 square yards remain. SEPTEMBER, 2012

84 4-8 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Figure 4.2: Existing Available Apron However, the Airport Reference Code (ARC) for Ravalli County Airport was established in this report as B-II. The taxilane object free area for design group II is 115 wide. This is depicted by the dark blue shading in Figure 4.2: Existing Available Apron. If this design requirement is used, virtually no apron space remains for aircraft parking in the existing configuration. The apron could be reconfigured by adding pavement to the parallel taxiway to meet the design criteria, but then only one row of tiedowns would be available reducing the overall parking capacity. SEPTEMBER, 2012

85 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 4-9 The question becomes how much more space is needed. The FAA has guidance on the apron area recommended in AC Appendix 5. An excerpt from that section in included in Appendix A. The most simplistic approach is to use the FAA s recommendation in the absence of operations data. Using this methodology: 637sy per based aircraft x 96 based aircraft = 61,152sy. This estimate of existing apron need is approximately three times the existing apron areas even without deducting the taxiway object free areas. Using this methodology for the forecasted based aircraft of 121: 637sy x 121 based aircraft = 77,077sy Calculation of Existing Apron Needs The FAA also has a more extensive method for determining transient and based aircraft apron needs. Calculations using the FAA s more detailed methodology are shown below: 14,557 jet fuel gallons in July 67,454 jet fuel gallons yr. ( thru ) =.2158 (22% of sales & ops are in July) 10,069 transient ops year (from Table 3.15, year 2012 estimated itinerant operations) x.2158 = 2,172 operations in July 2,172 July operations 31 days = 70 av. transient airplane operations per day in the busiest month Assume 10% more for busiest day: 70 x 1.10 = 77 operations per day 77 operations 2 = 39 average transient airplanes each day during the busiest month If half are on the apron at any given time, 39 airplanes 2 = 20 transient airplanes that need to be accommodated 20 transient airplanes x 360sy = 7,200sy in transient aircraft needs To this transient area estimate, the FAA recommends adding 300sy per based aircraft that leases apron space. Currently there are nine apron leases. 300sy x 9 based aircraft apron leases = 2,700sy in based aircraft needs 7,200sy + 2,700sy = 9,900sy The FAA recommends adding 10% to both of these numbers to account for near term expansion: 9,900sy x 1.10 = 10,890sy recommended now SEPTEMBER, 2012

86 4-10 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Calculation of Future Apron Needs Using the results of the section above, transient and based aircraft apron needs at the end of the planning period can be estimated as follows: Table 3.15 shows an estimated increase of 29% of transient aircraft operations during the planning period. 7,200sy x 1.29 = 9,288sy in transient aircraft needs to account for growth in operations by And, based aircraft were projected to increase 26% in Based Aircraft Forecast Summary. Proportionally increasing the based aircraft that lease apron space results in an estimated 11 aircraft leasing apron space by (9 x 1.26 = 11) 11 airplanes x 300sy = 3,300sy forecasted apron area needed for based aircraft. Adding the transient and based aircraft projections together results in the total apron expected to be needed by the end of the planning period (2032). 9288sy sy = 12,588sy total forecasted apron space needed Considering 10,890sy 7701sy = 1.41 about 41% more parking area is needed now to accommodate existing estimates established from operations. Likewise, 12,588sy 7701sy = 1.63 and so 63% more parking will be needed by the end of the planning period. Additional apron area parking can be established in many ways and configurations. This would be established in future Airport Layout Plan efforts if an alternative can be selected and if an environmental determination is made. A few likely alternatives for creating additional apron space would be to retain the existing B-I parking areas in existence and add B-II parking area(s) north or east of the existing aprons. If apron is added north potential for large hangar construction in that area will be eliminated. To support the recommended parking needs established above, the airport manager, who routinely interacts with both FBOs, believes that the addition of 50% more tiedown locations would alleviate the congestion problem in the near term. Considering this, with the computations above and the chopped-up nature of the existing aprons, the need for 50% - 60% more apron parking appears to be validated. SEPTEMBER, 2012

87 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES The existing procedures at RCA are discussed in Instrument Procedures. Any runway modifications at the airport will require modification to the existing instrument procedures. The modifications will be dependent on the preferred alternatives particular limitations. Instrument flights are likely to increase at least proportionally with number of flights, based aircraft and therefore population. However these increases will not really drive changes needed at the airport. Of more consequence are changes in technology that make improved procedures (lower minimums) possible in more airport locations. Therefore it is prudent to evaluate each alternative relative to threshold siting criteria from the FAA design manual and FAR Part 77 standards to minimize infringement on the surfaces defined in those documents. The more impediments that can be avoided the better chances there are that improved minimums can be achieved HELIPDADS Judging from the fuel usage and airport managers input, consideration should be given for separate landing areas with associated approach departures. While the FAA AIP program doesn t fund helipad development, the airport owner should set aside some area for dedicated use. SEPTEMBER, 2012

88 4-12 CHAPTER 4: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Runway taxiway separation is the primary development consideration for the FAA, as it is a required design criteria. This separation, along with adequate runway length per FAA recommendations, is the airport owner s priority. Having the adequate separation will also open the potential for FAA participation in much needed maintenance rehabilitation of existing paved surfaces. Besides these, future development considerations at RCA are primarily a concern for adequate apron and hangar development areas. In order to be more financially self-sustaining, it is wise for an airport owner to also consider income sources from areas that cannot be used for aeronautical purposes. The USDA Forest Service facility is an example of good lease income that can be derived from an aviation related facility. Ideally other aviation related or dependent facilities could also be located at the airport say business that provide aviation support like an avionics installer. Lastly, non-aviation related leasers can provide income, but they need to be located in areas that cannot be developed for aviation users. The Hamilton Gun Club area is shown as a business development lease area on the existing Airport Layout Plan. The politically realities of displacing this popular charitable non-profit organization is questionable though. SEPTEMBER, 2012

89 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT - Hamilton, Montana Forecasting Report Chapter 5. Improvement Options

90

91 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 5-1 Chapter 5. Improvement Options The Ravalli County Commissioners have made the assessment that the Ravalli County Airport is an important part of the County s infrastructure and that it plays a role in stimulating and maintaining the local economy. In other words, it is important to maintain the facility. Through previous planning efforts, the Commissioners also realized that the FAA s AIP Program is a vital funding source for maintaining the facilities pavements and improving the airport. Currently, the FAA s AIP program pays 90 cents of each dollar for eligible project costs. Without FAA funding, the airport would significantly tax available county funding at the expense of other needs. Or more likely, the airport would fall into a state of disrepair. The lateral separation between the existing runway and parallel taxiway is not standard they are too close together. The FAA will not participate in further physical improvements, rehabilitation or maintenance to the runway without rectifying the condition. The FAA will also not participate in improvements, rehabilitation or maintenance of facilities which may be impacted by correcting the runway taxiway separation issue. Correcting the condition could be accomplished a number of ways. Each of the alternatives considered has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Evaluating each criteria and then comparing them so that the County Commissioners can make an informed determination on the preferred alternative(s) is the ultimate goal of this Forecasting Report DALY DITCH AREA CONSIDERATIONS As will be discussed in the following section, existing buildings on land owned by the Daly Ditch Irrigation District as well as trees and necessary clearance over Tammany Lane in the same area are a factor in the alternatives considered. Depending on the location of the runway threshold of each alternative, north-south and east-west, these elements conflict to different degrees. A Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan was developed as part of the 2010 Final EA to mitigate the adverse project effects to two buildings (former airplane hangars) determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Currently, they are being used by the Irrigation District primarily for equipment and material storage. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was conducted as part of the Mitigation Plan and letters confirm that SHPO concurred with the Plan. The 2010 Final EA and Mitigation Plan explained that the structural integrity of the buildings was in question and needs to be evaluated to determine the feasibility of relocation. If either of the buildings are found to be moveable based on a structural evaluation, then the Mitigation Plan calls for them to be relocated to another location on the airport. SEPTEMBER, 2012

92 5-2 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS These buildings must be relocated or mitigated because of their historical significance and that if the structures were torn down, an adverse effect will be realized Relocation Judging by sagging rooflines and walls as well as observation of the interior of portions of the northern most building, it is apparent why the buildings structural integrity and potential for relocation was in question. Figure 5.1: Interior of Northern Daly Ditch Building New column supports not part of the original structure Ravalli County has not retained a structural engineer to establish their structural integrity. However, in light of the field review, the owner does not feel that it would be very feasible to relocate the buildings. However, prior to implementing any alternative that would impact these buildings, a structural engineer would have to be retained to establish the structural soundness of the buildings and whether or not it is viable to relocate them. SEPTEMBER, 2012

93 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 5-3 Figure 5.2 Northern Daly Ditch Building Column Detail New column supports wedged. No mechanical connections. Sagging roof Figure 5.3: Exterior - Northern Daly Ditch Building SEPTEMBER, 2012

94 5-4 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Sagging wall or settlement Figure 5.4: Exterior - Southern Daly Ditch Building Even if the buildings could be relocated, the Mitigation Plan calls for placing the building(s) on new foundations and improving ensuring the structural integrity of any relocated structure. And if the buildings were acquired, relocated and structurally improved, the building would also have to be improved to meet current building codes if they are to be made open to the public, used by the Daly Ditch Irrigation District or the County. Additionally, if the above improvements were made, it would make sense to remove and replace the failing siding and roofing materials to protect that investment. Roofing and siding would have to be of a similar make up and appearance to the historic materials. It is beyond the scope of this Forecast Report to establish the structural integrity, structural improvements needed if relocated, foundation design, improvements needed to meet code requirements, establish historic exterior treatments or cost estimates for these items. The improvements would certainly be in the tens of thousands of dollars and could easily approach $100,000 per building. There are two companies listed in Montana that are members of the International Structural Movers Association - Abel Moving and Rigging, Inc. of Missoula, MT and Pro Hand Services, Inc. of Belgrade, MT. Able Moving and Tamietti House Moving & Construction Inc. of Butte, MT were both contacted, but both declined to offer an evaluation of the movability or provide a general cost estimate. SEPTEMBER, 2012

95 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Building Documentation If it is not feasible to relocate either of the buildings, the Mitigation Plan has a second alternative for mitigation. Track 2 involves the mitigative documentation of those hangars to Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards. Measured drawings, written histories and large format photographs are the three types of data collected. There are four levels of HABS reporting which determine the type and extent of each kind of data used. The level of documentation would have to be established through collaboration between SHPO, the FAA and Ravalli County. Cost for this documentation effort would vary depending on the level of effort established as appropriate by these authorities. However, the cost per building would not likely exceed $20,000 each. Demolition could proceed after documentation efforts were concluded. Documentation would only be completed if an alternative required the relocation or demolition of the buildings and acquisition of the property. Some alternatives do not require demolition or relocation ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED General improvement alternatives were considered and recommended to address previously defined areas of concern. The various improvement option types are discussed in the following sections and are followed by their respective drawing. Relocation distances indicated are approximate since this is a planning level effort as opposed to a project design with the benefit of specific physical survey information. A summary of each alternative s attributes for the criteria considered is included in a table at the end of this chapter for comparison. Clearance evaluations of the various surfaces considered are approximate as neither surveying nor design was included in the scope of work for this project. Instead, existing information from the 2010 Final EA and other sources was used to the extent possible to make reasonable estimations. SEPTEMBER, 2012

96 5-6 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Alternative 1 No Action Runway to Taxiway Separation The FAA design requirement for separation between a runway and parallel taxiway for a design group II airport is 240 feet. The existing separation is 200 feet. Doing nothing would not alleviate this condition. FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface Penetrations There are currently several structures that penetrate the imaginary airspace 7:1 transitional surface defined in 14 CFR FAR Part 77. The worst case location appears to be the hangar building in lease area 374. Doing nothing would not alleviate this condition. Runway 34 RPZ Considerations Tammany Lane is in the existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of Runway 34. The FAA strives to keep RPZs clear of road and structures for safety reasons. Doing nothing would not alleviate this condition. Runway 34 Approach Surface A 15-foot clearance standard is established in 14 CFR Part 77 for traffic on public roadways. This clearance buffer for Tammany Lane appears to just barely clear (approximately 1-foot) the existing 20:1 Approach Slope (also defined in 14 CFR Part 77) for this visual runway. However, at least one tree appears to penetrate the surface at the east edge. Tree(s) and the clearance buffer for Tammany Lane would penetrate a 34:1 Approach Slope for the runway if considering a non-precision instrument approach status. Doing nothing would not alleviate either condition. Runway 34 Threshold Siting Surface Like the existing FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with the existing runway (shown in row 3 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is also at a 20:1 slope. However the location and dimensions of the surface are different. The surface is slightly wider at the Tammany Road location and it appears that at least one tree and a building would penetrate this surface. The Tammany Road clearance buffer may penetrate the Threshold Siting Surface for the runway if it were to obtain a non-precision instrument approach status (shown in row 5 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A). Doing nothing would not alleviate this condition. Runway 34 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. It appears the existing GQS to Runway 34 just clears the buffer over Tammany Lane. SEPTEMBER, 2012

97 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 5-7 Runway 16 Departure Surface There are no existing instrument departures south of the runway 34 end because of obstacles as noted in the Hamey One Departure shown in Appendix A. Departure Surfaces are defined in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A. They are quite wide compared to approach surfaces and shallow (40:1). The Tammany Road clearance, multiple trees and Daly Ditch structures all penetrate this surface. Doing nothing would not help in the pursuit of any instrument departure to the south. Runway 16 RPZ Considerations The existing RPZ for runway 16 is well removed from the Stock Farm Road. There is no impact on the existing airport or vice versa. No structures are in the area. Runway 16 Approach Surface The existing 20:1 Approach Slope (defined in 14 CFR Part 77) for this visual runway appears to have terrain and tree penetrations. If an Approach Slope of 34:1 is considered for a non-precision instrument approach, the condition worsens. Doing nothing would not alleviate this condition. Runway 16 Threshold Siting Surface Like the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with the existing runway (shown in row 3 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is also at a 20:1 slope. However the location and dimensions of the surface are different. Because the slope starts at the end of the runway instead at the end of the Primary Surface, the terrain appears to be clear. However trees penetrate this surface by more than 60 feet. The condition of a Threshold Siting Surface for the runway, if it were to obtain a non-precision instrument approach status (shown in row 5 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A), would only be worse. Doing nothing would not alleviate this condition. Runway 16 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The existing GQS to Runway 16 may have terrain penetrations. Runway 34 Departure Surface The existing instrument departures north of the runway 16 end is encroached upon by terrain and trees. The Hamey One Departure shown in Appendix A notes the tree obstacles. Departure Surfaces are defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A. They are quite wide SEPTEMBER, 2012

98 5-8 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS compared to approach surfaces and shallow, 40:1. Doing nothing does not improve the status of these obstacles. Apron Area Considerations As noted earlier in this report, congestion is an existing problem for parking and maneuvering aircraft. Doing nothing does not alleviate the problem or provide for any future growth. Hangar Space Availability There is a fair amount of expansion capability for small hangars. However, the demand seems to be from people interested in building large hangars. There is some limited potential now, but future expansion will be constrained. Land Requirements The no action alternative has no land acquisition requirements and therefore no associated costs. Utilization of the Existing Runway Closures The no action alternative would continue to use the existing runway as it is today. Closure of the runway would not be required. Closure of other airport pavements, like portions of the parallel taxiway, may be advisable if they deteriorate further. Cost Estimate Since the no action alternative acquires no land and makes no improvements, there are no project improvement costs. However, without addressing the runway taxiway separation issue, there will be limited access to FAA AIP funding and so full funding for all future projects involving the runway, including pavement maintenance, will be the responsibility of the airport owner. Depending on the future rehabilitation replacement maintenance methods used, the costs could range from hundreds of thousands of dollars to several million. Closure Requirements Closure of the runway would not be required under the no action alternative. Closure of other airport pavements, like portions of the parallel taxiway, may be advisable if they deteriorate further. If the parallel taxiway were closed, access to many existing hangars would be lost and safety of aircraft back-taxiing on a busy, uncontrolled airport would become an issue. SEPTEMBER, 2012

99

100

101 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Alternative 2 Relocate 95 East and 600 North Runway to Taxiway Separation The FAA design requirement for separation between a runway and parallel taxiway for a design group II airport is 240 feet. Under Alternative 2, 295 feet of separation would result. FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface Penetrations The 95-foot lateral shift of this alternative results in clearance of the 7:1 transitional surface defined in 14 CFR FAR Part 77. The surface would just clear the hangar located on lease area 374. However, the resulting transitional surface would likely limit or eliminate half of the large hangar potentials locations as shown on the existing ALP north of the existing aprons. Shifting further east would allow for more apron and hangar development. Runway 34 RPZ Considerations This alternative removes Tammany Lane from the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of Runway 34. The FAA strives to keep RPZs clear of roads and structures for safety reasons. The building in the southwest corner of the Daly Ditch complex and tree(s) would be within the RPZ. The runway would need to be shifted north or the structure and tree(s) removed to alleviate the problem. Runway 34 Approach Surface A 15-foot clearance standard is established in 14 CFR Part 77 for traffic on public roadways. This clearance buffer for Tammany Lane is very close to penetrating the 34:1 Approach Slope (also defined in 14 CFR Part 77) for this alternative having a non-precision instrument procedure. Trees and a building from the Daly Ditch complex would also penetrate the surface. The runway would need to be shifted north andor penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. Runway 34 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. The 15-foot buffer for Tammany Lane appears to be clear, however, tree(s) and at least one structure in the Daly Ditch complex penetrate this surface. The runway would need to be shifted north or the penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. Additionally, this surface likely limits development of at least five hangar sites on its western edge. Runway 34 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 34 would have tree penetration(s). SEPTEMBER, 2012

102 5-12 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Runway 16 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway, as defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A, would also have penetrations. The Tammany Road buffer, multiple trees, existing hangars and Daly Ditch structures all penetrate this surface. The runway would need to be shifted north and east or the penetrations removed to alleviate the problems. Alternately, the airport could continue to operate without an instrument departure to the south. The base width of the departure surface is very wide (1,000-feet). As such, the western edge of this surface conflicts with existing structures. Hangar buildings have been shown in this area on the Alternative 2 figure as if departure to the south will not be pursued. Runway 16 RPZ Considerations The RPZ for runway 16 is well removed from the Stock Farm Road. There is no impact on the RPZ or road. No structures are in the area. Runway 16 Approach Surface A 34:1 Approach Slope for a non-precision instrument approach (defined in 14 CFR Part 77) would be associated with this runway. Depending on the design elevations of this end of the runway, there is likely plenty of clearance over the Stock Farm road, but the cottonwood trees would penetrate the surface. Tree trimming or removal would be required. Runway 16 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. There will be even more clearance over Stock Farm Road. The cottonwood trees are likely not penetrating this surface. Runway 16 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 16 clears Stock Farm Road, but again tree removal or trimming would likely be required. Runway 34 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway, as defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A, would also have penetrations. Depending on the design elevations of this end of the runway, there is likely plenty of clearance over the Stock Farm SEPTEMBER, 2012

103 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 5-13 road, but the cottonwood trees would penetrate the surface. Tree trimming or removal would be required. Apron Area Considerations This alternative would not provide any room for apron expansion east of the existing aprons. Additional apron pavement needs would need to be addressed in remaining open areas on the airport. Expansion into those areas would be at the expense of future hangar development potentials. Hangar Space Availability There is a fair amount of expansion capability for small hangars. However, the demand in recent years seems to be from people interested in building large hangars. There is some limited potential under this alternative for larger hangars now, but future expansion will be constrained. Land Requirements According to the 2010 Final EA, this alternative has land acquisition needs of approximately 71 acres to encompass the new RPZ area and enough area laterally to prevent a 27-foot buildings on adjacent property from penetrating the 14 CFR Part 77 Transitional Surface. Since the runway elevation and adjacent terrain vary longitudinally along the runway, this width varies. Preparers of the 2010 Final EA used a uniform 440 feet on either side of the runway. The 2010 Final EA also noted that nearly 100 acres would need to be zoned (or portions purchased) to protect land against incompatible land use for area within the 65DNL noise contour line. For planning purposes only, land costs were estimated based on $8,000 acre. Utilization of the Existing Runway Closures This alternative would require the demolition of the existing runway. Closure of the existing runway would be required during construction of the new runway. SEPTEMBER, 2012

104 5-14 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Cost Estimate The cost estimate below is for runway relocation, associated land acquisition, partial parallel taxiway, wildlife fencing, runway lighting, taxiway stubs and taxiway lighting for new taxiways only, windcone, segmented circle and two PAPIs. It does not include costs for rehabilitation or expansion of other airport facilities. Total Cost 90% FAA Participation 10% Owner Responsibility Land Acquisition (71 Ac) $568,000 $511,200 $56,800 Runway Demolition $241,000 $216,900 $24,100 Construct 75 x 5200 Runway, Taxiways, Lighting, NAVAIDS, Wildlife Fence Construction $4,870,000 $4,383,000 $487,000 Stock Farm Road Relocation $0 $0 $0 Daly Ditch Area Modifications (1) $200,000 $180,000 $20,000 Total $5,879,000 $5,291,100 $587,900 (1) Relocation of hangars onto airport property or historic documentation, demolition and relocation of Daly Ditch operations with replacement building(s). Table 5.1: Alternative 2 Cost Estimate SEPTEMBER, 2012

105

106

107 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Alternative 2A Relocate 93 East and 1000 North This alternative is very similar to Alternative 2. The 93-foot lateral separation was established as the absolute minimum that could be considered to clear the transitional surface. The shift 400 more to the north compared to Alternative 2 is primarily to remove the Daly Ditch complex from the Runway 34 RPZ and improvement clearances of the various surfaces associated with that runway. Runway to Taxiway Separation The FAA design requirement for separation between a runway and parallel taxiway for a design group II airport is 240 feet. Under Alternative 2A, 293 feet of separation would result. FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface Penetrations The 93-foot lateral shift of this alternative results in clearance of the 7:1 transitional surface defined in 14 CFR FAR Part 77. The surface would just clear the hangar located on lease area 374. However, the resulting transitional surface would likely limit or eliminate the potential for half of the large hangar potentials locations as shown on the existing ALP north of the existing aprons. Shifting further east would allow for more apron and hangar development. Runway 34 RPZ Considerations This alternative removes Tammany Lane from the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of Runway 34. The FAA strives to keep RPZs clear of road and structures for safety reasons. The Daly Ditch complex is not a factor in regard to the RPZ. The south-west corner of the RPZ would slightly limit hangar development there. Moving the runway further east would improve hangar space availability. Runway 34 Approach Surface A 15-foot clearance standard is established in 14 CFR Part 77 for traffic on public roadways. This clearance buffer for Tammany Lane appears to clear the 34:1 Approach Slope (also defined in 14 CFR Part 77) for this alternative having a non-precision instrument procedure. Trees and buildings from the Daly Ditch complex would penetrate the surface. The runway would need to be shifted north andor penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. Runway 34 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. The 15-foot buffer for Tammany Lane is clear, however, trees likely penetrate this surface. The runway would need to be shifted north or the penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. Additionally, this surface may slightly limit development of at least six hangar sites on its western edge. SEPTEMBER, 2012

108 5-18 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Runway 34 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 34 likely has tree penetrations. Runway 16 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway, as defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A, would also have penetrations. The Tammany Road buffer appears to have clearance but multiple trees, existing hangars and Daly Ditch structures all penetrate this surface. The runway would need to be shifted north and east or the penetrations removed to alleviate the problems. Alternately, the airport could continue to operate without an instrument departure to the south. The base width of the departure surface is very wide (1,000-feet). As such, the western edge of this surface conflicts with existing structures. Hangar buildings have been shown in this area on the Alternative 2A figure as if departure to the south will not be pursued. Runway 16 RPZ Considerations The RPZ for runway 16 falls short of Stock Farm Road. There is no impact on the RPZ or road. No structures are in the area. Runway 16 Approach Surface A 34:1 Approach Slope for a non-precision instrument approach (defined in 14 CFR Part 77) would be associated with this runway. Depending on the design elevations of this end of the runway, there is likely plenty of clearance over the Stock Farm road, but the cottonwood trees would penetrate the surface. Tree trimming or removal would be required. Runway 16 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. There will be even more clearance over Stock Farm Road. The cottonwood trees may or may not penetrate this surface. So, some of the trees within this area but outside the FAR Part 77 approach slope might not need to be trimmed as much or removed unless considering the Departure Surface discussed below. SEPTEMBER, 2012

109 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 5-19 Runway 16 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 16 likely has tree penetrations. If so, tree trimming or removal would be required. Runway 34 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway, as defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A, would also have penetrations. Depending on the design elevations of this end of the runway, there is likely plenty of clearance over the Stock Farm road, but the cottonwood trees would penetrate the surface. Tree trimming or removal would be required. Apron Area Considerations This alternative would not provide any room for apron expansion east of the existing aprons. Additional apron pavement needs would need to be addressed in remaining open areas on the airport. Expansion into those areas would be at the expense of future hangar development potentials. Hangar Space Availability There is slightly more expansion capability for small hangars than Alternative 2 due to the location of the threshold siting surface. However, the demand in recent years seems to be from people interested in building large hangars. There is some limited potential under this alternative for larger hangars now, but little for future expansion. Land Requirements According to the 2010 Final EA, this alternative has land acquisition needs of approximately 78 acres to encompass the new RPZ area and enough area laterally to prevent a 27-foot buildings on adjacent property from penetrating the 14 CFR Part 77 Transitional Surface. Since the runway elevation and adjacent terrain vary longitudinally along the runway, this width varies. Preparers of the 2010 Final EA used a uniform 440 feet on either side of the runway. The 2010 Final EA also noted that nearly 106 acres would need to be zoned (or portions purchased) to protect land against incompatible land use for area within the 65DNL noise contour line. For planning purposes only, land costs were estimated based on $8,000 acre. Utilization of the Existing Runway Closures This alternative would require the demolition of the existing runway. Closure of the existing runway would be required during construction of the new runway. SEPTEMBER, 2012

110 5-20 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Cost Estimate The cost estimate below is for runway relocation, associated land acquisition, partial parallel taxiway, wildlife fencing, runway lighting, taxiway stubs and taxiway lighting for new taxiways only, windcone, segmented circle and two PAPIs. It does not include costs for rehabilitation or expansion of other airport facilities. Total Cost 90% FAA Participation 10% Owner Responsibility Land Acquisition (78 Ac) $624,000 $561,600 $62,400 Runway Demolition $241,000 $216,900 $24,100 Construct 75 x 5200 Runway, Taxiways, Lighting, NAVAIDS, Wildlife Fence Construction $5,018,000 $4,516,200 $501,800 Stock Farm Road Relocation $0 $0 $0 Daly Ditch Area Modifications (1) $200,000 $180,000 $20,000 Total $6,083,000 $5,474,700 $608,300 (1) Relocation of hangars onto airport property or historic documentation, demolition and relocation of Daly Ditch operations with replacement building(s). Table 5.2: Alternative 2A Cost Estimate SEPTEMBER, 2012

111

112

113 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Alternative 3 Relocate 240 East and 600 North This alternative is very similar to Alternative 2 in that the northerly displacement is 600 feet, but the lateral displacement is 240 feet. The 240-foot dimension was established as a logical offset to allow the use of the existing runway pavement section as a parallel taxiway. Side benefits include the ability to add apron space east of the existing aprons and more hangar area development opportunities. Runway to Taxiway Separation The FAA design requirement for separation between a runway and parallel taxiway for a design group II airport is 240 feet. Under Alternative 3, there would be 240 feet of separation to the existing runway which would be repurposed as the main parallel taxiway. FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface Penetrations The 240-foot lateral shift of this alternative results in clearance of the 7:1 transitional surface defined in 14 CFR FAR Part 77. As stated above, this configuration would also allow development of hangars in the area north of the existing apron. It often makes sense for hangar development along a parallel taxiway to take advantage of the common pavement instead of building taxilanes that only serve those hangars. Proximity of the new runway shown in this alternative to the existing runway would not allow large hangar development on the west side of the new parallel taxiway (old runway). Shifting further east would allow for more apron and hangar development. Runway 34 RPZ Considerations This alternative removes Tammany Lane from the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of Runway 34. The FAA strives to keep RPZs clear of road and structures for safety reasons. The Daly Ditch complex is essentially entirely within the RPZ in this alternative s configuration. Moving the runway further north would eliminate the need to remove the Daly Ditch structures. Runway 34 Approach Surface A 15-foot clearance standard is established in 14 CFR Part 77 for traffic on public roadways. This clearance buffer for Tammany Lane would penetrate the 34:1 Approach Slope (also defined in 14 CFR Part 77) for this alternative having a non-precision instrument procedure. Trees and buildings from the Daly Ditch complex would also penetrate the surface. The runway would need to be shifted north andor penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. SEPTEMBER, 2012

114 5-24 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Runway 34 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. The 15-foot buffer for Tammany Lane appears to be clear. Trees and at least one building from the Daly Ditch complex would penetrate the surface. The runway would need to be shifted north or the penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. Runway 34 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 34 likely has penetrations by trees and the southern Daly Ditch building. Runway 16 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with the 34 end of the runway, as defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A, would also have penetrations. The Tammany Road buffer, multiple trees and Daly Ditch structures all penetrate this surface. The runway would need to be shifted north or the penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. However, shifting the runway north would cause existing hangars to penetrate this surface. Alternately, the airport could continue to operate without an instrument departure to the south. The base width of the departure surface is very wide (1,000-feet). As such, the western edge of this surface could limit development of a few future structures. Or the airport could continue to operate without an instrument departure to the south. Hangar buildings have been shown in this area on the Alternative 3 figure as if departure to the south will not be pursued. Runway 16 RPZ Considerations The RPZ for runway 16 is well removed from the Stock Farm Road. There is no impact on the RPZ or road. No structures are in the area. Runway 16 Approach Surface A 34:1 Approach Slope for a non-precision instrument approach (defined in 14 CFR Part 77) would be associated with this runway. Depending on the design elevations of this end of the runway, there is likely plenty of clearance over the Stock Farm road, but the cottonwood trees would penetrate the surface. Tree trimming or removal would be required. Runway 16 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The SEPTEMBER, 2012

115 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 5-25 dimensions of the surface are also different. There will be even more clearance over Stock Farm Road. The cottonwood trees may or may not penetrate this surface. So, some of the trees within this area but outside the FAR Part 77 approach slope might not need to be trimmed as much or removed unless considering the Departure Surface discussed below. Runway 16 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 16 has penetrations by trees. Runway 34 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway, as defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A, would also have penetrations. Depending on the design elevations of this end of the runway, there is likely plenty of clearance over the Stock Farm road, but the cottonwood trees would penetrate the surface. Tree trimming or removal would be required. Apron Area Considerations This alternative would provide room for apron expansion east of the existing aprons, thereby somewhat relieving large hangar development space needs. Hangar Space Availability The amount of expansion capability for small hangars would be about the same as Alternative 2A. However, more space would be available for some (approximately 6) large hangar developments and an additional T-hangar. Land Requirements According to the 2010 Final EA, this alternative has land acquisition needs of approximately 88 acres to encompass the new RPZ area and enough area laterally to prevent a 27-foot buildings on adjacent property from penetrating the 14 CFR Part 77 Transitional Surface. Since the runway elevation and adjacent terrain vary longitudinally along the runway, this width varies. Preparers of the 2010 Final EA used a uniform 440 feet on either side of the runway. The 2010 Final EA also noted that about 98 acres would need to be zoned (or portions purchased) to protect land against incompatible land use for area within the 65DNL noise contour line. For planning purposes only, land costs were estimated based on $8,000 acre. SEPTEMBER, 2012

116 5-26 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Utilization of the Existing Runway Closures This alternative would not require the demolition of the existing runway. The existing runway would be remarked and put to use as a portion of the new parallel taxiway. Likely only the taxiway width would be maintained in the future. Paved shoulders on this new taxiway could remain in place initially. The existing runway could remain in operation as a runway while the majority of the new runway depicted is constructed. Cost Estimate The cost estimate below is for runway relocation, associated land acquisition, partial parallel taxiway, wildlife fencing, runway lighting, taxiway stubs and taxiway lighting for new taxiways only, windcone, segmented circle and two PAPIs. It does not include costs for rehabilitation or expansion of other airport facilities. Total Cost 90% FAA Participation 10% Owner Responsibility Land Acquisition (88 Ac) $704,000 $633,600 $70,400 Runway Demolition $0 $0 $0 Construct 75 x 5200 Runway, Taxiways, Lighting, NAVAIDS, Wildlife Fence Construction $5,023,000 $4,520,700 $502,300 Stock Farm Road Relocation $0 $0 $0 Daly Ditch Area Modifications (1) $200,000 $180,000 $20,000 Total $5,927,000 $5,334,300 $592,700 (1) Relocation of hangars onto airport property or historic documentation, demolition and relocation of Daly Ditch operations with replacement building(s). Table 5.3: Alternative 3 Cost Estimate SEPTEMBER, 2012

117

118

119 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Alternative 3A Relocate 240 East and 1550 North This alternative shifts Alternative 3 another 950 feet north. It appears that the location was selected to line up the end of the runway with one of the main existing taxilanes and to provide clearance over the Daly Ditch structures. This alternative also has the side benefits that include the ability to add apron space east of the existing aprons and more hangar area development opportunities. Runway to Taxiway Separation The FAA design requirement for separation between a runway and parallel taxiway for a design group II airport is 240 feet. Under Alternative 3A, there would be 240 feet of separation to the existing runway which would be repurposed as the main parallel taxiway. FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface Penetrations The 240-foot lateral shift of this alternative results in clearance of the 7:1 transitional surface defined in 14 CFR FAR Part 77. As stated above, this configuration would also allow development of hangars in the area north of the existing apron. It often makes sense for hangar development along a parallel taxiway to take advantage of the common pavement instead of building taxilanes that only serve those hangars. Proximity of the new runway shown in this alternative to the existing runway would not allow large hangar development on the west side of the new parallel taxiway (old runway). Shifting further east would allow for more apron and hangar development. Runway 34 RPZ Considerations This alternative removes Tammany Lane and the Daly Ditch complex from the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of Runway 34. The FAA strives to keep RPZs clear of road and structures for safety reasons. Runway 34 Approach Surface A 15-foot clearance standard is established in 14 CFR Part 77 for traffic on public roadways. This clearance buffer for Tammany Lane would be clear of the 34:1 Approach Slope (also defined in 14 CFR Part 77) for this alternative having a non-precision instrument procedure. At least one building from the Daly Ditch complex appears to be penetrating the surface and trees will likely require trimming or removal. Based on the available survey data and approximated runway threshold elevation, there is just over 1-foot of penetration by the building. The runway threshold could likely be adjusted vertically and horizontally to alleviate the conflict rather than mitigate the building(s). Runway 34 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. The 15-foot buffer for Tammany Lane is clear as are the SEPTEMBER, 2012

120 5-30 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Daly Ditch structures. However, it is possible trees in the Daly Ditch complex and along Tammany Lane still penetrate this surface requiring trimming or removal. Runway 34 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 34 possibly has tree penetrations. Runway 16 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway is defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A. The base width of the departure surface is very wide (1,000-feet). As such, the western edge of this surface conflicts with existing structures. The airport could continue to operate without an instrument departure to the south. Hangar buildings have been shown in this area on the Alternative 3A figure as if departure to the south will not be pursued. Runway 16 RPZ Considerations The RPZ for runway 16 conflicts with Stock Farm Road, which requires rerouting under this alternative. No structures are in the area. Runway 16 Approach Surface A 34:1 Approach Slope for a non-precision instrument approach (defined in 14 CFR Part 77) would be associated with this runway. Since this alternative reroutes Stock Farm Road, the road and conflicting cottonwood trees would be altered as necessary as part of the construction project. Runway 16 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. Since this alternative reroutes Stock Farm Road, the road and conflicting cottonwood trees be would altered as necessary as part of the construction project. Runway 16 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. Since this alternative reroutes Stock Farm Road, the road and conflicting cottonwood trees be would altered as necessary as part of the construction project. SEPTEMBER, 2012

121 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 5-31 Runway 34 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway is defined in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A. Since this alternative reroutes Stock Farm Road, the road and conflicting cottonwood trees be would altered as necessary as part of the construction project. Apron Area Considerations This alternative would provide room for apron expansion east of the existing aprons, thereby somewhat relieving large hangar development space needs. Hangar Space Availability The amount of expansion capability for small and T-hangars would be slightly more than Alternative 2A and 3 due to the location of the threshold siting surface. Land Requirements According to the 2010 Final EA, this alternative has land acquisition needs of approximately 102 acres to encompass the new RPZ area and enough area laterally to prevent a 27-foot buildings on adjacent property from penetrating the 14 CFR Part 77 Transitional Surface. Since the runway elevation and adjacent terrain vary longitudinally along the runway, this width varies. Preparers of the 2010 Final EA used a uniform 440 feet on either side of the runway. The 2010 Final EA also noted that about 112 acres would need to be zoned (or portions purchased) to protect land against incompatible land use for area within the 65DNL noise contour line. For planning purposes only, land costs were estimated based on $8,000 acre. Utilization of the Existing Runway Closures This alternative would not require the demolition of the existing runway. The existing runway would be remarked and put to use as a portion of the new parallel taxiway. Likely only the taxiway width would be maintained in the future. Paved shoulders on this new taxiway could remain in place initially. The existing runway could remain in operation as a runway while the majority of the new runway depicted is constructed. SEPTEMBER, 2012

122 5-32 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Cost Estimate The cost estimate below is for runway relocation, associated land acquisition, partial parallel taxiway, wildlife fencing, runway lighting, taxiway stubs and taxiway lighting for new taxiways only, windcone, segmented circle and two PAPIs. It does not include costs for rehabilitation or expansion of other airport facilities. Total Cost 90% FAA Participation 10% Owner Responsibility Land Acquisition (102 Ac) $816,000 $734,400 $81,600 Runway Demolition $0 $0 $0 Construct 75 x 5200 Runway, Taxiways, Lighting, NAVAIDS, Wildlife Fence Construction $5,164,000 $4,647,600 $516,400 Stock Farm Road Relocation $257,000 $231,300 $25,700 Daly Ditch Area Modifications $0 $0 $0 Total $6,237,000 $5,613,300 $623,700 Table 5.4: Alternative 3A Cost Estimate SEPTEMBER, 2012

123

124

125 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Alternative 4 Relocate 400 East and 600 North This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 and 3 in that the northerly displacement is 600 feet. However, the lateral displacement is 400 feet. The 400-foot dimension was established as a logical offset to allow enough transitional surface clearance for hangar development adjacent to the west side of the existing runway. The existing runway pavement section would be used as a parallel taxiway. One benefit includes the ability to add more apron space, east of the existing aprons, than the Alternative 3 & 3A options. As another benefit, much more hangar area development opportunities are realized for large hangars adjacent to the west side of the existing runway. Runway to Taxiway Separation The FAA design requirement for separation between a runway and parallel taxiway for a design group II airport is 240 feet. Under Alternative 4, there would be 400 feet of separation to the existing runway which would be repurposed as the main parallel taxiway. However, the northerly portion of the runway has a standard parallel taxiway shown at the standard 240-foot offset. FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface Penetrations The 400-foot lateral shift of this alternative results in clearance of the 7:1 transitional surface defined in 14 CFR FAR Part 77. As stated above, this configuration would also allow development of hangars in the area north of the existing apron and adjacent to the west side of the existing runway. Runway 34 RPZ Considerations This alternative removes Tammany Lane from the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of Runway 34. The FAA strives to keep RPZs clear of road and structures for safety reasons. The Daly Ditch complex is entirely within the RPZ in this alternative s configuration. Moving the runway further north would eliminate the need to remove the Daly Ditch structures. Runway 34 Approach Surface A 15-foot clearance standard is established in 14 CFR Part 77 for traffic on public roadways. This clearance buffer for Tammany Lane would penetrate the 34:1 Approach Slope (also defined in 14 CFR Part 77) for this alternative having a non-precision instrument procedure. Trees and buildings from the Daly Ditch complex would also penetrate the surface. The runway would need to be shifted north andor penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. Runway 34 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. The 15-foot buffer for Tammany Lane appears to be SEPTEMBER, 2012

126 5-36 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS clear. Trees and at least one building from the Daly Ditch complex would penetrate the surface. The runway would need to be shifted north or the penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. Runway 34 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 34 likely has penetrations by both buildings and trees. Runway 16 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with the 34 end of the runway, as defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A, would also have penetrations. The Tammany Road buffer, multiple trees and Daly Ditch structures all penetrate this surface. The runway would need to be shifted north or the penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. Shifting the runway north more than 500 feet would cause existing hangars to penetrate the surface. Alternately, the airport could continue to operate without an instrument departure to the south. The base width of the departure surface is very wide (1,000-feet). As such, the western edge of this surface could limit development of a few future structures. Or the airport could continue to operate without an instrument departure to the south. Hangar buildings have been shown in this area on the Alternative 3 figure as if departure to the south will not be pursued. Runway 16 RPZ Considerations The RPZ for runway 16 is well removed from the Stock Farm Road. There is no impact on the RPZ or road. No structures are in the area. Runway 16 Approach Surface A 34:1 Approach Slope for a non-precision instrument approach (defined in 14 CFR Part 77) would be associated with this runway. Depending on the design elevations of this end of the runway, there is likely plenty of clearance over the Stock Farm road, but the cottonwood trees would penetrate the surface. Tree trimming or removal would be required. Runway 16 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. There will be even more clearance over Stock Farm Road. The cottonwood trees may or may not penetrate this surface. So, some of the trees within this area but outside the FAR Part 77 approach slope might not need to be trimmed as much or removed unless considering the Departure Surface discussed below. SEPTEMBER, 2012

127 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 5-37 Runway 16 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 16 has penetrations by trees. Runway 34 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway, as defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A, would also have penetrations. Depending on the design elevations of this end of the runway, there is likely plenty of clearance over the Stock Farm road, but the cottonwood trees would penetrate the surface. Tree trimming or removal would be required. Apron Area Considerations This alternative would provide room for ample apron expansion east of the existing aprons, thereby relieving large hangar development space needs. Hangar Space Availability The amount of expansion capability for small hangars would actually go down slightly compared to the previous alternative because of the location of the threshold siting surface and FAR Part 77 approach. However the amount of large hangar space availability doubles and another T-hangar location is shown. Land Requirements According to the 2010 Final EA, this alternative has land acquisition needs of approximately 110 acres to encompass the new RPZ area and enough area laterally to prevent a 27-foot buildings on adjacent property from penetrating the 14 CFR Part 77 Transitional Surface. Since the runway elevation and adjacent terrain vary longitudinally along the runway, this width varies. Preparers of the 2010 Final EA used a uniform 440 feet on either side of the runway. The 2010 Final EA also noted that about 95 acres would need to be zoned (or portions purchased) to protect land against incompatible land use for area within the 65DNL noise contour line. For planning purposes only, land costs were estimated based on $8,000 acre. Utilization of the Existing Runway Closures This alternative would not require the demolition of the existing runway. The existing runway would be remarked and put to use as a portion of the new parallel taxiway. Likely, only the taxiway width would be maintained in the future. Paved shoulders on this new taxiway could remain in place initially. SEPTEMBER, 2012

128 5-38 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS The existing runway could remain in operation as a runway while the majority of the new runway depicted is constructed. Cost Estimate The cost estimate below is for runway relocation, associated land acquisition, partial parallel taxiway, wildlife fencing, runway lighting, taxiway stubs and taxiway lighting for new taxiways only, windcone, segmented circle and two PAPIs. It does not include costs for rehabilitation or expansion of other airport facilities. Total Cost 90% FAA Participation 10% Owner Responsibility Land Acquisition (110 Ac) $880,000 $792,000 $88,000 Runway Demolition $0 $0 $0 Construct 75 x 5200 Runway, Taxiways, Lighting, NAVAIDS, Wildlife Fence Construction $5,101,000 $4,590,900 $510,100 Stock Farm Road Relocation $0 $0 $0 Daly Ditch Area Modifications (1) $200,000 $180,000 $20,000 Total $6,181,000 $5,562,900 $618,100 (1) Relocation of hangars onto airport property or historic documentation, demolition and relocation of Daly Ditch operations with replacement building(s). Table 5.5: Alternative 4 Cost Estimate SEPTEMBER, 2012

129

130

131 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Alternative 4A Relocate 400 East and 1000 North This alternative is similar to Alternative 2A in that the northerly displacement is 1000 feet, but the lateral displacement is 400 feet. The 400-foot dimension was established as a logical offset to allow enough transitional surface clearance for hangar development adjacent to the west side of the existing runway. The existing runway pavement section would be used as a parallel taxiway. One benefit includes the ability to add more apron space, east of the existing aprons, than the Alternative 3 & 3A options. As another benefit, much more hangar area development opportunities are realized for large hangars adjacent to the west side of the existing runway. Runway to Taxiway Separation The FAA design requirement for separation between a runway and parallel taxiway for a design group II airport is 240 feet. Under Alternative 4A, there would be 400 feet of separation to the existing runway which would be repurposed as the main parallel taxiway. However, the northerly portion of the runway has a standard parallel taxiway shown at the standard 240-foot offset. FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface Penetrations The 400-foot lateral shift of this alternative results in clearance of the 7:1 transitional surface defined in 14 CFR FAR Part 77. As stated above, this configuration would also allow development of hangars in the area north of the existing apron and adjacent to the west side of the existing runway. Runway 34 RPZ Area Considerations This alternative removes Tammany Lane and the Daly Ditch complex from the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of Runway 34. The FAA strives to keep RPZs clear of road and structures for safety reasons. Runway 34 Approach Surface A 15-foot clearance standard is established in 14 CFR Part 77 for traffic on public roadways. This clearance buffer for Tammany Lane appears to clear the 34:1 Approach Slope (also defined in 14 CFR Part 77) for this alternative having a non-precision instrument procedure. Trees and building(s) from the Daly Ditch complex would penetrate the surface. The runway would need to be shifted north andor penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. Runway 34 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. The 15-foot buffer for Tammany Lane is clear, however, trees likely penetrate this surface. The runway would need to be shifted north or the penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. SEPTEMBER, 2012

132 5-42 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Runway 34 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 34 likely has tree penetrations. Runway 16 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway, as defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A, would also have penetrations. The Tammany Road buffer may penetrate on the eastern side and multiple trees and Daly Ditch structures all penetrate this surface. The runway would need to be shifted north or the penetrations removed to alleviate the problem. Shifting the runway north more than 150 feet would cause existing hangars to penetrate the surface. Alternately, the airport could continue to operate without an instrument departure to the south. The base width of the departure surface is very wide (1,000-feet). As such, the western edge of this surface could conflict with potential future hangar sites. Hangar buildings have been shown in this area on the Alternative 4A figure as if departure to the south will not be pursued. Runway 16 RPZ Considerations The RPZ for runway 16 falls short of Stock Farm Road. There is no impact on the RPZ or road. No structures are in the area. Runway 16 Approach Surface A 34:1 Approach Slope for a non-precision instrument approach (defined in 14 CFR Part 77) would be associated with this runway. Depending on the design elevations of this end of the runway, there is likely plenty of clearance over the Stock Farm road, but the cottonwood trees would penetrate the surface. Tree trimming or removal would be required. Runway 16 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. There will be even more clearance over Stock Farm Road. The cottonwood trees may or may not penetrate this surface. So, some of the trees within this area but outside the FAR Part 77 approach slope might not need to be trimmed as much or removed unless considering the Departure Surface discussed below. SEPTEMBER, 2012

133 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 5-43 Runway 16 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 16 likely has tree penetrations. If so, tree trimming or removal would be required. Runway 34 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway, as defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A, would also have penetrations. Depending on the design elevations of this end of the runway, there is likely plenty of clearance over the Stock Farm road, but the cottonwood trees would penetrate the surface. Tree trimming or removal would be required. Apron Area Considerations This alternative would provide room for ample apron expansion east of the existing aprons, thereby relieving large hangar development space needs. Hangar Space Availability The amount of expansion capability for small hangars is slightly more than Alternative 3A, but the amount of large hangar space availability doubles and another T-hangar location is shown. Land Requirements Land acquisition needs of approximately 119 acres were estimated for this alternative to encompass the new RPZ area and enough area laterally to prevent a 27-foot building on adjacent property from penetrating the 14 CFR Part 77 Transitional Surface. Since the runway elevation and adjacent terrain vary longitudinally along the runway, this width varies. To be consistent with the previous alternatives a uniform 440 feet on either side of the runway was used to make this estimation. More than 106 acres would need to be zoned (or portions purchased) to protect land against incompatible land use for area within the 65DNL noise contour line. For planning purposes only, land costs were estimated based on $8,000 acre. Utilization of the Existing Runway Closures This alternative would not require the demolition of the existing runway. The existing runway would be remarked and put to use as a portion of the new parallel taxiway. Likely, only the taxiway width would be maintained. Paved shoulders on this new taxiway could remain in place initially. The existing runway could remain in operation as a runway while the majority of the new runway depicted is constructed. SEPTEMBER, 2012

134 5-44 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Cost Estimate The cost estimate below is for runway relocation, associated land acquisition, partial parallel taxiway, wildlife fencing, runway lighting, taxiway stubs and taxiway lighting for new taxiways only, windcone, segmented circle and two PAPIs. It does not include costs for rehabilitation or expansion of other airport facilities. Total Cost 90% FAA Participation 10% Owner Responsibility Land Acquisition (119 Ac) $952,000 $856,800 $95,200 Runway Demolition $0 $0 $0 Construct 75 x 5200 Runway, Taxiways, Lighting, NAVAIDS, Wildlife Fence Construction $5,259,000 $4,733,100 $525,900 Stock Farm Road Relocation $0 $0 $0 Daly Ditch Area Modifications (1) $200,000 $180,000 $20,000 Total $6,411,000 $5,769,900 $641,100 (1) Relocation of hangars onto airport property or historic documentation, demolition and relocation of Daly Ditch operations with replacement building(s). Table 5.6: Alternative 4A Cost Estimate SEPTEMBER, 2012

135

136

137 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Alternative 4B Relocate 400 East and 1550 North This alternative is similar to Alternative 3A in that the northerly displacement is 1550 feet, but the lateral displacement is 400 feet. The 400-foot dimension was established as a logical offset to allow enough transitional surface clearance for hangar development adjacent to the west side of the existing runway. The existing runway pavement section would be used as a parallel taxiway. One benefit includes the ability to add more apron space, east of the existing aprons, than the Alternative 3 & 3A options. As another benefit, much more hangar area development opportunities are realized for large hangars adjacent to the west side of the existing runway. Runway to Taxiway Separation The FAA design requirement for separation between a runway and parallel taxiway for a design group II airport is 240 feet. Under Alternative 4B, there would be 400 feet of separation to the existing runway which would be repurposed as the main parallel taxiway. However, the northerly portion of the runway has a standard parallel taxiway shown at the standard 240-foot offset. FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface Penetrations The 400-foot lateral shift of this alternative results in clearance of the 7:1 transitional surface defined in 14 CFR FAR Part 77. As stated above, this configuration would also allow development of hangars in the area north of the existing apron and adjacent to the west side of the existing runway. Runway 34 RPZ Considerations This alternative removes Tammany Lane and the Daly Ditch complex from the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of Runway 34. The FAA strives to keep RPZs clear of road and structures for safety reasons. Runway 34 Approach Surface A 15-foot clearance standard is established in 14 CFR Part 77 for traffic on public roadways. This clearance buffer for Tammany Lane would be clear of the 34:1 Approach Slope (also defined in 14 CFR Part 77) for this alternative having a non-precision instrument procedure. At least one building from the Daly Ditch complex appears to penetrate the surface, and trees will likely require trimming or removal. Based on the available survey data and approximated runway threshold elevation, there is just over 1-foot of penetration by the building. The runway threshold could likely be adjusted vertically and horizontally to alleviate the conflict rather than mitigate the building(s). Runway 34 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. The 15-foot buffer for Tammany Lane is clear as are the SEPTEMBER, 2012

138 5-48 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Daly Ditch structures. However, it is possible trees in the Daly Ditch complex and along Tammany Lane still penetrate this surface requiring trimming or removal. Runway 34 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. The GQS to Runway 34 possibly has tree penetrations. Runway 16 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway is defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A. The base width of the departure surface is very wide (1,000-feet). As such, the western edge of this surface conflicts with existing structures and potential new hangar locations. The airport could continue to operate without an instrument departure to the south. Hangar buildings have been shown in this area on the Alternative 4B figure as if departure to the south will not be pursued. Runway 16 RPZ Considerations The RPZ for runway 16 conflicts with Stock Farm Road, which requires rerouting under this alternative. No structures are in the area. Runway 16 Approach Surface A 34:1 Approach Slope for a non-precision instrument approach (defined in 14 CFR Part 77) would be associated with this runway. Since this alternative reroutes Stock Farm Road, the road and conflicting cottonwood trees would be altered as necessary as part of the construction project. Runway 16 Threshold Siting Surface Unlike the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface above, the Threshold Siting Surface associated with this runway (shown in rows 5 or 6 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A) is at a 20:1 slope. The dimensions of the surface are also different. Since this alternative reroutes Stock Farm Road, the road and conflicting cottonwood trees be would altered as necessary as part of the construction project. Runway 16 Glide Slope Qualification Surface In order to be considered for approaches that include vertical guidance, the GQS for a runway absolutely has to be clear. The GQS surface is fairly narrow and is at a 30:1 slope. Since this alternative reroutes Stock Farm Road, the road and conflicting cottonwood trees be would altered as necessary as part of the construction project. SEPTEMBER, 2012

139 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 5-49 Runway 34 Departure Surface The Departure Surface that would be associated with this end of the runway is defined in in row 10 of Table A2-1 in AC in Appendix A. Since this alternative reroutes Stock Farm Road, the road and conflicting cottonwood trees be would altered as necessary as part of the construction project. Apron Area Considerations This alternative would provide room for ample apron expansion east of the existing aprons, thereby relieving large hangar development space needs. Hangar Space Availability The amount of expansion capability for small hangars would be slightly more than alternative 3A. The amount of all hangar space availability is the same as Alternative 4A. Land Requirements Land acquisition needs of approximately 131 acres were estimated for this alternative to encompass the new RPZ area and enough area laterally to prevent a 27-foot building on adjacent property from penetrating the 14 CFR Part 77 Transitional Surface. Since the runway elevation and adjacent terrain vary longitudinally along the runway, this width varies. To be consistent with the previous alternatives a uniform 440 feet on either side of the runway was used to make this estimation. More than 112 acres would need to be zoned (or portions purchased) to protect land against incompatible land use for area within the 65DNL noise contour line. For planning purposes only, land costs were estimated based on $8,000 acre. Utilization of the Existing Runway Closures This alternative would not require the demolition of the existing runway. The existing runway would be remarked and put to use as a portion of the new parallel taxiway. Likely, only the taxiway width would be maintained in the future. Paved shoulders on this new taxiway could remain in place initially. The existing runway could remain in operation as a runway while the majority of the new runway depicted is constructed. SEPTEMBER, 2012

140 5-50 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Cost Estimate The cost estimate below is for runway relocation, associated land acquisition, partial parallel taxiway, wildlife fencing, runway lighting, taxiway stubs and taxiway lighting for new taxiways only, windcone, segmented circle and two PAPIs. It does not include costs for rehabilitation or expansion of other airport facilities. Total Cost 90% FAA Participation 10% Owner Responsibility Land Acquisition (131 Ac) $1,048,000 $943,200 $104,800 Runway Demolition $0 $0 $0 Construct 75 x 5200 Runway, Taxiways, Lighting, NAVAIDS, Wildlife Fence Construction $5,465,000 $4,918,500 $546,500 Stock Farm Road Relocation $257,000 $231,300 $25,700 Daly Ditch Area Modifications $0 $0 $0 Total $6,770,000 $6,093,000 $677,000 Table 5.7: Alternative 4B Cost Estimate SEPTEMBER, 2012

141

142

143 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON A tabular summary comparing the alternatives discussed above is shown below. SEPTEMBER, 2012

144 5-54 CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS This page intentionally left blank. SEPTEMBER, 2012

145 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON Considerations 93' - 95' Shift (Minimum to clear existing hangars) ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 240' Shift (To use existing runway as a taxiway) 400' Shift (To provide additional hangar development potential) No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 2A Alternative 3 Alternative 3A Alternative 4 Alternative 4A Alternative 4B Lateral Shift East 0 95' 93' 240' 240' 400' 400' 400' Longitudinal Shift North 0 600' 1000' 600' 1550' 600' 1000' 1550' Lateral Separation Meets Runway Parallel Taxiway Separation (240')? FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface Penetrations No (200') Yes (295') Yes (293') Yes (440') and (240' to existing runway) Yes (440') and (240' to existing runway) Yes (600') and (400' to existing runway) Yes (600') and (400' to existing runway) Several No - Barely Clears No - Barely Clears No (1) No (1) No (1) No (1) No (1) Yes (600') and (400' to existing runway) Runway 34 End RW 34 RPZ Considerations RW 34 FAR Part 77 34:1 Approach RW 34 Table A2-1 20:1 Threshold Siting Surface RW 34 Glide Slope Qualification Surface (GQS) 30:1 Tammany Lane in RPZ Tammany Lane and tree(s) penetrate South building (2) and trees penetrate, Tammany Lane nearly penetrates Tammany Lane barely clears Daly Ditch south building and trees in RPZ (2) Trees and south building (2) penetrate, Tammany Lane very close to penetrating North building (2) and trees penetrate. Possible hangar development limitations. Trees likely penetrate None, but minor hangar development limitations Trees and buildings (2) penetrate Daly Ditch area entirely in RPZ (2) Tammany Lane, trees and buildings (2) penetrate Trees likely Trees and north penetrate. Hangar building (2) development penetrate. limitations. Trees penetrate South building and tree penetrations None North building (4) and likely trees penetrate Possibly trees penetrate Possibly trees penetrate Daly Ditch area entirely in None None RPZ (2) Tammany Lane, trees and buildings (2) penetrate Trees and north building (2) penetrate. Trees and buildings (2) penetrate. Trees and buildings (2) penetrate Trees likely penetrate. Possibly trees penetrate North building (4) and likely trees penetrate Possibly trees penetrate Possibly trees penetrate RW 16 (at 34 end) Table A2-1 40:1 Departure Tammany Lane, buildings, future hangars and trees penetrate Not practical to pursue departure on this end with any alternatives Runway 16 End RW 16 RPZ Considerations RW 16 FAR Part 77 34:1 Approach RW 16 Table A2-1 20:1 Threshold Siting Surface RW 16 Glide Slope Qualification Surface (GQS) 30:1 RW 34 (at 16 end) Table A2-1 40:1 Departure None None None None Terrain and Tree Penetrations - Could Remove Terrain Just Clears. Trees Penetrate Possible terrain penetration Terrain and tree penetrations Stock Farm Road conflict - road relocation required Tree penetrations Tree penetrations Tree penetrations None Tree penetrations Tree penetrations None None Tree penetrations Likely tree penetrations Likely tree penetrations Possible tree penetrations None None Possible tree penetrations Tree penetrations None Tree penetrations None Likely tree penetrations Likely tree penetrations Tree penetrations Tree penetrations Tree penetrations None Tree penetrations Tree penetrations None Stock Farm Road conflict - road relocation required None None Other Apron Area Considerations Additional Hangar Space Availability Approximate Land Requirements No Improvement - currently over capacity 31 - Small 4-5 Large 2 - T-hangar No Improvement Apron expansion north of existing only No Impact: 31 - Small 4-5 Large 2 - T-hangar No Improvement Apron expansion north of existing only 36 - Small (3) 4-5 Large 3 - T-hangar (3) Provides some east expansion potential Small Large 3 - T-hangar Provides some east expansion potential Small Large 4 - T-hangar Significant Expansion Potential Significant: 36 - Small 22 Large 5 - T-hangar Significant Expansion Potential Significant: 40 - Small 22 Large 5 - T-hangar Significant Expansion Potential Significant: 40 - Small 22 Large 5 - T-hangar None 71 Acres 78 Acres 88 Acres 102 Acres 110 Acres 119 Acres 131 Acres No - remove No - remove Utilization of Existing Yes existing runway existing runway Runway Closures MMI Cost Estimate $5,721,000 RPA Cost Estimate (2012) Yes - as parallel taxiway Yes - as parallel taxiway Yes - as parallel taxiway hangar access Yes - as parallel taxiway hangar access Yes - as parallel taxiway hangar access $0 now Future projects 100% County funded $5,879,000 $6,083,000 $5,927,000 $6,237,000 $6,181,000 $6,411,000 $6,770,000 (1) Considering construction eliminates transitional surface penetrations on north end during design construction (2) Requires mitigation or different alternative (3) This may be optimistic as some are within the threshold siting surface. Depends on runway threshold elevation, hangar floor elevation and building heights (4) Based on available survey data and approximated runway threshold elevation - just over 1-foot of penetration. Runway location and elevation could be adjusted based on exact field conditions. 1 OF 1

146 REFERENCES 57 1 Bing Maps for ESRI ArcGIS, (c) Microsoft Corporation 2 Terry Nelson, Ravalli County Planning Administrator 3 Ravalli County Growth Policy, 2002, 4 Ravalli County Planning Department, 5 Montana Code Annotated, 6 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years , media2012%20FAA%20Aerospace%20Forecast.pdf 7 FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) web-site, 8 FAA news release, 9 FAA Report General Aviation Airports: A National Asset, 10 FAA Airport Categories web-site, 11 Western Regional Climate Center, 12 Ravalli County Airport ALP Sheet 1, Morrison Maierle, Inc. 13 Great Falls Sectional Aeronautical Chart, USDOT, FAA National Aeronautical Charting Office 14 AeroPlanner Flight Planning Website, 15 FlightAware IFR tracking service, 16 FAA Terminal Area Forecast Summary Fiscal Years , 17 Demographic Database, Economic Projections Series, NPA Data Services, Inc., Arlington, VA (Processed by: Census and Economic Information Center, Montana Dept. of Commerce, Helena, with permission from NPA Data Services, Inc., 1108), 18 Federal Aviation Administration, AC , Airport Design Chapter 1 Regulatory Requirements and Definition of Terms 19 Ravalli County Airport, 2010 Final Environmental Assessment, Morrison Maierle, Inc. SEPTEMBER, 2012

147 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT - Hamilton, Montana Forecasting Report Appendix A: Reference Material

148

149 of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration AIRPORT DESIGN Advisory Circular

150 1308 AC CHG 12 Chapter 1. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITION OF TERMS 1. GENERAL. Section 103 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 states in part, In the exercise and performance of his power and duties under this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall consider the following, among other things, as being in the public interest: (a) The regulation of air commerce in such manner as to best promote its development and safety and fulfill the requirements of defense; (b) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil aeronautics.... This public charge, in effect, requires the development and maintenance of a national system of safe, delay-free, and cost-effective airports. The use of the standards and recommendations contained in this publication in the design of airports supports this public charge. These standards and recommendations, however, do not limit or regulate the operations of aircraft. 2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this publication, the following terms mean: Aircraft Approach Category. A grouping of aircraft based on 1.3 times their stall speed in their landing configuration at the certificated maximum flap setting and maximum landing weight at standard atmospheric conditions. 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 166 knots or more. Airplane Design Group (ADG). A grouping of airplanes based on wingspan or tail height. Where an airplane is in two categories, the most demanding category should be used. The groups are as follows: Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet (15 m) wingspan or tail height up to but not including 20 feet. Group II: 49 feet (15 m) up to but not including 79 feet (24 m) wingspan or tail height from 20 up to but not including 30 feet. Group III: 79 feet (24 m) up to but not including 118 feet (36 m) wingspan or tail height from 30 up to but not including 45 feet. Group IV: 118 feet (36 m) up to but not including 171 feet (52 m) wingspan or tail height from 45 up to but not including 60 feet. Group V: 171 feet (52 m) up to but not including 214 feet (65 m) wingspan or tail height from 60 up to but not including 66 feet. Group VI: 214 feet (65 m) up to but not including 262 feet (80 m) wingspan or tail height from 66 up to but not including 80 feet. Table 1-1. Airplane Design Groups (ADG) Group # Tail Height (ft) Wingspan (ft) I <20 <49 II 20 - < <79 III 30 - < <118 IV 45 - < <171 V 60 - < <214 VI 66 - < <262 Airport Elevation. The highest point on an airport's usable runway expressed in feet above mean sea level (MSL). Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The plan of an airport showing the layout of existing and proposed airport facilities. Airport Reference Point (ARP). The latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the airport. 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 airports. Clear Zone. See Runway Protection Zone. Clearway (CWY). A defined rectangular area beyond the end of a runway cleared or suitable for use in lieu of runway to satisfy takeoff distance requirements. Compass Calibration Pad. An airport facility used for calibrating an aircraft compass. Chap 1 1

151 AC CHG Table 2-1. Runway Separation Standards for aircraft approach categories A & B ITEM DIM 1 AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP I2 I II III IV Visual runways and runways with not lower than ¾-statue mile (1200m) approach visibility minimums Runway Centerline to: Parallel Runway H Centerline Refer to paragraphs 207 and 208 Holdline 125ft 7 38m 200ft 60m 200ft 60m 200ft 5 60m TaxiwayTaxilane D 150ft 225ft 240ft 300ft Centerline m 67.5m 72m 90m Aircraft Parking Area G 125ft 200ft 250ft 400ft 37.5m 60m 75m 120m Helicopter Touchdown Pad Refer to Advisory Circular Runways with lower than ¾ -statue mile (1200m) approach visibility minimums 4 250ft 75m 400ft 120m 500ft 150m Runway Centerline to: Parallel Runway H Centerline Holdline 175ft 7 53m TaxiwayTaxilane D 200ft Centerline m Aircraft Parking Area G 400ft 120m Helicopter Touchdown Pad Refer to paragraphs 207 and ft 75m 250ft 75m 400ft 120m 250ft 75m 300ft 90m 400ft 120m 250ft 5 75m 350ft 105m 400ft 120m Refer to Advisory Circular ft 6 75m 400ft 120m 500ft 150m 1 Letters correspond to the dimensions on Figure These dimensional standards pertain to facilities for small airplanes exclusively. 3 The taxiwaytaxilane centerline separation standards are for sea level. At higher elevations, an increase to these separation distances may be required to keep taxiing and holding airplanes clear of the OFZ (refer to paragraph 206). 4 For approaches with visibility less than ½-statue miles, runway centerline to taxiwaytaxilane centerline separation increases to 400 feet (120m). 5 This distance is increased 1 foot for each 100 feet above 5,100 feet above sea level. 6 This distance is increased 1 foot for each 100 feet above sea level. 7 The holdline dimension standards pertains to facilities for small airplanes exclusively, including airplane design groups I & II. 8 Existing taxiwaytaxilane distance may be acceptable to support the existing runway service level (i.e. CAT I, II, III) when approved by the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Airport Engineering Division (AAS-100). NOTE: Use of the Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) to justify a modification to standards for the purpose of reducing runway to taxiway separation standards is not allowed. 14 Chap 2

152 AC CHG Table Taxiway and taxilane separation standards ITEM Taxiway Centerline to: Parallel Taxiway Taxilane Centerline DIM 1 J 69 ft 21 m AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP I II III IV V VI 105 ft 32 m 152 ft 46.5 m 215 ft 65.5 m 267 ft 81 m 324ft 99 m Fixed or Movable Object 2 and 3 K 44.5 ft 13.5 m 65.5 ft 20 m 93 ft 28.5 m ft 39.5 m 160 ft 48.5 m 193 ft 59 m Taxilane Centerline to: Parallel Taxilane Centerline 64 ft 19.5 m 97 ft 29.5 m 140 ft 42.5 m 198 ft 60 m 245 ft 74.5 m 298 ft 91 m Fixed or Movable Object 2 and ft 12 m 57.5 ft 17.5 m 81 ft 24.5 m ft 34 m 138 ft 42 m 167 ft 51 m 1 Letters correspond to the dimensions on Figure This value also applies to the edge of service and maintenance roads. 3 Consideration of the engine exhaust wake impacted from turning aircraft should be given to objects located near runwaytaxiwaytaxilane intersections. Use of the following equations does not require additional internal FAA coordination between irports (ARP) organization and other FAA lines of business. The values obtained from the following equations may be used to show that a modification of standards will provide an acceptable level of safety for a single wingspan (WS). Refer to paragraph 6 and FAA Order , Modifications to Agency Airport Design, Construction and Equipment Standards, for guidance on modification of standard requirements. Taxiway centerline to parallel taxiwaytaxilane centerline: Taxiway centerline to fixed or movable object: Taxilane centerline to parallel taxilane centerline: Taxilane centerline to fixed or movable object: 1.2 x WS) + 10 feet (3m) (0.7 x WS) + 10 feet (3m) (1.1 x WS) + 10 feet (3m) (0.6 x WS) + 10 feet (3m) The values obtained from the following equations may be used to show that a modification of standards will provide an acceptable level of safety for centerline to centerline separation of dual parallel taxiwaystaxilanes that use two different wingspans from the same or different ADGs. Refer to paragraph 6 and FAA Order , Modifications to Agency Airport Design, Construction and Equipment Standards, for guidance on modification of standard requirements. Dual parallel taxiway applications: Dual parallel taxilane application: Mixed parallel taxiway and taxilane application: Example: 1.2 x [(WS 1 + WS 2 )2] + 10 feet (3m) 1.1 x [(WS 1 + WS 2 )2] + 10 feet (3m) [(1.2 x WS x WS 2 )2] + 10 feet (3m) Can an existing standard ADG III parallel taxiway centerline separation of 152 feet accept an ADG IV airplane if it is speed restricted (taxilane)? Given: WS 1 = 118 feet (full ADG III WS) and WS 2 = feet (Boeing 757, ADG IV). Apply [(1.2 x WS x WS 2 )2] + 10 feet = [(1.2 (118) (124.8))2] + 10 feet = feet. ANSWER: Yes. Result (149.4') is less than existing 152' CL to CL separation. WS = wingspan of the taxiwaytaxilane design aircraft 16 Chap 2

153 AC CHG 4 Approach Visibility Minimums 1 Visual And Not lower than 1-Mile (1 600 m) Not lower than ¾-Mile (1 200 m) Facilities Expected To Serve Small Aircraft Exclusively Aircraft Approach Categories A & B Aircraft Approach Categories C & D All Aircraft Table 2-4. Runway protection zone (RPZ) dimensions Length L Feet Dimensions Lower than All 2,500 1,000 1, ¾-Mile (1 200 m) Aircraft (750) (300) (525) 1 The RPZ dimensional standards are for the runway end with the specified approach visibility minimums. The departure RPZ dimensional standards are equal to or less than the approach RPZ dimensional standards. When a RPZ begins other than 200 feet (60 m) beyond the runway end, separate approach and departure RPZs should be provided. Refer to Appendix 14 for approach and departure RPZs. Inner Width W 1 feet Outer Width W 2 feet (meters) (meters) (meters) 1,000 (300) 1,000 (300) 1,700 (510) 1,700 (510) 250 (75) 500 (150) 500 (150) 1,000 (300) 450 (135) 700 (210) 1,010 (303) 1,510 (453) RPZ acres Chap 2 19

154 AC CHG 17 Chapter 3. RUNWAY DESIGN 300. INTRODUCTION. This chapter presents standards for runways and runway associated elements such as shoulders, blast pads, runway safety areas, obstacle free zones (OFZ), object free areas (OFA), clearways, and stopways. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 present the standard widths and lengths for runway and runway-associated elements. Also included are design standards and recommendations for rescue and firefighting access roads. At new airports, the RSA and ROFA lengths and the RPZ location standards are tied to runway ends. At existing constrained airports, these criteria may, on a case-by-case basis, be applied with respect to declared distances ends. See appendix RUNWAY LENGTH. AC and airplane flight manuals provide guidance on runway lengths for airport design, including declared distance lengths RUNWAY WIDTH. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 present runway width standards that consider operations conducted during reduced visibility RUNWAY SHOULDERS. Runway shoulders provide resistance to blast erosion and accommodate the passage of maintenance and emergency equipment and the occasional passage of an airplane veering from the runway. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 present runway shoulder width standards. A natural surface, e.g., turf, normally reduces the possibility of soil erosion and engine ingestion of foreign objects. Soil with turf not suitable for this purpose requires a stabilized or low cost paved surface. Refer to chapter 8 for further discussion. Figure 3-1 depicts runway shoulders RUNWAY BLAST PAD. Runway blast pads provide blast erosion protection beyond runway ends. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 contain the standard length and width for blast pads for takeoff operations requiring blast erosion control. Refer to chapter 8 for further discussion. Figure 3-1 depicts runway blast pads RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA). The runway safety area is centered on the runway centerline. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 present runway safety area dimensional standards. Figure 3-1 depicts the runway safety area. Appendix 8 discusses the runway safety area's evolution. be: a. Design Standards. The runway safety area shall (1) cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations; (2) drained by grading or storm sewers to prevent water accumulation; (3) capable, under dry conditions, of supporting snow removal equipment, aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage to the aircraft; and (4) free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the runway safety area because of their function. Objects higher than 3 inches (7.6 cm) above grade should be constructed, to the extent practicable, on low impact resistant supports (frangible mounted structures) of the lowest practical height with the frangible point no higher than 3 inches (7.6 cm) above grade. Other objects, such as manholes, should be constructed at grade. In no case should their height exceed 3 inches (7.6 cm) above grade. b. Construction Standards. Compaction of runway safety areas shall be to FAA specification P-152 found in AC c. Sub-standard RSAs. RSA standards cannot be modified or waived like other airport design standards. The dimensional standards remain in effect regardless of the presence of natural or man-made objects or surface conditions that might create a hazard to aircraft that leave the runway surface. Facilities, including NAVAIDs, that would not normally be permitted in an RSA should not be installed inside the standard RSA dimensions even when the RSA does not meet standards in other respects. A continuous evaluation of all practicable alternatives for improving each sub-standard RSA is required until it meets all standards for grade, compaction, and object frangibility. FAA Order , Runway Safety Area Program, explains the process for conducting this evaluation. Each FAA regional Airports division manager has a written determination of the best practicable alternative(s) for improving each RSA. Therefore, runway and RSA improvement projects must comply with the determination of the FAA regional Airports division manager. Chap 3 21

155 AC CHG d. Threshold Displacement. Incremental improvements that involve the displacement of a landing threshold need to be carefully planned so that they do not incur unnecessary costs or create situations that could compromise operational safety. (1) Runway thresholds that are displaced temporarily pending the planned relocation of objects (such as Localizer antennas) should consider the extra costs associated with re-arranging the runway lights, approach lights and navigational aids. (2) The displacement of a threshold that does not also include relocation of the lead-in taxiway can create an undesirable and confusing operating environment for the pilot. (See paragraph 204.) e. Allowance for Navigational Aids. The RSA is intended to enhance the margin of safety for landing or departing aircraft. Accordingly, the design of an RSA must account for navigational aids that might impact the effectiveness of the RSA: (1) RSA grades sometimes require approach lights to be mounted on massive towers that could create a hazard for aircraft. Therefore, consider any practicable RSA construction to a less demanding grade than the standard grade to avoid the need for massive structures. (2) Instrument landing system (ILS) facilities (glide slopes and localizers) are not usually required to be located inside the RSA. However, they do require a graded area around the antenna. (See chapter 6 for more information on the siting of ILS facilities.) RSA construction that ends abruptly in a precipitous drop-off can result in design proposals where the facility is located inside the RSA. Therefore, consider any practicable RSA construction beyond the standard dimensions that could accommodate ILS facilities if and when they are installed OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ). The OFZ clearing standard precludes taxiing and parked airplanes and object penetrations, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their function. The runway OFZ and, when applicable, the precision OFZ, the inner-approach OFZ, and the inner-transitional OFZ comprise the obstacle free zone (OFZ). Figures 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5,and 3-6 show the OFZ. a. Runway OFZ (ROFZ). The runway OFZ is a defined volume of airspace centered above the runway centerline. The runway OFZ is the airspace above a surface whose elevation at any point is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The runway OFZ extends 200 feet (60 m) beyond each end of the runway. Its width is as follows: exclusively: (1) For runways serving small airplanes (a) 300 feet (90 m) for runways with lower than 34-statute mile (1 200 m) approach visibility minimums. (b) 250 feet (75 m) for other runways serving small airplanes with approach speeds of 50 knots or more. (c) 120 feet (36 m) for other runways serving small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots. (2) For runways serving large airplanes, 400 feet (120 m). b. Inner-approach OFZ. The inner-approach OFZ is a defined volume of airspace centered on the approach area. It applies only to runways with an approach lighting system. The inner-approach OFZ begins 200 feet (60 m) from the runway threshold at the same elevation as the runway threshold and extends 200 feet (60 m) beyond the last light unit in the approach lighting system. Its width is the same as the runway OFZ and rises at a slope of 50 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) from its beginning. c. Inner-transitional OFZ. The inner-transitional OFZ is a defined volume of airspace along the sides of the runway OFZ and inner-approach OFZ. It applies only to runways with lower than 34-statute mile (1 200 m) approach visibility minimums. (1) For runways serving small airplanes exclusively, the inner-transitional OFZ slopes 3 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) out from the edges of the runway OFZ and innerapproach OFZ to a height of 150 feet (45 m) above the established airport elevation. (2) For runways serving large airplanes, separate inner-transitional OFZ criteria apply for Category (CAT) I and CAT IIIII runways. (a) For CAT I runways, the innertransitional OFZ begins at the edges of the runway OFZ and inner-approach OFZ, then rises vertically for a height "H", and then slopes 6 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) out to a height of 150 feet (45 m) above the established airport elevation. 1) In U.S. customary units, H feet = (S feet ) (E feet ). 2) In SI units, H meters = (S meters ) (E meters ). 3) S is equal to the most demanding wingspan of the airplanes using the runway and E is equal to the runway threshold elevation above sea level. (b) For CAT IIIII runways, the innertransitional OFZ begins at the edges of the runway OFZ and inner-approach OFZ, then rises vertically for a height "H", then slopes 5 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) out to a 22 Chap 3

156 1308 AC CHG 12 Table 3-1. Runway design standards for aircraft approach category A & B visual runways and runways with not lower than 34-statute mile (1,200 m) approach visibility minimums (Refer also to Appendix 16 for the establishment of new approaches) ITEM DIM 1 AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP I 2 I II III IV Runway Length A - Refer to paragraph Runway Width B 60 ft 60 ft 75 ft 100 ft 150 ft 18 m 18 m 23 m 30 m 45 m Runway Shoulder Width 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 20 ft 25 ft 3 m 3 m 3 m 6 m 7.5 m Runway Blast Pad Width 80 ft 80 ft 95 ft 140 ft 200 ft 24 m 24 m 29 m 42 m 60 m Runway Blast Pad Length 60 ft 100 ft 150 ft 200 ft 200 ft 18 m 30 m 45 m 60 m 60 m Runway Safety Area Width C 120 ft 120 ft 150 ft 300 ft 500 ft 36 m 36 m 45 m 90 m 150 m Runway Safety Area Length Prior to Landing Threshold 3, ft 72 m 240 ft 72 m 300 ft 90 m 600 ft 180 m 600 ft 180 m Runway Safety Area Length P 240 ft 240 ft 300 ft 600 ft 1,000 ft Beyond RW End 3, 4 72 m 72 m 90 m 180 m 300 m Obstacle Free Zone Width and Length Runway Object Free Area Width Runway Object Free Area Length Beyond RW End 5 - Refer to paragraph Q 250 ft 400 ft 500 ft 800 ft 800 ft 75 m 120 m 150 m 240 m 240 m R 240 ft 240 ft 300 ft 600 ft 1,000 ft 72 m 72 m 90 m 180 m 300 m 1 Letters correspond to the dimensions on figures 2-1 and 2-3. Use this table only when both ends of the runway provide not lower than ¾-statute mile approach visibility minimums. 2 These dimensional standards pertain to facilities for small airplanes exclusively. 3 The runway safety area (RSA) length begins at each runway end when a stopway is not provided. When a stopway is provided, the length begins at the stopway end. 4 The standard RSA length beyond the runway end may be reduced to the standard RSA length prior to landing threshold if a standard Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) is provided. To qualify for this reduction, the EMAS installation must provide the ability to stop the critical aircraft exiting the end of the runway at 70 knots, and the runway must provide either instrument or visual vertical guidance for approaches in the opposite direction. See AC The runway object free area length beyond the end of the runway never exceeds the standard RSA length beyond the runway end as provided by note 4 above. Chap 3 25

157 AC CHG-17 reflect signals that are adverse to the ASDE operation. To avoid this, the visual screen should be tilted backaway (on the side facing the ASDE) 12 degrees (±1 ). This will minimize or eliminate false radar targets generated by reflections off the screen surface. Examples of this tilting are shown in figure (c) Instrument Landing System (ILS) Interference. Research has shown that the presence of visual screens on a runway instrumented with an ILS system (localizer and glide slope) will generally not affect or interfere with the operation of the system. An analysis must be performed for glide slopes, especially null reference glide slopes, prior to the installation of the screens. The uniqueness and complexity of the airport siting environment requires that all installations be addressed on a case-by-case basis, so mitigations can be developed to ensure the installation of the visual screen does not significantly impact the performance of the ILS to 499. RESERVED. ITEM Taxiway Width W 25 ft 7.5 m Taxiway Edge Safety Margin 3 5 ft 1.5 m Taxiway Pavement Fillet Configuration Taxiway Shoulder Width Table 4-1. Taxiway dimensional standards DIM AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG) 1 I II III IV V VI 35 ft 50 ft 2 75 ft 75 ft 82 ft 10.5 m 15 m 2 23 m 23 m 25 m 10 ft 3 m TaxiwayTaxilane Safety Area Width E 49 ft 15 m Taxiway Object Free Area Width Taxilane Object Free Area Width 89 ft 27 m 79 ft 24 m 7.5 ft 2.25 m 10 ft 3 m 79 ft 24 m 131 ft 40 m 115 ft 35 m 10 ft 4 3 m 4 15 ft 4.5 m - Refer to Table ft 6 m 118 ft 36 m 186 ft 57 m 162 ft 49 m 25 ft 7.5 m 171 ft 52 m 259 ft 79 m 225 ft 68 m 15 ft 4.5 m 15 ft 4.5 m 35 ft 5 40 ft m 5 12 m ft 65 m 320 ft 97 m 276 ft 84 m 262 ft 80 m 386 ft 118 m 334 ft 102 m Letters correspond to the dimensions on figures 2-1 and 4-1. For airplanes in Airplane Design Group III with a wheelbase equal to or greater than 60 feet (18 m), the standard taxiway width is 60 feet (18 m). The taxiway edge safety margin is the minimum acceptable distance between the outside of the airplane wheels and the pavement edge. For airplanes in Airplane Design Group III with a wheelbase equal to or greater than 60 feet (18 m), the taxiway edge safety margin is 15 feet (4.5 m). Airplanes in Airplane Design Groups V and VI normally require stabilized or paved taxiway shoulder surfaces. Consideration should be given to objects near runwaytaxiwaytaxilane intersections, which can be impacted by exhaust wake from a turning aircraft. The values obtained from the following equations may be used to show that a modification of standards will provide an acceptable level of safety. Refer to paragraph 6 for guidance on modification of standards requirements. Taxiway safety area width equals the airplane wingspan; Taxiway OFA width equals 1.4 times airplane wingspan plus 20 feet (6 m); and Taxilane OFA width equals 1.2 times airplane wingspan plus 20 feet (6 m). Chap 4 39

158 AC CHG 18 Appendix 2 Table A2-1. ApproachDeparture Requirements Table Runway Type 1 Approach end of runways expected to serve small airplanes with approach speeds less than 50 knots. (Visual runways only, daynight) 2 Approach end of runways expected to serve small airplanes with approach speeds of 50 knots or more. (Visual runways only, daynight) DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS* Feet A B C D E Slope OCS ,500 15: ,250 2,750 20:1 3 Approach end of runways expected to serve large airplanes (Visual daynight); or instrument minimums 1 statute mile (day only) ,500 8,500 20:1 4 Approach end of runways expected to support instrument night operations, serving approach ,900 10, :1 category A and B aircraft only. 1 5 Approach end of runways expected to support instrument night operations serving greater than ,900 10, :1 approach category B aircraft. 1 6 Approach end of runways expected to accommodate instrument approaches having ,900 10, :1 visibility minimums 34 but < 1 statute mile, day or night. 7 Approach end of runways expected to accommodate instrument approaches having ,900 10, :1 visibility minimums < 34 statute mile or precision approach (ILS, GLS, or MLS), day or night. 8 Approach runway ends having Category II approach minimums or greater. The criteria are set forth in TERPS, Order Approach end of runways expected to accommodate approaches with vertical guidance [Glideslope Qualification Surface (GQS).] 0 12 width runway , :1 10 Departure runway ends for all instrument 0 4 See Figure A2-3 40:1 operations. 11 Departure runway ends supporting Air Carrier :1 operations. 5 * The letters are keyed to those shown in Figure A2-1. Notes: 1. Marking & Lighting of obstacle penetrations to this surface or the use of a VGSI, as defined by the TERPS order, may avoid displacing the threshold ,000 feet is a nominal value for planning purposes. The actual length of these areas is dependent upon the visual descent point position for 20:1 and 34:1 and Decision Altitude point for the 30:1. 3. When obstacles exceed the height of the GQS, an approach procedure with vertical guidance (ILS, PAR MLS, TLS, LPV, LNAVVNAV, etc.) is not authorized. No vertical approaches will be authorized until the penetration(s) isare removed except obstacles fixed by function andor allowable grading (paragraphs 305 and 308). 4. Dimension A is measured relative to Departure End of Runway (DER) or TODA (to include clearway). 5. Data Collected regarding penetrations to this surface are provided for information and use by the air carriers operating from the airport. Refer to paragraph 5d(2) for guidance on implementation. 103

159 AC CHG Appendix 2 6. Surface dimensionsobstacle Clearance Surface (OCS) slope represent a nominal approach with 3 degree GPA, 50 TCH, <500 HATh. For specific cases refer to TERPS. The Obstacle Clearance Surface slope (30:1) supports a nominal approach of 3 degrees (also known as the Glide Path Angle). This assumes a threshold crossing height of 50 feet. Three degrees is commonly used for ILS systems and VGSI aiming angles. This approximates a 30:1 approach angle that is between the 34:1 and the 20:1 notice surfaces of Part 77. Surfaces cleared to 34:1 should accommodate a 30:1 approach without any obstacle clearance problems. 7. For runways with vertically guided approaches the criteria in Row 9 is in addition to the basic criteria established within the table, to ensure the protection of the Glidepath Qualification Surface (GQS). 8. For planning purposes, sponsors and consultants determine a tentative Decision Altitude based on a 3 Glidepath angle and a 50-foot Threshold Crossing Height. 104

160

161 1308 AC CHG 12 Appendix 2 107

162 AC CHG 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 5. SMALL AIRPORT BUILDINGS, AIRP~ANE PARKING, AND TIEDOWNS 1. GENERAL. This chapter provides guidelines on airport buildings, airplane parking, and tiedowns at small airports. Airport buildings fulfill the needs of specific aviation activities. The fixed base operator's (FBO) building usually provides space for the commercial activities, maintenance and repair of aircraft, air charter, and the like. The administration building accommodates the public, pilots, passengers, visitors and also the airport manager's office. Constructed small airplane hangars generally house only airplanes. a. Figure AS-1 illustrates a typical layout for the building area of a small airport. Siting the FBO building adjacent to the airplane parking apron offers both convenience for local and itinerate pilots. Apron frontage is a premium airport space and should be judiciously utilized. Most hangaring is essentially a garaging operation which usually does not require direct apron front access. The administration building should be near the FBO but sufficiently separated to preclude conflict between airplanes operating from these areas. Storage hangars are often T -hangars, grouped in multiunits in a separate area. b. Other aviation-oriented buildings may be necessary on the airport. The function(s) of such a building in relation to other aviation activities helps determine its optimum location. c. An airport master planning study indicates the number of based and transient airplanes expected to utilize the airport. This information will assist in the layout and design of the airplane parking apron(s) and tiedown area(s). d. AC contains guidance on the planning and design of airport terminal buildings and related access facilities at large airports. 2. TRANSIENT APRON. Aprons provide parking for airplanes, access to the terminal facilities, fueling, and surface transportation. A determination on the total amount of apron area needed cannot be developed by formula or empirical relationship since local conditions often vary significantly from one airport to another. The ideal solution is conducting an onsite survey during typical busy days and counting the airplanes on the ground periodically during the day. This approach, however, is impossible for new airports and likely impractical for many airports without a manager. Below is a method which includes factors that affect the determination of the area needed for transient parking and analyzes and estimates the demand for the transient airplane. a. Calculate the total annual operations (local plus itinerant) from the best available source. Where specific data are not available, the following data, which reflect local plus itinerant operations, may be used: Non-NPIAS Public Use- 538based aircraft; Reliever- 492based aircraft; Other General A~iation -637based aircraft; and Primary - 700based aircraft. b. Obtain the record of aviation gas sales for the year for the airport. c. Correlate gas sales with annual operations on a monthly basis. d. Calculate the average daily operations for the most active month. e. A.ssume the busy day is 10 percent more active than the average day. f. Assume that a certain portion of the transient airplanes will be on the apron during the busy day. Consider fifty percent as a reasonable figure. g. Allow an area of 360 square yards per transient airplane. h. Adjust the calculated amount to accommodate expansion for at least the next 2-year period. A minimum suggested increase is 10 percent. 3. APRON FOR BASED AIRPLANES. The apron used for based airplanes should be separate from the transient airplanes. The area needed for parking based airplanes should be smalle~ per airplane than for transient. This is due to knowledge of the specific type of based airplanes and closer clearance allowed between airplanes. The following considerations apply in determining the total apron area required for based airplanes: a. The total number of based airplanes. 117

163 AC CHG 4 Appendix 5 b. The number of airplanes now hangared or expected to be within 2 years. c. The number of airplane owners who will continue to tie down their airplane in a turfed (unpaved) area. At many general aviation airports a certain percentage of airplane owners will prefer to tie down in the most inexpensive area. d. An area of 300 square yards (250 m 2 ) per airplane. This should be adequate for all single engine and light twin engine airplanes, such as the Cessna 310, which has a wingspan of 37 feet (11 m) and a length of 27 feet (8 m). e. An increase in total area to accommodate exp~ion for at least the next 2-year period. A minimum suggested increase is 10 percent. 4. TIEDOWNS. Tiedown locations for based airplanes will vary with local preference. The purpose of a tiedown layout is to park the maximum number of airplanes while satisfying taxilane object free area width criteria. Figure A5-2 illustrates two tiedown layouts for small airplanes in Airplane Design Group I. General information on tiedown techniques and procedures is contained in AC OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. a. As airport activity increases, the demand for an area to load and unload airplanes will increase. This activity may ~ in the form of charter, air taxi, business, or personal airplane operations. Generally, the area should be large enough to accommodate two airplanes in front of the terminal building. Also. investigate requirements for possible local air mail service. b. At small general aviation airports, a gas pump facility is usually the most economical method of airplane fueling. A fueling area should be near the terminal building. Some larger general aviation airports use fuel truck operations. Such an operation eliminates the need for gas pump areas and allows more area for airplane parking. In either case, appropriate static grounding capability must be provided. c. In summary, the apron design should allow for flexibility and expandability. The design should use empirical relationships only when field data are not available. Arrangement of tiedown installation should allow apron area alterations as needed. Keeping both ends of the apron free of structures will enhance future expansion. 6. HANGARS. Figure AS-3 illustrates typical layouts of hangar areas for different types of hangars. As noted, the recommended clearance between T -hangars is 75 feet (23 m) for one~way traffic and 125 feet (38 m) for two-way traffic. These clearances will accommodate most twin engine general aviation airplanes. a. Prefabricated T -hangars are available in various sizes and lengths. Details on their erection and cost may be obtained from any of several manufacturers throughout the country. b. The number of T -hangars depends upon local demand. However, expect. a greater demand for protection from weather in the more severe climate areas. 7. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. The necessity of an administration building is a managerial question answered on the weight of at least the following two factors. First, operationally, the chief factor is whether the airport can take care of present and anticipated airplane activity. Second, economically, the chief factor is the kind of community the airport serves and how well this community can support general aviation activity. Note that lower activity airports may not initially justify the construction of either an FBO or administration building. In many cases, the initial airport building is a small maintenance hangar with an attached office. Prior to the construction of an administrative type of building on a general aviation airport, the following basic questions should receive consideration: a. Are there a mmunum of 10 airplane departures and arrivals, not including touch and go, during the peak hours of a typically busy day during the year? b. Is there at least one active fixed base operator on the airport? c. Is airplane fuel available on the airport? d. Is a hangar with repair facilities in operation on the airport? e. Is a full-time airport manager on duty during the normal day? 118

164 C CHG 17 Appendix 16 Appendix 16. NEW INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. BACKGROUND. This appendix applies to the establishment of new or existing (under revision) instrument approach procedures (IAP). a. This appendix identifies airport landing surface requirements to assist airport sponsors in their evaluation and preparation of the airport landing surface to support new instrument approach procedures. It also lists the airport data provided by the procedure sponsor that the FAA needs to conduct the airport airspace analysis specified in FAA Order , Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The airport must be acceptable for IFR operations based on an Airport Airspace Analysis (AAA), under FAA Order b. FAA Order 8260, TERPS, reflects the contents of this appendix as the minimum airport landing surface requirements that must be met prior to the establishment of instrument approach procedures at a public use airport. This order also references other FAA requirements, such as a safety analysis to determine the need for approach lighting and other visual enhancements to mitigate the effects of a difficult approach environment. This is a consideration regardless of whether or not a reduction in approach minimums is desired. Airport sponsors are always encouraged to consider an approach lighting system to enhance the safety of an instrument procedure. In the absence of any identified benefits or safety enhancement from an approach light system, sponsors should at least consider installing lower cost visual guidance aids such as REIL or PAPI. c. The tables provided in this appendix are for planning purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the rest of the document. All pertinent requirements within this AC and other FAA documents, as well as local siting conditions, ultimately will determine the lowest minimums obtainable. 2. INTRODUCTION. To be authorized a new instrument approach procedure, the runway must have an instrument runway designation. Instrument runways are runway end specific. The runway end designation is based on the findings of an AAA study (Refer to Order ). In addition, the instrument runway designation for the desired minimums must be depicted on the FAA-approved ALP. If not depicted, a change to the ALP is required. As part of the ALP approval process, the FAA will conduct an AAA study to determine the runway's acceptability for the desired minimums. 3. ACTION. The airport landing surface must meet the standards specified in tables A16-1 A through C for each specified runway direction and have adequate airspace to support the instrument approach procedure. When requesting an instrument procedure, the sponsor must specify the runway direction, the desired approach minimums, whether circling approach procedures are desired, and the survey needed to support the procedure. For all obligated National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airports, the sponsor must also provide a copy of the FAA-approved ALP showing the instrument procedure(s) requested. An ALP is also recommended for all other airports. 4. DEFINITIONS. a. Precision Approach. An instrument approach procedure providing course and vertical path guidance conforming to ILS, or MLS, precision system performance standards contained in ICAO annex 10. Table A16-1A defines the requirements for ILS, LAAS, WAAS, MLS, and other precision systems. b. Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance (APV). An instrument approach procedure providing course and vertical path guidance that does not conform to ILS or MLS system performance standards contained in ICAO annex 10, or a precision approach system that does not meet TERPS alignment criteria. Table A16-1B defines the requirements for WAAS and authorized barometric VNAV. c. Nonprecision Approach. An instrument approach procedure providing course guidance without vertical path guidance. Table A16-1C defines the requirements for VOR, NDB, LDA, GPS (TS0-129) or other authorized RNAV system. 5. AIRPORT AIRSPACE ANALYSIS SURVEYS. a. Use the standards identified in ACs , , and to survey and compile the appropriate data to support the development of instrument procedures. b. When the runway has or is planned to have an approach that has vertical guidance (ILS, MLS or PAR, APV, LPV, RNP, TLS, LNAVVNAV, etc.), use the Vertically Guided Airport Airspace Analysis Survey criteria in AC c. When the runway has or is planned to have an approach without vertical guidance (VOR, VORDME, TACAN, NDB, LNAV, LP, etc.), use the Non-Vertically Guided Airport Airspace Analysis Survey criteria in AC

165 AC CHG 17 Appendix 16 Table A16-1A. ILS and LPV Approach Requirements. Visibility Minimums 1 34 statute mile 1-statute mile Height Above (HAT ) TERPS Glidepath Qualification Surface (GQS) 3 Appendix 2, Table A2-1, Row Clear TERPS precision "W" surfaces 4 Clear See Note 5 TERPS Chapter 3, Section 3 34:1 Clear 20:1 Clear Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ) 200 x 800 Airport Layout Plan 7 Minimum Runway Length Runway Markings (See AC ) Holding Position Signs & Markings (See AC and AC ) Runway Edge Lights 8 Parallel Taxiway 9 Required Precision Precision Required 4,200 ft (1,280 m) (Paved) HIRL MIRL Required Not Required Nonprecision Nonprecision Approach Lights 10 MALSR, SSALR, or ALSF Recommended Runway Design Standards; e.g., Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) statute mile approach visibility minimums 34-statute mile approach visibility minimums Threshold Siting Criteria To Be Met 12 Table A2-1, Row Table A2-1, Row Survey Required for Lowest Minima Vertically Guided Airport Airspace Analysis Survey criteria in AC Visibility minimums are subject to application of FAA Order (TERPS) and associated orders or this table, whichever are higher. 2. The HAT indicated is for planning purposes only. Actual obtainable HAT is determined by TERPS. 3. The GQS is applicable to approach procedures providing vertical path guidance. It limits the magnitude of penetration of the obstruction clearance surfaces overlying the final approach course. The intent is to provide a descent path from DA to landing free of obstructions that could destabilize the established glidepath angle. The GQS is centered on a course from the DA point to the runway threshold. Its width is equal to the precision W surface at DA, and tapers uniformly to a width 100 feet from the runway edges. If the GQS is penetrated, vertical guidance instrument approach procedures (ILSMLSWAASLAASBaro-VNAV) are not authorized 4. The W surface is applicable to precision approach procedures. It is a sloping obstruction clearance surface (OCS) overlying the final approach course centerline. The surface slope varies with glidepath angle. The W surface must be clear to achieve lowest precision minimums. Surface slope varies with glide path angle, 102angle; e.g., for optimum 3 glide path 34:1 surface must be clear. 5. If the W surface is penetrated, HAT and visibility will be increased as required by TERPS. 7. An ALP is only required for airports in the NPIAS; it is recommended for all others. 8. Runway edge lighting is required for night minimums. High intensity lights are required for RVR-based minimums. 9. A full-length parallel taxiway meeting separation requirements - Tables 2-1 and To achieve lower visibility minimums based on credit for lighting, an approach light system is required. 11. Indicates which table in Chapter 3 should be followed in the related chapters of this document. 12. Circling procedures to a secondary runway from the primary approach will not be authorized when the secondary runway does not meet threshold siting (reference Appendix 2) OFZ (reference paragraph 306) criteria, and TERPS Chapter 3, Section

166 C CHG 17 Appendix 16 Table A16-1B. Approach Procedure With Vertical Guidance Visibility Minimums 1 < 34-statute mile < 1-statute mile 1-statute mile 1-statute mile 14 Height Above Threshold (HATh) TERPS Glidepath Qualification Surface (GQS) 3 TERPS Chapter 3, Section 3 34:1 clear 20:1 clear Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ) 200 x 800 Airport Layout Plan 5 Minimum Runway Length Runway Markings (See AC ) Holding Position Signs & Markings (See AC and AC ) Required 4,200 ft (1,280 m) (Paved) Precision Precision Table A2-1, Row 9, Criteria, and Appendix 2, par. 5a Clear 3,200 ft (975 m) 6 (Paved) Required 20:1 clear, or penetrations lighted for night minimums (See AC ) Required 3,200 ft (975 m) 6,7 Nonprecision (precision recommended) Nonprecision 7 Nonprecision (precision recommended) Nonprecision 7 Runway Edge Lights 8 HIRLMIRL MIRLLIRL Parallel Taxiway 9 Required Recommended Approach Lights 10 MALSR, SSALR, ALSF Recommended Recommended 34-statute mile Runway Design Standards; e.g., Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 12 approach visibility 34-statute mile approach visibility minimums minimums Threshold Siting Criteria To Be Met 13 Survey Required for Lowest Minima Table A2-1, Row 7 and 9 Table A2-1 Row 6 and 9 Vertically Guided Airport Airspace Analysis Survey criteria in AC Appendix 2, Table A2-1, Row 5 and 9 Non-Vertically Guided Airport Airspace Analysis Survey AC Visibility minimums are subject to the application of FAA Order (TERPS) and associated orders or this table, whichever is higher. 2. The HATh indicated is for planning purposes only. Actual obtainable HATh is determined by TERPS. 3. The GQS is applicable to approach procedures providing vertical path guidance. It limits the magnitude of penetration of the obstruction clearance surfaces overlying the final approach course. The intent is to provide a descent path from DA to landing free of obstructions that could destabilize the established glidepath angle. The GQS is centered on a course from the DA point to the runway threshold. Its width is equal to the precision W surface at DA, and tapers uniformly to a width 100 feet from the runway edges. If the GQS is penetrated, vertical guidance instrument approach procedures (ILSMLSWAASLAASBaro-VNAV) are not authorized 5. An ALP is only required for obligated airports in the NPIAS; it is recommended for all others. 6. Runways less than 3,200 feet are protected by 14 CFR Part 77 to a lesser extent. However, runways as short as 2400 feet could support an instrument approach provided the lowest HAT is based on clearing any 200-foot obstacle within the final approach segment. 7. Unpaved runways require case-by-case evaluation by the RAPT. 8. Runway edge lighting is required for night minimums. High intensity lights are required for RVR-based minimums. 9. A full -length parallel taxiway must lead to the threshold and meet standards in Tables 2-1 and To achieve lower visibility minimums based on credit for lighting, a TERPS specified approach light system is required. 12. Indicates what table should be followed in the related chapters in this document. 13. Circling procedures to a secondary runway from the primary approach will not be authorized when the secondary runway does not meet threshold siting (reference Appendix 2), OFZ (reference paragraph 306) and TERPS Chapter 3, Section For circling requirements, see Table A 16-1C. 293

167 AC CHG 17 Appendix 16 Table A16-1C. Nonprecision Approach Requirements Approach Procedures without Vertical Guidance Visibility Minimums 1 < 34-statute mile < 1-statute mile 1-statute mile >1-statute mile Circling Height Above Threshold (HATh) Varies TERPS Chapter 3, Section 3 34:1 clear 20:1 clear 20:1 clear or penetrations lighted for night minimums (See AC ) Airport Layout Plan 3 Required Recommended Minimum 4,200 ft (1,280 m) 3,200 ft (975 m) 4 Runway Length (Paved) (Paved) 3,200 ft (975 m) 4,5 Runway Markings (See AC ) Precision Nonprecision 5 Visual (Basic) 5 Holding Position Signs & Markings (See AC and AC ) Precision Nonprecision Visual (Basic) 5 Runway Edge Lights 6 HIRL MIRL MIRL LIRL MIRL LIRL (Required only for night minima) Parallel Taxiway 7 Required Recommended Approach Lights 8 Runway Design Standards, e.g. Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 10 Threshold Siting Criteria To Be Met 11 Survey Required for Lowest Minima MALSR, SSALR, or ALSF Required <34-statute mile approach visibility minimums Table A2-1, Row 7 Vertically Guided Airport Airspace Analysis Survey AC Required 9 Recommended 9 Not Required 34-statute mile approach visibility minimums Table A2-1, Row 6 Table A2-1, Row 1-5 Non-Vertically Guided Airport Airspace Analysis Survey AC Not Required Table A2-1, Row Visibility minimums are subject to the application of FAA Order (TERPS) and associated orders or this table, whichever is higher. 2. The Height Above Threshold (HATh) indicated is for planning purposes only. Actual obtainable HATh is determined by TERPS. 3. An ALP is only required for obligated airports in the NPIAS; it is recommended for all others. 4. Runways less than 3,200 feet are protected by 14 CFR Part 77 to a lesser extent, however runways as short as 2400 feet could support an instrument approach provided the lowest HAT is based on clearing any 200-foot obstacle within the final approach segment. 5. Unpaved runways require case-by-case evaluation by the RAPT. 6. Runway edge lighting is required for night minimums. High intensity lights are required for RVR-based minimums. 7. A full -length parallel taxiway must lead to the threshold. 8. To achieve lower visibility minimums based on credit for lighting, an approach lighting system is required. 9. ODALS, MALS, SSALS, SALS are acceptable. 10. Indicates what table should be followed in the related chapters in this document. 11. Circling procedures to a secondary runway from the primary approach will not be authorized when the secondary runway does not meet threshold siting (reference Appendix 2), OFZ (reference paragraph 306), and TERPS Chapter 3, Section

168 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Subject: RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT DESIGN Date: Initiated by: AAS-100 AC No: B Change: 1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides guidelines for airport designers and planners to determine recommended runway lengths for new runways or extensions to existing runways. 2. CANCELLATION. This AC cancels AC A. 3. APPLICATION. The standards and guidelines contained in this AC are recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration strictly for use in the design of civil airports. The guidelines, the airplane performance data curves and tables, and the referenced airplane manufacturer manuals are not to be used as a substitute for flight planning calculations as required by airplane operating rules. For airport projects receiving Federal funding, the use of this AC is mandatory. David L. Bennett Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards

169 AC B CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 101. BACKGROUND. Airplanes today operate on a wide range of available runway lengths. Various factors, in turn, govern the suitability of those available runway lengths, most notably airport elevation above mean sea level, temperature, wind velocity, airplane operating weights, takeoff and landing flap settings, runway surface condition (dry or wet), effective runway gradient, presence of obstructions in the vicinity of the airport, and, if any, locally imposed noise abatement restrictions or other prohibitions. Of these factors, certain ones have an operational impact on available runway lengths. That is, for a given runway the usable length made available by the airport authority may not be entirely suitable for all types of airplane operations. Fortunately, airport authorities, airport designers, and planners are able to mitigate some of these factors. For example, runways designed with longitudinal profiles equaling zero slope avoid required runway length adjustments. Independently, airport authorities working with their local lawmakers can establish zoning laws to prohibit the introduction of natural growth and man-made structural obstructions that penetrate existing or planned runway approach and departure surfaces. Effective zoning laws avoid the displacement of runway thresholds or reduction of takeoff runway lengths thereby providing airplanes with sufficient clearances over obstructions during climb outs. Airport authorities working with airport designers and planners should validate future runway demand by identifying the critical design airplanes. In particular, it is recommended that the evaluation process assess and verify the airport s ultimate development plan for realistic changes that could result in future operational limitations to customers. In summary, the goal is to construct an available runway length for new runways or extensions to existing runways that is suitable for the forecasted critical design airplanes DETERMINING RECOMMENDED RUNWAY LENGTHS. a. Assumptions and Definitions. (1) Design Assumptions. The assumptions used by this AC are approaches and departures with no obstructions, zero wind, dry runway surfaces, and zero effective runway gradient. Assumptions relative to airplane characteristics are described within the applicable chapter of this AC. (2) Critical Design Airplanes. The listing of airplanes (or a single airplane) that results in the longest recommended runway length. The listed airplanes will be evaluated either individually or as a single family grouping to obtain a recommended runway length. takeoff weight. (3) Small Airplane. An airplane of 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) or less maximum certificated (4) Large Airplane. An airplane of more than 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) maximum certificated takeoff weight. (5) Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight (MTOW). The maximum certificated weight for the airplane at takeoff, i.e., the airplane s weight at the start of the takeoff run. (6) Regional Jets. Although there is no regulatory definition for a regional jet (RJ), an RJ for this advisory circular is a commercial jet airplane that carries fewer than 100 passengers. (7) Crosswind Runway. An additional runway built to compensate primary runways that provide less than the recommended 95 percent wind coverage for the airplanes forecasted to use the airport. (8) Substantial Use Threshold. Federally funded projects require that critical design airplanes have at least 500 or more annual itinerant operations at the airport (landings and takeoffs are considered as separate operations) for an individual airplane or a family grouping of airplanes. Under unusual circumstances, adjustments may be made to the 500 total annual itinerant operations threshold after considering the circumstances of a particular airport. Two examples are airports with demonstrated seasonal traffic variations, or airports situated in isolated or remote areas that have special needs. 1

170 AC B (9) Itinerant Operation. Takeoff or landing operations of airplanes going from one airport to another airport that involves a trip of at least 20 miles. Local operations are excluded. (10) Effective Runway Gradient. The difference between the highest and lowest elevations of the runway centerline divided by the runway length. b. Procedure and Rationale for Determining Recommended Runway Lengths. This AC uses a five-step procedure to determine recommended runway lengths for a selected list of critical design airplanes. As previously stated, the information derived from this five-step procedure is for airport design and is not to be used for flight operations. Flight operations must be conducted per the applicable flight manual. The five steps and their rationale are as follows: (1) Step #1. Identify the list of critical design airplanes that will make regular use of the proposed runway for an established planning period of at least five years. For Federally funded projects, the definition of the term substantial use quantifies the term regular use (see paragraph 102a(8).) (2) Step #2. Identify the airplanes that will require the longest runway lengths at maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW). This will be used to determine the method for establishing the recommended runway length. Except for regional jets, when the MTOW of listed airplanes is 60,000 pounds (27,200 kg) or less, the recommended runway length is determined according to a family grouping of airplanes having similar performance characteristics and operating weights. Although a number of regional jets have an MTOW less than 60,000 pounds (27,200 kg), the exception acknowledges the long range capability of the regional jets and the necessity to offer regional jet operators the flexibility to interchange regional jet models according to passenger demand without suffering operating weight restrictions. When the MTOW of listed airplanes is over 60,000 pounds (27,200 kg), the recommended runway length is determined according to individual airplanes. The recommended runway length in the latter case is a function of the most critical individual airplane s takeoff and landing operating weights, which depend on wing flap settings, airport elevation and temperature, runway surface conditions (dry or wet), and effective runway gradient. The procedure assumes that there are no obstructions that would preclude the use of the full length of the runway. (3) Step #3. Use table 1-1 and the airplanes identified in step #2 to determine the method that will be used for establishing the recommended runway length. Table 1-1 categorizes potential design airplanes according to their MTOWs. MTOW is used because of the significant role played by airplane operating weights in determining runway lengths. As seen from table 1-1, the first column separates the various airplanes into one of three weight categories. Small airplanes, defined as airplanes with MTOW of 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) or less, are further subdivided according to approach speeds and passenger seating as explained in chapter 2. Regional jets are assigned to the same category as airplanes with a MTOW over 60,000 pounds (27,200 kg). The second column identifies the applicable airport design approach (by airplane family group or by individual airplanes) as noted previously in step #2. The third column directs the airport designer to the appropriate chapter for design guidelines and whether to use the referenced tables contained in the AC or to obtain airplane manufacturers airport planning manuals (APM) for each individual airplane under evaluation. In the later case, APMs provide the takeoff and landing runway lengths that an airport designer will in turn apply to the associated guidelines set forth by this AC to obtain runway lengths. The airport designer should be aware that APMs go by a variety of names. For example, Airbus, the Boeing Company, and Bombardier respectively title their APMs as Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning, Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning, and Airport Planning Manuals. For the purpose of this AC, the variously titled documents will be referred to as APM. Appendix 1 lists the websites of the various airplane manufacturers to provide individuals a starting point to retrieve an APM or a point of contact for further consultation. (4) Step #4. Select the recommended runway length from among the various runway lengths generated by step #3 per the process identified in chapters 2, 3, or 4, as applicable. (5) Step #5. Apply any necessary adjustment to the obtained runway length, when instructed by the applicable chapter of this AC, to the runway length generated by step #4 to obtain a final recommended runway length. For instance, an adjustment to the length may be necessary for runways with nonzero effective gradients. Chapter 5 provides the rationale for these length adjustments. 2

171 AC B Table 1-1. Airplane Weight Categorization for Runway Length Requirements Airplane Weight Category Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight (MTOW) 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) Approach Speeds less than or less 30 knots Approach Speeds of at least 30 knots but less than 50 knots Approach Speeds of 50 knots or more With Less than 10 Passengers With 10 or more Passengers Over 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) but less than 60,000 pounds (27,200 kg) Design Approach Family grouping of small airplanes Family grouping of small airplanes Family grouping of small airplanes Family grouping of small airplanes Family grouping of large airplanes Location of Design Guidelines Chapter 2; Paragraph 203 Chapter 2; Paragraph 204 Chapter 2; Paragraph 205 Figure 2-1 Chapter 2; Paragraph 205 Figure 2-2 Chapter 3; Figures 3-1 or and Tables 3-1 or ,000 pounds (27,200 kg) or more or Regional Jets 2 Individual large airplane Chapter 4; Airplane Manufacturer Websites (Appendix 1) Note 1 : When the design airplane s APM shows a longer runway length than what is shown in figure 3-2, use the airplane manufacturer s APM. However, users of an APM are to adhere to the design guidelines found in Chapter 4. Note 2 : All regional jets regardless of their MTOW are assigned to the 60,000 pounds (27,200 kg) or more weight category PRIMARY RUNWAYS. The majority of airports provide a single primary runway. Airport authorities, in certain cases, require two or more primary runways as a means of achieving specific airport operational objectives. The most common operational objectives are to (1) better manage the existing traffic volume that exceed the capacity capabilities of the existing primary runway, (2) accommodate forecasted growth that will exceed the current capacity capabilities of the existing primary runway, and (3) mitigate noise impacts associated with the existing primary runway. Additional primary runways for capacity justification are parallel to and equal in length to the existing primary runway, unless they are intended for smaller airplanes. Refer to AC , Airport Capacity and Delay, for additional discussion on runway usage for capacity gains. Another common practice is to assign individual primary runways to different airplane classes, such as, separating general aviation from nongeneral aviation customers, as a means to increase the airport s efficiency. The design objective for the main primary runway is to provide a runway length for all airplanes that will regularly use it without causing operational weight restrictions. For Federally funded projects, the criterion for substantial use applies (see paragraph 102a(8).) The design objective for additional primary runways is shown in table 1-2. The table takes into account the separation of airplane classes into distinct airplane groups to achieve greater airport utilization. Procedurally, follow the guidelines found in subparagraph 102(b) for determining recommended runway lengths for primary runways, and, for additional primary runways, apply table CROSSWIND RUNWAYS. The design objective to orient primary runways to capture 95 percent of the crosswind component perpendicular to the runway centerline for any airplane forecast to use the airport is not always achievable. In cases where this cannot be done, a crosswind runway is recommended to achieve the design standard provided in AC , Airport Design, for allowable crosswind components according to airplane design groups. Even when the 95-percentage crosswind coverage standard is achieved for the design airplane or airplane design group, cases arise where certain airplanes with lower crosswind capabilities are unable to utilize the primary runway. For airplanes with lesser crosswind capabilities, a crosswind runway may be built, provided there is regular usage. For Federally funded projects, the criterion for substantial use applies to the airplane used as the design airplane needing the crosswind runway (see paragraph 102a(8).) The design objective for the length of crosswind runways is shown in table 1-3. Procedurally, follow the guidelines found in subparagraph 102(b) for determining recommended runway lengths for crosswind runways, and, for additional crosswind runways, apply table

172 AC B CHAPTER 2. RUNWAY LENGTHS FOR SMALL AIRPLANES WITH MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF WEIGHT OF 12,500 POUNDS (5,670 KG) OR LESS 201. DESIGN GUIDELINES. The design procedure for small airplanes requires the following information: the critical design airplanes under evaluation, approach speed in knots (1.3 x stall speed), number of passenger seats, airport elevation above mean sea level, and the mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month at the airport. Once obtained, apply the guidance from the appropriate paragraph below to obtain the recommended runway length. For this airplane weight category, no further adjustment to the obtained length from the figures 2.1 or 2.2 is necessary. For example, there is no operational requirement to take into account the effect of effective runway gradient for takeoff or landing performance DESIGN APPROACH. For purposes of design, this AC provides a design concept for airports that serve only airplanes with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) or less. The design concept starts by grouping all small airplanes, that is, the critical design airplanes, according to approach speed. The highest approach speed group is divided on the basis of passenger seats, namely, airplanes having fewer than 10 passenger seats as compared to airplanes having 10 or more passenger seats. The less than 10 passenger seats category is further based on two percentages of fleet, namely, 95 percent of the fleet or 100 percent of the fleet categories, as explained in paragraph 205. For these airplanes, figures 2-1 and 2-2 show only a single curve that takes into account the most demanding operations to obtain the recommended runway length. Although both figures pertain mainly to small propeller driven airplanes, figure 2-2 does include small turbo-powered airplanes. Airport designers can, instead of applying the small airplane design concept, determine the recommended runway length from airplane flight manuals for the airplanes to be accommodated by the airport in lieu of the runway length curves depicted in figures 2-1 or 2-2. For example, owners of multi-engine airplanes may require that their pilots use the airplane s accelerate-stop distance in determining the length of runway available for takeoff SMALL AIRPLANES WITH APPROACH SPEEDS OF LESS THAN 30 KNOTS. Airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots are considered to be short takeoff and landing or ultra light airplanes. Their recommended runway length is 300 feet (92 meters) at mean sea level. Runways located above mean sea level should be increased at the rate of 0.03 x airport elevation above mean sea level to obtain the recommended runway length at that elevation SMALL AIRPLANES WITH APPROACH SPEEDS OF 30 KNOTS OR MORE BUT LESS THAN 50 KNOTS. The recommended runway length is 800 feet (244 meters) at mean sea level. Runway lengths above mean sea level should be increased at the rate of 0.08 x airport elevation above mean sea level to obtain the recommended runway length at that elevation SMALL AIRPLANES WITH APPROACH SPEEDS OF 50 KNOTS OR MORE WITH MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF WEIGHT OF 12,500 POUNDS (5,670 KG) OR LESS. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 provide the recommended runway lengths based on the seating capacity and the mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month of the year at the airport. The fleet used in the development of the figures consisted of small airplanes certificated in the United States. Figure 2-1 categorizes small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats (excludes pilot and co-pilot) into two family groupings according to percent of fleet, namely, 95 and 100 percent of the fleet. Figure 2-2 categorizes all small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats into one family grouping. Figure 2-2 further alerts the airport designer that for airport elevations above 3,000 feet (914 m), that the airport designer must use the 100 percent of fleet chart of figure 2-1 instead of using figure 2-2. As shown, both figures provide examples that start with the horizontal temperature axis then, proceed vertically to the applicable airport elevation curve, followed by proceeding horizontally to the vertical axis to read the recommended runway length. a. Selecting Percentage of Fleet for Figure 2-1. The differences between the two percentage categories are based on the airport s location and the amount of existing or planned aviation activities. The airport designer should make the selection based on the following criteria. (1) 95 Percent of Fleet. This category applies to airports that are primarily intended to serve medium size population communities with a diversity of usage and a greater potential for increased aviation activities. Also included in this category are those airports that are primarily intended to serve low-activity 5

173 AC B locations, small population communities, and remote recreational areas. Their inclusion recognizes that these airports in many cases develop into airports with higher levels of aviation activities. (2) 100 Percent of Fleet. This type of airport is primarily intended to serve communities located on the fringe of a metropolitan area or a relatively large population remote from a metropolitan area. b. Future Airport Expansion Considerations. Airports serving small airplanes remain fairly constant in terms of the types of small airplane using the airport and their associated operational requirements. However, it is recommended that the airport designer assess and verify the airport s ultimate development plan for realistic changes that, if overlooked, could result in future operational limitations to customers. The airport designer should at least assess and verify the impacts of: (1) Expansions to accommodate airplanes of more than 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg). Failure to consider this change during an initial development phase may lead to the additional expense of reconstructing or relocating facilities in the future. (2) Requirements to operate the runway during periods of Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). The requirement for this capability is highest among airplanes used for business and air taxi purposes DEVELOPMENT OF THE RUNWAY LENGTH CURVES. 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23, Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, and Acrobatic Category Airplanes, prescribes airworthiness standards for the issuance of small airplane type certificates. The performance information for each airplane (for example, as defined in Section 23.51, Takeoff; Section 23.75, Landing; and Section , Performance Information) is contained in the individual airplane flight manual. This information is provided to assist the airplane operator in determining the runway length necessary to operate safely. Performance information from those manuals was selectively grouped and used to develop the runway length curves in figures 2-1 and 2-2. The major parameters utilized for the development of theses curves were the takeoff and landing distances for figure 2-1 and the takeoff, landing, and accelerate-stop distances for figure 2-2. The following conditions were used in developing the curves: Zero headwind component. Maximum certificated takeoff and landing weights. Optimum flap setting for the shortest runway length (normal operation). Airport elevation and temperature were left variable (values need to be obtained). Other factors, such as relative humidity and effective runway gradient, also have a variable effect on runway length but are not accounted for in certification. However, these other factors were accounted for in the runway length curves by increasing the takeoff or landing distance (whichever was longer) of the group s most demanding airplane by 10 percent for the various combinations of elevation and temperature. 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135, Operating Requirements: Commuter and On Demand Operations and Rules Governing Persons on Board such Aircraft, imposes the operational requirements on those airplanes having a seating configuration of 10 passenger seats or more to include the accelerate-stop distance parameter in computing the required takeoff runway length. As previously mentioned, figure 2-2 includes the accelerate-stop distance parameter. 6

174

175 AC B Figure 2-1. Small Airplanes with Fewer than 10 Passenger Seats (Excludes Pilot and Co-pilot) Example: Temperature (mean day max hot month): 59 o F (15 o C) Airport Elevation: Mean Sea Level Airport Elevation (feet) 95 Percent of Fleet 100 Percent of Fleet Note: Dashed lines shown in the table are mid values of adjacent solid lines. Recommended Runway Length: For 95% = 2,700 feet (823 m) For 100% = 3,200 feet (975 m) Mean Daily Maximum Temperature of the Hottest Month of Year (Degrees F) 7

176 AC B Figure Percent of Fleet at 60 or 90 Percent Useful Load Mean Daily Maximum Temperature of Hottest Month of the Year in Degrees Fahrenheit 75 percent of feet at 60 percent useful load 75 percent of feet at 90 percent useful load 12

177 AC B (2) Large Airplanes over 12,500 pound (5,670 kg) MTOW. i. Chapter 3. The curves of figures 3-1 and 3-2 provide runway lengths based on the percentage of fleet and percent of useful load. The curves used the lesser of the maximum allowable takeoff and landing weights as described above or the weight of the airplane with useful load. ii. Chapter 4, Using Airplane Planning Manuals (APMs). (a) For landing, use the maximum allowable landing weight excluding limitations of subparagraph 504a(3). In nearly all cases, the weight is set to the maximum structural landing weight. (b) For takeoff, use maximum allowable takeoff weight, excluding limitations of subparagraph 504b(5), (6), and (7). For Federally funded projects, the airport designer must take into account the length of haul (range) that is flown by airplanes on a substantial use. In this case, use the determined length of haul (range) and compare it to the Payload Break point of the Payload-Range chart in the APM (see paragraph 403(c) for an explanation.) For ranges greater than or equal to the Payload Break point, set the operating takeoff weight equal to MTOW excluding limitations of subparagraph 504b(5), (6), and (7). For ranges less than the Payload Break point, use the calculated operating takeoff weight for the given range, i.e., short-haul routes. In many cases, the weight is set to the MTOW, thus resulting in a runway that permits airplanes to operate at full payload service capabilities AIRPORT ELEVATION. The design criterion is to substitute airport elevation above mean sea level for pressure altitude. This substitution is acceptable since the two are approximately equal and the probability of these conditions occurring simultaneously is relatively remote. Therefore, any difference would be slight TEMPERATURE. The design criterion is to use the mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month at the airport. This temperature is readily available and yields a realistic operational length. a. Application. Airport designers using chapters 2 and 3 are to apply the actual temperature value to the provided figures. Airport designers using an APM are to employ either the tables from the APM when the actual temperature falls within a prescribed temperature range or, when it falls outside the prescribed temperature range, to contact the airplane manufacturer directly for the applicable runway table. b. Availability of Temperature Data. This information can be obtained from the publication Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree-Days (Climatography of the United States No.81). This is the official source for the mean maximum temperature for the hottest month. The latest data, averaged over a period of thirty years, may be obtained from the National Climatic Data Center, Federal Building, Asheville, North Carolina Phone: (828) ; fax: (828) ; or website: (specify the state when ordering) WIND. The design criterion is based on the condition of zero wind velocity for both takeoff and landing operations for all airplane weight categories. The figures in chapters 2 and 3 are based on zero wind conditions. Users of APMs are instructed to select the zero wind curves RUNWAY SURFACE CONDITIONS. The design criterion is to address wet, slippery runway surface conditions for only landing operations and only for turbojet-powered airplanes. The design criteria follows the 14 Code of Federal Regulations requirement that dry runway landing distances for turbojet-powered airplanes must be increased 15 % when landing on wet or slippery runways. Therefore, the obtained runway lengths from this AC for turbojet-powered airplanes are further increased by 15 percent. Many airplane manufacturers APMs for turbojetpowered airplanes provide both dry runway and wet runway landing curves. If an APM provides only the dry runway condition, then increase the obtained dry runway length by 15 percent. The landing portion of the curves in figures 3-1 and 3-2 are based on dry runway conditions. Thus, as instructed by chapter 3, increase the landing dry lengths for turbojet-powered airplanes by 15 percent to increase the landing length, but not more than 5,500 feet (1,676 meters), whichever is less. 22

178 AC B 509. MAXIMUM DIFFERENCE OF RUNWAY CENTERLINE ELEVATION. The design criterion is to address uphill longitudinal runway profiles for takeoff operations of large airplanes. A runway whose centerline elevation varies between runway ends produces uphill and downhill conditions, which in turn, cause certain airplane weight categories to require longer operational lengths. This AC addresses the uphill condition, termed effective runway gradient, for takeoff operations by using the maximum difference of runway centerline elevation. For airplanes over 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) maximum certified takeoff weight, the recommended runway length for takeoff derived from the curves of figures 3-1 and 3-2 or from the APMs must be increased by 10 feet per foot of difference in centerline elevations between the high and low points of the runway centerline elevations. Airport designers using APMs should also apply the same adjustment because APMs use zero effective runway gradients in their takeoff curves. This adjustment to the obtained runway length approximates the operational increase required to overcome the uphill effective runway gradient. For airplanes of 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) or less MTOW, no operational requirement for an increase to the obtained runway length for takeoff is necessary to compensate for non-zero effective runway gradients. In the case for landing operations, no operational requirement for an increase to the obtained runway length for landing is necessary to compensate for non-zero effective runway gradients. 23

179 NW-1, 08 MAR 2012 to 05 APR 2012 NW-1, 08 MAR 2012 to 05 APR 2012

180 NW-1, 08 MAR 2012 to 05 APR 2012 NW-1, 08 MAR 2012 to 05 APR 2012

181 08 MAR 2012 to 05 APR L11 TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES HAILEY, ID FRIEDMAN MEMORIAL TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy13, w min. climb of 307' per NM to 6400, or for climb in visual conditions. Rwy 31, NA-obstacles. DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 13, Climbing right turn heading 149, then on 160 course to HLE NDB, or for climb in visual conditions: cross Friedman Memorial Airport at or above 8800 heading 151, then on 151 course to HLE NDB. NOTE: Rwy 13, multiple trees beginning 763' from departure end of runway, 3' right of centerline, up to 100' AGL5345' MSL. Multiple trees beginning 1.3 NM from departure end of runway, 2587' right of centerline, up to 100' AGL6099' MSL. HAMILTON, MT RAVALLI COUNTY DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Use HAMEY RNAV DEPARTURE. HAVRE,MT HAVRE CITY-COUNTY (HVR) AMDT (FAA) TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 8, 300-1¾ or std. w min. climb of 217' per NM to DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 3, climb heading 032 to 3300 then climbing left turn to 8000 direct HVR VOR DME thence...rwy 8, climb heading 077 to 3300 then climbing left turn to 8000 via HVR R-025 to HVR VOR DME thence...rwy 21, climb heading 212 to 3300 then climbing right turn to 8000 direct HVR VORDME thence...rwy 26, climb heading 257 to 3300 then climbing right turn to 8000 direct HVR VORDME thence......continue climb in hold in HVR VORDME holding pattern (hold west, right turns, 094 inbound) to cross HVR VOR DME at or above 8000 before proceeding on course. NOTE: Rwy 3, pole 2682' from DER, 1044' left of centerline, 21' AGL2680' MSL. Rwy 8, obstruction light on windsock 59' from DER, 224' left of centerline, 9' AGL2588' MSL. Tree 1192' from DER, 752' left of centerline, 25' AGL2610' MSL. Tank 1.3 NM from DER, 2287' left of centerline, 57' AGL2797' MSL. Rwy 26, light on windsock, 50' from DER, 225' right of centerline, 9' AGL2589' MSL. Trees beginning 1617' from DER, 650' right of centerline, 25' AGL2659' MSL. HULETT, WY HULETT MUNI (W43) ORIG (FAA) TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 13, std. w min. climb of 450' per NM to 6300, or 500-2¼ w min. climb of 295' per NM to 7700, or for climb in visual conditions. DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 13, climb to 7700 via heading 132 before proceeding on course, or climb in visual conditions: cross Hulett Muni Airport at or above 6300 before proceeding on course. Rwy 31, climbing right turn on a heading between 090 clockwise to 115 from departure end of runway to 7700 before proceeding on course. NOTE: Rwy 13, road 398' from departure end of runway, 37' left of centerline, 15' AGL4296' MSL, truck on road 1126' from departure end of runway, 346' right of centerline, 15' AGL4334' MSL, trees beginning 4945' from departure end of runway, across centerline, up to 100' AGL4657' MSL. Rwy 31, terrain 104' from departure end of runway, 420' left of centerline, 4200' MSL, terrain 344' from departure end of runway, 233' left of centerline, 4207' MSL. IDAHO FALLS, ID IDAHO FALLS RGNL (IDA) AMDT (FAA) DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: All aircraft departing IDA R-160 CW R-040 climb on course. All others climb direct IDA VORDME. Continue climb in IDA holding pattern (South, left turns, 019 inbound) to cross IDA VORDME at or above 7500 before proceeding on course. NOTE: Rwy 2, pole 1039' from DER, 758' left of centerline, 42' AGL4762' MSL. Rwy 17, trees, flagpole, building, light and vent on buildings, and vehicle on road beginning 29' from DER, 10' right of centerline, up to 84' AGL4820' MSL. Trees and vent on building beginning 569' from DER, 22' left of centerline, up to 35' AGL4760' MSL. Trees, antenna, and light poles beginning 1853' from DER, 26' right of centerline, up to 121' AGL4851' MSL. Rwy 35, trees and railroad beginning 410' from DER, 503' right of centerline, up to 49' AGL4769' MSL. Tree 1034' from DER, 715' left of centerline, 42' AGL4762' MSL. JACKSON,WY JACKSON HOLE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 1, use GEYSER DEPARTURE. Rwy 19, use TETON DEPARTURE. 08 MAR 2012 to 05 APR 2012 HELENA, MT HELENA RGNL (HLN) ADMT (FAA) DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: use DIVIDE DEPARTURE. HERMISTON, OR HERMISTON MUNI NOTE: Rwy 4, tower 379' left of departure end of runway, 50' AGL698' MSL. Rwy 22, light pole 456' left of departure end of runway, 44' AGL684' MSL. HOQUIAM, WA BOWERMAN TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 6, or std. with a min. climb of 260' per NM to 600. DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 6, climbing right turn heading 110 : Rwy 24, climb runway heading. All aircraft climb to 600 continue climb on course. TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES L11 NW-1

182 NW-1, 08 MAR 2012 to 05 APR 2012 NW-1, 08 MAR 2012 to 05 APR 2012

183 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Page 2 of Source: Doc. No. FAA , 75 FR 42303, July 21, 2010, unless otherwise noted. Subpart A General top 77.1 Purpose. top This part establishes: (a) The requirements to provide notice to the FAA of certain proposed construction, or the alteration of existing structures; (b) The standards used to determine obstructions to air navigation, and navigational and communication facilities; (c) The process for aeronautical studies of obstructions to air navigation or navigational facilities to determine the effect on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, air navigation facilities or equipment; and (d) The process to petition the FAA for discretionary review of determinations, revisions, and extensions of determinations Definitions. top For the purpose of this part: Non-precision instrument runway means a runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or area type navigation equipment, for which a straight-in non-precision instrument approach procedure has been approved, or planned, and for which no precision approach facilities are planned, or indicated on an FAA planning document or military service military airport planning document. Planned or proposed airport is an airport that is the subject of at least one of the following documents received by the FAA: (1) Airport proposals submitted under 14 CFR part 157. (2) Airport Improvement Program requests for aid. (3) Notices of existing airports where prior notice of the airport construction or alteration was not provided as required by 14 CFR part 157. (4) Airport layout plans. (5) DOD proposals for airports used only by the U.S. Armed Forces. (6) DOD proposals on joint-use (civil-military) airports. (7) Completed airport site selection feasibility study. Precision instrument runway means a runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing an Instrument Landing System (ILS), or a Precision Approach Radar (PAR). It also means a runway for which a precision approach system is planned and is so indicated by an FAA-approved airport layout plan; a military service approved military airport layout plan; any other FAA planning document, or military service military airport planning document.

184 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Page 3 of Public use airport is an airport available for use by the general public without a requirement for prior approval of the airport owner or operator. Seaplane base is considered to be an airport only if its sea lanes are outlined by visual markers. Utility runway means a runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and less. Visual runway means a runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight-in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA-approved airport layout plan, a military service approved military airport layout plan, or by any planning document submitted to the FAA by competent authority. Subpart B Notice Requirements top 77.5 Applicability. top (a) If you propose any construction or alteration described in 77.9, you must provide adequate notice to the FAA of that construction or alteration. (b) If requested by the FAA, you must also file supplemental notice before the start date and upon completion of certain construction or alterations that are described in (c) Notice received by the FAA under this subpart is used to: (1) Evaluate the effect of the proposed construction or alteration on safety in air commerce and the efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public use airports; (2) Determine whether the effect of proposed construction or alteration is a hazard to air navigation; (3) Determine appropriate marking and lighting recommendations, using FAA Advisory Circular , Obstruction Marking and Lighting; (4) Determine other appropriate measures to be applied for continued safety of air navigation; and (5) Notify the aviation community of the construction or alteration of objects that affect the navigable airspace, including the revision of charts, when necessary Form and time of notice. top (a) If you are required to file notice under 77.9, you must submit to the FAA a completed FAA Form , Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. FAA Form is available at FAA regional offices and on the Internet. (b) You must submit this form at least 45 days before the start date of the proposed construction or alteration or the date an application for a construction permit is filed, whichever is earliest. (c) If you propose construction or alteration that is also subject to the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), you must submit notice to the FAA on or before the date that the application is filed with the FCC. (d) If you propose construction or alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 ft. in height above ground level (AGL), the FAA presumes it to be a hazard to air navigation that results in an inefficient use of airspace. You must include details explaining both why the proposal would not constitute a hazard to air navigation and why it would not cause an inefficient use of airspace.

185 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Page 6 of Those determined pathways must be considered runways, and an appropriate primary surface as defined in will be considered as longitudinally centered on each such runway. Each end of that primary surface must coincide with the corresponding end of that runway. (e) The standards in this subpart apply to construction or alteration proposals on an airport (including heliports and seaplane bases with marked lanes) if that airport is one of the following before the issuance of the final determination: (1) Available for public use and is listed in the AirportFacility Directory, Supplement Alaska, or Supplement Pacific of the U.S. Government Flight Information Publications; or (2) A planned or proposed airport or an airport under construction of which the FAA has received actual notice, except DOD airports, where there is a clear indication the airport will be available for public use; or, (3) An airport operated by a Federal agency or the DOD; or, (4) An airport that has at least one FAA-approved instrument approach Obstruction standards. top (a) An existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the following heights or surfaces: (1) A height of 499 feet AGL at the site of the object. (2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet. (3) A height within a terminal obstacle clearance area, including an initial approach segment, a departure area, and a circling approach area, which would result in the vertical distance between any point on the object and an established minimum instrument flight altitude within that area or segment to be less than the required obstacle clearance. (4) A height within an en route obstacle clearance area, including turn and termination areas, of a Federal Airway or approved off-airway route, that would increase the minimum obstacle clearance altitude. (5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under 77.19, 77.21, or However, no part of the takeoff or landing area itself will be considered an obstruction. (b) Except for traverse ways on or near an airport with an operative ground traffic control service furnished by an airport traffic control tower or by the airport management and coordinated with the air traffic control service, the standards of paragraph (a) of this section apply to traverse ways used or to be used for the passage of mobile objects only after the heights of these traverse ways are increased by: (1) 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance. (2) 15 feet for any other public roadway. (3) 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road. (4) 23 feet for a railroad. (5) For a waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it.

186 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Page 7 of Civil airport imaginary surfaces. top The following civil airport imaginary surfaces are established with relation to the airport and to each runway. The size of each such imaginary surface is based on the category of each runway according to the type of approach available or planned for that runway. The slope and dimensions of the approach surface applied to each end of a runway are determined by the most precise approach procedure existing or planned for that runway end. (a) Horizontal surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by SW.inging arcs of a specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is: (1) 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility or visual; (2) 10,000 feet for all other runways. The radius of the arc specified for each end of a runway will have the same arithmetical value. That value will be the highest determined for either end of the runway. When a 5,000-foot arc is encompassed by tangents connecting two adjacent 10,000-foot arcs, the 5,000-foot arc shall be disregarded on the construction of the perimeter of the horizontal surface. (b) Conical surface. A surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. (c) Primary surface. A surface longitudinally centered on a runway. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway; but when the runway has no specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface ends at each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The width of the primary surface is: (1) 250 feet for utility runways having only visual approaches. (2) 500 feet for utility runways having non-precision instrument approaches. (3) For other than utility runways, the width is: (i) 500 feet for visual runways having only visual approaches. (ii) 500 feet for non-precision instrument runways having visibility minimums greater than three-fourths statue mile. (iii) 1,000 feet for a non-precision instrument runway having a non-precision instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as three-fourths of a statute mile, and for precision instrument runways. (iv) The width of the primary surface of a runway will be that width prescribed in this section for the most precise approach existing or planned for either end of that runway. (d) Approach surface. A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. An approach surface is applied to each end of each runway based upon the type of approach available or planned for that runway end. (1) The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and it expands uniformly to a width of: (i) 1,250 feet for that end of a utility runway with only visual approaches; (ii) 1,500 feet for that end of a runway other than a utility runway with only visual approaches; (iii) 2,000 feet for that end of a utility runway with a non-precision instrument approach; (iv) 3,500 feet for that end of a non-precision instrument runway other than utility, having visibility minimums greater that three-fourths of a statute mile;

187 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Page 8 of (v) 4,000 feet for that end of a non-precision instrument runway, other than utility, having a non-precision instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as three-fourths statute mile; and (vi) 16,000 feet for precision instrument runways. (2) The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of: (i) 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 to 1 for all utility and visual runways; (ii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 to 1 for all non-precision instrument runways other than utility; and (iii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 to 1 with an additional 40,000 feet at a slope of 40 to 1 for all precision instrument runways. (3) The outer width of an approach surface to an end of a runway will be that width prescribed in this subsection for the most precise approach existing or planned for that runway end. (e) Transitional surface. These surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surface which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the runway centerline Department of Defense (DOD) airport imaginary surfaces. top (a) Related to airport reference points. These surfaces apply to all military airports. For the purposes of this section, a military airport is any airport operated by the DOD. (1) Inner horizontal surface. A plane that is oval in shape at a height of 150 feet above the established airfield elevation. The plane is constructed by scribing an arc with a radius of 7,500 feet about the centerline at the end of each runway and interconnecting these arcs with tangents. (2) Conical surface. A surface extending from the periphery of the inner horizontal surface outward and upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 7,000 feet to a height of 500 feet above the established airfield elevation. (3) Outer horizontal surface. A plane, located 500 feet above the established airfield elevation, extending outward from the outer periphery of the conical surface for a horizontal distance of 30,000 feet. (b) Related to runways. These surfaces apply to all military airports. (1) Primary surface. A surface located on the ground or water longitudinally centered on each runway with the same length as the runway. The width of the primary surface for runways is 2,000 feet. However, at established bases where substantial construction has taken place in accordance with a previous lateral clearance criteria, the 2,000-foot width may be reduced to the former criteria. (2) Clear zone surface. A surface located on the ground or water at each end of the primary surface, with a length of 1,000 feet and the same width as the primary surface. (3) Approach clearance surface. An inclined plane, symmetrical about the runway centerline extended, beginning 200 feet beyond each end of the primary surface at the centerline elevation of the runway end and extending for 50,000 feet. The slope of the approach clearance surface is 50 to 1 along the runway centerline extended until it reaches an elevation of 500 feet above the established airport elevation. It then continues horizontally at this elevation to a point 50,000 feet from the point of beginning. The width of this surface at the runway end is the same as the primary surface, it flares uniformly, and the width at 50,000 is 16,000 feet. (4) Transitional surfaces. These surfaces connect the primary surfaces, the first 200 feet of the clear zone surfaces, and the approach clearance surfaces to the inner horizontal surface, conical surface, outer horizontal surface or other transitional surfaces. The slope of the transitional surface is 7 to 1 outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline.

188 TITLE 67. AERONAUTICS Montana Code Annotated 2007 Part 1. General Provisions CHAPTER 7. AIRPORT AFFECTED AREAS Short title. This chapter may be cited as the "Airport Compatibility Act". History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 300, L Legislative finding and purpose. The legislature finds that tall trees and structures and certain types of development located in the vicinity of airports endanger the lives and property of users of the airport and of occupants of land in its vicinity. The legislature also finds that the location of tall trees and structures and certain types of development near airports reduces the area available for landing, taking off, and maneuvering aircraft and increases the likelihood of legal action against a local government for noise nuisance, thus destroying the utility of the airports and the public investment in them. It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by the delineation of an airport affected area and by the development of compatible noise, height, and land use regulations to control airport hazards. The prevention of the creation or establishment of airport hazards and the elimination, removal, alteration, mitigation, or marking and lighting of existing airport hazards are public purposes for which political subdivisions may raise and expend public funds and in which political subdivisions may acquire land or property interests. History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 300, L Definitions. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b), the definitions in apply to this chapter. (2) In this chapter, the following definitions also apply: (a) "Airport affected area" means the land and space above the ground surface of an airport in the proximity of the airport, the use of which may be affected by the airport's existence, including the areas described in 14 CFR, part 77. (b) "Governing body" means a city commission, town council, county commission, or the commissioners of a municipal or regional airport authority. History: En. Sec. 5, Ch. 300, L Part 2. Designation and Regulation of Airport Affected Areas Designation of airport affected area -- regulations required -- maps and descriptions required -- public hearing required -- effect of designation. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (5), a governing body of a political subdivision that owns or controls an NPIAS airport or that has an airport affected area for an NPIAS airport within its territorial limits or a joint board established pursuant to shall, by ordinance or resolution, exercising its police power: (a) designate an airport affected area within 1 year of April 19, 2005; (b) concurrently adopt regulations for the airport affected area that comply with ; and (c) administer and enforce the regulations that are adopted. (2) A governing body of a political subdivision that owns or controls a non-npias airport or that has an airport affected area for a non-npias airport within its territorial limits or a joint board established pursuant to may, by ordinance or resolution, exercising its police power, designate an airport affected area. If the governing body or joint board makes the designation, it shall concurrently adopt regulations for the airport affected area that may comply with and shall administer and enforce the regulations. (3) The airport affected area may not be less than 10,000 feet from the thresholds of each runway or less than 1 mile wide on each side of each runway unless evaluations for a specific runway show that the accident data justifies a lesser area. A greater area may be regulated as an airport affected area if: (a) studies have been conducted in accordance with 14 CFR, part 150, maps of the area have been prepared, and a program has been approved by the federal aviation administration; or (b) the governing body intends to protect imaginary surfaces as provided in 14 CFR, part 77. (4) The designation must be accompanied by maps and legal descriptions of the airport affected area. The maps must be filed with the clerk and recorder of each affected county and with the clerk of each affected city or town. Page 1 of 6

189 Montana Code Annotated 2007 (5) (a) Before a governing body designates an airport affected area and adopts or amends regulations governing the airport affected area, the governing body shall hold at least one public hearing. (b) The notice of the public hearing must be published as provided in if the governing body is a county commission or the commissioners of a regional airport authority and as provided in if the governing body is a city commission, a town council, or the commissioners of a municipal airport authority. (6) After the designation of an airport affected area, a person may not recover from a local government, an airport authority, an airport operator, or an airport owner damages caused by noise, fumes, vibrations, light, or any other effects from normal and anticipated normal airport operations. History: En. Sec. 6, Ch. 300, L Joint airport affected area regulation board authorized -- may adopt regulations. (1) If an airport affected area is located outside of the jurisdictional area of the governing body of the political subdivision that owns or controls the airport, the governing body of the political subdivision that owns or controls the airport and the governing body of the political subdivision within which the airport affected area is located may by ordinance or resolution create a joint airport affected area regulation board. (2) The joint board may adopt, administer, and enforce airport affected area regulations, as provided in , subject to the provisions of (3) The joint board must have two members appointed by the governing body of each political subdivision participating in its creation, and a presiding officer must be elected by a majority of the members appointed. The members of the joint board who are appointed shall select an additional at-large member who resides in the county in which the airport is located. (4) If, in the judgment of the governing body of the political subdivision that owns or controls an airport, the governing body of the political subdivision that contains the airport affected area has failed to adopt or enforce reasonably adequate airport affected area regulations for the airport affected area and if the governing body of the political subdivision that contains the airport affected area has refused to join in creating a joint board under this section, the governing body of the political subdivision that owns or controls the airport may adopt, administer, and enforce airport affected area regulations for the airport affected area. The regulations adopted by the governing body of the political subdivision that owns or controls the airport prevail if a conflict arises between regulations adopted by that governing body and the governing body of the political subdivision that contains the airport affected area. History: En. Sec. 7, Ch. 300, L Airport affected area regulations -- contents. (1) Subject to the provisions of , regulations adopted for the airport affected area must be reasonable, be designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and, for an NPIAS airport, at a minimum, give consideration to: (a) the safety of airport users and persons and property in the vicinity of the airport; (b) the character of the flying operations conducted or expected to be conducted at the airport; (c) the nature of the terrain; (d) the future development of the airport; and (e) federal aviation administration recommendations for the aeronautical surfaces necessary for safe flying operations. (2) Airport affected area regulations may: (a) designate the airport or airports that are subject to the regulations, with a description of existing and future runways and approaches; (b) define the terms used in the regulations based on the definitions provided in Title 67 and 14 CFR, part 77; (c) describe the airport affected area by referencing maps and describing existing airport hazards and natural terrain that intrude into the airport affected area; (d) designate and describe zones within the airport affected area, along with the height limitations for structures and trees within each zone, considering local conditions and needs, as well as the notice requirements and obstructions standards provided in 14 CFR, part 77; Page 2 of 6

190 Page 3 of 6 Montana Code Annotated 2007 (e) show the contours for decibel levels of 65 YDNL or greater on the maps that designate an airport affected area, if a study has been conducted pursuant to 14 CFR, part 150, and require that information to be considered by anyone who builds within the airport affected area; (f) specify permitted and conditional uses within each zone of the airport affected area by addressing: (i) incompatible land uses, such as uses for residences, schools, hospitals, day-care centers, or other concentrations of people indoors or outdoors; (ii) the land uses that are considered incompatible with certain noise levels, as provided in 14 CFR, part 150; (iii) bird attractants such as solid waste disposal sites and lagoons; (iv) sources of electromagnetic radiation that may interfere with electronic navigational aids; (v) lights other than navigational aids that glare upward or shine on or in the direction of the airport; and (vi) the national transportation safety board's accident investigation data in the vicinity of airports and specific accident data for a particular airport, if that information is available; (g) define nonconforming uses, measures to be taken to mitigate the nonconforming uses, and the expiration of the uses in accordance with this chapter; (h) provide for an inventory of existing land uses, structures, and trees within the airport affected area; (i) expand on the permit system provided pursuant to for changes to existing land uses, including changes that affect structures or trees, and for new land uses, structures, or trees; (j) subject to the provisions of , provide a variance procedure from the literal application of the regulations, including the conditions for granting a variance; and (k) establish or designate local boards, commissions, or agents to administer and adjudicate interpretations of the regulations. History: En. Sec. 8, Ch. 300, L State lands. When an airport affected area lies partially or entirely on state-owned lands, the department of natural resources and conservation shall administer the affected lands in conformance with the airport affected area regulations adopted by the local governing body. History: En. Sec. 9, Ch. 300, L through reserved Procedure for developing or amending regulations -- assistance from existing boards or zoning commissions. (1) In adopting, amending, and repealing airport affected area regulations under this chapter, a governing body or a joint airport affected area regulation board may request the assistance of existing planning boards or zoning commissions. (2) If a political subdivision does not have an existing planning board or zoning commission to assist with recommendations for airport affected area regulations, the governing body may: (a) request that an existing airport board recommend the boundaries of the airport affected area and the various zones to be established and the regulations that will govern the airport affected area; or (b) act without assistance of an airport board, planning board, or zoning commission. (3) If a governing body or joint airport affected area regulation board uses a separate airport board, planning board, or zoning commission to assist the governing body or joint board in designating the airport affected area and establishing regulations to govern the airport affected area, the airport board, planning board, or zoning commission shall make a preliminary report and hold public hearings on the report before submitting its final report to the governing body or joint board. The governing body or joint board may not hold a public hearing or take action on the regulations until it has received the final report from the airport board, planning board, or zoning commission. History: En. Sec. 10, Ch. 300, L Prior nonconforming uses. (1) All regulations adopted under this chapter must be reasonable and may not require the removal or alteration of any structure or tree or require cessation or alteration of a use that is lawfully in existence when the regulations become effective. Those structures, trees, or uses must be treated as prior nonconforming structures, trees, or uses that may remain or continue, but regulations may prohibit their expansion or their reconstruction or replacement following destruction or substantial damage. For the purposes of this section, "substantial

191 Montana Code Annotated 2007 damage" has occurred when 80% or more of a structure or tree is deteriorated or decayed or has been torn down or destroyed. (2) The regulations may require that trees in place at the time that the regulations take effect be maintained by the political subdivision, at its expense, at heights attained at that time. (3) The regulations may require the owner of structures or trees to permit the political subdivision, at its expense, to install, operate, and maintain the lights and markers necessary to warn pilots of the presence of an airport hazard. (4) Land in existing residential subdivisions or platted for residential subdivision at the time that regulations are adopted may continue to be used for residential purposes, subject to notification provided to property owners that the lots are within an adopted airport affected area. History: En. Sec. 11, Ch. 300, L Acquisition of property rights when regulations not sufficient. The political subdivision within which a property or nonconforming use is located or the political subdivision owning the airport or served by the airport may acquire, by purchase, grant, or condemnation pursuant to Title 70, chapter 30, an air right, aviation easement, or other estate or interest in the property or nonconforming structure or use that is necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter. The governing body of the political subdivision may acquire an interest when: (1) it is desirable to remove, lower, or otherwise terminate a nonconforming structure or use; (2) the necessary approach protection cannot, because of constitutional limitations, be provided by airport affected area regulations under this chapter; or (3) it appears advisable that the necessary approach protection be provided by acquisition of property rights rather than by airport affected area regulations. History: En. Sec. 12, Ch. 300, L Regulations relative to zoning ordinances. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3), if a governing body has adopted a zoning ordinance or resolution, any regulations adopted under this chapter may be made a part of the zoning ordinance or resolution and may be administered and enforced in connection with it. (2) The zoning ordinance or resolution may not limit the effectiveness or scope of the regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter. (3) When a conflict exists between the regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter and any zoning ordinances or resolutions applicable to the same area that the regulations are intended to govern, the more stringent limitation or requirement prevails. History: En. Sec. 13, Ch. 300, L Permit system. (1) The regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter must provide for a permit system for erecting new structures or trees, changing uses of land or structures, and substantially altering, repairing, or replacing existing structures or replacing existing trees within the airport affected area. (2) A permit may not be granted that would allow the establishment of an airport hazard or that would allow a nonconforming use, structure, or tree to become a greater hazard to air navigation than it was on the effective date of the designation of the airport affected area and the regulations adopted to protect the airport affected area. (3) A permit granted pursuant to this chapter may require the owner of a structure or tree to allow the governing body, at the owner's expense, to install, operate, and maintain the lights and markers necessary to warn pilots of the presence of an airport hazard. History: En. Sec. 14, Ch. 300, L Part 3. Enforcement and Variances Enforcement. The governing body or its designated agent or agency is responsible for enforcing the regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter. The regulations must provide for an enforcement officer and an appeal process from the decision of the enforcement officer, who may be an existing employee of the local government. History: En. Sec. 15, Ch. 300, L Page 4 of 6

192 Montana Code Annotated Appeals. (1) The governing body that designated the airport affected area shall act as an airport appeals board or appoint an airport appeals board that functions in the same manner as a board of adjustment provided for in Title 76, chapter 2. If the governing body appoints an airport appeals board, the board must have at least three members. (2) The provisions of and through apply to the governing body of a county or an airport appeals board appointed by that governing body and the provisions of and through apply to the governing body of a municipality or an airport appeals board appointed by that governing body when considering grievances relating to regulations, variances, or permits (3) If a governing body has appointed a board of adjustment under the provisions of through or through , the governing body may designate the members of that board as the airport appeals board, in which case the terms of the members for the purposes of this chapter are concurrent with their terms as members of the board of adjustment. History: En. Sec. 16, Ch. 300, L Variance. (1) A person intending to erect or increase the height of a structure, permit the growth of a tree, or use property in a manner that is not in accordance with the requirements of the regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter may apply to the governing body or an enforcement officer appointed for this purpose by the governing body for a variance from the regulations. (2) If an enforcement officer has been appointed by the governing body, the decision of the officer is final unless it is appealed to either the governing body or the airport appeals board, if one exists. (3) A variance must be granted when a literal application or enforcement of the regulations would result in substantial practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and when the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. (4) A variance must be granted for a nonconforming use when there is no immediate hazard to safe flying operations or to persons and property in the vicinity of the airport and when the noise or vibrations from normal and anticipated normal airport operations would not be likely to cause damage to structures. (5) A variance granted under this section may require the owner of a structure or tree to allow the political subdivision, at the owner's expense, to install, operate, and maintain the lights and markers necessary to warn pilots of the presence of an airport hazard. (6) A person who builds a structure pursuant to a variance from the airport affected area regulations or who takes or buys property in an airport affected area for which a variance has been granted is on notice that the airport existed before the variance was granted and that normal and anticipated normal operations of the airport will result in noise, vibrations, and fumes being projected over the property. A person using a structure built pursuant to a variance may not collect damages from a governing body or local government or from an airport authority, airport operator, or airport owner for interference with the enjoyment of that structure caused by noise, vibrations, and fumes from normal and anticipated normal airport operations. History: En. Sec. 17, Ch. 300, L Penalty. A person who violates the provisions of this chapter or the regulations adopted under is subject to a civil penalty and a criminal penalty. The civil penalty is a fine of $100 for each day that the violation is not remedied after the governing body has given notification of the violation and held a hearing on the violation. The criminal penalty is a fine of $500, pursuant to History: En. Sec. 18, Ch. 300, L Injunction. A local governing body may institute in any court of competent jurisdiction an action to prevent, restrain, correct, or abate any violation of this chapter or the regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter. History: En. Sec. 19, Ch. 300, L Page 5 of 6

193 Page 6 of 6 Montana Code Annotated 2007 TITLE 7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Part 21. Counties Publication and content of notice -- proof of publication. Unless otherwise specifically provided, whenever a local government unit other than a municipality is required to give notice by publication, the following applies: (1) Publication must be in a newspaper meeting the qualifications of subsections (2) and (3), except that in a county where a newspaper does not meet these qualifications, publication must be made in a qualified newspaper in an adjacent county. If there is no qualified newspaper in an adjacent county, publication must be made by posting the notice in three public places in the county, designated by resolution of the governing body. (2) (a) The newspaper must: (i) be of general circulation; (ii) be published at least once a week; (iii) be published in the county where the hearing or other action will take place; and (iv) have, prior to July 1 of each year, submitted to the clerk and recorder a sworn statement that includes: (A) circulation for the prior 12 months; (B) a statement of net distribution; (C) itemization of the circulation that is paid and that is free; and (D) the method of distribution. (b) A newspaper of general circulation does not include a newsletter or other document produced or published by the local government unit. (3) In the case of a contract award, the newspaper must have been published continuously in the county for the 12 months preceding the awarding of the contract. (4) If a person is required by law or ordinance to pay for publication, the payment must be received before the publication may be made. (5) The notice must be published twice, with at least 6 days separating each publication. (6) The published notice must contain: (a) the date, time, and place of the hearing or other action; (b) a brief statement of the action to be taken; (c) the address and telephone number of the person who may be contacted for further information on the action to be taken; and (d) any other information required by the specific section requiring notice by publication. (7) A published notice required by law may be supplemented by a radio or television broadcast of the notice in the manner prescribed in through (8) Proof of the publication or posting of any notice may be made by affidavit of the owner, publisher, printer, or clerk of the newspaper or of the person posting the notice. History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 349, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 354, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 444, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 439, L Part 41. Municipalities Publication of notice -- content -- proof. (1) When a municipality is required to publish notice, publication must be in a newspaper, except that in a municipality with a population of 500 or less or in which no newspaper is published, publication may be made by posting in three public places in the municipality which have been designated by ordinance. (2) The newspaper must be: (a) of general paid circulation with a periodicals mailing permit; (b) published at least once a week; and (c) published in the county where the municipality is located. (3) In the case of a contract award, the newspaper must have been published continuously in the county for the 12 months preceding the awarding of the contract. (4) In a county where no newspaper meets these qualifications, publication must be made in a qualified newspaper in an adjacent county. (5) If a person is required by law or ordinance to pay for publication, the payment must be received before the publication may be made. (6) The notice must be published twice, with at least 6 days separating each publication. (7) The published notice must contain: (a) the date, time, and place of the hearing or other action; (b) a brief statement of the action to be taken; (c) the address and telephone number of the person who may be contacted for further information on the action to be taken; and (d) any other information required by the specific section requiring notice by publication. (8) A published notice required by law may be supplemented by a radio or television broadcast of the notice in the manner prescribed in through (9) Proof of the publication or posting of any notice may be made by affidavit of the owner, publisher, printer, or clerk of the newspaper or of the person posting the notice. History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 455, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 354, L

194

195 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT - Hamilton, Montana Forecasting Report Appendix B: Data

196

197 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT BASED AIRCRAFT LISTING Airport Manager's Hangar Ramp List Aircraft ID FAA Site Base List 1 N100JD N100JD Multi Engine RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY C90A B II 2 N1164H N1164H Single Engine AERONCA 15AC A I 3 N122HA N122HA Helicopter HILLER UH-12E Helicopter 4 N125AR N125AR Multi Engine RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY C90GT B II 5 N126TF N126TF Jet CESSNA 550 B II 6 N1324E N1324E Single Engine CESSNA 172N A I 7 N150X Single Engine CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22 A I 8 N1685T N1685T Not found in FAA Could be N168st - bell helicopter 9 N180BJ N180BJ Single Engine JACKSON MA 5 CHARGER - Biplane A? 10 N182AJ N182AJ Single Engine CESSNA T182 B I 11 N184JL N184JL Single Engine MOONEY M20E A I 12 N187AM N187AM Single Engine AVIAT AIRCRAFT INC A-1B A I 13 N1896J N1896J Single Engine PIPER PA A I 14 N195AH N195AH Single Engine FW2TR 15 N1978N N1978N Single Engine CESSNA 172N A I 16 N2001D N2001D Single Engine BEECH C35 A I 17 N222SV N222SV Multi Engine CESSNA 414 B I 18 N2289G N2289G Single Engine CESSNA 182B B I 19 N233SB N233SB Single Engine CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22 A I 20 N2342X N2342X Single Engine CESSNA 182H B I 21 N235DM N235DM Single Engine MAULE M-5-235C A I 22 N2399T N2399T Single Engine PIPER PA A I 23 N23CP N23CP Single Engine PIPER PA A I 24 N2528L N2528L Single Engine CESSNA 172H A I 25 N2604U N2604U Single Engine CESSNA 172D A I 26 N2667R N2667R Single Engine CESSNA 182K B I 27 N2669F N2669F Single Engine CESSNA 182J B I 28 N2750E N2750E Single Engine AERONCA 7BCM A I 29 N27TP N27TP Single Engine CESSNA 172M A I 30 N2809F N2809F Single Engine CESSNA 182J B I 31 N2RX N2RX Single Engine CESSNA P210N A I 32 N3018 N3018 Glider BOLKOW PHOEBUS C-1 - Sailplane A II 33 N309PS N309PS Single Engine CESSNA 152 A I 34 N30GS N30GS Single Engine CESSNA 172M A I 35 N32089 N32089 Single Engine PIPER PA A I 36 N32348 N32348 Single Engine PIPER PA A I 37 N3523L N3523L Single Engine CESSNA 182T B I 38 N3539P N3539P Single Engine PIPER PA A I 39 N3661K N3661K Single Engine PIPER J3C-65 A I 40 N3802L N3802L Single Engine CESSNA 172G A I 41 N3828G N3828G Multi Engine CESSNA 310R A I 42 N3867J N3867J Single Engine CESSNA 150G A I 43 N41544 N41544 Helicopter ROBINSON HELICOPTER R22 BETA Helicopter 44 N42239 N42239 Single Engine PIPER PA-11 A I 45 N424DD Single Engine Cessna 182 B I 46 N447R N447R Helicopter ROBINSON HELICOPTER R44 Helicopter 47 N4597E N4597E Single Engine AERONCA 7CCM A I 48 N468B N468B Single Engine BEECH 35 A I 49 N468ER N468ER Single Engine CESSNA 172S A I 50 N4837Z N4837Z Single Engine PIPER PA A I 51 N5085D N5085D Single Engine CESSNA 182A B I 52 N510KJ N510KJ Helicopter ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY R44 II Helicopter 53 N5140Q N5140Q Single Engine CESSNA 172M A I 54 N5178B N5178B Single Engine CESSNA 152 A I 55 N518TR N518TR Single Engine REGAN THOMAS F RV-6 A I 56 N5195X N5195X Single Engine CHAMPION 7KCAB A I 57 N5613J N5613J Single Engine CESSNA 182P B I 1 of 2

198 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT BASED AIRCRAFT LISTING 58 N574CP N574CP Single Engine CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22 A I 59 N5NM N5NM Multi Engine CESSNA 414A B I 60 N6138Y N6138Y Single Engine MAULE MX A I 61 N6156Q N6156Q Multi Engine CESSNA 320F A I 62 N6195S N6195S Single Engine CESSNA T182T B I 63 N62042 N62042 Single Engine CESSNA T182T B I 64 N6234R N6234R Single Engine CESSNA 150F A I 65 N6246Q N6246Q Single Engine CESSNA T182T B I 66 N629AH N629AH Single Engine CESSNA 172S A I 67 N63772 N63772 Single Engine CESSNA 172P A I 68 N63SD N63SD Single Engine PIETENPOL AIR CAMPR A I 69 N656RB N656RB Helicopter SCHWEIZER 269C Helicopter 70 N67810 N67810 Single Engine CESSNA 152 A I 71 N68281 N68281 Single Engine CESSNA 152 A I 72 N7158E N7158E Single Engine CESSNA 182B B I 73 N71752 N71752 Single Engine CESSNA 182M B I 74 N722AD Not found in FAA Not Assigned 75 N72444 N72444 Multi Engine CESSNA 337G A I 76 N7265K N7265K Single Engine PIPER PA-18 A I 77 N726TF Single Engine RV-6 A I 78 N7276G N7276G Single Engine CESSNA 172K A I 79 N731PJ N731PJ Single Engine CESSNA P210N A I 80 N732NL N732NL Single Engine CESSNA T210M A I 81 N733LL N733LL Single Engine CESSNA 172N A I 82 N7454Y N7454Y Multi Engine PIPER PA-30 A I 83 N7517D N7517D Single Engine PIPER PA A I 84 N7609F N7609F Single Engine CESSNA 172N A I 85 N777LX N777LX Jet CESSNA 560XL B II 86 N7842F N7842F Single Engine PIPER PA-28R-201T A I 87 N79BX N79BX Single Engine RV-8 A I 88 N7YA N7YA Jet CESSNA 550 B II 89 N8027K N8027K Single Engine LANCAIR 360 A I 90 N8414T N8414T Single Engine CESSNA 182B B I 91 N843DP N843DP Single Engine CESSNA 172K A I 92 N843FH N843FH Single Engine CUBEE A I 93 N8490U N8490U Single Engine CESSNA 172F A I 94 N850LM N850LM Single Engine SOCATA TBM 700 A I 95 N8840T N8840T Single Engine CESSNA 182C B I 96 N8908T N8908T Single Engine CESSNA 182C B I 97 N899RC N899RC Single Engine CESSNA TU206G A I 98 N9001H N9001H Single Engine HANNAFORD BEE -Biplane A I 99 N90994 N90994 Single Engine BELLANCA 7GCBC A I 100 N9196G N9196G Single Engine CESSNA 182N B I 101 N92297 N92297 Single Engine CESSNA 182N B I 102 N9274D N9274D Single Engine PIPER PA-18A 150 A I 103 N94AA N94AA Single Engine VANS RV-3B A I 104 N9610G N9610G Single Engine CESSNA U206F A I 105 N977CH N977CH Helicopter BELL 206B-III Helicopter 106 N97LW N97LW Single Engine VANS RV-4 A I 107 N98407 N98407 Single Engine CESSNA 172P A I 108 PA-18 Restoring 109 RV4 Building process 110 Ultra Light 111 Experimental no #'s working on No. of Approach Category A Aircraft: 71 No. of Approach Category B Aircraft: 27 Total: Number of Design Group I: 91 Number of Design Group II: 6 Single Engine 87 Multi Engine 8 Jet 3 2 of 2

199 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT LEASE HOLDER LISTING LEASE HOLDER Aircraft N number GIS # Address Existing Hangar Leases Potential Lease Site Non-Hangar Building Other Not buildable Unavailable SIZE USE Hamilton Gun Club PO Box 672 MT Hamilton, ,664 Non Profit Hamilton Gun Club PO Box 672 Hamilton, MT Non Profit LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY ,200 Commercial UNAVAILABLE - PROXIMITY TO EXISTING PAVEMENTS AND POSSIBLE FUTURE PAVEMENT AREAS UNAVAILABLE - PROXIMITY TO EXISTING PAVEMENTS AND POSSIBLE FUTURE PAVEMENT AREAS EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N6234R N222SV N5NM N447R ,800 Commercial LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N9001H ,226 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N122HA N656RB N977CH N574CP N6195S ,000 Commercial Page 1 of 6

200 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT LEASE HOLDER LISTING LEASE HOLDER Aircraft N number GIS # Address Existing Hangar Leases Potential Lease Site Non-Hangar Building Other Not buildable Unavailable SIZE USE LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N2RX N235DM ,520 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N6156Q ,000 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N ,000 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N3661K PLUS UNNUMBERED PA ,500 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N233SB ,000 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N3523L ,500 Personal OPEN 48'x50' LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N180BJ N ,160 Personal OPEN ,500 Vacant LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N79BX N94AA ,500 Personal ,500 Personal OPEN 50'x50' OPEN 50'x50' LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY ,500 Vacant OPEN LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N732NL ,750 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY UNNUMBERED RV ,500 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N1896J N187AM ,500 Business LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N5195X N8908T ,500 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N6138Y ,500 Commercial Page 2 of 6

201 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT LEASE HOLDER LISTING LEASE HOLDER Aircraft N number GIS # Address Existing Hangar Leases Potential Lease Site Non-Hangar Building Other Not buildable Unavailable SIZE USE LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N2289G N1164H ,000 Commercial LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N4837Z N2809F ,500 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N777LX N63SD N850LM ,900 Business LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY ,400 Business LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N309PS N6246Q N731PJ ,900 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N7454Y 2750E 4597E N150X N424DD N642WR N726TF ,322 Commercial OPEN 60 X LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY 1 ULTRALIGHT NO NRS ,016 Personal Open Wfoundation Open - wetland? Hangar Café ,232 Commercial LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N510KJ N182AJ N41544 N277AD ,000 Commercial LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N72444 N7265K ,000 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY ,450 Commercial LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N7842F ,600 Commercial LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N7158E ,240 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY ,450 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N1324E N90994 EXPIREMENTAL UNNUMBERED ,328 Commercial LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N184JL ,960 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N1978N ,408 Personal Page 3 of 6

202 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT LEASE HOLDER LISTING LEASE HOLDER Aircraft N number GIS # Address Existing Hangar Leases Potential Lease Site Non-Hangar Building Other Not buildable Unavailable SIZE USE LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N2528L ,200 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N843DP N843FH N5613J ,240 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N2604U ,200 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY MAINT-NONE ,264 Commercial LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY SALES-NONE ,200 Commercial OPEN- would require power pole and related relocations LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY ,090 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY ,848 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N23CP ,090 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY ,200 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N3018 N125AR ,090 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N518TR ,112 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N ,440 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N468B ,232 Personal POSSIBLY DEVELOPABLE POSSIBLY DEVELOPABLE LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N3539P N97LW N ,000 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY ,208 Personal OPEN 64'x50' LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N5085D N8027K ,656 Personal Page 4 of 6

203 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT LEASE HOLDER LISTING LEASE HOLDER Aircraft N number GIS # Address Existing Hangar Leases Potential Lease Site Non-Hangar Building Other Not buildable Unavailable SIZE USE LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N2667R ,060 Commercial LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N126TF ,600 Business LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N71752 N1685T N7YA ,000 Commercial LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N899RC ,400 Commercial OPEN OPEN OPEN LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N ,000 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N8840T ,090 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N ,090 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N8414T ,090 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N2342X ,264 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY N7517D N2399T ,987 Personal LEASE'S NAME OMITTED FOR PRIVACY ,400 Personal OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH CURRENT RUNWAY OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH CURRENT RUNWAY OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH CURRENT RUNWAY OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH CURRENT RUNWAY North Star Aviation INC 516 Airport Rd Hamilton, MT Commercial Fuel Hamilton Aviation #528 Airport Road Hamilton, MT ,500 Commercial Page 5 of 6

204 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT LEASE HOLDER LISTING LEASE HOLDER Aircraft N number GIS # Address Existing Hangar Leases Potential Lease Site Non-Hangar Building Other Not buildable Unavailable SIZE USE N7276G N98407 N27TP North Star Aviation INC N468ER N B 516 Airport Rd Hamilton, N3867J N3828G N9610G MT N68281 N100JD N9274D ,685 Commercial North Star Aviation INC 516 Airport Rd Hamilton, MT North Star Aviation INC 516 Airport Rd Hamilton, MT ,432 Fuel Farm ,000 Commercial Ravalli County Airport Manager Maint Bldg Hamilton Aviation #528 Airport Road Hamilton, MT N30GS N5140Q N9196G N2669F ,000 Commercial Forest Service Aviation Dispatch Bldg GOV Hamilton Aviation #528 Airport Road Hamilton, MT ,000 Fuel System EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE EXPANSION POSSIBLE OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE CONSIDERING FUTURE TAXIWAY APRON OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH CURRENT RUNWAY OR FUTURE TAXIWAY APRON OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH CURRENT RUNWAY OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH CURRENT RUNWAY OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH CURRENT RUNWAY OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH CURRENT RUNWAY OPEN - NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH CURRENT RUNWAY Hamilton Aviation #528 Airport Road Hamilton, MT Hamilton Aviation #528 Airport Road Hamilton, MT ,000 Ramp ,000 Ramp Totals Page 6 of 6

205 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N414KD :55 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :07 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :06 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :52 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N544CM FA50 Dassault-Breguet Falcon 50 61' 9" B II 1 N544CM FA50 Dassault-Breguet Falcon 50 61' 9" B II 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N850LM :30 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :12 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 EJA :18 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :18 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N777LX :25 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N115CJ :38 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N777LX :59 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N115CJ :48 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N777LX :35 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N3828G :52 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N3828G :54 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N :52 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II 1 N :52 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II 1 N777LX :10 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N2668A :02 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N2668A :30 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N115CJ :11 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N115CJ :11 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 VNR :25 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 VNR :25 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N2668A :49 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N2668A :36 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N850LM :28 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :41 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :37 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :31 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N270PS :58 P46T Piper PA TP 43' 0" A I PARRAMORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SUPPLY L 1 N270PS :20 P46T Piper PA TP 43' 0" A I PARRAMORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SUPPLY L 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N301TS :58 B100 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I NEPTUNE AVIATION SERVICES INC 1 N301TS :58 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I NEPTUNE AVIATION SERVICES INC 1 N190EF :12 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N190EF :06 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N5NM :39 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I MORTON TRANSPORT LLC 1 N100JD :01 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II N21WY AVIATION LLC 1 N529FD :55 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N100JD :20 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II N21WY AVIATION LLC 1 N529FD :37 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N649P :04 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II CAPITAL HOLDINGS 130 LLC 1 N649P :22 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II CAPITAL HOLDINGS 130 LLC 1 N8758Q :07 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I DOLCE AVIATION LLC 1 N8758Q :07 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I DOLCE AVIATION LLC 1 N414RS :12 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I CARMAN LAW OFFICE PC 1 N414RS :12 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I CARMAN LAW OFFICE PC 1 N108FP :05 COL3 Columbia LC42-550FG A I REINHARDT SCOTT 1 N108FP :05 COL3 Columbia LC42-550FG A I REINHARDT SCOTT 1 N108FP :05 COL3 Columbia LC42-550FG A I REINHARDT SCOTT 1 N108FP :05 COL3 Columbia LC42-550FG A I REINHARDT SCOTT 1 N731PJ :32 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N7YA :51 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROLLING GREEN ENTERPRISES LLC 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N Bell UH-1B 1 N Bell UH-1B 1 N58PL :39 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N58PL :39 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC Page 1 of 18

206 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N323QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N323QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N7YA :57 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROLLING GREEN ENTERPRISES LLC 1 EJA :26 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :26 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N9601G :34 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I 1 N9610G :34 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION ENTERPRISES INC 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N529FD :56 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N529FD :52 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N529FD :54 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N529FD :35 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N115RJ Aviat Inc. A-1 35' 3" B I 1 N115RJ Aviat Inc. A-1 35' 3" B I 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N115CJ :28 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N115CJ :28 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N731PJ :18 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N70PK S.N.I.A.S. SE 3130 Alouette II 1 N70PK S.N.I.A.S. SE 3130 Alouette II 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N7CH C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N7CH C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N9610G :53 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION ENTERPRISES INC 1 N9610G :53 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION ENTERPRISES INC 1 N956EA :50 C340 Cessna ' 1" A I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N956EA :50 C340 Cessna ' 1" A I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N6246Q :27 C182 Cessna ' 0" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N6246Q :27 C182 Cessna ' 0" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N54Y :48 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N54Y :48 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 AIP :29 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :29 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 N100JD :58 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II N21WY AVIATION LLC 1 N100JD :58 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II N21WY AVIATION LLC 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 AIP :32 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :49 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 N777CA C172 Cessna ' 1" B I 1 N777CA C172 Cessna ' 1" B I 1 N777CA C172 Cessna ' 1" B I 1 N777CA C172 Cessna ' 1" B I 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N77CA :25 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II CHRISTMANN FRANCES B TRUSTEE 1 N77CA :36 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II CHRISTMANN FRANCES B TRUSTEE 1 N77CA :07 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II CHRISTMANN FRANCES B TRUSTEE 1 N77CA :30 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II CHRISTMANN FRANCES B TRUSTEE 1 N9196G :13 C182 Cessna 182N A I BECKETT DAVID G 1 N9196G :13 C182 Cessna 182N A I BECKETT DAVID G 1 N529FD :11 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N777LX :30 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N529FD :45 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N190EF :57 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N777LX :06 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N190EF :54 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N54Y :05 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N54Y :16 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 NSI :55 C340 Cessna ' 1" A I Northern Skies Aviation 1 N54Y :24 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N54Y :14 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 NSI :04 C340 Cessna ' 1" A I Northern Skies Aviation 1 N7454Y :11 PA30 Piper PA-30 36' 9.5" A I MARSHALL GEORGE G 1 N7454Y :08 PA30 Piper PA-30 36' 9.5" A I MARSHALL GEORGE G 1 N126TF C550 Cessna '2" B II Page 2 of 18

207 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N126TF C550 Cessna '2" B II 1 N731PJ :07 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N970NA :50 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II NATIVE AMERICAN AIR SERVICE INC 1 N242LF :36 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I METRO AVIATION INC 1 N242LF :36 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I METRO AVIATION INC 1 N970NA :16 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II NATIVE AMERICAN AIR SERVICE INC 1 N100JD :57 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II N21WY AVIATION LLC 1 N100JD :45 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II N21WY AVIATION LLC 1 N731PJ :38 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N217SA :32 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II SPRINTER TRAILER LLC 1 N1604Z McDonnell Douglas Helicopter 369E 1 N1604Z McDonnell Douglas Helicopter 369E 1 N217SA :29 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II SPRINTER TRAILER LLC 1 N70PK S.N.I.A.S. SE 3130 Alouette II 1 N70PK S.N.I.A.S. SE 3130 Alouette II 1 N32KW :22 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N32KW :24 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N850LM :47 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :16 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N54Y :41 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N54Y :41 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N3828G :08 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N3828G :08 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N732NL :54 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N732NL :32 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N7454Y :42 PA30 Piper PA-30 36' 9.5" A I MARSHALL GEORGE G 1 N7454Y :42 PA30 Piper PA-30 36' 9.5" A I MARSHALL GEORGE G 1 N732NL :22 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N732NL :22 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N414KD :30 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :06 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :39 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :50 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N850LM :10 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :53 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N7454Y :53 PA30 Piper PA-30 36' 9.5" A I MARSHALL GEORGE G 1 N7454Y :53 PA30 Piper PA-30 36' 9.5" A I MARSHALL GEORGE G 1 N5NM :56 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I MORTON TRANSPORT LLC 1 N5NM :56 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I MORTON TRANSPORT LLC 1 N1604Z McDonnell Douglas Helicopter 369E 1 N1604Z McDonnell Douglas Helicopter 369E 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N3828G :21 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N3828G :17 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N3828G :17 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N :02 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I WELLS FARGO BANK NORTHWEST NA TRUSTEE 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N3828G :15 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N777LX :45 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N115CJ :19 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N :03 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I WELLS FARGO BANK NORTHWEST NA TRUSTEE 1 N850LM :43 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :53 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N777LX :10 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N777LX :08 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N777LX :39 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N3828G :37 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N3828G :37 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N115CJ :34 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N7CH C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N7CH C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N3828G :08 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 EJA389P :28 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA389P :37 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N75PG :41 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II DASCH AIR LLC Page 3 of 18

208 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N75PG :41 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II DASCH AIR LLC 1 N380QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N380QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 EJA :16 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :59 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N732NL :17 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N732NL :11 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N414DK C414 Cessna ' 1" B I 1 N414DK C414 Cessna ' 1" B I 1 N7CH C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N7CH C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N574CP :35 SR22 Cirrus SR22 38' 4" A I HINCKLEY MONTANA LLC 1 N414KD :05 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N317QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N317QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 EJA :58 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N414KD :55 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 EJA :35 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N414KD :57 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :42 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N :54 C152 Cessna ' 4" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION INC 1 N :30 C152 Cessna ' 4" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION INC 1 N387QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N387QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 EJA387P :21 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA387P :08 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N7YA :00 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROLLING GREEN ENTERPRISES LLC 1 N529FD :10 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N7523Y :00 PA30 Piper PA-30 36' 9.5" A I BARRY PATRIC 1 N7523Y :00 PA30 Piper PA-30 36' 9.5" A I BARRY PATRIC 1 N529FD :49 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 MKL :37 PA31 Piper PA-31 Navajo 40' 8" A I Unknown Owner 1 MKL :37 PA31 Piper PA-31 Navajo 40' 8" A I Unknown Owner 1 N3828G :41 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 MKL :08 PA31 Piper PA-31 Navajo 40' 8" A I Unknown Owner 1 MKL :08 PA31 Piper PA-31 Navajo 40' 8" A I Unknown Owner 1 N7YA :46 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROLLING GREEN ENTERPRISES LLC 1 N574CP :25 SR22 Cirrus SR22 38' 4" A I HINCKLEY MONTANA LLC 1 N415DK C414 Cessna ' 1" B I 1 N415DK C414 Cessna ' 1" B I 1 N414KD :39 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :18 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N49PH :41 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N731PJ :04 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N49PH :57 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N731PJ :38 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N190EF :54 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N190EF :17 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 EJA :06 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N6054H :08 PA34 Piper PA T 38' 11" A I NATELSON RICHARD M 1 N6054H :08 PA34 Piper PA T 38' 11" A I NATELSON RICHARD M 1 N732NL :24 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 EJA :40 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N777LX C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N777LX C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N732NL :46 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N732NL :26 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N414KD :27 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N732NL :26 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N49PH :54 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N49PH :20 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N414KD :25 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :28 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :21 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N Bell UH-1B 1 N Bell UH-1B 1 N242LF :24 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I METRO AVIATION INC 1 N242LF :24 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I METRO AVIATION INC 1 N777LX :58 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N9610G :17 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION ENTERPRISES INC 1 N777LX :27 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC Page 4 of 18

209 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N9610G :12 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION ENTERPRISES INC 1 N126TF C550 Cessna '2" B II 1 N126TF C550 Cessna '2" B II 1 N605CS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N605CS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N :21 PA32 Piper PA ' 10" A I DYCHE PHILIP L 1 FIV :36 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II CitationAir 1 N :29 PA32 Piper PA ' 10" A I DYCHE PHILIP L 1 FIV :34 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II CitationAir 1 N727RS BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I MONTANA SKY FLY LLC 1 N727RS BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I MONTANA SKY FLY LLC 1 N529FD :11 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N529FD :47 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N8TG :48 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N8TG :44 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N4582D Bell UH-1F 1 N4582D Bell UH-1F 1 N323QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N323QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 EJA323P :17 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N529FD :16 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 EJA323P :07 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N49PH :44 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N49PH :17 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N529FD :25 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N525FX CL30 Bombardier Inc. BD-100-1A10 63' 10" B II 1 N525FX CL30 Bombardier Inc. BD-100-1A10 63' 10" B II 1 BJS :30 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Business Jet Solutions 1 BJS :24 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Business Jet Solutions 1 N359QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N359QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 EJA359P :58 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA359P :19 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N96DP Piccard AX-6 1 N96DP Piccard AX-6 1 N4514S :07 BE33 Beech 33 Debonair 33' 6" A I RECKSON CHARLES E 1 N4514S :07 BE33 Beech 33 Debonair 33' 6" A I RECKSON CHARLES E 1 N731PJ :15 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N96PD :19 C25C Cessna 525C 46' 11" B I ALBIN DAVID R 1 N777LX :28 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N777LX :49 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N96PD :28 C25C Cessna 525C 46' 11" B I ALBIN DAVID R 1 N49PH :16 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N49PH :13 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N190EF :54 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N190EF :53 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N7YA :54 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROLLING GREEN ENTERPRISES LLC 1 N214DV :48 FA50 Dassault Mystere - Falcon 50 61' 9" B II MALTESE FALCON LLC 1 N214DV :48 FA50 Dassault Mystere - Falcon 50 61' 9" B II MALTESE FALCON LLC 1 N777LX :35 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N5NM :12 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I MORTON TRANSPORT LLC 1 N5NM :44 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I MORTON TRANSPORT LLC 1 N7YA :54 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROLLING GREEN ENTERPRISES LLC 1 N777LX :43 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N9610G :12 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION ENTERPRISES INC 1 N731PJ :23 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N161SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N161SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 VNR :04 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N9610G :34 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION ENTERPRISES INC 1 VNR :29 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N150X :03 SR22 Cirrus SR22 38' 4" A I ROBINSON DOUG 1 N150X :03 SR22 Cirrus SR22 38' 4" A I ROBINSON DOUG 1 N126TF :06 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N529FD :18 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N529FD :10 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N30JD :05 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II MONDRIAN AVIATION LLC 1 N850LM :22 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N727RS :26 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I Page 5 of 18

210 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N777LX :42 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N157SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N157SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 VNR :41 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 VNR :16 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 EJA :29 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :51 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N850LM :35 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N126TF :59 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N30JD :13 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II MONDRIAN AVIATION LLC 1 N777LX :27 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N727RS :54 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I 1 N126TF :06 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N414KD :51 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :03 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N126TF :19 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N414KD :23 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 FTH :57 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II Mountain Aviation 1 FTH :57 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II Mountain Aviation 1 N484AS :26 PAY1 Piper Cheyenne 1 42' 8.25" B I AIRSURE LIMITED PROPERTIES LLC 1 N56GA :29 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II DALTON AVIATION LLC 1 N56GA :29 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II DALTON AVIATION LLC 1 N777LX :11 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 BLK :36 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 BLK :27 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 N1604Z McDonnell Douglas Helicopter 369E 1 N1604Z McDonnell Douglas Helicopter 369E 1 N389QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N389QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N585VC :27 H25B Raytheon Hawker 800XP 54' 4" B II FOUNTAIN LLC 1 N585VC :01 H25B Raytheon Hawker 800XP 54' 4" B II FOUNTAIN LLC 1 EJA :10 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :38 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N414KD :34 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 BLK :18 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 BLK :21 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N777LX :49 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N484AS :22 PAY1 Piper Cheyenne 1 42' 8.25" B I AIRSURE LIMITED PROPERTIES LLC 1 N1114K :00 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II ROGERS JOHN STUART TRUSTEE 1 N1114K :15 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II ROGERS JOHN STUART TRUSTEE 1 BLK :59 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 BLK :37 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 VNR :04 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N192SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N192SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N592QS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N592QS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 VNR :55 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 EJA :57 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 VNR :44 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 EJA :14 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N195SL Piaggio Areo Industries Spa P180 46' 12" B I 1 N195SL Piaggio Areo Industries Spa P180 46' 12" B I 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N Bell OH-58A 1 N777LX :44 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N214DV :02 FA50 Dassault Mystere - Falcon 50 61' 9" B II MALTESE FALCON LLC 1 VNR :16 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N214DV :15 FA50 Dassault Mystere - Falcon 50 61' 9" B II MALTESE FALCON LLC 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III Page 6 of 18

211 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N711T :19 F900 Dassault Falcon 900EX 63' 4" B II GREY FALCON LLC 1 N711T :19 F900 Dassault Falcon 900EX 63' 4" B II GREY FALCON LLC 1 N7YA :17 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROLLING GREEN ENTERPRISES LLC 1 N339QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N339QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 EJA :38 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :47 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N6962C Bell OH-58C 1 N6962C Bell OH-58C 1 N89LC Cook Louis G RV4 23' 0" A I 1 N89LC Cook Louis G RV4 23' 0" A I 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 PTPYV :21 E55P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II 1 N89WC :01 B300 Raytheon B300 Super KingAir 54' 6" B II WEST COAST AVIATION SERVICES LLC 1 N89WC :08 B350 Raytheon B350 Super KingAir 54' 6" B II WEST COAST AVIATION SERVICES LLC 1 N414KD :24 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N568TT :30 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II PACIFIC CREST AIR LLC 1 PTPYV :26 E55P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II 1 N991D :17 BE55 Beech 55 Baron 37' 10" B I VANCE WILLIAM F 1 N991D :17 BE55 Beech 55 Baron 37' 10" B I VANCE WILLIAM F 1 N524PC :36 B300 Raytheon B300 Super KingAir 54' 6" B II WINDAIRWEST LLC 1 N414KD :50 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N8TG :35 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N8TG :39 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N663QS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N663QS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N844QS C560 Cessna ' 2" B II 1 N844QS C560 Cessna ' 2" B II 1 EJA :28 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :39 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :39 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N388QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N388QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 EJA :37 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N568TT :06 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II PACIFIC CREST AIR LLC 1 EJA :14 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :48 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 VNR :25 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 VNR :25 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N524PC :38 B350 Raytheon B350 Super KingAir 54' 6" B II WINDAIRWEST LLC 1 N500FB :15 EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I E-185 LLC 1 N500FB :14 EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I E-185 LLC 1 N9610G :30 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION ENTERPRISES INC 1 N9610G :30 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair 36' 0" A I NORTH STAR AVIATION ENTERPRISES INC 1 N115CJ :49 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N500FB :38 EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I E-185 LLC 1 N115CJ :53 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N414KD :32 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N165SL Piaggio Areo Industries Spa P180 46' 12" B I 1 N165SL Piaggio Areo Industries Spa P180 46' 12" B I 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 VNR :23 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N414KD :26 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N850LM :13 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :13 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N190EF :16 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 VNR :24 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N190EF :32 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N850LM :36 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N627QS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N627QS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N805C BE20 Raytheon Aircraft Company B200 54' 5" B II 1 N805C BE20 Raytheon Aircraft Company B200 54' 5" B II 1 DLX :07 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II Dreamline Aviation 1 DLX :07 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II Dreamline Aviation 1 N8TG :14 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N414KD :57 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP Page 7 of 18

212 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N8TG :00 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N727RS :08 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I 1 N789TT :22 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II TAHOE TETON ASSOCIATES INC 1 N49PH :12 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N200VT :03 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II VAN NUYS SKYWAYS INC 1 N6344Q :17 MO20 Mooney M20 36' 5" A I FLYING BUSINESSMEN LLC 1 N6344Q :17 MO20 Mooney M20 36' 5" A I FLYING BUSINESSMEN LLC 1 VNR :18 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N629AH :59 C172 Cessna ' 1" A I FALKOW STANLEY 1 N629AH :59 C172 Cessna ' 1" A I FALKOW STANLEY 1 N789TT :22 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II TAHOE TETON ASSOCIATES INC 1 VNR :44 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N414KD :00 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N200VT :06 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II VAN NUYS SKYWAYS INC 1 N777LX :08 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 EJA :12 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :19 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N49PH :14 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N126TF :13 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N529FD :08 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N529FD :48 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N777LX :43 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :33 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N48WC BE58 Beech 58P Baron 37' 10" B I AIRSHARES LLC 1 N48WC BE58 Beech 58P Baron 37' 10" B I AIRSHARES LLC 1 N49WC :42 B300 Raytheon B300 Super KingAir 54' 6" B II AMERICAN CAREER COLLEGE INC 1 N850LM :29 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N49WC :58 B350 Raytheon B350 Super KingAir 54' 6" B II AMERICAN CAREER COLLEGE INC 1 N8TG :49 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N500FB :58 EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I E-185 LLC 1 EJA :41 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N8TG :27 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N615QS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N615QS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 EJA :27 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N49PH :59 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N500FB :30 EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I E-185 LLC 1 N726RS :08 KODI Kodiak 100 A I SUGDEN RICHARD 1 N49PH :17 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N126TF :33 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 VNR :34 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N727RS :27 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I 1 N726RS :47 KODI Kodiak 100 A I SUGDEN RICHARD 1 VNR :20 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N777LX :11 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 EJA307P :51 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N307QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N307QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N500FB EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I 1 N500FB EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I 1 N190EF :21 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 EJA307P :10 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N190EF :14 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N190EF :43 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N190EF :43 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N850LM :34 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N438FX LJ45 Lear Jet Inc ' 10" C I 1 N438FX LJ45 Lear Jet Inc ' 10" C I 1 N850LM :13 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N625H Enstrom F-28C 1 N625H Enstrom F-28C 1 LXJ :44 LJ45 LearJet 45 47' 10" C I Bombardier AerospaceBusiness Jet 1 LXJ :44 LJ45 LearJet 45 47' 10" C I Bombardier AerospaceBusiness Jet 1 N4035H :52 M20T Mooney M20 36' 5" A I ON LINE ACCOUNTANT CORP 1 N62SH :33 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I HILLER STEPHEN S 1 N62SH :00 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I HILLER STEPHEN S 1 N941KN :05 C525 Cessna 525C 46' 11" B I SPACE SHUTTLE AIRCRAFT LEASING CO II LLC 1 N941KN :37 525C Cessna 525C 46' 11" B I SPACE SHUTTLE AIRCRAFT LEASING CO II LLC 1 N777LX :39 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC Page 8 of 18

213 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N30JD :27 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II MONDRIAN AVIATION LLC 1 N850LM :37 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 EJA :14 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :14 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :38 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :38 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N Fielitz Richard R KR-2 A I 1 N Fielitz Richard R KR-2 A I 1 N941KN :24 C25C Cessna 525C 46' 11" B I SPACE SHUTTLE AIRCRAFT LEASING CO II LLC 1 N941KN :24 C25C Cessna 525C 46' 11" B I SPACE SHUTTLE AIRCRAFT LEASING CO II LLC 1 N727RS :40 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I 1 N727RS :40 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I 1 BLK :06 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 BLK :07 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 EJA :39 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N80JP Patterson James D Thorp T-18B 20' 10" A I 1 N80JP Patterson James D Thorp T-18B 20' 10" A I 1 EJA :37 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N4035H :24 M20T Mooney M20 36' 5" A I ON LINE ACCOUNTANT CORP 1 BLK :53 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 BLK :43 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 LXJ :29 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Bombardier AerospaceBusiness Jet 1 LXJ :29 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Bombardier AerospaceBusiness Jet 1 N30JD :32 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II MONDRIAN AVIATION LLC 1 N850LM :53 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N532FX CL30 Bombardier Inc BD-100-1A10 63' 10" B II 1 N532FX CL30 Bombardier Inc BD-100-1A10 63' 10" B II 1 N777LX :58 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N890WA :24 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II JUNIPER VALLEY LLC 1 EJA339P :21 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N777LX :42 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N777LX :11 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 EJA339P :55 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N379DB C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N379DB C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N890LE C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N890LE C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N911MT Eurocopter AS 350 B3 1 N911MT Eurocopter AS 350 B3 1 N62SH :50 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I HILLER STEPHEN S 1 N107PT :32 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I PAPA TANGO LLC 1 N62SH :40 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I HILLER STEPHEN S 1 N96GS :33 LJ35 Gates LearJet 35 39' 6" C I WINGS SERVICE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1 PJC :16 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I Pittsburgh Jet Center 1 PJC :36 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I Pittsburgh Jet Center 1 N3011X :35 PA32 Piper PA ' 10" A I C K VENTURES LLC 1 N3011X :35 PA32 Piper PA ' 10" A I C K VENTURES LLC 1 N890WA :15 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II JUNIPER VALLEY LLC 1 N B300 Raytheon B300 Super KingAir 54' 6" B II FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 1 N B300 Raytheon B300 Super KingAir 54' 6" B II FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 1 N911MT Eurocopter AS 350 B3 1 N911MT Eurocopter AS 350 B3 1 OPT :56 H25B Raytheon Hawker 800XP 54' 4" B II Flight Options 1 N8TG :09 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N529FD :38 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N529FD :08 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 VNR :48 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 OPT :54 H25B Raytheon Hawker 800XP 54' 4" B II Flight Options 1 N8TG :03 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N180HM Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N180HM Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N530FX CL30 Bombardier Inc BD-100-1A10 63' 10" B II 1 N530FX CL30 Bombardier Inc BD-100-1A10 63' 10" B II 1 N3590A :04 BE55 Beech 55 Baron 37' 10" B I HILL LONNIE R 1 N3590A :04 BE55 Beech 55 Baron 37' 10" B I HILL LONNIE R 1 VNR :14 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 VNR :16 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 VNR :00 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N107PT :18 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I PAPA TANGO LLC Page 9 of 18

214 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N777LX :51 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 LAK :54 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II Lennox Airways 1 LAK :54 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II Lennox Airways 1 N650E Piper PA-32R ' 10" B I 1 N650E Piper PA-32R ' 10" B I 1 LXJ :37 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Bombardier AerospaceBusiness Jet 1 LXJ :37 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Bombardier AerospaceBusiness Jet 1 N32KW :38 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N32KW :38 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N956EA :58 C340 Cessna ' 1" A I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N850LM :19 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 OPT :42 E55P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II Flight Options 1 N850LM :29 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N307FL E50P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II 1 N307FL E50P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II 1 N51C C560 Cessna ' 2" B II 1 N51C C560 Cessna ' 2" B II 1 N51C C560 Cessna ' 2" B II 1 N51C C560 Cessna ' 2" B II 1 OPT :33 E55P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II Flight Options 1 N96GS :12 LJ35 Gates LearJet 35 39' 6" C I WINGS SERVICE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1 LAK :26 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II Lennox Airways 1 LAK :26 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II Lennox Airways 1 N850LM :53 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :15 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 LXJ :40 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Bombardier AerospaceBusiness Jet 1 LXJ :40 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Bombardier AerospaceBusiness Jet 1 N777LX :49 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N777LX :17 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N718MD Eurocopter AS 350 B3 1 N718MD Eurocopter AS 350 B3 1 N79DB Borg David Ez Flyer 31' 0" A I 1 N79DB Borg David Ez Flyer 31' 0" A I 1 PJC :52 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I Pittsburgh Jet Center 1 PJC :04 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I Pittsburgh Jet Center 1 N458CC Williams Helicopter Corp UH-1H 1 N458CC Williams Helicopter Corp UH-1H 1 N3828G :59 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 N525KR :55 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I ROMBAUER VINEYARDS INC 1 N529FD :57 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N115CJ :54 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N850LM :48 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N525KR :56 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I ROMBAUER VINEYARDS INC 1 N242LF :01 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I METRO AVIATION INC 1 N242LF :01 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I METRO AVIATION INC 1 N529FD :43 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N244WA :23 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II FRESNO JETPROP LLC 1 N244WA :31 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II FRESNO JETPROP LLC 1 N850LM :43 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N8TG :22 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N850LM :08 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N8TG :07 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N850LM :33 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :07 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N244WA :37 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II FRESNO JETPROP LLC 1 N106SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N106SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N244WA :36 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II FRESNO JETPROP LLC 1 VNR :05 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N :52 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I WELLS FARGO BANK NORTHWEST NA TRUSTEE 1 N :52 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I WELLS FARGO BANK NORTHWEST NA TRUSTEE 1 N525KR :31 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I ROMBAUER VINEYARDS INC 1 VNR :51 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N115CJ :03 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N525KR :40 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I ROMBAUER VINEYARDS INC 1 N850LM :01 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N777LX :38 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 EJA :48 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N168ST Bell 206B Page 10 of 18

215 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N214TS Schweizer 369D 1 N214TS Schweizer 369D 1 N341QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N341QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 EJA :52 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 OPT :53 E55P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II Flight Options 1 OPT :53 E55P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II Flight Options 1 N115CJ :36 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N777LX :46 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N163SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N163SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N311FL E50P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II 1 N311FL E50P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II 1 VNR :34 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N30JD :33 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II MONDRIAN AVIATION LLC 1 N115CJ :36 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N551BC :01 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II BOULDER CAPITAL INC 1 N850LM :20 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 VNR :49 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N551BC :30 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II BOULDER CAPITAL INC 1 N24FS Bell 206B 1 N24FS Bell 206B 1 N5373U Bell 206B 1 N5373U Bell 206B 1 N850LM :50 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N777LX :33 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N512MB :11 EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I BOICHCO LLC 1 N777LX :28 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N20LM :24 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II JET WEST LLC 1 N421DK :37 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I D K EXECUTIVE AIR LLC 1 N421DK :52 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I D K EXECUTIVE AIR LLC 1 N926CE :49 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II GROUPER LLC 1 N926CE :09 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II GROUPER LLC 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N777LX :55 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N955EA :40 LJ24 LearJet 24D 35' 7" C I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N30JD :10 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II MONDRIAN AVIATION LLC 1 N4514S :18 BE33 Beech 33 Debonair 33' 6" A I RECKSON CHARLES E 1 N4514S :18 BE33 Beech 33 Debonair 33' 6" A I RECKSON CHARLES E 1 N955EA :05 LJ24 LearJet 24D 35' 7" C I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N115CJ :30 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N115CJ :38 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N777LX :40 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N85T C182 Cessna 182D 36' 0" B I 1 N85T C182 Cessna 182D 36' 0" B I 1 N850LM :02 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N30JD :29 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II MONDRIAN AVIATION LLC 1 N214DV :57 FA50 Dassault Mystere - Falcon 50 61' 9" B II MALTESE FALCON LLC 1 N2328E :04 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II GROUPER LLC 1 N214DV :14 FA50 Dassault Mystere - Falcon 50 61' 9" B II MALTESE FALCON LLC 1 N30JD :24 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II MONDRIAN AVIATION LLC 1 N2328E :09 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II GROUPER LLC 1 N29CT :28 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I WARREN E GOMES EXCAVATING INC 1 N29CT :28 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I WARREN E GOMES EXCAVATING INC 1 N126TF :55 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N20LM :54 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II JET WEST LLC 1 N956EA :01 C340 Cessna ' 1" A I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N956EA :25 C340 Cessna ' 1" A I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N777LX :26 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N807EB :31 SR22 Cirrus SR22 38' 4" A I AIRSHARES ELITE WEST LLC 1 N807EB :31 SR22 Cirrus SR22 38' 4" A I AIRSHARES ELITE WEST LLC 1 N126TF :35 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N956EA :05 C340 Cessna ' 1" A I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N77CA :20 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II CHRISTMANN FRANCES B TRUSTEE 1 N512MB :28 EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I BOICHCO LLC 1 N77CA :38 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II CHRISTMANN FRANCES B TRUSTEE 1 LXJ :28 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Bombardier AerospaceBusiness Jet Page 11 of 18

216 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 LXJ :28 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Bombardier AerospaceBusiness Jet 1 N7YA :29 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROLLING GREEN ENTERPRISES LLC 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N977CH Bell 206B-III 1 N214DV :12 FA50 Dassault Mystere - Falcon 50 61' 9" B II MALTESE FALCON LLC 1 N214DV :12 FA50 Dassault Mystere - Falcon 50 61' 9" B II MALTESE FALCON LLC 1 N C150 Cessna 150L 32' 7" A I 1 N C150 Cessna 150L 32' 7" A I 1 N9CH RA390 Hawker Beechcraft Corp ' 6" B I 1 N9CH RA390 Hawker Beechcraft Corp ' 6" B I 1 N58PL :13 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N397QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N397QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 EJA :06 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :04 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N77CA :28 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II CHRISTMANN FRANCES B TRUSTEE 1 N955EA :04 LJ24 LearJet 24D 35' 7" C I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N955EA :04 LJ24 LearJet 24D 35' 7" C I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 OPT :00 E55P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II Flight Options 1 N314FL E50P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II 1 N314FL E50P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II 1 N49PH BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 9" B I 1 N49PH BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 9" B I 1 OPT :04 E55P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II Flight Options 1 N77CA :45 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II CHRISTMANN FRANCES B TRUSTEE 1 VNR :01 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 VNR :50 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N163SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N163SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N320TM C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N320TM C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 DCM105M :24 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Fltpln.com 1 N529FD :40 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 VNR :19 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 VNR :00 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 DCM105M :58 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Fltpln.com 1 N529FD :57 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N49PH :38 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N49PH :54 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N8TG LJ31 Lear Jet Inc. 31A 44' 4' B I 1 N8TG LJ31 Lear Jet Inc. 31A 44' 4' B I 1 N2668A :17 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N2668A :46 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N926CE :43 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II GROUPER LLC 1 N926CE :53 C560 Cessna ' 2" B II GROUPER LLC 1 N156SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N156SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N622KM :10 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II K & M EQUIPMENT CO LLC 1 EJA :03 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N8TG :05 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N8TG :07 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N585VC :10 H25B Raytheon Hawker 800XP 54' 4" B II FOUNTAIN LLC 1 VNR :19 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N7YA :33 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROLLING GREEN ENTERPRISES LLC 1 EJA :02 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 VNR :51 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N2328E :21 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II GROUPER LLC 1 N2328E :08 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II GROUPER LLC 1 N370QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N370QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 EJA :37 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N115CJ :22 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 EJA :27 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N115CJ :27 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N585C Widmer Robert H Widmer C2CWS 1 N585C Widmer Robert H Widmer C2CWS 1 N585VC :56 H25B Raytheon Hawker 800XP 54' 4" B II FOUNTAIN LLC 1 N8TG :03 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N8TG :10 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC Page 12 of 18

217 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N49PH :24 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N622KM :17 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II K & M EQUIPMENT CO LLC 1 N9120Y :33 PA46 Piper PA P 43' 0" A I TURBO AIR LLC 1 N9120Y :33 PA46 Piper PA P 43' 0" A I TURBO AIR LLC 1 N49PH :18 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N5NM :37 C414 Cessna ' 1.5" B I MORTON TRANSPORT LLC 1 N585VC :53 H25B Raytheon Hawker 800XP 54' 4" B II FOUNTAIN LLC 1 N525LF :07 C525 Cessna ' 11" B I MALLARD AIR LLC 1 VNR :01 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 VNR :01 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N585VC :32 H25B Raytheon Hawker 800XP 54' 4" B II FOUNTAIN LLC 1 EJA :28 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N61RW :27 Cessna 320E 35' 0" A I SCHATZ RODNEY J 1 N61RW :27 Cessna 320E 35' 0" A I SCHATZ RODNEY J 1 EJA :11 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N2668A :13 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N2668A :02 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N58PL :28 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N365PM :10 SR22 Cirrus SR22 38' 4" A I TERRA VISTA MANAGEMENT INC 1 N365PM :10 SR22 Cirrus SR22 38' 4" A I TERRA VISTA MANAGEMENT INC 1 N525LF :48 C525 Cessna ' 11" B I MALLARD AIR LLC 1 N550BN :55 C182 Cessna 182Q A I BENSON PAUL L 1 N550BN :55 C182 Cessna 182Q A I BENSON PAUL L 1 N244WA :24 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II FRESNO JETPROP LLC 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N244WA :19 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II FRESNO JETPROP LLC 1 N338QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N338QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N955RA BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 9" B I 1 N955RA BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 9" B I 1 EJA :45 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N244WA :18 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II FRESNO JETPROP LLC 1 N244WA :18 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II FRESNO JETPROP LLC 1 N955EA :33 LJ24 LearJet 24D 35' 7" C I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N7454Y :28 PA30 Piper PA-30 36' 9.5" A I MARSHALL GEORGE G 1 N7454Y :28 PA30 Piper PA-30 36' 9.5" A I MARSHALL GEORGE G 1 EJA :15 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N955EA :35 LJ24 LearJet 24D 35' 7" C I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N475HC :58 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II POTOMAC STREET PARTNERS LLP 1 EJA :53 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N199KM :02 Beech V35B A I ORLOFF KENNETH LEE TRUSTEE 1 N199KM :02 Beech V35B A I ORLOFF KENNETH LEE TRUSTEE 1 N6516K Bell 206L-3 1 N6516K Bell 206L-3 1 N574CP :34 SR22 Cirrus SR22 38' 4" A I HINCKLEY MONTANA LLC 1 N475HC :02 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II POTOMAC STREET PARTNERS LLP 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 N168ST Bell 206B 1 EJA :38 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 FIV :34 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II CitationAir 1 N Aerotech Pitts Special S-1S 17'5" B I 1 N Aerotech Pitts Special S-1S 17'5" B I 1 FIV :28 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II CitationAir 1 N955EA :29 LJ24 LearJet 24D 35' 7" C I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N2668A :34 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N955EA :10 LJ24 LearJet 24D 35' 7" C I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N2668A :53 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N500FB :35 EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I E-185 LLC 1 N62HP Bell Helicopter Textron Canada 206L-4 1 N62HP Bell Helicopter Textron Canada 206L-4 1 N Air Gulfstream Airlines Inc. SX-30 24' 4. 5" B I Air Gulfstream Airlines Inc 1 N Air Gulfstream Airlines Inc. SX-30 24' 4. 5" B I Air Gulfstream Airlines Inc 1 N500FB :07 EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I E-185 LLC 1 N500FB :07 EA50 Eclipse Aviation Corp EA500 37' 3" B I E-185 LLC 1 FIV :22 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II CitationAir 1 N7YA :55 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROLLING GREEN ENTERPRISES LLC 1 N605CS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N605CS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 FIV :01 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II CitationAir 1 FIV :39 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II CitationAir Page 13 of 18

218 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 FIV :13 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II CitationAir 1 N622CS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N622CS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 FIV :04 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II CitationAir 1 FIV :04 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II CitationAir 1 N C206 Cessna U206G 36' 0" A I 1 N C206 Cessna U206G 36' 0" A I 1 N623QS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N623QS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N850LM :13 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 EJA :06 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N850LM :32 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 EJA :26 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N320QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N320QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 EJA :17 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :24 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N320QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N320QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N126TF :25 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N126TF :25 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 EJA :20 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N58PL :46 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N850LM :14 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N777LX :40 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 EJA :20 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N850LM :45 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N416AT :09 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II ACE TOMATO CO INC 1 N381HP :11 PA32 Piper PA-32R-301T 32' 10" A I RANCHO PACIFIC HOLDINGS LLC 1 N381HP :11 PA32 Piper PA-32R-301T 32' 10" A I RANCHO PACIFIC HOLDINGS LLC 1 N525LF :25 C525 Cessna ' 11" B I MALLARD AIR LLC 1 N :04 C425 Cessna ' 2" B I VECTOR GROUP AVIATION LLC 1 N525LF :19 C525 Cessna ' 11" B I MALLARD AIR LLC 1 N :15 C425 Cessna ' 2" B I VECTOR GROUP AVIATION LLC 1 N307QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N307QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N715HT Sikorsky CH-54B 1 N715HT Sikorsky CH-54B 1 N525LF :27 C525 Cessna ' 11" B I MALLARD AIR LLC 1 N77CA :39 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II CHRISTMANN FRANCES B TRUSTEE 1 EJA :54 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N525LF :16 C525 Cessna ' 11" B I MALLARD AIR LLC 1 EJA :08 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N127DE Eurocopter AS 350 B3 1 N127DE Eurocopter AS 350 B3 1 N6516K Bell 206L-3 1 N6516K Bell 206L-3 1 N777LX :17 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N416AT :31 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II ACE TOMATO CO INC 1 N777LX :35 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N359CV :23 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II WEN LLC 1 N359CV :23 PC12 Pilatus PC ' 3" B II WEN LLC 1 N585VC :35 H25B Raytheon Hawker 800XP 54' 4" B II FOUNTAIN LLC 1 N777LX :22 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N585VC :17 HS25 Raytheon Hawker 800XP 54' 4" B II FOUNTAIN LLC 1 N777LX :20 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N524FX CL30 Bombardier Inc BD-100-1A10 63' 10" B II 1 N524FX CL30 Bombardier Inc BD-100-1A10 63' 10" B II 1 N777LX :07 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N132BB :31 LANC Lancair Super ES 37' 6" A I BURR BRYAN J 1 N132BB :31 LANC Lancair Super ES 37' 6" A I BURR BRYAN J 1 BJS :27 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Business Jet Solutions 1 BJS :27 CL30 Bombardier Challenger ' 10" B II Business Jet Solutions 1 N8TG :25 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N126TF :10 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N77CA :38 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II CHRISTMANN FRANCES B TRUSTEE 1 N8TG :45 LJ31 Gates LearJet 31 44' 4" B I KITTY HAWK AIRCRAFT SERVICES LLC 1 N126TF :29 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N161SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N161SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N722LM Bell 206-L4 Page 14 of 18

219 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N722LM Bell 206-L4 1 BLK :29 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 BLK :03 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 VNR :42 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N414KD :19 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 VNR :30 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N904JG BE9L Raytheon Aircraft Company C90G 50' 2" B II 1 N904JG BE9L Raytheon Aircraft Company C90G 50' 2" B II 1 N414KD :08 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N135BH Sikorsky S70A-27 1 N135BH Sikorsky S70A-27 1 N214TS Schweizer 269D 1 N214TS Schweizer 269D 1 N1114K :10 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II ROGERS JOHN STUART TRUSTEE 1 N2668A :04 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N1114K :18 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II ROGERS JOHN STUART TRUSTEE 1 N2668A :54 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 421C LLC 1 N204UH Bell UH-1B 1 N204UH Bell UH-1B 1 N245T C421 Cessna 421C 41' 7" B I 1 N245T C421 Cessna 421C 41' 7" B I 1 N574CP :23 SR22 Cirrus SR22 38' 4" A I HINCKLEY MONTANA LLC 1 BLK :23 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 BLK :23 BLK BLK BLK Blocked by owner 1 N245J :23 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II PALISADES AIRCRAFT INC 1 N416P BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 9" B I 1 N416P BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 9" B I 1 N C210 Cessna ' 9" B I 1 N C210 Cessna ' 9" B I 1 N C210 Cessna ' 9" B I 1 N C210 Cessna ' 9" B I 1 N585K Kremer Gabriel J Zodiac 601XL 27' 0" A I 1 N585K Kremer Gabriel J Zodiac 601XL 27' 0" A I 1 N877QS H25B Hawker Beechcraft Corp 900XP 54' 4" B II 1 N877QS H25B Hawker Beechcraft Corp 900XP 54' 4" B II 1 EJA :45 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 AIP :50 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 N242LF :31 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I METRO AVIATION INC 1 N242LF :31 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I METRO AVIATION INC 1 N245J :21 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II PALISADES AIRCRAFT INC 1 TTE :38 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II Avcenter 1 EJA :10 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N1445H :33 P32R Piper PA-32R-301T 32' 10" A I LEGACY TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC 1 N301TS :34 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I NEPTUNE AVIATION SERVICES INC 1 N3828G :09 C310 Cessna ' 0" A I CHOICE AVIATION LLC 1 AIP :29 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 N90MU :31 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II VINDIG AIR LLC 1 TTE :56 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II Avcenter 1 N136SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N136SL Piaggio P180 46' 12" B I 1 N404MD BE35 Beech S35 33' 6" A I 1 N404MD BE35 Beech S35 33' 6" A I 1 N509CS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 N509CS C56X Cessna 560XL 56'4" B II 1 AIP :25 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :55 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :36 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :36 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :46 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :07 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :53 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :33 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 FIV :57 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II CitationAir 1 N30RL :11 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO 1 N1445H :15 P32R Piper PA-32R-301T 32' 10" A I LEGACY TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC 1 FIV :40 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II CitationAir 1 VNR :09 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N301TS :10 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I NEPTUNE AVIATION SERVICES INC 1 VNR :26 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 FIV :58 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II CitationAir 1 N90MU :26 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II VINDIG AIR LLC Page 15 of 18

220 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N1363W Bell UH-1H 1 N1363W Bell UH-1H 1 N126TF :42 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 FIV :28 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II CitationAir 1 N30RL :43 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO 1 N501TC :51 AC50 Rockwell Commander ' 0.5" B II COURTNEY AVIATION INC 1 N501TC :51 AC50 Rockwell Commander ' 0.5" B II COURTNEY AVIATION INC 1 N32KW :28 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N32KW :04 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N32KW :00 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N214DV :53 FA50 Dassault Mystere - Falcon 50 61' 9" B II MALTESE FALCON LLC 1 N126TF :54 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 EJA :57 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N342QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N342QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N361QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N361QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N425CS C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N425CS C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 FIV :12 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I CitationAir 1 FIV :12 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I CitationAir 1 N5531B :46 C182 Cessna ' 0" A I ALBRIGHT DAVID M 1 N5531B :46 C182 Cessna ' 0" A I ALBRIGHT DAVID M 1 EJA :58 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N214DV :59 FA50 Dassault Mystere - Falcon 50 61' 9" B II MALTESE FALCON LLC 1 N187SL Piaggio Areo Industries Spa P180 46' 12" B I 1 N187SL Piaggio Areo Industries Spa P180 46' 12" B I 1 AIP :44 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :22 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :10 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :14 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 N731PJ :18 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N425CS C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N425CS C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 AIP :50 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :39 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :12 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :04 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 EJA :22 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :59 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N2328E :53 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II GROUPER LLC 1 N411KC :21 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II KING AIR LEASING LLC 1 N731PJ :29 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N411KC :47 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II KING AIR LEASING LLC 1 N68MU BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I N21WY AVIATION LLC 1 N68MU BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I N21WY AVIATION LLC 1 N2328E :51 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II GROUPER LLC 1 AIP :49 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :39 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :54 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :46 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 N414KD :41 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :45 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 AIP :46 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :46 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :43 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :07 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 N850LM :42 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N850LM :49 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N342QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N342QS C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II 1 N710MD SR20 Cirrus Design Corp SR20 38' 4" A I 1 N710MD SR20 Cirrus Design Corp SR20 38' 4" A I 1 EJA :24 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N2328E :08 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II GROUPER LLC 1 EJA :11 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N513SJ :23 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 1976 CESSNA 421 LLC 1 N513SJ :07 C421 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 41' 1.5" B I 1976 CESSNA 421 LLC 1 N636SD :29 E50P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II LANI ACQUISITIONS LLC 1 N636SD :08 E50P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II LANI ACQUISITIONS LLC 1 N2328E :49 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II GROUPER LLC Page 16 of 18

221 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N49PH :16 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N414KD :44 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N115CJ :18 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N414KD :27 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N49PH :29 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N115CJ :59 C25A Cessna 525A 46' 11" B I CONQUEST SERVICES INC 1 N911MT Eurocopter AS 350 B3 1 N911MT Eurocopter AS 350 B3 1 N416AT :07 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II ACE TOMATO CO INC 1 N15CT :53 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II THOMAS CHARLES F 1 N30JD :28 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II MONDRIAN AVIATION LLC 1 N113TN :01 M20T Mooney M20 36' 5" A I MOUNTAIN WEST HELICOPTERS LLC 1 N113TN :01 M20T Mooney M20 36' 5" A I MOUNTAIN WEST HELICOPTERS LLC 1 N58PL :59 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 FIV :11 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I CitationAir 1 FIV :11 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I CitationAir 1 N509SB C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 N509SB C525 Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I 1 VNR :18 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N190EF BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II 1 N190EF BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II 1 N22RS G-IV Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV 77' 10" B II 1 N22RS G-IV Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV 77' 10" B II 1 N829TG C550 Cessna S550 52'2" B II 1 N829TG C550 Cessna S550 52'2" B II 1 VNR :26 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N15CT :01 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II THOMAS CHARLES F 1 N30JD :28 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II MONDRIAN AVIATION LLC 1 N416AT :50 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II ACE TOMATO CO INC 1 AIP :06 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :59 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :46 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 AIP :31 B190 Beechcraft ' 9" B II Alpine Aviation 1 N190EF :46 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N190EF :54 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N529FD :05 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N49PH :17 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N49PH :20 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I KING AERO LLC 1 N529FD :00 TBM8 Socata TBM ' 7" B I FDT LLC 1 N242NA :24 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II USTOWER CORP 1 N23BV :07 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I SHERPA 5 LLC 1 N51FR :28 C182 Cessna ' 0" A I BANDOW GEORGE 1 N51FR :49 C82R Cessna ' 0" A I BANDOW GEORGE 1 N242NA :29 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II USTOWER CORP 1 N711LD :46 PAY1 Piper Cheyenne 1 42' 8.25" B I ALLEGHENY INDUSTRIES INC 1 N100JD :04 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II N21WY AVIATION LLC 1 N100JD :04 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II N21WY AVIATION LLC 1 N30VR :07 C525 Cessna ' 11" B I 1 N30VR :17 C525 Cessna ' 11" B I 1 VNR :59 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 VNR :02 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N23BV :11 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I SHERPA 5 LLC 1 N711LD :19 PAY1 Piper Cheyenne 1 42' 8.25" B I ALLEGHENY INDUSTRIES INC 1 N923WM Bell Helicopter Textron Canada N923WM Bell Helicopter Textron Canada N732NL :03 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N4582P PA Piper PA ' 2.5" B I 1 N4582P PA Piper PA ' 2.5" B I 1 N68MU :35 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I REISEN LLC 1 N732NL :46 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N732NL :27 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N68MU :32 BE10 Beech B100 KingAir 45' 10.5" B I REISEN LLC 1 N153GA C Beech 1900C 57' 9" B II 1 N153GA C Beech 1900C 57' 9" B II 1 EJA :02 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :09 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :52 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :02 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :02 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N777LX :05 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 N956EA :55 C340 Cessna ' 1" A I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC Page 17 of 18

222 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT MERGED FLIGHT AWARE WITH NORTH STAR AVIATION FUEL SALES DATA NOVEMBER OCTOBER 2011 = Fuel List = FlightAware List = On Both Fuel & Flight Aware = Expanded Flight Aware to assure arrival departure operations match Ops Ident Departure Time Approach Airplane Type Description Wingspan (ft) Fuel Date Category Design Group Owner 1 N956EA :08 C340 Cessna ' 1" A I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 EJA :20 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II Netjets Aviation 1 EJA :05 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N777LX :24 C56X Cessna 560X 52' 2" B II JOHN R MILLER ENTERPRISES III LLC 1 EJA :06 C680 Cessna 680 Sovereign 63' 1" B II Netjets Aviation 1 N636SD :54 E50P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II LANI ACQUISITIONS LLC 1 N636SD :04 E50P Embraer Phenom ' 2" B II LANI ACQUISITIONS LLC 1 N731PJ :45 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N1114K :56 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II ROGERS JOHN STUART TRUSTEE 1 N190EF :58 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N190EF :22 BE9L Beech C90 KingAir 50' 2" B II EASTERDAY FARMS 1 N1114K :46 BE20 Raytheon B200 Super KingAir 54' 5" B II ROGERS JOHN STUART TRUSTEE 1 N68MU BE10 Beech B100 45' 10.5" B I 1 N68MU BE10 Beech B100 45' 10.5" B I 1 N414KD :34 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N126TF :19 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N414KD :16 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N732NL :22 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I HUTTON CONSTRUCTION INC 1 N32KW :01 PAY2 Piper Cheyenne 2 42' 8.25" B I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N731PJ :43 C210 Cessna 210 Centurion 36' 9" A I GRAZIANO JOSEPH A 1 N242LF :54 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I METRO AVIATION INC 1 N242LF :54 BE9T Beech F90 KingAir 45' 11" B I METRO AVIATION INC 1 N126TF :35 C550 Cessna ' 2" B II FOX LUMBER SALES INC 1 N955EA :45 LJ24 LearJet 24D 35' 7" C I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 N955EA :45 LJ24 LearJet 24D 35' 7" C I EXEC AIR MONTANA INC 1 VNR :57 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 VNR :23 P180 Piaggio P180 46' 0.5" B I Avantair 1 N414KD :38 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1 N414KD :29 C25B Cessna 525B 46' 11" B I OAKMONT CORP 1236 A = = I B = = II C = = BLK BLK = 14 Helicopter = = Helicopter Page 18 of 18

223 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY - AIRCRAFT TYPE AND NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - Runway Length Required AS RESPONDED: Approximate Approximate annual flights into annual flights into Hamilton? Hamilton? Name Company Aircraft Type Wing Span Stall Speed Weight Aircraft Structural Repair, Inc. Cessna x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' American Aircraft Traders LLC Taylorcraft BC-12D x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' AvCenter, Inc Cessna Citation V 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 5,200' 5 5 AvCenter, Inc Beechcraft King Air B200 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 1 <1 AvCenter, Inc Cessna 182 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' C2C, LLC. Cirrus SR22 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Choice Aviation Cessna SEL, MEL, Piston and Turbine 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. > 5,200' 104 Several Per Day D.L. Hanson Inc Mooney, Citation 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 > 5,200' Dewey Land Co light jet 49' x < 79' x 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 4,800' 4 4 Dewey Land Co Piaggio II x < 49' x 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,800' 4 4 DJ&A PC Experimental Rans S-12 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 6 6 Douglas Aviation J 3 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Dreamline Aviation BE-200, LR31, LR45 x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 > 5,200' 5 5 Flight Options, LLC Various x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 5,200' to 12 Flight Options, LLC various x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 30,000 < w < 60,000 > 5,200' 2 TBD Flights of Fantasy, llc C-182, Aeronca 15AC x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' framing systems inc cessna 337 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' framing systems inc piper pa-18 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Frontier Guns & Ammo Cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Gem State Transportation Inc Twin Cessna 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs Grouper LLC dba AbleAir B200 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 > 5,200' Grouper LLC dba AbleAir Encore+ 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 5,200' 6 6 Grouper LLC dba AbleAir c206 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 2 2 Hat Creek Helicopters, LLC R44 Helicopter, Cessna 310 x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,800' Hat Creek Helicopters, LLC Cessna Citation x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 5,200' 4 4 Hutton Fine Builders Cessna T210G x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Information Engineering Services Waiex x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 0 0 Kullick Law Office Cessna 182 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Little Drawers Mooney M20E x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 60 4 to 6 per month Metro Aviation Inc. (St. Patrick Life Flight) King Air x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Mission Mountain Helicopters Mulitple. Rotor and Fixed x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 5,200' Mountain Aero Piper PA12 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Mountain Aero Cessna 172,182,180 Maule M6,M7 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Mountain Air Insurance Cessna 172N x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Mountain Air Insurance Services Cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' NA Helicopter x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' na Citabria x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' NetJets Aviation, Inc. Business Jets 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 > 5,200' North Star Aviation Citation ' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 > 5,200' North Star Aviation King Air B100 x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 5,200' Survey respondent's name omitted for privacy Survey respondent's name omitted for privacy Northair, LLC Cessna 310, Maule M6, American Champion 7GCBC x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. > 5,200' Oakmont Corporation Cessna Citation CJ3 x < 49' x < 70 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 4,200' Osprey Aviation L.L.C. Cessna 206 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Racach Air Cessna x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' RE Murrill LLC Bonanza 35 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Year round Year round RE Murrill LLC Cessna Skylane x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Year round Year round Retired RV-6 Homebuilt x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Retired Cessna 172 Skyhawk x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 4 4 retired C152 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 4 4 Retired Piper Cherokee, PA-140 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Rocky mountain log homes Husky x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 5 5 Rocky Mountain Log Homes Cherokee 140 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' self C182 RG x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' self employed Realtor Cessna 182 Skylane x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' sequoia capital falcon 50EX 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 30,000 < w < 60,000 5,200' Thunder Fire Services Cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Tin Bender Aviation Aircraft Restoration Facility x < 49' 5,200' Tioga RV & Trailer Park, INC PA x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Tri Counties Bank KingAir C90-B 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Tuck Beckstoffer Wines Pilatus PC12 49' x < 79' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 5,200' 6 6 Tuck Beckstoffer Wines Cessna CJ3 x < 49' x 93 Knots 30,000 < w < 60,000 5,200' 3 3 West Fork Lodge C-182 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Willow Aviation Aeronca Chame x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Bonanaza A36TC x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' PA 32 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cirrus SR22 Turbo x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' PA28 150B (Piper Cherokee) x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' single eng. land x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' <5 <5 RV-10 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Kitfox Model IV x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' CESSNA x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Piper Pacer PA x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 4 4 Piaggio x < 49' x 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,800' 3 3 per year PA-20 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' rv-4 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna 182 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' cessna a-185-e & 140a x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. > 5,200' 0 0 Beech Bonanza H-35 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' per year Cessna 182` x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 0 0 Stinson x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 2 2 Cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' per month RV-8 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 0 ft not yet completed Cirrus SR22 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cirrus SR22 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' RV-6A x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' cessna 185 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 5 5 Citation Sovereign 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 30,000 < w < 60,000 4,800' Citation Sovereign 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 30,000 < w < 60,000 4,800' 5 5 Cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Home built Super Cub x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Piper PA 2220 Pacer x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' PA 30 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cesna 150 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' King Air F90 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' per year Cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna 182 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 12e, light business use Diamond hk36 49' x < 79' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna 414a x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,800' Vans RV-9A x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 0 0 RV-8A x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 4 4 RV-12 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' c 150 tw 160hp x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 6 6 CESSNA 182 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' RV-8 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Lear 31 x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30, PA x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' P210, T182T, C152 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna ' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,800' 7 7 Cessna Citation Mustang x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,800' 2 2 cesna x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Vans RV7A x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna 182 x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs Cessna 182 x < 49' x < 70 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 4,200' of 2

224 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY - AIRCRAFT TYPE AND NUMBER OF FLIGHTS - Name Company Aircraft Type Wing Span Stall Speed Weight Survey respondent's name omitted for privacy Runway Length Required AS RESPONDED: Approximate Approximate annual flights into annual flights into Hamilton? Hamilton? Cessna 182 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna 182 (project) I also fly 2 other AC in and out of Hamilton x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. > 5,200' Piper Seneca x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' PA x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Experimental Vans RV-6 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Socata TB-21 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' American Champion Explorer x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna 172L x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' Cessna 182 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' fixed wing and rotor craft x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' BE-35 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 5 3 to 6 Cessna 310 x < 49' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,800' 6 6 C182q x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' homebuilt- cessna 172 x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' 6 6 BE-20 49' x < 79' 70 Knots x < 93 Knots 12,500 < w < 30,000 4,200' Skywagon x < 49' x < 70 Knots w < 12,500 lbs. 4,200' WING SPAN SUMMARY RUNWAY LENGTH SUMMARY No Response 2 No Response 5 Number x < (Design Group I) Number 4,200' 100 Number 49' x < 79' 19 (Design Group II) Number 4,800' 10 Number 79' > x 0 (Design Group III) Number 5,200' Number > 5,200' STALL SPEED SUMMARY AIRCRAFT WT. SUMMARY No Response 3 No Response 3 Number x < 70 Knots 98 ( Approach Cat. A) No. w < 12,500 lbs. 114 Number 49' x < 79' 30 ( Approach Cat. B) No. 12,500 < w < 30, Number 79' > x 4 ( Approach Cat. C) No. 30,000 < w < 60, No. 60,000 < w < 100,000 0 No. 100,000 < w Total: of 2

225 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY - REGARDING HANGARS - Would own a Name Company Aircraft Type Own a hangar at Hamilton? hangar if improved? Hangar comments Aircraft Structural Repair, Inc. Cessna No No American Aircraft Traders LLC Taylorcraft BC-12D No No based in missoula AvCenter, Inc Cessna Citation V No No AvCenter, Inc Beechcraft King Air B200 AvCenter, Inc Cessna 182 C2C, LLC. Cirrus SR22 Yes Choice Aviation Cessna SEL, MEL, Piston and Yes Turbine D.L. Hanson Inc Mooney, Citation Yes Dewey Land Co light jet No No Dewey Land Co Piaggio II DJ&A PC Experimental Rans S-12 No No More affordable lots Douglas Aviation J 3 Yes Dreamline Aviation BE-200, LR31, LR45 No Sometimes Flight Options, LLC Various No No unlikely given the nature of our business model Flight Options, LLC various Flights of Fantasy, llc C-182, Aeronca 15AC Yes framing systems inc cessna 337 Yes framing systems inc piper pa-18 Frontier Guns & Ammo Cessna 172 Yes Gem State Transportation Inc Twin Cessna Yes Hamilton needs 7000 ft runway to keep current with the rest of the world. Grouper LLC dba AbleAir B200 No No Grouper LLC dba AbleAir Encore+ Grouper LLC dba AbleAir c206 Hat Creek Helicopters, LLC R44 Helicopter, Cessna 310 Yes Hat Creek Helicopters, LLC Cessna Citation Hutton Fine Builders Cessna T210G Yes Information Engineering Services Waiex No No Not based in Hamilton: transient only Kullick Law Office Cessna 182 Yes Little Drawers Mooney M20E Yes Metro Aviation Inc. (St. Patrick Life Flight) King Air No No Mission Mountain Helicopters Mulitple. Rotor and Fixed Yes Mountain Aero Piper PA12 No No Mountain Aero Cessna 172,182,180 Maule M6,M7 Mountain Air Insurance Cessna 172N Yes Mountain Air Insurance Services Cessna 172 Yes NA Helicopter No No na Citabria Yes NetJets Aviation, Inc. Business Jets No No Answer is general 'no', our use would be weather dependent as transient. Survey respondent's name omitted for privacy Survey respondent's name omitted for privacy North Star Aviation Citation 550 No Yes North Star Aviation King Air B100 Northair, LLC Cessna 310, Maule M6, American No Yes Champion 7GCBC Oakmont Corporation Cessna Citation CJ3 No Yes space for a Citation CJ3 Osprey Aviation L.L.C. Cessna 206 Yes Racach Air Cessna Yes RE Murrill LLC Bonanza 35 Yes RE Murrill LLC Cessna Skylane Retired RV-6 Homebuilt No No I would recommend that little be changed at the airport Retired Cessna 172 Skyhawk No No I live in Missoula, MT retired C152 No No Retired Piper Cherokee, PA-140 Yes Rocky mountain log homes Husky Yes Rocky Mountain Log Homes Cherokee 140 Yes self C182 RG No Yes space for one 182 self employed Realtor Cessna 182 Skylane Yes sequoia capital falcon 50EX No Yes Thunder Fire Services Cessna 172 No No Tin Bender Aviation Aircraft Restoration Facility Yes Airport could increase its own income by providing a row of "T" hangers for rent. Tioga RV & Trailer Park, INC PA No No Tri Counties Bank KingAir C90-B No No Tuck Beckstoffer Wines Pilatus PC12 No Yes Tuck Beckstoffer Wines Cessna CJ3 West Fork Lodge C-182 No Yes Currently have a hangar on my private strip. If it wasn't for that I would hangar at 6S5. Willow Aviation Aeronca Chame Yes Bonanaza A36TC Yes PA 32 Yes Cirrus SR22 Turbo Yes I rent hangar space from Northstar when I'm there. PA28 150B (Piper Cherokee) No No I live in Missoula and keep my plane in Stevensville, visit Hamilton Often. single eng. land No No I no longer own a airplane but may in the future RV-10 No No Kitfox Model IV No No 180 CESSNA No No Piper Pacer PA No No Cessna 172 Yes Airport design and construction must increase hangar space for future usage. cessna 172 No No Piaggio No No PA-20 Yes rv-4 Cessna 182 Yes cessna a-185-e & 140a No No About fifteen years ago I was told over the radio not to come back as my aircraft is loud. We have a hanger at Stevensville. Beech Bonanza H-35 No No Cessna 182` No No Stinson No No probably not as I presently live in Kalispell. Cessna 172 No No RV-8 Cirrus SR22 Yes 1 of 2

226 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY - REGARDING HANGARS - Name Company Aircraft Type Cirrus SR22 RV-6A Survey respondent's name omitted for privacy Own a hangar at Hamilton? Would own a hangar if improved? Hangar comments Yes cessna 185 No No Citation Sovereign No No Citation Sovereign No No Cessna 172 Yes Need more space to accommodate future growth. Home built Super Cub Piper PA 2220 Pacer No No PA 30 No No Cesna 150 No No No No King Air F90 No No Normally turns around after unloading passengers. Cessna 172 Yes Cessna 182 Yes Diamond hk36 Yes Am planning to build a hangar Cessna 414a Vans RV-9A No Yes One t-hanger RV-8A No RV-12 c 150 tw 160hp No No I hangar my plane in mso. I often fly to hamilton CESSNA 182 No No USE TIEDOWNS DURING STAYS IN SUMMER Cessna 172 No Yes RV-8 Lear 31 No No PA No No P210, T182T, C152 Yes Cessna 414 No Cessna Citation Mustang No No cesna No No Vans RV7A No No I currently hanger at Stevensville Cessna 182 Yes Cessna 182 Yes Cessna 182 No Yes Cessna 182 (project) I also fly 2 other AC in and out of Hamilton Yes I would possibly build someday, if smaller more convenient lots were available. I work for a major structural repair facility that had to build in Stevensville, because they were given one unsuitable option in a crappy spot. Piper Seneca No No PA Yes Experimental Vans RV-6 Yes Cessna 172 No not at this time Socata TB-21 No No Live in Missoula American Champion Explorer Cessna 172L No No I have a Hanger at Stevensville 32S Cessna 182 Yes fixed wing and rotor craft No No BE-35 No No Cessna 310 No Yes 60x50 C182q No No homebuilt- cessna 172 No BE-20 No No 185 Skywagon Yes Yes No Yes I am currently a renter 2 of 2

227 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY - GENERAL COMMENTS - Name Company Aircraft Type Other Improvements or recommendations? Aircraft Structural Repair, Inc. Cessna American Aircraft Traders LLC Taylorcraft BC-12D AvCenter, Inc Cessna Citation V Last time there the taxiway asphalt lookedwas a bit rough and the markings on both the runway and taxiway were extremely faded. Would do some good to at least repaint the markings. Survey respondent's name omitted for privacy AvCenter, Inc Beechcraft King Air B200 AvCenter, Inc Cessna 182 C2C, LLC. Cirrus SR22 Choice Aviation Cessna SEL, MEL, Piston and Instrument Proceedures Turbine D.L. Hanson Inc Mooney, Citation Dewey Land Co light jet lengthen runway to handle mid-size jets..ie Hawker 800 for take off Dewey Land Co Piaggio II DJ&A PC Experimental Rans S-12 A longer runway. Douglas Aviation J 3 Dreamline Aviation BE-200, LR31, LR45 Runway length for landing is primary issue Flight Options, LLC Various Flight Options, LLC various Flights of Fantasy, llc C-182, Aeronca 15AC The current main taxiway, as well as the secondary taxiway between the first two rows of hangars to the west of the main taxiway, are in deplorable shape. Rocks have caused numerous nicks in propellers, some so severe that the props have needed replacement. framing systems inc cessna 337 realine runway to avoid hill on north end framing systems inc piper pa-18 Frontier Guns & Ammo Cessna 172 taxi way improvements Gem State Transportation Inc Twin Cessna An airport manager that knows aviation. More hangar space. Hamilton is 50 years behind, 5200 ft was recommended in Today it should be 7000 ft. Grouper LLC dba AbleAir B200 More ramp for parking Grouper LLC dba AbleAir Encore+ Grouper LLC dba AbleAir c206 Hat Creek Helicopters, LLC R44 Helicopter, Cessna 310 runway length, pavement, lighted taxiways Hat Creek Helicopters, LLC Cessna Citation Hutton Fine Builders Cessna T210G Sewer Access to all hangars Information Engineering Services Waiex Kullick Law Office Cessna 182 Lengthen runway, repave taxiways and roadways Little Drawers Mooney M20E new and improved taxiway more paved tie down area Metro Aviation Inc. (St. Patrick Life Flight) King Air Lower approach minimums. Ceiling information on automated weather. Mission Mountain Helicopters Mulitple. Rotor and Fixed Runways resurfaced. Taxiways resurfaced. Mountain Aero Piper PA12 Mountain Aero Cessna 172,182,180 Maule M6,M7 Mountain Air Insurance Cessna 172N Mountain Air Insurance Services Cessna 172 Taxi ways are rough NA Helicopter Build a new runway to the East of exsisting runway. na Citabria Separate grass strip for sailplane operations NetJets Aviation, Inc. Business Jets Lengthened runway? Procedures written for min straight in Cat C. Appropriate runway strength. North Star Aviation Citation 550 Instrument approaches with lower minimums and usable at night. North Star Aviation King Air B100 Northair, LLC Cessna 310, Maule M6, American Needs more aircraft parking & ramp area. Need more building space. Need longer runway. Champion 7GCBC Oakmont Corporation Cessna Citation CJ3 extend the length of the runway to 5k feet. Osprey Aviation L.L.C. Cessna 206 Racach Air Cessna Taxiways are to narrow, need better marking and need to be repaved. Runway is generally similary remarks. RE Murrill LLC Bonanza 35 The airport is great just the way it is for general aviation, Please leave it alone!! RE Murrill LLC Cessna Skylane Retired RV-6 Homebuilt The only thing i would suggest that nothing be done at the airport. However, I realize that the FAA is wanting to change the configuration so that the airport is brought within current safety standards. Primarily I would suggest that a waiver should be sought so that no changes would be made until funds are available to complete rebuild the airport to current standards. Was the airport built to standards that were in effect when the airport was built. If so, the airport should be left as is. Survey respondent's name omitted for privacy Retired Cessna 172 Skyhawk retired C152 Retired Piper Cherokee, PA-140 Rocky mountain log homes Husky If the runway is extended my company may purchase a king air to promote our business. Rocky Mountain Log Homes Cherokee 140 self C182 RG self employed Realtor Cessna 182 Skylane A longer runway for safety purposes and expanding airport for future growth sequoia capital falcon 50EX wider taxi and runway capacity Thunder Fire Services Cessna 172 Widen runway, More separation of the taxiway from the runway. Tin Bender Aviation Aircraft Restoration Facility Better separation of auto traffic and active aircraft area's on main taxi wayroad. A design of taxiways and hanger spacing that would increase commercial facilities with through the fence access. Restriction of general public from active aircraft area's by use of appropriate fencing. A designated aircraft washing area with an oilwater separator. A designated run up area with an appropriate blast fence to reduce noise if nessecary Tioga RV & Trailer Park, INC PA More land to allow growth of the airport. Longer runway to make the airport safer for those currently using the airport. More ramp space. Tri Counties Bank KingAir C90-B Tuck Beckstoffer Wines Pilatus PC12 Tuck Beckstoffer Wines Cessna CJ3 West Fork Lodge C-182 Taxiways and ramps need serious work, resurfacing. Plus more ramp space as somtimes it necessitates parking the plane too close to jets, jet blast worries. Willow Aviation Aeronca Chame New runway surface...improve taxiway... Bonanaza A36TC overall conditon of taxiways PA 32 Cirrus SR22 Turbo I would like to see a longer runway as I plan on getting a bigger plane in the future. Also sometimes I come in a Piaggio and we usually have to go to Missoula as the runway in Hamilton isn't long enough. PA28 150B (Piper Cherokee) single eng. land RV-10 Kitfox Model IV 180 CESSNA Piper Pacer PA Cessna 172 Hamilton the only airport in a very large radius that has a restaurant "on field". I think that fact should be more aggressively advertised in pilot orientated publications. Hamilton is a great place to stop to refuel for trips further West. For a general business advantage in the area, it would be advisable to have a longer runway in order to accommodate jet traffic. Accessibility by air is one of the biggest items on an entrepreneur's list that determines future business locations. Runway length should be feet!!! cessna 172 Piaggio PA-20 rv-4 Cessna 182 re-surfacing of taxi-ways 1 of 2

228 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY - GENERAL COMMENTS - Name Company Aircraft Type Other Improvements or recommendations? cessna a-185-e & 140a Put the runway on the ridge to the NE which Harold M. offered years ago. Right now it's like landing in the bottom of a soup bowl. Move the operation to Stevensville. Beech Bonanza H-35 You have a nice airport! Don't get too big! Cessna 182` Stinson Runway moved somewhat more south and separation of the runway from the taxiway as it was planned at one time would be better. I haven't been to Hamilton for about 4 years, but before 202 I used the airport regularly and was based there for awhile. Will be traveling more to Hamilton this year, since my plane has been rebuilt recently. Cessna 172 RV-8 Cirrus SR22 The runway needs to be longer. I can typically land and roll out in less than 4200 feet, but what is typical should not be the standard. It would also be safer if it were 25' wider. Survey respondent's name omitted for privacy Cirrus SR22 RV-6A cessna 185 Citation Sovereign Citation Sovereign Cessna 172 Home built Super Cub Piper PA 2220 Pacer PA 30 Cesna 150 King Air F90 Cessna 172 Cessna 182 For myself, I would like to see the pavement on the runway and taxiways improved. For everybody else, I would like to see the airport brought up to the 21st century with a 7000' runway. wash rack I think lengthening the runway would increase safety and allow use in less than perfect weather conditions. U.S.F.S. NEEDS A SAFE and CONVENIENT AIRPORT FROM WHICH TO CONDUCT FIRE FIGHTING OPERATIONS FROM. Protecting the forest and privately owned structures is becoming more and more important as time goes on. I would say, as a minimum, the runway should be at least 5200 feet long to accommodate most current users. We need protection from future incomparable growth. Provisions for sewer and water must also be considered. I recommend the improvements supported by Ravalli county pilots headed by Dave Hedditch. No improvements required. Prefer improvements to be kept as small as possible. I charter aircraft to fly in and out of Hamilton. I am limited with the aircraft I charter, because they can not land at Hamilton. A longer runway would help. Resuface runway and taxiways. Increased ramp size. Remove hill at north end of runway. Improve Hamilton airport by constructing new 5200 ft. runway in one construction project, and extending the existing runway as a taxiway to reduce costs. Construct new runway as far north as possible without rebuilding county roads to reduce noise and disruption to home owners south of the airport. This would meet the public and runway safety needs for the Hamilton are for the forseeable future ( years). I would also be in favor of additional land purchase west of the airport for expansion and possible sewer system installation that would make room for commercial use. The airport currently has limited expansion prospects, since it has no additional septic capability unless it creates its own septic system or hooks to an extension of an existing system in Hamilton. Survey respondent's name omitted for privacy Diamond hk36 Cessna 414a Vans RV-9A RV-8A RV-12 c 150 tw 160hp CESSNA 182 Cessna 172 RV-8 Lear 31 Longer runway PA Increase ramp space and runway length to enhance fire fighting operations and the operation of larger aircraft than is presently possible. P210, T182T, C152 The Hamilton airport is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the town. The need for a complete upgrade and refurbishment is long overdue. Cessna 414 Extend runway 1500 feet Cessna Citation Mustang cesna Vans RV7A Cessna 182 Increase the length of the runway to accommodate larger aircraft Cessna 182 Cessna 182 Cessna 182 (project) I also fly 2 other A fence to keep the deer out. This is a huge concern. I would like to do night training flights, but there AC in and out of Hamilton is a considerable hazard, with deer coming in and out at will. I fly a Cessna 150, 172 and 182 out of Hamilton. With the hill on the north end, it gets pretty scary on a hot day at gross weight. I also watch and film the Air Tractors going in and out. They desperately need a longer runway to get airborne with the maximum weight possible to protect our homes and forests. I would like to see as long a runway as possible, and this is coming from someone who routinely flies the back country and a short home strip! Hamilton can be tricky. you tube "Cessna Adventures Pinesdale" Piper Seneca PA Experimental Vans RV-6 Cessna 172 Socata TB-21 American Champion Explorer Cessna 172L Cessna 182 Heat capability in the T hangars or heated hangars to house 3 to 4 smaller airplanes in a group rental type arrangement. Lenghthen runway for safety reasons particularly at night Lengthen and improve the runway and the taxiways Runway expansion along with moving it a safe distance from the existing hangars. More business friendly. Less indecisions and lets get it done! fixed wing and rotor craft none BE-35 Cessna 310 C182q homebuilt- cessna 172 BE Skywagon All improvements. I feel that the runway length could be extended for better aircraft safety as temperature effects take off. When I fly, I fly smaller, single engine airplanes but on a hot day, it is a challenge to get airborn. As my instructor always said, "The runway behind you does you no good..." 2 of 2

229

230

231

232

233

234

235 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT - Hamilton, Montana Forecasting Report Appendix C: Population Forecast Sources

236

237 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years HQ U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Policy and Plans

238 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years FAA AEROSPACE FORECASTS FISCAL YEARS Developing forecasts of aviation demand and activity levels continues to be challenging as the aviation industry evolves and prior relationships change. In times of amplified volatility, the process is filled with uncertainty, particularly in the short-term. Once again, the U.S. aviation industry has shown that the demand for air travel is resilient as it rebounds from its most recent downward spiral caused by the Great Recession. With the start of 2011, lingering questions remain. Are the U.S. and global economies on firm ground? Is it plausible that evolving structural changes will revamp the industry from one of boom-to-bust to one of sustainable profits? Will industry consolidation continue? After 15 consecutive months 11 of modest increases in year-over-year domestic capacity, carriers reversed course and posted capacity declines in each of the last two months of The restraint in capacity coupled with strengthening demand led to record high load factors and recovery in yield. Yield is expected to show continued strength in 2012 as the capacity reductions at the end of FY 2011 accelerate into FY Given the current instability in the global economy, there is much uncertainty as to the timing and strength of a recovery in aviation demand. Nevertheless, the FAA has developed a set of assumptions and forecasts consistent with the emerging trends and structural changes currently taking place within the aviation industry. The FAA is confident that these forecasts accurately predict future aviation demand; however, due to the large uncertainty of the operating environment, the variance around the forecasts is wider than it was in prior years. The commercial aviation forecasts and assumptions are developed from econometric models that explain and incorporate emerging trends for the different segments of the industry. In addition the commercial aviation forecasts are considered unconstrained in that they assume there will be sufficient infrastructure to handle the projected levels of activity. These forecasts do not assume further contractions of the industry through bankruptcy, consolidation, or liquidation. The commercial aviation forecast methodology is a blended one. The starting point for developing the commercial aviation forecasts (air carriers and regionals) is the future schedules published by Innovata. To generate the short-term forecast (i.e., two years out) current monthly trends are used in conjunction with published monthly schedules to allow FAA forecasters to develop monthly capacity and demand forecasts for both mainline and regional carriers for fiscal and calendar years The medium to long-term forecasts ( ) are based on the results of econometric models. The general aviation forecasts rely heavily on discussions with industry experts conducted at a workshop co-hosted by FAA and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in July 2011 along 11 May 2010 through July

239 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years with the results of the 2010 General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey. The assumptions have been updated by FAA analysts to reflect more recent data and developing trends, as well as further information from industry experts. The FAA also presents the forecasts and assumptions to industry staff and aviation associations, who are asked to comment on the reasonableness of the assumptions and forecasts. Their comments andor suggestions have been incorporated into the forecasts as appropriate. 33

240 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years AVIATION TRAFFIC AND ACTIVITY FORECASTS Total traffic and activity forecasts for commercial air carriers (the sum of mainline and regional carriers) are presented in Tables 5 through 9. These tables contain year-to-year historical data and forecasts. Mainline air carrier traffic and activity forecasts and the forecast assumptions are displayed in Tables 10 through 18, 21, and 23. These tables contain year-to-year historical data and forecasts. Regional carrier forecasts and assumptions are found in Tables 24 through 27. These tables provide year-to-year historical and forecast data. Tables 19 and 20 provide year-to-year historical and forecast data for cargo activity. Table 22 provides year-to-year historical and forecast data for the cargo jet fleet. General aviation forecasts are found in Tables 28 through 31. These tables provide year-toyear historical data and forecasts. Tables 32 through 34 provide forecasts of aircraft activity at FAA and contract facilities. Commercial Aviation Forecasts System capacity is projected to remain flat in In the domestic market, mainline carrier capacity expanded slightly (2.2 percent) in 2011 but now is projected to contract by 0.8 percent while capacity for the regional carriers is projected to also decline in FY 2012 (down 0.5 percent). In the international sector, capacity is forecast to increase in all markets -- Atlantic, Latin, and Pacific -- resulting in overall international capacity growth of 2.0 percent. Passenger demand shows very little growth in 2012 with system RPMs forecast to grow 0.5 percent and all of this increase projected to come from international markets. An upturn is projected in 2013 with system RPMs and passengers increasing 2.6 and 1.9 percent, respectively, on a capacity increase of 2.1 percent. For the overall forecast period, system capacity is projected to increase an average of 3.1 percent a year. Supported by a growing U.S. economy, with real yields increasing in the near term ( ), and then falling, system RPMs are projected to increase 3.2 percent a year, with regional carriers (up 3.5 percent a year) growing faster than mainline carriers (up 3.2 percent a year). System passengers are projected to increase an average of 2.5 percent a year, with regional carriers growing at slightly higher rate (up 2.5 percent a year) than their mainline counterparts (up 2.5 percent). By 2032, U.S. commercial air carriers are projected to fly 1.9 trillion ASMs and transport 1.23 billion enplaned passengers a total of 1.57 trillion passenger miles. Planes will remain crowded, with load factors projected to grow moderately during the early years of the forecast period then tapering during the mid to latter years to 83.4 percent in

241 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years General Aviation The FAA forecasts the fleet and hours flown for single-engine piston aircraft, multi-engine piston, turboprops, turbojets, piston and turbine powered rotorcraft, light sport, experimental and other (which consists of gliders and lighter than air vehicles). The FAA forecasts active aircraft, 14 not total aircraft. The FAA uses estimates of fleet size, hours flown, and utilization from the General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey (GA Survey) as baseline figures upon which assumed growth rates can be applied. Beginning with the 2004 GA Survey, there were significant improvements to the survey methodology. Coinciding with the changed survey methodology, large changes in many categories were observed, both in the number of aircraft and hours flown. The results of the 2010 GA Survey are consistent with the results of surveys conducted since 2004, reinforcing our belief that the methodological improvements have resulted in superior estimates relative to those of the past. Thus, they are used as the basis for our forecast. Because results from the GA Survey are not published until the following year, the 2010 statistics are the latest available. Figures for 2011 are estimated based on other activity indicators. Activity forecasts begin in 2012 and continue through After growing rapidly for most of the past decade, and having slowed over the past few years, the most recent shipment activity indicates cautiously optimistic results that the hard impact of the recession on the business jet market may have come to an end and demand for business jet aircraft is beginning to recover. The forecast calls for robust growth in the long term outlook, driven by higher corporate profits and the growth of worldwide GDP. Additionally, continued concerns about safety, security, and flight delays keep business aviation attractive relative to commercial air travel. As the industry experts report a significant portion of piston aircraft hours are also used for business purposes, we predict business usage of general aviation aircraft will expand at a faster pace than that for personal and recreational use. The active general aviation fleet is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.6 percent over the 21-year forecast period, growing from an estimated 222,520 in 2011 to 253,205 aircraft by The more expensive and sophisticated turbine-powered fleet (including rotorcraft) is projected to grow at an average of 2.9 percent a year over the forecast period, with the turbine jet portion increasing at 4.0 percent a year. 14 An active aircraft is one that flies at least one hour during the year. 51

242 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years Active General Aviation Aircraft Annual Percent Change (0.4) Calendar Year Total Turbines The number of active piston-powered aircraft (including rotorcraft) is projected to decrease from the 2010 total of 159,007 to 151,685 through 2023, with declines in both single and multi-engine fixed wing aircraft, but with the smaller category of piston-powered rotorcraft growing. Beyond 2023, active piston-powered aircraft are forecast to increase to 155,395 by Over the forecast period, piston-powered aircraft is projected to decrease by an average annual rate of 0.1 percent. Although piston rotorcraft are forecast to increase by 2.1 percent a year, they are a relatively small part of this segment of general aviation aircraft and therefore have little effect on the overall trend. Single-engine fixed-wing piston aircraft, which are much more numerous, are projected to decline at a rate of 0.1 percent, while multi-engine fixed wing piston aircraft are projected to decline by 0.5 percent a year. Starting in 2005, a new category of aircraft (previously not included in the FAA's aircraft registry counts) was created: "light sport" aircraft. At the end of 2010, a total of 6,528 active aircraft were estimated to be in this category. The forecast assumes about 4 percent annual growth of the fleet until Thereafter the rate of increase in the fleet slows to about 2 percent per year. By 2032, a total of 10,195 light sport aircraft are projected to be in the fleet. The number of general aviation hours flown is projected to increase by 1.7 percent yearly over the forecast period. The FAA projects above average growth in hours will occur after 2023 with increases in the fixed wing turbine aircraft fleet, as well as a rebounding single engine piston fleet and increasing utilization of single engine piston aircraft as the aging of this fleet starts to slow down. In the medium term, much of the increase in hours flown reflects strong growth in the rotorcraft and turbine jet fleets. Hours flown by turbine aircraft (including rotorcraft) are forecast to increase 3.6 percent yearly over the forecast period, compared with essentially no growth (0.03 percent) for piston-powered aircraft. Jet aircraft are forecast to account for most of the increase, with hours flown increasing at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent over the forecast period. The large increases in jet hours result mainly from the increasing size of the 52

243 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years business jet fleet, along with a measured recovery in utilization rates from recession induced record lows. Rotorcraft hours, which were less impacted by the economic downturn when compared to other categories and rebounded earlier, are projected to grow by 2.6 percent yearly. An expected decline in utilization rates of turbine rotorcraft is due to the assumption that recently improved affordability at the lower end of the turbine market will sustain the recent market share shift toward turbines; however, as turbine powered rotorcraft replaces the pistons, and since most of their functions will remain unchanged, utilization rates of some of the new turbines will be closer to those of the pistons. Lastly, the light sport aircraft category is expected to see an increase in hours flown of 3.5 percent a year; this is primarily driven by growth in the fleet Hours Flown in General Aviation Aircraft Annual Percent Change (0.4) (2.0) (1.6) (4.0) Calendar Year Total Turbines The number of active general aviation pilots (excluding air transport pilots) is projected to be 510,295 in 2032, an increase of over 35,000 (up 0.3 percent yearly) over the forecast period. Commercial pilots are projected to increase from 120,865 in 2011 to 130,100 in 2032, an average annual increase of 0.4 percent. The number of student pilots is forecast to decrease at an average annual rate of 0.1 percent over the forecast period, declining from 118,657 in 2011 to 116,720 in In addition, the FAA is projecting that by the end of the forecast period a total of 13,900 sport pilots will be certified. As of December 31, 2011, the number of sport pilot certificates issued was 4,066 reflecting a steady increase in this new entry level pilot certificate that was only created in The number of private pilots is projected to grow at an average yearly rate of 0.1 percent over the forecast period to a total of 199,300 in 2032 from 194,441 in

244 TABLE 28 ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AND AIR TAXI AIRCRAFT PISTON FIXED WING TURBINE TOTAL GENERAL AS OF SINGLE MULTI- TURBO TURBO ROTORCRAFT EXPERI- SPORT AVIATION TOTAL TOTAL DEC. 31 ENGINE ENGINE TOTAL PROP JET TOTAL PISTON TURBINE TOTAL MENTAL AIRCRAFT OTHER FLEET PISTONS TURBINES Historical* ,422 21, ,513 5,762 7,001 12,763 2,680 4,470 7,150 20,407 NA 6, , ,193 17, ,101 19, ,513 7,942 9,823 17,765 3,039 5,689 8,728 23, , , ,552 23, ,036 18, ,744 8,063 10,379 18,442 3,264 5,895 9,159 23,047 1,273 6, , ,008 24, ,569 19, ,906 9,514 10,385 19,899 2,769 6,798 9,567 23,228 6,066 5, , ,675 26, ,497 17, ,012 8,907 11,042 19,949 3,498 6,378 9,876 23,364 6,811 5, , ,510 26, ,649 16, ,123 9,055 11,268 20,323 3,499 6,485 9,984 24,419 6,547 5, , ,622 26, ,519 15, ,419 9,369 11,484 20,853 3,588 6,514 10,102 24,784 6,528 5, , ,007 27, E 138,560 15, ,370 9,430 11,760 21,190 3,685 6,725 10,410 24,225 6,645 5, , ,055 27,915 Forecast ,600 15, ,335 9,505 12,050 21,555 3,780 6,940 10,720 24,480 6,930 5, , ,115 28, ,650 15, ,310 9,570 12,410 21,980 3,875 7,165 11,040 24,810 7,180 5, , ,185 29, ,790 15, ,405 9,645 12,835 22,480 3,975 7,415 11,390 25,170 7,365 5, , ,380 29, ,010 15, ,580 9,720 13,340 23,060 4,075 7,675 11,750 25,500 7,530 5, , ,655 30, ,285 15, ,785 9,795 13,880 23,675 4,165 7,930 12,095 25,835 7,690 5, , ,950 31, ,650 15, ,075 9,870 14,470 24,340 4,250 8,180 12,430 26,165 7,845 5, , ,325 32, ,090 15, ,430 9,950 15,060 25,010 4,335 8,435 12,770 26,500 8,000 5, , ,765 33, ,645 15, ,905 10,030 15,650 25,680 4,420 8,685 13,105 26,830 8,160 5, , ,325 34, ,335 15, ,510 10,120 16,265 26,385 4,505 8,940 13,445 27,160 8,315 5, , ,015 35, ,125 15, ,215 10,205 16,915 27,120 4,590 9,200 13,790 27,490 8,470 5, , ,805 36, ,010 15, ,020 10,300 17,620 27,920 4,680 9,465 14,145 27,825 8,630 5, , ,700 37, ,975 14, ,910 10,400 18,370 28,770 4,775 9,745 14,520 28,155 8,785 5, , ,685 38, ,015 14, ,890 10,515 19,170 29,685 4,875 10,040 14,915 28,490 8,940 5, , ,765 39, ,150 14, ,965 10,625 20,020 30,645 4,975 10,345 15,320 28,820 9,100 5, , ,940 40, ,370 14, ,115 10,740 20,865 31,605 5,075 10,650 15,725 29,150 9,255 5, , ,190 42,255 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years ,660 14, ,340 10,860 21,760 32,620 5,180 10,965 16,145 29,480 9,410 5, , ,520 43, ,020 14, ,630 10,975 22,700 33,675 5,285 11,275 16,560 29,815 9,570 5, , ,915 44, ,470 14, ,010 11,090 23,690 34,780 5,390 11,590 16,980 30,145 9,725 5, , ,400 46, ,000 14, ,470 11,205 24,730 35,935 5,495 11,905 17,400 30,480 9,880 5, , ,965 47, ,625 14, ,030 11,320 25,805 37,125 5,600 12,225 17,825 30,810 10,040 5, , ,630 49, ,340 14, ,690 11,445 26,935 38,380 5,705 12,550 18,255 31,140 10,195 5, , ,395 50,930 Avg Annual Growth % -2.6% -0.9% 4.6% 4.8% 4.7% 2.9% 3.8% 3.5% 1.6% NA -1.5% 0.2% -0.8% 4.5% % -0.5% -0.7% 0.8% 2.5% 1.7% 2.6% 3.2% 3.0% 1.1% 4.3% -0.2% 0.1% -0.6% 2.1% % -0.5% -0.5% 0.8% 3.7% 2.5% 2.2% 3.2% 2.9% 1.3% 2.5% -0.1% 0.3% -0.4% 2.7% % -0.5% -0.1% 0.9% 4.0% 2.9% 2.1% 3.0% 2.7% 1.2% 2.1% -0.1% 0.6% -0.1% 2.9% * Source: , FAA General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity (and Avionics) Surveys. Note: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown at least one hour during the calendar year.

245 TABLE 29 ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AND AIR TAXI HOURS FLOWN (In Thousands) FIXED WING TOTAL PISTON TURBINE GENERAL CALENDAR SINGLE MULTI- TURBO TURBO ROTORCRAFT EXPERI- SPORT AVIATION TOTAL TOTAL YEAR ENGINE ENGINE TOTAL PROP JET TOTAL PISTON TURBINE TOTAL MENTAL AIRCRAFT OTHER HOURS PISTONS TURBINES Historical* ,089 3,400 21,489 1,986 2,755 4, ,661 2,191 1,307 NA ,102 22,019 6, ,739 2,677 16,416 2,106 3,771 5, ,439 3,056 1, ,964 17,032 8, ,976 2,550 16,525 2,162 4,077 6, ,528 3,446 1, ,705 17,443 8, ,571 2,686 16,257 2,661 3,938 6, ,541 3,245 1, ,852 16,962 9, ,746 2,328 15,074 2,457 3,600 6, ,470 3,222 1, ,009 15,825 8, ,730 1,903 13,634 2,215 3,161 5, ,248 3,003 1, ,763 14,389 7, ,161 1,818 13,979 2,325 3,375 5, ,611 3,405 1, ,802 14,773 8, E 11,841 1,780 13,621 2,324 3,394 5, ,561 3,350 1, ,397 14,410 8,279 Forecast ,391 1,776 13,167 2,409 4,037 6, ,550 3,362 1, ,728 13,978 8, ,091 1,758 12,849 2,471 4,330 6, ,611 3,445 1, ,949 13,683 9, ,820 1,744 12,564 2,523 4,605 7, ,674 3,532 1, ,180 13,422 9, ,594 1,728 12,322 2,554 4,865 7, ,739 3,620 1, ,396 13,204 10, ,409 1,703 12,112 2,591 5,106 7, ,819 3,722 1, ,645 13,015 10, ,285 1,689 11,974 2,624 5,321 7, ,903 3,827 1, ,943 12,898 10, ,205 1,678 11,882 2,657 5,558 8, ,988 3,932 1, ,281 12,827 11, ,150 1,668 11,817 2,685 5,774 8, ,071 4,036 1, ,619 12,782 11, ,125 1,667 11,792 2,704 6,009 8, ,156 4,142 1, ,009 12,777 11, ,092 1,665 11,758 2,723 6,251 8,975 1,006 3,242 4,248 1, ,387 12,764 12, ,124 1,667 11,790 2,745 6,516 9,261 1,028 3,336 4,364 1, ,866 12,819 12, ,159 1,668 11,827 2,762 6,802 9,564 1,051 3,431 4,482 1, ,368 12,878 12, ,247 1,673 11,920 2,782 7,102 9,884 1,075 3,531 4,606 1, ,951 12,995 13, ,391 1,675 12,066 2,802 7,420 10,222 1,099 3,636 4,736 1, ,610 13,165 13, ,545 1,684 12,229 2,822 7,726 10,548 1,124 3,742 4,866 1, ,276 13,353 14,290 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years ,708 1,696 12,404 2,841 8,044 10,885 1,149 3,852 5,001 1, ,970 13,553 14, ,866 1,709 12,574 2,859 8,381 11,239 1,174 3,963 5,137 1, ,678 13,749 15, ,997 1,719 12,717 2,879 8,753 11,632 1,200 4,076 5,275 1, ,398 13,916 15, ,145 1,729 12,874 2,897 9,149 12,046 1,225 4,191 5,416 2, ,159 14,099 16, ,300 1,743 13,044 2,912 9,557 12,469 1,250 4,313 5,563 2, ,948 14,294 16, ,467 1,760 13,227 2,930 9,987 12,917 1,275 4,438 5,714 2, ,779 14,502 17,355 Avg Annual Growth % -5.7% -4.1% 1.4% 1.9% 1.7% 3.7% 4.0% 3.9% -0.7% NA -6.4% -1.9% -3.8% 2.4% % -0.2% -3.3% 3.6% 18.9% 12.7% 2.8% -0.4% 0.4% 2.1% 6.3% 0.4% 1.4% -3.0% 8.7% % -0.7% -1.5% 1.6% 6.3% 4.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 3.6% 4.4% 0.4% 1.2% -1.2% 4.0% % -0.1% -0.1% 1.1% 5.3% 4.0% 2.3% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 3.5% 0.4% 1.7% 0.0% 3.6% * Source: , FAA General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity (and Avionics) Surveys. Note: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown at least one hour during the previous calendar year.

246 FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST for RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT Itinerant Operations Local Total Fiscal Year Air Carrier Air Taxi & Commuter General Aviation Military Total General Aviation Military Total Operations Tracon Operations Based Aircraft , ,800 8, ,000 15, , ,800 9, ,000 16, , ,800 9, ,500 17, , ,800 9, ,500 17, ,200 7, ,200 10, ,000 18, ,200 7, ,200 10, ,000 18, ,200 7, ,200 10, ,000 18, ,600 7, ,600 11, ,400 20, ,600 7, ,600 11, ,400 20, ,700 7, ,900 11, ,500 20, ,700 7, ,900 11, ,500 20, ,700 7, ,900 11, ,500 20, ,700 7, ,900 11, ,500 20, ,700 7, ,900 11, ,500 20, ,700 7, ,900 11, ,500 20, ,700 7, ,900 11, ,500 20, ,700 7, ,900 11, ,500 20, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, ,900 8, ,100 13, ,500 23, Modified for legibility. No Air Carrier or Commuter Enplanements were registered in the TAF and so those columns were omitted for clarity. Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast,

247 MONTANA POPULATION PROJECTIONS Source: NPA Data Services Inc. The Demographic Database of the 2008 Regional Economic Projections Series, issued November 2008, is prepared and copyrighted by NPA Data Services, Inc. The year 2000 numbers are from April 1 Decennial Censuses number are U.S. Census Bureau Julyl 1 estimates. The numbers are July 1 projections by NPA Data Services. Projections are estimates of the population for future dates. They illustrate plausible courses of future population change based on assumptions about future births, deaths, international migration, and domestic migration. TOTAL POPULATION NPA PROJECTIONS AREA ESTIMATES RANK ESTIMATES RANK MONTANA 902, , ,930 1,031,610 1,078,460 1,128,460 1,182,440 YELLOWSTONE 129, , , , , , ,820 MISSOULA 95, , , , , , ,220 GALLATIN 67, , , , , , ,970 FLATHEAD 74, , , , , , ,980 CASCADE 80, , ,640 78,970 77,660 76,870 76,720 LEWIS AND CLARK 55, , ,050 67,830 72,540 77,210 82,020 RAVALLI 36, , ,630 48,820 53,900 58,980 64,120 SILVER BOW 34, , ,160 31,720 31,590 31,850 32,400 LAKE 26, , ,940 32,310 34,690 37,140 39,690 LINCOLN 18, , ,980 19,260 19,680 20,210 20,960 HILL 16, , ,260 15,820 15,480 15,270 15,200 PARK 15, , ,630 17,420 18,260 19,150 20,110 GLACIER 13, , ,450 13,490 13,560 13,650 13,710 BIG HORN 12, , ,010 13,290 13,550 13,920 14,310 CUSTER 11, , ,060 10,970 10,920 10,980 11,100 FERGUS 11, , ,060 10,890 10,810 10,840 10,910 JEFFERSON 10, , ,830 12,860 13,960 14,970 16,000 SANDERS 10, , ,380 12,030 12,640 13,340 14,100 ROOSEVELT 10, , ,110 10,120 10,130 10,230 10,410 CARBON 9, , ,900 10,230 10,510 10,820 11,180 RICHLAND 9, , ,100 9,020 8,920 8,960 9,050 ROSEBUD 9, , ,440 9,790 10,120 10,480 10,860 DEER LODGE 9, , ,530 8,170 7,870 7,800 7,860 BEAVERHEAD 9, , ,930 9,180 9,410 9,710 10,070 STILLWATER 8, , ,060 9,580 10,090 10,600 11,110 DAWSON 9, , ,350 8,070 7,900 7,830 7,840 MADISON 6, , ,650 8,040 8,450 8,850 9,350 POWELL 7, , ,200 7,330 7,490 7,720 8,010 VALLEY 7, , ,590 6,180 5,910 5,710 5,650 BLAINE 7, , ,430 6,310 6,180 6,110 6,130 TETON 6, , ,920 5,810 5,720 5,670 5,640 PONDERA 6, , ,810 5,590 5,440 5,370 5,280 CHOUTEAU 5, , ,110 4,920 4,770 4,670 4,620 TOOLE 5, , ,030 4,850 4,740 4,680 4,640 BROADWATER 4, , ,850 5,190 5,540 5,940 6,300 MUSSELSHELL 4, , ,550 4,600 4,670 4,740 4,840

248 TOTAL POPULATION NPA PRJECTIONS AREA CENSUS RANK CENSUS RANK PHILLIPS 4, , ,830 3,630 3,490 3,400 3,350 MINERAL 3, , ,990 4,090 4,260 4,460 4,640 SWEET GRASS 3, , ,870 3,920 4,020 4,120 4,220 SHERIDAN 4, , ,260 3,060 2,910 2,860 2,810 GRANITE 2, , ,890 2,920 3,040 3,110 3,200 FALLON 2, , ,610 2,480 2,370 2,320 2,320 JUDITH BASIN 2, , ,980 1,960 1,910 1,930 1,890 WHEATLAND 2, , ,940 1,950 1,940 1,980 2,000 MEAGHER 1, , ,900 1,880 1,940 1,960 2,010 LIBERTY 2, , ,760 1,660 1,630 1,580 1,550 MC CONE 1, , ,660 1,570 1,500 1,420 1,440 POWDER RIVER 1, , ,620 1,550 1,510 1,480 1,490 DANIELS 2, , ,560 1,480 1,430 1,370 1,370 CARTER 1, , ,190 1,160 1,170 1,120 1,110 GARFIELD 1, , ,150 1,130 1,090 1,080 1,080 GOLDEN VALLEY 1, , ,130 1,190 1,200 1,210 1,250 PRAIRIE 1, , , WIBAUX 1, TREASURE PETROLEUM For more detailed information, contact CEIC staff at (406) Source: Demographic Database, Economic Projections Series, NPA Data Services, Inc., Arlington, VA Processed by: Census and Economic Information Center, Montana Dept. of Commerce, Helena, with permission from NPA Data Services, Inc., 1108

249 Montana Population Projection Percent Change in 65 and Older Population between Census 2000 and NPA Projections for 2030* Lincoln Glacier 128.4% Flathead 72.8% 220.5% Sanders 145.4% 156.4% Mineral Percent Change -5.3 to to to to to Lake 156.3% Missoula 54.6% Ravalli 224.9% Beaverhead 108.0% Pondera 9.2% Teton 20.2% Lewis & Clark 227.7% Madison 146.6% Toole 31.4% Cascade 35.0% Liberty Park 150.9% Hill 22.3% Chouteau 6.4% Judith Basin 37.5% Blaine 19.5% Fergus 29.4% Powell Granite Meagher Wheatland Musselshell 131.1% 131.1% Broadwater 70.9% Golden 23.9% 69.0% Valley Deer Jefferson 168.4% 62.8% Lodge 328.0% 30.8% Sweet Yellowstone Gallatin Grass Stillwater 113.6% 100.7% 71.7% 134.4% 58.7% Silver Bow 12.9% Montana's Percent Change is 104.8% The U.S. Percent Change is 99.8% Carbon 90.9% Petroleum 19.0% Phillips 8.5% Big Horn 131.4% Garfield 5.3% Treasure 18.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, NPA Data Services, INC, 2007 The U.S. Census Bureau does not provide population projection data at the county level. Valley 0.9% Rosebud 173.7% Daniels -5.3% McCone 15.0% Roosevelt 54.5% Prairie 7.3% Custer 37.1% Powder River 22.1% Sheridan -2.8% Dawson 22.9% Richland 51.6% -4.3% Wibaux Fallon 33.9% Carter 31.1% Projections are estimates of the population for future dates. They illustrate plausible courses of future population change * based on assumptions about future births, deaths, international migration, and domestic migration. Map by: Census & Economic Information Center Montana Department of Commerce 301 S. Park Ave, Helena MT [email protected] March PopProjPercentChg203_65+(07).mxd

250 CENSUS STATE and COUNTY POPULATION SUMMARY NAME Geography Type County Census 2010 Total Population 2010 Rank Census 2000 Total Population # Change 2010 to 2000 % Change 2010 to Rank Census 1990 Total Population Montana State All 989, ,195 87, % ,065 Beaverhead County, Montana County Beaverhead County, Montana 9, , % 24 8,424 Big Horn County, Montana County Big Horn County, Montana 12, , % 14 11,337 Blaine County, Montana County Blaine County, Montana 6, , % 29 6,728 Broadwater County, Montana County Broadwater County, Montana 5, ,385 1, % 37 3,318 Carbon County, Montana County Carbon County, Montana 10, , % 21 8,080 Carter County, Montana County Carter County, Montana 1, , % 50 1,503 Cascade County, Montana County Cascade County, Montana 81, , % 3 77,691 Chouteau County, Montana County Chouteau County, Montana 5, , % 33 5,452 Custer County, Montana County Custer County, Montana 11, , % 16 11,697 Daniels County, Montana County Daniels County, Montana 1, , % 46 2,266 Dawson County, Montana County Dawson County, Montana 8, , % 25 9,505 Deer Lodge County, Montana County Deer Lodge County, Montana 9, , % 22 10,356 Fallon County, Montana County Fallon County, Montana 2, , % 41 3,103 Fergus County, Montana County Fergus County, Montana 11, , % 15 12,083 Flathead County, Montana County Flathead County, Montana 90, ,471 16, % 4 59,218 Gallatin County, Montana County Gallatin County, Montana 89, ,831 21, % 5 50,463 Garfield County, Montana County Garfield County, Montana 1, , % 51 1,589 Glacier County, Montana County Glacier County, Montana 13, , % 13 12,121 Golden Valley County, Montana County Golden Valley County, Montana , % Granite County, Montana County Granite County, Montana 3, , % 42 2,548 Hill County, Montana County Hill County, Montana 16, , % 11 17,654 Jefferson County, Montana County Jefferson County, Montana 11, ,049 1, % 19 7,939 Judith Basin County, Montana County Judith Basin County, Montana 2, , % 43 2,282 Lake County, Montana County Lake County, Montana 28, ,507 2, % 9 21,041 Lewis and Clark County, Montana County Lewis and Clark County, Montana 63, ,716 7, % 6 47,495 Liberty County, Montana County Liberty County, Montana 2, , % 45 2,295 Lincoln County, Montana County Lincoln County, Montana 19, , % 10 17,481 Madison County, Montana County Madison County, Montana 7, , % 30 5,989 McCone County, Montana County McCone County, Montana 1, , % 47 2,276 Meagher County, Montana County Meagher County, Montana 1, , % 48 1,819 Mineral County, Montana County Mineral County, Montana 4, , % 39 3,315 Missoula County, Montana County Missoula County, Montana 109, ,802 13, % 2 78,687 Musselshell County, Montana County Musselshell County, Montana 4, , % 36 4,106 Park County, Montana County Park County, Montana 15, , % 12 14,484 Petroleum County, Montana County Petroleum County, Montana % Phillips County, Montana County Phillips County, Montana 4, , % 35 5,163 Pondera County, Montana County Pondera County, Montana 6, , % 32 6,433 Powder River County, Montana County Powder River County, Montana 1, , % 49 2,090 Powell County, Montana County Powell County, Montana 7, , % 28 6,620 Prairie County, Montana County Prairie County, Montana 1, , % 52 1,383 Ravalli County, Montana County Ravalli County, Montana 40, ,070 4, % 7 25,010 Richland County, Montana County Richland County, Montana 9, , % 20 10,716 Roosevelt County, Montana County Roosevelt County, Montana 10, , % 17 10,999 Rosebud County, Montana County Rosebud County, Montana 9, , % 23 10,505 Sanders County, Montana County Sanders County, Montana 11, ,227 1, % 18 8,669 Sheridan County, Montana County Sheridan County, Montana 3, , % 38 4,732 Silver Bow County, Montana County Silver Bow County, Montana 34, , % 8 33,941 Stillwater County, Montana County Stillwater County, Montana 9, , % 26 6,536 Sweet Grass County, Montana County Sweet Grass County, Montana 3, , % 40 3,154 Teton County, Montana County Teton County, Montana 6, , % 31 6,271 Toole County, Montana County Toole County, Montana 5, , % 34 5,046 Treasure County, Montana County Treasure County, Montana % Valley County, Montana County Valley County, Montana 7, , % 27 8,239 Wheatland County, Montana County Wheatland County, Montana 2, , % 44 2,246 Wibaux County, Montana County Wibaux County, Montana 1, , % 53 1,191 Yellowstone County, Montana County Yellowstone County 147, ,352 18, % 1 113,419 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 PL , March 2011; Census 2000 Summary File 1, 2001 Prepared by the Census and Economic Information Center, Montana Department of Commerce Page 1 of 1 Printed

251 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT - Hamilton, Montana Forecasting Report Appendix D: Miscellaneous

252

253 RAVALLI COUNTY AIRPORT SURVEY Your input would be very helpful in the determination of the need for any potential airport improvements at the Ravalli County (Hamilton) Airport. You have received this as a pilot, aircraft owner, fuel user or instrument procedure user associated with Ravalli County Montana. Ravalli County is performing an Environmental Assessment with associated forecasting. Please complete the very brief (3-Minute) survey at where you will be asked about your current and future airport use and needs. Thank you for your participation. Your input is important to us. Please respond by March 16, For additional information or to request a paper survey contact: Rick Donaldson, P.E., Vice President Robert Peccia and Associates [email protected]

254

255 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION > 1 ASSOC CITY: HAMILTON > 2 AIRPORT NAME: RAVALLI COUNTY 3 CBD TO AIRPORT (NM): 01 E GENERAL 10 OWNERSHIP: > 11 OWNER: > 12 ADDRESS: PU RAVALLI CO COURTHOUSE BOX 5016, SUITE A HAMILTON, MT > 13 PHONE NR: > 14 MANAGER: > 15 ADDRESS: PAGE GOUGH 215 S. 4TH STREET SUITE A HAMILTON, MT > 16 PHONE NR: > 17 ATTENDANCE SCHEDULE: ALL ALL AIRPORT USE: 19 ARPT LAT: 20 ARPT LONG: 21 ARPT ELEV: 22 ACREAGE: > 23 RIGHT TRAFFIC: > 24 NON-COMM LANDING: NO 25 NPIASFED AGREEMENTS: NGY > 26 FAR 139 INDEX: RUNWAY DATA > 30 RUNWAY IDENT: > 31 LENGTH: > 32 WIDTH: > 33 SURF TYPE-COND: > 34 SURF TREATMENT: 35 GROSS WT: SW 36 (IN THSDS) DW 37 DTW 38 DDTW > 39 PCN: LIGHTINGAPCH AIDS > 40 EDGE INTENSITY: > 42 RWY MARK TYPE-COND: > 43 VGSI: 44 THR CROSSING HGT: 45 VISUAL GLIDE ANGLE: > 46 CNTRLN-TDZ: > 47 RVR-RVV: > 48 REIL: > 49 APCH LIGHTS: OBSTRUCTION DATA 50 FAR 77 CATEGORY: > 51 DISPLACED THR: > 52 CTLG OBSTN: > 53 OBSTN MARKEDLGTD: > 54 HGT ABOVE RWY END: > 55 DIST FROM RWY END: > 56 CNTRLN OFFSET: 57 OBSTN CLNC SLOPE: 58 CLOSE-IN OBSTN: DECLARED DISTANCES > 60 TAKE OFF RUN AVBL (TORA): > 61 TAKE OFF DIST AVBL (TODA): > 62 ACLT STOP DIST AVBL (ASDA): > 63 LNDG DIST AVBL (LDA): PUBLIC N ESTIMATED W 3642 SURVEYED 156 NO , ASPH-F PFC MED BSC - P BSC - P P2L P2L B(V) B(V) TREES TREES , L 400R 7:1 8:1 Y N > 70 FUEL: SERVICES 100LL A > 71 AIRFRAME RPRS: MAJOR > 72 PWR PLANT RPRS: MAJOR > 73 BOTTLE OXYGEN: > 74 BULK OXYGEN: 75 TSNT STORAGE: HGR, TIE 76 OTHER SERVICES: CHTR, INSTR, RNTL, SALES FACILITIES > 80 ARPT BCN: > 81 ARPT LGT SKED: CG DUSK-DAWN > 82 UNICOM: > 83 WIND INDICATOR: YES-L 84 SEGMENTED CIRCLE: YES 85 CONTROL TWR: NONE 86 FSS: GREAT FALLS 87 FSS ON ARPT: NO 88 FSS PHONE NR: 89 TOLL FREE NR: WX-BRIEF (>) ARPT MGR PLEASE ADVISE FSS IN ITEM 86 WHEN CHANGES OCCUR TO ITEMS PRECEDED BY > > 110 REMARKS: AIRPORT MASTER RECORD 4 STATE: A 042 RWY 16 RY 1634 MKGS FADED. A 042 RWY 16 1 RWY 16 RY 1634 MKGS FADED. TXWY MARKINGS FADEDMISSING. A 055 RWY ' HILL ON CNTRLN EXTDD. A 055 RWY ' TREES 50' LEFT OF CNTRLN EXTDD. A 058 RWY 16-4 FT DITCH 122 FT L 0 FT TO 200 FT FM END OF RY. A 081 ACTVT MIRL RY 1634 & PAPI RY 16 & 34 - CTAF. FOR MIRL RY 1634 DURG DALGHT HRS CTC AMGR A 094 SAILPLANE ON & INVOF ARPT DURING DALGT HRS. MT 6 REGIONADO: ANMHLN PRINT DATE: AFD EFF Form Approved OMB LOC ID: 6S5 FAA SITE NR: 5 COUNTY: RAVALLI MT 7 SECT AERO CHT: GREAT FALLS BASED AIRCRAFT 90 SINGLE ENG: 91 MULTI ENG: 92 JET: TOTAL: 93 HELICOPTERS: 94 GLIDERS: 95 MILITARY: 96 ULTRA-LIGHT: OPERATIONS 100 AIR CARRIER: 102 AIR TAXI: 103 G A LOCAL: 104 G A ITNRNT: 105 MILITARY: TOTAL: OPERATIONS FOR 12 MONTHS ENDING *A ,900 13,500 8, , INSPECTOR: ( S ) 112 LAST INSP: LAST INFO REQ: FAA Form (5-91) SUPERSEDES PREVIOUS EDITION

256 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AIRPORT MASTER RECORD PRINT DATE: AFD EFF Form Approved OMB > 1 ASSOC CITY: *****CONTINUED***** > 2 AIRPORT NAME: 3 CBD TO AIRPORT (NM): GENERAL 10 OWNERSHIP: > 11 OWNER: > 12 ADDRESS: > 13 PHONE NR: > 14 MANAGER: > 15 ADDRESS: > 16 PHONE NR: > 17 ATTENDANCE SCHEDULE: 18 AIRPORT USE: 19 ARPT LAT: 20 ARPT LONG: 21 ARPT ELEV: 22 ACREAGE: > 23 RIGHT TRAFFIC: > 24 NON-COMM LANDING: 25 NPIASFED AGREEMENTS: > 26 FAR 139 INDEX: 4 STATE: MT 6 REGIONADO: ANMHLN SERVICES > 70 FUEL: > 71 AIRFRAME RPRS: > 72 PWR PLANT RPRS: > 73 BOTTLE OXYGEN: > 74 BULK OXYGEN: 75 TSNT STORAGE: 76 OTHER SERVICES: FACILITIES > 80 ARPT BCN: > 81 ARPT LGT SKED: > 82 UNICOM: > 83 WIND INDICATOR: 84 SEGMENTED CIRCLE: 85 CONTROL TWR: 86 FSS: 87 FSS ON ARPT: 88 FSS PHONE NR: 89 TOLL FREE NR: LOC ID: 6S5 5 COUNTY: 7 SECT AERO CHT: BASED AIRCRAFT 90 SINGLE ENG: 91 MULTI ENG: 92 JET: TOTAL: 93 HELICOPTERS: 94 GLIDERS: 95 MILITARY: 96 ULTRA-LIGHT: OPERATIONS 100 AIR CARRIER: 102 AIR TAXI: 103 G A LOCAL: 104 G A ITNRNT: 105 MILITARY: TOTAL: FAA SITE NR: OPERATIONS FOR 12 MONTHS ENDING *A RUNWAY DATA > 30 RUNWAY IDENT: > 31 LENGTH: > 32 WIDTH: > 33 SURF TYPE-COND: > 34 SURF TREATMENT: 35 GROSS WT: SW 36 (IN THSDS) DW 37 DTW 38 DDTW > 39 PCN: LIGHTINGAPCH AIDS > 40 EDGE INTENSITY: > 42 RWY MARK TYPE-COND: > 43 VGSI: 44 THR CROSSING HGT: 45 VISUAL GLIDE ANGLE: > 46 CNTRLN-TDZ: > 47 RVR-RVV: > 48 REIL: > 49 APCH LIGHTS: OBSTRUCTION DATA 50 FAR 77 CATEGORY: > 51 DISPLACED THR: > 52 CTLG OBSTN: > 53 OBSTN MARKEDLGTD: > 54 HGT ABOVE RWY END: > 55 DIST FROM RWY END: > 56 CNTRLN OFFSET: 57 OBSTN CLNC SLOPE: 58 CLOSE-IN OBSTN: DECLARED DISTANCES > 60 TAKE OFF RUN AVBL (TORA): > 61 TAKE OFF DIST AVBL (TODA): > 62 ACLT STOP DIST AVBL (ASDA): > 63 LNDG DIST AVBL (LDA): (>) ARPT MGR PLEASE ADVISE FSS IN ITEM 86 WHEN CHANGES OCCUR TO ITEMS PRECEDED BY > > 110 REMARKS: A 096 ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY ON & INVOF ARPT. A LOOSE ASPH MATERIAL ON PARALLEL TWY FOR RY INSPECTOR: ( S ) 112 LAST INSP: LAST INFO REQ: FAA Form (5-91) SUPERSEDES PREVIOUS EDITION