Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004 Airport Master Plan Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 A. PLANNING PROCESS-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 B. AM P U OBJECTIVES-----------------------------------------------------------------------------2 C. PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ------------------------------------------------------3 D. OVERVIEW-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 D.1 Glossary of Acronyms and Definitions-------------------------------------------------------4 D.2 Issues ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 D.3 Surveys----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 E. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION----------------------------------------------------------------------5 CHAPTER 2 INVENTORY OF EXISTING AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CONDITIONS-----------6 A. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS -------------------------------------------------7 A.1 Town of North Andover--------------------------------------------------------------------------7 A.2 City of Lawrence-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 A.3 Demographics--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 A.3.a Population-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Table 2-1 Population Comparison--------------------------------------------------------------------------8 A.3.b Income-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Table 2-2 Per Capita Personal Income -------------------------------------------------------------------8 Table 2-3 Annual Tenant Pilot Expenditures------------------------------------------------------------9 A.4 Airport History-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 A.5 Federal and State Grants----------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Table2-4 Grant History--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 B. AIRPORT ELEMENTS--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 B.1 Topography----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 B.2 Management Structure--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Figure 2-A Staffing Comparison------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 Figure 2-B Staffing versus Budget--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 B.3 Financial Support/Revenue Fee Structure-------------------------------------------------- 14 B.4 Land Use-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 B.4.a Zoning and Ordinances-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Table 2-5 North Andover Zoning Districts---------------------------------------------------------------- 17 B.4.b Airport Property------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17 i LWM AMPU Table of Contents B.4.c Private Adjacent Land Use --------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 B.4.d Avigation Easements----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 B.5 Airport Access-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 B.6 Transportation in the Region------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 B.6.a Regional Aviation---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 Table 2-6 Public-Use Airports in the Service Area-----------------------------------------------------20 B.6.b Rail and Bus----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21 B.6.c Intermodal Transportation-----------------------------------------------------------------------21 B.6.d Major Highways------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21 B.7 Crash, Fire, and Rescue (C F R)Services---------------------------------------------------22 B.8 Snow Removal-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 B.9 Airport Maintenance------------------------------------------------------------------------------23 B.10 Meteorology-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23 B.10.a Wind--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23 Table2-7 Wind Data-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24 B.10.b Temperature----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25 C. AIRPORT GEOMETRY AND DESIGN STANDARDS-----------------------------------25 C.1 Introduction -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25 C.2 Airport Reference Code--------------------------------------------------------------------------26 Table 2-8 Airport Reference Code--------------------------------------------------------------------------26 C.3 Design Aircraft-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26 Table 2-9 Design Aircraft-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28 CA Object-Clearing Criteria--------------------------------------------------------------------------28 C.5 Building Restriction Line-------------------------------------------------------------------------29 C.6 Runway Protection Zone------------------------------------------------------------------------29 C.7 Runway Visibility Zone---------------------------------------------------------------------------30 C.8 Runway Design------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30 C.8.a Introduction -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30 C.B.b Runway Dimensions------------------------------------------------------------------------------31 C.8.c Runway Safety Areas----------------------------------------------------------------------------31 Table 2-10 Existing Runway Safety Areas-----------------------------------------------------------------32 C.8.d Obstacle-Free Zone------------------------------------------------------------------------------32 C.8.e Runway Object-Free Area----------------------------------------------------------------------33 C.9 Taxiway Design------------------------------------------------------------------------------------33 C.9.a Taxiway Dimensional Standards--------------------------------------------------------------33 C.9.b Taxiway Safety Areas----------------------------------------------------------------------------33 11 LWM AMPU Table of Contents C.9.c Taxiway Object-Free Area----------------------------------------------------------------------34 C.10 FAR Part 77 Surface Analysis-----------------------------------------------------------------34 C.10.a Imaginary Surfaces-------------------------------------------------------------------------------34 Table 2-11 Existing FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surface Dimensions-----------------------------------36 CA 1 Natural Obstructions------------------------------------------------------------------------------36 Table 2-12 Penetrations to Part 77 Surfaces--------------------------------------------------------------37 D. AI RS I DE FACILITY INVENTORY-------------------------------------------------------------37 D.1 Runways---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------38 D.1.a Primary Runway-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------38 D.1.b Crosswind Runway-------------------------------------------------------------------------------38 D.1.c Runway Signage and Markings---------------------------------------------------------------38 D.1.d Runway Condition---------------------------------------------------------------------------------38 D.1.e Runway Inventory Summary-------------------------------------------------------------------39 Table 2-13 Existing Runway Inventory Summary--------------------------------------------------------40 D.2 Taxiways---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40 D.2.a Taxiway Condition---------------------------------------------------------------------------------40 D.2.b Taxiway S ig nage and Markings---------------------------------------------------------------41 D.2.c Taxilanes--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------41 E. LAN DS I D E FACILITY INVENTORY----------------------------------------------------------41 E.1 Aprons and Hangars------------------------------------------------------------------------------41 E.1.a Transient Apron------------------------------------------------------------------------------------42 E.1.b Based-Aircraft Aprons----------------------------------------------------------------------------43 Table 2-14 Based-Aircraft Aprons----------------------------------------------------------------------------43 E.1.c Apron Condition------------------------------------------------------------------------------------44 E.1.d Hangars----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------44 E.1.e Aircraft Storage Demand------------------------------------------------------------------------44 Table 2-15 Existing Hangar Inventory-----------------------------------------------------------------------44 E.2 Terminal Building----------------------------------------------------------------------------------45 Figure 2-C Terminal Building Photograph -----------------------------------------------------------------46 E.3 Automobile Parking-------------------------------------------------------------------------------47 EA Miscellaneous Buildings and Facilities-------------------------------------------------------47 E.4.a Maintenance Building----------------------------------------------------------------------------47 E.4.b Fixed-Base Operators----------------------------------------------------------------------------47 E.4.c Fuel Storage and Sales--------------------------------------------------------------------------48 Table 2-16 Fuel Storage and Sales--------------------------------------------------------------------------48 F. MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT-------------------------------------49 III LWM AMPU Table of Contents F.1 Snow Removal Equipment----------------------------------------------------------------------49 Table 2-17 Existing SRE Inventory--------------------------------------------------------------------------50 F.2 Security Fence-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------50 G. AIRCRAFT INVENTORY AND OPERATIONS--------------------------------------------50 G.1 Based-Aircraft Inventory-------------------------------------------------------------------------51 Table 2-18 Based-Aircraft Inventory-------------------------------------------------------------------------51 G.1.a Hangared Aircraft----------------------------------------------------------------------------------51 G.1.b Non-Hangared Aircraft---------------------------------------------------------------------------51 G.2 Aircraft Operations--------------------------------------------------------------------------------51 Table 2-19 Aircraft Operations--------------------------------------------------------------------------------52 G.2.a Local Operations----------------------------------------------------------------------------------52 G.2.b Itinerant Operations-------------------------------------------------------------------------------53 G.2.c Estimated Night Operations--------------------------------------------------------------------53 G.2.d Operations Analysis------------------------------------------------------------------------------53 G.2.e Peak-Hour Operations---------------------------------------------------------------------------53 Table 2-20 Peak-Hour Operations Summary-------------------------------------------------------------53 G.3 Airline Operations---------------------------------------------------------------------------------54 GA Commuter and On-Demand Operators------------------------------------------------------54 H. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS---------------------------------------------------------------------------54 H.1 NAVAIDs Overview-------------------------------------------------------------------------------54 H.2 Instrument Approach Procedures-------------------------------------------------------------55 H.3 Instrument Operations---------------------------------------------------------------------------56 Table 2-21 Historical Instrument Operations--------------------------------------------------------------56 HA Regional Air Traffic Control---------------------------------------------------------------------56 H.5 Local Air Traffic Control--------------------------------------------------------------------------56 H.6 Tower Visibility-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------57 H.7 Airspace Structure--------------------------------------------------------------------------------57 Table 2-22 Traffic Pattern Direction--------------------------------------------------------------------------58 H.8 Local Traffic Pattern------------------------------------------------------------------------------58 Figure 2-D Typical LWM Traffic Pattern--------------------------------------------------------------------59 Figure 2-E Based-Aircraft Departure Direction-----------------------------------------------------------60 H.9 Nearby NAVAIDs----------------------------------------------------------------------------------60 Table 2-23 VOR Facilities--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------60 H.10 Noise Abatement----------------------------------------------------------------------------------60 I. AIRPORT LIGHTING-----------------------------------------------------------------------------61 1.1 Runway Edge Lights------------------------------------------------------------------------------61 IV LWM AMPU Table of Contents 1.2 Threshold Lights-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------61 1.3 Runway End Identifier Lights-------------------------------------------------------------------62 1.4 Vertical Light Guidance Systems--------------------------------------------------------------62 1.5 Taxiway Edge Lights-----------------------------------------------------------------------------62 1.6 Wind Cone------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------62 1.7 Rotating Beacon-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------62 1.8 Lighting Vault---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------63 1.9 Airport Lighting Summary-----------------------------------------------------------------------63 Table 2-24 Airport Lighting System Inventory-------------------------------------------------------------63 J. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS --------------------------------------------63 J.1 Wetlands---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------64 J.2 Soils---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------64 J.3 Wildlife -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------64 JA Surface Water Resources-----------------------------------------------------------------------65 J.5 Noise -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------65 Figure 2-F Existing Noise Contours-------------------------------------------------------------------------68 CHAPTER 3 FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND----------------------------------------------------69 A. FORECASTING -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------69 A.1 Forecast Elements--------------------------------------------------------------------------------69 A.2 Forecast Scope------------------------------------------------------------------------------------70 A.3 Factors Affecting Aviation Forecasts---------------------------------------------------------70 A.4 Impact of September 11 -------------------------------------------------------------------------70 A.5 Insurance Crisis------------------------------------------------------------------------------------71 A.6 Airport Service Area------------------------------------------------------------------------------71 Table 3-1 Regional Airports and LWM Service Area--------------------------------------------------71 Figure 3-A Lawrence Service Area--------------------------------------------------------------------------73 A.7 FAA NPIAS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------73 A.8 FAA Terminal Area Forecasts -----------------------------------------------------------------74 A.9 Based Aircraft--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------74 A.10 Operations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------74 A.11 FAA Aerospace Forecasts----------------------------------------------------------------------74 Figure 3-13 Actual and FAA TAF Based Aircraft----------------------------------------------------------75 Figure 3-C Historic and FAA TAF Operations------------------------------------------------------------75 Table 3-4 FAA Aerospace Forecasts for General Aviation (2002-2013)-------------------------78 A.12 Summary of Previous Master Plan Forecasts ---------------------------------------------78 v LWM AMPU Table of Contents Table 3-5 1985 Master Plan Forecasts -------------------------------------------------------------------79 Table 3-6 1999 ALP Update Based Aircraft Forecasts------------------------------------------------79 B. DEMOGRAPHICS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------79 B.1 Population-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------79 Table 3-7 Population in Service Area----------------------------------------------------------------------80 B.2 Income-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------81 B.3 Employment----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------81 Table 3-8 Per Capita Income in Service Area-----------------------------------------------------------82 Table 3-9 Employment in Service Area-------------------------------------------------------------------82 B.4 Demographic Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------------83 C. FORECAST METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS----------------------------------83 C.1 Operating Scenarios------------------------------------------------------------------------------83 C.2 Assumptions----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------84 C.2.a Constrained Assumptions-----------------------------------------------------------------------84 C.2.b Unconstrained Assumptions--------------------------------------------------------------------84 C.3 Preferred Forecasts-------------------------------------------------------------------------------85 Table 3-10 Forecast Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------------------85 CA Short-Term Growth -------------------------------------------------------------------------------86 C.5 Intermediate-and Long-Term Growth -------------------------------------------------------86 Figure 3-D Preferred Forecasts-------------------------------------------------------------------------------87 D. LAWRENCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FORECASTS-------------------------------------87 D.1 Airport Reference Code--------------------------------------------------------------------------87 D.2 Design Aircraft-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------87 D.3 Based Aircraft--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------88 Table 3-11 Based Aircraft Forecasts------------------------------------------------------------------------88 DA Fleet-Mix Based Aircraft-------------------------------------------------------------------------88 D.5 Operations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------88 Figure 3-E Based Aircraft Forecasted Scenarios--------------------------------------------------------89 Figure 3-F 2002 AMPU Based Aircraft Forecasts-------------------------------------------------------89 Table 3-12 Based Aircraft— Fleet Mix-----------------------------------------------------------------------90 Figure 3-G Historic Operations--------------------------------------------------------------------------------90 D.5.a Local Operations— Fleet Mix-------------------------------------------------------------------91 D.S.b Itinerant Operations— Fleet Mix---------------------------------------------------------------91 D.5.c Total Operations— Fleet Mix-------------------------------------------------------------------91 Table 3-13 Operations Fleet-Mix ----------------------------------------------------------------------------92 Table 3-14 Local Operations— Fleet Mix-------------------------------------------------------------------92 vi LWM AMPU Table of Contents Table 3-15 Itinerant Operations— Fleet Mix---------------------------------------------------------------93 Table 3-16 Total Operations— Fleet Mix-------------------------------------------------------------------93 D.6 Instrument Approaches--------------------------------------------------------------------------94 D.7 Peak-Hour-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------94 D.7.a Peak-Hour Operations---------------------------------------------------------------------------94 Figure 3-H U.S. Instrument-Rated Pilots-------------------------------------------------------------------95 Figure 3-1 Total Operations versus Instrument Operations-------------------------------------------95 Figure 3-J Peak-Hour Operations Forecast---------------------------------------------------------------96 D.7.b General-Aviation Peak-Hour Passenger Movement-------------------------------------96 Figure 3-K General-Aviation Peak-Hour Passenger Forecasts--------------------------------------97 D.7.c Commercial Service Peak-Hour Passenger Movement---------------------------------97 D.7.d Peak-Hour Passenger Summary--------------------------------------------------------------99 E. FORECASTS SUMMARY----------------------------------------------------------------------99 Table 3-17 Summary of Unconstrained Preferred Forecasts----------------------------------------- 100 CHAPTER 4 DEMAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS & FACILITY REQUIREMENTS----------------- 101 A. AI RS I D E CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS--------------------------------------------- 101 A.1 Existing Runway Capacity---------------------------------------------------------------------- 101 A.2 Forecasted Runway Capacity------------------------------------------------------------------ 102 A.3 Runway-Length Analysis------------------------------------------------------------------------ 102 Table 4-1 Generic Runway-Length Requirements----------------------------------------------------- 104 A.4 Runway-Width Analysis-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 106 A.5 Airport Reference Code and Geometric Standards-------------------------------------- 106 A.6 Runway Safety Areas---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 107 Table 4-2 Required Runway Safety Areas--------------------------------------------------------------- 107 A.7 Obstacle-Free Zone------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 108 A.8 Object-Free Area---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 108 Table 4-3 Runway Object-Free Areas--------------------------------------------------------------------- 108 A.9 Runway Protection Zones----------------------------------------------------------------------- 109 A.10 Runway Markings and Signage --------------------------------------------------------------- 109 A.11 Taxiway Configuration Requirements-------------------------------------------------------- 109 A.12 Taxiway Design Requirements---------------------------------------------------------------- 110 A.13 Airfield Lighting------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111 A.13.a Runway Lights ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111 A.13.b Approach Lights----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111 A.13.c Runway-End Identifier Lights------------------------------------------------------------------- 113 vi 1 LWM AMPU Table of Contents A.13.d Vertical Guidance Lighting Systems---------------------------------------------------------- 113 A.13.e Taxiway Lights------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113 A.13.f Miscellaneous Lighting--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113 A.13.g Lighting Vault--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113 B. LAN DS I D E CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS------------------------------------------ 114 B.1 Aircraft Storage and Parking------------------------------------------------------------------- 114 B.1.a Based-Aircraft Apron Requirements---------------------------------------------------------- 115 B.1.b Itinerant-Aircraft Apron Requirements------------------------------------------------------- 115 B.1.c Total Apron Requirements---------------------------------------------------------------------- 116 Table 4-4 Total Aircraft Apron Requirements------------------------------------------------------------ 116 B.1.d Apron Summary----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 117 B.2 Hangar Requirements---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 117 Table 4-5 Hangar-Space Requirements------------------------------------------------------------------ 117 B.3 Control-Tower Location Evaluation----------------------------------------------------------- 118 B.4 Terminal-Building Requirements-------------------------------------------------------------- 119 B.5 Automobile-Parking Requirements----------------------------------------------------------- 119 Table 4-6 Automobile-Parking Requirements----------------------------------------------------------- 119 B.6 Maintenance and Snow-Removal Equipment Building---------------------------------- 120 C. MISCELLANEOUS AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS-------------------------- 120 C.1 NAVAIDs and IAPs------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 120 C.1.a GPS Service---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 120 C.1.b Recommended Coverage----------------------------------------------------------------------- 121 C.2 Fuel Storage and Sales-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 122 C.3 Airport Security and Fencing------------------------------------------------------------------- 122 D. Summary of Airport Facility Requirements ------------------------------------------------- 123 Table 4-7 Summary of Recommended Changes------------------------------------------------------- 123 CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS------------------------------------------------------------------ 124 A. AI RS I D E SAFETY ALTERNATIVES--------------------------------------------------------- 125 A.1 IAPs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 125 Table 5-1 Existing and Recommended Instrument Approach Procedures ---------------------- 125 A.1.a Facility Infrastructure----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 125 A.1.b Demand---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 126 A.1.c Weather---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 127 A.1.d Cost--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 127 A.1.e Airspace --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 128 VIII LWM AMPU Table of Contents A.1.f Minimums ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 128 A.1.g IAP Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 128 A.1.h FAR Part 77 Surfaces---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 129 A.1.i IAP Recommendations-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 129 Table 5-2 Ultimate FAR Part 77 Imaginary Approach Surfaces------------------------------------ 130 A.2 Runway Protection Zones----------------------------------------------------------------------- 130 Table 5-3 Ultimate Runway Protection Zones----------------------------------------------------------- 131 A.3 Runway Safety Areas---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 131 B. AIRSIDE CAPACITY ALTERNATIVES------------------------------------------------------ 134 B.1 Runway Alternatives------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 134 B.2 Taxiway Alternatives------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 134 B.2.a Taxiway"G" Option 1----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 134 B.2.b Taxiway"G" Option 2----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 135 B.2.c Taxiway"A" Option 1A(Short-Term)--------------------------------------------------------- 135 B.2.d Taxiway"A" Option 1 B (Long-Term) --------------------------------------------------------- 135 B.2.e Taxiway"A" Option 2A (Short-Term)--------------------------------------------------------- 136 B.2.f Taxiway"A" Option 2B (Long-Term) --------------------------------------------------------- 136 Figure 5-A Alternative 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 137 Figure 5-B Alternative 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138 Figure 5-C Alternative 3---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 139 Figure5-D Alternative 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 140 B.2.g Taxiway Cost Assessment---------------------------------------------------------------------- 141 Table 5-4 Estimated Taxiway Development Costs----------------------------------------------------- 141 B.3 Approach Light Alternatives-------------------------------------------------------------------- 141 B.3.a Runway 23 MALSR Alternative---------------------------------------------------------------- 142 B.3.b Runway 05 MALSR Alternative---------------------------------------------------------------- 142 Table 5-5 MALSR Development Cost Alternatives----------------------------------------------------- 143 B.3.c MALSR Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 143 C. LAN DS I D E DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES------------------------------------------- 144 C.1 Apron Requirements------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 144 C.2 Hangar Requirements---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 144 C.3 Hangar-Development Sites--------------------------------------------------------------------- 144 C.3.a North Ramp Hangar Site 1 Development--------------------------------------------------- 145 C.3.b North Ramp Hangar Site 2 Development--------------------------------------------------- 145 C.3.c Other Potential Apron and Hangar Sites---------------------------------------------------- 145 C.3.d Hangar-Development Summary--------------------------------------------------------------- 145 ix LWM AMPU Table of Contents CA Terminal Building---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 146 Figure 5-E Existing Control Tower Sighting Over Terminal Building-------------------------------- 148 Figure 5-F Proposed Terminal Building, First Floor----------------------------------------------------- 149 Figure 5-G Proposed Terminal Building, Second Floor------------------------------------------------- 150 C.5 Maintenance Building---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150 C.6 Automobile Parking------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150 D. AVIATION-COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT----------------------------------------------- 151 E. NONAVIATION-COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT---------------------------------------- 152 Table 5-6 Existing and Potential Aircraft Parking Capacity------------------------------------------ 153 F. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES--------------------------------------------------------------- 153 F.1 Short-Term------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 153 F.2 Intermediate-Term -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 154 F.3 Long-Term ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 154 Figure 5-H Preferred Alternative------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 155 CHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS--------------------------------------------------------------- 156 A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REVIEW---------------------------------------------------- 156 A.1 Noise ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 157 Table 6-1 Summary of Noise Analysis-------------------------------------------------------------------- 161 A.2 Compatible Land Uses--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 162 A.3 Social Impacts-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 163 A.4 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts-------------------------------------------------------------- 163 A.5 Air Quality------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 163 A.6 Water Quality--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 164 A.7 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f)-------------------------------------------- 165 A.8 Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources--------------------- 166 A.9 Biotic Communities------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 166 A.10 Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna----------------------------- 167 A.11 Wetlands--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 167 Table 6-2 Summary of Wetlands Impact------------------------------------------------------------------ 168 A.12 Floodplains------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 169 A.13 Coastal Zone Management--------------------------------------------------------------------- 169 A.14 Coastal Barriers------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 169 A.15 Wild and Scenic Rivers-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 169 A.16 Farmland -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 169 A.17 Energy and Natural Resources---------------------------------------------------------------- 171 x LWM AMPU Table of Contents A.18 Light Emissions------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 171 A.19 Solid Waste----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 171 A.20 Construction Impacts----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 171 A.21 Environmental Justice---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 172 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUMMARY------------------------------------------------- 172 C. JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES, ACTIONS, AND PERMITS---------------------- 173 C.1 Federal Requirements--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 174 C.2 State Requirements------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 175 C.3 Local Requirements------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 175 CHAPTER 7 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS------------------------------------------------------------------------- 176 AAI P FUNDING-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 176 B CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND INFLATION---------------------------------------------- 177 Figure 7-A Construction Cost Index------------------------------------------------------------------------- 178 C IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE------------------------------------------------------------- 178 Table 7-1 Projected Airport Capital Costs (2005-2024)----------------------------------------------- 179 D. SHORT-TERM IMPROVEMENTS------------------------------------------------------------ 181 D.1 VMP Permitting------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 181 D.2 Implement VMP------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 181 D.3 Prepare E N F---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 181 DAEA/EIR----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 181 D.5 RSA Improvements------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 181 D.6 Replace Runway 14-32 Lights----------------------------------------------------------------- 181 D.7 Design and Construct Taxiway"G------------------------------------------------------------- 181 D.8 Replace Taxiway"A" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 182 D.9 Complete Airfield Fencing----------------------------------------------------------------------- 182 D.10 Rehabilitate Parking Aprons-------------------------------------------------------------------- 182 Table 7-2 Short-Term Apron Rehabilitation Requirements ------------------------------------------ 182 D.11 Construct Hangars-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 182 D.12 Total Short-Term Project Costs---------------------------------------------------------------- 183 E. INTERMEDIATE-TERM IMPROVEMENTS------------------------------------------------ 183 E.1 Replace S RE/Maintenance Building --------------------------------------------------------- 183 E.2 Install MALSR ALS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 183 E.3 Replace SIRE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 183 EA Replace/Upgrade Mowing Equipment------------------------------------------------------- 183 E.5 Reconstruct Runway 05-23--------------------------------------------------------------------- 184 A LWM AMPU Table of Contents E.6 Rehabilitate Taxiway and Apron Pavement------------------------------------------------ 184 Table 7-3 Intermediate-Term Pavement Rehabilitation Requirements--------------------------- 184 E.7 Obstruction Removal----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 184 E.8 Remodel Terminal Building--------------------------------------------------------------------- 184 E.9 Update Airport Master Plan--------------------------------------------------------------------- 185 E.10 Expand Automobile Parking-------------------------------------------------------------------- 185 E.6 Intermediate-Term Project Costs-------------------------------------------------------------- 185 F. LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS-------------------------------------------------------------- 185 F.1 Extend Taxiway°A"------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 185 F.2 Decommission I LS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 186 F.3 Upgrade/Improve Airport Lighting and Signs----------------------------------------------- 186 FA Reconstruct Runway 14-32--------------------------------------------------------------------- 186 F.5 Rehabilitate Taxiways and Aprons------------------------------------------------------------ 186 Table 7-4 Long-Term Pavement Rehabilitation Requirements------------------------------------- 186 F.6 Replace SRE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 186 F.7 Update Airport Master Plan--------------------------------------------------------------------- 187 F.8 Long-Term Project Costs------------------------------------------------------------------------ 187 G. REVENUE AND EXPENSES------------------------------------------------------------------ 187 Table 7-5 Airport Expenses---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 187 Table 7-6 Projected Annual Revenue (2005)------------------------------------------------------------ 188 H. FINANCIAL SUMMARY------------------------------------------------------------------------- 188 APPENDICES APPENDIX A-Abbreviations and Acronyms-----------------------------------------------------------------A-1 APPENDIX B -Airport Layout Plan Set------------------------------------------------------------------------B-1 • Title Sheet-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B-4 • Existing Airport Facilities Plan----------------------------------------------------------------------------B-5 • Terminal Area Plan (South)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------B-6 • Terminal Area Plan (North)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------B-7 • Ultimate Airport Layout-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B-8 • Approach Plan and Profile Runway 5------------------------------------------------------------------B-9 • Approach Plan and Profile Runway 23-----------------------------------------------------------------B-10 • Land-Use Plan------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B-11 • FAR Part 77 Airspace Analysis--------------------------------------------------------------------------B-12 x1l LWM AMPU Table of Contents APPENDIX C- Instrument Approach and Departure Procedures---------------------------------------C-1 • ILS Runway 5-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C-2 • NDB or GPS Runway 5------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C-3 • VOR or GPS Runway 23----------------------------------------------------------------------------------C-4 • Lawrence Four Departure---------------------------------------------------------------------------------C-5 APPENDIX D -Agency Letters-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------D-1 • Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries &Wildlife, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, letter dated 7 February 2001------------------------------------------------------------------------------D-2 • Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries &Wildlife, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, letter dated 17 May 2001---------------D-5 • Oxbow Associates, Inc., Site Visit Summary and Rare Species Impact Analysis, reported dated April 2001---------------------------------------------------------------------D-7 • Massachusetts Historical Commission, letter dated 3 December 2001------------------------D-11 • United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, letter dated 17 December 2001--------------------------------------------------------------------------D-13 xm Chapter One INTRODUCTION 11111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111he Lawrence Airport Commission (LAC) contracted with Dufresne-Henry, Inc., consulting engineers and planners, to prepare an Airport Master Plan Update (AMPU)for Lawrence Municipal Airport(LWM).' The purpose of Phase I of this AMPU is to develop a clear understanding of subsequent study objectives and issues. This stage of the AMPU concentrates on the collection and assimilation of all data pertinent to the airport operation and concludes with a scope of work for Phase II, which assesses critical issues emanating from the initial data collection. This AMPU project is financed jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC), and the City of Lawrence through a planning grant under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)of the FAA Authorization Act of 1994 (AIP Project#3- 25-0026-18). A. PLANNING PROCESS Airport master planning is the systematic way by which airports are developed and enhanced. Taken to the next abstraction, the underlying motivation for airport planning and development is a perpetual search for ways to increase system capacity. An airport provides capacity for the air-transportation system. The capacity of a specific airport depends on its design, weather conditions, and operating limits imposed by environmental conditions. An AMPU document consists of numerous parts that develop a systematic analysis leading the reader along a natural progression, from the inventory of existing conditions to the recommendation of improvement programs. Guidance for preparing an AMPU comes from FAA Advisory Circular(AC) 150/5070-6A,Airport Master Plans. This AC may be used for preparing individual airport master plans pursuant to the provisions of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 or for general airport planning, irrespective of federal involvement. Various other documents are referenced throughout this report to support the credibility and success of the development recommendations. 'The official FAA airport identifier for Lawrence Municipal Airport is LWM. AUGUST 2004 - 1 - LWM AMPU Chapter 1 —Introduction A thorough inventory of existing conditions at LWM and assimilation of historic data enable the forecasting of future activity demand. Analyses of demand/capacity relationships, in turn, provide a basis for determining facility requirements and developing alternative airside and landside concepts designed to achieve a balance in capacity among all components. The physical capability of expansion is determined, as well as its timing based on the development costs versus delay- reduction benefits, operational reliability, safety considerations, and ability of the airport sponsor to finance the improvements. B. AMPU OBJECTIVES The goal of an AMPU is to provide guidelines for future airport development that will satisfy aviation demand in a financially feasible manner while also resolving the aviation, environmental, and socioeconomic issues existing in the community. Specific objectives, as outlined in AC 150/5070-6A, are as follows: • to provide an effective graphic presentation of the future development of the airport and anticipated land uses in the vicinity of the airport • to establish a realistic schedule for implementation of the development proposed in the plan, particularly for the short-term capital improvement program • to propose an achievable financial plan to support the implementation schedule • to justify the plan technically and procedurally through a thorough investigation of concepts and alternatives on technical, economic, and environmental grounds • to present for public consideration, in a convincing and candid manner, a plan that adequately addresses the issues and satisfies local, state, and federal regulations • to document policies and future aeronautical demands for reference in municipal deliberations on spending and debt incurrence and land-use controls (e.g., subdivision regulations and the erection of potential obstructions to air navigation) • to set the stage and establish the framework for a continuing planning process; such a process should monitor key conditions and adjust plan recommendations if required by changed circumstances In addition to the AMPU report, a set of drawings called the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) provides a graphic description of the airport and the improvement recommendations. AUGUST 2004 -2- LWM AMPU Chapter 1 —Introduction C. PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE As addressed, the AMPU process involves collecting data, forecasting demand, determining facility requirements, and developing plans and schedules. These steps cannot be undertaken effectively without understanding other aviation, transportation, and comprehensive-planning requirements. The AMPU process must consider airport tenants and users as well as the public who may be affected by its results. Their involvement throughout the process avoids "surprises" and helps develop a consensus. Early progress toward a consensus on master-plan recommendations can pave the way for effective environmental-assessment and impact-statement reviews. Public participation is an important function in developing the AMPU report. Information provided by the public has the benefit of tailoring the planning process specifically to the needs of the airport and local community. A Planning Advisory Committee (PAC)was organized by the LAC. The PAC is the basic unit of citizen involvement in airport planning. Although the PAC has no decision-making power of its own, it helps shape the final decision through its interaction with the planning team. At the completion of the AMPU, the PAC may be disbanded. Table 1-1 lists the citizens and organizations that participated in the preparation and assisted in the review of this AMPU. Table 1-1,AMPU Participants Name Representing Name Representing Ms. Mulikat Yemmy Akinola Airport Commission Mr. Anthony Marmiani PAC Mr. Michael Arcidi PAC Mr. Michael Miller Airport Manager Sen. Steven A. Baddour 1st Essex Ms. Joyce Mills PAC Mr. Patrick J. Blanchette PAC Ms. Charlotte Misuraca Airport Commission Rep. Arthur J. Broadhurst 15th Essex Ms. Maureen Moran PAC Mr. Tim Campbell PAC Ms. Robin Morgasen PAC Mr. Dennis Card PAC Ms. Arline Moynihan Airport Commission Mr. Tony Carsanaro PAC Mayor Sharon M. Pollard City of Methuen Mr. Bill Collins PAC Mr. Mark Reese Town of North Andover Mr. Jim Cyrier PAC Mr. Richard Rejniak Airport Commission Mr. Ervin Deck Dufresne-Henry Mr. Jim Richards PAC Mr. Wilfred Desruisseaux PAC Mr. Vince Scarano FAA Mr. Joseph Faro PAC Mr. Richard Sheytanian PAC Rep. Barry Finegold 17th Essex Ms. Rosemary Smedile PAC Mr. Joseph Halloran Airport Commission Mayor Michael J. Sullivan City of Lawrence Mr. Robert Halpin MVEDC Sen. Bruce E. Tarr 1st Essex and Middlesex Mr. Lyndon Holmes PAC Mr. Charles Thompson Airport Commission Mr. Frank Kivell PAC Rep. David Torrisi 14th Essex Mr. Charles Kolofoles Chair-Airport Commission Sen. Susan Tucker 2nd Essex and Middlesex Rep. William Lantigua 16th Essex Mr. Carlos Veras Airport Commission Mr. James LaTorre Airport Commission Mr. Jay Wood Dufresne-Henry Mr. Scott MacLeod MAC AUGUST 2004 -3- LWM AMPU Chapter 1 —Introduction D. OVERVIEW The purpose of this AMPU is to document the need for improvements at LWM. In addition, a realistic implementation plan for these improvements was prepared that considers not only the demand but also the ability to construct and finance the improvements, as well as the ability to minimize environmental impacts because of these improvements. Ideally, the AMPU should reflect an up-to-date assessment of what exists and what is required. The existing master plan for LWM was completed in 1986 by Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Much of the data used in that document was based on activity levels from 1985 and earlier. Dufresne-Henry, Inc., also undertook an update of the ALP, completed in 2000. That effort was limited in scope; however, the update and supporting follow-up documentation did provide the means for the FAA to grant a release approval for the proposed northeast-quadrant industrial park. Updating airport plans to reflect airport modification and off-airport development is a necessity. In fact, airports receiving federal financial assistance are required to keep their ALP current. Other than maintaining the currency of their ALP, smaller airports are not required to continually update the master plan. Once an adequate master plan has been produced, a revision should only be necessary to deal with unforeseen and substantive changes in activity or the emergence of critical issues, such as those facing the city of Lawrence and its airport commission. In light of the issues that need to be resolved and the time elapsed since the last update, this project is clearly justified. D.1 Glossary of Acronyms and Definitions. Definitions of terms and acronyms used throughout this AMPU are defined in Appendix A. D.2 Issues. This AMPU addresses the following planning tasks that will significantly impact the future configuration of Lawrence Municipal Airport. These issues are not intended as final. Instead, they are presented as the foundation from which Phase I is undertaken. As this AMPU develops, new issues addressed are added. • identify the airport's role and develop an Airport Mission Statement • identify likely environmental impacts and mitigation requirements resulting from existing operations and proposed improvements • assess existing and future aircraft noise impacts and develop noise-abatement strategies • develop a comprehensive land-use plan for the airport and affected communities AUGUST 2004 -4- LWM AMPU Chapter 1 —Introduction • assess current airport rates and charges and recommend improvements as needed • assess current airport staffing, political, and fiduciary responsibilities and recommend improvements as needed • assess airport economic impacts and community benefits • identify a likely capital improvement plan (CIP)for the next 20 years D.3 Surveys. Several surveys were recommended as part of this AMPU. The first was directed to based-aircraft owners and pilots as well as primary itinerant users of LWM. This survey sought to establish levels of current use, annual expenditures, and likes and dislikes of the current airport operation. The second survey effort was directed to other general-aviation reliever airports to Boston's Logan International Airport. The purpose of this survey was to establish a local benchmark to compare LWM rates and charges, operating and maintenance requirements, and management practices with those of similar facilities. Specific information extracted from all three surveys (i.e., tenant pilot, itinerant pilot, and airport surveys) is presented throughout this report following the subsection to which the information pertains. E. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The preliminary scoping process determined that the city of Lawrence has the financial capability to undertake the airport development addressed in this chapter of the AMPU. After the implementation schedule has been adopted, it must be periodically subjected to economic analysis to ascertain whether the financial considerations upon which it is predicated remain reasonably on target. That is, will the airport sponsor be in the position to fund recommended projects? Financial planning in support of the implementation schedule involves strategies for obtaining capital financing and the identification and projection of current and future revenues to cover all or part of the cost of capital financing and airport operations. AUGUST 2004 -5- Chapter Two INVENTORY OF EXISTING AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CONDITIONS iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii uuuuuuuuuuuhe initial action necessary in preparing an AMPU is the collection of all pertinent data that relates to the area served by the airport as well as the airport itself. This inventory was conducted using the following sources of information: • 1986 Master Plan' • Terminal Feasibility Study2 • Runway Safety Area Study3 • Airport Layout Plan Update • on-site visits • interviews with airport management, tenants, and users • interviews with and data obtained from the LAC • tenant and itinerant pilot surveys • reliever and general-aviation airport surveys • coordination with local planning representatives • federal, state, and local publications • PAC input • project record drawings, including the Existing Airport Facilities Plan (see Appendix B, Sheet 2) This chapter briefly describes the physical facilities at LWM. Aviation-specific information on the airspace, other airports in the area, aviation activity at Lawrence Municipal Airport, and role of the airport is also described. 'LWM Master Plan Technical Report; Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.; Boston, MA(1986). 2LWM Terminal Feasibility Study; Dufresne-Henry, Inc.; Portland, ME (July 1999). 3LWM Runway Safety Area Study; Dufresne-Henry, Inc.; Portland, ME (June 2000). 4LWM Airport Layout Plan Update; Dufresne-Henry, Inc.; Portland, ME (July 2000). AUGUST 2004 - 6- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory A. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Lawrence Municipal Airport is located in North Andover, in the northeastern corner of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in Essex County. This area is commonly referred to as the Merrimack Valley, a region that is divided by the Merrimack River with headwaters in north-central New Hampshire. The airport is situated east of the Merrimack River and Interstate 495, approximately 30 miles northwest of Boston. The larger communities within Essex County that surround the airport include Lawrence, Methuen, Andover, Boxford, and Haverhill. (See the Title Sheet in Appendix B). A.1 Town of North Andover. North Andover, with a total area of 28 square miles, is located in northeastern Massachusetts, bordered by Andover and Lawrence on the west, Methuen and Haverhill on the north, Boxford on the east, and Middleton and North Reading on the south. North Andover is 12 miles east of Lowell; 24 miles north of Boston; 33 miles from Manchester, New Hampshire; and 243 miles from New York City. A.2 City of Lawrence. Totaling only 7.4 square miles but with a population of more than 70,000, Lawrence is an older, urban, industrialized city whose history parallels that of the country as a whole. Lawrence is also the largest city in the Merrimack Valley region. A.3 Demographics. Vital statistics are indispensable in studying social trends and making legislative and commercial decisions. Population studies yield knowledge important for planning, particularly by governments, in fields such as health, education, housing, social security, employment, and environmental preservation. Population studies also assist the planner in developing plans for airport support and the potential for expansion. The following data reflects a community that ranks on an equal level with the state and above the national average in terms of income, education, and housing, yet with a stable population base. A.3.a Population. The five westernmost communities in the region (i.e., Lawrence, Haverhill, Andover, North Andover, and Methuen) comprised 74 percent of the county population in 1990. Table 2-1 compares the population of these communities and the county, state, and country between the 1990 and 2000 census. The Essex County population is projected to increase at a rate of 2.9 percent in the next ten years. AUGUST 2004 - 7- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Table 2-1, Population Comparison COMMUNITYCENSUS ENDING YEAR Andover 29,151 31,247 7.2% Haverhill 51,418 58,969 14.7% Lawrence 70,207 72,043 2.6% Methuen 39,990 43,789 9.5% N.Andover 22,792 27,202 19.3% Essex County 670,080 723,419 8.0% Massachusetts 6,016,425 6,349,097 5.5% United States 248,710,000 281,422,000 13.2% Source: U.S.Census Bureau, 1990 Census of Population, File STF1. A.3.b Income. Table 2-2 compares per capita personal income of Essex County to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States between 1980 and 2000. As illustrated in the table, personal income in the area has kept pace with the state and both continue to grow above the national average. Table 2-2, Per Capita Personal Income • err N. Andover NA NA $47,000 Lawrence NA NA $30,200 Essex County $11,142 $22,816 $44,000 Massachusetts $10,729 $23,196 $43,000 United States $10,030 $19,142 $37,000 Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S.Census Bureau. AUGUST 2004 - 8- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Survey Results'-An indispensable part of this AMPU is the establishment of a baseline of information concerning spending patterns of both tenant and itinerant pilots. Of the 233 local (i.e., tenant) pilots surveyed, 111 (47.6%) responded. In addition, 113 transient pilots were surveyed; however, only 5 (4.4%) responded. Aircraft owners and pilots incur expenses related to aircraft ownership and use as well as personal spending for flight training, travel, and other consumables related to both aircraft and personal/business expenses. Of particular interest was the annual cost of aircraft ownership or use, in the case of the rental or leasing of an aircraft, and travel-related expenses associated with transient pilots visiting the Merrimack Valley for business or pleasure. o Question: Tenant pilots, how much do you Table 2-3,Annual Tenant Pilot Expenditures spend annually on the ITEM AMOUNTPERCENT following items and OF TOTAL Aircraft Insurance $238,550 10.3% services? Aircraft Payments $520,037 22.5% o Table 2-3 represents Electronics and Data $91,870 4.0% the results of 99 tenant Flight Instruction $80,398 3.5% pilots who responded to Fuel $518,008 22.4% this question in the Inspections $453,301 19.6% survey. As shown, Maintenance $107,204 4.6% local pilots report Miscellaneous $24,573 1.1% spending an average of Pilot Supplies $41,757 1.8% $23,371 per year for Storage $202,357 8.7% aircraft-related costs. Supplies and Consumables $35,670 1.5% Totals $2,313,725 100.0% o Transient pilots were Number Reporting 99 asked five specific Average per Respondent $23,371 questions concerning Source: LWM Tenant Pilot Survey(October 2001). the economics of their flight. s As part of this study, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., conducted an extensive survey effort. Where appropriate, the results of this survey are presented to support findings of the inventory of airport facilities and operations. AUGUST 2004 - 9- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory - Question: How many times have you flown into LWM in the past year? o On average, transient pilots visit LWM three times per year. - Question: Did you stay overnight in the area in a hotel, motel, etc.? o None of the responding pilots reported staying overnight in the LWM area. - Question: What is the primary use of this aircraft (business, recreational, air taxi, or training)? o Sixty percent of the respondents reported using aircraft for business purposes; the remaining 40%flew into LWM for pleasure/recreation. - Question: Approximately how much did you spend during your visit in the area (local transportation, food, lodging, rental car, entertainment, aircraft fuel, fees, and services)? o On average, transient pilots spend $224 per visit. - Question: Why did you fly to LWM? o The results were mixed. Half visited LWM to drop off or pick up a passenger, the other half visited LWM for a business meeting. A.4 Airport History. Originally constructed in 1934 under the Civil Works Act, the city of Lawrence acquired 312 acres of land in North Andover for the development of the airport. The airport's present configuration was assumed around 1946, originally with three runways. Runway 05-23 at 4,000 feet was extended to its present length of 5,000 feet in 1968. The crosswind runway, Runway 14-32 was 3,500 feet long, extended to 3,901 feet, also in 1968. The third runway, originally at 3,200 feet was deactivated and converted to what is now Taxiway"D". A.5 Federal and State Grants. Table 2-4 lists AIP discretional entitlements awarded since 1982 and Airport Safety and Maintenance Plan (ASMP)grants awarded since 1996. Several significant improvement projects, funded through the AIP and ASMP, have been completed since preparation of the last AMPU in 1986. Several other projects are pending in the federal AIP-CIP through fiscal year 2006. AUGUST 2004 - 10- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Table 2-4, Grant History PURPOSEYEAR • 1983 Overlay Apron; Improve Access Road AIP $281,370 1984 Expand Apron;Acquire Snow-Removal Equipment AIP $367,699 1985 Master Plan Update; Expand Equipment Storage Building AIP $461,934 1986 Reconstruct Runway 5-23 AIP $997,309 1987 Install Taxiway Signs and Fencing AIP $150,704 1988 Construct Taxiway"B"and Apron (Phase I); Construct Taxiway AIP $1,924,404 1990 Reconstruct Access Road AIP $129,233 1992 Friction Treatment Runway 5-23; Install Guidance Signs AIP $274,964 1995 Reconstruct Portion of Runway 14-32 and Apron; Install AIP $1,130,176 Security Gates 1996 Purchase Used Snow-Removal Equipment(two trucks) ASMP $14,000 1997 Emergency Tree Clearing ASMP $35,342 1997 Remove Underground Storage Tanks ASMP $18,587 1997 Reconstruct and Mark Taxiway"B";AMPU Phase I AIP $516,252 1998 Runway Safety Area Study;AMPU Phase II AIP $32,850 1998 Terminal Feasibility Study ASMP $41,500 1998 Purchase Mowing Deck and Snowplow Blades ASMP $11,625 1998 Purchase two Aboveground Fuel Storage Tanks ASMP $21,870 1998 Vegetation Management Plan ASMP $117,522 1999 Purchase Snow Removal Equipment(Front-end Loader) AIP $116,311 1999 Construct and Install Noise-Abatement Signs ASMP $780 1999 Remove and Dispose four Underground Storage Tanks ASMP $19,023 2001 Reconstruct, Mark, and Light Taxiway"D"; Install Access Gates AIP $517,500 2001 Airport Master Plan Update (Phase I) AIP $37,148 2002 Acquisition of Snow Removal Equipment AIP $183,000 2002 Airport Master Plan Update (Phase II) AIP $184,400 Total Discretionary and Entitlement $7,585,503 Sources: FAA and MAC. AUGUST 2004 - 11 - LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory B. AIRPORT ELEMENTS The intangible elements that comprise the airport and surrounding environment are reviewed in this subsection. B.1 Topography. LWM is located within a 532-acre parcel of land located in the city of North Andover. It is situated on the southeastern bank of the Merrimack River in an area consisting of rolling hills. Lake Cochichewick is located directly off the end of Runway 14 across Osgood Street. The airport elevation is 149 feet above mean sea level (MSL), which is higher than the surrounding terrain. Sharp grade changes of up to 50 feet exist on the ends of Runways 05, 14, and 23. B.2 Management Structure. LWM is owned and operated by the City of Lawrence through the LAC, which approves an airport manager. In addition to the manager, the airport employs a secretary and two maintenance people. LWM was compared to other airports of similar operating characteristics in the region through an airport survey (Figure 2-A). With the exception of Hanscom Field, the other airports surveyed have similar staffing. Figure 2-A,Staffing Comparison .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Minute Man Plymouth Norwood 13 Nashua Lawrence O F611-Time Adrn in, ®Part-Time Admin O Full-Time OWMaint O Part-Time Ops/Maint Beverly Hanscom 0 5 10 15 20 Source:Airport Survey(Fall 2001). AUGUST 2004 - 12- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Survey Results-The airport management and commission want to develop an Airport Mission Statement as well as the likes and dislikes of the current airport operation. One key question directed to the tenant aircraft owners was their opinion of how well certain groups were performing their services. Specific to this subsection is the level of performance of both the airport management and the LAC. Choices range from a high of"5" (excellent)to a low of "1" (poor). - Question: Tenant pilots were asked how well the airport management is performing its services. o Next to the fixed-base operators (FBOs), airport management received the highest mark, with an average score of 3.3 (good to very good). Many respondents felt there was room for improvement; however, with the recent appointment of the interim manager to a permanent position, respondents were hopeful that performance would be enhanced. - Question: Tenant pilots were asked how well the airport commission was performing its services. o The LAC did not fare as well as management, scoring only 2.9 of a possible 5.0. Political friction within the commission seemed to be the greatest concern and reason for the low score. Another key area observed is the cost of Figure 2-13,Staffing versus Budget providing an airport staff. Figure 2-13 Minute Man shows that LWM has Plymouth a staff budget-to- Norwood revenue rate of 50 percent, second Nashua highest of the airports Lawrence surveyed. Minute Man Field has no staff Beverly budget because Hanscom staffing is provided by 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% the local FBOs. Source:Airport Survey(Fall 2001). AUGUST 2004 - 13- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory B.3 Financial Support/Revenue Fee Structure. At general-aviation airports, where purely aviation service and training take place, there is little likelihood of an airport sustaining its own operation. Typical rates and fees at general-aviation airports similar to LWM are as follows: • daily(nightly) and monthly tiedown fees • daily(nightly) and monthly hangar fees • fuel flowage fees (per gallons sold) • sale or lease of airport property for business purposes (e.g., an FBO) • rent or lease of building or office space, typically on a per-square-foot basis • rent or lease of counter space in terminal buildings (e.g., rental-car agencies, food service) • landing fees, typically for aircraft larger than light single-engine aircraft Survey Results- Numerous surveys have been conducted within the industry to assist airport sponsors in setting fair and equitable rates, including the American Association of Airport Executives, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and a survey conducted by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. This AMPU is also relying, in part, on results from three additional surveys prepared especially for this report (see Chapter 1). The fees charged by LWM were compared to typical fees charged in the New England region to provide a comparison between the two. • Six airports (i.e., Nashua, Beverly, Norwood, Plymouth, Hanscom, and Stow [Minute Man]) were surveyed and asked to list the various fees and charges they assess for various services at the airport. The fees charged at LWM appear consistent with these those charged at other airports. Because each airport can establish its own fee structure, making comparisons can be difficult. Survey Results- Many airports similar in size and classification to LWM find it prudent to charge certain fees for the use of the facility. This money goes directly into the airport's operating budget and is an essential part of keeping facilities viable. LWM charges a landing fee for corporate-owned aircraft only. Privately owned aircraft are exempt. Transient pilots we asked two specific questions concerning landing fees. AUGUST 2004 - 14- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory - Question: Considering the cost of running an airport in today's environment, do you feel reliever airports such as LWM should charge a landing fee and, if so, how much do you feel is a reasonable amount? o Sixty percent of the respondents thought a landing fee was reasonable and on, average, suggested that$7 was a fair amount to charge. B.4 Land Use. One of the many objectives of the airport sponsor is to ensure land use that is fully compatible according to commonly accepted criteria. The city, state, and federal governments have made irreversible commitments to the community, and owners and developers have made significant investments in land, buildings, and business infrastructures around the airport. To protect these interests, a wide variety of instruments is typically available to local governments and airport sponsors to control the compatibility of surrounding land uses. Generally, they fall into two principal categories: (1)those that involve land ownership of property rights and provide absolute control; and (2)those that depend on administrative and regulatory action and provide less certain controls. The most generally used controls are zoning, land purchase, and easements. B.4.a Zoning and Ordinances. Aviation safety requires a minimum clear space (or buffer) between operating aircraft and other objects. When these other objects are structures (e.g., buildings), the buffer may be achieved by limiting aircraft operations, by limiting the location and height of the objects, or by a combination of these factors. The most common land-use control is zoning. Zoning is an exercise of the police powers of a state or local government that enable that government to designate the uses that are permitted for each parcel of land. It typically consists of a zoning ordinance that specifies land development and use constraints. One of the primary advantages of zoning is that it may be used to promote land-use compatibility while leaving the land in private ownership, on the tax rolls, and economically productive. Although most larger cities have zoning authority, rural areas often are not subject to this remedy because, in many states, counties have only limited (or no)zoning authority. For zoning to work effectively, it should be based on a comprehensive plan, which plan must consider the total needs of a community along with specific needs of an airport. A comprehensive plan defines the goals and objectives of a community, and zoning is one of the AUGUST 2004 - 15- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory tools available to the community for implementing that plan. Zoning can and should be used constructively to increase the value and productivity of the affected land. For zoning to be viable, there should be a reasonable current or future need for each designated use. Within its limitations, zoning is a preferred method of controlling land use in noise-impacted areas. Zoning is not necessarily permanent. In most jurisdictions, the current legislative body is not bound by prior zoning actions and it may change that zoning. Consequently, zoning that achieves compatibility is subject to continual pressure for change from both urban expansion and those who might profit from such changes. In addition, from time to time, the entire zoning ordinance for a jurisdiction will be updated to accommodate increased growth or to incorporate new land-use concepts. The purpose of zoning to limit the height of objects in the vicinity of airports is to prevent their interference with safe and efficient operations. The Airport and Airways Improvement Act of 19826 states, in part, that as a condition precedent to approval of an airport-development project contained in a project grant application submitted under this title, the government will receive assurances in writing that: • the aerial approaches to the airport will be adequately cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or lighting or mitigating existing airport hazard, and by preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards; and • appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws, has been or will be taken, to the extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff aircraft. The town of North Andover is divided into 26 zoning districts, many of which are in proximity to the airport. Table 2-5 lists the various districts as well as a brief description of each and any height restrictions. The zoning districts established by the town's bylaws are shown on the Land-Use Plan in Appendix B. 6Section 511. AUGUST 2004 - 16- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Table 2-5, North Andover Zoning Districts DESIGNATIONDISTRICT • Residence 1 R-1 One-family dwelling 35 Residence 2 R-2 One-family dwelling 35 Residence 3 R-3 One-family dwelling 35 Residence 4 R-4 One-family dwelling 35 Village Residential V-R Multi-family, one building per lot 35 Residential 5 R-5 One family dwelling 35 Residential 6 R-6 Single, two/multi-family 35 Business 1 B-1 Retail, personal, professional, 35 eating/drinking establishments Business 2 B-2 B-1, plus businesses and other 35 offices Business 3 B-3 B-1, B-2, plus public buildings 35 Business 4 B-4 Research and development 60 Village Commercial V-C Retail and wholesale stores 40 General Business G-B Retail and wholesale stores 45 Research and development, Industrial 1 1-1 business and other professional 55 services, parking garages Research and development, Industrial 2 1-2 business and other professional 55 services, light manufacturing 1-1 plus public buildings, public Industrial 3 1-3 garages, public storage, sanitary 55 disposal sites Research and development, Industrial S I-S business and professional offices, 55 non profit schools or private schools for profit, public buildings Height in feet. Source:The Zoning Bylaw,Town of North Andover,Amended December 11,2000. BAb Airport Property. The airport property is zoned 1-3 and all developed property within the airport is primarily aviation-related; however, large tracts of land within the airport boundary have been leased, or are available for lease or sale, for nonaeronautical activity. A 4.6-acre parcel along the southwestern side of the airport, between the main terminal and Sutton Street, was under lease by the U.S. Postal Service but was recently canceled for economic reasons. A large parcel is currently being considered for lease by the airport AUGUST 2004 - 17- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory commission, again for nonaeronautical activity, if necessary. This 46.7-acre tract is located on the airport's northern corner between the approach ends of Runways 14 and 23. Based on the recently completed ALP update, the FAA is contemplating the release of this parcel from dedicated airport property. The parcel is shown on the ALP as nonaeronautical use (see the Existing Airport Facilities Plan in Appendix B). Four additional parcels on airport property are currently classified as "property available for nonaeronautical use." There is a 4.2-acre parcel located off Osgood Road under the approach surface to Runway 23 and two parcels located off Sutton Street near the entrance to the West Ramp. A 2.2-acre parcel is leased by Northeast Storage and a 1.7-acre parcel is still available for sale or lease. The last parcel, located off Holt Road behind Flight Land Data (see Building #15 Existing Airport Facilities Plan in Appendix B)and slightly northeast of the approach end of Runway 23, is 1.2 acres. All six parcels are shown on the Existing Airport Facilities Plan (see Appendix B). B.4.c Private Adjacent Land Use. Because of the urban setting of the Lawrence Municipal Airport, several private residential homes and commercial businesses are in the immediate vicinity. Properties immediately adjoining the airport are bound by the Merrimack River to the west and north, Holt Road and Old Clark Road to the northeast, Osgood Street to the east, and Sutton Street to the south. Abutting the western end of the airport, between Runways 14 and 05, is the Greater Lawrence Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Plant(see the Existing Airport Facilities Plan in Appendix B). North of the airport along Osgood Street are areas of light commercial development and residential housing. Streets running perpendicular to the main street are primarily residential with some agricultural zones. The same holds true for areas east of the airport and north of Great Pond Road. Lake Cochichewick is south of Great Pond Road. The area in North Andover, which includes the airport and the land north and west of Old Clark and Holt Roads, is zoned 1-2. This classification calls for a minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet and maximum building coverage of 35 percent. More densely populated areas abound in the area south of the airport and Sutton Street and east of High Street. These areas are primarily residential, with a high concentration of business and commercial property, mostly community-type businesses such as shops and stores. There are areas of small G-B zones along Osgood and Sutton Streets. This AUGUST 2004 - 18- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory classification calls for a minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet and a maximum building height of 45 feet. In addition, some areas of B-1 zones exist that permit lots of more than 25,000 square feet, including some residential single-and multi-family dwellings. The areas running perpendicular and south of Chadwick Street are primarily residential. West of the Merrimack River, which forms the western boundary of the airport, is the city of Lawrence. The river forms the political division between Lawrence and North Andover. Farther west is the city of Methuen. Lawrence and Methuen contain a mix of residential, commercial, and business properties, both east and west of Interstate 495. 13.4.d Avigation Easements. Currently, there are no avigation easements associated with LWM; however, the existing master plan does recommend the acquisition of an easement over the Runway 05 clear zone;' B.5 Airport Access. Direct access to the airport's terminal and general-aviation facilities on the southern side of the airport is from Sutton Street. Access to other facilities on the northern side is from Osgood Road (Route 125)via Clark Street and Holt Road. (Refer to the Existing Airport Facilities Plan in Appendix B). B.6 Transportation in the Region. Development of transportation resources in the Merrimack Valley, where North Andover is situated, was shaped by the history of the region as a major site of American industrial development in the nineteenth century. The area has exceptionally good highway and rail facilities linking the major cities and towns to each other and to the port, airport, and intermodal facilities of Boston. B.6.a Regional Aviation. There are 47 public-use airports as well as approximately 200 private landing areas, seaplane bases, and heliports. Two airports, Boston's Logan International and Hanscom Field, are owned and operated by the Massachusetts Port Authority. Municipalities own 26 airports and 21 are privately owned; 6 provide scheduled passenger service, 5 are reliever airports to Logan, and 31 provide general-aviation services. Within the 30-mile service area around LWM are 11 public airports and several private airstrips. Many of the public-use facilities are classified under the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) as reliever airports. The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 requires the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)to publish a national plan for the 7See Airport Master Plan Technical Report; Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.;, Boston, MA(1986), page 7-23. August 2004 - 19- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory development of public-use airports in the United States. A primary purpose of the NPIAS is to identify airports that are important to national transportation and, therefore, eligible to receive grants under the AIR The NPIAS is composed of all commercial-service airports, all reliever airports, and selected general-aviation airports. Commercial-service airports are defined as public airports receiving scheduled passenger service and having 2,500 or more enplaned passengers per year. There are approximately 540 commercial-service airports in the United States; of these, 413 have more than 10,000 enplanements and are classified as primary airports. Three commercial-service airports are located within 30 miles of LWM: Pease International Tradeport, Manchester Airport, and Boston's Logan International Airport. General-aviation pilots often find it difficult and expensive to gain access to congested airports, particularly large-and medium-hub airports. The FAA encouraged the development of high- capacity general-aviation airports in major metropolitan areas. These specialized airports, called reliever airports, provide pilots with alternatives to using congested hub airports while providing access to the surrounding area. The 334 reliever airports in the United States have an average of 181 based aircraft and account for 32 percent of the nation's general-aviation Table 2-6, Public Use Airports in the Service Area LONGESTFAA AIRPORT • •N ID RUNWAY NPIAS ROLE DISTANCE Beverly Municipal Beverly, MA BVY 5,001 RL 12 Hampton Portsmouth, NH 7133 2,982 Non-NPIAS 20 Hanscom Field Bedford, MA BED 7,001 RL 17 Logan International Boston, MA BOS 10,081 PR 22 Manchester Manchester, NH MHT 9,247 PR 19 Marlboro Municipal Marlboro, MA 9131 1,659 Non-NPIAS 29 Minute Man Airfield Stow, MA 6136 2,770 RL 24 Boire Field Nashua, NH ASH 5,501 RL 18 Norwood Memorial Norwood, MA OWD 4,006 RL 31 Pease International Portsmouth, NH PSE 11,321 CM 25 Plum Island Newburyport, MA 2132 2,520 Non-NPIAS 13 Shirley Municipal Shirley, MA 9134 3,250 Non-NPIAS 27 Source: NPIAS;http://www.airnay.com. Role: One of the five basic airport service levels that describe the type of service an airport is expected to provide to the community. The service levels include PR-Commercial Service(primary);CM-Commercial Service(non primary); RL- Reliever Airport;and GA-General Aviation. August 2004 -20- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory fleet. All airports designated as relievers by the FAA are included in the NPIAS. There are six reliever airports surrounding the greater Boston area, including Beverly Municipal, Bedford (Hanscom) Field, Stow/Minute Man Airfield, Norwood Memorial, Nashua (Boire Field), and Lawrence Municipal. Table 2-6 lists all public-use airports within the Lawrence service area. As discussed in Chapter 1, a major focus of this AMPU is to establish a benchmark between Lawrence and other reliever airports or airports of similar-type service. This benchmark assists in making comparisons not only between the rates and fees charged at LWM but also operator and maintenance, as well as management practices. B.6.b Rail and Bus. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority(MBTA), which includes light rail, subway, and bus service, provides commuter rail services from Haverhill, Lawrence, Andover, and other local communities to the Boston metropolitan area. The MBTA also assists two private transit operators that provide commuter bus service between the region and Boston. The Merrimack Valley is serviced by almost 48 miles of track, most of which was formerly Boston and Maine (B&M) Railroad and is now the property of MBTA. Two major rail lines serve the region. The Western Route, which receives the most use, serves as both a commuter rail line to Boston and a major freight-hauling line that links eastern New Hampshire and Maine with western New England, New York, and the remainder of the country. The local portion of the line extends from the Wilmington/Andover town line north through Haverhill to New Hampshire. The Manchester and Lawrence branch of the Western Route line connects Lawrence and Salem, New Hampshire via Methuen, and carries a small amount of freight. AMTRAK passenger rail service, in concert with the Maine Department of Transportation, began commuter rail service between North Station in Boston and Portland, Maine. This service includes stops in Haverhill, Massachusetts; Durham and Exeter, New Hampshire; and Wells, Saco, Old Orchard Beach, and Portland, Maine. B.6.c Intermodal Transportation. The B&M introduced intermodal facilities to serve areas not adjacent to its rail lines. A public rail siding has been provided in Lawrence and is used by several companies as a break-of-bulk point to transfer goods to trucks. B.6.d Major Highways. Principal highways are Interstate Route 495 and State Routes 114, 125, and 133. August 2004 -21 - LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory B.7 Crash, Fire, and Rescue (CFR) Services. The LWM does not have nor does it require an independent CFR service. The town of North Andover and city of Lawrence both have full-time facilities. B.8 Snow Removal. With an annual snowfall between 30 and 50 inches and the number of days with 1 inch or more of snowfall between 15 and 25 per year,$ LWM requires a plan that will minimize the hazardous effects of snow and ice while promoting safe operations, to the maximum extent possible. Specifically, LWM is meeting its obligation to maintain the airport during winter weather conditions. There is a formal snow-removal plan and required standards, according to the MAC inspection report dated July 12, 2001, were being met. Survey Results-Airport managers were asked to indicate how they handled snow removal: whether they used airport personnel or contracted out. • Hanscom..........Airport Staff • Beverly ............Airport Staff • Lawrence..........Airport Staff • Nashua ............Airport Staff • Norwood...........Airport Staff and Contract • Plymouth ..........Airport Staff • Minute Man.......Contract B.9 Airport Maintenance. All airport maintenance is conducted by the airport staff or contracted out, as required. It is evident from the most recent survey review and from discussions with local pilots that airport maintenance is conducted in a timely manner, but a better plan for snow management is necessary. Neither the city of Lawrence nor the town of North Andover provides any maintenance at the airport. Survey Results-Tenant pilots were asked to assess how the airport is performing its maintenance of the airport and the general condition of the facilities. - Rank the following [runway/taxiway/ramp condition] using the scale that best fits your judgment of its quality using a scale of 5 (excellent)to 1 (poor). Northeast Regional Climate Center; Cornell University; Ithaca, NY. August 2004 -22- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory o Tenant pilots rank the runway and taxiway condition as fair, with an average grade of 3.3. - Question: How well is [airport maintenance] being performed at the airport? o Most tenant pilots felt there was room for improvement in airport maintenance, giving the airport a score of 3.1. The biggest concern was poor snow removal. Although the airport acts promptly, its ability to efficiently remove snow is a concern. B.10 Meteorology. One of the factors affecting aircraft performance and airport design is the climate at an airport and the surrounding region. Specifically, prevailing winds and temperature affect the performance of aircraft. Precipitation in the form of snow, rain, ice, and fog affects the performance of an airport and management's ability to operate it in a safe, efficient manner. These factors and others are addressed in the following subsections. The northeastern states, consisting of New England and the northern states of the Middle Atlantic area, have a humid continental climate. Due to arctic air entering the region, winters become colder and snowfall heavier inland and to the north. B.10.a Wind. An analysis of wind is essential for planning runways. As a rule, the primary runway at an airport should be oriented as closely as practicable in the direction of the prevailing wind. When landing and taking off, aircraft are able to maneuver on a runway provided the wind component at right angles to the direction of travel—that is, the crosswind component—is not excessive. The maximum allowable crosswind depends not only on the size of the aircraft but also on the wing configuration and the condition of the pavement surface. Small-category aircraft9 can maneuver in crosswinds as high as 20 to 25 knots, but it is quite difficult to do so; therefore, lower values are used for airport planning. The most desirable runway orientation based on wind is the one that has the largest wind coverage and minimum crosswind components. Wind coverage is that percent of time that crosswind components are below an acceptable velocity. The desirable wind coverage for an airport is 95 percent, based on the total numbers of weather observations. This value considers various factors that influence operations and the economics of providing the coverage. The data should be collected with an understanding of the objective; that is, to obtain 95-percent usability. Wind coverage is computed on the basis of the crosswind not exceeding 10.5 knots (i.e., 12 miles per hour[mph])for airport reference codes (ARCs)A-1 912,500-pound gross takeoff weight or less. August 2004 -23- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory and B-I, and 13 knots (i.e., 15 mph)for ARCs A-II and B-II. Higher wind speeds and crosswind components are permitted for airports based on higher ARC classifications. (The ARC is explained in detail later in this chapter.) The ARC is B-II for Runway 05-23 and B-I for Runway 14-32, the crosswind surface. In some cases, two runways may be required at an airport to achieve the 95-percent wind- coverage criterion. The need for the crosswind runway must be weighed against development costs, environmental impacts, and so forth. The latest and best wind information should always be used to carry out a wind analysis. A record that covers the last 10 consecutive years of wind observations is preferred.10 Records of lesser duration may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, it may be highly desirable to obtain and assemble wind information for periods of particular significance, such as seasonal variations, instrument weather conditions, daytime versus nighttime, and regularly occurring gusts. Wind data for this study was obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce11 for the period between September 1952 and August 1955. Table 2-7 identifies wind data under the three conditions, separately for Runway 05-23 and Runway 14-32, and combined for both runways. Wind-rose data is included on the Title Sheet in Appendix B. Table 2-7,Wind Data All-Weather 35.6% 56.9% 33.2% 64.3% 98.6% IFR 69.0% 33.8% 66.0% 31.5% 98.8% Calms 11.0% 9.2% Source:Airport Layout Plan, 1986 Airport Master Plan Update. 1OAC 150/1300-13B,Airport Designs. 11 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center;Asheville, North Carolina. August 2004 -24- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory B.10.b Temperature. The higher the temperature, the longer the runway required because high temperatures reflect lower air densities, resulting in lower output of thrust. The increase in runway length is not linear with temperature; the rate of increase at high temperatures is greater than at low temperatures. The increase can be specified in terms of the percentage of runway length at 59 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the standard temperature at sea level. For estimating purposes, the approximate variations of runway length with temperatures that apply to turbine-powered aircraft between 59 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit can be used. In this temperature range, the average increase in runway length varies from about 0.42 to 0.65 percent per degree Fahrenheit over the runway requirement of 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, at 85 degrees Fahrenheit, the runway length would be increased by an average of 11 to 18 percent over the length required at 59 degrees Fahrenheit. A similar analysis can be made for a small lightweight aircraft such as the Cessna Skyhawk (Model 172), the world's leading single-engine passenger aircraft and trainer. A fully loaded Cessna 172 at a 2,300- pound maximum gross takeoff weight (MGTOW)would require 1,525 feet of runway to clear a 50-foot obstacle in standard conditions,12 with no wind. At 85 degrees Fahrenheit, the runway length would increase to 1,680 feet, or 10 percent more runway.13 This region of Massachusetts has an average annual temperature of 49EF. Average temperatures in the winter are in the mid-to upper-20s; in the summer, temperatures average in the 70E to 74EF range, with a mean high temperature of 83EF. C. AIRPORT GEOMETRY AND DESIGN STANDARDS This subsection discusses the various geometric and design standards at LWM. CA Introduction. A general knowledge of aircraft is essential in planning facilities for their use. Aircraft currently used in airline operations have capacities ranging from fewer than 20 to approximately 400 passengers, and it is expected during the next decade that aircraft will be operating in commercial service with capacities possibly approaching 500 to 600 passengers. General-aviation aircraft, on the other hand, have a transportation function similar to that of private automobiles. 12A temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit and a barometric pressure of 29.92 inches. 131975 Cessna Model 172M Owner's Manual; Cessna Aircraft Company;Wichita, Kansas. August 2004 -25- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory C.2 Airport Reference Code. The FAA formulated a system called the ARC that represents airport characteristics relative to the operational and physical characteristics of the aircraft used—or intended to be used—with regular frequency at the airport. This system utilizes a two-part code to categorize each airport. The first part, a letter, represents ranges of aircraft Table 2-8,Airport Reference Code WINGSPAN RANGE A-1 A-11 A-III A-IV A-V A-VI ® B-I B-11 B-III B-IV B-V B-VI ® C-1 C-11 C-III .. C-IV C-V C-VI • D-I D-11 D-III D-IV D-V D-VI E-1 E-11 E-III E-IV E-V E-VI Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13 Design Manual. approach speeds from "A" (i.e., less than 91 knots)through "E" (i.e., speeds greater than or equal to 166 knots). The second part of the code, a roman numeral, represents ranges of aircraft wingspans (i.e., airplane design group)from I (i.e., less than 49 feet)through VI (i.e., greater than or equal to 214 feet but less than 262 feet). This designation determines many of the airport's design parameters and is defined in Table 2-8. C.3 Design Aircraft. A critical planning task at this point is to identify the most demanding (i.e., critical)aircraft that is either currently using or is expected to use the airport throughout the planning period. This, in turn, determines the ARC that was addressed in the previous subsection. A general planning guideline used by the FAA14 indicates that 500 operations by any one of the higher performance aircraft will qualify that model as the airport's critical aircraft. Determining which aircraft meets this criterion can be a challenge because airport records are not always organized in a database ready for analysis. FAA and air traffic control (ATC) records are of no 14This general guideline is one adopted and approved for use by the FAA Northeast Region's Airports Division. August 2004 -26- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory value because they only measure a raw traffic count, divided into subcategories such as general aviation, air carrier, and military. ATC does not maintain records that specify type and model, which are required to evaluate the critical aircraft. Based on observations, airport records, and airport personnel interviews, the make and model aircraft that use the airport on a regular basis include a wide range of single- and twin-engine, small-category aircraft built by Piper, Cessna, Beechcraft(Raytheon), and others. Larger- category aircraft generally use the airport, enough to meet the "critical airport" definition. Table 2-9 is a partial list of aircraft that use the airport on a routine basis, with the estimated annual operations. The normal approach speed and wingspan of each aircraft is listed along with the ARC, which was defined previously in Subsection C.2. The data presented in Table 2-9 shows that the critical design aircraft for LWM falls in Approach Speed Categories A and B, with Category A the predominant aircraft and Aircraft Design Groups I and 11, with Group II the predominant size. Overall, the design aircraft for LWM is a B-11 because the King Air, Challenger, Citation, and Gulfstream 11 are the predominantly largest and fastest aircraft that use the airport while meeting the "500" operations or more requirements. These aircraft will use the primary runway(05-23) under most circumstances because of its superior length, width, and instrument-approach procedures (IAPs)that include lower weather minimums. The Gulfstream II is a strong selection for the design aircraft for this runway. With a wingspan of 68.8 feet, an approach speed of approximately 110 knots, and a MGTOW of 64,800 pounds, the largest, fastest, and heaviest aircraft that frequents the airport most often. The smaller, lighter aircraft, which are predominant at LWM, will use the crosswind runway(14- 32) more often during moderate to strong crosswind conditions. This runway is classified as ARC B-I and the design aircraft is the Beech Baron, a twin-engine reciprocating aircraft, with a wingspan of 37.8 feet, an approximate approach speed of 101 knots, and a MGTOW of 5,100 pounds. August 2004 -27- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Table 2-9, Design Aircraft MODELESTIMATED MAKE AND SPEED OPERATIONS BASED Piper Arrow(PA-28R) 66 35.4 A-1 >1,000 x Mooney Bravo 67 36.1 A-1 >1,000 x Cessna Skyhawk(C-172) 60 36.1 A-1 >1,000 x Cessna Skylane (C-182) 58 36.0 A-1 >1,000 x Cessna Commuter(C-150) 58 33.2 A-1 >1,000 x Piper Seminole(PA-44) 66 38.6 A-1 >1,000 x Beech Bonanza (A-36) 72 33.5 A-1 >1,000 x Piper Malibu Mirage 70 43.0 A-1 >1,000 x Lear 31A 113 43.8 B-I 500 Beechjet 400A 91 43.4 B-I 200 x Piper31-310 Navajo 100 40.7 B-I 500-1,000 x Beech Baron 58TC2 101 37.8 B-I 500-1,000 x Cessna Citation 500 91 43.8 B-I 200 Israel Astra Jet 116 52.7 B-11 300 Beech King Air 200 101 50.3 B-11 500-1,000 Challenger 604 117 64.3 B-11 300 Falcon 900EX 109 63.2 B-11 250 Hawker 800 100 51.4 B-11 250 Gulfstream II' 110 68.8 B-II 500 Gulfstream III 115 77.8 B-11 300 Gulfstream IV 126 77.8 C-11 300 Gulfstream V 140 96.5 C-III 200 Sources:Airport management and FBOs;AC 150/5300-13. Notes:Approach speed in knots,wingspan in feet. 1 Design aircraft Runway 5-23. 2 Design aircraft Runway 14-32. CA Object-Clearing Criteria. Safe and efficient operations at an airport require that certain areas on and near the airport are clear of objects or restricted to objects with a certain function, composition, and/or height. The object-clearing criteria subdivide the 14 CFR Part 77,15 Subpart C, airspace and the object-free area (OFA)ground area by type of objects tolerated within each subdivision. 15Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 14 falls within the realm of the FAA, and Part 77 refers to FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. August 2004 -28- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory C.5 Building Restriction Line. The building restriction lines (BRLs) are placed on the LWM ALP to identify suitable building-area locations and to determine if existing conditions are in compliance. The BRLs encompass the runway protection zones (RPZs), the runway OFA, the runway visibility zone (RVZ), critical areas of the various navigation aids (NAVAIDs), and areas required for terminal instrument procedures. The air traffic control tower(ATCT)clear line-of- sight requirements are also included in this analysis. BRL dimensions are addressed by the FAA, but the specific location is left to individual planners who adopt standards based on experience. It is, in essence, a composite of several factors based on individual airport layouts. The BRL was determined by establishing a parallel line from each runway at a distance of 210 feet from the edge of the primary surface. The 210-foot distance was established by assuming the height of an average building of 30 feet above the surface and multiplying it by 7, which represents the 7:1 ratio of the transitional surface that connects to the primary surface. The primary surface for Runway 05-23 is 1,000 feet wide and centered on the runway centerline, or 500 feet outward from each runway centerline; this sets the BRL at 710 feet from the centerline. The primary area for Runway 14-32 is 500 feet wide, or 250 feet on either side of the runway centerline, with the BRL located 460 feet from the runway centerline. The BRL is shown on the Existing Airport Layout Plan in Appendix B. C.6 Runway Protection Zone. The RPZ provides protection for people and property on the ground. This is achieved through airport-owner control over RPZs, including clearing and maintaining RPZ areas of incompatible objects and activities. Control is exercised preferably through the acquisition of sufficient property interest in the RPZ. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended runway centerline. The controlled activity area and a portion of the runway OFA are the two components of the RPZ. The RPZ dimension for a particular runway end is a function of the type of aircraft and approach visibility minimum associated with that runway end. The required RPZ dimensions and locations are shown on the Existing Airport Layout Plan in Appendix B. Three of the four protection zones at LWM rest partially in private property. August 2004 -29- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Runway RPZ Nonconforminq Issues Runway 05 Majority of RPZ rests off airport property. Land slopes downward and does not present an issue; however, the previous AMPU recommended that an avigation easement be acquired. Runway 23 Entire RPZ rests on airport property. Runway 32 More than half of the RPZ rests off airport property and sits directly on top of Osgood Road. Runway 14 Half of the RPZ rests off airport property; however, the land slopes away from the airport and a steep slope toward the Merrimack River. C.7 Runway Visibility Zone. The RVZ is an area formed by imaginary lines connecting the two runways' visibility points, which in the case of LWM are points along the runway center lines nearly equidistant from the runway end and the runway intersection (i.e., centerline). The RVZ is trapezoidal in shape, centered on the runway intersection. Within this zone, all points must be visible, meaning that no objects can obstruct the view of pilots. The existing RVZ is clear of all obstructions, offering pilots a clear view from all runways, within the trapezoid. The required RVZ location is shown on the Existing Airport Layout Plan in Appendix B. C.8 Runway Design. This subsection describes the criteria and design requirements for airport runways. C.8.a Introduction. Runway location and orientation are paramount to airport safety, efficiency, economics, and environmental impact. The weight and degree of concern given to each of the following factors depend, in part, on the ARC, meteorological conditions, surrounding environment, topography, and volume of air traffic expected at the airport: • Wind. This analysis considered the wind velocity and direction relative to the existing airport layout and operations and determined that the orientation of the primary surface (i.e., Runway 05-23)was correct and within the FAA's criteria for alignment. • Airspace Availability. Existing and planned instrument-approach procedures, missed-approach procedures, departure procedures, and traffic patterns influence August 2004 - 30- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory airport layouts and locations. There appear to be no reasons why additional approach procedures could not be developed, if resources and forecasts warrant. • Environmental Factors. In developing runways to be compatible with the airport environs, environmental studies are conducted that consider the impact of existing and proposed land use and noise on nearby residents, air and water quality, wildlife, and historical and archeological features. • Obstructions to Air Navigation. An obstruction survey should identify those objects that may affect airplane operations. Approaches free of obstructions are desirable and encouraged; however, as a minimum, runways should be located and oriented to ensure that the approach areas associated with the ultimate development of the airport are clear of hazards to air navigation. C.8.b Runway Dimensions. Runway dimensions center on two primary considerations. Length is a product of operational usage: larger, heavier, faster aircraft demand longer runways. Weather is a major influence on runway length as well, primarily temperature and its effect on density altitude. Runway width also is a function of aircraft operational characteristics. Aircraft with longer wingspans and those that require higher landing speeds demand wider runways. This is a function of the ARC and was addressed previously. C.8.c Runway Safety Areas. The runway safety area (RSA)enhances the safety of airplanes that undershoot, overrun, or veer off the runway and provides greater accessibility for aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF)equipment during such incidents. This area must be capable under normal (i.e., dry) conditions of supporting airplanes without causing structural damage to the aircraft or injury to their occupants. The RSA is centered on the runway centerline and extends beyond the ends of each runway, as well as along the sides. The RSA length, which extends beyond the runway end, and RSA width, which extends outward along the sides of the runway, are governed by FAA airport design criteria.16 The dimensions of the geometric areas are based on the airplane design group—a numerical value determined by aircraft wingspan—which is part of the ARC data. Design standards require the RSA to be as follows: 16AC 150/5300-13,Airport Design. August 2004 - 31 - LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory • cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations • drained by grading or storm sewers to prevent water accumulations and capable under dry conditions of supporting snow-removal equipment(SRE), ARFF equipment, and the occasional passage of an aircraft without causing structural damage to it • free of objects, except for those that need to be located in the RSA because of their function The runway design prescribes separate RSA standards of ARC B-II for Runway 05-23 and ARC B-I for Runway 14-32. The runways do not meet RSA requirements. Safety areas at both ends of Runway 05-23 need an extension of 200 feet, and a 120-foot extension is needed at both ends of Runway 14-32. In addition, construction of the Runway 14-32 ends would require land acquisition. Refer to Table 2-10 and the Existing Airport Layout in Appendix B. Table 2-10, Existing Runway Safety Areas REQUIREDRUNWAY DESIGN • GROUP 05 300 100 Too short 11 150 150 23 300 100 Too short 14 1 120 120 240 100 Too short, extends off airport property 32 240 100 Too short, extends off airport property Distances in feet. Source:Runway Safety Area Study, Lawrence Municipal Airport(prepared July 2000,Dufresne-Henry,Inc.). C.8.d Obstacle-Free Zone. The runway obstacle-free zone (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 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 inner-approach OFZ August 2004 - 32- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory and inner-transitional OFZ, comprise the OFZ. The runway OFZ extends 200 feet beyond each end of the runway. Its width of 400 feet is based on runways serving large aircraft." C.8.e Runway Object-Free Area. The runway OFA is a level-plane surface centered on the runway centerline. The runway OFA clearing standard requires clearing the OFA of aboveground objects that protrude above the RSA edge elevation. Except where precluded by other clearing standards, it is acceptable to place objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground-maneuvering purposes and to taxi and hold aircraft in the OFA. Objects nonessential for air navigation or aircraft ground-maneuvering purposes are not to be placed in the OFA, including parked airplanes and agricultural equipment. Refer to the Existing Airport Layout Plan in Appendix B. C.9 Taxiway Design. Like runway design, taxiway design is a function of the operating characteristics of the aircraft that routinely utilize the facility. As demand and aircraft characteristics change, so do taxiway demands. Taxiway location and widths; separation between adjoining taxiways, runways, aprons, and buildings; and curves and fillets are addressed in FAA design criteria.'$ As runway traffic increases, the capacity of the taxiway system may become the limiting operational factor. Taxiways link the independent airport elements (i.e., runways, ramps, aprons, and hangars) and require careful planning for optimum airport utility. The taxiway system should provide free movement to and from the runways, terminal/cargo areas, and parking areas. It is desirable to maintain a smooth flow with a minimum number of points that require a change in the airplane's taxiing speed. C.9.a Taxiway Dimensional Standards. The minimum pavement widths, curve radii, and separations associated with airplane-movement areas and airplane physical characteristics establish the taxiway system. Because taxiways comprise the transitional facility that supports airport operational capacity, the capability to maintain an average speed of at least 20 mph needs to be built into the system. C.9.b Taxiway Safety Areas. Taxiways and taxilanes must have an area centered along its axis that is free and clear of objects that can damage aircraft while taxiing or if they leave the "AC 150/5300-13, Section 306. is AC 150/5300-13,Airport Design. August 2004 - 33- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory paved surface. The areas adjacent to taxiways must provide a stable area that reduces the possibility of blast-erosion and engine-ingestion problems associated with jet engines that overhang the edge of the taxiway. There are two areas for which airport designers plan. The first is the taxiway safety area (TSA), which is a cleared and graded area centered on the taxiway centerline; is well drained; and is capable of supporting SRE, AFRR equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage. In addition, the TSA must be free of objects except for those that need to be located in the area because of their function. The second area, essentially an extension of the first, is the taxiway object-free area (TOFA). Objects, including parked aircraft, must remain clear of this area; however, the grading and drainage standards are not as rigid because aircraft would not normally enter the TOFA. The TSA is centered on the taxiway centerline. The purpose and design standards are the same as the RSA(see Paragraph C.8.c) and are based on the airplane design group. Because the taxiway system at LWM serves the primary runway (i.e., Runway 05-23), Design Group II is used to determine TSA dimensions. C.9.c Taxiway Object-Free Area. The TOFA is also centered on the taxiway to the dimensions required by FAA standards.19 These areas are also based on the airplane design group. C.10 FAR Part 77 Surface Analysis. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 establishes standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace. It defines the navigable airspace in the vicinity of an airport in terms of imaginary surfaces established relative to the airport and each runway. These imaginary surfaces form a protective shield around an airport that, in theory, prevents objects from creating a hazard to air navigation. C.10.a Imaginary Surfaces. The size of each imaginary surface is based on the category of the runway and the type of approach available or planned for that runway. Airports that only serve aircraft in visual conditions require less protected airspace than airports that serve air- carrier aircraft in virtually all weather conditions. That is, the lower aircraft are permitted to fly in "navigable airspace" in poor weather(i.e., low cloud heights and visibility), the more airspace the FAA and airport operator must protect. The airspace around an airport and leading to and from its runways is "more" protected the closer it lies to the airport and the 19AC 150/5300-13,Airport Design. August 2004 - 34- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory extended centerline of the runway. These imaginary surfaces slope upward and outward as one travels away from the airport along and away from the "extended" centerline of the runway. FAR Part 77 lists several different types of imaginary surfaces, each with its own dimensions and slope. These areas include the following: • Primary Surface. This is an imaginary planar surface centered along and at the elevation of the runway centerline. It encloses the runway and provides the highest level of protection. With few exceptions, no object may penetrate above the runway elevation within this rectangular box. • Approach Surface. This area is centered on the extended runway centerline, beginning 200 feet from the runway ends. Approach surfaces are trapezoidal in shape with a length that varies with the type of approach to the runway. • Transitional Surfaces. These surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and extend at a 7:1 slope from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surface. • Horizontal Surface. This is a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging an arc of specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway. The radius of each arc is 10,000 feet for runways at LWM. With a field elevation of 697 feet, the horizontal plane starts at 847 feet MSL. • Conical Surface. This is a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a 20:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. Table 2-11 lists the various primary and approach surface dimensions. The FAR Part 77 Analysis drawing is in Appendix B. August 2004 - 35- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Table 2-11, Existing FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surface Dimensions APPROACHTYPE TYPE PRIMARY - • APPROACH OUTERRUNWAY RUNWAY IAP SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE WIDTH LENGTH WIDTH SLOPE 05 Precision ILS 1,000 50,000 16,000 50:1/40:1 23 Precision VOR 1,000 10,000 3,500 34:1 14 Visual N/A 250 5,000 1,250 20:1 32 Visual N/A 250 5,000 1,250 20:1 N/A-Not applicable. Distances in feet. Source:FAR Part 77.25. CA 1 Natural Obstructions. A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP)was completed in January 2001 of existing on-airport obstructions at LWM. This report is based on aerial photogrammetry data collected in 1994.20 The photogrammetry data includes the elevations of the ground surface, structures, canopy height, and individual trees. A computer analysis included the three-dimensional modeling of the primary, approach, and transitional surfaces at the airport based on existing runway lengths, widths, approach categories, and NAVAID types and locations. Table 2-12 summarizes the area of obstructions. The January 2001 VMP only included on-airport obstructions, which total 96.71 acres, as shown in Table 2-12 under the "on-airport" column. Further analysis for this report included off-airport obstructions, both ground and tree penetrations, which only appear in the Runway 23 approach and transitional surfaces. In addition, the off-airport analysis assumes that some tree growth has occurred since 1994, adding 5 feet to reported tree heights. 20Vegetation Management Plan, Lawrence Municipal Airport; North Andover, MA; Dufresne-Henry, Inc.; January 2001. August 2004 - 36- LWM AMPU Chapter 2-Inventory Table 2-12, Penetrations to Part 77 Surfaces SURFACE RUNWAY ON-AIRPORT OFF-AIRPORT TOTALS 05-23 51.56 0.00 51.56 Primary 14-32 4.70 0.00 4.70 05 7.44 0.00 7.44 23 24.43 31.56 55.99 Approach 14 0.61 0.00 0.61 32 1.13 0.00 1.13 05 0.37 0.00 0.37 23 4.65 8.12 12.77 Transitional 14 1.51 0.00 1.51 32 0.31 0.00 0.31 Total 96.71 39.68 136.39 Notes: 1.All measurements in acres and include vegetation within 10 feet of the protected surface. 2.On-airport data from January 2001 VMP Report. 3.Off-airport data not included in VMP;may include ground penetrations;assumes some growth since data acquired(1994). 4. Primary surface data includes approach transitional surfaces. Sources:Aerial photogrammetry(1994)and January 2001 VMP with Dufresne-Henry,Inc., analysis. D. AIRSIDE FACILITY INVENTORY The inventory of existing airport facilities at LWM was accomplished through collection and review of available plans and records and discussions with federal, state, and local officials and the FBO. Facilities are divided into three sections: airside, landside, and miscellaneous. Airside facilities include the portion of the airport where aircraft operations are carried out and include the runways and taxiways. Landside facilities include the portion of the airport utilized for aircraft servicing and passenger processing: terminals, hangars, service facilities, administrative facilities, public and airport August 2004 - 37- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory access roads, and automobile and aircraft parking. Miscellaneous facilities include all other portions of the airport not directly linked to airside or landside facilities. DA Runways. This subsection discusses the primary and crosswind runways as well as associated components. D.1.a Primary Runway. Runway 05-23 is the primary runway because of its greater length, superior approach aids, and enhanced lighting. It is a 5,000-by-150-foot paved surface oriented to 053-223'from magnetic north. D.1.b Crosswind Runway. Runway 14-32 is the crosswind runway. It is a 3,901-by-100-foot lighted surface in good condition. The approach end of Runway 32 is displaced 197 feet so that the RSAs clear a shopping plaza located between Osgood Road and the runway surface area. In the existing master plan, this small 1-acre zone is recommended property for acquisition through an easement or fee-simple purchase. D.1.c Runway Signage and Markings. Airport pavement markings and signs provide information that is useful to pilots during takeoff, landing, and taxiing. Uniformity in airport markings and signs among airports enhances safety and improves efficiency. Six types of possible signs are installed on airfields: mandatory instruction signs, location signs, direction signs, destination signs, information signs, and runway-distance-remaining signs. The runway environment at LWM is marked with a combination of location and direction signs. All are lighted and in excellent condition. The primary runway has surface markings for a precision instrument runway and the crosswind runway has markings consistent with a visual runway. D.1.d Runway Condition. The primary-runway pavement has a strength rating of up to 110,000 pounds for a double-tandem wheeled aircraft2l and is in satisfactory condition.22 Runway 14-32 has a strength rating of 53,000 pounds double-tandem (30,000 pounds single and 34,000 pounds double) and is in satisfactory condition with a few minor discrepancies, including vegetation growth in cracks. Sheet 6 in Appendix B is a detailed graphic analysis of pavement condition. This figure divides each paved area (i.e., runways, taxiways, and aprons) into color-coded sections and includes a data table with area designations, color code, a 21 Other limitations:45,000 pounds for a single-wheeled aircraft and 62,000 pounds for double=wheeled aircraft. 22 MAC Airport Safety Inspection/Compliance Checklist dated June 16, 2000. Areas are classified as either satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory. August 2004 - 38- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory description of the surface, the year of last improvement (and FAA project number), and surface condition. Survey Results- Both based and itinerant pilots were asked to comment on the condition of the airport, specifically the runway length and condition. - Question: Rank the condition of[all runways] using the scale 5 (excellent)to 1 (poor). (Note: comments refer to all surfaces, not one particular runway.) o Based pilots ranked the runway condition as fair with an average grade of 3.3. o Itinerant pilots were more favorable in their opinion, giving an average grade of 3.9. - Question: Rank the [runway length] using the scale 5 (excellent)to 1 (poor). o Based pilots indicated a grade of 4.1, which is consistent with other airports because tenant pilots would not normally base an aircraft if the runway length were an issue. o Itinerant pilots, on the other hand, are generally more critical of runway-length issues, selecting an airport that meets their needs. Transient pilots indicated an average grade of 3.8. D.1.e Runway Inventory Summary. Table 2-13 summarizes specific technical data for the two runways at LWM. August 2004 - 39- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Table 2-13, Existing Runway Inventory Summary CRITERIONRUNWAY i Length x Width (Feet) 5,000 x 150 3,901 x 100 Airport Reference Code B-11 B-I Purpose Primary Crosswind Surface Bituminous Bituminous Surface Condition Satisfactory Satisfactory Weight Limitations 45,000, 62,000, 110,000 30,000, 34,000, 53,000 (single,double,tandem) Gradient(Percent) Negligible 0.7 up 0.7 down Runway End Elevation 135.7 135.2 148.4 120 Runway Orientation 054 234 138 318 (Degrees Magnetic) Markings Precision Visual Marking Condition Satisfactory Satisfactory Runway End Coordinates 42042'39.3" 42'43'18.1" 42'43'16.3" 42042'56.0" 71 07'44.0" 71 07'02.6" 71 07'47.9" 71 07'03.4" Approach Capabilities ILS VOR, GPS, Type,Weather Minimums (200-3/4) NDB Visual Visual (500-1) Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis D.2 Taxiways. The taxiway configuration supports current operational levels. Parallel taxiways support all runway ends and there are sufficient stub taxiways to support most operational demands. D.2.a Taxiway Condition. The taxiways are generally in satisfactory condition, with the exception of some vegetative growth in cracks and transverse and longitudinal cracks along many surfaces.23 See Sheet 6 in Appendix B for a more detailed description of pavement condition and history. 23MAC Airport Safety Inspection/Compliance Report; dated July 12, 2001. August 2004 40 LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory D.2.b Taxiway Signage and Markings. Taxiway signs consist primarily of location, direction, and information signs. A recent sign project updated the airport signs which are in excellent condition. Most nonilluminated signs are in excellent condition, particularly the newly installed noise-abatement signs at several locations around the airport and addressed later in this chapter. All taxiways should have centerline markings and runway hold-position markings whenever they intersect a runway. Taxiway-edge markings are present whenever there is a need to separate the taxiway from a pavement that is not intended for aircraft use or to delineate the edge of a taxiway. D.2.c Taxilanes. Taxilanes, which are portions of aircraft-parking areas used for access between taxiways and aircraft-parking positions, are located throughout the airport on most FBO ramps, the main terminal ramp, and between the hangar facilities on the North and South Ramp areas. Taxilane conditions mirror those of the corresponding ramp (see Sheet 6 in Appendix B). E. LANDSIDE FACILITY INVENTORY Landside facilities include buildings and operating surfaces not associated with flight operations. Included in this category are aprons and associated aircraft tiedowns, hangars, service and storage buildings, administrative buildings, FBOs, and other aviation and non-aviation-related businesses at the airport. E.1 Aprons and Hangars. This subsection addresses the airport's ability to park and store aircraft. Apron areas and associated tiedown spaces, along with hangar facilities, were inventoried and inspected, and the individual and overall capacities of each facility were examined, as well as the aggregate capacity for the airport. This is important because if demand reaches capacity, added space (i.e., hangars and/or apron space)should be developed in a timely manner to avoid saturation, particularly as airport land becomes scarce. An apron, also referred to as a ramp, is a defined area intended to accommodate aircraft for the purposes of loading and unloading passengers and cargo, refueling, parking, and maintenance. The preferred apron is one that is paved and of adequate size to handle based and transient aircraft, and it should be marked and equipped with tiedown locations to provide a means of securing aircraft. Numerous aprons are located throughout the airport, serving both based and transient aircraft. August 2004 -41 - LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Hangars come in three general forms. Conventional hangars (i.e., a box-shaped structure with usually one aircraft entry door) are designed to hold from one to multiple aircraft, depending on the footprint and size of aircraft. T-hangars which, when viewed from above take the shape of the letter"T"are designed to hold one aircraft but have multiple units, typically six or more aircraft. The third hangar type combines both a conventional unit at one or both ends, with T- units. Conventional hangars are typically used for business and corporate use; T-hangars store privately owned aircraft. E.1.a Transient Apron. The primary transient apron for itinerant aircraft is located adjacent to the main terminal building on the southern side of the airport(see the Existing Airport Facilities Plan in Appendix B). The ramp has space for approximately 26 aircraft, depending on size. Survey Results-The itinerant pilot survey sought information from transient pilots about where they parked and how difficult it was to find a parking space. An important part of analyzing this information is to determine what day of the week and time of the day pilots generally land at the airport. It is hypothesized that Saturdays and Sundays are the busiest days for the airport transient parking ramp and the demand on services. By determining this information, airport management and the FBOs can adjust services and facilities accordingly. - Question: What day of the week did you arrive? o The results on this question were mixed, offering no meaningful data. - Question: Where did you park (transient ramp, FBO, other)? o Half the respondents parked on the airport's transient ramp, the other half used one of the many FBOs for parking. - Question: How difficult was it to find a parking space with a tiedown? o The majority of the respondents did not report any difficulty finding a parking space. - Question: Rank the condition of the runways, taxiways, and ramps. o Results offered no meaningful information. August 2004 -42- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory - Question: How important would improvements to the [aircraft ramp/tiedown conditions] be to you? o Generally, transient pilots had no major issues with the condition of the ramps, taxiways, or runways at LWM. E.1.b Based-Aircraft Aprons. Based aircraft are parked throughout the airport at each of the five FBOs and by the airport authority on a single large South Ramp and the North Ramp, which is divided into the old and new sections (based on recent repairs and resurfacing). Table 2-14 identifies the various apron areas, controlling management, and capacity. As shown, the LWM ramp areas are 65% occupied. Table 2-14, Based-Aircraft Aprons CONTROLLING MANAGEMENT LOCATION • - Lawrence Municipal Airport South Ramp 44,000 26 15 Lawrence Municipal Airport North Ramp 155,000 64 51 Falcon Aviation South Ramp 29,000 10 10 Eagle East Aviation West Ramp 68,000 34 20 Four Star Aviation West Ramp 40,000 28 10 Northeast Executive Jet Northeast Ramp 20,000 6 5 AVIAD North Ramp 12,000 4 3 TEW MAC North Ramp 11,000 9 3 Totals 379,000 181 117 Occupancy 65% Size in square feet;capacity will vary with aircraft size. Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,survey(August 2001). Survey Results- Based pilots (tenant aircraft survey)were asked questions about airport services pertaining to runway, taxiway, and ramp condition and to what extent improvements were needed. - Question: To what extent do the [aircraft ramps and tiedowns] need to be improved? o Generally, pilots were either very satisfied with the condition of the ramps or very dissatisfied, with an average grade of 3.3. Unsurprisingly, the main concern was the AUGUST 2004 -43- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory extent of grass growing up through cracks on the ramp areas and the condition of the overall surfaces, particularly in the North-Ramp area. E.1.c Apron Condition. See Appendix B, Sheet 6. E.1.d Hangars. Most general-aviation airports have is a severe shortage of hangar space. A recent informal survey in the state of Maine indicated that airports reported 95-percent occupancy, with the demand growing for more space and waiting lists at 15 of the 16 airports surveyed. The perception is that airports merely need to identify land for hangars and they will be built; Lawrence is no exception. Table 2-15 lists the existing and planned hangar inventory and capacity, along with the units' primary use, ownership, or controlling organization. All hangars at LWM are privately owned and, with few exceptions, managed by an association. E.1.e Aircraft Storage Demand. As discussed in the preceding subsection and shown in Tables 2-14 and 2-15, there are 316 potential aircraft parking spaces, through a combination of Table 2-15, Existing Hangar Inventory OWNER USE TYPE EXISTING INVENTORY CAPACITY Falcon Air B C 5 4 Eagle East Aviation B C 10 6 Four Star Aviation B C 9 4 Lawrence Airport Hangar Association A T 14 14 Northeast Executive Jet B C 8 4 TEW MAC B/A C 6 4 North Andover Hangar Association A T 30 30 AVIAD B/A C 5 4 Merrimack Valley Fliers A T 29 29 EAA Chapter 106 A C 3 2 New England Aviators A T 0 0 Northeast Executive Jet A C 0 0 Eagle Hangar Association A C/T 16 16 Totals 135 117 Occupancy 87% Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc., survey(August 2001). Use: B-Business-related maintenance;A-Aircraft storage. Type: C-Conventional;T-T hangar; C/T-Combination. AUGUST 2004 -44- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory 135 hangar spaces and 181 tiedowns. Current demand, as measured in August 2001, is 234 aircraft, with an even split of 117 aircraft in both tiedown spaces and hangar facilities. The demand/capacity, therefore, is 74 percent, with overall hangar demand at 87 percent and tiedown demand at 65 percent. Survey Result-The tenant pilot survey conducted for this AMPU asked those aircraft owners who are currently using apron space with a tiedown if they would prefer access to a hangar. Respondents were also asked if they were currently on a waiting list and, finally, how much they would be willing to spend per month for hangar storage. In addition, itinerant pilots were asked to respond to a single question about hangars. - Question: How do you store your aircraft (tiedown or hangar)? o Of the respondents, 45% utilize a hangar and 55% use an open tiedown. - Question: Would you prefer hangar space at LWM? o Of the 61 pilots who reported using a tiedown, 28% (51 pilots)would like to have a hangar for storage. - Question: Are you currently on a waiting list for a hangar? o Of the 51 pilots who said they would like to have a hangar, only 4% indicated they were on a waiting list. - Question: How much per month would you be willing to pay for hangar space? o Of the pilots responding to this question, 37reported a willingness to spend an average of $237 per month. E.2 Terminal Building. The terminal building (see Building #1 on the Existing Airport Facilities Plan Appendix B and Figure 2-C next page)was constructed in 1957. It is a 4,000-square- foot, one-story building, originally designed and utilized for commercial service. Although there is no commercial service at the airport today, the building continues to serve as the administrative center of the airport, housing the manager's office and conference room. Other tenants include Joe's Cafe and Angel Flight, a nonprofit charter service for medical patients. There is a small waiting area for public use, as well as restrooms and outdoors tables for both AUGUST 2004 -45- LWM AMPU Chapter 2— Inventory j / / / 1 I i I I I F �lum. ryM1M. pp��IIII II IWllllull�w VIIMo. rc� restaurant customers and visitors. The building is in fair to poor condition, in need of reconstruction and expansion or total replacement with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.24 Survey Results- Many transient pilots access the main terminal building as part of their arrival or departure routine (e.g., food, restrooms, passenger loading/unloading). Thus, they have an opportunity to assess the facilities and services offered. Itinerant pilots were asked to comment on these facilities and the airport in general. 24Terminal Feasibility Study; completed by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., in association with Coffman Associates, Inc.; July 1999. AUGUST 2004 -46- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory - Question: Rank the following airport services [specifically, the terminal building facilities and restaurant]. o Transient pilots gave the terminal building a low grade of 2.6, ranking it in the poor to fair range. o Local tenant pilots who also frequent the terminal building, primarily for restaurant services, ranked it a low 2.6 as well. E.3 Automobile Parking. There is a 36,000-square-foot asphalt parking lot on the landside of the main terminal, marked for approximately 90 vehicles. A 12-space, 3,600-square-foot parking lot for the ATCT is located adjacent to the tower, southeast of the terminal lots. Each of the FBOs, as well as FLIGHT LAND DATA, has parking available for customers and employees, totaling approximately 21,500 square feet. Many of the areas are fragmented into small sections around each of their respective buildings but provide ample space during weekdays. Weekends, when the flight load typically increases, can result in compressed parking and shortages. E.4 Miscellaneous Buildings and Facilities. This subsection describes other miscellaneous buildings and facilities. E.4.a Maintenance Building. The airport's maintenance building (Building #2 on the Existing Airport Facilities Plan in Appendix B) serves as the only airport maintenance and storage facility for both SRE and airport maintenance equipment. The 6,000-square-foot facility is divided into four storage/maintenance bays. The structure is in fair condition but does not meet the needs of the airport. The facility is too small, requiring outside storage of SRE and other equipment. E.4.b Fixed-Base Operators. An FBO is a service business that provides a wide array of products and services to pilots, aircraft owners, and users of general-aviation aircraft. Many small general-aviation airports have only one FBO; however, larger reliever airports, such as LWM, have several that provide similar services at competing rates. LWM currently has five FBOs located three of the four quadrants of the airport. The location of each FBO at the airport is shown on the Existing Airport Facilities Plan in Appendix B. AUGUST 2004 -47- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory E.4.c Fuel Storage and Sales. Fuel is stored and sold by four of the five FBOs at the airport. All four carry the general-aviation staple, 100-LL, and two carry Jet-A fuel for the higher performance turboprop and turbojet aircraft. The airport has the capacity to store 39,400 gallons of 100-LL and 15,000 gallons of Jet-A. Sales are running at about 145,000 gallons per year of 100-LL and 250,000 gallons per year of Jet-A. Table 2-16 is a breakdown of fuel storage and sales by FBO. Table 2-16, Fuel Storage and Sales Survey Results- Both :O TYPE FUEL I CAPACITY SALES based-aircraft owners Four Star 100-LL 12,400 40,000 and itinerant pilots, Northeast Executive Jet 100-LL 15,000 20,000 were asked to comment Northeast Executive Jet Jet-A 15,000 250,000 on the services they Falcon Air 100-LL 6,000 25,000 received from the Eagle East 100-LL 6,000 60,000 airport's FBOs. The Note: Capacity and sales in gallons. Totals 54,400 395,000 following questions Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,survey(August 2001). were asked, with an analysis of the responses received. - Question: Please rank the following airport services [fueling]. o Based pilots gave FBOs and fueling services a relatively high grade of 4.1. This is important because tenant pilots spend an estimated $1.3 million annually on fuel. o Transient pilots ranked fueling at 3.6. - Question: Please rank the following airport services [FBOs and facilities]. o Based pilots ranked the FBOs at 3.6. o Transient pilots ranked the FBOs at 3.4. - Question: To what extent do the following facilities need to be improved [FBO services, including fuel]? AUGUST 2004 -48- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory o Based pilots did not think FBO services needed any improvements, ranking this question at 2.8. o Similarly, transient pilots did not think improvements were needed in this area, ranking this question at 2.8. - Question: How well are [FBOs] at LWM performing their services? o Based pilots ranked the FBOs at the top of their list, with a 3.7 grade. F. MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT This subsection addresses facilities and equipment not listed in the airside or landside subsections. F.1 Snow-Removal Equipment. With the typical high snowfall amounts and frequent storms typical of this region, coupled with the high based-aircraft count and operations, the airport needs a large fleet of SRE. The fleet currently includes the SRE listed in Table 2-17. AUGUST 2004 -49- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Table 2-17, Existing SRE Inventory QUANTITY TYPE EQUIPMENT • • 1 1985 1-ton Chevrolet Dump Truck Poor 1 9-foot Fisher Plow Good 1 1985 1-ton Chevrolet Pickup Truck Poor 1 9-foot Fisher Plow Good 1 1999 John Deere 533H Bucket Loader Excellent 1 14-foot Articulating Plow Excellent 1 6-yard Bucket Excellent 1 3-yard Bucket Excellent 1 JRB Model QC10BRH Sweeper Excellent 2 International Model 466 Dump Trucks Poor 1 10-foot plow with 10-foot Wing Plow Fair 1 10-foot plow with 9-foot Wing Plow Fair 2 2002 Sterling L-7500 Dump Trucks Excellent 2 14-foot Articulating Plows Excellent 1 8-foot, 1.9-cubic-yard Stainless Sander Excellent Source:Airport management. F.2 Security Fence. The airport is partially enclosed with a perimeter security fence including electronic-card-controlled gates at all strategic locations. In addition, the ATCT has control of the main terminal gate between the terminal and maintenance buildings. Access to the airport is controlled by electronic cards issued by airport management. The fence is in poor condition, with an estimated 50 percent of it lying on the ground. Breaches are common, particularly along areas with close public access. G. AIRCRAFT INVENTORY AND OPERATIONS This subsection presents information on based aircraft and flight operations at the airport, as well as the six airports that participated in the reliever airport survey conducted as part of the AMPU. AUGUST 2004 - 50- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory GA Based-Aircraft Inventory. According to airport records, approximately 225 aircraft are based at LWM.25 The base count has fluctuated from 150 in 1980 to a high of 248 in the late 1980s to its 2001 level. Table 2-18 shows the 2001 count, which reflects that 90% of based Table 2-18, Based-Aircraft Inventory aircraft are single-engine piston. CATEGORY COUNT Single-Engine Piston 198 G.1.a Hangared Aircraft. Of the 225 based Multi Engine Piston 24 aircraft at LWM, 50% are stored in hangars, Helicopter 0 (see Table 2-15 presented earlier). Turboprop 1 Jet 2 G.1.b Non-Hangared Aircraft. The Total 225 remaining 50% of based aircraft are kept in Source:Airport management(August 2001). secure tiedowns on the various ramps, with most (75) under direct control of the airport. Each FBO has three tiedown spaces assigned, with the remainder either of the aircraft, directly owned or under their control, in tiedown spaces. G.2 Aircraft Operations. An operation is defined as a takeoff or landing (or low approach to the runway). One airport operation count is taken for each landing and takeoff, and two counts (i.e., one landing and one takeoff) are taken for each low approach below traffic-pattern altitude, stop-and-go, or touch-and-go operation. According to FAA records,26 LWM reported 85,308 operations during the base year(2001). See Table 2-19. 25Airport management records, FBO records, and the various hangar association records. 26 http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/faaatadsall.HTM. AUGUST 2004 - 51 - LWM AMPU Chapter 2-Inventory Table 2-19,Aircraft Operations 1990 0 693 47,381 84 48,158 84,514 70 84,584 132,742 1991 1 302 46,222 81 46,606 73,781 80 73,861 120,467 1992 0 112 41,074 107 41,293 65,751 101 65,852 107,145 1993 0 450 39,643 61 40,154 58,489 54 58,543 98,697 1994 0 426 37,744 55 38,225 56,014 54 56,068 94,293 1995 0 401 34,621 75 35,097 45,212 46 45,258 80,355 1996 0 61 32,676 24 32,761 39,176 8 39,184 71,945 1997 0 75 38,875 17 38,967 51,771 8 51,779 90,746 1998 0 8 41,418 16 41,442 56,594 11 56,605 98,047 1999 0 59 44,617 30 44,706 52,189 26 52,215 96,921 2000 0 162 42,149 49 42,360 48,993 12 49,005 91,365 2001 0 364 35,893 205 36,462 48,832 14 48,846 85,308 2002 0 294 34,755 54 35,103 53,194 22 53,216 88,319 2003 0 291 32,049 115 32,455 52,022 22 52,044 84,499 Base Year 2001 0 364 35,893 205 36,462 48,832 14 48,846 85,308 Night Operations 0 4 359 2 365 488 0 488 853 Total Operations 0 368 36,252 207 36,827 49,320 14 49,334 86,161 Notes:AC-Air Carrier,AT-Air Taxi,MIL-Military,GA-General Aviation 2001 is base year; Night Operations,during period when ATCT is closed(10 p.m.to 7 a.m.,estimated at 1%of total reported operations. Sources:FAA with Dufresne-Henry,Inc.,analysis. G.2.a Local Operations. Local operations are those aircraft that remain in the local traffic pattern, simulated instrument approaches at the airport(including the following subcategories), and operations to or from the airport and a practice area within a 20-mile radius of the ATCT. However, at LWM, the ATCT counts an operation as "local" only if the aircraft remains in the local pattern; once it departs the traffic pattern and returns, it is counted as an "itinerant" operation. Local operations are further divided into military and civil operations. Local operations in the base year 2001 totaled 48,846, or 57% of total operations. Local operations have averaged 56,000 annually during the past 12-year period, peaking at 84,500 in 1990. This equals approximately 58% of total operations during the same period. AUGUST 2004 - 52- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory G.2.b Itinerant Operations. Itinerant operations are those not classified as "local," including the following subcategories: air carrier, air taxi, general aviation, and military. There were a reported 36,462 itinerant operations in the base year(42% of the total). G.2.c Estimated Night Operations. The airport operations count is maintained by the ATCT during the period when it is open (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.); operations during the period when the ATCT is closed must be estimated. For planning purposes, the reported operations are increased by 1%. The estimated night-time operations are shown at the bottom of Table 2-19 on the previous page. G.2.d Operations Analysis. Lawrence Municipal Airport, like many other airports, saw a dramatic reduction in operations in the early 1990s. With rising insurance and fuel costs, the general-aviation industry was suffering its worse period since the end of World War II and litigation was an on-going problem. In 1998, President Clinton signed the General Aviation Revitalization Act(GARA), which helped reverse the earlier trend. Operations have since leveled off and started to increase at many airports. G.2.e Peak-Hour Operations. Peak-hour(PH)operations are needed to help determine facility requirements such as transient aircraft parking and passenger and pilot terminal/FBO spatial needs. Because accurate FAA records are maintained and reported on a monthly basis, obtaining a clear picture of activity by month and year is easy to determine. Table 2-19 shows annual operations during a 14-year period, 1990 through 2003. Further analysis of this information shows that, on average, the month of August is typically the busiest or peak month (PM). From this data, it is shown that total operations have Table 2-20, Peak-Hour Operations Summary averaged 10,000 in the month of BASE-YEAR PM PIVIAD PH August since 1990. The PM OPERATIONS operational demand is then 85,308 August .30 x 20% divided by 30 to determine the 9,640 321 64 estimated PM/average day Note:Average August Operations(1990-2001). (PMAD)operational demand of Sources: FAA with Dufresne-Henry,Inc.,analysis. 321 operations. Finally, the PH is calculated assuming that 20 percent of the daily operations (PMAD)would occur in this hour, or 64 PH operations. This data is analyzed in Chapter 3 to determine future needs based on various forecasting models. Table 2-20 summarizes the PH calculations. AUGUST 2004 - 53- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory G.3 Airline Operations (FAR Parts 119, 121, and 12527). There is no airline service at LWM. GA Commuter and On-Demand Operators (Part 13528). King Air Charters, operating out of Northeast Executive Jet, is the sole Part 135 operator at the airport. H. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS Various types of air NAVAIDs are currently in use, each serving a special purpose. These NAVAIDs have varied owners and operators: namely, the FAA, military services, private organizations, individual states, and foreign governments. The FAA has the statutory authority to establish, operate, and maintain air- navigation facilities and to prescribe standards for the operation of any of these NAVAIDs that are used for instrument flight in federally controlled airspace. These NAVAIDs are tabulated in the Airport/Facility D i rectory.29 H.1 NAVAIDs Overview. NAVAIDs include any electronic or visual devices, airborne or on the surface, that provide point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight. NAVAIDs vary among airports based on the need, service volume (i.e., level of use), and (in the case of LWM)the airport sponsor's ability to fund such devices. Electronic NAVAIDs support either en route navigation (point-to-point)or approach navigation (to a runway or airport), or both, in varying levels of accuracy—again, dependent on needs and financial support. Typical electronic aids used in civil aviation include the following: • very high frequency (VHF) omni-directional range (VOR) • distance-measuring equipment • non-directional radio beacon (NDB) • instrument landing system (ILS) • Global Positioning System (GPS) 27Refers to the three primary regulations governing air-carrier operations: Part 119 (Certification:Air Carriers and Commercial Operators); Part 121 (Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations); and Part 125 (Certification and Operations:Airplanes Having a Seating Capacity of 20 or More Passengers or a Maximum Payload Capacity of 6,000 Pounds or More; and Rules Governing Persons On Board Such Aircraft). 28Part 135(Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operations and Rules Governing Persons On Board Such Aircraft). AUGUST 2004 - 54- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory All of these systems support both en route and approach/departure requirements within the United States and world navigation system; however, not all are available at LWM. In addition to the tangible assets, specific approaches must be designed to suit the needs and conditions at each specific airport and runway environment, depending on the needs of the facility. Larger commercial airports have a wider array of NAVAIDs and approach procedures with lower minimums than a smaller regional or municipal airport. Minimums refer to the lowest altitude in which an aircraft can descend prior to the pilot sighting the runway or airport environment. Lower minimums are a function of the type of equipment in use, terrain, and necessity. H.2 Instrument Approach Procedures. An IAP is a series of predetermined maneuvers that permit an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft or a Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft practicing approaches to leave the confines of the airway structure and descend for landing at an airport. IAPs are identified according to the NAVAID or multiple NAVAIDs that they rely on as well as the runway they serve. Lawrence Municipal Airport has three IAPs serving the airport, including the following: • ILS approach to Runway 05 (ILS RWY 5) • VOR or GPS approach to Runway 23 (VOR/GPS RWY 23) • NDB or GPS approach to Runway 05 (NDB/GPS RWY 5) Of the three IAPs to Lawrence Municipal Airport, the ILS RWY 5 approach offers the lowest minimums to the airport. The IAPs seem to meet the needs of the aviation community based at LWM and are consistent with procedures in place at the other reliever and general-aviation airports in the region. The ILS approach minimums at LWM are the lowest of the airports in the region but could be lower with the addition of an approach lighting system (ALS). In addition, a precision approach to Runway 23 would improve overall service. Lower minimums and a wider choice of procedures might augment growth at LWM, however slightly. Survey Results-Tenant pilots were asked to record the number of instrument approaches they fly per year into LWM. No attempt was made to determine the type of approach, although the ILS 29Part of the U.S. Government Flight Information Publication program, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)and updated every 56 days. AUGUST 2004 - 55- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory approach is typically the most common. Additionally, no attempt was made to determine if the pilot is instrument-rated or if the approaches were made in visual or instrument conditions, for practice/training, or a matter of necessity. In the United States, 48.6% of all pilots are instrument- rated but not necessarily current per FAR.so • Tenant pilots indicated that, on average, they fly 14 instrument approaches per year. H.3 Instrument Operations. Instrument arrivals and departures at LWM in accordance with an IFR flight plan or an operation where IFR separation between aircraft is provided by ATC (Boston Terminal Radar Approach Control [TRACON])are maintained for purposes of equipment acquisition. Instrument operations at LWM have averaged Table 2-21, Historical Instrument Operations more than 7,100 during the past 11 YEAR AC I AT GA MIL TOTAL years (Table 2-21). 1990 1 502 6,074 24 6,601 1991 1 176 6,336 14 6,527 HA Regional Air Traffic Control. 1992 0 24 7,157 8 7,189 Approach and departure control 1993 2 185 7,058 5 7,250 service is provided by Boston 1994 0 244 7,203 6 7,453 TRACON located at Boston's 1995 0 226 6,612 10 6,848 Logan International Airport. 1996 0 21 7,350 4 7,375 Boston provides radar coverage in 1997 0 42 7,825 4 7,871 the area from its radar site in 1998 0 516 6,694 4 7,214 Chester, New Hampshire. 1999 0 86 6,799 3 6,888 2000 0 144 7,369 2 7,515 H.5 Local Air Traffic Control. Local 2001 0 211 6,509 6 6,726 ATC is provided by an ATCT 2002 0 266 7,771 53 8,090 facility whose primary function is to 2003 1 271 4,949 5 5,226 provide runway separation for Note:2001 is the base year aircraft landing or departing from Source: FAA. an airport. In addition, the ATCT provides jurisdictional control over other movement areas on the airport, such as taxiways and other designated areas. In the United States, all Level I towers31 and an ever-increasing WFAR§61.57(c). 31The FAA classifies its towers according to the level of operations, Level I being the lowest. AUGUST 2004 - 56- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory number of Level II towers have been contracted out by the FAA. Three private companies have sole contractual rights with the FAA. At Lawrence, RVA Corporation (Robinson-Van Burn &Associates) provides ATCT services. Contract towers are obligated to provide service and train personnel in accordance with FAA standards. The ATCT is staffed with six full-time controllers and operates daily from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. ATCT personnel operate independently of airport employees and do not report to airport management. However, the current ATCT and airport-management teams have developed a close working relationship and function smoothly as a cohesive unit. H.6 Tower Visibility. The location and orientation of runways and taxiways must be such that the existing (or future)ATCT has a clear line of sight to all traffic patterns the final approaches to all runways all runway structural pavements and other operational surfaces controlled by ATC. A clear line of sight to taxilane centerlines is desirable. Operational surfaces not having a clear unobstructed line of sight from the ATCT are designated by ATC as uncontrolled or nonmovement areas through a local agreement with the airport owner. A 4-to 5-degree cone along Taxiway "D", starting at the Runway 14 end and running approximately 1,200 feet south along the taxiway, is obstructed from the tower's view by low shrubs. ATC has not declared this zone a nonmovement area; however, unless action is taken to remove the vegetation, the appropriate notices should be issued. In effect, this removes controller responsibility from any incident involving aircraft or vehicles along this portion of the taxiway. H.7 Airspace Structure. The airspace surrounding LWM is classified as Class "D" airspace. Class "D" airspace is defined as from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational ATCT. The configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and when IAPs are published, the airspace typically will be designed to contain the procedures. H.8 Local Traffic Pattern. The term "local traffic pattern" refers to both the altitude above the airport elevation and the direction of turns. At airports without an operating ATCT(referred to as nontowered or uncontrolled airports), aircraft follow a standard pattern in terms of direction of turns and altitude. Direction of turns will always be to the left unless otherwise published. Nonstandard right turns might be implemented at airports for several reasons, some of the more common of which are to avoid high terrain or obstacles near the airport, interference with AUGUST 2004 - 57- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory traffic patterns at nearby airports, or flying over noise-sensitive high-population areas. Traffic patterns at controlled airports (i.e., those with an operating ATCT) are also published; however, air-traffic controllers have broad leeway and sole discretion in directing aircraft according to several factors. These determinants include the runway in use, inbound and outbound traffic, workload, and environmental factors such as local weather conditions and any airport-imposed noise-abatement procedures. ATC personnel at LWM are experienced in handling large volumes of aircraft with a wide variety of operating characteristics over short time periods. As such, they routinely direct both arriving and departing aircraft in a manner that provides for a safe and efficient flow of traffic. To maintain an effective flow, they routinely direct air traffic over all quadrants of the airspace surrounding LWM to equalize the noise impact over a wider range of homes, thereby minimizing the total noise level over any one particular community. The standard traffic pattern is"left-hand turns" at LWM; however, the tower routinely adjusts the traffic pattern both to meet the needs of the aviation community and to promote safety. For example, when Runway 32 is operational, it is advantageous for the Table 2-22,Traffic Pattern Direction controllers to uses "right'traffic, which provides them with a better view of the pattern because of the position of the 90% 7870%1. tower relative to the runway 1 -0,50 20% environment. Table 2-22 shows the 14 90% 10% estimated percentage of use of pattern 32 25% 75% direction by runway. Source: Estimated by Tower Chief, May 2004. Figure 2-D illustrates the typical pattern size for smaller aircraft at LWM. Although this graphic shows a"left-hand" pattern, the "right- hand" pattern is just a mirror image. In addition, there is no rule that dictates the size of the pattern. It decided by to individual pilot needs, based in large part on size and speed of the aircraft. Larger, faster aircraft fly a larger, wider pattern. As the number of aircraft in the pattern increases, the size of the pattern—particularly the downwind leg—increases to accommodate more aircraft. LWM recently implemented new voluntary noise-abatement procedures requesting that pilots start the crosswind turn at 700 feet MSL. AUGUST 2004 - 58- LVVIVIAMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Crosswind Leg 1 mile Base Leg Figure 2-1),Typical LWIVI Traffic Pattern � Survey Results- Both the tenant and itinerant pilots' surveys asked specific questions concerning arrival times and the day of the week, an well an arrival and departure routes. The purpose of those questions was to establish a pattern of time and ground tracks that could be oorna|ahad to the surrounding communities. U|Umate|y, this data can be compared to noise complaints to determine ifa pattern exists. The time and day of arrival for itinerant pilots was addressed previously, but ia presented again. - Question for Transient Pilots: Which day of the week and what time of day did you arrive? o Data collected tndate is inconclusive. - Question for Transient Pilots: From which direction did you approach the airport? (Options included the eight points of compass.) u Data collected todate is inconclusive. - C)uonUon for Based Pilots: In which direction do you normally depart the airport? (Options included the eight points of compass.) » Most of tenant-aircraft departures are to the northeast and southwest. Figure 3-E ohovva the naau|to. AuouaT2004 - 59- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Figure 2-E,Based-Aircraft Departure Direction Source:2001 Tenant Pilot Survey THE MAJORITY OF DEPARTURES North ARE TO THE NORTHEAST AND Northwest No SOUTHEST. West East Southwest ' Southeast South H.9 Nearby NAVAIDs. Within 30 miles of LWM are three VOR facilities, with another five on the outer fringes. In addition, there are five NDB facilities. VOR facilities are listed in Table 2-23. H.10 Noise Abatement. Airport Table 2-23,VOR Facilities management, FACILITY ID SERVICE BEARING DISTANCE working closely LEVEL with the Lawrence Manchester MHT Low 323 14 Noise Advisory Pease PSM Low 047 25 Committee and Boston BOS High 090 22 ATCT, has Kennebunk ENE High 360 48 established Concord CON Low 341 36 procedures to Keene EEN Low 288 52 control noise Gardiner GDM Low 270 43 during sensitive Putnam PUT High 228 57 Notes: Bearings magnetic from LWM,distance in nautical miles. periods, Such as Sources: NOAA with Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. late at night and Sunday mornings. AUGUST 2004 - 60- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Specific procedures mandate no training flights, including touch-and-go operations, during the period from 10p.m. through 8a.m. Monday through Saturday, and from 9p.m. through 8a.m. on Sundays. Additionally, the airport requires departing aircraft to climb to 700 feet above ground level (AGL) prior to turning. I. AIRPORT LIGHTING This subsection discusses the various aviation-related lighting systems found at LWM. 1.1 Runway Edge Lights. Runway edge lights are placed on either side of the runway spaced approximately 200 feet apart, outlining the edges of the runway. The lights are operated by the ATCT and turned on during nighttime hours as well as daylight hours when visibility is less than 2 miles or at the pilot's request. When the ATCT is not in operation (i.e., 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), the lights are operated using a pilot-controlled lighting (PCL)system. PCL allows pilots to turn the lights on and adjust the intensity by pressing their microphone switch a number of times in rapid succession. Runway edge lights are white; however, the lights installed on the last 2,000 feet utilize lenses that are half white and half amber. These lights appear amber to a landing pilot, warning that the end of the runway is approaching. Runway edge lights are classified according to the brightness they are capable of producing. High-intensity runway lights (HIRLs) operate between 15 and 200 watts, depending on the setting selected by the ATCT; medium-intensity runway lights (MIRLs)operate between 15 and 40 watts; and low-intensity runway lights (LIRLs) operate at a single intensity of 15 watts. • Runway 05-23 is equipped with HIRLs, which are in good condition. • Runway 14-32 has MIRLs, which are in poor condition. 1.2 Threshold Lights. Runway threshold lights are similar to runway edge lights but utilize red and green split lenses. As the pilot approaches the runway to land, the threshold lights on the near end of the runway appear green; those on the far end of the runway appear red. The threshold lights on Runway 05-23 are in fair condition; the lights on Runway 14-32 are in poor condition. AUGUST 2004 - 61 - LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory 1.3 Runway End Identifier Lights. Runway end identifier lights (REILs) provide pilots with rapid and unmistakable identification of the end of the runway. When installed, REILs are located on both sides of the approach end of the runway and synchronized to flash together two times per second. Each light is unidirectional, is pointed approximately 15 degrees away from the centerline, and flashes with an intensity of 600 watts. Runways 05, 23, and 32 are equipped with REILs, which are all in good condition. 1.4 Vertical Light Guidance Systems. Vertical light guidance systems provide visual cues to determine the proper glide path, assisting pilots in orienting themselves while approaching the runway at the proper altitude. Two principal types of systems are in use in the United States today: the visual approach slope indicator(VASI) and the precision approach path indicator (PAPI). VASI systems utilize either two or three light units arranged to provide pilots with a visual glide path. PAPI units are similar to VASI units but are installed in a single row and considered a more advanced system. Each light unit emits a white and red beam at progressively higher angles. Unlike VASI, PAPI systems provide pilots with more precise information. • Runway 23 has a four-box VASI located on the left side of the runway(4VL). • Runways 05 and 32 both have a four-light PAPI system installed on the right side of the runway(4PR). 1.5 Taxiway Edge Lights. Taxiway edge lights are similar to runway edge lights but operate at reduced wattage and are equipped with blue lenses. Taxiway lights are operated by the ATCT and are located on all taxiways at LWM. The existing lights are medium-intensity taxiway lights (MITLs) and are in fair condition. 1.6 Wind Cone. A single lighted wind cone with a 75-foot segmented circle is located near the southwestern corner of the runway intersection. The wind cone provides visual wind direction and intensity information. The wind cone, including the support structure, lights, and wiring, is in good condition. (See the Existing Airport Layout Plan for location in Appendix B.) 1.7 Rotating Beacon. Aeronautical beacons are a historical remnant of the old "lighted" airway system in the United States. Today, they assist arriving pilots in locating the airport. Systems of this type are still widely used and relied on by aviators. The beacon emits alternating white and green flashes (it actually rotates), identifying LWM as a civil land facility. The beacon AUGUST 2004 - 62- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory operates during the hours of darkness and during periods of instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). A Class 2, Type ADB L-801A, two-head, 1,000-watt, medium-intensity beacon in good condition is located atop the ATCT. 1.8 Lighting Vault. The entire airport lighting system is supported by a lighting vault located on the southern side of the airport, adjacent to the ATCT (see the Existing Airport Layout Plan in Appendix B). The vault and components are in good condition. 1.9 Airport Lighting Summary. Table 2-24 summarizes lighting capabilities at Lawrence Municipal Airport. Table 2-24,Airport Lighting System Inventory RUNWAY Runway Edge Lights HIRLs MIRLs MIRLs Runway 14-32 in poor condition REILs Yes Yes No Yes Threshold Lights Yes Yes Yes Yes Runway 14-32 in poor condition Centerline Lights No No Approach Lights No No No No Visual Approach Lights 4PR 4VL No 4PR Rotating Beacon Yes Taxiway Lights All taxiways equipped with MITL 4PR:4 light PAPI right side;4VL:4 light VASI left side. Sources:Airnav; U.S. Flight Information Publication,Airport/Facility Directory(Northeast U.S.). J. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS This subsection summarizes the existing natural and human environments that should be considered when planning improvement projects at LWM. Environmental resources identified on and within the immediate vicinity of airport property evaluated in this AMPU include wetlands, soils, wildlife, and surface- water resources. AUGUST 2004 - 63- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory J.1 Wetlands. On-airport wetlands were delineated by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and Epsilon Associates, Inc., in 1999. Wetlands are prominent within the airport property bounds and along the perimeter of the airfield. Large wetlands systems are located north of Runway 14, north and east of the Runway 23 end, east of the Runway 32 end, and west of Runway 05. Most of the wetlands are composed of forested and scrub-shrub wetlands vegetation. Dominant wetlands species include red maple (Acerrubrum), gray birch (Betula populifolia), speckled alder(Alnus rugosa), and glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula). must be conducted in compliance with permitting requirements established in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c. 131 s. 40)and/or Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act(33 USC 1251 et seq.). J.2 Soils. Soils occurring on airport property have been mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service, and are included in the Soil Survey of Essex County, Massachusetts, Northern Part, published in 1981. The primary soil type located on airport property includes the Udorthents soil association. Udorthents soils consist of nearly level, loamy soils that have been altered for the purposes of development. Other soil groups identified on airport property include the Paxton and Windsor soil series. Paxton soils consist of nearly level, well drained to moderately well drained, fine sandy loams. These soils are located within the approach and transitional surfaces to Runway 23. Windsor soils typically consist of nearly level well-drained loamy sands. Windsor soil series have been identified within or adjacent to the approaches to Runways 14, 05, and 32. Windsor and Paxton soil series have been designated by the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture (MDFA) as prime/locally important farmland soils. As such, these soils are protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (administered by the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture)from federal actions resulting in the conversion of these soils for nonagricultural purposes. Consultation with the MDFA and the NRCS is required prior to the construction of proposed airport-improvement projects that will result in the conversion of these farmland soils for nonagricultural purposes. J.3 Wildlife. The most recent edition of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas(October 1, 1999)was consulted to determine whether proposed airport-improvement projects will adversely impact any state-listed rare or endangered wildlife species. The Atlas indicated the presence of a priority site (i.e., site PH-53 pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species AUGUST 2004 - 64- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory Act) and an estimated habitat area (i.e., site WH-110 pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act [MWPA]) at the approach end of Runway 32. As part of a VMP, an investigation into the status of rare species identified in the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas was conducted. Species identified within the habitat area included Blanding's turtle (Emydcidea blandingii). However, further investigation determined that the species was not present, as confirmed by the Natural Heritage Program. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicated that no federally listed rare or endangered species are known to occur on airport property. J.4 Surface Water Resources. Airport property is located within the Merrimack River basin, and all drainage flows northward to the Merrimack by way of two unnamed intermittent streams. The Merrimack River flows in a northeasterly direction approximately 1,000 feet west of the airport's western property bounds. One of the intermittent streams flows through airport property approximately 300 feet west of the Runway 05 end before discharging to the Merrimack River. The second intermittent stream also flows through airport property, approximately 500 feet northeast of the Runway 23 end, prior to discharging into the Merrimack. The Merrimack River and the intermittent tributaries are listed as Class B waterways in the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (1995). These water bodies are not identified as drinking-water supplies. Lake Cochichewick, a surface-water impoundment located approximately 900 feet east of the Runway 32 end and across Route 125, is currently listed as a drinking-water supply and is, by definition, an "Outstanding Resource Water" according to the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality standards. Additionally, two small ponds are located northeast of the Runway 32 end, which are both partially located on airport property. When considering future improvement projects at LWM, design and construction practices must be implemented to ensure that water-quality standards are met for all projects exhibiting the potential to impact the water quality of surface-water bodies located both on and off airport property. J.5 Noise. Aircraft noise can be a significant issue to residential and other community uses surrounding an airport. For this AMPU a computer model was developed to identify the potential impacts of aircraft noise on the abutting properties in order to assist the LAC, the AUGUST 2004 - 65- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory newly formed Lawrence Airport Noise Committee (LANC), and other affected municipalities with compatibility planning. The noise analysis was performed using the Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 6.0. This software was developed by the FAA and is approved and recommended for use to estimate noise exposure around airports. Inputs for the model include the following: • layout and elevation of the airport • type of aircraft using the facility(i.e., single-engine piston, multi-engine piston, turboprop, and jet) • number of operations within the specified period (for this study, the average 24-hour period) • flight corridors used by the aircraft for takeoffs, landings, and touch-and-go operations Outputs include noise "contours", which define areas of similar noise exposure much the same way that ground contours define areas of equal altitude. These contours can be overlaid on a map or photograph of the area around the airport to depict the areas most impacted by the aircraft noise. Several different measurements define noise exposure. The FAA has approved the use of the day-night average sound level (DNL)for noise compatibility modeling around airports. The DNL represents the average sound level in a-weighted decibels (dbs) (i.e., sound exposure adjusted for the response of human hearing)for a 24-hour period. The DNL metric also approximates the response of humans to nighttime noises by adding 10 dbs to all noise events (i.e., aircraft operations) between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. As a rule of thumb, listeners typically interpret a 10-dbs change to be half or double the noise level. The FAA also provides guidance for recommended land uses within DNL contours. Below, 65 DNL, all land uses are considered compatible. Above 65 DNL, the compatibility of land uses depends on a variety of factors, including the following: • DNL at a specific location • type of land use AUGUST 2004 - 66- LWM AMPU Chapter 2—Inventory • construction standards (e.g., such as sound insulation manmade or natural noise barriers) • land-use controls such as zoning or easements • ambient-noise levels Although local municipalities generally do not have the authority to regulate the type or time of aircraft operations at the airport without complex studies and analysis, FAA guidelines provide tools for local municipalities to develop compatible land uses surrounding airports. With zoning changes, a community can develop compatible development standards within proximity to airport operations. It is also acknowledged that although the analysis shows significant noise impacts being confined to the airport, it does not mean that nearby residents are immune to unwanted noise interference from aircraft operations. In the following chapters of this AMPU, noise analysis is undertaken for all future airfield alternatives and potential impacts quantified. The preferred alternative is based, in part, on the layout that results in the least disruption to noise-sensitive uses. The existing-conditions noise contours (Figure 2-F)were generated based on the activity levels established for the base year 2001. A more detailed explanation about how the contours are developed and data used is in Chapter 6. AUGUST 2004 - 67- `rJ I` 1 i I � �r ilNlf�� j i 1% 1 i { � I t �I ams:..... Ef7d�s G&NOISE C;a_Yhd"9'Y.'."aUR6 S. ` T w�� karWx�arsWwYgw ,.. w '" Chapter Three FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND uuuuuuuuuuihis chapter provides an update of aviation-activity forecasts for Lawrence Municipal Airport through 2021. The aviation-activity forecasts provide input for the assessment of airport facility requirements, evaluation of airport-development alternatives, and formulation of information needed to assess the type and timing of new airport facilities. Utilizing short- (0 to 5 years), intermediate- (6 to 10 years), and long-term (11 to 20 years) forecasting horizons, these projections also aid in the evaluation of potential environmental impacts to the environs on and surrounding the airport resulting from proposed improvements. A. FORECASTING Forecasting is a preliminary step in the planning process. All airport decisions require forecasting to some degree. The attempt in forecasting, like other rational economic actions, is to reduce uncertainty about the future. Forecasts can be used as indicators of whether budgetary plans and financial decisions are consistent with the future and with the goals and objectives of an airport. Estimates of the timing of certain threshold events are the basis for effective planning and financial decisions. In airport planning, these events correspond to levels of aviation demand, which will exceed existing or planned capacities of an airport. The objective in airport forecasting is to predict when certain levels of demand will occur. No matter how complex the forecasting model might be, the results are still little more than calculated guesses tempered by sound planning judgment. A.1 Forecast Elements. The forecasts of aviation demand required to develop an airport master plan for a general-aviation airport primarily concern based aircraft, aircraft operations, and aircraft mix. To address peak-operational or facility-based demand, derivative forecasts are also developed. The primary forecast elements for LWM are as follows: • ARC • design aircraft • based aircraft and fleet mix AUGUST 2004 - 69 - LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts • operations, further divided into: o local versus itinerant activity o corporate versus recreational use o fleet mix • instrument operations • commercial-service enplanements A.2 Forecast Scope. Forecasts of applicable elements are presented for 5- (2002 through 2007), 10- (2007 through 2012), and 20-year(2013 through 2022)forecast horizons as required for airport master planning purposes in FAA AC 150/5070-6A, Airport Master Plans. Except as otherwise noted, the base year for this study is 2001. A.3 Factors Affecting Aviation Forecasts. Certain factors were found to be of particular significance and considered in forecasting aviation demands for the LWM master plan. The following factors are discussed in this chapter: • FAA NPIAS • FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) • FAA aerospace forecasts • previously developed forecasts • historical aviation activity A.4 Impact of September 11. September 11, 2001 was expected to have a short-term effect on the U.S. economy and the general-aviation industry. However, as a result of security alerts around major metropolitan airports, general-aviation flights were grounded for ten days at all general-aviation airports within the Boston Enhanced Class "B" airspace due to their proximity to Logan International Airport. LWM is located outside the 10 nautical mile (NM)enhanced Class"B" radius and, therefore, was able to maintain full operation. However, several general-aviation airports within this affected area were closed. Particularly hard hit was Beverly Municipal Airport. In fact, LWM may have benefited from this because several aircraft owners moved their aircraft from Beverly to LWM. Because the federal government has stated that the war on terrorism and the threat of more terrorist acts in the United States could exist in the foreseeable future, more restrictions on general-aviation activity can occur with little warning. AUGUST 2004 - 70- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts A.5 Insurance Crisis. Another key issue not previously discussed is a growing problem in the aviation insurance market. Premiums have risen by 300% in some locations, forcing many marginal FBOs out of business or, at a minimum, forcing them to eliminate flight training. If this trend continues, flight training as we now know it will cease to exist, with only the larger, more affluent schools offering this instruction. The long-term effect if the crisis continues will be an overall decline in operations because of its impact on flight schools, particularly the small FBOs like those at LWM, which will be forced to raise rates and/or drop coverage and aircraft rentals. A.6 Airport Service Area. The airport Table 3-1, Regional Airports and LWM Service Area service or market area is defined as the area where aircraft owners/pilots - • • - DRIVING DRIVING DISTANCE reside and are willing to travel to Manchester 30 49 LWM versus some other facility in the region. Also, when flying into the Plum Island 28 49 region, itinerant pilots will choose Nashua 25 46 between one of the six facilities. Five Hanscom 22 36 airports surround LWM that can Beverly 18 39 potentially draw pilots away from LWM (Table 3-1). The average Average 25 44 distance of 25 miles and driving time Note: Driving distance(miles)and time(minutes)were of 44 minutes are not the only factors computed using maps.yahoo.com. in determining whether an owner/pilot Source: http:www.yahoo.com. will drive to LWM or an outlying airport. The cost and availability of services and facilities, as well as the convenience of using a particular airport, also must be considered. • Manchester(MHT)supports a growing commercial market and facilities tend to cost more (e.g., hangars, tiedowns), making this a less attractive airport for many general- aviation owners/pilots. • Plum Island (2132) is a remote facility offering few facilities and the only airport without an ATCT. • Nashua (ASH) has an active flight training center with extensive delays during typical busy periods, especially on Saturdays. AUGUST 2004 - 71 - LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts • Hanscom (BED) services an extensive corporate fleet as well as a growing commercial-service operation. • Beverly(BVY) is located inside the Boston Enhanced Class "B" airspace, making it a prime target for future general-aviation restrictions. A second method of analyzing the size of the service area is to study the pilot/owner population that uses the airport. Extensive data was collected and reviewed in Chapter 2 as part of the pilot/owner survey. From this data, the average distance and driving time of the tenant pilots/owners were measured. Of the 233 pilot/owners surveyed, the average distance from the airport to their home of record is 15 miles, with an average driving time of 26 minutes. Based on data shown in Table 3-1 and extracted from the previous survey, the LWM service area has been established as encompassing an approximate 25-mile radius around LWM, including most of Essex County and one third of Middlesex County in Massachusetts and one quarter of Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties in New Hampshire (Figure 3-A). The use of county demographics in lieu of individual towns and cities within the service area simplifies the process of data-gathering, particularly when analyzing population, income, and employment history and forecast trends. AUGUST 2004 - 72- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Rockingham Hillsborough MHT •-•• yR y# ## Y } B2 ASH LWM ev, Essex ,• , yy BVY yy yy y yf 4y } Lawrence Service Area .""•...#:. f fi'ddleseX (25 NM Radius) ABED Figure 3-A A.7 FAA NPIAS. The NPIAS summary, a published national plan for the development of public- use airports, is derived from a selective compilation of local, regional, and state planning studies. The national system is structured to provide communities with access to safe and adequate airports. Upon completion of the most recent NPIAS, 98% of the nation's population was within 20 miles of an NPIAS airport. The NPIAS has 3,344 airports, 31 of which are in Massachusetts. The plan is limited to airport development eligible for federal funding under the AIP administered by the FAA. Therefore, only airports included in the NPIAS are eligible for federal funding. However, an airport's inclusion in the NPIAS does not represent federal approval, nor does it commit the federal government to participate in the cost of any project. The FAA classifies airports into categories based on service levels and/or roles. Service AUGUST 2004 - 73- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts levels are based on scheduled passengers, and service roles are based on the type of aircraft an airport can accommodate. The four classifications are primary commercial service, non- primary commercial service, reliever, and general-aviation. LWM is classified as a reliever airport, the function of which is to draw general-aviation traffic away from airports where the primary function is to serve commercial airlines. General-aviation pilots often find it difficult and expensive to gain access to congested airports, particularly large-and medium-hub airports. Recognizing of this, the FAA has encouraged the development of high-capacity general-aviation airports in major metropolitan areas. These specialized airports, called relievers, provide pilots with attractive alternatives to using congested hub airports. They also provide general-aviation access to the surrounding area. The 334 reliever airports identified in the NPIAS have, on average, 181 based aircraft (compared to 225 at LWM) and together account for 32% of the nation's general-aviation fleet. A.8 FAA Terminal Area Forecasts. Historical based-aircraft data taken from past studies and forecasts based on the TAF (2001 to 2015)are shown in Figure 3-13. As the graph shows, based aircraft increased by 39% since 1980 (1.85% per year on average). The 2001 count is already 18% higher than the TAF estimate for 2002. A.9 Based Aircraft. The FAA's Aviation Policy and Plans Division at Washington, DC, develops policies, goals, and priorities; forecasts future aviation demand; and analyzes economic impacts of all hub airports and selected reliever/general-aviation airports around the country. The FAA TAF is a 15-year projection (currently through 2015) and is continually updated and revised as needed. A.10 Operations. Historical ATCT data (see Table 2-19) is integrated into the TAF by fiscal year up to the last year available before publication. The data presented in Figure 3-C shows historic (actual operations)through 2001 and FAA TAF data until 2015. The TAF data represents a 1.4% growth in operations (2002 through 2015). A.11 FAA Aerospace Forecasts. This report, which is published annually, contains the fiscal year 2002-2013 FAA forecasts of aviation activity at FAA facilities. This includes airports with FAA and contract ATCT, air route traffic control centers, and flight-service stations. Detailed forecasts were developed for the major users of the National Aviation System: large air carriers, air taxi/commuters, general-aviation, and military. These forecasts have been prepared to meet the budget and planning needs of the constituent units of the FAA and to AUGUST 2004 - 74- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Figure 3-B,Actual and FAA TAF Based Aircraft 350 - -*-Actual Count-' FAA TAF(6s of 5/181200) 300 - S 00 C4 250 - w N N 200 - Celt N N Actual based aircraft 150 ur w have outpaced the FAA forecasts. The 2001 count is 18% higher than TAF 100 - projections. 50 - c,) (N Lr) c) N c) '�t LO cO m N c) "t Lr) (D r- 00 0) 0 7 !'2 It E, C�, C3 (S C) m C) C) �2 �2 N (N:D (:ND (C C) 0 0 C) CN (N N N (N N N N 04 N CN Figure 3-C, Historic and FAA TAF Operations 180,000 - 160,000 - 140,000 - 120,000 - 100,000 - 80,000 - 60,000 - 40,000 - —o—Actuai w-FAA TAF (as 0,5/2003) 20,000 - 0 C) co (O r- 0) CI) L0 r- 0) CI) LO r- CY) 00 00 00 00 00 rn m m m m o C) C) 0 C-) Cy) rn 2 C) C R R R R F? F? !� 04 CR N) CR N N N N AUGUST2004 - 75- LWM AMPU Chapter 3-Forecasts provide information that can be used by state and local authorities, the aviation industry, and the public. Following are highlights from the report. By the summer of 2001, aviation was already in a weakened state and headed toward one of its worst years in more than a decade. One of the longest running boom times in aviation history came to an abrupt halt on September 11, 2001. • In fiscal year 2001, the large U.S. air carriers' available seat miles increased by 1.5%, whereas passenger demand (i.e., revenue passenger miles and enplanements) declined by 0.4 and 1.6%, respectively. For the entire year, the domestic load factor averaged 1.2% less than the previous year. • Regional/commuters enplaned 79.2 million passengers in fiscal year 2001, an increase of only 0.8% over 2000. • The turnaround in the general-aviation industry that began with the passage of GARA appears to have slowed considerably in 2001. The downturn in U.S. economic activity can be partially blamed for the slowing demand for general-aviation products and services. The events of September 11 and their aftermath was expected to have the greatest and longest impact on the general-aviation industry (as compared to other aviation segments).' • Many of the "no-fly"zone and other restrictions placed on the operation of general- aviation aircraft immediately after the terrorist attacks remained in effect into early 2002, closing many airports and idling thousands of general-aviation aircraft. The challenges faced in developing forecasts for this AMPU are exceptionally difficult in light of world economic changes. The FAA forecasts and assumptions were developed around three distinct periods, each defined by the type and scope of activity it contains. Although strategies and levels of success may differ, forecasts and assumptions were developed for each of the three major user groups— air carriers, regional/commuters, and general aviation -- based on these three periods. General-aviation forecasts are further addressed in each of the three periods. ' FAA Aerospace Forecasts (2002-2013), Executive Summary, Page 1-9. AUGUST 2004 - 76- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts • Fiscal Year 2002. This was a period of contraction as the industry attempted to redefine itself in light of the post-September 11 operating environment and declining U.S. and world economic activity. It was a period of downsizing and cost-cutting, during which the industry attempted to bring its costs in line with significantly reduced levels of demand for aviation products and services. • Fiscal Year 2003. During this period, both the U.S. and world economies were at the acme of a strong economic recovery which, in turn, increased the demand for aviation products and services. General aviation began to develop strategies to not only take advantage of current demand levels but also to assure sustained long-term growth and profitability. • Fiscal Years 2004—2013. This period is distinguished by a return to more normal levels of growth in the demand for aviation products and services. Growth in aviation demand during this ten-year period should approximate previous long-term growth rates. The question is how general aviation, especially pleasure/sport flying, will deal with the double impact caused by restrictions on flying and the current U.S. economic downturn. In addition, there remain many uncertainties regarding the future of pilot training. However, the business/corporate side of general aviation appears well situated to benefit from the stringent security restrictions imposed on flying by commercial aircraft. Safety concerns for corporate staff, combined with increased check-in and security clearance times at many U.S. airports, appear to have increased the interest in fractional or corporate aircraft ownership as well as on-demand charter flights. Table 3-4 summarizes the FAA's forecasts for the next 12 years, which reflects a very slow period of growth for general aviation. With the exception of turbojet fleet and fractional ownership, general aviation will grow at a slow pace, according to FAA analysis. AUGUST 2004 - 77- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Table 3-4, FAA Aerospace Forecasts for General Aviation (2002-2013) SEGMENT PROJECTED GROWTH_] Active General-Aviation Fleet 0.3% Turbine Fleet 1.8% Turbojet Fleet 3.5% Piston-Powered Aircraft 0.2% 0.4%after 2004 -2.2% in 2002 General-Aviation Hours Flown 0.4% in 2003 1.5%2004-2012 Turbine Hours Flown 2.2% Turbojet Hours Flown 4.1% Utilization of Fractional Aircraft 4.5% Active General-Aviation Pilots 0.8% New Private Pilots 0.9% New Commercial Pilots 1.2% -4.5% in 2003 New Student Pilots -1.2% in 2004 1.0%2004-2012 Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts,2002-2012. A.12 Summary of Previous Master Plan Forecasts. Edwards& Kelcey, Inc., developed the previous forecasts of aviation activity at LWM in 1986 for the AMPU. In its 1986 analysis, it projected a 4.7% growth rate in operations from 1985 to 1990, thereafter a 2.4% growth rate until 2005. Likewise, the report projected an overall growth in based aircraft by 55%from 1985 to 2005. Table 3-5 reviews its forecasts. In addition, Dufresne-Henry, Inc., updated the ALP in 1999, which included a brief forecast analysis of based aircraft (Table 3-6). This data represents a consensus among the consultant, airport sponsor, MAC, and FAA. AUGUST 2004 - 78- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Table 3-5, 1985 Master Plan Forecasts FORECASTED SEGMENT 1985 i� i 2020 Based Aircraft 193 224 251 300 390 466 Itinerant Operations 60,927 88,110 118,463 148,710 206,848 265,589 Local Operations 79,136 88,110 78,975 99,140 104,147 114,323 Total Operations 140,063 176,220 197,438 247,850 310,995 379,911 Note: Data after 2005 were determined using linear trend analysis and does not reflect the analysis of Edwards&Kelcey. Source: Edwards&Kelcey, Inc., 1986 Master Plan. Table 3-6, 1999 ALP Update Based-Aircraft Forecasts COUNTACTUAL ACTUAL MAC 1.4% 2.0% • GROWTH - • PROJECTION PROJECTION i (2015) 157 210 233 273 305 Source: 1999 ALP Update by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. B. DEMOGRAPHICS Of the factors affecting demand forecasting, population, income, and employment trends are of particular significance and are considered part of this study. B.1 Population. The size and composition of the service area's population- and its potential for growth -are basic ingredients in creating demand for air-transportation services. In addition, the geographic distribution and distances between populations and centers of commerce within the area served by the airport may have a direct bearing on the type and level of transportation services that will be required. AUGUST 2004 - 79- LWM AMPU Chapter 3-Forecasts Population trends within the airport's service area were analyzed, and historical and forecasted growth patterns are shown in Table 3-7. To simplify the computation of available data, the entire population in each of the four counties in the service area was used. Table 3-7, Population in Service Area YEAR ESSEX MIDDLESEX HILLSBOROUGHROCKINGHAM AVERAGE 1980 635,241 1,368,797 278,189 191,370 618,399 1986 659,654 1,392,689 316,260 221,387 647,498 1990 671,009 1,399,308 336,768 246,714 663,450 1994 682,837 1,412,979 349,190 252,758 674,441 1998 713,330 1,451,865 370,595 269,455 701,311 2002 724,571 1,460,886 392,221 291,790 716,773 2006 741,332 1,478,527 412,432 309,835 734,789 2010 758,093 1,496,168 432,642 335,204 752,805 2014 774,855 1,513,810 452,852 351,934 770,820 2018 791,616 1,531,451 473,063 372,060 788,836 2022 808,377 1,549,092 493,273 392,186 806,852 Sources: U.S.Census; Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research;New Hampshire Office of State Planning. The population in the service area has grown at a steady rate of 1.4% since 1980 and is forecasted to grow at the slightly slower rate of 1.2% per year between now and 2022 (i.e., the end of the planning period). More specifically, the Essex County population is forecasted to increase by 12.8% in the next ten years (i.e., 1.3% annually), while Middlesex will realize a 6.5% increase (i.e., 0.65% annually). Between now and 2010, the Commonwealth's population is forecasted to increase by 5.5 % (i.e., 0.55% annually).2 The northern half of the airport's service area, Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties in New Hampshire, will see a higher growth rate than the Massachusetts section of the service area. Hillsborough is estimated to grow by 10.8% in the next ten years (i.e., 1.08% annually), and 2 Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research. AUGUST 2004 - 80- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Rockingham County is projected to grow by 17.6 % during the same period (i.e., 1.8 % annually).3 The service area represents a large population center located on the outer fringes of the Greater Boston metropolitan area. This concentrated hub becomes more compact in the region toward Boston to the east and high growth areas along Interstate 1-495 to the south, and grows less dense toward Portsmouth to the northeast and beyond Manchester and Nashua to the north and northwest, respectively. 13.2 Income. The discretionary purchasing power available to residents during any period is a good indicator of consumers' financial ability to travel and to own and operate general-aviation aircraft. Income in the service area rose by an average rate of 13.7%from 1980 to 1990 (1990 U.S. Census). Income is projected to increase at a much slower rate during the next 20 years, by only 4.6%. Table 3-8 shows the per-capita income in the service area as projected through the planning period. B.3 Employment. A community's economic character affects its air-traffic-generating potential. Like disposable income, the level and rate of unemployment are key factors that should be weighed. U.S. Census forecasts predict a steady growth rate in jobs, averaging 1.8% annually, outpacing the forecasted change in population, which supports the higher rate of change in wages (Tables 3-8 and 3-9). 3 New Hampshire Office of State Planning (http://www.state.nh.us/osp/sdc/sdc.htmi). AUGUST 2004 - 81 - LWM AMPU Chapter 3-Forecasts Table 3-8, Per Capita Income in Service Area MIDDLESEX HILLSBOROUGH - � 1980 $11,088 $11,585 $10,913 $10,313 $10,975 1984 $15,996 $17,607 $16,137 $15,718 $16,365 1988 $21,375 $24,723 $21,426 $21,322 $22,212 1992 $24,282 $28,998 $23,111 $23,999 $25,098 1994 $26,114 $31,005 $24,451 $25,607 $26,794 1998 $31,704 $39,209 $30,814 $32,469 $33,549 2002 $36,772 $45,834 $35,388 $37,331 $38,832 2006 $41,453 $52,156 $39,807 $42,230 $43,911 2010 $46,133 $58,478 $44,225 $47,129 $48,991 2014 $50,813 $64,800 $48,643 $52,028 $54,071 2018 $55,493 $71,122 $53,061 $56,927 $59,151 2022 $60,174 $77,444 $57,479 $61,826 $64,231 Sources: U.S.Census and Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research. Table 3-9, Employment in Service Area 1980 303,951 797,659 160,225 90,701 338,134 1984 328,531 909,098 190,079 109,253 384,240 1988 357,302 990,292 221,811 134,227 425,908 1992 336,296 919,162 203,676 126,701 396,459 1996 362,652 964,922 220,989 149,349 424,478 2000 392,718 1,075,527 248,027 174,947 472,805 2004 397,082 1,083,833 257,383 182,460 480,189 2008 411,768 1,124,463 271,743 197,155 501,283 2012 426,455 1,165,094 286,104 211,851 522,376 2016 441,142 1,205,724 300,464 226,547 543,469 2020 455,829 1,246,355 314,824 241,243 564,563 2022 463,172 1,266,670 322,004 248,591 575,109 Sources:U.S.Census and Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research. AUGUST 2004 - 82- LWM AMPU Chapter 3-Forecasts B.4 Demographic Summary. Because of the airport's location to the Greater Boston market and high-technology region of Merrimack Valley and southeastern New Hampshire, the service- area population will show steady growth during the next 10 to 20 years, slightly higher than the state averages of both Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Consistent with population trends, the area should continue to enjoy low unemployment and higher than average wages. C. FORECAST METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS Forecasts of aviation activities at LWM considered the capacities and demands on the airport and other airports within the region. In updating the forecasts, airport management, FAA, MAC, historical aviation-activity statistics, input from local FBO managers/owners, aircraft owners and operators, and previously developed aviation forecasts were evaluated. The technique used to determine future growth at LWM was based primarily on data collected from other sources. Although mathematical formulas were used by the various planning agencies consulted (e.g., U.S. Census, Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research [MISER], FAA) no attempt was made to"reanalyze" their data in favor of a new model (e.g., a regression and trend analysis), which is commonly used in aviation forecasts. Instead, professional experience based on past but recent trends was used, relying heavily on MISER and FAA forecasts. From this, two operating scenarios are presented— constrained and unconstrained growth—from which a low and high growth rate will be shown. CA Operating Scenarios. The forecasts are prepared under two operating scenarios: constrained and unconstrained. The constrained projections are developed under the assumption that there will be limited on-airport development to accommodate aircraft operations. This tends to discourage general-aviation activity and likely precludes the possible introduction of scheduled service. The unconstrained aviation demand forecasts are based on the assumption that all possible facility development will occur. This includes such items as a possible runway extension and development of a new terminal specifically designed to accommodate possible commercial scheduled service. From these two ranges, a preferred forecast has been selected and will be used for all recommended facility development and the resulting CIP for the airport. However, both the constrained and unconstrained scenarios are used in the justification and assessment of alternatives. AUGUST 2004 - 83- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts C.2 Assumptions. Two separate assumptions are examined: constrained and unconstrained. C.2.a Constrained Assumptions. The following conditions are assumed in the constrained approach to developing the forecasts: • Development of the airport would be constrained to existing developable airport land, which excludes any wetlands impact. • The number of FBOs would be reduced by one business within the next five years. • Flight training would be limited to one FBO. • The current maximum runway length would remain at 5,000 feet, thereby limiting the size and weight of future operations. • There are no future aviation restrictions as a result of security concerns. • Commercial service will not be realized at the airport. C.2.b Unconstrained Assumptions. The following conditions will be assumed in the development of the unconstrained forecasts. • Development of the airport encompasses all developable land including wetlands and is not limited to existing available land, but may extend beyond existing airport property if the demand increases. • One or two additional FBOs would start operation within the next five to ten years. • Two or more FBOs would offer flight training. • There are no future aviation restrictions as a result of security concerns. • Commercial service may be realized at the airport. AUGUST 2004 - 84- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts C.3 Preferred Forecasts. Table 3-10 is a compilation of the various forecasts discussed previously. In selecting the Table 3-10, Forecast Summary preferred forecast, several AVERAGE AVIATION SECTOR ANNUAL assumptions are made. FORECASTED GROWTH Averaging of the data is not a 1986 Master Plan 2.4% reasonable alternative because some 1999 ALP Update(High Estimate) 2.0% segments of the industry weigh 1999 ALP Update(Low Estimate) 1.4% heavier than others. For example, the Active General Aviation Fleet 0.3% projected income in the service area Based Aircraft Actual 2.4% is forecasted to rise by 4.6% and Employment in Service Area 1.8% turbojet sales by 3.5%. These two Income in Service Area 4.6% segments, although important, are not Piston Aircraft 0.4% key factors in general-aviation growth Population in Service Area 1.2% in this region and would skew the data TAF Based Aircraft 1.3% on the high side. TAF Operations 1.4% Turbine Aircraft 1.8% Historic trends typically offer the best Turbojet Aircraft Sales 3.5% argument; however, historically, the Sources: FAA Aerospace Forecasts;Airport Management; 1986 AMPU; 1999 ALP Update airport grew rapidly in the 1980s but saw a decline in operations in the 1990s making a linear trend analysis difficult. The economy had a possible effect on this. However, it is not known how the economy will change during the planning period; therefore, it cannot be used as a gauge for future growth. Instead, it is assumed will be made that growth is natural as long as there is room for expansion. The preferred forecasts for LWM use the high-growth scenario. Growth will be slow if not dormant in the recreational division of general aviation, particularly in the early years, whereas corporate aviation will see the most rapid increase during the entire planning period. Overall, an increase in general-aviation operations and the need to support its infrastructure will occur but not at the rate observed during the past six to eight years since the passage of GARA. AUGUST 2004 - 85- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts C.4 Short-Term Growth. In the short term, general-aviation-growth in this service area will probably increase at a rate of between 0.8 and 1.2% for the next five years. This assumption is based on FAA forecasts for the immediate future that predict very slow growth, if any, for the piston-engine market, student-pilot starts, and future private pilots, all of which reflect the greatest segment of the market at LWM. The corporate market will see a slightly higher growth rate in terms of increased business-jet use; however, because this segment is such a small slice of total operations at LWM, its impact will be minimal. It is reasonable to expect a growth rate of between 2.2 and 2.5% per year in the short term. One possible concern about growth is added restrictions to this segment of the market by the FAA and Transportation Security Administration, forcing charter operators to impose the same security screening requirements now used by the air carriers. This development would probably result in a slightly slower growth rate in charter passengers. C.5 Intermediate-and Long-Term Growth. In the intermediate and long terms, growth should return to more traditional rates. The FAA suggests that general aviation may return to normal growth rates from 2004 to 2013. Growth in aviation demand during this ten-year period should approximate previous long-term growth rates. Based on this and historic trends at LWM, the growth rate for the smaller piston (i.e., single-and multi-engine) aircraft should fall between 1.0 and 2.2% annually. Corporate business-jet activity will increase at a slightly higher rate of between 2.5 and 3.0% annually. This higher growth is based on FAA forecasts and current trends in the commercial market, which force more businesses to rely on private, charter, or fractional ownership of aircraft. Figure 3-D is a graph of the preferred forecasts. AUGUST 2004 - 86- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Figure 3-D, Preferred Forecasts 3.5% 3.O% 3. % 3.0% ..q 2.5% 2.5% 2.$% 2.5% m . Q t 3 1.8% 1.5% 1.2 1.0% ;.... .- ,..,..:......... 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% 2006 2011 2021 --*--Piston High Growth -- -- Piston Low Growth Business-Jet High Growth 0-- Business-Jet Low Growth D. LAWRENCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FORECASTS This subsection discusses the projected growth rate for each segment discussed in this chapter. DA Airport Reference Code. The ARC at LWM is currently and is forecasted to remain B-II. Forecasts indicated that aircraft of this size and speed will continue to dominate the market at LWM. Although larger aircraft will frequent the airport in greater numbers as a %age of overall operations, they will not meet the FAA's minimum guidelines as justification to raise the ARC to C-II or higher. D.2 Design Aircraft. The future design aircraft is the Cessna Citation Ultra. With a wingspan of 52 feet and reference speed of 96 knots, the Ultra is part of a new family of turbofan business- class aircraft that entered service within the past ten years. Although the ultra will probably be phased out by the end of this planning period, a model with similar operating characteristics— in terms of speed, weight, size, and range-will most likely replace it. AUGUST 2004 - 87- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts D.3 Based Aircraft. Based aircraft will increase from the current 225 aircraft to a constrained high of 275 or an unconstrained high of 317 in the next 20 years. The 1999 ALP Update forecasts are also shown to provide a comparison. As seen in Table 3-11 and Figures 3-E and 3-F, long-term growth in based aircraft could vary from a low of 240 aircraft to a high of 335, depending on the forecast used. Because these AMPU forecasts are within the range adopted by the 1999 ALP, the unconstrained based-aircraft projections adopted in this report as preferred are used in the remaining analyses. Table 3-11, Based Aircraft Forecasts SCENARIO 19200699 2001 2002 AMPU Unconstrained 210 225 239 260 280 317 Constrained 210 225 234 246 258 275 1999 ALP MAC 210 213 220 227 233 240 1.4% Growth 210 218 238 256 273 293 2.0% Growth 210 222 251 280 305 335 Sources: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis and 1999 ALP Update(Dufresne-Henry, Inc.). DA Fleet-Mix Based Aircraft. The base-year fleet mix is listed in Table 2-18. The application of the preferred forecasted results in the following aircraft mix through the planning period: single-and multi-engine piston aircraft will grow at a slightly slower rate than the turboprop and turbojet fleet because of forecasted changes in the industry. Likewise, the unconstrained growth rate will be faster than the constrained rate (Table 3-12). D.5 Operations. Operations totaled 86,161 in the base year(2001), the lowest count since 1996, and the trend in 2002 indicated that annual operations will remain in the range of 85,000 to 86,000 total operations. The historic trend during the past ten years shows a decline in the middle of the past decade, with a slight overall gain in 1998 and 1999. However, operations again dropped, making forecasts of this data difficult (Figure 3-G). Growth will be very slow, particularly in the constrained scenario. AUGUST 2004 - 88 - LVVMAMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Figure 3~E. Based-Aircraft Forecasted Scenarios 300 340 320 300 280 280 240 220 200 1999 2001 2008 2011 2015 2021 —4—uooc AMP u Unconstrained +0—uoouAMPuConstrained —m�1000 ALP(MAc) _*-1000 ALP(14mGrowth) — —1eoo ALP(umGrowth) Figure 3'F.2OO2AK8PU Based-Aircraft Forecasts 400 --o-Unconstrairied -*—Constrained 350 317 300 280 275 zoU 225 200 150 2001 2006 2011 2015 2021 AuouaT2004 - 89- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Table 3-12, Based Aircraft—Fleet Mix mmmmmmmmm ii . Single-Engine Unconstrained ° 211 88% 224 86% 273 86% Reciprocating 198 88/° p g Constrained 207 88% 217 88% 243 88% Multi-Engine Unconstrained ° 25 11% 29 11% 35 11% Reciprocating 24 11/° p g Constrained 25 11% 26 11% 29 11% Unconstrained 0 0% 1 <1% 1 <1% Helicopter 0 0% Constrained 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Unconstrained 1 <1% 2 1% 2 1% Turboprop 1 <1 Constrained 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Unconstrained 2 1% 4 2% 5 2% Turbojet 2 <1 Constrained 2 1% 2 1% 2 1% Unconstrained 239 100% 260 100% 317 100% Totals 225 100% Constrained 234 100% 246 100% 275 100% Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. Figure 3-G,Historic Operations 120,000 NTptal 'Loc6l C(Itinerant 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 AUGUST 2004 - 90- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Table 3-13 shows the itinerant versus local forecast. In both cases, unconstrained and constrained growth rates are projected, using the same rates as the preferred based aircraft. As discussed, the constrained-growth restrictions are reflected in the limited operations forecasted for the planning years, particularly local operations because ramp space and flight training are severely restricted. D.5.a Local Operations -Fleet Mix. Local operations are forecasted at the fleet-mix level of detail. These elements are necessary to plan apron and hangar space as well as to analyze of the airside infrastructure (Table 3-14). D.5.b Itinerant Operations- Fleet Mix. Because the business-jet market accounts for a larger percentage of itinerant operations than based aircraft operations, turbojet itinerant operations will increase at a slightly faster rate than the other categories, particularly in the next five to ten years. For infrastructure planning purposes, itinerant operations are forecasted at the fleet-mix level of detail. Constrained forecasts reflect the lack of parking and hangar space for itinerant aircraft in the planning years, as well as other restrictions discussed in Paragraph C.2 (Table 3-15). D.5.c Total Operations—Fleet Mix. Table 3-16 is a compilation of local and itinerant operations broken down by fleet mix. AUGUST 2004 - 91 - LWM AMPU Chapter 3-Forecasts Table 3-13, Operations-Fleet Mix Unconstrained 40,000 43% 48,000 45% 60,000 49% Itinerant 36,827 43% Constrained 39,000 44% 40,000 44% 50,000 49% Unconstrained 52,000 57% 58,000 55% 62,000 51% Local 49,334 57% Constrained 50,000 56% 51,000 56% 52,000 51% Unconstrained 92,000 100% 106,000 100% 122,000 100% Totals 86,161 100% Constrained 89,000 100% 91,000 100% 102,000 100% Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. Table 3-14, Local Operations-Fleet Mix I 1 0 . mmmmmmmm Single Engine Unconstrained ° 45,760 88% 49,880 86% 53,320 88% Reciprocating 44,416 90/° o_/° ° Constrained 44,000 88 44,880 88/° 45,760 88% Multi Engine Unconstrained 3,949 8% 5,200 10% 5,800 10% 5,580 9% Reciprocating Constrained 5,500 8% 5,610 8% 4,160 8% Unconstrained 500 1% 510 1% 520 1% _ Helicopter 485 1 Constrained 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Unconstrained _ 0 1% 580 1.5% 620 1.5% Turboprop 485 1 Constrained 0 1% 0 0% 0 0% Unconstrained _ 0 0% 0 0% 620 0% Turbojet 0 0% Constrained 0 0% 0 0% 520 0% Totals Unconstrained 49,334 100% 52,000 100% 58,000 100% 62,000 100% Constrained 50,000 100% 51,000 100% 52,000 100% Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. AUGUST 2004 - 92- LWM AMPU Chapter 3-Forecasts Table 3-15, Itinerant Operations-Fleet Mix AIRCRAFT CATEGORY Single-Engine Unconstrained ° 41,080 79% 45,820 79% 48,360 78% Reciprocating 29,462 80/° o ° ° Constrained 39,500 79/° 40,290 79/° 40,560 78/° Multi-Engine Unconstrained 2,578 7% 3,120 6% 2,900 5% 2,480 4% Reciprocating Constrained 3,000 6% 2,550 5% 2,080 4% Helicopter Unconstrained 1,105 3% 1,560 3% 1,530 3% 1,240 2% Constrained 1,500 3% 1,530 3% 1,040 2% Turboprop Unconstrained 1,841 5% 3,120 6% 3,480 6% 4,960 8% Constrained 3,000 6% 3,060 6% 4,160 8% Turbojet Unconstrained 1,841 5% 3,120 6% 4,060 7% 4,960 8% Constrained 3,000 6% 3,570 7% 4,160 8% Totals Unconstrained 36,827 100% 40,000 100% 48,000 100% 60,000 100% Constrained 39,000 100% 40,000 100% 50,000 100% Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. Table 3-16,Total Operations-Fleet Mix AIRCRAFT CATEGORY Single-Engine Unconstrained ° 86,840 84% 95,700 84% 101,680 83% Reciprocating 73,146 86/° o ° p g Constrained 83,500 84/° 85,170 84/° 86,320 84% Multi-Engine Unconstrained 6,462 8% 8,320 8%° 8,700 8% 8,060 7% Reciprocating Constrained 8,500 9% 8,160 8% 6,240 6% Helicopter Unconstrained 1,574 2% 2,060 2%° 2,040 2% 1,760 1% Constrained 1,500 2% 1,530 2% 1,040 1% Turboprop Unconstrained 2,303 3% 3,120 3% 4,060 4% 5,580 5% Constrained 3,000 3% 3,060 3% 4,160 4% Turbojet Unconstrained 1,823 2% 3,120 3% 4,060 4% 5,580 5% Constrained 3,000 3% 3,570 4% 4,680 5% Totals Unconstrained 86,161 100% 103,460 100% 114,560 100% 122,660 100% Constrained 99,500 100% 101,490 100% 102,440 100% Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis AUGUST 2004 - 93 - LWM AMPU Chapter 3-Forecasts D.6 Instrument Approaches. Instrument approaches are forecasted for justifying equipment upgrades such as improved navigation and communications equipment. Although not AIP- funded, airport management and planners must foresee the need for improvements in the planning years. In 1960, only 18% of all U.S. pilots were instrument-rated, mostly commercial pilots flying for the large air carriers. By 1990, the total grew to 42% and continued upward to its current total of 53%. Whereas the total number of pilots has steadily declined since 1980, the percentage of instrument-rated pilots grew. If the current trend continues, more than 75% of all U.S. pilots will be instrument-rated by the end of this planning period (Figure 3-H). This movement, combined with the growing concern of safety, will result in a continued increase in the number of pilots flying on instrument flight plans and conducting instrument approaches, as well as the need for more and improved NAVAIDs and businesses to install and support aircraft avionics. During the past ten years, the percentage of instrument operations has shown a slight increase, from 5.4% in 1990 to 7.9% in 2001, peaking at more than 10% in 1996. The number of instrument operations conducted at LWM will be in direct proportion to the total operations conducted at the airport. Instrument operations will increase at a higher rate than total operations for the reasons discussed previously. It is forecasted that instrument operations will increase proportionately to the number of instrument-rated pilots, increasing from the current number of 6,700 annual instrument operations, or 8% of total operations, to 14,600 at the end of the 20-year planning period. This increase will represent 12% of total operations, consistent with the national trends previously discussed (Figure 3-I). D.7 Peak Hour. PH operations and passengers are forecasted to assist in the development of the Iandside infrastructure— in particular, itinerant apron areas, terminal building space, and automobile parking areas. PH was addressed in Chapter 2 (see Table 2-30), where it was shown that the current PH occurs in August and results in 67 operations per hour. PH is forecasted for the planning years using both unconstrained and constrained analyses and is evaluated for both aircraft and passengers. D.7.a Peak-Hour Operations. Figure 3-J shows the PH totals for aircraft operations. It is assumed that August will remain the PM and accounts for 10% of total annual operations and that the PH will be 20% of the PMAD, which is 1/30 of a month. As the graph shows, unconstrained PH operations will increase from the current 57 to 89, whereas constrained growth will restrict PH operations to a total of 68 at the end of the planning period. AUGUST 2004 - 94- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Figure 3-H, U.S. Instrument-Rated Pilots N 900 450 N C C V N L 800 400 350 N 0 300 a c 600 is d 250 R F 500 £ 200 N C 400 Total Pilots -*—Instrument-Rated 150 300 100 200 50 1960 1975 1990 2006 2021 Figure 3-I,Total Operations versus Instrument Operations N 140 •• 16 N � a C C f6 (6 N N 7 7 120 4=Total Operations'� Instrument,Operations 14 12 100 N c N o c m 10 R p, Q 80 O O _ N R 8 E O � 60 .... i _ 6 40 4 20 2 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2006 2016 AUGUST 2004 - 95- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts Figure 3-J, Peak-Hour Operations Forecast 100 90 ©UnconstrainedN Constrained 80 70 60 50 CL 40i�iiiiiiiiiiiiii 30 20 10 0 2001 2006 2011 2021 D.7.b General-Aviation Peak-Hour Passenger Movement. PH passenger movement requires further assumptions because the number of passengers per aircraft must be forecasted. In the base year, 2001, 88% of the total operations are from single-engine reciprocating aircraft with a typical maximum passenger loading of four(i.e., pilot and three passenger seats). The standard assumption is that, on average, 2.5 seats are occupied (including the pilot). Larger corporate aircraft, however, hold multiple crew members (usually at least two) as well as a larger contingent of passengers. As the number of business jets increases, so will the average number of passengers and, therefore, PH passengers. As the number of single-engine aircraft gives way to more business jet(i.e., turbojet) operations, is assumed that the number of PH passengers will increase from the current 2.5 to 3.5 at the end of the planning period (2021). The highest growth will occur in the last ten years. Using the same model utilized to determine peak operations, peak passenger loading is 2.5 per aircraft times the PH operations loading of 57. This equals the current PH passenger loading (general aviation only)of 142 and will increase in the intermediate and long terms to the numbers shown in Figure 3-K(unconstrained and constrained). AUGUST 2004 - 96- LVVIVIAMPU Chapter 3-Forecasts Figure 3-K, General-Aviation Peak-Hour Passenger Forecasts IL Q.7.o Commercial Service Peak-Hour Passenger Movement. Projections ofpassengers and pilots are needed to determine sizing requirements for most terminal facilities including the terminal building and automobile parking. Ad airports such ooLVVM. itia essential tn examine two separate sources of demand: that created by general-aviation activity and the possible reintroduction of scheduled service. LWM has not had commercial service since 1988, when the airport recorded 19 commuter operations. Air-carrier service ended in10OO. Prior to that, the airport reported slightly more than 2.7OO total commercial operations from 1A70 through 1978. There are noreadily available records that show the number of passenger enp|anements. With Boston's Logan International Airport to the east and Manchester Airport to the north both within easy driving distance—a fair assumption can be made that commercial service will not return to LVVyW in the immediate future. Hovvever, the role of aircraft in the national transportation infrastructure is changing daily and the future of large airports is being questioned by some in the industry. Ae major airline hubs become saturated and passenger AuouaT2004 - 97- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts delays grow, the demand for smaller aircraft operating from smaller airports will grow. In the next 12 years, commuter airline enplanements are forecasted to increase by 87%.4 If existing large-hub airports are already congested, passengers and airline executives will have few options left but to expand into the existing network of general-aviation airports. The projection of scheduled-service passengers is also based on operations but further refined based on airline load factors (i.e., the number of revenue-paying passengers in an aircraft divided by the number of passenger seats). For scheduled service to become a reality at LWM it must be economically viable; for most commercial operations, a 63% load factor is used. Although this AMPU does not address airline-marketing issues, it must factor in the potential human impact on the airport and its facilities. For planning purposes, a daily passenger impact of 75 passengers per day will be used. This figure is based on a Beech 1900 turboprop aircraft with 19 passenger seats making three flights per weekday. ■ Beech 1900 Airliner with 19 passenger seats making three weekday flights: 0 19 passenger seats x 3 flights x 60% load factor= 36 passengers 0 34 enplaned and 36 deplaned passengers = 72 per day 0 360 passengers per week 0 19,000 additional people passing through the terminal every year(rounded up) As the new service gains further market share, it is anticipated that larger and faster aircraft will increase in lieu of additional operations. For purposes of planning, it is assumed that airline service would not start for another eight to ten years, based on the 2013 forecasted load factor of 63%.5 However, with the growing market in regional jets, seating capacity will increase from the current 19 to 30 passengers. Assuming load factors remain in the mid-60% range, total passengers passing through the facility by the end of the planning period could reach 29,000 to 30,000 passengers per year. If peak passenger loading occurs in August, which handles 15% of the annual operations, then it will be assumed that 15% of commercial passenger loading also will occur in August, the height of summer travel, and that 20% of this will occur at PH, which will occur six times per day(one for each arrival and departure). °FAA Aerospace Forecasts(2002-2013),Table 1-4. AUGUST 2004 - 98- LWM AMPU Chapter 3—Forecasts ■ Base Year(2002) 0 passengers ■ Short Term (2006) 0 passengers ■ Intermediate Term (2011) 34 passengers ■ Long Term (2021) 57 passengers D.7.d Peak-Hour Passenger Summary. From previous discussions, the PH general-aviation passenger loading is currently 142, growing to a high of 313 in 20 years. The unconstrained PH passenger loading will increase to 370 when commercial-service passenger loading is factored in. E. FORECASTS SUMMARY These forecasts were presented to the PAC on November 19, 2002. It was advocated and tentatively agreed at the time of the presentation that subsequent work on the AMPU should involve a cursory study of runway-length scenarios. However, at subsequent client-team meetings, which included the FAA and MAC, it was decided that because a runway extension is not currently needed and that such a requirement is at best long term, analysis in the AMPU would not assess this concept. Facility requirements and alternatives focus on the high-growth scenario using the "unconstrained assumptions" discussed in Paragraph C.2.b. These are the"preferred forecasts"for the remaining chapters of this AMPU, which are based on the "unconstrained" numbers derived herein. The following points summarize the conclusions of the preferred forecasts for LWM: • The current and forecasted ARC for LWM is B-II. This means that a runway extension is not necessary at this time and the existing safety areas do not have to be expanded based on higher design criteria. • The existing fleet mix will continue to see the fastest rate of growth for the higher performance general-aviation aircraft. However, the introduction of jet-transport aircraft is not anticipated within the planning period. • The introduction of a regional commuter airline is deemed unlikely within the planning period. If such service is initiated, it will likely utilize small turboprop aircraft such as the Beech 1900. Table 3-17 summarizes the unconstrained forecasts for LWM. AUGUST 2004 - 99- LWM AMPU Chapter 3-Forecasts Table 3-17,Summary of Unconstrained Preferred Forecasts ITABLE/FIGURE ARC B-II B-II B-II B-II Design Aircraft Cessna Citation Ultra or Similar Based Aircraft(Total) 225 239 260 317 3-11 Single-Engine Reciprocating 198 211 224 273 3-12 Multi-Engine Reciprocating 24 25 29 35 3-12 Helicopter 0 0 1 1 3-12 Turboprop 1 1 2 2 3-12 Turbojet 2 2 4 5 3-12 Operations(Total) 86,161 92,000 106,000 122,000 3-13 Local Operations(Total) 49,334 52,000 58,000 62,000 3-13 Single-Engine Reciprocating 44,416 45,760 49,880 53,320 3-14 Multi-Engine Reciprocating 3,949 5,200 5,800 5,580 3-14 Helicopter 485 520 510 520 3-14 Turboprop 485 520 580 620 3-14 Turbojet 0 0 0 620 3-14 Itinerant Operations(Total) 36,827 40,000 48,000 60,000 3-13 Single-Engine Reciprocating 29,462 41,080 45,820 48,360 3-15 Multi-Engine Reciprocating 2,578 3,120 2,900 2,480 3-15 Helicopter 1,105 1,560 1,530 1,240 3-15 Turboprop 1,841 3,120 3,480 4,960 3-15 Turbojet 1,841 3,120 4,060 4,960 3-15 Instrument Operations 6,276 7,544 9,540 14,640 3-H Peak-Hour Operations 57 61 71 89 3-1 Peak-Hour Passengers 142 159 212 238 3-J AUGUST 2004 - 100- Chapter Four DEMAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS & FACILITY REQUIREMENTS uuuuuuuuuuihis chapter investigates the capacity of the airport, its ability to meet current demand, and the facilities required to meet forecasted needs as established in Chapter 3. The objective of this analysis is to determine the adequacy of existing facilities, which leads to a preliminary determination of what is required to satisfy future requirements (i.e., upgrading, improving, extending, or abandoning facilities no longer needed, or even constructing new facilities). The results of these preliminary findings are subjected to an analysis of development alternatives before being finalized. Facility requirements are also developed based on issues not related to capacity and demand. FAA design standards, safety, and services for airport users are considered in the AMPU. The airside and landside capacity needs are determined by comparing the capacity of the existing facilities to the forecasted demand for them. In cases where demand exceeds capacity, additional facilities are recommended. The time frame for assessing development needs usually involves the three forecast horizons: the short term (0 to 5 years), intermediate term (6 to 10 years), and long term (11 to 20 years). Long-term planning is concerned with the ultimate role of the airport and its related development; intermediate-term planning involves a more detailed assessment of needs. Short-term planning is geared to an immediate action program and may include details not appropriate to the longer periods. On the other hand, the intermediate and long terms target development needs based on the attainment of specific demand levels. Therefore, demand levels are directly tied to each recommended development proposal. In this chapter, the AMPU evaluates the following airside and Iandside issues and makes recommendations pertaining to the following areas: • airside capacity, including runway configuration, length, and width • runway markings and lighting • runway and taxiway design standards AUGUST 2004 - 101 - LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements • taxiway configuration, lighting, and marking • landside capacity issues, including hangar requirements • apron and tiedown requirements • parking-ramp design standards • terminal-building needs and automobile parking • IAPs A. AIRSIDE CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS The theoretical capacity of an airport depends on a number of variables, including operational fleet mix, air-traffic operating rules regarding aircraft separation, runway usage, and weather conditions. As each invariably changes, so does airport capacity. A.1 Existing Runway Capacity. The first analysis is to determine whether the runway configuration is adequate. That is, does the current runway layout at LWM meet existing and future demands? The capacity of a given runway system is dependent on its basic configuration and the types and mix of aircraft and their use of the system. Capacity is determined using an FAA analysis software program' to determine the annual service volume (ASV)and hourly capacity. The following conditions are entered into the program before the analysis is run: • runway configuration: multiple crossing runways • aircraft in the 12,500-to 300,000-pound range: 10% • aircraft more than 300,000 pounds: 0% • general-aviation operations dominate (versus air-carrier operations) • annual demand: 85,000 operations Results indicate the following existing capacity at LWM, which is consistent with results obtained in the 1986 AMPU: • the ASV is 230,000 operations • the VFR hourly capacity is 98 aircraft • the IFR hourly capacity is 59 aircraft • ratio of annual demand to ASV is 0.35 ' FAA Design Program Version 1.1. AUGUST 2004 -- 102- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements The analysis shows that only 35% of the existing airport capacity is being utilized (i.e., the ratio of existing annual operations to ASV). The VFR and IFR hourly capacity reflect mathematical calculations and do not necessarily reflect"real-world" numbers. A more realistic capacity would be in the range of 60 VFR and 20 IFR operations, which reflect the rate at which ATC can handle air traffic, aircraft speed, pilot response time, taxiway design, and other factors that control the flow and speed of air traffic. A.2 Forecasted Runway Capacity. The previous AMPU indicated that LWM would reach and exceed its capacity sometime between 2002 and 2005; this has not been the case. The current(base year)operations were established at 85,308. Based on a computed ASV of 230,000, LWM is currently using 35% of its available capacity. Generally, no measures must be taken until the ratio reaches 60%which, in the case of LWM, would mean 138,000 annual operations. As forecasted, overall annual operations will reach a projected high of 102,000 in 2021, or 44% of available capacity. Based on this analysis, no adjustments are necessary to the runway configuration (i.e., adding more runways) during this planning period. A.3 Runway-Length Analysis. Runway-length requirements are evaluated using computer analysis to determine both a generic length and a length based on existing and forecasted aircraft. LWM has two runways with different ARC designations. The shorter runway(14-32) is used primarily for small-category aircraft that are less tolerant of crosswind conditions. The longest surface and primary runway is Runway 05-23, at 5,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. At 3,901 feet long and 100 feet wide, Runway 14-32 is the declared crosswind runway. AUGUST 2004 -- 103- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements An analysis using FAA design software indicates that the primary runway will support most operations at LWM during typical summer conditions. The only exception would be general- aviation aircraft in the large category2 operating at or near MGTOW. Table 4-1 shows the results of applying the conditions at LWM (i.e., airport elevation, mean hottest summer temperatures, and runway gradient information). According to this analysis, the longest runway at LWM would have to be 7,660 feet long if it were to support all large-category aircraft operating at a 100% useful load. Reducing aircraft loads to 60% of available payload permits Table 4-1, Generic Runway Length Requirements AIRCRAFT WEIGHT REQUIRED RUNWAY LENGTH - D- Small Airplanes with fewer than 10 passenger seats 75%of all aircraft 2,470 2,540 95%of all aircraft 3,020 3,080 100%of all aircraft 3,590 3,680 Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats 4,150 4,200 Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less 75%of these large airplanes at 60% useful load 4,610 5,310 75%of these large airplanes at 90% useful load 6,160 7,000 100%of these large airplanes at 60% useful load 5,130 5,500 100%of these large airplanes at 90% useful load 7,660 7,660 Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds 6,880 6,880 Parameters Mean high summer temperature:82' F Airport elevation: 149 feet Maximum difference in runway-end elevation:0 feet Length of haul for airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds: 1,500 miles Sources: FAA Design Software with Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. 75% of the current general-aviation large-aircraft fleet to use the airport. This indicates that the existing small-aircraft fleet can safely operate from LWM under all conditions. It does not consider type-specific aircraft performance requirements, specific FAR requirements for commercial operations (e.g., such as certified air-charter flights), and insurance requirements 2 Greater than 12,500 pounds MGTOW. AUGUST 2004 -- 104- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements imposed on certain commercial and business-jet operations. It also does not consider newer aircraft designs that have been developed since the last time the FAA software was updated. A second method of determining runway-length requirements is to analyze specific aircraft needs based on known manufacturers' operating parameters. This analysis is based on the future design aircraft for LWM, the Cessna Citation Ultra. The Ultra is a medium-weight(i.e., 16,300 pounds) business jet with a wingspan of 52 feet and an ARC in the B-II group. Standard performance calculations were made using the manufacturer's established sea-level takeoff distance.3 This baseline distance is calculated at International Standard Atmospheric (ISA)conditions with a pressure of 29.92 inches and a temperature of 59°F. Calculations are adjusted based on LWM's elevation above sea level and at the mean high temperature, both of which affect takeoff performance. Takeoff distances for LWM were computed for the following five performance measurements: • normal takeoff at MGTOW • a reduced payload (80% of allowable) • the accelerate-go distance required • accelerate-stop distance required • balanced field length Figure 4-A shows these various distances. The Ultra can operate from LWM under normal and reduced takeoff-weight conditions. It cannot operate safely at MGTOW if balanced-field- length requirements must be met by FAR and insurance requirements. This does not mean the aircraft cannot operate from LWM. If performance charts indicate more runway is required than available, pilots have the option of reducing payload or waiting for cooler temperatures, which reduces runway distances required. It is assumed that not all operations to and from LWM will be at MGTOW. However, it is impossible to know exactly what percentage of operations fall into this category. On the other hand, Hanscom Field to the south—also a reliever airport to Boston's Logan International Airport(BOS)- has 7,000-and 5,000-foot runways with a much higher percentage of business-jet operations. It would be safe to assume that some aircraft unable to operate from 3 http://www.aviationnow.com/BCA(Business and Commercial Aviation, May 2002). AUGUST 2004 -- 105- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements LWM would use Hanscom instead, diverting traffic and potential revenue away from LWM and BOS. The preceding analysis shows that a longer runway may be justified at some future point in the planning process. However, the data and history of the airport also indicate that LWM can and will continue to operate efficiently with a 5,000-foot runway, assuming continued predominant use of or by the type of business jets currently operating at the airport. The issue of whether a runway extension would be evaluated in this AMPU was discussed in detail with the PAC, LAC, MAC, and FAA; it was agreed that current demand does not warrant further evaluation of this concept. It must be stressed that future planning undertaken in this study strives to preclude incompatible development within areas off Runway 05-23 that may be needed for such a future project. If future use of the airport supports the need to reassess this concept, it can be undertaken in subsequent updates. A.4 Runway-Width Analysis. Runway 05-23 is 150 feet wide and Runway 14-32 is 100 feet wide. Under the current design standard, Runway 05-23 should be at least 75 feet wide and Runway 14-32 needs to be at least 60 feet wide. It is recommended, however, that the runway widths remain at 150 and 100 feet, respectively, because of the remote possibility that commercial air service may return to LWM, dictating a possible wider and/or longer runway requirement. Although the likelihood of the ARC increasing to Group IV in this planning period is remote, it is possible, which would dictate a wider runway infrastructure. Regardless, the runway width can be reevaluated when the next major reconstruction project is due. Reducing the width for the sake of meeting current design standards is expensive and would serve no operational purpose. Because of extensive training activity, the wider runway adds an immeasurable safety element to flight operations: it offers pilots of all experience levels a greater margin of error, particularly during strong wind conditions. In addition, a wider runway provides an increased margin of safety during low-visibility operations by offering pilots a wider target or aim point in the final phase of approach. A.5 Airport Reference Code and Geometric Standards. It was determined that the existing and future ARC for LWM is and will most likely remain B-11. This is applicable to the primary runway, which means that all airport geometric standards, except Runway 14-32, will be based on an aircraft with a wingspan up to 78 feet and an aircraft approach speed of 120 knots or less. Runway 14-32 is designed to ARC B-I standards because it is used primarily by AUGUST 2004 -- 106- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements small-category aircraft with a slower approach speed and shorter wingspan; however, large category aircraft do use this runway. It is unlikely that Runway 14-32 will ever receive enough traffic by B-11 aircraft to justify an ARC upgrade from B-1. A.6 Runway Safety Areas. The definition and purpose of RSAs is defined in Appendix A. LWM runway design prescribes separate standards of ARC B-11 for Runway 05-23 and ARC B-I for Runway 14-32. Table 4-2 lists the required and actual RSA dimensions along with the nonconforming issues. The airport undertook a safety-area study that identified issues; subsequent work will correct the deficiencies, which are described in greater detail in Chapter 5. Forecasted changes will not require any change in size or location of the safety areas; however, there are other options that would bring the airport into FAA compliance. These include shifting the runway alignment or thresholds which, in effect, shifts the RSAs. Shifting the runway alignment is not a financially sound option. However, shortening a runway by moving one or both thresholds is an option that has worked at other airports. As the threshold moves, so does the end of the RSA. The concept is simple in design but has drawbacks that must be addressed as well (see Chapter 5). Table 4-2, Required Runway Safety Areas GROUPRUNWAY DESIGN REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED ACTUAL NON-STANDARD • • 05 300 100 Each RSA end has grading II 150 150 issues and is located partially 23 300 100 in wetlands. In addition, the Runway 14, and 32 ends include areas not owned by 14 240 100 the airport, and the Runway 32 end RSA is located 120 120 partially in a parking lot of an 32 240 100 off-airport business. Notes:Length and width in feet Source:Runway Safety Area Study, Lawrence Municipal Airport;prepared by Dufresne-Henry,Inc. (June 2000), under AIP No. 3-25-0026-15. AUGUST 2004 -- 107- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements A.7 Obstacle-Free Zone. The runway OFZ extends 200 feet beyond the end of each runway, whereas the width is based on two different criteria: airplane size (small or large category) and, if small aircraft exclusively, approach visibility minimums. Because both runways at LWM serve large-category aircraft, the OFZ width is 400 feet.4 There are no nonconforming issues in the runway OFZ. A.8 Object-Free Area. Like the RSA and OFZ, the OFA extends around the runway, creating an area that must meet certain clearing standards. Objects nonessential for air navigation or aircraft ground-maneuvering must not be placed in the OFA, including parked aircraft. The size of the OFAs at LWM meets design criteria. A small section of the airport security fence penetrates the Runway 32 OFZ near the approach end of the runway. Table 4-3 lists the required and actual OFA dimensions along with the nonconforming issues. Table 4-3, Runway Object Free Areas REQUIREDRUNWAY DESIGN REQUIRED ACTUAL -D GROUP 05 300 300 11 500 500 23 300 300 14 240 240 Fence running 400 400 perpendicular through 32 240 240 each runway end OFA. Note: Lengths and widths in feet. Source:AC 150/5300-13,Table 3-1 (runway design standards for aircraft approach categories A&B for visual runways and runways with approach minimums not lower than 3/4 statute mile). 4 AC 150/5300-13(Change 7), Paragraph 306. AUGUST 2004 -- 108- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements A.9 Runway Protection Zones. Several nonconforming issues must be addressed as follows: • The Runway 05 RPZ rests almost entirely off airport property. Because of the size and number of private businesses in this zone, obtaining avigation easements in this area is the best alternative. • The Runway 23 RPZ rests entirely on airport property. However, a larger RPZ may be necessary to accommodate a potential precision approach with possible lower minimums to this end of the runway. Currently, the RPZ size is based on Approach Categories A and B aircraft with visibility minimums "not less than 1 mile." If a new approach is developed with minimums of less than 1 mile, then the size of the RPZ will have to be increased accordingly. • The Runway 32 RPZ has approximately 4 acres of land outside control of the airport. Either property acquisition or purchase through fee simple is recommended. The ultimate disposition depends on the final cost. • Although the entire Runway 14 is off airport property, the most of it rests over the Merrimack River and shoreline in an area where no development is possible. A.10 Runway Markings and Signage. Current runway markings are satisfactory and meet current design requirements. Other than normal maintenance (i.e., new paint), no changes are required. Airport guidance signs do require updating to bring the airport into conformance with current standards.5 The most notable deficiency is the lack of location information adjacent to runway hold short signs. A separate sign plan is being developed that will address airport needs, bringing the facility into compliance with FAA standards. A.11 Taxiway Configuration Requirements. The existing taxiway system at LWM is addressed in Chapter 2 and shown on the Existing Airport Layout Plan in Appendix B. The existing network of taxiways consists of a full-length taxiway along the southeastern side of Runway 05-23 (Taxiways "A" and "B"), a full-length parallel taxiway along the northeastern side of Runway 14-32 (Taxiway"E"), and a semiparallel taxiway along the southwestern side of Runway 14-32 (Taxiways "C" and "D"). This taxiway system meets current operational demand; however, a more homogeneous and straightforward design would improve the flow of traffic and decrease opportunities for pilot confusion and error. In addition, planning now for the north-end e AC 150/5340-18C, Standards for Airport Sign Systems. AUGUST 2004 -- 109- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements development would reduce the number of runway crossings necessary when Runway 23 is active. Two changes are recommended. A true-parallel taxiway along the southeastern side of Runway 05-23 would eliminate the current disjoined route while opening up needed on-airport property for development of added apron and possibly hangar space. This would be accomplished in two phases through construction of a new parallel taxiway along the southeastern side of the runway. The first phase would involve construction of a 35-foot-wide taxiway from the approach end of Runway 23 that connects to the existing Taxiway"D". The existing Taxiway"A"would be removed or used for aircraft parking. The second phase would be delayed until two key events occur. First, the ILS serving Runway 05 will be decommissioned some time in the future when it is replaced by a precision GPS approach, probably within the next 10 to 15 years. The second event would be when Taxiway"B" is due for full reconstruction. At that point, the full-parallel taxiway along Runway 05-23 would be completed that connects with the section developed in the first phase. The previous AMPU recommended the addition of a new taxiway from the approach end of Runway 23, along the northwestern side of Runway 05-23, connecting to Taxiway"E". This recommendation is considered even more important today. This taxiway would provide quick and safe access between the general-aviation ramp and hangars on the northern side of the airport with the runway, eliminating the need to taxi across the main runway. In addition, this taxiway would provide a safe route for airport vehicles transitioning between the two sides of the airport. One issue that continues to cause concern at LWM is the high number of vehicle trips across the main runway. The FAA would prefer that these vehicles use a perimeter road, which is not available, or public roads. Although the public infrastructure does connect the two sides of the airport, the reality and nature of operations makes this alternative highly unlikely. The proposed taxiway would provide an alternative means for vehicles to transition back and forth and avoid actually crossing the runway. A.12 Taxiway Design Requirements. Two possible options should be studied, based on building new taxiways to either ARC B-I I or C-11 standards. The current and forecasted ARC for the airport is B-11; however, to preserve future options, designing new taxiways now to C-11 standards would enable an easier transition to the higher standards if the need arises. AUGUST 2004 -- 110- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements Normally, B-II standards require 35-foot-wide taxiways centered 240 feet from the runway. C-II standards also require a 35-foot-wide taxiway centered 300 feet from the runway. In both cases, the required taxiway-edge safety margin, TSA width, and OFA, and so forth are the same. However, if an ALS is installed on Runway 05-23 (either end), the possibility exists that approach minimums could be reduced to 1/2-mile visibility. If this occurs, the taxiway to runway separation would be 300 versus 240 feet6 and 400 feet under Category C approach standards.' Achieving the lowest possible approach minimums should be considered in future airport design considerations. A.13 Airfield Lighting. In addition to ongoing maintenance and technological advances, which require changes and improvements, certain other changes can be made to make the airport a safer environment to operate. This subsection addresses those changes. A.13.a Runway Lights. The existing runway-edge light system consists of HIRLs on the primary runway (05-23) and MIRLs on the crosswind runway(14-32). Other than routine maintenance and replacement of damaged or worn components, no change in lighting is recommended at this time. A.13.b Approach Lights. The airport currently has no ALS, which was noted in the pilot survey conducted in the early part of this AMPU. Approach lights aid pilots by making an instrument runway stand out at night and during inclement weather conditions, and may enable a lower decision altitude (DA) (or minimum descent altitude)which is discussed in Chapter 5. Gaining a lower approach minimum is one reason for installing an ALS. However, and more important to the pilot, an ALS provides the basic means to transition from IFR to VFR for landing by permitting the pilot to acquire the runway environment earlier in the approach. Pilots on instrument approaches concentrate primarily on the aircraft's flight attitude and approach parameters (i.e., Where is the aircraft in reference to the runway?). Once the aircraft"breaks out"—that is either descends below the cloud deck or within visual range of the runway—the pilot must transition from instrument flying to visual flying. The closer the aircraft is to the runway, the quicker the pilot must make this transition. In effect, ALS extends 6 AC 150/5300-12,Table 2-1, Runways with lower than 3/4 statute mile (1,200 m)approach visibility minimums Categories A& B. 'AC 150/5300-12,Table 2-2, Runways with lower than 3/4 statute mile (1,200 m)approach visibility minimums Categories C& D. AUGUST 2004 -- 111 - LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements the runway environment further into the approach path of the aircraft, permitting this changeover in a timelier manner and aiding the pilot in the final aircraft alignment prior to crossing the runway threshold. Operational requirements dictate the sophistication and configuration of the ALS for a particular runway. That is, the type and size of the system are generally dictated by the type of approach and visibility minimums. ALS is a configuration of signal lights starting at the landing threshold and extending into the approach area a distance of 2,400 to 3,000 feet for precision instrument runways and 1,400 to 1,500 feet for nonprecision instrument runways. Some systems include sequenced flashing lights that appear to the pilot as a ball of light traveling toward the runway at high speed (twice a second). Any ALS developed at LWM would be aligned to the precision runway, which is currently Runway 05. However, this does not preclude development of a new precision approach to another runway with a collocated ALS. The second alternative is the type of ALS required. The FAA recognizes the following two ALS configurations to meet the requirements for precision approaches: • The Approach Light System with Sequenced Flashing Lights (ALSF-2) is a 2,400-to 3,000-foot-long, high-intensity ALS with sequenced flashing lights. It is required for categories II and III precision approaches (not applicable to LWM). • The medium-intensity approach light system (MALSR) is a 2,400-foot medium- intensity ALS with runway-alignment indicator lights (RAILs). It is an economy ALS system approved for category I precision approaches. The MALS portion of the system is 1,400 feet in length; the RAIL portion extends outward an additional 1,000 feet. This system would be ideally suited for installation at LWM. The obvious location for an ALS at LWM would be on Runway 05 because the ILS approach is already installed on this end of the runway. However, there are mitigating conditions that may preclude an ALS on this end, mainly terrain and private property. A review of wind and meteorological conditions at LWM indicates that the ILS is ideally located on this end of the runway. Table 2-8 shows that wind during instrument conditions (IFR) predominantly favors Runway 05 over the opposite Runway 23 end. Gaining maximum utilization of instrument procedures dictates that the precision approach remains on this runway end. Runway 14 has equally high wind coverage, but its shorter length would not offer the best alternative for a AUGUST 2004 -- 112- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements new precision approach. The logical location for any ALS would be on Runway 05. However, two alternatives are analyzed: one on either the Runway 05 or 23 end. These recommendations are explored in Chapter 5, including a cost analysis and preliminary impact on private property. A.13.c Runway-End Identifier Lights. REILs are currently installed on Runways 05, 23, and 32. Adding a REILs system to Runway 14 would provide total airport coverage. Although this runway is used the least at LWM, the addition of REILs would provide pilots with added safety and security during night operations. A.13.d Vertical Guidance Lighting System. A vertical guidance lighting system (VGLS) consists primarily of VASI and PAPI systems and is designed to provide pilots with visual descent guidance information during the approach to a runway. The existing VGLS consists of a four-light VASI located on the left side of Runway 23 and a four-light PAPI located on the right side of Runways 05 and 32. It is recommended that the Runway 23 system be upgraded to a PAPI and that the VASI be moved to Runway 14. A.13.e Taxiway Lights. All taxiways are currently equipped with MITLs although no changes are recommended; the proposed new taxiways should be equipped with MITLs as well. A.13.f Miscellaneous Lighting. The airport rotating beacon is in good condition and will only require general maintenance over the next several years. The beacon is located atop the ATCT and would have to be moved if a new tower were constructed. The existing segmented circle and lighted wind cone located directly opposite the terminal building between Runway 05-23 and the taxiway must be moved if the parallel taxiway is redesigned, which is a minor issue with minimal impact. It is suggested that it be placed in the triangular area located directly opposite its current position on the northwestern side of the runway. A.13.g Lighting Vault. The existing vault, located between the terminal building and ATCT, is in good condition. In all likelihood, the vault and its internal components will have to be replaced by the end of this planning period. The optimum location would be in the new SRE/maintenance building being proposed. AUGUST 2004 -- 113- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements B. LANDSIDE CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS This section addresses issues related to landside facility capacity and recommended changes. B.1 Aircraft Storage and Parking. The first assumption that must be made is how the mix of aircraft that park on the various aprons and those in hangars will change during the planning period. Currently, the mix is divided equally between hangars and ramp tiedown spaces. Industry trends and current demand for hangars in the northern states, particularly reasonably priced hangars, are leaning toward a higher percentage of aircraft being stored in a protected area. A NYSDOT study$ indicated that aircraft owners overwhelmingly prefer hangars to tiedown space, provided they are reasonably priced. The study further indicates that 43% of respondents prefer T-hangars (lower cost per unit) and 38% prefer conventional hangars; the rest either prefer tiedown space (6.5%) or did not specify a choice. The NYSDOT study is consistent with similar studies undertaken by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., that indicate similar trends. Given the choice between a reasonably priced hangar and a tiedown, the studies show that aircraft owners choose the hangar 60 to 80% of the time. The pilot survey conducted as part of this AMPU indicated that 55% of the respondents already use a hangar. Of the 61 pilots who reported using tiedown space, 51 (84%)would prefer a hangar and were willing to pay$237 per month (on average). As the cost of owning an aircraft increases and the fleet mix changes in favor of more turboprop and turbofan aircraft, the demand for hangars will increase. Hangar demand was at 87% of capacity in 2002, occupying 117 of 135 available spaces. However, the available T-hangars were filled to capacity. The only remaining spaces available were in the conventional hangars. As discussed previously, conventional-hangar capacity is difficult to judge because aircraft size is difficult to determine. The larger the aircraft, the fewer aircraft a conventional hangar can hold. Also, most conventional hangars are not strictly used for storage purposes but rather are maintenance facilities. This indicates the need for more T-hangars, possibly as high as 60% of total based aircraft now, and approximately 75% by the end of the planning period. It is reasonable to expect that the number of hangars versus apron space could increase during the next several years. It is forecasted that the current 50/50 split at LWM will change S"1999 Aircraft Owners and Aviation Users Market Survey and Regional Analysis". NYSDOT; Passenger Transportation Bureau;Albany, New York; New York State Small Business Development Center. AUGUST 2004 -- 114- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements in favor of hangars as soon as they are built, meaning available space for development of aircraft storage areas should be reserved for hangar development. For planning purposes, it is assumed that the current mix will change to 75% hangars and the remaining 25% in favor of apron and tiedown spaces, with an immediate need for 60%, or space for about 10 to 15 more aircraft. Like any other project, hangars (and new apron space) should be developed only in concert with demand. The key is timing the market to ensure that adequate space is available. B.1.a Based-Aircraft Apron Requirements. Existing apron facilities and demand are addressed in Chapter 2. There are approximately 117 aircraft parked on aprons, or 50% of the total based aircraft. This percentage will slowly decrease to 25% during the next 20 years. For planning purposes, it is assumed that this transition will occur early. Using forecasted data in Chapter 3 (see Table 3-17), the total number of based aircraft will increase from the current 225 to 317 in 20 years. If only 25% of the total based aircraft is using aprons for storage purposes, then the number of based aircraft requiring tiedown space will decrease to 79 by 2021. Based-aircraft pavement requirements are generally computed using approximately 2,700 square feet per aircraft. This number can be adjusted based on the average size of aircraft, which is used for planning purposes. Based on parking requirements for 79 aircraft, a total of 213,000 square feet is required. B.1.b Itinerant-Aircraft Apron Requirements. Itinerant-aircraft apron space is determined by using the peak activity levels developed as part of the forecasting process. Based on FAA guidelines, parking requirements are determined using the following formula: • PMAD x 110% = PMAD operational demand • PMAD operational demand x 50% = actual aircraft anticipated • actual aircraft anticipated x 75% = estimated parking demand • estimated parking demand x 3,240 square feet= itinerant-aircraft apron requirements Application of this formula to the number of PH operations forecasted in Chapter 3 (see Table 3-17) results in an apron demand for transient aircraft of approximately 120,000 square feet in 2021, as follows: AUGUST 2004 -- 115- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements • 89 x 110% = a PMAD operational demand of 98 aircraft • 98 x 50% = 49 actual aircraft anticipated (i.e., those that will stop at the airport) • 49 x 75% = estimated parking demand of 37 aircraft • 37 x 3,240 square feet = itinerant-aircraft apron requirements of 119,880 square feet The existing itinerant-aircraft ramp (in front of the terminal) encompasses approximately 44,000 square feet, space for approximately 15 aircraft on average. Although the other FBOs host itinerant aircraft, expanding the main ramp would provide a more central location for visiting pilots, and help offset the congestion often encountered, particularly on busy summer weekends and holidays. It is suggested that this ramp be expanded by about 50%to approximately 70,000 square feet. The optimum direction to expand would be toward the runway when Taxiway"A" is redesigned. B.1.c Total Apron Requirements. Total apron requirements are a combination of based- and transient-aircraft parking needs, space for servicing and maintenance, and other aircraft infrastructure needs, such as maintenance vehicles and other airport essential vehicle movement and parking needs. Table 4-4 shows the total apron requirements for parking aircraft throughout the planning period. Table 4-4,Total Aircraft Apron Requirements PERIODBASED ITINERANT TOTAL TOTAL AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT APRON APRON - • REQUIRED • 2001 303,800 76,000 379,800 (800) 2006 282,000 81,500 363,500 15,500 379,000 2011 263,000 94,900 357,900 21,100 2021 213,000 120,000 333,000 46,000 Note: Measurements in square feet. Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. AUGUST 2004 -- 116- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements As shown, the airport has a slight deficit in aircraft tiedown space based on common planning criteria. The numbers shown in Table 4-4 are based on common-size tiedown spaces (i.e., 2,700 square feet for based aircraft and 3,240 square feet for itinerant aircraft) and are also partially based on the PH numbers addressed previously, which only occur a few times a year. In addition, many of the smaller aircraft that frequent LWM do not require this much space; hence, the fact that the number of actual marked spaces as reported in Chapter 2 (see Table 2-17) exceeds the current demand. The larger aircraft normally utilize the services of the Jet Center, which often requires more space than it currently has (i.e., 20,000 square feet). 13.1A Apron Summary. The analysis shows that LWM currently has a slight overall deficit of apron space. As shown in Table 4-4, demand for apron space will decrease throughout the planning period, with a slight surplus of space by 2021. Except for the main ramp and Jet Center, no additional aircraft-parking apron space is recommended. The Jet Center needs about twice the amount of space it currently has, or approximately 50,000 square feet, and the main ramp should be expanded to approximately 70,000 square feet. B.2 Hangar Requirements. Currently, approximately 117 aircraft are parked in hangars, or 50% of the total based aircraft. It is anticipated that to meet demand, this number will increase as quickly as hangars can be developed, to 60% immediately. This number will grow to 75% of total based aircraft as fast as hangars can be built. The type of hangars, whether T-units or conventional, is not important until the next phase (i.e., alternatives), when the type becomes more critical as layout and available airport space is explored. Data in Table 4-5 reflects the growing trend toward hangar development and the requirement to add more hangars at LWM throughout the Table 4-5, Hangar Space Requirements planning period. These PERIOD EXISTING REQUIRED numbers also reflect the •SURPLUS need for more hangar Base Year 135 135 0 space. As shown, the 2006 152 (17) airport will have a long-term 2011 176 (41) planning need for 2021 238 (103) approximately 103 more Note: Numbers refer to aircraft hanar parking spaces, not units aircraft spaces. Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis AUGUST 2004 -- 117- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements The immediate need is not clearly reflected in Table 4-5 because of the issue raised about conventional hangar-storage capacity. It is strongly believed that the airport can build 15 to 20 more T-hangars dedicated to aircraft storage and fill them to capacity, which reflects the short- term (i.e., between now and 2006). Hangars are a win-win situation for the airport and the community. First, they provide local aircraft owners with options that enable them to store their investment in a covered area. Aircraft owners who use hangars will probably fly more often and purchase more fuel. Second, competitively priced hangars increase based-aircraft loading, further generating more revenue through increased fuel sales, maintenance requirements, pilot supplies, flight-training requirements, and so on. Hangars generate more income than traditional aircraft tiedowns on aprons (nearly ten times more), and private hangars are taxed as real property by the local municipality (i.e., North Andover)at the current rate of$13.42 per$1,000 in valuation. Third, hangars are generally developed with private funds, not through the AIP or public funds. Finally, hangar areas are easier for the airport to maintain, particularly snow-clearing. Overall, well-designed and maintained hangars promote aviation and improve the future of the airport while adding to the local tax base. 6.3 Control-Tower Location Evaluation. The ATCT is a federally owned structure located approximately 360 feet from the airport terminal building. The tower is a standalone structure approximately 80 feet high, with the floor of the tower cab approximately 65 feet AGL. Its purpose is to house the control-tower cab and ATC communications equipment. There is a small office and restroom in the structure. The facility is in excellent condition; however, its actual construction date is not known. ATCT personnel have a clear view of the airport and local airspace except for a small line-of-sight issue along Taxiway "D" due to overgrown shrubs (see Chapter 2, Paragraph H.6). The Terminal Feasibility Study completed in 19999 addressed line-of-sight issues involving the tower because of new terminal-development alternatives. Specifically, terminal development that would involve a two-story building may create a shadow on the main terminal ramp, obstructing the tower's view of this nonmovement area. Although FAA guidelines do not require a clear view of ground operations on ramps, aprons, and tiedown areas (known as nonmovement areas), it is recommended. Therefore any new terminal development should 9 Terminal Feasibility Study prepared for the Lawrence Airport Commission by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., in association with Coffman Associates, Inc.; July 1999. AUGUST 2004 -- 118- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements consider this guidance. The next subsection addresses terminal-building requirements and explores ATCT location alternatives. B.4 Terminal-Building Requirements. The existing terminal building is approximately 42 years old. It has an inefficient heating system, no air conditioning, minimal energy-efficient windows and doors, and poor insulation; in addition, it does not meet modern-day building code and ADA standards. The terminal-building feasibility analysis discussed previously made several recommendations and presented three alternatives based on two scenarios. The three alternatives included expansion of the existing facility plus two new design concepts. The two scenarios were based on the future role of the airport, whether LWM serves only general- aviation needs or ultimately accommodates scheduled airline service. Although the likelihood of scheduled service returning to LWM is remote, nonscheduled charter service will continue to grow. This is one reason why LWM is designated a reliever airport. Although there are no current or forecasted plans to reintroduce scheduled service, any plans to construct a new terminal should consider a design and location that would allow expansion with minimal impact if market conditions change. B.5 Automobile Parking Requirements. Automobile-parking space is based on the PH passenger/pilot demand on airport facilities. An industry rule-of-thumb suggests 1.3 parking spaces per PH passenger in addition to spaces needed by employees and airport personnel.10 The airport currently has approximately 98 parking spaces, but the analysis shows that it needs 185 at the current demand level. Table 4-6 shows the current, short-, intermediate-, and long-term parking demand at LWM. The existing main terminal lot is marked Table 4-6,Automobile Parking Requirements for approximately 30 PERIOD PH REQUIRED EXISTING SURPLUS vehicles. This lot DEMAND SPACES SPACES (DEFICIT) serves the terminal and both Eagle East Base Year 142 185 (87) Aviation and Falcon 2006 159 207 98 (109) 2011 212 276 (178) Air FBOs. 2021 238 309 (211) Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. 10 PH demand is addressed in Chapter 3 and Table 3-17. AUGUST 2004 -- 119- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements A 12-space parking lot for the ATCT is located southeast of the terminal lots. The remaining 56 spaces are divided among the Jet Center, Four Star Aviation, and several small lots on the northern side of the airport. Most expansion can be accomplished near the main terminal; however, both the Jet Center and Four Star Aviation need larger sites. Alternatives are addressed in Chapter 5. B.6 Maintenance and Snow-Removal Equipment Building. The existing maintenance building, which also houses the SRE and mowing equipment, is too small for the demand placed on it. Since the original inventory for this AMPU was completed, the airport has purchased more equipment, most of which will replace existing equipment; therefore, the additional required space is minimal. The existing 6,600-foot facility is divided into four storage/maintenance bays. Based on the current SRE, mowing, and general-purpose equipment inventory (including equipment on order)and maintenance needs, it is estimated that the airport needs a 10,000-square-foot facility, about 50% larger than the existing building. This would add two new bays to store the existing and near-future SRE inventory(see Table 2-21), and maintenance and storage, and miscellaneous space (e.g., a lavatory and washroom). C. MISCELLANEOUS AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS This section addresses other future needs of the airport. CA NAVAIDs and IAPs. The airport has two on-airport NAVAIDs: the ILS system providing a Category I approach to Runway 05 and a VOR that serves both en route and the VOR approach to Runway 23. In addition, there is a GPS nonprecision approach to both Runways 23 and 05, and an NDB approach to Runway 05. As discussed previously, the ILS approach is aligned to the runway with the best IFR wind coverage. Ideally, there should be a precision approach to Runway 23 and/or Runway 32. Runway 32 has the better wind coverage of the two but Runway 23 has the longer surface. Initial evaluation indicates that there is space to develop the larger safety areas required of a precision approach on Runway 23; Runway 32 does not have space. System-wise, the longer runway is probably better served; however, installation of a second ILS is not financially practical given the progress made in the development of precision GPS approaches. C.1.a GPS Service. The current trend is toward developing precision GPS approaches (with VGLS) using the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)and the Local Area Augmentation AUGUST 2004 -- 120- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements System (LAAS) because of superior navigation guidance and the elimination of ground-based equipment at each airport served by GPS. Whereas ILS requires both a localizer and a glideslope antenna for each runway served by the system, GPS does not. Some airports may require the ground-based LAAS, depending on the type and range of WAAS coverage in the area. WAAS is a safety-critical navigation system that provides a quality of positioning information never before available to the aviation community. It is what its name implies: a geographically expansive augmentation to the basic GPS service. The WAAS, a ground-based component of GPS, improves the accuracy, integrity, and availability of the basic GPS signals. This system allows GPS to be used as a primary means of navigation for en route travel and nonprecision approaches in the United States, as well as for making Category I approaches to selected airports throughout the nation. The wide area of coverage for this system includes the entire United States and some outlying areas. WAAS became operational in July 2003." Neither the basic GPS service nor WAAS as it is now envisioned will be suitable for Categories 11 and III precision approaches. To provide Category I precision approaches for areas not covered by WAAS and to achieve Categories 11 and III precision approach capability, the FAA is conducting research that will enable these capabilities through the use of LAAS. Not every airport will be able to take advantage of the full range of services available through GPS, WAAS, and LAAS. Terrain and other obstructions (i.e., manmade or natural) play an important role in determining which airports and which runways will be served by the system. Airports with significant obstructions may not qualify because of the impracticality or financial restraints that must be overcome to develop GPS precision approaches. C.1.b Recommended Coverage. At a minimum, LWM should have a precision GPS approach (with VGLS)to both Runways 05 and 23. Based on the wind data provided in Table 2-8, the all-weather 13-knot crosswind coverage for this surface occurs 93% of the time (i.e., 36%for Runway 05 and 57%for Runway 23). IFR coverage is even higher but occurs more frequently on Runway 05, at 69% coverage. 11 FAA Forecast Conference;Washington, DC (March 2003). AUGUST 2004 -- 121 - LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements There are no operational reasons why a precision approach could not be developed to Runway 23. The existing nonprecision VOR approach to Runway 23 is used frequently. From an operational standpoint, there is no difference to the type of approach ATC uses. The airspace is highly developed in this region, but traffic flowing into Runway 23 does not interfere with operations at Logan International, Manchester, or Pease Airports. The addition of a precision approach to Runway 23 would actually improve overall operations because Runway 23 is more widely used than Runway 05 during visual meteorological conditions; however, many pilots prefer to practice the ILS to Runway 05. This creates an "opposite direction of traffic flow,"which often results in a denial of service to aircraft wishing to use the runway not aligned into the wind. A precision approach, particularly a precision GPS, will get widespread use. In all likelihood, the ILS installed on Runway 05 will be decommissioned within the next five to ten years, if not sooner, and replaced by GPS. Its removal will allow a better taxiway alignment and open up airport property for aviation development (see Figure 2-1). C.2 Fuel Storage and Sales. The airport currently has a storage capacity of 39,400 gallons of aviation 100LL fuel and 15,000 gallons of jet fuel. Reported sales in 2001 were approximately 145,000 gallons of 100LL and 250,000 gallons of Jet-A. This is equivalent to about a three-to four-month supply of 100LL, which is adequate, and a 15-to 20-day supply of Jet-A fuel, which probably requires careful management. As the number of turboprop and turbofan aircraft increase in the planning years, a greater supply will be necessary. Fuel sales at LWM are handled by the FBOs as private business enterprises; they are responsible for maintaining appropriate inventories. The only FBO currently selling jet fuel is the Northeast Jet Center, whose owners will probably balance supply and demand and add capacity as needed. From the macro view, the airport should ensure that a ready supply is always available which will, in turn, ensure that flight operations continue uninterrupted. C.3 Airport Security and Fencing. LWM is partially enclosed with a perimeter fence including electric, card-controlled gates at all strategic locations. In addition, the ATCT has control of the main terminal gate between the terminal and airfield maintenance buildings. Access to the airport is controlled by electronic cards issued by airport management. However, the fence is in very poor condition, with an estimated 50% of it lying on the ground. Breaches are common, particularly along areas with close public access. However, these gaps have been identified and are programmed into the airport's CIP. AUGUST 2004 -- 122- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements In 2003, the airport instituted an identification-badge requirement for individuals seeking to access aircraft operating areas, as prescribed by the MAC security directive. The airport installed a new access-controlled vehicle gate at the former AVIAD entrance and also installed new security fencing in the area of the maintenance garage. Currently, the LAC is formulating a policy to secure all nonhangared based aircraft; however, as of July 2004, it has not decided on the means but is leaning toward throttle lock, prop lock, or tiedown lock. Future upgrades may include comprehensive video surveillance and access-control upgrades at every point of entrance to the airport. D. SUMMARY OF AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS This section summarizes the short-, intermediate-, and long-term facility requirements and recommendations presented in this chapter. Proposed changes do not have to be implemented in the period noted. If the demand does not materialize or if financial obstacles prevent development, then that particular change automatically slides to the next planning period. There is an interrelationship between various recommended projects that must be considered. For example, realigning Taxiway"A" near the approach end of Runway 05 cannot occur until the ILS is decommissioned in favor of a precision GPS approach, and any future apron and/or hangar development near the existing Taxiway"B" cannot occur until the taxiway is replaced by a full-length Taxiway"A". Additionally, the 5-, 10-, and 20-year planning cycles addressed elsewhere in this AMPU are dynamic in nature, not fixed or rigid; projects can be moved freely from one period to the next, if and when demand and resources permit. Table 4-7 is a list of recommended projects throughout the planning period. AUGUST 2004 -- 123- LWM AMPU Chapter 4—Demand Capacity/Facility Requirements Table 4-7,Summary of Recommended Changes ITEM CURRENT SHORT-TERM . LONG-TERM Design Aircraft Gulfstream II Gulfstream II Citation Ultra Citation Ultra Airport Reference Code B-II B-II B-II B-II Runway Length and Width Runway 05-23 5000 x 150 Same Same Same Runway 14-32 3901 x 100 Same Same Same Runway Safety Areas Bring into conformance Maintain Maintain Maintain Runway Protection Zones Acquire easements Maintain Maintain Maintain Runway Object Free Area Bring into conformance Maintain Maintain Maintain Runway Markings Precsion 5-23, NP 14-32 Same Same Same Taxiways A Redesign to 35'width and connect to Taxiway D Continue full length parallel along Runway 5-23 forming semi-parallel with"B" when ILS decommissioned B Adequate Maintain Decommission N/A C-F Adequate Maintain Maintain Maintain G Construct Maintain Maintain Maintain Lighting Runways RWY 5(HIRL),23(MIRL) Same Same Same Taxiways MITL Same Same Same REILS R/W 5,23,32 All Runways Same Same ALS None MALSR RWY 23 Same Same VLGS P4L RWY 5&32 P4L RWY 5,23,32 Same Same V4L RWY 23 V4L RWY 14 Apron Area 379,000 s.f. 363,500 s.f. 357,900 s.f. 333,000 s.f. Hangar Spaces 135 spaces 152 spaces 176 spaces 238 spaces Terminal Building 4,000 s.f. 7,900 s.f. 7,900 s.f. 7,900 s.f. Automobile Parking 98,need 185 spaces 207 spaces 276 spaces 309 spaces Instrument Approach Procedures Runway 5 ILS,NDB,GPS ILS, Precision GPS Precision GPS Precision GPS Runway 23 VOR,GPS VOR, Precision GPS Precision GPS Precision GPS Runway 14-32 Visual Visual Visual Visual AUGUST 2004 -- 124- Chapter Five ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 11111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111he next step in the master planning process is an analysis of development alternatives. This analysis reviews demand and safety-related facility requirements discussed in Chapter 4 and prepares alternative development plans that meet those needs to the extent practicable. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the layout of the airport that best meets the needs of its users, its sponsor, and the FAA design standards within the identified constraints. Several different alternatives are presented in this chapter. One of these alternatives has been selected and is presented as the improvement plan for the airport. Selection of a layout for the facility does not imply any commitment to construct proposed improvements. The layout is simply a guide for these improvements based on the recommendations identified in Chapter 4. Several factors, such as actual demand, availability of funds, and desires of the sponsor in conjunction with the desires and concerns of the surrounding community, also must be considered when assessing these projects. Prior to describing the various airfield alternatives, it is important to reiterate several key assumptions and project needs that were developed in previous chapters of this study. Those needs are the foundation on which the alternatives are built. Without a broad understanding and acceptance of the following "building blocks," subsequent discussion of airport alternatives is moot: • LWM will remain a general-aviation reliever airport and the return of commercial scheduled airline service is not anticipated. • The existing types of aircraft using LWM are not expected to change through the planning period. • The existing mix of operations is forecasted to remain primarily single-engine aircraft. However, corporate and commuter turboprop and business-class jets will show the highest rate of growth. • Available runway length meets the needs of the current and forecasted general-aviation fleet. AUGUST 2004 - 124 - LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives • Hangar space is at near capacity and apron space will be in surplus. • The approximate location of the proposed development of the industrial park on the northeastern side of the airport is pending release by the FAA for private development. • Expansion of the airport, with the exception of minor property acquisition to satisfy FAA safety criteria, is not likely. A. AIRSIDE SAFETY ALTERNATIVES As discussed previously, two primary concerns are factored into the preparation of airside alternatives: safety and capacity. Safety issues are not demand-based; in other words, most safety issues have to be addressed regardless of which alternative is endorsed for implementation. Therefore, most safety requirements will be common to all alternatives presented for discussion. Capacity requirements, which are demand-driven, have the widest range of possible options. The following subsection briefly discusses safety requirements incorporated into each alternative. Three major design considerations are related to safety requirements that must be addressed in each alternative: FAR Part 77 surfaces as they are configured to each runway end, RPZs, and RSAs. A.1 IAPs. Before future FAR Part 77 surfaces are defined, the Table 5-1, Existing and Recommended type of IAP recommended for Instrument Approach Procedures each runway must be RUNWAY EXISTING RECOMMENDED established. The surface 05 ILS, GPS, NDB PGPS dimensions vary depending on 23 VOR, GPS PGPS the type of aircraft using the 14 Visual Visual facility(i.e., size and speed)and 32 Visual Visual the type of approach (i.e., precision, nonprecision, or Legend: ILS-Instrument Landing System visual). The existing IAPs are NDB-Non-Directional Beacon GPS-Global Positioning System addressed in Chapter 2 and the PGPS-Precision GPS with vertical guidance recommended procedures in Sources: NOAA; Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. Table 5-1. Justification for AUGUST 2004 - 125- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives developing new IAPs must be weighed against existing and future facility infrastructure, demand, weather(including wind), cost, and airspace if an upgrade from visual to nonprecision or precision is recommended. A.1.a Facility Infrastructure. The airport design and infrastructure are key components that must be considered before an airport can justify the need for multiple nonprecision approaches or even a single precision approach. This was particularly true when ILS was the most advanced system available. However, with the advent of GPS and the rapid spread of this technology to the point where even small aircraft have GPS receivers and many are equipped with IFR-certified systems, it is tempting for every airport to have a precision approach. The fact is that all airports cannot have such a system primarily because they lack sufficient clear airspace and the cost of supporting this service is not possible. Therefore, the FAA and many state aviation agencies have developed guidelines, or study criteria, before nonprecision or precision approaches will be considered. These criteria include minimum runway lengths, taxiways, airport lighting, and obstructions (i.e., clear airspace). In New York State, for example, an airport should have at least a 4,200-foot runway with MIRLs or HIRLs and a parallel taxiway for precision approaches. For nonprecision approaches, a minimum of 3,200 feet of runway surface with LRLs or MIRLs is required and a parallel taxiway is recommended but not required.' LWM meets all of these requirements. A.1.b Demand. Demand is based on several criteria: airport role, based aircraft, fleet mix, and operations, including number and type. Each plays an important role in determining the number and type of IAPs required. LWM is a general-aviation reliever airport that must be prepared to accept overflow from Boston's Logan International Airport, which in turn relieves congestion and permits a smoother flow of commercial traffic for that facility. LWM has a growing inventory of civil aircraft and is forecasted to see increasing numbers of private and business-class turboprop and turbofan aircraft. Operationally, LWM currently has approximately 85,000 annual takeoffs and landings, which will increase to more than 100,000 operations in 20 years. In addition to total operations, runway usage plays an important role in determining the type of instrument approach(es)a particular runway will have. Of the two primary runways at LWM (four approach surfaces), it is estimated from known wind data that Runway 05 is the most active runway during IMC. ' NYSDOT RNAV Study. AUGUST 2004 - 126- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives Runway 23 is the most active during all-weather conditions, but IMC is the most critical time for instrument operations. Based on wind data and the lower approach minimums to Runway 05 because of the ILS, it is estimated that of the roughly 7,000 annual instrument approaches, 60%, or 4,200, are to Runway 05. The remaining 2,800 are to Runway 23. Demand is and will continue to be an important part of developing and maintaining the tangible and intangible infrastructure at this airport, including the need to keep pace with developing technology concerning IAPs. A.1.c Weather. Weather, including wind, is significant in establishing IAPs. Runway 23 has the highest wind coverage at LWM during all-weather conditions, but it is not the primary instrument runway. Runway 05 has the best wind coverage during IMC. For instrument procedures, Runway 05 has the highest percentage of wind coverage that is most critical during low-visibility conditions— periods when the IAPs are mandatory. The previous AMPU reported an annual average of 95% VFR and 5% IFR weather, but an analysis of observations reported by the National Climate Data Center for a three-year period between 1952 and 1955 shows that I FR conditions prevail 13% of the time, with VFR occurring 84%. The remaining 3% accounts for those periods when the weather is below airport minimums with the ceiling and/or visibility too low for IAP operations. The weather in this region shows a high degree of variability; therefore, IMC can be expected to occur from 10% to 15% of a given year. A.1.d Cost. Conventional IAPs (i.e., ILS, VOR, and NDB) all require a ground-based system, with ILS being the most expensive discrete unit because it serves one airport and only one runway, with an estimated cost of approximately$400,000 plus maintenance. VOR systems are the most expensive overall but provide a wide coverage area—as do NDB systems, which are the least expensive and least accurate systems currently in use. GPS, on the other hand, is essentially cost-free at the local level. The federal government and, to a lesser extent, the FAA fund this system, particularly for WAAS and LAAS (see Chapter 4). There are no local-share costs (at this time)for airport sponsors. There are developmental costs associated with the design of any IAP, and one of the largest is the analysis of obstruction data to determine if the airspace is clear and free of natural and manmade obstacles. AUGUST 2004 - 127- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives A.1.e Airspace. Four key airspace assessments must be completed to determine the feasibility of establishing a GPS approach into LWM (with or without VGLs): the evaluation of the Glide Path Qualification Surface, "W" Obstacle Clearance Surface, FAR Part 77 Precision Approach Surface, and ATC airspace considerations. The first two evaluations are beyond the scope of this project because of the detailed obstruction data required. However, typical of any master plan development is a Part 77 analysis, which reviews the various imaginary surfaces at the precision level of accuracy (discussed later in this chapter). The final airspace issue involves procedures, air-traffic routes, airspace constraints, and the ability of ATC to maneuver aircraft to and from an airport. Boston Approach Control2 indicates that the development of a precision approach to Runway 23 will not have an impact on its operations. Occasionally, the Boston controller will have to extend traffic eastward into Manchester's airspace, but coordination is not an issue. There will be times when ATC must make adjustments to air-traffic flow to accommodate operations, but those occasions are few. The LWM ATCT3 sees the addition of a precision approach to the inventory as a positive step. There are occasions when pilots want to practice on the Runway 05 ILS when Runway 23 or 32 is active. This creates a conflict and often results in a denial of service to the aircraft practicing the approach. Because Runway 23 is used more than Runway 05, having a second precision approach to the Runway 23 end would enhance overall operations while aiding in pilot proficiency and airport/ATC efficiency. A.1.1f Minimums. Existing minimums for the Runway 05 ILS are 3/4-mile visibility and a 200-foot ceiling.4 For Runway 23, the lowest minimums for the VOR and GPS approach are 1-mile visibility and a 500-foot ceiling. A future precision GPS approach to Runway 23 will probably have the same minimums as the ILS on Runway 05, lowering them to 3/4-mile and a 200-to 300-foot ceiling. The addition of an approach lighting system could further reduce minimums as low as 1/2-mile visibility.5 A.1.g IAP Summary. Based on the criteria addressed previously (i.e., infrastructure, demand, weather, cost, and airspace), it would seem prudent to develop a second precision 2 Conversation between E. Deck(D-H)and Boston Approach Control watch supervisor;April 10, 2003. 3 Conversation between E. Deck(D-H)and P. Nugent, LWM tower chief;April 10, 2003. 4 Lowest layer of clouds classified as broken or overcast(60 to 100%coverage)as measured from MSL. 5 FAA Handbook 8260.3B, Terminal Instrument Procedures(TERPS), Paragraph 343. AUGUST 2004 - 128- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives approach. The runway is long enough to support a precision approach, demand is high, and weather is a factor only during those rare conditions when low-lying clouds and wind out of the east and northeast dictate Runway 05 use, cost is negligible, and the airspace and ATC environment have a neutral impact. LWM has the need (i.e., demand)and the wind coverage to support added precision IAPs, and the cost would be inconsequential, assuming a satisfactory obstruction analysis. In addition, air-traffic routes and ATC airspace constraints are not a concern, and Runway 23 is the most active during all-weather conditions. A.1.h FAR Part 77 Surfaces. FAR Part 77 surfaces define the critical airspace around any airport that ideally should be free of any manmade or natural obstructions. Those surfaces vary depending on the type of aircraft using the facility and the type of approaches to the airport. • Runway 05-23. Runway 05-23 is defined as an "other than utility" runway and currently has a precision approach to the Runway 05 end only with minimums at 3/4- mile visibility. Runway 23 has a nonprecision approach with minimums at 1-mile visibility. • Runway 14-32. Runway 14-32 is a utility runway with only visual approaches. A.1.i IAP Recommendations. It is recommended that Runway 23 be upgraded to precision approach standard, with a GPS approach with vertical guidance when technology permits. Several issues associated with this upgrade must be understood. First, the existing approach minima dictate that the primary Part 77 surface for Runway 23 is 1,000 feet wide based on the precision standards on the Runway 05 end. For a precision approach the inner approach, surface would remain 1,000 feet wide, however, the outer width would expand from its present width of 4,000 feet to 16,000 feet. The length would change from 10,000 to 50,000 feet and the slope would lower from 34.1 to 50.1 for the first 10,000 feet, then 40.1 for the remaining 40,000 feet. Table 5-2 summarizes the ultimate FAR Part 77 approach-surface dimensions for all runway ends. AUGUST 2004 - 129- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives Table 5-2, Ultimate FAR Part 77 Imaginary Approach Surfaces APPROACH)RUNWAY END(TYPE SLOPE Runway 05(Existing Precision) 1,000 16,000 50,000 50:1/40:1 Runway 23(Proposed Precision) 1,000 16,000 50,000 50:1/40:1 Runway 14(Existing Visual—Non-Utility) 500 1,500 5,000 20:1 Runway 32(Existing Visual—Non-Utility) 500 1,500 5,000 20:1 Source: FAR Part 77.25. Changing the approach from nonprecision to precision will have an impact on the total amount of obstructions in the Part 77 surfaces for Runway 23. There is a total of almost 56 acres of obstructions in the Runway 23 approach corridor and another 12.8 acres in the transitional surfaces. Lowering and enlarging the approach surface will add approximately 8 acres of new obstructions, resulting in the need to clear approximately 77 acres of obstructions to accommodate the proposed precision GPS approach. A.2 Runway Protection Zones. The size of each RPZ is based in part on the type of IAP associated with each runway end, the visibility minimums, and aircraft approach category. Currently, only Runway 05 has a precision approach; Runways 23 and 05 have nonprecision approaches. Runways 14 and 32 have only visual approaches. Changes to planned approaches will result in a change to the size of the RPZ. Based on the possible upgrade to a precision approach, it is realistic to expect that the Runway 23 visibility minimums will drop below the existing 1 mile. Ideally, a GPS precision approach allows descent to 1/2-mile visibility and 200 feet AGL; however, more realistic minimums for LWM would be 3/4-mile and a DA ranging from 200 to 300 feet. Exact numbers will not be known until a thorough obstruction analysis is performed as part of the approach development process, which is independent of this AMPU. As discussed in the previous paragraph, lower approach minimums will require a larger RPZ for Runway 23. The Runways 05, 14, and 32 RPZs will remain the same. AUGUST 2004 - 130- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives There is a minimal negative consequence to increasing the size of the RPZ to meet the lower minimums. With the exception of Runway 23, the remaining RPZs have significant areas that are not under control of the airport. That is, the FAA requires an airport to maintain control of the land within the RPZ through outright ownership or an avigation easement. The Runways 05, 14, and 32 RPZs rest between 50 and 90% off airport property. Increasing the size of the Runway 23 RPZ will expand it onto nonairport property, including a small section of Osgood and Holt Roads. Table 5-3 summarizes the ultimate RPZ dimensions incorporated in the alternative layouts and list the extent of issues that must be resolved because of the larger RPZs. Table 5-3, Ultimate Runway Protection Zones OUTERRUNWAY INNER (APPRO WIDTH WIDTH AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Approximately 95% not under 05 (ILS 3/4 mile) All Aircraft 1,700 1,000 1,510 48.978 airport control. Obtain avigation easements. Approximately 5% not under airport 23(GPS 3/4 control, including small sections of mile) All Aircraft 1,700 1,000 1,510 48.978 Osgood and Holt Roads. Obtain avigation easements. Small 100% off airport property. No action 14(Visual) Aircraft 1,000 250 450 8.035 recommended because of location and typography. 50%off airport and not under airport Small control, including a small section of 32(Visual) Aircraft 1,000 250 450 8.035 Osgood Road. Obtain avigation easement. Area in acres,distance in feet. Source: Dufresne-Henry,Inc.,analysis. A.3 Runway Safety Areas. The ARC at LWM is B-11 for Runway 05-23 and B-I for Runway 14- 32. As forecasted, these ARC design groups will be used through the entire 20-year planning period. Because there are no changes to the ARC, the RSA remains the same. However, the following existing nonconformance issues must be addressed: AUGUST 2004 - 131 - LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives • Existing Runway 05 RSA o Required size: 150 feet wide x 300 feet long o Actual size: 150 feet wide x 100 feet long o Wetlands impact: 5,601 square feet o Other facilities impacted: none o Property to be acquired: none o Fill required to meet FAA criteria: 42,000 cubic yards o Estimated cost to correct: $240'0006 • Existing Runway 23 RSA o Required size: 150 feet wide x 300 feet long o Actual size: 150 feet wide x 100 feet long o Wetlands impact: 18,295 square feet o Other facilities impacted: none o Property to be acquired: none o Fill required to meet FAA criteria: 53,000 cubic yards o Estimated cost to correct: $235,000 • Existing Runway 14 RSA o Required size: 120 feet wide x 240 feet long o Actual size: 120 feet wide x 100 feet long o Wetlands impact: none o Other facilities impacted: none o Property to be acquired: 1.4 acres o Fill required to meet FAA criteria: 15,000 cubic yards o Estimated cost to correct: $140,000 • Existing Runway 32 RSA o Required size: 120 feet wide x 240 feet long o Actual size: 120 feet wide x 190 feet long o Wetlands impact: 3,700 square feet o Other facilities impacted: one off-airport building o Property to be acquired: 3,000 square feet 6 Cost data for all runways is based on the Runway Safety Study(AIP Project No. 3-25-0026-15); June 2000. Runway 32 has an existing 197-foot displaced threshold. AUGUST 2004 - 132- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives o Fill required to meet FAA criteria: 1,500 cubic yards o Estimated cost to correct: $150,000 The 2000 RSA study addressed the requirements and cost of constructing in place and correcting nonconforming issues under the supposition that the existing runway lengths would remain the same and required safety areas would be brought into conformance. Three additional options must be considered. First is a no-build option in which the RSAs remain in their current condition and an FAA waiver is obtained. Second, the runways are realigned to obtain the optimum safety areas, without a loss of existing runway length. Third, the runway thresholds are displaced, which moves the end of the RSA an equal distance and into conformance. Each option is briefly addressed as follows. • No-Build RSA Option. Although this may seem like the easiest solution, RSAs are part of an airport for a reason: safety. Continuing to ignore the problem does not enhance protection to flight crews, passengers, or the public. In addition, a change in the FAA's position on RSAs requires a plan of action to correct problems whenever airport design changes take place. • Realign the Runways. Even to a casual observer, the existing airport layout and surrounding community makes this an unrealistic option, and the financial implications would be staggering. • Displaced Thresholds. Displaced thresholds restrict an otherwise usable portion of a runway from landing or departing aircraft, and only taxiing aircraft are permitted to use the surface. The purpose is to provide the standard RSA length. Under this concept, Runway 05-23 would be reduced from 5,000 feet to approximately 4,600 feet. Runway 32 already has a 197-foot runway displacement but needs an additional 50 feet for full compliance.$ If Runway 14-32 is reduced to meet full FAA criteria, the available runway length would be reduced from 3,901 feet to approximately 3,621 feet. • Recommended RSA Alternative: It is recommended that full safety areas be constructed in place on both Runways 05-23 and 14-32. Although the airport does not require longer runways at this time, it does need every foot of existing surface in support S The Runway 32 threshold is displaced 197 feet for obstruction clearance purposes over trees in the 20:1 approach surface. AUGUST 2004 - 133- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives of the current and forecasted fleet. The 5,000-foot Runway 05-23 and 3,900-foot Runway 14-32 support all small general-aviation aircraft in the ten-seat or fewer categories (see Table 4-1). However, as Table 4-1 shows, runway length becomes increasingly more important as the size of the aircraft increases. Any reduction in existing runway length will have a progressively negative impact on the airport's ability to serve the general-aviation fleet. B. AIRSIDE CAPACITY ALTERNATIVES The single issue related to airside capacity alternatives is a function of safety and efficiency of operation. As discussed previously, the taxiway layout and design at LWM does not offer the best possible design and, as the northern side of the airport builds up, the need for a more efficient flow of traffic will become evident. The southern side of the airport is already highly congested and the existing layout offers little room for expansion to meet the growing aviation demand. Relocating the primary parallel taxiway closer to the runway will open up more space for development. B.1 Runway Alternatives. Runway extension alternatives are not addressed in this AMPU. However, RSA alternatives and the installation of an approach lighting system will be addressed later in this Chapter. 13.2 Taxiway Alternatives. Several taxiway alternatives are presented based on two ARC classifications: B-II and C-II standards. The second set of alternatives is based on the possibility that the airport may someday require an upgrade from its current B-II classification to accommodate faster aircraft. The change from B-II to C-II assumes that at some point in the future, the design (critical) aircraft would have an approach speed in the 121-to-140-knot range versus the current 91-to-120-knot range, with no change in the current aircraft wingspan range (i.e., 49 to 78 feet). By designing this higher approach speed classification now(from B to C), a redesign in the coming years can be avoided by placing the taxiway 60 feet farther from the runway. The alternatives addressed in the following subsections provide for a safer flow of traffic and open up needed airport property for future development. B.2.a Taxiway"G" Option 1. Two alternatives are presented for Taxiway"G", a 1,700-foot addition that would connect the existing Taxiway"E"with the approach end of Runway 23. Under both alternatives, the taxiway width would be 35 feet. The difference between the two AUGUST 2004 - 134- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives options is the setback distance from the runway. This option requires a 240-foot separation between the runway and taxiway centerlines to meet B-II requirements. The pavement would provide safer access to and from the runway for the expanding North Ramp area. As discussed later in this chapter, extensive hangar development is proposed for the North Apron area. In fact, all of the forecasted hangars planned would be built in this section of the airport. An additional 100-plus hangar spaces are planned in the next 20 years, adding to this already active location. Aircraft must now taxi across the primary runway to reach the approach end of Runway 23. As airport operations increase, so will the opportunity for a runway incursion? Although this proposed section of taxiway will not fully eliminate the potential, it will greatly reduce the risk when Runway 23 is active. In addition, this section of taxiway can serve as roadway for vehicles that need to transition between the southern and northern sides of the airport, primarily FBO fuel trucks and airport maintenance vehicles. Figure 5-A(Alternative 1) shows the design layout for this option. B.2.b Taxiway"G" Option 2. This alternative is based on ARC C-II criteria and sets the taxiway back 300 feet from the runway centerline. Figure 5-B (Alternative 2) shows this option. B.2.c Taxiway"A" Option 1A (Short Term). The existing Taxiway "A" is at the end of its design life. It is wider and farther from the runway than necessary. By redesigning this surface closer to the runway and to its optimum width, the airport gains added space along the southern side of the airport for future development. Two possible alternatives are presented. Both involve a complete redesign and construction of a new 2,900-foot taxiway with an aircraft holding bay near the approach end of the runway. Option "A"would involve the removal of existing Taxiway A. Fortunately, a large amount of the existing material can be recycled as part of new construction. This option is based on ARC B-II standards that place the taxiway centerline 240 feet from the runway centerline and 35 feet wide. Figure 5-A (Alternative 1)shows this option. B.2.d Taxiway"A" Option 1 B (Long Term). Some time point within the next ten years, the need for ILS at LWM (and elsewhere)will all but disappear. The rapid growth in GPS will replace most ground-based navigation systems with satellite-based technology, aided by 9 An aircraft or vehicle crossing the runway during takeoff or landing operations. AUGUST 2004 - 135- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives WARS. When a precision GPS approach (with VGLs) replaces the ILS at LWM, the equipment and associated critical areas will no longer be necessary, opening up otherwise restricted areas for airside and Iandside changes. One such change will be the opportunity to move Taxiway"B" closer to the runway, opening up much needed land for aviation development, if necessary. This option decommissions Taxiway"B" and extends Taxiway"A" along the entire southern side of the runway, forming one continuous straight surface. Like Option 1A, this taxiway would be designed to B-II standards, making it 35 feet wide and 240 feet from the runway centerline. When due for reconstruction, Taxiway B would be decommissioned and reclaimed, using the existing concrete and asphalt in the construction. Because this taxiway was recently resurfaced, its useful life is probably 15 years or more, making this a true long-term goal. Figure 5-C (Alternative 3) shows this option, including the removal of Taxiway B. B.2.e Taxiway"A" Option 2A(Short Term). The second alternative places the taxiway 300 feet from the runway centerline based on ARC C-II standards. This option also includes an aircraft holding bay near the approach end of both Runways 05 and 23. Figure 5-B (Alternative 2)shows this option. B.2.f Taxiway"A" Option 213 (Long Term). This option is based on the same reasoning presented previously under Option 1 B (long term). The eventual decommissioning of the ILS will permit development of a full-length parallel taxiway built to C-II standards (i.e., 50 feet wide and 300 feet from the runway centerline). The holding bays are included in this option. Figure 5-D (Alternative 4) shows this option. AUGUST 2004 - 136- ww vx A9 wpevxve9 '^v# Sll]MN'JOANW L3NNIvr NIbON AJUGH-euseJjnp (Y41131-1a0Hs)II-8 OUV W s W 4 3A11VN21311V II ,Na.aa,aa uoaair irdi�wnwa>rrdamn LI. �o itt �!i ke,-,0. pq �1 I, I ,4 II r ev_ Tg pl tl_ I. 'c I —' r ra , t l o4 `'� � � 0 9 •�\ \ \`t 'C stY �� R �� s Ao �" � e: � � �. `� `� �� b �� w� rrjl�i''r�.r�rr`rr�J.,,� �':s'i �'�'✓9�� St� 5r � � §�� a a LE(F9D P ,E jt�- , cxT RRPrzR_ua -— -— '•'� t 1 1-'' H ° E NT t AP DH AlKd /7.' d I (E TENDS S,DW' t -- �� t BFV(kA it�REEHDLD) � FJIUHC 1 - ( C tRFE LwE e/� �� i -4a -�`r -'—"h �, .DF"*SEb vICUSTH.nI PARK n`e YL4grm PA¢F a�l � � A_•�-- AnzaoAw uaFAcc ____ e-- -� � / Lervc .107479/ i ' '".�_'�-1-- —i r; -,-t- a-�+ an„ rn• .:c• �o�c' e�axEwatr Sxf{tt A4EA(xL)� -SA— —FSA— una,uncu rza /1._� I=Z�/ zun:sw umc `� ''� � vs / � � �-.� ace;mmx tE\a :m:Txu Aw•m:mFw mcu Awtta,mc>fR PRbaGaY➢eAVEN]+T H!A f''OP ) n{ t" -2.-t{ 7TFT' tGOtLI.ET n �realJE[1. \.- a > -t .... y s-u o�{a�w}J: xxzuas x/A 2 /Z_GREATCft tawFfixCE tan�a.Rl a ta(e+a-szlj _ 4y TRiaT$m1 W a ! �' cmr•,x +aw as. cEzrzwr,auna, mE°sxRZ R. T PevL,$,vT ae � e t� X \' -'--i-{-Z YTR' 2 APPROACH SURFACE �TE' G � _ (cxPTREromAs saur'Ace sa a -_: � '�: ,` � � Ll rbno,xRE t sxoLo) `s w ,.yt 1-.\t� "��24 '� l P'< /�( C �- -� LV.• �}�. ��h // F 1 w y I-� ...4 ".: �4;,:.. a' .W- } `�� no la � ,45 fM3N � { oaf ,.LL T .l I_.,C_.. ... �ASDSAT A E a'ED/ AND ClhOMETEP.¢ Pq D - _ a Aaa� o .EL eae J� xwur , G p E MM E I� t(uR r� •.-�.. t q� f I V r A J f-Y ffi S- 5�'SLR = En58xG lE B,Stse3 sa O msu,wxo cx TRzs au xm � alas u xs nwx,Aw. n,o, +¢saE m, zo zoi u� ai an ms T , x x. wT rr .. ` .--` z t Aar,Txu+¢esnwc - xE9� oRTx ANoowa�s�HEss D� pti.;� .e � t� -i] OO i ree f x4>uxa tT.Pu AK,TDx�HEo ( � R Fl. w m wom 4f14 W^QAp+IIfNAF WJIS xONE R;NE - i CENTER LEASE IiSA 1� f -.. 0 _ 5 1 xML'AY OAR flAa ALv.Mp; ¢y p _ _ �I>v :a Q H.WYA41U,ESNCE RA`WM hR"C.) as x,v x, 6A%AWE, S vAs u Pl6Sta. .8A5, ws I "Y —1 l-z —_!I Q reo I xAww oxJa..1 mac*c&8 'B —L) g I F o AtE EmxEls@ e:9xaE s � vt � � '� �. Tee:x,wwa(,wrt ms.a A o a{o N AT32 {. �� ;� „ ;xD4«ea RE } FIGURE` SJIrE OMAN M. s.00a BFTON9 E a; - — � �� GRAPHIC SCALE l fs' k�w,rz smux ? 5-C 1 MM_>W teat Sneed d r"ire _ 10 I�rr� � or o a Y b° m m RED� a t >s Z, � r . 1 ter "b CS CDtl.� ( ( ,4 �7S I .,^ '� '✓^//�/} t O� T'P:vpd Na LAWitENCE MIINICIPN.PIftPtlflT IIIIIIIII� /� PmlMene�nr RT Y♦ mqm a, W q �'%I"-- -- ALTERNATIVE 2 1SuMrssna-Henry ARC C-11(SHORT-TERM) mr u+oove.¢ Mns✓.enuserrs :,MnPNr, o.m 'qST ggl3 ! 33a, _ P( L )+,' "� � R � p � d� �43 �.✓~ems''rrE� .4'* ',r � 1'.rr r �,^r r4 � �� s �+ �� 2� � ^ N , � k � ��✓^N� � --7 ram ""r,� r �� IjF , _.__ ,1 4 y iP m j Ha I ( l v 1 c� w o _ M MIX rY: aym UP { Eb ' I I IM � ro 90 LAWAENCE MUNICiPAt AIRPOft! ��IIII�"1�1 �111 %M. (TI YI P wm ALTERNATIVE 4 Dufresne-Henry fll ARC C-II(LONG-TERM) LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives B.2.g Taxiway Cost Assessment. Table 5-4 lists the estimated costs of developing the new taxiways addressed previously. These are planning-level costs that do not include possible permitting fees. Table 5-4, Estimated Taxiway Development Costs PROJECTTAXIWAY DESIGN& • CONSTRUCTION PLANNING TOTAL A Option 1A(Short-Term)Partial $1,102,000 $220,400 $1,322,400 Taxiway at B-II Standards A Option 1B(Long-Term) Full- $1,920,000 $384,000 $2,304,000 Length Parallel at B-II Standards A Option 2A(Short-Term)Partial $1,130,000 $226,000 $1,356,000 Taxiway at C-II Standards A Option 213(Long-Term) Full- $1,960,000 $392,000 $2,352,000 Length Parallel at C-II Standards G Option 1 Partial Parallel at B-II $423,000 $84,600 $507,600 Standards G Option 2 Partial Parallel at C-II $439,000 $87,800 $526,800 Standards Source: Dufresne-Henry,Inc.,analysis. Based on 2003 dollars. 13.3 Approach Light Alternatives. The decision to review the possibility of adding an approach lighting system was based on comments received from the pilot survey conducted earlier in this AMPU. As addressed in Chapter 4, the only viable locations for a MALSR would be on either Runway 05 or 23. Runway 05 is the preferred instrument runway because it has the only existing precision approach to the airport and because of the prevailing wind during instrument conditions; however, the runway end has formidable obstacles to overcome. Therefore, two alternatives are presented, one for each end of Runway 05-23. As will be shown, neither end is without problems. A MALSR system is 2,400 feet long, extending 2,600 feet from the end of the runway(the first section of lights is placed 200 feet from the runway threshold). The system is a series of 12 AUGUST 2004 - 141 - LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives sets of lights: each set, or station, is located 200 (±20)feet apart. Its length means that a large tract of land must be used for the light installation, including a support structure for each light station. In addition, approximately 400 feet on either side of the lighting centerline must be kept clear of obstructions above the lighting plane. Adding an ALS might result in a reduction in approach visibility minimums. However, this analysis must be performed as part of a detailed TERPS study, typically performed by the FAA. The advantage of having an ALS goes beyond lower approach minimums: it extends the runway environment while providing the basic means to transition from IRF to VFR for landing. The MALSR must be designed to keep each set of lights approximately on the same plane as the runway. Rising terrain must be leveled to a certain extent and support structures must be built in areas where the terrain drops below the runway plane. The Runway 05 end will require extensive towers, some more than 90 feet tall to reach the runway elevation. Both runway alternatives require installation of at least one tower in or very close to an existing public road. Table 5-5 lists the estimated costs for both MALSR installations. B.3.a Runway 23 MALSR Alternative. Although the airport owns most of the land in the ALS zone, where the system would be located, Runway 23 is not favored by the wind, making its use less than optimal. It would, however, be the easier of the two runway ends on which to develop a MALSR. With the exception of the last two lights, all remaining lights and support towers could be built on airport property. Tower No. 10 would have to be erected in or in the vicinity of the Osgood and Holt Roads intersection. The estimated cost of building a MALSR for Runway 23 is$393,000 (see Table 5-5). B.3.b Runway 05 MALSR Alternatives. While Runway 5 has favorable wind during IMC, most of the land in the ALS zone is off-airport property in an area where the terrain drops off quickly. In addition, several commercial businesses are in the zone, as well as Sutton Street, a major thoroughfare in North Andover. This alternative presents several major obstacles; first and most pronounced is the topography. The terrain drops off by 90 feet over a 900-foot span, rising again slightly near the end of the 2,400-foot that span the ALS would cover. Although towers can be built to these heights, the cost is exceptionally high. As mentioned previously, nine towers would have to be constructed on public property, which presents an aesthetic issue as one of well as AUGUST 2004 - 142- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives property control. Would the community accept the nine towering structures built on public land in a highly congested section of the city? The second issue is the possibility of having the MALSR lights blend in with the lights of North Andover along Sutton Street, limiting their effectiveness. The third issue concerning this alternative is the development of numerous towers off airport property. The initial analysis shows that existing buildings would not be impacted; however, one tower may have to be constructed on or near Sutton Street. The estimated cost of developing a MALSR for Runway 05 is $899,000 (see Table 5-5). Table 5-5, MALSR Development Cost Alternatives DESIGN & ESTIMATED RUNWAY EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES TOTAL 05 $90,000 $659,000 $150,000 $899,000 23 $90,000 $238,000 $65,000 $393,000 Note: Support structures include the cost of towers,construction,and equipment rental,such as cranes and excavation equipment. Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc., analysis. B.3.c MALSR Summary. The added cost of this installation due to the support-structure system does not make economic sense. Although having the system installed on Runway 05 might lower approach minimums by 1/4 mile, from the current 3/4 to 1/2 mile, the added benefit is difficult to quantify because there is no way of knowing how many additional aircraft could successfully execute an approach because of the lower minimums. In addition, the support structure would create a potential eyesore in the community, and its effectiveness may be negated because of underlying and surrounding lights. Adding the MALSR to the Runway 23 end would be beneficial by offering pilots a combined instrument system that included both a precision GPS approach and an ALS. Although this runway does not have the best wind coverage during the lowest cloud height and visibility conditions, it does receive a high percentage of the overall IAPs conducted at LWM. With the possibility of a future precision approach, more IAPs will certainly be conducted to this runway. An ALS significantly increases the accuracy of approaches by providing pilots an early view of the airport and runway environment, an important safety element that will benefit both the aviation and nonaviation communities in the area. AUGUST 2004 - 143- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives C. LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES This section assesses reasonable options for landside development needs at LWM. Chapter 4 identified specific landside requirements, including the following: • 103 new hangar spaces, for a total of 238 • a doubling of terminal space, to 7,900 square feet • parking for approximately 300+ automobiles, an increase of 200 spaces • larger airfield maintenance/SRE building The following subsections address each of these facilities through the current planning period. However, the airport must consider its role and facility needs beyond 2021. As previously discussed, airport land is at a premium, and all future development must be carefully weighed against the long- term impact on aviation needs. CA Apron Requirements. LWM currently has a slight apron deficit; however, forecasts indicate that a surplus will occur as hangars are added to the airport's inventory. Although a surplus will probably materialize during the next 20 years, the airport does need a slightly larger itinerant ramp to handle the projected increases in visiting aircraft. A larger apron for the Jet Center will permit more efficient handling of larger corporate aircraft. The existing apron is extremely confining and only has room for approximately two aircraft. In addition, a slightly larger apron in the terminal vicinity is needed, which can be accomplished by expanding the existing apron to the north when Taxiway"A" is reconstructed and relocated. C.2 Hangar Requirements. In addition to meeting the future demand for approximately 103 new hangar spaces, several hangars now used by the Merrimack Valley Fliers will probably exceed their life expectancy by the end of this planning period (i.e., Hangars Nos. 8, 16, and 18 on Figure 5-A). However, plans are not included in this AMPU to replace them. It is assumed that the owners will arrange with airport management for new construction as necessary. C.3 Hangar-Development Sites. Several potential hangar-development sites exist on the airport: some are immediately accessible for development other areas must wait for other airport development to occur. The options presented herein are planning conceptions and do not represent any commitment to construction, whether in the form shown or otherwise. AUGUST 2004 - 144- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives C.3.a North Ramp Hangar Site 1 Development. The area immediately east of the approach end of Runway 14 and west of the proposed industrial park is an approximate 10-acre site reserved for aviation development. This site is currently under development by the New England Aviators for hangar construction. C.3.b North Ramp Hangar Site 2 Development. This site is located midway down Runway 14-32 on the northern side between the North Andover Hangar Association site and Aviad. This approximate 3.0-acre site can support several small T-hangars, with one or two conventional hangars (depending on size), or some combination of each. C.3.c Other Potential Apron and Hangar Sites. Hangar development must consider such factors as Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the BRL, both of which restrict the height (and location)of any structure. In addition, RSAs, TSAs, and other FAA design setback criteria restrict the location of buildings and aprons. The following are potential hangar sites: • 6.1 acres located east of the approach end of Runway 32 and south of the Jet Center; however, about 50% of the site is wetlands • 6.2 acres located north of Aviad and east of Runway 14-32; however, about 50% of this site is wetlands • 13.8-acre parcel east of Runway 14-32 and south of Runway 05-23 has space for several hangars provided the BRL and Part 77 transitional surface are considered. • The South Ramp in the vicinity of Eagle East Aviation has space for one or two more T-hangars, an ideal location to replace excess apron space • a small area south of the approach end of Runway 05 and west of Four Star Aviation could hold several hangars C.3.d Hangar-Development Summary. Hangars should be developed as demand is realized and financial resources become available. The hangar-development sites shown comprise between 109 and 115 added hangar spaces, enough to meet forecasted demand through this planning period. As discussed, the airport will need an estimated 103 added spaces in the next 15 to 20 years, as well as spaces to replace aging hangars. The proposed AUGUST 2004 - 145- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives development on the North Ramp would replace some aging apron space along the western row of hangars--space that was previously deemed surplus. C.4 Terminal Building. The terminal-building study addressed in Chapter 4 (see Subsection 4.3.4) recommended a building size of 7,900 square feet to serve the airport's primary purpose as a general-aviation reliever airport. This is roughly twice the size of the existing building, which is clearly too small for the number and types of businesses and administrative offices it houses. If airline service were reintroduced, the building size would grow to 13,000 to 18,000 square feet, depending on projected enplanements. Sutton Street should remain the main access to the airport. Because land for future development is scarce, keeping the existing entrance as the focal point of aviation operations is crucial. This leaves some space for expansion but development of the available land between the main entrance and existing terminal must be carefully planned. There is little space to expand between the main runway and Sutton Street and Osgood Road. However, there is space for a replacement terminal and parking in the area bordered by the Jet Center, the approach end of Runway 32, Osgood Road, and Clark Street. This is an approximate 5.5- acre site available for aviation development. Because forecasts indicated a growing demand for hangars and less space for apron/tiedown areas, keeping the existing main terminal ramp intact in its current size and shape would probably continue to serve the aviation community's best interests. A combination of an expansion and modernization of the existing building would offer the least expensive alternative. The long-term cost of this alternative was placed at $2.65 million (in 1998 dollars). It is recommended that Alternative#1 presented as part of the 1999 Terminal Feasibility Study be implemented. This plan modernizes the existing facility and expands the terminal laterally in the short term and then vertically in the intermediate and long terms to make space for airline reintroduction (e.g., ticket counters, office space, and baggage claim) if and when the need arises. The short-term plan should concentrate on improving the terminal as the focal point for the existing general-aviation use of the airport. As the previous study stated, "The terminal should be a gathering place and meeting place for general-aviation users; however, it should not be a location for uses or businesses that would be in direct competition with the airport's FBOs. It AUGUST 2004 - 146- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives should enhance the profile of the airport, and improve the business opportunities for all FBOs. This means bringing the electrical and mechanical systems up to date and meeting current architectural needs, including ADA standards. The ATCT sighting issue addressed previously would not pose a problem if the terminal building were raised a second floor. A preliminary analysis indicates that if the building were raised to 25 feet in total height, shadowing would occur on the ramp extending approximately 150 feet over a±17-degree arc southwest of the terminal building. The current shadow extends approximately 67 feet (based on a 15-foot-tall terminal building at its apex). If the height of the average aircraft tail is factored into the analysis, controllers would have an 80-to 90-foot blind spot in front of the terminal, two thirds of which is not used for aircraft parking. ATC services would not be impacted unless the building were raised considerably higher than 25 feet. Building designers should keep the existing roof slope as currently shown, minimizing the apex of the roof and, therefore, the shadow it casts to the smallest possible footprint. Moving or raising the ATCT to compensate would not be cost-effective or justified. Figure 5-E shows the current view of the terminal building and ramp from eye level in the ATCT. Figures 5-F and 5-G are two possible plans showing the first-and second-floor layout as originally shown in the Terminal Feasibility Study as Exhibit 3-A. AUGUST 2004 - 147- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives J„ pout Illlut�� IP, i '�o Figure 5-E Existing Control Tower Sighting Over Terminal Building This photograph was taken from the tower catwalk,which is approximately 3 feet below the level of the tower cab floor. Source:Dufresne-Henry,Inc., photograph August 2001. AUGUST 2004 — 148— LWM AlI Chapter 5—Alternatives RELOCATED PILOT LOUNGE VESTIBULE OFFICE LORRY OFFICE OFFICE JANITOR CLOSET ELEY UP MEN WOMEN MECHANICAL ........ — _ EXISTING VESTIBULE Figure 5-F Proposed Terminal Building, First Floor CONFERENCE ROOIIR'. AIRPORT RESTAURANT OFFICES ELEV, MIEN WOMEN "�,,, JANITOR CLOSET/', Figure 5-G Proposed Terminal Building, Second Floor AUGUST 2004 - 149- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives C.5 Maintenance Building. The existing 6,000-square-foot building houses all airport maintenance equipment and SIRE. It was recommended10 that the airport needs approximately 10,000 square feet to house both existing and newly purchased equipment and space for adequate servicing of this and other airport equipment, as well as general airport maintenance and repairs. Expansion of the existing facility is one alternative; however, there is minimal space for expansion to the right or left. A slight expansion in three directions (i.e., left, right, and to the rear, away from the ramp)would gain an extra 2,000 square fee; however, this building is old and rapidly reaching the end of its design life. It is recommended that the building be replaced by a new facility. The alternatives presented previously show a 10,000-square-foot facility with ample parking and ramp space, including a tie-in to Taxiway"C" and the parking lot behind the existing facility. Demolition of the existing facility would open up 6,000 square feet of space for future automobile or aircraft parking. C.6 Automobile Parking. The airport currently has a deficit of automobile-parking spaces and, as demand for aviation services increases, the need for more parking areas will grow. It is shown in Table 4-6 that the airport needs an additional 87 spaces now and will need an additional 211 spaces by the end of this planning period. Three additional automobile-parking areas have been designed in the proposed layout. First, an enlargement of the parking area adjacent to the main terminal building from the existing 36,000 to approximately 40,000 square feet would provide 40+ more spaces with maneuvering lanes, for a total capacity of 140 to 150 automobiles. This includes the loss of space around the ATCT and does not include any additional space gained when the maintenance building is removed. A second parking area can be developed adjacent to the Jet Center, which would add approximately 30,000 square feet of parking, or space for approximately 75 to 100 vehicles. A third area is envisioned adjacent to the proposed northern side hangar complex; this area can hold approximately 30 vehicles, used primarily by pilots accessing their aircraft. 10 Chapter 4 (Subsection 4.3.6). AUGUST 2004 - 150- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives Total new airport capacity would be approximately 300 automobile parking spaces, depending on layout and individual parking-space dimensions, which covers the anticipated deficit through the planning period. D. AVIATION-COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT Before airport land can be designated for nonaviation development, a clear vision of property needed for future aviation needs must be understood. The preceding discussions in this AMPU have laid the groundwork for existing and forecasted demand. With one major nonaviation development area being considered for FAA release and several smaller tracts used for nonaviation leases, the property remaining becomes even more valuable and should be protected for future aviation needs. Three specific areas have been identified for future aviation development, including three of the four quadrants of the airport, bound by the two runways: the north quadrant (between Runways 14 and 23); the east quadrant(between Runways 23 and 32); the south quadrant (between Runways 32 and 05); and the west quadrant (between Runways 05 and 32) (see Figure 5-H at the end of this chapter). Two possible future-development scenarios are examined: the first based on full build-out of all available land and the second based on development only in land not classified as wetlands and easily accessible from the existing airport taxiway and apron infrastructure. Each quadrant was examined for potential development. The west quadrant was not considered because of extensive wetlands and steep terrain. Otherwise, the north, east, and south quadrants have potential development opportunities for both hangars and aprons. The north quadrant was further divided into two separate areas because some of it has already been set aside for hangar development; in fact, two hangars have been erected since this AMPU commenced. The area bound by the approach end of Runway 32 and Hangars 10 and 23 is the North 1 quadrant; the area between the two hangars and Runway 23 is the North 2 quadrant. Airport design criterion" restricts potential landside development to areas outside the RSAs and TSAs, RVZ, OFZ and BRL for hangars and other buildings, and the FAR Part 77 primary surface. When all of these areas were removed from potential development, the area that remained was then used to determine how many aircraft could be parked on aprons and in hangars. This area was AC 150/5300-13. AUGUST 2004 - 151 - LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives further analyzed for any wetlands impacts, which produced two sets of numbers: the total capacity of the airport and an adjusted capacity that removed wetlands from the equation. Although wetlands can be considered for aircraft parking and hangar development, these areas would most likely be reserved for parking beyond the long-term planning period. Table 5-6 shows the overall aircraft- parking potential. It lists existing uses, both hangars and apron/tiedown areas, and shows existing capacity with and without wetlands development. Within the three identified areas is 47 acres of airport property available for development. However, 18 acres is classified as wetlands, which-- although not impossible to develop-- does raise the level of complexity. In some cases, wetlands block access to otherwise useful property, leaving about 25 acres available for development. If all existing airport land (except the west quadrant) is used for development, an estimated 116 additional hangar spaces and 434 additional tiedown spaces can be realized, for a total of 550 new parking spaces. If only those areas not classified as wetlands are used, then an additional 116 hangar and 214 tiedown spaces are available, for a total of 330 new parking spaces. Obviously, hangar and apron space is interchangeable, and the variant between the two is only used for comparison purposes. The conclusion is that the space available at LWM will allow for between 330 and 550 additional aircraft parking spaces for a total (existing and potential) of 658 to 878 potential spaces (Table 5-6). E. NONAVIATION-COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT The potential release of the large 44-acre parcel on the northwestern side of the airport for industrial- park development will remove the last tract of land available at LWM that will not be required for future aviation development. Any future division of the airport most likely will have a long-term impact on the airport's ability to meet future demand (beyond the next 20 years). AUGUST 2004 - 152- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives Table 5-6, Existing and Potential Aircraft Parking Capacity North 1 12 0 442,000 442,000 96 0 0 108 0 0 108 108 North 2 44 77 560,000 40D,000 0 160 114 44 237 191 281 235 East 8 6 626,000 13D,000 8 179 29 16 185 35 201 51 South 83 98 404,000 290,000 12 95 71 95 193 169 288 264 Totals 147 181 2,032,000 1,262,000 116 434 214 263 615 395 878 658 Acres 47 29 Legend: Quadrants North 1 -The area between the approach end of Runway 14 and Hangar Nos. 10 and 23 North 2 The area south of Hangar Nos. 10 and 23 and Runway 23 East-The area between Runways 23 and 32 South-The area between Runways 32 and 05 HGRS(Hangars)refers to aircrat parking spaces,not buildings. TD(Tiedown/Apron)space is computed at 3,500 square feet per aircraft to allow for sufficient taxilane and aircraft maneuvering. N-W(Non-Wetlands)refers to the usable and accessible areas not defined as wetlands. ALL(All Areas)refers to all developable areas on the airport,including wetlands. Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis(September 2003). F. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES The preferred alternatives were selected based on a client team meeting (i.e., FAA, MAC, airport manager, and Dufresne-Henry, Inc.).12 Following is a list of each alternative by planning period. In all cases, the airport must maximize all available airport property for future aviation-related development. Figure 5-J presents the preferred alternatives. F.1 Short Term • RSA improvements (all runway ends) • Replace Runway 14-32 MIRLs 12 May 1, 2003 AUGUST 2004 - 153- LWM AMPU Chapter 5—Alternatives • Design and construct Taxiway"G" • Replace Taxiway"A"from Runway 23 to Taxiway"D" • Complete airfield fencing • Rehabilitate South Ramp • Construct hangars 0 one T-hangar on South Ramp o four T-hangars on North Ramp o conventional hangar in vicinity of Northeast Executive Jet F.2 Intermediate Term • Replace SRE/maintenance building • Develop GPS precision approach to Runway 23 • Clear obstructions in Runway 23 approach surface • Install MALSR(ALS) • Remodel terminal building F.3 Long Term • Decommission ILS when GPS precision approach is developed to Runway 23 • Extend Taxiway"A"from Taxiway"D"to Runway 05 AUGUST 2004 - 154- I X T fl 24 Y' 12 I—JiL mieTol 191*101@1911@ gl c i EL 1, F1 —LL= Jul OH ................. �ly Dul anne-Menry Chapter Six ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This chapter evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with airport-improvement projects proposed for LWM during the short-term planning period. This analysis is conducted pursuant to guidelines presented in FAA Order 5050.4A, the "Airport Environmental Handbook," and FAA Order 1050.1 D, "Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts." These FAA documents are based on the general requirements for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)enacted in 1969; potential impacts also may be subject to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA). This analysis does not replace the need for project review pursuant to NEPA and MEPA; rather, it provides a preliminary discussion of impact issues that will likely be a component of the submissions completed during the environmental permitting phase of the short- term projects. The environment consists of natural and human resources (i.e., soils, wetlands, flora, fauna, hydrology, historic structures, and several social factors)that can dictate the location and layout of development projects at an airport. This environmental analysis provides guidance and information regarding the extent of environmental impacts to protected natural resources and the level of permitting associated with those improvement projects proposed within the first five years of the airport-development program. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REVIEW The following short-term planning projects have been proposed at Lawrence Municipal Airport: • construct a new partial-parallel Taxiway"A"to ARC B-II standards, extending from the approach end of Runway 23 to Taxiway"D" • construct a new partial-parallel Taxiway"G"to ARC B-II standards, extending from the existing Taxiway"E"to the Runway 23 end • correct RSA deficiencies at all four runway ends • pursue development of GPS precision approach to Runways 05 and 23 - 156- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental • remodel terminal building to current building code, including ADA standards • expand terminal building automobile parking • construct new SRE/maintenance building • construct one T-hangar on South Ramp • construct four T-hangars on North Ramp • construct conventional hangar in vicinity of Northeast Jet Center This environmental analysis evaluates state and local environmental requirements as well as the 21 impact categories identified in FAA Order 5050.4A, the "Airport Environmental Handbook,"that are required for FAA review when considering airport-improvement projects proposed in the short-term planning period at LWM. A.1 Noise. The airport is currently classified as a B-11 airport using the ARC as defined by the FAA.' ARC criteria for B-11 airports stipulate in part that the most demanding aircraft using the airport must have wingspans of 49 feet or more but less than 79 feet. Aircraft in this design- group category also have approach speeds between 91 and 120 knots. The airport's B-11 designation and the current number of annual aircraft operations (i.e., 86,161 in 2001) have not necessitated an aircraft-noise analysis. In accordance with FAA Order 5050.4A, a noise analysis is not required at airports that serve aircraft in design groups I and II that conduct fewer than 90,000 annual propeller-aircraft operations or fewer than 700 annual jet operations. However, the number of reported general-aviation jet operations for 2001 (i.e., 1,842) exceeds the FAA threshold for requiring a noise analysis. Additionally, the number of annual operations is expected to increase during the short term, reaching 103,460 annual operations in 2006. Although the improvement projects during the short-term planning period are not anticipated to generate noise impacts of any significance, the existing number of annual jet operations and the projected increase in the total number of annual operations necessitated the preparation of an aircraft-noise analysis. Aircraft noise can be a significant issue to some residential and community uses surrounding an airport. For this update, a computer model of the noise was developed to identify the potential impacts of aircraft noise on the abutting land uses to assist with compatibility 'AC 150/5300-13,Airport Design. - 157- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental planning. Noise contours were generated for both existing and future airport conditions based on the number of existing annual operations for 2001 and the projected number of operations for 2021. Two items in particular impact the existing versus future noise conditions: the forecasted increase in the total number of airport operations and the projected decrease in the number of Stage II aircraft operations. The FAA classifies civilian aircraft in accordance with a set of noise standards that separates aircraft into three categories, or stages. Stage II is the second loudest category of aircraft. The last Stage II aircraft was built in the mid-1980s. New jet aircraft are manufactured with high bypass-ratio turbofan engines that meet or exceed Stage III requirements for decibel readings and have a resultant lower associated noise curve when compared to comparable Stage II aircraft. Harris Miller Miller& Hanson, Inc. (HMMH) reviewed the noise analysis in conjunction with the preparation of this AMPU. The noise analysis was performed using the INM, Version 6.1, software which was developed by the FAA and is approved and recommended for estimating noise exposure around airports. Inputs for the model include the following: • Airport layout: location, elevation, length, orientation, start-of-takeoff roll points, and landing thresholds for each runway for existing and future development scenarios • Aircraft operations: number of departures, arrivals, and pattern operations by aircraft type (using aircraft types available in the INM), for day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) time periods for the "annual average day" (i.e., the number of annual operations divided by the number of days in a year) • Runway use: day and night percentage utilization by aircraft type of each runway end for arrivals, departures, and pattern operations • Flight tracks: ground projections of representative departure, arrival, and pattern flight paths for each aircraft type • Flight track usage: day and night percentage utilization of the defined flight tracks for each aircraft type • Meteorological data: local average annual weather conditions including temperature, barometric pressure, and relative humidity • Run settings: INM settings that automatically calculate noise values at more points in areas of concern and fewer points in other areas - 158- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental INM outputs include noise "contours,"which define areas of similar noise exposure much the same way that ground contours define areas of equal altitude. These contours can be overlaid on a map or photograph of an airport vicinity to identify possible areas of moderate to significant noise impact for both existing (see Chapter 2, Figure 2-G) and future development conditions (see Land-Use Plan in Appendix B). Several different methods of measurement are used to define noise exposure. The FAA has approved the use of DNL for noise compatibility modeling around airports. The DNL represents the average sound level in weighted dbs (i.e., sound exposure adjusted for the response of human hearing)for a 24-hour period. The DNL metric approximates the response of humans to nighttime noises by adding 10 dbs to all noise events (i.e., aircraft operations) between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The FAA also provides guidance for recommended land uses within DNL contours. Below 65 DNL, all land uses are considered compatible with typical activities associated with airport operations. Above 65 DNL the compatibility of adjacent land uses depends on a variety of factors, including the following: • DNL at a specific location • type of land use • construction standards such as sound insulation and manmade or natural noise barriers • land-use controls such as zoning regulations or easements • ambient noise levels Whereas local municipalities generally do not have the authority to regulate the type or time of aircraft operations conducted at the airport without first completing complex studies and analyses, FAA guidelines provide tools for local municipalities to develop compatible land uses surrounding airports. Through the use of zoning changes, a community can establish compatible development standards within proximity to airport operations. For this AMPU, aircraft-noise models were developed for two scenarios: existing conditions using the number of operations (86,161)that occurred at the airport in the base year(2001) and the forecasted number of operations (122,000)for 2021 using the existing runway configuration. Stage II aircraft were not modeled in the future analysis because it is assumed - 159- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental that Stage II aircraft, due to age, will no longer be operational in 2021. Helicopter operations were also modeled in this analysis for both existing and future conditions. The number and type of aircraft operations were determined from the activity forecasts in Chapter 3. Because the DNL is a 24-hour metric, the number of daily operations must be interpolated from the number of annual operations. The generally accepted count is derived by dividing the annual number of operations by 365 and then applying the operational-mix percentages. This method was used to develop a base contour at LWM and incorporates the following assumptions: • Approximately 1 percent of approach and departure operations occur at night(each night operation receives a 10db penalty in the model).2 This resulted in an estimated 853 operations in 2001 (see Table 2-19). • Operations noted as helicopter in the fleet-mix forecast were included in the INM. Helicopters accounted for 1,574 operations in 2001 and a projected 1,760 in 2021, (see Table 3-16). • Touch-and-go operations are performed by single-and multi-engine piston aircraft, which accounted for 60% of total airport operations. This resulted in 51,697 touch- and-go operations in 2001 and a forecasted 73,200 in 2021. • Existing general-aviation jet operations are modeled with the INM-type Cessna Model 550 Citation II and Lear 25. The Lear 25 is used to represent Stage II aircraft, which represent approximately 8 percent of jet operations conducted at the airport.3 • Forecasted noise contours were based on an increased number of operations and a removal of Stage II operations. General-aviation jets typically have a Iifespan of 25 to 30 years. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that by 2021, Stage II jet operations will be rare or nonexistent.' This is an estimate because the ATCT is closed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3 These aircraft, represent a broad range of similar aircraft for INM computer-modeling purposes. INM offers a limited selection of non jet aircraft. 4 As of March 2004,there were only two jet aircraft based at LWM: a Beechjet 400A(Stage IIII)and a Casa Jet (Korean War era Russian-made fighter). - 160- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental • Single-engine operations were modeled as GASEPF.5 Multi-engine piston operations were modeled as BEC58P.6 Turboprop aircraft operations were modeled using INM type BEC200.7 • Approximately 93% of jet traffic was assumed for Runway 05-23; the remaining 7 percent of jet operations occur on Runway 32. Single- and multi-engine piston aircraft utilize all four runway ends during all operations. • Arrival flight tracks were modeled as straight in and departure flight tracks were modeled as straight out. All touch-and-go tracks were modeled as both left-and right-hand traffic (see Table 2-22 and Figure 2-E). In general, the analysis of compatibility based on FAA guidelines was developed by noting the noncompatible uses within identified noise contours. Residential development constitutes the noncompatible land use within the vicinity of LWM. The analysis, therefore, was performed by estimating the number of residences located within each contour based on aerial photography and supplemented with U.S. Geological Survey topographical maps. Table 6-1 summarizes the total land area and the number of residential lots within existing and future noise contours. Table 6-1,Summary Of Noise Analysis •• • EXISTING CONDITIONSCONDITIONS 60 DNL 15 residences/283 acres 9 residences/253 acres 65 DNL 0 residences/136 acres 0 residences/112 acres 70 DNL 0 residences/68 acres 0 residences/48 acres Notes:Summary of residential lots within various noise contours for existing and future conditions. Numbers of residential lots have been estimated. Acreages given represent full extent of individual noise contours. Numbers assume no land acquisition. Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. 5 General-aviation single-engine fixed-pitch. 6 Beech Baron. Beech King Air 200. - 161 - LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental As stated previously, the FAA regards land uses occurring within 65 DNL contours or lower (60 DNL) as compatible with those activities associated with typical airport operations. Results of this analysis indicate that there are now no significant noise impacts to residential development nor should any incompatibility issues be expected in the future. Existing and future noise contours for DNL are similar; however, despite the projected increase in operations for future conditions at the airport, the removal of Stage II aircraft from the INM lessens noise impacts to airport abutters. A.2 Compatible Land Uses. The compatibility of existing and planned land uses within the vicinity of an airport is typically associated with the extent of potential noise impacts from the airport. As stated in Subsection A.1, noise impacts are not anticipated due to the proposed projects identified for the short term. To further ensure the compatibility of existing and planned land uses, FAA Order 5050.4A states, "The Land Use section of the Environmental Assessment (EA)shall include documentation to support the required sponsor's assurance under Section 511 (a)(5)of the 1982 Airport Improvement Act that appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws, has been or will be taken, to the extent reasonable to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft. The assurance must be related to existing and planned land uses." Airport property is within the jurisdiction of the town of North Andover and separated from the city of Lawrence by the Merrimack River. Airport property is zoned as Industrial 2 (I2); land uses designated for this zoning district include but are not limited to retail establishments, professional and business offices, eating and drinking establishments, medical centers, multi- family dwellings, educational facilities, and agricultural purposes. The most of these land uses are generally considered compatible with aviation activities (see Chapter 2, Table 2-5). Adjacent zoning districts include Residential, Industrial 1, and General Business districts. Land uses permitted within residential zoning districts are considered incompatible with those uses associated with an operating airport facility. Residential development in proximity to airports may encounter noise impacts resulting from aviation activities. - 162- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental Furthermore, residential development areas within an airport vicinity may pose potential safety hazards to aircraft operations. Projects proposed within the short-term planning period will not lead to an increased number of operations at the airport, nor will they enable larger(and potentially louder)aircraft to use the airport. Therefore, increased impacts associated with land-use incompatibility are unlikely to occur because of the proposed short-term actions. A.3 Social Impacts. Social impacts are typically associated with large airport-improvement projects that cause community disruption. Such disruptions include the relocation of any residence or business; the alteration of surface transportation patterns; the division or disruption of established communities; the disruption of orderly, planned development; and the creation of an appreciable change in local employment. This AMPU does not anticipate any such activities resulting from short-term airport-improvement projects; therefore, social impacts are not expected. A.4 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts. Induced socioeconomic impacts are usually associated with large airport-improvement projects that result in secondary impacts to the surrounding community, including shifts in population patterns and changes in businesses and public- service demand. Induced socioeconomic impacts resulting from airport-improvement projects are typically insignificant, unless there are substantial impacts to other categories such as noise, land use, and direct social impacts. The projects proposed for the short term are not anticipated to result in any adverse socioeconomic impacts. Some positive impacts may be expected in this category because the improvement projects will generate employment and materials sales in the local area for the duration of each activity. A.5 Air Quality. Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 states, in part, that no federal agency shall engage in, support in any way, provide financial assistance for, or license, permit, or approve any activity that does not conform to a state implementation plan for meeting air-quality standards after it has been approved or promulgated under Section 110 of that Act. It is the FAA's responsibility to ensure that federal airport actions conform to state plans for controlling area-wide air-pollution impacts. Additionally, FAA Order 5050.4A stipulates that any general-aviation airport projecting fewer than 180,000 operations annually does not require an air-quality analysis as part of an EA. The projected number of aircraft operations at LWM for the short term is 103,460 in 2006, - 163- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental which is below the threshold for an air-quality review. Impacts to air quality are not anticipated due to projects proposed in the short term. A.6 Water Quality. Several water resources located on and within an airport vicinity should be considered when planning airport-development projects. As discussed in Chapter2, two unnamed intermittent streams flow through airport property prior to discharging into the Merrimack River, which flows in a northeasterly direction approximately 1,000 feet west of the airport's western property boundary. One flows approximately 300 feet west of the Runway 05 end, the other stream flows through airport property approximately 500 feet northeast of the Runway 23 end. Additionally, Lake Cochichewick, a public-water supply listed as an Outstanding Resource Water(according to Massachusetts Water Quality standards) is located approximately 900 feet northeast of the Runway 32 end. Finally, forested and scrub-shrub wetlands are prominent within airport property. Water-quality standards are regulated at federal, state, and local levels. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, provides the authority to establish water-quality standards and control discharges into surface and subsurface water bodies. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344)8 gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) authority to regulate certain high-priority stormwater discharges. On September 29, 1995, the USEPA published the Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities (60 FR 189).9 Under this regulation, all airports are required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI)with the USEPA(or the delegated state authority) and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The plan describes management techniques and practices used at an airport to minimize pollutants in stormwater. Water-quality standards also have been established at the state level and are implemented through 314 CMR 4.00 Surface Water Quality Standards (1995) and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MWPA). Water- quality standards also may be implemented through local zoning and planning ordinances. Several airport-improvement projects identified for the short term present the potential to impact water quality on airport property and within the immediate vicinity of proposed project locations. These include the proposed construction of Taxiway"G" and the RSA-improvement $Title 33 of the U.S. Code, Part 1344. 9Federal Register,Volume 60, page 189. - 164- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental projects proposed for Runway ends 05, 23, and 32 due to construction proposed within wetlands locations. Potential impacts to water quality will be minimized through compliance with federal, state, and local permitting requirements; engineering and design controls; and the implementation of erosion- and sedimentation-control best management practices (BMPs). The projects must adhere to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEO) Stormwater Management Policy, and it can be assumed that projects meeting the standards established in this policy are protective of surface-water quality. Additionally, the loss of vegetated wetlands areas resulting from proposed projects will require wetlands replication according to local, state, and federal wetlands regulations. An important component of a wetlands replication scheme involves the analysis of the level of wetlands functions and values in the impact areas. Wetlands functions and values within replicated wetlands areas must mimic or increase those functions and values identified in the wetlands located within proposed project areas. Consequently, there will be no net loss of water-quality treatment capacity resulting from construction activities. Increases in stormwater-runoff velocities also have the ability to degrade downstream water quality by scouring stream channels and increasing levels of suspended solids in the flow. The short-term projects may increase runoff velocities through the modification of watershed characteristics (i.e., slopes and cover types). Impacts to groundwater resources are not expected because of any of the proposed projects in the short term because discharges of pollutants to the surface and/or groundwater are not proposed. A.7 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f). Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 requires that the Secretary of Transportation investigate all alternatives before impacting any publicly owned lands designated as public parks; recreation areas; wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance; or land on an historic site of national, state, or local significance. Although there are no known Section 4(f) lands within the airport vicinity, impacts associated with proposed airport-improvement projects in the short term are not anticipated. However, as stated in Paragraph A.8, there is potential for archeological resources to exist within the footprints of certain proposed improvement projects (i.e., construction of a new SRE building, expansion of the North Ramp area, and construction of Taxiway"G"). If these areas are deemed sensitive for such resources during the permitting phase of each project, the requirements of Section 4(f)will apply. - 165- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental A.8 Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources. Two federal laws apply to this category of impact. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to advise the President and Congress on historic preservation matters. The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 provided for the survey, recovery, and preservation of significant scientific, historical, archeological, or paleontological data. The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)was contacted to determine the presence of any resources of historic, architectural, archeological, or cultural significance located on or within the airport vicinity. The State Historic Preservation Officer indicated that several archeologically sensitive areas are known to exist within or near airport property. According to MHC, proximity to known archeological sites is a strong indication that an area is likely to contain archeological resources (see the MHC letter dated December 3, 2001, in Appendix C). For this reason, MHC requested the opportunity to review plans for projects proposed within undisturbed regions of airport property (including lands controlled by the airport that have not been previously impacted by development). Projects proposed within the short term that meet this criterion include the construction of a new SRE building, continued development of the North Ramp area, and construction of Taxiway"G". Consultation with the MHC prior to construction will aid in the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of impacts to historic and archeological resources and will provide for compliance with Section 4(f)of the DOT act, if necessary. Additionally, in accordance with NEPA and MEPA regulations, a Phase I archeological study may be required for proposed improvement projects located within previously undisturbed soil profiles at the airport. A.9 Biotic Communities. The natural environment of the airport and vicinity consists primarily of forested uplands, upland fields, and forested and scrub-shrub wetlands areas. Forested areas located along the perimeter of airport property are dominated by white pine (Pinus strobus) and mixed hardwood species, including oak (Quercus spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Dominant wetlands vegetation includes red maple (Acer rubrum), willow(Salix spp.), speckled alder(Alnus rugosa), northern arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum), and buckthorn (Rhamnus spp.). Impacts to biotic communities resulting from airport-improvement projects proposed in the short term involve the loss of wetlands habitat in several locations on airport property. The RSA-improvement projects proposed for Runway ends 05, 23, and 32 will require filling and - 166- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental grading within wetlands areas. These wetlands areas will be filled, seeded with grass, and maintained as field. Additionally, construction of Taxiway"G"will impact wetlands by requiring the removal of vegetation and filling, grading, and paving activities within wetlands located north of Runway 23. As part of the evaluation of wetlands functions and values, each impact area will be assessed for its potential to provide important wildlife habitat. The level of habitat value will be considered in the mitigation scheme for each wetlands impact area. A.10 Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna. The Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (MNHESP)and the USFWS were consulted to determine the presence of rare or endangered species or exemplary natural communities within the airport vicinity. According to the USFWS, federally listed endangered or threatened species are not known to occur on or within the immediate vicinity of airport property(see USFWS letter dated December 17, 2001, in Appendix C). Initial correspondence with the MNHESP identified Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-protected species occurring in wetlands abutting airport property near the Runway 32 end (see MNHESP letter dated February 7, 2001, in Appendix C). However, further review of this area conducted with MNHESP representatives determined that there were no Blanding's turtles present nor was there suitable habitat necessary to support this species (see MNHESP letter dated May 17, 2001). Additionally, the most current edition of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (111" edition) does not include any portion of the airport within the limits of any protected habitat. Therefore, impacts to state or federally listed endangered or threatened species are not expected because of projects proposed in the short term at LWM. A.11 Wetlands. As stated in Chapter 2, wetlands located on airport property were delineated in 1999 by Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and Epsilon Associates, Inc. Wetlands areas, prevalent along the perimeter of the airfield, consist of forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and open-water types. Forested wetlands are located north of the Runway 23 end. Dominant species include American elm (Ulnus americana), winterberry holly(Ilex verticillata), and northern arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum). This wetlands system is associated with an intermittent stream that flows from the eastern side of Runway 23 toward the north. A scrub-shrub wetlands area is located east of Runway 23. Forested wetlands occur northeast of both Runways 14 and 32. Dominant species in these areas consist primarily of red maple (Acer rubrum). An emergent wetlands system is located east of the Runway 32 end. Emergent vegetation in this area - 167- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental includes spotted jewel weed (Impatiens capensis), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Finally, Runway 05 is encompassed by both forested and scrub-shrub wetlands systems. Dominant vegetation in those wetlands consists of red maple, black ash (Fraxinus nigra), and northern arrowwood. Airpor-improvement projects proposed in the short-term planning period resulting in wetlands impacts include RSA improvements for Runway ends 05, 23, and 32 and the construction of a new partial-parallel taxiway adjacent to Runway 23. As stated in Chapter 5, noncompliant RSAs exist at each runway end at LWM. Wetlands fill totaling approximately 27,595 square feet will be Table 6-2,Summary of Wetland Impacts required for Runway ends 05, 23, and 32 to PROPOSED PROJECT ESTIMATED provide RSAs built to FAA design standards. IMPACT Additionally, the construction of Taxiway"G"will Runway 23 Safety Area 18,295 result in impacts to scrub-shrub wetlands located approximately 200 feet north of Runway 23. This Runway 05 Safety Area 5,600 project will result in approximately 12,550 square Runway 32 Safety Area 3,700 feet of additional impacts to wetlands. Taxiway"G" 12,550 Approximately 40,145 square feet(i.e., 0.92 acre) Total 40,145 of impacts to wetlands are anticipated as a result Area in square feet. of improvement projects proposed in the short term Source: Dufresne-Henry,Inc.,analysis. at LWM (Table 6-2). Wetlands functions and values may be compromised due to filling and grading activities associated with this airport-improvement project. Impacts to wetlands resulting from construction of Taxiway"G" and RSA-improvement projects will be minimized through sound engineering and design standards and the implementation of construction BMPs including the installation of erosion and sedimentation controls. Wetlands are regulated at all levels of government. Federal regulations, implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), are based on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts regulates wetlands through the MWPA, Title 19 MGL, Chapter 131, Section 40. Local municipalities also regulate wetlands through conservation commission rulings and various ordinances. - 168- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental A.12 Floodplains. The National Flood Insurance Program is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is designed to provide flood insurance for existing properties and to discourage additional development within 100-year floodplains. Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA indicate that airport property does not encroach the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, impacts to this resource are not anticipated due to improvement projects proposed for the short term. A.13 Coastal Zone Management. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program was created by the state and approved by the NOAA in 1978, pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. This program is implemented through several agencies within the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. A letter of concurrence with federal consistency requirements (15 CFR 930) or a waiver is required for federally funded activities conducted within designated coastal zones. The town of North Andover is not located within a coastal zone; therefore, a letter of concurrence is not necessary for any of the proposed improvement projects because there will be no impacts to protected coastal-zone resources. A.14 Coastal Barriers. The Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-348) prohibits, with some exceptions, federal financial assistance for development within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, which consists of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Currently, approximately 40 coastal barriers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts included within the Coastal Barrier Resources System are eligible for protection under this act. There are no coastal barriers identified in the airport vicinity; therefore, impacts to coastal barriers and associated resources will not occur. A.15 Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542, as amended) affords protection to those river areas eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Impacts to those resources are regulated by the National Park Service. Proposed actions resulting in potential impacts to listed rivers must follow established procedures to avoid or mitigate those impacts. No stretch of the Merrimack River located within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been included in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Impacts to this resource, therefore, are not expected. A.16 Farmland. The soil series at the airport were mapped by the NRCS and are included in the Soil Survey of Essex County, Massachusetts, Northern Part, published in 1981. As stated in - 169- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental Chapter 2, the majority of soils are designated as Udorthents, which typically consist of nearly level loamy soils that have been altered for the purposes of development. Other soil series within the airport vicinity include Paxton, Woodbridge, and Ridgebury fine sandy loams. Paxton and Woodbridge soils series are regarded as prime farmland soils in Massachusetts. According to the Farmland Protection Policy Act(P.L. 97-98), "prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, and oilseed crops." Although Paxton and Woodbridge soils are listed as prime farmland, sites at the airport exhibiting these soils have been reserved for aviation purposes for many years and have little potential as farmland due to existing development and land-use practices at the airport. Coordination with the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources will be necessary prior to impacting the prime agricultural soil areas relative to the applicability of their recently developed mitigation policy. Upon review of improvement projects proposed in the short term, the Department of Agricultural Resources may require mitigation for impacts to farmland soils. Compensation for the loss of agricultural land may include (in order of agency preference)the following: • On-Site Mitigation: The permanent protection, through the granting of an Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR)to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on any contiguous parcel of equal or greater size, soil quality, and agricultural viability to the agricultural land being lost to conversion. • Off-Site Mitigation: The permanent protection, through the granting of an APR to the Commonwealth, on a parcel of equal or greater size, soil quality, and agricultural viability to the agricultural land being lost to conversion. Where feasible, the APR shall be located either in the community within which the agricultural land to be converted is located or within a contiguous city or town. • Financial Contribution: For each acre of agricultural land being converted, a contribution of$10,000 per acre shall be made to the Commonwealth's APR program, or to a qualified nonprofit farmland preservation organization or municipal farmland preservation program. A financial contribution shall be required only when on-and off-site mitigation plans are not possible. - 170- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental A.17 Energy and Natural Resources. Energy requirements associated with a proposed project generally fall into two categories: (1)those related to changed demands for stationary facilities (e.g., airfield lighting and terminal-building heating); and (2)those that involve the movement of air and ground vehicles. Projects will be examined to identify any proposed major changes in power and fuel consumption and supply. Proposed projects, however, are not expected to have a significant demand on the existing energy supply, nor will there be any significant demand on any natural resource resulting from projects proposed in the short term. Soil fill materials for the RSA project represent the greatest need for a natural resource, and fill is generally in good supply for such projects in the region. A.18 Light Emissions. Light emissions refer to the potential for creating annoyances to residents in the vicinity of lighting installations. Short-term development projects proposed at LWM include the installation of a new MITL system associated with construction of Taxiway"G". MITLs emit blue light from a 45-watt incandescent lamp. MITL fixtures are located not more than 10 feet from the edge of pavement on each side of the taxiway and are spaced not more than 200 feet apart to define the lateral limits of the taxiway. The height of MITL fixtures typically does not exceed 14 inches AGL. Taxiway lighting is necessary only to guide pilots to and from runways and, therefore, is less intense than runway lighting, which is used to guide landing planes. Based on the location of the proposed taxiway and associated lighting emissions, locations of existing lighting, and proximity and type of adjacent land uses, it is not expected that new taxiway lighting would adversely impact off-site property owners and residences that would be sensitive to obtrusive light emissions. A.19 Solid Waste. The airport currently produces minimal amounts of solid waste. Solid waste is collected in receptacles placed at various locations around the airport and transported for incineration to the North East Solid Waste Committee waste-to-energy facility in North Andover. The airport is served by a municipal sewer system. Increases in the amount of solid waste generated at the airport are not anticipated to result from any of the proposed development projects. A.20 Construction Impacts. Construction impacts have the potential to create temporary undesirable environmental effects at an airport. These impacts typically are associated with noise from construction equipment, dust associated with earth-moving, air pollution from - 171 - LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental burning debris, and water pollution from soil disturbance and erosion. Generally, construction impacts are temporary and eliminated when the project is completed. However, to ensure that avoidable impacts are minimized, it is important to consider potential effects of the construction process on adjacent protected resources. Construction impacts, however, can be mitigated by using responsible design practices, appropriate project scheduling, and erosion and sedimentation-control plans. It is recommended that project specifications include the provisions of AC 150/5370, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports. Proposed development projects with the potential for contributing to short-term construction impacts include SRE-building construction, apron development adjacent to the Runway 14 end, taxiway construction, and improvements to RSA. A.21 Environmental Justice. Executive Order(EO) 12898 (February 11, 1994) requires federal agencies to achieve environmental justice as part of their mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human-health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations in the United States. Because impacts to any residential populations are not anticipated to result from the short- term project list, the work will comply with EO 12898. B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUMMARY The airport has environmental concerns associated with the development alternatives proposed in the short term. As stated previously, approximately 27,595 square feet of vegetated wetlands resources will be impacted by the RSA-improvement projects proposed for Runway ends 05, 23, and 32. Impacts to wetlands resulting from RSA-improvement projects include the loss of wetlands functions and values due to filling and grading activities. Approximately 12,550 square feet of wetlands impacts also will result from construction of Taxiway"G" a partial-parallel taxiway that will provide access to the Runway 23 end via Taxiway"E". Potential water-quality impacts resulting from the proposed construction of a new SRE building and a new T-hangar will be avoided through design and control measures, including implementation of erosion and sedimentation BMPs. Adverse impacts to water quality are not expected as a result of proposed short-term projects at the airport. - 172- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental Impacts to farmland and archeological resources are possible, depending on a more detailed review of each individual project. If the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources determines that the soil profiles within any of the project footprints represent protected prime soils under its mitigation policy, compliance with the policy will be necessary. If any of the development areas are found to be archeologically sensitive, then further coordination with the MHC will be necessary, and compliance with Section 4(f) of the DOT act must be addressed. C. JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES, ACTIONS,AND PERMITS This subsection identifies the likely environmental permits anticipated to be required for the development of planned airport improvements. Several of the selected projects are subject to federal, state, and local environmental regulations. The environmental statutes address a wide range of issues, including wetlands alterations, rare species impacts, air and water quality, and even land acquisitions. To complicate matters, the need for a permit is not always determined by the magnitude of an environmental impact but rather by the funding source for the project. The use of federal funding sources is considered a federal "action" and, therefore, is subject to the NEPA. The same project completed with private funds would not necessarily require the same permitting effort. Also, the sequence in which the projects are permitted will have an effect on the permitting effort. Projects permitted separately typically result in increased efforts and associated costs. Permitting improvement projects in two or three packages, based on the short-, intermediate-, and long-term listing of the projects, is more efficient in terms of time and expense and is also preferred by the reviewing agencies. Certain agencies require that all likely projects be included in a submission, whereas others allow for an incremental approach because they might require detailed design plans that are typically not available for long-term projects. Most environmental regulations are threshold-based, in which the magnitude of the impact determines both the need for a particular permit and the level of effort required to obtain the permit. A good example of this is the permitting program established for Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act(administered by the USACE), in which wetlands alterations below a specific threshold often require no contact with the agency if certain conditions are met. Alterations above the threshold require an "individual 404 permit," in which a thorough investigation of all associated issues is completed by the USACE. - 173- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental Because detailed studies of the impacts associated with the airport-improvement projects have not been completed, the exact permitting effort required to complete the projects is not fully known. Although the following discussion presents the likely required permits, the permitting effort and the timelines involved are difficult to assess because it is not known which permitting thresholds will be exceeded. It is likely that the selected projects will be designed to minimize the level of wetlands impacts assumed in this AMPU. Projects that avoid wetlands impacts could potentially include activities within 100 feet of a wetlands that is a jurisdictional area under state and local wetlands regulations. These "buffer-zone" projects will require local and state permits as well. CA Federal Requirements. Proposed improvement projects will be completed using federal funding sources and will involve direct impacts to federal wetlands. The use of federal funds on such projects requires the preparation of an EA pursuant to the NEPA. Wetlands alterations resulting from improvements to RSAs and construction of Taxiway"G" are subject to Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and will require a permit from the USACE. Due to the magnitude of wetlands impacts (i.e., approximately 40,250 square feet), a Category 2 programmatic general permit(PGP)—which regulates project impacts between 5,000 and 43,560 square feet—will be required. However, the screening of this application may result in an upgrade of the project to a Category 3 PGP (for wetlands impacts greater than 1 acre), thus requiring an Individual Permit from the USACE. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification process, which is administered by the MADEP, may involve the need for a variance because impacts are well in excess of 5,000 square feet. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Federal Clean Water Act of 1977, provides the authority to establish water-quality standards and control discharges into surface and subsurface water bodies. Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act(33 USC 1344) gave the USEPA authority to regulate certain high-priority stormwater discharges. On September 29, 1995, the USEPA published the Final NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)for Industrial Activities in the Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 189 (the MSGP was reissued on October 30, 2000, in the Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 210). Under this regulation, all airports are required to file an NOI with the USEPA and prepare a SWPPP for the airport. LWM currently has a valid facility SWPPP. Additionally, an SWPPP for construction activities is required for projects resulting in the disturbance of 1-acre or more of land. Land disturbance associated with proposed short-term improvement projects will - 174- LWM AMPU Chapter 6—Environmental exceed the one acre threshold and will require the preparation of an NOI and SWPPP for construction activities. C.2 State Requirements. Potential impacts to wetlands will require the airport to obtain several state-level permits. The filing of an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) pursuant to the MEPA will be required because the wetlands impact threshold of 5,000 square feet will be exceeded. The magnitude of the wetlands impacts associated with proposed improvement projects will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to MEPA. This document must be prepared prior to other permit applications and will include a comprehensive review all of the major impact categories (including those categories evaluated in this AMPU). The MWPA requires that a permit be obtained for those projects within wetlands resource areas or associated buffer zones. Current impact thresholds for the various resource areas (i.e., 5,000 square feet of impact to wetlands resources)will be exceeded by the projects, and a variance from the regulations will be required. As part of the filing process pursuant to the MWPA, a comprehensive stormwater-management system that addresses the management of stormwater quantity and quality for post-construction conditions will be required. C.3 Local Requirements. As stated previously, the North Andover Conservation Commission must have the opportunity to review the NOI in accordance with 310 CMR 10.00 and the local wetlands protection bylaw. A public hearing also must be held to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the contents of the NOI. Airport-improvement projects resulting in impacts to wetlands are subject to the terms and conditions of the North Andover Wetlands Protection Bylaw (effective October 20, 1998) and the requirements established in the North Andover Wetlands Protection Regulations (effective November 10, 1998). However, because the level of wetlands impacts exceeds 5,000 square feet, municipal conservation commissions must, by law, reject the NOI and the applicant must seek a variance from the MADEP. Proposed improvement projects also may be subject to local code-enforcement regulations and planning review. - 175- Chapter Seven FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Schedules of proposed development resulting from recommendations in this AMPU and estimates of development costs are discussed in this chapter. Recommended development is distributed over three periods--short term (0 to 5 years), intermediate term (6 to10 years), and long term 11 to 20 years)-- based on need (i.e., demand)and the funding capacity of the FAA, state, and airport. Private funding also will play a role in future development at Lawrence Municipal Airport. Although each period has a designated length of time, projects identified for one period may overlap with another as demand and funding warrant. It should not be assumed that projects listed anywhere in this AMPU will be funded or that they will take place in the period suggested. The capital-cost tables in this chapter list planning-level cost estimates and identify anticipated financial responsibility for each improvement, as well as the estimated cost shares for each funding agency. Funding from the FAA and/or MAC is not necessarily guaranteed because it is discussed herein. At least two situations must occur before federal and state funding will be approved. First, the airport sponsor must indicate a willingness and financial capability to fund its share of the project; and second, the FAA and MAC must agree to capitalize the project. A. AIP FUNDING The Airport and Airway Trust Fund provides the revenue source used to fund AIP projects. Taxes and user fees are collected from the various segments of the aviation community and placed in the trust fund. These revenue sources include taxes on airline tickets and freight waybills, international air-carrier departure fees, and fuel taxes on aviation fuels. The AIP is authorized by Chapter 471 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.), which is referred to as the "Act." Previously, the AIP was authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248, as amended), which was repealed in 1994 by P.L. 103-272 (July 5, 1994), Codification - 176- LWM AMPU Chapter 7—Financial Analysis of Certain U.S. Transportation Laws at Title 49 U.S.C. and the provisions, were recodified as Chapter 471. The act's broad objective is to assist in the development of a nationwide system of public-use airports adequate to meet the current projected growth of civil aviation. The act provides funding for airport planning and development projects at airports included in the NPIAS. Funding of projects that qualify under the AIP are typically divided into three sources: federal, state, and local. The federal share of eligible costs for general-aviation airports is 95%. The remaining 5% is divided between the state and the airport.' Eligible projects include those improvements related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, and environmental concerns. In general, sponsors can use AIP funds on most airfield capital improvements or repairs except for terminals, hangars,2 and nonaviation development. Any professional services that are necessary for eligible projects--such as planning, surveying, and design-- are eligible as is runway, taxiway, and apron-pavement maintenance. Aviation demand at the airport must justify the projects, which also must meet federal environmental and procurement requirements. Projects related to airport operations and revenue-generating improvements are typically not eligible for funding. Operational costs-- such as salaries, maintenance services, equipment, and supplies-- are also not eligible for AIP grants. B. CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND INFLATION Construction and planning cost estimates are based on 2003 dollar values. To compute up-to-date cost estimates or revisions at any time in the future, refer to the Construction Cost Index (CCI).3 The CCI is revised every week to reflect changes in typical labor rates and material costs. Historic and projected CCI annual averages are shown in Figure 7-A and are based on an index of 100 for the base year 1913. By applying future CCI numbers as they are determined (using the formula shown in Figure 7-A), cost estimates can be updated to more accurately reflect ongoing inflationary factors. ' President Bush signed a bill reauthorizing AIR-21 and the AIP (December 17, 2003). Under this new legislation,the FAA's share is now 95%. The state and local shares are each 2.5%. 2 Under the new legislation signed by President Bush (see Footnote 1), site improvement for hangars is eligible. 3 Engineering News Record(http://www.enr.com/features/conEco/costindexes/default.asp). - 177- LWM AMPU Chapter 7—Financial Analysis Figure 7-A, Construction Cost Index 12,000 10,000 Q 8,000 6,000 4,000 Q 2,000 0 � Noy �o`� �o� goo moo tio° �o° �yo° �o^ tio^ tio� �o�' ---♦-- Historic --- Projected Source:www.enr.com Base: 1913= 100 (2003 Cost)x(Future CCI) December 2003 CCI(6,694) = Future Projected Cost For example, the recommended MALSR project(see Paragraph E.2) has an estimated cost of $450,000 based on 2003 dollars. If this project is constructed in 2012 with a forecasted CCI of 7,865, the 000 approximate cost would be$529,000, or 17% higher. $450,6,694 x 7,865 _ $528,720 C. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The implementation schedule and cost estimates evolve from technical and financial considerations. The technical concerns include, for example, the time it will take to develop the engineering design and complete the construction. This assumes that all necessary approvals and prerequisites (permitting and inspections) have been completed. Financial considerations that affect the schedule relate to the availability and timing of capital financing. Federal and state aid may not always be available at the current levels, current indebtedness could impact future debt incurrence, or the - 178- LWM AMPU Chapter 7—Financial Analysis financial market may not be suitable for debt financing. Therefore, there may be some adjustment in scheduling priorities. The participation of the airport in developing the implementation schedule is critical in that the sponsor rather than the consultant can ascertain and adjust priorities. Schedules should be based on the three planning periods. Capacity-oriented development, as it relates directly to demand levels, should be scheduled at the occurrence of those demand thresholds rather than at a specific time. This typically would not apply to the near-term improvements where forecasts are likely to be met. The long-range plan identifies the ultimate role of the airport, the airport-design type, and the concept for accommodating ultimate facility requirements. The intermediate-range plan is a more detailed description for sizing airport requirements and layout. The short-term plan is an immediate-action program that recognizes realistic local, state, and federal funding levels. The immediate-action program can be a useful document for the AIP formulation and should not overlook such items as pavement rehabilitation, obstruction-removal, safety areas, and other items. The CIP development schedule and cost summary are presented in Table 7-1 and provide an itemized breakdown of the FAA, MAC, local, and private funding for the proposed improvements. As noted, cost projections are based on 2003 dollars and include estimated engineering fees with an allowance for unprogrammed fees and costs (i.e., contingencies). These projections, however, should be used for planning purposes only and do not imply that funding will necessarily be available. Each year indicates construction initiation and, therefore, any environmental and design efforts will need to precede construction. - 179- Chapter 7-Financial Analysis Table 7-1,Projected Airport Capital Costs(2005-2024) OBJECT COST CONTINGENCIES TOTAL COST FAA FUNDING MAC FUNDING SPONSOR FUNDING PRIVATE FUNDING VMP Litigation $70,000 $5,000 $75,000 $0 $60,000 $15,000 $0 Implement VMP 250,000 35,000 285,000 270,750 7,125 7,125 0 Prepare ENF 20,000 5,000 25,000 23,750 625 625 0 N Prepare EA and EIR 190,000 20,000 210,000 199,500 5,250 5,250 0 0 Runway Safety Area Improvements 1,900,000 300,000 2,200,000 2,090,000 55,000 55,000 0 N Replace Runway 14-32 MIRL 175,000 25,000 200,000 190,000 5,000 5,000 0 Design and Construct Taxiway"G" 675,000 85,000 760,000 722,000 19,000 19,000 0 `m � Replace Taxiway"A"(Runway 23 to Taxiway"D") 1,100,000 200,000 1,300,000 1,235,000 32,500 32,500 0 o Rehabilitate Aircraft Parking Aprons(See Table 7-3) 2,000,000 200,000 2,200,000 2,090,000 55,000 55,000 0 t Complete Airfield Fencing 410,000 65,000 475,000 451,250 11,875 11,875 0 Construct Hangars 1,100,000 150,000 1,250,000 1,187,500 31,250 31,250 0 Total Short-Term Costs $7,890,000 $1,090,000 $8,980,000 $8,459,750 $282,625 $237,625 $0 Replace SRE/Maintenance Building $900,000 $200,000 $1,100,000 $1,045,000 $27,500 $27,500 $0 Remove old SRE Building 160,000 20,000 180,000 171,000 4,500 4,500 0 o Replace SRE 150,000 25,000 175,000 166,250 4,375 4,375 0 N Replace/Upgrade Mowing Equipment 150,000 50,000 200,000 0 16D,000 40,000 0 0 V Reconstruct Runway 05-23 3,000,000 250,000 3,250,000 3,087,500 81,250 81,250 0 Reconstruct Taxiways and Aprons(See Table 7-4) 1,700,000 190,000 1,890,000 1,795,500 47,250 47,250 0 d F Install MALSR Runway 23 400,000 50,000 450,000 427,500 11,250 11,250 0 m is Obstruction Removal 733,000 150,000 883,000 838,850 22,075 22,075 0 Remodel Terminal Building 200,000 50,000 250,000 0 0 250,000 0 `m Update Airport Master Plan 200,000 20,000 220,000 209,000 5,500 5,500 0 Expand Automobile Parking 50,000 10,000 60,000 28,500 750 750 30,000 Total Intermediate-Term Costs $7,643,000 $1,015,000 $8,658,000 $7,769,100 $364,450 $494,450 $30,000 Extend Taxiway"A"from'D"to Runway 5 $870,000 $100,000 $970,000 $921,500 $24,250 $24,250 $0 v Upgrade/Improve Airport Lighting and Signs 500,000 100,000 600,000 570,000 15,000 15,000 0 N N Upgrade/Improve Airport Security Fence 100,000 50,000 150,000 142,500 3,750 3,750 0 0 Decommission ILS 25,000 10,000 35,000 35,000 0 0 0 N � Reconstruct Runway 14-32 2,000,000 250,000 2,250,000 2,137,500 56,250 56,250 0 F Reconstruct Taxiways and Aprons(See Table 7-5) 1,000,000 300,000 1,300,000 1,235,000 32,500 32,500 0 Replace SRE 300,000 50,000 350,000 332,500 8,750 8,750 0 Update Airport Master Plan 200,000 20,000 220,000 209,000 5,500 5,500 0 Total Long-Term Costs $4,995,000 $880,000 $5,875,000 $5,583,000 $146,000 $146,000 $0 Short-Term(2005through 2009) $7,890,000 $1,090,000 $8,980,000 $8,459,750 $282,625 $237,625 $0 Intermediate-Term(20010through 2014) 7,643,000 1,015,000 8,658,000 7,769,100 364,450 494,450 30,000 _..', Long-Term(2015 through 2024) 4,995,000 880,000 5,875,000 5,583,000 146,000 146,000 0 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS(2005-2024) $24 528,004 $2,985 00If $23,513,000 $21.,89,1y864 $' ,075 $878,975 $ 000 Amounts are in 2004 dollars. Costs are based on estimated planning level assumptions. Contintencies are added to compensate for possible unforeseen and uncertain conditions that may impact costs. Source:Dufresne-Henry,Inc.,analysis. -180- LWM AMPU Chapter 7—Financial Analysis D. SHORT-TERM IMPROVEMENTS The following subsections outlines projects slated for the short term, including those needed to satisfy existing demand and to correct any safety deficiencies, including projects already planned or underway. D.1 VMP Permitting. The MAC VMP has been appealed to the MADEP by the North Andover Conservation Commission. At this time, it is pending an administrative law judge ruling. The estimated litigation costs are $75,000. D.2 Implement VMP. The estimated cost of implementing the VMP is $285,000, which is AIP- eligible. D.3 Prepare ENF. An ENF, pursuant to the MEPA, is required when a project exceeds one of the impact category thresholds listed in MEPA regulations. The ENF will cover several environmentally sensitive projects either currently planned or identified as short-term projects. Those include RSA improvements, replacing Taxiway"A", construction of Taxiway"G", and construction of new airfield fencing. This AIP-eligible project will cost approximately$25,000. D.4 EA and EIR. An EA and EIR are required because of wetlands impacts associated with the development of Taxiway"G" and RSA improvements. The estimated cost of the EA and EIR is$210,000, which is AIP-eligible. D.5 RSA Improvements. Existing nonconformance issues on all four RSAs were addressed in Chapters 2 and 5. This is an AIP-eligible project. The estimated engineering design and construction costs are $2 million. D.6 Replace Runway 14-32 Lights. The MIRLs on Runway 14-32 are at the end of their design life. Continuing problems with the circuitry and hardware result in persistent outages. The estimated cost of replacing this system is $200,000. D.7 Design and Construct Taxiway "G". This is a 35-foot-wide wide by 1,700-foot-long taxiway (ARC "B" standards)that will connect Taxiway"E"with the approach end of Runway 23. This taxiway is considered a vital link between the rapidly developing North Ramp area and the primary runway. The estimated cost for design and construction is $760,000, which is AIP- eligible. - 181 - LWM AMPU Chapter 7—Financial Analysis D.8 Replace Taxiway"A". The existing Taxiway"A" is nearing the end of its design life and requires full-depth reconstruction. The proposed recommendation is to replace the existing taxiway with a totally new surface built to ARC "B" standards (35 feet wide). This 2,900-foot- long taxiway would connect the approach end of Runway 23 (southern side), run parallel to the existing taxiway, and connect with Taxiway"D". The estimated design and construction cost is$1.3 million. This is an AIP-eligible project. D.9 Complete Airfield Fencing. Several areas of the airfield fencing should be completed in the short term. In addition, some areas are deteriorating and should be replaced. The estimated cost of replacement and upgrade is$475,000; this is an AIP-eligible project. D.10 Rehabilitate Parking Aprons. Several paved parking aprons are at or rapidly approaching the end of their service life and are due for rehabilitation. These areas, totaling approximately 362,500 square feet are listed in Table 7-2 and shown on the Pavement History Plan in Appendix B. The estimated cost of rehabilitating all six areas is $2.2 million, or about$6.00 per square foot. Table 7-2, Short-Term Apron Rehabilitation Requirements DESCRIPTIONAREA I • 1 Miscellanous Aprons 1945 77,500 2 Four-Star Apron 1958 60,000 4 Eagle East Apron 1962 12,000 7 Taxiway C Fillet, Terminal South 1978 100,000 10 Terminal Apron North 1984 50,000 12 North T-Hangars 1984 63,000 Total 362,500 _. Refer to Pavement History Plan in Appendix B. Size in square feet. Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. DA 1 Construct Hangars. Several hangar projects are either underway or planned in the short term, including the development of multiple T-hangars in the North Ramp area and a single unit on the South Ramp. In addition, Northeast Executive Jet has plans to construct a large conventional hangar on the East Ramp adjacent to its existing facility. For planning purposes, - 182- LWM AMPU Chapter 7— Financial Analysis it is estimated that each T-hangar will cost approximately$500,000 to develop, including engineering and site work; a large conventional hangar will cost approximately$750,000. Under new legislation hangar development is an AIP eligible project; however, because of its relatively low funding priority, private funding should be sought. D.12 Total Short-Term Project Costs. Short-term capital costs total $8.98 million, which includes $238,000 in sponsor funding. Table 7-1 lists cost estimates for recommended airport improvements throughout the planning period. The table shows the anticipated cost breakdown of each project and funding agenda by agency. These planning-level estimates are in 2003 dollars; it is recommended that inflation be considered in the development of local, state, and federal funding schedules. Future costs can be estimated using the information in Figure 7-A. E. INTERMEDIATE-TERM IMPROVEMENTS Several projects are recommended for consideration in the intermediate term. In addition, those projects not completed in the short term typically will be carried over, particularly those tied to demand, such as hangar development. E.1 Replace SRE/Maintenance Building. A new 10,000-square-foot combination SRE and maintenance building was recommended. The estimated cost of construction in 2003 is approximately$110 per square foot, for a total cost of$1.1 million. In addition, the existing 6,000-square-foot facility should be removed at an estimated cost of$30 per square foot, or $180,000, for a total cost of$1 million, which is AIP-eligible. E.2 Install MALSR ALS. A new ALS was recommended for the Runway 23 end at an estimated cost of$450,000. This is an AIP-eligible project. E.3 Replace SRE. Funding should be programmed in the intermediate-term to replace and upgrade the SRE fleet. EA Replace/Upgrade Mowing Equipment. The existing fleet of airport mowing equipment will require replacement and upgrading within the next 6-10 years. - 183- LWM AMPU Chapter 7— Financial Analysis E.5 Reconstruct Runway 05-23. Runway 05-23 was last reconstructed in 1986 with an overlay in 1992 (see Chapter 2, Table 2-4 and the Pavement History Plan, Sheet 6 in Appendix B). A full-depth reconstruction will probably be required by the middle of the intermediate-term. E.6 Rehabilitate Taxiway and Apron Pavement. Several paved parking aprons and sections of taxiway will require rehabilitation in the intermediate-term. These areas, totaling approximately 315,500 square feet are listed in Table 7-3 and shown on the Pavement History Plan in Appendix B. The estimated cost of rehabilitating all six areas is $1.9 million, or about $6.00 per square foot. Table 7-3, Intermediate-Term Pavement Rehabilitation Requirements DESCRIPTIONAREA - • 5 Taxiway C 1967 55,000 9 King Air Charters 1984 24,000 11 Apron North T-Hangars 1984 100,000 14 Taxiway E (South Portion) 1988 42,000 15 Taxiway E (North Portion) 1989 94,500 Total .. 315,500 .. Refer to Pavement History Plan in Appendix B. Size in square feet. Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. E.7 Obstruction Removal. Development of a precision approach to Runway 23 will result in a lower approach slope and the need to clear additional obstructions in the approach and transitional surfaces. Currently, an estimated 69 acres of obstructions in the Runway 23 approach and transitional surfaces. An estimated 8 additional acres of obstructions is will require clearing if the approach surface is lowered to accommodate a precision approach. By the time this project is ready to start, a detailed and current obstruction analysis will be required because the current data was obtained in 1994. Therefore, in addition to tree- clearing, updated photogrammetry data will be required. The estimated costs are $15,000 for photogrammetry data and analysis, $25,000 in engineering fees, approximately$9,000 per acre for tree clearing, and $150,000 in environmental fees and permitting. The total cost(less environmental permitting and fees) is$883,000. E.8 Remodel Terminal Building. The existing terminal building will require extensive remodeling within the next five to ten years. Electrical and mechanical systems are outdated and the - 184- LWM AMPU Chapter 7— Financial Analysis building does not meet ADA requirements. However, the extent of remodeling was not addressed. For planning purposes, it is estimated that the cost will be approximately $250,000, which is not currently eligible under the AIP. For other similar projects throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, MAC provided state grants-- in some instances, covering 80% of construction costs. E.9 Update Airport Master Plan. The next update to this report will probably be required within the next 7-10 years; about midway through this planning period. E.10 Expand Automobile Parking. The airport currently has a shortage of parking spaces during peak periods. This 87-space deficit will grow to approximately 211 spaces by the end of the long term. Using a planning factor of 50 square feet per space, the airport currently needs approximately 4,400 square feet of parking area which will grow to more than 10,000 square feet in the long term. The estimated cost of developing automobile parking is $6 per square foot, or$60,000 if the full buildout is accomplished. Private funding is important in this type of development around the hangars and FBOs, covering approximately 50% of the estimated total cost. The remaining 50% for construction around the terminal would be covered under the AIP. E.11 Intermediate-Term Project Costs. Intermediate-term project costs total $8.7 million with a sponsor share of$500,000 (see Table 7-1). The most expensive locally funded project in this planning period is remodeling of the terminal building. Although federal grants are currently not offered for this type of development, possible state funding may exist during this time frame. F. LONG-TERM PROJECTS Other than those projects that may be carried over from the short and intermediate terms, only one project is planned for the long term. F.1 Extend Taxiway"A". When the ILS is eventually decommissioned (probably within the next 10 to 15 years)and when the existing Taxiway"B" is due for reconstruction, Taxiway"A" should be extended the remaining 2,100 feet to the approach end of Runway 05, forming one - 185- LWM AMPU Chapter 7— Financial Analysis continuous true-parallel taxiway along Runway 05-23. The estimated cost of this project is $970,000. F.2 Decommission ILS. The instrument landings system will be ready for decommissioning some time in the next 10-15 years. F.3 Upgrade/Improve Airport Lighting and Signs. The airport has recently undergone a thorough improvement to airport signs. It is anticipated that by the long-term planning period, these signs will need upgrades and improvements as well as other airport lighting components, such as runway and taxiway lights, beacons, etc. F.4 Reconstruct Runway 14-32. This runway will be ready for reconstruction by the early part of the long-term planning period. The estimated cost of this AIP eligible project is$2,250,000. F.5 Rehabilitate Taxiway and Aprons. In the long-term four pavement areas in addition to Runway 14-32 will require rehabilitation. These areas, totaling approximately 214,500 square feet are listed in Table 7-4 and shown on the Pavement History Plan in Appendix B. The estimated cost of rehabilitating all six areas is $1.3 million, or about$6.00 per square foot. Table 7-4, Long-Term Pavement Rehabilitation Requirements AREA I DESCRIPTION LASTIMPROVED SIZE 16 Taxiway D(South Portion) 1997 45,500 17 Apron (King Air Charters) 1998 60,000 18 Taxiway B (Except Terminal) 1998 38,500 6 Taxiway D(North) 2003 70,000 Total 214,000 . Refer to Pavement History Plan in Appendix B. Size in square feet. Source: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.,analysis. F.6 Replace SIRE The airport recently acquired two new SRE vehicles (combination dump trucks with snowplows). Both of these vehicles will be ready for replacement by 2024 and should be programmed accordingly. - 186- LWM AMPU Chapter 7- Financial Analysis F.7 Update AMPU. The airport master plan will be ready for an update again in the long-term. F.8 Long-Term Project Costs. Long-term and project costs total $5.9 million; with a sponsor share of$146,000 (see Table 7-1). G. REVENUE AND EXPENSES Lawrence Municipal Airport has projected revenue and expenses of$475,165 for fiscal year 2005, including nearly$56,000 for anticipated capital outlays. Tables 7-5 and 7-6 show the airport's current expenses and revenue. Table 7-5,Airport Expenses PROPOSEDCATEGORY ACTUAL ACTUAL REVISED Personal Services $194,698 $216,686 $225,355 $239,199 Purchased Services 88,734 64,188 71,000 77,400 Supplies 10,773 9,400 10,600 10,200 Intergovernmental 1,554 30,160 43,017 49,718 Other Charges 31,277 29,401 43,903 42,991 Capital Outlay 10,274 16,849 19,550 55,656 Transfer to Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 Total Airport: $337,309 $366,684 $413,425 $475,164 Source:Airport Manager, May 2004. Discussions with airport management indicate that it has a clear understanding of existing and projected expenses and revenue. This AMPU was going to recommend that the airport raise its landing fees for corporate jets by a significant amount; however, the airport recently raised the amount it charges in line with other reliever airports. Periodic adjustments of hangar and business lease rates will be necessary to maintain a balance with airport expenses. A comparison of land and building lease rates with local rates in North Andover and the city of Lawrence would be beneficial. In addition, the airport should ensure that its overall fee structure for aviation operations is consistent with other reliever airports around Boston and other regions as well. - 187- LWM AMPU Chapter 7- Financial Analysis The current revenue and expense Table 7-6, Projected Annual Revenue(2005) structure should support needed projects through the short term. SOURCE The estimated local share during Expected Committed Revenues for FY'05 the next five years is slightly less Lease/Rent than $150,000, or$30,000 per Air New Realty Trust $4,104 year. Projected reserve funds for EAA-Chapter 1,723 capital costs is currently$56,000 Eagle Complex, Inc. 18,597 Eagle Hangar Association 17,000 (see Table 7-2). The intermediate- Falcon Air, Inc. 19,053 term presents the biggest expense Florence, Don 16,138 challenge for the airport with the Four Star Aviation 14,508 planned terminal remodeling and NexJet, Inc. 20,103 automobile-parking expansion, Lawrence Airport Hangar Association 13,703 both of which are not AIP-eligible Lighthouse Realty Trust 40,298 projects. Although some state Merrimack Valley Fliers 30,759 assistance through MAC may be L.A.N. Realty Trust 24,709 McLeod Hangar 1,800 possible, the airport should plan North Andover Hangar Association 28,542 on funding both projects at 100%. North East Storage 24,244 New England Aviators, L.L.C. 16,901 New England Aviators, L.L.C. 4,136 H. FINANCIAL SUMMARY West Side Hangar Association 12,160 Forgetta Farms 100 Table 7-1 lists each of the short-, Joe's Landing Cafe 16,800 intermediate-, and long-term Positive Star Realty 21,047 projects described herein, with a Adamson Industries 2,640 financial breakdown. The current Total Lease/Rent 349,065 Tiedown Fees 70,000 and anticipated funding sources Total Expected Committed Revenue $419,065 are listed along with their Projected Noncommitted Revenue anticipated share of costs. This Electricity $3,600 list is not a commitment for funding Landing Fees 4,500 and does not necessarily reflect Percent of Gross 24,000 the timing or priority of each Fuel 24,000 project listed. It is based on data Total Projected Noncommitted Revenue $56,100 obtained during the past year in Total Projected Revenue for Fiscal Year 2005 $475,165 Source:Airport Manager, May 2004. - 188- LWM AMPU Chapter 7— Financial Analysis developing this AMPU, reflecting demand-related issues as a result of forecasts developed herein and capacity requirements based on current FAA design criteria. In addition, the cost data shown is in 2003 dollars and will go up with each passing year as a result of inflation, changes in labor laws and rates, and so forth. The amounts shown must be adjusted using the formula shown in Figure 7-A and up-to-date design changes. - 189- Appendix A Acronyms and Definitions 4PR 4-light PAPI right side 4VL 4-light VASI left side AC Advisory Circular ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AGL Above Ground Level AIP Airport Improvement Program ALP Airport Layout Plan ALS Approach light system AMPU Airport Master Plan Update APR Agricultural Preservation Restriction ARC airport reference code ARFF aircraft rescue and firefighting ASMP Airport Safety and Maintenance Plan ASV annual service volume ATC air traffic control ATCT air traffic control tower B&M Boston and Maine BMP best management practices BRL building restriction line CCI Construction Cost Index CFR crash, fire and rescue CIP capital improvement plan DA decision altitude dB decibel A-1 LWM AMPU Appendix A—Acronyms and Definitions DOT U.S. Department Of Transportation EA environmental assessment EFP Existing Facilities Plan EIR Environmental Impact Report ENF Environmental Notification Form EO Executive Order EOEA Executive Office of Environmental Affairs FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FBO fixed-base operator FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GARA General Aviation Revitalization Act GPS Global Positioning System HIRLs high-intensity runway lights HMMH Harris Miller Miller& Hanson, Inc. IAP instrument approach procedure IFR instrument flight rules ILS instrument landing system IMC instrument meteorological conditions INM Integrated Noise Model ISA International Standard Atmospheric LAAS Local Area Augmentation Systems LAC Lawrence Airport Commission LANC Lawrence Airport Noise Committee LIRLs low-intensity runway lights LITLs low-intensity taxiway lights LWM Lawrence Municipal Airport MAC Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection A-2 LWM AMPU Appendix A—Acronyms and Definitions MALSR medium-intensity approach light system MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority MDFA Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act MGL Massachusetts General Laws MGTOW maximum gross takeoff weight MHC Massachusetts Historical Commission MIRLs medium-intensity runway lights MISER Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research MITLs medium-intensity taxiway lights MNHESP Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program mph miles per hour MSGD Multi-Sector General Permit MSL mean sea level MWPA Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act NAVAID navigational aid NDB non-directional radio beacon NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NM nautical mile NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation OFA object-free area OFZ obstacle-free zone PAC Planning Advisory Committee PAPI precision approach path indicator A-3 LWM AMPU Appendix A—Acronyms and Definitions PCL pilot-controlled lighting PGP programmatic general permit PH peak hour PM peak month PMAD peak month/average day RAILs runway-alignment indicator lights REILs runway-end identifier lights RPZ runway protection zone RSA runway safety area RVZ runway visibility zone SRE snow-removal equipment SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAF Terminal Area Forecasts TERPS Terminal Instrument Procedures TOFA taxiway object-free area TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control TSA taxiway safety area U.S.C. U.S. Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service VASI visual approach slope indicator VFR visual flight rules VGLS vertical guidance lighting system VHF very high frequency VMP Vegetation Management Plan VOR VHF omni-directional range WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System A-4 Appendix B Airport Layout Plan Set ALP drawing set is discussed herein and included in a reduced format at the end of this Appendix. This drawing set, consisting of ten drawings, graphically depicts the development requirements presented in Chapter 4 and staged in Chapter 5. In addition to the Title Sheet(Sheet 1), the complete set of drawings consists of the following: • Existing Airport Facilities Plan • Terminal Plan (South) • Terminal Plan (North) • Ultimate Airport Layout Plan • Approach Plan and Profile Runway 05 • Approach Plan and Profile Runway 23 • Approach Plan and Profile Runway 14-32 • Land-Use Plan • FAR Part 77 Airspace Analysis A. EXISTING FACILITIES PLAN The Existing Facilities Plan (EFP)shows the airport as it exists today (Sheet 2). B. TERMINAL PLANS Sheets 3 and 4 depict the proposed terminal-area development for the northern and southern sides of the airport. It is presented at a larger scale than the EFP and ALP so that detail of the terminal- area improvements can be discerned. Examples of improvements the following include: • hangar development • expanded apron for both based- and itinerant-aircraft parking • proposed SRE/maintenance building • expanded automobile parking B-1 LWM AMPU Appendix B—ALP Set C. ULTIMATE AIRORT LAYOUT PLAN The ALP drawing (Sheet 5) is the most utilized plan sheet of the set and must be accepted by the FAA for depicted projects to be eligible for AIP funding. The plan has been prepared in accordance with FAA AC 150/5300-13. In addition to the EFP, this ALP presents a 20-year, three-stage program that has been developed to support the projected activity at Lawrence Municipal Airport. The stages of development correspond in years as follows: short term 0 to 5 years; intermediate term 6 to 10 years; and long term 11 to 20 years. Examples of principal improvement projects include the following: • the addition of Taxiway"G" along the northern side of Runway 23 • the relocation and eventual extension of Taxiway"A" and replacement of Taxiway"B" • improved RSAs to FAA standards • full-compliance RPZs • improved airport lighting, including the addition of a MALSR system to Runway 23 • security fencing D. APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE Sheets 6, 7, and 8 depict plan and profile views of selected obstructions in the inner approach segments relative to and ultimate runway ends; each obstruction is depicted with a numerical identifier. Data has been provided in the obstruction data tables on the drawing for each runway and corresponds to the numbers depicted on the plan and profile views. E. FAR PART 77 AIRSPACE PLAN To protect the airspace and approaches to each runway from hazards that could affect the safe and efficient operation of the airport, federal criteria were established and are known as FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Sheet 9 shows the imaginary surfaces associated with FAR Part 77 for future conditions, which includes the proposed development of a GPS precision approach to Runway 23. Known obstacles to navigable airspace off-airport also have been identified. Those regulations enable the establishment of imaginary surfaces that no object, manmade or natural, should penetrate. FAR Part 77 surfaces should be utilized in zoning and land-use planning adjacent to an airport. B-2 LWM AMPU Appendix B—ALP Set F. LAND-USE PLAN Sheet 10 shows the proposed utilization of property within the airport vicinity. It is intended to consider optimum utilization of land uses while achieving a logical and orderly development of the airport. B-3 N 1 LAWRENCE IR AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN 2004-2009 AIRPORT 808TON LAWRENCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS LOCATION MAP -25-0026-18 AIP NO. 3 � LAwRL ENCE ' ' e AUGUST 2004� F� 5 IaWRENfE MJ 1—L ARPORT \ t 26 tt0 N00 KR I \ 33 � ALL HEATHER wiNDROSE IFR WNDROSE rl �R SWRCE; U 5.wR 94 2 RtWEAU 9TARON SOURCE, U 5.wEA.12 BUREAU SiABGN \ I 14 NUMBER 44�2} NUMR+'R 9a MA 2\ ANA N E SSA H SE 5 A REN M SBA RU EiiS "M V 152—AUO.14I, PiRI(IB SEPi.1952-AVG.t955 \� V LBLkS t0.95x(0 TO J mq h.) G8.At5U 9.ZOA(0 TO 3 m.Dh.) l R PNT N N « Ra 1,m hPE—T 114 R(W la/}2:9i9tx R/w ta(32: 09.>2J[ I 1 BO1H R/W5:96.SSS BOiN RJWS:88.>Si RJw 5:35.53i A/w 23:56.BBS =13"J6318X Rfw 5 R( la: R 65885 R/w u:3.5= VICINITY MAP SHEET TITLE r----� �----T i TITLE SHEET 2 EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES PLAN ID 3 ULTIMATE AIRPORT LAYOUT 4 TERMINAL AREA PLAN(SOUTH) 5 TERMINAL AREA PLAN(NORTH) 6 PAVEMENT HISTORY PLAN —A,(�'° I =v w1� �/ I 7 APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE(RAW 5) 8 APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE(R/W 23) 9 APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE(R/W 14-32) 10 LAND USE PLAN 11 FAR PART 77 AIRSPACE ANALYSIS i INDEX OF SHEETS ALL WEATHER WINDROSE FIR W(NDROSE Dufresne-Henry oFNces usrTrs Poniantl,Main wwx.tlufresne-henry.com ME ...... ......... iL L 11--- @ ........... 23 o lo 53 e a A 4 '10 a .4g —w Hy EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES PLAN Duf no onry AM— wo T, i l roe ;aays N>nY£�Y aYa»YN 3�ts31 p-l —•_ mnamm� ,.• t tAwvC9Yd W. OOc OQl O OOc ,mmrn xsnula p .� haw°xoA3a.oao•s 31VOS')IHdV89 - xra-sl �vn sax31%3)3JYear>s urnxx 3eW3)Vratn'II tNX-4Y1r I p-® n etxavxvn auoetar �•' 9�! y~�Z ti zG AY�Mrdina xxx a. -- --__-- - (Vtrn Wn iWfli)bMMYx 10& © bra I ' \ svel s� Smi Synn �OMtfgn 3a9 Avnxw (ams av�wx sMwrry wa%,)smNxm-t - � -:- �YZ+nd n 3NJX 3N}N iNIX 3tL'N aF9Hit110Y9tNOV AY �rerow.w s el aoob[ 9t aaa s el aao el am'tt mN�xunra 43�u%aw,.wx�� ® 1 t"M•a laic �'��; taodan xbw xx�Y ('aossr n)sera -t e' o ..� P r� ✓� 3 -, ` t3 1 u aim x 11 as � rxv 3nu ta�eo iwx�in „ . » A yaw tXIWXAYW¢MY 3vX3)tM)KKN/09i 2 5 !- C"" ,��}? ItlM1IN 31�1��NY � �7 - � � � � ONIMaYd �bl tnY =—smb Od '- ^{ ..� ; I <l I u Sx w-r S nnM nls+ �swa wYoma,ivr"uaw - Z9 °Ntl iN09H NUS ( a w QOJ v )d )y ",`a •" '3, •/1 �� ' dam' %tSYYM)3a �Ld�bO 4�M I -J lJ YC"J. VY/�` •^'1F ;i � ) \ .' 1 /� at -�- 1Na nawN�M3t+o3oNaw- as'�"..i Q�r�1� �Y ix i 1 1 � 1 �� t � - to�` -� �•' 1'd •�l� Oai: l �1 °aLc0"r�a 'ter- -s-� 'lss,� ;1 "x •r. - y. �j -LftP3'- ,Y,AVMIXvt / \' v AYMIXVl 1 � �, D m \"r g\ •�i �`'�e,� e I 30ati3.80-. x�°Sy£Z S ALtW—� 1 A r - .ox _! dabs,-, / / _ N.%nf•iisrltii i _ - ��/ bl• i s � .gym � 'i � ti. ,. , �z�. •- ,u,r.�+4-Y`'�. '3- KI � d I�' �1 s-� io I '�Z vim^ ° � . . �. •� `�`�� tea.. � .� v 1� �' � �y1 1 � � �s,"-''- '� vMan��,• r :.� � ��\ \ a)\ �J J �•.3.xi� •.. I a ��r �. ��Sn! `� YI 1` �`� til 1 �: � ffi� 1•.e�" � ;�'�\� � I� � .tl.1BMX034t tl3J3a 30b3an5 SOAYMNna en ( ar�oA3e N 000'OL SON3lX3}'I ) a°r'3aru xoYcaase o 4° = i \ 1 $� r,l C ,l - ��O muA�arrr "m uareo xosraana 3 cz ArMNnaq. --d vMu3 �1 a - l'i l i i 1 I 1t -v\ �1Nbld t WX1vtlM a°° rtN � avaxvx mmmna XN, ml f i 1 � Al" a SAS am NMVtx xuurxv xnxm eitiim xwvxv !1,OO 1- 1 y - !�-£--r—I aoa 3wraVnv xtmdona Il_- sax+>ax xm t�u 1 x>urvs.ab - z\a tva)3<qz urxesw+Y.enn aznm>n awsca rtru,auaror � ;- °z 1 � 1 _ _ �i was owe max) .wn olsl mol �"Qs t �x'\ � IIN ad // �' g"'`' as Sur Nouaxus3u mname azsbr m„ plsl mol a °Pozr\x°' I � %'�j� r"I ' _ vao -- Y,oI Y3aY r�u iaxm tr)v3xr (U a:am t»a)reae mlm tW reme ra+a aarwro �+oo� ��: ti �'aenzs-tel � .� 1Of•OLdp1 i v —S 35Y31-i'l StOI �- _ �� 3upaXM OL!tNl Mabd IVItLLSfONI a3tO0Nb HtaON C3SOd0ad u- Lb1 3xtl ddl ��'; L. � (Pmt63aH10N0A32 ��L 0� ataNu6 m .000•S SON3l%3) \� —_-— —--— 31Ut tLLYamY 37. 3JYlansbliJtlOxN IAVMna ��L, I ,OC.VI N2ivOad n8 -_-•a nYXLLIn ae.WSu3 PerEewr 0 OO mn raw+��N� �A.�. GRAPHIC SCALE C FF ups afx ->— OO e® reo t ruxcw :uaa ua) o �w a sD roD 2w m F ��Nc QQ moot rcxa Aro ersE auc. S x s reo/xAvux(E�Axnnax auacq �ew-iGD re.E m mEf UNE `�}� � igo t NAYGR( SUA AW ) C i _ W. w siAE wp-1 G WNWAY wR;N�Rm ebD �) umin PpE �.6 ireo!wwcee(NMM u�o anry - suFn uaA(RSA)• -RSA- s n GRs�ow u tom) ® R(G.Nw (NOtf 30'eDY➢INC XflCllij —-—BRL— — ax — /iRN.nt<f„P,tPpNCZ Y iUL FKMYAUti i1Dx LwE(MPL) — —APR'— — �- (xcw wau) nmsl s _, -`=.�I ® F�Yn,ExwDmc�D�),H NFrmnn n�D.nm AYAIV�EE FW � MEMO ��nNnG D Aue�D� N/A T M P.,�wr�a SXCNi N��= . vvv PZ SEbIENIED C;RClf AND tIClIrEO NINDGDNE ' y !. 8 L w — — — - — — - - - — - - sa -- - __ LU Ex�saNG un�im+a+Ge LU ! auaD c ro eE REAeDYFD ��° � t ) l o © 1 a s G Aura PM c 1 t.---4-� 3 � - � .,ONsr. o MAIN TERMINAL AREA 0 41 IR U 011 +1018 G a F, I Fj F F 1,0 -sy 11-1 -.,--J- TERMINAL AREA PLAN(NORTH) LOS". iim N-H AND- [14, z ---------------------- z ML 5 GRA HIC SCALE A 4 � 9 � R , i I i I r f oT-------------T-T--,---------- -------- - - ---------- ............................1.......!......_.._.._-..-............-.._.-..-................................................................�................... � - 14 S� g _-- - S _ .........if i Jr �-- - --- - � ----�-- fi - ......... ...... s i` r I e�• �o F '� ,�y � --------- ------ ------ I � �. t � p , r ------- u >, { _ ___ � XN willI' Prii �il o� S ,g �o c, g o> 8N m Wl O� p�p�y No. e»dw, LANRENCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ram".., pml.Mmepm +xw APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE Dutrasna-Manry edY� RUNWAY 5 NORTH AN—1 MASSAGHUSETiS 9y ANnen.nwy�.w� yy �666Iiii�J rill I � i r ul� Vrii,np a .._- 84 yy'y�r r/.� X� i dii /i/i/'%�✓'�ri IN --_ ..-. _ ........ � o } I i r vv r .. _. ' vv 8 ' �'l.Ni, v• 4v � i � V � '� S-. I ii.vtO�I lrf'i �.. �i � r tii�i}i lur o e-a w r i / G-'ty„ „i !tY✓ �� JI AA8 8 - A'/ g // \ / -- �v^ `I II/;I 8 ___ __ _ _ ______ l �� r �'�� r N-- / r____ _ _ _ _ - l i I � s t �Q��`��,e��.ayo� vnlpvv'v�iil`'�ip• �v� 8 — — — — e i j\/;i`\I`;�\IIIIII;\�I\l\I`��''��;�'�'�l��lijl�`;�;�;j j�y;�1111 I — -- ----- --- —f h 1"Ilf i iWlhWn'ii Ih/'ugh/i/niliilll'�I Jii I'm `>, \ -- i �ii'�iiiii'i' g � / �d8 '� '7�°C""/ 0 m I o i - N 444 �g O z Pmlat w. e>>ma� V+WRENCE MUNICIPAL pIRPORT IIII` ..___ m Prq.awneg« !Nw Prq. _ APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE beketl sr RUNWAY 23 Dufresne-fianry NORTMAND—R, NusEns -1 ......—V 4aN3D Ei I —Z, —e� 0- 7� OZ, _0 m 0 c z LL z > �V—G. z m b"I hP -K,�S 11 VIIIIII + \10A .1 ooz 31VOS 3IHdWJ9 Ills KAProject Data FileMt-awrencel8110081\ALP Set 2004-20091Sht.10 Land Use Plan.dwg,Layoutl,08/13/200t4 14:04:13,cjackson,ME-PRT-HP10p50c(Color-Overwrite-Enhanced).pc3 I I ' I irl G ORui ai up u II ill � lY " R I'I lid �o nil f d y u I �R0 �i ,ii III i YI r ail 3 x I 1 9i �t�l�lli� A N �a € gggg yggy: 484 r �N� LAWRENCE MIINICIPALAIaPCRT ......-..—...._..--...-..—.—_ IIII�� =l" al LAND USE PLAN Dufr®isn®-H®nry noarN Anoovea, T—AC - e� Appendix C Instrument Approach and Departure Procedures Following are the approved procedures for LWM for the period April 15, 2004, through June 10, 2004. • ILS Runway 05, Amendment 3A • NDB or GPS Runway 05, Amendment 5A • VOR or GPS Runway 23, Amendment 10 • Lawrence Four Departure C-1 LWM AMPU Appendix C—Instrument Approach and Departure Procedures v Os. LAWRENCE,MASSACHUSSTS, AL-65A(FAA) (CLC FLWMI APP US I Rwy Idg $ 11 111.E OW Tpt 1 44 �1% )W 5 Apt Elev 148 LAWRENCE MV"«1)(L ) MmSI I?APPROAOt Grub io 2000 6ma LWM VOR/DME sand hod. ATI n BOSION AM CON LAWRENCE TIC�"' p CON tdNSCOM 126.76 124.4 279.E 11925(CTAF) 124.3 12" 25MANCHEM ))4,4 MIFdT C1 4I LAWRENIME 989 r, 112,5 LWM " = 0.77 RAW A 402 LW L LWM 7 A A595, KWM 17 GRASS LWM 3.9 00 TE?WKS M LWM 1 . 00 LOMACA�F 2380 "4� 053 )12 * ADF R tNr�P T 10� EIS 1,d8 Rwy 32 37L)" V ow(81 one NlkKft LOM Ll ems* --a— f „18121 GRAM INTi 2M 05 , tW'M 3.9 2.3 GS 1000 T H 56 70011 34 wMa r rye- "''. dt 8 76 CATER A 8 I7 TWR S RS 5 2C1C9 QW'A) THE 233 700-1 700-13A S t 5 7 QE1 1 55d 16aLt I) W(60C-1i I &%(6W 1 V) 2tL3 7ci) 1 572(sI L) 72CD-1 7", - aI � ,23, CIRCLM 57"2(MOO I�) 59 (6M2) � CLAPS M MINI RUMS 05.30 5 NM 5 23 - Cam,fAF M�dL R I4.32 5 LCJC 5 1 356( 'I) 356 )-T 1L] fAF so MAP 5 W 72C? 1 572 d6 p 1) 72D-1 7 IKnahs a°S 9 120 I5 I Y 572( 9�t 1 5921 2) 5 OD 3 2Q 2:301 'Mi 1.40 LAY404CE,MASSACHLUM LA E Wit (L C-2 LWM AMPU Appendix C—Instrument Approach and Departure Procedures r'.oft LAB,MASSA AL-&U(FAA( Uw LW APP CRS '-y 1 11K ND car GO RWY Apt E1ew 148 LAWREWE WJN(( WM) ASSED APPROAM Clunk Jo 2C100 A _t drect LWM1 VL7RJME Ned,. ATl$ KWON AFP CON, [AWR94a TOWER* GND CON UN ICOM 126.'S 124.A 27ILS 11945(CTAn lZC3 1 „ MANCHEFER 11A,A MHT `y LAWRENICE 989 112.5 LWMS 321A2�F 593A A 374 LOWIAF\ 7 A 595 KA A 589 ctnN 1ETT TEWKS R4T Iwo t0WlAF 054"(5) 112.7 S dEWS Okra 74 10 NM ELEY 148 R r 3'2 Vdg 371 V One Knu* 200D LWM1 1.1c+1denrR paftm LOMR 11 2" r 112.5 VGS1 curd 600vt 2.97" ro wgks not TCF1i 5$ 176 2 T 21 mww TD E 233 CAT C»CTRY A. a C 1Y 1:" 5 920-1 920-1 920-24 920-2�a ,� 203 ' 776(9DO.1) 776 W 16) 776(800.2�) 776(SM 2Y�) 920-1 920-1 920.211G° 920-Vi RE1L R-r 5,23, aRCUNGr 772('RM•1( 772( 1%r( 7721 2W) 7721000-2M X a 3 5 73� KRIED 1t TT 052"'5 NM1 680-1 6W1 +i ir"FAF MA Nay 1 d•3'!2 S-5 680-1 536(600-1 ,536(600-14i) 536(6W-141(, FAF b MAP 5 NMt 1 G1R 81N ?2p 1' S7 2(600 1} 7 2D-1 t 7 -2 h� d0 9t6 120 150 5n(6 01 1�1) 592(600.2p ImiwSod 5:M.2201 2301 2M 1:E LAWRR4CE,A+AASSACHUSETTS (LAWM4a WJN1LWM) C C-3 LWM AMPU Appendix C—Instrument Approach and Departure Procedures LAWRENCE,MASSACHUSETTS AL,&U(FAA) VOR/0ME LWM APP CRS I Rwy Idg 50W11126 Y 1'f C" Vf w7 V�/ 1 La7 q,an � Apt Elev 148 LAWRENCE MUN)(LWM) v 1 S%D AM ROACK Climb to 20 vio LWM R-233 b HAGET LCJi�A/1rcMt and hdd. AT1S �GN APP CON LAWR *LCE TOWER* GNO CON UNLCOM 125.75 124.4 279.6 119.25(CTAF) 124.3 1228 A �o MANCHESTER fir►'1 i r, 114.4 MHT ---- INT Chan 91 A tWM ED A 989 375± 321A A593 LAF RW23 LAWRENCE 112.5 LWM A595 C1wan 72 �`N M 2,5 17 "• LWM ? R•233 A 589 LCMA ME HAM yf� � 270 402 LW t=*—* HAGET INT ¢ E° EtEV 148 Rwy 32 kig 371 F 237°3.9 NM------ LTME OM A` lam FAF Ir 11E� 144 2000 LW VCNtlDAW wAin 10 NM LWM R-233 m02 VELAN INT ~�""`'.. 112.5 RW23 LWM 2.4 o.✓2 17TWR LWM 1.5 (.../� 233 ( G 2.90° 1 VGSI and dent 203 TCH 53 angles no wincidont. i.s w 2 A wW REd.Rwys 5,23 and 32 HIRL Rwy 5.236 C�rF"C Rt ^ B 640-N 640-1V2 `Rwy lk32f S-23 6d4 1 A96(500.1) 4961500.1 k) 496(500-P 1 FAF to MAP 3.9 NM CRtCtR IG 72C1 1 572 f600 1) 720-% 740-2 Kraan 60 90 120 160 180 572(600-Pt) 592(600.2) lMw 15412:3611:57 J;Ul 1.18 LAWRENCE,MA.SWHUSEM LAWRENCE M UNI((LWM)) Amdl 10 03359 4204aN-71°07^W V4 R or Gf SMr I/ 23 3 183 C-4 LWM AMPU Appendix C—Instrument Approach and Departure Procedures 0450 I AWRENCE FOUR DEPARTURE Al-65A(FAN u�W�N E,L�� MASSACAAUI( UMM � AT1S 126,75 -� C44000N CONCORD 124,3 CON LAWRI NC E TCJWM'E'R* C hm 76 118 119.25( TAF) N43013.19'•W71°3453` NA3"25.54"-Wrf7p'36.81' BOWON DEP CON L-25.6 L-'25 26,H•11 124.4 279.6 MANCHESTER 1 14.A WIT 116.5 PSM 91 CIM112 N42052.1 t''-W71'22.Ir N43605.7"•'u�+7gN".k N7 L•226 }� L.25.26 115.1 C:TR chm 98' NA2'17,48'-W72056.97' LYG L.25.20,H-ID-11 N42"16.06` F'RU W✓71*A&71' NA2"13.79' BARKS t-25-28 BOSOX W6 49.48' 113.0 RA,F .. N42°12.11" DRUNK L 25,H 11 C3+pn 77 W71"3.7.66" BMDY 0*39,98' NA 1 57,32° W7C1°39 38" N4 .7 �Wi�7" A 2"CY9 2' 9 2° 2. 7 L-25-28 L 25" 1i ieS a B W70"57.12' L-25.28 L•25.28,H.1 C1.11 PROVIDENCE AER' N41 46.5 N41°55AB' NA1"43.,W*71"25.78' Nk�� L•25.28 14AaRYHAS VINEYARD W72"42,37 H-10-11 �. 5. H 1 1 W70r'46.C19 4 114.5 Mkv E L-25,H-10-11 Ohm 92 NA 1'23.77'. 7Q'1' .r6" S Y L 25,H40 7 NA'1856.,A6'W72°4 i.31' Lr25•'28 SANDY POINT AN4�1*16.91'-YV70'01, 117.8 SEY+_,_ .. Chm 125 NA1•10,p5'-W71'34.57' NOTE': C�orR not 1d.scole. L-25.28,H-1 D L 25,H-10 DEPARTURE ROUTE DESCRIPTION All aircrlaFt expect radar ors to appropriate depicted NA'VAID/fix. Maintain 1 `. Expect Further clearace to filed altitude/fight ten minutes after departure- TAKE-OFF ALL RUNWAYS: Heading as assigned by ATC for vectors to assigned NAVAID/fix. LA�w'"RENCE FOUR DEPARTURELw�1vE RE LW Na"F,MLrNI S�(1�, -M) 04050 185 C-5 Appendix D Agency Letters • Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries &Wildlife, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, letter dated 7 February 2001 • Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries &Wildlife, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, letter dated 17 May 2001 • Oxbow Associates, Inc., Site Visit Summary and Rare Species Impact Analysis, report dated April 2001 • Massachusetts Historical Commission, letter dated 3 December 2001 • U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish &Wildlife Service, letter dated 17 December 2001 D-1 LWM AMPU Appendix D—Agency Letters Commonwealth of Massachusetts Divin'Wnof Fisheirikes&Wildlife Wayne F. MacCallum, Director 7 February 2001 North Andover Conservation Commission Town Building, 120 Main Street Ito North Andover„MA 01845 FEW RE: Applicant, Massachusetts Aeronautics.Commis ""'., Project Location: 492 Sutton Street Project Description: Vegetation Management Plan NHESP File No. 98-4685 Dear Commissioners. The applicant'.listed above has submitted a Notice of Intent with project plans(dated 5/22/00)to the Natural. Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) in compliance with the inland rare wildlife species section of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations(310 CMR 10.59)for the subject project. The Commission specifically requested our comments on the possible rare species habitat impacts associated with this project. Based on a review of the information that was provided and the information that is currently contained in our database,the NHESP has determined that this project occurs within the actual wetland habitat of the 131and turtle(Entydcoidea blandin h),a state-protected rare wildlife species. The Blandin 's turtle is state-protected as`Threatened"pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act(M,G,t,.c 1.31).It is our opinion that this project,as currently proposed,rna adversel effect the actual habitat of the Blandon 's turtle.We have enclosed a copy of the DWW Policy 90-2 to help the Commission understand the standards and procedures that must be employed to determine adverse effects to rare wildlife habitat. Also,a factsheet. on the life history and'habitat requirements oftheBlanding"s turtle is enclosed for your use. The wetlands of cone-ern are identified on the submitted plans as W8b and W9 off ramp 3Z therefore,our review is focused only on this area. The applicant has identified wetland W8b as a saturated to permanently flooded red maple swamp with shrub understory, and W9 as a flooded emergent marsh. The vegetation management area is about ,56 acres within W8b and .31 acres within W9. These areas are important feeding., breeding, overwintering, migration and shelter habitat for Blanding's turtles. Blanding's turtles inhabit a variety of wetland and upland types. Adults may be found in ponds„rivers,marshes"vernal pools, shrub swamps,forested swamps and streams. The NHESP has concerns about the intended vegetative structure and composition within W8b. Wetland Willi could be managed as a short palustrine forest without affecting its current habitat value,but should not be managed as a shrub wetland,Its conversion should occur over a number of years, This initially may w , Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Route 135,Westborough,MA 01581 Tel:(508)792-7270 x 200 Fax:(508)792.7821 An Agency of the Department of Fisheries,Wildlife&Environmental l aw Enforcement hitp:/�www,stase.ma.us/dfwele/dfw/nhesp D-2 LVVM ANPU AppondixD—AgonoyLottors LVVM ANPU AppondixD—AgonoyLottors LWM AMPU Appendix D—Agency Letters Commonwealth ofMassachusetts mvinone# Flshw"wies&Wildlffe Wayne F, Mac allunt, Director 17 May 2041 Is z North Andover Conservation Commission "fawn Building„120 Main Street BN North Andover,MA 01845 RE: Applicant, Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Project Location: 492 Sutton Street: M&HEMY.INN. Project.(Description. "Vegetation Management Plan NFIR'SP File No. 8-4685 Pear Commissioners: On 27 March 201O1,1 conducted a site visit for the Natural heritage&Endangered Species Program(NHESP)to verify the presence of important wetland habitat for the Blanding"s turtle,and to review the proposed vegetation management proposal in relation to this habitat. Also attending were Richard Doucette,Randy Christiansen,Brian LaCrasse,and Brian Butler, Mr. Butler has extensive experience with the Blanding"s turtle life history and habitat requirements.He submitted the"Site Visit Summary and Rare Species Impact Analysis for Lawrence Municipal Airport,North Andover,Massachusetts"dated 4/2001, Based upon site observations and the .Butler report, it is the NHESP"s opinion that the airport wetlands do not support important wetland habitat,for Blanding,"s turtles. The ponds and small emergent wetland on the property are too shallow for over-wintering by Bllanding°s turtles,which means the closest possible over-wintering habitat is a marshland off Barker Street, over 3000 feet away. Blanding"s turtles are capable of moving this distance in search of foraging habitat,but in this case there doesn't appear to be any viable movement corridors such as interconnecting wetlands,streams,or undeveloped laved. The area between the airport ponds and the Barker Street over-wintering habitat is well-developed with Rt. 125/133, commercial. buildings,parking lots,a 50+house subdivision,and agricultural land',which significantly reduces the likelihood of an animal safely traversing this distance. Therefore,it is our opinion that the proposed project does not occur within the actual wetland g" y important wetlarud habitat. Please note that the Nl(ESP will be habitat of the Btlandin s turtle.,and will not adversely affect , removing this Estimated Habitat from the map,and will no longer review Notice of Intent projects in this area. In the future,applicants who have projects that directly alter wetland resource areas within Estimated Habitat can expedite the rare species review process by providing,is advance,detailed habitat impact reports conducted by experts. Please feel free to advise applicants on this point. Thank you for your persistent pursuit of rare species habitat protection.. Since 'y Patnei Huc' NHESP Wetlands viromnental Reviewer cc. Massac eats Aeronautics Commission panda 1 Christensen,Dufresne-Henry,lnc. Brian Butter,Oxbow Associates �•4,'Ptnaeo Sprague„DEP Northeast Regional Office v Natural Herbage & Endangered Species Program Route 135,Westborough,MA 01581 Tel.(508)792-7270 x 2W Fax.(508)792.7821 a w Are Agency of the'Department of Fisheries,Wildlife&Environmental Law Enforcement http://www.state.ma.usldfwcle/dfw/nhesp D-5 LVVM ANPU AppendixD—AgenoyLottors LVVM ANPU AppendixD—AgenoyLottors LWM AMPU Appendix D—Agency Letters Introduction On March 27, 2001 a site walk was conducted to review the areas associated with the proposed Vegetation Management Plan (VMP)for the area of runway 82 in the southeast portion of the Lawrence Municipal Airport, Present at the site visit were P. Huckery(NNE P), R. Doucette(MAC), R, Christensen (D&H), and B. Butler(OA). Prior to the joint meeting relevant plan material was reviewed and the area of interest was field-reviewed by H. Christensen and B. Butler. At that time habitat features of the associated wetlands and open water ponds were evaluated for their ability and probability of supporting Blanding"s turtle(Emydoidea blandinglr'), the species that is attributed to the estimated habitat polygon(WH 11 g)that overlies the area of proposed vegetation management. Site features Two small, unnamed ponds were reviewed. These are referred to as South.and North Ponds as shown on the accompanying ortho-photo in Appendix A. Both of these ponds are artifacts of previous human alteration to the local landscape and neither is shown on an historic photo displayed in the airport office. Construction of the access road that now leads to the fixed base operations building appears to have created the North Pond and other historic excavation and fill activity probably created the South Pond from an area that was apparently wet meadow or bottomland scrub. The South Pond drains by way of an intermittent stream to the North Pond. This in turn drains by way of a partially occluded culvert to an intermittent stream flowing northeast and ultimately to the Merrimack Fiver. Whereas the culvert is currently compromised,we observed flow from the North Pond to a storm drain system associated with the Dymec, Inc, auxiliary parking area as well.. To the west of the two ponds are areas of forested hardwood swamp with substrate ranging from seasonally flooded to seasonally saturated, Portions of this system (W8a and W8b)are proposed to be within the VMP,wherein hardwoods greater than fifteen feet in height will be removed. There is also a. small pocket of emergent wetland and young growth pole timber(Wg)that witl be incorporated in the VMP. Critical review of the North and South ponds which have an aggregate area of less than one acre, indicate that they present sub-optimal habitat for Blanding's turtle. This species is typically associated with large,emergent and/or scrub- shrub wetland habitats„ often with remote satellite wetlands such as vernal pools or permanent ponds that are utilized seasonally by individual animals. However„ Oxbow Associates, Inc. l D-8 LVVM ANPU AppendixD—AgenoyLottors Z K gZ ,0 11,v-V ",k�,Jl V,, 1 44 -41 OXBOW ASSOCIATES,INC 1-0-C limp"" F" LWM AMPU Appendix D—Agency Letters ? ' 7 C 1 � ". The Commonwealth of Msachus William Francis Galvin,Secretary of the Commonwealth Massachusetts Historical Commission December 3,2001 Jessica M.Bulkoch Environmental Analyst Dufresne-henry,Inc.. 2.2 Free Street Portland,ME 04101-3900 RE: Lawrence Municipal Airport Master Flan Update,North Andover,MA, M1HC#RC.1182 Dear Ms.Eulloch Thank you for your inquiry regarding the above-referenced project, Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the information you.submitted and have the following comments. Undisturbed portions of the airport property are archaeologically sensitive and are likely to contain as yet unidentified archaeological sites.This sensitivity is determined by the property's proximity to known. archaeological sites. Review of MHC's'Inventory of the Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth indicates that several archaeological sites are known to exist within or very near the. Lawrence Municipal Airport. 'These include sites associated with the Native American settlement of the Merrimack Walley(MHC,site#19-ES 181, 19 ES-188,and 19-ES-1.62). Proximity to known archaeological sites is a strong indication that an area is likely to contain archaeological resources. The archaeological sensitivity of the airport property is also determined by its relatively level terrain,well drained soils,and proximity to water(Merrimack River,Lake Cochichewick,and several small streams). Review of MHC's Inventory indicates that Native American archaeological sites are often found in similar environmental settings. Also located within the;airport property is the Cato Freeman Site(MHC#NA1),HA,O1),which was the eighteenth-nineteenth-century homestead of an Africa n-Ame rican family. In 2000,M'HC reviewed the results of an archaeological site examination(950 CMR 70)of the Cato Freeman Site and determined. that the site has been extensively disturbed,does not constitute a significant archaeological resource,and is not eligible for listing in the National and State Registers of Historic Places('36 CI^R 60). The remainder of the airport property has riot been systcauttically surveyed by professional archaeologists. Therefore,the nature and range of archaeological resources it contains are not yet known. In New England,archaeological sites are usually buried in the soil and thus require systematic test excavations to be identified. At present,M1.1C does not have sufficient information to assess the potential effect of the proposed project. $M"lHC requests the opportunity to review more specific project plans when these become available in order 220 Morrissey Boulevard,Boston,Massachusetts 02125 (617)727-8470•Fax!(617)727-512.8 w,ww.state.ma.us/secJmhc D-11 LVVM ANPU AppendixD—AgenoyLottors to assess whether the implementation of the updated master plan may affect significant archaeological resources and whether an archaeological survey is warranted to identify and locate archaeological resources within project impact areas,. These connnents are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(36 CFR 800)and Massachusetts General Laws,Chapter 9,Sections 26-27C,as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988(950 CMR 70-7 1) If you have any questions,please feel free to contact ine at this office. Archaeologist/Preservation Planner Massachusetts Historical Commission Xcl. Federal Aviation Administration Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Lawrence Airport Commission North Andover Historical Commission O-|2 LWM AMPU Appendix D—Agency Letters United ,States Department of the T�1�eriot .. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE� "� DEC G 2001 ilkq New England Field Office 70 Commercial Street, wile 300-1 sua"t a Concord, New Hampshire 03301-5087 RE.- Airport]Master Plan Update December 1.7,2001 Lawrence Municipal Airport Lawrence,Massachusetts Jessica M.Eullach. Dufresne-Henry,Inc. 22 Free Street Portland,ME 04101-3900 Dear Ms,Bulloch: This responds to your November 1, 2001 letter requesting information on the presence of federally-listed and proposed,endangered or threatened species in relation to the Airport Master Plan Update for the Lawrence Municipal Airport in Lawrence,Massachusetts.Our comments are provided in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered.Species Act(ESA)of 1973,as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)- Based on information currently available to us, no federally-listed or proposed, threatened or endangered species under the jurisdiction of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service are known to occur in the project area, with the exception of occasional transient bald eagles (Haliaeet''us letrcocephalus•)- Preparation of a Biological Assessment or further consultation with us under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required, Should project plans change, or additional information on listed or proposed species becomes available„this determination may be reconsidered. "Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact me at 603-223-2541 if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely yours, Michael Amaral Endangered Species Specialist New England field Office D-13