Airport Master Plan Update

Rawlins Municipal Airport–Harvey Field

Working Paper #1 Meeting with Advisory Committee

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Call to order: 10:00 a.m. (Sign-In Sheet)

A signature sheet and meeting handout were circulated. Jeff announced that Christy Yaffa, WYDOT-Aeronautics would not be able to attend. Jeff presented a brief overview of the Agenda generated by SEH, and walked-through the major components of Working Paper #1; including the Introduction, Inventory, Forecast, Facility Needs and initial Alternatives. It was mentioned that the Working Paper #1 was comprehensive, since the Airport Board expressed a keen interest to consolidate much of the Airport information into a single AMP document.

Jeff reviewed what tasks were included in this Working Paper #1, relative to all the tasks in the AMP process. The importance of this meeting get feedback from the Advisory Committee on Working Paper #1, and get a direction regarding the recommended AMP facility needs, space allocation and alternative layout concepts. The goal would be to start identifying the ‘types’ and ‘priority’ of Airport projects that the Advisory Committee felt most important to submit to WYDOT-Aeronautics & FAA to include in their Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

Jeff discussed the new WYDOT-Aeronautics classification system for General Aviation airports, in which Rawlins was only one of a few Wyoming airports expected by WYDOT to change classifications in the next 20-years; from an ‘Intermediate’ to a ‘Business’ general aviation airport. Jeff mentioned that there were certain ‘facility’ and ‘service’ goals that WYDOT established as thresholds for these classifications of GA airports, and that Rawlins was uniquely being considered by WYDOT in terms of future levels of activity, services and regional impact.

Airport Master Plan Update

Working Paper #1 Meeting

March 6, 2008

Page 2

Per the Meeting handout, Jeff summarized the following major elements within Working Paper #1, as follows:

. . . Airport facility and pavement conditions, noting that WYDOT-Aeronautics had yet to schedule Runway 10-28 pavement cores.

. . . Airport activity levels, including the most demanding based and transient aircraft using RWL.

. . . Airport wind patterns, and runway usage.

. . . Airport instrument approach procedures, and needed improvements.

. . . Airport user survey responses – top 5 for the airfield and terminal area

. . . Airport inventory findings.

. . . Airport forecast findings – concentrating on the 20-year ‘critical aircraft’ demands – which is expected to be a small-cabin business jet, as represented by the Cessna Citation 500 Series.

Gregg Olson made the comment that the forecasts look too aggressive over the 20-year period, compared to historical activity. Jeff commented that the Airport had reported the same activity levels for the last 10-years, and that there appears to be more activity than reported to FAA/WYDOT. Jerry Mason made the comment that the 2007 RWL traffic levels seemed high. Jeff commented that the 2007 activity levels were based on 1) RWL Airport User Survey responses (±6,000 operations) and 2) RWL FBO Logged Activity (±4,900 operations) – knowing that not all users were contacted or logged. For verification, Jeff will provide Jerry (Advisory Committee) with a detailed list of the 2007 activity level. FYI … Jeff explained that activity was counted in operations, not flights, as a touch & go equals 2 operations, one for the landing and one for the takeoff.

From this, the Airport Facility Needs were discussed, starting with the Runway length(s). It was determined, based on the ‘critical aircraft’ forecast, that Runway 4-22 would only need to be 7,300’ long – 300’ more than the current 7,008’ length. The larger jets would continue using the Airport, but not at a frequency by which FAA/WYDOT would require upgrading the Airport to meet these medium to large-cabin business jets, by airport design standards. In addition, no one user identified an imminent need for additional runway length at RWL. This has two important consequences: 1) Runway 4-22 would continue being designated as an ARC B-II runway – not the more demanding ARC C/D geometric design requirements, such as the length of the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and size of the Runway Protection Zones (RPZ), and 2) Runway 4-22 would not be planned for an extended to the 8,150’ length as recommended in the previous 2000 RWL ALP Update. This would also improve the chances of getting a precision-like approach, due to rising terrain towards the east. For Runway 10-28, since it was cited as the number 1 airfield facility deficiency by the RWL Airport User Surveys, a future length of 4,800’ x 75’ would be identified on the ALP – with an extension towards the southeast.

Airport Master Plan Update

Working Paper #1 Meeting

March 6, 2008

Page 3

Air service was discussed, including anticipated passenger demands at Rawlins over 20-years. Comparisons were made to other Wyoming commercial service airports, in terms of their current passenger activity, airlines and aircraft equipment currently being used. Jeff reviewed the key points in the ‘Airline Service – White Paper’ included in Working Paper #1, including the facilities and infrastructure ‘required’ for commercial service, and the estimated cost of 6.2 million for improvement needed to accommodate an airline carrier – probably an Essential Air Service (EAS) carrier, perhaps with connecting service to Denver (similar to Worland and Laramie). Jeff showed the ±500’ x ±600’ ‘footprint’ (7.5 acres) and where this development would likely occur within the RWL terminal area – for space allocation purposes. The Advisory Committee seemed interested in showing this as long-term development for the Airport. Dwight mentioned that the Airline area might be better suited closer to the intersection of Runway 4-22 and Runway 10-28.

RWL instrument approaches were discussed. The AMP process would investigate improvements to the existing approaches, including the possibility for ‘precision’ or ‘positive vertical guidance’ approaches – based on a future 7,300’ Runway 4-22 length, with the additional 300’ added to the Runway 22 end. Gregg Olson mentioned that the ‘precision’ approach would increase the Building Restriction Line (BRL) from 500’ to 750’, as offset from the Runway 4-22 centerline, which might impact future hangar development. Jeff will look at the possible terrain restrictions to a ‘precision’ approach, as FAA will be establishing GPS/WAAS precision approach criteria in the next 5 to 10 years, if not sooner. Jeff will also contact Christy Yaffa at WYDOT-Aeronautics to find out more about their upcoming Wyoming Statewide Instrument Approach Study, to find out what this means for Rawlins, and to make sure that the WYDOT and AMP arrive at the same findings and recommendations.

Peter Elzi, with THK Associates presented the major findings of the Airport Landside Development Plan, for future industrial/business park expansion at the Airport. Peter reviewed the major economic and market-related drivers to future growth of the Rawlins Primary Trade Area, and developments which could reasonably be competitive at the Airport. As summarized as a White Paper in Working Paper #1, the Airport could reasonably accommodate 30 acres of future industrial/business park growth over the next 20-years, assuming the infrastructure and controlling ownership was in-place. Peter identified the 25 to 30 acre area proposed for this expansion, all of which appears to be contained on existing Airport property. Gregg Olson agreed that the Airport industrial/business park would likely serve as an ‘overflow’ for future Rawlins growth of these types of businesses. SEH and THK will send Mark, Lou and Dan an electronic copy of the proposed industrial/business park area for additional comments – then provide more drawing details once comments have been received. Jeff will follow-up with the 6 businesses that identified an interest for space at the Airport -- and will notify the Advisory Committee as to the results.

Airport Master Plan Update

Working Paper #1 Meeting

March 6, 2008

Page 4

Terminal area facility needs were discussed, with the most imminent needs being additional hangar development (6 Airport Survey respondents identified a need for new hangar space at RWL in the near future), and future dedicated terminal building space – which meets WYDOT.

Hangar expansion was discussed. The near-term needs probably included 1 to 3 new individual box hangars – and a 6 to 8 unit T-hangar (which are usually most economical). Gregg Olson pointed out the issues with grade, drainage and taxiway/ramp grade issues. Jeff noted that several hangars would be removed (denoted by yellow shading) in the near future – and to also make room for additional hangars – as demand warrants. Gregg expressed and interest in expanding the hangars (individual box hangars) north of the existing 4 set of box hangars. Jeff will provide the Advisory Committee with a recommendation, if feasible due to future ‘precision’ runway BRL of 750’. Jeff will follow-up with the 6 aircraft owners that expressed an interest for a new hangar at RWL.

Jeff discussed three (3) options presented in Working Paper #1, regarding a new site for a dedicated GA terminal building, of 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. Jeff acknowledged that several existing structures would need to be removed (denoted as yellow buildings). Dwight mentioned the importance of additional auto parking (30 to 40 spaces) to support the new terminal building. The Advisory Committee appeared favor Option ‘B’.

The proposed road through Tract #3 was discussed. Gregg Olson mentioned that the Airport Board had proceeded with providing the City with an easement for the road (100’ to 120’ ROW). Gregg Olson would provide Jeff with the MOU for the easement. Jeff thought that the road would eventually be useful in serving the planned Airport terminal & landside development, as presented in Working Paper #1. Because the road did not encroach proposed ‘aeronautical’ uses, and would eventually serve better access to the Airport terminal & landside development, these should be positive factors in the FAA/WYDOT supporting the road.

NOTE: The next Advisory Committee meeting would be in approximately 2 months – at which time a more detailed airport/terminal/landside plan would be presented. Depending on WP#1 comments from the Advisory Committee, an interim meeting may be necessary to confirm the preferred terminal and landside layouts, hangar expansion, and terminal building location.

Adjournment: 12:45 PM

EN/JPS (3-10-200)