Winterset Airport Master Layout Plan

WINTERSET MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT

AUGUST 2013

PREPARED FOR:
Winterset Municipal Airport Authority

PREPARED BY:

building strong communities.

DES MOINES METRO
1360 NW 121
st
Street
Clive, Iowa 50325
P 515.964.1229
F 515.964.2370

The preparation of this document was supported, in part, through Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) financial assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration (Project Number 3-19-0098-06-
2009) as provided under Title 49 U.S.C., Section 47104.

The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this
report by the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to
participate in any development depicted therein nor does it indicate that the proposed
development is environmentally acceptable or would have justification in accordance with
appropriate public laws.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
WINTERSET MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE

i | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INVENTORY ......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Airport Location and Background .................................................................. 2
1.4 Airport Role .................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Neighboring Airports .................................................................................... 5
1.6 Airside Facilities ........................................................................................... 5
1.7 Landside Facilities ...................................................................................... 13
1.8 Navigational Aids ....................................................................................... 15
1.9 Visual Aids ................................................................................................. 16
1.10 Communication and Weather Aids .............................................................. 17
1.11 Obstructions to Air Navigation .................................................................... 18
1.12 Planning and Zoning .................................................................................. 18
1.13 Traffic Patterns ........................................................................................... 19
1.14 Utilities ...................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 2: DEMAND FORECASTS ......................................................................... 21
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 21
2.2 Socio-Economic Profile ............................................................................... 21
2.3 General Aviation Trends Analysis ................................................................ 26
2.4 Baseline Activity .......................................................................................... 31
2.5 Forecast Methodology ................................................................................ 32
2.6 Activity Forecasts ........................................................................................ 32
2.7 Recommended Forecast .............................................................................. 37
2.8 Design Aircraft ........................................................................................... 39
2.9 Annual Instrument Operations .................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 3: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 41
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 41
3.2 Airside Requirements .................................................................................. 45
3.3 Landside Requirements ............................................................................... 52
3.4 Navigational Aid Requirements ................................................................... 52
3.5 Visual Aid Requirements ............................................................................. 53
3.6 Weather Aid Requirements .......................................................................... 54
3.7 Land Use Planning and Zoning Requirements .............................................. 55
CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 57
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 57
4.2 No Project Development ............................................................................. 57
4.3 Development Alternatives ........................................................................... 57

ii | P a g e

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW .............................................................. 63
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 63
5.2 Environmental Documentation Methods....................................................... 63
5.3 Environmental Consequences ..................................................................... 65
5.4 Agency Coordination .................................................................................. 66
CHAPTER 6: AIRPORT PLANS .................................................................................. 67
6.1 Sheet #1: Airport Layout Drawing .............................................................. 67
6.2 Sheet #2: Part 77 Airspace Drawing .......................................................... 69
6.3 Sheet #3: Runway 14/32 Existing Approach Profiles Drawing ...................... 72
6.4 Sheet #4: Ultimate RUNWAY Approach Profiles Drawing ............................ 72
6.5 Sheet #5: Inner Portion Existing RWY 14 Approach Profile ........................... 72
6.6 Sheet #6: Inner Portion Existing RWY 32 Approach Profile ........................... 73
6.7 Sheet #7: Inner Portion Ultimate RWY 18 Approach Profile ......................... 73
6.8 Sheet #8: Inner Portion Ultimate RWY 36 Approach Profile ......................... 73
6.9 Sheet #9: Terminal Area Plan .................................................................... 73
6.10 Sheet #10: Land Use Plan ......................................................................... 74
6.11 Sheet #11: Property Map Drawing ............................................................. 74
CHAPTER 7: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................... 75
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 75
7.2 Short-Term Projects: 2013-2017 ................................................................ 75
7.3 Intermediate-Term Projects: 2018-2022 ..................................................... 77
7.4 Long-Term Projects: 2023-2033 ................................................................ 78
7.5 Summary ................................................................................................... 79
CHAPTER 8: FINANCING PLAN .............................................................................. 85
8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 85
8.2 Federal Aviation Administration Assistance .................................................. 85
8.3 Iowa DOT Assistance .................................................................................. 87
8.4 Private Sector Funding/Investment ............................................................... 88


iii | P a g e

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Winterset Regional Location ...................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2: Winterset Municipal Airport Location .......................................................... 3
Figure 1.3: Existing Airfield Facilities ........................................................................... 7
Figure 1.4: Turf Tie-Downs ......................................................................................... 9
Figure 1.5: Jet-A Fuel Truck ........................................................................................ 9
Figure 1.6: Aircraft Fueling ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 1.7: Snow Removal Equipment ....................................................................... 10
Figure 1.8: North 3-unit T-Hangar ............................................................................ 11
Figure 1.9: Middle 3-Unit T-Hangar .......................................................................... 11
Figure 1.10: South 3-Unit T-Hangar ......................................................................... 12
Figure 1.11: FBO Maintenance Hangar .................................................................... 12
Figure 1.12: Conventional Hangar #5 ...................................................................... 12
Figure 1.13: Conventional Hangar #6 ...................................................................... 12
Figure 1.14: 10-unit T-Hangar ................................................................................. 12
Figure 1.15: Terminal Facility (Exterior View).............................................................. 13
Figure 1.16: Terminal Facility (Interior View) .............................................................. 13
Figure 1.17: Public Vehicle Parking Area ................................................................... 14
Figure 1.18: Airport Entrance Road ........................................................................... 15
Figure 1.19: Airport Rotating Beacon ........................................................................ 16
Figure 1.20: Runway 32 PAPI-2 System ..................................................................... 17
Figure 1.21: Lighted Windcone ................................................................................. 18
Figure 2.1: Population Growth Rates, 1960-2010 ...................................................... 23
Figure 2.2: Super King Air 300 ................................................................................. 39
Figure 2.3: Citation II ............................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.1: Alternative #1: Construct 4,000 x 75 Primary Runway 14/32 ................. 59
Figure 4.2: Alternative #2: Construct 4,000 x 75 Primary Runway 18/36 ................. 59
Figure 6.1: FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces ............................................................... 71


iv | P a g e

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Airport Milestone Events ............................................................................. 4
Table 1.2: Area Public Airports ................................................................................... 6
Table 1.3: Runway 14/32 Features ............................................................................. 8
Table 1.4: Aircraft Hangar Information ..................................................................... 11
Table 2.1: Madison County Historical Population ....................................................... 22
Table 2.2: Winterset Historical Population ................................................................. 22
Table 2.3: Madison County Projected Population ....................................................... 23
Table 2.4: Major Private Employers ........................................................................... 24
Table 2.5: Income Per Capita ................................................................................... 25
Table 2.6: Median Household Income ...................................................................... 25
Table 2.7: Winterset Municipal Airport Projections from IASP ....................................... 28
Table 2.8: Historical Based Aircraft ............................................................................ 28
Table 2.9: Based Aircraft ........................................................................................... 29
Table 2.10: FAA Airport Reference Codes (ARC) ......................................................... 30
Table 2.11: Winterset Based Aircraft by FAA Classification .......................................... 30
Table 2.12: Historical Aircraft Operations .................................................................. 31
Table 2.13: Projected Based Aircraft .......................................................................... 33
Table 2.14: Projected Based Aircraft Fleet Mix ............................................................ 34
Table 2.15: Projected Aircraft Operations Using Growth Rates .................................... 34
Table 2.16: Projected Aircraft Operations Using Based Aircraft Methodology ............... 34
Table 2.17: Projected Operational Breakdown ........................................................... 35
Table 2.18: Itinerant Aircraft Sample .......................................................................... 36
Table 2.19: Local Operational Fleet Mix Breakdown ................................................... 36
Table 2.20: Current Fleet Mix Operational Breakdown ................................................ 37
Table 2.21: Recommended Forecast Summary ........................................................... 37
Table 2.22: Recommended Fleet Mix Operational Breakdown Forecast ....................... 38
Table 2.23: Projected Annual Instrument Operations .................................................. 40
Table 3.1: FAA Runway Design Standards Matrix, A/B-I Small Aircraft.......................... 42
Table 3.2: FAA Runway Design Standards Matrix, A/B-I .............................................. 43
Table 3.3: FAA Runway Design Standards Matrix, B-II ................................................. 44
Table 3.4: Wind Coverage ........................................................................................ 45
Table 3.5: Runway Length Requirements .................................................................... 46
Table 3.6: Typical T-Hangar Dimensions .................................................................... 51
Table 4.1: Combined Wind Coverage ........................................................................ 62
Table 5.1: Recommended Agency Coordination ......................................................... 66
Table 6.1: Crop Restriction Lines ................................................................................ 74
Table 7.1: Summary of Capital Improvement Program................................................ 79
Table 7.2: Short-Term Projects (2013-2017) ............................................................... 80
Table 7.3: Intermediate-Term Projects (2018-2022) .................................................... 81
Table 7.4: Long-Term Projects (2023-2033) ............................................................... 82
Table 8.1: Priority and Assignment of Funds ............................................................... 86
Table 8.2: FAA Project Eligibility ................................................................................. 87
Table 8.3: Iowa State Aviation Program Summary....................................................... 88

v | P a g e

INDEX OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Airport Layout Plans
Appendix B: Detailed CIP Cost Estimates
Appendix C: Apron Sizing Calculations
Appendix D: Snow Removal Equipment Calculations
Appendix E: Madison County Approval Letter


vi | P a g e

1 | P a g e

Chapter 1:
INVENTORY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Winterset Municipal Airport (3Y3) retained McClure Engineering to update the Airport
Master Plan and the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawings. This Airport Master Plan Update
is a comprehensive planning document outlining the short term and long term
development plans to meet future aviation demand at the Winterset Municipal Airport.
The ALP drawings are a graphical representation of the existing and ultimate facility needs
anticipated.

This document is intended for members of the aviation community including airport
sponsors, airport staff, airport consultants, FAA representatives, and the Iowa DOT Office
of Aviation. This publication will also be a useful reference for municipal officials, local
planning and zoning commissions, economic development groups, and the general
public.

The most recent Master Plan for the Airport was last completed in 1995. Since the
completion of the last Master Plan, a significant amount of changes have occurred at the
Airport and surrounding areas including the City of Winterset and Madison County.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this Airport Master Plan Update is to accomplish the following objectives:
Depict existing conditions
Provide flexibility to adapt to the constantly changing aviation industry to support the
modernization and development of the Winterset Municipal Airport over the next 20
years.
Provide the framework needed to guide future airport development that will be
logical and cost effective while considering environmental and socio-economic
impacts.
Justify the proposed development through technical, economic, and environmental
investigation of concepts and alternatives.
Provide drawings illustrating the development of the airport and the anticipated land
uses in the vicinity of the airport.
Establish a realistic schedule for the implementation of the recommended capital
improvements.
Provide a financial plan to support the recommended capital improvements.
Ensure the Airport will be able to safely accommodate future demand.
Protect existing infrastructure and the significant investments made over the years by
local, state, and federal entities.
Preserve land and resources for future aviation demand.
2 | P a g e

In conjunction with the objectives stated above, an update to the Master Plan provides an
opportunity to identify areas for non-aviation development on airport-owned property to
promote compatible land uses and to leverage economic development opportunities to
promote a self-sustaining facility.

1.3 AIRPORT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND

The Winterset Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the Winterset Airport Authority
established by the City of Winterset. The airport is part of the National Plan of Integrated
Airport System (NPIAS) as a general aviation airport which makes it eligible for federal
funding.

Figure 1.1 depicts the location of the City of Winterset in its regional setting. Winterset is
located approximately 130 miles east of Omaha, Nebraska and 35 miles southwest from
Des Moines.

Figure 1.2 illustrates the location of the Airport in relation to the City.

Figure 1.1: Winterset Regional Location

Source: Bing Maps
3 | P a g e

Figure 1.2: Winterset Municipal Airport Location

Source: Google Maps

The Winterset Municipal Airport is located approximately two miles north of the City of
Winterset. Winterset is the county seat of Madison County and is just 35 miles from the
State Capital in Des Moines. The topography of Madison County is characterized as
rolling hills. The major physiographic features are the North River, Middle River, and
Cedar Creek.

The Airport is accessible via Highway 169 from the north and south and Highway 92 from
the east and west. It is conveniently located off two major interstate highways,
approximately 15 miles west of Interstate 35 along Highway 92 and approximately 13
miles south of Interstate 80 along Highway 169.

The Airport is situated on approximately 33 acres of land surrounded principally by
agricultural farmland. The elevation of the airport is 1110.0 feet above Mean Sea Level
(MSL).

The Winterset Municipal Airport dates back to approximately 1970 when four or five
private individuals mortgaged their homes to start the first ever Airport Authority in Iowa.
The original Airport was referred to as the Winterset-Madison County Airport and
consisted of a turf runway up until 1976. The remainder of the Airports development
history is summarized in Table 1.1.
4 | P a g e

Table 1.1: Airport Milestone Events
Year Milestone
1976 Runway 14/32 paved; FBO Maintenance Facility constructed
1981 Runway 14/32 resurfaced with 2.5-inch asphalt surface course
1981 Taxiway & Apron overlaid with 2.5 inch asphalt surface course
1995 4,000 gallon underground fuel storage tank replaced
1998 Madison County Board of Supervisors voted to withdraw from Airport
Authority
1999 10-unit T-Hangar constructed
2005 Runway 14/32 rehabilitated with mill and bituminous overlay
2006 MIRL, rotating beacon, and vault building upgraded.
2007 2-Box PAPI systems installed on both runway ends
2008 Land Parcels 11 and 12 acquired
2009 Apron and taxiway rehabilitated with mill and bituminous overlay
2009 Winterset Madison County Airport officially changes name to Winterset
Municipal Airport
2010 Fuel farm facility and pump cabinet installed

1.4 AIRPORT ROLE

An important part of this Master Plan update is to identify the current and future role of
the Winterset Municipal Airport with respect to the FAAs National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS) and the Iowa Aviation System Plan (IASP).

The functional role of an airport is defined by the NPIAS as one of four basic airport
service levels which describe the type of service that the airport currently provides to the
community and is anticipated to provide the community at the end of a 5-year planning
period. The four airport roles used in the NPIAS are as follows:

Commercial Service: Primary
Commercial Service: Non-primary
Reliever
General Aviation

Per the NPIAS, the Winterset Municipal Airport functions as a General Aviation airport. It is
interesting to note that General Aviation airports are the largest single group of airports in
the NPIAS with over 2,560 airports. The General Aviation airports tend to be distributed
on a one per-county basis in rural areas and are often located near the county seat.
General Aviation airports in rural areas play a significant role in their community with
regards to delivering business aviation, aerial applicator operations, and emergency
medical services via air ambulance.

On the state level, the 2010-2030 IASP classifies airports into one of five roles based
upon their capability to support types of aircraft and meeting specific facility and services
criteria.
5 | P a g e

The five airport roles as defined by the IASP are classified as follows:

Commercial Service
Enhanced Service
General Service
Basic Service
Local Service

The Winterset Municipal Airport has been classified as a Basic Service airport according to
the 2010-2030 IASP. Basic Service airports have runways 3,000 feet or greater in length
with facilities and services customized to meet local aviation demands such as availability
of aircraft fuel and some on-call availability of airport or FBO personnel on a 24 hour
basis.

1.5 NEIGHBORING AIRPORTS

A review of airports within roughly 30 nautical miles (nm) of Winterset was conducted to
identify and distinguish types of aviation services provided in the region. There are five
public-use airports that exist within a 30 nm radius of Winterset. A summary of these
facilities is provided in Table 1.2.

1.6 AIRSIDE FACILITIES

Airside facilities include areas on the airport specifically dedicated for aircraft operations
such as runways, taxiways, lighting, markings, and navigational aids.

The existing airfield configuration at the Winterset Municipal Airport is comprised of
Runway 14/32, a main aircraft parking apron, several aircraft hangars, and two
connecting taxiways that provide access between the runway and the aircraft
parking/hangar areas. These facilities are described in the following paragraphs and
Figure 1.3 illustrates recent aerial imagery displaying the existing airport facilities.

1.6.1 Runways
Runway 14/32 is oriented in the northwest/southeast direction and serves as the only
runway at the Airport.

Runway 14/32 was originally constructed to a length of 2,980 feet and a width of 50 feet
using a sealcoat over a rolled stone base. In 1981, Runway 14/32 was resurfaced with a
2.5-inch inch asphalt cement concrete (ACC) surface course. It is believed the runway
was extended to the current length of 3,000 feet by 50-feet wide with a non-standard
turnaround on the Runway 32 end. Runway 14/32 last received a rehabilitation in 2005,
which consisted of a bituminous surface mill and overlay.

The last pavement evaluation was conducted on September 17, 2010 as part of the Iowa
DOT statewide inspections. The results revealed the Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
value for Runway 14/32 was evaluated at 93, or in good condition. As noted in the
2010 inspection, only longitudinal and transverse cracking are present on the runway.

6 | P a g e

Table 1.2: Area Public Airports
Winterset
Municipal
Airport
Des Moines
International
Airport
Greenfield
Municipal
Airport
Osceola
Municipal
Airport
Creston
Municipal
Airport
Guthrie
County
Regional
FAA ID 3Y3 DSM GFZ I75 CSQ GCT
Distance
from 3Y3
N/A 19 nm NE 19 nm
W
24 nm
SE
26 nm
SW
27 nm
NW
County Madison Polk Adair Clarke Union Guthrie
NPIAS
Role
GA Commercial:
Primary
GA GA GA GA
IASP Role Basic Commercial Basic General General Local
Based
Aircraft
20 107 12 20 16 9
Annual
Ops
4,750 83,744 4,998 5,750 4,500 2,750
Runway
Lengths
3,000 9,003
9,002
3,400
2,500
4,001 4,901

3,407
Fuel 100LL,
JetA
100LL,
JetA
100LL 100LL,
JetA
100LL,
JetA
100LL

Airframe
Repairs
Major Major None Minor Minor None
Pwr Plant
Repairs
Major Major None Minor Minor None
Bottle
Oxygen
None High/Low None None None None
Bulk
Oxygen
None High/Low None None None None
Hangars Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Tie-downs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Other
Services
INSTR AFRT, AMB,
AVNCS,CARGO,
CHTR, INSTR,
RNTL, SALES
- CHTR,
INSTR
- -
Source: FAA Airport Master Records (5010 Forms)

7 | P a g e

Figure 1.3: Existing Airfield Facilities

8 | P a g e

The runway is currently marked as a visual runway and the markings are in fair condition
and should be planned to be replaced in the next five years.

Runway strength is rated at 12,500 pounds single wheel loading and 16,000 pounds
dual wheel loading. The effective gradient is 0.6%. There are no guidance signs on the
airfield.

The Runway 14 threshold is displaced 175 feet due to 195
th
Street only 140 feet from the
runway end.

On the Runway 32 end, the turnaround currently does not provide adequate clearance for
aircraft holding. In addition, Runway 32 contains a sub-standard Runway Safety Area
(RSA). The Runway 32 end of RSA length extends only 58 from the edge of threshold
followed by a steep slope beyond that point. The minimum length required by FAA
standards is 240 feet. According to FAA AC 150/5300-13, RSA standards cannot be
modified or waived. Improvements to this sub-standard RSA are required until it meets all
standards for grade, compaction, and object frangibility.

A summary of the pertinent Runway 14/32 information has been outlined in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3: Runway 14/32 Features
Feature Runway 14/32
Airport Reference Code B-I
Length 3,000
Width 50
Pavement Asphalt
Strength (lbs) 12,500 SWG
16,000 DWG
Gradient 0.6%
Lighting MIRL
Instrument Approaches Non-Precision: RNAV GPS (14)
RNAV GPS (32)
VOR/DME-A
Approach Lighting -
Approach Slope Aids PAPI-2L (14)
PAPI-2L (32)
Runway Marking Visual

1.6.2 Taxiways
The Airport has two connecting taxiways both 25 feet in width which provide access from
the runway to the fuel area and apron tie-down area. Both taxiway connectors are in
good condition with PCI values of 100 as reported in the 2010 Iowa DOT inspection. In
2009, the taxiway pavements were rehabilitated which consisted of a bituminous surface
mill and overlay.

The taxiway connectors are marked with a centerline stripe and holding position
markings, but have no lights or delineators.

9 | P a g e

1.6.3 Apron
The Airport currently maintains one terminal apron of approximately 2,750 square yards
with the majority of the apron being dedicated for taxiing aircraft.

The results from the 2010 Iowa DOT PCI inspection indicated the apron had a PCI value
of 100 as the apron was recently rehabilitated along with the taxiway connectors in 2009
with a mill and bituminous surface overlay.

The apron does not have standard in-pavement tie-down anchors. Two (2) turf tie-downs
are provided east of the apron in the grass adjacent to the runway safety area. The
existing tie-down are anchored by tires and are depicted in Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4: Turf Tie-Downs

1.6.4 Aircraft Fueling
The Airport is equipped with 100 octane low-lead (100LL) AVGAS and Jet-A fuel. The
existing fuel storage facility consists of a 4,000 gallon underground fuel storage which
was replaced in 1995. The underground storage tank stores 100LL and consists of a
double-wall fiber glass partition tank with partitions at 2,000 gallon each.

Jet-A fuel is stored in a 2,500 gallon mobile truck which is parked under the hangar as
illustrated in Figure 1.5.
Figure 1.5: Jet-A Fuel Truck

10 | P a g e

In 2010, the fueling farm was upgraded with new fueling cabinets and a FuelMaster self-
service fueling system equipped with a credit card reader system to allow pilots 24-hour
fueling convenience. The fueling cabinets are depicted in Figure 1.6.

Figure 1.6: Aircraft Fueling

1.6.5 Snow Removal Equipment
The Airport utilizes a Ford F-250 pickup truck mounted with an 8 wide displacement
blade for snow removal operations. The pickup truck is currently not stored in a building
and is in poor condition as documented in Figure 1.7.

Figure 1.7: Snow Removal Equipment

1.6.6 Hangars
As presented in Table 1.4, the existing hangars and buildings at the airport vary in size,
age, and condition. The north, middle, and south 3-unit T-Hangars have served well
beyond their intended life. From discussions with airport personnel, these and other
existing hangars are not energy efficient and are planned for replacement.

Meanwhile, the FBO Maintenance Facility Hangar, which was constructed in 1976,
remains in fair condition. Two private conventional hangars provide storage space for
four (4) aircraft. One conventional hangar owned by Dick Cooper has storage space for
two (2) aircraft; another owned by the Des Moines Skydiving Club has space for two (2)
aircraft.
11 | P a g e

The airport received an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant from the FAA in 2011 to
design and construct a 10-unit nested T-Hangar approximately 50 by 250. The project
is currently scheduled to be completed by the fall of 2012.

The capital improvements plan presented later as part of the Master Plan update will
include plans to replace a majority of the publicly owned hangars over the next 20 years.

Table 1.4: Aircraft Hangar Information
Hangar
No.
Description Ownership Size

Aircraft
Capacity
Condition
1 North 3-unit T-Hangar Airport 35x100 3 Poor
2 Middle 3-unit T-Hangar Airport 35x90 3 Poor
3 South 3-unit T-Hangar Airport 35x100 3 Poor
4 FBO Maintenance
Facility Hangar
Airport 50x75 5 Fair
5 Conventional Hangar Private 50x50 2 Good
6 Conventional Hangar Private 60x60 2 Good
7 10-unit T-Hangar Airport 50x250 10 Good

Figure 1.8: North 3-unit T-Hangar

Figure 1.9: Middle 3-Unit T-Hangar

12 | P a g e

Figure 1.12: Conventional Hangar #5
Figure 1.14: 10-unit T-Hangar
Figure 1.13: Conventional Hangar #6
Figure 1.11: FBO Maintenance Hangar Figure 1.10: South 3-Unit T-Hangar
13 | P a g e

1.7 LANDSIDE FACILITIES

1.7.1 Terminal Area Facilities
The Airports terminal facility is attached to the FBO conventional hangar and is
approximately 20 feet by 30 feet. The terminal facility currently houses a small lounge
area, computer terminal workstation, men and womens restroom, and the office of the
Airport Manager.

The interior and exterior of the terminal facility is in poor condition and is in need of
immediate repair as the roof leaks causing potential damage to the interior. In 2011, the
airport received a General Aviation Vertical Infrastructure (GAVI) grant from the Iowa
DOT to renovate the terminal facility. However, the Airport did not have the local
matching funds required to move forward with the renovation of the terminal facility in
2012. Once the airport has the local matching funds required, future grants should be
pursued.

Figure 1.15: Terminal Facility (Exterior View)

Figure 1.16: Terminal Facility (Interior View)

14 | P a g e

At a general aviation airport, aviation services are typically provided by a fixed base
operator (FBO), which is an aircraft service center. An FBO can be a department of the
municipality that owns the airport but is typically a private enterprise. The Winterset
Municipal Airport is equipped with a FBO, Winterset Aviation. Services offered include the
following:
Aviation fuel sales (100LL and Jet-A)
Aircraft tie-down positions
Aircraft hangar storage
Flight instruction
Aircraft maintenance, repair, restorations, and major airframe and power plant
repairs

1.7.2 Public Vehicle Parking
One public vehicle parking area is available at the airport located west of the Terminal
and FBO Maintenance Facility. In total, approximately 15 public parking spaces are
provided. The public vehicle parking area is constructed with bituminous pavement and is
in fair condition based upon visual inspection. The public vehicle parking area is shown
in Figure 1.17.

Figure 1.17: Public Vehicle Parking Area

1.7.3 Airport Entrance Road
Automobile access to the Airport is attained via Highway 169. The roads leading to the
airport, 195th Street and North 8
th
Avenue, are unpaved. From North 8
th
Avenue, the
airport entrance is 15 feet wide and extends approximately 200 feet to the public vehicle
parking area. The entrance road is constructed with bituminous pavement and is in fair
condition as illustrated in Figure 1.18.

15 | P a g e

Figure 1.18: Airport Entrance Road

1.8 NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

The FAA has three published instrument approach procedures (IAPs) to aid based and
transient aircraft in landing at Winterset in weather when visibility conditions worsen to 1
statute mile. The IAPs are as follows:

RNAV (GPS) RWY 14
RNAV (GPS) RWY 32
VOR/DME-A

The two RNAV approach procedures listed have been developed by the FAA using the
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) method of navigation based on Global
Positioning System (GPS). The WAAS ground correction stations transmit position
corrections and provide horizontal guidance such as would be provided by a VORTAC or
NDB that would assist pilots in specifically identifying the airports location. The ground
correction stations add vertical navigation features that enhance the accuracy of the GPS
satellites. These RNAV approach procedures provide localizer performance with vertical
guidance (LPV) minimums which provide horizontal accuracy equivalent to a localizer
antenna. Pilots can use the LPV approaches given their aircraft is equipped with WAAS-
capable avionics.

The VOR/DME approach refers to a combined radio navigation station for aircraft, which
consists of two beacons placed together consisting of a VHF omnidirectional range (the
VOR) and distance measuring equipment (the DME). The VORTAC facility, which
consists of two components: a VOR and a Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) system,
hence VORTAC, provides three individual services all at one site: VOR azimuth,
TACAN azimuth, and TACAN distance measuring equipment (DME). The DME is used
to measure, in nautical miles, the slant range distance of an aircraft from the DME itself.

Although no VORs or VORTACs are located on airport property, the airport is serviced by
one VORTAC in the area. The Des Moines (DSM) VORTAC is located 17.3 nautical miles
NE from Winterset on the 248 radial.
16 | P a g e

1.9 VISUAL AIDS

The following visual aids are used by pilots to visually locate the Winterset Municipal
Airport and safely land on Runway 14/32:

The rotating beacon is mounted on a tower above the FBO Maintenance Facility as
shown in Figure 1.19. The rotating beacon displays alternating flashes of white and
green light indicating to pilots the location of the public airport. The rotating beacon
was installed in 2006 and remains in good working condition.

Figure 1.19: Airport Rotating Beacon

Runway 14/32 is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL) and
Threshold Lights. However the MIRLs are non-standard as there are only six
threshold lights on the Runway 14 and 32 end, as opposed to the standard eight
threshold configuration for a non-precision instrument approach. Edge lights are
used to define the lateral limits of the runway during periods of darkness and
restricted visibility conditions. Threshold lights are used to identify the runway
threshold. All runway lights are in good condition.
Runway 14/32 is not equipped with Runway End Identifier Light (REIL) systems. REILs
consist of two synchronized flashing lights or strobes, one on each side of the
runway threshold, that provide rapid and positive identification of the approach end
of a particular runway. Installation of REILs should be considered as they will
increase the safety of aircraft operating the airport and assist pilots discern between
the runway and conflicting city lights.
Runway 14/32 is equipped with Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) on each
end. PAPIs consist of lights installed in a single row of either two or four light units
referred to as PAPI-2 and PAPI-4, respectively. The PAPI has an effective visual
range of about five miles during the day and up to 20 miles at night in good
weather conditions. PAPIs are used to give indications of the glide slope for a
17 | P a g e

runway approach. These lights are designed to shine either red or white, depending
upon the pilots view. For the two light system, pilots will see one white light and
one red light when on the correct glide slope. An indication of two white lights
warns the pilot that the airplane is too high on approach while the indication of two
red lights signifies that the aircraft is too low on approach. Runways 14 and 32 are
equipped with PAPI-2 systems. The two PAPI systems were installed in 2007, owned
by the airport, and appear to be in good condition as depicted in Figure 1.20.

Figure 1.20: Runway 32 PAPI-2 System

1.10 COMMUNICATION AND WEATHER AIDS

Since there is not an Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) located on the airport, a unicom
radio frequency of 122.7 MHz is used for air traffic in the Winterset area. Advisory
information from both pilots and personnel at the airport is broadcast on this frequency.

The FAA has established a number of Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) to control
enroute aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and aircraft operating under
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) who have requested flight following services. The Minneapolis
ARTCC facility is responsible of all aircraft operating under IFR and participating VFR
aircraft arriving and departing the Winterset Municipal Airport.

The Winterset Municipal Airport does not have an Automated Weather Observation
Station (AWOS) or the more sophisticated Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)
located onsite. The airport relies on the ASOS located at the Des Moines International
Airport (DSM) which is 19 nautical miles to the northeast. An Automated Surface
Observing System (ASOS) is designed to support weather forecast activities and aviation
operations. With the largest and most modern complement of weather sensors, ASOS has
significantly expanded the information available to the aviation community. ASOS works
non-stop, updating observations every minute, 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
ASOS routinely and automatically provides computer-generated voice observations
18 | P a g e

directly to aircraft in the vicinity of airports, using FAA ground-to-air radio. The ASOS
reports basic weather elements such as sky condition, cloud height, visibility, precipitation
information, obstructions to vision (fog and/or haze), pressure, temperature, dew point,
and wind direction and speed.

The airport has a primary lighted wind cone located on the private Conventional Hangar
(Hangar 5). The wind cone provides a visual indication of wind direction and strength.
The primary wind cone and sock appear to be in good condition based on visual
inspection.

Figure 1.21: Lighted Windcone

1.11 OBSTRUCTIONS TO AIR NAVIGATION

There are several obstructions noted on the FAA 5010 Form which are a concern to the
airport and the airport users. In 2011, the airport completed tree trimming to lower the
tree levels on the Runway 32 end.

According to the Airport Layout Plan, there are several natural and man-made
obstructions to the FAR Part 77 Airspace Surfaces. Given the number of objects and
obstructions identified, a discussion of them and their ultimate disposition is relegated to
the Airport Layout Plan chapter where they will be reviewed to determine their full impact
to the airports ultimate airspace and aircraft operational safety.

1.12 PLANNING AND ZONING

Land use adjacent to the airport primarily consists of agricultural use. Runway 14/32 is
constrained to the north due to the presence of 195
th
Street. There are some presences of
residential farm acreages in the vicinity. The closest acreage exists approximately 700
feet south of the Runway 32 end and another acreage exists approximately 1,000 feet
north of the Runway 14 end.

19 | P a g e

Airport compatible land use has not been included in city/county comprehensive plans. It
is recommended to develop a compatible land use plan in accordance with the Iowa
Airport Land Use Guidebook published by the Iowa Department of Transporation, Office
of Aviation. Any future city or county planning should strongly discourage residential and
non-compatible development.

The City of Winterset does have a tall structure ordinance in their Municipal Code. This
ordinance establishes airport height zones in accordance with FAA Part 77 imaginary
surfaces. Efforts should be made to update height zoning ordinances as needed and
monitor its enforcement.

1.13 TRAFFIC PATTERNS

Standard aircraft traffic patterns have been developed to allow safe use of a runway
during takeoff and landing operations. The standard traffic pattern requires aircraft to
make left turns when approaching or departing a runway. By default, right traffic patterns
are non-standard. The traffic pattern at the Winterset Municipal Airport consists of
standard left hand turns at an altitude of 800 feet AGL or 1910 feet MSL.

1.14 UTILITIES

A major constraint to developing the land is the limited availability of utilities in the area.
Having access to essential utilities is critical to attracting prospective businesses seeking to
expand or locate on airport property. The following paragraphs detail the availability of
utilities:
Water. Southern Iowa Rural Water Association (SIRWA) is the primary source of
water for the Winterset Municipal Airport. SIRWA maintains the water distribution
system and is available to supply sufficient pressure and quantity of water to meet
the needs of the potential development as well as an extensive fire hydrant system.
Sanitation. The Airport currently utilizes a septic tank system to treat its wastewater.
Septic tanks are common in rural areas where buildings are spaced so far apart that
extending a sewer system is not feasible. If the Airport wishes to develop its property
to attract prospective businesses, additional septic tanks, sewer lagoons, or
extension of the sewer system would need to be installed to support the
development.
Electric Service Provider. Electric power service is provided by Rural Electric
Cooperative (REC). Service capacity is sufficient to meet all anticipated future
demands for the airport and the potential development.
Telephone/Internet Service Provider. CenturyLink provides telephone service to the
airport. If the Airport property is to become more attractive to prospective
businesses, it is recommended a high speed T1 internet line be installed.
Gas Provider. Propane is stored on-site in an above ground storage tank. If the
Airport wishes to develop its property to attract prospective businesses, additional
storage tanks would need to be installed to support the development.
TV Cable Service. There is no TV cable service available near the Airport. It is
recommended to provide such a service in order to attract potential development.
20 | P a g e

21 | P a g e

Chapter 2:
DEMAND FORECASTS

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Aviation activity forecasts are the basis for determining facility requirements needed to
accommodate future aviation demand over the next 20 years. For airports such as the
Winterset Municipal Airport, with a majority of operations by aircraft weighing less than
12,500 pounds at an uncontrolled or non-towered airfield, the forecast process is not
extensive. The three primary forecast purposes are:

To develop a plan that accommodates demand,
To ensure that facilities will be built only when they are needed, and
To ensure that facilities will not be built that will later have to be abandoned or
moved.

The basis for developing general aviation forecasts is the socio-economic characteristics
of a community. In general, there is a strong correlation between employment activity
and population growth with airport activity. For the purposes of the Winterset Municipal
Airport forecasts, the main focus will be on the local and regional economies and to a
much lesser extent the State and national economies.

2.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

A study of the socio-economic factors relating to population and economic trends was
analyzed for Madison County and the City of Winterset. Demographic profiles such as
population, employment, and income contribute to aviation demand and therefore
require examination as part of this Master Plan.

2.2.1 Historical Population
A communitys population plays a key role in determining the demand for aviation
services and an examination of population change can provide a valuable estimate for
determining future aviation demand.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Winterset and Madison County along
with Guthrie County, Dallas County, Polk County, and Warren County comprise the Des
MoinesWest Des Moines Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). While the City of Winterset
and Madison County are part of the Des MoinesWest Des Moines MSA, for the purposes
of this Master Plan, the City of Winterset and Madison County will be examined
independently from the Des Moines-West Des Moines MSA. The inclusion of the cities of
Des Moines and West Des Moines would not present representative projections and
therefore have been excluded as part of this analysis.

22 | P a g e

From 1910-1970, Madison Countys population decreased due to demographic shifts
from rural to urban areas. The demographic shift caused population increases in more
urbanized counties such as Dallas and Polk counties, at the expense of more rural
counties like Madison County.

However, the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census revealed the population trends for Madison
County and the City of Winterset began to surge. As illustrated in Tables 2.1 and 2.2,
Madison County and Winterset have experienced double digit growth. From 2000 to
2010, Wintersets growth percentage was 8.9% and Madison County experienced a
growth rate of 11.8%. As shown in Figure 2.1, Madison Countys growth percentage far
outpaced the State of Iowa average of 4.1% and the national average of 9.7% for 2010.

These growth percentages make Madison County the second-fastest growing non-
metropolitan county in the State of Iowa.

Table 2.1: Madison County Historical Population
Year Population % Change
1900 17,710 -
1910 15,621 -11.8%
1920 15,020 -3.8%
1930 14,331 -4.6%
1940 14,525 1.4%
1950 13,131 -9.6%
1960 12,295 -6.4%
1970 11,558 -6.0%
1980 12,597 9.0%
1990 12,483 -0.9%
2000 14,019 12.3%
2010 15,679 11.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2.2: Winterset Historical Population
1900 3,039 -
1910 2,818 -7.3%
1920 2,906 3.1%
1930 2,921 0.5%
1940 3,631 24.3%
1950 3,570 -1.7%
1960 3,639 1.9%
1970 3,654 0.4%
1980 4,021 10.0%
1990 4,196 4.4%
2000 4,768 13.6%
2010 5,190 8.9%

23 | P a g e

Figure 2.1: Population Growth Rates, 1960-2010
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Madison
County
Winterset
StateofIowa
UnitedStates

2.2.2 Population Trends
According to Woods & Poole Economics Inc., an independent firm specializing in long-
term county economic and demographic projections, the population of Madison County
is estimated to increase approximately 7.5% from 2010 to 2020, 7.6% from 2020 to
2030 and 7.2% from 2030 to 2040, resulting in an average annual growth rate of
approximately 0.72-0.82%.

Table 2.3: Madison County Projected Population
2010 15,679 -
2020 16,964 8.2%
2030 18,255 7.6%
2040 19,567 7.2%
Source: State Data Center of Iowa, Woods & Poole Economics, 2010

24 | P a g e

2.2.3 Employment
Employment data is important for determining forecasts as it directly affects how a
community uses its income.

With regard to the labor force, 7,400 persons were employed in Madison County in
2000 and it grew slightly to 7,600 in 2010 according to U.S. Census data. This change
represents an annual 0.27% employment growth rate.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in Madison County
was 5.2% in November 2011, up from 4.8% in October 2011, and down from 6.0% one
year ago in November 2010. Madison Countys unemployment rate of 5.2% is below
the State of Iowa average at 5.7% and well below the national average of 8.7%.

The top employment industries in Madison County consisted of finance, insurance & real
estate at 13.5 percent; health care & social services represented 12.0 percent; retail
trade comprised 11.7 percent; and manufacturing consisted of 10.9%. Table 2.4 depicts
the major private employers in Madison County.

Table 2.4: Major Private Employers
Major Employer Industry
Agriland FS Professional Services
Earlham Savings Bank Finance
Genesis Development Health Services
LPB Inc Manufacturing
Madison Square Assisted Living Corp Health Services
Montross Pharmacy Inc Retail Trade
Pamida Retail Trade
R&D Engineering of Earlham Inc Manufacturing
Rose Acre Farm Agriculture
Union State Bank Finance
Grip-Tite/Anchored Walls Manufacturing
Source: Iowa Workforce Development. 2011 Annual County Profile Report, Madison County

2.2.4 Income
An important indicator to evaluating the regions economic condition is the assessment
of personal income levels. Higher levels of income provide greater disposable and
discretionary spending on items such as vacations, recreational activities, and potential
aircraft ownership. Examinations of per capita income and median household incomes
were completed and are presented in the following tables.

Income indicators for the City of Winterset, Madison County, and the State of Iowa show
positive trends. As shown in Table 2.5, the City of Winterset per capita personal income
for 2000 was $17,274 and in 2010 was $20,147, resulting in an average annual
growth rate of 1.66%. This was well below Madison County and the State of Iowa with
growth rates of 3.31% and 2.87% respectively.

25 | P a g e

Table 2.5: Income Per Capita
City of Winterset Madison County State of Iowa
Year Income
Avg. Annual
% Change Income
Avg. Annual
% Change Income
Avg. Annual
% Change
2000 $17,274 - $19,357 - $19,674 -
2010 $20,147 1.66% $25,771 3.31% $25,335 2.87%

As detailed in Table 2.6, the median household income for the City of Winterset was
$33,142 in 2000 and $40,313 in 2010, equating to an annualized growth rate of
2.16%. This was just below the average annual growth rates for Madison County and
the State of Iowa with annual growth rates of 2.71% and 2.38% respectively.

Table 2.6: Median Household Income
City of Winterset Madison County State of Iowa
Year Income
Avg. Annual
% Change Income
Avg. Annual
% Change Income
Avg. Annual
% Change
2000 $33,142 $41,845 $39,469
2010 $40,313 2.16% $53,183 2.71% $48,872 2.38%

26 | P a g e

2.3 GENERAL AVIATION TRENDS ANALYSIS

This section assesses the trends of all general aviation activity associated with the
Winterset Municipal Airport. General aviation activity includes all segments of civil
aviation except for commercial (passenger and cargo) and military operations.

2.3.1 National Aviation Trends
Since the events of September 11, 2001, the general aviation industry saw periods of
robust growth up until 2008 when the global financial crisis shocked the world. The
financial crisis changed the aviation landscape and presented new challenges to the
industry. The industry was expected to recover in 2011, however the demand for
business aircraft and services have remained weak. While a full resurgence hasnt taken
place, there were a few encouraging indicators of recovery which will be discussed
throughout this section.

Two primary sources where utilized to identify trends in the general aviation industry.
The first source was the 2011 General Aviation Statistical Databook published by the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). The second source is the FAA
Aerospace Forecast (2011-2031).

General Aviation Manufactures Association (GAMA)
GAMA represents over 70 of the worlds leading manufacturers of fixed-wing general
aviation airplanes, engines, and avionics. The General Aviation Statistical Databook is
published annually and identifies key trends within the general aviation community. The
2011 review cites the following statistics regarding aircraft manufacturers in the United
States. It is important to note that the figures do not include Hawker Beechcraft
corporation shipment and billing numbers.

Industry billings increased by 17.1% from $7.2B to $8.4B in 2009 to 2011.
Total U.S. shipments for new aircraft dropped from 1,246 units in 2009 to 1,215,
a 2.5% drop.
Shipments of business jets increased to 354 units, an increase of 7.9 percent.
Shipments of turboprops increased from 188 units in 2009 to 193 units in 2011, a
2.7% increase.
Piston aircraft shipments fell by 8.5% percent to 668 units.
The used airplane market was 1 percentage point lower than in 2010, but well
above the historical average. A higher percentage of used inventories will suppress
demand for new units.
The number of total pilots decreased slightly by 1.6%.
IFR flights handled at FAA ARTCC were slightly lower in 2010 than 2009 by 3.4%.
The number of individuals and companies that owned a fractional share of an
airplane decreased by 3.8 percent (4,862 to 4,677) from 2010 to 2011 as the
number of aircraft used in those programs declined by 10.4 percent from 1,027 to
920.
27 | P a g e

FAA Aerospace Forecast (2011-2031)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Forecasts for Fiscal Years 2011-2031 suggests that
a modest economic recovery will occur in 2012, continuing with a steady growth forecast
until 2031. Typically, improvements in the economy are observed in the aviation
industry six to nine months after economic rebound.

The FAA forecasts growth in the next two decades in turbo jets use with lesser growth in
the piston engine aircraft. This can be attributed to business use of general aviation
aircraft which are benefiting from an emerging market of smaller jet aircraft.
Specifically, the FAA forecasts:

An annual 0.9% increase in the entire general aviation fleet.
An annual 4.2% increase in the turbo jet fleet.
An annual 1.4% increase in the turbo prop fleet.
An annual growth of 0.3% increase in single engine piston powered aircraft and a
0.9 percent annual decrease in the multi-engine piston fleet.
An annual growth of 2.9% for piston rotorcraft fleet and 2.4% for turbine rotorcraft
fleet.
An annual growth of 1.4% in the experimental fleet and a 3.3% annual growth in
the light sport aircraft fleet.
An increase in general aviation hours flown of 2.2% from 2011 to 2031.

Certainly the story in general aviation for the last decade has been in the business and
corporate segment with the advent of the growth in fractional ownership companies.
Fractional ownership is a business proposition where companies or individuals own a
share of an aircraft and receive management and pilot services associated with the
aircrafts operation. Executive Jet Aviation (NetJets), which began its fractional program
in 1986, and was followed several years later by Bombardiers Business Jet Solutions
(FlexJet), has promoted the concept of fractional ownership. Others, including Raytheon
Travel Air, Flight Options and Citation Shares, have since entered the marketplace. In
1986, there were three owners for fractionally held aircraft. By 1993, there were 110.
As cited by GAMA, there were 4,677 shares in 2011.

2.3.2 State Aviation Trends

According to Chapter 5 of the Iowa Aviation System Plan (2010-2030), the number of
based aircraft in the State of Iowa is projected to increase from 2,809 in 2010 to 3,603
by 2030. This equates to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) rate of approximately
1.25% from 2010 to 2030.

Based aircraft and operation projections for the Winterset Municipal Airport were
developed by multiplying the CAGR of 1.25% to Wintersets based aircraft amount of 23
as reported in 2010. Aircraft operations were then projected by multiplying the
forecasted number of based aircraft by an adopted Office of Aviation estimation
guideline outlined in FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of
28 | P a g e

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). In a statewide study, permitting a single methodology
to be applied to all Iowa airports is an acceptable procedure to forecast operations
where limited or no historical data may be available.

Airports with 1 to 30 based aircraft were assigned 250 operations per aircraft, while
airports with 31 to 99 based aircraft were assigned 350 operations per aircraft. Airports
forecasted with 100 or more aircraft were assigned 450 operations per aircraft. In
Wintersets case, the based aircraft were assigned 250 operations per aircraft to project
operations out to 2030. The based aircraft and operations projections are presented in
Table 2.7.

Table 2.7: Winterset Municipal Airport Projections from IASP
2015 2020 2025 2030
Based Aircraft 25 26 28 30
Operations 6,250 6,500 7,000 7,500
Source: Iowa Aviation System Plan (2010-2030)

2.3.3 Local Aviation Trends

Based Aircraft
Since 1985, the Winterset Municipal Airport has seen slight growth in the number of
based aircraft with 13 based aircraft in 1985, a low level of 12 from 1989-1992, to a
current peak level of 25. The increase in based aircraft represents a historical
compound annual growth rate of 2.55% from 1985-2011.

Historical based aircraft were projected out to 2032 using a linear regression analysis.
The analysis concluded the airport can expect 35 based aircraft in 2032 equating to a
compound annual growth rate of 1.70% from 2012-2032.

Table 2.8: Historical Based Aircraft
Year Total Year Total
1985 13 1999 19
1986 14 2000 19
1987 14 2001 23
1988 13 2002 23
1989 12 2003 23
1990 12 2004 23
1991 12 2005 23
1992 12 2006 23
1993 15 2007 22
1994 20 2008 20
1995 25 2009 20
1996 24 2010 23
1997 21 2011 25
1998 19
Source: Iowa DOT and APO/TAF, FBO Records
29 | P a g e

Current aircraft registration numbers or N numbers were obtained from the Airport
and were researched according to the FAA Aircraft Registry. The current based aircraft
(25 total) include a variety of single-engine piston aircraft such as the very common
Cessna172 and multi-engine aircraft including a Beechcraft D95. A complete listing of
the current based aircraft is summarized in Table 2.9.

Table 2.9: Based Aircraft
N-number Make/Model Aircraft Type ARC
1 N100EB Mooney M22 Single Engine Piston A-I
2 N220BD Mooney M20C Single Engine Piston A-I
3 N2896R Piper PA-28R Single Engine Piston A-I
4 N32631 Beechcraft V35B Single Engine Piston A-I
5 N33EE Cessna 182M Single Engine Piston B-I
6 N36118 Piper PA-28 Single Engine Piston A-I
7 N36GG Beechcraft A36 Single Engine Piston A-I
8 N37DC Teratorn Tierra II Single Engine Piston A-I
9 N3830G Cessna U206B Single Engine Piston B-I
10 N4584V Beechcraft 35 Single Engine Piston A-I
11 N4587J Piper PA-28 Single Engine Piston A-I
12 N5741R Cessna 172G Single Engine Piston A-I
13 N6033F Beechcraft D95A Multi-Engine Piston B-I
14 N619JG Golden Circle Air T-Bird II Single Engine Piston A-I
15 N6675T Cessna 150A Single Engine Piston A-I
16 N6900W Piper PA-28 Single Engine Piston A-I
17 N7091Y Piper PA-23 Multi-Engine Piston B-I
18 N7363E Cessna 172N Single Engine Piston A-I
19 N822K 2T-1 Menasco Special Single Engine Piston A-I
20 N8311J Cessna 150G Single Engine Piston A-I
21 N8419N Beechcraft V35B Single Engine Piston A-I
22 N8780U Cessna 150M Single Engine Piston A-I
23 N93MS Beechcraft D-50 Multi-Engine Piston B-I
24 N9868U Grumman American AA-5A Single Engine Piston A-I
25 N995DB Quad City Ultralight Challenger II Single Engine Piston A-I
Source: National Based Aircraft Inventory Program, 2012

As depicted in Table 2.9, an Airport Reference Code (ARC) was also assigned to each
based aircraft. The ARC is comprised of two components, the first of which is a letter
that denotes the Aircraft Approach Category (the aircrafts approach or landing speed).
The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the Airplane Design Group
(ADG) and relates to the aircrafts wingspan. Table 2.10 summarizes the FAA ARC
categories.

30 | P a g e

Table 2.10: FAA Airport Reference Codes (ARC)
Aircraft
Approach
Category
Aircraft
Approach
Speed (knots)
Airplane
Design
Group
Aircraft
Wingspan
(feet)
A <91 I <49
B 91-<121 II 49-<79
C 121-<141 III 79-<118
D 141-<166 IV 118-<171
E >166
V 171-<214
VI 214-<262
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13

Table 2.11: Winterset Based Aircraft by FAA Classification
FAA ARC
Total
A-I B-I B-II
20 5 0 25
Source: McClure Engineering Company

Aircraft Operations
For non-towered airports where operational activity is not monitored nor recorded, it is
very difficult to quantify aircraft operations. There continues to be a debate regarding
the total number of operations at these facilities. A key metric of airport activity is the
number of operations per based aircraft.

As mentioned previously, the IASP assigned 250 operations per aircraft with airports with
1 to 30 based aircraft. Airports with 31 to 99 based aircraft were assigned 350
operations per aircraft, and airports such as busy corporate airports with 100 or more
based aircraft were assigned 450 operations per aircraft. For Winterset, with a based
aircraft amount of 23 as reported in 2010, total annual aircraft operations were
estimated using 250 operations per based aircraft as presented in FAA Order 5090.3C.
The 250 operations per based aircraft value was applied to the 25 based aircraft and
resulted in an estimated 6,250 annual operations currently being conducted.

There are several other sources that can be useful in estimating operational activity.
Sources such as Airport Master Records (5010 Forms) and FAA Terminal Area Forecast
(TAF) provide historical and forecasted airport operational data. Table 2.12 illustrates
the historical aircraft operations for the Winterset Municipal Airport.

31 | P a g e

Table 2.12: Historical Aircraft Operations
Year Itinerant Local Total Year Itinerant Local Total
1998 2,748 2,568 5,316 2005 2,748 2,568 5,316
1999 2,748 2,568 5,316 2006 2,748 2,568 5,316
2000 2,748 2,568 5,316 2007 2,748 2,568 5,316
2001 2,748 2,568 5,316 2008 2,456 2,294 4,750
2002 2,748 2,568 5,316 2009 2,456 2,294 4,750
2003 2,748 2,568 5,316 2010 2,456 2,294 4,750
2004 2,748 2,568 5,316
Source: FAA TAF, FBO Records

The operations presented in Table 2.12 are slightly lower than the methodology used in
the IASP. For example, with a based aircraft count of 25 and assigning 250 operations
per aircraft, the IASP forecasts 6,250 total operations compared to 4,750 operations
presented in Table 2.12.

Local and Itinerant Operations
Total airport operations are comprised of local and itinerant operations. According to
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, local operations are
operations performed by aircraft that are either:

based at the airport and that operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight of
the airport,
known to be departing for or arriving from flights in local practice areas within a
prescribed distance from the airport, or
executing simulated instrument approaches to the airport.

Itinerant operations are those conducted by aircraft that leave the local airspace.

Because the Winterset Municipal Airport does not have a traffic control tower, it is difficult
to estimate the breakdown between local and itinerant operations. According to the
IASP, the state average is 40 percent local and 60 percent itinerant. Reviewing the
operations as presented in Table 2.12, historical data is comparable to the statewide
average with a range of approximately 48% allocated to local operations. Applying a
breakdown of 48% local and 52% itinerant to the total 6,250 operations, an estimated
3,000 local and 3,250 itinerant operations are conducted on an annual basis.

2.4 BASELINE ACTIVITY

As discussed in the previous section, baseline activity indicates approximately 6,250
annual operations occur at the Winterset Municipal Airport. Itinerant activity is estimated
at 52% or 3,250 operations which are an average of about 9 operations per day.
Discussions with airport officials confirm this level of activity is consistent with normal
itinerant activity.

32 | P a g e

Local activity is estimated at 48% or 3,000 annual operations which are largely
associated with agricultural spraying and recreational activity that occurs in a more
concentrated period during the growing season.

2.5 FORECAST METHODOLOGY

The forecast of aviation demand provides a basis by which to establish an estimate of
potential aviation activity at the Winterset Municipal Airport. In estimating potential
demand, consideration must be given to a number of variables which influence demand
within the airport service area.

Based aircraft
Pilots
Population
Employment
Major industrial and business users

Forecasts for an airport in a growing community like Winterset, especially with an
emphasis on manufacturing/industrial growth, are subject to considerable error. Any
new activity will result in a significant percentage deviation from the forecast. These
activities may be altered by global changes in the aviation industry, employment and
population shifts, or businesses locating in or out of the community. The expansion,
downsizing, or complete removal of a business can have a significant impact on aviation
demand. As a result, deviations in the demand forecasts should be expected and the
airport should have flexibility in their plans to accommodate the variations in actual
demand.

The first step in developing aviation demand forecasts is analyzing past trends involving
based aircraft, operations, and socio-economic patterns regarding population and
employment. The second step of demand forecasting is to project the trends into the
future using various methodologies such as regression analysis and share analysis.

The forecasts models used in this analysis include regression analysis and share analysis.
Regression analysis focuses on the correlation between the dependent variable, in this
case aircraft demand, and one or more independent variables such as changes in
population, employment, and income levels. A regression analysis will illustrate how
aviation demand changes when an independent variable is varied. When the correlation
between the dependent variable and the independent variables is weak, local aviation
forecasts can be compared to state and national trends. This method is referred to as
share analysis which assumes forecasts developed for larger regions apply to forecasts at
the local level.

2.6 ACTIVITY FORECASTS

The following sections present the activity forecasts. Aviation activity forecasts for the
Winterset Municipal Airport were prepared for 5-year (2017), 10-year (2022), 15-year
(2027), and 20-year (2032) planning horizons.

33 | P a g e

2.6.1 Projected Based Aircraft
A series of forecast scenarios were developed consistent with the method established by
the FAA for updating national forecasts. Three scenarios were developed with each
assuming different growth levels.

Low Growth Scenario: assumes the growth rate will be comparable to local
socioeconomic trends. The projected population annual growth rates for Madison
County was 0.72% to 0.82%. The employment annual growth rate in Madison
County was 0.27%. The average annual growth rate for these trends equates to
approximately 0.50%. This scenario will utilize a CAGR of 0.50%.
Medium Growth Scenario: assumes the growth rate will be equal to the
compounded annual growth rate projected by the IASP. This scenario will utilize a
CAGR of 1.25%.
High Growth Scenario: assumes the growth rate will be equal to the based aircraft
projections discussed in Section 2.3.3. This scenario will utilize a CAGR of 1.70%.

Table 2.13: Projected Based Aircraft
Low Scenario Medium Scenario High Scenario
Year CAGR= 0.50% CAGR= 1.25% CAGR= 1.70%
2012 25 25 25
2017 26 27 27
2022 26 28 30
2027 27 30 32
2032 28 32 35

2.6.2 Projected Based Aircraft Fleet Mix
Based aircraft fleet mix projections are critical so that future facilities can be properly
sized to accommodate the expected demand. The fleet mix projections derived in this
section will be used in the next chapter to identify facility requirements based on the type
and number of aircraft planned to use the airport. Aircraft fleet mix projections were
derived from the projected based aircraft and historical fleet mix trends.

As illustrated in Table 2.11, there are currently 20 A-I aircraft, 5 B-I aircraft, and no B-II
aircraft based at the Winterset Municipal Airport. As discussed in previous sections,
single engine piston powered aircraft are expected to witness a flat growth rate of 0.3%.
The multi-engine piston fleet is expected to decrease at an annual rate of 0.9%.
Whereas, the turbo prop fleet is expected to see a 1.4 percent annual growth rate.
Aircraft in the A-I category primarily consist of single engine piston aircraft. Therefore
the operations in the A-I category were escalated using a 0.3% annual growth rate. B-I
and B-II consist of a mixture of multi-engine piston and a turbo prop fleet. These
categories were projected using a weighted growth rate since the multi-engine fleet is
experiencing an annual decline of 0.9% but the turbo prop fleet is witnessing a 1.4%
annual growth rate. Table 2.14 illustrates the summary of these projections using these
assumptions.

34 | P a g e

The low growth scenario assumes one B-II aircraft will be based at the airport by 2027.
The medium growth scenario assumes one B-II aircraft will be added in 2017, an
additional one in 2022, and a third by 2032. The high growth scenario assumes one B-
II aircraft will be added every five years, totaling 4, by 2032. With the amount of
itinerant B-II aircraft currently using the airport, these scenarios are reasonable for
planning purposes.

Table 2.14: Projected Based Aircraft Fleet Mix
A-I B-I B-II Total
Year Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High
2012 20 20 20 5 5 5 0 0 0 25 25 25
2017 20 20 20 6 6 6 0 1 1 26 27 27
2022 20 20 21 6 6 7 0 2 2 26 28 30
2027 20 21 21 6 7 8 1 2 3 27 30 32
2032 21 22 22 6 7 9 1 3 4 28 32 35

2.6.3 Projected Aircraft Operations
As detailed in Section 2.4, the baseline activity estimated 6,250 total operations were
conducted at the Winterset Municipal Airport in 2011.

Table 2.15: Projected Aircraft Operations Using Growth Rates
Low Med High
Year CAGR= 0.50% CAGR= 1.25% CAGR= 1.70%
2012 6,250 6,250 6,250
2017 6,408 6,651 6,800
2022 6,570 7,077 7,398
2027 6,736 7,530 8,048
2032 6,906 8,013 8,756

Using the based aircraft projections and assigning 250 operations per aircraft, total
aircraft operations were also projected using this methodology as presented in Table
2.16.

Table 2.16: Projected Aircraft Operations Using Based Aircraft Methodology

Based Aircraft
Operations
Per Based
Aircraft
Total Operations
Year Low Med High Low Med High
2012 25 25 25 250 6,250 6,250 6,250
2017 26 27 27 250 6,500 6,750 6,750
2022 26 28 30 250 6,500 7,000 7,500
2027 27 30 32 250 6,750 7,500 8,000
2032 28 32 35 250 7,000 8,000 8,750

35 | P a g e

As discussed in Section 2.4, approximately 52% or 3,250 operations were estimated as
itinerant operations and 48% or 3,000 operations were estimated as local operations.
Table 2.17 illustrates the projected operational breakdown of itinerant and local
operations over the planning period.

Table 2.17: Projected Operational Breakdown
Itinerant Operations
52%
Local Operations
48%
Total
Year Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High
2012 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,000 3,000 3,000 6,250 6,250 6,250
2017 3,332 3,459 3,536 3,076 3,192 3,264 6,408 6,651 6,800
2022 3,416 3,680 3,847 3,154 3,397 3,551 6,570 7,077 7,398
2027 3,503 3,916 4,185 3,233 3,614 3,863 6,736 7,530 8,048
2032 3,591 4,167 4,553 3,315 3,846 4,203 6,906 8,013 8,756

2.6.4 Projected Fleet Mix Operations
The types of aircraft and the number of operations per aircraft need to be forecasted to
appropriately size future facilities. Identifying the types of aircraft and the frequency of
operations will provide the information required for facility planning.

Total itinerant operations can be estimated with relative ease, however determining the
type of itinerant aircraft and the frequency of operations can be less straightforward.
Discussions with knowledgeable airport staff and retrieval of historical data were
completed to estimate the type of itinerant aircraft and the frequency of operations.
Historical data was retrieved from GCR & Associates from March 2011 to March 2012 to
determine the typical itinerant aircraft. The data illustrates 78 itinerant operations
occurred at the Winterset Municipal Airport during the sampling period.

From the sampling period, the data concludes that of the itinerant operations, 20.5%
was allocated for turbo aircraft and 79.5% was for piston traffic. Table 2.18 illustrates
the sample of the itinerant traffic.

The itinerant operations sampling data concludes the following:
69.2% was from ARC A-I aircraft
20.5% was from ARC B-I aircraft
10.3% was from ARC B-II aircraft

The largest itinerant aircraft using the airport on a regular basis is the Beechcraft 200
Super King Air. The Beechcraft 200 Super King Air has a wingspan of 54 6 and has a
maximum takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds.

36 | P a g e

Table 2.18: Itinerant Aircraft Sample
Make/Model Aircraft Type ARC Operations
Piper PA-46-500TP Piston B-I 1
Pilatus PC-12 Turbo B-II 2
Pacific Aerospace 750XL Turbo B-I 6
Mooney M22 Piston A-I 2
Beech 95-B55 Piston A-I 2
Piper PA-32-300 Piston A-I 4
Beech A36 Piston A-I 4
Mooney M20J Piston A-I 2
Piper PA-46-500TP Piston B-I 5
Moravan Z143L Piston A-I 2
Beech V35B Bonanza Piston A-I 2
Cessna T206H Super Skywagon Piston B-I 2
Grumman AA-5A Piston A-I 6
Beech D95A Piston A-I 14
Piper PA-46-310P Piston A-I 4
Beech V35B Bonanza Piston A-I 2
Piper PA-31T Turbo B-I 2
Mooney M20L Piston A-I 4
Piper PA-28R-201 Piston A-I 2
Beechcraft 200 Super King Air Turbo B-II 6

Local Operations
The Winterset Municipal Airport has 20 based aircraft in the A-I category and 5 based
aircraft in the B-I category. The largest aircraft based at the airport is a Beechcraft Twin
Bonanza (D-50) which is a multi-engine piston aircraft. The Beechcraft Twin Bonanza
has a wingspan of 45 feet 3 inches and a maximum takeoff weight of 7,300 pounds.

As discussed in Section 2.4, it is estimated there are 3,000 local operations per year.
For estimating the breakdown between A-I and B-I annual operations, the operational
levels were proportioned based on the allocation of the based aircraft. For example, 20
of the 25 based aircraft (80%) are allocated in the A-I category and 5 of the 25 based
aircraft (20%) allocated in the B-I category.

Table 2.19: Local Operational Fleet Mix Breakdown
Local Operations
ARC % Operations
A-I 80.0% 2,400
B-I 20.0% 600
Total 3,000
37 | P a g e

Table 2.20 summarizes the current fleet mix operational breakdown for itinerant and
local operations.

Table 2.20: Current Fleet Mix Operational Breakdown
Itinerant Local
Total
ARC % Operations % Operations
A-I 69.2% 2,249 80.0% 2,400 4,649
B-I 20.5% 666 20.0% 600 1,266
B-II 10.3% 335 0 335
Total 3,250 3,000 6,250

2.7 RECOMMENDED FORECAST

After evaluating the various forecasts developed in Section 2.6, it is recommended to
utilize the high growth scenario. Over the 20-year planning period, the number of
based aircraft and total airport operations at the Winterset Municipal Airport is expected
to grow at a steady rate comparable to that of the state average. The high growth
scenario growth assumed a compound annual growth rate of 1.70% which was based
on the projected based aircraft discussed in Section 2.3.3 using a linear regression
analysis.

Sound justification exists for the high growth scenario as Madison County is the second-
fastest growing non-metropolitan county in the State of Iowa. The Winterset area is only
35 miles from the influence of the Des Moines Metropolitan area and within 20 minutes
from Dallas County which is the 7th fastest growing county in the United States according
to the U.S. Census Bureau. Additionally, there is currently inadequate hangar space to
accommodate the demands in the Des Moines Metro area.

In summary, the high growth scenario was selected as it was deemed the most realistic
scenario and will provide the airport with the most flexibility with planning activities over
the next 20 years. Table 2.21 summarizes the recommended forecast of based aircraft
and operations; whereas Table 2.22 summarizes the recommended fleet mix operational
breakdown forecast.

Table 2.21: Recommended Forecast Summary
Year Based
Aircraft
Total
Operations
(52%)
Local Operations
(48%)
2012 25 6,250 3,250 3,000
2017 27 6,800 3,536 3,264
2022 30 7,398 3,847 3,551
2027 32 8,048 4,185 3,863
2032 35 8,756 4,553 4,203

38 | P a g e

Table 2.22 summarizes the projected fleet mix operational breakdown per airport
reference code category. As discussed in previous sections, single engine piston
powered aircraft are expected to witness a flat growth rate of 0.3%. The multi-engine
piston fleet is expected to decrease at an annual rate of 0.9%. Whereas, the turbo prop
fleet is expected to see a 1.4 percent annual growth rate. Aircraft in the A-I category
primarily consist of single engine piston aircraft. Therefore the operations in the A-I
category were escalated using a 0.3% annual growth rate. B-I and B-II consist of a
mixture of multi-engine piston and a turbo prop fleet. These categories were projected
using a weighted growth rate since the multi-engine fleet is experiencing an annual
decline of 0.9% but the turbo prop fleet is witnessing a 1.4% annual growth rate.

The projections for local operations were proportioned using Table 2.14. For example,
in 2017, the Winterset Municipal Airport is projected to have 27 based aircraft of which
20 are projected as A-I aircraft (74.1%), 6 as B-I aircraft (22.2%), and 1 as B-II aircraft
(3.7%). These assumptions were repeated for all planning horizons.

Table 2.22: Recommended Fleet Mix Operational Breakdown Forecast
Year ARC
Itinerant Local Total
% Operations % Operations % Operations
2012 A-I 69.2% 2,249 80.0% 2,400 74.4% 4,649
B-I 20.5% 666 20.0% 600 20.3% 1,266
B-II 10.3% 335 0.0% - 5.4% 335
Total 3,250 3,000 6,250

2017 A-I 66.7% 2,358 74.1% 2,418 70.2% 4,776
B-I 21.5% 759 22.2% 725 21.8% 1,484
B-II 11.8% 419 3.7% 121 7.9% 540
Total 3,536 3,264 6,800
-
2022 A-I 64.3% 2,475 70.0% 2,486 67.1% 4,961
B-I 22.4% 860 23.3% 829 22.8% 1,689
B-II 13.3% 512 6.7% 237 10.1% 749
Total 3,847 3,551 7,398

2027 A-I 62.1% 2,600 65.6% 2,535 63.8% 5,135
B-I 23.2% 971 25.0% 966 24.1% 1,937
B-II 14.7% 614 9.4% 362 12.1% 976
Total 4,185 3,863 8,048

2032 A-I 60.1% 2,735 62.86% 2,642 61.4% 5,377
B-I 24.0% 1,092 25.71% 1,081 24.8% 2,173
B-II 15.9% 726 11.43% 480 13.8% 1,206
Total 4,553 4,203 8,756
39 | P a g e

2.8 DESIGN AIRCRAFT

The frame of reference for airport planning criteria is established by the largest aircraft
or design aircraft that uses the airport on a regular basis, i.e., at least 500 itinerant
operations per year. The single aircraft or category of aircraft meeting this requirement is
commonly referred to as the airports design aircraft.

2.8.1 Recommended Design Aircraft
According to Table 2.22, the current design aircraft category with greater than 500
itinerant operations is the B-I category. Typical aircraft in the B-I category include the
Piper Cheyenne (PA-31T), Piper Malibu (PA-46), and the Cessna T206 Skywagon.

There is sound justification for assigning the future design aircraft as the B-II category
given that there are more than 500 itinerant operations projected annually by such
aircraft. In addition, the last approved ALP drawings in 2000 justified the design aircraft
as the B-II category. As shown on the approved 2000 Airport Layout Plan, the existing
Runway 14-32 is currently classified as a B-I runway and the ultimate Runway 14-32 is
currently classified as a B-II runway. It is recommended that these classifications remain
unchanged for the future.

Based on the above points, it is recommended that the B-II category be assigned as the
future critical design airport reference code for the Winterset Municipal Airport. Typical
aircraft in the B-II category are depicted in the figures and include turboprops and
smaller sized business jets greater than 12,500 pounds such as the following:
Super King Air 300, 350
Citation II, Bravo, XLS+
Falcon 20, 50, 200, 900

Figure 2.2: Super King Air 300

Figure 2.3: Citation II

40 | P a g e

2.9 ANNUAL INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS

Estimating the number of instrument operations is important for justifying infrastructure
improvements such as landing and approach aids.

An instrument operation is defined by the FAA as an arrival or departure operating in
accordance with an Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) flight plan or an operation where IFR
separation between aircraft is provided by a terminal approach control facility. IFR
operations take place under the following conditions

When visibility is less than 3 miles or ceiling is at below the minimum initial
approach altitude.
Where no weather reporting service is available at non-towered airports, the
following criteria, in descending order, is used to determine valid instrument
approaches:
- A pilot report
- If the flight has not canceled its IFR flight plan prior to reaching the initial
approach fix
The official weather as reported for any airport located within 30 miles of the
airport to which the approach is made.

For non-towered airports, annual instrument operations fluctuate depending upon the
weather from 7.5 to 12.5 percent of annual activity. An average of 10.0 percent will be
used for these forecasts.

Table 2.23: Projected Annual Instrument Operations
Year
Annual Instrument
Operations
2012 625
2017 680
2022 739
2027 804
2032 875

41 | P a g e

Chapter 3:
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter identifies the airside, terminal, and landside facilities that are necessary to
accommodate the current demand, current FAA standards, and forecasted levels of
demand. The facility requirements evaluation is used to identify the adequacy or
inadequacy of existing airport facilities and to identify what new facilities may be needed
during the planning period to accommodate forecast demand or to meet FAA safety and
design standards.

The frame of reference for establishing these needs is the design aircraft that uses the
airport on a frequent basis. As discussed in Chapter 2, the current design aircraft is the
B-I category which includes aircraft such as the Piper Cheyenne (PA-31T), Piper Malibu
(PA-46), and the Cessna T206 Skywagon. The future design aircraft has been forecasted
to be the B-II category which includes turboprops and smaller sized business jets such as
the Super King Air 350, Citation XLS+, and the Falcon 900.

Currently, the majority of itinerant usage is by ARC A-I and B-I aircraft. However, with
the requirements involved for designing an airport based on this aircraft, a longer
runway may attract more ARC B-II aircraft which has limited access to the Winterset
Municipal Airport. Therefore, it is important to be aware of and to protect the separation
and safety standards as much as possible so that future upgrades of the facility are
feasible. Airport development should proceed towards a goal of attaining ARC B-II
standards.

The FAA has established detailed guidance for specifying airport needs based upon an
airports design aircraft in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. AC
150/5300-13 provides geometric criteria for planning facilities in concert with an
airports design aircraft. The portion of these criteria relating to planning facilities for the
Winterset Municipal Airport is provided in Tables 3.1 through 3.3. Table 3.1 is the FAAs
design standards for A/B-I Small Aircraft, Table 3.2 is the design standards for A/B-I
aircraft, and Table 3.3 is the design standards for B-II aircraft.
42 | P a g e

Table 3.1: FAA Runway Design Standards Matrix, A/B-I Small Aircraft

Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Appendix 7

43 | P a g e

Table 3.2: FAA Runway Design Standards Matrix, A/B-I

44 | P a g e

Table 3.3: FAA Runway Design Standards Matrix, B-II

45 | P a g e

3.2 AIRSIDE REQUIREMENTS

The existing airside infrastructure at the Winterset Municipal Airport was reviewed for its
adequacy based on the criteria in the following sections.

3.2.1 Wind Analysis
The optimum runway orientation is one which will provide a 95 percent level of wind
coverage at a cross wind component value not exceeding 12 mph (10.5 knots) for ARC
A-I and B-I and 15 mph (13.0 knots) for ARC A-II and B-II. The 18.4 mph (16.0 knots)
crosswind component value should be used for ARC A-III, B-III and C-I through D-III.

On-site wind data for the Winterset Municipal Airport is not available. Wind data from
the Des Moines International Airport was selected as being representative.

Table 3.4: Wind Coverage
Crosswind
Component
Runway 14/32
10.5 Knots 91.00%
13.0 Knots 95.36%
16.3 Knots 98.63%
Source: Des Moines International

Analyzing the wind conditions at Winterset, Runway 14/32 provides a 91.00 percent
level of wind coverage at 10.5 knots and 95.36 percent at the 13.0 knot crosswind
component value. Therefore, Runway 14/32 provides adequate wind coverage for ARC
A-II and B-II aircraft but slightly less than adequate for ARC A-I and B-I aircraft.

In 2032, A-I and B-I total operations are forecasted to be 7,550. This means that 9% of
7,550 or 680 A-I/B-I annual operations could be affected. By the end of the planning
period, this could potentially impact up to 680 piston engine aircraft operations
annually. A crosswind runway is built for aircraft that conduct more than 500 itinerant
operations per year. In summary, a small turf crosswind runway for 10.5 knot coverage
should be considered. It is recommended that Winterset plan for and protect the
separation and safety standards as much as possible so that future upgrades of the
facility are feasible. If overlooked, ultimate development plans could result in future
operational limitations to customers.

A crosswind runway will be further analyzed in Chapter 4, Alternative Analysis.
46 | P a g e

3.2.2 Runway Orientation
Runways are aligned and designated relative to magnetic north. Runway designations
are normally identified within 6 degrees of the runway magnetic bearing. The current
runway magnetic declination (the difference between magnetic north and true
geographic north) is 1 33 east with an annual change of 0 7' west as of 2012
according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Geophysical Data Center (NGDC).

For example, Runway 14 has a true bearing of 142 degrees.

Runway magnetic bearing = Runway true bearing - assigned airport magnetic variation
= 142 00 1 33
= 140 27

With the runway magnetic bearing equal to 140 27, the runway assignment should be
14, making the existing runway designation correct.

3.2.3 Runway Length
Runway length requirements for the Winterset Municipal Airport were obtained from FAA
AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design.

Table 3.5: Runway Length Requirements
Airport and Runway Data
Airport Elevation 1,110 feet
Mean daily maximum temperature of hottest month 88 F
Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation 20 feet

Runway Length Recommended for Airport Design
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots* 300 feet
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots* 900 feet
Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats *
95 percent of these small airplanes 3,400 feet
100 percent of these small airplanes 4,000 feet
Small airplanes having 10 or more passenger seats* 4,400 feet

Airplanes over 12,500 pounds but less than 60,000 pounds
75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load** 4,800 feet
* A small airplane is defined as an airplane of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight.
** Based on no wind, dry runway surface, and zero effective runway gradient. Additional length adjustments required.

47 | P a g e

Runway 14/32 with a current length of 3,000 feet will accommodate approximately 75
percent of the small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats. To accommodate 95
percent of the small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats, a length of no less than
3,400 feet is recommended. To accommodate 100 percent of the small airplanes with
less than 10 passenger seats, a length of no less than 4,000 feet is recommended.

When selecting the percentage of fleet, AC 150/5325-4B states the 100 Percent of
Fleet is primarily intended to serve communities located on the fringe of a metropolitan
area such as the case of Winterset which is in close proximity to the Des Moines metro
area. In summary, it is recommended the length of Runway 14/32 be no less than
4,000 feet.

Between 2017 and 2022, it is forecasted that B-II aircraft will conduct more than 500
itinerant operations per year. As stated in Chapter 2, typical B-II aircraft include
turboprops and smaller sized business jets such as the Super King Air 350, Citation
XLS+, and the Falcon 900. These aircraft weigh greater than 12,500 pounds but less
than 60,000 pounds. According to AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for
Airport Design, when the Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight (MTOW) of the airplanes
is 60,000 pounds or less, the recommended runway length is determined according to a
family grouping of airplanes having similar performance characteristics and operating
weights. In Wintersets case, Table 3-1 in AC 150/5325-4B includes the list of airplanes
that comprise the 75 percent of fleet category and therefore can be accommodated by
the runway lengths resulting from Figure 3-1 in AC 150/5325-4B. Table 3-2 in AC
150/5325-4B provides the remaining airplanes beyond that of Table 3-1 in AC
150/5325-4B which comprise the 100 percent of fleet category. However the aircraft
listed in Table 3-2 in AC 150/5325-4B are not currently forecasted to use the Winterset
Municipal Airport.

Using Figure 3-1 in AC 150/5325-4B, the following runway lengths were interpolated.
75% of fleet at 60% useful load = 4,800 feet
75% of fleet at 90% useful load = 6,650 feet

The runway lengths determined from Figure 3-1 in AC 150/5325-4B are based on no
wind, dry runway surface, and zero effective runway gradient. For takeoff operations
only, the runway lengths from Figure 3-1 in AC 150/5325-4B are increased at rate of 10
feet for each foot of elevation difference between high and low points. Assuming 20 feet
of change, the runway lengths for takeoff were adjusted as follows:
75% of fleet at 60% useful load = 4,800 feet + 200 feet = 5,000 feet
75% of fleet at 90% useful load = 6,650 feet + 200 feet = 6,850 feet

By regulation, for landing operations only, the runway length for turbojet-powered
airplanes obtained from the 60% useful load curve are increased by 15% or up to 5,500
feet, whichever is less.
75% of fleet at 60% useful load= 4,800 feet +15% = 5,520 ft, max 5,500 ft.
75% of fleet at 90% useful load = 6,650 feet +15% = 7,647.5 ft, max 7,000 ft.

48 | P a g e

In summary, the ultimate recommended runway length should be no less than 4,000 feet
and up to a maximum of 5,500 feet. Ultimate runway lengths and alignments will be
further analyzed in Chapter 4, Alternative Analysis.

3.2.4 Runway Width
The existing 50 foot width of Runway 14/32 is inadequate based on the criteria
presented in Tables 3.1 through 3.3 for both ARC B-I and B-II. To meet ARC B-I criteria,
the existing runway should be widened to no less than 60 feet. To meet ARC B-II
standards, the existing runway should be widened to no less than 75 feet.

Ultimate runway widths and alignments will be furthered analyzed in Chapter 4,
Alternative Analysis.

3.2.5 Runway Marking
Runway 14/32 is currently marked as a basic (visual) runway and the markings are in
fair condition and should be maintained.

At the time an ultimate B-II facility is constructed, the future runway should be marked as
non-precision.

3.2.6 Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Obstacle Free Area (ROFA)
The existing RSA is 120 feet in width, consistent with the criteria for an ARC B-I facility.
However, the existing ROFA is 250 feet in width limiting the facility to small airplanes
exclusively. To meet ARC B-II criteria the RSA must be expanded to 150 feet in width,
and the ROFA to 500 feet in width. Expansion of the existing RSA and ROFA to meet
ARC B-II criteria is not considered a viable alternative. The existing location of the apron,
aircraft parking, terminal buildings, and T-hangars each create an obstruction within the
expanded ROFA.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Runway 32 end contains a sub-standard RSA length. The
Runway 32 safety area length beyond the threshold extends only 58 until it reaches a
steep slope beyond that point. The minimum RSA length beyond the threshold for A-I
and B-I aircraft is 240 feet. The steep slope is a result of the close proximity of the
threshold and existing property line. The existing property line would need to be
relocated to allow construction of a flatter slope or coordination with the private land
owner would be required to construct a flatter embankment off airport property.

Ultimate runway alignments will be furthered analyzed in Chapter 4, Alternative Analysis.

3.2.7 Runway Protection Zones (RPZ)
Currently the airport has control by avigation easement, over the land contained within
the RPZ for Runway 14/32. At present two buildings associated with an orchard are
located within the RPZ for Runway 32. The presence of these buildings is inconsistent
with the criteria presented in FAA AC 150/5300-13. If the existing Runway 14/32 is
maintained as a runway, the RPZs should be acquired so the airport has control of the
land use.

49 | P a g e

Acquisition of the land contained within the RPZ is the best means of gaining control; an
avigation easement is a secondary alternative. When a new runway is constructed, the
RPZs should be acquired in fee simple, or controlled by easement and cleared of all
incompatible activity, by the standards set forth in FAA AC 150/5300-13.

3.2.8 Pavement Condition and Strength
The existing runway is capable of supporting the current aircraft operations. The ultimate
runway should be constructed with pavement strength capable of supporting a single
wheel load of at least 30,000 pounds and a dual wheel gear load of 45,000 pounds.

Runway 14/32 last received a rehabilitation in 2005, which consisted of a bituminous
surface mill and overlay. It is recommended to perform preventative maintenance
(surface seal, crack sealing) in the next five to seven years to keep the pavement in good
condition, extend its useful life, and protect the FAA and Airports investment.

3.2.9 Taxiway Requirements
The Airport is equipped with two connecting taxiways both 25 feet in width which provide
access from the runway to the apron tie-down area. The taxiway width of 25 feet
currently meets ARC B-I criteria; however future taxiways should be planned at a 35 foot
width to conform to B-II standards.

The taxiway pavements last received an overlay in 2009 which should provide a life of
approximately 15 years. It is recommended to perform preventative maintenance
(surface seal, crack sealing) in the next five to seven years to keep the pavement in good
condition, extend its useful life, and protect the FAA and Airports investment. As the
current taxiway markings fade, a project to remark the entire taxiways should also be
considered.

3.2.10 Apron Requirements
An apron area should be maintained to provide space for aircraft movements (queuing
space) and improved surface tie-downs for itinerant aircraft. The queuing area provides
space for aircraft access to the FBO, individual hangars, fuel, etc. Primary
considerations for apron design are the type (for based aircraft or transient aircraft) and
tie-down layout. Other considerations include the spacing of tie-downs, wind
orientation, and design group considerations.

The Airport currently maintains one terminal apron of approximately 2,750 square yards
with the majority of the apron being dedicated as a taxilane for taxiing aircraft.

Since all based aircraft are expected to be stored in hangars, the primary concern is with
itinerant aircraft. The transient parking area required can generally be projected based
on the forecast of itinerant operations. A general design practice provides for computing
parking spaces for itinerant aircraft is as follows:
50 | P a g e

1. Parking area sized for 50% of busy day itinerant aircraft
2. Busy day = 10% more than average day in busiest month
3. Allow 10% for growth
4. Provide accommodations for different size aircraft

Using the FAA apron area sizing spreadsheet included as Appendix C, calculations were
performed to determine the apron sizing requirements for itinerant aircraft. The
calculations concluded that 7,050 square yards should be provided. With the existing
apron sized at approximately 2,750 square yards, the expansion required will be
approximately 4,300 square yards. An approximate area of 90 feet by 450 feet will
provide the apron expansion necessary.

Based on the FAA apron sizing spreadsheet and providing a tie-down for each transient
aircraft, Winterset ultimately will need 12 tie-downs. Currently the apron has two tie-
downs, which are anchored by tires and are located east of the apron in the turf area
inside the runway object free area. Winterset should plan on removing the two existing
tie-downs and replacing them with 12 tie-downs to accommodate both ARC B-I and B-II
aircraft.

3.2.11 Aircraft Fueling
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the airport utilizes a 4,000 gallon underground fuel storage
tank which stores 100LL and consists of a double-wall fiber glass partition tank with
partitions at 2,000 gallon each. Jet-A fuel is stored in a 2,500 gallon mobile truck which
is parked on-site.

With the planned construction of a longer runway, increased jet traffic will be expected
and the FBO fuel facilities may need to be expanded to utilize above ground storage
tanks.

3.2.12 Snow Removal Equipment
Presently the airport utilizes a Ford F-250 pickup truck mounted with an 8 wide
displacement blade for snow removal operations. The pickup truck is in poor condition
and has no covered storage.

Sizing of the rotary plow capacity and snow plow blade length was determined using the
spreadsheet from AC 150/5220-20, Airport Snow & Ice Control Equipment. According
to the snow removal equipment calculations included in Appendix D, the airport is
eligible for federal funding for a carrier vehicle with two 6 displacement plows, hopper
spreader, and an interchangeable rotatory plow/sweeper.

To continue to provide safe operations during inclement winter conditions, the airport
should consider acquiring additional snow removal equipment over the next 20 years. It
is also suggested to construct a snow removal equipment storage building to protect the
airports and FAAs investment.

51 | P a g e

3.2.13 Hangars
The airport currently has capacity to provide hangar storage for 28 aircraft. In 2012, the
airport is currently embarking on the construction of a second 10-unit T-hangar which
will increase the airports hangar capacity to 38. However, with the condition of the
three existing 3-unit T-Hangars nearing the end of their life, removal of these hangars in
the short term is recommended, which would decrease the capacity to 29.

As stated in Chapter 2, the based aircraft forecast is projected to be 35 by 2032. For
planning purposes it is assumed that all based aircraft would be placed in hangars.
Therefore, the addition of a 10-unit T-hangar between 2022-2032 should be
considered. In addition, rehabilitation of the existing conventional hangars should also
be considered to extend the serviceable life.

T-hangar dimensions vary with manufacturers and need. Critical dimensions include
clear door, depth, wing depth, and tail height. Space requirements using a nested T-
hangar concept are illustrated as follows:

Table 3.6: Typical T-Hangar Dimensions
# of Units Width Length
Clear
Door
Wing
Depth
Tail Depth
6 52 143-6 40-6 x 12 19 20-1
8 52 184-6 40-6 x 12 19 20-1
10 52 225-6 40-6 x 12 19 20-1

T-hangar dimensions may be increased to accommodate larger corporate twin engine
type airplanes.

Hangar structures should be separated by a minimum of 75 feet. A taxilane, 20 feet in
width should be maintained to provide access from the apron area to the individual
hangar stalls.

52 | P a g e

3.3 LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS

3.3.1 Terminal Area Facilities
The interior and exterior of the terminal facility is in very poor condition and is in need of
immediate repair as the roof leaks causing damage to the interior. It is recommended to
replace the roof, ceiling, flooring, walls, and HVAC system. A reconfigured floor plan
should also be considered to maximize efficiency providing a larger office, a more open
lounge waiting area, and expanded restrooms.

Expansion of the terminal building is not considered a viable alternative. The
construction of a new terminal facility would be a more practical option. In the event
there is overwhelming support for a new terminal, the location of a new terminal facility
will be identified on the ALP drawings.

3.3.2 Public Vehicle Parking
It is recommended to perform preventative maintenance on the existing asphalt surfaced
parking lot to extend the life of the pavement.

In addition, the number of parking stalls should equal the number of based aircraft. The
current parking lot accomodates15 vehicles and should be expanded to accommodate
30 to 35 vehicles.

3.3.3 Airport Entrance Road
The existing gravel roads leading to the airport, 195th Street and North 8
th
Avenue, are
expected to provide an adequate level of service. Maintenance of the roads should be
given a high priority throughout the 20 year planning period.

The 2010-2030 IASP states paved entrance roads are targets for Enhanced and General
Service airports. To meet the General Service Airport criteria, the paving of the entrance
road should be considered in the long range plan to provide increased level of service
for the airport users. Providing a paved entrance road from the airport to Highway 169
is critical as Winterset looks to spur economic growth and attract major businesses.

3.4 NAVIGATIONAL AID REQUIREMENTS

Approach visibility minimums are the vertical and horizontal visibilities required during
inclement weather. Vertical visibility is expressed as ceiling height, the height of a layer
of clouds covering at least 5/8 of the sky measured in feet above ground level (AGL).
Horizontal visibility is expressed in miles and/or fractions of miles. Visibility minimums
are categorized as follows:

VFR: ceiling height at least 1,000 feet and visibility at least 3 miles
IFR: ceiling height less than 1,000 feet or visibility less than 3 miles
Closed: celling height less than 200 feet or visibility less than 0.5 miles

Approaches are either non-precision or precision depending on the accuracy of the
electronic instrumentation and the required visibility minima.

53 | P a g e

For Visual and Non-Precision Instrument Approaches,
Visual and not lower than 1 mile
Visual and not lower than mile
Visual lower than mile

For Precision Instrument Approaches,
Category I
Category II
Category III

As discussed in Chapter 1, Winterset is equipped with three non-precision approaches,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, and VOR/DME-A. The approach visibility
minimums are currently visual and not lower than 1 mile. A change in visibility
minimums from not less than one mile, to no less than mile is not considered a viable
alternative for the existing runway. Until the commissioning of a longer runway, the
existing runway approaches should be maintained at their current state and clear of all
obstructions.

For planning purposes regarding the longer runway, it is recommended that Winterset
plan for a non-precision approach with visibility minimums not lower than 1 mile for
approaches from the south due to the presence of the city. For approaches from the
north, it is recommended the airport protect the airspace and plan for a non-precision
approach with visibility minimums not lower than mile.

3.5 VISUAL AID REQUIREMENTS

3.5.1 Rotating Beacon
An airport beacon light was installed in 2006 and currently is in good condition. The
rotating beacon should be maintained and replaced if regular outages occur.

3.5.2 Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL)
As the longer runway is constructed, the airport should strive to become classified by the
Iowa DOT as a General Service Airport. According to the 2010-2030 IASP, a General
Service Airport has a minimum runway length of 4,000 feet and MIRL installations are
recommended. Therefore, MIRL lights should be installed as the ultimate runway is
constructed.

The MIRL lights on the existing Runway 14/32 should also be maintained if the runway is
going to be utilized as a crosswind runway.

In addition, the existing Runway 14 and 32 threshold lights are non-standard as there
are only six threshold lights on each end, as opposed to the standard eight threshold
light configuration for a non-precision instrument approach. The threshold lights should
be modified to provide the standard eight threshold light configuration if Runway 14/32
is going to remain as a runway.
54 | P a g e

3.5.3 Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI)
Runways 14 and 32 are currently equipped with Precision Approach Path Indicators
(PAPI). The two PAPI systems were installed in 2007, owned by the airport, and appear to
be in good condition.

As the longer runway is constructed, the 2010-2030 IASP recommends for General
Service Airports that PAPI systems be installed on both runway ends. The airport should
plan to maintain the existing PAPI systems if the existing runway is to remain as a
runway. PAPI systems should then be installed on both runway ends as the ultimate
runway is constructed.

3.5.4 Runway End Identifier Light (REIL) Systems
Presently the airport is not equipped with Runway End Identifier Light (REIL) systems on
either Runway 14 or Runway 32. With the planned construction of the longer, the
installation of REILs on the existing runway is not a high priority.

As the longer runway is constructed, the2010-2030 IASP recommends that REILs be
installed on both runway ends for General Service Airports. Therefore, the airport should
plan to install REILs on both ends as the ultimate runway is constructed.

3.6 WEATHER AID REQUIREMENTS

3.6.1 Lighted Wind Indicator
The airport has a lighted wind cone located on the private conventional hangar adjacent
to the terminal building. The existing location of the lighted wind cone is adequate. The
airport should maintain the lighted wind indicator as night aircraft operations are
conducted. With the construction of the ultimate runway, the existing windcone located
near the terminal may not be visible to pilots on final approach. It is suggested that
Winterset ultimately install lighted supplemental wind cones near the ultimate approach
ends.

3.6.2 Weather Reporting
The Winterset Municipal Airport does not have an AWOS or the more sophisticated
ASOS located onsite. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the airport relies on the ASOS located
at the Des Moines International Airport which is 19 nautical miles to the northeast.

AWOS systems have been installed at various airports across the state by the Iowa DOT.
It is suggested that Winterset seek opportunities with the Iowa DOT to fund the
construction of an AWOS so accurate weather reporting can be made specific to the
Winterset area.

55 | P a g e

3.7 LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS
As mentioned in Chapter 1, any future county or city planning should discourage
residential and non-compatible development adjacent to the airport. The airport should
plan to acquire property interest in all Runway Protection Zones either by fee or avigation
easement. The airport should also acquire all property by fee out to the 35 Building
Restriction Line (BRL) to prevent hazardous obstructions from being constructed and
prohibit incompatible uses. Typical non- compatible land uses adjacent to the airport
are as follows:

Residences
Tall structures
Places of public assembly
Fuel storage facilities
Wildlife attractants

Compatible land uses include agricultural farming which also provides an excellent
source of revenue to the airport.
56 | P a g e


57 | P a g e

Chapter 4:
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The objective of the alternative analysis is to identify feasible alternatives which will
accommodate the facilities needed for the future of the Winterset Municipal Airport. The
alternatives were developed based on the forecasts presented in Chapter 2 and the
facility requirements identified in Chapter 3. The alternative analysis considered a range
of options which included the following:

No Project Development
Development Alternatives

4.2 NO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

The no project development alternative consists of maintaining the existing state of the
airport with no additional project improvements. The alternative concludes the facility
will exist as it does today and no additional funding will be invested in the airport except
for minor upkeep and maintenance.

This alternative does not improve the safety of the flying public. Many of the proposed
improvements would enhance the operational safety. This benefit would not be realized
under this alternative.

In addition, although considered cost free and environmentally friendly, the no project
development alternative could adversely affect the long term economic growth of the
Winterset area. The City of Winterset recognizes the economic impact the Winterset
Municipal Airport provides to the area and has made a significant investment in the
continued development of the airport.

The no project development alternative is not considered a feasible option.

4.3 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Three development alternatives were considered to accommodate the forecasts and the
facility requirements identified in Chapters 2 and 3 respectively. The three alternatives
were based on the need to design and construct a facility that could accommodate B-II
aircraft by the end of the planning period.

Alternative #1: Construct 4,000 x 75 Primary Runway 14/32 and convert
existing Runway 14/32 to a parallel taxiway.
Alternative #2: Construct 4,000 x 75 Primary Runway 18/36 and convert
Runway 14/32 to a crosswind runway.
Alternative #3: Expand Existing Runway 14/32 to a B-II Facility.
58 | P a g e

4.3.1 Alternative #1: Construct 4,000 x 75 Primary Runway 14/32
As shown in Figure 4.1, Alternative #1 consists of constructing a 4,000 x 75 primary
Runway 14/32 and converting the existing runway to a parallel taxiway. The proposed
runway alignment was based on the previously approved 1997 ALP set. The ultimate
Runway 14/32 is proposed parallel to the existing runway 600 feet from centerline to
centerline to take advantage of topographical features and reduce the overall earthwork
and construction cost.
The positives of Alternative #1 consist of the following:
The sub-standard end of runway safety area lengths would not have to be
addressed with the conversion of the existing Runway 14/32 to a parallel taxiway.
Runway 14/32 would not need to be widened from 50 feet to 60 feet.
All existing hangars/buildings are aligned with the Runway 14/32 orientation.
Parcels #2 &#3 were acquired in 2006 in anticipation of ultimate Runway 14/32

The negatives of Alternative #1 consist of the following:
Only one runway would exist at a length of 4,000 feet.
Requires the relocation of 195
th
Street, N. 8
th
Avenue and Limestone Avenue.
The maximum runway length is constrained to 4,000 feet with Limestone Avenue
/195
th
Street to the north and Highway 169 and Cedar Creek to the south.
A significant amount of earthwork would be required to construct the runway.
Requires the acquisition of land from multiple property owners and up to two
potential relocations. The affected land owners are not proponents of the airport
expansion and condemnation is a possibility.

4.3.2 Alternative #2: Construct 4,000 x 75 Primary Runway 18/36
As shown in Figure 4.2, Alternative #2 consists of constructing a 4,000 x 75 primary
Runway 18/36 and converting existing Runway 14/32 to a crosswind runway. A true
alignment bearing of 4.6194 takes advantage of the existing topography and minimizes
the earthwork required.

The positives of Alternative #2 consist of the following:
Two runways provide better wind coverage. A primary runway length of 4,000
feet and a crosswind runway length of 3,000 feet will be available.
The 18/36 alignment takes advantage of existing topography and minimizes the
earthwork required.
Provides flexibility for a future runway extension to 5,500 ft as demand increases.
The 18/36 alignment would require land acquisition from only one partnership
which the individual is one of the original founders of the airport and is a
proponent of the airport expansion plans. Land use is mainly row crop.
The negatives of Alternative #2 consist of the following:
The sub-standard end of runway safety area lengths will have to be addressed
with maintaining Runway 14/32 as a crosswind runway.
Runway 14/32 needs to be widened from 50 feet to 60 feet.
Requires the relocation of 195
th
Street.
All existing hangars/buildings are aligned with the Runway 14/32 orientation.
Parcels #2 & #3 were acquired in 2006 with the assumption that Alternative #1
was the planned development alternative.
59 | P a g e

Figure 4.1: Alternative #1: Construct 4,000 x 75 Primary Runway 14/32
60 | P a g e

Figure 4.2: Alternative #2: Construct 4,000 x 75 Primary Runway 18/36
61 | P a g e

4.3.3 Alternative #3: Expand Existing Runway 14/32 to B-II Facility
Alternative #3 explores expanding existing Runway 14/32 from an A-I/B-I facility to a B-
II facility. This includes extending Runway 14/32 from 3,000 feet to 4,000 feet and
widening the runway from 50 feet to 75 feet.

The widening of the existing runway is not considered a viable alternative. If the existing
runway was widened to 75 feet to meet the width criteria for an ARC B-II, the existing
3,000 foot length, combined with the added width, would provide no net increase in the
level of service provided by the runway.

Extension of the runway to the south is inhibited by grade changes and the presence of a
small orchard and associated buildings. An expansion of the north end is inhibited by
the presence of a gravel road, and several farm buildings.

In addition, with the object free area and safety area widths increasing to 500 feet and
150 feet respectively, the existing apron parking area would be in violation and the
existing buildings and hangars would also be in violation, all requiring relocation.

In summary, the expansion of existing Runway 14/32 is not considered a viable option
and was discarded from further consideration.

4.3.4 Selected Alterative
It was the consensus of the Airport to select Alternative #2, planning for the construction
of a 4,000 x 75 primary Runway 18/36 and converting Runway 14/32 to a crosswind
runway. The crosswind runway would continue to accommodate A/B-I small aircraft
only.

The Airport felt Alternative #2 provides the greatest flexibility for a future runway
extension in the event a 5,500 foot runway is ever desired. Long-range proposals call
for a beltway around the entire Des Moines Metro area, with a new bypass loop being
constructed in the southwest part of the metro area, specifically through Madison County.
With the southwest bypass in the planning stages, Madison County and the Winterset
area can expect to see substantial growth from the bypass construction and also from
sprawling Dallas County, which is the fastest growing county in Iowa.

In addition, Alternative #2 requires land acquisition from only one partnership and the
land use is mainly row crop. An individual involved in the partnership is one of the
original founders of the airport and is a proponent of the airport expansion plans. On
the other hand, the Airport is very concerned with the Alternative #1 Runway 14/32
alignment impacting the adjacent land owners. Alternative #1 requires the acquisition
of land from multiple property owners and up to two potential relocations. One of these
properties involves an apple orchard and the affected land owners are not proponents of
the airport expansion. Condemnation is a possibility.

Finally, Alternative #2 takes advantage of the existing topography and is much less
rugged than Alternative #1, therefore less costly to grade.

62 | P a g e

The Runway 18 end was selected for an improved approach visibility minimum of no less
than mile because the land use was considered more compatible on the north side
with the presence of row crop. The Airport did not want the primary instrument
approach being conducted over the city, which is located to the south, so the Runway 36
end will be planned for an approach visibility minimum of no less than 1 mile.

Airport layout drawings will be updated to illustrate an interim Runway 18/36 length of
4,000 feet and an ultimate length of 5,500 feet. In addition, Runway 18/36 will consist
of visibility minimums of no less than 1 mile on the Runway 36 end and no less than
mile on the Runway 18 end.

Table 4.1 illustrates the combined wind coverage of Runway 14/32 and Runway 18/36.

Table 4.1: Combined Wind Coverage
Runway
All-Weather Conditions
(knots)
IFR Conditions
(knots)
10.5 13 16 10.5 13 16
Runway 14/32 91.00% 95.36% 98.63% 88.66% 93.77% 98.05%
Runway 18/36 89.42% 94.13% 97.77% 86.04% 92.23% 97.29%
Combined 96.47% 98.50% 99.54% 94.87% 97.67% 99.21%

63 | P a g e

Chapter 5:
ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

5.1 INTRODUCTION

An important component of the master planning process is the identification of potential
environmental impacts by the proposed airport development. This chapter provides a
preliminary overview of the potential environmental documentation necessary to
implement the development projects identified in the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). This chapter does not replace the completion of an environmental analysis in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines, but rather
identifies the likely documentation and/or studies which will be required.

Per statutory and regulatory requirements, the FAA must evaluate the environmental
consequences of all proposed developments shown on the approved airport layout plan.
The FAA may not proceed with programming and funding an AIP project until the
environmental review is completed. FAA Order 1050.1, Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures, establishes FAA policy and procedures for implementing NEPA. FAA
Order 5050.4, Airport Environmental Handbook, provides guidance and instruction on
meeting the requirements of NEPA and FAA Order 1050.1E.

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION METHODS

Environmental reviews must be completed and approved to satisfaction of the FAA
Central Region prior to applying for federal grants to fund land acquisition and
development projects. The AIP programming and funding process may commence only
after the FAA issues a favorable determination. It is recommended that all
environmental processing and documentation be completed well in advanced of the
proposed construction date, but not too far in advanced that revalidation of the
environmental documentation would be required.

Federal regulations require one of three methods of environmental documentation be
completed for each proposed project. The following sections summarize the three
methods.

5.2.1 Categorical Exclusions (CATEX)
Categorical exclusions apply to projects, based on historical experience; the FAA has
determined the extent of the impact to be relatively small or insignificant. Proposed
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
environment would not require a formal Environmental Assessment (EA) nor an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

To aid the FAA in making a determination as to whether a categorical exclusion is
appropriate for a proposed project, a Categorical Exclusion Checklist is often required.
The checklist acts as a screening process to evaluate the impact of the proposed
64 | P a g e

improvement and to determine whether a categorical exclusion is appropriate or if an
environmental assessment is required. The checklist requires State and Federal
coordination and their associated responses on the proposed improvement(s) in order to
complete the checklist.

The timeframe for processing a CATEX can typically be completed in three to six months
depending on the extent of the project and the amount of agency coordination required.
A CATEX is considered valid for three years, after which a written re-evaluation is
required.

5.2.2 Environmental Assessments (EA)
Environmental Assessments apply to the following airport development projects:

projects which are not categorically excluded,
projects which are categorically excluded but involves at least one extraordinary
circumstance,
projects which are not known to require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
but is not categorically excluded.

EA documentation can be completed either as a short-form EA or a full EA. After
verifying the adequacy and sufficiency of the environmental assessment, the FAA will
issue either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an EIS. The FAA formally
documents the determination by issuing a Record of Decision (ROD).

The timeframe for processing an EA can typically be achieved within 12 to 18 months
depending on the extent of the project and the amount of agency coordination required.
An EA is considered valid for three years, after which a written re-evaluation is required.

5.2.3 Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Environmental Impact Statements apply to projects that would have a significant impact
on the environment after mitigation efforts are completed. Accepted EIS are published in
the Federal Register and the FAA may issue a ROD.

Similar to the other methods, federal processing for an EIS is largely dependent upon the
nature of the proposed project(s) and the environmental category effected which required
the EIS. Similar to the EA, an EIS is considered valid for three years, after which a written
re-evaluation is required.

65 | P a g e

5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies 18 environmental impact categories to be reviewed when
analyzing proposed development. All of these categories must be addressed as part of
any environmental analysis.

Air Quality
Coastal Resources
Compatible Land Use
Construction Impacts
Department of Transportation Act: Sec. 4(f) Land
Farmlands
Fish, Wildlife, and Plants
Floodplains
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste
Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources
Light Emissions and Visual Impacts
Natural Resources and Energy Supply
Noise
Secondary (Induced) Impacts
Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Water Quality
Wetlands
Wild and Scenic Rivers

Each project identified in the capital improvement program will be analyzed against
these 18 categories. Not all categories will apply due to the location of the Winterset
Municipal Airport. For example, categories such as coastal resources and wild and
scenic rivers will not apply due to Wintersets location. In addition, the airport is not
characterized as a location for sensitive water resources or associated biotic
communities.

However a cursory review of I-sites, which is an online GIS database of archaeological
sites in Iowa, revealed sites that have been identified in the vicinity of the airport. Any
projects involving ground disturbance will likely require a Phase I Archeological Survey to
locate any archeological sites within the proposed area of impact.

In addition, I-sites reported the presence of historic structures in the vicinity of the airport.
The historic structures are most likely older farmsteads which may require an
architectural history investigation to determine if the structures are eligible for the
National Register. Projects involving archeological and historical impacts should be
coordinated with the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs.

The primary environmental impact categories that are most likely to require further
analysis, documentation and potential mitigation include the following:

66 | P a g e

Farmland: the quality of farmland being converted to non-agricultural use for the
construction of the ultimate Runway 14/32, taxiway extensions, and protection of
the runway protection zones.
Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental
Health and Safety Risks: due to the potential acquisition of farmsteads. In
addition, the impacts associated with the closure of 195
th
Street and the extension
of Oak Tree Drive must be addressed in the EA.
Wetlands: while limited wetland areas exist adjacent to the airport, projects
disturbing the ground may require further analysis by the US Army Corps of
Engineers.
Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources: projects
involving ground disturbance or potential removal of structures.
Hazardous Materials: projects involving fuel farms or removal of fuel storage
facilities.

5.4 AGENCY COORDINATION

To insure all of the 18 environmental impact categories are addressed in accordance
with NEPA requirements, it is recommended the following agencies be contacted on all
projects requiring environmental analysis and documentation.

Table 5.1: Recommended Agency Coordination
Environmental Agency Division or Office
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 National Environmental Policy Act Team
United States Army Corps of Engineers Planning, Programs, and Project Mgmnt
United States Fish and Wildlife Service US Department of the Interior
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service
Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance US Department of the Interior
Federal Aviation Administration Airports Division, ACE-611, Room 335
State Historical Society of Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs
Iowa Dept. of Agriculture & Land Stewardship Soil Conservation Division
Conservation and Recreation Division Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Services Division Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa Geological Survey and Land Quality Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality Bureau Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Parks and Preserves Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Water Quality Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Floodplain Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Aviation
Iowa Department of Transportation District 4 Office
Madison County County Engineers Office
Local Indian Tribes N/A
Iowa Homeland Security Iowa Emergency Management Division
Local Emergency Medical Services N/A
67 | P a g e

Chapter 6:
AIRPORT PLANS

Typically the most recognized part of a master plan update is the set of drawings which
graphically depict the proposed airport development, or the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) set.

The ALP drawings serve as a critical planning tool that depicts both existing facilities and
planned development for an airport. The ALP set is a federally approved set of drawings
that guides airport development over the planning horizon in conformance with
guidance provided by FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. The FAA
gives conditional approval to potential airport development based upon justification of
need, environmental clearance, and funding availability.

This section of the chapter presents a brief discussion on each of the sheets in Wintersets
ALP set. Full size sheets are produced at a size of 22 x 34. For purposes of the master
plan, a reduced half scale set of the ALP drawings is incorporated as Appendix A.

6.1 SHEET #1: AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING

The Airport Layout Drawing is the most important graphic prepared as part of this study.
The ALP depicts existing site conditions and the ultimate development contemplated over
the 20 year planning period.

Contour intervals at two (2) feet provide an indication of existing topographic and
drainage conditions. Pole lines, structures, and buildings are also depicted. An airport
data table, runway data table, building/facilities table, and runway end coordinates are
shown as well.

6.1.1 Existing Runway 14/32
The existing Runway 14/32 is 3,000 feet in length and 50 feet in width. The existing
Runway 14 threshold is displaced 175 feet in order to clear obstructions within the
runway safety area and approach slope.

With the proposed closure of 195
th
Street, it is shown to remove the Runway 14 displaced
threshold and increase the landing distance available from 2,825 feet to 3,000 feet.

6.1.2 Ultimate Runway 18/36
As mentioned in Chapter 4, ultimate Runway 18/36 has been planned for an interim
length of 4,000 feet and an ultimate length of 5,500 feet. As the existing critical design
aircraft operations (not forecasted) approach the 500 annual operations threshold,
Runway 18/36 should be extended from 4,000 feet to 5,500 feet.

68 | P a g e

The ultimate Runway 18 and 36 ends have been sited to provide a 1,000 foot end of
runway safety area to accommodate the ultimate runway length of 5,500 feet. The
1,000 foot safety areas have been located to avoid impacts to Cedar Creek to the south
and the timbered ravine to the north.

The ultimate Runway 18/36 is to be equipped with MIRL, REIL, and PAPI. In addition,
supplemental lighted windcones are shown both ends of the ultimate runway.

6.1.3 Taxiways
An ultimate parallel taxiway to Runway 18/36 has been depicted including connecting
taxiways 35 feet in width.

6.1.4 Ultimate Air Industrial Park
An ultimate air industrial park is depicted east of ultimate Runway 18/36. Although
there is no current demand for an air industrial park, the area dedicated for the air
industrial park will provide flexibility if demand arises and will also allow the airport to
protect the land from residential development which is encroaching along Highway 169.

6.1.5 Ultimate Terminal Building
The ALP drawing depicts the ultimate terminal building location on the east side of
ultimate Runway 18/36. The location on the east provides better access from Highway
169 and also reduces the amount of paving required for the ultimate terminal entrance
road. The existing terminal location to the west is shown to remain and become part of
the Thangar area.

6.1.6 195
th
Street Closure/Oak Tree Drive Extension
With the proposed construction of ultimate Runway 18/36, 195th Street will require
closure. It is proposed to extend Oak Tree Drive to the west approximately 2,300 feet to
connect to North 8
th
Avenue and compensate for the closure of 195th Street.

6.1.7 Safety Areas
The Runway Obstacle Free Area and Runway Safety Area associated with both the
existing and ultimate runways are illustrated on the ALP. The RSA lengths beyond the
Runway 14 and 32 ends currently do not meet FAA standards. The ultimate Runway 14
and 32 RSA and ROFA have been shown to be acquired in fee to meet FAA standards.

The Runway Protection Zones are depicted for both the existing and ultimate runways.
Existing 250 x 1,000 x 450 RPZs are shown for both ends of the existing runway. An
ultimate 500x1,010x1,700 RPZ for Runway 36 and an ultimate 1,000x1,510x1,700
RPZ for Runway 18 is shown.

The Runway 18 end has a larger RPZ because the Airport prefers to provide an improved
approach visibility minimum of no less than mile. The Runway 18 end was selected
for a larger RPZ because the land use was considered more compatible on the north side
as Winterset is located to the south. The Runway 36 end will be planned for an
approach visibility minimum of no less than 1 mile.

69 | P a g e

6.2 SHEET #2: PART 77 AIRSPACE DRAWING

The FAR Part 77 Airspace drawing was developed based upon Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The airspace surrounds
the runway(s) and has a number of imaginary surfaces that should be free from
obstructions as illustrated in Figure 6.1. Imaginary surfaces establish areas where any
object which penetrates a surface would be considered an obstruction to air navigation
unless an FAA aeronautic study determines they do not have a substantial adverse effect
upon the efficient use of navigable airspace. The airports imaginary surfaces are as
follows:

6.2.1 Primary Surface
The primary surface is longitudinally centered about both the existing Runway 14/32 and
the ultimate Runway 18/36. For Runway 14/32, which is a non-precision instrument
approach and a visibility minimum greater than 1 mile, the primary surface extends 200
feet beyond each end of the runway and 500 feet wide (250 feet on either side of the
runway centerline).

For Runway 18/36, which is proposed to be a non-precision instrument approach with a
visibility minimum as low as mile, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each
end of the runway and 1,000 feet wide (500 feet on either side of the runway centerline).
The elevation of any point on the Primary Surface is the same as the elevation of the
nearest point on the runway centerline.

6.2.2 Horizontal Surface
The horizontal surface is 150 feet above the established Airport Elevation of 1115.5 MSL.
Thus the horizontal surface has been established as 1265.5 feet. The perimeter of the
horizontal plane is constructed by swinging arcs with 10,000 feet radii from the center of
each end of the Primary Surface on each runway. Tangents then connect the adjacent
arcs.

6.2.3 Conical Surface
The conical surface extends upward and outward from the outer limits of the Horizontal
Surface for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. The slope of the conical surface is 20 to1
(5 percent) measured in a vertical plane. The height of the outer edge of the conical
surface would be 200 feet above the horizontal surface and 350 feet above the primary
surface.

6.2.4 Transitional Surface
The transitional surface extends outward and upward, at right angles to the runway
centerline and runway centerline extended, from the sides of the Primary Surface and the
Approach Surfaces. The slope is 7 to 1 (14.3 percent) and the surface extends until it
intersects the Horizontal or Conical Surface. The Transitional Surfaces have a height of
150 feet which coincides with the horizontal surface.

70 | P a g e

6.2.5 Approach Surface
The approach surface is longitudinally centered on the extended centerline of the
runway, beginning at the end of the Primary Surface.

For existing Runway 14, which has a non-precision approach with visibility minimums of
1 mile, the width of this surface is 500 feet at the end of the Primary Surface and flares to
a width of 2,000 feet at a distance of 5,000 feet from the end of the Primary Surface.
The surface slope is only 20 to 1 (5 percent) because Runway 14 has to satisfy clearance
requirements over North 8th Avenue and 195
th
Street.

For existing Runway 32, which has a non-precision approach with visibility minimums of
1 mile, the width of this surface is 500 feet at the end of the Primary Surface and flares to
a width of 2,000 feet at a distance of 5,000 feet from the end of the Primary Surface.
The surface slope is 20 to 1 (5 percent) to clear obstructions in the approach slope.

For ultimate Runway 18, which is proposed to have a non-precision approach with
visibility minimums as low as mile, the width of this surface is 1,000 feet at the end of
the Primary Surface and flares to a width of 4,000 feet at a distance of 10,000 feet from
the end of the Primary Surface. The surface slope is 34 to 1 (3 percent).

For ultimate Runway 36, which is proposed to have a non-precision approach with
visibility minimums of 1 mile, the width of this surface is 1,000 feet at the end of the
Primary Surface and flares to a width of 3,500 feet at a distance of 10,000 feet from the
end of the Primary Surface. The Runway 36 approach also has an inner width of 1,000
feet due to the requirements of Part 77, Paragraph 77.25(d)(1) which states, "The inner
edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface.. Since Runway
18 is proposed to have an approach as low as 3/4-mile, with a primary surface of
1,000' wide, then Runway 36 approach surface will also have an inner width of 1,000'
wide. The surface slope is 34 to 1 (3 percent).
71 | P a g e

Figure 6.1: FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces

72 | P a g e

6.3 SHEET #3: RUNWAY 14/32 EXISTING APPROACH PROFILES DRAWING

Similar to the Part 77 Airspace Drawing, the existing Runway 14/32 approach profile
drawing was developed based on FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces. This sheet depicts the
existing 20:1 approach slopes for Runways 14 and 32.

Shown in the plan view are the existing 500 x 2,000 x 5,000 approach paths for
Runways 14 and 32.

Obstruction standards apply to traverse ways used for the passage of mobile objects only
after the height of these traverse ways are increased by the following:

23 feet for a railroad
17 feet for an Interstate Highway
15 feet for any other public roadway
10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object what would normally traverse
the road, whichever is greater, for a private road.
For a waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount
equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it.

6.4 SHEET #4: ULTIMATE RUNWAY APPROACH PROFILES DRAWING

Depicted on this sheet are the ultimate 34:1 non-precision approach slopes for Runways
18 and 36. Shown in the plan view is the ultimate 1,000 x 4,000 x 10,000 approach
surface for Runway 18 and the ultimate 500 x 3,500 x 10,000 approach surface for
Runway 36.

6.5 SHEET #5: INNER PORTION EXISTING RWY 14 APPROACH PROFILE

This sheet depicts the Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) associated with each runway. The
plan is used to identify obstructions, pole lines, roadways, and buildings that are located
within the inner approaches to each runway. The function of the RPZ is defined in FAA
AC 150/5300-13, paragraph 212 and is to enhance the protection of people and
property on the ground. This is achieved through airport control over the RPZs.

The RPZ area should be void of structures, concentrations of people including churches,
schools, hospitals, office buildings, residences, places of public assembly, etc. and uses
that may create glare. Open space and agricultural uses are generally compatible.

The airport may attain sufficient interest in the RPZs in three primary ways:
The first and the preferred method is to purchase the RPZs in fee. Ownership in
fee is preferred because it provides maximum control for the airport.
The second is through purchase of an easement (or a combination of easement
and zoning).
The third alternative is to rely upon adequate zoning which should be enacted
even if fee or easement ownership is in place.

73 | P a g e

This sheet depicts the RPZ for the existing Runway 14. A 250 x 450 x 1000 RPZ begins
200 feet beyond the threshold of Runway 14. The existing 20:1 approach slope is also
shown.

The sheet also illustrates the ultimate RPZ and the ultimate approach slope as the
displaced threshold is removed.

A table identifies all significant objects (roads, rivers, railroads, towers, poles etc) within
the existing 20:1 approach surface, regardless of whether or not they are obstructions.

6.6 SHEET #6: INNER PORTION EXISTING RWY 32 APPROACH PROFILE

This sheet depicts the RPZ for the existing Runway 32. A 250 x 450 x 1000 RPZ begins
200 feet beyond the threshold of Runway 32. The existing 20:1 approach slope is also
shown.

Similar to the Runway 14 profile, a table identifies all significant objects (roads, rivers,
railroads, towers, poles etc) within the existing 20:1 approach surface, regardless of
whether or not they are obstructions.

6.7 SHEET #7: INNER PORTION ULTIMATE RWY 18 APPROACH PROFILE

Similar to the existing approach profile sheets, this sheet depicts the RPZ for the ultimate
Runway 18. A 1,000 x 1,510 x 1,700 RPZ begins 200 feet beyond the threshold of
ultimate Runway 18. The ultimate 34:1 approach slope with 3/4-mile visibility
minimums is also shown.

Similar to the existing profiles, a table identifies all significant objects (roads, rivers,
railroads, towers, poles etc) within the ultimate 34:1 approach surface, regardless of

6.8 SHEET #8: INNER PORTION ULTIMATE RWY 36 APPROACH PROFILE

Similar to the existing approach profile sheets, this sheet depicts the RPZ for the ultimate
Runway 36. A 500 x 1,010 x 1,700 RPZ begins 200 feet beyond the threshold of
ultimate Runway 36. The ultimate 34:1 approach slope with 1-mile visibility minimums
is also shown.

Similar to the existing profiles, a table identifies all significant objects (roads, rivers,
railroads, towers, poles etc) within the ultimate 34:1 approach surface, regardless of

6.9 SHEET #9: TERMINAL AREA PLAN

The Terminal Area Plan depicts the location of existing landside components including
vehicle access, parking, hangars, and ramp areas. The plan also illustrates the location
of ultimate hangar facilities and areas where ramp expansion may be implemented.
74 | P a g e

6.9.1 Ultimate Terminal Location
The ALP drawing depicts the ultimate terminal building location on the east side of
ultimate Runway 18/36. The location on the east provides better access from Highway
169 and also reduces the amount of paving required for the ultimate terminal entrance
road.

6.10 SHEET #10: LAND USE PLAN

The Airport Land Use Plan identifies areas set aside for aeronautical purposes and areas
used for non-aeronautical activities. The plan illustrates areas required to accommodate
existing and future aeronautical requirements. The land use plan also summarizes crop
restriction limits and shows areas that may be used for agricultural and/or maintained as
open space.

Table 6.1: Crop Restriction Lines
Approach
Category
Distance from
Runway
Centerline to
Crop
1

Distance from
Runway End to
Crop
1

Distance from
Taxiway
Centerline to
Crop
Distance from
Apron Edge to
Crop
A/B-I 125
2
125
2
45 40
C-II 530 1,000 66 58
1
These dimensional standards pertain to visual runways and runways with mile approach visibility minimums
2
Since existing RWY 14/32 only serves small airplanes (12,500 lb. and under) in Group I, dimension was reduced to 125
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Table 3-10.

Dedication of land use on and adjacent to the airport must be reserved and prioritized
for airport infrastructure, operations, and support facilities. The following serves as a
guide for prioritizing airport land uses in chronological order.

1. Land for runways and taxiways
2. Aviation support facilities such as terminal, apron, and hangars
3. Aviation-related businesses that are dependent on air transportation for
delivering goods and transporting personnel.
4. Industrial and commercial uses which are non-aviation related
5. Buffer areas occupying the remaining areas such as agricultural use

6.11 SHEET #11: PROPERTY MAP DRAWING

The Airport Property Map depicts existing land in fee and easement as well as future
acquisitions. Property interests should be established that preclude development within
the RPZs and 35 Building Restriction Line (BRL). The Winterset Municipal Airport is
encouraged to retain copies of the deeds, easements etc. that document airport real
estate.
75 | P a g e

Chapter 7:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The primary goal of the Master Plan Update is to establish a realistic schedule for the
implementation of the recommended capital improvement program (CIP).
Implementation of the proposed capital improvements is expected to take place over a
period of 20 years or greater. Development will be in response to need as well as
funding availability.

The recommended CIP presented in the following sections includes the anticipated
timeframe the project is recommended to be completed. The CIP is presented in two (2)
five year phases and one ten-year phase (short-term= 2013-2017, intermediate-term=
2018 to 2022, and long-term= 2023 to 2033).

7.2 SHORT-TERM PROJECTS: 2013-2017

7.2.1 Environmental Assessment (2014)
As mentioned in Chapter 4, airport development projects that include Federal
involvement require an environmental review. Per statutory and regulatory requirements,
the FAA must evaluate the environmental consequences of all proposed developments
shown on the approved airport layout plan. The first priority should be given to complete
an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the various improvements as shown on the ALP.

In order to assess the impacts of the proposed projects shown on the ALP, an EA is
proposed to provide the documentation associated with the land acquisition for the
ultimate Runway 18/36 construction, protection of the ultimate 35 BRL and RPZ's,
closure of 195
th
Street and the extension of Oak Tree Drive.

7.2.2 Runway 14 RSA/OFA Obstacle Removal & Land Acquisition (2014)
Priority should be bringing up to standards the Runway 14 RSA & ROFA. There are
fences located in the existing RSA and ROFA of Runway 14. The objects must be
removed or the thresholds relocated. It is also proposed to acquire Parcel 34 for the
Runway 14 RPZ and Parcel 35 so N. 8
th
Avenue can be relocated.

7.2.3 Runway 32 RSA/OFA Obstacle Removal & Land Acq. (2015)
Priority should be bringing up to standards the Runway 32 RSA & ROFA. There are
fences located in the existing RSA and ROFA of Runway 32. The objects must be
removed or the thresholds relocated. In addition, embankment is needed to bring the
safety area grades in conformance with FAA standards. It is also proposed to acquire
Parcels 5, 17 for the Runway 32 RSA/OFA and Parcels 40, 41 in easements so the
remaining RPZ is protected. Easements will avoid having to relocate private residents.
76 | P a g e

7.2.4 Land Acquisition (2015)
The next priority should be given to land acquisition for the ultimate Runway 18/36
construction, protection of the ultimate 35 BRL and RPZ's, closure of 195
th
Street and the
extension of Oak Tree Drive.

7.2.5 Runway 18/36 (Design Only) (2016)
It is recommended to proceed with design of the interim 4,000 Runway 18/36 in 2016.
It is also recommended to include aeronautical surveys with the design in order to
develop instrument approach procedures for both the Runway 18 and 36 ends. The FAA
recommends starting the instrument approach procedure development approximately
two to three years prior to the anticipated runway completion due to the significant
advance coordination needed.

7.2.6 Renovate Terminal Building (2016)
In 2012, the airport received a General Aviation Vertical Infrastructure (GAVI) grant from
the Iowa DOT to renovate the terminal facility. However, the Airport did not have the
local matching funds required to move forward with the renovation of the terminal facility
in 2012.

To address the immediate roof leaks and provide a functional terminal facility,
consideration should be given to rehabilitating the terminal building until a new terminal
can be constructed as the need arises.

7.2.7 Remove 195
th
St./N. 8
th
Ave Relocation/Oak Tree Dr. Extension (2017)
In order to construct the interim 4,000 Runway 18/36, 195
th
Street will require closure or
relocation. It is recommended to close 195
th
Street and not relocate the gravel road to
the north since it would have to be ultimately removed when Runway 18/36 is extended
from 4,000 feet to 5,500 feet.

195
th
Street is a farm-to-market road which provides a vital link for farmers from the west
to Highway 169. To alleviate the impact to farmers, it is recommended to widen North
8
th
Avenue to the south and extend Oak Tree Drive to the west. The extension of Oak
Tree Drive from North 8
th
Avenue to Highway 169 will provide a farm-to-market route.

7.2.8 Remove 3-Unit T-Hangars and Construct 6-Unit T-Hangar (2017)
The existing three 3-unit T-hangars are in very poor condition and should be planned for
demolition. With the demolition of the existing hangars, it is recommended to replace
them with a 6-unit T-Hangar.

77 | P a g e

7.3 INTERMEDIATE-TERM PROJECTS: 2018-2022

7.3.1 Runway 18/36 Grading and Drainage (2018)
Consideration should be given to phasing the interim Runway 18/36 construction into
two separate bid packages to reduce the amount of funding required in 2018. The first
bid package proposed is to complete the grading and drainage including culvert and
subdrain installations.

7.3.2 Runway 18/36 Paving (4,000 x 75) (2019)
With the grading and drainage work completed in 2018, the paving of the interim
Runway 18/36 should be considered in 2019. The project should consider installing an
edge lighting system including PAPIs and REILs on each runway end.

7.3.3 Construct Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36 (Design Only) (2020)
It is recommended to construct a parallel taxiway to Runway 18/36 to prevent aircraft
back-taxiing on Runway 18/36. Consideration should be given to phasing the taxiway
construction into a design grant and a construction grant to reduce the amount of
funding required.

7.3.4 Construct Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36 (2021)
With the design for the ultimate parallel taxiway to Runway 18/36 slated for 2020, it is
recommended to construct the parallel taxiway in 2021.

7.3.5 Runway and Apron Pavement Maintenance (2021)
The last visual PCI inspection completed in 2010 reveals the runway and apron
pavements are in good condition. With over 11 years elapsing, the pavements will be
due for preventive maintenance such as crack sealing and surface seal applications to
extend the life of the pavement.

7.3.6 Construct Ultimate Terminal Apron (2022)
With the construction of Runway 18/36, the existing apron will experience increased
demand from larger aircraft. A larger apron with additional parking stalls will be
required. The existing apron is constrained and the only viable option is to relocate the
apron to the east side of Runway 18/36. As shown on the ALP drawings, the ultimate
apron location will support the ultimate terminal building location.

7.3.7 Construct Ultimate Terminal Entrance Road/Parking Lot (2022)
With the ultimate location of the terminal building planned on the east side of Runway
18/36, an ultimate terminal entrance road will be required. The new entrance road will
increase the level of service and provide improved access. The airport should consider
constructing an entrance road with a divided median, street lighting, and landscaping to
provide a lasting impression.

78 | P a g e

7.4 LONG-TERM PROJECTS: 2023-2033

7.4.1 Construct Terminal Building (2023)
With the condition of the existing terminal building in very poor condition, outdated, and
lacking capacity for growth, a new terminal facility should be considered to provide the
level of service to meet future demand.

The existing terminal building can be converted into office spaces for the FBO and the
existing parking lot can be converted into public parking for the T-hangar tenants.

7.4.2 Snow Removal Equipment and Storage Building (2024)
With the airport only equipped with a 1990s era Ford F-250 pickup that is in poor
condition, snow removal equipment should be acquired for reliable and timely snow
removal. In addition, the Airport does not have any room for storage of the snow
removal equipment. To protect the snow removal equipment investment, a building is
proposed to properly store and protect the snow removal equipment.

7.4.3 Construct Fuel Farm Facility (2024)
With the construction of the longer and wider Runway 18/36, increased jet traffic will be
expected and the Airport should consider increasing the Jet-A fuel storage capacity to
accommodate the demand. The fuel farm facility can be funded with an Iowa DOT
grant and the match could come from a public/private partnership.

7.4.4 Runway 14/32 Rehab/Widening/Remove Displaced Threshold (2025)
Runway 14/32 last received a rehabilitation in 2005, which consisted of a bituminous
surface mill and overlay. A normal life of an asphalt pavement is approximately 15 to
20 years. With over 20 years elapsing since the last rehabilitation, Runway 14/32 will be
due for a major rehabilitation such as a mill and overlay.

During the rehabilitation project, it is recommended to widen Runway 14/32 from 50
feet to 60 feet in order to adhere to ARC B-I standards. It is also recommended to
remove the 175 foot displaced threshold on Runway 14 as part of this project.

7.4.5 Construct 6-Unit T-Hangar (2027)
As waiting lists develop for hangar units, the construction of a 6-unit T-hangar should be
considered. The T-hangar can be funded with an Iowa DOT GAVI grant.

7.4.6 Construct Conventional Hangar (2028)
As demand continues to increase, the construction of a conventional hangar has been
planned. The hangar can be funded with a FAA grant and the match could come from a
public/private partnership.

7.4.7 Apron Rehabilitation (2029)
The existing terminal apron last received a rehabilitation in 2009, which consisted of a
bituminous surface mill and overlay. A normal life of an asphalt pavement is
approximately 15 to 20 years. In 2029, the apron will be due for a major rehabilitation
such as a mill and overlay.

79 | P a g e

7.4.8 Install AWOS System (2030)
As mentioned in previous chapters, the Winterset Municipal Airport does not have an
AWOS located on-site. The airport relies on the ASOS located at the Des Moines
International Airport which is 19 nautical miles to the northeast. AWOS systems have
been installed at various airports across the state. It is suggested that Winterset seek
opportunities with the FAA and/or Iowa DOT to fund the construction of an AWOS so
accurate weather reporting can be made specific to the Winterset area.

7.4.9 Runway 18 Extension (Design Only) (2030)
Runway 18/36 has been planned for an interim length of 4,000 feet and an ultimate
length of 5,500 feet. As the existing critical design aircraft operations (not forecasted)
approach the 500 annual operations threshold, Runway 18/36 should be extended from
4,000 feet to 5,500 feet.

It is recommended to include an aeronautical survey with the design in order to develop
an instrument approach procedure to the extended Runway 18 end. The FAA
recommends starting the instrument approach procedure development approximately
two to three years prior to the anticipated runway completion due to the significant
advance coordination needed.

7.4.10 Runway 18 Extension (2031)
With the design for the Runway 18 extension slated for 2030, it is recommended to
construct the runway extension in 2031.

7.4.11 Construct Taxiway Extension to Runway 18 End (2032)
It is recommended to extend the parallel taxiway to the extended Runway 18 end to
provide a full length parallel taxiway.

7.4.12 Update Airport Master Plan (2033)
It is recommended to update the Master Plan and associated ALP drawings at a
minimum of every 20 years. This will ensure the forecasts are current and the airport is
able to support the modernization and development required.

7.5 SUMMARY

Tables 7.1 through 7.4 present a summary of the recommended capital improvement
program over the 20 year planning period. Detailed cost estimates for each project can
be found in Appendix B.

Table 7.1: Summary of Capital Improvement Program
Phase FAA State Local Total
Short Term (2013-2017) $6,405,709 $392,084 $1,140,440 $7,938,233
Intermediate (2018-2022) $6,694,245 $593,427 $848,528 $8,136,200
Long-Term (2023-2033) $4,759,260 $487,365 $761,675 $6,008,300
W
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
T

M
U
N
I
C
I
P
A
L

A
I
R
P
O
R
T

M
A
S
T
E
R

P
L
A
N

U
P
D
A
T
E

8
0

|

P
a
g
e

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
:

S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
)

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
i
n
g

S
o
u
r
c
e
F
Y

2
0
1
3
F
Y

2
0
1
4
F
Y
2
0
1
5
F
Y
2
0
1
6
F
Y
2
0
1
7
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
9
1
,
3
5
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
0
,
1
5
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
0
1
,
5
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
1
3
3
,
2
4
5
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
4
,
8
0
5
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
4
8
,
0
5
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
$
1
7
5
,
9
9
3
L
o
c
a
l
$
3
1
,
0
5
8
T
o
t
a
l
$
2
0
7
,
0
5
1
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
4
,
8
2
3
,
0
1
4
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
5
3
5
,
8
9
1
T
o
t
a
l
$
5
,
3
5
8
,
9
0
5
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
3
3
7
,
5
0
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
3
7
,
5
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
3
7
5
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
$
6
6
,
0
9
1
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
1
,
6
6
4
T
o
t
a
l
$
7
7
,
7
5
5
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
1
,
0
2
0
,
6
0
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
1
3
,
4
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
,
1
3
4
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
L
o
c
a
l
$
3
8
5
,
9
7
2
T
o
t
a
l
$
5
3
5
,
9
7
2
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
W
Y

1
4

R
S
A

&

O
F
A

O
b
s
t
a
c
l
e

R
e
m
o
v
a
l
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
t
i
o
n

(
R
W
Y

1
4

R
P
Z
,

N
.

8
t
h

A
v
e

R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

R
u
n
w
a
y

1
8
/
3
6
,

3
5
'

B
R
L

a
n
d

R
P
Z
'
s
)
R
u
n
w
a
y

1
8
/
3
6

(
D
e
s
i
g
n

O
n
l
y
)
R
e
m
o
v
e

1
9
5
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
/
N
.

8
t
h

A
v
e

R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
O
a
k

T
r
e
e

D
r
i
v
e

E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
R
e
m
o
v
e

3
-
u
n
i
t

T
-
H
a
n
g
a
r
s

a
n
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

6
-
u
n
i
t

T
-
h
a
n
g
a
r
R
W
Y

3
2

R
S
A

&

O
F
A

O
b
s
t
a
c
l
e

R
e
m
o
v
a
l
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
t
i
o
n

(
R
W
Y

3
2

R
S
A
/
O
F
A
,

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

R
W
Y

3
2

R
P
Z
)
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
e

T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
T

M
U
N
I
C
I
P
A
L

A
I
R
P
O
R
T

M
A
S
T
E
R

P
L
A
N

U
P
D
A
T
E

8
1

|

P
a
g
e

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
:

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
-
T
e
r
m

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

(
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
2
2
)

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
i
n
g

S
o
u
r
c
e
F
Y

2
0
1
8
F
Y

2
0
1
9
F
Y
2
0
2
0
F
Y
2
0
2
1
F
Y
2
0
2
2
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
1
,
2
2
2
,
6
5
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
3
5
,
8
5
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
,
3
5
8
,
5
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
2
,
5
6
9
,
0
9
5
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
2
8
5
,
4
5
5
T
o
t
a
l
$
2
,
8
5
4
,
5
5
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
1
1
2
,
5
0
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
2
,
5
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
1
,
6
2
0
,
0
0
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
8
0
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
$
1
4
8
,
7
5
0
L
o
c
a
l
$
2
6
,
2
5
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
7
5
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
1
,
1
7
0
,
0
0
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
3
0
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
$
4
4
4
,
6
7
7
L
o
c
a
l
$
7
8
,
4
7
3
T
o
t
a
l
$
5
2
3
,
1
5
0
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e

R
o
a
d
/
P
a
r
k
i
n
g

L
o
t
R
u
n
w
a
y

1
8
/
3
6

G
r
a
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l

T
a
x
i
w
a
y

t
o

R
u
n
w
a
y

1
8
/
3
6
(
D
e
s
i
g
n

O
n
l
y
)
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l

T
a
x
i
w
a
y

t
o

R
u
n
w
a
y

1
8
/
3
6
(
4
,
0
0
0
'

x

3
5
'
)
R
u
n
w
a
y

a
n
d

A
p
r
o
n

P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l

A
p
r
o
n
R
u
n
w
a
y

1
8
/
3
6

P
a
v
i
n
g

(
4
,
0
0
0
'

x

7
5
'
)
W
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
T

M
U
N
I
C
I
P
A
L

A
I
R
P
O
R
T

M
A
S
T
E
R

P
L
A
N

U
P
D
A
T
E

8
2

|

P
a
g
e

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
4
:

L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

(
2
0
2
3
-
2
0
3
3
)

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
i
n
g

S
o
u
r
c
e
F
Y

2
0
2
3
F
Y

2
0
2
4
F
Y
2
0
2
5
F
Y
2
0
2
6
F
Y
2
0
2
7
F
Y
2
0
2
8
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
2
4
0
,
0
0
0
S
t
a
t
e
$
1
3
6
,
0
0
0
L
o
c
a
l
$
2
4
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
3
1
5
,
0
0
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
$
8
6
,
6
1
5
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
5
,
2
8
5
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
0
1
,
9
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
8
9
7
,
5
2
5
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
9
9
,
7
2
5
T
o
t
a
l
$
9
9
7
,
2
5
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
L
o
c
a
l
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
5
3
4
,
2
4
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
5
9
,
3
6
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
5
9
3
,
6
0
0
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
n
o
w

R
e
m
o
v
a
l

E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

S
t
o
r
a
g
e

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

F
u
e
l

F
a
r
m

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
u
n
w
a
y

1
4
/
3
2

R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
/
R
e
m
o
v
e

R
u
n
w
a
y

1
4

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
d

T
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

6
-
U
n
i
t

T
-
H
a
n
g
a
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

H
a
n
g
a
r
W
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
T

M
U
N
I
C
I
P
A
L

A
I
R
P
O
R
T

M
A
S
T
E
R

P
L
A
N

U
P
D
A
T
E

8
3

|

P
a
g
e

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
4
:

L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

(
2
0
2
3
-
2
0
3
3

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
i
n
g

S
o
u
r
c
e
F
Y
2
0
2
9
F
Y
2
0
3
0
F
Y
2
0
3
1
F
Y
2
0
3
2
F
Y
2
0
3
3
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
2
0
2
,
7
7
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
2
2
,
5
3
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
2
2
5
,
3
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
$
1
1
4
,
7
5
0
L
o
c
a
l
$
2
0
,
2
5
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
3
5
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
1
4
4
,
0
0
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
6
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
1
,
4
8
8
,
9
6
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
1
6
5
,
4
4
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
,
6
5
4
,
4
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
8
6
4
,
7
6
5
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
9
6
,
0
8
5
T
o
t
a
l
$
9
6
0
,
8
5
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
7
2
,
0
0
0
S
t
a
t
e
L
o
c
a
l
$
8
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
8
0
,
0
0
0
A
p
r
o
n

R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
u
n
w
a
y

1
8

E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
(
1
,
5
0
0

x

7
5
'
)
U
p
d
a
t
e

A
i
r
p
o
r
t

M
a
s
t
e
r

P
l
a
n
I
n
s
t
a
l
l

A
W
O
S

S
y
s
t
e
m
R
u
n
w
a
y

1
8

E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
(
D
e
s
i
g
n

O
n
l
y
)
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

T
a
x
i
w
a
y

E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n

t
o

R
u
n
w
a
y

1
8

E
n
d
(
1
,
5
0
0
'

x

3
5
'
)
84 | P a g e

85 | P a g e

Chapter 8:
FINANCING PLAN

8.1 INTRODUCTION

A variety of funding sources will be required to finance the recommended capital
improvement program presented in the previous chapter. Three primary funding
sources at the federal, state, and local levels are available to assist with subsidizing the
proposed program.

Most airport improvements are funded by federal and state grants, supported with local
matching dollars from the sponsor. In the case of Winterset, the local sponsor would be
the Winterset Municipal Airport Authority.

8.2 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ASSISTANCE

The FAA does not reimburse sponsors the full amount of a project expense. As of 2013,
the current FAA participation rate is set at 90% of eligible costs. This participation rate
can change with each re-authorization action.

8.2.1 Project Priority
Because the demand for funds exceeds the availability, the FAA bases the distribution of
limited funds on current national priorities and objectives. Projects that rate a high
priority will receive higher consideration for funding over those projects with lower
priority ratings.

Each fiscal year, the FAA apportions funds into major entitlement categories such as
passenger, non-primary and state apportionment funds. The FAA distributes the
remaining funds to a discretionary fund. Set-aside projects (Airport noise and the
Military Airport Program) receive first attention from this distribution. The funds that
remain after the set-asides are true discretionary funds the FAA distributes based on a
national prioritization system.

The FAA distributes discretionary funds to projects that best carry out the purpose of the
AIP, with priorities as indicated below. Typically airside needs are high priority and
landside needs are low priority.

Safety (Highest Priority)
Security
Reconstruction
Capacity
Standards (Lowest Priority)

86 | P a g e

The following table illustrates the priority of typical airport projects with a value of 100
ranking as the highest priority.

Table 8.1: Priority and Assignment of Funds
Project Ranking
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (Part 139 Airports) 95
Existing Pavement Rehabilitation 70
Master Plan 66
New Pavement Construction, i.e. Rwy. Extension 48
Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) 47
SRE Building 39
Terminal 35
Revenue Producing Facilities, i.e Hangars 32
Access Road 22
Fuel Farms 19
Parking Lot 18
Source: FAA

8.2.2 Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Eligibility
Not all projects are eligible for FAA funding. Projects related to airport operations and
most revenue-generating improvements are typically not eligible for airport participation.
Non-eligible projects include items such as art, landscaping, certain public parking
facilities, and some aircraft hangars. Recent changes in the AIP authorization now
permit AIP to fund some projects, which have historically been ineligible.

The following illustrates typical some examples of projects which are eligible and non-
eligible.

87 | P a g e

Table 8.2: FAA Project Eligibility
Eligible Projects Non-Eligible Projects
Aircraft hangars
(non-primary entitlement only)
Artwork
Airfield drainage Development that exceeds
FAA Standards
Airfield lighting Development for Exclusive Use
Airfield signage Improvements for commercial
enterprises
Apron construction/rehabilitation Industrial park development
Environmental Studies Landscaping
Fuel farms (Non-Primary airports)
Maintenance equipment and
vehicles
General Aviation Terminal Buildings
Marketing plans
Land acquisition Office equipment
Certain Navaids (e.g. REILs, PAPIs ) Training
Planning Studies Airport Operations Costs
Runway construction/rehabilitation FBO support areas
Safety Area improvements
Taxiway construction/rehabilitation
Weather observation stations (AWOS)
(Basic Only; anything above basic
requires a BCA per APS-1 criteria)

Source: FAA

8.3 IOWA DOT ASSISTANCE

The Iowa DOT Office of Aviation administers three major categories of state aviation
funding programs: the AIP, Commercial Service Vertical Infrastructure Program (CSVI),
and the General Aviation Airport Vertical Infrastructure Program (GAVI). Funding
allocations for the programs and project selection are approved annually by the Iowa
Transportation Commission.

AIP Program: This program provides approximately $2.5M annually to assist in
the preservation and development of the airfield related infrastructure. Eligible
projects are funded up to 85% and generally include planning and improvements
related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, security and environmental
concerns.
CSVI Program: The CSVI program provides annually funding of $1.5M per year
for landside development and renovation of terminals, hangars, maintenance
buildings, and fuel facilities at commercial service airports. Appropriated funds
are distributed to the commercial service airports by a 50/40/10 formula. One
half of the funds are allocated equally between each airport, 40 percent of the
funds are allocated based on the percentage of enplaned passengers at each
airport versus the total number of enplaned passengers in the state, and 10
88 | P a g e

percent of the funds are allocated based on the percentage of the air cargo
tonnage at each airport versus the total tonnage in the state. No local match is
required.
GAVI Program: Provides approximately $750,000 per year for general aviation
airport projects which include landside development and renovation of airport
terminals, hangars, maintenance buildings, and fuel facilities. Routine
maintenance of buildings and minor renovation projects are not eligible. Eligible
projects may be funded up to 85 percent when funding is available for the
program.

The State AIP is funded through the State Aviation Fund, with revenues from aircraft
registration fees and aircraft fuel taxes, and is used to support airport grants, on-going
aviation related services, special projects and statewide planning. The GAVI and CSVI
programs are funded through annual appropriations from the state legislature for
general aviation and commercial air service airports.

As shown in Table 8.3, the State Aviation Program provides approximately $5M in
funding to Iowa airports on an annual basis.

Table 8.3: Iowa State Aviation Program Summary
Program FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
Airport Improvement Program $2.44M $2.42M $2.97M $3.24M
Commercial Service
Vertical Infrastructure (CSVI)
$1.50M $1.50M $1.50M $1.50M
General Aviation
Vertical Infrastructure (GAVI)
$0.98M $0.75M $0.79M $0.88M
Total $4.92M $4.67M $5.26M $5.62M

8.4 PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING/INVESTMENT

The investment of public funds should also provide an incentive for private investment.
An area in which private investment may be used effectively is for the development of T-
hangar and conventional hangar facilities. Hangars benefit specific airplane owners.
Consequently, it is reasonable to place the responsibility for hangar development with
the private sector.

Such facilities constructed with private capital on the airport facility may be deeded to the
airport owner in trade for a long term lease. The advantage of such an arrangement is
that it relieves the airport owner (sponsor) of the burden of financing private hangar
facilities while retaining possession and control of all real property on the airport site.

Implementation of the capital projects proposed in each of the phases is dependent to
some extent on the availability of grants from either the FAA and/or Iowa DOT. Equally
important, Winterset will have to provide the local match required on FAA and Iowa DOT
projects.

Appendix A:
ALP DRAWINGS

WMTEkSET-
MADSOM
COUMTY
AkFOkT
AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWINGS
WINTERSET, IOWA
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
HL-3 RUNWAY 250'
HL-2 RUNWAY 125'
HL-1 RUNWAY 125'
SE-3 1026.60 CREEK
SE-4 1027.81 CREEK
SE-2 1028.25 CREEK
SE-1 1035.12 ROAD
SE-5 1028.59 CREEK
SE-6 1018.82 CREEK
SE-7 1019.94 CREEK
SE-10 1014.00 CREEK
SE-11 1013.99 CREEK
SE-12 1011.92 CREEK
SE-13 1011.96 CREEK
1008.00 CREEK
SE-15
1008.00 CREEK
SE-16
1016.02 DRIVEWAY
SE-17
1101.38
SE-18
1101.02
SE-19
1095.38
SE-8
1108.05
SE-20
1080.68
SE-21
1116.00
SE-9
1111.71
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
SE-22
1035.26 ROAD
SE-14
SE-23
1067.23 ROAD
HL-4 RUNWAY 125'
HL-5 RUNWAY 125'
HL-6 RUNWAY 250'
HL-7 RUNWAY 250'
INTERIMRUNWAY 18 RSA
INTERIMRUNWAY 18 OFA
INTERIMRUNWAY 18 RPZ
INTERIMRUNWAY 18 APPROACH
02 CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
03
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
04 CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
07 CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
08 CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
0 CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
10
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
11
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
12 CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13
13 CHECKED 8Y
EMGMEEk SHEET MO.
FELD 8OOK MO.
DkAWM 8Y
kEVSOMS
WIN 159004
AUGUST 2013
ACM TMD
DAA FIELDBOOK
OF 13

Appendix B:
DETAILED CIP COST ESTIMATES

FY 2014
Environmental Assessment
ITEM # DESCRIPTION UNIT COST EXTENSION
1 Sponsor Admin. $1,500
2 Enviromental Assessment $100,000
101,500 $ TOTAL PROJECT COST
QUANTITY
FY 2014
RWY 14 RSA & OFA Obstacle RemovalLand Acquistion (RWY 14 RPZ, N. 8th Ave Relocation)
1 Acquire Parcels 34 and 35 in FEE 7.37 AC $15,000.00 $110,550.00
2 Survey and Platting 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00
3 Primary Apprasials 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
4 Review Apprasials 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00
5 Title Searches 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
6 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00
7 Legal, Negotiation 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
8 Fence Removal 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
$148,050.00
QUANTITY
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2015
RWY 32 RSA & OFA Obstacle RemovalLand Acquistion (RWY 32 RSA/OFA, Easement for remaining RWY 32 RPZ)
1 Acquire Parcels 5 and 17 in FEE 1.16 AC $15,000.00 $17,376.00
2 Acquire Parcels 40 and 41 in EASEMENT 5.29 AC $7,500.00 $39,675.00
1 Mobilization 1 LS $10,000.00 $7,500.00
2 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
3 Erosion Control 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00
4 Drainage System 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00
5 Fence Removal 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
6 Fence Installation 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
7 RSA Grading 10,000 CY $5.00 $50,000.00
8 Seeding/Mulching/Fertilizing 2 AC $2,500.00 $5,000.00
$186,551.00
500.00 $
20,000.00 $
207,051.00 $
QUANTITY
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Sponsor Admin.
Engineering Services
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2015
Land Acquisition (Ultimate Runway 18/36, 35' BRL and RPZ's)
1 Acquire Parcels 3-4, 7-10, 13-16, 19, 21-22, 24-30, 33 in FEE 390.16 AC $12,500.00 $4,877,055.00
2 Acquire 37-39 in EASEMENT 6.58 AC $7,500.00 $49,350.00
3 Engineering 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00
9 Relocation Costs 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000.00
$5,358,905.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST
QUANTITY
FY 2016
Runway 18/36 (Design Only)
1 AGIS Aeronautical Survey 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
2 Design Phase 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000
3 Bidding Phase 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
375,000 $
QUANTITY
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2016
Renovate Terminal Building
1 Mobilization 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
2 Walls 270 SF $3.00 $810.00
3 Ceiling 560 SF $1.00 $560.00
4 Flooring 560 SF $2.00 $1,120.00
5 Vinyl Wall Covering 630 SF $1.00 $630.00
6 Wall Framing 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00
7 Ceiling 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00
8 Flooring 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00
9 Install Doors 3 EA $700.00 $2,100.00
10 Wall Covering 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00
11 Painting / Staining 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
12 Window 4 EA $1,000.00 $4,000.00
13 Move Breaker Box 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
14 Move Furnace 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00
15 Roof 1 LS $13,700.00 $13,700.00
16 Electrical 1 LS $5,300.00 $5,300.00
17 Remove Wall Covering 220 SF $1.00 $220.00
18 Remove Flooring 90 SF $2.00 $180.00
19 Remove Ceiling 90 SF $1.50 $135.00
20 Install Wall Covering 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00
21 Painting / Staining 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
22 Install Flooring 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
23 Install Ceiling 1 LS $500.00 $500.00
24 Re-Frame Wall 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
25 Plumbing Fixtures 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800.00
$62,255.00
500.00 $
10,000.00 $
5,000.00 $
77,755.00 $
Engineering Design
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
QUANTITY
Removal
Replace
Update Restroom
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Sponsor Admin.
FY 2017
Remove 195th Street/N. 8th Ave RelocationOak Tree Drive Extension
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $1,600.00 $1,600.00
3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 10 AC $3,000.00 $30,000.00
4 REMOVAL OF GRAVEL 11,600 SY $4.00 $46,400.00
5 FENCE REMOVAL 6,000 LF $3.00 $18,000.00
6 EARTHWORK 30,000 CY $6.00 $180,000.00
7 CULVERT INSTALLATIONS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
8 EROISON CONTROL 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
9 RELOCATION OR BURY OVERHEAD POWER LINES 2,600 LF $75.00 $195,000.00
10 SEEDING/MULCH/FERTILIZATION 10 AC $1,500.00 $15,000.00
11 TRAFFIC SIGN REMOVALS/ADJ USTMENTS 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Subtotal $546,000.00
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
4 FIELD FENCE REMOVAL 2,000 LF $2.50 $5,000.00
5 FIELD FENCE INSTALLATION 2,000 LF $5.00 $10,000.00
6 EARTHWORK 15,000 CY $6.00 $90,000.00
7 TOPSOIL 5,000 CY $6.00 $30,000.00
8 CULVERT INSTALLATIONS 300 LF $120.00 $36,000.00
9 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
10 SPECIAL COMPACTION OF SUBGRADE 9,000 SY $8.00 $72,000.00
11 12" GRANULAR SURFACE 8,600 SY $15.00 $129,000.00
12 SIGNAGE 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
13 SEEDING/MULCHING/FERTILIZING 5 AC $1,500.00 $7,500.00
$985,500.00
500.00 $
148,000.00 $
1,134,000.00 $
QUANTITY
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Sponsor Admin.
OAK TREE DRIVE EXTENSION
195TH CLOSURE
FY 2017
Remove 3-unit T-Hangars and Construct 6-unit T-hangar
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
3 DEMOLITION OF 3-UNIT T-HANGARS 3 EA $7,500.00 $22,500.00
4 EMBANKMENT 2,500 CY $10.00 $25,000.00
5 12" FLYASH SUBGRADE 2,111 SY $12.00 $25,332.00
6 GRANULAR SUBBASE 640 TN $25.00 $16,000.00
7 PCC APRON PAVING 2,111 SY $40.00 $84,440.00
8 SUBDRAIN 500 LF $18.00 $9,000.00
9 SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT STRUCTURES 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00
10 SUBDRAIN OUTLET 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00
11 6-UNIT T-HANGAR 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000.00
13 SEEDING/MULCHING 2 AC $2,000.00 $4,000.00
$466,472.00
500.00 $
69,000.00 $
535,972.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2018
Runway 18/36 Grading and Drainage
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00
3 RUNWAY 18/36 EARTHWORK 100,000 CY $8.00 $800,000.00
4 STORM SEWER 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
5 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 8,000 LF $16.00 $128,000.00
6 SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT STRUCTURES 8 EA $1,000.00 $8,000.00
7 SUBDRAIN OUTLET PIPE 1,500 EA $16.00 $24,000.00
8 SUBDRAIN OUTLET STRUCTURES 8 EA $1,000.00 $8,000.00
10 SEEDING/FERTILIZING 50 AC $1,500.00 $75,000.00
$1,258,000.00
500.00 $
100,000.00 $
1,358,500.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
Construction Services
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2019
Runway 18/36 Paving (4,000' x 75')
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
3 ASPHALT REMOVAL (RUNWAY 14/32 INTERSECTION) 900 SY $8.00 $7,200.00
4 FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE 41,000 SY $8.00 $328,000.00
5 GRANULAR SUBBASE 39,000 SY $10.00 $390,000.00
6 PCC PAVEMENT (RUNWAY 18/36) 33,400 SY $38.00 $1,269,200.00
7 PCC PAVEMENT (TAXIWAY TURNAROUNDS) 3,400 SY $38.00 $129,200.00
8 PAVEMENT MARKING 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
9 L-861 MIRL 40 EA $800.00 $32,000.00
10 L-861 MITL 40 EA $800.00 $32,000.00
11 THRESHOLD LIGHTS 16 EA $800.00 $12,800.00
12 COMPOSITE HANDHOLES 10 EA $1,000.00 $10,000.00
13 EDGE LIGHT CABLE WITH CONDUIT 12,000 LF $6.00 $72,000.00
14 COUNTERPOISE GROUNDING CABLE 11,100 LF $1.50 $16,650.00
15 GUIDANCE SIGNS 4 EA $3,500.00 $14,000.00
16 CONSTANT CURRENT REGULATOR 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00
17 VAULT MODIFICATIONS 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
18 DIRECTIONAL BORING 300 LF $50.00 $15,000.00
19 PAPI INSTALLATION 2 EA $30,000.00 $60,000.00
20 REIL INSTALLATION 4 EA $15,000.00 $60,000.00
$2,653,050.00
1,500.00 $
200,000.00 $
2,854,550.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2020
Construct Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36(Design Only)
1 Design Phase 1 LS $105,000.00 $105,000
2 Bidding Phase 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000
125,000 $
QUANTITY
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2021
Construct Parallel Taxiway to Runway 18/36(4,000' x 35')
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
4 EARTHWORK 30,000 CY $6.00 $180,000.00
7 PCC PAVEMENT (TAXIWAY) 15,600 SY $38.00 $592,800.00
9 STORM SEWER 300 LF $120.00 $36,000.00
12 SUBDRAIN OUTLET PIPE 1,500 LF $15.00 $22,500.00
13 SUBDRAIN OUTLET STRUCTURES 16 EA $750.00 $12,000.00
15 TOPSOILING 12,000 CY $6.00 $72,000.00
17 L-861 MITL 40 EA $750.00 $30,000.00
19 DUCTBANK, CONCRETE ENCASED 500 LF $20.00 $10,000.00
20 DUCTBANK, DIRECTIONAL BORED 500 LF $40.00 $20,000.00
24 CONSTANT CURRENT REGULATOR 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
25 VAULT MODIFICATIONS 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00
$1,673,500.00
1,500.00 $
125,000.00 $
1,800,000.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2021
Runway and Apron Pavement Maintenance
1 Mobilization 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
3 Full Depth Patches, By Area 500 SF 20.00 $10,000.00
4 Crack Sealing 10,000 LF 1.50 $15,000.00
5 Surface Seal Coat 22,000 SY 3.50 $77,000.00
6 Pavement Marking 1 LS 30,000.00 $30,000.00
147,000
28,000
175,000
QUANTITY
APRON
Engineering/Legal/Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2022
Construct Ultimate Terminal Apron
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
4 EARTHWORK 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
6 12" FLYASH 19,400 SY $8.00 $155,200.00
8 PCC PAVEMENT 18,400 SY $35.00 $644,000.00
9 STORM SEWER 100 LF $80.00 $8,000.00
10 SUBDRAIN 1,600 LF $18.00 $28,800.00
11 SUBDRAIN CLEANOUTS 6 EA $750.00 $4,500.00
12 PAVEMENT MARKINGS 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
13 TIE DOWN ANCHORS 48 EA $250.00 $12,000.00
$1,129,000.00
1,000.00 $
170,000.00 $
1,300,000.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2022
Construct Ultimate Terminal Entrance Road/Parking Lot
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
4 EARTHWORK 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
6 12" FLYASH 3,500 SY $8.00 $28,000.00
8 PCC PAVEMENT (ENTRANCE ROAD) 3,100 SY $37.50 $116,250.00
9 STORM SEWER 240 LF $80.00 $19,200.00
11 MEDIAN STREET LIGHTING, DUAL ARM 6 EA $3,500.00 $21,000.00
12 CABLE TRENCH OR PLOW IN 2-IN CONDUIT 2,000 LF $6.00 $12,000.00
13 DUCTBANK 80 LF $40.00 $3,200.00
14 J UNCTION BOX 4 EA $2,500.00 $10,000.00
15 MISC ELECTRICAL 1 LS $5,000.00 $10,000.00
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00
4 EARTHWORK 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
6 12" FLYASH 2,000 SY $8.00 $16,000.00
8 PCC PAVEMENT (PARKING LOT) 1,800 SY $37.50 $67,500.00
9 CURB INSTALLATION 200 LF $8.00 $1,600.00
10 SUBDRAIN 500 LF $18.00 $9,000.00
11 SUBDRAIN CLEANOUTS 2 EA $750.00 $1,500.00
$453,650.00
500.00 $
69,000.00 $
523,150.00 $ TOTAL PROJECT COST
QUANTITY
ENTRANCE ROAD
PARKING LOT
Sponsor Admin.
FY 2023
Construct Terminal Building
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
3 EARTHWORK 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
5 FLYASH TREATED SUBGRADE 400 SY $10.00 $4,000.00
6 GRANULAR BASE COURSE 400 SY $10.00 $4,000.00
7 TERMINAL BUILDING 1 LS $275,000.00 $275,000.00
8 MISC UTILITIES 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
$346,000.00
1,000.00 $
53,000.00 $
400,000.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
Architectural/Engineering Services
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2024
Snow Removal Equipment and Storage Building
1 Single Axle Truck w/ Dump Body and Hoist 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
2 Displacement Plow and Spreader Box 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
3 Mobilization 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00
4 Unclassified Excavation 550 CY $11.00 $6,050.00
5 Special Treated Subgrade 120 SY $8.00 $960.00
6 6" Aggregate Subbase 120 SY $10.00 $1,200.00
7 6" P.C.C. Paving 100 SY $40.00 $4,000.00
8 J oint Sealing 500 LF $1.76 $880.00
9 Silt Fencing 200 LF $4.00 $800.00
10 S.R.E. Building 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00
11 Seed/Fertilizer/Mulch 1 AC $1,500.00 $750.00
$295,640.00
1,000.00 $
53,360.00 $
350,000.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2024
Construct Fuel Farm Facility
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
3 INSTALLATION NEW TANK 1 EA $50,000.00 $50,000.00
4 FUEL PUMP 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
5 GRANULAR SUBASE 100 TN $25.00 $2,500.00
6 PCC PAVEMENT 280 SY $55.00 $15,400.00
$85,900.00
1,000.00 $
15,000.00 $
101,900.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2025
Runway 14/32 Rehabilitation/Widening/Remove Runway 14 Displaced Threshold
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00
3 COLD MILLING (0-3") 18,000 SY $3.50 $63,000.00
4 CRACK SEALING/REPAIR 5,000 LF $1.50 $7,500.00
5 EARTHWORK 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
7 12" FLYASH SUBGRADE 3,700 SY $8.00 $29,600.00
9 HMA (WIDENING SECTIONS) 1,125 TN $95.00 $106,875.00
10 HMA (OVERLAY SECTION) 3,100 TN $95.00 $294,500.00
11 BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT 1,750 GAL $3.50 $6,125.00
12 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 6,400 GAL $3.50 $22,400.00
13 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKINGS 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00
14 PERMANENT PAVEMENT MARKINGS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
15 SEEDING/MULCHING 5 AC $1,500.00 $7,500.00
16 TOPSOILING 3,000 CY $7.00 $21,000.00
17 MIRL REMOVAL 50 EA $250.00 $12,500.00
18 L-861 MIRL 50 EA $800.00 $40,000.00
19 L-861 MITL 10 EA $800.00 $8,000.00
24 CONSTANT CURRENT REGULATOR 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00
25 VAULT MODIFICATIONS 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000.00
26 DIRECTIONAL BORING 160 LF $50.00 $8,000.00
$866,250.00
1,000.00 $
130,000.00 $
997,250.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2027
Construct 6-Unit T-Hangar
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
3 EARTHWORK 1,000 CY $10.00 $10,000.00
4 12" FLYASH SUBGRADE 667 SY $9.00 $6,000.00
5 GRANULAR SUBBASE 667 SY $12.00 $8,000.00
6 6-UNIT T-HANGAR 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000.00
8 SEEDING/MULCHING 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00
$305,000.00
45,000.00 $
350,000.00 $
QUANTITY
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2028
Construct Conventional Hangar
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
3 12" FLYASH SUBGRADE 780 SY $15.00 $11,700.00
4 GRANULAR SUBBASE 300 TN $20.00 $6,000.00
5 PCC APRON PAVING 780 SY $40.00 $31,200.00
6 SUBDRAIN 300 LF $10.00 $3,000.00
7 SUBDRAIN STRUCTURES 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00
8 SUBDRAIN OUTLET 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00
9 T-HANGAR 1 LS $400,000.00 $400,000.00
$527,100.00
2,500.00 $
64,000.00 $
593,600.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2029
Apron Rehabilitation
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
3 COLD MILLING (0-3") 8,000 SY $3.50 $28,000.00
4 CRACK SEALING 5,000 LF $1.50 $7,500.00
5 MISC. PAVEMENT REPAIR 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
6 HMA 1,320 TN $95.00 $125,400.00
7 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2,400 GAL $3.50 $8,400.00
$194,300.00
1,000.00 $
30,000.00 $
225,300.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2030
Install AWOS System
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
2 GRANULAR BASE 500 TN $12.00 $6,000.00
3 AWOS SYSTEM 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00
4 5kv POWER CABLE AND CONDUIT 2,000 LF $5.00 $10,000.00
5 COUNTER POISE GROUNDING CABLE 2,000 LF $5.00 $10,000.00
$115,500.00
500.00 $
19,000.00 $
135,000.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2030
Runway 18 Extension(Design Only)
1 AGIS Aeronautical Survey 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000
2 Design Phase 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000
3 Bidding Phase 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
160,000 $
QUANTITY
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2031
Runway 18 Extension(1,500 x 75')
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $73,000.00 $73,000.00
4 EARTHWORK 50,000 CY $6.00 $300,000.00
7 PCC PAVEMENT (RUNWAY EXTENSION) 12,500 SY $38.00 $475,000.00
8 PCC PAVEMENT (TURNAROUND) 1,700 SY $38.00 $64,600.00
10 STORM SEWER 100 LF $80.00 $8,000.00
13 SUBDRAIN OUTLET PIPE 500 LF $15.00 $7,500.00
16 TOPSOILING 10,000 CY $4.00 $40,000.00
17 THRESHOLD LIGHT REMOVALS 8 EA $250.00 $2,000.00
18 L-861 MIRL 24 EA $800.00 $19,200.00
19 L-861 MITL 20 EA $80.00 $1,600.00
25 2-BOX PAPI REMOVAL 1 EA $500.00 $500.00
26 REIL REMOVAL 2 EA $250.00 $500.00
27 4-BOX PAPI INSTALLATION 1 EA $35,000.00 $35,000.00
28 REIL INSTALLATION 2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000.00
$1,532,900.00
1,500.00 $
120,000.00 $
1,654,400.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2032
Construct Taxiway Extension to Runway 18 End(1,500' x 35')
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00
4 EARTHWORK 24,000 CY $6.00 $144,000.00
8 PCC PAVEMENT (TAXIWAY) 5,900 SY $38.00 $224,200.00
9 PCC PAVEMENT (TAXIWAY CONNECTOR TO APRON) 1,000 SY $38.00 $38,000.00
11 STORM SEWER 100 LF $80.00 $8,000.00
14 SUBDRAIN OUTLET PIPE 600 LF $15.00 $9,000.00
17 TOPSOILING 5,000 CY $6.00 $30,000.00
18 L-861 MITL 50 EA $750.00 $37,500.00
$829,850.00
1,000.00 $
130,000.00 $
960,850.00 $
QUANTITY
Sponsor Admin.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FY 2033
Update Airport Master Plan
1 AGIS System and Airspace Analysis 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
2 Aerial Imagery/Topography 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
3 Master Plan Update Report 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
4 ALP Drawings 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
80,000 $
QUANTITY
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST

Appendix C:
APRON SIZING CALCULATIONS

Apron Size Calculations for Transient Aircraft
Airport Existing Apron
Location #square yards 2750
Based Aircraft OR
1. Calculate the total annual operations
Enter number of based aircraft 25
Enter number of operations per aircraft
1
250
Total Annual Operations 6,250 6,250
2. Busiest Month (% of Annual Ops)
2
Enter % of Annual Ops that occur in busiest month 20
Busiest Month Operations 1,250 1,250
3. Busiest Day (10%>Avg Day)
Enter Busiest Month (e.g. August) J un
Avg Day Busy Month 42 42
Busiest Day 10% >avg. day 46 46
4. # Itinerant Aircraft
Enter % of Itinerant Operations
3
52
#Itinerant Aircraft operations 24 24
#Itinerant Aircraft Landing Operations 12 12
Enter % of Itinerant Operations on ground 50
#Itinerant AC on ground (assume 50%) 6 6
5. Apron area
#square yards per aircraft
4
1075
Apron Area (sq yds) 6,405 6,405
6. Planned Apron (10%>)
#square yards 7,046 7,046
Group I 360 755 960
Group II 490 1,075 1,385
Apron Area
w/o
Taxilane
w/Taxilane
@ edge w/Taxilane
Total
Annual
Ops
Winterset Municipal Airport (3Y3)
Winterset, Iowa
NOTES:
1. Ops/Based Aircraft:
Small GA-250 Med GA-350 Reliever-450 Busy Reliever-750
2. Amount of activity can be determined from fuel sales or from actual
operations counts. For example if month with highest fuel sales
accounts for 20% of annual sales, use 20% of annual as busy month. If
actual traffic counts available, use those.
3. Assume 50% of operations are itinerant if no records are available.
4. Planning areas shown assume 10' clearance between wingtips. Taxilane
@ edge places taxilane on edge of apron.
5. Users requiring assistance or reasonable accommodation may contact
the FAA Central Region at 816-329-2600.
Calculations are based upon guidance established within Appendix 5 to AC 150/5300-13. User may
calculate size of apron based upon total annual ops or user may develop an estimate of annual operations
based upon number of based aircraft.
Apron Area Sizing Page 1 of 1 Printed 9/21/2012

Appendix D:
SRE CALCULATIONS

Snow Removal Equipment Calculations
Airport Name
Location
*Average Annual Snow Fall 30
*Type of Airport 1
*Annual Operations 2
Time allowed for removal per AC 150/5200-30 4 hours
Critical Snow Removal Areas: Rotary Plow
*Primary Runway (usually one) *Rotary Plow Efficiency % 70
3,000 length (ft) x 50 width (ft) = 150,000 sq. ft. Minimum Rotary Plow snow removal rate 66 tons/hr
length (ft) x width (ft) = 0 sq. ft.
Displacement Plow
*Parallel taxiway and one or two principle connecting taxiways *Operating Speed (mph) 20
320 length (ft) x 25 width (ft) = 8,000 sq. ft. *Plow Efficiency % 75
150 length (ft) x 25 width (ft) = 3,750 sq. ft. *Plow Cutting Angle (degrees) 30
length (ft) x width (ft) = 0 sq. ft. Effective Blade Length (ft) Required 0.6 ft.
Actual Blade Length (ft) Required 6.0 ft.
*Terminal, Cargo, and General Aviation Aprons
Critical apron area assumed as 1/2 of the apron.
50 % Req' x 485 length (ft) x 70 width (ft) = 16,975 sq. ft.
50 % Req' x length (ft) x width (ft) = 0 sq. ft.
Other critical areas (ie. emergency or ARFF access roads)
Total Area= 178,725 sq. ft.
*Snow Depth (in) 1
*Snow Density (lbs/cu ft) 25
Tons of Snow 186 tons
Eligible Items Max Quantity Size
Rotary Plow 1 66 tons/hr Total 1 600
Displacement Plow
2 6
ft, Total
Sweeper 1
Hopper Spreader 1
Front End Loader 0
This program assumes at least 15" annual snow fall. Rev Date: 01-5-2012
Winterset Municipal Airport
Winterset, Iowa
Snowfall Maps can be found here:
Iowa:
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/wrcc/states/ia.html
Kansas:
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/wrcc/states/ks.html
Missouri:
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/wrcc/states/mo.html
Nebraska:
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/wrcc/states/ne.html
* Data entry required
1 Front End Loader per 500,000 sq. ft. of critical apron space
1 Hopper Spreader per 750,000 sq. ft. of pavement
1 Sweeper per 750,000 sq. ft. of pavement (rounded up)
- Refer to Figure 2-6 AC 150/5220-20 for GVW & HP rating @ carrier vehicles.
- Refer to AC 150/5220-20, Chapter 6, Paragraph 38for minimum equipment
requirements at Commercial Service and General Aviation airports. Program
Guidance Letter, PGL 08-04 limits non Primary airports to one SRE vehicle
Up to 2 times the #of snow blowers (displacement plows should have
equal capacity as max rotary plow capacity)
Users requiring assistance or reasonable accommodation may contact the FAA Central Region at 816-329-2600
Refer to AC 150/5220-20, Airport Snow and Ice Control Equipment, and
AC 150/5200-30, Airport Winter Safety and Operations for specific guidance.

Appendix E:
MADISON CO. APPROVAL LETTER

Winterset Airport Master Layout Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Winterset Airport Master Layout Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Winterset Airport Master Layout Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WINTERSET MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT

You might also like