SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED

(1)

SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED

(2)

(3)

Ogdensburg International Airport

Final Environmental Assessment

2-1 Purpose and Need

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

The Purpose and Need Statement in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document is a formal statement of the overall goals and objectives of a Proposed Action. The statement documents the justification for the project and provides the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of alternatives.

2.1 BACKGROUND

The Ogdensburg International Airport (OGS) is located in the northern portion of the Town of Oswegatchie, St. Lawrence County, New York (see Figure 2-1, Vicinity Map and Figure 2-2,

Aerial Map). OGS occupies a 533–acre site less than two miles southeast of the City of

Ogdensburg, the St Lawrence River and the Canadian border.

The 2013 Airport Master Plan (MPU) identified the service area for OGS as being the North Country region of the State of New York and the southern portion of the Province of Ontario in Canada. Ottawa, the Canadian capital, is located 61 miles from OGS, approximately a one hour drive. OGS is a U.S. Customs Port of Entry for planes entering from outside of the U.S. OGS currently has scheduled passenger service provided by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified commuter airline, Cape Air, through the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. Cape Air provides non-stop service to Albany International Airport from OGS using a 9-seat Cessna 402 Aircraft under the EAS program. Cape Air operates six (three departures, three arrivals) times per day at OGS. OGS is also used for corporate/business activity, recreational flying, emergency medical evacuation and environmental patrol.

OGS was constructed in the 1930s under State Emergency Relief measures and $400,000 was allocated to acquire land, install drainage, and construct a hangar for the single turf runway. In 1965, the Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority (OBPA) acquired the Airport from the City of Ogdensburg and assumed responsibility for its operation and development.

OGS currently has one (paved) runway, designated as 9-27, which is 5,200 feet long and 150 feet wide with a 40-foot wide full parallel taxiway. Published weight bearing capacity of the runway is 225,000 pounds for aircraft with dual tandem main landing gear. It has a Medium Intensity Approach Light System (MALS) and localizer based instrument approach procedure serving the approach to Runway 27. Satellite guided non-precision approach procedures are published for both runway ends.

Existing facilities at OGS include a passenger terminal located on the northwest side of the airfield with access to NYS Route 812 to the west. The passenger terminal is located in one half of a 7,200 square foot large functional metal building, the other half of which is utilized as a hangar for the Cape Air Cessna 402. The passengers’ lounge has approximately 28 seats. The terminal opens directly to the terminal apron and passenger loading is by means of a portable stairway. Additional details regarding the passenger terminal is provided in Section 3.3. The Airport Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) building (approximately 2,320 square feet) and a 10-bay T-hangar (approximately 11,500 square feet) are located on the south side of the general aviation apron south of the Runway 9 end. Vehicle parking (33 parking spaces, including two handicapped spaces) is available on the south side of the terminal building. The existing airside and landside facilities are illustrated on Figure 3, Airport Layout Plan.

(4)

K: \O gd en sb ur g\ T-17 89 1. 03 R W E xt en si on D es ig n\ Dr aw \G IS \T op o. m xd

VICINITY MAP

2-1

OGDENSBURG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

RUNWAY 9-27 IMPROVEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

_{May 2015}

NYS R oute 812/3 7 NY S R oute₆₈ NY S R ou te 8₁₂ Runway 9-27 TOWN OF OS WEGA TCHIE CITY O F OGD ENSB URG

Legend Airport Property City/Town Boundary 59-Acre Property

³

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Miles FIGURE Date:

(5)

FIGURE Date: TOWN OF OS WEGA TCHIE CITY O F OGD ENSB URG NYS R oute 812/3 7 NY_{S R} oute₆₈ NY S R ou te 8₁₂ Runway 9-27 Os we ga tchie Rive r K: \O gd en sb ur g\ T-17 89 1. 03 R W E xt en si on D es ig n\ Dr aw \G IS \A er ia l.m xd

AERIAL

MAP

2-2

OGDENSBURG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

RUNWAY 9-27 IMPROVEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

_{May 2015}

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

³

Legend

Project Area (Approximate) Airport Property

59-Acre Property

(6)

(7)

Signature Date Name

Title

FAA Approval This Airport Layout Plan Is Hereby Approved

Signature Date

Name Title

State Aviation Department Approval This Airport Layout Plan Is Hereby Approved

Signature Date

Name Title

Airport Sponsor Approval This Airport Layout Plan Is Hereby Approved

FAA's approval of this Airport Layout Plan (ALP) represents acceptance of the general location of future facilities depicted. During the preliminary design phase, the airport owner is required to resubmit for approval the final locations, heights and exterior finish of structures. FAA's concern is obstructions, impact on electronic aids or adverse effects on controller view of aircraft approach and ground movement areas which could adversely affect the safety, efficiency or utility of the airport.

# Facility Description Top Elevation # Facility Description Top Elevation 1 Terminal Building/Hangar 309' 1 Terminal Building/Hangar 309' 2 Localizer Building 291' 2 Localizer Building 291'

3 Fuel Facility 297' 3 Fuel Facility 297'

4 ARFF Building/FBO 306' 4 ARFF Building/FBO 306' 5 Electrical Building 297' 5 Electrical Building 297' 6 10-Bay T-Hangar 310' 6 10-Bay T-Hangar 310' 7 Conventional Hangar 302' 7 Conventional Hangar 302'

8 Garage 297' 8 Garage 297'

9 MALS Building 291' 9 MALS Building 291'

10 Conventional Hangar 317' 11 10-Bay T-Hangar 310' 12 Jet A Fuel Facility 297'

Existing Proposed

FACILITIES TABLE Runway

End ID TORA TODA ASDA LDA Approach End RSA length Stop end RSA Length Date of Approval 9 6,400' 6,400' 6,000' 6,000' 600' 1,000' 27 6,400' 6,400' 6,000' 6,000' 600' 1,000' DECLARED DISTANCES

1-1 Acquire Avigation / RPZ Easements (RW 9) & Obstruction Removal (Design) 2-1 Drainage Study 3-1 Construct 10-Bay T-Hangar

1-1A Obstruction Removal (Construction) 2-2 Airport Perimeter/Security Road 3-2 Terminal Auto Parking Expansion (Phase 3) 1-2 Land Acquisition / Road Relocation for Runway Extension 2-3 Replace Runway and Threshold Lights 3-3 Terminal Auto Parking Rehabilitation 1-2A Runway and Parallel Taxiway Extension / Obstruction Removal 2-4 Widen and Replace Taxiway Lights 3-4 Terminal Access Road Rehabilitation 1-3 Terminal Building Expansion (Phase 1) 2-5 Replace Existing 10-Bay T-Hangar 3-5 General Aviation (GA) Apron Maintenance 1-4 Jet A Fuel Facility 2-6 Terminal Building Expansion (Phase 2) 3-6 Runway Maintenance

1-5 Acquire Aircraft Tug and Towbar 2-7 Terminal Auto Parking Expansion (Phase 2) 3-7 GA Auto Parking Rehabilitation 1-6 Terminal Auto Parking Expansion (Phase 1) 2-8 Terminal Apron Expansion 3-8 GA Apron Rehabilitation 1-7 Infrastructure Improvements along SR812 2-9 General Aviation Terminal Building Expansion 3-9 GA Access Road Rehabilitation 1-8 Terminal Apron and Taxiway Exit Rehabilitation 2-10 Conventional Hangar 3-10 GA Taxiway Exit Rehabilitation

1-9 Implement LPV Approaches to RW 9-27 3-11 Parallel Taxiway Rehabilitation

1-10 Infrastructure Improvements SR812 to Terminal

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PHASING

Phase 1 (2015-2019) Phase 2 (2020-2024) Phase 3 (2025-2035)

LEGEND

Existing Description Proposed Runway Centerline

Runway Safety Area (RSA) Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Taxiway Safety Area Building Restriction Line (BRL) Airport Pavement Other Pavement Airport Reference Point Airport Buildings Other Buildings Airport Property Line Other Property Lines Fence Tree Line

Wetlands (to be determined) SAC Mark

PAC Mark Avigation Easement Proposed Land Acquistion Ground Elevation Contours No 27 1,000' 500' 600' 500' Yes Implement Declared Distances No RSA Deficiencies Proposed Action Violations to RSA along side

9 1,000' 500' 600' 500' Yes

Implement Declared Distances RUNWAY SAFETY AREA DETERMINATION

Runway End ID

Standard RSA Actual RSA

RSA Determination

Date Approved Length beyond

runway end Width

Length beyond runway end Width

Existing Proposed

Airport Elevation (MSL) 297' 304'

Airport Reference Point (NAD 83)

Lattitude 44° 40' 54.63" N 44° 40' 56.08" N

Longitude 75° 27' 55.79" W 75° 27' 47.71" W

Mean Max Temperature of Hottest Month 75° F 75° F

Airport & Terminal Area NAVAIDS LPV, RNAV (GPS), LOC LPV, RNAV (GPS), LOC

Magnetic Variation 13° W 13° W

Date of Magnetic Variation 2012 2012

NPIAS Service Level GA GA

State Service Level CS CS

Wind Coverage Crosswind Component (10.5kts/13kts/16kts)

VFR 96.42% / 98.59% / 99.76% 96.42% / 98.59% / 99.76%

IFR 97.39% / 99.08% / 99.89% 97.39% / 99.08% / 99.89%

All Weather 97.18% / 98.92% / 99.82% 97.18% / 98.92% / 99.82%

Airport Reference Code B-II C-III

Design Aircraft Cessna Citation XL Airbus 320

Taxiway Lighting MITL MITL

Taxiway Marking Standard Standard

Airport Data

AIRPORT DATA TABLE

No.

Standard

Modified FAA Standards Description Existing Condition Proposed Action Date Approved RW 9 800' x 650' RW 27 800' x 600' RW 27 Contains Relocated NYS

Route 68

1 ROFA 800' x 1,000' Obtain MOS

MODIFICATIONS OF DESIGN STANDARDS

RW 9 Extends Off Airport Property Contains NYS Route 812

Effective Gradient (%) 0.20% 0.30%

Maximum Grade Change 11.77' 18'

Wind Coverage (10kts / 13kts / 16kts) 97.18% / 98.92% / 99.82% 97.18% / 98.92% / 99.82%

Max. Elevation (MSL) 297' 304'

Runway Length 5,200' 6,400'

Runway Width 150' 150'

Usable Runway Length 5,200' 6,000' (ASDA)

Pavement Surface Type Asphalt Asphalt

Pavement Strength (lbs)

Single Wheel 114,000 114,000

Dual Wheel 151,000 151,000

Dual Tandem 255,000 255,000

Approach Surface Slope 34:1 / 34:1 34:1 / 34:1

Approach Minimums 1 mile 1 ¼ mile

Visual Approach Aids PAPI / PAPI, MALS PAPI / PAPI

Instrument Approach Aids LPV, GPS / GPS, LOC LPV, GPS / GPS, LOC, LPV

Runway Lighting HIRL HIRL

Runway Marking NPI NPI

Taxiway Lighting MITL MITL

Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II C-III

Critical Aircraft Cessna Citation XL Airbus 320

Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)

Length Beyond Runway 300' 1,000'

Width 500' 800'

Runway Safety Area (RSA)

Length Beyond Runway 300' 1,000'

Width 150' 500'

Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 400' 400'

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

Length 1,000' 1,700'

Inner Width 500' 500'

Outer Width 700' 1,010'

FAR Part 77 Category C / C C / C

Runway End Coordinates (NAD 83)

Latitude 44° 40' 48.45" N / 44° 41' 00.86" N 44° 40' 48.45" N / 44° 41' 03.72" N Longitude 75° 28' 30.71" W / 75° 27' 20.87" W 75° 28' 30.71" W / 75° 27' 04.72" W Runway End Elevations (MSL) 286' / 297' 286' / 304' Touchdown Zone Elevation (TDZE) 286' / 297' 286' / 304'

Line of Sight Violations (y / n ) N N

RUNWAY DATA TABLE

Runway Data Runway 9/27

(8)

(9)

In April of 2013, OBPA was approached by representatives of a low cost commercial carrier (LCC) about the possibility of providing service at OGS. The LCC, Allegiant Travel Company (Allegiant Air), specializes in providing sub-daily service from underserved U.S. cities to leisure destinations including, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, along with multiple destinations in Florida, including Orlando/Sanford and Fort Lauderdale. Negotiations between OBPA and Allegiant Air have proceeded to the point at which agreements have been announced. Allegiant Air agreed to offer financial assistance to OBPA upon issuance of an FAA grant providing funding for the necessary runway improvements.

The MPU for OGS had begun in 2011 and was in the final stages at the time of the initial contact from Allegiant Air. As part of the MPU, aviation forecasts were prepared that included forecasts of commercial and regional operations1 and enplanements2 to the year 2035. The forecasts were approved by FAA prior to any contact between OBPA from Allegiant Air. Subsequent to negotiations between the airline and the OBPA, the MPU aviation forecasts and Airport Layout Plan (ALP) (see Figure 3, Airport Layout Plan) were revised to reflect the business plan by Allegiant Air to operate at OGS. Revised forecasts (see Appendix C) were approved by the FAA in November 2014 (see FAA approval letter in Appendix B). The revised ALP is pending FAA approval.

Allegiant Air has been successful serving the high cost Canadian market from U.S. airports near the border, such as Plattsburgh International Airport. The closest U.S. airports to Ottawa that are currently capable of accommodating the A320 aircraft operated by Allegiant Air (and other similar carriers) are Syracuse (NY) International over three hours drive from Ottawa and Plattsburgh International, a three hour drive from Ottawa.

Currently, the nearest similar service in upstate NY is at Syracuse-Hancock International, a 2 hour drive south of OGS. This drive traverses areas subject to intense levels of lake effect snow during the winter months, when demand for the service is at its peak. Access to Syracuse is also subject to long and unpredictable delays at the Thousand Islands International Bridge border crossing. As a result, a strong business case exists for providing air service to the Ottawa area and, in general, Canadian market from OGS, if certain improvements could be made to OGS facilities to support the activity. A market study, supporting the case for an LCC, was performed as part of the FAA approved forecast in the Revised Aviation Forecast report (see Appendix C) and is discussed throughout the EA. The aviation forecast demand was revised to accurately reflect the estimate of expected demand over the specified future period associated with an LCC service at OGS.

According to an article published in March 2012, Canadians Flocking to U.S. Airports in Search of Cheap Fares, in 2011, there were a record 4.8 million one-way trips made by Canadians to U.S. airports, up 15% from 2010. U.S. airport terminals handled more Canadians in 2011 than the total number of passengers who went through Ottawa International Airport.

1_{Operation is defined as one landing and one takeoff.}

(10)

Much of the reason for higher fares at Canadian Airports stems from airport charges. At Ogdensburg there are basic passenger facilities (i.e. there is no passenger loading bridge) and since the flight would be domestic, there are no charges associated with the pre-clearance operation or Customs. Considering the cost for an Ottawa traveler to use Ogdensburg, the only charge associated with crossing the U.S./Canadian border is the bridge toll of $3.50 per vehicle. In addition, in the U.S., security fees are paid by the passenger ($2.50 September 11th Security Fee) as part of their ticket and not passed on to the airline costs like in Canada.

Costs were calculated using an Airbus 320 aircraft having a Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) of 77,000 kg (170,000 lbs) with 177 seats operating at 90% load factor. No overnight parking charges (an extra $1,110.70 for YOW) were included.

Ottawa Charges

Landing Fees (77,000 kg at $6.97/1,000 kg) $536

General Terminal Fees (151-200 seats) $1,109.67

Police/Security Charges ($2.10 per seat) $371.70

Preclearance Charge ($1.87 per seat) $330.99

Passenger Loading Bridge Charges (per use) $92.36

Total Costs (per aircraft turn) $2,440.72 ($15.25 Per Enplaned

Passenger)

Annual Cost for Four Weekly Departures $507,670

Ogdensburg Charges

Airport Use Fees $400

Total Costs (per aircraft turn) $400 ($2.50 Per Enplaned Passenger)

Annual Cost for Four Weekly Departures $83,200

Overall the costs for the same aircraft with the same destination are six times greater at Ottawa compared to Ogdensburg. On a per passenger basis (assuming 90% load) the cost per enplaned passenger is $15.25 for YOW compared to $2.50 for OGS.

(11)

In addition to airport usage fees that are either directly or indirectly passed on to the passenger, one factor that carries a greater decision-influencing weight is the cost of airport parking. This is especially true for leisure passengers who tend to park for longer durations. At Ottawa, the cost to park a vehicle for one week ranges between $75 for the remote economy lot and $147 for garage parking adjacent to the terminal. At Ogdensburg, presently there is no charge for parking, however, it is anticipated that once service commences that the airport will charge for parking. Current estimates on parking include a fee of either $5 per day ($35/week) or a flat weekly rate of $25. Overall, the traveling party would save between $50 and $122 per vehicle ($20-$49 per person on average) in addition to airfare savings from lower costs

Lastly, one additional airfare purchasing advantage for Canadians is the favorable exchange rate. While this rate is variable, Canadians have traditionally enjoyed favorable exchange rates with regards to purchasing goods in the US. While closer parity results in softer demand, the exchange rate becomes an additional financial incentive for Canadians to use US airports. Several other Canadian airports are present in the Ottawa area. These are not viable for commercial service under present conditions due to inadequate facilities and would require substantial capital investment to be made suitable for commercial service. In addition, LCC service at these airports would not address the fundamental cost advantage offered by U.S. airports. See Chapter 3 for additional discussion.

OGS is the closest U.S. airport to Ottawa. However, enplanements are significantly less than other U.S. border airports due to the lack of suitable air and landside facilities to accommodate the existing demand of an LCC as demonstrated in the Revised Aviation Forecast (see

Appendix C).Characteristics of U.S. airports and the nearest Canadian city can be seen in

Table 2-1,

Table 2-1 Characteristics of U.S. Border Airports

U.S. Airport Nearest Canadian City Distance from Canadian City (miles) Airlines Percent Canadian Enplanements (2011)

Ogdensburg (OGS) Ottawa 61 Cape Air N/A

Burlington (BTV) Montreal 87

Allegiant Air, Delta, JetBlue, Porter, United,

US Airways

52% Niagara Falls

International (IAG) Toronto 97 Allegiant Air, Spirit 85%

Plattsburgh (PBG) Montreal 68 Allegiant Air, PenAir,

Spirit 75%

Bellingham (BLI) Vancouver 50 Alaska, Allegiant Air,

Frontier 62% Note: Airlines in bold are considered “Low Cost Carriers”

Sources: Google Maps (maps.google.com), Airport websites (as of September 2, 2014), “Why are Canadians Driving to U.S. Airports: The Issue for Canada” (Canadian Airports Council Leakage Working Group Air Policy Committee).

(12)

OGS is the closest U.S. airport to Ottawa, accessible via Ontario HWY 416 and NY

below. Additionally, the Canada travel route is illustrated on

Drive time analysis map

rg International Airport

Environmental Assessment

losest U.S. airport to Ottawa, approximately a 60 minute drive, and is conveniently accessible via Ontario HWY 416 and NYS Route 812. A drive time analysis for OGS is shown

. Additionally, the Canada travel route is illustrated on Figure 2-3.

ive time analysis map for Ogdensburg International Airport.

Purpose and Need and is conveniently A drive time analysis for OGS is shown

(13)

FIGURE Date: K: \O gd en sb ur g\ T-17 89 1. 03 R W E xt en si on D es ig n\ Dr aw \G IS \T ra ve lC or rid or .m xd

TRAVEL

CORRIDOR

2-3

OGDENSBURG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

RUNWAY 9-27 IMPROVEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

October

2014

Ogdensburg Prescott Bridge Ogdensburg International Airport

³

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

(14)

Over the past decade, commercial service airports near the U.S./Canadian border have seen tremendous growth in passenger enplanements as Canadian travelers have sought lower airfares to leisure destinations. However, despite this growth, there is currently no U.S. airport providing leisure oriented service within three hours of Ottawa, Ontario, the fourth largest city in Canada. In total there are over a dozen U.S. airports that accommodate at least 10,000 originating Canadian passengers annually. Specifically looking at the top three Canadian markets by census metropolitan area population, the following demand can be summarized:

Table 2-2 Enplanements by Canadians at U.S. Border Airports

Canadian City Metro Area Population (millions) Enplanements at U.S. Border Airport(s) US Enplanements/Metro Area Population Toronto 5.6 800,000 0.143 Montreal 3.8 350,000 0.092 Ottawa 1.2 27,000 0.023 Vancouver 2.3 400,000 0.174 Note: 2011 Data

Sources: Airport websites (as of September 2, 2014), “Why are Canadians Driving to U.S. Airports: The Issue for Canada” (Canadian Airports Council Leakage Working Group Air Policy Committee).

Using the ratio of U.S. enplanements to metro area population shown in Table 2.2, the 1.2 million person Ottawa market equates to 110,000 to 210,000 enplanements annually at U.S. airports. When considering the number of Canadian enplanements solely at airports in communities similar to Ogdensburg, including Niagara Falls, Plattsburgh, and Bellingham, the enplanement value is reduced to between 15,000 and 155,000 enplanements annually. Even airports such as Bangor, ME, which offers twice weekly service to Florida markets, serves an estimated 67,000 annual Canadian passengers (enplaned and deplaned) with no Canadian metropolitan area within 3 hours of the airport, of which the largest is only 1/5 the size of Ottawa. The Ottawa metropolitan area does not include the Canadian cities of Kingston, Cornwall, Brockville, and Prescott, which contribute another 200,000 people to the potential service area.

As stated previously, the latest MPU forecasts have undergone revisions, including updating the baseline data year (Base Year) +1, +2, +7 and +12 years to be 2016, 2017, 2018, 2023 and 2028 respectively. The forecast depicts growth using step increases in services to more accurately reflect the expected enplanement growth. Based on new information, the beginning of Allegiant Air service was assumed to be 2016 rather than 2015. Current commitments from the air carrier are for three weekly departures by an Airbus A320 aircraft. With a seating capacity of 177 passengers and a passenger load factor3 of 90%, 24,851 annual enplanements

(15)

are forecast for 2017. The aviation activity that would result from the Proposed Action is presented in Table 2.3 below.

Table 2.3 Ogdensburg International Airport - Forecast of Airport Operations

Base Yr. Level 2016 Base Yr.+1yr. 2017 Base Yr.+2yrs. 2018 Base Yr.+7yrs. 2023 Base Yr.+12yrs. 2028 Passenger Enplanements1 Air Carrier 24,851 24,851 24,851 33,134 49,702 Commuter 7,098 7,098 7,098 7,098 7,098 TOTAL 31,949 31,949 31,949 40,232 56,800 Operations2 Itinerant Air Carrier 312 312 312 416 624 Commuter/Air Taxi 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184

Total Commercial Operations 2,496 2,496 2,496 2,600 2,808

General Aviation 1,350 1,395 1,548 1,728 2,268 Military 25 25 25 25 25 Local General Aviation 900 930 1,032 1,152 1,416 TOTAL OPERATIONS 4,771 4,846 5,101 5,505 6,517 Instrument Operations 1,384 1,405 1,479 1,596 1,890

Peak Hour Operations3 2 2 2 3 3

Source: McFarland Johnson 2014

1_{Enplanement is defined as the number of passengers boarding an aircraft at an airport.}

2_{Operation is defined as 1 landing and 1 take off.}

3_{Peak hour operations are defined as the estimate of the peak hour of the average day of the busiest month.}

The forecast of enplanements for OGS reflects the trends seen at dozens of airports across the U.S./Canadian border. In New York, Niagara Falls has grown from essentially no commercial service to over 80,000 annual enplanements since 2009. Plattsburgh International Airport has grown to approximately 150,000 annual enplanements since the 2008 opening of the passenger terminal. The marked growth at these two airports is due to their proximity to Montreal and Toronto, the 2 largest cities in Canada. Similarly on the west coast, Bellingham, Washington has grown to over 300,000 annual enplanements due in part to proximity to Vancouver, BC, the third largest Canadian metropolitan area. Dozens of airports in Montana, Michigan, North Dakota, Maine and Vermont serve hundreds of thousands of Canadians on an annual basis. Ottawa is the fourth largest Canadian metropolitan area, and the nearest small-hub U.S. airport is Syracuse, NY, over three hours away. As Ogdensburg is less than one hour away from Ottawa, it serves as one of the closest U.S. commercial service airport to any Canadian city. The forecast presented assumes infrastructure improvements that would allow Ogdensburg to serve low-cost carriers on a less than daily basis in similar patterns to those seem at other U.S. border airports.

(16)

2.1.1 Role of OGS in the Regional Economy

The presence of OGS and its currently limited air service provided by Cape Air, benefits the region in terms of time-saved and costs-avoided for air travel, such as ticket surcharges and long term parking, for both Canadian and U.S. residents. Direct flights are currently available to Albany, NY, which save passengers an estimated four and seven hours drive time respectively. In addition, Cape Air offers one stop trip to Boston.

In addition to the current scheduled service, corporate and institutional organization use of OGS is a key component of the OGS business that generates landing fees. OGS business users include Bank of America, EMS Services of New York, Bombardier Aerospace, Wausau Paper Corporation and St. Lawrence University. St. Lawrence University has expressed the need for additional flights to accommodate student travel to Albany and Boston and other important regional centers, such as Syracuse and Buffalo, NY. In addition, the potential to increase business jet activity at OGS exists due to the approved expansion of Foreign Trade Zone 118. Recently, the Foreign Trade Zone 118, which allows special exemptions from U.S. Customs procedures for international trade, was expanded to all of St. Lawrence County, thus increasing the opportunities for foreign businesses.

Based upon the recently approved FAA forecast and the existing use by local corporations and institutional organizations, planes currently using OGS include: BeechJet 400, Cessna Citation, Hawker 800, Challenger 600 and Lear 55. Upon completion of the Proposed Action, the following planes would be able to use OGS due to the improved infrastructure: Airbus 320, Boeing 737, Embraer 175/190, and Gulfstream V (all variants).

OGS provides both direct and indirect economic benefits to the region. The 2011 NYSDOT

Airport Economics Impacts Study documents that the Airport employs 53 people, both full and part-time and has $5.4 million in direct impacts and $7.4 million including indirect impacts. Appendix A of that report states that the impacts are based on survey data and 2009 annual enplanement data. The FAA Terminal Area Forecast reports that OGS had 1,456 annual enplanements in 2009. These were by a regional carrier with direct flights only to Albany, NY.

Table 2-4 details these direct and indirect economic impacts to the region at that time.

It is anticipated that the proposed project would provide economic benefits to the Ogdensburg area through increased visitor spending and employment. Anecdotal evidence from other U.S. airports suggests that Canadian travelers often arrive in the U.S. hours in advance of their flight to mitigate potential border crossing delays. These travelers often shop and dine in close

Table 2-4: Ogdensburg International Airport Economic Impact (2011)

Type Direct Indirect Total

Employment 34 19 53

Income $2,880,700 $683,600 $3,564,300

Output $5,440,600 $2,005,000 $7,445,600

State and Local Taxes $427,500

(17)

proximity to the airport as a result of their early arrival. Some travelers may travel to the airport vicinity the night before resulting in demand for additional hotel rooms near the airport. Plattsburgh and Niagara Falls International Airports have seen a notable expansion in the nearby hospitality industry as enplanements have risen, with a corresponding increase in employment and tax revenue.

2.2 PURPOSE

The overall purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide safe operating conditions and appropriate facilities and infrastructure for a LCC to operate from OGS to other destinations within the U.S. In the short-term, these destinations are expected to include cities such as Myrtle Beach, Orlando and Ft. Lauderdale. The facilities would be sized to accommodate sub-daily service provided by the Airbus A320, a 177 passenger aircraft.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is as follows:

To meet the forecast demand of an increase in passenger enplanements and utilization of Airbus 320 at the airport in a manner that comports with FAA safety standards and guidance as well as all other federal and local requirements.

2.3 NEED

The overall need for the Proposed Action is to meet demand for LCC service within the catchment area as identified above in Section 2.1, Background. The need for the Proposed Action is described in detail below with each project element discussed separately.

2.3.1 Runway 9-27 Extension

The proposed LCC aircraft, A320, is categorized by FAA as being in Approach Category C and Design Group III. It has a wingspan of 117 feet, approach speed of 139 knots, and maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 172,000 pounds (dual tandem main gear). Key FAA design standards for facilities serving this aircraft are as follows:

• Minimum runway length available for all operations (as determined by proposed operator) of 6,000 feet

• Runway width of 150 feet • Taxiway width of 50 feet

• Runway-Taxiway separation of 400 feet

• Runway Safety Area (RSA) 500 feet wide extending 600 feet prior to the approach end of the runway and 1,000 feet beyond the departure end.

To meet these criteria, the Proposed Action includes the following actions:

• Runway 9-27 would be extended from its current length of 5,200 feet to 6,400 feet. 6,000 feet of runway length would be available for operations in each direction. The last 400 ft for each end cannot be used in performance calculations as it is reserved to compensate for the lack of a 1,000 ft RSA beyond the runway end, however, the pavement is usable for starting of the takeoff run from the opposite end. The practice of

(18)

compensating for non-standard safety areas by deducting the deficiency from the runway length is achieved through the application of declared distances. Declared distances are a means of obtaining a standard safety area by reducing the usable runway length. The last 400 feet at the departure end of the runway would be considered to be part of the RSA and declared unavailable for meeting either the

Accelerated Stop Distance Available (ASDA) or Landing Distance Available (LDA)

requirements of the aircraft. Runway width and strength would remain the same. To meet length requirements for departure end RSA and ROFA on both runway ends declared distances would be used. The distances available for the four takeoff and landing operations on the runway would be published. The aircraft operator would be responsible for determining if the specific requirements of the aircraft would be met. There are four declared distances and they are as follows: Take Off Run Available

(TORA): The distance available to an aircraft during the takeoff prior to lift-off (generally

the length of the paved runway). RSA is not required at the end of TORA. Take Off

Distance Available (TODA): The distance available for an aircraft taking off to clear a

50-foot object (generally the length of the runway unless a special clearway is declared). RSA is not required at the end of TODA. ASDA: The distance available for an aircraft taking off to reach lift-off speed and then come to a complete stop. This standard applies to commercial carriers such as the proposed user. RSA and ROFA are required at the end of the ASDA. LDA: The distance available for landing, from the landing threshold to the departure end of the runway (unless a special stopway is declared). RSA and ROFA are required at the end of LDA.

• Taxiway A would be extended to the new runway end and widened for its entire length from its current 40-foot width to 50 feet.

• The approach light systems serving the Runway 27 approach would be relocated to the new runway end.

• Publication of a non-precision approach procedure to the new runway end with approach minimums comparable to those currently in place.

• Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) would be installed on the Runway 27 end to provide identification of the end of the runway.

• A 3,000 linear foot (LF) section of NYS Route 68 would be relocated around the extended runway end. The roadway design would meet NYSDOT and U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) design standards for the roadway’s function classification. Recent acquisition of the 59-acre parcel by OBPA would facilitate the roadway relocation design and prevent the need to acquire property on the north side of the proposed roadway relocation.

• OBPA ownership of the 59-acre parcel assures that land use and object height control land within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 approach surfaces for Runway 27 is provided. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, identifies several land uses that are incompatible with an airport’s RPZ. In general, the RPZ should be clear of places of public assembly, including residences, schools, religious institutions, hospitals, and industrial buildings, recreational areas, transportation facilities (including roads), fuel and hazardous materials storage facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and above-ground utility infrastructure. Acceptable land uses within the RPZ include agriculture meeting the minimum specified buffers, irrigation channels that do not attract birds, airport service roads, underground facilities, and unstaffed navigational aids and facilities. Roadways and parking lots have long been discouraged, but tolerated within RPZ. In recent years, however, FAA has become increasingly interested in controlling land use within the

(19)

RPZ. This interest has been reflected in recent changes in FAA policy as expressed in

AC 150/5300-13A, and in an FAA Memorandum Interim Guidance on Land Uses within

a Runway Protection Zone, dated September 27, 2012. The memo “grandfathers” to some extent the use of runways with pre-existing roadways or parking lots within RPZ, but places additional restrictions on the construction of new or extended runways that result in the inclusion of roadways within RPZ. Current guidance in the September 27, 2012 memo requires coordination with National Airport Planning and Environmental Division APP-400 when proposed runway projects will result in roadways or parking areas within a proposed RPZ.

• Obstruction (tree) removal both on and off airport property would occur to provide an unobstructed Approach Surface for a non-precision approach procedure to Runway 27. Obstruction removal in the approach area of Runway 9 is ongoing and is not part of this action.

• The Proposed Action would require revision and approval of the ALP. The ALP for the MPU is pending FAA approval.

2.3.2 Passenger Terminal Improvements

Passenger terminal improvements proposed are those needed to accommodate the number of enplanements forecast for 2028. Based on FAA planning guidelines to accommodate these passengers in a safe manner, and meet security requirements, it has been determined that approximately 6,800 additional square feet would be needed to accommodate 180 people in the secure gate boarding area, and an equivalent number of disembarking passengers in the baggage claim area. The proposed project consists of the following major elements to meet the overall purpose:

• Expand the 4,000-square foot passenger terminal within the existing building and a 3,600 square foot expansion of the existing building to provide a total area of approximately 10,800 square feet.

• Provide two (2) ticket counters (increase of one).

• Expand baggage and claim facilities, passenger waiting areas, concession areas, passenger circulation, and building support spaces.

• Construct a parking area with 478 additional vehicle parking spaces. The methodology for calculating parking demand is described in Chapter 3 – Alternatives.

• Upgrade support facilities including: o Utilities;

o Stormwater management; and

o Airport security.

• Expand and rehabilitate the existing terminal apron ramp to accommodate an A320 and aircraft deicing.

2.3.3 Airport and Airline Operation Amendments

Also, included in the Proposed Action is the proposed Amendment of Allegiant Travel Company Operations Specifications to Allow Scheduled Passenger Jet Service at Ogdensburg International Airport (hereinafter referred to as “OPSPEC”) pursuant to 14 CFR Part 119 and amendment to the OGS operating certificate pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139 (hereinafter referred

(20)

to as “OPCERT”). Although this does not involve any construction, FAA approval of both operating amendments is a Federal Action and must be evaluated in accordance with NEPA. In order to provide the scheduled passenger service and meet the demand for the commercial service within the catchment area, Allegiant Air needs to modify its operating specifications and receive FAA approval. The need for the Proposed Action is to meet demand for commercial service within the area, as identified by Allegiant Air, the Revised Aviation Forecast and the MPU.

The U.S. government deregulated the airline industry with Public Law 95-504, known as the “Airline Deregulation Act of 1978”. A consequence of that Act allowed airlines unrestricted choice as to which airports they serve. Other than to ensure safety, neither the Airport Sponsor, (the OBPA) nor the Federal Government controls where, when, and how airlines provide their service. Allegiant Air has submitted a letter of intent to operate at OGS and an agreement is in place between OBPA and Allegiant Air. Allegiant Air must receive approval from FAA for modifications to its operating specifications that allow it to operate commercial scheduled service to and from OGS.

In addition to amending the OPSPEC, the FAA must issue approval of an amendment to the FAR Part 139 operating certificate for OGS. Per the FAA Airport Certification Program Handbook, a change from a Class II operating certificate to a Class I operating certificate is required to serve scheduled commercial air service operations by large aircraft. FAA must review the change in the OGS operating certificate to ensure that it meets all safety standards.

2.4 SUMMARY

OGS is an important economic engine for St. Lawrence County. The Proposed Action would provide northern New York residents, the North Country, and Canadian passengers in the Ottawa, Ontario metropolitan area with low cost air service to southern destinations, within a reasonable drive time. Improvements to the OGS facilities will provide the opportunity to dramatically improve the level of air service to the community by adding low cost scheduled service to vacation destinations.

The facilities needed to provide this improved air service consist of a runway, terminal and parking facilities able to support operations by Allegiant Air’s Airbus A320 aircraft. In addition, issuance of the proposed Amendment of Allegiant Travel Company Operations Specifications to Allow Scheduled Passenger Jet Service at OGS using the A320 aircraft pursuant to 14 CFR 119 and approval of an amendment to the FAR Part 139 operating certificate for OGS is required to provide the proposed commercial service.